How to Fire a Scoutmaster

[John-in-KC]

Just in case you haven't got the point yet...

 

The collective wisdom thus far is we're asking you to think really hard about what you propose to do.

 

BTW, if you're in smaller-city or small-town America, if you get a reputation in the community as a bloody fool in your volunteer work ... it can come back to haunt you in your day job!!

 

I ask yet again: Are you truly certain you want to do this? I hope you perceive many of us are not sure this is a good idea.

[gcnphkr]

I'd prefer they'd kept their pants on, thank you very much.

[nldscout]

Schattenmann

 

I think its you that have forgotten the 12. Perhaps you should run through them in your mind with special emphasis on Trustworthy and Loyal.

 

To be blunt, if I was the SM and you tried this, one of us would be gone and I bet it wouldn't be me.

[HICO_Eagle]

Everyone is piling on Schattenmann, possibly in a knee jerk reaction to defend this other SM, so let me take the other perspective. From what I see on the periphery, we have an SM who is taking advantage of a lack of leadership or involvement on the part of the troop committee to set his own sons up for SPL and Eagle by voiding the election process and mandating a dynastic succession for the next year plus. That is not healthy for the troop.

 

resqman and John-in-KC are absolutely right in that it's the CO's responsibility to hire or fire the SM. The CO will usually take the committee's feelings on the matter into account on this.

 

CalicoPenn is right in the way other positions are selected but it is inappropriate for the SM to mandate a succession timeline for SPL for the next year or so. Having said that, I have been in committee discussions where we discussed various boys' qualifications and needs for personal growth (not necessarily rank advancement) and how we should groom various boys for SPL or PL. Of course all those plans would been thrown in disarray had troop elections gone differently but we've been pretty accurate in predicting how elections would go and then plan accordingly. That still needs to happen.

 

I'm going to disagree with the guys who are saying you need to think about being trustworthy and loyal to the SM. You all need to be trustworthy and loyal to the TROOP. The health of the troop and the boys in it should be the primary concern of the committee, the SM and the ASMs.

 

I'll go along with Eagle92 though -- think VERY hard about this course of action. With the timelines you've outlined, you will probably have more success and fewer negative side effects (intratroop politics has a nasty way of bringing down otherwise viable troops) by focusing on a few key points to strengthen the troop:

 

1. Bolster the role(s) of the troop committee. How many of them would benefit from TIS and position-specific training? Get them lined up for it so they know what they SHOULD be doing and HOW to do it.

 

2. Shift the dynastic succession without attacking the SM or the boys he's trying to promote. Once the committee is set up with people who know what they should be doing, you can raise the issue of needing to reinforce the election process in accordance with national guidelines. That can (and maybe should) lead into a discussion of what those boys need for their own personal growth and Eagle advancement.

 

3. Get the committee and the SM to agree to a plan for leadership training. Point out what PLs should be doing but aren't, the question about the Venture Scout patrol, etc. Volunteer to plan and lead the training if no one else will so it gets going and show how it will fall in line with and reinforce national guidelines.

 

I think if you do the three things above it will strengthen your troop, negate your strongest objection to the SM's actions and help you outlast the current SM. I would only take the step of trying to formally remove the SM if you had nearly unanimous agreement from the scouts and parents as well as the committee where everyone was willing to go forward to the COR -- and even then they OUGHT to go to the SM with their objections first.

[sst3rd]

Here's another way:

 

1) Have an out of control Committeeman hold unofficial meetings with his clique before every meeting out in the parking lot (he is the former Webolos leader and has been with the Troop for a year).

2) Have same Committeeman spread rumors about Scoutmaster to cause problems.

3) Have same Committeeman stir things up at each meeting and create an alliance with the SPL.

4) After a year, have this same Committee member harrass the COR in having a meeting to roast the SM (me).

5) This Committeeman was acting as an ASM. If fact, I recruited him and he wanted to be a ASM, so I don't know what happened. He got basic training.

