How Do You See The Committee / Program Leader Hierarchy (Pack And Troop)

[blw2 433]

Seems like a bit of a grey area for many.  I think for the most part we all seem to get along in the interest of helping each other to help the boys..... but it seems to open up a lot of potential for adult posturing non-sense

 

In a recent thread, it seemed like the CC was mandating stuff to a leader, perhaps SM

 

I just had a recent experience at the pack level with a bit of confusion between me and our CC... very minor in my case, but it got me to thinking about this whole hierarchy thing.

 

I've seen and heard this as issues in other discussions, perhaps as side issues

 

I've re-read the bsa "job descriptions".  Sorta clear, sorta not so much....

They even have on their web site a tree for the pack, showing the CM under, or reporting to, the CC, and so on...

but this is contradicted in other places

& no such graphic for troops that I have seen, at least official and recent

and I've given it some more thought

I have my opinion.... but I must admit that I confuse myself if I think about it too hard.....

 

So how do you see it?

Who does the SM lead?

Who does the CM lead?

Who does the CC lead?

If the SM is leading, who do the ASM's lead?

the COR?

Who follows who in a point of disagreement?

[Stosh 3452]

1) Welcome to the world of unit politics.  

 

2) There are no rules except what people make up as they go along.

 

3) Everyone thinks their ideas are the best and everyone needs to follow them.

 

4) There really is no "leadership" just egocentric agendas (what @@blw2 calls posturing)

 

5) Regardless of who wins, the boys always lose.

 

6) One just has to remember, it's a game that has no end.

[Gone 435]

In my unit the SM manages the program. Responsible for training, advancement, outdoor program and applying BSA policy. Reports to committee.

 

The CC manages the committee and the operations and finances. Reports to COR.

 

Simplified but that's it.

[qwazse 4342]

"He who would be greatest let him be the servant of all ...."

Organizational charts are best worked turned upside down.

[Stosh 3452]

Seems like a bit of a grey area for many.  I think for the most part we all seem to get along in the interest of helping each other to help the boys..... but it seems to open up a lot of potential for adult posturing non-sense

 

In a recent thread, it seemed like the CC was mandating stuff to a leader, perhaps SM

 

I just had a recent experience at the pack level with a bit of confusion between me and our CC... very minor in my case, but it got me to thinking about this whole hierarchy thing.

 

I've seen and heard this as issues in other discussions, perhaps as side issues

 

I've re-read the bsa "job descriptions".  Sorta clear, sorta not so much....

They even have on their web site a tree for the pack, showing the CM under, or reporting to, the CC, and so on...

but this is contradicted in other places

& no such graphic for troops that I have seen, at least official and recent

and I've given it some more thought

I have my opinion.... but I must admit that I confuse myself if I think about it too hard.....

 

First of all one must all be on the same page as to the definition of leading - is it  Directing or Supporting?  People use the term both ways and it reverses the structure 180 degrees depending on the definition.  I use the term as defined by supporting, not directing.

 

So how do you see it?

 

Top of the totem pole is the Patrol Leader in a boy-led, patrol-method troop.

 

Who does the SM lead?

 

Supports the SPL.

 

Who does the CM lead?

 

Supports the program developed by the boys.  Treasurer works with Scribe and QM to make sure the program runs financially successful, Supports with BOR review, etc.

 

Who does the CC lead?

 

Supports the efforts of the committee to make sure they are successful in supporting the boys.

 

If the SM is leading, who do the ASM's lead?

 

The ASSISTANTS are there to make sure the SM is successfully supporting the boys.  Watches his back and makes sure to fill in the blanks as necessary.  

 

the COR?

 

Supports the adults in the program with qualified and trained personnel for the unit.

 

Who follows who in a point of disagreement?

 

If everyone is working to support the success of the boys, what's there to disagree on?  The boys set the program within the guidelines of the BSA and the adults help make it happen. Therefore The adults follow the lead of the boys on any point of disagreement.

