Unmerging a council

[nldscout]

Has anyone heard of a council that was created from merging of 2 councils being broken back up or un-merged back to its origonal 2 councils?

 

Anyone know if this is possible?

 

[Eamonn]

No I have never heard of such a thing.

I suppose anything is possible!

But I really have little or no knowledge about this.

For a long time I have watched smaller councils really struggle.

I sit on the Area Committee.

To be very honest the meetings are about as interesting as watching paint dry. The bulk of the time is spent looking at how the 13 Councils in our Area are doing. The focus is on Membership and Finance.

The big Metro Councils are not discussed by the Committee.

Last year it seemed that everything was set for a merger of two Councils, one small, one medium, but at the last minute the deal fell apart, the Executive Board of the small Council voted against it.

It looks very much like soon we will only have 11 Councils that we will be talking about. One Council is just not holding it's own in Membership. The shame is that they seem on paper to be doing a good job in Venturing. The Council President has attended the meeting and said that they just can't recruit Cub Scouts. He is a very nice like-able fellow, but as was pointed out at the meeting they only serve 10% of the TAY in the area. They have seen attendance at their Summer camp go down to such a level that they just can't afford to open it or maintain it.

A very dear and close friend of mine served on a Wood Badge course they just hosted. He came home saying how great it was that the SE was at camp mowing grass!! (He thought that all SE's should get involved that way.) I didn't want to upset him and didn't say that I thought the time would be better spent trying to fix the membership problems.

When I read in the forum of Councils with 12 -15 Districts, I'm taken back a little.

Of the councils in our Area, we are the biggest and we only have four Districts. We claim to serve 10,400 youth?? (I'm not going there!!) But over half the youth we serve are in LFL programs.

5,000 Traditional members and a budget of almost one and a half million dollars. We are just not bring home the bacon,the money isn't coming in. While creative book-keeping in membership is wrong, it just can't work with money. At the end of the day you either have it or you don't, the bills do need to be paid with real money.

As to the Un-merging, as I say I don't really know what I'm talking about!! However thinking about it -I'm not sure who could do it?

When two Councils merge it is voted on by both Executive Boards, after the merge these two become one, so unless there was a big split at the board level I don't know what could or might happen? Even if there was by the time the Region and the National guys got involved and everything was worked out, if it could be worked out -Anything that was on the cards to happen would have happened and be in the history books.

Two things seem to be the biggies when it comes to mergers and emotions. One is camps and the other OA Lodges. A lot of the volunteers have put a lot of time, effort and sweat into making the camps what they are. Sadly time, effort and sweat don't pay for the materials. We have over the years build lots of buildings, and pavilions at our camp. Volunteers have worked their tails off. They get a little upset with me when I remind them that we now have 27 roofs that one day will need replaced. That's a lot of nails and shingles!

We like to think we have the best Lodge. Any word of a merger upsets the people in the Lodge.

While I don't know anything about Un-merging, I do think a lot can be done to try and prevent merging in the first place.

1/ We need to hold long term strategic planning meeting and come up with real and realistic goals. Not something that looks good on paper or what someone might like to see. This plan needs to be taken out, looked at and reviewed every quarter to see how things are really going. Again, this review needs to be done in good faith and as honestly as possible.

2/ We need to hold people accountable for doing what they are supposed to be doing. Starting at the very top. Scout Executives should be out and about in the community doing what he/she can to bring in as much money as he or she can. We seem to do a very poor job of raising foundation money and obtaining money from grants.

3/ Before we take on new projects that are going to cost more than a few thousand dollars, we need to take a long hard look at what we are spending the money on and why we are spending it.

3/ While the delivery of the program is in the hands of the units. Councils need to be ready and willing to step up to the plate and help units out.

For a while it seemed that our Council was big on rewards for reaching goals: Meet the membership goal get a sweat-shirt, meet some other goal receive a camp chair or a cooler. I think the money we spent might have been better spent sending unit leaders to training, or buying a set of BSA books for a new pack.

4/ When tough decisions need to be made, we have to make them. Sadly I know at times I have allowed emotions, likes and dislikes to influence the way I voted when I sat on our Executive Board.

5/ We have to be honest.

Fake anything will in time come back and bite us in the tail. Pretend members will never go to camp, sell popcorn, participate in family FOS, have fun. For a very short time anything fake will make someone look good -Until they get caught.

6/ We have to get involved.

Not to be a pain in the rear or moan and groan, but making sure we are represented on the Board, ensuring that people know how we feel.

This doesn't mean giving the SE a hard time!! He or she will do what the Board tells him to do!! Writing a letter to the Vice-Council Presidents, the Council President, the Council Commissioner, will at the end of the day work better than calling the SE names.

A lot of Board members don't really know what is happening at the grass roots level. If they are given the facts it might?? change the way they vote. The SE doesn't have a vote!!

Wow!! For someone who doesn't know what he is talking about I seem to have gone on a bit!!

Eamonn.

