ParkMan

But honestly - the pros shouldn't do the work. "We" pay for professionals to help us develop the Scouting program at the district/council level. The most economical way to leverage that money is not for them to turn into paid "volunteers". That's a very cost inefficient way to do things. Say the average DE makes $36,000 a year (that's a guess). That then results in approx. $18 a hour for their time. Is it worth $18 an hour for DEs to run around doing volunteer work? No, it is not. It is however worth $18 an hour for them to be doing "force multiplier" work - recruiting new volunteers, strengthening teams, providing guidance on planning, etc. Helping unit leaders to grow their units, etc...

Sorry to jump in on another comment here - but I find this one another good example of the council/unit volunteer interaction. For years, FOS donations were described as optional. There was a clear understanding that individuals and units did not have to contribute to pay the council bills. Family FOS contributions were just that - contributions they you felt so inclined to make. Council fundraising people would love for everyone to give - but it was never the expectation. So, if a unit chose not to participate, that was their prerogative. Again - would the council prefer it - yes, most certainly. As a unit/district volunteer, what I found was that unit participation in FOS was an indicator of how involved that unit was in the district. Those units who had no relationship with the district often didn't participate. Those units with a good relationship did participate. When I was CC, I decided we needed to better support FOS. I made a few public statements encouraging FOS and we easily doubled contributions. My recommendation to the FOS team was to meet with those units who did not participate and simply start a dialog. Don't push them for money, but start building connections. Connections build involvement, involvement builds ownership, ownership grows donations. Somewhere along the way the FOS narrative has changed. More and I've started hearing the term free loader for units who don't participate. Parents who don't contribute and not paying their share to fund the council. But, this was never the expectation. I think this is where councils need to take a step back and really think about what they are saying here. If councils really want units to pay more FOS, and especially if they go to a subscription model, councils have to start focusing on demonstrating value to the units. Simply having some council camps, a central office, and a local DE is not enough to charge a family $60 a year. Is 10-20 hours of DE time focused on the unit worth that fee? Is a council camp that the local unit doesn't even use worth that fee? Most local programming - camporees, training, district activities are organized by volunteers. If you fired all the DEs they'd still happen and so it's difficult to argue that people need to pay a fee to cover volunteer organized programming. Councils need to focus on articulating and showing value for those fees. That said - I'm a supporter of a council program fee. I believe that it will force the council/district/unit value conversation. That conversation is a good thing.

Yeah - I think this stuff is strange. What are they trying to prevent a flood of JTE gold district patches on the black market.

I assume that if you go to the local Scout Shop and ask them to order it, they could. If you then have an issue, you could walk over to the office and get them to vouch for it.

Hi @Cburkhardt, Thanks for the kind words. I very much appreciate that you initiated this conversation and other thought provoking discussions like this one on the forum. While there are other places online to discuss Scouting, the format of the forum provides us all the ability to have some deeper conversations and weigh topics like this. My apologies if I seemed to pounce a bit on this topic - it was not my intent. One of the things I worry about is the trend towards minimizing the role of volunteers. As a result, I grow concerned when I hear discussions of increased professional involvement, mergers, and the like. I am concerned that Scouting is mis-reading the symptoms and concluding that the right result is to transfer more and more responsibility to professionals. I worry that as professionals take on more, it reduces the sense of ownership that Scouters have over Scouting in their community. If you, as a volunteer, feel you have some ownership over it, you are going to work harder to make it successful. So, in an era where we need Scouting communities to achieve at an even higher level, it seems that now is the time to invest in district leadership. I would make three proposals: 1) that national develop a team of "consultants" who can work with individual districts to strengthen their operations. These consultants should themselves be accomplished district volunteers who understand how to craft a district vision, who understand how to recruit quality volunteers, who understand how to put together an annual district plan, who understand how to grow membership, etc. This team would be available to district chairs who request their assistance. The would meet, the consultants would understand the particular needs of the district, would then work with the district key three to craft a plan, and would then coach and mentor the key three through deployment of the plan. 2) that areas/regions develop, under the leadership of national, a district key three training program. Key three from around the area would meet jointly for an annual training and there would be a program of continuing guidance and support. This would be similar to what we see for events like a Wood Badge Course Directors conference. It seems strange to me that training requirements for a Cub Scout Day Camp or Wood Badge course director are more stringent than that of a district chair or district commissioner. 3) that councils or areas develop an annual district volunteer training program. Regardless of your role, having a face to face training from experienced district volunteers is important. If we all agree that the key to growing Scouting is an increase in unit leader support and a focus on Scouting in communities, why is it that volunteer preparation at the district level is all but non-existent?

