ToKindle96

I don't think calling another scouting organization that doubled in size a joke is scout like, my friend. Nor is it something to draw laughter. I'm trying to recall the part of the Scout Law that teaches us to do either of those things. BSA losing 1.2+ million in 5 years doesn't give those in the BSA a solid perch to smirk from. Those are 60,000 youth being served in the scouting movement.

I suspect Eagle1993 is correct about splitting the baby. To me it further erodes my confidence in the BSA now that they announced coed Troops. For the last 5-6 years the BSA continued to tout the benefits of single-sex environments, but oddly only for the Scouts BSA program. Now we need a 10-month pilot to find out that coed is just as good if not better. So their arguments over the last 5-6 years are suddenly incorrect? Or, they never had any evidence of it to begin with but made the arguments so as not to alienate certain groups? Tired of the nonsense. Talking to regular people at that

I remember the first year girls were admitted the annual report emphasized that some 77K girls joined cub scouts, but neglected to mention there were 91K fewer boys in cub scouts. That trend accelerated. Compare the number of girls in the programs today (175K or so) to the massive decrease in the numbers of boys served (somewhere in the range of -1.1 million compared to 5 years ago. Maybe it was never about "serving more youth." Maybe it was about serving different youth. Remember, Surbaugh said the legacy clientele was no longer good enough for the BSA.

Of course it is 5 years old. I used it to illustrate a strategic choice and the thinking process behind it. Let's not kid ourselves though. "Bringing scouting to more youth" is easy to rally around. Reality? BSA is serving 1 million fewer youth than 5 years ago. 1 million fewer (50% less) is not more youth. Perhaps it is a non starter for most of the youth as you say, but I'm not so sure. 50% of them are simply gone. In the last 5 years BSA has failed miserably at serving more youth.

And let's not forget that as late as 1990 about 18% of boys in the target population age were in a BSA program and that percentage was still about 15% in 2000. I believe it slid down from there to about 9% by 2017 when Surbaugh and the higher ups decided there were two paths forward. One was to juice the flywheel with laser focus. But, Surbaugh and others thought that meant becoming a "very small, boutique organization serving what's probably a legacy clientele" (quote from article referenced below). So they decided to transform into something else--a saving grace of bigger is better because a

There will be a good case study applying the "how the mighty fall" stages to the BSA. https://www.clevelandconsultinggroup.com/articles/how-the-mighty-fall-why-some-companies-never-give-in.php

Just 5 years ago there were more cub scouts than there are scouts in ALL BSA programs now. With those cub scout numbers there is no turnaround in sight. The program isn't selling--we're seeing decisions that reek of desperation. Abandoning the historic brand won't reverse those numbers. The BSA is progressing....... through the stages of organizational decline.

AwakeEnergy: I grant that your Pack clearly violated a Scout is Obedient. I remember learning something to the effect of "A Scout is obedient. A scout follows the rules of his family, school, troop, community, and country. If he deems a rule to be unfair or unjust, he tries to have them changed in orderly fashion rather than disobeying them." So, yes, your Pack violated Obedient--perhaps with sound rationale, but a violation nonetheless. Maybe we can add that to the list of the things the BSA should crack down on! I chose to emphasize Scout is Trustworthy because the ease at which people

A Scout is Trustworthy. Full stop. That's my agenda--I'm not being secretive about it. I love the tortured logic to arrive at your conclusion though.

Since you mentioned "Do I really spell out why that's contrary to the Scout Law?"... can you help me understand how a Pack "ignoring the separate dens by gender rule" isn't contrary to the Scout Law? Does that teach our Scouts that a Scout is Trustworthy? Ignoring rules that don't fit our agenda ("my scouts' ability to scout together") and then making reference to the Scout Law is rich.

I'm pretty sure those parents wouldn't be able to attend anyway... at least as of 9/1... unless they are registered. The exception is for cubs but I don't believe there are exceptions for Scouts BSA.

Does that COR still have a say at all? He is representing the Charter Org that is no longer going to sponsor a scouting unit. Wouldn't a new COR come with a new charter org?

I don't see similar instruments as an option. I see bugle, trumpet, or cornet. Does the word "may" imply "must" given the options presented?

Of course not!!! Evaluating decisions and their impact on overall org health and its survival is fair game though.

Many faults but... It is hard to believe that more than doubling the viable target market yet experiencing a decline in membership of more than half could be viewed as a net positive from a survival standpoint. Granted, there are multiple confounding factors, but If I'm evaluating a balanced scorecard of those decisions, the lead indicator (membership) doesn't a bright scorecard make.

"here's your chance to be official." I remain dismayed at the ease with which scouters ignore the rules and everyone knows about it and looks away. Until this pilot there were no mixed gender dens, yet many units had them anyway. I know... leadership challenges, efficiency, made sense for families, scouts wanted it that way, etc. but rules are rules. Pretty hard to instill the scout law in scouts when we flagrantly disregard the first point of it. What kind of example is that for the youth?

I have trouble with the ease with which some in Scouting "wink wink" about operating a mixed gender troop already. What does that say about the first point of the Scout Law if we openly flaunt the rules and look the other way?