Cburkhardt

Sentinel is correct.  This was a discussion regarding District Executives.

As to the comment on the document itself, I agree the job requirements have become overly expansive and no longer suggestive of a “fun” career.  
 

As for the fund raising component, I am going to start a separate discussion in a couple of weeks sharing my view that Scouting should adopt a different model to raise funds for units and FOS for councils.  Stay tuned, because you will see things you like and dispute.

52 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I very often wonder how many of our issues at the district & council level are due to the loss of skills in our district volunteers.  

I am blessed to be in a strong council and district (our District is within the precise boundaries of the District of Columbia)  where we still have those skills and practices.  My Troop never hears from our 42-unit DE because our excellent commissioner is the one who reminds me to get rechartered on time, etc.  Our situation is an example of the earlier poster's view that strong councils beget strong districts, which beget strong troops, which beget strong patrols.  It really is true. 

Parkman's posting was pretty distressing to read and caused me to call our DE and have an informal chat about how things are going.  To make a long story really short, things are going very well and it is simply because we are executing on all of the basics here.  Being District Chair or Commissioner of the DC District is a prestige role and we lead the Council in every measurable statistic.  This, despite the fact that we have a lot of hard-core inner city units and many impoverished kids that our Troop committees effectively scrounge to keep in the program.  This does not include any Scoutreach.  My late Dad would have felt very much at home in this District.  We are dropping five units due to COVID-caused difficulties, but added five better ones.  Money and membership will be ahead of last year.  This all made me feel better about the future because our local situation is not remarkable in any way.  It just shows that  if you have the right people and act rationally, Scouting still works -- even in a tough environment like our District.

Maybe it is possible that the concerns of Eagledad and Parkman might be partly addressed by the downsizing of Scouting that is going to take place next year in most places.  Fewer units (especially the weak ones) and more capability to execute.  Fewer disagreeable personalities as marginal performer drop away.  More focus on the essentials as the fluff is no longer in the council budget.  That said, the impact of COVID and the horror of these bankruptcy claims will change things above the unit level in every council.  The volunteer assumption of DE-like roles will be necessary in many places.  All of you who pine for a volunteer run and controlled situation will have your chance to perform if you wish.  Nobody will come knocking at your door.  You will have to reach for it.  Many, if not most, camps will be shuttered and probably sold.  We can depart in anger at this unavoidable event or adjust our camp property practice to one of intensive cooperation.  Despite all that has happened and been said, we will emerge different, but intact.    

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Since quality volunteers rarely step up to take a district level task, the DE is left to finding those volunteers. There is the rub, if council doesn’t find and train a qualified DE, then low quality leadership follows all the way down to the patrol level. Yep, low quality SMs led to low quality patrol method.

I have to agree with this.  The District my Father helped lead in the south suburbs of Chicago in the 1970s was like a small, high-quality council.  The top business people, best past unit leaders and wealthy socialites all converged to promote a local cause that was considered to be central to their community.  When I much later served as that Council's president, I went back to see my small town mayor.  He remembered the names of the DEs we had in those days -- they stayed for years and were well-known. Today Districts often lack the prestige and opportunity they once provided to professionals and volunteers alike -- leading to the circumstances you colorfully (and accurately) describe.  I'm not asking for us to go back in time, but what are some of the fundamental things you think need changing at this moment?  This is a 50-year occurrence that will change Scouting just as much as WWII did -- or maybe put it out of business.  We need optimism and a path forward.

Eagle 94-A1:

I hope the treatment of volunteers by professionals will rapidly fade as an issue and that we can begin to envision how volunteers will more-fully run things at the District and Council levels.  The tragic "perfect storm" is providing us an opportunity to make some very significant adjustments.  Many higher-salaried people with hardened viewpoints are already choosing to move on.  We have all been part of a system that has not functioned well for an extended time.  Let's put our operating expectations and behavioral standards firmly in place fairly soon.  I want my fellow volunteers and me to be treated appropriately.  We remind the girls in our Troop that they ascribe to a higher standard of kind behavior when they swear the Scout Law.  Let's hold ourselves as well as to pros to this higher standard and assure that your concerns are not a dominant aspect of our experiences.   

