Are you in a council that has a positive or toxic culture or something different?

[Ojoman 157]

Does your council/district foster a positive or toxic volunteer environment? What can be done to improve it and make it more positive or take it from toxic to positive or are you happy with where it is at?

Things that make for a positive environment: transparency, good communication, program and training support, good PR, fellowship opportunities, emphasis on quality, low pressure environment, encouragement and thank you, proper recognition for efforts and accomplishment. Connected, properly trained and staffed council executive board, district committee’s and commissioner staffs and positively motivated council employees.

Thoughts on how to accomplish and bring about change where it is needed.

[skeptic 997]

Certainly an issue with ours, sadly.  We continue to flounder with most of the things noted not in clear use, and some missing for the most part.  Volunteers, even those of us that have struggled in the past, are frustrated and we are not able to get clarity and straight info, or so it seems.  Our Council board President assures us they are working on this, but it is very slow, just smoke and mirrors.  I hope it is not the latter.  Meanwhile, our only viable camp is shuttered, and the SE has insulted so many unit and district volunteers that the list is likely pages long.  

Will be interesting to see if some ideas to fix may show, but frankly, it is unclear if we have a way around the SE.  

[Ojoman 157]

36 minutes ago, skeptic said:

frankly, it is unclear if we have a way around the SE.  

The SE is an employee of the council. The COR is a voting member of the council and can and should attend the annual business meeting and can participate in board meetings. If enough reps raise enough issues, the board should take action. Of course, raising issues is not the same as having positive suggestions. Discussions at district committee meetings might be a good place to start. Sessions at a U of Sctg can also be a place to encourage discourse to help find solutions to issues.  

[skeptic 997]

Sadly, the SE has finagled the board to his control more or less, and getting COR's to actually do their job is very hard.  In theory, they could fire the SE, but unless a cooperative wave occurs, that will not happen, and attempts to get a list of all of them has been denied as private, even thogh it should not be.  The President told me he would assure as many of them as possible would meet with him, but only time will tell.  I hope the President is doing a stealth maneuver.  Will see.  

[Ojoman 157]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Sadly, the SE has finagled the board to his control more or less, and getting COR's to actually do their job is very hard.  In theory, they could fire the SE, but unless a cooperative wave occurs, that will not happen, and attempts to get a list of all of them has been denied as private, even thogh it should not be.  The President told me he would assure as many of them as possible would meet with him, but only time will tell.  I hope the President is doing a stealth maneuver.  Will see.  

Of course, well trained leaders with strong, healthy packs and troops should be in a position to create their own unit culture/environment. It's been years but my sons cub pack only availed itself of the district training committee and daycamp. Beyond that it had a strong committee, did not allow dens larger than 8 youth and all leaders were trained and ran a 12 month program. Virtually 100% retention and annual growth. If the unit leadership doesn't see the district or council as being of value then call a parents meeting and build your own structure. My kids pack virtually rose from the ashes. Granted, it does take the right leadership to pull it off but I would encourage every unit to do this, even in a positive culture... it pays off. 

[scoutldr 732]

12 hours ago, skeptic said:

Sadly, the SE has finagled the board to his control more or less, and getting COR's to actually do their job is very hard.

In my experience, the Executive Board members are hand-picked by the SE and consist of mainly large donors or those with influence and connections in the community.  And National limits who the EB can hire from a list of eligible Professionals looking for a transfer or promotion.  It is not a transparent, independent process.

[Ojoman 157]

Depends on the council and the scout exec. Many boards are balanced with high profile people that lend their influence to expand the program and raise funds with program scouters that operate program related committees. Our council has a membership chairman on the board but no district membership committees... does that make any sense? We are poised to get a new scout exec in another month... we'll see what we end up with. 

5 hours ago, scoutldr said:

In my experience, the Executive Board members are hand-picked by the SE and consist of mainly large donors or those with influence and connections

 

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

21 hours ago, Ojoman said:

The SE is an employee of the council... If enough reps raise enough issues, the board should take action.  

