Cburkhardt

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

By camp operations I guess you're talking about long term camping. 

By operations I mean all camping properties.  Long term camping operations are indeed costly to establish and maintain, and it is the dream of every council camping committee to own and operate one of these — sometimes even if the facilities are in poor shape, located 5 hours from council territory and operate only for a few weeks each summer.  Some of these operations require subsidies from FOS in the range of $200 to $300 per Scout attendee.  Some of these distant camps are located near similarly-stressed camps operated by other councils.  Heavily endowed councils can continue those kinds of things, but most cannot.  Short term camps in the form of small unimproved properties are low-cost and should be kept if local tax and insurance conditions permit.  However, even those camps often have buildings, utilities and similar things that can become an irrational drain if a council camping committee allows the situation to get out of hand.

2 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

OK, one more time, the BSA does NOT own the individual councils. 

Of course councils are independent, and my comments to not state or imply otherwise.  The bylaws each council has ascribed to locally do include a provision that if they go out of business all of their assets go to national, but that is it.  My only role now is as a Scoutmaster of a frequently-camping Troop, but I have been a council and national volunteer for 30 years (including as council president).  So I understand the relationship.  
 

I make no apology for having raised the tough program, governance and properties issues we are facing as an organization during a series of several very detailed postings these past several months that thousands of Scouters viewed and commented-upon.  The virus is now upon us and has made circumstances for many local councils several factors worse.  It is not inappropriate to suggest different options regarding how things may play out for councils and their properties under these circumstances.  If your council has the resources to ride it all out alone, it will be able to choose to do so.  I have a direct understanding that a large number do not and will need to seriously consider some of the possibilities I have raised.

15 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

This begs the question by assuming there's a need for a national standard.  The US and EU are roughly the same physical size, similar populations sizes, similar economic sizes.  Do UK scouts coordinate their advancement program or their supply chain with German Scouts?  Why does scouting in Alabama have to be the same as scouting in NYC or DC?  If we're worried about consistency, have a Congress of US Scouting organizations once a year to recommend resolutions for the individual scouting organization to consider.  End national, spin off the HA bases as independent businesses, give the super councils a 3 year charter for a geographic area and then let them compete for units.  The BSA is a monopoly and demonstrates all the ills of being a monopoly.  The solution is competition.

WIW:  I think a substantive dissolving of organizational bonds if probably not the way to go, because there is some value in limited national standards, such as what an Eagle Scout is.  However, I think your observations contain hints of what is to come.  The future councils, whatever they are, will have the upper hand and will probably dominate the scene as a kind of confederation.  The head of a small national service organization is not going to have the influence or leverage of the CSEs of the past.  The big council leadership will agree what is needed and the national entity will service that decision.   

Qwazse:  Interested in your views about how to pay for the ongoing camp operations in the post virus/post bankruptcy environment.  I suppose a format could be to sell or gift the camps to local NFPs (perhaps formed by Scouters) or governmental units with some kind of covenant on the land to assure Scouting access. The difference between where I think the BSA may go and the GSUSA is that GSUSA seems to be intentionally walking away from camp ownership and operation.  The BSA does not have resources to maintain the infrastructure it gained during our strongest financial period ind is very reluctantly trying to figure out a way to have some of these properties survive.  I also agree the comments that the infrastructure on the properties is going to have to be simple and low-cost.  

The essential National Role would be to provide a consistent program the large “super councils” (using that term others have begun to use) could follow.  We don’t want 20 different sets of Eagle requirements, for instance.  Beyond that, there is a National economy of scale on supply and insurance matters.  The bases would also be great if we hold on to some of them through the bankruptcy.

Many are concerned that as smaller councils combine into or closely affiliate with the dominant councils, their local camps will be sold.  That really begs the question about how or why any cash-losing camp owned by a smaller council without a large endowment would continue to operate and survive under the current situation.  They can’t.  The unavoidable (and yes, sad) realization is that the super councils will not operate large “park systems” of under utilized properties.  The camps will be evaluated in comparison to each other and only the best will survive to serve the geographic territory.  The Chicago (Pathway to Adventure) merger will be the model used — meaning the camp closure decisions will be made quite transparently and quickly, rather than setting up years of deforming and dispiriting fights.  The cash should be used to improve and better-endow the going-forward properties.  That we did not act upon the need to do this with our properties 20 years ago is a big leadership fail.  We need to move toward having 30-40 pristine and beautiful properties nationwide (with some no/low cost properties for training and weekend camping).

