From On Scouting; an interview with a new guy from the National Meeting

[skeptic]

https://onscouting.org/2026/05/20/qa-with-scouting-america-national-chair-ricky-mason/

The tone is promising, but my confidence in its viability is thin.  Take a look.  He says some of the right words, but is there any weight in them?

[Jameson76]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

https://onscouting.org/2026/05/20/qa-with-scouting-america-national-chair-ricky-mason/

The tone is promising, but my confidence in its viability is thin.  Take a look.  He says some of the right words, but is there any weight in them?

Sooo, maybe good points, lack of specifics.  If he had laid out they were reducing councils would have felt better.  Glad he didn't start with "your kids are safer with us", that does not need to be the lead in and Go To Market slogan

• we must make volunteering easier and more rewarding. That means giving volunteers the support, tools and resources they need to succeed.
  • I wonder what the plan actually is, sounds correct, but lacks specifics
• We need to improve both our internal infrastructure and the technology families interact with directly. Parents and volunteers should be able to use their phones and online tools easily to manage registrations, communication and unit activities.
  • I wonder what the plan actually is, sounds correct, but lacks specifics
• Another critical area is branding and marketing. During the pandemic and bankruptcy, we did very little marketing. Now we’re reinvesting in campaigns that better communicate the value of Scouting to parents and families.
  • I wonder what the plan actually is, sounds correct, but lacks specifics
• One challenge we face is that we have significantly fewer district executives and unit-serving professionals than we did several years ago. Those positions are critical because they support units, recruit members and help volunteers succeed.  That means some councils may need to rethink how resources are allocated. In some cases, councils may have more property than they currently need, while needing more investment in frontline staff and membership growth.
  • So sell assets to hire even more professionals (DE's) who do little to nothing to serve the units, feed the professional commissioned scouter animal
• Last fall, Scouting America recruited approximately 260,000 new youth members. The problem is that we are still losing more members than we recruit.
  • Agree, finally that's been said out loud
• They need opportunities to spend time with other young people, to be part of a patrol and a community, and to experience the outdoors.  Scouting teaches youth how to succeed — but also how to fail and recover from failure. That’s one of the most important lessons young people can learn.
  • Agree on that point

Edited Wednesday at 09:32 PM by Jameson76

[skeptic]

The largest issue that continues is the apparent inability to note that selling camps that leave a council without local options does not make sense.  And continuing to treat volunteers as ignorant or lacking in ability is not the way to go.  For me, also, not putting the important elements of local historical data and material  into local perspective is NOT wise.  It is that very history and longevity that is most important to bring the program out of its darkness.  I keep coming back to the elderly woman that spoke to me at a local Memorial Day event where my unit was serving.  She said she was o glad to see the scouts there; she thought they were gone.  That is a very telling comment.  I can only hope that somehow we might get the shift in focus to service and positive public images, and away from obvious dollar promotions.  Sadly, I fear I may not live to see that again, though I say I will be my family's first centenarian, I am not foolish enough to discount that as a long shot.  And I already cannot do things I once did, and I miss meetings due to old man syndromes and night driving concerns.  One day at a time, and pass what I can on.  

 

[Tron]

I met Ricky Mason a couple years ago, he was a keynote speaker at an event; based on that experience I can say he has the right ties to the program to be driven to make it survive, and he has the grasp of knowledge of what is really going on to know what needs to be done.

The other thing is we definitely have far too many councils; as we consolidate we won't need as many camps, we're barely using the camps right now. We need to lean on Jim Rogers to optimize the number of camps and campsites. Our membership is low right now, but it's not going to get much bigger.

Historically we've been at 2% of American youth in scouting, that puts the real membership metric at only about 1 million youth members. We have to adjust to the fact that Americans are having far fewer children and that the country is growing older. It is a demographic change that is out of our hands. If the younger generations are not confident in their ability to hold down good employment and have a marriage and a home they will have fewer kids. Fewer kids means fewer scouts. Offshoring jobs and letting banks and investment funds squat on empty homes is having a big impact on millenials and gen Z and their decisions to start families.

 

[yknot]

18 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

• One challenge we face is that we have significantly fewer district executives and unit-serving professionals than we did several years ago. Those positions are critical because they support units, recruit members and help volunteers succeed.  That means some councils may need to rethink how resources are allocated. In some cases, councils may have more property than they currently need, while needing more investment in frontline staff and membership growth.
  • So sell assets to hire even more professionals (DE's) who do little to nothing to serve the units, feed the professional commissioned scouter animal

One of my fears is that the only concrete idea Leadership has to 'save' scouting is to sell yet more outdoors based land assets to fund salaries. I would bet it's probably one of the few things on this list that might actually be effected. 

