Positive Council Changes during Financial Reorganization

[Cburkhardt]

Scoutldr:  I like Council annual program fees.  Councils can use the bankruptcy filing as a cause to re-evaluate their financing models.  I personally am Scoutmaster of a new Troop that decided to fully-load member dues with the full cost of operations and not do any product sales.  We have an annual coffee event where we raise money to (1) subsidize the participation of Scouts from under-resourced families who cannot pay the full dues and activity fees, (2) make a contribution to our local Council to make-up for not participating in council-run product sales and (3) purchase equipment.  This year we made $7,000.  This year we will have our first FOS presentation (I did not want to do it until the parents experience the program).  The council appreciated that we are doing things a bit differently and I encourage them to look at their financing model.  FOS, council-shared product sales and attendance at the council camp (we have huge numbers of Troops going out-of-council despite the local facility being among the very top facilities nationwide) are down -- causing them to evaluate having an annual program fee.  I think the program fee approach is good.  It spreads the burden of financing more equitably and informs participants of the services the district and council provide.  We have a large number of long-term and well-funded units that are simply free-loaders.  Councils do not run on air -- so the program fee might be a rational way to go.  

[David CO]

30 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

We have a large number of long-term and well-funded units that are simply free-loaders.  Councils do not run on air -- so the program fee might be a rational way to go.  

I disagree.  Councils should be financed through the voluntary contributions of their supporters.  Units should not be taxed.

A unit that doesn't like its council, and chooses to not participate in council activities, council run camps, or council fundraisers is not a freeloader.  It is unfair to charge a tax to units that don't want council involvement.

Charging a tax to units does not improve councils.  It does the exact opposite.  It frees the council from the need to please its customers.  The councils will have even less incentive to serve the units.  

[David CO]

The most positive change the councils could make would be to restore the role of the Chartered Organizations.   

[Protoclete]

5 minutes ago, David CO said:

The most positive change the councils could make would be to restore the role of the Chartered Organizations.   

Could you expand what you mean by that? I'm not clear what has changed about their role. 

[ValleyBoy]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

The most positive change the councils could make would be to restore the role of the Chartered Organizations.   

I do not see it as restoring the role of the Chartered Organization.  I see it as a better line of communication between the council and the Charter Organizations.  Most units that I see that drop. drop because of losing adult leadership that were not members of the charter organization and have no youth that were members of the charter organization.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Protoclete said:

Could you expand what you mean by that? I'm not clear what has changed about their role. 

Voting members of the council should be made up entirely of COR's, who are appointed by the Chartered Organizations.  The execs should not be allowed to stack the boards with their hand-picked supporters, who are not appointed by the Chartered Organizations.

The slate of council/district officers should not be selected by a nominating committee chosen by the execs.  Nominations should have to come from the Chartered Organizations or their representatives.  The officers of the councils/district should have oversight authority over the execs.  They should not be directly or indirectly selected by the execs.  They should not be beholden to the execs for their positions.

[carebear3895]

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

Voting members of the council should be made up entirely of COR's, who are appointed by the Chartered Organizations.  The execs should not be allowed to stack the boards with their hand-picked supporters, who are not appointed by the Chartered Organizations.

The slate of council/district officers should not be selected by a nominating committee chosen by the execs.  Nominations should have to come from the Chartered Organizations or their representatives.  The officers of the councils/district should have oversight authority over the execs.  They should not be directly or indirectly selected by the execs.  They should not be beholden to the execs for their positions.

All COR's are already voting members of the Exec Board. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by carebear3895

[David CO]

3 minutes ago, ValleyBoy said:

I do not see it as restoring the role of the Chartered Organization.  I see it as a better line of communication between the council and the Charter Organizations.  

You will not get a better line of communication until you restore the role of the Chartered Organization.  Otherwise, there is really nothing to talk about.  

[David CO]

1 hour ago, ValleyBoy said:

Most units that I see that drop. drop because of losing adult leadership that were not members of the charter organization and have no youth that were members of the charter organization.

Exactly.  The Chartered Organization can provide great stability to a unit.  To do that, the Chartered Organization needs to have its people directly responsible for, and actively engaged in, the unit.  The unit needs to acknowledge and support the ownership role of the Chartered Organization.  

Edited February 5, 2020 by David CO

[SSScout]

#1   The  work is done by whoever shows up. The "pros"   show up because (a) they love Scouting (I hope) and (b) they get paid in cash. and (c) their ideas are good ones. the "volunteers"  show up because (a) they love Scouting and (b) they see it as a key to our nation's future good citizens. Not to mention the Dutch Oven Brownies.  We show up because we see the reward THEN as worthy of our efforts NOW.    Rent is paid in advance,  mortgages are paid in arrears, paychecks come after the hours are counted.

#2  The work of Scouting needs the outdoors.  This is the very definition of "Scouting".  When Scout Camps are underused, underpromoted, made less than available or even KNOWN by Scout folks, they will eventually be seen as burdens rather than assets.  The cash price of the land will become more attractive than the Scout use of the land. Can we say ""Owasippee"" and Chicago Council?  A SE's retirement may be seen in the sale of the camp, rather than the future of the Scouts.  The BSA cannot depend on the National Parks for facilities.

