Beavah

They have no solutions or recommendations. Perhaps its just a learning experience for them. Hold boring meetings, learn to spice them up. Still waiting for the spice. Yah, I think you have to throw in some adult association here, eh? Can't imagine how boys are goin' to magically come up with something without actually seein' and experiencin' a better way. An approach I see too often in Scoutin' is watchin' kids make bad food, complain about the food being bad, waiting for it to improve with no success because it's "boy led." Poppycock! Somebody has to teach them how to cook, which takes a lot of time and effort. Often, the adults who hang back and leave it all to "boy led" are adults who aren't very comfortable with their own skills. It's easier to tell the boys to do it than to step up and help them do it. Same goes for meetings, eh? Da problem is that relatively few adults have the skills to run a tight, age-appropriate, fun-and-learning meeting themselves. My guess is that one out of 8 packs really gets it down, so yeh gotta figure that only 1 out of 8 adults can do it themselves. Makes it rough for the kids. Which is why I wonder if we're better off without a meeting-a-week expectation, eh? Maybe it's best to have meetings only when absolutely necessary to get ready for an adventure.

It was lack of leadership and disorganized and BORING meetings. Yah, thus endeth another young scout's career, eh? I've been doing this scoutin' stuff for several decades now. Not once have I ever heard a scout say that he's there for the meetings; most of the times scouts from Eagle on down say that meetings are at best "tolerable" or "necessary evils." Plannin' and runnin' a tight, highly organized meeting for multiple ages is a task that can exceed the skills of youth and many adults. Does anyone out there have consistent meeting success, such that their boys will tell a BOR that "the meetings are great, it's one of the big reasons I'm here?" If so, what are you doing? Even the great troops around here are spotty at best meeting wise. And, if our record is such that 95% of da troops out there aren't very successful at weekly meetings, why in tarnation don't we just subject parlor meetings to a G2SS laser-tag ban? "Boring any scout by making him attend a weekly indoor meeting is an unauthorized activity."

no it wasn't that the uniform is dorky (he had full uniform socks and shorts and neckerchief as do most of the boys in the troop now) Sounds like at least da uniform method was being followed, eh? And that the energy put into it was mis-spent since it could have been put into adventure. Bein' a SM or team of scouters is hard work. Some guys and gals just aren't cut out for it. Some burn out. I think findin' scouters of the right sort is our biggest challenge. There are fewer and fewer, and the BSA bureaucracy and modern parentin' makes the job less and less attractive. The moral is it's not program or trainin'. It's people. I hope you and your son get a chance down the road to find a troop, or maybe a crew, or some other youth activity that is blessed by high-quality adult guidance of the right sort.

The troop is the CO's youth program. They are free to deny membership to this boy, and any good CO will support their volunteer staff in this regard. If da boy gives yeh an application, simply refuse it. That's why it's an application, eh? Your UC needs some "additional learnin' opportunities." Then we get to the Oath and Law, and yeh have a different question. Should you deny the application? I think that it's very hard for a boy with a reputation in a program to overcome all the adult and youth ill-feeling that you report. And, too, often boys who are makin' an attempt to turn around fall back into old behaviors when they are put back in old situations. In most cases, it's not fair to the boy to put these extra hurdles in the way of his potential future scoutin' success. I'd be inclined to explain the situation and trot him over to a neighboring troop, where he can make a fresh go of it. Only cows in the field know where the manure lies, so yeh have to make your own decision based on information we don't have here. Trust the sense of your adult and youth leaders; they know the most, and they're the ones who have to deal with it, eh?

In this first case, the boy is big for his age and has a history of picking out younger/smaller victims. He's done it to lots of kids. If there is real bullyin' goin' on, a BOR is not the place to address it, and the parent of one of the victims is not the person to address it. Addressin' it there will not be successful, and may make things worse. Bullyin' needs to be brought to the SM and CC. Rank is irrelevant, fixin' the behavior and improving the life of the other kids in the troop is what counts. For the second case, a boy who has not yet shown the Scout Spirit to be moved into a leadership/responsibility role, rank is the way to address it. Awards like earning a rank are incentives for hard work and positive behavior, eh? If the positive behavior isn't there yet, it's OK to wait for it.

