Jameson76

Some of these comments assume that the BSA's intentions have changed from single-gender units at ages 11-17 to coed troops.  That assumption seems to begin with Gwaihir's interpretation of the CSE's statement at cnn.com.  I don't think that interpretation is correct.  I think that when the CSE used the term "similar" he was talking about how each CO will get to decide what kind of units to have, within the options that will be offered by the BSA - not that there will mixed-gender troops.  Mixed-gender packs, yes, if that's what the CO wants, but not mixed-gender troops.  Based on Gwaihir's more recent post, he at least seems to agree with me that it is a matter of interpretation.  So we can fault the BSA for several aspects of how this whole thing has been handled, but not for switching from single-gender troops to coed troops in the past month.  I see no reason to believe they have done that.

 

This is the statement.  Not out of context, the whole sentence:

 

It will be up to local Cub Scout Packs, parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family packs or only serve boys or girls; we anticipate a similar structure at the Boy Scouts level.

 

Clearly the intention (similar) is to have "family" and / or co-ed troops

 

This was the statement on 10/20 (a clarifying statement from the Big 3 junta) 

 

While our curriculum is relevant both to boys and girls, our commitment to single-gender offerings remains the same. Our decision does not make our programs co-ed. 

 

It is apparently going to be co-ed.  There will be separate but equal troops no doubt AND (my editorial license)  parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family troops

 

Challenge will be that right now we go to market (basically) with 2 versions CUB and SCOUTS. 

 

Soon there will be: (one would presume)

1)CUBS - Boys

2) CUBS - Girls

3) CUBS - Boys and Girls (separate dens)

4) CUBS - Family packs

5) SCOUTS - Boys

6) SCOUTS - Girls

7) SCOUTS - Boys and Girls (separate patrols ??)

8) SCOUTS - Family troops

 

Good luck to the huddles masses yearning to joining Scouts finding the unit in the derivation they desire

Had the meeting and it was in one ear and out the other. If you try to enforce it, you are the bad guy.

 

Give you an example.

 

One of the Scouts on 3 camp outs now has snuck back into his parents' tent or shelter. Try to correct the situation and dad doesn't do a thing to encourage doing the right thing. This weekend he sat the first nite next to his son's tent until he fell asleep. When I treid to get dad away, I was told "Do yo want me to leave, because if you force this we will." Now I had enough to deal with running camporee, and went to talk to the adults that would be with the troop about the situation. They all knew about it, had no problems and one commented "glad he isn't leaving the shelter, baby steps."

 

I walked off thinking "THIS IS FREAKING BOY SCOUTS!"

 

Had a chat with the SM about all this. He does not see any problems with siblings tagging along. Part of that is his daughter will tag along on occasion. He says as long as they stay out of the way it should not be a problem. But the siblings do not. His daughter has jumped right in and do activities with the boys. The Tiger I mentioned  above I spotted  hanging around another unit's Webelos, and was all over the place getting in the thick of things. This morning while the troop was trying to pack up, he starts kicking around his soccer ball into shelters. The Scouts get and start playing a kicking game with him until the APL spots this and get the Scouts back to work. When the APL tells him he needs to kick elsewhere and points in a direction wher he could go and not be in the way, the Tiger yells "NO!" and then kicks the ball back towards the shelters, actually hitting it with the ball. That's when I told him he needed to go else where.

 

Anyway, it appears that the bulk of the adults. want it to be "Family Friendly." There is suppose to be a meeting with all the adults to set up some ground rules up. Don't know if they will get any input form the Scouts or not.

 

I am staying with the troop until after the meeting. After that I don't know. I do know that one small, struggling troop will shortly need an ASM. Something my wife suggested, and I have been invited to do, is getting back involved with the OA as an associate chapter adviser. A third idea that popped up is starting a Venturing crew.Out of the 16+ year old Scouts, only 1 showed up, and he was getting frustrated with the younger guys. I saw him away from the rest of the troop and start ranting to himself to release tension . As for the 14-15 year olds, the usual suspects were there, but I do not know how they felt. But I am going to find out. I know when they did the AT, they were vibrant and alive, now bored out of their gourd.

