yknot

Let me clarify. It had nothing to do with new future liability from existing cases. What (I thought) I understood was that BSA owes money to the settlement -- that some portion of what it has pledged or owes is going to come from future revenues based on its achieving its business plan and that that money will be funneled into the trust going forward. I was wondering if someone knew for certain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/us/boy-girl-scouts-membership-decrease-covid.html This is from about a year ago. Somewhere on this site is a chart from March of this year showing this year's number is about 650,000.

Do you have this link? https://methodistscouter.org/a-new-agreement/

My dim understanding is that BSA is also on the hook to make some kind of continuing future contributions to the settlement. If so, what happens if they are unable to do so? Does it matter? Somewhere buried in all the court documents was a restructuring plan that I thought was linked to a future contribution scheme. The business plan was based on certain membership numbers. BSA is currently far below the original membership number, although that doesn't seem to be widely known, and achieving the future projections outlined in its plan may be unsurmountable. If the membership numbers keep going down or remain flat when they have been projected to go up, does that have any bearing on things? Is that information that should be known by the judge?

As far as I know those are largely separate tracks: The tinkering that resulted in the 8/26 affiliation document is independent of the extension which gives units more time to sort this out. In a strategic sense it also allows BSA to show optimal membership numbers in its 2022 year end report for December. Some of the UMC units in limbo may ultimately drop but this way they won't be reflected until 2023.

There are about 55 million kids aged 5-17 in the US. The latest membership numbers for BSA from March showed 650,000 kids registered. The percentage is somewhere around 1.2% or perhaps a little higher if post Covid recruitment has seen any kind of a bump this spring and summer.

I doubt you'd find that in any one study or document. You'd have to do some research and piece it together from various sources like this one: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/National_Youth_Sports_Strategy.pdf This states that about 55% of US high school age kids participate in a team sport and that percentage has stayed basically stable over time. One of the issues is also determining how many youth are out there because the number varies and different sources group them in different cohorts. Youth sports actually are fairly well known. There are several studies from both private and government sources that track participation although the rates will vary according to the source and there are some inclusions/exclusions that also muddy the picture. There has been some interesting data compiled during and post Covid showing what kids were up to. You could probably track some of that down. One of the interesting local and regional statistics I have noted is that during the pandemic, many nature centers and outdoor related sports facilities that offered things like golf, horseback riding, tennis, nature programming etc., reported exponential growth. That was truly a missed opportunity for cubs and scouting which instead experienced devastating membership losses. Frankly, I wouldn't waste too much time on what else kids are doing. I'm wondering more why an outdoors oriented organization like scouting isn't doing a better job of attracting kids interested in outdoor activity. They clearly want it and are doing it, but they are just not doing it with BSA.

Most of this was free or cheap: - Local and regional airports small enough not to view you as a security risk - Trout Unlimited local chapter -- expert help with fly fishing and providing equipment - Local fish hatcheries - Historical barracks, encampments - State or local astrological observatories/societies - Hawk watches in the fall. Audubon through state and local chapters is a great source for birding in general. Volunteers have come and led sessions or hiked. Not free but in our area several ski resorts offer scout weekends where the packages are really cheap. Some have limited cheap cabin or dormitory type camping.

Except if the tights and a tutu were a protest over longstanding issues with uniforms that are not being addressed, then it's a highly appropriate way to draw attention to the problem. It's supposedly a scout led organization and yet no one listens to the scouts. if they are attempting to find ways to be heard, I can only support that.

I think with the UMC in particular, what most scouters are unaware of is that the UMC is in a crisis on its own. Its whole basket of mission work, of which scouting is a small piece, is at risk. The bandwith for continuing any kind of future liability with scouting given the perceived lack of trustworthiness on the part of BSA is small for that and a variety of reasons.

This was already posted here on July 1 on page 5 of this thread -- unless there is something new here?

There are no magic wands but of all the problems BSA has right now this one is fairly small and would be simple to fix. It's a summer intern level project. For starters, a lot of the artwork is merely to make an old fashioned printed product look pretty and is not instructional or useful. You would delete those images when converting to a downloadable free online version. The only things you'd want to keep would be photos illustrating a skill, informational charts, etc. Additionally, the current booklets are sold for a profit. If they were made available free for educational purposes, many fees go away.

It's not that complicated. Obtaining permissions from institutions and individuals is generally no more complicated than writing a letter or nowadays having an email record. If it's stock photography with a usage fee it can generally be replaced with something similar that is free or recreated.

