desertrat77

My hunch:  Mr. Mosby is saving his first big memo for the bankruptcy announcement.  Probably on the advice of "commissioned BSA professionals" and other counsel.

If that's the case, I don't agree with it.  When he took the helm, he could at least said "thanks" to everyone and "keep the faith." 

The Denver - Atlanta exercise is certainly beneficial.  Let's explore another hypothetical where the tyranny of distance is not so great.  Say you are in Arizona and you are shopping for a council.  Your choices (as per a quick look at wikipedia):

1.  AZ headquartered:

- Grand Canyon Council (Phoenix)

- Catalina Council (Tucson)

2.  If you prefer more choices, consider the following:

- San Diego Imperial Council - HQ'd in CA but also serves part of AZ

- Las Vega Area Council serves units in NV, CA and Mojave County AZ

- Great Southwest Council, operating from the ABQ in NM, includes service to units in NE AZ

As a former scout and later ASM/SM in Arizona, I recall driving a few hours or more is just part of the program.  Especially if you want to see trees and water.

If units had a choice, do you think these councils would strive to provide top notch programming and support?  You bet! 

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

National set a rule that a council can charge for a service fee at $60 per scout.  Coming out of the re-org, I am sure many councils will assess this.  For councils it will be critically important that they can justify this fee to families.

Indeed, councils will have to make a concerted effort to justify this fee.    Unit goodwill and loyalty were sorely tested during the last dues increase. 

45 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

...I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten. 

39 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

 This is going to work out, but things will indeed need to function differently.

Two excellent points.  Folks expect value for their dollar and have no problem paying if they get it.    However, as we've discussed, the council system as it currently operates in many locations is ineffective and out of touch. 

23 minutes ago, David CO said:

That should be our new motto.

I may have been subconsciously thinking of my ASM/SM days in the '80s when I typed that....

1 hour ago, mrkstvns said:

I definitely see the value in what you're saying, and agree with most of the points Barkley mentioned.

A few other inconvenient bling items of dubious utility....

* sashes (be it merit badge or OA)

* epaulets (...esp. with all the stupid little color tabs...)

* den chief cords

* anything with beads (WB, Cub Scout progress beads)

 

MB sashes...they are either too big or too small...about the time the sash fits properly, it's age-out time and the sash is entombed in a footlocker....

OA sashes...seeing these at more and more events that aren't OA or courts of honor.  Overkill.

Epaulets:  the single worse thing about the ODL uniform.  Unfortunately Oscar set a precedent and we must live with them still.  Completely unnecessary, they only add to uniform costs by including them in the shirt design.  Does it really matter who has blue or silver tabs?  It shouldn't.  And if we really must know what level someone works at, we can glance at their position patch on their left sleeve.

Den chief cords:  I'll admit, when I was a Second Class scout and received my first set of den chief cords, I was pleased with the bling factor.  But a position patch would suffice just as well.

Beads!  Plus their costly sibling, metal belt loops!  Pins, etc.  Add in a new neckerchief, slide and hat every time they progress and good grief, there's 30 bucks right there.  I believe the doo dads for the Cub program keep National Supply in business.  No hard facts, just seems that way.  When I visit a scout shop, I walk past the Cub Bling aisle and shake my head.  Are the cubs that impressed by all of this?  I don't think so.  Receiving their Wolf, Bear, Etc in due season is probably good enough.  As long as they are active and having fun, that's the main thing.

The older I get, the more I wished we could go to our local store and buy Dickies shirts and pants and call that our uniform.  Perhaps have a couple patches that are easy to sew or pin on and jettison the rest. 

PS  Added:  You mentioned WB badge beads...that was brave!   I think the WBers would have some "very strong words" against such a suggestion!  A critter revolution in fact

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

Correction, Bill Hilcourt called SMC's personal growth conferences in his 7th edition handbook, as I referenced one year ago. (I can't seem to remember my own quotes!) Boards of Reviews were always called just that. Those with older handbooks, please expound.

It's also worth noting that he called Star, Life, Eagle, and Palms awards not ranks. Again, folks with the full text of earlier and later versions may wish to give us more details.

In the eighth edition (1972), they are called "personal growth agreement conferences."  I recall those being frank chats with the SM; the good, the bad and the ugly of your performance as a scout/patrol leader, goal setting, etc.

You were then ready for the board of review.  Tenderfoot - First Class:  grilled by the Troop Leadership Council (SPL and PLs).  The book says a troop committee member may sit in but I don't recall any that did.  TLC quizzed on skills learned/earned to date; re-demonstrate certain skills, detailed uniform inspection, and some think-on-your-feet questions.

