- Message of the WSC chairman to the WSB staff »
- « First news from Cairo - premieres nouvelles du Cairo
Some more thoughts…
Ok, so much has been decided already.
Still, there are a few things I’ve been thinking all this time. Pardon me for these musings… but feel free to comment!
The Group of Pattaya
These 8 NSO which signed the first open letter are usually called “the group of Pattaya”, because that’s where they supposedly met.
Who are they? Austria, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, Sweden, Thailand, UK, USA. Japan withdrew from the group just a few days later. Probably, it didn’t agree with BSA’s methods, and withdrew after seeing BSA’s letter.
What do these countries have in common?
Thet aren’t representative of the whole variety in the world scout brotherhood. For example, none of them (except Sweden) is a federation, whereas in many parts of the world a federation composed of many associations is a very common form of organization of scouting.
Most of these associations have very bad relationships with their Girl Guide counterparts (except for Austria and Sweden which are SAGNOs, i.e. they are organizations belonging at the same time to WOSM and to WAGGGS).
So, their point of view is not representative of the whole movement.
The problem of the fees
Some of these organizations are very big. Indonesia, Thailand and the USA are among the biggest scout organizations in the world. How do they achieve these big numbers? Indonesia and Thailand have a lot of members in schools. There are massive scout programs in their schools. Is that still “voluntary” scouting?
Some of these organizations have forced previous world scout conferences to approve a “cap” which gives them LOWER fees than countries equally rich(or poor).
For example, the USA has a Gross National Product (GNP) per capita of 37.870 $. Canada’s GNP per capita is 24.470 US$. A fair system would ask USA to pay something more for each of its member than the Canadians do. However, BSA pays 0,44 Swiss francs per member (when they pay, of course), while Scouts Canada pays 0,98 per member. More than twice, despite being less rich than the USA!
Indonesia and Thailand also enefit from a similar “cap”, meaning that they will pay much less per member than organizations which have a similar GNP per capita. So do Philippines and India, who signed the letter later.
So, these countries aren’t the “biggest” contributors to world scouting. They are the most stingy.
However, BSA claims it has 2.5 million dollars which it gives to “select NSOs”. That is, those NSO which will accept to follow their “guidance”. Why do we bother having “democratic” institutions, when BSA has enough money to sway other countries the way they want?
One must also ask why they want to consider relocating the World Scout Bureau away from Geneva. Even though Geneva is an expensive location (and this impacts on WSB expenses, unfortunately) it provides the Bureau with a safe haven, away from pressure from other countries, given Switzerland proven track of neutrality. It is also close to UN offices, the International Red Cross Committee, and many other important international organizations which are often partners of WOSM.
Governance and membership development
One of the requests of these NSOs is that the next World Scout Conference must concentrate on internal governance and membership development. Good point! One can’t but agree with this!
They claim that WOSM’s funds haven’t been effectively used to further the numerical growth of the movement. So, who should teach WOSM how to better use its funds for this purpose? The Boy Scouts of America?
The cap on fees means that they save millions of dollars in WOSM fees, compared to an organization in a country with a similar GNP. So they had millions of dollars which they could use for their own development. Were they able to use effectively these funds to grow? From 2001 to 2004 they lost 1 892 276 members, 30% of their total! Despite this immense amount of money, they were unable to keep their own membership, let alone increase it!
I’d say that improvement of the scout programme might also be an important issue, and it will lead to numerical growth, or at least to keep existing members. This is what some european countries are trying to do, by focusing on the Rover section. This is why they have RoverWay. However, unfortunately, the BSA won’t hear anything with the word “Rover” in it, and so does the UK Scout Association.
The World Scout Foundation’s letter
One can’t but wonder whether newly appointed Foundation chairman Lars Kolind is as naïve as he sounds. He complains that the “The World Scout Committee appears not to be in control”. It didn’t have a strong enough leadership over the Bureau and the Secretary General, neither did its Chairman. Did he ever bother to read WOSM’s constitutions? They clearly give more powers to the Secretary General than to the committee, and the committee’s chairman is just a figurehead barely mentioned. The constitutions give the committee a role of oversight, not of “control”. We aren’t talking about WAGGGS, where the committee’s chairwoman effectively leads the association, and the secretary has just a supporting role.
