Suggest Councils that should be Combined

[Cburkhardt]

I think you are generally right.  In the example I gave you the multi-council charter withdrawal was done only after a 3-year intensive effort to try to turn around catastrophic metropolitan membership and financial problems.  And, there were irresolvable personal politics in one council that impacted the overall metropolitan situation.  Scouting in Chicagoland was stabilized by the move.  In the future this approach might be used more often in a more-agreed manner, simply because it can transact a council combination more quickly than multi-year negotiations between council volunteers trying to come out the dominant group in a so-called “merger of equals”.

[Mrjeff]

We went through that about 7 years ago and for the most part it worked out well. But, always a but, there is still some animosity between some members and still some "us and them". If everyone would look at the big picture they would see the benefits.

[Cburkhardt]

I don't want to sound overly corny here, but if decisions regarding combining councils are made with 100% transparency and by strictly prioritizing what is in the best interests of the youth, the process works well -- even when the decision is to keep things as-is.  The problems happen when adults get overly tied-up in things like keeping OA lodge names, spending the successor council's cash on a decrepit and severely-underused camping facility, or arguing at the start of discussions which volunteers will be "in charge" of the successor council.  I've been involved in a best-case combination circumstance and really enjoyed the whole experience.  An the successor council really improved things.  

[walk in the woods]

Utah council mergers, not unexpected I suppose.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/03/10/boy-scout-councils-utah/

[walk in the woods]

And in the Bay Area tentatively

https://missionpeakscouts.com/possible-merge-of-sfbac-mdsc-alameda-council/

[desertrat77]

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

And in the Bay Area tentatively

https://missionpeakscouts.com/possible-merge-of-sfbac-mdsc-alameda-council/

Interesting!  SF Bay Area and Mt Diablo-Silverado attempted a merger several years ago. 

Word on the street (from back then):  SFBA was struggling with units and membership but had plenty of dollars in trusts left to them during the BSA's heyday.   Essentially more money than they knew what to do with it.  So SFBA reached out to Mt DS for a possible merger.

Exploratory committee...then a vote...the nays carried the day.  Mt DS said "no thanks." 

[Cburkhardt]

It is really great that they are being so open and transparent about the possible combination.  That is indeed to only way to have a productive conversation.  If this is in the best interests of the youth, they should do it.  

[SSScout]

What do the Scouts care about what name is on the left sleeve patch? There might be some nostalgia about the camp they attended, and when that is sold to correct somebody's accounting problem , the Troops and Packs and Crews may have some re-planning to do.   That seems to be the biggest problem, the adult's need to pay bills and meet payroll.  If the camp property can't be made to pay it's way, the Councils can be merged to lay off some DEs and Camp Directors and Rangers and shuffle some CSEs and RDs to show a good profit/loss sheet. The Scouts that have already passed thru might not be affected, but the Scouts yet to be will NOT have the chances that you and I old timers had, and THAT's  the real pity.  

When I attended Camp Roosevelt (which was sold in the 1970's to purchase the Goshen Scout Reservation) on Chesapeake Bay,  there were alot less Scouts around then there are now, and evidently a lot more Camps.   Now,  we decry the loss of Scouts from membership, but there is still many more Scouts NOW than THEN in need of places to camp and swim and shoot arrows safely.  What happens to them if the properties are sold and the Councils merged "to save money"? 

Our goal, at least judging from alot of the discussion in this chat room, , is to get MORE youth into Scouting so as to give them that advantage.   Merging Councils does not solve that problem.  It solves the adults' balance sheet problem, but not that problem. 

[Cburkhardt]

Since our mutual youth days, the costs of operating councils and camps have skyrocketed due to insurance, labor, regulatory and other costs.  It is somewhere in the  neighborhood of three times the cost of operating (inflation adjusted) compared to my early 1970’s summer camp attendance.  Since that time we also allowed the BSA to build a professional and cost structure that would only have been sustainable if we were still growing membership and revenues at exploding levels.  Instead of readjusting things as we downsized, leadership rolled things forward and overspent on vanity camp projects — even borrowing funds and forcing future volunteer Scouters to inherit the debt.  Well, no more.  That era has ended.

