Re: Alaska (long, part 2/2)
(no name) ((no email))
Sat, 17 Feb 1996 01:03:57 -0600
>But they treat it as if it was "just another state", when they
>work. Political boundaries aside, these same folks may be
>responsible for several thousand miles of territory, with perhaps
>a Troop, Pack and Post on a NATO military installation in the middle of the
country, and then the rest of the Americans with
>American or multinational firms living all over the country.
>It takes a special professional that has to make decisions based
>on what his or her boss would do in the situation, which has to
>know the BSA basics forward, backwards and upside down, and which
>leaves his home for weeks at at time just to perform the basic
>visitation requirements that stateside pros would do in an afternoon. They
still have to raise monies by talking to the heads of corporations with
American interests, by talking with
>American Scouters; they still have to develop new partnerships with
existing and new organizations (which require them to be aware of new
American or multinational corporations coming into the community; or things
like Mercedes-Benz opening a new factory
>in America and the impact that would make onto the number of
>American families relocating to Stuttgart-Boblingen to live.
>Don't feel bad, Red...a LOT of folks think that the ONLY Americans
>overseas are those American families whose fathers or mothers are
>members of the military or of the State Department. Not so.
>For instance, Siemens runs an nuclear reactor outside of Frankfort
>near Giessen, and in the community are more than 70 American families that
CANNOT use the military facilities and therefore cannot become Scouts in
those military communities. Mercedes-Benz
>has more than 100 American families living in a "American ghetto"
>on the outskirts of Stuttgart, which used to have a pretty large
>American military prescence until about three years ago. Now,
>from over 10,000 Americans, there's only 800 or so.
>A lot of what professionals (and volunteers) have to endure in
>Alaska, Hawaii, Pureto Rico and the Virgin Islands, also has to be
>put up with in the TAC, the Far East Council, and in the areas
>served by the Direct Service Council, which has FIVE professionals
>out in the "field". Imagine what the DE of the Africa District
>has to put up with!!
>>>>Such a Council would be the antithesis of "your local council >>>office."
>>> "Your local Council office" *is* Walt, or Phillip, or Mary or
>>> Kenneth. They, the District Executive/District Directors/staff
>>> member become the "registrar", the "Scout Executive" and the
>>> "Scout Shop" for those Scouts and Scouters residing in areas >> that
cannot get their information to THE Council office. I can >> remember when
I was in TAC that the District Represenative for
>>> the district which included Morocco, Spain, the Azores and
>>> Portugal had to travel long distances between just the UNITS, >>let
along the Council office outside of Mannheim, Germany!
>> Again, you are talking about troops for americans living abroad,
>>not troops spread out in two large urban hubs.....as is the case >for Alaska.
>No, we DO NOT have ANY military presence in Morrocco nor Portugal.
>As far as Spain is concerned, we had ONE Air Force base but more
>than 3000 Americans living in the country. The Azores, off the
>Portugal coast, had the largest American military *contingent* in that
District. Ev Grain also had units in Monaco and Algeria,
>which again does NOT have military facilities there at all.
>>> The military helps SOME, by allowing the professional staffs to
>>> utilize their transports to get from one point to another. But
>>> it only goes *so far*.
>> Hmm-since we are not an occupied region and SINCE WE >SERVE
CIVILLIANS (primarily) then the Millitary helps us never!
>The Alaska National Guard does so help. I was in Alaska seven
>years ago and flew by helicopter with the DE of one of the
>Districts in Western Alaska to a site they were considering for
>>It costs more to fly into the villages than it does to cross the >nation,
or fly to seattle...we are talking around $500 and up for >a round trip in
and out of the villages. Sorry, there, but >millatry has not helped nor
will they ever help us cause we are >serving civillians up here.
>The National Guard does assist the Councils in Alaska because of
>some kind of agreement allowing them to take along Scouting folk
>on a space-available (and there's always space) basis.
>>> I agree with you, Ted, that the creation of ONE Council for all
>>> of Alaska will present a LOT of challenges for Scouting in our
>>> northern-most frontier; but it's not something that with a lot
>>> of volunteer efforts, and the work of the career Scouter team,
>>> that cannot be done well and with style.
>>Yup-considering the fact that you will have to have just the same
>>number of staffers (actually, a few more staffers to run one huge
>>SUPER-COUNCIL for alaska......volunteer efforts can only go so >far if
they have someone to lean on and consult with, not having >to wait 4 days to
communicate or run hundreds in long distance >charges....(it does cost more
to call in state here than >inter-state).
>Like it does here in Kentucky. Except Alascom has you guys rooked
>>> It will take a large staff, with a lot of "paraprofessional >> workers"
out there in the remote areas of the Council. It will
>>> take a lot of money, much more than what the Southeast Alaska
>>> Council and the Western Alaska Councils put in collectively.
>>> Don't know where they are going to get it all from.
>>Um, whith that said, what is the point of combining for one huge
>>SUPERCOUNCIL for alaska that you seem to be pushing?
>I'm not pushing it, but it's coming as the BSA slims down to it's
>magical 200 Councils. It makes as little sense to you as it
>does to Scouters here in the Lower 48 that have to deal with
>mergers in order to "conserve staffing and to streamline services
>to the youth."
>>Here, whether you realize it or not, what you are in essence >saying is to
make one council for the entire state.
>Like the Montana Council, or the Northern Lights Council.
>That's not what *I'm* saying, that is one of the things the BSA
>is looking at, as it implements the next round of slimming down
>to hit that magical 200 local Councils by the turn of the century.
>>On the same accord, we need to merge all councils
>>in the US till we are down the 6....all the same size your dream
>"alaskasuper council" as I call it...
>I can give you several examples of how what you are dreading has
>already happened here in parts of the "Lower 48":
>For instance, there used to be four Councils serving the state of
>Arizona. Now there's two.
>There used to be six Councils serving Oregon, and now there's only
>There used to be five Councils serving Kentucky. Now, there's
>three. Same with Idaho.
>There's plans to eventually have one Council for Maine.
>and lots of other states have lost one, two or three others...
>those are just the ones off the top of my head.
>>..nope, just think it is a little extreme, and defeats the whole >way
national communicates to to scouters...THROUGH THE COUNCIL >OFFICE!!!!!!
>What we are all hoping, Rhett, is that with the increase in
>communications out here, that the BSA will "get smarter" about
>communicating with their volunteers and in return to the youth of
>their program. With the drawdown of units, local Councils and
>the reduction of our Regional structure from six regions to four,
>the BSA is trying to save some money at the same time make it
>possible for more Scouts to get the most from well-maintained,
>fully staffed camping facilities and support facilities.
>We can argue back and forth on the merits or not of Council mergers, and
this list has done so about a year and a half back.
>But the BSA has already started the ball rolling in 1992, with
>the reduction of the Regional structure, and the consolidations of
>several Councils and the splitting of several more.
>(my apologies to Ted Burton....I think your comments and mine
>got picked up together by Rhett...)
>Sorry you're angry about this, Rhett...but I'm not the on doing it
>or even "promoting it". I'm just the poor messenger that has told
>everyone it was coming and now that it's here, its here.
(MAJ) Mike L. Walton (Settummanque, the blackeagle) (
co-Owner, Blackeagle Servics of Kentucky (502.826.7046) __)_
174 Chapelwood Drive, Henderson, Kentucky 42420-5036 | ** |]
(H) 502.827.9201 (F) 502.826.7046 (W) (to be announced) coffee? anytime!
"Geoworks & Leaders' Online--because EVERY PC can open doors!!!"
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City