Northern Star Council - Inclusive

[BadenP]

Ponz

 

The SE is an employee of the BSA not the local council, the council board can ask National to remove him and if the offense warrants it National will just transfer him to another council, and then it is NATIONAL that sends the council board a list of potential candidates to replace him. It is also National that determines when it is time to transfer an SE to another council even if the local council board wants him to stay. By the way the same thing is true with DE's and FD's etc who want to transfer to another council, or need to be let go, it is the SE and not the council board who makes that decision.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Wow! I din't know that.

 

It's a pretty peculiar situation, with local councils being locked in to BSA desires as to who runs their program.

 

We really oughta have a thread to discuss all that in more detail.

[johnponz]

I really do not want to get into it with Baden P. However, I was just involved in the process as a volunteer, and the Council Executive Board hires the SE who is a Council employee. You do have to hire someone from a list that national provides, and the person's boss on the professional side is the Area Director (this is what the corporate world would call a matrix reporting relationship-the SE has 2 bosses).

 

The SE reports to the Council President and the Executive Board of the Council (on the local side).

 

This is spelled out on the following two websites from 2 different councils-it is the best documentation that I can find.

 

http://www.scoutingalaska.org/Council/Leadership/CouncilStaff

 

 

http://www.yocona.org/openrosters/viewaboutorg.asp?orgkey=2096

 

Both of these sites verify that the Executive Board "hires" the SE. Whoever hires you is your employer.

 

BSA professional employment is complicated though, and I believe it is safe to say that they work for 2 masters which is never easy.

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[BadenP]

SP

 

Why is that news to you? ALL SE candidates are recommended to a council board by the National office, prior it was the regional office. All professional scouters receive a formal commission signed by the National Office Rep's and CSE, all DE's and SE's are expected to be ready to transfer every 3-5 years to a larger council or assignment. If a council board wants to get rid of an SE before his tenure is up it must do so through a formalized request to National with an explanation as to the reasons why. While an SE/DE is at a council he is expected to work in the best interests of that council and at the same time maintain the interests of the National BSA organization, as well as its rules and regulations.

[BadenP]

ponzi

 

Yes the board hires the SE but it must be one of National's candidates, they can NOT hire outside the preapproved National List. National still calls the shots as to when they want to transfer the SE. The council board and SE are more accurately a partnership instead of an employer/ employee relationship. If you ask an SE who he works for he will tell you the Boy Scouts of America, not the Lone Pine Council.

[johnponz]

BadenP,

 

I believe we basically agree as to process. You are right that the Executive Board must use National's list which is what I meant in my post by the word "certify."

 

However, I believe the answer by the SE as to who he works for would depend on the SE. Ours is adamant that he works for the Council, and I will bet that North Star's SE would say the same thing.

 

[BadenP]

jp

 

All SE's are like politicians, they say the right thing at the right time to the right group.

Every one of them know who they really work for and who decides on their promotions and transfers and that is NOT the local council.

[Beavah]

Yah, da correct answer to this question is that da Scout Executive works for the local council corporation and its board. He is hired by them, he can be fired by them, he is paid by them, and he owes his loyalty and fiduciary responsibility to them. Sayin' that he is a BSA employee is legally incorrect, but a common enough thing to say in a colloquial manner.

 

Yep, da BSA sets up an unconscionable conflict of interest for all of da council level executives by makin' their long-term advancement and hiring prospects dependent on the BSA. Thus da council executives (includin' the SE) are placed in a position where their duty is to the council corporation, but their long-term prospects depend on serving da (national) BSA's interests. This would properly be considered unethical employment practice by just about anybody else.

 

Yep, da BSA also limits new SE hires to a list generated by da BSA, albeit in consultation with da council executive board. The council can reject all the proposed candidates (and get a new group of candidates from da BSA), but can't hire from outside the BSA's employment service. See unconscionable conflict of interest above.

 

Now, there are aspects of this that I can't comment on, but readin' da link fred8033 posted at the start I would note that nowhere does it actually indicate that NSC repudiates or otherwise differs from da national policy. They've spun the national policy, sure. But there's not a lick there that actually contradicts it. However, if there were actually a dispute, the dispute would be between da NSC executive board and the national council. Da SE should properly represent the views of da NSC executive board, and da BSA should address the board's behavior directly, in a manner similar to what was done in Chicago over a different matter and in various other councils.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Do not speak out about the red wagon ban, the uniform change or any other policy or practice of the BSA or your local council with which you disagree. Stop posting here about complaints about your local camp program, or FOS practices, or changes in the MB lineup, or modifications to the Oath. Irving or your local HQ has made that decision, and it will not change. So either stop disrupting the program with your complaints, or else leave.

 

LOL.

