desertrat77

@MattR, your thoughts are timely.  We need this dialogue more than ever.

I watched the general session of the National Annual Meeting today.  Right off the bat, three pros talked at length (about 15 - 20 minutes) about big dollar fundraising.  National is launching a new program to help councils raise money.  They made other points, but the upshot was definitely "the show must go on."  And by "show" I mean "keep those dollars rolling in." 

Overall, the general session had this one stark theme:  the virtual absence of any discussion about the challenges families and units are going through.  It was a completely inward-look/ivory-palace session.  At the end, Roger Mosby expressed his thanks to unit level leaders.  And sure, there was some breathless enthusiasm about badge earning via Zoom and camping in the backyard, but that was more of a victory lap for the pros.  Unless I missed it, only Roger addressed the unit leaders directly.

If those deep corporate pockets are out there and ready to donate, great.  But on a family and neighborhood level, the dollars are going to be far fewer from this point forward.  I understand National and councils have started to tighten the belt, but the financial pain has only just begun.

56 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

You likely have some marketable skills. It's clear the BSA isn't looking out for you as an employee, and future decline is likely inevitable. You should make for the exits before everybody else gets the same idea. It's noble to "go down with the ship" but I like being able to pay my bills and retire someday. 

@carebear3895, I concur with Sentinel947.

More than anything we've discussed about the BSA's possible implosion, this retirement situation is the biggest red flag that @Cburkhardt's prediction will come true:  the BSA is going to be liquidated, right now to the last basketry kit.

If the retirement plans of the front-line pros are in jeopardy, so is everything else.

Computer skills:  almost all kids have advanced computer skills.  They often know more than their tech teachers in school.

Bus and subway navigation:  small children can figure this out easily with the help of a parent or older sibling. 

Math and science:  does the BSA propose to teach this subjects?

Going to museums to identify flora and fauna:  how many youth will sign up for that?

The BSA is going to have quite a challenge building an organization around these activities.  Who is going to pay dues for the privilege of solving algebra word problems on the weekend?

4 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

This is the new version of the ISP Urban Hike.

I agree.  Sounds like some gold-tabbers still have their red beret tucked in their back pocket.

9 hours ago, Protoclete said:

Woodbadge, I understand, having just gone through it last year, I see how it could get kind of cult-y in some councils. Its weird enough to show up at a Council event and see a bunch of people singing 'Back to Gilwell' with no context or explanation, especially when you're on the outside. Real off-putting. Though I think I'm lucky in my council that its not much cliquish, and also i think there is an overall recognition of this and efforts to overcome in already being implemented. 

But commissioner corps? Is that really a problem in some places? They are like the quintessential BSA volunteers' volunteers here. There are never enough of them, but I can't imagine a group more representative of what Scouting is about than our commissioners - not at all cliquish, totally open and available, always ready to respond to questions, server cheerfully, etc. So genuinely curious how it works that they'd be grouped together with WB here. 

Proclete, thanks for the opportunity to round out my ramblings....

- WB:  I'll give Gilwell credit where credit is due.  They have toned down the hyperbole and egotism.   Somewhat.  In my council there seems to have been a conscious effort to be more respectful toward non WBers and realistic about the course.  Other councils I've been in have been as you described, cliquish and cult-y, if not downright arrogant.  WB still seems to be a feeder program for the Good Ole Boy club at district and council levels.   There are scouters that do not appear for or support anything in scouting unless it's WB. 

- Commissioners:  a subject near/dear to me.  I was a UC in five councils while on active duty, and later a district commissioner for a year. 

The commissioner concept is sound, but overall it doesn't work as advertised, in my opinion.  It works in some councils, which is good news indeed.

In the units, I always did my best to be respectful and supportive.  Initial greetings at unit meetings ranged from shock ("I've been the SM here X years, and you are the first commissioner to walk through our door") to outright hostility ("We had a commissioner several years ago, a complete jerk, and we told him to leave and never come back"). 

