the WOSM crisis

[Slouchhat]

Funny how not to agree with your point of view is always regarded as "America bashing".

Isn't the BSA and therefore the USA, represented on the WSC anymore?

Could it possibly be that if you don't get what you want in a democratic way, you prefer to bail out, withdraw funds, threaten and so on to get it?

[emb021]

"So far, the only things I've even seen regarding the SG's side are that this was an unethical and unprecedented abuse by BSA. But that's it. Nothing else to substantiate or even defend any of the criticisms in the original letter from any of the national organizations who signed the original open letter."

 

That's my take as well, after reading over much of the materials.

 

There are a LOT of issues pointed out in the Open Letter (Oct 15 letter). These point to organization issues that most likely some have attempted to have addressed for some time, but with little results.

 

While we may condemn the actions of the BSA, WSF, Sweden, et al, it may well have been that these groups felt that was the only thing they could do to make the changes they felt needed to be made to address the serious issues they felt existed.

 

The fact that most of the 'other side' seems to want to focus on the WHAT was done by the above groups, instead of the WHY it was done, does NOT IMO make the case for the 'other side'. If all Dr. Missoni is going to do is **** and moan about what the BSA et al did instead of the issues raise, that IMO does not make his case. Address the issues pointed out by the Open Letter.

 

While we can say all we want about the high ideals of scouting, people are people, and organizations are organizations. Too often those at the higher level of organizations lose sight of the real purpose of the organization, and if the structure of the organization is such that changes are very hard to make, then that just makes it all the much worse.

 

 

[dan]

 

Could it possibly be that if you don't get what you want in a democratic way, you prefer to bail out, withdraw funds.

Why would anyone continue to support any organization that they did not agree with it?

[eolesen]

"There is a board which decides how the money is spent and the SG is an executive who does as the board tells him.

 

Maybe the board needs to wake up if the SG didn't act as he was told to? "

 

Well, it sounds like that's exactly what happened. My understanding is that the BSA has been voicing these concerns for over two years.

 

I think you'd better go back to the content of the original letter from BSA:

 

 

This decision was made after a very careful review of numerous issues that have evolved since early 2004.

....

Clearly, the BSA is by far the largest single financial contributor to WOSM of any

member NSO, and we have an obligation to be certain these combined resources are

utilized properly. Therein lies the core issue.

 

In return for these commitments, the BSA asks that the funds we provide to the WSB are

 

(1) spent with a view of supporting the NSOs especially NSOs in lesser developed countries to grow and deliver a quality Scouting program to a maximum number of youth and,

 

(2) spent in an efficient manner with appropriate and transparent financial controls.

 

The BSA has reluctantly come to the conclusion that under the current processes and leadership of the WSB, neither of these two goals has been nor will be achieved.

....

Decisions of the WSB seem to be made with little regard to their effect on often-struggling NSOs.

....

The WSB has focused on other priorities such as the World Scout Scientific Congress and its proposed new $14 million World Scout Center building in Geneva, but it has not completed its 2007/2008 budget for at least three months into the current fiscal year (which is better than last years budget, which was finalized five months into the fiscal year).

....

The recently disclosed multimillion-dollar WSB investment in the Picarquin Training and Events Center (dubbed a World Scout Center) has adversely impacted the Interamerica Region Office and the NSOs it is charged to serve. Scout use at the Picarquin Training and Events Center represents only 7 percent of the use (on a revenue basis) of the center.

....

The recently released report on Picarquin by the WOSM Audit Committee discloses that Picarquins ongoing operations result in a significant annual loss to the Interamerica Region and that a profit will not be feasible under the current financial structure of Picarquin. We disagree with the Secretary Generals belief that Picarquin makes money and disagree with the desire to construct a hotel on the site (with the area around the site being rezoned as a proposed gambling center) as a way of salvaging his decisions

....

Under current conditions, it is just not possible for us to be responsible stewards of the funds we have been entrusted with by the generous supporters of the BSA to entrust any further monies to the WSB.

....

In light of the legal and practical circumstances faced by charitable organizations in the USA today, we have no other choice.

 

 

So... the SG's judgement has appeared to be in question for some time, notably the inability to come up with an operating budget two years in a row. And it sounds like the issues with Picarquin (both its losses and the SG's decision to invest more money in it) have perhaps been covered up from the board.

 

In the business world, hiding things like that from a board of directors will get an executive officer fired.

 

I'd really like to see someone justify how Picarquin's recovery being dependent on gambling related revenue is consistent with living the Scout Oath and Law....

