WAKWIB

Don't know how many of you have seen this...this is the Voting Member Information Packet for the upcoming conference. It goes into better detail than the "Executive Summary," and gives more detail on how the polling took place.

 

The writers of the survey seem a little discombobulated by the fact that the current policy enjoys "strong and widespread support" among scouters, and it is only when push-poll questions are included does support for the policies seem to change:

 

Respondents support the policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin, with intensity overwhelmingly favoring supportersâ€â€54 percent “totally support†the policy, while 25 percent “totally oppose†it. While support for the policy is strongest among whites, men, and middle-aged adults, it is consistent throughout virtually all segments of the Scouting family. Only people in the Northeast and the youngest adults oppose the policy.

 

 

 

Considering the scenarios has virtually no effect on people’s view of the current policy. After reading the scenarios, respondents continue to support the policy by a wide 60 percent to 35 percent margin, including intensity that strongly favors supporters.

 

 

The public at large disliked the Local Option that was so favored by many here by a 2-to-1 ratio. It doesn't sound like changing the policy to LGBT inclusion will lead to a huge influx in scouts whose parents disapprove of the current policy. Most people just don't care. Muggles!

 

2. the policy is not a motivating factor for people whose sons are not in scouting. Just 2 percent of parents say the ban on gays is the reason why their son isn’t in the organization. The core reasons for lack of involvement remain the same as we have seen in past researchâ€â€that their son is too busy or involved in other things (29 percent), not old enough (21 percent), or not interested (20 percent).

 

 

Non-scouting parents oppose the current policy and parents with kids in scouting support it:

 

Parents now oppose the policy by 45 percent to 42 percent, in stark contrast to 2010, when they supported it by 58 percent to 29 percent. Parents of current Scouts continue to support the policy, but only by 48 percent to 39 percent (down from 57 percent to 29 percent in 2010). The effect of the policy has also shifted toward the negative, with parents saying it makes them less likely to enroll their son by 23 percent to 22 percent (in 2010, it made them more likely to do so by 30 percent to 15 percent).

 

 

which leads to the question - if you are not involved in scouting and don't care to be...why should your opinion matter if you don't have skin in the game?

 

Although the survey says

 

The Youth Study Group (teens 16 to 18) was charged with listening to the voice of youthâ€â€both current members and nonmembers. Harris Interactive was contracted to survey both current youth members as well as general population teens. Key findings include:

 

• Among general population teens and Boy Scouts and Venturers alike, a majority oppose the current Boy Scouts of America membership policy.

 

• A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.

 

• According to a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venturers, the current policy does not represent a core value of Scouting.

 

 

...I didn't know that the polling group of Scouts was so small (only 218 active Scouts) (and was restricted to those 16 to 18), or that the Baptist and LDS COs elected not to have their scouts included in the polling.

 

BSA youth membership was not directly surveyed as originally planned through the Voice of the Scout process used for adult leadership. When the survey process was originally announced, several chartered organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Baptist church, and many parents asked that their youth members not be contacted as part of the survey. In light of the feedback received, it was determined the surveys could be conducted through Harris Interactive utilizing the Harris Interactive Online youth panelists (HPOL).

 

The membership standards survey was conducted online from March 18-22, 2013, among 1,021 U.S. residents ranging from 16 to 18 years of age who agreed to a consent statement regarding their participation in the research. Of the group surveyed, 803 youth were HPOL general population and 218 (21 percent) youth were from a contact list of registered members of the Boy Scout and Venturing programs. Confidence level in the survey results is 95 percent. Most BSA members who are 19 to 20 years of age had an opportunity to participate in the direct Voice of the Scout questionnaire as adults.

 

One of the more surprising stats (that was not included in the widely distributed executive summary) is this:

 

 

 

In total, about half (48 percent) of Boy Scouts and Venturers believe they can find a way to continue to participate in the organization if the decision on this policy disagrees with their own view. Twenty-two percent do not believe they can find a way to continue, and 30 percent are not sure.

