NATIONAL OFFICE if you really are watching fix commissioning service

[fotoscout]

I didn't want to imply that BSA should do away with the charter concept. If I did I should have been more clear.

 

Bob, you are correct that I don't see the benefit of greater CO involvement on the macro scale. But that does not come through a lack of understanding. History has shown us that greater involvement by the CO's , with it's greater influence, has detrimental effects on the larger program. BSA cannot suffer more of that.

 

Sure it would be great if every CO would live up to it's minimum obligation, and maybe even do a little more for the units. But where does one draw the line between "doing a little more" vs "imposing your value system" on the unit. Those actions are tied together in a quid-pro-quo relationship.

 

Here is the piece of Commissioner Service that I think is missing. We all know that Commissioners have no authority within the units that they serve. So what outlet is there for the Commissioner to deal with a chronically bad unit. You can go to the DC and get more help, you can go to the IH or CR, but probably they won't do anything. Maybe even go to your DE. So what do you do? We have no way of strong arming these unit back to a quality program.

 

I suggest that there be a formal notification process telling the unit that it is deficient. The SE should deliver the notice to the Committee with a copy to the IH. The unit either gets it's act together or losses it's charter. You only need to do this once or twice and all the units will step in line.

 

Commissioners are knocking their heads against the wall every day with the same troublesome units year after year. Without some strong remedy, the cycle will never end. Regardless of what the Commissioner Plan looks like, it's too much to ask for the Commissioners to fix everything and make it right if National continues it's refusal to use strong words and actions.

 

Pushing the responsibility to the IH and CR will just muddy the waters further. Don't forget the IH and CR will buddy up to the unit leaders before they buddy up to the Commissioner or Professional.

[Eamonn]

I have to admit that while I did read the "Doctor making house calls" the idea didn't work for me and while I did make mention of it, I never really thought of it as being that important.

While I am not sure and I think that if I'm wrong someone will correct me! But didn't the BSA sometime back do away with Commissioners? I seem to remember our Council Commissioner saying that they had but due to problems with getting charters in on time they brought them back. If the only real work we have for Commissioners is rechartering I wish someone would have told me.

I was some time back admonished in these forums for being a little too tough on the Commissioners in the District when I was serving as District Commissioner. My problem was that while all of these people were super nice people many of whom had given a lifetime of service to Scouting and the BSA,they were all very old. Some due to failing eyesight were unable to drive at night, others just were not up to doing the job. I inherited a nice old Lady, who had been a Den Mother when my mother-in-law was also serving as a Den Mother. She was my Assistant District Commissioner Cub Scouts. I swear that if I heard "Well I don't know!!" one more time I was going to be arrested. The elderly gentlemen that seemed to make up the Boy Scout Unit Commissioners were what was left over from a time when all of our Boy Scout Commissioners were Free Masons and belonged to the same lodge, most of these men were in their 70's. It seemed that no one ever mentioned the idea that Scouting appointments are for twelve months. These guys and girls seemed to think that they were lifetime appointments. Add to this an underlaying feeling that they were superior to the people serving in the units. Changes had to be made. Sad to say, while I love our Council Commissioner dearly, I received no support from him, in fact his main concern was that my changes would change our national ranking that shows the ratio of Commissioners too units.

I would be interested to see a job description of what is or might be expected of a unit commissioner.

Eamonn.

[Bob White]

Eamonn

Here is a link to the national website where you can find a description of the unit commissioners job. You will also see a link of commissioner resources many include a specific job description. Rather than prolong the length of my already wordy posts I will ask that you refer to the text in the manual .

 

http://www.scouting.org/nav/commissioners/home.html

 

I agree with you about the current average description of commissioners. The question was asked as to where commissioners should come from if not from retiring scouters. What I suggest is that we recuit new members to be commissioners. Every scouter starts out without experience, why can't commissioners. I would rather have someone with no scouting background but a belief in scouting that we can train, then a burned out veteran scouter all to willing to promote "his" views of scouting rather than the current program, procedures, and policies.

 

I know of no time in the past 40 years when commissioning did not exist.

 

Foto,

It is not true that a commissioner has no authority in a unit, he or she has limited authority. However with more trained unit leaders the need to excercise that authority would be largely unnecessary.

The situation you describe is largely a local problem caused by lack of commissioner and unit leader training.

 

You speak of historical evidence of CO involment being a negative. I am unfamiliar with any such situation please elaborate. The BSA charter concept developed in the early 1900s was designed for and dependent on Charter organizations taking an active role. They did for many years. Many things have caused that relationship to deteriorate. I believe two things have had a huge effect. One is of course the need for local professionals to focus on the financial nad membership needs of loval scouting and the rising number of units they are responsiblke for due to consolidations have made it almost impossible for them to foster relationships with the IHs and CRs.

