ParkMan

We've been doing this for years to good success. Every year we ask the scouts to re-up with the troop. At this time we collect dues and new health forms (parts A&B). We ask parents to come along at that time and check over paperwork and forms. Forgot your health form - no problem, here's a blank one. Not everyone shows, but over the next few weeks things trickle in. Since we tie all this to continuing as a member in the troop, we'll get to 100%. Part C health forms are needed mostly for summer camp, so we don't require them at that time and do let them trickle in. But, since you have to have them to go to summer camp they seem to somehow all arrive by the time the Scouts leave the parking lot for Summer Camp. This seems to do the trick for us and really isn't too much work.

There's really two seperate issues here. First - does the BSA even need anything more than a assessment of "fit to participate" or not? Second - if the BSA requires health forms for participation - should troop adults review them? If the BSA is going to require health forms for participation, then unit leaders ought to review them before an event. It's not HIPAA case because the forms are provided voluntarilty and for the purpose of participation in that activity. Really, the whole thing with privacy of health forms has more to do with people seening that that you don't expect should - your employer, you neighbors, etc. But, having the ASM leading a trip knowing that you have a heart condition is appropriate because you provided the form for that purpose.

I hear you. I think our DE is great. Yet, as I've gotten to know him I've come to appreciate that for years the expectation has been on him to do all kinds of jobs that volunteers should do. The expectation to do that has been there because it's pretty well unclear who does what at the district or council level anymore. Further, like in many troops and packs, a small number of people end up doing it all. It's no different in the district or council. I think this is part of the failing of the BSA model. National & the Council leadership should be working to strengthen the district volunteer teams and skills - not telling their DEs to fill in the gaps that volunteers are not doing or gaps that professionals think should be getting done.

This simply sounds like a stupid decision by a very short sighted local professional. To me one of the biggest failings of the BSA in the last 40 years is the withering of the district and council volunteer teams. We expect too much from professionals today. A decision about Scouts in the paper ought to be made by a pretty senior volunteer. Perhaps your ASM who works in marketing. Isn't that the whole volunteer led, prfessionally guided idea?

Sometimes when I read these topics I feel utterly demoralized about Scouting. The program has changed, patrol method is dead, etc. I'll be the first to grant that the BSA has made a slew of more restrictive YPT changes. Yes - they protect the Scouts, volunteers, and even the BSA from injury and lawsuits: End of youth activities without adult supervision More and more restrictions on what activities units can do. (i.e. pionering structure rules) I'll grant that the BSA has made changes to membership and the OA to adapt to changes in cultural norms. Gender identiciation of members End of Native American ceremonies in the OA Increasing guidance in support of politically correct speech Further, I'll grant that the BSA had taken steps to broaden the program and make it more attractive to more youth Addition of girls Addition of Lions Addition of STEM activities Various requirements changes Yes - I fully acknowledge that the combined effect of all of this makes it more difficult to run a program like many of us experienced as a youth. However, I don't think any of these set out to reduce the BSA program we knew from our childhood. They are simply individual decisions made by national BSA leaders. They certainly force us to be more creative in our programming. But, it's far from impossible. I'd dare say it's not even that difficult to run a traditional program. Today, our pack, troop for boys, troop for girls, and crew all run very traditional BSA style programs and have no issues doing so. We do this because we have a clear vision of what we're trying to be. We don't absorb the latest BSA marketing release and say - "scrap our outdoor program and lets do STEM." We know our program and leverage each of these new BSA ideas and try to figure out how best to work with them. Would Scouting be better off if someone in National was making this clearer? Without doubt. I also tihnk it's important for us as volunteers to continue to put pressure on national to be smarter in some of these changes. But, we are far from a case where National rules are preventing us from doing what we do. If I look around our district, I see our other strong units doing the same thing. So, I'm not saying any of these observations are wrong. But, I just think that we as exerpienced volunteers need to put them in context.

As a district volunteer, I'd be floored if the council key three had an inkling of how Camporee planners were scoring events. The council key three should have significantly bigger fish to fry. In fact, I doubt our district key three know how Camporee events are scored. My recommendation is to ask some of the planners how they decided on the format. Explore it with them. Then, I'd recruit a couple of experienced troop adults to join the Camporee committee.

What an awful disgrace from the adult organizers here. I would have some blunt feedback for the District Chair after this. The people organizing this Camporee need some better guidance going forward. One thing that particularly saddens me is that this kind of behavior always backfires. There are lots of Scouters out there who are apprehensive about the impact of girls entering the program. We've seen several instances of that in just this topic alone. It only serves to further feed that apprehension when nonsense like this occurs. Volunteers have to approach troops for girls and troops for boys on a level playing field. No special exceptions either way. It's better for the girls that way, it's better for the boys that way.

