ParkMan

Thanks all for the thoughts and comments - they are greatly appreciated. I'm wondering if I'm seeing something of a trend here. People don't feel that councils are investing in Commissioners and other district volunteers. As a result, People are not motivated to volunteer and so you end up with a small group of "the faithful" who will volunteer. We think there could be more success if: - It was clear councils appreciated and recognized these district level vounteers. - councils invested in training and development of these district level volunteers. - council professionals placed a priority on recruiting district level volunteers. It sounds like some districts may be doing an OK job at this and as such some districts are fielding more complete and happy teams. Does this feel like something of the right direction?

I'd welcome thoughts on what a district/council could meaningfully do to break this cycle. Like many, I've been in Scouting long enough to see the same pattern. I can't help but feel I'm watching the same cycle over and over again. Yes, the answer is "we just need to recruit some experienced commissioners..." Anyone have success doing that?

In our district, we tend to see two kinds of units - larger units of 30+ scouts and smaller units of 15 or less scouts. The larger packs and troops have a deeper adult team that is supporting a wider array of activities. They routinely bring in 6 or more new scouts every year. They're active in the OA, participate in camporee, their leaders often jump over and help with district wide trainings and events. The smaller packs and troops have a small core team of leaders and don't recruit much. They tend to hang on year to year, but they don't tend to see a lot of new members. We rarely see them. Packs need a lot of adults period - 2 adults per den of 6-8 cubs. Another 4-8 adults providing pack level support - CC, CM, 2x Asst. CM, membership, treasurer, fundraising, advancement chair, and so on. Troops are a bit different. From a working directly with the Scouts perspective, yes troops do need fewer ASMs that help week to week. But they need a supporting group of ASMs to attend weekend trips. A monthly trip is a big ask for anyone and a supporting group of ASMs can really lighten that load. Another area where adults help is troop operations - troops need even more adult operations support than packs. Eagle projects, boards of review, merit badge, more fundraising, specialty skills, and so on. I think the reason we see two general size groups is that units with good programs that recruit adults to help with operations tend to grow. Units with good programs that don't recruit adults to help, end up with overburdened program leaders. There are of course exceptions - some small units simply want to be small. These units are not that common around here.

In our council, recruiting and developing Commissioners is an afterthought. Yes, Commissioners constantly say they'd like to recruit more Commissioners - but a district is lucky to see one new Commissioner a year. Ongoing training and mentoring for Commissioners is sparse. If you want to fix this, Councils need to make recruiting and developing Commissioners a focus area. All hands need to be on deck in identifying quality Commissioners. The professionals need to participate in this process as well. Commissioners should be activly developed and should be part of the process whenever a professional contacts a unit. Further, when a Commissioner identifies a unit need, the rest of the team - be it volunteer or professional - needs to help in solving the unit's issue.

I may be in the minority, but I think this is a fine idea. They want to get involved and be hands on. Most COs don't even have an active COR. You will need to have a conversation with the CO President so that they make sure they don't undermine anyone.

A memorial/reflection location sounds like a good idea. I do appreciate that memorial is not quite the right term here. Perhaps even a foundation that promotes advancement of awareness and prevention of child sexual abuse as well. I second the notion that it should be for all victims of child sexual abuse - not simply those received it through Scouting. Some sort of visual reminder at Philmont and the Summit would be a good idea. Something visible to remind us all how important it is for us all to work everyday to keep children safe. Once a settlement is reached, it strikes me that from a Scouting perspective there needs to be some energy spent on listening, understanding, and healing divisions and wounds. During this time everyone of course wants to see what is best for kids and abuse victims - but there have also been a lot of hurt feelings. It's important for the BSA to recognize that and work diligently to embrace those who were harmed through their involvement in Scouting.

You have to remember that the NAM is not actually a meeting - it's a event designed to generate enthusiasm and encouragements amongst the members. It's something akin to the big annual stockholders meetings that corporations have. All the real information sharing happens outside of these sorts of meetings. Yes, activist members could find a way to highjack the meeting - but rarely does that happen.

I fear that people all around miss that fact. My child joined a pack and later a troop to experience scouting (lower case). Yes, the BSA program is good and nicely developed. But most people are not in the BSA because of the organization. At some point the continual increase in funds to defend lawsuits will only lead to declining membership. Just as in the bankruptcy thread, it will be impossible to discuss this topic because none of us can leave emotions and beliefs out of this.