Maybe we need to look at starting crews on college campuses as extra-curricular clubs rather than starting crews in the places that traditionally have chartered packs and troops? Yeh really think so, Lisa'bob? I've always viewed Venturing crews as poorly adaptable to university campuses. The age 21 thing between "youth" and "adult" gets in the way. The availability of so many other opportunities, including the outdoor/outings programs at most universities. And the ability of kids to just go climbin' on their own, eh? No need for a group. What does charterin' a crew get you that startin' a club doesn't, other than more regulation and paperwork in exchange for less financial and practical support? Many of da former scouts do seek out Alpha Phi Omega chapters, so you're right in that there's interest in "keepin' in touch."

He may make it at the earliest possible time (when he's 10 1/2) and if so, there's no reason to hold him back in Cub Scouts, IF he's excited about being a boy scout. Yah, maybe it's because I'm a northerner, but I beg to differ. Most troops around here would be highly skeptical of a September 5th grader crossover, and at least some just wouldn't accept him. There are good reasons to keep him in the age-appropriate program where he belongs, eh? An active youth-run Boy Scout troop looks really excitin' and attractive to a 10-year-old, for sure, in the same way that shotgun shootin' with a 12-gauge looks excitin' and attractive. Until he pulls the trigger, and it really hurts. A youth-run troop program is naturally goin' to be settin' up a program of activities that's age-appropriate for 13 to 14-year-olds, and quite a physical/mental/emotional challenge for 11 to 12 year-olds. A ten year old may be in way over his head, and with no same-age peers and classmates in the troop, may not have any of the social peer "support structure" he needs to do well. Bein' the annoying little kid / younger brother in a youth-run program is not the way to be successful. For those of us in northern climes, a September or October crossover means a new scout is thrust immediately into cold- and foul-weather camping with no preparation. That's a recipe for misery if not safety problems. And, too, the troop's fall program is going to expect all boys to have Tenderfoot or better skills by then, that this one boy won't have. One of the reasons for boys droppin' out of troops is not bein' physically and emotionally ready for Boy Scouting as 11-year-olds. Why would yeh choose to take that risk with a 10 year old? Just because dad can't drive two places? Sheesh. Get da boy into a pack carpool, eh? But don't push him into Boy Scoutin' early. It's a mean thing to do to a kid.

But next thing you know, one or both of these boys will be doing the same thing and they DO NOT have that inner sensor (or it isn't tuned to the same station). And that's when things go wrong. Yah, all adolescent boy horseplay only ends with adult supervision or with a boy cryin', eh? It's the nature of the beast. But horseplay is still important, and not something to be banished. Where do you think those older boys and adults get their inner sensor from? It ain't from readin' it in a book, or listenin' to an adult lecture. It's from the experience of goin' too far, and endin' up cryin - or goin' too far, and endin' up making your friend cry. Cuts, scrapes, bruises and tears are a part of growin' up, and we can't and shouldn't take them all away. Yah, yah, adults should be reasonably mindful of safety for any particular environment (no horseplay next to the 80 foot cliff, eh?), and should coach older boys on guidelines and boundaries. But relyin' on constant full-out adult supervision only raises dependent, not independent, young men. One of the interestin' things about all our safety-mongering is that we rarely make things more safe. As we've insisted on helmets and pads, boys have simply gone on to catch more air and do more impressively insane stunts. There needs to be risk-taking, and flirting with the edge in their lives.

