Law Suits; And Now It Spreads

[David CO]

31 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

In the midst of these lawsuits, this seems to me to be the big question.  While one may think the BSA organization is a joke and that it led to all these cases of abuse, but why turn that into a desire to see the BSA fail?  The likelihood that a "better" version of the BSA will replace it is very low.  So, are we not better off working internally to build the best Scouting programs possible?

Is it perhaps a more contemporary idea that we should dissolve and replace organizations instead of improving them?

This is exactly what we disagree on.  I am almost certain that a better version of scouting would replace BSA.  

 

[Eagledad]

46 minutes ago, David CO said:

This is exactly what we disagree on.  I am almost certain that a better version of scouting would replace BSA.  

 

Who would you expect to do that? We can't even agree on the uniform here. 

Barry

[David CO]

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Who would you expect to do that? We can't even agree on the uniform here. 

Barry

Offhand, I can think of several organizations that would like to replace BSA as the official boy scout organization in the United States.  I'm not sure WOSM would recognize any of them, but I am certain that WOSM would recognize somebody to reorganize scouting.  WOSM would not leave the USA without a scout association.

 

[ParkMan]

16 minutes ago, David CO said:

Offhand, I can think of several organizations that would like to replace BSA as the official boy scout organization in the United States.  I'm not sure WOSM would recognize any of them, but I am certain that WOSM would recognize somebody to reorganize scouting.  WOSM would not leave the USA without a scout association.

 

I expect you are correct that WOSM would likely appoint someone to replace the BSA as our representative the world body.  However, I do not think it would result in a successful Scouting program at anything approaching the levels of involvement of the BSA. 

• The national Scouting resources are owned by the BSA and would most certainly be lost.  Philmont, Northern Tier, etc. would go away.
• Since the idea is that councils would go away in favor of this new entity, I suspect that almost all council camps would be lost.
• You'd have a new Scouting program that is unfamiliar to most.  What keep generations coming back has as much to do with history as it does a fundamental commitment to "pure" Scouting.

Maybe many years down the road the new organization would be stronger - but I seriously doubt it.  Many of the core issues that people complain about are simply the result of how the BSA has dealt with real world pressures:

• YPT - the pressure of lawsuits, insurance, and risk management
• focus on membership - this is the result of an organization that has to deliver on membership growth numbers
• dilution of the program - again, the result of trying to make membership numbers
• focus on money - the minute you have facilities and staff someone has to pay for them

I don't see how some other fledgling organization would make choices all that much different from the BSA.  If anything, I would expect the new Scouting organization to give volunteers even less control over the program.  Further, I suspect any new Scouting program to look a lot more like the GSUSA model than the BSA model.

[dkurtenbach]

To me, the nightmare scenario is that BSA comes out of the bankruptcy poorer and smaller, but otherwise determined to run Scouting as much as possible exactly the way they did pre-bankruptcy.  With exactly the same steady decline in membership.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, dkurtenbach said:

To me, the nightmare scenario is that BSA comes out of the bankruptcy poorer and smaller, but otherwise determined to run Scouting as much as possible exactly the way they did pre-bankruptcy.  With exactly the same steady decline in membership.

OR they do change, but to something worse (marginally or massively). Something like

Quote

"We can't go back to the good old days. We need to change and adapt to the new environment."

 

[Eagle94-A1]

That's what I am worried about.

[ParkMan]

Let me get this straight.  The strategy is to complain about what we have, hope it fails, and then hope it is the replaced by an organization like you like.  If so,  I am quite certain that there is no chance this works out as you hope.

The most likely path to getting the Scouting unit you want is to be building such a unit now.  Then, when there are opportunities for change and influence, provide both. This is part of why constructive engagement is so important.  

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, ParkMan said:

Let me get this straight.  The strategy is to complain about what we have, hope it fails, and then hope it is the replaced by an organization like you like.  If so,  I am quite certain that there is no chance this works out as you hope.

The most likely path to getting the Scouting unit you want is to be building such a unit now.  Then, when there are opportunities for change and influence, provide both. This is part of why constructive engagement is so important.  

I don't hope National fails (as in "is liquidated"). I just think it something of a dichotomy between

1) Those who yearn for the "good old days" and want Scouting to go back to where it was circa 1960-something  (or 1940-something) in some "golden age". We aren't that nation anymore, the youth are not the same youth, therefore any version of scouting that tries to operate like that would be little more than anachronism and offer nothing but nostalgia for the scouters leading it and have about as much viability as an automat.

