Leaderboard

This isn't true at all. My buddy had to attend every game and practice his daughter played in league volleyball (which cost him $3200 every "Series"/"quarter"/"league period" aka she played 3 a year outside varsity volleyball for all 4 years of high school). There may be some leagues that you can dump and run; however, that is becoming the old standard much like it was the old standard in scouting. As the lawsuit sharks circle dump-and-run is going away even in league sports. I remember him calling me going "I am driving a day and a half to St. Louis right now because if I am not butt in bleachers they will bench my daughter which will threaten her varsity slot when she returns to school.". Dumping and running might have been true in the interarm, but it is going away. It's not declining due to value perception. It's declining due to lack of delivery. On paper the programs provided by Scouting America are among the top youth programs in the world; yes, the world. The problem is that execution of this program is highly variable (even from one side of the town to another), there is no quality control, and councils are too weak to do anything about it because they are too busy trying to survive instead of running the program. Scouting America just lost somewhere between 300k and 500k of it's youth membership in the past 90 days; that membership churn is not a value perception, we sold those families on the value, they where here, they saw the value, they left because we didn't deliver.

What parts do you feel do not work well any longer? I totally see this. Here's a good story to illustrate. One of the doctors my kids were seeing was very supportive of scouting. I asked her why she didn't have her kids in scouting. She replied that her husband was an eagle, a veteran, and an accomplished outdoorsman and they simply couldn't handle how poorly every unit in their area functioned so decided to just focus on family camping. I have noticed that the more competent people who have management experience or operational coordination experience struggle the most with scouting. Also key 3 often are selected based on random attributes and not how Scouting America recommends (skills and ability based selection); it becomes impossible to intellectually or emotionally handle dealing with incompetent people who can't handle coordinating enough car space for a weekend campout let alone the far more complex issues that arise within scouting.

This thread is really hitting the nail on the head. I wish someone with influence would take note. Many of the other youth programs we've been exposed to either have 1) an affiliation with the school district that allows families to get access to facilities and quality instructors at a greatly subsided rate or 2) a for-profit operator that is highly motivated to provide a quality program. My wife (an IT project manager) is appalled by the way our Pack operates (even though it's probably one of the better units in the area). My response is always the same - "We're just a handful of parents doing our best. No one else will step up."

My old troop had 1 fundraiser a year. Every Scout had a goal to sell x number of plates. Paid for all advancement, weekend campouts (except food, $ varied by patrol) and depending upon the year 50% to 100% of summer camp. Before National skyrocketed the dues, also paid that and Boy's Life. Depending upon where you are at, you can get by cheaply, especially backpacking. One national forest nearby has no fees for backpackers. One state park charges only for parking if you are backpacking. One place we went biking cost us $100 for everyone for the weekend. That was less than $10/person. Key is willingness to explore new places.

A plea to adults to stop staying quiet and speak up for our members, in particular the girls in our Packs and Troops: We're going on 7 years of girls in Scouts BSA at the Troop level, 8 years in Cubs. At this point, girls in Scouts BSA and Cub Scouts should seem completely normal to everyone, there aren't many active boys who would have been old enough to remember the time before girls were in the main programs after so many years. And yet if you look on social media, the hostility towards girls is still rampant, and sadly some of it comes from members, both youth and adults. Girls are treated like invaders, as if they took over the BSA and forced themselves into the organization. Nothing could be further from the truth, as these girls would have been under 10 years old when the membership policies changed. Still, some boys and men feel empowered to bully these girls, and yes I knowingly use the word "bully" as it fits the definition of what is happening here. Repeated targeted behavior meant to make someone feel unwelcome on the basis of gender. It's some of the same usernames and profiles making the same comments on every social media post that depicts girls. Whether they like it or not, these girls are full members of Scouting America and should be afforded the same recognition and respect as the boys. But few adults stand up to the bullies. Few people speak out, and even Scouting America seems reluctant to act. Anti-female comments are left on Scouting America social media posts for days or weeks before they are finally deleted, if they are even addressed at all. Meanwhile some of the older girls who are featured in these posts (or their fellow Troop scouts) see the comments and the damage is already done. I think it's long past time that the grace period be expired for what is often reduced to someone "just sharing an opinion". These are Youth Protection violations, use of social media to make people feel like they don't belong in Scouting should be handled as such. Each comment should be investigated, each person identified as a member of Scouting America should be dealt with according to any other in-person instance of bullying. Personally, I'd like to see any adult member who engages in this be immediately removed from the organization. And any scout who does it be referred to their Troop and local Council for appropriate disciplinary action. But aside from any hope for an official response and increase in action regarding this issue, I'd also like to implore EVERYONE to speak up for the girls, and defend female youth members in the same way we'd defend male youth members from bullying and targeted unkind behavior. Those opposed to girls in Scouting America have had more than enough time to get it out, say what they wanted to say, and voice their disagreement. And no one is saying that they can't still do that, but take your grievances to National or Council offices. It's been 8 years. Some girls are old enough to have joined and aged out already, and yet they've had to endure this nonsense from within the organization the whole time. Let's not let this remain a thing in Scouting. We can't control what everyone says, but we can and should end this tolerance we seem to have as an organization for social media bullying on the basis of gender.

