NATIONAL OFFICE if you really are watching fix commissioning service

[Bob White]

Nowhere I have I suggested giving the CO more power. I am saying that we need to remind them of the responsibilities and authority they have and have always had, and have not fulfilled in the recent past.

 

BW(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Commissioner Service that I am presently part of has set its main objective to "doctor" units with end stage disease processes. I find that what happens is the UC tends to take over failing unit jobs which just adds another hat to the one head that has too many hats already. At one meeting, our ADC said that the definition of a UC is "somebody who walks on water". The reason to define the UC then was for us to go out find someone that could fill that role, which means that fewer and fewer will be found. I believe that I have enough knowledge to be able to train a new person in Scouting the basics of how to be a UC and then trust him/her to do the job.

 

It is time to change the post healer approach to one of being proactive. After a unit decides to go their own way, most interventions won't work. It is more of a pat on the back for our "good works" rather than us fixing something. Moreover, it is an expression of "love" towards the DE to help save another unit and a few more souls from the fire and keep the DE from going into the insurance 'biddness' for a living.

 

I have been in the Commissioner business now over twenty years and I do not walk on water, nor would I characterize any who do. I am not too old, burned out or ready to retire but I hope I know enough when the time comes to call it quits. I do not like the warm fuzzy approach to UCing or the bold in your face approach. I do not like to take on ailing units and certainly do not take over other people's jobs in those failing units. I would much rather aid a unit that requests help and knows the reason that I am there and allows me to speak to them frankly about the status of their unit.

 

Fixing it starts with the District Committees and the Commissioners communicating with each other. There needs to be a monthly report of every unit's training needs, every unit's advancement needs, every unit's membership needs, every unit's finance needs, and every unit's camping needs. This information should be given to the responsible UC. That UC should meet with the COR, CC and the SM during the year to review these reports. Once per year there needs to be a conference with the IH, COR, and the CC to review the status of the unit and the reports and any needs that the unit has of the CO.

 

Most likely Scouting won't get fixed because somebody makes it more difficult for a UC to get an award. If anything needs to be made stricter, it is the QU standards. Even if these standards are not made more difficult, the existing ones need to be reinforced by the UC ascertaining that the unit has met the standards by using documentation. I have heard a unit leader completing this form on too many occasions saying that, "we most probably did that one anyway" and did so on each item.

 

As for attending unit meetings, if there is good communication between the principle parties during the year, then fewer unit contacts will be needed. Unit contacts can give the UC good information, if they have done their homework and if they are a good observer and if they can analyze using a small amount of data. If the UC has checked the main pressure points of a unit throughout the year, then they will know basically what is happening during the year, thus fewer actual visits.

 

I would not second the motion for the UC being the hosts and quality monitors of all training. I trust the trainers to do a quality job and I trust them to use the existing quality material. I would much rather the UC's spend their time making sure a unit has a yearly written plan in place for unit program. This one item alone is the most important tool for any unit and the UC to assist with quality program. It is a document that can be monitored, can be used to make good program, can be used to promote committee support, and can be used to provide factual advertisement for recruitment and retention.

 

I have yet to read a post where the unit leader said they planned to lose 50% of their Scouts in the first year but then I don't read every post. Some may be losing 50% in the first year according to the statistics and I agree that it is because they lack quality program. Some brag about not using the Methods of Scouting but they usually try to reinforce their lack of using the methods by saying they have a quality program and they also have the numbers. I personally believe that the Methods of Scouting are very important for quality program and for numbers.

 

As for the Titanic, it would have taken more than a simple correction of course notice to change the minds of a crew and a Captain that believed that their boat could not be sunk. With two different space shuttles being scuttled, it has been the same story of too many believing that what they were doing was the best and a public astonished because they weren't. When a person believes they are the best, then nothing will stop them from their destination except the ocean floor.

 

FB

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[fotoscout]

BW, although your plan doesn't call specifically for more power to be "given" to the CO's, it would in effect do just that. You are in effect making a call to wake up the sleeping giant before we have the resources to control it.

 

A quiet reminder may do the job just as well as a National program change in Commissioner Service, and without the potential fallout.

 

 

[Bob White]

Who are you refering to Foto when you say "we"? Unit Leaders? If so, "we" work for "them", them being the IH, CRs, and CCs. and they need waking, which is why I think the commissionssioners need to be caling on "them" rather than on "us". There are too many leaders untrained and too many not following the program. We need to see the parties that sign the charter fulfill their responsibilities to select quality leaders, and follow the BSA programs.

 

Would active COs change scouting? Absolutely, and for the better.

