It strikes me that what you are building is more of a wikihow kind of site than a search engine like google.  A Scout wants to work on a badge, you'll have all the resources there and put together to enable the Scout to go through the process.

I see this as essentially just a modern interpretation of the Scout handbook and merit badge guides.  If someone in their 20's or 30's sat down from scratch to build Scouting, it is unlikely that they would write a 100+ merit badge guides.  Instead, they'd put them all online and have videos and more interactive content.  It just happened to be that when they invented Scouting, a small book make the most sense.  Today it doesn't.  That's not to say there isn't value in those resources - there is.  But, it's not the most obvious format for those materials today in 2020.

Just like a merit badge pamphlet could replace a counselor, so too could this.  But, it really doesn't have to.  The counselor needs to provide more value to the Scout than being just a teller of facts.  

19 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

The Boy Scouts of America,  EIN  22-1576300,  is legally classified by the Internal Revenue Service of The U.S. Treasury Department as a  "Charitable Organization" under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Accordingly, all donations to BSA are includable in "itemized deductions." by any itemizing taxpayer.  The most recent Revenue Ruling to that effect was in November 1965, and its charity status has not been challenged by the Service.

Let me clarify what I meant.

The the BSA is technically a charitable organization (a charity).  If one looks at the programs of the BSA, there are indeed attempts to provide Scouting to kids from families with limited incomes.  I know that in our council (which does charge fees), there are indeed programs to waive the fees for those that cannot afford them.

There are lots of charities out there that are targeted primarily at helping people with limited means.  Habitat for Humanity for example builds homes for people who cannot afford to buy one.  Scouting is just focused on working with kids regardless of income.  It's a subtle difference, but one that means that it is not always going to be inexpensive.  

My point on the fees is that the BSA could decide to focus on kids with limited means.  If they did, they'd need a different fee structure.  You cannot expect a family with little money struggling to make ends meet to start spending 40 or 50 dollars a month on Scouting.  As the BSA keep piling on fees they need to be cognisant of that.

I wish the BSA was more proactive in that regard, but they struggle to go beyond saying - "we have scholarships."  Again, I simply don't think the BSA professionals understand a path to grow Scouting in economically challenged areas. I'm sure there are many that would like to - I just don't think they know how.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

Peanuts

Atlanta Area Council SE base salary is close to $500,000.  Top Five folks in the staff of + 70 combined make over $1,000,000.  When you add in benefits, bonuses, etc the total for those 5 is closer to $2,000,000.

Nice work if you can get it I guess

 

NCAC:

Compensation of Leaders     (FYE 12/2018)

51 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

...who give big bucks to the council.  How much does an Execurive Board position cost in your council?

As mentioned in another post - people who are not on the Executive Board tend to have that perception.  But, in reality, I've seen that many Executive Board members are there through dedication to the organization.  In that time, they build networks within the council board that eventually leads to senior council board positions.  Some do this through the ability to generate donations for the council, others through being able to deliver results and have impact within the council.

I like to remember that whatever the group you're in, the people there need to like each other and be able to work together to accomplish something.  It's true of a troop, it's true of a council board.

35 minutes ago, David CO said:

Only the wealthy volunteers.

Respectfully, but that's not true at all in our council.

There's a bunch of folks on our board who do donor stuff.  They tend to be wealthy business types - but that largely is because they are the ones comfortable and capable of developing big donations.

There are a bunch of folks on our board who do program stuff.  They tend to be volunteers who worked their way up.  The VP of program types or prior District Chairs.  Most of these folks are accomplished enough, but they are not wealthy.  The didn't get these roles because of money, but because they could go into a room of Scouters and get them organized and deliver results.  Council boards need more of these people - but they are rare and usually are not interested in that level of involvement.

Can a council really declare bankruptcy so that they can pay into the settlement?  I'm trying to imagine how that works.

If a council doesn't have enough lawsuits to make them declare bankruptcy today can they voluntarily enter into a settlement that they cannot afford and then simply go bankrupt?  I'm guessing that they'd be more likely to dissolve the corporation and sell of assets and then allow another council to either purchase their assets or a new council to form.

