Jump to content
SouthScout

BSA Executive Salaries

Recommended Posts

The uber compensated CEOs and other execs is unique to the US. Other economic powerhouses like Germany, Japan, etc... do not have trouble finding top tier executives and the disparity between their compensation and avg workers is a fraction of the US. Our companies do not need to compensate the execs at the current rate to draw top tier talent. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David CO said:

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. 

 

I'd say Mitt is an exception.  From what hear and read, most top-tier execs would rather not lead non-profits, volunteer-heavy organizations, and the like.  For any amount of money.  Very little actual authority to enact change, too much red tape, too many headaches.

I'm still not understanding the moral/value point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 6:04 PM, ParkMan said:

I believe I also noticed that the directors of the BSA make nothing for their troubles.

Directors of non-profit corporations making nothing is normal.

Quote

The vast, indeed overwhelming majority, of board members of charitable nonprofits are unpaid volunteer members of their boards of directors. This is because of the conviction that board members serve voluntarily, and they should not benefit personally from their service.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/can-board-members-be-paid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how large the National budget was in 1970.  Not just the highest paid execs, but the whole bloody thing.  Take the dollars spent by national, adjust for inflation, and divide by the membership for that year.  How would that compare to today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view the BSA as a business and I, as an assistant scoutmaster, am a shareholder. My investment is the large amount of time and effort i put into my unit. I view paying the executives extremely large salaries in a time of desperation as a poor business practice. I believe that the decline in scouting is a result of poor business decisions on part of the executives. I, as many shareholders (volunteers working with boys) are beginning to sell their stock and get out of scouting. I have lost faith in the CEOs of the BSA. Unfortunately the board of directors is not a representation of the volunteers who are in the field working with the boys. Therefore we don't have a vote and the executives don't really care what our opinion is. They will learn this lesson the hard way......AGAIN. Just as they did in the 1970s. Who will be the next Hillcourt to save the BSA?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a former pro.  At the lower levels, folks will make less than minimum wage if you calculate the number of hours they worked.  One of my coworkers calculated we made about 33% of minimum wage during certain times of the year. Everyone I knew who left the profession usually got a job making a lot more in the for profit sector. In most cases 2x what they were making as a DE. One guy was making 3x. Even the mid level execs who left made more in the for profit sector. I do not begrudge the pros their salaries.

What does anger me is that they have not been good financial stewards. The Summit comes to mind. So does Soccer and Scouting, rebranding in Venturing, and some of the stupid things sold by Supply (AOL buckle for leather belts anyone.?) Also with membership decreasing, staffing should be decreasing, and it appears to those of us in the field that staffing is increasing. Heck looking at some of the positions open at NSC, I am scratcing my head and thinking WHY?

And does National really listen to those of us in the field? Evidence points to the fact they do not. 96% of those polled wanted to keep the tenure requirements for Eagle Palms. So National abolishes it and allows "Insta Palms." In a poll on allowing homosexuals in the movement a few years back, BSA did not include Western Region's LDS members's polls according to one footnote I read. The results on that issue POSTED (emphasis) by National were extremely close and in favor of the decision. But what would the results be if the Western Region's LDS population was included? Best estimation would be a resounding against the membership change. And has anyone seen the results of the MEMBERSHIP"S ( emphasis) opinion on having girls in the Boy Scouts of America? All I keep finding are the non member results of polls ( ASIDE: and who paid for those polls? What were the questions? I know the ones I answered were so slanted towards having girls.)

So heads need to roll at national for the mismanagement.

Regarding pensions and medical benefits for retirees, while it may seem the easiest and best thing to do to save money, THAT IS AN OBLIGATION TO THOSE WHO SERVED US OVER THE YEARS! ( emphasis). This was something that these folks, especially those who stayed at the lower levels instead of taking promotions and moving all over, have been promised. This is something to compensate them for all the years of service for little pay at the lower levels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Regarding pensions and medical benefits for retirees, while it may seem the easiest and best thing to do to save money, THAT IS AN OBLIGATION TO THOSE WHO SERVED US OVER THE YEARS! ( emphasis). This was something that these folks, especially those who stayed at the lower levels instead of taking promotions and moving all over, have been promised. This is something to compensate them for all the years of service for little pay at the lower levels.

 

My unit has no obligation to the execs. We didn't hire them. We didn't promise them anything. They didn't do anything for us. 

I have no doubt that the upper level execs cheat and mistreat the lower level execs, but that's not my problem.

 

Share this post


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

My unit has no obligation to the execs. We didn't hire them. We didn't promise them anything. They didn't do anything for us. 

I have no doubt that the upper level execs cheat and mistreat the lower level execs, but that's not my problem.

 

While we personally may not have hired them, they were hired to serve us. I have seen all kinds of execs; good, bad, lazy, industrious, and even criminal. There is a lot of work done behind the scenes to support the units. One of the reasons why my district is suffering like it is ( see my  Breaking Point post) is that we do not have a full time DE to support us and help recruit the folks we need. As for mistreatment, that is one of the reasons many of the good ones leave. My council went through 9 DEs and 2 mid level executives in the 18 months I was a pro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 3:56 PM, David CO said:

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)?

