ParkMan

Ouch - this is exactly the opposite of the idea. We want an endowment that will not be raided to protect the camp in-perpetuity. Raiding the endowment is exactly the wrong idea. That's the crux of the issue. There's some intellectual fallacy in those kinds of statements. Part of those expenses stem from the fact that the council spends a lot of money on fundraising. That fundraising activity is expensive, but it results in more income than expenses. As a result, it means that families don't have to pay a lot for the council services. I think it would be an interesting exerci

I'd adjust it slightly: What services essential to carrying out the Scouting program are most effectively performed by councils? Which of those essential services that are most effectively performed by councils, if any, can only be performed by paid council employees? In the ideal post bankruptcy structure, we're not trying to get rid of councils. The idea is to right-size their tasks, reduce the institutional instinct that professionals need to run things, and then proactively deal with some of the chronic issues like financial planning for the reduced membership.

I concur. Every one of these big increases invite yet another family conversation of - "do you want to continue in Scouting?". Given our general membership issues today, this will have consequences. I am not sure how much longer I'd continue with ever increasing dues that are going solely to pay for lawsuit settlements.

The other thing that this says to me is that the other troop was very organized. That counts for a lot. I've always believed that recruiting success is a lot about having a plan and simply keeping at it. Our recruiting plan looks something like: 1. Make sure the Scouts in the troop are active and having fun. The single best indicator of recruiting success is program success. Make sure to have a few really cool "wow" events. These don't have to be expensive or far away, but they need to be something that the Scouts will probably only do in Scouts. Also make sure you're thinkin

I concur - wear the star. When that application was submitted you were a member in the program. Yes, it may not have been the experience you'd have wanted - but that's ok. Service stars are our participation ribbons. You participated - you wear the star. The quality of your participation is evidenced in other awards. You don't have those.

Though we attend our CO's service, I'm not a big fan of Scout Sunday. Having an event like this where you come out once a year in force seems like a check box item. Feels to me like it would be preferable to have a more regular interaction. Perhaps quarterly service projects or activites where the unit is more tied into the life of the CO. Make engagement with the CO part of what the unit does.

Fully concur. Great points. Not to relieve national of this responsibility, I have to imagine that we would could take some of the ideas out of these recent threads and bring them together into a series of guidelines for councils. A blueprint for success for councils in the 2020's and beyond.

I often wonder why our aspirations as a movement as so low. My council probably covers a metropolitan area of 2 or 3 million people. How hard can it be to setup a fund to protect camp forever? That takes what - 5 million dollars? Hire a professional endowment company to guide you through the process and make it happen. I see stuff like this happen regularly in the religious and university communities. Time for major improvements at church - let's raise $2,000,000 dollars. Let's grow the university endowment to $250,000,000 dollars.

It would be desirable in my.scouting.org to see your registration status and items needed for re-registration. Imagine if... you could go in, see that you needed to re-do YPT and it has a needs to be done by date. if you needed MBC training, it had the link to the training. If there were other forms needed - such as a local council MBC form - it would be available there online, you could fill it in live, and then hit submit. The form would go to the correct district/council person who would receive it and hit accept. A district person could see the list of peo

I was thinking about protection for the future, not so much protection from the abuse lawsuits. Let's assume for a moment that the lawsuits do get to some conclusion that results in your camp continuing to exist. Now, imagine that you knew the funding was there so that the camp would exist for 100 years. You could make improvements knowing the council executive board wouldn't sell the camp because summer camp enrollment was down. You could donate the "David CO" nature building and know it would be used forever. In my mind, the camp is more like college. The council board is more

@dkurtenbach - thanks for bringing up back to the original topic. I believe that in looking at what Councils do, we need to weigh an important factor. What are our members willing to pay for the Scouting program? To start, we need to recognize three important points about councils: Most services a council spends money to provide are not visible to Scouts and families. Most programming the Scouts receive from councils is done at a fee to Scouts. Unit support from a professional is usually the least cost effective way to provide that service In addition to my minor p

I've said it before, but I still believe that one of the big council issues is an ill defined DE role. A DE has too many things he/she is responsible for, too many expectations on their time, too many demands from volunteers, too many demands from their management. They basically have to be super volunteer, fundraiser, membership driver, product sales expert, program specialist, face of the council, go to unit meetings, district meetings, council meetings, etc. They work in an organization that is notoriously autocratic and demanding. They work ridiculous hours for mediocre pay. The