I did nothing profound as a UC.  I listened to their concerns, went camping with the units when they were short adults ("A commissioner that actually camps, well now I've seen everything ha ha!"), drank coffee with them around the campfire, washed dishes, filed my monthly reports (if/when the abysmal BSA software worked), and gave updates at district meetings.  I'm not trying to sound like a great UC because I wasn't.  Yet what little I did, most leaders appreciated it.  If they asked for my advice or previous experience, I offered it.  Otherwise, it was about supporting them--the most important positions in scouting--unit level leaders.

Observations about fellow commissioners:  many were names on a roster.  At most they attended the monthly district meetings to socialize.  Being a commissioner was a status symbol and nothing more.  They loved the accolades but never visited their units.

1 minute ago, carebear3895 said:

Popcorn is a money maker. Like, I get it. Volunteer hate it.....but it's low overhead and a money maker for councils. I would reckon no council is in a good enough financial state to cut one of their largest fundraisers. 

I hate it, unit leaders hate it, but "merit badge factories" are just not going away because they are so popular. The day of little johnny scout calling up a merit badge counselor are long gone unfortunately (which is sad because I think that's a great skill for a scout to learn)

I would love to see national simplify the recharter process. It's one of those those things where the answer seems so simple, but I think it get's complicated because of the current charter system. I'm all on board with simplifying it, but if it hasn't happened now, will it ever?

Carebear, can't we find another fundraiser to replace popcorn, a product that buyers want?  Volunteers hate popcorn because customers are quite indifferent to it. 

MB fairs:  point well taken.  However, if we must have them, they should be more challenging. 

Recharter:  I understand your point, but events may overcome this clunky process.  The staff and infrastructure needed to carry the old process along may not exist soon.

1 minute ago, carebear3895 said:

IMO, I feel like I can practically guarantee you none of these three will be sent to the executioner. Besides, there are far from "Sacred cows". 

Carebear, how so?  Are they sacred to the units, the council, or both?

1.  Skip the slaughter house and send to the glue factory:

- STEM

- Popcorn

- Merit badge fairs

- Rechartering process

2.  Dignified burial with honors:

- OA (45 years an Arrowman too, ouch)

- Venturing (rarely works to potential)

3.  Administer diminished rations and strict fitness regimen:

- Cub scouting:  reduce overall program, ranks/badges and overhead by 50 percent (a never ending program that pleases execs and national supply)

- Uniform items overall:  reduce by 90 percent (buy Dickies work clothes instead, pants and shirt, and sew or pin on a couple badges)

- Eagle process and emphasis--simplify red tape, refocus on outdoor leadership of peers.  PR should focus on all scouts in scouting, regardless of rank, and not just this over-hyped rank

- Infrastructure and staff at summer camps that do not relate directly to the outdoors (computer labs, Citizenship MBs, etc.)

4.  Wake up these insular communities and remind them they are part of the BSA:

- Wood Badge

- Commissioner corps

56 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

The question is whether you would prefer the situation you have that allows unit independence or a structure where a contract-designated supervisor is your district and council leadership.  Do you want them to be able to instruct you as to what you shall do?

This a good question.  However, I think it generates another:  after the smoke clears, will there be sufficient council or national staff left to instruct/rule units?  The way things are going, I doubt it.  Units will probably be more autonomous than ever.

I've never seen a CO operate "as advertised."  COs are usually quite distant.  The construct also allows council to say to units "you belong to us, do as we say" or "you don't belong to us, see your CO" as it benefits the council and the BSA, not the units.

1 hour ago, Oldscout448 said:

I think it could work as a troop program provided so we don't continually try to force it into a one-size-fits-all system. In the sixties a fair number of troops had what we called a senior Scout program. I'm not sure if it was official or not but it basically worked like this two or three times a year there would be a special camp out just for the older Scouts, it could be a survival camp out, (you could only bring what you could fit in your pockets) a 50-miler, a canoeing trip anything to keep the older Scouts challenged and excited about the program.

