jkhny

Compensation for Nonprofit CEOs in the US: Where the Donation Buck Stops (1/31/03) By Marie Michael, OP, Adrian Dominican Sisters In a 2000 survey of nonprofits, the median CEO compensation, including cash benefits, was $75,000. The salaries above the median, however, bring the excesses in CEO pay to light. Predictably, the larger the organization, the more robust the CEO pay - and the more money diverted away from programs. In June 2001, the St. Petersburg Times reported that the CEO of Neighborly Senior Services was paid $162,000 - well above the $82,600 cap imposed by the state of Florida on nonprofits receiving government funds. "We're not driven by the dollars, we're not driven by profits, we're driven by the mission," the CEO told the Times. But while he was requesting reimbursements for extravagant expenses (dinner at Philadelphia's exclusive LeBec-Fin Restaurant, for $164.46), the agency was laying off over 100 workers because of "budget woes." The worst offenders are large foundations, hospital systems and universities. In the Chronicle of Philanthropy 2000 Salary Survey, median CEO pay in the top 215 privately-funded nonprofits stood at $200,000-$300,000. Sixty of those organizations had allocated over $400,000 annually to CEOs, and the top six had handed over more than $1 million apiece. In 1999, Catholic Healthcare West, operating 47 hospitals, poured out $2.1 million on just two employees. Charitable to Whom? The term "nonprofit" covers 27 different categories of organizations. At one time, nonprofits were viewed as charities that helped poor people and relieved suffering, but that is not the reality today. The National Rifle Association Foundation and the Massachusetts-based engineering defense contractor, Mitre Corporation are nonprofits, and not charities. And, groups that traditionally have served the poor are shifting services. In an exhaustive survey of human service organizations, nonprofit expert Lester Salamon found that 53% had few or no poor clients, and only 27% focused their mission on the poor. One example of this shift in service is the YMCA, a former source of refuge for inner-city homeless people and poor travelers, turned spa/health club provider. Economist David Wagner reports that, when the Philadelphia Y sold its residence halls - evicting 300 people - it received $13 million, all of it tax-exempt. "Renting rooms is no longer part of the Y mission," said the Y's president, in announcing the multimillion-dollar renovation of the Central Branch. "Our emphasis today is health enhancement." Distributive Justice Increasingly, nonprofit boards search the for-profit sector for CEOs, pushing up nonprofit CEO compensation. Between 1990 and 2000, for-profit executive pay skyrocketed by 571% - towering 531 times above the average worker's pay, according to a joint study by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy (UFE). What would be a more just salary for nonprofit CEOs? UFE, University of California economist John Isbister, and others propose a salary ratio of 8:1. Based on that ratio, if the lowest-paid employee earned the minimum wage - $10,712 per year - the highest-paid employee would earn $85,696. If a nonprofit wanted to pay the CEO more, it would have to lift up those on the bottom in order to do so - a true rising tide that lifts all boats! But as Isbister points out, "If we are to have any chance of moving in the direction of a just income distribution, government intervention is the main tool we have." Caveat Emptor! Where is your donation dollar going? To find out, go to www.guidestar.org and review any organization's Form 990, listing the top five compensations. Another helpful resource is Robin Hood Was Right: A Guide to Giving Your Money for Social Change, which identifies foundations that work to tip the power scale in favor of a decent living for all people and are demanding "change, not charity" in working to eradicate the conditions that create the need for charity in the first place! Sources: www.guidestar.org The Chronicle of Philanthropy 2000 Salary Survey, http://philanthropy.com Chuck Collins and Pam Rogers, with Joan P. Garner, Robin Hood was Right: A Guide to Giving Your Money for Social Change (W.W. Norton, 2000). John Hawks, For a Good Cause: How Charitable Institutions Become Powerful Economic Bullies (Carol Publishing Group, 1007). Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, "Executive Excess 2001," 8th Annual CEO Compensation Survey (Aug. 28, 2001). www.ufenet.org/press/2001/EE2001.pdf John Isbister, Capitalism and Justice: Envisioning Social and Economic Fairness (Kumarian Press, 2001). Steven Langer, Compensation of Chief Executive Officers in Nonprofit Organizations, 13th ed. (Abbott, Langer & Associates, Inc., Oct 2000). Lester Salamon, America's Nonprofit Sector (Foundation Center, 1999). The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, "Nonprofit Fact Sheets," http://nccs.urban.org David Wagner, What's Love Got to Do with It? A Critical Look at American Charity (New Press, 2000). © 2003 Center for Popular Economics

The more this happens the worse Scouting's image gets and the MORE people WON'T let their kids join and WON'T become volunteers themselves. Again, it is time to deal with this ongoing NATIONAL problem. If it's happening all over, on a recurring and regular basis (and it IS recurring and regular) the problem has NOT been solved. "Youth Protection" in BSA is a great program - in theory. In practice - has everyone already forgotten about who was running it? Pedophilia is the gorilla in the room that NOBODY wants to talk about. While other parts of the country may have adults clammering to be Scout Leaders that isn't the case in the sururbs of NY. Part is "lifestyle" - Are't many parents that want to spend a weekend in a tent and hit the 7:37 into Penn Station. Try to find a Den leader willing to take on 8 kids once a week. Part is philosophic - their kids may want to be Scouts and do fun stuff but they have issues with policy (lost a couple good den leaders over the gay issue). There are basic problems with Scouting in large Urban areas and their surroundings that need to be addressed. It seems from reports that this person did NOT have kids in the unit. A notorious case occurred in NYC a few years back with the same thing. NO kid - that alone SHOULD have rasied some warning flags to "the Committee" but I'll bet that "the Committee" was a bunch of parent's names filled in on a form with a few marginally involved but not paying real close attention. They were penned in to meet BSA "requirements" In some cases parents are desperate for ANYONE to "run" their unit. It's "too much work" for any of them and they're more than glad if someone walks in the door and volunteers to take over. You want to take my kid camping in the woods - fine. This situation was behind the worst cases detailed by Boyle in his book on the topic. Yes, unit committees and their chair are supposed to check backgrounds and all. But maybe some real oversight is needed. Maybe the paid guys need to do more than show up once a year to ask for money. If a DE actually visited a unit meeting and SAW the situation once or twice a year, that would be a real change here. Is it well run or kids running amok? Enough adults around or only one or two? Get a real feel for what Scouting is in a unit - not mindless "statistics" Take on some responsibility. Commissioners are supposed to do that. "Our Commissioner Corp is strong" - with a ton of vacancies listed on the same page. Our local commissioner doesn't even live here for much of the year. BSA procedures and rules presuppose a level of adult involvement that is often NOT seen. The procedures are great and perfect in theory but they do not represent a real situation for many units. If rigorously enforced, BSA's own rules on unit staffing and higher level oversight would result in many folding. It is easy to say "Rules were not followed" but the rules SHOULD reflect what is likely to be found and be workable in that reality. Frankly, I doubt that you can run Scouting as required, complying with all rules and regulations around here. "Two-deep" and a roster of required positions are - from my experience - not possible in far too many circumstances. So you are presented with a dilemma - run a program and cope or issue an ultimatum - "participate" or the unit dies. Newsflash- the unit will die. There are more than enough other less demanding options for parents looking to dump their kids off for some "activity." ANd gentle "persuasion" seems only to produce short time disiinterested leaders who do little beyond disillusioning kids about Scouting. So who's to blame? Uninvolved parents? Leadership? BSA itself? There's a combination of factors at work here. But BSA has NOT made itself appealing to a wide range of adults and is in fact making things harder for the dedicated Scouters who want to run a good program. BSA is losing adult volunteer leaders at an alarming rate - why? Too many units literally ARE willing to accept anyone who walks in the door (and that HAS been documented in other cases if not true here). "More rules" is not a solution when the rules are written for a world that does NOT exist. It's hard enough to follow the existing rules. So, parents have to take responsibility - but aren't some of the boys we have in Scouting, ones that really NEED Scouting there BECAUSE their ParenT (one - usually single mother) is trying to do the best they can for their kid but is overwhelmed already? We've got them. As far as the affluent and uninvolved, their kids need sone self-discipline, ethics and morals MORE than the less advantaged kids. Their parents are oblivious and often go days without seeing their kids. We've got them too. And too many parents may complain about this and that but sure aren't going to take your place. ON hard issues they defer to the leaders already in place. So, who takes responsibility when parents don't? How about the chartered organization? A church is likely to pay attention but what if the Methodists are now the CO for what used to be the Reform Synagogue Troop? (a case here - the Synagouge dropped over the gay issue) The church doesn't know the leaders. And as noted, few CO's pay attention anyway. Our CO barely knows us - they chartered us in 191? and we haven't met there since 199? If you have good existing leadership, they work to maintain it. But what happens when nobody wants to keep things going? You can't force people to join Scouting. And honestly - even some of the dedicated ones are getting a bit embarassed by it now. Scouting's image - especially locally - needs some work. And if you have a marginal unit to start with, is anyone really paying attention? Instead of focusing on adding boys, BSA might be better served by adding qualified and good adult volunteers first. AND retaining the ones they have. In the mean time stop blaming local units and chartering organizations for "not checking" enough and take on some real responsibility here. Maybe staff should be doing more than sending an application to some service who runs a computer check. Has a DE ever called to check references on a volunteer leader? Like the application is going to list BAD ones (though we've had that happen - HIM? I wouldn't leave MY kid with HIM.) Or as noted -actually VISIT meetings now and then and see what's going on. You may not be able to spot a pedophile but there are clear warning signs visible in the worst cases. ANd an added benefit might be a better overall Scout program. For the record: NOT all volunteers in Scouting without kids are pedophiles. One of our Council's legends was a teacher and 40 year Scoutmaster. Apparently he and his wife never (coundn't?) have kids but his life was dedicated to them. But his profile is suspiciously like a number of pedophile/Scoutleaders (wasn't another just arrested in AZ?) A local pillar of Scouting here was a bachelor and the Assistant Scoutmaster for decades. MY Scoutmaster was a 30 something guy who loved the outdoors and enjoyed it more with company. I think he'd been in Scouting but can't tell you what his motivation was. As a kid I never really thought about it. He was a cool guy, demanding but fair. Learned alot from him.

