Scoutmaster works for the Committee Chair?

[BadenP 93]

This has pretty well been beaten to death, look the CC is the head of the committee and whose purpose outside of voting in committee is to break a deadlock when one occurs. The SM/CM reports to the committee monthly on the progress/program of the unit but does not work for them. The COR is a rep of the CO who signs off on volunteers or can remove them with cause. You guys do realize that the only adult dual registered position in the BSA is the CC/COR, which indicates the CC is more than just a committee member. Now for a reality check, how many committees ever see the COR at their meetings, very few if any I bet. Ego's do get in the way of effective unit leadership, and sadly committee members tend to be the least trained in any units adult leader roster. All adults are there to give the kids the best program possible, any of them who are there for personal gain or glory should be removed ASAP plain and simple. No one works for anyone else, each adult has a specific function to perform and working as a team to keep the unit program flowing smoothly, period.

[jhankins 10]

In my one hour a week as a unit commissioner, I not only report my unit online to the DC, but to the CoR as well. I give him a call about once a month, fill him in on issues, and invite him to the events I attend.

 

It's not in the job description, but it certainly helps. The COR is now going to step in as CC to solve some issues the committee has had recently (That's a whole other thread!), and it's productive.

 

According to the diagram for Cub Scouts, the CM does indeed report to the committee. That position is the program arm, with the committee acting as the administrative arm. I don't see any leeway in how that can be interpreted.

[acco40 95]

The COR is a rep of the CO who signs off on volunteers or can remove them with cause.

 

I think they can remove them without cause too.

[BadenP 93]

ACCO

 

Why would a COR remove a volunteer without cause or reason, that makes no sense just like your post. Need to think before you write dude, lol.

[ScoutNut 147]

They can remove any one they want for any reason they want.

 

The reason does not have to be a good one, it could be purely that the CO does not like a parent or a youth.

[Gunny2862 11]

At the risk of continuing a Tangent,

If my COR shows up and asks me to step down, "Thank you very much, hope you've found some one to fill the position and are going to continue to carry the program." and "May I continue to serve in any other way?"

 

If the CC comes and says the same thing, "Why?" and "Um, have you talked to (redacted name - the COR)?"

 

I give status updates(reports) to my CC all the time, we are not however in a Senior/ Subordinate relationship.

I give a lot of weight to his suggestions, in this case he has been a SM before although there were several SM's between he and I. On the other hand, I do feel free to move in a different direction than he suggests at times - I'm running the program, he's running the logistics.

He's a great guy and if he wanted me out and even to be the SM again he could, but even though he and the COR are VERY tight and have had a much longer term relationship - he'd have to CONVINCE the COR why it would be a good idea to make that swap.

 

Scoutmasters do not work for the Committee Chair - they work WITH each other.

Scoutmasters AND Committee Chairs BOTH work for the boys under the auspices of the Chartered Organizational Representative on behalf of the Institutional Head thanks to the support of the Chartered Partner of the Boy Scouts of America.

[BadenP 93]

Scoutnut

 

Did you even read what you posted? If a COR has a reason to remove a volunteer, he can, but the clue is there has to be a good reason to justify it otherwise he is just handicapping the unit. You need to have some logic in your post so it will make sense, yours and Acco's did not. Gunny gives another good example, you could learn from his scenario.

[NeilLup 13]

Hello BadenP,

 

With respect, I believe that you are correct logically but probably not correct technically. I understand that the SM, CC and other adult leaders serve "at the pleasure" of the chartered partner and the IH whose representative is the COR. While you are correct that arbitrarily removing or replacing an SM, CC or other leader is likely handicapping the unit, that doesn't mean that the IH or COR can't do that.

 

I believe that there probably also is no law against shooting yourself in the foot. It's just that it really hurts and you have to limp afterwards. Same sort of thing.

 

But I don't believe that the COR or IH need to have or state any reason to anyone to make such a change. It is courteous, kind and friendly to have and state a good reason, but it is not required. The only exception MIGHT be if the removal violated the rights of a member of a protected group i.e. if the COR said "We refuse to have any Asians or any African-Americans in our unit." But the institution certainly can say "We demand that all leaders be members of our institution." I believe that an institution can say that they want all their leaders to be male.

