ParkMan

I'm not sure if you're talking about today or in the future, but I don't find the Eagle to be the chief marketing tool. Honestly - I don't see a lot of BSA marketing at all, so I don't think "Join Scouts and earn Eagle" is that much of a thing. In my area, Scouts generally join because it seems fun. Many stick around to earn Eagle, but I've never seen a Scout openly say - "I'm only, or even primarly, here to earn Eagle"

Or removing the word boy from the name and magazine of an organization for girls and boys would just be the logical thing to do.

Somehow I don't think the girls give two hoots whether it's called "Boys Life" or "Scout Life". Since it looks like the editors did a search and replace on "Boys Life" and replaced it with "Scout Life". They add a few more pictures with girls. Sounds exactly like the same magazine to me.

Now, where do I see the BSA In 5-10 years. Coed - all units will be fully coed. No-one will think twice about it starting in 2022. By that time the old "boys only" folks will be aging out and members will only know a co-ed Scouting program. Boys and Girls will get along just fine. Membership numbers - membership will decline until 2021. At that point, the new girls joining will offset the natural decline in the number of boys joining. We will see modest growth in the 2021+. Program - it will be exactly the same program we have now. Maybe a few new merit badges. Outdoor activities - same outdoor program we have now. Uniform - there will be a new uniform. It will look much like the old uniform - just as every Scout uniform has for 50 years. OA - the OA will still be called the OA, but they will move past the Native American costuming and ceremonies. The group will invent new ceremonies around the underlying themes, they just will look a little different.

I have to admit - the last few pages were an interesting read. 80% losses because we admitted girls? Really? Fundamentally - almost nothing has changed in the program. We have the same ranks, same merit badges, same advancement process, same volunteer structure, same youth led troop, same camping plans, same high adventure bases, same patrol structure, same awards, same just about everything. So they change the name from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts". They changed the name "Boys Life" to "Scouts Life" . Cosmetic changes. This isn't program. The BSA just admitted girls - what did you think would happen to the word "boy"? Oh my goodness yes. I'm not so much a supporter of the recent changes as I am a supporter of Scouting and the BSA. I am so very tired of the constant prediction of the demise of the BSA & the constant derogatory comments about the BSA leadership and professionals. I can't help but feel I could post about the color of Scout socks and it would be turn into a discussion about how the BSA will be dead in 5 years. Sounds like a nice idea this one time.

While it might be nice for the DE to do a little more proactive outreach, this sounds about right. The DE is a district level player. If you guys are not involved at the district level and just focus internally - then why would he interact with you?

I've had Scouters try to jump through hoops before to get around G2SS rules by saying - we'll, if I do it and it's not really Scouting - is that OK. My guess is that's what they are trying to get around.

I think I missed something when I took the course, because it really didn't impact me or my patrol. I will always remember that at the cracker barrel after the game, the staff kept asking us if we were OK. We were baffled why they were so concerned. But, having gone back as a staffer and then also talking to lots of folks, I do understand it. I think it's unfortunate how it impacts people. The core message I'm OK with - check the natural desire to personally win against the much larger benefit the group gains by succeeding together. A little I'm reminded about the Mike Rowe topic. I see the Game of Life as kind like Wood Badge throwing an elbow. It's unpleasant, but it makes a point and leaves a memory.

I think the professional is just giving you grief about having a breaking point. This period in Scouting history is testing us all - I wouldn't sweat it.

It seem to me the implication of the fact that the district volunteers really run the district is that there really shouldn't be much the DE does directly for units. Yes, the DE needs to be an ambassador of the professional staff. But, expectations like the DE arranging programming, informing units about activities, etc. are really beyond the role description. Now, I would expect the DE to have developed relationships with the primary outward facing volunteers in the units - the CC, SM/CM/Advisor, and the COR (if they are active). A DE probably doesn't need to know the ASMs, den leaders, etc., but it might not hurt. It certainly would not hurt the BSA to develop a couple of jobs for a DE that endears them to unit level volunteers. Not quite sure what those would be, but it probably would help the image of the DE role. I've heard this as well - they have a special status that allows them to represent the council to the COs. That's why they do the CO visits and not a district volunteer.

Yes - let's not get into debate of who cares more - volunteers vs. professionals. That's will never end. It's pretty clear from the structure of the BSA that volunteers are designed to run things. The phrase I've heard time and time again is "volunteer led, professionally guided". The challenge of course is that someone has to keep the lights on. The professional staff, by the nature of being paid staff, is in a unique position to fill in the gaps left by volunteers. I suspect many professionals find it easier to skip the volunteer role and go straight to just doing it themself. I think this has been compounded by the fact that the district committees have been neglected for many years. I tihnk this creates the impression that the DEs are in charge, but they really are not supposed to be.

Ok, so here's the current issue list: 1) should the BSA attempt to change WOSM rules such that they match BSA rules? 2) should the BSA attend a WOSM event if there are rules more permissive than BSA rules? 3) should BSA leaders be empowered to instruct youth on the differences between BSA rules and WOSM rules. FWIW - my opinion on the above. 1. Depends, but probably not. In the case of condom distribution - this is an unsettled social topic with pros and cons on both sides. 2. Yes - the pros of attending a WOSM outweighs the risks taken on by having condoms available. 3. Yes - without doubt. Leaders should be free to highlight rule differences.

