Eagle94-A1

4 hours ago, PACAN said:

 Pretty sure this will be ignored by councils that have huge online events with some classes up to 100 scouts and charging as high as $35 per badge.

Especially since National praised councils that had such events within the past 3 years. I remember watching this done at a NAM that was online. I think 2021.

In all of my experience in Scouting, every single time adults interfere with the Patrol process, they screw things up. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (major emphasis).

There is a reason why Traditional Patrols, aka Mixed Aged Patrol are still around,and begrudgingly mentioned in BSA literature on occasion, 35 years after national wanted aged based patrols to be the new norm: THEY WORK! (again major emphasis)

Aged based patrols have so many problems, especially NSPs. I was part of the pilot program, and it failed miserably in my troop. Imagine my surprise when I discover that aged based patrols were the new way of creating patrols.

@MattR said it best:

10 hours ago, MattR said:

, let the scouts figure it out

I will be making a trip and hand-delivering paperwork. One quirk in my locale is that one toyed of insurance has a credit that will pay for Scouts. However the paperwork needs to be turned into the council and they take care of it. Over 1/2 of my troop is in that program, so there is nothing I can do online.

2 of my adults show YPT has expired. I have copies of their YPT certificates from January, just need to find them, and will be delivering them with the other paperwork.

Since all my folks, save 1 adult, were involved in Scouting prior to the new process, everyone, save that one guy, recharters at same time.

On 11/24/2024 at 10:03 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

Over the course of my volunteer career, and through the several councils I have been involved in, the adult volunteer corps has been treated as expendable. 

Understatement of the year. I have seen it as well in the multiple councils I have been in. And now I know why so many old-timers no longer over the years stop doing anything with district or council, and focus on units instead. That or quit altogether.

3 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Any Scouter who believes he/she is the victim of a false allegation should immediately have their personal attorney request the chartered organization to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter.   This is the single best way for a Scouter to obtain a finding of facts that can be used to mitigate the impacts of an unjust accusation.   This can be fast and inexpensive -- and the results can be used to inform BSA and legal proceedings. 

Most Scouters I know do not have a personal attorney, nor can they afford one. As for the CO, most I have encountered are not active. And if they are active, councils tend to give them very little info on the situation in my experience. Heck when I was a DE, the SE kept info from me, and when I called him to tell him something about a situation, was told , " Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you....." 

And another organization's investigation won't mean squat to BSA. I knew someone falsely accused of sexual assault. There was a criminal investigation, and the evidence they found supported my friend. Even though she was cleared, she was still banned by the BSA.

52 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And councils are supposed to be enforcing this within six months of being in a position.  But that varies by council.  See link below for PA Dutch Council, which puts it a 12 months.  Councils are supposed to be denying position renewal without training, but I have never heard of it actually being enforced.

I guess mine is not enforcing it at all. I knew other councils had mandated training, heck neighboring council wanted you to have the training BEFORE ( emphasis) assuming the role. But was told National won't mandate training, except YPT.

53 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

For example, for the Scoutmaster role, you may complete EITHER S24, Scoutmaster Specific, OR all those course modules in the list in the first link above.

You would think that if you had S24 showing, all the online modules would not show up as "To Do's." Why whenever I teach a class, I add my name to the Training Report.

58 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

You learn different things in either training medium.  And, when done well, the in-person/interactive stuff is so much better.  

Personally prefer inperson training to online. The interactive, personal touch is much better than the monotone online stuff, even if interactive.

9 hours ago, Tron said:

Having IOLS is still required it's just buried a bit. The requirement is that you have to have at least 1 trained SM/ASM on every overnight outing. To be considered a trained SM/ASM you have to have IOLS. 

Can you show me how long that is a national requirement, because this is the first I am hearing about this.

Also does anyone know how to remove courses that My.Scouting.Org say I need to take, but have taken already, and taught, in a classroom setting?  Thankfully it says I am fully trained, but keeps showing online modules as if I need to do still.

On 11/15/2024 at 7:06 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is what the Commissioner Corps is supposed to be for. 

On 11/15/2024 at 6:35 PM, fred8033 said:

Agreed.  Quality control is a major issue.  ...

Units have such different personalities and habits.  Leaders are even more varied....

Former commissioner here. Agree the Commissioner Corps is suppose to be about quality control. But you also need Scouters who are willing to acknowledge they have weak programs, and be willing to listen to advice. Sadly I have encountered  such Scouters over the years who refuse to see the weakness of their program, and refuse to change. Commissioners can only coach and advise. they have no authority to implement change in a unit.

I had one such unit. After over a year of being ignored, I stopped trying. Successor commissioners to that unit, including one who knew the SM well as they were ASMs together at one point, were also ignored.

So if the settlement is declared null and void, what happens to the money that councils gave National for the settlement? Will camps on the selling block be put on hold? What about COs that put money towards to settlement? Will post 1970s COs have insurance coverage from National cover any lawsuits against them per the charter agreements?

