Cburkhardt

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.

Jackdaws: The "kindest" thing that can be said about the release you referenced is that the competitor organization invites the reader to infer that girls are unsafe in Scouts BSA, but are perfectly safe in their organization: ".... and above all, safe." Our Scouts BSA Troop for girls is about as absolutely safe for a girl as any organization could possibly be. We enforce everything. In the BSA having alcohol on outings is immediate cause for removal from the activity and lifetime dismissal from the organization. I would take that action in a heartbeat. In comparison, read some of the comments made by volunteers by the competitive organization on a popular and public site their volunteers post to on a regular basis. I've simply cut and pasted statements and only deleted the names of minor children referenced. I do not know much about that organization and its programs, but I gather from the comments that the drinking of alcohol takes place on weekend trips to hotels and other "glamping" locations. In all fairness, there were comments from other posters on that site that urged the competitor organization's alcohol policy to be enforced. Because that organization is apparently positioning itself as a pristine protector of youth protection policies, they have invited public inquiry into the type of behavior you can read about below: She was not the only one who drank on that trip (I did not and I am a pretty regular drinker...but I just follow that rule very strictly for GS trips). A group of moms went and bought wine from the hotel lobby and drank it. Most of the moms didn't have more than a glass but I think (deleted minor girl’s name)'s mom had been drinking her own supply all evening or is a total lightweight. We did another trip about a year later and I told all of the moms not to drink ((deleted minor girl’s name)'s mom was not on that trip, nor was (deleted minor girl’s name)). I know at least one other mom snuck in a bottle of wine. Against the rules but as long as nobody is impaired I'm not going to get tooooo upset about it. I will just remind everyone again... The very first GS event we had (a simple overnight at a hotel with a pool), I honestly didn't know the rules and neither did anyone else and we all brought wine. But again, we didn't over consume it. Like 2 glasses over the entire course of the evening. Then I ended up doing the camping training and indoor/outdoor overnight training and I found out it was against the rules but I think these moms like each other so much it feels like a social opportunity to them as well. So the two other trips we've taken they drank (I did not) but only (deleted minor girl’s name)'s mom was out of control. I will continue to remind them not to drink on GS trips but I'm honestly not going to go crazy enforcing it if nobody is driving and I can't tell they've been drinking. It's weird though because at our school's overnight camp there's a no drinking rule and as far as I can tell nobody breaks that one. This reeeeaaaally bugs me. If parents don't follow the rules, how can the parent expect their girls to follow the rules. And I should mention the time (deleted minor girl’s name)'s mom got so drunk I had no idea they were even drinking. I was down the hall in a different room with another chaperone and 3 girls and we were sleeping!! I just heard stories from other moms the next day. They are the parents I've got for the troop I've got. I've asked them not to drink and it seems like some of them don't want to adhere to that on overnight trips but short of a major confrontation about this I don't know how to force them to stop. You can't police adults every second if they're inside hotel rooms, nor should you, of course! At some point if they're going to break the rule, they're going to break it, but that doesn't mean you should soft-pedal telling them in advance that it does apply to them. I get a sense here of moms who maybe have gotten a bit used to thinking of GS overnight events as chances to catch up--which they are, but with rules attached. Man, if ever a situation warranted drinking, it’s chaperoning a bunch of Girl Scouts. I pretty much chug a big glass of wine after each meeting. We are planning a camping trip this summer and everyone in the troop will be invited but it won't be an official GS trip (not using troop funds,etc.) so if parents want to have a beer by the campfire...so be it. Maybe drinking wine would make them less annoying. And yet at our outings/camp outs half the moms are drinking 'tea' from an insulated cup at 9pm.... By “their” room does that mean drunk (deleted minor girl’s name)’s mom was sharing a room with (deleted minor girl’s name)? Or with the other parents who had gone drinking? The latter is more forgivable than the former I think. She was in a room with (deleted minor girl’s name) and another hot mess mom who was only in the troop a year and the 2 girls (and the dog). Other hot mess mom was crazy but she apparently didn’t drink much. I'm a boy scout mom and I am disgusted by this. My kids are eagle scouts and grown now and I never saw a parent drink while being a chaperone on any trip or outing. It wouldn't be tolerated and the leaders would SPEAK UP. You really need to stop turning a blind eye to parent chaperones drinking on trips. That's NOT ok. It's even worse to have a "if I don't see if but you're not drunk its fine" unofficial policy. It needs to be a dry weekend, with a parent HH at the end of it (after all girls are home) if they really need an excuse to drink together. I don’t think the moms having one glass of wine are the issue here. Although they should knock that off.