 

The SPL tells the SM that the two older boy patrols have decided on Philmont in 2017.  SM goes to CC and notifies him/her that information, CC calls together the committee to work out a plan to make sure they are ready to support the boys in their efforts to get to Philmont.  Treasure to gear up on fundraising suggestions for the boys, Activity MC outlines a training program to suggest to the boys to make sure they are trained and ready for the experience.  SM offers up his hiking expert ASM to work with the 2 PL's to make sure the boys are all ready for the event in 2017.

[Stosh 3452]

"He who would be greatest let him be the servant of all ...."

Organizational charts are best worked turned upside down.

 

Most definitely!  

[Eagledad 2778]

What do the job descriptions say?

 

Barry

[Gone 435]

What do the job descriptions say?

 

Barry

Depends on which of the many docs you read.

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/18-981.pdf

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/ILST%20finals%202011%20-%20Item%20Number%20511-016.pdf

 

http://scoutmastercg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/troop_committee_guidebook.pdf

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxgyGhfwmpSpOG1YeXFveHlFWWs/edit?pli=1

Edited June 4, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[Eagledad 2778]

Depends on which of the many docs you read.

 

I don't see any of  your sources conflicting with another. Some just get into more detail. However, maybe I'm wrong but I took this thread as a discussion of gray area between different adult leader positions, not a conflict with the Scoutmaster's (or Cub Master's) responsibilities. So in that light, what do the docs say about the Committee Chair and committee members? Isn't that really the gray area that Blw is suggesting?

 

Barry

[Gone 435]

I don't see any of  your sources conflicting with another. Some just get into more detail. However, maybe I'm wrong but I took this thread as a discussion of gray area between different adult leader positions, not a conflict with the Scoutmaster's (or Cub Master's) responsibilities. So in that light, what do the docs say about the Committee Chair and committee members? Isn't that really the gray area that Blw is suggesting?

 

Barry

I was responding to the SM role question.

 

The unit committee docs I have seen from BSA are less clear and in less detail. I suspect that's why there's so much grey area.

[Stosh 3452]

In many respects we are very neglectful of our non-direct contact with boys leaders.

 

How many people have been position trained as a Committee Treasurer?  How many ASM and ACM leaders have been trained to be SM and CM, but not good ASM or ACM?  What does an Advancement MC do?

 

So what training is being provided?  NONE?  Yep.  Unless the unit does it on their own, it doesn't get done.  So, you want me to be the committee treasurer when I've only been given MC training?  How's that working out for you?  Oh, here's the last treasurer's pile of papers.  We have no idea what he/she did, but you'll need to go to the bank and resign the signature card there.  While you're there, you'll need to pick up some more checks.  We can't find the checkbook anywhere."  Now, that's a training program to be proud of.  

 

I don't care what publication you are reading from, as adults we do a really poor job of taking care of the people we have and an embarrassing  job of helping the new ones come on board.

 

And then we have the nerve to sit around and wonder why we can't get other people to step up and help out?  I don't

Edited June 4, 2015 by Stosh

[CalicoPenn 729]

The SM is a Servant Leader - he "leads" by mentoring, training and supporting the SPL and the boys in the Troop.  He also leads the ASM's which may include mentoring and training them, or making sure they get trained.  They are also servant leaders with the same responsibilities as the SM to the boys.  They "report" to the SM but in successful units, the SM/ASM relationship is collaborative with the SM being the "face" of the Adult leader's of the Troop. 

 

The CM (I'm guessing you mean Cubmaster) "leads" the Den Leaders in the same way that the Scoutmaster leads his ASM's.  Mentoring, training and supporting them.  He is also the public face of the Pack.  He may not have much mentoring and training of the Boys, but his main responsibility to the boys is to make sure they have a fun program.

