Here we go again....

[packsaddle]

Dsteele, Wow and thanks for that great reply! I'm glad you did not take offense, it was not meant that way. Your reply was straight to the point and I learned a lot from it. A quick response to a couple of your comments, though. 1) We primarily see the DE and very little of the rest of the council (outside of camp) and our DEs have been so-so over the years. New ones arrive at regular intervals and we feel like there's nearly a year of training during which time we're left on our own (OK by us). Then there have been a few duds that actually cost us in terms of families leaving scouts (our Cub Scout pack nearly died from recent DE neglect, hopefully cured now). Others have been useful in different ways.

The point of this is that the DE is not necessarily the best ambassador for the council.

2) I believe that for our region (SE U.S.A.) a consolidation of some of the offices (or office functions) could happen with minimal pain, thereby reducing costs. Actually, some functions might be consolidated at a larger scale, considering the widespread use of media such as this, thereby taking some pressure off numerous local offices.

 

Lastly, and one my worst criticisms of BSA, I think that one area of the program needs to be repaired and maintained even if other areas receive cuts - database management. I sincerely believe that BSA, councils on up, does not understand the magnitude of time expended needlessly trying to clean up the mess of record-keeping that councils seem to have. Oops, this is getting too specific and into a gripe session. I did appreciate the info, though. Thanks.

 

Saltheart, I think I share your view. The early comment that BSA loses either way in the court case was right-on. The decision is in and there is no point to bellyache about the fallout. Just get on with the program with the resources we have.

 

Mark, I am afraid I don't have good solutions to your summer camp problem. The only problem you mention that we have confronted has been the food thing. We never schedule for the first week or two in order to avoid that problem. Even if the cook is back from previous years, they seem to have to climb a learning curve. Good luck.

[Bob White]

I was at a Chamber of Commerce event last night and managed to corner a couple UW board members. I said I noticed that their 2003-2004 budget included a reduction in UW administartive monies of nearly $14000. We talked about what a herd ship that will be for there Office of 6 professionals over the next year. They took this cut even though the donations were up from last year but did not reach their set goal. Then we talked about the organizations that are getting the same amount as last year even though they had a year of growth. I then mention my involvement with scouting and the fact that we recieved the largest cut of $15000, and how difficult that is when we are trying to maintain a staff of 14 and services to 11,000 families. If its tough on 6 imagine our problem.

 

We are appealing the budget cut and I asked them to reconsider their decision for the BSA program, at this point 4 other scouters within earshot came over and added their support. It's fun to watch when a Doctor, a Bank VP, the head of the larget genneral contractiing firm in the region and the executive director of the chamber all press thier support to United Way for scout funds. I'll let you know if it worked or not.

 

Bob White

[Twocubdad]

One would hope, Mark, that there are enough business-minded people involved in running your camp to realize that the way to improve its finances is by improving its quality.

 

We've got the same problem with our Scout Shop. A neighboring council opened a new shop near us which is managed by the National Supply Division. Whatever you may think about the quality and prices of BSA gear, I can tell you National does a really great job of running it's retail stores. Notably, they have in stock virturally everything in the catalog and they are open Saturdays.

 

Of course our council's shop saw a drop in sales when the new store opened. The response was to have all the DEs lay a guilt trip on anyone who shops at the other store and, secondly, to prohibit units from purchasing advancement materials from anywhere other than the Council service center shop. The biggest thing that accomplished was to tick-off a bunch of volunteers. Wouldn't it have been much better had they responded by redoubling their efforts to make sure the local shop is well stocked and to better serve their customers by opening Saturdays?

 

[Twocubdad]

Oh, and a question for the Man of Steele on a slightly different topic: What percentage of camp and activity fees does your council keep to cover overhead? Is there any thought of increasing it? Does your council provide anything back to the event (other than basic staff and administrative services) in return for their cut?

 

Do the rest of you know what I'm talking about?

[Bob White]

I know what you are talking about twodad I just don't know why you phrase it the way you did.

 

Having chaired many a council and district event over the years I never had the council keep money that I as a volunteer didn't budget for them to have.

 

We routinely create event budgets that cover the anticipated cost of the event, to that we add a 10% contigency fee (in case something unexpected comes up) and a %15 administrative fee (counils money).

