Scouting Maverick: Scout Better

Author: Aren Cambre

  • UMC’s BSA shift is a blueprint, inflection, and opportunity

    UMC’s BSA shift is a blueprint, inflection, and opportunity

    The United Methodist Church (UMC) is a huge charterer of Boy Scouts of America (BSA) units. It is changing its relationship with the BSA.

    The UMC’s path forward is churches no longer charter Scout units. Instead, councils, which are the nonprofits that run Scouting in defined regions, will become the chartered organizations for all UMC Scout units.

    Explainer: All BSA units are “chartered” by a community-minded organization. A charter is like a franchise. Under BSA’s charter agreement, the community-minded organization owns and operates a Scout unit. This is the longstanding model for BSA.

    Formerly UMC-chartered Scout units will shift to an affiliation agreement with churches. This agreement appears to mainly provides meeting space. For Scout units that successfully navigate this, youth members should notice no differences.

    I believe this change is:

    1. A blueprint for other major charterers.
    2. The beginning of the end of the chartered-organization model.
    3. An opportunity for BSA’s volunteer commissioners.

    This change means a lot on the back end. The unit is no longer owned or operated by UMC churches, and major responsibilities are shifting to BSA councils.

    A premise behind the chartered-organization model is a level of investment and ownership in Scout units that is rare. Even when I was a youth (decades ago!), most units had only a “key relationship” with their chartered organization: “here’s the key to the building, I’ll sign that form once a year, and don’t bug me until next year”. It’s no different today.

    This is certainly not what the chartered-organization model anticipates.

    I am not blaming the chartered organizations. I think the model is obsolete. Can you think of any other major, youth-serving organization that works this way? I can’t.

    We need a new path forward. This is the first time a major, national organization has reached an agreement with BSA like this. Other large charterers are not comfortable with the chartered-organization model. Can the BSA deny them this blueprint? I doubt it.

    Here’s a challenge: The chartered organization has important duties, such as approving adult leaders. Also, since units are owned by the chartered organization, units operate as a part of the chartered organization. For example, First United Methodist Church’s Troop 123 is literally acting as First United Methodist Church in anything it does. This even includes matters like tax reporting.

    It’s a big responsibility.

    In shifting the charters to councils, if we make no changes, we’re heaping a lot of responsibility on council staff, which is already typically lean and overtaxed. How will they take on the Chartered Organization Representative (COR) role?

    Explainer: The COR is the chartered organization’s official representative to each Scout unit. Among the COR duties are approving adult leaders, appointing some positions, setting expectations on behalf of the chartered organization, and voting in council matters.

    Now let’s be clear: if councils are chartering units, we’ve moved beyond the chartered-organization model. We need to rethink the COR! We can divide it into three parts:

    1. Superfluous: Some red tape is needed only because the “charterer” is independent. When BSA itself is the charterer, this red tape becomes junk work. Trash it! (Want to get rid of the loathsome, annual rechartering process? This is how!)
    2. Professional: Some parts, such as fiscal responsibilities related to ownership of a unit, may need to be handled by council staff.
    3. Volunteer: Much of the role may be handled by volunteers in the commissioner staff. This may include approving adult leaders, direct relationship with troops, and more.

    Let’s talk more about point 3: As a prior District Commissioner, I found the commissioner role to be ambiguous. That makes it hard to recruit for. Even 15 years ago, technology had already obsoleted a lot of our function, and the remainder was scattered. A role-enhancement could boost the commissioner role by adding clarity, meaning, and authority. That will help us find more commissioners!

    It is crucial that we align the right personality to the adjusted commissioner role. It’s crucial that we fill commissioner staff with service-oriented problem-solvers who thrive on the initiative, innovation, and independence of unit leaders.

    In changing its relationship with the BSA, the UMC has laid out a blueprint for other chartered organizations. This will soon kill the obsolete chartered-organization model. Change is hard, but volunteer commissioners can take on a good deal of the former responsibility of chartered organizations. In doing so, commissioner service gains badly needed clarity.

  • Scout units should never have bylaws

    Scout units should never have bylaws

    (Editorial comment: Sacred cows are tasty. Apparently bylaws are sacred cows. Many comments are reacting to sentiments not expressed in this article. To be clear: It is good to document practices. It’s not good to turn them into formal bylaws.)

    While formal policy’s certainty may be appealing, it is a bad idea for Scout units. (Note: I use “bylaws” and “policy” interchangeably. I mean 1. a set of written rules that are 2. formally adopted by the adults of a Scout unit that 3. seek to generally regulate a Scout unit.)

    Bylaws turn the unit committee into a legislative body. This distracts from the committee’s role as a working group.

    Bylaws encourage rule-worshipping and administration. They discourage creativity and leadership.

