New Chief Scout Executive

Roy Williams, Chief Scout Executive since 2000, has retired and will be succeeded by Robert (Bob) Mazzuca.

Roy Williams presided over an embattled BSA and had little more to say other than he was going to stick to his guns. Leadership is more than doggedly holding fast to a position - it is also a process of consensus building, reflection and listening. I believe, as do others, that William's intractable stance is, at least partially, responsible for the precipitous drop in membership over the past seven years. Perhaps there has been enough of a drop at this point that his successor will revisit our discriminatory policies.

When we most needed an open, frank dialog about our collective future. Our national leadership, with Williams at the helm, saw any discussion of its decisions as an attack. Their response was cold and mechanical - they simply dismissed or threatened dissenting individuals, units and Councils. Perhaps our new leadership will find a better way to deal with dissent. Perhaps they will recognize the corrosive, immoral effect of discrimination and lead by bringing it to an end.

Our new executive officer should encourage dialog within our own organization at the most basic levels. He should not be reluctant to test every aspect of the program, structure and direction of the B.S.A. against the simple promises we extend to the youth we serve. Healthy organizations thrive on the process of vigorous reviews that end policies and procedures no longer serving its goals and strengthening those that do.

Looking at things from the top down is important - but seeing things from the bottom up is equally so. Looking from the inside out and the outside in are quite different too. Hopefully we have named a Chief Scout Executive with the fortitude to take a hard, honest look at things from all perspectives.

I realize that some of you reading this will not see this as I do. Most recently I have been accused of being unfaithful to the BSA because I disagree with its discriminatory practices. I have been told that I should leave the movement, that I don't belong, that I am a traitor, that I should start a new organization

I don't want to destroy the BSA, I don't even want to change your mind . I simply want to advocate we develop the positive potential within our own creed. That we decentralize the decisions over who can and can't lead scouts to where it belongs; in the hands of local people.

The founding principles of our nation: the peaceful tolerance of many systems of thought and the freedom to express ideas,  finds no clearer  expression than the scout oath and law. Let's live up to that incredible potential for good

Comments

[Dave]

I read through the article "A Turning Point in Atlanta" in September's "Scouting Magazine", and was initially stunned at the positive spin put on the tenure of Roy Williams. While there is no doubt that Roy has done many positive things for Scouting, he's also done some negative things as well. The record should account for all results.

As adult Scouting leaders, I would hope that we would also follow Scouting Oath and Law. To that end, I'd like to see a format of data reporting that's closer to a yearly financial report by a public company. In addition to the financial health of the National Org, I'd like to see actual counts of participants, broken down by category (tiger cubs, cubs, webelos, Boy Scouts, etc) as of the end of the fiscal year (I'd also like to see this number as a % of the total population of these age-groups in the U.S. just to see how we're trending as a % of total possible). It appears to me that the editors of this periodical are playing around with the stats, at least wrt the reporting end-dates of participants. Let's have clear visibility into the health of this organization!

On a related point, it appears that we had a budget surplus of $62.5MM for the last seven years. Is this because we have a lower number of participants overall, and thus lower costs? Is this money going to be given to local councils to offset the loss of revenue we have enjoyed from United Way?

Leadership should include time for reflection on results, and change when the results are less than they ought to be. Let's also get sharp on the reporting of results so we can all work together to address those places where we need to be better!

Assistant Scoutmaster somewhere out West.

[Saundra]

I salute you, and all the Scoutmasters like you, and I hope this is an era of change. When I was a girl (yes, a girl!) scouting was one of my favorite activities. We lived in a poor, vaguely defined suburb and there were no Girl Scout troops- the Boy Scouts let me participate as an unofficial member.

I learned so much and gained so much confidence from the Scouts, it was with a very heavy heart that I chose not to enroll my son in Cub Scouts. How could I possibly fund and support an institution that had gone from wonderfully inclusive in my childhood, to going to court to maintain the right to discriminate? I hope things change, because all people have value, and I'd like it if, perhaps, one day my grandson could enjoy all the exciting opportunities only the Scouts can offer.