Then it was decided that we had to be more "inclusive" and if the newest Scouts couldn't handle it we weren't allowed to do it. Within a year we lost most of our best hikers and campers.  

In the late seventies, our troop in Alaska followed a similar plan.  Our troop camped once a month, snow included.  But between Christmas and New Year's, the SM would take the senior scouts on a trek above the tree line.  Ice axe, crampons, self-arrest practice, traversing ice fields, etc.   One summer we senior scouts went through a mini boot camp experience for advanced outdoor skills such as rock climbing, living off the land and the like.  Then we took a trek over tundra, birch forest, and mountains. 

Indeed, the BSA decided to be more "inclusive" and I think it was to the detriment of the program.  Check out this spin from National in the publication "Questions and Answers, The Improved Scouting Program" copyright 1972:

Page 12, question 23:  "Q.  Does this mean a different kind of man is needed for Scoutmaster?"

"A.  No.  But we hope the improved program will attract the kind of men who might be put off by the present image of the Scoutmaster as chiefly outdoor-oriented, as well as the type of man who is an outdoorsman.  In the new program there's room for both types...."

And this gem from page 1:

"Scouting Study Made"

"...the National Executive Board recently commissioned a study.  Researchers found that although 83 percent of all boys like Scouting's emphasis on outdoor activities [Italics mine], between 25 and 33 percent think it's too organized, restricts initiative, is fun at first but not later, and makes too much of being rugged and strong."

A couple conclusions:

- Apparently there wasn't "room for both types" of scouters in the BSA.  Many of the old school leaders left in droves.

- Even though 83 percent of scouts liked the outdoor program, National decided to overhaul the BSA anyway in an attempt to satisfy a much smaller audience.  So we can see that National's  flawed "methodology" of surveying and then leveraging the results to suit their predetermined outcomes is not a recent development.

@carebear3895, congratulations on your promotion!

@dkurtenbach, I like your "to be jettisoned" list!  A few thoughts:

- Venturing:  as much as I love the potential of the program, I rarely see it actually practiced.  Most of the crews I'm familiar with have either folded or are close to it.  A darn shame because there are so many opportunities for youth-led adventure.  But the youth aren't interested.  Many crew advisors I've met would be better suited as den leaders.  And councils I've been in never utter the a word about Venturing or lend resources.  However, let's keep the green Venture shirt--it looks great, especially compared to the tan sacks that are sold as scout shirts.

- Eagle:  agreed, let's can the administrative baloney.  When I reflect on the last several Eagle boards I've sat on, the candidates usually had little outdoor adventure experience to relate, and it was obvious that mom/dad dragged them through the project and filled out the notebook for them.  Some of them were absolutely clueless about their project without the SM and mom/dad in the room.  Let's refocus the Trail to Eagle as a rugged, outdoor leadership experience wherein the scout is leading and teaching other scouts.

- Webelos/AOL:  what a waste of time!  What was once a fun but useful 1-year prep for joining a troop has turned into a long, boring slog.  The parents care but they seem oblivious that their kids are bored silly by the whole thing.

Again, great list!

43 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

I hate to think it but...Perhaps it actually kinder to end it quickly rather that suffer a death by a thousand cuts. 

Old Scout, I've had the same thoughts myself here of late.  The very elements that drew and kept membership:  outdoor adventure, OA, patrol method--pros and like minded volunteers have done their very best for decades to dilute these activities.  And unfortunately they've finally succeeded. 

Especially the OA.  We're at the point where top-tier scouts decline nomination to the OA because the organization has so little credibility.  The exact opposite of what the founders intended.

24 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

 Where I come from they call that “organizational snap-back”. Where the culture tried to change, but the old culture clawed back the old ways. 

