How Do You See The Committee / Program Leader Hierarchy (Pack And Troop)

[fred johnson]

... the CC is the most important person of the unit to attend Wood Badge because they need to understand the Vision and goals of the unit, as well as how to build a productive successful team. ...

 

Absolutely 100% true.   It really should be pushed that way.

Edited June 4, 2015 by fred johnson

[Stosh]

It is my opinion that the CC doesn't need to be the WB person in the troop.  What is taught in SM/ASM position training will do the same thing.  The CC needs to understand what the role of the SM is so he can coordinate the adult leaders to assist him in his service to the boys.  The relationship between the CC and SM/CM sets the tone as to the success of the unit  If for whatever reason this is a problem area, the program for the boys will suffer.

 

The CC and committee has the SM/CM's back.  If they don't, then the SM/CM's have to watch their own backs and the boys are relegated to 2nd place.

 

In my first troop as SM I had an excellent CC who worked well with me and we did some great things.  5 boys to 25 boys in 2 years time.  Well, the CC stepped down and the new CC wanted things different and within 3 months I was out of there, the ASM had to step up, lasted about a year and after a couple of more SM's they are down to about 6-7 boys again.

 

One has to remember how much distance there is between the boys and the CC.  Their point of contact is the SM, not the CC and if the CC steps in and expects things to be different, they will be, kinda like the SPL stepping in and running the patrols.  The PL's become obsolete very quickly.

 

One can spend an enormous amount of time drawing up the ideal org chart for the program, but regardless of what one has on paper, when all is said and done, if the politics are more important than the boys, the structure is going to collapse like a house of cards.

[blw2]

ok, as part of the brainstorming discussion here... I might be persuaded to agree with this idea.  True enough, the buck has to stop someplace.... but honestly I can say that in my time it has never really come to that firm of a disagreement.... although I can imagine that occasionally it might for some....

 

but sorta to my original point, it aint really clear. Almost as many perspectives here as the number of posters....

And that really shouldn't be

 

I have to say, once I read everything I can find

& mull it over through the rattling cogworks of my mind

comparing with my experiences and observations

my gut tells me the best logical answer is more as @@CalicoPenn described.... a horizontal line between them, each over their own department (or maybe better in Stosh speak, "Supporting their own areas")

So that for questions of the boy program, it's the Cubmaster or Scoutmaster

But for all other supporting business it's the CC

and together they should work, not separately, not over, not under....

[blw2]

......One can spend an enormous amount of time drawing up the ideal org chart for the program, but regardless of what one has on paper, when all is said and done, if the politics are more important than the boys, the structure is going to collapse like a house of cards.

 

My thinking is that clearly defined lines or roles would only serve to eliminate the posturing or "politics", in that the players don't have to wonder or posture or guess what they need to take charge of

 - you know your job

 - you know his job

 - he knows enough about your job to know that you will get that part done so he doesn't have to pick it up

 - and you know just enough about his job so that you know to not worry about those things....

 

I don't know, this is mostly theoretical from my perspective anyway.

With no skin in the game, our cc, while having a good heart and wanting to serve, has been mostly hands off.... so I have worn many of the CC's and other committee member hats.

and our COR is even less involved

[Stosh]

A good CC and Committee can be an excellent safety net of support for the SM/ASM team or they can be a real pain in the butt that stymies the effectiveness of the boys in accomplishing what they want out of their program.

 

 People who have their own agendas pretty much ignore org charts and such and kinda just do things their own way.  They'll be the ones that are always finding fault and problems with everything rather than finding opportunities and solutions.  It happens all the time and they are the last to see it themselves. 

[andysmom]

The CC and SM SHOULD be on equal footing as they each are responsible for different parts of the organization.  The committee is supposed to support the SM.

 

Before our CC would approve an application for an ASM he asked the SM how he felt about the applicant, it is after all, the SM who would be working with the ASM.  It all works best when the SM and CC respect each other and feel like they are on equal footing.  When one starts feeling like they "outrank" the other is when problems occur.

 

The training issue of non direct contact adult leaders is a huge pet peeve of mine.  The only specific training for committee members is the very generic Troop Committee Challenge.  It is not specific to individual positions on the committee, so there is no CC training or treasurer training or advancement training.  Like most training it only needs to be completed once and the person is trained for "life" with no regard for policy or other changes.  That can present huge issues.

[Gone]

The training issue of non direct contact adult leaders is a huge pet peeve of mine.  The only specific training for committee members is the very generic Troop Committee Challenge.  It is not specific to individual positions on the committee, so there is no CC training or treasurer training or advancement training.  Like most training it only needs to be completed once and the person is trained for "life" with no regard for policy or other changes.  That can present huge issues.

In our unit we have a very detailed role description for each job, whether on the committee or as an ASM (e.g., ASM in charge of service projects, patrol advisor, etc.). In addition to these role descriptions we have calendars, job lists, process lists, timelines, contact lists, history files, etc. which our leaders can use to execute their job. They wait for the PLC to develop the schedule and then they use these tools to implement.

 

We don't rely on council or the district to train our people. The unit hand book and these position documents are the basic training. We have incoming leaders shadow out-going leaders. They learn on the job, then take over. Took a while to put this in place but it works well for us.

[CalicoPenn]

 

Slight clarification .... Institutional head can remove anyone.  But has to do it through the district exec as they are not "signers" on the form.  COR and CC need to be in agreement when new leaders are appointed.  As for removal, either can pretty much take care of that.  That's why COR and CC are the only two positions leaders can hold at the same time.   Interesting note, scoutmasters can't approve their own assistants.  That's a CC/COR job.

