Expectations from Council - Fending for ourselves

[Cubmaster Jerry 10]

One short question - What should we at the unit level expect from Council/District?

 

Seems simple enough but I know it's not. This year, I am finding myself (willingly) getting more involved in activities at the district level - Day Camp Program Director, District Training Staff, helping the UC start up a new unit, and working to split my unit. It has got me thinking more of what assistance I should expect at the unit level from the district or council, not just with those particular items but in general. For example:

 

- Leadership and guidance. Training is one thing but many units look to district/council for assistance in dealing with certain situations such as leaders who steal funds or who exhibit actions that could potentially harm children. Council and district pretty much remain hands off and the unit is left searching for answers on their own.

 

- Abandoning units. Sometimes the easy road leads to forming a new unit rather than saving an existing one. By doing so, they are marking the current program as dead and would rather allow it to sink with all aboard than try to save it.

 

- Unit Operation. For every Scout unit there is, there are just as many ways of operating one. Now, I know that each unit may have a way of operating that works well for them but shouldn't there be at least some guidelines from Council or even District that would fall under the heading "What works best"? This would go a long way in helping units stay financially afloat or maintain necessary leadership.

 

- The Eye of Mordor. Ok, may not the evil connotation that brings but shouldn't council or district keep more of a watch over the units? Making sure they follow the program properly, have necessary leadership, and things like camping without BALOO trained leaders, etc? When I first became involved in scouting, half of the leaders on the Pack roster were leaders who had left 1-2 years earlier. Council never knew. The unit I am helping to get off the ground now "looks good on paper".

 

I realize these would require much more manpower and money than is currently available but shouldn't it be council's responsibility to make sure the ideals, morals, and intentions of scouting are being followed? Isn't it conceivable that a unit could pretty much do whatever they wanted and get away with it without Council or District ever knowing?

 

Maybe I am looking for Council and District to bring home the whole pig and not just the bacon.

 

Jerry

[FScouter 24]

I think that for the most part the council already provides all the tools and support that units need. The council provides a service center, camping facilities, and a full-time professional staff to assist chartered organizations. The question might ought to be more why dont units use the tools they are given?

 

If a unit leader steals funds, call the police, replace the leader, and ask yourself why you selected that person to be a leader in the first place.

 

What are the best practices? BSA publishes 1001 resources jammed full of best practices. Look at the Scoutmaster Handbook for example. 180 pages of best practices and on the last page a list of over 50 more resource publications.

 

It is the job of the unit committee to look after the unit, to select the best people to serve as leaders, to ensure the adult leaders are trained, to assist and support them, to interpret and enforce BSA policies. Who else is closer to and better situated to monitor a unit than the unit committee?

 

The question I have is why do unit leaders, unit committees, and chartered organizations look to someone else to do their work for them?

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I think that there's a thread of truth to what both Cubmaster Jerry and FScouter are saying.

 

Unit leaders, by and large, want to do the right thing. Sometimes, tho, they're not sure what the right thing is. In the example of someone stealing unit funds, for example. Is it really up to the unit leaders to call the police? Those funds actually belong to the CO, and the unit leaders are managing those funds on behalf of the CO. Maybe the CO has its own thoughts on how the situation should be dealt with. The district and council professionals may very well advise the unit to call the police, and as the professionals, it is their job to advise the volunteers in such matters.

 

The district and council professionals are dealing with running an organization with very limited resources. Sometimes reality dictates what they can do. Do they have the resources to try and revitalize an ailing unit? They have to make a judgement as to whether the unit has the "energy" to accomplish this, or whether it's time to start over fresh. The same is true of any other unit-related task they might take on, ie, what can they do with the resources that they have?

 

Rather than thinking a lot about "who does what", I'd prefer that we think about the job of running a unit successfully as a team effort among the unit leaders, the CO, and the district and council. The unit leaders bear the brunt of this responsibility, but they should also view the CO, district and council as resources to provide assistance when that assistance is needed. Volunteer leaders can't be expected to know how to handle every situation that might come up, from negative things like poor leaders and funding problems, to more positive things like "my pack is getting too big. how do I manage something so large?". That's where the districts and councils can, and should, provide guidance.

 

The question of whether BSA should have more direct involvement in the monitoring of units is an interesting one. BSA pretty obviously doesn't think that they should be. It's clear that they consider the unit to be the property of the CO, and not BSA. The leader app pushes liability issues with leader selection to the CO. All in all, I think BSA's approach is one of wanting to have things done a certain way, and providing as many resources as they can for helping units do things that certain way, while at the same time doing as much as they can to limit BSA liability in case things go awry for whatever reason.

