Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[TAHAWK]

8 hours ago, David CO said:

Exactly!  This is why councils are so horrible.  All of the competent people are driven out and replaced by compliant sycophants. 

 

The outstanding DE at the time - most effective in starting new units, first in all metrics, including fund-raising , a Queen's Scout from the UK, was fired for insuffuicent subservience.  Namely, he wondered out-loud at a staff meeting about he results of eliminating districts in favor of "professionally" run "service teams" and ending FOS in favor orf volunteers being asked to authorize automatic monthly withdrawals or automatic monthly debits from their bank accouts ("Why should we have to ask every year?"  [Funds raised dropped by 2/3.]).   

For the last thirty-nine years, every DE with strong "street cred" has quit Scouting, transferred to another council, or been sacked - except for during the regime of the third SE during that period.  (A good guy, he could not stop the rot, but he slowed it and was well-liked.  His succesor vetoed district election results, and when the same Scouters were reeleted, eliminated the districts.  So there!)

 

Still no spell-check.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

His succesor vetoed district election results, and when the same Scouters were reeleted, eliminated the districts.

YGBKM!!!  (You gotta be kidding me!)

[TAHAWK]

Not hardly.  We were just recovering from a council-mandated restructuring of the districts that involved replacing every single significant volunteer with "community leaders" (business men).  Fortunately, all the "community leaders" quit in a couple of years (or less) or were just ignored.  In my district, the Program Commitee became the District for all intents and purposes, and its chairman the actual District Chairman - everything was done at its meetings.  I think I saw the District Chairman, a corporate president, twice in two years.  In neither case, did he say a word.

The long-dead district level training for Patrol Leaders, J.L.O.W., had the staffer leading the first session ask, "Who is the leader?"  The clueless BSA answer was "the patrol leader."  The real -world aswer was, and is,  "Whoever leads."

[David CO]

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Not hardly. 

Can you say that with a good John Wayne impersonation?

[TAHAWK]

😄

[RememberSchiff]

46 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

The outstanding DE at the time - most effective in starting new units, first in all metrics, including fund-raising , a Queen's Scout from the UK, was fired for insuffuicent subservience.  Namely, he wondered out-loud at a staff meeting about he results of eliminating districts in favor of "professionally" run "service teams" and ending FOS in favor orf volunteers being asked to authorize automatic monthly withdrawals or automatic monthly debits from their bank accouts ("Why should we have to ask every year?"  [Funds raised dropped by 2/3.]).   

For the last thirty-nine years, every DE with strong "street cred" has quit Scouting, transferred to another council, or been sacked - except for during the regime of the third SE during that period.  (A good guy, he could not stop the rot, but he slowed it and was well-liked.  His succesor vetoed district election results, and when the same Scouters were reeleted, eliminated the districts.  So there!)

 

Still no spell-check.

@TAHAWK above when I opened your post (point click on text) for edit, the red squiggly lines appeared under misspelled words.

Edited December 15, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[TAHAWK]

IMust be on my end.

 

[img]https://i.imgur.com/NFQgk4o.png[/img]

[TAHAWK]

And the image I posted from Imgur doesn't appear.  But pics I post on other big forums do appear. ?????

[CynicalScouter]

A follow up on this because I think it is important.

Let's take one of biggest councils that I know of: Michigan Crossroads.

Expenses in 2019 were $17,619,710.

The S.E. for Michigan Crossroads makes salary $229,010 plus other compensation $56,000 = $285,010

Total Compensation = 1.61%

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/454003240/08_2020_prefixes_41-45%2F454003240_201912_990_2020082517254775

How about a mid-size? Heart of Virginia

https://www.connectva.org/groups/heart-of-virginia-council-inc-boy-scouts-of-america/financials/

Expenses in 2018 (last year for data) = 3,858,253

S.E. makes salary $84,552 plus other compensation 0 = $84,552

Total Compensation as % of expenditures = 2.19%

So, rather than throwing numbers out here about "the evil S.E. makes XXXX", in the future how about "The evil S.E. makes XX% of all expenditures."

Again, the non-profit standard is 1%-10%.

[InquisitiveScouter]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, rather than throwing numbers out here about "the evil S.E. makes XXXX", in the future how about "The evil S.E. makes XX% of all expenditures."

OK, using your metric, the evil SE makes 7.61% of our $2.7M expenditures.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

OK, using your metric, the evil SE makes 7.61% of our $2.7M expenditures.

Ok, that's high end of normal, but in range.

[ParkMan]

SE compensation is not the issue with the council structure we have today.  I am not supporting the current SE salaries.  SE salaries become yet another example that people point to as an issue of council mis-management, but it is not the primary cause.  If people were happy with the council operations the complaints would be less.  Since people are unhappy, SE salaries become as example that we point to.

Shrinking SE salaries will only serve to remove that specific complaint - it will not resolve the core concerns.

[RememberSchiff]

44 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

And the image I posted from Imgur doesn't appear.  But pics I post on other big forums do appear. ?????

You did not need img tags. 

See if this tutorial helps

 

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, ProScouter06 said:

Revenue is necessary to operate the council. Every event must make some money in order to operate the council. We usually had a 20% overhead fee. Think about the costs that are unseen. Staff time, facility usage etc... If not, where would the funds come from? Fundraising does not cover it all. I was so glad to hear that local councils are now charging program fees rather than investing in more FOS. The time and effort for FOS spent on by staff is unreal compared to the return. I like the idea of the program fee. However as a current higher ed fundraiser, councils cannot lose philanthropic support. They will need a new game plan to solict, cultivate and steward their donors. The good news is, the fundraisning program can become more targeted, aimed at those who have a high inclination to give rather than the current FOS strategy which was seen by some folks as begging. 

I agree that program fees are preferable to FOS.  Yet, we need to recognize that program fees need to be accompanied with tangible value add from the council.  Charging a Scout $50 per year to fund council operations need to then be accompanied with some sort of obvious return on that fee.

One of the challenges with the transition to program fees is that the funding structure is designed to show value to people who donate to Scouting.  DEs and staffs who are focused on building and growing Scouting are working to accomplish goals that are interesting to people who are donating to Scouting.   

Families who are paying a "per scout" fee are looking for a different kind of return.  Paying $50 to fund a DE who is trying to start new units and solve unit issues is adding a return that is not directly apparent to parents.  From a program fee basis, it doesn't matter if there is one scout or 1,000 scouts.  Each scout needs to derive value from that fee.  This will challenge how councils communicate and demonstrate value to families.

 

[RememberSchiff]

In previous years, the Spirit of Adventure Council (Boston/Eastern Mass) offered an Adventure Card ($30) to scouts and their families as a fundraiser for Council and money-saver for scouts.

However at registration this year, scouts are required to purchase a more expensive Adventure Card ($48) which IMHO has less value as stated discounts are for activities or venues closed by covid.