Trevorum's right, eh? What counts as service hours in your unit is entirely the Scoutmaster's discretion. So don't be lookin' at the literature or even get involved as a Committee, eh? The proper answer is "the boys should ask the SM." As a general way of thinkin' about it, I suggest to SM's: 1) Service should not usually be for a commercial (for profit) enterprise. 2) The scout should not be getting anything from it. So service for the family's country club or neighborhood pool association doesn't count, because that's really benefitting yourself and your social circle. 3) The scout should not be getting anything from it. So if it's "required" service for some other group (religious ed, school, NHS, etc.) then it shouldn't "double count" for scouts. Those are just my feelin', lots of folks may disagree, eh? But the scouting service requirements are so trivial (13 hours over 5 years??) that it hardly seems onerous to expect a touch of additional effort. The point of the Oath is that a Scout does more than the minimum, eh? Certainly, service done on behalf of one's school or church most SM's would count. And I think it's great if a scout has an ongoin' weekly commitment to some service activity; that's exactly what we're tryin' to teach in terms of Good Turns, so of course it should count.

Yah, I'll take a different spin on this, eh? I think yeh should go back and look at the rest of your program, and ask if it's really reasonable for kids to be earnin' all the requirements for first class while only doing the minimum number of activities for requirement 3. In my experience, boys who are ready for first class easily have 10 campouts, not just 10 activities, under their belt, eh? The best programs never need to actually "count" this requirement, because every first class candidate is "way over" the number. Consider whether you're too advancement-focused, so that not enough time on those 3 outings and 10 events is spent just havin' fun, or working as a patrol, or enjoying the outdoors, or developing leadership/followership, or any of those other 7 pesky Scoutin' methods. Maybe you're too quick with the pen, so that kids really don't get much real-world practice before the signature flies. Are those first-class candidates really confident that they could handle a severe bleed and CPR in the field? Why not add another activity, and plant a surprise moulaged-up victim in da middle of a hike and find out?

"Duty to God", in the scouting sense, does not require specific church membership. Yah, dat's true. I think usetobeafox should relax a bit. Sounds like his council is just followin' the guidelines, which state that "if a boy says he is a member of a religious body the standards by which he should be evaluated are those of that group. This is why the application for the Eagle Scout Award requests a reference from his religious leader to indicate whether he has lived up to their expectations." (ACP&P #33088D p. 45). So, yah, if a boy is a member of an organized religion, the reference should be from his pastor, rabbi, imam or some other religious leader of his own faith, eh? A Scout is Loyal to his faith community. If a boy isn't a member of an organized religion, then the reference should be someone familiar with his spiritual life, eh? I hate seein' parent religious references, but that's just me. I think they're far more valuable when they're from a peer, or a service agency the boy has done good works for, or somethin' like that. Foxy, yeh just need to tell him to get a reference from a friend who knows him in terms of how he envisions "duty to God." If he wants, he can even include his vision of "duty to God" in his statement of goals and values. His Eagle Board of Review will be fine with that, and will appreciate the opportunity to have a good and friendly discussion with him.

Yah, an interestin' thread, Aidan. I'm glad a crew advisor that you've recognized that councils and districts and leaders in other BSA programs really don't have a clue about Venturin'. I think dat's partly because Venturers really don't have a clue yet about their own program, eh? Lisa'bob has a good point when she calls 'em idiosyncratic. Round here, we've seen some crews that were formed by CO's that ran troops. In some cases, these have been the most persistent, because they have ongoin' recruitment. They were a way to keep high school boys while welcoming girls, and challengin' both with more adventurous stuff. We've seen a fair number of crews that seem to be formed by a core group of older boy scouts and female friends, to do their thing, whatever that happens to be. These last a few years and do an OK job for that group of kids, I guess, but they are kinda cliquish I guess, and don't recruit new members to be sustained. There are the crews formed by the parents of sisters of boy scouts, to try to duplicate what a good troop is doin', but for girls (with a token boy or two). These seem to suffer the same fate as da group of friends crews; they last as long as the foundin' family is in then fold. I think in part it's hard to do what a troop does without a middle school program, to build skills and excitement when kids have more time. The biggest thing with crews that are successful is that while youth run, there's also an underlyin' focus/specialization of some kind. Outdoor adventure sports seems to work. A tighter focus like Sea Scoutin', or SCUBA, or re-enactment seems to work. But the more unfocused, "whatever the youth want" kinds of crews don't last. I think it's because they don't know what they're really sellin' to new members. That's the problem I think your fellow scouters have along with da kids who may be recruits. Venturin' is a bit of a mishmash, eh? It's hard to tell anyone outside what the program focus is exactly. Are yeh partners and resources for troops? Or alternate older-boy programs dat may steal kids? or youth ministers in green? I see da program as still immature, and tryin' to find its way. The confusion by other scouters, the high unit turnover and such are all symptoms of that. But a full handed-salute to yeh for tryin' to educate. I've been a commish for two crews and an AA, and I still am in need of educatin'.

