Cburkhardt

Councils are intended to support Units.  A unit exists to work with a Chartered Organization to operate unit programming for young people.  A council exists to grow, improve and preserve Scouting at the unit level through its professional and volunteer staff.  It also exists to provide program opportunities that a unit cannot conduct by itself (like summer camp and certain activities).  Councils exist to protect the overall organization and members (especially youth) by assuring adherence to policies on things like advancement, life safety and YPT.  Essentially, councils exist to serve units, but units are responsible to be active partners in that process.  Units and their volunteers do not serve or “work for” the councils.

The single best thing a council does is to work to support units to operate in a quality manner, and it does this via its district executives and volunteer district committees and commissioners.  Putting on events like camporees is really a secondary function of districts and the quality of these activities is always dependent on the quality of the volunteers involved.  District camporees are normally cancelled only when the organizers have done such a poor job that the event is destined to be a fiasco for program and financial reasons – and there is no advantage in allowing a fiasco. 

The factors you raise indicate there are probably programming, scheduling, planning and financial mistakes being made.  There needs to be some fresh blood involved to organize the next camporee.  Consider volunteering to help to help organize your next district camporee to assure a steady organizing and execution process.  Finally, accept that these events are often less-than-perfect.

I was under the impression that these international Scouting organizations (which I know relatively little about) concentrated on assisting the Scouting organization in countries around world and did not engage in political and policy advocacy.  I took a three-minute peek at their web site and see mention of political and policy matters on which countries would take varying positions.  Does anyone know if the BSA has granted this organization authority to adopt and express policy positions on behalf of the BSA and its members?  

My two units (a ship and a troop) are considered an important part of the services offered to the community by our COs.  The COs believe that we are internal to their organization and directly relevant to the achievement of CO objectives and missions.  Our CORs for both units are respected and active members of the COs and are effective communicators.  We perform service projects each year for our COs.  We agree with and advance the priorities of our COs.  The idea that they would charge our Scouting units a facility use fee would be like charging a 6th grade Sunday school class a fee to use meeting space in a church.  Units that do not sufficiently develop this kind of internal relationship are missing out in many important ways.   

I don't know much about how Girl Scouts works and don't know if they encourage a close relationship with the landlords of their meeting places.  Since they do not allow a CO-unit relationship, their units are probably more vulnerable to being treated as "renter/tenants", rather than as program offerings internal to the CO.  I know of several COs that appreciate the difference between a meaningful unit-CO relationship and a youth group "renter" relationship.  The organizationally distant "renters" pay rent and the BSA units do not.  In fact, these organizationally distant youth groups actually seek a rental-style legal arrangement.  It is not surprising to me that such organizations ("renters") are eventually asked to pay facility use fees ("rent").  

A good District Committee provides a solid interface between Scouting and the local community.  Members can be critical in the placement of units with new COs and the successful formation of sustainable units.  A good District Committee assures there is a competent commissioner staff to maintain good unit practices and intervene when there are difficulties.  A good District Committee helps raise funds from the local business community for the Council.  Finally, a good District Committee organizes and operates supportive services like camporees and training conferences.   

Beginning with a general unwinding of strong District Committees in the 80's, many of these responsibilities began to fall on the shoulders of professionals, who reluctantly began taking on what eventually became an excessive burden.  This gave the impression that the professionals were "taking over" the program.  The actual circumstance was that they were being forced to substitute for the declining tradition of community leaders and former unit scouters becoming mentors and Scouting promoters on district committees.  It did not work well.  The trend resulted in the DEs becoming over-worked and always-blamed for nearly everything. 

If we could restore competent and positive District Committees everywhere, units would be benefitted greatly.  I have to say that the District Committee and Commissioner Staff in our District (which happens to comprise the geography of the District of Columbia) is quite good.  Its presence and effectiveness is a principal reason why our local Scouting did not decline as much during COVID/bankruptcy and has recovered nicely.   

With our Council's new service fee of $80/year, our Council will no longer do FOS at the unit level.  Prior to this, I had my 2 units (a Troop and a Ship) make an annual unit contribution to the Council to offset our not participating in Council-organized fundraising.  We will discontinue this annual unit contribution practice as a result of the new fee.  It would be difficult for conduct a unit FOS and charge a service fee, because the FOS solicitation was always presented as a way to pay for the things the service fee now handles. 

