District Leader Restrictions

[1963Eagle]

Can anyone tell me the precedent for the ruling by our SE that "NO SM or CM can serve on the District Committee in a Chairman role"? Seems to me that the District Committee should decide who serves in what positions, not the SE. AM I off base here? Is there a rule I don't know of (I am sure there are lots of them, but this is the one I am concerned of today) Are there other Councils that have similar SE rulings?

 

YIS

[Eagle92]

1963Eagle,

The SE or his designee has to sign off on the leader applications. So if he doesn't want a SM or CM to be a Dist. Chair., he can do it. To be honest the District's NOMINATING committee actually handles who fills what spot on the DC, with the outgoing DC voting for or against the slate.

 

To be honest I think your SE is right. Further I would not advise a SM, CM or Crew ADV./Ship Skipper to hold ANY major district positions. My reasoning is that these are key, direct leadership roles that have a major impact with units. Since these guys do have such an impact, it's best that they concentrate all their efforts into their units. But that's my opinion.

[Eamonn]

As far as I know we don't have such a rule in the District I serve.

But.....

While I agree wholeheartedly with your SE.

I'm not sure that I like the way it sounds that he is going about it.

The nomination and selection of many District Committee Members lies with the District Nominating Committee.

In the District I serve the Nominating Committee takes care of the District Members At Large.

The Membership, Finance Chairs.

The District Key 3 take care of the other positions.

The Council Commissioner selects the District Commissioner and the District Commissioner selects and recruits his/her Commissioner Staff (Who are not supposed to be Unit Leaders.)

 

When I was District Chairman, I would never ever select a Scoutmaster, Cubmaster or Venturing Crew Adviser to serve as a member of the District Committee.

My feelings were that these people have a big enough task on their hands without taking on added responsibilities.

I also feel that as one of the roles that the District has is to support the units, taking a leader away from his /her unit responsibilities (The Unit) just seemed daffy.

How can a District Committee serve and support the unit if the people on the committee are unit leaders?

It just doesn't work.

The most important adults in a District are the adults who serve the youth. (Unit Leaders)

This is where the rubber meets the road and where the youth receive the program.

Just about everything, if not everything the District does is to support the Units and the Unit Leaders.

Eamonn.

[1963Eagle]

When I started this I was concerned that I'd be "recognized" and "outed" for opposing the SE. (Like that would be a surprise to HIM!) Allow me to give some specifics.

 

We have had NO District Chairman for 16 months (the previous chairman was weak) effectively we have NO District Committee. A good meeting would be 5 in attendance (2 SMs, 1 CM are regulars). In that same time period we have had THREE DEs. The latest one having never been a Scout/Scouter and still trying to figure out who has what roles.

The folks that want to restore the District are: 1. A retired military person, who is also a retired business man and has almost 50 years in Scouting. 2. A retired factory worker who has 30+ years in Scouting.

 

They are aware of the commitment of SMs and CMs, but no one else has stepped forward to take the reins! FINALLY the SE sets up a "nominating committee" made up of non-scouters and former Scouters who are his friends. A "nomination form" goes to ALL District Committee members. FEW nominations come in, the two mentioned SMs are mentione several times. The SE informs the nominating committee that he "doesn't want SMs or CMs to serve in any Chair" these names are never presented to the District Committee, in fact they are not even given to the entire nominating committee!

The "Slate" is presented as if to say "This is who you WILL have as your chairs" and we see names of people most have never heard of.

 

I hope I have been clear here. Yes, I have a vested interest. BUT, as a retiree I have FAR more time available for working with Scouting than the average person does. I have the resources for my troop to run as smoothly with me gone as with me present. The CO insists that they want me to STAY as SM, if only for the expertise. Yet I have far more time to give. I have been asked to chair countless projects and events, and been successful wth everyone, yet I am told "As an SM you are too busy to hold a District Chair"

 

OK, those are the facts as I see them. The istrict is all but dead, and the SE refuses to allow experienced Scouters to take the reins and try to revive it.

 

(Note to Eagle92: The SE approve my application a LONG time ago, one does not fill out a new application when moving into an additional seat.)

