numbersnerd

Out of curiosity, I just did a quick Google and came across the announcement of his appointment here. The most amusing comment was: I can’t help but feel so many of our problems with youth today can be traced back to someone deciding we actually need a “Bachelor’s Degree in Youth Agency Administration.†Pretty much hits the nail on the head. Also noticed he was in charge of HR. When have you ever encountered anyone in HR you felt you could trust? Make no mistake, HR is more invested in the interests of the corporate organization than those of the individual. It appears he is carrying on that tradition.

Still happening. Cleared cache and cookies as well. 4 different devices (2 Win 10, Android, Apple) Entering scouting.org in the address bar yields: Win #1 Desktop Edge - directs to summitbsa.org Desktop Chrome - directs to summitbsa.org Win #2 Desktop IE 11 - directs to scouting.org Desktop Chrome - directs to scouting.org Mobile #1Android browser - Chrome - directs to scouting.org Mobile #2 iOS Chrome - directs to summitbsa.org iOS Safari - directs to summitbsa.org I originally entered them in random order and didn't really notice the pattern until I looked at the list. Machines #1 were on a different network than #2. Switching the #2 devices to a different network solved the problem. Appears some provider's DNS are not working correctly for whatever reason.

So many things wrong with that presentation. First and foremost, if you're making fundamental changes to the program, you discuss it with those responsible for delivering it, not with people who have a financial interest in pumping up enrollment figures after telling them this is the only way to do it. The lack of transparency also shows, ironically, how transparent he is. It's not about quality, it's numbers. And there was no way the wildcard of volunteer response was going to even be a possibility. Plans? There is no plan. It's just a desperate blurt. There appears to be no concept of planning, implementation, training, compliance, or evaluation. Heck, I think most are still trying to figure out what was behind the timing of this. And that's just the beginning. I think it's fair to say that he and those behind this and supporting it at National largely have zero credibility with the volunteer segment.

Correct. It was posed to point out that we don't get to pick and choose what parts of the program we are obligated to follow and comply with.

Ah, so rhetorical questions = accusations. Got it. Seems some people are overly sensitive around here.

Evidently Courteous is edging closer to the discard pile as well. So let me get this right, someone intimates that on paper they will be compliant but not in practice. So in pointing out the disconnect *I'm* un-Scoutlike? That's rich. I would think it it is helpful to point out the incongruity between the obligation and the action. It's not a new concept that if you don't adhere to the BSA program, you're not really running a BSA program. If it's inconvenient or unpalatable to actually do that and you're called on it, don't get angry with others, look in the mirror. Again, what else is not "worth it" to do it the way it is designed? YPT? Safe Swim Defense? Properly trained range masters? BALOO trained leaders at camp outs? This all reminds me of the old adage, "The guilty dog barks loudest"

When you use phrases like " on paper", it brings up questions of integrity. Which is squarely in trustworthy territory. Now, whether you are intending to ignore rules and policies when they are inconvenient or made a poor choice in wording I don't know. But I thought it worth commenting on for the benefit of others that might consider following such a path. In that vein it is also worth mentioning that the unit belongs to the CO. So abiding by their wishes as well as policy is more important than how you or the committee wants to run the program.

If you run co-ed dens and the program specifies separate dens, then you're not running a BSA Cub Scout program. That's in addition to not being trustworthy or obedient. Some may consider that harsh, but if you're going to skirt around a rule, it leads people to ask what else are you not doing correctly? YPT? Advancement?

Around here all Packs meet that way. The only time most dens see each other is at the monthly Pack meeting. Dens Meet at schools or the church when weather requires it, but otherwise in parks, outdoor areas, other places of interest. Fire or police stations, newspaper plant, tv news studio, community events, etc.

The frustration is understandable. You likely won't receive much thanks outside of a few individuals, but take joy in knowing that you helped innumerable scouts over the years and there are many that appreciate your efforts.

While it is true that units and their CO can make the determination to remain boy-only, that membership composition is cancelled when co-ed units participate in events above the unit level. And so despite the desire to remain boy-only, units will be forced to either compromise their activities schedule or compromise the integrity of the boy-only composition. Those that think otherwise are willfully ignorant or naive. Despite the stated course of action being single sex dens, when faced with inadequate leadership to execute the program effectively, co-ed dens will become the de facto organization despite the operating standards. And eventually BSA will codify this into their program. Those that think otherwise are willfully ignorant or naive. Changes to the program will occur, thru execution or by design. The above two examples are only off the top of my head. It will happen, for expediency, convenience, appeasement, or it may already be decided but the announcement delayed. Those that think any of these outcomes are not in the future are again willfully ignorant or naive.

Both tried growth through expanding their offerings, ignoring their core appeal and strengths, and failed. Just like what BSA is now attempting. OG is paring back and refocusing on their strengths and is succeeding. Applebees only recently realized their mistake and are doing the same. Thanks for proving my point?