Two months active to earn Tenderfoot; three for Second Class; three for First Class.

Star - Eagle board were before the troop committee, according to the handbook.  I recall my Star and Life boards before the troop committee (pleasant experiences compared to the T - FC boards), Eagle board was at district level. 

@Barkley421, I concur and would like to lend additional support to two of your thoughts.

1.  The uniform should be functional and outdoor oriented.  The BSA has moved away from that concept over the decades, unfortunately.  The expense alone causes many folks to leave it at home when going anywhere other than a meeting.

2.  Definitely bring back the plain council strips!  Or, the old community strips.  Simple and cheaper.  (Councils may not like it but so be it.)

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

Huh? He is listed as CEO and President  in that article and according to the latest Charter and ByLaws , Article IV, Section 2 

Corporate Officers

Clause 1. The officers of the Corporation shall be the following employees: President, who shall be the Chief Scout Executive and Chief Executive Officer; Treasurer, who shall be the Chief Financial Officer; and Secretary, who shall be the General Counsel.

CHIEF SCOUT EXECUTIVE

Clause 2. The Chief Scout Executive shall be appointed by and shall serve at the pleasure of the Executive Board and shall serve as the chief executive officer of the Corporation. The Chief Scout Executive shall be a voting member of the Executive Committee, Co-Chair of the National Leadership Council, and an ex officio nonvoting member of all other committees except the Governance and Nominating Committee, where the Chief Scout Executive shall serve as staff advisor. The Chief Scout Executive shall not serve after attaining the age of 65 years.

RS, excellent point.  Here's my hunch.  Mr. Mosby graciously declined the CSE title to help assuage the hurt feelings that are no doubt percolating through the "commissioned BSA professional" corps as we speak.  Some gold loopers knew it was potentially "their turn" to be in the running for the CSE job.  Not only were they passed over, their whole world is about to change.

4 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

This statement in the article caught my eye:  "Unlike his predecessors at the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Mosby’s title is not Chief Scout Executive. That title is reserved for commissioned BSA professionals — that is, full-time employees of the BSA who have undergone the required amount of training."  (Emphasis added.)

So, are they suggesting he is untrained or under-trained?  Or that he's not worthy to bear the "reserved" title of Chief Scout Executive?

Well said.  Mr. Mosby should not lose much sleep over missing those classes.  After all, "commissioned BSA professionals"--who had the required training--have been at the helm until now, and they have steered our organization into dismal waters.   Societal changes and other external factors cannot be solely blamed. 

24 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Sometimes the lack of openess is the result of prior experience. I know one SE who as a DFS  with  2 FDs and 12 DEsunder him that encountered a problem, revealed it, and fixed it. His reward: "promotion" to SE of a council of 1 FD and 4 DEs.

"No good deed goes unpunished"....wow!

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

Even in the military there is a distinction drawn between lawful and unlawful orders, and my understanding from close relatives who are officers is that there is a lot more questioning and give and take than you would expect if your image is the drill sergeant from boot camp or OCS. 

This is true.  The basic training experience is one thing.  Out in the "real Air Force" or "real Army", etc., there are opportunities for give/take at the officer and noncommissioned officer levels.  However, when the decision is made, one must execute the orders promptly, professionally, without reservation, to the utmost of ones ability.  Regardless of personal feelings or obstacles.  Caveats:

- All military members have an obligation to not obey unlawful orders.  "I was only following orders" is not a get-out-of-jail free card.   If you know something is morally or legally wrong, you must have the courage to say "no sir/no ma'am" regardless of the immediate consequences. 

- Much gray area in military operations.  It's nothing like the movies.  If it's not obviously wrong, it's best to execute the orders and then question afterwards.  Much more leeway is granted for discussion in this scenario.  Example:  quibbling over timing and technique.   Just get the job done and talk about it later.

- There is a time and a place for everything.  Immediate action may be required.  Order received, order understood, execute.  

- Knowledge of professional and personal subtleties is vital.  There are many times when questioning is inappropriate or not welcome.  The tone and demeanor used makes a huge difference.

As you know, much of this is true in the civilian community as well.

It requires courage and humility.  Unfortunately, many young people have no sense of decorum or decision making ability because they haven't been taught.  Factor in society's negative attitude towards these qualities, and it's even more of a challenge.  I taught school after I retired from the military.  Interesting days. 

