Jump to content

- - - - -

Council spy?

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 Eagle94-A1


    Been there. Done that.

  • Members
  • 1992 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 01:25 PM

Maybe the system seems rigged because the Execs are influencing the big buck donors because the CORs are not doing their job and representing their units at the district and council level?


Yes I knew an SE who got the folks he wanted on the executive committee, but there were no CORs attending those meetings. IF CORs would be active, would represent their COs and units, it can make a difference.


Question for ya, if you are so anti-BSA and have another outdoor program with your CO, Why don't you tell the families they need to look elsewhere for a unit, or allow the unit to find a new home? I've seen what happens when COs do not support the program: the youth suffer in the long term.

  • 0

"Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt

#42 David CO

David CO

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 999 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 02:14 PM

The COR's in Chicago did try to show up in mass and vote down the execs handpicked slate of candidates.  After the COR's voted down the slate, national threatened to revoke the council's charter.  Trying to hold an honest election is an unforgivable crime in the eyes of BSA.


Other councils don't even attempt to hold a fair and honest election.  They just rubber stamp any slate of candidates the execs put in front of them.  Is it any wonder why COR's don't even bother to show up anymore?


Chartered Organizations aren't stupid, and we are not blind.  We can see what is going on.  The system is rigged.


Our CO provides a lot of support to our unit.  Our Athletic Department pays for most of the cost of the scouting program.  We basically provide a free scouting program to our scout families.


I don't think any of our scouts feel they could get a better deal with another unit or another Chartered Organization.

Edited by David CO, 10 November 2016 - 02:16 PM.

  • 0

#43 SSScout


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4057 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 08:08 PM

Owasippe.    Yes, that happened. But what followed?   The Council was rebuilt, the publicity was wonderful, the federal court case was unique, and Owasippe was ultimately saved as a camp ground. 

The CORs have the effect they can have.   Or they can stay home and let things happen.   Phone calls, publicity, "follow the money",  refuse to back down to bullies (even in Scout uniforms), enforce zoning regs. 

Sounds like politics as usual.

  • 0

#44 gumbymaster


    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 304 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 10:55 AM

When I became the cubmaster of the pack, I was introduced to the UC.  Our pack was strong, had great family involvement, strong Den leaders, and although I was coming off a 15+ year hiatus with Scouting, I was an Eagle, Camp Program Director, etc.


The new role was daunting, but it was a comfort to know there was someone I could go to if I needed to, as it was I didn't really; but it was nice when he would follow up with me.


As stupid as it may sound, there was a comfort in knowing that the UC was completely outside of the pack structure.  I would have a resource I could touch without feeling like I was letting the parents who trusted me with the leadership role down by not already knowing.


I have since taken the commissioner training, although I do not serve as a UC; I am a Roundtable Commissioner.


The first and most important think to note about the UC is that they do not have ANY authority over the unit.  They are not a Leader - as David rightly points out, the UC is not a leader selected by the CO, because they are not a leader at all.  They are not there to TELL leaders of the unit how to do things, they are available to answer questions about things if asked, and maybe suggest if appropriate.


Are they a spy - this may be semantics.  They would not consider themselves to be a spy, why would anyone volunteer for that job.  But they are a feedback mechanism to let the council determine if the Scouting program is effectively (or "correctly") being applied by the unit.  No franchising organization would operate without the feedback, it would be too easy for the franchisee to damage the reputation of the entire organization without it.  But mostly, they see it, as has been described above, to be a way to help the unit be better.


Some UCs are a little more aggressive in providing advice and guidance than they should be, but with the very rare exception (and those should be weeded out), they are there to help the unit be better.  If the UC is too aggressive, then the unit leadership should contact the district commissioner or the district executive (as most won't know who the district commissioner is) about changing the UC, and the DC can decide if the old UC should continue in that role or not.


Are they a toady?  Again, they probably do not see that as their job, but they are more likely, because they already know the unit, to be the one trying to promote friends of Scouting or other Council/District functions.  If I were the UC, I would try to decline some of this, but I would also try to make sure that the unit was at least aware of functions - particularly if they were not in regular round table attendance.


I expect that most UCs actually hate the tracking tools and metrics - they would probably just rather say high, and ask if there is anything the unit want's help with. But I think they also understand the value of being able to actually track, somewhat objectively how things are going - before a unit either from membership, finances, politics, or otherwise goes belly up by surprise.


Are the UCs actually needed?  This is a very circumstance specific answer.  For a unit with good support and leadership, they probably do not really see a need or value in the UC and get by very well without one.  Just like some other units can get by with almost no active involvement from their CO.  However, many more units, particularly in Cub Scouts with the shorter tenure of leaders and rapid turnover as a result; a good UC can really be that crutch that helps new leadership accomplish more of their goals.


I expect that beyond personalities, the other area where UCs and units get off on the wrong foot, and may be part of the perception of aforementioned spying, is that as BSA policies change, without a very BSA active CO, the UCs are in the best position to make a unit aware of the change.  Rightly or wrongly, the unit leadership takes this as being told what to do/or not do and does not like it.  "We've been doing it this way for 30 years and we're not changing now - now go and tattle on us to Council".

  • 1

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users