Cburkhardt

Qwazse: The casual thoughts are entertaining, but let's have your actual position and analysis. Otherwise we can't really react to your views. VOA officer positions are examples of program positions that can easily be maintained -- simply re-configured within the resulting districts/councils/areas/regions. Districts can, for the most part, remain as-is. As for areas, recall my earlier prediction that the current regional and area structures probably will not continue as-is. Perhaps we will have a fewer number of much-larger areas and no regions at all. Long-timers will remember that we had 12 numbered "regions" until the early 70s, when the "area" concept was born -- giving us an additional administrative layer. The great lakes region was "Region 7" -- and the canoe base was called the "Region 7 Canoe Base".

Dkurtenback: The comments on these postings have been replete with thoughts about the need to have more unit-level personnel and an apparent need to trim council services and personnel -- some believe to the bone. It makes sense to consider mergers or other forms of combinations under such circumstances to reallocate resources to support district operations and units. This can make particular sense when a council has been proved over a sustained number of years to be dysfunctional -- and we have some of those. Latin: I understand. But think of how your council's expertise could be spread to serve additional Scouts in geography where Scouting suffers from poor council leadership and scant resources. I guess one approach can be to let the neighbors "go under" with someone later being recruited to pick up the slack afterward. The next couple of years will be the downsizing environment and marginal councils are going to have gravest difficulty continuing operations. These things are going to happen. More councils will face a need to combine. Merging will not be easy unless we have an open approach -- and that includes all of us being open to rational combinations with our neighbors..

"Let’s go ahead and merge our remaining weak councils during bankruptcy into larger, solid organizations. The combination of factors councils are experiencing is reducing their cash flow, so a good number of them probably cannot survive financially as-is. We should be perfectly willing to ask current council leaders to explain with specificity why they might be losing membership or cannot break even. Folks, organizational sustainability is what a financial reorganization bankruptcy is all about." This was one of my recommendations in my original post on improving council structures during bankruptcy and focused on a simple financial rationale for merging. Almost everything I have read in the lengthy reactions to that posting are consistent with the idea that we need fewer personnel at the council level and more closer to the unit. And, the functions at a council can be fewer and more-targeted. At a certain level there are Scouters who are very resistant to merging councils, but that resistance needs to be viewed in the context of what is needed at this time -- More unit service and less above-district structure. Decision-making in the best interests of youth and not to preserve legacy circumstances. A reasonable number of well-maintained and endowed camps. Here is what I believe we need to do, all of which requires "top-down" thinking. I figure we are ready to do this because we have spent four weeks doing mostly "bottom-up" thinking. Very small councils should be merged into larger and nearby entities. Better economies of scale are required if we are indeed going to redeploy resources to provide enhanced support to the units and districts. Three-district councils probably have 2 DEs, a SE, a field director and other support folks. Instead, in the same geography there should be 3 DEs, 3 Assistant DEs and perhaps one support person working from home. Charters of councils that continue to shrink (adjusted for LDS departure numbers) need to be withdrawn and awarded to new boards and officers who will operate the program effectively. Charters of councils that continue to operate in the red need to be withdrawn and awarded to new boards and officers who will operate council services to at least break-even. Councils in a recognized media market should be merged for efficiencies in promoting membership. "Mergers of Equals" is a bad strategy. During the course of a merger solve all leadership issues by putting in-place good people with actual authority. Deal with camp evaluations and (if needed) downsizing during the course of the merger. Remove the camp issue as an impediment to the going-forward council. Legacy program concerns (like OA lodges that will need to be merged) should be handled in a respectful way, but should not obstruct he solutions that are needed. Please suggest the names of councils that make sense to merge and why. When you state your reasoning, I ask that you not include any individual's name and simply relate facts that you actually know. Don't state: "XXX Council is a dilapidated organization run by incompetent people and needs to be merged with next-door YYY Council that is operated with perfection by wonderful people." Instead, state something like: "QQQ council has lost 5% of its membership six years in a row, has ten districts but only six DEs, has spent $100,000 of camp endowment money each year to maintain daily operations for three years in a row, and has only one-third of the volunteer commissioner slots filled. Volunteer committees have tried hard to remedy these challenges to no effect. I believe we should merge with next-door ZZZ council, which has a larger camp in well-maintained condition that can accommodate the resulting council, a strong tradition of field service with consistent year-to-year membership growth, a service center accessible to people from the merging council and a council executive board that allows 30 minutes of each meeting to hear from volunteers." Your comment should be no longer than the example provided, because we just need the basics for this discussion. We don't want this to become a gripe session and do not want to target any individuals (either by name or otherwise). If you have not previously posted to this site, please know that -- the less said, with facts to back things up and with neither emotion nor condemnation -- is what everyone here expects. After we have some solid suggestions of where mergers might be productive, then we will have a separate posting on how the combination of councils should be conducted.

