The national office has several volunteer committees. Information on them is a closely guarded secret, evidenced by their terrible transparency scores.
Transparency is essential to assure these committees are useful. The raison d’etre of a national committee is to serve the base. But we don’t know if this is happening. The NESA Committee is permitting its cynical yearbook hustle. And a mysterious committee may be behind the specious coed ban. Finally, trusted sources affirm that many committees are just puppets of bureaucrats.
If these committees really serve Scouting, they should have nothing to hide. Who is on them and what they do needs to be open.
Key information on committees is provided here, along with a transparency score. We have to drive those transparency scores up!
The committees
As of September 2023, this is a partial list of national’s volunteer committees. More committees and information on them will be added as become aware of them.
Each committee has a transparency score, explained at bottom. All committees need to get to an A!
Do you have information? Sent it to transparency@scoutingmaverick.com.
National Cub Scouting Committee: F
| Category | Score |
| Present on national website | 0 |
| Member list | 0 |
| Contact info | 0 |
| Charge | 0 |
| Accomplishments | 0 |
| Artifacts | 0 |
Various sources confirm the existence of this committee (example 1, example 2). It has been around since at least 2003 (source).
National Scouts BSA Committee: F
| Category | Score |
| Present on national website | 0 |
| Member list | 0 |
| Contact info | 0 |
| Charge | 0 |
| Accomplishments | 0 |
| Artifacts | 0 |
Various sources confirm the existence of this committee (example 1).
National Venturing Committee: D+
| Category | Score |
| Present on national website | 60 |
| Member list | 7 |
| Contact info | 2 |
| Charge | 0 |
| Accomplishments | 0 |
| Artifacts | 0 |
National Order of the Arrow Committee: D
| Category | Score |
| Present on national website | 60 |
| Member list | 5 |
| Contact info | 0 |
| Charge | 2 |
| Accomplishments | 0 |
| Artifacts | 0 |
Partial credit given for the committee’s historical information being openly shared. It paints a partial story of its charge.
NESA National Committee: D
| Category | Score |
| Present on national website | 60 |
| Member list | 5 |
| Contact info | 2 |
| Charge | 0 |
| Accomplishments | 0 |
| Artifacts | 0 |
Mentions of a “NESA National Committee” seem to correlate to what NESA describes as its leadership. Alternately, it may be that the NESA leadership are merely a subcommittee of the BSA Alumni Association Committee.
I am going to be charitable and assume the NESA leadership is a committee. The membership and roles are public. Beyond that, it’s difficult to find information.
National Camp Accreditation Program (NCAP) national committee: D+
| Category | Score |
| Present on national website | 60 |
| Member list | 3 |
| Contact info | 5 |
| Charge | 0 |
| Accomplishments | 0 |
| Artifacts | 0 |
Partial credit given for member list because it’s buried at the end of a periodic document. While a member list is more prominently on the website, it is obsolete.
Explanation of categories
Present on national website: Has a robust presence on a website controlled by the national organization. A glancing mention does not count.
Member list: The names of all the committee’s members.
Contact info: The individual contact info of the committee’s members.
Charge: The point of this committee and what it controls or governs. This is important because it makes clear to all, even to that committee, what its point is and what control it has. This will help some committees overcome their passivity. This is not a mission statement! Mission statements are stupid, bureaucratic exercises. This is rather a clear and unambiguous statement of what the committee is supposed to do and what powers it has.
Accomplishments: This is a list of what this committee has done to make things better for its area of concern. For example, if the National Scouts BSA Committee was to navigate a path beyond the the specious, toxic coed ban, it could list that as an accomplishment.
Artifacts: These are customary committee materials, such as agendas and minutes. This may exclude confidential matters covered in an executive session, although those generally should occupy only a small portion of a committee’s time.
Transparency score
The transparency score is the familiar ABCDF system with C and D being even more charitable than customary:
| Grade | Score |
| A | 90-100 |
| B | 80-89 |
| C | 70-79 |
| D | 60-69 |
| F | 0-59 |
60 points are awarded if there is a robust presence on a website controlled by the national office. Without this presence, it’s as if you skipped class: the score is an automatic F.
No points awarded for non-public information. Points deducted for difficult-to-access or incomplete information.
How some categories are scored (partial credit is given where merited):
- Member list:
- It exists and shows all members: 4 points
- Shows roles for each member: 3 points
- Contact information for each member: 5 points (as consolation prize, award 2 points if only a “contact us” feature exists)
- Committee charge: 10 points
- Comprehensive list of committee accomplishments: 4 points
- Customary committee artifacts, mainly minutes and agendas: 14 points
Do these committees even matter?
My sources consistently share that national committees, especially the program committees, are usually perfunctory. It’s due to a few factors, such as stacking committees with passive members who are deferent to bureaucrats or the committee being invested in the national organization’s cultural rot.