Hopefully no other councils suffer the same fate. What a numbskull.

I understand the point. But, I would go back to my earlier point. Before we start talking about changes, we really need to focus on why we'd make those changes. Simply doing more re-orgs, changing the program, etc. is not going to address the reality that we live in a more competitive world today in the youth activity space. We've got to raise our game in Scouting in order to "compete". Our Scouting program is excellent - but you can't surround that with lackluster execution. Packs that repeat the same activities year after year. Troops that don't camp and having a boring program. Districts who had stopped trying because they don't recruit new leaders. Councils who focus on simply keeping the lights on. These things all matter. I augment my earlier comments to add: Understand there are three types of councils Nationally, councils are going to fall into three groups: High performing councils - growing in membership, growing in fundraising, strong program Typical councils - they are checking all the boxes, membership declines in-line with national trends low performing councils - these are the train wreck councils. We've all heard the stories High performing councils - you stay out of their way and provide whatever logistical support they need. You support their initiatives, you help encourage them to do more. This is where innovation happens. You watch these councils and try to replicate what they do. Typical councils - these councils have potential, but need some guidance. Low performing councils - You reorganize these. It's like any team. Focus on and support your superstars. Apply training to improve the prospects of those in the middle. Reorganize those at the bottom of the list.

I think we have to ask ourselves - why would the bankruptcy change things at a council level? What fundamental structural thing will be different for councils after the re-organization that is not true today? Will more money be available to councils to hire those now available council-service Scout Executives? Will councils suddenly restructure their executive boards to focus more on districts? Will the experience pool of current employees and board members be different after the re-organization? What's needed at the council level is a plan for success. How can a council become financially strong? How can a council balance payroll expenses with available funding? How can a council increase membership? District Success I suspect that what we will all find is that a plan for council success requires developing a plan for district success. How does a council best deploy it's resources to support districts? How does a council select, train, equip, and support district volunteers? If we look around nationally, I believe we'll find that the strongest districts are those with the strongest teams. A council could jump start that process by assigning additional professionals or redeploying existing council volunteers to districts - but that's at best a band aid. Professional/Volunteer Confusion We need to clarify the job description of professionals. Other than in a few key strategic places in a council, professionals are not program people. Professionals provide the guidance to volunteers who drive program. When professionals start assuming program responsibilities, we end up diluting their time too much. Professionals become overloaded, they take on too much, and their core responsibility of enabling a prosperous district suffers. Let's clarify roles and responsibilities so that we make it possible for professionals to succeed. Let's Focus on Operational Excellence A big part of the problem in the culture of the BSA is that we're too focused on structure. The BSA is struggling, so our go-to response is either "let's reorg things" or "let's fix the program." However, the fundamental problem is that we're just not very good at operations. I spent a lot of time on membership last year. Do you know how much guidance I got from the BSA or the Council? Just about zero. The DE encouraged me to make sure that we had flyers and school visits lined up. But, to really develop a strategy for growth the assistance was very little. What does a membership plan for a district look like? Who can sit down and help me build one? Who from the area or region can help our council membership chair guide me? Where are the membership specialists that can help get us going? So - to me, I expect very little locally from the bankruptcy reorganization. I'm more excited about it's impact on the national organization. But, the trickle down effect to me locally I expect to be minimal.

Respectfully - that's not the USA at all. We are the great melting pot - a place for people to bring their diverse backgrounds and experiences and together to form a more perfect union. We are open to new ideas and are the land of opportunity. We all win when we work together to solve problems and grow. That's America.

