CO Pack does not support CO Troop

[Scoutfish 16]

Yeah, I am in agreement with Twocubdad.

 

I'd like a scou to stick with his CO's troop over him leaving. I prefer it, but don't expect it.

 

BUT.....I'd only want a scout to do that if it was the best fit for him. All troops being equal, I'd like him to pick a home troop. But if another troop is the BEST fit for the scout for HIS reasons..then I think he should go there.

 

The only issue I see here is a bunch of pack leaders not allowing ( not that they have the power) their cubs to visit or see troops other than the one they chose for the cubs.

 

 

And buy what the OP said some parents used for the reasons - not wanting to rock the boat or upset leaders - is an example of intimidation and strong arm tactics by the current pack leadership.

 

Makes me wonder what happens when those leaders cross over to the troop...do they decide everything else for the scout too?

[Eagle92 110]

Well this is an interesting topic for me. As a DE I had a pack that essentially pointed their Cubs to a nearby troop instead of the COs troop. Part of the problem was that the Troop really didn't interact with the pack, part of it was personality differences between the pack leaders and troop leaders. Don't know all the details, but knowing the folks involved, I bet the troop's attitude that they should automatically come to us tied with the attitude that Cubs don't camp, as well as the pack's if you aren't goign to help us, then why should we send boys to you, and Oh yeas cubs should camp attitude may have contributed to the situation. Long story short the troop died, and pack died when leadership moved. It took A) new pack leadership and B) old SM going though ALL training again (he wanted to understand the new CS program which I think helps greatly)

 

My advice would be to repeat what others have said. Work with through the CO, get the parent's addresses and phone numbers to contact them directly, and most importnatly GET DEN CHIEFS involved!

 

I cannot stress the importance of using den chiefs.

[Kamelian 10]

John/KC: Yes, I'm CC.

 

2-cub-dad: we are ih process of evaluating our BS program to see what its past flaw are, trying to rectify them, but having such hostility and disinterest from the people in the CS pack who are under the same CO has been a little hard to deal with. A major boost in the right direction was the elimination of 2 adults and 2 kids who attended so infrequently that no-one amongst the active members knew who they were. One of those 2 adults was a trouble-maker in the unit, so getting him gone will be a big plus.

 

Eagle92: All we expect, and all we ask for, is the opportunity to meet these kids & their parents and for the boys in that pack to be given the encouragement to go visit other troops (and for the particular pack leaders to keep their traps shut about pushing the kids en-masse toward one specific unit). Invitations we've sent them have been ignored and/or we've gotten no response.

Virtually all the other troops in town have said pretty much the same thing: they get Cubby kids visiting their troops from all the packs in town - except from the one charted through our CO - and everybody keeps hearing about how all the kids from this pack (that's the brother unit under our CO) are being told to go to the Chosen Troop.

[John-in-KC 311]

Kamelian,

 

Thanks.

 

First, Scouting in a chartered partner should be synergistic: The Troop provides reach back support to the Pack, the Pack provides arms and legs for certain service projects (and training opportunities) to the Troop.

 

I first suggest a business cup of coffee with your IH and COR. Ask your IH to put it together. To me, your goal is to have a COR who wants to care about all the Scouting your Partner buys into. If your COR does not want to be supportive of the total Scouting of the Partner, offer to the IH to take on that job.

 

Next, as you stated, make sure the Troop is running well. Use all the resources available to you to make that happen: Training, roundtables, commissioner visits. If you Troop isn't running well, you don't have a leg to stand on to assert any privilege of claiming the Cubs. Get yourself ready to deploy Den Chiefs, to provide an ASM whose role is program liaison to the CM/DLs/Pack Committee (and he co-registers as a MC in the Pack), and to provide reach-back support.

 

Now, when your Troop is executing a good program, then it's time to have the COR call a meeting between the two CCs, the two CMs, and the Web I/II DL. At this meeting the COR lays down expectations. The chartered partner is the franchisee of record to the Council. If there are objections (and there will be some), it's time to get them on the table. Some will be valid; it's your job to fix those in the Troop. Some will be bogus: It's the COR's job to say "that's not acceptable." If there is flat out refusal by any leader, the COR can (not necessarily should) say "Thank you for your past services. You are no longer a part of Pack/Troop XXX."

