Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, malraux said:

Anthony Berger is very active in the Facebook Cub Scout volunteer group. That's a mixed bag to say the least, but he's accessible.

Anthony Berger is an excellent professional who was an SE before in Georgia.  Just remember that all he can do is to take ideas to the Cub Scout Program committee composed of volunteers who must approve any changes.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The Churchill project was NEC directed with mainly NEB members and a few other volunteers.  The professional staff had very limited input and were often asked to leave the meeting.

It was about those things from intimate knowledge.

Everything you have described about how National operates at every level is a hologram for a rudderless ship. We have known this for some time. What you hear on this forum are people who have tried to shout iceberg dead ahead multiple times over the decades and have never heard anything but echoes. Except for here. We may not always agree but everyone on this forum is here because they have cared and have wanted to somehow make things better, even if those individual visions are widely varied.  

[CynicalScouter]

39 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is not BSA policy so was enacted by volunteers in your council. 

Nothing written. No "policy" policy. But if you want in, you pay for that seat.

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, malraux said:

Anthony Berger is very active in the Facebook Cub Scout volunteer group.

You mean the locked down/private FB group?

Sigh. What a mess. So the only way to speak to the Chair of the National Cub Scout program/lead volunteer is to a) join a FB group that is NOT at ALL referenced on the official scouting.org website and b) hope the admins let you in?

Does NO ONE think that is totally insane?

My daughter's in GSUSA. Right here, now, today, I can find the national program lead(s), their photos and emails, and email NOW my questions and concerns.

No secret, private Facebook groups required.

[yknot]

16 minutes ago, elitts said:

Oh, I'm not arguing that the sale isn't worthwhile.  Clearly it is for many troops.  My primary hatred for it stems from the fact that (in violation of the BSA's own rules on fundraisers) the pricing is so radically out of line with the value of the product it is functionally just a mass beg for donations with a consolation prize for donating.  I feel dirty even asking someone to pay $20 for a $4 bag of White Cheddar Popcorn.  (There are few items that are only about double the retail cost, which is tolerable, but 5 times the cost!!)

 

I don't want to beat this drum too much on this thread but in addition to the begging is the problem that in growing demographics you can't even give this popcorn away for free as a gift with donation. Food sales can be difficult. There are so many food allergies, issues, sensitivities, social issues associated with food purchases such as where and how it was grown, how it is packaged, etc.  Most people by me are convinced microwave popcorn causes popcorn lung and cancer. They all air pop or buy it on the cob and pop it in ecologically green paper bags. The world is changing and BSA is going to have to work harder to keep up if it wants to appeal to more families. 

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, yknot said:

What you hear on this forum are people who have tried to shout iceberg dead ahead multiple times over the decades and have never heard anything but echoes. Except for here. We may not always agree but everyone on this forum is here because they have cared and have wanted to somehow make things better, even if those individual visions are widely varied.  

Yep. And here is my question about the Churchill group. Who selected them? I'm betting the professionals. Was I allowed as mere den leader (at the time) to participate! No! Sit down. Shut up. Run your Bears den. We don't want to hear from you.

[vol_scouter]

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

Everything you have described about how National operates at every level is a hologram for a rudderless ship. We have known this for some time. What you hear on this forum are people who have tried to shout iceberg dead ahead multiple times over the decades and have never heard anything but echoes. Except for here. We may not always agree but everyone on this forum is here because they have cared and have wanted to somehow make things better, even if those individual visions are widely varied.  

@yknot  So it is not a rudderless ship.  The problem is that whenever there is an issue that was not resolved in the manner that forum member _______ thinks is appropriate, then national is stupid, disconnected, does care, cares only about money, and many other knee jerk criticisms.  Yet when I have been in committee meetings, the information is carefully examined, changes are taken very seriously, and the solution is one that most of us possessing the same information would make.  I know of no corporation for profit or not for profit that details all of the information that leads to a decision for all decisions.  

Most frustrating is knowing and stating time and time again that the professionals do not run Scouting - the volunteers do - only to be called names.  Volunteers make the decisions.  Most are unit serving or were recently unit serving.  Even more are active in their council.  The committees and board are not disconnected as they are accused of being.  

I do not agree with all the decisions and policies that come from National but if I had my way, others would be unhappy.  Just because we disagree does not mean that national made an informed decision.  

As far as business acumen of the board, many are Forbes 100 CEOs who are involved in Scouting.  Hard to say that they do not understand business.

Now is a time to try to work together to rebuild Scouting in the US after the bankruptcy is over.

