Re: District subdivisions (*long post*)
(no name) ((no email))
Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:10:18 -0600
As some Councils get larger, and as their Districts continue to
increase in geographic size, Kelly Parker asked a really great
question. Here's one answer; I'm interested in hearing about
others that have worked (or not):
Kelly Parker <r13867@EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM> asked:
>Does anyone on the list have experience with methods of
>subdividing a large district to make it more workable? At present,
>our district is composed of 4-5 that have been merged over the
>years.
Much of the division of labor, Kelly, hinges on three major
elements:
*How many professionals do you have? (Important matter!)
*Is your District "already divided"? (Again, Important matter!)
*The willingness of your District *to be divided again*
(EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!)
Let's take these in REVERSE order:
*The willingness of your District *to be divided again*. Districts
are consoldated at a great risk to the local Council. Two young
ladies were conceived by the same mother at the same time. They
were separated at birth and live in two neighboring communities.
They grew up together, seeing the other sister occassionally but
each developed their own identity, sense of purpose, and reasoning
for getting things done. One day, after, shortly after their 21st
birthday, their mother informs them that "you two must go off to
college and live together while you're there; otherwise, you won't
be taken care of by me." Initally, the two daughters are pleased
as punch that after seeing each other every now and then over the
years, that they will be living together. Sharing boy stories.
Putting on each other's clothing and testing out each other's
makeup and other personal items. They would be together, still
with their own ideas, but together.
It doesn't last too long, as their mother failed to realize that
after all that time, she had to "reintroduce" the two to each other
and give them time to see each party as *individuals* and not just
as *siblings*. But they make it work.
After another two years, their mother comes back and says "You two
are too grown. I've got to give you two some space!" Both
daughters, aware of the other's special talents, circle of friends,
interests, and financial stability (or lack thereof!), now looks at
each other:
"How are we going to survive THIS?," they ask each other and
themselves. "She puts us together and now she's telling us that we
have to separate!!"
The answer is in NATURALLY letting them separate and become their
own "new individuals," Kelly. While we can physically re-divide a
District into smaller "zones", or "sub-Districts", the decision for
doing so MUST be left to the PEOPLE in that District. To YOU and
some others, the District may be too large to manage; to the
MAJORITY however, even though events are extremely large and the
number of units supported are large, it "can be survived" with the
right mixture of management and support.
Anytime someone tells me that "their District is too large," I
remind them of my personal experience as part of the George
Washington District of the National Capitol Area Council, the
LARGEST District (in numbers!) I've EVER been a part of. Talk
about being a "guppy" in an "ocean"!! The District at one time had
more than 4000 YOUTH (no fooling!) and more than 1200 UNITS
scattered out in two counties in northern Virginia. At the time I
was there (in 1991), it was being managed by TWO professionals
(that's all; both did so well that they both quickly moved up the
BSA's professional ladder!)
Someone commented that the size in numbers of that ONE District
would make up one of the BSA's smallest-sized LOCAL COUNCILS!!
Did anyone in that District thought they were "too large"?? Nope.
Many assumed (until some "outsider" like me informed them!) that
ALL Districts were THAT LARGE and they adjusted their volunteer
structure to accommodate those high numbers of units and youth.
Which brings me to:
*How many professionals do you have?? This is important because if
you succeed in dividing up the District into "zones" or
"Sub-Districts", your professional staff will HAVE to be involved
in such division and it MUST make sense for THEM. Many Districts
are divided alongside community, geographic (on one side of a
mountain or other; on one side of river or other), or by
function(only seen this one time, and it didn't last long although
it was effective for a short time). At one time, the BSA
experimented with "Sub District staffing", dividing larger
Districts by function (with a District Cub Scout, Boy Scout, and
Explorer Chair and Commissioner, which reported to the District's
Commissioner and Chair.) It was found to be too frustrating and
complicated an organizational process, and the program was quickly
abandoned almost within a year or two of it's "implementation."
But I felt that it didn't work out because the District's
*professional staff* wasn't divided along those lines: you had only
ONE or TWO pros, and they (for professional development reasons)
HAVE to be "generalists."
However, talk with them FIRST and see if they are willing to become
"the Cub Scouting executive" or the "Boy Scouting executive" as
part of the team. Some are; most aren't, however. Nothing
personal, Kelly, but they're looking out for their OWN advancement
and in most cases, it doesn't look good for the man or woman that
has spent two or more years "specializing" as a entry-level Cub
Scout District Executive!!
At any rate, if your District has two or less professionals, FORGET
THIS IDEA TOTALLY! It just WILL NOT work unless you have three
field professionals (or a Senior District Executive and a District
Executive; or a District Director and two other executives).
SOMEONE has to take the lead to be "the District's Executive" in a
like manner as the District's Commissioner and Chair. Their can
ONLY be ONE per District (unless your Council amends its Bylaws to
cover this "specialness" -- unlikely!) The BSA is finding out that
a two-person District team with "equal partners" DOES NOT WORK
because you've got two strong willed professionals both trying to
meet District goals and personal/professional goals and sometimes,
without someone taking a back seat to the other, someone "doesn't
survive" and you end up with a ONE person District for quite some
time (not beneficial to anyone, especially the youth of that
District)!
Finally, *Is your District *already divided*?? If areas in your
District (back in my day, we called them "neighborhoods" or
"communities"; later on, I called them "zones") are *already being
divided* by the *members of that zone, neighboorhood or community*,
then you only need to provide the overall "backbone structure" to
make it more effiecient. If, for instance, your LDS Stake
comprises the same geographic area of your District, and if those
units are already being supported "internally", then all's needed
is a overall Assistant District Commissioner for LDS units. This
is the way that many large Districts with high number of LDS units
*do organize*, because they see the uniqueness of the Church's
support and structure in support of Scouting. You may also choose
to organize all units in a geographic area (for example, Fort Knox,
Kentucky) as a "ADC zoned" part of your District, and by adding a
volunteer Vice Chair for "whatever", your District's not really
divided but rather "organized for support."
Did those two girls work it out?? Yep. They did. But they had a
lot of help. Their mother finally understood that while "blood is
thicker than water," that "time heals everything." Each girl
realized that indeed, they have become a more complex person and
"needed their own space" but also "needed the other's shoulders"
too. Their friends needed to understand that although they would be
living in two separate dorms, that they would continue to rely and
support both sets of friends. Later, one girl married a soldier
and the other a sailor, moved away and saw each other every other
while....but as their families grew, they considered themselves
part of a larger, more extended family...as it should have been
from the start.
Hope this all helps, Kelly!
Settummanque!
*no sig because of lenght of posting*