Yah, I'm goin' to suggest a different tack, eh? The kid screwed up, the DAC is holdin' the line, that's fine. Apply for an extension of time. These take about a month to process, and the boy can proceed with a new project while waiting for the extension to go through. It is fairly straightforward to get an extension for under 6 months from his 18th birthday, and I have every confidence that given the circumstances this extension would be approved. Of course, that means the boy needs to do another project, WITH full signatures and prior approval, eh? But I think that would be da sort of penance that any BOR anywhere would respect and honor.

Yah, no surprises at a BOR, eh? You need to talk to the CC or Advancement Chair about your concerns, so that they can have a conversation with the SM if they think it's appropriate. Or you can have an informal conversation with the SM if you have a good friendly working relationship. But the BOR is not the place for an adult to grind an axe. You don't have the kind of deeper, long-term relationship with the boy that's needed for him to learn this kind of lesson from you. The SM does, and the SM by virtue of that also may have all kinds of information you're not privy to... like what's goin' on for the kid at home and school, or how far he's progressed from earlier behaviors, or the fact his peers already had a "sit down" with him at a PLC meeting to address an issue. The only time a BOR should defer a boy over Scout Spirit or Leadership issues is when they get a wink and a nudge from the SM who wants them to play the "heavy" (or when the boy mouths off to the Board during the review;) ). Yeh gotta trust the people closest to da action.

Unfortunately, many of the scouts and troops started to become disenchanted with the competitions because one troop in our District won everything, consistently, year-after-year. They were the largest troop - at least four times more scouts than the next largest troop. So, by consequence, they could and did always enter their best, strongest, largest, heaviest, etc. etc., scout. Did this bug anyone else, or just an old Minnesotan? Maybe I'm just daft, but why is a troop competin' as a troop at a camporee? Especially a very large troop? Do the rest of you find a lot of camporees where troops compete and run usin' "troop method" rather than by patrols? Is it because da camporee organizers are as uninformed as summer camps these days, and tend to force things into a troop rather than patrol structure? Troop events and camporee competitions should be by patrol, eh? Yah, it works better if da patrols are mixed-age so that you don't have an "all Eagles" patrol, but at least the patrols should stay intact so a troop can't "mix and match" to produce an A-Team, with the rest of the troop bein' cheerleaders.

Is there any action the Troop Committee can take if they feel the Chairperson is not meeting requirements, making decisions without committee involvement, etc.? This question was raised in an ancient thread, so I thought I'd bring it up as a new topic on the program thread, eh? I think a lot depends on the culture and practice of each individual unit and CO. A lot of units have a practice or bylaws where the CC is elected each year by the members of the committee, or serves for some other set term with a succession scheme. OTOH, some units have a "serve until dead, responsible for selecting and training your replacement before you die" thing goin'. Lots of in-between, too. So I'd ask the original poster "What's been normal practice for this unit?" If it's a "serve until dead" unit, then the courteous and kind way to move a CC out is to "jostle and nudge." Have other people start takin' on parts of the role, gently signal it's time to move on, and give the person a promotion "up and out" with a big sendoff party. Ultimately, the "big guns" are the COR and the head of the chartering organization, who can simply make the change over all objections. Usually, though, a good COR who is contacted by the SM and committee will come visit and gently participate in the "jostle and nudge." Problem is many units have weak CO relationships and paper COR's. That does allow a "serve until dead" CC to become a bit of a one-man dynasty. A good Unit Commissioner can sometimes play-act the COR role and help with the jostle and nudge in such a case.

