the WOSM crisis

[BSACompass 10]

Beavah (as in I used to be a...?)

 

So, if the biggest guy on the block BSA wants to protect the little guy (developing NSO's)so they can have great Scouting, but the "man" wants to spend money on lavish offices and projects that waste money to the detriment of those that need it most - it is a bad thing? And this unilateral argument that keeps getting thrown out makes no sense - 70% backing, do I need to repeat that again?

 

If we are helping the NSO's develop BETTER scouting at the grass roots level, I'll accept the "bully" title anyday. If the BSA is really Dr. Evil in this whole scheme - no one has proven it.

 

BSA Compass

[eolesen 10]

The world was a much nicer place during the Cold War...

 

Personally, I'm OK with letting California and Texas secede from the US, since they were both nation-states. IIRC, the current Texas Constitution still has languague which would permit it to secede.

[emb021 16]

"We Americans aren't above "spin" in our politics. "

 

Sadly, no one is. Certain Dr. Missoni's stuff is certainly his spin on things. He may try to take the 'high road', but it doesn't wash. Everyone is best served by reading all the materials in question. (I've even printed them out). I think too many take the BSA's action, and ignore the Open Letter signed by several large NSO, plus the action of the WSF and Swedish Scouts.

 

I would have prefered that the actions of the BSA had not come so soon after the Open Letter. I think that things should have been hashed out first in the WSC. But for all we know, others may have felt they had tried to do so, and this action by the BSA, WSF, and Swede Scouts was done because they felt they had to.

 

 

[emb021 16]

"Well, they must have believed that he had all it takes to be SG.

After all, he wasn't the only applicant.

Plus he was chosen on general consensus. In this light, the actions taken by the BSA make even less sense."

 

Well, we don't know how they choice the SG. Frankly, the only SG I was ever familiar with was Laszlo Nagy, and even his choice of SG seems to me strange (again, no experience running non-profits, but did a critical research on world scouting and was then asked to be SG). I have no idea what process they followed when they picked Dr. Missoni. Where there other candidates, what process did they go in choosing them, who was the group that selected the SG, etc.

 

And choosing the SG by general consensus isn't to me a good idea. Put it to a proper vote or the like.

 

And prehaps this is part of the problem: a true lack of proper professionalism amoung the paid staff of WOSM. Are the people being choicen for these positions have the right training/experience to do the job (ie more then just being 'good people' and 'good scouts').

 

 

[Beavah 205]

So, if the biggest guy on the block BSA wants to protect the little guy (developing NSO's)so they can have great Scouting, but the "man" wants to spend money on lavish offices and projects that waste money to the detriment of those that need it most - it is a bad thing?

 

Didn't say my own opinion one way or da other, BSACompass. Just tryin' to make sure we all don't ignore Eduardo and Volker while sittin' on our American High Horse.

 

Yeh gotta mix into the soup the understandin' that in a lot of European Scouting, Scout Centers figure far more prominently than they do here. Every troop has a chunk of land and its own scout center building in some countries. That's how scouting is done. Here in the U.S. our equivalent is probably camps. And we never get protective and possessive of our camps, even when they are losin' money, do we?

 

I think the Scout Centers were an OK thing to try, eh? Just like a big camp or like Philmont, offer a regional resource that troops from countries in those regions can go to as a "mountaintop experience." Plus, make 'em available for rental by other youth programs. We do that camp rental in the U.S. with scout camps a bit, but it's far, far more common in the rest of the world. Of course, we had Philmont just given to us, so we didn't actually have to build it da way WOSM has to.

 

Which do we do here in the U.S., BTW? Do we fund Scout Centers with our BSA dollars (Philmont, Seabase, Irving etc.)? Or do we provide direct aid to needy troops and programs? I think if we're honest we'll admit we act a lot like da WOSM model - our FOS contributions go to funding Scout Centers (council offices and camps), not individual troops in need (ScoutReach excepted). Our National fees go to funding Irving and the Regional offices and national centers, not needy councils in poor areas (at least not very much). And I'm not sure any of us could call BSA finance and decision-making "transparent."

 

All that havin' been said, I supported Mr. Perry in this, eh? I think da BSA and Sweden made a good case, and there were some reasons to act in a timely fashion to avoid throwin' good money after bad. Of course, I'm an American culturally . But I admit we did pull a "California secedes" kinda thing, eh? That's not da best way to make friends or support democratic institutions. Just look at Quebec, eh?

