ParkMan

I hear ya. I do doubt though that the CSE ever looks at the program decisions. For example, I'm pretty sure he was nowhere near the Eagle Palm decision. I think there is indeed a great role for someone with more program vision to have a stronger role. I suspect that many of our program decisions are made by high level volunteers or staff folks in Irving. I expect there is some sort of Boy Scout program committee somewhere that makes much of this stuff up. Would a Chief Program Officer with a clear vision by helpful - you bet.

Go figure! It was printed in 2011 too. I was sure it was an old source.

What's the source? I don't see it at: https://www.scouting.org/programs/cub-scouts/leaders/about/the-pack/cmast/

Sure - that is all true. I'm the first to say the BSA needs a crisper, clearer training program. However, all that material is out there - how Boy Scouts works, how patrols work, how a troop functions, but led, etc. On the flip side, other than marketing statements, the family scouting, adult led model is not defined. In the era of sound bites and YouTube, I do see how newer leaders are led astray. But, for any troop that really wants to be faithful to the program it is defined. My point is that troops and packs that want a great, scout led, program can indeed have one. But, the leaders have to embrace it and have to pursue it.

While I think national could most certainly take a more firm stand here, I continue to see this as a unit issue. If a pack or troop has a bunch of parents running around saving the kids - that's a problem to get addressed. I've never seen any training from national that says - "let the parents do it". All the materials I see encourage us to have the scouts do this stuff. If it's not happening it's because folks are ignoring that.

It's often a challenge to analyze specific cases because it's often very difficult to understand why something happened without knowing all the details and talking to the parties involved. On the surface, this doesn't make sense. National deals with these kinds of things all the time - it is difficult to believe that they would expend the effort to revoke someone's membership because they simply transported a Scout to an event. It suggests to me that there are more details here that are important, but we just can't see. Stuff like: perhaps this was the tenth time this happened and he'd been warned perhaps the parent didn't know the Scout had gone perhaps there was an allegation made that something happened while there. perhaps there were already concerns and the unit leaders leveraged this to advocate for the membership revocation. It's of course impossible for us to know these things. I list them only to think of things that might trigger this scenario happening - not to suggest your friend did any of them. The only advice I can give is that if your friend truly thinks this happened wrongly, he should probably talk to a lawyer. If the BSA national organization has terminated his involvement, it may take someone more official advocating for his case. Good luck!

Then call it something different - ambassadors or the like. If the national professionals have this much authority, we much have a remarkably weak board.

It's really not. A pack's or troop's program is what they make of it. You want more outdoor and less crafts, you need to be part of a pack or troop that focuses on it. If that doesn't work, then I would encourage you change it.

The co-ed we cannot address. In the short term, you can simply elect to have an all girl or all boy troop. Despite how people are interpreting the marketing, the Scout level (11-17 year olds) is not turning into a family camping club. Your troop can and should make clear the impact of siblings and parents. The purpose of a Scout troop is to do Scouting - not have kids running wild.

I'm all for bringing Scouting to youth that need it. However, It just seems that there are so many youth who could benefit from Scouting with less effort than Scoutreach takes. I'd rather see the BSA focus on improving program delivery for their core audience before trying that harder play of branching out to other groups.

Just to confirm I read this right. You're observation is that: A leader had his membership in the BSA revoked by national because he drove his own son and another scout to an event. Do I read that correctly?

Back in college the local marine recruiter spotted me and a couple of buddies on day. Got to admit- the challenge it represented was really exciting. There's a couple of paths to getting youth excited in what we do. Whether it's ambassadors or something more rugged, I think both have merits. It think it both cases, the paint a compelling vision of why Scouting is great. One is more about rugged individualism, one is about highlighting people who are already role models to youth. Me, I'd go the ambassador route - but this wouldn't disappoint me.

I did read today that Chris Evans said he modeled the Captain America character on a childhood friend who is an Eagle Scout.

