ParkMan

4 hours ago, John-in-KC said:

Just one comment.   As I understand matters, a major portion of WOSMs funding comes from BSA. If Big BSA liquidates, WOSM will welcome any partner that puts cash in its coffers. 
 

Anyone able to say otherwise?

I imagine there is a vote required, but ultimately you are correct.

However, I suspect the selection of some other Scouting organization in the US would be met with a collective "so what?"  As a country we are inherently too independent to care what the WOSM says when picking an activity for our kids.  The competing Scouting programs in the US gave not gotten traction because they are not the BSA and have neither it's personal connections nor it's ubiquitous reach and facilities.

40 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

From the OP: “Thanks for your advice. Unfortunately, the facts of the Advancement Guide had been presented to all levels including to council but they have decided not to intervene. ”
 

Of course more details are included, but you can read all the posts yourself and decide.

Barry

I see.  I understand now.

Thanks

I believe the primary reason for this is so that units do not compete with the council for donations.  If Scouting units are all running around asking banks to donate to their troops, then it will make it more difficult for the council to solicit funds.  This is why councils have the ability to approve fundraisers too.  Until recently councils were not allowed to assess fees to members and so the bulk of their funding needed to come from donations.

So, while the distinction between soliciting and earning is a good one - the primary reason is to make it easier for the councils to exist.

7 hours ago, Eagledad said:

What a strange situation. I’ve never heard of so many adults at so any levels of a youth organization not want to support a youth’s endeavor toward a noble dream. Why?

Barry
 

I'm not sure I'm following you here.  Where so you see adults not supporting the youth in this one?

@OLDRIFLE, I'm going to go in a slightly different direction than many of my esteemed fellow Scouters here.

If the Scout in question (you perhaps?) looses the opportunity to make Eagle because of this because of reaching 18 years old, then yes - file a request through council.  Explain that the troop has added this requirement and this requirement is pushing the Scout past the age of 18.

However, if this is not the case, then mention it to the Scoutmaster and Advancement Chair/Committee Chair that this interpretation is incorrect, but then move on.  What is the fundamental issue here - that the Scout has to be active in the troop for another 6 months?  That is not the end of the world and it probably even enriches the Scouting experience for the Scout.  If this turns into the kind of messy political situation where there are factions, the Scout and family are frustrated, the Scoutmaster is embarrassed, and there is hurt and division in the troop - what has really been accomplished?

We could have a discussion about who has the authority to correct a Scoutmaster (the Troop Committee BTW).  But, sometimes it's better for adults to inwardly know the Scoutmaster is wrong, but outwardly support him.  In the grand scheme of things, this decision by the Scoutmaster isn't that awful.

BTW - the national organization is likely to support a petition for you to be awarded a BOR under disputed circumstance which will result in the Scout obtaining Eagle.  They will do this because the situation you are describing is one of interpretation of rules by adults.  Scouts should not be penalized because of how adults interpret rules.  However, you should not interpret that as National wanting the Scout to file a petition.  National would clearly prefer that the Scout have a positive, constructive troop experience.  So, I would go back to my other comment - the Scout should cheerfully embrace this variant on the 6 month rule and go on in life.  

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

I found the full quote  as reported by NBC news.  IMHO, it speaks to a  BSA position more recognizable to us which I  had hoped this topic was "moving forward' towards - a well-considered BSA policy regarding good character and citizenship - the Scout Oath and Law for these troubled times.  Currently, we moderators are discussing the suitability of topics unrelated to Scouting even in I&P, after all, this is scouter.com not anothernews.com.   @MattR   @John-in-KC

My vote:

New subforum seperate from I&P which allows for more general discussion.  If we are already here, why not have the ability to discuss items like this more generally amongst Scouters?

My suggestion - just raise your hand with your fellow ASMs and explore how you can do more patrol oriented activities during meetings.  Zoom isn't the issue and I'm sure it's not a nefarious plot to end patrol based Scouting.  Odds are it's just people who don't really know what to do are guessing.  Honestly, I'd have no idea how to make a virtual troop meeting with 30 people interactive and patrol based.  But I'm guessing that since you're living it, you've got some ideas.

Offer to be the person to sort it out for the SM & ASMs.  

15 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

The gear is an issue if my normal tent is going to be too heavy to carry to the second weekend campsite. The time between weekend 1 and weekend 2 isnt the time to bring something like that up.  I understand its about the course, but in real life it takes time to place and order and that order be shipped.  

