Friends of Scouting

[notquiteperfect]

I'm not envious I just think it's wrong - especially since so many *volunteer* their time and means! I also don't see why we pay into the pot for the boys when there is no pot for the girls and they have a great and valuable experience anyway!

Edited February 27, 2014 by notquiteperfect

[Guest]

I'm not envious I just think it's wrong - especially since so many *volunteer* their time and means!

Executives in the BSA are not volunteers.

Look at your run-of-the-mill Ward Scouting Program. Most of them are shoddy compared to other Scouting Programs in your town. That's because you have people called for those leadership positions who have busy lives outside of Scouting. Most of them are unqualified to hold that position. Most of them could care less about the quality of that Scouting Program.

The people who run the BSA are not volunteers to avoid this situation.

And I've already explained ad-nauseum in this thread why it is a bad idea to run the financial arm of a Non-Profit Organization differently than a For Profit one other than how the monies are brought into the organization. Non-Profit Organizations still need to compete with the industry market for qualified people. BSA has an added requirement that they reserve preferences to hiring life-long employees in Scouts.

Edited February 27, 2014 by anatess

[notquiteperfect]

I know their not volunteers but because it takes so many volunteers to run the program, I don't see that it's right for a select few to live so much better than said volunteers because without them, there wouldn't be any organization at all.

From what I've seen, I would hope that Church packs/troops would ignore a lot of what the BSA offers so comparing Church groups with Community groups is irrelevant.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, see this? This is what I'm trying to tell you. Wealth envy is not just a democrat thing.

Oh, I agree, Anatess. But I'm not sure it's quite as simple as wealth envy.

Think of it this way. The BSA has made an executive decision that the head of the Great Salt Lake Council need "give" of his resources to the BSA (either through outright donations, or foregoing a higher salary) after--and only after--his own bread has been buttered to the tune of $200K per year. But then the BSA turns around and solicits--in some cases (especially where ward efforts are particularly misguided), one could almost say "browbeats"--donations from congregations full of people who for the most part make one-fifth to one-quarter of that amount.

Clearly, the BSA believes that its council executive's personal/family financial needs are more important than my own. Why would I fund an organization that clearly holds me and my family in such contempt?

In other posts above, it was mentioned that part of the money goes towards maintaining the camps but with how high the fees are, why doesn't that cover it?

The trouble with comparing the cost-to-member of Scout Camp versus Girls' Camp is that the Church typically owns the facilities used for Girls' Camp. If you assume that your average camp's costs of operation (regardless of whether it's a Girls' Camp or a Scout Camp) are $1,000 per child per week, and an LDS young woman pays $150 for girls' camp whereas an LDS scout pays $250 (plus - say - another $100 of the Friends of Scouting take and $50 from the BSA registration fee) goes towards that cost)--Scout Camp, even with FoS, is still a screaming deal for the Church; because the combined church/individual member's cost for Girl's Camp is $1,000 (the Church's operating budget just subsidizes that other $850) whereas the combined church/individual member's cost for Scout Camp is only $400 with the Church subsidizing nothing above what has already been stated.

Non-Profit Organizations still need to compete with the industry market for qualified people. BSA has an added requirement that they reserve preferences to hiring life-long employees in Scouts.

I don't think we can have it both ways here. Someone who's spent the last decade or two as a district/council employee isn't suddenly going to suddenly get a six-figure offer to sit on a board of directors somewhere in Corporate America.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Oh, I agree, Anatess. But I'm not sure it's quite as simple as wealth envy.

Think of it this way. The BSA has made an executive decision that the head of the Great Salt Lake Council need "give" of his resources to the BSA (either through outright donations, or foregoing a higher salary) after--and only after--his own bread has been buttered to the tune of $200K per year. But then the BSA turns around and solicits--in some cases (especially where ward efforts are particularly misguided), one could almost say "browbeats"--donations from congregations full of people who for the most part make one-fifth to one-quarter of that amount.

Clearly, the BSA believes that its council executive's personal/family financial needs are more important than my own. Why would I fund an organization that clearly holds me and my family in such contempt?

JAG, see this is reallly where we disagree 100 times. You don't seem to acknowledge the difference between a CAREER and a volunteer position. And you put out $200K like it's so ginormous for the head of a council to make that much without any references to the market value of that person's skillset as well as the market value of said Executive position.

