David CO

11 hours ago, mashmaster said:

Agreed, I don't understand people that think the way he does.  

I do.

59 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Yes, teachers make a fraction of what they should.

Thank you for your support of teachers.

I am actually quite satisfied with my Catholic school salary. Naturally, I could think of a few things that I would like to have if I made a little more money. But if that extra money comes at the cost of abandoning our values, lowering our standards, or serving fewer lower-income students, it would hardly be worth it. 

59 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

I don't agree with the morally bankrupt part, but for the sake of argument:

During the next round of hiring, pay more and attract top-tier talent.   Then they do their best to right the ship.   Of course, there is no 100 percent guarantee, except for the opposite:  pay less, hire execs less talented, and membership will continue to decline.

There are many incredibly talented people who take lower paying (or free) positions because of their commitment to institutional ideals rather than personal gain. Take Mitt Romney for example. He didn't take over the Salt Lake City Olympic Games to pad his pocketbook or boost his prestige. He did it to save the city and the nation from a humiliating debacle. Personally, I wish he had stepped in as CSE instead.

I don't fault Mitt, or anybody else, for being successful in business. But when they step into church work, charities, or NPO's like scouting, they should be doing it out of commitment, not for career advancement and personal gain.

Of course, it would be nearly impossible to get top-tier talent to take a position for less money if the organization doesn't promote the sort of morals and values that would attract them to the job in the first place. When you don't have morals and values, all you have left to offer is money. 

2 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

At this level, you get what you pay for.

 

We get a failing organization with drastically declining membership and morally bankrupt leadership. We should pay extra for this?

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Yes - these guys make a lot.  However, these numbers are not crazy.  

Randall Stephenson made 28.7 million last year.  That's 40x what Mr. Surbaugh made.  I'm guessing the people who report to the people who report to Mr. Stephenson at AT&T make more than our CSE.

Yes, these numbers are crazy.

Randall Stevenson made 1000 times what I made as a teacher. So what? 

This is the problem we have when they pick Fortune 500 types to sit on our boards. They have no concept of reality. They will pay a half-million to a scout exec and spend a billion dollars on a mountain top retreat. It is crazy.

2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Name one. Tell us his/her price. Confirm the commitment to the same # hours as the present CSE or whichever pro you intend to replace. Post the cover letter and resume. Check references. Convince us that we'll get the same bang for less buck. 

OK, I guess you are serious, so I will give you a serious answer. No jokes this time.

Instead of driving the LDS out of scouting, why don't we ask them to share with us their institutional knowledge and experience (which has made it possible for them to run a large, global, and well funded religious institution without paying enormous salaries)?

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Do you have nominees who will do the jobs for less?

Are you kidding?  You don't think there are millions of people who would like to take the job for less than $700,000?

If there aren't, I would be more than happy to volunteer for the job myself. I'll even settle for a measly half-mill. I know that it is a big sacrifice, and a big drop from my usual teacher's salary, but I'm willing to bite the bullet if it will help out the scouting movement.

Brian, 

If you feel there is a problem, or if you don't feel safe, then you should forward all of your communications to your parents. Problem solved. Just don't expect or demand that the adults do it. They are not registered with BSA and it's not their responsibility.

2 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

But let’s say - a beneficiary contact for someone’s Eagle Scout project. Should there be two adults since it’s scouting related?

Same answer. BSA has no authority over them.

7 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

But does BSA say that it’s only for adult scouters? Not that I know of.

Who cares?  BSA has no authority over them.

1 hour ago, ItsBrian said:

So when I run our yearly clothing drive pickup service, I have to CC another adult for every time a donator e-mails me for a pickup? I’m not the only one that has access to the account, but does that matter? 

I think the policy applies only to scouters. 

55 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Sure, the Idaho Council gets a number of votes, but so do places like New York and California, whose local Councils may have different opinions on the wisdom of the recent changes.

