CynicalScouter

A follow up on this because I think it is important. Let's take one of biggest councils that I know of: Michigan Crossroads. Expenses in 2019 were $17,619,710. The S.E. for Michigan Crossroads makes salary $229,010 plus other compensation $56,000 = $285,010 Total Compensation = 1.61% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/454003240/08_2020_prefixes_41-45%2F454003240_201912_990_2020082517254775 How about a mid-size? Heart of Virginia https://www.connectva.org/groups/heart-of-virginia-council-inc-boy-scouts-of-america/financials/ Expenses in 2018 (last year for data) = 3,858,253 S.E. makes salary $84,552 plus other compensation 0 = $84,552 Total Compensation as % of expenditures = 2.19% So, rather than throwing numbers out here about "the evil S.E. makes XXXX", in the future how about "The evil S.E. makes XX% of all expenditures." Again, the non-profit standard is 1%-10%.

As for salaries, there's no "magic number" BUT having worked for and with not-for-profits for years, the GENERAL rule of thumb is 1-10% of the organizations expenses. The last big study I was aware of was 2016. https://d20umu42aunjpx.cloudfront.net/2016+CEO+Comp+Study/2016+CEO+Compensation+Study.pdf It affirmed what I mentioned: that 1-10% ratio depends on the size of the organization. Ironically SMALLER organizations tend to have a LARGER percent of their expenditures to CEO compensation (closer to 10%). So comparing the CEO's salaries to local median or per capita isn't the right metric. The better metric is how much of the organizations expenditures go to the CEO? If the answer is greater than 10%, that's a problem.

I've conducted trainings as we also have a 20% administrative fee. As you said, the money has to come from somewhere. For example, if we are using Doubleknot for registration, that cost/costs money to keep and maintain. When I do Leave No Trace, everyone walks away with a cathole trowel. That money isn't magically appearing out of nowhere. Staff don't work for free. Etc. I don't hold it against these people that they need money to operate. I think too many people here believe Council staff should work for free.

My current committee chair is relatively new to the position (18 months). We haven't had a DE in years and the chair was convinced our council S.E. was overpaid and useless based on what he had been told by the old guard. I then showed exactly what the S.E. was paid from the IRS 990s and what the posted salary was for the D.E. position. He came back "is the D.E. part time?" I said no. That ended his complaints about council being "overpaid".

It was announced: if you have not done your EBOR by May 1, you have to do the new merit badge. You are right, GENERALLY it is stable once the scout earns the previous rank. But that is GENERALLY. Guide to Advancement lets national change the rules at any time. 7.0.4.3 What to Do When Requirements Change

Update: https://discussions.scouting.org/t/de-i-merit-badge-requirements/209655 Did any of you get asked your views on this? Or was this limited to S.E.s?

Yes for all the reasons mentioned above. First it is possibly illegal (it is betting/gambling after all). Second, it is absolutely a BSA no-go. Games of chance are explicitly prohibited. Fundraising projects involving games of chance, lotteries, sale of raffle tickets, or bingo, or which could be construed as a gambling activity and those in the nature of pyramid sales or multilevel marketing are prohibited. (Rules and Regulations of the BSA) And Selling raffle tickets or other games of chance is a direct violation of the BSA Rules and Regulations, which forbid gambling. (Guides To Unit Money-Earning Projects)

Ok, so there's two things: 1) Those who are objecting to YPT because it "ends the patrol method" or some how denigrates/dilutes scouting from its glory days. Into this I would include those who object to YPT at all and those who object to how it is enforced. To those who object to YPT at all, I would simply say "read the room" or in this case "read the legal landscape". There is no way BSA can function without having that YPT program in place. And EVERY single aspect is derived from some lawsuit. AI discussed it here, but basically National and Councils were successfully sued on claims that they failed to adequately train and adequately supervise. As I read through Guide to Safe Scouting and read over in particular the Oregon case, I realize that the YPT program is being written by a) psychological experts in abuse and b) lawyers. 2) Those who are objecting to how YPT is being delivered. I agree the way YPT is delivered with the problems with the IT is bad, I will say, however, that mandating in-person training would prove difficult. I know the Catholic Bishops require in-person Virtus (some dioceses were granting waivers due to COVID, but that was the exception). It's hard enough to get volunteers to take the training as it is (online for 70 minutes). I know some council who were offering YPT zoom sessions (gets you that interactivity) but that was due to COVID. Not sure how long that lasts post-COVID.