Very true, adults cannot model the skills because they have no training or experience. And the powers that be think online learning is enough. Bill Hillcourt said it best " SCOUTING IS OUTING!" But I am leery of outside certifications. I remember when LNT Trainer was a Scout POR that required LNT Trainer certification, but most places offering it wanted you to be 18+. And to be honest even going through training is not enough. I went through Aquatics Supervision Paddle Sports training, and am certified to teach paddle board to Scouts. Just because I am certified, doesn't mean I have the knowledge or skills to do it. 2 to 3 hours on a paddle board was not enough time, especially with my balance to master those skills. Give me a canoes or kayak any day. Once upon a time, national allowed a test out of IOLS. You had to demonstrate ALL of the skills, and if you missed one, you had to take the course. That lasted a year or two because some folks were just pencil whipping the training. Which considering the standard of one and done, pencil whipping is the norm from national. Unfortunately pros are judged by the number of units they have, even if they are substandard. So there is a LOT of pressure on them. I tried to focus on quality, not quantity, and my boss gave me hell for it. And trust me pros cannot remove unit leaders. When I was a DE, we had a pack that had extremely poor leadership. I could recruit 30 Scouts for them, and 5 would remain. The #1 complaint was the CM, they needed to be removed. I had a chat with the COR/IH, who was an involved Scouter. But even he was unwilling to remove them because he had no idea who to replace them with. As for unit visits, I can tell you I had one unit I started having a lot, and I mean a lot, of challenges. I was doing my best to help them out by basically serving as their commissioner as we did not have a commissioner corps ( that is another story). My boss chewed me a new one for helping the unit out. I got around that by visiting them as a member of their CO, the service organization that I belong to. Until national wants quality over quantity, we will continue circling the drain.

It is always best to go to the source: https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2026-NCAP-Standards-v2.pdf Standard number SA-001, pages 25 - 29.

This is a lot, a lot of good thought. I am not sure if the program can function this way. In order to master skills the instructors have to know the skills that they are teaching otherwise the youth are set up for failure before things begin. How can adult leaders model the program for the youth leaders and pass on the skills for the older scouts to teach younger scouts when so few adult leaders know the skills. Scouting America knows this is a problem but is moving far too slow (BSA Fishing, NRA Partnership, LNT Partnership, etc ... bringing in outside experts to rejuvenate the skills base). So much of the training is poorly done. The training should be based on a level 1 (online) training with level 2 (in person) practical demonstrations. IOLS and BALOO are garbage. They should literally be several hours of online modules followed up by a simple 12 hour overnight testing experience. Enforcement of training needs to become mandatory; national needs to start dropping people from the rolls after 90 days of not being trained. The commissioner corps is broken; not because of anything the commissioners have done, but for what the professional scouters have failed to do. If a district has a commissioner reporting that a unit has sub standard adult training, sub standard program, etc ... it's the district executives role to step in and start doing unit visits to determine if the commissioner is a moron or if the unit needs to have its charter revoked.

