Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[ProScouter06]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I don't know the answers. I believe the hierarchy design is right. The problem is there aren't enough checks and balances for egos and ineptness.  That is goes for volunteer positions as well. I watched one District Chairman build a tremendous scouting recruiting program only to have it wrecked in one year by a new chair that wasn't qualified to do anything except work under the CC at the cub level. Talent is out there, but a good recruiter is required. And that is rare.

Well said. Need the right, talented people for the right jobs on all levels. BSA is not alone, many non-profits face the same challenegs. 

[ParkMan]

10 hours ago, ProScouter06 said:

Interesting tone to this thread. Certainly sounds like everyone’s experience has been a mixed bag as it relates to the volunteer/professional relationship. Too bad since we all wear the same uniform and should all be focused on the same thing, a quality program for youth. When we’re all working toward that goal in our respective positions from the scoutmaster to the committee member, from the DE to the den leader and from the camp cook to the cub master. No ones perfect, there are great examples of each of these people and bad examples too. Of course if you’re jaded, you’ve been poisoned with implicit bias that will only seep out to effect others, right?
 

As a former professional, I can remember the bias I felt from many volunteers. It was as if I had done something wrong for choosing to work for the scouts. To me, as a young working professional this left a lasting impression that has stayed with me as I ventured into new careers. It taught me hard lessons about people and what kind of treatment to expect, in work and in life. On the other hand, I also remember the kindness shown to me by the volunteers I worked with. Lifelong friendships were formed. People I still exchange Christmas cards with. By some volunteers I was shown incredible kindness that I’ll never forget. 
. 

You too sound like a remarkable professional and I thank you for your service.

I regret that you felt animosity from volunteers.  There is something in the Scouting program in the past 25 years (and maybe longer) that has setup many adversarial relationships.  It's not just volunteers and professionals - it's within the volunteer ranks too.

I have a several friends who are professionals through my years as a volunteer.  There are good people and bad people in any role - volunteers, professionals, you name it.  The good people you cherish, the bad people you tend to ignore.

 

10 hours ago, ProScouter06 said:

Bringing this back to the discussion. The fact of the matter is that, in reality, the DE, the staff, the organization is necessary to be sustainable and to grow. The BSA learned this many years ago. Would it be great if we didn’t need the professional organization and could rely on volunteers? Of course. But that’s not the reality whether we like it or not. We struggled ten years ago trying to find more volunteers, quality volunteers. I’d imagine it’s the same if it harder in today’s atmosphere. Two examples come to mind that I experienced that speaks to the need of professionals. 

This is open for some discussion.  

First, I don't think many people have a concern with professionals in roles such as fundraising, camp property management, marketing, and accounting. 

When the professionals start to move into roles where they take on similar responsibilities to volunteers, then there become questions.  Does the DE role, as it exists today - add enough value that it is worth the financial expense?  Is the impact of professionals overstepping their boundaries and directing volunteers at the unit/district/council level worth the value that this direction brings?  I believe there is a lot of room for debate and discussion on these points.  

On your two examples:

10 hours ago, ProScouter06 said:

1) I walk into a cub scout rally night to visit, offer help, greet new families etc. the cub master whom I did not know well walked up to me upset about something I cannot remember what, and she quit.

That sounds like a poorly run unit.  Having unit volunteers and families have to pick up the pieces from a moment like this is how they grow as a team.  Having an outsider step in and take over make ameliorate the immediate situation, but it doesn't fix the underlying issue.  As a former Pack CM & CC, I would rather the unit have failed and learned the lesson.

10 hours ago, ProScouter06 said:

2) This speaks to the argument that commissioners can and do all the things the DE does. I had a commissioner attend a pack meeting. Older gentleman, nice guy but rough around the edges. Well,  he yelled at some cub scouts for not saluting properly during a flag ceremony. Kids quit and I had to deal with the fall out. The commissioner didn’t not lose his role, since we needed more volunteers not less. He wasn’t exactly a great brand ambassador. Without accountability he kept volunteering. 

Similar point here.  The district commissioner staff needs to learn from this.  The unit needs to learn from this.  Unit commissioners are our ambassadors and coaches to the unit leaders.  Having DEs prop up a poorly functioning unit commissioner system reduces some of the immediacy of the problem, but it doesn't resolve the issue.

I would encourage us not to think whether a unit commissioner and do some of the job functions of a DE, but instead to consider why we have DEs doing the job functions of commissioners.  

10 hours ago, ProScouter06 said:

Instead of contempt, or distrust, we should be thankful there are people willing to work in a non profit, underpaid, and overworked for the benefit of an organization we all believe in that will impact the lives of our children.

Again - thank you for your service.  I support having professionals, but I think we need to be open to thinking about how they best add value and leverage those skills.  

[ProScouter06]

28 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

This is open for some discussion.  

