ParkMan

Respectfully - I think you're wrong to quit. There are no guarantees of success in anything we do. All we can do as people is look at the options that are out there and make the best choices possible. Kids needs people like you to bring the program to life. I'd encourage you not to get caught up in the hyperbole that Scouting is run by awful, evil people - it is not.

I guess I'd answer that two ways. 1. For your average unit Scouter, what would you have them do? They are trying to build a local program, trying to have enough kids in the program so that their own kids can have others to Scout alongside. But, I don't think we should encourage local unit Scouters to hold their heads in shame because they want to run a Cub Scout pack or a Scouts BSA troop. 2. Yep - at the higher levels where you are dealing in public opinion of course they need to have a campaign to market Scouting to a new generation and especially as we come out of this dark period in the BSAs history.

You're buying in too much to the hyperbole. The BSA is not the evil organization that some make it out to be. Yes, it had a dark period. Yes, it has and continues to make shortsighted decisions in the belief that is has to chase members. But, the BSA of today isn't as bad as the press would make it seem.

I understand what you are saying. It's possible to believe in the core concepts of the program and think that those concepts are good. For those who really believe in those concepts it's not a stretch at all to call those concepts the best. Ideas based around developing youth, helping them to experience the world, to learn about the outdoors, do develop confidence in their actions. These are all good, noble pursuits. It's also possible for that same person to look at the entity known as the BSA and recognize that it has made numerous, colossal mistakes. Of course we look at the BSA and see the utter failure in how they've handled the youth abuse issues in our past. I agree that it is difficult to look at the BSA and consider the non-profit that runs it as the best in the country. We've got a contradiction here. Myself, I'm able to look at these two different aspects and believe in the Scouting program as defined by the BSA and in parallel work to improve the actions of the entity that is the BSA. Though the BSA had made reprehensible decisions in the past and makes many decisions today that I wouldn't make, I don't think the BSA of today is awful. The BSA of today is an middle of the road non-profit that is struggling under enormous pressures. On the whole it's full of well meaning people who are trying to make the right choices. I suspect that in reality most of us are doing the same thing I am - looking at the program and believing in it. I don't think we'd all be here if we didn't. I can advocate for the program because I know the program is sound. Others cannot and that's fine for them.

My gut tells me that this is an intractable argument. Is Scouting the best youth activity or not. Somehow I think that there is a direct correlation between the amount of time you spend on Scouting and your belief in the strength of the program. I do find that lots of people talk up Scouting. That's a good thing too and is very healthy at the unit level too. Most people want to be on a "winning" team. I would encourage people to believe in the core program, but also be willing to recognize problems and try to solve them head on. There's nothing wrong at all to recognize the weaknesses in our units, councils, etc. Recognizing those lets you focus on solving them. Yet, just as it's important to not be blinded by your admiration for the program, so too do we need to be careful not to always find the negative in what we do. Scouting is a great program. Most of our volunteers and professionals are quality people doing their best. Our councils are generally trying their best as well to do the right things. Let's not get paralyzed by the overly positive or the overly negative perspectives.

We've noticed in Cub recruiting that a certain segment of the population - when they become aware of Scouting, it likely to check it out. I suspect that we'll see a robust membership year next year because those kids that were predisposed to it this year will simply wait it out and try next year. I would not worry too much about the doom and gloom right now. Of course kids are not participating and joining when the units are not able to do traditional Scouting

It's probably worth noting that program fees are a proportionally smaller part of council budgets. If, for example, you have a council with 10,000 scouts and each is charged $50. That nets a council about $500,000. A council of 10,000 scouts is probably carrying a budget in the 3-4 million dollar range. When you start looking at council spending, you see things like: direct event expenses staff administrative staff (SE, treasurer, registrar, office staff) marketing staff fundraising staff field support staff (DEs) camp staff camp facility expenses office space fixed overhead (electricity, heat, copy paper) When membership numbers shrink, I think councils have to start looking at how they do things. Some stuff you cannot get rid of - i.e. you have to pay for electricity. Some stuff you can. Some stuff is strategic (camp expenses) whereas some stuff might not be.

