| # | Date Received | Submitter | Current District | Position | Unit | Summary |
| 1 | 4/3/2007 | Mike Winn (DE) | DE | Caldwell County from K to L; northern Fayette County from L to K | ||
| 2 | 4/5/2007 | Scott Mackay | Pioneer | Caldwell County from K to L; Taylor & Thrall to H; Bastrop County s of 71 from K to L, northern Fayette County from L to K | ||
| 3 | 4/5/2007 | Linda Chenault | Comanche | Committee Member | Troop 101 | Prefer Dripping Springs to be in B or A-less travel time |
| 4 | 4/5/2007 | T.W. Cook | Tomahawk | Scoutmaster | Troop 151 | Taylor should be part of F or H - distance |
| 5 | 4/6/2007 | Renee Hobhood | Comanche | Committee Member | Pack 96 | Keep Packs 96, 796, & 11 out of District C |
| 6 | 4/6/2007 | Cliff Tyllick | Tomahawk | Unit Commissioner | District | Volunteers in H overextended |
| 7 | 4/6/2007 | Chris Stoll | Comanche | Advisor | Crew 101 | Would like Dripping Springs to be with Lake Travis (A instead of J) |
| 8 | 4/6/2007 | Joe Wilding | Tomahawk | Committee Member | Troop 458 | Units 190 & 194 are reversed. |
| 9 | 4/8/2007 | Tim Moltz | Tomahawk | Assistant District Commissioner | District | Move Taylor & Thrall to District H instead of K |
| 10 | 4/8/2007 | Joe Wilding | Tomahawk | Committee Member | Troop 458 | T452 should be in G, not J; Units 189 should be in F where their new meeting place will be, not E. |
| 11 | 4/8/2007 | Craig Sharp | Tomahawk | District Chair | District | Taylor/Thrall to District H; LDS units 456 to G (they are in G, meet in H) |
| 12 | 4/9/2007 | Doug Hearn | Tomahawk | Taylor/Thrall to District H | ||
| 13 | 4/9/2007 | Jim Clarno | Tomahawk | Happy with "G"; Move Taylor/Thrall/Granger to H or F. | ||
| 14 | 4/9/2007 | Jim Mallios | Longhorn | Cubmaster | Pack 909 | Minorities not represented; will hurt FOS; tradition ignored-camporee/district names; creates more pressure on volunteers |
| 15 | 4/9/2007 | Kimby Seifert | Comanche | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 280 | Dripping Springs to A or B instead of J-proximity. |
| 16 | 4/10/2007 | Calvin Gray | Tomahawk | Scoutmaster | Troop 405 | Tomahawk has become too large; districts don't offer much to Troops but do for Packs; not enough volunteers to staff a district but provides new adult opportunities; positive for OA-chapter meetings closer; Taylor/Thrall should be in F. |
| 17 | 4/10/2007 | Calvin Gray | Tomahawk | Scoutmaster | Troop 405 | In 1989, youth members asked to submit district names & made final choices at District Naming Convention. |
| 18 | 4/10/2007 | Billy Mickesh | Green Dickson | District Committee | District | Move Caldwell Co & part of Fayette Co to District L; improves finances, growth potential, and DE accessibility. Trees or birds for district names. |
| 19 | 4/12/2007 | Barry Streusand | Longhorn | District Chair | District | Provided different layout charts showing units in Districts A & D |
| 20 | 4/12/2007 | Bill Pyle | Pioneer | Committee Chair | Troop 204 | LaGrange should stay in K, not L due to travel & relationships. |
| 21 | 4/12/2007 | Paul Masters | Pioneer | Advisor | Team 188 | Pioneer should be divided along 290 & 71 corridor. Don't include Caldwell Co. Put it with Gonzales & DeWitt counties. |
| 22 | 4/12/2007 | Wayne Knox | Pioneer | District Program | Troop 204 | District K should follow SH-71 & US-290 corridors; L should include IH-10 & US-183 corridors — reduce driving distance. |
| 23 | 4/12/2007 | Don England | Arrowhead | Institutional Head | Crew 1099 | Crew 1099 sponsoring org is in RRISD-should be in G; Troop 172 sponsoring org is in Leander ISD; Troop 159 is on border of Leander & RRISD-not sure where it should be; District should be strengthened, doesn't appear to be significantly different than current Tejas; LDS units in Cedar Park need to have assignments reviewed. |
| 24 | 4/12/2007 | Mark Adams | Pioneer | District Commissioner | District | Keep Fayette county units together in one county. Lee, Fayette, & Lavaca counties should perhaps be their own district. |
| 25 | 4/13/2007 | Mike Filppo | Arrowhead | Webelos Leader | Pack 172 | Keep Pack 172 & Troop 172 together — should be in District E where majority of members are. |
| 26 | 4/13/2007 | Anthony Jones | Pioneer | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 204 | Area in K from US-290 north be aligned with H, area in L from IH-10 north be in K, and Caldwell county in L. |
| 27 | 4/13/2007 | Jim Parkhurst | Arrowhead | Committee Member | Troop 513 | Presentation available for download is a subset of one at meetings. |
| 28 | 4/13/2007 | Angela Beck | Pioneer | Committee Member | Troop 204 | LaGrange & northern Fayette County to K |
| 29 | 4/13/2007 | Don Dick | Pioneer | Troop 204 | Northern Fayette county stay with K. | |
| 30 | 4/13/2007 | Pam Behrends | Wolf Mountain | Committee Member | Pack 126 | District I is too large — requires excessive travel time for DE & volunteers. |
| 31 | 4/14/2007 | Stacie Sims | Pioneer | Committee Member | Troop 204 | LaGrange needs to be in District K |
| 32 | 4/14/2007 | Russ Oertel | Arrowhead | Tiger Cub Leader | Pack 2005 | Pack 2005 should be in A, it is in Lake Travis ISD, not Leander or Lago Vista. |
