District Chairman Removal

[Narraticong]

The Chairman of our district was dismissed from his position earlier this week. The actual dismissal was done by the Council President. The reason for the dismissal has not been made publice by the Coucnil. However, it has been suggested by the "grapevine" that he was often in conflict with the professional staff.

 

As I have mentioned in other threads, I am a strong believer that the professional staff should serve at the will of the volunteers and parents, rather than the other way around. Since we pay the bills, we should be the boss. But in too many cases the volunteers have allowed the professionals to act like kings rather than servants.

 

My question is, do the council professionals, and the Council President owe the remaining volunteers and parents in our district a clear explanation as to why the District Chairman was dismissed? And is merely being a thorn in their side reasonable cause for dismissal?

 

Ken

[BadenP]

To answer your question , no the council does not owe the volunteers an explanation of the dismissal or the details. Professionally speaking it would be common courtesy to give a public statement to the district volunteers as to why it was done, leaving out the sordid details.

 

Narr, remember the only ones who have power and voting priviledges with the council on a volunteer basis are the COR's who are members of the executive committee. As it is in most cases few if any of them ever get involved or participate in this process, which is a shame because they truly are your ONLY voice at council. Now there may be some legitimate reasons why the guy was dismissed and can not be revealed for legal reasons, in any case this whole thing must really have your district up in arms and rightly so.

[Eagle92]

Agree with BP on this one. However in my experience, the PTB usually wait until the person's term of office is over, and the nominations committee just doesn't renominate them. I've seen that happen alot.

 

However the one time I know of a District Chair being removed during his tenure, the DC was caught doing something he should not have been doing. THAT little escapade nearly destroyed my district, caused two divorces, and almost sparked a lawsuit due to someone violating a court order to be more than x amount of feet away form another person ata a council banquet.

 

edited: yes the council kept this situation under the rug, for a variety of reasons, of which legal was one of them, but sometimes things are too big.(This message has been edited by eagle92)

[emb021]

"As I have mentioned in other threads, I am a strong believer that the professional staff should serve at the will of the volunteers and parents, rather than the other way around. Since we pay the bills, we should be the boss. But in too many cases the volunteers have allowed the professionals to act like kings rather than servants."

 

While I agree with the sentiments expressed, the problem not that the 'volunteers have allowed the professionals' to do this. The problem is that the BSA is structured differently from other membership-based orgs. In those orgs, the members have the power. In the BSA, it was setup (by West?) to put that power in the hands of the COR, and in a degree with the professionals. Since, as noted, the COR seldom do this job, the power too often resides with the professionals.

 

[AvidSM]

I also agree that no explanation is required from from the Council President as to why your District Chair was dismissed. But, it would be nice if one was given.

 

I've been a Key 3 member for over a year now, and I have found that a good relationship between the three of us matters alot. My DE set the tone right by explaining that we form a partership, with no one being the superior of the other. A good working relationship sets the tone for the whole district and if one of us does not get along, I believe it would effect everyone in the committee.

 

I can only guess, as per your grapevine's suggestions, that your Chairman's dismissal was not due to bad performance, but rather bad chemistry within the key 3.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Ken,

 

Barry, BadenP, and emb have the right of this. One, and only one volunteer matters in terms of District and Council governance, as regards any one Pack, Troop, Team, or Crew: The Chartered Organization Representative.

 

The COR is the interface between the local council and the chartered partner. He has a vote. He can ask for information.

 

Remember, also, there is one COR per chartered partner, not one per unit.

 

To run this matter to ground, start by asking your COR.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Oak Tree]

I actually don't think that any explanation is owed. The council president is a volunteer, yes? He may have had good reason to remove the district chairman, or not, but it was apparently his call.

 

There have been times when I've had to remove an ASM from his position, and we treated it like a personnel issue. We wouldn't have shared the reason even if people had asked. That's pretty much the norm in all companies, too.

 

As for whether being a thorn in the side is a reasonable cause for dismissal, I don't know. I would normally say no, it's not sufficient. Usually I'd just put up with it until the end of the year, and then not re-register the person. However, I do agree it's a good reason not to re-register someone, and depending on the circumstances, it might be a reason to remove someone. It would depend on how many other people he'd ticked off, whether there was someone who could take his place, whether he was receptive to suggestions on improvement, whether his removal itself would anger people, etc.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

Taking a little bit of a different tack, actually the District Chairman would have been elected at the District annual business meeting by the District Members-at-large in attendance. Any COR's in attendance would have voted as well, but I'm reasonably sure that the DMAL's outnumbered them. In respect for the service that these volunteers perform, the Council President should attend the next District meeting and offer some explanation. It wouldn't be necessary to go into all of the details but the basic reasons for removal should be shared. If not, the backlash to the Council, in terms of the financial support that they need from the District, could be significant, particularly if the DC was well-liked and respected.