An LDS bishop is a volunteer position. He makes his mark towards the economy of his family by pursuing a career elsewhere. So, he goes and pursues an executive career that will land him at $200K per year. That's fine and dandy for you if he made it by being the head of Bank of America's Great Lakes Region. But, he's a bishop. He thinks the BSA organization is a better avenue to pursue because it ties in very well with the skillsets he needs to develop as a Bishop over the YM. So he busts his butt on this career, in the same manner he would have done in Bank of America to get to that goal. But, if he's making $200K in the BSA... oh no, he shouldn't be buttering his own bread with $200K of non-profit money because, you know the people making those donations have to butter their bread for only $50K.

THAT is the exact definition of wealth envy. Money figures thrown around simply for the point of dollar to dollar comparison without taking into account the worth of said skillset. Occupy Wall Street did a big protest on that over CEOs.

Whereas, the investors of Bank of America making $50K is just fine because hey, they get a return on it! Well, guess what... investments in non-profit organizations go to develop societies. That's the return we are getting for our investment. If you don't think the BSA program is benefitting the Boys of our Society, then don't donate. If you don't think the job of an Executive is worth $200K, then don't donate. But saying the program is bad because the Executive makes $200K while they solicit monies from $50k-ers is wealth envy.

Edited February 27, 2014 by anatess

[EarlJibbs]

The form that we were handed had a "pay later" section and the BSA would send you a bill. And hound you like you really owed them for some service they provided if you didn't pay.

[Backroads]

May I remind everyone there is usually a difference in the type of camps the Scouts and Young Women go to?

While a Scout troop is perfectly welcome to go camp in the public wilderness, many like to go to official Scout Camps sponsored and run by the BSA. In my experience and knowledge, when the YW do go to a "big camp" it's usually a stake camp.

I've worked for a BSA council and also worked directly at a camp for five summers. At that camp in particular, it was hardly self-sustaining. The camp fees did not come close to maintaining the camp--the council usually begged for private donations beyond what was gleaned from FoS. Those who did not bring their own food but paid for food at camp--that money did not cover the cost of food.

Sure, the YW can go to a stake camp or whatever and have a great time. The Scouts are free to go anywhere.

But please, don't even begin to think the Scouts, when going to an official Scout camp, are paying an arm and leg and providing money to spare.

[Backroads]

From what I've seen, I would hope that Church packs/troops would ignore a lot of what the BSA offers so comparing Church groups with Community groups is irrelevant.

Then why even charter under the BSA if they don't plan on doing anything with it?

[Guest]

Then why even charter under the BSA if they don't plan on doing anything with it?

I think that's what she's getting at. From our discussion in another thread, she thinks the Church is better without the BSA.

I can understand that sentiment. I'm from the opposite camp because of the things my husband and children do in Scouts. My Boy Scout is doing scouts mostly on his own - the Ward Scouting program is terrible. My Cub Scout has a great leader, so he's doing great in it. But, if it wasn't a big deal to take my kids out of the ward scouts, I would and move them to the Presbyterian one close by. They have a much much much better program than we do. So yeah, I can understand someone seeing our Scouting program say if this is all we're getting out of Scouts, there's not much difference just detaching from the BSA altogether.

[Wingnut]

I also don't see why we pay into the pot for the boys when there is no pot for the girls and they have a great and valuable experience anyway!

Well here's your problem. FOS is part of BSA. BSA is not part of the LDS Church. The LDS Church has a relationship with the BSA, but you cannot accurately compare the Young Women program with the BSA. They're completely different entities. Apples. Oranges. You have to separate the organization of BSA from "the boys" at church.

[notquiteperfect]

Two things -

-if the Personal Progress program is good enough for the girls then why all this stuff for the boys?

-if scouts is really all that great, why hasn't the Church adopted in all other countries?

[Wingnut]

-if the Personal Progress program is good enough for the girls then why all this stuff for the boys?

Boys and girls have different needs. Scouting has been around a lot longer than the current version of PP.*

For the record, I don't think that the PP program is good enough for the girls.

-if scouts is really all that great, why hasn't the Church adopted in all other countries?

Well, for starters, the A stands for America. While there are similar scouting programs in other countries, they likely don't have the same spread or infrastructure that the BSA does.

