An Analogy - Is BSA a Sinking Ship?

[FScouter]

"Really? I beg to differ."

Gee, who would've thunk it?

[NJCubScouter]

jkhny says:

 

You lose the legal and business niceties like insurance. BUT - "Scouting" HAS run before without any of this.

 

Niceties like insurance??? Unfortunately it's far more than a nicety (and it's not so nice.)

 

I don't know when you think Scouting has run without insurance, but it sure isn't now, and it isn't going to be in the future either. What you'd "lose" along with the insurance is the vast majority of unit volunteers, who would have to conclude, sadly and reluctantly, that keeping their families sheltered is more important than their Scouting activities. In other words, I don't know if you own a home, but I do, and when I am out on a camping trip I don't need the extra added worry that if little Johnny gets seriously injured, I am going to get personally sued for it because the unit isn't covered by insurance, and possibly lose that home. Now, one may ask, what about homeowner's insurance? I can pretty much guarantee you that the minute it became known in the insurance industry that Scout units were no longer covered (I'd give it about a half-second after it happens), every single homeowners insurance application and renewal form would instantaneously have a new question: "Are you a volunteer leader in any capacity with Boy Scouts of America or any of its units?" Answer "no" untruthfully and an accident happens, and you're not covered. Answer "yes" and watch what happens to your insurance rates. Count me out of that one, please.

[madkins007]

FScouter's comments are 'bulleted' here:

 

 

- No Boys Life magazine (how can it be published it if there is no national office?)

- No Scout Shop (these shops dont run themselves)

- No Scouter magazine (no longer needed since leaders are on their own now)

 

Actually, these things might be better off if they seperated from National. Boy's Life used to be independent, Scout shops in other countries are independent (and might well enjoy better sales seperated from the policies of the Scout office), etc.

 

 

As for the list in general- you are of course dead on. We may not NEED each of the things, but it sure helps.

 

I was flabbergasted that an ADE could not articulate the overall idea better, and be able to explain the simple reality that MUCH of the benefit of FOS and other 'higher level' fundraising is used for 'intangibles' that just happen to be key to the BSA's success.

[dan]

Ok I will play

 

1. No summer camp since the insurance cant be paid and the facilities cant be maintained.

With all the negatives I read on here about how bad day camps are what is the big deal.

 

2. No updates to books and literature. (Use your old books from here on out. New boys can share)

Seems that most poster here like the old old books better anyway, get the ones from 1950 out!

 

3. No council office because the rent cant be paid and the staff wont work for free.

Most poster seems to think that all council suck anyway!

 

4. No new training materials (cant be bought at any price since they cant be printed and distributed)

It is not like the trainers are really using the BSA training material anyway, they train the way they think the BSA should be not the way it is. (See posts from one of our outstanding senior members)

 

5. No awards or patches (units can find a private company to make up what they want, minimum order 50)

The old patches where better anyway.

 

6. No uniforms available unless you can somehow work out an arrangement with the manufacturer.

Look how may units do not wear the uniform, or most of the posters on here that ony complain because the uniform either is made cheap or does not fit overweight people very well!

 

7.No DE to advise and help volunteers (maybe you never see him anyway)

Whats a DE?

 

8. No Boys Life magazine (how can it be published it if there is no national office?)

Gee, I think someone close to these forums would be happy to replace this magazine!

 

9. No Scout Shop (these shops dont run themselves)

Have you not been reading these forums! All the stuff is either overpriced or junk according to most posters here!

 

10. No Scouter magazine (no longer needed since leaders are on their own now)

Gee, I think someone close to these forums would be happy to replace the this magazine!

 

11. No one to answer the telephone at the council office (the office is shut down)

The people that answer the phone are under paid and crabby anyway.

 

12. No BSA or council web sites (no money to pay for it)

This internet thing will never take off anyway! According to most posters here there is no place for technonlgy or electionics is scouts!