[vol_scouter]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. And here is my question about the Churchill group. Who selected them? I'm betting the professionals. Was I allowed as mere den leader (at the time) to participate! No! Sit down. Shut up. Run your Bears den. We don't want to hear from you.

No professionals were consulted.  The NEC did this and the professionals were told what they were to do.  Your feelings are completely wrong.  Some of the surveys from the Churchill committees were rather poorly done and seemed designed to reach predetermined conclusions by the volunteers.

[Eagle1993]

15 minutes ago, elitts said:

While the BSA isn't really an arts or cultural organization, it is certainly a "fund development drive board".

 

A large board is in the 20 range most of the time.  If BSA was successful, it wouldn't be an issue.  We have 70 board members with no info.  UK Scouting has 21 board members and I can read their discussion about growth and actions they are taking.  The BSA board structure is a joke and provides no real oversight, no transparency.  We are bankrupt and shedding scouts.  UK is worried about 0.3% growth in 2020.  They are posting their discussion points on the web.

I'm sorry, but there is no defense of our National Executive Board or whatever they are called.  They are hiding and have been hiding for as far back as I can see.  We are bankrupt and have been in decline.  We are taking on massive debt from this bankruptcy and NO ONE is really talking to us other than a few councils and most of them provide minimal info.  We find snippets of info and pass them on Scouter.com, Facebook and Reddit.    

Where is Mosby?  If I were leading an organization through bankruptcy, I would be doing weekly video updates.  I would be thanking my volunteers.  I would be encouraging them to stay the course and know that we will respond.  I would spotlight a great council, Troop, Pack.  Something.  I would invite a key National staff member on to discuss a critical topic.  Here is Richard B ... head of safety, lets talk safety in scouting.   Perhaps I just can't find his frequent updates.  I know it took him months to write anything to us when first selected.  Right now he is MIA! 

Where is the board asking him why he isn't reaching out to the volunteer corp?  No, instead they are saying he is our long term Chief Scout.  OK.  UK has Bear Grylls and we have Mosby.

Twitter influence has been mentioned several times.  Bear Grylls has 1.5M followers and tweets about scouts frequently (Aug 24 quick example).  Roger Mosby has 12 followers and last tweet was Dec 2, 2013 about a car accident.  Perhaps not apples to apples.  UK Chief Commissioner, Tim Kidd - 8,406 followers tweeted about scouting yesterday.  UK Chief Executive Matt Hyde - 9.7K followers, tweeted about scouts 5 hours ago.  Again, Mosby, 12 followers, ZERO tweets about scouts.  Kosnoff has more twitter followers and tweets about scouting than our CEO who is hauling in massive $$.

I want my Scout Executive to be able to hike Mount Baldy with a full pack while live streaming, and then hike down to camp, and have a call with a leadership team about membership grown, program changes and CO relationships.   I have a hard time seeing our key 3 doing this right now.

Our leadership is lost and has no idea how to operate in the 21st century. Whatever they (the board) are doing is not working and hasn't been working well for many years.  It is time for a change.

[Eagle94-A1]

@vol_scouter, i am a former professional. I can tell you there are ways to influence who is selected onto different boards. I got in trouble for encouraging my nominating committee to go after the best people for the jobs instead of having them select "yes men." I know folks who were removed from EBs because the questioned the recommendations of the SE. One person was relieved mid term.

As for surveys, they are a joke.  You made a comment how they are biased towards the predetermined decision. Remember the 2015 Instapalm survey? 94% either disagreed (18%) or strongly disagreed (76%) with instapalms, yet they went ahead anyway.  And i am still waiting on the results of the members' survey on girls in scouting to be published. All i keep seeing are the nonmember results.

[Gilwell_1919]

50 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

As far as business acumen of the board, many are Forbes 100 CEOs who are involved in Scouting.  Hard to say that they do not understand business.

IMHO, Scouting shouldn't be thought of as a business... and therein lies the problem. I'm going to rephrase a section of a book I am writing and make it more apropos to this topic... but it hits on a much bigger issue. This particular section was illustrating a point about why we are caught in this perpetual funk of "unhappiness". 

Quote

Again, if we are being completely honest with ourselves, academic institutions force systematic conformity to the government-backed agenda that students are future commodities on their national tax-plantations. Religious institutions measure salvation through congregate memberships levels and a steady stream of non-taxable income in their coffers. Even non-profit organizations lose their original mission-focus because that mission focus detracts from their fundraising efforts with deep-pocked donors who look at donations as forms of penance from not volunteering their time to help lift their fellow human beings out of abject poverty.

