Cburkhardt

Full Sash of Merit Badges. In our four years we have had only one youth member like this. While she did not earn every badge, she earned most of them over four years. She is an outstanding Scout who prioritizes her scouting experiences over other extracurricular activities and is simply deeply entrenched in the program. Blanket Extension. I've already stated my view that it was unnecessary for the roll-out and caused those of us then-forming the all-girl units an unnecessary complication. I speculate that it might have been devised as a PR move. It might also have been a response to some individual legal situations. While unnecessary, I don't think it was a significant roll-out problem.

I hope one of our readers who has a firm grasp on membership numbers could discuss the big picture on the membership decline. There is such a tangle of issues that will have contributed to the decline (especially the bankruptcy and its many impacts) that I am unable to authoritatively opine on whether adding all girl dens/troops was a net membership add or subtraction. All I can do is share my actual experience as a “big troop” scoutmaster When we started four years ago, we were the only girl troop in our district. We were not always welcomed and I personally absorbed a lot of negative comment from a select group of uber-traditionalists. When I took 24 girls to summer camp for the first time, the leaders of the troop next door openly despised us and me personally and continuously registered unjustified, piddling complaints. Our girls were sometimes harassed in their merit badge classes. Despite this, we came in as runner-up for troop of the week and won the camp-wide games — and none of that was my doing. The youth just organized themselves well. Four years down the road all of that is a distant memory. All of the traditionalists are still there and we (and 2 additional girl troops) are still growing. They have accepted us because they see the success. My speculation is that there were few who left our movement because “somewhere out there is an all-girl troop participating in our program”. None of our district’s troops folded or downsized as a result (although some were lost through COVID or churches upset about the bankruptcy). The overwhelming bulk of criticism about girl troops I read in the media (and I read every article) came from outside the BSA. This was mainly from columnists who inaccurately proclaimed we were fully co-ed, former members who were part of Trail Life, and leaders of GSUSA above the unit level. The media firestorm over girls is long over and the only remaining discussion is now confined to hyper-bitter commentary from anti-BSA folks on mostly-unread corners of social media. My speculation is that the effect of adding girl dens and troops has not caused a membership loss and probably netted us a gain. Last summer girls comprised about 1/6 of the youth participating during our week. That has to mean something positive.

Girl Attention Spans. Our stand-alone, all-girl Troop uses longer meeting times as a result of focus groups we conducted with parents during the roll-out four years ago. Our practical experience is that our girl members will participate over lengthy periods of time. Even after two hours they regret ending the meetings. That was not my experience in all-boy troops. I think the best course is to do what works for your unit and in our case these longer meetings are more satisfying to the girls and families. Saturday Morning Meetings. During the roll-out we surveyed the families and found in our area that girls had fewer programmatic conflicts on Saturday mornings and that transiting to and from meetings was thought to be much safer. This is important for us because some of our members take public transit and do not want to be taking subways home at 9:30 PM on a weeknight. While off-topic, we found the same preference on the part of my Sea Scout families (I am also a Skipper). Our teenage Ship members prefer to avoid the neighborhood “toughs” that populate neighborhoods at night. The bad guys sleep in late on Saturday mornings and are nowhere to be seen. Our parents like the 2 hours of free time to run Saturday morning errands while their daughters are with us. Working with GSUSA. I dislike the hostility between the organizations but believe the conflict and dislocation that would result by forcing a solution would be outweighed by the good the separate organizations can achieve being left alone. We have all survived a decade of severe upheaval and need to return to a sense of peaceful operations. For the Scouts BSA age group, our unit operations business model works much better and I would not want to adopt their approach. Is “Linked” Model Effective? HashTagBSA raises many great issues about the disadvantages of the linked model. In my view, the principal things good about the linked approach are that: (1) it accommodates in one unit families that have a son and daughter, and (2) it is easier to form a linked girl troop than start a stand-alone unit like our Troop. The roll-out focused nearly exclusively on forming linked units, resulting in many of these “girls in one small patrol” situations. I’ll repeat my preference: stand-alone all-girl units are better in almost every way. The practical result based on my unscientific observations is that stand-alone units a bigger, better run and offer the same program in organizational formats that simply work better. When a Chartered Organization and Scouters make commitments to form and staff a stand-alone Scouts BSA Troop for Girls, they are making a very clear commitment to providing quality program for girls. Any Other Thoughts on the Roll-Out?

