Setting the tone with a new CSE

[SSScout]

4 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

HEY!

Well, the breakfast was good .   AFTER I saw the red jacket....😉  

Yer only as old as yer feel.  I sometimes feel pretty old, sometimes not so.  

I still want to know if he can start a fire.   I searched, but could not reveal the video of Surbaugh at a local camporee starting his fire with F&S....

[skeptic]

3 hours ago, SSScout said:

Well, the breakfast was good .   AFTER I saw the red jacket....😉  

Yer only as old as yer feel.  I sometimes feel pretty old, sometimes not so.  

I still want to know if he can start a fire.   I searched, but could not reveal the video of Surbaugh at a local camporee starting his fire with F&S....

Where was the breakfast; I am always up for that.  Do I need a red coat?  Have one "official" and two event lights.

[Jameson76]

What I find interesting is that his title is CEO and President, and not Chief Scout Executive.  Not sure if that is purposeful or just the new direction.  I know those of us in corporate America notice when there are changes in titles at the top levels or a large organization.

His real challenge will be the bloat at the top and the overall lack of business acumen.

Looking at form 990 for 2017 - https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/221576300/12_2018_prefixes_20-22%2F221576300_201712_990_2018120315968954  reveals a good bit

• $266 million in revenue
• $307 million in expenses
• A loss of $41 million

$78 million in salaries

• Also insurance
• $66 million in insurance
• $25 million in claims

Looking at part VII you will see the salaries of those over $100k

20 or more over $100K in salary

[Sentinel947]

4 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Looking at part VII you will see the salaries of those over $100k

20 or more over $100K in salary

Just at National? That sounds like alot of employees. Or does that count the Councils, which too me sounds really low (A council CSE should probably make at least 100k in most American cities.) There is a long age-old argument about getting what you pay for. And non-profits do need solid leadership with strong education and work experience, and that doesn't come cheap. There is a balancing act however, where those expensive salaries can bleed resources away from where they are needed. 

[Jameson76]

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

Just at National? That sounds like alot of employees. Or does that count the Councils, which too me sounds really low (A council CSE should probably make at least 100k in most American cities.) There is a long age-old argument about getting what you pay for. And non-profits do need solid leadership with strong education and work experience, and that doesn't come cheap. There is a balancing act however, where those expensive salaries can bleed resources away from where they are needed. 

That is 20 just at the National BSA office.  This is shown in their form 990.  Each council is required to file a 990 form.  You can do a Google search and likely find the PDF of the document.  The requirement is to show salaries over $100K

[Eagle1993]

19 of them are lawyers 

[Sentinel947]

32 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

That is 20 just at the National BSA office.  This is shown in their form 990.  Each council is required to file a 990 form.  You can do a Google search and likely find the PDF of the document.  The requirement is to show salaries over $100K

Makes sense, gotta wonder what those folks do to be making 100k. 

[Jameson76]

28 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Makes sense, gotta wonder what those folks do to be making 100k. 

For 2017 it is actually 19 staff that were listed.  The average W2 reportable compensation for the 19 was $332,000.  

Interestingly there is a John Mosby who is now an Assistant CSE of Development as of March 2019 ($310K in salary for 2017 as a Regional Director).  Wonder if he is any relation to the new CEO Roger Mosby?

[skeptic]

I have felt for years that the highest paid people in National, and even in larger councils, could absorb as much as 50% (or more) and still be able to have a comfortable income.  The savings could be partly pushed to the lower levels, mostly in the councils where they beg for qualified people, but cannot pay them enough.  Benefits could be frozen or held to increase only at the cost of living, at least over a certain pay level.  Lower end employees might actually deserve an upward change.  Lower-level jobs in the councils might need a cost of living addendum, but only to a point.  They all should learn, so to speak, the Personal Management merit badge.  Part of the adjustment should also be channeled into local councils, but only to be used for the benefit of local camps.  Keeping the remaining local camps open and properly maintained is a critical issue, from my perspective, and it should partly fall the larger organization, as those properties "can" be used by other members of the group, and are paramount to success at the local levels.  Frankly, anyone with basic income above a quarter million, plus valid benefits, should be able to maintain a very descent living and family support.  That might need a slight adjustment for the very highest COL areas, though I live in one of the most expensive parts of the country, and if I made even a quarter million and benefits, I would be in pretty good shape.  Need and want and perspective on the world.🤔

[Eagle94-A1]

While I agree some salaries do need to be cut, I can tell you that I had former coworkers leave the profession, and double, and in one case triple, their salary based upon the DE experience alone.  So we do need to be competitive to keep good professionals.

But some of the salaries do seem outrageous.

 

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

While I agree some salaries do need to be cut, I can tell you that I had former coworkers leave the profession, and double, and in one case triple, their salary based upon the DE experience alone.  So we do need to be competitive to keep good professionals.

But some of the salaries do seem outrageous.

 

The ones you most want to keep have the most marketable skills, and so are most able to leave when abused, frustrated, or overworked.  Another example of incompetent leadership by BSA "professionals."  Over 38 years here I have consistently seen those regarded by the customers as the best employees leave, although one left to rise to No. 2 in Chicago.

Our consensus best DE was recently canned for insufficient servility to the new SE, a younger man who opposes both "traditional Scouting," which he cannot explain or define, and training of volunteers, youth and adult.

Leadership is almost always the critical ingredient in success.  I hope BSA just got some.  

[scoutldr]

A hundred large ain't what it used to be...

 

[Sentinel947]

52 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

A hundred large ain't what it used to be...

 

Median income in the US is $56,516 annually. Meaning half of Americans make more, half make less. While 100k doesn't buy what it used to, it's still in the upper averages of pay in the US. 

[ParkMan]

Maybe it's just me - but continuing to criticize the national salaries like this feels good, but isn't really bringing constructive ideas to the table.  I don't even see how this impacts just about anything I do either.  Say we reduce all the above salaries and then pass all the savings on the Scouts.  That does what - reduce the national budget by 5 million a year?  While that's a lot - it's not going to fundamentally change anything for us.

I think if we really want to engage with the CSE in a constructive way, we've got to focus on issues that are either a) painful to us as Scouters, or b) things that can bring impact to the program and achievable.  

 

 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Maybe it's just me - 

It's just you.