ParkMan

NIce post @Eagledad. I didn't know that about WB - but I am not surprised. I think most leaders who attend trainings are earnestly trying to do the right things. The paucity of leader training makes it difficult for leaders who do not instinctively know these things or who come from a troop that does not already have a strong patrol method culture. Though folks like to blame WB, I think the real issue is that the BSA doesn't have an intermediate level Scouts BSA sequence of courses that cover these things. I would welcome a sequence of intermediate and advanced courses for unit volunteers that when complete allowed the Scouter to receive some special recognition. Something equivalent to receiving your Wood Badge beads (or better yet even more prestigious) that signified that you are a Scouter who has been through a series of courses to learn all about how Troops work. A sequence taught by the best Scouters in the council.

Ahh - I see. You're suggesting that the WOSM just sit back for 5 years while the councils realign themselves in that scenario. I have to imagine that in this scenario it will be like the breakup of the Bell System. In 20 years we'd be back to a handful of NFPs that have acquired all the others. I can see how that works. FWIW, I can't imagine the BSA IP simply being given away. Perhaps councils band together to purchase it, but there is just about no chance the bankruptcy court says - hey you 270 NFPs you all get the share this IP that has monetary value. But, to your other comment - that's a topic for another thread.

I would be interested to know how technology is faring in the recent rounds of cutbacks. I have to imagine that plans around Scoutbook will be severely curtailed at this point in time.

Scouting isn't what it once was, but it made national news for several days. There are many millions of people with history with the BSA and it does have an emotional connection to many people. An announcement by the WOSM might be lucky to get a mention in a "well that's cute" sort of way.

I understand your point - I think you are defining a new Scouting model - a confederation of councils based on the same program and materials. Maybe 50 or 100 different councils that all use the same program and function independently. I would think that even if such a model were to occur that they would derive representation in the WOSM through a central organization. From the WOSM website: What would be the value to 50 or 100 local councils in the US to all join individually? What would be the value to the WOSM? Does Scouts UK really want to have individual relationships with a whole bevy of US councils? I suspect not. I expect that if 50 councils buy the IP rights of the BSA, they will create a small central organization to co-ordinate that work. Place the international representation of the US based former BSA councils in that entity.

I imagine there is a vote required, but ultimately you are correct. However, I suspect the selection of some other Scouting organization in the US would be met with a collective "so what?" As a country we are inherently too independent to care what the WOSM says when picking an activity for our kids. The competing Scouting programs in the US gave not gotten traction because they are not the BSA and have neither it's personal connections nor it's ubiquitous reach and facilities.

I see. I understand now. Thanks

I believe the primary reason for this is so that units do not compete with the council for donations. If Scouting units are all running around asking banks to donate to their troops, then it will make it more difficult for the council to solicit funds. This is why councils have the ability to approve fundraisers too. Until recently councils were not allowed to assess fees to members and so the bulk of their funding needed to come from donations. So, while the distinction between soliciting and earning is a good one - the primary reason is to make it easier for the councils to exist.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Where so you see adults not supporting the youth in this one?

@OLDRIFLE, I'm going to go in a slightly different direction than many of my esteemed fellow Scouters here. If the Scout in question (you perhaps?) looses the opportunity to make Eagle because of this because of reaching 18 years old, then yes - file a request through council. Explain that the troop has added this requirement and this requirement is pushing the Scout past the age of 18. However, if this is not the case, then mention it to the Scoutmaster and Advancement Chair/Committee Chair that this interpretation is incorrect, but then move on. What is the fundamental issue here - that the Scout has to be active in the troop for another 6 months? That is not the end of the world and it probably even enriches the Scouting experience for the Scout. If this turns into the kind of messy political situation where there are factions, the Scout and family are frustrated, the Scoutmaster is embarrassed, and there is hurt and division in the troop - what has really been accomplished? We could have a discussion about who has the authority to correct a Scoutmaster (the Troop Committee BTW). But, sometimes it's better for adults to inwardly know the Scoutmaster is wrong, but outwardly support him. In the grand scheme of things, this decision by the Scoutmaster isn't that awful. BTW - the national organization is likely to support a petition for you to be awarded a BOR under disputed circumstance which will result in the Scout obtaining Eagle. They will do this because the situation you are describing is one of interpretation of rules by adults. Scouts should not be penalized because of how adults interpret rules. However, you should not interpret that as National wanting the Scout to file a petition. National would clearly prefer that the Scout have a positive, constructive troop experience. So, I would go back to my other comment - the Scout should cheerfully embrace this variant on the 6 month rule and go on in life.

My vote: New subforum seperate from I&P which allows for more general discussion. If we are already here, why not have the ability to discuss items like this more generally amongst Scouters?

My suggestion - just raise your hand with your fellow ASMs and explore how you can do more patrol oriented activities during meetings. Zoom isn't the issue and I'm sure it's not a nefarious plot to end patrol based Scouting. Odds are it's just people who don't really know what to do are guessing. Honestly, I'd have no idea how to make a virtual troop meeting with 30 people interactive and patrol based. But I'm guessing that since you're living it, you've got some ideas. Offer to be the person to sort it out for the SM & ASMs.