 

[Eagle92]

Actually for any position, even multiples, the SE or designee has to approve. Only exception to this is if you are already on the charter and are moving around within the unit, i.e. SM to ASM, DL to ACM, etc. So if you are an ASM with a unit, and you get put into a district committee position, i.e. OA Chap. Adv., then you need to fill out another application.

 

Just a question, so don't take personally, but how strong is your unit in that could one of your ASMs take over as SM and you step down to ASM or a MC? that way you could be eligible for a position. Under the SE's requirements. TRUST ME being on the Dist. Comm. WILL take time away from your unit.

 

 

 

 

[ScoutNut]

Your District is not dead. A District is an area of land. No more, no less. It can not "die".

 

A District can run well enough without a full time DE for a spell. There are others at your council who can, and will, fill in. Also, since the DE position is primarily a sales position, it is not required that they have any past association with Scouting in any of it's forms.

 

Your District might be having problems getting volunteers, and might not be functioning very well, but that really should have no impact on the units that are within it's boundaries.

 

A BSA unit is owned by its CO and operates it's own program. If it relies on it's District for ALL of it's programing then there are problems in that unit that need fixing ASAP. You are not locked into attending ONLY the activities of YOUR District or even your Council. If another District/Council has a training, an activity, or even a Roundtable, that you want to attend as an individual, or a unit, then by all means - go right ahead.

 

It is very obvious that you want on your District Committee. The question I have for you is why? Your Troops CO has stated they want you to be an ACTIVE SM, not a SM is absentia. Yet, you insist that while you realize you might not be able to give the SM position your all ("I have the resources for my troop to run as smoothly with me gone as with me present") you will NOT give up the position, or at least not the title.

 

It seems that there are, after all, other people who are willing and able to do the job, even if you do not know any of them personally. Why do you feel you are a better candidate when both your SE, and your Troop's CO, have stated they do NOT want you to divide your time between your SM position and a District Committee position?

 

 

[Eagle92]

Scoutnut is right, districts don't die. They have problems, but htey don't die. If push comes to shove the volunteers can get involved.

 

I am currently in a district that doesn't have a DE, and we are doing very well. Do we have challenges, Yes, but we are active. Further this district has a history of not having stable DEs. Usually they last anywhere from 2 months to two years. I should know I was one that lasted 2 years and now is a volunteer And we tend to have long waits before getting a new DE. Right Now we've been without a DE since April. So the volunteers are use to takingthe bull by the horns and getting the job done.

 

 

Now part of the challenge of getting a district committee working is getting the right mix of people to get the jobs done. Depending upon the job the person will be doing, they may not need to have prior Scouting experience. You definitely want folks with a strong Scouting background and teaching abilities to conduct training. While SMs can assist and possibly conduct SM specific or IOLS, they might not be able to offer the courses throughout the year as needed. Again you need people who are not vital to units doing these jobs.

 

Finance is one area where it is sometimes good to have people without a prior Scouting background. If they have the "influence and affluence" and a son or daughter involved in the program, they maybe a better choice for finance committee than a 26 year veteran scouter who doesn't have the affluence and/or just moved into the community. Yep I've done the FOS talks as a pro and volunteer , but that other person usually opens the door for me to talk.

 

As I mentioned previously, could you step down? Being on the district committee doesn't mean you can't be involved with the troop some of the time. It means you have to look beyond your troop to ALL packs, troops, crews and ships. It means that you have to look at how Advancement works with Activities to create a program of fun and learning. You have to look at how FOS and Popcorn sales impact such things as the scout camps and service center, camperships, programs etc.

 

I'll tell you I'm on the flip side of you 1963Eagle. I've not held a unit level position since I came back to my old district 4 years ago because #1 i did not want to show favoritism to any of the units #2 I want to point my son to the unit that best suits his needs and not mine, and #3 the district needed someone to make a dedicated commitment to first training, then the OA. I am now in the process of slowly stepping away from district duties so that I can become a unit leader with my son come June 1.(This message has been edited by eagle92)