Now, now, let's not get personal.... I have raised what I - and others - believe are valid and serious issues. Most of those I know feel that it is pointless to even raise these concerns within Scouting. They have already "given up." I have higher hopes for BSA. I have laid out MORE facts and figures than you are likely to get from BSA itself on most of the issues I have raised. Challenged, I have backed up my assertations. "Appropriate" compensation levels have been a topic for regular discussion in non-profit circles under the "ethical and moral" behavior heading. Mr. Williams salary is and should be a topic of concern. It is clear that he is HIGHLY paid by any number of standards. His level and manner of compensation reflect issues that have been under criticism in the non-profit world. Having presented more facts than Bob appears to want - and facts that do not support HIS pov, he now ignores them. BSA is by many standards SMALL and ill-run but its head is VERY well compensated. IS money best spent on executives in National or District Executives? That is a valid question. Feel free to expres your opinion and explain your logic. Girl Scouts may not be a perfect comparison but the numbers do provide numbers for a starting point in discussions. Yet there ahs been no real focus on the numbers. I believe that the behavior shown towards my posts makes my case that BSA needs reform. BSA - and its staunchest defenders - do not want to refute facts. IF unable to refute a fact, attack or cast aspersions on the source. They do not want any questioning (some would have ANY questioner silenced - which BSA itself has done). They prefer that things NOT be open and transparent. Volunteers are supposed to be mindlessly obedient. BSA has made great efforts to push out those who question what occurs. Why won't it answer our questions? Where is the accountability? I have laid out a premise - There are serious problems in BSA - worse locally in some places than others. However There are clear faillures in National leadership that have allowed local problems to exist and grow - and set a tone and corporate culture inappropriate for all Scouting claims to represent. There are clear warning signs indicative of problems: Overpaid executives, decling membership, faked "success," unresponsive and even autocratic and incompetent leadership. A focus on covering up problems instead of preventing fixing them. Instead of proving the individual assertions wrong - the argument is that these are minor, not representative, ANY organization has problems, etc. Clear black and white issues are ignored. A Scout is trustworthy. He does not lie. Should a paid staffer lie about membership numbers - for ANY reason? If a volunteer can be removed for "misrepresentation" why not a paid staffer who should be expected to set an example? If they have done so - why haven't they been removed? Just why is Ronnie Holmes still employed by BSA? If volunteers do vote down candidates for an Executive Board, why arent their wishes respected and bylaws followed? Should BSA and its paid professionals have to follow the Scout law and this organization's own rules, regulations and procedures? What should the consequences be for not doing so? SHOULD an organization whose mission is instilling "moral and ethical" behavior in boys tolerate ANY failures to show such behavior by its own leadership? Scouting is something that I care deeply about. I would not waste my time and effort raising these issues otherwise. I cannot explain to my youngest son why the place he waited his life to go to for camp is no longer open. I have NO justification for why the place I and my oldest son learned lifesaving is now shutterred and up for sale. I cannot explain why our District Pinewood Derby runoff was such a fiasco. We have avoided other events to prevent such disappointment. Scouting here is a mess and the reason is clear. We all know why. The consensus is clear but we can do nothing about it. Events elsewhere confirm the impossibility of real change. Paid staff treat BSA like a personal feifdom and see NO reason to be accountable or transparent to the volunteer members of BSA. Scouting here IS FAILING. THAT is a fact. The fact that this situation can exist in even ONE Council (though it also exists in others) shows a failure of National leadership. You do not leave failing, unethical leadership in place if you want Scouting to survive or mean anything. Mindlessly defending words often shows clear ignorance of their meaning. Agree or disagree - it is your right. It is your right to ignore me as well.

This article - from 2001 - (sent to me by another who seems to have wondered about all this) puts Williams compensation THEN at the TOP of the category Boy Scouts was in. And it went up substantially fromm 2001 to 2003 and has undoubtedly gone up more since. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2001_Wntr/ai_69411632 "Are nonprofit CEOs overpaid? Public Interest, Wntr, 2001 by Peter Frumkin Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It's free! Save it. THE nonprofit sector has acquired a black eye in recent years. Financial scandals at the United Way, NAACP, Adelphi University, and the Baptist and Presbyterian Churches have shaken public confidence in the stewardship of charitable organizations. As money flows in and out of nonprofit organizations at record levels, the question of how much their CEOs should earn has become a major issue. One recent survey of compensation levels in 246 large nonprofit organizations found that the average salary was $207,990. Twenty-five CEOs earned more than $400,000; 114 earned between $200,000 and $399,999; 77 earned between $100,000 and $199,999; and 30 earned less than $100,000. At the high end in their respective fields were the president of Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ($1,077,500), the president of the University of Pennsylvania ($529,677), the CEO of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation ($389,327), the general director of the San Francisco Opera ($425,000), the executive director of the American Olympic Committee ($483,665), and the Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of America ($388,845). At many of the organizations, an employee other than the CEO was the highest compensated, including the chairman of the cardiothoracic surgery department at Cornell University ($1,731,922), the football coach for the University of Southern California ($750,000), and the music director of the National Symphony Orches tra ($829,916). As a whole, salaries in the nonprofit sector rose slightly faster last year than those in the business sector, reflecting the belief that charities need to "catch up" with what for-profit firms pay their leaders."

"Volunteers outnumber professional by over 100 to 1. Wouldn't raising the quality of volunteers have a much greater impact on the program? " Can't argue with THAT logic. All of what is wrong IS the fault of volunteers because we let it happen. Now please head up to Chicago and help them get the leadership they voted DOWN out of their positions. They've done everything as they should - behaved as nice Scouts and overcome impossible rules to succeed in ousting their leadership but the leadership there won't leave. No point in adding to the list..... I notice you've avoided any response to the FACTS on Williams' compensation. But then a real "Leader" is priceless - right? Unthinking "obedience", blind allegiance to any "cause" without ever examining what that "cause" is about (and whether that "cause" is being well served by its adherents) explains some of the worst episodes in human history. Your own words make my case for reform stronger than mine. Further rhetoric and semantic arguuments are pointless. Time will tell if my points are well taken or the ravings of a lunatic.