 

 

 

Viewed in terms of their post-scenario opinion of the current policy, 32 percent of those who support the current policy believe they can find a way to continue participation in the organization if the policy is reversed, while another 32 percent do not believe they can find a way to continue in this case; 37 percent have not made up their mind. Meanwhile, 55 percent of those who oppose the current requirement believe they can find a way to continue if the policy remains in place, while 18 percent do not believe they can find a way to continue and 27 percent have not yet made up their mind.

 

 

 

Based on the proportions of support, opposition, and neutral opinions regarding the current policy, and their respective anticipated reactions if the policy decision disagrees with their own view, it is estimated that relatively similar effects on membership would be seen regardless of whether the policy remains or is changed. On either side of the issue, between 10 percent and 12 percent of current members believe they could not find a way to continue, while between 72 percent and 74 percent believe that they could. There are, however, a substantial percentage of undecided members whose effects remain to be seen.

 

When we look at the respondents as a whole, though:

 

 

 

Nearly three-fifths of respondents say the current policy is a core value of scouting found in the scout oath and Law. People say the policy represents a core value by a 58 percent to 42 percent margin, helping to explain the overwhelming, intense, and consistent support for the policy among respondents.

 

The money part of the full report is probably this:

 

 

 

One-third of respondents say they do not believe they can continue with the organization if the Bsa makes a decision on the policy that conflicts with their own view. Thirty-four percent of respondents say they do not believe they could continue with the organization if they disagree with the BSA’s decision on the policy, 33 percent say they believe they could continue, and 33 percent are unsure.

 

 

Views on this matter are far stronger among supporters of the policy than among opponents. Among supporters of the policy, 50 percent say they could not continue with the organization if the policy changed. But among opponents of the policy, just 11 percent say they could not continue if the policy remain in place.

 

Here's the full packet. There is a lot in here to discuss, both pro- and anti- the current, local, and proposed policies:

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/MembershipStandards/310-561_WB.pdf

MB: It appears that you did the right thing. The train is back on the tracks. Not sure why some other posters want to read-in something wrong into this. When kids who really want to do something positive with Scouting hit a brick wall, sometimes it takes the man or woman to toss a stick of dynamite at the wall so the kids can proceed unhindered. We all know that most of the time the role of the adult Arrowman should be very limited. I love going to OA functions because I can turn our Scouts over to the Lodge and sit back and have some "ME" time for a change. But we are still bound to our duty to the Obligation and Admonition, which means when the situation calls for it we need to help create opportunities for the youth to do their thing.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that while on one-hand many forum members seem fine with holding the door wide open to allow homosexual boys and adults into Scouting, going totally co-ed seems to produce a bit more hesitation. As the original poster pointed out there is a lot of things in place that would make the transition to co-ed pretty easy. The general public would likely give us a standing ovation for this instead of all the negativity we have been getting from both sides of the "gay issue." I truly believed that GIRLS would be the first of the 3-G's Scouting would tackle. It would have been the easiest and most acceptable to the most people; adding members without worrying about more running away than joining. In this situation the highly-touted "local option" that everyone thought was the wonderful solution to the admittance of gay folks would actually work without a lot of push-back. It works already with Venturing.

It looks like some of us are saying, "Come and be welcome all gay men and boys, but you girls, please stay home." A cheesy comedy writer for SNL or MadTV could have a field day with that...

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that while on one-hand many forum members seem fine with holding the door wide open to allow homosexual boys and adults into Scouting, going totally co-ed seems to produce a bit more hesitation. As the original poster pointed out there is a lot of things in place that would make the transition to co-ed pretty easy. The general public would likely give us a standing ovation for this instead of all the negativity we have been getting from both sides of the "gay issue." I truly believed that GIRLS would be the first of the 3-G's Scouting would tackle. It would have been the easiest and most acceptable to the most people; adding members without worrying about more running away than joining. In this situation the highly-touted "local option" that everyone thought was the wonderful solution to the admittance of gay folks would actually work without a lot of push-back. It works already with Venturing.

It looks like some of us are saying, "Come and be welcome all gay men and boys, but you girls, please stay home." A cheesy comedy writer for SNL or MadTV could have a field day with that...

