ParkMan

I understand what this says - but not what it means. Why would scouts sign up and these be so prevalent if the Scouts didn't want to attend? I don't think that parents are forcing most Scouts to attend these. I don't put a lot of stock into what national encourages/discourages right now. No disrespect to them, but we're stuck in a lowest common denominator period. A focus on building good district level programs is not even on the BSA radar at this point. So, kinda like with the G2SS where we outlawed wheel barrows because somebody got hurt by one we make these kind of decisions about district programming too. They are the same ones that suggested Cub SCout camping should be limited to one night. Lowest Common Denominator I think that a reasonable district can do both training and hold a merit badge college. In most districts they are separate groups of people. My model would be something like: training team - focus on merit badge counsellor training advancement team - set examples and expectations about what a good merit badge program looks like activities team - put on a really good, high quality merit badge college. The purpose of this is to provide additional enrichment opportunities for Scouts beyond the unit program.

I think a breakdown like they have in UK makes a lot of sense. We talk so much on this forum about how Scouts get worn out by long, repetitive programs. WIthin our units we tend to differentiate - but I think that if the BSA were to recognize this it would be very good for the program. My proposal would even be pretty minor. Keep Cubs as a group. Keep Scouts BSA as a group. But focus on clarifying program and activities for the two age ranges in each. i.e.: Cubs Lions/Tigers/Wolves Bears/Webeblos Scouts Middle School High School Develop program and leader training for each so that programming is really differentiated.

Agreed. One big mistake that we make in "BSA" Scouting is that we don't differentiate well between the two very different age levels in Scouts BSA. Scouts 11-14 are often quite different than those 15-18. In my mind, I see four distinct age ranges: Lions/Tigers/Wolves Bears/Webelos Scouts BSA 11-14 Scouts BSA 15-18 So yes, while I agree with your point I'd suggest our approach needs to be tailored to each age range. I think you're saying much the same thing. One trap we need to avoid is that of changing our program to be more relevant. I think STEM Scouts was an example of that. In reality, I think we need to fine tune our current programs such that they align better with these age ranges today. For example - maybe a little less pioneering at the 11-14 & 15-18 age ranges and an increasing focus on things like the environment.

I respect the deep knowledge of the posters here. We've all been posting together on various topics for years. In many walks of life there is a tendency to look at something we don't think is going well and arrive at the conclusion that it a can't be done well. My sense is that's happening here. We all have stories of bad summer camp merit badge classes and badge merit badge college classes. These events are generally popular. Are some poorly run - without doubt. But not all. So wouldn't it be good for the Scouts to continue to have these popular events, but just make them better? Perhaps the BSA could put together a day long Merit Badge College director's conference. Teach people how to run a good event. Talk about how to teach materials, class size, program quality, deal with prerequisites. In my mind, this is where the BSA can add a LOT of value for us adult leaders.

To use the old phrase: "A game with a purpose" The purpose needs to be worthwhile The game needs to be relevant.

I think in our rush to critique merit badge colleges, we're missing out on a key point. These opportunities for Scouts are popular - that's why they exist. Having sessions like this provide opportunities for Scouts to learn things they might not, to advance when they might not. We hold an annual merit badge college. At the event, Scouts spend one day working on one single merit badge. Class size is 10-15 scouts per class. The class runs about 6 hours. In that time, the scouts complete the bulk of the requirements. If there are longer form requirements we assign them as prerequisites just like at summer camp. Would it be wonderful if every MB was earned by working directly with a counselor - perhaps. But, Scouts are only going to invest so much time in doing one-on-one sessions. Merit badge colleges provide an alternative path to experience more Scouting. Does every participant treat it as an additive activity - no. Some do use it to replace one-on-one merit badge sessions. But, a great many do see it as a way to earn an extra badge they might not normally. I would think it would be good for us to do two things here: leverage these as additional opportunities for Scouts. Take a merit badge you never have before. Complete that required merit badge you've been dreading. develop best practices for these sorts of events that make them as productive as possible. What is a good class size, how should they be structured, what about individual tasks in the context of that course. So, in short. Let's not throw out these popular sessions, but let's find a way to better integrate them so Scouts extract maximum value.

Generally speaking - yes. The BSA needs to be relevant to today's youth. I think the BSA has to be careful in who it targets it's program to. We need to make sure our relevance is to kids. If we target adult sensibilities, that may be good for Cub Scout initial recruitment, but over time we'll still lose Scouts. Make it fun and interesting to kids - and most especially kids in the program.

Would it perhaps be more accurate to describe the BSA as an adventure program? The best packs and troops I know spend a lot of time outdoors and do some mature things, but they are not really nature programs. I learned more about nature in one year of high school biology than 6 years of Scouting. Sure we spent a lot of time outdoors, where we were always doing things such as hiking, camping, and canoeing. Today troops do all those things, but they also go to a lot of other interesting places too. Another light analogy is the national park system. If you explored all of it, you'd see lots of nature. But you'd also see battlegrounds, forts, museums, historical figures, locations of national importance such as Lincoln's birthplace. So, maybe instead of saying we're a nature program - say that we're an adventure program.

