BinTharDunThat

Concur and withdraw my conclusion. (Wish I could edit above, but so be it). As you noted, per Jeremy Castleberry, "the council offered to a a boys only also.. But the idea lacked interest from boys only troops." Therefore no argument can be made that this is a problem as the non-elected group chose not to have a like event.

A Council-sponsored exclusionary event raises red flags. Perhaps those issues were addressed in the Council before announcing this program. Any program in Scouting which explicitly excludes a portion of the membership should be scrutinized (not necessarily barred). There are a few questions which must all be answered "yes" to establish this is consistent with Scouting values 1) "Is the exclusion of a portion of the BSA programs consistent with the Guide to Safe Scouting?" (So, only Cubs, AOLs and Scouts, Cubs and Scouts doing Cub stuff, only Scouts doing Scout-age stuff, only Crews doing

I'm continuously surprised that my Scouting experience is so different from others, or at least is appears that way. When growing up 35 years ago and in our Troop today, we put a special emphasis on Den Chiefs to engage with a Den in a Pack. Its a near-certain way to recruit a whole Den of new Scouts. The Troop also puts a premium on engagement with Packs. The Troop staffs the Cuboree. The Troop staffs the Webelos Woods/Trail to Troop. The Troop hosts an October open house directed to AOL Adventure completions. The Troop hosts an October campout with Webelos. The Troop tries to camp

As I recall, that was also following the disastrously poorly conceived SCOUTING USA rebrand. Rebrands are highly problematic. BSA needs to be smart about this. (I know, I know).

This may be more difficult now. You're looking for amendment of a statute in a divided congress where this change could well be a campaign speech item for those on the right. The corporate name and charter for the BSA are found at Title 36, US Code, Section 30901(a) "Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the "corporation") is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia."

I've not see that. The closest I've seen is a one year test pilot program assessing the viability of a third model for Troops, a second option for Scouts and families, of a co-ed Troop. Depending on resources, leadership, and choice, this maybe desirable for some. I'll be on the lookout for that.

I'll go with the guidance and details provided, but will be watching the outcome. But I wonder what happens if BSA is unable to obtain trademark registrations (which won't be until after February 2025)? The applications were only filed last month and likely won't be examined until January 2025.

Well, let’s drive forward.

@Eagle1993 Not disagreeing with you that the smartest action would be to have the most likely challenger on board before the filing and before any announcement Would you have had the same assumption before the BSA filed its recent round of trademarks and was challenged by GSUSA? Settlement Agreement between the parties is found in this filing as Exhibit 1. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b530ab19-6224-4f25-af12-fa7a92aa4b01_10117.pdf One wonders what the BSA will do if the trademark applications are rejected or successfully challenged in an adminis

So, its been announced to be effective next February. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-america-change-name-scouting-america-rcna151063 Questions about - 1) what does the GSUSA think of this? BSA has already had a fight over TMs with GSUSA. The filings above are applications - not yet examined by the PTO for distinctiveness, not yet published for third party prior user challenges. 2) has anyone noticed the abbreviation for this program, or given it much thought in light of BSA's recent issues?