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

[Twocubdad 665]

The training issue of non direct contact adult leaders is a huge pet peeve of mine.  The only specific training for committee members is the very generic Troop Committee Challenge.  It is not specific to individual positions on the committee, so there is no CC training or treasurer training or advancement training.  Like most training it only needs to be completed once and the person is trained for "life" with no regard for policy or other changes.  That can present huge issues.

 

Be careful what you ask for.   On the one hand, it would be difficult to create job-specific training for, say, a unit treasurer given the differences in unit operations -- everything from a CPA using professional standards to cash in one envelope and receipts in another.  On the other hand, look what a mess we have trying to get people to sit down for YP training every two years.  Do you really want to add that many more hoops to jump through at recharter time?

[fred johnson 936]

The CC might be the unit leader, but then under the management model, s/he has no contact with the boys other than as an adjunct ASM.  Otherwise, the CC becomes the SM and the SM is not needed.  Or the CC takes over as "SM" and the "SM" is just another ASM.

 

Classic example of Ivory Tower set up.

 

The term "unit leader" is for the youth.  It's who the youth work with.  That's the CM or SM.  

 

I pulled your reply because it hits home.  What you say is best, ... if the boys don't know the CC other than maybe effectively an adjunct ASM.  

 

Ideally, the boys don't work with anyone on the committee side ... except during their boards of review.  It sometimes gets my goat when we hear who's who.  COR, CC, SM, ASM, MC, etc.  The only ones who should be working with the scouts regularly are the SM and ASMs.  Yet, I see it over and over again where members of the committee seem to have more interaction than most ASMs.  

 

Ideally ... SM / ASM should be a statement "working with scouts."  CC / MC should mean "not working directly with scouts".

[JimboTheOceanGuy 0]

I have seen like, most corporate organizations, a set of leaders who control too much of the Packs and now not leading the right guidance in th Troops. This hinders making successful leaders of the boys,

 

Too often you get, what I call the "it must be done this way through actions or behaviors" which means my way and hide behind the heirarchy in the scouting organization or the charter organization. A great example of this is Troops who say we are truly boy lead and the actions of the adults are my way of the highway. The most tell tale is boys(Troops) who are not leading, poor organization, last minute events, poor communication, poor planning, digression from the program, shunning of new leaders who question, and most of all a few leaders who have created a cliche within the organizational structure.

 

The program is simple and has been successful until late. Too many politics come from the leaders of control issues or egos. Personally I was told when trying to help out an troop organization as a new leader which personally qualified and excessively trained: the statement was "if Baden Powell was here to help he would have to pass a "test" and would have to jump through hoops before fitting into this troop which has a special personality". What? That was the ultimate red flag of control. The program since 1911 is clearly defined.inits core.

 

Leaders with control issues are easy to spot, they are the type that are stand offish, too involved with the boys and shunning new leaders comes in with great qualifications, knowledge, and take charge of tasks needed. There is a immediate backlash, signs of insecurity, and automatic perception of persons of this nature to be "a hostile take over" . The most apparent is the "no communication" or as we use to say as children "the cold shoulder". Are we in elementary school?

 

Taken with my own personal experiences. I would have to say it needs to change. It would be great if the BSA national would take back the ownership of the troops instead of the COR type of structures today. With recent events as we all new caused a lot of CORs and leaders to leave or dissolve. I have been to the UK and the government runs the BS program, which is very similar to the Ventuting Program.

And for those reading this, none of them have had political issues to the degree I have seen here in the states. They also provide the meeting places, which if the BSA would do the same the real estate alone may solve some funding issues. This might also increase the overall offering to boys which will increase the attendance and recruiting if centralized again. What that lookalike I don't know.

 

But I'd believe it may flatten the organizational structure to provide the most important thing which is a well designed program for the boys.....

[CalicoPenn 729]

Cambridge can correct this but I don't believe the scouting association in the UK is run by the government - they just run the program differently from the US.

