Summer Camp MB mill - as usual

[packsaddle]

OGE, me too. I think we all might be in better shape these days, as a matter of fact, if the 'clonk' of the steel hanky was heard fairly often in DC as well. But...as long as we have our elected officials, who really needs National Lampoon, really? I guess, somehow, it just doesn't seem as humorous.

[acco40]

An "ignore" feature on an anonymous forum is like the proverbial teats on a boar. A real-life "ignore" capability would be a God send.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Regarding the Acco40 post above at Posted: Saturday, 7/30/2011: 10:43:47 PM:

 

Amen. That would be something!

 

 

[Eamonn]

Have kinda, sorta read through most of this thread.

Some of the posts were just glanced at.

Seems to me and of course I might be wrong?

That for the most part we agree that there is a problem.

The "Fix"? - That's not so easy.

 

I sat on our Area Committee.

Sat through lots of meetings that mainly dealt with the finances and the membership of the 13 Councils in our Area.

Selecting, assigning and training people to do Camp Inspections was done but from where I sat never seemed to be viewed as something that was a high priority.

I have never served as a camp inspector.

I have in the past looked over the standards and they cover a lot of ground with the health and safety of the campers being what is seen as the most important. (Rightly so,)

Program is not high on the list.

 

I tend to agree that we get what we pay for.

While I'm unsure if Councils would be able to find the quality staff with the needed qualifications? I feel sure that paying these guys would force the camp fees to go up.

This for me begs the question, if we can't afford to do it well, should we be doing it at all?

 

I haven't had a chat with anyone at the National or Regional level. Still I'm willing to bet that they might say that it's not their fault that local Councils are not following or abiding by the rules.

At the local level we do have or maybe might have District Committees? With a District Camping Committee. More often than not the District Camping Chair is invited to sit on the Council Camping Committee.

If we are unhappy and dissatisfied with what is happening at the Council Summer Camp? This might be one way of communicating our dissatisfaction.

Some years back we had a problem with the food at summer camp and it was the out cry from the units that brought about change.

 

A big concern I have is how the heck did we get to where we are at?

When and why did not doing things right become acceptable?

It seems that this kinda stuff is not about one badge or isolated to one or two Scout Camps.

I'm sure it didn't come from the youth members or their parents.

Are leaders pushing to get Scouts ahead as quickly as possible?

Are we afraid if we don't pad the Scouts egos that they will all decide that they are going to quit?

Is this all about money?

Does our local Council feel that offering more and more badges is the way to get more campers and bring in more cash?

Are we willing to accept that if something can't be done right next summer camp it will not be available or offered?

Or will we go elsewhere where it will be offered even if it's not done as it should be?

To be honest I've seen a lot of Troops have in Troop only MBC who do such a poor job and herd Scouts through badges with the aim being to do as little as can be gotten away with and sometimes even less than that. I do wonder if maybe these are the guys who are happy with not doing things well?

Ea.

 

[packsaddle]

I've always liked the food at camp. But then, I am not a very discerning person when it comes to food.

Eamonn wrote, "While I'm unsure if Councils would be able to find the quality staff with the needed qualifications? I feel sure that paying these guys would force the camp fees to go up.

This for me begs the question, if we can't afford to do it well, should we be doing it at all?"

 

This overlaps with the thread on too many camps as well.

A while back TAHAWK noted, "The goal of a good many Councils is to turn a profit on Summer Camp. I don't know of any that have a goal of subsidizing Summer Camp, except in the case of camperships.

The last annual budget I saw for our Council (2008) allocated 93% of all funds to salaries. That left 7% for all other items, including maintenance and operation of the Council's camps and offices."

 

If that is true, then it sounds like the councils ARE the problem...sucking the life's blood out of the camps. I continue to advocate cutting the camps loose and letting them operate on their own as real businesses, competing in a free and open marketplace. I know this kind of talk rubs all you liberals the wrong way but I will stand by this idea as a way to address many of the problems we have with the summer camps.

 

[TAHAWK]

Please do not bring politics into what is already a difficult issue.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, it's not politics...it's simple economics. When customers pay more, they expect more and they get it or else move on to a competitor. And that is the free market. When customers pay little and expect more anyway, that's...entitlement...aka Scout Camps.

