FireStone

It 100% tells me that things were fudged, fabricated, altered, or ignored. It is impossible that a female scout could even be wearing the Life rank badge today, not to mention months ago. We're 3 months into Scouts BSA. In what possible way could a female scout earn Life rank already?

It is documented, as I mentioned (media photos).

On the question of whether there are any shortcuts being taken/given to girls, I don't think it's debatable. It is an absolute fact that it's happening (a prominent female scout was wearing her Life rank badge in media photos months ago). There's too much appeal for some parents and leaders to have their scouts be among this historic group of girls who are "the first" in many facets of advancement, from Cubs through Eagle. It's literal history in the making. "Inaugural Class of Female Eagle Scouts." What parent or SM of an eligible female scout wouldn't want them to be a part of that? And of course we all hope it's done by the book for every scout, but realistically we know it's not, and there's little effort to hide it in some cases. Every scout should be held to the same high standard, regardless of gender. Unfortunately I also think there's little hope of that happening any time soon. These aren't normal times for the BSA, and they won't become normal until the dust settles, we all get our bearings with the new BSA, and we're done with all of the "firsts" for girls and can get back to business as usual. Until then, it's a race to be a part of history, and for some adults that unfortunately means turning a blind eye to shortcuts.

This is really the best way to put it. If a troop's mission is to churn out Eagle Scouts, either by some benchmark over time or by some percentage of membership, that's an Eagle mill/factory. The term carries some negative connotation but in these cases, it's probably deserved. A troop that just outputs a high number/percentage of Eagle Scouts just from having a good program could possibly also be called a factory/mill, but I would call them that just because of the negativity around those terms. A troop shouldn't be unfairly labeled just for being a good troop that adequately supports scouts and patrols to move along in advancement easily as part of a robust and active program. I greatly dislike use of the terms factory/mill to describe high-eagle-count troops that are outputting high numbers of Eagle Scouts because of their good program. I've heard scouters call units factories/mills based on nothing more than number of Eagle Scouts in a given time period, and it's not fair. One such unit has 96 scouts. But this scouter felt that they're a "factory" because they produced 8 Eagles in one year. Meanwhile this troop is incredible, they're highly active in the community, help out local Cub Packs regularly, they run a solid program full of activities, community service, etc. And they don't put out 8 Eagles every year, sometimes years they have 2 or 3. But one year they have a big Eagle class and all of a sudden it's a bad thing somehow.

I'd really prefer my scouts wear bright colors, I suspect their parents would be more offended if I had to tell them we lost their kid in the woods and the forest green shirt we made them wear so they didn't offend the sensibilities of nearby hikers was making it harder to spot them.

I'm really not a fan of the drab colors of the BSA uniforms (Cub blue is ok but the SBSA olive/green is just dull), so when I had the chance to design Class B t-shirts for my Pack, I picked a bright "electric blue" shirt with bright yellow ink. 😁 I get the LNT idea here with regard to color, but that's also mostly focused on the concept of lessening your impact on natural surroundings. Natural surroundings. Being that we spend most of our time in Scout camps (especially at the Cub level), our surroundings include a lot of visual impact. Signs, flags, buildings, noise, cars, and lots of other unnatural things.

Such a shame. If any part of their intent is to force families in both organizations to make a choice, and if those families are at all like the ones in my Pack, they'll choose BSA.

With Scouts BSA officially starting for girls in February, hitting Tenderfoot by summer camp is certainly well within norms in terms of time needed. Scouts who cross over from a Pack to a Troop in March an do it, so certainly if a scout signed up with a Troop in February they'd have plenty of time and (hopefully) opportunity to do so. I wouldn't even call it "ambitious", I think it's a reasonable goal for any scout to be well-prepared for the summer camp experience.

Well now we're just trying to thoroughly confuse each other. 🤣

I'm regularly and consistently baffled by the efforts to which scouters are currently going out of their way to muddy the terminology used to describe scouts today. At a council event recently it seemed like scouters were doing their very best to make it as difficult as possible to talk about scouts, particularly girls at the troop level. I heard seemingly any and every way of awkwardly describing scouts, including "Girl scouts" (followed by "I'm not saying Girl Scouts, I'm saying girl, comma, scouts, so it's ok.") As well as the frequent addressing of scouts as "boys" despite being in a setting in which girls were present. Or the awkward mention of "boys" quickly followed by, "...and girls, girls too." I guess credit is deserved for at least trying to correct it. The worst is the "Scouts BSA Scouts", phrasing. It's not technically wrong, just... why? Why are we making this harder than it needs to be? I just don't get the issue. Maybe some scouters are in the habit of saying "boys" but it's just not what I've ever seen or done, even in my own unit or council, and yet now it has somehow become a stumbling block for scouters talking about scouts. I've always just called scouts "Scouts", and that's all I have ever seen and heard from within my unit and frequently outside of my unit throughout district/council. "Scouts, line up," "Scouts, attention," "Scouts gather 'round," etc. Now for some reason all I hear is "Boys". I hate to say it but in some cases I think it's an act of defiance, and if that is the case, I'm really disappointed in the scouters who are using terminology as a form of protest. For those who are simply struggling with the old habit of saying "boys", and you're in a position where you are often addressing mixed-gender crowds (district/council/national events), please try to just say "Scouts". It's simple, it's probably what most of us are used to already, and it works. We're over-complicating this, at best, or (in hopefully very rare cases) making terminology a form of exclusion or protest, at worst. Either way, we need to do better.

