Improving CO relationships

[SR540Beaver]

True Bob, they chose to stay there. Why? Because you can't have a unit without a CO. Because unit 123 has existed there for 50 years and that is where dad, uncles, cousins and brothers attended. Because other organizations might not want to charter. Because there are trailers, equipment, finances, etc. involved. You know as well as I do that there are minimum requirements of what a CO must provide and that is all some are interested in providing. Would it be better to have a CO that supports you enthusiastically? Well sure it would. Only a fool would want it differently. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. If you have a successful long term unit with a proud history and tradition, you don't just fold up shop because your CO only wants to be bothered once a year to sign the charter. You make lemonade with the lemon. Truth is, many CO's know they own the troop, but they want someone else to run it, so they let it be self sustaining. I've been in both situations and in between too. The volunteers were the folks who cared the most, got the training, followed the program and it really didn't matter how involved the CO chose to be. We were the ones making it happen and we were always very inviting and seeking them, even when they didn't seem to desire it equally.

[evmori]

What's wrong with the volunteers taking ownership of their units? This usually leads to stronger units.

 

And I would bet most CO's are CO in name only.

[packsaddle]

In one sense I think Bob White is correct, although I strongly sympathize with Gern's and LisaBob's observations. This unit had a similar situation and, as Bob White noted, it arose from the leadership gradually distancing the unit from the CO (and from some negative help from a couple of DEs, another story).

This was not some sinister plot on the part of the unit leaders but rather some well-meaning leaders trying to take some of the load off the church. By doing so, the leaders took on more responsibilities than they could handle well and they also sent a message to the CO - "we don't need you", to which the CO's silence responded, "same to you, buddy". It nearly killed the unit. And after I 'called the question' so-to-speak, by bringing the question of CO responsibilities directly into the face of the CO...with the consequence being that they could decide to kill the oldest unit in the area, they did the right thing and are trying to learn how to be an interactive CO.

Gern, it is possible that the CO will indeed decide to let the units die if you confront them in this manner. I understand how negative this seems when your son is in the unit. However, I think that sooner or later this will be a situation that is confronted by the unit and the CO. If the unit is doing well as it is, that's good. And maybe it really IS best to let the sleeping dog lie in that case. In the case of this unit, it was in its last year of survival when I made the CO aware that the unit's fate was in their hands. They did the right thing.

[GernBlansten]

Ed, those of us who take the reins of the beast and try to make a difference are just a band of theives, slinking through the shadows, taking what does not belong to us. How can we look at ourselves in the mirror?

[Bob White]

Gern do not blow this out of proportion or fein sorrow. You broke no laws, you simply are not doing the job that you were approved to do. As you said yourself, you "took" over the troop. You were not selected to serve in the role you chose to fill.

 

You think that taking over someone elses job is an improvement when instead you simply pushed the CO further away, helping to create the situiation that you now have.

 

This isn't your unit, the BSA is very clear that the scouting program is a youth outreach of the charter organization.

 

It doesn't matter if this was the first troop ever chartered in the BSA, once the charter organization no longer wants to wion the unit, its time to take one of two actions. The CO either changes oit mind or lets the troop fold, it is their unit to do as they wish.

 

It is just like with a CO that chooses leadership poorly. The parents have no say in the matter, other than choosing to stay or leave, because they have no authority to choose the leaders.

 

Neither does the Scoutmaster have the authority to take over the job of the Commmittee, or the Committee to take over the responsibilities of the CO.

 

 

[evmori]

Gern,

I removed all the mirrors from my house when I took ownership of the unit I was Scoutmaster of!

 

Taking ownership, if done properly, is a good thing. This help make the unit stronger and give the unit strong leadership. If done improperly, it could lead to a dictatorship, which is never good.

 

Simply not doing the job you were approved to do.....

 

What does that mean ................

[scoutldr]

How many DEs out there actually sit down and meet with every CO in their district to remind them (cordially) of their responsibilities? Isn't that one of their job requirements? How many Unit Commissioners include the CO and COR unit relationship when they are "inspecting" the unit's health?

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[John-in-KC]

Lots of good points in this thread.

 

Lisa identifies one stereotype of a CP: The organization which holds it Scout units hostage. I know, because she's shared with us here, how she's tried to improve the relationship. They don't want that, but they're also willing to hold the numbers, tradition, and equipment hostage.

 

Gern identifies another stereotype of CP: "You do THAT? That would destroy our youth program!" They've long ago forgotten that Scouting is to be an integral part of their youth program.

 

BW identifies the optimum. Sadly, optimum and most common are not the same.

 

Beavah shares how we get from where we are to being measurably closer to optimum.

 

Crawl, walk, run... if you slap the whole contract on the table, who wouldn't walk away? Pick one area for improvement ... maybe leader selection and support ... and start from there. Build a road map to getting there from here ... but this isn't Wall Street, and results won't happen overnight. It'll take months to several years ... if you don't hit a hostage taker.

