CynicalScouter

Probably isn't, but I found it online leaked by a high level National training staff person and thought I would share. And the graphic itself was later confirmed as accurate in a letter sent out by the National Commodore for Sea Scouts who linked to the Reddit item. How sad is it we are at the point that the only way to get information out of National is via leak?

July 10, 2020 Proposed Changes to Older Youth Scouting The Churchill Project was recently discussed during the recent BSA National Annual Meeting General Session. The update included proposed recommendations to finances, operational structure and program streamlining that were guided over the past year by separate teams of volunteers and staff from the national, regional, area and local levels. Among these recommendations, two proposals that directly affect adult program participants ages 18 or older (those involved with Order of the Arrow, Exploring, Sea Scouts, and Venturing) include: 1) To only offer programs for youth under the age of 38. Some of the reasons behind the proposal are to serve only youth in our “youth programs,” serving programs within similar age programs (high school), and the legal aspects of serving adults (age 18+} and youth (under age 18) in the same program. 2) To combine Sea Scouting into Exploring as an aquatic-focused career path. The Churchill Project recommendations have been reviewed & accepted by the National Executive Committee. The appropriate teams are now being asked to develop action steps and a proposed timeline for implementation, which will include the decision making needed to support any impacted members. in the case of the recommendations pertaining to adult program participants, consideration will be made for those participants currently working on advancement or holding leadership roles. While we anticipate that some of the Churchill Project Recommendations may be easily implemented promptly, while others that are more complicated will take longer and be spread over the appropriate time period needed. As we always do, the BSA looks to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law, and our work is guided by focusing on what is best for all our members. More information will be shared in early fall as these and other proposals are submitted for implementation. Contacting youth officers with questions about these topics is not the appropriate channel and puts them in an awkward position where they do not have information to share. Please direct questions and concerns to PR@scouting.org.

The "volunteer corps for young adults 18-29" could, might, maybe be a modified Rovers program.

From the official FB page:

Is there a listing of all councils and their rosters? I'd be curious to know how my council shapes up.

That's in effect 1- Measurements of Failure. National will set a standard that most existing councils will fail forcing mergers. I don't know about largest council; I can see them forcing several smaller ones into one or some such.

So the name of the council is what matters? Not financial stability or membership stability, just what you can put onto a patch? Ok. Agree to disagree.

1) The Victim's Fund is collateralize with tangible assets. They don't pay into the victim's fund, they seize the asset. This is, in effect, what happened with the Tobacco Master Settlement agreement. 2) Plaintiffs lawyers (or some of them) may want mass liquidation of National and all 250+ councils (up to and including returning the original charter to Congress), I cannot see a bankruptcy judge agreeing to such a plan.

Nothing concrete and specific such as finances below X, membership below Y, etc. I would be curious to see if there are certain benchmarks a council MUST hit to be safe (Measures of Success) or certain warning signs that if the council hits those the council must merge.

I agree, but I wonder how it will be phrased. I can see two directions. 1) Measurements of Failure: Those councils that meet the following criteria will be merged forthwith (membership BELOW X, finances BELOW Y, etc.) All others will be deemed to be OK. 2) Measurements of Success: Those councils that meet the following criteria are exempt from merger (membership ABOVE X, finances ABOVE Y, etc.) All others will be merged forthwith.

The insurers are going to pay $0; they insist that the insurance policies are void because National failed to disclose to the insurance companies/were not forthright.

I would assume the following: a Victims Fund that a) has a lump sum dropped in on a date in 2021 and b) continual annual payments for XX years into that fund. So it wouldn't require liquidating 60% of current assets.

OK, but the topic is National's announcement they want to "Establish minimum standards to be considered a council." So you think unless they have a pretty patch, they cannot meet any minimum standards to be considered a council?

As I read this, it means that we get another 15-30 days of the "file your claim now" advertisements?

That's great, but I don't think a patch or a name is the issue and it should not be a consideration when deciding the "minimum standards to be considered a council." There are a LOT more important things that pretty patches. And as for insisting the patch include a person "brandishing weapon(s)"? Huh?

Forget "operating surplus", I'd take "neutral effect on balance sheet on average over last 3 years" (up years, down years), but I hear you.

Define "support" because a) lots of CoRs are basically just passive see-you-at-recharter-for-signatures types and b) "support" may simply be a lack of willingness to disband what you have. Far too often "support" for an organization or anything really just means "too hard to disband and start over, so we'll limp along with what we have".

The newly released results of the Churchill Committees are out (will be official shortly) as Scouting Forward: A Plan to Lead The plan is suppose to be executed between September 2020 and September 2022 There is a nebulous statement in it: "Establish minimum standards to be considered a council" 1) What SHOULD be those "minimum standards"? 2) What do you think WILL BE those standards?

Ok, this is where the confusion starts: are they an ASM or not? Not "basically". Not "sorta". They either are an ASM or they aren't. If they are NOT an ASM, then the next part ("that only seems to do for their kids and nothing for the general set of kids in the unit.") is one thing. But if they are an ASM, then they are suppose to serve the unit, not their kid.

Thanks. I hate the adversity. I hate the idea of losing scouts. I wouldn't mind however if this was used to enhance service via merging dead/zombie districts (and councils).

As of now we have no unit support as is (no DE, DC, and a Council that could care less) so I am not sure how it can get any worse for my district, but that might actually be worse for the districts in our council that have DEs.

Cool. I thought Chattohoochie Council was still its own council with 4 Districts covering 15 counties across Alabama and Georgia. A 1-district, 15 county? Wow. That's. Wow.

I'm sorry, your DISTRICT covers 15 counties, or your COUNCIL does?

My council is basically a basket-case but to make matters even worse my district is effectively non-functioning. We haven't had a D.E. or D.C. for years all we have is 3-4 committee members and a committee chair who is trying to juggle 50 things at once. No unit commissioners. We have 12 units. How small is the smallest district you have ever heard of? I am wondering at what point we should just get shut down and merged into a neighboring district and how much of a ruckus that would cause.