ParkMan

This is the jist of my thinking too. Unless this has already been negotiated and all parties has agreed, then all this is likely to be argued in bankruptcy court. As such, the creditors are going to argue to include as many assets as possible. The BSA on the other hand is going to argue to include as few as possible. It's without doubt that there are technically legal structures in place that we hope will be enough to isolate different entities - councils and Philmont most specifically. However, once this gets into the hands of of the courts I expect things will be interpreted.

I think Philmont will be interesting. I believe it could very likely be a casualty here. Let's face it - it's not essential to what we do. Yes, it enriches the program for many, but it's not essential. We, American citizens, had an opportunity to fight this politically and did not. As a result, we now roll the dice. I will not be surprised if Philmont and many local camps get sold.

Our council has one too. @carebear3895 is 100% correct - we have it to make ends meet. Our council does not have fancy buildings or nice office chairs. It's a pretty frugal non-profit. We can certainly have a discussion about whether to pay the salaries of professionals - but that's about the level it's at for us.

Sadly I agree. This will get a lot messier before it's done. I am not a lawyer, but understanding the issues well enough here I expect the lawyers for the victims will turn their attention to local councils. Either lawyers will: go after councils for specific cases argue that council assets should be included alongside national assets in the bankruptcy. On this fund - I can't imagine how our council today will afford to pay into such a fund. Year after year the council goes around hat in hand and asks for donations just to pay the bills. How will they take 30, 40, 50

Indeed a sad day, but one that was unavoidable. Being a non-profit the BSA had limited funds to draw upon. Revenue in the BSA is largely dues and fees which in turn enable the programming to happen. Other revenue is used to offset losses in other areas or to fund programming to try to address membership losses. Similarly, most assets are program supporting items - Philmont, Sea Base, etc. - yes, they have value, but they are also key to providing the program. Yes, there were insurance policies, but those are merely a buffer. Of course we want to see every victim compensated. B

I suspect that the 90% is those over 30 years. Theres a big gap of 30 years following that which could be part of the reason. Would be interesting for the BSA to publicize annually how many cases were in the last 5 or 10 years.

Yes. I think we all have to consider what kind of image we want to reflect - be it online, in Scouting, with friends, at work, etc... If you want to keep a more professional vibe as a Cubmaster, that's certainly fine. Of course, I know lots of leaders - be it unit, district, council, professional, etc... who share all kinds of things. So, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to limit what you share - but it is up to you. There's certainly no downside to presenting a more polished image as a leader.

Hi @Beccachap, Welcome! I know I've already replied to a topic of yours, but was going back through posts from the weekend and saw your intro. I love the honesty in your intro!!!! Welcome I welcome your perspective on Scouting. I've always believe that we need to set high expectations in Scouting and it sounds like you're doing exactly that. Thank you for what you're doing and thank you for challenging those you Scout with.

I'm not normally a Facebook user, but I do have one for Scouting use. I'm still fairly disciplined about who I friend. I figure I need to actually know you through Scouting to friend you. There's a few Scouters I've seen on Facebook who friend very liberally.

How much of this is District Commissioner vision & leadership? Yes - some people are simply not right for the role and should never be UCs. But, for the bulk of us, I think how the DC approaches their role is a big part. Does the DC challenge, encourage the UCs on their team grow? Or, is it simply - "Hey Bob, did you file your unit visitation reports? What's the status on recharter?

@yknot's, @desertrat77's, and @MattR's comments hit upon a common theme. This theme permeates about 50% of the posts on this forum. Today, the organization that is the BSA - whether through volunteers or professionals is one that is largely focused on operations, rules, and safety. We spend so much time and effort on how. We have structures in place that when they work are great - G2SS, commissioners, professionals, Districts & Councils, Wood Badge, etc. But, when they are done poorly probably end up doing more harm than good. Bans on water guns, the wheelbarrow rule, bad commiss

We have a very large, strong troop, pack, and crew. We have leaders whose experience spans 10 to 20 years or more. We have a wonderful UC who is a gem of a resource for us. He helps us problem solve, keeps us aware of new issues and ideas, and helps us interpret council and national rules. He's very well connected outside the unit, so he's a wonderful resource as we look at accomplish ambitious goals. The troop needs a resource at Camp, he can help us make the connection. The pack needs to solve a registration issue, he helps us to accomplish it. It would be harder for us if we

Hi @Beccachap, Yes - certainly. Call or email your district commissioner, explain the situation, and ask if he/she can assign someone else. The district commissioner may ask you some questions about why - most likely in the interest in understanding if there is an issue that he/she needs to be aware of. But, the district commissioner should work it out for you.