Mozart: Sounds to me like you got things lined up well. I honestly think the Arrowmen in your troop can and will do a fine job with this. As far as the lodge goes, this might just be a case of it being easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission. I don't think they will worry about it too much unless you do something unsafe or way out of line that people in the Scout office start getting phone calls.

In what I think we can agree is a fairly conservative organization' date=' does it present a shock to anyone's intuition that the Eagle Scouts produced by that organization thereby reflect what the BSA was or IS, in terms of it's legacy policy and views?[/quote'] Well, given that the vast majority of the COs are religious organizations and how they feel about the topic in general, I think that gives you your answer about why the Eagles may be more conservative. But to be honest. I don't know that many Scouts that are really following this issue -- or any political issue for that matter. Most really could not care one way or the other.

 

I thought the Linked-In poll was a bit of an anomoly compared to most of what I've be seeing on the internet. Even the comments posted to the poll generally reflect more interest in the local option. Keep in mind that this particular group I've cited is not made up of youth, but adults who in the past have received the Eagle Award (following the tradition of "once an Eagle, always an Eagle."). The members may or may not still be active in Scouting.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that most of the noise seems focused on inclusion and the highly touted local option. If I had to bet, I would say it's a foregone conclusion. In fact, I think the decision was made several months ago but the board wants to give the air of open discussion so they kicked it down the road to the National Meeting. Now, I'm going to speculate a bit and suggest that maybe the poll I cited actually reflects what the "stakeholders" really feel, but have not been that vocal about. What happens when the vote in May turns to keeping the current policy? I predict should that happen the Board will simply overturn that vote and change the policy anyway.

 

I'm sure not looking forward to the media circus and Facebook madness that will surround that meeting. Might be a great couple of days to turn it all off and read some books instead!

Despite the challenge of trying to navigate this new version of the forums, I am still drawn like a moth to the flame...

Just wanted to post something a little more in line with the original poll that started this thread.I'm a member of a Linked-In group that is comprised of about 30,000 Eagle Scouts. The moderator started a poll about the same time as this one. The poll is interesting in that the results are a flip of the one here.

377 votes in favor of current national policy, versus 232 in favor of lifting the ban and going local option. A 61% to 38% split.

However, when you skim through the nearly 1,300 comments posted to that poll, those in favor of the local option seem to be the most prevalent.

From just reading his posts, you could sense his patience and wisdom. His genuine self came through and he wasn't full of pretense. You got the real deal. Rest well OGE, a faithful Scouter.

"...the Methodists; a somewhat liberal (at least in recent times) religious body."

Heh, heh, a Baptist minister once informed me that a Methodist is merely a Baptist who can read. I asked him how that one went over from the pulpit? He just laughed and laughed.

The Methodists were quite fiery, fundamental, and evangelistic in the olden days. Perhaps they, and some other denominations took a wrong turning when the went to the whole "United" thing. Maybe it would have been best to stick with the "local option" when it came to doctrine and practice. Like you are found of quoting, Pack, "religion isn't about bringing people together." LOL

" Many see this change to be in conflict with their understanding of Scripture. Many have stated they will terminate their relationship with BSA, as a leader and as donors. Many have expressed anger that our church was not brought into this discussion as this change was being considered. A few have told us they support this proposed change by BSA; however, overall, the responses have been overwhlemingly against the proposed change."

Gee, I'm not seeing a lot of warm-n-fuzzy coming from the ranks of the Methodists; a somewhat liberal (at least in recent times) religious body. Their roots are showing, and they along with other religious folks are just not very comfy with the notion of a youth-serving organization giving tacit approval to homosexual behavior. IMO, the overall number of church-sponsored units who are really excited about the local option is slim-to-none.

Leadership? Not so much, IMHO. Merely capitulating to "market forces." It's seems to them to be the most expedient thing to give in to the pressure of our culture that declares that any and all sexual behavior should be embraced and celebrated. The group that trumpets their sexual behavior loud and long wins day. BTW: that loud chorus has no love of the local option and will continue their chants until the BSA someday completely forbids any CO to charter unless fully inclusive.

You omitted a third option. A national policy that requires units to present homosexuality as an example of morally straight to all of our you.

The post I posted here yesterday disappeared. That's awesome.

