BSA Executive Salaries

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Challenge is that we are not getting more and more high level volunteers and staff with little to know experience AS YOUTH (emphasis), making decisions on program and they do not know what they are talking about.

On example I can give is my national supply division boss. She had no experience with Boy Scout summer camp, except hearing stories about it from her brother. Long story short, when I came up with the summer camp trading post schedule for the experimental program the store was in, she questioned every thing I proposed. I explained how things worked at camp, and she ignored me. Funny thing is, she asked one of my coworkers what she thought about her ideas, and my coworker told her, "How would I know, I've never been to summer camp. Ask [Eagle94-A1]. You hired him because he's been to camp before and staffed it." We did it her way that summer, and I racked up so much comp time that I never used it all before I quit. It was only after camp was over and we reviewed the sales log that I was proven correct, and things changed the second year.

But that was minor compared to some of the things I am reading and hearing.  BSA is hiring "experts" in various areas with no Scouting experience whatsoever. They are taking things from education and applying it to program. Sorry Scouting was never meant to be school. Or they are taking corporate management training courses, and trying to apply it to Cub Scout and Boy Scout training, and neglecting key aspects of program as a result. Take the Patrol Method for example. SM Specific dedicates 5.5 pages of syllabus and 35 minutes of time to it. THE PATROL METHOD IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF SCOUTING AND NEEDS MORE TIME THAN THAT TO EXPLAIN IT! (emphasis). 

A good manager would put people in roles in which they can be effective.  The fact that your boss in the supply division was making decisions for which she did not have the proper experience is a red flag.  She clearly should have known her limitations and either hired someone who could advise her or should have delegated those decisions to someone else.  

That's the real problem in the BSA - bad management choices.  If that's what's going on, the BSA needs to correct that mistake and hire better managers.

I still believe strongly that having a Chief Program Officer (or Chief Scout) would be a phenomenal thing.  It's what we essentially do in a Boy Scout troop now.  You've got a business guy (Troop CC) who organizes all the operational functions.  You've got a program guy (Scoutmaster) who leads the program.  That generally works well when both people are doing their job.

[Eagle94-A1]

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

A good manager would put people in roles in which they can be effective.  The fact that your boss in the supply division was making decisions for which she did not have the proper experience is a red flag.  She clearly should have known her limitations and either hired someone who could advise her or should have delegated those decisions to someone else.  

That was one of the reasons why I was recruited and hired. I had experience both attending camp as a participant, and as a staffer. You don't get to be an area director or camp commissioner without any experience. Plus being a staff advisor as a DE for district and assigned council events give you and advantage in planning and executing events.

 

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

That's the real problem in the BSA - bad management choices.  If that's what's going on, the BSA needs to correct that mistake and hire better managers.

Agreed. Problem is for the bulk of their hiring, they try to hire from within. One reason why you saw a lot of inflated and inaccurate membership figures in the past, to get the promotions. Then they hire "experts" for other jobs and consulting. The challenge is that these experts usually have little no no experience in Scouting, whether as a youth or volunteer. And these "experts" are so specialized, they cannot see anything outside of their field.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I still believe strongly that having a Chief Program Officer (or Chief Scout) would be a phenomenal thing.  It's what we essentially do in a Boy Scout troop now.  You've got a business guy (Troop CC) who organizes all the operational functions.  You've got a program guy (Scoutmaster) who leads the program.  That generally works well when both people are doing their job.

Challenge is in a corporation, who is going to be the head and ultimately influence the company: program guy or business guy? A lot of corporations that are in decline do not have a good balance between the two. At the moment, I'd say BSA's bean counters are runnging the shop.

[ParkMan]

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

That was one of the reasons why I was recruited and hired. I had experience both attending camp as a participant, and as a staffer. You don't get to be an area director or camp commissioner without any experience. Plus being a staff advisor as a DE for district and assigned council events give you and advantage in planning and executing events.

Then it was a management failure that they didn't leverage you better.  

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Agreed. Problem is for the bulk of their hiring, they try to hire from within. One reason why you saw a lot of inflated and inaccurate membership figures in the past, to get the promotions. Then they hire "experts" for other jobs and consulting. The challenge is that these experts usually have little no no experience in Scouting, whether as a youth or volunteer. And these "experts" are so specialized, they cannot see anything outside of their field.

Again, I see this more as a specific management failure than as an indictment of management in general.  Good leadership will promote people based on real success - not faux metrics.  Yes, while it is important to achieve results, it's how you achieve the results that matters.

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Challenge is in a corporation, who is going to be the head and ultimately influence the company: program guy or business guy? A lot of corporations that are in decline do not have a good balance between the two. At the moment, I'd say BSA's bean counters are runnging the shop.

And some of the best companies succeed because they have a strong team leading them.  It's not business guys vs. program guys.  It's a team of people with different strengths working together.  I honestly don't really care which role has the top and don't think it matters who has the final decision so long as the person making the final decision knows how to leverage a team to make it happen.  A program guy who can't leverage the business guy is no better than a business guy who can't leverage the program guy.

My general point though is that the while it's easy to say "fire the suits" and hire a great outdoorsman to run things, I think that's too simplistic.  We see this line of thought a lot - but I suspect it doesn't really work all that often.  It takes a lot of managerial skill to get from an idea in the boardroom to hiring the right person in the National Supply division.  Getting the right hires, or getting the hires we have to do the right thing, is more than just having a guy at the top who makes good choices.