The LDS is driving the LDS out of Scouting - not the BSA.  The biggest growth area for the LDS is not in the USA - its overseas.  The LDS has been using the BSA as its youth program for its convenience.  It is no longer convenient for them because larger and larger chunks of their organization cannot access the BSA program so the LDS is creating their own program which will be consistent globally rather than have a BSA centered program in the states and a "separate but equal (??)" program overseas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

The LDS is driving the LDS out of Scouting - not the BSA.  The biggest growth area for the LDS is not in the USA - its overseas.  The LDS has been using the BSA as its youth program for its convenience.  It is no longer convenient for them because larger and larger chunks of their organization cannot access the BSA program so the LDS is creating their own program which will be consistent globally rather than have a BSA centered program in the states and a "separate but equal (??)" program overseas.

 

I am afraid this is not an accurate understanding of our relationship with the BSA. We did not adopt Scouting as a matter of convenience; in fact, implementing it took a great deal of effort, and meant cancelling a youth program we already had in place. 

The need for a unified global program is only one part of the reason for our exit. The other very much is the fact that the BSA is making a broad statement with its recent policy changes - the statement that boys and girls learn in the same way, and that one program can adequately meet the needs of both with no need to differentiate between the sexes. This fundamental ideology, that boys and girls should just share the same program, is a complete turn-around from the roots of Scouting, which was a program specifically tailored to the needs of boys. It also goes against what we believe in the Church - that men and women are fundamentally different, that both serve complimentary but distinct roles in the family and in society, and that our gender is an eternal part of our divine identity. The new BSA ideology no longer matches those beliefs, and so it would be inappropriate for the Church to be associated with a program that now has a distinctly different worldview.

This is not a matter of convenience. It's a matter of principle. We can still support and serve and encourage one another's growth, but we cannot share the same ties that we could when our core beliefs were the same. Had the BSA stuck to its original values, there would not have been such a need for us to take a stand like this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Latin Scot, coed scouting does not a prima facia repudiate complementary of the sexes.

Let's face it. Segregated scouting has done nothing to keep the complementarian position popular.

But your point should be respected. BSA is not providing the tools LDS thinks it needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

I am afraid this is not an accurate understanding of our relationship with the BSA. We did not adopt Scouting as a matter of convenience; in fact, implementing it took a great deal of effort, and meant cancelling a youth program we already had in place. 

The need for a unified global program is only one part of the reason for our exit. The other very much is the fact that the BSA is making a broad statement with its recent policy changes - the statement that boys and girls learn in the same way, and that one program can adequately meet the needs of both with no need to differentiate between the sexes. This fundamental ideology, that boys and girls should just share the same program, is a complete turn-around from the roots of Scouting, which was a program specifically tailored to the needs of boys. It also goes against what we believe in the Church - that men and women are fundamentally different, that both serve complimentary but distinct roles in the family and in society, and that our gender is an eternal part of our divine identity. The new BSA ideology no longer matches those beliefs, and so it would be inappropriate for the Church to be associated with a program that now has a distinctly different worldview.

This is not a matter of convenience. It's a matter of principle. We can still support and serve and encourage one another's growth, but we cannot share the same ties that we could when our core beliefs were the same. Had the BSA stuck to its original values, there would not have been such a need for us to take a stand like this.

But I thought this forum had established that the BSA decision to go co-ed was because the LDS church had already the BSA leadership it was leaving.

Let's say though that they hadn't.  The BSA created all kinds of special stuff in the program for the LDS church.  I would imagine that the execs would have gladly said that LDS units were exempt from the co-ed program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

But I thought this forum had established that the BSA decision to go co-ed was because the LDS church had already the BSA leadership it was leaving.

Let's say though that they hadn't.  The BSA created all kinds of special stuff in the program for the LDS church.  I would imagine that the execs would have gladly said that LDS units were exempt from the co-ed program.

LDS Scouting died in July 2015 when BSA announced its decision to admit gay adult leaders. The funeral was simply delayed due to the time required to formulate a replacement LDS youth program. After BSA's July 2015 vote, the strongly worded LDS response was shockingly candid in airing dirty laundry.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America."

Co-ed Scouting was a clumsy decision made out of financial desperation upon being notified internally of the LDS exit date. That explains the manipulative surveys to elicit coerced support for an unpopular decision, followed by a rushed announcement of a half-baked idea with few program details available.

@The Latin Scot is absolutely correct in the way he articulates LDS views about gender and complementary roles, but BSA's girl decision did not trigger the LDS exit. The BSA girl decision was quite irrelevant by that point (i.e. do whatever you think is best to secure the future of your movement, because LDS is leaving regardless).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 11:32 AM, David CO said:

They didn't do anything for us. 

 

you right. We just chill at the office and make lists of how to make life harder for volunteers. By the way have you turned in your FoS pledge card yet?

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

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

×