I click on I & P forum and it doesn't open. It just takes me back to the home page. Other sections seem to open fine. Thanks for the upgrade. It's will take some getting used to but hopefully will all work well soon. Hopefully it will be more secure and free of the malware attacks.

Very well said, Always Eagle!

Ok...Word to the atheists. Never buy your CHRIST-mas tree from a Boy Scout.

Thanks for sharing this skeptic! My youngest son just last night passed his Eagle BOR. I passed this article along to him. I'm sure he will find it encouraging on a couple of levels.

Momleader, Do what the other fellows have suggested. Or...dump the whole facebook thing completely. You could maybe try another photo-sharing site like photo bucket or picasa. Facebook seems to be turning into a political rant site more and more, particularly coming from those with the type of agenda you are describing.

I'm not a mod, but here's my two-cents. The ads we see here and on many other sites (facebook is a good example) are generated by a bot. Usually a key-word will trip a trigger with the bot to throw up a specific ad. In a thread about tents, for example, you may see an abundance of ads for tents and other camping gear. If we started a thread about a particular candidate with his name frequently appearing, you'll likely see an ad for him/her. I've seen political ads on the I&P sub-forum for a race in a state hundreds of miles from me. Likely, that is because the state was specifically mentioned in a post somewhere, or it sniffed out a user's location, cranked through it's thousands of files and out pops "Vote Joe Blow for State Senator."

The mods have absolutely no control over this. The site owner's control over it is slim-to-none. It's the business of hosting a website. To the best of my knowledge, advertising is the sole revenue stream for this web service and you just have to take it or leave it. Thank the Maker that in about 48 hours the whole political circus for 2012 will be struck-down, rolled up and put on the next truck heading for the landfill of history.

I have thought for months that this would end up being a very close race. It seems that the momentum has greatly shifted in just the last few weeks. Clearly,this rare endorsement of a Republican is pretty significant.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121027/OPINION03/121026026/The-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-a-fresh-economic-vision?Frontpage&nclick_check=1

Question: Do you feel that the debates were instrumental in turning the tide toward Romney?

If the Scout tells me in strictest confidence that he is gay, I will keep that confidence. If the Scout decides to blab it to the world, he will likely be removed from the program. If revoked from membership, that Scout, following the current trends,will likely blab it to the media. Merlyn or someone will eventually find a link to an article about the event, post it here, and start yet another thread in the huge library of threads on this topic.

You gave the young man the right response. I've met some very lazy scouts, but none with the brass to announce it right up-front. He might be highly suited for an elected position!

Moosetracker: Your high estimation of my "honor", while gratefully acknowledged,

is a bit of a stretch. My only words on the subject were,

"if there is fraud and other illegal activities going on with the election process, I would want to see the people responsible prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

I'm going take a stab at saying that about 100% of the regulars on this forum would agree with that statement.

What was taking shape in that discussion was just the same-old political football. The topic of the day being, which Party stinks more than the other. The laundry list of illegal and questionable activities by members of both Parties, in the area of elections and other spheres is probably about the same number of pages.

If I recall correctly, I don't think I have ever outright revealed my party affiliation. And, just for the record, most of the time I feel like I'm left with a hard choice of picking the lesser-of-two-evils.

Thanks for the update Pack. Like you said, it is the big elephant in the room. But, like you found out, there are not a lot of screams and groans out there in the field. I think it's us long term Scouters who wring our hands about it the most. I've been in, out, around, and back in Scouting over a period of 40 years. Most of my peers in the org. about the same. It's a fork in the road for us and we feel conflicted to a certain level. We have that "traditional" sense that the policy well...it's just been there. We got along with a don't ask/don't tell approach. Whether we thought gay was good or bad wasn't really a matter. But the culture of today has thrust it into the limelight and we see that those following behind us have a different sense of the issue. We are just kinda ready for whatever happens and will likely keep on Scouting no matter what.

Be Prepared!!

Hey Pack: On the thread "Families Dropping Out..." way back, when the thread was first running you mentioned you were going to email all the members of your CO about BSA'a membership policies. Did you get any feedback on that? I tried pinging you on that thread but I don't think you replied. Just curious.