It doesn't matter what the CIT thought about it. The laying of hands on a scout by an adult for the purpose of humilating or embarrassing is one of the definitions of hazing, and indeed, child abuse. Yah, sorry scoutldr, but yeh need a refresher on the law, eh? This does not meet the definition of either hazing or child abuse in most if not all states in our great nation. And if da CIT and his parents don't file a complaint, it's neither hazing, nor abuse, nor assault, eh? I think we weaken our case when we throw around criminal terms for effect (and we may also be committing libel:( ). The question as Eamonn suggests is "whose problem is it, and what should they do?" We all agree it's a problem. In this case, it might be da SE's problem, since the CM wedgied a boy scout who was under the supervision of the district as a CIT. So the SE is confronted with a dumb act done by a CO's unit leader to a different unit's boy under the council's care. The SE can talk to the gentleman, or can talk to the CO and turf it to them, or can ban the guy from future district events, or can take action on his BSA membership. The appropriate action probably depends on what the boy and his parents' feel, eh?

Da thing that seems to be missin' here is what did the 14-year-old CIT think about the whole thing? For all we know, the two families are neighbors and best friends, and this sort of male frivolity might be very much a part of their "culture." If the boy and his parents think it was a fun joke, then it's kind of hard for a stranger to object, eh? On the other hand if da kid and his parents are upset, then it really doesn't matter if da Committee thinks it was all in good fun. Yah, teachin' wedgies is not the perfect example we'd want a CM to give. But I've known few perfect people. I certainly have misjudged circumstances hundreds of times, or just been a dolt. Give him da benefit of the doubt unless there's prior history or evidence of malice. Tap him with a cattle prod and whack him over the head with the heaviest legal tome on abuse and harassment yeh can find, but don't sit him in an electric chair. And as Eamonn suggests, da former CM needs to butt out of this entirely and stick to his role of supportin' da CM and program as den leader.

Yah, another Uber-Mommy of an only child. She shows up randomly unannounced on campouts?? Yeh need to do more backpackin'. In my experience, these things rarely go away. Da passive-aggressive stuff will just go underground for a bit until the next flareup. What's worse, if there's ever a "real" issue where you expect/need support (like junior crashed his bike and broke his arm), the support won't be there. This parent will be a litigator. Lisa'bob makes some interesting points from the perspective of the "other side." In most of the troops I've seen, though, da SM and the other key volunteers are usin' up 120% of their free time workin' with the boys. They just don't have the time or energy to spend doin' a lot of TLC and handholding for problem parents, and every time they have to deal with such flareups they have less time for the kids. Demandin' "give us more time and handholding and communication and listen to us us us" only subtracts from the program for everyone else, and burns out the best leaders. CC should lay down the law or yeh should invite them to look at other (full fee, professionally run) programs. No volunteer should have to put up with such silliness, and the potential for future problems and disruption of the troop program for other boys is too high. We're in it for the boys, and that means protectin' your program (and your time and energy) for all the boys. There's always homeschool Lone Scoutin', eh?

One of the Aims of Scoutin' is to develop fitness. Been thinkin' about this lately. For an aim, it certainly seems to be undervalued. Let's face it, no kid is goin' to develop fitness in a meeting, and especially not if it's only once a week. No kid is goin' to develop any reasonable level of fitness in a weekend per month, either. Aren't we foolin' ourselves? Wouldn't we be better off just sendin' 'em to soccer or hockey? (Don't their parents recognize this, and do this anyway?). When you look at Advancement, only Tenderfoot has a (relatively lame) fitness component. Of the required MB's, Personal Fitness and Swim/Cycle/Hike take a shot, but most kids get the latter in 4 days at camp. When you look at Adult Relationships, most of us aren't exactly great examples. I suppose da Uniform helps, in that you have to stay lean to fit into those gawd awful pants and not look like a turd. Anyone out there really incorporatin' fitness into their programs in a real way, that matches what the kids would get through a rec sports program? If not, why not? Are we really bein' honest about our goals? Should we drop this goal, or get more serious about it? What say yeh?