9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I do not think you can assume this for every council. I have no idea who my YPT Chair nor who any of the other YPT trainers are except for the one I teach with since 2 are required to do the live course IF you can pry it from the SE's hands.

What a regretful set of circumstances.  Scouting is being burnt to the ground over YPT and a key volunteer like you who can address this crises is not even informed of who your YPT chair is.

Responses on DE Issue    

 

Post:  “Yet, if we are not paying DEs, I sense this could be a more focused effort to pay for camps and other central resources.  A few paid fundraising professionals would likely be more financially successful for a council to employ here.”

 

Response:  Perhaps centralizing fundraising and going all-volunteer at the District level is indeed the way to go.  A challenge will be to get new volunteers to do this District-type work in areas where the volunteer BSA culture has fully dissipated.  I think it is possible to do that, based on my several years of recruiting people to volunteer as commissioners.  Some of the most effective people I recruited for those roles did not even have a background in Scouting.  I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but a group of motivated young businesspeople who know each other and the community work well as commissioners.  We are not limited to former unit leaders with five rows of square knots.  One of those people I recruited back then (mid 80s) is now a council president of a small Midwest council is and on the front lines of all of this.

 

Post:  “... and our districts were eliminated two years ago in favor of "professionally" run "service teams."  Volunteers were not "team players' (insufficiently servile).  The awful monthly gatherings that resulted before COVID ended them -  90% announcements and fund-raising - greatly diminished volunteer efforts outside units, and no one really knows what's going on in the council area.  The only communications that I receive from Council are about $$$$$$$$$$$$ and YPT.”

 

Response:  Great observations that support the comments on how volunteers need to take back ownership through activity.  It goes to changing the culture we have of expecting the professionals will do all of the detail work.  Part of this goes to an attitude that if a volunteer cannot or will not get something done, you put that task on the plate of a professional.  When the tasks become too numerous, there is a perceived need for another paid person. 

 

When there is no volunteer support for something, perhaps that particular task is not merited.  An example would be a longtime executive  in knew who insisted that there be two District camporees every year in a small District.  This quickly wore out the volunteers, so the organization of camporees became a professional task.  There should never have been an overload of camporees and the volunteers should have continued to be in charge.

 

It is interesting that the two things you do get communications on (finance and YPT) are two things that have been problematic during recent decades.  If there had been volunteers who know local communities tasked to intervene with units presenting significant youth abuse risk, we might not be where we are now.  Instead, it looks like you are receiving ineffective missives about a topic of crises importance (YPT). 

 

Overall

 

The postings so far, even by commenters who rarely embrace my points, do reflect the need for Scouters to go beyond rearranging things.  We must fundamentally alter the basic aspects of how we operate and support Scouting.

Volunteer YPT Enforcement?

 

We already have great volunteer YPT committees and chairs in our councils. In the past several years they have primarily focused on getting everyone trained and aware of the operating rules to implement the policies.  Is now the time to add a number of carefully chosen volunteers to spot check and assure compliance?  They presumably would need some authority.  So far this authority rests in the hands of the Scout Executive and whoever he delegates.  Do we want to continue this as a professional-only function?  If we are serious about this, we might need to take some volunteer ownership.  This would be a significant culture shift, because currently, only a Troop Committee, COR, Scout Executive or CO executive officer can issue direction to a volunteer adult leader.

DE Job Description

 

After a close read, it seems to me that one task in the DE job description volunteers might not want to embrace is the fund raising component.  If this function were centralized in a different position, the remaining program elements might be done by volunteers.  In that case we would need a significantly invigorated volunteer staff at the district level.  This would require a bigger time investment than folks are used to.

 

 

While “don’t touch” is unlikely to be adopted, it would have the impacts I have stated.  Parents have lost trust in our practice of YP self-regulation by adult leaders because despite the well-intended approach you have well explained, molestations regularly occurred.  We are no longer trusted to understand and implement the nuanced system you suggest.  There are many rational arguments that we really don’t have to change our culture and we can somehow get a better outcome.  I do not believe that to be true.

19 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

We're quickly approaching the point where we have to start asking - what is the true value add of the DE role?

