Gilwell_1919

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As to the latter, it addresses the former, eviscerates them and tosses ‘em into the bass pond over their shoulders like so much chum. 

Ah, easy to read... easy to understand. Thank you for the clarity!

I wonder if AIS folks can fire their attorney and hitch their wagon to another train?

I was at a recent community/scouting event and one of the CORs brought a package they had received from National. The COR took it as a notice they are being "left out on the fray". The LCSE pretty much avoided answering any questions and side-stepped the conversation.

Within our council... COs are dropping units at a very fast pace. If national doesn't do something to shore up the damage... I don't think there will be anyone left in BSA because it won't have any COs left. 

So Ken Rothweiller sent out a message last week urging surviors to vote yes...(video here).... but the TCC just recently sent out a vido (here) stating that the Rothweiller video was simply a scare tactic that included misinfornation. 

Any thoughts or opinions?

On 9/4/2021 at 10:05 AM, David CO said:

Totally disagree.  BSA is a business.  

People are always more cautious when dealing with businesses.  Buyer beware.  BSA's motives are not entirely pure and their product is not infallible.  Some degree of caution is advisable.

That's why I said "scouting"... and I agree with the latter part WRT BSA. 

50 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

As far as business acumen of the board, many are Forbes 100 CEOs who are involved in Scouting.  Hard to say that they do not understand business.

IMHO, Scouting shouldn't be thought of as a business... and therein lies the problem. I'm going to rephrase a section of a book I am writing and make it more apropos to this topic... but it hits on a much bigger issue. This particular section was illustrating a point about why we are caught in this perpetual funk of "unhappiness". 

Quote

Again, if we are being completely honest with ourselves, academic institutions force systematic conformity to the government-backed agenda that students are future commodities on their national tax-plantations. Religious institutions measure salvation through congregate memberships levels and a steady stream of non-taxable income in their coffers. Even non-profit organizations lose their original mission-focus because that mission focus detracts from their fundraising efforts with deep-pocked donors who look at donations as forms of penance from not volunteering their time to help lift their fellow human beings out of abject poverty.

I wanted to share this because it helps set a better playing field for everyone to start questioning everything. For me, I'd like to know why the Forbes 100 CEOs would be a better pick than... let's say a successful small business owner in middle America that volunteers time with local youth groups (like BSA)? Warren Buffett, arguably one of the most successful businessmen of our generation... said you only need basic arithmetic to run a business (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). Now, to be cut-throat... sure... you need more than basic math... but I think putting cut-throat CEOs on the board and at the helm of BSA has got them into this current mess. It's apparent they were more concerned about protecting "golden treasure" and not the real treasure, which are/were the youth in the program.

Not me... I err on the side of doing the right thing when no one is looking.... so when people are looking... I act in the same way and my integrity is unquestionable.

19 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Wow! You guys are true blue. You buy insurance coverage for yourselves just to volunteer to serve?  Are your wives on board with it? If I was your best friend I’d take you out for a beer and a heart to heart. 

I got my wife involved and WB trained, so yes. But... I volunteer my time with two other non-profits as well. To me, it's about serving youth and helping the rising generation in this country eventually become the controlling generation. Sort of ... "if not me, then who?".

It certainly made me rethink about my continuance in BSA, because you're right... no volunteer should have to take out an umbrella insurance policy to serve in the community. But, if you look around... it seems like everyone has a lawyer on retainer in the off chance they are offended or simply just don't like another person. It seemed prudent at the time...

33 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I’ve been in three councils and never had this happen.

I've been in five councils over 35 years, associated with a dozen or so others, and this was status quo. In our current LC, we are told the 30% is to pay for the use of the BSA logo and to cover standard "OH / G&A costs".  Sounds like you have been in three great councils, unfortunately... I have never heard of a council not charging a fee for fundraising. Maybe I keep finding the councils with bad SE's?