Eagledad asks: I have another question that I guess all of us should answer. If you could have every boy in your community for only one day of his life in your scout unit, what would you want him to take from your unit that he could use for the rest of his life? Seems like a good question for a new thread, eh? This old Beavah would hate to have a boy for only a day. I think Scoutin' is like rain. It is the steady practice of livin' the fun and the Oath that gradually forms channels and brooks and streams, which later become rivers to refresh and nourish a man for a lifetime of service. One day of rain just gets you wet, eh? Many years of rain gets you fertile valleys. And Beavah ponds! But if I only had a boy for a day, I'd like him to experience a brotherhood of adventure and service. For that day, I'd like him to touch, taste, feel, hear, see what it's like to do something scary, and challenging, and worthwhile, supported by skilled and caring peers in a group that really were brothers in the Oath and Law. So that, for the rest of his life, as he faced challenges and hard work, he'd have at least one good image of "the way it should be" with caring and talented people engaged together in a worthwhile cause. Give him the memory of an ideal to live up to, and the desire to do so. Yah, I think dat's it, eh?

Sorry, BA, my accent must have been too thick for you, yah? I didn't say abandon values. I said burn the values literature in favor of what attracts kids. Keep the values, eh. You can have a nutritious meal, but you sell the sizzle. And you can keep a DE/program specialist who helps packs set up for recruitin', too. Just clean up the job description. He doesn't do popcorn. He doesn't do FOS. He just provides service, support, program opportunities, training, etc. to cub programs. He builds local partnerships for cub programming. He provides for high-quality on-demand, on-site trainin' and coachin'. He's evaluated only on the quality and satisfaction of cub scout programs in his council. In short, specialize roles like any real organization. We're long past the day when transportation and communication limitations required geographical-area based support. But as to da other stuff, yeh want *kindergarten and preschool scouts *Boy Scouts to start younger *indoor crafts projects to go up through all levels, with songs *more awards and advancement focus (maybe allow adults to wear knots on BOTH sides of their chest, eh;)) *more mandatory trainin' where you don't really have to learn anything, yeh just have to show up. *add more scout shops, sell more camps, buy the SE a nice shiny downtown office buildin' away from the kids. *do not evaluate BSA execs on customer satisfaction, quality of program, or whether the kids learn skills or grow in values. Evaluate them solely on how good they are gettin' cute kindergarten cubs to sell popcorn to pay for their shiny new office building. Heh heh. Nah. I don't believe yeh. (unless you show me your Chicago Executive Board card, that is...) I'll admit the "pay the SM just like da hockey coach" proposal I threw out to spur some thought, eh? But "Sure, you will get plenty of leaders - plenty of the wrong kind, just out looking for a paycheck?" Dat sounds like an argument against DE's, eh?

Yah, so when someone looks like he's trollin', and his statistics don't pass the smell test, then we're probably out lookin' for gold in cow pies, eh? Da Audit Board for Circulation monitors magazine circulation in a thorough way. See http://www.magazine.org/Circulation/circulation_trends_and_magazine_handbook/. Usin' their figures for the past 10 years on Boys' Life Circulation: 2005 1.221 M -.3% 2004 1.224 M -4.6% 2003 1.284 M -3% 2002 1.323 M +3.4% 2001 1.280 M -1.5% 2000 1.300 M - .6% 1999 1.307 M -1.8% 1998 1.331 M - .7% 1997 1.336 M Durin' the whole period from 1997 to 2005, Boys Life had a circulation decline of 8.6%. Significant. Worth payin' attention to. But a far cry from 30%, eh? Of course, don't let real data get in the way of a strongly held belief. Even our Advancement Chair who gave us his feedbacks on the BORs has not mentioned that the scouts are not happy with the "outdated" materials, styles, methods, uniforms, silly magazines, etc. But also in da bad data realm is surveyin' only your satisfied customers and sayin' "see - this customer still likes us, everything is OK." To get a real handle on the gradual drop in Scouting numbers, we have to talk to and listen to the boys who chose never to sign up, eh? Yah, we all know if they came out campin' with us, the fun would override their aversion to da uniform. Once they understood what it meant, they might even like parts of it, eh? But it may well be that outdated symbols and dumb uniforms keep more kids from ever walkin' in the door, or botherin' to pick up a flyer.