 

Good Lord - time to move on

 

Siblings / Kids staying with parents / Kid with the soccer ball needs to be dealt with

 

 

We had a discussion at a recent troop meeting as to why our scouts liked to camp.  The three top responses were 1) To be out with my friends; 2) to get away from my parents. and 3) to get away from my siblings!

 

Yes Yes Yes - Same feedback we have had. 

 

There was a really great parent we approached to be active in outings, he advised son had asked him to not be as they wanted their space.  We did have a place for him behind the scenes.  He went to camp with us for the week (we take 55 - 60 each time to two different camps each summer) I honestly did not see him speak to his son at all except on Saturday when we loaded up and headed home

I do not mean this as a National bash but do share others concerns about the Summit debt. I do see what they were trying to do. 

 

I have been involved in the planning, both logistics and security, of some major special events with comparable duration and attendance. I think they could have figured out other venues around the country and come out ahead. I am think they thought a permanent location would double as a 'Philmont east' and they would get more bang for their buck. It was a reasonable gamble but it appears their assumptions were off (probably wishful thinking) and the development costs were a lot more than expected.

 

Special events today is getting tougher and tougher, peoples expectations and what folks need to provide keep rising and it is a real challenge. (in my opinion that is why I think it may be best to leave that to someone's else venues but I understand the desire to do one's own thing)

 

It is really really hard to make the economics work on virgin land development vs a legacy property. (That is why selling off an old camp is a greater loss than it appears...recreating it would cost so much more).

 

I suspect that the Summit ran into the mountain real estate trap us Florida flat-landers sometime fall into. There is a reason that some hilly land is so cheap and undeveloped....because it can be really expensive to provide access to, develop, and maintain. I do not claim to really understand the balance sheet (I am the only non-accountant in the family) but BSA would not be the 1st entity whose fiscal solvency is threatened by an overly ambitious real estate development. Usually the big winner is the guy picks up the pieces afterward.

 

I am with David Co the Summit events are too rich for my blood...for that kind of money I'd rather do another kind of adventure. I feel like BSA has been slowly pricing my family out (but that and the Summit should be another thread.

 

We looked at Summit and while it was interesting, for what is offered there, I can do it for 1/2 the cost locally (we live in a state with mountains, etc).  As has been noted, more experience and less actual high adventure

 

You do have a good catch on the legacy portion.  Part of the beauty of Philmont (other than the actual beauty) is that it looks very similar and the trek is very similar to what was done 40 - 50 years ago or longer.  I went as a youth, then went 10 years later as an Explorer post advisor (all of this in the 70' and 80').  Then I went 3 years ago with my son and current troop.  Except for the better equipment available, it was really the same experience.  Most of the scouts we send today all come down with IWTGBTP syndrome.

 

Maybe in 20 - 30 years if it survives the Summit will have some of that, but now, do not see it and no real attraction.

 

Though I might want to swing by and see what $500MM buys in a camp property.

To be fair, a SM buddy was telling me of a problem he was having with an older gay boy scout who was hitting on a younger lad at a camp out. He was rebuffed and retaliated by stripping the boy of POR duties. Stalking etc followed (and things went down hill from there, police, counselors, etc, etc). So even Boys only issues of sexual misconduct do occur and have to be dealt with. I think rules will need to be tweaked...especially the first few years.

 

I do think the social dynamic will change. When Camp Woodruff started using Venture girls in the camp store our boys (of all ages) seemed to visit the stores a lot more than previously. 

 

The TPG's (Trading Post Girls) are all part of the marketing plan...a plan to extract as much cash from campers as possible

That is one big can kicked down the road...$136 million! I guess Jambo will pay for that...

 

Assuming $100 profit from each attendee and with the Jamboree in 2021, would need 1,360,000 to attend.  That is doable

If you wonder where the cash went or is in fact going, look at page 35 of the Annual Report (2016).  There is Note 5 which details Land, Building, and Equipment.  High Adventure bases (Philmont / Sea Base / Northern Tier) less accumulated depreciation of $28 million are on the books for $53 million

 

Summit less accumulated deprecation of $30 million is on the books for...wait for it....$364 million dollars.  Yes Summit is on the books for almost 7 TIMES the value of the other 3 High Adventure bases.  I find that concerning.  If BSA dumped that kind of cash and infrastructure there, just the debt service is ridiculous.  

