Jump to content

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

That has to be a typo on land values. That would be extremely cheap land.

Yes. You're right.

My source. Plan 5.0

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf

pg 429, total contribution $260,391 Unrestricted Net Assets  $417,106 ...so I assumed the difference was the value of the unsold council property which I assumed unrestricted.

I missed page 345, for Chief Cornplanter Council as of Feb 28,2021

Assets

Cash & Equivalents                            $   105.349
Land, Buildings, and Equipment            182.408
Long-Term Investments                            957,394
Other Assets                                             154,223
Total Assets                                        1,399,374

Liabilities
Debt
Other Liabilities                                           33,515
Total Liabilities                                      33,515

Unrestricted Net Assets                          417,106
Restricted Net Assets                             948,753
Total Net Assets                              1,365,859

I also missed page 363

Chief Cornplanter Camp Olmsted  Fair Market Value $784,000 (assessed by CBRE) which must part of Restricted Net Assets above.

"Camp Olmsted is located just 15 miles north of Warren, in the beautiful scenic mountains of the Allegheny National Forest in Northwestern Pennsylvania. It includes: 485 acres of natural woodlands, three miles of waterfront with access to the 24-mile long Allegheny Reservoir lake that was created in the summer of 1967. The lake has 91 miles of shoreline, primarily unspoiled, which allows for limitless water-skiing, motor boating and sailing usage."

https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm13Q8X_Camp_Olmsted_Chief_Cornplanter_Council_Russell_Pennsylvania

Good catch. My error.

 

Edited by RememberSchiff
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@skepticand @CynicalScouter let's just drop it right now.  

They are not human shields, they are youth being served a high quality program. Please stop with the baiting of using comparisons. Victims on this site have stated that it is painful to see tho

Part of the problem, too, is that we are trying to create these country-club type experiences for people.  Swimming pools, air conditioning, hot showers and flush toilets, climbing towers, ATV program

Posted Images

40 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes. You're right.

My source. Plan 5.0

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf

pg 429, total contribution $260,391 Unrestricted Net Assets  $417,106 ...so I assumed the difference was the value of the unsold council property which I assumed unrestricted.

The one critical piece of the financials I have not seen in these documents is budgets and cash flow. 

A balance sheet is great for telling net assets, but not very useful to tell what is needed to run a council for 2 years. 

Also, what is meant by they two years of finances to run a council? Does that mean they have 2 years of operating expenses on hand or does that mean two years based including  two years of projected income and cashflow? 

Those two numbers would be very very different. And in this given situation, projected cashflow would be very difficult to project. 

If the 2 year figure means operating expenses are in the bank, then councils may well be putting up all they can. If that number is based off projected cash flow, it is a different story. But it is also a story that is much more difficult to tell. 

To be clear, I am not saying that a detailed ledger account is required, just a bare bones projection of net expenses (and net income depending on what they 2 year statement means).

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

The one critical piece of the financials I have not seen in these documents is budgets and cash flow. 

A balance sheet is great for telling net assets, but not very useful to tell what is needed to run a council for 2 years. 

Also, what is meant by they two years of finances to run a council? Does that mean they have 2 years of operating expenses on hand or does that mean two years based including  two years of projected income and cashflow? 

Those two numbers would be very very different. And in this given situation, projected cashflow would be very difficult to project. 

If the 2 year figure means operating expenses are in the bank, then councils may well be putting up all they can. If that number is based off projected cash flow, it is a different story. But it is also a story that is much more difficult to tell. 

To be clear, I am not saying that a detailed ledger account is required, just a bare bones projection of net expenses (and net income depending on what they 2 year statement means).

And which 2 years are you using? With the pandemic and bankruptcy- 2019/20/21 operating expenses are at all time lows due to personnel reduction in forces and lack of program. So do you go back to 2017/18? For the council to survive you will need well trained District Execs and staff to revitalize Scouting. . This is not the time to be cheap and hire rookies that will take 3 years to figure out the job. .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, grizzly702 said:

And which 2 years are you using? With the pandemic and bankruptcy- 2019/20/21 operating expenses are at all time lows due to personnel reduction in forces and lack of program. So do you go back to 2017/18? For the council to survive you will need well trained District Execs and staff to revitalize Scouting. . This is not the time to be cheap and hire rookies that will take 3 years to figure out the job. .  

