Cburkhardt

Every healthy NFP organization has regular and significant turnover on its Executive Board.  It just keeps things fresh and inserts a form of natural transparency because newer board members usually enjoy polling their friends on important issues being considered.  It also allows for the most successful volunteers to bring their top council experience to the decision-making.  The BSA national structure includes many fine scouters with great council experience -- many have been council presidents.  However, too many in the key positions have served in national roles for over 20 years and have not been in a local volunteer capacity for that entire time.  Once someone is on that national structure they tend to cease direct local involvement.  National structure activity can involve a lot of time and travel, so most members are either retired or independently wealthy.  Having term limits whereby no person could stand for re-election after serving 8 years would retire over 2/3 of the national executive board.  Term limits would be very good.

What is your most-important recommendation to members of national BSA committees, who will gather next week to consider changes in response to the bankruptcy and COVID-19 virus?  Make a one-sentence proposal, and support it with a 5-6 sentence paragraph.  Please keep it to a single subject.  Here is mine:

Proposal:  Spin-off the BSA National Foundation into an independent organization that supports local and national BSA organizations.

Support:  Donors want to support the BSA but fear new contributions will be used to pay post-bankruptcy claims against the local councils or the national organization.  An entirely separate foundation with the purpose of raising and distributing contributions to specific local or national BSA entities can provide a secure means by which future BSA missions can be supported.  A combination of unit, council and national volunteers serving on a new foundation board would have the duty to see that gift agreements and bequests to specific BSA entities are strictly adhered-to in the collection, investment and distribution of funds.  Every council would benefit from national-class foundation services and donors would know their gifts and bequests would be used as they intend.

General Session is on May 20 from 4-5 PM (Central).  Business Meeting is May 22 from 3-4 PM (Central).  Many opinions expressed on this site over the past several months have been reviewed by national decision makers.

The Annual General Session and Business Meeting will include significant announcements and you should view it, if possible. 

When the National Annual Meeting (NAM) is held in the "normal" format, any scouter can register and attend, but has to be approved by the local Scout Executive.  I have never heard of someone wanting to go that was not approved by the local SE.  Each council sends a group and it is fun to pal around for a few days.  These meetings are three-day conventions, held at a major convention center and usually attract about 3,000 people.  The cost to attend is reasonable, but the hotels at the convention centers usually run about $250/night.  I have attended about 8 of these over the past 30 years.  The NAMs are usually pretty enjoyable, with seminars and presentations being offered covering just about every scouting interest.  Attendees select to attend some of the "pay" events, such as the region luncheon (when the Silver Antelopes are presented), Americanism breakfast, Foundation recognition dinner (the fancy "dress-up" event of the NAM) and the closing dinner (when Silver Buffalos are presented).  The cost of these events is nominal.  Everything else is included in the registration fee, including all of the seminars and the annual general session, national key three presentation and annual business meeting.  The only votes taken in public is a voice vote on the new members of the National Executive Board and National Officers.  Only members of the national structure and the council delegates (elected locally) get to vote, as they comprise the legal entity known as the "National Council".

What is not generally advertised is that the members of the national structure arrive a couple of days early and conduct their business (they meet three times a year, the other two meetings being at a hotel at DFW airport).  These are serious, lengthy meetings where votes are taken on suggested policies and activities, some of which are then recommended up to the National Executive Board for consideration.  This year I expect they will change (probably downsize) the national, region and area structures.  The resources are no longer there to operate the previous structure, which has already been downsized through virus-related furloughs.  The speeches at the general session and business meeting usually announce and go over these matters.  If you can get your local SE to approve you, you might be able to be invited to view this year's event, which is on Zoom (you need an entry code).  There is no fee this year. 

Earlier in the year I posted an entry  which became a lengthy discussion on the national structure and how it might be improved as a result of the bankruptcy.  That was before the virus hit, so the possibility of significant change has increased.   Below I have pasted the portion of my entry which describes the national structure.

