Positive Council Changes during Financial Reorganization

[Eagle94-A1]

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

In 15 years of chartering my units neither the DE nor their designee ever once met with the IH to discuss and sign the Chartering Agreement.  That would be a good start.

 

2 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

Which is insane to hear because I meet with every CO twice a year at minimum. 

 

Sadly I was told by my Director of Field Service, the #2 person in a council, that I didn't need to meet with any of Institutional Heads (IHs) when I was a DE. When I mentioned it was part of the charter agreement, I was told not to worry about it as I didn't have time for it.

[Sentinel947]

28 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

On the issue of freeloader units.  My earlier comment was prompted by the large number of units that attend camp out of council, don’t participate in district or council activities, don’t assist the council or district financially (through FOS, product sales or otherwise) and don’t assist by participating in activities or training events.  Annual council program fees might motivate leaders of these units to derive value for their payments and participate as citizens of their councils.  Maybe FOS and other opportunities for units and parents to support councils financially were presented as optional during earlier times, but things have evolved to the point where we need to reset that understanding.  While the initial round of financial reorganization might be focused on national, at least 20% of our councils cannot survive in the coming few years without a new funding model.  Non- participation needs to become a thing of the past.  Program fees in lieu of these other funding devices are more equitable and efficient.

Perhaps the Council and Districts need to get feedback from their stakeholders (Scouts, leaders, CO's) and figure out why folks don't participate in council activities. Leveraging a fee on folks who already do not participate is just going to make them mad, it's not going to drive them to participate. It'd just be viewed as a scalping maneuver. Which is exactly what it is. 

You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Pros and District volunteers need to get out and meet the units, particularly the ones that do not participate, and build relationships and help those units solve problems. The participation and money will follow that relationship building. 

[desertrat77]

From my travels (six different councils), units that might be classified as "freeloaders" often have grounds for not supporting their council.  Peel back the onion and these units make the following case:

- Council pros who continually display a disinterested or antagonistic tone to units

- Little/no communication from council; noticeable lack of interest in feedback from volunteers

- Poor quality programming

- Running substandard summer camps yet charging an arm and leg (cash cow)

- Council pros bolstering a good ole boy crowd of volunteers at council and district level who display the same disdain for units

- DEs who either can't or won't help units (I realize this is not always their fault)

- Councils demanding financial contributions, or insinuating that they (council) deserve funds, despite poor support to units

- Instances of conflict between the pros and the units

In summary, these units have long memories.  Yes, the unit owns 50 percent of the relationship but I have seen many an otherwise cooperative unit turned off by a heavy handed pro, or a distant/non-supportive council.  Units vote with their feet and their wallets.  That translates to attending out of council camps, not attending round table, declining FOS etc.

Edited February 6, 2020 by desertrat77

[David CO]

2 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

On the issue of freeloader units.  My earlier comment was prompted by the large number of units that attend camp out of council, don’t participate in district or council activities, don’t assist the council or district financially (through FOS, product sales or otherwise) and don’t assist by participating in activities or training events.  Annual council program fees might motivate leaders of these units to derive value for their payments and participate as citizens of their councils.  Maybe FOS and other opportunities for units and parents to support councils financially were presented as optional during earlier times, but things have evolved to the point where we need to reset that understanding.  While the initial round of financial reorganization might be focused on national, at least 20% of our councils cannot survive in the coming few years without a new funding model.  Non- participation needs to become a thing of the past.  Program fees in lieu of these other funding devices are more equitable and efficient.

Once again, you are putting the cart before the horse.  You talk as if the units exist to serve the council, rather than the other way around.  If a large number of units don't want the services your council wants to provide them, then perhaps it is your council who should change its attitude.  

Non-participation does not need to become a thing of the past.  It is the most effective way to educate the council to the fact that it is not serving the needs and wants of the units.  If this attitude continues, the councils should go under.  Maybe some better council will rise up from its ashes with a true desire to serve the units.

Edited February 6, 2020 by David CO

[TAHAWK]

We were just told that another camp in our council is being sold.  Capital improvements needed is the rationalization, although we are flush with $millions of capital improvement money that is not supposed to be use for payroll.  The lady who managed the successful effort to raise these $millions - an actual professional - has been laid-off.   Being Cold-blooded, we don't "need" the camp due to the horrific fall in membership here.

[TAHAWK]

My troop as a Scout was in business eighteen years before BSA showed up in Santa Ana.  My troop for 25 years here formed in 1908 and was one of 99 troops functioning when BSA appeared in "Cleveland District" in 1912.  All they "needed" was Scouting for Boys.

Edited February 6, 2020 by RememberSchiff
typo ll -> All

[Eagle94-A1]

I have calmed down enough to comment on the "Freeloader Unit" title that @Cburkhardt uses to describe units "that attend camp out of council, don’t participate in district or council activities, don’t assist the council or district financially (through FOS, product sales or otherwise) and don’t assist by participating in activities or training events."

But @desertrat77 pretty much nails it with why units I've been in  that are "freeloaders" are they way they are.

Further, @Sentinel947 spot on that adding fees will make it worse. When National increased the registration fee, people dropped, and some decided not to honor the FOS payments to cover the cost of the increase.

