Forums

Lose the bloated jobs... save the camps.

Correct. This is correct. The fundraising is supposed to go towards funding program and training; however, so much is being spent to just subsidize professional salaries. We absolutely have the technology to eliminate councils. We have to do a 360 analysis and realize that we could easily get rid of 100 or more councils. 

We have the technology to eliminate most of what paid professionals at councils do now. And, I have been thinking about this a lot lately... what SHOULD council do for units, other than provide program opportunities that units cannot get (easily) on their own?  Shooting sports (SORRY!! Range and Target Activities), higher level aquatics (sailing , kayaking, canoeing, rowing, lifesaving), and climbing.... You do not need swimming pools. (Although they are helpful.)  But you do need a safe swimming hole You do not need dining halls. (I would submit these are actually detrimental to the skills needed for outdoorsmanship and campcraft .)  Scouts should be cooking for themselves. You do not need hot showers. (Although they are nice.)  Scouts should learn field hygiene and sanitation. You do not need flush toilets.  (Although they are nice, too.)  See above.  I would admit that, due to the number of people you'd like to access your camp, that pit toilets would be a most helpful concession.  And local laws may be prohibitive in many places... Heck, you do not even need running water.  (But you do need a potable water source, which could include bringing your own.) You need a patch of decent ground or woods.  Imagine how easy and cost effective this would be if we did not have all that infrastructure.  A local council should have a good sized camp to provide access to the outdoors. It really isn't that difficult to live under canvas for a week.  When BP said "A week of camp life is worth six months of theoretical teaching in the meeting room" he was not talking about the monster of summer camp merit badge mills we have created across the country.

I would expect that response as I have heard it before. If the claim is fundraising is necessaryto provide service to the units, there should still be a measureable service to the units as a result. Fundraising may be a means, but it is not the end. The metric for success is the ends; service to the units. If this metric is not met, the funds raised are not being used, or used improperly.    I would be happy to go toe-to-toe with any council executive.

Yes, it does release national from liability.  "Doing something you are not trained to do" translates into negligence, specifically when you cause harm and you had a duty of care for the youth. To date, national has provided a legal umbrella over volunteers, or included them in settlements, in many civil actions.  National is not going to defend you in criminal cases, of course.  (Or civil cases resulting from criminal acts... sexual abuse, for example) However, in the last few years, I have asked some Council Executives their thoughts on this matter.  Most have expressed the thought that National's (and councils') patience is running thin with leaders who act outside the scope of the program or training, and injury results.  (See numerous stories on lightning deaths and the resultant lawsuits...) But, they also know that the day National (or a council) walks away from a volunteer, there will be a mass volunteer exodus, and the program will surely fail.