CO Pack does not support CO Troop

[JMHawkins 15]

Beavah, BP,

 

I did say that if "...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." It is absolutely reasonable for anyone - especially someone well-versed in what Scouting ought to look like - to inform a CO if they think leaders of a unit that org has chartered are misbehaving. But if the centerpiece of what you think they're doing wrong is making it hard for you to recruit their scouts, maybe you aren't the best person to make the case to the COR, especially if you haven't fostered a strong working relationship with the COR already. Kamelian isn't a disinterested third party. If there was a long track record of working well with the COR, it would be far, far easier to make this presentation and not come off as simply self-interested. As it is (at least as it appears to be through the lense of the Internet), the COR would be forgiven for thinking "The Pack Leadership wasn't a problem with this Kamelian character until they didn't go along with his (or her) ideas. Hmmmm, wonder who's really engaging in un-scoutlike behavior here?" Without a track record for the COR/IH to go on, it's a bunch of extra (unpleasant) work to research the situation to see if there's really a problem, or just a few Drama Llamas who can't get along.

 

And in the realm of responsibilities you have to your CO, you do have a responsibility to run the program the way the CO wants you to, so long as it's within the bounds allowed by BSA (and the law). If the CO shows no inclination to get involved in the unit and doesn't seem overly receptive to even helping you recruit from the orgs membership (as evidenced by this story), then that's an indication they may want you to run it without taking up any more of their time than absolutely necessary.

 

I'm not saying don't bring the issue up to the COR, I'm saying think it through a whole bunch first. Have a plan, and be prepared for negative outcomes. Complaining to the COR is definitely escalating the disagreement. Don't do that unless you're prepared for the consequences, one of which could be the COR chucking you out as CC for stirring up trouble. Or dropping it's sponsership of the Troop, or maybe of both units, leaving a scramble to keep the programs from folding. If the behavior of the Pack leadership is bad enough to risk those outcomes, then have at it. But if it's not, then just let it go.

 

Let me go back to something I asked earlier. If the units had two different COs, how would you advise Kamelian to handle it? Approach the COR of the Pack and say "Hey, I just thought you ought to know..."?

 

One other thing - I don't think anyone has mentioned a Unit Commissioner. Well, if it's like our district, maybe there isn't one. But isn't this really an idea situation for a UC, at least as the first-line of help?

[Lisabob 13]

A while back, I was working with a pack that was struggling to recruit leaders and was in danger of folding. Despite having a good recruiting base in an area where scouting is popular, they were having a hard time getting adult leaders to step forward.

 

I happened to know that their CO also sponsored a troop in town, and that the troop was large, active, and had a lot of extra adults hanging around. So one of the first things I asked was "what about asking the troop for help?" And I also went to the troop to request that they lend a hand.

 

I sure got an earful about how disconnected the pack and troop were. On one side, pack leaders kept telling me how the troop was never around for them, didn't respond to requests for help/den chiefs, etc., didn't invite their webelos to events, and so on. On the other side, I mostly got "we have a brother pack????" None of the adult leaders knew each other, across the pack/troop divide.

 

Happily, the pack was able to recruit some new leaders (though not from the troop) and the troop also started inviting the pack to do some joint activities, webelos campouts, etc. Several boys from the pack crossed over into the troop and for the last few years, those cross-over parents have helped to strengthen and maintain ties between the units.

 

What's the point here? Personal relationships matter more than having a CO in common. In both cases, the pack and troop relations with the CO were practically non-existent (and that was how the CO wanted things). Many leaders in both units weren't even sure who their CO is/was (the CO since folded - I'm not aware of any efforts to relocate the pack & troop so that they could both be sponsored by the same new CO).

 

Maybe that's an extreme example, but actually I don't think it is. I can name a BUNCH of units where leaders, themselves, are barely aware of their CO (esp. at the cub level where parents aren't as familiar with the BSA structure and just want to lend a hand with Johnny's den) and have no idea whether the CO also sponsors other BSA units. Expecting leaders to feel special warmth toward another unit in a whole different part of the BSA program just because they share a CO on paper, seems naive.

 

Now if it is an active COR in a small organization (say, a church, where most of the unit members are also CO members and they see each other in both a scouting & CO context frequently, like Scout Sunday) then matters could be different - but we shouldn't assume that's necessarily the case.

 

[BadenP 93]

I think this is yet another case where unit leaders want to keep all the power to themselves and not involve the CO. Even if the parents don't know you can bet the troop and pack committees know who their CO & COR are and have chosen to keep them in the dark while not even attempting to try to resolve this issue with each other. In reality according to the charter agreement the unit committees do not have the authority to exclude the CO, active or not, and who owns the units, from becoming involved in this situation. The end result could be the CO tells both units to go elsewhere.

[Eagle732 27]

And this is why out troop recruits directly to the Webs bypassing the pack leadership if at all possible. Send invitations to open houses and activities by mail but never send it to just the CM or DL. Most have their own agenda and don't know when to stop being Cubby leaders (sometimes even after the boys cross over!). Other than that there's not a lot you can do about it other than have a troop program that attracts boys and try and get the word out.