That might explain how they could get a majority vote in favor of the changes. It doesn't explain how the vote could be unanimous. 

12 hours ago, gblotter said:

Their council will likely be losing around 80 percent of their Scouts/units. Friends of Scouting donations are plummeting. Layoffs are inevitable. Giving up camp properties that they can no longer afford to maintain. Going from a top performing council to one struggling for survival.

And yet, the SE still publicly supports the BSA decisions.

I thought he was being incredibly dishonest. He was appealing for local financial support by saying that the council is a franchisee, and not responsible for the recent decisions of BSA. This is utter nonsense. His remarks in the interview prove it.

What franchisee would continue to publicly support the franchiser after it makes a decision that will cost the franchisee 80% of its customers? Nobody would do that. They would be screaming their heads off. They might even take the franchiser to court.

This SE obviously works for BSA. He is beholden to BSA for his job, and he must publicly support BSA decisions in order to keep his job. He must praise BSA even when it is acting against the best interests of his council. 

I hope he loses his job.

1 minute ago, Oldscout448 said:

I think there is a difference between failing to live up to biblical standards and the outright rejection of biblical standards.

Well said!

50 minutes ago, Saltface said:

He's being a little bit disingenuous when he says withholding FOS donations doesn't send a message to National Council. According to his own numbers, Grand Teton Council has up to seven seats at National.

True. If their council voted for the recent changes in BSA policy, then they deserve to face the consequences. 

27 minutes ago, Saltface said:

Gentlemen, these are all great ideas for troop communication, but none address my original question. How is this rule going to prevent inappropriate contact or false accusation?

It won't. 

It might prevent misunderstandings.  

15 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I've found the tone of the comments of late on the forum to be getting more and more negative towards the kids that are admitted through these changes. 

I'm not hearing that. The comments you refer to have mostly been about BSA, not the kids.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I just cannot fathom so hating these kids that...

This is another argument that has become very popular among the liberals. Anyone who disagrees with them are haters. 

8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

In both cases, I'm reminded that these are kids and human beings.  

Who said they aren't?

This "human being" argument has become very popular lately. Liberals have been using it on a wide variety of issues. I think it is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard.

2 hours ago, LegacyLost said:

It is better for the BSA to collapse than to persist as a vehicle of societal corruption.

I can't argue with that.

The thing about vehicles is that they can be used for either good or bad. 

5 minutes ago, gblotter said:

The more I see the number of people who oppose this, the more I realize that the senior leadership may have been acting out of desperation.

It's hard to understand their motivations. It was a unanimous vote. In an open and honest system, you never get a unanimous vote. 

31 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

In a world where women's needs were so narrowly defined that they were considered BY THEIR NATURE not responsible enough to vote, incapable of becoming doctors, lawyers, etc., and so subservient to their husbands that if they married a non citizen, say a recent Irish immigrant, they instantly lost their US citizenship, it's hardly surprising that he or almost anyone else in those days would have thought that the needs of boys and girls would not be drastically different.

It's true that we can't know what BP would have thought if he was around today, but it seems foolish to look to a world so full of wrong headed views about the nature and capability of women as having any wisdom to impart to us today.

I think we are forgetting that BP served much of his military career under the rule of a queen. Apparently they felt that a woman was responsible enough to be the sovereign of their country.

2 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I find these words touchingly a propos for me now.

Nice use of apropos. I know that is it French. Is it derived from Latin? That would be very apropos coming from The Latin Scot. 

24 minutes ago, gblotter said:

25 years from now, kids will not even recognize the remnants of BSA from what we have known in the past. The real surprise will come in wondering why BSA chose to self-destruct by departing from its core mission and values that helped develop boys into men for more than a century.

25 years from now, kids may be surprised that children were allowed to venture out into the woods. 

7 hours ago, LegacyLost said:

And this is something that apparently BSA corporate cannot possibly understand, or else the Boy Scouts would still be prospering today. 

They execs are prospering. That's all they really care about.