Dear Friends, This posting is about positive national structural changes that might be opportune to implement as a result of the national bankruptcy. The thoughts being shared about Councils and DEs would get the better attention on the council and district postings and keep this posting focused on the national scene. I will certainly have some thoughts in reply to the idea that Scouting can continue as a quality and credible entity without a strong cadre of DEs out there. When focused on the right things, these are our most valuable pros. In the field, promoting our program and people and doing it 24/7 in a way that we volunteers cannot. It can be the best, most-enjoyable paid job in Scouting because the rewards are meaningful, readily-apparent and immediate.

Do you know if this was local to the Southern Region or did similar changes happen in other regions? Answer: I do not know if this is going one in other regions. There is a big meeting in Dallas today during which a number of decisions and announcements will b e made. The first hearing on the case takes place today as well. So, we should learn of some additional developments on the national scene very soon.

T2Eagle: Are they comparing the diocese to the national conference of Catholic bishops? The diocese-conference link would be weak in comparison to the council-national link.

Southern Region Downsizes Staff. Retirements of the Region Director and 4 of the 8 Area Directors were announced today. The remaining 4 Area Directors will now serve 2 Areas each.

What a day, and what a couple of years it is going to be as we go through this. By the way, thanks everyone for contributing to my recent postings. Hope we came up with some good initiatives and tactics to use as we go forward. Tort lawyers in the US are among the best advocates in the world. The people arrayed against the BSA are very good and their obligation is to take the BSA down and take every penny, including selling the very last basketry merit badge stool kit in the warehouse. The technique to do this is to first take a run at killing the BSA outright. This would be attempted by a vigorous PR campaign to further deamonize us to the point where we lose our membership, COs and donors at all levels, including councils. If there is no organization left to operate, then there are no assets needed to be retained and the whole mass of assets is liquidated, including auctioning off the rights to the term “Eagle Scout”. This would be a forced conversion to a Chapter 7. Chances of success? Probably only 1/30, if that. Their next-best technique is going to be to argue control issues — that councils and national are essentially one and the same. This will be done through a sophisticated argument to capture the councils assets into the principal bankruptcy. Look to an analysis that because National gets everything when it withdraws a council charter, that the judge — perhaps having power to order such a withdrawal — should do so now. Withdraw the charters, collapse the assets into one pile, and the lawyers get their huge share. Alternative control arguments will be made as well — they just are not as elegant sounding. One alternative is to get bankruptcy permission to continue the state lawsuits against the councils on their own. That is nicer for the lawyers, because they get a higher percentage fee and there is no liability discharge (allowing multiple future suits). Finally, some councils might file a Ch. 11 on their own, or use the national Ch. 11 as a means through which they might settle and get a discharge. The chance of some combination of these arguments working against a council that has some bad cases with horrible facts? Maybe 1/3. A council with no cases that is somehow “clean as a whistle” would fare much better. Maybe chances of loss being 1/20. However, the Tort lawyers only need one “iffy” case from the 40s in this environment to have leverage. Where this drives me is that I believe smart Scouters in geographic territories might look to what council camp and office assets need to be retained to operate the BSA locally — and consider contributing the value of the unneeded propertied to the victims compensation trust. The objective is to keep what is needed and get the discharge of liability. We talked a bit on some earlier postings about downsizing and keeping only the best properties. Places like 10-Mile, Goshen and Owasippe that are beautiful, can serve a large territory and cost less to operate. That would be one of the ways we could accomplish something good in bankruptcy that we otherwise could not. The councils who wish to be represented before the bankruptcy court with a separate and distinct voice are already preparing to do so under the leadership of preeminent bankruptcy council from the New York Councils. This is going to be an historic bankruptcy. New law will be made. The only certainty is that the councils are indeed in the gunsights of the tort lawyers — and some of those councils have bad facts. Prediction: Councils with bad facts will contribute and negotiate for a discharge. Councils with good facts will contribute something in order to “buy” a discharge.