6) Have that Committeeman call, organize, and lead a public meeting out in the parking lot in front of the Scouts (pre-opening activity). The COR was there, but thought it was just an informal get together (I've tried for years, but our Committee does NOT meet once a month. They just kind of get things done as best as they can, when they can).

7) When I tried to explain to the COR that this was obviously a "roast" of the Scoutmaster with just folks that this Committeeman invited, the COR felt that I was being overly dramatic.

8) When I tried to explained to the COR that this meeting should have been set up on a non-meeting night, he said that the meeting night was when everybody could get together.

9) When I said that this meeting needed to be private and held in a room over at the church (we use their facitlies), he thought out in the parking lot was fine.

10) Before the "roast" began, I had already resigned. I allowed each adult leader to say what was on their mine, realizing that none of them have ever approached me about their concerns before. I decided not to defend myself, although I could have explained each and every point brought up per BSA policy.

 

Conclusion: When this Committee member felt that everyone had had their say (yes, he led this meeting, not the COR), this particular Committee member announced that the special roast, I mean meeting, was over with, and everyone left but the COR and I. The Troop meeting had been a disaster because all of the adult leaders were with us, and not where they were supposed be. I was devastated, but was also laughing at the same time. The word that came to mind about this situation, was "ungrateful." I looked at the COR and asked him what he thought had just happened. He was silent. I gave him my resignation affective at the end of the meeting, left him standing in the parking lot, went in to the meeting to appropriately finish it, and wrapped up over 33 years as a Scoutmaster.

 

So, I guess in a special way, this is another way of "how to fire a Scoutmaster."

 

sst3rd

[John-in-KC]

Hico,

 

I do not know who is right here. I do not care who is right.

 

Forcibly removing a Scoutmaster from a unit is disruptive. PERIOD. It disrupts the youth, it disrupts the adults. It is not a solution to be taken lightly. For that reason, it properly involves the Chartered Partner, through the COR.

 

There are ... I've seen them in my District ... second and third order consequences to such a thing happening. I've seen friendships broken over this stuff. That's not good.

 

I do believe an ASM, who is a program side direct contact leader, owes his Scoutmaster professional loyalty. The Scoutmaster is the Program Leader of the Troop. He is the one who represents the program to the Committee. If a subordinate believes his boss is no longer effective and cannot be changed, he has a limited number of choices: To me, the most honorable is to get to a position where he can voice his frustration without being disloyal to his supervisor. That measn this young man should move to the Committee side, and there voice his frustration in open forum. It also moves the frustration to a public venue, where the SM is somewhat obliged to respond.

 

If I were still a COR, and an ASM approached me about the SM, I'd say "thank you, you are no longer an ASM of this unit. I will investigate your concerns diligently, but you're on the sidelines. I need your candor, and I cannot allow any issues of loyalty to get in the way of that candor."

 

An IR/COR approves the SM year to year. The IH/COR should want the unit, want the SM to be successful. The IH/COR doesn't need an independent free-actor running around.

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

[Schattenmann]

Sorry for the absence, my connection is up and down, I'll cherry-pick from the many replies.

 

A lot of you have taken the stance that this is drastic and I should not "jump" into it. As I noted with lots of time rerferences, this has been a problem for some years, we have included the SM in every discussion we've had on matters of concern, and there is no secret conspiracy to replace him with myself as a new charismatic strongman replacing him. I did not start any complaining--I began trying to act on complaints that came across me--now that all diplomatic efforts have been ignored, I simply want to know how to proceed should those of us trying to improve things need to.

 

Lisabob ignores these time references and jumps straight for my age, assuming that "old" means "experienced: "Lots of times, new leaders (and I'm sorry but at 25, you're still a new leader - it does not matter how long you were in the troop or what ranks you earned as a youth; the adult side of things is just different) have a lot of fire to start with but no understanding of how hard it can be to sustain that in order to provide consistency over time."

To clear this up for all of you, youth years aside, I have been with the troop as an adult leader longer than the SM--I was there when he got here.