In this immediate moment I am going to suggest that it might be hazardous for the BSA to engage in almost any proactive messaging on YPT or the bankruptcy at this moment. Anyone on this site could easily write the response that could come from an abused-claimant. It could be: "the BSA does not get it" or "the BSA is insensitive with its statement" or worse. These people need to be treated with kindness. For now the best route might be to just quietly prepare our means by which we will try to give them some justice. As for competitor organizations that are piling-on with their PR, this is part of the competitive market and they are taking advantage at this moment -- as they did when we repealed don't ask don't tell, formed all-girl Troops and our other recent progress. My read is that Americans know this is obvious "kick them while they are down" behavior.

PACAN: I am pretty certain these postings have been closely followed as part of National’s idea-gathering efforts. The even-handed and serious manner with which postings have been made is a big factor in people being open to these suggestions. I think the best way to impact what things will look like in the National re-cast is to find credible SEs and Council Presidents who are accepted participants on the national scene and promote your ideas — so they can pass them on. Then, you need to be ready to Participate in effective ways when the new circumstances begin to impact your geography. There will need to be a good amount of cooperation and willingness to give up our organizational ways of the past. Good luck with your activities.

Dekurtenbach: I think the 319 postings that attracted over 10,000 views on Reorganization issues these past four weeks show that there is much agreement with what you have said. It is really a matter of how to make those kind of things happen during the course of a 2 or 3 year period during which the BSA will be undergoing tremendous change -- some forced by the bankruptcy. What would you do this spring to move us in the direction of the priorities you state? Some urge a wait and see approach and others believe a proactive effort to share thoughts and effect accompanying structural change is merited. Where do you stand? Maybe you could discuss your local circumstances as an example.

Eagle 1993: The Michigan Crossroads and Pathway combinations were the big mergers in the Central region over the past 10 years. Both resulted in similar outcomes, but the implementation was different. Both mergers involved wholesale merging of separate councils into one larger council, but largely preserving the borders of the previous councils and districts for purposes of field services. Pathway preserved all four predecessor council service centers and each has a commissioner staff, field service director, etc. Michigan Crossroads has “field” service councils” that largely reflect the previous councils. Principal decision-making authority still resides at the “actual" council level. What was different is that the Michigan councils (generally speaking) agreed to merge during a time of catastrophic economic problems in the State – which problems threatened to bring down several councils. Someone directly involved with the council give us the details, but the essentials are that the combining councils each contributed their assets and received representation on the new governing entity. This new governing entity has been making camp sales decisions over time, with all the attendant objections of Scouters loyal to a particular property. It took about ten years for the “rough edges” of the merger to become smooth. Pathway was different. The four predecessor councils had significant governance, membership and financial problems that were not able to be resolved over a multi-year process of working among local council leadership. Scouting in Chicago is iconic to the BSA because that is where W.D. Boyce started the movement. Chicago is also the media hub for the center of the country, so allowing a Scouting fail there would be especially problematic. With some categories of membership dropping by 10% per year and some finance issues in free fall, National withdraw the charters of the four councils, took direct control of properties and started from scratch with new staff and volunteer officers reporting directly to National. During that time, principal decisions to implement the combination were made, including staff changes, volunteer restructuring and property sales. A new Pathway board was thereafter granted a new charter. Pathway has been experiencing real membership growth. The eventual results of the two efforts are similar, but Pathway functions as a unitary council whereas Michigan Crossroads has a more complex decision-making process. Think of Michigan Crossroads as having local “council-like” organizations doing field and finance work – with the actual decision making authority being in the hands of something like our current Areas.

