Jameson76

23 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

 

@EmberMike brought up an excellent (and debatable) point:

(a) What is the unsustainable membership point? 500,000? Is there logic behind that number?

(b) Before you hit that 'collapse' number is there a 'tipping point' number before that where other weirdness happens?

Can you have a traditional program that is smaller and sustainable? I think so.

(A lot of factors for the decline and it is WAY bigger than scouts. As a co-worker recently reminded me, don't forget child molesting scoutmasters. That stung a little, but can't help our numbers.)

Can I interest you in a prime piece of property in lovely West Virginia??  Got some neat zip lines.  There is a this rather annoying balloon bond payment coming up, but maybe we can work through that.

11 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

(Recall "Boy Power"?)

I do recall BoyPower ManPower, was a scout and we had pressure to recruit.  For those too young to remember......

Started about 1968, Boypower was intended to get one boy out every three in the U.S. into Scouting by the Bicentennial in 1976. In the end, it led to major scandals concerning paper units, mystery Scouts and diversion of government funds. Chicago led the way at the time, more paper scouts than anyone.  Combined with the 1973 program changes designed to appeal to minorities, It also caused a major drop in membership by 1980.

There have been other cheating scandals (Learning for Life is the latest) and other program efforts that didn't succeed, but this one was the granddaddy of them all

8 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Gender-Blind Scouts of America: G-BSA

1 minute ago, Tampa Turtle said:

"No genders, just Scouts" program

"Separate but equal, equal but different" scout program

"Real Girl Scouting"

The "We don't know what to call this, and what the heck troops are gonna do what they want anyway...so Enjoy program"

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Are we confusing dialog from 2001 and 2010? 

Well Hal was in 2001 and 2010...so possibly.  But it is great dialogue

3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

National needs an upbeat  promo for the early adopters ...maybe something like this...

 

 

Then it leads to this

DAVE:  Open the pod bay doors, Hal. 
HAL:  I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that. 
DAVE:  What’s the problem? 
HAL:  l think you know what the problem is just as well as l do. 
DAVE:  What are you talking about, Hal? 
HAL:  This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. 
DAVE:  I don’t know what you're talking about, Hal. 
HAL:  l know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I’m afraid that's something I can’t allow to happen. 
DAVE:  Where the hell’d you get that idea, Hal? 
HAL:  Although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move. 
DAVE:  All right, Hal. I’ll go in through the emergency air lock. 
HAL:  Without your space helmet, Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult. 
DAVE:  Hal, I won’t argue with you anymore. Open the doors! 
HAL:  Dave...This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

Some ones that are fairly easy

• Match relay - set up a relay with X number of points, first person is given the match, they run into the water, hand it to someone on the dock, they have to get in the water, swim, give it to some else, repeat a few times, strike the match.  Team with lowest time that can get the match to strike wins
• Canoe relay - 4 or 5 in a canoe, no paddles, out and back, change teams
• Greased watermelon - be sure to match but weights, it can get brutal

4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Our troop grew to have the largest group of scouts between the ages of 14 thru 17 in the council. Council's response to us was to start a Venture Crew to split off some of the scouts. What we had to explain to them that the older scouts are the heart of the program and the reason for the success of the "whole" troop. Not that we didn't encourage adventure, we average 4 to 6 adventure treks a year. We supported and encouraged any scout who wanted to join a Venture Crew outside of the troop. But we were not going to upset the format of the program that made us successful.

We have similar makeup.  Actually add 8th and 9th graders as new scouts each year recruited by friends.  Our District Commissioner kept pushing the Venture, that will keep the older scouts engaged.  Our pushback was they are in fact engaged, they come to meetings, go on outings, etc.  Most units that are successful do so because of outdoor program and a youth led program with leaders involved to train and let them run it.   

Nobody joined Scouts to track chores for 12 weeks, have family meetings, keep up with a budget, or track their pushups.  They want to camp in the woods without parents or siblings, tell racy jokes in the privacy of their tents or hammocks, burn stuff, and goof off on a nice weekend afternoon without anyone giving them grief.

10 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Also looks like the reporter didn't get the memo that the quoted girls are "Cub Scouts" not a "Girl Scouts."

Brave new world....just roll with it

7 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Yes, and the terminology seems awkward and/or incorrect throughout the article.

Well, it's a feel good piece, let's all just get on board to the coed single gender dens and coed single gender troops concepts

On 8/11/2017 at 3:40 PM, blw2 said:

I can say that in my relatively short time as Troop Treasurer, we've had a few scouts now make eagle, and I have not seen 1 nickle from any of it.  Not in or out.  Honestly I have no idea how they are raising their money for the projects.

Unless they want or need to run the money through the troop, you would not.  Most of our Eagles handle their own, keep it under the threshold, turn over any excess funds to whomever was designated in the original fundraising request.  I would say well over half of ours, and we have 8 - 10 per year, get their funding from families and close friends.  No mass appeal.

