Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[Gilwell_1919]

18 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

To be fair to the current CEO he was brought in after the sh_t hit the fan.  1 Million may not have been enough to have me take the job. Well on second thought $1,000,001 works for me).

Understandably... it was/is a difficult job. But, with the level of visceral anger from scouters and the general public... one could agree to a modest "white collar salary" with the agreement of an exit bonus after completing the task. That may have improved public opinion. I think we needed someone that understood the full spectrum of scouting... from the den meeting to the board meeting. I've met some pretty astute SE's that we're also Eagle Scouts and had the business acumen to man the helm of their LC.

[PeterHopkins]

25 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I don't believe he was invited into mediation.  His representation in the current RSA would be in front of the trustee for his clients.  He has begged to be deposed by the insurers.

I was speaking in general terms. If he does get invited into the mediation room, he owes it to his clients to do the best he can for them. I truly don't believe his tweets help his clients, and I also believe they hurt the Scouting Movement, something larger than the BSA. All they do is shine the spotlight on him.

Edited September 3, 2021 by PeterHopkins

[Gilwell_1919]

1 minute ago, PeterHopkins said:

... I also believe they hurt the Scouting Movement...

That is my general fear... and why I called it, "salting the earth". 

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I don't believe he was invited into mediation.  His representation in the current RSA would be in front of the trustee for his clients.  He has begged to be deposed by the insurers.

He wasn’t invited into the mediation, in large part because a) he only represents (at BEST) 15,000 and even that number is debatable as the representation was spread jointly across three firms that were part of AIS. Kosnoff claims HE represents them all; the AIS filing suggests it remains joint.

Regardless of that the mediation was predicated on the idea of reaching a settlement. Kosnoff has said: he didn’t WANT a settlement. He wants  Chapter 7. There is absolutely no reason to invite someone to a mediation whose sole avowed purpose is to nuke the mediation.

and he said he wants to be to be deposed by the insurance folks because of the misuse of his signature and his belief that he has evidence that the coalition is unethically bankrupt by Wall Street and is selling out the claimants for cash.

Here is why Kosnoff is important. He is loud. He is the center of a lot of attention. And due to the requirement that 2/3rds of claimants have to approve the BSA bankruptcy deal, he may enough leverage with victims to ensure the vote never reaches 2/3rds.

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

That is my general fear... and why I called it, "salting the earth". 

To be fair his tweets may have a negative affect on scouting.  It may make parents think twice about having their children part of a scouting organization. But it also may have a positive effect.  It may prompt government legislation to oversee and investigate. It might make parents who have children in scouting to be more vigilant and act more proactively about child abuse.  If you listen to the interview he gave in which the link was posted in this forum you will hear him talk about the history of the abuse, the effects of the abuse and possible solutions for further abuse and lastly the possibility of the eradication of BSA in the form that it is today. I don't believe he is trying to put the spotlight on himself (ego) but rather on the problem and what he wants for his clients.  As a disclaimer he is not my representation in this bankruptcy.

[johnsch322]

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here is why Kosnoff is important. He is loud. He is the center of a lot of attention. And due to the requirement that 2/3rds of claimants have to approve the BSA bankruptcy deal, he may enough leverage with victims to ensure the vote never reaches 2/3rds.

And then there most likely a cramdown and a rush to courthouses and he can get any of his clients who live in an SOL state their cases in front of a judge and a jury.  Then many LC's and CO's whom he believes have much more to give will find themselves giving more than they currently are.

Edited September 3, 2021 by johnsch322

[mrjohns2]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

This is how industrial safety is managed. We call it “the relentless pursuit of zero”! We set targets, expectations, etc. is it hard? Yes. Is it based on behaviors? Yes. Do people hate following the rules? Yes. Do we get bette? Yes. 

[SiouxRanger]

3 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Negative, kind sir. You keep peppering your statements with "hyperbole". (e.g., "what, should they work for free?", or "so, should they only make $1?", et cetera). You can't keep mixing sensationalist language into your analytical comments and not have me call it out as moral equivalency. 

Tiring, isn't it;?

[SiouxRanger]

14 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

That is simply not true.  Generating more money does not increase the professional salaries. 

This is just another of those aspects of all of this which has so many levels.

From my understanding of compensation, governance, and promotions, successful fundraising does not increase the salary of any staff member of an LC. Directly.  I am not aware of "commission" income based on fundraising.

However, it is also my understanding that the SE, at least, and likely any Development Director, are judged as far a job performance on the success of LC fundraising.  That might lead to an incremental raise, but the big money is an SE being promoted to a larger LC with a larger staff and greater income, and a Development Director being promoted to an SE of a small council.  And, of course, the junior staff may get promoted up the ladder within the LC, and a new SE will come from outside the LC.

