3 Years only in a District Position

[moosetracker]

I have been in a district position for less then a year. I know some people have remained in the same position for years & years & years. But I have been told by the past DCC & others who have held my position of District Training Chair, that it is best to hold a 3 year plan.

First year of learning from the old DTC (I have past DTC's on my staff, but no one willing to help me learn my position). The second year doing the job knowing it well (hmmm.. I will be happy to do it not totally clueless).. The third year training your replacement (Oh boy, help! But who?)

 

Actually the three year plan sounds good to me, I want to help get my district through this manditory training nightmare.. But I am truely more behind the scenes organizational, and while I was told that was what they wanted for a training chair.. I was also told that my district had so many trainers they needed no more.. I find that it is hard for the DTC to be the behind the scenes organizer, mainly at least for my District because they were either delusional about the list of trainers they had, so I really need to talk myself into being one of the trainers. Some trainings ok.. Some that I do not have personal expierence in "no good!"..

 

Is the 3 year plan in your opinion too much transition taking place, or the right way to get fresh blood, new ideas and avoid burn out, or someone going through the motions?

 

Is any one else encouraged to do the 3 year turn around plan?

[Eamonn]

We have a 3 year term in place for the District Chairman.

Of all the positions I've held District Chair. was the one I was most happy to get out of.

As a rule I'm not that sold on term limits.

While I know and am aware that people do get stale and worse still some get to thinking that a position is theirs and the sky will fall if they ever give it up.

For the most part my feeling is that if someone is doing a good job? Why change just for the sake of change.

Having a change at the top (District Chair.) Does mean that a lot of the time, a new Chairman will want to make changes and ask the members of the various committees if they are willing to continue to serve?

This of course opens the door for anyone who might be looking for the opportunity to get out to go, without feeling they have let the side down.

If a Committee Chair of one of the various committees is really doing what they are supposed to be doing, they are surrounding themselves with people who they have trained to do the task at hand. A lot of the time these workers also hold other positions and they are unwilling to give up their registered position in order to take on a District position.

Ea.

[Eagle92]

The 3 year plan does a couple of things.

 

1) Limits burn out. Yes folks can burn out.

 

2) It can move folks into positions that better fit them. Greta example would be me. I did OA for 3 years, but as oldest became a CS I saw conflcts of events and activities happening, and I was getting frustrated. I found my replacement that was acceptable to all parties and stepped down. Now I'm working on the CS side of things,

[Eagle007]

I think the idea of a three year term as you describe (learning, doing, teaching) sounds like a great idea.

 

On the other side of this coin, has anyone experienced a district and/or council that has had little to no infrastructure? How frustrating can that be to see units not wanting to do any camping with their own council camps? I have heard of units that wanted absolutely nothing to do with their own district nor council - bad blood. You would think in a perfect world for the betterment of the boys that there would be cohesion among the units, districts and council.

[moosetracker]

Yes, I have heard of it, from some on this forum. In fact their description of the district & council staff is sort of the type that don't do the 3 years turn around (or don't do any turn around at all, until those in the position die off..)

 

People with the "holier-then-thou" attitude.. But do nothing to help the units, nor do they welcome fresh blood into the district positions.

 

For me the 3 year plan may be perfect, because I think I am doing better in this position then the 3+ years that they had no one.. But I don't think that this position is the perfect fit for me..

 

But I also know it is hard to recruite new blood, so sometimes when you have someone in a position the tendency is to kling to them and not let them move on. Also, this job seems so large that I doubt I will have the learning done on my 2nd year.. But that might be because I came in from the outside to take up a very big role. Had I been on the training staff for a few years (or even in a different district position).. I may not be having such a very big learning curve, and see the 3 years as perfect for learning, doing, teaching. Right now I see it as no one ever getting very knowledgable of their position.

[Eamonn]

Eagle007,

I can't help but feel that maybe you are being a little bit too harsh on units that opt to do their own thing.

I know some really outstanding Troops who don't use Council Camps. Some do it because they can take their Scouts away for a week for a lot less than what the Council charges, some just like to not camp in the same place every year.