Talking to folks in the UK when they went coed, single gendered troop, whether all male or all female, gradually died off.

I am so glad that 1 camp I go to is not owned by the council, but rented to them.. Non-profit trust owns it, and will not give it to the council outright. Trusts handing over ownership of camps to councils has been a very bad move for about 20 years now, but especially in light of the ongoing bankruptcy.

I know my local Catholic Church was in the process of starting a new pack and troop. Then they decided against it. I am told it was the lawsuit and the insurance increases involved.

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

Okay; maybe workable?  Also seems ripe to be abused if number of units is a stat?   hmmmmm

Yes, pros are are held accountable for the number of new units they start.

Yes, the practice didn't end in the 1970s. I knew councils that did it in the 1990s and later.

A lot of UWs stopped funding because of this.

On 9/7/2024 at 12:18 PM, PACAN said:

we fire professionals in the past for padding numbers with phantom registrations?

Only if they got caught. Even then, they would try to blame subordinates, even though they were the ones pushing it and doing it. If they were suspicions, and no hard evidence, they were "promoted" to smaller sized councils.

But not everyone being sent to  a smaller council was a screw up. Sometimes it was a way to get rid of the whistleblowers, "promoting" them to a higher position, but in a smaller council. Met an SE who was in this situation. Went from being a DFS with 3 FDs directly under him, and 18 DEs under them to being a SE with 1 FD and 3 DEs under him.

Yes, BSA did set up packs, troops, etc in the internment camps. part of it was to give a sense of normalcy, instill patriotism for the USA, etc. And there were interactions with local communities. More on that in a bit.

As the article stated there was pro-Japan internees, to the point that they formed paramilitary units inside the camps. After the war, a lot returned to Japan. I do not remember the exact number, but I think that it is over 8000. I will try t find the book on this when I get the chance. And it wasn't just Issei ( Native Japanese in the US) but also Nisei (Native US of Japanese ancestry). Japan not only had an immigration policy like the Nazis which granted automatic citizenship to anyone of Japanese ancestry, but also had active recruiting and indoctrination programs set up prior to the war. And those pro-Japanese internees did cause lots of problems, both inside and outside the internment camps.

As for involvement with local communities, one thing to remember is not all Japanese-Americans and Issei were interned, only those in the the Japanese Exclusion Zone, which was All of California, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Arizona.  Those Nisei and Issei outside the zone were not incarcerated, and in fact the War Department created some camps in areas with Japanese-American populations in the civilian community. In one locality, the pro-Japanese internees caused so much trouble to the non interned Japanese-Americans, the community wrote a letter to SecWar asking for the removal of the interment camp as it was creting tensions between them and their neighbors.

A bunch of mixed feeling on this one.

I can see why being anonymous is important. I know folks who reported stuff to the council, and they become persona non grata. I had that happen to me when I reported an alcohol in camp problem. Dealing with camp staff was one thing, but dealing with the council professional staff was a completely different situation.

But I also know it can be abused. As I posted elsewhere, a good friend was falsely accused of propositioning a Scout to save his own skin because he was being a peeping Tom.

On 6/21/2024 at 11:36 AM, OaklandAndy said:

What makes an area/community eligible to participate in the ScoutReach program? I'm sure there is some type of income cap for the area, county, or something like that. 

If there are any national requirements, I do not know about them. Back in the late 1990s, there were no national requirements that I was told about, I and I started 2 ScoutReach units in my district, and a friend of mine was SM for three or four in the early 2000s.

1 hour ago, Tron said:

If you're running a 12 month program as prescribed you can easily add these adventures and provide the learning experience for the scouts.

That is the thing, most packs still use a 9 month cycle based upon the school year. In all my years in Scouting, in multiple councils, only 1 pack had a 12 month program, and even then it was modified: instead of weekly meeting, it was biweekly fun activities to have Cubs earn the Summertime Award. In fact the entire reason why that award was created was to give an incentive for packs to remain active in some way over the summer.

This is what happens when educators take over the program.  BP said it best:

                           "Boys can see adventure in a dirty old duck puddle, and if the Scoutmaster is a boys’ man he can see it too."

                           “See things from the boy's point of view.”

                        "A boy is not a sitting-down animal."

                        "A fisherman does not bait his hook with food he likes. He uses food the fish likes. So with boys."

We need folks writing advancement  requirements who can see things through a kid's eye, remembering the excitement and adventures of their youth. We need folks writing advancement  requirements who realize the importance of experimental learning, as opposed to formal learning.  We need folks writing advancement  requirements that understand that some folks, especially boys, learn by doing. We need folks writing advancement  requirements that understand that failure is a learning method, probably one of the best. We need folks writing advancement  requirements that understand giving responsibility to youth is a way to help them learn and grow.

But most importantly We need folks writing advancement  requirement that understand that we cannot be all things to all people because "The open-air is the real objective of Scouting and the key to its success."

(sorry for some bolding, cannot undo it despite several attempts.)

