Where Do We Go From Here?

[eagle77]

So then which of the options is causing good and what is causing bad for BSA

 

 I think the real question is: Does BSA need to conform to the changes and demands of society? or How long can BSA survive without changing?

 

  There are people out there and right here on this forum that can give you good arguments on both sides of the fence.

 

 We are already seeing some of the affects of standing our ground decrease in membership, merger and in some cases re-merger of our councils, and the selling off of scout properties. If things were thriving we wouldn't be doing any of these.  Now the question is: Are these things happening because we refuse to change?

 

 The most important question now though is: How far will BSA go before they feel the need to give in to society?

 

 That's a whole lot of questions, my opinion on this is I think there is a certain point or shall we say number, that when we hit that they will have no choice but to give in or simply shut down.

[packsaddle]

Why is it necessary to have huge numbers of members? Why is it necessary to have a gargantuan, bloated, overpaid superstructure? Why does a pack or troop need anything more than a CO and good local leadership and enough boys to form a patrol? Yes, it's good to have the badges and pamphlets but how much 'size' is really required to have those things in these days of 'online everything'?

[JoeBob]

Oooohhhh.  Y'all have made me think evil thoughts.

 

Premise:

a) BSA is sacrificing adventure (and principles) in order to avoid losing their money to lawyers.

b) What if BSA had no money?

 

Would a volunteer Scouting organization that wasn't always bowing to social pressure return to the halcyon good old days of high adventure and testosterone blow outs?

 

By using so much volunteer labor, BSA has made themselves vulnerable.   Volunteers can run BSA without national.

Policy? Skype meetings by volunteers.

Scoutshop? Online.

Camps and high adventure?  Privatize. 

Books? Online.

Many districts already run with no help from the pro staff.

Eliminate the councils.

 

Think back over all the problems addressed in the forums threads for the last few months.  Wouldn't most of our problems be solved if National did not exist to mandate silly rules and maneuver to protect their money?

 

I guess we can sell Irving to pay off Bechtel so that Summit can be self sufficient.  

 

Re-chartering just got cheaper!

[eagle77]

  Numbers are what keeps scouting affordable.. Volunteers are what keeps scouting affordable. How many of us already have many in our packs or troops that can barely afford to do scouting now even with fund raising.  Scouting would become so expensive to do that it would basically price itself out of existence. Like it or not National owns the rights to  the program. Why do you think that Trail of Life can not just take the requirements and rank titles and run their own scouting. No they had to alter it a little and rename all the ranks that they have. BSA is a business and will need to make whatever adjustments it feels will keep that business going. Let's ask ourselves this. How many of us would be willing to pull up to McDonalds and pay $40 or $50 for a happy meal. There may be some but not enough to keep McDonalds going. It would definately change the meaning of paper Eagle, because only the rich and well off would be able to do it.What if some group or person were to come along and simply buy BSA and the rights to its program and make the changes? 

 

  Let's see the saying after the big 1972 change was "taking the outing out of scouting" , the new saying would be "taking the scouting out of scouting"

[JoeBob]

  Numbers are what keeps scouting affordable..

 

I don't follow.  Why would eliminating millions of salaried positions that mostly thwart the original purpose of Scouting make Scouting more expensive?

 

Three examples:

1 - Uniforms and Badges - One online shop that served the US would be much more efficient than paying to support the staff and physical location in every council.  Cost should go down.

2 - Books -  Volunteer committees write and upgrade.  Published online.  Free for Den Leader to print, if needed.  No BS Handbook cost, no cost for Merit Badge books.

3 - Summer Camps - A property with lakefront and a few pavilions.  You don't need a big dining hall (patrol cooking in your troop site), a gym, or an air-conditioned trading post.  Troops would pay a share per boy of what annual upkeep and taxes will be.  Troops can co-ordinate what MBCs they'll have at camp, and volunteers at district can recruit and distribute costs for important staff positions like water-front.  Summer camp gets cheaper when you're not paying for a bunch of next to useless staffers, and a year-round professional core that puts obstacles in your way in order to justify their existence. 

 

Getting rid of the Big National presence would make Scouting cheaper, not more expensive.

Edited May 31, 2015 by JoeBob

[packsaddle]

"It's ALIVE!!!!!"

Edited May 31, 2015 by packsaddle

[eagle77]

JoeBob,

 

  Do you have any idea what a DE gets paid? How much those "useless staffers" are paid? We are already in the process of elimenating overhead by merging councils and enlarging districts. Councils are already cutting paid staff positions to the bare minimal which as we have seen on the forum has an affect on the camping. I live in Pa. and in order to be a volunteer in scouting I'm going to have to shovel out more money for an additional background check. How do you think that will affect scouting here?  I agree that having some sort of online purchasing would save some costs, but are volunteers willing to do all of the work that would be needed to ship and stock as well as costs for storage buildings. Troops paying for upkeep and taxes? Again what about having someone who would be like a caretaker or ranger of these camps? Who's going to pay for them? Oh you said the troops. Now how much is it going to cost the troops to do this? Without numbers the price per boy would simply sky rocket. Your missing the most important part, NATIONAL owns the program, copyrights, etc.

