numbersnerd

Then BSA is not guided by its constituents or "core constituency."

Yes, that's the point and where a lot of disappointment comes from.

Who are the "constituents" for BSA?  Not automatically the families from whom the Scouts come.

By definition, that's exactly what they are. And this article points out what many of us have been saying: by ceding to the demands of an admittedy very small population that has very little, if any, overlap with the main demographic of its base, the BSA has alienated many more current and future members than those it will gain through this change.

Purely as a matter of ensuring ongoing operations, this was an ill-considered move. Surely they realize that more membership will abandon the organization as a result of this than they would if there were no change in policy. The "I'm going to quit because of the transgender exclusion" cadre had to be extremely small (if even existent) compared those who have already decided to leave. Combine a higher defection rate and lower growth, it's a recipe for failure.

1. 1a :  a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative (as to a legislative or executive position) b :  the residents in an electoral district c :  an electoral district

2. 2a :  a group or body that patronizes, supports, or offers representation b :  the people involved in or served by an organization (as a business or institution) 

Hello Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.  We need some positions filled on the Committee for Little Billy's Scout Troop.  Which of the following will you fill so Billy has a Scout troop?  

 

Really? If enough people keep saying "no," we will have to shut down.

Been asking those we thought would be willing, no dice. Announcements every Pack meeting and event for the last 6 months. Silly me for assuming there'd be SOME people (beyond the usual corps of den leaders) willing to step up out out 45 families. But I got my first whiff when I asked the Wolf parents who would be willing to run a leatherwork night for the boys to make their own neckerchief slides and all I got were shrugs and shakes.

I agreed to 2 yrs as CM but have said I will stay on another year if we get a new CC so we can stagger filling these spots. 

After 5 yrs in and 3 more to go, I think I've already put enough in to have earned stepping back to a den role for my youngest's Webelos years at that point.

But no new CC? Then no CM at the end of the school year. I'm not subjecting myself to that. 

Shutting down? Yup, it's down to that. Ultimatum night is B&G, when we know most will be there. Before the event begins while boys are doing an activity in another part of the building.

It's a shame, after we built the Pack up with 25+ new boys each of the last 2 yrs with minimal dropout. 

Back to the original question...

Parents

Sitting on their phones/hands/backsides

Start helping out/interacting with their sons at events & meetings/fill some volunteer vacancies

All this after asking, requesting, soliciting, begging for help for MONTHS

I see no sign that we are losing the sense of shared values or common purpose, or that we have lost any of it. Twelve points of the Scout Law and duty to God, country, others and self, 16 check-marks worth of shared values and common purposes, all fully intact. I see a BSA that is now moving past the distractions created by issues that have nothing to do with these shared values, so it can refocus on bringing the shared values to more youth.

Seems to be a case of selective reading, which I have noticed is a common theme with some individuals here.

He said, in response to the statement that the BSA should provide program and structure and that CO's provide the values, that we are in danger of losing that shared set of values if the choices are left to the indovidual CO's.

IOW, some might choose to continue a value-centric program, others might turn it into a camping club, others might install an incongruent set of values from the ones most of us can agree upon.

Fracturing of the program is a very real danger and introduces inconsistency and lessens the ability to continue as a cohesive and valued program.

Krypton_son uses "All Around Troublemaker" as his byline, so I suppose that's fair game.

 

I was referring to the "ignorance" part. Nice, respectable attitude towards a differing opinion.

I will allow you your ignorance, wish you well in your endeavors, hope you continued sucess in being an "all around trouble maker" and bid you good day.  I SAID GOOD DAY!

Name calling. Nice. 

Well said.  It's not about picking a side.  It's about serving the nation.

When you decide to serve a very small minority and alienate a much larger population (not saying all of the existing membership, but one certainly much larger than the new desired target), how is that 'serving the nation'? 

How is alienating far more potential member families and failing to reach more of our youth a positive way to 'serve the nation'?

How does declining membership, declining operating funds, new rounds of ridicule, and a diluted brand and message better 'serve the nation'?