3 hours ago, yknot said:

The Butler book made me think about what kind of connection the author was trying to make between scouts, damaged military men, and broken people. 

I concur.  The book prompted some reflection.  I was a military brat in four different troops.  Eight different SMs.  One was a disabled WWII vet, the others were Viet Nam vets or VN era vets.  I enlisted and served 30 years on active duty, deploying several times.

Butler's characterization of veterans, in general, was a bit off, at least from my perspective.  At times, way off.  Some of the dialogue and action rang true, but much of it didn't.  And there were at least three solid errors in the book regarding military matters.  I realize it's a work of fiction and the book isn't subject to fact checking but some of the items were quite incorrect.  Likewise with Butler's depictions of scout camp and scouting as a whole.  Some things just didn't seem authentic.

These issues aside, the book makes a concerted effort to confront the reader.  Memories, the passage of time, and the toll of consequences.

39 minutes ago, PACAN said:

So when does anyone believe any details on any organization, personnel or bankruptcy will be announced?

Good question...unfortunately, we volunteers will be the last to know. 

Thank you @Cburkhardt, much food for thought.  2020 is going to be an interesting year.

@Cburkhardt, I am intrigued and hope your predictions become reality sooner than later, especially returning the focus back to servicing units.

While I am in favor of girls joining Scouts BSA, I have my doubts about the total number that will ultimately sign up.  Many will join, but I don't think the numbers will even come close to making up for the loss from LDS departure and all of the usual reasons.  I hope I'm wrong.

I agree, the BSA cannot survive another year like the last.  The revenue loss is one factor.  There are several others, namely the lack of transparency from our professional staffers in the upper parts of the hierarchy.   Example:  the mortgaging of Philmont without notifying the National Oversight Committee.  And when called into question, National dismissed concerns as if everyone--including those on the oversight committee--didn't need to know.  This is a red flag, the sign of an organization where the senior execs are out of touch with reality.   People will start voting with their feet, many already have.

When I was a scout, one of my mentors was a DE.  Outstanding gentleman, scouter, humorist.  He was waterfront director each summer, attended camporees, involved with every OA function, and well thought of by all.  He got things done.  Though he never said anything, I also noticed (even as a lunkhead teenager) what his job entailed.  Many long hours, mostly performing duties that were a long way from the campfire.  I also noticed that the SE was not very scout-like toward the DE.  Again, nothing was ever said by the DE to us scouts, but I saw the SE/DE dynamic as a multi-year camp staffer and lodge VP.  When the DE got married, he resigned from scouting.

So that was 40+ years ago.  Nothing has changed.  Unfortunately, I'd say the DE's lot in life has gotten worse.  And it won't change, barring wholesale updates in council structure.  After all, so the warped tradition goes, today's SEs (and above) ran the gauntlet and ate a lot of crow.  The SEs' empathy level for reshaping DE duties probably isn't very high.   Instead, they'll ensure the DE's apprenticeship will be equally as miserable as theirs.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

This is the key point.  The BSA doesn't need a "marketing" strategy with glossy TV ads, it needs a public relations strategy.

Today, the BSA is letting others define it - lawyers, the news media, etc.  The BSA should not simply respond to articles and send out press releases.  The BSA needs to get ahead of this story and define itself.  The BSA should create news that tells the story of Scouting and it's values.  Instead of simply telling people about the great YPT program the BSA has, the BSA ought to be convening summits in Washington or New York of national leaders on the prevention of child abuse.  The BSA should be embracing victims of child abuse and helping them to tell their story.  Create some kind of significant fund to compensate victims of abuse and assist victims in getting access to it.

The BSA PR head should be on the speed dial of every media person originating stories in this area.  Be open and transparent with the media about what happened and what needs to be done.  Be THE expert on past abuse in youth organizations.  

But, in short - the BSA needs to learn the first rule of crisis management.  You have to be proactive and get out in front of the crisis.  This is why I made my earlier suggestion.  Instead of promoting some mid-level marketing professional from some big council to the national role, the BSA ought to open the checkbook and go out and hire someone who really understands this stuff.  Perhaps a professional spokesperson from a major politician.

I agree.  The BSA has traditionally been rather flat-footed when dealing with negative publicity. 

I'd fully support the hiring of a high-speed PR pro.  Money well spent.  Stop the puff-ball/favorite color stories for the internal audience ("Top 7 MBs Earned in Months with the Letter 'R'").  Instead, let's start telling the world who we are.

