ParkMan

Gotcha. Actually, I think we are mostly in agreement here then. I do understand the YPT concerns. But, other than that, I think we can trust that merit badge counselling can be done without a ton of process. District/Council lists, registration, mandatory training is more than we really need. I do agree that training is most often a good thing. But, making it mandatory is a bit much in my book. Create a decent 3 page flyer that explains the process for those that need the highlights and put the full training out there for those that want it. Make training optional. If you've not taken YPT and are not registered, then you need another registered adult present +mom/dad. If you are registered & have YPT, then you can fill that roll. Scoutmaster,ASM, or advancement chair is responsible for making sure the process is followed. This seems like a pretty reasonable plan to me.

Ahh- gotcha! My area must be in the middle. We've got a successful troop for girls, but maybe because it's a lager area. Myself - I've got two daughters who are girl scouts and don't see that changing. I'll be selling cookies with her Saturday.

I would most certainly not look at it as an either/or situation. A troop can certainly build up a MBC list from within their parents and also have outside counselors. In a different topic @Cburkhardt mentioned the value he sees in a larger troop. I'd echo the same thing here. In our troop of 75 Scouts, we've got enough adults that we've invested in things like having an adult to co-ordinate our MBC list. In our case we don't go out and solicit other local volunteers - but we could. If were were a smaller town troop and we had a bunch of Scouts who'd been asking about the automotive maintenance MB, I'm sure our MB coordinator would be thinking about where he could find such a person. Now, there's nothing that says a smaller troop cannot do the same thing - but I do recognize that there are less likely to be adults around who you could enlist to take that on. It would make perfect sense for a district volunteer to do this kind of thing. But frankly - I think the problem is too big there. A volunteer or two trying to line up enough MBC for 500-1000 Scouts would be doing this all the time. So there, I think the district MB coordinator really should be building a network with troop MB coordinators and working with them to get the list populated. This another reason why I think retrenching this to the council level doesn't make much sense. If it were too hard for a district MB coordinator to build a program for 500-1000 scouts, how will the council MB coordinator do it for 3,000 to 10,000 scouts?

I'm a simple person - but gotta admit that I'm not following you here.. My daughters as GS/USA members - so if you perceive a slight in my comments, it's not intentional. What I have come to realize is that the GS/USA programs and structure are largely different from the BSA program. The GS/USA system is probably more flexible than the BSA model - but many of the GS/USA troops out there are focused differently than BSA troops. I've also witnessed first hand successful community troops for girls. It has convinced me that the best way to build up troops for girls is to start focused, community based troops. As they become successful and reach saturation point, then we can start more. But, I'd rather see 1 troop of 25-30 girls than 5 troops of 5 girls.

I'm with @Cburkhardt on this. The best way to expand Scouting - whether it's for boys or girls - is to provide them solid units with great programs. Two paid members can be a stepping stone to 30 members, but it should just be that. If your community doesn't have a troop for girls yet, why not reach out to the other local packs & troops and do something at a community level?

It's a whole lot easier to walk up to a parent with a kid in the troop, ask them their interests, and then get them to be a merit badge counselor. Hey, Mr. Smith I hear you are an arborist. Would you be willing to be a forestry merit badge counselor? I see that your son has been working on several merit badges already. It's free of charge and the rewards are huge. Since it is a role where you'll interact with kids directly we'll need you to fill out this application and take the online YPT class.

Ok - to that point then. If a Scout wants to earn a MB, he/she goes to the SM and inquires. The Scoutmaster has a list of names and points the Scout to a name and tells the Scout to initiate contact. You believe that it subverts the program if the Scoutmaster looks at the list and says to the Scout: "You wanted to work on the forestry merit badge. On my list here I see that Mr. Smith, Tommy's dad, is a forestry MBC. Please go contact him and see what you can arrange." Yes, it's a good skill in life to be able to call someone up cold and talk to them. But, I don't see that it subverts the whole idea of merit badges if you develop a group of merit badge counselors with a connection to your local troop. The Scout still has to initiate a conversation with an adult that they probably don't really know all that well. They still have to be self directed to do the work. They still have to have youth/adult conversations about their progress. We've decreased that adult association part of the merit badge process by a pretty small amount. On the flip side - I see lots of good from a troop developing a cadre of merit badge counselors. In addition to what I wrote before, you generate more parent involvement and you make the merit badge program more visible to families as well. This further prompts parents to encourage and reinforce their Scout's efforts. It also helps that with some more visibility of the merit badge program you get more quality control. You know these counselors and these counselors know how things generally work in the troop. In addition, because you have a more active merit badge program, Scouts are inclined to earn more merit badges. As a result of more merit badge activity, Scouts actually increase their adult interaction. These all seem like good things. No?

