CynicalScouter

Also worth noting: the folks working the official United Methodists Scouting FB are asking people to hold tight "We will have an honest update by Sept. 20." https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/603906087681889?comment_id=604431790962652&reply_comment_id=604441290961702 What is so special about Sept. 20? It is the day before the hearing on the BSA disclosure statement and Plan 4.0 set to start on Sept. 21. And I feel for this scouter (emphasis added) That gets into another debate of what is a "quality unit" and how can you measure of a unit is/isn't or to what extent is/isn't it a "quality" unit. JTE scores anyone?

During the annual meeting there was talk about a major media and marketing push once the bankruptcy is over to "rebrand" BSA and to focus on people who have NOT heard of or are aware of scouting (vs. trying to drum up support from those who already knew). There was supposedly messages that were tested, meaning either a) focus groups or b) survey such as you suggest. We'll see what comes of it.

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

Latest from United Methodist Scouting FB. This is an official page. It does NOT sound positive. https://www.facebook.com/101372411268595/posts/605743410831490/?d=n “Have you ever thought about what James West felt? How did he see things? He was asked to be the Chief Scout for a brand new BSA. There were already active troops with charters going back to England. There were troops doing their own thing. And there was something he believed could be of benefit for the country and world. The movement was already moving. So how to build the future today? That had to be his daily question. Know two things: 1) We are working tirelessly to help the charter groups of today hang tight to service with youth. This is a challenge. 2) We also are exploring all options to go where the movement that values youth, service, community, and growth will grow again.”

And there are people who think Mosby is being honest, truthful and trustworthy. Just because YOU don't think so doesn't mean others do not. That's the problem with using this as performance. The "M" in "Measurement" becomes "My opinion". How are you going to measure performance? Run a poll of scouts and if he gets less than 50% fire him?

See! THAT Is a good performance measurement Specific: Reduce number of CSA cases reported in 2021 by 50% vs. 2011. Measurable: Yes, count number of abuse cases reported in 2021 vs 2011 Achievable: Yes, with stringent YPT. 100% elimination is not "achievable" since perfection with 1 million scouts is impossible. Relevant: Absolutely relevant. Time-Bound: Yes, there is a specific measurement and date 2021 vs. 2011 THAT is a performance measure you can use. Not "do more good" "stop being crappy". Etc.

Exactly. That's why performance measurement and management are so hard. "Do good stuff" "Stop doing crappy stuff" How on EARTH can you expect someone to be measured off of that. Let me offer what might be (not saying it is one I am happy with) metric for Mosby Specific: Total BSA registered youth membership will decline no more than 3% Year Ending 2020 vs. Year Ending 2021 Measurable: Yes, subtract the number of youth registered on December 31, 2020 from the number registered on December 31, 2021 and divided. Achievable: Yes, when all is said and done it is POSSIBLE that with fall recruiting to see BSA only decline in membership by 3%. Relevant: Absolutely relevant. Time-Bound: Yes, there is a specific date (December 31, 2021) for this to occur. THAT is performance measurement. Not "Walk the Walk" and "Stop being crappy".

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 to that of other similar organizations." Period.

I'm not. Part of the problem is that if you set amorphous goals you never know if you achieved them. "Do better" "Stop doing bad". How EXACTLY is he doing a "Crappy" job or, conversely, specifically what would a "good" job look like? Etc. If you cannot define what "Success" looks like, you'll never get there.

And this is the problem when most people (not just you, but in general) demand better "performance". They are utterly incapable of quantifying what they want. "I want you to do better". Ok, what does better LOOK like? "Do more good stuff". Ok, what? How do you possibly MEASURE that if you cannot even define it? Again, SMART goals is a well known tool here. Not the best, not perfect, but well known and well tested. They teach it at Wood Badge, my organization it is practically a mantra. SMART Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-Bound So, what exactly does good "performance" look like? How is it SPECIFICALLY defined? Specific: "Follow the Scout Oath and Law" Ok, how then how do we MEASURE that? The "specific" is so UNspecific as to be useless. That is so amorphous, nebulous and unclear as to be useless in terms of "performance". There's 12 points of the law. Is Mosby being measured on all 12, or just 1? And how is he measured? Who measures? Etc.