 

Secondly, our society has become highly mobile and IHs are rarely long term either in the community or in their organization. Too often when an IH changed we did not get in and re-establish the use of scouting by the organization as their youth outreach program. We being and scouting representative whether unit, district or council level volunteer or professional.

 

Because of these two things many CO / BSA relationships have disappeared completely leaving as being viewed more as squatters than as their scouting program.

 

A solid CO/Unit relationship has many advantages. A more focused program, greater resource availability both physical and financial, Fewer evictions, greater community exposure, better quality control, all would do much to benefit the quality of the program delivered within each unit.

 

But another advantage and a very wise move be the BSA founders is the legal insulation provided by the charter concept. It captures liability at the closest level to where the problem took place. It is very difficult thanks to the charter concept for council to be held liable for a screw up by an untrained leader. Or for National to be held liable for a screw-up at another level of ther program. Each level is held responsible for itself because the BSA does not OWN the unit, the CO does. Why do you suppose the BSA defends you when you follow the bold type fave directions in the Guide to Safe Scouting, but does not if you fail to follow the directions.

 

If you eliminate the charter concept you could expose the entire program to every mistake made by any untrained leader out there, and there are far too many of them. Granted they would also be liable for trained leaders but the risk of a trained leader messing up is less than an untrained leader.

 

I bellieve lawsuits would shut the BSA down very quickly. All the more reason to get the COs to fulfill their current responsibility to select quality leaders and get them to training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scout Commish]

Finally, a topic that made me want to actually register for the forum. You guys put too much into one message for me to follow, so please excuse me if I break mine up into little bites.

 

First, Bob White, you mention the proposed changes which I presume will be formally announced at the National Meeting. Do you have any more detail than you already provided? On the Commissioner site, it indicated that the requirements for the Arrowhead are changing. Are you referring to this? Does anyone know what the changes are?

[Scout Commish]

I have found that Commissioners tend to be generalists. I therefore do not feel that they should take over all training.

 

However, I believe that a positive change would be for them to become "Unit Trainers". They would be responsible for doing an NLE, Fast Start, and YPT in each assigned unit.

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

Welcome Scout Commish,

yes there is a lot of stuff in this thread.

Bob, I think you knew that I was aware and had used the Commissioner Role page in the past. Maybe I was unclear, I was hoping that you would post a Bob White outline.

I do think that we need to recognize that most newcomers to Scouting come in as a way of spending QT with their Son. The average guy on the street has no idea what a commissioner is and with that in mind there isn't going to be people banging on the door to sign up.

There is no reason at present why a CO can't demand that adult leaders attend training. But maybe they know more about the new leader than we do? Maybe Mom the Den Leader, who has four kids and works full time is just not able to attend round-table and training's? Surely you are not saying that we turn her away?

Maybe we need to take a real long hard look at the role of the DE. If we as a small Council are spending nearly 25% of our budget on salaries we need to know that we are getting some bang for our buck. No I'm not saying that anyone is getting rich. However if we are to have one DE per 1,000 youth members and we are paying approx $35,000 a year we have to expect service at the local level. I have no problem with UC's working with unit committees, which would include COR's, I do however want and expect the District Executive to meet with and work with the Unit Executive Officer. I know a lot of great Scouting type people who are just not trained or equipped to deal at this level. I as a District Chairman am always on the DE's case to get out there and involve the unit Executive Officer.

Eamonn.

[Its Me]

Bob you appear to have diverging concepts.

 

One is for the BSA to take on more responsibility for traininng and running the units, while leaving the CO with all the liabilty. If our concept is to encourage the CO to get more involved then expect more customiztion of the porgram. If the BSA gets more involve then expect less involvement by the CO.

 

 

[Bob White]

It's Me,

I think you confused my posts with those of other's. The only place I am suggesting the BSA gets more involved is in getting the COs IHs and CRs do fulfill the responsibilities that have been theirs all along but have been neglected, largely due to the fact that no one told them what their responsibility was or held them accountable for doing it.

 

Hi Scout Commish

 

The number floated as unofficial but representaive of the discussion was 8 monthly unit meeting visits to each assigned unit.

 

What this fails to address is...

a) Most Districts do not have anywhere near the required number of UCs.

b) What good is 8 visits if you get worthless feedbacks and the unit crumbles? How many of us have heard the ever popular commissioner mantra "it's fine".

c) The unit meeting is not the only place that the commissioner needs to get feedback from.

 

I am not suggesting that commissioners should become the trainers, but that they should be meeting and greeting, inviting and welcoming, tracking and tracking down the leaders who come to training and the leaders who do not.