| 33 | 4/15/2007 | Shane Watts | Twin Valley | Committee Member | Pack 103 | All on IH-10 & south to Dist L; Lockhart with J; north of Hwy 71 to K |
| 34 | 4/15/2007 | Shane Watts | Twin Valley | Committee Member | Pack 103 | Luling has more in common w/cities to S; split @ IH-10; Lockhart to J; all above 71 in a district; thanks for letting packs, troops, & crews have input. |
| 35 | 4/16/2007 | Terry Carter | Tomahawk | Unit 193, Pack 406, Troop 214 | RASD presentation full of holes-misinformed or cover for political problem; lack of trust from the volunteers; flaws in getting volunteers in the new district; concerns & reservations supporting the proposed changes. "I just have a problem with the way it's being handled and the way it seems to be emerging." | |
| 36 | 4/16/2007 | Terry Carter | Tomahawk | Unit 193, Pack 406, Troop 214 | Stated objectives do not seem to have been met; stated objective was need for 20 DE's-no plan was presented in actually gaining the naitonal average; objective stated was to bring down TAY for each DE-factor seems to have been completely ignored; stated objective was to redistrict in order to level out the TAY per district; not at any time was there a fact or study presented that related to the district size to the number of youth served by a DE, resolution to re-district based on youth count serviced by a DE is a quantum leap in logic-there's no correlation between districts and DEs that I can see; whole thing seems to be either just missing data or a cover for a bed of lies, something seems fishy here and it doesn't seem very honest; if you want to redistrict, just do it-why come up with a cover for it; DE headcount is directly related to FOS money taken in; when one of my district leaders stated something to the effect of "although some of the new districts might be smaller and have very little previous leadership, this will just be an excellent opportunity for new volunteers to fill these positions" - I really knew I | |
| was being fed a line; I did not see a reasonable explanation as to how the new districts will be staffed; as long as I have been in scouting in the area, I don't remember of Pflugerville actually being able to pull off a day camp; the really sad thing I hear from my local units is "what do I care what the districts are. They don't do anything for us anyway."; the future of my district does not look bright at the moment to me; many of the districts ought not have such a hard district boundary.; suggestion would be not push these individual districts to hard to stand alone but rather to work and support one another as they grow; there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding or misinformation; it's building a lot of mis-trust with the council and the district and the volunteers-the feeling I'm getting and hearing from others is to just let the district die; people I have talked to don't feel it's worth the time or effort to even resond to the situation. | ||||||
| 37 | 4/16/2007 | Aaron DaMommio | Arrowhead | Cubmaster | Pack 90 | Should be in District D — all youth from AISD, meet at Summit Elementary, feed in to Troop 421. |
| 38 | 4/16/2007 | Dawn Walters | Pioneer | District Program | District | Splitting into K & L ignores travel times; LaGrange, Smithville, Bastrop, Elgin, & Giddings have kept things functioning during the coming and goings of DE's; taking something that works and replacing it with something that won't; having a DE we don't have to share is nice but not enough of a good reason to split up something that works, after all DE's come and go; doubt Taylor or Thrall are interested in joining us-same goes for Caldwell Co; dividing line that adds Caldwell to Green Dickson makes more sense. |
| 39 | 4/16/2007 | Linda Crowell | Twin Valley | Committee Chair | Troop 47 | Put Luling with Gonzales |
| 40 | 4/17/2007 | Stewart Myrick | Longhorn | District Program | District | Plan is based on speculation about growth in certain parts of area & to split Longhorn based on what "might" happen seems very suspicious. Even if plan goes forward & I end un in district D, I dare anyone to keep us from keeping the Longhorn name. |
| 41 | 4/17/2007 | Larry Jantzen | Arrowhead | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 172 | If new districts drawn as shown, considerable part of Leander ISD will be in District G. Boundary between G & E should follow RR620 to US183, north along 183, & follow LISD/RRISD boundary — don't split LISD units. Majority of boys in Troop 172 are in LISD as are packs troop draws from; only address of chartered org is in RRISD. |
| 42 | 4/17/2007 | Casey Mulcihy | Comanche | Committee Member | Troop 2001 | Our troop will fall apart with the new redistricting: only 2 boys from Dripping Springs, rest are from Oak Hill. Parents aren't going to like doing training in San Marcos or Wimberly or where ever, going to RT, etc. No MB workshop in new district for us making rank advancement more difficult; will we still be able to attend Comanche District MB workshop; Troop recruits from new district B; parent with son in a pack in one district and another son in a troop in a different district-will they have to take training in two districts? They will quit before doing all that driving. Can we attend B district Webelos Woods at Green Dickson & will be be able to invite packs from district B to attend? If not, we've lost our recruiting ability. Put Troop 2001 back in B district. |