But that's not why the Scouts were chanting that. There's millions of facts that they could have chosen to chant. But they chose that one for a reason. Further, it's a divisive thing to do. In essence it's pitting the boys against the girls. As we are all Scouts, there's no real reason to do this.

I suspect it will happen during the term on the next CSE. He had to make promises that there would not be co-ed Scouting. So, I doubt we'll see him go back on those promises.

In the BSA Guide to Awards and Insignia: In short - technically the BSA rules prohibit modifications to uniform items - like the hat. So, technically no - you cannot cut a hole in it for a ponytail. Now, in practice - I see uniform modifications from time to time. You might get the odd look from time to time, but most Scouters wouldn't say a thing. Some would even say - "great idea".

Just wanted to second this recommendation. Our pack has a small assortment of gear focused at pack cooking. Two Camp Chef stoves, a large gas powered griddle, several restuarant size pots, large cutting boards, large coolers, drink containers, a pretty good assortment of tools, etc. We've partitioned this into a small number of the plastic containers to make access easy - knives in one, utensils in another, etc. We purchased it over a few year period. We regualrly cook for 100 or so and it works really well. The pack buys all the food and organizes the meals. Because the equipment is consistent, it also makes it easier for people to help out because they know what we have. Pancakes - sure, because we have the big griddle. Chili, spaghetti, soup - no problem with the large pots. We did also tailor some of the gear such that our Webelos den could take a subset of it for a Webelos camping trip.

I think there are lots of models out there. For someone who's program is very Scout and patrol driven, I can see why this would be hard to believe. Yet, I think there are lots of high functioning programs where adults serve as "Coach" every one and again. I think of it as inflecting some adult guidance from time to time to broaden the Scout's horizons. I see that in our troop. Scouts in our troop know a big, high adventure summer trip is an option. They know that because the Scoutmaster shares his enthusiasm for big trips. "Boys, I think it would be fun to plan a week long trip this summer." That adds some inspiration to the program and gets the Scouts thinking. Then, as the year progresses, the Scouts start coming up with ideas. A trip to a national park, a trip to the beach, a trip to the mountains, etc... But, if the Scoutmaster hadn't planted the seed, then it might have taken 3-4 years for the Scouts to think grand enough to get there. So, a new troop for girls gets going and some adults say "hey, camporee is coming up. They'll have competitions there. Goodness, it would be pretty awesome to try to win those competitions." In a strictly patrol method based program, the Scoutmaster probably shouldn't have said anything. But, because these new Scouts focused on a goal, worked as a team, and accomplished something they had a victory. They can now build off that. Do we want Scoutmasters to do that every month? No, I'd think not. But, in strategic places - like a first camporee - that doesn't seem so bad. In fact, I'd argue that we want Scoutmasters to do just that. Inspire Scouts at points where challenge and success can lead to growth and an increase in confidence.

I think we're all reading too much into this. I cannot really draw any significant conclusions here until I know what the competitions were. For all I know, this competition had more to do with preparation and effort than it did Scout skills. If this had more to do with effort, preparation, and energy I'd probably be surprised if some troops for girls didn't do well. They are probably running very high on enthusiasm right now. I say this fully acknowledging that there are certainly adults who are very motivated to make sure the new troops for girls are ultimately successful. I don't doubt this means some adults are rooting for them to be successful. I'm rooting for our new troop for girls to do fantastic. That doesn't mean I'm rooting less for troops for boys. I'm capable of doing both.

I have to wonder though. As adults we tend to worry about things like political discussions. But, perhaps it's good for Scouts to share their political views with one another and learn that within a group of friends one some can wear Hope t-shirts and some MAGA hats. Isn't learning to work together as a patrol despite whatever their political views are an aspect of the patrol method?

I thought @qwazse said it very well. I think you have to seperate instances where a Scout's actions have the effect of portraying Scouting in a political role from instances where the Scout is merely reflecting his personl beliefs at a Scouting function. I thought Qwazse's earlier point was spot on - the when Scouts are merely portraying their personal beliefs, the Scoutmaster needs to react when those personal beliefs begin causing issues within the Troop. In my part of the country, I see a different effect when people wear a MAGA hat. Here, in my area, there is a segment of the population that has become so vitriolic towards the current President that they openly show scorn for anyone who would identify themself a supporter. As a result, we have people (including a few Scouters I know) who see it somewhat as a badge of courage to show support for the President by wearing things like a MAGA hat or having a MAGA bumper sticker. I think it's kinda like the earlier example of the Scouts who were trying to tweak the liberal Scoutmaster. I'd concur - this is where the Scoutmaster has to watch things and react accordingly.