Indeed, we see this on many episodes of Kitchen Nightmares with the aforementioned Gordon Ramsay.  The failing businesses share common traits:

- Dwindling customer base

- Lousy food (low quality, processed, microwaved, heat/serve) served at high price

- Poorly maintained plant/property/equipment

- Bad reputation in the community yet feeble or non-existent PR efforts

- Complicated menus and service options

- Too many rules for customers and staff

- Demoralized, poorly paid, overworked staff

- Confusing IT

- High debt

- Condescending, out of touch management style towards staff and customers alike

So Gordon attempts to turn them around, despite the foot dragging and "we've always done it this way!"  Shows them the path to success.  And more often than not, the minute he leaves, the owner/management goes right back to the old ways. 

Some organizations embrace a culture of failure and cannot tolerate success.

1 hour ago, dkurtenbach said:

 Where is Gordon Ramsay when you need him?

I concur with your entire post, but I can't resist focusing on your inspired thought:  Gordon Ramsay in a new series, "BSA Nightmares"

Can you picture Gordon listening to a pro explain the BSA's registration and rechartering process?

Gordon (interrupting the pro):  "I have to ask...serious question, right...does any of this make sense to you?"

Pro (slightly off balance):  "Well, sure it does."

Gordon (rubbing his eyes):  "Oh my...unbelievable...."

13 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

That's true, to secure existing debt per https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2019/11/22/boy-scouts-mortgage-vast/.  But here's the problem I see, I did a quick search, and it's only one data point, but here's a listing for a ranch near Cimarron, https://www.landwatch.com/Colfax-County-New-Mexico-Farms-and-Ranches-for-sale/pid/337607531.  It has 50,658+/- acres, listed for $96M.  Do the math and it's roughly $1900/acre.  Assuming Philmont at 140,000 acres,  with a $450M mortgage, it's valued at just over $3200/acre.  That's a heck of a premium.

Thanks, much food for thought.  Perhaps they included infrastructure in the Philmont valuation?   Villa Philmonte is probably worth something, as is the infirmary and trading post on the CHQ side.  The rest of the buildings are cabins, shacks, and prefab structures.  Some of the senior staff housing is nice.  But that still doesn't seem to account for high premium on the Philmont land.  

15 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Question is, who is buying?  Can surrounding ranches sell enough more cattle to finance the land acquisition?  Or outfit enough more BWCAW crews to buy the extra bases?  Sea Base is easier for me to see a purchaser.  This will be a fire sale.

If I recall correctly, JP Morgan has a 450 million dollar lien on Philmont.  I'm not sure what JPM would do with the land, but as you know it's pristine wilderness.  There may be a developer or two that would like the opportunity to turn it into exclusive properties for hunting, vacations, etc.

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

From that video, Dan Ownby, the new Chair?, stated that last July 2019, the National Executive Committee commissioned executive teams (10 members each) to deliberate on one of "six key areas" to "secure the future" that effort was called "Project Churchill" addressed.

Time 50:00 "the six key areas"

1. How do we keep young people safe?

2. Are the BSA programs aligned with today's youth people?

3. Is the National Council effectively identifying and communicating with their stakeholders?

4. Do we have the most effective organizational structure?

5. Are there changes that will make the National Council more effective?

6. How do we build a solid financial path for the future?

Each executive committee was to fact-find and deliver recommendations by June, 2020.

"We did not do this in a bubble." Interviewed the Key 3 of 50 councils, all Regions, and half of the Areas,as well as members of the National Cabinet and half of the Executive Board members , also another online survey was done of 1000 or more volunteers and professionals... "and you know what we all have very similar thoughts on change. Some approach it differently, but we are more aligned than opposed." The Executive Committee is all aligned with the set of changes.

Time 56:00 The Changes: (previously revealed on forum)

Thank you RS!

A thousand surveys?  Doesn't sound like much.  And it was probably another "ask your buddy" group-think special.

"...the National Executive Committee commissioned executive teams (10 members each) to deliberate on one of "six key areas" to "secure the future" that effort was called "Project Churchill" addressed."

