fred8033

Units don't work together today mainly because they are taught and structured to be separate units and the BSA documentation emphasizes the pack committee / program and the separate troop committee / program and yet another separate crew program. It's nearly impossible to "LONG TERM" on-your-own work-together because we send our leaders to training and roundtable. BSA teaches differently and structures the paperwork differently. Everytime our unit leaders get training, we'd have to de-program them and teach them our flavor of scouting. They are just as likely to become oppositional as to follow the program. ===================== In all our years as a pack, I've only seen one or two families leave the pack to switch to another pack. I've never seen a boy scout leave our troop for another troop. If personalities can get along for the five years of cubs and then the seven years of boy scouts, it seems reasonable that things could continue to work. I just don't see what's so special about a Webelos transition. Period. Why not after Tiger? Wolf? Bear? 2nd class? 1st class? Star? Life? IMHO, that Webelos transition creates way way more problems then it solves and it's only needed because the pack and the troop under the same COR opperate as separate units. That's the root of the problem. Pull them together and you solve many issues.

SeattlePioneer - What you describe is well meant, but fragile and doesn't go the extra mile. Your fighting against the Webelos program that tells dens to visit multiple troops and to shop around. One bad event and the Webelos den decides to go elsewhere. Then, your troop begins to fight for survival by recruiting Webelos from other packs or other sources ... and thus subverting any continuity that those packs and associated troops already have. Plus your fighting issolation between unit committees and two groups of adult volunteers that barely know each other. In a one-unit approach, the adults know each other because they've been working together for years, building friendships and learning from each other. To be honest, the units would still be pretty small size. It's not like running a 1000 kid sporting association. We're talking on average a 100 to 150 scout unit (40 to 60 cubs, 40 to 50 troop and 20 to 30 crew). Maybe larger. Maybe smaller.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle dad wrote: "And I guess I understand the thinking of the Troop part of the program saving a struggling pack, but I really dont see how the same committee of the unsuccessful pack program could run a successful troop program. In other words, why would one half of the unit be successful while the other half isnt? Doesnt make sense to me. Wont bad leadership take down everybody? " It's not about unsuccessful or poor leadership (i.e. the wrong people). It's that scouting takes time to "get"; to understand. For me, it was about five years. As a Tiger parent, I did a bit, but mainly watched and learned. As a wolf/bear parent, I started reading. As a Webelos parent, I was running the pack but still not quite "getting it". After a few years in leadership, you begin to understand what works. And even then, it often takes 10+ years to get enough experience to be good at it. From my work experience running teams and mentoring people, I've never let anyone go without spending a long long time mentoring them, sending them to training, providing opportunities to learn and addressing issues. .... Scouting isn't that hard, but it takes years to get. Beavah hit it on the head when he mentioned mixed age patrols. Mixed age patrols are useful because of the mentorship. Troops guides work because they mentor. Pack adult leaders have trouble because they struggle and have little guidance. I think we need to stop thinking of it as bad pack leaders failing. I think it's more about lack of guidance and mentorship leaving fresh new volunteers struggling to succeed. The result is frustration, drop-out and failed units. .... I think of this idea very parrallel to local sports associations. Cities often have soccer, swim, gymnastics, baseball associations that provide programs for all youth from the very young thru high school (or until high school sports pick it up).

