yknot

You can find it if you google Methodist Common Service Table BSA restructuring. It's on youtube.

This is what I think is going to be the problem. A lack of easily obtainable, affordable, liability insurance. Who in their right mind would insure scouting right now.

It's interesting that you are not denying the duplicity but are instead rationalizing it. Argue what you will but it would seem the drastic membership declines of the past four years do not support your claims. More ever, you are also not processing the point that the membership losses are not necessarily due to resistance to girls joining scouts but to the dishonest way in which BSA enacted it. The organization demands much of its volunteers but has always been able to bind them to it by claiming a high moral code--a code that resonated with volunteers. Once you abandon the moral code, however, there is not much left to bind supporters to you. That's what I saw happening in my Council during this transition. It traumatized me and I did not even really oppose girls joining the organization.

Even if the surveys were not guided to produce falsely inflated percentages, there is no defense for BSA reneging on its word to members to proceed thoughtfully and cautiously. Even proactive councils were left with egg on their faces when BSA abruptly changed tactics midstream. That is also a laughably weak defense for lack of transparency -- that the reason results were not publicized is because they would have been criticized. Behaviors and rationalizations like these are why BSA has lost support even among some of its most ardent supporters.

Of course the surveys were positive. They were designed to produce those results. That's what I mean by a guided survey. The surveys were not designed to do objective research but to provide statistical coverage for a foregone conclusion. That's obvious, because the BSA is on record in the GSUSA lawsuit as having already decided it would admit girls before Surbaugh ever launched his "town meetings' tour on the question. It was a duplicitous strategy that played out in real time in a lot of councils. As far as girls, I was initially hesitant because there are so few places for boys to be boys but on the other hand I completely understood why some girls would want to join. From the comments on this forum alone however, I think it's ridiculous to think that the acceptance rate among rank and file scouters ever approached 70%.

Scouts handled the internal roll out the same way. Surbaugh initially told everyone it was just under consideration and any changes were a long way off and would be well thought out. BSA sent out guided surveys that all but forced positive responses to the question of whether girls should be added to the program.. Like a week later, or at least it seemed to us, due to "overwhelmingly positive responses" from the guided surveys, it was announced as a fait accompli. It caused incredible turmoil in our council and led to people leaving because the way it was handled was so duplicitous. It was all the more shocking because it was our venerated institution that was supposed to be following scout laws.. I don't think what the GSUSA has rises to the level of a law suit but I also think BSA behaved dishonorably.

There is indeed a greater urge to get outdoors. The problem is that the urge has decreased within scouting. It's become very advancement and Eagle Scout driven. It's not universally attracting that many outdoors types. I've been pointing this out for a long time. Liability issues are more involved than just worrying about whether you have a lawyer's kid along on the trip. You still need to have some kind of insurance, policies and procedures, etc. People may be enthusiastic about it until there is an issue and they are faced with personal liability.

I don't think you are being ignored, I just think the reality is that scouting is done and that it will be almost impossible to continue it as a grass roots activity. A group of parents will still need public goodwill and liability insurance.

Eh. When in scouts, I feel like the scout honorific has priority to build corps de sprit. I would never refer to someone as Dr. or Col. only Scoutmaster or ASM or Mr./Mrs. Some people here say they combine them together, such as Dr. ASM or Col. SM, but I think that is unwieldy.

This is often the case with so many issues that arise on this forum and it's why many of us are often here. So many of these issues could be resolved if BSA would clarify what it means. I understand that in many cases, legal liability is the reason for the vagueness or lack of a policy. But there are so many other issues where a a little more clarity or definitiveness would simplify things in the field.

I think this is something best left to the particular troop culture. If you have kids who are completely intimidated by adults, then allowing use of first names might relax them. If you have kids who lack basic respect and manners, then setting the tone with a Mr./Mrs./Ms. might be the way to go. They are used to the Mr./Mrs. model in school and most other youth activities so I tend to follow that. Personally, I don't think most American kids have a big problem with confidence. That's one of the few metrics on which U.S. students habitually outscore international students. I have sometimes addressed scouts as Mr. Last Name as well but that's usually just been when I've been trying to get someone's attention. It does work, lol. One of the most effective leaders I ever had used surnames but also gave almost everyone nicknames. His methods were unique, but they created an incredible sense of corps de esprit. I think good leaders just figure it out.

That scenario assumes BSA would survive a post bankruptcy reorganization and be able to make future contributions to a fund. BSA's membership has declined for reasons other than just the abuse scandal. Corporate level fundraising has also declined, and I think it will be even harder to inspire donor enthusiasm when donations either directly or indirectly would fund compensation.

The kids in the Southern contingent of our family address all adults as "Sir" or "Ma'am". Reunion visits tend to make you feel as if you've had a sudden promotion to something ...

How would that work with a Congressional Charter?

Agreed. I feel like I'm in nursery school.

Adult to adult --- First name Scout to adult -- Mr./Mrs./Ms. No professional honorifics Adult giving instructions and referencing another adult -- Mr./Mrs./Ms. I don't like it when kids address adults without a courtesy title, but that might be more a reflection of our demographics. Some of the kids around here could use reminders about basic manners and social courtesies, especially in formal communications.

RIP http://blog.atlantabsa.org/hank-aaron-boy-scout/

It might be good if the reorganization gets scouting out of the merchandizing and printing business. I think there is still some value in having a paper record of sign offs for those that like that, but then it could simply be a sign off booklet and not a hefty four color handbook. If you didn't have to pay to print merit badge booklets, then it would make sense to keep niche interest merit badges like stamp collecting around for the small numbers of scouts who still want to do them.

Can you blame them? Most people sitting in the unit, district, or even council chair don't see what an SE brings to the table. They see council workhorses serving most of their needs.

I don't think it's the pay that is at issue. It's who we are recruiting. We don't seem to hire competent people, but if we do, they leave or stay through altruism but suffer in frustration. This forum is full of stories about competent people being pushed out or around by the BSA farm system. There was a recent discussion about what DEs and DCs and Councils do and it was mind boggling how dysfunctional the whole structure is. If you don't hire competent people, or competent people are unable to operate within your system, then every salary is going to be resented.

The titular heads of virtually every other organization this year issued year end statements of thanks and support to their employees/membership/customers/etc. If Mosby was a good leader worthy of a six figure salary, he would have issued a statement of thanks to the rank and file for their efforts to keep the ship afloat during Covid and navigate the challenges of this year. Short, sweet, motivating. However, nothing.

Mosby. Exactly. Where is our Captain? What leader does not communicate with his/her troops? Like... at all?

I don't know what an acceptable salary would be but I do know that what I would expect of a fairly paid executive corps would be an organization that is not in bankruptcy after a history of missteps. One could argue that organizational mismanagement abetted the child abuse scandal as well as other controversies that have damaged scouting. Let's look at this differently: if scouting were thriving, or at least better positioned to manage this crisis, I don't think anyone would be taking note of executive salaries.

It's actually not yellow journalism. It might be one sided, but it's factual. It could have been worse because it didn't go into many other related aspects of this case that continued well into the 2000s. Whatever you think of what's happening to BSA, you have to be impressed about what that young kid endured and how hard he worked to make sure it stopped happening to other kids at great cost to himself.

I think that's the nut of the funding problem. Councils have a hard time showing benefit to youth. All people see is what looks like bloated overhead.