I was hoping for someone to say this.  It really cuts to the core of the suggestion made by a preponderance of commenters on this site that volunteers re-take responsibility at the local level for Scouting. 

My Father was our District Membership Chair when I was a Scout.  His group of three people did everything to form new units and help the commissioners maintain the ones having difficulty.  The performance of that work migrated to professionals over the last 40 years.  Have to say, I think my Dad did a better job of that particular work than even the best DEs I have known.  So you have hit it on the head.  

The follow-up is to identify those functions that can only be done well by a full-time executive employee.  Following is a DE job description I just snatched from the web.  Is there anything in it that can't be provided by volunteers?  To focus the discussion, let's concentrate for the time only on the DE position.

Principal Responsibilities

1. Work with a volunteer board of directors and other community and business leaders to identify, recruit, train, guide, and inspire them to become involved in youth programs.
2. Achieve progress towards specific goals and objectives which include: program development through collaborative relationships, volunteer recruitment and training, fundraising, membership recruitment and retention.
3. Be responsible for extending programs to religious, civic, fraternal, educational, and other community-based organizations through volunteers.
4. Secure adequate financial support for programs in assigned area. Achieve net income and participation objectives for assigned camps and activities.
5. Recruit leadership for finance campaign efforts to meet the financial needs of the organization.
6. Ensure that all program sites are served through volunteers, regular leader meetings, training events and activities.
7. Collaborate with adult volunteers and oversee achievement of training for their respective role.
8. Be a good role model and recognize the importance of working relationships with other professionals and volunteers. The executive must have communication skills and be able to explain the program’s goals and objectives to the public.
9. Provide quality service through timely communication, regular meetings, training events and activities.
10. Have a willingness and ability to devote long and irregular hours to achieve council and district objectives.

Desired Skills

• Non-profit, fundraising or sales experience is a plus.
• Must be comfortable with public speaking and interacting with diverse audiences. Excellent people skills, enthusiastic, punctual, responsible and creative.
• Self-motivated individual with solid time management skills and strong organizational skills in management, budgeting, and planning.
• Committed to personal and professional productivity, while maintaining high ethical and professional working standards.

Minimum Qualifications

• Must be willing to accept and meet the Boy Scout of America’s leadership and membership standards and subscribe to the Scout Oath and Law.
• Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university (transcript with the date degree conferred stated is required for employment).
• Attained 21 years of age or older unless prohibited by any applicable law.
• Ability to work varied hours when necessary, evening activities and weekend work is frequently required to achieve positive objectives.
• Ability to travel for training at least once a year for one to two weeks.
• A Scouting background is helpful but not required for employment.
• Offers for employment are subject to criminal, reference and motor vehicle background checks.

  

Volunteer District Executives?

Some councils will greatly downsize their professional staffs -- many already have.  A broadly-held opinion that emerged from posts this spring was a preference that unit-serving executives be prioritized.  My unscientific observation is that preservation of DE functions has in fact been a priority as councils have adjusted their staffs, but we can reasonably assume there will be fewer DEs who will be asked to cover more units.  I think there are volunteers who would be willing to serve in a new role as unpaid (perhaps expense-reimbursed) executives.  Such roles could be right-sized depending on volunteer time availability.  Interested retirees might give a couple of days each week.  The management side of Scouting could and should shift more to volunteer engagement.  I think there would be a lot of long-time BSA volunteers willing to consider a significant cultural change like this.

Reactions to Several Posts on Youth Protection.  

Post:  

“No touch policies don't solve anything if you still have predators in your midst.”

 

Response:  A no touch policy would allow for immediate identification of an abuser, who would disobey the policy and immediately be outed.  A no touch policy would almost certainly provide an immediate end to any hidden ongoing abuse.  It could even stop an ongoing horror.

 Post: 

“BSA makes this very difficult to do by instituting policies and practices that widen the gap between athletes and scouts.”

 

…. And …

 

“I have spent 35 years trying to end this silly rivalry between scouting and athletics.  The athletes should not be putting down the scouts as nerds, wimps, etc..  I am concerned that a no-touch policy in scouting would make this more difficult to do.  It would add one more excuse for athletes to mock the scouts.”

