SiouxRanger

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I think the UMC is making a good point.  Even though BSA didn't directly select unit leaders, it did force Chartered Organizations to appoint many unit leaders it would not have normally chosen themselves.

My CO started out appointing the minimum number of unit leaders needed to charter.  Unregistered parents supplied whatever additional help was needed.  It worked out fine, as far as my CO was concerned.

BSA than started badgering units into registering everyone and anyone who was even peripherally involved in the unit.  They basically wanted units to register every parent, regardless of whether the CO knew them or not. 

Many units have doubled and tripled the number of registered leaders in their units.  In some units, the registered adults outnumber the scouts.  This wasn't the choice of the Chartered Organizations.  This was BSA's doing.  It's on them. 

I'm sure the UMC can document this fact.  It is a good argument, and they should pursue it.  

 

Got to show a 2% growth to Congress. (I think 2% is National's Standard for annual growth).

Knowing not where else to mention this:

Does anyone here have experience observing a DE actually creating a bona fide "new unit?"

In my council, phantom units appeared on the books, but they never functioned at all.

I was told by a reporter that a group of kids who toured the newspaper's printing facility were all required to fill out a Scouting Application before the tour.  Behold:  "A NEW UNIT," and the miracles continue unabated.

Yet the ship still sank.

4 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

I continue to be underwhelmed by the BSA professional leadership at the National and Local levels.  Transparency is not in their vocabulary.  Neither is communication.

Noticed a random note on our district e-blast (which typically has "no new content") about cub recruiting and the Field Director who assisted.  Apparently our DE, which is number 5 (maybe 6??) in the last 8 years has left.  No notice from council on that occurrence.  Then they wonder why the turnover is so bad as they don't regard them very highly and we do not get attached to them.

My version of this site must be broken, as I tried to upvote in scientific notation, something on the order of X times 10 to the seventh, but it would not work.

I have not heard anything from my council nor from my many contacts about the bankruptcy and its effect on my council, and I maintain constant contact with many of them.

Finally, my council's last SE, had, I believe, 27 DE's leave during his term of office of 5 years.  We have 5 districts with one DE per district.

His departure was not mourned by volunteers or professionals alike.  No one I have met in our council had a good thing to say of him.

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

i am a former professional. I can tell you there are ways to influence who is selected onto different boards

In my 10 year applicable year range, the candidates "offered" were 100% manipulated.

 I have NO confidence in any B..S.A. governance document.  (I have read all of them-they are trash legal drafting, unless you represent National. Then they make perfect sense.)

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

So not having a Duty to God made sense to him whereas the opposite was the case in the USA

I find this to be a very curious comment.

So, perhaps, could it be, that the "Duty to God" element was introduced to U.S. Scouting to entice religious denominations to accept the Chartered Organization role on a denomination-wide basis?

And, perhaps, so adopted because the SOLE religious denomination in Great Britain was the Church of England (courtesy of some arrogant King), but in America, many denominations were active and Constitutionally NEVER to be circumscribed.

Does anyone have any further insight beyond my limited knowledge?

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the LDS mafia sent thugs to beat up BSA leadership and leave horse heads in their beds.  Are you kidding me, LOL? A group of people who are supposed to be the most morally upright Dudley Do Rights on the planet somehow caved to this kind of pressure? 

This is what I'm talking about. 

Don't take CS seriously the minute he/she departs from commenting on btcy pleadings.

9 hours ago, yknot said:

Regarding Mosby

What I know of Mosby comes largely from this forum.

But I see a pattern here, and it troubles me.

My experience with my local council, at district and council level, was that when there was bad news to deliver to a volunteer (we no longer want you to be Chairperson of District Boy Scout Outdoor...etc.) the appropriate level professional, DE, or mid level council staffer, would recruit a volunteer senior to the volunteer to be ousted, and have the senior volunteer to the dirty work.

Thereby, the face of the "ugly" would be that of a volunteer, not a professional.  I saw it time and again.