To add some context. I've staffed several courses, so my recommendation is based on my observations with many participants. 1) @T2Eagle is spot on. This isn't an advanced outdoor skills course. It's not a backpacking course. It's a leadership development course. They staff knows that not everyone will even own a tent let alone a lightweight backpacking tent. 2) Unless your tent is crazy heavy, I expect you'll be able to find a way to manage getting it to wherever you need to camp. While discouraged, I've watched people bring cots, dutch ovens, coolers, etc. 3) You will become friends with your fellow course mates. One of them will have a spare tent I am sure. There will surely be a moment weekend 1 where you can ask to borrow one if you are really concerned. Of course, every course and staff is different. So if you are still really concerned about it, email the course director or registrar. They'll be honest with you.

Sounds like a winning plan. As a CC, I asked the advancement chair to sign all advancement docs which required a CC signature. The BSA structure has to accommodate everything from little units with 5 scouts all the way to troops of 100+. As CC, I had absolutely no idea what individual scouts were doing with advancement nor did I have the technical knowledge of the advancement chair. Never in 5 years did we have any issue with it.

Oh - the other responses confused me. I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe there are any laws in this space. It's a question of decency and ethics. Sharing the letter like this shows poor form unless there was a reason it had to be shared. I'll assume in this case it did not have to be shared and so the CC acted in poor form. But, as far as I know there is no rule against being a jerk. As a result, you're stuck trying to get some putative action taken by the CO (unlikely to happen, but maybe) or the BSA (certainly won't happen). So I think you're facing an uphill battle here.

I think I misunderstood - I thought your concern was that the SM shared the letter, not that he was removed. I'm out of my element on fighting removals. Sorry.

Thank you - I didn't know that things ever progressed that far. That's fascinating.

My .02. Have a quiet word with the SM and explain the point and ask him not to do it again. The downside of a volunteer organization is that not everyone in a leadership position actually understands that they need to show discretion in these cases. You could go start a big to-do and report on the guy, but to what end? What he purposefully malicious or just a dolt?

@Eagle94-A1 - I'm so sorry to hear of the continued woes in your district and council. It really is a shame at how it has deteriorated. @CommishJulian - I'm trying to follow your story, but am a bit confused. For that I apologize. I'm involved in a mid-to-large council. In our council there is certainly some correlation between personal success and positions like district chair - but only to a small degree. What I've found happens is that the every couple of years as the council nears nomination time, they look around at the districts. If you've got a well functioning district with good leadership, they are going to leave you alone. If you've got an opening for a district chair and there is a credible district chair candidate who can get along with the council board, you'll get the nod. But, if no-one has an idea who should be the next district chair, the council team starts looking around. When that happens, friends and donors start to get asked. "Hey, Tom is an active donor and board member and lives in the district, I wonder if he'll do it?" My two suggestions: 1. If someone wants to be a district chair, don't fight with the council and other opinion leaders. You can do the right thing discreetly. 2. If you want to fix your district, build a team of people that includes your DE and fix it.

Have the troop advancement chair (assuming he/she is a committee member) sign for the CC. 1. In the 20 Eagle's during my tenure as CC no-one ever checked a signature. 2. A member of the committee being delegated the authority to sign on behalf of the CC is pretty reasonable. Our advancement chair knew the status much better than I ever did as CC. 3. Even if there ever is a dispute, the BSA will come down on the side of accepting the signature simply because "no scout should be punished for the mistake of an adult"

What better way to stay gender segregated then to run both the "girls only" and "boys only" programs? The GSUSA could run the GSUSA program for girls and the BSA program for boys. Their professional staff could support both sides of the program. Cost of program would be less for the GSUSA and they wouldn't have to worry about serious competition.

In my mind, the most valuable parts of the BSA ot the GSUSA are: stop the loss of girls in Scouting to the BSA two million boys in the Scouting program efficiency in delivery of services The BSA just made a play to establish co-ed Scouting. Imagine if the GSUSA could do the same by purchasing the core program IP of the BSA. All it would take to trigger mergers at the council level would be for the GSUSA to buy ownership of the BSA core program. The GSUSA wouldn't have to compete with the BSA in starting a co-ed program, they could simply become a co-ed program in a matter of months.

When I saw the post about the new GSUSA uniforms I was struck by how much they looked like BSA colors. It got me to thinking - what if in the bankruptcy process the GSUSA makes an attempt to buy the assets of the BSA and effectivly merges the two organizations. Possible, not possible? What would you think?

I would have your friend see if he could arrange a legal setup where the land is open to use by Scouts, but not owned by the local council. Then find the district that most closely aligns with it and talk to the local district chair and/or commissioner.

The camping requirement varies from course to course - but generally the expectation is that it's pretty typical stuff. We work on our courses to make sure that gear is not an obstacle for anyone. I wouldn't sweat it. If you are really stuck for gear, bring it up weekend one and I'm sure someone can help you figure out a solution. The course and materials are the point - not what kind of tent you have.