So if, as you assert, the price is a fair and competitive price for camp, and the poor quality of the product is the result of councils skimming profits to pay for salaries, then the solution is to rid the camps of those 'percentage parasites' so they can operate freely within the marketplace. I can't help that this is a conservative solution nor can I help that it seems to rub you the wrong way. It is the best solution and for some reason, most of us want to avoid it. I don't understand why.

[TAHAWK]

I never asserted that the price charged at any council camp, any sample of council camps, or council camps in general is fair or competitive. Maybe someone else did.

 

I never asserted that councils are "skimming." I merely reported the facts as I know them to be in my council. To try to be clearer. our council camp camp is expected to turn a profit over an above all costs of operation. That would be, I suspect, an example of the free market business model: AKA "turning a profit."

 

You attributed certain views to "you liberals." Not sure who you attach that label to, but I requested that we not bring politics into this.

 

As for me, I don't think your proposed solution is "liberal" or "conservative,," but it is interesting.

 

I thought paying little but expecting more is Dollar Stores.

 

"Simple economics" is a fine joke to lighten up a discussion that have become tense at times. ^___^

[packsaddle]

"the goal of a good many Councils is to turn a profit on Summer Camp. I don't know of any that have a goal of subsidizing Summer Camp, except in the case of camperships."

So, if there is no subsidy (other than camperships) and the council's goal is to turn a profit from the camp, as YOU say, please explain how this results in either a fair or a competitive price? Unless the councils suck away at the quality by investing less than needed for the quality we expect or pay for?

 

If you think that promotion of the free market is a liberal approach, or if you want to remain confused, I'm with you all the way as long as you support that free market approach. You can call it anything you want.

 

Edit: "I thought paying little but expecting more is Dollar Stores." Yeah, that works. These days I'm thinking about the whining retirees expecting more from socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid, or SS. Oops, is that getting political again?

I think that if we free the camps from their masters in the council and allow the customers a greater choice and a better product, these problems may not all be solved, but they will have a more rational mechanism for solution - the market.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[TAHAWK]

Brother, if you believe trying to turn a profit is neither fair nor competitive, you may need to reassess where you are on the political spectrum. In any event, I am not judging. Merely stating facts as I know them. My council wants the $$ for the camp to come from the fees paid to camp AND to have some of that $$ left for the General Fund. Private camps will want the same.

 

In any case, I do not think this is a political discussion or will be helped by trying to put everything into particular political sorting baskets. For example, the most rabid guns-rights guy I know is a member of the Socialist Party from WBGV. Hard to fit everything under the sun into neat political categories. (He likes big knives too. Runs his own business on the side. Likes Charlie Daniels. Hates Sting and "The Boss." Get the picture? Not neat. )

 

There is a political forum.

 

 

 

Eamonn, thank you for the contribution.

 

 

[Abel Magwitch]

Heh, heh, it's not politics...it's simple economics. When customers pay more, they expect more and they get it or else move on to a competitor. And that is the free market. When customers pay little and expect more anyway, that's...entitlement...aka Scout Camps.

 

Pay more, pay little

 

For me and my troop, the issue is not about how much one pays but rather what is promised by the council for the fees paid and what is actually delivered.

 

There are several neighboring councils to mine. The majority of my council troops go to these other councils for their summer camp. Here are some of their reasons the program is better; the council invests in the upkeep of the camp; the council is prepared for summer camp; there is an adequate staff and adequate 18 year old merit badge counselors; the food is better and there is enough of it.

 

Each of the out of council camps cost 10 to 25 dollars less per boy than my council camp. Each of these out of council camps offer 7 to 8 weeks of summer camp and they are filled to capacity by October with unit reservations. My council camp only offers 4 weeks and the camp is less than half full.

 

The out of council camps offer a third more merit badges than my council camp.

