yknot

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 girls.

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 was mostly in favor of admitting girls, but the process was dishonest and created unnecessary ill will among those who were opposed. It made the transition that much more volatile than it needed to be. We lost people who, if the process had been allowed to proceed organically and in concert with what BSA was promising, possibly would have gotten used to the idea and would have stayed. Just look at all the scouters now who say they initially opposed admitting girls but are now strong advocates for opening the program to them.

- 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 directors, etc., and Fortune 100 connections don't mean anything without common sense. Look at Lehman Brothers.

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 to have to work harder to keep up if it wants to appeal to more families.

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 advancement progress is questioned in any way -- parents that want credit for no show leadership positions or family vacation camping nights, etc.

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 future membership. If we get through bankruptcy and yet the general public still perceives we have a problem, BSA won't last long or be able to grow much membership. Focusing on youth protection first would, to me, be walking the walk.

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.

I know of very few kids who do what they did in kindergarten in 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th grade. Except for the diehard few who decide they love something. I would also say that other kid activities don't have the same challenge that cub scouts does for younger kids. It repeats itself, over and over again, and gets very repetitive and boring especially as they get to that critical age when they are getting close to crossing over. That doesn't happen in other kid activities. Edit: And it also duplicates some of the school curriculum. Again, another challenge other kid activities don't have.

Not at all. I think many of these traditional CO groups are struggling to get their minds around this. But they have been confronted with some appalling realities and if their survival is at stake or could be hampered by an involvement with scouting, they would be negligent if they did not take steps to protect their organizations.

I don't think it's the "stuff" that will be the limiter, I think it's public perception. If COs wind up being truly damaged I think there will be little good will for anything scouting. Most people can't differentiate "scouts".. To the CO, the unit level person they had a relationship with was Boy Scouts. They mostly didn't see any difference between the nice folks who meet in their basement and national. If a unit person told them something, it must be true because Boy Scouts is trustworthy. The general public also doesn't differentiate between scouts. To them it's anyone with a neckerchief. Half of them think Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are one organization. My point is that it might be hard for any scouting entity to continue in the future if some of these doomsday scenarios unfold. This bankruptcy is doing damage to the whole concept.

Scouts should be aged out based on calendar year not actual birth date. Most other youth organizations do this. So you can either remain as an 18 year old until Jan. 1 or June 1 or some other such cut off. The other way to do it is to create another youth membership tier. I have never understtood why scouting cut youth off at 18. It encourages them to leave prematurely. Plenty of scouts would continue to participate with their home unit, even if minimally, during college breaks if there was a way for them to do so until age 21. It has also become increasingly common for boys to be held back a year. Unlike sports, there is no real physical advantage to allowing a slight older youth to continue in scouting beyond their 18th birthday.

Exactly. Does camping with unrelated male adults in remote locations in a program that requires youth/adult interaction and limits parental involvement increase the risk of predation significantly? That's one of the questions.

This is one of those areas where I think National could have had a positive effect. It has set standards, but to my knowledge has not helped council level camps leverage their properties for optimal usage and revenue. The successful scout camps in my area operate like any other commercial camp catering to working parents during the summer. They offer family friendly programming and services, such as full week camp, camp wrap (meaning, your kid can come early and stay late), busing, bring a non scout buddy, multi week/multi sibling discounts, etc., etc. Camps that are not doing this are going to have a harder time surviving.

4-H is older than scouting and every year has enrolled substantially more youth than scouting. I think when scouting was at 2.2 million, they were at 4 million. It involves youth in many of the same activities, but the program aspects of how they are administered are different than scouting. We've discussed this before in this forum, but if you google 4H lawsuits for child abuse you come up with very few. It does not appear to be as much of an issue despite the higher visiblity of CSA cases over the past couple decades. Or don't rely on google. Just recall how many headlines you've seen in your state over the past 10 years concerning scout leaders, religious leaders, and teachers vs. 4H leaders. Girl Scouts is about a 100 years old as well. If you google for lawsuits again you come up with comparatively few. It's interesting to note that cases that do appear generally identify a male abuser. This is one of the major differences between scouting and other youth organizations. The most generally accepted statistic is that 88% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse of both girl and boy victims are male. Other organizations traditionally have been open to more adult female involvement than Boy Scouting. which may or may not have an impact on the number of incidences. There is a lot we don't know about CSA.

I think it needs to be strong enough to counter the pervasive membership marketing messages of higher morality and character values that lulls parents into thinking their children are safe, or at least safer, in scouting. What exists now speaks about abuse in a general sense. The phrase that abuse occurs "even in scouting" subliminally furthers that false perception that scouting is somehow safer than anywhere else. The truth is we have no idea, yet BSA has marketed itself that way for decades despite knowing it had a problem from at least the 1920s.

This isn't full disclosure nor is it a real waiver. It says nothing about the unique risks involved in scouting nor does it mention anything about scouting's past experiences with child sexual abuse. If you take a drug, it outlines side effects. If you enage in a physical activity, it spells out physical injury or death. If you buy a ticket to certain entertainment venues, it will warn that bright flashing lights can precipitate seizures.