vol_scouter

They are not a part of the EC or EB though the SE attends all meetings and makes recommendations to the Nominating committee. So the SE can certainly color the EC and EB make up. A good EC and EB should have a balance of successful business people to manage the fiduciary need of the council along with some active Scouters who convey the programmatic needs of the council. Like any corporation, the SE (like a CEO) can disguise problems so the EC and EB need to be observant and diligent.

To be clear, I was not saying that it should not be done but rather speculating as to why someone might object within the upper management of the BSA or the EC.

I will echo @ThenNow's excellent critique. I know both Steve McGowan and Michael Johnson. They are both good men who worked very hard while at the BSA to do their jobs well. Both were concerned about how best to protect the youth in the program. Ultimately, both had to take their ideas to the Chief Scout Executive and Vice-CSEs and, if a major change, to the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board. This is the first time that I have heard about the possibility of requesting a driver's license (DL) or some other form of government issued identification (ID). My guess is that the concern was who would be responsible to check such an ID? The Scout Master when a registration is turned into the Troop? The Chartered Organization is actually responsible but are nearly never present. Many IDs have shading to prevent copying, and no one will leave a DL with someone to get it checked in a day or two. Would have been helpful to have asked for an explanation. Michael Johnson has said in the past and referred in the video to overnight camping as risky, but it is core to the program. He makes some sweeping negative statements without what should be done. At one point in time, the registration fee for adults was $33 but the cost of the criminal background check was $65! The BSA was losing money but trying to protect the youth. So his messages had an effect - that is not to excuse anything or to say that everything is being done in the best manner but to say that the BSA has been trying to protect youth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had by the 21st century grown to have more members outside of the USA than inside so that the Boy Scouts of America could not be the male youth program for half of the male youth members for those in countries other than the USA. It was known that likely successors to the previous head of the church would likely want to make a change and that is what occurred when the previous head (forgive me for not recalling the proper term) died. The LDS was a good partner until the end and all acted with grace and integrity. Some members remain in Scouting continuing to do a very fine job. As @ThenNow said, the survivors did a fine job. Their stories are gut wrenching, powerful, and moving. The continuing consequences are terrible. It is hard to think that a program in which I grew up in the 60's and 70's did so much harm to so many. As I have said before, I get it as to why some survivors want the BSA to go away (which may still occur). Many feel that the BSA did so much better than other organizations of the same time. The data to claim that does not exist but it makes no difference. We as a movement failed to protect these children and failing less badly than others is still failing. Overall, the video is clearly biased against the BSA. Much of it is subtle (warm scenes to talk to Michael and much colder for Steve). May this inspire all of us who are still involved in Scouting to be dedicated to preventing abuse in Scouting and, as much as, we can in society as a whole.

Just releasing the IVF to the public was not a reasonable course of action. The IVF contains not only names of suspected CSAs but also others who had done things to have their membership permanently revoked such as alcohol abuse, anger issues, mishandling Troop funds, and many others. The files could be screened but a simple release would not be right to others who had not been suspected of CSA. So for the people in the IVF suspected of CSA, most were not convicted of the crime. Professionals usually acting upon information from volunteers suspected them of CSA but it was not proven in a court of law. There were some who were guilty of CSA and those should have been published in local newspapers during the trial. So those were known. The remainder were suspected of a crime, but it has not been proven in a court of law so to release the names would be defamatory for those people wrongly accused. Though there might have been a way to legally release the suspected CSAs in the IVF. just releasing it would have been a different kind of nightmare for many. The means assure that someone did not switch councils was a much more difficult task in pre-internet days. However, there might have been a method that would have worked better. The largely ephebophiles (adults having sex with post pubescent children) and fewer pedophiles (adults having sex with pre-pubescent children) tend to be manipulative and clever making it difficult to believe that they are capable of these heinous acts. Many years ago, a friend had a three year old in a day care at his church. His wife took the child to the local pediatrician for an anal lesion. The local pediatrician did not culture the lesion but treated it with an IM injection of penicillin. My friend and I were in medical school and he thought the pediatrician's actions were odd. There arose another peri-anal lesion and this time my friend brought the child to the teaching children's hospital clinic where the lesion was cultured and the child treated for N. Gonorrhea. As it turns out the church minister was accused of sexually abusing the day care children. The local pediatrician was aware, but the minister was a good man. The community rallied around the minister who eventually avoided a conviction. I worry that his alleged proclivities were not sated and he may have repeated his activities. Just to say, bringing hideous ephebophiles and pedophiles to justice is often daunting. Let us all work together to develop and implement much better policies to protect children. Perhaps as the BSA has requested, a national database done by the CDC to have a file for all Youth Serving Organizations (YSO) to access so that CSAs cannot move from one YSO to another.

This is not a defense of the current structure but to explain the reasoning of the National volunteers who added first Tigers and later Lions. The first point to know is the well known fact that the vast majority of children joining Scouts BSA are from Cub Scouts. Whenever there is a drop in Cub Scouts, it will be seen in Scouts BSA a few years later. In my experience, most volunteers see Scouts BSA as the most important program as far as child development. So Cub Scouts is important as a stand alone program but is also seen as a feeder for the Scouts BSA program. So there is a desire to grow Cub Scouts for the sake of Cub Scouts and to maintain a healthy Scouts BSA program. National volunteers have seen data that indicates that children (and parents) in the Cub Scout age groups tend to select an activity or two that they will continue to do for several years. So it is imperative to get those children before they have committed to other activities that, according to the studies, they are not likely abandon for a different activity. There are other studies that indicated that children are joining competing activities at younger ages. If that is so, then the BSA needed programs to get children committed to Scouting as early as competing programs. That is the reason that Tigers came about and later Lions. My personal feeling is that there are two driving phenomena occurring. First, the studies are likely correct so there is a need to engage children early. There is at the same time the real problem that Cub Scouts and their parents get fatigued of the program and drop out or have little enthusiasm to crossover to a troop. The number of children who drop out after crossing over is substantial. Personally, I also believe that the differences between how Scouts BSA actually functions compared to what the new Arrow of Light Scouts and their parents perceive is substantial and jarring. Add to that the common practice of troops not wishing mothers to follow their children into the troop so that the first time a Scout is unhappy with the troop, then the mother at least and maybe father are ready to pull the child. Those are my thoughts on the subject. As to the studies, I did not see enough information that I will vouch for the accuracy of the information though it seemed reasonably well done and seemed to make sense with the reality. So if the studies are erroneous, Lions and Tigers might be a mistake.

