Chartering Organizations Partners or Rascals?

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, since this topic seems to have come up, here goes

 

In the council I serve requires training for unit leaders, assistant leaders, committee chairs and members. Back when these requirements were being discussed, I was in a meeting attended by the then Council Training Chair. The disussion was what positions should need what training and the order of the implementation of the training. When the meeting was about over, the Training CHair asked if there was anyone we forgot and should also be trained. I thought the guy was serious and said that requring training of at least the Charter Organization Representative should be mandated and the institutional head should be considered. The guys face almost turned white, he barely stammered out that if we ever let the CO's know what they are on the hook for, more than half would pull their charters or not recharter the following year. So much for a Scout is Trustworthy.

 

The CO of the unit I serve is great, the COR is a former Scoutmaster and Crew Advisor, I know he shows up at the Annual Meetings but regretably not many do. It was suggested that we dont want the COR's of the IH's to know too much about is, or at the very least we dont want to require them to do too much. And I completely disagree.

 

How many times has the question been asked on the forum how to "get rid of X" be the X be the scoutmaster, committee chair, whatever. It should be crystal clear that this is done by the COR and IH, no one else. Beavah likes to say that its the Chartering Organization's program, and I understand what he is saying although I dont always agree with him, but since it is the CO's program, shouldnt they know what's going on in it? Its the CO's that wield the most power in the Program yet many are blissfully unaware of what they should be doing. I have read about several scouters here who have examplory CO's and also have read about deplorable as well. Shouldnt the CO's all have the same understanding of the program? I know there are supposed to be visits to the IH by the DE, but with the turnover in DE's in the District I serve, I think if an IH gets a phone call from a DE once every three years, its the average.

 

We keep reminding each other that the BSA is not a democracy. The unit leaders do not decide who is to be Scoutmaster or COmmittee Chair, that is the CO's job. How it's done practically we all understand but shouldnt the people charged with selecting the leadership be required to know what those leaders are supposed to be doing? I can see not having them attend a joint meeting. That training would have to done on a one to one basis by either the DE or designee, but to have dormant CO's is to ignore a problem that needs to be addressed.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[John-in-KC]

OGE,

 

Some units have wonderful chartered partners. Yours is an example.

 

Some units have less than wonderful chartered partners. Lisa's is an example.

 

There are a bunch of root causes. Some are in the province of the professional service; some in the hands of volunteers.

 

- When was the last time your IH/COR got their annual sit-down with the DE? He's supposed to pay a service call on the chartered partner as part of the annual charter process?

 

- How much pressure is on the DE's to find new chartered partners and establish new units each year? Anecdotally, a lot. Raises seem to matter not on quality of service, but on quantity of sales for the Professional Service.

 

- How often does a UC pay a visit not only to his units, but also to the Chartered Partner? When was the last time, at Charter renewal, anyone challenged the chartered partner to live up to their side of the contract?

 

BW has talked recently, lots about training. I've been a COR; I'm trained as a COR. I know more than a few CORs who are untrained. BW's rubric of training starts at the IH and the COR. That is not a function of the SM, CM, CCs or anyone else in direct contact positions; inculcating the example of "taking the right training" starts at the District Chairman encouraging the IH/COR to do the right thing.

 

To me, it's harder to talk the talk of training for direct contact volunteers if the folks who are buying Scouting from the local council don't walk the walk.

 

To close, OGE, BSA is a "corporate" democracy at the Council level. The Chartered Partners and the Members at large are the shareholders. They get one opportunity each year, and then the volunteers who are the corporate officers, working with the SE, have authority delegated to them.

[evmori]

In my experience, most CO's are in name only. It would seem to me if we need better trained leaders, it has to start with the CO. But if the CO hasn't attended the council training, therein lies the problem.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

That depends on what you want them to be, and the actions you take to change or maintain the relationship.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[dan]

Are not the COR the voting members of a council? If any changes are going to happen, it is going to have to come from the COR.

 

I really do not think council wants the COs to know how much power they have, otherwise they could not do stuff that they want to do, like sell properties, raises and so on.

 

And IMO most scout leaders do not want that to happen, do they.