fred8033

Though I always differ on "age based" and "traditional patrols" and NSPs, I 100% agree on a few key points. 100% agree ... Adults "screw things up. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.". Let the scouts decide ... with very minimal guidance ... and try to balance patrols (somewhat with many caveats). Even this point... I've often seen adults saying the scout's are deciding, but then I watch and the adults subvert the scout's independent decision making. Scouts want to be with their friends. The best patrols are where the patrol are (or become) friends and want to spend time together. ... Since the scouts plan, camp, cook, eat, sleep, game, and go to activities together, it really helps if the scouts naturally want to spend time together. IMHO, patrols start to fail when scout ditch their patrol to spend time with their friends in another patrol. Perhaps the scout should be in the other patrol then? IMHO, new scout patrols work well when 10+ join at the same time and NSPs are used to rapidly get scouts up to speed. But, there is no reason to keep those scouts in that patrol long term. Let the scout's decide.

Wow. So much of what you wrote seems extremely predictable. BUT, we've seen that happen many times in scouting. My scouting days are over mostly, but in my two decades as a leader, the registrar was critical to fixing so so so many issues. In fact, the registrar was pretty much the only person who could fix unit specific issues.

That's the grey area. Similar things can be said for band booster clubs, but IRS did go after them. Individuals are charged for their experiences. If only one kid (the kid who earned the money benefits), then that's a strong argument for private benefit. On the other hand, if the scout has $10,000 in his account because he raised $50,000 for scouts, then it can be argued it's an incentive that raised more money for scouting than if the private benefit incentive was not there. There is nothing new here. No new information or updated guidance.

Great point @InquisitiveScouter !! Always answer with an authoritative reference when possible. Eagle scout service project workbook, Guide To Advancement and Guide To Safe Scouting are great tools.

To clarify ... I've seen good district commissioners, roundtable commissioners and such. My criticism is very specific aimed at the "unit commissioners". I believe the concept of "unit commissioner" is fundamentally flawed.

Contingent representation means a percent of the award instead of billable hours; usually. The lawyer won't earn more money by returning the client's calls. So not getting a response in a large class action is not surprising. Effectively contingent cases means less earned per hour with each extra hour invested. The least hours invested the better for the law firm.

That might need clarification. Is it 1 billion of the 2.4? Or is it a large sum paid by invoices over the last 4.5 years as part of bankruptcy proceedings? And two more groups that is being paid as a combination of invoiced hours to cover bankruptcy administration (some law firms) and shared client awards (other law firms)? I am really curious what the bankruptcy legal fees were before the settlement? And what the admin cost will be after? And what portion of the awards will be shared with attorneys? Total before and after must be over a billion. I'm just curious.

Commissioner corps? District commissioners have worked okay, but I've never, never seen unit commissioners work well. IMHO, 98% of the time unit commissioners is a broken concept ... for many, many, many reasons. The quality issue is because scouting is conceptually simple, but the implementation is way overly complex; too complex for most leaders. Worse, the program delivery has far too much variety. The program would do better if it focused more on getting the scouts outside and being active. Worry less about leadership and character. Instead, focus on being active. Then, leadership and character comes as a result of being active.

Agreed. Quality control is a major issue. ... Scouting is like ordering a McDonalds Quarter Pounder and having equal odds of getting chicken nuggets, a taco or dog food. Units have such different personalities and habits. Leaders are even more varied. When the scouting magic is there, it's a wonderful experience. It's easy to miss out on that magic though.

If I had to do it again, starting in 2nd or 3rd grade would have been plenty early enough. Just like anything, the program got old fast.

My apologies for the difficulty and pain of this process. I am sure it's awful. Question ... Would the $10k-$20k paid to the trust be refunded? Seriously. I am asking as I am thinking the cost is to pay extra expenses not covered by the trust. Attorney bills. Court reporters. Coordination, processing, etc, etc. If an attorney charged $300+ an hour and it took 6 hours for the deposition, I am thinking that cost was $2500 for the deposition at least. I am just curious if all the funds would be refunded or just the unspent portion of the funds. I trust the plan stays alive. I also just want this done.

#1 Game systems and internet growth #2 Burnout by expanding to younger and younger ages. #3 Lack of perceived rich and rewarding program; whether caused by burnout or too much focus on leadership or just plan lack of focus on fun and adventure. Now, those 1990s kids are having kids and deciding there are better ways for their own kids to spend time. IMHO, little of the membership drop is about policies. It's about product and perception of the product.

Should not be a surprise.

100% dead on correct. Outdoor adventures sells itself. Leadership is boring and can be gotten many, many, many other ways. Scouting flounders when explicitly teaching leadership. Very few people can teach "leadership"; virtually zero scout leaders. Perhaps, if BSA sells itself on teaching leadership, the chief scout should be Tony Robbins or the next Stephen Covey. On the flip side, scout leaders are really good at teaching the outdoor skills and enabling campouts and adventures. And, by being outdoors, you learn leadership and fellowship and and responsibility and helping each other. But, don't market based on that. Market adventure and outdoors.

We never had clean terminology ever. It was always confusing. BSA was always Boy Scouts of America and Cub Scouts were always members of BSA and thus were Boy Scouts. ... It's just that we were so so used to the terminology. Perhaps, it's now ... in order of my preference Scout Pack versus Scout Troop Cub Scouts versus Troop Scouts Cub Scouts versus Scouts Cub Scouts versus older scouts Pack Scouts versus Troop Scouts