"Why are some Councils suffering? Lack of leadership and bad management. Failure to replace SE's who continue to fail to get results because they are arrogantly ineffective at motivating and working with volunteers." Exactly. And the original "motivation" that pushed me beyong a focus on my own units. But the problem it that you CAN'T get rid of a bad one. BSA has rigged the system. You DON'T have any voice or control as a volunteer. It's not bad if you have a good SE and Board but if not..... SE's get in and choose their own Boards - the only group that can remove them. After a couple years in place, they CAN and often DO have full control. SE's do have limited length contracts but can and DO get them renewed by hand-picked Boards. Upstate NY has one small Council whose ONLY purpose seems to be to provide a job for the SE there. He's wrecked the Council, thrown people out even refused to renew the charter of a Troop whose leaders were vocal critics. With no free desks in Supply, this guy is going to hold onto his spot forever. The Board is now his buddies. He'll drive every last volunteer out of Scouting there before you get rid of him. Our SE here is following the same pattern. So have others. We can't get him out BEFORE his contract expires - and are deathly afraid he ain't gonna want to leave (or having screwed up two Councils, isn't wanted anywhere else) And forget voting them out with COR's. Once an autocratic Little Napoleon gets in and established, surrounded by personally chosen lackeys....he'll die there. How can this happen? Because such SE's make up the rules as they go along. District Chairman are off the Board. Nominating Committees are hand ppicked and THE slate has to be approved by the existing Board. An "Executive Committeee" can act in place of the full Board. Chicago shows this all clearly. The leadership there HAS been voted OUT - two slates have been voted down. But others can't run and they won't leave. How can that happen????? Why does BSA let it happen? And shouldn't the same terms above: " give him/her 3 years to achieve goals legally and honorably. If he fails to deliver, replace him and start over." Shouldn't that apply to NATIOAL? Failing leadership should be removed - but lot's of luck doing so. Does anyone really believe National is meeting their self-professed goals of growing SCOUTING? They can't even put a brake on the exodus. YOUR Council may be fine, but be sure about the numbers they're claiming. Ever see any District or Council detail reports? Who are they claiming? And if your Council has more kids in LFL than Scouting, WHY? What's the focus - pumping numbers and getting $ or supporting Scouting? But no matter how good YOUR Council is, even the official NATIONAL numbers show that Scouting membership is on a real slide. The purpose of my posts is to raise ALL these issues and get people talking about the FACTS - which I HAVE provided in detail. You'd drown if I put up a detailed analysis of National numbers but they show real drops and clear "manipulation". Look at the Williams salary numbers and the comparisons. Sorry, that's real hard to justify and BSA has been less that transparent about salaries and anything else. BSA in NOT open and transparent about ANYTHING. And it seems like they have a lot to hide. But a knee-jerk defense of BSA does not help Scouting. What IS the purpose of BSA? and is it succeeding at that purpose? IS it serving and supporting its volunteers? In most Councils it is, but in a significant number (10-20%) it is not. And the problem goes back to the national leadership who are NOT doing a good job. They set the tone. A culture focused on superficial goals that stifles any valid questioning or attempts at change should have no place in Scouting. Scouting deserves better leadership than it has - especially for what we're paying - and WE all are the ones paying. Scouting - at all levels - should have the paid leadership its volunteers deserve.

Williams is doing VERY well even without the deferred compensation - and keep in mind that he's in Irving Texas, NOT NY, Chicago or LA. 2003 Williams Recap - $433,830 salary, $10,336 auto, $11,026 Life Insur $23,127 contr to pension and $434,874 deferred compensation His salary is far above the average cited below for non-profits(which includes some very well paid foundation heads) and he received a 12% increase in 2003 (three times the average increase noted below). And what kind of raise did YOU get in 2003? I bet Williams' $45,039 - salary increase alone - is more than some volunteers earn in a year. TOTAL compensation went up by 25% - $183,599 and I KNOW that's more than the average Scouter earns. Putting things in perspective, in response to all the comments about "responsibilities" - All but one of the National CONGRESSIONAL leadership of the US doesn't earn NOW what the INCREASE in Williams' compensation was from 2002 to 2003. Senate Leadership Majority Leader - $175,600 Minority Leader - $175,600 House Leadership Speaker of the House - $203,000 Majority Leader - $175,600 Minority Leader - $175,600 Regarding NON-Profits, From the Chronicle of Philanthropy: http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v15/i24/24002701.htm In 2003: A point made at the end of this article is appropriate: " Gary D. Bass, executive director of Focus Project, better known as OMB Watch, a Washington advocacy group, also expresses concern about the trend in nonprofit salaries. "We do not want to have a brain drain from the nonprofit sector because of just purely a monetary issue, but by the same token, the nonprofit sector is not the for-profit sector," he said. "I don't think we need to pay someone $350,000 to get the best and the brightest." As far as SALARIES alone go: "The chief executives of the 235 organizations that responded to The Chronicle's survey both last year and this year received a median salary increase of 4.3 percent in 2002. That means the compensation of half the executives in the survey grew by more than that figure. The median increase was down from 7.5 percent in 2001 but was nearly twice the 2002 inflation rate of 2.4 percent. The median salary last year for all chief executive officers in the survey was $285,000. Chief executives at private foundations earned a median salary of $402,-821, compared with $282,712 for charity CEOs. The organizations included in the survey were selected primarily from The Chronicle's 2002 Philanthropy 400 list of nonprofit groups that raised the most money in private donations. Also included were the nation's 50 wealthiest private foundations, with assets ranging from $207-million to $24-billion, and the 20 largest operating foundations." Also in this coverage: "Deferred compensation is not the only form of pay that has sparked backlashes. Concern over some private foundations' financial practices, including the view that some foundations pay excessive compensation to their top executives and trustees, has led to proposed legislation that would, among other things, limit the amount of top officials' salaries that may be counted toward the required 5-percent distribution of foundation assets annually." I stand by my contention. BSA National leadership is OVERPAID Enough facts? I got flamed for saying TOO much before so I was limiting the information..... Bigger issue - Should the money be going to the generals who are losing battles or funding more and better soldiers? IS BSA getting their moneys worth out of current national leadership - from this and other accounts, NO. THAT is my point in this posting line. And there is NO direct accountability by BSA leadership to its membership on this or any other serious issue. ANd responding to an earlier query - the current President of the Red Cross has total Comp coming in at $468,000 for 60 hours a week.

The letter below was published in response to one trying to justify the sale of Owasippe. It was forwarded as part of a package but it sums things up nicely. The volunteers there have voted down the candidates for their board twice but cannot oust curretn leadership Note the comments referring to Learning for Life. Chicago was teh center of a scandal regarding its precurser program in the 1970's. Is this the future of Scouting? Sell off all the camps, ignore the SCouters and focus on LFL because ther you can BUY numbers (of fake them easier) BTW the National head of LFL is Chicago's current Council President - who won't get out of office. Abandonment of Traditional Scouting? ===================================== A rebuttal to Greenblatt's letter to The Beacon: Wow! Talk about taking the "out" out of "scOUTing!" At one time I was willing to give the CAC the benefit of the doubt. But this statement leads me to believe that the overall objective is to not invest money or effort to support camping. Rather they seem intent on pillaging a windfall profit from the generosity of those who do believe in "traditional" Scouting values and redirect those resources to the remaining 97% percent, meaning the Chicago Public School system programs. (BTW, I still really question these numbers regarding the number of children served via LFL). To me, it sounds like the board is not only selling Owasippe, but is also selling out "traditional" Scouting. Are they truly intent on burying Scouting? If so, they should simply resign and leave the assets and resources behind for "Traditional" Scouting. There are those in this nation who believe that there are values and skills best taught in the outdoors. CAC seems to be running a shell game to shift the assets from "traditional" Scouting to LFL just before turning off the lights on "Traditional" Scouting. To date, there has been no detail explanation or accounting for the millions of dollars gained from the sale of Hoover in Yorkville and the intended sale of Owasippe. I'm sure there have been discussion in the smoke filled backrooms at the private business clubs where they conduct their secret ad-hoc meetings. But...these discussions are not readily available the rank and file volunteers, the voting CORs & members at large, and perhaps even to some of their fellow board members who are not invited to these meetings! Also, I would seriously question the veracity of the statement "it is not a result of a lack on our effort to promote camping." In general, I have seen no effort to promote camping from the CAC board or staff. * I have seen minimal effort on their website. Even basic information on operations is missing. * I have never seen a direct mail piece to promote attendance at either the camps or the High Adventure program, which they don't even consider High Adventure (check out High Adventure on the website and you will not see Manistee Quest listed). * I have not seen a single add in any Scouting magazine while other, smaller camps and venues promote their less attractive locations. * Directors and staff were not officially named until just weeks before the season began preventing Honestly, if these folks promoted their businesses the way they promote Scouting, their shareholders would have voted them out long ago. Of course, that would have happened already to the CAC board if they didn't change the rules to prevent their constituents from having a voice in the process. Mr Greenblatt's letter appears to be an effort to establish lines of communication between the counsel board members and Blue Lake Township. But I would first encourage Mr Greenblatt to open a line of communication with his own constituents as to what his true intentions are because right now I don't believe he or the other members eager to sell of Scouting have shown all of their cards yet. Remember the first Scout law.

