Committee Chair and ASM

[dancinfox]

If the CC and the rest of the board of review uses the resources that follow what questions should be asked at the approiate ranks, their is not a problem. Even if the cc or cm goes out camping with the youth, if they follow the logic of a board of review ie: it is a review, not a test, then there is no problem.

[LauraT7]

please excuse my 'still wet behind the ears training'; but in our committee members training this spring - i thought it was emphasised that the CC and any CM's would be welcomed on a board of review. Only a SM or ASM would not, and that is because they sign off on a different part of a boy's advancement - the individual requirements. it would not be fair to have them approve or deny a boy from both directions. the SM and ASM make sure the boy knows and meets the criteria of the rank - the knots, safety requirements, service hours and other technicalities required.

 

The board of review's purpose is to find out the boys attitude toward scouts, the troop and his role in it. Does he know what his new rank means? and is he ready for the reward and the responsibility? As far as involvement with the Troop and the boys, in campouts, activities and even merit badge work, I would think that a CC or CM would be serving the boys well to be as involved as possible. So he can "see" the boys attitudes and relationships in person.

 

A boy's "presentation" of himself at a BOR is not the only criteria for passing him to the next rank - some boys will never be comfortable in that situation & some boys are great "actors" and can present a good impression when they haven't met the criteria. But the BOR gives the board in question a chance to talk to the boy, and (with the boy out of the room) to discuss other things about the boy as well. His behavior at all scout funtions and at all times has a bearing on the outcome of his passing his board of review. If the CC and CM's are not involved in troop activities, how could they know if a boy has meet the "scout spirit" and other intangible requirements of advancement?

 

I think the question originally was, Can a ASM also be a CC AND serve on a board of review? I think the answer would be that an ASM should not serve on a BOA if there is any other alternative. (some troops are tight on volunteers) Especially if he has signed off on some of the boy's rank advancements. he could serve as CC - possibly sit in on the review, to guide and provide input - if he abstained from voting.

[denver4und@aol.com]

Bob White had the right line, but didn't read it right. The "unit leader" is the Scoutmaster. No one else. There is no prohibition agiainst a CC also being an ASM. You register as one, and perform both. The prohibition is only for the Scoutmaster because it isn't right to give the power of both positions (SM and CC for example) to one person.

 

On another note for all of you dealing with "scout lawyers". There is a provision that says that Scoutmasters and Asst. Scoutmasters do not vote on the Troop committee. Really, there is. So be careful. After one particularly bad episode, I started to register all my adults as Committee members, and then have those that I approve as ASM's wear an ASM patch.

 

This way, we are sure that no one is excluded from a meeting. We actually had an assistant district commissioner come to a troop committee meeting unannounced. he then informed me (as SM) and all registered asst sm's to leave the room. he and the disgruntled few held a meeting in which only one other person attended who was registered as a committee member. The meeting ended when the 'outsider' asked the discontents one question: "ok, so we kick out the SM and the ASM's tonite, and which one of you takes over as SM tomorrow?"

 

I know there were many things wrong there, not the least of which is that only the chartered organization "hires and fires" the SM.

 

But the point is, why the legalisms? Got a good guy. He wants the headache of being CC while camping and performing as an ASM. GO FOR IT, and try to find 3 more!

 

jim

[yaworski]

"This way, we are sure that no one is excluded from a meeting. We actually had an assistant district commissioner come to a troop committee meeting unannounced. he then informed me (as SM) and all registered asst sm's to leave the room. he and the disgruntled few held a meeting in which only one other person attended who was registered as a committee member."

 

That doesn't sound Kosher. For one thing, the CC is in charge of the meeting, the DC is only there by invite. Secondly, unless a person involved with the troop is being disruptive, he has a right to be at the meeting, even if he cannot vote.

 

We've gone through the "who can vote question." If you stick to the rules, there might only be one person who can vote on anything at a given meeting. Our Troop decided that all adults registered at leaders or committee members get one vote. So far it has worked.

 

 

[Bob White]

denver4und@aol.com,

Sorry Jim, I have to disagree. The instructions for rechartering that the councils recieve in writing from national say "one person-one job". the only exception listed is for the charter organization rep, who can also be listed as a committee member. (which makes no sense to me because as the COR they are already a member of the committee).

 

I grant that the terms unit leader and adult volunteer and registered adult are often tossed about interchangably in the GTSS, but according to the charter documents from the BSA it's one person has one job within a single unit.

 

Bob

[eisely]

Bob White,

 

Help us out some here. As with you, I have always understood that the COR was always a member of the unit committee. Registering twice as COR and CM would seem redundant.

 

More importantly in September I will be teaching the unit committee portion of "position specific training" for a three district training event. The new syllabus is totally silent on the COR. The COR doesn't even get a mention and is not included in the list of committee positions described in detail.

 

The new Committee Guidebook that I just purchased states in Chapter 8 on meetings that, "Occasionally you may want to invite guests such as your chartered organization representative and unit commissioner." The Guidebook similarly does not mention the COR in its list of committee positions.

 

These two publications seem to place the COR outside the committee. For what it is worth our COR regularly attends committee meetings and he has been quite helpful. We consider him to be part of the committee.

 

This is not the first time that I have found apparent contradictions in various guidelines.

 

Your thoughts?

[Twocubdad]

Bobwhite;

 

Doesnt the book say you cant be "registered" in more than one position in the same unit? I thought the primary purpose of the policy is 1) to prevent someone from registering as both SM (or CM) and CC and thereby avoiding some of the checks and balances, and 2) to keep units or more likely councils from cooking the membership books. It seems to me what we're talking about here is registering in one position and functioning in others.

 

In my humble opinion, if everyone is strictly limited to performing one and only one function, the whole organization collapses before breakfast. I have a closet full of different hats I wear.

 

[Bob White]

eisley and twocubdad,

I agree there seem to be some inconsistencies in how the COR is refered to in the Troop Committee guide. The says the COR is the "head of the scouting department" then puts him in the District committee but not in the troop committee, puts him/her on the charter with a scouting title (COR) and allows him to dual register on the troop committee. It seems redundant to me.

 

As far as the notion that limiting people to doing one job within a unit is the kiss of death, I don't buy it. I have never seen a pack whose problem was that they had too many registered leaders. I have seen a lot of packs that failed because of lack of help. When you have people playing hatracks it causes problems. Burn-out causes premature loss of leaders and then others are unwilling to pitch in because they saw how overworked the person was and how miserable they were. It also creates dynastys and egomaniacs. Now that's the kiss of death!

 

One person one job in a unit makes sense and builds stronger units.

 

Just my experience,

Bob White