JMHawkins .... The one-unit approach is the federated model. It's not a consolidation at all as the youth ages have different needs. So you still have a pack, a webelos den, a troop and a crew. You'd still have a cubmaster, a scoutmaster, den leaders, patrol leaders, senior patrol leaders, crew advisor, crew captain(??), etc. The difference is infrastructure and how units working together and support each other. You have a central committee chair and then maybe sub-chairs for the pack, the troop, the crew, etc. Or... a central committee chair and then a chair for cub camping, a chair for troop camping, a chair for cub advancement, a chair for troop advancement, etc. New volunteers benefit from working with existing volunteers who had previoiusly been cub parents. Or had gone to a specific camp years ago. You could actually have a unit trainer position that would have enough people to actually train. And working together is key... From what I see right now, units rarely ever work together except when troops invite 2nd year Webelos to camp with them. Or run a small event for the 1st year Webelos. IMHO, (and at the risk of pushing some of our poster's buttons), it's like taking the district committee down to the chartered org level. In one large area, you don't have one BSA council for packs and another for troops. Likewise, you don't have one district for packs and another for troops. Camps are happy to host cubs or boy scouts. So why within a charter org, are units treated so separately? ========================= JMHawkins "And what recourse do you have when either outfit fails to meet your expectations? " The same recourse that any scout has now. Scouts can switch units at any time. What the current model does is place the future of units at the whim of "parent" preferences. You can say scout, but it's really parents. The result is that troops often bend over backwards toward Webelos instead of just focusing on a solid program. I used to ask our scoutmaster how many scouts he thought we'd get at cross over. His response was always "I don't know" based on that he never knew what parents were thinking or what happened that he didn't know about. And he was right. You get scouts you didn't think were going to join you and you lose scouts you were sure were going to join you. You just never know. But it's a huge distraction to the troop. So much focus on "recruiting". And it's a huge distraction to the Webelos. It's almost like they stop working on advancement, skills and cool stuff and get obsessed with which troop they are going to join and who offers what. ========================= I know change is scary, but this is a change that I hope will happen some day. And until then, I'll help it happen in the units in which I'm the COR.

I like the idea too. I'd be embarrassed asking people to spend money on an indoor meal on yet another night and especially knowing that the food menu will be locked down and more expensive then they can get on their own. Changing the May roundtable into an outdoor pot-luck cookout and short awards ceremony seems right. We're scouters and scouts is about being outside and having a little bit of fun. Seems only right to have an outside, do-it-yourself cookout as the awards ceremony.

This might be a tangent thread, but a neighboring district replaced their formal sit-down district dinner by converting their May roundtable to a pot-luck cookout with dutch ovens, camp fire stoves, etc. Everyone shares dishes. From what I heard, attendance increased to larger than a normal roundtable meeting. In comparison, the old formal district dinner pulled half the district committee and maybe two troop scoutmasters and one or two pack leaders. The only non-district committee attendees were usually the award winners. I'd like our district to consider the format change. Heck, I might get new ideas for camp cooking.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I agree that I think this idea has signficant merit. I see too many packs in trouble that would thrive with a bit more guidance. And my apologies to the UC corps, but I just don't see the unit commissioners cutting it. More is needed than just once or twice a year advice (if even that often). The key need is continuity. Everything else can be worked thru. I really really believe that Webelos troop shopping is a counter-productive model. Of course scouts should be able to jump ship at any time from Tiger to Eagle. But troop shopping promotes cities having one or two strong troops and the other troops fighting for survival. Strong troops end up with excess parents, some of which might step forward if there was more of a need. Other troops starve for fresh energy and fresh volunteers. Luckily, our troop is on the stronger side right now. But I see several troops and packs in our city that are on the verge of failure. If they just partnered together more, they could thrive. It's very sad.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 ... Those mixed results are because the units are run separately. If the troop and pack were more tightly linked, with the same leaders, same planning and same oversight, then it would be easier to help the units. The examples you give where the troop is healthy and the pack is in trouble, or vice versa, is because the units are separate. If it was one integrated unit, there would be an improved chance for the success of both.