 

Response:  No child will be attracted to Scouts because its adult leaders generously touch them.  No child will depart Scouting because their adult leaders do not generously touch them.  Parents of Scouts do not wish the adult leaders to touch their Scouts as is they were athletic coaches.  Because of the bankruptcy and huge number of claims filed, Parents of Scouts are properly suspicious of adult leaders who generously touch their children.

 Post: 

“BSA cynically uses YP to get a lot of stuff that doesn't belong with YP.  They can't resist using YP to further their social agenda.”

 

Response:  Youth Protection Training is a direct response to the obvious presence of child abuse in Scouting’s past and perhaps a bit in the present.  If instituting youth protection fulfills some person’s political or social agenda, it is not relevant.  Youth protection is a necessary and morally required action for the BSA to take because it stops harm and protects children.  If a house is burning down and people need rescuing, I want the firefighter to rescue the people.  If his motivation to do so is to get a financial bonus or heroism medal, it is irrelevant.  Scouting is burning down and we need a most rigorous implementation of youth protection and other cultural changes if it is to survive as a movement.

Post:  

“Rather than no touch it ought to be no tolerance for folks that don't follow the rules. There are still so many scouters that despite all the scandals and bad press and YPT training and exhortations who still do questionable things or flaunt YPT. These folks need to be called out. If they don't stop, they need to go. Even if completely blameless in intention, they make it easier for predators to hide among them.”

 

Response:  I do not think there will actually be a “no touch” policy.  Your view is a solid way to approach things.  We need strict implementation and no tolerance.  Any flexibility offered to an adult leader to continuously violate the policies will attract people who will abuse our Scouts.  Adult leaders who demonstrate refusal to follow the youth protection policies should be banned from Scouting-type organizations.  As an aside, I am a Scoutmaster of a large girl Troop in an urban area and I frequently mix with the other Scout leaders in our city.  There is no open flaunting or questionable practices in evidence in our city/BSA district.  I cannot speak for what may have happened in the past, but things certainly are being operated in a YPT-compliant manner today.  If it is otherwise in your area, you should urge a change in leadership.  I strongly urge you to report any violations you are aware of directly to law enforcement (legally required if an instance of actual abuse) and to the chartered organization executive officer and Scout Executive (if a failure to follow youth protection policy of the BSA or CO).  Scouting leaders are mandatory reporters of instances of abuse in almost every legal jurisdiction.

The girls in our Troop despise the braggarts on Eagle.  They are taking it slow and doing everything correctly.  I can’t but help thinking some of this is encouraged by media looking at king for “The first X” stories.

Excellent ideas.  This is what I am getting at.  Many things will be wiped away an a new operation and set of practices will emerge.  Scouting will not simply emerge as the same, but smaller, movement.

A catastrophic number of claims were filed against Scouting for child abuse.  A catastrophic number of people claim they were damaged for life as a result of what happened, much of which was abusive touching.  Continuing business as usual is not the right response.  Shifting the burden to a child to stop what he knows is “bad touching” by an adult would not be effective.  Under such circumstances it would not be dystopian  to end all adult touching of children in our programs (with exceptions for emergencies).  We must stop, absolutely, the potential for this type of abuse and a “no-touch” policy should not be out of the question.  It would make things very easy to understand and would remove the opportunity for abusers to engage in or “explain away” grooming activity involving touching:  “I was just showing where the pressure points are”, “I was inspecting the Scout for ticks” or “I was just rubbing the Scout’s sore muscle.”  Sorry to mention these sick examples, but that is what happened.  

Suppose a junior high school suddenly had 50 abuse claims filed against it for alleged child abuse involving molestation by several of its staff over a number of years.  The school board and parents would not continue business as usual and an extraordinary remedy would be quickly instituted (perhaps a no-touch” rule).  Such action would not be regarded as inappropriate.  It would be welcomed by the parents, students and staff members seeking to protect children and restore a good image to the school.

Incidentally, I am not on a “no-touch” advocacy campaign.  I played this out an example of how some culture fundamentals of Scouting in the United States will need to evolve rapidly if Scouting is to survive as a movement.  We need to decide what is fundamental and unchangeable and what is not.  Touching children is not fundamental to what we do.