I'm not sure if that was in response to my posts. But, if so - let me clarify. I am not anti-council nor am I anti-professional. I like most of what my council does and I consider many professionals dear friends. I simply believe that we have to be willing to be open to new ideas. I believe we also have to be willing to trust our volunteers. The world have become so much more connected and networked. We've seen all kinds of transformations in how we all work and live. Goodness, even with Covid I've now been home for 9 months and my work has barely missed a beat. I hope that councils and professionals endure. I just think we have to be receptive to new ideas and new approaches. I'm not going to suggest that we throw it all out - but I am going to suggest that we be willing to look at new ideas and try them. I think a lot these days of Sears and Amazon. Back in it's day, Sears was the Amazon of the time. They had a great catalog and people could order all kinds of things they needed. But, over the years Sears became beholden to it's processes and ways of doing business. Along came Amazon who basically did the exact same thing Sears used to do - but with a fresh perspective. Today, Sears is all but gone and Amazon is dominating retail. I think there is a lesson in there somewhere - but am not sure what yet...

Yes - you are correct in understanding the idea. It might be volunteers, it might be someone who is looking to make a small business out of supporting units. Again - I'm not specifically lobbying for this idea. Yet, when you start looking at different models for supporting units ideas like this could emerge. We see increased competition like this is all kinds of other walks of life. Further, today it really isn't all that necessary for a council to be local anymore. In my council more and more things are being done by Zoom. What if everything was done by Zoom?

While I am not at a point where I would lobby for any particular outcome - but I think things could become more creative. One possibility could be the end of monopoly status for councils. This could result in small, enterprising councils in remote locations offering an online only Scouting support model for units for a nominal fee. Units would purchase awards through such a council and submit advancement reports. But there would be no local infrastructure - no districts, no local offices to fund, no fundraising teams, and no local professionals. This would result in units being able to pay a fee of a few dollars per Scout per year to said council. In return, that little council would fund itself through scale and efficiency. A few people in a back office could handle all the forms and advancement for 100,000 scouts.

The question I keep asking myself is what kind of value could a council provide and demonstrate for a $50 program fee. This is particularly challenging in light of the sheer amount of volunteer hours that are contributed at the district & council level. On my list: maintain free access to council camps. This is a clear, tangible value to units. free or minimal fee participation in district and council programming. Camporees, day camps, etc. ought to be subsidized. free training for volunteers. free rank awards. Yes - this is a national item, but basic advancement could be free of charge. improved customer service. If you have an issue with your Eagle application, etc. there ought to be a clear path to resolving that. I'd welcome others. My sense is that it would be good for councils to more clearly delineate budgets items between growing scouting and supporting members. Use fundraising to pay for membership drives and advertising. Use fundraising to pay for new unit development. Use program fees to pay for supporting current members.

I agree that program fees are preferable to FOS. Yet, we need to recognize that program fees need to be accompanied with tangible value add from the council. Charging a Scout $50 per year to fund council operations need to then be accompanied with some sort of obvious return on that fee. One of the challenges with the transition to program fees is that the funding structure is designed to show value to people who donate to Scouting. DEs and staffs who are focused on building and growing Scouting are working to accomplish goals that are interesting to people who are donating to Scouting. Families who are paying a "per scout" fee are looking for a different kind of return. Paying $50 to fund a DE who is trying to start new units and solve unit issues is adding a return that is not directly apparent to parents. From a program fee basis, it doesn't matter if there is one scout or 1,000 scouts. Each scout needs to derive value from that fee. This will challenge how councils communicate and demonstrate value to families.

SE compensation is not the issue with the council structure we have today. I am not supporting the current SE salaries. SE salaries become yet another example that people point to as an issue of council mis-management, but it is not the primary cause. If people were happy with the council operations the complaints would be less. Since people are unhappy, SE salaries become as example that we point to. Shrinking SE salaries will only serve to remove that specific complaint - it will not resolve the core concerns.

