CynicalScouter

3 minutes ago, John-in-KC said:

I have the feeling this graphic is not for public dissemination. 

Probably isn't, but I found it online leaked by a high level National training staff person and thought I would share.

And the graphic itself was later confirmed as accurate in a letter sent out by the National Commodore for Sea Scouts who linked to the Reddit item.

How sad is it we are at the point that the only way to get information out of National is via leak?

July 10, 2020
Proposed Changes to Older Youth Scouting
The Churchill Project was recently discussed during the recent BSA National Annual Meeting General
Session. The update included proposed recommendations to finances, operational structure and
program streamlining that were guided over the past year by separate teams of volunteers and staff
from the national, regional, area and local levels.
Among these recommendations, two proposals that directly affect adult program participants ages 18 or
older (those involved with Order of the Arrow, Exploring, Sea Scouts, and Venturing) include:
1) To only offer programs for youth under the age of 38. Some of the reasons behind the
proposal are to serve only youth in our “youth programs,” serving programs within similar age
programs (high school), and the legal aspects of serving adults (age 18+} and youth (under age 18) in
the same program.
2) To combine Sea Scouting into Exploring as an aquatic-focused career path.
The Churchill Project recommendations have been reviewed & accepted by the National Executive
Committee. The appropriate teams are now being asked to develop action steps and a proposed
timeline for implementation, which will include the decision making needed to support any impacted
members. in the case of the recommendations pertaining to adult program participants, consideration
will be made for those participants currently working on advancement or holding leadership roles.
While we anticipate that some of the Churchill Project Recommendations may be easily implemented
promptly, while others that are more complicated will take longer and be spread over the appropriate
time period needed.
As we always do, the BSA looks to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their
lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law, and our work is guided by focusing
on what is best for all our members.
More information will be shared in early fall as these and other proposals are submitted for
implementation. Contacting youth officers with questions about these topics is not the appropriate
channel and puts them in an awkward position where they do not have information to share. Please
direct questions and concerns to PR@scouting.org.

52 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

I don't see any indication in the screenshot that they are implementing a Rovers program. 

The "volunteer corps for young adults 18-29" could, might, maybe be a modified Rovers program.

From the official FB page:

Quote

You may have questions about the upcoming changes to adult program participants (those over 18) recently announced by the BSA, and how they impact the Order of the Arrow. National Chair of the BSA Dan Ownby recently addressed these changes, and what they mean (and don’t mean!) for youth Arrowmen between the ages of 18 and 21:

When Arrowmen turn 18, they will be considered an adult, and for youth safety, anyone 18 years old or older will need to register as an adult.

However, young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 will still have voting rights, and can still hold an office within the Order of the Arrow until they turn 21. That has not changed, and there is no plan to change that policy.

22 minutes ago, PACAN said:

One standard might be total youth served...after the significant membership losses in which all councils were affected,  there are 75 councils with less than 2000 youth and 29 of these less than 1000 and as low as 200. 

Is there a listing of all councils and their rosters? I'd be curious to know how my council shapes up.

1 minute ago, walk in the woods said:

I wonder if there isn't a 3) New membership/financial standards that are far beyond all/most existing councils, requiring acquisitions by the largest council in an area.

That's in effect 1- Measurements of Failure. National will set a standard that most existing councils will fail forcing mergers. I don't know about largest council; I can see them forcing several smaller ones into one or some such.

4 minutes ago, qwazse said:

No, unless they have, as a default, a city-state identification (okay, Transatlantic Council gets a pass) in standard-issue, I don't think a council has met the minimum standard for it's existence.

So the name of the council is what matters? Not financial stability or membership stability, just what you can put onto a patch? Ok. Agree to disagree.

13 minutes ago, David CO said:

I wouldn't assume that the national and local councils will survive the bankruptcy.  I don't think the lawyers will either.  They will want the Victims Fund to have tangible assets.  An agreement to contribute to a fund sometime in the future won't do it.

1) The Victim's Fund is collateralize with tangible assets. They don't pay into the victim's fund, they seize the asset. This is, in effect, what happened with the Tobacco Master Settlement agreement.

2) Plaintiffs lawyers (or some of them) may want mass liquidation of National and all 250+ councils (up to and including returning the original charter to Congress), I cannot see a bankruptcy judge agreeing to such a plan.

33 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Are there no minimum standards now?   

Nothing concrete and specific such as finances below X, membership below Y, etc. I would be curious to see if there are certain benchmarks a council MUST hit to be safe (Measures of Success) or certain warning signs that if the council hits those the council must merge.

4 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

This will be known in time as "The Merger Standard" 

I agree, but I wonder how it will be phrased. I can see two directions.

1) Measurements of Failure: Those councils that meet the following criteria will be merged forthwith (membership BELOW X, finances BELOW Y, etc.) All others will be deemed to be OK.

2) Measurements of Success: Those councils that meet the following criteria are exempt from merger (membership ABOVE X, finances ABOVE Y, etc.) All others will be merged forthwith.

31 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

All good points. Another question, the amount our insurers will contribute to victims fund.

The insurers are going to pay $0; they insist that the insurance policies are void because National failed to disclose to the insurance companies/were not forthright.
 