 

This is to cover the admistration that council provides to support the activity. We put postage and mailer costs iin the budget, but theose stamps don't stick themselves to the letters or jump in the envelope. Someone at the office tracks registration, answers phone calls, orders patches, orders ribbons. The office they do that in needs lights and heat for them while they work.

 

That all comes at a price. I have a responsibility to budget for that. Along with that the council general fund keeps any profit that may happen. Keep in mind we don't budget for profit. In balance to that, if the event loses money, the council's general fund makes up the difference (thank goodness), keep in mind we don't budget to lose money.

 

The most money I have ever had an event profit was $100, that was one-cent for every three participants. But I once saw a volunteer lose $5000 mismanaging a day camp.

 

So the budget is the volunteer's responsibility. The goal is not to lose money, but you need to figure in the service center's administrative cost. Unless you want the council to hold you responsible for any size loss you had better be willing to turn over any sized profit. If there was too much deficit or too much profit, it was because of a volunteers error not the professional staff.

 

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[dsteele]

Nicely answered, Bob.

 

Speaking specifically about my current council as it relates to our summer camp paying for our overhead for owning the property year round, I'll answer it specifically. We own two properties. One is our Boy Scout Summer camp. It's very north in Wisconsin and it is used basically only for 5 weeks of camp. The rest of the time it just costs us money. We budget for summer camp to help defray the loss, but unless we charged about $500 per kid per week at summer cmap, it's a loss. Our second property is within an hour of the council service center and about an hour from Chicago suburbs. It generates income for us year-round, enough so that we're able to lose money on the other property. It tends to balance out. Sometimes we make a little, sometimes we lose a little. Depends on how much maintanence has to go into either property.

 

I'd like to address Mark and his desire to support his council by attending his council's camp. I happen to know his Scout Executive, but that doesn't really change my answer. I'd say the same whether I knew him or not.

 

I'm sure he's well aware that your troop hasn't been at their camp for three years. It's pretty standard for a Scout Executive to ask where, if not our camp, are they going to summer camp? Yes, they are concerned about finance, but give them a little credit. They're also concerned that the Scouts get a long term camping experience, whether it be here, there, or other.

 

Here's my suggestion -- call your Scout Executive and ask for an appointment with him and whichever council Vice President is in charge of camping operations for the council. Explain that you would like to see your troop return to your council's camp and that you would like to discuss with them what it would take for that to happen. Take your committee chairman, or, if you can schedule it in such a way and it wouldn't intimidate the heck out of him, your Senior Patrol leader or an older boy who was there when you had the bad experience. In a calm manner, explain what drove you away from the program, what attracts you and keeps you going back to the other camp, and see where it goes. Perhaps a lot of the things that bothered your troop have been fixed. Perhaps some of them can't be fixed for various reasons, but there will be good things that come from the meeting as long as the attitude is that "we're in this together and let's work to fix it."

 

The other thing I suggest you do, if it's truly your older boys convincing the younger boys that they don't want to go to your council's camp, is to talk with the camp director. Take a bunch of both groups of Scouts to your council's camp so they can "inspect" it's operation. Ask the camp director to have a staff member escort them around the camp, let them talk to staff and scouts, etc. Offer to pay for the meals and let the boys make their decisions based on their own experience and not an oral representation of a bad experience darkened by faded memory over time from an older scout.

 

Then see what happens. I applaud your desire to try to fix the problem, rather than just walking away from it.

 

Bob White -- nice work at the Chamber event. As we have seen, United Way, unlike the Boy Scouts of America, bows to public pressure. That's as far as I'm prepared to go down that particular path to agency bashing . . . (Not you, Bob. I was talking about killing the temptation I just felt to bash a hand that, although it's feeding us less, is still feeding us in many cases.)

 

I know I've left a few loose "worms" from the proverbial can lying around, but I can't find them at the moment. I'll be back.

 

DS

[Twocubdad]

And I agree with you, Bob. I don't begrudge the council their 15% vig. But here, I don't feel like we get our money's worth. Printing and postage comes from our side, and we lick the stamps, too. We track the registration, collect the fees (we make one deposit at the council) and answer the phone calls. But that's okay, because we know about the 15% upfront. Those are the rules we agreed to.