I'd like to know who sat on these committees.  If they were all pros or highly-place volunteers, I don't have much hope for the results.  If the BSA was serious about this initiative, it would have brought in independent business and civic leaders who have no stake in or connection with the BSA. 

1 hour ago, dkurtenbach said:

I watched the recording of the Wednesday General Session, which can be found at https://nam.scouting.org/.  The real meat is the summary by Chair Elect Dan Ownby, about 11 minutes long starting at about 48 minutes into the recording.  Some excerpts:

•  BSA will emerge from the bankruptcy "with the mission intact."
•  However, we will have to deliver the mission "with far fewer resources."
•  One of the six issues looked at by select committees developing strategy:  "Are the BSA programs aligned with today's young people?"
•  Although "the mission has not changed . . . [quoting Abraham Lincoln] 'we must think anew and act anew' . . . we must change."
• "Our organization will be barely recognizable to someone who labored with us ten years ago."  (I think this was in reference to the organizational structure rather than the organization overall, but I'm not certain.)
•  "Some sacred cows will be sacrificed."
•  "If we don't change, we may get run over by the circumstances and not be here in five years."
•  "[P]reserving useful traditions . . . we must pivot from valuing the past . . . invest[ing] resources in those programs that our customers most value, allowing others to be cut from the vine." 

Thanks for the great summary!

A few reflections:

- "Are the BSA programs aligned with today's young people?"  I believe this is the line of thinking, in the late 60s, that led to the Improved Scouting Program.  Instead of making necessary changes that still complimented the BSA's traditions and primary draw (outdoors), they tried to get clever and threw out the baby, the bathwater, and the tub.  They didn't "stick to the knitting."  It was a new organization that matched the their vision and catered to their vanity.  So we ended up with a revamped BSA that didn't interest youth, and worse yet, alienated many dedicated scouters--who left the in droves.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems that the pros may concoct another scheme that bears little resemblance to true scouting.  It will probably look a lot like what we are seeing now because of The Virus:  lots of Zoom time, badge collection, and backyard camping.    Low risk, easy to do.  The PR I see and read from councils and national is mostly breathless praise for this Virtual Scouting, supposedly a temporary measure.

- "Far few resources...sacred cows will be sacrificed...."  = Adios, Philmont.  It's been good to know you.  Probably Sea Base and Northern Tier too.

6 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

How much would any of you think this is worth??

My guess...starting bid $5 million

https://trademarkangel.com/can-i-buy-someone-elses-trademark/

I think you're right...maybe even a bit more than that....

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

or the GSUSA ….

True, I didn't think of that!

Wouldn't that be the ultimate capper?

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually the lead lawyer stated in an NPR interview on the Diane Rheem (sp) Show that he wants the BSA dissolved . It is towards the end of the interview, and if you end early, you miss it.

It's this line of thinking by legal counsel that got me thinking about BSA trademarks yesterday.  If everything gets liquidated, I could foresee a wealthy individual who is anti-BSA buying the Eagle Scout TM.  Then they'd hold on to it, not using it themselves, and but granting anyone else the right to use it either.

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

In the video they state …

"End youth programs at 18 and build a volunteer corp for adults at 18."

I'll be interested to hear what that looks like and if we can leverage them as adult leaders.  If so, that could be a win as I think we lose young adults who could serve as leaders.

"Create membership category to allow families and individuals to join special programs developed by councils."

Also looking to see what this would be.  I'm curious what they meant by this statement.

I too hope the young adults are offered meaningful roles.  It would be a shame to run them off by not giving them any responsibility.

"Special programs"...this sounds suspiciously like the BSA's failed attempt at soccer.   Perhaps it's another attempt to gain dollars and membership without the youth participating in traditional scouting.  Of course, the problem with things like BSA soccer is that other organizations are already offer programs, and do so in a more efficient manner.