ParkMan

I think people get my point though. Sure the BSA has an oath and law. They are pretty generic statements. They define a code of conduct by which we expect scouts to live. The BSA gets itself dragged into these definitions of morality. But it should not and should make clear that it does not want to be. I'm a Catholic from New England that married a Protestant. We have a different set of morals from LDS members in the west. We have a different set of morals from Baptists in the South. 99% of the time we all agree. But, 1% we do not. Why should scouting get itself dragged into taking positions on the 1%? What good does that do for the movement? Better to say - "not my job". Take this discussion of family structure. Why on earth would the BSA want to get in the middle of that? The merit badge should talk about the role of parents and how they help the family. Getting dragged into whether it should say father, mother, two mothers, two fathers, single parent, whatever doesn't help the BSA at all. The expectation ought to be that the BSA finds generic language that permits you and your community to reinforce the morals that are appropriate there.

But if the BSA is out of the morality definition business it's not. It would be BSA saying it's your job to figure it out. As I tell my kids sometime - "not my job"

Fair enough. I'd expand just beyond morality. I think there are ways you could discuss it. Knowing that it's a sensitive topic you ask the scout to discuss the issues he believes are involved here. Then ask the scout to articulate his views on the topic. Ultimately I think it matters most that the scout understand the issues involved here. Ultimately I think it helps the BSA more to be known as the group that encourages character development as determined locally than to be known as the group that advocates a particular set of moral beliefs.

Understood. This is why I'm coming to the realization that the BSA needs to be out of the business of determining what morally straight means. @NJCubScouter and @blw2 - both your points are well taken. I see what you're saying. I don't think it does the BSA any good to become part of the narrative about what morally straight means or what defines character. I think the CSE needs to stand up and say that it is up to each CO to define morality for themselves.

I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes.... The challenge is that we're entering a realm of discussion where the views themselves can be considered inherently offensive. "Some families are superior to others", "being gay is morally wrong". While I agree that we want respectful dialog, the very dialog itself is offensive to some. I am not surprised to see the pushback. For example, I have a gay sister in law. I could never imagine having a discussion about whether being gay was morally wrong. I have divorced friends - I could not imagine having a discussion about whether a two parent family was superior to theirs.

This forum has helped me to understand just how varied a country we have. I've been debating some decisions here that I did not expect to. It helped me to understand the challenge faced by the BSA. I'm not sure who of us on the forum has the ability to plant the idea at National. I'm still waiting for my National Committee invite. It would be interesting to explore how the BSA could have approached the gay and transgender membership decisions in a way that would have kept us above the political hot potato it became.

Not going to get into the debate on that here. But, it does raise a question I hit on earlier. It's clear that as a country - this is an unsettled question. There are those that feel they are, those that feel they are not. It strikes me that it doesn't help the BSA or the Scouts to take a position on it. Of course those that agree will be glad the BSA is teaching that through the advancement process. Feels like the best role for the BSA is to stick to developing youth in non-controversial areas. If the BSA absolutely needs to wade into a sensitive area like this, then perhaps they ought to be up front about it, ask the scouts to understand both sides of the topic, and then articulate their own beliefs on the topic.

Reminds me of my of my sad moments as a Scouter. Had a bunch of Webelos visiting the troop one night. While the scouts were off doing something, the parents were talking with the SPL. One of them asked the SPL what his job was. He thought for a moment and responded - "to do whatever the Scoutmaster tells me to do."

You'd think that for such an important document, 6 people must have reviewed it too.

I'd agree with that too. Look at how much time we all spend here discussing the nuances of boy led. For such a simple concept, it sure takes lots of analysis. Given the amount we talk about it, I guess about 1 troop in 10 acutally gets it right. Agreed as well! Yet, it feels to me like the single biggest challenge to Scouting today is crappy troop programs. They're too smart to need training, but yet cannot get a decent program together. How many Scouts quit because of boring program?

Perhaps we have Every so often some of the troop leaders will get into a discussion such as "we need to figure out how a planning meeting should be run." I'll smile, say "already done", and point to one of those. Maybe instead writing "define", I need to write "train on".

Vice-chair? I'm not surprised that the new adults are running over the SM.

I hear you - but it strikes me that the BSA needs to focus on defining program mechanics. Advancement, how patrols work, how to organize a camping trip, what you do on a camping trip, etc... The program is the same for a boy troop, girl troop, linked troop, co-ed troop, whatever. @Eagle94-A1 - you need to promote yourself to Scoutmaster or CC. The stuff going on in your troop is the result of troop leadership that isn't translating the program into operational decisions. There's lots of materials defining how camping trips work. This whole family camping thing is some marketing bullets. Some new parents coming in and upending BSA program because they heard something about family camping is not correct. Someone once told me "a Boy Scout troop is not a democracy, it's a benelovent dictatorship." You encourage engagement from parents, but the CC ultimately needs to keep the adults pointed in the right direction. If the CC isn't doing that, then the troop needs a new CC or you need to find a new troop.