On 9/14/2020 at 3:33 PM, CynicalScouter said:

I wanted to post this separately, because I think the idea of a liquidated National that no longer exists is about 0% likely. A crippled, hobbled, penniless shell? Yes. Total liquidation? No. And it is the congressional charter that may save it.

The Charter is currently codified as 36 U.S. Code Chapter 309 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/subtitle-II/part-B/chapter-309

It grants Boy Scouts of America perpetual existence. It provides the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America exclusive power to "use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."

The only recorded instances of congressionally chartered entities dissolving is where the entity's membership reaches zero. For example, when the last World War I veteran dies, so does Veterans of World War I of the United States of America, Incorporated

The same happened with the Grand Army of the Republic.

The odds that a bankruptcy court judge is going to order the dissolution of an entity that Congress has declared to be perpetual is about zero.

I would have to imagine an appeals court would overrule it anyways if they did.  I'm no legal scholar, but I cannot fathom a legal argument that bankruptcy reorganization could force the dissolution of the BSA if it is specifically codified as perpeptual.  You might liquidate all the BSA assets that are not otherwise protected by law, but somehow I think the BSA would still then own all the IP.

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Respectfully disagree. If they didn't learn when FOS donations started dwindling because of lack of service, what makes you think they will do any better when a mandatory fee is added? That is guaranteed money.

My council has had problems for over 20 years. They have lost all kinds of stuff: day camp registration forms and check, youth and adult applications, Popcorn checks and paperwork, advancement reports, eagle applications, ad nauseum. They have tried to blame the local post office, but even when things were hand delivered, the items at the office got lost. Long story short, because of my council's issues, FOS started dropping, and units no longer participate in popcorn sales.

Let me rephrase my point, competently run councils should learn.

Dwindling family FoS contributions are too easy to blame on a variety of factors - the DE didn't try hard enough, the district doesn't have enough volunteers, the unit leader isn't supporting the effort, etc.  Not contributing is something of a passive response.

Families and units revolting to fees is another.  If a family says - no, I will not pay, then that is harder to ignore.  A family saying, we are leaving because you are charging too much is harder to ignore.

I've no idea if councils will really listen- but they should be if they are paying attention.

2 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Question for a newbie to council politics: Who selects the Scout Executive who runs the Council? Is it some sort of council committee or is it a group higher up the chain? Is this a bottom up selection or is it top down?

Who selects the District Executive? A district committee or the council? 

If these are top-down decisions, then I highly think there is not much one can do to bring more accountability on behalf of customers. If it is bottom up, then many of us in the lower levels need to get involved beyond our local units. 

Despite what many here will tell you, volunteers do have tremendous sway that the council level. 

Many of these issues that we talk about here often result from people in council positions that simply just don't have the awareness to make the best choices.  I'm a bit of an optimist, but I generally find that people are trying to make the right decisions.  The challenge is that there are relatively few Scouters who progress from unit leader to the council level.  Because of that, boards are often a mixture of friends of board members (folks who travel in the board circuit) and a few long time dedicated volunteers. 

I think Scouting would be a lot better off if more unit leaders got involved at the district and then the council level.  Not so much because they'd blow up the council - but more so because they would be engaged in small decision after small decision and we'd see many more small decisions made with the unit leader or parent mindset in consideration.  As these small decisions start to accumulate, we'd see a culture shift in thinking at the council level.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

This is the same argument that James West and William Boyce had 100 years ago.  Boyce wanted to expand scouting to include working class boys.  West wanted to build a program that would appeal more to middle-class and white-collar households.  The executives have always wanted an elitist scouting program.  That's where the $$$ is.

I can't completely blame the executives.  Even in our troop it's more fun to go on high adventure trips and have lots of great gear.  Keeping the program economical is a choice - but there are certainly costs of that choice.  I've watched how units (and council) have scrimped to  save a few dollars on fees.  Then I'll get done, hop in the car, and grab lunch with my son for $20.  It takes a choice by people to know the potential of what could be, yet to continually work to do it in the most economical fashion.  I can see that there are many who say - "why do we work so hard to save money?"

I think it's easy to assume it's all about the money - but I think it's a lot more complicated than that.  Many who get involved in Scouting do so to have a great Scouting experience - not run a charity.  Again, I think we just need to reconcile that as a movement.  Are we a charity or are we not?

