Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[yknot]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

Can you say that with a good John Wayne impersonation?

I knew John Wayne's cousin. John's real name was Marion; his cousin's name was Maurice. He used to play the piano for us at the Farmer's Grange for our 4-H Christmas parties.  Somehow both an artist and a mountain man type. He was famous for his snapping turtle soup, which he caught himself. Interesting family. 

[ProScouter06]

27 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I agree that program fees are preferable to FOS.  Yet, we need to recognize that program fees need to be accompanied with tangible value add from the council.  Charging a Scout $50 per year to fund council operations need to then be accompanied with some sort of obvious return on that fee.

One of the challenges with the transition to program fees is that the funding structure is designed to show value to people who donate to Scouting.  DEs and staffs who are focused on building and growing Scouting are working to accomplish goals that are interesting to people who are donating to Scouting.   

Families who are paying a "per scout" fee are looking for a different kind of return.  Paying $50 to fund a DE who is trying to start new units and solve unit issues is adding a return that is not directly apparent to parents.  From a program fee basis, it doesn't matter if there is one scout or 1,000 scouts.  Each scout needs to derive value from that fee.  This will challenge how councils communicate and demonstrate value to families.

Yes, all valid points. Development folks need to tailor their messaging to the right audience so that the philanthopic support is not lost in lieu of the program fees. You're correct that each group must see the value in what they are either buying, or supporting. That will boil down to proper stewardship of gifts, and proper engagement opportunities for members as part of their program fee. 

[David CO]

31 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I agree that program fees are preferable to FOS.  Yet, we need to recognize that program fees need to be accompanied with tangible value add from the council.  Charging a Scout $50 per year to fund council operations need to then be accompanied with some sort of obvious return on that fee.

Charging scouts a $50 council fee has zero value to those scouts whose units don't attend council events.  For the boys in my unit, there would have been no return on that fee.  It's just another tax.

 

[ProScouter06]

7 minutes ago, David CO said:

Charging scouts a $50 council fee has zero value to those scouts whose units don't attend council events.  For the boys in my unit, there would have been no return on that fee.  It's just another tax.

 

The program fee I would imagine also covers the unseen, beyond events. For example administrative costs at the council office, facilities, properties etc. The overhead to mainatin camp properties, insurance, taxes etc are some of those unseen costs assocaited with the program. Most councils have a registrar that must process scout applications, that's an unseen adminsitrative cost. Staff time supporting and promoting scouting locally in the community etc.

Again I can only speak for the experience I've had in mutlple councils. For example in the council where I live, it is free to tent camp on the camp properties. That is a nice beneift, value added for our units. However there are still costs related to those properties. Other councils may not be in a position to show the value-added. If so it becomes diffuclt to see the value for the program fee. 

[scoutldr]

My Council has started charging a facility fee for camps...1.50 per person/per day.  Many of us veteran Scouts and Scouters spent countless hours and our own funds on maintaining those camps over the years.  One of our old-timers and Executive Board member (now residing with the Great Master of all Scouts) once told me he never donated cash.  He would ask the Ranger what he needed for the camp, and he would procure it and take it up there.  That way the SE couldn't "divert" the funds to other purposes.

[David CO]

56 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

My Council has started charging a facility fee for camps...1.50 per person/per day. 

I don't mind a council charging a facility fee to those who are voluntarily using their camps.  They could charge a million dollars a day as far as I'm concerned.  We don't use them.  Their fees are none of my business.

It's when the council charges fees to those scouts who never use their facilities that I have a problem.  It's not fair.  Hopefully the bankruptcy will end this problem.

Edited December 16, 2020 by David CO

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, David CO said:

Hopefully the bankruptcy will end this problem.

And what precisely do you think the bankruptcy is going to do? Magically make it so councils operate for free? That staff will never have to be paid anymore?

The fact is that so long as councils exist, they will need to pay for people.

Unless you are one of those who believe that all of Boy Scouts of America should be entirely volunteer led, that means money.

Edited December 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[ParkMan]

The question I keep asking myself is what kind of value could a council provide and demonstrate for a $50 program fee.  This is particularly challenging in light of the sheer amount of volunteer hours that are contributed at the district & council level.  On my list:

• maintain free access to council camps.  This is a clear, tangible value to units.
• free or minimal fee participation in district and council programming.  Camporees, day camps, etc. ought to be subsidized.
• free training for volunteers.  
• free rank awards.  Yes - this is a national item, but basic advancement could be free of charge.
• improved customer service.  If you have an issue with your Eagle application, etc. there ought to be a clear path to resolving that.

I'd welcome others.

My sense is that it would be good for councils to more clearly delineate budgets items between growing scouting and supporting members.   Use fundraising to pay for membership drives and advertising.  Use fundraising to pay for new unit development.  Use program fees to pay for supporting current members.

[ParkMan]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And what precisely do you think the bankruptcy is going to do? Magically make it so councils operate for free? That staff will never have to be paid anymore?

The fact is that so long as councils exist, they will need to pay for people.

Unless you are one of those who believe that all of Boy Scouts of America should be entirely volunteer led, that means money.

While I am not at a point where I would lobby for any particular outcome - but I think things could become more creative.

