NATIONAL OFFICE if you really are watching fix commissioning service

[Bob White 20]

If the National Council of the BSA really does monitor this forum then I hope they will give this serious consideration (and yes this has already been shared with people on this committee and at national).

 

I had the opportunity to hear and speak with a Council Commissioner who was at the recent 2 day commissioner confab at national to discuss sweeping changes in commissioner service. I was uninspired and unimpressed. Not in the individual but in the proposed "changes" being considered.

 

First very little new was presented. It is still the same old things but with differnt recognition criteria. Making it more difficult to earn a badge will not solve the problems of commissioning.

 

Second, until you scrap the "family doctor making house calls" model of unit commissioning you will never improve commissioner service.

Does anyone know a doctor who makes house calls? Why do you suppose that is. My father's doctor made house calls once he was to ill to be able to leave the house but that was the only time.

 

Why do you suppose it is that doctors don't make house calls any longer? It's because they can do more good for the patient if the patient comes to where the doctor and the doctor's resources are.

 

We need to get more leaders to training not more commissioners to meetings.

 

Second, there are not enough qualified commissioners to do the job. Making demands on the number of visits UC musdt make will not give you enough UCs to make the visits. The characteristics needed for effective Unit Commissioning are harder and harder to meet. Why is that. Well let's look at who usually gets tapped as a UC 1) unit leaders (bad idea, no objectivity, many untrained and set in personal habits) 2)former leaders (why are they former...burned out, failed programs, replaced, Most failed to keep up with changes in the program since the last day they attended training.)These are not good qualifications for commissioning.

 

We need happy communicators who support the official program and can be taught the many and various resources of scouting.

 

I belive that we need to use commissioners to solve our most pressing issues.

1) Charter Organization Relationships..Scouting is being abandoned by COs because they are caving to outside political pressures. Why? because to most COs today we are unitsd that "meet there" and not "Their Scout units". De's do not have the time to meet the membership and finanacial demands of the council and reinforce charter relationships. it is the IH and CR that the UC should be meeting with regularly not the unit leaders.

 

2) Membership Retention

a)We lose most scouts in three key transition periods.

b)Their first year in cubs, their last year in Webelos

c)Their first year in the troop

WHY? POOR UNIT PROGRAMS! If units took their responsibility to select quality leaders seriously and if the COs made training mandatory we could turn those numbers around almost overnight.

 

3) Program quality

Commissioners should be the hosts of and quality monitors of all training.

 

Kids aren't staying not because they don't like the scouting program but because they do not get a scouting program. Look at the majority of the posts on this board and you will get all the evidence you need. Most posters write in for help because a leader or leaders are not following the program. Look at the majority of people who brag about not using scouting methods or of misusing scouting methods, mosdt are troop unit leaders. In a past thread many said they PLAN to lose 50% of their scouts the first year. PLAN TO!

 

Solidify the programs role within the CO. Get CRs involved in the district. Get COs to make training mandatory. Thses are areas where commissioners could make a difference.

 

Finally

Making commissioner visits a basis for earning Quality Unit Awards is a horrendous plan if actually enacted. You cannot make one persons recognition dependent on another persons actions.

 

If you want to add soming to the QUA make Roundtable attendance mandatory. Say that each unit must have a representative at 9 Roundtables in a 12 month period.

 

Commissioner service needs an overhaul, it needed it 30 years ago and we could have avoided many of today's scoutings problems. But until we scrap the family doctor model, and use knowledgable scouters to represent the program to the COs in order to

1) Improve BSA/CO relationships

2) Increase CR participation in Scouting Administration

3) Increase the quality of leadership selection and development

 

then we are just painting a new face on a very ineffective service branch.

 

I understand that the new commissioner plan is about ready to be released. If it resembles what I learned about this past weekend it will fail.

 

Just because a plan is made it is not too late to change course. Had the Titanic been shown the iceburg in advance they could have chosen to change course, or they could have said "well our course is already set, I guess we can do nothing but continue".

 

I believe the future strength of scouting is dependent on the tasks that should go to the commissioner serve corps.

 

Bob White

bobwhitebsa@hotmail.com

 

 

 

 

[Torveaux 10]

You said a great deal there Bob. I am in no position to discuss much of it, but I will add 2 cents where I can.