I wanted to share this because it helps set a better playing field for everyone to start questioning everything. For me, I'd like to know why the Forbes 100 CEOs would be a better pick than... let's say a successful small business owner in middle America that volunteers time with local youth groups (like BSA)? Warren Buffett, arguably one of the most successful businessmen of our generation... said you only need basic arithmetic to run a business (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). Now, to be cut-throat... sure... you need more than basic math... but I think putting cut-throat CEOs on the board and at the helm of BSA has got them into this current mess. It's apparent they were more concerned about protecting "golden treasure" and not the real treasure, which are/were the youth in the program.

Not me... I err on the side of doing the right thing when no one is looking.... so when people are looking... I act in the same way and my integrity is unquestionable.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Gilwell_1919

[yknot]

34 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@yknot  So it is not a rudderless ship.  The problem is that whenever there is an issue that was not resolved in the manner that forum member _______ thinks is appropriate, then national is stupid, disconnected, does care, cares only about money, and many other knee jerk criticisms.  Yet when I have been in committee meetings, the information is carefully examined, changes are taken very seriously, and the solution is one that most of us possessing the same information would make.  I know of no corporation for profit or not for profit that details all of the information that leads to a decision for all decisions.  

Most frustrating is knowing and stating time and time again that the professionals do not run Scouting - the volunteers do - only to be called names.  Volunteers make the decisions.  Most are unit serving or were recently unit serving.  Even more are active in their council.  The committees and board are not disconnected as they are accused of being.  

I do not agree with all the decisions and policies that come from National but if I had my way, others would be unhappy.  Just because we disagree does not mean that national made an informed decision.  

As far as business acumen of the board, many are Forbes 100 CEOs who are involved in Scouting.  Hard to say that they do not understand business.

Now is a time to try to work together to rebuild Scouting in the US after the bankruptcy is over.

I think the rank and file perceive no difference between volunteer or professional leadership. They just see leadership. I don't doubt there are many well intentioned people involved at the highest echelons of scouting. What I'm saying is that it is not effective and is in fact has a two decade (at least) track record of being disastrous. It's not me saying that, it's the current state of the organization that broadcasts that. You don't wind up in bankruptcy through good management, let alone having to own all the contributory crises that led to this. I've worked with plenty of boards of directors, etc., and Fortune 100 connections don't mean anything without common sense. Look at Lehman Brothers. 

 

 

[vol_scouter]

23 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

@vol_scouter, i am a former professional. I can tell you there are ways to influence who is selected onto different boards. I got in trouble for encouraging my nominating committee to go after the best people for the jobs instead of having them select "yes men." I know folks who were removed from EBs because the questioned the recommendations of the SE. One person was relieved mid term.

As for surveys, they are a joke.  You made a comment how they are biased towards the predetermined decision. Remember the 2015 Instapalm survey? 94% either disagreed (18%) or strongly disagreed (76%) with instapalms, yet they went ahead anyway.  And i am still waiting on the results of the members' survey on girls in scouting to be published. All i keep seeing are the nonmember results.

In my discourse, I noted that volunteers need to control their nominating committee if it is not getting the nominees that the council needs.

I do not know the reasoning behind the change in the requirements for earning Eagle Palms.

The survey results about girls were published.  Every group was ~75% or higher in favor of having a program for girls with Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA being single gender.  As I recall, the OA was closer to 90%.  Regardless, all groups were very pro adding girls.

[David CO]

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The survey results about girls were published. 

The results of Venezuelan elections are published too.

[vol_scouter]

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think the rank and file perceive no difference between volunteer or professional leadership. They just see leadership. I don't doubt there are many well intentioned people involved at the highest echelons of scouting. What I'm saying is that it is not effective and is in fact has a two decade (at least) track record of being disastrous. It's not me saying that, it's the current state of the organization that broadcasts that. You don't wind up in bankruptcy through good management, let alone having to own all the contributory crises that led to this. I've worked with plenty of boards of directors, etc., and Fortune 100 connections don't mean anything without common sense. Look at Lehman Brothers. 

 

 

So how would you have avoided filing for Chapter 11?  If they are so bad, just let us know how to avoid the lawsuits from men who deserve compensation?  

Would you not bring adding girls up and be sued time after time in the 16 states at the time that allowed parents to determine the gender when legal opinions said that the BSA would uniformly lose those cases?

Today's young families want a single set of activities for the entire family.  Want to continue to lose the opportunity to recruit the families with girls?

Once again, if all of you had the same information as the volunteer leadership has, you would see that they are usually taking the most reasonable course of action.