True, I had not considered that. The current economy is likely to have an impact as well. 

It might be a situation where you go back, say five years, and average the cost and revenues. 

With so many factors, both looking back and forward, it is not an easy task to come up with financial picture that you can have a great deal of confidence in. 

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

Yes. You're right.

My source. Plan 5.0

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf

pg 429, total contribution $260,391 Unrestricted Net Assets  $417,106 ...so I assumed the difference was the value of the unsold council property which I assumed unrestricted.

I missed page 345, for Chief Cornplanter Council as of Feb 28,2021

Assets

Cash & Equivalents                            $   105.349
Land, Buildings, and Equipment            182.408
Long-Term Investments                            957,394
Other Assets                                             154,223
Total Assets                                        1,399,374

Liabilities
Debt
Other Liabilities                                           33,515
Total Liabilities                                      33,515

Unrestricted Net Assets                          417,106
Restricted Net Assets                             948,753
Total Net Assets                              1,365,859

I also missed page 363

Chief Cornplanter Camp Olmsted  Fair Market Value $784,000 (assessed by CBRE) which must part of Restricted Net Assets above.

"Camp Olmsted is located just 15 miles north of Warren, in the beautiful scenic mountains of the Allegheny National Forest in Northwestern Pennsylvania. It includes: 485 acres of natural woodlands, three miles of waterfront with access to the 24-mile long Allegheny Reservoir lake that was created in the summer of 1967. The lake has 91 miles of shoreline, primarily unspoiled, which allows for limitless water-skiing, motor boating and sailing usage."

https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm13Q8X_Camp_Olmsted_Chief_Cornplanter_Council_Russell_Pennsylvania

Good catch. My error.

 

I was thinking if it was that cheap I would buy it!!!! Thank you for posting good information as always.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Also, what is meant by they two years of finances to run a council? Does that mean they have 2 years of operating expenses on hand or does that mean two years based including  two years of projected income and cashflow? 

Agreed, it could get complicated. My council is mainly paying out of investments. One might say "oh, lucky them", but they were living off of the investment proceeds, so budget wise it would be harder than if they sold an less used camp. If the camp was running in the red, it would actually help the bottom line in some ways if it didn't hurt membership. Bottom line - complicated and a case by case situation. 

Edited by mrjohns2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone found the TCC documents showing which camps they would sell and which they would keep to make a reasonable drive time and maximize $$$ from LC's.

They should release that with their plan,hopefully. My concern is that friends groups of various camps continue to invest money into them, not knowing that their camp may go away.

LC's are not communicating that maybe a pause is needed for investments for a year until this is over. 

I would not want my hard earned money donated to a camp one year and it be sold the next year. Oh, wait it happened to me a few years ago. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

@1980Scouter, I have not seen the document, but was told by council president that it is basically 1 camp serving everyone in a 150-180 mile radius. of the camp

If they can keep it to two hours max I think it could work. Right now I have five scout camps within an hour of me. 

The ones without a summer camp are severely underutilized. I feel more than two hours is too long for weekend camping and summer camp parents night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

The ones without a summer camp are severely underutilized. I feel more than two hours is too long for weekend camping and summer camp parents night.

When we camped and did activities without carpooling due to COVID, the parents only agreed to drive 1 hour one way.  I fear that with the TCC's recommendation, we will lose Cub Scouts.

 

On a different note, I do not think some realize exactly what is going on regarding the lawsuit. They think they will be able to give up some camps and other properties, and everything will be back to normal after January 2022. It's like they refuse to believe that the plan can, and more than likely will, be rejected.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

On a different note, I do not think some realize exactly what is going on regarding the lawsuit. They think they will be able to give up some camps and other properties, and everything will be back to normal after January 2022. It's like they refuse to believe that the plan can, and more than likely will, be rejected.

Yes, at Roundtable this past week, most volunteers thought it was a done deal already...

Council had put out an email earlier stating what our council's contribution was to the fund, but they did say this was not yet a done deal...guess many didn't read that part.

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

On a different note, I do not think some realize exactly what is going on regarding the lawsuit. They think they will be able to give up some camps and other properties, and everything will be back to normal after January 2022. It's like they refuse to believe that the plan can, and more than likely will, be rejected.

Even if rejected ... will a parent or a unit leader see a really, really change? 

