ParkMan

I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you cannot work on advancements outside of a Scouting activity. This is a very conservative reading of the text in the G2SS. Yes, the G2SS could be clearer, but it is not as stringent as is being suggested. If two Scouts who are friends get together and work on a requirement together, no-one is going to tell them to stop or that the activity doesn't count. The problem is that if two scouts who are friends get together and something happens, a lawyer is going to try to pull the BSA into the lawsuit. Feels to me that we need some sort of be

We're conflating different issues here. - Scouting is a good program that many kids benefit from - regardless of "cool" status - Scouting can certainly do a better job of marketing to youth. That doesn't make Scouting bad - it's just the reality.

Executive salary doesn't define the BSA. It's simply a measure of what the national committee feels is needed to retain the senior national employees. In my decade in Scouting, I've now see several CSE. I do appreciate that there is always frustration with executive compensation - be it companies or non-profits. In my time with the BSA the compensation of the national leaders has had just about zero impact on what I see happen day in and day out. Scouting is defined day in and day out by the thousands of volunteers and professionals who are working to put on strong programs. The BSA

That's certainly one approach - sure. Get rid of councils as we know it, big summer camps, and paid professionals. Districts & OA already are 95% volunteer - so there would be enough infrastructure to make things work. I'm not going to advocate it, but it it happens I'm not opposed to rolling the dice on that one. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about what we're talking about here.

For what it's worth. Our larger than medium sized council has 17 employees: 1 Scout Executive 3 people who do administrative support 2 people who raise the bulk of the council's funding 3 people who work on programming, summer camp, and other events 1 council registrar 1 camp ranger 6 district executives who support our units Could you cut a few - sure. But I don't think this is terribly out of whack. If national liquidates, it just about pays for the pension obligations that they have. You have to liquidate councils too to get to more mone

Thanks! I was thinking of an analogy between churches and scout camps - and whether there is any sort of parallel. Having a place to camp seems a part of the Scouting experience. I wasn't sure if perhaps dioceses had to reduce a certain number of churches or go through some mergers. I wouldn't be surprised for example to see a third of camps sold based on utilization or some such thing. I didn't know if perhaps there was some precedent that might already be in the minds of the judge here.

I'm going to gather these three are the most likely: Scenarios two and five seem like variations base on whomever is in the pool. So at this point it's all a question of how much the court can force the BSA to cut before it really is no longer viable as an entity. How much did the court force the catholic dioceses to liquidate during their bankruptcies? Did they have to sell many churches? It strikes me that this is the parallel to look at.

I want to be careful not to generalize the concept too much be expanding to other organizations. This is part of the history of Scouting - the whole CO concept. If you look through some of the materials around Scouting, you'll see the concept of the inverted pyramid too - that the council is here to support the units. However - in the case of little league... When you agree to use their product (baseball in the little league system) you agree to the terms of the agreement such as using their umps and following their rules. Similarly - to your point of following rules. By the Scou

I think we have to start by recognizing a basic truth that few in councils want to recognize. The councils work for the units - not the other way around. The BSA is a company that provides a product (Scouting) that units can utilize to run their own Scouting program. CORs and their units are effectively little companies that buy the Scouting program from the BSA (through a local council) and then go off run their own program. Youth are not the customers of the BSA - the CORs and their units are. These little companies (aka Scouting units) agree to certain rules when they operate

Some constructive ideas: 1. Have a DE do a drop in visit on every unit once a year. A DE has something like 50 units they are responsible for. That would mean that they could visit each unit once a year and get a sense of what is going on. 2. A Unit Commissioner should have a monthly contact with the unit. At least once a quarter, that ought to be a unit meeting visit. While it's not defined as a compliance check, it also is pretty easy to see if the unit is following basic YPT rules list two deep. 3. The BSA should focus on parents. The best quality control for the BSA is

You absolutely could have a conversation between the commissioner staff and unit key 3. District volunteers just have to listen and then explain the goal. Of course this would have to start by having professionals and council volunteers actually talk to the unit commissioners.

Oh - I see now. You're in the category of people who will not receive insurance payments because you are outside of the SOL window. You are frustrated because the BSA raised your expectations by saying you should file a claim as part of this bankruptcy process anyways. If the BSA had not said you should file a claim, you would not have been able to sue and so wouldn't have entered into this otherwise. I follow now.

