Term Limits ?

[Eamonn 61]

When I took on the District Chairman position / Job. I said that unless things went wrong,that I wanted to do the job for 3-5 years.

As District Commissioner, I used to make a big deal of presenting each and every Commissioner his or her Commissioner patch. I paid for the patch, and informed them that it was my patch, which I could ask to be returned. I also explained that the position was only good for one year at a time.

What do you think about Term Limits for other positions ?

How long should you do one job ?

Is it unfair to say "Ok, thanks, but your time is up."

And where do you put a commissioner who after years of service, is just no longer up to the job? He or She, has no unit to fall back on.

Do we stick to the idea, that the Boys /Youth must have the best possible service, and these people have "Outlived their usefulness" ?

What about the 80 year old Scoutmaster ?

Are we keeping him because he is great with the boys ? Or because he has been there forever ?

Just Thinking/ Asking.

Your Thoughts and Ideas ?

[troop_358_potlatch 10]

Why only one year? If you are good at your position then why have a term limit. The "old" commisioner maybe could help teach at Commissioners College, or do other Commissioner trainings.I am a commissioner(was volunteered). Granted haven't been one long, but I would hate to have some one tell me 10 years from now that I have outlived my usefulness. I am hoping that I will continue to be a help to both district and the units I help.

[eisely 13]

These are tough issues. I see no compelling reasons for term limits for indians, but I do see reasons for term limits for chiefs. One of the most difficult things to do is to remove a volunteer. In the instance of age, such people should not be disposed of completely Even if a person cannot do a commissioner or SM job well anymore, there is still a role for them somewhere in the movement. There is too much valuable experience there just to send such people away.

[dsteele 20]

I wouldn't call it term limits. In my mind (translate -- opinion) a district or council registration, like most unit registrations, is for a period of one year. There is no term limit per se, but there is an evaluation at the end of the year.

 

In fact, if one were to dig into the annual meeting and nominating committee processes for district and council positions, I think he/she would find that all volunteer positions in the BSA are for one year. There is no set limit for the number of consecutive years. Some councils and districts take the issue more seriously than others, as do some individuals.

 

In one position I held in a previous council, the OA advisor officially resigned once a year if she wasn't asked to go for another. In her case I refused the resignation. In other cases, I went through the process to find another.

 

It holds similarly in the unit charter.

 

The Institutional Head/Chartered Organization Representative is asked to sign the charter. Their signature re-approves all "old" adults and approves any new ones (in addition to applications for the new ones.) The council representative -- whether that's the Scout Executive, DE, or other leader such as a commissioner) signs to certify that the charter is true and correct. The unit leader signs off on the youth portion of the charter to certify that all youth currently have her/his approval to be members of the pack/troop/crew.

 

Generally speaking, the term of office for any position is one year. Whether you've seen it or not, there is paperwork for districts and councils. On occassion, and for varying reasons, a unit can be granted a charter of no less than 6 months and no more than 18 months. Those would be the general terms of office for the leadership. That doesn't mean that leaders can't be removed in the interim -- a different topic, but one year is generally the term.

 

There isn't a limit to the number of terms. That is between you and your district's nominating committee -- in whatever form that may take.

 

I don't know if I've helped or hindered the topic. I hoped I've helped, but there is a great deal of variance world-wide in the process of nominations and terms.

 

DS

[mk9750 11]

I think eisley makes a great point. It is very possible for someone to have "the game pass him by", as they often say about older coaches in sports. But that rarely means that such a person can't be a valuable resource.

 

We had a SM who, although not a very good SM, was the single force that kept our 45 year old Troop alive for about 4 years. His hard work and dedication are constantly appreciated, even if he had no knowledge of Scout Skills, and did a less then adequate job allowing the Troop to be boy led. Without him, there would not have been a Troop for my son to join.

 

What he was, and is, terrific at, is communicating with new Scouts. He is fantastic at working with them on the Scout Oath and Law, and basic stuff like square knots and flag raising. And 11 year olds love him. When a new SM was identified, this gentleman willingly stepped aside. But we asked (almost insisted) that he hang around whenever he could (his son was no longer in the Troop). Now, he stops in every couple of weeks, and is there every week from April through June, to work with the brand new guys. He comes to every Court of Honor, and every Eagle Scout we have had in the last 7 years has made a huge deal out of mentioning him when the speak at their ceremony.

 

I'd never want this guy as a Scoutmaster again. But I hope he never leaves us completely. He means far too much to our program, and our boys. The way I phrased that sounds terrible, I'd guess. But it is the truth. A terrific guy, very important to our program doing a specific task, but just not qualified to do another specific task. Luckily he recognized it all along, and stepped aside when a better SM was found. I suspect that in many cases like this, someone who no longer is as good at a job as he once was often doesn't realize it. Then it gets tough accomplishing what must be done without hurting feelings.

 

Directly to the question - Although I was of the impression that officially, terms are designated as one year (reminds me of Tommy Lasorda's series of one year contracts while with the Dodgers), setting artificial limits on a job in Scouting is detrimental. Heck, it has taken most of the people I know at least a year to figure out what they're doing! I'd hate to ask some one to quit just when they're starting to get it right!

