Predicting Nationwide Shutdown Continues to Sept.

[yknot]

Yes, we just filed for this for our church and for a small business as well. 

I don't see camps or HA realistically operating this summer. Without a vaccine or effective therapeutics, I would not send a kid to camp even if they were open. The virus is mutating all the time and the more cases there are, the more mutations there are. We have seen an explosive increase in cases in the US and Europe. There is no guarantee it won't mutate into something that children are more susceptible to. The best way to avoid this is to keep them out of the clinical picture so that this very smart virus doesn't "learn" how to also target them.  School in the fall with health measures and surveillance in place might be worth the risk. Optional camps or HA outings with poor hygiene this summer, no. 
 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

I am very pessimistic at this time. Things that I thought would happen due to the lawsuits and bankruptcy on the local are happening. And COVID-19 is making it worse.

We are on a conditional charter now due to membership loses and not meeting finance goals. our DFS and 2 DEs have been RIF'ed. Merging districts was mentioned in a letter, and friends in the know mentioned possibility of splitting the council amongst 4 neighboring councils. A variety of factors have affected membership: policy changes, loss of LDS, negative publicity regarding lawsuits and bankruptcy. FOS is down because of the above and the last, minute increases in registration. I know I reneged on my pledge because I had to use my pledge to pay for increase in dues. I am not pledging for this year, I am expecting another increase in fees. Hopefully someone will realize that we need the info prior to June so that units making budgets based upon the school year can plan accordingly. My district and council are dying.

Regarding the comment that BSA will be more volunteer led, I hope so. But I won't hold my brief. I not only know of professionals who ignore and overrule volunteers, but also go after volunteers who disagree with the. I personally know 2 volunteers who were removed from Scouting because they discovered some irregularities on the professional level, and brought it to folks attention. Heck one SE gave a training session on selecting volunteers, and told us to only use "yes men" in stead of the best person for the job. One of the reasons my district is in the shape it is in is because the pros overule our decisions. Funny thing is, we never seem to see them around, nor are they in communication with us until after everything is planned and organized. It seems as if they think because they are paid, they know more about Scouting than the volunteers do.

As far as summer camp is concerned, I do not think it will happen. Even if things open up, I think parents will be extremely cautious and not send the Scouts. Hopefully I will get a refund for the deposit already paid, but I doubt it. Hopefully I can write it off my taxes as a donation.

 

[RememberSchiff]

On 4/4/2020 at 8:10 PM, Cburkhardt said:

National Professional Staff Furloughed.  I am very sorry to share that 240 in Irving and 700 from Supply Division have been furloughed.  These are wonderful people who have served us for many years.  

That would be more than half of BSA employees?

"The national headquarters of the BSA is located in Irving, Texas. The BSA employs approximately 1,650 individuals, all of whom are located in the United States and its territories. The BSA’s employees are located at its headquarters, at the BSA’s national warehouse and distribution center in Charlotte, North Carolina, at approximately 175 official BSA Scout Shops located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico and at the BSA’s four high adventure facilities located in Florida, Minnesota and parts of Canada, New Mexico, and West Virginia."

From Docket 16, Page 7 from Brian Whittman, being duly sworn, states the following under penalty of perjury: 1.I am a Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC (“A&M”), a limited liability corporation, which has served as a restructuring advisor to the Boy Scouts of America (the “BSA”)

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/799093_16.pdf

 

[Eagle94-A1]

Does that number include the early retirements some folks were offered?

[RememberSchiff]

17 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Does that number include the early retirements some folks were offered?

Good question.

[PACAN]

Early retirements mean retirements.  Furloughs mean some possible return to their jobs at some level. 

 

 @Cburkhardt  @Cburkhardt I wonder in the new National Structure how many of these folks return?

Edited April 7, 2020 by RememberSchiff
fixed Notification

[cgail]

If they furloughed all these people from Supply, who is shipping all the items from the scout shop that they want to sell?  I get emails every day about new projects, and Brian even has a blog about it today.

[carebear3895]

1 hour ago, cgail said:

If they furloughed all these people from Supply, who is shipping all the items from the scout shop that they want to sell?  I get emails every day about new projects, and Brian even has a blog about it today.

Honestly, probably all the Assistant Chief Scout Executives. Trying to justify their enormous salaries. (normally i don't complain about pro salaries, but even I think a lot of the national folks are overpaid. Mostly because I personally am not a big fan of them)

Kind of a sad fact, Bryan hasn't been a full time employee of the BSA for some time. He's just a contributor now. 

[Cburkhardt]

PACAN:  The new national structure will probably be skeletal.  A reasonable prediction would be 15-20 geographic territories, many dominated by a large well-regarded council.  Perhaps there will be one national professional scouter in each territory to provide program consulting and serve as a monitor for compliance with advancement, YPT and other critical policies.  No regions, areas and other structures.  Maybe a volunteer committee and commissioner staff to provide services.  It might develop to where the dominant council provides management and direction necessary to the nearby councils -- which might become "field service" councils.  This will happen when many post-virus councils financially implode and can no longer fund personnel or camp maintenance.  In the Midwest I could see councils like St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago and Indianapolis perform those functions.  The "national" organization might be a confederation of these geographies and might focus on program, supply, high adventure and similar matters.  There is no longer cash to fuel the numbers or functions of the previous national professional staff.  After the virus and bankruptcy have their impacts, they will mostly not return.     

