Jump to content

Suggest Councils that should be Combined


Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, our council camps, nationwide, will be the first items on the auction block.

Many of these camps have been neglected for years.  Execs consider them cash cows, skimming the profit (little if any) and spending it elsewhere.  The BSA has de-emphasized the outdoors for years.  Many council decision makers will offer up the camp/camps and won't blink an eye. 

As mentioned earlier, legacy camps with solid alumni support like Bartle and Ten Mile will survive.  Most of the others won't.

Edited by desertrat77
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1000% agree. Unless I'm missing something, it would be incredibly stupid for councils to start merging now.  Why would any financially strong council merge with a weaker one in the face of litiga

@dkurtenbach, I concur with one small exception:  despite the best efforts of some councils and districts, I think unit operations will be negatively impacted quite soon.  This will largely be due to

This is a perfect example of where the BSA began its decline. Using the patrol method, it would be the scout's patrol leader teaching the new scout how to make the fire.  Not an adult.  The new s

3 hours ago, MattR said:

 Pick an outside entity with no skin in the game and have them do a 360 review. Fiscal health, endowments, donors, usage, membership, camps and history of all that. Talk to council staff and volunteers, district staffs and units. Ask start, stop, continue questions about processes and camp, and hire, fire, encourage questions about people. The big question is whether each council is delivering a quality program and has a bright future. If a small council is doing that then don't muck with it. If a large council is just barely making ends meet then merging it with a failing council likely won't help. There is always a trade off between centralized, large control and distributed, small control, so don't assume bigger is better.

This sounds like a government solution.  When in doubt, form a new committee.  I don't think we need a new committee, or any other new entity.  Just ask the Chartered Organization Representatives.  This could be done by mandating a one-time vote of confidence/no confidence in every council.  Only the COR's vote.  If they vote no confidence, everybody at council is fired.  Then let the COR's form a new council.  If they want to merge with another council... fine.  If they want to divide up into smaller councils... fine.  Let them decide.   No interference from national.  

Once the new councils are settled, have them choose delegates to a sort of constitutional convention.  This time, we have a vote of confidence/no confidence for national.  If they vote no confidence, everyone at national is fired.  Have the delegates form a new BSA.

Could BSA leaders survive a vote of no confidence?  I doubt it.  

Edited by David CO
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicagoland:  The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography.  There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area.  There is a long-standing spirit of cooperation among Scouters from these and predecessor councils.  Districts could remain as-is, with economies of scale allowing many more unit-serving executives.  The resulting council would have a single media market.  There are sufficient camping facilities just waiting to be centrally managed by professionals as a park system.  There are iconic Scout Reservation facilities capable of serving the entire metropolitan area.  This makes sense if the interests of our young people are our uppermost priority.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

Chicagoland:  The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography.  There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area.  There is a long-standing spirit of cooperation among Scouters from these and predecessor councils.  Districts could remain as-is, with economies of scale allowing many more unit-serving executives.  The resulting council would have a single media market.  There are sufficient camping facilities just waiting to be centrally managed by professionals as a park system.  There are iconic Scout Reservation facilities capable of serving the entire metropolitan area.  This makes sense if the interests of our young people are our uppermost priority.     

Didn't pathway basically write the book on "how to NOT merge councils" 

 

In all seriousness, I'd like to see them pull a Michigan Crossroads. One large council that handles properties/program, and smaller Field Service councils that just focus on units and fundraising. 

Edited by carebear3895
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know how I feel about this.  We have more than 15 districts in our council as it is.   There are no small bordering councils.  I think this just doesn't apply here.   I don't live that far from the central office and it already seems far away.  I can't imagine what the farther districts think. 

 

Seems like a thing to tackle after everything settles down so that no new problems arise.    Maybe we should just merge all the councils up to the area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yknot said:

The loss of council camp properties has been an ongoing crisis BSA has ignored. It speaks to the lack of outside expertise because support easily could have been offered through property management expertise and advice, bench marked program adjustments, or collective purchasing agreements. Facility upgrades are a common challenge and there are common components in engineering, environmental impact issues, etc., that BSA could have developed some basic institutional competency with and been in a position to offer resources. 

 

 

 

Good thought.  Large companies that require maintenance, such as Home Depot, WaWa, Circle K, etc. have field maintenance employees, that travel from location to location to make repairs or do installations.  The individual retail location might have janitorial staff that takes care of the daily cleaning, but the bigger maintenance is from these roving company resources.  You could easily adopt a philosophy like that with camp properties, where say all of New England had a team of 3.  Bigger projects, perhaps all 3 would need to be at one particular camp for a week working together.  Rangers are not always full-time, and in some cases they may only be PT caretakers today.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mds3d:  I do not suggest an immediate timeline.  But, it is not going to take more than a year or so to understand where the BSA is.  There is no advantage to delay discussions until then.  

My sense is that with fewer and more-targeted services being performed at the council level, getting to the central office is not going to be as important as before.  Small satellite scout shops where DEs might also have work spaces is where we might be headed.  

Area boundaries are not drawn for volunteer convenience, as these are purely configured for national supervisory convenience.  With the Regions likely being dropped, areas will probably double in size.  That is just going to be too big for a council.  Better to combine geographies in a way that makes cultural and organization sense — like the consolidated Chicagoland/NW Indiana Council I have suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parkman:  Why don’t you suggest a sequence of events and the timing that would go with it?  What we need to grapple with is that the bankruptcy court is going to force a short schedule.  
 

The bankruptcy process will essentially strip national operations to the bare essentials over the next 6 months.  During that time our weakest councils will struggle financially and programmatically.  I am aware that up to 20% could be at a structural standstill or in default.  The suggestions for a broad grassroots re-envisioning of Scouting at the local level has an appeal, but I do not yet understand how that happens in the bankruptcy environment.

Councils that are dysfunctional now are likely to be even more dysfunctional in a time of transition.  If reallocation of resources to the district/unit service level is an agreed priority, what is the advantage of continued spending and wheel-spinning by so many councils?  

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

Parkman:  Why don’t you suggest a sequence of events and the timing that would go with it?  What we need to grapple with is that the bankruptcy court is going to force a short schedule.  
The bankruptcy process will essentially strip national operations to the bare essentials over the next 6 months.

As I understand, the only short schedule was requested by the BSA - 80 days for victims/creditors to come forward. Please show a source confirming Judge Silverstein is forcing a short schedule or anything else.

On 2/20/2020 Judge Silverstein's  signed several interim (no expiration date) orders- debtor is authorized to continue run business, pay bills,....

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2B6Yclmvv9%2Fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3D&tagid=1153

P.S. Interesting to note in above link, the number attorneys from different Councils with "Request for Service of Papers"

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicagoland:  The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography.  There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area.  There is a long-standing spirit of cooperation among Scouters from these and the predecessor councils that existed there.  Districts could remain as-is, with economies of scale allowing a rennissance of membership growth --

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

Chicagoland:  The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography.  There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area.  There is a long-standing spirit of cooperation among Scouters from these and the predecessor councils that existed there.  Districts could remain as-is, with economies of scale allowing a rennissance of membership growth --

My Question is what would that accomplish? All 4 of those councils are economically well-off. The only thing that would foresee happening is more properties being sold off. Like you said, and I agree, Scouters in that area already work well together. Why change things for the sake of change? 

 

That's why I suggested the Michigan Crossroads Council comparison. That I could see happening.  

Edited by carebear3895
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...