Troop CC selection

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Trying to find a solid answer to this has been daunting. Assuming that you have an IH that wants to be involved. Is it proper for the COR to meet with someone who has volunteered to be CC and turn them down? I have always been under the impression that approval of the CC was the place of the IH, assuming they are active. What is the proper method of installing a new CC and does anyone have any BSA references other than the job description that says they are appointed by the CO?

[AlFansome 10]

If the IH has a problem with the COR's decision, then he/she can always replace the COR, since the CC reports to the COR who reports to the IH, strictly speaking.

 

If you look at the Adult Leader Application, it needs to be signed by the "chartered organization head or representative", so either the IH or COR can sign the app....it's up to the IH as to how it's handled and who has the ability to sign the apps and approve the leader.

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-113.pdf has more info. From page 4 of this document:

 

"The head of your organization must approve

all adult leaders and committee members,

or this task may be delegated to you. This

approval occurs once at the time of initial

recruitment, again each year at the time of

rechartering, and whenever adult leaders

change registered positions, such as from

committee member to den leader."

 

 

 

 

[The Blancmange 67]

I don't quite understand the question. Are you saying the COR and CC are not on the same page and the COR wants to reject someone that the IH wants, or just that the IH wants the COR to do the leg work.

 

If I recall correctly, the troop committee training suggests that the unit committee, or a leader selection sub-committee be involved in interviewing and recommending candidates to the IH, who has the ultimate authority. If the IH has delegated this to the COR, then he/she would make that call. There is a brochure entitled "choosing unit leaders" or something like that which has some guidance as well. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I just recall seeing this with the other literature available at our service center.

 

Sorry if this doesn't exactly answer your question.

 

 

[qwazse 4345]

Bottom line: the IH and COR(s) need to be on the same page with respect to the adults they let lead the units.

 

If one of them feels uncomfortable with the selection, the issue is probably a non-starter.

 

Of course, you have the right to get both of them in the same room and have a sit-down so you understand everyone's thinking before you spin your wheels to suggest another adult leader. Don't expect to get an answer you like -- just a little more clarity so this doesn't drag on for many months.

[ScoutNut 147]

The BSA states in numerous sources (04-113 above, COR training, new unit organization, etc) that -

 

"The organization head appoints a Chartered Organization Representative, who serves as head of the organizations' scouting program"

 

An involved Charter Organization, and an involved IH, means an involved COR. The COR is appointed by the IH.

 

As the "head" of the CO's Scouting program, selecting a Committee Chair is one of the COR's responsibilities.

 

"Your first responsibility, then, is to get the best possible person to chair each unit committee."

 

As has been mentioned, if the IH does not trust the COR choices, or how the COR is dealing with the CO's unit, the IH should meet with the COR to fix the situation, or replace the COR with someone who will do a better job of representing the CO.

 

I also do not really understand what the underlying problem here is.

 

Are you the IH? Do you feel that you should be doing the hiring and firing yourself, and are upset that the COR took on that job? Did you disagree with the COR's decision on that volunteer, and want him/her in the CC position? Have you talked to your COR?

 

Are you the prospective CC who was turned down by the COR? Do you feel that you were wrongfully turned down for the position? Do you feel that it was not the COR's place to turn you down? Do you feel that the IH would have accepted your application as CC? Have you talked to the IH?

 

Are you the COR? Do you feel that the IH is trying to put you in the middle? Do you feel that the IH is trying to foist off his responsibilities on you? Have you talked to your IH?

 

 

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

Is it proper for the COR to meet with someone who has volunteered to be CC and turn them down?

 

It can be, sure. Many IHs would delegate that responsibility to the COR. The IH has final say on everyone, even if a signature is not required. He or she can turn down a choice for treasurer or den leader, or could appoint someone as Scoutmaster over the objection of the COR and CC. I'd suggesting treading a little more lightly, though.

 

The COR works for the IH, and serves at the pleasure of the IH. The COR and IH really need to be on the same page.

[Hawkrod 10]

Oak Tree is right on the money. If the program has been handled the way it should be (that is always the challenge isn't it?) then the COR is the one who would aprove or turn down a leader. The COR should be a member of the CO and is given the basic responsibility of managing the operation of the unit. It is the COR's job to make sure that the unit is performing as the CO wishes. The issue of the IH can be different in different units because of the structure of the CO. In our units I am the COR and I respond to the Board of Directors and not specifically the IH who changes yearly (most of the BOD sits for multiple years which gives a good footing) and does not have a vote in how we operate the unit. In a church there may not be anybody in the CO besides the IH to make the decisions. Basically the COR is the person who would make the final decision and if you don't like the one they made, you first appeal to them to change their mind and if that fails, you go to the IH to see about changing the COR (and if they are a real COR, good luck with that!).(This message has been edited by Hawkrod)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, Pack212, your post is worded a bit funny, but I'll echo some of da others in responding to what I think are your questions.

 

Is it proper for the COR to meet with someone who has volunteered to be CC and turn them down?

