ParkMan

That's an interesting dimension. I wonder how that is structured. I imagine the ranks are somewhat common between countries (except maybe for Eagle) and perhaps some of the requirements too. I can envision that some other Scouting Group in the US cannot start using the same rank system. I wonder who controls that - it is the BSA copyright or is that something at the WOSM level.

I hear you, but I think it would take more lawyering than a bankruptcy court judge is ready for. I'm not even sure a bankruptcy court judge has the place to try and determine if it is operating legitimately as per it's congressional charter. Other than extracting more assets from the BSA, why would they go down that path? If a bankruptcy court judge forced a sale of the IP, then I think that the decision would quickly get appealed. Years in the appellate courts before there is any real resolution.

I hope that's the case which would make it something that the courts could not force them to sell to cover their obligations. So, even if the BSA runs out of funds, so what? They cannot be forced to part with this IP. I'm not sure that I follow that it then cannot be transferred if the BSA chooses. But, I am hoping you are correct. I would like this to be considered an asset with a $0 value. The code doesn't state that the only IP the corporation develops is for the use in a program for boys. It just says that the corporation has the exclusive rights to whatever it adopts. So, if they invent stuff for the program for girls, it's still protected.

I have come to understand that it's improbable there is a legal path to an outright purchase of the BSA. Yet, I do wonder if there is still the ability for the BSA to sell it's IP to another entity. A well organized effort that transferred the BSA IP (program materials, badges, etc.) to another entity and then told councils to simply recharter with them would work in theory.

I've seen no COs disassociate from the BSA in the past few years. This is simply not true. Everyone involved knows that the bankruptcy is related to actions many years ago and is not representative of actions of the BSA today.

Scouting is done best at the unit level. What happens in a local den and pack is one of the most important parts of Scouting to a Lion. As a Cub Scout, I knew next to nothing of the world outside my pack. Lawsuits, bankruptcies, councils, you name it - they are all interesting and somewhat relevant to adults, but not to most youth, and even more so not at the Cub Scout level. I wouldn't sweat all the distractions and discussions that permeate much of the focus of these forums.

I think this is the price of the BSA being a leader in youth protection. In today's culture being a leader in youth protection means being out ahead of the trends and changing expectations of what it means to protect youth from abuse. You'd like to think that it will never extend to asking you to refrain from certain activities or behaviors with your own family, but then again who really knows.

It would depend on why the governor limited it. If it was an arbitrary "hey, I think patrol based Scouting is the way to go", then yes, I think most everyone would summarily ignore that. If it was based on COVID, then I think everyone would comply. Like anything, it's a factor of why.

It's an interesting side question for certain. How does the evolving of abuse factor into what is reported? Perhaps 10 years ago it would have been considered absurd to report that. Today some on the more leading edge of this topic probably would suggest you do. 10, 20 years from now - who knows? There may be a time when it would be considered shocking that we didn't report it. Or maybe folks will decide that this is overreach. Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect that today the BSA guidance would be to follow the G2SS and report what it describes. If the BSA updates it's materials to include that, then report what they advise at that time.

@Momleader - I have a sense that short of asking your council what the specifics of their policy is, we are unlikely to know here. I think you will find lots of good analysis of the probabilities and reasoning - but what specifically the policy in place through your council does in a situation like this is something that we are simply unlikely to know. My own hunch is that the policy your council provides will provide coverage in almost every scenario. I find it unlikely that the council would have a policy in place ahead of time that foresaw this scenario. But again, it's just a wild guess on my part. As for how do two council have such wildly different policies - it's simple - it's the makeup of each council's Executive Board that determines it. Sounds like you've got a council with some more cautious people on the board. The other council has some less cautious people. What I've come to appreciate is that councils are very independent from national - they each were really making their own decisions once we got past that initial month or two. Once the states started determining their own opening up policies, it appeared that councils really were all figuring this out. I can see how one would think this would be coordinated by national - but national just isn't that involved in this level of decision making.

