How to remove a committee chair?

[momof2cubs]

Maybe I should spin the thread..but I just have a quick question. Who is the IH? If it is a church affiliated pack, I imagine it is the priest/pastor/minister/preacher. But if it is the school? Or more accurately, the school's PTA? Is it the PTA president then?

[BadenP]

momof2

 

IH= Institutional Head, who ever is the top person in the chartering organization, president, pastor, head of the lodge, or what ever is used in that particular organization. They basically are the ones who can commit the CO's property usage and finances, and sign the charter agreement with the council.

[SeattlePioneer]

An appropriate ceremony is needed to mark the ritual firing of a Cubmaster, Scoutmaster or Committee Chair.

 

Here the ceremony I recommend:

 

[Beavah]

LOL. I like da idea of a firing ceremony.

 

momof2cubs, in da case of a PTA, yes, it would be the case that the PTA president is the IH.

 

BP is 110% correct on this matter, only the IH and COR can remove a person, the committee and the unit leaders have no vote in the matter.

 

Nah, this is 50% wrong, not 110% right.

 

Practically speakin', the procedure for removing someone is the same as the procedure for appointing someone, eh? Essentially, it's just appointing a replacement. When yeh appoint a new CC, the old CC is removed. There's no form, after all, for "removing" a CC.

 

The BSA recommended procedure to appoint someone is that the COMMITTEE makes the selection (by consensus or by vote or by lot or by the Holy Spirit), and then the COR approves the selection (or does not approve, and sends it back to the committee). So the committee in most circumstances certainly does have a vote in the matter. In fact, there are relatively few COs that do things more centrally.

 

So while it's true that a COR or IH can act unilaterally, and it's true that they do need to approve of a change, it's also true that CORs and IHs generally set up da normal procedure to be that the committee decides. I think yeh would be hard pressed to find a single unit where da COR acts unilaterally in an average district.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BadenP]

Beav

 

Come on now you know better. A committee can appoint someone to a position, but the COR or IH has to approve it and sign the adult application or they can tell the committee to find someone else, so who has the true authority?

[Beavah]

Ah, BadenP. You know me. I reckon it's the people that do the work who control the outcome most of the time, eh? And that's the committee.

 

We all know most units don't have very involved CORs & IHs.

 

Besides, from a group dynamics point of view, I think CORs are well advised to involve da committee in the process most of the time. Transparency and buy-in are good things.

 

There are of course times for a COR to exercise full authority, but that should really only be in da worst of cases.

 

Beavah

 

[BadenP]

Beav

 

Why it may work that way in some or even many units, a committee better make sure they are doing it by the book when getting rid of a CC otherwise there could be all kinds of legal and liability hassles against the unit and CO. Then you watch the COR and IH get involved and deliver some frontier justice. I saw something similiar to this case happen to unit when I was a DE and the COR and IH dismissed all the committee and closed the unit, what a mess.

[moosetracker]

HA! Semi-vindicated Thanks Beavah.. Im not totally crazy, remembering those old VCRs.

BadenP, I agree with you that the COR has the final say because it is their signature on the recharter.. So I guess they could put up a rule that no one hires or fires any position, and place themselves as the sole person who hires & fires. Or as in the case at our unit, our COR, retained the right to choose the SM & CC (the two head positions), but the committee voted in the rest of the positions..

 

But I know unless policy changed then the old VCR training put out by National was not bogus, and I have heard time and again the CC on the organizational chart is above the CM/SM because they have the right to fire them (which I know not to be true, it is more that they can act on a committee vote to fire them).. In fact when I was a CC I was told I had the power to get rid of a SM that was not following BSA policy on safety.. It just seems that the committee can also replace the CC if there are problems & you have a COR that is not involved.

 

With most units I know that when they are filling a vacancy, normally the COR just accepts the selected candidate from a committee vote, unless they have personal misgivings about the individual.. But, as stated, if it is forcefully removing, that is not something you do not want to blindside a COR with, but make them aware of the situation and double check that they will support the committee..

 

Now Beavah, the part of HOW the committee goes about removing a person from a position was more guesswork, because BSA always trains for how to run the perfect troop, that is running smoothly and never have issues.. They do not train for how to fix a problem. What you say makes a lot of sense. That you dont vote to fire, you just vote in a new replacement.

 

[BadenP]

Moose

 

No not really, Beav is talking about what sometimes happens in the field when the COR and IH are nothing more than signatures on paper, but the committee can only recomend action to the COR not fire anyone themselves, according to the regulations of the BSA.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[Beavah]

Nah, BadenP, even with a good, active COR. The committee makes a recommendation and the COR usually rubber-stamps, unless there's a real CO interest in the matter. All da BSA materials talk about after all is COR "approval." Nuthin' anywhere about "disapproval."