 

 

 

Fred, I have to disagree here - the IH does not need to go through anyone to remove a leader, or even a family/boy from the unit but most are going to tell the COR to make it happen because most of them just don't want to be all that involved.  If the IH isn't signing the charter, it's because they have delegated that to their COR or to someone else in the organization, but make no mistake, the IH is the ultimate decider of who can and can't be leaders in their unit.  Trust me when I tell you that you do not want to make the mistake that the CC or the COR can remove an SM that is a buddy of the IH - I've seen that tried once - and it was not pretty - neither that unit, nor the one that sprung up of supporters of the CC, survived the year. 

[fred johnson]

CalicoPenn ... I don't think there is a disagreement as much as poor wording or poor interpretation.  

 

I meant by going through the district exec because the institutional head doesn't have a signature line on the adult leader applications.  The IH actually has it easier.  All the IH has to do is say, I want this guy out of my troop and it's a done deal.  Generally, the district exec and the institutional head should have each others contact number.  The district exec should be contacting him every year to visit.  And yes, he can do it through re-charter as the IH signs that.  But that's generally clean up time and the paperwork is processed by the CC and/or the COR.  

 

Also ... as you say ... politics of who knows who is always an issue.  With that said, the COR & CC can remove people.  Scoutmaster can't remove people on his on ... unless he's a buddy of the IH.   And then, it's the IH doing it.  Not the scoutmaster.  ... Sort of a regression into a meaningless discussion huh.  .  

[SlowDerbyRacer]

In practice for our pack the CC is the top guy.  He coordinates everything on a pack-wide basis.  The den leaders do all the heavy lifting with the scouts.  Our cubmaster is ceremonial more than anything.  He basically just emcees the monthly pack meeting and sits in on the committee and provides input on par with others around the table.  I'm not sure how that all relates to what it should be, but it works well for us.

[blw2]

after reading @@SlowDerbyRacer ' s post, makes me wonder what the view is to the parents and boys..... to the "public"

 

If the Cumbamster or Scoutmaster is all they see.

And since the CM or SM are generally referred to as the unit "Leader"

I'm guessing that to the "public view" that leader is the "buck stops here" guy....

 

then with the CC in reality that guy, you'd have this situation where they think that the CM/SM is either a great guy or a bonehead, depending on what the CC is.

[Stosh]

The CC might be the unit leader, but then under the management model, s/he has no contact with the boys other than as an adjunct ASM.  Otherwise, the CC becomes the SM and the SM is not needed.  Or the CC takes over as "SM" and the "SM" is just another ASM.

 

Classic example of Ivory Tower set up.

[Gone]

after reading @@SlowDerbyRacer ' s post, makes me wonder what the view is to the parents and boys..... to the "public"

 

If the Cumbamster or Scoutmaster is all they see.

And since the CM or SM are generally referred to as the unit "Leader"

I'm guessing that to the "public view" that leader is the "buck stops here" guy....

 

then with the CC in reality that guy, you'd have this situation where they think that the CM/SM is either a great guy or a bonehead, depending on what the CC is.

 

 

The CC might be the unit leader, but then under the management model, s/he has no contact with the boys other than as an adjunct ASM.  Otherwise, the CC becomes the SM and the SM is not needed.  Or the CC takes over as "SM" and the "SM" is just another ASM.

 

Classic example of Ivory Tower set up.

 

As Stosh points out, the SM is the face of the troop. The CC is the chairman of the board. 

 

If someone comes to the SM with a CC issue, he kindly informs them of his role versus the CC. They either understand or they don't. They may think him weak, but those in the know realize the difference. This is why at the new parent mtg we ALWAYS define what goes to the CC and what goes to the SM. That way they realize the difference and respect the two roles.

 

Our unit lead always says, "I serve at the pleasure of the unit committed and our charter organization." 'Nuff said.

[SlowDerbyRacer]

I'm finding this thread a little disheartening because it's a shame this is even an issue.  By "this" I mean a discussion/debate about who is in charge, reports to who, etc.  Perhaps I have my head in the clouds because power plays and chain of command problems are just not an issue for our large pack (~65 kids).  As I mentioned above our CC is the guy keeps us running smoothly.  The CM is public face of the pack but there are no battling egos.  To address @@blw2 's comment, there's little issue with parents or kids not knowing who the top guy is.  Frankly the parents probably all understand the CC is the heavy lifter because communications generally come from him.  And for the kids, the CM is a great public face because he's good with the kids, is an Eagle Scout, has great scout knowledge and can work the room.

 

I liken our situation to a football team where there's a head coach, but the offensive coordinator has full reign to call plays.  In both cases (scouts or football) the leaders know their roles and perform them without conflict.

 

@@Stosh made an ivory tower comment about some units.  That's just a shame some units have to deal with that.  That tells me the leadership has too much focus on things that don't directly benefit the kids.  

[Chisos]

So that for questions of the boy program, it's the Cubmaster or Scoutmaster

But for all other supporting business it's the CC

and together they should work, not separately, not over, not under....

 

That's kind of how we run it.  (I'm a CC). Our running joke is CM = operations, CC = management.  Without operations, management is pointless.  Without management, operations can go haywire.  So, we have defined roles, and while on some org chart somewhere one may "report" to the other, we try to run things by consenus and with an eye as to what is best for the boys and the Pack.