Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, David CO said:

The results of Venezuelan elections are published too.

Character assassination does not make your inference correct.  I have seen the raw data and questions.  The published results represent the views of the people surveyed.  Do realize that the local councils, not national, determined who in their council would receive some of the surveys.  Just because you do not feel like this would have been the result does not mean that it is wrong.  

[yknot]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So how would you have avoided filing for Chapter 11?  If they are so bad, just let us know how to avoid the lawsuits from men who deserve compensation?  

Would you not bring adding girls up and be sued time after time in the 16 states at the time that allowed parents to determine the gender when legal opinions said that the BSA would uniformly lose those cases?

Today's young families want a single set of activities for the entire family.  Want to continue to lose the opportunity to recruit the families with girls?

Once again, if all of you had the same information as the volunteer leadership has, you would see that they are usually taking the most reasonable course of action.

- Dealt more proactively, competently, and transparently with the CSA issue

- Would have admitted girls years ago

- Would never have made an issue over transgender girls

 

[vol_scouter]

Just now, yknot said:

- Dealt more proactively, competently, and transparently with the CSA issue

- Would have admitted girls years ago

- Would never have made an issue over transgender girls

 

So you would not follow your legal advice?

You would risk losing the LDS years before (~30% of the membership)?  Risk losing other chartered organizations?

So you would continue to have outside groups slander the BSA over a non-existent transgender problem or once again anger volunteers and CO's who assumed an anti-transgender policy?

This is not an effort to argue about past decisions but to say that the leadership has been competent but our recognition of the best course of action we believe to be clearer retrospectively.  Of course, had any other course been pursued, we cannot accurately predict the outcomes.

[yknot]

7 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Character assassination does not make your inference correct.  I have seen the raw data and questions.  The published results represent the views of the people surveyed.  Do realize that the local councils, not national, determined who in their council would receive some of the surveys.  Just because you do not feel like this would have been the result does not mean that it is wrong.  

I don't think the issue was over the published results, it was how it was mishandled by BSA: 

1) The surveys were guided so that you were led into answering in ways that supported a foregone conclusion.  

2) Surbaugh and others were supposedly conducting fact finding meetings at local levels in which they assured units and parents that any such changes were pending the final results of said ongoing survey and would be implemented over time. While those meetings were still ongoing, the decision was made and girls were admitted almost immediately, breaking their promise. 

Now, I was mostly in favor of admitting girls, but the process was dishonest and created unnecessary ill will among those who were opposed. It made the transition that much more volatile than it needed to be. We lost people who, if the process had been allowed to proceed organically and in concert with what BSA was promising, possibly would have gotten used to the idea and would have stayed. Just look at all the scouters now who say they initially opposed admitting girls but are now strong advocates for opening the program to them. 

[yknot]

4 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So you would not follow your legal advice?

You would risk losing the LDS years before (~30% of the membership)?  Risk losing other chartered organizations?

So you would continue to have outside groups slander the BSA over a non-existent transgender problem or once again anger volunteers and CO's who assumed an anti-transgender policy?

This is not an effort to argue about past decisions but to say that the leadership has been competent but our recognition of the best course of action we believe to be clearer retrospectively.  Of course, had any other course been pursued, we cannot accurately predict the outcomes.

BSA should never have allowed LDS to create a program within a program. They should have been welcomed, as any other CO, to participate in the BSA sanctioned scouting program. It gave LDS undue influence and skewed BSA decision making and leadership into increasingly fraught religious based social controversies. Scouting never should have become a Sunday school program for COs of any denomination. COs should have been given leeway within the confines of the program to adapt as much as possible to their local wishes but scouting should have remained true to scouting -  a game for boys.  And now girls. 

[vol_scouter]

@yknot  CSE Surbaugh was honest and forthright.  He did as he said.  The BSA sent surveys to the LC's because the BSA in the past has let the LC do the majority of communications with the volunteers.  Some LCs only supplied the survey to the K3, some only to the EC, some to the EB, and some to everyone in the council.  National was not in control.  The results were not even close.  

