numbersnerd

Out of curiosity, I just did a quick Google and came across the announcement of his appointment here.

The most amusing comment was:

I can’t help but feel so many of our problems with youth today can be traced back to someone deciding we actually need a “Bachelor’s Degree in Youth Agency Administration.â€

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Also noticed he was in charge of HR. When have you ever encountered anyone in HR you felt you could trust? Make no mistake, HR is more invested in the interests of the corporate organization than those of the individual. It appears he is carrying on that tradition.

Still happening. Cleared cache and cookies as well. 4 different devices (2 Win 10, Android, Apple)

Entering scouting.org in the address bar yields:

• Win #1
  • Desktop Edge - directs to summitbsa.org
  • Desktop Chrome - directs to summitbsa.org
• Win #2
  • Desktop IE 11 - directs to scouting.org
  • Desktop Chrome - directs to scouting.org
• Mobile #1
  • Android browser - Chrome - directs to scouting.org
• Mobile #2
  • iOS Chrome - directs to summitbsa.org
  • iOS Safari - directs to summitbsa.org

I originally entered them in random order and didn't really notice the pattern until I looked at the list.

Machines #1 were on a different network than #2. Switching the #2 devices to a different network solved the problem.

Appears some provider's DNS are not working correctly for whatever reason.

So many things wrong with that presentation. First and foremost, if you're making fundamental changes to the program, you discuss it with those responsible for delivering it, not with people who have a financial interest in pumping up enrollment figures after telling them this is the only way to do it.

The lack of transparency also shows, ironically, how transparent he is. It's not about quality, it's numbers. And there was no way the wildcard of volunteer response was going to even be a possibility.

Plans? There is no plan. It's just a desperate blurt. There appears to be no concept of planning, implementation, training, compliance, or evaluation. Heck, I think most are still trying to figure out what was behind the timing of this. And that's just the beginning.

I think it's fair to say that he and those behind this and supporting it at National largely have zero credibility with the volunteer segment.

Per Webster rhetorical questions are "asked in order to make a statement rather than to get an answer".[/size]

So, you weren't trying to say that scouters who allow girls to scout in the same place and the same time as the boys in their packs couldn't be trusted to ensure YPT, BALOO, and Safety Sweet Sixteen? I apologize in advance if I misunderstood.[/size]

Correct. It was posed to point out that we don't get to pick and choose what parts of the program we are obligated to follow and comply with.

.... 7, 8, 9, 10. Log out of my eye. ... Let's have a go at that splinter.

Blind accusations of negligence for the sake of an argument will garner comments like "load of garbage".

Ah, so rhetorical questions = accusations. Got it. Seems some people are overly sensitive around here.

What a load of garbage. Look, in our pack we had a year where we had only one wolf. So his spent most of his time with the bear den so he wouldn't be lonely, but did the wolf requirements (technically he was in a den of one, with his dad as the wolf den leader, and he did do some of the activities on his own). So, were we not being trustworthy or obedient? Of course not, we were dealing with the issue the best we could. And it worked out, he and the bears had lots of fun. The next year we had three new bears, so he was with them in their own den (again with his father as den leader).

 

I don't think anyone would condemn having the lone wolf attend bear den meetings, but if it's a girl? Suddenly we are morally bankrupt?

 

There are lots of legitimate concerns with going coed, but throwing moral aspersions like this is not helpful, nor scout like.

Evidently Courteous is edging closer to the discard pile as well.

So let me get this right, someone intimates that on paper they will  be compliant but not in practice. So in pointing out the disconnect *I'm* un-Scoutlike? That's rich. I would think it it is helpful to point out the incongruity between the obligation and the action.

It's not a new concept that if you don't adhere to the BSA program, you're not really running a BSA program. If it's inconvenient or unpalatable to actually do that and you're called on it, don't get angry with others, look in the mirror.

Again, what else is not "worth it" to do it the way it is designed? YPT? Safe Swim Defense? Properly trained range masters? BALOO trained leaders at camp outs?

This all reminds me of the old adage, "The guilty dog barks loudest"

@@numbersnerd ... I doubt anything will come out to state an all girls Bear den and an all boys Bear den can't meet at the same time and place each having their own leader. Not sure how that is not Trustworthy. I'm assuming that is what Chrisos is thinking. We will follow the letter of the rules nationals comes out with... how we follow them will be up to our Pack. We already do that with multiple Tiger dens Who meet at the same time and place. I honestly don't know what direction we will take in terms of den meetings. We need to see the rules from Nationals and discuss with leaders.

When you use phrases like " on paper", it brings up questions of integrity. Which is squarely in trustworthy territory.