"lol Semper. Operators are standing by, I'm sure. And if you survive your knife wound, while you are recovering you can watch your new DVD of Follow Me Boys starring Fed MacMurrary, Best Price $15.99 at the Scouter Catalog! " You know I loved that movie...the Capra-esque idealism....a life thought wasted is shown to have had purpose and a goal defferred finally achieved...a boy redeemed...makes you all teary I loved it when Fred MacMurray finally got his case in court and fought the attempt by the weaselly nephwe to get control of the Scout camp that the old lady had left to Boy Scouts..... She knew what she was doing and she wanted that property left to Boy Scouts to benefit boys.... Well, Fred proved the old lady was competent and the nephew was a conniving weasel focused only on money..... Happy ending. Scouts got the camp. Flash forward. Old lady leaves Boy Scouts her marvelous property on Long Island Sound. She wants to expand the facilities available to Scouts locally - give them access to the water. Boy Scouts is thrilled. This is valuable property - surrounded by mansions and beach clubs. The local Council builds a new Scout Center with a pool, indoor rooms, docks and indoor facilities for storing and working on boats. She even gave tehm money to do that. Scouts had swim nights there, learned lifesaving, boating, sailing even scuba diving. Events were held there. Cub Scout day camp was held there every summer. And best of all, the facility came with a trust fund for maintenance and upkeep. It was self supporting. The place became a community asset. The local High School swim team used the pool and other groups paid to use the facilities. The place actually added money to Council coffers. The Beach Clubs are for the wealthy - but this place is for all. But Councils folded and merged. Flash forward and this facility is in danger of being sold - taken away from the Scouts that use it. This irreplaceable facility has become even MORE valuable over the years. It's worth MILLONS of dollars. Developers with more Mansions in mind covet the property. But BSA will never be able to replace this facility. Scout leaders fight against the sale in court. The sale violates terms of the bequest but the wording of the will allows legalistic weaseling around the terms. But this time it is BOY SCOUTS - the Council Scout Executive himself - taking the facility away from Scouts. He feels that an algae filled lake, surrounded by rocks - 45 minutes away - will be an "equivalent" facility. A sale "bosts the bottom line and leaves our Council stronger financially." Of course we'd be in stronger shape if everyone hadn't stopped giving to FOS to protest HIS behavior. He messes things up and sells off property to make up for it...gotta love that style of management. No happy ending. The same questionable "analysis" used to justify a camp sale only a few years earlier (for half the expected price to the neighbor of the then Scout Executive) was used here. It is a common corporate technique to let facilities run down, deliberately NOT use them and then sell them because they are too costly to fix and underutilized. And far too often the buyer pays less than the real value of the property....with relationships unexplored and uninvestigated....... Warning.....warning....flashing red lights.....

Now,now, no point in Scouters serving real units depleting the ranks further.... As for appropriate compensation......plot a normal curve for non-profit CEO compensation of a similar size. See where he falls - and I'll bet it's NOT in the lower half by any means. Based on continuous declines in membership under his leadership, he goes at -1 standard deviation on the curve. Keep in mind he's gotten some nice raises, despite falling membership. Does anyone think he deserves to be one of the HIGHEST paid non-profit CEOS's, does he even deserve "Average"? What's the consensus? And I don't see anyone arguing that funds would NOT be better spent at a far more local level on imroving DE salaries and ranks. Actually, a very public and symbolic changing of the guard is in order right now. Symbolic sacrifice IS in order, and I think Williams could make a less drastic honorable gesture himself and simply quit. We're not Samauri. It would show some honor and an acknowledgement that ther eare problems he has not been able to fix. After all the Atlanta SE said "I'm in charge, it happened on my watch, I take responsibility" and quit. Besides....it's downright embarassing to be CEO of BSA right now - youth protection head distributing kiddie porn, enrollment scandals....even the "Be Prepared" fiascos at Jamboree....Williams won't even face the press....he hides in HQ

Is BSA about boys or money? I doubt that most Scouters see any direct benefit from $500,0000,000 sitting in National's coffers. Why is BSA still closing camps nationwide - over the objections of membership? As far as "tightening reporting" resulting in decreased numbers.... We WERE overstating before but now we're not? All the enrollment scandals seem to indicate otherwise. SE's are faking numbers because they CAN'T stem declines in membership. Or are we tightening things NOW? - after the media noticed? The point in raising the salary issue is simple. What is the philosophical reason for BSA?? - TO SERVE BOYS IN SCOUTING Now, the District Executive is by BSA's own statements, the most important professional in providing direct support to units. Yet most will readily admit that DE's are overworked and underpaid - with a high turnover rate. Faced with declining enrollments, wouldn't the most logical approach on the part of BSA be to spend money boosting DE salaries and numbers? Isn't it logical to keep Scouting support as local and close to the unit level as possible to have a healthy program? Yet BSA is combining Councils and DISTANCING the paid staff even more from the units they serve, making Scouting LESS local on the paid level. Do you spend your money on footsoldiers or do you spend it on generals? Now a brilliant general can make up for a lack of soldiers but I don't see that here. I think BSA could use more soldiers. BSA seems to be far more focused on a very well compensated upper level executive cadre in headquarters (and paying the local chiefs quite well) than focusing its efforts on the "footsoldiers" of the paid professional corps. Many of the rangers in Camps have appalling living conditions and are paid poorly. Why? Many Scouters decry the "let it run down and sell it off" attitude towards camps in their Council (I got an e-mail on just that last night). So......BSA has highly paid executives - low paid workers...... a focus on money and finances - what about supporting Scouting? Oh, and if your "business" is to serve SCOUTING, why all the effort on "Learning for Life"? THAT seems like a contrived program designed to solicit politically directed funds and charitable contributions that Boy SCOUTS can't get. Would it exist in a "free market" where "members" met on their own time and paid their own dues? This program seems like the type of thing a corporation sets up to get government support when its "business" is FAILING in the private sector. BSA can't "grow" Scouting, so it gets politicians to grant funds to schools to sponsor LFL programs........they put charitable funding into LFL since they can't get it for BSA because of the "discrimination" issue. ALL of these factors - well paid TOP execs, failing core "business", contrived secondary, peripheral "business" used to get GOVERNMENTAL funding as a "subsidy" to get you business you can't get otherwise......these are warning signs. I knew someone that was almost the head of purchasing for a company called Wedtech. It was once the shining star of the Bronx. This small company was struggling as a machine shop - business was falling off UNTIL it started pursuing governemnt contracts. Then, amazing success. Political connections were built and used to get more contracts. It grew and grew. My friend interviewed this company - they needed a new purchasing head... offered the job, he turned it down. REAL good salary - the executives there all seemed OVERpaid in comparison to their workforce..... Wedtech's head was a good talker but his speil was a bit thin in substance. Some fundamentals were really weak, and there seemed to be a real lack of controls in all areas of operations. Sure enough the place imploded in scandal 6 months later. Warning signs are warning signs.

While many have defended Roy Williams compensation package at around $450,000 this may not be quite accurate.o The Boy Scouts of America Foundation lists compensation a bit differently than the National COuncil 990's for 2003: Williams Salary 433,830 Auto 10,336 Excess Life Insurance Premiums 11,026 Contr. to Emp. benefits Plan 23,127 "Other Allowances deferred Under Non-Qualified Retirement Plan & Unearned Compensation (1) 434,874 TOTAL COMPENSATION per Form 990 $913,193 Seems like his real compensation is ALOT higher - double what's reported via the COuncil report though half is deferred. Roy's going to have a nice comfortable retirement. In 2002 he received an additional $302,691 as "Other Allowances..." same thing for total compensation of $729,594 Other execs show the same proportionate payments as additions to THEIR packages. Referenced footnote "(1) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (the "1993 Act") set the maximum income that a "qualified" retirement plan can use to calculate benefits at $200,000 for 2003. The BSA's National Executive Board approved a non-qualified, Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan ("the Restoration Plan" for the benefit of employees whose benefits would otherwise be limited by the 1993 Act. Benefits attributed under the Restoration Plan supplement those accrued under the qualified Retirement plan and payments do not commence until an employees retirement." So....it appears that faced with new restrictions on what a corporation could use to contribute to an employees retirement, BSA voted paid professionals a way around those restrictions. Now even a $200,000 cap on what's used to accrue retirement benefits is pretty darn good for most of us - and how many of us have to pay for our OWN retirement off far smaller salaries? But Williams is getting ANOTHER year's worth of his 2003 compensation put into HIS retirement plan to make up for limitations. I can bet that most of us affected by such changes in the law would have been told by OUR employers that we'd better pony up ourselves or start our own 401K if we "topped out" MOST companies will take any excuse they can to LIMIT benefits. Sorry, but THIS is the sort of "less than transparent" financial "shennanigans" is used by executives to make sure they get well compensated - WITHOUT having "shareholders" see the actual total package. AND it seems that there are SEPARATE compensation packages going to BSA officials NOT through BSA - again to keep things as hidden as possible to avoiding offending sensibilities. Keep in mind that BSA total membership has been DECLINING in Scouting under Williams leadership.

