ParkMan

Hi @RichardB,

As always, thanks for taking the time to share some insight with us on these topics.  I've got very little insight how to communicate this feedback to national, please permit me to proactively share a few constructive thoughts.  This is not criticism.  Also, don't feel compelled to respond - I'm not asking you to defend this new program.  I just wanted to share what I think are pretty common thoughts from out here in the trenches.

Frist - and to be clear - I'm taking an open minded approach to this particular topic.  I sat through the recent webinar and am likely to take the short term camp administrator training.  I do this because I generally try to extract the value from these sorts of opportunities for our programs.  My motivation is to run the best Scouting programs possible and I will take input from whatever quarter I can.

Second - I would share the perception that this is being perceived as yet another bureaucratic imposition by national.  No one I know likes this.

If I, for example, look at the two things listed in the materials you quoted as the purpose:

1 hour ago, RichardB said:

1) Promote the health, safety, and well-being of every camper, leader, visitor, and staff member while participating in a BSA-accredited camp program.

This seems fair.  I would tend to agree with others that I don't see why this is needed all of a sudden.  Yet, I can certainly imagine that national is receiving pressure to tighten up the application of health and safety rules.  If this is part of the motivation, I would strongly encourage the national staff to simply admit that.  We all can appreciate that liability rules continually place increasing challenges on everyone.  

The problem is that the language in the materials provides no compelling reason why national needs a new program for this.  We have many thousands of very capable adults across the country doing a great job at this.  To now say that these individuals need to sit through a course to teach them how to do this is a difficult sell and strains our credibility with these valued volunteers.  I have inferred that this is for a) insurance reasons, b) to try and cut down on the number of safety mistakes being made.  So I tell people that and they generally can accept it.

1 hour ago, RichardB said:

2) Guide councils so that each camper and leader obtain a quality program consistent with the BSA brand.

If this standard is really about making programming better, then this needs to be communicated very differently.  If this really is all about communicating and teaching best practices for event programming, then make this all about national providing increased program training for district and council volunteers.  Hold seminars and webinars on best practices for events.  Record them, put them on a website.  Play it up.  Provide some sort of recognition after a person has completed enough of the different units.  Rejuvenate training at the local level and incorporate this into it.  Imagine a yearly ongoing training for district/council event planners.  Again, this could be great stuff.

Selling it

The problem NCAP has it that is comes across with all the excitement of a new rule from my state's Department of Motor Vehicles.  It could be (and hopefully is) great stuff.  Yet, it's being imposed on everyone.  Pronouncements of new required training, new administrator roles, new forms and rules, are very heavy handed.  Just look at the first paragraphs on the website at https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/camping/short-term-camp/.

Quote

What is a Short-Term Camp?

Effective January 1, 2021

A short-term camp is any council-organized overnight camping program, whether one-time or continuing, that is one, two or three nights in length where the council or its agents provide the staffing and may provide program and food services, and includes camps conducted off council properties. National training courses are subject to the short-term camp requirements, regardless of format or duration. 

Short-Term Camp Administrator Job Description:  Each short-term camp must have a short-term camp administrator. This person is responsible for ensuring that the planned camp complies with the NCAP Short-term Camp Standards.  This means walking the property to ensure that it is appropriate for the event; ensuring that paperwork is filed and any written BSA approvals are completed and obtained through the council; confirms facilities and program are safe and in good order before starting operation; and that appropriate health, safety and sanitation provisions are made.  This individual also ensures that all activities at the short-term camp comply with the applicable BSA National Camp Standards.

The intro page on short term camping immediately jumps into the rules and standards.  It makes national come across as being more concerned about the rules than about the program quality.  In our area we do all these things.  Other than filling out more paperwork, we do all of this.  These first two paragraphs do absolutely nothing to make me excited about the national team's great work.

Again, it's important for us all to understand why.  There has to be value in it for volunteers and clear impact to local programs.  If the value is not obvious, then people need to help us see the value.  This is crucial.  Volunteers will eventually comply to rules that are rolled out, but it costs National and the Council credibility with volunteers when decisions are imposed on them.  Helping volunteers see the value goes a long way towards building credibility for national amongst the volunteers.

