CynicalScouter

All of which goes to show BSA (and LCs and COs) was negligent (if not reckless) in how they handled these maters. There's a reason BSA and LCs do not want these to become lawsuits.

I've seen zombie units like this. Here's the problem: they are the LAST to admit they have a problem. So as I said, unless you want to turn unit commissioners into "council spies" for real, this plan is just rife for strife. I know my troop is fantastic. But I've got people on my committee, including but more especially my CC, who dislike the idea of a U.C. to begin with. If they knew that the Unit Commissioner was coming to "inspect" us and had the authority to yank our charter, I know they would simply refuse to let the man in the door.

Institutional Representative (IR) evolved into Scouting Coordinator (SC) which evolved into today's Charter Organization Representative (COR). Today, the old IR is somewhat split in two: Institutional Head (IH) and Chartered Organization Rep (COR). The example I give is the pastor of the church sponsoring the unit is the IH, the junior pastor or congregation member who is suppose to be overseeing the unit is the COR. On rare occasion the IH and the COR is the same, but that's rare (I've never seen it personally, but I've heard it has happened).

Archdiocese of San Francisco has now made an appearance in the case for its claims against BSA. BSA's trick of cutting a deal with Hartford and leaving COs out to dry is backfiring spectacularly.

But that is what was being suggested: that "bad units" have their charters pulled. And I quote So what are you suggesting? That a unit that fails to make JTE Gold have their charter pulled? Silver? Bronze?

I was under the impression JTE was looked upon as being not a "true" measure of "real, true" scouting and therefore shunned by "true" scouters. I know JTE gold troops that function as Cub Scouts 2.0, so I don't know that JTE is going to help weed out "bad" units.

How do you determine "bad" units other than to have outside entities (unit commissioners? DEs?) review the unit and render a judgment? Want to see knock down drag out fights? Create an Inspector General corp (unit commissioners/DEs) whose mission is to judge "good" and "bad" units. Watch the sparks fly. I see precisely 0% chance of BSA coming up with a "bad unit" list or, perhaps more accurately, coming up with criteria for a "bad unit" that are so broad and nebulous as to be unenforceable and wind up with everyone being a "good" unit (JTE, anyone?) EDIT: I want to be clear. If a unit is engaged in criminal activity and/or directly endangering children, yes then clearly someone can and should step in and shut them down. But outside those extreme cases, I do not see how you come up with a "bad unit" list. Who gets to decide if that unit is/is not implementing the program up to BSA standards? Are you prepared to hire inspectors general/auditors? Or ask volunteers to do so? Unit commissioners already have a bad reputation for being "council spies". This would LITERALLY make them so.

Today's batch of redacted a sexual abuse letters made it on the docket. Two things I hope everyone takes away There's a reason why YP and Guide to Safe Scouting exist as they do today. Every one of these letters you can just tick the boxes and see every section of YP and GSS directly created to address these types of claims and crimes. These are VERY detailed, even with the redactions. Times, dates, names, locations. Anyone hoping that BSA will skate because of faulty memories is in for a rude awakening.

Things to look forward to for this week 1) TCC's objection to the BSA's disclosure statement. I expect it to be frankly anti-climactic. We all know at this point most of the points. BSA is still not disclosing precisely how much the LCs will contribute, how much the insurance companies will contribute, etc. 2) Agenda! What, precisely, is on the agenda in terms of motion practice for the May 17 hearing. 3) Three days of mediation in New York. 4) TCC will have a townhall call May 13.

Or, conversely, that if a Council were to report NO YP violations in the prior 12 months that you should either Emulate their training system because they have achieved a level of perfection not seen in human history or Start poking around because no one group or organization can ever be THAT perfect suggesting either their data's crud, their reporting practices are crud, or something's crud.

There is no way to tell anything when it comes to mediation. It is a black box in a black hole of nothingness. Let me explain and speak to the HAs for a second. Mediators, like judges, will only discuss what is dragged in front of them. Unlike judges and arbitrators ("Rule. Now. Please.") it is more conversational ("Talk about THIS. Now. Please.") If the parties don't want to talk about it, neither do the mediators.* For all we know, the reason we have not heard a peep about the HA bases (other than Summit) is because There's universal agreement on the other 3 HA bases (other than Summit) being restricted OR there's universal agreement on the other 3 HA bases (other than Summit) being UNrestricted OR it may be Summit is the tough nut that they decided to crack first and kick the other HA bases down the road OR it may be that the HA bases are part of a much larger conversation about "core" properties that also include local camps OR OR OR etc. *EDIT: This is why, when you saw the judge order mediation in Florida, she did NOT order what they needed to talk about because she doesn't know what the hold up is OR (if she has a confidential mediation statement, which she may) she knows what SOME of the holdups are, but won't say in open court what SHE thinks the biggest sticking points are because she's not neck-deep in these conversations.