 

What if UCs were 'required' to meet with the bottom x% of the units in their district? Like your house call example, lets have the 'doctors' visit the critically ill in their homes or they may never make it to the hospital (Roundtable). This may take the best of both approaches.

 

I agree 100% that you cannot hold quality unit status for a unit based upon the actions of someone outside that unit. (Our Pack is ineligible for quality unit because the outgoing CM/CC did not turn in the re-charter on time despite the fact that the rest of us did our part to get it prepared on time. Grrr..)

 

I heartily agree on adding Roundtable attendence to QU requirements. It is amazing to me that here we are in March and we have units that every month get called up to receive their Summertime Pack awards for last summer and no one is there to get them. (the running gag is that they are 'summertime only' Packs). Your idea of having at least someone from the unit present takes away excuses about being too busy.

 

Your district has 12 roundtables a year? Ours only has them Sept-May. It seems with the emphasis on Summertime Pack and other Summer Scouting activities, that they would still hold Roundtables....

[nutz4scouting 10]

Bob,are you a commissioner?

It is hard to go to a meeting where you are the outsider,

try to not say a word,then have to go out to your car & write down all the good & bad.

I am in both positions.(ASM & UC)but not UC in my own troop.

VOLUNTEER to be a UC.

walk a mile in another man's shoes, nutz

[Bob White 20]

Yes, I am a Commissioner.

Between my time as a unit Commissioner, Roundtable Commissioner, Roundtable Staff, District Commissioner and Asst. Council Commissioner, I have close to 20 years in commissioning service.

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

Hey Bob, I think this must be about the longest post you have ever posted!!

I have no idea if anyone from the National Office looks in or not. I know that I did read something a while back where the National Office asked if I went to certain web sites that deal mainly with Scouting, several were named Scouter Network wasn't on the list.

I have not seen, heard and have no knowledge of any proposed changes to Commissioner Service. However I do trust you and know that you are not just flapping your gums.

As you know I spent about five years as a District Commissioner. I am not going to take offense at your profile of a Unit Commissioner, mainly because you were clever enough to use the wording: "at who usually gets tapped as a UC". While I don't know what is happening elsewhere I do know that I have never selected an active unit leader to serve on the District Committee or as a Commissioner. My thinking is that this just defeats what we are trying to do. How can we support our units if we are taking away the very people who are leading the units? To do so would be just daffy.

I do think that you may have gone a little over the top with the "Family Doctor". I did appoint a Assistant District Commissioner to look after Emergency Cases. But I preached the "Friend Of The Unit" more than anything else. I in fact raised a few eyebrows by telling the Commissioner Staff that they needed to be warm and fuzzy.

As for recognition for Commissioners? Most of the Commissioners I know have no idea how they came by the recognition that they have. Wrong as I may have been, I used to look over the records just before the District Dinner and surprise them - They had no idea what they had done to merit Arrowheads, keys or other awards. As I sit here I can see a Distinguished Commissioner plaque which came with a really ugly bolo tie. I have no idea what I did to earn it. I do know it was never a personal goal,it just arrived. So I agree that the promise of some badge is of little or no consequence.

I am not yet ready to start thinking about making attendance at anything other than safety training's mandatory. I firmly believe that people will attend and will even pay hard earned money to attend quality training.While the on line fast start training is very convenient and standardized, I can't help feeling that something is missing and wonder why more people show up for the NLE having never heard anything about Fast Start? I am a big fan of the NLE training, I wish I could say the say about the Cub Scouting Specific training's.

As for Commissioner Training? It just isn't happening in our area. The College of Commissioner Science, closed up shop and moved without leaving a forwarding address. For some reason at least in our Council Commissioner Training does not fall under the responsibility of the Council Training Chairman.Commissioner Training seems to just float aimlessly, kind of like a kite without anyone holding the string.

Bob, I am yet again confused!! You state: " it is the IH and CR that the UC should be meeting with regularly not the unit leaders".

But then go on to say "Commissioners should be the hosts of and quality monitors of all training".

I can't help thinking that you are going easy on the DE and the Professional Staff.

The people who serve on the Executive Board and the SE are selected in part because they know where the big bucks are. Those who serve on the District Committee take care of meeting District Goals. When we meet as a District Committee I set 30 day goals, people are accountable for meeting these goals, the DE is responsible for checking their progress and reporting back to me, at which time I if need be follow up. We have strong Membership and Finance Committees. Surely you will agree that agreement to charter a unit is an agreement made with the CO and the BSA and as such we need to send in the professional person to oversee that the agreement is being kept by both parties? Could it be that we need to be more selective in who we allow to be our Chartered Partners?

