Opposition to the Quivira Council $120 Program Fee

[PACAN]

Did I miss a policy change?  My understanding is that councils cannot add a council fee greater than the BSA registration fee currently $75.

 

 

[Eagle1993]

3 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Did I miss a policy change?  My understanding is that councils cannot add a council fee greater than the BSA registration fee currently $75.

 

 

Agreed, but They said that limit doesn't apply to them.  Other councils are already getting around this limit as well.  Sounds like that limit is meaningless.

[PACAN]

No it means National has no power over councils.  🤨

[mrjohns2]

1 minute ago, PACAN said:

No it means National has no power over councils.

It is a failure of leadership on national’s side. I bet they haven’t even challenged it. 

[RememberSchiff]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Agreed, but They said that limit doesn't apply to them.  Other councils are already getting around this limit as well.  Sounds like that limit is meaningless.

From  https://quivira.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2023/05/Program-Fee-FAQ-5-4-23.pdf

• Although collected locally, the annual BSA fee of $75 per youth and $45 per leader goes entirely to the
National Council. These national rates will significantly increase this fall. Conversely, every dollar of the
proposed Program Fee will stay within Quivira Council to support essential services, background checks for
leaders, program development, training resources, youth protection and safety, improved IT/digital
experiences, deferred maintenance for QSR and services for our Chartered Organizations.
• It should be noted that Quivira is not the only Council to introduce local Program Fees. Councils in Des
Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Tulsa and Oklahoma City have already established a Council Fee and are
discussing further increases.

Des Moines, Mid Iowa Council 

2023 Program Fee:

Youth:  $75 National Registration, $15 Scouts’ Life subscription (optional) , $96 MIC Program Fee, $186 Total or $15.50 per month

Adult:  $45 National Registration, $15 Scouts’ Life subscription (optional), $87 MIC Program Fee, $147 Total or $12.25 per month         

2021 Program Fee

Youth:  $66 National Registration, $12 Scouts’ Life subscription (optional) , $102 MIC Program Fee, $180 Total or $15.50 per month

Adult:  $42 National Registration, $12 Scouts’ Life subscription (optional), $90 MIC Program Fee, $144 Total or $12.25 per month         

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by RememberSchiff
typo

[curious_scouter]

These fees are out of control.  There's no transparency or justification.  They bring no value to units or Scouts/Scouters. 

In an age where Scouts BSA is purportedly emphasizing DEI these fees  put Scouting out of reach for many.  It boils my blood. 

[SNEScouter]

3 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

They bring no value to units or Scouts/Scouters. 

I disagree.  Every council is different, and I'm sure all councils can do better.  However, council employees are necessary to train leaders, implement programs,  and supervise and support units.  They do not work for free.  Personally I'd rather pay a fee than deal with Friends of Scouting presentations.

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

council employees are necessary to train leaders, implement programs,  and supervise and support units. 

Training... done by volunteers

Programs (except Summer Camp)... planned and done by volunteers

Supervise units??... Unit supervision is done by unit volunteers

Support units??... done by Commissioners, when they exist.  Council support to units comes in the form of Registrar functions, and local Scout Shop... both of which could be done at the national level by adopting technology.

Additional fees are tacked on to Training courses, to help fund council employees

Additional fees are tacked on to programs (camporees, merit badge colleges, University of Scouting, etc.), to help fund council

Guess who did the legwork for each of the last seven years to get our Annual Charter Agreement finished and turned in?  I did.  Most of that time, we have had no DE.  Many units are operating with no charter agreement for several months after recharter, until someone at council gets around to correcting the deficiency, and back-dates the Charter Agreements.  I call that playing with fire, liability-wise.

 

[DuctTape]

Is their a "dollar" breakdown for budgets from National and Councils?

Like, "from each fee dollar, here is where it goes...

45cents to....

15cents to...

15 cents to...

10cents to...

10cents to...

5 cents to...