*The "Beehives" were around before the BSA, I believe, but the program has evolved so greatly since then that it's hardly comparable.

[Backroads]

I think that's what she's getting at. From our discussion in another thread, she thinks the Church is better without the BSA.

I can understand that sentiment. I'm from the opposite camp because of the things my husband and children do in Scouts. My Boy Scout is doing scouts mostly on his own - the Ward Scouting program is terrible. My Cub Scout has a great leader, so he's doing great in it. But, if it wasn't a big deal to take my kids out of the ward scouts, I would and move them to the Presbyterian one close by. They have a much much much better program than we do. So yeah, I can understand someone seeing our Scouting program say if this is all we're getting out of Scouts, there's not much difference just detaching from the BSA altogether.

Oh, okay. I also agree with the sentiment. Yes, I'm one of those people that would rather see the BSA be the BSA and the Church putting together its own program for the boys.

[Backroads]

For the record, there is no rule that says "because the boys paid X amount of dollars they had X amount of fun".

The enjoyment and education factors and neither here nor there.

[mnn727]

There is a BIG difference between a corp executive of a company making something or selling something and a non-profit organization that's only income is from soliciting donations. To say the two are equal is ridiculous.

[notquiteperfect]

Yes, wingnut, they do have different needs. But I'll give you a couple things to consider -

I have a friend who's brother wasn't into scouts so he left the church - and still hasn't come back.

There are girls/women who see the difference in what they get and do and what the boys get and do and it doesn't quite cut it to hear in Conference that 'men and women are equal' / 'we value the women just as much' when you see the discrepancies. Money talks so they also become disenchanted and leave.

[Backroads]

I have a friend who's brother wasn't into scouts so he left the church - and still hasn't come back.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Scouts was not the sole reason he left the Church. What's your point here?

[Guest]

Well, for starters, the A stands for America. While there are similar scouting programs in other countries, they likely don't have the same spread or infrastructure that the BSA does.

Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a big thriving program that started way back in 1914 - not too long after BSA was created. It is among the biggest Scouting Organizations in the World.

The LDS Primary Boys and YM in the Philippines use the BSP program. But, unlike the US, Scouting is an integral part of Elementary and High Schools (ages 8 through 16) as well. So, the kids don't just rely on their Ward Leadership and Ward Budget to fullfill all the requirements for Scouts.

[Wingnut]

I have a friend who's brother wasn't into scouts so he left the church - and still hasn't come back.

Ditto to Backroads.

There are girls/women who see the difference in what they get and do and what the boys get and do and it doesn't quite cut it to hear in Conference that 'men and women are equal' / 'we value the women just as much' when you see the discrepancies. Money talks so they also become disenchanted and leave.

You = preaching.

Me = choir.

Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a big thriving program that started way back in 1914 - not too long after BSA was created. It is among the biggest Scouting Organizations in the World.

The LDS Primary Boys and YM in the Philippines use the BSP program. But, unlike the US, Scouting is an integral part of Elementary and High Schools (ages 8 through 16) as well. So, the kids don't just rely on their Ward Leadership and Ward Budget to fullfill all the requirements for Scouts.

See, I didn't know this. I don't know much about Scouting outside the USA, which is why I made sure to include the word "likely" in my above comment. Thanks for the perspective...it helps add to that aspect of the conversation!

[notquiteperfect]

I'm going to hazard a guess that Scouts was not the sole reason he left the Church. What's your point here?

It was brought up that boys and girls have different needs but since it takes so much time to get through all the requirements, etc. that's where the time and focus is but it doesn't interest every boy - different boys have different needs as well. Scouts isn't for everyone but that's how it's treated.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, see this is reallly where we disagree 100 times. You don't seem to acknowledge the difference between a CAREER and a volunteer position. And you put out $200K like it's so ginormous for the head of a council to make that much without any references to the market value of that person's skillset as well as the market value of said Executive position.

First, $200K per year is a lot of money. And if there are other people who could/do the job equally well for less, then it would seem that the "market value" isn't as high as some would have me believe.

So he busts his butt on this career, in the same manner he would have done in Bank of America to get to that goal. But, if he's making $200K in the BSA... oh no, he shouldn't be buttering his own bread with $200K of non-profit money because, you know the people making those donations have to butter their bread for only $50K.