Sad to say I think I was the twerp who posted that we are not retaining 50% of our Tiger Cubs. I think that we need to do a better job of selling the idea of Stewardship to our pack leadership and really push the idea that these little guys are why we have a pack in the first place.

You and I must be reading different reports, I have seen that we lose more Cub Scouts from the Bear Den than any where. I will admit my information is dated 2002. I do agree that poor programs send youth members packing faster than anything else. Is it really that hard to make the program full of age appropriate Fun and Adventure?

While I don't pretend to know all the answers, heck I'm not sure what all the questions are. I do think we need to take a long hard look at what we want from the Commissioner Staff, if all we want is a group that will ensure that charters are in on time? That ought not be too hard a position to fill.

I think that we need to look at moving Commissioners over to the Training Team, involve them more with training. We now at long last can track training on Scoutnet. Lets really make the District Goals more to do with what is happening in our units. Membership goals are fine, but goals for retaining the youth that we have recruited would tell a better story!!

I have heard a lot of stories about what the Commissioner Staff do in other Districts and in other Councils, sad to say a lot of what I hear about them doing is about as far away from Commissioner Service as I can imagine. Commissioners who run every Camporee, Commissioners who do all the FOS presentations( Yes I did my share as District Commissioner, because I was invited to the event and was there anyway!!) These guys and girls are doing everything except what they are supposed to be doing!!

While it seems no one ever admits it, there comes a time when I have looked at the District, seen that we were not going to reach the goal of Quality District and have used that year to clean house. Is the troop with no advancement, no outdoor program, with Dad as SM and his son as SPL that meets in the SM's house to play video games really a troop? (Lord knows who was signing the charter the COR had been dead and buried for three years!!)Did I suspect this the year before and let it slide? Sad to say I did. In fact the UC refused to have anything to do with them!!

Bob, you have covered a lot of stuff in one posting. Please don't think that I'm in any way trying to be disagreeable, that is not my aim. Maybe we need to break this down into bite size pieces. Topics like what is the present real role of the UC? And What do we think it ought to be?

What do we do with the CO that refuses to participate?

How or What can we do to involve the COR? (Post cards only have a very limited success rate.)

You start the ball rolling and I'll join in - I may not see eye to eye with you, but I'm sure you will get my little gray cells working.

Eamonn

[Backpacker 11]

The problem is that there are so few unit commissioners left anymore and the unit leaders for one don't seem to care, in fact they seem to prefer it that way. It is one job where there are always more openings than filled positions. Quite frankly I don't think National or council feel its a high priority either.

[Bob White 20]

Hi Eamonn,

 

The "family doctor making house calls" is not my creation. That is how the BSA characterizes the use of UCs in the commissioner handbooks, and that is the model they have used for decades.

 

That is the model they plan to continue to use if thy follow the path that was vaguely described to us last weekend by a participant in that national meeting.

 

Commissioner service is finally a priority, but they are years too late in my opinion. Most of the problem we face today could have been positively impacted by a better organized more focused comissioner service.

 

I think we agree that we need more adult leaders to attend training. We have tried shorter courses, more flexible modules for delivery, unit level trainers, and still we do not have 100% trained leaders as the Girl Scouts do. We need mandatory training. That mandate should be coming from the CR and CC not from the council. The unit belongs to the CO, the leaders belong to the CO, and the COs should take an activee responsibility in the selection of the leaders and in their development.

 

But many COs no longer undersatnd or are even aware of that responsibility. DE's do not have the time to make the needed visits to foster that relationship. This is a task better suited to commissioners in my opinion. We live in the community, we belong to these COs. We can do a better job if building these relationships than the DEs can.

 

Think of the impact on the quality of the program delivered to youth if we improved CO/BSA relationships, had CCs and CRs choosing leaders more carefully, and had 100% trained leadership in units.

 

UCs calling on units does not work. Units following the program do not need UCs. Units in trouble rarely listen to UCs or accept their direction. If more units had a healthy relationship with their Cos and had 100% trained leaders, there would be far fewer units in trouble to begin with.

