BSA Executive Salaries

[carebear3895]

On 5/19/2018 at 11:47 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

While we personally may not have hired them, they were hired to serve us. I have seen all kinds of execs; good, bad, lazy, industrious, and even criminal. There is a lot of work done behind the scenes to support the units. One of the reasons why my district is suffering like it is ( see my  Breaking Point post) is that we do not have a full time DE to support us and help recruit the folks we need. As for mistreatment, that is one of the reasons many of the good ones leave. My council went through 9 DEs and 2 mid level executives in the 18 months I was a pro. 

You know why I think it is that way? Most if not all SE's were DE's like in the 70's, 80's,or 90's. From my understanding, the norm back then was to treat DE's pretty much like dirt. My guess is those SE's today don't see a reason to treat current DE's any better, because of what they went through.

 

I'll admit there is a huge culture problem in the profession. On the plus side, I actually do see it getting better on a council by council basis. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by carebear3895

[ParkMan]

14 minutes ago, gblotter said:

LDS Scouting died in July 2015 when BSA announced its decision to admit gay adult leaders. The funeral was simply delayed due to the time required to formulate a replacement LDS youth program. After BSA's July 2015 vote, the strongly worded LDS response was shockingly candid in airing dirty laundry.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America."

That's essentially what I thought too.  Thanks.

Reading it over though, it's interesting how the BSA leadership maneuvered here.  Makes me wonder if the relationship was already strained.

[Eagle94-A1]

32 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

You know why I think it is that way? Most if not all SE's were DE's like in the 70's, 80's,or 90's. From my understanding, the norm back then was to treat DE's pretty much like dirt. My guess is those SE's today don't see a reason to treat current DE's any better, because of what they went through.

 

I'll admit there is a huge culture problem in the profession. On the plus side, I actually do see it getting better on a council by council basis. 

 

Yes, I know. I was actually warned by a mentor of mine who had dealt with a number of pros over the years he volunteered and worked summer camp staff. I should have listened. Not every SE was like the one I had when I was contemplating going into the profession. They also did a lot of questionable things regarding membership too, but that is a different story.

[T2Eagle]

23 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

You know why I think it is that way? Most if not all SE's were DE's like in the 70's, 80's,or 90's. From my understanding, the norm back then was to treat DE's pretty much like dirt. My guess is those SE's today don't see a reason to treat current DE's any better, because of what they went through.

 

I'll admit there is a huge culture problem in the profession. On the plus side, I actually do see it getting better on a council by council basis. 

I've had that conversation with a couple of SEs that I'm friends with who were bemoaning the "kids these days" DEs working for them.  "I had to  (move a lot, work too many hours, take on too many tasks personally, etc.)"  A common problem with any organization that never hires laterally from the outside is that there just aren't enough new ideas that people have actually already tried and used.  

The current system is premised on the idea is that if you put up with the hardship long enough you get rewarded by becoming a SE with good pay and good working conditions.  But with the inevitable downsizing that's going to occur with the loss of the LDS that promise simply won't be able to be kept.

I'm curious if any of the LDS community members here have any sense of what LDS professionals will be thinking once the relationship ends.  Will they feel an obligation to leave scouting even if they don't have to?

[David CO]

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

you right. We just chill at the office and make lists of how to make life harder for volunteers. By the way have you turned in your FoS pledge card yet?

Not a chance. I never contribute to FoS.

I'm sure that DE's work very hard, and put in long hours, trying to raise money to pay the bloated salaries of the higher level scout execs. That's your job. You don't do anything for us. 

 

[ParkMan]

30 minutes ago, David CO said:

Not a chance. I never contribute to FoS.

I'm sure that DE's work very hard, and put in long hours, trying to raise money to pay the bloated salaries of the higher level scout execs. That's your job. You don't do anything for us. 

 

When I was a Cubmaster I'd have said much the same.  My pack never camped at Council camps, never participated in District or Council activities, never took advantage of any support from a DE on membership or anything else.  We were the big, successful pack that did it all our self.  For our part, the only relationship we had with the BSA was:
- purchase badges and other items from the store
- turn in recharter packets & applications
- the occasional training

So, in a real way, we'd have said much the same.

When I joined the troop, I saw that things were different - but only because we wanted it to be so.  We go to camporees, council events, council camps, make better use of training, etc.  We're better off for it, but I do still remember those days in Cub Scouts when we operated completely independently.

 

 

[numbersnerd]

39 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

When I was a Cubmaster I'd have said much the same.  My pack never camped at Council camps, never participated in District or Council activities, never took advantage of any support from a DE on membership or anything else.  We were the big, successful pack that did it all our self.  For our part, the only relationship we had with the BSA was:
- purchase badges and other items from the store
- turn in recharter packets & applications
- the occasional training

So, in a real way, we'd have said much the same.

When I joined the troop, I saw that things were different - but only because we wanted it to be so.  We go to camporees, council events, council camps, make better use of training, etc.  We're better off for it, but I do still remember those days in Cub Scouts when we operated completely independently.

 

 

I think we're going to see a lot of troops go to that mode of operation with the recent changes (if they aren't already doing it.) Both Pack and Troop I'm involved with largely do this now and will likely scale back any district/council participation back to the minimum required.

