BSACompass

Beavah and Slouchhat (read my arguments as a debate, not as personal attack - I am glad there is a forum to have exchanges like this and I would bet someone else in the upper echelons might be reading them as well),

First, Beavah, I've never seen "Canadian" written out - and I am assuming you are Canadian - or maybe northern Minnesotan? But, I'm getting better at it, eh? (smiley face thing)

I thought Eduardo was Missoni, my mistake.

70% constitutes the percentage of NSO's by membership that aligned with the BSA to protest the WSB's actions. Re-read the threads and you will see this figure.

I know Picarquin was where they held the WSJ in 1999 - so having a center there is logical - but it looks poorly managed and putting casinos around it is crazy. Picarquin is draining funds away from the Interamerican NSO's, (BSA is a part of the Interamerican NSO's) and some of the South American countries need more support than having the money sucked up by Picarquin.

If we compare the WSB and the UN - these committees, directors and other groups (NGO's in UN parlance) get empowered, go off on a tangent and cannot be reeled back in by democratic means. If you look at the WSB's inability to produce a budget AFTER the fiscal year gets started (for two years running nonetheless), no amount of "working through the channels" would have made a difference. Moreover, can we assume that the BSA didn't try to "do it the WOSM way" for years and it wasn't working? I imagine they also tried their "political" connections with other NSO's, but the horse was already out of the barn so to speak.

That is why decrying BSA tactics is such a "knee-jerk reaction". We can say that the BSA acted improperly, but none of us knows that they didn't try everything that we have accused them of not doing. This presumes that the BSA always acts like the bully, but I am not aware of any other time where the BSA has taken such extraordinary means to reel in this unnecessary spending.

There is a strong similarity between the behavior of the UN and the WSB in making sure the top brass has all the amenities, rather than understanding their role as leading by serving. The Scouting movement is a peace movement and peace is best acheived by individual citizens and Scouts serving their fellow citizens and building a stronger society with stewardship leaders at the helm. Like the UN, the WSB thinks they need a stronger central government because the NSO's are incapable of helping themselves even with the right resources. This is an elitist view just like the UN. That is what I perceive in this whole exchange between the BSA standing up for those NSO's.

As soon as the BSA advocated for the NSO's - I am certain that Mr. Perry knew there would immediately be charges of "bully" tactics - its what the BSA and the US have come to expect. We want your help, we want your money - just don't question how we spend it.

BSA Compass

So, if the biggest guy on the block BSA wants to protect the little guy (developing NSO's)so they can have great Scouting, but the "man" wants to spend money on lavish offices and projects that waste money to the detriment of those that need it most - it is a bad thing?

Didn't say my own opinion one way or da other, BSACompass. Just tryin' to make sure we all don't ignore Eduardo and Volker while sittin' on our American High Horse.

I was asking a question, not making an accusation. BSA didn't ignore Eduardo and Volker, they ignored the will of 70% of the WOSM - again, I don't understand the whole unilateral thing - 70% - you like to ignore that figure. Most 70% votes in the UN are against the US - in the WOSM, it was 70% with the US - clearly NOT an "American High Horse".

Yeh gotta mix into the soup the understandin' that in a lot of European Scouting, Scout Centers figure far more prominently than they do here. Every troop has a chunk of land and its own scout center building in some countries. That's how scouting is done. Here in the U.S. our equivalent is probably camps. And we never get protective and possessive of our camps, even when they are losin' money, do we?

But when the scout usage is 7% as it was in Picarquin - who is really using it the Scouts, or everyone else? Any even with everyone else using it - it was STILL losing money. We close our camps when they lose money or figure out a way to make them profitable.

I think the Scout Centers were an OK thing to try, eh? Just like a big camp or like Philmont, offer a regional resource that troops from countries in those regions can go to as a "mountaintop experience." Plus, make 'em available for rental by other youth programs. We do that camp rental in the U.S. with scout camps a bit, but it's far, far more common in the rest of the world. Of course, we had Philmont just given to us, so we didn't actually have to build it da way WOSM has to.

We don't do outside rental during summer camp - YPT is the main reason. Don't want outsiders, we have to trust people or another group of attorneys will be ready to pounce on us. Lots of libs in the US would love to see us go away - no doubt about that.

Which do we do here in the U.S., BTW? Do we fund Scout Centers with our BSA dollars (Philmont, Seabase, Irving etc.)? Or do we provide direct aid to needy troops and programs? I think if we're honest we'll admit we act a lot like da WOSM model - our FOS contributions go to funding Scout Centers (council offices and camps), not individual troops in need (ScoutReach excepted). Our National fees go to funding Irving and the Regional offices and national centers, not needy councils in poor areas (at least not very much). And I'm not sure any of us could call BSA finance and decision-making "transparent."

I have been involved at the council level and I think we are transparent because we have volunteers sandwiching our professionals. If I want to see the councils budgets, they provide them. What do you think they are hiding anyway? Our new council office is being built by trustee fund raising. Our council is certainly blessed with great benefactors. I would like to see more sharing between councils, but for now the council is the business unit in the BSA. Geography is a problem for sure. How do you serve rural areas effectively? I just don't understand all the mistrust of the BSA - if the structure was that flawed, I'm sure the board of trustees would fix it - but right now we are just trying to survive the culture wars.