Thank you!

If you made it this far, thank you for reading through it all.  I do greatly appreciate what the national professional staff does.  Thank you very much.

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

They did, https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/boy-scouts-lobby-in-states-to-stem-the-flow-of-child-abuse-lawsuits/2018/05/08/0eee0a44-47d8-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

Thank you very much for making me aware of that.  I didn't know that.

10 minutes ago, skeptic said:

We might add the possibility that society as a whole was equally responsible in that the responses to these things were completely different in that earlier period.  So, once again, taking the sin/bad behavior out of its own period to be measured against a different view and response mechanism is blatantly unfair to most involved.  And to remove the actual perpetrator from the picture, basically because they are dead or too senile to be held accountable to modern "standards (?)" seems even more unreasonable.  As we have noted before, ours is almost the only country in which this would even be happening.  

I truly do not understand why these bottom feeders are even allowed inside a courtroom.  It would help of course if the yellow press would change their stripe and tell the complete story, rather than just the most heinous and headline grabber.  

You would think that other groups, especially youth serving, would be doing all they could to aid the BSA, as it will move to them too soon enough, as the GS already have found; along with at least one youth study group in university research.

I do believe that there is a fair public policy question here.  Should the country have ever removed the statute of limitations and should organizations like the BSA, churches, and other COs be responsible for abuse claims from that long ago?  These organizations all have permanence due to the nature of the kinds of organizations that they are.  They have all made decisions years ago that if made today would be considered reprehensible and subject to legal action.  Should quasi-permanent institutions like these be held liable for the these terrible decisions by people who are long since gone and no longer affiliated with the organization?  The actions of all these organizations today are radically different than those of 40 years ago.  Should groups be actively be trying to disband them because of those actions so long ago?

The heinous nature of these crimes makes it all but impossible to really have this discussion though.  Anyone who would argue this point would most likely be labeled as being sympathetic to abuse.  Even the BSA has all but refused to fight this trend of lawsuits.  The BSA made what I fear will be a near-fatal decision to not push back on these lawsuits and frame them correctly.  The kids in Scouting today would be much better off if the BSA had hired some very expensive PR and lobbying firms several years ago and fought this trend.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA isn't looking to get the COs in. The lawyers for the claimants/abuse victims want them in because (I suspect) they are realizing that the combined assets of National + Councils = not much when divided up among tens of thousands of claimants. So, you go for where the next set of assets/deep(er) pockets are. The COs.

Right - this is the claimants pursuing this.  Injustices against people aside, my sense is that this started because lawyers and early claimants saw the BSA as a group with deep pockets that was easy to sue and pursue damages against.  However, now that everyone has realized that this idea is running out of steam, the lawyers want to expand the pool of claimants and add COs to their lawsuits.  

In retrospect, this doesn't seem an awful idea.  It's a toss-up if Scouting units are more aligned to the council/BSA or the CO.  If a Scout was abused 40 years ago who was more at fault - the BSA or the CO?

It's not good for the BSA to add COs to this lawsuit.  But, in a way isn't it the correct thing to do?  If you were the CO of a unit 30 years ago that had abuse going on, isn't it their responsibility too?  

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

In the meantime, units that are within Boy Scouts of America and that wish to remain so should a) obey the rules while b) advocating for rules changes they want.

Having been both a unit leader for a long time and a district/council scouter at times too, I've learned to appreciate that units often feel a whole lot more animosity and distrust of the council than is needed.  I've found that units that make a good faith effort to work with the council generally have no problem with stuff getting approved.

The council really isn't out there to make life difficult for the units.

They are using camp to denote an event, not a place. 

This applies to basically all overnight events longer than 1 day and less than 4.  If your district has a camporee it applies.  If you district has two troops camping together for a weekend in a field, it counts.  Basically every camping event that it bigger than a single unit camping alone and is shorter in duration than necessary to qualify for resident camp qualifications.