 

A few years ago, I compiled the information of my councils summer camp and compared it to two of the out of council camps where the majority of my councils troops now attend and presented the information to the pro in charge of managing summer camp along with the camping chairman. I told the pro that the other two camps are our competition and if we wanted to compete, we had to offer at least the same amount of program at the same prices. I questioned why the other two councils could afford a better program considering that they were smaller councils covering smaller areas. Considering all the membership my council boasted in having in order to solicit United Way funds and reviewing the annual report and the council 990 tax return there should be ample resources to fund our camp. I also mentioned that within the past 20 years, our council sold off two of its other camps and we volunteers were told by the professionals then that the monies from the sales of these two camps would be invested into the remaining camp. But alas, this never happened. The response I got from the transient professionals was that was in the past and that they had nothing to do with those decisions.

 

Funny how that response is offered over and over for past mismanagement and broken promises by former administrations. But I have seen the inflated salaries that upper pros make. The ways in which former pros from my council fudged the numbers to get their raises and promotions. Some of these former SEs are now making over $250,000 annually. Talk about entitlements.

 

A Scout is Trustworthy. The council should be trustworthy by keeping their promises to the Scouts for the fees they pay.

 

Be Prepared. The council needs to be prepared for summer camp the day it opens.

There should be an adequate staff in place ready to serve. All the supplies should be in place before the first boy arrives. There should be no excuses by pros saying that they have other things to do other than summer camp, (this was one of the excuses I was given when I asked a pro running summer camp why there was no archery supplies or pottery supplies bought before the start of camp).

 

My troop made the decision last year to not return to our council camp because how we were treated by the new bully pro camp director. This year we summer camped at a private campground a campground that is friendly to Scouting and offers an excellent program. Instead of paying the customary $250 council fee, our week cost less than $125 per kid. And the biggest plus was we were well treated by the camp staff. The camp staff was courteous, willing and experienced. We supplemented the camp program with our own program. Volunteers became the merit badge counselors.

 

And our troop's summer camp was all managed by a bunch of volunteer leaders who took no pay to serve. Tell me why our troop should support FOS anymore?

 

To me there are two programs in Scouting. The real program belongs to the volunteer leaders and the Scouts they serve. (Imagine that people volunteering their time money and resources to better the youth of this country. Sounds like socialism does it not?) There certainly are no big salaries being paid to the devoted volunteers who actually do the work of providing the Scouts with the program. Instead, these volunteers are charged a fee to go to camp so they can provide their program to the youth they serve. If it werent for the volunteer leaders, there would be no BSA.

 

And then there is the professional program. The pros will tell you that the scouting is a business. There are big salaries to be made if one so chooses to work towards the goals of membership and unit growth. Incentives to earn quality district awards the pro gets a raise, the volunteer gets a nifty patch to wear.

 

But the pros are not in the trenches. They are not involved on the unit level. They do not run the camporees or daycamps, the troop and pack meetings. No, those activities are run by the volunteer.

 

Scouting is not a business to the volunteer leaders who actually provide the program to the youth.

 

The pros are supposed to manage the funds and maintain the properties. They are to hire the summer camp program staff and ensure that BSA policies and procedures are followed. The pros are supposed to ensure that summer camp is properly supplied. Instead (at least in my council) policies and procedures will only be followed if convenient or if it wont cost the council money and the camp is never ever ready for the first week campers. They truly miss out on the program and they are never given a partial refund for the program they did not receive.

 

TAHAWK hit is on the head when he stated that 93% of funding went to pay professional salaries. What I find troubling is how the professional salaries are added to program on the IRS 990 form. Over a million dollars is spent in my council on professional salaries yet those figures are added to program. Yep, an $8 dollar fee to pay for food for the cooking merit badge and the only supplies the camp had was pancake mix. Scouts made an $8 dollar pancake and were given credit for the entire cooking portion of the merit badge. Program, Shmogram.

 

The latest rumor floating around is that supposedly within the next few years, there will be a merger of councils in my state. And when that happens, our great council camp will be sold. And since the council hired its new bully camp director who is chasing everyone away, I can foresee the councils reason for selling the camp nobody was using it so we could no longer afford to keep in open. Then that SE will be promoted and a new executive board will be voted in. I wonder which executive board member will benefit from selling the property.

