Jump to content

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

For wealth, I will use my LC. They are contributing 6 million currently. They have 20 million in assets.  Some are restricted.  But at least 13 million is not. So they could give a lot more. It would likely require selling a camp but they have two nice ones.

If they lose the council office and a camp in addition to most of their endowment they still exist and have a camp and can continue on with liability released. By the way they have over 400 claims against them.

This is what it will take in my opinion to get the plan passed. They survive in the end but with less assets. 

I agree.  From the TCC  individual council analyses, some councils are scheduled to contribute a third or half of their unrestricted assets and others perhaps only 20% or so. The TCC analyses would do well to also show the percentage of contribution to unrestricted assets.  It roughly appears to me that the larger councils are contributing a smaller percentage, and I wonder if those councils are going to be the survivors with the councils contributing a much higher percentage are targeted for merging out of existence. "We need a war chest in the surviving councils."

I understand that there is a map with "150 mile circles on it" which identifies all of the camps in the Scouting system within those circles.  Circles with too many camps for the scouts available, will see the sale of camps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nope...but haven't asked either.  Anytime I ask anything about council finances, it is viewed as aggressive and sinister, which it is not. When you ask me for money (donations), I want to know it

You have apparently not met my council's administrative assistant who actually does run the council, not the SE.

I have heard of several. My council’s SE took a sizable pay cut as did the professionals.  There has been no public releases because they do not wish to garner attention. They feel that they are doing

10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I understand that there is a map with "150 mile circles on it" which identifies all of the camps in the Scouting system within those circles.  Circles with too many camps for the scouts available, will see the sale of camps.

I was told it was 180 mile radii or 360 mile circles. Basically 1 Scout camp within a 3 hour drive.

Want to see  Local councils and Scouting lose support even faster than now? Sell camps. Want to lose Cub Scouts because the Scout camps are too far away for families? Sell Camps (unless councils are willing to approve more camps besides their own for Cubs to use).

I say this because my council has stated they will be selling 2 camps. Folks are ticked off and vowing to go elsewhere to buy their Scouting supplies and attend summer camp as a result. As for Cub Families, I have heard complaints about being too far when the camp is 1.5 hours away. 3 hours is going to be no gos for many.

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

I say this because my council has stated they will be selling 2 camps. Folks are ticked off and vowing to go elsewhere to buy their Scouting supplies and attend summer camp as a result. As for Cub Families, I have heard complaints about being too far when the camp is 1.5 hours away. 3 hours is going to be no gos for many.

Similar for my council.  For Scouts BSA, less of an issue; however, would definitely impact camporees ... so definitely a negative impact but perhaps managable for strong Troops.  For Cub Scouts, losing local council camps, can kill their camping program.  What I was told, for Cub Scouts, is the idea of buying a large warehouse location that could be used for scout offices and a Cub Scout camp (indoors).   Indoor tents?, climbing walls?, trout pond?  Not exactly sure as it was a rumor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Similar for my council.  For Scouts BSA, less of an issue; however, would definitely impact camporees ... so definitely a negative impact but perhaps managable for strong Troops.  For Cub Scouts, losing local council camps, can kill their camping program.  What I was told, for Cub Scouts, is the idea of buying a large warehouse location that could be used for scout offices and a Cub Scout camp (indoors).   Indoor tents?, climbing walls?, trout pond?  Not exactly sure as it was a rumor.  

They could call it Cubela's!!

https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en#

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had 2 council family camp outs: 1 at the summer camp and 1 at the old summer camp. The summer camp is centrally located in the council, has the best and modern facilities of the council's camps, but is in the middle of no where.  With the exception of 1 city about 40 minutes away, it takes about 1.5 - 2.5 hours to get to it from major population areas. Cub attendance was no no greater than 100 at it's height. The old summer camp, which the council has neglected and is taken care of by volunteers, while on the western edge of the council, was within 45 minutes of 3 small cities in the council. That one at it's height had over 680 attend. One of the highlights is that it is the only council camp that can have Cubs do boating activities.

I have read that some councils will only approve their council run camps for Cub Scout camping.  I do hope that won't be the case if the camps are sold.

I have a feeling that some packs will continue to use their local  OA lodge's "Where to Go Camping" books as an approval list of camps for Cubs to use since it is published by the council. I know my council has never had an official Cub Scout Camping list. Part of that stemmed from folks on the council camping committee saying, "Cubs don't need to camp."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I have a feeling that some packs will continue to use their local  OA lodge's "Where to Go Camping" books as an approval list of camps for Cubs to use since it is published by the council. I know my council has never had an official Cub Scout Camping list. Part of that stemmed from folks on the council camping committee saying, "Cubs don't need to camp."

Our pack rented local county / state park group camp sites.  We usually could find one within a 10 to 20 minutes drive. 

We pushed council camps also, but cost kept going up.  It got to be a $200+ for a father/son cub camp Friday night to Sunday morning.  Plus gear.  