Worse than the standards is now that we have to find people to go through this training.  Ugh.  I want people to focus on membership, program, and unit service.  Not more paperwork.

That's my understanding from the webinar.  Too many Scouters breaking rules and then having issues. 

I'm sure there were lawyers who challenged that the BSA hadn't done enough to make sure that the Scouters knew the rules.  This in turn led to more liability payments for the BSA.

The downside is that this is major new initiative requiring substantial volunteer overhead precisely at a time where volunteer bandwidth needs to be focused on membership and unit support.  Not the best time for some new overhead initiative like this.

21 minutes ago, FireStone said:

In the end we still got what we needed, technically without soliciting anything. It's just a silly game we have to play to get from point A to point B, even if the end result is the same as just asking for B from the start.

Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like you've got a strong, active pack.  I imagine that you also participate in popcorn sales.  I'd just have a chat with your DE about getting these things approved.  Yes, you can make it work "as is" and off the books, but I'm going to guess that other than a few tweaks, the council will generally go along with this.  In the process, you'll save yourself the discussions in the committee meeting about doing it "off the books"

1 hour ago, CommishJulian said:

Luckily, I been able to work with a handful of exceptional (now laid off) Scout Professionals who never got valued for what they kept bringing into the Districts and Council. 

I've heard this comment before from others.  I'd be curious for people to expand on this.  What are examples were you've seen professionals fired who were doing a good job?  No names of course.

Thank you @mrjohns2.

It sounds like Mr. Lambert had a distinguished career.  I thank him for devoting his career to Scouting and certainly wish them well.

Of all the national job descriptions, his sounds like one of the most understandable.  I really do wish that the BSA would make their national organization more transparent to us all at the council level.

I don't think it says anything negative if you wear the NESA knot.  You still earned your Eagle - so you still has to earn the award.  All the NESA knot really says is that you are an Eagle who has decided to become a lifetime member of the NESA.  There is no harm in that at all. 

Just now, TAHAWK said:

Can't use white-face, black-face or red face.  Why not white-face?  It would offend mimes.  

FWIW - when we did it, it was tied to rank.  We also didn't paint the entire face, more put marks on their cheeks.  Basically, we matched the color of the program:

• Tiger - orange
• Wolf - yellow
• Bear - blue
• Webelos - green & red
• AOL - green, red, & yellow

We did it in our pack - but I'll admit, we didn't have too detailed a script.

It was normally done at rank advancement.  The Cubmaster would get up with the Scouts, ask them to talk a little about some of the funs things they did.  After that, he'd paint a strip on each cheek - one red, the other green.  He'd explain that Webelos stood for We'll Be Loyal Scouts and that these colors signified their journey on the way to becoming Scouts.  I find the goal on these kind of ceremony is to tie it to the journey they are on - celebrate something about what they earned.  Or, celebrate some kind of future goal - such as becoming a Scout.  I was never one for tying this stuff into NA imagery.  I know some people like the NA imagery, but I also found trying to make a connection like that very awkward and forced as a Cubmaster.  So, I just never did it.

In our pack, it took maybe 3-5 minutes to do the whole thing - that's about as long as we could sit for a ceremony.

Sorry I don't have something more concrete for you.

Welcome @Armymutt

That's a tremendous Scouting background you have.  A little secret I learned along the way is that it's even more fun when you are Scouting alongside with your kids in the program. Enjoy!!

5 minutes ago, thrifty said:

Hello.  Need some opinions on the following.  My scout just started fundraising for his Eagle project.  His goal is to raise over $5k so that he (and troop) can assemble emergency lockdown buckets for every classroom in our city public schools.  The school is also trying to pass a tax levy this November.  There's a local group of volunteers that support the schools in various ways and are also supporting the Nov. levy.  Today someone in the volunteer group expressed interest in talking with my scout.  I don't have details about what would happen but I'm under the impression that this could be one of several interviews with students to highlight their achievements or making of a video highlighting students.  I can currently only assume that this interview or video would be used in some way to encourage voters to pass the levy.  My scout could certainly use the additional publicity for his project.  It just occurred to me that talking about his Eagle project on a video that is distributed citywide in the hopes to pass a levy could conflict with the BSA policy on politics.  What are your thoughts on this?