I get the unusual nature of a typical girl troop not having the older scouts to lean on for teaching scout skills. In those situations I would think the adults have to take on more of the responsibility. And in that scenario, I hope adults are getting trained and ready to teach those skills through something like IOLS. I wouldn't worry much about getting it done before summer camp. If it happens, great. If not, summer camp can actually be a great place to work on tenderfoot (and other rank) requirements. Some camps have programs designed specifically to help with this.

It's still very much a political issue, if not for us, for the general public. I was out with some scouts this weekend and a local resident decided to yell over to us, "Put the 'boy' back in Boy Scouts!" As much as it's a done deal (there's no going back no matter how many change.org petitions people start), in the public consciousness it is still very much an issue of discussion of a somewhat political nature. And just because something is done and decided, that doesn't mean that the politics of the issue won't still need to be discussed and sometimes debated. There are political issues in the BSA around boys, and this is the proper forum for some of them. Not everything about boys moves to Open Discussion just because boys are the subject.

This is disgraceful. It's entirely counter to what we (people who advocated for girls in troops/packs) wanted when this whole debate was going on. And it's in direct contrast to what we said on behalf of the BSA, the program won't change for the boys. And yet here we are... And you know how this will play out if you boycott the event next year. "Troop XYZ won't come because girls are here, the can't stand getting beat by girls, etc." I'd protest it. I know that's easy to say in the Internet and less so IRL, but it just seems like this needs to be reined in. Marginalizing boys just to pump up girls for Scouts BSA is wrong. I'm a Cub leader and I try to imagine this stuff at the Pack level. Could there be a Pack that gives a girl the top trophy in the Pinewood Derby even though her car ran slower than boys' cars? Geez, it's hard to believe, but after reading stuff like this about what Troops are doing, it's entirely possible.

Our Pack does that as a dinner option but it often gets mixed reviews. I love it, especially when we do chili in the bags. Hot chili over chips is great. But there are always a few parents (especially newer ones) who won't even try it and think we're barbarians trying to feed their kids dinner out of a Doritos bag. 😅 The funny thing is our Pack does incredible food and the taco bags are just one option. We've done steak, potatoes, dutch oven deserts, all kinds of delicious stuff. The joke is that we often eat better in camp than at home. But somehow the taco bag is what people remember and discuss, as if that's all we feed the kids all weekend. One thing I'll add to the original question here: Cook whatever you want, but if you ant to make it easier on yourself, invest in some good cooking equipment. Our Pack menu hasn't changed much but meal prep got so much easier when we upgraded to some nice Camp Chef stoves. We run 3 of the 2-burner stoves for breakfasts and dinners, cranking out food fast and easy. A good, organized kitchen setup is key. Don't dump all of your utensils and tools into a bin. Get an organized camp kitchen box, good stoves, cutting boards, whatever you need to make prep and KP easy. It's an investment, but it will last for many years if well-maintained, and it will make life a lot easier for everyone, much more so than what specific food items you choose for meals.

Some reasonable expectations on the part of parents and leaders would go a long way in keeping the Lion and Tiger programs from fueling burn-out. I'm pretty sure my Pack is overdoing it with Lions, they meet 3-4 times per month sometimes (1 Pack meeting, 2-3 meetings/activities). Same with Tiger. It's unnecessary and at that age just overkill. When I was a Tiger DL we had 1 Den meeting and 1 Pack meeting per month, and met for outdoor activities maybe 3 times that I can remember. Maybe to some folks that's not enough, but for Tigers, it was plenty, and we still got everything done that is required for Tiger rank. I think just having the Lion and Tiger programs and doing something, anything, is enough. The desire of some Packs (mine included) to maintain some minimum level of "we do X numbers of activities per month" as some sort of bragging right is unnecessary and I'd argue probably harmful to the program at that age and level. I think parents need to be a big part of the discussion, too. We have Lion parents who are actually unhappy with the number of activities the kids do, they think there should be more going on each month. Setting better expectations there, too, would be helpful. Yes, we want your Kindergartener to have fun, every month. But we also want them to get the most out of Scouting that they can, and I believe that the aims and goals of Scouting have a greater long-term impact on scouts the older they get. I'd rather see them take it slow in the beginning and stay excited about Scouting longer, then jam a ton of activities and outings into the K and 1st grade years and see them grow tired of it by 4th grade. Scouting is also very repetitive, especially in Cubs. Tigers, Wolves, Bears, we see a lot of similar adventures and requirements. I had a parent once who was concerned that their son joined as a Wolf and missed the Tiger year. They wanted the scout to go back and work on Tiger stuff and earn that rank (which I explained that they can't). And I explained that they didn't miss anything they won't do again at some point in the Wolf and Bear years. So long-story-short, I'd say we should be trying to emphasize in the Lion and probably Tiger year too that we'll make sure the kids have fun and do lots of fun activities, but the program is progressive and we build up the adventure along the way. There is plenty to get excited about in the Lion and Tiger years, lots of great Pack activities, PWD, etc. Enjoy those activities, get to know the Pack program, and gear up for more adventure in the Wolf and Bear years.