 

Neither the SM or the CM, or the ASM's or the Den Leaders, "report" to the Committee and Committee Chair in the way that we commonly think of - if I were to put together an Org Chart - the CC and the SM/CM would be on the same level, with a line running between them.  Units that work best are units were the SM and the CC work together in collaboration to make sure the work of running the unit, whether from a program perspective or administrative perspective, is getting done.  When the SM or CM is "reporting" to the Committee, he is letting them know what the boys (Troop) or Den Leaders (Pack program staff) have come up with for the next few months of programs so that the Committee, which is essentially administrative support for the unit, can ramp up to help make sure those plans are a success.  They aren't reporting to the CC and Committee to get approval - the only role in "approval" the CC and Committee has is to make sure that what is being proposed doesn't conflict with BSA policies.

 

The COR will likely take a role in making sure that the unit has trained and responsible CC's, CM's and SM's but their main role is not to support the boys or the unit beyond the charter requirements.  Their main role is to act as a liason between the unit and the institutional head (the person that signs the charter).  They are there to make sure that the unit is following the Chartered Organizations policies and requirements, and that they are also following BSA policies.  They represent the Chartering Organization to the unit and report information about the unit to the Chartering Organization.

 

Ultimately, though - the person in charge is the Institutional Head - this is the person that appoints the COR - this is the person that can remove the COR.  The IH can remove the CC, the SM, any adult leader they wish from the unit.  This is the person that can decide whether the unit will even remain chartered from year to year.  They have no responsibilities to the unit other than what is in the charter and their main role is always going to be doing what is best for the chartering organization, not for the unit.

[fred johnson 936]

They even have on their web site a tree for the pack, showing the CM under, or reporting to, the CC, and so on...

 

QUESTION ,,, Where do you ever see the CM over the CC or even parallel to the CC?  

 

I could swear I've seen that too, but I just can't find it.  It's essentially always Charter org --> charter org executive --> charter org rep --> committee chair --> scoutmaster --> assistant scoutmasters

 

Ultimately, though that's moot.  We're all volunteers and everyone needs to be working in the same direction and constructively with each other.  IMHO, that's the CC's most important job:  to keep the adults working nicely with each other.  

 

But there are some ultimate key things.  Example:  CC has responsibility to interpret and comply with BSA policies.  Everyone does it, but he's the "buck-stops-here" person before it hits the untrained charter org people.  

[fred johnson 936]

The SM is a Servant Leader - he "leads" by mentoring, training and supporting the SPL and the boys in the Troop.  He also leads the ASM's which may include mentoring and training them, or making sure they get trained.  They are also servant leaders with the same responsibilities as the SM to the boys.  They "report" to the SM but in successful units, the SM/ASM relationship is collaborative with the SM being the "face" of the Adult leader's of the Troop. 

 

The CM (I'm guessing you mean Cubmaster) "leads" the Den Leaders in the same way that the Scoutmaster leads his ASM's.  Mentoring, training and supporting them.  He is also the public face of the Pack.  He may not have much mentoring and training of the Boys, but his main responsibility to the boys is to make sure they have a fun program.

 

Neither the SM or the CM, or the ASM's or the Den Leaders, "report" to the Committee and Committee Chair in the way that we commonly think of - if I were to put together an Org Chart - the CC and the SM/CM would be on the same level, with a line running between them.  Units that work best are units were the SM and the CC work together in collaboration to make sure the work of running the unit, whether from a program perspective or administrative perspective, is getting done.  When the SM or CM is "reporting" to the Committee, he is letting them know what the boys (Troop) or Den Leaders (Pack program staff) have come up with for the next few months of programs so that the Committee, which is essentially administrative support for the unit, can ramp up to help make sure those plans are a success.  They aren't reporting to the CC and Committee to get approval - the only role in "approval" the CC and Committee has is to make sure that what is being proposed doesn't conflict with BSA policies.

 

The COR will likely take a role in making sure that the unit has trained and responsible CC's, CM's and SM's but their main role is not to support the boys or the unit beyond the charter requirements.  Their main role is to act as a liason between the unit and the institutional head (the person that signs the charter).  They are there to make sure that the unit is following the Chartered Organizations policies and requirements, and that they are also following BSA policies.  They represent the Chartering Organization to the unit and report information about the unit to the Chartering Organization.