 

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

Sadly, the SE has finagled the board to his control more or less, and getting COR's to actually do their job is very hard.  In theory, they could fire the SE, but unless a cooperative wave occurs, that will not happen, and attempts to get a list of all of them has been denied as private, even thogh it should not be...

Way back when, my SE and DFS told me how to manipulate the nominating process to get "pro-council" volunteers on the district committee. They were big donors with no experience, except as a youth or parent, on Scouting.  

As for firing a SE by the executive board, in my time I have seen that happen once. And he ended up in another council. Sadly BSA has a history of moving folks around or promoting them.

[OaklandAndy 70]

56 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Sadly BSA has a history of moving folks around or promoting them.

BSA already has a hard time retaining members/volunteers, let alone employees. Not surprised that it would be easier to displace the problem then get rid of it. I'm sure if it was a liability issue, yeah absolutely they'd be gone. But if they are just running a council into the ground, they'll move them elsewhere like you said. 

[Ojoman 157]

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Way back when, my SE and DFS told me how to manipulate the nominating process to get "pro-council" volunteers on the district committee. They were big donors with no experience, except as a youth or parent, on Scouting.  

As for firing a SE by the executive board, in my time I have seen that happen once. And he ended up in another council. Sadly BSA has a history of moving folks around or promoting them.

I guess the 'good old boy' culture is still around. It is still up to the selections committee to do their best to get the right person for the job. 

[Ojoman 157]

2 hours ago, OaklandAndy said:

BSA already has a hard time retaining members/volunteers, let alone employees. Not surprised that it would be easier to displace the problem then get rid of it. I'm sure if it was a liability issue, yeah absolutely they'd be gone. But if they are just running a council into the ground, they'll move them elsewhere like you said. 

I know of at least 3 cases where SE's were removed but that spans an over 30 year career. Doesn't happen often enough. Still, there are some very fine and competent SE's and councils that have them are fortunate.

 

[OaklandAndy 70]

12 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

there are some very fine and competent SE's and councils that have them are fortunate.

Our SE has a good head on his shoulders, it's more the DE's that continue to drop the ball more than anything. 

I also noticed that "good ol' boy system with the council volunteer positions....they want the title but none of the work. 

Edited January 22 by OaklandAndy

[Ojoman 157]

17 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

I also noticed that "good ol' boy system with the council volunteer positions....they want the title but none of the work. 

I always let my volunteers know that even though they were volunteers, others depended on them to do their job. I also made it a point to recognize them properly for their contribution to the district. The district committee or commissioner staff isn't a place to rest on your laurels and build tenure. Of course a district can always create an alumni committee for 'old or long timers' that want to remain affiliated but aren't up to performing for whatever reasons. They may be 'old and tired' but they 'paid their dues' and deserve a place at the fire... 

 

[scoutldr 732]

2 hours ago, OaklandAndy said:

Our SE has a good head on his shoulders, it's more the DE's that continue to drop the ball more than anything. 

When a team keeps losing, the first one to go is usually the Head Coach.  A good leader would make sure his subordinates are not "dropping the ball".

[SiouxRanger 491]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:07 PM, Ojoman said:

The SE is an employee of the council. The COR is a voting member of the council and can and should attend the annual business meeting and can participate in board meetings.

The SE is a paid employee. Yep. And paid well.  The COR's care not a whit. COR's are entitled to attend the Council ANNUAL meeting, but not the regular board meetings, which years ago, were held monthly, but now, apparently now only held quarterly (all to the dimunituon of the COR's level of control.

Attacks on the SE, like getting the SE fired, well, that triggers HUGE pushback. Area and Region level folks rise up. SE's are paid huge amounts. And those at Area and Region levels,. who are paid even more, stand up and protect.

I know these things.

And so, to amalgamate a voting winning body of COR's to unseat a SE? Good luck .(You will be hated,…)

Yet,

I have done these things.

 And, the price of doing so, is dear.

And I am-

Cincinnatus