A couple of dynamics:

- The desperate need for external PR aside, National also needs to have a complete re-look at how it communicates within our organization.   What's really going on?  Are we nearer bankruptcy that we think?  What is the status of our mortgaged high adventure bases?  We really don't have a clue because we volunteers (and many council pros) are treated as if "you don't have a need to know."  A good example is the dues increase fiasco of last fall.  Stony, imperious silence by National.  Then "Sell more popcorn."  Really?  I think we deserve more.  I don't expect to be given every little detail, but a frank update and words of encouragement from our pros would go a long way.

- Mr. Mosby's hiring is a good step.  It's an unspoken admission by National that their career progression plan for senior executives doesn't work.  Just because Mr./Ms SE runs the gauntlet and is pulled up by their bootstraps to National, doesn't necessarily mean they are qualified to lead our organization at that level.  We have a national staff that is consistently three steps behind.  The media, the legal world and public opinion are shaping the entire discussion, and our National staff doesn't utter a word.

14 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

desertrat77,

Others have pointed out how information can be twisted and I noted how the media uses very little positive so the BSA is very cautious about what is published to avoid stories being twisted. Also, if the media does not pick up a story, we will never know about it.

vol_scouter

I understand, vol_scouter, the media is no friend of the BSA.  But organizations that are facing negative publicity usually launch a proactive PR campaign to tell their story.  I don't think an organization like the BSA, with the challenges it faces, can survive by simply being quiet.

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

From people who would know, the BSA does provide positive, supportive information but the news media usually chooses not to include those comments. 

The news media seems to have a point of view on many (most?) articles and provides only the information supporting their point of view.

When it comes to science topics of which I am familiar or an expert, the news media never gets a story entirely correct. No sure if that is from a point of view or lack of knowledge but it is wrong. 

The BSA is trying to get positive information out through responses to articles such as this and news articles that the media simply refuses to publish. Advertising has enormous costs.

I see your point.  But I'm also wondering where one can find the positive information from National sources?  As noted earlier, the BSA newsroom has published very little in the last year.

Whatever National's strategy may be (if indeed they even have a strategy) it's not working.  The vacuum of information from Irving portrays an organization on the ropes.  It hardly inspires the men and women who are working in the field, doing their best.

Even if Irving doesn't answer the articles directly, I see no initiative on their part to externally publicize the good news stories that do exist--records numbers at Philmont, etc. 

As @carebear3895 pointed out, National execs prefer local councils to tell the story.  Some local councils do a good job of this; many others make as little effort as Irving does.  Either way, it's a rather clueless PR plan on National's part.

Here is the link to the "Official Newsroom of the BSA"

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/

A summary of their activity for 2019:

Articles/News releases:  7 (one addressed bullying and one discussed child abuse prevention)

Blog posts:  0 (the last was from July 2018, about STEM)

Frankly, a very weak effort.

True, the BSA publishes human interest stuff on social media, but it's mostly for internal consumption (merit badges, the best kind of flashlight, etc.)

Two possibilities:

1.  The BSA is sinking faster than we think, and folks at National are so focused on getting a seat in the lifeboat they are neglecting their duty. ("It's quiet, too quiet....")

2.  National is profoundly detached from reality.

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I don't mean to make light of it.

But, taking a step back to where this started.  I think this is a place where the CSE could choose to get involved.   We all hear these horror stories of bad councils.  Frankly, these are the kinds of problems that are killing Scouting.  The CSE could by all means start an effort to fix the professional/volunteer chaos.

Absolutely, I concur 100%.

23 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

But, if a professional overrules a volunteer and the volunteer has the ability to do so, the volunteer should nicely tell the professional to back off.  That's Bob for the input, but I've got this.  We've met for months and made decisions about the plan for the event.  Of course, it strikes me as off that you've got a situation where the professional isn't in the loop on the event planning.

If the volunteer can't stand up to the DE for whatever reason - then the volunteer need to go to the district chair.  The district chair can deal with the politics of the professional service.

Ideally this is how it should work.  But here are the usual results, from my personal experience:

1. Pro shouts down volunteer.  Sometimes in public.

2.  It isn't always the DE.  It can be another pro throwing their weight around, sometimes the SE.

3.  The district chair is often no help because a) they are a name on a spreadsheet and not a real chair b) they meekly go along with the pro and won't back the volunteer, usually because they aspire to be a future WB CD, have an award pending, etc.) or c) they're completely in cahoots with the professional staff and won't back their district volunteer staff.

As mentioned earlier, if you are in a council that functions soundly, please count your lucky charms.  I've been in six councils and some of them were absolute chaos for volunteers.