The bankruptcy and virus are going to reverse the professional cost structure back to realistic levels.  It will be tough on many professional Scouter families of those in their mid-career phase.  Many Scouters who posted earlier this spring were firmly of the belief that DEs and district operations generally will come out of this intact.  It will be the centralized council and national “support” positions that will go — all of them.  I am optimistic and believe the coming era for Scouting will be good, because we will be more volunteer led and focused on units and program rather than the “extras” that were prioritized.

We don’t need more places to camp and swim.  We need to fill and fully-utilize the places we already have.  My Troop is a heavy user of our BSA properties because they are safe and well-purposed for our program.  Even the mighty NCAC has 2 camps that it’s Scouters under-utilize.  Snyder Is under-utilized during the summer despite its splendid facilities and wonderfully-imaginative Cub programming.  Goshen attracts fewer units each year despite being the envy of councils ... everywhere.  Both are very well-run and affordable and the excuses I hear from unit leaders who do not take their Scouts there are mystifying.

The resistance to the idea of working together in appropriate and sometimes larger combinations of geographies in order to combine sufficient capabilities and funding will fade as the realities of downsizing take effect.  My WWII combat veteran Scout leaders would not have cared about preserving councils or camps that don’t work.  They were optimists who had seen the worst and were really enthused to build things and organizations that made sense.  Scouting was a focus for the Greatest Generation and many of the best camps we have were either started or brought to their full facility splendor because they were worked together.  Places like Goshen, Owasippee, Ten Mile, Philmont look the way they do today because of their intelligence and daring.  They would want us to take similar bold steps needed today.

I agree that bringing more youth into scouting and using the facilities we have are the goals.  However, I am not interested in spending my future scouting hours and dollars supporting councils and truly-shoddy properties out of tribalism or loyalties to properties that have not worked for decades.  The bankruptcy and virus are providing us our moment to take action.  We should look to the BSA leadership example of that Greatest Generation as our example.

 

[Mrjeff]

I also remember when the position of staff advisor didn't exist and I just don't think that every multi unit event needs a staff advisor.  If one is assigned they should only be responsible for paying the bills and leave the programming to the dedicated and knowledgeable volunteers.  Again, let's boil things down to reality, if parents trust the volunteer scout leader to take charge of their children and take them to Scouting activities, those same volunteers can certenly plan, arrange, and carry out multi unit events.  Also, I have participated in A LOT of training and it is mainly the same pot of stew, rehashed.  The only thing that changes are the mechanics, and never the content.  Rather then cover theoretical leadership principles that may or may not work; and only reflect the best ideas of the day and are provided by a few a few people on a committee, Scouters should be given, pertinent,  and up to date information that they can use. For example, how to recharter a unit; the merit badge system, what needs to be done if an emergency occurs (and I don't mean first aid); how to file a BSA insurance claim; the purpose of a board of review.......real world information that nobody ever talks about. This is what I would like to see. 

[RememberSchiff]

Some of the "regulatory" issues are self-inflicted and redundant processes ( note: state health agencies already regulate and inspect camps)  -

"Part of the process of running a Boy Scout Camp is the lengthy and tiresome process of obtaining a National Camping Accreditation Program (NCAP) banner stating the camp is up to National regulations and adheres to all safety guidelines, health regulations and the Camp Staff is properly trained... On Wednesday, June 21^st, 2017, the camp staff participated in an on-site inspection by the NCAP team which went through the hundreds of pages of standards and inspected the camp facilities. Tension was high as the process is no walk in the park, but our staff’s efforts were well rewarded at the end of the day."

https://vhcbsa.org/camp-verdugo-oaks-ncap-accredited/

In 2013, the Boy Scouts of America will begin transitioning to the National Camp Accreditation Program (NCAP) to accredit council-organized camps for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts,and Venturers.