[JoeBob]

77, DEs get paid $38k to start.  What's your point?  How much does the CE get paid?  What's the value/mortgage for BSA properties?

 

Think outside the box: NATIONAL makes more problems than they solve.  But I believe that the BSA Board is comprised of volunteers?  

 

We may as well plan on running BSA without BN (Big National); because that's what the future holds once all the lawsuits from LGBT, Atheists, and feminist groups deplete all the funding.

[eagle77]

 Would just like to add. You make it sound like anyone who is a "pro" scouter is making big money. Maybe from say SE on up. The next time you are in the scout office ask the person behind the counter or the one answering the phones, how much are you paid? What kind of benefits, if any are you receiving? Then tell me you would have no problem stepping into their shoes. Heck for the most part the only real good DE are the ones that also share a strong dedication to the program and a real understanding spouse. Oh and that additional background check that I need is not because of some National flunkie, it's a law in this state. I'm still sitting on the fence with the issue of change, but that does blind me from the simple reality of what could happen to BSA.

[eagle77]

 JoeBob,

   

 There is no thinking outside the box with National, THEY OWN THE PROGRAM AND COPYRIGHTS TO IT. Caps for emphasis. You can bet National had a real hard look at what was going on when Trail of Life started, making sure that none of their program infringed on the copyrights that we have for BSA programs. How much would we save then if we were to lift the restrictions and all those groups would no longer be taking us to court? You make it sound so easy to just walk away and start up a new program. My entire point is that whatever decision BSA makes it isn't going to be an easy one and there are going to be those out there that will not like it on one side of the fence or the other.

[Rick_in_CA]

@@Stosh
 

I guess I needed to clarify a bit better on the functionality of women and my comments not being aimed at judgment or blame which seems to be the reaction to the comments.

OK, I am very willing to believe that wasn’t what you intended to say. Though when you write stuff like: “Such emasculation started with the extension of estrogen into the whole essence of the program†and “…the epitome of the male experience in scouting went co-ed both with the members as well as the leadership. There is nothing uniquely male about it's make-up anymore.†you can see how readers could get the “blame the women†perception?
 

Okay let's face it. Evolution, ( thought I toss that one in there) has resulted in males and females. In certain respects they are equal and in other respects not. If one doesn't know what I'm talking about, refer back to Biology 101. With that being said, the female of most species is responsible for the welfare and protection of the young they bear. If one has a hard time getting their mind around that, piss off a she-bear by messing with her cub and see what happens. They are vicious and can handle their own and in many cases run off the males of the species trying to harm the offspring. So If mamma ain't happy, nobody's happy. On the other hand the males of the species tend to protect and provide for the female whose focus is on the up-briiging of the young.

I agree that there are differences between males and females. But how much is biology and how much is society (a question that people have been exploring for generations)? And I don’t think the differences are as great as some people think they are (or want them to be).

Thank goodness the days where young girls were not supposed to run or even raise their arms above their heads because “they are too fragile†or it “wasn’t ladylike†are gone (one of the reasons why GSUSA doesn't have charter orgs, they didn’t want a bunch of men telling them “girls can’t do thatâ€). But there are still cultural biases against women in our society. The trick is figuring out what is actually inherent and what is cultural, and what we should do about it.

One of my best friends is a stay at home dad. His wife is a very successful lawyer so it made sense for him to stay home with their two kids (their girl is in girl scouts, and their boy just bridged into boy scouts). It works well for them, and no, he isn’t “emasculatedâ€. What they do have is two wonderful and happy children (that I get to be “uncle†too).

I had a coworker that would talk about how his wife would restrict their daughter. She wasn’t allowed to wear anything that wasn’t pink, white or sufficiently “girlyâ€. In junior high she wasn’t allowed to play basketball with her friends because it was too “tomboyishâ€. In high school the only sports she was allowed to play were softball and volleyball and her Mom really wanted her to join the cheerleaders. According to my coworker, what she really wanted to do was join the basketball and soccer teams and hated cheerleading. Her mother was trying hard to make sure her daughter conforms to some sort of stereotype of what it means to be female (and it was causing constant strife between my coworker and his wife). For whatever reasons, she wanted the differences between their daughter and son to be greater than they actually were. And their poor daughter was paying for it.

Think about the complaints were see on this forum about girls scouting. How often are we told that the girls want to do what the boys are doing instead? Girls want adventure just as much as boys do.
 

With the independence brought on by the release from child rearing, females can now conclude there is no need for the males beyond breeding purposes. Divorce is rampant because the reliance of dependence necessary to maintain the good-old-days structure is no longer there and thus monogamy is no longer necessary.