PACAN:  The new national structure will probably be skeletal.  A reasonable prediction would be 15-20 geographic territories, many dominated by a large well-regarded council.  Perhaps there will be one national professional scouter in each territory to provide program consulting and serve as a monitor for compliance with advancement, YPT and other critical policies.  No regions, areas and other structures.  Maybe a volunteer committee and commissioner staff to provide services.  It might develop to where the dominant council provides management and direction necessary to the nearby councils -- which might become "field service" councils.  This will happen when many post-virus councils financially implode and can no longer fund personnel or camp maintenance.  In the Midwest I could see councils like St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago and Indianapolis perform those functions.  The "national" organization might be a confederation of these geographies and might focus on program, supply, high adventure and similar matters.  There is no longer cash to fuel the numbers or functions of the previous national professional staff.  After the virus and bankruptcy have their impacts, they will mostly not return.     

At this point, the issues surrounding the bankruptcy have been overwhelmed by the cash crunch from the virus.  Councils need the cash now and must absolutely apply for this lifeline grant.  It can be used to pay camp staff.  I can think of no justified reason why any council should not apply for this cash -- which is made available precisely to address liquidity problems caused by the business disruptions caused by the government-ordered shut-downs.  

Councils qualify for $10 million COVID-19 loan/grants.  I can confirm that councils qualify to apply for the $10 million federal loans designed to keep organizations in business -- the same program available to small businesses with fewer than 500 employees.  Many councils are applying.  As long as these are used to pay salaries, benefits, etc., they become grants and do not have to be paid back.  The amount each council will get is determined on a calculation based on its 2019 payroll totals.  This just might save the summer camp season from a cash standpoint -- as long as the local health circumstances allow for it.  

Prediction:  New National Structure to be Announced.  I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a new governance and operations structure above the council level will be announced sometime after the National Executive Board meets sometime in mid-May.   

The entire National Annual Meeting has been cancelled in every respect.  This includes the National BSA Foundation fundraising event.  I presume the National Executive Board and key national standing committees will find a way to meet -- virtually or otherwise.   

National Professional Staff Furloughed.  I am very sorry to share that 240 in Irving and 700 from Supply Division have been furloughed.  These are wonderful people who have served us for many years.  

Prediction:  The Nationwide Shutdown will continue until September.  No camporees, summer camp, high adventure bases or unit face-to-face events.  When we re-open, we will be a different organization.  Overwhelmingly led and operated by volunteers at all levels.  

Operating with a skeletal professional staff of only critical field and camp maintenance personnel.  Many current professionals will never return to the paid ranks because we will only bring back 25-30% of the pre-bankruptcy/corona level.  The national professional and volunteer organization will focus on maintaining our program and little else.  Council volunteers who cluster together in territories will finally negotiate the sale of underperforming council properties and consolidate investment and usage on the finest properties.  Camps foolishly built on credit or heavily mortgaged will sell first.  

Cash flow has ceased.  Dues, uniforms, camping fees, event fees, fundraising shares, fundraising events, pretty much everything above the unit level.  Corona has put a bullet in what was going to be a spectacular reorganization of the BSA from foolish membership standards decisions and our inability to detect and remove evil-intended perpetrators of child abuse.  We will continue as an organization, but this particular virus event is going to intensify all of the challenging impacts of bankruptcy discussed these past months.

As I am the eternal optimist of Scouter.com, you have probably only now picked yourself off the floor to hear me opine in this manner.  I am still an optimist, because the volunteer-driven organization we belong to is still be a great organization.  Units will continue to thrive and we still achieve great, important things.  I discourage embittered comment.  This is happening because of the random arrival of an historic event that is disrupting our best efforts to reorganize in challenging circumstances.

The benefit of our going through the reorganization bankruptcy is that the need for the BSA to have each base will get close scrutiny and the economics of current base operations will come under the eyes of experienced operations people.  The BSA will genuinely need to prove to very hostile parties that these facilities are indeed required for going-forward operations.  And, DIP management will need to show that each base will not be a money-loser.  In a way you will all get what you want out of this process, and it will all be conducted in a very open manner.  There will be no secrets.

This is just a hunch, but it might be that it will be easier to meet those proof standards with regard to Philmont and the Sea Base.  

Hopefully we will hold on to the bases through the bankruptcy.  If so, part of the future of the Summit would be to maximize it as a publicly available facility families could visit as part of visits to the new river gorge national park property.  They could stay there in the same way families stay at national park lodges and campgrounds.  Another concept has been to have national-class sporting events originate from the site.  These are examples of potentially profitable uses of the summit that rely on a positive image for Scouting.  One bright spot is that the Asst.Chief in charge of the bases at this time is precisely who we need.  Al Lambert is a program oriented “Scouter’s Scouter” who can do it if properly supported.

There is an unusual ability for the BSA to profit from Summit if they can assemble the right amenities and promote the place.  That is because WV changed its constitution by a statewide vote to allow the BSA to actively profit from the site by hosting private profit-making services.  