 

We've got a lot of fences to mend, and we should bear the financial burden for buyin' out Dr. Missoni.

 

Beavah

 

[BSACompass 10]

So, if the biggest guy on the block BSA wants to protect the little guy (developing NSO's)so they can have great Scouting, but the "man" wants to spend money on lavish offices and projects that waste money to the detriment of those that need it most - it is a bad thing?

Didn't say my own opinion one way or da other, BSACompass. Just tryin' to make sure we all don't ignore Eduardo and Volker while sittin' on our American High Horse.

I was asking a question, not making an accusation. BSA didn't ignore Eduardo and Volker, they ignored the will of 70% of the WOSM - again, I don't understand the whole unilateral thing - 70% - you like to ignore that figure. Most 70% votes in the UN are against the US - in the WOSM, it was 70% with the US - clearly NOT an "American High Horse".

Yeh gotta mix into the soup the understandin' that in a lot of European Scouting, Scout Centers figure far more prominently than they do here. Every troop has a chunk of land and its own scout center building in some countries. That's how scouting is done. Here in the U.S. our equivalent is probably camps. And we never get protective and possessive of our camps, even when they are losin' money, do we?

But when the scout usage is 7% as it was in Picarquin - who is really using it the Scouts, or everyone else? Any even with everyone else using it - it was STILL losing money. We close our camps when they lose money or figure out a way to make them profitable.

I think the Scout Centers were an OK thing to try, eh? Just like a big camp or like Philmont, offer a regional resource that troops from countries in those regions can go to as a "mountaintop experience." Plus, make 'em available for rental by other youth programs. We do that camp rental in the U.S. with scout camps a bit, but it's far, far more common in the rest of the world. Of course, we had Philmont just given to us, so we didn't actually have to build it da way WOSM has to.

We don't do outside rental during summer camp - YPT is the main reason. Don't want outsiders, we have to trust people or another group of attorneys will be ready to pounce on us. Lots of libs in the US would love to see us go away - no doubt about that.

Which do we do here in the U.S., BTW? Do we fund Scout Centers with our BSA dollars (Philmont, Seabase, Irving etc.)? Or do we provide direct aid to needy troops and programs? I think if we're honest we'll admit we act a lot like da WOSM model - our FOS contributions go to funding Scout Centers (council offices and camps), not individual troops in need (ScoutReach excepted). Our National fees go to funding Irving and the Regional offices and national centers, not needy councils in poor areas (at least not very much). And I'm not sure any of us could call BSA finance and decision-making "transparent."

I have been involved at the council level and I think we are transparent because we have volunteers sandwiching our professionals. If I want to see the councils budgets, they provide them. What do you think they are hiding anyway? Our new council office is being built by trustee fund raising. Our council is certainly blessed with great benefactors. I would like to see more sharing between councils, but for now the council is the business unit in the BSA. Geography is a problem for sure. How do you serve rural areas effectively? I just don't understand all the mistrust of the BSA - if the structure was that flawed, I'm sure the board of trustees would fix it - but right now we are just trying to survive the culture wars.

All that havin' been said, I supported Mr. Perry in this, eh? I think da BSA and Sweden made a good case, and there were some reasons to act in a timely fashion to avoid throwin' good money after bad. Of course, I'm an American culturally . But I admit we did pull a "California secedes" kinda thing, eh? That's not da best way to make friends or support democratic institutions. Just look at Quebec, eh?

I don't look at it that way, I think the BSA exhausted all other means and was left with no other choices. I don't know who influenced Mr. Missoni to continue these unpopular pursuits (70% against), but he didn't see the need to change course and when you're headed for an iceberg, it's probably better to get someone as the wheel who sees it coming.

We've got a lot of fences to mend, and we should bear the financial burden for buyin' out Dr. Missoni.

Beavah

If 70% were in favor, the fence mended needs to come from those who saw the need to put the interests of the WSB over those of the NSO's. But again, the US always pays, right or wrong, win or lose, the US always pays.

BSA Compass

[Beavah 205]

Golly, BSACompass, and I thought my accent was hard to understand, eh? I think it's easier if yeh make quotes italic and your reply regular text, rather than vice versa. But thanks for a thoughtful reply!