5 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Part of the discussion that does not resonate with me is the constant view that Scouts and Scouters as 'customers'; I think that analogy only gets one so far. (I see this flawed approach in many flailing churches as well) Scouting is also, especially among it's most ardent supporters a set of beliefs, ideals, and a lifestyle.  Sure by a lot of PR and buzz maybe you can get a lot of new folks customers through the door but can you keep them? 

I think National keeps drawing so much from the business world that is the only way they sees things and then inadvertently shoots themselves in the foot. GSUSA seems to draw on more non-profit and academic areas for their leadership; they may have THEIR flaws but it is a more impressive group IMHO. 

'

You are correct, they are not traditional customers.  To your point it is lifestyle and beliefs.  If we only look at them as customers, then they think of themselves as not part of a movement (Church or scouts) and can easily wander on.  Like do I join this sports league or the other one it town.

We cannot be blind however, a troop does serve a constituency.  Troop leaders need to look at involvement and participation year over year and use that information determine what works and what does not.  Small corrections can pay big dividends.  Stay within the framework of the BSA goals and values, but if you are doing an activity and it is not getting results, change the equation to get the needed results.

BSA National has seen lower numbers and took the path of whole new deal, let's just plunge ahead to coed scouting.

15 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

. Look at Kodak, Suzuki, Nintendo, lots of companies radically changed direction to strive for renewed growth, 

Interesting choices of companies that changed and brought new customers and growth

• Kodak peaked in 1996, bankruptcy in 2012 and the former Blue Chip stock was delisted from the NYSE
• For Suzuki In November 2012, Suzuki announced that its US division would file for bankruptcy and would stop selling automobiles in the United States
• Nintendo went from 18 Billion in sales in 2008 to 4 billion in sales in 2017

19 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

But current membership is not what the BSA is fully focused on, not should they be.

I know it hurts a lot of feeling around here that we're not the sole priority of the organization. But if this organization is to survive (and hopefully grow some day), the BSA needs to be looking outside of the organization and figuring out how to appeal to more prospective memebrs. Just like in any company, a big part of your growth strategy involves looking outward. The BSA can't make decisions for the future growth of the organization on the opinions of existing members alone. 

That's not to say existing members should be ignored. But using simple majority voting by current members to decide policy should not be the way things are decided. Not if we expect to ever turn the corner on membership growth in the BSA. 

Currently BSA only reaches about 10% of available scout aged youth.  The CSE has pretty much stated he and key leadership is out of ideas on how to remedy that issue.  Honestly at that point he should have resigned and had some new management come in with a vision.  Rather than seriously examine that, determine what growing troops are doing to be successful, do lessons learned on what troops do to grow, they have decided to plunge ahead and basically fundamentally change what BSA is going forward.  

Putting aside the discussion on whether BSA should go coed (yes that's what's coming), to ignore how this fundamentally changes the organization and how it will deliver program is the definition of denial.

7 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

On that theory, will the prospective new members replace the current members?  This was tried in 1972 and membership plumeted. 

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.  Constantly BSA seems to not play to it's strengths, not be true to the mission, and play for the short term gains...that never seem to come.

Our troop is a big troop, +/- 100 scouts.  About 8 - 10 years ago we were shying away from really emphasizing the size, trying to downplay that part.  Some of us were not happy with that and we have now really emphasized this is who we are.  Large troop, if you join us we have functioning patrols, we are large and diverse, we have older scouts (HS) in charge, we do large outings.  That is who what we are.  Basically in 5 years we have doubled the average number of scouts attending outings.  Be true to yourself.

21 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

That is interesting, as in our case the council is the one initiating the idea of splitting the Pack up... no one inside our Pack has even thought of this.   I’ll focus on adding adult leaders in various roles to improve our program instead of breaking the pack up.  Thanks for the insights.

And we have a winner with the why...the council.

Challenge is you are coming at the question assuming that everyone involved is seeking the same outcome; quality product delivered to the customers.  In this case, BSA programs for eager cubs.  You want to have kids enjoying scouting, having fun, doing cub stuff.

The council and the professionals, while not evil in their intent can be viewed as franchise sellers.  As has been noted, they are looking to increase the number "doors" that are "selling" scouting.  Is it simpler to do a greenfield and build brand new OR take a successful franchise (i.e. pack) and split it?  Less trouble, already have a CO, likely there are some parents that want to do things their own way, so path of least resistance.  Split and (hopefully) grow.

Well...so many scouters confuse Two Deep Leadership with One on One contact, I can only imagine how the many levels of YPT will only fuel this confusion.  Perhaps the BSA will issue a set of laminated cards that Scouters can clip to day packs for easy reference

• If you have an All Boy Den that is option 1
• If you have an All Girl Den that is option 2
• If your pack has Boy and Girl Dens that is option 3
• If your pack is single gender boys that is options 4
• If your pack is single gender girls that is option 5
• If your troop is boys that is option 6
• If your troop is girls that is option 7
• If your event/camp has Boy troops only in attendance option 8
• If your event/camp has Girl troops only in attendance option 9
• If your event/camp has Boy and Girl troops attending option 10
• etc
• etc

Remember to wet your sites

1) Actively pursuing Eagle Scout rank

or...

