Registration Fees for 2010-2011

Councils determine their fees so to say that no fees for leaders has failed is innaccurate. Both NLC and Chinook have no fees for leaders.

Garth

As does PCC for 09/10 and the upcoming 10/11.

If it was up to some of us, Leaders would register every three years, upon renewal of PRC.

Thanks for all your comments. Please be assured that the National Leadership Team (NLT) and Board of Governors are committed to delivering upon all items in the Action Plan, and there are plans in varying stages of development and implementation for each and every one.

In the case of leader fee reduction, the finance committee has developed a proposal and it is under consideration by the Board now. Any plan to reduce leader fees must not include an increase in youth fees to offset the decrease in revenue generated by the leader fees. However, before any plan is implemented, it is important to weigh the risks associated with it which could adversely affect program delivery.

The 2010/11 national registration fee is $60, just as it was last year. Many Councils have also made bold moves to hold their fees at last year's rates, even with increased expenses due to HST in Ontario, new accounting standards, increased travel costs, etc.

As Susie so rightly put it, meaningful change takes time. No, there is no reduction in leader fees for the 2010/11 Scouting year, but it is definitely not sidelined. We are all working hard to provide the best possible program to the youth who join Scouting - just what our organization has been known for over the past hundred years.

increased travel costs

Why are people traveling? We can no longer afford such luxuries. Working in the business world for umpteen years, I realised the value face to face meetings can bring, but we don't have the money for this anymore. People are going to have to survive with email and conference calls. Travel is the easiest cut to make in a budget, bring it down to zero.

As has been re-iterated many time by numerous people: We don't have a revenue problem we have an expense problem. Someone needs to stand up in each council and say enough is enough and cut the expenses. No matter what rational, council's cannot continue to spend as they have done in the past. The recommendation I have made before is cut in half this year, and cut in half again the following year. This will probably mean letting staff go, but no matter how good a job they are doing, we no longer have that kind of funds coming in.

In reality, international groups register by paying only the national fee. Since they can survive without the overhead of a council, why can't everybody else?

National should have the same objectives. While only $15 of the $60 national fee is reported to be insurance related, I don't see why even that portion can't be cut. Yes liability insurance is an unfortunate necessity these days, but why do we carry medical insurance. If little Johnny falls and knocks a tooth out at a Scout activity why should Scout insurance foot the bill? That's the parent's problem just like if little Johnny fell off his skateboard.

People need to think outside the box. Just because we have "always" done something, doesn't mean we have to continue doing it.


Allan.

Referring to Neal & Allan's last comments, I have to agree with the latter that expense reduction is desperately needed. Again if you look at the breakdown that White Pine Council has provided...

http://www.whitepine.scouts.ca/document ... 20Fees.pdf

The White Pine registration for 2010-2011 is up 7% for Youth ($145) and 11% for Leaders ($90) over the previous year. It is hard to tell which portion of their pie chart is National's $60, other than the bits marked 'National' (26%) and 'Insurance' (10%), but presumably the breakdown is representative for all combined.

Some figures come immediately into question...

1) Administration (13% or $18.85 per Youth) -- surely some economies can create savings here.

2) Field Servicing (10% or $14.50 per Youth) -- with all due respect to them, we rarely see Field Execs at events with the Youth. This could and should be a volunteer position.

3) Scouting Life Magazine (3% or $4.35 per Youth) -- this is a lot per Youth for a Magazine the Youth do not get. Yes most Leaders probably bring their copies in to their meetings, but still it is a questionable expense. Why not eliminate the paper magazine and make it an online magazine that all can read! If anybody really needs, it can be printed.

These are 3 examples of possible expense reductions. These and others should be vigorously pursued, trying to minimize anything that is not of direct value to the Youth.

I don't know if these fee breakdowns are structured to be useless, or whether someone actually thinks the given breakdown is useful. The portions of the pie don't say what you are actually getting in each piece. i.e. What does the 4% for revenue development actually get spent on? I challenge councils to publish a full accounting on what they spend the kids money. Not the sanitised official financial statements that tell us nothing. For example, here is what our group publishes on our website each year http://www.1stmerrickville.ca/docs/Account%202008-2009.pdf.

I would argue the administration overhead is actually office rental + council + area + book keeping + revenue development + registration + field servicing + administration = 47% or $4,770 for our group. That is way too much IMHO.