| 43 | 4/18/2007 | Leann Gonsoulin | Comanche | Other | Troop 2001 | I feel it would be a grave mistake to move Troop 2001 to district J-we are really an Oakhill area and almost all of out boys from Austin and Oakhill area. I am very disappointed that it seems this decision was made and we have a very small time frame in which to respond. Please rethink the idea of putting our troop in a District that is not close to the realm in which most of our boys live. |
| 44 | 4/18/2007 | Wayne Bell | Comanche | Parent | Troop 2001 | Appreciate the hard work! SW Austin is burgeoning quickly and will be very populous before your next redistricting. Dripping Springs and new neighborhoods between Dripping and Austin have become an extension of SW Austin, even though it is in Hays County. Our troop is made up of many scouts who attend Austin ISD. Please keep us in an Austin District rather than one linked to San Marcos, which is distant, not easily traveled to, and unrelated. Thanks. |
| 45 | 4/18/2007 | Rob Baxter | Comanche | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 2001 | Do not implement the present RASD proposals as they relate to
the northern and northwest Hays County troops; listen to these troops and
follow their wishes regarding the proposed district realignments. As I understand the discussion and the
logic on the part of the Council Board, the concern here is one of sensible
geographic representation and being ready for placement of the new troops and
packs expected to arrive with the growth in North Hays County. This is admirable
and desirable, but by placing the above troops, particularly the Dripping to
Oak Hill troops, in this proposed San Marcos district, we will defeat both of these purposes and in no uncertain terms. It would appear that the decision to make this change, while seemingly logical to someone living in Austin or Travis County is utterly illogical to the above affected troops and seems to have been made without consideration of their opinions in the matter. Judging by the strong negative reaction, I would tend to think we could agree on that premise. I have been in Scouting since my son began in Den 10/Pack 101 eight years ago. We then chose Troop 2001 based on locale/drive time and the makeup of the Troop. Had we been in the San Marcos district, we would have possibly ventured further into SW Austin for an actual "local" Troop since 2001 would now not be perceived as "local" or more likely, not joined due to the general inconvenience. I certainly, would have been unable to participate in Asst. Scoutmaster training as the drive to San Marcos would have killed that possibility. In this time of competing interests, soccer or some other activity would have won out. I would think that this is not the kind of choice we wish to encourage in this RASD endeavor. It is what we wish to discourage. As the president of my homeowners association here along FM1826, heading to the Salt Lick and also as the founder and former president of a larger umbrella neighborhoods' association representing hundreds of homeowners through a number of subdivisions, (http://www.friendshipalliance.org/) I am somewhat dialed into the community here. I can assure you, this decision to send these area troops into San Marcos is going to backfire severely, costing Scouts organizing time and membership/participation. The two things Council may wish to achieve here, Council will fail at and ultimately, backtrack on in order to regain the lost potential brought on through this seemingly uninformed "solution". If the purpose is to prepare for growth in the region, for this area in particular, this is a step backward, not forward. We who live in this area have no desire, nor the time, to drive the 50 minutes (in no traffic) to 1.25 hours to San Marcos for District business. As an example, my house is 4 miles into Hays County on 1826, yet we have a physical Austin address. I can be in Austin city limits in less than 10 minutes, downtown in 20 and at the airport in 30. Yet San Marcos is an unthinkable drive through four differing choices of inconvenient and often traffic clogged, unsafe two lane roads. There is NO good way to get to San Marcos from this area. I assure you, since we all tend to work in Austin and either near or in our homes out here, this inconvenience alone will stifle, if not smother local participation in Scouting. We also have the recruitment issue, especially in 2001. The majority of our participation rests in members from Oak Hill. We have perhaps five Dripping boys in the troop, and of these two are active. While over time we will perhaps align more to our area based on the growth here, i.e.: Belterra, moving us into the San Marcos district will only succeed in adversely affecting our ability to recruit and retain here, once our adults find what their troop commitment entails. Presently, we easily have one to one parent to trooper participation on almost all campouts and meetings. Inconveniencing the leadership with burdensome meetings in San Marcos will severely limit our ability to gain and retain leaders and ultimately will kill the troop. In time, we will die on the vine. The same principle applies to any new troops that Council expects to create out here. No one has the time out here to make the San Marcos commutes. And few out here are connected to San Marcos, yet ALL are connected to Austin either by work, shopping or leisure. |