In fact, when I was told, as a district commissioner, to shut down one cub scout pack's drink fundraiser because they wouldn't pay the 30% fee, I told the SE to push it over to his legal folks and they should take the pack to small claims court. It never went anywhere. In another scenario, I had to sit down with the SM, UC, and DE to come to an agreement about the fee because the troop had been doing a particular fundraiser for decades, and it was well known and supported by the entire community. The SM told the DE he refused to have his scouts break their backs in the hot sun while a 1/3 of what they raised went into the coffers of the folks at council sitting in their air conditioning offices. My DE had a sidebar with me afterwards and said we needed to setup a meeting with the COR/IH and get them involved. I told him I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so he went around my back instead. Luckily, the SM and COR were both members of the same CO, and let me tell you... they both took a bite out of the DE's hide during that meeting. Luckily, the district chair was also the mayor and told the LC to stand down or it would be brought up during the next city council meeting. The council decided it wasn't worth the PR nightmare and let it go. 

I definitely think you and I have had way different scouting experiences... but I am happy you've never had to deal with crummy situations like this. It's not fun... and it makes you lose a lot of respect for certain professionals that wear the same uniforms as the volunteers. 

39 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

Not in my council.  When the council program fee was instituted a couple of years ago, it meant an end to fees for district events such as Cub Family Camp, District Shooting Sports days, District Camporee, BALOO/IOLS training, etc.  Council also lowered the costs for much of the Council level adult training. 

Holy cow!! That is fantastic! Not us. Our fee doubled national's fee and some of our LC event fees even went up. As someone who sits in a volunteer council position... I am always pretty vocal about the costs vs. the low quality.

But. let me say, there are two professionals at our council who are two of the best human beings I have ever met. They do more than any person should be expected to do... but that is because they think of the scouts as their own kids. Salt of the earth kind of folks - it's truly humbling.

Man!! Seriously, what council are you in...? I'd love to be in a council like that! 😁

11 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

... quality programs to increase membership.  Quality program and increasing membership is what drives most executive committee and board members.

Therein lies my frustration... the ever ambiguous "Program". LCs/LDs tell donors and parents, during their "Investment in Character Campaigns" (ICC) or other Friends of Scouting fundraisers, that the money goes to pay for “the program”. When talking to BSA professionals, they always use ambiguous terms like "program" or "youth activities" so they can illustrate something grand they are delivering to youth. The last time I checked my personal and unit bank accounts... Scouts and Scouter pay for everything they do. They pay for national membership fees, event fees, training fees, camping fees, and unit fees before they even get into the costs of buying uniforms, camping gear, and other items needed to participate in "the program". Even when scouts sell popcorn, they only get a small commission, but it generally only covers national and council fees/events; it does not cover the costs of where 90% scouting actually happens, which is at the troop or pack level with volunteers and parents (that is the real “program”). BSA national and LCs constantly say they exist "for the kids", but the kids (and their families) pay fees for everything LCs/LDs have on their programs. All these costs are compounded by the fact that volunteers do 99% of the work at the district events, and a good majority of the council events... yet volunteers have to pay LCs/LDs to attend these events... there is no discount for their volunteerism. So where do all these fees go? What are they paying for? From my experience, LCs/LDs are simply professional fundraisers - professional beggars, if you will, that use the good name of scouting and the hard work of volunteers to solicit donations from high-end donors who do not realize those funds do not directly benefit the youth - at all. 

I do not know anywhere in the world where workers (*read volunteers) are forced to pay to be able to work. Those volunteer scouters then have to pay council-level and national fees to complete mandatory training (I'm talking about IOLS & BALOO). Volunteers, who drive "the program" have to pay for their mandatory in-person training, and other volunteers (seasoned scout leaders) coordinate and teach 99.9% of those trainings, which they have to pay to teach. LCs/LDs make money off the training that volunteers perform. 

