TheScout

Leigh, I see your point, but basically the same problem remains in your solution. As illegitimate it is to "make" a scout an SPL, the same applies to making a scout Troop Guide. A Troop Guide as well as all other troop positions may only be appointed by the boy elected SPL with the advice and consent of the Scoutmaster. If you truly desire a boy led troop, the only way to fill youth troop offices is by the will of the boys. Thanks.

Eagledad, This is the reason I said NSPs help keep older boys involved. If you stick 16 or 17 year old boys with an 11 year old, there is a big age differential. I am sure it is not the 17 year olds idea of fun to hang out with an 11 year old. Also, because of different levels of experience they are able to participate in different more advanced activities. If the patrols are kept together by age, each patrol can plan its own functions based on the experience of the members of the patrol. Though the older boys still exercise overall leadership, they are able to "do their own thing" which they enjoy. I guess this is more of an argument for age based rather than mixed patrols than more NSPs. Thanks.

The situation you mention is indeed unfortunate. However, the BSA sincerely believes that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore it has made policy to conform with its morals. If this it what it believes it should stick to them regardless of the consequences. "In matters of style swim with the current, in matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson

"I find it extraordinarly immoral to prejudge a 15 year old gay Scout as "incapable of being the best kind of citizen", and reinforce in his mind that he is unworthy of your association." You have your moral beliefs, we don't believe them. Let us have ours, whether you like them or not, don't shove them down our throat. "One result of the survey I found interesting suugests the "education level" has even more to do with opinions on homosexuality than just age/generation" Statistics can be twisted whatever way you wish. I'm sure that you can find a statistic that that people who go to church (I'm saying thats a good thing)are less accepting of homosexuality than those who don't go to church. Conveniently you don't mention that it is godless among us who support your "position" as well.

TJ, Couple of comments. I found it quite offensive that you had to catergorize the states that voted against the gay marriage referendums and at the bottom of the education levels. I think you fail to realize that this is an issue not of education, but of what people honestly believe in their hearts. It is quite funny that Oregon passed it as well considering that they are one of the most socially liberal areas of the country, they were the first to approve doctor assisted suicide and state funded medicine. Remember that every time this issue was put to the PEOPLE to vote on, they rejected it. The only places where it began legal is where some court or leftist politian pushed it down their throat. Finally, leaving alone the issue on whether homosexuality is right or wrong I think the bigger question should is: Should the BSA sacrafice/change its moral values that it believes is right just for the sake of numbers? And I definatly say no. One of the things that makes the BSA great is the fact that it has many great traditions and values that have lasted decades. These are the things the American public respects about the BSA. Thanks.

I love the Scouting History idea suggested by SemperParatus. And I think that the Respect/Etiquette could be named Ethics and should also be Eagle Required. I also like the Politics and Government idea.

I gotta go with Bob on this one. Assimilating into the other patrols is usually not a good idea. All the scouts are at different levels of scouting experience and acheivement. If scouts are kept in patrols based on this they can break off at functions are have a program designed particularly for their own experience level. This is one way older boys can be kept involved in a troop. At appropriate times they can break off and do their own thing.

I never knew the Pope was a Boy Scout. Yet another reason to admire the man. You are right, he has been one of the greatest figures of the 20th Century and surely will be missed when his time is up. May God continue to bless His Holiness.

In our troop, the NSP Patrol Leader is elected for a one month term and he appoints his APL. He can not run again until every scout who wishes to serve has had an opportunity. This gives everyone a chance to experience leadership. A older scout is appointed as Troop Guide to assist the patrol and mentors the PL. This arrangement usually lasts, a little less than a year. Eventually the PLC with advice from the Scoutmaster "elevates" the patrol en masse to a regular patrol when they deem the boys are ready. The scouts can then choose to continue on as a patrol, or they may join other patrols if they wish.