The effort was originally simply to have a jamboree site.  The Goshen Scout Reservation in the Shenandoah was chosen as the site (National Capital Area Council).  A group of national volunteers decided to amp-up the concept into something that would transform BSA programming with extreme sports and other things.  That led to where we are.  The use of the facility during the non-Jambo years is the fundamental weakness.

I am Scoutmaster of a 37-girl non-linked Troop.  We operate in the standard matter as a Troop, with four patrols and all the normal elected and appointed youth leaders.  Our SPL and her ASPL are tops and have attended NYLT.

I believe you should operate the troops separately in accordance with BSA policy because that is the best way for the Scouts from both troops to have the full advantages and opportunities of Scouting.  Fulfilling the role of an SPL is something not to be missed, and you should offer that to kids from both Troops.   Operating your Troops as separately as possible will cause the girl troop to grow more quickly and provide the full leadership opportunities for more Scouts.

Venturing is available for those chartered organizations who want to have a co-ed program.  Scouts BSA is not co-ed.

Last comment I'll make on patrols is that some of this dis-use of patrols may be caused by troops being just plain small.  I was in a 75-scout troop as a kid that had 8 patrols, so the practical reality is that we had to them even if we didn't want to!  There are just two many troops that don't even have 25 Scouts, which is just barely enough to have three competitive patrols show up to something.  Big troops are better in every way and make for great patrols that love to outdo each other.  

This elimination of the essential character of the Patrol System is just not my experience as a unit leader.  Nor do I see this occurring in my District.  Occasional changes in membership and having troop officers like webmasters and QMs do not destroy the nature of Patrols.  It’s really a matter of how unit leadership uses them.  And, small troops don’t have the same Patrol competitive opportunities as large troops.  We all come me from troops that had a variety of implementation techniques when we were kids.  My WW2 combat veteran SMs always made us go through our Patrol leaders on everything, for example.  I don’t do that, but we use them well, and so do most of the unit leaders I know. 

Dkurtenbach:  Can't agree with you on Scouts BSA.  Have 37 Scouts (all girls) of a wide variety of ages going through Scouts BSA advancement right now and that is just not my experience.  We have four patrols and never before has I seen the Patrol system work better.  Nothing is perfect, but I think Scouts BSA is calibrated very well for the age and interests of 11-17 year old girls.  The program still works.

At some point we should probably have a "deep dive" posting on Venturing and Exploring given the presence of females in Scouts BSA and the bankruptcy.  The BSA will likely be looking to simplify its programs to save costs and do a better job with smaller professional and volunteer staffs -- and Venturing/Exploring are areas that can be evaluated for streamlining.  My experience with older youth programming since the early 70s is that the BSA has continuously been tinkering with this level of program and tends to change and over-correct perceived challenges.  A flexible and truly youth-led operation with simple structure is all that is needed.

If Venturing is so reduced in numbers and dysfunctional in terms of its recognition program and structure, perhaps the national reorganization bankruptcy is the right time to re-examine its role in Scouting. 

If there ever was a "golden era" for the older youth program, it was the 70s and 80s when the older youth program allowed each unit to select a specialty and pursue it.  Some units specialized in outdoor adventure activities, others specialized in a particular career and others specialized in a hobby or other avocation.  While there were some awards to earn, BSA-style ranks and advancement was not central to the program.  Venturing in its current format is very "scouty" in look and activities.  Maybe with girls being able to be in Scouts BSA the overwhelming "scouty" themes of Venturing are no longer calculated correctly. 

Finally, Exploring was spun-off exclusively because the BSA was being forced to discontinue the DADT policy for career-oriented programming in the 90s.  So, a then-influencial group with national forced the career programming entirely outside of BSA membership.  That way the rest of the program would still be subjected to DADT.  Because we discontinued DADT, there is no longer any reason to maintain an organizational divide between the career programming and the outdoor programming for young adults.

I was a vigorous participant in the older youth programs when a youth member.  Later, I concentrated some effort on them as an adult district/council/national Scouter. 

These older youth programs seem to have a have an established program life, whereby the BSA establishs a new program every 20 years or so, lets it build-up numerically, and then replaces what they have with something new.  This leads to a drop in membership as some members depart and all parties adjust to the new program  landscape.  This is nothing new -- we have been doing it all along: 

• Traditional advancement-oriented Exploring of the 50-60's gave way to non-advancement "specialized interest" Exploring of the late 60's - 80's. 
• Exploring was spun-off in the 90's into a separate career interest "Learning for Life" program.  This was done because the businesses sponsoring the previous Explorer posts opposed the DADT policy.  DADT did not apply in the resulting spin-off organization, because it wan not part of the BSA.  From that point on, Exploring went into a tailspin.  It was not even included in council membership figures for purposes of evaluating  professional efforts.
• Advancement-oriented Venturing was born in the 90s -- re-establishing aspects of the 1950's Exploring advancement program using historic award names like "Ranger". 
• The new Venturing program was volunteer-designed, but much of it was reduced and greatly simplified by professionals into the current advancement program about 8 years ago.  The three progressive ranks are: Discovery, Pathfinder and Summit.  
• I don't hear much about  Venturing and advancement.  The impression is that the latest revisions and new ranks have not really taken-off.