@MattR - I saw your post and read several of the surrounding comments. I suspect that it is impossible to sperate people's feelings of the lawsuit, the BSA, and child abuse. Even if this topic was simply numbers and motions, those discussions would still be centered around whether the BSA was paying enough or not. This is simply too charged a topic for dispassionate analysis. No matter what we do, people will come back to those core issues around the lawsuit. I think we have to recognize that fact and do our best to be tolerant of each other here. Generally this forum does a good job of that. Yes, I do wish the topic wasn't as negative as it often is - but I think it's simply unavoidable. I, like others, would encourage you not to lock it. Overall it has been a useful service to have this topic. People want to discuss it, and this forum provides a useful service in having a place to channel those discussions.

But does a potentially future actionable claim matter if the BSA is the sole organization involved after the US Trustee's objection? Doesn't chapter 11 or chapter 7 really push for a determination of who has claims, what assets are available to settle those claims, and if the organization is financially viable afterwards? Does a "we might have a claim someday" go pretty low on the list? If at all? Isn't the settlement more applicable only if the LCs are joining so that their future liability goes away?

Hi @Alaina, Can I ask you three questions first so that I can get a sense of your troop? 1. If you had to describe where your troop is today, what does you troop look like? How many kids, how active, how many volunteers? 2. If you could describe what you want you troop to look like in 2-3 years, what does it look like? 3. Why did you decide to volunteer as a Committee Member? Thanks!

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. But, in general I would encourage that none of us read too much into how any of us writes. We all have different professional backgrounds and different styles. I enjoy the discussion on stuff like this. I theme I'm inferring for your posts is one of obeying the rules. As an adult, I don't put a whole lot of energy into worrying about obeying a BSA rule on how many knots to wear. Yes, I do follow the BSA guidelines on uniforming because I have chosen to. For me, obeying the rule isn't the point. There are somethings in Scouting that I follow without exception - YPT & the G2SS for example. I do so because it's the right thing to do. But it is not out of some sense of blind obedience. If I see a Scouter with 4 rows, I smile knowing the rule - but then get to know that Scouter. Once you get somewhere above two rows, that tends to start signaling someone with a lot of history in the program. To me that's interesting and I am curious about that person and their story. Yet, I don't look at 4 rows and think less of a person because they haven't obeyed an arbitrary rule in the uniform guide. We're all adults and I'm very comfortable that an experienced adult Scouter can bend a rule like that one. To me it's those little aberrations that add character. If someone was breaking a YPT rule, that would of course be a different discussion. This is why I refer to it as a youth program. In my mind I think we can allow a little flexibility in a rule like this one. I would lobby that the BSA remove the three row rule all together. What really is the harm if this rule went away? In an era where we are strapped for volunteers and members is there really a harm to that occasional volunteer with 6 rows?

Well, in that case... I cannot believe how big a deal we make over what is essentially a non issue. Why do we need to look down at Scouters because they want to put a few pieces of cloth on their shirt? Aren't the leaders in the no-knot crowd simply trying to look superior by claiming "real Scouters don't wear knots?" Are they not themselves breaking several parts of the Scout law - friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful. Why should obedient trump all these others? Is that better?

The reason this comes up a lot is honestly captured in your response. Why would you use the phase "with enough knots to make a third-world general blush" Why do you not see awe from a lot of experience? Why should "a Scouter with this much supposed experience should know better."? Why does this "one would think, be aware of current uniforming standards, and be modest enough or humble enough to abide by them." matter? Knots are .75" x 1.75" pieces of cloth you sew on a shirt. So you have 1, 2, 9, 20, or 30 - really so what? Why do we infer that this means anything more than - hey, this person's done a lot of stuff? It's a youth activity. People have fun and dress up their uniforms. Perhaps part of the issue with uniforms and Scouting isn't that people put a bunch of color on it - but that not enough people put a bunch of stuff on it. Why do we make light of people and refer to them as third world generals? It's all for fun. Why try to make it all serious and haughty? This isn't the Jr. Jr. ROTC. It's Scouting - a game with a purpose.

It's a volunteer activity - uniforms can be a fun way for a volunteer to share something of their story. If someone wears 0 knots, 3 knots, or 20 knots - I don't see the harm. I say - if you've got the knot, wear it if you want. We should not be making people feel guilty about wearing their knots and sharing a little about their journey.

I just think you have to show the Scouts the move the Matrix and they'll be ready for all the martial arts the BSA could throw at them.