33 minutes ago, elitts said:

I agree about the council fee being more tolerable.  But that's If (and only if), they use those more stable funds to actually provide competent administrative and record-keeping services.  No more submitting MBC applications 3 or 4 times before they get processed.  No more taking 2-3 months between MBC list updates.  No more losing our Scouter's award requests or Insert other media taking 6 months to get them signed by the appropriate parties.

Paying $60 now vs $12 before and getting the same sort of shoddy service they've been providing would be intolerable. 

If they could do their annual budgets based upon like 85%-90% of those expected council fees (with the rest going into either a rainy day fund).  Then any funds still collected via FoS could be used for capital improvements and repairs to the reservations. (NOT council buildings, which is where ours decided to dump a bunch of cash)

Fully agree. In a weird way, I believe that council fees will be good for councils.  Those fee will force councils to have more accountability to their Scouts and families.  You won't be able to lose the MBC applications 3 or 4 times because people won't accept it.

However, there are three primary hurdles to this:

1. The challenge for councils though can be summed up in - "that they don't know what they don't know".  Most are small organizations of 15-30 professionals.  They have people who have lived most of their careers in the BSA system.  That registrar who is used piles of paper on his desk doesn't really understand what needs to happen to take this all online.  They are often inefficient because they do not know another way.  They can certainly be retrained, but barring real leadership it will be difficult
2. Most councils are trying to stem holes in their budget with these new fees.  Yet, the kind of service we are talking about requires them to devote a portion of those fees to that effort.  If a council has 10,000 scouts and they charge $48 a year, that is about $480,000 dollars.  That's a lot of money - but it's not transformative money.  A council in the 10,000 scout range probably has a budget in the range of $3,000,000-4,000,000.  So to completely revamp how the organization works for 15% of your budget will be a cultural challenge.
3. Because councils have been largely thought of as charities for so long, they funding side (fundraising) is disconnected from the spending side (program).  It is a huge culture shift to now need to tie funding to the quality of how resources are spent.  Until these new fees, a council could largely put up a picture of how great Scouting is an get a donor to write a check.  Now, with fees becoming a bigger part it's a very different conversation to the moms and dads who have to pay the dues.

@Cburkhardt - agreed.  In fact, I would favor a higher council fee to a higher national fee.  For example, I would not begrudge $60 a year to council, $20 a year to national.  That strikes me as an appropriate ratio.  Further, I have no issues with local units having varying degrees of fees.  A troop in a more affluent community certainly charge more and in return provide a different kind of experience than a troop in a lower income community.  

As has been pointed out, the problem with the various fees is that it is difficult to communicate the value one gets for those fees.  We sort of understand a national fee.  Someone has to write the manuals and pay for the insurance.  Today it just seems that the fee is too high for those items

Council fees are often difficult to communicate to families. 

• Yes, the council provides a camp - but usually a Scout pays for Summer camp and other council events.  Why does a family pay an annual fee if there is going to be yet another charge per event?
• The district is almost entirely staffed by volunteers.  It's unclear how that money helps them.
• The council provide a paid staff, but the value of that staff is lost on my Scouts and families.  Most Scouts will see a DE in passing maybe once or twice a year.  Why an idividual scout needs to contibute $15 or $20 to have a DE is not clear.

The core issue I see with council fees is that they were designed to provide a more steady income stream than FoS.  Yet, an FoS donation is very different than an annual fee.  Parents who are motivated will say - sure, I'll provide you some money so that the council can operate.  But, requiring a family to do the same is very different.  In my humble opinion, the councils need to shift the focus on fees such that they provide for clear, demonstrable value such as the removal of all program fees at the council level.

and district.

7 hours ago, yknot said:

The issue is not the monthly expense it is the perceived value. BSA does a terrible job of promoting value.

3 hours ago, David CO said:

No, I think it really is the expense.  1 out of 7 kids are raised in low income families on food stamps.  Poverty is a real thing.  

