Prairie_Scouter

So, Anarchist, you go on your campouts with a semi-trailer?

nld, CAC says that Owasippe is the "oldest continuously operating camp". I guess that the "continuously" is important in the distinction. I don't think that the National office would put any of it's resources behind it, either, but I was just thinking that in the sense that Scouting in the U.S. has a lot of history behind it, some of these kinds of sites might bear some support. So, no, I don't expect BSA to support a camp just because it's "old". There are plenty of things in the U.S. that are "old" that are given support because of their historical significance to some groups. Owasippe is something like 5,000 acres (it used to be about 10K, but part was sold off some time ago); that's large enough to not only support summer camp, but other larger activities as well that BSA could designate should they choose to support it. So, it not only has historical significance, but it is a very usable space as well. In the big picture, yes, the worth of a camp property has to be kept in perspective relative to its potential. But, the logic that's being used now, ie, camping usage is dropping off, so we're going to sell it and use the money someplace else, permanently removes that land as a camp site for Scouts. So, if 20 years from now, camping picks up again, there won't be any place to go. New land will have to be acquired that will no doubt be further away, which means less people will be willing to go. Environmentalists fight to save places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from development not only for today, but for generations to come. We might not see the benefit of these Scout lands today, but I think, as much as we can, we should protect them for future generations of Scouts. It's not easy to work out the financials, but it seems worth the effort. Maybe that means the National Office has to step in in some of these situations. Maybe, along with the 3 National High Adventure camps, they could create a series of "regional camps", or something like that.

OGE, all very good points, and certainly relevent. I certainly hope that your conclusion is correct as well, although one has to wonder exactly which set of values we're hoping to reflect

So, I guess, a couple of questions... One, have we pretty well established that LDS Scout units did discriminate against blacks at some point in the past? Two, why didn't BSA just say "no"?

> No one in the BSA or even at the council level takes complainers seriously Maybe that's part of the problem. As you always demand of everyone else, Bob, I'm sure that you have facts to back up that statement. I would be more than happy to hear your defense of a BSA position, or your thoughts on why someone with a differing view is wrong. But, more often than not, you don't respond with opposing views, just with assertions that people are making things up, fabricating information, being "wild eyed", etc. To make these discussions work, you need to do more than just yell "Bull". The purpose of these forums is to help people understand, not necessarily agree. So, lets get back to the initial thread. I am genuinely interested in why you, or anyone else, think BSA is so much in the news about supposed problems while you really don't hear much of anything about other youth organizations. One poster did some Internet searches, with interesting results. So, what do you think? BSA just a popular target? Other groups just not having the problems BSA has? Hiding them better? Is BSA more "dangerous" than other organizations? I came into this thread figuring that all these groups would see about the same level of problems, but it seems that that might not be the case. Now, BSA is so much larger than everyone else (I think) that just looking at raw numbers isn't going to be accurate, so we need to look at things from more of a "per capita" basis.

Bob, no one said anything about the unit volunteers having anything to say about the sale of Owasippe. I said it would have been good to have a consensus before the sale was completed. That isn't required, but at least then there's a better chance that every idea for saving the camp could have been viewed. As far as the vote goes, there are conflicting stories about what actually occurred. It seems that a majority of the voting quorum were in favor of the sale. However, 3 of the approving votes were reportedly made via conference call, and it's unclear whether this is allowed under the CAC bylaws. By contrast, voters thought to be against the sale were allegedly not allowed to vote by proxy or otherwise. If these allegations are true, then while the sale may have been technically "legal", it smacks of political maneuvering that is most unScoutlike. But you are correct, good intentions don't pay the bills. Currently the Owasippe sale is contingent on rezoning of the area. But, even if the camp doesn't get rezoned and the sale falls through, what then? The camp is still short on funds to continue operating. As I understand it, participation at the camp is rising again, and the deficit appears to be much less than in previous years. And, while it is CAC property, you would think that the National office, while having no legal obligation to do so, would be interested in helping to preserve the oldest continuously operating Boy Scout camp in the U.S. Might be a nice place invest a bit of the $500M they're reportedly sitting on these days.