Hey, if the BSA wants to say "JAG, we only expect of you what we expect of our execs; so we won't harass you for donations anymore unless/until you start earning $200K/year"--that's great with me!

But as long as the BSA is trying to guilt me into donating, then I reserve the right to a) point out that my donations are subsidizing the salary of someone who earns four times what I do, b) ask why he isn't ponying up similarly, and c) ask why the BSA is so confident that it couldn't find someone to do the job for cheaper. That's not "wealth envy"; it's "thrift and accountability".

Is it OK for the BSA to spend--say--$2 million to purchase a site for a scout camp; when an equivalent or better site was readily available for $1 million in the same general vicinity? Because that's what this boils down to.

Whereas, the investors of Bank of America making $50K is just fine because hey, they get a return on it!

The BoA shareholders aren't canvassing my ward trying to get non-shareholders to pay BoA executives' salaries.

And discontented shareholders can bail out without being publicly guilted; or they can get together and change the status quo. BSA's shareholders have neither of those options.

Well, guess what... investments in non-profit organizations go to develop societies.

Sure. So why give to the BSA specifically?

If you don't think the BSA program is benefitting the Boys of our Society, then don't donate. If you don't think the job of an Executive is worth $200K, then don't donate.

Thanks; I don't--at least, not what I would if the execs actually acted like wise stewards, which they don't.

But saying the program is bad because the Executive makes $200K while they solicit monies from $50k-ers is wealth envy.

I haven't said the program is bad. What I've said is, there's a lack of thrift, a sense of personal entitlement, and a contempt for its rank-and-file donors that is unbecoming to the ideals of the Boy Scouts of America. I stand by that.

That's not wealth envy. I'm not saying "waah! He has more than I do!" What I'm saying is "wait--he already makes four times my annual salary, and he's asking me to subsidize him? What the flip is wrong with him?!?"

Edited February 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[notquiteperfect]

Amen!, jag

and with that said - I've said enough and need to get things done.

[Wingnut]

Scouts isn't for everyone but that's how it's treated.

You're right. And Personal Progress isn't for everyone but that's how it's treated. If the Church had its own program for Young Men, separate from Scouting, it still would be for everyone, but that's still how it would be treated.

So again, as Backroads said, what's your point?

[MarginOfError]

Yes, wingnut, they do have different needs. But I'll give you a couple things to consider -

I have a friend who's brother wasn't into scouts so he left the church - and still hasn't come back.

There are girls/women who see the difference in what they get and do and what the boys get and do and it doesn't quite cut it to hear in Conference that 'men and women are equal' / 'we value the women just as much' when you see the discrepancies. Money talks so they also become disenchanted and leave.

Okay, here's the problem I have with what you're saying:

You come across like you are saying that you refuse to give to Scouting because of the way the LDS Church has implemented Scouting. Most of your problems, then, aren't with Scouting, but with the Church's implementation of it.

That just doesn't compute for me. And keep in mind, I'm a person that loathes the LDS implementation of Scouting. I'm an assistant scoutmaster with a troop sponsored by an Episcopalian church. I've been asked to work in LDS scouting and I've turned it down. But I given openly to Scouting because I believe that, outside of the LDS implementation of it, it is a wonderful program (even in the LDS implementation it's a good program...just not the quality that our youth deserve).

And don't even get me started on discrepancies between young men and young women programs.

But none of that matters to me as far as FOS is concerned. The only complaint you listed that seems relevant to FOS is the executive salary thing. Everything else was an issue with how the Church runs it.

So, if you were to say, "I won't give to FOS because BSA executive pay is too high" or "I won't give to FOS because I don't feel good about giving to FOS," you'll really get no complaint for me. But "I won't give to FOS because the young women aren't allowed to fund raise" strikes me as ill-constructed logic.

[estradling75]

I find it interesting to note... that most of the attacks pointed at the BSA really should be pointed at the Ward/church (the chartering origination)

Annoyed by Friends of Scouting being pushing and interfering with Church. Done by the Ward. (I would imagine the Salaries of the officers would be less of a issue if your fellow ward members weren't pushing you so hard to cough up a donation)

Annoyed by the difference between the treatment of YM in scouting and the YW. Done by the Ward (and Church)