ParkMan

We've had a role like this in our adult team at the troop level. In our version, the role is not just about being a welcoming committee when a visitor stops by. In fact, one of the things our NMC did was to talk with the Scouts about being a welcoming committee when visitors do attend. For example - we see that parents of newly joined Scouts often have lots of questions. Yes, we have a new parent packet. Yes, we have a new parent orientation. But, there are also lots of stream of consciousness questions. i.e., the Scout comes home from the Troop meeting, mentions summer camp, and the parent says - how do I pay for that. So, the parent stops by the troop meeting and asks when payment is due. I suppose we could have a Scout field all those kind of questions - but we don't. So, we have a person who is known to that new parent as a "go-to" for questions like that. Similarly, when we have scouts cross over - there's a certain amount of logistics that occur: the crossover ceremony, when new scouts should start, welcome message to Scouts & families, new parent orientation, etc. Someone needs to organize all of that. We could have the scouts do it - but we've chosen to have adults take care of that stuff. Like with anything in Scouting, it's all a question of how much effort you want to put into something. We could let much of this happen naturally or we could be more planned about it. We're a 75+ scout troop, so it benefits us to be more prepared in how we work with new families. We had a role like this well before there was the NMC position. So, creating the role wasn't a big deal to us. One of our leaders just said - "hey, I get a new title."

A little sarcasm here I see... I've seen enough new Scouts join packs & troops to know that getting them engaged is a good thing. I've seen enough new parents with questions to know that having a defined person to answer them is a useful idea. I've been around adult recruiting long enough to know that engaging with parents is the first step in getting them to volunteer. Yes - you could do all of these things with a position called Committee Member and the New Member Coordinator title isn't necessary at all. I know it's sport to poke fun at national. But so what if they decided to try something different in an attempt to encourage activities that benefit membership?

This is the rub - right? Look at topic after topic on this forum about how Scouting would be better if only we ran it like we used to. Look at how many people think that the BSA will be destroyed if they take just one more step away from our current values. That's one of the two great struggles in our movement. progressive change in the program vs. traditional values

Think of them as a specialist - we have them all over in my professional world. The district person would be the wizard at getting new families integrated into pack or troop life. They would know the tricks and tips. They would then have a network where they co-ordinate with the unit level NMC for the purpose of making their unit counterparts even more successful. I'd expect them to be a member of the district membership team. So, while others on the team are focused on recruiting, AOL to Scout transition, etc. This person would be the one focused on making the NMC successful. The council version is working among the district NMC so that they in turn know the best practices for being a district NMC. Do we need a new title for this - no, our course not. I'm sure that someone at national has this as a pet project and so is trying some different things to make the program successful. Again - my company does stuff like this to get desired results from a certain segment of the staff. I imagine there's a Harvard Business Review article somewhere that suggests this is a good thing.

The NMC position for units is trying to address thr issues of retention and adult involvement. By having someone focus of new families, it is likly those families will stay engaged. A similar district or council position would probably be more about coordinating, encouraging, and training their unit counterparts. I.e. let's increase the success of the program by having a volunteer who focuses on the success of the program at a local level.

In my backyard this transition has been happening for at least 10 years now. Our biggest packs and troops are those who'd quietly moved past the political questions of the last 5 years. They are welcoming to all, now are finding space for girls, and don't worry too much about the religious component. They have great outdoor programs entirely in the spirit of patrol and scout led programs. They have no problems getting scouts to join. Where we are shrinking is in the small units who just don't try anymore. They all have less than 20 scouts, leaders are overwhelmed and burned out. Say what you will - but membership in these small units is crucial. The national BSA making the choices that creates an environment for them to grow helps. Local councils having support and encouragement for these units to grow is important.

Ouch! Sounds like your district volunteer leadership team is essentially non-existent. It sounds like your DE has assumed much of the operational work of volunteers as a result. That's not good. That's not the correct model at all - but sounds like you're stuck until a volunteer function is re-established.

