dkurtenbach

The "these guys too" Explorers seem to be doing just fine. And I just can't see a problem with the LFL side of the program outgrowing the "traditional" side. And of course, that will mean that it is separate and unequal -- LFL Scouting will have definite advantages over the traditional program.

There's an easy way to kill three birds with one stone: Create a parallel Scouting program within BSA's Learning for Life subsidiary. As with career Exploring, which is part of LFL, the parallel Scouting program would be fully inclusive: gays, girls, and atheists would all be welcome at all levels. Exploring is doing just fine, with 116,589 youth in 5,285 posts as of the end of 2012  a 3.28% membership gain over 2011. Explorer posts are chartered just like traditional BSA units and are supported by Councils just like traditional BSA units -- we could do the same with units in the parallel program. We already have a full-blown Scouting program that we can borrow -- it just needs a few tweaks to account for the membership difference. And unlike traditional BSA programs, the parallel Scouting program could be adopted by schools and other governmental and civic organizations who have non-discrimination policies. Win-win-win.

I think the problem is more along these lines: The conservatives feel that BSA has been going along just fine as it is. They can feel comfortable using Scouting as a character-building tool for their children, with character-building expressly including faith and morals. Everyone who joins Scouting -- the millions of youth and adult in Scouting now and everyone who has participated in Scouting over at least the last few decades -- understands this and has agreed to it. Now there are forces that want to come in and significantly change that environment by allowing members whose beliefs contradict the views of faith and morality -- character -- that Scouting has been living by and promoting for a long, long, time. That is, the "liberals" are trying to come into their house (Scouting) and force their values on the conservatives; but the values the conservatives espouse have been Scouting's values -- that is, the conservatives were there first. And their rights were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. What right do the liberals have to come in and change things? What right do the liberals have to come in and force us to either associate with people who do not share our values OR retreat into our own units and no longer participate in all of the broader and multi-unit events and activities that Scouting offers. What right do the liberals have to -- against our will -- make us members of an organization that promotes practices that we believe to be immoral and an evil influence on children? And that is a good point. By what right is this being done when the rights and expectations of members and the nature of the program have been settled for decades? Now of course we know all the arguments about why this change would be a good thing. But we also need to be clear in our minds that we have some justification for coming in and making these changes, something more than "right of conquest," that is, something more than "we can do it because we have the raw power to force our will on Scouting." After all, America is built on BOTH majority rule AND protecting the rights of the minority -- that is what the Bill of Rights is all about. So even if the conservatives are in the minority right now, we can't just kick down the door, march in, and start ordering them around. The local option does preserve some of their rights, but not all of them. As suggested above, the local option either forces conservatives to associate with gays and lesbians at broader or multi-unit events, such as camporees and Roundtable, OR if they don't want to associate, then they have to retreat into their own units or a collection of conservative units. And that only deals with the units, not with the individual conservatives found in every unit, who don't have a local option. If their unit decides to admit gays, they either have to cooperate or leave the unit. That is a big change being forced on them by liberals. Their rights as a minority are not being protected at all. And that is being done all in the interest of promoting the rights of another minority. See the problem here? Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

