SiouxRanger

I've seen it done multiple times. And put on the IVF. Multiple times. Quality people. Kind.

I would not be so disheartened about things but for my 24 years of observing my Council, working at multiple levels in the Council to help out, pack and troop, district, camp, and Council levels, and seeing the bad management, neglect, misallocation of resources, failure of follow-through…. And my scouting active friends share my opinions. And the volunteers' experience in other councils posted on this forum, sadly, mirrors my own. There is a curious thing about human nature. Those who have come to a point where their future view turns toward the negative outlook earlier, and those who fully well understand things are bad, but continue to soldier-on, hoping-against-hope that things will turn around. Maybe they do, mostly they don't. Those that turn early are labeled "pessimists" and those that hold on are labeled, well, dreamers, ignorant, or prophets, depending on how things turn out. I have observed that those whose view turns negative a bit earlier, have generally been paying more attention and tracking more closely than those late to the party. Both hope for success, but one group is more realistic in their assessment. I am not optimistic that the course of National will change. What will do it? Historically, National has shown little self-insight. Bankruptcy does not seem to have the power to remove senior National leadership to institute a change of course. A volunteer movement would need to be led by very senior and influential volunteers, but good luck persuading them to take up a position against the sacred cow of the BSA. The only other mechanism is that the BSA fades in membership and into obscurity. That seems to be the current course. Maybe, National can perpetuate its current model, but if so, all the short-comings of program delivery mentioned on this forum will continue. I get flashy emails from National touting all sorts of things, but none of which address the fundamental problems raised by knowledgeable long-term volunteers. If National does not listen to the loyal and experienced among its adherents, to whom is it listening? The program could be so much more than it is (now). "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been! " --John Greenleaf Whittier

It seems pretty clear, in the deafening lull of the Bankruptcy, that National's grip on governance will remain, though on a dramatically lessened organization both in finances and membership. The BSA model appears to be on track to continue, largely as before. One would think that many Council mergers are on the horizon, with the concomitant reduction of senior Council staff. But will any of the fundamental issues of the program be addressed-all so often mentioned in this forum? Program neglected by professional staff, struggling units, finances committed to salaries and not program and camps, just so many things which deny to youth the level of program that parents and volunteers expect?

Any why would that be? It is the CRUX of the problem. EVERY SE is beholden to National for their job, first off, and for hoped-for promotions. Their current huge salaries are a reward for prior loyalty, and the prospect of promotions for future loyalty to National. In the Bankruptcy, National made the case that the Councils were "independent" of National, but I don't believe that. YET, those "independent" Councils, 100% of them, fell in line, trashed their camps and finances to bail out National. And paid what National decreed. (And I'd note, that those Councils are allegedly governed by Executive Committees and Executive Boards, theoretically voting on such drastic measures. Yet not one rogue Council arose. When was the last time anyone saw unanimity anywhere? Especially, in an environment of 200+ allegedly independent Councils each governed by a board of 30 to 60 folks? Our SE is not from our area. Neither were the last 6 before the current SE. None of them knew anything of the volunteers, camps, businesses, community leaders, yet were expected to interface effectively with them. It does not work. Of the last 24 years here, we have had about 7 years of effective SE leadership. The rest was ruinous.

Must be a misprint. I looked carefully…where is the factor" "times 10 to the 12th?"

Correct. If you were a CPA or an Attorney on the Board, not so motivated to risk your career or social position by assaulting the BSA monolith by referring to the tax return, you said nothing. AND, again, what would you care? The "anointed" SE with his (and females too, however) high salary had to raise the funds to pay it. And if he failed, "no skin off your nose." But here is the "RUB." And it is significant. Salaries get paid FIRST. (And of those salaries, I suspect that the SE's salary gets primacy-his/her salary gets paid first, in full, before any other in the event of a shortfall. I may be wrong, and so be it, but if others know more, please post. The upshot of all of this is that Program is funded by the dregs. "After the sharks have fed, PROGAM gets the dregs." Now, that is a problem for me. BSA is touted to be "Volunteer Driven," yet at the end of the day, that program is only accorded the dregs after the professionals have saited themselves on the huge profits of the program. And, yet, Detractors say, "Be Away, you naysayer SiouxRanger be, dare you say BSA has cut corners…" Well, my council purchases event patches at $.79 apiece, at whatever quantity. So, 100 patches cost $79. Council budget, $3 million… And still, not enough patches were ordered.

