qwazse

Or, is it like saying, “We’ll provide chocolate wafers, and and the scouts, the filling!” We all know that we’re not taking leadership out. We’re just removing it as a method … possibly replacing it and personal growth with “service” and “responsibility.” I saw yet another post on the scouting forums from a leader who was bothered about an SPL and PL who already earned Eagle wanting to hold their positions while he/she wanted to let younger scouts to have a crack at those while Star or Life scouts. Our adults aren’t getting the message. Not all of them. Maybe not even most of them.

So, time to think out of the box … Will we increase membership by removing Leadership Development from the methods of scouting? Why would that make any sense at all? I can think of two reasons. LD not distinctive. Sports claims to be leadership development. Academics claims to be leadership development. Music/band claims to be leadership development. Same for lots of other organizations and many religions. Kids hear it, and it is just another phrase of doublespeak to them. Not everyone is looking for it. I’ve only met a handful of youth who were all about LD, and they were venturers. Many parents just want their kids to grow up strong and good. They don’t see themselves as leaders nor their kids as leaders. When many parents think of “leaders”, they think of a politician who stole the election from their candidate, and they absolutely don’t what that for their kid.

@Oldscout, the story that TAHAWK found may not have anything to do with the OP. It's not clear how personal this case is to the OP. So "recently" could be 5 years ago, or not. Regardless, the bottom line is that stuff like this gets out, and action is usually taken at some level. I think most of us prefer it be handled at the unit level, but sometimes units don't react. Or, they don't communicate their actions to their district or council. In that case, councils will respond.

Yep, @yknot, this is pretty routine. A scout is trustworthy. A person who betrays trusts is not a scout. Usually this is a troop committee decision, but when the matter is of public trust the dismissal can just as easily come from Council or National. It is not a fun day when an exec calls you about a member in your unit.

The way the US code reads, a criminal charge would be a very high bar.

So, to work back the history a little-bit (as some of you are about to roll your eyes): In the sixties, National instituted the ageist policy of restricting advancement to those under 18 because Eagle Scout "is a boy's award." The removal of "observe-and-report" badges like Bird Study and the rise of book-work badges ensued. In 1973, the steady decline in BSA membership began and continues until this day. In 1982, cue Stevie Wonder, I wish. Yep.

The method is “leadership development,” not “teaching leadership” for a reason. The way I figure it, responsibility plus service develops leadership. Coincidentally, responsibility and service enable one to fulfill the vision of the pinnacle scouting experience of hiking and camping independently with your mates. Our job is to show scouts (and the rest of the world, for that matter) how they can be responsible and provide service. We give them a vision of scouting (just like @yknot’s AOL den did), offer opportunities like @MattR describes, throw in the occasional management tool (e.g., rope and tarp, map and compass, cook kit and recipes, …) and watch scouts develop leadership. Inasmuch as we muddle that vision, we lose membership.

My cousin is on CP's advisory board. It's an inside-the-beltway mag. Expect more of the same. TL/USA is a lot of fun according to my relatives who are participants. However, it is not mopping up BSA's losses. At this rate, it's still some years away from being considered a formidable youth movement.

@Mrjeff, you do see the contradiction here, don't you? If they had "no value" you would not assign the ones you gave away a value of "good." If it stopped there, no problem. Sadly, adults monetize happiness. There are those who, perceiving that a patch is "good", will mass-produce it without license so as to execute trades. On the other hand, zealous trademark protection generates ill-will. You voiced it. Others have probably voted with their feet. The branding quagmire between GS/USA and BSA has ultimately kept one organization from inviting the other to its jamborees, and the world looks on shaking its head.

I guess, if @Mr. Jeff is willing to apologize for the "ruckus." I'll apologize for the nearly illegible post. I hope you all get the gist. If not, I will re-write. But, I also want to be clear that WSJ didn't cure patch over-pricing. I also saw some scouters asking money for patches. I'm sure they were doing it because they knew someone would eventually give them their price.

@ThenNow, it gets worse. There must be cases where the infarctions occurred in one state while the troop hailed from a different state. Councils now span state lines as the result of multiple mergers of recent decades. So an LC headquartered in one state may “inherit” cases in another state. I’m certain that will result in incongruous paperwork. It’s all the better that the trustee attend to assigning point values.

This . ‘Nuff said.

My FL relatives had a friend who, at about that age, got bit while surfing. After that he proudly wore a t-shirt with a tooth pattern traced in red. Hopefully this scout will recover and be able to look back with courage and, yes, a bit of cheer.

If we can get past ad homenim. Some of us can recount discussions at length in other threads. In summary … American Adults rn up the price of old patches by selling them. American Adults produced replicas of high-value patches, and flooded Jamborees with them. American Adults demanded means of authentication, so that their Little Johnny wouldn’t be ripped off by making a “bad trade”. It wasn’t enough that their patch was pretty, it now had In short, adults violated my rule #1. They asked for rules. BSA obliged by establishing a series of trademarks and methods of authentication. The good news: I’ve seen WSJ scouts giving away patches without expecting anything in return. They’ve inspired me. It is now my life’s purpose to give away my patches to any clever youth anywhere. I don’t want there be any left for my family to throw in my casket.

In terms of accountability, the more adult who are registered and trained, the better. As a practical matter, four adults for each den/patrol/crew/ship gives you reasonable YP coverage for all meetings and activities.