Eeeek! Ok, Bob, I surrender the point

You can spin this any way you want, but the fact remains, I DID NOT attribute it to "too many leaders". I simply said that it was a reasonable possibility. The other possibility that I mentioned was the potential liability. The fact that too many leaders wasn't a problem in 1916 doesn't mean that it's not a potential problem today. The name of this forum is "Issues and Politics", not "make a happy circle and smile at each other". This is the place to bring up items of concern and opinions about those items. The other forums don't deal in topics like here. I would hazard a guess that everyone here who brings up problems in BSA enjoys the organization. I've said many times that BSA is, for the most part, a very good organization. At the same time, I have brought up issues that I think would be interesting to discuss. So, it's really not fair to try and paint everyone as some sort of BSA hater who does nothing but complain, because that is not accurate. If the problems being brought up at the Councils are accurate, they have the potential to damage the whole organization. I know you don't believe that, thinking that they are somehow isolated from the rest of BSA. But, public opinion does affect us and people see BSA as BSA, not as the Atlanta Council, an independent organization simply chartered by BSA. That may be technically true, but the general public does not see it that way. So, if you want to think that people who bring up problems with BSA are just whiners and complainers who want to bring down BSA, you go right ahead, but the truth is far from that. I want to fix the things in BSA that need fixing and I want the organization to be leading youth, not hiding behind political agendas. Now, whether I'm right about the things that need to be fixed is certainly open to discussion. And that's the interesting part about bringing them up here.

Bob White said... >Even the generic "you" never made the comment you did. You made it >up and you attributted it being said by someone else, the fact is it >was your statement and it was inaccurate. Bob, that is just a load of B.S (and I don't mean Boy Scouts). In your mission to denigrate anyone who you don't agree with, you've kinda lost it. Here is what I said...... >You can look at these things a number of ways. You can say that BSA >gives responsibility to the CO and unit for recruiting leaders >because there are too many for BSA National to manage effectively. >That sounds reasonable. Or, you can say that BSA is distancing >itself from the recruiting of local leaders to try and minimize its >liability if something goes wrong. I suspect it's probably a >combination of both. They have a lot of assets, it'd be nuts for >them not to consider that. I "made it up"??? Well, yeah, I wrote it, didn't I, so I suppose you could say I "made it up". From that standpoint, you "make up" everything you write as well (unless you have some ghostwriter working for you). And I NEVER tried to attribute it to someone else. I was hypothesizing what a reasonable person might think when assessing the situation. Which part of my statements are inaccurate??? Do you think it's unreasonable that one possibility as to why BSA doesn't take responsibility for unit leaders is that there are too many of them to effectively manage and track? You think that that's incorrect, so what's the alternative? BSA IS capable of managing all of the unit leaders? You actually think that's a reasonable possibility? Do you think it's unreasonable that BSA might be looking at potential liability when they consider taking responsibility for all of the unit leaders? That's not possible? If they're not considering that, then they're worse leaders than some posters around here think. You may think that what people think about BSA is out of our control. I don't. You may think that we should stay in our little cubby hole of responsibility and just keep our mouths shut. I don't. I think it is the responsibility of anyone involved in any kind of organization to help that organization be the best that it can be. That doesn't stop with whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. I think one person can make a difference. Sitting around and saying "not my job" when you see things happening that you consider to be wrong just doesn't cut it.

I had pulled 3 articles from the Time archives. I don't have them in front of me right now, but my notes say that they were from April 26, May 1, and June 28 of 2000. Should be in one of those.

>Rather than weep over not being able to go to Owasippe why not grab >your pack and go somewhere else, it's a big world. I don't see anyone "weeping" over Owasippe. The deal to sell the land was done in a very unusual way; in a way that gives the appearance of having done an end run around those in the Chicago Area Council that were against the sale. Owasippe should be a special place for Scouting. It is the oldest continuously operating Boy Scout camp in the U.S. If you include contiguous open land, it is probably large enough to hold the Jamboree if the military stops supporting it. It has problems, mostly money-related. But, if they do have to sell it, you would think that it would be done above board and with a clear consensus. That doesn't seem to be the case, and that should be brought out in the open.