"Cubs don't need to camp" ...    Some pros is that it dilutes the new rich experience of Boy Scouts.  Also, Cubs now includes K, 1st, 2nd, etc.  That's a lot of day care.  ... Flip side ... scouting is about being active and outside.   I can't imagine scouting without camping. 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Has anyone heard of their LC SE taking a pay cut due to council finances being the bad shape?

Many councils are struggling currently due to all the factors discussed on these boards. It would make sense since the SE is paid so much.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Nope...but haven't asked either.  Anytime I ask anything about council finances, it is viewed as aggressive and sinister, which it is not.

When you ask me for money (donations), I want to know it is being spent well and rightly.  If you hide everything from me, you don't get my money.

I have heard of several. My council’s SE took a sizable pay cut as did the professionals.  There has been no public releases because they do not wish to garner attention. They feel that they are doing their duty.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

I have heard of several. My council’s SE took a sizable pay cut as did the professionals.  There has been no public releases because they do not wish to garner attention. They feel that they are doing their duty.  

And what Council is this?

Poor leadership in my opinion.  Cut some staff and reassign some responsibilities if needed. Cut some staff and services as needed. Don’t work for less than you have earned and deserve.

Name another business that does that. That council will merge with another when the dust settles.

Districts are expected to serve a certain number of youth, units, and be financially sustainable. If not, cut the position and leave it open, or merge districts. Don’t take away a person’s income and personal self worth. 

Scout executives salaries are set by the local board and council salaries are based on classification which is a reflection of membership, units, funding, etc. Everybody is on a 30 day notice contract, so I suppose a salary could be adjusted at end of year. But again, if membership drops to nothing, the SE should be the last to go. You let go district executives and office staff first and adjust.

Edited by RobertCalifornia
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RobertCalifornia said:

And what Council is this?

Poor leadership in my opinion.  Cut some staff and reassign some responsibilities if needed. Cut some staff and services as needed. Don’t work for less than you have earned and deserve.

Name another business or other that does that. 

That council will merge with another when the dust settles.

2nd quarter 2020, my wife, a physician in a national healthcare company, along with all the other physicians in the company, took what turned out to be a temporary 25% pay cut.  All non emergent procedures had been cancelled, revenue dried up.  The alternative was layoff a bunch of support staff.  Rather than throw the least well paid folks out of work, which would have resulted in plenty of hardship for them, the better paid folks took a hit.  None of them liked it, but they were certainly better able to absorb it.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

2nd quarter 2020, my wife, a physician in a national healthcare company, along with all the other physicians in the company, took what turned out to be a temporary 25% pay cut.  All non emergent procedures had been cancelled, revenue dried up.  The alternative was layoff a bunch of support staff.  Rather than throw the least well paid folks out of work, which would have resulted in plenty of hardship for them, the better paid folks took a hit.  None of them liked it, but they were certainly better able to absorb it.

I would argue the physicians did not desire or even know how to do the work of the lower paid staff. And, as you said, it was temporary. Some of those staff might have preferred to collect the state and federal unemployment for awhile too! 

SE’s are fully capable of doing a program or executives jobs as required. However, a DE or a office assistant is not remotely qualified to do the job of a SE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

I would argue the physicians did not desire or even know how to do the work of the lower paid staff. And, as you said, it was temporary. Some of those staff might have preferred to collect the state and federal unemployment for awhile too! 

SE’s are fully capable of doing a program or executives jobs as required. However, a DE or a office assistant is not remotely qualified to do the job of a SE.

As a physician, I must disagree.  Though some accounting processes would be challenging without a crash course, I could do all the other office jobs except laboratory technician for those practices that have one as certificates are required.

20 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

And what Council is this?

Poor leadership in my opinion.  Cut some staff and reassign some responsibilities if needed. Cut some staff and services as needed. Don’t work for less than you have earned and deserve.

Name another business that does that. That council will merge with another when the dust settles.

Districts are expected to serve a certain number of youth, units, and be financially sustainable. If not, cut the position and leave it open, or merge districts. Don’t take away a person’s income and personal self worth. 

Scout executives salaries are set by the local board and council salaries are based on classification which is a reflection of membership, units, funding, etc. Everybody is on a 30 day notice contract, so I suppose a salary could be adjusted at end of year. But again, if membership drops to nothing, the SE should be the last to go. You let go district executives and office staff first and adjust.

The council is well run and did layoff staff as well as not filling some professional jobs.  No professionals were laid off - that was the plan.  It was better to have a one year pay reduction than to lose one's job.  Our council is one of the healthiest in the region and will not be merging unless this RSA is rejected.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

It was better to have a one year pay reduction than to lose one's job.  

I agree.  It's a common and a reasonable answer.  Another version is periodic furloughs.  Work several weeks.  Take an unpaid week.  It's a chance to provide some income; help a company ride out hard times; preseve skills/knowledge; provide the potential of a continued career after business resumes. 

This stuff ain't easy.   Every executive / manager / lead I've know takes this stuff really hard.  I remember my dad as a manager drive home with tears because he had to lay off best friends and put others in hard situations.  I remember a senior direct and myself in an elevator on the day of major layoffs and we were both really shaken.  This stuff ain't easy.

  • Upvote 2
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...