 

It'd be really nice if the two sets of leaders did not need an IH/COR laying down the law, but what you have described is two units under the same partner not playing nice to each other.

 

Now, one last thing: Go look at the other Troops in the area. Objectively, assess how your Troop uses the Aims, Methods, and program materials compared to them. If they are the better Troop, of course families are going to want to join them. It's then your job to improve. If, however, you're doing the good things, make it be known.

 

I wish you good hunting.

[JMHawkins 15]

Hmmm, I don't know that I agree that the troop and pack having the same CO really matters. The Pack doesn't exist to support the Troop, or vice versa. Both exist to support the boys in the program, and who signs the annual charter shouldn't matter one whit to the boys in either program.

 

From the description, it may be that the Pack leadership is not doing the best it can for the Cub Scouts in the pack, and if you want to take that up with the COR, or IH, or the DE, have at it. But if you complain that they're not giving your troop a sporting chance to recruit from their cubs, eh, just let it go. The last thing you should do is contribute to the adult-led drama. Seriously, spend your time worrying about the program you put together for the boys in your troop. That's your job. Squabbles with the leaders of another unit doesn't help the boys in your unit in the least. If you're worried about recruiting, just pretend the Pack doesn't exist. What would you do then?

Where would you recruit boys from if there was no pack in the first place? Spend your time working on that instead of tilting at the windmills other adult leaders put up. Everyone will be happier, the units will be healthier, and you'll make better progress filling your roster.

 

 

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

I agree with Hawkins.

 

Running to the Institutional Head or Chartered Organization Rep isn't likely to cause anything but trouble. Most IHs aren't going to be interested in sorting out competing claims and few CORs are going to have the experience and expertise to do so.

 

I'd be looking around for alternate ways to recruit new Scouts. One of the best, in my view, is to recruit among 5th and/or 6th graders at elementary schools.

 

If you are smart, you'd propose a JOINT recruiting program with your Cub Pack and start worming your way back into their good graces.

 

I do recruiting for my Cub Pack in five elementary schools, including the Chartered Organization's paqrochial school.

 

In the spring I go to schools during lunch breaks and hand out stickers to K-4 grade boys to our pack recruiting night. I also talk to 5-6th grade boys and invite them to the Troop's recruiting night which can be held the same night.

 

Those 5th and 6th grade boys are good recruiting prospects. The council is happy to have 5th graders recruited into troops in the spring.

 

 

 

[Hawkrod 10]

I do think there should be synergy between the units under a single CO but I am biased because our CO BOD requires our units to work together. We do not require our Pack to be a feeder to our Troop and strongly encourage our Webelos to visit all of the troops in the area to find the best fit for them, not the best fit for us. The units do have a purpose and that is to further our youth program and therefore we do expect them to work together and we also expect the Troop to support the Pack by creating program for the Webelos to participate in, Den Chiefs, Doing service such as working Pinewood Derby etc... but in the end the boys will choose where they are going. This year we are feeding boys into several units. We had one AWL who felt strongly about one Troop and promoted their program and more boys went there than came to our Troop and that is okay as I am sure it will be a better fit for them. We let the boys decide and our Troop does not need to be end for our Pack. If the Pack leadership is picking where the boys are going through a bias and not allowing the Troop to participate then that is where the problem lies and if you have a CO that cares that is what should be addressed. We have both a successful Pack and Troop and both are very active in the community along with having many great leaders and programs and both could stand on their own and succeed but they are not independent of each other and they are expected to work together and support each other.(This message has been edited by Hawkrod)

[BadenP 93]

Look this has been bantered all around and the same correct answers have been given multiple times, to keep rehashing the same stuff seems counterproductive. If the troop and pack committee and leaders refuse to act like adults in solving this dilema then it is up to the COR and the CO to take and control and mandate change after all these units belong to them, no one else has that authority, period.