“This sounds like some dystopian sci-fi movie in which children are raised without physical contact.“

 

Do you think children are adequately protected under the current policy?    Are we doing a exemplary job in this regard?

Reactions to your Comments on Culture Change

Thanks all for sharing solid opinions on these significant issues that can define the future of Scouting.  Thanks for staying on the “big picture” level, because this posting was not intended to debate specific implementation or bankruptcy issues.  Below are a few reactions to the themes I am reading, based only on my thoughts and not inside information.

“Eventuality of mixed-gender units”  

I have been roundly criticized on this site for being SM of DC’s 43-girl Troop and being a believer of single-sex and stand-alone female units.  Now that I am two years into the project, I know that the girls themselves want to be as separate from the boys as they can be.  Parents with a boy and a girl assume the “linked” Troops (often having a “girl patrol” in a boy Troop) are all that is available.  When they find out about our girl-separate approach, they always have their girl to join us.  When I took them to summer camp at the Summit this last summer, they had no interest whatsoever in mixing with the boy Troops.  Rather, they sought out the other girl Troops.  My conclusion at this point is that the girls themselves at Scout age want to be separate.  Linked Troops that offer a practically speaking “co-ed environment” by fully-integrating a small girl patrol into a big boy unit will never maximize membership and will not offer the environment that girls want. I do not believe the Scouts themselves want to be “co-ed”.

“Boys bad/Girls good”

I know very well what is being encouraged in the schools on this issue and do not like it.  My experience in our very large council is that this has not been a factor.  The girls are not receiving any discernable preferences – and I would know being SM of a big girl Troop.  This is surely a fear and dynamic we want to avoid.  I just have no evidence that it is present at this time.

“Men bad/Women good double standard”

Any Troop that wishes to survive and thrive in the current and coming environment will need to adopt a practice of going beyond the minimum adult leader presence at activities.  As SM of a large all-girl Troop, I could never favor a practice allowing only men to take our girls on a campout.  It is important in the girl Troop setting to present strong outdoorswoman examples and women of great character with a variety of experiences.  Given the horrific number and quality of abuse accounts filed in the bankruptcy, it is just unthinkable to imagine that parents would allow otherwise.  The current policy has a whiff of inequity, but it is simply necessary to have female leaders at girl Troop events.  If I were SM of a boy Troop, I would also include women leaders on every campout.  Boys also need to see strong outdoorswomen as great character examples.  They are entering a world where they will interact with women as colleagues, employees and supervisors.  The culture of men-only taking boys-only out in the woods will evolve.

“Let’s only discuss what the bankruptcy presents to us”

Everyone on this site knows big cultural changes are going to occur over the next couple of years.  It is healthy and appropriate for us to discuss what major changes are possible or likely.  The structure of the bankruptcy will largely determine the possibilities of our financial, property-owing and organizational issues.  It is not the right device to resolve our important cultural change issues. 

“Family Scouting”

I do not dispute a single observation made by commenters on this.  What I do understand is that Scouting-type organizations will have to be quite open – perhaps wide open to direct participation of parents and guardians if the organizations are to survive and Scouting-type programs are to have a future.  Our treasured memories of getting away from the family and growing-up on our own at distant camps with unrelated adults are wonderful.  However, this is already in Scouting’s past.  When our troop got ready of our latest socially distanced campout and we had only four adults to accompany 32 Scouts, we upped the adult component to nine.  The adults included seven parents, who camped as a separate patrol and did not “hover” over their children.  This culture change is necessary.  We can handle it.

“Touching” and “Good touch/Bad touch”

Credible allegations assert sickening accounts of severe abuse by horrible people “teaching” lessons central to the Scouting curriculum as their “excuse” for inappropriate touching.  It starts as grooming and progresses to horror.  A culture of generous touching of youth to teach merit badges, first aid, and other lessons will need to end.  The experience is that while a Scout might know what a “bad touch” is, Scouts have often been unable to prevent the eventual abuse from taking place.  We can teach these Scouting lessons by example without touching a child.  We need to be open to these changes if we are to regain the trust we have lost – or even be able to operate.

