New Council Fee

[Eagle94-A1]

6 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I think you're right that this is a council to council decision.  In ours, there is no minimum price.  Membership is by your ability to have an impact.

@Eagle94-A1 - I think you must be a member in a really poorly run council.  District Executives that are running around unchecked, District Committees with no power or leadership, a council board which is all about how much money you donate.  I suspect there is a pattern emerging in your council's governance.  Fortunately, this is not a universal truth across Scouting.

It has been bad since I was a DE. 

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

It has been bad since I was a DE. 

As I hope you know, I'm sorry to hear how poorly it is run and how frustrating it is for you.  Perhaps your council that might be encouraged to find new executive leadership in the coming year.

[elitts]

On 9/16/2020 at 12:13 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Grant you some of the folks are "worker bees," but there is a minimum $ donation.

Another factor for any non-profit board of an organization that seeks grant funding is that many (if not most) major grants want to know if all of the Board members are donors.  In some cases you aren't eligible or may receive lesser consideration if your Board donation rate isn't 100%.  Of course, this can be accomplished by requiring a minimum $1.00 donation or a minimum $1000 donation.

 

 

[ParkMan]

5 hours ago, elitts said:

Another factor for any non-profit board of an organization that seeks grant funding is that many (if not most) major grants want to know if all of the Board members are donors.  In some cases you aren't eligible or may receive lesser consideration if your Board donation rate isn't 100%.  Of course, this can be accomplished by requiring a minimum $1.00 donation or a minimum $1000 donation.

 

 

I'd heard this too and so just did a few minutes looking around.  This appears to be a very common, and in fact recommended practice amongst non-profits.

I find it interesting as it prepeptuates the notion of board members buying their spots on the board.  In an era where qualifications for jobs is more important than ever I find it curious that in the non-profit space there is almost a caste system that suggests board members should have to contribute financially to be on the board.  I was at least expecting that this was a topic of debate, but I didn't see much in a quick look around.

[David CO]

16 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I find it curious that in the non-profit space there is almost a caste system that suggests board members should have to contribute financially to be on the board. 

There is definitely a feeling of aristocracy amongst the crowd that sits on most of these boards.  They feel entitled.  I think this is part of the reason why the millennials don't like joining service clubs.  They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.  

[Sentinel947]

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

There is definitely a feeling of aristocracy amongst the crowd that sits on most of these boards.  They feel entitled.  I think this is part of the reason why the millennials don't like joining service clubs.  They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.  

It's the same way in the Corporate Sector. Lots of people sitting on multiple boards, whether it's for profit or non-profit orgs. 

[David CO]

8 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

It's the same way in the Corporate Sector. Lots of people sitting on multiple boards, whether it's for profit or non-profit orgs. 

True.  I disagree with those who say we are a systemically racist country, but I do think we have become a systemically elitist country.  IMO, that's almost as bad.

 

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.  

Sorta.

The research I've see has suggested that millennial believe in "flat" organizational structure. No hierarchy. EVERYONE is a leader.

This is great, to a point. But it also results in a one-person or a minority veto ("cancel" culture) where is a vocal enough portion of a group objects, nothing happens.

[TAHAWK]

Extended explanations of the claim of "systemic" racism by the proponents and publicists of that claim suggest to me that those proponents and publicists are using "systemic" instead of de facto or, at the least, "really bad."   

I lived through systemic racism - segregation of public institutions by explicit rule of law; literacy tests designed to bar Black and Hispanic voters; concentration camps; maps on the walls of bank offices with areas  drawn in red lines that were barred to loans to Black persons wishing to buy a home  (an early  New Deal FHA program), and racial immigration quotas favoring  "Whites."   Registering Black voters could - and did - result in violent death while local law enforcement systematically saw nothing and did nothing.

I was a voter when President Johnson,  Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen and the Republicans hammered the Civil Rights Act past the filibuster of Harry Byrd, former Grand Cyclops of the West Virginia KKK,  and the Southern Democrats.  Then came the battle to pass the Voting Rights Act (1965) and to  make red-lining a federal crime (1968).

So when I read and hear that "nothing has changed," I recognize ignorance for what it is.  And what contempt that ignorance, probably unintentionally, shows for decades of effort and courage by others, many killed in the process..

The tendency of the self-imagined "superior" types to regard themselves as owed better treatment and a status above the law is apparently part of the human condition.   Oligarchy, behind whatever label, seems a very common reality in "republic," "democracy" and "socialism."  The law is in the way?   Game the system, hide the crimes, or simply openly Ignore the law.

 

 

[TAHAWK]

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Sorta.

The research I've see has suggested that millennial believe in "flat" organizational structure. No hierarchy. EVERYONE is a leader.

This is great, to a point. But it also results in a one-person or a minority veto ("cancel" culture) where is a vocal enough portion of a group objects, nothing happens.

Very Animal Farm;  "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

BSA  JLOW "Who is the leader?"  Syllabus answer: "The Patrol leader." (You can tell this is from decades ago.)     Real world answer even then: whoever leads.

[DuctTape]

1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

Extended explanations of the claim of "systemic" racism by the proponents and publicists of that claim suggest to me that those proponents and publicists are using "systemic" instead of de facto or, at the least, "really bad."   

