yknot

Yes, this is the same Mt. Washington and it is one of the more fascinating and extreme places on earth, in a weather sense, despite being in the relatively tame Northeastern USA. There is an interesting book about the Presidential range and that particular mountain and the microclimates and changeable weather that can occur. It has claimed more than 100 lives over the years. The book is called Not Without Peril and it's good if you are interested in mountaineering topics and mountains. Things have greatly improved as far as support but it's still a dangerous place to hike. A couple of people have died just this year. It's not someplace I'd take scouts, but to each their own.

Based on everything I am seeing, I think that's smart. Lots of turmoil brewing in Methodist Land.

There have been a few random reports of other UMCs going "rogue" in conferences that will allow it and trying this as well. I don't think we'll know if it's really a possible option until after the dust settles on the current recharter session. One of the issues is that BSA has an agreement with UMC not to charter any UMC units past Dec. 31 at this point. The agreement clearly states that only the FUA or the Affiliation scenarios will be allowed. It's not really clear what really happens if the units are rechartered anyway and UMC finds out. BSA would effectively be breaking their word to them. We know BSA does that all the time and they may not be that concerned about it, but it's unknown how UMC will view that or what the ultimate outcome will be. There have been a few random reports of other UMCs going "rogue" in conferences that will allow it and trying this as well. I don't think we'll know if it's really a possible option until after the dust settles on the current recharter session. One of the issues is that BSA has an agreement with UMC not to charter any UMC units past Dec. 31 at this point. The agreement clearly states that only the FUA or the Affiliation scenarios will be allowed. It's not really clear what really happens if the units are rechartered anyway and UMC finds out. BSA would effectively be breaking their word to them. We know BSA does that all the time and they may not be that concerned about it, but it's unknown how UMC will view that or what the ultimate outcome will be.

I'm not commenting on the political aspects here, but on the face of it this seems to be an inspired choice for this particular nonprofit given the challenging issues they face: https://www.sierraclub.org/meet-ben-jealous What seems relevant to me to our discussion is that here is someone who has a demonstrated record of significantly improving the nonprofits he has led on a nonprofit salary. He has a history of being effective in his role, something that we would wish for BSA. This choice also recognizes that the future of the environmental movement lies in the urban landscape. It's a very bold choice that has likely challenged some of the more traditionalist views in their organization, and yet they did it. The further parallel I see to scouting is that in many ways any future, sustainable success for scouting also has to involve the needs of the urban landscape -- although I can't really see BSA recruiting anyone comparable.

Don't know if Reuters link will work but if interested you can Google direct. Didn't see it posted here. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-insurers-say-246-bln-settlement-inflated-by-bogus-claims-2022-11-08/

I've been in positions where I was technically in charge of the whole US region. My salary wasn't high six figures. It has nothing to do with size of territory and everything to do with performance and results. Competent people can certainly get stuck in bad situations particularly in a moribund organization like this one, but trying to blanket defend large salaries by claiming they are less than for profit means that every other nonprofit out there should also be mismanaged and failing -- and they are not. I would also argue that a lot of these people would be unemployable at even their current salaries in the private sector. Scout management, from what've experienced at the council and national levels, is ten years behind comparable outside corporate environments. They certainly don't speak the same language. So I am skeptical on multiple levels of the "we're getting a bargain so we should be grateful and complacent" line of thinking.

I couldn't agree more. I just don't think that's the role of the BOR in scouting. It's not like school or sports. The BOR is not your report or the final score. It's uniquely scouting. The progression is interwoven with program, and the BOR is not the provider nor the arbiter of that. It is not a retest. It has a formal aspect in confirming that all sign offs are in place and that the lengths of any terms of service have in fact been met and a BOR can and should be paused if those things are in question. Those are within its purview. Other than that it is a discussion by adults with the scout to assess the effectiveness of the program -- it is not an assessment of the individual scout. It is more like getting a passport than a driver's license. The problem with everyone getting credit for everything is a program problem that needs to be addressed by the committee with the SM and the program leadership team right down to any SPLs or senior scouts who may also be doing signoffs.

I think the old models don't work. I don't think the council should be so focused on generating income any more. That is how they have become so detached from what units need to survive and it's killing program, recruitment, retention, membership, and volunteer sustainability. Councils ought to be rebuilt around serving the units. Fundraising has also completely changed. The mix for scouting has to change to allow local units to directly solicit local businesses. The local businesses that are left do not want to give to a council that they perceive as having no connection to their community. They will, however, give to their local organizations or to people they interact with in the community.