"By the way the way falsifying membership figures is not in itself illegal as jkhny has claimed. It does not become illegal until they gain finances based on the false numbers" .....for whatever reason the quotes from Bob did not appear in my previous post. That was the first one. I find it hard to deal with the "logic" shown above. It scares me. My answer" The Mission of BSA is to teach youth to make ethical and moral decisions - paraphrasing, not having it in front of me. "It's not illegal so it is ethical and moral to falsify numbers." So it's OK to claim "Quality Council" status with faked numbers. It's ok to give staff raises based on faked performance. Where does it end - as long as it's not illegal its OK? That's my read. You can't argue with logic like that. And just as I'm not in Bob's Council, he's not in mine. And about National.....Sovreign Smith was arrested for distributing child porn. ILLEGAL, not just repugnant. IMMORAL by pretty much any standards - including Smith's own. He was a big defender of keeping homosexuals out of BSA - though strangely he collected images of BOYS engaged in sexual activity ('wonder why the evil liberal press tended to leave that part out?) But BSA let him RETIRE. You think they'd at least FIRE him to make the point that BSA finds this appalling. They fire gay staff sexually interested in ADULT males. I'm still wondering about the yet to be seen fallout from Idaho. Court records show that BSA - AT ALL LEVELS (including NATIONAL) were informed that a child abuser was employed by Grand Teton Council. None of those that failed to report abuse has been removed from Scouting - many have been promoted. Contrary to BSA rules (and various laws) NO action was taken to remove this person from Scouting for 7 years. A number of Scout paid leaders were guilty of ILLEGALLY failing to report child abuse but somehow these cases were not investigated until the statute of limitations expired. Scout leaders were aware of at LEAST 24 cases of abuse from that abuser. Parents of abused boys were NOT informed by BSA "because they wanted to let the boys get on with their lives" a quote from BSA attoreneys in unsealed documents. The Scout Executive remains in place though another completely separate case of abuse was reported DIRECTLY to him by the victim who was raped at gunpoint. No action was ever taken against the assailant and the incident was NOT reported to authorities. The kid was terrified. But that's a local problem, not national? Shouldn't National intervene and fire this guy? Why even touch on "minor" problems like enrollment fraud? These FACTS do NOT reflect positively on BSA's image. Does ANYONE think these FACTS DON'T have an effect on Scouting?

Agreed but I'll bet those 7 were on Council rosters even if never seen again.... >>.....This past year I took Kevin with me in his BOy Scout uniform to the Cub Night at school. He took some of the things he had done, pictures of campouts and his badge swap collection. The DE was actually upset he was there. The boys that were there loved looking at Kevins things and kept asking him questions. After a little while the DE ask me to take Kevin home. Kevin and I left. The other Unit rep there said they signed up 2 boys and neither of those ever showed up at a meeting. >> And again, I'll bet those two are on the rolls...... But in neither case are those boys in Scouting - for real - nor are they learining anything or nhaving any of teh fun they could be having in Scouting.... The focus is on "A focus on superficial measures of success - numbers and money" - quoting a professional.... Did that DE leave you with a good impression? Did he do anything to help grow your unit?

About that whole "Trustworthty" thing - and "ethical and moral" decision making....Is Bob embarassed by anything in BSA? The logic quoted by Bob is the convoluted logic that the immoral and unethical use to justify their bad behavior. The fact that a SCOUT would seek to justify such bad behavior by noting it in s not "technically" illegal....... I'm dumbfounded. Even the Catholic Church learned that you cannot defend immoral and unethical (and criminal) behavior by claiming that you were serving a "higher good" or "protecting" a worthy organization. Claiming that the far greater good done by an organization offset the "little" bad is an ethically challenged argument. Good acts do not excuse bad ones. And making the direct comparison - Did BSA really even come clean about their own issue there? Idaho and other cases raise serious questions and show it still occurs. It's nice to "belong" but those "millions" are declinging rapidly and without pause. The "complainers" ARE leaving.....fed up with the hypocrisy. Shields doesn't get it - people ARE voting with their feet. And a hell of alot of the kids being touted as "youth served by year end" showed up for only a few meetings during that year and haven't been seen since. How many kids are in BSA RIGHT NOW? I'll bet maybe 2.5 million, not the 3.1 million claimed via year-end numbers. Want to bet that the current active count is alot lower than 12 months ago? And for losing Scouters....even BSA is getting a bit worried about the declines in ADULT volunteer membership.....and this despite a push to sign up anyone as a "registered leader" (for the added insurance you know). BSA itself shows a 27% decline in adult volunteers at the Council level in the past 5 years. Or are these just the old-timers dying off? While one can admire Bob for his devotion to Scouting, has he bothered to read its Mission or Law? Does he understand them? What does "Trustworthy" mean? Not lying. period. Unquestioned devotion and obedience is NOT the type of behavior we should want from our children - not as they grow into adulthood. It may be approriate in a dog, but raising children means teaching them how to think independently. It also means teaching them what is moral and ethical behavior. Far more people have been killed by unquestioned obedience than through healthy skepcism. Dedicated believers "following orders" have been responsible for some pretty horrific things.

A report fom BSA Chicago regarding how the CAC Board relates to THEIR membership - you know the volunteers they are supposed to be REPRESENTING Stalism is making a comeback in Scouting.....Council leadership in Chicago is selling a camp over the objections of a MAJORITY of its volunteers, has TWO slates of candidates for new leadership voted down, and refuses to allow a competing slate to run. They are changing the rules and allow leadership to re-appoint themselves. ANd using an "Executive Committee" to act in place of the full Executive Board. Why follow corporate Bylaws? Chicago is even touchier because their President is head of BSA's beloved "Learning for Life" any comments added or changes in < >