[Backpacker]

First of all I agree with Fuzzy about "awakening a sleeping giant before we are ready." Most CO's, whether we like it or not, do not want to take a very active role in running a scout unit and if you make them legally liable, as Bob suggests, then I feel you run the risk of losing these chartering groups and scout units will be looking for new homes. The way it is supposed to work is that the unit leaders meet with the COR on a regular basis to handle any problems, we do not need a lot of UC's running interference, they instead should be meeting with the unit leaders supporting them and making sure these leaders are contacting their COR. The last thing we need is for a bunch of uniformed,under trained and overworked UC's going to the heads of the Rotary, School officials, or church pastors and boards telling them what do in what could be perceived as a threatening manner. This approach would lose scouting many CO's. Bob,another reason your approach is misguided is that it is not, "by the book",why try to recreate the wheel as you are so fond of reminding us.

 

The commissioners are not in a position, nor should they have to be, to be responsible for all district training, it is not their job. If leaders do not take the basic training within a year of joining then they could not sign up again as a SM or CM until that requirement is met, but wait if you did that most of the LDS units would have to shut down and National would never allow that to happen. So where does that leave us? Trying to get as many leaders trained as possible and as soon as possible with the system we have in place. Turning the commissioners into scouting gestapos is not the answer, will not work, and will result in scouting losing many more UC's.

[Bob White]

"Most CO's, whether we like it or not, do not want to take a very active role in running a scout unit and if you make them legally liable, as Bob suggests, then I feel you run the risk of losing these chartering groups and scout units will be looking for new homes.

 

Not as I suggest, as is, since the charter already makes them legally liable. Charter organizations are already abandoning units because they do not see them as "their units" but merely as units that meet there.

 

"The way it is supposed to work is that the unit leaders meet with the COR on a regular basis to handle any problems,"

 

That's not true at all. You will not find that descipition of the CORs responsibility anywhere in the BSA operations or training at any level.

 

" we do not need a lot of UC's running interference,"

 

I have not seen anyone suggest they should.

 

they instead should be meeting with the unit leaders supporting them and making sure these leaders are contacting their COR.

 

That is similar to the plan that has been in eefect for about 40 years, and it has never worked. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

The last thing we need is for a bunch of uniformed,under trained and overworked UC's going to the heads of the Rotary, School officials, or church pastors and boards telling them what do in what could be perceived as a threatening manner. "

 

Again, no one has ever suggested that.

 

"This approach would lose scouting many CO's.

 

We are losing COs now so what's the difference other than at least the ones who stayed would know and understand they role in Scouting and Scouting's role in their organization. What would be the problem with that?

 

"Bob,another reason your approach is misguided is that it is not, "by the book",why try to recreate the wheel as you are so fond of reminding us.

 

A misunderstanding that comes from not knowing what is actually in the book. What I am proposing is supporting what has been the program since 1916. But because District Executives who were originally charged with this task and no longer have the time or resources to do this one task, that it be reassigned to the commissioner service branch. As we also wear the wreath of service and have some of the same responsibilities and goals.

 

The commissioners are not in a position, nor should they have to be, to be responsible for all district training, it is not their job.

 

And once again no one has said they should be.

 

If leaders do not take the basic training within a year of joining then they could not sign up again as a SM or CM until that requirement is met,

 

Says who, the BSA? No they don't. The plan I suggested? Nope, not there either.

 

 

but wait if you did that most of the LDS units would have to shut down

 

Says who? That rule does not exist in the BSA. it exists in a few councils but I have yet to see be enforced. Nowhere in the BSa is that authority given to the councils, it is in fact a specific respponsibility of the CO.

 

and National would never allow that to happen. So where does that leave us?

 

Since none of those statements have any validity I guess it leaves us where we started.

 

" Trying to get as many leaders trained as possible and as soon as possible with the system we have in place.

 

The system that we have in place is that the COs are responsible for selecting their leaders and getting them to training. They just haven't been taught that in a long time.

 

So we have informally adopted a system of relying on the character of the individual leader to get themselves to training. That certainly has been successful.

 

Turning the commissioners into scouting gestapos is not the answer, will not work,

 

Thank goodness then that no one has yet to suggest or even imply doing that, other than you.

 

and will result in scouting losing many more UC's.

 

Would it be possible to lose more commissioners seeing as how the majority of councils do not have half enough the number needed to fill the present quotas?

 

Would it matter if we lost some of the ones we have seeing as how many of them do not do there present duties?

 

Let's refocus the commissioners to address or most urgent problems and recruit people with the skills to achieve the task and train them how to do it.

 

 

[Eamonn]

Fuzzy Bear does make some good points.I know that even if he can't walk on water, he more than lightly moved a lot faster than the crowd of Commissioners that I inherited!!

 

Bob, I can't help but think that Commissioner Service is almost a thing of the past. At least as we know it now. I am starting to think that people like Fuzzy are a dying breed and unless something is done fairly quickly, there just will not be the man power that could deliver the service.