 

Start addressing those issues in your blog and your responses, and perhaps we can have a real discussion.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[emb021]

Dr. Missoni has a new letter at his site addressing some of the concerns raised by the BSA and WSF (but NOT all the issues raised in the original Open Letter).

 

Some comments.

 

He still seems to want to put forth the idea that all this occured 'without warning' and 'all of a sudden'. IMO, the Open Letter shows to me this are issues that have been around for awhile, and certainly the BSA letter points out that the issues raised have been going on for a few years. (eolesen points this out in his quotes...)

 

He defines the 'World Scout Scientific Congress'. IMO I have no idea what this event, regardless of how great it was, as anything to do with world scouting...

 

He defends the idea the new WOSM HQ in Geneva, but seems to focus on the issue of owning a place vs renting. I don't think that's the issue. I think most people would agree that owning vs renting is a better option. The concern seems to be about buying/building a reasonable place, not spending money on an extravengency, which he doesn't address.

 

He defends the issue of the budget delays, but that sort of thing is beyond me.

 

He defends the issue of Picarquin, but like his defense on the new WOSM HQ, I really don't think he did a good defense on the real issues here.

 

He also defends the issues raised of 'licensing World Scout Centers', the 'tax' on world events, and the issues with the Annual Report. Don't know what to comment about this areas.

 

 

Some further general comments. Like any professional manager of a non-profit, the SecGen is supposed to do what is set down for him by the WSB (or whatever group is the equiv of an Exec Committee). There is always the issue of such a person going beyond their job scope, and in most groups, depending on what this was either the person is let go/fired or just repremended. This would also depend on how well the WSB is really doing in watching the professional WOSM staff.

 

Keep in mind that most BSA Scouters probably have no idea of what all is going on, and who knows who within the BSA was involved in the decision of this letter. I doubt our International Commissioner acted alone in this, and would think that members of the BSA Exec Board were part of this. But the rest of us, if it wasn't for the various on-line resources, would be unaware of all this. (I know I would have been, there is nothing on the BSA website about this, and I certainly don't expect to read about any of this in Scouting magazine). I would thus recommend our overseas Brother scouts/scouters to keep in mind that 99.99% of the BSA membership had no hand, right or wrong, in what has gone on here.

 

[Slouchhat]

"I would thus recommend our overseas Brother scouts/scouters to keep in mind that 99.99% of the BSA membership had no hand, right or wrong, in what has gone on here."

 

Of course not (I just got wind of this by mere accident and opened this thread to see who had any detailed information). Just like those scouts all around the Globe who trust that they and their interests are represented well in WOSM and who have better things to do than following what's going on in Geneva.

Personally, I have no need for a center in Geneva or South America or Cairo for that matter. One World HQ would be fine as far as I am concerned.

 

It is just interesting to see that the least bit of criticism about the ways the BSA took is immediately perceived as America bashing.

 

[emb021]

"It is just interesting to see that the least bit of criticism about the ways the BSA took is immediately perceived as America bashing."

 

I think its more of HOW the BSA has been criticized, as opposed to THAT its been criticized.

 

I don't care for comments about 'the Yanks did this' or the 'the Yanks did that'. Nonsense. The BSA leadership made this decision, right or wrong. Don't make the assumption that all of us in the BSA were involved in this decision.

 

And btw, I'm not a 'Yank'. I'm from the South, thank you very much.

 

[emb021]

A comment, which I wonder if this may have been part of the problem.

 

In looking over Dr. Missoni's bio, I have to wonder why he was hired to be the Secretary General of WOSM? His prior work was as a doctor. I don't see that he had any job experience or skill set that would qualify him to be the chief administrative officer of a non-profit. Here in the US, someone seeking such a position would usually be expected to have training (appropriate college degree etc) and/or experience in this area, expecially if one was to take on the position for larger such organizations.

 

Dr. Missoni may be a great guy, but if he didn't have the requesit skills/knowledge, this may have been part of the problem.

 

[Slouchhat]

Well, they must have believed that he had all it takes to be SG.

After all, he wasn't the only applicant.

Plus he was chosen on general consensus. In this light, the actions taken by the BSA make even less sense.

[eolesen]

Perhaps it's a foreign concept, since about the only way to get fired in Germany, France, and a few other EU countries is to commit a crime -and- be convicted, but in the rest of the world, senior executives frequently get sacked by the boards who chose them over others.

 

Typically, it's done when bad news isn't disclosed in due time. My guess is that after a series of questionable decisions (or indecisions in the case of the operating budgets), the news on Picarquin came to light, and that was the final straw for the NSO's who signed the open letter.