There is a big difference between (a) living in the world that you have to live in and you don't have any choice about who else is there, and (b) voluntarily joining and participating in an organization because you want to associate with certain kinds of people. A lot of the wistful comments from progressives express a desire to have the conservatives be exposed to people they don't want to be exposed to, because it will be good for them -- they will learn that their conservative views are, well, wrong. And that is the sort of thing that gets the conservatives upset. And the progressives can't understand why. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Rick, well said. Unfortunately, while you're saying, "I just want them [opponents of a policy change] to give others the same respect they wish to receive," they are also saying "I just want them [advocates of a policy change] to give others the same respect they wish to receive." Both sides see themselves as injured parties. The anti-discrimination side sees this as a matter of justice and equality for a minority group denied rights based on a physical characteristic. The anti-gay side sees this as matter of decades-old, well-established, private rights of association and conscience being attacked simply out of dislike for their moral code. This is not a matter where either side can be persuaded to change its views. Any solution, to be effective, has to affirmatively respect both sides. It can't be formula in which one side is the winner but agrees to tolerate the loser (at least for a little while). Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Hey, if the local option would work, great! I'm all for it. Maybe it will just take a couple of local tweaks and everthing will be fine. Maybe the hard-line conservatives are just pouting when they oppose local option. Maybe the pastor down the street isn't really serious about dropping Boy Scouts if they go to the local option, even though he threw out the Girl Scouts last year and brought in American Heritage Girls. When we are talking about LDS, we're talking about 16% of youth membership: a big enough chunk to get special accommodations from BSA, but too small to really inconvenience the other 84% of members who are not LDS. But keep in mind that 70.3% of BSA units are chartered by faith-based organizations. http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/operating_orgs.aspx. Some of them will have no problem mingling with gays and lesbians in the Scouting context under a local option, certainly. But some will. The poll on this thread shows 31% in favor of the current policy. What percentage of anti-gay units insulating themselves from district and council events and activities is enough for it to become a problem for the local councils and BSA generally? What percentage of anti-gay units leaving BSA is enough for it to become a problem for the local councils and BSA generally? As I've said before, I think there are folks on the anti-discrimination side who are perfectly willing to have BSA suffer large membership losses if it means getting rid of the exclusionary policy. But I don't know how many of them will be voting in May. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Unworkable because the local option to continue excluding gays and lesbians extends only to the limits of the particular chartered organizations that want that option. But they can't exclude gays and lesbians in other units from camporees, or roundtables, or University of Scouting, or district awards banquets, or Order of the Arrow meetings and Ordeals, and district bike rodeos and district Pinewood Derbies, and merit badge clinics, and Webelos-Rees, and District Committee meetings. So the units that want to continue excluding gays and lesbians will stop coming to meetings, activities and events where they might have to rub shoulders with gay leaders or expose their Scouts to dens with lesbian moms, and attendance drops at those events and activities. And the anti-gay leaders won't go to BSLST or IOLS, so they aren't getting trained. And they will be ticked that they cannot in good conscience attend multi-unit events, so their FOS contributions slow down, and then drop even more because the FOS Chairman is gay and they don't want him contacting their units. And the very conservative unit commissioners won't service units that allow gays and lesbians as members. And when the exclusionary troops get a call from a Webelos Scout den asking if they can come and visit, the troop has to ask them first if they have any homosexual leaders or parents. And the conservative parents visiting a troop get ticked off when they find out the troop allows gay and lesbian leaders. They call to make reservations for summer camp and are told that they will not get any special accommodations -- they will be altogether with other units that may well have homosexual leaders. So they start looking for church camps to attend instead of Council day camps or resident camps. So then the exclusionary units start getting together with each other and holding their own events and camporees and even roundtables. And they realize that they aren't getting much from the district and council organizations, and they are constantly having to deal with the snide comments from the anti-discrimination leaders, and they start to wonder why they don't just move to a more congenial organization that respects their choices of conscience, because BSA is not doing so anymore. That is why it is going to turn out to be unworkable. I wish the local option could be permanent solution. As I've said before, I would love to see Scouting open to all youth and adults regardless of sexual orientation or belief in God. But I know that there are churches out there working on contingency plans in case the policy changes. Even with the local option, some will leave. And if we lose one or two major denominations, that is going to hit BSA very hard. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

1. The first prerequisite is that there has to be "equal" as well as separate -- which was never the case in the example you mention. I think the conservative churches and other organizations who remain in the traditional programs will have the resources to keep up with LFL Scouting. 2. The separation would be totally voluntary, and doesn't force anyone to be separated if they don't want to be -- which was never the case in the example you mention. If gays or lesbians want to remain in the traditional program, they can, under the same conditions as exist now. If someone who doesn't care for homosexuals wants to join an LFL Scouting unit (for example, to meet girls), no problem. 3. The Venturing/Exploring split seems to have worked out. The difference between the result we would have with this proposed split, and the result we would have with either a local option or a complete disavowal of discrimination by BSA is this: Instead of the conservative churches leaving BSA and establishing their own exclusionary programs, they would still be within BSA. I realize that on each side, there are folks who think that the other side is wrong, illegitimate, has no right to assert their fundamentally evil position, and thus deserve no concessions and no consideration. These hardliners on the anti-homosexual side do not favor the local option or any option that would offer anything to the anti-discrimination side. The hardliners on the anti-discrimination side would prefer a complete rejection of the exclusionary policy, but realize that the local option is a foot in the door and their ultimate goal is just a few years away (after local option proves unworkable); and they would not at all mind if the anti-homosexual crowd left BSA entirely (and good riddance). And so this proposed split is offensive to hardliners on both sides, precisely because it recognizes that each side has sincere and legitimate arguments and concerns. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Let's start with this: What do you want the result of this policy debate to be, and why? Then we can talk about the real issues related to this very serious, and quite workable, proposal. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