To add some context.  I've staffed several courses, so my recommendation is based on my observations with many participants.

1) @T2Eagle is spot on.  This isn't an advanced outdoor skills course.  It's not a backpacking course.  It's a leadership development course.  They staff knows that not everyone will even own a tent let alone a lightweight backpacking tent. 

2) Unless your tent is crazy heavy, I expect you'll be able to find a way to manage getting it to wherever you need to camp.  While discouraged, I've watched people bring cots, dutch ovens, coolers, etc.

3) You will become friends with your fellow course mates.  One of them will have a spare tent I am sure.  There will surely be a moment weekend 1 where you can ask to borrow one if you are really concerned.

Of course, every course and staff is different.  So if you are still really concerned about it, email the course director or registrar.  They'll be honest with you.

18 hours ago, sw1928 said:

Yep that "he" is me and this is what we are probably going to do.  

Sounds like a winning plan.

As a CC, I asked the advancement chair to sign all advancement docs which required a CC signature.  The BSA structure has to accommodate everything from little units with 5 scouts all the way to troops of 100+.  As CC, I had absolutely no idea what individual scouts were doing with advancement nor did I have the technical knowledge of the advancement chair.  Never in 5 years did we have any issue with it.

3 hours ago, ASMwquestions said:

The problem is the sharing of the letter.

Oh - the other responses confused me.  

I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe there are any laws in this space.  It's a question of decency and ethics.  

Sharing the letter like this shows poor form unless there was a reason it had to be shared.  I'll assume in this case it did not have to be shared and so the CC acted in poor form.  But, as far as I know there is no rule against being a jerk.  As a result, you're stuck trying to get some putative action taken by the CO (unlikely to happen, but maybe) or the BSA (certainly won't happen).  So I think you're facing an uphill battle here.  

3 hours ago, ASMwquestions said:

@ParkMan does it matter why he did? Now what if committee member shares info and the next person shares. The accusations were not allowed to be disputed. Accused, assumed guilty, now private info that no one needs to know is out there.

I think I misunderstood - I thought your concern was that the SM shared the letter, not that he was removed.

I'm out of my element on fighting removals.  Sorry.

6 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

Mergers talks have gone on for decades. Rumor was it we got really close in the late 2000s/early 2010's, but then came crashing down. Some field offices even housed both organizations in preparation. 

If GS/USA does ever buy the BSA, it would just be to liquidate it, not save it. Of course, they do have a new CEO now so anything is possible. The last one was VERY anti-BSA. 

Thank you - I didn't know that things ever progressed that far.  That's fascinating.

My .02.  Have a quiet word with the SM and explain the point and ask him not to do it again.  The downside of a volunteer organization is that not everyone in a leadership position actually understands that they need to show discretion in these cases.  You could go start a big to-do and report on the guy, but to what end?  What he purposefully malicious or just a dolt?

@Eagle94-A1 - I'm so sorry to hear of the continued woes in your district and council.  It really is a shame at how it has deteriorated.

@CommishJulian - I'm trying to follow your story, but am a bit confused.  For that I apologize.

I'm involved in a mid-to-large council.  In our council there is certainly some correlation between personal success and positions like district chair - but only to a small degree.  What I've found happens is that the every couple of years as the council nears nomination time, they look around at the districts.  If you've got a well functioning district with good leadership, they are going to leave you alone.  If you've got an opening for a district chair and there is a credible district chair candidate who can get along with the council board, you'll get the nod.  But, if no-one has an idea who should be the next district chair, the council team starts looking around.  When that happens, friends and donors start to get asked.  "Hey, Tom is an active donor and board member and lives in the district, I wonder if he'll do it?"

My two suggestions:

1. If someone wants to be a district chair, don't fight with the council and other opinion leaders.  You can do the right thing discreetly.

2. If you want to fix your district, build a team of people that includes your DE and fix it.

Have the troop advancement chair (assuming he/she is a committee member) sign for the CC. 

1. In the 20 Eagle's during my tenure as CC no-one ever checked a signature. 

2. A member of the committee being delegated the authority to sign on behalf of the CC is pretty reasonable.  Our advancement chair knew the status much better than I ever did as CC.

3. Even if there ever is a dispute, the BSA will come down on the side of accepting the signature simply because "no scout should be punished for the mistake of an adult"

3 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

GSUSA has shown no interest in co-ed.  At least they have been stressing the benefits of a girl-only environment.