 

Yah, shortridge, just like it's apparently so easy to confuse public bodies with private associations, I reckon it's just about as easy to confuse true organizational policies established democratically by da institutional members with ordinary program materials.

 

Da membership policy is one of da first type, in case yeh were wonderin'. Da other stuff is all program materials or quality of program delivery. Complain about that all yeh like!

 

Beavah

 

[shortridge]

The NSC policy refers to sexual orientation. I'm unsure how you can say it does not contradict National's policy.

[ChaiAdventure]

stockholder. The "ultimate customer" does not get a vote. If you do not own stock, it does not matter that you are a customer of Comcast and have TV, phone and internet service through them. Same with BSA, the ultimate customer does not get a vote at these meetings.

 

There is a difference between Comcast and BSA though. BSA (I believe-I do not know the numbers for sure) gets the bulk of their funding through corporate sponsors. The sponsors get a tax break for the donation.

 

In the end BSA's Executive Board acts like a Board of Directors that serves the interests of the stockholders who in this case are the chartered organizations. When viewed this way the actions of National make a lot more sense than viewing them as some quasi-National government which they are not.

 

Ponz....

 

Not sure I see your point. In the business world, as you used as your example, stockholders have a monetary investment in the business in question. What is the investment that CO's have?? If you consider members as customers, then surely CO's would fall into the exact same category. CO use the national scouting program for a unit which they charter. They are customers...period....clearly not stockholders.

 

My point is that members have a say in the direction of the Scouting movement. Charter Organizations do not own that right exclusively.....

[Beavah]

The NSC policy refers to sexual orientation. I'm unsure how you can say it does not contradict National's policy.

 

Did yeh read it carefully?

 

Da NSC statement is about "practices", not policy. The statement subtitle makes reference to orientation, but doesn't actually state anything. All of da rest of the statement of practices is perfectly consistent with other BSA statements and practice.

 

ChaiAdventure, in a not-for-profit membership corporation, the corporation members (chartered organizations) serve the same essential role as stockholders. In BSA professional parlance, Chartered Organizations are called "customers". Youth participants and adult leaders are referred to as "consumers."

 

So da members do have a say in the BSA's direction, eh? If by "members" yeh mean da true corporate members only. That is to say, the Chartered Organizations.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

I own stock in several companies. That makes me a partial 'owner', depending on the fine print. I get to vote on management and policy according to that same fine print. I am also a customer to numerous businesses. I get to vote there too. But in the latter case my vote is in the form of my dollars spent...or withheld. Want to vote for a business practice, buy their product. Want to vote against a business practice, buy from a competitor. Customers, collectively, matter a lot. Like Rush says, it's all about money. BSA is no exception.

[johnponz]

I would never quote Rush Limbaugh in a conversation like this . He is hardly an expert in anything. However, your comment makes me chuckle a little as it brings us full circle to the point that made people a little crazy. If you do not like the policy, leave. This is probably the single best thing you can do if you really want to "force" the organization to change. I am really not for sure where BSA gets most of its money from though. I have a feeling most of it comes from corporate sponsors so leaving may not have as much of a financial impact as you believe. Additionally, we do not know how many people would quit if the membership policy was changed. I have a feeling that it is a wash at best.

 

Beavah has pretty much confirmed what I said in my previous posts. The entities with the power to make this change are the chartering organizations as they are the ones with the votes at the annual BSA meeting and even at the annual meeting of the individual Councils. If these chartering organizations want to change the policy it will change. If they do not want to change it, it won't.

 

Most of these organizations are religious organizations that BELIEVE that the policy is the morally correct one. In a religious organization that BELIEF is more important than any rationalization anyone can make. Rational arguments just do not sway religious people when it comes to faith. Because in a religious organization faith trumps rational thought. These organizations will not change, and thus more than likely BSA will not change.

 

You can have as many corporate people on the Executive Board that you want whose organizations have inclusive policies. When it comes to being on the BSA Board and representing the BSA shareholders (read chartering organizations), they will reflect the wants of those organizations.

 

As rank and file members (consumers), you can complain as much as you want, and it will not change the way the BSA operates. By the way, if you want to make a change from within, how do you do that? Who do you complain to? I guarantee you complaining on an internet board will have 0 effect. I guess you could go to the Council Executive Board meeting, but getting the topic on the agenda might be difficult.

 

We are back to the comment, if you do not like it leave...This is probably the only possible way to force BSA to change, but, alas, this too will probably have little effect.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[moosetracker]

Johnponz - in a religious organization faith trumps rational thought.

 

LOL on this we can agree, religion is not for rational thinkers!..

 

I am curious to see what dent all this publicity will do with BSA's sponsers this year. Hopefully LDS members have deep pockets to make up any of the difference, and maybe the owner of Chick-fil-a will give a contribution (or is he mormon already?)