| I cannot stress the importance of this issue enough. If we wish to encourage and foster participation in scouting here in the N and NW Hays County region, disassociating our troops from Austin is the exact OPPOSITE manner with which to accomplish this. If limiting present participation and discouraging new troop creation is the goal, then this will work toward that end. It is that simple. | ||||||
| 46 | 4/18/2007 | Carroll Shelton | Tomahawk | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 8787 | My son and many of the boys in our troop do not go to school in our new district, this does not seem to be a benefit for us. I don't see the benefit of being a large troop in a district with mainly small troops. How will this affect camporees? It looks like this creates more district positions, is that the goal and do you think that will be a problem in itself?; Drop the School district plan, I don't see that as a benefit. Develop districts that are regional in nature and don't divide close neighborhoods.; Don't divide the rich and the poor, keep diversity in the districts. |
| 47 | 4/18/2007 | Barbara Thompson | Tomahawk | Cubmaster | Pack 167 | I am concerned about the current plan for our area; understand that this area has grown by leaps and bounds and something needs to be done; think placing Taylor/Thrall in district H makes much more sense. |
| 48 | 4/18/2007 | Hayden Whitsett | Comanche | Other | Troop 2001 | ya'll have already made up your minds and established a timeline for all the new names, assumed approval, and then after the approval. As a public relations move, that was really ………" Why you guys had to follow the school district boundariew si beyond me; no sourse or data for TAY reference is presented. I've had the opportunity to work a lot with demographics and population projections and have never encountered it. I'd like an explanation of what it is, where it came from, and what it says. Right now it sounds to me like ya'll tried to take the easy way out and used some existing boundaries, accompanied by the standard smoke blowing, to come up with what you think you want. ... if I have time to go to roundtable, I don't have far to travel. DItto training--unless it's at Lost Pines, merit badges, cub cross overs, catering for fund raisers. But San Marcos and Wimberly, nah. We're Oak Hill and ennvirons and we need to stay in association with Southwest Austin. |
| 49 | 4/18/2007 | Susan VanHoorebke | Comanche | Committee Member | Troop 2001 | As a parent of two scouts of Troop 2001, we wish to remain in "Comanche District". Comanche District as the lines are now, part of Austin, Oak Hill. Sons & their friends attend school in Austin, close friendships with Scouts in Troop 295, Troop 505, and troop 448. We attend events within Comanche District. I hope you will take time to consider how this will effect our scouts and families in Troop 2001. |
| 50 | 4/18/2007 | Wally Tuten | Tomahawk | ADC | District | if re-districting was to be done, it should be done at the whole Council level. With the thought and detail presented here, clearly that has been taken to heart focusing primarily on the School ISD boundaries. I would like to propose a few clarifications to the current Tomahawk sectioning. There are 3 sets of units that I would like to point out: Units 167 (Taylor) currently proposed to go to District K (Bastrop)..... I would propose that Taylor and Thrall associate with District H Pflugerville. This would keep current relationships in tack and after talking with a number of their leaders, that is also their preference. Otherwise District F (Georgetown) would be 2nd. Units 189 and 194 are LDS and I believe that they need to be associated along LDS Ward / Stake boundaries, not geographic school boundaries. |
| 51 | 4/19/2007 | Staci Kilpatrick | Tomahawk | Assistant Cubmaster | Pack 167 | Please put Taylor/Thrall in H along with Hutto & Pflugerville. Amount of driving to the center of our area would decrease participation. |
| 52 | 4/19/2007 | Jim Smith | Tomahawk | Crew Advisor | Crew 157 | What about allowing Crews/Ships within the current Tomahawk boundaries be a separate "overlay" district with the current boundaries? Don't want to lose the current continuity we have with our crews/ships. |
| 53 | 4/19/2007 | Delmar Hager | Tomahawk | Cubmaster | Pack 729 | Our pack is essentially an City of Austin pack-do recruit from the Pflugerville ISD but have more in common with the packs in North East/Central Austin. What is the purpose of aligning to school district boundaries? How will this organization better assist the packs and the troops? |
