Eagle1993

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

I am more concerned about a manmade Carrington Event, which is more likely in my opinion.  Read "One Second After" by William Forstchen.  Scouting skills may indeed beccome a matter of life and death.

I don't disagree this is a concern.  I've read the book and highly recommend it.  It was both entertaining and informative.

 Add in AI and I think we have the trifecta of ways we can destroy ourselves and the planet.

19 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

When my mother was young, the ice in the Gulf of Bothnia froze thick enough that the Department of Transportation drew up roads on the ice. Not only has that not happened in my lifetime (eyes, and hard to make into a hoax), there was a debate in the 1990s about what to do with the ice breakers that spent all winter in harbor. (They're not exactly free to maintain, and also hard to hoax.)

Earlier this year I worked through Ansestery.com to research my family linage.  I was able to find family members in the USA back in the 1600s. For the most part it was interesting and in some cases I was able to find a lot of interesting details.   Unfortunately, I found a couple who had  records of owning slaves (my 9th great grandfather/mother and a 10th great grandfather).  That started a discussion with my coworkers ... what horrible thing are we doing now that our 9th great grandchildren will look back in horror (as they comb through Facebook, Twitter and Scouter.com archives).  Nearly unanimously we agreed ... the burning of hydrocarbons. 

While there is definitely debate how quickly warming will hit, it is clear our CO2 levels are already exceeding any level seen in the last 2M+ years and they continue to rise.  Listening to some climate scientists talk, it appears the real hoax is that the scientific community is understating the future impact.  Rarely do they talk beyond the year 2100 and many models assume massive reductions in C02 emissions ... and there is reason for that.  If everyone knew how bad it is going to get (based on what has already been done) governments and citizens may simply give up.  While we won't be alive to see the greatest impacts, I do think we are responsible (similar to my 9th great grandfather's ownership of slaves) and should help turn the tides. 

In terms of the WOSM taking a stand .... I'm not sure what drove them to do that.  However, I do see scouts as stewards of the environment.  Perhaps someone thought the forest fairies have concerns greater than a small piece of packaging.  I don't know if their statement will help and in general, I have not been impressed with the solutions presented (many are too expensive or require too great of change in lifestyle).  That said, I don't have an issue with scouting organizations putting pressure (within reason) on governments to protect the environment.

8 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

I was under the impression that these international Scouting organizations (which I know relatively little about) concentrated on assisting the Scouting organization in countries around world and did not engage in political and policy advocacy.  I took a three-minute peek at their web site and see mention of political and policy matters on which countries would take varying positions.  Does anyone know if the BSA has granted this organization authority to adopt and express policy positions on behalf of the BSA and its members?  

One could argue that reducing CO2 is very much in line with leave no trace and the outdoor code. 

I think parents are less interested in volunteering for any activity; however, scouting takes more time than most.  In K5, if you make the mistake of signing up to be a den leader, you are looking at 9 months x 6 years (54 months of volunteer work).  If you sign up to coach a kids soccer team, that may be 3 months of work and absolutely no expectations you would do that every year going forward.  

In addition, the number of adults required to run a good pack is excessive (12 den leaders, Cub Master, ACM, CC, COR and a few other committee members).  If you have a pack of 80-90 kids this is achievable... If you have 10-20 impossible.

I talked with a few pack leaders recently and it doesn't look good.  The program needs to greatly simplify and the changes made were not sufficient. 

BSA may need to look at other sources of volunteers (than parents) even at the unit level.

17 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Again, no way to predict but if you were looking for a deeply doubtful SCOTUS that was looking for a reason to deny third-party releases then you didn't get it today. 

Listened to the argument.  My thought (again who knows):

• Would uphold Purdue plan: Thomas, Kavanaugh
• Would reject Purdue plan: Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson
• On the fence (or just tougher to read): Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan

Boy Scouts Plan was brought up and the DOJ indicated it may still be ok as appeals could be considered moot.

