Merging Districts

[Gold Winger 9]

A few years back the council split my district. Actually, they split all three districts in my county making six districts and the next year they did the same to the next county over.

 

Why'd they do this? Because the DEs had too much to do and they wanted to "provide better service to the units."

 

Well, the six districts in my county continued to grow as did the six in the next county. Time for another split? Nope.

 

We got the word this spring that the powers that be decided to merge the six districts in my county into just one district. Why "to provide better service to the units." The same thing is happening to the next county over.

 

They are reducing the number of professionals for the county by two. Yep, four guys with distinct sets of responsibilities (membership, finance, etc) to serve well over 300 units.

 

No details are settled yet but apparently there will be one BIG committee with smaller "area" sub-committees to cover activities in what used to be the six districts. So it doesn't look like we'll have one county-wide camporee or one roundtable.

 

One thing that I don't get is if we split to provide better service to the units, how the heck is merging going to provide better service?

 

Anyone else heard of such a thing?

 

 

[AvidSM 11]

Yes - our Council is going from 6 districts to 4. Two district are to be merged this year. Three will be reorganized into two next year.

 

The reason given is there is not enough money to pay for 6 separate DE's. And, it is hard for the DE's that are covering two districts to attend two roundtables, committee meetings, etc. The fact these reorganized districts will not be getting better service does not matter. The only thing that matters is the money.

 

So, when a scout's parent asks you why they should give to FOS, there's a good reason why.

[Bob White 20]

Districts are nothing more than geographic service areas of the council. Districts are not merged, Councils realign district boundaries from time to time.

 

This is not a big deal, it is akin to election precincts being realigned.

 

Belive me this is neither the first time or the last time this will happen. The most common cause is budgetary cuts or growths, and school distrcit realignments due to poulation and demographic shifts..

 

This just is not a big deal.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[John-in-KC 311]

GW,

 

Like BW said, Councils massage districts all the time.

 

It looks like in your case the Council isn't meeting budget, so one cutback is to zap the unit serving exec corps.

 

That's sorta important for your IH/COR to know. They need to insist on the correct level of support they get from Scouting, as the Chartered Partner. That starts with the annual service visit from the DE to the IH...

 

You must be in a really big, really urban county. We are two counties with a bit over 100 units on charter, and we have a team of 3 Professional staff (District Director, Sr DE, DE).

[Gold Winger 9]

Of course that's your answer Bob because it comes from on high at BSA.

 

Six districts into one? Not a big deal?

 

One district with over 300 units? Not a big deal?

 

 

[scoutldr 732]

I was in a large District for 30 years, when the SE decided to split it into three. Seemed like all of the experienced district volunteers ended up in one district and the other two were left to start from scratch. We still haven't recovered and filled all of the district slots we are supposed to have. Yes, it was a big deal.

 

From the sound of this thread, now I can look forward to merging them back! Sheesh.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Bob White 20]

Yep, not a big deal.

 

Its Economics 101. You want more services and resources you need to have healthy financials.

 

In our district FOS has increased each year for the last several years, so we have added professional staff and spent gobs of money on our Summer Camp.

 

Your community... not so good. It happens. It is a result of the economics and financial support of your community. The BSA did not do this to you. Your communities level of support of scouting did this to you.

 

This give and take has gone on in every council for decades. I can only surmise that you are either rather new to Scouting or your experience beyond the unit level is very limited.

 

Just know that this is nothing new and will probably change one way or another depending on the financial health of your council which is largely controlled by your community's support of FOS.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Gold Winger 9]

"You must be in a really big, really urban county. We are two counties with a bit over 100 units on charter, "

 

Suburban actually with nearly 1,000,000 people in the county.

 

"Like BW said, Councils massage districts all the time."

 

Oh, I know that, this just seems a bit drastic.

 

If six DEs have trouble keeping up with 300 units, what hope is there for four guys?

 

I don't like it but no one asked me and as far as I can tell, none of the District Commishes or District Chairs were consulted but that is to be expected since the volunteers do the work and the paid staff are in charge.

[John-in-KC 311]

GW,

 

Let's ask the other half of the question: How is your Council doing on fundraising targets?

- Community FOS

- Family FOS

- Popcorn

- United Way

 

The short version is it takes $$$,$$$ to turn on the lights and pay the staff at your Scout office. Are there enough $$$,$$$ to meet the payroll, or is re-aligning the districts so 1 DE covers 300 units a sign your Council has some dollar problems?

[Gold Winger 9]

With over $9 million in revenue and a little bit of income over expenses, I wouldn't think that they have money problems.

 

I'm sure money is tight because the SE needs more money, after all. Heck, I could live quite comfortably on half of what the SE makes. Looking at their tax returns, I see that most of the top staff have gotten hefty payraises in the past few years. The third highest paid guy went from $60k to $100k. Not a bad raise.

 

 

 

[skeptic 993]

We are now in the 3rd or 4th year of "going back", and it is really trying. We went from 5 districts to two big ones with directors. We had one roundtable on our side of the hill for 7 communities and outlying areas. About half the "old timers" who were key to the efficency of the districts stepped down or were forced out. Eight years later, a new SE and reversion to the smaller districts with an ASE and DE's. Now, we have far fewer local volunteers, and the smaller districts are suffering from lack of enough man power. Meanwhile, due to the high cost of living in our area with no external help, we cannot staff the exec needs and so the ones in place are overwhelmed with too much to do, and too many miles to drive to do their jobs well. Add to that, the financial struggles of being in Southern California and the politically correct detractors.

 

Not much fun sometimes. But, we have finally re-opened a long dormant camp within the actual suburban confines that had been closed due to access problems with neighboring properties. And, we had a great COR there for the first time in about 15 years.

 

So, guess we just keep working at getting it right and hope that somehow some things will come around. It would help alot if National would realize that high cost of living areas need some type of additional incentives, such as housing allowances, or actual ownership of living space that could be rented or allotted as part of the employment package, to obtain and retain beginning exectutives, and even the middle level.

[Gold Winger 9]

"In our district FOS has increased each year for the last several years, so we have added professional staff and spent gobs of money on our Summer Camp."

 

Gobs of money? I've looked at your council's tax returns. I guess you define gobs differently than I do.

 

 

[Apache Bob 10]

About 13 years ago our number of districts went from 3 up 5. The reason given was to give better service.

About 4 years ago our number of districts went from 5 down to 3. The reason given was to give better service.

The main thing is how it is presented to the Scouters. In the first merger everyone knew that the Council was looking into changing the district and knew members of the committee looking into it. The merger went smooth.

In the second merger it was just dropped on us with out any warning that it was even being considered. After 4 plus years we are just now getting together.

[Gold Winger 9]

Apache, I could see going from six to four or six back to three. That might be understandable. However, going from six to one district with 300 units makes little sense to anyone involved at the district level.

 

As with most things that come from coucil, this was played very close to the vest until the decision was made and then it was sprung. No one has any solid ideas about how everything is supposed to work.

 

 

[Apache Bob 10]

Gold Winger - and of course when your one district was formed it had only one district chair and one district commissioner. They were given the job of handling six times what was normal. How many of the professional staff was working the new district?