Now, whether you are intending to ignore rules and policies when they are inconvenient or made a poor choice in wording I don't know. But I thought it worth commenting on for the benefit of others that might consider following such a path. In that vein it is also worth mentioning that the unit belongs to the CO. So abiding by their wishes as well as policy is more important than how you or the committee wants to run the program.

If you run co-ed dens and the program specifies separate dens, then you're not running a BSA Cub Scout program. That's in addition to not being trustworthy or obedient.

Some may consider that harsh, but if you're going to skirt around a rule, it leads people to ask what else are you not doing correctly? YPT? Advancement?

I've always wondered roughly what percent of Cub Scouts actually meet in Dens SEPERATLY and then attend a monthly Pack meeting.  In my urban District there are no truely seperate Den meetings.  All meet weekly as a Pack.  The 2 or 3 bigger, better Packs at least have Dens go to a different room or corner of a room for part of the meeting.

 

Reason I ponder this now...  In my District any CO registering girls will most likely not have SEPERATE girl or boy dens. 

Similar to Packs who do not have enough youth or adults for seperate Bear and Wolf Dens.

Around here all Packs meet that way. The only time most dens see each other is at the monthly Pack meeting. Dens Meet at schools or the church when weather requires it, but otherwise in parks, outdoor areas, other places of interest. Fire or police stations, newspaper plant, tv news studio, community events, etc.

The frustration is understandable. You likely won't receive much thanks outside of a few individuals, but take joy in knowing that you helped innumerable scouts over the years and there are many that appreciate your efforts.

 

What harm does it cause you and yours? Specifically? You might have assumptions about how things MIGHT change at some point in the future but right now, official word is you can remain just as "traditional" as you want to be.

 

 

I'm sure they thought the same thing in the UK when it changed there. Co-ed was a choice. Then it wasn't, rules changed again that said new units MUST be co-ed. And as such it isn't unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future all units will be forced to accept co-ed membership. So holding up other counties Scouting programs as examples makes the concern warranted.

 

Additionally, those saying change is inevitable, just get used to it, by default must accept that further changes to the program are also likely and not scoff at those that opine so. Anything less is hypocrisy and intelllectually dishonest.

While it is true that units and their CO can make the determination to remain boy-only, that membership composition is cancelled when co-ed units participate in events above the unit level. And so despite the desire to remain boy-only, units will be forced to either compromise their activities schedule or compromise the integrity of the boy-only composition. Those that think otherwise are willfully ignorant or naive.

Despite the stated course of action being single sex dens, when faced with inadequate leadership to execute the program effectively, co-ed dens will become the de facto organization despite the operating standards. And eventually BSA will codify this into their program. Those that think otherwise are willfully ignorant or naive.

Changes to the program will occur, thru execution or by design. The above two examples are only off the top of my head. It will happen, for expediency, convenience, appeasement, or it may already be decided but the announcement delayed. Those that think any of these outcomes are not in the future are again willfully ignorant or naive.

Hehe. You might want to revisit your impression of Applebees and Olive Garden.

 

5 chains facing a tough year in 2017

http://www.nrn.com/sales-trends/5-chains-facing-tough-year-2017

 

Imagine this: You operate a bar and grill chain, and in a bid to generate customers, you convince franchisees to spend big dollars on a strategy to improve quality — and that effort fails.

This is what happened at Applebee’s, which launched an impressive strategy, with wood-fired grills and hand-cut steaks. But customers didn’t show up. Same-store sales

 

fell 5.2 percent in the third quarter, with traffic faring much worse.

 

-------------

 

Inside Olive Garden's incredible comeback [Olive Garden almost went bankrupt few years ago]

 

http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Financial-Performance/2016/04/Inside_Olive_Gardens_incredibl.aspx?ID=%7B632597FD-229F-44F5-B23C-82F1F9505381%7D

 

Key drivers of this performance include an improved guest experience delivered through proper staffing and the simplification of processes and procedures, culinary innovation that builds on the brand equities and flavor profiles that our loyal guests enjoy most, as seen with our successful flavor-filled pastas and create-your-own Tour of Italy promotions, and continuing to meet our guest needs for convenience with the national launch of large party catering delivery.

 

[in other words, Olive Garden realized that it had to CHANGE to meet the ever evolving consumer dynamics.]

 

More:

 

“At the end of the day, what we’re doing in LongHorn today is we’re removing some consumers, some guests from the guest base that we are confident that we weren’t making any money on,†Mr. Lee said. “And they were a consumer that was buying a low-end steak, coming in with a $5 coupon, and that was all happening while we had a 45-minute wait outside the restaurant, people waiting to get in to pay full price for more of a higher-end experience in casual dining steak. So, we’re transitioning the positioning slightly, and we believe this is the right place to be.â€

 

[So Olive Garden was willing to lose some existing customers in order to be more profitable. Do we sense a trend here?!?]