My thoughts, 1. BSA's standards for Scouts BSA have dropped. Once upon a time the standards were "Master the skills," and "The badge represents what a Scout CAN DO (sic), not what he has done." Today its is "A badge recognizes what a Scout has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth... It is thus more about the learning experience than it is about the specific skills learned. " Best example of this is the "First Class Camp" After doing all the basic Scoutcraft requirements, they needed to lead a campout for a minimum of 24 hours with at least 1 other Scout without and adult. Nowadays 2 adults over 21 are needed. A lot of folks I know complain about the new standard. And we see what "One and Done" is doing to the program. When you have a Life Scout, with their Eagle Board of Review scheduled, can not do basic T-2-1 first aid, let alone First Aid Merit Badge requirements, there is a problem. 2 Adult training is a joke. I had scheduled and was prepping a CS Basic Leader Training course when the CS Leader Specific Training courses came out. I cannot tell you how much information was left out, especially at the Webelos level. We did CS Specific, but added a lot from the old CSBLT that was missing. Ditto with ITOLS.. I supplemented a bunch of material from older BSHBs and Field Books, to make sure they got the info they needed. And they have watered down the syllabus since I taught it. 3. There use to have experienced folks called commissioners to help units out. Problem is that they had no authority to enforce stuff, and insure a quality program. Worse is when you have new folks telling commissioners they don't know anything about the program and they need to butt out, or Scouting needs to change with the times and their ideas are better. Very discouraging and makes folks not want to help. 4.National and councils seems to be focused on advancement, not program. How many Scouts you see with all the MBs? How many councils have summer camps that give away MBs or have MBUs that are essentially MB giveaways? Sadly that is what the majority of parents want today: quick and easy advancement. They do not care if their Scouts actually know anything. They do not care if their Scouts have adventures and fun, they care about 1 thing: getting Eagle. Some who know Eagle should mean something see this and ask themselves "why bother?" Others are fighting tooth an nail to stop the degradation. However we are getting fewer and fewer.

Often in Scouting the answers were part of the program; the growth opportunities for the scout. Adults (meaningful) over time have diluted the program and these growth opportunities. Cost being discussed is just one example. The concept of cost was (should still be?) a learning/growth opportunity for scouts. "A scout pays his own way". A simpler program without bells and whistles for which a scout can earn enough with odd jobs, chores, allowances to pay for it. Adults intervened and created troop fundraisers, camps exploited the fundraising and built dining halls and other amenities to summer camps (in contradiction to living under canvas). Costs rose, parents ponied up, to only ask about ROI. Fun and adventure was not enough, merit badges earned became the metric. And the downward cycle continues. BP, West, GBB, etc... understood how all parts of the program were in concert fundamentally held together by the concept of not doing for scouts what they can do for themselves. That glue is what ties the program together, even more than 100 years later. The systematic replacing of that glue by adults to make things more efficient, or more modern or more "xyz" is why the program cannot hold itself together. Adults asking about cost/value is a symptom of the systemic failure of adults in Scouting to adhere to the basic tenets of program delivery in an attempt to increase efficiency, or market share or other business terms. The answers are and have always been in the program delivery; Scouts learning to do for themselves and others.

It's true the high cost of volunteering in scouting is often unacknowledged, especially when compared to other youth activities. This is part of the value perception equation. It's also not as simple as thinking parents want to dump and run. Potential volunteers who are used to operating in more functional organizations find the systemic dysfunction in scouting incomprehensible. The onboarding experience in most youth activities is efficient and user friendly. Trying to onboard in scouts can be an ordeal. That makes the first point of entry a complete turn off for a lot of competent adults. Not necessarily dumping kids but running backwards away from dysfunction.

We live in a large suburban school district. There are 200 boys in my son's class. So far, in elementary school, about 50 of the 200 come out for basketball every year. Of those 50, only 10 make the top team. The cost of youth sports keeps increasing because it's just an arm's race to give your kid a slight advantage. When I was a kid most player development occurred within the (low cost) school program. Today, it's closer to 1/3 (if that). Most kids hone their skills through some combination of private small group training, personal trainers, shooting cages, summer camps, and travel teams. My son is pretty good, but I'm not delusional. I don't think he'll ever play professionally, get a college scholarship, or even start for his high varsity team. I just want him to make the team (if he desires). My wife and I are generally supportive because: He seems to be enjoying himself. He's exercising and socializing. He's established a feedback loop where extra practice and offseason work often results in noticeable improvement. He now gets excited about other pursuits like math and reading because he correlates practice with improvement.

Well said. I could not agree more. Also true.

I understand what's out there very well. Problems with value perception is why scouting is declining.

