mrclark

NCS inspections of camps are really a liability check, not a program check. NCS checks that the program director is 21 and has NCS training, but doesn't care at all about the kind of program he runs. NCS checks that the lake water isn't harmful, not that the scouts out canoeing are having fun and learning paddling skills. Beavah's point was that many folks view the BSA as a centralized organization rather than a provider of resources. But providers of resources, such like textbook publishers, still hold their employees accountable, exactly as is the situation with NCS inspections and membership audits.

Yeah, this seems more typical than anything else. Not necessarily a bad thing... part of the draw of conferences, whether they be business, academic, or non-profit, is the location. If you're meeting with a group of people, you have to find an accessible location. It has to be accommodating to the types of folks attending and their families, and interesting enough to convince people to come. And a graphic pop-press description of one strikes me as a passive-aggressive move rather than a truly concerned one. I think the real problem is overcompensation for SE's, very disproportionate to the amount of unit service they actually provide, especially considering their experience and training. I do wonder whether the investment in the conference will actually pay off as programming for scouts.

OldGreyEagle wrote (rhetorically): I do wonder though why if uniforming is so loosely regarded, why it's one of the methods? If camps get to be creative with uniforms, then why cant troops? Well, Venturing crews are allowed to be creative with their uniforms. Some camps incorporate all their staff into Venturing Crews for administrative purposes... Despite the claims of it, I've never been convinced that uniforming is loosely regarded. It seems like uniforming is loosely regarded in some units from the perspective of outsiders. It does seem that uniforming is emphasized differently among different units. I don't think this is a bad thing - every troop has different strengths and weaknesses. After all, the best and most successful people and organizations in the world work by playing to their strengths, not focusing on their weaknesses. I do find it odd (not to mention discourteous and unfriendly) when an outside adult feels the need to criticize another troop about their uniforms. Uniforming is a method, not an aim!

He may be demonstrating good patrol practices, but he is also demonstrating bad uniforming practices. Ya, it just depends which matters more, eh? It seems several folks have already pointed out the "breaking the rules" point of view, and no doubt my post will be followed up with several more people accusing me of breaking policy... Personally, I tend to find adults who act like scouts to be somewhat goofy. It seems to be an odd feature of the American scouting system. I suspect the uniform policy in question was put in place to quietly discourage that sort of behavior. Having said that, learning by example works best from the top down. If the Scoutmaster's goal is to promote patrol cohesiveness, it seems logical to start by having the adults behave like a patrol, including, perhaps, wearing a patrol patch. It all depends - is an imperfect uniform the cost of achieving a working patrol system? I'd tend to say yes, and your scoutmaster seems to think so too. After all, uniforming and patrols are both methods, not aims or ends in themselves, and it's completely normal for a particular troop to favor one over another. If this really irks you, seeing as how you're a new parent, my advice would be to let this one go, eh? At least for a few months until you know the troop better. Nothing's more frustrating for an experienced SM than a new parent who comes in second guessing their decisions... Instead, ask the SM what you can do to help.