 

Ultimately, though - the person in charge is the Institutional Head - this is the person that appoints the COR - this is the person that can remove the COR.  The IH can remove the CC, the SM, any adult leader they wish from the unit.  This is the person that can decide whether the unit will even remain chartered from year to year.  They have no responsibilities to the unit other than what is in the charter and their main role is always going to be doing what is best for the chartering organization, not for the unit.

 

Calico's points are very good.  But I do take minor exception to a few comments ... 

 

 

Neither the SM or the CM, or the ASM's or the Den Leaders, "report" to the Committee and Committee Chair in the way that we commonly think of - if I were to put together an Org Chart - the CC and the SM/CM would be on the same level, with a line running between them.  

 

IMHO, you are describing how the SM & CC "SHOULD" relate to each other.  They "SHOULD" relate to each other as equals.  ... BUT ... you do need a clear structure and that structure should be understood to avoid issues when challenging decisions need to be made or we need someone to be the bad guy and lay down the law.    Example, cubmaster wants to organize a pack weekend canoe trip.  At that point, the CC has the responsibility to lay down the law and make sure the pack complies with BSA policies.  Everyone has the responsibility, but the buck stops at the CC.

 

Ultimately, the scoutmaster is a report to the committee.  Call it support.  Call it approval.  It's both.  It's about working together.

 

 

Ultimately, though - the person in charge is the Institutional Head - this is the person that appoints the COR - this is the person that can remove the COR.  The IH can remove the CC, the SM, any adult leader they wish from the unit.  This is the person that can decide whether the unit will even remain chartered from year to year.  They have no responsibilities to the unit other than what is in the charter and their main role is always going to be doing what is best for the chartering organization, not for the unit.

 

Slight clarification .... Institutional head can remove anyone.  But has to do it through the district exec as they are not "signers" on the form.  COR and CC need to be in agreement when new leaders are appointed.  As for removal, either can pretty much take care of that.  That's why COR and CC are the only two positions leaders can hold at the same time.   Interesting note, scoutmasters can't approve their own assistants.  That's a CC/COR job.

 

===============================

 

Anytime you talk about who reports to who it reflects a bigger issue.  The unit adult leaders need to find ways to constructively work with each other.

Edited June 4, 2015 by fred johnson

[Eagledad 2778]

QUESTION ,,, Where do you ever see the CM over the CC or even parallel to the CC?  

 

I could swear I've seen that too, but I just can't find it.  It's essentially always Charter org --> charter org executive --> charter org rep --> committee chair --> scoutmaster --> assistant scoutmasters

 

Ultimately, though that's moot.  We're all volunteers and everyone needs to be working in the same direction and constructively with each other.  IMHO, that's the CC's most important job:  to keep the adults working nicely with each other.  

 

But there are some ultimate key things.  Example:  CC has responsibility to interpret and comply with BSA policies.  Everyone does it, but he's the "buck-stops-here" person before it hits the untrained charter org people.  

This is how I was trained and how we trained at least until 10 years ago. Sadly, it seems we have to tip-toe around the hierarchy to keep from offending each other anymore. We don't act like adults anymore because we don't have the maturity of adults, even in simple discussions like this. 

 

The SM reports to the CC because as was said, the buck has to stop somewhere.

 

One of the suggestions we gave to all the units in our District is for the CC to attend SM Specific training so that they would have some understanding of the responsibilities they are responsible for filling. In my opinion. I also believe the CC is the most important person of the unit to attend Wood Badge because they need to understand the Vision and goals of the unit, as well as how to build a productive successful team. Which is the main objective of Wood Badge. How does the CC support the SM is they don't know objective of the program?

 

I have found that most packs actually do function more under the CC being responsibile for the program by building a successful team including the CM who more or less does report to the CC. Troops don't do so well because the SM is seen as unit leader over everything. So they tend to be treated that way unless the SM is humble enough to respect the CC's responsibilties.

 

Of course as others keep saying, the best units are the ones where the two leaders work closely together. Most of the time you find that adults in units where the two work well together are typically very unselfish. That is actually rare because volunteer organizations generally attract adults looking seeking attention and making a name for themselves. 

 

Barry