 

If units had more carefully selected, better trained leaders they would have better scouting programs. Better program is the #1 answer to retention problems. Boys leave scouting mainly do to poor delivery of the scouting program. The most efficient way to improve the program is through better leaders. It's not that we have bad people leading units, it's that we have untrained leaders leading units.

 

This year you will likely see every public school drop scouting. This will be the Iceburgh to the BSA Titanic. We need to change course and re-establish our position with the COs. We need to be their scouting unit, and not the scouting unit that meets there.

 

BW

[acco40 95]

Why do you suppose it is that doctors don't make house calls any longer? It's because they can do more good for the patient if the patient comes to where the doctor and the doctor's resources are.

 

First, I don't buy that at all. The reasons doctors don't make house calls is for convenience and dollars - for themselves. Go to any poor area of the country and you'll find doctors that make house calls.

 

Second, making roundtable a requirement sounds like the disgruntled unit leaders that want to make attendance mandatory for their scouts. I could pull a "Bob White" and proclaim that run roundtables correctly and leaders will attend.

 

I'm a unit leader. I'm a Unit Commissioner. Is that kosher? No. Is it desired? Depends. If I step down as a commissioner - who will take my place? Anyone? For heaven's sake, our district commissioner is a unit leader himself. I think he does a fine job at both.

 

One of the problems I see is BSA leaders, professionals and volunteers who should know better, capitulating to other Scouters about the program. I attended MB counselor training (for the fourth time)last night. One of the trainees asked if it was okay for a Scoutmaster to disallow parents, who were certified MB counselors, from instructing their sons. Instead of saying no, the trainer mentioned that it was not supposed to be that way but he didn't want to step on any toes and tell a Scoutmaster how to run his troop. That is a pandemic problem in Scouting today. For fear of losing boys or volunteers, we tolerate bad leadership. It is not just a matter of training. I've had well trained leaders just flat out refuse to follow the program because they don't agree with it. We tolerate that!! We shouldn't.

 

 

 

[Backpacker 11]

While you make some good points Bob I think your solutions are more idealistic than realistic because you want to change what has been in force since scouting began. I agree some radical changes are needed in many areas of scouting if it is going to survive the 21st century. Numbers are dropping, leaders who do not want training, and a policy of leaving the units alone after they are formed to struggle in that first year has led to this demise. Also on district level so many roundtables are so poorly run that attendance is abysmal so the units also suffer from the lack of new ideas coming into the program. Yes, change is needed before we scouters are talking about the good old days when there was a program called scouting. National, it is time to wake up and get moving before it's too late.

[Bob White 20]

Acco,

I do not disagree that a better Roundatble program will produce better Roundtable attendance. But we have an attendance problem that the program quality cannot totally overcome...consolidation. Councils and districts nationwide are becoming larger geographically making it difficult for units at outer edges of a district to attend centrally located meetings. There is an inefficient amount of travel time. It's not that they can't attend it is just not as 'convenient'. Adding incentive along with improved Rountables would help. Plus if you look at my posts on the topic I have never opposed mandatory training. I oppose the council making it mandatory since units and unit leaders belong to the COs. Council should not be blurring the lines of the charter concept by taking over a COs responsibility.

 

By the way if you are looking to improve Boy Scout Roundtable may I recommend the BSRT conference at Philmont Training Center.

 

Backpacker, you have an incorrect knowledge of the history of commissioning. The current structure is not the structure that it has always had. It is is however the structure it has had since the 1960s. It is one of the very few elements of the scouting program that has not been altered in 4 decades.

 

footnote

"Iceberg".

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Proud Eagle 13]

ALL AHEAD, FLANK SPEED!

[acco40 95]

BW, I must admit that the "geography" point was overlooked by me. I am fortunate that I live in a "Scouting dense" environment. Within a five mile radius of my house there are at least eight healthy Boy Scout troops. There are a few unhealthy ones too. The competition does make the troops "try harder" so to speak.

 

Another problem that I see in Scouting is the great diversity of the Scouters. Don't get me wrong, diversity is not in and of itself a bad thing but when you get Scouters, some without a high school education, some with graduate degrees, some with no training, some with years of training, some with hardly any Scouting experience, some with over 20 years of experience - it makes it difficult to create a one size fits all roundtable. Just like in a troop meeting where we breakout into patrol corners and the "regular" patrols do different things than the NSPs, maybe roundtable should be similar. Personally, I go to roundtable more for networking with my fellow Scouters (and to drive my son to the OA meeting) than anything else.