You know you've "arrived" when you begin to hear things like this. Like I explain to my crew: Advisor = Good for nothing and best used that way. I should have told you to expect island camping to have that pervasive low-tide smell. No love lost between me and no-see-ums. And, yes, that tropical hypothermia is a surreal feeling.

In our council, volunteers, not professionals, raise funds for FOS. The more that we've gone electronic, the more manpower we've needed. Part of the problem is that we're tracking too much. Part of it is because we believe that we can increase accountability for training requirements. It's creating a lot more things to key in when before a slip of paper would do. I want my DE's (and SE's) doing what you couldn't pay me to do. And since I don't come cheap, I figure they're earning their keep. That said, I know the pay gap causes no small amount of consternation among entry-level pros. One always wonders if one could have a more productive organization by cutting individual compensation at the top by 1/4 and quadrupling the number of pros. @mrjohns2, their IT group has an E-mail. Send them your credentials. Enjoy listening to the crickets.

So, there is an expectation that thousands of claims won't be verifiable. Stacked against the 85,000 submitted, that seems unsurprising to me. It also seems likely that some "verifiable" claims will later be found to be fraudulent. (E.g., a claimant is later caught on record saying he outright lied -- for whatever reason.) We all hope there will be very few of those. Will the trust be able to sue? File criminal charges? Or, does that responsibility fall to another party?

I disagree. This is where we go off the rails. We volunteers should be intently focused on program. DE's need to make sure the paperwork/e-submission goes smoothly, and they should find us CO's and donors to help us do what we do. This is no small order. The scoutbook MBC list is a moving target, and getting my adults on it has been such a hassle. Registration/recharter is fraught with pitfalls. (E.g., they lost my '02 training records for SM basics.) When the SE's are on the ball, they are filling camps, applying for grants, and getting donors. Then, there is every accident and CSA -- all of which are going straight to them (ideally after the police have been notified). Then, they will take point on camp sales. If they are successful in finding top-dollar buyers, expect the LC boards to increase their salary. Anyway, there's a load that these guys have to execute ... program is not one of them.

About the same for us. Some of the old guard were called back to Heritage Reservation. Some had stepped down from the scouting pro's to staff the camp. Also, we absorbed some of the staff from the now sold Camp Twin Echo. They are passionate about the camp and are pretty sharp. The new staff seemed competent and engaged the scouts during slack time. (E.g., a female staff asked my ASPL his opinion of girl troops and got a respectful earful.) I think that was partly because our scouts, in spite of their personal opinions, felt like the female staff and female Scouts BSA were just like them. Seasoned staff, however, have the skills to work anywhere for more. Certainly the scout from our troop who was a back-office manager making schedules and advancement tracking hum could be doing the same in industry for much much more. So, when times get tough for any of them, they won't be available. The facilities were improved.

That’s what I had thought. But if the scout finishes a hike/catches the minimum/swims the day’s laps … whatever … in two hours? Would you let him/her go back to camp or visit another program area? If you would, then that’s not a block schedule. Regarding the three hours of fishing … I remember fishing with my father-in-law. I’d just get to relaxing and he’d pull anchor. If they weren’t biting after fifteen minutes, he moved on. More than three of those in a row, and we were on our way to the nearest sausage egg McMuffin. The good news was that we generally had bait leftover for the evening.

As I do at the end of the week of camp, I take he evaluation form that the CD gives to me and hand it to the SPL/ASPL to complete. They usually gather a few scouts and ask how they should rate everything. This year, they worked very hard to spell out what they felt didn’t work for them: block schedules. Instead of a 1-hour classes for five days per MB, the camp switched to 3 hour classes for two days, with Friday as an open program day to wrap up MBs. (There we’re also open evenings at aquatics and shooting sports.) My scouts knocked it, a lot! For starters, many MBs did not require that much time — especially for older scouts. But, scouts were told that they could not be dismissed from the program area. The camp commissioners told us that they would try to help the staff fill the time. But scouts told us a different story … They emphasized that it was not the camp staff’s fault. Most MBs simply do not require six hours of counseling. Furthermore, we always counted on some older scouts being back at camp during slack times so that they could teach crossovers and first years. The camp provided a Trail to First class program. But we do not send our crossovers to it. Imagine being committed to one area for 6 hours! That’s grade school, not scout camp! Anybody else camp on a block schedule? Different experience?

And it feels like you are writing an ad hominem, which violates forum rules. I respectfully advise you to relent. Meanwhile allow me to restate … Plaintiffs get help in acquiring large sums. It doesn’t matter how vile the holder of those sums is, it doesn’t matter how righteous the plaintiffs’ cause, the party who helps will reasonably expect half the award so as to continue their agenda, whatever it may be. If this is not neutral enough language, I’m happy to revise further.

If you were to ask me to extract some billions from anyone (legally or otherwise), I would expect about half the take. It really doesn’t matter who you are or how tough life’s been for you. I’d need that much in order to arrange the resources for the next attempted extraction on behalf of whoever else for whom I may be asked to raid a castle.

Would you accept zero dollar payout in lieu of reimbursement for counseling? I have no idea how that would play out. I can’t imagine it being healthy for a claimant to continue to need BSA to do anything for them. A trust would be a better way to go. There’s also the broader question … What’s best for future CSA victims? My gut says a more robust federal mental health infrastructure.