Units should collect “all-in” dues to pay for operations and national/local fees.

Everyone participating on this site knows we provide a huge financial bargain for our member families.  This becomes very apparent when comparing Scouting fees to other activities for youth.   

When we started our all-girl troop in DC in 2019, we decided to calculate the all-in cost of our year long-program (with the exception of campouts and summer camp).  This included purchase of things to keep our equipment inventory up-to-date, program materials and special activities and our annual dues to council/national.  This includes everything from award patches to refreshments at the court of honor.   We calculated the annual out-of-pocket cost at $400 for each girl.  We therefore collect $200 dues at the start of each academic semester and fully fund our program from that.  For monthly campouts and summer camp, we simply collect the break-even costs.  We average the weekend campout costs so it is always the same amount – to minimize confusion.

As a result, we do not conduct product sales or similar fund raisers – the conduct of which deforms program and chews through leader time and wallets.  Once a year we hold a coffee gathering of our families as our only fundraiser to help pay the dues for under-resourced girls.

When I posted this arrangement a few years back, a lot of folks thought this was outrageously expensive.  However, if we are honest about what all of us spend to make these units function, this is reasonable.  After four years, we continue to do the same thing and there are no complaints.  We spend our money is an organized manner and are never concerned that the account is getting empty.  

If participating families and we value the work we are doing, we should not apologize for recovering our full costs in a manner that respects the time investment of the volunteer leaders. There is nothing about Scouting that requires its volunteer leaders to operate units out of their own wallets or in a financially strained manner.  That's right -- I'm talking to the many of you who have stacks of popcorn boxes, faded Christmas wreaths and rotten candy in your basements.

Let's leave behind the horrible cycle of fundraising, continuous small fee collections and unit leaders effectively paying for many things without full reimbursement.  Because council and national fees will continue to rise, there is even more of an incentive to operate this way.  My four-year experience is that our families willingly pay, because they fully understand our costs.  Don't just sit there and be flustered -- make the change.

Our mega-sized girl troop (that is not paired with a boy troop) does not rely on crossovers.  We recruit at least 80% of our new members through simple open houses and similar tactics.  I would focus on effectively recruiting girls.  Solely relying on "crossovers" does not provide plentiful membership for girl troops.  I would spend time figuring out how to recruit bunches of girls who have not been in Cub Scouts instead of figuring out how to operate a micro-sized girl troop.  Your heart is in the right place and you will figure this out.  Proceed with confidence.  You have a wonderful program to offer girls and they will join when you share your story. 

6 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

You may not realize it, but there are ways for SEs, and to a lesser extent DEs, to manipulate who is, and is not, on a district committee, council executive committee, or council executive board.

When I serve on a council board or district committee, I want the senior responsible executive present to report on activities and be questioned on critical projects.  The CEO of a company is always present at board meetings and is normally a member.  Attendance of a paid employee is appropriate and not a key issue. 

It is the ability and willingness of volunteer council board or district committee members to fulfill their roles without allowing themselves to be overly influenced by anyone -- including professional staff.  Paid employees are in the position to have more-extensive knowledge of facts and have superior relationships with outside parties, such as national BSA employees.  Weak board members can allow themselves to be co-opted by paid professionals or others for any number of reasons.  These are not the right people to serve.  Certainly, there are professionals who have arranged to overly-dominate their boards or district committees.  These are plainly-obvious circumstances that can be corrected by the insertion of strong-willed and objective individuals.

I have served on key BSA boards and committees at every level of the organization from the 1980s onward.  I can only think of two examples of the kind of individuals you are concerned about who pulled the organizations off-track with their approaches -- and these individuals were laid low by some of the tougher volunteers who asked the right questions and followed up month after month.  

There is no rule or procedure that can prevent undue influence by professionals or others who might seek to overly-dominate.  Only the presence of the right kind of members on the nomination committees and boards can offset such behavior.  If the CORs and other informed volunteers in a council are unwilling or ineffective in assuring that the right people are involved, they will have little to complain about.  They must be willing to engage in and resolve conflict in favor of the future of our young people.  Registering complaints will get you absolutely nowhere -- after 38 years I have never seen that approach work.

