Eagle94-A1

My thoughts. #1 Looks like Kosnoff is vying to take over as lead attorney against the BSA in this case, and he will get his wish for the complete dissolution of the BSA. #2 Regarding the name change, I do not know. I do know we need change at the National Office. Kosnoff is right, BSA did not handle the bankruptcy process correctly IMHO. #3 Corporate donors are gone and will not be coming back. They have moved on, and the current negative publicity would hurt them, even with a name change. #4 I think BSA has been looking at family camping since before allowing girls, hence the term "Family Scouting" when they allowed girls to join, and the push to create family camping programs. This would be a tremendous loss to BP's vision, and everything thousands of Scouters have worked towards over the past century: developing youth physically, mentally, and morally. I have seen first hand the problems "Family Scouting" can cause, and left a troop over the matter. If "Family Scouting" is the future, then like @Sentinel947 , I too will be out. I have fought too hard to preserve Scouting as I had experienced it as a youth. I will not allow my sons to suffer from 'Family Scouting" any longer and will leave if this become the norm. I have dealt with national ignoring volunteers in the field. I have dealt with the loss of the true Patrol Method. I will not deal with the death of true Scouting as envisioned by BP, expanded upon by "Green Bar Bill," and practiced in the rest of the world. if you compare the experiences of foreign Scouts to BSA's Scouts, it is a vast difference.

If memory serves, some time in the 1970s, National agreed to take responsibility for councils liability insurance in exchange for councils paying into the insurance fund. Just as national promised to protect COs, they also promised to protect councils.

Actually what I find sad and deeply ironic is that the only legal way to protect youth the BSA had time before mandatory reporting laws, the Ineligible Volunteer Files, is now being used to show they knew abuse was prevalent and should have been reported using todays legal standards, and not he legal standards of the time.

From the article and doing the math, the 93 year old suing the BSA was abused sometime between 1936 when he was 9 years old and 1944 when he was 18. That is over 80 years ago. Folk involved are long dead, including the parents who would have made the decision to press charges or not. And from my research many parents chose not to.

If I seem pessimistic about this topic, it is because I have seen a lot of fudging over the years in multiple councils. And it seems as if National turns a blind eye to the matter until forced to look. Does R. Holmes and Greater AL Council ring a bell? From experience and talking to pros over the years, DE WILL be pressured to short cut the process and get those units and numbers. Doing things the correct way does indeed work. But you may only get 1 new unit a year out of it. And most SEs and DFSs want more. You may have a few councils, and it sounds like yours is one of them, that may do the right thing. BUT that can change, SEs and DFSs set the tone. As the folks in those roles change, so do the methods. After I left the profession, my SE was replaced a year later. New SE, cleaned up the membership mess. It stayed clean for a while, but eventually a new SE came aboard. I agree it is poor Senior Management. But they are the ones setting the tone, and because most Senior management pros are in a council 3-5 years, they believe the problems they have caused will be someone else's problems to solve. As for council boards, well al lot of them are "yes men." And there are ways to hide the fudging from the exec board, unless they are also involved on the unit/district level. As for unethical salesmen getting fired and ethical salesmen getting promoted, sadly I do not see that happening. I see the unethical ones getting promoted, and the ethical ones leaving, or getting lateral transfers to other councils. And the councils they move to tend to be smaller, no chance of promotion, councils. Best example I know if is the DFS of a metro council who found some issues, and corrected them. As a DFS, he supervised 2 FDs, and 14 DEs. He was "promoted" to SE of a 3 county council with 1 FD and 3 DEs.

While it is not dumb to encourage strategies to increase membership, setting quotas is because it WILL (emphasis) lead some professionals to cut corners, have creative membership numbers, ghost units, ad nauseum. You will have some unscrupulous pros who will do whatever it takes to meet these quotas. I hate to be pessimistic, but have seen it as a volunteer and as a professional. It does happen.

Sadly the professional overreach is real in my area. When I was a DE. my SE and DFS were telling me I needed to get rid of folks because they did not toe the line with them. I told them we needed the best people for the job, even if they didn't agree 110%, and that some of their ideas I thought were valid ones. That also did not go well. In the 17 years i have been back in my old district, only 1 SE did not push volunteers out of the way. When he left, a lot of folks got sidelined because they disagreed with the pros. Others got so frustrated with the overreach, they resigned from district/council PORs, although they may have been kept on the council books in those PORs. I stepped down from all district duties except MBC due to pro overreach. I was still listed on the district charter in the POR that I stepped down from for 3 years. And I was not the only one who stepped down. We lost a district commissioner, several district chairmen (I think it was 3 in a 18 month period. I remember 1 lasted 3 months), and several district committee members. One guy, a camporee chief, got so ticked off with the pros interfering, he quit and told them to run it. They did nothing. Only a group of SMs getting together to come up with a fun weekend did the camporee continue, and with no support from council.

