Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep, as is your "right" to mass down vote every post made by myself and @johnsch322 or whoever else you want to target. If petty little down vote/internet "points" is the only response you are capable of and the only thing you care about, so be it.

I personally welcome anyone who wishes to disagree with me to do so.  The only thing that I ask is for an explanation why.  I may be wrong and I am not afraid to admit when I am.  All of this is a learning experience for me. I am appreciative of what most people have to say hear and I love when I see facts and figures.  I also reserve the right to disagree with anyone on this forum but I will as best as I can to let you know why.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

But then we get the complaints lodged above: that all BSA cares about is membership numbers.

What performance metrics should be used to weigh the effectiveness of the BSA CEO (Mosby for now)?

For starters, walking the walk.

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by yknot

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

For starters, walking the walk.

And how exactly is that measured? What does that even MEAN?

SMART

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Relevant
• Time-Bound

SMART

• Roger Mosby
• Will walk 3 miles
• He has demonstrated an ability to walk in the past
• It is relevant to scouting HOW? (not clear)
• He will walk this walk within 1 week

Edited September 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Gilwell_1919]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

I am REALLY sorry to hear you say this.  If you're involved get more involved.  Speak out.  Be the change you want to see.  Any volunteer-driven organization MUST be driven by volunteers if change is going to come about.  And if none of that is possible or works or you're ostracized, go find another organization where you and 100K can make a difference.  The world needs both. 

Compadre... I am definitely INVOLVED.  At one point I was a SM, district commissioner,  and did other council and district stuff. On a given week, I was about 40+ hours for my volunteer time with scouting (and that was just 1 of 3 organizations where I volunteer my time). On campout weekends with my unit... obviously more time (but who can count camping time... I mean... it's camping). During the summer, I would drive 90+ minutes to camp a few times a week to teach adult training. All of this.... while holding a full time job as a corporate executive in my company. The balancing act was crazy and my schedule was always full with something to do. 

These days, I am still a SM and a council chair, and then I am a state CO rep for 4 councils... it addition to other non-profit organizations I work with. Again... all while working full time. But... it is my pleasure to serve my community and to serve my youth. I think it is one of highest honors I receive when one of my youth thanks me for making things happen; it warms my heart and makes me feel like I am on the right track in my life. 

I guess the "budget frustration" is that I see things on the ground and then it just doesn't add up when the budget numbers come out. I am often scratching my head and asking... "they can't really think anyone believes these numbers." For the longest time, when we asked questions, we often got the proverbial... "those are program costs." Over the last 4-5 years, I can say "what program costs? The volunteers are doing everything." Recently... I was told "just make it work" when I was asked to provide meals at about $.75 per meal, per person. Really? Scouts can't even afford to eat from the dollar menu on that kind of budget. Also, some of our volunteers fund meals themselves... and our LC just pockets the money they charge for the event, which is why I get so mad during ICC season. I am tired of hearing the words "for the program"... when I know for a fact that is not the case. Last re-charter my wife and I shelled out money for membership fees for 5 scouts that couldn't afford it. A few weeks later I got a letter from my LC asking why I didn't give money during the ICC season. The LC guy was pretty irate when I told him I would be using my money to fund scouts directly. 

[yknot]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And how exactly is that measured? What does that even MEAN?

SMART

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Relevant
• Time-Bound

SMART

• Roger Mosby
• Will walk 3 miles
• He has demonstrated an ability to walk in the past
• It is relevant to scouting HOW? (not clear)
• He will walk this walk within 1 week

How hard can it be to follow the scout oath and law in your business dealings and management? If our leadership did that, we wouldn't be in a number of these messes. 

Regarding Mosby, we are paying someone who is supposed to have been a top Human Resources Executive $1.5 millon yet he testified he had never read the BSA's chartering organization agreement that directs the behaviors of a significant portion of the BSA's volunteer and professional staff. In other words, the bulk of the organization's human resources. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by yknot

[David CO]

20 minutes ago, yknot said:

For starters, walking the walk.