We all know that LCs are made up of districts with DEs whose whole focus, outside of fundraising, is getting new charter organizations to sponsor a scout pack or troop. Why? Because that increases membership, which is more fees they can collect. The problem is that LCs/LDs set up these units, collect fees from them, but then do not care how run-ragged the volunteers get from selling popcorn and other "products", and actually giving a week-in/week-out "real program" to the scouts in their units. In some cases, when I was a District Commissioner (DC), it drives volunteers to the brink of nervous breakdowns. But who really cares? If a unit folds, DEs will get more in the pipeline ready to be chartered by an organization.

Again, 99% of all scouting happens at the Unit level by volunteers (remember, all volunteers have to pay to register with National BSA and their LCs, direct contact leaders have to pay to become trained, they have to pay to attend council/district events, and they have to pay for everything at the unit level - scouts get nothing for free). At times, these volunteers pay out of pocket so low-income kids can participate in the scouting program (whether that is to pay for event fees or buy equipment their families cannot afford). These volunteers arrange meetings and activities for the scouts, and they have to pay their LCs 30% of any fundraising for the right to use the "BSA Logo"; if a unit conducts a fundraiser without paying this "use fee", councils have their legal teams go after that unit - as a DC, I had to get involved a dozen or so time when this was happening because the LC wanted their 30% cut in little cub scouts were selling drinks at community events to raise money for their pack. Really? In addition to every other fee collected, BSA still wants more money from little kids trying to raise funds to buy themselves camping equipment? There is nothing anyone can say to justify that type of behavior. 

Granted, units sell popcorn and camp cards to raise money to pay for activities at the district and council level (camporees, jubilees, day camps, summer camps, etc.) But, units generally get small percentage of the "profits" their LCs makes on popcorn and camp card sales. But, what ever small amount goes back to the units... it generally gets placed in the "unit account", which is nothing more than a credit at council, which can only be used to pay for council and district programs, activities, and events. Units cannot use it to buy things like tents, sleeping bags, unit campouts, or anything else the unit may do. It is essentially like the “company stores” that used to make their employees rent tools, pay for housing, and other fees to be able to “work at the company” and then most of the workers ended up in debt to the “company” and working for free. I am glad this was outlawed years ago, but it is rampant in BSA – who do it under the guise of a “youth program”. 
 
Let's look at the costs scouts and scouters pay for "the program". There is the annual re-charter, which costs about $126 per scout/adult scouter. $66 goes to national and $60 goes to the LCs (this is, of course, changing). There are other fees and different levels, and some LCs have different fee levels, but that is the "average" of what most scouts have to pay (adults are about half). As an example, a unit with 50 scouts and 25 adult volunteers would pay about $7900 per year to re-charter. This fee, which is carved up by the councils and National BSA, only covers annual fees just to be in the scouting program. Nothing actually goes to the scouts or benefits them in any way.

After that enormous fee, scouts and volunteers have to figure out how to raise money to actually pay for the scouts to do things and to purchase rank badges, books, patches, and other items required by BSA, as well as pay for things like LC summer camps/day camps and district activities/camps (remember, councils also get 30% of these fundraising events as well). 

Generally, this forces units to charge scouts annual/monthly dues, charge scouts for monthly campouts, charge scouts for unit activities, and charge scouts for pretty much anything they do. Of course, this is in addition to what scouts have to pay when they attend a LC/LC camp or activity. To put this into perspective, here is an average cost for a scouting year (per scout).

• $126 (annual membership)
• $200-$300 (annual troop dues to pay for patches, rank items, and other BSA mandated items)
• $240-$300 per year for unit campouts
• $350-$450 per year to attend a Council Summer camp (varies by Council)
• $2500-$3500 per BSA High Adventure (Philmont, Sea Base, Bechtel, Norther Tier)
• $250 per year for misc. things like Order of the Arrow, NBZ, Mic-O-Say, and other BSA sanctioned events.