A SIMPLE ANALOGY BSA is a sinking cruise ship. Now this cruise line came highly recommended - your family has used them for generations. Your grandfather took a bunch of cruises with them when he was a kid. Your father learned to swim in the pool on board. Your parents brought you on a few cruises when you were a boy. The had great ships, best there are, the best Captains and crew. You remember all the activities and the great pool and the shuffleboard and the skeet shooting and great food... You even learned some nautical skills from the really nice crewmen. But this isn't quite what the travel agent described or what you remember. You've had a pleasant enough trip but you're in the middle of the ocean and seas are getting a bit rough. And it's becoming clearer and clearer that the ship IS sinking. Enough people have said it and you went down to the engine room -long hike THAT was - and saw all the water pouring in and people arguing with a crewman). But the Captain was still saying "all is fine" when you got into the lifeboat with that former First Mate - "This Cruise Line's gone to hell in the past 20 years" he was muttering. If HE's leaving, well so are you. The Captain and crew just won't acknowledge the ship is sinking. But you noticed a few crewmen in other lifeboats that left earlier. Now the ship doesn't HAVE to sink. The scuttling valves were opened by mistake but nobody will admit that. So water is pouring in. Now some Officers and crewmen tried to tell the Captain "These are the wrong valves" or "there's water coming in" but were fired for contradicting him. Some argued the issue, others didn't. But they're now long gone on lifeboats and have probably reached probably land by now. This was while we were still close to Puerto Rico. Some passengers are noticing the water on the lower decks but the Captain says all is fine. A few push the issue to other Ship's Officers. One - who seems competent - says quietly, yes there IS a problem but "trust us, its's small and under control." You trust him. But the water's up to your knees if you're farther back in the ship and you're getting skeptical. You don't know what's going on but aren't taking anyone's word that all is fine. You're not arguing the point, you're on a lifeboat and out of there - real fast. Or maybe you're dry and don't see ANY problem - you're an experienced seaman and YOU don't see any problems, You just wonder what all the ruckus is below decks...but you're not on duty or your job is in the radio room. The passengers up on the deck that can barely find their cabins are enjoying the view - most are oblivious. A few notice that the ship does seem to be getting lower in the water, but "were not experts" Still, the Captain and officers keep getting complaints from people saying the ship is sinking. There aren't any more Officers or crewmen saying that but some of those raising the alarm are experienced seamen - even one old retired First Mate. Even a few marine architects, ship designers. They didn't take "all is fine" at face value. The saw some water and kept looking for the source. They saw that the water's coming from the scuttling valves even though crewmen in front of the doors are saying no, that's not true... But the Captain won't listen. "All is fine" A few passengers looking around in the bowels of the ship try to close the valve THEY found dumping water into the bilge. They get in a few turns before they're pulled off by the crew and are given a choice - stay and shut up or leave. Most head for the lifeboats. A few start screaming "The ship is sinking" - they're thrown overboard. Seeing this, others give up trying to get the crew's attention. Others trying to close the valves themselves can't get past the added crewmen on guard. THEY get on lifeboats - they leave. SOME stubborn ones are still trying to get the valves closed. One fool thrown overboard actually climbed BACK on the boat instead of gettting onto a passing lifeboat. He's jumping up and down screaming "the Ship is sinking" - the Captain says "He's crazy - ignore him - and tries to throw him overboard again, but he runs away...he's running all over the ship saying "we can STILL save the ship" He's ignored. A few actually go after one of the crewmen guarding a valve but trying to get him out of the way, but he runs away and locks himself BEHIND the door of the compartment filling with water. One valve actually gets left unguarded - the crewman fell asleep. A passenger closes it but can't find his way back to the deck... One crewman, unwilling to follow a bad order closes the valve he's guarding, but won't speak out. The water is still rising. Other valve MUST be open but he quietly boards a lifeboat. Another crewman, won over by the arguments of the passengers, closes another valve. But the water's now pretty deep.. best to leave the ship. They leave after one last attempt at warning others. Lots of valves are open - more than anyone realizes. and the water's getting deeper. The Captain and crew still won't admit to problems..... The few left arguing with crewmen while water pours out are getting frustrated. They're heading for the lifeboats soon as well...... Some people lounging about have actually noticed that all the "crazy" people talking are not talking about the SAME valve. One is in the engine room, another in the froward bilge, another was in locker 122 while one was in locker 18. More than one is open, but nobody knows how many. But Ships Officers say all is fine, or the problem is under control. The Captain is threatening to throw ANY "complainers" overboard.... And what's this about a fire raging out of control in the radio room now? (And why did the Captain give an order NOT to send an SOS but transmit a message that "All is fine, great Cruise" just before the fire?) Well,those who've noticed all this now head for the lifeboats too. But guess what. The ship is running out of lifeboats. There's not enough for everyone left now. Probably never WERE enough. It is in the best interests of all on board to listen to "the screaming maniac" and AT LEAST investigate to see if he's right. Closing off compartments won't work after too much water gets on board. If the valves are open, CLOSE THE VALVES, start slamming doors shut to keep the water from filling the whole ship and TURN ON THE PUMPS. If you have to throw the Captain and some crewmen overboard to do so, then throw them overboard. (But Alabama is all the way at the other end of the ship - not where I am. So's Georgia and Alabama and Florida. But Oregon's open too. OK, the ship's sinking by the stern. Even if you close off those compartments, there's alot of water at that end of the ship already. And there's a fire in Idaho. An open valve or two - or six - or ......what harm can they really do? ) Well Chicago has barred the door - from the inside even though the water's getting deeper. No way is that valve getting turned off (unfortunately that compartment isn't watertight). That emergency drill in Virginia should have proved that we're prepared for anything (well anything except what it pretty typical for Virginia in August). After you've gotten on the lifeboat you can't help but notice some warnings signs when you think back. The ship was a bit empty when you sailed - turns out each cruise has had less passengers than the cruise before it.... And wasn't that the same ship you were on as a boy - for that matter isn't it the same one your grandfather talked about? It's looking abit shabby now that you think about it. The pool was closed and there weren't as many activities for your son as you remember. You might wonder about the Captain's competence when you think back. we ended up in the Bahamas instead of Puerto Rico last Wednesday. Nobody remembers an announced change of course. Last week's fire drill didn't go so well. And the radio room STILL hasn't gotten that message sent for you. The ship's plumber fixed the sink wrong -hot is cold and cold is hot. That one electrial outlet was still sparking everytime you try to use you hairdryer too. The electrician didn't get that fixed. And there are rumors that the third class passengers all got food poisioning from yesterday's dinner.... You KNEW something was wrong with that one Officer the way he looked at your 12 year old son.....something made your skin crawl. But the Captain had nothing but praise for him - he was the director of youth activities. But how could they explain the stuff they found in his cabin? Youth activities - beyond belief.....he should have been fired and thrown overboard but they simply paid him in full and put him off the ship in Puerto Rico. Your travel agent SAID this was an OLD cruise line with a STERLING reputation - around forever, just what you were looking for. All the values you hold so dear. They even have services on Sunday and are picky about admitting only select passengers. Sure they had to loosen up their standards a few years back - "its the law you know" (Used to be they were just cabin boys) but they still attract a really nice group of passengers..... just like you - family oriented, none of those "R-rated" floor shows or off-color comedians.... Besides they had a great Marketing campaign and Bobby got a free lunchbox and penknife. Maybe we can use it to fillet the fish we just caught. At least the old First Mate has some real survival skills.

Why is BSA so much more expensive to run? Where IS the money going? (it's not tents) And if you really looked at the annual reports, why is Boy Scout's report so "unclear" and "imprecise" with numbers - while Girl Scouts so VERY clear and detailed. Boy Scouts is OUR orgnization. We should be a bit interested in finances. And while it's having a ton of cash means little if you keep losing membership - and just why is Boy Scouts collecting 4X the fees Girl Scouts is?

What do you do? First: Make sure YOUR Council is doing the "right" thing. That means making sure that you as volunteers DO have a voice in Council management through the Executive Board. Make sure these people represent you and are not hand-picked by paid staff. Now most could care less about that level if things are working. But you need to pay attention. Second: Make sure your Council is ACCURATELY reporting "numbers" - enrollments, "Quality" status and all else. Odds are you don't really have a clue what's being claimed outside your own unit. If there's a kid still on your roster after renewal that should be gone, get them off. Insist. No "errors" - isn't that Council's job - ACCURATE record-keeping? Third: Stay informed. If people are asking for and reading reports of the Exzecutive Board Meetings and Annual Reports, if "leadership" knows people are paying attention and calling them on "inaccuracies" - you're far less likely to have problems. Fourth: When you hire "paid professionals" - know who you're hiring. Do NOT take another respected staffer's "word" - look hard and deep. Our SE's problems were clear and visible - and SHOULD have surfaced in a superficial Google search. THIS forum had detailed posts relating problems with him - his name is Jack Sears. Fifth: Have a problem, let others know. Don't let weasels hide. This forum could be a valuable tool to keep professionals honest. Colleges have "Student Guides to professors" - the web has "Rate your Teacher" sites. All in all, with enough posts, the truth is pretty clear. There are some really horrid professionals out there who should NOT be in Scouting. And BSA NEVER seems to fire these guys. WHY? Who knows? Have a problem - let others know. WHY NOT Have a "Rate your Scouting Professional" category? BSA sure doesn't ive much official weight to how volunteers feel about paid staff - though it's supposed to be part of their evaluation - "Volunteer Relations". If so, our DE should've been gone years ago. Finally: EVERY time something happens that's an embarassment to Scouting - LET NATIONAL KNOW YOU'RE UNHAPPY How many people complained about all the enrollment scandals, asking National What's going on? When Willis got fired by Holmes, how many people called up and said - What kind of BS is this? Why is HOLMES still employed and the volunteer whistleblower out? When Smith got arrested for child porn - yeah it "could" happen anywhere - how many people called up National and said "This is an embarassment to ALL of us?" And why did't he get FIRED!?!? "allowed to retire?" Want to bet he wouldn't get his pension if FIRED?!?! He committed ILLEGAL acts?! DEMAND that BSA be HONEST. Smith DID have regular contact with kids. Holmes did lie about numbers and still is. Hansen didn't report child abuse. Atlanta is still lying about "disadvantaged youth" I don't hae all the answers but some steps are clear. FIRST STEP DEMAND DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITY FROM BSA. If they won't give Scouters a direct voice in running Scouting (instead of the readily manipulated "representative democracy"), provide a REAL way to register complaints and problems - one that WORKS. WHY doesn't BSA have an "Inspector general's office" that is INDEPENDENT of the PAID staff. Why isn't there ANY easy, DIRECT way to register complaints with BSA about anything? If something is wrong in your Council - where do you go? What do you do if the problem IS your Scout Executive and he's hand-picked the Council's Board. They're a bunch of local businessmen, unfamiliar with Scouting. They "trust" the "professional." Hope you never have to find out how impossible it is to deal with that situation. About "INDEPENDENT" volunteer panels in BSA - right now, they're NOT. BSA's Appeals Process for volunteers who've had their registrations revoked is a joke. The "independent" volunteer boards are clearly manipulated or guided by paid staff - Park (the legal Counsel) pops up regularly in these things though he has no defined role. A volunteer who speaks out and angers his SE can get thrown out of Scouting - even when right - as Willis' case shows. They'll probably get slandered by BSA in the process and portrayed as a "troublemaker" Any excuse that can be used, will. Have any skeletons in YOUR closet? But odds are they won't tell you why. You have to prove you're innocent of ..."something". This forum has detailed the process. I've confirmed that truth with Scouters ousted from BSA. There arer too many this has happened to. An "open and transparent" organization does NOT stifle valid dissent and fact-based criticism. Transparency. Let independent outsiders audit membership so management can be held accountable - not this BS have a volunteer sign off on counts internal we can still hide this and lay it off on a volunteer "solution." Procedures, Bylaws, EVERYTHING should be openly available to ANYONE. RECORDS should be openly available to ANYONE. Transparency keeps you honest and does alot to insure "ethical and moral" behavior. Accountability. ANYONE - ANY volunteer or professional - that lies, steals or breaks the law (fails to report child abuse to authorities, distributes child porn, whatever) is out of Scouting - fired if a professional. Accountability tkaes care of when you aren't "ethical and moral" Make paid staff directly accountable to those they serve. Make volunteer evaluations the MOST important part of a professional's evaluation. Do the Scoutmaster's Cubmasters and others think he's doing a good job. Is he helping them run Scouting? Feedback - Establish an INDEPENDENT "Inspector General's office" Give volunteers an easy way to register feedback - and LISTEN to them. CHANGE - No matter how you look at it, fundamental changes are needed. The focus on "numbers and money" isn't working and has perverted the outlook of professionals. It's time to focus on kids and Scouting. The paid professionals SHOULD exist to SERVE and SUPPORT the volunteers running Socuting. They should guide us and keep us "honest" and true to the basic program, make sure we're trained, etc. BUT they serve US and are OUR employees. That attitude is sorely lacking in the professional ranks. Many seem to feel we exist only to help them meet their "goals" Texas needs a clean sweep and a rethink. The current group has been in long enough. They've failed. The mindset is ossified and autocratic. Most Councils are working - some are outstanding. Take what's best from them but give Scouters a REAL voice in Scouting. Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole paid staff structure. In too many Councils, staff and overhead are the biggest expense and they're NOT doing much besides "raising money to pay their own salaries. Transparency, Acountabliity, Feedback and CHANGE. That should do it. AND FINALLY - as far as what you can do..... Let BSA know you're unhappy with the continued failures. Say you want change. HOLD the PAID LEADERSHIP of BSA to HIGHER standards that we as volunteers are held to.