And so, Mosby, not of the Movement, it appears to me that he has been hired as the "senior volunteer" in my example, to deliver the bad news and he will be out the door when the dust settles.  He may or may not be complicit in this.

And thereby, senior National staff will remain nameless and faceless.

(So, the proof of my prediction will be how long does Mosby stay on post-bankruptcy?)

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

SEs are evaluated by their executive committee (EC).  The EC is interested in membership and quality program.  In order to achieve these, there needs to be enough money.  So in an obtuse manner, development does affect the job performance of the SE. 

When there is an opening for a new SE for whatever reason (SE retirement, death, advancement, or leaving Scouting), the EC will discuss with the national council what the needs are: Old facilities need to be updated, poor program, membership loss or stagnation, or the development has not met the needs of the council.  Whatever the council's need will be of particular emphasis in the evaluation.  

My experience with the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board as well as more than one council EC and EB is that they are interested in quality program and membership.  Money is required to make it possible to have quality programs to increase membership.  Quality program and increasing membership is what drives most executive committee and board members.  I personally know many SEs and DFSs across the country who want to do the same things but know how challenging it is to have adequate funding.

My understanding is that when there is an SE vacancy, Area or Region submits the names of 3 SE candidates along with documentation regarding those 3 candidates.  The LC search committee is limited to selecting one of those 3 candidates, and are to consider nothing other than the documentation provided by Area/Region, and  interviews with the 3 candidates, and make their selection based on solely that.  In fact, a search committee member had a good scouter friend in the council of one of the 3 candidates and contacted that good scouter friend for inside information, and when that contact became known to Area/Region, the search committee was told never to do that again.

Considering that only 2 of the last 5 SE's were considered good and 3 were considered horrible, by both volunteers and many professional staff, the appearance is that Area/Region selects the 3 candidates on its criteria, such as, (who deserves a promotion, who needs to move on having worn out their welcome in their current council, and occasionally, they have sent a good one.  But with a 5 year average term of office here, we have had 15 years of bad SE's over 25 years.

Only ONE SE put any money into fixing up a deteriorating camp.  So, 20 years of camp neglect.

It sounds as if your experience is several levels above mine, which may explain the difference in view and likely our opinions. I have no doubt that there are many good scouters trying to make things work and improve them.  And I understand the governance documents of National to troop and pack level.  Things don't work in real life the way they are laid out on paper.

My understanding is that an SE's salary is set by Area/Region/National.  That the EC or EB has nominal control, it is not exercised.  It is not meaningful control.

No professional in my council makes anything but token efforts to run a decent program at summer camp.  This summer the site manager told me of basket weaving materials being ORDERED during the second week of camp.  They never arrived in time.  Woodcarving knives and chisels were in horrible condition and would not cut even carvable wood.  A volunteer came out and sharpened them so they were ready for the second week of camp.

The total cost of all these materials and new carving tools was probably no more than $1,000.

Per National's bankruptcy Exhibits, our council has some millions in liquid assets-cash and cash equivalents.

And our camp had shortages of program materials.

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Registered about 30.  Our Pack is approaching 80 Scouts now.  Just a few years ago we had 12 registered Scouts going into Scout Night at the school.

So, this may be the best recruitment year in the last 3 or so? Maybe there will be a post-covid, bankruptcy-pending rebound.

14 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

That is simply not true.  Generating more money does not increase the professional salaries. 

This is just another of those aspects of all of this which has so many levels.

From my understanding of compensation, governance, and promotions, successful fundraising does not increase the salary of any staff member of an LC. Directly.  I am not aware of "commission" income based on fundraising.

However, it is also my understanding that the SE, at least, and likely any Development Director, are judged as far a job performance on the success of LC fundraising.  That might lead to an incremental raise, but the big money is an SE being promoted to a larger LC with a larger staff and greater income, and a Development Director being promoted to an SE of a small council.  And, of course, the junior staff may get promoted up the ladder within the LC, and a new SE will come from outside the LC.

And earning a Quality Council Award-I don't know-but expect that it includes fundraising goals, which if met, enhance promotion prospects.

If anyone has specific knowledge of specific metrics, please enlighten us.