Reading your post, and thinking how National will be "simplifying" the Scouts BSA program, It's as if multiple voices in my head are saying

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

To help the organization survive in a state that they want (instead of looking for ways to change it for the better), BSA professionals expel dissenters.

Although dated, here is a blog which elaborates on this: (not a Daily KOS fan, in general, but I do read stuff there to learn how others think...)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/3/4/191709/-Supressing-Dissent-in-Boy-Scouts-a-model-for-the-GOP

From the writing:

"The combination of lap dog boards and control of senior and middle volunteer management positions give the pros an immensely powerful position from which to block reform (and protect their own positions).  It will take a grass roots rebellion or a determined legal attack at the top to actually reform the system nationally.  Small determined groups with strong ethics and strong stomachs can achieve local results but, unless the tide shifts nationally, the system always tries to return to the old status quo."

Sadly I know one of the SEs mentioned in the article. He threatened a volunteer's son with not getting Eagle if the volunteer didn't do what he was told.  And I have seen first hand volunteers removed for questioning SEs.

On 5/22/2024 at 3:32 PM, Cburkhardt said:

What is it about the BSA that has allowed it to survive?

1. Legacy members and Volunteers. 

I grew up in the Scouting program, and the SM and ASMs were the "father figures" I looked up and sought advice from. My fellow Scouts were like brothers to me. In essence Scouting was my surrogate family. I continued on as a Scouter even when I had no kids, because I NEEDED to give back. There was no way I could ever repay my SM and ASMs for every thing they did for me. Closest I could do is give back.

When I did have kids, I wanted them to have some of the same experiences and joys that I had as a Scout, and if possible even better ones.

But the program is not the same as it was. The program has been watered down. Instead of adventure, the focus is now "Getting Eagle." The old standard of advancement was " Master the skills" and "The badge represents what a Scout CAN DO (emphasis added), not what he has done." Now the standard is "A badge recognizes what a Scout has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth. " Look at the number "academic" requirements in MBs, as well as purely academic MBs there are these days.  And with National saying they will be "Simplifiying" the Scouts BSA program, there are a lot of concerns, including from BSA "cheerleaders" like Mike Walton about watering down the program further.

And let's not forget the bad treatment of longtime volunteers by not only pros, but also newer volunteers. I have given examples in other posts of the mistreatment of experienced Scouters by pros. But go on some of any social media website, including this one, and you will have newer volunteers denigrating and insulting experienced volunteers and their concerns. I know I have been told in person and online that "you don't know what you are talking about," "(citation from G2SS, G2Am, etc) is wrong you can do..." and 'Scouting needs to change with the times."

So a lot of volunteers , especially on district and council levels, are throwing in the towel. And trust me, it is EXTREMELY hard to replace them with folks witht he same knowledge, skills, abilities, time, and treasure.

2. Nostalgia.

When you hear the terms "Scout," "Eagle", etc folks get images of the Norman Rockwell paintings and  Follow Me, Boys.  Scouting over the years has done so much good, that it has a positive image.

Sadly the paper-pushing is slowly changing that adventure into another classroom.

Worse, the dark side of Scouting is making an appearance, and folks are applying today's standards to activities 40+ years ago. Falsifying membership has slowly been coming out. The biggest obviously is the CSA Scandal. Whether you agree it is BSA's fault or not, it has hurt BSA.

5 minutes ago, DannyG said:

Our troop has allowed it on extenuating circumstances (ie. parent drops off kid at camp late and leaves) but it doesn't always work for everyone. Sometimes the troop is camping for fun nearby, so we can make it work out . Sometimes the troop is out on a trek in the wilderness and you wouldn't be able to find us as easily. But I think we have to realize this gap exists on the older side of the program, not just Cubs.  I see both sides.

During COVID, we had no choice but to allow families to pick up and drop off. Since everything was within 90 minutes (usually 45 minutes or less, but that one day trip) we had a few issues, but they were workable.

HOWEVER post COVID  had a major trip, 6+ hours away. family was going to be in the area prior to us and afterwards, so the decision to let us meet and drop off and pick up was made. That was a mistake. We got to the meet up point about 30 minutes late due to an accident on the highway. Family was upset that we were late. When asked when to expect arrival for pick up, we told them one time, but also said we could get back earlier, depending upon the backpacking pace. We said we would call them if we got back earlier.  We did get back 2 hours earlier than anticipated, and called them. Because of the remoteness of the area cell service was limited and we could not get them. We waited and attempted to get them multiple times. The parents show up an hour after we told them. Yes we waited for 3 hours for the parents to show up. We could have been almost halfway to home. The Scouts were not happy.

10 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

We might consider making the program more inviting by offering additional day camps or 1-night camping options. I find this preferable to an indoor program (or no program).

Wise man once said, "OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING." ( The author of the 2010's edition misquoted him, he obviously didn't do the math).

Scouting and sports are two completely separate programs, with completely different goals and objectives.