To be trusted?

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Interesting thread --- reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. What one "sees" depends on what one experiences, and the e3xperiences can vary widely.

 

 

Personally, I guess I'm pretty lucky. I have a solvent council that has a Scout Executive that I've found to be top notch through personal experience, and has been significantly improving the council program and services. That's a terrific start!

 

Just as examples, the council chose to pay for group insurance for all units out of its own funding. One of my personal hobby horses has been to try to find ways for primarily English speaking units to attract and keep more Hispanic/Lationo Scouting families --- after getting little help from the council with that in a year, the Scout Executive tossed off a couple of excellent program resources when I was at a meeting designed for volunteers to ask questions of the Scout Executive, Council President and Council Commissioner ---the council "key three."

 

I work a lot at the district level. We have a new DE who is working hard and effectively. We are understaffed with volunteers at the district level and people are getting burned out. So we are hurting there. That is threatening to impair the services we provide to units, but that hasn't quite happened yet.

 

We've been adding a few new volunteers at the district level, thanks primarily to the new DE finding some new people. We need more.

 

As a district leader, I look at units and often see a lack of support for the district. But when I ask unit leaders for help, I get it fairly often. I am hearing about more weak units that need help, and I have little help to provide --- I'm stretched too!

 

We had two district leaders at a district training session Saturday, and Cubmaster who helped with training (bless him!) We did a high quality training job, and I did the same training for the one Tiger Cub Den Leader who showed up that I did for 25 people at our council training a month ago.

 

But where were the rest of the Tiger Cub Den Leaders? They NEED that training, by and large! The units NEED those people trained in order to have a quality program for their new families. And those new families are the future for the unit, district and council!

 

I'm also a Cubmaster. I've spent three years building up my pack from being on the edge of failure with one boy left in it to a unit that is still struggling but has a quality program and a number of quality leaders. Our main problem is gettinmg our unit parents to take an effective role in providing unit leadership. Even there people are probably more willing to help if they are asked effectively and they are willing to get started with training and taking charge.

 

So I'm pretty lucky. I've really got the resources I need to do things, but I'm spread too thin and I suffer from finmding it easier to do things myself rather than taking time to find and train new volunteers.

 

 

[desertrat77 1144]

The question posed, as others pointed out, is a little broad...but has generated great discussion.

 

As a UC, my "trust" angle--when it comes to respecting scouting's history, respect for unit level scouters, and promoting truly outdoor programming....

 

I do not trust National. They seem bent on transforming scouting away from the winning formula. An unnecessary revisit to the failed Improved Scouting Program of the '70s. I lived it and would not recommend it.

 

I trust the council and district folks--my current. Very fortunate. Can't say that about my previous three councils/districts. Mixed bag from helpful to absent to downright subversive.

 

Unit level...about 98 percent I trust. Some have their agendas, some are not reliable and yet refuse to give way to someone who can do the job...for the most part, I trust them.

[Wilton125 10]

I do sometimes wonder how much do we really trust the organization?

 

Do we really trust National?

 

No, I do not "trust" BSA National. My lack of trust is driven by a number of experiences, including:

 

1. Uniform pricing and manufacturing: shifting manufacturing to Asia, specifically China resulted in higher prices and reduced quality. BSA National treats it's membership base as a "profit center". Why can GS USA source their uniforms from US-based sources? Why can Scouts Canada source its uniforms from Canadian sources?

 

2. At the National Jamborees, BSA National professionals seem to feel "entitled" to have different accommodations than Scouts and Adult Volunteers. What makes them "entitled" to be diven around in air-conditioned Escalades?

 

3. "Popcorn" fundraisers: BSA National take too much money for what we received back at the local level

 

4. There is no transparency in how decisions are made

 

 

Do we trust the Council and the pros who are there to serve us and the units we serve?

 

I have a much higher opinion of my professionals at my local council (Connecticut Yankee). I see the results of hard work and dedication in the quality of our Summer Camp programs.

 

How about the District?

 

I have the highest confidence in my local District (Powahay). They do a great job with programs like Camporees and Roundtables.

[FScouter 24]

Never let facts get in the way. Tends to muck up one's beliefs of the way things "are".

[KC9DDI 11]

I don't know FScouter - Maybe some facts might change the level of trust we place in various organizations and entities.

 

'Round here, "BSA National" (I'm assuming you mean the National Council), takes 0% of popcorn sales proceeds - the money is split roughly equally between the manufacturer, the council, and the unit. If $0 is "too much" compared to what you're unit is making, that get's back to the question of how you expect the BSA, as a business, to spend more money than it takes in.

 

At Jambo, the professionals are being paid to do a job. They are not participants or volunteers in the program - their job description involves the execution of certain duties and responsibilities. Why do you think that a condition of their job should be to live, eat and sleep in certain "conditions" for a week? How would that help them do their job better? You, as a volunteer, are not required to participate in the Jamboree, whereas the professionals are. Or should the camp ranger of your local council's camp property be forced to sleep in a tent each weekend that Scouts are camping on the property, rather than being "entitled" to sleep in his home?

 

Why is it wrong for the BSA, as a business, to expect to make some amount of profit from it's membership?

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

KC9,

 

I think that (servant) leadership means you should share the same conditions as your troops whenever possible. To not do so is bad for morale and distances you from what they experience. I do a lot of stuff that I would prefer not to do but to show the scouts that the old man is willing to tough it out with them.

 

I think BSA should be run as a non-profit not a business but that now is a mute point.