Feels to me like we're essentially at the same place. We just disagree on whether the BSA should participate or not. Not sure there's really an answer here so much as a choice.

Does kinda seem like the same thread doesn't it

I think that's part of it. It's not the CO model itself, but the fact that individual religions represent large proportions of the COs. When you have any religion that is 10% of the COs, I have to imagine they will influence policy. I think there are probably others. One is the headquarters location. BSA - Irving, TX. GSUSA - NYC. I have to imagine some of these things are influenced by the working staff in the headquarters office.

Yeah - not sure what it is about the BSA, but we always seem to be influenced a lot more by our conservative members. The GSUSA not so much.

Honestly I think this is a much better question. Should the BSA participate in or host a WSJ if the rules in conflict with our own G2SS. Me - I'd say yes. The experience of a WSJ is significant enough that attending is worth the exception for these cases. Further, the BSA should make it crystal clear to a participant from within the BSA that the rules are different. Make parents sign a document stating that they are aware of this difference.

Not knocking the perspective, but I see it very differently. This is the World Scout Jamboree. This is a big deal. Having it here on our turf will allow so many more Scouts to attend. If my son hadn't bailed on scouting, I'd have signed him up in a heartbeat. I can accept that the BSA made an exception and is following the guidelines of the WOSM. It's like a host country making an exception for the Olympics. If the BSA refused to host it because of this, I would be very disappointed. I can deal with these exceptions so that our scouts get the opportunity to attend the WSJ. Beyond that, I see this as the BSA showing some humility. The USA is but one of many national Scouting organizations. That the USA isn't trying to impose our will on other countries I find very noble.

What do you see as the relationship between the district volunteers and the DE? For example - what is the DE supposed to do compared to the district finance chair? The DE compared to the membership chair? The DE compared to the District Chair? I appreciate that to the othet professionals, the DE has accountability that stuff gets done. But - if things are functioning correctly and the district committee is doing it's job - what's the thinking? I probably should have been clearer when I said problem solver. Generally I turn to the Unit Commissioner for volunteer issues. My questions for the DE are generally more about dealing with the council staff. I figure the DE has better insight into council operations than my unit commissioner.

I think the quote is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I really appreciate your insight into the DE role. I appreciate working with my DE as he's been outstanding. I expect you'll see some pushback on this comment. I get what you're saying. I find the majority of Scouters view the DE like other district & council level scouters. Those higher level Scouters are ultimately there to help units succeed. So while yes, we all want to help each other - most volunteers are not looking at how they can help a DE out. One thing that I think would help here is the development of a "purpose statement" for the DE role. What is the primary goal of the DE? For example - the DE is not there to do all the work of the district or to even lead the district. That's the purpose of the District Committee. The DE is there to advise the District Committee, but not replace it. In my mind, the role of the DE can be summed up as: - professional advisor to the district staff - second level problem solver for units in the district - champion for growing Scouting in the district - district level representative for the professional staff of the BSA Not sure if that's really how it works, but that's always been my understanding. I went looking for a better definition, but couldn't find one.

I'd just be upfront with my families about it. Something like: This is a World Organization of the Scouting Movement (WOSM) event and these are their rules. The BSA under the terms of the agreement to serve as host is bound to implement the WOSM rules. The BSA is working to implement those rules in a way that is consistent with the BSA's values - but ultimately the BSA will comply with tho WOSM rules. The however, does not indicate a change in the rules of the BSA itself. This is a unique situation due to the nature of this specific event. We as parents and leaders may have preferred for the BSA to withdraw from the event, but ultimately the BSA did not. If you (as parents) are uncomfortable with this decision, you should not send their Scout to the World Jamboree.

To me - I've always felt that Scouting was about developing self confidence and leadership skills. Over their time in the program they go through all kinds of life challenges that they overcome - camping, earning awards, etc. In the process, they develop the skills and tools that stay with them for life. I've always used the example. Because I was a scout, someone could plop me down anywhere - in a city, in the desert, in the middle of the forest, and I felt confident that I could find my way home.

Feels to me like we've got an impass on some of these topics. Both sides believe their positions. Both see national decisions as significant enough to leave the movement. Given that you have to make a choice on these topics - girls in Scouting, gays in Scouting, religion in Scouting, we appear trapped as a movement. Choices either make the traditionalists/conservatives happy or make the progressives/liberals happy. My preference would be for local choice - don't impose your morals on me and I won't impose mine on you. But, even that is controversial. In my mind, Scouting is so much bigger than these choices - as important as they are. I would have my kids in Scouting regardless of whether they allow girls, participants who are gay, or require a belief in God. My community generally matches my views and the people I Scout with generally do as well. That's good enough for me. It just feels like we're pulling ourselves apart as a movement. I grant that our society is in a time where these issues are not settled nationally. I just wish Scouting could stay outside that fray, let us do our own thing, and let me just focus on having a good program for my kids.

Nah - you don't need to spend that money every year. The pack should buy new neckerchiefs for every scout. Make it part of the program. Add in $10 to the dues at the beginning of the year. Don't require the hat. Each den should make their own neckerchief slides. The scouts buy one belt buckle when they start cubs, one when they get the tan uniform.