 

Volker (Slouchhat) and Eduardo (helper, I think) are Scouter.com folks. I don't think BSA should listen to them, I think we should . They're just fellow volunteers from other countries, eh?

 

But when the scout usage is 7% as it was in Picarquin...

 

Yeh gotta read carefully when folks are makin' their best "case". That's 7% by revenue, not 7% by usage time. Presumably use by WOSM would be on a non-revenue basis, and use by WOSM scout groups would be on a substantially discounted basis. So real usage by time is probably quite a bit higher.

 

After all, real usage by time of a boy scout camp only amounts to 6 weeks out of 52, plus some weekends. Call it 12 - 18% of the year. If we were to rent our scout camps out at other times (at the higher, non-council rate), we might be at 7% by revenue too, eh?

 

I don't look at it that way, I think the BSA exhausted all other means and was left with no other choices. I don't know who influenced Mr. Missoni to continue these unpopular pursuits (70% against).

 

I missed da 70% figure. Where was that from? But if we really had 70% support, then we clearly hadn't exhausted all other means. Yeh just call (or wait for) a meeting of the full WSC and vote, eh?

 

 

I'm not meaning to be argumentative. Like I said, I was in favor of Mr. Perry's actions. But I think it's worth thinkin' and listenin' to how others perceive us from time to time. And sometimes not followin' the right process is wrong, even when we're right on da issue.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Slouchhat 10]

I think were getting on the right track here now.

Nobody wants to see their contributions wasted. This money doesnt appear out of nowhere, but is collected through membership dues and this money, as we all know, has to be earned hard enough by the individual scout of his/her parents. With this in mind, contributions shouldnt be spent mindlessly.

 

Personally, I dont think that big conference centers around the world are necessary for WOSM, it will in all likelihood be a lot more cost-effective to rent space for the occasion.

I also do not doubt that the facts described in the open letter are correct. The only point I have is that I feel, the decision should have been made in a democratic way on the appropriate board, the WSC, not the way it happened.

That is my only point of criticism.

[Natsga 10]

Hi I have been following this thread for a week or 2 so decided to join in. I am from the UK so also belong to a member of the "Pataya 7"

I was also at the World Scout Scientific Congress in Geneva.

 

If NSO's are unhappy about things at the WSB, then they have the right to have their concerns addresed. This should be done in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the WOSM constitution.

 

I don't agree with the actions of the "Pataya 7" (My NSO included)as they set an unwelcome precedent. I also don't agree with people slating the BSA as they were not the only culprits. I think many people are shocked becasue it just seems like a case of "do what we want or the WSB goes down the tubes" which is not really in the spirit of Scouting.

 

Again none us know all the facts. We only have the information in the documents to work with. I know this is the "political" thread and we know that you get politics wherever people get together, but It freaks me out that people are trying to compare the WOSM with the UN - Scouting is non political and I think that drawing those comparisons is unhelpful.

 

Just to let you know I was at Summer Camp back in 1994 and loved every minute of it, amde oa lot of friends that I was lucky to meet up with again this year at the Jamboree

[BSACompass 10]

Beavah and Slouchhat (read my arguments as a debate, not as personal attack - I am glad there is a forum to have exchanges like this and I would bet someone else in the upper echelons might be reading them as well),

 

First, Beavah, I've never seen "Canadian" written out - and I am assuming you are Canadian - or maybe northern Minnesotan? But, I'm getting better at it, eh? (smiley face thing)

 

I thought Eduardo was Missoni, my mistake.

 

70% constitutes the percentage of NSO's by membership that aligned with the BSA to protest the WSB's actions. Re-read the threads and you will see this figure.

 

I know Picarquin was where they held the WSJ in 1999 - so having a center there is logical - but it looks poorly managed and putting casinos around it is crazy. Picarquin is draining funds away from the Interamerican NSO's, (BSA is a part of the Interamerican NSO's) and some of the South American countries need more support than having the money sucked up by Picarquin.

 

If we compare the WSB and the UN - these committees, directors and other groups (NGO's in UN parlance) get empowered, go off on a tangent and cannot be reeled back in by democratic means. If you look at the WSB's inability to produce a budget AFTER the fiscal year gets started (for two years running nonetheless), no amount of "working through the channels" would have made a difference. Moreover, can we assume that the BSA didn't try to "do it the WOSM way" for years and it wasn't working? I imagine they also tried their "political" connections with other NSO's, but the horse was already out of the barn so to speak.