 

We have started putting more effort into recruiting at local churches, another way to bypass the Cubby leader games. Unfortunately this is the reason why we loose Webs instead of crossing them into troops.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Lisabob's post provides a model description of the root causes of these kinds of frustrations between Cub Pack and Troops, and the preferred method of how they should be resolved.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

One wonder why the Scout Troop hasn't contrived to appoint one of its own as Chartered Organization Rep over the years....

[BadenP 93]

SP

 

You and others obviously misunderstand the relationship between the CO and its units. These problems exsist because a new pack or troop will run to any organization and tell them sponsor us, all you have to do is sign some papers and let us use your building and we will do the rest. Honestly this is just plain fraud on the part of these leaders who are LYING to the potential CO in the first place, and then gripe when the COR has nothing to do with the unit. This scenario unfortunately is probably true for over 80% of the scouting units in the BSA. The council should be the first to correct this before they approve any new unit application, but since they are only concerned with numbers they do not bother to tell the CO what really is expected of them. So in essence the system itself is broken and the leaders are as guilty as the council of allowing this miscommunication and noninvolvement of the CO to continue.

 

Then the leaders scream when a council sells a camp and can't get their COR to go to the council meetings and evoke their voting rights to stop it, it is their own fault. Any leader who complains that their CO/COR has nothing to do with their unit has no one to blame but themselves for not developing a relationship with them or maybe selecting the wrong CO in the first place. If the unit leaders do not take it on themselves to correct these things they have no right to COMPLAIN in the first place.

[John-in-KC 311]

I've spent a lot of time these past several years reading Lisa, and she I.

 

Her post describes something pretty good: Two units, under the same partner, who work through the differences.

 

What I see in the OP's message is different, from a perception: I do not see leaders in the units able to play nice with each other anymore

 

Beavah's model of adult as agent, though, has a point of breakdown as well: If the units are running well, then each has an agency obligation to the other. If the units are operating poorly, then there are other problems needing fixing before folks can expect the units to work together.

 

Kamelian, have you assessed your Troop? How does it support the Aims and Methods of Boy Scouting?

[BadenP 93]

John

 

You just missed the point alltogether once again. It does not matter if the leaders are squabbling, someone is going to have to shape up or go and that decision, if neither unit wants to go get a new CO, is up SOLELY to the COR/CO.

[Beavah 205]

Beavah's model of adult as agent, though, has a point of breakdown as well: If the units are running well, then each has an agency obligation to the other.

 

Huh?

 

Yah, hmmmm.... Agency is an important concept, eh? It doesn't work in da way you suggest. More like a "know who you work for". Like a real estate agent needs to understand that they work for the seller, not the buyer.

 

Unit leaders for the pack and da troop are agents of the Chartered Organization, not each other. The Chartered Organization is responsible, in a very real sense, for the actions of their agents. You are acting in their name and for them, eh? You are acting as them.

 

Granting someone agency, the right to act in your name and on your behalf is an act of deep trust. Yeh put your welfare in their hands. In return, da agent has the deepest legal and moral obligation to act to the benefit of, and in a manner that would be desired by, the person who trusted them in that way.

 

It ain't the same thing as "a pack and a troop should be nice to each other". It's "this organization trusted me to be the best possible youth leader to act for its benefit and mission" and thereby gave me privileged access to other people's children in their name.

 

If yeh can't, because yeh don't believe in the values and mission of da organization, or because yeh have a conflicting obligation to someone or something else, then it is your duty as an honorable and trustworthy individual to resign your position.

 

There's nuthin' ambiguous here, no two-way or three-way balancing test. You've been entrusted with a special relationship, one that in some very real ways puts da existence of the CO and its mission in your hands. That comes with a duty to act in the CO's best interest and direction.

 

And if an agent isn't acting in a way that brings credit to the CO, the CO absolutely should be involved in resolving that situation.

 

Now, all that being said, yeh have to look at da circumstances to determine what the best way to go about that is, eh? And the best way to educate da pack leaders, who are no doubt acting out of ignorance rather than malice. Tread gently and respectfully, but always in a way that's mindful of where da obligations really lie.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Beavah,

 

 

Your claim that there is an agency relationship between Scouters and the Chartered Organization is interesting, but I don't see it myself.

 

To be an agent the person must be specifically appointed and the powers delegated to him must be declared. Nowhere does that happen.

 

There is a written contract between the CO and the council, but none between the CO and Scouters that I recall seeing.

 

The unit charter itself is granted to the Chartered Organization by the BSA subject to the rules and regulations of the BSA.

 

Perhaps you can explain your claims by addressing these objectuions.

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

I'm not Beavah and I'm sure he'll speak for himself (though with that funny rodent accent, I'm not sure if we'll understand him!). But there is something to what he's saying about agency.

 

Seattle - if you look at the process for choosing unit volunteers, the CO plays a crucial role - they sign off on adult volunteer applications. This is where the CO is giving their approval to that individual to act as an agent of the CO - saying "yes, you can be a leader for our scout unit." The CO also has the right - at any time, for just about any reason - to remove a volunteer from a leadership position. Why? Because, as Beavah points out, we as leaders are agents for the CO. We work for them. This is why the COR position is (at least on paper) a very important one in any unit. It is the main way that the CO exercises its influence over the program in its units.