And how exactly is that measured? What does that even MEAN? SMART Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-Bound SMART Roger Mosby Will walk 3 miles He has demonstrated an ability to walk in the past It is relevant to scouting HOW? (not clear) He will walk this walk within 1 week

Yep, as is your "right" to mass down vote every post made by myself and @johnsch322 or whoever else you want to target. If petty little down vote/internet "points" is the only response you are capable of and the only thing you care about, so be it.

But then we get the complaints lodged above: that all BSA cares about is membership numbers. What performance metrics should be used to weigh the effectiveness of the BSA CEO (Mosby for now)?

No. The argument previously made and alleged by @Gilwell_1919was that financial data in general, and executive compensation in particular, by BSA in the past was untrustworthy. My point was that while it may/may not have been in the past, in the current context with the possibility of criminal charges and an active bankruptcy with people tearing through their financials, I extremely doubt that BSA's fudging its financials now.

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.

See this: Nonprofits and Sarbanes-Oxley https://www.americanbar.org/groups/center-pro-bono/resources/program-management/nonprofits_sarbanes_oxley/ I was refering to the idea that if BSA by and through its accountants were filing false financials in general, and as part of the IRS 990s in particular, DURING THE BANKRUPTCY Section 802 applies. Record-keeping Section 802 of the Act makes it a crime to knowingly alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover up, falsify or make a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any federal department or agency or any case filed under the federal bankruptcy code. Violators may be fined and/or imprisoned for up to 20 years. (emphasis added) Section 1102 of the Act makes it a crime to "corruptly" alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document or other object, or attempt to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. The Act does not define the term "corruptly." Violators may be fined and/or imprisoned for up to 20 years. (emphasis added)

So, let's keep beating the dead horse of "BSA professionals make too much and should be paid $1" and put BSA in the context of other similar not for profits. 19 Total Revenue Executive compensation Professional fundraising fees Other salaries and wages CEO/President 2019 Salary 2019 Salary Salary as % of Revenue Museum Of Modern Art $443,982,645 $15,468,024 $0 $62,944,381 Glenn D Lowry (Director/Ex-Officio Trustee) $4,130,549 0.93% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131624100 Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders $434,252,433 $780,356 $13,466,404 $22,338,132 (Had two presidents and an interim executive director, so not clear what total salaries where) Unclear #VALUE! https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/133433452 Catholic Medical Mission Board $433,856,899 $831,111 $317,345 $11,744,953 BRUCE WILKINSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO) $434,341 0.10% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135602319 Boy Scouts of America (NATIONAL ONLY) $408,616,814 $5,055,829 $89,938 $57,013,503 Michael B Surbaugh (President) $909,437 0.22% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221576300 Young Life $403,071,493 $1,437,251 $172,418 $155,749,890 Newton Crenshaw (President/CEO) $399,765 0.10% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/840385934 Leukemia & Lymphoma Society $396,221,152 $2,189,690 $5,823,217 $92,000,086 LOUIS J DEGENNARO (PRESIDENT &) $781,916 0.20% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135644916 New York Public Library $393,419,155 $7,318,656 $309,800 $132,764,271 ANTHONY W MARX (Trustee, President and CEO) $812,374 0.21% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131887440 Oh, and here is GSUSA data as well as Trail Life Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. $122,052,984 $4,682,128 $477,775 $39,327,862 Sylvia Acevedo NON-VOTING (CEO & EX. OFFICIO OF THE BOARD) $625,980 0.51% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131624016 Trail Life USA $2,461,601 $156,000 $0 $978,501 MARK HANCOCK (CEO) $156,000 6.34% https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/611717498 Now, let's really lay it out as a percentage. 19 Total Revenue Executive compensation as % of revenue CEO/President 2019 Salary as % of Revenue Museum Of Modern Art $443,982,645 3.48% 0.93% Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders $434,252,433 0.18% #VALUE! Catholic Medical Mission Board $433,856,899 0.19% 0.10% Boy Scouts of America (NATIONAL ONLY) $408,616,814 1.24% 0.22% Young Life $403,071,493 0.36% 0.10% Leukemia & Lymphoma Society $396,221,152 0.55% 0.20% New York Public Library $393,419,155 1.86% 0.21% Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. $122,052,984 3.84% 0.51% Trail Life USA $2,461,601 6.34% 6.34% In other words, the BSA compensation package is comparable to that of other similar organizations.