I think that if you start looking at the G2SS and trying to justify exceptions you are going to get yourself all twisted up in knots. I think @David CO said it well - the one-on-one rules in the G2SS will require you and your family to stop doing things that have been a normal part of life for many years - sleepovers, baby sitting, being one-on-one with your niece or nephew. I suspect that the BSA knows this, but wanted to be show leadership in this space. As such, they have set a very high bar. If you are a leader in the BSA, you should live your whole life according to the rules in the G2SS. Most will say it's to protect the BSA in lawsuits and they are probably right. I'm a bit of an optimist and simply hope it's that the BSA got tired of having always getting blamed. As a result, they decided to set a high bar. I think they've carved out an exception or two out of fear of losing whole categories of people - like teachers. But, I don't expect to see an ever increasing list of exception cases. While the exception cases would make it easier for people to live by the G2SS, it would do so by watering down the protection it provides. I don't tink the BSA wants to water down their rules at this point in time.

What I've come to understand about Scouters is that we all place different priorities on the eight methods - scouting ideals, patrols, outdoors, advancement, personal growth, adult association, leadership development, and uniform. What I've noticed with experienced Scouters is that when people start focusing on making advancement easier or better, experienced Scouters tend to start asking questions around whether the improvement to advancement is at the expense of some of the other seven methods. For example, merit badge mills are great at helping a Scout advance, but they can negatively impact several of the other seven methods - well, except maybe uniforms. You've got an innovative idea that experienced Scouters will look at and question whether it will negatively impact the other methods. I like your idea, but I think you need to be ready to explain how the other methods in Scouting will be improved or at least not be harmed by it. For example, if your app makes it so that a Scout really doesn't need much assistance from a merit badge counselor, that is a negative impact to adult association. Having a Scout race through the ranks but never learn how to interact with adults is not a good thing. So, if this were my idea, I'd look at the other seven methods and honestly assess how they will benefit or otherwise by impacted by it. I'm a bit of an optimist, so I look at your idea and see that the other methods will be find if the app is done correctly. But, you have to be ready for those questions as they will come. So, I would not look at the feedback here as a negative. Instead it is representative of the feedback you will get around the country to your idea. I would look at that as a positive and leverage it to tune your ideas.

I struggle though with how to reconcile the gains and successes we've had as a country in the last 50 years. Even in my lifetime, I see a noticeable difference in the amount of racism and increase in the amount of equality in our social structures. I applaud that we continue to focus on rooting out discrimination and racism. Yet, to listen to my teenage kids talk, our country is an awful place full of racists. I don't know how to communicate to my kids with any credibility that we've come so far as a country from what it was 50, 100, or more years ago.

That's unfortunate. The Scouting world has such a weird dynamic to it. Professionals, council boards, council volunteers vs. district volunteers vs. unit volunteers. For a movement that is all about developing leaders, we seem to know so little about how to develop leadership in adult volunteers. It's very strange.

I'd encourage you to talk with your ticket counselor. Position changes happen all the time during Wood Badge. I've had several people change positions while I was a ticket counselor- one even changing units. What's important is adjusting your specific ticket items so that you can still work torwards your vision - if even in a different role

I'd heard this too and so just did a few minutes looking around. This appears to be a very common, and in fact recommended practice amongst non-profits. I find it interesting as it prepeptuates the notion of board members buying their spots on the board. In an era where qualifications for jobs is more important than ever I find it curious that in the non-profit space there is almost a caste system that suggests board members should have to contribute financially to be on the board. I was at least expecting that this was a topic of debate, but I didn't see much in a quick look around.

Great question! I look at the weekends of training as having three main aspects: specific content taught in classes building a network among other like minded Scouters and staff having fun & building additional enthusiasm for Scouting specific content taught in classes I think this is hit or miss depending on what you know going in. The Wood Badge material is just about entirely focused around you becoming a stronger leader in your Scouting life. So, depending on what you know already and what your experience level is in a leadership role you may or may not pick up many new things. I for example had been through several leadership development programs at work. I could certainly see similarities in what I do at work vs. what I was being exposed to here. However, I took away a lot because it was targeted at Scouting. How to talk to parents. How do deal with other volunteers. etc. I was a Scout for 5 years as a youth and a Cub Scout leader for a year before taking Wood Badge. In the course, I also learned a lot about other parts of the program I was not familiar with - Venturing for example. I also picked up some knowledge about more nuts and bolts stuff that I didn't know going in - planning a campfire for example. But, I think this varies a lot depending on what you do in Scouting. building a network among other like minded Scouters and staff I cannot say enough how big a benefit this was for me. I'm in a mid size council. I met people from all over the area that I never knew before. I went from an Asst. Cubmaster who knew people in my pack to a someone who had contacts all over the council. That was really helpful. Now, if you're someone who helps out around the council, then perhaps this isn't a big deal. But if you were like me, it was a big help. having fun & building additional enthusiasm for Scouting This was one of my favorite parts. In my home pack, there was always a sort of a "if we have to" feeling. People would do things, but they were not quite rushing out to do stuff. I found the enthusiasm for Scouting in my course was unlike anything I had in our pack. This was a real help and encouragement to me as a volunteer. Disclaimer - don't skip your ticket though. As much as I enjoyed the course, I'm even more happy that I completed my ticket.