Why did I make these postings over the last month? I'm a long-time volunteer who spent about 30+ years in council and national roles up until a few years back. I knew that the BSA would file a Chapter 11 because it had to -- once the statutes of limitations were eliminated -- allowing a flood of lawsuits and now the bankruptcy claims. I dearly love what the BSA achieves and hope that when we come out of Ch. 11 we will be able to thrive. My insistence on positivity in the posts I focus is because I can see what we will face over the next couple of years -- a potentially-toxic stew of the right and left being against us for cultural reasons and the trial industry making a stab at bringing us down into liquidation so they can get maximum cash. There is going to be a lot of bad will and negativity in the BSA and even among some posters on Scouter.com -- so I wanted to start us off into this new phase on as upbeat a spirit as we can be. I believe the time when an entity is down is the time to dispense with the things that don't work and a time to adopt new things that do. Folks on "Scouter.com" have observed for many years that "we just can't do anything" about the BSA's significant challenges. Well, now is going to be the opportunity to do things differently. The organization is going to be smaller, but not the same. For example, just today the Southern Region was wiped-out. No more region director and half of the 8 area directors were dismissed. That is change. That is reorienting power back to the local level. This is going to be the environment for Scouters of good will to come forward with the kinds of ideas expressed on the postings these last 4 weeks. Back before I "retired" from my council and national roles, I was an insider in the movement. I left all of that and am now the Scoutmaster of my 12-year-old daughter's Troop. But, I am aware enough to understand that these blogs have been carefully read by a wide variety of people wanting to know where the future of the BSA is going to be. The cross-section of commenters these past 4 weeks has been a very representative group. Look me up in a couple of years and I think you will see great and positive changes in the BSA consistent with much of what has been said here.

The Financial Restructuring Bankruptcy (Ch. 11) was just filed. We will not be discussing the filing itself on this posting. Only the positive things we will encourage during that process.

The Financial Reorganization Bankruptcy (Chapter 11) was just filed. We will not be addressing that filing on this posting. Only positive things we can attempt to implement during that process.

Eagle1993: I am not a bankruptcy expert, but I agree that councils are in a threatened circumstance as we approach reorganization. The councils have formed a bankruptcy committee to participate in the court process. This is being arranged by attorneys affiliated with councils and will councils as a group a means to participate directly in the proceeding (meaning they do not have to go through national). The plantiffs lawyers will try hard to get assets from the councils. Their service to their clients is to obtain as much money as possible and they will do their job well. I am told there are defensive bankruptcy strategies that will be deployed, but that is the extent of my knowledge. Somehow I hope the councils will participate by evaluating their circumstances and contributing some finances during the bankruptcy in order to receive the same kind of "discharge" from the bankruptcy court -- which would prevent the future claims you rightly fear in your posting. As for volunteer recruiting, it is something I find myself having to doe every week to keep my expanding Troop sufficiently supported by adult volunteers. After 30+ years I have no secret. I find it is just very important to continuously "make the ask". I guess I'm "successful" in that regard, but I have not developed some great strategy that makes it any easier. Asking and convincing.

Dkurtenbach: The troop described in your posting pretty much describes what my Troop and experience is like. Of course I am a long-time volunteer and know those things and have the time to share the knowledge and spread my time. However, this really does not happen by itself. I'm not certain we require the structure we currently have to raise-up Scouters who will do the tings you suggest should be natural, but some organization that has some of the same looks and functions of our current districts is probably what can cause those things to happen. Someone, somewhere has to make those things come about -- otherwise newer units and new unit leaders will have less of a chance to learn those lessons and share the experience and workload with other well-intentioned colleagues. In a sense, the pleasant circumstance you describe make the case for a well-run districts-type entity. If you agree with me just a little bit, what kind or entity could give rise to the circumstanced you suggest in a situation where it does not naturally exist?

dkurtenbach: Great detail and support for your ideas. Now relate them to the financially downsizing period coming up for us. Will your suggestions streamline any costs? Will they impact the priority of the districts? Ideas that make excellent program sense and which simultaneously respond to our organization’s challenges will get maximum traction.

MattR: If the fundamental metrics of a council are not going well, the conversations these days between council and area/region/national volunteers are not “affirming”. In fact, having been both an area and council President not that long ago, I can confirm that those talks can get pretty unpleasant. I came in as a council President after my predecessors, their boards and the SEs had all been “thanked for their past services”. Maybe there are smiles in public in your council’s situation, but if your council is mismanaged the national structure is being very direct with them. That function of the national structure is good. In bankruptcy national volunteers and their professionals are going to determine (with a lot of council volunteer participation) whether the charter from a truly dysfunctional council will be withdrawn. There will be less fooling around under the circumstances we will face. My late Scoutmaster and my late Unit Commissioner father had differing views regarding whether our district/council was a hopelessly lost organization or worth something. They are probably in heaven still arguing about that — as well as the proposed design of the next heavenly district camporee patch. Maybe now is your time to come forward with as positive a spirit as you can muster and become a district/council volunteer. You might help just when you are needed. And, wearing a council/district target on your back can expand your perspective.

Barry: Interesting thoughts, none of which I believe are negative talking. It is easy for these type of discussions to become overly “complaining”, which explains my requests for constructive thinking. Are you generally in favor of councils being required to offer national programs and follow national standards more strictly or would you generally encourage national-council flexibility? Perhaps youngest-age Cub Scouting would be a good example for you to offer an opinion. I ask about the council-national relationship, because it really is the key operational relationship for national.