  • Forced BSA only bankruptcy settlement ... councils retain funds for now and not immediately affected.  Long term, many councils and CO not immediately affected.   
  • Alternative plan that requires significantly more council funds ... councils start rejecting ... Long term, many councils and COs not immediately affected.  
  • BSA forced to liquidate ... Councils partner with an alternative scouting provider; maybe BPSA-USA or another.  Maybe form a lose organization with a light-weight standards board. ... This could actually be good as it keeps funds local and sheds debt.  Bad for victims as bankruptcy priority could result in less funds for victims.  Bad for YP as standards and oversight lost.  

IMHO, changes affect national, council / district volunteers and staff.  Parents and unit leaders could see little change.   

*** IF *** ... the whole BSA scouting tree disappeared, scouting units could partner with BPSA-USA or Trails Life or form a lose association with a standards board.   Changes could happen very quickly.  Scouts a year or two later won't know the difference.  Unit calendars years down the road will be mostly unchanged from years before.  ... Even those with long-term knowledge would see little difference; more on the order of a neighbor's driveway changed from Chevy to Ford or Toyota.  ... In many ways, it might be good as funds could be kept closer to home without funding a larger organization.  

QUESTION - Protected intellectual property?  Is the intellectual property of "Eagle Scout" brand still protected if BSA stops existing?  An argument could be made that the intellectual property exists to serve the congressional charger.  If it fails, could the IP be public domain?  Could the councils continue to use it as BSA's failure is not a forced failure of it's business partners?

QUESTION - What is BSA's intellectual property?  Hard to argue "requirements" are intellectual property.  None of the lower ranks are that meaningful publicly.  IMHO, the only valuable / sell-able property is "Eagle Scout" ... even "Boy Scouts" is not that valuable anymore (more of a boat anchor actually).   ... So how much would an organization pay to buy the rights to "Eagle Scout".?  

I really hope BSA continues to exist.  So much good.  So much history.  And I think we will all be much worse off if it's gone.  ... even YP will be worse off ...  I just don't think there is a significant chance that youth will see a big change long term.  

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

*** IF *** ... the whole BSA scouting tree disappeared, scouting units could partner with BPSA-USA or Trails Life or form a lose association with a standards board.   

QUESTION - Protected intellectual property? 

QUESTION - What is BSA's intellectual property? 

I don't see many if any councils going with Trail Life. More likely to form some type of association. Some units may determine to go with TL but if they haven't already, then why go now. Besides. TL has its own set of issues to deal with. 

IP is an asset and as such can and will likely be sold off. Probably to highest bidder, which means it could go to someone that wants to shut it down or to keep it going. It is a roll of the dice. 

BSA's IP includes every program (including Venturing and Sea Scouts, possibly the OA), every rank, including Eagle Scout, every merit badge and every award, other than religious awards. It includes the Oath and Law, Scout Handbook, Jamboree, Pinewood Derby, Philmont name (including bull and arrow head), even the FDL when used in conjunction with scouting activities (though WOSM has some control over that and it could argue for a new organization to use it).

If OA cannot be detached then it will include Ordeal, Brotherhood and Vigil, the Founders Award, DSA, obligation and song. 

Real property would include Philmont, Northerner Tier, Sea Base and BSR. Everything left in the museum. 

 

Edited by HelpfulTracks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of IP, is there a BSA song catalog? If so I wonder if it will be sold to BMG (Tina Turner) , Sony (Paul Simon), Universal Music (Bob Dylan)...

Maybe the Weeknd will record Ging Gang Gooli.

:rolleyes:

Edited by RememberSchiff
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

*** IF *** ... the whole BSA scouting tree disappeared,

How about just replacing the tree? Once upon a time I mentioned an open source model. Or at least break up the decision mechanism.  Allowing for more ideas to be tried could really help figure out what is attractive to youth and parents.

It might mean many versions of what eagle requires but, to be honest, the current process of defining ranks seems to be random - various silos arguing with each other.

I disagree that YP would necessarily be lessened. Break it off and use it for all youth activities. WOSM could make it a standard. If parents knew there was a standard for YP then they'd demand their children be under it. The bsa is fighting having external oversight and I think it's a mistake. Rather than be defensive they could be leaders. An independent standards organization would do a better job and offload liability. I would much rather see the bsa have one seat on the board of a YP standards organization than having one seat on their own board allotted to a YP person.

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...