Charter Partner vs. Council on bad leaders

[Marcheck]

A unit has a bad leader (no recruiting, not using scout methods, no boy run troop, flaunting policies, etc.)

 

The charter partner wants the leader gone. The Council wants the leader gone.

 

So who moves first? Well, the Council says that the Charter Partner owns the unit, and therefore fires the person. The Charter Partner says that it is a Scouting program, and that if the Council agrees that the guy is a poor leader, why doesn't Council say "This guy shouldn't be a leader."

 

Both sides are scared. Period. Scared of "I'll sue!" and "I'll make a stink"

 

Frankly all this balogna about Charter Partners "owning" units is crap. When a charter partner drops a program, the Council rushes in to save it, and move it if necessary. This indicates that the Council sees itself as the custodian of units, and is unwilling to let them dissolve. For Councils to then turn around and say "you go ahead and maintain the integrity of our program for us" is nonsensical.

 

And frankly, many in the trenches DE's would agree. I know many who would love to be empowered to "fire" some Scouters. But the Councils won't support that. They tell the folks in the field to tell the Charter Partners to fix things. The Charter Partners then give the DE's hell for not exercising any "executive" authority. A game of hot potato ensues.

 

I feel sorry for the Charter Partners and the DE's. Councils need more guts on this one.

[EagleInKY]

Sorry to disagree, but I will. Can you imagine the politics and the mess if councils got involved with each individual leader problem. Just look at this site and the small sub-set of leaders that are here. We can all give you stories of someone who should have been "relieved of responsibility". If the council owned that responsibility, they'd need a whole division to administer it, not to mention the legal hassles.

 

However, by having it be the responsibility of the Charter Organization, they've pushed the responsibility out to those who are (1) closest to the situation and (2) have the most to lose and/or gain.

 

The charter sponsor needs to review the charter agreement they signed with the council. This spells out their responsibility. Included in that is the reponsibilty to recruit leaders.

 

Also, they don't have to think of it as "firing". Each year, the unit recharters. Leaders are rechartered at that time. If the CO wants a change of leadership, that is the easiest mechanism for making it happen.

 

As for your comment regarding council swooping in to save a unit when a CO drops them. Of course they should. They want scouting to thrive. If they don't step in to help out, then units would drop, boys would be discouraged and many, many scouts would never finish their scouting experience. I know in my own experience, our DE was a great help when we ran into problems with the CO. She "swooped" in and helped us find a new sponsor and now the unit is stronger than ever.

[Marcheck]

Sorry to disagree, but I do.

 

I know for a fact that the SE has stated that he thinks that this volunteer is "trouble" and has told each successive DE to "get rid of him". But this apparently means convincing the charter partnet to get rid of him. And all the talk in the world about charter agreements doesn't help the Dist. Chair, Dist. Commissioner, or DE when the IH looks them right in the face and says "but this is a SCOUT program and you are the SCOUT people, so what are you dumping this in my lap. Most charter partners have scouting more as a courtesy to the community and a sense of doing something nice for the town. When a new IH arrives in town, he or she inherits the Scout Unit already at their institution. They suffer it, as it were, to exist. If it goes, what loss is it to them. But to Scouting, its a serious blow. Scouting is the organization with the most to lose here, so Scouting should act. And we are not talking about petty disagreements among leaders. We are talking about a history of repeated wrongdoings by one individual. In such a case, isn't that the time to say "the Council, for the long term good of this program, is stepping in".

 

 

[EagleInKY]

We are talking about a history of repeated wrongdoings by one individual.

 

What type of wrongdoings? If they are of a illegal and public manner, then the Council would have it in their rights to deny membership (or maybe it's national). But, if it's just that the guy "has an attitude" and people don't like him. Well, that's clearly the CO's responsibility.

 

Think of it another way. Let's say you are an active CO with a great unit going. Your Scoutmaster has a disagreement with someone at the council (as probably all of us has done at one time or another). The council could step in and kick him out? Against your will? You gotta be careful about what you ask for.

[Marcheck]

But....

 

The CO is ASKING the Council to remove the person. No one is in disagreement that the guy has to go. But the CO wants Council to say "you're outta here". If the Council can't do that, then, guess what, you have a CO that thinks that Council is useless, the CO will not act (and maybe dump the whole program), and Mr. No-Good-Leader laughs it up with his buddies about how "no one can touch him" and "they're all afraid of me."