 

I think one of the things that's happenin' in a couple of these threads is that units are doin' things like appointing old CC's to da COR position (without real understanding what they're doin'). Then the COR becomes a defender of "the way I used to do things" rather than really being the representative of the CO's mission and values.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Scoutfish]

It still comes down to this: The COR and CO are the ones with the authority and power. Period.

 

The COR may be really cool, really egfficient , or really understanding and just sign off anything the committee asks of the COR, but that is still theCOR just being accomidationg. Or maybe even playing around with the committee's ego,

 

But the only power the committee has is walking power. They can leave if they don't like what the COR does...but that's it!

[moosetracker]

So Scoutfish - What you are saying is that the COR runs the whole program, and the Cub Master, Scout Master, Committee Chair and all committee positions just do what they are told.. The CM & SM can make not program decisions with out their approval, and the CC & Committee can make no decisions about how to organize activities, or insure that the CM & SM are running the program to an expected level of standards and are not continuing to make promises & plans for events then break the promise..(but then if they are not running a decent program it is not their fault because the COR is not pulling the correct puppet strings.)

 

Also in the world of buisness if you are not the CO or President of the company, you might as well hang it up, because your job at the company is worthless.. The VP of finance can not hire or fire their employees or do anything without direct orders for the CO or President of the company, Human Resource can not hire or fire, The Head of the IT department doesn't really run any thing, and on and on.. Because the CO or President of company could come and disagree with their actions..

 

So because the Head Honchos have veto power over all, no one else has any ability to make any decisions about their departments at all..

 

Hmmm... Interesting concept.. It's Good to be King!!!

[Eagle92]

Moose,

 

Every position is important and serves a role. What folks here are trying to say is that ultimately the IH DOES has all the power to hire, fire, or even dissolve the unit.

 

I'll give you some examples.

 

I had one IH who no longer wanted to be affiliated with the BSA and informed us that he would no longer charter the pack they had. Came out of nowhere, and we had folks scrambling to find a new home for the pack. As the DE, I tried to explain how things worked to alleviate his concerns. No dice, he didn't want to be associated with the BSA. The COR had no say in the matter, and the committee and leaders had no say in the matter. IH wanted the pack dropped, and it happened.

 

Another pack had someone willing to step up and be CM. COR would not approve the person because he had no scouting background. COR believed that CM should have some scouting background prior to being CM.

 

[moosetracker]

Eagle92 - I am not arguing that fact.. my very first post in this thread stated A little more difficult is the committee can vote them out.. But, you would still need your COR to back your decision, because your COR can reinstate them with the stroke of a pen..

 

This means from the get-go, I knew the COR could trump a CC vote.. But if you have good reason and the person your want to get rid of is not him or his wife or whatever, A COR is going to accept the will of the majority.. Or, suffer a very angry, frustrated Unit until they do fold due to inner turmoil..

 

If you have at all read the thread about the Tour Permit, where the guy wants to go to SeaBase, bumped heads with the CC then the COR and both will not budge, so now he wants to either have the committee vote the CC out, or move the unit to a different CO.. I have constantly been telling him, that the COR will not accept the committee vote, because the CC is supporting the decision of the CC.. and whoever walks out, goes without the units numbers or assets because they all belong to the CO..

 

But, the COR is not the only one doing the hireing, it is the committee chairs job to find the people to seat in the positions needed to have a smooth running troop, and it is their job to guide them to improving the way they do the job, and the committee has the right to oversee the program and make sure it is running correctly, per the BSA policy and the CO's policy and in some cases with some policies they vote in due to answering issues they have had in the past, be it theft of funds, setting the amount to charge over & above rechartering fees or whatever..

 

No, the committee can not do whatever they want by vote, and trump the COR who is against a decision.. But, neither can the CM or SM run whatever program they want, be it raising the bar too high, or too low, or boring the scouts to death if the CO - COR - or Committee calls him on it.. Still it is considered his program.. And still the CC can look for Adult leadership, and bring it to the committee for a vote of approval, and also can fire (or replace as Beavah points out) leaders who are not working out unless there is some reason the COR/IH will not support their decision..

 

We all do our jobs, and if something comes up that someone feels is not the right move, we are called on it, we correct it, and we move on.

[BadenP]

 

"The COR USUALLY rubberstamps it" - Beav

 

That statement is a slippery slope Beav especially if the COR takes his responsibility seriously. You have no reports that support your claim other than some personal experience from a couple of units many years ago, in other words you are making a huge ASSUMPTION based on very little data. As I and others have stated here and in the COR training the COR & IH have final approval or disapproval of all unit volunteers a committee wants to bring in or let go. Dem are the facts, and if a unit committee is not following those well established policies they themselves could be dismissed by the COR/IH, and I have personally witnessed that happen in a unit whose committee acted a little too big for their britches. Anyway Beav I am not going to lose any sleep over this issue, lol.