Needless to say, scouting can get expensive. But, after all those fees are paid... LCs/LDs run an annual Investment in Character Campaigns (ICC) and/or "Friends of Scouting" wherein their paid professionals go to unit meetings and solicit more donations from families - the money goes directly to councils. LCs say these ICC donations pay for the scouting program, but, in reality, it goes into their general operating funds to pay for the salaries of the people that work for each LC (most of which engage in fundraising at some level). 

So, again, what program? Wen scouts want to go to summer camp, high adventure, or anything... they have to pay for it.  So what costs are being covered by the LC??

Additionally, LCs will run "Friends of Scouting" fundraisers (some call it different names) which are fundraiser dinners and luncheons wherein deep-pocket donors pay to attend the event. At those events, LC professionals will shamelessly get scouts in uniform to talk about their "great experiences" to get these donors to give large sums of money. Again, this money does not go to pay for anything for scouts... it goes into the LC's general operating account. Scouts still have to pay all of their fees for membership and activities.

Next, LCs have large camps and large endowment funds. As an example, a LC may have a camp worth millions of dollars and they may have endowment funds worth tens of millions of dollars. But, scouts have to pay fees every time they step foot on any LC camp - units are never "free to use" LC camps for camping. LCs will also say those fees go to pay for upkeep, utilities, and other things, but a lot of camps are in shambles because LCs never put money back into them.

If we look at a typical summer camp, the average fee is $350-$400 per scout to attend a 5-day camp (this does not cover any travel costs to get to that camp). The camps are staffed with seasonal camp staff that get paid ridiculously low salaries, and some of the younger staff that are scouts do not get paid at all (these are Counselors in Training). Most of the time, these staff members are even required to purchase their own supplies and equipment to run their programs. In really bad camps, the medics have to purchase their own first aid and medical supplies.

As far as I am concerned, LCs charge incredible fees to scouts, but put very little back into "the program". A lot of the money LCs generate is to pay to hire new "scout professionals" whose sole focus is to fundraise and solicit donations.

I'm sorry this is so negative... I hate to be so negative (especially on a holiday weekend)... but I get frustrated when I hear the ever ambiguous "for the program" language during a discussion. I'm sorry, I have seen what goes into the LC/LD program budgets, behind the scenes. Volunteers do the work, LCs/LDs chop the food/equipment budget to a bare minimum, and then volunteers have to figure out how to make it work for the sake of the youth attending. Most of the time, volunteers, like myself, pay for a lot of things out of pocket to make "the program" work. It sounds cynical, but it true. 
 
 

14 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

To be fair his tweets may have a negative affect on scouting.  It may make parents think twice about having their children part of a scouting organization. But it also may have a positive effect.  It may prompt government legislation to oversee and investigate. It might make parents who have children in scouting to be more vigilant and act more proactively about child abuse.  If you listen to the interview he gave in which the link was posted in this forum you will hear him talk about the history of the abuse, the effects of the abuse and possible solutions for further abuse and lastly the possibility of the eradication of BSA in the form that it is today. I don't believe he is trying to put the spotlight on himself (ego) but rather on the problem and what he wants for his clients.  As a disclaimer he is not my representation in this bankruptcy.

Again, valid points here!

1 minute ago, PeterHopkins said:

... I also believe they hurt the Scouting Movement...

That is my general fear... and why I called it, "salting the earth". 

18 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

To be fair to the current CEO he was brought in after the sh_t hit the fan.  1 Million may not have been enough to have me take the job. Well on second thought $1,000,001 works for me).

Understandably... it was/is a difficult job. But, with the level of visceral anger from scouters and the general public... one could agree to a modest "white collar salary" with the agreement of an exit bonus after completing the task. That may have improved public opinion. I think we needed someone that understood the full spectrum of scouting... from the den meeting to the board meeting. I've met some pretty astute SE's that we're also Eagle Scouts and had the business acumen to man the helm of their LC.