All that havin' been said, I supported Mr. Perry in this, eh? I think da BSA and Sweden made a good case, and there were some reasons to act in a timely fashion to avoid throwin' good money after bad. Of course, I'm an American culturally . But I admit we did pull a "California secedes" kinda thing, eh? That's not da best way to make friends or support democratic institutions. Just look at Quebec, eh?

I don't look at it that way, I think the BSA exhausted all other means and was left with no other choices. I don't know who influenced Mr. Missoni to continue these unpopular pursuits (70% against), but he didn't see the need to change course and when you're headed for an iceberg, it's probably better to get someone as the wheel who sees it coming.

We've got a lot of fences to mend, and we should bear the financial burden for buyin' out Dr. Missoni.

Beavah

If 70% were in favor, the fence mended needs to come from those who saw the need to put the interests of the WSB over those of the NSO's. But again, the US always pays, right or wrong, win or lose, the US always pays.

BSA Compass

Beavah (as in I used to be a...?)

So, if the biggest guy on the block BSA wants to protect the little guy (developing NSO's)so they can have great Scouting, but the "man" wants to spend money on lavish offices and projects that waste money to the detriment of those that need it most - it is a bad thing? And this unilateral argument that keeps getting thrown out makes no sense - 70% backing, do I need to repeat that again?

If we are helping the NSO's develop BETTER scouting at the grass roots level, I'll accept the "bully" title anyday. If the BSA is really Dr. Evil in this whole scheme - no one has proven it.

BSA Compass

Looks like this argument has come full circle. What I don't understand is how anyone can say that BSA's decision is hurting the World Scouting Movement. Again, if you READ the International Commissioner's letter, BSA wants financial transparency and wise use of resources - gee, what's wrong with that? BSA wants to see a budget - seems reasonable - especially when you are already well into that fiscal year. If our local councils didn't do a budget in advance, their exec would be sacked! BSA wants money spent on the Scouts in Romania, Bulgaria, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, etc. As I mentioned before, BSA already sent ALL the equipment from the WSJ to a third world Scouting movement.

All of this goes to intent - is the BSA a bunch of Good Ole Boys who only act in their self interest or are they following the lead of BP and the oath, which clearly puts other people before self? From all the correspondence I've seen, BSA is openly stating their concerns about financial improprieties and trying to get the WSB to focus on expanding the movement by spending monies on those countries that really need help with growing their scouting movements. I know they exist, I know they need our help - I met many of them at the World Scout Jamboree. They are fine young men and women, they want to make a difference in their countries, be good citizens, help other people, become better educated and most importantly be the next generation of leadership in their countries. They want to fulfil BP's vision of Scouting and the BSA wants the same thing.

The WSB went off the trail and the BSA, with the support of a lot of other NSO's decided that it was time to get back on the right trail. The BSA did not act unilaterally (70% backed the BSA - how often do we get 70% backing of anything in the US?), but as is often the case, someone had to stand up and say enough is enough - apparently, the mechanisms in place did not work, the governance had not responded to previous attempts to bring the WSB back to task. So, those who pay the most spoke up with others to correct the situation. This was not a spur of the moment, backroom decision - it was very well thought out.

Why did they pick Dr. Missoni? Look at the UN - its not based on ability always - looks like its this country's turn to run this thing. I hope that the new leadership will act more responsibly with these precious resources - and I don't mean money, I mean the young men and women that hope they can have a great Scouting program for their developing countries. That is what BP always wanted.

Having just attended the last WSJ in Chelmsford, I was very interested to learn of this WOSM crisis. I think we should be careful to point too many fingers at the BSA. Yes, we have a "national Scout Center" at Philmont, but it was donated to us by Waite Phllips and maintained entirely without WSB funds, so there is no parallel there. As far as the UN analogy, I concur. If you were to take some time to read Mr. Perry's October 17th letter and Google Picarquin, you would see that this expense was to be paid for by the WSB, not the Chilean Scouting Movement, but would have made fewer funds available for Interamerican NSO's. Further, in Mr. Perry's letter, you could easily read that nearly 40% of all WSB direct funds DOES come from the US and does not include unrecorded gifts and supports to other struggling NSO's. Meanwhile, the WSB wants to build a $24M castle in Geneva - is that really where you want yout Friends of Scouting dollars (in part) to go to? Or shouldn't they really go to "help the kids" as some have suggested?

In my opinion, this is nothing more than another attempt to "Blame America First (or the BSA, as the case maybe)" and after attending the WSJ, it's getting a bit old - after watching 30,000 teenagers show such unsurpassed happiness for 12 days of "being there". For example, did you know that there were three tiers of pricing for the WSJ, with G-7's like the USA, UK, etc paying the most? Why, do you ask? So that when we were done with our camping equipment, ALL of it (emblazoned with the US Contingent logo) could be sent to a tier three country - so they could have camping equipment?

One of the young men in our troop has championed a project to help provide equipment to Scouts in Africa, specifically - Ethiopia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Many of the scouts who came to WSJ were having their FIRST camping experience (and what a great one - their smiles as the jamboree went on were contagious!) This is our role to help bring Scouting to struggling NSO's, not to build bureaucracies in Geneva.

Without question, the BSA is not sticking to its guns, not "showing its' cajones", it is living up to the Oath and Law and the essence of the WSJ motto, song and BP's dream - One World, One Promise. I know, I was there and I saw it with my own eyes (and through the eyes of my two sons). God Bless Scouting, the BSA and the USA for doing the right thing!

YIS, Brian M. Coleman, ASM

WSJ Troop 414, Western Region

Denver Area Council