#3   The work of Scouting is it's PROGRAM.   When B-P  wrote his first book, he did not expect it to be popular among CHILDREN, but that is where it hit home.  He then came to realize that was what was needed, and sought to produce the sample Scout Camp,  Brownsea Island.  And that is how we come to be having this conversation.  When us poor old codgerly people set up and encourage opportunities for the yooooth, we are following in those not totally matchable footsteps. But we do try, none the less.

#4   National's possible bankruptcy proclamation is meant (among other things, I feel)  as a sacrifice to protect the local Scout Councils and  local PROGRAM.  Were mistakes made 40, 50 years ago in oversight and responsibility?  Yes.  Can we learn from those mistakes and move on?  Well, humanity has a bad habit of NOT learning from history  and being doomed to repeat it, so we (us) must keep on pointing our fingers and speaking up.  YP has been tightened up.  Scout Leaders have been reminded of the terrible possibilities. What  I call ""The What If Game""  must be played aloud and publically if we are to move on.

#5  Blessed are the Scout Units who have CORs that take their  defined roles seriously, they are few and far between.  BSA defines the CORs as the voting members of the Council legal corporation.   Remind yours and shake their hands along the way.  

#6   "But I don't know how to...."   Well, what do you know how to..... ?   Let that be your contribution , and learn something else new along the way. 

 

[malraux]

7 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Blessed are the Scout Units who have CORs that take their  defined roles seriously, they are few and far between.  BSA defines the CORs as the voting members of the Council legal corporation.   Remind yours and shake their hands along the way.  

We're doing good if we can find our COR to sign adult applications. Expecting them to attend regular scout board meetings is beyond what they would ever do.

[David CO]

7 minutes ago, SSScout said:

 Can we say ""Owasippee"" and Chicago Council?  

Yes, but we can't spell it. 

[ParkMan]

3 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

We have a large number of long-term and well-funded units that are simply free-loaders.

Sorry to jump in on another comment here - but I find this one another good example of the council/unit volunteer interaction.

For years, FOS donations were described as optional.  There was a clear understanding that individuals and units did not have to contribute to pay the council bills.  Family FOS contributions were just that - contributions they you felt so inclined to make.  Council fundraising people would love for everyone to give - but it was never the expectation.  So, if a unit chose not to participate, that was their prerogative.  Again - would the council prefer it - yes, most certainly.

As a unit/district volunteer, what I found was that unit participation in FOS was an indicator of how involved that unit was in the district.  Those units who had no relationship with the district often didn't participate.  Those units with a good relationship did participate.  When I was CC, I decided we needed to better support FOS.  I made a few public statements encouraging FOS and we easily doubled contributions.  My recommendation to the FOS team was to meet with those units who did not participate and simply start a dialog.  Don't push them for money, but start building connections.  Connections build involvement, involvement builds ownership, ownership grows donations.

Somewhere along the way the FOS narrative has changed.  More and I've started hearing the term free loader for units who don't participate.  Parents who don't contribute and not paying their share to fund the council.  But, this was never the expectation.  I think this is where councils need to take a step back and really think about what they are saying here.

If councils really want units to pay more FOS, and especially if they go to a subscription model, councils have to start focusing on demonstrating value to the units.  Simply having some council camps, a central office, and a local DE is not enough to charge a family $60 a year.  Is 10-20 hours of DE time focused on the unit worth that fee?  Is a council camp that the local unit doesn't even use worth that fee?  Most local programming - camporees, training, district activities are organized by volunteers.  If you fired all the DEs they'd still happen and so it's difficult to argue that people need to pay a fee to cover volunteer organized programming.  Councils need to focus on articulating and showing value for those fees.

That said - I'm a supporter of a council program fee.  I believe that it will force the council/district/unit value conversation.  That conversation is a good thing.

[ParkMan]

30 minutes ago, SSScout said:

#1   The  work is done by whoever shows up. The "pros"   show up because (a) they love Scouting (I hope) and (b) they get paid in cash. and (c) their ideas are good ones. the "volunteers"  show up because (a) they love Scouting and (b) they see it as a key to our nation's future good citizens. Not to mention the Dutch Oven Brownies.  We show up because we see the reward THEN as worthy of our efforts NOW.    Rent is paid in advance,  mortgages are paid in arrears, paychecks come after the hours are counted.

 

But honestly - the pros shouldn't do the work.  "We" pay for professionals to help us develop the Scouting program at the district/council level.  The most economical way to leverage that money is not for them to turn into paid "volunteers".  That's a very cost inefficient way to do things.  Say the average DE makes $36,000 a year (that's a guess).  That then results in approx. $18 a hour for their time.  Is it worth $18 an hour for DEs to run around doing volunteer work?  No, it is not.  It is however worth $18 an hour for them to be doing "force multiplier" work - recruiting new volunteers, strengthening teams, providing guidance on planning, etc.  Helping unit leaders to grow their units, etc...

 

[scoutldr]

1 hour ago, malraux said:

We're doing good if we can find our COR to sign adult applications. Expecting them to attend regular scout board meetings is beyond what they would ever do.

Then they are not fulfilling the terms of their Charter agreement.  To me, this is one of the biggest failures of the current model.  The CO/COR are ignorant of, or simply ignore, their agreed upon responsibilities...and the Professional staff are just as happy to be given free rein without outside interference, handpicking the Executive Board to do the SE's bidding.  Perhaps scout camps would not be sold off to continue paying 6-figure salaries if the CORs showed up and voted.