 

But now, with council revenues down, they're looking at day camp (and other programs, I'm sure) to help make up the difference by cutting expenses and leaving more than the required 15% on the table. As you pointed out, Bob, any money we save goes to the council. My question is, and I apologize if I wasn't clear, is this a usual practice in other councils?

 

[Bob White]

I have been a volunteer in 4 councils and the way scouting is financed and events budgeted is nearly idendical.

 

BW

 

Twocubdad if I could inquire, how many families in the unit you serve and what is the unit's average Friends of Scouting pledge each year?

[Twocubdad]

At the time we do FOS, we have about 70 or 80 active Scouts. Off the top of my head, I don't know how many families that represents, but I do know that about 30 families contributed to FOS this year. Our unit's total contribution this year was about $1000 higher than last and represented about 15% of our district's Family FOS goal.

 

I don't know how we compare to other units locally or nationally, but my impression is that we do our share or better. We also sell over $20k in popcorn, so that's another $6k or so supporting the council.

 

Why do you ask?

[dsteele]

Here's Steele's Law #2 and I'm about to break it. To quote myself, "when you find yourself in the path between two charging Rhinos -- dodge."

 

Here comes my violation. I'm dodging, to be sure. I just want to answer the question that TwoCubDad asked, fair and square.

 

Is collecting 15% up front for activities by councils common practice? Yes, and no. How's that for fair and square. I've been involved in councils that did it that way and in a council that did it by counting every photocopy, stamp, etc. against the event. It pretty much balances out.

 

The concern I have is that TwoCubDad mentioned that volunteers are collecting money, taking the questions, licking the stamps, etc. He still isn't objecting to the 15% administrative fee, at least not out loud.

 

I have a concern, though, about the volunteers collecting the registration fee and writing one check to the council. It isn't a concern for the council. It's a concern for the individual who is taking the money. What happens if the individual loses a check or someone decides to make a stink (for whatever reason) and accuse the volunteer of stealing the money. A huge majority of volunteers for any organization are compeletly honest, but if you're collecting the checks at home and then either sending them in to the office or (worse yet) deposting them into your account and writing one check to the council office, you have no protection.

 

There is a council -- no matter where you are -- that will help with such matters. If a volunteer wants to keep close track of registrations (a good volunteer will) they should work with the council office personnel to develop a system that works for them. Registration fees and registrations should be sent to the council office. I think it's great that the volunteers in the current example are fielding questions, but do you really think that the last person or newest person in the communications chain isn't picking up the phone book, looking up Boy Scouts of America, and calling the council office with their questions? If the Scout office personnel can't answer the questions, we all look like idiots.

 

Local customs vary. I'll always tell you to consult with your staff advisor and local office folks. They have their own answers based on local experiences.

 

I also hate to see volunteers put themselves at risk. Financial stuff can be as risky as youth protection matters. It's best to leave some things up to the professionals.

 

Now I'm getting out of the way. There's a couple of rhino's around here and I don't need to become peanut butter!

 

 

 

DS

[Bob White]

That is great to hear.

 

The reason I ask, twocubdad, is that you sound frustrated and I have heard that frustration before. I have always maintained that if you are not adding to the financial strength of scouting then you don't get to complain, because with money comes services.

 

Not that a unit that doesn't support the Council should not get the same services as a unit that does, they just don't get to complain.

 

You on ther other hand get to speak up, and I recommend you speak-up to two groups.

 

You need to talk the the unit leaders you know that do not support FOS or sell popcorn and tell them you don't get the services you want because they don't add to the financial strength of the council. It's not that council isn't doing the work you want, it's that they don't have the finances to do the work you want done. Why? Because other units are not pulling their load but they get the same benefits as the unit you serve.

 

Next, put on a clean uniform and a smile and go have a sit down with your Scouting Executive. By in large these are terrific folks and good business people. That's why they are the SE. Remind him/her the good work the unit does in supporting the council. Let them know what strengths in the District and Council your unit benifits from that you realize comes from the Council coffers. Then tell them specific services you need the council to assist with, in order for the unit to grow and thrive. The SE realizes that if the unit is frustrated or looses enthusiasm or membership it will affect the ability of the unit to continue in its financial support at the levels it haas been. As I say these are business people. They understand return on investment. Often times the things you need are very doable they just were not realized by the Council committee (more business people).