I lived through systemic racism - segregation of public institutions by explicit rule of law; literacy tests designed to bar Black and Hispanic voters; concentration camps; maps on the walls of bank offices with areas  drawn in red lines that were barred to loans to Black persons wishing to buy a home  (an early  New Deal FHA program), and racial immigration quotas favoring  "Whites."   Registering Black voters could - and did - result in violent death while local law enforcement systematically saw nothing and did nothing.

I was a voter when President Johnson,  Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen and the Republicans hammered the Civil Rights Act past the filibuster of Harry Byrd, former Grand Cyclops of the West Virginia KKK,  and the Southern Democrats.  Then came the battle to pass the Voting Rights Act (1965) and to  make red-lining a federal crime (1968).

So when I read and hear that "nothing has changed," I recognize ignorance for what it is.  And what contempt that ignorance, probably unintentionally, shows for decades of effort and courage by others, many killed in the process..

The tendency of the self-imagined "superior" types to regard themselves as owed better treatment and a status above the law is apparently part of the human condition.   Oligarchy, behind whatever label, seems a very common reality in "republic," "democracy" and "socialism."  The law is in the way?   Game the system, hide the crimes, or simply openly Ignore the law.

 

 

Things have changed in many ways, especially what is legal on the books. What is legal and what is part of the system are two different things.  While no longer legal, much has not changed in the system. As just a singular example he consequences of red-lining are still a reality in many places. Entire communities exist as a result of said red-lining and in a lot of cases are unwelcoming to say the least of "others" moving into the neighborhoods. The police still treat minorities in these neighborhoods differently. At the minimum is the assumption they must be from somewhere else and therefore suspect. This is just a simplistic example. While this is a far cry from the lynchings of the past, much of the country still has a long long way to go. While I disagree with the younger generation stating "nothing has changed" I also disagree with the older generation stating words to the effect, "we fixed it years ago, so racism is not systemic". The reality is in middle.

[yknot]

Millennials are less likely to marry, less likely to have children, and are having fewer children than previous generations. Fathers are less likely to live with their children, and those Millennials that do have families are delaying them until later in life. Millennials are also far less likely to participate in an organized religion or community groups. They carry more debt than any other generation in history. There is little brand loyalty when shopping for anything. They rely on social media reviews and price has become more important to them than quality. They will donate money and time but they eschew leadership commitments in organizations because they want to be free to move on to their next cause of interest.  Millennials place an importance on academics but they are far less objective driven (read advancements driven) than prior generations. These things are all going to have an impact on future recruitment trends and what fees can be charged for scouting. 

[Sentinel947]

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

Things have changed in many ways, especially what is legal on the books. What is legal and what is part of the system are two different things.  While no longer legal, much has not changed in the system. As just a singular example he consequences of red-lining are still a reality in many places. Entire communities exist as a result of said red-lining and in a lot of cases are unwelcoming to say the least of "others" moving into the neighborhoods. The police still treat minorities in these neighborhoods differently. At the minimum is the assumption they must be from somewhere else and therefore suspect. This is just a simplistic example. While this is a far cry from the lynchings of the past, much of the country still has a long long way to go. While I disagree with the younger generation stating "nothing has changed" I also disagree with the older generation stating words to the effect, "we fixed it years ago, so racism is not systemic". The reality is in middle.

De facto vs de jure. De facto discrimination is alive and well. De jure discrimination is mostly gone, although there are some places where laws are passed because they disproportionately effect people in one group or another. Discrimination today is typically much more subtle and less overt than in the 1960's, making it easier for people to pretend it doesn't exist. 

[ParkMan]

5 hours ago, David CO said:

There is definitely a feeling of aristocracy amongst the crowd that sits on most of these boards.  They feel entitled.  I think this is part of the reason why the millennials don't like joining service clubs.  They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.  

That's unfortunate.  

The Scouting world has such a weird dynamic to it.  Professionals, council boards, council volunteers vs. district volunteers vs. unit volunteers.  For a movement that is all about developing leaders, we seem to know so little about how to develop leadership in adult volunteers.  It's very strange.

[TAHAWK]

2 hours ago, DuctTape said:

Things have changed in many ways, especially what is legal on the books. What is legal and what is part of the system are two different things.  While no longer legal, much has not changed in the system. As just a singular example he consequences of red-lining are still a reality in many places. Entire communities exist as a result of said red-lining and in a lot of cases are unwelcoming to say the least of "others" moving into the neighborhoods. The police still treat minorities in these neighborhoods differently. At the minimum is the assumption they must be from somewhere else and therefore suspect. This is just a simplistic example. While this is a far cry from the lynchings of the past, much of the country still has a long long way to go. While I disagree with the younger generation stating "nothing has changed" I also disagree with the older generation stating words to the effe". The reality is in middle.

And I do not say, expressly or in effect, that , "we fixed it years ago, so racism is not systemic."  I say it's not systemic even though we did not "fix it. It's people's behavior because everywhere and in all ages, there is, sadly, fear and hatred of the "other."  That human failing is not typically corrected by violence and hate, though one group may eliminate the "other" in their midst,  - virtually or literally.  The fear and hate seems to be  mitigated by respectful behavior  and human understanding learned through everyday interaction. 

If you think that "things" have changed only in theory, tell that to Barrack Obama and others you should be able to name, like Roscoe Robinson and Benjamin  O. Davis, Jr.