 

Just for fun also note that in 2012 National Council issues debt to finance the development of the Summit, $175 MILLION in 10 Year tax exempt bonds.  There is a balloon payment of $136 MILLION in 2022.

 

Guess National will start admitting emotional support animals...for the right fee

"Too big to fail". It is now looking like a huge gamble that may not pay off. 

 

If you wonder where the cash went or is in fact going, look at page 35 of the Annual Report (2016).  There is Note 5 which details Land, Building, and Equipment.  High Adventure bases (Philmont / Sea Base / Northern Tier) less accumulated depreciation of $28 million are on the books for $53 million

 

Summit less accumulated deprecation of $30 million is on the books for...wait for it....$364 million dollars.  Yes Summit is on the books for almost 7 TIMES the value of the other 3 High Adventure bases.  I find that concerning.  If BSA dumped that kind of cash and infrastructure there, just the debt service is ridiculous.  

Looking at the 2016 annual report it seems clear the BSA is in some financial trouble. The Summit continues to suck cash, our net insurance is costing $70m a year (vs $40m in 2015), we lost $28m in net cash from operations (vs $6m loss in 2015) and then read Note 9.... the lawsuits being filed could cause “ ...operational impact on our program.†Just 1 lawsuit filed in Oregon is suing BSA for $21m.

 

It appears we are selling assets and continuing to bond with the hope that Summit will take off and the we won’t lose these upcoming massive lawsuits. Our assets (think selling camps) will keep us afloat for a while until we sell too many and kill the program.

 

The discussion around girls joining has been around for decades. While I think it can be done with a positive impact and will do my best to recruit those interested while maintaining our Pack, I think the BSA chose to include them to boost membership and save the overall program. I highly doubt this was done altruistically. Either way, what’s done is done and I hope that we find some new energetic volunteers and scouts with this change. I’d like to see us adding camps, facilities and programs while being at a loss of how to handle all of these extra volunteers. Perhaps this change will lead us there. Hope springs eternal...

 

Good Lord the amount of cash dumped into the Summit is likely never to be known.  You know they are selling day passes and locals passes to the Summit for non Scouts to generate up some cash, right?  It is literally trying to do everything for everyone, sort of Disneyesque.  And it it hemorrhaging cash daily.

 

As we speak of surveys and market research, what crystal ball told them there was untapped and unfulfilled need for a high adventure base in WV?

For none of these ranks does it say how far away from home, etc the camp should be.  If they meet the requirement, then sure

 

For Tenderfoot the requirments

 

Camping and Outdoor Ethics 1a. Present yourself to your leader, prepared for an overnight camping trip. Show the personal and camping gear you will use. Show the right way to pack and carry it. 1b. Spend at least one night on a patrol or troop^[1] campout. Sleep in a tent you have helped pitch. 1c. Tell how you practiced the Outdoor Code on a campout or outing

 

Cooking 2a. On the campout, assist in preparing one of the meals. Tell why it is important for each patrol member to share in meal preparation and cleanup. 2b. While on a campout, demonstrate an appropriate method of safely cleaning items used to prepare, serve, and eat a meal. 2c. Explain the importance of eating together as a patrol

 

For Second Class

 

Camping and Outdoor Ethics 1a. Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in five separate troop/patrol^[1] activities, at least three of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least two must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol^[1] meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1a. On Aug 1, 2017, this requirement will become: Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in five separate troop/patrol activities, at least three of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least two must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1b. Explain the seven principles of Leave No Trace and tell how you practiced them on a campout or outing. This outing must be different from the one used for "Tenderfoot requirement 1c". 1c. On one of these campouts, select a location for your patrol site and recommend it to your patrol leader, senior patrol leader, or troop^[1] guide. Explain what factors you should consider when choosing a patrol site and where to pitch a tent.

