Trouble in Unit Commissioning.

[Twocubdad]

Understood. That was the point of my last paragraph. But I'm talking about fairly limited situation where an intervention is warranted. If the CO and unit leadership is adamant that they are "fine" as the unit circles the bowl, there's not much that can be done. For someone to get involved with a unit like this, there needs to be the consent of the CO and the remaining leadership AND a clear exit strategy.

 

This is getting off topic, but if we're rethinking the role of the commissioner service, maybe we should think outside the current rules and constraints. It may not be "our unit" right now, but if I show up with an adult application and an offer to help, it can be my unit real quick. The boys whose unit is about to fold don't care if my other uniform has silver shoulder tabs.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[eisely]

An interesting thread. I have to admit that my experience at the district level is limited. My general impression after fourteen years as an adult volunteer is that there are serious disconnects between what happens at the unit level and what happens at the district level, and the weakness of the commissioner program is both a symptom of and a contributory factor to that disconnect.

 

A few simple thoughts:

 

I like BW's idea of making roundtable primarily a responsibility of the training staff.

 

I would like to see more information about commissioners and what they can do for a unit introduced into the new leader training. Commissioners should also be urged to attend that training, if only to drop in to meet the new adults over a break time in the training and help them feel welcome. As a new leader, if you do not know that commissioners exist, and their names, how are you to know how to use their assistance?

 

I don't know if the kind of overhaul that BW is suggesting is necessary. There ought to be fixes short of that kind of thing that people could identify and implement.

[Eagledad]

We have been suggesting more training at the RT for several years, but the professionals have resisted it because RT is designed to hand over the next months themes and program features. This year our Training committee started something new, we now teach Scout Leader Basic Fundamentals at all the RTs. This was design to try and fix the confusion of the new Scout leader Training program. We wanted unit leaders to know they can start the first step of adult training by sending their leaders to RT. We also set in stone all the other Scouter Specific training every forth month on the first weekend so the unit leaders don't have to search for a training schedule to know the next training date. That also includes Youth Protection and First-aid. We will add other classes like water safety and needed classes as we get better. The only control we don t have is outdoor leader training. If we did, that would be the second weekend following the specific training. How much easier can it get?

 

Anyway back to the story, when Council found out that we were doing Scout Leader training at RT, they brought it up at the Council Training meeting to debate the idea off. But when we pointed out that we had 40 participants at the normally slow December RT and more than doubled the RT, the debate went the other way. Our February Scouter Specific Class last week was the highest numbers since the new training program started a year and a half ago. February is seen as a low training month because it's before the crossovers for troop leaders and after the Fall Cub training. Needless to say, Council is watching now.

 

Now, in my view, RT has to change with the culture. We are now a fast paced society with little time for a RT designed to review monthly themes. I think the switch has to be changed to training and unit guidance to improve programs. Personally I'm not sure there is any kind of real future with RTs anymore, but I'm willing to feel out different ideas. I can tell you adding training sure has made a big difference for us. Good suggestion BW

 

Barry

 

[Bob White]

Actually Roundtables have two equally important goals. It is to give unit volunteers THE WILL TO DO and THE SKILL TO DO a quality scouting program in the unit they serve. The use of monthly themes is one vehicle used to accomplish those goals, but to share the theme is not the purpose of Roundtable.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[acco40]

Our district actively recruits unit commissioners from within the unit (not my preferenceby the way) and they see one of the commissioners primary duties as a liason for the unit to the district/council.

 

My opinion is that the district was having a very hard time recruiting unit commissioners and felt that a unit member from a healthy unit (who determines if a unit is healthy is a good question) is better than no commissioner at all. The lesser of two evils I guess.

 

I plan on goingto my first "commissioners college" this fall. Any pointers anyone?

[Eamonn]

In some other threads, I have touched on some of the points that Bob White, has brought up.

However, it seems to me that the District Committee is in place to do a lot of the stuff that a new unit or a unit in trouble may need.

It then becomes the role of the Unit Commissioner to bring these needs to the attention of the Assistant District Commissioner and or the District Commissioner, who report to the District Committee.

So there is a unit that has a problem with Advancement, we dispatch the Advancement Chair.

On the District Committee we have covered most all of the bases. So we have the people who are ready to help and I would like to think are the best in their field.

One of the things that I think we do wrong is give the Unit Commissioner too much to do, most of it has little or nothing to do with being a commissioner.

Why are Commissioners doing FOS ?

If we look at the Commissioner Field Guide, and were to stick with what it says we would have Commissioner Service, that would blow our socks off.

I do however agree that we need to move Round Table Staff over to Training.

[Twocubdad]

The district committee people may have a role, but I think a troubled unit needs a "primary-care physician" who knows the unit and can call in the specialists as needed.

 

There is some excellent material in this tread -- I'm glad you guys bumped it. The comments regarding mentoring new units are right in line with what I've been saying in the other threads recently. The only place we differ is in that I would go a little deeper to rescue the troubled units. Unfortunately, the ones I've seen fold usually take the boys down the tube with them.

 

Eamonn, in our district, commissioners tend to serve as casual labor for the district committee. Anytime the committee needs a labor force, they turn to the commissioners, whether it's a real commissioner function or not.