Would this be sad and bad? I think so.

Eamonn.

[Bob White]

Eamonn

 

I agree that the commissioner service is grossly understaffed I attribute that primarily to the what the commissioning program has been used for since the 60s.

 

It is a largely thankless job. The units that need commissioners do not want commissioners, and will not accept commissioning help. That is because we seek to change the people who are causing the problem rather than to educate the people who are supposed to select them and manage them. If we had the CR and CCs selecting people who had the tools to do the job, wanted to do the job, and who would be willing to learn and follow the program we would reap several benefits.

 

-More ownership by the COs

-Better unit/CO relationships

-more trained leaders

-more units following the BSA program because of more trained leaders

- greater retention of youth because we would have better programs

 

And we would have commissioners with a purpose and specific, measurable, achievable, relevant goals that would have a positive impact on the movement.

 

I agree that it cannot survive in its present form. That is why I found what was shared to be so concerning. I heard very little that was new, just a slight repackaging of the old. Now we wait and see what is finally released.

 

BW

 

 

 

 

 

[Backpacker]

Eamonn is very correct in saying that the commisioner service is a thing of the past, most councils, as others have stated, do not even have a real functioning commisioner group, most are retired scouters who still want to stay involved. These guys while well meaning can not handle the current job let alone adding more responsibilities to their plate. Bob, I disagree with you very strongly when you state that scouting can afford to lose those CO's that do not meet your standards.

 

We already are losing too many thanks to the ACLU and others who want scouting out of the public facilities and military bases, and churches, etc.

 

My suggestion is that National offer some real incentives to CO's that do a great job such as reduced registration fees, more recognition of the CO, IH, and COR who excel, discounts at the scout store and on advancement badges are just a few real enticements to get the CO's to do a better job. This would be far more effective than changing a commisioner service that is rapidly declining in number every year.(This message has been edited by Backpacker)

[Backpacker]

Bob,

Your incorrect spin on my comments were a result of your posts. The commisioners never had the same job responsibilities as the district executive. The DE supports the commisioners in his district, so that comment is incorrect, and since I was a DE and you were not your interpretation of the DE's duties in your last post were a fabrication of your own creation and a misunderstanding of professional scouting that some volunteer scouters hold. As to valid points Bob, all I can say is that you are beating a dead horse on this topic.

[Bob White]

Eamonn is very correct in saying that the commisioner service is a thing of the past, most councils, as others have stated, do not even have a real functioning commisioner group, most are retired scouters who still want to stay involved.

 

In case it slipped your attention I was one of those others, in fact I was the first to say it in the opening post to the thread

 

Bob, I disagree with you very strongly when you state that scouting can afford to lose those CO's that do not meet your standards.

 

That's good because I never said that.

 

You said "The last thing we need is for a bunch of uniformed,under trained and overworked UC's going to the heads of the Rotary, School officials, or church pastors and boards telling them what do in what could be perceived as a threatening manner. This approach would lose scouting many CO's."

 

I pointed out that what you wrote was never the plan I suggested, (in fact no one has suggested anything of the sort other than you) and that we are already losing COs under our current system of commissioning. And I pointed out that we could keep more COs by re-educating them in their charter responsibilities.

 

My suggestion is that National offer some real incentives to CO's that do a great job such as reduced registration fees, more recognition of the CO, IH, and COR who excel, discounts at the scout store and on advancement badges are just a few real enticements to get the CO's to do a better job.

 

Really? You believe you can grow the program by reducing income? Good luck with that plan. Please start it in a new thread where it can be given its due attention.

 

This would be much far more effective than changing a commisioner service that is rapidly declining in number every year.

 

Oh, it would have an effect on scouting of that I have no doubt.

 

BW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Backpacker]

Bob

 

Re read your own posts, you are not only misquoting me but yourself as well. You did say all those things I quoted. A slight reduction in registration costs would more than be made up by stronger, longer lasting units, in FOS, popcorn sales , more camp support, etc. No matter how you slice it Bob your approach to this problem is still unrealistic as well as just plain impractical. If National is reading this thread I have no doubt you are providing them some great laughs. You are also still incorrect about the duties of a DE versus a commisioner, just ask National. Oh how the mighty do fall.

[Bob White]

I am perfectly comfortable allowing the other readers to look at the thread and see who actually said what, and who has represented the other's quotes accurately.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Well, that didnt take too long. OK, this doesnt seem to be getting anywhere positive so its going to be locked. Of course if anyone feels that the state of Commissioning needs further discussion, anyone can reopen a thread on that topic. Backpacker, your last sentence of your last post is exactly the type of editorial comment that we can do without

[fotoscout]

Bob, I probably generalize with the "we" word too often. In this instance, I was referring to those who guide and direct the program, from the top, down to the Commissioners.