Parkman: Your views on adjusting the DE/Scout ratio are consistent with thoughts shared over these weeks seeking a rebalancing of professional-volunteer duties. One example was that new unit formations should be “taken back” by the volunteers, who are better connected in their communities to make new units happen. The thoughts about reevaluating the entire role of professionalism in Scouting also reflect the discussions. We received the widest variety of views on that, ranging from instituting “paid volunteers” to going largely professional-free (except to perform membership processing and insurance enforcement types of roles). My sense is that National will come out with its new suggested format in May, and it will look a lot like what we have now – except that administrative layers will have been eliminated and the national office and field staffs will have been pared back to maybe 1/6 of the previous levels. The bases will presumably continue as-is. I believe a proactive approach is best for reasons I have stated, but reactions to this posting show that most commenters prefer to wait for events to occur, see what the effects are and adjust as circumstances evolve. That is a conservative way to manage and reflects the character of BSA volunteers. However, it is still good to press closer to the edge with these discussions, as changes and events may come quickly and require rapid action. For example, the Judge could rule this summer that many (or all) councils and assets are to be pulled-into the bankruptcy procedure for liquidation. In that circumstance, I hope Scouters in geographies suggest going-forward governance, property and operational arrangements – rather than force the Judge or the national organization to make those decisions because local Scouters cannot agree on a local solution. Mega-councils are no less effective than councils of modest size as long as circumstances of common Scouting culture and trust exist. I cite the New York City council organization as an example of a mega-council being very well run and making great organizational sense. I do not agree that larger councils are inherently ineffective organizations that off-put volunteers. It is a matter of making things function smoothly and respectfully that counts. I am happy to read your thoughts – always well stated and fresh.

Friends: My intention with this posting is to discuss what potential council combinations might make sense to be implemented proximate in time to the bankruptcy. I am focused on operations and program — building in the last 6 weeks of discussion. Such combinations would most likely take place after the financial issues become clear. I provided the Chicagoland example for discussion purposes because I am familiar with Scouting in that geography. I hope someone very familiar with the bankruptcy process and the case itself can start a posting to educate us all on timing and other technical aspects of our challenge.

Walk in Woods: Those further out districts might be better in other councils. There is no particular reason why the combining councils need to come-in as-is.

What Carebear3895 is talking about is the discontinuance of Scoutreach in Pathway and its replacement with a home-grown approach called "Restoring the Village". The quick way to describe it is that volunteers from the Black fraternity alumni associations are now running the most-difficult urban units as volunteers with specialized pro assistance. No more paid Scoutmasters and no-fee kids. These people are actual Scouts and Scouters. Sorry to hear some of the pros had a rough time there, but it was a complete re-organization from scratch that was done within 2 years. NDW5332's comments remind me just how important solid DE and District service is. Every one of those reasonable issues raised would never be a problem if we had distinguished District Committee leadership that was listened-to. Curious about the Key-3 comment, as Pathway has only had 2 presidents, 2 Council Commissioners and 2 SEs in its five years (the first pro was temporarily on loan from national).

Sorry folks, the "quote" function does not seem to be working properly with my software and re-posted some lengthy text. Parkman: The second paragraph of your post is precisely what will be happening in the struggling councils. The loss in membership and resulting financial problems will be too much to handle. And, there will be scant resources to bail out failing councils. Seems like a better way is to combine or divvy-up portions of those councils rather that have a cascading series of crises that we will need to react to. I believe the financial impacts will become apparent very soon. Unless there are a number of silent folks out there that do not want to dip their toe into this admittedly-sensitive topic, it would seem that most readers prefer to take a pass on proactive activity and see if councils can "ride it out". That would be consistent with the BSA's past practices. NDW5332: Indeed, the predecessor council headquartered in LaGrange was the previous owner of the three camps sold. That predecessor council, which was suffering catastrophic membership losses and was in deep financial difficulty was operating three properties. One severely underutilized weekend camp and two distant and undermaintained summer camps utilized two weeks each year requiring tremendous subsidy. And, those two summer camps were close to other BSA properties with far superior physical attributes and program strength. I understand the position volunteer boards are in on the camp issue. Even in the circumstance presented in that case, the volunteers were unable to act to reallocate resources and professional time away from the marginal property effort back to membership and programming. Situations like that are studied and remedied during a good merger. Calumet was another splendid council, but was similarly experiencing catastrophic membership and financial losses for different reasons. Things do change in a merger and not all are convenient. But, the membership figures from the combined council show that the retention/growth challenge has been turned-around. Scouting in Pathway is growing, and no longer from "purchased" membership strategies.

Carebear3895: It is all about restoring membership growth and health to our program in those geographies, and re-targeting resources to the program and district/unit operations. They can do those things better when together in a metropolitan-scale entity. It is not change for the sake of change. Your comments focus on the potential of property sales. I have no idea regarding whether the properties of the combined entity would be right-sized and of sufficient maintenance and quality. When Pathway was combined, three properties were sold after a comprehensive evaluation of a summer of fully-funded operations. One essentially unused, and two which were summer camps and quite remote from the user population. Those two properties were operated as summer camps for only two weeks each during the summer and unvisited the remainder of the year. The council-funded subsidiary per scout attending those summer camps was -- get this -- $400 each. The going-forward Pathway camps were consequently and noticeably improved with the funds generated by the camp sales. So, not every sale of property is without justification or benefit.