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So @David CO so far all you've done, and done for every one one of my posts, is downvote. Rather than engaging, rather than disagreeing, rather than refuting the data I provided in the latest post for example, all you do is downvote.

Do you have ANYTHING of substance to add other than a downvote? What, precisely do you disagree with in terms of that data I provided? You never answered.

What should the salary/salaries of BSA officials be? You never answered.

Past a certain point this becomes little more than petty unscoutlike behavior.

If all you have to say is a quick little downvote, then that speaks more about your capacity than mine.

@CynicalScouter I'm really not trying to nitpick here... but, during ILST sessions, I try to help scouts understand the anthropological and internal biochemical aspects of "leadership" because I think it is important for them to know how chemicals produce the emotions that make us do and say things in our own self-interests. This is an excerpt from one of the leadership training guides I wrote for my ASMs:

Quote

There is a subconscious evolutionary mechanism that make us aware to the danger all around us, and therefore we have adapted to survive by working together so we feel safe. We organize and cooperate “to ward off the danger around us”. Now, external dangers are constants and there is not much we can do to control them, but internal dangers (to a group) are variables that are controllable by leaders. If you know the chemical composition of what causes you, or others around you, to act a certain way, you will know how to be a more effective leader.

I am bringing this up because Dopamine produces the feeling when you've found something or achieved something. It affects your emotions, movements and your sensations of pleasure and pain, and it is highly addictive, dangerous, and destructive when not it's not balanced. (i.e., video games, updates/likes on social media, emoji reactions, "up-votes on a scouter forum", et cetera).

Just asking here, because you seem to be pretty astute from a logical perspective, but instead of outright attacking @David CO for "down-voting", which is clearly overproducing Cortisol in your system... maybe try to be empathetic and find out the reason why? I have been reading a lot on this entire forum... people make good points... people make bad points... and I am starting to recognize patterns in up-votes, down-votes, et cetera... as it pertains to specific individuals. Interacting in a virtual world, such as this is, I think we not only have to look at the aggregate of how a person responds verbally... but also to their non-verbals as well - in this case, how they vote/react to what a person has posted. 

I was pointed to join this forum by one of my mentors that has been in scouting for 65+ years. It saddens me when I see fellow scouters attacking one another like this (a scout is Kind, right?). I get that you are enjoying the anonymity behind your forum handle "Cynical" Scouter... but instead of pouncing on folks... maybe try to be a "gentle leader". Some of us are looking for genuine feedback and mentoring... not terse cynicism my friend.  Something to think about. While feedback is a gift... some people don't necessarily enjoy receiving gifts. If that is the case... I'll zip it and go back to my coloring books for now. Just trying to be "Helpful" here. 

3 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

...the Bankruptcy Court and mediation rooms are the appropriate forums for him to get the best settlement possible for his clients, not Twitter, particularly given what the judge has already said about chapter 7. I think those tweets carry the potential to hurt not only the BSA's ability to recruit and retain members but also the ability of some post-BSA Scouting organization to attract members.

 

That was precisely the point I was trying get across the bow. 

I took out a hefty, personal umbrella policy when I agreed to take on the role as SM. Why? Because the sad fact is... we live in a litigious society.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I made no moral judgements. You are reading things into the text that are not there.

I am simply applying discourse analysis. Generally speaking, language is processed through the respective left (logical) and right (emotional) hemispheres of our brains. Psychologically speaking, the left hemispheres of our brains are more verbal, analytical, and orderly with greater propensity towards logic, sequencing, linear thinking, mathematics, facts, and thinking in words. Whereas the right hemispheres of our brains are more visual and intuitive with greater propensity towards imagination, holistic thinking, intuition, arts, rhythm, nonverbal cues, feelings, visualization, and daydreaming. However, neurologically speaking, synaptic processes are not completely lateralized to just one hemisphere over another; meaning, from a physical sense, our bodies use both hemispheres of the brain equally when processing the world around us.