Honestly - I would encourage you to shrug it off. Scouting is a wonderful activity full of very well meaning people. One of the great things as a volunteer is that we get to take on roles outside of our normal jobs. So, you have a CC that is in over his head - maybe even a jerk. Don't let that drive you out of being Cubmaster. You'll learn in Wood Badge about the stages of team development - forming, storming, norming, performing. You all are in the storming phase. It's natural for there to be conflict as you all sort out how to work together. The CC will learn what he can/cant' do. You'll learn how to deal with the limitations of the CC. It will all sort out. Keep at it - the reward is worth it. In the process, don't hesitate to assert your beliefs and preferences. As Cubmaster, you're expected to be a strong leader. Don't feel you have to shy away from that. I always like to keep in mind the big picture goal. Helps me to ignore the nonsense like this,.

Glad to hear it worked out OK. I would really everyone to look at this at face value. Explain the situation to families without blame, tell them you need to collect more money, and then move on. I think if we're positive with families, they generally will be positive too. The point of Scouting is to do Scouting. This other stuff about fees, structure, national decisions is all just window dressing. I would encourage us all to focus on the program and delivering that.

Very true and I'm happy to acknowledge that. I'm sure that right den leader can absolutely make a big den work. There were a number of problems with out big den. One was the chaos that this big den led to. Another is that due to the size, the den leader had more adults present. This made the meeting feel more and more like a class. But, the biggest issue I had with that den was that my son never felt he fit in. He's very good with kids in a smaller setting, but not in a large group. To compound things, our den was composed of several different elementary schools. So, there were already some natural friend groups my son didn't fit into. I mention this because I think one of the most important parts of the den (and patrol) concept is the friendships that develop. I think 6-8 is a great size to foster that - though am very happy to agree that the right leader can make a bigger group work for this too.

I'm really sorry to hear that @Liz. I'm sure you put your heart and soul into making that work. It's really disappointing news. I'd check out that other local pack that is accepting girls myself. Further, I'd hope to find some like minded parents and get a pack program going which is either a) co-ed at the den level, or b) has a minimum number of girls to make viable dens. 4 girls is too small for a pack in the way the BSA is setup. Bare minimum I'd want to see if 4 Scouts per den which would be 20-24 Scouts. I'd prefer to see 6-8 Scouts per den. I saw this with my son. He was in a den for two years of 12+ scouts. It was awful. Then he went to a den of 3. It kinda worked, but not that well. One kid would miss a meeting and it was then two. We eventually got to 4, and it was OK. 6 would have been a lot more fun.

Hi @5thGenTexan, Congrats on getting agreement with the other leaders on where you will and will not focus. That's a wonderful way to get the role right-sized to fit what one person can reasonably do and be successful at! Very nice job also in recruiting others to get involved in the Cubmaster efforts!

HI @5thGenTexan, If you really want to step down, then certainly do so. Having been through burnout a couple of times in my Scouting volunteer time and it's not a fun place to be. From what helped me, here's what I suggest from what you wrote: Go drink a beer (or other beverage of your choice) with some Scouting friends. I've always found that the fellowship of others it really important in Scouting. Take a step back and focus on only role. Of all the things you do in Scouting, what's the most fun and rewarding for you? Shift your focus to the long term. It's so easy in Scouting to get overwhelmed by the "today" - the success of the next event for example. But, I've been a lot happier when I focus on the longer term. Is my pack program getting stronger? Are we having fun on camping trips? Are we continuing to see good retention? These are just some examples. I would encourage you to continue with your plan for Wood Badge. There you will generally find enthusiastic, passionate Scouters. You clearly have a passion for Scouting. When I was a participant, I came back rejuvinated. It can be a wonderful way to help you deal with bufnout.

While I don't know the details here, my first reaction is that the council needs to shut this unit down. How was it that there were opportunities at a Scouting event for this leader to have alone time with a youth? This is exactly what YPT is supposed to prevent.

Very nice ideas. I could get behind those. Some specific comments: #1 - Yes, this whole business of executive board and executive committee feels cumbersome #2 - Agreed. It would make sense for the BSA to have seperate Board Chair & separate President. Let the National Chair be the board chair and the CSE the President. #3 - Yes - I'd like the Chief Scout to not be a career professional, but could deal with it if it were. I could see the Chief Scout being a member of the board who is responsible for the program committee and steering efforts. #4 - I could see 10-20 members on the national board. #5 - Agreed. It would take some thought on how such an election would occur. Today "we" elect council boards through the COR positions - but I don't think it works too well. There's an interesting section in the bylaws: Article III, Section 1, Clause 1 - The Executive Board shall, in accordance with the provisions of its Charter and these Bylaws, be the governing body of the Corporation, manage its affairs, elect its officers, and be the final reviewing authority with respect to all matters whatsoever which may arise at any level within the Scouting movement, which in its judgment should be reviewed. Article III, Section 8, Clause 3 - Except for the powers reserved to the Executive Board, the duty and authority to manage the affairs of the Corporation shall be vested in the Executive Committee. So basically, the Executive Committee can do most anything, but the Executive Board and overrule them. So I do think the Executive Committee is subservient to the Executive Board.