 

[Trevorum]

In 1976, the Boston, Cambridge, and Minuteman Councils combined to form the Massachusetts Bay Federated Council. It didn't work and in 1979 the councils regained their independant status. Eventually that didn't work out either and by 2002 they had all ended up back together again as the Boston Minuteman Council.

[emb021]

Sort of.

 

In my home area of Florida, two new councils were created in the 1925, one based in Ft Myers (Charlotte, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and Collier counties), the other based in Sarasota (Manatee and Sarasota).

 

In 1937, the Ft Myers-based council went under, and was merged into the Sarasota-based council.

 

In 1967, a new Ft Myers-based council was formed (Charlotte, Lee, Collier and part of Hendry county). Glades county had been moved to another council, and DeSoto county remained with the Sarasota-based council. So this was almost an 'unmerger'.

 

However, in 1995, the Sarasota-based council went under, and the 3 counties it served were turned over to the Ft Myers-based council.

 

 

[emb021]

Follow up to my note.

 

The original Ft. Myers-based council was the Royal Palm Council. the Sarasota-based council was the Sunnyland Council. They were formed at a time when many councils were being formed (too many, IMO). Many went under in the 1930s due to the poor economy.

 

The new Ft. Myers-based council formed in 1967 is the Southwest Florida Council. As things were changing in Florida, the Ft. Myers area had really grown in the intervening years and could now support a council. Its grown much larger then the Sarasota area.

 

There are still a lot of people who are upset about Sunnyland going under. It did due to mis-management. The council was doing poorly financially, etc.

 

Frankly, the councils in Florida have been very stable. The establishment of SWFL and the shutdown of Sunnyland have been the ONLY Council change in florida since about the 1940s or so.

 

[commandopro]

Let's hope not. I would say we have about 100-150 too many councils now. Why on earth does Chicagoland need 7 councils? Why does LA need more than 10? They don't. One media market, one council, period. That should be the rule. We can have stores and satillite offices all we want. We don't need 7 Scout Executives within 45 minutes of each other.

[LongHaul]

commandopro,

On behalf of every scout and scouter in the chicagoland area, especially Chicago Area Council, PLEASE stay where ever you are now. We don't need any more help from bottom line, cookie cutter professionals with ideas such as yours. If you don't understand the demographics and idealogical differences in this area please do your home work before offering advise. If on the other hand your ONLY goal is bean counting and profit margin then again I ask stay where you are now.

LongHaul

[commandopro]

Bottom line, cookie cutter professionals? A snappy retort, but not altogether useful.

 

Profit margins? I believe we are a non-profit organization.

 

If the bottom line means serving as many youth as we can will a high quality program, implemented by large numbers of dedicated and trained volunteers, while recognizing the fiscal realities of the world, then count me in.

 

As far as ideology, I believe we share one ideology across this great organization. That is the Scout Oath and Law. I would love to hear hear how dramatically different the Scouters in Naperville, Barrington Heights, Deerfield and the Northside are. I have a feeling that anything you name would be quite superficial at best. Now, there is a very real difference between those areas and the core of the city. The problem: The core of the city faces challenges in program delivery that it cannot meet without the cooperation and resources of the surrounding area.

 

Cookie cutter, no. But, guiding principles to effectively deliver a quality program to youth of all areas and backgrounds, yes. My previous statement may sound very strong, but strong opinions start a spirited discussion. Spirited discussions lead to innovative plans and actions that benefit all.

[emb021]

"Profit margins? I believe we are a non-profit organization."

 

yes, but that means that we don't turn over our profit to, say, stockholders or the like. Any profit stays within the organization.

 

An org must be financially sound. It must at least operate in the black (break even or 'make a profit'), and not be in the red (lose money).

 

[ScoutNut]

"Why on earth does Chicagoland need 7 councils?" "One media market, one council, period. That should be the rule."

 

 

Unlike you, I'm from one of those Chicagoland councils. I happen to like the way it is set up now. I like a council where you know the folks who work there and boys and volunteers are not just names and numbers on a spreadsheet to them. Bigger does not necessarialy mean better.

 

If you want to see giant, mega councils at work, check out GSUSA in the next few years.

 

 

 

 

[LongHaul]

commandopro

      Thought you forgot about this thread, havent checked in a while, sorry.

 Bottom line, cookie cutter professionals? A snappy retort, but not altogether useful. Perfectly useful in that it accurately expresses the image you project. You have a bottom line, you have something you believe should trump all other concerns. If the bottom line means serving as many youth as we can will a high quality program, implemented by large numbers of dedicated and trained volunteers, while recognizing the fiscal realities of the world, then count me in. Cookie Cutter comes in at this point because you parrot the National party line which is TOTALLY non descriptive. What program? Just what is the program you advocate? DONT quote National dogma but give me examples of what program means. Serve is NOT synonymous with registered. Failing to provide Traditional programming to those who are providing, or are responsible for, the resources in order to provide in school services to those who have not invested one thing into a program just to insure larger numbers is not serving the youth. It is serving the interests of those interested in maintaining a faade and insuring their collective positions. This is why you seldom hear your view points and positions delivered by tenured scouting volunteers.

