HelpfulTracks

I'll attempt to keep this short, even though it is a complex subject with complex issues. It really depends on how you define strong leadership. Visibly strong adult leadership CAN be a negative, if it is quashing the boys ability to be strong leaders. In my mind, it is a strong program lead by scouts. The scouts take charge and create, lead and maintain a program that they enjoy and will participate in regularly and for an extended period. Scouts will figure out what they like to do and do it. In many really strong units, there always seems to be 1 or 2 or 5 or so really good youth leaders that the others youth really latch on to and follow. It is fun to watch the young patrols look at the SPL and older scouts as if they are super heroes, emulating their every move. In many strong troops, adult leadership seems almost non-existent. But it is not absent, just subtle and tailored. The adults guide and advise but take a back seat in the active leadership of the youth, letting the scouts do the leading. They help the older scouts be the super heroes by coaching them off to the side where it is less apparent to the other scouts. The good youth leaders will pass that guidance on to the younger ones. To be sure it is cyclical, there will be times that there is more need for adults to step up, but the sooner they can step back into the background and let the boys run things the better. With the right mix of guidance and hands off the boys will create programs that they like and continue to participate in as they get older. From the outside it may even seem the adults are not really leading, but they almost certainly are doing a good job of leading. Just my two cents, your mileage may vary. Hopefully Helpful Tracks

Certainly is, but if it works more power to you.

So are they paying the camp staff? I am not sure why specifically, but that feels like that could be problematic to have a unit that is paid.

Scuttlebutt at Jamboree was coed Cubs, parallel track for middle school (Scouting), which would feed into the current coed Venturing. It seemed to be a forgone conclusion the Eagle would be offered for both tracks. But that was admittedly speculation (as if the rest wasn't). There was also discussion that initially there was talk of a phased approach starting this Fall, but that was scrapped for one time COMPLETE change next Fall. "Family Accessible" was discussed repeatedly and regularly emphasized that it was meant to allow families to have an opportunity to bring Johnny and Jenny to the same chartered organization, perhaps the same meeting night and place. But it was not intended to be the same unit (though it was agreed that will likely occur in reality). The concept of Webelos style family camping was always shot down and made clear that was not the intent. Not sure how much, if any of that is accurate, but the talk was consistent across multiple groups, if that means anything.

We are very fortunate in my council, the Great Smoky Mountain Council. Our summer camp is almost dead center of the path of totality. I think we are only 3-4 second shy of the maximum length of time for totality in our area. The Camp is completely booked and the council has activities planned. The OA will be providing service. Most local schools are out. We have troops from far away councils coming in and making a weekend of it, complete with shooting sports, opening the water front and I even believe the COPE course. The downside is I was told the state EMA is expecting 2.4 million vehicles on I-40 Monday. I am working the event, and it looks like we will have around 800 people on hand. Everyone will be gathering at a large field we call the Pinnacle . I will report on how well it went.....if I survive.

I would be surprised if the "process" of the Eagle project contributed much if anything in causing a scout to "eagle out." It would REALLY have to leave a bad taste in their mouth. Once they have been awarded their Eagle, the paperwork is almost nil, unless they are chasing NOAM or Hornaday. A CC spending 2 hours?!? No. A few minutes at most. An Eagle Advisor or SM, I can see that depending on how well the scout has put together their book. Three decades later, I have no idea where anything related to my project is. But I have been through several moves and lost a house to a hurricane. So there are many things I no longer have from my youth.

I have never heard of a council chartering a unit. But just because I have not seen it, does not mean it cannot. I would say I can see the council balking at the idea because then they would own and be liable for the unit, providing meeting space, potentially the council diverting funding to a unit, the appearance of anything that other units may consider preferential treatment, etc., all of which could cause some issues. Another downside it creates a precedent that puts them in a difficult position if they decline to charter another unit for any reason. Then of course there is the CO Executive Officer and CoR issue to resolve, and the potential conflicts that come with it. Even if it is possible, there seems to be a good many hurdles and land mines to navigate. If you still want to follow that path, I would come up with a backup plan.

The OA requires 6 contiguous days and 5 nights resident camp. I have never seen it defined as such, it may be, but resident Camp is taken to refer to the Council Summer camps. That makes sense because much of the OA's service is to those camps as well as promoting it.

Actually there are rules. The Unit Committee may make nominations (not elections) for adults become a member of the Order of the Arrow. A Unit Committee may nominate one leader for every three scouts elected to the OA during a given election. The Scoutmaster does not count against that number. So if I troop elected three (youth) members to the OA, the Committee may nominate one adult, 4 youth elected allow 2 adult nominations, 7 youth 3 adults and so on. The Unit Committee may also nominate the Unit Leader as well, and not count against that number. Those nominations are given to the Adult Selection Committee who determine which adults are called out. I believe there is a limit that the ASC can select for call out, based on the number of active youth in the lodge, but I don't recall what that number is off hand.

Welcome!

Why? I learned invaluable lessons on my project. It took a great deal of planning, budgeting and negotiating. I had adult professionals and craftsmen coming to me to ask me what to do, some of who I had worked for on Summer jobs. If they saw a problem they would come to me for solutions, even though they could have kept moving forward without my input. But they guided me through the tough spots without taking over. I gained a great deal of confidence, learned how to solve real world problems, had to deal with budgets and cost overruns. There was plenty of "sweat equity" too, site prep, framing walls, hanging dry wall, pouring concrete, laying pavers, electrical and plumbing. I was proud of my project and the good it it did and I earned respect from the adults. Several told me I had a job waiting whenever I was ready. IMO, I wish more Eagle candidates would take on complex projects that challenge them both mentally and physically. I think they would end up getting much more out of it.