I know all to well. Reason for not fixing core issues is variety of issues. First and foremost it takes too long. Creating a program takes several years. Majority of pros only care about the here and now due to the pressure to meet goals. Plus more and more Pros have little to no experience in the Movement. They have no idea what Scouting is suppose to be like. Heck, I found out that Pros are no longer required to do any program training, i.e. DL, CM, Pack Committee (Cub Scout Basic Leader in my day), SM Specific and IOLS (SM Fundamentals in my day), or Venturing Leader Specific ( Exploring Leader Basic in my day). That leads me to the second issue: lack of program experience among professionals. Let's face it, the majority of DEs are fresh out of college, desperate for a job, and have no experience in Scouting. In my PDL-1 class of 80, when we broke out into those with Scouting experience and those without, about 16 of us had experience. 3 months later, at the All Hands Conference that every single professional had to attend, between 25% and 30% of my PDL Class remained. Out of the number 3 of us with Scouting experience remained. And don't get me started on the national level. While in some areas folks with outside experience are needed, IT immediately comes to mind, other areas like program and training, we need folks with experience in movement. PhDs are nice, but they are theory based, not reality based. trust me, I work with a bunch of them. Third, it takes a lot of volunteers to do the job, and you got to get all of them unified in the vision to fix the problems. Recruiting the right people takes time. Gathering their ideas on the problems and coming up with unified vision takes a lot of time, debating, planning, and organizing. Especially with the problems we have. It is not just one issue, but many. Sadly pros will hyperfocus on one issue, and ignore everything else. If folks try to bring up the other issues, or try to discuss different solutions, they get removed from their positions, and replaced by 'Yes Men." Fourth, folks who have been doing it their way will resist any change. Unless councils and national are willing to get tough, and potentially lose units, these folks will continue with their weak programs. Worse, if enough complain National will cave in to their demands. Anyone remember when the June 2015 Cub Scout Program got revamped in December 2016 without any prior warning, including to those on the 411 committee that came up with the 2015 changes? Anyone remember how the 411 committee's January 2016 to July 2017 First Class Rank requirements that 6 camp outs needed to be First Class, which was downgraded to 4 camp outs in August 2017? All because the 411 committee's changes were too hard. Five, pros, especially National, ignores the volunteers. The 411 committee above is one example. It takes about 3 years to fully implement change. The 411 committee got a lot of input from those in the field because I am told many were still involved in the field. I know my contact on the 411 Commitee was still involved in Cub Scouts at the local and council levels. They came up with a program that actually improved the quality of the program. The units i am familiar with that attended the RTs prior to implementation, and actually planned accordingly had some challenges, but to be expected. In fact my sons' pack refused to implement the December 2016 program changes immediately because they had already planned their year out to May, and were not going to create havoc by changing midyear. And don't forget the Instapalm survey where 94% of the polled were against (18%) or strongly against (76%) instapalms. Just as volunteers have been ignored by national, the boots on the ground see this for what it is, realize it is a joke, and will follow national's example: ingoring it.

Didn't National give out recruitment goals back in the 1980s and 1990s and some pro came up with "creative ways" of meeting those goals? The powers that be do not appear to have a clue what is going on.

Don't forget first, and only(?) Chief Scout Citizen.

Well I found my answer in the GUIDE TO ADVANCMENT, and of course it is doublespeak. Page 16 has the answer, and the doublespeak is bolded If a new or revised rank or Eagle Palm requirement is introduced in a reprinting of the Scouts BSA Handbook after the annual release of the Scouts BSA Requirements book, then the Scout has until the following December 31 to decide what to do. The Scout may continue—or begin work—using the old requirements, or may switch to—or begin work—using the new requirements. Any Scout who chooses to use the old requirements may continue using them until the rank has been completed. Sometimes, however—especially for more significant changes—the Scouts BSA Handbook, the Scouts BSA Requirements book, or official communications from the National Council may set forth a different procedure that must be used and may establish a date by when use of the old requirements must cease. Gotta love it.

My concern is the 5 month transition period. Most advancement changes, except for the Cub Scout December 2016 which were made easier than the June 2015 changes, have had a 1 year phase in, not a 5 month phase in. Depending upon the requirements, especially if their is a 90 day period involved, this will affect many Scouts, especially those girls who are on the Eagle extension.

For the most part you are right, rule changes are minor. But the October 1, 2018 changes effectively killed the Patrol Method in everything but name. No more patrol meetings when the Scouts are available, but the adults are not. No more day activities like hikes, fishing, grocery shopping, etc without adults. And 18 to 20 year olds no longer count towards 2 deep. That has affected many troops. National acknowledge this fact by changing the implementation date from March 2018, 'Effective Immediately" to October 2018, several months AFTER summer camp and HA base season. I had a conversation with one unit locally that this rule is hurting the troop. They relied heavily on the Patrol Method, having patrols do service projects and other activities on their own, They also relied on the 18-20 year olds for 2 deep since many of the ASMs have health issues. They may have gotten one 21+ adult, and would have three to five 18-20 years olds camping. Between COVID and the new rule, their camping program has taken a hit.