What better way to stay gender segregated then to run both the "girls only" and "boys only" programs?  The GSUSA could run the GSUSA program for girls and the BSA program for boys.  Their professional staff could support both sides of the program.   

Cost of program would be less for the GSUSA and they wouldn't have to worry about serious competition.

7 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, ownership of one BSA trademark might stem the drain of girls to Boy Scouts and if not, the GSUSA would have license revenue from that drain and more.

In my mind, the most valuable parts of the BSA ot the GSUSA are:

• stop the loss of girls in Scouting to the BSA
• two million boys in the Scouting program
• efficiency in delivery of services

The BSA just made a play to establish co-ed Scouting.  Imagine if the GSUSA could do the same by purchasing the core program IP of the BSA.  All it would take to trigger mergers at the council level would be for the GSUSA to buy ownership of the BSA core program.  The GSUSA wouldn't have to compete with the BSA in starting a co-ed program, they could simply become a co-ed program in a matter of months.

When I saw the post about the new GSUSA uniforms I was struck by how much they looked like BSA colors.  It got me to thinking - what if in the bankruptcy process the GSUSA makes an attempt to buy the assets of the BSA and effectivly merges the two organizations.

Possible, not possible?  What would you think?

I would have your friend see if he could arrange a legal setup where the land is open to use by Scouts, but not owned by the local council.  Then find the district that most closely aligns with it and talk to the local district chair and/or commissioner.

7 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I am not asking for any super secret info, and I know this kinda depends on the course.

Do I need different camping gear for the second weekend?  My normal tent and stuff I am not carrying for a long distance.

If there is a possibility I need lighter weight stuff, I need to start shopping now.

 

No, the Troop can't loan me anything.  When they camp, they take the big trailer with tents as heavy as what I have.

The camping requirement varies from course to course - but generally the expectation is that it's pretty typical stuff.  We work on our courses to make sure that gear is not an obstacle for anyone.  I wouldn't sweat it.  If you are really stuck for gear, bring it up weekend one and I'm sure someone can help you figure out a solution.  The course and materials are the point - not what kind of tent you have.

47 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

How would ownership of properties be handled?  Under any of these potential outcomes, it would seem wise to separate ownership and management of properties from the councils in order to protect the assets from future suits.  Under the hypothetical, I might suggest that a separate property organization be formed to own Big City Scout Reservation and the training center.  Between the investment bankers from the former Rich Folks council and the members of the former council camping committees of predecessor councils, there would be plenty of talent to get that done.  It would be best to establish the new corporation and make the property transfers as soon as the bankruptcy is over.  A benefit is that the new entity could probably do a better job of figuring out how to generate some Private sector cash income for off-season property use.

Interesting that you posted about that. I was thinking about the same after my prior post and the right structure for longer term ownership of camping resources.  Legally separate "Friends Of" organizations might make a lot of sense here.
 

19 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

How would the national liquidation potential outcome affect rural units in small towns?

The unit leaders and youth participants probably would not feel much difference, except their registration fees would plummet.  They would have on-line access to all program materials and the licensor would sell recognition items directly to them.  These items would also cost less, as the licensor would only seek to break-even on its program research and development efforts.  There would be no volunteer or professional structure above the unit level in these geographies.  The chartered organization concept would not function outside of council territories, because the BSA would not supervise or service these units in any traditional way.  Liability insurance would be arranged locally — probably through the church or other organization where the unit is allowed to meet.

These units could attend summer camp at any council property with excess capacity to serve them.  They would need to pay an insurance surcharge in order to cover the week of summer camp.  Some units would choose to run their own week of camp nearby.

One of the differences I see here is that initially there will be a much smaller professional structure at the national level.

I wonder if we will see the same at the local level.  If we start removing fundraising and membership drives, the district executives role becomes smaller.  I wonder if we'll see a very small number of professionals per council going forward and a greater reliance on infrastructure.

5 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

A national liquidation might result in 50-60 surviving large councils of focused functionality continuing forward, with a small licensing organization becoming the new “national”.  Essentially, Scouting would have BSA councils in metropolitan areas (often operating a camp) and a limited number of small councils would exist outside those areas because of unique circumstances.  Most small councils would no longer be capable of owning a camp and very few would conduct summer camp due to insurance reasons.  The surviving councils would continue to serve their geographies, and the unserved areas outside those geographies would allow units there to license directly with the “new” BSA.  There would be vast portions of the US outside the metropolitan areas without volunteer or professional Scouters above the unit level.  A number of local and unaffiliated clubs continue to engage in local camping activities and include only adults and youth who ascribe to the social, religious or other philosophical views of those clubs.