 

Nobody is questioning the former SG's commitment to Scouting. They just questioned his ability to effectively serve in the SG position.

 

Sometimes good people wind up in the wrong job. I've had several former employees who were extremely capable people, yet unable to meet even the most basic expectations of the job they were in.

[Slouchhat]

I agree with you so far, but...

The issue has not been raised where it belongs: in the board, the WSC. Well, maybe it has been and didn't get the majority.

So some organisations, among them the BSA took to undemocratic measures to get their will.

At least that is the way it looks to many people.

[Gold Winger]

" is immediately perceived as America bashing."

 

Because it is. If the Scouts of Freedonia or Scouts de Momboobia had taken such an action, the world would have rallied around them, crying out "We need to support our underprivledged brothers!"

[BSACompass]

Looks like this argument has come full circle. What I don't understand is how anyone can say that BSA's decision is hurting the World Scouting Movement. Again, if you READ the International Commissioner's letter, BSA wants financial transparency and wise use of resources - gee, what's wrong with that? BSA wants to see a budget - seems reasonable - especially when you are already well into that fiscal year. If our local councils didn't do a budget in advance, their exec would be sacked! BSA wants money spent on the Scouts in Romania, Bulgaria, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, etc. As I mentioned before, BSA already sent ALL the equipment from the WSJ to a third world Scouting movement.

 

All of this goes to intent - is the BSA a bunch of Good Ole Boys who only act in their self interest or are they following the lead of BP and the oath, which clearly puts other people before self? From all the correspondence I've seen, BSA is openly stating their concerns about financial improprieties and trying to get the WSB to focus on expanding the movement by spending monies on those countries that really need help with growing their scouting movements. I know they exist, I know they need our help - I met many of them at the World Scout Jamboree. They are fine young men and women, they want to make a difference in their countries, be good citizens, help other people, become better educated and most importantly be the next generation of leadership in their countries. They want to fulfil BP's vision of Scouting and the BSA wants the same thing.

 

The WSB went off the trail and the BSA, with the support of a lot of other NSO's decided that it was time to get back on the right trail. The BSA did not act unilaterally (70% backed the BSA - how often do we get 70% backing of anything in the US?), but as is often the case, someone had to stand up and say enough is enough - apparently, the mechanisms in place did not work, the governance had not responded to previous attempts to bring the WSB back to task. So, those who pay the most spoke up with others to correct the situation. This was not a spur of the moment, backroom decision - it was very well thought out.

 

Why did they pick Dr. Missoni? Look at the UN - its not based on ability always - looks like its this country's turn to run this thing. I hope that the new leadership will act more responsibly with these precious resources - and I don't mean money, I mean the young men and women that hope they can have a great Scouting program for their developing countries. That is what BP always wanted.

[Gold Winger]

Egads! This is just too confusing. There's WOSM. There's the WSC. There's the WSB. And apparently there's "World Scout Scientific Congress" as well.

 

I don't give a rat's behind for the UN and WOSM makes no nevermind in my life either except that, like the UN, we seem to give it a bunch of money and get little in return.

 

I'd rather see BSA directly support nascent Scouting organizations rather than giving to some umbrella (ella, ella, eh, eh, eh)group which siphons off a goodly portion of the funds.

[Beavah]

Yah, BSACompass, I think we have to be a bit careful about takin' either side of the argument at face value, eh? Mr. Perry was tryin' to make the best argument he could for the BSA's actions. We Americans aren't above "spin" in our politics.

 

I think this whole thing does illustrate da difference in perceptions and cultures.

 

Americans view international cooperation as a voluntary thing, something we do out of goodwill and generosity. Because we're a major donor (to both the WOSM and da UN), we want our voluntary contribution to be spent well, and we feel "taken advantage of" sometimes when it's used in ways that we don't agree with. We figure it's just fine if we withdraw our voluntary contribution to get things done more to our liking.

 

For some of the rest of the world, the UN and the WOSM are something more than something to do out of goodwill and generosity. It's their only real voice in world affairs. It's necessary, not voluntary. They can't go it on their own. For them, their voice in international organizations is crucial, and it's crucial that it not be overridden by da biggest guy on the block. So for much of the rest of the world, the U.S.'s unilateral actions are undemocratic and bullying, undermining their only voice and ability to contribute.

 

Imagine if California said "we don't like what congress voted, we're going to withhold all of California's tax contributions and bankrupt da national government until silly little states like Oklahoma and Idaho and Connecticut decide to do it our way. If they want a bigger voice, they can pay more."

 

Sometimes it's hard to see da way we look to others. Even when we're right, it might not be pretty.

 

Beavah