I'll just say, people are not machines.

It is very difficult to tell masses of folks to do one thing, and then, when conditions change, flip the switch and expect a complete reversal of the momentum.  There is likely to be loss of CO's, scouts, parents, and leaders after any reversal.  People will have moved on or be  fatigued by the whole mess.

3 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Negative, kind sir. You keep peppering your statements with "hyperbole". (e.g., "what, should they work for free?", or "so, should they only make $1?", et cetera). You can't keep mixing sensationalist language into your analytical comments and not have me call it out as moral equivalency. 

Tiring, isn't it;?

9 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Seems like there is plenty of money being made in the not-for-profit world.

Back in the Jere Ratcliff era, I read or heard from a scouter that the combined salary of the CEO of The Salvation Army and top aide (his wife) was $86,000. (per year).

My SE is making over $100,000 in deferred compensation (per year).

5 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

That is a lot of hyperbole.

@Gilwell_1919:  If Churchill had said it, it would be called "oratory."

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't think it's the "stuff" that will be the limiter, I think it's public perception. If COs wind up being truly damaged I think there will be little good will for anything scouting. Most people can't differentiate "scouts".. To the CO, the unit level person they had a relationship with was Boy Scouts. They mostly didn't see any difference between the nice folks who meet in their basement and national. If a unit person told them something, it must be true because Boy Scouts is trustworthy. The general public also doesn't differentiate between scouts. To them it's anyone with a neckerchief.  Half of them think Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are one organization. My point is that it might be hard for any scouting entity to continue in the future if some of these doomsday scenarios unfold. This bankruptcy is doing damage to the whole concept. 

I agree with you.  Public sentiment will likely be the controlling power which determines the future of Scouting.  I was just trying to lay out the bare legal mechanism. If control of the intellectual proper ty is lost, the Movement has no handbooks, patches, training materials, etc...  One cannot download a .pdf of the Guide to Safe Scouting if the "lay" owner does not make it available.

All I am pointing out is that if control of the intellectual property escapes the Movement, things will get even more complicated.

And I also agree that the public has little appreciation for the finer points of scouting in its many forms.  If a scout shows up at the front door selling popcorn, well, scouting must be fine, and if no scout appears ever again, they may not be missed.

7 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If national fails, the LCs might have rights to continue IP usage.  The failure of a business partner is not a mutual suicide pact.  Who ever receives the IP ownership would need to partner with those already using the IP.

Well, intellectual property rights are no different in legal concept than owning a building or Philmont.  In a Ch 7 liquidation, all would be sold, and the proceeds distributed to creditors  Those assets will not simply pass down by some process to the LC's.  The LC's are separate legal corporations.  The LC's might pool their assets and purchase National's intellectual property rights, but it will not be a gift to them. The new owner could simply discontinue publication of the Scout Handbook.  If I buy a car, I don't have to drive it. The inventory of Scout Handbooks already published and on the market would remain, until consumed, and then there would be no more.

I don't know what the likelihood is that someone would buy those rights and do nothing with them, but my point is that control might be lost to an entity not holding the same beliefs as those in the Movement.

5 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

As moderators we are charged with a responsibility to monitor the content of this forum. All of us are volunteers and have also been involved in Scouting for a number of years. We consider it both an honor and a responsibility to be asked to moderate.

We are sensitive to the fact that we have a wide variety of readers using the forum. And this may include young readers at times.  So generally we try to maintain a G or at least a PG level discussions when it is possible. This is challenging given the nature of the topics which are discussed here.

I think the general rule is to try to avoid explicit descriptions or terms. that are sexual or violent in nature.  It is a judgement call by the individual moderator.

Also, we attempt (often unsuccessfully) to keep the focus of the thread on the original topic (is there a merit badge in cat-herding?)

Finally, we try to maintain a positive, respectful environment that values diverse opinions. More difficult than it seems.

If there are concerns or if further discussion or clarification is needed, I think that any of the moderators would be glad to discuss further.

We appreciate everyone's assistance in making this forum possible.