 

It really is so sad that adults who volunteer their time to help youth act like a bunch of children themselves. Where is the scouting spirit that should bring them together not drive them apart. IMO, after listening to Kamelian, it sounds like a few key leaders who are causing the problems need to step down, and only the CO and COR can make that happen. Otherwise this childish nonsense will just continue to escalate.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I agree with BadenP.

 

I got to this thread backward through the "loyalty" threads, eh?

 

To my mind there is a difference between a customer and an agent.

 

A boy or family is a customer. He's "purchasing" a scouting program with his time and money. No loyalty is due to the CO necessarily, and if he finds a better "deal" with a different troop he's free to pursue it.

 

But it's different for an agent. An agent has a duty to act responsibly in the service of the person or group whom he represents. And a unit volunteer like a Cubmaster is an agent for the Chartering Organization. There is a duty of loyalty there, includin' promoting the CO's vision and programs.

 

Now sometimes a conflict happens, eh? A Cubmaster might be both an agent of the CO and a parent acting as a consumer. As a parent consumer, he might feel da best choice for his family or son is a different troop. This is the sort of thing that's called a conflict of interest. The parent's interest as a consumer is in conflict with their responsibility as Cubmaster for a chartered organization.

 

Some conflicts of interest can be managed, eh? If the Cubmaster decides his son is goin' somewhere else, but has the Assistant Cubmaster promote the CO's troop, then that's an example of managing a conflict.

 

However, if da conflict of interest cannot be managed, then it is the absolute duty of an honorable person to resign the position which is in conflict. That seems to be the case here. The Cubmaster has an obligation of honor to submit his resignation as Cubmaster forthwith, rather than actively undermine da CO's program.

 

Absent that, the CO should remove the fellow. I'm sort of old-fashioned about things like honor, eh? I figure that a fellow who acts dishonorably should not be put in positions that require highest character. So personally, I think his BSA membership should also be forfeit. Practically speakin' that wouldn't ordinarily happen, of course. Just my personal feeling.

 

In any event, my advice to da CO is that they have an agent who is not representing their best interest, so they need to remove him. Practically, of course, I think yeh have the sit-down chat to educate, inform, and consider, just like everyone else recommends. But in the end, that is the bottom line.

 

Beavah

 

[JMHawkins 15]

Beavah, it's a good point about customer vs agent, but it sounds like this is one of those situations where the CO is more in the position of "doing a favor" for the units by signing their charters, rather than actively using scouting and the units as part of its own youth program. If that's really the situation, the units (and the leaders) might technically be agents of the CO, but for practical day-today purposes they're independant entities and the CO maybe wouldn't appreciate getting dragged into a spat between two sets of volunteers. They're just doing folks a favor, after all. Might be counterproductive to make them regret it.

 

If I was CC of the troop, I'd make my decision as follows: if the COR or IH asks me how the program is going (i.e. the CO is showing an interest in the program by asking for a status update), I'd smile and give them a list of all the good things, and then end by saying we're having a little trouble syncing up with the Pack, making a matter-of-fact observation that the Pack Leaders "aren't very easy to work with." From there, I'd play it by ear based on the COR/IH response. On the other hand, if the only time I ever saw the COR or IH was when it was time to sign the recharter, I would NOT say a word about the Pack-Troop squabble and just remind the COR that the Troop is available for Service Projects and ask if there was a time to meet and discuss things the Troop could do to repay the CO for it's kindness.

 

(edit: added an important NOT to the above - I would NOT say a word about the Pack-Troop squabble if the COR didn't proactively solicit information on how the troop was running).

(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

[BadenP 93]

JM

Unfortunately your answer does nothing to solve the ever growing division between these pack and troop leaders. Even if they are paper only COR's the responsibility to clear up this mess rests with them since the leaders are unable to resolve the dispute.

 

Maybe if units made a real effort to really get to know their COR and got them involved with their programs once in a while, and got them to attend committee meetings then many of these disputes would get nipped early on. Instead this kind of childishness among the leaders could end up with one or both of these units folding up or being tossed out by the CO.