2 hours ago, yknot said:

How many of those kids realistically have ever been part of the scouting universe from the National perspective? A tragic mistake, because if scouting was living up to its own values, those kids would have been the target audience. But the corporate marketing reality is that they are not and never have been the goal. The market at least in recent decades has been families that want their kids to get to Eagle and are able to spend on on all the uniform and advancement permutations along the way. 

To me, "this" is issue.  The BSA doesn't really know what it is.  Is it a frugal activity for low income kids?  Is it a high cost activity for well off kids?  Is it both, is it neither?  I've got no idea and I doubt anyone else does either.  But, we all have an opinion on what it should be.

• If the BSA really wanted to market to lower income families, it easily could.  But, we would actually need to try.  We'd also need to stop doing things like spending money in ways that results in $66 to national and $48 to council.
• If the BSA doesn't want to worry about low income families, then just admit that and let's charge $250 a year per kid and move on.

But, the BSA needs to have a better fee strategy than it does right now.

3 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I was a Cub Scout and Boy Scout in the 80s.  I am entering my 4th year as an Adult leader.  I am pretty active outside of my Unit in that I know leaders from other Units, I know the DE, I am getting pretty familiar with the people in the Council office.  I can tell you exactly what our Pack dues will get you.  I am not sure I can sit down with a new parent and explain what the fees that go to National are used for.  As a parent, I am not sure what I send to National has any value.  

That's my problem nationally too.  As far as I can tell, I write a check for $66 per scout so that someone will update the various manuals, so that there is insurance should something bad happen, and some amount of money for a national marketing team.  I can't fathom that this is a $66 per scout cost.

5 hours ago, qwazse said:

Don't know about where you live, but eight buddies pitching in $15 can get a kid to some very sweet campsites in Western, PA. That includes filling their bellies with some quality ingredients -- possibly fresh eggs and milk if you're willing to pitch in and help the farmer/ranger with a project or two.

So, the calculus has become: pay BSA registration vs. go camping once a month.

I am honestly astounded that the parents in my troop think it's worth the price of admission.

We're talking different things here.

I started my comments in this thread saying that national needs to reduce fees.  I believe that $15-$20 a month for dues is too much - but mostly because there are many people we try to bring into the program who don't have the disposable income that others do. 

But, I think we have to be careful to not say it simply too expensive because in 2020 in the US, $15-$20 a month is pretty cheap compared to much of what we spend money on.  $15 to $20 a month is a bargain to some, to others a fortune. When we decry Scouting as simply too expense, we run the risk of loosing credibility because many people involved in the program do not believe it is.

I make no light of the expense here.  Scouting from the BSA is quickly becoming a middle class (if not upper middle class) activity.  

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here's what I found. https://www.scouting.org/about/annual-report/       2019   2010   Accounts payable and accrued liabilities   105,536,000   51,587,000   Gift annuities   7,099,000       Unearned fees and subscriptions   42,799,000   38,240,000   Notes payable including line of credit   224,517,000   112,203,000   Insurance reserves   234,845,000   70,050,000   Payable upon return of securities loaned   1,881,000   55,232,000

Fascinating - thank you.  It sure looks like the BSA has been taking on a lot of debt for some reason - the Summit I imagine. 

I'm not on to blame national for stuff - but I do think that national really ought to focus to get fees down and if these are in the way, national needs to restructure.  Hopefully coming out of bankruptcy whatever remains will have a significantly reduced need for a large national fee.  $66 a year to national, $48 to a council, and $100 to a unit is getting very expensive.  $15 or $20 a month for dues isn't a lot of money to some, but it's a lot of money to ask when you are trying to grow membership.  

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Never going to happen. They won't go backwards on this, much less to THAT extent. And financially, they can't.

2010 - $10 to $15
2014 - $15 to $24
2017 - $24 to $33
2020 - $33 to $60
2021 - $60 to $66

What's changed since the time of the $10 fee for national? Bankruptcy, potentially a BILLION dollars in liability, LDS leaving, membership collapse in general, insurance premiums skyrocketing, etc.

In 2010, the Cash and cash equivalents coming in was 42,127,000. In 2019 it was 198,914,000. Sounds great, right?

In 2010, total liabilities was 327,312,000. In 2019 it was 616,677,000 and that was DOWN from 645,360,000 in 2018.

There's no going back to $20.

 

 

Interesting analysis.