 

The breakdown for me is that many COs are so out of the loop that they simply do not know who their volunteers are, what is happening with the program, etc. Many CORs are on-paper-only, some are actually appointed by the unit committee itself for the simple convenience of getting things signed within a reasonable time frame. Or COs who sign leadership paperwork on people they've never even met. That's ok I guess, if the CO has a strong relationship with the SM/CM and CC (who can be trusted by the CO to screen adult volunteers for all other positions), but when the CO doesn't even know those folks, it becomes problematic.

 

And many COs seem happy to have this minimal relationship. Which works fine for a lot of units, until all of a sudden it doesn't. Then they have an irritated CO that doesn't understand why they are being dragged into the mess, and irritated volunteers who don't understand why a hands-off CO is all the sudden "dictating" to them, and often dictating in ways that maybe don't make a lot of sense on the ground because the CO has been so far removed for so long. Some COs would rather dump their scout units, than deal with a mess, which is bad for all involved.

 

But Beavah is right that, at least in a technical sense, volunteers are agents of the CO they "work" for. And that's true even if the volunteers themselves don't know it. But then, nobody should expect robust agency in a situation where the CO doesn't know its agents, and the agents don't realize their own agency.

 

John-in-KC - you're right, there's a difference between badly behaving leaders, and leaders who just don't know each other, and who, therefore, don't give each other the time of day. But the latter could be misperceived as the former, too. In my previous example, the pack in question had been funneling their boys to a different troop (different CO) for years, actively encouraging their boys to go to that troop. Their "brother" troop with the same CO might have easily perceived that as malice.

 

And I don't think an otherwise uninvolved CO is likely to fix the latter problem easily, but intentionally building personal relationships across units could.

 

 

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Lisa, quite rightly said:

 

"...but intentionally building personal relationships across units could."

 

That is the ultimate point.

 

This is all about people. People working together. People working together,

--- in units,

--- in their Chartered Partners overall vision

--- in their Districts and Councils.

 

90%+ of Scouting is volunteer. We do this because we want to. It has to be personally rewarding at a fairly high level, because we all can easily fill the time we give to Scouting with other activity.

 

Lisa, you're right, I may well be mis-interpreting lack of communication for malice and forethought. The result is the same, units do not play nice together. The good thing about lack of communication is a little, just a little, low-level effort solves the problem. Units not playing nice from malice and forethought need adult supervision.

 

My thoughts.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Lisabob,

 

 

I have no disagreement with the facts you present.

 

But is it reasonbale to suppose that when the relationship of many units to their CO is so loose to call the unit leaders agents of the CO?

 

 

I found the following description of legal agents on Wikipedia:

 

Law of agencyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

For other senses of the word "agency", see Agency (disambiguation).

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual, or non-contractual set of relationships when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

 

Agents and Principals;

Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and

Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on their behalf.

The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium, facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in Criminal law or Tort for the acts or omissions of another.

 

 

 

Personally in such a hands off relationship, I don't see much of an argument for considering the unit leaders as agents of the CO ---- they are more closely and explicitly bound to the BSA and its rules and regulations.

 

 

Chartered orgabnizations are certainly free to assert themselves whenever they choose. But I don't see that unit leaders owe the CO the duty of loyalty that has been suggested.

 

 

[BadenP 93]

SP

 

"Then I don't see that the unit leaders owe the CO the loyalty that has been suggested."

 

 

Seattle, then you don't really understand how the BSA works very well either. Without a CO your unit can not exsist legally within the BSA, thats the main point. I agree that mending fences is a worthwhile goal of the leaders in this case, if they can not come to an agreement then the CO is required to step in and take action. This can include cutting their relationship with one or both units forcing them to find a new CO or to disband entirely. Bottom line, the CO is the one taking the risk and putting themselves on the line, as we have seen in the case of the dead Florida scout, it is their reputation on the line as the legal owner of the units if a unit does damage or conducts themselves in an unscoutlike way. So you do owe your CO your complete loyalty as well as making sure you have a solid working relationship with them. You are always free to find another CO, but the one you have you owe the units loyalty completely.

 

Case in point, there was a cub pack who bounced around from CO to CO in town until the leaders got the reputation of being so dishonest and disreputable that no church or organization would touch them. The leaders of the pack tried to set themselves up as their own new CO which the unit and district commissioners brought to the attention of the SE and council commissioner. The SE met with the on record CO who told him what these leaders had done and why they would no longer be their CO. Under the charter agreement rules this CO with the support of the SE and council seized all the packs assets, and dismissed these dishonest leaders. The DE had a parents night, explained what had occured and recruited new leaders, gave the pack a new unit number and a new start, and now they are prospering. Those prior leaders were charged with embezzlement, theft, property damage, endangering youth, and other assorted charges.

 

Bottom line- Make sure you have a good working relationship with your CO, include them in your activities, and make sure your COR is made to feel a welcome part of your unit, you owe them that much, and they owe you their full support as well.