I think we may be talking about troops of different size. Our troop, for example, has 75 scouts. That's a hundred troop parents and other adults who almost never camp with the troop or serve as a leader in another capacity. Some benefits: Provides for a healthy supply of merit badge counselors. Having those parents engaged in the merit badge program is a great way for a parent who doesn't otherwise help out to contribute. Serving as a MBC can often be the first step towards a larger role in Scouting. Just my .02. Rather than seeing councils scaling back, I'd rather see councils out looking at what units like ours are doing and them attempting to build off that. Our merit badge program has been pretty successful for us. It's also very easy to replicate in other, smaller troops. Then those smaller troops could work together to build up a larger, district merit badge program. This would be a great way to see volunteerism grow and a stronger merit badge program in a district.

If you've got a small council with just a few districts, fine. In those councils the district/council distinction is artificial. But, if you're in a larger council - I don't buy it. Say you've got a district with 15-20 troops. Those local troops ought to be working together, under the leadership of the Camporee staff to put on a local, district camporee. Now, that function moves to a council staff with what 100-200 troops they organize? The expectations for involvement are now very different. What, all 100-200 troops are now going to be expected to be involved in those council organized camporees? Currently our council holds a council camporee and a dozen district camporees every year, I do not expect that this new, unified council camporee staff is now going to put on 13 camporees every year. Instead, they will hold fewer camporees - maybe even just one a year. This process will in turn create fewer opportunities for units to work together to deliver camporees. That healthy process of pushing unit volunteers to get involved with their district will further dry up. Yes, that one Council camporee will probably be better than it is now because a few of the district volunteers will move to the council staff. But, by and large, I anticipate that most district camporee volunteers will simply stop helping because they will no longer feel needed.

There's also a strong sense of community in many troops. We have many merit badge counselors that work with just Scouts in our troop. These adults have been long standing members of the troop community and want to help. They're not volunteering for Scouting in general, they are volunteering to help strengthen options for boys and girls they know. Becoming volunteers for Scouting in general isn't what they signed up for.

I think roundtable is a good example to consider. Roundtable serves a few purposes: provides ongoing training and problem solving for unit volunteers. It helps improve volunteer readiness serves as a networking and social gathering point for volunteers. It helps to build a stronger Scouting community provides an opportunity to distribute information to unit volunteers. We tried discontinuing roundtable and saw: 1) fewer and less trained leaders, 2) increasingly disconnected local units, and 3) less engagement by local units in district activities. My take away - having a meeting called "Roundtable" isn't that important. Having a poorly planned and organized monthly meeting because the Council Commissioner said you have to do it isn't productive. Having some sort of vehicle where unit leaders can network, get ongoing training, and get the latest news is very helpful in building Scouting in a local community. This is why I dislike these kind of changes. We're getting rid of the very structures that help build Scouting in a community. First it was local training and in many places roundtables. Now you've got people getting rid of district camporees and local merit badge counselors. Yet, in all this time I've never seen anything of real substance from anyone in the BSA - whether it national or council level that is really focused on strengthening local teams.

Ugh! These are awful changes. Unless you had some sort of tiny council, what can be gained by removing local, hands on support for unit leaders. Whether it's training, advancement, camping, or something else, centralizing things is only going to lead to further distance between units & councils. Units that need support will be less likely to get it. The reason we have districts is to provide local Scouting contacts to units to strengthen their programs. If districts are becoming too weak to function, then that's what we need to solve - not get rid of districts. No organization manages their way out of a problem by cutting support resources.