However, and there is always a "however".... if you are trying to make a point by using logical data to enforce your emotional argument, I would certainly argue that is moral equivocating by way of circular reasoning. 

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It isn't a moral equivalency. It is a compensation equivalency. I never said it was "good" or "bad". I never said "fair" or "unfair". I never used any moral judgment on it whatsoever.

I said it was comparable. Period.

Negative, kind sir. You keep peppering your statements with "hyperbole". (e.g., "what, should they work for free?", or "so, should they only make $1?", et cetera). You can't keep mixing sensationalist language into your analytical comments and not have me call it out as moral equivalency. 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

 In other words, the BSA compensation package is comparable to that of other similar organizations.

Holy moral equivalency Batman! 🙃

Did those other organizations amass a fortune by pulling on people's heartstrings by saying, "look how your money is helping these sweet little kids"... while simultaneously covering up the carnage of predators that were preying on those same little kids?

And since you keep harping on "should they only make $1" ... fine, I'll take the bait... here is what would get me signing a different tune. If the "current" BSA folks wanted to win me over with their "new and approved sainthood"... I would say the CEO should be compensated at about $350K per year, plus have a "modest budget" for expenditures on things relative to his functional position. That would show me he is in it for "the kids". At cool $1M, nope... that is ludicrous considering we have scouting families that barely get by and still what little they have left over to make scouting happen in their communities. Honestly, I would feel ashamed to have that kind of salary knowing what my organization did, in addition to the fact that it is currently going through bankruptcy, and that I should be doing everything I could to win back public support. Getting paid $1M doesn't exactly say, "sorry for a century of carnage... we promise to do a better job if you let us continue..."

While it is less than the other CEOs in the other organizations you keep propounding for your moral equivalency argument, it sure ain't a minimum wage salary. 

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

I am REALLY sorry to hear you say this.  If you're involved get more involved.  Speak out.  Be the change you want to see.  Any volunteer-driven organization MUST be driven by volunteers if change is going to come about.  And if none of that is possible or works or you're ostracized, go find another organization where you and 100K can make a difference.  The world needs both. 

Compadre... I am definitely INVOLVED.  At one point I was a SM, district commissioner,  and did other council and district stuff. On a given week, I was about 40+ hours for my volunteer time with scouting (and that was just 1 of 3 organizations where I volunteer my time). On campout weekends with my unit... obviously more time (but who can count camping time... I mean... it's camping). During the summer, I would drive 90+ minutes to camp a few times a week to teach adult training. All of this.... while holding a full time job as a corporate executive in my company. The balancing act was crazy and my schedule was always full with something to do. 

These days, I am still a SM and a council chair, and then I am a state CO rep for 4 councils... it addition to other non-profit organizations I work with. Again... all while working full time. But... it is my pleasure to serve my community and to serve my youth. I think it is one of highest honors I receive when one of my youth thanks me for making things happen; it warms my heart and makes me feel like I am on the right track in my life. 

I guess the "budget frustration" is that I see things on the ground and then it just doesn't add up when the budget numbers come out. I am often scratching my head and asking... "they can't really think anyone believes these numbers." For the longest time, when we asked questions, we often got the proverbial... "those are program costs." Over the last 4-5 years, I can say "what program costs? The volunteers are doing everything." Recently... I was told "just make it work" when I was asked to provide meals at about $.75 per meal, per person. Really? Scouts can't even afford to eat from the dollar menu on that kind of budget. Also, some of our volunteers fund meals themselves... and our LC just pockets the money they charge for the event, which is why I get so mad during ICC season. I am tired of hearing the words "for the program"... when I know for a fact that is not the case. Last re-charter my wife and I shelled out money for membership fees for 5 scouts that couldn't afford it. A few weeks later I got a letter from my LC asking why I didn't give money during the ICC season. The LC guy was pretty irate when I told him I would be using my money to fund scouts directly. 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

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. 

