Eagle94-A1

His thoughts are the following and I'm paraphrasing. It makes no sense to have 2 Scout aged groups meeting on separate nights and doing separate activities, especially when you are trying to promote accomodating families.If you have 2 separate groups, that means leaders will have two separate nights for meetings, and two different weekends for activities. The leaders will burn out faster, and we are already having a hard time getting new leaders. I admit I personally am against going coed. I know boys do better in a single gender environment. IO also know that it seems as if there is a war on boys and they cannot do anything on their own, but there are no questions about girls only programs. But I am also a realist. I know Separate but Equal will not work. GSUSA already works and it is a joke from all the complaints I'm hearing and the push to make BSA coed. I also know that the BSA creating a program just for girls will not work either. BSA did just that with Campfire Girls. They eventually went their own way and have nothing to do with us. Plus they went coed. Are they still around?

Some will say that it is not the program they signed up for. And they would be correct. Some will say that it now a program detrimental to boys. And they are correct. even the CSE states that research shows boys do better in a single gender environment. Some will say that they do not want to be involved with units that are "pushing the envelope." I admit I am uncomfortable with one Scouter willing to ignore a "separate but equal" program and push to fully integrate. Some will say they are concerned with Youth Protection issues. I know I am. Again I had one parent already talking about how to get around not having a female Scouter present by calling it a 'family camp out" and with just the dad present. PLUS I have seen first hand what just the accusation of some impropriety can do to someone. Some will say they do not want to deal with having to keep an eye on the Scouts 24/7. Some will say they are tired of the controversy and see this policy as continuing the controversy, and taking time and resources away from taking care of our boys, as well as girls. Some will say they are tired of being lied to by national, and do not want to be involed with an organization that cannot keep their own values.

Agree with Flagg and Gwaihir above. I'll add though that I will be following the lead of my sons. Oldest is not looking forward to it, and I don't know what he will do. Middle son says it's a bad idea, but again do not know what he will do. I do know of one troop that will stay all male, and they may want to join them. Heck the more I see of that troop, I wish I would have taken oldest to see them as they are a true, Scout-led, active troop. I am going to throw in a conversation I had with a parent on this topic. 1) If BSA creates a "separate but equal" program, he will do everything in his power to make the troop coed. There may be 2 units on paper, but in reality it will be one. Also, and I really want to hear from our Venturing leaders about this one, parent stated that if they cannot find a female Scouter to camp so that the girls can camp as Scouts, turn the camp out into a "family camp out" so the girls can camp as "family members" and stay with their dad, or with their friends, and get around having a female Scouter.

I was one of those Scouts who initially could not afford a full uniform. There were green trousers and shorts nearly identical to the BSA pants and shorts. In fact, the shorts had the 6" rule, you had to be 6 inches away and looking at the snaps to tell the difference. I wore those for a few years. Over time, I was able to obtain official pants and shorts from a thrift store. In fact, I went into "business" going to the thrift store near my high school, buying uniform items, and reselling them to Scouts in the troop. I got the patches, they got the uniform items. WIN-WIN And I agree with The Latin Scout, money that could be used for more important items is being wasted on the campaign covers. I also agree with Stosh, the knock off hats are more expensive than the shirts. Both of my campaign hats that were issued by my council growing up were knock offs. OK USGI surplus. When I added the hatband and shin strap, you cannot tell they are knock offs.

Not membership, but other areas: EAGLE PALMS. In 2014 a survey was conducted about changing requirements for Eagle Palms. 94% surveyed thought that the 3 months tenure was either Important (19%) or Very Important (74%). 85% did not want to include time as a Life Scout towards Eagle Palms. 94% is near unanimous and 85% is a supermajority. Yet BSA came out with Instapalms.

The challenge is that not every council is informing folks about their meetings. My council put a fast blurb on one district's facebook page. It's not on the district calendar, no emails were sent out. Just a fast blurb on one district's facebook page. And then is was posted in the middle of a punch of other posts. Further they selected a night and location that will make it difficult for many folks to show up. My council selected a Thursday night, a night in the middle of the week for this meeting. And they gave us 7 days notice for the meeting. Also I will be driving 3 hours round trip to attend a 1 hour long meeting. And my district is relatively close. There are some districts that will have another hour plus drive one way. So I am glad that folks are posting the video online. I am glad that folks are posting the intro and discussion questions online. A lot of people are concerned. Alot of people are interested in this. And my council at least is not doing a very good job communicating or showing that they are truly interested in our opinion.