 

Cooking and Tools 2a. Explain when it is appropriate to use a fire for cooking or other purposes and when it would not be appropriate to do so. 2b. Use the tools listed in Tenderfoot requirement 3d to prepare tinder, kindling, and fuel wood for a cooking fire. 2c. At an approved outdoor location and time, use the tinder, kindling, and fuel wood from "Second Class requirement 2b" to demonstrate how to build a fire. Unless prohibited by local fire restrictions, light the fire. After allowing the flames to burn safely for at least two minutes, safely extinguish the flames with minimal impact to the fire site. 2e. On one campout, plan and cook one hot breakfast or lunch, selecting foods from MyPlate or the current USDA nutritional model. Explain the importance of good nutrition. Demonstrate how to transport, store, and prepare the foods you selected.  

For First Class

 

Camping and Outdoor Ethics 1a. Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in 10 separate troop/patrol^[1] activities, at least six of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least three must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1a. On Aug 1, 2017, this requirement will become: Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in 10 separate troop/patrol activities, at least six of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least three must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1b. Explain each of the principles of Tread Lightly! and tell how you practiced them on a campout or outing. This outing must be different from the ones used for Tenderfoot requirement 1c and Second Class requirement 1b.

 

Cooking 2a. Help plan a menu for one of the above campouts that includes at least one breakfast, one lunch, and one dinner, and that requires cooking at least two of the meals. Tell how the menu includes the foods from MyPlate or the current USDA nutritional model and how it meets nutritional needs for the planned activity or campout. 2b. Using the menu planned in First Class requirement 2a, make a list showing a budget and the food amounts needed to feed three or more boys. Secure the ingredients. 2c. Show which pans, utensils, and other gear will be needed to cook and serve these meals. 2d. Demonstrate the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products. Show how to properly dispose of camp garbage, cans, plastic containers, and other rubbish. 2e. On one campout, serve as cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in First Class requirement 2a. Supervise the cleanup.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is from the 10/11 announcement

 

Families today are busier and more diverse than ever. Most are dual-earners and there are more single-parent households than ever before [1], making convenient programs that serve the whole family more appealing. Additionally, many groups currently underserved by Scouting, including the Hispanic and Asian communities, prefer to participate in activities as a family. Recent surveys [2] of parents not involved with Scouting showed high interest in getting their daughters signed up for programs like Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, with 90 percent expressing interest in a program like Cub Scouts and 87 percent expressing interest in a program like Boy Scouts. 

 

Later the BIG 3 re-affirmed we were not going Coed

 

So the big deal is families and convenience etc etc.  One stop shopping, all these millions of people itching to join if only.....

 

For Cubs - Let's assume the family has 2 kids Tim in 4th grade and Tina in 2nd grade.  Going on the current plan of NOT COED but assuming the pack has Male and Female dens, poor old mom will only have 1 meeting per month that will be coordinated.  The Den meetings will likely be at separate times.  They would be on the same campouts, but that is maybe 2 activities per year.  Also I guess they could be at day camp together, not 100% sure.  She still has to schlep around to different meeting locations and times.

 

When Tim is in 5th grade and Webelos typically those (now patrols/dens) might camp as a den, so I guess Tina and family could come, not 100% sure

 

Then Tim crosses over and he would be in a Male troop and Tina would still be in cubs.  Current scouting is not really a family event.  In a couple of years Tina could join a girls troop, but not sure if there meeting night, events, etc would coordinate with Tim's troop.  Again, they could be at separate outings on opposite weekends.

 

Do not see how this will be easier on the under served family than current setup.

Even though "a tube" is listed in the unauthorized, the key component is being "carried aloft". Meanin tubing is safe as long as it is done at a speed and in conditions in which the tube and rider do not get airborne. In other words, be safe while tubing.

 

But that is the fun of tubing, the aloft part as you skip them off the wake and watch them fly off skimming over the lake.  Good times

Floating in a tube is allowed, yes. Being towed behind a boat gets a little confusing. It is mentioned in two places with contradicting allowances. It seems to be okay under Tow Sports, but specifically ruled out in Unathorized and Reatricted Activities #15.