Seriously. These are not rhetorical questions. These are the issues the BSA now has to face. And because of that,we, the locals, the volunteers, the believers, will have to deal with the eventual consequences. That or walk away.

Without effective and comitted volunteers to run and deliver the program, how is that 'serving the nation'?

I have no issue with all-girls clubs, all black clubs, all Asian clubs, etc. They're private and they have an agenda they want to put forward. Great. I don't join them and try to change them. Or worse, I don't sue them to try to change them to what *I* think they should be like. I just wish those Ã¼ber tolerent people would have the same consideration for us.

Tolerance is only a guise used to disarm the target and paint them in a negative light.

The sad thing is that for all these concessions, the BSA gets what? Nothing. Actually, less than nothing. Once this issue is behind us, i'ts forgotten by the SJW's and their mob of supporters. Will they suddenly be the new demographic for the BSA? Are their checkbooks now open? Ha! For all the changes in recent years, the BSA is still smeared in derogatory labels and continually pressured to concede even more. At the same time, their base is leaving at an accelerated pace with each policy reversal. So adding nothing new and losing what you had is a net negative. To what end?

Simply put, it's cowardly abandonment of everyone that supported, built, grew, and believed in what the BSA sold for so long. The brand and product is becoming so diluted and tarnished it's depressing.

I do not know if it was in jest or serious as it was an email. But one father said he would say his daughter identify as male so she could join Scouting.

 

BSA has opened a can of worms.

As mentioned previously, their presence is predicated on a violation of the Scout Law and thus should be invited to leave post haste.

Each decision by the BSA pushes me closer to opting out to avoid the hypocrisy of supporting an organization that is becoming less and less reflective of my values and strays further from what it says its mission is. I know there's a certain crowd that's gonna say "boo hoo, get over it, this is the way it is now" or "Goodbye bigot" or somesuch. I'm fine with you having your opinions, just recognize I'm entitled to mine as well.

The primary problem I have with this is like others have stated, there are now very few opportunities for boys to be boys in this culture. I've had successful recruiting by pointing out we do this. Boys have a need to be boys. And we give them that opportunity. Feedback from many parents is that this is what they have been looking for and not found in other activities. They realize that boys need to figure out themsleves as males before having to deal with females. And we do it in a variety of settings and activities that they otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity to enjoy.

And what about the revelation (and don't fool yourselves, it will eventually happen) of these gender switches derailing an otherwise successful unit? A girl identifying as a boy is no more a boy than calling a cat a dog. No matter what you think/feel/believe, it's still a cat. And no matter what you think/feel/believe, she's still a girl. At some point, this will happen and endanger the one thing everyone needs for a successful program: faith and trust in other participants, youth and adult, considering the best interests of all concerned, not just certain individuals. The talk about serving any youth desiring to participate? What about the desires of others wanting the same that introduce no such distraction and conflict? Don't THEY deserve some consideration as well?

Scouters can barely agree on uniform and activity issues, what makes anyone think these volunteers are capable, or even willing to BECOME capable, of handling topics like these? To be honest, if presented with this situation, I'd just give up. I do it for the boys, but even generosity has its limit. The additional hassle and politics surrounding this simply aren't worth it because no matter what, there will always be a side of this issue that feels betrayed and shorted. I know you can't always be liked by everyone in these situations, but this is one that the BSA has created that has no chance of everyone feeling they have an acceptable resolution.

Other issues:

• Co-ed scouting, because of the structure surrounding membership and enrollment, precluded females from acheiving ranks such as Eagle. Is that all gone now? Female registrants, having joined as Cubs or Scouts, are now eligible? Was this even thought out?
• What happens when the BSA rules on this, either way. Boys only for rank. All genders eligible. Do you think that THIS is going to be resolved easily?
• Additionally, now that "identify as" has now become acceptable to the BSA, what happens when a youth "identifies" as someone having completed all the requirements for rank but has no evidence or demonstration to back it up? "I feel that I am qualified for Eagle" Ludicrous you say? Well, just wait. Those seeking to circumvent membership standards don't really respect the institution, they just want things THEIR way. What makes you think they'll respect advancement standards?

Thinking of mixing scouts from different units in groups to play some simple games and start the mingling process?

For some reason Turtle Soccer always seems popular. I don't know the etiquette for linking to other sites here yet, but there's a scout resource website we've all probably been to that has the rules and process. Just need a soccer ball for each group. This ones works well for larger groups and only takes one or two adults to assist with each group playing.

I really wish the BSA would move away from United Way and corporate funding, for more than the obvious reasons.  For one, this would remove a lot of the financial leverage these organizations are exerting on the program. Secondly, it would also eliminate the ability to sustain the bureacracy, both in complexity and size, that is fumbling and stumbling its way though this mess. 

It's becoming obvious that there are a lot of players involved in influencing BSA policy and management that were never involved in Scouting as a youth nor in a volunteer capacity. Their interests are only for self-sustenance, disregarding the tenets of the program. Right-size the staffing and get competent management that is committed to the program, not ones that are only interested in preserving their career path.

That is a ridiculous statement. Nobody in this forum is advocating that child molesters be allowed to be members or leaders of the Boy Scouts.

How you reached that conclusion is beyond comprehension. 

Personally, I tend to put the achievments and activities that are more suited to a group environment in our schedule. I always make sure that AT LEAST 50%, more like 75%, of the number of badge requirements (eg, 6 to 9 of 12 achievements) are covered in den meetings. The ones that entail a lot of conversation can get exasperating at times, but they are also illuminating as we hear more about what is on our scouts minds. The activity based ones engender a lot of competition, enthusiasm and create a shared experience that keeps them interested.

I leave the remainder to do with the families. Most of these are better suited to the family or an individual setting. I mean, are we REALLY going to get a bunch of boys sitting down together to write thank you notes and letters? Ha! But Mom & Dad can after birthdays and Christmas. Some are something that the individual is very interested in that the others may not be. If we happen to cover an item a boy has already done with his family, it's an ideal opportunity for him to display some leadership and subject mastery. 

The program doesn't have to handle it. The program can ignore it. That's the whole point.

Yes. There is a tremendous amount of doubt. The "LGBT lobby" can advocate whatever it wants, but the actual change that has occurred, and is likely to occur, is being driven by people INSIDE the BSA who believe that local option is the answer. Like the Scout Executive of my council, who wrote to a letter to the entire council expressing his disappointment that the policy regarding adult leadership was not being changed (at that time.) Like me, not individually, but in conjunction with all the Scouters' voices that the BSA has finally heard (and partially listened to) on this issue. (I'm not talking about posts in this forum necessarily, but I did take the survey two years ago.) Like Mr. Gates. He is not part of the LGBT lobby, but there was a passage in his speech where he indicated that local option is not merely inevitable, but is the right thing to do as well.

Your comments on this issue indicate that you apparently have your head in the sand.

The program doesn't have to handle it? It can ignore it? Not our problem? Is that really the response you expect to give people concerned about their sons being exposed to inappropriate content within the context of the program? Really? "Eh, if it happens, it'll just go away, no need to do anything about it. Little Johnny will get over it." You really have your finger on the pulse of parents, don't you?

These changes are only in response to the vocal protests of a small number of activists pushing their political agenda and have little concern with true well being of a specific group of people. Destuction of those not in agreement with them is their goal, no matter how much appeasement is offered. They capitalize on the fear of those not wanting to be labelled as bigoted, discriminaitory, or insensitive, the great modern era bogeymen. Many gay acquaintances roll their eyes when the LGBT activist groups are mentioned. They are as fatigued by these activist groups as anyone. These groups do not represent the gay populace as a whole despite how they position themselves. They are disingenuous opportunists exploiting pop culture sentiments with little real concern for anyone but themsleves. If they truly espoused the ideals they claim, they would be more cognizant of the damage they are doing in whole to many organizations, institutions, companies, and individuals. If the issue were left to debate with the larger gay community, exclusive of these activists, the discussion would be much more cvil, productive, and acceptable to all parties.

Here's a novel idea for BSA, ask ALL their members what they want right now. One person, one vote. Winner gets the policy. Loser is free to exercise their conscious and go start their own organization the way they want.

 

That's fair, huh?

Don't get all logical and fair on us now...

I also love how the BSA saying no to gays is "standing up for their values", but another private group standing up for their values and choosing to no longer donate money is "blackmail".

So you put "Change your policy or we won't give you money like we have been doing" on the same level of  "Thank you for your interest, but you do not meet our stated membership policy". Got it.

This is a straw man argument, but one that is often made. There is this idea that if the BSA allows gay leaders, that the next day we are going to see ASMs showing up wearing feather boas and announcing to the troop how great it is to be gay. That isn't the issue. It's not about leaders wanting to promote being gay!

The issue is that the BSA is not allowing COs the freedom to apply their own values when picking their leaders for a unit they own. That in the past, we have seen units have leaders they wanted forced out by councils and national over the objections of those COs and units. That we have COs being told that people the COs consider excellent role models (such as their own ministers!) are unacceptable leaders for their own scout units.

 

You want to talk about a Scout is Brave? How about the bravery to actually follow a Scout is Reverent and allow other churches to apply their own values? You do realize that there are a lot of faiths out there (from more welcoming Christian denominations to many non-Christian faiths) that don't consider being gay a sin? Or are you one of those people that think they are wrong so their faith doesn't count?

 

Yes I understand that there are a lot of people that believe being gay is a sin, and they want society at large (and the BSA) to enforce that idea. But we live in a pluralistic nation and we need to figure out how to get along. The BSA claims to be a "completely nonsectarian" organization, so it needs to stop trying to pick sides on this issue. If it doesn't than it will be failing in it's own values ("A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.").

Long-time lurker here, but also a long-time scouter (Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Eagle Scout, OA, Philmont, summer camp staff, adult leader). I find this development dismaying, but not because I have a fundamental problem with divergent sexual orientations.

When confronted with over-bearing and nonsensical policies, we complain that we are not allowed to excersise our judgement and rely on our competence when dealing with our Scouts. But the opposite of these restrictive polices, opening up the program to disruptive topics and conflicts, I believe further encourages a LESSER standard of judgement. 

I truly believe that anyone who feels compelled to make their sexual orientation such a core component of their identity that they MUST openly declare and promote it does not possess the maturity, discretion, and judgement to lead and mentor youth in the age range of Scouting. It opens the units, leaders, and parents up to the question of "What is gay?" among boys that do not have the maturity or experience to properly discuss and process topics regarding sex and sexuality. And I certainly do not believe that the vast majority of these individuals are qualified to lead any such discussion as they almost certainly will arise.

On organization competence, why are we contemplating the introduction of such an obviously incongruent element that the program is not designed to handle? And by past evidence, the ability of the organization to move in an efficient and effective manner to address these issues in a  timely and reasonable manner is sorely lacking. I lack complete confidnce in an organization to create sexual topic policies when they ban water guns for inter-youth play.

I'm disapointed by the abandonment of the 10th point of the Law: Brave. Rather than take a stand and defend the preferences of the majority of the families participating in the program, policy makers would rather bow down to supposedly popular and noisy sentiment and cave to corporate blackmail (see public comments and policies by AT&T, Disney, etc). 

I am also discouraged by the abandonment of the 2nd point of the Law: Loyal is also troubling. I have yet to personally encounter anyone within or outside of the Scouting program that is in favor of the direction policies regarding sexuality are headed. Instead of standing by the vast majority of those in the program (you know, the ones actually PARTICIPATING and DOING things in Scouitng), the powers that be are listening to the noise-makers, the cultural band wagoners, and those who state that THIS topic is the only thing keeping them from joining. I find it hard to believe that policies are being altered in fundamental opposition to the core beliefs of the program to the point of hypocrisy based merely on protests of a vocal minority.

I also fel there is a violation of the 9th point of the Law: Thrifty. Instead of being smart with the most valuable resource at its disposal, the active membership and supporters, The BSA is willing to throw this capital away in favor of appeasing a far lesser population that has yet to prove their participation in and value to the program.

I see the BSA following a path that leads to irrelevance and decline, both internally within the membership and externally to its value and influence. 

Sad.