@Protoclete - as a fellow district volunteer, I too have struggled with the quality of data we get as volunteers. I know on membership, I wanted some simple reports to track size/adds/drops. That was very difficult to get and often involved converting some of the data available to professionals. However, in our case the data generally seemed to track ok. My only suggestion is to see if you can work your network to find the right contact at National. I'm sure there's a solid staff person there that would be glad to explain the process to you if you ask. The "system" sort of discourages it, but in my experience I don't think that people mind some good old fashioned brainstorming when asked. Perhaps buy your council registrar a cup of coffee, explain what your trying to learn, and then start from there. Alternatively, find that super well connected volunteer in the council who really knows the system. Good luck!

My suggestions: 1. Invite all past Scouts, Scouters, and families to attend the celebration. When I show up at events like Scout Sunday, there are always people who walk up and tell stories about their time as a leader or as a Scout in the pack or troop. I bet you'll find a lot of people will want to be there. Get the network going! 2. Setup an exposition/display room. In wherever you are holding the celebration, fill it up with as much memorabilia as people can find. We've done this in the troop a few times and people find all kinds of things. Extend the ask to former members as well. With a 100 year old troop, I am sure you could fill a good sized room. We filled a small gym last time. It will be incredibly impactful to people to walk through a room of memorabilia. 3. If you've got a pack or Crew at the CO, invite them to be part of the displays and celebration. Yes, it's the troop's 100 - but it really is a celebration of Scouting at your CO. Include the other units. 4. In-lieu of a binder that you present to the troop, create a book that can be distributed to attendees. In the era of digital publishing, it's almost just as easy to take that binder, scan in the pictures and docs, and then distribute that to everyone. Create paper copies for those that attend. Distribute digital copies to everyone. This means that scores of people will benefit from that history.

I'm of the same belief as @mashmaster. Fun what if's to ponder. But, really - in reality it will all work out and be pretty boring.

@Eagledad I think your post reinforces my prior point. We already had the first Atheist Eagle Scout - he earned it probably 90 years ago. Rather than us being so caught up in the extremes on each side, how can we craft a program that permits both perspectives to coexist. I don't want to see God driven from Scouting. But, I also don't want to see the Atheists driven from Scouting either. I do understand the point that without some absolute moral guidance from God, morals and values are then infallible human concepts. In a Scouting context, 98% of all value based decisions are obvious. Treat each other with respect, don't lie, cheat, or steal. Do your best, work hard. Though it is conceivable that these basic concepts in our shared values could be changed - it's improbable that they would be. Further, we see that major faiths are open to a re-examination of their beliefs as times change. Why? Because even in these faiths, it is people who interpret the word of God. So, while I understand the concern, it strikes me that there has to be a path which preserves the faith based component in Scouting for some units and a more secular values derived from societal norms based component for others. In others words - how do we enable us to all peacefully coexist side by side?

The world today is more polarized than it once was. We're more focused on pursuing what we believe is correct than on getting things done. 75 years ago we were focused simply on bringing the Scouting program to kids. Today, we've got this dimension of arguing over what the right Scouting program is. Again - this is true in lots of places and is not a Scouting phenomenon. I suspect this comes from lots of things and we could fill pages upon pages discussing why. The implication is that this is the new normal and so we have to figure out how to still have Scouting apply broadly while addressing the reality the different communities want a program structured in their image.

Respectfully, I wasn't. I was thinking specifically of just about any single individual religion in making that statement. It isn't even remotely close whether the Catholic Church or Scouting has a bigger impact on the world. If I run down the list of major religions - Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc... Whole cultures are built around these faiths. People's lives, belief systems. I love Scouting, but it's just a whole different kind of thing altogether. I do agree with your last statement. I think they were really trying to make a different point. Scouting has principles that apply to more than just one faith. That much is certainly true. This is where the Scouting for Equality people have to be very deliberate. What they seek is a end of membership requirements that require a belief in a higher power. Picking fights with religious people is not the way to go about it. They most certainly should not turn their movement into one which advocates for a removal of faith from Scouting. Scouting is an organization that promotes values. If one community believes that good values can be taught without faith, then let them start a unit that does that. But, do not in any way prevent the religious institution down the street from having a unit that believes in a faith component. Further, when at a multi-unit event, allow for the fact that many units will look for things like saying grace before meals or a Sunday worship service. America's the great melting pot - let's celebrate that.