 

"Walking the walk" is a common expression.  I understand what it means.  I don't think your meaning is unclear.

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by David CO

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

How hard can it be to follow the scout oath and law in your business dealings and management?

And this is the problem when most people (not just you, but in general) demand better "performance". They are utterly incapable of quantifying what they want.

"I want you to do better". Ok, what does better LOOK like?

"Do more good stuff". Ok, what? How do you possibly MEASURE that if you cannot even define it?

Again, SMART goals is a well known tool here. Not the best, not perfect, but well known and well tested. They teach it at Wood Badge, my organization it is practically a mantra.

SMART

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Relevant
• Time-Bound

So, what exactly does good "performance" look like? How is it SPECIFICALLY defined?

• Specific: "Follow the Scout Oath and Law"

Ok, how then how do we MEASURE that? The "specific" is so UNspecific as to be useless. That is so amorphous, nebulous and unclear as to be useless in terms of "performance". There's 12 points of the law. Is Mosby being measured on all 12, or just 1? And how is he measured? Who measures? Etc.

[yknot]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

And this is the problem when most people (not just you, but in general) demand better "performance". They are utterly incapable of quantifying what they want.

"I want you to do better". Ok, what does better LOOK like?

"Do more good stuff". Ok, what? How do you possibly MEASURE that if you cannot even define it?

Again, SMART goals is a well known tool here. Not the best, not perfect, but well known and well tested. They teach it at Wood Badge, my organization it is practically a mantra.

SMART

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Relevant
• Time-Bound

So, what exactly does good "performance" look like? How is it SPECIFICALLY defined?

• Specific: "Follow the Scout Oath and Law"

Ok, how then how do we MEASURE that? The "specific" is so UNspecific as to be useless. That is so amorphous, nebulous and unclear as to be useless in terms of "performance". There's 12 points of the law. Is Mosby being measured on all 12, or just 1? And how is he measured? Who measures? Etc.

You are one of my favorite posters and your intellect humbles me most of the time but I think you are over complicating this. The guy is doing a crappy job. He needs to go. If you want me to outline some parameters for an ideal CEO for a post bankruptcy utopian world, I can do that but to be frank I think post bankrupcty survival for BSA is so hypothetical at this point I'm having trouble ginning up the energy.  I think we've missed our best opportunities over the decades to build that performance matrix out. 

[Gilwell_1919]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

 In other words, the BSA compensation package is comparable to that of other similar organizations.

Holy moral equivalency Batman! 🙃

Did those other organizations amass a fortune by pulling on people's heartstrings by saying, "look how your money is helping these sweet little kids"... while simultaneously covering up the carnage of predators that were preying on those same little kids?

And since you keep harping on "should they only make $1" ... fine, I'll take the bait... here is what would get me signing a different tune. If the "current" BSA folks wanted to win me over with their "new and approved sainthood"... I would say the CEO should be compensated at about $350K per year, plus have a "modest budget" for expenditures on things relative to his functional position. That would show me he is in it for "the kids". At cool $1M, nope... that is ludicrous considering we have scouting families that barely get by and still what little they have left over to make scouting happen in their communities. Honestly, I would feel ashamed to have that kind of salary knowing what my organization did, in addition to the fact that it is currently going through bankruptcy, and that I should be doing everything I could to win back public support. Getting paid $1M doesn't exactly say, "sorry for a century of carnage... we promise to do a better job if you let us continue..."

While it is less than the other CEOs in the other organizations you keep propounding for your moral equivalency argument, it sure ain't a minimum wage salary. 

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think you are over complicating this.

I'm not. Part of the problem is that if you set amorphous goals you never know if you achieved them.

"Do better" "Stop doing bad". How EXACTLY is he doing a "Crappy" job or, conversely, specifically what would a "good" job look like?

Etc.

If you cannot define what "Success" looks like, you'll never get there.

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

for your moral equivalency argument

It isn't a moral equivalency. It is a compensation equivalency. I never said it was "good" or "bad". I never said "fair" or "unfair". I never used any moral judgment on it whatsoever.