 

Mark

[buffalo2 14]

On the District level, I think that about 2 years is plenty - time for the old guard to move over and let some fresh air in. In a perfect world, this might be communicated early on (avoiding the prospect of a life sentence) along with the notion that one of the larger responsibilities of the task is to begin grooming a replacement... In that same world, these positions would be rotated over a period of time so that the talent pool is never completely drained.

 

Forgive the question Eammon, from one that hasn't served at the DC level; but your approach to Commissioners seems a mite heavy-handed. Were you able to maintain a staff at the level of expertise and committment that is necessary while saying things like 'this is my patch' and notifying folks every year that their services would or would not be required? Not quite sure how I'd respond to such an approach from one who was asking me to take on such a task...

[Bob White 20]

dsteele is right. All adult volunteer positions positions in scouting are for one year. Since the Unit district and Council charters are all one year in length, every serves a one year term. It would be impractical to make any promises before that.

 

The district chair gets to select the district committee chairs. If the Nominating committee selects a new District Chair he/she has the obligation to select committee chairs that will make a good team for him/her, in order to do the best possible job.

 

I do support voluntary term limits. I think it takes two-years to learn most leadership positions. So I only serve 3-6 years in any position. (3 because I owe it to the task, 6 if its a task I like doing! )

 

 

[saltheart 10]

The notion of voluntary term limits is fine...for districts and councils where "volunteering" for the duties and offices at those levels presents ample and qualified candidates. But in some areas, like our council, many times the district offices would go unfilled were anything mandatory to be the rule. And this does not even begin to address the issue of talent and enthusiasm. In those same offices, when a good qualified person is found, it's hard to say "time to go" after a certain period knowing that filling the opening again will be like pulling teeth.

[Overtrained 10]

Good discussion. I've been in 7 districts and they all varied on length of time depending on the position. Most were 3-5 years.

 

Recently I had our council resource chairman tell me why he thought it a dis-service to go any longer. He stated that one can become a fixture taking on more and more to do as they get better at the job until they become a heavy anchor - hard to move, hard to replace, and dragging things down. He said this tongue and cheek, but it made me think of a couple of SM's who needed ten people to do the work they had been doing before someone could be recruited to be the new SM.

 

Eamonn, I think 3-5 is about right. If they're a lifer, there are other jobs they will do. If it is a UC, switch the units they have or move them to ADC. This keeps that Scouter fresh to.

 

OT

[Eamonn 61]

To try and answer Buffalo2.

Yes Sir,I was a little bit "Over The Top"

I had just taken on the position, and followed the really nice guys. In fact it was a Lady. There wasn't one Unit Commissioner, under the age of 65, most were over 70. All these were super people, who had not been doing the duties of the position that they held.

In fact many of them, looked upon it as a job in title only.

Some due to age, were unable to drive at night. Some were so out of touch, that they were giving out misleading and wrong information. Most had held the title for many years.

It is really hard to "Fire" these lovable old folks. However, they had to go.

The Patch idea, was to get everyone used to the idea that they served, the district and the council.

The one year term, was to let them know that this was not a lifetime appiontment.

I didn't take on the idea of letting them "Go" without much thought and reflection.

I thought about it long and hard, and kept coming back to the end user - Our Youth.

They were doing nothing for the units, that they were to serve, and were in fact making it impossible to bring new people in.

The then District Chair. Made many of them Members of the District At Large. He is /was kinder then me. Most have now been dropped from the District Charter, I still have one, who was my brother-inlaws Den Mother (He is almost 50) Serving as the District Boys Life Promoter. Some are still on the Merit Badge List.

What is a real shame is that there is no Real Place for them to go.

Or is there ?

[jbroganjr 10]

I think the tenure requirement of 3-6 years is the way to go. The mention of patches and job ownership is novel, but a bit heavy handed, yet the further explanation of the motive sheds some more light on the situation.

This is a great RT discussion, for sure, but I wonder how many folks will feel umbrage at talking about this. In the cub program, it is a reality that the leadership of the unit is constantly changing, but not as much in the boy scout program.

As for commissioners, I imagine that part of the problem may be need, as per the commissioners newsletter, it is stated that just about all districts are shorthand with commissioners.

One suggestion is the "contract", a document with job responsibilities laid out that could be signed or "re-upped" every year, after the yearly business meeting and implementation of nominating committee business (i have probably misworded this process). This is not to add a requirement, but to reinforce what needs to be done.

A job in name only,only hurts the program.

We have not done this contract thing in our district, it is common that a job is to be done for at least one year, no more than five, and the nominating committee really keeps this in mind.

The tenure also helps in another way, besides "anchors" and "jobs in name only", it also helps in preventing burnout of that super scouter who takes on as much, or more than he can handle. It sets a patch upon which that person can build or set scouting goals over the long term. I find the one year committment, personally, a positive recruiting tool for key positions. When I encounter folks who shy away from it, but still want to help, we find jobs that are event specific, i.e. district awards dinner or summer camp promotion, in effect, we have found assistants for key staff members.

 

 

[scoutldr 732]

Why not "honor" these old timers with the title of "Emeritus"? Let them keep their Commissioner patches, but add an Emeritus strip (like the Trained strip) under the patch. Meanwhile, find new, energetic Commissioners and assign them units to work.