GSUSA sensibilities could have been handled better during the roll-out. For example, better guidance on how to refer to our all-girl program during promotions would have helped. Further, socially conservative persons acquired an inaccurate structural understanding of how Scouts BSA operates. I still read conservative writers and converse with uninvolved conservative adults who vigorously claim we are a fully co-ed program.

Qwaze: Regarding GSUSA, I do not know the details of their program, but have regular exposure to deeply-involved adult leaders. The GSUSA relationship and how to evolve it is a worthy subject for a significant discussion in a special thread by someone well-informed. My summary view is that the organizational cultures, unit operations practices and internal governance/policy approaches are so fundamentally different that broad cooperation at levels above the unit are unachievable. GSUSA rules also prohibit cooperation with BSA at the unit level. It is difficult to start something productive under such circumstances.

Qwaze: I agree that one horrible incident of sexual assault on a female scout might have a significant impact on female youth enrollment. So, I am an especially strong supporter of YPT. I used to think of myself as unusual in that regard. Today, my practical experience in my units informs me that almost everyone involved in Scouting is strict on YPT matters. How could we not be, given the detailed examination of our organization failings in this regard? I am for soldiering-on with highest vigilance on these issues and continuing to offer our program in gender segregated units.

MattR: Our all-girl troop meets twice a month on Saturday mornings from 10 to Noon. The PLC meets immediately before every other meeting. The attention span of girls this age allows us to cover the program, in addition to our monthly campouts. The remaining “free” Saturday each month is often when optional service projects, hikes and other activities take place.

Thanks everyone for the great comments. And for the rest of you, please consider contributing to this month-long series of conversations. Here are some reactions to the thoughts shared. They are primarily based on my personal experience in founding an all-girl Cub Scout den, which became a feeder that helped form our all-girls Scout BSA Troop for Girls in February, 2019. We have 50 girls, a 14-member Scoutmaster staff and reasonably active number of parents and Troop committee members. We have done summer camp every year, sent two crews to Philmont this year and have had five Eagles so far. We are a stand-alone girls Troop, meaning we are not linked to a boy troop and are the only Scouting organization at our Chartered Organization. 18-Month Eagles. My comment is limited to the temporary transition rule which provided that any girl (or boy) who first joined Scouts BSA then was given an automatic extension of up to 18 months beyond their 18th birthday. This led to a bubble of older youth who were pressing hard to finish within the 18 month extension. It just presented a deforming situation at the very time we were starting a new unit. Our Troop had only one of these circumstances, which culminated in an aggressive parent yelling at me in front of the younger girls because I was unwilling to drop everything else and become a personal advancement concierge to her desperate 19-year-old daughter. Thankfully they left the Troop. Our five Eagles have fully earned their medals in a traditional manner. Linked Troops. The linked all-girl troops I am personally aware of are all small (about 8-15 girls) and don’t seem able to offer the full program. Some function largely independent of the boy troops, but most seem to engage in some joint activities – such as campouts. The appearance to an outsider is that they function as girl patrols in a larger boy troop – and just continue to do the program the boy troop has always done. I am aware of only one linked-troop situation in the council that seems fully co-ed in operation. There are only a few non-linked troops in the council like ours, and these are larger and seem better run than the linked troops. My impression is that they are larger because the troop committee and parents fully focus on the girls and conduct the troop program in a manner that reflects the abilities and preferences of girls at this age. As examples, the all-girl troops have longer meetings (because of longer attention spans) that are not scheduled at night (avoiding walking home in the dark). My big take-away from the entire experience is that stand-alone troops are the way to go. Going Fully Co-Ed. I think segregating troops by gender was the right way to go during the roll-out. My experience these past four year is that we have achieved more for these girls under a segregated format than we would have done if co-ed. For instance, every youth officer is female. That provides leadership experiences for the girls without taking away from the boys. Our parents and leaders like it this way and would not seriously entertain a change to a co-ed format. Our scoutmaster staff would not want to deal with the boy-girl interplay either. Going fully co-ed at the very start might have made the startup process significantly more complicated. COVID. I’m sure this complicated the roll-out and probably led to dropped units. I don’t think girl troops and boy troops would have handled things any differently because of COVID. The only real difference is that all of the girl troops were just starting when COVID hit. Our troop continued to meet live throughout the process (outside, with masks) and doubled our tent purchase so we did not have to share tents during campouts. We just blasted through the difficulties. YPT Coverage. During the roll-out, we did not have sufficient numbers of female adults able to camp. We spent time recruiting families with mothers who were outdoorswomen to solve the shortage. Now we are majority female in leadership and do not have difficulties.