Did he do any multi-night camping as a Cub Scout? I think this is where those cub camp summer sessions can really make a difference, doing 2-3 nights in camp with mom/dad, then maybe 5 nights as Webelos, so that by the time they cross over the idea of a week at summer camp is no big deal. I know it's a little after-the-fact in this case, but just saying for others reading this thread. If you have a scout that might be anxious (as I do as well), I view the summer camp experience as a Cub as being a crucial transitional step into a Troop.

I'm convinced there is a way to maintain that same allure without the NA references. Plenty of groups already do this, although sometimes in ways that are far from scout-friendly (think secret societies). What is often so interesting about these kinds of things isn't their accurate depictions of cultural references. It's the ceremony itself, the unique presentation, the costumes/regalia, etc., which often times are unique to the group itself. Some were derived from rituals and/or regalia of other cultures, but they often bear little resemblance to them anymore after evolving over time. I know it's kind of a weird comparison, but I mention it here if only to suggest that if it has worked elsewhere, it might work here. I'm convinced that the OA could create symbolism, ceremony, and regalia unique to itself. It wouldn't be easy, and it would require some serious creativity on the part of many members to develop materials, but it's possible.

Definitely seems like the beginning of the end for NA ceremonies all around. A phased-out approach.

Throughout this whole thing I've kept thinking there's no reason we should have to drop ceremony from the OA entirely. It just needs to change, and maybe not all that much. To me, the mystique of the ceremonies was always the draw. We leaned heavily on the Native American themes, but you could create that same vibe with other themes. Not every club, organization, "secret society", etc that uses ceremonies uses cultural themes, and they still manage to create a similar vibe as OA without them. I don't know exactly what this would look like, what our new theme could be, but I feel like it's possible to keep the ceremonies and do it in a way that doesn't infringe on any particular culture. Just need to put some thought into it. One thing I hope folks keep in mind is that not everything is "cultural appropriation". I've heard comments about images of arrows and tomahawks being appropriated, but those tools were never exclusively Native American. Other cultures globally used similar tools historically, some probably before Native Americans. I think there are only a few key pieces of NA culture that we need to be respectful of and avoid using, but some of the OA program and symbolism is already well within the bounds of being culturally neutral.

Yes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "leave the kids out of it". Leave them out of the social media aspect of it? Or leave them out of the photo?

Who says that's not what is already happening here? A leader could post a photo with that hashtag and leave the scouts out of the discussion entirely.

Part of our membership numbers struggle is public relations, and making people aware of what scouts do. Like it or not, informing the public about scout activities, accomplishments, and service to the community is important. If someone undertakes a service project entirely for social media posting, obviously that's the wrong motivation. But if it happens that there is an opportunity for some good PR while doing something positive, I see no issue with taking advantage of it. We often invite the press to scouting events, Pinewood Derby, etc. This is just the modern day version of that.

Where does she currently manage things like advancement? Is she the only person with access? Kind of unusual that in a whole troop there would only be one person tracking advancement records in Scoutbook or something like that. If she hypothetically left and handed over nothing, you'd still be ok. It might take some digging but you'd be able to get access to your unit records with Council. Same for anything charter related, rostering, dues payments, etc. Keys can be replaced. This might be a headache in the shirt term but it will be a blessing in disguise long-term. Once you get access to what you need, whether from her or Council, I'm sure you won't make the mistake she did and keep it all in one place. Get a bunch of people signed up on Scoutbook to share the advancement tracking. Get any key logins/access shared among your core leadership to help manage everything. It will be fine.

Thanks for the update. It's not surprising that the background check came back with problems. It was hard to imagine he wasn't avoiding it, with so much time having gone by and it was still not done. Hard to imagine someone isn't trying hard to avoid a background check when they act like that. This still seems like a massive failure at the district and council level to adequately support the Pack in this. You essentially had an unregistered, non-background-checked adult pretending to be a CM. And seemingly refusing to allow a background check. That should have been a huge red flag for everyone, all the way up the chain. And yet it took this long to finally resolve the matter, and only really because of what happened in the guy's personal life. While it is generally true that DEs tend to be slow to action with Pack affairs, preferring to let units and COs resolve these matters, in this case I would think that this would be the kind of thing that just had to be dealt with immediately. That a Pack was operating with a rogue CM, who clearly was causing chaos among the committee and Pack operations, with known past legal issues and refusing to take a background check, how they managed to let it go on this long is baffling. For all of the emphasis we get these days on YPT, that something like this was allowed to go on for so long just defies all logic. I still think someone (probably the DE in question) should be removed from their post for failing to adequately address this and protect the scouts in this Pack.