And earning a Quality Council Award-I don't know-but expect that it includes fundraising goals, which if met, enhance promotion prospects.

If anyone has specific knowledge of specific metrics, please enlighten us.

 

[vol_scouter]

5 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

This is just another of those aspects of all of this which has so many levels.

From my understanding of compensation, governance, and promotions, successful fundraising does not increase the salary of any staff member of an LC. Directly.  I am not aware of "commission" income based on fundraising.

However, it is also my understanding that the SE, at least, and likely any Development Director, are judged as far a job performance on the success of LC fundraising.  That might lead to an incremental raise, but the big money is an SE being promoted to a larger LC with a larger staff and greater income, and a Development Director being promoted to an SE of a small council.  And, of course, the junior staff may get promoted up the ladder within the LC, and a new SE will come from outside the LC.

And earning a Quality Council Award-I don't know-but expect that it includes fundraising goals, which if met, enhance promotion prospects.

If anyone has specific knowledge of specific metrics, please enlighten us.

 

SEs are evaluated by their executive committee (EC).  The EC is interested in membership and quality program.  In order to achieve these, there needs to be enough money.  So in an obtuse manner, development does affect the job performance of the SE. 

When there is an opening for a new SE for whatever reason (SE retirement, death, advancement, or leaving Scouting), the EC will discuss with the national council what the needs are: Old facilities need to be updated, poor program, membership loss or stagnation, or the development has not met the needs of the council.  Whatever the council's need will be of particular emphasis in the evaluation.  

My experience with the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board as well as more than one council EC and EB is that they are interested in quality program and membership.  Money is required to make it possible to have quality programs to increase membership.  Quality program and increasing membership is what drives most executive committee and board members.  I personally know many SEs and DFSs across the country who want to do the same things but know how challenging it is to have adequate funding.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

SEs are evaluated by their executive committee (EC).  The EC is interested in membership and quality program.  In order to achieve these, there needs to be enough money.  So in an obtuse manner, development does affect the job performance of the SE. 

When there is an opening for a new SE for whatever reason (SE retirement, death, advancement, or leaving Scouting), the EC will discuss with the national council what the needs are: Old facilities need to be updated, poor program, membership loss or stagnation, or the development has not met the needs of the council.  Whatever the council's need will be of particular emphasis in the evaluation.  

My experience with the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board as well as more than one council EC and EB is that they are interested in quality program and membership.  Money is required to make it possible to have quality programs to increase membership.  Quality program and increasing membership is what drives most executive committee and board members.  I personally know many SEs and DFSs across the country who want to do the same things but know how challenging it is to have adequate funding.

My understanding is that when there is an SE vacancy, Area or Region submits the names of 3 SE candidates along with documentation regarding those 3 candidates.  The LC search committee is limited to selecting one of those 3 candidates, and are to consider nothing other than the documentation provided by Area/Region, and  interviews with the 3 candidates, and make their selection based on solely that.  In fact, a search committee member had a good scouter friend in the council of one of the 3 candidates and contacted that good scouter friend for inside information, and when that contact became known to Area/Region, the search committee was told never to do that again.

Considering that only 2 of the last 5 SE's were considered good and 3 were considered horrible, by both volunteers and many professional staff, the appearance is that Area/Region selects the 3 candidates on its criteria, such as, (who deserves a promotion, who needs to move on having worn out their welcome in their current council, and occasionally, they have sent a good one.  But with a 5 year average term of office here, we have had 15 years of bad SE's over 25 years.

Only ONE SE put any money into fixing up a deteriorating camp.  So, 20 years of camp neglect.

It sounds as if your experience is several levels above mine, which may explain the difference in view and likely our opinions. I have no doubt that there are many good scouters trying to make things work and improve them.  And I understand the governance documents of National to troop and pack level.  Things don't work in real life the way they are laid out on paper.

My understanding is that an SE's salary is set by Area/Region/National.  That the EC or EB has nominal control, it is not exercised.  It is not meaningful control.

No professional in my council makes anything but token efforts to run a decent program at summer camp.  This summer the site manager told me of basket weaving materials being ORDERED during the second week of camp.  They never arrived in time.  Woodcarving knives and chisels were in horrible condition and would not cut even carvable wood.  A volunteer came out and sharpened them so they were ready for the second week of camp.

The total cost of all these materials and new carving tools was probably no more than $1,000.

Per National's bankruptcy Exhibits, our council has some millions in liquid assets-cash and cash equivalents.

And our camp had shortages of program materials.

 

 

[SiouxRanger]

9 hours ago, yknot said:

Regarding Mosby

What I know of Mosby comes largely from this forum.

But I see a pattern here, and it troubles me.