I'm really sorry to hear about that. Guess I'd ask the question - why did you listen to that DE? As this was IOLS, the couse director reports to the district training chair who reports to the district program chair who reports to the district chair who reports to the council president. Nowhere in that org structure is the DE. In turn, you've got 3 people who can sort out this nonsense action by the DE.

There's been an ask from our district FoS team that we all donate something so that we can say that 100% of our district committee has contributed. But, they've never set an amount and suggest that $5 would be fine.

I fully acknowledge I'm getting pretty far off the original topic. But, since the comment is out there in response to mine, permit me to add my perspective here. I know this is a common perception out there. Perhaps this is different council to council. I should probably have defined "big decisions" a bit more. If I look at programming, I find that almost all decisions are made by senior volunteers. These are your event chairs, council VPs, district program chairs, etc. Most of these positions have a professional advisor who do impose some rules on money and facilities. But, beyond that, most of the big decisions in events come from those senior program volunteers. The really big decisions come from the council's executive board. This is a group of volunteers who really lead the council. They set budget, control policy, hire and fire the Scout Executive, etc. Sure the Scout Executive provides a lot of guidance here and has tremendous influence. But, ultimately the executive board makes the decisions. There's a bunch of operational stuff in the middle. What goes on the website, when are payments due, etc. They seem like big decisions - and maybe they are. But, I find they are really just more of the day to day stuff that has to get done. In many of those instances the professionals due tend to dictate terms. For example, the professionals are going to have to handle all the money and are held accountable for tracking money. So, they get to set some rules about how money is turned in and handled. There are lots of places where the two groups overlap. Membership is a great example. DEs are expected to drive membership - so too are volunteers. A professional's job rating is often measured by their results on membership. So, it's not uncommon to see a greater sense of urgency from a professional than a volunteer. This in turn results in professionals working in parallel to volunteers, which in turn leads unit volunteers that think that the DEs are in charge of membership. But, in actuality, they are not. Finally - many volunteers think that professionals are in charge. That in turn creates a self fulfilling prophecy. I see countless volunteers in positions of authority who are fully empowered to make decisions who think that they need to call their DE to get approval. But, they really don't. Thanks for indulging my comment here. We should probably get back to discussing the fee increase

DEs effectively serve as the glue that keeps Scouting moving at a local level. They help units solve problems, they encourage membership growth, they help the district volunteers to grow and expand local program support for units. They serve as task do-er at the local level for whatever tasks the larger council needs done - fundraising, new unit development, whatever. We "need" these positions because we need districts/councils to exist to provide program support to units. We "need" these positions because we need to keep trying to grow Scouting. We "need" these positions to help prevent small to mid sized units from shrinking. Unfortunately - today much of the DEs time is spent on FOS presentations. Most councils need those FOS presentations to keep the lights on. So, DEs get tasked with making those happen. Would it be preferable for the money needed by the council to magically appear? Sure - but it doesn't. So, DE'sp get pushed to make it happen. Big units don't "need" DEs in an immediate sense. They can typically solve most of their own internal issues. But, they need the district & council to continue to exist so that they provide programming (campree for example). Today "DEs" are the glue that keeps small units solvent and prevents the local district from shrinking. The big decisions in the council as made by the council executive board. This is a group composed of volunteers. They establish council goals and policies. The council's senior paid professionals then interpret those decisions and usually task them to the local DEs. The DEs in turn provide feedback to the senior paid professionals. But, make no mistake - volunteers and senior paid staff largely make the big decisions in a council.

Why? They get a paycheck -so what? Why does that mean they need to get grief for this? Scout Executive's do have a channel into national - so maybe. But a local District Executive is an initial professional job in the BSA. DEs are employed by local councils who are separate from the national organization as well. They are not talking with anyone at BSA national about fees. No one at national is going to get a report from a DE who says "a parent in Troop 123" is angry about the new fee model. I talk quite a bit with our local DE. I have a good sense of what he knows, what he doesn't know, and what little influence he has on anything even at the Council level.

