vol_scouter

40 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, Council executives and other professionals should NOT be members of the Executive Board which oversees them.

My $0.02,

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.

1 minute ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

And then after you show your ID at the office, they give you a sticker to wear with your name, a picture of you, and whom you're visiting and/or where you're going ("Library"). Even if they know you on sight.

At my scout's school, you even have to show ID in addition to tickets to enter their sports games.

Johnson is right in that it comes off a little weird to make a big fuss about asking for ID from adults given what else is going on in schools and sports. Parents are already being asked to do it left and right elsewhere, why not in scouting also?

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.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I watched it too, also after consideration and preparation.

For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John.

As always, the survivors were excellent and their retellings, vulnerability and powerful force of presence unassailable. Patrick Boyle was very good and it was great to see him on camera presenting the process he went through in researching and writing his critical book. Kosnoff was a throwaway for controversy sake. Added little.

The MJ v Big Mac face-off? Meh. It was so obviously a predetermined narrative and story arc that I lost respect for the filmmakers and any veiled attempt to present the full picture. Michael Johnson was portrayed gloriously with dramatic settings, outdoor scenes and swooning music. The questions put to him were collegial and designed to carry the arc. I found his all too frequent jocularity not only damaging to the credibility of his "testimony," but also less than attractive. I rolled my eyes through several of the heroic warrior sequences. I am trying to be objective.

And as for Mr. McGowan, I understand he was the executive to whom Mr. Johnson reported. Fair enough to have them across from each other to slug it out. But look at the setting he was in compared to Johnson. It looked like an interrogation room. I don't know Steve McGowan, but he was a terrible spokesperson, in my opinion. He looks like a bully, responds defensively and is not the most eloquent. Have on on-camera conversation with a BSA spokesperson and Michael Johnson. McGowan was terrible and deserves to be skewered. That doesn't mean it was good filmmaking. Again, my opinion.

Last point. One of the two of them is clearly lying. Michael Johnson said flat out it's McGowan. McGowan would not say that, but repeated what I have heard others say who know what went down between MJ, McGowan and the BSA brass juxtaposed and with Johnson's statements and actions since leaving. The word they all use is "shocked." I've heard that said by three different people, one of them I know well and trust. Did I praise and thank Mr. Johnson when he cried and asked forgiveness during the press conference given by Jeff Anderson? Yes, I did. It was healing. Have I since begun to question Johnson's telling, motive and transparent full disclosure? Yes, I have.

Someone needs to do a better job with this overall "story." Doing it in a feature length documentary will never allow that to happen.

-The End (fade to black and cue the dramatic music)

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.

9 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I didn't like Tigers when they unveiled it because I thought a lot of parents seemed burned out at AOL ceremonies as it was.  We went from telling parents we wanted them to participate but not be helicopter parents to telling them we'd love to see them in at least 1 event a year (in other words, we're not asking you to be in everything like Cubs did).  I felt like Lions were even more counter-productive.  3 years to do Bobcat/Wolf/Bear and 1-2 for Webelos/AOL seemed right to me when I went through it.

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.  

1 hour ago, sierracharliescouter said:

Tell me, what is the difference between providing a STEM program to Scouts and a similar STEM program to non-scout youth, when it comes to the mission of BSA?

And yes, the Council makes some money doing these non-Scout activities. It helps support having the staff needed year-round to provide better programs for Scouts. A Scout is Thrifty.

A Scout is Helpful. These programs are highly sought-after by schools who could not dream of running similar programs themselves.

I'm also not aware that the "mission" was a be-all-and-end-all criteria for defining the allowable scope of activities performed by units or Councils.

We've also picked up a few scouts who were first exposed to scouting through activities their school's participated in through these programs.

I can't believe someone is complaining about a Council doing something good for their community while at the same time helping to maintain a stable budget. If you think your council's SE isn't worth what their paying, or the council should be doing more with the resources they have, become the squeaky wheel. Venting here isn't going to change anything.

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.

8 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I don't know, I think it sounds like the same issue. Politicians say all kinds of things, especially once. I don't think it can be done, and if there has never been a real attempt then I don't see the need to actively plan to mitigate this scenario given the potential downsides.

And if Babbitt said this in context of BSA discriminating, in violation of WOSM membership policy, then that's hardly some random unfounded anti-BSA idea. In addition, in that case, the problem is gone. Even less reason to start a property management arm.