Quote

 

The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and First State Insurance Co. in Texas have both turned their back on the BSA, arguing that the “ineligible volunteer files” show the organization hasn’t done enough to protect children against sexual abuse and misconduct, and hasn’t done enough to warn parents of the risks.

Both insurers are arguing in court that they shouldn’t have to pay claims related to abuse that the BSA could have reasonably prevented. The BSA and several councils sued both insurers for $13.5 million in June. In a separate legal battle, insurers are refusing to cover sex-abuse settlements and legal defense fees for the BSA, arguing that the events were not accidents and could have been prevented.

 

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

 If only half are legit and settle for $500,000 each that's 60% of all the assets.  I also understand the settlements will be structured over time and the assets in the victims fund will have some ROI, etc., I just wonder where the threshold is for continued viability.  Can the BSA (Nation and Councils) liquidate 40% of all assets and survive?  20%, 50%?

I would assume the following: a Victims Fund that a) has a lump sum dropped in on a date in 2021 and b) continual annual payments for XX years into that fund.

So it wouldn't require liquidating 60% of current assets.

44 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Do, I expect this to be in the minimum standards? Obviously not. But I expect all other minimum standards to miss their mark so long as it isn't.

OK, but the topic is National's announcement they want to "Establish minimum standards to be considered a council."

So you think unless they have a pretty patch, they cannot meet any minimum standards to be considered a council?

24 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

The period during which the Debtors have the exclusive right to solicit acceptances thereof (the “Exclusive Solicitation Period” and, together with the Exclusive Filing Period, the “Exclusive Periods”) is hereby extended by approximately 120 days, to and including December 15, 2020.

As I read this, it means that we get another 15-30 days of the "file your claim now" advertisements?

That's great, but I don't think a patch or a name is the issue and it should not be a consideration when deciding the "minimum standards to be considered a council."

There are a LOT more important things that pretty patches.

And as for insisting the patch include a person "brandishing weapon(s)"? Huh?

6 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

I think two likely standards will be:  (1) No debt; (2) summer camps consistently generate an operating surplus.

Forget "operating surplus", I'd take "neutral effect on balance sheet on average over last 3 years" (up years, down years), but I hear you.

5 hours ago, David CO said:

Council has the support of the Chartered Organizations.

Define "support" because a) lots of CoRs are basically just passive see-you-at-recharter-for-signatures types and b) "support" may simply be a lack of willingness to disband what you have.

Far too often "support" for an organization or anything really just means "too hard to disband and start over, so we'll limp along with what we have".

The newly released results of the Churchill Committees are out (will be official shortly) as Scouting Forward: A Plan to Lead
The plan is suppose to be executed between September 2020 and September 2022

There is a nebulous statement in it: "Establish minimum standards to be considered a council"

1) What SHOULD be those "minimum standards"?

2) What do you think WILL BE those standards?

40 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

I have an adult leader basically an ASM,

Ok, this is where the confusion starts: are they an ASM or not? Not "basically". Not "sorta". They either are an ASM or they aren't.

If they are NOT an ASM, then the next part ("that only seems to do for their kids and nothing for the general set of kids in the unit.") is one thing. But if they are an ASM, then they are suppose to serve the unit, not their kid.

3 minutes ago, ALongWalk said:

The district that I live in has about 30 units and covers a county.  We are fortunate to be in a mid tier type council that consistently has good pro, board level, and unit level volunteer leadership. That being said....lots of adversity coming our way.

Thanks. I hate the adversity. I hate the idea of losing scouts. I wouldn't mind however if this was used to enhance service via merging dead/zombie districts (and councils).

7 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Our districts were eliminated over two years ago in favor of employee-run "Service teams."  This measure ended issues with volunteers not being sufficiently servile but reduced unit support.

As of now we have no unit support as is (no DE, DC, and a Council that could care less) so I am not sure how it can get any worse for my district, but that might actually be worse for the districts in our council that have DEs.

2 hours ago, Double Eagle said:

Yes, our district covers those 15 counties.  It used to be a separate council until it merged with another council.  We have two large cities with 4 counties combined within them and is split between two states separated by a river.  The council office is in one state so that has the taxable issues the other state residents have to deal with for scouting purposes.  As a youth, my council only had two counties and was one of the smallest in the nation.  Now that merged council is half the state.  I can't imagine driving 5+ hours from one end of the council to the other.

Cool. I thought Chattohoochie Council was still its own council with 4 Districts covering 15 counties across Alabama and Georgia.

A 1-district, 15 county? Wow. That's. Wow.

4 minutes ago, Double Eagle said:

We have a traditional district.  We have 40 units, 10 commissioners, a district committee, DE, DC, and district co-chairs.  It covers 15 counties.  The best part is the cooperation and synergy of the district.  Its not perfect, but no complaints.  The OA chapter has the same boundaries and units. 

I'm sorry, your DISTRICT covers 15 counties, or your COUNCIL does?

My council is basically a basket-case but to make matters even worse my district is effectively non-functioning. We haven't had a D.E. or D.C. for years all we have is 3-4 committee members and a committee chair who is trying to juggle 50 things at once. No unit commissioners. We have 12 units.

How small is the smallest district you have ever heard of? I am wondering at what point we should just get shut down and merged into a neighboring district and how much of a ruckus that would cause.