 

13. No more Eagle rank (whos going to validate the application?)

Its all water down anyway! Back when I was a scouter it actually meant something! At least that is what I read here.

 

14. No more popcorn sales (units will figure out their own thing)

Most are not selling popcorn anyway! I think about 15 percent of the Boy Scouts in this council sells popcorns. I am sure your council is not much different.

 

Listen up lurkers and posters, the BSA is being attacked every day on this Website, Saying it is stupid. The program that many senior posters here runs is better than the BSA program, either stand up and tell these nay sayer to go away, or be prepared to watch the BSA be changed by people like Backpacker, Evmori, jkhny, Praire Scouter, Trevorum, Miki101, hunt, johndaigler

and etc.

 

(This message has been edited by dan)

[johndaigler]

Dan,

 

You seem to have kept quite a bit bundled up inside. I'm sorry you're angry. I think your words might be more effective, though, if you addressed individual posts when they appear. Your generalizations are unclear, and unfair -- as if you think that if you throw enough angst out at one time it will prove your point AND righteously condemn those posters that trouble you.

 

If you have a problem with the posts of any of the forum members you mentioned, or me, or anyone else, please, speak up in the thread where those posts are found.

 

Sure, sometimes forum members disagree with each other, or with National -- and sometimes that leads to a bit of heated give and take. I think you're being unfair to paint "most posters" with your broad brush of bile. Even the Scouters here who "get my goat", are here because they're dedicated to making BSA a better organization, and program, for today's American boys. They make me crazy, but they don't deserve the kind of junk you threw out in this post.

 

Why don't you start a thread about one of the ideas that troubles you and create a conversation in which you can share your thoughts on the topic. I'm sure you'll get a variety of responses and you'll be able to specifically argue against the ones with which you disagree.

 

KISMIF

 

jd

[Bob White]

I can understand how [some scouters'] limited knowledge and exposure leads him to such a narrow vision of what scouting is here and in other countries.

 

First you need to understand that the national office gets very little of FOS funds I believe it is around 1% to 3%. National does not rely on FOS fo their funding. They operate mostly from the sale of BSA products, corporate donations, bequests, trusts, and the like.

 

FOS raises money for the Council period. The thought that our units can survive just fine without the council is illconcieved. Most unit are unaware of the services provided by the council quietly in the background while we are in our real jobs.

 

The fact is the council is a corporation and corporations have expenses. The cost of professions is a small part of what FOS pays for, but even that money is well spend in nearly every case. Professional do the support work for us that we do not have the time or opportunity to do while we work or live our non-scout lives. But besides that there is property costs, maintanence, program equipment, utilities, time and gas to mow the sirtes at camp. There is the office staff that resords advancement and membership, there are the costs of communications for upcoming events to enhance programs. Even if only half you packs go to day camp they all need the information. There is the time spend helping units. Sure maybe you didn't need help this year but others did, and maybe you will next time.

 

But the inmportant thing to remember is that FOS is not about doing for you...today. The services you recieve today were paid for by those who gave over the years in the past. FOS is about the continuing health of the scouting community you live in down the road.

 

FOS helps to have the resources to make scouting better for thwe scouts to come as well as the scouts today. Even for the flaws that some take great delight in exaggerating and misrepresenting, the BSA is still the most effective youth development program in the country.

 

It takes young men and women and prepares them to be better citizens, better neighbors, better spouses, better parents. And all the BSA asks is that you look at what scouting has done for you, your family, your community and make a pledge that will help scouting continue to grow and improve to serve not just your children but their children.

 

The council raises some of the money through activity fees, popcorn sales, corporate donations, and in many communities we still get funding from United Way. BSA is happy to say they are a United Way Agency, but United Ways goals and purpose have changed over the years and they serve far more agencies. The Council's slice of the Financial pie is much thinner these days. So the scouting program relies to a great extent on you the families of the scouts who are getting the benefit of the program today.