January numbers will fluctuate all month, drop at the start, grow a bit with renewals/new people. Is your Jan 25 number from 1/1/25? Your numbers are still interesting to compare end of 24 vs end of 25. So... Dec 24 986,520 Dec 25 907,949 Loss of 81,571 or (8.3%) for the year. So, using Krone's loss number, we really lost 341,571 and gained 260,000 to get to the net loss of 81,571. From a strategy standpoint, an EVP of membership and council unit growth executives could/may/potentially help by having people focus on things like renewals and membership vs. an afterthought. I do agree, though, having some additional employees in and of itself doesn't do much. How about a gosh darn renewal system that doesn't break in the last month or the year, or one that works robustly each and every day! That would be a start.

I see now that day camp is at least 2 days now. when NCAP started, that wasn't the case, and a district single day activity, like PWD, had to follow NCAP.

I will also point out: social media posts intended to trigger rise up on feeds. Meanwhile proper discourse like what people may ponder in this moderated forum is not clickable. Even if a decent comment from a seasoned scouter here were to get memeified, it would be framed so terribly that half of us would think their membership should be revoked. When I was advising my coed crew, my most strident opponents provided some excellent program activities for my youth. Words may hurt me, but sticks and stones make for a great cooking fire.

I’m afraid that your expected timeline for change is far too soon. Seven or eight years is far too soon for any of these young women to rescue the lost in an avalanche, explore some unknown frontier, lead her nation through war, secure a peace, or become mom of the year or any of the other feats where, as such an adult, she will look back and say her time on the trail to eagle was the first step toward the rarified height where she now stands. Then and only then will people not have time to complain about the rise of a single scouting program for Americans of both sexes. I have a niece who I believed was presidential material. She balked when I said it years ago. She is now on her school board. I envision in another decade or two half of you will be voting for her, and the other half will be making up partisan excuses not to. (I’m just writing this now to be able to link to it in the future.) But for that to happen, she will have prevail in a sea of nay-sayers. Same for my daughter when she’d play dress-up. I told her to never settle for princess, or even queen. It’s empress or bust. The metaphor still applies now that she is an engineer solving a major corporation’s largest problems. My son’s wives are in similar positions. I sincerely hope one day they have their own firm. But that kind of growth only occurs when those who oppose you manifest for who they are. These “bullies” are doing your scouts a favor. They have something to overcome. It will make them great.

What I have learned is that you cannot gauge the health of a council based on camping or resident camp participation. Think of it along the lines of population clustering phallacy. There are times when populations are clustered together which makes people think the observed population is robust and healthy; however, when that population redistributes back to its normal range it becomes obvious that the population is few. This isn't exactly accurate. There are ways to avoid NCAP governance by limiting the window of "joint function" for lack of a better way to explain it. It's a insurance gray area. It is the #1 reason why will never staff for a district/council/national event ever again; I am sick of the gray areas formulated by some 22 year old district executive that thinks he's smarter than the world putting my home and retirement at risk.

I agree with so much of what you are saying. They have forgotten the Scout Laws points of being courteous, kind, and friendly. Maybe they think the blasting of scouts on social media is "brave." But the honest fact is that there are still many who refuse to accept change. They are almost always adults and think that the old way was the best way. You also see it in conversations about Cit in Society, that the undefined evils of "DEI" have changed the program and is no longer worthwhile. I totally disagree with that assessment. My son earned Eagle Scout in a combined unit. We never had issues with the scouts in a mixed gender troop. Any issue we had with by parents with preconceived ideas, none of which ever proved true. I was in the Navy before female were on ships and then afterward. I heard all the same reasons why it was going to bring the Navy down. It did not, and some of the finest sailors and leaders I know are female. A mixed troop (family troop - not a big fan of that title, but can live with it) is right for out troop and our community. No one is denied the opportunity to learn all the great lessons that scouting provides because of their sex.

Everything fall under NCAP now if it is a district/council event. And officially that is anytime you have units from 2 or more COs. Even in my day, Professional Development Level 2 was not automatic, because it was not required to be a DE like PDL-1 was. In fact i know of only 2 DEs of the 12 I worked with having completed PDL-2. One completed years earlier, and one somehow got a two week, all expenses paid trip for PDL-2 and an Exploring Conference at FL Sea Base in January.