Councils that are continuously impacted by narrow or rigid thinking by overly-dominant individuals -- because the CORs and others will not step-up -- will ultimately receive a visit from someone like me.  You will learn that the days remaining for your declining council are few.  

On 9/19/2023 at 2:24 PM, SiouxRanger said:

I just ask who was responsible for "adequately govern and manage Scouting?

When a Council becomes fundamentally dysfunctional, it is because the council board is not doing its job.  This is usually coupled with professional leadership that either overly-dominates the board or is incapable of inspiring its volunteers to fully embrace their board roles.

The volunteer Board Chair (formerly known as "Council President") and other principal volunteer leaders are responsible to set policies and priorities for the operation of Scouting within a geographic territory.  The Scout Executive is paid by and reports to them and not the other way around.  Board members who allow themselves to be relegated to only program implementation or menial tasks are simply not the right kind of people to serve.  We need strong minded and objective individuals who have local and informed judgement -- and they should be the ones setting the critical budget, property, fiscal, fundraising and program prioritization policies.  They should exercise their fiduciary duties on behalf of the youth who benefit and not be concerned about being popular or receiving awards.

The examples of dysfunctional property and membership circumstances I provided above could easily have been avoided if board members had been willing to recognize and transparently deal with the obvious -- plummeting membership, excessive and underutilized properties, unproductive professionals and uncontrolled spending or debt.  Professionals are responsible to implement the policies of the local board in a manner consistent with the rules and regulations of the BSA.  They should neither dominate boards nor take the entire blame for everything going wrong in a council.  The ineffective ones should be counseled to success or discharged if unable to perform.

When I finished my role as the council president who worked with our board and professionals to implement the merger and correct dysfunction, I received no award or even a note of thanks from those who benefitted from my work.  This did not disturb me, because it was the satisfaction of serving effectively that was my reward.  I am no hero or example of the perfect board member -- but we do need volunteer leaders who are capable and willing to make the hard calls and who do not bring narrow or rigid thinking.   Now is the right time for interested volunteers to influence who will serve on your 2024 council executive boards.  Chartered Organization Representatives have the responsibility and right to be involved.  

On 5/1/2023 at 6:27 AM, ThenNow said:

I recognize the Council merger wrangle is largely precipitated by the financial crunch due to the case, but this conversation seems to have taken us well off the bankruptcy discussion path. No? The wander has gone so far as to find an "I quit if they do that" bench for Vol Scouter. That sounds depressing for Scouting.

I have read most of your postings concerning the bankruptcy and am glad you added your voice here.  Your thoughts informed many of us on topics we were not as familiar with and upgraded the quality of sensitive discussions.  Many of us have had long-time engagement with the operational leadership of units, councils and the national organization and enjoy exchanging information and opinions on how the BSA can best provide safe and meaningful program for all of us to participate in.  Sometimes these conversations can be very direct -- but that is only because we are seeking to encourage what is best for the young people of our country -- and that is important.

The bankruptcy is causing us to recast the fundamentals of our business platform, management and some aspects of program operation.  These are critical and existential matters and we have to make our decisions correctly during the next couple of years if we are going to regain organizational health and re-establish our role as a leading and trusted organization.  I encourage everyone, including you, to contribute informed practical ideas on how we can best reposition Scouting to an even stronger position.

As the lessons of the bankruptcy are internalized, changes are made and a sense of justice is provided to abused members, the bankruptcy will have served to make us better.  That time is coming -- so we all need to begin enjoying visioning where our future will be.

Regarding very small councils, the only way these work in a sustainable way is to (1) have camping property fully endowed and popular with out-of-council troops to break even and provide capital improvement revenue, (2) have a single professional employee (and maybe a helper) to function as a SE/DE and (3) use the camp for the service center.  Those councils need to function mostly as volunteer-operated entities.  If the expenses get loaded-up beyond that, it is the job of the volunteers to raise the necessary cash.

When we did our combination, one of the combining councils was very small, yet it operated two long term camps located 4 hours from the council and a Cub Scout camp about an hour away.  The two long term camps operated for 2 weeks each summer.  To operate this arrangement, funds had to be raised each year to effectively subsidize each long term Scout camper for over $400.  The Cub camp was essentially undeveloped and would require further capital investment. 