[David CO]

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

 

My general point though is that the while it's easy to say "fire the suits" and hire a great outdoorsman to run things, I think that's too simplistic.  We see this line of thought a lot - but I suspect it doesn't really work all that often.  It takes a lot of managerial skill to get from an idea in the boardroom to hiring the right person in the National Supply division.  Getting the right hires, or getting the hires we have to do the right thing, is more than just having a guy at the top who makes good choices.

We can't fire the suits. The suits can fire us, but we can't fire them. That's the problem.

 

 

[JasonG172]

WOW, sorry late to the game here.  My mind is BLOWN!  I see where our money problem is. This is unforgivable...the Fleecing of America

[JasonG172]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 5:41 PM, Peter1919 said:

So in the UK we don't just have Bear Grylls as Chief Scout we also have some more minor celebs as Scouting Ambassadors. Sometimes they do events by themselves other times the accompany Bear to things. What they all do is help get publicity for Scouting, we have been fairly succesful in the last 12 years or so on getting fairly regular national news coverage of Scouting,

 

 

 

I am a HUGE Bear Grylls fan...one day watching one of his episodes I notice the World scouting patch on some random jacket...at that time I had no idea he was a Scout.  I wish we had someone like Bear here in the states for publicity.  I wish we could borrow him for a while.

 

[ParkMan]

7 hours ago, David CO said:

We can't fire the suits. The suits can fire us, but we can't fire them. That's the problem.

 

 

Yeah - you or I cannot fore the professionals. 

But, we volunteers are represented by the national executive board.  I believe they are just about all volunteers.  They certainly can fire the CSE.  Most of them are pretty serious people.  I'm sure they'd fire the CSE if they lost confidence in him.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

But, we volunteers are represented by the national executive board.  I believe they are just about all volunteers.  They certainly can fire the CSE.  Most of them are pretty serious people.  I'm sure they'd fire the CSE if they lost confidence in him.

That really isn't true. We unit scouters are not represented by the executive board. We don't elect them. We can't remove them. 

I actually have no idea how the executive board operates. It is a very secretive process. All I know is that they always seem to vote unanimously in favor of anything the CSE puts in front of them. Rubber stamp.

I have never heard of a CSE getting fired. I am not at all certain that the executive board can actually fire the CSE. I think it is far more likely that the CSE would remove any or all of the executive board members if he were to ever lose confidence in their unquestioning, unwavering, and unanimous support.

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by David CO

[ParkMan]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/30903

(a)Executive Board.—

An executive board composed of citizens of the United States is the governing body of the corporation. 

 

So yes, the executive board is the governing body and can hire, fire, do whatever it needs to govern the BSA.  Just because the board has never fired the CSE doesn't mean they would not.  The professionals work for them.

[WisconsinMomma]

Late to the party here, but who wouldn't love Mike Rowe as an American Scouting Ambassador? 

[David CO]

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

So yes, the executive board is the governing body and can hire, fire, do whatever it needs to govern the BSA.  Just because the board has never fired the CSE doesn't mean they would not.  The professionals work for them.

I understand how it is supposed to work...on paper. This was all explained to me way back during the Owasippe controversy. I also know that it doesn't actually work that way. BSA does not operate the way their corporation paperwork says they should. That was the basis of the Chicago Area Council lawsuit.

Yes, the fact that the board has never fired a CSE is a clear indicator that things are not right. These unanimous votes are another. The ridiculously high salaries are the clincher. The governing bodies have no control over the execs. This is what I think should change. The owners of the corporations (national council/local councils) should have actual control over the hiring, firing, and salaries of the execs who supposedly work for them.

The selection of the boards should be democratic and transparent. If the boards do not vote/act in a way that is truly representative their constituents, there should be a process by which they can be voted out of their offices.

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by David CO

[David CO]

26 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Late to the party here, but who wouldn't love Mike Rowe as an American Scouting Ambassador? 

Mike Rowe, perhaps. My impression is that Mr. Rowe is not the sort of guy who would take on an honorary position that has no real authority to make changes. He seems to be more interested in getting the job done than in collecting personal honors and bling.

 

[CalicoPenn]

35 minutes ago, David CO said:

Mike Rowe, perhaps. My impression is that Mr. Rowe is not the sort of guy who would take on an honorary position that has no real authority to make changes. He seems to be more interested in getting the job done than in collecting personal honors and bling.

 

I think you put in to words exactly why people think Mike Rowe would be a good person to head up the BSA - he gives the impression that he's interested in getting the job done so that's how people think about him.

The thing is, no one really knows what he is like in the real world.  Mike Rowe has a degree in communications - he is essentially a journalist.  Mike Rowe's claim to fame is a character he has created named Mike Rowe who starred in a "realty show" doing "dirty jobs".  We didn't get to see the behind the scenes stuff where everything is set up for Mike Rowe the person to exit his comfy trailer to become "Mike Rowe" and do some kind of "real work" for 5 minutes or less while he was being filmed, then heading back to his comfy trailer, or the food stand, or just chill out in a chair gabbing while the next scene was set.   What people are seeing is the character Mike Rowe, not the person Mike Rowe.  

 

[WisconsinMomma]

Rowe is an excellent communicator and would be a fabulous spokesperson.  He believes in the BSA.  

For an executive director, those folks are professional fundraisers and capital allocators.  That is not the same job as a spokesperson.