@Cburkhardt - good point. I'm happy if we want to move this tangent over to that thread. Perhaps a moderator can help us here. @MattR - as I look through your list of items, I can't help but feel there's a trend where you see there is benefit to "multi-unit/district" things, but the BSA implementation today is lacking. Training can help, but the BSA "one size fits all doesn't help you" Multi-unit camping good, but the turn-key expensive camporees not so much. If I read that right, your observation matches mine. Units benefit from activities beyond the unit level. Howe

I do remember reading that one. My thought wasn't even as radical as what you're suggesting. As a name - I don't love the idea of a district committee. I think it's too heavy handed a name. But, I do think there is a role for some kind of "Scouting Community" at what approximates a district level. I've been involved in a couple of districts in my time. What I generally see in the functioning ones is that there is a core community of Scouters who form the backbone of what happens in that area. Most have some sort of district role - but others might be in roles like a long t

This is a big part of the problem. No-one publicly wants to describe the situation in these terms - to do so puts one in the position of being against the victims of abuse. No one wants that label.

What about no DEs to work with units? No offense to our DE friends - but just a hypthetical. What would it look like if just about all unit support was done by volunteers? Pros were there just for the really unusual or serious issues like YPT.

I'm skeptical. In my 10 years of recruiting kids, never once have I heard - are you a member of WOSM? You hear lots of "I couldn't wait for my son to be a Scout like I was." "I remember when I earned my Eagle", "I was on Summer Camp staff and loved it.", "I was very active in the OA."

BPSA It was started in the US in 2006 and in 2016 had 1,600 members. This is exactly my point.

Let's not conflate our personal frustrations with the organization that is the BSA with the public policy issue here. The United States Congress chartered the BSA as the organization tasked with bringing Scouting to boys in this country. If the BSA dissolves, something will take it's place - but it will be with vastly diminished membership and resources. 15%-20% of kids at best in the new organization. Summer camps gone. High adventure bases gone. Historical good will gone. We'll be set back 80 years in terms of infrastructure for the program. Today buying large camp properties is

Right. But, from a public policy perspective, do we as a country, really want to dismantle Congressionally chartered non-profit organizations where the entire staff and leadership is different today than when the offenses happened? We're not talking firing the Executive Board and replacing the professionals. Those pursuing these cases are talking about ending the BSA. We all think our packs and troops are safe and our councils will be fine. I don't buy it. I expect that those pursuing these cases will find a way to argue that all councils are really part of the same master organiza

I fully agree. I would propose that either the BSA or a friend of the BSA do: Identify 3-5 people on the national board with the ability to talk with Members of Congress. If that expertise does not exist on that national board, identify people of sufficient experience nationally with a Scouting background. Have that team meet with all Senators and Representatives with a Scouting background - either as a participant or a parent. Enlist champions within those ranks Meet with all remaining Members of Congress. Due to the fact that the BSA is a Congressionally charte

I could absolutely see a different district/council/area structure emerging here. Say that some of the more dire theories about bankruptcy are true and that some council assets are sold in this. I could entirely envision a restructuring around fewer, larger councils and fewer, more regional camps. I could see councils the size of states or at least very large metropolitan areas. I could imagine a one or two camps for a state like Virginia, Illinois, etc. You'd have to drive 2-3 hours to get there, but it's where there would be. Or perhaps fewer big developed camps and more less devel

Do you know if this was local to the Southern Region or did similar changes happen in other regions?

My suspicion is that they thought about it from a fairness perspective. Do we want abuse victims to have the ability to seek restitution in perpetuity? It is certainly the compassionate case to say yes. Similarly, I believe the BSA leadership looked at it similarly. "Are we compassionate people? Yes - so let's support victims claims forever." So, we have a whole lot of compassionate people wanting to be support victims without recognizing the policy impact of that - money is finite, abusers are long gone, and the people paying the bill are kids. Do you see another solut

I can understand the sentiment though it's really just looking at the problem through rose-colored glasses. Here's how I understand it: The BSA hasn't been compensating victims - insurance companies have. The BSA & lawyers are involved in lawsuits, but eventually it's the insurance companies that pay. The insurance companies turn around and charge the BSA premiums for this coverage. That coverage is becoming prohibitively expensive now. It's wonderful to think that the BSA is sitting on a large pot of money which can be used to compensate victims - but it's not the case. W