You too sound like a remarkable professional and I thank you for your service. I regret that you felt animosity from volunteers. There is something in the Scouting program in the past 25 years (and maybe longer) that has setup many adversarial relationships. It's not just volunteers and professionals - it's within the volunteer ranks too. I have a several friends who are professionals through my years as a volunteer. There are good people and bad people in any role - volunteers, professionals, you name it. The good people you cherish, the bad people you tend to ignore. This is open for some discussion. First, I don't think many people have a concern with professionals in roles such as fundraising, camp property management, marketing, and accounting. When the professionals start to move into roles where they take on similar responsibilities to volunteers, then there become questions. Does the DE role, as it exists today - add enough value that it is worth the financial expense? Is the impact of professionals overstepping their boundaries and directing volunteers at the unit/district/council level worth the value that this direction brings? I believe there is a lot of room for debate and discussion on these points. On your two examples: That sounds like a poorly run unit. Having unit volunteers and families have to pick up the pieces from a moment like this is how they grow as a team. Having an outsider step in and take over make ameliorate the immediate situation, but it doesn't fix the underlying issue. As a former Pack CM & CC, I would rather the unit have failed and learned the lesson. Similar point here. The district commissioner staff needs to learn from this. The unit needs to learn from this. Unit commissioners are our ambassadors and coaches to the unit leaders. Having DEs prop up a poorly functioning unit commissioner system reduces some of the immediacy of the problem, but it doesn't resolve the issue. I would encourage us not to think whether a unit commissioner and do some of the job functions of a DE, but instead to consider why we have DEs doing the job functions of commissioners. Again - thank you for your service. I support having professionals, but I think we need to be open to thinking about how they best add value and leverage those skills.

Scouting is a very funny enterprise. As a professional, the SE is not that senior a position. I've got numerous volunteers in my unit and district who are more accomplished professionally than our SE. Yet, the organization is setup to treat the SE like they are a high level politician or dignitary. The same is true with the council president. It strikes me that some humility and understanding of servant leadership in these roles is a good thing. I'm constantly reminded that we are all here as servants of unit level Scouters. I think a SE and DEs who recognize this are an asset to their profession.

I'd be up for a simple registration database. Any unit can sign anyone up as a MBC. They go into the database, and any Scouter in the district can see the list and contact them. Checks and balances are done through things like YPT, background checks, and completion of training for the position. The district committee may choose to do some work to recruit more or to encourage those whose registration is about to lapse to continue - but I think they days of volunteers maintaining lists can be behind us. I don't doubt that the BSA's IT systems are weak. As a volunteer I'm happy to communicate my needs and hope that they'll come around to eventually sorting it out.

It sounds like we have a similar perspective on this. One of the strengths of the BSA structure is the ability to tailor individual programs to the needs of specific local communities. The ability of a community of Scouts and Scouters to tailor the application and depth of the Duty To God component is an example of that. I hope that this accommodation for liability reasons does not impact that in the slightest. I do believe this is where the Commissioner teams will need to be active in encouraging those units who make the ownership transition to continue a "hearts and minds" connection. While I have no doubt that there are some COs who very seriously uphold all aspects of the CO agreement, I do believe the vast preponderance would be happy to continue to consider a unit meeting at the CO a part of their ministry- regardless of the technical ownership.

It shouldn't. Too much is made of the ownership issue here. Whether the CO is the technical owner or an informal organizer, it really shouldn't matter too much. If you troop meets at a location, it would be good to integrate into that community. So, it really shouldn't matter at all who provides the legal ownership of the unit. In fact, the BSA should make this ownership question one of merely enforcement of YPT and training rules.

So much of this is simply the result of too much historical legacy. registering without YPT, merit badge counselor lists not being accessible. So much of this could be cleaned up with a small, streamlined online system.