    Let me re-emphasize something: BYLAWS ARE ANTI-LEADERSHIP! They are about rules and processes, the domain of administration. Steering a unit towards a compliance regime is steering it away from leadership-mentoring opportunities.

    Bylaws demean volunteers and youth leaders, saying they should not be trusted.

    Bylaws will eat you up. “But I just want one policy!” Once you let the genie out of the bottle, getting to “extensive policy” is fast: due to the golden-hammer effect, more problems will be “solved” by more policy.

    Conscientious units don’t need bylaws. BSA already has plenty of rules and regulations. Gray areas can be managed through the lens of the Scout Oath and Law. In rare cases where these aren’t enough, documenting one’s practices are sufficient. In extremes, the chartered organization might weigh in.

    Some mistakenly think Scout units need bylaws because all organizations need them. No, because Scout units are not organizations. They are a part of their chartered organization.

    Finally, BSA recommends against bylaws. In the Cub Scout Leader Book, 2018 edition, page 94: “Creating a set of bylaws or operating procedures is not necessary; all packs operate by the guidelines described in this manual.”

    Bylaws for Scout units are counterproductive. They create costs, they don’t solve problems better than documented practices, and they have substantial risks.

    Alternatives to bylaws

    OK, no bylaws or policy. What else can you do? Three things:

    Use the Scout Oath and Law. Those are the best lens for working through challenges.

    Use what BSA already provides. Don’t reinvent the wheel. BSA already has a bloated corpus of rules and recommendations. The last thing any volunteer needs is more rules.

    Document your practices. You do not need legislation to document practices. For example, if your unit’s practice is that campout registration deadlines are the Sunday before the campout, then the camp chair might write this down in a shared document.

  • Don’t renew inactive adult leaders

    Don’t renew inactive adult leaders

    Scout units often have non-participating adult leaders. Renewing them is a poor practice.

    This is not a call to ingloriously kick them out. It is a call to conversation. After I share why inactive adults should not be renewed, I give conversation ideas.

    Why

    Being an adult leader means a high level of access to a unit. Information on and access to youth must be managed carefully. Part of that means adult leadership is appropriate only for people who are known to each other. Non-participating adults are not in relationship with the other adults, creating a safety and cultural risk.

    No organization is static. The more time that elapses from when inactive adult leaders last participated, the more risks when they reappear. Are they familiar with the latest YPT revision? Are they familiar with the current youth and families? What if unit practices evolved?

    The Key Three annually attest to the suitability of leaders. That is done when they sign the annual recharter agreement. How is attestation possible for people who lack an active relationship with the unit? What does it say when the Key Three attest to such people? (The Key Three is the Committee Chair, Chartered Organization Representative, and the top program leader–Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Advisor, or Skipper.)

    Inactive adults may lack incentive to be fully trained. They may jeopardize Journey to Excellence scores.

    There are direct costs with no benefit. The treasurer has to manage more transactions. The membership chair has to manage more memberships. The training chair has to chase down absent adults. The committee chair or Scoutmaster must account for missing leaders.

    Finally, adult leadership is a privilege and a responsibility. Re-registering non-participating adults cheapens the purpose of adult leadership.

    Philosophical note: The adult uniform always has a position patch on the left shoulder. This is intentional. BSA is a youth-serving organization, so the only role for adults in Scouting is in being some kind of adult leader. By extension, unit-level adult leaders who are not fulfilling a leader role are contravening a premise of the BSA.

    The conversation

    Having ghost adult leaders on a unit roster is a sign of deferred, crucial conversations.

    These leaders are renewing with good intentions. That must be respected. However, the privilege of continued registration must be tied to an active role. Any inactive leader who returns to an active role is a win!

    The conversation should respectfully guide the inactive leader to one of these outcomes:

    1. Return to an active role. This is a win! You kept a leader, and you have new help. Be sure that the role is specific. Not simply “Committee Member” but “training lead”. Not simply “Assistant Scoutmaster” but “mentor to the Bobwhite Patrol”.
    2. Move to the district. Districts often need additional staff, and the district is a great place to continue helping Scouting. Pro tip: Reach out to your District Commissioner and District Chair. Do they need help?
    3. Unit Scouter Reserve. This position is for a temporarily uninvolved leader who intends to return (code 91U for regular or 92U for college reserve). This is an inactive status, so there is no position patch. The only required training is YPT, so it does not count against JTE metrics. This should only be used if both:
      1. A temporary life circumstance prevents involvement. A great example is a temporary move away from the area, like for a military deployment or to go to college.
      2. The adult has a genuine intent to resume an active role once the life circumstance ends.
    4. Merit badge counselor. This role has no registration cost.
    5. Ending the Scouting career. This point comes for everyone. Sometimes our fond memories get in the way of us making a rational assessment. While we all hope for someone to continue in an active role, we sometimes need to celebrate the role someone once had.