What was the cause of the significant increase in liabilities?

Another example of the inefficiency of the BSA structure.  

• $66 to pay for national
• $30 to pay for council

I don't mind that we have to pay, but $66 to national seems like a lot now that we have to pay council fees too.  Would be a good time for national to figure out how to get that to $20 a year per scout.

12 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

A Scout is Trustworthy.... but I might lie next time.  😂

That TDaP vaccine kicked my butt.  I spent the entire week feeling like I was running a fever, and couldnt make it but a few hours without a nap.  It was bad enough I scheduled a Covid test on Thursday evening that came back 'Negative".  I was sure I had something though.  I missed my orientation meeting this morning, still felt pretty weak and tired this morning.  Much better this evening, so I am hoping that is all behind me now.  

Course begins on Oct 9.

Sorry to hear you are not feeling well from the vaccination and missed the orientation.  I am sure that they will be happy to fill you in on what you missed.

Very exciting that it is less than 1 month to go.

14 hours ago, SSScout said:

The Patrol Method works, and it HAS to work without the interference of adults.  That is the problem with the New Scout Patrol.  Where is the continuity?  I was in THE Eagle Patrol for six years !     

We had this discussion in our troop too.  What we realized is that there are really two primary styles of patrols - mixed age patrols and same age patrols.  New Scout patrols are a logical extension of the same age patrol model.  Youth are grouped together by age, the start in a troop as a group, and they journey through Scouts together.  In many ways, it mirrors life for the youth.  This model has a tendency to promote a tighter patrol bond as the youth are together for the long haul.  They go through similar stages together, etc.

The mixed age patrol model is predicated on the notion that you've got older Scouts and younger Scouts in the same patrol.  This is good for having patrols who all have a similar level of capability.  It can do an OK job of creating friendships - but likely not as strong as a same age patrols.

New scout patrols are really only an issue who you try to use them with mixed age patrols.  Even there they are not necessarily a problem.  Scouts were not in the same patrol prior to joining the troop - so delaying that a year isn't the end of the world.  The benefit of them too is that in a mixed age patrol setting, it can be difficult to do all the checklist items in the earlier ranks.  Having some ability to work with those with other youth at the same age doing the same kind of things can be a positive.

Where this all becomes an issue is when adults haven't thought all this through and are not thinking of this from an aims and methods perspective.  

NIce post @Eagledad.  I didn't know that about WB - but I am not surprised. 

I think most leaders who attend trainings are earnestly trying to do the right things.  The paucity of leader training makes it difficult for leaders who do not instinctively know these things or who come from a troop that does not already have a strong patrol method culture.  Though folks like to blame WB, I think the real issue is that the BSA doesn't have an intermediate level Scouts BSA sequence of courses that cover these things. I would welcome a sequence of intermediate and advanced courses for unit volunteers that when complete allowed the Scouter to receive some special recognition.  Something equivalent to receiving your Wood Badge beads (or better yet even more prestigious) that signified that you are a Scouter who has been through a series of courses to learn all about how Troops work.  A sequence taught by the best Scouters in the council.

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

Actually I'm not proposing a federation of councils.  If the National Council of the BSA were to be dissolved, there are no more regions, areas, or councils as we understand them today.  What we call Councils today are independent Not-for-profit corporations licensed by the National Council (which in this scenario no longer exists) to deliver scouting.  Areas and Regions have no meaning outside of the national organization because they are ust amalgamations of Councils, which are now undefined.  Without National, there are just 270-odd NFP corporations scattered around the country that used to be licensees of the now defunct BSA, desperate to survive or merge.  

So let's assume the 270 NFPs are all given the BSA IP to use as their own.  This is where the Thunderdome really gets rolling.  Former boundaries are meaningless.  Former relationship to the BSA is meaningless.  The first mover gets the spoils.  It's not too hard to imagine the NFPs in TX and OK merging into a much leaner organization known as the Red River Scouts of America, recruiting all the units possible within their former boundaries to be part of their program.  Nearly all units agree because the RRSA owns the local rights to Eagle.  With a critical mass of scouts, the RRSA ultimately consumes/recruits all the NFPs all the way up through the Dakotas to deliver the RRSA program, ultimately changing it's name to the Great Plains Scouts of America.    In the northeast the same dynamic plays out with the formation of the New England Scouts of America around NY and points north, ultimately growing south through PA, MD, DE, and DC.  It's not hard to imagine 5 or 6 new independent regional scout organizations in the US that have limited incentive to cooperate/coordinate since they all have the same rights to the IP.  As the programs strengthen and diverge they'd start selling their brands across the country.