Around where I am, the council has very little impact on recruiting. Recruiting in our area is driven almost entirely by units. If there was a path to recruiting older Scouts, I think our troops would try it. I just don't think they see a path. Maybe if we could figure out how to recruit those older kids into the program this wouldn't be such a big deal. The obvious path for recruiting is still to recruit tigers & wolves and then keep them in the program.

I think you have to define "totally controlled by national." I've been involved long enough now at the district/council level that I know well that our council is most certainly not controlled on a day to day basis by national. I seriously doubt that national even cares about our camporees or other council level activities. Sure, there are some places where national has established firm rules that must be follow - such as YPT. But those are not all that prevalent. I can tell you that in my volunteer work, I see almost no control by national.

I follow - thanks. But, as this is a bankruptcy case for the BSA, isn't the real question on the table what to do with BSA national? The BSA will run out of money - so either it goes into Chapter 11 or Chapter 7. In order to negotiate a settlement, the BSA has made a proposal that is larger than just BSA national - it includes the LCs as well. This settlement, if agreed, is the "neatest" way to close all the issue on the table. However, if the parties cannot agree to a settlement - we are still left with BSA national going bankrupt. We've all been thinking that if not settlement is reached, then a Chapter 7 occurs. However, given the judge's comments isn't it just as likely that she'll impose a settlement that will allow a Chapter 11 to occur. In short - isn't she telling all the lawyers that they need to come to an agreeable settlement. It's not just a case where the claimants can say they want more and force Chapter 7.

But isn't the only party here that really matters the BSA? Maybe also the LCs - maybe. The judge is telegraphing she wants the BSA to continue and so that means Chapter 11. Let's say that she has mentally ruled out Chapter 7. That means that she'll determine the assets the BSA has to divide and to then continue. Everyone else is secondary. No?

Is that when she might entertain a cramdown approach? Would she not be able to let BSA national complete a chapter 11 bankruptcy and declare the amount they have to pay to creditors? To her point, if she did focus on the 100 million in legal fees the BSA has already paid, she may be getting frustrated with the insurance companies and lawyers for the claimants. From my amateur viewpoint, that would seem a scenario where a judge might impose a settlement.

This seemed a promising quote from the judge: I know I'm looking for a silver lining, but this was promising. "the Boy Scouts' mission needs to continue". Sounds like liquidation isn't an end she favors.

A discussion presupposes that there is a way to draw a conclusion on the topic and decide if co-ed is better or not. There are so many different factors in deciding whether to go co-ed or not. Each segment of the population is going to have different factors they favor over others. Trying to make a decision at the BSA level because "girls mature faster and tend to take over" generalizes two genders overall. Not every girl is going to take over. Not ever boy is going to mature more slowly. It also takes away the opportunity for boys to learn from girls and vice-versa. I think it is simply impossible to arrive at general answer to a topic like this. Different people will want to focus on different things. Myself - I think we allow individual COs to decide what works best for their members and to pursue the model that is best for them. I didn't intend my post to be close minded or hostile at all. I've always favored local choice on this question. I am not forcing co-ed nor and I saying that single gender is wrong. I am saying that the BSA should allow for co-ed if a CO wants it. I do have an issue with that the statement in the video where they said "no one on our committee has even asked about co-ed." We talk co-ed here on this forum on a regular basis. I am very surprised that committee that is dealing with this topic doesn't have members that have even asked about it. It makes me wonder if the committee is inclusive enough in it's representation of Scouting's communities. If they said "we discuss it periodically and have decided against co-ed Scouting, I could believe." That they said no one asks about it surprises me. My offer was somewhat tongue in cheek - but only slightly. I have no idea how one gets on a national committee. But if it's anything like my council's committees - it is all about who you know. People on committees that decide things are often very entrenched, long time Scouters. That is often good as experience matters. Yet, it can also create something of a bubble. I suspect the number of long time Scouters who want to see co-ed Scouting is lower than the number of general Scouters and even the populace at large.

If I were a betting man... - 50% or more of local camps that exist now will be sold. - In the next 18 months we'll merge down to one council per 10,000-15,000 scouts. Each will retain a camp - all other council owned buildings will be sold to preserve whatever camps we can.

That was an awful answer. 1. That "girls mature faster than boys" and "we don't want to disadvantage the boys" is the reason, that's an offensive and insulting reason. That stereotypes each group and neglects the notion that boys and girls can influence each other. Both genders will benefit from begin around the other. 2. If no one on their committee is talking about co-ed troops, they have the wrong people on that committee. How do we get someone a bit more current on that committee? I've got no time, but I'll volunteer. Just PM me.