How forseeable was it that because SCOUTING IN GENERAL or BSA NATIONAL had a history of child sexual abuse cases that a landlord letting PACK 123 use their fellowship hall would lead to the sexual abuse of a scout (generally, or on the premises)? That's a stretch in a half to say the least. But it will cost the church thousands to defend that suit, or the insurance co. for the church.

Depends in prevention (or foreseeability) and soverign immunity. First, keep in mind that the Forest Service and (some) local and state governments have what is called soverign immunity: you can't sue them for a tort (like personal injury) UNLESS they give you permission first. Here's a hint: they won't. See, for example https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/federal-appellate-court-determines-government-immune-liability-bicycle-accident-occurring-national-forest/ So, there's that. Second is the idea of prevention or foreseeability. GENERALLY "There is no duty to control the conduct of third persons." Yes, a person renting a property out has some duty to ensure that the physical property is safe, but it is VERY hard to make a claim that the landlord is legally responsible for any criminal conduct or civil torts that takes place in there. So, to use the example of BSA, if the facility was rented out with a big giant leak in the floorboards causing John Cub Scout to slip and fall? The landlord may be on the hook, sure. You'd have an argument the landlord was responsible for ensuring the safety of the building. But if a scoutmaster was abusing scouts in the bathroom? The best that can be said it "maybe." https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1895&context=lawreview So, and to use the BSA example. A landlord/church rents out the fellowship hall to Cub Scouts. The Cubmaster then uses those Pack meetings to run a drug den using the scouts as drug mules. A scout ODs. The forseeability here is going to be at or near zero. There was NO WAY that the landlord could have reasonably known that Cub Scouts would be dealing and doing drugs. BUT A landlord/church rents out the fellowship hall to Cub Scouts. The Cubmaster sexually abuses a scout in the bathroom. Given BSA's track record of child sexual abuse, I would bet some lawyer would make an attempt at foreseeable: "Landlord, you KNEW that BSA had a history of abusing children and you went right ahead and let then use your property for it anyway. You know, or should have known, that was going to happen." Etc.

Good for you. In the given marketplace, asking DEs to do 60+ hours a week for $40k will happen so rarely that the jobs remain open for months. My council had a DE spot, pre-pandemic, open for 11 months. Are there people willing to work that much for that little? Yes. Are there enough to meet Local Council staffing needs? Nope. Of course, I suppose you'd argue that all those professionals should just get paid $1 and be grateful and happy to work in/for scouting?