Sorta, but someone has to move first. Let me explain and this is how things GENERALLY work so, keep that in mind. In order for her to rule on a motion, one party has to formally put into writing EXACTLY what the problem is and EXACTLY what they want to judge to rule. Along with this motion they will usually file supporting paperwork such as a Brief in Support or something like that listing out the legal arguments. The other side(s) get to then file its Brief(s) in Opposition or support or both. Opposition isn't always clear cut: so for example if BSA filed a motion to declare the HA bases restricted, someone else could file a brief in opposition that says ("Yeah, sure, Philmont is, but the other three are fair game, here's our legal reasoning as to why.") The other moving side then typically gets one last bite (Movant's Brief in Reply and Support) to say why they are still right and the opponents are still wrong. There's a principle in law called "Case or controversy" and it means in a very, very condensed version that courts will NOT rule on a specific question of law or fact until SOMEONE drags it in front of them and says "Rule. Now. Please." No one has specifically asked the judge to rule on HA bases, so she won't. If BSA wants an official holding from the court that the HA bases are restricted, BSA just has to file that motion tomorrow and start that 1-2-3 process. If TCC or some other party wants an official holding THE OTHER WAY, they can do the same. Much of this is due to the fact that there is ongoing mediation. If one of the parties takes a portion of that mediation discussion (e.g. JP Morgan struck a deal with BSA regarding Summit) and puts in front of the judge, then the other sides get to pounce and say what a bad deal it is, which is exactly what happened. If, however, the mediation is deemed by one party as an an impasse, they can take that one portion (status of HA bases, status of LC assets vis-a-vis BSA National), drag it in front of the judge and say "Rule. Now. Please." with that three step process I discussed earlier.

Yes, but the question was And the fact is BSA Isn't saying what the specific criteria is anywhere publicly available.

Heads up: it won't be done right. Not with leaders who are prepared to have this bankruptcy go off a cliff in order to save Summit at (literally) all costs. BSA is dying but will never fully die. BSA will shamble on as a husk and be thought of the way. A zombie organization that is a pale imitation of its former self. I think a parallel is the Grange. In its heyday, it accounted for 2% of total US population. Well known and well respected. Today, 160,00 total members and barely a blip on the radar. The landscape is littered with defunct scout and scout-like organizations as well. BSA will remain, as as anachronisitc relic with certain privileges and one big selling point (Eagle Scouts for everyone!) and that is it. Boomer grandparents and those influenced by them will push their kids to get that Eagle, but that's it. As for Cub Scouts? I would NOT want to be the people in charge of that program right now. They are just completely up a creek without a paddle.

Fine, then go back to 2019. Between 2010 and 2019 Cubs dropped -27%. Between 2000 and 2019: -44% Contrast this with Scouts, BSA where the numbers, while not as bad, were not great: -11% drop between 2010 and 2019 and -20% drop 2000-2019. The idea that we are going to keep as many camps open as when we had back "in the good old days" is ludicrous. It is spending money to prop up an infrastructure based on memories, not math.

Typo. And BSA does not say how they categorize the Classes.

To put in in perspective of where it was and where it is, in the time period you were there Cub Scouts has dropped from 2.1 million to, as of December 2020, 650k, a 70% decline. Scouts, BSA had a little over 1 million in 1997, down to 475k, a 53% decline.

Exactly. Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) and NOT the ones with kids in scouting or if they are they are a small, small percentage. Boomers are 57-75 years of age. They have grandkids, maybe, in scouting. But not kids, or at least not that many. (57-17 = 40).

I heard a speaker talk about this in the following way: His dad, a Boomer, was a life long member of the Sierra Club. Had his original Sierra Club card in his wallet. Whenever they moved his first question was where the nearest club was. Membership was measured in decades. He was Gen X. Belonged to certain organizations when he was younger but as he got older drifted towards others. Still maintained the same level of hours and donations, just shifted. Membership was measured in years. Millennials, initial data shows, are liable to only remain with the same charitable organization or not for profit until the next new fad/issue/topic came up. They were MORE charitable in terms of giving as a percentage of their income and MORE giving of their time. But they were gone in 12-18 months. As one person described it: you can NOT build and funding and membership base or projection based on people who aren't going to be there next year. And that third category (hop from thing to thing to thing) are the ones having kids right now. Kids = Cubs. I define Millennials as Pew does: those born between 1981 and 1996. Which makes them between 25-40. That's precisely when they are having kids, later in life. The average age of first-time mothers in America is now up from 21 to 26, while for fathers, it's increased from 27 to 31. Which makes them the people showing up, or NOT showing up, to Cub Scout meetings. That's why I'd love to see the data on Cub Scout retention. I know the big worry was the retention from Cub to Scouts, BSA. But I'd hazard a guess that Cub Scout "churn" is much higher than it was. But back to the bankruptcy: how do you plan out a program when the parents won't stick around? Forget Scouts, BSA for a second (which dropped 11% between 2010 and 2019), Cub Scouts is simply a disaster: a 27% drop in that same time period. And they took a LDS hit that Scouts, BSA. Scouts, BSA dropped 41% (474,403 vs. 798,516) and Cubs dropped 45% (649,284 vs. 1,176,118). But in terms of unit loss? I have been told that while Scouts, BSA suffered Cub Scouts was blown out (I do NOT have the KPI data). If the Scouts, BSA bounces back to pre-COVID, does it really matter if 66% of Cub Scouts never come back? And here's a hint: Cubs don't go to HA bases.

