Getting Your Unit Adult Leaders DROPPED BY Council!

[T2Eagle]

Registration CAN be done online through the Be-A-Scout system; however most units (mine included) have either not turned on or otherwise disabled that functionality.  Our council ran training on the system two or three years ago.

 

 

Most units want to have that in-person, face to face before taking and accepting either a youth or adult leader application.

I've looked for this feature before, numerous times, I finally crawled through a Power Point designed for Council staffers and it looks like my council has not activated the feature to allow units to utilize that feature in Be A Scout.  

 

I don't want Council collecting dues, and I have to imagine I can still reject or accept an application, I was just hoping for some automation of the otherwise paper process.

 

I'll chat with my DE and see what he knows.

[SeattlePioneer]

<<  My understanding is that although the recharter computer system will accept the input of a new leader's information it is not finalized until the council receives and approves a paper application.  A part of the application process now is also that a registration isn't compete or final until the new leader completes YPT --- that is probably what your DE was referring to.>> 

 

 

 

I took in the Adult Leader paperwork for a new adult leader --- Dave.

 

The council lost Dave's paperwork.   Dave completed the paperwork a second time and it was submitted with our recharter,  and listed on our recharter.  And PAID for.

 

The next year,  no Dave listed as an existing leader on the recharter.  Dave needs to start over for the THIRD time.

 

Meanwhile,  Dave has been an active Den Leader for two years,  and is currently a new Webelos Den Leader.  What about the BSA much vaunted check on adult volunteers?  Probably never done.

 

They don't complete the registration,  but they do keep the money.

 

 

Meanwhile,  a big pain in the neck is created for the volunteer and the unit volunteers who try to straighten out such screw ups.

 

 

I suspect that councils COULD notify unit leaders of discrepancies in a timely fashion so they could be remedied with a minimum of trouble.  But they don't.

 

​I Councils and BSA  have created a monstrously complex administrative system which they can't manage effectively,  yet they keep ladling more and more complexity into the system. 

 

In my opinion this is foolish and destructive.

[cyclops]

Gumbymaster, you're right about that. Courteous essentially is the same. My bad.

 

SeattlePioneer, you are also correct regarding their capacity to mess up their own system. In contrast, the Obamacare web site is both massive and complex...and the Obamacare website is working now. How's that for a comparison? What is the conclusion? BSA is even less efficient and less competent than the federal government, lol. And BSA gets paid more! LOL! [insert maniacal laughter here]

Edited October 15, 2015 by cyclops

[Krampus]

In contrast, the Obamacare web site is both massive and complex...and the Obamacare website is working now. How's that for a comparison? What is the conclusion? BSA is even less efficient and less competent than the federal government, lol. And BSA gets paid more! LOL! [insert maniacal laughter here]

 

Ah, the Obamacare website wasn't working for a long time because the contractor involved, and the government entity that oversaw it's implementation, had their heads up their bums. It got "fixed" when a new contractor (an very prestigious high tech firm) came in and said, "We will fix this. Kick out these other companies, get the government oversight out of our face, oh, and write another BIG check because this is going to cost you."

 

In short, government and incompetency was kicked to the curb and private business came in to fix things. The cost of the original system and the fix were nearly seven times the originally intended cost of implementation. 

 

Many folks have been saying all along that BSA's systems could be fixed if they stopped acting like they were an IT organization and actually hired a company that knew what they were doing.

[John-in-KC]

Moderators Note:

 

Please stay on topic. 

[Krampus]

@@cyclops bought up a poorly run website as an example. I commented on how that website was "fixed". No one mentioned anything about politics, just how poorly the thing was implemented, nor did anyone denigrate any political affiliation.

 

I think we can have a brief conversation about bad websites, using the example that was used (because it is the truth and apolitical), without moving the whole thread to I&P. Or have we just become *that* over sensitive?

[Renax127]

I should add that in the 3 years of my being involved with scouting we are on our 3rd DE.   Is this pretty common? 

He when my son started as a Tiger we had just changed DE's, he lasted a few months then we went thru 3 or 4 more in the next 18 months, one lasted 6 days (guess Cub-O-Ree was too much for him). All of them were non-scouts, never had any contact with scouts. Next guy was a recent college grad and Eagle Scout, lasted about 2.5 years till the ridiculous demands of the job did him in.

[blw2]

I'm 4 years in 

and we're on our 5th DE, + the position was vacant for long periods of time between a couple of those.....

[Stosh]

I'm 4 years in 

and we're on our 5th DE, + the position was vacant for long periods of time between a couple of those.....

 

Sometimes that isn't such a bad situation to be in.  

[desertrat77]

Three different DEs in 10 months.   One lasted a single week.   Currently we have no DE.    Scouting is still happening nonetheless.

 

As Stosh said, it isn't such a bad situation to be in.

[Krampus]

DE is never around. Never answers email, never attends RT, never seen him at a district or council event. Could not pick him out of a line up. Might as well not have a DE.

 

The chairman is one of those WBers that gives the group a bad name. Egotistical, self-centered and self-serving. Attends RTs but treats them as if he were king and we were in his court. Is more interested in hitting FOS and JTE metrics than putting on a good program.

 

Commissioner is never present. Like the DE I could not pick him out of a line up.

 

The district is run by "underlings" willing to do the Dark Lord's bidding. I guess they all hope to get one of the bigger jobs one day. All have been around longer than dirt and would rather run things the way they've always been done than do anything new.

[Eagle94-A1]

In the 20 months I worked as a DE, 9 of my coworkers quit, most within 9 - 12 months of starting (one after 3 weeks via phone from the emergency room when the DFS told him to leave against medical advice and come to work), a finance director quit within a year, and a field director with 7-10 years in the council. One district had 4 DEs within 21 months.

 

After I left, my immediate replacement left within 3 months, and when they found a DE to replace him, he left after a year due to a nervous breakdown.

 

Things got a lot better when the SE and DFS left. The FD who came about about a month before I left actually stayed around 5 years.  When I came back to the area, he was getting promoted to DFS.

[SeattlePioneer]

<< one lasted 6 days (guess Cub-O-Ree was too much for him). >> 

 

 

 

Heh, heh!   I can understand that!

[Krampus]

@@Eagle94-A1, I am curious, what is burning out the DEs? What's the role description and job requirements that's taking its toll on these guys?

[skeptic]

Besides YP verification often missing with the new app, there is also the other section that must be signed by new applicants, the DRP,  If it is not done, the app will get rejected for final approval too.  You can have any of the key 3 check your training info at any time through Scout Net.  They also do post warnings.  But too many do not pay any attention, so it suddenly is an issue.  At least half the complaints in relation to this very likely actually are because the unit is not verifying stuff properly.  Then, when the DE is overloaded, it gets lost in the piles of red tape.  Recharter time is mostly nightmare for DE's because of carelessness and not following directions at the beginning.