If I was the CEO...

.
Volumes have been written on both subjects, lack of democracy in Scouts Canada and the disarray of Scouts Canada finances. Better men than I have written on these topics. In a nutshell...

There is a self perpetuating circle through all the appointees to the people allowed to vote. Thus the only people allowed to vote are those whose appointments can be traced right back up to the people for whom they are voting! The whole voting process was designed to confuse the issues and ensure that only the "right" people were allowed to vote. It would have been much simpler to allow one member one vote, just like MEC. Whether the members vote for the AC who in turn vote for the CC, or whether people vote directly for both the AC and the CC is probably debatable, but either would be better than having no say as it is today.

On the financial side, there is absolutely no reason to have 280 (actually gone up to 300 at last count!) people on the payroll. Whether they are nice people or work hard is irrelevant, we have to eliminate most of these positions and write off pensions for the remainder. There is very little done at national (or especially council) that can't be done away with. The programming all comes down to local leaders. I heard a CC recently go on about needing to raise more revenue. He just doesn't get it; we don't have a revenue problem, we have an expense problem!


Allan.

Thanks for the summary Allan. I had no idea about the voting structure (I recall our Group being asked to select three delegates for the Council AGM, which would then elect delegates for the National AGM, which is democracy, sort of, but indirectly achieved. Voting for ACs would make sense, who would then vote for CC from amongst their number (kind of like how the Prime Minister is chosen). But that's just my opinion.

As for finances, what specifically would you have national and Council cut and download to the Areas and the Groups? Programming is implemented by local leaders, but I am sure glad someone takes care of supplying a lot of the support for the program we put on. 300 paid staff to over 100,000 members is not a bad ratio, especially compared with the BSA. Mind you, my comment is made in ignorance. There may be some things that are better implemented at the local level. I just don't know what they are.

what specifically would you have national and Council cut and download to the Areas and the Groups?

You made a comparison before to the government, and this latest comment about downloading is similar. Just because somebody is doing a certain job now, doesn't mean it has to be done at all. Most of the "fat" IMHO is at the council level. For starters I would eliminate the executive director, the field executives, and anybody related to ScoutsAbout. Why does council need expensive real estate? If we get rid of the expenses, then we could get rid of the accountant. I don't really see the need for a registrar, why don't groups just send their fee into national; no need for expensive cross-checks, just do it on the honour system. Where do the council get involved in my program? International trips...a rubber stamp, a waste of time. Insurance agreements...tried to get them to help, a black hole. (the no waiver thing is inept in the first place). Review of activities like aerial runways...tried that, a black hole.

Too many people are saying "How do we pay for what we have?" rather than "What do we really need?". Regardless of whether a paid staff is beneficial or not, the revoltingly high fee is turning away parents. That has to change.

Programming is implemented by local leaders, but I am sure glad someone takes care of supplying a lot of the support for the program we put on.

What support do you get from the paid staff for your program? I know I don't get any. Our group used to get school talks done, but even that has been stopped. I get a lot of support from volunteers, but none from the paid staff.

300 paid staff to over 100,000 members is not a bad ratio, especially compared with the BSA.

The BSA registration fee is only $16/person; at that price it doesn't really matter how many staff they have. At a $12,000,000 payroll it is costing every kid $171 per year just to pay the salary of the paid staff, and that probably doesn't include their pension plan!


Allan.

Okay, getting back on track (sort of, based a bit on Allan's comments):

If I were the CEO, I would:

1. bring back school talks, and work very hard to get Scouters who know how to talk to kids, or even better, Rovers, Venturers and Scouts, to make or be a part of interactive presentations to K-8 classes. I would set aside a part of National's budget and require each Council to do the same for this specific purpose. Perhaps training on school talks could be added (i.e. not replace other stuff) to Wood Badge I training, so that local Group Scouters could make the presentations as per a script and a Q and A, instead of Service Scouters who couldn't hope to hit every school in their Council.

2. promote the Scout Foundation and NOLB as aggressively as possible to make donors aware of the importance of involving disadvantaged children in Scouting programs.

3. develop strategies (i.e. revenues and cost-cutting measures) to lower the cost of Scouting to all children. To this end, a program review/audit of services provided by Councils and National would be undertaken by an outside, professional non-related third party auditor with experience in volunteer and child-focused organizations, with a view to streamlining operations as much as possible. Also, maximizing potential non-membership fee revenues would be a part of this review. This would allow the CEO and the Board to at least make informed decisions about cost cutting and optimizing revenue.

Perhaps a lot of what Council does could be done elsewhere, but I have nothing but other people's opinions to support that. I am always in favour of keeping costs to a minimum (i.e. don't buy a Cadillac when all you need is a Chevy, and you only have the money for a Chevy. Don't buy a car at all when the bus or subway is available, and it takes you most everywhere you need to go). Some decent empirical evidence, which an audit would provide, would allow us to know what could be done to cut costs, improve the bang for our buck, and maximize other sources of revenue.

The BSA obviously has very deep pockets. Mind you, they enjoy a position in the American culture that attracts donors of all kinds. $16.00 a year does not reflect the cost of Scouting, so the local Groups must be heavily subsidized by their National/State/Council/Area organizations.

I would stop changing the national website...

Bring back The Leader !

Bring back The Leader !

You mean "Scouting Life"? We still have a magazine from National, that goes out to every volunteer, that informs about recent activities, shares new program ideas, and other best practices.

Is there something more specific that the Leader magazine did that you would bring back?

Bring back The Leader !

Why?

I find that Scouting Life is split between youth, parents and leaders and lacks the weight and depth of The Leader. Given that they're now publishing Scout Scene, it would be great to see a leader-oriented magazine come back.

I agree that the content is not quite as in depth as it used to be.

Scout Scene is a biweekly newsletter that provides quick links to important news items, new programs, membership and marketing initiatives, as well as updates on new resources to help Scouters deliver successful programs.

It is geared towards leaders so I do not see how having it would allow us to get rid of the youth content from the magazine.