 

It also takes support. The unit needs the gentle nudge of the District... professionals, Membership/Relationships folks, and Commissioners ... not being the hammer, but gently sharing what right looks like.

 

Teamwork takes time and effort.

[shortridge]

I'm guessing that a council - if it were really interested in improving CO relationships - could develop a pretty good baseline assessment of the issue simply by studying how many CORs attend district or council meetings.

 

Seems to me that it splits into two parts. If the CORs don't know that they're supposed to play that role, that's one issue. If they don't care to, that's another entirely.

[BrotherhoodWWW]

Regardless of what the agreement is or is not there are CP's that wish to support Scouting only so far as to provide a meeting place. I agree this in not ideal but it is what it is. When my former pack lost our CO we the leaders found another to continue the unit. The DE was all for it as it reflects poorly on him to lose units. We found a CO that only wanted to provide meeting space. They believe that Scouting has value and just offering facilities to the unit helps Scouting.

 

Councils and their districts are well aware of scant participation on the part of the CO's. The COR's should be staffing the district committee and yet often they (the DE's) have to recruit adult volunteers from the program side (parents) to staff key positions. I think there are many factors causing this beyond what has already been mentioned. BSA itself is must share some of the blame IMHO. The turnover of the professional staff does not help.

 

IMHO John-in-KC recapped it spot on!

[cubdadinnj]

Our troop's CO is a PTA -- I would guess one of the few. Of the 10 or so schools in our area -- no others sponsor a pack or troop anymore. In fact, the school principal where my old pack was, became quite hostile towards us, we started meeting in the town community center.

 

I don't think our CO has a clue they "own" us or could have both responsibilities and liabilities in that role.

 

I think they'd say their role to allow us to meet in the school and provide storage space.

 

And not sure we'd want to open up more of a dialogue with them.

 

Our community is very progressive -- and Boy/Cub Scouting is openly attacked as anti gay, etc.

 

Just a few years back my old pack (after the PTA wouldn't act as CO anymore) went to a number of churches, synagogues, etc -- and really didn't find any of them receptive to being a CO -- both because of the BSA stance on some issues and the potential liability. So we self-chartered.

 

I would think that will become necessary for more packs and troops as time goes by, and CO's don't really want the concerns of having scouts and scouters to deal with.

 

/p

[emb021]

"What's wrong with the volunteers taking ownership of their units? This usually leads to stronger units."

 

For that to happen the volunteers would have to establish themselves as a non-profit group for the purposes of being the charter org.

 

How would they provide the unit a meeting space?

 

How do they ensure the group stays viable and stable?

 

Not an impossibility, but it brings its own problems.

 

 

[Bob White]

"and CO's don't really want the concerns of having scouts and scouters to deal with."

 

If that were true then they would not have chosen to use the scouting program as a part of their youth service to the community. If they are having problems with THEIR scouts and THEIR leaders then they have selected their leaders badly. Why would they choose and retain people they have problems with?

 

[NJCubScouter]

We have at least one troop in our township that is chartered to "Friends of Troop __, Inc." I know some of their leaders, parents and Scouts because the boys attend the same high school as my son and are in school activities together. The troop seems to be doing fine and has been chartered in this way for a number of years. They have arrangements with one of the schools for troop meetings and with another organization (I believe it is a church) to store their equipment and park their trailer. Is this less "stable" than having a CO that actually owns a place for the troop to meet? Probably yes. Is there a greater potential for problems such as instability in leadership, letting the corporate charter lapse, etc.? Sure, there is greater potential for problems. I am sure it takes work to maintain the arrangements -- but it also takes work to maintain a relationship with a "real" CO. And as I said, the troop seems to be doing fine with this arrangement.

 

In practical terms, this kind of arrangement is not really that much different from being chartered to a PTA or PTO, as my son's former Cub pack is. (The national PTA discourages local PTO's from chartering Scout units, but there is no national PTO, which is what we have here.) The PTO doesn't own a building either, and the PTO leadership is less stable because the students are moving on to another school after the fourth grade. The "relationship" between the PTO and the pack is mainly a function of the almost 100 percent overlap between the PTO membership and the families in the pack, and the resulting fact that at any given time, several members of the PTO board have sons in the pack. The pack leadership is essentially self-selected; the PTO president (who may also be a Scouter or parent of a Cub Scout) simply signs off. This is probably not an optimal CO-unit arrangement either, but it "works" because it gives the pack a place to meet.

[David CO]

This is my first post to this site. I usually just lurk, but this topic caught my eye.

 

Have you ever been a CO? I have, and I'd like to say it's not such an easy job.

 

It is important to understand that people who head a CO are often elected to that position for a short, specified time. I don't consider it either negligent or irresponsible for a CO to listen to and heed good advice from more experienced Scout leaders.