That's my reaction when I see some of the more obscure names. No offense, but I've never heard of Paul Sereno, Cliff Jacobson, and the others. My thinking is that for an ambassador, you need someone who will have enough name recognition to change the dynamics of averages person's impression of Scouting. I think it makes sense for it to be more than one person. Recruiting 10--20 different people and having a group sounds like a good idea. I like Chris Pratt. In fact, I think it would be cool for the BSA to line up as many Avengers as possible. Ultimately, what I think the BSA needs to do is get kids excited about Scouting. My sense is that you do that by tying into kids hopes & dreams for the future. Great people were Scouts, I want to be great, I should be a Scout.

I'd welcome some more Bear Grylls type of people to be ambassadors of the BSA. Having some people who can enhance the image of the BSA would be outstanding. I don't think you'd want them to replace the current executive structure though. I don't think their value is in budget meetings and the other kinds of things a CEO needs to do. Let those with executive experience do that. Let the Bear Grylls and Mike Rowes of the world focus on message and influencing the program.

I've seen a removal occur once. My experience is that it was very clear what the issue was and why. Its an action of the council and national. I'd think that if you are directly involved here as a party, the council would be open with you. In our case, the membership status was irelevant.

Welcome to the forum @Terasec

I would support that 100%

I concur - I don't see the point. Feels a lot like a hollow attempt to pander to the more devout members of the BSA.

Uncle. Ya'll do what you want here. I just don't think the answer to G2SS rules you don't like is to pretend you're not acting as a Scouting group while you break them. But, if that what you want to do and argue it's OK - go for it.

Being the internet, we like to take a point to it's extremes and then argue it's fallacy. I was tempted to insert a meme her but don't want to insult your basic point. This was started because a statement was made that if the BSA prohibits patrol campout the course of action was to: I hear this point from time to time. We don't like the rules, so we'll do it anyways and just say it's not Scouting. The point is that any lawyer worth his salt can poke through that in a second. Now, I'm sure your lawyer will argue it's not a Scouting function. I'm sure the BSA's lawyer and the CO's lawyer will argue that it's not a Scouting function too. It will all be messy. I am sure the BSA has been burned by this multiple times and their lawyers understand what is provable in court. So they instruct us to follow the G2SS when groups of Scouts gets together. Are some of these cases over each- I'm sure. But I'm sure the cost of litigation is significant to the BSA and they are trying to do what they can to minimize it. Clearly - if your neighbor is a Scout, you don't need to worry about following the G2SS. Clearly if your son invites some scouts to his birthday party you don't either. It these cases where folks try to be clever to get around the rules that are the point.

Thanks - yes, that's the one. The way they were wearing them made me wonder if it was an idea they were trying out. Thank you!

There are of course practical limits. Counterexample: 1) adults in a troop decide that they don't like the BSA rules on adult supervision. They say "we'll call it a friend camping trip" and send the boys without supervision. Something happens and a boy gets hurt. Adults, CO, and BSA gets sued. 2) adults in a troop don't like the rules on swim tests. They decide to hold a families camping trip. A boy drowns. Adults, CO, and BSA gets sued. 3) Scoutmaster invites scouts over to his house to earn extra money raking leaves. Says it's ok because it's not a Scout function. When done, he invites Scouts inside his house to hang out. Is that Ok? This is not ok. The primary reason for those boys getting together is their affiliation in Scouting.

FWIW - I remember a training somewhere along the way. It was very clearly said that when a group of scouts gets together, whether its an official meeting or not, is still a Scouting function. It was designed to prevent 1) people circumventing the G2SS and 2) YPT violations. I just don't recall the source now. Perhaps someone else does.

Perhaps - but I think it's secondary to dramatic license. Movies 4-6 were about establishing a Luke as a hero who discovers his greatness by discovering his own abilities. Moves 1-3 had to show more Jedi's. That was the wowness factor. If Luke was great, 100 Luke's would be amazing. It was the pay off of sorts for going to the movies. Of course, by the end of the 3rd movie, we had to be back down to the primary force actors - Emporer, Vader, Yoda, Obi-Wan, and Luke. Movies 7-9 needed some Jedi drama. We've seen Luke find his powers under guidance from Yoda & Obi-Wan. So we couldn't just have Rey go to Luke, get trained and then save the day. That would be a big snooze. So, we set up the reluctant Jedi hero Luke and the conflicted Rey.