Here are a few thoughts on my first question. Timing. The starting date for all girl troops on February 1 seemed odd. It caused us to do everything off-cycle, such as recruiting chartered organizations. Young people usually don’t think of joining new things in February. It required us to work harder and through the Christmas holiday for no apparent reason. Linked Troops. There was overwhelming encouragement by management to form all-girl Troops at chartered organizations that already had all-boy troops. I think a great opportunity to expand Scouting to other potential chartered organizations was missed. The Eagle Exception. Allowing girls (and similar-aged boys) to continue working on Eagle after age 18 during the implementation transition period seemed unnecessary. It caused a deforming “hurry-up” rush for many unit leaders who were brand-new. Some Scouters naturally wondered whether some “18 month” Eagles truly fulfilled the letter and spirit of the requirements. Rapidity of Decision and Announcement. I am glad the announcement allowing all-girl troops was issued immediately after the decision was made, rather than letting things drip out. PR and Program Materials. These were first-class and very useful for those of us forming these new units. Being Firm in our Direction. I am glad BSA was unapologetic and not defensive about allowing all-girl units. It was great to see us step forward with clarity and confidence after so many years of equivocating on social issue and trying to please everyone.

Evaluating Girls Joining Scouts BSA – Part One Question One: How effectively was the roll-out of all-girl Scouts BSA Troops handled? Be very specific about how thing might have been done differently. Notes: In preparation for the fourth anniversary of all-girl Scouts BSA troops this February, I will be posting a different question each of the next five weeks regarding how the addition of all-girl troops transacted and what the impact has been on the BSA and the youth we serve. I will focus on Scouts BSA and not Cub Scouts. This first question deals with the initial roll-out. During subsequent weeks I will deal with the quality of all-girl troops, the impact on young people, whether there are course corrections that should be considered and how the future of the BSA has been impacted. Many of you know I am founding Scoutmaster of a large and successful all-girl troop. Things for our all-girl troop have proceeded quite well these past four years – so I won’t pretend I am neutral on the overall development. However, we should take a serious look at what has happened and identify good ideas for improvement. In these threads I ask that we not re-argue whether allowing girls to engage in Scouts BSA programming was the right decision. Those issues were fully argued years ago and the addition of girls to Scouts BSA is irreversible. If you want to engage in that conversation again, please start your own thread over in the politics and issues category. These threads will focus on program. And, I will be tough on folks that make unsupported, overall conclusions such as “the girls have ruined everything”, or “female scouters have shown they can’t do the job”. If you want to talk like that, you better be prepared to support your conclusions with clear facts. Readers on this blog are not swayed by that kind of talk.

MattR: These situations are always fact-intensive and it is impossible to understand the detail of Mr. P's accusations or the fullness of how such accusations might impact the future of the person unfairly accused. My view is very simple. If a Scouter believes she or he has been subjected to unfounded accusations of the horrible crime of child abuse, that person should involve the CO in any investigation the BSA will perform. It is the only way a person can potentially obtain a written exoneration (from the CO) of this terribly damaging accusation (short of filing a defamation law suit). It is very foolish to falsely accuse anyone of child abuse. If sued in court, the defaming party must prove the truthfulness of the accusation made. Further, when a defendant in a defamation case has been found to have falsely accused someone of a crime of extreme moral terpetude (rape, murder, child abuse, etc.), the plaintiff is not required to prove he was damaged by the false accusation. Being falsely accused of these kind of things is presumed by the law to have been damages (a concept called "per se" damages).