The mission of the BSA does not specify the program used to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law so STEM programs are a valid method of fulfilling the mission. If offering STEM programs to non-Scouts, the council could be using the experience as a recruiting tool so could support the mission of the council.

The attempt was quite real. My son was in Boy Scouts at the time. I was an ASM and member of the Executive Board. Our council had regular (every other year) events to work maintain trails and pickup litter in a local national park. The council had provided a few thousand man hours of service and it was most appreciated. After Babbitt’s statements, we were abruptly told that we were no longer welcome and have not been allowed to do service projects since. A politician, especially a presidential policy, could keep Scouts off federal lands overnight and could last for some time or be permanent (as our council has been for service projects). Our motto of Be Prepared should encourage a policy to keep land. The risks are real.

Sorry but I just have my memories of Babbitt saying that Boy Scouts were no longer welcome in the national parks (over hey issues as I recall). My memory is that he said it causing quite a bit of negative attention so that an actual policy was never put into action or was very short lived. My quick search was overwhelmed by Babbitt biographical articles and articles about the BSA and gay issues. Wish that I had a reference. It was in the 1990’s. The real point is that a powerful politician who dislikes Scouting could potentially prevent Scout units from using public lands. Whether it would withstand court challenges is a different issue. Folks in the national office can attest to threats from the left and right including death threats. So this comment is a general comment. Babbitt is the only person that I know tried to keep Scouts off of a subset of federal lands. in my opinion, councils should own and maintain as much property as is financially reasonable.

Clearly, local councils cannot keep all of their property because they are paying into the trust. However, they should hang onto all of the land that they can. Giving it to any public entity could result in a loss of access no matter the contractual agreements. We are seeing land and buildings given to public entities where names and uses are changed because people today are offended. Scouting could be forced out of public spaces. Not saying that I will occur or that it is likely but that it is possible and therefore a risk.

Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior under Bill Clinton, tried to ban Scouts from all national parks and other lands. So an administration who does like the BSA could potentially block access to national lands. Clearly there would likely be lawsuits but the damage could be significant. Most national parks limit group size that would currently disallow troops and packs from camping together. We should keep as much property as possible to provide flexibility for future generations. Be Prepared.

Your observation is likely to be correct. That said, no matter what group of people the received the letter, it would become known to the public. As a long time volunteer, it does represent many of my personal feelings. I am volunteering to work in youth protection beginning this spring in my council to do our best to prevent any other children from being abused. I feel personal remorse for what has happened in the past and wish the best for all survivors. Over the years, I have seen the power that Scouting has to help young people to become happy, successful people. We must continue Scouting but learn from past mistakes. As long as I am able and wanted, I will continue to volunteer to protect and help young people to become those happy and successful people. Additionally, I will continue to monitor the forums to help as I am able to protect those who were harmed in the past and to learn how to best protect our youth.

At least in my home council, the registrars are paid by the council. From my knowledge of National, that is usual but I really do not know. for certain. So I can understand having healthier councils can result in better program and hopefully increased memberships and improved retention. I think that only goes for some mergers as when a council becomes too expansive geographically, the areas that are far from the council office have less involvement and therefore less fewer members than would be expected. If my state goes from 6 councils to 1, then the second, third, fourth, and fifth largest metropolitan areas would lie more than two hours drive from the largest city where the logical council office would be located. It would lose me as a volunteer.

It only reduces cost to the BSA for those very few councils that are not solvent. Otherwise, councils just pay money to the BSA for charter fees and membership. Do you know of somehow else that a small, marginally performing council costs the BSA?

That is about what I remember the BSA having in a document regarding how to be financially solvent going forward. At first this did not seem to make much sense. There have been in the past a few small councils that the BSA had to support, and I have no information that those councils became financially solvent before bankruptcy. So forcing a merger for those few councils would seem to be something that the BSA would have to do. However, that is a handful of councils not going from ~250 to ~80. All other councils are independent, so they do not cost the BSA. Why force mergers? My explanation is in the merger, the BSA might be able take control of some of the councils to be merged and to then sell excess properties (camps, service centers, etc) to help to replenish the loss in liquidity following the bankruptcy. This is simply my thoughts having no information to support my theory.

At the BSA National Annual Meeting in Denver in 2019, attorneys representing the BSA assured the volunteers (~2,000 I believe) were told that the Chapter 11 process would be only 90 days. Off just a little. Has been a difficult time for all concerned because Scouting involves passions from all. My concerns remain for the survivors. They have more challenges as the trust works through the claims. Many survivors are of an age that years are a major issue. My prayers and concern for survivors. May the trustee find a way to process the claims expeditiously and there be enough funds that the awards will be acceptable. May the BSA become a shining light to protect youth from abuse and to set the standard for all youth serving organizations to strive to match. Thanks to so many for providing expert opinions on all the many twists and turns. It has made the process understandable.