“Properties”

What will roll out over the next six months will make clear that we can no longer operate the vast number of properties we currently own.  It will cause us to rapidly prioritize what we need and what is financial sustainable.  The culture that each local Scouting entity must have access to a nearby comprehensive residential camp was already fading due to economics.  That process will greatly accelerate due to the bankruptcy and many will be disappointed with the closing of facilities.  A culture of property operation cooperation will emerge.

“Professionals, National, Councils, etc.”

There is great discussion of these details elsewhere on the site.  As a matter of cultural change though, I believe some commenters are not yet internalizing what is coming.  “National” will be different from the current BSA version of “National”.  National might very well continue as the same formal corporate entity if we successfully get through the Chapter 11. It might largely be a shell that manages the IP, supply services and whatever is required to be done at a national scale.  The field presence of the new “National” will be a trace of its earlier composition, and almost all volunteer.   “Council” will vary from place to place, but professionally may be skeletal versions of their former selves – mainly providing a smaller number of unit-serving executives.  They will morph into mostly volunteer-dominated entities.  Some councils will operate a residential camp with the attendance support of many other nearby councils.  Those commenters disfavoring personnel and activity above the unit level will be cheering.  Those commenters who enjoyed the events, services, offices, scout shops, awards, professional staff assistance, locally owned camps and our previously pristine public image will regret some changes.  The emerging culture will be overwhelmingly local and unit-focused.  There will be a lot less in the way of organizational politics to dispute.

Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

 

For this posting, let us predict and discuss fundamental cultural changes that might affect our program and activities.  Here are hypothetical examples to get the discussion going:

 

·       Parents may no longer repose sufficient trust in Scouting leaders.  As a result, a significantly higher number of organization-registered and YPT parents might need to be present at meetings and campouts.

·       YPT will have to get very serious.  Physical contact presents unacceptable YPT and liability risks.  There might be an “absolutely no touching” policy whereby leaders and camp staff are not allowed to physically touch or even get close to any child (with narrow exceptions for emergencies).  No touching demonstrations of first aid, “tick removal” or assistance with sit-ups – nothing.  Merit badge counseling might be required to take place in coordinated environments, like “merit badge universities”.

·       Absolute privacy will be required.  Individual tents, single bathroom/shower facilities and similar facilities might become the immediate and permanent normal.  Presence of privacy-violating phone/cameras and similar electronics will be prohibited.

·       YPT policy compliance might not be assumed.  Paid or volunteer YPT policy compliance personnel might make visits to unit meetings and activities.

·       Scouting may no longer be a property management organization.  The BSA will sell many of its properties at all levels during the bankruptcy.  Most councils will no longer operate a long-term summer camp facility and will rely on a small number of councils capable of fielding the expertise and finances.

·       Scouting above the unit will be volunteer.  Structures will function with minimal paid staff and provide only core unit-oriented services.  Property management, public relations, product fundraising sales and many other activities currently provided by councils will cease or be outsourced.

·       Parents will look to their own family religious institutions or the COs they have chosen to affiliate with on matters concerning God, and not Scouting programs (except for the religious emblems program) or Scouting leaders.

·       Scouting will be local and not national.  A national entity will maintain a program and only services that are best provided on a national scale.  Jamborees and high adventure bases may cease to exist, with perhaps the exception of a reduced-footprint Philmont operation.  Above-council youth leadership structures might be reduced or terminated.

 

These are notional examples not based on inside information.  I do not personally advocate many of these, but each strikes me as possible.  Some combination of cultural changes will come quickly due to the bankruptcy and other “perfect storm” factors identified during earlier postings.  Thoughts?

My last posting for a while.  Some upcoming professional activities on my part will make postings inadvisable for a while.  I have learned a lot about the the reorganization effort, and I have come to understand the principal points of view.  Best wishes to everyone.  

Real Life Numbers.   I had specific councils I am familiar with in mind when I constructed the hypothetical for this thread.  They are not located in the same geography (as was earlier suggested), but reflect the character and operational circumstances of the fictional councils.  I purposefully chose councils without large LDS membership to control for the LDS departure factor.  Membership and financial figures I just reviewed show that in a year-to-year comparison at the end of August, my proxy councils performed as follows:

"Big City" council (metro sized):     Lost 10.4% of its overall membership, including about 12% each for Cubs and Scouts.  Finances still strong.  Operating surplus.