It's an anecdote - but... Our church had a situation a few years ago where the minister had to leave abruptly for a once in a lifetime opportunity. The local bishop didn't have a successor in the wings and we were a big church. So, they asked a retired minister to jump in and help out. Day one they showed him to his office and said they'd get it setup for him. He turned and said - I don't need an office. I never plan to sit down. I will be spending every day out working with people in the church. The next 6 months were a time of innovation, growth, and transformation. Ra

For this I would lean more heavily on the volunteer side and would draw them from locations demonstrating success. For example - look at your experience with your troop for girls. You've been successful in starting that troop and know what it takes. You understand the program needs, the volunteer needs, the focus needs - you are now clearly a subject matter expert on troops for girls. Let's say a district is struggling to start troops for girls. That district could contact someone at national and say - we need help getting a program of starting troops for girls going. The BSA would

FWIW - I would similarly concur. I'd think that all mainline programs should be offered by a council, but optional to a unit. I would think the LFL stuff could be optional.

@Cburkhardt - you've captured that point well. Lets capture metrics on the things we most struggle with at a unit level and then measure people at the national level on their ability to impact them. I believe we'd see changes that would have a positive impact on these local issues.

The volunteer organizational structure of the BSA today is one that is largely based on a promotion model seen in large organizations. You start as a volunteer in a unit, a few years later you get involved in a district, a few years later the council, later the area, etc. Problem solving works much the same way. A unit is an entity that works in isolation and receives coaching from a unit commissioner or district volunteer. A district receives some coaching from a professional or council volunteer. The net effect of this system is that it engenders consistency. In an era where we have se

Pardon if I'm in the wrong topic for these. I'm gathering that at a national level, the definition of program is broader than what we define it to be at a unit level. A few ideas to start off: The national programming team needs to spend significant energy defining what it means to support units. Every presentation talks about how unit scouting is the most important thing we do. Yet, the definition of what it means to support a unit is remarkably vague. As a result, council, district, and professional support for units is vague and poorly understood. Expectations are not clear.

@Cburkhardt - I'm someone who has always been interested in understanding the structure of the organization at the national level. I've asked around with local experts, looked online nationally, read reports, etc... This is hands down the single best explanation and picture into the national structure I've ever seen. Thank you.

Four very specific things I'd do: Make the primary task of the DE to build and support the district team. Not FOS, popcorn, program, and not even unit service. It's like the oxygen mask in an airplane - you cannot help others until your team settled. National needs to define specialized training for district volunteers. This training needs to be delivered live. National needs to define a regional training for district key three members. Camp School for district key three. National needs to create a problem solving team to help troubled districts

Sure - if there was a way to accomplish the same with 2-3 people 2 hours a week, then that's fine with me. I know you've mentioned several times that the Scouting program could be simplified. I do largely agree with that. That said - I don't think simplifying the program would have helped us a lot. The troop is well run and manages to find enough volunteers - so that would solve a problem we don't have. Now, how can districts solve the problem of units with fewer leaders. These units need mentors - A solid UC is important here They need specialized training. This training

Because we're volunteers. Take roundtable for example. Roundtable is really nothing more than a monthly meeting of volunteers - they swap knowledge, socialize, tell stories, build relationships, etc... One person could organize roundtable in 2-3 hours a month. But, since we want to have breakouts by program, pull together some announcements, and do this in an hour or two a week, you want 3-5 people. Now scale that up to include training, coaching for leaders (Commissioners), camporees, summer activities, pinewood derbies, OA, eagle boards, support for membership, solicitation of donat

This is the crux of the issue. I've been a district volunteer for several years now - most of the time in more senior roles. In that time we've gotten no support from either national or our council in building our district team. The only training available is the online training. Our DE will brainstorm with us on names and even ask people at times if we need him to. But, I see no effort expended by the BSA at all to foster the development of district teams. We've neglected district committees for 20 years (at least) and now it's catching up with us. Help for unit leaders - missin

Mostly agree - but not 100%. In life most of us benefit from coaches, mentors, and advisors. Most of us benefit from having someone who has traveled the road before us that we can ask questions of. I do it in Scouting, I do it at work. The UC role is Scouting's attempt to provide that. Let's gather together that experience and build a program to get that experience shared. This forum has had conversations about how UCs should have the authority to overrule unit leaders - I've never agreed with that idea myself. Yes, when that starts to happen, it's an example of top down leadershi