vol_scouter

5 hours ago, MattR said:

Sorry, but I'm still stuck on the million dollar building. I went to the county records to see how much our council office is worth because it is not anywhere close to a million dollars. It is a very old house that had some interior walls moved around.  Anyway, it's worth roughly $1000. Five years ago it was about $2000. Sounds more like the principle on a loan but this is the county property records. Using the gis tool I found it's wedged into a corner of a city park that's worth over $12M. I suspect it used to be the caretakers house for the park.

Anyway, I still don't understand the need for a big scout office.

More importantly, I don't think the size of the office nor the size of the council is nearly as important as the people that are hired and their motivation. Hire good people, give them the motivation to make a quality program (as opposed to getting gold epaulets) and let them figure out what's needed.

 

I cannot quite picture an office building worth only $1000.  I was looking at four season tents and good ones are $600 - $800.   Our council service center cost several hundred thousand to build in the 1990’s and is now worth more than a million or so.  The council is building a new mess hall that is far more than a million dollars.  So I think that a million dollars to build a Scout service center would be a rock bottom price. 

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Yeah, I don't believe it.  Units recruit.  District execs start new units and support unit recruiting.  Councils fund raise, plan and advertise summer camps, etc.  Councils are extremely valuable, but the concepts of the past need to be rethought and resized.  

Scouts BSA units recruit from Arrow of Light units in nearby Cub Packs.  Cub packs usually have professionals who do most if not all of the recruiting.  Cub Scouts provide the overwhelming majority of all Scouts BSA.

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Administratively, districts could provide the face-time; as they do now.  Beyond that, the key face time is in the unit.  

The council does the recruiting, starting new units, assures that there are events (such as camporees), and organizes and operates summer camps.  Without those efforts, Scouting becomes a very small and limited hobby for few.  If you believe that the values taught in the Scout Oath and Law help young people become better adults (as research demonstrates), then it should be available to all youth.  
 

Councils are crucial to Scouting.  Volunteers are absolutely necessary as it cannot occur without them.  However, professionals provide much of what makes Scouting fun and memorable. 
 

34 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Several years ago, an adjacent rural council raised the funds to construct a beautiful, large Scout center at its primary camp that was the envy of the area. It featured a nice Scout shop, conference and training rooms and and offices. Beautiful setting. However, it was an hour or more away from the major population centers,  Few volunteers wanted to make the drive there for meetings or supplies.  Its remote location meant that it was invisible to most of the community. A council merger with a shift of primary camps was the final blow. Within a fairly short period of time, it was abandoned and bulldozed due to a lack of utilization and the cost of upkeep.

The TCC concept of forcing council offices to camps will not be workable.  The council needs offices in the population center of the council.  

1 minute ago, MattR said:

Our camps are mostly located in rather desolate areas. No cell service or internet at most. Also, most scouts live closer to scout offices than camps.

 

You are so correct.  Not to mention that camps do not have office buildings so you are going to make a cash strapped council build office buildings and take on another million or more dollar debt. 

Councils have an annual outside audit that is presented first to the executive committee and then to the executive board.  We peruse the audit reports carefully and discuss anything that needs explanation or justification.  
 

Having a single council for some small, northeastern states might work though the board members in the areas immediate to the council offices will dominate all other areas. We see that in our medium sized council.  There is much gnashing of teeth from those not in the central part of the council.  
 

People need to work together in person at least some of the time as we are social animals.  My state is several hours from end to end.  In person time would not be possible.

Small councils might need help but enormous councils are not the answer to better Scouting.

16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Minor updates to plan

df1f7288-a10b-4167-94ec-63699a871e04_8567.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

The interesting section is where councils have changed contributions (look at the blackline).  For example, Denver is now contributing $6M of cash vs a $6M property.  Other councils lowered cash and added property (Heart of New England, Northeast Illinois, etc.).

It was left up to each council on how to fund the proposed contribution to the trust.  Our council’s original plan had also been changed.  The total does not change only how it is to be paid.  

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The reality is that BSA has far too many councils.   Just as they restructured regions and areas they will need to cut councils down.  
 

I have no issue paying a SE a large amount if he/she does a great job and grow scouting in their area.  I get emails from several different councils.  From the program offerings to the user expect of the message parents see vastly different versions of BSA.  Hopefully when there are mergers, BSA identifies the well run councils and has them take over some of their neighbors. 

Since the local councils are independent, they must be convinced to merge.  It is usually a difficult process but it has happened since the early days of the movement.  If the BSA emerges from Chapter 11, it will not have the number of staff needed to convince councils to merge.  It takes months of time with people leading it from National or, better, the local leadership of the two councils. 
 

Personally, larger councils are not necessarily better for serving the needs of the volunteers.  Perhaps, it would be better to develop training for councils and their executive boards and committees about how to run a council.  My council is not perfect but it does not have the severe problems that some have.  Let’s build more functional councils. Build executive committees with some current in the field volunteers and some really good business executives to balance the needs of the councils.  Recruit some great program people and then add members to take advantage of the program.  
 