What's weird is that by some observations, GNYC Council looks healthy and thriving. I'm in NJ but when we go to Alpine Scout Camp (a GNYC property located just across the river in NJ), that camp is always active and busy. We went to the Cub weekend in the fall and I was told that there were over 1,000 scouts there. For just that one weekend. And most seemed to be GNYC units judging by CSPs on uniforms and Pack t-shirts. The program looks healthy, so it's surprising to read that the actual numbers say otherwise.

Well, there’s two. Sounds like leadership in his academic trajectory is of immediate importance. Are the family farmers? Have their own business? There might be one or more things that he can do to represent them. Religious life? Is there something he’d like to do for his faith community? How about on the ride to or from school? Maybe he can get to know one thing about each classmate. The requirement shouldn’t be overthought. It’s to help someone realize that leadership opportunities are everywhere. Give the kid at least one simple idea that you think suits him, and ask him to come up with three more. For some kids, structured activities are a no-brainer. For others, it’s noticing little things where they can make a contribution. Be positive, and hopefully this kid will come back to you with some nice ideas.

I partly agree but it's kind of a chicken and egg situation. Value perception is lacking because the program is so difficult to deliver that quality is inconsistent and often poor. But even when well administered there are multiple aspects of the program that no longer work well, appeal to, or provide comparative value to an increasingly large demographic.

Sorry, I put this in the wrong thread... ------------------------------------ The biggest unadvertised cost of Scouting is the amount of volunteer adult support it takes to make a good unit level program happen. No "pitch" that I have ever heard (outside of our unit) tells parents that "We welcome your kids, but you have to come along, too, to help us put on the program." When you do get them to agree to help, then explain that "help" means a variety of getting trained, learning Scout skills so that you know what 'right' looks like, being a merit badge counselor, serving on the committee to help with budget, managing adult training, onboarding, advancement, uniforming, equipment, fundraising, etc, etc, etc, Oh, and we need drivers and adults for camping, too. Once they learn those needs, many are out. They want to take their kids to programs where they can dump and run, or show up occasionally with a tray of orange slices and some juice boxes. Once upon a time, when I served Uncle Sam, our mantra in the Air Force was "We recruit Airmen, but we retain families." And we did PR, ads, benefits, and programs to support that. Attract individuals, but make our environment such that, as they start a family while serving (which many do), we make it comfortable for their family to have the service member stay in. (This mindset varies across the services, though many of the family programs and benefits are duplicated in all services. Health care, base housing, commissary and exchange, MWR [morale, welfare, and recreation], etc. ) Scouting should be, "We recruit families, but we retain the Scout." Get the family on board, and give them benefits for their Scouts (a program of adventure) , and the youth will stay, keeping the parents involved.

What type of fees does each council pass on to the national level? Wondering what the fees to the council will be if there are fewer councils. I must agree that adult training is a joke. The few DEs I knew well enough to talk honestly, their training was just as bad. Ask one about a YPT question, and his answer is that it is coming in level 2 training.

You should take some time to understand that in the market basket of extracurricular activities scouting is competing with everything from a pack of kids in a basement playing dungeons and dragons to $400 a week private league sports. If people are getting a good return on their time and money, they will spend the money. League sports are growing 43% year-over-year while scouting is shrinking and currently at 20% of it's peak membership.

This is what I understand. The membership churn is killing the membership numbers. We did recruit 260k "new" scouts in 2025; however, based on the numbers shared with me we lost somewhere between 300k and 500k existing scouts. If we don't deliver on our promises of an excellent outdoor leadership program scouts and their families will keep voting themselves off the island and leave scouting. National needs to enforce quality control and modernization; how can expect a unit to properly execute the program when 4 out of 5 adult leaders are so incompetent they can't do free online training? Paid scouters are scrambling to save their jobs, they don't care to save the program; national must force council consolidations to get the focus back on program and off of fundraising.

The 01 Jan 2026 number is real time... today's number. The Jan 2025 number looks to be the close out number for 31 Jan 2025.

Let's be honest, we won't get actual numbers until March when all the December 31st expirations go into effect. And I bet the March numbers will. be down. While I do think more Unit Serving Executives may help, they will need to get the right type. For whatever reason, BSA seems to think educators make good execs and program folks. Yet BP realized when he started that educators make lousy SMs. As for IT systems, this is what happens when you put a former SE into being the CIO without any experience in the field.