 

Yep I see that now

 

Tow sports seems to indicate YES

 

Tow Sports

 

All participants in towed activity afloat (waterskiing, wakeboarding, kneeboarding, tubing, etc.) must have successfully completed the BSA swimmer classification test and must wear a life jacket with an impact rating consistent with the activity. Supervision must include both a skilled boat driver currently trained in Safety Afloat and a separate observer. Participants should observe the Water-Skiers Safety Code and the Boat Drivers Safety Code found in Aquatics Supervision, No. 34346. Use only floats specifically designed for towing that provide secure handholds for each rider.

 

Yet (Thank you search function)

 

Unauthorized and Restricted Activities

 

15. Parasailing, or any activity in which a person is carried aloft by a parachute, parasail, kite, or other device towed by a motorboat, including a tube, or by any other means, is unauthorized.

  

As Tow sports is on page 20 (Good lord 105 pages of G2SS) I stopped reading there and tubing will continue

Sure:

Paintball

Laser Tag

Water guns

Water Tubing

Four wheeling

Personal Water Craft

Towed Para Sailing

Hot Air Balloon rides

Dodgeball ( i still argue this it's different that using paint/laser guns)

Introductory Karate Class with qualified instructors

Certain pioneering projects

 

Those are some of the items I can remember that have been suggested by our Scouts that they have done on other youth organizations, but did not meet G2SC requirements. Mind you I do not disagree that some of them should be excluded but some of the others I think are a bit over zealous.

 

Candidly not sure we follow 100% of these, but many are allowed in some form

 

Paintball - Yep have to use targets to be compliant

Laser Tag - Yep have to use targets to be compliant

Water guns - Not specifically mentioned by name

Water Tubing - Tubing is allowed with PFD's

Four wheeling - As part of council program to be compliant

Personal Water Craft - Yep

Towed Para Sailing - Yep

Hot Air Balloon rides - Yep unless tethered

Dodgeball ( i still argue this it's different that using paint/laser guns) - Well not mentioned by name so......

Introductory Karate Class with qualified instructors - Yep 

Certain pioneering projects - Yep due to height

 

Well it just got escalated.

 

Long story short, an online discussion noted how one of the new scouters is now bringing his wife and Tiger to the camporee this weekend. I made comments about how this is a Boy Scout event, and Cubs are not suppose to be there. Major  pushback about how the troop had allowed 10-15 years ago siblings to camp with them, and other major pushback. Noted all the factors involved in why Cubs do not need to be there. More push back. Then 2 other private discussions on push back. One ASM of the troop is one of those pushing back. Apparently his troop growing up allowed siblings and did a lot of family camping. So he sees nothing wrong and thinks I am overreacting. He also stated " you are fighting a battle you will lose."

 

The troop is no longer fun anymore.

 

One good friend has backed off because of the new parents. Officially a second has backed off a lot due to other obligations. But I think he is disgusted with things and doesn't want to deal with the drama.  And a 3rd experienced Scouter has expressed a desire to transfer to another troop. I'll be active a little longer, long enough for a leaders' meeting the current SM wants because of all the crap going on. I know he is tired of all the garbage going on, and hopefully he will get things straight.

 

But it is definitely no longer fun. I already told my oldest I am backing away as It is stressing me out.

 

My word that is bad.  Our troop has 100 +/- in the unit, in the 10 years I have been with this trip only have had this happen once.  Mom and younger sibling came as we were camped at a State park.  No specific issue until her second trip into the scouts area.  We had a word and then she went to another part of the SP.

 

Obviously the Leader is not really a leader but a parent.  Most of our scouts would be the first one to not want "parents" and especially younger siblings camping with us.  We do have some conversations with some leaders on a little too much help.  Try to keep it upbeat and it typically works.

 

Also on this one  Apparently his troop growing up allowed siblings and did a lot of family camping.  Wow...that is a whole lot of fail there, maybe time to move on

Well, I am hoping that is exactly what they do (although, I don't think they will need all of your Step 3, just a slight change to the existing youth application form.)  And since they have announced that girls will be eligible for Eagle, that suggests (at least to me) that the rest of the advancement program, ranks, requirements, MB's, the whole thing, goes with it, so I think there is a good chance that they will do exactly that.