Oh Jeez, Bob, you won't even let me agree with you without having something to say about it? Sheesh.

Wow, that was practically painless! I'll just add the there are many troops that have made their own interpretation of what their "uniform" is. As Bob stated very well, these are not true Scout uniforms according to BSA literature.

Sorry, Bob, I meant the "you" in that statement to be the "generic" you, not you in particular. And there's no problem understanding that the CO has responsibility for selecting unit leaders. I didn't say that there was. My point was that there is a perceived liability when these "bad" leaders get caught and are connected, however tenuously, to the BSA. The general public doesn't understand that; all they see is "BSA leader gets caught, etc.". BSA sees a need to protect themselves from that, and with their assets that is a legitimate concern. So, as I wrote, there are 2 potential reasons that BSA delegates responsibilities for unit leaders to the CO, and they are the difficulty in actually taking responsibility for so many leaders, and the need to protect BSA from liability as much as they can. Now, if there's a problem with recruiting bad unit leaders, responsibility does fall on the CO. However, BSA provides the rules that the COs use to select leaders. If those rules aren't working well enough, BSA needs to review this and see if changes are needed. Maybe it's the CO not following the rules, in which case better enforcement and oversight might be needed. If the CO is having some difficulty, for whatever reason, following the rules, BSA should review this as well. It may be a simple communications problem, but BSA provides the rules and is responsible for communicating them effectively. If 99% of the units are doing well with the current rules, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the BSA. But BSA still needs to follow up effectively when there's a problem; that's the responsible thing to do. I'm not saying that they DON'T do that, just that they should be.

While looking for an alternative to GSUSA for my daughter, I did take a moment to look at AHG. While GSUSA is more open in their membership policies than BSA, GSUSA, at least in our area, has really de-emphasized the outdoor aspects of their programs, to the point of selling off their campgrounds. AHG certainly appears to have more outdoor activities, but their membership criteria seems to be even more restrictive than BSA. Their literature states a need not only for a belief in God, but also a belief in Christ as the Saviour. It appears that anyone else need not apply, so unless you're in a Christian religion, AHG may not be the organization for you.

I'm a Gerber man myself. I'm kind of partial to the strained peaches, but the apricots are pretty good, too

Point is, tho, Bob, that while these certainly aren't BSA crimes or Catholic crimes, they are attached to both BSA and Catholicism by the nature of the connection of the accused to the organization. That just happens, and it isn't going to go away, and it's natural for the press to question whether something could have been done to prevent it. You can look at these things a number of ways. You can say that BSA gives responsibility to the CO and unit for recruiting leaders because there are too many for BSA National to manage effectively. That sounds reasonable. Or, you can say that BSA is distancing itself from the recruiting of local leaders to try and minimize its liability if something goes wrong. I suspect it's probably a combination of both. They have a lot of assets, it'd be nuts for them not to consider that. It is kind of interesting, tho, that when you do similar searches for other organizations, you don't really find much. So, either it's not there, or the media is concentrating it's efforts on BSA.

Hi Scouter-Mom Thanks for all of that information. Very interesting. I've heard the story about the LDS Church threatening to leave as well. I've seen it mentioned on more than one website, but so far I haven't been able to find much in the way of a "traditional media" reference to it yet. In 2000, Time magazine qouted a LDS church member who was also a member of the BSA Advisory Council as saying that if the BSA allowed gay membership, the LDS church would "pull its charter membership". It just seems to be me that the BSA always plays the differences between Scouting policy and LDS actions as an "accomodation" they've made to allow the LDS boys to participate. But, it seems like the LDS has been allowed to make basic structural changes in how packs and troops are set up, how leaders are designated, and go against not only BSA policy but American social policy in its treatment of blacks. Those would seem to be fairly drastic allowances. And if they are correct, they would seem to give the appearance that BSA is fairly desperate to keep the LDS "in the fold". It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the LDS had turned out to be a "pro gay" organization.