Maybe this was the case - but it cannot be the case today. You cannot register in the BSA without YPT. You cannot recharter in the BSA with expired YPT. Yet - YPT has an expiration date. My council regularly reports YPT compliance numbers. In those numbers if you have expired YPT, it decreases our percentage. I don't know the current number, but expect this is true: 100% of leaders were YPT compliant in the last year. You cannot be a currently registered leader if this was not true. 80% of leaders are YPT compliant today People are going to point to the 80% and say Y

We're not as far apart as you probably think. I worry both about the victims of abuse and also the future of the program. So I'm going to look for a solution that allows both to occur. You and I have been down the money path before - I appreciate that you don't like the amount. Your definition of equitable is your definition. I'm happy for the BSA to find you more money, but we just have to keep the program alive. If that means we sell Summit & Northern Tier, that's fine by me. Similarly if we combine smaller councils together and sell some camps along the way - that's fine too

Lol. The engineer in me wants to understand what 20% of leaders not being compliant really means and if it really is an issue.

Likewise.... But before I do, I just keep wondering what it really is that we are trying to fix. Are units that non-compliant and if they are, what are the kinds of things they are letting happen. I'm wondering if instead of adding more enforcement we look at this from a different perspective.

And you'll get money here. They said they had some money to pay claimants with and invited all those who wanted a part to come forward. I don't see how any of this is false hope from the BSA.

Yes - the Commissioner service is the red-headed stepchild of Scouting volunteer positions. They are there to help units, to serve as trusted advisors, and to enable leaders to have a stronger program. I doubt that most would be able to navigate being both advisor and compliance officer all at once. I suspect it would kill the commissioner program. There will be one or two territory employees per 15 councils. Let's say a council averages 200 units - that's one or two employees per 3,000 units. If they are always on the road and do three a week - that's 20 years to visit everyo

I think you got sold a false bill of goods. 1) I don't doubt that a some lawyers & activists are in this for the cause. However, like anyone who is fighting for a cause the people who get enlisted to the cause often are second to the cause itself. 2) Law is a business like any other. Like any business I'm sure that the lawyers believe in their product (getting you money for your suffering). But it's still a business. 3) Messrs Mosby & Turley I'm sure were doing their job too. I am sure they believed in getting you equitable compensation for your suffering. When this

I expect that every council does this. The issue is when councils measure YPT compliance later and discover it have gone from 100% at recharter to 75% 6 months later. The question becomes - what is the right thing for the BSA to do here: work to get everyone to 100% compliance all the time. Requires 100% for recharter and then put plans in place to proactively make people take YPT once it lapses. create a rule that requires YPT be valid for the entire year, but require the course annually create a rule that requites YPT be valid for the entire year, but lengthen the YP

In our council only a currently valid YPT is needed to recharter. Your YPT could lapse a month after recharter and the rules would allow it. Of course, once it lapses you are supposed to not volunteer again until you become current. I see most people in our council and amongst our leaders taking YPT seriously. Most of our YPT non-compliance is because leaders simply lapse along the way and then don't retake it until they have to recharter. There was a move at one point to require it be valid for the entire yet. But, when that started volunteers realized that it meant everyone was

There is a simple solution to YPT training compliance - make it mandatory for all your leaders to have current YPT when you recharter the unit. I would encourage a simple solution to get to 100%. When a unit recharters, make it mandatory for every member of the unit to have YPT valid for the entire recharter year of the unit. Extend the length YPT training is good for to 30 months. We need to extend this a bit or else everyone will be taking the same YPT training every year due to point #1. We have to focus on is shifting the conversation of YPT from a council or nationally m

I think it would have to start with a shift at the council/district level. The Commissioner corp can be the right group to lead the charge, but we need to stop ignoring and abusing the commissioners. I would start with a few things: 1. Make the Council Commissioner the top volunteer in a council. Same for a district. Today we place a business person in the role of Council President/District Chair. That means the top volunteer is going to focus on what they know - membership, money, and growth. If you made the top volunteer a tenured, uniformed volunteer who had primary respons

If the claimants want the Summit I think most Scouters would be happy to give it up to settle this. How about: claimants get: the Summit and Northern Tier scouts keep: Philmont and Sea Base.

It strikes me that when the CC starts overruling specific decisions like this, we're getting into micromanagement territory. Can the CC - probably yes - the CC leads the Committee which the SM reports to. Should the CC overrule the SM - probably not unless the CC wants to embarrass the SM. Much like my earlier comments, I would think the CC/SM conversation is one of general vision and approach. What kind of troop are we trying to have? What kind of culture do we want to see? This seems like a good example vehicle for the CC/SM to discuss - not so much about whether the SM made the r