This is what Trail Life and similar orgs have done. They have to hoe a very narrow path. The Congressional Charter grants National the exclusive rights to much of this intellectual property. If you want to create a "Outdoor Adventure for Youth" (OAY) go ahead. But the minute you start using terms like "scouting" "merit badges" and the like, National is going to sue. EDIT: I should also note Baden-Powell Service Association (United States) and any of the World Federation of Independent Scouts organizations exist. There's nothing to stop you if you want to just throw up a wiki as long as you stay away from National's IP.

Hundreds of lawsuits and thousands/millions in compensation due to injuries and abuse would indicate that volunteers need additional training. Again, you see to simply hate Youth Protection Training. Why?

The point is that adults now know they have to report. And again, the point behind these lawsuits was that BSA failed on this. So the YPT training is for both: to teach adults what they should be doing on the health/safety/welfare front and to ensure BSA doesn't get sued into the ground. It seems you've already decided what the "Truth" is and no one is going to persuade you otherwise. Ok then, nice chatting with you.

I finally got ahold of someone in my Council after I point blank asked about this (and the fact that ALL scout executives were sent a copy on November 23. but opted to hide it). They hit the same points as @gpurlee 1) The idea was not BSAs directly. Basically there were two groups. One group of COs said they would NOT be ok with rechartering due to the liability but are ok with letting scouts use their facilities. This addresses that. The second group simply refused to recharter and while the liability was not the stated purpose it was implied that was probably what drove it. This is being developed to address both needs. 2) Keep in mind for many of these COs they want to keep scouting going, but they have to balance that against their potential legal liability. Their risk-adverse lawyers are telling them to ditch scouting outright. This is being put in place to try and remove the risk and yet keep them available as a meeting place.

Meeting tonight via Zoom for the Common Table Discussions https://methodistscouter.org/monthly-events/ Dec. 11, 2020 6:30 PM Central: Topic is BSA Bankruptcy status and impacts on you

I don't take offense, I'm confused as well with some of the same questions you have. I have NO idea how you can register and NOT be YPT. As for off the books, this really was about merit badge counselors in particular from what I was told and I personally experienced with working with MBCs in my council. 1) Scoutbook USED to (until a month or two ago) allow any unit to make someone a merit badge counselor. Now that Scoutbook will direct sync with Scoutnet, that won't happen anymore after March 2021. 2) There was also the practice of just allowing anyone to be a MBC. This really came down to parents who wanted to be a MBC but were put off by having to do the online training.

See slides 28 and 29 from here Churchill Plan Proposed New Territory Structure and Council Standards The STANDARD will be 98%, not 100%. And this is coming from instances where there are units that have adults who are "stealth leaders" but won't do the YPT. This the ASM who simply "doesn't have time" to do the YPT and the unit lets them operate off-the-books. and