[Tron]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

One of my fears is that the only concrete idea Leadership has to 'save' scouting is to sell yet more outdoors based land assets to fund salaries. I would bet it's probably one of the few things on this list that might actually be effected. 

If your state is like my state the resident camps only run for 8 weeks and are about 3x the capacity of what is needed. If we actually got every scout in the state into resident camp for just 1 week a year we'd still have camps running at less than 50%. There are too many camps. 

I see your concern and would say that the answer is rewilding the worst camps into adventure bases to get cost to down down while also funneling scouts to fewer resident camps.

[yknot]

4 hours ago, Tron said:

If your state is like my state the resident camps only run for 8 weeks and are about 3x the capacity of what is needed. If we actually got every scout in the state into resident camp for just 1 week a year we'd still have camps running at less than 50%. There are too many camps. 

I see your concern and would say that the answer is rewilding the worst camps into adventure bases to get cost to down down while also funneling scouts to fewer resident camps.

The poorly run council camps run for 8 weeks. The well run council camps in my state are optimized -- and monetized -- almost the whole year through. I realize that doesn't work or make sense for every single property out there, but it would for many.  

[jcousino]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

The poorly run council camps run for 8 weeks. The well run council camps in my state are optimized -- and monetized -- almost the whole year through. I realize that doesn't work or make sense for every single property out there, but it would for many.  

Mine are poorly run and attended for 3 weeks 

[Tron]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

The poorly run council camps run for 8 weeks. The well run council camps in my state are optimized -- and monetized -- almost the whole year through. I realize that doesn't work or make sense for every single property out there, but it would for many.  

Your council has the secret sauce, you should share with everyone and save the camps.

[Eagle94-A1]

13 hours ago, Tron said:

Your council has the secret sauce, you should share with everyone and save the camps.

Even moneymaker camps will get sold. We had a local Scout camp on the border of 2 additional councils. So folks from 3 councils used it. Heck one of those councils even held district events there because of proximity. Additionally it was about 15 minutes off the interstate, so units travelling would use it too. The small primitive camp made enough money to support itself, and subsidize some of the costs of the main camp. Someone decided to move as much infrastructure as possible to the main camp, sell it, and use the money to improve the main camp. Yeah, the main camp is still poorly run and only has 4 weeks of camp.

[yknot]

14 hours ago, Tron said:

Your council has the secret sauce, you should share with everyone and save the camps.

There is nothing stopping councils from benchmarking with each other to get ideas and guidance on how to optimize assets. Most of them don't really want to, though, for various reasons. If National had ever been a more competent and well managed organization, it would have been more proactive in regards to camp assets stewardship for the benefit of scouting. It would have developed strategies, like centralized purchasing, to help camps optimize camp operation and functionality. 

[yknot]

49 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Even moneymaker camps will get sold. We had a local Scout camp on the border of 2 additional councils. So folks from 3 councils used it. Heck one of those councils even held district events there because of proximity. Additionally it was about 15 minutes off the interstate, so units travelling would use it too. The small primitive camp made enough money to support itself, and subsidize some of the costs of the main camp. Someone decided to move as much infrastructure as possible to the main camp, sell it, and use the money to improve the main camp. Yeah, the main camp is still poorly run and only has 4 weeks of camp.

Councils with failed camps often have such a history. Poor stewardship, poor management, and no strategic, mission related oversight by anyone who should care (but doesn't), like National. Land assets in scouting are generally viewed through a lens that favors larceny over legacy. 

[PACAN]

Corporations with Strategic plan big ideas but no execution other than (tell units membership is down - go recruit! 🙃) will continue to slide into obvilion.

56 councils with conditional charters is 25% of the total numbers - some of these probably won't meet the metrics 

22% of the latest total membership is in 10 councils -membership more than 10000

18% of councils have less than 1000 youth and 9 of those less than 500.

camps at 30% capacity even having only 3 weeks of scout camp - kids want a entire summer job so they don't apply or come back.

Councils are individual competing feifdoms and there is no incentive to merge.

Yet the basic management model hasn't changed.

I hope for the best and not just more of circling the wagons and shooting inwards. 

 

JMHO.