Same here. A CC of a local troop asked the DC to stop sending a certain UC to their unit.

I went back and re-read the OP. Was struck that now the 10 year old daughter who was interested in attending with the mother could today join a Pack and be a Scout herself in a year or so.

I fully expect that we'll find cases like yours where the information was beneficial and I'm sure even life saving. It's pretty much an indefensible argument to make that we should take the precaution to collect a healt from. But, there are lots of places I visit with some freqency where something could happen and a health information form would be useful - church, work, my children's school just to name a few. Yet, none of those ask me for a health form. In an era where we have limited adult volunteers and we're working hard to get parents engaged I just wonder if it's worth the effort for unit leaders to deal with this administration for adults - particularly non-registered adults. I suppose if it saves one life the answer if yes, it's worth it. But, I do wonder.

Hi @PackALder, I agree with Thunderbird - the crossed over Scouts can participate, but participation is the call of the pack leadership. You could decide yes, you could decide no. Either answer is fine. I would add though that I would discourage you from spending a lot of effort to invite the newly crossed over Scouts to come back to pack events. Those Scouts have crossed over and it's good for them to focus on getting settled into the troop. We had a year where the pack had a few events that conflicted with events specifically for the New Scouts. Because Scouts were getting invities to attend the pack activities, many skipped the new troop activities in favor of going back to events where they had lot of friends and were the older folks. In the end it was fine, but it slowed several Scouts as there were getting going.

The more I read this topic, the more I'm coming to the same conclusion. I understand why we want to know if a Scout has asthma. For youth we really should know a lot more because of the simple fact that as leaders we are responsible for them while they are away from their family. We, as leaders, probably have limited knowledge about some very important health issues. if we relied on everyone to voluntarily share them, we'd get a wide vareity of information and may truely not be prepared to adequately supervise them. But, in the case of adults, there is realtively little we need to know outside of significant backcountry excursions. The Philmont health staff ought to know if you have a cardiac condition. For a typical adult on a pack or troop camping trip a health form is probably excessive. Once you get to the level of registered adults at summer camp, it begins to make more sense - but even there it's probably unneccesary as well.

Hi @EastCst, Here's what I've found works for me. The person who makes the decision is the person most responsible for the decision. i.e., if it's a membership question - it's the membership chair. if it's a pack meeting question, it's the Cubmaster. I found people really appreciated it when you empowered them to make decisions that were relevant to what they do. When a minor decision came upin a committee meeting and there wasn't a clear person who was organizationally appropriate to decide, I'd generally throw if out for quick input: "hey folks, anyone have a recommendation on whether we want blue streamers or yellow streamers?". But, as Committee Chair, I was prepared to decide in the absence of a clear choice. Outside of meetings, I tended to be pretty quick to decide things. Having the leaders or committee discuss every little thing just bogs down the pack. Don't hesitate to be a decision maker. When there were important decisions I'd ask the committee for input. Hi all, the Cubmaster would like us to replace the Pinewood Derby track - what do you all think? I learned the importance years ago of pack legacy. Leaders are generally pretty proud of their pack or troop. So, you've got to give some deferance to that. What I'd so is look at decisions to do something new and ask "Is there a clear benefit to changing this?" If so, then change it. if not, then go with the old way. One trick I learned when trying to change behavior like this at a Committee meeting is to simply be up front about it. Tell everyone at the start of the meeting that you're making an increased effort to keep to the agenda and to do that you've reserved time at the end for new topics. Then, as they come up simply tell folks - thanks, got it noted for the new topics section of the meeting.

Thanks @RichardB. I regreft that I didn't know about this. This looks like exactly what I was hoping would exist. I very much appreciate you highlighting this.

I'd agree. The BSA really should ask a team of volunteers in their health and safety team to put togther a list of best practices for handling health & safety forms. It doesn't have to be onerous, but some basic guidance really should exist. I may be placing too fine a point on it, but most people who handle health forms are not "the BSA" in the form of national or council profressionals or volunteers. Most people who handle health forms are unit volunteers. Most of use have about 0 experience in how to handle them beyond common sense. Providing us as volunteers some guidance on how to store health forms is a good idea. For example, once I thought about scanning them to make it easier for the Scoutmaster and then realized that once that happened, they would be impossible to track. So I discarded that as a bad idea. But, I'm sure others have come to a different conclusion.

That's what I'm thinking. Create a ceremony that doesn't include the NA references. You could even take a script from one of the existing ceremonies and rework it so that it's done in a way that doesn't make the NA references.

I understand the directive to no longer have Native American references. Given how ridiculous the new script is, I'd be inclined to write my own. I'd follow the sprit of the rule, but not the letter. Has anyone with an OA ceremony team here tried writing their own script that does not use Native American references?