Council finances

[Eagle1993]

The reality is that BSA has far too many councils.   Just as they restructured regions and areas they will need to cut councils down.  
 

I have no issue paying a SE a large amount if he/she does a great job and grow scouting in their area.  I get emails from several different councils.  From the program offerings to the user experience of the message parents see vastly different versions of BSA.  Hopefully when there are mergers, BSA identifies the well run councils and has them take over some of their neighbors. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Eagle1993
Typo

[vol_scouter]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The reality is that BSA has far too many councils.   Just as they restructured regions and areas they will need to cut councils down.  
 

I have no issue paying a SE a large amount if he/she does a great job and grow scouting in their area.  I get emails from several different councils.  From the program offerings to the user expect of the message parents see vastly different versions of BSA.  Hopefully when there are mergers, BSA identifies the well run councils and has them take over some of their neighbors. 

Since the local councils are independent, they must be convinced to merge.  It is usually a difficult process but it has happened since the early days of the movement.  If the BSA emerges from Chapter 11, it will not have the number of staff needed to convince councils to merge.  It takes months of time with people leading it from National or, better, the local leadership of the two councils. 
 

Personally, larger councils are not necessarily better for serving the needs of the volunteers.  Perhaps, it would be better to develop training for councils and their executive boards and committees about how to run a council.  My council is not perfect but it does not have the severe problems that some have.  Let’s build more functional councils. Build executive committees with some current in the field volunteers and some really good business executives to balance the needs of the councils.  Recruit some great program people and then add members to take advantage of the program.  
 

Some councils might be beyond resuscitation, especially after they pay into the trust (should that happen).  In general, I think that the energy should be around making existing councils better rather than the contentious process of mergers.  

[gpurlee]

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The reality is that BSA has far too many councils.   Just as they restructured regions and areas they will need to cut councils down.  

This will be one of the major challenges for the BSA as it moves past the bankruptcy. Our council, for example, had had potential merger discussions with three other smaller neighboring councils even before the national bankruptcy filing and the pandemic.  Since that time, the situation has grown much more concerning with a membership decline of over fifty percent. In addition, revenue streams including product sales, activity income and camp fees have all taken a significant hit. 

In our area, we also have an abundance of full featured camps within a two to three hour drive. At least a dozen. Many of these are the result of decades of efforts by local volunteers and professionals and have a rich heritage of service to the community. This number does not include additional "weekend only" camping properties.  Unfortunately, years of membership decline coupled with the impact of the pandemic makes it very challenging to support and justify continuing all of these camps.  But no council wants to give up "our camp".

I suspect that many of these decisions have been placed on pause until there is more clarity around the impact of the bankruptcy upon individual councils. Regardless, it is difficult to see how the BSA can continue with the current number of small councils. And this will also change the nature of councils as we shift from locally controlled, Scouter dominated boards to regional boards comprised of a greater number of large donors and prominent corporate leaders.

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Some councils might be beyond resuscitation, especially after they pay into the trust (should that happen).  In general, I think that the energy should be around making existing councils better rather than the contentious process of mergers.  

There is definitely a balance. Too large of a council, you lose connection with the variety of areas you serve.  Too small of a council, you cannot have sufficient staff to specialize in all the areas councils are expected to function (program, camps, fundraising, training, HR/legal, etc.

Given the massive debt and severe financial distress BSA (and councils) are facing post bankruptcy, I think the only way to survival is mergers.  Having a bunch of financially weak councils with camps falling into disrepair, lack of programs, limited money for PR/recruiting, etc. will lead to collapse.  

I think large councils while keeping local districts would be the right mix.  It will allow pooling of resources centrally to manage back office items (such as HR/IT) efficiently while still ensuring program offerings meet local scouts.

BSA can encourage this by increasing the fee it charges councils to charter.  If they start charging $50K or $100K per council per year (to help pay off their own massive debt), councils will naturally seek out mergers to spread that fee across more scouts. 

In my state, there are 3 GSUSA councils but 10 BSA councils.  You can tell the difference in terms of PR, marketing, IT, media, camps, programs, etc.  My daughter has far more options presented to her from GSUSA than my son in BSA.  The website, registration tools, camp guides, camp offerings are better in GSUSA than BSA in my area.  GSUSA is far from perfect, but I have seen the other side of council size and see some significant benefits.

[SiouxRanger]

Are Council financial statements prepared in compliance with GAAP?

Anybody seen council financial statements prepared in compliance with GAAP?

I have not. 

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

And this will also change the nature of councils as we shift from locally controlled, Scouter dominated boards to regional boards comprised of a greater number of large donors and prominent corporate leaders.

My small council is already large donor, prominent corporate leader controlled.  And they have not a clue.

One cannot appreciate the importance of tradition unless one is part of that tradition.

[SiouxRanger]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Since the local councils are independent,

Councils appear to be independently, state-chartered not for profit corporations.

I do not believe that they operate totally independently from National.  I believe that National dictates major decisions to the Scout Executives and they advise the council president and executive committee of the executive board, and the Council moves in lock-step with National.

Apparently, ALL of the local councils agreed to pay the settlement contribution determined by National.

Maybe there were battles behind the scene, but 100% agreement?  In an organization with so many moving parts?

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Since the local councils are independent, they must be convinced to merge.  It is usually a difficult process but it has happened since the early days of the movement.  If the BSA emerges from Chapter 11, it will not have the number of staff needed to convince councils to merge.  It takes months of time with people leading it from National or, better, the local leadership of the two councils. 
 

Personally, larger councils are not necessarily better for serving the needs of the volunteers.  Perhaps, it would be better to develop training for councils and their executive boards and committees about how to run a council.  My council is not perfect but it does not have the severe problems that some have.  Let’s build more functional councils. Build executive committees with some current in the field volunteers and some really good business executives to balance the needs of the councils.  Recruit some great program people and then add members to take advantage of the program.  
 

Some councils might be beyond resuscitation, especially after they pay into the trust (should that happen).  In general, I think that the energy should be around making existing councils better rather than the contentious process of mergers.  

My personal opinion. 

The time of small or medium sized councils is past.  Youth scouting is face-to-face.  Council scouting is administrative and benefits from efficiencies of size.  Times have drastically changed.  Physical infrastructure has always costed money.  Now, technical infrastructure requires skill and cost but gets drastically cheaper as it scales out.  Plus, scouters don't need to drive into the council office for almost anything anymore.  Recharter online.  Buy advancements online.  Get trained online.  Attend RT virtually.   

Except for massive states where it is a 10 hour drive edge-to-edge, I see little reason to have more than one council a state.  

One thing that might help is to leverage the camps for scouter training for scouters that are far-away from the local council.  I'm always confused why scout offices are not located at the camps.  I've assumed it's from the days of driving in; hitting the scout shop and needing a physical presence to be seen by the donors. 

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

Are Council financial statements prepared in compliance with GAAP?

Anybody seen council financial statements prepared in compliance with GAAP?

I have not. 

I'd hope.  GAAP is generally accepted.     

I've seen some.  Some are posted thru non-profit sites.

Per BSA:  
https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/financeimpact/pdf/local_council_accounting_manual_2014.pdf
"Local councils are required to prepare and present financial statements in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which are established and promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). "

I believe the statements are audited too by outside accounting agencies.  

Edited January 29, 2022 by fred8033

[vol_scouter]

Councils have an annual outside audit that is presented first to the executive committee and then to the executive board.  We peruse the audit reports carefully and discuss anything that needs explanation or justification.  
 

Having a single council for some small, northeastern states might work though the board members in the areas immediate to the council offices will dominate all other areas. We see that in our medium sized council.  There is much gnashing of teeth from those not in the central part of the council.  
 

People need to work together in person at least some of the time as we are social animals.  My state is several hours from end to end.  In person time would not be possible.

 

Small councils might need help but enormous councils are not the answer to better Scouting.

 

 

 

[1980Scouter]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

My personal opinion. 

The time of small or medium sized councils is past.  Youth scouting is face-to-face.  Council scouting is administrative and benefits from efficiencies of size.  Times have drastically changed.  Physical infrastructure has always costed money.  Now, technical infrastructure requires skill and cost but gets drastically cheaper as it scales out.  Plus, scouters don't need to drive into the council office for almost anything anymore.  Recharter online.  Buy advancements online.  Get trained online.  Attend RT virtually.   

Except for massive states where it is a 10 hour drive edge-to-edge, I see little reason to have more than one council a state.  

One thing that might help is to leverage the camps for scouter training for scouters that are far-away from the local council.  I'm always confused why scout offices are not located at the camps.  I've assumed it's from the days of driving in; hitting the scout shop and needing a physical presence to be seen by the donors. 

I have said locate scout offices at camps for years. Better camp use, save money and most things can be done electronically or remotely. 

Really this could save Scouting so much money that LC's could survive. 

[MattR]

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'm always confused why scout offices are not located at the camps

Our camps are mostly located in rather desolate areas. No cell service or internet at most. Also, most scouts live closer to scout offices than camps.

 

[gpurlee]

6 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Since the local councils are independent, they must be convinced to merge.  It is usually a difficult process but it has happened since the early days of the movement.  If the BSA emerges from Chapter 11, it will not have the number of staff needed to convince councils to merge.  It takes months of time with people leading it from National or, better, the local leadership of the two councils. 

The final decisions rest with the local councils.  However, there is precedent to a national BSA mandate. In the early 1990's national established a series of sixteen benchmarks that local councils had to achieve in order to receive a charter. If I recall (and it has been a while) these included (1) the number of eligible youth within the council geographic area, (2) percentage of eligible youth enrolled, (3) a positive operating balance over a period of  time, (4) establishment of a significant endowment, (5) outside annual audit and a (6) a minimum financial reserve among others. There were also some council program metrics including youth retention, summer camp participation and others.

Our little six county rural council did not meet enough of the metrics to  receive a charter. We were given the opportunity to determine how to best "bigger" ourselves however. We "interviewed" three neighboring councils before selecting one to begin merger discussions. These were amiable discussions with an appreciation for the history and traditions of each council. And with the advantage of three decades of hindsight now,  it was the best thing that could happen to our little council. 

 

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, MattR said:

Our camps are mostly located in rather desolate areas. No cell service or internet at most. Also, most scouts live closer to scout offices than camps.

 

You are so correct.  Not to mention that camps do not have office buildings so you are going to make a cash strapped council build office buildings and take on another million or more dollar debt. 

[gpurlee]

57 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I have said locate scout offices at camps for years. Better camp use, save money and most things can be done electronically or remotely. 

Several years ago, an adjacent rural council raised the funds to construct a beautiful, large Scout center at its primary camp that was the envy of the area. It featured a nice Scout shop, conference and training rooms and and offices. Beautiful setting. However, it was an hour or more away from the major population centers,  Few volunteers wanted to make the drive there for meetings or supplies.  Its remote location meant that it was invisible to most of the community. A council merger with a shift of primary camps was the final blow. Within a fairly short period of time, it was abandoned and bulldozed due to a lack of utilization and the cost of upkeep.