I do think there is a lot of concern of what will happen if the plan is rejected and the DOJ didn't do a good job explaining that.  So, I could see a path where they accept the plan and perhaps set a high bar on non-consensual releases.  If I had to be, I would bet there.

Just now, Jameson76 said:

The SE (sorry he insists on being called CEO) for Atlanta Area Council makes waaay more than that.  Thus no FOS for me.

 

Unbelievable....  

Any talk about the future of the BSA must begin with the financial situation it is in.  Unlike most bankruptcies, BSA doesn't leave it nearly debt free and in stable financial shape.  They entered bankruptcy with nearly $300M in cash and $180M endowment.  The endowment is gone and cash is at $25M.  They also added to their debt right before the bankruptcy ... and exited with all of that debt $222M of secured debt (I believe on their HA bases) and $364M of debt on Summit.

So, $25M of cash on hand and $586M of debt.  Let's say that loan is 4% and 30 years ... that is $34M a year in debt payments starting back up.  Or ... $34 per every scout per year.

At $80 per scout in National Fees, removing $34 for debt and likely $50 for insurance doesn't leaves any room to pay anyone at National.  

They need to refill their endowment and find a way to reduce that debt fast.  Growing membership will be important, but $80 per scout won't get them out of this hole fast enough.

6 hours ago, ScouterDavid said:

My guess is that we can't afford current cutting edge leaders.

They paid Mosby over $500K per year (full C&B).

I'm sure Sea Scouts/Venturing cost money at National.  There is some amount of insurance, some attention form leadership, etc.  If numbers keep dropping there will be a risk vs return point where BSA feels it is no longer worth the risk/cost of supporting the programs. 

BSA gets about $1M of revenue a year from them (from fees)... much of that probably goes to insurance. So in terms of fees., the number of members left provide little revenue to offset any cost.

 If they get a lot of donations backing these programs, they will last. If donors don't care much about these programs... My guess they are at risk.  So donations will really be key to keep them around long term.

I really think the future of the BSA will be based on donors.  What do individual and corporate donors want to see in a scouting program.  Looking forward to our new AI offerings ...

Our Troop will likely hit around 24 scouts by the end of the year.  5 years ago we were 84 and had 53 attend summer camp.  12 of my 24 age out by 2025, so we really need to see more Cubs crossing over soon. 

 Two other Troops in my area have shuttered and one went from 70-80 to 8.  

I fear we are headed to a future of BSA having 90% of members in Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA limited to a small barely supported group maintaining a tradition.

2 hours ago, OaklandAndy said:

 

This is as of Oct '23. 

I bet we do see overall growth Jan to Jan by the end of the year (the would need to add at least 11,902 more scouts).  However, rechartering impact probably won't be officially counted until March.  Expect the revised Cub and Scouts BSA to show declines there.  I think in Jan 2023 we showed 3% overall growth which was nearly completely wiped away by March.  Personally I think the March to March numbers are most accurate (however, that will change going forward with rolling renewals).

The full year membership + increasing council fees are a concern.  I know our Council is pouring everything into Cub Scouts (almost ignoring Scouts BSA outside of Merit Badge clinics).   Hopefully that works as the Scout BSA Troops are really starting to suffer from the lean Cub Scout years.  

Any updates on how recruiting looks this fall?  I seem to remember seeing a lot of updates last fall, in terms of major growth of Cub Scouts, but haven't seen the same updates this one.  Curious if anyone has seen Cub Scouts continuing to grow and any turn around in Scouts BSA.

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

One thing that I am worried about, and is still missing is the transition from Cubs to Scouts. Research showed it takes 18-24 months to prepare folks. If you shorten it, which is what it is looking like, retention rates will drop. I know some packs already do not begin transition until 5th grade, and see those new Scouts dropping like flies because neither the Scouts, nor the parents, are ready for the differences between the two programs.