I think this conflates two different things: the actions necessary to keep scouting alive coming out of the abuse scandal and the actions necessary to keep scouting alive during COVID. Excuse me, but why is the welfare and safety of the scouts not a "real" reason to you? I think it is but if you want to turn it negative, try this. Many of the legal claims claims lodged against National and the Councils are that they let untrained/under-trained and unvetted/under-vetted volunteers out into the woods with children in close quarters for prolonged periods of time. The claims filed include claims of negligence in hiring (volunteers are "hired" for these purposes), negligence in supervision, and negligence in training as well as general negligence or gross negligence. You may remember the $20 million Oregon case? Those three claims were the key to that lawsuit as the Oregon Court of Appeals noted (Lourim v. Swensen 936 P.2d 1011 (1997) While the Oregon Supreme Court would later overturn the judgement on the respondeat superior claim, it LEFT ALONE the claims that Cascade Pacific Council and Boy Scouts of America were negligent in retention, training, and supervision of Swensen. There were dozens of other cases where the claims were that National and/or the Councils were negligent in retention, training and supervision or some combination. So you are darn right national and councils are pushing the training, because they've learned that anything less is simply inviting them to get sued into the ground. And keep in mind that the latest figures indicate that there remains a LARGE percentage of scout leaders who are not even YPT trained. That's why the new charter agreement puts in italics And why the long term plan is that every adult leader must be position trained. I know several councils which have already adopted this. Tidewater comes to mind https://tidewaterbsa.com/training-information/100-position-basic-trained-policy/ Other councils will not even allow you to apply for a position unless you are position trained. Colonial Virginia announced starting 1/2/2022 you may not even APPLY for a registered adult position unless you are position trained (except for IOLS and/or BALOO; you'll have 1 year to complete) https://www.cvcboyscouts.org/uploads/2/3/5/7/23572110/cvc_training_requirements.pdf As for the rest Yes, because during COVID in many states scouting couldn't happen otherwise. Virginia just went back into 10-person lock down and summer camps/overnight camps are effectively being shut down again. The choice in many states was virtual induction/virtual summer camp or nothing at all. If in a year from now we have a vaccine and COVID is contained/under control and they are still doing this let's talk then. But for now, the options were virtual vs. nothing, I'd rather they do virtual.

At least some, yes. There will be the option for units to be chartered under the traditional model but there will be some number of units where the CO = Council, therefore the Council/Scout Exec will select the COR. So, the execs will control SOME voting members.

Nevermind, I found proof The new plan is that the COUNCIL OWNS THE UNITS.

Nevermind, question answered here.

If you are sitting on the EBOR, then you are allowed to inquire if he has lived by the Scout Oath and Law. "Would you agree that taking or dealing drugs is inconsistent with the Oath and Law?" Don't accuse hm. Don't confront him. Just see what the reaction is.

What proof do you have? What does "implicated" mean? Has he been arrested? If all you have is rumor, that isn't (and shouldn't) be enough. Without more that than, you may reject him but as others said, Council and/or National will award him.

One of the biggest challenges I've seen has been that BSA puts out TONS of documents and slides and such, but the one thing I've not seen is what any of these activities should look like in practice and especially the PLC. This is critical I think for two reasons. 1) It lets the SM and ASMs know what their role really looks like. I've seen PLCs where the SM effectively drives the meeting and hands out assignments. That was also the same SM that would constantly complain that the scouts were always coming to him with questions. I've also seen PLCs where the SM acts in what I think (IMHO) is the appropriate manner which is to sit there and be available and maybe ask a question but otherwise not chime in (except at the end for a SM minute). 2) It lets the SPL/ASPL know what is expected of them. They may know the way their troop has done it, but that's not necessarily consistent with what the patrol method is supposed to be. I know recording minors and is a huge hassle and liability, but does anyone know/can anyone think of a video of the way it "should" be?

Except I didn't dismiss it. I noted that there are laws prohibiting it. I did not try to address whether the culture caused the law or the law caused the culture.

To my knowledge it is what every other WOSM organization on the planet does other than those in Islamic nations where there are laws prohibiting such co-ed programs.

There's two things here. 1) The new form released November 23 still continues the practice of COs as traditional Chartered Organizations. It does NOT change that relationship inherently, but adds language regarding liability/insurance and also that Councils are going to start to (likely) mandate peanut/popcorn sales and crack down on unauthorized fundraising. I think what is being rumored at is there will be 2) a SECOND, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT type of charter document not yet released that does NOT include much of anything regarding the chartered organization's responsibilities for ANYTHING (or anything much) and therefore 0 liability.