 

Not in any way saying that it's a good idea. But I believe that it is permitted.

[ScoutNut 147]

And you have NEVER heard of a COR who would handicap a unit for personal reasons?

 

You keep stating the reason has to be a good one, and that it must be justified. That is certainly the optimal way it works, but it is not the only way.

 

There are some tin god control freaks out there who don't really give a fig how their actions affects the boys, or the unit.

 

Is it right - no. Does it happen - yes.

 

A Charter Organization, and that means the COR and/or IH, because it owns the unit, can release anyone from their unit membership for ANY reason - good, or bad.

 

 

 

 

[acco40 95]

BadenP - a COR should not remove a volunteer without cause. A COR may remove a volunteer without cause. No need for me to get a clue, reread what I posted or garner further logic. It's quite simple.

[BadenP 93]

ACCO & Scoutnut

 

The illogic of your statements is quite humorous, why would any COR remove anyone without reason, can they is not even relevant to the discussion at hand. Most COR's are intelligent and logical enough not to interfere with a smooth running unit or for a personal vendetta. Apparently some forum members have trouble following a logical thought process through, instead relying on illogical innuendo to make their point.

[ScoutNut 147]

Oh good grief!

 

And apparently some have a problem with "A Scout is Courteous"!

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Baden,

 

Acco and ScoutNut are right. If the IH/COR of a chartered partner want to be arbitrary and capricious ... if they want to remove a Scouter from participation under their charter ... they can ... for any justification or for no justification at all.

 

That does not mean what they do is right, it simply means they can do it.

 

You've been around these forums long enough now to see some of the antics pulled by people. We're human, after all ... and from the way I read the Good Book, that makes all of us fallible and capable of silly/ridiculous things.

[Stosh 3452]

The Scoutmaster doesn't work for the Committee Chairman, he volunteers for the boys. Once one figures that out there seems to be a lot less hassle and politics floating around.

 

As soon as the political winds start blowing about who works for whom, then it's time to pack up and go find a troop where the boys have need of a volunteer adult to help them run their troop.

 

Stosh

[moosetracker 132]

This is all interesting from a personal perspective.

 

Our troop is loosing boys going to other troops, due to our scoutmaster. Other boys are trying to stay, but the parents say there boys after a troop meeting, have broken down in tears over the actions of the SM and how he is ruining a once great troop, but feel helpless. five more members are ready to jump to other troops if things are not fixed. All events are promised but never materialize due to the SM tasking the boys to arrange the events with no guidence, and blaming the lack of going due to disorganization on them. Advancement is not required. The meeting is basically games like capture the flag.

 

The SM does not want any help from the committee, and will not tell the outdoor committee or anyone else what is going on so that they can help.

 

The boys have asked the committee to replace the SM. Our unit commissioner think he should be replaced. The committee has agreed he should be replaced all but the CC & COR. Not that they think he is a good SM, but because they don't want to hurt his feelings or the feelings of his son who is in scouts.

 

So, the two of them came up with their own plan. The CC (not the COR) is tagged with speaking to him, and they decided it best to run the troop around him and the committee is taking over parts of the troop meeting. They are moving the JLT to a different time so the committee members can go and guide the boys etc... Yes.. I know .. bad, bad, bad.. Problem is those who are suppose to now work around the SM, have been trying to support and mend fences for the SM for the 1 1/2 years he has been in the position, and are tired of it and already see it a failure. They are tasked with it, but are not gung-ho for it.

 

It's funny because the SM knows something is up, and is avoiding the CC trying to set up a meeting with them.. For weeks he has been dodging her.. That in itself is comical.

 

Anyway yes the COR rules, the CC is next in line. So if they want to fix the troop or sink the troop, it is their call. All that is left for those who don't like the way it is run is to relocate to a different troop/pack/crew.

 

But in my opinion it is the boys troop, and if they are asking for the dismissal of the SM, that is major. We should be listening to them.