 

I would assume that if the new organization of large councils could control the licensing, they could in essence all become mega councils.  I would gather that during liquidation all current council agreements become void and the existing councils would in turn have no ability to license program materials from the new BSA until new agreements are made.

Hypothetically, say that my council survived but did not join in with the 45 others and did not obtain licensing rights.  We then effectively become a regional camping club for kids with no relationship to the new national.  Could I as an individual simply then start a new council in that geography and purchase the licensing rights?  Or more likely, doesn't the large council that licenses from the new national simply then contact every district and ask them to become part of that council?  District volunteers and units have no particular reason that they couldn't simply jump ship and help reorganize in that territory for the new council.

Would this not effectively trigger a mass council re-organization?  It would be messy for a few months, but I sense that the big councils would quickly redraw the map so that they are not fighting with each other for territory.

So in your case, doesn't Big City council simply take over all the other territories?

Thank you for such a throughout post - very impressive.

On 8/28/2020 at 5:14 PM, dkurtenbach said:

A few thoughts:

• Quantity (BSA membership) may not be a measure of BSA program quality, but it is a measure of something (or more than one something) about BSA.  Membership is the lifeblood of the Scouting program.  It would be useful to try to pin down the causes of membership decline and figure out if there is something that can be corrected or improved, and at what level.

I would agree with this sentiment. 

Whenever we talk membership here on the forum, conversations often tend to frame it as a choice - membership or quality.  But in reality, a true focus on membership isn't about lowering the quality of Scouting to get more kids to join.  True membership growth comes from delivering a quality Scouting program and then building membership around that.  

On 8/28/2020 at 5:14 PM, dkurtenbach said:

• . . . That challenge being is execution of the program at the unit level.  It is too uneven from unit to unit, and too uneven from year to year within the same unit.  

I see the same thing.  For all the reasons you listed in your post, unit execution is crucial  My gut tells me that we having many of the issues we see are because of poor unit execution.  

On 8/28/2020 at 5:14 PM, dkurtenbach said:

• There are some structural problems in Scouting that are well known and have an effect on membership.  

While I have no doubt that these are things that could be improved, I do not think they are the major factor in all of this.

The Scouting program lacks the clarity to allow your average parent to pick up a book and start a successful pack or troop.  Between the dynamics of the program and the reality that Scouting is inherently a group activity, you need a small team to make it successful.  That team needs support, coaching, and guidance. Yet, in the last 30 years we've seen a steady, continual decline in community support for Scouters.  In person training, roundtables, district activities, commissioners, etc...  In almost every meaningful way the very infrastructure that is needed more than ever is growing weaker and weaker.   Quality on going training isn't a luxury, it's a necessity.  As support for Scouters has diminished, so too has unit quality.

7 hours ago, DuctTape said:

Quantity is often used as a measure of success ignoring and at the expense of quality. 

Quantity is cheap and easy to measure, however as a surrogate for quality it fails miserably.

There is somewhere around 74 million kids in the United States today.  At some point a program focused around providing to those 74 million kids needs to ask itself - how many are joining?  

The world is full of good ideas.  I can rattle off 50 ideas that would make Scouting better.  All those ideas require thousands of hours of peoples' time and lots of money to make them work.  If every idea that gets raised is measured solely on whether it's a good program idea or not we'd be all over the map as a program. 

Similarly - tone person's good program idea is that it's another person's bad program idea.  @David CO likes Lone Scouts and thinks it's the fix for Scouting.  Others look at it and think it's a bad idea.  How does one evaluate such an idea without some sort of basis to measure it.

To be honest, I think that's one of the issues the BSA has today - too many knee jerk reactions to different ideas people have without really thinking through if it actually will help build a better program and attract more members.  Soccer Scouts, STEM Scouts?  These are all someone's good, half baked idea.  

5 hours ago, David CO said:

Membership and money enable BSA to pay exec salaries.  I think we give kids too little credit for being able to entertain themselves.  

 

We have a BSA to provide Scouting to kids.  Seems pretty natural that we'd measure success of the BSA by how many members of has.

I think you know the path to seeing Lone Scouting again.  If you really want it, work for it.  The rest of this stuff is just platitudes.