 

 

 

--------------

 

No one knows what impact this will have on membership, either for existing members that leave or new members that are recruited. No survey can really tell you that in advance. But, just like Olive Garden, BSA seems to be willing to make a change that might result in the lose of some customers in order to make the business more profitable.

Both tried growth through expanding their offerings, ignoring their core appeal and strengths, and failed. Just like what BSA is now attempting. OG is paring back and refocusing on their strengths and is succeeding. Applebees only recently realized their mistake and are doing the same. Thanks for proving my point?

First - there were internal surveys done.  If they were overwhelmingly against, this decision might have been different - if they were anywhere in the 50/50 to 60/40 range, it probably wouldn't have changed anything.

 

The BSA is a business - it may be non-profit - but it is a business.  National's interest is NOT the same as individual unit's interests - it hasn't been for decades.  Its biggest motivator is membership - that's why you see so many statistics about membership numbers.  Without members, the organization will sputter out and eventually die.  Any organization that does not change eventually suffers from entropy and withers away.  I've been repeating this every since I've been here - like all businesses, the BSA has to adapt in order to remain relevant - not to its current customers but to attract new customers.  What is happening here is very much like what happens with commercial businesses all the time.  Think of it like this - you have a favorite restaurant and you have a favorite menu item.  The restaurant never changes its menu and over time, fewer and fewer people go to the restaurant - so the restaurant changes a bunch of menu items - keeping some of the old menu items but eliminating a bunch of others.  Let's say they eliminate your favorite menu item so you decide to stop going.  You're now thinking that the restaurant is kind of stupid because they're now losing customers except the restaurant, though wishing you would stay, is also betting that for every customer that leaves because of the menu changes, they gain 2 or 3 or more new customers who like the new menu. Ummm, ask Applebee's how that worked for them. Ask Olive Garden how that worked for them. Some of the most successful restaurants (traffic and margin) operate on an unchanging and limited menu model. Tell them they need to change to keep up with the times. They'll laugh in your face.

 

The BSA is betting that they'll gain more members than they lose.  Is that a wise bet?  Only time will tell - but the BSA has to try something - the current configuration isn't sustainable in the long term for the changes that society is going through. But successful businesses also make sure to move in ways that minimizes customer defection. Business 101. Cheaper to retain than acquire. Instead of building on it's core strengths, BSA has decided to actively alienate a sizable portion of the existing customer base by chasing an undetermined population size with existing competition in that space. People get fired for less.

Again, no one is forcing your unit to accept girls. In fact, it is entirely possible that not a single existing unit would change. This change, much to your point, simply allows girls to experience a group that, "teaches both boys and girls the same thing as Boy Scouts."

 

No one is forcing it upon a group that doesn't want it. It is still BOY Scouts if your CO wants it to be.

 

This is an OPTIONAL change. Not mandatory.

While your statement is true, there will also be changes to the program outside of individual unit membership. Ignore that at your peril. Fundamental changes to an effective program rarely result in any degree of success. THAT is what I believe many are afraid of. And rightly so.

 

Going by the majority of the responses in the boyscouts and bsachief Twitter feeds, the BOD really didn't exactly have the pulse of the general public on this.

 

As a numbersnerd, you should know that people who want to complain about changes on social media will always outnumber people who like the changes or the people who just don't care either way commenting in social media- by significantly large numbers - so I take any twitter or other social media comments with a very large grain of salt. 

 

 

Please see my other post regarding this and the use of Twitter activity to gauge message reception. All your points are addressed.

I don't see how these changes "Ruin" the character of scouting. To say otherwise is to say every other member of the World Scouting movement is doing Scouting wrong, or improperly. 

The argument can be made that if enough of a significant leadership and membership exodus occurs, how Scouting in the US is designed and, but more importantly, executed and promoted at the local level could be fundamentally altered and not for the better.

You've touched on the poor process by which this was done, I think it's only symptomatic of deeper problems. Reckless decision making gets further emboldened due to decreasing criticism, further changing the program and with lessening degrees of review from the core constituency. We see it happening now.

@@numbersnerd ... interesting that someone with your handle is referencing tweets as a legitimate guide on the pulse of the public. I think you could keep the number part but fellow nerds may need to pull that card. In my district meetings, my own pack and a couple of other councils I have family in... the volunteers and leaders have been nearly 100% in favor of this change. That said, I wouldn't state that as a true summary of opinion across the entire BSA. You really need to look at the surveys they collected and adjust for the actual BSA demographics to actually get any true reference... and I doubt that wil be shared. I will only say that this is a large country with a significant diversity of opinions. I question anyone claiming to know what the majority of BSA members or non members believe or will act on without survey data. I would also state that sometimes changes should be made for the long term health of an organization even if there is significant debate from its current members.

