Commissioner Assignments, What makes sense?

[OldGreyEagle]

I spun this off as it is not scoutmaster related. I understand what Beavah is saying, I think, that a commisioner should stick with a program (Cubs, Boy Scouts, Venturing, etc) and not try to be all things to all units, but...

 

But, that is the way I understood the Commisioner Service to run, that a Chartering Unit should have 1 commissioner who then takes care of the Cub Pack, Boy Scout Troop, Venturing Crew, Sea Scout Ship, Varsity Team, and Explorer Post that the Organization sponsors. After typing it all out, I suppose its a bit of a stretch that one person could be merely competent in all of the above

 

How do your Councils handle it, is it one commisioner per CO or do you break it down by program?

[eaglescout1996]

I serve as a UC, and for my Council, I think it works District by District.

 

As for my district, we do it by program. For instance, we have one UC who takes care of most of the Venturing Crews, as we have very few, and many are high school ROTC units.

 

As for me, I am responsible for three Cub Scout packs, and one of the CO's has a Troop, which another UC takes care of.

 

I can see it work both ways. In my previous council it was the opposite. I was responsible for two Packs and one CO which had a Pack, Troop, and Crew. It allowed me to understand how the CO ran the program and adjust my methods that way.

 

But...I like have only Packs (or if it where Troops or Crews), because you're sticking with one program and you can share the information on how different units operate. It also makes it easier when I go to round table, it allows me to stick to one room and run around and talk to everyone.

[Brian85]

My district has a shortage of UC's. The possibility of having a UC for various programs sounds great, but shear numbers precludes that. I currently am responsible for a Pack, a Troop, and a Ship. I had two troops, but when I went looking for the troop in August, I could not find any evidence of a unit, other than a cool trailer. The unit just disappeared, honest. Every point of contact, poof, not one registered boy or leader to be found. I did find evidence of former members in nearby units, but they had not left due to program, but proximity. I reported to the DC, DE, and the CC that I could find no trace, but it was fruitless. The units I have now, had not seen a UC in more than three years. I thinks my next task will be to recruit some more UC's from other units, but it is a very hard sell. Many of the most hardcore scouters are very involved in individual unit activity and focus on them.

So, I guess the answer to the question is: We break down by regional area. We have an ADC that should have five UC's assigned and twenty-five units. I will really bring up the possibility of program breakdown.

 

[UCEagle72]

Our District is varied. I handle 3 of the 4 units sponsored by the same organization (Pack, Troop, and Crew) - they have another Pack, but I just don't have the nights available to pick up a 4th unit.

 

I think "experience" is the best factor for making this determination. I have been a Cubmaster, a Scoutmaster, and an Explorer advisor (and a UC or ADC for 16 years). I find no problem working with the three different programs. Not every UC can say that.

 

Usually, it is best if a UC stays with one program, until "they" feel they are ready to branch out. At least that is my experience.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

My district has historically assigned Unit Commissioners to individual chartered organizations rather than by program. This has some benefits when there appears to be transitional problems between units. The UC should be knowledgeable about program differences and be able to help in resolving those problems, making for a happy chartered organization.

[acco40]

The council to which I belong ...

 

takes what it can get. I used to be a UC for a Troop and a few Packs - all of different COs. I have since changed to just Packs and have recently changed to none of the above.

[Eamonn]

We talked about this some years back at the Conference on delivering commissioner service at Philmont.

The feeling from most of the people there was that the Unit Commissioner is a friend to the unit.

Sure he or she works with the COR and the CO. But each section has it's own problems, so having someone who has a deep understanding and knowledge of that section is more than lightly the best way to go.

For problems that would need the involvement of the CO? This might be better if left to the District Commissioner or an Assistant..

Ea.

[jhankins]

I don't think a commissioner has to have all of the answers, but should have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom of the program and share their enthusiasm with the units they serve. In my district we have a little of everything. We have LDS commissioners who work with all 4 programs in their wards. We have commissioners who work specifically with our traditional packs and troops, and we have chartered organizations that would like 1 commissioner for all 3 programs.

 

I enjoy getting to work with a pack, troop and crew. I get to meet all sorts of parents, bridge the gaps in between to point each program back to helping the others, and it's a great way to see how issues within one program are affecting the success of the other.

 

 

[83_Eagle_T148]

I see the benefits of doing things both ways. When I was a Commissioner in NC, I had three units, with one chartered organization, a pack, a troop, and a post. Having these three units, with the same sponsor, allowed me to develop an exceptional relationship with the Chartered Organization.

 

I've also seen where a Commissioner can become a true program expert by having all of his, or her, units be the same type. Honestly, I'm not sure there is a wrong answer here.