 

Aside from that, Lisabob, thank you for your concise and informative points--that's what I'm looking for: Advice. (The ammo reference in my OP was a dry joke on my part, apologies)

 

Eagle92 writes:

"1) have a leadership meeting, i.e. SM and all ASMs and discuss what needs to be done. I would also invite the UC. DEVELOP A PLAN OF ACTION TO IMPROVE THE TROOP WITH DETAILS TO MAKE IT YOUTH RUN"

==This is part of the problem. After some informal discussions with the SM didn't get the point across, 4 ASMs/Comittee members sat down with the SM for just such a meeting. We outlined problems/areas of concern, what could be done to adress or fix them, set up timeframes etc for almost 5 hours. The SM wholeheartedly agreed and wanted to be part of the solution, then as soon as anyone tries to act upon the plans, he stops them dead in their tracks, and makes up his own quick fix (which never lasts).

 

Eagle92 and lots of others also note training

"Make sure everyone is Trained and know what resources are out there. There are hundreds of things out there to help the troop."

We ASMs have been loading up on literature once we started actively trying to turn things around for the troop. The SM refuses to read one page of anything. That's part of the problem.

 

Calico Pen:

"A Scoutmaster (or designated assistant) SHOULD be attending PLC meetings. His role is to guide the PLC as needed and it's much easier and more convenient for the Scoutmaster to be able to interject during a PLC than to have to "veto" a plan as unworkable after the PLC has worked to develop it. He's there to help prevent having nights that aren't planned so he doesn't have to think on the fly and call for water balloons, or a game of kickball, or whatever."

Perhaps you did not give my OP your full attention.

The Adv Chair (not myself) was in attendence at the PLCs and helped keep that meeting going. When Scouts started complaining that the meetings were more like daycare than Scout meetings, I started going to them as well. The Adv Chair and I put material in the PLs hands and began working with them more intently, then the SM unilaterally changed the meeting time, started attending, and basically put the whole process into suspended animation. He does not hold water balloon fight meetings because/when the boys do not make their own plans--he tells the boys that on such and such night they will be having a waterballoon fight. Do you see the difference? His idea of a PLC is not planning the forthcoming events, but rather assigning a theme to them, then showing up that night and figuring out what to do 10 minutes before form-up.

 

Skipping the main body of your childish ad homs we get to "By the way, what's a "Uniform Czar"? is that anything like "Patch Police"? If so - stop it - stop it now. A TRAINED leader will tell you that Uniforms are only one method of Scouting - and aren't required at that"

Thanks for that. That's the title the SM gave me because I take a lot of pride in my uniform--he thought it was cute and was the ONLY thing he took from an excerpt of a book we asked him to read. So if that just gets your bile going, you see what sort of a guy he is, not what sort of a guy I am.

 

Your definition of success solely by the number of boys there on a night really is the end of my paying attention to anything you have to say. Any smoothtalker can slick 10 families per year into joining the troop--the problem is that the boys are so disgruntled that they're gone by 14. Out of those 40 rostered boys, only 3 are over 14 and as the older ones get sick and leave we may have 1,000 11 year olds, but they'll all be ignorant and dependent on adults to do everything for them. There's a troop of over 100 10 miles down the road--all the boys get Eagle for showing up, they get kicked out if they don't attend the troop-owned summer camp, the SM picks the SPL etc etc--but by your numbers standard they're the best troop in the county. Don't be stupid.

 

As for some insinuations as to my loyalty or trustworthiness from a couple folks, that's pretty hilarious. My Loyalty to the troop and responsibilities to the scouts is the only thing that has allowed this process to be so drawn out. I was content to let the SM run the troop the way he wanted to run it until scouts started quitting. My trustworthiness is what has kept me from amplifying the complaints of others and using them to do whatever I want.

Far from it, as I have stated multiple times, myself and the other adults have worked and worked and worked WITH the bumbling SM for over a year despite his refusal to recognize the stagnation and decay all around him.

