Col. Flagg

Great point. We used to have this problem. Once it went away (whole different story on how that was done) those who lived through that era vowed never to be that guy. So now any long-serving folks hang in the background as "oracles of knowledge and history". They chime in when asked, stay out of the SM and TC Chair's roles/duties. They've made it about the unit and not about themselves. Don't get me wrong, these are still high energy volunteers. They are just very, very aware of their presence and not to overshadow the new leaders...but to be there when needed. I liken it to how past US Presidents should act. You retire and fade away, but you are there to answer the call of the sitting President when it comes. You don't second guess the new guy. You don't contradict the new guy. You can offer him private advice, but you are out of the limelight.

This is key. Our council wrings out it's MBC list every three years. If you don't have a current YPT or have not answered their email, snail mail or survey, you are off the list.

National sent out a survey recently, so you know they are testing the waters...and then will do the opposite of what the majority want. In the article you have a local Scout leader remarking about how single parents want to take their kids to one place, rather than many. I hope this type of dysfunctional thinking isn't the basis for making a decision to open up Boy Scouts to girls. I know this varies, but in our area the number of single parents with more than one child is such a small percentage of the population. BSA keeps missing the mark. In business, you don't adjust your best product to go after new customers that don't buy your product often. You focus your money to go after MORE customers that fill the profile of your BEST customers. That's Marketing 101.

Our unit usually keeps retiring SMs around for several years. We have a well-documented transition plan in which the out-going SMs fall to the background, then re-emerge after the SM has transitioned in and established himself. Having the old SMs stick around is good. And no, the Scouts don't go to the old SM more than the new guy. We retain about 30% of our SMs after their son ages out. They hold background roles such as Eagle coach, adult trainer, youth trainer, high adventure organizer (e.g., specialist roles such as climbing, shooting sports, back packing, etc.). We also make sure that as an ASM leaves a role there's at least 1-2 ASMs that can fill their place. This approach has really helped out continuity and ensure that training across all aspects of the program continues.

@@JosephMD, you have to be assuming 2 camp outs per month then. FC 1a requires 6 camp outs, SC 1a takes 3 camp outs. That's NINE (9) camp outs, not just six. Most units camp once a month in my area, and we go for two days. We usually don't do single night camp outs. Were you counting Scout to FC in 86 days? Or SC to FC in 86 days?

I'm getting dizzy at how fast, all of a sudden, adults and adult rules are now okay to apply to the Scouts. I could have sworn that a few pages ago folks were saying that the boys are well-trained and can learn on their own.

No, I wasn't citing that site, but rather the 3rd party news organizations that originally reported on the topic in question...which the web site uses as their original source. The Imperial Valley Press, while not CNN, is a news organization...as are many of the other sources. But these days citing even offical news organizations is no guarantee of non-partisanism.

And bugging out on the Scouts with a do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do mentality smacks of selfishness to me. Adults attending camp are supposed to be there (in camp) for the Scouts. Training, sure. Fun stuff planned for adults by the camp, sure. If your unit's adults head out of camp for fun, great. Not my thing. I'd rather be there for our unit. Note: Not control the unit as you imply, but just to be around and show them I am available to them if needed. Most camps our unit goes to limit the number of adults in camp for this reason alone, too many were heading off camp to go do "stuff". Sadly, many let their troops run around like Lord of the Flies, hence the rule. Note THEIR rule, not mine. Many camps also require a strict ratio of adults (and trained leaders) to Scouts. These same camps really limit the coming and going of folks. These are some of the most popular camps in the country.

I have sympathy for the kid, however we are talking about whether someone lived up to the Oath and Law (not to mention state and federal laws) in his daily life. Clearly not. Caught twice while a Scout? Get him help. By all means, be sympathetic and help him recover. Pass him through the Eagle process? I wouldn't under these circumstances. If he gets help, shows he has changed and can demonstrate true recovery then maybe...maybe. I would talk to your district and council to get their view. After all, it will come down to the EBOR and this will surely come out. Rather to get the district/council take now than wait until then.

Well this sources seems to document so interesting things GSUSA councils have been involved in. Does not look like fake news. http://mygirlscoutcouncil.com/events-hostedendorsed-by-gs-councils.html http://mygirlscoutcouncil.com/organizations-featured-by-gs-councils.html

The boys were not lost in the shuffle. Other units stepped up and took the boys. It was BSA who lost out as 27 COs went away and were not replaced. That hurt the BSA employees who are evaluated based on the number of units that exist or are started. Imagine being the DEs who lost those units through no fault of their own. If the adults who run those GSUSA units affected, and GSUSA themselves, want to avoid having this impact the girls it is within their power to do so. Other units can step up and take them. Other COs can step up and charter them. This is not the fault of the Diocese.