 

The boys deserve the promised program. The boys deserve a quality program. That is not entitlement, that is living up to the timeless values and strong character that Scouting is supposed to stand for.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[packsaddle]

"...you may need to reassess where you are on the political spectrum." That presumes there IS some kind of a political spectrum. The guy you described puts the lie to that misconception. Anyway, I thought we were supposed to get away from politics....

If you think it is reasonable for a business to expect to profit from a poor quality product and dissatisfied customers, you must be on Chrysler's management team. The business which has 93% of its budget in salaries (from your statistics, I assume the camps, other programs, infrastructure fall into the 7%) is one that I suggest belongs in the grave.

The customer does have alternatives. They will walk if they find a better alternative. That might be happening already. It IS going to happen anyway, I'm just promoting a way for it to happen efficiently.

 

Edit: Abel, "The boys deserve a quality program. That is not entitlement..."

And I agree. It is a reasonable expectation by customers who are not satisfied.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Abel Magwitch]

Packsaddle, I agree with your assessment that when the customer sees a better alternative, they will walk. This is most evident in my council.

 

I know this is off topic but let's suppose...

 

I know that there are Scouters out there whose council's have merged. I know there are those out there whose council sold their beloved camp.

 

When council's merge and camps close, how are the decisions made to close which particular camp? How are the decisions made on where the Scout office will be located?

 

Has anyone experienced a drop in the quality of your camp program where council troops sought out alternative council camps only to have your council camp be the one that closed before or during a council merger?

 

Did it appear that the council camp was intentionally run into the ground giving reason for the council to close the camp?

 

Anyone out there find a new camp director - a professional camp director, (not the usual volunteer hired from the ranks to be camp director for the summer camp season) and found that the camp director made it very unpleasant for troop leaders? I know in my council that many more troops stopped coming to the council camp in recent years and went elsewhere because how they were treated by the new camp director.

 

I see some wheels in motion in my council which leads me to believe that there will be some big changes coming on the horizon. One executive board member whom I sought out concerning the problems of our summer camp told me "why does the council really need this camp when most other troops go elsewhere?" (By the way, the troop he is involved with stopped using the council camp 15 years ago because of the better program offered in the neighboring council). I also had a nice conversation with a fellow from regional who happened to be camping at another council's camp where my troop had its fishin camp. He told me of the plans that regional had for my council.

 

Packsaddle, I see my council going to the grave as you say along with its camp. But I believe there is a bigger picture behind the reasons why.

 

It will be easier for council to condone their decisions on why a camp had to be shut down if they intentionally made the program and service stink beore hand.

 

Thoughts?

 

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[packsaddle]

Abel Magwitch, I know of no such things and could not begin to guess about such things. It is an interesting idea though. One thing I can think of which would not tend to support such a Machiavellian scheme is the fact that councils seem to be unable to even keep simple advancement records correctly. How could such incompetence put together a scheme THAT clever? I could be wrong, I suppose. It might not be that difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of a bunch of naive volunteers. Maybe the advancement record thing is a clever smoke screen. Wow, talk about conspiracy theories!!!

[Abel Magwitch]

One thing I can think of which would not tend to support such a Machiavellian scheme is the fact that councils seem to be unable to even keep simple advancement records correctly. How could such incompetence put together a scheme THAT clever?

 

Incompetence with advancement records? I don't believe so.

 

Not caring about such trivial things such as advancement records while being concerned with the real priorities of membership, fos and criticals, in my opinion is closer to the truth.

 

I recall when I was advancement chair and required merit badge counselors to fill out their applications and be approved by the advancement committee, I was dismayed when people simply went to the scout office, paid their fee and was registered as a merit badge counselor without advancement committee approval. When I informed the SE about how I was working to follow advancement policies and procedures, he told me that he did not know of any such approval procedure by the advancement committee. But then a friend of mine who worked at the scout shop called me to tell me that the SE stopped by to look at the advancement committee guidebook. My friend asked the SE if he would like to purchase his own copy.

 

The pros in my council give the impression that they are only concerned with the business of Scouting and rarely have anything to do with the program at the volunteer level.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)