How did such a small council end up with all of that cash-eating property?  It was itself the product of a "merger of equals", where pre-merger promises were made to keep and operate all existing properties.  The combined council leadership was able to deal effectively with this non-sustainable circumstance.  This illustrates why combining councils should not promise to keep and operate everything as before.  The new council will likely need to change things and should avoid poisoning its membership relations by breaking promises.

18 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

In your council how many of the former did you start and end with, and how much of the latter fell as you did that? 

Also, what were the factors that drove the four councils not working, and what structural changes allowed the new council to overcome those forces?

The combination I led was a 4-year project in a major metropolitan area, so it is not possible to adequately summarize the effort in a short posting.  However, here are some basics:

• The principal challenge for the four predecessor councils was an inability or unwillingness to adequately govern and manage Scouting.  Membership was dropping 5% - 10% annually and finances were on a steep decline.  After years of encouraging the councils to upgrade things, national withdrew the four charters, disbanded the executive boards and directly implement a combination.
• There were seven camps, including four long term summer camp operations.  This was resized to three camps, including two long term camps.  Much of the camp sales proceeds were reinvested in the go-forward properties.   This re-set the finances of camp operations from a huge money loser (the predecessor operations were receiving huge subsidies from the operating budgets) to a respectable operation that has modest excess revenue at the end of each year to help capital improvements.  Decades of postponed maintenance was addressed, including utilities, program, buildings and equipment.
• There were four service centers and a marketing office in a shopping mall.  The service centers were retained, and the mall office was closed.
• The membership losses were halted through a massive overhaul of volunteer and professional leadership.  The combined council actually had membership growth the second year of the combination.  This was because we instituted unified and well-disciplined membership growth and rationalized field service.  A few years later COVID and the bankruptcy caused significant negative membership impacts, but those losses were far less than what would have occurred if the combination had not occurred.
• This probably all sounds a bit simple.  That's because the challenges and solutions were very apparent.  A crisis of governance prevented the councils from addressing the basics and the combination allowed new leadership and personnel to make the necessary decisions and move forward. 
• Ten years have passed since the start of the effort and developments have impacted on the combined council.  Since I left it has unified the long-term camping program into its 5,000-acre mega reservation with 3 operating camps (and 2 camps in "mothballs").  This last summer the reservation was "packed" with Scouts.  It can easily accommodate almost any membership growth scenario.  It has also adjusted districts from legacy boundaries to groupings are more naturally serviced.  It has weathered the COVID/bankruptcy issues better than most councils.
• In direct response to your question, the combination allowed a "hard reboot" in the geography that was necessary because the volunteer governance and professional management of Scouting was unable to adequately process change to continue providing Scouting.  Necessary membership, finance, property and field servicing changes were able to be made by the new structure because the deformities of personal hostility and institutional drag were offset.
• I don't want to get into a detailed examination of this particular combination (at least not in this posting).  However, the combination would not have been able to make necessary adjustments if pre-combination "guarantees" were made that "nothing will change".  For all of the many reasons that have been detailed by our Scouting colleagues on this site for many years -- we need significant and timely adjustments to how Scouting is governed and managed in many councils.  Every council should give strongest consideration to adjusting their governance and management structures while recovering institutional health from COVID/bankruptcy challenges.

The new council combination sounds like a great move.  As former president of a council that was formed by a pre-bankruptcy/COVID four-council combination, I observe 8 years later that combining was the best possible move to address challenges that threatened to end essential services to youth in the involved geography.  It was not a perfect process, but the things that worked were successful because we faced and acted on the big issues with complete honesty and transparency -- with the entire Scouting community providing input and being informed throughout the effort.  Please do not fall into the trap of trying to simply continue everything "the way it has always been".  This will prevent you from making the changes necessary to propel your council to a better place.  Make the hard decisions after a full, transparent evaluation.  Even the holy grail of camp properties should be on your agenda.   Don't fall into the trap of being a "merger of equals", as that encourages division and destructive entrenchment from the start.  Rather, take new approaches to address the precise reasons that have driven the councils to combine.