Understood and agreed.

19 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I am about to start putting a lot of effort into helping to promote my national-level CO to be a bastion for units that lose their COs

A big consideration is whether National survives and controls its intellectual property.

If National is liquidated, depending on who purchases National's intellectual property, there may be no Scout Handbooks published in the future until they come into the public domain.  That could be a couple of decades.

Someone seeking to continue a Scouting program in the absence of National will be purchasing Scout Handbooks from eBay.  And rank patches and medals.

And, whomever operates the unit will not have any insurance (they may not have any now).  And they will need to make arrangements for meeting space. There will be no training provided unless volunteers continue to carry the torch, use training materials last available before National's collapse as supplemented by them.

Ad hoc and grassroots. That is where all will be, unless whomever acquires National's intellectual property desires to continue on.

And how are actions taken by a Boy Scout Council and published in more than two dozen newspapers, inappropriate here?

Particularly considering the subject matter herein discussed at length as the cause of National's bankruptcy.

20 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@SiouxRanger, you are scaring me only because it is like you are inside my head...perhaps I am schizoprenic, and you are just one of my multiple personalities exposing some of the demons I face in this council...

Well...expose away   But do tone down the rhetoric a bit, please...

Ever had an adult scouter, publicly thrown out of scouting for political reasons, (and later reinstated) come up to you at a camporee at a Council camp and say to you:

"My son told me he plans to stay close to me this weekend so that no one from the Council will show up and throw me out of camp-my son thought that they wouldn't do that if he was nearby."

I have heard that.  

So, you wield the pen-strike from my posts that which seems "over the top."

Please let me know what is exaggeration.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Wow. This is hyperbole on top of hyperbole.

It is also far outside the scope of Chapter 11 topic. I'd suggest this be taken elsewhere.

Hardly hyperbole.  For $100, I can ship a copy of the records.

Ever been publicly accused as a child abuser in YOUR hometown by no less than that Beacon of Purity, the Boy Scouts of America?  Because you raised the issue that the Council was bankrupt?  A Council which attempted murder, but had to settle for rape, when the allegations were totally unfounded?

My friends did.  I know these things to be true.

And perhaps, you might consider thinking before pouncing.

10 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't know as much about this as you.  I do know that many good scouters have had their memberships revoked without good cause.  I believe what you are saying is true.

That said, I think your use of the term "Death Warrant" is unnecessarily hyperbolic.  The facts are damning enough.

You likely do not know as much about this as me, and you have been spared.

Nowhere near the level of trauma experienced by sexual abuse survivors, but I speak almost daily with one of my friends who experienced the "shunning" procedure of National.

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

Three reasons.  $$$

Which raises the question:  "Does National have any idea what 'principles' are?'

Starting with, "Trustworthy..."

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't know as much about this as you.  I do know that many good scouters have had their memberships revoked without good cause.  I believe what you are saying is true.

That said, I think your use of the term "Death Warrant" is unnecessarily hyperbolic.  The facts are damning enough.

Hyperbolic, perhaps.  But to those DAMNED by National it is not.  Their reputations have been damaged in their hometowns, communities, churches...

I know several scouters whose faithful longevity and recognition and awards far and away exceed those of any others I know, were so abused by National.

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that Congress issued a charter does NOT make it a government entity

And so WHY would National drape itself in the American Flag, yet DENY the fundamental principles of which that Flag symbolizes?

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

As has been pointed out several times: there are hundreds of Congressionally chartered corporations, including BSA.

The fact that Congress issued a charter does NOT make it a government entity, therefore, the Bill of Rights does NOT apply. The Bill of Rights is limited to governmental activity and the BSA is not a government entity.

This was the entire premise of the Dale case: BSA is a PRIVATE entity and therefore can set whatever membership standards it wants and remove members at will.

I know that the Bill of Right does not apply. 

But that is not what BSA SELLS.

"We are good and decent folks, Americans, God and Country, Flag, principles..."

BUT if you do not play by OUR rules, WE WILL CRUSH YOU.

And National will.

I know these things to be true.