Well written? I don't know. I often get confused by Kudu's quotes and descriptions. Sometimes he's referencing BSA scouting; othertimes UK scouting and still othertimes a scouting ideal that I'm not sure ever existed. Sometime's he's refering to Baden Powell, the person, and other times he's talking about the Baden-Powell Scout Association, which from what I can see was not founded by Baden Powell as it was created in 1970, many years after BP died. When I see it written as "B-P's Patrol System", that seems to reference the 1970's created B-P scout association and not Baden Powell, the person. ... I'm still fairly new, but I've seen nothing from the past that talked about patrol leaders scheduling regular testing / retesting for rank requirements "on patrol hikes". I'd love to see that training materials. Not saying it's not there, but I'd love to see the reference materials. ... From what I do see, the BSA never had a "First Class Journey" as in a long hike that was part of some cumulative test of first class skills. The only requirement I found was removed in 1948 and referenced taking a seven mile out and seven mike back hike as part of earning first class. Overnight was optional, not required. Then the scout wrote down what was observed on the hike. No create master journey. http://www.troop97.net/pdfbin/bsa_ranks.pdf ... As for whether it's well said or not, I'm not sure. BSA has and always will be about the outdoors. Maybe the scouts don't have to walk five miles thru deep snow to get to school every day. But, scouting has been and always will be about the outdoors. ... I need to always remember that this web site is not strictly about BSA scouting and that every post is not necessarily talking about BSA scouting. There's many other scouting programs and concepts out there.

DeanRx wrote: "would it mean you MUST have a troop for your pack?" ... Our pack has no parrallel troop. I'd hope we could change our charter to be chartered under the same organization that hosts a troop. They would just host multiple packs. DeanRx wrote: "I wouldn't want to be a CM forced into feeding boys into a failing troop" ... I'd bet that units that create successful troops would also have successful packs. And vice versa. ... PLUS, any scout at any time can change membership to another unit. I'd rather see the emphasis on changing to a unit that matches your needs and less on shopping for a unit when you become a Webelos scout. DeanRx wrote: "I don't see this changing if you throw them all in one unit." ... I'd see it as one unit, but not one program. You'd have a Cub Scout program for the K-3rd grade. You have a Webelos program for the 4th & 5th graders. A Boy Scout program for older scouts. They'd come together a few times a year for a picnic or a B&G banquet. But generally, each sub-group focuses on age / program appropriate materials. ... Basementdweller mentioned the stake in where Webelos cross over into. My question is why do we emphasize Webelos shopping for a troop, but not emphasize Tigers, Wolves, and Bears shopping for a better pack each year. IMHO, I don't see any difference. If your happy, you'll continue in the same unit. If your not happy with your unit, switch or help it improve.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah, I've read the label. Understand the differences. I'm just saying the green version is only a decorative replacement for the red version. If you want something functionally equivalent, you need to shop elsewhere. I absolutely hated the disco red color of the old jac shirt, but you could depend on it keeping you warm.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know... I was going to write a post about the new green jac shirts. BUT ... I was not going to be as nice. Green Jack shirt PROS ---- Comfortable and less itch'y. ---- Looks nicer then the old one ---- Scout emblem is embroidered on. CONS ---- Less functional. ---- It lets the wind thru and does not keep you any where near as warm. I swear that I could use the old red jack shirt over my short sleeve scout shirt until it was about 5 degrees. I always had my procedure. Button cuffs. Close one or two buttons. Button to near top. Flip collar up. The colder it got, the more I would button The new one is only good to about 30 degrees if it is NOT windy. I love the new look and feel. But I miss the warmth and wind blocking of the old red jac shirt.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

JAY - You said "Requirements counted towards one Merit Badge may not be counted for another Merit Badge." Why? Is there somewhere it says that? I'd be okay if there is an official source. I'm just curious. I ask because we've had times where scouts work on multiple merit badges that have overlapping requirements, often first aid requirements. Summer camp often has any scout doing an aquadics badge show up at the same time to complete those basic requirements. Not once per badge they are taking. Plus how would two different merit badge counselors avoid being gamed by smart scouts or accidentally missing something from an honest / innocent scout. Just wondering if it's a BSA official rule or a troop / counselor rule.

I don't think the COR job description is the same as a group leader concept. COR is more representative of the CO and signs off on the leaders. But not really an involved executive role. The Group Leader concept seems more involved in getting the program running in a specific direction. There is overlap but a definit difference.