My presidency of that new combined council was a lot of work, but I recall it as my proudest Scouting moment because we actually made the changes to address the fundamental issues.  We were continuously mindful of the needs of future Scouts.   Believe it or not, this can be a very productive and friendly time for Scouting in the combining geography.  Finest wishes on your effort. 

Summer Camp Experiences GREAT This Year

Nothing is ever perfect, but my 2 experiences at summer camps this year showed me that we are moving in the right direction. 

I dropped my beautiful daughter off at Owasippe (reservation for Chicago area located in SW Michigan) to serve as a CIT and stayed 5 days with my wife.  The spirit of the Scouts and Scouters could not have been better.  Only 4 campsites remained available for the entire summer.  Demand is through the roof.  Better yet, there was relief and optimism on the part of the Scouters I met about the departure from bankruptcy.  Confidence in the future seemed high.

I next spent a week as Skipper with my large Ship at Goshen Scout Reservation (large reservation for DC area) and came away with the same basic impression.  Attendance was up, spirits were high and program was restored to a high post-covid standard.

Admittedly, these are 2 reservations historically operated at the highest levels of quality -- but there was regardless a great improvement of quality and confidence among the scouts, unit leaders, staff and professionals.  We still have many things to achieve until we are past the troubles of recent years, but the joy of youthful participation at camp this summer is something to admire.  

My friends, all is going to be well.     

$80   Youth

$60  Adults

$30  ScoutReach

$25  Joining Fee

$25  Merit Badge Counselors

$50  Explorers

These are now public.  This is a $5 increase for youth, $15 increase for adults and a new fee for MB Counselors.   The MB counselors are being required to pass YPT and undergo background checks as a result of the negotiated bankruptcy settlement.  These fees are being subsidized by private donations to keep the increases at these levels.  Without the private donations, the youth fee would be at least $100.

While I do not have the specific numbers, I am generally aware through national contacts that Sea Scouts maintained membership and grew marginally during 2022.  Its future will probably continue as a micro-program as long as it continues to be a low-cost/no-cost program to councils and restores more of its pre-covid/pre-bankruptcy membership.

Early on, the bankruptcy discussions on these posts had a broader perspective including the impacts on both the BSA as an institution and claimants individually.  There was a natural narrowing of the discussion and claimants led the way as the bankruptcy proceedings focused on the complex technical treatment of the claims and establishment of the trust. 

Now we are beginning to deal with the how the bankruptcy is significantly impacting the future for various BSA entities and it going-forward members.  This discussion will ultimately include things like mergers, local council bankruptcies and significant local and national changes (many positive) in the program and its management as a direct or indirect result of the bankruptcy.  Perhaps the moderators should consider opening a new thread and specifically focus it on the trust implementation and claimant-related issues so claimant-related parties can discuss the details of trust implementation without mixing-in BSA structural issues.  The rest of us can then open individual threads on BSA structural issues with a bankruptcy connection as they arise. 

First, I’ll answer the original poster’s question.  She exhibited objection to hearing religious viewpoints being shared at a BSA meeting (apparently a district BSA function), concern that her child might hear a religious viewpoint at some future BSA event and wants to know how she can avoid such circumstances.  The answer is simple.  The BSA will not limit the sharing of a religious prayer at one of its events.  The BSA will not restrict a group of girls in our Troop from deciding they wish to pursue a religious badge.  The BSA will not prohibit me from presenting my optional Sunday morning “moment of thankfulness” during one our campouts.  This is because the BSA is a religiously tolerant organization and will not prohibit these expressions of religious freedom. The BSA will not sort through viewpoints and determine which are and are not acceptable.  That is the role for your church, temple, ethical society or other group from which your family might seek such advice.

The original poster can absent herself from such circumstances and can instruct her daughter to do the same.  If she is zero-tolerant, she can join one of the many other organizations that disallow expressions of religious faith.  The point is that the original poster will not succeed in using the BSA to limit simple expression of religious belief.  Further, she will not be able to use the BSA to limit expression to one particular religious viewpoint.

The policy works well in practice because it works for those who have found a belief and for those who are searching.  That is as far as I will go in discussing it.