Scouting’s goal in this transition is summarized in the purpose of the NCAP: The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Camp Accreditation Program is to help councils elevate camps to new levels of excellence in delivering Scouting’s promise to youth. Councils will engage in a rigorous review of camps and properties, continuous improvement, and correction or elimination of substandard practices.This introduction outlines the major elements of the NCAP and the critical role that the council, area, and region will play in raising BSA camping to an ever higher level of performance

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/outdoor program/pdf/430-077_wb.pdf

IMO, NCAP should be reconsidered. Maybe downsize scope to just training camp staff. I didn't see the need then for NCAP and have not seen the benefit since. Council volunteers, local business support, and state sanitation regulations have driven camp program improvements here. As for insurance, Council should be free to shop and compare quotes.

Another $0.02,

Edited April 20, 2020 by RememberSchiff
clarity

[carebear3895]

On 4/19/2020 at 8:49 AM, Cburkhardt said:

The bankruptcy and virus are going to reverse the professional cost structure back to realistic levels.  It will be tough on many professional Scouter families of those in their mid-career phase.  Many Scouters who posted earlier this spring were firmly of the belief that DEs and district operations generally will come out of this intact.  It will be the centralized council and national “support” positions that will go — all of them.

To your point, this began happening as soon as the stay-at-home orders started. Most of the Unit-Serving Executives (DE's, Senior DE's, District Directors) survived any furloughs. Most of the fundraising and program folks have been not so lucky. If you're a national employee, the writing was always going to be on the wall. 

It's been fascinating to see, and it's not even with the just the Boy Scouts. Many companies are seeing their lowest paid, usually worst treated employees, are the ones most "essential" to the business.  

[fred8033]

Do the fundamentals need to change? 

• What is a council?   
• What is registration / membership? 

Rethink councils.  From what I'm seeing, much of what happens in the council office is in support of national and could be eliminated / reduced or put only on-line.  Scout shop.  Registration.  When I look further, councils could really be viewed as owning and administering properties to create scout opportunities.  The idea of "councils" having membership and running their own program seems wrong.  Rather, shield properties by running / owning them under the council.  BUT, training, materials, advancement, membership seem best to be separated from scout properties and could be separated from councils.   

Rethink membership.  Could registration be changed to be a statement that you will follow the BSA scout program, structure and advancement.  BUT, leave "membership" as part of the charter organization.  This might be a nuanced change but I see BSA having no control over "membership".  They can only "revoke" membership after things go bad.   That is a poor model.  It seems registration should really be a statement of following the BSA program, but without the concept of "membership" or BSA oversight of the individual.   

BSA needs to re-think the organizational basics.  

[Mrjeff]

I think the reason is just another attempt to control an organization while shouldering none of the responsiblity.  If the BSA uses an outside inspection system and something goes wrong then it is the responsibility and fault of the outside agency. State, national, county, and private campgrounds dont go to the ridiculous measures that the BSA goes to.  To me this is just another example of well intentioned people making a lot of money sitting around throwing out a bunch of good ideas without having to consider the reality or consequences of these ideas.

[Cburkhardt]

I am not a "camp guy" in the sense that I'm not on the camping committee and do not have a detailed understanding of the inspection program.  However, I've been a large council president and am aware that some of the inspection functions were required by our insurance carriers who are just looking for reasons to get out of the camp insurance business.  So, some of this intrusiveness was imposed from third parties.

The regulations that must be met to operate camps is several factors greater than a recently as 20 years ago.  It has become another cause of financial and operations difficulty for smaller councils who do not have the personnel bandwidth or any council that has a poorly-maintained facility.  The need to spend to meet the standards is a significant factor in closing some camps that can't afford to install things like modern sanitation and sewer systems.  This is just another reason why I believe we need fewer top-maintained and pristine camps that are shared.