Bob I can only speak for my local area outside of Chicago, but our District is barely keeping it's head above water membership-wise. The same for the Council. We had a smidge of growth last year, but it looks like we're going to give that back this year. I know it's been very difficult for them to keep the memberhips numbers stable. Regards the affect of BSA National policies on the local unit. We are fortunate that our troop is considered to have a good program for the Scouts. Yet, we almost lost our CO last year because of the anti-gay policy. I've had one parent decide against bringing his son to our troop because of this policy as well. For a small troop like ours, that makes a difference.

I can't imagine, really, how it is that you're able to sustain that size a pack with those conditions. Nonetheless, I don't think that this is really a CO problem. The fact that they are ineffective doesn't help, but I think you'll find that most CO's don't participate all that much (now, that's a guess based on my local experience, but I don't find people refuting it when I check around). My guess is that you have a weak CC and CM, possibly untrained. At the very least, unimaginative. How can you function with one committee meeting a year? Pack meetings are supposed to be FUN! And it's the responsibility of the CM to make them fun. Even if they just open the planning guides and used them word for word, your meetings would be more fun. Just sounds to me like you've got pretty weak leadership within the unit. Demographics can help or hurt. It's hard to be successful if there's no kids around to entice into Scouting. If you have lots, that certainly helps, but by no means guarantees success. Are there any other packs around? Maybe they have so many kids because there's no alternatives available. On the other hand, if they've sustained those kinds of numbers for several years, they must be doing something right.

Whether a person is being overpaid is largely a matter of how you calculate their value, I think. I would think that the success of the organization that they lead would have to be near the top of the list. And how do you measure that? From the perspective of the Board, you'd have to figure that they would consider Scouting to be doing well because BSA has at least the appearance of having a strong balance sheet (I have read quotes to that effect, although BSA doesn't appear to publish the financials in the Annual Report, which is quite unusual; I assume that they publish this information somewhere else). However, membership continues to fall, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of innovation going into stopping the outflow. At least, you don't see a lot of public information as to what BSA National is doing. For example, Mr Williams himself in a 2000 interview said that BSA would readdress the issue of gay inclusion if membership numbers were falling. And they appear to be, but I haven't seen anything publicly available that says that they are re-assessing policies which have the potential to affect membership levels. Regards salary, my experience with this is that the Executive Committee of the organization makes a recommendation to the Board, who then has the final say so on salary levels. In larger organizations, the Exec Comm might be backed up by a compensation committee that does the research to determine an appropriate salary to retain a chief executive. The creation of the salary for a non-profit has a number of components and the weight of these depends on the non-profit. In some cases, it is primarily the ability of the chief executive to solicit funding. In general, tho, there is a measurement of salaries of comparable organizations, ie, their "peers". If they are attempting to land a new chief executive, there will be an assessment of how much of a premium would be needed to get them on board. At these size organizations, tho, there isn't a "table of salaries" to go to. It's very much a subjective system, and very prone to over-pricing in the Board's quest to get the person they want. You don't very often see a board "low-balling' salary if they're trying to get/keep the person they want.

Hi KSscoutmom, and welcome to the group! This has been a bad summer for Scouting from a safety standpoint, that's for sure. Is it normal? It's really hard to say; I think what you're really asking is if the number of accidents in Scouting any greater than it might be anywhere else? I don't have any statistics to offer in that regard. However, as a leader, I do know that we spend a good deal of time learning the safety aspects of our role, and there is the "common sense" part of it as well. I've been at BSA shooting ranges where they spend 20 minutes on safety lectures for every 10 minutes shooting, for example. BSA is very large, and like it or not, different troops do things different ways. You sound like you've attached yourself to a good unit; that's the important thing for you. As a parent, you're invited to participate in everything your Scout does, and you should do that to raise your comfort level in knowing that your troop is doing everything it can to provide a safe environment for your Scout.

If we assume for a moment that the Good Ship BSA is having some difficulties, whether those be taking on water, or navigational problems, or whatever, I guess the question is, do we head for the life boats, or try and patch up "the old boy"? Does BSA, the National office (the Captain), allow for open dialog in an attempt to correct problems, and what might the channel for that dialog be? Or, are we to stay down in the boiler room, ignoring the water at our feet, and hope we're not being steered to an iceberg?

OGE, Sounds like great fun. Can you provide a bit more detail? What sort of "body of water" did you use, for example?

GOTA?