Part of being effective and happy as a volunteer in the BSA is understanding your capabilities, interests and concerns and blending with them into the BSA as a generally tolerant person.  We are a big, broad organization that serves the vast swath of young people in America.  If a person is a committed Atheist and regardless wants to voluntarily associate with the openly religiously tolerant BSA, that person is perfectly capable of dealing with it.  What I have never seen work successfully is for a person to join the BSA with a particular viewpoint and go about trying to narrow the functions or membership of the BSA to fit that viewpoint. 

The BSA’s Declaration of Religious Principles is a wide-open policy that welcomes all.  In our Troop this certainly includes the girls who are still trying to figure out just what it is that they believe.  It is the business of their families to help them sort those issues out.

People who want to filter certain religious or philosophical beliefs from their children’s ears are free to do so.  You just can’t use the BSA to enforce your personal views on others.  This is because the BSA is not a temple, church or other religious, ethical or philosophical organization.  Varying groups have tried to enlist the BSA to advocate or limit specific religious viewpoints and all have failed.  We are a huge group and are reflective of a religiously tolerant society. 

I believe the declaration of religious principles as actually observed within the BSA is effective and appropriate.  Those of us who have been deeply engaged for decades in promoting the operations and quality of the BSA have gone through many cycles of discussion and sometimes conflict regarding what the BSA should or should not do as its unpaid volunteers offer program to young people.  I read through this thread and congratulate many for the low key and relatively accepting postings on a topic that has sometimes elicited rage.

The BSA is sufficiently large and diverse to function as a proxy for American society -- with the exception that it focuses on the lives of young people.  It is because we are so large and embracing of the broader world that families listen to what we have to say.  The degree of interest in having the BSA adopt or discontinue practices is very high because we actually cause change in people’s lives.

Part of being effective and happy as a volunteer in the BSA is understanding your capabilities, interests and concerns and blending with them into the BSA as a generally tolerant person.  What I have never seen work successfully is for a person to join the BSA with a particular viewpoint and go about trying to narrow the functions or membership of the BSA to fit that viewpoint.  There are other scouting-like organizations that can satisfy focused program and membership preferences if the BSA’s more-open approach is not agreeable.  

Mergers.   We will see many of these and for good reason.  The principal reason is to being higher-quality program resources in the form of personnel (volunteer and professional) and facilities. 

The days of the council service center being a critical location for meetings and other activities are long over.  These mostly-underutilized locations are often oversized due to legacy staffing levels.  With Zoom meetings having largely replaced shorter meetings that used to take place there, and mail order having replaced the need for in-store stocking at the service center, the better option is to have smaller rented locations at multiple locations rather than a larger service center.  Distance from a service center is not the issue it once was.

Mergers used to be opposed by unit level Scouters for the sole reason that these placed council camping properties at risk of being sold.  The bankruptcy changed that dynamic, with many of the marginal properties already having been sold to fund the trust.  My sense is that people have moved on from insisting that marginal properties be retained at all cost.  People want fewer and upgraded properties and one way to do that is to merge.

Finally, the willingness of well-run councils to merge will evolve.  Councils that are known for great operations, finances and pristine properties are not interested in merging with nearby councils known for bitter infighting, worn out camps and loads of debt.  I foresee some poorly-run councils lacking merger partners and needing to liquidate before well-run councils are going to be willing to absorb those geographies.  A council that worked hard to survive the bankruptcy and institute best practices is not going to want to introduce unnecessary post-bankruptcy risk in the form of volunteer leadership that has demonstrated shoddy YPT enforcement. 

The merger process will continue to weed-out poor performers the way the bankruptcy has.

Extrapolating membership results of other Scouting organizations after they admitted girls is interesting, but it is not predictive in our circumstances. 

We have gone through circumstances that would long-ago have destroyed any other not-for-profit organization I am aware of.  This includes two decades of extreme dispute over membership standards, ten years of high-profile civil litigation against BSA councils over youth abuse, formation of a competitor organization that presents an ongoing public relations and membership campaign targeted to discourage boys and men from joining the BSA, departure of our largest national chartered organization (and disgruntlement of some other national chartered organizations) and a multi-year existential youth abuse bankruptcy and public relations crises focused on sexual abuse claims from 85,000 former boy members.  Pile on top of that bankruptcy-related sales of many of our camps, generalized distrust by today’s parents of organized youth activities, more-effective competition from youth sports and two years of a worldwide pandemic that shut-down much of our operations for an extended period.  These reasons are why we lost membership and are in a struggle to regain organizational health.