It's going to be interesting because the Methodist church is in the middle of a schism and some of those who are looking to break away are not paying some or all of their apportionments plus looking to take assets with them. It may be difficult or at least complicated to come up with payments for an undetermined period of time. Although in the face of $2 billion, $30 million is not a lot.

Possibly. It's regional so it might not apply everywhere else though and the dumping started last year. But this conference does involve a lot of churches. I think the UMC problem is bigger than scouts. They are having a lot of issues of their own and I think there is limited bandwidth to handle additional issues with scouts.

That's LDS. I think the $30 mil from UMC is still in it. The promise to help fundraise an additional $100 million was I believe dropped from the side deal regarding rechartering between the BSA and the UMC scout committee.

I don't know if it belongs here or not, but the regional UMC conference for my area sent budget guidelines out yesterday that broke down how much each local church has to contribute to the boy scout bankruptcy settlement over the next three years. A number of churches already aren't paying their current apportionment for a variety of reasons from financial to philosophical and political so this is interesting. Local UMC churches that did not have a history of chartering a unit thought they were going to be unscathed but all churches will be required to pay. It doesn't appear to be a lot of money but for those churches who are currently having difficulty paying the electric bill, or who have a deep philosophical argument, it's possibly a bit of a lit match. The reason I put this here is because I wonder what happens generally if a third party finds it is unable to honor its commitment to the settlement?

This isn't terribly sophisticated in look but it is classic strategy. The questions basically reinforce positive attributes or connections to scouting, even when posed as a negative question. The question simply repeats the four positive points to stay on message and influence behavior. Even when it's asking it in a negative way the question just reframes and restates the positive. This survey is triggering positive connections and reactions to scouting with the design and the way the questions are asked. If they really wanted your input on what works or doesn't works for a fundraising campaign, they would be asking different questions. This has been designed by a survey/development (fundraising) consultant. It is getting you to think, hey yes, I'm a scouter. Yes, scouting accomplishes all these wonderful things. How can I possibly say one is less important than the other? Gee, it's important to me that it survives. Yes, I've supported scouting in the past. Gee, I should support it again/now. If I support it now, I'll be part of a better future for scouting... Scouting is not doing anything nefarious that others aren't doing, but it's not factual to think it is anything other than a fundraising tactic.

It's not negative it's factual. This is also how political campaigns fundraise. If you are motivated enough to answer a survey question the likelihood increases that you will also be motivated to donate.

I'm more of the opposite opinion. Teaching kids to tailgate in the woods is not what camping and outdoor experiences should revolve around to me. If you are often lugging a dutch oven with you into the woods or carting firewood or water for cooking, I would say that's counterproductive. I don't like to see so many people spending time around camp fires or worrying about food when there are trails to hike, wildlife to see, streams to explore, etc. I could see value in one rank requirement revolve around cooking a party meal and the rest of it focused on meals that are portable, eat on the go, and leave a minimal trace. At some point we're also going to have wrap our heads around the fact that campfires in the woods, or any kind of flame, may become harder and more ill advised to do.

If they remain chartered through December that means that on paper the 2022 membership numbers will include UMC units. Otherwise, another precipitous drop from the 650,000 March number could be a problem. It was probably assumed that things would be settled by now and that the earlier October deadline couldn't affect the plan.

That's ridiculous. Edit: For starters, a significant percentage of linked gender troops in name have been functioning co-ed troops in practice. I know, I know -- they were not supposed to -- but plenty have been doing it nonetheless.

This is a feasible option for you if you have enough like minded, trained, and registered adult volunteers and leaders. During the first summer after Covid, there were many reports of units doing a week long or partial week camp on their own. Frankly, having this option in your wheelhouse is probably going to be critical for many units going forward as more and more traditional scout camps are sold.

From everything I've seen, heard, and read over the years it is a desire for more functional fabric, fit, design, and components. Cost is part of the design and components part -- many people want uniforms streamlined to reduce cost, particularly the cub uniform where multiple new components need to be purchased for every rank. Telling people to go look in secondhand stores, which is something I repeatedly see recommended in scouting unlike other youth activities and organizations, isn't a great strategy. To me that means the uniform is a unique barrier in scouting for many.

I heard about that and had interpreted it as a form of civil disobedience in support of making the uniform more functional. Anyone else know if that was the case or not?