[From earlier this year - Describing the National Structure]

Volunteer Structure.  The National Council provides an exclusive charter to Councils to offer Scouting in a geographic territory.  It is comprised of National Council members elected locally to represent councils and other volunteers otherwise part of the national structure.  The National Council elects a huge National Executive Board during each national annual meeting and that National Executive Board thereafter elects various officers.  The officers comprise an “Executive Committee”.  So many people want to be on the National Executive Board that there is a companion National Advisory Council, whose members are privy to all confidential information and are allowed to attend Executive Board meetings – they just do not get to vote.  When the National Executive Board meets during its three regular meetings each year (twice in Dallas and once at each national annual meeting), it is in a room with over 100 members and many relevant staff.  Prior to each National Executive Board meeting there are 2 or 3 days of pre-meetings by “national committees”.  The more-important national committees are “Standing” committees and are dominated by Executive Board and Advisory Council members.  The committees without “Standing” status are comprised of council, area and region scouters with a few Executive Board and Advisory Council members.  Often the chair at the region level for a subject area will serve on the national committee for that subject area – but not always.  

In total, I guestimate there are about 500 volunteers formally involved in the various national committee/advisory council/executive board policy roles.  Admission to membership on any of these is tightly controlled.  It is very expensive and time-consuming to participate in any of these national roles.  Turnover of Board and Advisory Council membership is very slow, with maybe 6-7 new people replacing people who have died or become otherwise unable to serve.  Recently, membership was frozen and no new people being admitted.    All national meetings are confidential, and only national volunteers are allowed to attend – and even then only meetings directly relevant to their appointment.  The policies of the BSA generally originate in various national committees and are “reported up” to Standing committees for consideration.  A few policies or actions are recommended to the Executive Board.  After that, the smaller Executive Committee will usually decide the big issues in private.  Some policy matters are discussed and voted upon during the National Executive Board meetings.  These would more-typically be among the most potentially-controversial decisions that Executive Committee does not want to make alone.

The four “regions” and their component multi-council “areas” are delegated full authority to implement national policy and programs, and are therefore a part of the national structure.  They do not make policy – they implement it.  This includes everything from enforcing compliance with national policy standards, reviewing membership and advancement appeals, organizing a few national program activities (like jamboree sub-camps and OA activities) and reviewing (and even revoking) council charters.  When a merger of councils is arranged or mandated, it is the region volunteers and the few staff members who work with them who do it.  The key region/area volunteers with influence are former council presidents.  The remainder are experienced former council program people (commissioners, etc.).  I will guesstimate there are probably upwards of 2,000 region/area Scouters.

Professional Structure.  There are credentialed professional Scouters who are assigned to staff every one of the above structures and volunteers.  Most are former council Scout Executives.  These consist of Area Directors, Region Directors (considered one of the “top jobs” among professionals), substantive department directors in the national service center, and ultimately the Chief Scout Executive and 4-6 Deputy and Assistant Chiefs (considered to be the very “top jobs”).  There used to be region service centers – but these were sold-off and now staff in Irving, TX support all national professionals.  Currently the top professional position (normally the Chief Scout Executive) is the “CEO” and is not currently filled by a credentialed professional Scouter.  This is likely because of the skills needed during the course of the anticipated Ch. 11.  Professional Scouters who are identified to move up the professional ranks alternate between national and local council positions.

Issues.  The national structure and the individuals associated with it who have made the policy decisions and led the national movement over the last thirty years are largely responsible for where we are now policy-wise.  The national structure sets the vision, makes the decisions and tightly controls implementation and public relations.  With few exceptions, the Executive Committee received advice, made the decisions in private and announced and implemented the policies through the national structure.

Observations.  More regular turnover on the Executive Board and Advisory Council and injecting additional transparency might upgrade consideration and implementation of important, existential matters.  Some of the big decisions made – or not made – have variously had positive and catastrophic impacts on the BSA and its members.  Several decision makers and board members have been in place for 20 or more years and many intend to continue serving for life.

Possibilities.  The Bankruptcy process will likely force significant change.  The entire region/area volunteer and professional structure might be discontinued in lieu of direct management from the national service center and adoption of a greatly “deregulated” approach.  A more-independent legal structure might be adopted, whereby councils would have charters but be far less regulated and directed by the National Council.  For example, perhaps every council would offer not all BSA programs, and councils might be more on their own in terms of support services, like insurance, personnel and property development.  The BSA national foundation might be spun-off as an independent organization so that future major donor contributions would be protected from lawsuits seeking to attach BSA assets.  The national policy structure and process might be discontinued in lieu of a more-nimble approach.  The current Executive Board/Advisory Council might be discontinued in lieu of a smaller and more transparent structure.  Possibilities like these would dramatically reduce national financial overhead.

