Re: Help-Need Concerns - Forwarded
Bruce C Johnson (email@example.com)
Fri Feb 20 14:05:46 1998
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:26:57 -0800
From: Eric Rimkus <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Help-Need Concerns
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Vince Scanio wrote:
> > Concerns:
> 1. "Exploring" is a known term, with a long tradition, and, at least for
> our post, is the identifying term. Many outside the post may be unaware
> the Scouting connection,but they hear about the neat things those
> are planning. I don't thing Venturers or Venturer Scouts are as good as
> marketing names. That's minor in the larger scheme, I suppose.
However, the term "Scout" or "Boy Scout" or "Sea Scout" is a far more
recognizable term. It has a greater range of acceptance, a brand identity,
and has a "marketing appeal" to it. I think that whatever decision the
national execs make, with respect to the program name, will make some group
upset. We have, however, tried to market the "Sea
Explorer" identity for some 30+ years now, and membership as a whole has
declined in comparison to "Boy Scouts". Maybe instead of calling us
dinasaurs or traditionalists for encouraging a switch back to "Sea
Scout", we should think of ourselves as wise image managers and service
> 2. No current Explorer should be penalized by seeing an award disappear
> (such as G.O.L.D.) that he or she has begun working on. We need more
> recognitions (Ranger and Silver, whatever they may be, sound promising),
> open to all who want to earn them.
I agree that recognition is good, but should we simplify the program so
that everyone that sets out to get these awards receives one with less
effort, or should we strengthen the program and make earning these awards
difficult, challenging, experiences that build character and leadership
skills as well as provide useful knowledge?
> 3. One of the real selling points and main advantages of the current
> is that it is so flexible. A post, whether it calls itself general
> or not, is free to camp, have a dance, attend a career/job fair, do a
> service project, hold leadership training, and conduct a drug awareness
> THIS SHOULD NOT CHANGE. <SNIP>
Again, I agree. Further, what does everyone think about going back to our
roots with a "Red, White and Blue" system for this program?? For those
unfamiliar with this structure:
"This concept brings all water-related units together under the banner
of Sea Exploring.
The Blue Division--This is the traditional program as described in
this manual. The programs of ships in this division are built around the
advancement, ceremonies, and uniforming of the Navy.
The White Division--These are Sea Explorer ships that are involved in
recreational sailing, motor-boating, water-skiing, etc. They may or may
not be uniformed, though most are. Usually sponsored by yacht clubs,
Explorers use nautical terms and plan their program through the
Quarterdeck. They work on safeboating and advanced seamanship courses,
then go do their own thing.
The Red Division--This is the non-boat oriented unit. To this group
Sea Explorers, a boat is incidental to their real specialty. These ships
concentrate their time on a major interest such as oceanography, marine
transportation, aquatics, marine meteorology, skin diving, etc."
--from The Sea Exploring Manual 1977 Printing, Copyright 1966
This system may work to accomodate most everyones needs, and as I have not
seen the most current manual, may already be in the works. With the
exception of changing "Explorer" to "Scout" and maybe adding some further
defining to the divisions, this seems like a concept worth reviving.
What does everyone (polywogs and old-salts alike) think???
Mate SSS601--City of Roses