Just curious - what different structure would you propose for this national leadership structure ? How would that improve things?

I get the whole "it's just good he's active and participating. The uniform is just a method" concept. But, I really think Scouts miss out on an important concept about how to present themselves well. To me, that's a big part of what the uniform method is all about.

Maybe it's just me, but I spend much more money on things that I care way less about that I really don't mind the national fee and did eventually get over the $70 for that yearbook. Both national & council may make many decisions that I'd do differently - but at least they're trying.

That was pretty much my reaction was at first too. What??? $70 for a yearbook? I was in high school in the late 80's. Now I think I understand why my dad said: "What??? $30 for a yearbook?"

Oh. Ok. I misunderstood what you were trying to do here. Seemed like you were making a jab at the increase by showing only negative comments or those who disparaged anyone who wasn't negative. Glad I misinterpreted.

A part of me feels like I should be insulted here. I don't see why this list characterizes anyone who isn't appalled by the increase so negatively. I guess by your terms, I'm in the "The look down the nosers ...It's only $5 a month or two cups of coffee, suck it up not knowing the individual financial situation of others or volunteering to pay it for them." As a Cubmaster, Pack Committee Chair, and Troop Committee Chair, I'd literally spend an hour every time it was discussed whether it was too much of a hardship to raise our annual dues by $5. I'm remarkably aware that many families struggle to pay for lots of things. We'd tighten the belt at every turn in Scouting. I don't want to pay more for things than I have to, but I recognize that the BSA needs the money to pay for the insurance. I'm sure if they could reduce it they would. So, what am I to do? Ranting about it isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. All it really does it get everyone riled up about this. This whole thing often feels a lot like: Yesterday I paid $54 to fill up my gas tank. The yearbook my daughter just bought at her high school cost $70. I spent $7 on lunch at the drive through today. So, yeah - I find it hard to declare in increase of $2.25 a month the end of the world.

Hi @Eagledad, Thank you. This does explain much of what I see. What I see is a sort of tenure system where the district chairs come in and don't replace anyone. Instead they continue with the people from the same before. You're assessment is correct. As well meaning as many of our district leaders are, they are not director level people. I can see that we are doomed to the status quo because we don't have people with the knowledge or skills to lead the efforts that they are being asked to lead. I do think sometime we put district chairs in place with vision - but again, without the team there that can act on that vision, we are stuck where we are. Again - thank you very much, this is most helpful. If I could like your post 100 times, I would.

@Eagledad - can you talk about this a little more please? To give you some context. Our district is largely staffed with an "old guard" of volunteers who have weathered many district chairs. This has had the net effect of creating a pretty consistent district experience. The problem though is that our district program is "just good enough" but it's not great. We have some training courses, have a camporee, hold a merit badge event, do some membership work. Not to diminish our volunteer's efforts - but our expectations are just too low. We've had several district chairs come through who have tried to impact this, but get burned out by status quo. We've had some district chairs even quit part way through their term. If you said this to our district volunteers I'm sure they'd be offended as they all think they're working hard. But, when you look at camporees with small turnout, most units with 50-60% trained leaders, round tables with just a few participants, declining membership year or year, you can clearly see a pattern. I liken it to a struggling unit. They think that they are doing the right things but can sense there is a problem. What have you seen in your travels that make high functioning districts successful? Any advice on how to break the cycle of mediocrity? Mods: If you want to spin this off into another topic feel free.

I applaud your sense of ownership and commitment here, but I don't think you should pay the extra out of your own pocket. A troop is yours is a community. You camp together, your adventure together, succeed together, and fail together. In an instance like this, I believe you also go back to your families and be up front with them. Ask each Scout to contribute an additional $27 to cover the difference. Offer to find some scholarships for anyone who cannot pay the additional $27. Make it clear that what is important here is continuing in Scouting. Be very clear that you''ll very discretely have some funds available for those who cannot afford the extra $27. If you're concerned that many cannot afford it, say that and encourage those that can give a little more to write you an extra check which will go into a fund to help those that can't absorb the extra right now. I would call those 6 scouts too and encourage them to come back and let them know that you can help with the money. $27 is not an amount that we should lose Scouts over. Packs, Troops, Crews, Councils, and National need to pay their fees and so dues are needed. But, big picture Scouting is an organization that many people are involved with for much of their lives. It has a huge impact on these young adults and many come back to the program later in life with their own kids. It would be a shame to lose anyone over the emotional shock of a $27 raise in fees. I bet that many of your families will feel the same way if given the choice.