EagleDad: What I was getting at is that the current nature of the national-council relationship is that when the national structure rolls-out a program or emphasis, the Councils are expected to go along with everything (there have been a few exceptions, but not many). The issue is whether councils should be able to pick and choose what to implement locally. If they pick something I believe they should follow the national template. Not every McDonalds serves the McRib sandwich, but if they do it will taste the same. Should every council be expected to serve the entire menu of program options and follow every practice or standard? The same issue has structure implications. Should every council have to choose their professional Scouters from the nationally-approved list, or might they hire local business executives?

Great observations, ParkMan. The consulting concept is interesting. In the 1970-1980's there were in-house professional Scouter consultants stationed in the regions called "national field representatives" for the major programs. The national field representative for Exploring would travel the region consulting and assisting the implementation of that program -- but this was really just implementing the standard template. These were discontinued long ago.

Malraux: Do you think the national structure should have the authority to mandate that every aspect of Cub Scouts be implemented in every Council? For example, should councils have the option to choose whether it will offer program to the youngest age-tier?

Parkman: I did not specifically discuss that the commissioner staff goes up every level to national. Much of the servicing aspects of what you raise is in their area of responsibility. Generally, the national structure commissioner organization is thought to have greatly upgraded itself since a national commissioner service staff was established about 10 years ago.

ParkMan: The Journey to Excellence program tracks and reports some (but not all) of the metrics you are suggesting. And, the identical JTE metrics are tabulated and used to evaluate at every level of Scouting. Every volunteer and professional has the identical dashboard configuration that aggregates the same data at whatever locale and level is applicable. Unit size is probably tracked but is not included in the current reports. Unit quality is pretty subjective, and is probably reflected only in the JTE reporting on things like advancement, retention, number of commissioner contacts with a unit and similar things. The data is probably available -- but your comment really goes to how that data is used to evaluate personnel and target resources.

I do not have organization charts or similar documents, and do not encourage circulation of official BSA documents as part of this posting.

ParkMan: This is, absolutely, how it works at the current time based on personal experience. I've been an observer and participant in the national structure since 1976, when I was elected a regional youth officer in the previous East Central Region. Since then I've been variously involved in the national program development, membership, fund raising, event, base management and council merger functions. There are many very good people involved in the professionally and volunteer ranks of the national structure. I encourage anyone considering a post to this entry to consider biting off a bite-sized matter and providing deeper analysis. The subject matter spread of the national structure (and program functions for the companion posting). Write your entries as though a good number of national leaders of the BSA are reading your thoughts. Provide meaningful analysis and precisely-written suggestions. Let's avoid speculating or negative thoughts. We are looking to provide positive ideas.

DuctTape: I encourage you and everyone else to think "big-picture" on this positing. Rather than discussing the content of individual training programs, I urge you to address the centrality of training generally, the current role the national organization plays in it and how that role might evolve in a positive way over the next couple of years. Your mentioning of the on-line versus live-presentation is a good example of a significant issue.

With a national Financial Restructuring Ch. 11 Bankruptcy filing likely in our future, this posting will focus on program changes that would be good for the national BSA organization. This includes national events, high adventure bases, program committees, specialized committees (like OA, Venturing, Sea Scouts), advancement, awards, uniforms, supply division and anything that really touches on what a youth member would experience. If you want to engage in discussion of structural issues, please engage in the companion National Structural Changes posting, which is now active. We will not discuss the Bankruptcy proceedings or media accounts of it on this posting. If you wish to do so, there will surely be other postings to do that. Program Development, Events and Program Support. I put national program activity into three buckets. The first is Program Development, which is the continuous monitoring and evaluation of the relevance of the programming we offer Councils to implement locally. This ranges from the writing of handbooks and other program manuals to devising and proposing changes to things like age eligibility. The second bucket are events and activities. This would be things like conduct of National Jamborees, national events, operation of the High Adventure Bases and conduct of any program activity above the council level (like OA, Venturing and other special events and youth leadership structures). Program Support is the third bucket, consisting of things like the Supply Division, Boy’s Life and other services in direct support of program. In my view, program is a required function of the national structure and, if anything, should be prioritized and reallocated additional resources during the financial reorganization. Program development by national is what we provide our Scouts. When it is very good (such as the current Scouts BSA Scout Handbooks), it is wonderful. When it is less relevant or draining of resources, it can presents problems across the entire movement until it dies out or is corrected. What national Program changes do you believe would be good to implement during the financial restructuring? Please support your ideas with at least a few sentences of rationale.