[Backpacker 11]

As a former DE I can tell you that all scouting professionals are judged on only two things raising money and starting new units which bring in more boys. If a DE is doing their job right there should be a strong commissioner force in place to help units that are struggling. The reality of today is that in many districts there are few to no commisioners, who are so often unappreciated anyway. The other problem is that unit leaders look at commissioners as council spies and will not use them. DE's in training at National are told not to get directly involved in individual unit problems until all other avenues have been exhausted. F Scouter is correct when he states that the council is there to provide tools and support to the units and are not there to police units, unless there is a serious violation of BSA policies.

[scoutldr 732]

Expectations go both ways. As a District Committee Member at Large, I can tell you how frustrating it is to only have about one third of the District positions filled 3 years after being forced to form a new district. The positions that are filled are filled by "multiples" who are also SM's, DLs and CCs in units doing double and triple duty, while hundreds of adults with youth in the program are doing nothing. Units should encourage adults to get involved in Commissioner service or District positions, rather than having 10 ASMs on the roll that are not needed. If units expect services from the district and Council, someone has to volunteer. As was said before, the professionals' jobs are to find new money and form new units. Everything else is dependent on volunteer labor....that's me and you.

[Cubmaster Jerry 10]

FScouter, I certainly understand what you are saying. Resources, professional staff, ect, etc, etc. I am not saying that those things aren't available. What I am saying is that shouldn't the Council/District make more of an effort to make sure that units are utilizing those things? When asked by new leaders about training requirements I always tell them that I wish I could say that it is MANDATORY for them to be trained. But we know I can't. I wish I could tell them that it is MANDATORY for them to hold at least one meeting a week because that has proven to be the most effective method for running a den. But I can't do that either. So, what could I potentially be left with? A group of dens with untrained leaders that meet sporatically. Both of which put active rosters at risk. I could also have a committee that wishes to charge $150 per boy per year for dues because we don't want to spend the time to do a budget. This would turn away scores of potential scouts. Or I could totally disregard summer camps because I don't think my parents would want to pay $165 for weeklong nor do I really want to spend the time collecting money and making sure all is paid. What does District say about that? Nothing. These are all Unit-level issues.

 

(I realize the issue with using the term mandatory with volunteer organization)

 

Does that seem far fetched? I had a conversation with my DE today about our sister Troop. I learned a little about how District works - something that I am sure many of you already know. My sister Troop is on the verge of folding. Let me put this into perspective. My Pack has had roster sizes of 100+ for the last three years and at least 60 for two years prior to that. There is only one other Troop within 20 minutes. The next closes is 30 min. Last year we graduated 9 boys to boy scouts. This year we are looking at graduating 22. With this pool of potential Boy Scouts you would think that my Pack's sister Troop would be flourishing. The current roster size of that Troop is 16! 16!! Half of those 16 have unoffically dropped because the program is "not fun". They have met once since Summer Camp and don't know when they will meet again. The SM and ASM are unreachable. The DE and UC aren't even sure if they have a committee, fund raising effort, planned calendar, or even organized patrols. The DE can't do anything because this is a Unit level issue. The apparent leader issue can only be addressed by the CO if (1) someone (a committee member/leader) brings it to their attention or (2) they recognize the problem and understand what needs to be done to fix it. The COR, while highly supportive of scouting, isn't aware of his full responsibilities. The UC can only advise the committee on how to fix their issues but that is apparently not possible.

 

So, the District's hands are tied, countless boys who were once active in Scouting have been lost. (no, those boys didn't go to another Troop) To ask many who live here to drive 20-30 min for anything much less a scout meeting is no less of a suggestion than asking them to drive to Timbuktu. The DE's and UC's initial suggestion is - to create a new Troop! For what? So it can fail as well?

 

My point is this should have never happened. Someone at the District level should have been monitoring this unit (and all units) for signs of problems and headed them off. It takes much less effort and resources to fix a unit or redirect it to the right path than to start a new one from scratch. Many who have Cubs in the Pack are aware of the Troop's problems and would hesitate getting involved for fear of a repeat. This is not the first district I have seen this occur in. It is happening in the one I recently transferred out of as well.

 

As I said before, I realize that money and personnel shortages in addition to the current practices and policies of the BSA prevent District from doing anything until it is too late. But should it be that way?

 

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for reading.

 

...so continues the education of Jerry

[FScouter 24]

The success of a unit is almost totally dependent on the commitment of the unit leaders. If the leaders do not read the resources, do not go to training, do not hold den meetings, do not plan a program, then there isnt much a paid staff person from the district / council can do to make the unit successful.