 

FOS is not mandatory, you will recieve the services of your council whether you contribute or not, but do not expect all the services you want to be available without end if you are not willing to help the council to afford them. The BSA understands that not everyone has the same financial resources so there is no minimum pledge, we as council volunteers ask only that you pledge what is an appropriate amount for your family and and your resources.

 

It takes two minutes to fill out the pledge card and become a partner in the success of your council and scouting in your community.

 

[...] All your council asks is a few minute a year to explain the importance of Friends of Scouting. The vast majority of parents are more than happy to participate. When camps grow you need to thank them when camps get sold, well...[...].

 

In the BSA there is no them and us[...], its all just US... and we will succeed together or fail together.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Could be the only "us vs them" in the BSA are the people who have open minds and the people who don't.

 

And while I freely accept the role of "one of the others" on some issues, I'll thank some of you to not paint me or anyone else with some generic brush as being those who want to bring down BSA or some such thing. Everyone I've talked to who at times disagrees with BSA policy is in the BSA because we see the value of the organization and want the BSA to be the best it can be. We want change because we think it will lead to a better BSA, not because we want to damage it. If people disagree with that, that's fine, and I'm happy to discuss that. There's a fella in my Council who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with BSA on all things is "the enemy". Some people here are treated the same way. I'm not the enemy; I just don't agree with some of the things BSA does. Rip the arguments to shreds if you can; that's why we present things here.

 

Regards the current line of thought, no, units could not survive if suddenly set adrift by the dissolution of the districts, councils, and national office. But, given some time, I'd be willing to believe that a substitute structure could be put in place to provide many of the same services currently being offered. In the long run, you could end up with the same structure you have now, so what would be the point of that, really? I don't know how many councils there are in the U.S.; probably "zillions", and I'd bet that the vast majority of them are squeaky clean. BUT, if you're an organization that portrays itself as being as angelic as BSA does, you have to have more the vast majority, you have to have absolutely everything be perfectly clean. When you put yourself on a pedestal, lots of people want to take you down, so you need to be really careful. From even the small number of scandals that have been reported, it's fairly clear that BSA's audit procedures don't work as well as they might. And since they've happened periodically over the years, I'd have to say that they haven't taken effective action to correct those procedures. If audits are done correctly, you don't see the same problems recurring. And responsibility for the problems roll uphill. It can be said that the Councils are independent and the National has no responsibility for what they do, but the reality is, somebody has to provide the checks and balances to make sure that the Councils are following procedure, and the buck stops at National at some point, if for no other reason than to protect the overall image of Scouting. And the National office has the ultimate leverage over the Councils; they can pull their charters; that could be incorrect terminology (maybe it's "cancel their contract"), but you get the drift.

[jkhny]

Funny, but Baden Powell himself questioned whether there should be paid staff in Scouting. And the organization below - which has been growing (and whose existance in the US has been fought in court by BSA - afraid of competition?) does NOT have paid staff. Now the sticklers will note that this does not mean there is not a "parent" organization. OK, point conceded. ALL the functions of BSA with no PAID staff.

 

From elsewhere:

 

"Our Association, BP Scouts Association International HQ is based in the heart of England in Stainsby, Derbyshire, in the country where Scouting originated. We are members of Baden Powell Scouts International who have branches in Ireland, Argentina, Uganda, Texas, Arizona, Japan, Austrailia and Canada. We follow the same charter set down in our Policy Association Rules. We have no paid Executive Staff or Leaders. We are a registered charity organisation."

 

Please note the next to last line.

 

"Scouting" is a movement, an "ideal" - NOT bricks and mortar, NOT one "corporation" NOT even the people that work or volunteer in its employ.

 

I have no doubt that a Troop could function WITHOUT the uniforms, patches and all the accoutrements of Scouting, WITHOUT the facilities owned by BSA and WITHOUT any support from a larger organization. An old manual for guidance is enough - and some have functioned with less.