None of the above is at all in conflict with anything I have said. If there is a claim that a sign off might be invalid or missing, or the scout's registration or completion of any relevant terms of service are in question based on recorded dates, then the BOR clearly follows the above procedures. If the advancements person is involved in BORs or their scheduling, most of those items are generally checked before the BOR is scheduled. I have been part of a BOR that followed the above process and was rightfully suspended because a scout had lost his part of his handbook. In recreating the missing pages he had not realized that he had parts of both an old and revised handbook and they had not been properly collated. The BOR was paused while he found someone who was able to give him a needed signoff. Had he not been able to do so that night, it would have been suspended to another day. I have been involved in other BORs where suspension was threatened because there were adult arguments over whether a scout had fully completed a leadership requirement. Unacceptable. You can question the objective validity of recorded dates at the BOR and then proceed as above as necessary but you can't question the subjective aspect of how well you thought the scout "led". It's been signed off already so it can't be "retested". Any discussion about that should have been held during the scout's term of service. That is also noted in GTA. By the sign offs, unless you have reason to question them. But again, those powers, if you follow GTA, are much more limited than many scouters like to accept which leads to a lot of unnecessary stress and angst for scouts. The Scoutmaster -- and I use that term as representative for the program and the entire team that implements it -- is responsible for ensuring education and testing are taking place. The BOR is not the judiciary in this situation. If the BOR reports to the Troop Committee that it has program concerns, it is the Committee's job to discuss with the Scoutmaster and program team. The scouts are not supposed to be in the middle of this.

No it's what I think. GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me.

I don't think there is that big of a conflict because I think GTA makes it pretty clear that you are very limited in what a BOR can fail a scout for but if you do, you have to outline the steps they need to take, which would either be fix it or appeal. Units sometimes come up with their own requirements for things like minimum attendance, which they are allowed to do within reason, but generally they don't hold up on appeal or even make it out of the building because of all the other exemptions that are also outlined in GTA.

I agree and I think you're right I read this as you confirm all appropriate signoffs are in the record and that any other associated requirements, like registration or length of service, have been met. On page 20, GTSS states once something has been signed off on, it's been met and can't be retested. On page 22, it states scout spirit is to be assessed by how a scout lives daily life, something that would be known to the SM and not a BOR composed of committee members who may never encounter the scout except in passing. If the unit leader -- SM -- has cleared the scout for a BOR, the GTA indicates that requirement has been met. Nowhere in the GTA does is state that a BOR can fail a scout for being nonresponsive in the actual room out of fear of someone on the BOR or stage fright.

In 4-H I think it's pretty close although from my experience, and much as it is in scouting, it is very much driven by the individual youth and how they utilize the program. There are any number of growth opportunities in 4-H, not just specific to your club or interest, but also within the organization as a whole. There are all sorts of opportunities for youth leaders and development of leadership skills all the way up to National 4-H Congress occurring next month.

Yes. I think that's what I said? -- Charters extended and registrations collected. There will probably be a grace period but that should mostly sort out by March of next year.

The fees/registrations are being collected but if the charters fail, they have no home unless a new charter can be found. There are plenty of units collecting registrations without knowing who their charter will be after the December extension runs out, or are just now learning there is an issue.

That would normally be the case but what muddles this is the fate of the paused UMC units. Those extensions started in 2021 and now are extending fully through 2022. The real membership numbers won't be known until some time after December 31, 2022 when we are able to compare last quarter 2021 to first quarter 2023. What's also not clear is how "transferred" scouts are being captured in this. I don't think there's much solidity to be found in any numbers until this spring.

Those groupings match the progression I've seen. It's good to keep in mind not every kid likes or is good at working with younger kids. In fact a lot of them don't and frankly, that describes a lot of adults in scouting and even roles like teaching. I don't think you should necessarily see that as a negative, especially since she's good at other things. An older scout who has awareness of and relationships outside and beyond your troop is a huge asset. She may not be fulfilling some of the aspects of the SPL role but she is still showing leadership if she is interested in participating in inter unit activities and showing younger scouts what is available in scouting beyond the troop. She just has a different leadership focus maybe than her adult handlers. It certainly doesn't sound like she is just being lazy or a no show.