My experience with my local council, at district and council level, was that when there was bad news to deliver to a volunteer (we no longer want you to be Chairperson of District Boy Scout Outdoor...etc.) the appropriate level professional, DE, or mid level council staffer, would recruit a volunteer senior to the volunteer to be ousted, and have the senior volunteer to the dirty work.

Thereby, the face of the "ugly" would be that of a volunteer, not a professional.  I saw it time and again.

And so, Mosby, not of the Movement, it appears to me that he has been hired as the "senior volunteer" in my example, to deliver the bad news and he will be out the door when the dust settles.  He may or may not be complicit in this.

And thereby, senior National staff will remain nameless and faceless.

(So, the proof of my prediction will be how long does Mosby stay on post-bankruptcy?)

[RememberSchiff]

6 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

SEs are evaluated by their executive committee (EC).  The EC is interested in membership and quality program.  In order to achieve these, there needs to be enough money.  So in an obtuse manner, development does affect the job performance of the SE. 

When there is an opening for a new SE for whatever reason (SE retirement, death, advancement, or leaving Scouting), the EC will discuss with the national council what the needs are: Old facilities need to be updated, poor program, membership loss or stagnation, or the development has not met the needs of the council.  Whatever the council's need will be of particular emphasis in the evaluation.  

My experience with the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board as well as more than one council EC and EB is that they are interested in quality program and membership.  Money is required to make it possible to have quality programs to increase membership.  Quality program and increasing membership is what drives most executive committee and board members.  I personally know many SEs and DFSs across the country who want to do the same things but know how challenging it is to have adequate funding.

This differs from other organizations which I have experienced where the Board specifies their president/CEO (SE) job requirements and expectations, interviews candidates and hires, and evaluates performance. The executive officers (executive committee) may recommend or be considered candidates, but do not hire or evaluate their boss, the president/CEO (SE).

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

And so, Mosby, not of the Movement, it appears to me that he has been hired as the "senior volunteer" in my example, to deliver the bad news and he will be out the door when the dust settles.  He may or may not be complicit in this.

Here is my take, and it is my take only.

Mosby was hired from outside the professional staff: he was I believe the first CEO to NOT automatically come in as Chief Scout.

By the time he was being hired in Fall 2019 it was clear BSA was heading for bankruptcy, not if but when. Mosby was hired to get the organization through that mess.

BUT during the last National Annual Meeting it was announced he was staying on past the bankruptcy. That appears to be a shift.

On 6/2/2021 at 8:31 PM, CynicalScouter said:

During the National Executive Board meeting, the board commissioned BSA CEO and President Roger Mosby, designating him as the 14^th Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of America. This further formalizes his ongoing role and commitment to the organization. Roger will continue on in the role of CSE beyond the organization’s emergence from bankruptcy.

 

[vol_scouter]

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

This differs from other organizations which I have experienced where the Board specifies their president/CEO (SE) job requirements and expectations, interviews candidates and hires, and evaluates performance. The executive officers (executive committee) may recommend or be considered candidates, but do not hire or evaluate their boss, the president/CEO (SE).

Perhaps there is a communication issue here.  Local councils and the national council have an executive board that is nominated by a committee composed of only volunteers.  From that large executive board there will be an executive committee selected so once again all volunteers.  The executive committee numbers about ten to twelve (can be a few more or less) and constitute the officers of the corporation.  
 

The executive board and executive committee are selected annually in January.  This is the meeting where chartered organizations have a vote.  They can influence the executive board composition and can run for membership.  
 

The chair of the executive committee is the chair of the executive board and has traditionally called the president.  The council commissioner is also an executive committee and executive board member, nationally it is the national commissioner.  Professionals staff various committees with the SE staffing the executive committee and executive board while nationally it is the chief Scout executive.   
 

The SE and CSE typically staff the nominating committee and can influence who is nominated but it is controlled by volunteers.  The volunteers can ignore the SE and CSE though it is usually a give and take relationship though once again it is volunteer controlled.  The executive committee should be balanced between active volunteers and successful business people whereas the executive board tends to be more volunteers.  
 

The documents for the corporation is directed by the national council so that unless a state law forces a difference, councils are rather uniform in governance.  
 

If your council is run by volunteers unless they allow the SE to do as they please.  That is largely the fault of the volunteers.

The executive committee and board select the SE from a list provided by national though when Roger Mosby was hired as CSE, the NEC and NEB approved allowing councils under some circumstances to hire someone from outside the professional ranks.

A professional is someone who has been commissioned in Scouting. Commissioning occurs after a new District Executive has been on the job a few months and then attends a training course about professional Scouting.  All professional positions above DE requires being commissioned.  If a SE is hired from outside the professional ranks, I would assume that they would have to be commissioned at some point.  Roger Mosby was a volunteer and was hired as the CEO but has since been commissioned and is now also the CSE.

Hopefully this is helpful.