That research was likely before the addition of Lions.  I just met a pack yesterday and they are desperate to transition AOLs ASAP.  Kids and parents are burnt out, limited interest left in Cub Scouts.  Pack leaders said if transition waits until May we may only see one kid.  Ive seen transitions diminished over the last 3 years.  Some of that is COVID but Pack leaders are telling me burn out it hitting during 4th grade. 

I'm not sure if the new program is better, but retention is currently really bad, not sure it can get worse.

CFL was the summer camp our Troop went to for several years.  Our old camp site was hidden in a clearing that has been buldozed to the ground and replaced with RV pads.  

I was told There was a former scout, from Texas, that offered the council the same amount that was offered by the third party.  The former scout only request was to keep it as a scout camp.  The council decided it wasn't in their best interest as it was far from their home location and it was a lot of work and expense to maintain.  

My council sold one of their remaining camps... Only one left.  These camp sales are wearing me down.

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

FYI:

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2023/11/06/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-roger-krone-the-bsas-incoming-president-and-ceo/

Still hoping Mr. Krone holds a town meeting with Scouts and Scouters.

I found this interview more promising than Mosby.  Travel sports, social media and online gaming are major changes to what youth do and how they interact.  BSA has been slow to recognize this and hopefully Krone can find a way to break through. 

I think BSA also needs to understand that there are pressures on the volunteer model.  Stay at home moms and the 40 hour work week are not common.  Finding ways to lower burden and burnout on/of volunteers will also be critical to success.  

looking forward to a fireside chat or town hall soon!

4 hours ago, ALongWalk said:

Wow…one doesn’t accomplish this along with his career success without being a top notch performer and leader. This could be a real home run hire. I sure hope so.

I hope so too.  However, there is a pretty big difference in running an organization where most of your "employees" are volunteers, you are not measured in OM% and you are not selling products to the government.  His only connection to scouting seems to be from his youth.  I don't see any connection to running non-profits or youth organizations.  Roger has no Twitter (x) account that I could find, no social media presence, etc. 

In terms of accomplishments, one of the biggest he listed as winning the DoD EHR contract with Cerner.  That has been a disaster that has led to congressional hearings.  Nearly all of his income came from running a company that is able to manage government contracts.  Nothing wrong with that ... but I really struggle to see how this translates into BSA leadership.

19 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

I hope Mr. Krone communicates with Scouts and Scouters directly (no interviewer) and soon; next week would be good.

Maybe he will re-institute the Holiday Message.

I fully agree.  Hopefully he starts reaching out to scouts/volunteers ... listens to feedback and takes action, etc.  Mosby was absent these last few years, hopefully Mr. Krone can improve.

Why, why, why do we hire retired leaders?

My guess this is more about getting ties into industry for donations than an leader who really wants to learn how scouting is done today, what parents/society/youth need and making necessary changes.

6 hours ago, BigCubr said:

How strict are they on the weight tables?

Very strict. They won't even let you stay in base camp.  If you go, come in several pounds under.  There are stories of adults who traveled, gained a pound or two and went over and then were sent off site after weigh in.

9 minutes ago, sierracharliescouter said:

The huge problem with requiring all adult leaders on every campout to be registered with the unit is the issue of transparency of the program. It basically forces every parent of every scout to be registered if they want to be able to witness the program in action. From a legal perspective, I am more concerned about eliminating this element of transparency as I am of adhering to this strict new rule. Why would I, as a parent, trust adults that I may not know very well to be in charge of my kids when I can't witness first-hand how they handle campouts? There needs to be a reasonable carve-out of this new rule to allow for limited participation of YPT-trained by non-registered parents to see the program in action before committing to register.

If it is overnight that won't be an option.  The option is to register as a leader or don't have your kid attend.  Very similar to GSUSA.

16 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

This was not easy to find but here it goes...

1) Hartford is paying a total of $787 million of which $137 million was payable on the Effective Date.  See Docket 8816, page 29.