Chicagoland: The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography. There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area. There is a long-standing spirit of cooperation among Scouters from these and the predecessor councils that existed there. Districts could remain as-is, with economies of scale allowing a rennissance of membership growth --

Parkman: Why don’t you suggest a sequence of events and the timing that would go with it? What we need to grapple with is that the bankruptcy court is going to force a short schedule. The bankruptcy process will essentially strip national operations to the bare essentials over the next 6 months. During that time our weakest councils will struggle financially and programmatically. I am aware that up to 20% could be at a structural standstill or in default. The suggestions for a broad grassroots re-envisioning of Scouting at the local level has an appeal, but I do not yet understand how that happens in the bankruptcy environment. Councils that are dysfunctional now are likely to be even more dysfunctional in a time of transition. If reallocation of resources to the district/unit service level is an agreed priority, what is the advantage of continued spending and wheel-spinning by so many councils?

Mds3d: I do not suggest an immediate timeline. But, it is not going to take more than a year or so to understand where the BSA is. There is no advantage to delay discussions until then. My sense is that with fewer and more-targeted services being performed at the council level, getting to the central office is not going to be as important as before. Small satellite scout shops where DEs might also have work spaces is where we might be headed. Area boundaries are not drawn for volunteer convenience, as these are purely configured for national supervisory convenience. With the Regions likely being dropped, areas will probably double in size. That is just going to be too big for a council. Better to combine geographies in a way that makes cultural and organization sense — like the consolidated Chicagoland/NW Indiana Council I have suggested.

Carebear3895: Hard to reply, as you provide no reasoning or specifics to support your opinions.

Chicagoland: The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography. There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area. There is a long-standing spirit of cooperation among Scouters from these and predecessor councils. Districts could remain as-is, with economies of scale allowing many more unit-serving executives. The resulting council would have a single media market. There are sufficient camping facilities just waiting to be centrally managed by professionals as a park system. There are iconic Scout Reservation facilities capable of serving the entire metropolitan area. This makes sense if the interests of our young people are our uppermost priority.

Combinations of councils will be happening, and soon. During that process Some Scouters will observe and others will take action to advocate where the local going-forward priorities and resources should be. Being part of the process will advantage the person wanting to take action.

I'm dropping the top-down/bottom-up language, which distracts and adds nothing to our discussions. Mergers and combinations rarely, if ever, bubble-up from district Scouters -- and certainly not unit Scouters. Merger suggestions originate from area/region/national volunteers and are dealt-with (often resisted) by council Scouters. The best results happen when active Scouters who see the big picture and have our Scouts best interest uppermost are active in those discussions. The information and informed views shared these past four weeks is precisely what is needed during those discussions. This will be happening.

Desertrat77: In bankruptcy you do not normally follow written or unwritten long-term employment promises or practices. Weak performers are outplaced. It would be great to go through every employee and make a stay/go decision before the structural decisions are made. However, I anticipate that the practical implementation of new structures is going to take place fairly quickly and on a rolling basis. There is not really going to be time to conduct the kind of review process you envision. I think your priorities can still be achieved -- but yes, people will need to make and implement those hard decisions. Are we all up to it?

RememberSchiff: Keeping the districts as-is, re-prioritizing cash into better DE salaries and working conditions, spinning off the camp ownership/maintenance/endowment functions into third party foundations, reducing above-district expense and administrative tangles all sound like the great bottom-up ideas discussed these past four weeks. But, they need top-down implementation if they are going to happen. Things need to be advocated-for because otherwise things …. will …. just …. slide.

Desertrat77: I think that we should base mergers and combinations on what makes best sense for the Scouts in that geographic territory. Poor performance metrics of a council (as opposed to individual professional performance reviews) are objective and can't be fudged. They are really good measures of what is going on. I'd put the needs of the Scouts in the geography above the pool of professionals. When a charter is withdrawn from a council, all is on the table. No volunteer or professional has a claim to any particular position. A larger council needs only one SE and will always need a bunch of DEs. Incidentally, councils that have a charter withdrawn can be reconfigured and portions can be placed into multiple nearby councils. No single council needs to take the entire geography of a former council.