 

Then, you ask, why does it take a year to announce this and then another year to implement it?  That's above my pay grade.  Maybe it is a public relations maneuver. (Which may backfire.)  Maybe they want to look at all of the BSA publications and see if anything needs to be changed to make them gender-neutral.  (My guess is that there will be some changes that need to be made, but not an overwhelming number.)  Maybe they want to lay the groundwork with the CO's and potential CO's before the program actually goes into effect, and/or maybe have a "pre-admission" recruiting program, so that on Day 1 there are actually troops in place, with charters and leaders and youth members and meeting rooms and camping schedules, maybe some equipment, maybe a bank account, maybe a troop flag, maybe some training already done, maybe the handbooks and leader books and program helps and etc. already in the hands of those who need them, the whole nine yards, all ready to go.  (Rather than everyone standing around saying "Ok, what do we do now?)  Maybe they understand how big a change this is and want time to think about how to best present it to the existing membership and the public.  Maybe they really haven't been able to agree on a name yet.  Or maybe none of these, or all of these, or some combination, and/or others that I haven't thought of.

 

You have noted the heart of the matter - so that on Day 1 there are actually troops in place, with charters and leaders and youth members and meeting rooms and camping schedules, maybe some equipment, maybe a bank account, maybe a troop flag, maybe some training already done, maybe the handbooks and leader books and program helps and etc. already in the hands of those who need them, the whole nine yards, all ready to go.

 

That is the real crux of the situation, who is going to do all the training, recruiting, etc.  Actually starting new troops (not including outreach council setup troops) is not that common.  Yes there are new leaders that need to be trained, but starting from scratch is not the norm.  

 

There will likely be much standing around and wondering, then they will want to head down the street, or within the same CO to join or "sister" with an existing troop.  Maybe that is the actual plan, I feel there is much hope for the best and the assumptions that current volunteers will just work it out.  For many current troops not sure how that will be in reality.  Troops are usually (right or wrong) their own social units.  Scouts gravitate to the one that meets their needs and is comfortable.  You upset that social order and suddenly you may not have a troop.

 

On the Cub side most packs have enough challenge to effectively staff dens, much less double up the dens for co-ed operations.

Interesting Op Ed piece by Sylvia Acevedo, a rocket scientist, entrepreneur, executive and lifelong Girl Scout, is CEO of Girl Scouts of the USA

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2017/10/24/girls-star-in-girl-scouts-supporting-players-again-in-boy-scouts-sylvia-acevedo-column/790244001/

 

Some quotes - 

 

"We believe strongly in the importance of the safe, all-girl, girl-led and girl-friendly environment that Girl Scouts provides. "

 

"At Girl Scouts, girls aren’t the ancillary tag-along or supporting player — they are the central character."

 

"strong female role models show them they can be anything they want to be."

 

Interesting that if a current member of Boy Scouts posits the same thoughts (change out Boy for Girl and Male for Female) then that person is perhaps a conditional scout or not embracing of change.  Possibly not demonstrating the Oath and Law sufficiently

We had a ghost troop at the camp I worked at, typically only heard it on weekends.  We were doing the basic movement of tents, etc on a Saturday.  We heard a troop swimming etc at the waterfront, walked down there, nothing.  Many of us heard it over the years.  You never saw anything, just voices, splashing, etc.

 

On another note there was the the ghosts of dining hall pizza that came around later in the evenings after it was served, but that is another whole tale.

This is all about money.  BSA is just a business.

 

The scout law and scout oath is being used to shame scouters into toeing the line for national as they use the BSA brand to maximize profits.   You can count on national to make more decisions to increase income down the road.

 

The only time you will see the pros do anything that will make the program better for the boys is when such a change will increase their bottom line.

 

They have picked money over being trustworthy and loyal to the current members.  

 

And you have summed up the issues, the Professional and Board Room of Scouting versus (sadly that is the case) the front line Scouters providing program at the unit level to the youth.