| 54 | 4/19/2007 | Concerned Volunteer | Comanche | Parent | Pack 0001 | I think we are missing the point about this RASD propsed plan. The center of the new Distirct J will NOT be San Marcos. Hays Counuty is growing rapidly and the population density is higher to the north part of the county. Roundtbale, training, special District event locations will need to be moved in order to accomadate the population density. District J is not the San Marcos District. The old Twin Valley is not the San Marcos District. The addition of Hays county to Dripping Springs will bring a great opportunity to blend two district together bringing the best of both worlds. Camporee locations, Webelos Woods, popcorn show and sell locations, etc will be combined for the greater good of the kids. This proposed plan does not dictate where the parents can attend Roundtbale or which school a Pack can recruit from. The north part of Hays is very strong in Scouting and apparently we are doing something right. Let's not change that, lets build on the success that we are all exprerincing. The youth are still goign to receive the best program we can offer as leaders, the units are still going to receive |
| support form the District and Council. This RASD plan will improve that. The youth will not know the difference unless they look at their Camporee patch. | ||||||
| 55 | 4/19/2007 | Roy Kleinsasser | Longhorn | Committee Chair | Troop 410 | Keep the current Longhorn DE in the new district D to maintain continuity of leadership. New district D will require a significant effort to recruit new blood into district leadership positions and will lose a substantial FOS base. It remains to be seen whether Mueller redevelopment area will attract significant numbers of families with Scouting age kids. |
| 56 | 4/20/2007 | Lee Parish Butler | Comanche | Other | Troop 280 | Prefer Dripping Springs to be in B so that we don't get lost in the shuffle. Most of J units are on I35 & most attention for the district would focus on that area. |
| 57 | 4/20/2007 | Amy Minor | Comanche | Parent | Troop 2001 | After hearing of the plans to redistrict our Troop 2001 out of Austin and "into" San Marcos or Buda or Kyle, I have to say I am truly perplexed. From the address above for James Johnson, it would appear that you live/work in Austin - so ignorance can't be pleaded. DS is only 13 miles from my residence. San Marcos is more than 35 miles! So you can imagine why I am wondering how this change is a good idea. As a parent with a recent arrow-of-light crossover from Pack 395 into Troop 2001, I had hoped to stay close to the other Austin groups as much as possible since some of the other cub scouts that we fraternized with joined different troops in SW Austin (448?). We are very close-knit with these boys and I have to say, I have absolutely NO DESIRE to drive to another city to meet up with new groups of leaders/parents/scouts for training or any other function for that matter. And I don't want my son to try to attend any Austin functions as an "outsider/guest"! That just distinguishes our boys in an unfavorable way, and may just eliminate the boys ability to participate if there is not enough "spaces" |
| for a function or for whatever reason. My son and I want Troop 2001 to stay in the Dripping Springs/Austin area! It is tough enough to get to all of the meetings and functions as it is. Any further drives (read "time") and we may seriously have to rethink our ability to participate in the Scouts. I'm assuming this is not what you imagined for the district - a decline in recruits and scout numbers as a whole due to district/border/county line nonsense. Now that you and the RASD task force have heard from the Troop, and keeping the best interest of the scouts in mind, I hope you will rethink this plan and keep Troop 2001 in Austin/DS, where it began, where it lives and works and breathes, and where it belongs. | ||||||
| 58 | 4/21/2007 | Donald Willhouse | Tomahawk | District Program | District | I recommend that the new district lines be attuned to the lines of communication (along the main highways for current travel and consideration for expansion of population). Thus, Leander & Cedar Park would be associated; Georgetown with Florence, Jarrel and the general area; Round Rock with Taylor; Hutto as the center of that area; Phflugerville & North Austin. The idea is to locate populations that can easily travel and have a natural association. I would not make an area (geographicallyy) too large except for Nothern Williamson County, until the population growth makes it necessary regarding Jarrel and the smaller communities. |