2) Have pretty much completed all the requirements for Eagle Scout rank, though not all of them with the BSA, more life experience, and am waiting for all of them to be recognized so that the rank can be awarded

Honestly #2 may be a bit wordy

BTW...have seen the Eagle Scout candidate used numerous times, really it is up to you.

16 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Using me as an example, I have to believe the unpopularity of this latest bungle has decimated donations. I have given my last dollar to FOS and I cannot in good conscience encourage others to donate.

They obviously don’t care what I think, so I’ll let my checkbook speak for me.

We are a large troop, 5 figure FOS annually.  Many of us in the key roles are taking a year off from FOS.  It is a tough call as the funds are used locally.  Local councils have to live with the national decisions.  That being the case, the reality is that many decision have and are being purely made for financial reasons.  Huge debt from Summit, unfunded pensions, bloated National staff.  Only real option is to vote with the checkbook

2 hours ago, David CO said:

Why is it wrong? 

BSA National is making a distinction and judgement on Male and Female leaders.  They are clearly stating it is NOT accepted that 2 men can lead a girls den.  They are clearly stating that it is accepted that 2 women can lead a boys den.

That is a double standard. 

Scenario 1 - You are a male and have a den and your daughter is in the den, you have a male friend, the ADL, and he has and a daughter in the den.  According to BSA you and your friend cannot be the only leaders on an outing, you MUST have a female

Scenario 2 - You are a female and have a den and your son is in the den, you have a female friend, the ADL, and she has and a son in the den.  According to BSA you and your friend can be the only leaders on an outing.

There is no logical reason for this distinction.  Unless you feel that girls cannot be trusted with only male leaders.  Right out of the gate BSA National is putting into practice different standards based on gender.

Play Charge and have the troop run and take the COH room by force.  

10 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

Here is a link to the full announcement:

http://www.ocbsa.org/news/2018-insurance-fee-announcement/

Not discounting the need, but curious how an increase from $11 MIN wage (employers over 25 staff in CA as of 1/18) to $13 MIN (same group in 2020) wage will cause the forecast "that council labor costs from our exempt to our seasonal employees will rise 50% by 2020"

Most seasonal staff (i.e. Summer Camp staff) are not hourly but paid weekly with housing and food included.  Also they are usually not covered by standard benefits.

Would be interested to see the math

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Correct, I didn’t mean to put this on Ireland or start another Ireland debate.  It was a lead in prior to even talking with Ireland.  

True - but that being the case, she is member of Pantsuit Nation, she is familiar with the group, she is media savvy, and she was part of their showcase on the podcast.  Probably not her intent to come off as fighting the patriarchy, she just wants to get people to sign her petition and send letters to CSE (and who among us has not) and the President of AT&T.  She was a willing part of that discussion and, as can be seen in many instances, people with cause A are often used by another group to forward their agenda.

She may need to be cognizant of that and realize that contrary to PT Barnum's input "There's no such thing as bad publicity" is not always true.

Maybe she should strive for this effort - "All publicity is good if it is intelligent"

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

How ironic it will be if the largest problem that packs encounter with girls joining is membership processing via National's online software. 

3 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Is Sydney Ireland really talking about "tearing down" the program?  I doubt it.  I am sure she thinks of herself as trying to build it up.

Sort of unclear, but it really is about her and getting the Eagle.  So yeah, I would say if it's all about you and changing something just for you, you do kind of want to tear stuff down.

It's all about the Eagle Scout and leadership.  Pretty much she wants to change what we are, and did I mention it's all about the EAGLE rank?

Smashing the patriarchy, fighting to be recognized, the fight is not over, incremental fight.  Fighting for the right for girls to be part of the Boy Scouts.  She along with her brother, he was an "Official" member but she was not allowed to.

She wanted to change that.  The Eagle award opens many opportunities.  Basically it is all about the Eagle.  Sidebar - so many who are beating the drum of girls in the program tout the rank and earning the Eagle as the end all be all.  Scouting is so much more.  It's outings and leadership and learning to be responsible and the Oath and the Law and overcoming obstacles and time spent just being a scout. Yes those that earn Eagle are recognized, but are they recognized because of the rank, OR is it because they demonstrate the values they learned as a scout.  

She wants it changed sooner.  She wants to get her work acknowledged.  She is an unofficial Star scout apparently (WTH, is that a thing??).  She claims she has literally done everything but does not get credit.  She is up against the system (the man is trying to keep her down).  

They did mention Girl Scouts, why not join that.  She does not explain why the Girls Scouts is different or why GSUSA does not meet here needs.  They glossed over that part and really did not even go into why a program founded by women, run by women, serving girls and women, does not meet the needs of those they service.

She does say single gender is great for girls BUT the BSA has portions that are coed, so the part that gets EAGLE needs to be open.  So apparently single gender is not good for boys

Beats the drum for recognizing work done while not a part of the program, again it's all about the Eagle rank

Did I mention it's all apparently about the Eagle rank???

28 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I warn you not to go searching for the podcast...

You did warn me, and I went, and the whole Pantsuit nation is a interesting bunch

It's at the 9 minute mark or so, may want to skip ahead