Term Limits.

[Eamonn]

The Council I serve has term limits on some positions.

Council Presidents and District Chairmen serve a 3 year term.

Council Vice Presidents serve from year to year.

While I think that maybe a five year term might work better, I'm OK with the three year term.

One position that doesn't have a limit is Commissioner.

Our Council Commissioner is a very nice fellow, who over the years has donated a lot of money to the Council. He has been Council Commissioner for at least 12 or more years.

There have been times in the past when it has seemed that he has been a little too close to the SE. When it was very clear that the SE was not doing a good job.

Do other Councils have term limits and do these apply to the Council Commissioner?

Ea.

[scoutldr]

It would seem logical that those on the Executive Board would serve in their positions a year at a time...Council President, VP's, etc. Aren't those positions elected by other members of the EB?

 

As far as term limits for other District/Council positions, I'm not aware of any, other than the district I served would elect a "slate" of positions every year...if you wanted to continue serving, you were "re-elected." Only on one occasion did I witness someone asked not to return, and it wasn't pleasant. We don't seem to be able to keep a District Chairman or DE for more than a year at a time, but I don't think it's because of any term limits. The SE plays musical chairs with the DE's about once a year, not sure to what purpose.

[AvidSM]

There seems to be the same three year term limit in my Council. I don't know if it is an offical thing, or just an informal rule-of-thumb.

 

Our Council Commissioner has told me that he only plans on serving a three year term. The previous CC did the same. My guess is that this prevents burnout and brings in new blood.

 

So far, I have been impressed with my Council Key Three - they are focused and very professional. To get people like that to serve more than three years would be asking a lot.

[Twocubdad]

No, but I sure wish we had them. There doesn't seem to be that much of a problem on the "suits" side of the table. The CEO level business people who serve as council presidents, FOS chairmen and the like are busy enough that they don't seem to make Scouting a second career.

 

On the program side the tradition is that retired Scoutmasters get promoted to council program committees and stay there for ever. Like Eamonn's commissioner, we have guys as chairman of various program committees who have been there for a decade or more. That's way too long. The problem is these committees turn into little empires. They tend to attract like-minded folks around them and the committees become very myopic. I've been fairly vocal here (and at the council) about the problems with our advancement committee and it's failure to follow national policy. Clearly, their problems stem from the fact that the same bunch of ROMEOs (Retired Old Men Eating Out) have been running the committee for years and years and years.

 

Other than term limits (which sometime tend to throw the baby out with the bath water), I'd like to see a requirement that council committee membeship reflect the composition of the youth registration. In other words, if the council if 50% Cubs, 40% Boy Scouts and 10% Venture, the membership of the committees need to be in that same ratio.

 

How different would your council look if the properties committee or camping committee had majority Cub Scout membership?