yknot

That is what I'm talking about -- be prepared to change plans. My nephew was badly injured during a camp out that should have been cancelled or changed because of weather. It's no joke.

I kind of disagree. Having the mentality that you don't cancel for bad weather is the opposite of what I think scouts is supposed to teach. We teach be prepared, which includes being prepared to change plans. Even D-Day was weather dependent. This is scouts, not the military.

Maybe that benefits the judge, LOL.

Yes that is true. In public schools (in my state) once teacher performance became linked to test scores a lot of things were cut out. I was on the board of a PTA, an educational foundation, and a board of ed liaison and saw school assemblies, enrichment programs, kid birthday parties or cupcakes, and most class parties all cut out. The kids were lucky to get an hour for pizza and a movie before winter break. One of the other issues (in my area) is parents being overwhelmed with emails or long emails. For example, the PTA stopped including scouts, sports, etc. announcements in their week

I would say it is generally localized now but coming to a school near you soon. A lot of this is the continued aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting and other subsequent events. We've discussed this in other posts but this is why many schools and grounds are completely monitored by video cameras and why many now have security guards and hardened exteriors. Over the past 20 years I went from being able to roam local schools almost at will if I was known to the administration. Now, parents are not allowed in schools. There are no parent volunteers. No more helping at field day or running a

Thanks. There was a period of time where my council said it was doing criminal background checks but didn't do them. They believed anyone with a problem would balk at signing the waiver and they would self screen, so why spend the money.

Can you clarify anything about who was/is responsible for criminal background checks in scouting? In everything I recall, it was BSA. No CO I have ever dealt with had the resources to do that until relatively recently as part of their own youth protection initiatives.

Understood. But that developed over time and I would argue didn't need to get to the point where BSA felt like LDS had them over a barrel. Making decisions based on membership has continually gotten BSA off track.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the LDS mafia sent thugs to beat up BSA leadership and leave horse heads in their beds. Are you kidding me, LOL? A group of people who are supposed to be the most morally upright Dudley Do Rights on the planet somehow caved to this kind of pressure? This is what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure what you're asking. BSA was always in control of its program.

I worked in survey design in both politics and marketing. The BSA survey on girls in scouting was guided. You could not answer certain questions objectively. Most of the responses were gated and led you into another question that would push you towards an affirmative response. It doesn't matter whether the survey went to K-3 or rank and file. The results were skewed. Even if you don't believe that, there was no defense for not following the promised process and timeline.

BSA should never have allowed LDS to create a program within a program. They should have been welcomed, as any other CO, to participate in the BSA sanctioned scouting program. It gave LDS undue influence and skewed BSA decision making and leadership into increasingly fraught religious based social controversies. Scouting never should have become a Sunday school program for COs of any denomination. COs should have been given leeway within the confines of the program to adapt as much as possible to their local wishes but scouting should have remained true to scouting - a game for boys. And now

I don't think the issue was over the published results, it was how it was mishandled by BSA: 1) The surveys were guided so that you were led into answering in ways that supported a foregone conclusion. 2) Surbaugh and others were supposedly conducting fact finding meetings at local levels in which they assured units and parents that any such changes were pending the final results of said ongoing survey and would be implemented over time. While those meetings were still ongoing, the decision was made and girls were admitted almost immediately, breaking their promise. Now, I w

- Dealt more proactively, competently, and transparently with the CSA issue - Would have admitted girls years ago - Would never have made an issue over transgender girls

I think the rank and file perceive no difference between volunteer or professional leadership. They just see leadership. I don't doubt there are many well intentioned people involved at the highest echelons of scouting. What I'm saying is that it is not effective and is in fact has a two decade (at least) track record of being disastrous. It's not me saying that, it's the current state of the organization that broadcasts that. You don't wind up in bankruptcy through good management, let alone having to own all the contributory crises that led to this. I've worked with plenty of boards of direc

I don't want to beat this drum too much on this thread but in addition to the begging is the problem that in growing demographics you can't even give this popcorn away for free as a gift with donation. Food sales can be difficult. There are so many food allergies, issues, sensitivities, social issues associated with food purchases such as where and how it was grown, how it is packaged, etc. Most people by me are convinced microwave popcorn causes popcorn lung and cancer. They all air pop or buy it on the cob and pop it in ecologically green paper bags. The world is changing and BSA is going t

Everything you have described about how National operates at every level is a hologram for a rudderless ship. We have known this for some time. What you hear on this forum are people who have tried to shout iceberg dead ahead multiple times over the decades and have never heard anything but echoes. Except for here. We may not always agree but everyone on this forum is here because they have cared and have wanted to somehow make things better, even if those individual visions are widely varied.

I think your wife would be on board with not losing your house. It's not just scouts, it's really any kind of volunteer involvement. I was part of a lawsuit just from being on a board of a volunteer organization that was sued by a member over its membership policy. It took over a year of hearings, time in court, and a lot of stress before it was eventually thrown out. In scouting, everyone focuses on injuries and abuse, which are of course serious concerns, but you can also be sued for other reasons, like advancement issues. For example in some places, parents are quick to sue if their child's

I'm not speaking directly jjust about Mosby here, but about BSA leadership in general. I don't think I need to enumerate the many instances over the decades that BSA has operated in a less than scoutlike or honest manner. You yourself have repeatedly pointed out that CSA cases have been successful in court because attorneys have been able to prove negligence on BSA's part. That's what I'm talking about.

It does mean different things to different people but I think in this sense of managing a large institution it means being honest, truthful, trustworthy, etc.

To quote Cliff Booth, "Yeah, you kinda did." A good job for Mosby et al, to start, would be producing something more impressive than the Churchill Project, which was simply a knee jerk rehash of strategies and goals that have not worked. Focusing on membership alone is not going to ensure scouting's long term success. We might be better off having a CEO with more experience in youth organizations and safety. I would say a good success parameter for a future CEO would be elimination, or near elimination, of CSA cases because that is likely to have one of the biggest impacts on futur

You are one of my favorite posters and your intellect humbles me most of the time but I think you are over complicating this. The guy is doing a crappy job. He needs to go. If you want me to outline some parameters for an ideal CEO for a post bankruptcy utopian world, I can do that but to be frank I think post bankrupcty survival for BSA is so hypothetical at this point I'm having trouble ginning up the energy. I think we've missed our best opportunities over the decades to build that performance matrix out.

How hard can it be to follow the scout oath and law in your business dealings and management? If our leadership did that, we wouldn't be in a number of these messes. Regarding Mosby, we are paying someone who is supposed to have been a top Human Resources Executive $1.5 millon yet he testified he had never read the BSA's chartering organization agreement that directs the behaviors of a significant portion of the BSA's volunteer and professional staff. In other words, the bulk of the organization's human resources.

For starters, walking the walk.

I don't have an issue with Non profit CEOs making salaries that are commensurate with the marketplace. What I do have a problem with is CEOs who pull large salaries that do not at all appear to be linked to performance. BSA has been in a downward spiral for ... decades? .... and a great deal of it can be linked to poor management. We are not getting good value from our CEO and top managment salary expenditures. In my opinion.