WOSM is organized this way because the first Secretary General was J.S. Wilson, who was personally appointed by Baden-Powell, enjoyed B.-P. unrestricted trust (and always proved worthy of it). This kind of setup was never changed also because one very big NSO has a similar setup, where paid executives take most of the decisions… of course we’re talking of BSA. Even B.-P. himself had some issues with BSA’s excessive reliance on paid professionals!
So the World Scout Foundation, effectively, is complaining that WOSM’s internal governance is way too similar to BSA’s internal governance, and then sides with BSA? There is something fishy behind this!
If Eduardo Missoni has assumed the most important position in WOSM it is because that’s what he’s paid for, just like Wilson before him! The World Scout Foundation had better ask for a change in the WOSM constitution. Not just in business buzzwords such as “corporate governance”, but in real, practical terms understandable to every scout. Of course they won’t do it.
Each secretary general ought to be evaluated on his own actions. But one can’t complain that he’s acting as secretary general! :-)
Moreover, I feel that Eduardo Missoni added some really needed improvements to the role of secretary general. He’s the first one in decades to take a visible place in front of youth members. Since he’s leading the world’s biggest youth organization, the youth should be aware of his role, and he should be an example to them.
I was told of an episode by a reliable source. Eduardo Missoni was taking a walk through Florence, immediately after the end of RoverWay 2006. He was immediately surrounded by hundreds of rovers who expressed all their affection for him! All because during an evening in RoverWay he had addressed them in clear terms, speaking of practical things relevant to them! This is the kind of improvement I want to see in the role of the Secretary General… I want to see changes which positively affect our youth!
Anyway, it’s obvious that Kolind is not so naïve. He was just trying to lure Herman Wui, chairman of the committee, on their side. One of the few real powers of the committee is appointing the secretary general. So, in an attempt to forcibly remove the current secretary general it was vital to have the nominal support of at least Wui. But of course he’ll be the next one to be fired by the victors. After this, he’ll be terribly unpopular with most NSOs. By accepting to fire Eduardo Misson, he’s accepting that he had to “control” the Secretary General, so he’s admitting that he failed at that. Lucky for him that he can’t be reelected anyway.
Save Scouting
Published 14 November, 2007 . Filed under: Comment, English Language
Amen, brother.
Hi Woody!
Thank you for your support… however, I hope you can also give your opinion, and add other considerations on the matter.
My information sources are somewhat limited by the fact that I am a member of the Czech Scouting Org - Junak, but currently staying in England. Firstly, I’d therefore like to thank Save Scouting for this blog and hot news.
Nevertheless, here goes my contribution: The Czech scouts are already in touch with the Austrian and Belgian orgs so as to have comments from both camps. IMHO the biggest clash of the month has already come with Missoni’s leaving and the fee problem will not be properly settled before the Korea conference 2008. The question is how heavily the present situation will affect preparations for all the coming international events.
The real problem was mentioned above: the non-existence of a comprehensive programme for the age-group 15+, placidly ignored by majority of main-stream national associations.
Dear “Save Scouting”,
Thanks for creating a place of information to help those of us who up to this point had only heard rumours about the situation that we now find ourselves in.
I have met Eduardo Missoni on several occasions the last time being in Geneva at the World Scout Scientific Congress this weekend. I (like many others) shook his hand and wished him well. I felt the need to apologise for the way in which the matter has been handled, as I don’t feel it has been done in the spirit of Scouting, and sets an unwanted precedent for the future.
If I may comment on your thoughts…
I agree that the Pattaya 8 (sounds like a Rugby tournament) being Single organisations, do not represent all the facets of World Scouting, but I don’t feel that this has much relevence to the proceedings (unless you like conspiricy theories). Bearing in mind that out of 155 WOSM members only 19 are federations.
As far as some NSO’s in Asia where Scouting is done through schools, even though you could say that these are “Voluntary-compulsary organizations”, they do show the flexibilty of the Scouting method and I don’t feel that a one size fits all model would benefit the youth in every country.
The Rover question in interesting as I don’t think the name of the section is as relevent as the activities of programme of the section. The BSA had Explorers and changed to Venturers and the Scout Association went from Rover Scouts to Venture Scouts to Scout Network.