Yah, another vote for no kindergarten cubs! Rethink webelos. It should be a 3-year car-camping outdoor program. Ten years old and 5th grade is too early for some boys to be in Boy Scouting, and way too early for some parents to let go to that extent without wantin' to adult-run the program. That gets you Cubs 1-2-3 (crafts); Webelos 4-5-6 (camping, personal independence); Scouts 7-8-9-up (outdoor adventure, youth leadership); Venturing 10-11-12-up (high adventure, specialties, young adult coed). No kids' crafts outside of Cubs. No silly songs outside of webelos. Tone down the awards program at all levels. Fewer and more meaningful. Less is more. Most of the real awards of scouting are the friendships, learning, service, and memories. Don't cheapen those with too many patches. No mandatory training. Mandatory learning. Leaders at each level must demonstrate personal skills and skills with kids in the "field" environment appropriate for each program. CO's willing to pay primary leaders in the same way they pay coaches/youth workers at some levels. We all know that Scoutmasterin' is a full-width Guernsey cow compared to a soccer coach toy poodle in terms of time. Yet most of those toy poodles get paid, eh? I know some SM's 'round here who put in more time than the church youth director. Yah. When both parents work, it ain't always possible to get a volunteer who has the time to build experience and learn skills to make a great program. We want 'em to learn, then we want 'em to stay. Pay 'em somethin. Fire every DE, everywhere. Hire a PR & Communications guy and a professional fundraiser for each council who really know what they're doin. Use the remaining money to hire program support people who can provide regular, ongoing, high-quality supplemental program offerings and unit level training on demand. A cub specialist. A council climbing guy. Whatever. This program stuff is too important and too technical to leave exclusively to high-turnover busy volunteers. Program is what we DO. Sell Scout Shops. Yah, we can all learn to buy things on-line. Buy camps. No BSA building or land should be retained that doesn't have kids on it, in it, or around it all the time. The SE should have to walk across a field of Pioneering Projects to get to his office every day. Beat G2SS and the other paperwork back into submission. Safety comes from experience and judgment, not from pages of regulation that few read. Drop restrictions based on anti-gun philosophy; keep only real safety guidelines. Let CO's determine their own membership and leadership requirements for their units. Very little would change, except that the noise would go down. Gather all the Timeless Values literature and have a bonfire. At the bonfire, scalp the guy in the suit who came up with it. Spend all our promo dollars on establishing Scouting as the standard for all youth outdoor adventure sports. We should be as visible as Red Bull anywhere adventure is happenin'. Keep the bonfire/scalping thing as a tradition for anyone else who ever moves our message away from Adventure. Some traditions are important, eh? Make "customer" satisfaction, program quality, and kid outcomes the primary evaluation tool for everyone who gets so much as a snicker's bar (let alone a salary) from the BSA. Sell the entire LFL division to McGraw-Hill or some other publisher, or spin it off. Get back to the core business.

The reason that it had to be changed again and again was because the fix was always worse than the problem they fixed. Often. And every change will require some shakeout, some staff turnover, and some adjustment and debugging before its real worth is shown. Some gents want instant positive results from any change, and that's never goin' to happen, eh? The alternative is we could be Ford. Just keep doin' what we're doin' because it's worked for us in the past, and it's a corporate tradition, eh? After all, there are a few dealers in Wyoming and west Texas that are still doin' a great job sellin' F250s, so that success must be mass-produceable. If only Ford would stick to the program. Findin' the right balance and the right timin' is a tricky thing, eh? Best to be always thinkin' about "better," but not always acting. Certainly not jumpin' on a bandwagon without good info. Yet when it's time to tack, best all the crew be pullin' together. Those who passively resist change can leave the whole ship in irons.