| 59 | 4/21/2007 | Marla Thomas | Tomahawk | Committee Member | Crew 194 | I BELIEVE THAT WITH THESE NEW DISTRICTS THE DE'S WOULD NOT BE OVERWHELMED BY TOO MANY UNITS AND THAT THIS WOULD GIVE A CONNECTION TO THE DE'S TO THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE AND TO THE LOCAL UNITS. I REALLY THINK A POLICY LIKE THIS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS RE-DISTRICTING PLAN IS AT LEAST 3 YEARS TOO LATE! THIS WILL BE GOOD. DIVIDING ALONG SCHOOL BOUNDARIES CREATES THE ABILITY FOR DISTRICTS TO COORDINATE SCOUT ACTIVITIES WITH COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL ACTIVITIES AND HOLIDAYS. I BELIEVE THAT THE LDS UNITS SHOULD BE ASSIGNED ACCORDING TO THEIR LOCATION; IT WOULD BE BEST TO LET THE UNITS BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OTHER UNITS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. UNIT 190 AND UNIT 194 SHOULD BE REVERSED. I BELIEVE THRALL & TAYLOR SHOULD BE IN H DISTRICT AS MANY OTHERS BELIEVE . . . BUT, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE MANOR SHOULD BE IN H DISTRICT. IS FLORENCE CONSIDERED TO BE IN F DISTRICT? I HOPE SO. THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT AND PLANNING THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS ENDEAVORED TO PERFORM. PLEASE CONTINUE ON AS FAST AS POSSIBLE! IT IS NEEDED NOW! |
| 60 | 4/21/2007 | Robert Nichols | Pioneer | ADC | District | I am associated with a lot of the northern Fayette County units and have talked with the volunteers. They are not really going to travel the distance to go to a district event or training if the distance is to far. … if the units are not supported by volunteers and professionals they will not grow or, worse, some of the rural units are going to fold. With the rising cost of travel it is getting hard to justify the expense of putting in the travel distance to help new units get started or to help with struggling units. I know that if the LaGrange ISD and the units north of LaGrange are put to the travel distance and take the time that is proposed, it will make my volunteer job with scouting harder to do. I know that the RASD group has taken time and has looked at what is best for the council, but I hope they will consider the rural units and their needs. As for Pioneer district it is my opinion that LaGrange ISD and north are kept with Bastrop and Lee Counties. |
| 61 | 4/22/2007 | Joe Wilding | Tomahawk | Committee Member | Troop 458 | The LDS Round Rock Texas Stake presidency asked me to officially respond on their behalf and the behalf of the stake. ... make sense for the scout units sponsored by the Carriage Hills Ward (Pack/Troop/Team/Crew 200) to be part of the new District E as is listed on the handout we received at Roundtable. We would like to keep the Leander Ward sponsored units (Pack/Troop/Team/Crew 189) and the Carriage Hills Ward sponsored units in the same district since they will be meeting in the same building. We would prefer that be the new District E. (Even though I recommended earlier that the Leander scout units (189) be in the new District F.) ... prefer that the Taylor Ward sponsored scout units (Pack/Troop/Team/Crew 190) and Rockdale Branch sponsored scout unit (Troop 455) stay together and be part of the new District H. ... prefer that the scout units sponsored by the Georgetown Ward (Pack/Troop/Team/Crew 194) remain in the new District F as on the corrected list. ... prefer their sponsored scout units (Pack/Troop/Team/Crew 456) remain in the new District G as currently assigned. |
| ... prefer the scout units they sponsor (Pack/Troop/Team/Crew 458, 452, and 195) remain in the new District G as currently assigned. | ||||||
| 62 | 4/22/2007 | Tim Pellowski | Longhorn | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 9 | All things considered, I think that this is a good plan. Tying scout districts to school districts makes sense. ... I hope that FOS targets will be adjusted appropriately with the new borders. I think that a consistent naming convention will be good. The new district names should have something to do with the district area. Believe it or not, not everyone cares about the mascot of a particular Big 12 University. It is time for a change! Keep Austin Wierd. |
| 63 | 4/22/2007 | Douglas Spencer | Wolf Mountain | Assistant Scoutmaster | Troop 284 | Marble Falls ISD extends into Travis County both north and south of the lake, along 1431 and 71 respectively. In the north, the MFISD boundary extends out 1431 to Travis peak (2 miles west of Lago Vista). In the south, MFISD boundary currently goes to the Pedernales River bridge, on the east side of Blanco county's intersection of 71. ... if we are following school boundaries, these areas should be included in Wolf Mountain. |
| 64 | 4/22/2007 | Rick McCarty | Arrowhead | District Program | District | I recommend revising the alignment of Troop 172 to place it in district "E", along with Pack 172, which is already slated to go to district "E". |
| 65 | 4/23/2007 | Doug Hall | Tomahawk | Den Leader Coach | Pack 214 | I want to suggest that the naming theme could tie into the Order of the Arrow by being based on Native Americans of Texas. ...another great idea to keep focus on Eagle Scouts, may be to name the new Districts after types of Eagles. ...That may be the better idea, to name the Districts for types of Eagles. Just to help emphasize the goal. |
| 66 | 4/19/2007 | Bob Johnson | Twin Valley | Other | District | Based on Scotts rational,
Caldwell County communicates more with San Marcos, From either Lockhart or
Luling, than either of the options offered.