 

That is why decrying BSA tactics is such a "knee-jerk reaction". We can say that the BSA acted improperly, but none of us knows that they didn't try everything that we have accused them of not doing. This presumes that the BSA always acts like the bully, but I am not aware of any other time where the BSA has taken such extraordinary means to reel in this unnecessary spending.

 

There is a strong similarity between the behavior of the UN and the WSB in making sure the top brass has all the amenities, rather than understanding their role as leading by serving. The Scouting movement is a peace movement and peace is best acheived by individual citizens and Scouts serving their fellow citizens and building a stronger society with stewardship leaders at the helm. Like the UN, the WSB thinks they need a stronger central government because the NSO's are incapable of helping themselves even with the right resources. This is an elitist view just like the UN. That is what I perceive in this whole exchange between the BSA standing up for those NSO's.

 

As soon as the BSA advocated for the NSO's - I am certain that Mr. Perry knew there would immediately be charges of "bully" tactics - its what the BSA and the US have come to expect. We want your help, we want your money - just don't question how we spend it.

 

BSA Compass

 

 

[Natsga 10]

Here is what the Ex SG says about the Budget:

 

DELAY IN PRESENTING THE WSB BUDGET

 

Quote from the BSA Letter

 

but it has not completed its 2007/2008 budget for at least three months into the current fiscal year

 

Quote from WSF board chairmans letter

 

Elementary rules of good governance are not followed by the WSC and the WSB... the WSC [World Scout Committee] at its September meeting accepted without comments that the 2007/2008 budget had not yet been presented...

 

...also the final audit report of the 2005/2006 accounts was not yet ready and approved at the September 2007 meeting...

 

The delay in the presentation of the budget has been due to the

introduction of a new Project Cycle Management approach that includes the use of new planning software. Both the staff and the Chairman of the Budget Committee have experienced some difficulties with the implementation of the new software and the presentation of its output. In addition, the budget for this year (2007-2008) was delayed due to the deployment of nearly all WSB staff resources to handle the World Scout Jamboree, the Centenary [the 100th anniversary of Scouting] activities.

 

We believe the delay has been a temporary and acceptable consequence

for transforming the WSBs planning approach to one with a 360-degree perspective on overall operations. For example, in the past our budget read like an oversimplified and narrow list of expenses, and now we have progressed to a budget plan for the WSB that is project oriented and outcome based.

This transformation creates a system that is more responsible with WOSM funds. However, to reap these rewards, the WSB has undergone a metamorphosis of our budgetary and financial expenditure practices that required more time and energy than what was originally forecasted.

In addition to our shift in budgetary practice,

because this year is a World Scout Conference year, the final budget for the year could not be completed before the World Scout Committee had set its priorities toward that goal. In any case it was proposed, and the World Scout Committee accepted, without criticism, that the budget would be submitted to postal vote before the end of December.

 

Regarding the final audit report of the 2005-2006 accounts, the WSB

consolidated accounts for fiscal year 2005-2006 were audited and ready to be signed without reservation by 22 February 2007, being 4.5 months after the fiscal years closing date. This readiness was stated in the letter composed by the independent auditors of Ernst & Young. The accounts were approved by the World Scout Committee at its March 2007 meeting, pending the final confirmation of one figure by the auditors of Ernst & Young.

 

This figure that required confirmation was the value of the shares

held by the WSB-Interamerican Regional Office in the Picarquin realestate and managing companies. The valuation of these shares

required the completion of a full audit of Picarquins operations. Picarquin works on a fiscal year different from the WSB, and Ernst & Youngs audit of Picarquin was at last delivered mid-September 2007. The Picarquin audit confirmed the original figure and allowed the audited report of the 2005-2006 accounts to be published.

 

Regarding transparency, the management of WOSM financial resources in all offices of the WSB follows internal written procedures, regulations deriving from Swiss laws and statutes, as well as the laws and statutes of the any events host country (when applicable). These policies and laws are applied to the preparation, implementation, monitoring, and control of the WSB budget, to the regular accounting, and to year-end budget

reporting operations.

 

There are additional financial controls at various levels throughout the WSB and WOSM. For example, the Budget Committee (whose membership includes the World Scout Committee Chairman and other volunteers) receives detailed financial reports on a regular basis, and the Audit Committee ensures the overall accuracy and propriety of all financial reports and actions.