Why? Membership changes and policies are one element. Another is that there is very little value-add involving them in the program we offer. It works, boys are learning and having fun. As a unit, we're increasing our numbers because of what WE do, in spite of the noise and interference from above.

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by numbersnerd

[David CO]

My school/parish/diocesan administrators make more money than me, but they don't make 10 times, 100 times, or a 1000 times my salary. As I said before, I am satisfied with my salary. I do think, however, I could become a bit resentful if my bosses were to start receiving huge salary increases. 

It is one thing to make sacrifices in order to have an affordable school for my students. It would be an entirely different thing if I was asked to take a low wage in order to make my boss rich. 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by David CO

[The Latin Scot]

14 hours ago, ParkMan said:

But I thought this forum had established that the BSA decision to go co-ed was because the LDS church had already the BSA leadership it was leaving.

Let's say though that they hadn't.  The BSA created all kinds of special stuff in the program for the LDS church.  I would imagine that the execs would have gladly said that LDS units were exempt from the co-ed program.

How can a few people chatting online "establish" what was ultimately behind the BSA's decision? Alas, we can hypothesize all we want, but we don't really know what went behind the move. 

All I know is that I am against it, and will leave the program with the Church next year. 

Do I believe in Scouting? Yes, with all my heart yes.

Do I believe that the Boy Scouts of America still delivers the quality of Scouting and the purity of the program that it once did? 

No. I don't believe it does anymore. And I can't invest my time in an organization that has lost the vision of its original programming. It breaks my heart, but I have principles that the BSA is moving away from, and my principles come before my passions. 

[carebear3895]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

Not a chance. I never contribute to FoS.

I'm sure that DE's work very hard, and put in long hours, trying to raise money to pay the bloated salaries of the higher level scout execs. That's your job. You don't do anything for us. 

 

Yea because the whole point of the Boy Scouts of America is to make Scout Executives rich. DE's are slaves to SE's, we don't care about the volunteers we work alongside. Packs and Troops are just thorns in our sides in our goal to make as much money as possible.

 

....Give me a break...

Edited May 21, 2018 by carebear3895

[numbersnerd]

6 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

Yea because the whole point of the Boy Scouts of America is to make Scout Executives rich. DE's are slaves to SE's, we don't care about the volunteers we work alongside. Packs and Troops are just thorns in our sides in our goal to make as much money as possible.

 

Maybe some deeper self-examination is necessary. You may be joking, but that IS the impression made by the 'professionals' time and time again. WE can't help it that quite often the only ones signing up to be paid Scouters are a bunch of bumbling fools. Is that a fair assessment of all of them? Hardly, but you form your opinions based on what you have experienced.

What we volunteers can do is often ignore the interference and idiocy and deliver quality as opposed to bureaucracy.

[ParkMan]

6 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

How can a few people chatting online "establish" what was ultimately behind the BSA's decision? Alas, we can hypothesize all we want, but we don't really know what went behind the move. 

All I know is that I am against it, and will leave the program with the Church next year. 

Do I believe in Scouting? Yes, with all my heart yes.

Do I believe that the Boy Scouts of America still delivers the quality of Scouting and the purity of the program that it once did? 

No. I don't believe it does anymore. And I can't invest my time in an organization that has lost the vision of its original programming. It breaks my heart, but I have principles that the BSA is moving away from, and my principles come before my passions. 

Fair enough.  Just struck me that the LDS decision was likely in the works for some time now.  A decision last year to admit girls  didn't seem to match up sequence wise with the LDS decision.  But, perhaps I'm wrong.

I do understand where you're coming from and think it's unfortunate for the Scouts that we loose good people because of this.  Who the BSA admits is less important to me than the core mission of bringing Scouting to the youth in the program.  Do I agree with the recent decisions - sure.  But, had they not happened, I'd still be a volunteer.  I understand that for you these decisions overshadow the core program.  Though we see it differently, I won't try to persuade you.  I tried that last week with some others to no avail.  I'll just simply leave it at that it's sad we'll lost you.

 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

Yea because the whole point of the Boy Scouts of America is to make Scout Executives rich. DE's are slaves to SE's, we don't care about the volunteers we work alongside. Packs and Troops are just thorns in our sides in our goal to make as much money as possible.

Exactly. If execs don't like this characterization, there is a quick and easy way for them to fix it. Stop paying themselves these outrageously high salaries.

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by David CO

[gblotter]

2 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

How can a few people chatting online "establish" what was ultimately behind the BSA's decision? Alas, we can hypothesize all we want, but we don't really know what went behind the move.

You are, of course, correct. None except the BSA and LDS leaders can ultimately say what was their reasoning and motivation.

[carebear3895]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

Exactly. If execs don't like this characterization, there is a quick and easy way for them to fix it. Stop paying themselves these outrageously high salaries.

 

I'm sorry but this is incredibly shortsighted and frankly insulting to a lot of good professionals out there. We work TOGETHER to provide a program FOR THE YOUTH.

Do I think National execs and some SE's make too much? Yea, i kinda do. But to think cutting their salaries is the magical fix to all the problems with the BSA, that's just silly. I try to be humble about our jobs because this truly is a volunteer driven organization, but to say we do nothing to support the units pisses me off to no end. Don't for one second think i'm doing this job to give my boss a bigger paycheck, I do it because I want to grow this program I love. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by carebear3895