 

One thing which could benefit the Roundtable Commissioners and the Roundtable program itself would be a standardized monthly program from national. It could be like the monthly program themes in that it could be implemented whole or in pieces. But it wouldn't need to be as structured as the Program Helps themes, rather more of a continuing education-type program. Whether you are a Tiger or Venture leader, if there is are significant changes to either program it would be beneficial for all leaders to have a five minute training on the changes. To me, this is the kind of thing I think of as supplemental training. (And I'll be the first to admit that the RTC's may already be receiving this kind of info. But it certainly never hits the street at our roundtables.)

[jbroganjr]

Good discussion BW. Before I get to my suggestions, though, I would not be too hasty in putting down former leaders of a unit. How about the ASM or SM whose son has moved on, or the need to find some other way to do scouting when one is fed up with working with adults in a unit.

 

Eagle Dad, our RT program is based on 5 minute intervals, as it is my observation that todays society is so used to that frenzied blitz of information. Announcements, you get 2 minutes tops.

 

unit commissioner: I agree that it has to be a revamped education and training, to add the benefits of the commissioner and to get the commissioners more active. (I was trying to suggest this in another post). The UC's though, should not just be limited to new units. A dynamic ADC or UC presentation at RT on the benefits of their service to existing units. The role of the UC should be shouted from the mountain top that they are there for more than charter, FOS and Popcorn.

 

Round Table - maybe it should be set smack in the center of training and commmissioner service and its emblem a bridge. It is essentially serving both masters here. And, in many cases the RT commish is the only face to face commissioner contact with scouters, especially with the phantom numbers game with UC to unit ratios.

 

The UC exansion into venturing is still in the baby step phase. (There's girls in scouting? was actually heard from a UC at a commissioners college this year) And with the expected growth of the venturing program, the same old problems with a new face will arise that need a commissioners touch.

 

i would suggest a commissioners contract, between the DC and the ADC, UC or RTC, spelling out the job, the training needed, the time commitment and other pertinent info. Both get a copy and this could be used to put at ease those seasoned suspicious unit leaders.

 

Question, How did this negative perception of commissioners arise anyhow? I have only met, for th emost part, dedicated commissioners. Folks w/axes to grind don't last long and those in name? well while they do no good, they do no active harm.

[matuawarrior]

BW, Great Thread.

 

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm really interested in what you wrote in your original post.

 

I'm also the Roundtable Commissioner for my District out here. I started last November. I like the idea that the RT's should fall under the Training Committee, it makes sense to me. Unfortunately, I'll be leaving this position this Fall and concentrate full-time with my units.

 

I like your idea of Scouting Mentors. The position title itself right-a-way tells everyone your there to help out. The six month plan sounds good. Will that include monthly or quarterly evaluations to help the unit out?

 

It all Sounds good so far.

 

Matua

[Overtrained]

As always BW, insightful.

 

I agree that RT should be under training. As for the rest of your suggestions, I have reservations, but am leaning your way.

 

You state the UC's "come from the unit they are commissionng... or Some come from unit former leaders. Hey, there is a reason why they are FORMER. Either they weren't good at it or they burned out"

 

All to often this is the case and sad it is. But what is being done to change this? It seems the commissioner is happy with bodies in positions - quantity vs quality.

 

We are trying in my district to spread the philosphy of 3 years per job. It is taking time, but the jest of it is that do your job for three years and after two, start planning for your next. Some of this has been discussed on a thread about tenure.

We have recruited some UCs who are former leaders. They are FORMER because evryone knew they'd become a UC before they burned out and they were recruited before that. There are many more committee members out there who'd make excellant UCs too that need to be recruited.

 

Bob, your plan does have merit and is worth further investigation. My concern is that in the mean time we aren't even attempting to recruit commissioners the right way, but trying to get bodies.

 

Bob H

[LittleCarl]

BobWhite is absolutely correct that the UC is broken.

With due respect, however, the Commissioners can be as "good ol' boy" as the paid staff. As Overtrained observed the goal seems to be "bodies" or names on charters and not functional UCs.

Example: My CR and my UC have been UC for no less than 5 different packs/troops. Two packs now exist on paper only and a third is now considered a "scoutreach unit." Their response? They come to my pack (closing on 40 active) and my troop (10 active) and complain about our paperwork and about the DE.

What has the DC done? He admits the 'King Midas in reverse' effect these two have BUT, they are warm bodies and show up for all the award ceremonies! "They're nice people..."

More training for the volunteers may help the movement but won't fix the UC. More UC training is futile if they're dead wood.

[dsteele]

I must admit I'm less than thrilled at the tone of the previous few posts, but agree with the sentiment.

 

I for one, would rather have active unit commissioners in fewer number than to have ineffective unit commissioners who grouse about "council" whatever that means, and specifically about their DE.

 

If folks have concerns or complaints about their professional scouter -- which is a commissioned person and not the secretary answering the phone in the office -- they should take it up with his/her supervisor who is also a commissioned professional. If they don't like the way the phone is being answered in the office, they should ask for the office manager -- who is probably not a professional Scouter.

 

DS