2) Century is paying a total of $800 million of which $50 million was payable on the Effective Date.  See Docket 8907, page 6.

3) Zurich is paying $52.5 million.  As best as I can tell, none of it is payable until appeals are resolved.  See Docket 8907, page 158.

4) Clarendon is paying a total of $16.5 million of which $2.871 million was payable on the Effective Date.  See Docket 8907, page 227.

The above is what the insurers were contractually obligated to pay on the Effective Date with the rest coming due when all appeals are resolved.  It seems they are permitted to pay more earlier at their option.

Thanks!  I remember it was listed but couldn't find it in the various plan documents.  I wonder if the trust has to report monthly updates regarding their accounts/expenses.  I haven't seen it in the docket.

11 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

If the court rules for a bond amount that D&V can't secure the Stay goes nowhere. 

I wonder if certain insurers would be willing to post that bond on their behalf.

If they can get the stay, I think there is a decent chance the plan is thrown out in June.  It now may be worth that bond payment from them...

Coming Sept 6

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/scouts-honor-netflix-trailer-debut-boy-scouts-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-1234806388/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/scouts-honor-trailer-previews-netflix-165444814.html

15 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

Respectfully, I must strongly disagree with your assessment of Purdue's impact on the BSA plan.

There is a HUGE difference between BSA and Purdue, which is that BSA's plan has already gone into effect.  Purdue's plan is now stayed and cannot go into effect, if at all, until after SCOTUS rules on the validity of non-consensual third-party releases.  (I agree June '24 is the likely timeframe for that decision.)

We are in unchartered territory here, and so a lot of permutations are possible.  BSA Plan Supporters are not happy to see SCOTUS reviewing nonconsensual third-party releases. 

That said, IMHO, the most likely outcome is that the Third Circuit receives all briefs and decides that the appeals of Lujan, D&V, Certain Insurers, etc. are equitably moot.  Briefing has already begun and so it seems like the Third Circuit ruling could come before a SCOTUS ruling in June '24, but who knows.  Therefore, even if there was reversible error in the BSA Plan approvals, the Third Circuit will likely find that it is powerless to reverse those errors because the plan has already gone into effect.  BSA is now a reorganized debtor and lots of assets have been paid to the Settlement Trustee in exchange for the third-party releases (largely by insurers and Local Councils).  The Settlement Trustee has already started incurring substantial operating expenses against those assets, and might very well start paying at least the expedited $3500 claims before either the Third Circuit or SCOTUS issues any rulings.  There are a lot of other aspects of the plan which also depended (at least indirectly) upon the third-party releases.  It would be virtually impossible for an appeals court to unscramble that egg. 

So even if SCOTUS ultimately finds in Purdue that nonconsensual third-party releases are not permissible, it does not follow that BSA's plan will be imperiled or affected by that ruling.  Today, and certainly by June '24, it will be a practical impossibility to reverse the implementation of BSA's plan of reorganization.  When Plan Supporters file their Third Circuit briefs in the relative near future, you can expect to see a lot of arguments like the above under the heading of equitable mootness.

By the way, equitable mootness is virtually certain NOT to be in issue in Purdue.  Because of the SCOTUS decision to stay the Purdue plan pending SCOTUS's ruling, the Purdue plan will not go into effect before SCOTUS rules, and equitable mootness will not be at issue.  So the Third Circuit is going to apply existing law on equitable mootness, which as I understand tend to favor overruling the various appeals.

Hope you are correct.

Questions... 

1) Most of the $ comes from insurance companies and little has been paid. What percentage of the billions committed has been paid? I wonder how it will be moot if the powder is still dry.  

2) It is clear the Supreme Court is now questioning non consensual non debtor releases.  This is a change and one would think appellants will highlight this change in their appeals.  Could that cause insurance companies to slow role the process? 

The big question is if non debtor releases are unconstitutional, doesn't that open up COs and Local Councils to lawsuits even if the plan is approved?