 

- One group feels we needs Scouts so that money can be raised

 

- One group feels we need to raise money so there can be programs delivered to Scouts

As for the uniform, I sure hope you are wrong, because I just bought a new one.  Seriously though, I doubt they will de-emphasize the uniform, it is an important part of the "brand" they are trying to "protect."

 

Do hope you are correct, but then I thought providing programs for boys was also an important part of the brand

 

 

You missed one. The ageist policy on rank advancement that was codified in the mid 60's will be repealed.

 

This will be entertaining, especially as they roll out the (soon to be shortlived) Girl only troops and the calendar works against some of them.  In order to be "fair" and "inclusive" the 18th birthday will no doubt be on the table in order to work with and validate the prior underserved girls as the rush to the apparent real purpose of Scouts (Boy omitted by design) the Holy Grail of the Eagle Scout award (cue the trumpets)

My son was on staff at council summer camp, they designated levels for leaders (yes Helicopter leaders) and parents in the camp

 

- Simple over involved oversight: Helicopter

- More involved, checking on scout, asking questions on their behalf: Blackhawk

- Even more involved, direct involvement during classes, scout is two steps behind: Chinook

- Highest level, it's all about their scout, involves Camp Director in any perceived slight: Sea Stallion

 

You could almost hear their eyes roll when one of these leaders/parents would take up residence in a program area

I see, your decision does not make our programs co-ed. . .    but Mike Surbaugh could make a new decision at any time and instantly make BSA co-ed.

If you read what he said carefully the door is wide open to switch to co-ed at any time they wish to make a new decision.

They have made no promises to not go co-ed.   

 

The Co-Ed question will become codified in policy in less than 3 years.  In 2018 there will be Cubs with 3 options and 2019 there will be Girl Troops and Boy Troops.  Then (put on your shocked face) there will be surveys and listening events and for the enhancement of the program ALL units will be co-ed.  Perhaps this will be the line in the sand for some, those of us considered conditional.  Also the Duty to God will be optional, can't offend anyone and the listening events showed that was not fully inclusive.

 

No doubt there will be program changes on time requirements, camping, swimming, etc. to accommodate families.  The requirements will likely become less unit focused and more "family" centered.  Also the uniform will become much much more infrequent.

Are you referring to the current Scouters who will leave because of the inclusion of girls?  If so, I don't think it is fair to say they "were not fully dedicated to the Oath and the Law or the ideals of the Boy Scouts."  I have no intention of leaving myself.  I am concerned about impact of coed Cub Scouts and am more concerned if the next step turns out to be coed Boy Scout troops. But if there should someday be girls/young women in the troop I serve as Advancement Chair, I will welcome the opportunity to encourage their advancement and review their progress, and to be their merit badge counselor, just as I will continue to do with the boys/young men.  As a Committee Member, I will encourage their mothers to get trained, become ASM's and go on camping trips.

 

On the other hand, if someone else chooses to leave, I can understand that.  A few people in this forum have said they have already decided to leave.  Personally I think they should wait until the whole thing is in place before making a decision, but that's their choice.  People leave Scouting for all kinds of reasons.  It does not mean they "were not fully dedicated to the Oath and the Law or the ideals of the Boy Scouts."  This is a major change, and inevitably it will be too much of a change for some people.

 

That term came up as I discussed this, and my concerns, with our local SE.  He said that if people chose to leave, or not donate, perhaps they were conditional scouters.  I did not press that issue or comment.  My position is that Scouting has changed (is changing) and it will be significant.  Conditions have changed.

 

Other parts of the conversation seemed to be that this is a good thing, we just need to listen and accept.

 

Also delved into coed troops, Duty to God, changes to requirements and of course none of that is being considered, my counter to that was how can you say that with the 10/11 announcement?  National wants to add numbers any way it can, if they could scrap uniforms because the surveys say those not in scouting would join, they would.

Be reminded, this is NOT about serving girls, or other altruistic pursuits.  This is purely about numbers and fee paying participants and ultimately money.  BSA is down in numbers and thus money to National. 

