Jump to content

Positive Council Changes during Financial Reorganization


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

In 15 years of chartering my units neither the DE nor their designee ever once met with the IH to discuss and sign the Chartering Agreement.  That would be a good start.

 

2 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

Which is insane to hear because I meet with every CO twice a year at minimum. 

 

Sadly I was told by my Director of Field Service, the #2 person in a council, that I didn't need to meet with any of Institutional Heads (IHs) when I was a DE. When I mentioned it was part of the charter agreement, I was told not to worry about it as I didn't have time for it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IMHO, camps should be independently owned and managed by a camp alumni trust, thus the camp is shielded from the financial misfortunes of the Council or National. This trust rents out its camping

From my travels (six different councils), units that might be classified as "freeloaders" often have grounds for not supporting their council.  Peel back the onion and these units make the following c

I was going to write something about council camps and management and all that good stuff, but I stopped. There really is only one problem that needs to be solved at the council level. The person

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

On the issue of freeloader units.  My earlier comment was prompted by the large number of units that attend camp out of council, don’t participate in district or council activities, don’t assist the council or district financially (through FOS, product sales or otherwise) and don’t assist by participating in activities or training events.  Annual council program fees might motivate leaders of these units to derive value for their payments and participate as citizens of their councils.  Maybe FOS and other opportunities for units and parents to support councils financially were presented as optional during earlier times, but things have evolved to the point where we need to reset that understanding.  While the initial round of financial reorganization might be focused on national, at least 20% of our councils cannot survive in the coming few years without a new funding model.  Non- participation needs to become a thing of the past.  Program fees in lieu of these other funding devices are more equitable and efficient.

Perhaps the Council and Districts need to get feedback from their stakeholders (Scouts, leaders, CO's) and figure out why folks don't participate in council activities. Leveraging a fee on folks who already do not participate is just going to make them mad, it's not going to drive them to participate. It'd just be viewed as a scalping maneuver. Which is exactly what it is. 

You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Pros and District volunteers need to get out and meet the units, particularly the ones that do not participate, and build relationships and help those units solve problems. The participation and money will follow that relationship building. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

We were just told that another camp in our council is being sold.  Capital improvements needed is the rationalization, although we are flush with $millions of capital improvement money that is not supposed to be use for payroll.  The lady who managed the successful effort to raise these $millions - an actual professional - has been laid-off.   Being Cold-blooded, we don't "need" the camp due to the horrific fall in membership here.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My troop as a Scout was in business eighteen years before BSA showed up in Santa Ana.  My troop for 25 years here formed in 1908 and was one of 99 troops functioning when BSA appeared in "Cleveland District" in 1912.  All they "needed" was Scouting for Boys.

Edited by RememberSchiff
typo ll -> All
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeloaders, continued.  To make this discussion even more interesting, I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten.  So, the unit leaders really don’t have the typical reasons discussed above to be non-participants and non-supporters.  The reality is that this council will turn to an annual program fee, which it has announced it is studying.

I think almost all of our families can afford this.  We are overly-apologetic about our unit membership and activity fees.  A fully-loaded annual cost for a Scout in a Troop is about $1K, and about $300 for a cub.  That is everything including even summer camp.  Families are spending huge multiples of that for sports programming, dance/ballet and especially those travel teams for athletics and school.  Annual spend for some of these things easily exceed $5 - 10K per year.  Scouting is dirt cheap in comparison.  Given that flood of youth activity spending, the comparatively small amounts we need to collect are modest.  A council program fee — if used wisely — is a very justified strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate everyone’s cool-headed approach on these posts.  That approach is going to be needed as we step through these next couple of years.  This will be a time when we will need to provide guidance to some of these difficult personalities, like the DE Eagle 94-A1 mentions.  This is going to work out, but things will indeed need to function differently.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

...I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten. 

 

39 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

 This is going to work out, but things will indeed need to function differently.

Two excellent points.  Folks expect value for their dollar and have no problem paying if they get it.    However, as we've discussed, the council system as it currently operates in many locations is ineffective and out of touch. 

Edited by desertrat77
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Folks expect value for their dollar and have no problem paying if they get it.

I suspect that FOS days are numbered.  National set a rule that a council can charge for a service fee at $60 per scout.  Coming out of the re-org, I am sure many councils will assess this.  For councils it will be critically important that they can justify this fee to families.

For the sake of discussion, let's agree that a council exists to support the units and the scouts.

  • What value & services do you see that your council brings for this money?
  • What value & services do you think that your council should bring for this money?

Coming out of the re-org it seems very appropriate for councils to be thinking about the value they bring to Scouting.

In the spirit of @Cburkhardt's topic - let keep this discussion dispassionate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

National set a rule that a council can charge for a service fee at $60 per scout.  Coming out of the re-org, I am sure many councils will assess this.  For councils it will be critically important that they can justify this fee to families.

Indeed, councils will have to make a concerted effort to justify this fee.    Unit goodwill and loyalty were sorely tested during the last dues increase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Council activity fees, having had this model in my council for a few years now, it's still polarizing even after all this time.  Our activity fee is $30 per youth (Venturers/Sea Scouts age 18-21 are considered "adults" for this purpose, and are not charged the $30) per year.  

There was some perceived benefits, namely that the Council no longer charges for adult training, but when we used to charge $25/participant for IOLS, we actually spent the $25 to have supplies and about ~$18 of that went towards food.  That $18 was a lot, but we went all out to have the participants cook backpack type meals for lunch, and cook several dishes so that they can see the (and taste) the variety of options that exist.  now, we are given $15/participant as budget by Council to pull off an IOLS.  

The main "benefit" that we get for this activity fee is weekend tent camping is "free" at our council camps.  Prior, the cost for weekend tent camping was $75.  30 Scouts paying $30 a year is an awful lot of dough when we try to explain it parents every year- what they perceive they can put their hands on as "benefit" is we don't have to pay $150 a year for the two weekends we use the council camps a year.

I understand the economics.  FoS donations have been on the decline for a long time, so councils have to look to get revenue somewhere.  Where we might actually get better "stickiness" to have units participating is if we increased the annual chartering fee, with the increased portion going to councils.  Ultimately same net effect that you are asking families to either pay through unit dues, or unit fundraising, but where it is now the unit that is perceived to be ponying up the cash and not the members, perhaps the unit leaders will become more vested to plan/run events and more actively participate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

To make this discussion even more interesting, I need to share that the council in question is generally known to have one of the best professional and volunteer operations around and a council scout reservation with multiple camps that is always included on those lists in Scouting magazine that is in the top ten.  So, the unit leaders really don’t have the typical reasons discussed above to be non-participants and non-supporters.  

Do you really not see the disconnect here?  You told us that many units choose non-participation.  Then you go on about what a swell council it is.  Something doesn't match up.  This is a perfect example of how councils ignore the feedback they get from the units.  They look at themselves through rose colored glasses and simply dismiss any contrary responses they get from the units.  

This is about accountability.  We need to be able to hold our councils accountable.  By eliminating the financial incentive, the councils will finally be free to totally ignore the needs of the units.  

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 3
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
×
×
  • Create New...