Beavah - I think we are confusing each other's words. I agree with you on this topic. COs don't have the skills for recruitment or helping packs provide a good program... as a rule of thumb. But then it's a catch 22. COs could structure their units in the one-unit-style if they are strategic about it. But COs aren't skilled in scouting. So they don't. The result is that units work separately within the same CO and not leveraging each other. Even worse, alienating each other. The COR could do this, if they thought strategically. But most CORs don't. They just represent the authority of their CO. ... I also agree. The failure is not in the CO. It's in the BSA and the councils. I think BSA needs to address the scout unit structure to make up for the lack of CO guidance.

Nicely said. I believe that in a one-unit concept ... those parents of Cubs that move up in rank become the elders that can guide, advise and support the new cub parents that come into the program. I really believe that the lack of such support is a key reason for the repeated pattern of packs problems.

Basementdweller ... What you describe is what I was thinking of as the concept. The only difference is there is no "join" situation. Just continue into the Boy Scout ranks, similar to continuing into the Wolf, Bear, Webelos or other ranks. Good concept too on events. The only important role is that the units need to still meet separately as different ages need different things. But, I'd argue Webelos need to meet separate from Cubs because Cub Scouts now starts at Kindergarten and that's too big of a difference between Webelos and K. Cambridgeskip ... "Group Scout Leader" ... I like that concept. Keep the unit leaders, but move the committee up a bit into a group committee. I see the UK also has a concept of a Group Executive Committee that includes the unit leaders and other key persons. That concept seems correct. Right now it just seems broken when a charter org provides a pack, a troop and a crew but then administers them separately. It just seems self-defeating. Of course then can do differently, if they realize it's important.

Weaker troops ... Just looked at my district, we have 39 troops and 40 packs. In my experience, that's not enough packs for troops. I don't know how many are living functioning units. But we are very close to one-on-one now. Hmmm....

I had not thought about the weaker troop issue. You are right in that, RIGHT NOW, it does take multiple packs or so to feed a troop. In our city, we have equal number of troops and packs "officially". Unofficially, some of the packs are pretty small and about to fail. So, a troop in our city needs multiple packs to support itself. BUT ... one healthy pack can keep a troop going. In another words, a perfect troop is between 32 and 50 scouts. So troops need six to eight new scouts each year. A healthy pack can easily graduate six to ten Webelos. Plus troops gain one or two scouts each year thru other channels. The trouble is there are too many unhealthy packs. Though there are multiple reasons, one reason is that it takes awhile for adults to "get" scouting. By the time, adults get it, they are moving into troops. By being more then just partnered, truely integrated as one unit, packs would have more resources, do way better and graduate more scouts into Boy Scouts. .... One solution is to have packs that don't have a troop to be re-chartered under an existing troop's charter org. I'm betting most pack charter orgs wouldn't notice one way or the other. So troop 123 would have packs 123 & 124.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah - "... that's really what da COR's role is supposed to be, eh? ... Why create somethin' new when da current structure provides exactly what yeh suggest?" I think that's partially what the COR is ... or could be. The issue is that most CORs don't take ownership of the job to think strategically about the success of the units in their charter. They see names on an application. They work with the IH to get the charter signed. I think key is that most (not all, but greater than 75% if not greater than 90%) charter orgs are just not significantly involved. So each unit charters separately and is left to struggle. Troops leaders struggle with recruitment. Pack leaders struggle with how to provide a good program. BUT ... the packs could support the troops in recruitment and the troops could support the packs in putting on a good program. So your right in that Charter Orgs could structure their units as I'm suggesting. I just think that most won't as they are already doing a good deed by providing a room to meet in. I've heard rumors of a one-unit approach. I really hope it's more than just lip service of automatically registering cubs in the same COR's troop. I hope it really is re-engineering scouting to be a one-unit concept. Maybe different meetings and different outings. But, designed to be one unit.