To AZMike's questions about the mechanics, my initial thoughts are these: (1) The current Boy Scouts of America traditional programs would remain exactly as they are. No changes to anything, including their nomenclature and policies. (2) The LFL Scouting program would be essentially identical except as needed to accommodate LFL's nondiscrimination policy and every program being co-ed. (3) Every current BSA unit and every current BSA member would have the opportunity to transfer to the new Scouting program under Learning for Life. (4) As for names, I was thinking something simple, like LFL Cub Scouts (Cub Scout counterparts), LFL Junior Varsity Scouts (Boy Scout counterparts -- since they would be co-ed, "Boy" doesn't work), and LFL Varsity Scouts (Varsity and Venturing counterparts), with career-oriented Exploring remaining as it is. (5) At least initially, we retain an identical rank structure, including Eagle Scout, and all completed requirements carry over from the traditional programs to LFL Scouting. With time, they may diverge, but keeping things practically identical will help the transition and ongoing support from Council and National. A lot of publications will need only some changes to the covers and excising material not compatible with the non-discrimination policy. Rank and position insignia and merit badges would all stay the same for both programs. (6) LFL SCOUTING UNITS WOULD _NOT_ PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME ACTIVITIES, TRAINING, OR OTHER EVENTS AS TRADITIONAL UNITS. If we've gone to all this trouble to not force folks with moral objections into rubbing shoulders with gay and lesbian Scouts and leaders, we can't "backdoor" it by forcing them together at events and activities. That would be no better than the "local option." That does not mean, however, that we need completely separate support structures. District and Council paid staff and some of the volunteers can service both organizations. This would likely be in the form of folks from the "traditional" side assisting with the LFL side, but not vice-versa. (7) The Order of the Arrow and any other multi-unit or broad-based organizations would remain only within the traditional BSA program. As with camporees, training, and other events and activities, we can't force frequent or regular mixed gatherings. Mixed gatherings would be similar to international events where people with different Scouting traditions gather. However, folks from the other program can always be invited to participate as guests in regular events. At least initially, I would expect that this would usually be the LFL folks inviting traditional folks. (8) Camps and high adventure bases would be open to both, but segregate them where reasonably possible. Hope that helps. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Earlier today I posted the following as a comment to the March 14 Scouting Magazine blog on the membership topic: --------------------------- AMERICA NEEDS SCOUTING MORE THAN EVER I am grateful to BSA and my council for providing multiple opportunities and forums for discussion of this issue (including this blog  thanks, Bryan!). My position has evolved over the last couple of weeks as a result of trying to understand what others were saying and why, and trying to translate my own views and feelings into reasonable statements. I am still firmly convinced that we need a Scouting program that is open to all regardless of sexual orientation or belief in God. But because of these discussions, I am also convinced that we need a Scouting program in which people of faith can feel comfortable, welcome, and supported in pursuing their duty to God, even when that means that sincere, reasoned, and well-formed belief requires the active avoidance of certain influences and environments. That is the program that the Boy Scouts of America has been providing. If BSA stops providing such a program, our members of faith will find it elsewhere or build it themselves, as they are entitled to do under our distinctly American principles. There is no organization that can do a Scouting-type program in the United States better than the BSA. There is no reason that we cannot do it in both Vanilla Bean and Rainbow Sherbet flavors. In fact, we already are. In 2012, there were 116,589 youth in 5,285 Explorer posts. The career-oriented Exploring program is under BSA’s subsidiary, the Learning for Life corporation (LFL). In 1998, BSA’s traditional Exploring program was split into Venturing, which remained a traditional program in BSA, and the current LFL Exploring program. And that split was a result of precisely the same issues we are dealing with today. Career-oriented Explorer posts were sponsored by governmental units and other organizations increasingly uncomfortable with BSA’s exclusionary membership standards. And so those posts were moved to LFL and are governed by LFL’s non-discrimination policy: “Color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, disability, economic status or citizenship is not criteria for participation.†Explorer posts work just like traditional BSA units, and are supported by our councils just like traditional BSA units. We already have the Venturing/Exploring experience as a prototype. Let’s use the structure and resources we already have to expand our Scouting program to serve not only our current membership, much of which is provided by faith-based organizations, but also the youth we have been missing out on all of these years because we have not been welcome in schools and other governmental and inclusive community organizations. We know what a strong outdoor-based character and leadership program can do. Now is the time for a complete (and fully co-ed) LFL Scouting program that parallels our traditional BSA Scouting programs. Those who seek a forward-looking non-discriminatory Scouting program can find it in BSA’s LFL Scouting; those who seek the comfort of a “traditional†Scouting program can find it in BSA’s current programs with their existing policies. All this time, we could have done so much and served so many. America needs us now more than ever. It is not too late for us to come into the 21st century  or to capture it and make it our own.