As far as ideology, I believe we share one ideology across this great organization. That is the Scout Oath and Law. I would love to hear hear how dramatically different the Scouters in Naperville, Barrington Heights, Deerfield and the Northside are. I have a feeling that anything you name would be quite superficial at best. Now, there is a very real difference between those areas and the core of the city. The problem: The core of the city faces challenges in program delivery that it cannot meet without the cooperation and resources of the surrounding area. Unlike you I have lived in this area since I was born and have been part of the Scouting program in this area since 1957. I was here when we had a scout troop in almost every church and school in what you refer to as the core of the city. I was here when the ethnic make up of that core changed. I was here when the existing group of dedicated and trained volunteers tried to involve the residents of the core of the city in our program. I have been here as resource after resource has been utilized to fund programs the residents of the core of the city just plain dont want to participate in. We literally cant give Scouting away in the core of the city. So rather than concentrate on those who are interested in our program we change our program, repackage it, and rename it. The program you want all the surrounding councils and communities to fund and support in the core of the city is Learning for Life. The after school, in school, baby sitting program designed to allow whole classes of youth to be signed up in an effort to produce numbers. We market this program to the schools as a franchise type program which National collects fees on a per student basis. There is no camping, no advancement, no patrol method, no youth run, no Oath and Law but its SCOUTING because National recognizes the fiscal realities of the world. LFL as a stand alone program would not survive. It requires the resources and fund raising potential of the 95 year old Traditional Scouting Program. Its the camps and assets traditional scouting has generated which are being used to fund the core of the city program which is non traditional. In 1965 CAC had six local camps and approximately 10,000 acres in Michigan which supported 8 camps. These have been relinquished or sold outright and most of the monies have been spent. National tried to take the out out of scouting in the 1970s IT DIDNT WORK. Our number dropped and have never recovered. Program change was not the only reason our number dropped but it was significant in that we lost support we could never replace. The need to have the surrounding councils support CAC is the result of mismanagement, malfeasance, and lack of TRADITIONAL PROGRAM which is what provided the working capitol in the first place. Our current SE has a higher salary than the mayor of Chicago only because CAC is allowed to use LFL numbers to inflate membership. It is about salary and jobs not service to youth. If he were paid according to traditional enrollment he would not be here and the current problems would not be problems they would have been addressed 15 years ago and CAC would still have its two biggest camps. Turning this area into a super council would not change the problem of delivering traditional program to the core of the city. If this core of the city program is so great why is it that core of the city people will not support it? Why does it need Traditional Scouting help? Where is the LFL dedicated and trained volunteer base? Where is the LFL FOS program? Where is the yard stick by which we can judge the effect and success of the LFL program? Again I plead Leave us alone we have enough problems already.

LongHaul

[commandopro]

Consider yourself left alone.

 

BTW - LFL will get you nowhere. It is a gate opener, not a desitination. I agree with you 100%. I would never use the suburbs to fund widespread LFL.

[dan]

 

Scouters in Naperville, Barrington, Deerfield and the Northside

Are you suggesting that Northeast Illinois Council, Des Plaines Valley Council, Three Fires Council, and 3 other council (I am not sure who the 3 other councils are) should all merge with the Chicago Area Council?

[commandopro]

To be honest, I'm not suggesting any specific action. What I am suggesting, is that it is time for us to stop competing against each other! In many cities we are knocking on the same corporate door 2 or 3 times for money. We confuse families with our arbitrary boundries, which no longer make sense in todays world.

 

If you are in Boston at a bar in a hotel and strike up a conversation with a guy from Naperville, IL and ask him where he is from, what is his answer? Chicago! Many people who work in Downtown Chicago live in places like Deerfield, Naperville, Barrington, etc. So if they are going to give $1000 where should they give it? Should they split it?

 

I suggest only that we need council boundries that make sense to the public, serve Scouters well, operate efficently and without waste and don't pit BSA vs. BSA for resources. I do not believe that our current council boundries do that much of the time.

 

Here is the catch. Scouting is by its very nature a traditional organziation, filled with people who love tradition. We become emotionally attached to a Council (even if we don't really like it or support it) and don't want things to change. We need to look at our councils in the light of tenants I outlined above. Tradition has its place, but it has no place in this particular matter.

 

BTW the Chicago Area Councils and distance from Chicago are:

Calumet Council (Gary, IN) 33 miles

Rainbow Council (Morris, IL) 63 miles

Northeast Illinois (Highland Park, IL)27 miles

Northwest Suburban (Mount Prospect, IL)23 miles

Three Fires (Saint Charles, IL) 44 miles

Chicago Area (Chicago, IL) 0 miles

Des Plaines Valley (La Grange, IL)15 miles

 

Remember, I would not even suggest closing a single service center, except perhaps to open two more.

[dan]

I see where you got the seven councils from now, I just have never thought of Morris and Indiana as a suburb of Chicago.

 

And I can tell you that one of those council are not hitting up business for dollars so it is not competing with the other councils.