ParkMan

I certainly agree that the mindset is wrong at national and in the council staffs. It feels to me like they think of units and unit volunteers as entities to managed. Your YPT percentage isn't 100%, you're not advancing enough, you're not recruiting enough. I believe it would do the BSA well to adopt much more of a service mentality than a management mentality. Yet, on this specific YPT issue I can't get too worked up. I too have chased volunteers to get this done. It's a royal pain. The BSA could simplify this immensely by adopting a policy of: - YPT certification is good for 27 months - YPT must be current for the entire duration of your registration. Done - problem solved. Regardless - we volunteers complain way too much about YPT. My goodness, the BSA is on the verge of bankruptcy because prior leaders abused youth. We're complaining because we might have to take it once a year? That's 90 minutes a year to reinforce the YPT rules. That's not such a big imposition.

Even when we forgive, there are still consequences.

This is my take too. That he could have a impulse to swat a female he doesn't know on the bottom certainly suggests that he has some inappropriate views towards women. What gets lost here is the enormity of what he did. Cat calls, sexist remarks, swats on the rear end. Yes, the physical impact is minor - but what they mean is the big deal. That this man felt so empowered to assert himself on this woman is the big deal. Any offense of this magnitude needs some response beyond "it's okay because he said sorry."

Hi @hertfordnc I hear you! The BSA is a very weird organization. The arguments you're making and frustrations you're describing are the same as the a great many of us have too. What I've come to reluctantly understand is that the BSA unit/council/national relationship is pretty strained. This YPT business is a great example. National setup this YPT rule that YPT needs to be current in order to volunteer. Unit volunteers ignore this constantly. Council and district volunteers are put in the position of having to deal with that. So - what is a council volunteer to do? Ignore it too?

I understand the desire of councils to make sure that volunteers will be considered trained during the duration of their registration. Councils have just about zero leverage to get volunteers to take YPT at any time other than registration. My suggestion - make this a national rule, but also extend YPT certification to last for 27 months. Councils get what they want, volunteers get what they want. National needs to look for smart solutions to cases like this- not more arbitrary rules.

In ten years as a unit volunteer i cannot ever remember a formal opening beyond "let's welcome Bob - who is attending tonight for the first time."

I tend to agree. When I watched the video, it surely didn't look like an accident. It looked like he was thinking "hey, let's goof on this reporter." I agree - apologize in private. In pubic, I would much rather hear him own up to his actions and then accept the consequences that come from it. Make clear his contrition, but don't try to weasel his way out of it by minimizing it.

To be fair though. The LDS loss is not indicative of anything about the program. That we're up 1% in membership is 1000 times more important to the longevity of the BSA than a 10% drop due to their departure. I say this not to demean the LDS church - not at all. They made a strategic decision to part ways and that is their right. That we nationwide are seeing growth exclusive of that loss is very, very promising. Thanks for sharing the news @Cburkhardt!

I live in a bigger community with multiple packs & troops - but we face the same issue. What can a district or council realistically do to help a pack or troop with 5-10 kids? You can't make them recruit, you can't make them have a good program, you can't make them change their leaders. Sure - you can put commissioners on the case, you can setup trainings, etc. But - at some point - what do you really do? This is a real question that we face here in our district too.

I'm going to guess this is part of the problem. The pack at their CO doesn't cross Scouts over to them anymore. I suspect you're right @Jameson76.

This is what we do too. Empower smart people to make the right choice and then trust their judgement. The role of the committee is understand the needs of the program and then allocate resources (money, people, etc) to meet those needs. For money this is done by setting a budget or by approving funds for a special purpose. But, once those funds have been allocated, it's up to the responsible people to make the decisions on what to buy. It's not the job of the committee to make specific decisions like this.

Hi @KeystoneCubmaster, I'm a big believer that forcing a senior leader transition in a pack or troop is fraught with problems. It leads to hurt feelings and politics - never a good thing. I'm also a big believer that you have to look for the good in volunteers - even a COR. I'd try to handle this by developing an open working relationship between the key 3. Do you all meet regularly as a group? In that forum do you all speak honestly with each other? I'd use that forum to work out differences of approach. There, be brutally honest with each other. But, outside that forum - have each other's back. On the specific issues you mentioned: - stickler for rules - embrace this. Yeah, no one likes rules, but they become accustomed to them. - taking over at Pack meetings - in that key 3 meeting, I'd be honest with him. "Hey Joe - showing those presentations at Pack meetings is really boring. We shouldn't do that. Also - you jumping in undermines my leadership as Cubmaster. If you want the floor, let's arrange it ahead of time." - fighting with parents at the PWD - "Hey Joe - Tom is our PWD chair. It's his call on rules. It confuses things that you jump in on decisions. We really need to empower him to be in charge. You shouldn't engage with parents on that. Instead, please refer questions to Tom." As Cubmaster, I had some real difficult conversations with our COR. Because we were honest and direct with each other n private, yet supported each other in public - we left the roles great friends.

