Cburkhardt

Governors will need to more-directly address camping programs at large summer camps before the insurance companies are going to go along with liability coverage. I agree with PACAN that the Maryland governor has not yet gone far enough. A betting person would probably go along with my earlier prediction that we are going to lose the entire summer season almost everywhere. I do note the exception that the high adventure bases are apparently intending to open on July 1.

Councils can follow the advice of state and local health officials and operate summer camps, as long as the insurance companies are in accord. For instance, some governors (Maryland, for example) have already declared that camping is again on the "allowed" list of things that are safe to do if precautions are taken (there might be youth camp-specific declarations as well). If state officials approve and if the insurance companies say they will cover the liability of summer camp operations, a council is then in the position to consider opening. Of course the council cannot operate a camp rec

I agree. Now is the very best time to evaluate council combinations to preserve Scouting as we have generally understood it. Few are failing to recognize that the combination of the bankruptcy and virus is the thing that could extinguish the Scouting program as we generally know it -- unless there is collective and informed action at a multi-council level. This is because we are heading into the bankruptcy with our expected future cash flows being cut-off (at least temporarily). What a great circumstance for the lawyers who want to put Scouting out of business and liquidate every last bas

Generally I like to see top-level FOS results, as that usually is an expression of confidence in the local community on what the district and council are providing. A high percentage on popcorn for a council is what is most risky. A good portion of FOS is lower-level business giving, which this council must be doing a great job with. With all that salesmanship, I'll bet they have a reasonable endowment.

Well … after our Scoutmaster Staff talked this through over the weekend I think we may conduct our own Troop summer camp if the Council cancels its summer operation. We are fortunate to have two physicians and one public health officer among our parents, so we will have great advice on what (if anything) we are able to do safely. We can pick a close location and have a very large Troop Committee (most families belong) to help. I have to say I think I was led into this by the many comments on this site from those of you who do it already. Perhaps people can begin posting specifics on what h

My experience is that those who volunteer executive board members who serve on the planning committees are often the more nimble-minded board members. They usually come up with some pretty good ideas on endowments, property management and program, but do not typically focus on personnel. The plans often get shelved. Some planning committee members may wish to preserve the "status quo" on some matters (for example, retaining a camp property or certain unit-serving executive positions), while others might be more concerned about the "status quo" on matters further from program (for example, u

A large number of councils applied for and received PPP grants. This is goin to save a lot of DEs heading into the fall and help preserve the summer camp season for councils able to open-up. The grant must be used to pay wages and is calculated by using the 2.5 times the average 2019 monthly payroll.

Council Strategic Planning Committees should re-evaluate their current plans. The combination of lost summer camp revenue, lost FOS (usually raided in the spring) and diminished fall projected popcorn sales is hastening bankruptcy/COVID-caused financial deterioration of even well-run councils. Significant contributions and bequests are on hold until donors can assure themselves that contributions will be part of a businesslike recapitalization and not lost to pay either costs of bankruptcy or briefly-extended operation of unsustainable councils. A positive development has been the ability o

I walked into one of these situations when I became a council president. I blessed the effort of our very-transparent facility evaluation committee when they recommended closure and sale of an unpopular close-in project that was going to drain finances away from our summer camps and field operations. I did not receive a single complaint from any current Scouter -- just a few calls from people that had been involved in putting that deal together who thought we needed to "save face" in our relationships with some who had donated toward the project. The building of camp projects should nev

I am not a "camp guy" in the sense that I'm not on the camping committee and do not have a detailed understanding of the inspection program. However, I've been a large council president and am aware that some of the inspection functions were required by our insurance carriers who are just looking for reasons to get out of the camp insurance business. So, some of this intrusiveness was imposed from third parties. The regulations that must be met to operate camps is several factors greater than a recently as 20 years ago. It has become another cause of financial and operations difficulty

Zoom. Works great for troop meetings even with 40+ on line. The breakout rooms work very well for patrol corners.

Since our mutual youth days, the costs of operating councils and camps have skyrocketed due to insurance, labor, regulatory and other costs. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of three times the cost of operating (inflation adjusted) compared to my early 1970’s summer camp attendance. Since that time we also allowed the BSA to build a professional and cost structure that would only have been sustainable if we were still growing membership and revenues at exploding levels. Instead of readjusting things as we downsized, leadership rolled things forward and overspent on vanity camp projects

It is really great that they are being so open and transparent about the possible combination. That is indeed to only way to have a productive conversation. If this is in the best interests of the youth, they should do it.