Wow. So allowing women to work means “women don’t need men�?? If that were true, then men should have long ago concluded that they don’t need women! Oh wait…

Yes the divorce rate is up from the “gold old days†but is that because “monogamy is no longer necessary†or because women are no longer as dependent on their husbands and therefor trapped in horrible marriages? Women used to be effectively “property†and a marriage was the husband buying his wife from her father. It wasn’t that long ago that a marriage instead of being a partnership, the husband was expected to “control†his wife and she was supposed to “obey†him (look at some of the old movies from the 40s and 50s - a husband using physical force on his wife is often treated as acceptable). Some people still believe that is the way it should be. Yes there are some people today that appear to treat marriage as not a big deal and divorce as a minor inconvenience, but those people are the minority. Among my circle of friends and acquaintances at least I don’t know anyone that treats their marriage or any divorce lightly. And what is culturally better? The “trophy wife†or mistress?
 

<… snipped a bunch of other good points …>

Definitions of honor, respect, honesty, etc. have all changed for the better? Today we can't even find a definition of one's role in society, let alone live up to it's expectations.

Of course the equal rights movement and all the riots and problems that resulted in and the new legislation has all but erase racism over the past 50 years. Right Fergeson? Baleimore? ???

I don’t think anyone is arguing that things are perfect now days, just that the trends over all are in the right direction. But as you have pointed out, there are clearly areas where things appear to be moving in the wrong direction.

Like I said in my first post, I agree with many of your points. I was just disagreeing with the reasons you appear to be attributing the problems too. And the reasons are important because if we don’t understand why things are broken, we will have a much harder time fixing them.

 

And Stosh, thanks for starting a fun and interesting discussion!

Edited May 31, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[packsaddle]

 JoeBob,

   

 There is no thinking outside the box with National, THEY OWN THE PROGRAM AND COPYRIGHTS TO IT. Caps for emphasis. You can bet National had a real hard look at what was going on when Trail of Life started, making sure that none of their program infringed on the copyrights that we have for BSA programs. How much would we save then if we were to lift the restrictions and all those groups would no longer be taking us to court? You make it sound so easy to just walk away and start up a new program. My entire point is that whatever decision BSA makes it isn't going to be an easy one and there are going to be those out there that will not like it on one side of the fence or the other.

 

Yeah, that copyright thing. That applies to the printed matter, not the ideas. There's no reason that some other 'program' can't use ideas from other programs. It happens all the time with every product that's successful.

But I don't think that's what JoeBob is advocating, the idea that we would "walk away". Rather, I think he's looking to the idea that things do end up downsizing in a big way. What is the 'critical mass' needed for volunteers to basically take things into their own hands without the so-called 'help' from those top guys who by that time probably will have run to some other 'big money' jobs? In that case, he's basically solving the essential problems of supplies and access to other resources by employing new technologies and modern business practices. He may have some rough edges here and there but I think that at its core, there are some good ideas there.

Would it be a different BSA if Irving shriveled up and went away? Maybe. Would it be better or worse? It's hard to think of how it could be worse.

[JoeBob]

 

 There is no thinking outside the box with National, THEY OWN THE PROGRAM AND COPYRIGHTS TO IT. 

No thinking?  Maybe not for you.

But since the National Board is composed of volunteer members, it is possible to conceive of the professional staff and assets being severely reduced. 

 

"The board is led by the national president, a volunteer elected by the National Council. Board members included regular elected members, regional presidents, and up to five appointed youth members"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America

 

I never suggested it would be easy.  Good things seldom are easy.  In fact we would probably have to pay out a big lawsuit and lose several CO's before the National Board could be convinced.  The only other option that I can see is to sink with the ship...

[SeattlePioneer]

<<Now that the Male/Female pattering of society is almost completely broken down, one begins to wonder with multiple female parenting (double Den Mothers) and effeminate males that the imprinting will only progress more along the lines it has for the past 50 years, removing maleness even further.>>

 

 Ummm.  I only lasted a few weeks in Cub Scouts circa 1958.

 

At that time,  there were Den MOTHERS  --- no dads allowed.  The Den Mother was no doubt a nice person,  but activities consisted of artsy craft work,  not of interest to me.

 

By contrast,  I've revived a pack the past eight years and ALL the Den leaders have been men  --- most doing male oriented kinds of activities.

 

 

My impression is that men are being excluded within their own families,  and are interested in finding opportunities to be a real father to their boys.

[SeattlePioneer]

<<As for male only organizations and feminization, I have no desire to go back to the bad old days where things like the Tailhook scandal would not be a scandal (one thing a lot of people don't understand about Tailhook is the changes in society that caused the scandal was not a change in the attitudes and behaviors of the Naval officers, but that their usual behavior toward women had become no longer acceptable).>>

 

 

 

I was never impressed with the Tailhook incident.

 

 

Frankly the women officer/"warriers"  her were completely unable to defend themselves from the attentions of their brother officer were an embarrassment ---to the women.

 

Now we have the equivalent being reported about on college campuses  --- women visiting fraternities alone,  getting drunk and being unable to defend their persons because they have engaged in several varieties of risky behavior.

 

 

Usually it's men doing stupid stuff and getting beat up or killed because of their stupidity.  Now we have women who think they should be able to do reckless and stupid stuff and that someone else has the responsibility to protect them from the consequences of their stupid behavior.

 

It really doesn't matter whether you are a man or woman.  If you put yourself in a risky situation,  you may get hurt.  The prudent person avoids putting themselves in risky situations unless they are prepared to deal with the risks involved.