Hi @qwazse, Sorry - my post was confusing in hindsight. I am suggesting that the SM enlist adult volunteer support for uniforming - not necessarily that all the adults uniform. As Scoutmaster you want adult support for transformative decisions. Yes, we'd like to think the adult volunteers will support the Scoutmaster, but it's still important for the SM to get folks behind a big decision. Going to a leaders/committee meeting and having a frank conversation about supporting this decision is helpful. That helps ensure that word gets around. It also helps that leaders encourage their own kids to uniform as well. Since you brought it up, I'm in favor of adults feeling empowered to uniform. Scouts notice ASMs and see what they do. So, if the Scoutmaster is saying "uniforms are important", but the ASMs are out of uniform or poorly uniformed, that's noticed. On the other hand, if the adult treasurer, advancement coordinator, committee chair, etc. are uniformed that sets even more examples. If I were SM, I would ask the ASMs to uniform if possible. I would encourage the committee members to uniform if so inclined. We have many adults who show up to meetings in uniform (and most do not have beads). There are other subtle benefits. Adults seeing other adults in uniforming encourages volunteering. It helps committee members feel a closer connection to the troop. It makes it clear to visiting families who they can approach for questions In an era of needing more registered adult supervision, it helps everyone know who the registered adults are. It's not uncommon to have 10+ adults in uniform our typical troop meetings - more at a COH. BTW - yes, we get good participation from Scouts wearing uniforms. We've never needed to do a uniform inspection to encourage that. We rarely even have to say something to a scout.

I would encourage you to start with setting expectations about uniforming. When you become Scoutmaster, make it clear that you expect uniforms to be worn to meetings. This is a simple act that as Scoutmaster you can easily push for. When you become Scoutmaster, people will expect some amount of change to occur. New guy, new rules. So, take advantage of that. Of course, start it within the adult team. At a meeting, let the adults know that you want uniforms to be actively encouraged. Explain the reason in a way that is similar to what @qwazse did. You are doing this because taking pride in how they wear the uniform leads to Scouts taking pride in themselves as people. Don't put it in terms of benefit to the troop - that's irrelevant. Don't threaten with Scout Spirit rules and preventing people from ranking up. Once you explain it to the other adults, then go to the Scouts and their parents. Explain that this is new and that you'd ask the parents to support and encourage the Scout on this. After all this - then simply encourage. If a Scout shows up without the uniform, ask them in a pointed way. "Hey Bob, why arn't you wearing your uniform this week? ... You forgot? ... Please remember it next time."

Of course abuse is a serious crime. It's without question that the victims paid a terrible price. The BSA is at its heart a member funded youth development activity. Other than some endowments and camps, the BSA pretty much pays for its operations year to year. I contribute today so that my kids can benefit from Scouting. When this all came to light and the BSA had to pay, I would agree it was a tough, but important lesson for the BSA. But, continuing to damage the organization that is chartered to bring the Scouting program to my kids and then asking current members today to pay restitution to those harmed so many year ago seems like a valid question of public policy. Yes it makes "us" feel good that someone so horribly abused can blame a group. But how does it help kids today that I have to write a bigger and bigger check to pay for this. How does it help that there's a good chance the organization will go bankrupt in a year of two? How does it help that properties for kids of today and tomorrow will be unavailable? Seems to me that we have to stop thinking of the BSA as some sort of entity. It's much more like a service agency than it is a company. There are no stockholders here. We're not punishing some group who got rich because of those bad actions. We're dismantling an agency that is chartered by the government to provide a service. It seems to me that our country will be poorer for it too.

Where this gets tricky is in how you compare the criteria against other aspects of the program. For example - what's better: a troop with 20 nights of camping at the same local campsite, but all planned and executed by Scouts a troop with 20 nights of camping of varying types and at interesting locations, but where adults are doing some of the planing. Where I struggle with the idea of giving commissioner's the power to enforce change. What makes a commissioner's judgement any better than the unit leaders? A troop decides it wants to be a backpacking troop - the unit commissioner disagrees. Who wins? Again - I'm all for creating a clearer set of expectations for what a successful program looks like. I think this is a wonderful idea. Such expectations can then be used to hold roundtable discussions with unit leaders and can form the basis of more advanced training. i.e., what are effective ways to educate scouts on how to plan and execute camping trips. But, creating a system where we try to institute some sort of top down control of units seems problematic. I'm dubious on the idea for commissioners to have that authority. I sudder at the idea for professionals to have that authority.