I have to agree with @David CO here. I'm giving these Scouting for Equality folks the benefit of the doubt and hoping that they simply chose some ridiculous wording. The rest of the paragraph is fine and makes sense. One could easily argue the Scouting and it's principles are broader than any one religion. But saying that Scouting is a force more powerful than any one religion is simply a ridiculous statement. Scouting has a profound impact on many, many people. Similarly, to many, the impact of Scouting on their individual lives is probably bigger than their faith - of that I have no doubt. But, if one looks at the impact of religion on the world and of Scouting on the world, clearly religion has a bigger, more powerful impact. I say this to in no way negatively characterize Scouting - Scouting is an amazing program. But, this is an absurd comparison.

Same here. Attend service at our CO.

Possibly that he really thinks of himself as a volunteer who's now charged to run the ship. If I were hired to the CEO role of our Scout council, I don;t know if I'd really consider myself a Scouting professional either. I'd consider myself a volunteer who now has a job to run the council. It's neither respecting or disrespecting the professionals - just simply that he doesn't think of himself as one.

I will say though - as a district/council volunteer myself, I know that there are indeed plenty of well heeled volunteers - but not everyone. Cheers & thanks for the insight! Much appreciated.

Much appreciated @jjlash. I'm 100% in sync with you. As a repeat WB staffer, I see the same issues and we have the same conversations at a local level. I appreciate you seeing my comments for what they were - friendly feedback. I look forward to hearing how the course goes. Maybe we'll both be there in 2021

I guess that makes sense - who you know and your ability to donate money to get known. I imagine it's also like other things- you work your way up by climbing the ladder. Some people take 30 years to do that, others 10 - others 3.

I found his Linked In profile. . Looks like he was at Heart of America Council for about 7 years. That's a very respectable amount of longevity. He's been at the Summit for a little under 2 years. Makes me wonder if he either just didn't like the Summit role or if he simply wanted to return to a council. I have to imagine that for some, being a SE at a major council is a very exciting role.

We had a local Scouter that I was lobbying we should nominate for one. This chap wasn't an area or region Scouter, but he'd had significant impact on Scouting over decades. Everyone I talked with about it thought it would never get selected. I was more optimistic. On another tangent - I always wondered how one becomes an area/region Scouter. The only three I know were people who were long time Council scouters who moved up. But, I assume that not everyone waits 30 years to make that transition. I wonder how anyone serves at that level for decades. Guess like anything it's who you know. Topic for another thread I suppose.

@jjlash - thanks again for adding your insight here. It's been very helpful. Since you're on staff and I know that occasionally other national folks check this forum, let me generally second @mrjohns2 comment. I think it's pretty natural for people who are weighing taking a 4-6 day course to look at it and ask - "is this worth it for me?" Wood Badge gets this question a lot already - what will we do, what should I expect, is it work 2 days off from work, and is it work $250 to attend? In the case of SLC or PLC, it's $450, 5 or 6 days off from work, and probably a plane ticket ($500), so it's even more likely folks are going to kick the tires. Myself, I spend a lot of time on Scouting, but going to my wife and saying I'm going to head off to leadership class for a week requires a bit of a sell. I'm not suggesting that the staff document every bit of the course and give away some of the "ahh ha" moments - but putting info out there like we've been discussing I think would help with enrollment. I'd probably even go further and suggest that some info on how the activities planned will help equip me as a leader would be good too. Please don't take my comment as a criticism. Instead, I'd just be happy to see the program be even more popular and am optimistic that some additional promotion might help. Then again, maybe given staff and other constraints the program is currently full and it makes sense to only open it to those that are committed enough to seek this kind of program out.

About a year ago, we had to take a BSA online course underscoring the importance of truth in membership numbers. How times have changed.