Gone

Pedro.

Amen Again, Amen. Some keep them. Some turn them in to the QM, where they may be used again after the next election. Our SPL many, many years ago (15+ now) started a tradition. He'd sign the back of the patch and passed it along to the next SPL, who in turn would do the same. Many years on on we've gone through four patches...all of which are framed (back-side facing out to see the signature) along with a new SPL patch. It is a shadow box so there is room for growth. This way the boys can see who was SPL and when. A cool tradition started by a scout now a real rocket scientist who has come back a few times to show HIS kids his old patch.

Exactly. And keeping the adult leaders out of it is the other full time job of the SM.

@@fred johnson, to my knowledge council files were not as detailed as they are now. The council I grew up in kept aggregate files on units. In other words, they sold patches and kept paper copies of how many First Class patches were sold to Troop 111, but not that Tommy Jones made FC on 4/4/74. In fact, when I went to get my OA tap out date from my old council they had no record of me ever being an Arrowman. All I had was my sash and a 30 year-old flap to prove it. I cannot speak for other councils.

The irony of using this medium to discuss #3 is fun.

Try doing that at a troop meeting and watch national pass another "restriction". Good for him!

@@Stosh...good post. I don't disagree with any of that. All I will say is that it *is* possible to have all of that, in a large troop, with the boys managing it, while the SM does his job of leadership development/growth/management.

Let's hope the next step is putting him in the scout museum.

So again, you offer no alternative to my conclusion. I give facts. You throw stones. Why the steep decline in 2013? Why the steeper decline in 2014? Why the continued decline in 2015? Why are the declines for the last two years (and apparently 2015 as well) nearly two times what the historical average has been since 1998? You try to obfuscate the analysis by claiming things have been simplified or assumed away, or using denigrating terms like "cherry picking". I don't think you understand what statistical analysis is about. You cannot "cherry pick" when you use ALL the data over a 15+ year period. Again, I ask you to put some skin in this game. Why do YOU think the steeper decline happened. Dazzle me with your superior statistical prowess. Show me you know what you're talking about rather than selectively using lame old standard argument used to deride the use of facts and logic. C'mon, tell us what YOU think rather than just deriding others.

Again, who said guys are looking for PORs to knock off ranks. It's a requirement as well as a duty. The reason for the SM to get involved is because leadership development is part of his job. He coaches the PLC on how to manage that. In a large troop of 50+ kids that's a daunting task for most adults let alone a 15 year old SPL and his 13 year old colleagues. Again, read what I wrote. THE BOYS MANAGE EVERYTHING! The SM is their advisory and counselor.

@@Eagledad, reading the OP I think @@Stosh was opining several issues which he did not define. I suspect the gay issue is but one. The others, looking at his other posts may be the decline of the patrol method, lack of involved parents, BSA focusing on things not part of their core mission, etc. This seems a potpourri thread. The current argument is obviously the decline in membership, the reasons therefore and what the future numbers may be if additional membership or program changes take place.

No one said otherwise. However, it is harder to manage larger troops without a more define election cycle. Boys will go without leadership positions. If the boys are not guided, PORs can become popularity contests. So, yes, while the boys must manage the process, it is not done so in a vacuum. Adult guidance by the SM is part of his job. POR are not always about the best person for the job though. Many times PORs should be about growth. My advocacy for adult guidance is to avoid the cloakroom politics that I've seen happen in units where there are power brokers controlling the PORs, be they adults or scouts. Yes, the boys should manage the WHOLE process...but not without the check and balance of the SM. That is the job of the SM is to train and develop the boys in to leaders. This would include helping to guide the election process.

No, it does not "stand". One can have an opinion which is based on fact and supported by assumptions. I used established facts and drew a conclusion based on those facts. Membership decreased at a particular rate from 98-2010. Since 2013 -- the year of the last major change to scouting -- that numbers has nearly doubled. Happenstance? The economy? The "war"? What accounts for that increase? You can have the opinion that the increased decline in membership is NOT related to the membership policy change if you like. However, if you do, please offer another reason for said decline. What do YOU think the reason is that for two years since the membership change we have seen a marked increase in the rate membership loss when, historically since 1998, we have recorded no other such dramatic changes. Put some skin in the game.