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.  

8 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Do you have some more information about this? I tried googling, but didn't get any hits talking both about Babbitt and BSA.

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. 

2 hours ago, yknot said:

There is no way scouting can hang on to all the property it currently has. If part of its mission is to be a steward of the outdoors and get the nation's kids out in it,  then councils should have some form of long term management and succession planning for their properties. That would entail identifying future public or private partners for the land that would guarantee continued scouting access in exchange for reduced land costs or other concessions if/when they have to sell it. Instead, far too many councils have either been shortsighted and ill prepared for this stewardship role or they have regarded donated land resources as piggy banks to be raided when council salaries or operations are squeezed. There have been a few bright spots over the past few years where councils have partnered with land trusts or public agencies or even private developers to ensure some or all of the land remains mostly undeveloped and accessible to youth. I hope there will be more cases like this because the loss of these properties forever is sad. The reality though is that many of these properties are currently mismanaged, underutilized, and inefficiently operated. That is one area where the national organization could actually help by providing legal and land use expertise, turn key programming,  marketing support, and central purchasing and contracting, among other things, that might keep more of them viable and under direct scouting control.  

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. 

5 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I have a strategy/philosophy question.

Why do various subunits of BSA own so much property in the first place? (That needs maintenance and general expenditures.) Why don't we just use public lands, tents, and our own two legs (and maybe a paddle)?

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.

48 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Registrars are national employees.  A small council might need one or two.  A larger council can function smoother with 2 or three.  I believe there are a few other similar national roles.

Economies of scale is not just national cost.  It's variety and quality.  Small councils can't offer the number of camps or training or opportunities.  Larger councils can benefit by targeting objectives that small councils can't staff correctly.  Many, many reasons.  It's not 100% about cost.  By improving quality, then scout retention and national membership goes up.  That helps the bottom line.

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.

34 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Merging councils is long overdue to reduce cost and benefit from economies of scale.  If anything, bankruptcy delayed some mergers and bankruptcy could help national by driving more mergers.

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?

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually in one set of court documents, National plans to reduce the number of councils by 2/3s.

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.

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I stand amazed. Only 1156 days to get here. It just flew by like so many lovely butterflies. Ok. Strike that.

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.

2 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Ouch. All that analysis for naught. 

Slam!

Those things are all true.  The lawsuits contesting the ability of the National Council of the BSA to revoke membership prohibiting any participation have been had.  Being a volunteer is not a right and being denied the ability to participate in the Scouting program does not affect one’s ability to pursue careers and other hobbies.  So the courts have said that the BSA has the authority to revoke membership and all participation.   Clearly, the next suit filed could turn precedence on its head but for now membership and participation are a privilege and not a right.  
 

The BSA has set a standard wherein most things that might suggest that the individual might be a risk to abuse a child results in revocation of their membership.   Personally, I totally support this stance.  Too many children have been abused even though Scouting appears to be better than other youth serving organizations.  

Actually, membership is granted by the National Council of the BSA.  Membership is revoked by the National Council and that often occurs because a local Scout Executive recommends revocation.  In general, the BSA errs on the side of safety to youth so are likely to revoke membership when recommended by a SE who likewise wishes to protect children.   There is an appeals process.  

In the case that started this thread, I suspect that there is more to the story than is currently known.  The person who lost their membership will have to decide whether or not to appeal - it is not for others to do though they can support an appeal.

Develops Character.

On 9/19/2022 at 10:11 PM, Ojoman said:

All anyone needs to do is to look at the Council membership reports by grade for Cub Scouts and you will see that most packs lose 60% or more of their Lions/Tigers by the Webelos years and many Webelos drop out prior to graduating into troops. Most packs are built like a pyramid with a large base at gr k & 1 and a small group at the top. The reality is that if they are offering a solid program that meets the needs and interests at the various 'ages and stages' of the kids that the Pack would be larger at the top than the bottom as kids would be attracted and join their friends in the later years as they hear about/learn about the great experiences their buddies are having. 

So the question then is would it have been worse if Lions and Tigers did not exist.  One would have to compare demographically similar areas some with and some without Lions and Tigers.  Making assumptions, even well reasoned ones, has marked many BSA decisions that have not turned out well.