First, I don't think many people have a concern with professionals in roles such as fundraising, camp property management, marketing, and accounting. 

When the professionals start to move into roles where they take on similar responsibilities to volunteers, then there become questions.  Does the DE role, as it exists today - add enough value that it is worth the financial expense?  Is the impact of professionals overstepping their boundaries and directing volunteers at the unit/district/council level worth the value that this direction brings?  I believe there is a lot of room for debate and discussion on these points.

Yes, I've commented on other posts with a smiliar assessment. The jobs need to change and become more service oriented, and targeted. Many councils are making these changes, hiring unit service support people, development people, program people etc... DE's being a jack of all trades is a nice concept, very popular among non-profits, but it's not sustianable. We always talked about how when you buy a washing machine from a salesperson, that same person does not come to fix it when it's broken. I always thought that wa sa good analogy for what we need in Scouting. 

As for overstepping, of course that's an area that ideally could be better through proper profesional development. I would never tell a volunteer how to run their unit, unless they were offering a poor product. But I would try to work within our system, through volunteers to help them succeed. In some situations, you have to pay staff to run units, in urban areas for example. My opinion was that we were working with a very antiquated system, that needed a refresh. As I said, some are making progress, I'm sure not everywhere. With National now in flux I would not expect anything ground breaking, but then again, they may be forced to create a more sustainable staff structure. We will see. 

 

(Apologies for the typos!)

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

it's within the volunteer ranks too.

There is a toxic WB culture in this council.

 

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Is the impact of professionals overstepping their boundaries and directing volunteers at the unit/district/council level worth the value that this direction brings? 

Heck no!  When building budgets for training events, we always had to build in extra to the fees to provide revenue to the council (at the direction of professional staff advisers to whatever event it was.)  Made me sick to my stomach...

And now, how many events are we going to cancel because we don't have a Short-Term Camp Administrator? (Yes, this was pushed from national, but councils will be the enforcers.)

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Unit commissioners are our ambassadors and coaches to the unit leaders.  Having DEs prop up a poorly functioning unit commissioner system reduces some of the immediacy of the problem, but it doesn't resolve the issue.

Can't even tell you who our UC is this month (or is it this week??)

 

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

underpaid, and overworked

??? DE's, yes.  But SE's??  Not buying it.  I have recommended to our board on several occasions that we reduce the SE salary, and pay our DE's more...we might keep them around longer than six months 😢  Answer back was that National set salary window, and they had to pick one of National's candidates.  Again, 🤢

[ProScouter06]

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

 

Heck no!  When building budgets for training events, we always had to build in extra to the fees to provide revenue to the council (at the direction of professional staff advisers to whatever event it was.)  Made me sick to my stomach...

 

??? DE's, yes.  But SE's??  Not buying it.  I have recommended to our board on several occasions that we reduce the SE salary, and pay our DE's more...we might keep them around longer than six months 😢  Answer back was that National set salary window, and they had to pick one of National's candidates.  Again, 🤢

@InquisitiveScouterI'm not sure how to reply to specific quotes, so I'm replying to your quotes removed from the body specifically.

Revenue is necessary to operate the council. Every event must make some money in order to operate the council. We usually had a 20% overhead fee. Think about the costs that are unseen. Staff time, facility usage etc... If not, where would the funds come from? Fundraising does not cover it all. I was so glad to hear that local councils are now charging program fees rather than investing in more FOS. The time and effort for FOS spent on by staff is unreal compared to the return. I like the idea of the program fee. However as a current higher ed fundraiser, councils cannot lose philanthropic support. They will need a new game plan to solict, cultivate and steward their donors. The good news is, the fundraisning program can become more targeted, aimed at those who have a high inclination to give rather than the current FOS strategy which was seen by some folks as begging. 

Agreed about SE's. Those salaires need to be brought in check. Let's face it, in many areas, Scouting is a small non-profit often struggling to survive and keep the the lights on. When the SE makes $150k it's a bit hard to justify IMO. 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, ProScouter06 said:

I would never tell a volunteer how to run their unit, unless they were offering a poor product.

I wouldn't expect that you would tell a volunteer how to run their unit if you thought they were doing everything right.  Why would you?  I think we can take that as a given.  You only interfere when you disagree with someone.

So you're really not limiting yourself much when you say that.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by David CO

[InquisitiveScouter]

3 minutes ago, ProScouter06 said:

Revenue is necessary to operate the council.

Agreed, but not on the backs of adult volunteers who are paying for their own training.  Program events (camporees, summer camp, etc.), I get it... training events, especially required ones (like IOLS and BALOO) should actually be given for free.  If BSA requires me to have some sort of training, then they should figure out how to offer mandatory courses for free.  This would really show volunteers that you value their time and service.