See Bowling Alone

This. BSA has to go back to, not scratch, but close.

Let's do some math. Based on these Key Performance Indicator reports from BSA. KPI Report December 2019 KPI Report December 2020 MEMBERSHIP MARKETSHARE BSA ASSUMED MARKET 2017 2,282,576 4.5% 50,723,911 2018 2,186,329 4.3% 50,844,860 2019 2,118,448 4.2% 50,439,238 2020 1,199,425 2.4% 49,976,042 2021 (Estimate A) 750,000 1.5% 50,496,013 2021 (Estimate B) 504,390 1.0% 50,439,038 2021 (Estimate C) 974,713 2.9% 50,337,583 Estimate A: BSA doesn't recover its current state of around 750,009. Estimate B: BSA is claim 1% of total market share Estimate C- BSA is able to recover 50% of the losses sustain in 2021. I am thinking that 50% of the losses due to COVID come back, thus 1 million is in the range of possibility. But barely.

The youngest boomer is 57. The oldest is 75. If we are talking cohorts, Boomers are not bringing in their kids. Let's talk generational then. If boomers = 1946 to 1964, then they were in scouts from 1953 (1946 + 7) to 1971 (Cubs). Note: that is precisely when the wheels fell off. Now, some of this is attributed to the decline births/the number of young people but a LOT comes from a decline in BSA. I am NOT going to hash how why that happened, lots of people have lots of theories, but suffice to say, it happened. Plus, there were societal changes that impacted BSA. Again not going to has how, just acknowledging it. So, here's my question: how on EARTH does BSA think it is going to get back to 1950s numbers? Or 1970s? Or 1990s? Consider then the following: The high water mark for scouting was probably around 1970. Cubs = 2,438,009. Boy Scouts = 1,915,457. Overall Scouting had almost 16% of all boys (age 6-17) in its programs. Camps were being built. It was the heyday. Today Market share has now collapsed to 4.3% (2018 and 2019) and is at or below 2% (2020 due to LDS it was at 2.4%; today it is likely well 2% and closer to 1.5%). Adding girls didn't help, or didn't help much. So, back to the point at hand: the bankruptcy. In order for BSA to emerge from bankruptcy, it was given the exclusive right to submit its reorganization plan. And it has done so, twice. And EACH plan assumes a membership model that looks more like 1980 or 1990 than today. Do we REALLY need 4 HA bases? For a dwindling membership? And local councils? Do they need camps for a membership in freefall? That is why, frankly and bluntly, what the TCC is doing in terms of going through property by property is a BLESSING for BSA long term. Why? Because too many people from 1, 2, even 3 generations ago are holding out longing memories for their old, beloved camp days when those camps are NOT sustainable and NOT essential. It maybe ONE camp in a council is, but not the others. This is, or will, make councils have to justify to a court that a particular camp really is essential TODAY. Not 20-30 years ago. TODAY. Yes, a lot of councils are about to lose a lot of camps. But folks, this is not the 1960s and 1970s anymore. BSA is a dinosaur on life support. It will shamble on post-bankruptcy, but we are part of a dying organization. What number will it stabilize at will help determine the BSA bankruptcy plan. Or BSA (and the LCs) can keep screwing around with sweetheart deals with Hartford and protecting Summit and local camps at all costs. And then TCC/FCR/Coalition will be invited to introduce their OWN reorganization plan. And I assure you all, NO ONE associated with scouting is going to like it.

It is everyone with two cents worth of sense knows it. The only question is if gen z parents (:20-40 the ones currently with school age kids) view it as a dinosaur they want to be affiliated with. The millennial generation (current ages = 40-55) already answered: heck no they did not put or keep their kids in.

Given the complete and total collapse in BSA membership even prior to COVID (decline of 37% from 2000-2019, and that was BEFORE LDS left) that's a strong argument. LCs have an infrastructure built and developed for a scouting population of 3-4 million (1955-2004) when, if BSA is very, very lucky, like stupefyingly lucky, it will emerge from bankruptcy and COVID with 2 million (which is what it was in 2019, just before LDS left) and more likely 1-1.5 million, which was the number of scouts in 1944. I also suspect that TCC is claiming that some of these "restricted' camps are not as "Restricted" as the LCs claim they are.