Sept. 2009 - feeling very much like the new kid on the block all of a sudden. I may have missed the good ol days - but I will say that I think the discussions here have really helped me grow as a Scouter. My depth of thinking on many of the issues we discuss has really grown as a result. @JoeBob - FWIW - we may not have always agreed on the topics of the day - but I'm glad we had the discussions.

I've also heard it will be a very significant increase - not just 10 or 15 dollars more.

As with any language - there's always room for it to be used in a way that you'd not want. I see that the exact language is: The BSA legally has a pretty weird structure. Philmont is held in a trust. Councils are separate legal entities. Units are not legally connected to the BSA except through an agreement to leverage the program of the BSA in their activities. I'm prepared to give the BSA some latitude here. Yet, I would agree. There could certainly be better language and a clear statement that the information will only be used for the purposes of evaluating your status as a volunteer in Scouting.

While I get your point, I don't quite agree. The BSA is going to learn to improve their process. Other organizations have a more explicit background check authorization. So, the BSA lawyers decided that they needed one too. So, what's the big deal if we all have to collect a new form at recharter?

Seems reasonable to me. Yeah - it's a pain to deal with paperwork, but a form to make it explicit that the BSA is doing a background check seems OK to me.

Our council recently had someone organize a merit badge activity for a small number of Scouts. I'm sure that if you were to organize it and staff it, they'd be happy to get the word out. Who knows, maybe you could find a few kindred souls and have a leather working merit badge session with multiple instructors. I'm a huge proponent of quality over tradition. If it makes sense to have 12, then don't get pushed into 20. What are they going to do - fire you?

I think six to eight would be a good number.

Just as a point of note. Your council's scout executive and district executive have just about 0 influence on the national fees. The council is completely separate from the national organization. Ouir council's exec and board is just as frustrated as we all are with this. The national organization is under severe stress right now. Lawsuits out the ears, rising insurance rates. and bankruptcy around the corner. This isn't a time when the national organization is just being lazy. I'm not here to cut them any slack - but I do get it. I think we all just have to wait this one out. My advice - just be honest with parents. I'd tell me families exactly that and let them know we'll pass on the info when we all find it out. We all have moments in life where stuff happens - whether at work, at home, whatever. If we're honest with families and don't make it sound like National is just being careless here - I do think families will understand.

And I have to imagine that the spectre of bankruptcy isn't helping either.

There's a difference between intent and effort. As a leader, you can promote proper uniforming with very little to no effort. With almost no effort, a Scoutmaster can share a positive word or an encouraging remark. I believe that we should have the intent of proper uniforming. In fact, it takes effort to detract from uniforming. Should a Scouter really actively criticize the uniform, should they promote wrong patch placement, should they tell a Scout jeans are ok? Scouters like @The Latin Scot may find the energy to put in the effort more actively promote uniforming, but the rest of us certainly should not detract from it. Mistakes are one thing - but making an overt choice to ignore uniforming guidelines because "it's too hard" or because you think you know better actively detracts from the program. Youth are very astute and recognize when adults are exercising their own judgement to break a rule they don't like. I know we think we're teaching them a high lesson - but we're really not. My challenge to Scouters would be to let the program be the program. If a Scouter's bandwidth is limited, then at least don't detract from those methods you don't put energy into. There's 1000 ways for a Scouter to show their personality without detracting from the uniform. I fully respect that others have differing opinions on many of the eight methods - uniforming, advancement, patrols, .... But, as Scouters we should avoid the crutch of criticizing the method because it's easier or because you don't like some aspect of that method.