 

Eamonn, you know me and my ways, I can bbe expected to share what the BSA has designed the Commissioner service to do and how I lead commissioners to achieve those goals.

 

Basically the Commissioners are charged to see that every eligible youth has the opportunity to belong to a quality scouting unit.

 

That is a very tall order, There is not much that goes on in scouting that doesn't effect the qualkity of the program, or the fact that we are to see it is available to "every eligible youth". Certainly unit administration, unit program, training, activities, recruitment, FOS, new units, all impact the goals of commissioning. So as Commish said the nature of commissioning is to be a generalist. I see commissioners as having to need 'Big Picture Concept' understanding and 'specific task resources' knowledge.

 

A commissioner needs to be able to recognize good scouting and motivate and support the people who deliver it. They also need to recognize the signposts of poor scouting and be able to direct the highest level of authority to information and resources to alter the course, before the youth program suffers.

 

The commissioner helps represent the ideals, the principles, and the policies of the Scouting movement.

 

I have to say at this point that after this SE spoke and we went back to our Roundtable Seminar, a number of the participants pointed out (after just having discussed the importance of roundtable and rountable commissioners to set an example of the scouting program) that the Council Commissioner Keynote Speaker, was not in a complete uniform anmd he had patches in the wrong place. This was there observation, and it troubled them. So yes people notice. And if you are in a position of representing the program people think if you do it this way then they should do it that way. So we had better do it right.

 

 

BW

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Scout Commish]

I'm still catching up.

 

I would like to see us give up the Doctor analogy and go with more of a "coach".

 

I agree that Commissioners need a major overhaul. It is frankly embarassing to teach Commish Basic and show the manual with the sixtie's style cartoons in it.

 

I applaude the efforts by Rick Cronk to gain commissioner visability with the website and the identity products. I also have the impression that commissioners now get a little bit more time and attention at the professional PDL training.

 

I don't believe that anyone ever conciously set about to do away with commissioners.

 

In the early days of Scouting, the new professional Scout Executive took over from the volunteer Scout Commissioner. Naturally, there was competition between the two jobs for control of the council. The end results was that the Scout Commish (Council Commish today) became a more ceremonial position. This was modeled after what West did on a national basis when he moved Seton out of the way.

 

With the expansion of the professional field staff in the sixties, I believe that we saw the same thing occur on a District Level. Commissioners were de-emphasized as the professional clearly took over.

 

The "new improved Scouting" of the early seventies was the final straw for the commissioner staff as many of the experienced Scouters expressed their disatisfaction by leaving the program.

 

I've always believed that as Councils consolidate and they try to save money by doing more with less, Commissioners would again gain in importance. I believe that this is beginning to happen.

 

The problem is that as previously discussed, the old model of Commissioner service is not necessarily the best for today's environment.

 

It is up to us to suggest the new model, which is why I think this kind of discussion is extremely important. We may not all agree, but it appears that we have enough brainpower here to come up with some great ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

[acco40]

Okay, let me give you a real life Unit Commisssioner example. Garnered from my visits to a Pack (Pack meetings, committee meetings, etc.) I notice that one den has decided that it wants to meet once a month for four hours instead of weekly for one hour. The den is for Wolves (2rd graders). I casually mention that for this age group, mostly 7 yr olds, their attention span may make it difficult to hold four hours of productive meetings. After hearing about time factors, etc. and that everyone like it the way it is I don't push the issue any further but do report it up the chain of command (ADC => DC). A year later, the den has shrunk by 30%. Same goes for the next year. Bottom line, a problem was reported but reporting a problem was only half (or less) of the problem.

 

It boils down to what Eamonn, Bob White, myself and others have said - What does one do with leaders who know the "rules" but choose not to follow them?

[Scout Commish]

Wow, a very well written message regarding the Commissioner role.

 

This reminds me of when I went to Philmont for the Commish Administration program. At the first break, I asked the Council Commissioner Instructor how he had built such a great commmissioner staff and program and high commissioner ratio. He responded that it was his recent predecessor that did it and that he and his Scout Exec were there because they wanted a Philmont vacation. Needless to say, the quality of the course reflected this.

 

At the same course, the Director of the Boy Scout Division showed us the new uniform pants. Of course this did not come to pass. So I learned to take Philmont rumors with a huge grain of salt.

 

 

[Scout Commish]

A Commissioner can not fix everything. This den falls under the "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

 

It is a problem that too many Scoutmasters and Cub Leaders follow their own brand of Scouting.

 

It will not be fixed until someone other than you is sufficiently upset or distressed by it. So you need to address it with those that would be upset OR create disatisfaction through education and training to the affected groups: parents, CC, Cubmaster, other Den Leaders, committee, trainers, etc.