"

 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, SNEScouter said:

I disagree.  Every council is different, and I'm sure all councils can do better.  However, council employees are necessary to train leaders, implement programs,  and supervise and support units.  They do not work for free.  Personally I'd rather pay a fee than deal with Friends of Scouting presentations.

If your pros are doing some of this still, you are lucky.

Last time I saw a pro involved with training was 12 years ago, and he was assisting me because I needed a 2nd trainer for a break out session.

Last time I saw a pro at a district program event, besides roundtable, was 8 years ago. Usually when they get involved, they screw things up. I had camporee dumped into my lap with 3 months notice because of DE interference causing the person to quit..  I quit running events because the DE screwed up the supply order so badly, I ad to get supplies locally and more expensive, going over budget because of them. Since most pros have little to no experience, they really do not know what they are doing.

Now I saw a DE attempt to implement a program, they created the event after the Cub Scout packs stopped meeting for the summer and with 3 weeks notice. In the middle of summer with troops going to summer camp, she  tried to recruit volunteers. When no one signed up, they blamed the volunteers. That was last summer. 

As for supervising and supporting units, they do not in my area. 

Much different now than when I was a DE. I do not see value for my pros.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

I have a strategy/philosophy question.

Why do various subunits of BSA own so much property in the first place? (That needs maintenance and general expenditures.) Why don't we just use public lands, tents, and our own two legs (and maybe a paddle)?

[malraux]

46 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I have a strategy/philosophy question.

Why do various subunits of BSA own so much property in the first place? (That needs maintenance and general expenditures.) Why don't we just use public lands, tents, and our own two legs (and maybe a paddle)?

Land was much cheaper back when councils got these locations, plus summer camps which are a major element of most councils require dedicated space.

[InquisitiveScouter]

43 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I have a strategy/philosophy question.

Why do various subunits of BSA own so much property in the first place? (That needs maintenance and general expenditures.) Why don't we just use public lands, tents, and our own two legs (and maybe a paddle)?

Much of the land was donated.  And often, much of the infrastructure.  Many of these properties  were given in perpetuity for use of Scouts or with some other type of restrictions or directed donation.  I have heard anecdotes from Scouters across the country relating instances where councils have sold properties under such restrictions, after waiting a few decades until people forget or donors have passed away, but I have never seen such restrictions in writing on a deed in order to verify those claims. 

Can anyone here provide concrete examples of that practice?

This type of restriction is also said to be on the deeds to Philmont.  Again, I have never seen them, and the OA site mentions only some minor stipulations... https://oa-bsa.org/history/waite-phillips

The Waite and Genevieve Phillips Foundation did file with the bankruptcy court to be given all documents in the bankruptcy, ostensibly to protect their interests in Philmont:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/839320_1093.pdf

[SNEScouter]

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I have heard anecdotes from Scouters across the country relating instances where councils have sold properties under such restrictions, after waiting a few decades until people forget or donors have passed away, but I have never seen such restrictions in writing on a deed in order to verify those claims. 

Can anyone here provide concrete examples of that practice?

I'd be a little surprised if councils just "waited until people forgot" to then sell land with transfer restrictions.  Buyers and their title insurers generally make sure they are getting good title before paying real money for land.  But it is common for councils to try and transfer such land and, if necessary, to seek court approval under what is known as the "cy pres" doctrine.  I've run into that on several occasions.  People tend to donate small, low-value parcels to councils and impose transfer restrictions on them.  It becomes a burden rather than a benefit, so it often makes sense to get rid of the land via sale or donation to a land trust, for example.

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

  I have heard anecdotes from Scouters across the country relating instances where councils have sold properties under such restrictions, after waiting a few decades until people forget or donors have passed away, but I have never seen such restrictions in writing on a deed in order to verify those claims. 

I know one council in TX was using a camp that was owned by a trust. The SE was able to convince the trust to transfer the deed to the council outright, which they did. Within 6 months, the camp was sold. 

In another council, the PTB waited until certain donors passed away before securing permission from the sole survivor to sell the camp.