The National Executive Board, National Advisory Council, standing committees and other committees (which number about 40) will have closed meetings.  Those schedules are not generally published and non-member guests are not permitted.  These meetings take place first, so that decisions made can be announced at the large general business meetings.  Look for significant structural decisions on the national structure to be announced during the general session. 

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 recklessly (without taking precautions, such as allowing infected persons to serve on staff).

The previous positing makes clear that every child in Scouting risks injury (and even death) by being exposed to the hazards of life present in the Scouting setting.  I note the recent suit against a council because a tree was blown over on top of a tent and tragically killed a Scout.  I am guessing that over the long term, the risk to a child while camping with a Troop at a BSA facility is less than the risk while camping with a family in a public or commercial camping facility.  The question will always be whether a Scouting activity should be disallowed because of the presence of unreasonable risk.

The 100% example is a good one, because it shows that a person who insists on that standard will never be able to have their child participate in … anything.  Any council or unit that represents to parents that a camp is 100% safe risks becoming a guarantor of any and all bad outcomes, even if the risk is reasonable.

Councils should make reasonable decisions based on localized information and their ability to implement reasonable precautions.

5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

 Hopefully the national BSA bankruptcy will provide the abuse protection and councils can evaluate mergers based upon ongoing operations vs risk.

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 basketry kit in the trading post!

This will be among the most complex bankruptcy proceeding in American history due to the inter-relationships between the many independent organizations that cooperate to offer Scouting.  At the right time councils will be given the opportunity to participate financially in the bankruptcy proceeding.  If they contribute toward the victim's trust fund, they will get the bankruptcy discharge and be immune from suit for claims related to pre-filing events.  Rational council combinations can take place when councils reveal and deal with their potential liabilities prior to a combination.  This can happen and good combinations can allow quality Scouting to continue in your area if the council volunteers involved assert proper leadership and take actions in the interest of the present and future youth participants.

This is a difficult needle to thread.  Councils that want to "hold on to everything we have" and "ride it out on our own" will fail unless they have a tremendous endowment to rely on and have no claimable abuse incident in their history.  If I were still a council president I would not take that risk, because I would not know what horrible behavior might be alleged to have happened by a log-ago deceased person.  It will only take one successful claim to wipe everything away.  I would be pulling together a deal to keep essential properties and unit-serving structures with my fellow council board volunteers and those of nearby councils.  Everyone will have to contribute something in the process (cash, property, etc.).  And, do not allow the provincialism of individuals or groups that have personal interests to prevent progress.

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 has succeeded with single troop summer camps?  This may be ripe for a new Topic.

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, upgrading a council headquarters or retaining support positions).  The importance or retaining the status quo simply varies on the matter or issue at hand.  The one thing everyone seems to realize is that there will indeed be great change.  What will vary from council to council will be the degree and breadth of volunteer engagement in the change decisions.

I think it is a good time to reconvene these local executive board planning committees because it would place the resource and personnel reallocation issues on the table in a very direct way -- and consequently involve a larger number of volunteers in the process.

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 of councils to apply for the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) grant to temporarily extend the employment of personnel.  In most councils a PPP grant would have assured operation of summer camps this year, but camp operations are beginning to be cancelled in what seems to be the start of a cascade. 

The combination of the bankruptcy and virus is a potentially-existential moment for councils with pre-existing financial difficulties.  And, most small and mid-sized councils without significant endowment income will be severely tested in any case.  This is not a one-year issue, it is a re-setting of some fundamental conditions of any council's operation.  This is the time to re-convene council planning committees to update long-term strategic documents and make serious recommendations to local executive boards.  

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 never be started until there is broad consensus on a need and 100% of the capital raise has been received or credibly pledged.  After we resolved the above situation, a council next door who knew all about it did the very same thing.  The current volunteers there are paying multiple tens of thousands each month in financing a resplendent build-out of a close-in facility that will never be able to pay for itself.  The key volunteer leadership and SE who did it have moved on and I understand they are looking for some after-the-fact donors to rescue them from their predecessor's actions.  I would sell it in a heartbeat and use the saved cash to hire three DEs.    

