Jump to content
RememberSchiff

Buzzfeed - CSE Surbaugh - Girls - Scouter.com

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

Because a Scout is Trustworthy... :rolleyes:

But he asked about National. :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

And finally, BSA has been blasted on this forum for announcing the policy change with without having a plan in place. But if on Oct 11th BSA had come out with a complete plan for this the uproar would have been about not asking the volunteers.

Well, maybe BSA could have done something innovative like 1) survey their membership and abide by what the majority wanted, and 2) include membership in the development of any program changes since they will be the ones that have to use them and support them in the field.

Part of evolution must ALSO include changing the way you manage the organization. If BSA is going to change so much, they should at least also change how the do things. That should not be too much to ask.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

Well, maybe BSA could have done something innovative like 1) survey their membership and abide by what the majority wanted, and 2) include membership in the development of any program changes since they will be the ones that have to use them and support them in the field.

Part of evolution must ALSO include changing the way you manage the organization. If BSA is going to change so much, they should at least also change how the do things. That should not be too much to ask.

I don't believe trying to run any organization by a consensus vote of the entire membership would work. If A and B are the choices, people would scream about not having C and D as an option. There will always be those that want E and F as well. Give more than 3 options you might get a plurality, but rarely, if ever, a majority. Any more than 3 options and you are unlikely to even get as strong plurality. not to mention, current members are not the only ones that are the target market.

The membership is involved in developing programs, I have seen it first hand. But there are millions of us, how many do you think they can involved without it breaking down into complete chaos. There are some on this forum that believe the professional control things with an iron fist. The professionals do have a great deal of influence, but at the end of the day they don't have a vote (except for the CSE).

The overwhelming majority of Scouts and Scouters do not get involved beyond their unit, which is fine. But, if they never show up for district or council meetings to have their voices heard then they won't have a say in how the organization is run.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, here in the real world, the electors of our western district unanimously voted for a candidate for District Chairman and the ruling Scout Executive vetoed their votes.  Since then, they have reused to elect a Chairman.  We are in the second year of this impasse.  The SE wanted "community leaders" ($$$$$) in the top spots.  That SE is gone, but his replacement is sticking to being the Caudillo, Bylaws notwithstanding.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

At the end of the day, here in the real world, the electors of our western district unanimously voted for a candidate for District Chairman and the ruling Scout Executive vetoed their votes.  Since then, they have reused to elect a Chairman.  We are in the second year of this impasse.  The SE wanted "community leaders" ($$$$$) in the top spots.  That SE is gone, but his replacement is sticking to being the Caudillo, Bylaws notwithstanding.

Any what do the bylaws say about the SE's power to veto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Any what do the bylaws say about the SE's power to veto?

Don't know what the bylaws say, but I know the pros DO influence who is on such things as the district and council committees. My SE wanted me to replace members of the district committee because they were thorns in his side. He was even telling me who to replace them with. Of course he was trying to use the nominating committee to get his selections approved. He used the nominating committee process the same way to get rid of council committee members too. I can assume the CSE has the same type of influence for the regional and national committees too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eagle94-A1 said:

Don't know what the bylaws say, but I know the pros DO influence who is on such things as the district and council committees. My SE wanted me to replace members of the district committee because they were thorns in his side. He was even telling me who to replace them with. Of course he was trying to use the nominating committee to get his selections approved. He used the nominating committee process the same way to get rid of council committee members too. I can assume the CSE has the same type of influence for the regional and national committees too.

Influence is one thing, vetoing is another altogether.

But even influence has its limitations. Most professionals are there for a few years at most. "Up or out" is what I frequently hear them say, which appears to hold true, as I have seen a number of close friends move on to other areas. My experience is that good execs move on to other councils/national or they find new careers (with a few logical exceptions).

The nominating committee and other volunteers, live in the community. They have friends, relatives, customers and neighbors that they must live and deal with for as long as they are in the community. Beyond that, in most states, failing to comply with bylaws can expose board members legally and financially. Every board member I know is either a long time Scouter, a savvy business/educational member of the community or both. I don't care how much we like or respect the SE/DE, we will not put that before doing what is best or the Council/District or before exposing ourselves to legal ramifications.

I have had great relationships with my professionals, but if they were doing something that I did not think was in the best interest of the Council or District, I would not hesitate to point it out. I have in fact, and my concerns where addressed. In some cases I have not agreed with their actions, or lack there of, but none of them were against bylaws or policy and were at least logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to help.

The Bylaws provide that the district officers (who do not include the DC) are presented as a slate to the electors and take office immediately upon receiving a vote of a simple majority of the electors "present."  There is no provision whatsoever for the SE to have any role in the process, apart from his power to throw someone out of BSA entirely, which was not the case here.  The rejected lawful District Chairman serves as Assistant Chairman and also as Safety Officer at the council camp.  Numerous other meetings have followed but the volunteers will not elect anyone else.

Our districts will soon cease to exist due to the new SE's plan to create a number of service "pods" (districts) who governance is a mystery to the volunteers.

 

See https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/513-332.pdf and you too are free to Google Boy scout bylaws district election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I don't believe trying to run any organization by a consensus vote of the entire membership would work.

Seems to work for associations. They have referendums on large issues and elect board members for the day to day workings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Representative democracy is pretty common, but so is provision for direct vote under certain circumstances.  But most of us are not voters for any purpose.  Just volunteer labor.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Well, maybe BSA could have done something innovative like 1) survey their membership and abide by what the majority wanted, and 2) include membership in the development of any program changes since they will be the ones that have to use them and support them in the field...

 

But current membership is not what the BSA is fully focused on, not should they be.

I know it hurts a lot of feeling around here that we're not the sole priority of the organization. But if this organization is to survive (and hopefully grow some day), the BSA needs to be looking outside of the organization and figuring out how to appeal to more prospective memebrs. Just like in any company, a big part of your growth strategy involves looking outward. The BSA can't make decisions for the future growth of the organization on the opinions of existing members alone. 

That's not to say existing members should be ignored. But using simple majority voting by current members to decide policy should not be the way things are decided. Not if we expect to ever turn the corner on membership growth in the BSA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that theory, will the prospective new members replace the current members?  This was tried in 1972 and membership plumeted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I don't believe trying to run any organization by a consensus vote of the entire membership would work. If A and B are the choices, people would scream about not having C and D as an option.

Certainly you can offer your membership/customers the chance to voice their opinion. The last three membership changes were easy decisions; either you are for them or against them.

I am not advocating that national be run by its members, per se. What I am saying is that 1) You should listen to your membership/customers, not people you think will be your members/customers. No successful business in the world does that. 2) If you *do* institute change, and ask acceptance from your members/customers, then you *have to* show change in the way you as a business do things. You don't make wholesale changes and continue to do the things that irk your customers. 3) If you *do* change you don't INCREASE the price of you new product. No business gets rid of their most popular product, introduces a new one AND increases the price of that new product. That's just poor business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

On that theory, will the prospective new members replace the current members?  This was tried in 1972 and membership plumeted. 

That seems to be the way the BSA is trying to go, betting on the future new members. Will it work? I have no idea. But when we're at a point where membership is falling fast enough to see a very real possible end to BSA scouting within this current generation of scouts, I guess anything is worth a try. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Col. Flagg said:

...You should listen to your membership/customers, not people you think will be your members/customers. No successful business in the world does that...

 

Every successful business in the world does that. That's advertising and marketing, and it is most often aimed at new business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×