Being pro-God isn't as much of a problem as being anti-gay, so there is unlikely to be the same kind or degree of opposition to that BSA policy as to the anti-gay policy. Additionally, BSA's stated position on the religious element is very reasonable and flexible. Unlike discrimination against homosexuals, duty to God permeates every element of our program, and I think it would be impossible to offer a "local option" on God. If BSA had to drop its belief that attention to religious life is important, we are talking about massive changes to our programs, our publications, and our advancement process, right down to altering the language of the Scout Oath and Scout Law. And then we'd lose churches who were okay with dropping the anti-gay policy. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

The current policy is already a compromise: gays and lesbians _are_ allowed to be members of BSA as long as they keep quiet about it. Many of the folks expressing anti-gay sentiments don't seem to realize this. Which means it has not been a very useful compromise because it has not prepared the anti-gay folks for the next step. The trick here is bringing the inevitable nondiscrimination policy along slowly enough that most of the opponents will eventually stop struggling and either accept it or slowly fade away without huge, sudden losses. The real issue is whether there has been enough time for that to happen. It has been less than a year since the policy was reaffirmed, after all. "Local option" is the next logical step in the slow march, but doing it now may still be a bit sudden, particularly for large organizations controlled by a small number of conservative leaders, such as major church denominations. They could see remaining with BSA as "guilt by association" even if their own local units can ban gays. They would have little difficulty pulling out, and have the wherewithal to adopt a substitute program more to their liking. That may happen even if the policy is not changed this year -- if they see the writing on the wall, they may start making plans to withdraw anyway. And the writing is on the wall. Society is moving very fast on this issue, and the military's dropping of their Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy is a strong precedent for BSA to drop its Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy. And even if BSA declines to make the change now, we have a federal law charter, and we can expect to see efforts in Congress to amend our statute to make us instantly inclusive. I think possibly "Will you leave?" is the most important question for the voting members going to the BSA annual meeting in May. They have to find the balance between movement toward the inevitable and not crippling the organization. That may mean a compromise other than the local option. Perhaps appointment of a commission to do a long study and report back with recommendations for the 2014 annual meeting (delay for a year but keep it on the table). They may want to consider more radical options, such as creating a parallel Scouting program under BSA's Learning for Life/Exploring program, which already has a non-discrimination policy and already operates units (career-oriented Explorer posts) supported by our local councils. That would allow the current policy to remain in place in traditional units that did not choose to switch over to LFL/Exploring, and thus allow a smaller, more conservative, religious-based Scouting program to continue on into the future even as BSA promotes its more progressive, 21st century, fully co-ed and diverse adventure-based LFL Scouting program. Win-win for BSA, which would keep both Scouting programs under its umbrella. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