There is no point comparing the costs of scouts to sports, it's a waste of time and not relevant to why most people pursue either activity. The costs for both are all over the map depending 1) where on the map you are, and 2) what level of involvement you are at. You can absolutely find travel leagues that are less than scouting. There are many access points and participation tiers. You can spend $10K or you can spend $1K. In many cases when you break down the fees and the hours involved in each activity, scouting has a higher per hour cost than sports and that's why a lot of families see it as a better value and use of their time. Both activities are great for kids at whatever level you can afford them and dependent on their interests and how that fits in with the family time and budget. Scouting needs to focus on listening to why more kids don't choose it.

Did anyone see this from Mr. Krone? Membership: Recruitment and Retention In 2025, we focused on growth by hiring an executive vice president of membership and leveraging Lilly Endowment funds to hire unit growth executives for councils. We also expanded our marketing efforts, driving a record number of visitors to BeAScout.org. I am pleased to report that by the close of 2025, we will have recruited almost 260,000 new members. But membership is more than recruiting — it is also retention. In the coming year, we will intensify our focus on retention and on delivering a more meaningful experience for all members. If we recruited 260,00 new members but the overall membership through November is around 900,000 where did 260,000 that were on the rolls the end of 2024 go?

Your idea isn't new; the BSA has made these kinds of promises since the creation of the program. I do agree that at this age, cost isn't as much of an issue as the cub program, but a results-based program is very subjective. And most of the time the adults go the easy route of Eagle for their results-based program. However, youth at this age aren't advancement-driven. I found that most Eagle-driven programs lose 70% of their scouts by age 15 because advancement gets boring. Adventure-driven programs thrive because they are fun in the outdoors, and because independence in the patrol method drives more maturity in their growth. Go look at units where scouts age out, and you will find they are more scout-run with adventure. Also, adventure-driven programs typically have a high number of Eagles because the scouts are in the program a long time and earn the Eagle requirements by simply participating. Barry

Putting on my Membership Chairman hat. Almost 95% of scouts in troops come from the Cubs. If the youth aren't recruited in Cubs, the troops will have to recruit from other sources. When National added additional requirements to the Tiger program in 2000 (increasing meetings to every week, an adult required for each scout), many units were unable to meet the new demands, and the Tiger numbers dropped significantly. That drop became obvious in 2005 when the troop membership suddenly dropped. If you don't get the Cubs, you don't get the crossovers. Barry

North Carolina includes: Last Dec / This Dec / % change 070, Old North State, Greensboro: 3284 / 2794 / -14.82% 414, Daniel Boone, Asheville: 1381 / 1244 / -9.92% 415, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte: 4380 / 4286 / -3.29% 416, Central NC, Albemarle: 2541 / 2546 / +0.20% 420: Piedmont, Gastonia: 3903 / 3702 / -5.15% 421, Occoneechee, Raleigh: 8170 / 8189 / +0.23% 424, Tuscarora, Goldsboro: 1839 / 1351 / -26.54% 425, Cape Fear, Wilmington: 2125 / 1954 / -8.05% 426, East Carolina, Kinston: 2597 / 2355 / -9.32% 427, Old Hickory, Winston-Salem: 2586 / 2468 / -4.56% And I'll include 596, Tidewater, Virginia Beach, VA, which extends down into NC: 3934 / 3777 / -3.99% And in the aggregate, all those councils: 36740 / 34616 / -5.78%

It is dying. And the majority of folks do not want to put quality control measures. They want 'High Speed, Low Drag" advancement and increasing the number of Eagle Scouts. They would rather celebrate the 13 or 14 year old with all 130+MBs than the troop that is doing trail work on the AT, or the troop running Red Cross evac stations.

or maybe a testimonial marketing campaign on Scouting impact, an example:

They have not pushed me over the edge completely, but I am near where you are now. Such promise in the program if it is simply allowed to function. I will continue to do what little I can, but my hisorical efforts are ignored or blocked locally now. Few want to reflect on such things, other than to ask how much something is worth perhaps. And, I am worn out with noone stepping up to help. Have reached out to the local historical museum to at least save some stuff that the council is on the verge of losing or destroying, or simply ignoring its value. BP must be pretty shiny, along with a few other greats.

Trust me I know. My council is about to launch a capital campaign for repairs and upgrades at camp. What happened to the money from a camp they sold that they told volunteers would pay for these renovations? Yes, I know, it went to pay the council's share of the lawsuit.