I'm not so sure that they do need to come out with more specifics. The BSA is basically providing us a program that we implement locally. Perhaps it would just be better if the BSA let's us all sort it out locally. Does it really matter if some particularly progressive people in one part of the country want to have closely linked troops whereas some very conservative people in another part do not want boys and girls to mix at all? Doesn't that really give us all the freedom to run troops according to our own values? I do understand that this won't sit well with those who want the BSA to stand for a particular moral position. But, perhaps it's best for the BSA to simply provide a program for us and to stay above the fray.

I would be too. Would be interesting to see if they'd go that far. That's a pretty controversial topic these days. I get the distinct imoression that the current leadership team doesn't want to be that involved in these kinds of social controversies anymore. I get the sense that they just want to focus on program delivery and not so much what the program content implies. They seem happy to leave it to us to decide the moral issues locally.

Tampa Turtle, I am sorry to see you go. The forum will be poorer without your voice. It is sad to see the casualties of the recent changes. I hope the moderators reflect on your statement. There is nothing that could be posted here that would cause me distress and I hope the moderators don't feel undue pressure on our behalf. I hope you continue Scouting and have many happy days of camping ahead of you.

This is a silly game. Let's find a way to parse what the CEO said so we can ignore the reality. Let's see... The specific program formerly known as Boy Scouts is not going co-ed. The BSA is starting a parallel implementation of the same program in which girls can participate. Overall, the membership policies of the BSA will now allow both girls and boys the ability to fully participate in it's offerings. In Cub Scouts, the girls and boys will participate in the same program, but in parallel dens. In Scouts BSA, the girls and boys will participate in the same program in parallel troops. Both Venturing and Sea Scouts are already fully co-ed.

I think folks misunderstand what is really going on here. The BSA is going co-ed. While you can have boy troops and girl troops, it is becoming a co-ed activity. It's not circling of the wagons, it's a clear choice of the executive board of the BSA. Girls are becoming equal members of the movement. That's why the name changes and admittance to the OA don't surprise me. They shouldn't surprise anyone else either. These things are not program. Program is activities, camping, youth led, advancement, etc. Program is not the name of the magazine or who can belong to the OA. Program is what the OA does and how it does it. You can have all the outrage at it that you want, but it's just the evolution of the decision they made last year.

I just was watching the video with Bryan and Anthony Berger (sp?). What was the deal with the neckercheifs they were wearing? Did I miss a topic somewhere?

Respectfully, I see it differently. The program of the BSA really have never been the primary problem for the BSA. It's been loss of interest. Changing the basics of the program won't help. What will help is a concerted effort to make it more fun. Not fun through different badges, but more fun through a better understanding and application of the program we already have.

That's one of my few purist hopes. I do not want to see the uniform go away.

We have an assistant Advancement Chair the serves as the Board of Review Coordinator. He's generally at meetings twice a month. We ask scouts to contact him ahead of time to let him know, but it's not a strict rule. If a scout shows up and requests one, he'll organize it on the spot if possible. Part of the role of the BOR Coordinator is to develop training materials for adults. We will have any non ASM sit on a BOR. It could be a parent or Committee Member. Over time, the BOR Coodinator has built up enough folks that are knowledgeable in conducting a board that we always have a lead adult who is experienced and two other adults who may or may not be. This has worked very well for us and has been a great way to get an outgoing parent involved.

I think it has less to do with Scouting history and a lot more to do with geography. I'm east coast born, raised, and educated. I live in a pretty progressive city and have for 20 years. I'd suggest if we do that, let's start a separate thread. I think that cuts down on the tendency to try & convince others.

I'm excited about the recent changes as well. Initially I was apprehensive about girls, but after a couple of months I thought it through and am very excited about it. I'm a father with a son and two daughters. I love my daughters dearly and want them to have the same opportunities that I did. They are both Girl Scouts now and may stay that way - it's their choice. But, I'm very excited that they have the opportunity to benefit from the program that I did. I was a Cub Scouts and earned Arrow of Light. I was a Boy Scout and stopped at Star. I was not OA. As an adult, I've not been a Scoutmaster - but have been: Asst. Cubmaster, Cubmaster, Den leader, Pack Committee Chair, Troop Committee Chair, Crew Committee Chair, and District Committee member. My brother is a Life for Life and OA member. My father was an Eagle, Webelos Den leader, and Cubmaster. My grandfather a Scoutmaster and Silver Beaver recipient. Scouting has very deep ties in our family.

And as a boy, I'd have been just as comfortable reading a magazine called Scouts Life. It's not the BSA changing it's name to accomodate a few people. The intent of the BSA is to be co-ed. Strikes me that they are making it pretty clear to girls that it's their program too now.