    Details

    Every rule has an exception. Adult leaders who are involved on the district or council level, but for whom there isn’t a clean membership option on those levels, might be best to maintain membership with a unit. Examples might include camp director (volunteer role), Order of the Arrow involvement, or similar. The unit still must set an expectation that this person maintain relationship with it.

    What is “active” is up to each unit. Think carefully about where this bar is set. A leader who provides a valuable service but only twice a year: do you consider that person active? (You may!)

    No, adults do not need to register to attend unit events. BSA only requires adult registration when attending an event that lasts for over 72 hours. Three notes:

    • Unregistered adults should be supervised by a registered leader.
    • Unregistered adults do not count for minimum-adult-leader requirements, such as the two-leader policy.
    • While YPT is not required of unregistered adults, it is still a good idea.

    Conclusion

    Inactive adult leaders generally should not be re-registered. Inactive adults may be requesting re-registration because of their fondness for the unit, and we must be sympathetic to that. Inactive status is an invitation to a crucial conversation, to guide the adult to a preferred, new state.

  • Scouting must be fun, adventure, and meaning

    Scouting must be fun, adventure, and meaning

    I’ve talked to many who were in Scouting decades ago.

    Their best memories: fun, adventure, and meaning. Not badges.

    Do a two-point test on everything your Scout unit does:

    1. Is it fun or adventure, or does it get you there?
    2. Is it something meaningful that the Scout or family don’t get otherwise? (e.g., challenging family discussions, leadership development)

    If either is yes, it’s a good thing. If neither are yes, avoid it.

  • Upgraded Venturing Activity Planning Form

    Upgraded Venturing Activity Planning Form

    BSA’s Venturing Activity Planning Worksheet hits the right topics, but it’s an old-school, print-only PDF.

    Here’s a Google Docs version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q8gQJ3rNGPLvbPdtP2d__6uawclVRlx2kAcZADgzij0/edit?usp=sharing. Copy it, then change the red text.

    The Google Docs version helps with collaboration, sharing, and assuring access to current information.

    This follows BSA’s wording and structure, with light changes where needed.

  • Do they want to come back?

    Do they want to come back?

    “Do they want to come back?” Leaders must ask that after every Scout event.

    “Do they want to come back?”

    Nothing else matters until that answer is “yes”!

    If they don’t want to come back, they won’t do advancement.

    If they don’t want to come back, they won’t come to the next campout.

    If they don’t want to come back, they won’t pull in their friends.

    If they don’t want to come back, they won’t lead.

    What makes them want to come back? Two things:

    • Fun. This is especially important with the youngest Cub Scouts and middle-school Scouts BSA members. It still a big deal for the oldest Venturers.
    • Fulfillment. This gets into “was it worth it?” For example, did this meeting help me feel prepared for that mountain biking trip?

    “Do they want to come back?”

    Ask yourself that after every event. If the answer isn’t “yes”, then solve that problem before anything else. It’s that important!

  • Deciphering BSA medical forms

    (UPDATE: BSA updated its AHMR in December 2019. While some details are different, the big picture remains the same.)

    BSA’s medical forms are complicated! I made a guide to help leaders know how to check form completeness: AHMR review.

    To summarize, you have to make sure Parts A, B, and C are fully filled out. Additionally, you have to review some details, like immunizations, required signatures, allergies, dates, health insurance, and more.

    This guide will make it clearer to know which boxes to check:

    Example of medical form dechipering guide.
    Example of medical form dechipering guide.

    I recommend you review BSA’s Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Annual Health and Medical Record. I think my guidance is good for the vast majority of simple cases. There are still boundary cases that will need different consideration, and the FAQ covers many of them.

  • Linked-troop model is usually best for new girl-troops

    UPDATE (2023-04-05): BSA used misinformation and toxic, racist, and sexist folklore to ban a coed-troop option. This is wrong and must stop. The right option is to allow coed.

    ORIGINAL:

    BSA’s Boy Scout program, for ages 11-17, includes girls starting February 1, 2019. It also gets a new name: Scouts BSA.

    While Scouts BSA troops will be single-gender, BSA has two models for how girl- and boy-troops could relate: linked or separated.

    I can summarize this article with three points:

    • Use the linked-troop model in almost all cases.
    • Program separation between the boy- and girl-troops should only be the minimum needed to comply with BSA guidelines and the desires of the girl-troop.
    • Concerns about including girls in Scouting are false or overblown.

    The separated-troop model is where a girl-troop is independent. While that’s the classic model for forming a new troop, I think these will be rare: new, independent troops are difficult to start and get going.