Eagle94: You are correct, but the practical use of this approach has resulted in the BSA and CO working together and recognizing the validity of each other’s efforts. The key point is that the unfairly accused volunteer has an exonerating document from to CO to use with employers or others who might otherwise suspect the person as a child abuser. This is valuable even if the BSA removes the person’s membership. This entire discussion proves the point made by others that having a regular and meaningful working relationship with your CO is necessary.

My CO investigation process suggestion is the result of my having been involved in successfully resolving alleged YPT infractions. It respects the role and regulations of the BSA while simultaneously protecting the reputations of innocent adult volunteers. I suggest it as a universal approach for those who value fair treatment of line-level Scouters -- while continuing vigorous YPT enforcement. Rainshine should do whatever is in his best interests, but should understand that a tiny subset of ill-intended parents are not amenable to talk or reason. They must be dealt with firmly or be removed from the scene. I have large units, so a certain number of these difficult personalities surface. Rainshine is the unit leader and he has the say-so over which adults attend Troop activities. Nobody is going to override his judgement on this situation. Inquisitive: The camp staff situation you describe would be an internal BSA personnel matter and would be handled under employment law. That is a bit beyond my experience and expertise. However, the adult's continuing BSA membership status (as opposed to employment termination) would still be determined by the Scout Executive by applying YPT standards. Because there would be no CO to issue a potentially exonerating written report, I would get personal legal counsel involved and ask that person to write a letter confirming the exonerating circumstances. Think of the legal fee involved as lifelong assurance that the circumstance will not limit your future volunteer or professional careers.

If falsely accused of YPT abuse, have the CO investigate and exonerate. Thanks for bringing your story forward. So many of us are focused on preventing YPT incidents that we sometimes fail to recognize that good adult reputations are brought into question when a person makes unsubstantiated accusations that seem impossible to unwind or dispute. However, this is not the case. There is a great way to handle unfounded accusations. When an allegation is made -- directly or impliedly -- that a volunteer has violated YPT during an incident involving a youth, the matter should always be fully investigated by the BSA and the Chartered Organization (CO). Involving the CO is the only way to protect our youth members and the reputation of an adult falsely accused. This is because when the BSA does the investigation by itself, there is no express, written exoneration of an innocent adult. The BSA process only results in either removal of the accused adult from the program (being added to the ineligible volunteer list) or “no action” being taken. No written explanation is ever provided. That “no action” is taken does not equate into express exoneration. When an adult scout leader observes abuse of a child by another that violates YPT, the observing scout leader is required under state laws to stop the abuse and immediately report the incident to law enforcement. Next, the Scout Executive and CO must be informed. Depending on the severity of the circumstance, law enforcement may or may not take action. Regardless, the BSA and CO are obligated under their own internal policies to investigate and take action (if appropriate). We are all familiar with the BSA YPT system. COs also have ethical policies and are required to act to investigate and prevent reported abuse. Often the CO will defer to the BSA to conduct the investigation and defer to its judgement – but this does not properly protect potentially-innocent adult volunteers. What any falsely-accused adult should insist on in these types of situations is for the CO to conduct its own investigation of the matter in cooperation with the BSA and issue its own CO written report. If the allegation is false or simply an unfounded suspicion on the part of the accuser, the CO can and should exonerate the accused in writing. The BSA in such a circumstance will conduct its own investigation and determine to take “no action”. The difference is clear – the accused can receive an explanation and exoneration only from the CO. Here is an actual example. A parent of a youth accused scout leaders of child abuse in writing because the youth came back exhausted after a long hike. In this case the youth was not injured, only tired and thirsty. And, full permission slips were executed with adequate warning that there was going to be a long hike that day. The semi-public nature of the child abuse accusation was humiliating and potentially damaging to the careers of scout leaders, some of whom had security clearances. The leaders self-reported the incident to the Scout Executive and CO (a church). The church CO conducted its own investigation (involving an attorney) in cooperation with the BSA and issued a fully-exonerating document. Those scout leaders now have a document protecting themselves. In the incident you describe, Mr. Pillar did not report the alleged abuse to law enforcement. Probably because he knows the allegation is either entirely false or a dishonestly exaggerated version of innocent facts. That the BSA camp staff was made aware of the matter and chose to take “no action” proves how those falsely accused of a YPT incident are not exonerated under the BSA system. Finally, you do not mention whether the alleged abuse was ever reported to the CO. Mr. Pillar will continue to hector you with express or implied allegations of child abuse and your reputation will continue to be negatively impacted. You have three choices: 1. You can accept his continued hectoring and manage the impact on your reputation. 2. You can sue him in court for defamation. 3. You can self-report the original and all subsequent youth abuse allegations of Mr. Pillar to the BSA and CO and request a written report from your CO. You must assure that your CO is directly and independently involved in the process and issues its written report. Mr. Pillar will be forced to appear and prove his case to the CO and their attorney with facts. “Pillars of the community” who use bullying and slanderous techniques to destroy reputations crumble when required to prove their cases. There is no better justice.