I don't want to sound overly corny here, but if decisions regarding combining councils are made with 100% transparency and by strictly prioritizing what is in the best interests of the youth, the process works well -- even when the decision is to keep things as-is. The problems happen when adults get overly tied-up in things like keeping OA lodge names, spending the successor council's cash on a decrepit and severely-underused camping facility, or arguing at the start of discussions which volunteers will be "in charge" of the successor council. I've been involved in a best-case combination c

I think you are generally right. In the example I gave you the multi-council charter withdrawal was done only after a 3-year intensive effort to try to turn around catastrophic metropolitan membership and financial problems. And, there were irresolvable personal politics in one council that impacted the overall metropolitan situation. Scouting in Chicagoland was stabilized by the move. In the future this approach might be used more often in a more-agreed manner, simply because it can transact a council combination more quickly than multi-year negotiations between council volunteers trying

I'm not really opposed to your points, but am just stating the basic legal and structural relationships between national and councils and what they result in. If national determines to withdraw a charter from a local council, the assets of the local council go to national as a function of the bylaws and corporate charter of that local council. And, the remaining local corporation lose the legal authority to offer a Scouting program in the particular geographic territory. National can then select a new group to grant a council charter to, or can reassign the legal authority to provide Scouti

The current structure gives the authority to National to withdraw a charter. Council bylaws that have been adopted by every council provide that if a council loses its charter, all of its assets go to national.

I get and respect every one of the above comments, each of which is well-placed and merited. My welcoming the flexibility is not really tied to a philosophy (First Class in first year, etc.). It's tied to the flexibility I need to have to keep an urban troop of 37 ambitious young people together and "moving" for six months -- during which time we will not actually be in physical proximity to each other. Our Mayor is not going to open things up until late June at the earliest, so there is no real hope of face-to-face programming until September. I can envision how I might do things differen

Our relativily young Troop would be at an advancement standstill without this type of temporary remedy. After hearing the “no exceptions for anything” announcement, I was among many Scoutmasters who urged some accommodations. This is a balanced approach. Without it I would be telling some Scouts that they will just have to wait half a year and that is too long for a child. I have no doubt whatsoever that our Scoutmaster staff will be able to assure the mastery of these skills when we resume Troop campouts in September (I believe we will continue a complete shutdown of the entire BSA

Sorry it took so long to reply. My comment that heavily mortgaged camps might be first to stop operations is based on my knowledge that there are a good number of council camps that are significantly mortgaged. More disturbing, there are some camps built or heavily improved in recent years that were done without a fully-successful capital campaign to pay for it up-front. For example, a council west of Chicago improved a close-in property and has saddled successor council volunteers with a huge monthly mortgage to pay without the actual usage to generate activity fees to pay for it. Those a

By operations I mean all camping properties. Long term camping operations are indeed costly to establish and maintain, and it is the dream of every council camping committee to own and operate one of these — sometimes even if the facilities are in poor shape, located 5 hours from council territory and operate only for a few weeks each summer. Some of these operations require subsidies from FOS in the range of $200 to $300 per Scout attendee. Some of these distant camps are located near similarly-stressed camps operated by other councils. Heavily endowed councils can continue those kinds of

Of course councils are independent, and my comments to not state or imply otherwise. The bylaws each council has ascribed to locally do include a provision that if they go out of business all of their assets go to national, but that is it. My only role now is as a Scoutmaster of a frequently-camping Troop, but I have been a council and national volunteer for 30 years (including as council president). So I understand the relationship. I make no apology for having raised the tough program, governance and properties issues we are facing as an organization during a series of several

WIW: I think a substantive dissolving of organizational bonds if probably not the way to go, because there is some value in limited national standards, such as what an Eagle Scout is. However, I think your observations contain hints of what is to come. The future councils, whatever they are, will have the upper hand and will probably dominate the scene as a kind of confederation. The head of a small national service organization is not going to have the influence or leverage of the CSEs of the past. The big council leadership will agree what is needed and the national entity will service

Qwazse: Interested in your views about how to pay for the ongoing camp operations in the post virus/post bankruptcy environment. I suppose a format could be to sell or gift the camps to local NFPs (perhaps formed by Scouters) or governmental units with some kind of covenant on the land to assure Scouting access. The difference between where I think the BSA may go and the GSUSA is that GSUSA seems to be intentionally walking away from camp ownership and operation. The BSA does not have resources to maintain the infrastructure it gained during our strongest financial period ind is very reluct

The essential National Role would be to provide a consistent program the large “super councils” (using that term others have begun to use) could follow. We don’t want 20 different sets of Eagle requirements, for instance. Beyond that, there is a National economy of scale on supply and insurance matters. The bases would also be great if we hold on to some of them through the bankruptcy. Many are concerned that as smaller councils combine into or closely affiliate with the dominant councils, their local camps will be sold. That really begs the question about how or why any cash-losing c