I've always found that photographers get a special license to take pictures during ceremonies like that. Its important to record moments like those. Just be purposefully and dignified when you do it and you'll be fine.

Welcome! Hope you have a fantastic first meeting. That's a great part of the country.

I hadn't seen that before, but that's exactly what I was thinking of conceptually. Makes compete sense.

Haha! I loved being Troop CC. I told my successor that it's the single best job in Scouting. As CC you get to see and experience everything. You get to watch parents succeed and expand their horizons. You get to watch a team come together and accomplish things they never realized that they could do. You get to be the biggest cheerleader and paint the vision. The price is that you just don't get to "do" anything.

Lots of people abuse the DE. 1. Scout Executive and other council professionals. I've seen countless times how our council level professionals turn to the DE for things that volunteers ought to do. Membership, program, unit service, etc. We see DEs working 50, 60, 70 hours a week running around doing whatever their boss tells them to do. In the process, the DE has a tendency to just go solve the issue. This results in weakening the district team. If a DE is doing all the unit service, then why bother to have a commissioner staff? If a DE is organizing the district events, then why have a committee. 2. District Committees. District volunteers get lazy and simply assume the DE will do it. Make copies, pick up forms, etc. We pay a DE something like $20-$30 an hour. Is it worth $20 for a paid professional to go make photocopies for your training team meeting? More importantly, what activity is the DE not doing while he is making those photcopies? 3. Units. In the modern era a DE supports what - 30, 40, 50 or more units? When units are leaning on the DE to pick up applications, buy things at the Scout Store, etc., that's a very expensive resource. Again, we need DEs focused on that hard problems such as starting new units, or solving challenging unit issues, or developing district volunteers - not picking up the awards for tomorrow's pack meeting.

In my experience this is true of lots of things - not just Scouting. There are people on my team at work who have a significantly larger impact that most others. I think this is just part of life - we'll always have superstars and role players. However, the trick for the Unit Committee (and specifically the Committee Chair) needs to recognize that they are building an organization - not trying to put on a program. Our troop was the strongest in the District too and we had an active adult committee of 30+ people. We did that by delegating whenever possible. Sure, there are times that people fail or don't deliver, but that's OK. As Committee Chair, my job was to constantly develop talented volunteers. Were we perfect - no, far from it. But we had a robust team. But yes, even in that model, the Scoutmaster and many of the key leaders were overworked. But, they were overworked because they wanted to be. I'm hesitant to embrace paradigm shifts without first seeing success. It's easy to look at a reoccurring problem and say - this is unachievable and then change things. Such as the case here. Unfortuantely the history of the BSA is full of examples where we have paradigm shifts to solve an issue that never really solves the issue. In an organization where success is driven by the strength of your team, simply paying someone to do it won't make the team stronger - it just gets you someone who can do a bunch of stuff for you.

I just think this is the wrong direction for the program. To me a pack where the Cubmaster is spending 40+ hours a week on the program is not a healthy pack. Den Leaders, Assistant Cubmaster, Committee Members, etc all contribute to make a pack successful. When you put too much on one person, the health of the pack become dependent on the ability and bandwidth of that one person. The person leaves, the pack fails. Scouting is inherently an involved parent activity. When we start paying people, it changes the whole dynamics of the program. It's a job at that point. The history of Scouting is volunteerism. We keep trying to fix the fact that we don't know how to recruit volunteers by paying people. To a large extent, I think that we've abused the DE position so much that it's created much dysfunction in community Scouting. Instead of paying the Cubmaster, let's fix the pack so that parents can reasonably shoulder the volunteer time.

Hah - I've heard a number of people suggest that the future of Scouting is paid unit leadership. Paid Cubmasters & Scoutmasters. I think if that day happens, I'll hang up my uniform.