While your statement is true, there will also be changes to the program outside of individual unit membership. Ignore that at your peril. Fundamental changes to an effective program rarely result in any degree of success. THAT is what I believe many are afraid of. And rightly so.

Please see my other post regarding this and the use of Twitter activity to gauge message reception. All your points are addressed.

The argument can be made that if enough of a significant leadership and membership exodus occurs, how Scouting in the US is designed and, but more importantly, executed and promoted at the local level could be fundamentally altered and not for the better. You've touched on the poor process by which this was done, I think it's only symptomatic of deeper problems. Reckless decision making gets further emboldened due to decreasing criticism, further changing the program and with lessening degrees of review from the core constituency. We see it happening now.

As far as tweets being a "legitimate" source of info, care to share anything tangible that yields anything either way, in favor or opposed? Sure, it may only be an ad hoc sample of responses to the change, but it the absence of anything else, ya gotta go with what ya got. And sorry to tell you, Twitter traffic is more telling than you realize. A whole sub-industry thrives on it. While it is easy to say that the unhappy will be more willing to vocalize their opinion, the response timing, likes, re-tweets, and traffic volume compared to past events (issued tweets) carries significant weight in evaluating reception. But not sorry if my handle doesn't jive with your sensibility and allows me an opinion based on casual observation and past experience. What really IS interesting is that this whole scenario seems like a repeat. Just like the claims of overwhelming support for past membership standard changes. And how it was going to be so great. And how it would be more inclusive and translate into huge membership surges. And it would solve all sorts of problems. Tell us, how has that turned out? And my experience is the polar opposite of yours. I have not found anyone, Scouter, parent, or Scout in favor of this change. As for opinions within the current membership, you will never have access to that data. Simply because a true survey was never done. Yes, a survey WAS done, but not a real one. A true survey would have been inclusive of all Scouters at a minimum. Again, not a single person I have discussed this issue with was invited to participate. Indeed, most were not even aware this was a current topic. But debate? That's another topic altogether, but make no mistake, there was no debate. The discussions here do not count.

Wait. What? So you weren't running a BSA Cub Scout program then.

Going by the majority of the responses in the boyscouts and bsachief Twitter feeds, the BOD really didn't exactly have the pulse of the general public on this. Another example of how the professionals are completely out of touch with their core constituency. I get it, the major factor was to generate more revenue. To keep themselves employed. So it that sense it was an entirely self-serving move. But that isn't what their purpose is supposed to be. They are supposed to be in service to US, those who sign our sons up, volunteer, donate and support a program for boys. The ironic thing is that it is entirely possible this accelerates the decline and shortens their tenure. What a nice legacy. "I was there when they turned out the lights and locked the door for the last time." Now with this change is it possible for someone to challenge and revoke the Congressional Charter? It explicitly states,"...the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others..." You can argue that yes, it will still serve boys. But between the purpose of the charter and the very purposeful name BOY Scouts of America, how likely is it that someone will attempt (most certainly in the near future) and succeed (that's the real question) in getting the charter revoked? The argument being they have strayed from or abandoned the stated purpose in the charter. The resultant effect is that if this were to happen, would it then be possible for other organizations to use the imagery and terminology (Scouts, Scouting, et al) to promote their program if it passes muster with the WOSM? I've seen the sentiment that for Scouting to get back on track, the volunteers need to take the program back. This would be the beginning of that effort I would think. Just musing.

As a Tiger thru Webelo leader, Cubmaster, Eagle Scout, long term BSA supporter and parent of an 8 year old Bear and an 11 year old Scout, I am not one of the "we". And yes, I'm sure there are many others. Was never asked, invited, surveyed, polled, or included in any conversation regarding a policy change that fundamentally transforms the program. What I find interesting is they referred to the survey of non-Scout families about their thoughts, desires and motivations regarding the BSA. What about the findings of the survey of existing membership asking about THEIR thoughts, desires and motivations in being members? Oh, you mean there wasn't one? Exactly.

But the program is for the development of boys, not their sisters and parents.

I get where you're coming from, but it has to be said... Because that's how it turned out with past membership revisions?

Does anyone else consider the whole sequence of events suspect, culmlnating in a press release on International Day of the Girl? Seems rushed just to try and capitalize on the timing. And likely to backfire in numerous ways. Not to mention possibly igniting a war with GSUSA. More signs that those in charge have no clue.

Put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" group. Every family that wants to have a girl join should be given a packet with both Youth and Adult apps. That should get the message across. If you want her in, you are in, too. I would be willing to bet that of the few that express interest, fewer than half will step up to the plate and contribute. Some may think that's harsh, but when we already have problems getting enough volunteers, that may be the only way to get enough on board. And even then I'm skeptical.