Scouts definitely need consistency, otherwise it will be a challenge, especially for the older ones. Having the right person as SM is must because the SM is the one that leads the troop culture. And a radical shift in culture will cause major problems. I have seen units with smooth transitions. One unit's transition was so smooth, the Scouts did not realize the SM had stepped down for family and health reasons. Wasn't discovered until planning for a court of honor which would have the formal announcement. But I have also seen very rough transitions because the new SM changed the culture. In the worst case the troop folded within 2 years because the old SM was the troop, and it was very much led by him. In another case the new SM turned the troop into Webelos 3, and the older Scouts either transferred to other troops, earned Eagle and quit, or quit.

There are several things relating to BSA's rules that drive volunteers nuts. First and foremost there is no one place find them all. Multiple publications cover different aspects of Scouting, and contradictions abound. Over the years, I have posted examples of these contradictions in BSA publications. Best example was when YPT2 came out, and a month later new YP rules went into effect, contradicting the new training. Another problem is BSA changes the rules on an extremely irregular basis, and the word gets out months after the fact, unless it is a big deal and it gets on social media. Best example is the Tiger Cubs no longer being allowed to do shooting sports. That rule came out a few months back in May, before Cub Scout Day Camp season, and no one knew about it. Even NCS certified shooting sports directors, the ones who train folks to run CS shooting sports activities, didn't know about it. When it got posted on Facebook in September/October, several months after it went into affect, there was so much protest that BSA that National had to rescind it. Another issue is that national does not allow a transition period, making the rules mandatory immediately. Look at the original announcement regarding 18 year old's no longer counting towards 2 Deep, no more Patrol meetings without 2 registered adults over 21, etc. That announcement came out in March, and stated it was to go into effect immediately. Only protests from units, and councils, saying it would affect summer camp and HA base attendance, did National put in a transition period.

By any chance LDS? I know the LDS church use to appoint Scouters. And they averaged about that long. 1 year, the local LDS troop went through 3 SMs.

My challenge is that my wife has asked me to NOT be the SM until after all three of my boys are done in Scouting. Oldest will be out by then, and middle son will be 16+, and the way he' is going will be Eagle prior to that. But the youngest, the most challenging one, will only be 14.

You forgot the "...per Scout."

Interesting timing on this topic. Last night the SM stated he has 17 months left as SM. That is when his son turns 18. Why do I have a feeling I am in several people's crosshairs now?

Or if you do not have kids at all. I am a Scouting addict. I was involved after aging out, and before the wife and I had kids. I had some weird looks and some whispers. One thing that helped during part of the time was I worked for national. The other thing was moving back to my wife's hometown, the one I was a DE for, and folks knew me.

To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter, "HORSEHOCKEY!" Not doing WB means you got other things you think are more valuable, like your time, sanity, and your Scout(s). Again as Col. Potter would say, "HORSEHOCKEY!" (shouting in the original quote ;) )As others pointed out some of those 2, 3, and 4 beaders who could NOT counsel a homesick Scout, let alone work with a group of experienced Scouts. The beads do not make the Scouter. I know folks who have never been to WB, and they are far better Scouters than some who have. As for the District volunteer, chewing you out, WHAT ABOUT 'EM! FORGET THEM! The 3 questions you need to ask are the following: Is it best for MY CHILD? Is it best for MY SCOUTS? Is it Best for MY UNIT? Good advice. One other piece of advice, talk to someone, anyone you trust, about this. A counselor, minister, friend, ANYONE! You need to take care of yourself for your child. Have you read some of the "HORSEHOCKEY" these folks are saying? Some of these "experts" have no clue what they are talking about. I have been involved in Scouting for nearly 40 years in a variety of capacities: youth, unit volunteer, district/council volunteer, council employee, DE, and national employee. I know a lot about Scouting. Yet I have had folks tell me I am wrong, do not know what I am talking about, useless, I am a disgrace as leader, they are glad their child is not in my unit, ad nauseum. All because I tell them the truth, and not what they want to hear. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM AS THEY ARE WRONG! (emphasis this time ;) ) Good luck, I am praying for you.

As for why they quit, some if the reasons i have seen include: Their health failing Family members' health failing New job/job responsibilities Take on new volunteer role at district/council level Conflict with other adults in unit With sons out, wife pressures to step down No longer fun.

Do no know about military affiliated troops, but in my experience with civilian troops is the same: SM stays for years. The SM in the first troop i joined had about 8 years in when he died. The second troop had an SM stay for 25 years. He left because if family and work issues. In my district we had one SM start at age 19 (the offical SM had health issues and diedb then the next one was a true paper SM) until he turned 76.

It was a very interesting arrangement if memory serves. The 3 units were chartered by a land trust, which was a very nice size property. Each had their own troop cabin, and they met on different nights of the week. They did a joint fundraiser, doing their own summer camp. IMHO it was good competition for my summer camp. When I went to the council summer camp, it was OK. The local units' camp created some competition, and today my old council's camp is one of the best camps in the nation.

Who said anything about 2 troops deciding to do a joint activity and calling it a council event? Nothing in the CO agreement or GtSS prohibits units from different COs doing things together.