 

"Scouting" HAS functioned and survived under the most hostile conditions - as noted previously - under the Nazi occupation of Europe and Communist rule. We should be proud that "Scouting" can and HAS survived under the most "deprived" conditions.

 

In contrast, "Scouting " under BSA has evolved into a bloated bureaucracy where there is a larger focus on "goals" - numbers and money - than boys. Executives who are very well compensated are NOT doing a good job running Scouting. Perhaps it is time to rethink this model. Others have done so and chosen an alternate model for Scouting.

 

The highly compensated leadership of BSA is horrified that its membership may some day realize that that they - those who are supposed to "serve" and "support" the efforts of volunteers are very expensive "overhead" - that they are NOT needed - and worse, that their "leadership" has NOT served Scouting well.

 

 

 

Do I think BSA would function well without ANY paid staff? Probably not. But it is NOT functioning well with all those it has. I think that BSA leadership is failing - on a pragmatic, ethical and moral basis. Reform and change are needed. My posts have been an attempt to document WHY I believe that change is needed. Agree or disagree. Ignore.

 

HOWEVER, please refute facts with facts, not rhetoric or name calling. Do not say how it could be "worse" or how others are. Please explain why BSA has failed to show the "character" and "values" it claims to represent.

 

Please explain why membership fraud has been an issue for 30+ years (or more).

 

Please explain why child abuse is still a recurring issue - more than in other organizations - despite "youth protection" (about Smith again?) and please explain why abuse is STILL covered up (there are more incidents than Idaho - another surfaced in closed venues today).

 

Please stop making excuses for the continuing declines in Scouting membership and ask why do top executives deserve to be so generously rewarded for FAILURE to accomplish their number one goal - to GROW Scouting.

 

And while at it, please explain why so many actions by paid leadership are neither "ethical" or "moral"

 

Having staked out such high moral ground - representing itself as "the best" allowing only "the best" to serve as leaders in Scouting, BSA is duty bound to be just that, nothing less. ANd BSA has been failing to come even close to its stated ideals. There is mere incompetence at work and even corruption. Neither should be allowed in BSA - however "infrequently" it occurs.

 

Some of th ebest people I have known are volunteers in Scouting. BSA - as currently run - does not deserve them.

[Bob White]

Greetings and Welcome neighbor!

 

"HOWEVER, please refute facts with facts, not rhetoric or name calling. Do not say how it could be "worse" or how others are.

 

Please explain why BSA has failed to show the "character" and "values" it claims to represent.

 

Please provide facts to dispute. This is merely your opinion and a generalization at that, which has no facts mentioned within it at all.

 

Please explain why membership fraud has been an issue for 30+ years(or more).

 

An issue with whom? How many instances are you specifically aware of, please provide facts. List the council and year that you have substantiated knowledge of so that we have the "facts". If my math is correct with an average of 300+ councils per year for 30 plus years that would be over 9000+ sets of annual figures in fact.

 

Once we have the factual number you will supply of all the instance you speak of we will divide your number by 9000 and determine approximately what percentage of reports were actually a part of the "devistating" problem.

 

"Please explain why child abuse is still a recurring issue

 

Unfortunately it is because there are criminals in our world that abuse children.

 

" - more than in other organizations"

 

Because they target the BSA since we deal with large numbers of children on a regular basis where they assume a position of trust and authority as they cowardly camoflage themselves in ascout uniform.

 

"- despite "youth protection"

 

Because too many volunteers do not get trained or do not pay attention in trainin gand in the unit which is the COs responsibility. The BSA has warned everyone of the problem and has the most comprhensive training on the subject in the country.

 

FACT: All of these points by the way are explained by a psychologist and a Dallas Police detective in the BSA Youth Protection Training.

 

Please share if you have evidence that the BSA trained them to be abusers, selected them because they were abusers, or that units kept them knowing they were abusers, and supply facts if you have any evidence to support either.