So this begs the question: What do we teach the Scouts when they are expected to stay in camp and "enjoy" themselves, but adults go outside camp for reasons that are, shall we say, contrived for their own personal pleasure. Stosh, we don't need to list all the reasons a adult would go offsite. I think it is reasonable to assume that running errands on behalf of the boys, the troop or even the camp, are all good reasons. What would be bad reasons? For me it is when an adult leaves camp for things like golfing or to get a burger for himself or other things which demonstrated selfishness as opposed to selflessness.

No offense, Barry, but all that you say can be done without having adults leave camp to enjoy themselves. If the program is running so well, the location of the adults does not matter, EXCEPT for the appearance it gives that somehow the adults are above the rules. How many kids would love to grab a burger at DQ? Play a round? Just get away from camp for a few hours? I get what some folks are saying about disrespect. If the adults allow themselves the leeway of leaving whenever they wish, rather than staying in camp and taking advantage of all the things camp has to offer, then I can see the Scouts thinking a bit less of the adults. I would. Now, running needed errands, shuttling kids to approved outside events, going for work reasons, taking care of true emergency family or other issues are all good. Popping out with a few of the ASMs to hit the local BBQ joint is not what Boy Scout summer camp is about. And that cannot be done while the adults are in camp? Please.

That's what I get for typing ahead of my brain. I meant to say Beneficiary signs twice, as does the SM, attesting to the completion of the project. The district signs the application attesting to the fact the BOR was completed. Unless something is seriously amiss in the EBOR, and runs contrary to the attestation of the Beneficiary/SM as the project being completed, the EBOR should have no issues with the project counting.

We have a MB Coordinator in our unit. We needed one because of the challenges of getting a current, usable MBC list out of district or council. This person also works to develop MB courses within the troop. They also wade through the plethora of "MB colleges" and offerings in our area to determine which are decent (as in, they follow the GTA and other BSA policies on MBs) and which are just designed to collect $$ and hand out MBs improperly. They also check the backgrounds (as much as they can) of any group outside BSA offering MBs. They work with the SM and the Advancement Coordinator to get this information to the boys. Scouts who do their own research are provided this information so they can make an informed choice. Ten years ago this wasn't necessary and could be done by the SM and AC. With so many "offerings" these days -- some of which are very iffy -- our SM then stepped in and worked up this process with the PLC. And yes, the guides, instructors and librarian help in this effort.

http://www.girlscoutsaz.org/en/about-our-council/news/2015/pope_francis_meets_w.html

The opportunity is not going away. It is just going somewhere else. GSUSA can go to all those groups which they supported politically and see if THEY will sponsor these troops. It's up to GSUSA to take care of their troops. Did you feel bad for all the boys whose units lost their CO when BSA made their membership changes? We had 27 units fold in our county that never got new COs in time.

I think the articles outlined where the GSUSA has spent their time and efforts politically and how that does not align with Catholic beliefs and practices. If GSUSA wants to push certain agendas and align with organizations and groups that run contrary to some of their COs, they need to understand the consequences of doing so. This would be one of those consequences.

Totally agree. I am just curious what happened or was said to make them (the district/council) do the 180. The district signed the proposal and final report so there should have been no surprises. If there were any they should have been raised after reviewing the final report and comparing against the proposal, not at the EBOR.

Well, this is the model both GSUSA and BSA wanted: The local COs making the decision on which organizations they should support. Don't know why anyone is surprised or upset by this move. This is a CO taking steps to support those groups that align with their views and mission.

I'd still pop smoke and take the evac on this one. No reason to stay and fix this mess. Life is too short. Let the CO and COR handle this. It's their job...though it seems they don't know it.

I am curious about this too. If the Beneficiary, Unit and District/Council sign off on the Proposal then why would they not sign off on the plan? Or, as the recent post indicate, why DID THEY finally sign off without issue?

This is called cronyism. If it were me I wouldn't waste my time if the CO, COR, Pack Chair and other families in the pack don't care. I'd let them know I was leaving, thank them for the job but let them know once you got in the front door you realized this role wasn't for you. Find a new pack and enjoy your time with your son and family. Life is too short to fix someone else's problem. They stole from the pack (and yes, paying for your kid only to attend something when others are left out is stealing) and the CO and COR are the one's that need to address this.

I don't know, they've out-lived the circus.

You jinxed. I wasn't going to say anything and see how long the streak rolled.