2) Those who yearn for complaining incessantly that National is screwing things up. Yes, they are. Leadership always does, if/when you gauge it against some utopian vision of what "should be". There are trade-offs. Unlike some on here I don't look at National's leadership as either a) gross incompetents or b) people actively engaged in an effort to harm scouting and individual children. I don't think Roger Mosby is either evil or a complete moron. They may have photo-shopped the horns and fangs off of his photo, but somehow I think they just were not there in the first place. National has a massive problem (well, several) that would stumble the best managerial minds. Bankruptcy? COVID? Thousands of claims of sexual abuse? Declining membership? Yeah, any one of these would hobble most volunteer organizations. Stack them on top of each other? Yeah.

If you look at National as the harbinger and bearer of "Scouting" you will be disappointed because the harbinger and bearer of "Scouting" are the scouts. If young people don't want what you are offering in the form of some retro-1940s vision of scouting or some hash or rules and obligations (which is where we are today, more or less), fix it.

If you look at National as a source for certification of your programs (which is what chartering is if you get down to it) then so long as they do that, everything else is just garbage. YPT exists not because National is stupid or evil, but because we are not where we were in the 1960s. You want to operate a youth organization today? You are getting some version of YPT. Want to yearn for the "good old days", remember those "good old days" got us thousands of abuse cases.

So no, I don't hope National fails. I hope it survives and changes for the better. But while I hope it changes, I also recognize that change can sometimes mean "justification for any harebrained thing we came up with" and "let's go backwards". Neither will work.

 

 

[David CO]

16 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Let me get this straight.  The strategy is to complain about what we have, hope it fails, and then hope it is the replaced by an organization like you like. 

No, you haven't got this straight.  We are not complaining in the hope that BSA will fail.  We are complaining because BSA has already failed us.  

[Eagle94-A1]

18 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Let me get this straight.  The strategy is to complain about what we have, hope it fails, and then hope it is the replaced by an organization like you like.  If so,  I am quite certain that there is no chance this works out as you hope.

The most likely path to getting the Scouting unit you want is to be building such a unit now.  Then, when there are opportunities for change and influence, provide both. This is part of why constructive engagement is so important.  

My strategy is to identify the current problems at the top of my voice and hope that enough people realize what is going on that it gets fixed. Kinda like what happened with the Churchill Plan. It got leaked, and there was enough outrage that several issues are "paused for consideration" and "are not moving forward with these recommendations," but " we will continue the dialog that prompted the recommendations." Although with National's history of ignoring the rank and file, how long those ideas will not move forward remains to be seen.  Making the National LFL director also in charge of Sea Scouts and Venturing looks like it is a matter of time.

[ParkMan]

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

No, you haven't got this straight.  We are not complaining in the hope that BSA will fail.  We are complaining because BSA has already failed us.  

I mean no disrespect by this, but that feels like a distinction without a difference.

Within the community here, I think open dialog and yes - complaining makes complete sense.  Express your frustrations and I'll be here to support you in that.  I think that's the benefit of a community like this. 

11 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

My strategy is to identify the current problems at the top of my voice and hope that enough people realize what is going on that it gets fixed. Kinda like what happened with the Churchill Plan. It got leaked, and there was enough outrage that several issues are "paused for consideration" and "are not moving forward with these recommendations," but " we will continue the dialog that prompted the recommendations." Although with National's history of ignoring the rank and file, how long those ideas will not move forward remains to be seen.  Making the National LFL director also in charge of Sea Scouts and Venturing looks like it is a matter of time.

The term "inside baseball" comes to mind.  By and large, most Scouts, families, and frankly - even Scouters - are not that worried about these things.  I'm a pretty with it Scouter and I've got absolutely no idea what the national professional structure that oversees the programs really is.  Where do we camp, how do we get more members, who's going to take the kids camping - these are the things that occupy most leaders minds.  At the district/council level concerns are things like - how do we get more units to our summer camp or how do we help those packs with 8 scouts get to 30+?  

You and I have had conversations about how criminal it is that your experience is not better leveraged in your district.  To me, that's my basic premise.  We need people working in Scouting in constructive roles at the district & council level to build the kinds of programs that kids want.  We cannot wait for national to make some sort of program ruling on how things work.  We need knowledgeable Scouters engaged.  Yet that engagement has to be constructive.  If you want to come over to our district, I think we'd love to have you.