I fully agree with ditching the field executives. We have a really nice one, but the greatest benefit we get is our school talks (which are invaluable). From your figures it costs our kids $1,015 per year for field servicing; though I am sure the field exec salary is spread across additional portions of the pie. I could pay one of our leaders to take a day off work and do the school talks for a lot less than a $1,000.

Turning the percentages into absolute amounts is a good idea.

The Leader magazine is actually one of the few things out of national that I think benefits leaders. There are a lot of ideas shared; once you get past all the popcorn advertisements Based on your figures it costs the kids in our group a total of $304 for the year. While it would be nicer to see it cost less, I can actually live with that amount. I also think there is a lot of value to the printed edition. I for one like to curl up on the couch and read through it at my leisure. But maybe that cost has to be killed too.


Allan.

increased travel costs

Why are people traveling? We can no longer afford such luxuries. Working in the business world for umpteen years, I realised the value face to face meetings can bring, but we don't have the money for this anymore. People are going to have to survive with email and conference calls. Travel is the easiest cut to make in a budget, bring it down to zero.
As has been re-iterated many time by numerous people: We don't have a revenue problem we have an expense problem. Someone needs to stand up in each council and say enough is enough and cut the expenses. No matter what rational, council's cannot continue to spend as they have done in the past. The recommendation I have made before is cut in half this year, and cut in half again the following year. This will probably mean letting staff go, but no matter how good a job they are doing, we no longer have that kind of funds coming in.
In reality, international groups register by paying only the national fee. Since they can survive without the overhead of a council, why can't everybody else?
National should have the same objectives. While only $15 of the $60 national fee is reported to be insurance related, I don't see why even that portion can't be cut. Yes liability insurance is an unfortunate necessity these days, but why do we carry medical insurance. If little Johnny falls and knocks a tooth out at a Scout activity why should Scout insurance foot the bill? That's the parent's problem just like if little Johnny fell off his skateboard.
People need to think outside the box. Just because we have "always" done something, doesn't mean we have to continue doing it.
Allan.

WATCH ME GET BANGED ON THE HEAD HERE:
I'll tell you why my 'International Council" survives by paying only the International Fee. I can not speak for Hong Kong, but here in Europe I PAY MY OWN travel and hotel expenses out of my own pocket, and claim my expenses on my income tax. Any Honours that are awarded in my "Council" either come out my pocket, our the Group pocket. We do our own secretarial and filing as every good group should be doing. We pay our fee to National for the support, and believe that "my" CED works his back end off for us. My telephone calls to my group or to Ottawa are paid by me and claimed as charitable expenses on my income tax; when they are not claimable I see them as my "payback" to Scouting for the over 60 years of what Scouting has given to me. AND YES, before somebody makes a crack at me, I do have a son still in high school, I am married and retired from my employment and my wife works. Our income is about the same as the average Canadian income and our taxes are 52%. Check it out on the web if you don't believe the tax rate.
NOW that was me on the Soap Box; maybe more of us should stop counting the pennies we GIVE out for, and starting counting the benefits we get out of, Scouting.
(Ducking down into a very deep trench

Hi Errol !

> NOW that was me on the Soap Box; maybe more of us
> should stop counting the pennies we GIVE out for, and
> starting counting the benefits we get out of, Scouting.

I agree completely about the benefits received from Scouting to both Youth and Leaders, however I believe the vast majority of that comes from the Local Teams (Groups & Areas) - NOT from National & Councils. Over the last 10 years and more the fees Youth and Leaders pay go up & up beyond inflation. At one time a reasonable fee included a portion that stayed with the local Groups and Area. Now to keep anything at the Group level makes the fee ridiculously high, and our Area here is being told they may get nothing back from Council.

My Troop certainly has families asking about the benefits received directly from the annual fees (especially when they have to pay in full for every camp, etc). I have also heard that we may have one other local Group shutting down, with the reason given as our Council's latest fee increase.

The complaints are not about benefits received and the value of the Movement's organization, but that there has been minimal effort to keep fees under control, and inadequate efforts at cutting costs.

Alan Aslett wrote:

The complaints are not about benefits received and the value of the Movement's organization, but that there has been minimal effort to keep fees under control, and inadequate efforts at cutting costs.

Don't Scouters have any say in the matter? I don't know as I have never experienced having fees "shoved down my throat" and not being able to do something about it. I have no problem with "justified" costs, and I mean costs that are justified in open discussion with ALL VOLUNTEERS having input. BUT that is another one of my pet "soapbox" themes

Errol,

That's the issue - Scouters here in Canada don't seem to have any in the matter. We have pronouncements on fees that come to us from the Area, which have come down from Council. which have come down from National.