Is the ever-dwindling number of Venturers partly caused by an unattractive program?  Would like to hear from someone familiar with the popularity of the current Venturing program. 

Incidentally, Sea Scouting sought and received its own entirely-separate program status two years ago.

Walk In Woods:

My personal experience is that until the early 1980's the BSA was not overly-controlled by either conservative or progressive elements of US society.  The BSA was conservative in the sense of an organization that encouraged self-reliance, but it was not the enforcer of religious or political dogma.  There was no group of people at that time attempting to assert membership admission control.  For example, the presence of gay men and atheists was generally recognized, but those people were pretty much left alone unless they were engaging in unrelated prohibited activities.  When I was a camp staffer around those times we had a lot of units and unit leaders that were politically left.  It was just not a big deal.  We were big enough to reflect all views in society and things generally worked-out among Scouters.

It was in the early 1980's that a group at national (including some professionals at the top as well as elements of national volunteer leadership) began a movement to specifically identify and exclude gay people, atheists and the like.  Society in general, including the liberal mainline churches, were not yet expressly welcoming of gay people.  This led to national adoption of the largely-unenforced but catastrophic "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy.  The policy repelled more liberally-minded Scouters and parents at every level of the BSA.  These people and their families began to slowly leave the BSA and were not replaced by others of a more-liberal viewpoint -- because there was distinct discomfort among many volunteers about what was then happening.  The leadership of National became more openly conservative over time and included people who were interested in making the BSA a principal "defense" against what those people saw as a leftward drift in American society.  The program themes used during those years openly embraced conservative social and religious views.  The big Dale Supreme Court case became the principal rallying point for these emergent conservative BSA leaders, who by then were firmly in control.  The overall effort was a flop, because even though the BSA won the Dale lawsuit, volunteers at the line level mostly refused to participate in the exclusionary activity and some urban councils were beginning to openly rebel.  There were relatively few people actually identified and removed from the BSA due to the DADT policy -- but the BSA lost immeasurably in terms of membership, contributions and goodwill.  Unfortunate impacts of this included that the BSA lost its previous welcoming reputation and became increasingly known as a conservative social policy promoter-enforcer.

DADT was repealed six years ago after what I can only describe as a horrible experience for those of us were on or near the front lines.  The BSA by then had become a cultural "punching bag" where we could do no right.  Conservatives adopted the view that the BSA had "always been anti-gay" and that to undo this "fundamental" policy was horrible.  The more liberally-minded by then were kicking us out of the schools, military bases and corporate headquarters for being discriminatory.  In a perfect melt-down, the National Executive Board announced it would reconsider DADT and did so by -- I kid you not -- appointing an unnamed secret group to reconsider the policy.   The secret group simply announced without explanation that the DADT policy would continue.  That ignited overwhelming disgust on the part of just about everyone due to the non-transparent approach taken.  Within one year the big vote to do away with DADT passed at the annual national meeting in Dallas.

I share this because as we once again have an "all are welcome" practice and national policy.  We are actually going back to where we historically were a few decades back.  The more liberally-minded volunteers who were either shut-out or whose voices were muted are now speaking their minds to the occasional distress of those who have not previously experienced this in the BSA.  We have historically been large enough to be a rough approximation of the public policy differences in US society and we are getting back there.  It is not my current experience that well intended liberally-minded volunteers are now trying to enforce their will on those who are culturally conservative.  However, they will certainly be open about not wanting the BSA to again embrace or enforce religious, cultural or political conservatism.  What we do have at this juncture is a far-right component of the media severely attacking the BSA and mischaracterizing our financial challenge as having been specifically created by the repeal of DADT.  On the other side, we have deconstructionist left-wing components of the media simply interested in diminishing organizations that promote self-reliance, patriotism and similar values.  I believe we are going to satisfy the middle 80% of American parents and youth who will come to us for our program in greater numbers over the next decade.  

I invite everyone to engage in those dialogs with people as we continue to adapt to our return to a welcoming policy.  

I don’t know anything about the competitor organization.  Those  comments and others like them are easily found on sites.  My point is that the implication in their release is wrong. Neither organization today is any safer than the other, and to claim otherwise is incorrect.