Displeased with Former COs who are "Iffy" about our Units Carter: I formed two new units over the last four years -- a new Scouts BSA Troop for Girls and a new Sea Scout Ship. We interviewed many potential chartered organizations and chose two outstanding entities that we knew to be examples of strong organizations that believed strongly in our Scouting missions. Our chartered organizations are deeply involved in what we do and provide oversight and other assistance. We are the principal youth program for both COs and they receive significant benefit through their association with us. I say this to everyone out there: there are many very fine potential COs out there who really want to have an affiliation with a fine Scouting unit, so there is no need to lower the dignity of your Scouting unit by agreeing to something "half way". There is not much reason to become a "renter" if there is a strong organization that wants to be a full-on Chartered Organization. Our units would never be associated with an organization that was "iffy" about our organization or mission. We have nothing to be ashamed of and should rightly look elsewhere if a CO is questioning our worth, purpose or organizational quality. We would never choose an organization that has internal political/organizational/financial problems -- because those problems would become your problems. Why be associated with an entity that wants to put distance between them and your very fine Troop? Congratulations on using sound judgement and leaving behind the difficulties of your previous CO. Thank them for the assistance in the past, but do not look back or regret the change.

I am with SouixRanger on this. 1,000-Scout councils just can’t work anymore. This council needs to be a large district within a well-run council. Maybe a DE and an assistant.

I have been on different sides of this unnecessary divide at different times. First a board-serving district chair and council president, and later a double unit leader (as well as other program and council leadership roles). While serving in council roles I often heard others express a preference to avoid interacting with unit and program people if they had opinions and behaviors that were so absolute as to be obstructionist. When such a person presented himself, 80% of the time the obstructing behavior concerned camp property or program closely-related to the camp. The remainder of the behavior usually concerned raising or spending of council funds – even if the person was not a financial contributor. While executives I worked with and I never engaged in the tactics mentioned in this posting, I occasionally found it necessary to wall-off myself from a person making extreme demands or obsessing about matters that were disproportionate to existential tasks at hand. Those who chose not to support council efforts and aggressively positioned themselves as disruptors usually assisted Scouting in other ways they personally controlled. My approach was to appreciate the assistance provided but not allow that person to derail a productive agenda. As a now-unit scouter, I appreciate the efforts of council and district people and make an essential FOS contribution. They know I am a supporter, even if I express an occasional disagreement. Our culture is drifting away from the practice of reasonable compromise and toward all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, and vilify-the-opposition behavior. I dearly hope that we diminish such behavior between program and council scouters as we emerge from bankruptcy.

Watch what happens with it over the next 2 or 3 years. The Coast Guard has made it their official youth program and will likly be the driver of significant growth these coming years. That said, it will never be a big program. The upper end would be in the 6,000 - 8,000 range.

I did the math. Believe it or not, we are 1.14%!

Had a splendid raft trip with 28 of our 40 Sea Scouts this weekend on the Lehigh River in PA, near Weatherly. Gorgeous river scenery and the leaves were in peak color. Was a great way to end our warm weather season as we store the boats and hunker-down for our indoor training season. Thanks to all of you Pennsylvanians for maintaining such beautiful state park properties.