My favorite is when the troop recharters and sets the COR to a specific person. Then the pack recharters and sets it to a different person. The next year, it happens all over again. The charter org executive just signs the recharter paperwork and never notices a difference. Troop never learns until the next year. And then the troop criticizes the council for not getting the charter names correct.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

SeattlePioneer - I partially agree in that you can "adopt" a neighboring district. I disagree in that the other district can not adopt you. You can adopt another district's training, campouts, activities and roundtables. Most districts would be glad to have you. But the other district can't adopt you for .... ---- Support from your DE and district staff ---- Where your hang files are put for roundtable ---- Coordination - Popcorn sales ---- Coordination - FOS ---- Coordination - Recruitment ---- Advancement - Approving eagle projects ---- Advancement - Eagle boards of review ---- Advancement - Disputed situations ---- Advancement - Leader recognition ---- Advancement - Any special awards, heroism, hornaday, etc. ---- Order Of The Arrow - Elections ---- Order Of The Arrow - Chapter meetings ---- Membership - Signing rechartering paperwork ---- Membership - Signing new member applications ---- Communications from district / council Some not impossible but difficult ones would include... ---- Anything resembling a "district level award / trophy" ---- DISTRICT PINEWOOD DERBY ******* I know I'd be upset if a Cub Scout from another district came to compete in our district pinewood derby, received an award and then consumed spot going to the next competition level. If that is allowed, I should shop around for multiple pinewood derbies until I find one where my son's car could win and he could advance to the next level. Or if we lose, we could fix the car and then find another district's derby. Probably similar for other events. Is it fair for anything competitive to have other district scouts win things in another district? Probably not an issue for casual competitions such as camporee competitions. Very much an issue with pinewood derbies and such. Very much for things such as "top seller" or etc. Also, it would be difficult for the other district to recognize your eag ................ I'm just saying, if you don't like your district, your options are ... ---- Officially switch districts ---- Pretend to go it alone. No FOS. No recruitment materials. No popcorn. No support. But depend on district for advancement, rechartering and signing your paperwork. ---- Be a quiet member of your district (FOS, recruitment, popcorn, support, pinewood derby, ...) but participate with other district's activities (camp outs, training, etc) ---- Try to improve your district from the outside ---- Try to improve your district from the inside (help the district) The option I don't see as realistic is trying to "unofficially" be part of another district and then ignore your own district. That's just asking for headaches. ................ To be honest, I view "go it alone" as argumentative. You don't have to do FOS, popcorn, camporees, roundtable, etc. But units still depend on their district. Make it an official switch or work with your district.

If the issue is your district is bad, I personally don't find that a good reason to switch. Focus on making your unit the best it can be. As for the distrit, call the SE. Let people know the issues. Get things to change. I have had to do that a few times and things can change. It's not easy, but it helps everyone in the long run. You can also volunteer. Then when your helping, you can influence things. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

I know some have recommended just doing it yourself "unofficially" but there are reasons to either make it official or not do it at all. You can always attend training and learning from other districts. BUT ... - Hang files will be at your "official" district roundtable. The hang files will get your ... ----- Your rechartering packet ----- Your FOS packet ----- Your event fliers - Communication will be done through your "official" DE, district & roundtable staff. ----- I'd be surprised if another DE would "unofficially" communicate with you "long term" for risk of upsetting another DE or earning a bad name for himself. ----- DEs also change every two years or so. So any "casual" arrangement is not really dependable - Recruiting ----- The original poster himself mentioned that the annual recruitment is coordinated thru the district. ----- Your "official" DE coordinates and approves flyers, annoucnements and other unit postings. - District events ----- If your district has "events", you want to do them with your official district. Otherwise you will miss communications, announcements and will continually be the "outside" troop. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

I am greatful for the advise. I am already to secede writing better to. The yolk I bear is Mis-Capitolization and it effects anything I write. Other authors may flout their own fancy words. Sadly, I have no angle on my shoulder to take me through the gamut. But my decent into grammatical confucianism is drove by commuter auto-correct. By and by, this is only my prospective, of coarse.