I see what you're saying. I misunderstood. Sure - maybe it's just us, I'd just wrap the conservation on this point to say that I think this expectation that the DCs report to the DE is a mistake. The DCs report to their council counterparts. When the pros have to (or even can) step in then it weakens the need for volunteers to step up. I suspect that we are seeing lots of cases where the professionals have assumed too more responsibility for the work in Scouting, creating an unsustainable model. When I was in a DC role, I was ready to walk away from it simply because I got tired of being told what I should or should not worry about by the DE. I much more thoroughly enjoyed being a Troop CC than I did a DC.

I did. cburkhardt posted it: I read this as a lot of volunteer oversight and management. Am I wrong? EDIT: Further, the job description is raise money, grow membership, & oversee volunteers. This seem undoable in a large modern district. We've all been remarking about that for years now. Why not take a step back, focus the job on the highest value add areas, and then trust and enable volunteers to do the rest?

I have some good friends who are and were DEs. As such, I recognize there is a role for professionals. My sense is that as the job description has become broader and many of the responsibilities of volunteers transferred to professionals it is reaching the point of unsustainability. I think, for example, our DE for 75 units is spending 50% or more of his time just dealing with fires and another 25% responding to SE requests. This leaves only 25% for his strategic responsibilities. As a district/council volunteer - I see it now. The DE comes to a meeting to tell the District Chair what he needs to do for the budget or to tell the District Commissioner what meeting a UC needs to go to. A unit calls with a complaint and the DE visits. In my mind, these efforts are largely duplicating "the easy stuff" of being a senior district volunteer. Our District Chair is a seasoned executive - I don't think the DE really needs to tell him how to write a budget. Out District Commissioner a seasoned volunteer - I think he can handle some unit support As a result of all of this, the DE probably only has about 25% of his time to really focus on the core value add of his role. So when a DE only has a couple of days a week to focus on building the district, what can he meaningfully do? My proposal is to refocus the DE role. I would like to see a realistic job description for the DE that is achievable by an early career employee in 40 hours a week. Assume the following: The District Commissioner and District Chair are prestige jobs There is a 50% staffed district committee The average DE supports a district of 2,000 scouts and 75 units. Each scout, or average, contributes $15 a year towards the salary of the DE. With those basic facts - realign the position.

I very often wonder how many of our issues at the district & council level are due to the loss of skills in our district volunteers. Unit service to me is a great example. Ideally, we have a person who can help units solve problems and be successful. Perhaps that person is in the unit. Perhaps it's someone in a district or council. Perhaps it's a volunteer or maybe a professional. Scouting for a long time has tried to have this person be a district volunteer. Then, when it got hard to recruit, we started looking to the DEs to do this work. Today, we are lucky is we have one DE for every 75 units. One person cannot get to know 75 units - it's impossible. Yet, we've pretended that this is exactly what we are doing. In the process, we've got district commissioners who do not know how to recruit unit commissioners. We've got council commissioners who have no idea how to help district commissioners do that. Our unit service infrastructure has been so neglected that we've got units that don't get basic coaching and mentoring. I suspect that if we stopped having DEs do this, we would eventually start to figure it out. Why - because we have to. Volunteers would be sitting around asking themselves "who can go talk to Pack 1234?". Today it's too easy to just send over the DE to apply a band aid. Today it's too easy to give lip service to finding a UC to do it. However, if we really had to make it work, we would start to find a way. Would lots of units fail - of course they would. But, I think we would start to find a way.

As I looked through the job description, just about everything there is already done by volunteers. I do see that in some of these are some items around membership. If there was a reduced need to fund DEs, I could also see a reduced demand to grow membership. If Scouting membership is largely a function of interest - then he pressure to grow membership at all costs could be reduced. I agree - these are more appealing to someone paid to do them Yet, if we are not paying DEs, I sense this could be a more focused effort to pay for camps and other central resources. A few paid fundraising professionals would likely be more financially successful for a council to employ here.

We're quickly approaching the point where we have to start asking - what is the true value add of the DE role? If we have 1 DE per 100 units, what does that person do? If we have volunteer DEs with only a fraction the bandwidth, what essential services do they provide that a District Chair or District Commissioner (and their teams) do not?