I agree entirely. My experience is that the ideal of "should have" has been replaced by "this is what we do…" Meaning that the "fix is in…"

Sorry (and I note that my membership here only allows for three apologies a month so just one left for all the rest of you "pilers-on"). In my council, SE salaries seem to be a topic "off the books." For decades. My current working theory is that no one wants to admit just how much the SE makes, as parents, most of whom make MUCH LESS will revolt. Especially given how much fees have increased. And though Scouting is far from the most expensive extracurricular activity a child can engage in, its expense grows as a parent's scout need a backpack, hiking boots., backpacking tent, etc. Sorry that my last series of posts are a bit scattered, but these are my impressions over the last 26± years. (I've tried not to make argument, just impressions.) I'd note from all my readings of posts hereon, the practices of other councils and experiences of other scouters like me, vary widely. So, I truly solicit comments to my posts. Without shared knowledge Scouting will not return to the volunteers.

This is perhaps only apocryphal, but back in 1998 or so, I heard that the top position at the Salvation Army, nationally, and his executive assistant, were paid $89,000 between them. Perhaps someone has knowledge of that. At that time, my recollection is that Jere Ratcliffe, Chief Scout Executive was paid $363,000 (not sure if benefits were included in that). I am just left with the impression that top BSA executives are highly paid for not for profits, and if folks have evidence that this is not the case, I'd love to hear it. Thanks.

Sorry-mea culpa. My perception is that National largely dictates SE salaries, and the Executive Committee (the small subcommittee of the Executive Board, and perhaps even only the Council President have any say in the matter, our perhaps even only knowledge, the salary having been set as a fait accompli. And even if they do, why would they exercise any control? The Council President, or Executive Committee are not paying the SE's salary. And, besides, even if a high salary, the person getting paid that high salary has to raise the funds to do it. "What Me Worry?" -Alfred E. Neuman. I have served on my council's executive board for years, and the issue of salaries for the SE or anyone on staff was never raised. So, we know staff are being paid, but who sets the salaries? Particularly of the SE? (As they are so high.) Some mechanism is in place to set them. BSA is not the local ice cream shack, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the process is ad hoc, so there is likely a formal procedure. And that is what I am looking to learn.

That has been my impression. Sends the message" "Be Loyal to management and you'll have a chance at the ginormous salaries we earn." There are no external, market-based controls to my knowledge.

Precisely who does set a SE's salary and benefits, if you know. I would truly love to hear some insight into the process-who has influence and especially the forces that control/regulate those salaries. Our last SE had a touch over $200,000 in salary and $100,000 in benefits. About 10% of the council budget. Well a $125,000 pay cut is better than a 100% pay cut. The SE in my council is grossly overpaid as "CEO" of a clearly failing organization. I am convinced that there is little oversight over SE salaries. "Wink and a nod" metrics. If our "Council Titanic" had a band, it would be playing with gusto (despite wet shins).

So, what is a council's budget that has 1,000 scouts? At $1 million, that's $1,000 per scout for a year's program. Hmm. Even at a council budget level of $500,000, that is $500 per scout. If every scout attended 2 camporees at $25 each, and summer camp at $350, total council revenue from those sources is only $400,000, falling $100,000 short of breakeven. A Fortune 100 company I noted the other day had revenue of a little over $500,000 PER EMPLOYEE, and over 100,000 employees. So, a 1,000 scout council has perhaps 6 to 8 employees, and a revenue stream per employee of $62,500 to $83,000. Every year starts off in a hole. The shortfall was made up "by the kindness of strangers," in the words of Admiral McRaven, but that model seems to have run its course. FOS seems to be kaput, replaced by an annual membership fee. But, as grandparents, extended family, and businesses are not solicited for FOS like in years past, at least in my council, it shifts the cost to participants. Golf outings and distinguished citizen dinners seem to be very successful, again, in my council. But, those events were formerly frosting on the cake of fundraising, and now are a primary vehicle. The 1,000 scout council would need to increase its membership to 1,250 to break even-a 25% increase in membership. That is asking a lot, too. It just seems that the odds are strongly cut against this model being sustainable. Council mergers, as cost-cutting vehicles, mean that many senior staff will lose their jobs.

National, despite its best efforts, has killed itself. Kodak.

I know of many events where patches to cover budgeted attendance were not ordered, with attendance reaching twice budgeted attendance. And so the "FAILURES TO DELIVER THE PROMISE," continue.