I said it was "comparable to that of other similar organizations."

Period.

Edited September 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

Argh ... I fear inserting myself.  

The problem with "walk the walk" or follow the "scout oath and law" is that two well meaning individuals doing their best can reach different conclusions ... make different decisions ... judge things differently.  Each person has their own unique set of experiences, perspectives and thoughts.  Each person enters into situations with different capabilities and may have different options than the next guy.  It's just not that simple.  

Also, I've known too many scouters at all levels of scouting.  I can't say I've liked every one or agreed always.  BUT, generally I've never seen a better motivated and well meaning set of individuals.  The worst I can say is that there are many that use scouting as a place to fill voids in their own lives.  BUT, that's not necessarily a bad thing.  

I know others have run into individuals that have done wrong and committed crimes.  From what I've seen and experienced, that's far and few.  

.My point is ... scouting is filled with many well meaning people ... paid and volunteer.  None are perfect.  Each has their vices.  BUT, overall there are so many well motivated individuals that I can't say BSA's problems are due to not following oath and law or not walking the walk.

... except the guy who bought discount cloth for the centenial uniform pants.  That guy didn't follow oath and law.   ... OH ... And the iron on BSA / United States letters.  That guy should have walked the walk. 

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by fred8033

[yknot]

 

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm not. Part of the problem is that if you set amorphous goals you never know if you achieved them.

"Do better" "Stop doing bad". How EXACTLY is he doing a "Crappy" job or, conversely, specifically what would a "good" job look like?

Etc.

If you cannot define what "Success" looks like, you'll never get there.

To quote Cliff Booth, "Yeah, you kinda did." 

A good job for Mosby et al, to start, would be producing something more impressive than the Churchill Project, which was simply a knee jerk rehash of strategies and goals that have not worked. 

Focusing on membership alone is not going to ensure scouting's long term success. We might be better off having a CEO with more experience in youth organizations and safety. I would say a good success parameter for a future CEO would be elimination, or near elimination, of CSA cases because that is likely to have one of the biggest impacts on future membership. If we get through bankruptcy and yet the general public still perceives we have a problem, BSA won't last long or be able to grow much membership. Focusing on youth protection first would, to me, be walking the walk. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

Each person has their own unique set of experiences, perspectives and thoughts.  Each person enters into situations with different capabilities and may have different options than the next guy.  It's just not that simple.  

Exactly. That's why performance measurement and management are so hard.

"Do good stuff" "Stop doing crappy stuff" How on EARTH can you expect someone to be measured off of that.

Let me offer what might be (not saying it is one I am happy with) metric for Mosby

• Specific: Total BSA registered youth membership will decline no more than 3% Year Ending 2020 vs. Year Ending 2021
• Measurable: Yes, subtract the number of youth registered on December 31, 2020 from the number registered on December 31, 2021 and divided.
• Achievable: Yes, when all is said and done it is POSSIBLE that with fall recruiting to see BSA only decline in membership by 3%.
• Relevant: Absolutely relevant.
• Time-Bound: Yes, there is a specific date (December 31, 2021) for this to occur.

THAT is performance measurement.

Not "Walk the Walk" and "Stop being crappy".

 

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, yknot said:

would say a good success parameter for a future CEO would be elimination, or near elimination, of CSA cases because that is likely to have one of the biggest impacts on future membership.

See! THAT Is a good performance measurement

• Specific: Reduce number of CSA cases reported in 2021 by 50% vs. 2011.
• Measurable: Yes, count number of abuse cases reported in 2021 vs 2011
• Achievable: Yes, with stringent YPT. 100% elimination is not "achievable" since perfection with 1 million scouts is impossible.
• Relevant: Absolutely relevant.
• Time-Bound: Yes, there is a specific measurement and date 2021 vs. 2011

THAT is a performance measure you can use. Not "do more good" "stop being crappy". Etc.

Edited September 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter