Council finances

[vol_scouter]

8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

You must be in a very small council.  

My thoughts too.   Some councils have only a Scout Executive and single staff person.   I have received the yearly outside audit reports as an Executive Board member and have looked up online the IRS information.   The council reporting in brochures, etc are accurate.  I believe my fellow Scouters but want it known that some councils work much as they should.  The Executive Committee and Executive Board are active and interested.  Unfortunately, a few councils are less well run.   That is not to say that we do not have problems and disputes but we work through them.

[Jameson76]

Pretty sure my council is a 100 level, assuming that is the larger ones.  SE base compensation is maybe $362K and total compensation is $622K.  That's a bunch.  4 others over $100K

Also the council now has 68 staff, but only 16 appear to be directly working with districts or Scouts (DE types).  

• 16 DE types
• 12 Program specialists / Scoutreach
• 9 Development staff
• 4 Middle Management
• 4 Camp rangers
• 13 Admin
• 3 Executive
• 7 Marketing

Really nice office that seems to be about 25% of the budget.  They continue to run the operation like a business in the 80's.  Top down management, very structured.  There was an issue at summer camp, the exec team was on a call, then they had another call, then they asked the camp director what he wanted to do, then they deferred and sort of left it open.  Nobody wants to make a decision, classic corporate problem solving.  That is they don't actually solve it and put their name on a solution.

No real leadership.  The council advice and direction during covid was nothing.  Massive marketing staff and not sure what they may actually be doing.

They continue to be successful at raising money, but their support for troops is non-existent.  They seem to be able to play on the memory and cache of the BSA and not showing what the current state of affairs may be.  Hardest information to find is how many youth are being served in actual units.  With the recent (and ongoing) rift with the UMC there has been no direction or input from the council.  Cast of many and cares of none

[SiouxRanger]

9 hours ago, fred8033 said:

You must be in a very small council.  

Formerly (3 years ago) a budget 5 times larger than now, and staff cut in half to about 8. Seems grim to me.

[1980Scouter]

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Pretty sure my council is a 100 level, assuming that is the larger ones.  SE base compensation is maybe $362K and total compensation is $622K.  That's a bunch.  4 others over $100K

Also the council now has 68 staff, but only 16 appear to be directly working with districts or Scouts (DE types).  

• 16 DE types
• 12 Program specialists / Scoutreach
• 9 Development staff
• 4 Middle Management
• 4 Camp rangers
• 13 Admin
• 3 Executive
• 7 Marketing

Really nice office that seems to be about 25% of the budget.  They continue to run the operation like a business in the 80's.  Top down management, very structured.  There was an issue at summer camp, the exec team was on a call, then they had another call, then they asked the camp director what he wanted to do, then they deferred and sort of left it open.  Nobody wants to make a decision, classic corporate problem solving.  That is they don't actually solve it and put their name on a solution.

No real leadership.  The council advice and direction during covid was nothing.  Massive marketing staff and not sure what they may actually be doing.

They continue to be successful at raising money, but their support for troops is non-existent.  They seem to be able to play on the memory and cache of the BSA and not showing what the current state of affairs may be.  Hardest information to find is how many youth are being served in actual units.  With the recent (and ongoing) rift with the UMC there has been no direction or input from the council.  Cast of many and cares of none

Wow and I thought my medium sized council was excessive at 250k for scout exec. and about 40 FT staff  (30 FT now). 

I agree councils are hiding the true enrollment number currently.  Many websites say data from 3-4 years ago before a 50-60% membership drop.

[fred8033]

11 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

Wow and I thought my medium sized council was excessive at 250k for scout exec. and about 40 FT staff  (30 FT now). 

I agree councils are hiding the true enrollment number currently.  Many websites say data from 3-4 years ago before a 50-60% membership drop.

Many believe the pandemic is a lull that will take a few years (5 to 10 to 20) to recover from.  It's like many business trying to plan for their long term size based on current levels.  ... Question will always be the long-term membership numbers.  We've been in 20 years of lawsuits.  There is a scouting future and it will include BSA if/when BSA can get past the legal / public relations issues.  

My question would be ...   Perhaps council charters should also have a line saying executive salaries will be re-adjusted if membership numbers drop.  ... example ... a scout exec should not earn half of council funds.   

Edited January 10, 2022 by fred8033

[vol_scouter]

16 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

But is leaves Councils flush with old money to fund salaries

There might be a few large metro councils that have such “old money” but I know of none.  The largesse that some believe lies in the local councils does not exist.  They are allowed to go forward and survive bankruptcy saving their core to mission assets.  There is not much more. 
 

 

[MattR]

National provides something else besides IP, they provide exclusivity. That means no competition for both youth and donors. Anyone can start a franchise if that goes away.

Think about @Jameson76's council under that change. Parents do like the idea of scouts but they might go elsewhere if the summer camp is more fun and less classroom. And what might the donors start doing with some competition? I think that might cause more fear to CE's. When push comes to shove, CE's probably need donors more than camps.

 

[Jameson76]

29 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

My question would be ...   Perhaps council charters should also have a line saying executive salaries will be re-adjusted if membership numbers drop.  ... example ... a scout exec should not earn half of council funds.   

Well, they did in fact try that, and it led to multiple membership scandals and the push for "inner city" scouting where they sign up youth in large groups and many do not even realize they are in the BSA

Did not end well for the councils and some of the professionals.

[Jameson76]

9 minutes ago, MattR said:

When push comes to shove, CE's probably need donors more than camps.

 

Agree.  When the UMC (and still is a charter issue lookin) challenge and with lack of direction from the council staff on recharter we assumed that the council ran / modeled the numbers and figured they could still be "Scouts" and maybe not worry about the pesky units out in the woods

No need to worry the donors about such trivialities

[fred8033]

8 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Well, they did in fact try that, and it led to multiple membership scandals and the push for "inner city" scouting where they sign up youth in large groups and many do not even realize they are in the BSA

Did not end well for the councils and some of the professionals.

I always though the membership number problems of the 1980s/1990s was marketing to FOS and United Way to get more donations.  I never connected that to CE pay.  

Metrics are important.  There must be the right metrics to review CE pay.  For example, common accounting requires reporting numbers a certain way.  Perhaps, membership dues revenue could be used as a factor toward CE pay.  

On the flip side ... business in turbulent times often have trouble with pay / salaries not being scaled right.

 

 

[Jameson76]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I always though the membership number problems of the 1980s/1990s was marketing to FOS and United Way to get more donations.  I never connected that to CE pay.  

Metrics are important.  There must be the right metrics to review CE pay.  For example, common accounting requires reporting numbers a certain way.  Perhaps, membership dues revenue could be used as a factor toward CE pay.  

On the flip side ... business in turbulent times often have trouble with pay / salaries not being scaled right.

 

 

The big one was Boypower Manpower that started late 60's early 70's.  Plan / stated goal was to have 1/3 of age eligible boys to be registered.  Much pressure on the professionals to "make the numbers".  I think Chicago Council was ground zero for all that but it was widespread.  Joke was that many units were meeting at the cemeteries as that was where the names for the registration came from.  The eventual correction of that debacle and ISP, the Improved Scouting Program, rollout in 73 pretty much decimated the membership rolls looking at 1980 compared to 1970.  Roughly a 32% drop

You are correct that the inflated numbers in the late 80's and 90, and even up to 00's was in order to position the program as larger than it was and garner more UW and more FOS local contributions.

[SiouxRanger]

49 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

in order to position the program as larger than it was and garner more UW and more FOS local contributions.

And, in my area at least, from United Ways. Grumbling among other local charities that they were being unfairly shorted because of United Way money going to service phantom scouts.

[RememberSchiff]

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

The big one was Boypower Manpower that started late 60's early 70's.  Plan / stated goal was to have 1/3 of age eligible boys to be registered.  Much pressure on the professionals to "make the numbers".  I think Chicago Council was ground zero for all that but it was widespread.  Joke was that many units were meeting at the cemeteries as that was where the names for the registration came from.  The eventual correction of that debacle and ISP, the Improved Scouting Program, rollout in 73 pretty much decimated the membership rolls looking at 1980 compared to 1970.  Roughly a 32% drop

You are correct that the inflated numbers in the late 80's and 90, and even up to 00's was in order to position the program as larger than it was and garner more UW and more FOS local contributions.

 

[vol_scouter]

I am assuming that CE means Council Executive by which folks mean the Scout Executive.  If my assumption is not correct, please let me know.  
 

Sometimes a Scout Executive comes to a local council and does well earning pay increases.  Also, it is customary for a SE who goes to another council will get a raise of about 15% if my memory serves me well.  Some SE’s are good managers, some good at program, and some good at development (fund raising). Few are truly expert in all three.  Also, each council has unique politics, history, and individuals.  A SE can do well in councils and move up to larger councils but might find that the Peter Principle makes them  less effective at some point in time.  That can lead to less desirable situations at some point in time.  Those SE’s seem overpaid though they may have been worth their pay before.  A very few are not so good.  Not unlike large businesses.  
 

The wealth that the TCC is not in many, if any, councils.  

[1980Scouter]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

I am assuming that CE means Council Executive by which folks mean the Scout Executive.  If my assumption is not correct, please let me know.  
 

Sometimes a Scout Executive comes to a local council and does well earning pay increases.  Also, it is customary for a SE who goes to another council will get a raise of about 15% if my memory serves me well.  Some SE’s are good managers, some good at program, and some good at development (fund raising). Few are truly expert in all three.  Also, each council has unique politics, history, and individuals.  A SE can do well in councils and move up to larger councils but might find that the Peter Principle makes them  less effective at some point in time.  That can lead to less desirable situations at some point in time.  Those SE’s seem overpaid though they may have been worth their pay before.  A very few are not so good.  Not unlike large businesses.  
 

The wealth that the TCC is not in many, if any, councils.  

For wealth, I will use my LC. They are contributing 6 million currently. They have 20 million in assets.  Some are restricted.  But at least 13 million is not. So they could give a lot more. It would likely require selling a camp but they have two nice ones.

If they lose the council office and a camp in addition to most of their endowment they still exist and have a camp and can continue on with liability released. By the way they have over 400 claims against them.

This is what it will take in my opinion to get the plan passed. They survive in the end but with less assets.