 

Each scout paid in 2017 $24 in annual membership fees, that is jumping to $33 for 2018.  Much of that is driven by liability insurance, but also the BSA endowment fund drying up.  10 years ago that fund was at $350MM.  Now it is at $160MM.  Much of that is result of lawsuits and legal issues. 

 

Untold in all of this is the money that BSA National has poured into the Summit operation in West Virginia, literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and that Nationally owned site continues to be a money pit.  Also the vast money put into outreach programs for under served youth that are led by para professionals as no leaders can be found.  Not saying this is a bad thing or a bad pursuit, but the cost of delivering that program is much higher than in traditional units. 

 

Lastly no doubt are pension liabilities and insurance.  From the 2016 National Report - these two items (insurance and pensions) were up $21MM Year over Year.  Additionally there are notes in the 2016 Annual report on credit lines of $55MM, and extending those.  Also some forward looking optimistic statement by management believing that many factors (significant donations, program fees, etc) will help deal with the bonds coming due on Summit.  

 

Obviously the situation is more dire than is being portrayed, so the Hail Mary is adding girls.  Where all the leaders etc will come from to staff these new troops is unclear.  The ultimate end game for this round will of course be a fully co-ed program.  Those that choose to leave will of course be "conditional scouters" who obviously were not fully dedicated to the Oath and the Law or the ideals of the Boy Scouts.

 

Remember what they said in All the Presidents Man...Follow the money 

We engaged with our local council as we had questions, as the old Radio Shack slogan went, "you've got questions, we've got blank stares" was in full force.

 

Some of the questions we had went to what is next.  Uniforms, Duty to God, Outdoor, family camping for Scouts, and the first answer was "No, none of that is changing" and we asked "How do you know if you claim to not have known about this?"  

 

Best engagement went when they advised "I think we can all agree that Girls and leadership is important and BSA can do yada yada".  Our input was that no we may not all agree on that.  We feel that we can all agree the North Korean nuclear program is not great, not sure BSA is the one to handle that.  Yes a bad analogy but connecting two non related items may not effectively make your point.

 

Some discussion on that BSA was not like other World Scouting movements with regard to gender, our position was I am pretty sure there are a myriad of items we are not similar to with the World Scouting movement, did that mean we would be emulating those also?

 

Then the point that girls were already participating so let's make it official.  My response was so if enough units do something outside of policy, rather than address that the go forward plan is to change the policy to make everyone compliant?

 

I asked why nothing beyond the press release and nothing on council web page, or any social media.  If this was absolutely the best thing since sliced bread, why not own it and run with it.  They said plans are still be drawn up and will be communicated.  As has been noted, to say that National fumbled this change is being kind.  They have zero idea how to engage in change management.  If they truly believed the support was as deep and "unanimous" as reported then 10/11/2017 would be the best day ever for scouting in the USA.

 

Pretty sure the single gender dens and single gender troops are really nothing but a straw man.  The reality (from the BOY Scout perspective) to gin up a troop from scratch is daunting at best.  We are a large troop, 100+ and do 14 or so outdoor events per year.  Just moving away from the Church is a lesson in logistics.   If the CO decides to do a Girl troop, even if we are separate, how long before the parents there are campaigning to roll it into one unit.  After all, they are already trained, why don't those leader just welcome the new scouts.  Then we will go from a community supporting troop to the bad guys.

 

As they said in Red October - This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it. 

Agree - @John-in-KC thank you for posting the video. https://livestream.c...ideos/164161163

 

That is the most revealing thing I have seen.  Listen to the justification, listen to the comment "if you don't want controversy, just say no...can we grow another way, I just don't know".  Listen to the arrogance.  This was a done deal, short on specifics and how it might work, but who cares.

 

Basically CSE Michael Surbaugh is out of ideas.  This is the Hail Mary (in his mind) to grow.  Obviously his compensation is tied to growth.  If we see a bump, he gets a bonus, and walks away.  He sees this not as a program he is a steward of, but he sees this as his way to cash in.

 

He is correct, 10/11/17 will be a date remembered for the end of Scouting as we know it.