[PACAN]

@CBurkhardt  @Cburkhardt  Thanks...interesting thoughts. 

 The dominant council providing management and direction to me begs the question why not just merge them. 

Councils are in competition with each other so what authority will the dominant council be given to inject themselves? 

What would be the definition and structure of a field service council? 

I wonder if the current organization has costed out the new one to see what and where the savings are and the affect on customer service which is already woefully lacking.  

Thanks again for providing some of the current thinking. 

Edited April 8, 2020 by RememberSchiff
fixed Notification

[walk in the woods]

10 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

PACAN:  The new national structure will probably be skeletal.  A reasonable prediction would be 15-20 geographic territories, many dominated by a large well-regarded council.  Perhaps there will be one national professional scouter in each territory to provide program consulting and serve as a monitor for compliance with advancement, YPT and other critical policies.  No regions, areas and other structures.  Maybe a volunteer committee and commissioner staff to provide services.  It might develop to where the dominant council provides management and direction necessary to the nearby councils -- which might become "field service" councils.  This will happen when many post-virus councils financially implode and can no longer fund personnel or camp maintenance.  In the Midwest I could see councils like St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago and Indianapolis perform those functions.  The "national" organization might be a confederation of these geographies and might focus on program, supply, high adventure and similar matters.  There is no longer cash to fuel the numbers or functions of the previous national professional staff.  After the virus and bankruptcy have their impacts, they will mostly not return.     

Question is, why would we need National at all in this scenario?  If we end up with 20 geographic territories with single councils, we'll be basically in the same situation as the EU with it's national border territories and scouting organizations.  WOSM would need to lose it's nationalist bent for membership and adapt to the new US reality to accept the various council organizations, assuming the new US Scouting organizations even cared to be in WOSM.  Ultimately, it might playout similarly to the break up of AT&T in the 80s.  But in this case Units could choose their provider and be free to switch to the one who best meets their needs.

[PACAN]

@walk in the woods     I would love to see what you said in your last sentence.   Units have been trapped by the franchise model forever.   Councils have been allowed to provide little or no service to units with zero alternatives for the customer.

[MattR]

10 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Question is, why would we need National at all in this scenario? 

Someone needs to keep diluting the fun in the requirements? Prevent us from abusing squirt guns?

I think the idea of competition would be good. That would require some flexibility in the program. I'm just not sure the 20 super councils is the way to do that. The only reason some councils are doing well is because they're in large metro areas with plenty of companies that can still donate lots of money. That's a model that doesn't work past the town those companies are in.

20 super councils corresponds to roughly 14 current councils per super council. The biggest cost of councils is property. So, the super council model would just sell off lots of properties. From each unit's perspective this doesn't seem to be much better support. It just makes the BSA more solvent. We'd have to drive 3 1/2 hours to get to the likely super council's surviving camp. And we live close. There are other councils that would be 7-8 hours away.

The thing that's needed to make that work would be answering a simple question. How does each unit prosper without any council or areas and minimal national staff? I suppose there can be districts. Scouter.com will, naturally, have to be the central idea source 😀. Honestly, multiple online sources of ideas, how-to's, visions, etc can be how units can find what works for them. Scouter.com can be the Bill Hillcourt/Patrol Method model. There can also be the Stem model, the advancement model, and I'm sure we can think of a few more. If the BSA is to be broken up then make it digitally as opposed to geographically. Maybe councils just take care of their camps and ensure YPT, they no longer oversee units, advancement, and all that stuff that can be done online. The only issue is who handles drunk SM's and that type of thing. The national high adventure camps are made into individual corporations and sink or swim on their own. (Adios, Summit.)

 

[Cburkhardt]

The essential National Role would be to provide a consistent program the large “super councils” (using that term others have begun to use) could follow.  We don’t want 20 different sets of Eagle requirements, for instance.  Beyond that, there is a National economy of scale on supply and insurance matters.  The bases would also be great if we hold on to some of them through the bankruptcy.

Many are concerned that as smaller councils combine into or closely affiliate with the dominant councils, their local camps will be sold.  That really begs the question about how or why any cash-losing camp owned by a smaller council without a large endowment would continue to operate and survive under the current situation.  They can’t.  The unavoidable (and yes, sad) realization is that the super councils will not operate large “park systems” of under utilized properties.  The camps will be evaluated in comparison to each other and only the best will survive to serve the geographic territory.  The Chicago (Pathway to Adventure) merger will be the model used — meaning the camp closure decisions will be made quite transparently and quickly, rather than setting up years of deforming and dispiriting fights.  The cash should be used to improve and better-endow the going-forward properties.  That we did not act upon the need to do this with our properties 20 years ago is a big leadership fail.  We need to move toward having 30-40 pristine and beautiful properties nationwide (with some no/low cost properties for training and weekend camping).

[qwazse]

7 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

... That we did not act upon the need to do this with our properties 20 years ago is a big leadership fail.  We need to move toward having 30-40 pristine and beautiful properties nationwide (with some no/low cost properties for training and weekend camping).

That's one way to keep up with GS/USA.

Honestly @Cburkhardt, I can't imagine a more effective way to distance scouts than making sure that the closest camp to them is something other than their district (now that districts are as large as councils) camp.

Moreover, after this year, who wouldn't rather send their kid to a camp with no more than a couple hundred kids in attendance per week?