 

sst3rd:

What happened to you is everything that I want to avoid. And I thank you for the contrast. If we wanted to we could do everything wrong and pull it of--but it would be just that, wrong, and nothing right would ever come out of it. When a scout comes to me to complain, I tell him that I understand and that if he doesn't like something to run for PL and change things. When a parent or ASM comes complaining, I tell them then volunteer for a position in the committee that assumes to duties naturally that the SM has had to take on.

I don't want a "bloody coup" and frankly I don't want to be the SM. But I do want a troop that is actually a Boy Scout troop.

 

John-in-KC, Eagle92, I've spent most of my reply on the yokles that wanted to get personal with someone asking for advice, but rest assured I have read and printed your replies--they're what I'm looking for.

 

I know that removing the SM is nasty business, and that's why we haven't done it. If I've come across as someone that is looking for a way to get rid of an SM so I can take over and create the troop of my youth again, then it's a filaing of my keyboard. I want a troop where the boys plan their own meetings (not the SM), where qualified boys are the SPL (not the SMs sons or boys that the SM chooses bc he thinks they deserve it before they turn 18), where the SPL/boys lead the meetings (not the SM), where boys learn from boys (as seen in Norman Rockwell's "The Right Way") not from men because there are no experienced boys left (like we have). I want a SM that can see that these things are not happening (as our SM can) and will take the troop in a course of correction, not further down the trail (like he is).

 

As for my apparent incorrect stance on who chooses the QM, Scribe, Bugler, Hist. etc etc--sorry. This troop has been electing them for 45 years, and I've only been in one. The point is that the SM didn't make that change to bring the troop in line with policy, he made that change because he wanted to pick the troop leadership; there's a difference.(This message has been edited by schattenmann)(This message has been edited by Schattenmann)(This message has been edited by Schattenmann)

[John-in-KC]

Training is not literature.

 

Trianing is contacting the District Training Chairman and taking/retaking Fast Start, "This is Scouting" (actually online now), Scoutmaster Specific, Troop Committee Challenge (I find it useful for ASMs to understand clearly how the committee supports the program), Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills, and on and on.

 

I'd have several long and friendly cups of coffee with your Unit Commissioner. Right now I see only your side of this. Someone close to hand, who can see both sides of all this, is what's needed on the ground.

 

One last point: Choose to burn your bridges with great care. You never know when you will really need that particular bridge, and the need may not come from Scouting.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think before you worry a lot about firing the scoutmaster, you figure out who the replacement will be. I had thought it would be you, but since you deem to be disinclined to take the position, it would be good to have the replacment identified and ready to go before you start anything.

[John-in-KC]

OGE makes a tremendous point. Here's my version:

 

If you're not willing to carry the load, why are you stirring the pot?

 

 

[Eagledad]

I'm a little surprised by the negative comments. Maybe its because I have been involved with a similar situations while on the district commitee, but I dont see any evil intent here or some nut wanting to stir the pot. The correct answer is simple, contact the CC and work together with the COR. If there is some disingenuousness motivation here, it will likely get filtered during that process. Council doesnt just casually watch these things happen.

 

Barry

 

 

[Schattenmann]

John, OldGreyEagle, et al.

 

It got lost in the shuffle above, but the CC was one of the first people to come to me with problems. He's got more training and scouting experience than the SM. If th eSM quits of his own accord tomorrow, then the CC would likely be the new SM. The current CoR has no prior history with the troop and replaced the last CoR when he died after over 35 years of service.

 

Point being, I'm not "stirring the pot." I'm not saying to people in the troop "hey, the SM is horrible, let's fire him." I'm here because people are getting more and more upset, but no one seems to know what to do (having already spoken with the SM abotu these topics over and over). I already fill a lot of rolls in the troop (besides "Patch Police")--it's not a matter of my not wanting to take on responsibilities, I'm already undertaking responsibilities.

No one that has a problem has dared utter the words "let's fire him"--but I'm here for info.