The original purpose of this posting was an inquiry about how to interact effectively with and influence a council executive board, and the example of camp property and management has been used as an illustration. There is reality and there is what people would like. The reality I have experienced with regard to executive boards for BSA, fine arts and educational entities is that the “stockholders” are always listened to. They are the donor/investors (large or small) and workers on the tough, not-so-fun things that must be done to maintain the organizational structure to offer things like camps, teachers, and performance spaces. They are usually past or current program-oriented users of these places as well. These are the people who serve on or have significant influence with those boards. They are not the unit leaders, ticket purchasers or tuition payers. My late scoutmaster was not one of these people, and rarely had a good word for the work of district and council volunteers and professionals. He did not want to assist their efforts, but understood he would have a more limited impact on the big decisions as a result. He was a great scoutmaster for decades and his death was mourned by thousands. One way to think of this is to compare the influence of a purchaser of a good to that of a person active in the management of the manufacturer or a stockholder/investor. The consumer’s influence is to buy or not, and not much more. You can choose to be an influencer in the BSA by being a volunteer worker, manager and investor in your council. My scoutmaster was knowingly content with his decisions and behavior and did not fool himself into thinking he would play a big role in the significant council decisions.

Ever been something like a district finance chair, popcorn sales chair for a district, district solicitor for FOS or someone who spent significant time finding the least expensive insurance for your council’s service center?

Inquisitive and SSS, Just curious, did either of you make an unrestricted contribution this current year to the council that owns and maintains the camps that you are concerned about? Attending camp, volunteer hours and other “in-kind” contributions are not what I am talking about.

Eagle94: What I said about our process did indeed happen, as I was Council President at the time and made it so. Yes. the structure I describe can be manipulated in many ways to cause favor to particular outcomes. What is necessary is to understand the system and carefully work to influence the outcome months and years in advance. The challenge is that camp-oriented people are not always interested in investing in the fundraising, insurance, HR, district-council volunteer recruiting, event organizing and the many other things that end up qualifying Scouters for council board and district committee membership. Let's face it, that is not the enjoyable programming activity. There is no substitute for having a group of camp-oriented people on an Executive Board to assure that things are done transparently and with full knowledge. This is an era during which there will be many properties sold to help fund the bankruptcy trust. Further, councils that have downsized in membership due to COVID will not be able to continue some of their summer camp operations or ownership. You will be pleased (or at least informed) about your local process if you have good relations with a group on the Board that is committed to a good process. Or, you can advise and advocate from the outside by understanding and concentrating on the criteria the Board believes is decisive to their decision. Ultimately the Board has a fiduciary duty to take actions in the best interests of future Scouts. Their views may or may not be in alignment with your thoughts. Good luck.

A few responses to recent posts. As background, I’ve been on two council boards (a small council and one of the largest in the country, on which I served as Council President) and was directly involved in dealing with needed property closures and sales – but we did it the right way. Everything was public and transparent more than a year in advance and all adult and youth members were given multiple rounds of opportunities to give input to the decisions – and changes reflecting that input were made. Not everyone is going to be happy in these and other contested situations, but when Scouters have their say and observe that what they are saying is being appropriately reacted to, chances for healthy future organizational relationships are far more likely. If your council is considering a property closure or sale in response to the bankruptcy or inability to continue funding its operation, you should be comforted by knowing that no individual professional or volunteer can sell something in our system. That is ultimately why the above-mentioned attempt to sell Owasippe failed. Rather, interested Scouters have the chance to impact on such decisions with logical and businesslike argumentation. We own and operate our properties for the benefit of the young people of today, and not to continue operations that are no longer serving those needs. There is simply no justification to limping-along with a shabby and under-utilized property that is highly-mortgaged due to lack of operating cash. Ultimately these camps are all subject to the market. Operating a 300-acre summer camp that is 200 miles away from a council’s population base for two weeks each year (serving 200-300 Scouts) is an actual example of what I am talking about. As to council board membership, there is no council in the BSA where all CORs automatically serve on a council board or district committee. CORs must go through the nominating committees for a council or district like anyone else. While CORs do cast an annual vote to elect the Council Executive Board, the real sway CORs have is their moral suasion because they represent the chartered organization. Council leadership will always return a phone call to the executive director of a chartered organization. Ignoring a well-spoken COR with a reasoned point of view is not good, because it puts the future of the unit(s) at risk. A disaffected COR needs to discuss the situation with the executive director of the chartered organization and generate communications to resolve the circumstance.