The reason we are still here, after all of that, it that the underlying principals we ascribe to and the character examples and program we provide children are absolutely the finest possible assemblage of youth development experiences a family can benefit from – and at least a million families have voted to stay with us and we are actually growing.  For those of us of faith, we could not have survived this without the almighty providing us forgiveness and ongoing encouragement.  It is the fundamental goodness of what we accomplish that has allowed us to still exist and will allow us to grow far into the future.  I know this to be true, and that you are reading this posting and sharing your considered thoughts on something of great importance to you supports my point.

We must focus on emphasizing and upgrading how we bring life to these fundamentals and minimize focus on the previous imperfect technical activities of well-intended categories of Scouters/Scouts commenters sometimes point to (professionals, council volunteers, district volunteers, professionals who are no longer with us who made mistakes years ago, girls, people who give us big money and expect to have their voices heard, young volunteers who do not yet “get it”… you get the idea.     

I respect the views of everyone on this site – even the people who consistently down-arrowed me a few years back for my support of all girl troops.  I just don’t accept argument that the admission of girls into Scouts BSA, which has led to significant girl involvement in groups separate from boys, has led to the diminishment of our membership or will do so in the future.  Female youth membership has not provided the transforming boon to us yet, but my four years of Scoutmastering a successful girl troop inform me that this is definitely on the way.

Thank you to all who are forwarding this important conversation, no matter your views.

Can we focus more on how having Girls in Scouts BSA will impact the BSA over the long run?

Here are some predictions to get this going.  In 2033 .......

·         Female youth membership will comprise 45% of BSA membership.

·         BSA will have reconfigured Cub Scouts by migrating to a GSUSA-style formation and operation model for that age group.  Emphasis will be on larger dens without packs and no chartered organizations.  The uniform will become a casual-style shirt with printed or iron-on insignia.  Outdoor programming for Cub Scouts will be increased and upgraded.   Mixed gender Dens will be allowed., but these will comprise only 15% of Dens.

·         After the business model is adjusted for Cub Scouts, girl membership experiences explosive growth and more directly and effectively serves large numbers of girls (and boys) in elementary school looking for outdoor experiences.  Cub Scouts will become the largest youth service program for girls.

·         Scouts BSA for Girls will continue under the same program and advancement structure and will still have gender-segregated Troops.  The uniform will be similar to what we have today, although female versions will have a better fit.  The emphasis on linked troops will have faded, with former girl youth members returning as adult leaders no longer wishing to defer to legacy adult leadership structures from the boy troops.  

·         Females will earn the majority of Eagle Scout badges earned each year

·         The BSA will adopt a new name: “Scouts of America”.  The “Scouts BSA” program name will be adjusted to be consistent with the new branding.  A possible move might be to brand the program as “Eagle Scouts”, with an appropriate distinction being developed to differentiate between those who have earned the top rank from those who have not.

·         Scouts of America will have youth participation rates and market penetration greatly exceeding 1980s levels, in part due to 45% of all youth members being female.

·         The Chartered Organization concept will have legally and structurally evolved to the point where participating third party organizations that follow the structure are no longer are liable for instances of youth abuse.

·         Seven female members of Congress will be former Scouts BSA members.

·         Service academies will successfully scramble for female Eagle Scout candidates.

·         The older youth programs (Venturing and Sea Scouts) will remain as small specialty programs.  Females will comprise 50% of membership.  Venturing units will be affiliated with Scout Troops.

How will having girls in Scouts BSA impact the BSA over the long term?  By long term I mean your predictions should be of impacts at least ten years distant.  You can be bold if you wish -- and I do not insist that you be granular or specific with your analysis.  And, it is fine to predict impacts going beyond the BSA.  I want you to swing for the fences as you predict things.  I encourage those of you who do not participate frequently to have some fun and post on this thread.

We have had four previous postings to suggest how units and councils can improve implementation and have captured what can be done to grow the size and quality of girl troops.  We have received many fine thoughts and several thousand views.  After this winds down I’ll share a summary of what I think we have learned during these past several weeks.