We can certainly contact our local council for further advice when more details are available but I thought I'd  see what all of you thought.  I'm thinking that even if he can't wear his uniform in the video, they would probably prefer school apparel anyway, shouldn't he be able to talk about his Eagle project?  He will definitely not make any statements about the levy, only statements about himself, his project and his school experiences.  Worst outcome, he just doesn't mention scouting or Eagle and it should be ok.  Thanks.

Interesting situation you find yourself in.

If a video goes out about your son and his work in Scouting that in turn is used to help lobby to pass a tax levy, I am fairly certain that the council Scout Executive would have liked to have known first.  I'd send your DIstrict Executive and District Chair a note so that they can consult with the Scout Executive and see if they'd like to give you any guidance.

However, I would not stop a discussion first.  There is nothing wrong with a leader in local politics talking with a Scout about their experiences.  You just need to watch out that your Scout's image and that of the BSA isn't used to lobby for the levy without being in consultation with the Scout Executive.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Filled by volunteer. I very much get the impression that many (most?) people in this forum won't be happy if any scout executives receive a cent in compensation.

I've made similar comments before, but here's my take on these salaries:

I think these seem reasonable for a national organization like the BSA:

• $794K  - Chief Scout Executive and President
• $445K  - Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
• $394K  - General Counsel and Secretary
• $349K  - ACSE, Development
• $280K  - Group Director - Supply
• $264K  - Group Director - Human Resources
• $232K  - Group Director - Summit

You go down that list and they all have to solve very complex issues, run large organizations, or serve thousands of employees and even more volunteers across the country.  I don't mind investing for quality in these roles.

These seem underpaid to me:

• $265K  - Group Director - Marketing
• $257K  - Group Director - Chief Information Officer

One of the primary purposes of the national organization is marketing the BSA.  Good marketing people are expensive.  We should be investing here.  Similarly with the CIO.  For a national organization with so many scouts and volunteers, the BSA should be investing in it's technology infrastructure.  Good CIOs are expensive too.  Again, I don't mind investing in quality people here.

I don't understand what these do enough to speak intelligently on their salary

• $387K  - ACSE, Nall Dir Field Service
• $372K  - Regional Director
• $313K  - ACSE, National Dir Support Services
• $299K  - Regional Director
• $292K  - Regional Director

These all seem like they have roles where the heavy lifting is done by councils.  I'm sure I'm missing something as it seems like a lot of high powered people to interact with councils which are almost entirely self sufficient.  I'm not following here.  I can only assume that these roles are going to highly tenured professionals who in turn command high salaries based on their tenure and the commensurate counsel salaries for those people.  i.e., if the average Scout Executive is making 200K, then maybe they feel they need to pay an regional director 300K.  I just don't know.

These seem like they overlap

• $472K  - Group Director - Outdoor Adventures
• $349K  - ACSE, Dir Outdoor Adventures

Managing the high adventure bases is important.  But why so many highly compensated people in that function.  Is it that challenging a task to manage four high adventure bases?

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

They really, really are not.
One of my units did Scouting in Sweden for JOTI-JOTA and Arrow of Light requirement Building a Better World. It is entirely different.

Where we have ranks Wolf, Bear, Webelos, etc. they have age-marks (rough translation) such as Tracker (8-10), Discoverer (10-12), Adventurer (12-15), Challenger (15-18) and Rover (19-25).

There is nowhere near the emphasis on merit badges or the tons of adventures at the Cub Scout level, etc.

That's good to know.  I always assumed it was very different, but when I read the post I realized that I simply didn't know.  Thanks!

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is simply becoming fanciful. No one is going to buy Boy Scouts of America. No one is going to buy its IP either.

