New Chief Executive Announced

[packsaddle]

blw2, the answer is that some of them do lurk around these forums. RichardB, in particular, has been active in discussions regarding G2SS and related topics and he must have a fairly thick skin from the comments he has gotten. Another one I remember was a guy named Dave who also played 'tag' for a while but then retreated to safer ground, lol. I have no idea if he still lurks but once I sent an email to him and he responded that he did check in once in a while.

I suspect there are others but I have no direct evidence of it.

[skeptic]

While we have a few posters that are obviously very negative towards anything National, most older ones are rational and post some good suggestions and comments.  But, I sometimes feel as if the more negative too often undermine many of the threads, especially those that are more universal to the program.

 

It is sort of like the political commenters in regard to the country.  A lot of rabid "haters" that overrun most conversations and make it difficult to distinguish the more reasonable and non hysterical posts.  

 

I have been led to believe that Tico Perez periodically reviews the Forum, and I know at least one of our local exec's occasionally does too, as he once or twice has asked me if it was me posting on some thread.

 

In regard to this announcement; we have some time before he steps in, and I am sure more info will surface.  In regard to my original post that started this; it appears already that we have a few who have decided against him, even though there is really nothing to make such a judgement from as yet that has been presented.  Hopefully, we can do better.

[Gone]

While we have a few posters that are obviously very negative towards anything National, most older ones are rational and post some good suggestions and comments.  But, I sometimes feel as if the more negative too often undermine many of the threads, especially those that are more universal to the program.

 

It is sort of like the political commenters in regard to the country.  A lot of rabid "haters" that overrun most conversations and make it difficult to distinguish the more reasonable and non hysterical posts.  

 

 

At the point where we label people who don't agree with an obviously broken system are labelled as "haters" we stifle the open exchange of ideas, and further illustrate that we are closed off to new ideas. This is the argument of the extreme left and right and is polarizing this country.

 

A reasonable person can look at BSA and see it is broken. They can take their experience and look at the mismatch between the strategic objectives of national/council/district, compare that against unit needs, and come to the conclusion that these bodies are not meeting their unit's needs. When this happens to one unit, yes, that voice might be seen as a negative person. When that happens to MANY units, those voices should not be extinguished or dismissed as "haters" just because you may disagree or you think your needs are being met.

 

The fact that BSA is hemorrhaging membership and national is not doing anything effective to stop that bleed out leaves that open to valid criticism. Those who see that as hate have either drunk the BSA Kool-Aid or don't see the problem.

 

The irony is that we who tilt at the sacred BSA windmills are labelled as haters, yet those you advocate a change in our membership policy (another sacred windmill) are seen as righting a wrong. Pot, meet kettle.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[TAHAWK]

In '69 when I trekked as a scout at Philmont, most patrols had just ONE adult and most scouts appeared in the15-16 yr old range. Though at least one adult (no 2-deep then) was required,  we would have been fine without him . Oh he was very competent and an Eagle, but we were prepared. Today THREE adults required and scouts appear to be a year or two younger.  Adventure lost. Unless older scouts are hanging around to complete Eagle, they are gone at high school. Older members lost.

 

My item #1 local option, speaking for our unit, goodbye DRP and we would likely double our new young scouts. Keeping them is where item #2 helps.

 

Another $0.02

 

 

 

Each Philmont expedition or group must have at least two BSA registered adult advisers for Scout groups. One adviser must be at least 21 years of age; the second adviser must be at least 18.

 

Source: http://www.philmontscoutranch.org/Camping/WhoCanCome/CrewRequirements.aspx

Edited May 15, 2015 by TAHAWK

[Eagledad]

At the point where we label people who don't agree with an obviously broken system are labelled as "haters" we stifle the open exchange of ideas, and further illustrate that we are closed off to new ideas. This is the argument of the extreme left and right and is polarizing this country.

 

A reasonable person can look at BSA and see it is broken. They can take their experience and look at the mismatch between the strategic objectives of national/council/district, compare that against unit needs, and come to the conclusion that these bodies are not meeting their unit's needs. When this happens to one unit, yes, that voice might be seen as a negative person. When that happens to MANY units, those voices should not be extinguished or dismissed as "haters" just because you may disagree or you think your needs are being met.

 

The fact that BSA is hemorrhaging membership and national is not doing anything effective to stop that bleed out leaves that open to valid criticism. Those who see that as hate have either drunk the BSA Kool-Aid or don't see the problem.

 

The irony is that we who tilt at the sacred BSA windmills are labelled as haters, yet those you advocate a change in our membership policy (another sacred windmill) are seen as righting a wrong. Pot, meet kettle.

You assume too much. There are some here who clearly have a self serving agenda.

 

Barry

[LeCastor]

Ok, Skeptic would like to pull it back a little from the negativity.  We've hashed through some key points already, so I suggest we move along.  

 

There's a new Chief Scout Executive coming on board soon.  We'll see what changes, if any, come about in the coming year(s).  In the meantime, let's continue to give our youth the best possible experience we can at the unit level--or at whichever level we serve.  We can only control what we can control.

[skeptic]

Ok, Skeptic would like to pull it back a little from the negativity.  We've hashed through some key points already, so I suggest we move along.  

 

There's a new Chief Scout Executive coming on board soon.  We'll see what changes, if any, come about in the coming year(s).  In the meantime, let's continue to give our youth the best possible experience we can at the unit level--or at whichever level we serve.  We can only control what we can control.

Agreed.  

[RememberSchiff]

Source: http://www.philmontscoutranch.org/Camping/WhoCanCome/CrewRequirements.aspx

Two is the Philmont minimum and four is the Philmont maximum. A council can up the minimum to 3 (or 4) as ours did when faced with adults failing their medical check upon arrival.

 

IMO, it would be better that so-called 'pinnacle experiences" in scouting required no adults. We train our scouts that they are ready to plan and complete a Philmont trek with a patrol of just scouts, ditto Eagle project,...instead the BSA is going in the opposite direction.