Our Sports, shopping & some schooling occurs in San Marcos, both College
& Christian Private Schools as well as some Maxwell & Martindale
folks who are less than 10 miles from San Marcos. This is why we were paired
with Hays in the last reorg as well as to unify Lockhart & Luling in the
same district. I like & enjoy
working with folks from both Gonzalez & Bastrop. I have difficulty
getting scouters to drive 17 miles to San Marcos or straight down from Austin
to roundtables as I do. I sincerely doubt I will be able to get them to
bypass their homes on the way south from work to go on to Gonzales to try to get to a roundtable by 7. I equally doubt I will get them to go to Bastrop. On a personal note, This will decrease my (And Ruth Ann's)scouting involvement. I currently travel to San Marcos 8-10 times a month for scouting related activity. I could not BEGIN to afford that level of involvement & travel to either Bastrop or Gonzales. |
| 67 | 4/23/2007 | Val DeCamp | Pioneer | District Chair | District | Concur with #66, #2, & #1 |
| 68 | 4/23/2007 | Rich Slobodnik | Comanche | Committee Chair | Pack 446 | would like to see Dripping Springs coupled with Oak Hill. Geographical & transportation reasons. Proposed district B creates an unnatural separation of our areas. |
| 69 | 4/23/2007 | Carole Reed | Longhorn | Committee Chair | Troop 70 | I like the idea of using school boundaries as district boundaries. This will be especially useful for the packs. Some of the sports organizations use school boundaries so the concept is familiar to many people. Although it would be nice to keep the current district names for continuity/history, I understand wanting new names for a new start. When selecting the theme for new district names, select a theme that has many options and does not lend itself to "cute" names. The names should be able to stand the test of time. When assigning DEs, please take into account the relationship the current DEs have with their volunteers and units. This is an opportunity to have your new districts start off with strong leadership, both with professionals and volunteers. |
| 70 | 4/24/2007 | Jim Graves | Comanche | Scoutmaster | Troop 446 | …request the Dripping Springs school district remain in the Comanche district. …we sit on the border of the two districts. …request is that you keep the Dripping Springs school district in the Comanche area. |
| 71 | 4/24/2007 | Joseph De La Cruz | Tejas | District Commissioner | District | I would like to recommend that the northern border be along hwy 290W to hwy 183N to I35. The western border be along I35 to the Hays/Travis line or AISD southern border. Then following the AISD/DISD border lines. As for the mueller area, that area should be within the borders of I35 to E52d st to Manor Rd to Anchor Ln to Airport Blvd to I35. The only unit in this area to be transferred is Troop 777. Leave the other units (T88,T243,& T246) in the present district . There is several other units around the above listed units that moving those units make no sense. Troop 88 wishes to stay with the present district. The other units around these 3 units are; T489,T6510,T/P53 and Crew 11. I like the redistricting plan but i would like to keep as many of my units as possible. |
| 72 | 4/23/2007 | Susan Walters | Comanche | Committee Member | Troop 2001 | Please consider leaving the Northern Hays County troops connected to the Oak Hill/Austin area. The natural transportation flow allows folks in the Dripping Springs area to travel to and from events quickly and easily. |
| 73 | 4/24/2007 | Allen Christenson | Comanche | Committee Chair | Troop 2001 | Troop 2001 meets in a Sunset Canyon church which is out close to Dripping Springs, but the troop has really evolved over the years into an Oak Hill troop that happens to still meet in a Sunset Canyon facility. When Troop 2001 spun off from Troop 101 many years ago, I would agree that it was a Greater Dripping Springs area troop at that time as most of the folks were from that geographic surrounding area. Currently we have only a few (i.e. three) scouts from the Dripping Springs area, and they are all Life Scouts and will eventually “Eagle out” of the troop soon. The majority of the remaining scout families in our unit are from the Oak Hill area. For that primary reason, I strongly feel that Troop 2001 should not be lumped in with the other Dripping Springs area troops and put in this mostly Hays County ‘J’ District; I feel it should be left in with the Oak Hill units as the redistricting occurs. The second point I would like to touch on is that we have lots of new crossover parents (along with the other active parents) that are concerned about being put in the new ‘J’ district from a logistical standpoint. |
| While I understand the ‘J’ District headquarters location has not been determined, what we are hearing is that it most likely will be in Hays County somewhere … Kyle, Buda, San Marcos, Wimberley, etc. None of these are attractive to the parents because it is simply too far to drive to those locations. My concern as the Committee Chair is that our new parents will be reluctant to or simply will not attend district type activities including training for adult leader positions, round table meetings, district sponsored merit badge workshops, etc. simply because it will be too inconvenient and too far to drive. This will eventually degrade the quality of the troop and the scouts will then also suffer in the long term. Finally, there has been some overall dismay and disbelief on how this whole thing was handled! This has been going on for six months and the troops’ leadership were not told about it until the eleventh hour and then told go to a web site and tell us what you think and we’ll look at your comments before things are finalized??? I think this could have been a much better process if the people to be affected were involved up front. | ||||||
