Because of the military support, I was able to be a cub scout when I loved in Portugal. It was the same for my son when we lived in Germany. I think that having a connection with the military is of great value for Scouting and for the military. My son is an Eagle Scout and has been selected for a 4-year NROTC Scholarship next year when he starts college. Although I left scouting as a Boy Scout because of the troop when I moved to Mississippi - the troop was less about camping and more about uniform inspections and being in Ranks. I was not looking for a military experience (although I retired form the Navy after 30 years in 2021).
So, I can understand why Scouting America made the decisions it did - Cit Society has been sacrificed for bigger, more important priorities to the program. But as the Cit Society MB counselor in my troop, I am concerned that there will be a cost. After two years teaching the Merit Badge, I learned from the scouts as we talk about the requirements. The scouts never had issue with them, only the parents. The scouts did not understand what the issue was - which really makes confident in the future generations.
I disagree the argument that there is no value since elements have always been there. Can we use the same argument to get rid of cooking since it is in every advancement requirement to First Class and in Camping MB? Same with First Aid? Since that argument does not work, what is the actual pushback on the Merit Badge?
Argh. This is where my judgement of BSA is harshest. Originally, my judgement was harsh on poor legal review. As times changed over the decades, better-than-average youth protection practices needed to be updated to protect both youth and BSA legally. So many things failed there.
Now reading the last comment makes me question BSA respect for those donating money. If OA and NESA donations were solicited as endowments, BSA had a responsibility to the donor to respect the donation and handle the endowment properly. What I'm reading instead is that OA / NESA endowment donations were really just another way to solicit general fund revenue. It's either poor accounting, poor legal judgement or outright misrepresentation.
Your understanding is incorrect.
They did not “vote to contribute”, the corporation told the court the OA and NESA endowments were protected. They they were not subject to the bankruptcy contributions to the trust. The other side said show us how you did proper record keeping for the funds inputs and outputs. They had no records and had just comingled the funds in the general funds. Thus, they were ordered to contribute the funds. Thus they need to “recapitalize”.