One possibility could be the end of monopoly status for councils.  This could result in small, enterprising councils in remote locations offering an online only Scouting support model for units for a nominal fee.  Units would purchase awards through such a council and submit advancement reports.  But there would be no local infrastructure - no districts, no local offices to fund, no fundraising teams, and no local professionals.  This would result in units being able to pay a fee of a few dollars per Scout per year to said council.  In return, that little council would fund itself through scale and efficiency.  A few people in a back office could handle all the forms and advancement for 100,000 scouts.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

One possibility could be the end of monopoly status for councils. 

Are you suggesting that councils operate in the same territory?

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

But there would be no local infrastructure - no districts, no local offices to fund, no fundraising teams, and no local professionals. 

So, this amounts to councils being nothing more than paperwork machines? That a bunch of volunteers will create their own "council" that will be open to anyone, anywhere to just rubber stamp paperwork?

Edited December 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[ParkMan]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Are you suggesting that councils operate in the same territory?

So, this amounts to councils being nothing more than paperwork machines? That a bunch of volunteers will create their own "council" that will be open to anyone, anywhere to just rubber stamp paperwork?

Yes - you are correct in understanding the idea.  It might be volunteers, it might be someone who is looking to make a small business out of supporting units.

Again - I'm not specifically lobbying for this idea.  Yet, when you start looking at different models for supporting units ideas like this could emerge.  We see increased competition like this is all kinds of other walks of life.   Further, today it really isn't all that necessary for a council to be local anymore.  In my council more and more things are being done by Zoom.  What if everything was done by Zoom?

[CynicalScouter]

I will say this about all of these "council is evil/kill off the councils" views.

I actually sat down with a) a copy of the latest budget and b) a copy of my council's IRS 990 form.

I was happy to see that my council is thrifty with its money.

I am simply sick at the number of people who simply want to mindlessly hate council (they are HUMAN BEINGS for pity's sake) for that sake alone.

[ParkMan]

40 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I will say this about all of these "council is evil/kill off the councils" views.

I actually sat down with a) a copy of the latest budget and b) a copy of my council's IRS 990 form.

I was happy to see that my council is thrifty with its money.

I am simply sick at the number of people who simply want to mindlessly hate council (they are HUMAN BEINGS for pity's sake) for that sake alone.

I'm not sure if that was in response to my posts.  But, if so - let me clarify.  I am not anti-council nor am I anti-professional.  I like most of what my council does and I consider many professionals dear friends.  I simply believe that we have to be willing to be open to new ideas.  I believe we also have to be willing to trust our volunteers.

The world have become so much more connected and networked.  We've seen all kinds of transformations in how we all work and live.  Goodness, even with Covid I've now been home for 9 months and my work has barely missed a beat.  

I hope that councils and professionals endure.  I just think we have to be receptive to new ideas and new approaches.  I'm not going to suggest that we throw it all out - but I am going to suggest that we be willing to look at new ideas and try them. 

I think a lot these days of Sears and Amazon.  Back in it's day, Sears was the Amazon of the time.  They had a great catalog and people could order all kinds of things they needed.  But, over the years Sears became beholden to it's processes and ways of doing business.  Along came Amazon who basically did the exact same thing Sears used to do - but with a fresh perspective.  Today, Sears is all but gone and Amazon is dominating retail.  I think there is a lesson in there somewhere - but am not sure what yet...

Edited December 16, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

I will say this about all of these "council is evil/kill off the councils" views.

I actually sat down with a) a copy of the latest budget and b) a copy of my council's IRS 990 form.

I was happy to see that my council is thrifty with its money.

I am simply sick at the number of people who simply want to mindlessly hate council (they are HUMAN BEINGS for pity's sake) for that sake alone.

Irrational hostility to councils and "professionals" is, as I have said many times, a problem, not a solution.   Kill off the volunteers is likely not a useful solution.    My council has tried that and the dictatorship of the council employees has been a disaster in terms of membership, volunteer participations outside untis, and fund-raising.

It is easy to criticize decisions made by others, but sharing leadership might mititate against that behavior.

Better communication?  

Mutual respect?

Honoring the election of key volunteers in accordance with the BSA Bylaws rather than having the employees vetoing the results  of the elections extra-legally?

I certainly recognize that the three councils in which I have Scouted in the last three decades are not the whole picture.  But they are my more recent experience.  One ceased to exist recently midst bitter conflict between employees and volunteers, and one is nearing collapse in the same evil atmosphere,.

 The third council, happily, seems to just click along with good relations between employees and volunteers.  The only exception was the relatively brief regime of the SE who spent it into backruptcy in a unilaterally-mandated building program at their two camps.  That exceptional period WAS unhappy and  ended with his being fired after that council failed an audit.  In a few yesrs, that council has back on its feet financially and in all respects.  It is a pleasure to participate in their traditionally positive atmosphere,  although COVID has disrupted things this year, and the impact of the assault of the lawsuit industry has yet to be measured.

 

 

[David CO]

6 hours ago, ParkMan said:

What if everything was done by Zoom?

The only thing I hate worst than the executives is technology.  So this is the most effective pro-pro argument I've heard so far.