Executive Board Meetings

[Cburkhardt]

I have been on different sides of this unnecessary divide at different times.  First a board-serving district chair and council president, and later a double unit leader (as well as other program and council leadership roles). 

While serving in council roles I often heard others express a preference to avoid interacting with unit and program people if they had opinions and behaviors that were so absolute as to be obstructionist.  When such a person presented himself, 80% of the time the obstructing behavior concerned camp property or program closely-related to the camp.  The remainder of the behavior usually concerned raising or spending of council funds – even if the person was not a financial contributor.

While executives I worked with and I never engaged in the tactics mentioned in this posting, I occasionally found it necessary to wall-off myself from a person making extreme demands or obsessing about matters that were disproportionate to existential tasks at hand.  Those who chose not to support council efforts and aggressively positioned themselves as disruptors usually assisted Scouting in other ways they personally controlled.  My approach was to appreciate the assistance provided but not allow that person to derail a productive agenda.  As a now-unit scouter, I appreciate the efforts of council and district people and make an essential FOS contribution.  They know I am a supporter, even if I express an occasional disagreement.

Our culture is drifting away from the practice of reasonable compromise and toward all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, and vilify-the-opposition behavior.  I dearly hope that we diminish such behavior between program and council scouters as we emerge from bankruptcy. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

50 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

I have been on different sides of this unnecessary divide at different times.  First a board-serving district chair and council president, and later a double unit leader (as well as other program and council leadership roles). 

While serving in council roles I often heard others express a preference to avoid interacting with unit and program people if they had opinions and behaviors that were so absolute as to be obstructionist.  When such a person presented himself, 80% of the time the obstructing behavior concerned camp property or program closely-related to the camp.  The remainder of the behavior usually concerned raising or spending of council funds – even if the person was not a financial contributor.

While executives I worked with and I never engaged in the tactics mentioned in this posting, I occasionally found it necessary to wall-off myself from a person making extreme demands or obsessing about matters that were disproportionate to existential tasks at hand.  Those who chose not to support council efforts and aggressively positioned themselves as disruptors usually assisted Scouting in other ways they personally controlled.  My approach was to appreciate the assistance provided but not allow that person to derail a productive agenda.  As a now-unit scouter, I appreciate the efforts of council and district people and make an essential FOS contribution.  They know I am a supporter, even if I express an occasional disagreement.

Our culture is drifting away from the practice of reasonable compromise and toward all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, and vilify-the-opposition behavior.  I dearly hope that we diminish such behavior between program and council scouters as we emerge from bankruptcy. 

Well said! Wholeheartedly agree!

[Eagle94-A1]

21 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

  I would suggest finding a board member and voicing your concerns.   Just talk to them, you won't be tried for Boy Scout Treason and you may find the answers to your questions.

 

17 hours ago, Christi13 said:

There has been one time where I voiced a question and was informed by the Council President that I was stepping outside of my perview and if I did it again that I would be removed from my positions. 

 

20 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

you won't be tried for Boy Scout Treason?

Yes, you will... in absentia, with no formal charges, defense, or appeal.  You will be blacklisted and excluded from participation at district and council level.

This has happened to me and others in this forum, for asking questions about decisions, governance, and finances.

@Mrjeffis probably right about board members, but when word reaches the professional staff, you could (repeat, could) have backlash.  Just tread carefully.

I have personally seen individuals questioning council pros on finance issues be placed in the IVF. The SE played a major role.

I knew  retread professional who left one toxic council, and went to another when he was eligible to return.. First council found out and tried to get him fired and placed in the IVF because the SE was that vindictive. Thankfully the new boss prevented that from happening.

[Mrjeff]

Didn't say Council Executive.  They are the CEO of the council and does have that responsibility and authority but the council president does not.

 

[Mrjeff]

Sometimes I think that candidates for the Scout Executive position  are done to bring about the demise of a council.  A lot of things depend on how cohesive the volunteers are and their relationship with the Council Executive.  If the Council Executive is that bad the volunteers do have recourse to send them packing.  But that's for another discussion.   Like I said earlier, put the well being of the kids first, support them and give them what they want and you'll have such a following that your opinions are gold.

[InquisitiveScouter]

That power is shared by both.  By the rules, they both must agree.  So, Council President does have the authority.

[Mrjeff]

I guess we will just have to disagree because the president can not arbitrarily emote anyone from anything.

[InquisitiveScouter]

No one asserted that. Someone posted above that a CP threatened removal.  All it would take is talking with the CE and getting agreement.  In writing, neither have that power unilaterally.  In practice, I have only seen CE's take this action (of course, not knowing what discussions were had with CP).

It stands to reason if a CP and CE are tight, then the CP could get someone tossed.

 

[Christi13]

Thanks for all of your insights. It has be most helpful. 

 

[SiouxRanger]

On 10/12/2022 at 5:10 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

In practice, I have only seen CE's take this action (of course, not knowing what discussions were had with CP).

It stands to reason if a CP and CE are tight, then the CP could get someone tossed.

I have seen the Council President sign off on removing volunteers.  Scout Executive agreement was presumed, but the volunteer Council President signed the letters and took the heat.  The checks for the refund of the volunteers' chartering fees was signed by a subordinate professional.

Ultimately cost both of them, the Council President and the Scout Executive, their jobs and reputations.

At the end of the day, Council operations are governed by the rules of M.A.S.H.'s "Double Cranko."

"Rules? There are no rules."  --Hawkeye

[DuctTape]

What is allowed vs what should be done in executive sessions?

Having served on an executive board (not associated with scouting), a well run board with ethics (and sometimes by law) will only discuss matters in executive session which outside disclosure may harm the organization financially, or a person. For example, discussion regarding personnel matters: the specifics, legal and fiduciary consequences would be discussed in executive session however the vote (and arguments for/against) would be transparent to the rest of the committee. Sale of real property, the discussion in executive session would only happen if the discussion would adversely affect the sale for the organization and again the final vote (and arguments for/against) would be transparent. Of course this is the ideal and all boards are run by people who make errors either by ignorance, expediency, or malice. Many times I have had to speak up in executive session to remind the other memebers that the discussion of confidential info has concluded, and the rest should include the larger assembly fro transparancy (in my case by law).

What I find abhorrent is that those who use executive sessions not as a means to protect individuals privacy (personnel matters) or protect the legal or fiduciary matters of the organization but to hide the decisions and the votes of the specific executive board members, or to circumvent the will of the larger assembly. When this happens, the trust no longer exists and without trust, leadership becomes authoritative. So regarding Council, District, Troop operations... IMHO, this is antithesis to the values of scouting and should not be tolerated by scouters and has no place in Scouting.