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 for smaller councils who do not have the personnel bandwidth or any council that has a poorly-maintained facility.  The need to spend to meet the standards is a significant factor in closing some camps that can't afford to install things like modern sanitation and sewer systems.  This is just another reason why I believe we need fewer top-maintained and pristine camps that are shared. 

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 — even borrowing funds and forcing future volunteer Scouters to inherit the debt.  Well, no more.  That era has ended.

The bankruptcy and virus are going to reverse the professional cost structure back to realistic levels.  It will be tough on many professional Scouter families of those in their mid-career phase.  Many Scouters who posted earlier this spring were firmly of the belief that DEs and district operations generally will come out of this intact.  It will be the centralized council and national “support” positions that will go — all of them.  I am optimistic and believe the coming era for Scouting will be good, because we will be more volunteer led and focused on units and program rather than the “extras” that were prioritized.

We don’t need more places to camp and swim.  We need to fill and fully-utilize the places we already have.  My Troop is a heavy user of our BSA properties because they are safe and well-purposed for our program.  Even the mighty NCAC has 2 camps that it’s Scouters under-utilize.  Snyder Is under-utilized during the summer despite its splendid facilities and wonderfully-imaginative Cub programming.  Goshen attracts fewer units each year despite being the envy of councils ... everywhere.  Both are very well-run and affordable and the excuses I hear from unit leaders who do not take their Scouts there are mystifying.

The resistance to the idea of working together in appropriate and sometimes larger combinations of geographies in order to combine sufficient capabilities and funding will fade as the realities of downsizing take effect.  My WWII combat veteran Scout leaders would not have cared about preserving councils or camps that don’t work.  They were optimists who had seen the worst and were really enthused to build things and organizations that made sense.  Scouting was a focus for the Greatest Generation and many of the best camps we have were either started or brought to their full facility splendor because they were worked together.  Places like Goshen, Owasippee, Ten Mile, Philmont look the way they do today because of their intelligence and daring.  They would want us to take similar bold steps needed today.

I agree that bringing more youth into scouting and using the facilities we have are the goals.  However, I am not interested in spending my future scouting hours and dollars supporting councils and truly-shoddy properties out of tribalism or loyalties to properties that have not worked for decades.  The bankruptcy and virus are providing us our moment to take action.  We should look to the BSA leadership example of that Greatest Generation as our example.

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 circumstance and really enjoyed the whole experience.  An the successor council really improved things.  

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 to come out the dominant group in a so-called “merger of equals”.

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 Scouting in the particular geographic territory to another existing council.  The local corporation that no longer has the authority to offer Scouting and which is required under law to transfer its assets can continue on if they wish, but they will not be a BSA council.  So yes, they have not merged, but they have lost their assets and program authority to another organization.  This is how the Pathway to Adventure combination was done.  It was not a merger, but a withdrawal of 4 charters, marshalling of assets, and formation of a new nationally-chartered council.

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 differently if I was in my suburban youth circumstances (Eagled and Quartermastered in suburban Chicago in the 70's), but I really need that flexibility in urban Washington, DC, where some of our Scouts live in inner-city conditions.  Many Scoutmasters would have developed ways to deal with these things individually if flexibility had not been provided.  It is better to have the BSA provide this so such efforts are expressly blessed.

To the SM thinking of leaving, please don't disband your Troop out of frustration over this.  If you can do things more rigorously in your circumstance, please do it. 

I hope we can recover as much optimism as we can.

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 until then).  Keeping interest and membership in a high-performing Troop requires movement and this allows for it.  It is a humane answer to requests from our Scouts.  This action shows we are an organization that is willing to adapt and can respond quickly.

On 3/26/2020 at 10:58 AM, desertrat77 said:

@Cburkhardt, would Summit and Philmont also fall in this category?

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 are the places that will go early.  
 

As for the Summit and Philmont, the bankruptcy process will largely determine their future.  Regardless of mortgage indebtedness, the  trial attorneys will try their best to argue that these are not essential to Scouting and should be sold to maximize claimant pay-outs.  I am without expertise to comment on that, not being a bankruptcy attorney.  The enthusiastic donor-backers of the Summit might be able to buy it out of bankruptcy and clear the debt that way.  They could own it and lease it back to the BSA for a minimal fee.  Loss of Philmont could be catastrophic in many ways, so I hope we are able to keep all or a substantial portion of it.  It should cash flow like it and the Sea Base always have, so I think we keep it under most scenarios.