Who benefits from those donations? The LC camps that are in shambles? Scouts that have to pay fees to attend those LC camps? Thrown together LC activities that measure success based on profit, not quality? Sorry, I am a "boots on the ground" kind of person and from what I can see at ground level... someone that donates $100K to a local council does not help my scouts in anyway.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

EVEN IF they did in the past, there's NO evidence they are doing so NOW in 2021 (and the financial data for 2019 and 2020, which is what I referenced) and in fact given that every financial document is being vetted by a) their accountants who are now post-Sarbanes-Oxley on notice the accountants can get handcuffed if they fudge numbers b) the attorneys for the claimants, I find it extremely unlikely that BSA's accounting TODAY is anything other than squeaky clean.

Admittedly, my referenced URL was from 2009. It was more of a snarky comment... hence the "  "

The current folks may be squeaky clean saints. 

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So you believe that the BSA's auditing and accounting firm signed off on fraudulent IRS 990 forms, thereby committing at least 6 felonies?

Even if I think BSA's lying, I don't think the accounting firms are, especially after Sarbanes-Oxley.

I'm not saying BSA is committing fraud... or that accounting firms are pencil whipping the creative numbers they are given. They hid and concealed child abuse to protect their treasure...but they didn't hide and conceal aspects of their accounting methods to protect their treasure? 🤨 

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, that is NOT the job of the attorney(s) for the victim(s). That is the job of the attorneys for BSA.

But let me wrap this up with a comment the judge made in an earlier hearing. She had said that while the survivors have an interest in the outcome of this bankruptcy, so too do the scouts of this generation. She is NOT utterly unaware of what the ramifications are here.

And again, let me go back to another point: Kosnoff is ONE LAWYER. Every other attorney on record so far has said they are in favor of a Chapter 7 deal that does NOT kill of BSA.

@CynicalScouterIt was pointed out to me in a PM why I should stop hurling judiciously acerbic darts at Tim K. I concede and I'll zip my lips when it comes to him. 

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. But it is so much easier to hate, hate, hate the professionals as if they should all be paid $1

No, I am not "hating for the sake of hating". But I have seen budget after budget, year after year, that tucks things into "the program" so the professionals can cobble together pretty flyers for deep-pocketed donors.  What program is that exactly? Run down camps in a lot of councils? Thrown together activities that focus more on profit than quality? The numbers you're propounding are only as good as the people reporting them. And the last time I checked... the people who are reporting them spent a century covering up child abuse so as not to scare away members or deep-pocketed donors.  You can't say BSA looked the other way when kids were being raped and then in another post say... "look, here are some numbers... it's not at all inappropriate". And if you think they aren't "getting creative" with their numbers... I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. 

4 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

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.

When I have scouts whose families can't affords shoes, let alone "the program", and those of us that have the means spend tens of thousands of dollars from our own pockets to make "the program work" at the unit level... sorry compadre... I am not going to engage in a semantical debate over how hundreds of thousands of dollars "for entertainment and other funds" isn't technically a person's salary. A scout is thrifty.... and using kids to sling popcorn in the streets so you can have an "entertainment fund" is just as bad.  

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

One more point: if a person was just looking to make money, the not-for-profit world is the LAST place they'd be looking.

Quote

The Chief Scout Executive, the CEO of the Boy Scouts of America National Council, receives a salary of $1,577,600. This places the Boy Scouts of America National Council CEO as the highest paid CEO in the Human Services Category. (Charity Navigator lists the BSA in the Human Services Category.)Aug 5, 2009

Update: BSA Listed in Top Five Highest CEO Salaries Study

Seems like there is plenty of money being made in the not-for-profit world.  

15 hours ago, David CO said:

He is probably going to feel pretty much the same way that little Tommy felt when BSA acquired Lone Scouts of America.  BSA never gave a single thought to how hundreds of thousands of children felt as it was ruthlessly stomping out its competition in its quest to gain a monopoly on scouting.  

That is a valid point.