 

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't hope National fails (as in "is liquidated"). I just think it something of a dichotomy between

1) Those who yearn for the "good old days" and want Scouting to go back to where it was circa 1960-something  (or 1940-something) in some "golden age". We aren't that nation anymore, the youth are not the same youth, therefore any version of scouting that tries to operate like that would be little more than anachronism and offer nothing but nostalgia for the scouters leading it and have about as much viability as an automat.

2) Those who yearn for complaining incessantly that National is screwing things up. Yes, they are. Leadership always does, if/when you gauge it against some utopian vision of what "should be". There are trade-offs. Unlike some on here I don't look at National's leadership as either a) gross incompetents or b) people actively engaged in an effort to harm scouting and individual children. I don't think Roger Mosby is either evil or a complete moron. They may have photo-shopped the horns and fangs off of his photo, but somehow I think they just were not there in the first place. National has a massive problem (well, several) that would stumble the best managerial minds. Bankruptcy? COVID? Thousands of claims of sexual abuse? Declining membership? Yeah, any one of these would hobble most volunteer organizations. Stack them on top of each other? Yeah.

If you look at National as the harbinger and bearer of "Scouting" you will be disappointed because the harbinger and bearer of "Scouting" are the scouts. If young people don't want what you are offering in the form of some retro-1940s vision of scouting or some hash or rules and obligations (which is where we are today, more or less), fix it.

If you look at National as a source for certification of your programs (which is what chartering is if you get down to it) then so long as they do that, everything else is just garbage. YPT exists not because National is stupid or evil, but because we are not where we were in the 1960s. You want to operate a youth organization today? You are getting some version of YPT. Want to yearn for the "good old days", remember those "good old days" got us thousands of abuse cases.

So no, I don't hope National fails. I hope it survives and changes for the better. But while I hope it changes, I also recognize that change can sometimes mean "justification for any harebrained thing we came up with" and "let's go backwards". Neither will work.

 

 

Remarkably well said.  Thank you for capturing it so well.

[MattR]

On 8/24/2020 at 2:36 PM, David CO said:

Some scouters sound a lot like Baghdad Bob

So you're equating optimism with propaganda? That doesn't sound right ...

3 hours ago, David CO said:

This is exactly what we disagree on.  I am almost certain that a better version of scouting would replace BSA.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. You just want to start with a clean slate. As others have pointed out that's going to take a lot of leadership. There are roughly a million volunteers involved with the BSA and in order to make this new program work you would need to convince a big chunk of them about your vision. Right now there are roughly a 100 people paying attention to this forum. You need to grow this by roughly four orders of magnitude. How are you going to do this?

I'm a lousy salesman but one thing that always helps is enthusiasm. I used to tell scouts that sometimes leadership is hard - sometimes you just have to convince yourself to be enthusiastic when everything is looking bad. The weather sucks. The fire won't start. Scouts are whining. You really just want to bag it and go home. But you're the PL so you just have to suck it up and find something to laugh about. Get a few scouts doing that and suddenly everyone has accepted the challenge. That's great leadership.

But that takes optimism. And that is where I was coming from. Sometimes we get so caught up in the weeds that we forget the basics. Cheerful and Friendly can be really hard when ashes are coming down around you (I live near fires). Right now, if you're associated with the BSA, ashes are piling up everywhere. Shouldn't we, on this forum, try and live up to the same ideal we encourage our scouts to live up to? This is more than an ideal. It's about being practical. If we can't come to agreement on a uniform then we won't come to agreement on what national should be doing even if they had enough resources. We will never all get on the same page and agree what should happen with OA, palms, eagle projects, advancement or any of the other thousands of details we argue about. So why worry about those details? How about just focusing on the very basics - like modeling Cheerful and Friendly to scouts when the ashes are poring down. I'm thinking that getting everyone on that page is more likely to have a positive impact than coming up with the perfect program.

I'm not trying to muffle anyone. If you really want to keep arguing then I won't stop you. But wisdom is focusing on what you can control and being content with the rest. National is way beyond our control. So is starting a new program. Making this forum a welcome campfire so more people participate is within our grasp.

 

 

[David CO]

5 minutes ago, MattR said:

Cheerful and Friendly can be really hard when ashes are coming down around you (I live near fires). Right now, if you're associated with the BSA, ashes are piling up everywhere. Shouldn't we, on this forum, try and live up to the same ideal we encourage our scouts to live up to?

No.  It would be totally inappropriate to behave cheerfully while talking about child sexual abuse.  It would be wrong to act in a friendly manner to the molesters or to those who helped to covered up their crimes.