Volunteers that are needed to do work can be adult and youth, particularly if some of the skills needed are out of reach for the Scouts. What is important for the Eagle candidate is that HE do the planning and leadership. My Eagle project was rehabilitating a church. It took about 5 months of steady work and portions needed master craftsman to do. I and my friends did a good bit of work but when it came to foundation work and electrical work, the adults did the work, I managed it, the adults were primary and friends and I helped were we could. Other things the youth did all or most of the labor.

I'm not as familiar with Pack operations as I am with Troops, but I do know it is much more adult driven. But at the front end they are identical; IH > CoR > CC > {Committee} > Unit Leader. In Troops direct contact leaders and committee are mutually exclusive, on paper if not in practice, meaning one cannot serve in both roles. I believe it is the same for packs. First, adults doing battle is never a good thing for any Unit. But I guess it all depends on your motivation. If your primary concern is your sons den, the run the program laid out BSA and steer clear of the Committee as long as they are not detrimental to your dens program, and support your CM. Let the Committee have their illusions of grand power. If on the other hand you are concerned about the Pack, and there is indeed monkey business going on then take action. Start by reading everything you can about Pack operations, do you the online training, go to Round Table meetings and take Den Leader Training, maybe even Owl/Baloo training. You could even go all out and take Wood Badge. I would suggest the training even if you are just going to focus on your Den. Training will help you understand the program and be a better leader for your Den and Pack. That is a long term solution, if the situation is more urgent, ask around about who the CoR and IH are for the Unit. If no one knows then ask your Unit Commissioner or District Executive. The Council can supply you with the information on all four of those positions. At the end of the day, the program is about the youth, not petty grievances or power trips. If you can keep the youth foremost in your actions and stay within BSA policy then drive on and take the necessary actions towards that end.

Recruiting volunteers IS the committees job, not the Scouts. Planning the program IS the Scouts job, not the committees. I agree that there are limitations that may prevent Scouts from realizing their plan, but the committee should be making every effort to help the Scouts make their plan a reality. If limitations prevent that, the committee should recommend solutions, but not dictating the program features. If you said the Scouts should get off their backsides and earn the money to go where they want, I would agree, a Scout is Thrifty. But if a Unit is not running properly and the adults are unable/unwilling to make the changes to run the troop correctly the perhaps it is time to speak with the Unit Commissioner or District Executive and have them explain troop operations to the committee.

I didn't need to read past that sentence to understand the problem. The troop committee should not be choosing anything. Boy Scouts is boy-led, if your troop is functioning as it should. The committee should really only be recommending changes to the program the Scouts develop if the program a) violates BSA policy b) does not follow Guide to Safe Scouting parameters c) is not feasible d) the charter organization has specific reasons not to allow some part of the program because it violates their core tenets But it doesn't even sound like the Scouts are planning their own program based on your post.

Public school and Charter requirements would be in conflict. Even an organization at a public school could face the same issue depending on the local/state laws.

Yes. I have seen Catholic, Jewish, and LDS churches have closed units. I think a school should fall under those principles as well, but it might depend on whether it was a public or private school. That determination might be best made by someone with knowledge of your local legal system.

Question:If looser had to pay and Satan had lost, where would they have sent the bill? That is just to interesting to leave alone ;-)

That is my understanding from professionals I have spoken with. As for NJCubScouters assertion that no defense will be necessary, I have seen many a well define and even legally valid policies tested in court, repeatedly.

I guess we will disagree about it being an attack, but comparing someones position to racism certainly looks and sounds like the proverbial duck. I have not read every word of every post in the thread, but the vast majority of post on this subject have not been based on moral objections, though I am sure there are some that have them. Most of the objections I have read are about eligibility, logistical impact and legal concerns. And while the debate over "gays" certainly was held primarily over moral issues, the issue around "girls, and trans" is about eligibility. BSA has had eligibility standards since day one, though some have changed in matters of degree over time. BSA has eligibility requirements for age, belief in God, and gender (or more accurately biological sex) as well as obedience to the Scout Oath and Law. Eligibility requirements do not mean anyone is unworthy, but they simply may not meet such standards. You have used some inflammatory words and comparisons in your post, I know that it is a popular tactic of late and a seemingly effective one for shutting down debate, but it adds little. I would hope we could be more reasoned on this board, or at least try to be.

Doohhh! Thank you sir.

It is my belief that God create everything. By your logic we should question nothing and except everything.

Point well taken. Is it so different from this debate?

With all due respect you, intentionally or otherwise. Col. Flag asked what BSA gained from making a stand on this policy, rather than staying status quo. You replied equating his remarks to racism. "You could have just as easily asked, what did they have to gain by letting "Colored kids" go to schools with white kids? " Then you said the decision to make the change was morally superior to not making the change. "I'd say they have the gained the moral high ground by doing the right thing." Then you told him he was wrong. "I believe now, just as then, you're on the wrong side by believing either decision is the wrong move." At best you answered what BSA has to gain by staking out what you believe to be a morally superior position and informing the Col. he was on the wrong side, thus a moral inferior position. At worst it was an ad hominem attack by comparing is question to a racist stance. That is much of what is wrong with society in my mind. Rather than trying to have an adult discussion, some try to shut down views counter to their own, rather than discuss them, by attacking their motives rather than their arguments. It is certainly not very Scout-like.

I won't try to put words in Stosh's mouth, but generally and historically speaking freedom of association has aligned about creating and joining rather than abandoning and dismantling. Protections offered by the constitution have been aimed at preventing the state from attempting to diminish, discourage or destroy the rights of people to associate with those of similar beliefs. Change from within would be characterized by building consensus based on merits of a policy change. I don't know anyone, opponent or proponent of recent policy changes, that would argue these changes came from building consensus from within BSA based on merit, rather than external pressure.