BP, I apologize if my words make it seem like I have a hostility towards Venturing. This is certainly not the case. I also do not believe I am taking pot shots at the program, I stated the reasons that I do not think it is a good program for the BSA and I explained what I thought they should do again to keep older scouts involved. You or others may not appreciate my thoughts, and that is your right. To answer your message. I think that the Boy Scout Troop system if properly run with an advanced Venture Patrol program can keep older scouts involved and benefit from their experience. I now Venture Patrols and Crews are not related, but I think some of the ideas from the Crews could be used to make the Patrols better and more appealing. I would contest your assertion that Venturing opens up scouting to girls, the GSUSA has been doing that for decades. In the experience around my area, Venturing does compete with troops for scouts, many of who do not fully dedicate themselves to either one. Finally, I am not opposed to Sea Scouts or Exploring. Both of these programs have served the BSA well for decades and should be kept as is. (I was not a big fan of the reforms of the Exploring/Venturing program in 1998, I would have left Exploring as is). I am saying this out of love, not hostility. I think the BSA is one of the finest organizations in America and does amazing things for young men, as it did for me as a scout. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but In my humble opinion I dont think this is a good direction for the BSA to be heading. Best Regards.

I guess the thing that I dont get is, if Venturing represents a totally different business or concept, then why does the BSA even bother with it. Why doesnt it just use its resources to focus on what it is good at and what it is famous for: building a great scouting program, the core being the Boy Scout troop, to help make young men better citizens. BSA should focus on a quality scouting program. This will make more boys be involved in the future.

I guess the thing that I dont get is, if Venturing represents a totally different business or concept, then why does the BSA even bother with it. Why doesnt it just use its resources to focus on what it is good at and what it is famous for: building a great scouting program, the core being the Boy Scout troop, to help make young men better citizens. BSA should focus on a quality scouting program. This will make more boys be involved in the future.

I guess the thing that I dont get is, if Venturing represents a totally different business or concept, then why does the BSA even bother with it. Why doesnt it just use its resources to focus on what it is good at and what it is famous for: building a great scouting program, the core being the Boy Scout troop, to help make young men better citizens. BSA should focus on a quality scouting program. This will make more boys be involved in the future.

I always thought that ASPLs had to be appointed by the SPL. Yet many troops seem to have the ASPL elected and I was wondering why. It seems natural for the SPL to be able to appoint his own assistants, the scouts he can work the best with to carry out his vision for the troop.

Bob White, I very much like the idea of staggering the PL elections. We might have to think about doing that in our troop. (I do believe you mean you took the Senate for a model however)

I think the analysis is great. I can't help by being bother by the analysis of #5 however. I must admit that I haven't read through the new copy of the merit badge book to see how it explains the requirments. However, I think your analysis focuses too much on the realm of the Federal government. The functions mentioned in the preamble were not really the key responsibilites, just a statement of the goals of the union. These goals were in a large part accomplished by the states as they are today. The Justice Department "establishes justice" just as much do state police and judical authoritys. The Dept. of Homeland Security isn't the key to domestic tranquility, it did not exist until a couple of years ago. And God save us all if the courts are the only protector of our rights. The real protector is independant legislatures, our armed citizenry, and State governments to interpose themselves between the Federal government and its citizens. This probably doesn't belong on the thread. But I am a little scared of the lack of any talk of Federalsim or of the States which make up our union. They are as important if not more than the Federal government. Thanks.

In our troop the PLC runs the election. Since we don't have written bylaws, the process might change slightly from year to year. They set the qualifications, (usually any boy in the troop), then the appoint a "Secretary", an older boy who is not running for the office to supervise the election. The PLC sets a date for candidates to declare and the date of the actual election. Interested scouts must inform the Secretary of their desire to run. The Secretary then writes up the ballot. On the night of the vote the candidates are given an opportunity to make a speech and scouts may pose questions to them if they wish. The incumbent SPL gets to speak last, if seeking reelection, and the most senior scouts go before him in order of seniority. The Secretary then conducts the vote, and he counts the ballots in front of the troop. Usually we have more than one scout run. A majority is required for election. In the event no scout has a majority, the scout with the least amount of votes is dropped, and another vote is held. This process continues until one scout receives a majority. We elect a SPL annually, we find this good because the position has a learning curve, especially if there is a new SPL. After a couple of monthes he can usually find his grove and start running effectivly.