I think something like this is good to incorporate into training. I would shy away from making yet another metric ranking system. The problem I see isn't a lack of documentation on quality. It's a lack of local, hands on people who can help in relaying the concepts and making them understood. It's the lack of enough effective commissioners who understand how to enable and support units. The solution to the problem isn't yet more docs - it's getting people into roles who can make local training and coaching happen. The step needed to make that happen is a more effective district development process. We need to address the core problem.

Gotta admit - I'm thoroughly not impressed by this change. Two of the weakest functions in districts today are membership teams and unit commissioners. It's utterly unclear what a district membership team really does. Unit Commissioners are really hard to recruit because it's not really clear what value they bring. So, this council is going to get rid of generally popular district roles (camping, activities, and training) and replace them with un-popular ones. Really? Who's going to want to do that? This seems like board/professional nonsense at it's finest. I do not believe that giving a unit commissioner power to impose their will over units is a good thing. The reason that many units struggle is lack of leadership. The unit leaders in place are not providing the leadership to build a strong program. I don't see how bringing in yet another "boss" is a good thing. You really just transplant the problem from the CC to the UC. How does that help? Instead, I would focus the council's energy on building strong districts. Instead of throwing in the towel, let's build real training and mentoring for district leaders. Focus on core responsibilities and skills. Teach districts how to run quality roundtables. Teach district offices how to recruit and build strong teams and programs.

One of the better pieces of advice I've received was - pick a role you like and do it well. Don't try to do three jobs - you'll just end up doing each poorly. Instead, focus on the one you like the best and make it really successful.

I've seen many of them and I agree that they are well done, impressive works of art. If the Civil War had ended and racism had ended then as well, I doubt we'd be discussing this. But, racism didn't stop at the end of the civil war and it was still going on strongly for at least another hundred years. As a result, these remembrances are intertwined with a very hateful, shameful period in our nation's history. Further, people are recognizing the deep hurt this prolonged period has caused. Out of respect to those our nation has caused so much hurt, there is a desire to remove such symbols. So, I am in no way surprised that any statue, park, or monument commemorating anything about slavery, the confederacy, or racism is now being looked up by disdain and disgust by an ever growing number of people. This is entirely a response to years and years of continued racism. There is no moral equivalence with what happens in Iran. By removing these works we are not attempting to hide history, but are simply saying that we no longer want to glorify that history.

Somewhere along the way in my life, this point hit me: Slavery and the many, many years of racism that followed it caused a great deal of hurt to a great many people in our country. It is a scar on the soul of our country. Enough people have said this kind of thing bothers them that In deference to the wishes of those who have suffered so much because of slavery and racism, I think that yes, we should not name councils in honor of Confederate generals. It really depends on who erected the monuments, parks, or buildings. If we think about it dispassionately, if your community was on the losing end of a war and your soldiers and leaders fought bravely on your behalf then remembering them is not out of line. However, as has already been mentioned today, a great many of the remembrances of the Civil War and the Confederacy were done in protest to and defiance of the civil rights movements. Those works are shameful and should be removed. This council got it's name in 1927 - so I've got no idea of the motivation for choosing the name.

Given how hurtful the memory of slavery is to so many in our country, I have no problem that this council has decided to choose a name that is not associated with the Confederacy. As I read the comments, I realized how little I knew of General Jackson. I did a quick scan of his bio on wikipedia. Looks like he was a West Point graduate who was born and lived in West Virginia. I'm going to infer that his role in the confederacy had more to do with a duty to his home state than to anything else. But, once he joined that army, he did his duty as a soldier and fought for that army. I have a hunch that were he living further north we'd be hearing about him as a well respected Union general.

That was my take too. Sounds like a name chosen by a committee. Bleh.

BTW - When reading this I'm reminded of Verizon's "Inspire Her Mind" commercial. I always thought that commercial had a much more positive message. Be careful not to discourage your daughter's natural inquisitiveness because of traditional gender stereotypes. I think this is much more the tone of the BSA messaging towards girls

If a child hasn't seen a family member in some time it is going to be very natural to be shy and reluctant. Encouraging a gesture like a simple hug to a distant family member helps reinforce that family bonds exist between family members who live at a distance. Decisions like this as full of pros and cons. A big part of parenting is to guide a child through these sorts of pros and cons. I don't mind a group like the GSUSA bring awareness to a parenting question so that we think about it. My only concern with this is that it perpetuates a false conclusion. It is simplistic to conclude that there is a causal relationship between hugs at 8 and repaying gifts with more significant affection later in life. This infers that girls are somehow fragile enough that they are not capable of understanding that difference. Instead, the GSUSA message ought to be one about raising girls who understand the value of themselves. Encouraging a girl to hug her grandmother and then talking about it later one is a way to underscore the difference between that and a person paying for a date later on. Teach your daughter to be strong and value herself.