[JMHawkins 15]

Unfortunately your answer does nothing to solve the ever growing division between these pack and troop leaders

 

So why is that a problem? And why would it be "ever growing" if the Troop leaders just went on with things not worrying about what the Pack was doing? I think people are getting hung up on the "same CO" deal when really, given the minimal level of involvment this CO seems to have (based on the description), that's just not an issue.

 

Would you say the same thing if the Pack was chartered to the local VFW hall and the Troop was charterd to the Rotarians?

 

Trying to get your COR more involved might really backfire, depending on the CO. Could be great, could be a disaster. It especially could be a disaster if the reason you wanted them more involved was to referee a squabble between grown men and women acting like High School Drama Queens. "Teacher! The cool kids won't let us hang out with them!"*

 

So, yeah, work to improve relations with your CO. The thing I mentioned about reminding an absentee-COR about Service Projects is a way to do that. But don't drag your CO into a dispute over recruiting access unless they're already highly involved and will recognize the negative impact on the kids such behavior will have. Otherwise, go on with your life and don't blow a gasquet, and especially don't expect everyone around you to blow one too, over what someone else is doing with their volunteer time. Do the best you can do for your program. Let other people do what they think is right for their program, even if you think your way is obviously better.

 

* (edit) : yeah, I know I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but if your COR isn't already highly involved with your unit, that's about what it'll sound like to him or her.(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, JMHawkins, I still don't buy it. The behavior of the pack leaders is still dishonorable. Regardless of the level of CO involvement, they are still agents for the CO. Put simply, if they do something bad it will be the CO defending them alongside the BSA.

 

Let's be honest, eh? Most COs are big, busy organizations and scouting is just one small part of their operations. A part that like as not is out of sight a lot of the time, off campin' in the woods somewhere. It's not really that reasonable to expect that the church pastor or youth minister is going to stay in close contact with 'em on their own. Those are busy folks. So it's the duty of scouters to do their part to stay in touch with the CO, eh? Scouters should behave like honorable agents, with personal integrity, and keep up their end of communicating with the CO. Not hide from the CO until you're forced to talk to them because of a disaster like a hurt kid or the treasurer is stealing the money. Then how will you look?

 

What yeh seem to be proposing is that scouters should not do their duty in that way, or worse, should lie by omission. So they should essentially try to steal the COs name, resources and exposure to risk so they can do what they want without being accountable to anybody. I don't buy it. Yep, if they do their duty and talk to the CO they might not like the result. But it's still their duty! We don't do our duty only if we think we'll get what we want. And yeh know, for every one time a CO responded oddly I can name ten times when the improved contact was a real plus for the unit.

 

Yah, would it have been better to be keeping the CO informed with positive stuff along the way? Of course. But yeh are where yeh are. Yeh do what duty requires as best yeh can, or at least yeh have da conversation to see if the CO cares about da issue.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BadenP 93]

JM

 

Ditto what Beavah said. You seem to still be missing the point, these units are not independent self contained entities able to do whatever they wish, they belong to the CO who are the ones liable should anything happen. In this case at the present time the CO is going to probably lose one or both of these units, and to say you should not get them involved is plain stupidity, not to mention a breach of the charter agreement.The obligations of a CO are spelled out very well in COR training, which should be mandatory for all COR's, and it is a whole lot more than providing a place to meet and signing leader applications.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Sorry, Beavh. I see you resort to the "agency" concept to be exagerated and not especially appropriate.

 

If a Scout troop isn't cutting the mustard with it's program and relationship with the Cub Pack, I'm not surprised the pack leaders are choosing to shop elsewhere.

 

I don't see any particular obligation of the pack to funnel boys into the troop unless they choose to do so. Can you show me some Scout regulation directing them to do so?

 

 

Of course, the Chartered Organization might require that, and they are entitled to do so. An LDS Pack that was dierecting youth to a non LDS troop would very likely be required to stop that practice.

 

But I agree with others that most Chatered Organization Heads are unlikely to be interested in refereeing disputes between their Cub Pack and Troop leaders.

 

As I've suggested several times in this thread, the answer is for the Scout Troop to shape up it's program and relationship with the Cub Pack and to EARN their loyalty and support.