 

It is difficult to show that it is wrong until the damage is done. But you have the results now and can go to the Committee Chair and show how it has been unsuccessful.

 

On the other hand, some great ideas in Scouting have come about because a maverick tried something that was not in the book or went against the grain.

 

 

 

 

[Scout Commish]

I'll share some recruiting success.

 

We had some recent recruiting success with a simple Spaghetti supper. We invited all members of the Troop or Pack committee other than the CC and Unit Leader. They were invited to meet their Unit Commish.

 

We had a decent showing (including some Unit Leaders wondering what was going on). And we picked up 5-6 new Commissioners that had never been Commissioners before and were a mix of new and experienced leaders. If you had asked me prior, I would have doubted the success.

 

We plan to try this again in a few months with the list of Adult OA members and later with the list of past Eagles.

[fotoscout]

My office computer was so excited to see BW, that yesterday it blew a circuit and had to go to the PC Hospital!

 

Yes limited authority, in the area of health and safety. However, no Commissioner has or would exercise any authority in the areas Commissioner service to the unit. Would any Commish shut down a unit because the leaders were not trained, or because the unit leader told everyone that the uniform was not necessary. Would a Commish shut down a unit because it did not use the Patrol Method, etc.,etc.,etc. The big flaw in the system is a lack of enforcement. Like the man said, if you want to walk the walk, then you've got to talk the talk. I don't believe that the IH and CR will have the drive or desire to be the enforcer.

 

Are the boys having fun? The IH and CR answer yes. Are the parents happy? The IH and CR answer yes. Do the adults seem to play nice together? The IH and CR answer yes. They will always side with the leaders and avoid rocking the boat.

 

Bob I refer you to Newsweek 8/6/01 for some relevant history on the negative result of CO power block and how it can affect not only the program but the worldwide view of BSA. It doesn't matter which camp you're in, it's bad for Scouting. With a formal declaration of more power to the CO's this would only get worse. Yes they already have the power, but we don't need to awaken them into a frenzy.

 

If you could guarantee CO's with an open mind, no hidden agenda, and global view of the Scouting Movement, I could go along with you. But I don't see that happening.

 

Many things have caused that relationship to deteriorate....

 

I agree with your first premise (although I would not place it at #1), but the second would not stand up in my district. We have a moderate turnover of IH, but our CR's are very stable. Clearly, the #1 reason goes to the notorious position that BSA now holds in the American culture. Without question, it is the reason why many of our CO's prefer the background rather than the foreground. Surprisingly, this applies equally to our secular and non secular CO's. Reestablish BSA's public profile and the CO's will reemerge.

 

I believe that the key to making the Commissioner service work is twofold, 1- get more Commissioners out in the field. To do this we need more adults in scouting, or we have to better utilize the ones we have. Merge the small units and put some of those extra people out in the field as Commissioners. 2- Enforcement: at some point that notoriously bad unit has to be dealt with!

 

I certainly dont prescribe the goon squad moving in to shut down units because their brand new Tiger Leader isnt trained by Sept 10th. But if National is serious about establishing a more uniform and quality program, if they are serious about getting the Commissioner staff to be more effective, then they have to begin thinking about some type of enforcement at the unit level.(This message has been edited by fotoscout)

[Eamonn]

OK,while I have not spent time formulating these ideas into anything that might be called a document, these are some thoughts.

This program is our program. If we move away from the idea of meeting goals and move toward establishing real quality, people or organizations need to be accountable for using our program.

This should come from National. Something that informs each and every Chartering Organization what obligations they need to fulfill in order to use our program. While what these obligations might be is up for grabs and need to be looked at long and hard, the penalty for non-compliance should be that we refuse to allow that unit to be chartered.Or a provisional charter.

It seems that we really do not have the man-power to deliver Commissioner Service to all of our units.

If this really is the case (I think it is.) Maybe we need to rethink and replace what we have. Just as we have Training Teams, why couldn't we have Unit Service Teams or Commissioner Teams?

Some units that are well run and have good adults working in the unit really have no need of our help. We just tie up valuable people assigning them to these units. Other units need special attention, so lets send in the team. If we cover sending these people into the units that have in the past refused our help in the agreement with the CO. They would have no choice but to allow us in.

We need to improve our communication with the CO. Why don't we send a quarterly report to the CO from the Service Team stating how the unit is really doing.

There is one unit in our Council that meets with each and every leader before they recharter. Why don't we adopt this idea and have a member of the team sit in on the meetings?

Members of the team would need to be well trained and understand that they are there to serve. If we go with a team, we could have team members who do specialize in certain areas.

These are just some thoughts. I kinda think that some people will have very strong feelings about them. I also think that the National Office is never going to stand up to our Chartering Organizations.

Eamonn.