 

Once the "friendly" lines of communication are opened cooperation quickly follows. I think you will find the SE very open and appreciative of this kind of approach.

 

The professional staff really is here to help units succeed, and units that understand and appreciate that the finacial health of a council is everyone's responsiblity is a breath of fresh air. And units that actively support that goal are respected and listened to.

 

Dsteele!! Am I right on this?

 

Bob White

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[dsteele]

To all: I want it noted for the record that Bob White is not quoting from the book and is not reciting national policy. He's stating an opinion and it is solid.

 

I have, however, sold my position short -- well not, specifically my position, but those in similar positions in other councils -- short.

 

Ultimately, the responsibility for all council functions falls on the Scout Executive professionally, and the Council President and Commissioner from the volunteer side. Those three positions make up the key three of the council and are responsible for supervising all local, district, and council functions.

 

However, there are a whale of a lot of people in the middle and some close enough to the top, but not at the top, that they are skipped.

 

I'm not contradicting Bob. He's right in his advice to TwoCubDad to approach the Scout Executive. He's right that the Scout Executive is a good business-person. I can't say businessman, because I know of at least one Scout Executive who is a woman. But I challenge anyone to find a Scout Executive who truly doesn't put the welfare of the Scouting program and youth above his or her own welfare.

 

Another thing that must be remembered is that I've also never come across a Scout Executive who wasn't human. Some like to pretend that they aren't and that they have skins made of steel. (Not Steele!) It's a facade. If you meet folks kindly, you'll get farther than if you meet them with hostility. Throwing lightning rods may blow up a few trees, but it won't break the earth. Water, gently flowing, however, created the Grand Canyon. (Now that's Steele's Law #3)

 

I do have to admit that I've been selling my own position short. Perhaps I may have given advice inappropriate to some councils. I suggested to Mark earlier that he have a meeting with his Scout Executive. Sometimes that is intimidating to people.

 

Heck, I've been known to be intimidated by the Scout Executive's position sitting across the desk from me. He seems to hold all the cards. Seems to is different than holds, but intimidating nonetheless.

 

In some councils, the Scout Executive concentrates on all facets of Scouting in his/her council. In others, there are others. I'm not changing my advice other than to say that you should find out who has the higher than camp director supervision over camping programs (or any other program that you have a problem with.) In some councils that will be the Assistant Scout Executive (me) or Director of Field Services, of Director of Support Services, or even a Senior D.E.

 

You don't have to be in uniform when you meet with the person. (that's the only point I'll disagree with Bob White on this particular issue, although it would impress them.) You should have as many facts as you possibly can and present them in a non-emotional manner.

 

I think you'll find a person who cares on the other side of the table and not the monster everyone would like to believe.

 

DS.

 

Good thoughts, Bob.

 

I hope it helps.

 

DS

[mk9750]

DSteele,

 

Thanks for the ideas. They are all certainly reasonable things to do if we really do WANT to stay local for summer camp.

 

Gary is a FANTASTIC person and a great Scout Executive. We are very lucky to have him (although he was in charge when our Service Center moved from 4 minutes away from my home to over an hour away - LOL). You can tell him I said that, too. He has his hands full, like probably most Executives do, trying to just make things work finacially. Somehow, he and his staff get it done. I'd bet, although it is only a guess, that they have a plan to work on improving the things they can in the order that the resources allow. The camp where our summer camp is held is a terrific place for camping, but age and lack of upkeep over the last 25 years have made it not very hospitable for summer camp. The caretaker now, though, is an unbelievably energetic guy who has begun to turn the facilities around. If somehow they can get an adequate aquatics area again (how's that for illiteration?), the facilties will be acceptable (not as good as where we go, but acceptable).

 

Your idea about inspecting the camp is something we tried to put together before, but for some reason I've forgotten, it fell through. We were scheduled to have the SM and three older Scouts spend the day at camp. I think I will suggest that again. I don't think we had planned on offering our opinions about what they needed to do to meet our expectations, but possibly if we were able to have a candid discussion about it, we might be able to offer some insight. I'd really like to try.