This scenario is effectively the Power-5 Football Conference model (humor me and let's leave B1G and Pac-12 in the mix for now).  You could argue that they submit to the NCAA so the scouting model would dictate a master organization.  But, I believe the scouting model would play out differently because 1) no national scouting organization is going to spread money around like the NCAA, and 2) each of the regional scouting organizations would have everything they need with regards to IP.

As for WOSM, it's an international bureaucracy that will go where the money leads them in order to perpetuate their existence.  They'd be recruiting the new regional organizations in the US, not the other way around.  Beyond that, WOSM has already set the standard for membership.  I'm going by what's on wikipedia, so take that into account, but that page lists 40 different scouting organizations in the European Region (again, roughly the same geographical size as the US or certainly North America).  According to the page of Liechtenstein, their organization only has 1,100 members.  The wikipedia page for WOSM member Scouts Ireland list 40,000 youth members.  So, Scouts UK already has relationships with a large number of small member organizations.  Admitting regional US scouting organizations as members would only be exceptional because of WOSM's Nationalistic bias.  And that assumes the US regional organizations even cared about WOSM at all.  My money says the GPSA tells WOSM to get off.

Now if the BSA IP goes to auction, we'll all be part of the LDS Scouts of America in the near future.  And Philmont would be open.  But, that's another thread.

Ahh - I see.  You're suggesting that the WOSM just sit back for 5 years while the councils realign themselves in that scenario.  I have to imagine that in this scenario it will be like the breakup of the Bell System.  In 20 years we'd be back to a handful of NFPs that have acquired all the others.  I can see how that works.

FWIW, I can't imagine the BSA IP simply being given away.  Perhaps councils band together to purchase it, but there is just about no chance the bankruptcy court says - hey you 270 NFPs you all get the share this IP that has monetary value.  But, to your other comment - that's a topic for another thread.

11 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

I love scoutbook for tracking advancement. Hopefully, the national council is dedicating significant resources to moving my.scounting.org functions over to this platform. Camping and service logs were perfect in scoutbook two years ago and I think the change made this year was a step backwards. If they need alpha testers, I can volunteer to do that.

I would be interested to know how technology is faring in the recent rounds of cutbacks.  I have to imagine that plans around Scoutbook will be severely curtailed at this point in time.

13 hours ago, David CO said:

Which is pretty much the same reaction most of the country had when the BSA bankruptcy was announced.  Scouting isn't as important to people as it used to be.

Scouting isn't what it once was, but it made national news for several days.  There are many millions of people with history with the BSA and it does have an emotional connection to many people.

An announcement by the WOSM might be lucky to get a mention in a "well that's cute" sort of way.

4 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Question is does the USA need a National scouting organization?  The EU countries are roughly the same geographical size as the US, roughly the same GDP, but with more population.  The EU has how many scouting organizations?  30ish?  Why not have the mega-councils referenced in this thread form individual organizations, give them all access to the BSA IP and let them innovate from there?  Use the RBOC Model.  They could all be part of WOSM.

I understand your point - I think you are defining a new Scouting model - a confederation of councils based on the same program and materials.  Maybe 50 or 100 different councils that all use the same program and function independently.  I would think that even if such a model were to occur that they would derive representation in the WOSM through a central organization.  From the WOSM website:

Quote

The purpose of WOSM is to promote unity and the understanding of Scouting's purpose and principles while facilitating its expansion and development. 

What would be the value to 50 or 100 local councils in the US to all join individually?  What would be the value to the WOSM?  Does Scouts UK really want to have individual relationships with a whole bevy of US councils?  I suspect not.

I expect that if 50 councils buy the IP rights of the BSA, they will create a small central organization to co-ordinate that work.  Place the international representation of the US based former BSA councils in that entity.