[eagle77 60]

Welcome Jimbo,

 

    BSA does not provide meeting places for our troops or packs, they do have scout camps and council properties, but the COR provides the place to meet. For the most part this is an area or rooms at the COR that they allow the groups to meet. BSA does not pay for it. Next you put BSA under government control and you will have a quicker exodus then ever. The government would then be required to allow ALL to attend, not what many out there really want.  Besides that I think our government already has its hands full trying to run our country.

[JimboTheOceanGuy 0]

Hi all-

 

Thanks for the response yes the UK is run by local governments according to the commissioner. They are in s sense the CORS, which provide the meeting halls as they are called. They do no report to the monarchy nor am I suggesting our government run the BSA. Sometime centeraluzing can support flattened organizations. The franchise model can work provided you have the more in tuned volunteers....Meaning BSA centralize under its non-profit status might be a suggestion until we find a better solution the franchising CzoRS we have now.

 

I wish we could all find qualified enthusiast Scouters or transition new enthusiastic leaders into new packs or troops. I serve on the Dustricy committee where I am at and can assure my recent personal experience without give all the details I have learned through the years or dealt with through Unit Commishners is far worse than mine. I post my personal to show the organizational structure fails more than 70% of the packs and troops. The real heart of the issue is finding qualified leaders as alluded in other posts. that can represent and mentor the core values which by osmosis teaches the kids. And unfortunately the controlling ones get the help.

 

Hope that helps and thanks for the posts.

[JimboTheOceanGuy 0]

Hi all-

Thanks for the response yes the UK is run by local governments according to the commissioner. They are in s sense the CORS, which provide the meeting halls as they are called. They do no report to the monarchy nor am I suggesting our government run the BSA. Sometimes centeraluzing can support flattened organizations. The franchise model can work provided you have the more in tuned volunteers....Meaning BSA centralize under its non-profit status might be a suggestion until we find a better solution to the franchising CORS we have now.

I wish we could all find qualified enthusiast Scouters or transition new enthusiastic leaders into new packs or troops without control groups. These or just one controlling CM or CC have dissolved many packs and troops. I serve on the District committee where I am at and can assure my recent personal experience without giveing all the details I have learned through the years or dealt with through Unit Commishners is far worse than mine. I post my personal to show the organizational structure fails more than 70% of the packs and troops. The real heart of the issue is finding qualified leaders as alluded in other posts. that can represent and mentor the core values which by osmosis teaches the kids. And unfortunately the controlling ones get the help they need or successfully remove them.

 

Hope that helps and thanks for the posts.

[Stosh 3452]

Welcome Jimbo,

 

    BSA does not provide meeting places for our troops or packs, they do have scout camps and council properties, but the COR provides the place to meet. For the most part this is an area or rooms at the COR that they allow the groups to meet. BSA does not pay for it. Next you put BSA under government control and you will have a quicker exodus then ever. The government would then be required to allow ALL to attend, not what many out there really want.  Besides that I think our government already has its hands full trying to run our country.

 

@@eagle77

 

You really have to do better about editing your typos,  it's supposed to read: "...full trying to ruin our country."

 

[eagle77 60]

 Good point, sad part is just how true it is.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Please keep political comments out of threads in Open Discussion.

[Twocubdad 665]

. It would be great if the BSA national would take back the ownership of the troops instead of the COR type of structures today.

 

 

In all the years I followed these forums, I can hardly think of an statement with which I disagree more.

 

The strength of the BSA program lies in its roots with local communities through the system of chartering partners.  The relationship with the COs not only give the program stability, but molds every unit to the standards and values of the communities they serve.  Local leaders, who understand both the core BSA program AND the strengths, abilities and needs of the Scouts and Scouters in the unit are able to deliver a much better program than one strictly dictated from above.  Quite the opposite, I believe many of the problems we are now seeing in the program stem from an explosion of rules and national policies flowing from Irving.