Comparisons. Look at the difference in annual reports. Both are PR exercises but which provides clear and concise and detailed information? BSA Annual Report BSA claimed 3.2 million in Scouting in 2003 1.5 million more "Learning for Life" Is this included? or separate? http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc go to Facts and Figures and then go to annual report 2003 GSA Annual report GSA claimed 2.8 million in Scouting in 2003 http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/facts/pdf/2003annual_report.pdf "Scouting" counts not all that different with BSA 10% larger than GSA with official counts. Do both count the same way? Assume they do. I'm not sure how to account for Learning for Life - is that a separate corporation within BSA? or is it outside BSA? Is LFL overhead, dues, costs per youth the same as Scouting if it should be included? Facts and figures from 2003 990 tax filings In Part I Total Assets end of year line 59 GSA $177 million vs GSA $648 million Net Assets line 21 GSA $165 million vs BSA $528 million In Part II Membership fees GSA $26 million vs BSA $109 million Total functional expenses GSA $81 million vs BSA $ 166 million Salaries GSA $28 million vs BSA $44 million GSA CEO $324,417 + $25,495 benefits/def comp in NYC BSA CSE $ 455,192 + $ 22,955 benefits/def comp in TX Only in BSA, Conferences, conventions and meetings $ 4.8 million Same line for GSA $0 BSA's largest independent contractor was Hughes, Hubbard and Reed - "attorney" with $2,353,839 listed GSA's largest independent contractor was GCI Washington - a software development firm working on "development of membership system" with $983,145 listed You can't help but wonder: Why such differences? Frankly, BSA seems pretty well off for an organization that's regularly asking for money. Exactly what ARE all those assets? Camps? property? $439 million is listed under "Assets - securities with another $63 million in "Savings an temporary cash investments"

An article in the news discussing corporate performance brought up an interesting point. Publicly held corporations are accountable to their shareholders. Even those managed in a way that benefit their own executives instead of shareholders have to defend their actions. Dissidents can challenge management and force their ouster when performance falters. B.S.A. has been failing on a very pragmatic basis. That's a simple fact. Dispute the cause but numbers in Scouting programs continue to decline with no end in sight. Despite an unending focus on adding members, the number of boys enrolled in Scouting has declined steadily for the last half dozen years (for decades with only minor pauses). Even the "official" count lists only 3.1 million boys in B.S.A. (participating at any point in 2004). Active enrollments at this very moment are likely 2.6 - 2.7 million. Boy Scouts has less than 1 million - by official numbers. Whatever strategies are being used by current management to stop this trend, they are failing. Even if you blame a "changing world" - management is failing to cope. Even professionals note the "fossilized" thinking at the National level. A new perspective is clearly needed. Adult membership is declining even faster - a fact which B.S.A. itself admits. Many Councils have Scouters over 70 or even 80 filling positions because nobody else is available. Council level adult membership has dropped by 27% in the past 5 years (I suspect due as much to deaths as volunteers walking away). Meanwhile you have enrollment scandals - Executives are faking performance to meet "goals" - The very accounting the organization uses to report performance is "deceptive" (being kind). The "year end youth served" statistic is focused on maximizing "Counts." One can argue that this is akin to counting gym membership "sales" by counting ALL memberships - however short. But what is the point of counting single visit trials or month long "introductory memberships" - when the goal is membership that lasts a dozen years. What are you trying to accomplish and what are you counting? If you are exposing boys to Scouting but NOT keeping them as members you are FAILING - no matter what other "numbers" you tout. Boy Scouts is NOT some gym that WANTS people NOT to come back after taking their money, is it? or IS it? Camps for boys are being sold off while new offices for staff are being built. Another way of puttin it is: Valuable capital assets used to support the organization's core function are used to fund management "perks". Increasingly limited facilities contribute to decreases in program participation. i.ei. If you sell off your "factories" where do you get work done? Salaries are NOT in line with comparable industries - low level staff seem underpaid while high level staff are grossly OVERpaid. The ONLY "success" is occurring in a program secondary to your stated purpose. This program was set up to receive funding that you cannot legally receive for your primary function. This program exists ONLY through charitable donations and politically directed funding. Without them it would not exist.Many would describe this program as "contrived" at best. It has been the source of overstated claims in the past. Your own employees are raising serious issues about the veracity of various management claims and even going to outside law enforcement agencies - who are finding those claims justified. Management REFUSES independent audits of performance claims. Any audits that are conducted are carefully and legally limited in scope - but even those have shown "overstatement." The organization deflects serious inquiries about performance by dismissing them with rhetoric about "Attacks on our values." Even with complicit oversight from Hand-picked boards, how long do you think this situation would exist in ANY other corporation? Would you excuse such management failures in your own company? Why does it continue to exist in Boy Scouts? SHOULD such a situation exist ANYWHERE in Boy Scouts? Again, if not seeing these things in your Council, great, but be sure that is so. But it is clear that there are serious issues with the performance of NATIONAL leadership, irrespective of your local Council performance. It should be possible to discuss these issues rationally and without rhetoric but clearly, B.S.A. National does NOT wish to do so. They hide in offices, issue statements saying all is fine or "we're working on it" while they still protect lying and incompetenet staff while throwing out dedicated volunteers who point out the obvious. If you truly care about Scouting, should you excuse the long term failures of paid management? If a volcano's rumbling nearby, Chicken Little may have a point.