Did you actually READ what I posted? I said there is no definitive proof as to the cause of the dramatic membership decline we've seen since 2012. I said *I* have concluded that but I DID NOT say there is proof of it. I was obviously expressing my opinion and said so clearly.

I don't disagree at all. But someone needs to help the boys with the big picture view. Tommy may be SPL but he may not know that Tim is aging out in 13 months and need a POR right away. The PLs and SPL need help seeing the big picture. There are too many dates, requirements and demands in a large troop to keep all of that straight. I know adults who are challenged with such a task. Our SM's job is to help the boys manage that and plan accordingly, all the while forcing them to be accountable.

I agree the boys should drive it, however, in a larger troop it is difficult enough for the big picture to be seen by an adult, let alone the boys. The SM's job is to work with the SPL and PLs to show them that big picture: That the demand for leadership positions for rank advancement might outpace the open positions, thus requiring a more predictable election cycle.

@@DuctTape and @@Stosh, true that forecasts are based on trends with assumptions to account for certain, possible scenarios. This is where modelling comes in. As in the financial industry, forecasting membership growth/decline is fairly predictable UNTIL radical change (as variables) are introduced; hence why it is not an exact science. Then again, predicting near earth objects colliding with the Earth is not an exact science either as it depends on a body maintaining the same path it has in the past. One change to the gravitational constant and you have a whole new trajectory. Will membership continue to decline at the 1998-2010 rates? Will it increase as it has since 2012? To paraphrase Dickens, if these shadows remain unaltered I fear no more of my kind may find the Boy Scouts of America. "Change" is what is needed, but a positive change that can impede, reduce or alter the increased average loss of membership we have seen since 1998. @@perdidochas, while no direct study has been made of out going members to ascertain their reason for leaving, I would also conclude that the steeper decline in the last year years is directly tied to that issue. I suspect the 2015 numbers will level out a bit BUT once Gates makes good on that promise of his my bet is you will see a double-digit drop in the following 2-3 thereafter.

Nope, they can't teach what they don't know. But if the ASMs were acting in a scouting manner this whole problem could have been handled much differently. I think we all agree on that. I could not imagine for the life of me, acting in this manner against a child UNLESS he had put the health or safety of another child in danger (e.g., pointed a weapon knowingly at someone).

That's not a prediction it's a trend. Take a look at the year on year membership numbers posted in the other thread. Extend the 2002-2010 year on year losses as an average and extend them out, then compare to 2002. Then take the 2012-2014 losses and do the same. Let's not confuse data analysis with hyperbole. The 1998-2014 membership numbers are facts, not fiction. Making an assumption that they continue, averaged out, is an accepted approach. If you poo poo that method I suspect you also mock global warming forecasts, financial forecasting, weather forecasting and other folks who use the same method.

@SR540Beavery it may be kicking, but with far fewer scouts and adults than in 2002. At the old rate the membership would be 1/4 of what it was in 2002 in 15 years. At the rate over the last two years it will only take 8 years.

Method they teach at NYLT. Depends on your unit. I have seen small units do it annually or semi-annually, larger units do it quarterly.

Slippery slope. Individual donations to a unit should go through the CO. See BSA guidance here. If your CO is a non-profit they likely have a tax attorney they consult. Talk to them. Check out this video too. It may help.

You need to talk to your CO. You are part of them and covered under their articles of incorporation. If that happens to be a 501 ©(3) then you need to work with them as to what is/is not allowed. Try this as a starter or this. This is the best overview I have seen by a council but it may NOT be what your council adheres to.

Be careful though. Our council found out about a unit using a local non-licensed shop to do some work and they came down on that unit. National even got involved. They call it "brand management" but its more about revenue sharing than making sure the "brand" is not damaged.

...and many "normal" kids and adults don't see social cues either.