Out of Council campers make up about 10% of the campers that use our Council Summer Camp each year. No one ever seems to mention that these campers are being in any way disloyal to their home Council.

Ea.

 

 

[artjrk]

Currently I am using the 3 yr plan as a SM. Spent 6 months prior to term shadowing current SM to learn the ropes. Spending last few months of term working with upcoming SM. But I didn't look at it as term limit rather a minimum level of commitment. Previous SM's had been in for just two years each and the constant transition was hampering the troop. I think this applies to district level positions as well.

[Stosh]

And suppose the council's position is to offer the best white milk that money can buy, but all the boys prefer chocolate milk. Too often entrenched thinking can end up producing an excellent program that no one really wants.

 

My boys have camped out of council for the past two summers and are planning to do so again this summer. Bad blood? Nope, it's not a program the boys want. The boys select their camps they wish to go to, vote and then go. It's interesting to note the dynamics of the selection process. Our camp has a brand new training center, new dining hall, expanded camp facilities, new pool, climbing tower, new gun/archery ranges, and fire-bowl and yet the boys have selected a camp that is primitive, no dining hall, lake, etc.

 

In my estimation both camps are excellent, but one isn't what the boys really want.

 

Sometimes fresh eyes on district/council boards can see things that the old-guard can't see anymore. I like the idea of rotating, short-term responsibilities because they promote new ideas better.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[Eagle007]

I'm all for getting the most bang for your buck, Eamonn. And if that means out of council camping then it is what it is. The particular troop I am thinking of has absolutely no involvement with their district nor council at all, as I have previously said. I'm not sure what the circumstances are nor do I care to speculate.

 

I also know that my troop had been talking several years about not participating in our council's summer camp because it offered the same old things every year. My troop's scouters wanted something fresh, some new ideas, and I can't blame them. But in my personal opinion I think that we should collaborate with the council to see if there is something we can do or bring to the table to facilitate fresh, new ideas if the council is willing to listen.

 

But along with going to our council's camp this summer, my troop is also going out of council.

 

I agree. Sometimes fresh eyes on district/council boards CAN see things that the old-guard can't see anymore. Which is why I'm glad that our district/council have a new-guard in place this year.

[Eagle92]

The fresh blood/ fresh ideas thinking is a very valid point.

 

Sometimes folks do become so entrenched, that they do not accept new ideas. I'm seeing a little of that when I beg troops to send volunteers to help with CSDC, or to help put on a Webelos overniter after CSDC is over. I get some funny looks in refernce to Cubs camping.

 

I know that when the council decided to change up the council camporee, to make it more of a jamboree style event that included Cub camping last year, some folks were not happy, b/c it was new and there were concerns that the Cubs would take over the BS events. If anything some of the Scouts were trying to do some of the CS events like bowling and swimming!

 

 

 

 

[Frank17]

Once there was a CEO who was promoted and given the job after the old CEO resigned. When he came to his new office on the first day, he found a note and 3 sealed envelopes in his desk, labeled 1, 2, and 3. The note was from the old CEO, and stated the envelopes were from him, and were to only to be opened in times of trouble. The new CEO honored the old one's request, and put the envelopes away in a drawer.

 

After a year on the job, the company began to have problems. The CEO remembered the note, and opened the first envelope. Inside was a letter which said "Blame your predecessor." The CEO called a news conference, blamed his predecessor, and sure enough, everything settled back down and the company went on.

 

After a second year, the company began to have problems again. The CEO went right for the second envelope that had been left for him, and opened it. Inside was a letter which said "Reorganize." The CEO called a news conference, announced a reorganization plan, and everything settled back down and the company went on.

 

After a third year, the company began to have problems again. Profits were down, employees were leaving in droves, and the stock prices were plummeting. The CEO went into his desk for the third envelope, and opened it. Inside was a letter, which started out "Get three envelopes and label them 1, 2, and 3 ....."

 

 

Maybe that is why they are limiting terms to three years!