 

Ona scale of 1 to 10 please rate (with 10 being the most likely and 1 the least) What is the propability that the abuser kept his crimes hidden from everyone other than the people he abused?

 

 

(about Smith again?)

 

Smith was not charged with child abuse. He was not even accused of chid abuse. He never even was accused of touching a scout inappropriately or participating in his crime during his work time or on scout property. Smith retired before he was charged, he plead guilty and is being punished for recieving and re-transmitting child pornography on the internet.

 

and please explain why abuse is STILL covered up (there are more incidents than Idaho - another surfaced in closed venues today).

 

Facts please.

 

 

"Please stop making excuses for the continuing declines in Scouting membership

 

A request not a question and void of factual information

 

"and ask why do top executives deserve to be so generously rewarded for FAILURE to accomplish their number one goal - to GROW Scouting."

 

Opinion not fact, not supported by facts. Just because they make a good living does not mean they do not deserve it or earn it. You have no idea the quality of each professional, you just know you don't like them so you don't like the fact that they make more than you do. So do lot's of people. You need to get over that.

 

And while at it, please explain why so many actions by paid leadership are neither "ethical" or "moral"

 

There are far more crimes committed by volunteers than professionals. The number of BSA employess are a drop of water compared to the bust of water that are volunteers. When you deal with this many people there will always be bad ones. What do they call the person who finished at the bottom of his medical class? Doctor!

 

"Having staked out such high moral ground - representing itself as "the best" allowing only "the best" to serve as leaders in Scouting, BSA is duty bound to be just that, nothing less. ANd BSA has been failing to come even close to its stated ideals. There is mere incompetence at work and even corruption. Neither should be allowed in BSA - however "infrequently" it occurs.

 

Nothing but personal opinion and rants. If your want to discuss facts you need to present some facts first.

 

"Some of th ebest people I have known are volunteers in Scouting. BSA - as currently run - does not deserve them.

 

Opinion, and without knowing the same people you know this can not be accepted as fact.

 

In that entire post the only facts you offered were that child abuse still takes place and membership is down. However you have no evidence that membership will not increase sometime in the future as it has done in the past. Membership in most any group or organization goes through a series of increases and decreases especially when viewed over a prolonged period of time such as the 95 year history of the BSA. what facts can you offer that this cycle will not rebound? By the way are you familiar with where the three largest membership losses have occured?

 

Everything else you have put forward is your opinion and lacks any of the factual information you had promised.

 

Thank you for visiting, do please come again.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[johndaigler]

jk,

 

Respectfully, . . . IMHO, . . . I believe it would benefit all of us if you considered a few things (that I believe are true for many readers, . . . but I will only speak for myself) that I see:

 

You're preaching to choirs, for and against, but the vast majority of readers are open minded and fair readers - who strongly support Scouting.

 

If you point out a negative, then I would expect you to be the first one to offer a positive alternative.

 

Because your posts hit 85 different points, they are impossible to discuss, with facts or opinions. Responding posters head off in six directions trying to reply. We get nowhere but angry with each other.

 

I get that you are angry, and I'll bet somewhere in those posts you have a question you'd like answered, or a suggestion you'd like the crowd to consider. Neither of those things are easily found in your posts - just the anger.

 

If you want to discuss facts, then please offer your own, be sure of them, and validate them.

 

Your posts are so long and rambling and negative that I now see your name and read, "yada, yada, yada".

 

Please believe me, I am not trying to shut you down - I'm just trying to get to the point where I can follow a thread that you've begun, without ending up angry at you, several other posters, and myself. You can help me by shortening and simplifying your posts. Maybe I'm just slow, but conversations are better if there's one topic and a bit of give and take respectfully shared.

 

I doubt this comes off as politely as I intend it, but I'm going blind with editing it. I hope you will take it in the constructive manner it is meant.