Some councils might be beyond resuscitation, especially after they pay into the trust (should that happen).  In general, I think that the energy should be around making existing councils better rather than the contentious process of mergers.  

18 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Nobody  cares.  Sell.

 

They ARE threats.

I do not know anyone who responds with sympathy to threats.  Threats raise hackles.

BSA National, before filing bankruptcy, had the absolute BEST data on the number of abuse cases alleged against unit leaders, scout youth, local councils, chartering organizations, and so on.  And all the details thereof-National insisted that all council files on abuse cases were sent to National.  And BSA National, in light of, or in reliance on, that knowledge, filed a Chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy.  BSA National lit the fuse on the bankruptcy rocket.

"They" being National?  Well, my understanding is that National does not "ask" Scout Executives.  National "directs." Probably subtly, but if a Scout Executive does not follow National's "company line" that Scout Executive does not get promoted-his/her career stagnates or crashes.

Consider, that 238 councils, more or less, all fell in line to contribute to the Settlement Trust the amount that National set as the local councils' contributions. And why was that so?

"Local Councils are independent corporations," says National.  Who believes that?  If local councils are truly "volunteer run" and independent, in order to obtain a 100% council compliance with National's Settlement Trust contribution "request," a majority of the board members on each and every council board would have to vote to approve the "contribution."

I do not know the specifics, but I know the process and can make reasonable assumptions and inferences from the limited information available.

So, what likely happened, is that the Scout Executive advised the Council President that National had set their council's contribution and the Executive Committee (a subset of the Executive Board-much smaller) approved the contribution amount.  The full Council Board, many there for resume building, just went along, or perhaps were only told after the event. Or never told.

National abhors nothing more that its lack of control.

Like the lead bird in a flock of starlings, when National turns, the whole flock turns in unison. 

The local councils formed an ad hoc committee that has a system for representation of the various sizes of councils.  That committee took the requested contribution and developed a complex method that takes into account the number of claims, the statute of limitations for those claims (if any), the financial viability of the council, and the funds that the council could contribute.  This process has been very secretive with local Scout Executives not knowing any details.

Once a council-by-council contribution was determined, all ~250 council Executive Boards met totally independent of other councils and national to develop a strategy to find the funds requested.  It is my understanding that all the councils approved their requested amount though I cannot confirm that.  All local councils are independent 501(c)3 corporations and operate so.

17 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Well, the local councils are in a horrible situation, just now with National STILL HERE, so if National goes away...?

And National DECREES to local councils, does not "ask."

 

National can 'decree' some things such as the requirements for Eagle and HR issues.  On other issues, National advises or asks.  The relationship between the national council and the local councils is very misunderstood.

19 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

I would argue the physicians did not desire or even know how to do the work of the lower paid staff. And, as you said, it was temporary. Some of those staff might have preferred to collect the state and federal unemployment for awhile too! 

SE’s are fully capable of doing a program or executives jobs as required. However, a DE or a office assistant is not remotely qualified to do the job of a SE.

As a physician, I must disagree.  Though some accounting processes would be challenging without a crash course, I could do all the other office jobs except laboratory technician for those practices that have one as certificates are required.

20 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

And what Council is this?

Poor leadership in my opinion.  Cut some staff and reassign some responsibilities if needed. Cut some staff and services as needed. Don’t work for less than you have earned and deserve.

Name another business that does that. That council will merge with another when the dust settles.

Districts are expected to serve a certain number of youth, units, and be financially sustainable. If not, cut the position and leave it open, or merge districts. Don’t take away a person’s income and personal self worth. 

Scout executives salaries are set by the local board and council salaries are based on classification which is a reflection of membership, units, funding, etc. Everybody is on a 30 day notice contract, so I suppose a salary could be adjusted at end of year. But again, if membership drops to nothing, the SE should be the last to go. You let go district executives and office staff first and adjust.

The council is well run and did layoff staff as well as not filling some professional jobs.  No professionals were laid off - that was the plan.  It was better to have a one year pay reduction than to lose one's job.  Our council is one of the healthiest in the region and will not be merging unless this RSA is rejected.

8 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Nope...but haven't asked either.  Anytime I ask anything about council finances, it is viewed as aggressive and sinister, which it is not.

When you ask me for money (donations), I want to know it is being spent well and rightly.  If you hide everything from me, you don't get my money.

I have heard of several. My council’s SE took a sizable pay cut as did the professionals.  There has been no public releases because they do not wish to garner attention. They feel that they are doing their duty.  

6 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Perhaps safer then when the BSA employee was abusing us back in the 70's.  I would hope so.  But it is not meaningfully safe to put boys in isolated situations with men.  So maybe we should start there.  No one on one in non-public settings.  Ever.  Period.