[KC9DDI 11]

Tampa - Fair point, but I don't believe the professional staff provide program leadership in most cases. Scout Executives and other supervisory staff may provide leadership to the other professionals in a business sense, but leadership of the Scouting program is almost always provided by volunteers. Look at the Key 3 of every district, council, and on up - you have 1 professional, and 2 volunteers. Not to mention the entirely volunteer district committee, council committee, etc. Professionals are being paid to provide support, logistics and resources for the volunteer-led program. If the most efficient use of the organization's time and money is for them to travel from point A to point B in a vehicle rather than on foot... I just don't see that as a huge conspiracy, I see that as a small group of people doing the job that they're being paid to do.

 

To my knowledge, the BSA is being run as a legal non-profit organization - why do you think that it is not?

[FScouter 24]

I can't think of even one "non-profit" that is not a business. Maybe he means a "charity" where the organization exists to provide everything free of charge to the members. But even a charity is a business - income, expenses, services.

[KC9DDI 11]

FScouter - That's my guess too.

 

Interesting point though, as far as trust goes. People typically distrust things that they don't understand. And this thread (and some other threads going on simultaneously) have shown that there's a lot that people just don't understand about the BSA as a national organization - certain people don't understand the definition of a non-profit organization, don't understand the roles and responsibilities of volunteer vs. paid staff, don't understand how the BSA is funded, don't understand the name of the National Council, etc. Not surprisingly, the result is manifested as distrust of the National Council.

 

What I find a bit unsettling is that there certainly are various areas that the National Council does have responsibility over, that I feel could be improved upon. And I bet that many, if not most, unit- and district-level Scouters working "in the trenches" feel the same way. The problem is that red herrings like "predatory pricing" and professionals daring to drive vehicles get in the way of discussions that try to illuminate the ACTUAL ISSUES, and devise workable, reasonable solutions.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[Wilton125 10]

"Why do you think that a condition of their job should be to live, eat and sleep in certain "conditions" for a week? How would that help them do their job better?"

 

Well since you asked, if the professionals from BSA National, especially the CSE, had to

 

1. March in full Scout uniform in 100+ heat, with out water for miles to a non-event

2. Then were marched back to their campsite, without water

3. Were passed along the way by "VIPs" riding in air-conditioned Escalades

4. Then had no dinner

 

Then they might have a different perspective on the Jamboree "experience". They might have a better appreciation about the poor management and logistics on the part of the paid "professionals".

 

BSA National is totally dependent on Adult Volunteers to deliver the Scouting program at the local level. Yet these same "paid professionals" at BSA National seem to believe that that they are "entitled" to a different Scouting "experience". As a result of this "two-class" approach, BSA National is often out of touch with the realities of the Scout program and experience.

 

Hence the lack of trust from Volunteers about BSA National. I neither respect nor trust the "professionals" from BSA National. Based on the comments on this thread, it appears that other Scout volunteers share this perspective.

 

 

[eagle90 125]

What national CEO or upper echelon executive of any company the size of the BSA doesn't get some perks of his office? Be it the Escalade or a better meal or better accommodations than the rank and file. That's just the way it is. My boss drove a better car than I, and had a more plush office than I did. So what? Because of his position, he earned and deserved it. Just because an entity is a not for profit doesn't mean its not a business, with balance sheets and P & L's to worry about.

[skeptic 997]

Wilton;

 

The situation you delineate happened in 2005. They learned a lesson, and they did as much as possible to try and make sure that did not happen again. Part of that was due to the security "required" for Bush's visit. That was one of the factors last year in NOT having the president visit directly. If you think the Bush security was severe; imagine what they would have needed with Obama, based on comments constantly seen on the internet, tv, and even on these boards. The level of "hate" by some is scary.

 

They had water available everywhere they could in 2010, and they had piles of it at the arena as well. While walking to the arena show, I was offered bottles at least 3 times along the route.

 

2013 appears to be making the use of vehicles almost totally restricted. So, did they learn something? Time will tell.

 

Are there a few individuals in the highest echelons that may be out of touch. Yes, there are. There are also a few volunteers in high positions of every level of the program who are out of touch, or feel somehow privileged. I ran into a number of "gold tabs" with really large egos and even bigger attitude, in my opinion anyway.

 

Seldom is anything completely black or white.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

There is a frequent contributor here on the Forum who likes to remind us when someone tells a story about how terrible and rotten and awful some unit/situation/adult is and that we need to give the person being described the benefit of the doubt that they are doing what they feel right. Should that courtesy also be extended to both the Professional and Volunteers who are at the National level? We may not understand what they do, but should we not respect their dedication to the program? Or is the assumption that nothing good can come from National? Is that not pre judging?

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I can give National the benefit of a doubt for motives even if I do not like the result.

 

I just think that "the troops" would love it to see their leaders "as just one of the boys".

[eisely 13]

I have to agree that the use of the word "trust" here is probably not the best choice. But I do not have an immediate alternative.

 

There will always be an issue in any volunteer organization that uses paid help to perform various tasks at different levels. By definition the paid help has built in differences in priorities that volunteers do not have. Does that mean that scouting should not use paid help for anything? Clearly not.

 

In general, the closer the paid help is to actual units, the more I trust them simply because I see more of them and tend to know them by first name.

 

Part of the solution is having the right volunteers at the board of directors or executive committee levels monitoring the performance of the paid help. At the council level, selecting the right SE is extremely important since that individual will set a tone and create an environment that influences everything that happens.