    I recommend the linked-troop model (more info). That is where a boy-troop and girl-troop, while technically separate troops with their own, separate Scoutmasters and youth leadership, share a troop number. Linked troops may also share:

    • adult leaders, except for the Scoutmaster
    • activities
    • assets
    • meeting times and locations (note: While troops can share meeting openings and closings, BSA says troops “should” conduct separate meeting programs. “Should” is not “must” or “always”.)

    Also, I recommend that linked troops be construed so that the girl-troop has full access to the resources and programs that the boy-troop. That is, any separation between the linked troops should only be the minimum required by BSA. Any additional separation would be a voluntary decision of the girl-troop.

    Why do I believe this so strongly? Let’s think about what happens if we don’t go linked.

    First, the #1 complaint from my Cub Scout pack’s girls? That they aren’t in the same dens as their male friends! Most just want to be Scouts, with the boys. While Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA are not technically co-ed, the separated-troop model maximizes the barrier between boys and girls.

    Second, starting an independent troop is a lot of work: learning the program, creating customs, gaining assets, and more. Except for a highly motivated group of girls and parents, requiring an independent troop is an unfair burden to push on new Scouts simply because they happen to be girls.

    Let’s also consider this from the perspective of Cub Scouts: when my pack gets new dens (of either gender!), the pack’s leaders and I do all we can to equip and support them to our pre-existing, successful program.

    That is a good metaphor for new Scouts BSA girl-troops: leaders of existing troops should support all new Scouts into a successful program. Imposing arbitrary hurdles, due to a generic factor the Scout did not select, contravenes this.

    A caution: it is possible to have an “in name only” (INO) linked troop. By this, I mean a girl-troop that meets the criteria for being a linked-troop but is not offered program sharing or support. INO girl-troops are about the same as separated-model girl-troops. Look for linked girl-troops where the linked model is well implemented.

    I believe the right linked-troop model is where girl-troops have full access to all programs, customs, and assets of the extant boy-troop. It would be the girl-troop’s prerogative as to when to have activity separation.

    Now for the overblown or false concerns: occasionally I hear of boys or their parents expressing concerns about how boys’ behaviors change when around girls. My experience is this isn’t a problem.

    I am Cubmaster of a huge Cub Scout pack. Adding girls has been a complete non-issue for the boys. My Webelos son still picks his boogers and laughs at farts even when girls are around.

    Also, let’s think of the behaviors boys do less of when girls are around. They are things the boys should do less of anyway!

    I am also an Advisor for a new, large Venturing crew. Venturing, and its predecessor program, have been co-ed since the 1970s. About a quarter of my crew’s members are girls, and all members are ninth graders (ages 14 or 15). It has gone swimmingly well.

    There is nothing special about ages 12 and 13–the only ages generally exclusive* to the Scouts BSA program–that makes inclusion of girls a special problem.

    A final point: most Scout units are chartered by churches. In 2020, after the LDS church ends its Scouting affiliation, the United Methodist Church will be the largest chartering organization. My son’s troop is chartered by a church in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, also a major charterer of Scouting units. Both churches have clear social positions that are difficult to reconcile with anything other than maximizing inclusion of girls in Scouting programs to the greatest degree permitted by BSA and that the girls are interested in.

    To conclude, the right thing for most new girl troops will be the linked-troop model, with separation between the troops minimized.

    *A Scout can join a Venturing crew at age 13 if completed 8th grade (source).

  • Stop removing hats at meals

    Stop removing hats at meals

    EDIT: Kudos to Camp Trevor Rees-Jones. At 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Winter Camps, there was not once a prohibition on wearing hats at meals!

    Stop removing hats at (most) meals. It’s silly!

    This tradition may be centuries old. Back then, hats shielded you from grit and grime. Polluted air or dirty work made nasty hats. These hats weren’t appropriate at meals.

    Today is different. Youth wear hats for sun protection or fashion. Their hats are not nasty. Ha, let me rephrase: they usually don’t project nastiness.

    Removing a hat at meals respects nobody. In fact, it is disrespectful to remove a hat. Dead skin and hair would have been contained by the hat. Not so when the hat’s off. Plus, what does the removed hat do? Gets dirty on the table, next to the food, or on the floor, or it gets lost.

    Web searches on the origin of this custom support that it’s continued existence is mainly due to mindlessness. Chowhound has a refreshing view: In Should I Take My Hat Off at a Restaurant?, Helena Echlin says “no” in many cases, including those applicable to most Scouting situations.

    Why do some adults bark about hats at meals? Because it’s Grandpa’s rule. Seriously, that’s about it. No emotionally stable cook or server will feel slighted by a hat.

    Prepare Scouts for their world, not for Grandpa’s world. Don’t worry about hats at meals.

    NOTE: I wrote “most” at the top. In the most formal situations, yes, the hat still needs to come off. However, Scouts is not finishing school! It’s just not a concern for us.