 

IMHO, Narraticong, the best districts are run by a Key 3, acting as a partnership with a shared responsibility, in seeing that the goals of the district are met. No bosses, just a team, pulling together towards a common goal!

[BadenP]

NE IV

 

I don't know about your district or council but usually the DC is hand picked by the DE with whom they have had a good working relationship, well established in the community, and influential in making FOS a district success. At the district meeting I have never seen a vote taken, just an announcement than one has stepped down and this new person will be taking his place, very cut and dry. If a new DE and the old DC do not get along the new DE can and usually does replace him with very little effort, at least in the four councils I have been associated with, no voting has ever taken place. Besides if the DC is really good the SE will grab him for the council committee, when I was a DE this happened twice to me.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

Real glad my district doesn't work that way. Volunteer input builds a better team. We're more into DE's coming and going than DC's.

[Abel Magwitch]

BadenP, dc handpicked by the de? What happened to the policies and procedures? What happened to the nominating committee? Hmmmmmm. District nomination and election procedures, the de is simply an advisor. I thought that this was a volunteer program, but what you are implying is that the professionals are running the show.

[Eagle92]

Abel,

While the Policies and Procedures state that the Nominating Committee meet and select a slate of officers to be voted on by the dis com for the next year, and that is taught at PDL-1, in reality it is VERY easy for a DE, FD, DFS, or even an SE to manipulate the process of who gets on the dis com and/or council executive board. the DE will "advise" who may be good candidates for whatever position on the dis com. And while it is possible for the dis com to not vote a slate in, usually that doesn't happen.

 

When I was a DE, one of the reasons I got in a bunch of trouble with the SE was b/c I didn't want to change the discom too much b/c they had been doing a good job and had kept the district running for a almost a year without any DE. The changes I tried to implement was getting more members so that no one was wearing two or more hats. SE was adamant about me removing the OA chapter adviser and assoc. adv. b/c they were considered "anti-council." And the reason they were "anti-council": the SE took all the money the lodge set aside for camp improvements and hosting conclave and placed in into FOS without informing the lodge. So when all the bills started coming in, the council refused to pay b/c the lodge didn't have the money in their account. Not a good year and after I left, they were removed, as well as other OA advisers, b/c they complained about the situation.

[Abel Magwitch]

Manipulation. You nailed it. I have been noticing recently that in my council, the volunteers are in fact being manipulated.

 

I have been in this program awhile now. I have found that if one actually reads the books - the district, the council, advancement policies and procedures, etc, to see how the program is supposed to work, you can really see the manipulation.

 

Should you mention that things aren't being done correctly and try to implement things the way they are suppose to work, you really run into some major resistance by the professional staff who were happy with the way things were being manipulated.

 

Case in point was how my council's summer camp is now being managed.

 

Our council had a DE who quit after three months. The reason? He didn't like how the professionals were manipulating the volunteers.

 

I won't speak for any other councils, but in mine, the professionals are in charge and they do an incredible job of manipulating the volunteer.

 

By the way, I am a COR who takes his position very seriously.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[BadenP]

Abel

 

In reality the answer to your question is yes. It may not be the best way or the right way to do things but it is the most common practice used by professionals. In my own case both of my districts neither had a DC when I came in as the new DE I had to be creative since my Dist.Commish's had no idea of likely candidates. So I asked the mayor in one of my districts and the county sheriff in the other, both former scouts, and both said yes. The volunteers were very happy and excited with their candidate, especially when they came to RT to see how the program was working. After that the volunteers trusted me that I truly had their best interests at heart.

[Abel Magwitch]

BadenP,

 

If the "right way" is not being followed, and if is "common practice" by the professional to not follow the written policies and procedures of this so called volunteer organization, then this organization has become a salaried organization under the guise of being a volunteer organization.

 

Voluneers spend money to be trained. Volunteers read and learn the policies and procedures. Volunteers don't get paid to work with youth. But from what you have stated, perhaps it's time for the volunteer to quit spending money and reading BSA literature. Perhaps it's time to quit wasting time and money on training. Why should a volunteer give of his time and money to learn the program only to be told by the professional that council doesn't do things that way.

 

Your namesake, Baden Powell stated in his last letter to the volunteer leaders:

 

"Don't let it become a salaried organization: keep it a voluntary movement of patriotic service."

 

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)