[fred8033 wrote:] "That's exactly what I'm seeing. And I see a push to do more with the other troop and less with ours. Now we need to invest for years to come to re-build the social contract. Luckily, our COR is willing to help and attend pack and troop committee meetings. "The trouble is that both troops are good. Different styles, but good. But the other troop invests significantly more in recruitment. But we have the COR and can justifiably attend the pack meetings and influence the pack calendar. But we need to do it in a nice friendly way. "It's just frustrating. We're all volunteers. We all work very hard. But hard feelings are being developed between groups. I must admit that even though I like everyone involved, I get frustrated with the individuals because of the situation." ---------------------- Believe me, I know exactly how you are feeling. I fear that, even if you are successful in re-building the social contract, it will still be as fragile as ever, even after years of investment. But good luck. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Actually, the requirement is for the Webelos den to visit one (not multiple) Boy Scout troop meeting and one Boy Scout-oriented outdoor activity (which can be with the same troop) (AoL Req. 4) and then for the Webelos Scout to visit a meeting of a Boy Scout troop he thinks he might like to join (AoL Req. 6) -- which, again, can be the same troop visited previously. Personally, I'd prefer a system like our suburban youth sports leagues use: The youth registers with the league, and gets to express a preference to be on the same team with a named friend, but the league assigns youth (and coaches) to teams, with limited transfer options. That results in equal-sized teams with (presumably) relatively equal chances of success. And if it doesn't work out this year, well, you may get a better team next season. The real problem is that we _have_ a transition out of one unit into another unit. Totally unnecessary, and executed in such a way that it practically invites Scouts and their families to drop out rather than do the work necessary to make the transition. But that is what we are stuck with for now. I believe in the BSA "partner" model under the same conditions that BSA propounds it: all the moving parts work perfectly and there are sufficient resources to do everything. The problem, as I noted before, is that it is far too easy for the relationship to fall apart if even one thing goes wrong. We aren't talking about a relationship between a pack and a troop, really. We're talking about multiple overlapping relationships among perhaps dozens of people who are always changing as Scouts age out and new Scouts and their parents come in. Even the strongest pack-troop relationship can fall apart if the wrong Jenga block is pulled. For the relationship to continue to work, (nearly) everyone has to be on board, most especially the Webelos Den Leader and the parents of the Webelos Scouts -- every year. If any significant percentage of the 5th grade Webelos in any year go to a different troop, you've got trouble. Not just from the breaking of the "social contract" between pack and troop, but from the new relationships being formed between pack families and the other troop. If the boys who went to the other troop have brothers in the pack, the "partner" troop can really be screwed, and they have to start looking to partner with other packs in order to sustain their membership. Chartered Organization be damned. But in most cases the Chartered Organization doesn't care anyway, as long as its units stay out of trouble. Yes, I think we would be better off if there were competition among Cub Scout packs. The biggest membership problem BSA has, in my opinion, are Cub Scouts and families who have a poor experience and drop out rather than switch. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

My opinion, having been a Troopmaster user and also spending lots of time looking at other options, mostly web-based: If you don't have Troopmaster now, wait. Master BSA's Internet Advancement system and BSA's online Service Hours Reporting system (needed for Journey to Excellence) first, then figure out what those systems do not have that you need (for example, some way to track nights camping and other activity attendance). Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