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Short-Form-Facility-Use-Agreement-draft-10-21-2020.pdf Facility Use Agreement Licensor: Licensee: Facility Description and Address: Licensee Address: Restricted Area(s), if any: Primary Contact with Phone Number: Primary Contact with Phone Number: This Facility Use Agreement (“Agreement”) is between the Licensor and Licensee named above. Licensor owns and/or operates the facility identified above (the “Facility”) and desires to grant Licensee a license to use the Facility during the Term on the terms and conditions set forth herein for the purpose of hosting Scout meetings and operating other Scouting-related activities (the “Purpose”). For good and valuable consideration, the Licensor and Licensee agree as follows: 1. Licensor hereby grants to Licensee and its individual units (i.e., dens, packs, troops, crews) a non-transferable, non-exclusive, limited right to access and use the Facility identified above (not including the Restricted Area(s), if any) during the Term on the terms and conditions hereof, and Licensee hereby accepts such license. Licensee’s use of the Facility shall be limited to the Purpose. 2. Licensee’s right to access and use the Facility begins at [TIME] a.m./p.m. on [DATE] (the “Start Date”) and ends at [TIME] a.m./p.m. on [DATE] (the “End Date”, and together with the Start Date, the “Term”). Licensee may terminate this Agreement any time for any reason (or no reason). 3. In exchange for the right to access and use the Facility, Licensee will pay Licensor the sum of $[AMOUNT] (the “Rental Fee”). A non-refundable deposit of $[AMOUNT] will be due no later than [DATE], and the balance of the Rental Fee will be due no later than [DATE]. 4. Licensee shall use reasonable care to preserve and protect the Facility from damage and to leave the Facility in substantially the same condition as when delivered by Licensor, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Licensee will be responsible for the reasonable costs to repair damages to the Facility caused by Licensee’s use under this Agreement, not including reasonable wear and tear. 5. Licensee has inspected and accepts the Facility “as is” in its current condition. Licensor makes no representations or warranties with respect to the condition of the Facility or its suitability for any particular purpose. Licensee understands that due to the nature of the Facility, it may not accommodate persons with certain disabilities. Licensee is responsible for providing all disability accommodations necessary for its guests and invitees. 6. Licensee will procure and maintain throughout the Term commercial general liability insurance with coverage limits of no less than a combined single limit of $2,000,000 and including coverage for bodily injury, property damage liability, and contractual liability. Licensor will be named as an additional insured under such policy and receive a certificate of insurance prior to the Start Date as evidence that Licensee meets the foregoing insurance requirement. 7. Licensee’s use of the Facility shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. Licensee will furnish all equipment, materials, and resources required, and adequate supervision necessary for the safe and efficient operation of, the Licensee’s meetings and related activities. Licensee agrees to abide by Licensor’s rules and guidelines applicable to the Facility of which Lessee is made aware in writing. 8. Licensee will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Licensor and its employees, directors, officers, contractors and agents from any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, and other costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, investigative costs, court costs (collectively, “Losses”), arising out of Licensee’s use of the Facility, except to the extent such Losses are the result of Licensor’s negligence or intentional misconduct or a condition of the premises not caused by Licensee. This indemnification obligation shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 9. Licensor shall not promote or exploit Licensee’s use of the Facility for the purpose of, or name Licensee in connection with any, political or social advocacy conducted by Licensor, including partisan politics, support or opposition to government action, or controversial legal, political, or social issues or causes. 10. This Agreement is governed by and will be construed in accordance with laws of the state where the Facility is situated. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter herein and may not be modified or amended unless such modification or amendment is made in writing and signed by both parties. Each party hereto represents and warrants that the person executing this Agreement on such party’s behalf is duly authorized to do so. Any provisions of this Agreement found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.

They should all also apparently work for $1 a piece (if that much) as well.

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.

The Guide to Advancement is...nebulous on this point. In short, what is/is not sufficient CAN be established by the unit leader PROSPECTIVELY. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf Here was the problem Guide to Advancement was trying to address. What happens when the Scoutmaster AFTER the 6-months-in-position just arbitrarily decides "Nope. I don't think so." If the unit leader is going to reject those months, the exact specifications need to be laid out FIRST, and Guide to Advancement spells that out. Note that part in bold. Finally, if the scout and the unit leader/Scoutmaster are STILL fighting about this, it gets sent to the Board of Review to sort out. In other words, there's no way an SM can outright block

Then name the number the current Scouts BSA (Mosby) should be making as salary. $1?