I don't have an issue with a Scout getting a "Recruiter" patch if they bring in a new boy, I don't have an issue with programs to advertise Scouting to boys. However, I'm starting to feel that our Council is "over the line" in offering all kinds of "incentives" with a focus on boosting counts (without adding long term members) and the way in which they are reporting numbers. "All new Cub Scouts who submit applications and fees through theri 2006 re-charter by October 15..... will be issued a New Cob Scout kit." "Also any Cub Scout who is already enrolled in Scouting who pre-pays his 2006 registration fees to Council by October 15... wil also be issued a New Cub Scout kit" Boy Scouts are getting pocketknives Units that increase enrollments by 20 % get varying awards. Such "gimmicks" are blatant "front-loading" techniques used by companies to book higher "numbers." No menton is made about STAYING enrolled in Scouting - only paying the dues and getting those applications in as soon as possible (which means you get counted for the year - and even 2006 - even if never seen after a meeting or two). ANd your poor DE won't have to front the dues for long gone scouts to fake his counts. Our Council was challenged on enrollment counts this Spring. Council reports mysteriously reduced counts without explanation. A promised "investigation" has yet to begin - though Executive Board minutes show less than 7,000 Scouts instead of the "over 10,000" that our Council supposedly "serves" (present tense). There are less than 1,000 questionably "served" by other programs other than Scouting (LFL and such). That leaves a 20-30% difference in reported counts. It seems to me and others that this effort reflects a rather pressured effort to boost counts up to the numbers claimed - with NO focus on retaining members. Who cares? as long as we can "legally" count them ....seems to be the attitude. Volunteers see all these programs as a pressured attempt to boost counts up to what was claimed - BEFORE any "investigation" is conducted. Memership is actually DECLINING - but with all the "churning" - continually signing up kids that don't stay - the "Youth served by year end" numbers do NOT reflect the far lower "ACTUAL active members RIGHT NOW" count. REAL "success" is growth in boys that STAY in Scouting - NOT manipulated "youth served" counts. Membership now is down by 10-15% from last year at the same time using the numbers available (which is what others report). Our District claimed 1800 - 2200 for year end (depending on what you look at) - current count is 1250. BIG difference and BIG drop from 12 months ago. Of note we have been using all the "incentives" so widely touted as behind "success" in boosting enrollments elsewhere - like Alabama. "Fishing lures" pinewood kits, etc. Too bad the "success" there was due to fraudulent reporting, not more real boys. Our SE is from GA - in the center of all the current scandals - AL, GA, and FL - get the feeling he picked up bad habits? Instead of REAL solutions - BSA is on the same old path to illusionary short term "fixes" that fix nothing. Wasn't National supposed to have adopted measures to stop this kind of fraud? This type of weaseling is NOT "ethical and moral." Didn't ZZZZBest and others blow up over incentives to bring in business, front end booking and faking renewal of short-term contracts to boost "numbers?" And for those that argue that BSA's convoluted accounting that counts ANY boy as "served" even if he went to only one meeting.....is such a "stretch" ethical or moral? Does Scouting eally "grow" in any way by counting such "members"? The truth is that such turnover is a sign of FAILURE. If you keep adding boys but lose tehm at an even faster rate, you are FAILING? But with BSA's accounting system you're showing "success" This is getting old, angering volunteers and reflects poorly on all Scouting claims to represent. Of course the Second half of our Council Newsletter focused on why "Popcorn Makes it Real" and why sales are the key to quality Scouting programs..... More than a few are seriously arguing that Trails End popcorn does NOT meet BSA's fundraising criteria, providing a quality product at a reasonable price and NOT trading off its association with BSA. The "incentive" structure used in these sales is similar to too many other sales schemes touting a highly overpriced product. This really IS starting to feel like a sleazy "pyramid sales" scheme that exists mainly to "add members" and "sell popcorn" - you'd be hard pressed to think otherwise looking at what leadership is focused on. Anyone else having the same experience? If not - be happy and thank your stars.

Guess who was in charge of Jamboree "Risk Management" - one of our Council's Executive Board members. That's NOT something I would be highlighting right now. Below is a release I would NOT be sending out (but that's just me). The obliviousness to the many levels of irony is astounding. Of course NO mention is made of all the emergencies that NEEDED attention at the Jamboree in this release. Few believe this Jamboree's "Emergency Planning" reflected well on B.S.A.as highlighted in far too many press articles. After reading the statement below, one could be forgiven if thinking that somehow with this being a "boy's event," Scouts themselves are somehow responsible for the screw-ups. After all, "Adults dont have all the answers and the evidence is that some of the plans we received have fantastic ideas that have already been submitted to Homeland Security. I'm not sure what was meant there but it is far too clear that Adults did not have some very basic "answers." My 9 year old could have told you that dumping water and waiting for 3 hours in the sun was stupid and you don't touch power lines with metal objects. I wonder if all the effort that went into planning for this award since 2003 was a bit "misdirected." Perhaps the effort SHOULD have gone into planning for REAL EMERGENCIES at the Jamboree instead of giving out what turned out to be a truly ironic award. But this seems to reflect much of what is wrong with BSA (and society at large)right now - a focus on image and not substance...ignoring REAL problems instead of acknowledging them in any way..... I'm embarassed for our Council and embarrassed for Scouting.

Interesting but the report below noted that Smith was "placed on leave" by BSA when the FBI informed BSA they were investigating him for distributing child porn (and as the report below noted - unlike many - the porn was quite graphic). I suppose "innocent until proven guilty" must have applied here. Yet St. Jean was fired when BSA received evidence he had stayed at a gay resort. Note that Wal-Mart revoked the retirement benefits package of former executive fired for theft and is suing him not only for for restitution of funds stolen but PAST bonuses. The suit cited a 2002 newspaper article quoting Mr. Coughlin (the fired executive) as saying, "Anyone who is taking money from associates and shareholders ought to be shot. That greed will catch up with you." So, once proven guilty, it seems like some employers DO take action when employees are guilty of criminal acts and act hypocritically. Clearly, there WAS a very different response by BSA in these two incidents. Accept that BSA's position on homosexuality is valid grounds for dismissal. Accept that a criminal act is a valid grounds for dismissal. Who received BETTER treatment by BSA? It sure seems like BSA's employment of Smith did far more damage to BSA's image than its employment of St. Jean. Frankly, it seems as if BSA is going to catch flak for firing St. Jean unless there are other demonstrable reasons relating to job performance (and it seems that there are NOT). And, if BOTH child porn and homosexuality are considered "issues" within BSA and grounds for dismissal from the professional ranks (not that Smith was "dismissed"), shouldn't the past behavior of BOTH long serving professionals be put under a microscope to make SURE nothing could have happened with either? If you're goping to tout "ethics and morals" it helps if you're consistent - even better if you get priorities straight. To many parents an obsession with child porn is a larger worry than homosexuality (closeted or open). and

While not commenting personally on or challenging BSA's policies on membership, the following news item caught my attention and raises the following questions in comparison with other events. Sovreign Smith, a long time paid professional, was allowed to retire with benefits - even after admitting guilt in distributing child pornography. And while claiming he was not involved personally in any abuse of children, as another pointed out, Each and Every piece of child pornography produced and in someone's possession resulted from the abuse of a child - hence the leagal penalties for mere possession of this material. In contrast, Dennis St. Jean, an accomplished paid professional, with exemplary reviews and no complaints about his behavior was dismissed after decades of service. He is receiving NO benefits. He was fired- it would seem - simply because BSA was presented with material implying that he was homosexual. What is right? What is ethical and moral? Who was a larger "threat" to boys (if either)? Who was a larger "embarassment" to BSA? One can argue that in neither case did the sexual proclivities of either person "impinge" on their job. BSA has made that claim in the case of Smith. They have said in effect that his "proclivities" did not directly affect boys in Scouting. It appears one can make exactly the same claim for St. Jean. However,one broke the law - the other did not. BSA went to great lengths to distance Smith's "personal" behavior from his position in Scouting. BSA did - wrongly it seems - claim that Smith had no contact with boys in his position. He did, escorting boys to the White House the week before and in fact a report out of Miami noted that Smith and another adult took an annual sailing trip for with 6 boys for a week. BSA made the point that Smith was married and no complaints had ever been raised about him. But then pedophiles do claim to be heterosexual, many are married and few victims come forward in such cases, often taking decades to do so. It seems that BSA has had little to say about Mr. St. Jean. however other reports indicate that he took pains to keep HIS "personal life" private and divorced from Scouting. As with Smith, there seems to be no cause for complaint in his behavior towards boys but BSA is hardly going to the same effort to make that point. Still, I have to wonder - did BSA investigate each case in depth to make sure that there were no past causes for complaint - even after the fact? And - as raised originally - Which case posed more of a threat to boys? Is the disparity in treatment justifiable?