Jump to content

Open Discussion - Program

Share Scouting Topics here.

Subforums

  1. Scouts with Disabilities

    Where parents and scouters go to discuss unique aspects to working with kids with special challenges.

    674
    posts
  2. Going to the next Jamboree?

    A place to chat about Scouting's biggest gathering

    2676
    posts

8814 topics in this forum

    • 8 replies
    • 407 views
    • 19 replies
    • 438 views
    • 5 replies
    • 352 views
    • 6 replies
    • 316 views
  1. Pro Power Amps

    • 0 replies
    • 244 views
  2. Leadership Boys

    • 2 replies
    • 319 views
    • 2 replies
    • 317 views
    • 14 replies
    • 538 views
    • 7 replies
    • 315 views
    • 13 replies
    • 333 views
    • 15 replies
    • 622 views
  3. Just a warm fuzzy

    • 5 replies
    • 336 views
    • 2 replies
    • 269 views
    • 3 replies
    • 272 views
    • 3 replies
    • 1108 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Ever hear my "Tale of the Two Eagles" ?
    • Sort of.  The COR is not typically part of the approval process for unit activities.  But, should the COR feel a need to act and make a decision, the COR has that right.  The COR has whatever authority the COR feels he/she needs to have.  They supervise the unit on behalf of the CO.  If the COR feels that they need to micromanage the unit, then that is their decision and well within their authority. I think these arguments often confuse intent with authority.  It is not the intent of the BSA system that the COR overule the unit. Similarly, it is not the intent of the BSA system that the CC overrule the Scoutmaster and/or SPL.  The defined Troop structure creates a framework where a group of responsible volunteers can work together to implement a well balanced system.  In that Troop structure, decision making ability is delegated to the right people in the organization to make good decisions.  But that same system provides for a clearly defined oversight structure so that if bad decisions are made, reasonable people can correct those mistakes. Of course, this all assumes that everyone involved is working with the best of intentions in a professional way.  This forum sees lots of cases where the structure breaks down.
    • "4.. Getting Troop Committee support             SPL presents written Annual Plan to Troop Committee and asks them to support plan.             SM attends same meeting and asks the Committee to support the Plan.             Because the youth leaders are to plan, the Troop Committee gives them the benefit of the doubt."
    • Yeah, that stuck out to me as well.  Along with the fact that the skid loading work was done by his parents and scoutmaster.  Plus, while I'll grant kudos to the kid for being eager, I've never like the idea of glorifying the "Speedy Eagle".
    • Let's be clear though, the COR does not officially (as in, per BSA policies) have the "authority" to a veto right over any and all troop activities at his or her whim.  If that were supposed to be a part of the official process for determining the annual schedule, then it would be a part of the trainings on the Scouting website.  The fact that the CO "owns the unit" doesn't mean they have the authority to do whatever they want, it just means they have the power to.  There are still proper and improper ways to do things. But there's no arguing that if the CO insists that the troop give the COR that power, there's not really anything anyone can do about it.  The local district exec might agree to have a chat with the COR about "the right way to do things", but the only method the district has to stop a CO from doing this would be to pull their charter, and that's not going to happen over a tin god COR.  They'll just tell you to find another troop. The idea of "breaking rules" really isn't very relevant since BSA doesn't actually issue "rules", they just offer "guidelines" and "best practices".
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×