[vol_scouter]

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

BSA should never have allowed LDS to create a program within a program. They should have been welcomed, as any other CO, to participate in the BSA sanctioned scouting program. It gave LDS undue influence and skewed BSA decision making and leadership into increasingly fraught religious based social controversies. Scouting never should have become a Sunday school program for COs of any denomination. COs should have been given leeway within the confines of the program to adapt as much as possible to their local wishes but scouting should have remained true to scouting -  a game for boys.  And now girls. 

So in 1913 you would have turned down an opportunity for significant growth?  I agree that the LDS influences on the BSA was not always in the best interests of the BSA but in 1913 growth was immediate and those problems likely were not seen.  Churches became the majority CO's when PTA's (PTO's) withdrew following CSE Ben Love making a no gay policy for the BSA.

[yknot]

7 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@yknot  CSE Surbaugh was honest and forthright.  He did as he said.  The BSA sent surveys to the LC's because the BSA in the past has let the LC do the majority of communications with the volunteers.  Some LCs only supplied the survey to the K3, some only to the EC, some to the EB, and some to everyone in the council.  National was not in control.  The results were not even close.  

I worked in survey design in both politics and marketing. The BSA survey on girls in scouting was guided. You could not answer certain questions objectively. Most of the responses were gated and led you into another question that would push you towards an affirmative response. It doesn't matter whether the survey went to K-3 or rank and file. The results were skewed. Even if you don't believe that, there was no defense for not following the promised process and timeline. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by yknot

[yknot]

Just now, vol_scouter said:

So in 1913 you would have turned down an opportunity for significant growth?  I agree that the LDS influences on the BSA was not always in the best interests of the BSA but in 1913 growth was immediate and those problems likely were not seen.  Churches became the majority CO's when PTA's (PTO's) withdrew following CSE Ben Love making a no gay policy for the BSA.

I'm not sure what you're asking. BSA was always in control of its program. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Where is Mosby?  If I were leading an organization through bankruptcy, I would be doing weekly video updates.

I'll agree. What I DISagreed with previously was that idea someone came up with Q and A. There lies danger. Every time Mosby speaks anything and everything has to be cleared with lawyers. Did you see his NAM presentation? It looked like a hostage video: he was CLEARLY reading cue cards or notes. A pre-recorded video can be cleared with counsel. A live Q and A not so much.

[Eagle94-A1]

40 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The survey results about girls were published.  Every group was ~75% or higher in favor of having a program for girls with Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA being single gender.  As I recall, the OA was closer to 90%.  Regardless, all groups were very pro adding girls.

Could you please post where I can find that info, because I cannot find anything on MEMBERS (emphasis) results.  I do know yhe non-member polls are similar to what you posted, if not identical.

[vol_scouter]

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm not sure what you're asking. BSA was always in control of its program. 

The BSA was competing with many other Scout organizations until it was awarded a congressional charter in 1916.  Part of gaining the charter was its size.  

[CynicalScouter]

42 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

In my discourse, I noted that volunteers need to control their nominating committee if it is not getting the nominees that the council needs.

Here the thing: who selects the nominating committee? EXISTING BOARD. Or what they do (and my district and council did this a long time in the bad old days of the 2010s) is announce "nominations are open" only to existing board members. Well, guess who gets to be nominated? The board members and their buddies. And again, my council is pay-to-play so you best bring a checkbook to that nominating committee.

[CynicalScouter]

39 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So how would you have avoided filing for Chapter 11?  If they are so bad, just let us know how to avoid the lawsuits from men who deserve compensation?  

I'll agree with you here 100%. Chapter 11 was a done deal when states started to open their SoLs. There was no way to stop that train.

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here the thing: who selects the nominating committee? EXISTING BOARD. Or what they do (and my district and council did this a long time in the bad old days of the 2010s) is announce "nominations are open" only to existing board members. Well, guess who gets to be nominated? The board members and their buddies. And again, my council is pay-to-play so you best bring a checkbook to that nominating committee.

I have no other solution except to move to my council.