"Rich Folks" council (high-income area, small sized):     Lost 28.4% of its overall membership, including 33% of Cubs and 16.5% of Scouts.  Finances are good with a good operating surplus.

"Sad" council (mid-sized suburban/rural, history of bad management and known for internal disputes):  Lost 19.7 overall, including 21.3% Cubs and 15.6% Scouts.  Finances now catastrophic, including massive and non-sustainable operating deficit.  Huge mortgages on worn-out current facilities.

"Merger of Equals council" (rural, can't decide what to do):  Lost 27.9% of membership-, including 31.8% Cubs and 18.8% Scouts.  Problematic finances with huge operating deficit.  Worn out properties.

"Happy" council (good management and volunteer corps, no camp, works well with its nearby metro council):  Lost 15.5% overall, including 15.5% Cubs, 10% Scouts.

This is a very artificial construct and the above results cannot be projected across the BSA generally.  However, let's at least look at the real-life performance of the actual councils (which I will not identify).  The results for "Big City" council are better than I expected and the results for "Sad" and "Merger of Equals" councils are far worse that what I had expected.  Sad council is an example of an unsustainable approach in a geography that can should be able to sustain a program.  It will parish in real life because it is, well, imploding.  I am not sure there is anything that can be done to save it -- probably liquidation through removal of charter or even bankruptcy.  It's financial and property decisions are gong to bring it down and its program results are very troubling.  Merger of Equals council would have a chance, but its internally-divided volunteer leadership is not "owning the problem" at this point.  Still engaging in the blame game that will probably drive it into bankruptcy.  "Happy" council looks pretty good in light of COVID and everything else.  It's overall approach is proving to be effective.  "Rich Folks" council is performing just as I had expected.  They have the endowment and operating expertise to survive their "near-cratering" 28.4% overall membership loss.  You can rely on the management-types on that Board to root out the membership problems and at least hold things steady.  "Big City" has the staying power, endowment and finances to pull through.  In their case, scale and willingness to make difficult decisions has worked so far. 

Even though this is only a snapshot in time of isolated councils, my take-away is that the historic and crises-management issues well-discussed on this site are playing out at this pre-settlement phase.    My interpretation of the comments across the entire site is that there is a rough consensus that a downsized form of National (in terms of size and function) will be able to reorganize.  If that is true, National will have a role in funneling what will happen to these example councils.  Those who favor an expedited approach might hope that charters are withdrawn and new geographies are negotiated.  Those who favor a Darwinistic approach might just let a suffering movement "work it all out" at the micro level through years of bankruptcies, lawsuits and internal disputes.  What say you?

You are right.  It really needs a new thread that is separate and apart from the national bankruptcy thread.  Different issue and different impacts.

Insurance fees and camp maintenance need to be paid, and we need at least a skeletal staff at the council level.  In our Troop we raise funds to partially subsidize the Scouts from under-resourced families.  The out of pocket cost to participate in a typical unit program runs 500-1,000 a year (depending on localities and how often a unit camps).  We nibble that down as much as we can for thee families.  National and council fees should be in lieu of expectations that units participate in FOS and product sales.  I am more concerned with long term predictability, so we can properly anticipate things.   

I tend to agree that National will somehow get through reorganization and continue to own the IP.  If there were some legal theory that would force liquidation, I think there are some pro-BSA people who would buy it anyway -- just like some of the bases.  However, the center of the movement is going to shift back to the surviving councils.  We have not discussed it much, but I think a good number of councils will enter some form of bankruptcy.  Principal factors will include the number of credible claims attached to a council's geographic territory and how well the finances are.  It will probably speed the process of consolidations.  The poorly-run small councils in the hypothetical come to mind.

If National gets through reorganization, it will retain the IP as a core property for future operations.  If National is liquidated, the IP will be sold in bankruptcy like all of the other assets.  A group of going-forward councils that have survived and received individual third party discharges could bid.   Other purchasers could outbid a council group, so there is no guarantee that a Scouting-related group would be in control of it.  

The letter the ASM would have seen does not contain any specifics.  If the person wants to appeal the decision of the council, he can do so to the Region and later National.  Such appeals are quite rare.