The BSA model for Webelos-to-Scout transition is partnership between a pack and a troop leading to a seamless move: "The key factor to improved Webelos transition is the ongoing working relationship of the leaders of a Cub Scout pack and a Boy Scout troop. Ideally a community organization would have both a pack and a troop with leaders who work together to help move Webelos Scouts into a Boy Scout troop the same way schools move students from elementary school to middle school." http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/ImprovedWebelosTransition.aspx . See also http://scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/Webelos_to_Scout.pdf . However, as with all BSA models, it assumes that all moving parts are functioning perfectly and that there are sufficient resources to do everything called for in the model. So, for example, the model does not account for a "partner" troop that doesn't have a very good program, or a "partner" troop with leaders that have no interest in working closely with a pack, or a "partner" pack with leaders that have no interest in committing to move their Webelos into the "partner" troop, or a pack and troop with an "absentee" COR that doesn't care whether its units work together or not, or Webelos Scouts or parents who don't want to join the "partner" troop. I've heard lots of Scout leaders tout the "shop around" method, but have never seen it in BSA literature. I think it is a practical response to the fragility of the "partner" (or "feeder pack") model, which is difficult to build and susceptible to just too many variables. For example, I've seen a personality clash between Scoutmaster and Webelos Den Leader wreck a longstanding pack-troop partnership. Bottom line, I think it is a lot easier, cleaner, and safer for the pack to strongly encourage Webelos Scouts and families to do their research, shop around, and cross over to troops that appeal to them. I think that also has the salutary effect of requiring a troop to improve or die, rather than a poor or average troop being artificially propped up by a regular infusion of new Scouts from a partner pack. It also keeps a troop from becoming dependent on a single source of new Scouts, which can make the troop vulnerable if the pack goes south. There is a downside to the pack in that a troop may not be willing to invest many resources in a pack where any return is iffy; but the pack can make it up by getting a little help from several troops in exchange for the exposure. (Imagine a different troop doing a skill demonstration at each month's pack meeting, den chiefs from different troops, and multiple campout offers.) Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

This is my interpretation, going solely on what was discussed by Mr. Hunsaker in the video. It appears to me that "integration of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts fundamentals" refers to revising the Cub Scout and Boy Scout program content so that at each grade/age level, the same five "core content areas" are represented in a consistent and progressive (age-appropriate) way from Tigers to Eagle Scout rank requirements. Again, the five core content areas discussed in the video are: Character Development, Participatory Citizenship, Personal Fitness, Outdoor Skills and Awareness, and Leadership. As a practical matter, I don't think that "integration" of "fundamentals" itself will substantially change the programs. Rather, I suspect it is more taking the existing program elements and reorganizing and re-balancing -- as if your troop is trying to standardize the gear in its patrol boxes out of two similar, but not identical, piles. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

As Fred describes, boys have one goal while the program has a separate goal. For Scouts, the goal is to advance in rank in order to achieve higher status in the troop and other tangible benefits. For some, that quest culminates in earning the rank of Eagle Scout. For BSA (and adult leaders), the goal is to use the various elements that go into Advancement (skills, knowledge, service, leadership, experiences, etc.) to help boys develop virtues and the ability to do things for themselves and others. The boys are given a simple, concrete, visible goal -- jump the hurdles. The adults are given a more complicated, intangible, subtle goal -- make sure all the hurdles are upright and the right height when a Scout jumps them, [added:] that the Scout is trained in how to jump them, and has opportunities to jump them.[/] What sometimes happens is that adults (parents, Scout leaders) adopt the Scout's goal rather than the BSA's goal. Maybe they don't understand BSA's goal, or maybe they don't know that BSA has a different goal than the boys, or maybe they don't care. All they see is a checklist of requirements. Those adults want Scouts to have lots of rank advancement, quickly, and want to help make that happen. Sometimes that mistaken goal extends to the whole unit, so that the troop measures its success by the type and number of awards it and its members receive. That is when badge-earning standards might be compromised and corners cut (by adults) for the purpose of getting the Scout through the requirements so the badge can be awarded. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

That's one reason I now use hook-and-loop material (Velcro brand, for example) to attach position patches, Quality Unit (or successor) patches, and council shoulder patches (I like to swap out different versions, depending on the occasion; and one of the reasons I no longer put my knots on my uniform. But ironing Tiger paws onto an orange Tiger Cub shirt -- THAT was an art form! Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Mr. Hunsaker introduces the five "core content areas," which will run through both Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting (see below), as the "organizational principles of Scouting." Those five core content areas are: Character Development, Participatory Citizenship, Personal Fitness, Outdoor Skills and Awareness, and Leadership. It looks like they are taking the "Aims and Methods" framework and boiling it down, as well as making it consistent between Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. Recall that the three Aims are Character Development, Citizenship Training, and Personal Fitness; and the eight Methods of Boy Scouting are Advancement, Outdoors, Patrols, Ideals, Adult Association, Personal Growth, Uniform, and Leadership. In the May 2012 progress report, the Comments on Pillar IV/Objective 1/Goal 1 include the following: "Completed and gained . . . approval on recommended integration of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts fundamentals." No mention of Venturing. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA