ParkMan

I'd second that. It's very common in my area for Scouters to grab a beer after a meeting. Many great scouting ideas have been launched over a pint.

I read what you posted here and all it looks like to me is that the lawyers were making it difficult for the opposing side. This case is stupid, but the ramifications of it are a big deal. I am glad the counsel for the BSA is aggressively representing their cause. While I'd love it if everyone could hold hands and get along, I recognize that in some circles - like law, when you're in the midst of the case you have to push boundaries at times. I saw nothing in what you posted that suggested unethical behavior. Simply a judge who thought they were not playing nicely with each other and is telling them to get along better. I am no lawyer, but this seems like a non-event. Most respectfully, I'd encourage us to consider if we should choose to follow the Scout Law here and give these professionals the courtesy to not second guess their professional ethics on this and to be helpful by not trying to stir up more trouble for the BSA here.

The lawyers for each side would not be doing their job and fulfilling their obligation if they did not aggressively represent their clients. It's silly to suggest that the lawyers should be following the Scout law inside the courtroom. It would be like saying race car driver needs to be a friendly, courteous driver in the midst of a race.

It is beyond any question that abuse is a horrendous, heinous, awful crime. From what I can tell, the most recent abuse listed here was in 1990. Is that correct?

If the problem is a lackluster Webelos program that is causing Scouts to loose interest in continuing, then perhaps you could have the troop do some signature events that let the Scouts know what is coming. Every year, our troop very visibly puts on some awesome events that are unlike what is typical for a Cub den. We invite Webelos & AOL scouts. Those scouts see the troop, what we do, and it looks pretty cool. As a result, we easily have 80%+ of the AOL scouts crossover. If anything, we get the "I'm soooo tired of Cub Scouts, I cannot wait to crossover."

I re-read the thread. Looking back over it, I get the impression that your premise is that we need to create structures to force the patrol method. I disagree. You want to have patrol method, then have patrol method. You don't need plans like this - you just need patrol with things that they need to get done. Young adults are eminently pragmatic people. They look around and process and say "why do I need to do that?" I think that creating complex structures that you hope Scouts will adopt will simply lead to frustration. As the expression goes "No plan survives contact with the enemy." What happens when Scouts ignore the elaborate structure? What happens when there's a school break and the sequence gets out of order? Why do you need this? Scouts know how to plan for a camping trip. What are you accomplishing by having checklists for all of this? We have zero checklists and it works fine.

Could you just simplify this as? Patrol meetings Go over items needed for PLC Prepare for events Conduct review of any just completed activity Prepare for monthly camping trip & other upcoming events Prepare for next inter-patrol competition Practice skills needed for upcoming events Work on advancement Set the agenda for next time Play a game All kinds of planning and structure for patrols is not really needed. Youth respond when that have to get stuff done. So, instead of creating some artificial process, just focus the patrols on doing what they need to. In other word, treat patrol & troop meetings as working meetings where stuff gets done. Put all this stuff we do in meetings in that context. Let form follow function.

Another idea would be to focus the Scouts first on what they need to accomplish. As an adult team, gently steer what needs to get done into patrol sized pieces. I'd focus less on than trying to figure out how to structure patrols or meetings to support patrols. Instead I'd think about the work the troop needs to get done and structure that work so that patrols can work on it. Then, focus everything you do to enable that. I suspect what you'll find is that the patrols will have more purpose. There will be a need to work together. That need to accomplish things as a group will drive camaraderie.

If I imagine that 60% flew in because it's a World Jamboree. I'm thinking that because 20% are staff and 20% are people within driving distance, that leaves 30,000 that flew in. If we can get 3,000 in/out of Charleston, that leaves 27,000 that need flights. It looks like Chartlotte, Columbus, and Pittsburgh are all about 4 hours away. I imagine you could find 27,000 seats between those three airports. If you can get 50 on a bus, that's also about 540 bus trips. If you could get two bus trips in per day, that could mean as few as 270 different buses the organizers need to find - but I'm thinking that's risky. I'm guessing around 400-500 buses would be needed. Could you find 400 buses that would make a trip to the Summit for an airport run? Is there nearby train service and could Amtrak run some special trains to those cities?

It's all very sad. I do understand the once they consolidated, they no longer needed to maintain that number of distinct camps. Just reminds me that we need to address the membership issue.

There are others. But, even if there was just one this sure seems like something the BSA/WOSM, airport mgmt, and TSA could have worked out. I do wonder what the best way to get 50,000 people to an airport after the event ends would be. That's what - 1,000 bus trips? If everyone flew out of Charleston which is 64 miles away, that means a round trip is probably 3 hours. So, you then rent 250 buses and run 4 shifts the next day?

Somewhere along the way I learned that it takes 10 good experiences to offset one bad experience. With that said, I am sure this was an amazing event that will long be remembered very positively. @Setonfan - I get your point. It sure does feel like we spend a lot of time hashing out the negative things that happen. I'm sure if it hadn't been the busing or food, something else would have gone wrong and we'd be analyzing that. I wasn't there, but from what I can piece together, it sure sounds like a great many things went well. Specifically, on the points listed so far, I don't give the BSA a pass on any of these: busing scouts out before the final show is inexcusable. What an awful, awful idea. lack of food. This is a basic task that should have easily been covered. I have to imagine there's a bigger story here. lack of keepsakes to purchase. I include this one here because this is a shortsighted planning. Bringing something tangible home is important for people. This is the third summit jamboree - you'd think they have this down by now. These all seem like key items that BSA professional staff should have had covered. I sure hope they are learning from these. I wonder if the BSA enlists the help of any professional event companies to organize this. There are companies out there that are great at large scale logistics and I'm sure could have guided the BSA to the right solutions - even if much of the labor was volunteer. For example, I think of a place like Disney World. Sure, the challenges are a little different - but even there, they have to manage the logistics to move thousands of people a day from the airport to the resort. They need to have enough food to feed many thousands a days. Merchandising, same thing. I'm not suggesting that Disney plan the next world Jamboree - but I've got to think planning a Jamboree is a great place for some outside assistance.

I understand the idea that or four more rows invokes the meme. But, really is it that big a deal? When I was a kid, my dad had two knots. A religious award knot and an Eagle knot. I always that was pretty cool as a Cub Scout. later I earned my AOL & religious award and was pretty proud as a Scout that I was a little more like my dad. So some person that's been volunteering for 20 years has a bunch of rows - so what? Why do we really care? By way of disclosure I have two rows of knots - so my comment about knots is not one that applies to me.

Welcome @Barkley421! I loved that you devised a system for choosing! That's awesome. Myself, I think that knots accomplish a few things: provide some quick visual clues about a Scouter's background. You can tell if someone has been a den leader, unit leader, commissioner, etc. serve as a conversation starter with Scouts. Scouts, particularly younger ones, ask - hey, what it that patch on your shirt? serve as a subtle example to Scouts. In a time in their lives when youth are often self conscious about appearance, knots provide an example of how adults display "accomplishment" Finally, and in some ways most important to me, knots provide us adults a way to have a little character and creativity in our uniforms. If you've been a Scouter for a while, you certainly put that uniform shirt on many times. Its a small way to have a little fun with it. So myself, I'm fine with 0 knots, 1 row, or 7 rows - whatever you want to do as a Scouter. As for order, I think you choose the approach that makes the most sense to you. If you like structure and order, a system like you've described is AWESOME! But, maybe it's more important to you to have that Tiger Cub Den Leader knot than to wear a Silver Buffalo. Me - I reserve that bottom row for youth earned knots and then the rest are arranged more or less by color.

I guess my thought process would be: - Would I like to take Wood Badge? - Would I like to take a version targeted around linked troops? - Would I like to take that course in a place like the Summit as opposed to my local camp? - Am I willing to spend $500? If I were in the market for a Wood Badge course and I was involved with a linked troop, I think I'd consider it. At this point in my Scouting career this isn't for me, but at a different time maybe. From an earlier post, sounds like they've got a wait list so it sounds like there's some interest.

@RichardB I see the value proposition of the BSA centered around youth fun & development. My son joined the BSA because it was fun, he got to expand his horizons with unique adventures, and as a young adult he developed and grew. That those activities are done within a safe framework is important - certainly. My son will be 17 next month. As a parent, I gradually give my son more and more responsibility with the realization that in a year or two he will be off to college and will essentially be living on his own. His 18th birthday will not be a magical event where suddenly he is capable of independence. We've been building his skills for years as parents - again, providing more and more opportunities for independence. As Scouts begin to reach 14, 15, and 16 years old, I think the programs of the BSA could certainly provide for a path to more youth independence. Independent patrol meetings and short activities are appropriate at all Boy Scout ages. Independent overnight activities are within the realm of the responsibility for a 16-18 year old. The airlines will let a youth fly across country on their own at 14, and he government will let a youth drive on their own at 16. But at these ages, the BSA will no longer permit unsupervised activities. I do think that this is contrary to the organization developing independence and self reliance in the Boy Scout years. Our society today has moved in the direction of expecting higher levels of supervision of youth activities - agreed. Your questions reflect that trend. I don't blame the BSA for following the trend as I understand why it is happening. Because of it's mission, I do think that the BSA has an opportunity to correctly model practices for youth independence. For example, I am sure that the BSA could develop best practices for how Scouts can hold a patrol meetings without adult supervision. I an sure that the BSA could do the same for unsupervised patrol hikes. I think that the organization could also figure out how Scouts could have a camping trip without adults. The role of the BSA here is to model the mechanisms to appropriately do these things.

This is precisely what I mean. The people you list are the ones out there ahead of our policies and laws. If they are successful, they will influence how our nation approaches this question. We need more of that. The BSA could be part of this process, but we don't have the leadership in the BSA today in either a volunteer or a professional role that have shown interest in engaging on this topic. BSA leadership today seems to be more focused on expanding access to and fixing the legal problems facing Scouting than on trying to redefine the boundaries of the program. That may or may not prove to be a bad decision - not sure yet. I guess it would be interesting to see what would happen if the BSA adopted a practice like the one in the Netherlands. I suspect accidents would start to occur and there would be problems. But, before we go to that, I'd think the insurance companies the provide BSA coverage would tell the BSA that they cannot do this. But, maybe I'm wrong.

Good for you - though you're not my point. As a Scouting program - we have an opportunity to learn from what the folks in the Netherlands are doing. What they do is very cool and a great idea for developing Scouts. But, as a nation, we're not in a place where we can suggest that troops can start dropping Scouts off on the side of the road and saying "good luck getting home. See you tomorrow morning." If you've got a troop where your families trust you to do this - fantastic. But, as a country we can't start doing this in the same way. I wish we could, but we can't. It's not fear, it's reality. Court cases and financial judgments simply reflect what our laws expect for adult behavior today. In 1950 you could do stuff like this. In 2019, you can't. It stinks - but it's just the country we live in.

I would tend to agree. I can't imagine our CO getting involved in a bullying case. However, I don't see why this is anything more than a unit leader & parent issue. Say a Scout is bullied by another Scout. The Scout and/or his/her parents let the SM know. The SM talks to all the youth involved and does some correcting. If the bullying persists, the SM tells the bullying Scout he/she is no longer welcome in the troop. If for whatever reason, the SM isn't handling the bullying correctly, the CC steps in and sorts it out. If this is anything more than an isolated event, the SM is talking with the parents of the two Scouts and letting them know what is going on. if the Troop isn't up to the job, the parents look at the situation and say "these leaders are clueless" and move on. I know that we have a tendency in today to want to escalate things quickly - but a Scoutmaster and CC are pretty seasoned Scouters. If they can't handle some cases of bullying then they probably shouldn't be in those roles.

Which in my mind is the challenge we face. Our society today does't believe in taking risk. If there is any risk associated with an activity that is beyond an "act of god" and the leaders did not take steps to avoid the risk, then the leader and BSA is liable. The BSA could perhaps have an impact on that, but only in so far as it has any influence on public opinion. It's not the BSA who is making these choices, but instead it's the framework of our legal system. You want to fix this, it's in the purview of our elected officials.

Of course we do. But that means having deep pockets to fight the inevitable legal battles the ensue. It saddens me to no end to write the above, but in our country today I have to imagine that this is what would be the result.

Yep - so the question is really one of how do we balance the risk here? You drop enough groups of 12 year olds off alone in the woods and something will happen. It might be 1 in 100,000, but it will eventually happen. Our society just isn't prepared for that. While I love the idea of this and really would like for the BSA to encourage something like this, I just don't see how it works in our risk-adverse country.

That's what we do as well. We make popcorn optional for those Scouts that want to sell it to help offset the price of big ticket trips. We fund normal troop activities through annual dues and trip fees. However, I've come to appreciate that when we don't sell popcorn we're also removing a source of funding for Council level efforts. While I wish there was another way for Councils to get money (without passing on fees to Scouts), I've accepted the current model for what it is. As a result, we do thy to hit the FOS goals from the council. The model here of course is Girl Scout cookies. $5 a box isn't too expensive and speaking from experience as a GSUSA parent, many people buy multiple boxes. The challenge of course is that cookies seem to be a unique product. No-one really needs 4 boxes of popcorn or jerky - but they are happy to buy 4 or more boxes of cookies. Without trying too hard, my daughters would often sell over 2,000 dollars of cookies in a couple of weekends. We might sell a couple hundred dollars of popcorn.

I think the key here is to develop a program that is rewarding to Scouts regardless of the level of involvement. From occasionally active Scouts to the super committed ones, they all need to find challenge and reward. I like to think about how to increase participation through challenge to and involvement of the Scouts - not structural things like patrols or meetings. For exmple - grouping Scouts into patrols and giving them a name isn't important. Patrols are a way for Scouts to share experiences together. It leads to friendships and camaraderie. It is also a way to increase the challenge to the Scouts. When patrols are really driving the activity in the troop, it makes participation more relevant for and important to the Scouts. Similarly, meetings are not important - it's what happens at meetings that is important. Are you planning for a trip? Then yes, the Scout ought to be there to work out details. How will they eat if they don't plan food or who will bring what gear? How will they have anything to do if they don't work out their trip plans? The troop meeting is the place to sort that ought. My daughter is a youth ballet dancer. As she has progressed she has increasingly challenging roles. When they have a show coming up, she needs to be at rehearsal. If she does not attend, how does she learn her part? How can the other dancers learn what she will do? So, she attends the rehearsals. If it's a quiet time of year with no show, then she can miss class if something else comes up. But all this is OK because she enjoys the reward of progressing as a dancer. I think you can look at Scouting the same way. You don't mandate participation- but you make the program rewarding at all levels and that will cause participation to increase because that participation will be important to the Scout.

You do remind me though. I was curious and did look up those BSA ties on the website. I don't see them there. Is that something presented to professionals and maybe some select volunteers? Or maybe because I was new there I mistook what the volunteers were wearing. It's a different Scouting world than I normally travel in and was curious.