I know in 2013, jambo participant and staff went off site to do service work. Part of it was to give back to the community. Part of it was to find things to do for Scouts and Venturers since they had more people than events. I also remember reading complaints about making folks do service work at jambo.

Why am I not surprised. I don't remember how many I has, but it wasn't that number.

When I did the survey, i answered from the heart: No to coed Scouting; let the girls fix the problems with the GSUSA. However, I am a realist. The writing is on the wall. The CSE has been constantly talking about "Families" involved in Scouting. Current BSA imagery has contained girls in it, and Bryan's Blog did an article on an all girl Venturing Crew. There is talk of a revised YPT, and there is both external and internal pressure for change. Then there are those who are apathetic and it won't matter to them which way the decision goes. I have accepted that girls are going to be allowed in the BSA. My purpose now is this: what will be the best decision for the current boys in the program, and any girls who join. IMHO, a "separate but equal" program, either with a partnership with an existing organization or one created from scratch will not work. As has been mentioned, financial reasons, emotional reasons, and practical reasons do not make this a viable option. If the BSA goes this route, it will leave a smoldering fire that will reignite a few years down the road, and continue causing problems for the BSA. The only viable answer I see is the UK model of having COs decide if they want All Male, All Female, or coed. As for me, I am here for my sons. If they stay with a coed unit, as I have been told the troop will integrate if a "separate but equal" program is created, I will stay, If they want an all male troop, and I know there will be at least one in my neck of the woods, I go with them. If they wan tto drop and join Trails Life, I with them. Once they leave Scouting, I do not know what I will do.

Folks under 21 are considered "youth" in teh OA and must have 20 days and nights of camping, including 1 long-term camp ion the past 2 years, BE FIRST CLASS OR HIGHER, (emphasis) and BE ELECTED BY THEIR TROOP OR TEAM (emphasis again). So an 18-20 year old female could not get elected into the OA, at this time.

I took the survey. If they follow the same path they have with other surveys, they will ignore what the majority wants. And in all honesty, what it looks like they want to do will not work as I posted in the other thread.

Oh there is outside pressure for the change. But as noted also a lot of internal pressure for the change. When BSA goes fully coed, I prefer what I call "The English Model of 1995." Units have the choice of coed,all male, or all female. IMHO that is to solve this problem and get back to work to caring for our boys who are currently in the program, and anyone else who joins as a result.

The "Finnish Model" as I call a coed Cub Scout program, separate Boy Scouts and Girl Guide programs, and coed Venturing program, will not work in this country. Here are a few reasons. 1) It rings of "Separate but Equal." Let's face it, a separate Girls Scout program is already not working. why rehash the same thing within BSA? 2) Those folks demanding coed Scouting will not accept anything less than total integration. If national decided to to this, we will keep revisiting this issue over the years, further hurting our boys, as well as any girls in the programs. 3) A separate program will mean additional Scouters needed, most with no Boy Scouting experience. While we cwill get a lot of dissatisfied Girl Scouts and their volunteers, will it be enough to have a separate program? Also will they have the knowledge, skills, and experience to run a proper BSA program? Some existing units today already have challenges getting enough volunteers. 4) Units will ignore the "separate but equal" programs and integrate no matter what national decides. With the emphasis being "More Accessible to Families" why create 2 separate programs at that level, when Cubs and Venturing is already coed? Why have to double the efforts and time? When I discussed this with 3 individuals who have an interest in girls coming into the BSA, All three said they would do the separate but equal units on paper, but ignore it in practice. If BSA wants to be "Family Friendly" they will need full integration. Otherwise we will be boil;ng a frog.

As others have stated, the physical contact and yelling concern me. That is grounds for council level involvement if memory serves.

I think I need to clarify a point on my Tale of the Unqualified SPL. The Scouts knew better than the adults, knew better than the SPL's father even, that the Scout could do the job. Again Scouts know what is up. If they have real control over the troop, they will take it seriously and vote for the best candidate. If adults sweep in all the time, the kids won't care b/c the election will be a farce

BSA briefy did Rovers, circa 1935 to 1953. Great Depression didn't make it too viable, then WWII, the Cold War, and Korean War did it in.

