Jameson76

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.