 

Absolutely. That's what should happen, eh? Yeh don't get a post just because you volunteer. The BSA Application is just an application. It can be rejected. To my mind, a COR absolutely should meet with a candidate for CC and discuss the program and its philosophy, and if the person doesn't seem like the right fit should say no.

 

I have always been under the impression that approval of the CC was the place of the IH, assuming they are active.

 

The COR is always the voice and proxy of the IH. So da approval of the CC would ordinarily be done by the COR, just as for all other positions. Now, an IH may choose to get involved directly, but that's an internal CO matter for the IH and COR to work out. Most IHs are busy people and choose not to.

 

What is the proper method of installing a new CC and does anyone have any BSA references other than the job description that says they are appointed by the CO?

 

Da process recommended by the BSA is in the supplementary module on selecting unit leaders. The COR convenes a working nominating committee to propose candidates, they do so, then proiritize the candidates into first, second, third choices. Then they meet with the candidate(s) and make a recommendation to the COR for approval. Most frequently, the nominating committee for an existing unit is just da regular unit committee.

 

Keep in mind that that is just the BSA's recommended procedure, eh? It is not binding on the CO at all, and many COs use different procedures, including religious calling, election by the troop committee, direct appointment, etc. Even with the recommended BSA procedure, the COR is free to reject the nominating committee's recommendation and ask them for another, or dissolve them and form a new nominating committee.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[infoscouter 11]

Referenced items in this thread can be found here:

 

Selecting Quality Leaders Supplemental Training Module:

http://scouting.org/Training/Adult/Supplemental/SelectingQualityLeaders.aspx

 

Selecting Quality Leaders pamphlet

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/18-981.pdf

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Thanks for the responses. It's a sensative issue and I'm not sure if it's a can of worms that we really need to open with the IH at this time. Basically, there is a group of Scoutmasters that want to make sure they remain in control....they are not happy with the last CC forcing some changes upon he troop (such as being able to use Scout accounts instead of paying out of pocket, among other things), so have managed to get their own choice appointed for COR. Now they are trying to get one of their own into the CC position.

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

Pack212, that does sound like a real can of worms. From my perspective as SM in my troop, I find that very disappointing as I have worked hard to get the troop and the CO working closely together. Kind of the opposite for me as well, as I have worked hard over a very few strong committee objections to get camperships installed in the troop.

 

I don't think I want to comment about your position as it is obviously a polarizing one and quite sensitive.

 

Good Luck.

[Crossramwedge 10]

Ah the politics of scouting. Seems like these boys are carrying the hammer. Did the IH appoint the COR or was the COR "Appointed" by those that be in power? Some sort of Committee? Our IH is so busy that he basically says the the COR's decisions are final. He is happy to just get updates now and then.

 

Either way it looks like you are going to have to go to the IH and voice your concerns. The COR will probably be the one choosing the CC. You want answers and the only one who would be able to step in and answer your questions would be the IH.

[Beavah 205]

there is a group of Scoutmasters that want to make sure they remain in control....they are not happy with the last CC forcing some changes upon he troop (such as being able to use Scout accounts instead of paying out of pocket, among other things)

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

Why would a CC ever try to force something that the SM and all or most of the ASMs don't want?

 

Sounds like bad behavior on the CC's part. Maybe a group of parents tryin' to end run the SM to change da program? In that case, the scouters did the right thing, eh? Went to the IH, got a new COR installed, and the COR is makin' necessary changes on the committee.

 

Beavah

 

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

Beavah, I disagree with you (which does not happen often ;-) ).

 

There is just not enough information to suggest the CC was bahaving badly. In fact, based on what was said ("...Scout accounts instead of paying out of pocket..."), it seems to me like th CC was trying to develop some improvements in the troop. What do the SMs have to do with scout earned camperships? That is a committee issue, and something that parents probably want and should improve participation. Of course I can't speak about the "other issues".

 

The committee, led by the CC should ensure that the SMs are delivering (facilitating) BSAs expectations. If they are not and are "holding on to power" then it suggests the SMs are out of line. Hope I am not stepping on your toes too hard.

[Beavah 205]

Not at all, Buff,, it's just a discussion. I have tough toes .

 

I agree that loosely speakin' the topic seems more a committee thing than not, though it's hard to say, eh? How kids earn money and such becomes a program thing.

 

My point is a different one, eh? At the point when the CC is trying to "force" anything on the SM and all the ASMs that none of 'em want, that's a recipe for disaster. Doesn't matter if the intentions are the best, doesn't matter who's "right". At the point when yeh start doing that you're showin' a lack of faith in and respect for the folks who are putting in the most time and energy to the program.

 

There's only a few possible outcomes to that, eh? You're going to end up without a SM, or you're goin' to end up with a new committee chair, or you're goin' to end up without a troop.

 

The end doesn't justify the means. And the proper means are that the committee discusses things as a group of responsible adults and works through to build consensus. The CC doesn't "force" anything on anybody. And in a dispute, the CC and the SM need to be on the same page and have each other's back.

 

Now of course we're both just tryin' to read whole chapters into Pack212's half-sentences, so I reckon neither of us quite gets the real deal.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)