I don't know what the point is of how far up or down on the list these rifles fall. They have all been used in mass shootings. They have a connotation because of that to the general public that they are the preferred weapons of choice of mass shooters. They are not what the general public envisions in a scout's hand at a scout shooting range and most do not understand distinctions of use they just see the acronyms. To clarify, at many youth competitions and practices, you do not see guns like AK47s or AR15s or whatever other acronym I am not including. I am not selecting a list, I am discussing context and connotation for the general public who may not be fully aware of what the BSA shooting program entails.

4-H teaches, according to them, about 500,000 youth per year. My local experience with it is that it is generally run out of local recreation and gun clubs that run programs all year long and have competitive shooting teams. From what I've seen, it is on a higher level and more closely managed than what I've seen at scout camps. It's a 4-H club with volunteer leaders, but it is generally overseen or run in consultation with professionals.

You're missing my point. You're arguing with me about what an Ak47 is or isn't. I'm talking about transparency -- there is no reason not to include what type of rifle was involved. I also noted what the connotations for the AK47 are in the press, which really aren't debatable. It doesn't matter what you or I think or if it's number one used or number ten, it is still one of the preferred firearms that have been involved in high profile cases. I'm noting that its presence at a scouting event will likely be news to the general public, and even more so if it becomes clear that it wasn't an aberrance. And maybe I'm wrong, no one will care. But if this story gets much more pickup by national media, we will find out what the public reactions will be. Most members of the general public do not think of scouts or youth marksmen as utilizing or having access to AK47s. Even among shooting families, you can go all the way to the Olympics in youth marksmanship and never encounter one. They are not used. I've had any number of parents emphatically clarifying that their youth use different weapons for their competitions and practices.

OK. I see it more as an issue of transparency. I think the public, and any parents considering a scout shooting program for their child, have a right to know what type of rifle was involved in this and in any other incident. Information by itself is never bad and I don't see where the mere citing of that detail alone t in these media reports is by itself sensationalistic. It would have been sensationalizing the incident if they had included a paragraph on how the AK47 has become one of the preferred weapons of choice in mass shootings.

What are you saying is fear mongering? The actual news reports that mention the weapon involved was an AK47 or noting this will be news to many parents and members of the general public? Interesting opinion piece. I'm not anti firearms for youth but I no longer think BSA has the organizational competence, consistently delivered across the board, to oversee a youth shooting sports program -- along with a few other things.

Most of the general public, even those neutral or casually supportive of youth shooting sports and probably a lot of scout parents, are unaware that an AK47 could be at a scout range. This particular tragedy is about adult negligence and the apparent failure of training programs but on the macro level it may lead people to wonder what an AK47 is doing anywhere near a scout. The public facing side of scout shooting sports has been gun safety, marksmanship, and hunting as a component of outdoor sportsmanship. An AK47 does not fit into that picture.

A number of units have chartered with American Legions this year and have reported a similar process: The AL pays to get them started for one year but that's it. If money is a hardship for your families they do not need class As. Many cash strapped packs will just use a class B t shirt or a neckerchief, etc. You can always switch to class As later if your fundraising kicks in. A uniform is not required and should not be a barrier to scouting for any child. It's not too late for wreaths if you have a local supplier. If you can find a local garden center or nursery to work with you, you could still do it. One of our local farm stands sold us wreaths at wholesale one year. We got various donations of bows and did pretty well. I seem to remember it all got organized last minute in October with sales in early to mid November.

I think that's a good plan and then you can monitor the social stuff. I don't know if your kid is in a public school system or not but they get heavy character education that if you're not an upstander you are a bystander and that's bad. He may not yet be comfortable in calling out bad behavior, particularly among older kids, but he also may not want to risk being thought of as being a party to it as a bystander. The 12 year old solution is to lose enthusiasm for scouts and drop out. "Good" kids who are not confrontational or good at self advocating really don't know what to do when confronted with bad behavior by other kids. It can seem scary and out of control in settings where adults don't intercede or seem aware. They don't want to get in any trouble by association so they try to get away from the situation. That's hard to do in scouts where you are continually thrown in with the patrol or troop so they quit. If he's comfortable with finishing out the year or at least giving it another few months, maturity may inform his views.