If you look at the NSO’s (including Federations) in Europe you have 41 countries with 71 NSO’s and out of those 34 use the term Rover. A Rover Unit/Clan/ Scout Network/Venture Unit is only as good as it’s programme. If the programme is exciting and challenging then the Unit will thrive, if not it will close and in many cases this is down to the members at local level not NSO policies.
The “Pattaya 8″ who sent the original document were NSO’s who had concerns have the right to have those concerns addressed. The further list of demands by the BSA goes against the spirit of Scouting. You would hope that NSO’s would not lower themselves to use threats and ultimatums to get what they want.
Anyway those are my thoughts - for the moment
Hi Woody and Samsara…
First of all, thank you all for your comments… they are the reason for this blog.
Woody, I agree that we don’t know whether this crisis will affect preparations for the Korea conference. It depends a lot on BSA and WSF paying their dues.
There is no comprehensive program for over-15, but from what I read the European Scout Region has been working a lot on that. RoverWay and RoverNet are just two names which spring to my mind.
Samsara: I agree with you that this is a very bad precedent. I find that while many issues raised in the open letter are very interesting, the actions of BSA and WSF only alienated support on them. I think you summarixed it pretty well in your last paragraph.
I think that is part of the reason Japan withdrew its signature (some other report I heard mentioned that their only concern was Picarquin, though).
My point about the group of Pattaya not being representative was just that… a consideration on the limits of their points of view. It was certainly not a conspiracy theory, and certainly no suggestion that the right of any association to discuss changes be curtailed!
I agree that the scout method is flexible, and should stay so… but its voluntary nature is non negotiable, in my opinion. Article 1 of the WOSM constitution states:
“The Scout Movement is a voluntary nonpolitical educational movement for young people open to all without distinction of origin, race or creed, in accordance with the purpose, principles and method conceived by the Founder and stated below.”
I won’t deny that schools can use scouting’s ideas to great effect. Indeed, this happened even before B.-P. had published Scouting for Boys! But it is something different, and I don’t believe it is the right way to increase membership.
I mentioned the name of the Rover section because I am under the impression that someone has a very deep aversion to it. This will explain why the World Rover Moot was later renamed as World Scout Moot. If some associationhas preconceptions at a national level, they will hinder application at a local level.
I don’t agree with you on the point that the success of the elder section depends mostly on what happens at the local level. While obviously this will have an influence, it doesn’t explain why so many countries experience big problems with that age level. Bad leadership on the local level is equally detrimental to a Cub Pack or a Scout Troop… why aren’t they affected equally? I think that NSO policies do have a big effect!
Anyway, I am glad that all posters so far agree that we should follow different methods than economic blackmail!
I am glad that even though the WOSM felt that they had no choice but to take the descision they did, it is good that they have stated the following:
“to commit to engage in the same kind of problem-solving process with the BSA and other NSOs to resolve issues that divide them, to enter into a renewed ‘covenant’ that will ensure that when problems arise in the future they are addressed quickly, in full transparency, and exclusively through the proper democratic and constitutional channels of WOSM”
“To invite the WSF, BSA and the Swedish Guide and Scout Council together to fund the costs associated with the departure of the Secretary General and the recruitment process of another, and to request them to do so without interfering in any way in that process so as to ensure the independence of the WSC and WOSM in managing this fundamental aspect
of their constitutional authority”
Here are some extracts from Dr Missoni’s opening speech at the World Scout Scientific Congress. He didn’t go into the recent events but DID try and get his point across about what had happend:
Too often however, when looking for support, especially from some international institutions, doubts are expressed about the “lack of evidence” about the real impact of Scouting, and by extension of nonformal education. In fact, a systematic scientific validation of Scouting’s contribution to society, wether under a pedagogical, socio-cultural, and inclusive a managerial or leadership building perspective, is still lacking.
Nevertheless we had sometimes to face the strong resistance of some of our biggest member
organisations, who challenged the organisation of this World Congress, missing the link with our mission and doubting about its priority. A lack of vision generously compensated by external partners, and all those who responded positively to the call for contributions, being able to see how Scouting and non-formal education could enormously benefit from the increased credibility deriving from scientific evidence.