 

Now, I agree with something I think you (BW) said in a post long ago - Roundtable staff should fall under training and not under the commissioner umbrella. I think we should do more formal training at Roundtable. I would also like to see Cub Packs interact more with other Cub Packs and the same for Troops. To many units act as their own independent fiefdoms. As for the CO/CORs - our Troop's COR is a name only. He is employed by the CO but lives close to 30 miles away so he never gets a chance to interact with the unit. We've invited him to COHs, meetings, etc. but he does not attend. The IH works six days a week and low and behold his only day off is our troop meeting night so we don't see much of him either. I try to stay in touch but I still would like to seea better bond between the unit and the CO.

 

As for my own UC work, I currently have three Cub Scout packs that I serve. Two I work with quite closely, one only superficially. I don't impose myself on units that don't really want my help (or more specifically, my observation). I do try to track their health from behind the scenes. One thing I would like the National Council to put more emphasis on is to explain to units what the function of a UC is. Too many view us a district or council spies and not as helpful friends of the unit.

[fotoscout 15]

I agree 100% with the concept of mandatory training and that has been my postion right along. The reality of what happens now is more like a game of telephone than a single nationwide program run from the same book.

 

As for developing a greater reliance on the CO ,I could not object strongly enough. It is the aligned strength of blocks of COs that has put Scouting in the less than enviable position that it now occupies. Putting greater responsibility in the hands of the CO would further polarize BSA, and ultimately make todays problems pale in comparison to what might happen. Bob, I see your Iceberg as an ice cube compared to what might happen if we pushed the COs to take a more active role in the program.

 

If Commissioners dont come from the ranks of current leaders, or former leaders, then where do they come from? I agree that the current leaders are up to their eyeballs without a Commissioners workload, and that SOME of the former leaders are behind the times, but where else would you get the experience from. A CR with no CS experience would be absolutely no good to a struggling Pack. You catch more bees with honey than vinegar, if the Commissioner is not going to be warm and fuzzy, then hell be cold and bold. Hed be allowed one visit to the unit, and they wont ever invite him back again. If you shift that responsibility to the CR, whom the unit cannot make go away, the unit leaders will simply get fed up with his cold and bold approach and leave the unit or BSA entirely.

 

If there were more adults in scouting, the selection of Commissioners would be better. Or, if BSA stopped counting units and concerned itself more with numbers of scouts, we could consolidate units and free up some very capable leaders to be Commissioners.

 

[Backpacker 11]

So quick to jump, this time incorrectly Bob. The earlier commissioners at the beginning of scouting also did a lot of what the DE's do today since the professional staff at the beginning was very small. This is verified in two books on the history of scouting I own, one from National. So what sources are you quoting Bob, one of your own making I presume? I still feel you do not have much of a chance with National adopting your idealistic concepts after ninety five or even forty years, about as much chance as new uniform shorts, but I support your right to complain even though you criticize others for doing the same.

[Bob White 20]

First, Backpacker,

 

No complaining here. These views have been shared with national level volunteers and professionals ovewr the lasr few years. This is not a whine. This is a warning of what I see happening based on information I recieved first hand from a participant in a conference at national, and specific suggestions based on experience and an understanding of the scouting program. This is not idealistic, it is specific. I listed who would be resonsible for doing specific actions with specific people. This is a plan not a wish. I am sure that if national is reading this thread they would consider your plan with equal pleasure. So far you have only offered personal insults.

 

You said that the commissioner service had been this way since day one. You now say that it hasn't been. Once you decide what you think I will be happy to disuss it with you, politely if you so choose.

 

Foto scout, The BSA charter concept depends on Cos. The problem is we have done a poor job the past 20 years of remindinf COs of that responsibility. The only way to rid yourself of COs is to do away with the charter concept. I do not think you would want us to do that. I am not sure you understand the benefits of COs on a big scale view of things. That being the case since we are keeping COs we need to make them work the way they are supposed to.

 

The biggest drawback I see for some is that if the IH and CR understood their authority and responsibility, a number of scouter leaders would be told to follow the program or find the door, and I think that would help a lot in keeping more boys in scouting, but probably make for a bunch of surprised 'leaders'.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)