The reason this topic gets debated and never resolved is because it's not a discussion about uniforms. The issue at hand is how adults approach Scouting. Many Scouters look at the program, embrace it's structure, and then utilize it to it's fullest. Others look at the program and say "I agree with about 85% of this" and then focus on the aspects they agree with the most. Others of us treat Scouting as a fun activity with kids, are just happy Scouts are there, and don't rock the boat. I could go on... Clearly there's some fear and trepidation here. The root concern is that if you push uniforming, Scout's won't like it and will leave. So, we develop little tricks to let people know it's OK to downplay uniforming. Fun patches, jeans instead of pants, don't wear the knots. Others outright criticize it - it's ugly or it's poorly made. But, again the real trick here is to do the opposite - embrace the uniform and use it as a vehicle for other life lessons - pride in Scouting, pride in your troop, pride in your friends, a way to develop self confidence. But those lessons require a different conversation - and we're not all up for that. So, for many - they find it easier, more fun, more convenient to simply downplay the uniform and move on.

@MrjeffI respect that you don't want to engage in a discussion on this and that you don't see yourself changing your mind. Permit me to choose some quotes from your comment: I fully understand your perspective here. In fact, the longer I volunteer, the more often than I make the same argument. However, I'm commenting as I think this sets up a false choice. Programming is the most important thing we do as Scouters. Scouting has to be fun - without doubt. But, I also think Scouting is about role modeling. Scouting calls is "adult association". How we as adults conduct ourselves is important. Choice comments that we make from time to time are important. If Scouts see us show up in well presented uniform, that says something. If in the midst of a 90 minute troop meeting you make a comment to a Scout to tuck in his shirt - that is noticed. Whether in large part or in small part, Scout leaders serve as role models. I'm not suggesting for a minute that a leader needs to be endlessly talking about uniforms. But, when those moments present themselves - well placed uniform comments help provide life lessons. Again - It's not that uniforming is more important than fun. It's that there will be many opportunities between the fun to help Scouts internalize why uniforming is important. When one ignores the impact of those lessons they become missed opportunities. I get your point here. I'd suggest that our Scouting community is confused about what standards we should set. Scouters, just like Scouts & parents, are confused by the dichotomy of Scouting as a "game" and as a "game with a purpose". Are we here simply to have fun or are we here to have fun and help these kids to grow in the process? If subscribe to the latter and believe that uniforming provides a golden opportunity to help Scouts learn some important life lessons. On "uniform police" - again, as I stated above, we need to raise standards in a way that provides some dignity. Being that Scouter who runs around telling others how their uniform is wrong isn't the answer. But, when placed into a position of authority, we should be setting the example and encouraging others constructively. A unit leader or seasoned leader that discourages proper uniforming is doing those newer adult leaders a disservice. Those newer adults leaders look to us for the example.

I'm reminded about a conversation I had yesterday with my mother (a retired elementary school teacher). We were talking about how the words we write convey a lot about who we are. I was thanking my mother for instilling that realization in me as a young person. I see the same thing with the uniform. As was eloquently said above - a well worn uniform says a lot about who you are as a person and your own personal standards. Teaching Scouts to represent themselves well is a critical life skill - one that will pay off over and over again later in life. Also, I find that others will recognize it when you carry yourself well. It's not a stretch to say that carrying yourself well can lead to improved self confidence - a crucial life skill. But, I find that along with presenting themself well, a Scout needs to learn some class. This is where uniforming plays a second role. How a Scout (or Scouter) encourages others to uniform well is a mark of who they are as well. You want to teach Scouts to encourage others - but not come off as a know it all. Since, we adults set the tone, it's important for us to correct uniform mistakes with some dignity. A personal motto I follow is encourage, but don't criticize. If a Scouter in your unit is wearing jeans, privately encourage him/her to get some BSA pants. If he doesn't get the message periodically encourage him/her about it. But, avoid coming out and saying "you shouldn't wear jeans with your uniform." Similarly, put encouragements in the context of youth. If you've got a Scouter who is wearing 3 JTE patches, in a quiet moment encourage him/her to pick one and explain how the troop is really trying to encourage the Scouts to wear the current JTE patch and you need their help in focusing scouts on the current patch. But, if you absolutely need to be direct - and sometimes you do - do it discretely and one-on-one. As the saying goes - praise in public, criticize in private.