Let me tell you the story of the "Unqualified SPL" There once was an 11 year old Tenderfoot. He was in the troop about 5 months when his patrol elected him PL. He did such a great job, that his APL nomintated him for SPL when his term as PL was over. So this 11 year old now Second Class Scout with 11 months in the troop was elected SPL. Now his dad is an Eagle, and active in Scouting still in too many roles. Dad thought it was a joke when told the son was elected SPL. Then he freaked out. Dad actually wanted son to think about what he was getting into and was he sure he wanted the job, and said it was not too late to back down. Son took it on. Over the next 6 months, the troop made a lot of progress towards being boy-led. The 11 year old Second Class Scout set a lot of good precedents. Was he perfect, no. Did he ask for help from his dad. yes. My proudest moment was when one of the older Scouts said my son was the best SPL the troop had ever had. And this was the ex-SPL whom my son looked up to. Sadly, a new influx of adults, as well as some health challenges with the SM caused major changes. The adults interfered so much that progress towards boy-led took an almost 180 degree turn, and the older Scouts have lost interest in being in leadership b/c the adults interfere so much. Heck they just did a fundraiser. SPL wants to divide the money up by the three patrols and let them purchase equipment they want/need. And one adults stated "They can do that, as long as they get what we want them to get."

The Survey was done in December 2014, and the results published were published in march-April 2015 on page 12 of this document found here: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/2015_Mar-April.pdf Some details of the results: 69% of respondents agreed at some level that the Eagle Palm program is an important factor in retaining Scouts. 80% agreed at some level that Eagle Palms strengthen the unit through continued participation of Eagle Scouts. 85 percent of those polled disagreed with awarding Palms based solely on earning five merit badges. In effect the new policy makes the "insta-palms" soley based on 5 extra MBs. 81 percent rejected the idea of allowing additional active time at Life rank to count toward Eagle Palms. In effect, the new policy does exactly this by awarding palms without 3 months additional tenure as an Eagle. 75 percent rated the three months of tenure as “very important, and another 19 percent rated it as “important.†(OK, I was off a bit with my statement above. but it still is 94% thought 3 months were important.) 78 percent agreed that three months was the proper tenure 80 percent agreed that activity outside the troop or patrol should be allowed in meeting the tenure requirement 87 percent rated the Scout spirit requirement as “very important,†69 percent rated the leadership requirement similarly. Regarding whether or not Bryan's Blog can be considered an official BSA source of policy, that question was asked on one of the blogs comments, and the answer was YES.

Under the FAQs on Bryan's Blog, they give guidance that if you had your EBOR this past Monday or earlier, you have to wait 3 months per palm. Yesterday and onwards, you can have 'insta-palms." And yes, I am part of the 94% who took the poll and opposed "insta-palms."

Again I would not wear it because i didn't go. But I also have enough "bling" that it would not matter. May I offer another option of making it meaningful? I have some very special patches framed and hanging in my office at home. My overseas collections, gifts from Scouts and friends, and some special ones I have earned/received over the years are on display.

1) WELCOME TO DA FORUMS!!!!! 2) Scouters should NOT interfere with the election of a units leaders. Let the Scouts vote and live with the consequences. If you interefere they learn NOTHING (emphasis) The Scouters in my current current troop interfered with unit elections last year. It sets the Scouts in the troop back. if you look at my previous posts, the adults would not let the leaders lead. It got so bad that I thought of restarting a troop that had folded. That interference is still affecting the troop today. The Scouts know what is up. If you truly have a Scout-run troop, they will take unit elections seriously. But if adults constantly jump in and interfere, they will not care. I know of a troop that had a real slacker and trouble maker decide to run for SPL. Scouts knew what was up and he only got 2 votes: his and probably his best friend's vote. 3) good luck

But it appears as if the BSA IS following the way the YMCA went.

Yes fine for you to wear. Most folks don't for the reason Col. Flagg stated.

My advice has always been to get the project over and done with. I know one Scout has 62 MBs and missed earning Eagle b/c of the project, Also know of Scouts waiting to the last minute to do a project, and it's a rush job.

This. Ticks. Me. Off. I did my project as soon as I turned Life.