 

On the other hand, if the unit leaders have a vision of success but lack tools and knowledge and resources, there is all kinds of help out there for them.

 

The success of units lies in the proper selection of unit leaders.

[Cubmaster Jerry 10]

It isn't that I don't know how to be a successful leader, or lead leaders to be successful or lead a unit to be successful. It's really a different approach to ensuring a successful program from the District/Council level. A different way for Scouting to do business, so to speak.

[dan 10]

Cubmaster Jerry wrote in one of his post.

The UC can only advise the committee on how to fix their issues.

 

I took this to mean that the Unit Commissioner does not interact with the Charted Organization Rep only the troop committee. Is this true?

There was a huge discussion about what a Unit Commissioner is suppose to do and what they actually do a while back I really do not want to dig that thread back, it gave me a headache the first time!

 

Thinking about some of the issues that have been raised in this thread, my thought was should the Unit Commissioner be spending more time with the COR to make sure she/he is supporting the scouting program with the youth program they are running?

 

[rkfrance 11]

Dan is right. Part of the job expectation for a UC is to keep a good relationship with the Unit. Not just the Troop or Pack, but the whole Unit which includes the CO and COR. By working closely with the COR, they can reduce huge headaches like described above. (This is of course assuming the UC exists, and also cares, and the COR knows his/her position, and also cares.)

 

To me, it sounds like either there is no UC, or the UC isn't/wasn't doing his/her job. In either case, the District Commissioner is not doing his/her job.... Snowball effect. Yeah, it's a Unit issue, but it is directly a Commissioner issue, which makes it District/Council.

[Eamonn 61]

Man Oh Man there is a lot going on in this thread -And I get confused real easy.

There was a time when I thought that Districts would save the world.

I was wrong.

There was a time when I wished that Unit Commissioners were more like Sister Mary Matthew, the Nun I had at good old Holy Cross, at times she seemed like a nice kind almost saintly women, but mess up and she came down on you with no mercy and I swear she soaked her hands in vinegar. But I now see that I was wrong on that one as well.

We may not like it, we might say that it just doesn't work but before we look at what the District or the Council can or can't do we need to look at our Chartering Organizations.

We are as much a part of that organization as any thing else that they have.

While I know that not every unit is chartered by a church, but we are as much of the church as the choir.

The local Catholic Church I attend has two choirs. One is at the 10:00 mass and they sound good, the director has weekly practices and at Easter and Christmas they pull out all the stops and are really wonderful.

The other choir is the one that sings at Funerals and during the week. They are an enthusiastic group, mainly retired people and they sound terrible. They don't make it to the practices. They don't like being out at night.

The old Lady playing the organ I think is a distant relation of Fats Domino!! She has a individualistic bluesy style showing stride and boogie-woogie influences sad to say the rest of the choir doesn't.

One night Father Len and I were sharing a beverage, I said how bad they were. He agreed but said it beats having having hymns played and no one singing!!

The good choir seems to have different robes for different times of the year, I have seen them in white, blue and at times red. The weekday choir sings in their street clothes.

We as a parish are proud of our good choir, but I see Father Len's thing about having the other people sing at funerals and while they don't sound like angels they do make the effort to be there.

I think at times our Scout units are like the two choirs. Father Len, knows that the weekday choir isn't that great. It is in his power to tell them that they are no longer needed, but he sees that they are doing a service and is willing to turn a deaf ear. I have never spoken to any members of the parish council about them, but I'm almost sure they would say the same thing.

There is a Cub Scout pack and Boy Scout Troop chartered by the church.

The Troop is a really good Troop. Sad to say the Pack is going through a very rough patch. Father Len is aware what is going on, I know he does, because I talk with him a fair amount. (No ;not just at confession!!)

The problems with the pack didn't happen over night and the Commissioner Team along with the District Committee did and are trying to help any which way they can.

But we didn't select or appoint the Pack Leadership Team, so we can't remove them.

I know that there is one Den Leader who is doing a better than fair job, she has four kids two boys and two girls, her husband drives a truck. She is doing her best, but placing mandatory things in her way is one sure way of losing her.

At the end of the day the people who serve at the District level can only support, guide and advise. I don't have a group of people waiting in the wings to be leaders. Even if I did, how would I know that they would fit in the unit I sent them too?

When things or money goes missing, the money or the thing doesn't belong to the District, Council or National, it belongs to the CO.

Can you imagine the outcry if it was deemed to belong to the District? I can just see a Unit Commissioner telling a Scout Troop that they have too much money and he is going to take some for the District! The Weekday choir would be working an extra day.