That has been the policy for many years now.  No one on one contact between an adult and a youth ever.  It extends to phone calls, text messages, and emails as well where ideally a parent is included or at least another volunteer is copied on the communication or is present on the phone call.  

A Scoutmaster conference is to be held in a corner of a room with other Scouts and Scouters around, so a youth who is uncomfortable may signal to others or a volunteer can investigate a youth who looks concerned.

The best thing that happened with enforcing the policies was empowering the volunteers to know what should happen when policies are violated and how to report such activities.  

The best way to improve the concerns about adult on youth abuse is to continue to educate all volunteers and parents while punishing those who violate policies.  Youth on youth is more difficult and requires more typing than the time that I have right now.

Finally, regular thorough reporting to the council SE and EB should become a part of the program.

@Eagle1993  So do you think that the 22 February hearing will provide an indication of the resolution of the case?

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.  

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. 
 

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.

1 minute ago, mrjohns2 said:

I don't think unit dues are frowned upon. They are separate, but not frowned upon. 

In clarification, unit dues are frowned upon only if part of registration - it is desirable make it clear what is required for registration and what are dues.  However, national does not try to prevent the two from being bundled.

2 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Maybe that would be a good thing to have scouting authority vested in the locals, a federation of local councils under a new banner. ..Scouting USA with strict oversight of its operations regarding child protection by outside, independent monitors. 

A better and more strict youth protection program is more feasible in the current structure rather than a federation of local councils dominated by the largest councils.  Scouting would no longer be the same everywhere because the authority to have one set of requirements would be replaced by local variations.  My opinion is that it would be a far less desirable situation than now.  However, these lawsuits will not end the movement - Scouting will go on.

Just now, Muttsy said:

Perhaps but are they viable without the BSA brand? Isn't the BSA IP critical to the locals? How do you recruit in schools, seek community support find organizations to sponsor troops, fund raise. I'm not seeing how that is a viable strategy from a financial perspective. 

That certainly would make things challenging but the volunteers are determined to continue to serve youth.  There is much public support, and I could see the councils surviving though it will be challenging.  At least the executive board on which I serve will want to go forward.

2 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Again, what about this little hiccup?

I did not say that, but the local councils are separate 501(c)3 not for profit corporations who are in the business of out of school child development.  My feeling is that they will continue with their mission without a national council or charter but will not be able to use BSA registered intellectual property.  They can continue to have camps, fund raise, have units and outdoor activities.  Just because the BSA no longer exists will not make them go out of business.

Another point of clarification, until just recently (last 1-3 years), all registration fees went directly to the national council with none going to the local council.  Some units (packs, troop, crews, ships, etc) collect some extra that remains in the unit, but it is frowned upon.  Summer camps, camporees, and fund-raising supplies the local councils with operating funds.  Loss of summer camps could be a death blow to some councils.

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

My understanding is the LC execs salaries are paid by National. Is that wrong? If true, who pays those salaries when BSA liquidates? Do the locals have the cash flow to pay those salaries and benefits with BSA gone? Under what authority do the local councils have to continue to operate absent the charter from National which will be defunct?

The local councils set and pay the Scout Executive salary and benefits as well as for the entire staff.  There is a single HR department for the BSA so that retirement, health insurance, and other such benefits allow a large group for purchasing power.  Phone allowances, expenses, travel, any transportation allowances are handled and paid locally.  

The BSA has pay bands for positions that the local executive boards are to follow, and they usually do, but not always.  Local executive boards run the local councils.

There have been policies regarding the procedures for handling child abuse and other issues.  The Scout Executives have considerable ability to remove a volunteer from Scouting.  There is an appeals process that involves regional level volunteers, but most appeals are not successful from my understanding.

@Muttsy  Since the mid 1990's. I have served on the Executive Board of my local council and for part of that time was a member of the Executive Committee.  During the nearly 30 years, never has a child sexual abuse case been a topic, discussed, or otherwise been a part of the meeting.  The BSA Chapter 11 has been and still is with the issues being discussed only in the aggregate.  Never have I been in discussions concerning a particular case of child abuse.  We have not tried to conceal assets or make shells to shield them.  From my chats with others across the country, my experience is the norm rather as the only exception of which I am aware is the Middle Tennessee Council as has been discussed.  Note that I am not claiming that it might not have happened in other councils but that I have not heard about it.   Scout Executives and Executive Board members tend to be risk adverse in such matters.

My prediction is that the local councils, Scout Executives, and Executive Board members will stay and fight in every legal way possible.  They will argue that the Scout Camps are core to the mission of the not for profit and the office buildings are likewise needed to deliver the mission.  My feeling is that the attorneys will make a lot of money on both sides of the courtroom but that the claimants will benefit little from separating the local councils from the BSA Chapter 11.

For those who are knowledgeable:  Is the TCC attorneys paid only by the BSA while the case is tried?   In other words, do they get a percentage of any settlement?

If they do not get part of a settlement, then there is no incentive for them to end the case.  Driving the BSA into chapter 7 would maximize their profit.