The LDS departure is a blip in the history of Scouting. It created a false narrative that Scouting was bigger than it really was. Yes, it's painful that we have to adjust budgets to the loss of that revenue, but that is an adjustment we have to make. There isn't another group out there like the LDS church for us to loose. So, by definition we can't really have that happen again. The lawsuits the BSA is facing is the bigger deal. This needs to be problem #1 for the BSA to deal with. Problem #2 is coming up with a path to grow traditional Scouting again. Local councils need to see packs & troops grow and need to see new packs and troops started. Any plan created by the BSA that doesn't deal with that is not worth the paper it's printed on. I frankly will be unimpressed with any plan that doesn't address both of these. Reorgs, shifting of resources, etc are all just window dressing if we don't deal with these.

I guess I've never seen the issue with the knots. To me, they're really just a way for you to personalize your uniform. Most of us who volunteer started because of our kids. But, once your kids age out we tend to stick around because we enjoy Scouting. That enjoyment can be lots of things - working with kids, the fellowship of other like minded adults, perhaps a sense of accomplishment in building a great pack or troop. If adding a little color to your uniform adds some fun for you, I don't see the harm. Sometimes I believe we have a tendency to overthink things. They are after all simply some colored patches one sews on a uniform.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It's always just seemed rather ridiculous. You know that putting the training award on your uniform puts you in that category too. So you start with AOL & Eagle. Then it's a den leader award, then a Webelos leader award, then a Scouter training award, then a Scoutmaster key. All of a sudden it's 6 knots. Then it's a district award of merit. Then your kid ages out and you decide to become a roundtable commissioner and get another one. Then it's a silver beaver. Next thing you've got 9, 10 knots. Of course "next thing" took 20 years to get - but that's no reason to have ever put that first one on your uniform. Nah - I just find it all rather silly. We're all just people helping to bring Scouting to kids. Take Wood Badge, wear 15 knots, serve a council VP of knick-knacks for all I care . If you can find a place to help strengthen the program for kids I'm glad you're here.

When I started volunteering, I was quickly introduced to the anti-professional culture in the volunteer ranks. Within a certain segment of the volunteer community, it is considered a requirement to be anti-professional. It always felt to me a little like those 80's movies where the kids in the fraternity have to be automatically oppose the school dean. The list went something like: professionals the council the district commissioners people from Wood Badge people who would wear knots This seems to have died down a bit, but I still see it from time to time.

It's a good job for the right kind of person. We often assume that people who are involved with Scouting find the most enjoyment in working with you. I think that's a false conclusion. I'm not a professional and have no intention of being one. My own career is a better fit for me personally. However, as a volunteer I made the shift a while back to become a district volunteer. I recognized that in order for our Scouts to have a great program, we needed to have strong units. I felt that it would help our units to be more successful if we had a strong district support structure - so I got involved there. Today I enjoy working with other volunteers to make district activities happen. Yes, you could look at what I do in Scouting as meetings, planning, and paper pushing. But, most of it is working with other volunteers to help them be successful. If I'm successful, we'll have stronger district program which can then result in better support for units. It can also help result in better membership programs in our units - meaning more Scouts in the program. So, while the mechanics are a lot of meetings and paperwork, I see benefit from it and value in it and so I keep doing it. I think a DE is the same way. The DE role can have a big impact on Scouting in a community. Is it working with Scouts and doing traditional Scouting activities - no. But, if you enjoy the program it can be rewarding work. But, make no mistake - if you want to be a paid professional who is still doing unit Scouting activities - be prepared to volunteer on the side in a unit. It's a different role.

Well said. The job is fine, the management of those in the job is wrong. Yes - I see your point and fully agree.

Gotcha. That's too bad. I think it would be smart for the BSA to look at the job responsibilities of the DE role and ask - how much of this do we really think adds value? How much can we reasonably expect someone to do in 40 hours a week?