Jerry with all the best will in the world, I think you need to take a look at where you want to serve. The District and the Council really do want to serve units, but when the District and Council people and the Unit people are one and the same, it seems that no one gets served and the units suffer.

Eamonn.

[Cubmaster Jerry 10]

I realize that the CO is really the key cog in this whole machine. But I think that only amplifies my point here. How many times within these boards have we seen that a CO is nonexistant or isn't aware of their responsibilities? Training is offered for leaders but what about for the CO? Other than at the unit's inception, is there regular contact and a reiteration of responsibiities between the DE/UC and CO? I assume there should be but I think that the fact that there isn't is relatively widespread. District has to realize this and understand the resulting consequences. And while it may not fall under their "responsibility", I ask again - shouldn't it? If the DC, DE, or UC fail to touch base with the CO and watch over the unit on a regular basis, how can they point the finger in any direction but at themselves when a unit fails?

 

Should District take such a hands off approach and really expect volunteers to effectively manage this program on their own? Should it depend on those volunteers to seek help on their own or training on their own instead of mandating it? Many volunteers may not want the hassle of doing so or think they are doing fine with out it. It's kind of like giving a new driver the keys to the car and telling them to come back if they feel they need driving lessons but they aren't required to do so. And if they don't get lessons and end up wrecking it, well, we'll just get another car and another driver and try again.

 

Eamonn, while a lot of what I find myself involved with now may seem out of the scope of the CM responsibilities, it really isn't. The success of my unit is directly related to the success of the new unit in my local area. It is also directly related to whether or not my unit successfully splits. So I get involved with both of those processes. And while not directly related to the success of my Pack, as CM, I feel that I would be failing the boys and the scouting program as a whole if I cared not what happened to my sister Troop. Boys who would otherwise still be enjoying scouting are lost every year because of an ineffective program (for whatever reason). As leaders, especially those of you who are at the District level, should find that difficult to swallow.

[Cubmaster Jerry 10]

I'd like to take minute to clarify my intentions with this thread. After rereading my last post some may feel that I am looking for someone to blame for problems with the way the Scouting program is run and they may take offense to where I seem to be pointing my finger. This is not the case. My intentions were, and still are, to formulate a discussion and expand my knowledge on how the program is run and how we as leaders might make it better.

 

It may also come across that I feel the problems and issues that I am pointing out are widespread and malignant. I don't feel that the program is on the verge of failure because of them but they are present none the less.

 

Now, back to your regular scheduled program...

 

Jerry

[Eamonn 61]

Jerry,

I know where you are coming from.

But (Yes there is always a but!!) We do have in place a system that will work if people want it to work.

I hate to admit it but I now feel that the problem is so big that it just can't be fixed!!

We have way too many adults in the BSA that are "Cafeteria" Scouter's. They are not only happy to pick and choose what parts of the program they will use, they get very upset when you try and say "Hey, what you are doing isn't the BSA way and you are supposed to belong to the BSA."

I in my infinite wisdom?? Really think that we need to take a long hard look at Quality.

Quality Unit really doesn't do much to ensure that units are serving the goods.

Quality District does nothing to see that units are doing what they should be or ought to be doing. In fact with so much riding on Quality District and Quality Council, I would go as far as to say that Quality and the quest for Quality has harmed the program.

While I'm in "Infinite Wisdom Mode" I also really think that we need to take a long hard look at the job descriptions of our professionals. I have a very long list of things that I don't want or need a DE or a pro to do. One thing that I really want them to do is become more involved with our CO and the Executive Officers. I think they need to meet with them more than once a year and when they do meet they should have all sorts of information and reports at hand: Advancement Reports, Camping Reports (Taken from Tour Permits)Training Reports, Unit Commissioner Reports. All of these could be packaged nicely so that once the two Executives have gone over them, they can be passed on down the line to the COR and the CC and then if need be to the Unit Leadership. The report could red flag areas that need to be addressed.

How many of our CO are unaware that something isn't working, because no one has ever told them it isn't working or the way it is supposed to work.

I don't need a young DE at Training's I know people who are great Trainers and who have a great understanding of the program, I don't need a DE at a Camporee, we all know that he or she is just making an appearance, if he or she is doing what they are supposed to be doing they will never have the time to be involved with the planning of such events anyway (That's why we have people serving on District Committees.)

Another benefit of these reports is that there will be a clear picture of exactly where each unit is and what if anything needs to be done.

Of course some CO's will be happy not to do anything, but that will be their choice.

Eamonn.