As far as tweets being a "legitimate" source of info, care to share anything tangible that yields anything either way, in favor or opposed? Sure, it may only be an ad hoc sample of responses to the change, but it the absence of anything else, ya gotta go with what ya got. And sorry to tell you, Twitter traffic is more telling than you realize. A whole sub-industry thrives on it. While it is easy to say that the unhappy will be more willing to vocalize their opinion, the response timing, likes, re-tweets, and traffic volume compared to past events (issued tweets)  carries significant weight in evaluating reception. But not sorry if my handle doesn't jive with your sensibility and allows me an opinion based on casual observation and past experience. 

What really IS interesting is that this whole scenario seems like a repeat. 

Just like the claims of overwhelming support for past membership standard changes. And how it was going to be so great. And how it would be more inclusive and translate into huge membership surges. And it would solve all sorts of problems.

Tell us, how has that turned out?

And my experience is the polar opposite of yours. I have not found anyone, Scouter, parent, or Scout in favor of this change.

As for opinions within the current membership, you will never have access to that data. Simply because a true survey was never done. Yes, a survey WAS done, but not a real one. A true survey would have been inclusive of all Scouters at a minimum. Again, not a single person I have discussed this issue with was invited to participate. Indeed, most were not even aware this was a current topic.

But debate? That's another topic altogether, but make no mistake, there was no debate. The discussions here do not count.

 

We would award them patches and rank patches etc. 

Wait. What?

So you weren't running a BSA Cub Scout program then.

Going by the majority of the responses in the boyscouts and bsachief Twitter feeds, the BOD really didn't exactly have the pulse of the general public on this.

Another example of how the professionals are completely out of touch with their core constituency.

I get it, the major factor was to generate more revenue. To keep themselves employed. So it that sense it was an entirely self-serving move.

But that isn't what their purpose is supposed to be. They are supposed to be in service to US, those who sign our sons up, volunteer, donate and support a program for boys.

The ironic thing is that it is entirely possible this accelerates the decline and shortens their tenure. What a nice legacy. "I was there when they turned out the lights and locked the door for the last time."

Now with this change is it possible for someone to challenge and revoke the Congressional Charter? It explicitly states,"...the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others..."

You can argue that yes, it will still serve boys. But between the purpose of the charter and the very purposeful name BOY Scouts of America, how likely is it that someone will attempt (most certainly in the near future) and succeed (that's the real question) in getting the charter revoked? The argument being they have strayed from or abandoned the stated purpose in the charter.

The resultant effect is that if this were to happen, would it then be possible for other organizations to use the imagery and terminology (Scouts, Scouting, et al) to promote their program if it passes muster with the WOSM? I've seen the sentiment that for Scouting to get back on track, the volunteers need to take the program back. This would be the beginning of that effort I would think.

Just musing.

As a committee chair of a pack, Eagle Scout, long term BSA supporter and parent of a 10 year old Webelos scout and a 6 year old girl who will be a future Cub Scout.... i am one of the "we". I'm sure there are many others.

As a Tiger thru Webelo leader, Cubmaster, Eagle Scout, long term BSA supporter and parent of an 8 year old Bear and an 11 year old Scout, I am not one of the "we". And yes, I'm sure there are many others.

Was never asked, invited, surveyed, polled, or included in any conversation regarding a policy change that fundamentally transforms the program.

What I find interesting is they referred to the survey of non-Scout families about their thoughts, desires and motivations regarding the BSA. 

What about the findings of the survey of existing membership asking about THEIR  thoughts, desires and motivations in being members? Oh, you mean there wasn't one?

Exactly.

Why?  It seems the parents are in as much need of learning and development as the kids... family camping is the perfect opportunity to build character for all.  

But the program is for the development of boys, not their sisters and parents.

 I suspect that. in the best of membership turn-around, there will be short term drop off before any larger influx from Cubbing come in.

I get where you're coming from, but it has to be said...

Because that's how it turned out with past membership revisions?    

Does anyone else consider the whole sequence of events suspect, culmlnating in a press release on International Day of the Girl?

Seems rushed just to try and capitalize on the timing. And likely to backfire in numerous ways. Not to mention possibly igniting a war with GSUSA. 

More signs that those in charge have no clue.

Put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" group.

Every family that wants to have a girl join should be given a packet with both Youth and Adult apps. That should get the message across. If you want her in, you are in, too.

I would be willing to bet that of the few that express interest, fewer than half will step up to the plate and contribute.

Some may think that's harsh, but when we already have problems getting enough volunteers, that may be the only way to get enough on board. And even then I'm skeptical.