So, I have to wonder why we feed into this as volunteers. I've made it a personal rule to never call our DE at night or on the weekends. I would almost never ask a DE to come to a unit meeting in the evening. I'm fine with the DE coming to a camporee or other event for a portion of the weekend. No way would I ask a DE to camp at camporee. I would never ask a DE to pick something up at the council store or make me photocopies at the office. I ask my DE for advice on how to get something done, I don't ask them to do it for me. A good DE is an amazing resource and they do a lot to help us. It's of almost no consequence to me to do these things myself.

So true. At the end of the day, these lawyers are just another company and the product they are selling is lawsuits against the BSA. I expect to see TV adds soon by the lawfirms on the low cost TV channels.

Very good point. Given my Catholic roots I see a lot of value in this concept. The challenge in the Methodist church is that there's a sort of democratic character to the religion. There isn't a strong hierarchy like there is in the Catholic church led by a singular leader. As such, they all get together and vote on things. I get the sense that since these rules are decided by committees it's a little different than many are accustomed to in a religion. People are well aware that the decisions like whether a church can perform same sex marriage are driven by who is in the meeting more than it is by some deep analysis of faith. It's the literal definition of church politics. What this had led to practically in the Methodist church is that you've now got whole churches which are skirting the rules and in some cases discussing breaking with those that disagree on this topic. On this topic, there is a group within the Methodist Church which is called the Reconciling Ministries Network (https://rmnetwork.org). Today churches label themselves as a reconciling church. If you want to worship in a church that is supportive of LGBTQ issues, you can to their website and find a local reconciling church.

I was born and raised Catholic, but have attended a Methodist church for years now, so I'm familiar with the Apostle's Creed. This is a wonderful idea in concept, but life gets messy. The country (world?) is in the midst of reexamining our views on homosexuality. In 20 years, there will probably be a new consensus on homosexuality. But, today people are coming to their conclusions are differents speeds. This is a very natural process. It feels messy in the midst of it, but it's really not that unusual. In the Methodist church there at doctrinal reasons rooted in the faith. In Scouting, it was just opinions about the Scout Law. But, the net effect is really very similar. Those people who are on the progressive side of the shift in views are impatient. The base much of their beliefs on theory and interpretation of concepts. Those people who are on the conservative side of the shift and frustrated and can rightly point to numerous texts to defend their beliefs. Your label of "permissive sexual ethics" is a great example of this. I don't really see anything permissive about our ethics in the change. What I see is a change in understanding about how one thinks of attraction and love. I also see it as a change in how we think of gender. It sounds like you look at the same and think it's a losen of our morals and ethics. 30, 40 years ago it was unlikely we'd have had this discussion. Perhaps in another 30, 40 years from now it will be unlikely again. But, today we're looking at this and all reflecting on it. Today, there is pressure to explain and defend specific views. So, it puts institutions in a bind. How does an institution deal with a transition like this? I for one believe that the sanctity of the institution is more important than the specific issue. Having been born into a faith that's about 2,000 years old I have a sense of longevity. The Catholic Church weathered many storms. It seems a shame to blow up the Methodist Church over this one. Rather than constructing plans to split the church, I'd think the Methodist scholars would be better served with finding some doctrine that allows them to agree to disagree on issues of social upheaval. Let's agree that our common bonds and strength as Methodists is more important than this one issue.

I would think it would be in the church's best interest to simply let the LGBTQ issues be a local or regional choice. It reminds me of the similar BSA issues. Because the BSA took a stand on the question at a national level, it became a topic to argue over . But, if the BSA had simply said that it is a topic which can be decided locally, it would have saved years of arguing. So, here you have a social issue that the world is grappling with. If the church put the responsibilty on the individual churches to handle it as they believe best, it would allow the church to remain whole.

Just seems to me that a part of the problem is that the DE role is ill defined. When they have to work 60 hours a week just to keep up, that's not good. Our council seems to want to treat the DE as a jack of all trades. Chasing money, membership, new units, supporting existing units, supporting the district committee, etc. I'd suggest the BSA figure out a job model that can be done in about 30-35 hours a week. Then, that gives the DE some breathing room to focus on new things that matter.