 

Right now, we alternate between Canada and PA. We really like both, and I suspect we don't want to give either up completely. But if we could find a way to maybe put our own camp in the rota, I really think it would do a lot of good.

 

Mark

[Twocubdad]

Sorry guys, but for some reason I just don't seem to be making my point clear. My concern is not the 15% vigorish the council takes off the top of the receipts, but that they are pressing us to cut expenses from the remaining budget. The goal is for us to leave more of a surplus at the end of camp, which, by policy, gets absorbed into the council's general operations.

 

Every dime in the camp's budget comes from the fees paid by Cub families for day camp. I believe there is -- or should be -- an expectation that those funds will be used for day camp, less reasonable administrative overhead.

 

I understand the need for everyone to pitch in and help cut costs during a financial crunch. But it's not as if we are receiving a $10,000 allocation from the council and they need to cut us to $8,000. Day camp is a self-supporting, self-funded activity. I don't believe it should be turned into a profit center for the council. If camp making a big profit, we either need to boost our program or cut our fees.

 

I also understand, Bob, the need for every activity to come in under budget and try to make a small profit. There is no such thing as breaking even -- you're either making money or losing it. The way most Scout events are set up, going over budget just isn't an option. Given that, it's perfectly acceptable that what ever small profit is seen by an event goes to the council. What else would we do with the money?

 

But it's not right to intentionally try to cut program costs from a self-supporting activity with the knowledge and intent that those savings can be diverted to other areas. To me, that smacks of diversion of funds -- maybe not from a legal or accounting standpoint, but certainly from a moral one.

 

To clear up a couple other points: as I said before, I'm okay with the 15% administrative charge going to council. But with a camp budget of over $20,000, we sure don't get $2,000 in adminstrative support back. I know that on the other end, a half-day training session bringing in $350 probably uses way more that its share of support time. They have to average out somewhere. Day camp just seems to be getting hosed in the process. A sliding scale may be more fair.

 

And regarding DS's comments on how we handle collecting the money. I hear what you are saying, but I think we've got our bases covered. Campers are registered by pack, not individually, so we are only collecting one check per pack. It's not like we have someone running around with $20-large in tens and twenties in their trunk. I was writing in reference to Bob's comment about the council office handling all the registrations. My point was that from the council's view, they get one deposit, not 300 campers coming throught he door which they have to register individually.

[Zahnada]

In regards to United Way's donation cuts, I feel BSA is largely responsible. I'm not talking about the actual controversial policy. I think BSA has done a poor job of explaining that policy to the public.

 

There are differing views of Boy Scouts in the country these days. A powerful view is one of scouts being involved in the community, strong moral characters, and good leaders. Another view (held more by teenagers) is of scouts being the "dorks" in uniforms doing arts and crafts. But a new view is emerging and is definitely becoming powerful in liberal areas like where I live. This is a view of scouts as homophobic, conservative, Christian fundamentalists. This opinion is picking up steam mostly because people don't understand the BSA's policy.

 

The only explanation I've heard is that, "A gay man cannot provide a good moral example for our children." That works for people within the scouting community who are stereotypically conservative anyway. That's why membership hasn't taken a huge hit. BSA was able to keep most of their members happy with their stance.

 

But places who donate, like the United Way and other major corporations, need to appeal to the masses. They rely on both liberals and conservatives for their survival.

 

The explanation of "moral example" is just too vague. The basics of the policy are just too vague. Who here has been caught in a debate over the policy with someone who opposed it? Who found out that the main reason for opposition was that the person simply did not know what the policy was? Boy Scouts needs to work the public relations department better. Here are some misunderstandings about the policy that naturally turn liberals away:

 

-BSA is involved in a "witch hunt" to find the sexuality of its members.

-BSA thinks that gays are more likely to molest children.

-Scouting is for white Christians.

-BSA teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong.

-BSA is controlled by the Mormon church.

-Scouting is a religious organization (I know it is, but the idea is that it's more of a church camp with bible reading and preaching than simply teaching morals by example)

 

I've heard more. Basically, there is much confusion about what scouting means. It is not clear to the public. I don't know how to solve the PR problem, but this is the way I see it. It's not just the United Way giving in to public pressure. They survive on public support and many within the public are misinformed.