Just like "Dues paid = Active"

[John-in-KC]

Just like the conundrum over the definition of "Active"...

 

BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU ASK FOR. YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.

 

BSA's business model has been to franchise or license the program. A very small cadre of sales and service folks, and a larger cadre of volunteers, provide the wraparound for the franchisees.

 

You could have a centralized business model, such as GSUSA, where there's no discretion whatsoever in implementing the program.

 

If you have a better business model for managing Scouting in the United States, how about you put it on the table. Understand something: I don't care what the business model is: Even the Roman Catholic Church in the US has management/publicity/integrity problems, and changing the business model won't solve those.

[JMHawkins]

I don't think the business model of BSA is responsible for any of the various issues we sometimes have. In fact, as the comment about GSUSA centralized model highlights, the model probalby helps immensely preserve the core values of Scouting. Of course, the decentralized model also allows for Webelos III Dens to hand out awards like candy and mint Eagle Scouts who've never camped more than a few feet away from the parking lot. In order to have freedom, we have to be willing to give it to other people, even when we're pretty sure they'll do something we don't approve of with it.

 

[emb021]

For me, if you want to make changes in the BSA organization that would be good, first off, stop looking at "business" (ie company) models.

 

You need to be looking at other non-profit organizations.

 

IMO, the BSA needs to follow other non-profit membership organizations, whereby the decision making power lies with the MEMBERS of the organization (the adult members to be exact) and NOT the employees or chartered organizations (who frankly by and large have turned their power over to the employees). Employees should only be there to do the day to day business side of things, under the direction of the elected leadership. As an example, all the stuff we hear about our CSE is what we should be hearing from our National President & National Commissioner. Our national executive director (which is what our CSE really is), should be in the background, not out front.

 

One thing I find very frustrating in dealing with many scouters is it seems many of them have little involvement with other membership organizations, so have nothing to compare it with. People who are involved with, for instance, the masons, toastmasters, rotary, optimist, and other such organizations would have a better model to follow, because they can see it in action.

 

The members of the our organization need to do a better job of electing from within that group those who will lead the organization at the district, council, area, regional, and national levels. Again, other organizations routinely do this. Why is it so hard to expect better in the BSA? Nominating committees at these levels need to be more transparent (ie, there should be a general call for nominations at these levels, allowing people to put there names forward as possible candidates), and proper elections at these levels held (no electing an entire slate of candidate, allow for nominations from the floor, any position that has more then one candidate should have speeches, and each position has a proper election by secret ballot).

 

 

[shortridge]

The problem with that, emb, is that BSA is not a membership organization - it is a youth-serving organization. Less like the Freemasons, Kiwanis and Elks, and more like the B&G Clubs or Big Brothers/Big Sisters. The former aren't designed to deal with two levels of "membership," youth and adult. They'd have the same problems if they tried to attract youth members.