Jump to content
Eagle1993

Per WSJ -BSA may declare bankruptcy

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Poach: illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own.

 

No, girls are not their membership (there again you convey ownership).

Additionally, GSUSA made no such claim. To quote, "[GSUSA] claim the move by the Boy Scouts will “marginalize” the female organization and “erode its core brand identity.”

Further, "Since BSA’s announcement that it would admit girls to its core programs, GSUSA’s fears about the damage that would be caused to its trademarks and the mission those trademarks symbolize have been realized."

No claim of "poaching" members otherwise belonging to GSUSA.

it is poaching,

only reason not mentioned in lawsuit is poaching is not illegal,

 

Share this post


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

I've said before that one of the biggest failures of the BSA has been the way they have wasted the district concept.  The districts are the front line of the BSA in improving unit quality.  You want better quality units, you invest in stronger district teams.

I agree that districts are the front line in improving unit quality.  But you can't always invest in stronger district teams.  At any particular time, you have the District Executive and the volunteers that you have, and you can't wait to address a problem for the years it will take to develop a stronger corps of unit commissioners and committee members.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

It's not the role of the BSA to shut down those programs.  

Well, if there is a concern about program integrity, program quality, and the future damage to the program's recruiting efforts by adults recounting their poor experiences in the BSA program, then BSA should be seeking out and shutting down poorly performing units and sending those Scouts to units with quality programs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Terasec said:

it is poaching,

only reason not mentioned in lawsuit is poaching is not illegal,

 

Poaching is actually illegal. Taking members from another group to their detriment not illegal. Troops compete for members already. Problem is decision to do such has caused GSA to file suit. Not thought out. BSA knew they had to grow membership after a 20% reduction and the solution was add girls. Just one other decision not fully vetted that may end up hurting rather than helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Terasec said:

it is poaching,

only reason not mentioned in lawsuit is poaching is not illegal, 

 

?!?! Poaching, by definition, is an illegal act.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

Our job is to grow scouting, not kill it. If the leaders aren't properly trained to run a functioning unit, that falls on both Professional and Commissioner shoulders.  If it's a leadership issue, you recruit new leaders.  Helping/Coaching a Unit in hopes that it will eventually grow into a successful program is a heck of a lot better for the kids than killing it and trying to restart it.

 Let me tell you, starting a unit from scratch is a lot harder to do now than it was even 5 years ago. 

Please see my response to ParkMan.  The one exception I would see to shutting down a chronically poorly-performing unit is where that unit is the only game in town, such as a rural area.  In that case, the only way to provide those youth a Scouting experience is to keep the unit alive and provide whatever resources are available.  (NOTE:  The size of a unit is not an indicator of the quality of the unit's program.)  But in a suburban area like mine with a dozen troops and packs within three miles that the youth can go to, there is really no excuse for nursing along a unit that has not gotten better over a very long period.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

?!?! Poaching, by definition, is an illegal act.

girl scouts bsa will be coming from other groups

that is not illegal, 

no different than a business targeting competitors customers,

no different than trail life usa targeting boy scouts not happy with scouts usa

your members will be coming from somewhere

 

Edited by Terasec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eaglein87 said:

Poaching is actually illegal. Taking members from another group to their detriment not illegal. Troops compete for members already. Problem is decision to do such has caused GSA to file suit. Not thought out. BSA knew they had to grow membership after a 20% reduction and the solution was add girls. Just one other decision not fully vetted that may end up hurting rather than helping.

Recruiting members from another group is not illegal.  Recruiting members from another group by using the other group's trademark is "illegal," not in the criminal sense, but in the civil sense.  That is what the lawsuit is about.  A court will eventually decide whether the BSA (and/or its councils) violated the GSUSA's trademark rights.  Or the BSA and GSUSA will reach a settlement.  That's how these things go.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terasec said:

girl scouts bsa will be coming from other groups

In my pack, the vast majority of girls came from "no where." They were not members of any other scout-based youth organization. In my den, two girls are CURRENT GSUSA members (so dual membership) and the other is a girl that quit GSUSA two years ago.