When the National Jamboree was held near Washington, DC at Fort A. P. Hill, the BSA would make a substantial profit.  The profit at the Summit located National Jamborees has been modest.  Sign up is really lagging making arrangements for transportation more costly on an individual basis if one cannot fill a bus.  
 

Councils will have had to fill their method of making a trust contribution so that budgeting has been done with funds ready to send once this gets out of Federal District Court.  Some councils are seeing significant growth (ours in the 30% range) so some are hiring anticipating growth.  
 

Some councils laid off nearly their entire staff so they have considerable need for more staff.  My council avoided layoffs so has only filled vacancies. 
 

As my council has seen significant growth, it has not translated into a return to normalcy.  The youth and volunteers are not signing up for activities in advance though attendance picks up right at the very last deadline.  This is making planning very challenging.  

23 hours ago, Armymutt said:

Why would they be learning the skills with younger Scouts?  That sounds like a new scout patrol.  My troop had two patrols, mostly because we had two lines of tables in the chapel hall.  As new Scouts came into the troop they could pick which side of the room to sit on, and that was their patrol.  We had everything from Life Scouts to new Scouts in the same patrol.  It was the job of the older Scouts to teach the younger ones in the patrol.  We operated similarly to the description in the 5th edition of the Scoutmasters Handbook, though with less formality, as it was the early 90s.  The PLs evaluated the skills of their patrol and focused on ensuring everyone was up-to-snuff.  

If a girl or boy joins a Troop at the age of say 15, they must start learning the skills required for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class that their friends learned years before and are now working on Merit Badges for Star, Life, and Eagle.  Who else are working on those same skills?  The eleven and twelve year olds.  This is what I have seen and discussed with volunteers from across the nation.  Even if they are separated from the younger Scouts, they still are going to require some time to catch up to their age matched friends.

2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I failed many times as a senior scout, but I never learned from successes.  Only failure teaches if one can bear the hurt to learn from it. And one must "bear up" to grow.

This so very true and it is why one of the 'Big Three' of Positive Youth Development (PYD) is providing youth leadership opportunities where they are allowed to fail and that there are consequences to the failure.  The consequences do not have to be dire, could only be that the other youth make fun of the leader (in a good natured way).  We often forget about the need for consequences, but it is often implied in what we all say.  If a patrol leader forgot the patrol food for a meal, making the patrol wait to eat can be a negative consequence.  No one is harmed, only hungry stomachs might have to wait while the adults eat first only to 'miraculously' find that they have enough for the hungry boys too.  The patrol leader will get teased, and she or he will not forget that lesson.  If they get immediate relief, the lesson may not be taught.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

With a one-and-done scheme of advancement, this is, in fact, what you see now.  Scout skills are dying out.  

Heck, most adults I meet don't know how to do requirements up to First Class.  Most don't even bother reading or learning from the Scout Handbook.  Anymore, few, and very few, are adept at Navigation, First Aid, Swimming and Water Rescue, Plant and Animal ID, basic Citizenship stuff, Wood Tools usage, Ropework & Pioneering, etc. etc. etc...  it is disheartening...

Wow!  We are seeing a little of that in my council.  The troop where I volunteer has a dozen or so Eagle Scouts as adult volunteers who do have all of the skills covered so those boys are lucky.  

How do we attract the alumni to the program?  How do we attract people who are currently active in the outdoors to Scouting?  How do we get them all trained?  I have seen many different kinds of efforts, but none have been all that successful.

Scouting is facing significant problems in almost every part of the organization.  We need everyone who is experienced to remain active or become active again.

@HashTagScouts  We were clearly discussing Scouts BSA because and new Scout Patrols.  I di note that your experiences could be different than has been mine.  Your son was fortunate to have an Eagle Scout dad.  (As an aside, my son and I are both Eagle Scouts).  

The intent of the Scouting program is to develop character through the application of the Scout Oath and Law.  One of the methods is to require youth to lead other youth with consequences.  This is one of the three pillars of character development in youth as has been shown through many academic publications.  

The troops with which I have worked have been very successful in producing young men of character by seeing their success into their mid-forties and younger as well as success in advancement with many Eagles.  Our youth teach one another but a 14-16 year old does not like receiving much teaching from a 12 year old.  They prefer to see themselves as more capable.  Once again, that is my experiences with successful units over more than 30 years as an adult volunteer, yours might be different.