My district is suffering, and we are getting no support from the council. We have been sharing a DE for 7 to 10 years now. To make matters worse, when volunteers get together to organize stuff and get things done, the council interferes and either says "no" or adds so much stuff that it burns out volunteers. Best example is the district camporee. One volunteer organized a work day for folks in the district to go to camp and get it ready for camporee. Council said "NO." Yes, they turned down free labor. A few year back, the DE, without consulting with the camporee co-chairmen or anyone else in the districts involved, decided to  add a Cub Scout event at the same time and place as the joint district camporee. When the chairs try to discuss their concerns with having a 3rd event going on {Camporee and ItOLS were scheduled), we were told it would happen or we could step down. Since camporee was a week or two away, I stepped down Sunday morning of camproee.

 

 

[Cburkhardt]

Freeloaders, continued.  To make this discussion even more interesting, I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten.  So, the unit leaders really don’t have the typical reasons discussed above to be non-participants and non-supporters.  The reality is that this council will turn to an annual program fee, which it has announced it is studying.

I think almost all of our families can afford this.  We are overly-apologetic about our unit membership and activity fees.  A fully-loaded annual cost for a Scout in a Troop is about $1K, and about $300 for a cub.  That is everything including even summer camp.  Families are spending huge multiples of that for sports programming, dance/ballet and especially those travel teams for athletics and school.  Annual spend for some of these things easily exceed $5 - 10K per year.  Scouting is dirt cheap in comparison.  Given that flood of youth activity spending, the comparatively small amounts we need to collect are modest.  A council program fee — if used wisely — is a very justified strategy.

[Cburkhardt]

I appreciate everyone’s cool-headed approach on these posts.  That approach is going to be needed as we step through these next couple of years.  This will be a time when we will need to provide guidance to some of these difficult personalities, like the DE Eagle 94-A1 mentions.  This is going to work out, but things will indeed need to function differently.

[desertrat77]

45 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

...I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten. 

 

39 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

 This is going to work out, but things will indeed need to function differently.

Two excellent points.  Folks expect value for their dollar and have no problem paying if they get it.    However, as we've discussed, the council system as it currently operates in many locations is ineffective and out of touch. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by desertrat77

[ParkMan]

2 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Folks expect value for their dollar and have no problem paying if they get it.

I suspect that FOS days are numbered.  National set a rule that a council can charge for a service fee at $60 per scout.  Coming out of the re-org, I am sure many councils will assess this.  For councils it will be critically important that they can justify this fee to families.

For the sake of discussion, let's agree that a council exists to support the units and the scouts.

• What value & services do you see that your council brings for this money?
• What value & services do you think that your council should bring for this money?

Coming out of the re-org it seems very appropriate for councils to be thinking about the value they bring to Scouting.

In the spirit of @Cburkhardt's topic - let keep this discussion dispassionate.  

[desertrat77]

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

National set a rule that a council can charge for a service fee at $60 per scout.  Coming out of the re-org, I am sure many councils will assess this.  For councils it will be critically important that they can justify this fee to families.

Indeed, councils will have to make a concerted effort to justify this fee.    Unit goodwill and loyalty were sorely tested during the last dues increase. 

[HashTagScouts]

Regarding Council activity fees, having had this model in my council for a few years now, it's still polarizing even after all this time.  Our activity fee is $30 per youth (Venturers/Sea Scouts age 18-21 are considered "adults" for this purpose, and are not charged the $30) per year.  

There was some perceived benefits, namely that the Council no longer charges for adult training, but when we used to charge $25/participant for IOLS, we actually spent the $25 to have supplies and about ~$18 of that went towards food.  That $18 was a lot, but we went all out to have the participants cook backpack type meals for lunch, and cook several dishes so that they can see the (and taste) the variety of options that exist.  now, we are given $15/participant as budget by Council to pull off an IOLS.  

The main "benefit" that we get for this activity fee is weekend tent camping is "free" at our council camps.  Prior, the cost for weekend tent camping was $75.  30 Scouts paying $30 a year is an awful lot of dough when we try to explain it parents every year- what they perceive they can put their hands on as "benefit" is we don't have to pay $150 a year for the two weekends we use the council camps a year.

I understand the economics.  FoS donations have been on the decline for a long time, so councils have to look to get revenue somewhere.  Where we might actually get better "stickiness" to have units participating is if we increased the annual chartering fee, with the increased portion going to councils.  Ultimately same net effect that you are asking families to either pay through unit dues, or unit fundraising, but where it is now the unit that is perceived to be ponying up the cash and not the members, perhaps the unit leaders will become more vested to plan/run events and more actively participate.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, HashTagScouts said:

 FoS donations have been on the decline for a long time, so councils have to look to get revenue somewhere. 

The Matrix.

[David CO]

3 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

To make this discussion even more interesting, I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten.  So, the unit leaders really don’t have the typical reasons discussed above to be non-participants and non-supporters.  

Do you really not see the disconnect here?  You told us that many units choose non-participation.  Then you go on about what a swell council it is.  Something doesn't match up.  This is a perfect example of how councils ignore the feedback they get from the units.  They look at themselves through rose colored glasses and simply dismiss any contrary responses they get from the units.  

This is about accountability.  We need to be able to hold our councils accountable.  By eliminating the financial incentive, the councils will finally be free to totally ignore the needs of the units.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by David CO