 

Again, as long as a SM is willing to fix the troop not make it worse, then I don't have any favorite. The current SM could stay under those circumstances for that matter. If it comes to it, I just want to know how it's done properly.(This message has been edited by schattenmann)

[Eagle92]

WAIT ONE MINUTE! you said "the CC was one of the first people to come to me with problems." It's my understanding that the CC can fire the SM. Usually they do so AFTER discussing the situation with the COR and/or IH, but the CC can do the firing.

 

As for who the next SM will be, that's a good point. You need someone in place before anything is done ot the SM.

[CalicoPenn]

Why is the Advancement Chair attending and mentoring PLC meetings? Advancement Chair is a Committee Job - not a Program job. The Scoutmaster is the chief program officer for the Troop - and the PLC is part of the program. Either the Scoutmaster attends the PLC (and if he had to change the meeting night to make it possible for him to attend, I see nothing wrong with that) or his (the Scoutmaster's) designated program agent (one of his ASM's). Did he appoint you the task of mentoring the PLC? From the sounds of it, you took that task upon yourself, and are now upset that the SM is usurping your self-designated role.

 

No matter his alleged motivations, when it comes to the appointment of leadership roles other than SPL and PL, you're Scoutmaster has it right - despite the 45 years of "tradition".

 

You came in for advice - and almost to a one, some very experienced Scouters (and the ones that responded are all pretty much experienced Scouters)have said "whoa - back the truck up and think very very hard before you go this route" and you don't like the answer so you call them (us) a bunch of yokels?

 

I urge you to consider whether your working in the best interest of the program or whether your just uncomfortable in the changes in your boyhood Troop. Everything you've written suggests to me a Troop in transition from an old style program to the current National program standards, complete with the growing pains that come with that.

 

If you can't reconcile what the program is about with what you think it should be about, perhaps it is time for you to take a break and let the Troop grow (or sink) without you. Despite everything said about units belonging to Chartering Organizations, and the Boys, the cold, hard reality is that it's the Parents that make or break a Troop - and if this Scoutmaster has the support of the Parents, you are on the losing side of the war, even if you win the battle.

 

 

[ScoutNut]

"the CC was one of the first people to come to me with problems"

 

Why would the CC come to you, an ASM, with problems concerning the SM? Why are you, an ASM, looking for ways to fire a SM, and looking for replacement SM's?

 

 

"He's got more training and scouting experience than the SM."

 

Depending on how much training the SM has, that might not really give him any bragging rights. If he is a completely trained CC, then he knows that HE, not one of the Troop's ASM's, is responsible for firing the SM if need be.

 

 

"If th eSM quits of his own accord tomorrow, then the CC would likely be the new SM."

 

Really, how is that possible? Who do you then have lined up to be CC? A CC can NOT be registered as both a CC and a SM.

 

 

"The current CoR has no prior history with the troop and replaced the last CoR when he died after over 35 years of service."

 

Prior history with the Troop does not mean a hill of beans. The Charter Organization OWNS the Troop. The COR is the CHARTER ORGANIZATION'S representative, NOT the Troop's. He should be a member of the CO, and is the liaison between the CO (the OWNER of the unit) and the unit.

 

If the CC had/saw problems with the SM, he should have gone to the COR, or the COR and the Unit Commissioner, NOT an ASM. Part of a Charter Organization's responsibility to it's unit is to secure proper leadership. That is done thru the COR. The CO appoints its COR, who then appoints the CC. Together the CC and COR recruit the Committee, who then recruit the units leaders with the approval of the COR and CC. Just as they give their approval for someone to become a unit leader, the CC and COR can take it away as well. Everyone is registered for a span of only one year. At the end of that year (or sooner if it is REALLY necessary) the CC and COR either approve them for another year of service to the unit, or they tell them their services are no longer needed. Period.

 

From your posts, it seems to me that your Troop's leadership, ALL of your Troop's leadership, needs training ASAP.

 

When your leadership is trained, and the CC and COR have put a proper Committee in place so that the SM does not feel he has to "do everything", perhaps your problems will have solved themselves.