I also don't think any Scouter has a problem with "justified" costs. The problem is that when we've asked for justification, we've seemingly been stonewalled.

There's a level of frustration building among Group Commissioners and grassroots Scouters over the lack of information and inability to provide input. You talked about being appreciative of the benefits we receive from Scouting. As a Group Commissioner, the last time I had a face-to-face meeting with a staff person at Council was in the fall at the Area registration night. For many of us, we wonder exactly where our registration fees are going and what they're used for.

Just this year, after several years as a group commissioner and several requests for council financial information over those years, I was told for the first time ever that my council was significantly in debt as a result of failing to come to grips with falling registration and revenue over a period of more than a few years.

All of those years I was a registered Scouter (group commish, section leader, ordinary Scouter), regularly attending monthly Scouters Club (which replaced district council as the place to do area business), meeting the field executive several times annually, and again, asking questions about council’s finances – where was our money going, why are fees constantly rising, I never received a real answer or even a suggestion council had a debt problem until this year.

To come to grips with that debt, council has left vacant the open executive director’s position, and the open field executive’s position, and closed the Scout Shop which also provided administrative support to council. They are “borrowing” administrative support and executive director guidance from other councils.

I give the current council and commissioner credit for publicly admitting the problem, coming to grips with the debt and coming up with measures to eliminate it, likely in another three or four years, if not sooner.

Now here’s the thing . . . I can’t speak for how the cutbacks have affected area management, or how much more of a work burden falls on the council commissioner, but as a group commissioner, I haven’t noticed any impact on my group or the area. I get the same emailed directives, instructions and requests as before, and my responses and requests are as heeded/unheeded as before. Instead of the field director coming to Scouters Club to push popcorn, its the council commissioner.

As a Scouter, I am frustrated that the situation was allowed to quietly continue to the point that such drastic measures had to be taken. Scouters should have been made aware of the situation a long time ago as the problem was developing. Where registration money is being spent may not be important to all Scouters, but ordinary Scouters being able to easily obtain that information is important oversight.

And I am equally frustrated that all that spending on staff made so little difference to my youth, my Scouters, me (as group commissioner), my group, and area, that we don’t even notice when it is gone. Having input on where that registration money is being spent may not be important to all Scouters, and would undoubtedly be complicated, but councils need to be open to input from Scouters so that they can have the sense on whether on not that spending is having an impact.

I have no problem paying fees or asking parents to pay fees, but I want to know Scouting benefits from those fees, and I want to be able to tell parents how they benefit from those fees. I do not like telling them the fees they are paying today are going to pay a debt from previous years, that even if they were members then, provided only questionable benefits.

A note from a February area report of a Voyageur council management committee meeting:

Northern On. Subsidy – request last year for assistance – Voyageur Council only Council that [did] it. They are $350,000 in debt. Decided not give any more money on issue that National should be handling.

With respect to:

I have no problem paying fees or asking parents to pay fees, but I want to know Scouting benefits from those fees, and I want to be able to tell parents how they benefit from those fees. I do not like telling them the fees they are paying today are going to pay a debt from previous years, that even if they were members then, provided only questionable benefits.

I like to say that the benefit of the registration fee is a license to utilise the word 'Scout'


Allan.

> I like to say that the benefit of the registration fee is a license to utilise the word 'Scout'

No different from a protection racket.

Grumpy

Don't Scouters have any say in the matter? I don't know as I have never experienced having fees "shoved down my throat" and not being able to do something about it.

Errol, for the past many years, the situation has been this: Each year, they announce a fee and say "pay or leave". Ordinary members are completely cut out of the decision-making process, including how much money to charge and what it is spent on.

And I am equally frustrated that all that spending on staff made so little difference to my youth, my Scouters, me (as group commissioner), my group, and area, that we don’t even notice when it is gone.

That's my experience as well: For years, North Waterloo District had an Executive Director, who had an assistant, plus a few other staff. I was told they worked on "program development" but was never able to get more detailed information about what they actually did. They always looked busy, but when they were finally laid off, I could not discern any way in which the "program" was "less developed". The time or effort spent, by both volunteer and staff, are irrelevant. What matters is a positive impact on the program experienced by the youth members.

Staff salaries are a huge part of membership fees, about $125 per youth member. Reducing the salary expense and the fees would be a huge boost to Scouting.