vol_scouter

The Churchill project was NEC directed with mainly NEB members and a few other volunteers. The professional staff had very limited input and were often asked to leave the meeting. It was about those things from intimate knowledge.

It is exactly the opposite. The NEB members and national committee members see their roles as important and take their responsibilities very seriously. Volunteers run the national council. Programs, policies, standards, etc are done by very involved volunteers - not professionals. They all feel very responsible for the youth members and the program.

That is why I explained the likely reason for the policy but did not defend it.

@CynicalScouter I agree with you that the BSA needs more transparency. It should be possible to find some sort of organizational chart and committee structure along with a method to contact the committee/board/professional etc. Perhaps there could be email addresses that are for those committees, etc but are not the main email for those. I imagine that this insular setup may have originated after Ben Love announced a policy on gays in the 1980's that resulted in death threats. The national office has a few characteristics to harden it for a violent attack. Professionals who have resp

Professionals have no vote on committees and serve as staff to the committee.

Perhaps there is a communication issue here. Local councils and the national council have an executive board that is nominated by a committee composed of only volunteers. From that large executive board there will be an executive committee selected so once again all volunteers. The executive committee numbers about ten to twelve (can be a few more or less) and constitute the officers of the corporation. The executive board and executive committee are selected annually in January. This is the meeting where chartered organizations have a vote. They can influence the executive boa

SEs are evaluated by their executive committee (EC). The EC is interested in membership and quality program. In order to achieve these, there needs to be enough money. So in an obtuse manner, development does affect the job performance of the SE. When there is an opening for a new SE for whatever reason (SE retirement, death, advancement, or leaving Scouting), the EC will discuss with the national council what the needs are: Old facilities need to be updated, poor program, membership loss or stagnation, or the development has not met the needs of the council. Whatever the council's n

@David CO DE’s are often hired away from the local councils to work less and get paid more. DE’s are often former Scouts who served on camp staff who are wanting to continue those experiences and it is their first job so have no experience to get better paying jobs. Teaching does not get paid what I believe that they deserve. Sorry that happened to you. I have never equated wealth with respect and doubt that I ever shall. My different careers were all wonderful and rewarding. Comparatively to others with similar good job. In today’s market, the amount paid DE’s and the amoun

So you too with a bachelor’s degree can work 60+ hours a week including nights and weekends, work to make volunteers successful while receiving no credit, and face the disgruntled parents and volunteers for about $40,000 a year.

Every year during our Friends of Scouting campaign, we have several groups. The group of the heavy hitters is approximately equal to the others combined. So make the brochures, slides, posters, or whatever it requires to make contact and convince them that Scouting is something that they wish to make a large donation.

So you would prefer that the CSE or others at the national service center should not try to entertain individuals who can each write checks for large amounts of money? Really?

The CSE reported income includes his budget for entertainment and other funds that is not personal income. Their actual salaries are less then half of that figure.

That is sad. Seems like many on this forum have problems at their local councils. People who are part of properly functioning councils are likely not here and posting. Knowing the upper management of the BSA, the NEC, and NEB as well as many committee members, the national council of the BSA is dedicated to the mission and vision statements that frequently are cited to help direct decisions. These men and women are dedicated Scouters just as they are on the local level.

How very true! Professionals and volunteers are all needed to provide a robust program and to maximize the number of youth in Scouting. The 'we' versus 'they' that we see on this forum is sad and counter productive. The same thing can be said of the national council versus local council. All want to provide a quality Scouting program to as many youth as possible - to meet the mission and fulfill the vision.

It is interesting to me as I read so many criticisms of local councils (LCs) and professionals. My ~25 LC executive board experience reveals a different look. Professionals primarily recruit and support program. Fundraising is a very small part of time for most professionals and, in those efforts, the professionals primarily are encouraging volunteers to make the contacts. In program, volunteers are responsible for all program but what happens if the volunteer fails? If the volunteer fails to do their job, then the professionals must do the job. When it is time to hand out accolades, the

That is simply not true. Generating more money does not increase the professional salaries. If you believe in the values of Scouting, then you want as many children to be in Scouting. To have more children requires more manpower (volunteers) and to provide quality program requires money. The idea of the three M's is to keep the needs of the Scouting in the minds of the professionals.

The BSA membership will rise throughout the year so 1 M is a better number.

Because the Program Committee members reviewed considerable evidence that children are selecting the extracurricular activities in kindergarten that they will do for the next several years and that this phenomenon is part of the reason that Cub Scouts membership was declining.

That is correct. 1,400 would seem to be an adequate sample size. Then all claims would need to be assigned an identification number (1 to 82,500). Then a pseudo-random number generator will select the 1,400. Whatever percentage of claims are found to be invalid will indicate the likely percentage of the entire group.

Her decision is completely reasonable and scientifically sound. The insurance companies designated subgroups that they thought might have a preponderance of invalid claims so that they might argue that many should be removed. My concern for this line of investigation in general is even if the insurance comapanies find widespread evidence of invalid claims, how does voting occur? Any complete evaluation of all claims will take too long and will financially exhaust the BSA.

Those suits are coming. Colleagues in those organizations are very concerned and are watching what happens to the BSA with great interest. The GSUSA may have a relatively low incidence because females are less likely to abuse children, especially girls so the GSUSA may not have as large a problem. The ineligible volunteer files provided a road map to potential clients for attorneys and the BSA is one of the larger organizations that made it first.

I have seen where the BSA has said 130 M and others have used 100 M.

We also have evidence that some claims may not be true. Whether that is one or many has not been answered but those will decrease that number. Once again, even if there are ten times the number reported, the incidence is less than 1%. It means that other organizations should be scrutinizing anyone with access to children.

I even used ten times that number and the incidence in Scouting is at least an order of magnitude less than peer reviewed published data on schools. None is definitive but there will never be a definitive study since all depend on reporting of events that are often suppressed. Please read the sequence of posts, I am not trying to justify anything other than all youth serving organizations should be scrutinizing everyone who has access to children. That was disputed but it is true.

Because papers have identified that 9.6% of school children are abused by graduation from high school whereas the identified number for the BSA is 130 M / 82,000 = 0.06% [Both numbers are fraught with problems but it shows orders of magnitude differences - even if there are ten times more victims in the BSA, the rate is still just 0.6%]. Sports are being revealed as are other organizations. The Southern Baptist Convention is dealing with reports of child abuse. I have colleagues in other youth serving organizations that are bracing for the same kind of lawsuits that the BSA finds itself now