An internal auditor and external auditors both doublecheck and review the accounts within their requirements, including the

process by which the accounts are prepared.

The external auditors have never communicated any uncertainty, caution, or conditionality within their past reports to the World Scout Committee.

[emb021 16]

"I also do not doubt that the facts described in the open letter are correct. The only point I have is that I feel, the decision should have been made in a democratic way on the appropriate board, the WSC, not the way it happened. "

 

Have to agree.

 

It seems that too many people are overlooking what was stated in that Open Letter to get their patties in a wad about how the BSA et all handled things. They also see to lose site of the fact that there were others in addition to the BSA who threatened to withhold funds, but most seem to want to only focus on the BSA.

 

I wished that the BSA and the rest hadn't done this. But we really don't have the full story (regardless of all the documents on-line). I have to wonder (considering the comparison of the WOSM to the UN) if part of the problem, again, was organizational, and caused by how WOSM works, who they are having run it, etc, and if they were loosing sight of their real purpose (statements by Dr. Missoni aside).

 

 

[AmericanScouter 10]

If you want a complete understanding of the WOSM crisis, read through the relevant documents posted here http://savescouting.1sthost.org/wordpress/

Also note the kind of comments the withholding of dues has generated overseas. The rest of the world does not view our WOSM dues as donations or voluntary contributions, so they don't see that we have a right to withhold them just because we don't like how they are being spent.

On the other hand, it does seem rather clumsy that the BSA had to abruptly withdraw funding, creating the "crisis". Was there no other way to address the issue? No diplomatic solution?

[Natsga 10]

WOSM Crisis - the Aftermath

 

ANNOUNCEMENT TO NSOs

 

As had been planned for some time, the World Scout Committee met in Geneva from 29 February - 2 March 2008. At its opening session on Friday afternoon, following consultation with other members of the Committee, the Chairman Herman Hui announced his intention to resign both as Chairman and as a Member of the Committee,effective immediately.

 

The World Scout Committee, with deep regret,accepted this resignation. At the opening of the Saturday session, the Committee elected Vice-Chairman Philippe Da Costa as its new Chairman, and also elected John Gemmill as a new Vice-Chairman.

Thrse Bermingham continues to serve as a Vice-Chairman. Philippe Da Costa, supported by the two Vice-Chairmen, then chaired the rest of the committee meeting.

 

Outgoing Chairman, Herman Hui explained that he had made his decision to resign in the best interests of the Movement, following the turmoil that the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) has recently experienced, which had led to the departure of the former Secretary General Eduardo Missoni last November.

 

Herman felt that stepping down at this time the first opportunity that he had had to meet with the full World Scout Committee since last November would help the WOSM to "turn the page" on recent events and look forward with renewed confidence to the World Scout Conference in Korea in July 2008, and the next triennium.

 

The World Scout Committee put on record its most sincere appreciation to outgoing Chairman Herman Hui for his service to the World Scout Committee and to World Scouting since 2002, and his chairmanship since 2005. They commended him for his courageous decision to step down and the dignified manner in which he had dealt with the many recent pressures on him personally and on the Committee as a whole. A message from the new Chairman,Philippe Da Costa, appears below.

 

I would like to particularly acknowledge Herman Hui's devotion to our Movement. During difficult moments, he acted as a Scout, faithful to the values and principles of Scouting, looking to safeguard the unity of the Movement and the World Scout Committee.

 

The present circumstances encourage us to look towards the future by analysing the recent events. We must resolutely continue on the path of unity, serving youth and the ideals of our Movement. Conscious of its responsibilities, and fully determined to prepare for the future, the World Scout Committee encourages dialogue and commits itself with a firm belief in the improvement of the Movement's way of functioning, so as to better serve National Scout Organizations.

 

The World Scout Committee encourages each and every one to play an active role in creating the conditions for change that are expected to contribute towards a better world. The World Scout Committee wishes to remind all members of our loyalty towards Baden Powell's instuition and invites one and all to continue our tradition of social innovation by adapting our organisation to new challenges for a new century of Scouting.

 

The agenda of the World Scout Committee meeting dealt with a number of important issues, notably proposals for the future governance of WOSM which will be considered by the World Scout Conference in July. Details of these proposals will be sent to all National Scout Organizations in the coming days.(This message has been edited by natsga)

[frank10 12]

natsga: Source? or is this your own report?