[Phil]

I have a son nearing his Eagle. I help the troop in minor ways. But I attend with my son and listen. I hope Scouting does not change. I favor a belief in God and it is one reason I support my son's desire to stay with scouts. I also believe scouts should not open itself to the homosexual community. I have watched our troops membership climb and it does so without sexuality having a place in scouts. First the athesists, then the gays have put the organization under attack. They have effectively blocked United Way funding in many areas and are actively trying to bar the scouts from using public space. After watching and listening I don't understand why gays get a free pass in attacking kids. Athesists and gays have their vision of the society they wish to create. This used to be called an agenda. But now they attack anyone who says they have an agenda. Truth is, as I see it, is that they want religion removed from public view and control of what is taught to children by society. It is not a great leap of logic to see why they want kids. If they control the children they control society.

Scouting has always been tolorant. It used to be "don't ask don't tell" even among adults who worked for scouting. But now people want to parade and advocate. This has no place in scouting.

[Adam Rakunas]

"Scouting has always been tolorant[sic]."

Ahem: (http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/2781/The_Black_Boy_Scout_a_history___)

I'm an Eagle Scout, and I have no idea if I'd want my sons to become Scouts. How can I support an organization that teaches boys to be morally straight, yet has discrimination built into it? How can I teach my boys to be courteous and kind when the national office says their friends with gay parents aren't worthy of being leaders?

Thanks for posting this. I hope this new exec does a better job.

[Steve]

This post has brought a lot of old feelings flooding back. I echo Adam above: I'm an Eagle Scout, joined the BSA as a Tiger Cub, and am truly indebted to the organization for shaping who I am today more than anything beyond my family. If I have strength of character, I believe I owe much of it to the BSA.

I'm also a gay rights activist and ally since high school (love the rainbow knot on your uniform!) and am conflicted as to whether I will want my (notional) son(s) to join an organization that so backwardly advocates intolerance and misunderstanding as opposed to Christian ideas of love, acceptance, and humble goodwill (I'm also a Christian who will go toe-to-toe with Biblical arguments against homosexuality, but that's a comment for a different blog).

It's great news that the BSA is getting a new Executive, and I also hope he will bring the organization into the 21st century (or even the latter half of the 20th) and make it a welcoming place for some of the most vulnerable boys: young gays coming to terms with their sexuality and self-identity in a persistently hateful culture.

I disagree, however, that this is something that should be left to the troop or council level: the BSA needs to not just open itself to tolerance but needs to embrace and accept. The BSA nurtured and supported this straight white boy for 11 years, and I think anything short of explicitly welcoming policies for boys from all walks of life (and all sexual identities) will continue to leave so many others out.

Maybe that's too much to ask of us, but for me that's a hallmark of the scouting experience: living up to great demands. I don't think there's anything more important than making the BSA an organization that is loving and welcoming to the least and most abused of its membership - the true Christian message.

In regards to Phil's "sexual agnosticism" argument above - which I once had violently shouted at me by a father at a friend's Eagle project - I don't buy it. Every corner of the organization oozes heteronormativity. "Don't ask don't tell" is a cultural punch line, and to insinuate otherwise is a good way to get laughed out of most any room.

Again, thanks so much for posting this, and I feel lucky to have stumbled upon your blog. I'll start reading regularly.

[I got here via MetaFilter]

[Fred Goodwin]

You're not the first to attribute the decline in BSA membership to its membership policies. But before you leap to any conclusions, I suggest you consider the situation of Scouts Canada.

Scouts Canada has a more open membership policy that BSA in that it does not specifically exclude gays or girls (although I believe they still exclude atheists), yet their membership has dropped even more precipitously than has BSA's.

If you blame BSA's membership decline on its policies, how do you explain Scots Canada's even greater decline with a more open policy?

[Louisville Scoutmaster]

I pray that our new leadership will maintain the traditional values of scouting.

The homosexual community, interestingly, screams for tolerance as long as one accepts their views. But if one has fundamental differences in belief than one is branded and attacked by them.