 

jd

 

[BrentAllen]

Funny - I'm in the dreaded Atlanta Area Council, with all the bad news, and our numbers just keep going up. You want facts? 65 Cub Scouts 2 years ago, 75 last year, up to 102 this year. Our District Day Camp was sold out at 150 boys this summer.

The AAC owns 2 camps used for summer camp - Bert Adams and Woodruff. Wait a week or two after registration for summer camp opens, and see if you can get into Woodruff. 22 camp sites, serving approx. 1,000 boys each week. They run 7,000 boys through camp each summer - sold out.

The council runs 3 Wood Badge courses each year. You are trying to tell me the bad press is causing our numbers to drop? Fortunately, most of those in Scouting here in Atlanta recognize the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a liberal rag, and don't pay it much attention. It is the only paper here, so it does get read, but with the understanding of the political leanings of the editors. The AAC does have some problems they are working through, but THEY DO NOT AFFECT MY UNIT.

This is not just happening at my unit. At Roundtable this past week, there were many stories similar to ours. Sinking ship? No, the glass is half-full.

[johndaigler]

Thanks, BrentAllen!!!

 

Please, tell us more.

 

jd

[Prairie_Scouter]

BrentAllen,

 

Consider a parent who doesn't consider your paper to be "liberal rag", but tries to see things objectively. Why bother getting their children involved in an organization that is perceived as having problems? If you think that the local paper is falsifying information, your Council should sue them for liable to protect their good name, don't you think?

 

Main point is that bad publicity DOES affect your local unit, even tho you may not see it directly.

 

I'm glad to hear that things may not be as bad as the media may be portraying it, but the trick is to figure out how to overcome that bad press.

[BrentAllen]

P_S,

I have my hands full dealing with the 100 boys WHO WANT to be Scouts - I don't have time to "consider" those others who can't see past biased news, and need to be convinced that Scouting is still the greatest program their son will ever participate in. If they need convincing, they probably aren't going to stick. They will find something else they don't like with the program, and eventually bail. That's fine - Scouting is not for everyone. Only those with a sense of adventure, a "can do" attitude, and a willingness to put others before themselves should sign up.

We just took 70 Scouts (Tigers thru W II) and their dads (140 total) over to the Yorktown for 2 nights aboard. A 6 hour drive, cramped quarters, bunks stacked 4 high, little room to store gear. It was hot, lots of walking, steep stairways. We had a blast! I repeat - this is not for everyone. If we had only focused on the negative, we would have had a terrible time. Instead, we looked right past the negative, and focused on the positive. The opportunity to spend 2 nights on a WWII aircraft carrier, to try to see how those sailors who faught the Japanese lived, to appreciate the history. See and learn about WWII aircraft, and the men who flew them. To see the development of the aircraft carrier thru history. To tour a WWII submarine, and other ships that participated in the defense of our country. We tried to understand how all those men could travel around the world and be willing to give up their one true possession - their life - for their country. That is what makes this country so great.

Yes, there would be plenty for "complainers" to complain about on this trip. Did I hear any? Not a single one. These boys and their families WANT TO BE IN SCOUTING.

Would I throw "complainers" overboard? Luckily, I didn't have an opportunity to find out. :-)

To my Pack, the ship is riding high, making good speed.

Brent Allen

Cubmaster, Pack 494

Dunwoody, GA

[packsaddle]

Been there, done that! This isn't exactly on topic but anyone who doesn't know about the Yorktown needs to know it is a really great trip to make (although in the heat of the summer, well, you know) and well worth a significant drive to get there. And there's also the submarine, the Savannah, and Fort Sumter as well as Charleston itself. What a great combination! I could go back with the boys many times and learn or see something new every time. Really great trip and they have an overnight program custom-made for BSA.

 

Prairie_scouter has a valid point, I think, and the fact that some of us have our hands full already does not detract from his argument. Although some of us may not have time to worry about boys whose families turn away, it is a shame nevertheless.