So, no "acquisition" from any other competing organization. No other organization can claim "dibs" on them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

While this is bound to rustle some jimmies, that starts with the DE. But national doesn't put much stock into us anymore because of the insane turnover rate. 

The insane turnover rate is fueled, I'm sure, by the long hours and low pay.  If they started investing in and rewarding quality DEs, the problem would solve itself.

Edited by Pale Horse
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

If they started investing in and rewarding quality DEs, the problem would solve itself.

If the BSA files a bankruptcy petition, I wouldn't expect their salary structure for entry-level professionals to improve anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

If the BSA files a bankruptcy petition, I wouldn't expect their salary structure for entry-level professionals to improve anytime soon.

No, I would think not.

I'm not familiar with how much discretion individual councils have in that regard either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

No, I would think not.

I'm not familiar with how much discretion individual councils have in that regard either.

You can search open DE job postings on nationals website. You won’t see a massive amount of difference in salary from one rural area to another, or one urban area to another. Whenever I hear a unit leader make a snide remark at how well paid staff is, my stomach churns. It takes a special person to leave a corporate job just to go into being a professional Scouter if they are looking at the financials.

Considering our current CSE was in charge of HR for the BSA as his prior job, and there was not drastic change to comp for the DE postition on his promotion, I don’t see it happening now.

I personally would love to go back to the earlier days of the BSA, where the notion of the need for paid staff was a result of challenges of too much having to go to National (the first councils were directed by volunteers, not paid SE’s, and being snail mail was the only way to get chartering done or membership applications processed, the idea was councils could do it in shorter time).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I continue to feel that if they were to redirect professional staff dollars for the highest echelons into improving district exec pay and in some area stipends to offset high cost of living issues they would have far less turnover.  Even 10 to 20 percent redirect of the highest paid exec on the National level would go a long way to stop the bleeding in many councils.  But, I am simply a highly paid volunteer with a number of hats.  Each year my pay increase, yet I see nothing monetarily, just emotionally.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Please see my response to ParkMan.  The one exception I would see to shutting down a chronically poorly-performing unit is where that unit is the only game in town, such as a rural area.  In that case, the only way to provide those youth a Scouting experience is to keep the unit alive and provide whatever resources are available.  (NOTE:  The size of a unit is not an indicator of the quality of the unit's program.)  But in a suburban area like mine with a dozen troops and packs within three miles that the youth can go to, there is really no excuse for nursing along a unit that has not gotten better over a very long period.

You know, dkurtenbach, The BSA originally set up governance of the program in a diversified manner.  They looked at the original setup of the country as a guide.  In our country in 1800, the idea was that the most control was at the local level, so government that touched the lives of most people was in the hands of local, county, and state officials.  The Federal Government was weak by design, having only a couple of tasks that it had to do, like defense, foreign policy, interstate trade, running Federal courts.  Everything else, like roads, schools, police, water and mineral rights, property rights, and a justice system, were run by the states and counties.  At one time, some larger states had more employees than the federal government.  The Federal Government would never have thought to interfere in a state matter.  That is why we had Free states and Slave states before the civil war.  State politicians thought they really could vote to leave the union.

In the BSA, the power over Scouting units is almost entirely in the hands of the Chartered Organization.  They appoint the adult Scouters in the unit, or fire them, they control a units budget, and can set policy for the unit.  This usually happens through the Chartered Org Rep.  The District and Council are there entirely for support.  They own camp property, some equipment, run Scout shops, and advise troops through appointment of Unit commissioners, recruit merit badge councilors.    National runs National camps like Philmont, defines and makes the uniforms, writes the handbook and other publications, creates training materials, like Woodbadge. 

The council can revoke BSA membership if a crime has been committed, but it cannot and never has been able to judge the quality of a unit program or the competence of a Scout leader.  You are going to have to do some political miracle to pull that off, and fundamentally change Scouting forever.

 

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

×