You obviously were not on the mailing list of the Bureau Of Pointless Name Changes. Had you been, all would be clear. Just contact Charlie…, no, Bill…-never mind, the name changes at random… Junior Leader Training is now "NYLT," or some such? Cub Outdoor Leader training is "Baloo," or some such? The fundamental principle of communication is that if you are the communicator, it is your responsibility to get you message across to your audience. If you can't do that, YOU have failed-not your audience. So, what does "NYLT" mean to a cub or scout parent? "Baloo?" That projects no meaning to me. Yeah, and I could cave-in and learn "The Code" and look cool and knowledgeable by keeping up with the trend of meaningless name changes, but I refuse. How long has Ford, been "Ford?" Chevrolet, "Chevy?" And the Pope, the "Pope?" Seems to me that BSA National has frittered its own branding by constantly changing the names of programs that need no name change. And why? It confuses the scout veterans, and means nothing to new parents. When Dodge decided to market its "tough" vehicles (maybe a decade ago?), it did not market them as "Millie's Tough Trucks." But, "Dodge Ram." Perhaps the idea of "creating energy" by renaming an existing program? (Though no substantive changes are made?) "We've changed the name, big changes to come…" which never develop. Something along the line of "We don't have a better idea, so we will just stomp harder to give the impression that we do." And the lack of change, vision, has failed to produce results. My council is down 60% in cubs and 35% in scouts. Pretty alarming.

So, we apparently have a system (and I may be incorrect in my understanding of the sequencing of events, dates, etc., so please correct me), where a volunteer's YPT (Youth Protection Training) Certificate expires 2 years to and after THE DATE of completing the YPT training. So, you complete your YPT on dd/mm/yyyy, and it expires 2 years later on dd/mm/yyy+2. So, just doing the "date math," there are 365 or 366 days in the year and thereby 365 or 366 YPT Certificate expiration dates, depending on the date of completion of the YPT training. Well, how convenient? Not only does this system maximize the number of YPT Certificate expiration dates, but maximizes the number of volunteer YPT Certificates expiring DURING the Volunteer's term of service for the unit they are registered for. And how are those expirations to be handled??? Now, I come from a council that recharters all of its units on 12-31-YYYY. I do not know whether other councils are the same, but my argument can be adjusted accordingly. So, how about a YPT Certificate rule that provides, that if you take YPT Training Sept through Dec, you are good for 2 years PLUS, that is, through the second recharter of your unit. (Again, assuming a 12-31-YYYY recharter date.) No volunteer will have their YPT Certificate expire DURING their term of service with their unit. (And Councils that recharter on other month ends, can adjust accordingly.)

I know many folks who have turned to making their contributions to the Movement by making gifts in kind, instead of cash, and one person who changed their entire estate plan to the tune of about a million, and another of $750,000. Councils do not see the folks whose contributions are changed from Boy Scouts to other charities. The councils never knew of the potential bequests, and never hear that the BSA has been dropped as a beneficiary. Immeasurable Phantom Losses.

Nice sentiment, but when was the last district or council event that a professional was the "Face Of The Event?" In my experience, never. (My impression is "Let the volunteers take the heat.") Volunteers names are slathered all over the lead-up flyers, web pages, Roundtable announcements…everywhere. A professional may be listed but as an advisor, but their role is limited by design, in my opinion. ("Hey, I'm not in charge, call the lead volunteer.") Plausible Deniability? And what does it mean that it will "be in their laps?" The event is over. The professionals were likely not at the event, or so far in the background as to be barely visible. Lightning rods, they aren't. The ugly, whatever it was, has happened. And can no longer be "fixed." It is over and whatever effect or impression it had is limited to those who experienced it (small, typically), and will fade quickly. If it did not generate police reports (something criminal) and a follow-up investigation, even earnest volunteer/parent inquiries of the lead volunteers and professionals will wither through neglect. The volunteers are not trained to deal with such issues, nor feel authorized to take any action. The professionals won't advance their careers by bringing ugly things to the attention of their Scout Executive. So, I just don't see any significant repercussions to professionals. "Yeah, we were surprised too. Had we known, we would not have chosen XXX to run this event."

I think that was an episode on "As The Stomach Turns." Sorry to hear that it has been syndicated and now in reruns. Experienced it once myself to embarrassing effect. (Breakfast for 20 purchased when 160 attended. Professional solution was to double the lunch food. Lovely. We should adopt a guiding principle, like, "Be Prepared," or some such.) Know many others who paid for many things, budget approved things, who weren't reimbursed by the council.

Yes sir. 4 years on Philmont staff, though in the 1970's, A long time ago, but I do not think that the model has changed. If you demonstrate the maturity and skills needed, and are of the right age, you may be asked to join the Philmont staff.

I have seen the Council President sign off on removing volunteers. Scout Executive agreement was presumed, but the volunteer Council President signed the letters and took the heat. The checks for the refund of the volunteers' chartering fees was signed by a subordinate professional. Ultimately cost both of them, the Council President and the Scout Executive, their jobs and reputations. At the end of the day, Council operations are governed by the rules of M.A.S.H.'s "Double Cranko." "Rules? There are no rules." --Hawkeye

Criminal Background Check

The conundrum is how does one tell what is inside and outside one's purview, the consequences of getting it wrong being so dire? Catch 22.

I agree. Good advice.