| In closing, I would like to say that this is not a troop simply resisting change for fear of the unknown or that we are set in our ways. I strongly believe (based on membership demographics) that Troop 2001 is a unique troop that should remain with the other Oak Hill and southwest Austin troops as part of the redistricting to facilitate optimal troop and parental involvement in the district. | ||||||
| 74 | 4/25/2007 | Kevin Knesek | Green Dickson | District Chair | District | My concerns are for the young boys and the quality of program that we as volunteers can provide for them as well as the program that the council provides to us the volunteers. Since I have become an active district volunteer the role of a hands on DE has greatly impacted the effectiveness of the scouting movement in this area. ...we need to be provided with the potential to grow both in TAY and Finances. significance of what areas should be added to the current district should be based on a couple of issue. 1). Growth in both finances and available youth. 2). Geographical make up with similar background and ties. 3). DE accessibility to the area given, cost/benefit for traveling large distances. I do not have the answers but I do know that providing a quality Scouting program for all the scouts in Capital Area Council should be our driving goal for success. The scouters I have talked to would like our district name to be the “LIVE OAK DISTRICT”. |
| 75 | 4/25/2007 | Philip Mire | Comanche | Scoutmaster | Troop 280 | Hays County is in reality separated into two areas. There is the I-35 corridor and the Hwy 290 corridor. The two areas are separate and distinct. What growth there is in the I-35 area does not affect the Hwy-290 area and vice-versa. On the other hand growth in the Oak Hill area very much drives the Hwy-290 area of Hays County. ...requiring Volunteers to travel the 33 miles (49 minutes) to San Marcos or 25 miles (41 minutes) to Buda is asking too much when they currently only need to travel 18 miles (27 minutes) along a fully developed Highway (Hwy-290) to get into Oak Hill. All of this boils down to a diminished service for Dripping Springs (Hwy-290 area) Units. I agree that redistricting is needed to better align the DEs with population growths, but it needs to done intelligently. The RASD committee needs to listen to Dripping Springs and Hwy-290 residents who have lived a long time here, know the area and its growth. Putting the DSISD into a district with the I-35 area units would be a grave mistake and a disservice to the |
| volunteers who utilize the benefits and training of the local district. I would recommend that DSISD be instead joined into the district labeled ‘B’ on the current RASD map. | ||||||
| 76 | 4/25/2007 | Robert Seibert | Comanche | Scoutmaster | Troop 2001 | I have reviewed the CAC’s RASD Task Force redistricting plan and
many of the comments regarding the same.
While I understand the theoretical basis for the plan, I believe that
there should be exceptions made for troop that will be harmed by placement
into a district solely based upon geographical boundaries. Troop 2001 is chartered out of Sunset Canyon Baptist Church, barely into Hays County on Highway 290 West. Troop 2001 was originally put together many years ago as a smaller alternative to Troop 1001 located in Dripping Springs. However, today, Troop 2001 has little involvement in Dripping Springs and Hays County. 35 of our 40 registered scouts reside in Austin and attend Austin ISD schools such as Patton Elementary, Clint Small Middle School, Kealing Middle School, Austin High School and Bowie Middle School. We have 5 scouts that attend Dripping Springs Middle School and High School, of which two transferred into our troop from another troop. Three of those 5 scouts are of Life rank and we expect them to reach Eagle rank within one year. We do not recruit from anywhere in Dripping Springs ISD or Hays County. |
| Our primary recruiting comes from attendance at Comanche
District’s Webelos Woods event and from AISD schools. Troop 2001 will be harmed if we are moved
into a Hays County district. Troop 2001 has 27 registered adult leaders that drive approximately 11-12 miles one way to troop meetings and regular Comanche District functions. If we are moved to a Hays District, the adult leaders from Troop 2001 will have to drive 20 miles to Dripping Springs one way, 31 miles to San Marcos, 22 miles to Kyle, or 30 miles to Wimberly. This would place an additional burden on our adult leaders by increasing driving time and driving distance. With gasoline closing in on $3.00 per gallon, the extra driving is not welcomed. Troop 2001 will be harmed if we are moved into a Hays County district. Troop 2001 has developed many relationships with businesses in South and SW Austin to help us with donations in troop fundraisers. These relationships may suffer because of a move into a Hays County district where we have no presence. Troop 2001 will be harmed if we are moved into a Hays County district. In closing, I respectfully request that the RASD Task Force permit an exception to the arbitrary geographical boundary placement and keep Troop 2001 in District B. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. |
||||||
| 77 | 4/25/2007 | Ally Ha | Comanche | Cubmaster | Pack 796 | I hope this reaches you in time. I am writing to express my concern about the redistricting of Packs 796, 96, and 11. These three packs are working as one. We have about 20 regular scouts collectively. I have difficulty finding the advantage in moving us out of Comanche - the numbers don't support it. We are not a strong pack and have benefited from the resources that Comanche offers. Tejas district is not as strong and I think we would not have the support that we currently have. We are struggling as it is and I don't think this would be a step in the right direction. |
| Updated 05/18/2007 05:12 PM |