I agree, $1 seems awful stiff. This would probably discourage scouts from borrowing books which is the whole point of the library. I agree with FScouter, allocate some money from the next fundraiser. A seperate fundraiser might be an option. Car washes are really easy and do great. You could always tap into troop reserves as well. Make sure the Librarian handles this situation. It is a critical part of his responsibility and a great learning experience.

BadenP, With all do respect, since we preach uniform as one of the methods of scouting, I dont understand why we want to water down our ideals to get other youths in. Scouts is not for everyone. If an individual does not want to wear a uniform, then that is not the kind of person we want. We all know the importance of the uniform, and we should not water down our ideals for the extent of numbers. The same thing applies to the other methods and formalities. Of course I would not blame Venturing alone for the diminishing numbers of scouts. You faulted poor leaders and program. I would think that any resource, every dollar, every leader that the BSA utilizes in the Venturing program is less resources that could have been used supporting a troop, making the core of the BSA better for the majority of scouts. Finally, there is no reason why troops can not be tailored to the needs of scouts as many claim Venture Crews are. If a troop is truly boy-led it can reflect the desires of the scouts as the elected PLC will build a program. This process is even better served in a troop with a good functioning patrol system. This way each individual patrol could participate in activities tailored to its scouts interests. Lastly, a Venture Patrol would be able to do this to a larger extent, and if well run participate in exciting activities that will keep older scouts involved as Venture Crews purport to do. I think that splitting the Venture Crews off of troops seems to be admitting defeat. It is in a sense admitting that our scout program is not good enough to keep boys older than 14 above, and that is not something I can agree to. I think a well run troop is able to keep older scouts involved which will be the best for them and the younger scouts, and that the resources of the BSA should be utilized to make troops strong so that they are able to do this. Thank you.

I'm new to this forum, but I have rather strong feelings about the Venturing program and wanted to throw my two cents in. I find myself with a strong distaste for the Venturing Program. I see the Venturing as a drain of the most experienced, talented, and older scouts from the troop. These scouts are the core of every troop as they are the ones who really make it "boy led" as they take up troop leadership positions and teach scouting skills to the younger boys. I understand the concerns of those who think that older boys have different needs and need a program centered to them. I think this could be accomplished within the troop as a Venture Patrol. I believe that the current Venture Patrol is not set up perfectly for this, but I think it is an excellant concept that could be improved upon. Great care needs to be made to avoid creating an "elite" patrol, but older scouts who wish to be part of it should be able to participate in activites above and beyond what the troop does. If the "Venturing concept" is kept in the troop in this way, it can benefit from already existing troop structure (leaders, Troop committee, CO, etc.)while at the same time keeping older boys in the troop to serve as leadership, teacher younger scouts, and provide an example. I think that the Boy Scout troop is the key element of the Scouting program and all effort must be made to keep these strong. This is the part that the public is familiar with and thinks of when they think of scouts, they set the example for the BSA. This is why I am a little scared when I see all these "other" scouting programs such as Venturing and Varsity, especially in light of diminishing numbers of scouts nationwide in recent years. I can not help believe that they not only take away numbers of scouts, but also harm the quality of the program as leadership and resources are siphoned off. I realize this approach would leave the young ladies in Venturing Crews in some what of a lurch, but to tell you the truth I never got why the BSA decided to be co-ed anyway. And if does, the whole organization should do so, not just the Crews. As a corollary to this. I think the Venture Patrol concept would work better in larger troops (35-50 I suppose) presumably these troops would use the patrol method to the greatest extent, and this way the new and improved Venture Patrol would be better able to split off and the appropriate times. The point I am getting to on this is that I see a worrying trend in my council of a seemingly endless amount of new troops being started (in an area already flooded with troops) by any parent of a Weblo Scout who wants to run their own troop. Unfortunatly this leads to the many troops around struggling for recruits (and these are good troops too). Sorry this post got a little long, but I was on a roll. Thanks!