 

4 minutes ago, ProScouter06 said:

Agreed about SE's. Those salaires need to be brought in check. Let's face it, in many areas, Scouting is a small non-profit often struggling to survive and keep the the lights on. When the SE makes $150k it's a bit hard to justify IMO. 

You have won me over with this...thank you!!

[ProScouter06]

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

I wouldn't expect that you would tell a volunteer how to run their unit if you thought they were doing everything right.  Why would you?  I think we can take that as a given.  You only interfere when you disagree with someone.

 

 

Let me clairfy this. In my almost ten year career I never had to tell anyone how to "run" anything. In almost all cases I was notified of a probelm that needed a solution, which I would then work with my district volunteers to sove. For example,  a leader that quits and the unit or COR asked for support. Or a situation where alcohol was being consumed by adults at a scouting activity. That is when I would have to try to remedy a situation. 

For me, and I woukld assume most staff, as long as the guide to safe scouting was being followed, we never told anyone how to run a program. We offered assitance and trianing when asked. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

8 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

When the SE makes $150k it's a bit hard to justify IMO. 

Ours gets over $210K, with the median income per family (not per capita) in our area at $88K.  Parents balk at donating to FOS when they hear those numbers...

Edited December 15, 2020 by InquisitiveScouter

[ProScouter06]

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Agreed, but not on the backs of adult volunteers who are paying for their own training.  Program events (camporees, summer camp, etc.), I get it... training events, especially required ones (like IOLS and BALOO) should actually be given for free.  If BSA requires me to have some sort of training, then they should figure out how to offer mandatory courses for free.  This would really show volunteers that you value their time and service.

Agreed. To me that is why the program fee will hopefuly offset costs.  I can only reference my own experience. In the councils I worked we only charged an overhead fee on program events, camporees, day events etc. Training was and should be 100% no charge IMO. Higher, more elevated trainings like wood badge does need to have a fee considering all the food, and supplies needed. And National also charges for some of their trianings, I never had any experience with those though. They seem like good opportunites for those that wish to make that investment.  My guess is if training has a cost realted to it, I'm wondering if that council is operating properly. Do they not have another source of revenue? 

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, ProScouter06 said:

Training was and should be 100% no charge IMO.

Where have you been all my Scouting life?? 😁

Edited December 15, 2020 by InquisitiveScouter

[ProScouter06]

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Ours gets over $210K, with the median income per family (not per capita) in our area at $88K.  Parents balk at donating to FOS when they hear those numbers...

UNREAL. Herein lies some of the root of the animosity we've referenced. No wonder people are turned off by FOS when the SE makes that kind of salary. I'm sure the field staff are paid under the median ... Leading to turnover, which leads to another can of worms for everyone. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, ProScouter06 said:

UNREAL. Herein lies some of the root of the animosity we've referenced. No wonder people are turned off by FOS when the SE makes that kind of salary. I'm sure the field staff are paid under the median ... Leading to turnover, which leads to another can of worms for everyone. 

Yup... DE's start around $35K here.  (That's what current SE offered me.  I declined  )  And compounded with the COVID crisis, all our DE's have been let go.  Not furloughed, mind you, ...dismissed.

We now have one FD covering our council.

Volunteers are not happy.

[CynicalScouter]

32 minutes ago, ProScouter06 said:

@InquisitiveScouterI'm not sure how to reply to specific quotes, so I'm replying to your quotes removed from the body specifically.

Revenue is necessary to operate the council. Every event must make some money in order to operate the council. We usually had a 20% overhead fee.

I've conducted trainings as we also have a 20% administrative fee. As you said, the money has to come from somewhere. For example, if we are using Doubleknot for registration, that cost/costs money to keep and maintain. When I do Leave No Trace, everyone walks away with a cathole trowel. That money isn't magically appearing out of nowhere.

Staff don't work for free. Etc. I don't hold it against these people that they need money to operate.

I think too many people here believe Council staff should work for free.

Edited December 15, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

As for salaries, there's no "magic number" BUT having worked for and with not-for-profits for years, the GENERAL rule of thumb is 1-10% of the organizations expenses.

The last big study I was aware of was 2016.

https://d20umu42aunjpx.cloudfront.net/2016+CEO+Comp+Study/2016+CEO+Compensation+Study.pdf

It affirmed what I mentioned: that 1-10% ratio depends on the size of the organization. Ironically SMALLER organizations tend to have a LARGER percent of their expenditures to CEO compensation (closer to 10%).

Quote

Looking at the percentage of a charity’s total expenses spent on CEO compensation in the following chart, we see that as the charity’s total expenses increase, the smaller the percentage of the budget spent on the CEO’s compensation.

So comparing the CEO's salaries to local median or per capita isn't the right metric. The better metric is how much of the organizations expenditures go to the CEO? If the answer is greater than 10%, that's a problem.

Edited December 15, 2020 by CynicalScouter