District Directors?

[SR540Beaver]

Our council just relaunched their website, so I was browsing around. Went to the staff directory. In addition to District Executives, we now have District Directors and a Senior District Director. The SDD is the guy I know as my DE. Have these titles been around for a while and my council is just now getting around to using them? All three of the titles function as DE's.

[Twocubdad]

Yes.

 

These positions are basically just a way to promote guys and pay them more but still retain them in the districts. It's a good thing. It keeps all the district-serving people from being raw new hires.

 

Some of the guys who were in the business can probably give you a better job description. I know the director positions usually involve some supervisory roles and other responsibilities at the council level.

[Eagle92]

DDs and SDDs are basically folks who could be FDs, but there are no openings for an FD position. They usually are running their own district, and supervising 1-2 DEs.

 

The bad thing about DDs and SDDs are the following 1) if on of their DEs quits or moves, then they are responsible for both their district and the vacant district (I knew 1 DD leave b/c of the constant travel with a vacancy) and 2)they are on the short list for promotion to FD when a FD vacancy comes about in the region.

[jhankins]

Ideally, in the perfect world, districts have 80 or so units, with a full professional staff of a district director, senior district executive, and an entrance level district executive.

 

The district director becomes your middle management and should be providing oversight and a general vision for the district in conjunction with their chairman and commissioner.

 

In reality, many councils have been giving this title and promotion for now, while money isn't always readily available.

[shortridge]

Ideally, in the perfect world, districts have 80 or so units, with a full professional staff of a district director, senior district executive, and an entrance level district executive.

 

Just how often do the stars and planets align to create this utopia?

 

Seriously ... is that how districts are supposed to be carved out - by numbers of units vs. geography? Or is that just the "ideal" district size, like the ideal patrol size? And how often does one district have that three-level pro staff you describe? I don't think I've ever seen that around these parts.

[Eagle92]

I'm curious as to the 80 units number too as that is a new one to me.

[jhankins]

80 was the number National tossed out two years ago. I don't know if it's changed or not since then. The pipe dream is that you actually have unit-serving executives and the middle management to work on the details while the unit-serving pro's learn the ropes.

[skeptic]

In our council, these positions were a disaster; most of us would relate the breakdown of the districts to forcing this on us, and making us go from 6 districts to 2. This broke the district volunteer structure, and we have never recovered, even though we went back to the old arrangement. Of course, we have not had a full complement of executives in at least 10 years, and the ones we have are terribly overworked and stressed. That relates to cost of living in our area, one of the highest in the country, and also to the economy. But we persevere.

[Eagle92]

J,

Thanks for the update. Never heard of that before and can say it wouldn't be feasible in my neck of the woods. We already have geographically large districts, but small populated ones. The DD I mentioned above was covering two districts for a total of 6 counties that may have had 80-90 units max. He bought a new car and about 8.5-9 months later had over 120K miles on it from driving all over the territory. His district ended up splitting into two districts once again.

[jhankins]

That's the pipe dream, to be sure.

 

I was driving 3k a month in my travels. It's an awful lot of windshield time where I'd try and conduct business while driving. It didn't always work, but it was almost a necessity.

[ASM915]

Our Council merged our two largest Districts (population wise) back in January, creating the Mega-District. 80 units must be a reference number only. We have 45 Troops, around 100 Packs, and I'm not sure how many Crews. We do have a DE & DD handling the new District. We'll see how it works out.

[Basementdweller]

What is the point in all these positions?????

 

 

NONE OF THEM IMPACT our Packs program. Honestly what and the heck do they do????????

 

Our district has two boy scout camporees a year.......ZERO cub activities. We do have a monthly round table, but that is it.

 

 

Explain to me why we need all these people to run it??????????

 

Our BSA units receive near zero assistance from anyone higher than SM, Advisors, or CM from neighboring units. the DE from time to time. That is it.

 

Of course what are they supposed to be doing??????

 

 

Seems like a lot of overhead for what appears to be zero result.

[Eagle92]

Base,

 

A DD is basically a DE that supervises another DE. They usually have expereince and seniority to be a Field Director, supervising over 3 or more DEs, but there are no FD spots open for them. Just like a DE, the DD is suppose to help with recruiting new members, organizing new units, helping organize events via the district committee, etc.

 

The challenge is when the DE that the DD is supervising leaves, and the DD is responsible for both districts. That can be very challenging, and hurt one or both districts.

 

 

In reference to no cub scout activities for your district, let me take a guess, a lot of 'olg guard" who believe that Cubs shouldn't go camping, right?

 

How about a bunch of you CMs get together and organize a multi-pack activity?

[Abel Magwitch]

I have to agree with basementdweller. I too am part of a district; a very small urban district with only 7 troops and maybe 15 packs and a few crews. We have had a DE and DD to "serve" our small district.

 

As a "volunteer" run organization, it amazes me that these two professional salaries are lumped in with "program". It is not the professional who runs the Klondikes, Camporees, Webelos activities, it it the volunteer. The volunteer provides the program.

 

Why we have to have two professionals assigned to this small district, both on the payroll, both receiving benefits, yet the district continues to have no program because it is too small. So many times our districts has to participate with another district's activities. Now there are 4 professionals getting paid for an event run by the volunteers.

 

Nope, Basementdweller is on to something. There is no need for all these professionals on the payroll.

 

Of course at FOS time, we will be solicited and told that it cost's over $200 per scout a year. And where does this $200 go? To salaries which are conveniently hidden in the "program" section of the budget.

[shortridge]

My council has the roles clearly deliniated - there's field service, which includes all the DEs, the SrDEs, the FD and the DFS. They're the people in charge of local partnerships, some fundraising, new unit organization, membership, etc.

 

Then there's the program department, which includes a director of support services, three program directors (who are actually the council summer camp directors and run specific program tasks such as jamboree, civic service, etc.) and two camp rangers.

 

I can't see how anyone knowledgeable about council structure could confuse field service and program. DEs and their ilk do not exist to expand Cub camping. They exist to support the units and the district - which is the body that decides whether or not to expand Cub camping. DEs are not super-program people.

 

Now, the question of whether we should be devoting the bulk of our council payroll into non-program positions is a good one. Should the DE's job be restructured? Maybe. But that's another issue entirely.