Dropping LFL Division

[CNYScouter]

At the last District meeting it was announced that our council is dropping its Learning for Life division and eliminating all the paid positions (I think we have 3) associated with it.

 

We were told that the reasoning behind this is that most councils have the DE handle LFL units. I just think it has to do with the bottom line and getting rid of salaries.

 

Not a lot of happy campers in the district as it now has to support a bunch of new units but they do not participate in FOS or popcorn or do much else with the traditional units.

 

This has also greatly increased the work load of our DEs as one of the people that was replaced, their only job was to book professionals (Doctors, Lawyers) into the schools. This now falls into the DEs responsibilities.

 

I have to ask how can LFL be a separate entity if the BSA (DEs) are handling it?

 

Do any of your council have a separate LFL division or does your Des do it all?

 

[Beavah]

Yah, LFL is a different entity than da BSA, eh?

 

But your council is also a different entity.

 

Your council can charter with da BSA to provide services for traditional scouting.

 

Your council can charter with da BSA to provide services for LFL.

 

or somethin' else, even!

 

Sounds like what your council should really do is simply drop its agreement to provide LFL services in your area, and let da BSA find a different service provider.

 

Of course, I reckon that will cause ca cowpies to hit the whirling air circulator.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

Sounds to me like they're not dropping anything, just cutting staff.

[Apache Bob]

Saving money is the answere here. Remember Council is a business.

Remember also that now that these units belong to your district they will also be part of your Quality Unit award.

In our council we got the LFL units to be under different standards that the normal units.

 

[Beavah]

Remember Council is a business.

 

Nah, most councils are not-for-profit service corporations, eh?

 

Good NFPs look at operations very differently than good businesses.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Really good NFP's don't give grant making organizations an opportunity to deny funding by not offering a clear separation between discriminatory organizations and non-discriminatory organizations. Sharing a building is one thing - sharing staff - red flag.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[Abel Magwitch]

Hello Beava,

 

I have to tell you that my DE along with several other professionals in my council have actually told me that the BSA is business. Funny, I always thought that businesses were out to make a profit.

 

I have a feeling that the times they are a changin somewhere in Irving.

[CalicoPenn]

Of course the BSA is a business. Most NFP's of any size are a business. Most NFP's that get into the most trouble are the group of like minded individuals that get together and create an NFP to offer some kind of benefit to society but fail to treat it as a business, thinking their mission statement is all they need to succeed. Occasionally an NFP makes the news because of the same kind of poor governance issues that some corporations make the news for. Is there really much difference between the financial shenanigans amongst the top executives at Enron and the financial shenanigans that took place among the founders of ACORN? Not really.

 

NFP ststus isn't a designation of whether an organization is a business or not - it's a designation of how it's money is accounted for. One of two real differences between a for profit corporation and a non-profit corporation is that individuals can't financially benefit from a non-profit (salaries and benefits for employees, and travel stipends for board members attending meetings of the board or conferences which benefit the organization excepted). One can't be a "stockholder" of a non-profit and earn money off the investment. The other real difference is that non-profits, depending on type of non-profit status, cannot use their funds for direct endorsements of political candidates, and can use a limited portion of their funds (no more than 10% as I recall) on political advocacy for a party or referendum.

 

 

 

 

[Oak Tree]

Sometimes we're just arguing semantics. But I would say that an NFP is not a business, per se, by the more common definition of a business. By a wider definition, sure, you could say it is.

 

business

 

noun

the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.

a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern.

 

So an NFP is not a business, by definition (at least, by that definition).

 

With a more generic definition, sure. Commercial, industrial, or professional dealings

 

But more to the point, businesses run differently. Sure, they do some things the same, but by and large businesses very much focus on making a profit for the shareholder. NFPs focus on something different. They do focus on making enough money to sustain operations, but they have some other vision. In the BSA, the professionals appear to focus very much on membership numbers. Hence they keep LFL, rather than just spinning it off, which is most likely what a business would do. I mean, why keep it? It doesn't seem to contribute to the core vision of BSA.

 

 

[jhankins]

The councils that don't separate LFL and traditional scouting do so to save money, plain and simple. The programs are vastly different and service different groups of people. When you add those units on top of traditional units, it makes double the work load for the DE, so that they become a manager rather than a "unit-serving executive."

 

This was recently done in my council, so my DE is now not only in charge of 160 traditional units, but 50 LFL as well. According to national standards, that's enough units for two paid positions.