It is most likely a long shot (and not one I favor), but I don't think it's really that fanciful.  I see two scenarios that make sense:

1. Councils in the US form a new national Scouting association after the current one runs out of money.  It's a legally separate entity to protect it from continued lawsuits.  That entity would want to acquire the IP of the BSA. I can see this has a 20% chance of happening.

2. The GSUSA has the infrastructure to run a national Scouting organization and is currently devoid of any lawsuits.  The GSUSA would like the BSA to not have a program for girls.  So, why not acquire the IP of the BSA when the current organization runs out of money and field a unified Scouting organization. I can see this has a 1% change of happening - but if I were on the board of the GSUSA you can bet I'd be looking into this.

5 hours ago, David CO said:

I'm not sure BSA actually has exclusive rights to all of the IP.  It certainly doesn't have the international rights.  There are many other countries who use the same IP in their boy scout programs.   BSA only has exclusive rights within the USA.

A smart lawyer could argue that BSA is leasing the IP from the WOSM, and cannot transfer the IP to another entity without WOSM consent.  It could also be argued that the federal charter protection does not apply to IP that is "owned" by WOSM.  

 

That's an interesting dimension.  I wonder how that is structured.  I imagine the ranks are somewhat common between countries (except maybe for Eagle) and perhaps some of the requirements too.  

I can envision that some other Scouting Group in the US cannot start using the same rank system.  I wonder who controls that - it is the BSA copyright or is that something at the WOSM level.

36 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

When GM was in Chapter 11 a new corporation was formed to buy the functioning assets of the old GM, including the brands.  The old GM then took that money, sold off the dregs and went away in liquidation.  So why couldn't some monied interests buy the IP and leave the real estate and debts and liabilities behind with the old org? 

I'm not sure I'm buying the charter argument.  As pointed out above the purpose of the BSA, in the charter, is to serve boys.  If you click to the next page you'll see the charter of the Boys and Girls Club is to serve youth.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/31102. Clearly the authors of the law understood the difference between boys and youth.  Seems like if the BSA offers the charter as a defense it wouldn't take much lawyering to argue the BSA is in violation of the charter.

I hear you, but I think it would take more lawyering than a bankruptcy court judge is ready for.  I'm not even sure a bankruptcy court judge has the place to try and determine if it is operating legitimately as per it's congressional charter.  Other than extracting more assets from the BSA, why would they go down that path?

If a bankruptcy court judge forced a sale of the IP, then I think that the decision would quickly get appealed.  Years in the appellate courts before there is any real resolution.

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

The charter effectively prohibits it. Boy Scouts of America has "Exclusive rights" under 36 USC 30905 to

That would likely make it an exclusive non-transferable right.

In order to get an IP transfer, you'd have to amend the "exclusive rights" statute. Good luck with that.

I hope that's the case which would make it something that the courts could not force them to sell to cover their obligations.  So, even if the BSA runs out of funds, so what?  They cannot be forced to part with this IP.

I'm not sure that I follow that it then cannot be transferred if the BSA chooses.  But, I am hoping you are correct.  I would like this to be considered an asset with a $0 value.

2 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

Does BSA have exclusive right to a girls program?  To a "Scouts'" program?

The code doesn't state that the only IP the corporation develops is for the use in a program for boys.  It just says that the corporation has the exclusive rights to whatever it adopts.  So, if they invent stuff for the program for girls, it's still protected.

I have come to understand that it's improbable there is a legal path to an outright purchase of the BSA.  Yet, I do wonder if there is still the ability for the BSA to sell it's IP to another entity. 

A well organized effort that transferred the BSA IP (program materials, badges, etc.) to another entity and then told councils to simply recharter with them would work in theory.  

10 minutes ago, SemperParatus said:

When the BSA is no more...units will no longer exist.  Heck, units are disbanding right and left around the country as CO's are compelled to disassociate themselves from the BSA. Why invest energy into an activity that has a very good chance of shutting down in the not too distant future? Fond memories of scouting will not save the BSA (and units).

I've seen no COs disassociate from the BSA in the past few years.  This is simply not true.

Everyone involved knows that the bankruptcy is related to actions many years ago and is not representative of actions of the BSA today.