Scoutmaster works for the Committee Chair?

[Scoutfish]

Ooops! My Bad! I meant CM.

 

My point ( as I intended) , was to say maybe they had SM and troop mixed up with CM and pack....who work under the committee.

[Scoutfish]

Funny how 1 single letter totally changes the entire conversation, isn't it? LOL!

 

Yeah, I was trying to type the chart that way,and it sure looked good, but it formats differently once you click on "submit".

[evmori]

From a top down organizational chart perspective, the CC is a direct report to the COR and the SM is a direct report to the CC.

[Beavah]

Yah, Scoutin' is so much fun except for adult egos, eh?

 

Sometimes I wish we could run those week-long teambuilding challenge courses for committees and adult leaders. Yeh just have to get to know people and learn how to work with 'em. Both the SM and CC might be well-meaning and have good ideas, but they have to get on da same page and figure out how to work like a team.

 

Sometimes yeh have to promote a CC like this out of da position. It can be particularly hard for military fellows who are used to a more rigid chain of command to adapt to the collaborative committee / scouter team. Takes a very different skill set to be effective as a CC than as an E-7. Sometimes yeh just have to figure out a different way of workin' to play off his temperament and strengths.

 

Me, I'd be tryin' to redirect the CC, eh? Instead of lookin' inward, his job is to look outward. To protect his people from da council, to deal with unruly parents, to knock down obstacles for the SM and the kids. If he can be brought to think that way, the fellow might make a fine CC. He'll never be as collaborative as the best CCs are, but he'll marshal people to get stuff done.

 

Leave the silly organizational charts for helpin' start da next campfire, eh? Nobody "works for" anybody in this game, eh? We work on behalf of a CO. But if there's any "for" it's "for the kids." We work with each other for the kids.

 

Beavah

 

[ScoutNut]

Just as in a Troop, a Pack and a CM do NOT "work under" the Committee.

 

The Business People (Committee, and the CC), work WITH the Program People (SM/ASM - CM/ACM/DL - etc).

 

Who all work FOR the COR and the CO who OWNS the unit.

[Scoutfish]

From everything I can read here : http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/ThePack/pcomm.aspx

 

and the broad implications I get from it..The CM's job is to pretty much carry out the plans and program that the committee decodes on. Hopefully, in order ensure the sucess of carrying out that plan..the committee actually listened to and took advice from the CM and ACM. But from what I see practiced, how the job descrpitions are listed and the way the organazational rank chart is shown ( which I couldn't draw right) the CM as well as the ACM worerk under the Committee.

 

Now in out pack, most people understand that the CM and ACM are the most experienced and highest trained people in OUR pack and work to carry out and accomidate their plans.

 

And although it is committees job to handle appointmenst of leadership, that kinda falls towards the Adults leaders and who they are comfortable working with..at least in our pack.

 

So I realize that there are two different ways of looking at thuis:

 

The way it is supposed to be,

 

and what it really is.

[acco40]

First of all, throw out all Cub Scout references when investigating the role of a Scoutmaster. There are no Scoutmasters in the Cub Scout program.

 

Some of the functions of Troop Committee are to support the program by supporting the Scoutmaster in delivering a quality Troop program. It does advise the SM on BSA policies and CO policies. The CC organizes the committee, sees that functions are delegated, coordinated and completed. Nowhere, does it state that the SM reports to the CC (or vice versa). The SM is the "public" face of the troop. The SM is NOT a member of the committee but should attend committee meetings to give an update on the program.

 

The BSA does mention "votes" sometimes wrt the committee but there is nothing specific about any type of "majority vote" policy about committee decisions.

 

[upnorthmn]

Two words - 'power tripping'

 

In an all volunteer organization? That's a sure fire way to lose head count.

 

Does your CC EVER attend meetings or events to see what really goes on- and to see how their little snowflake behaves? (We front facing folks know little Johnny can't do the perfect angel act for a full hour, let alone an overnight trip) Invite your CC to attend a camping trip to take the reins and demonstrate their ideas in action. A virtual dollar says they'll come up with some excuse to not attend.

[Scoutfish]

acco40,

The CM reference was to the point of being that the original poster was told something about BOY Scouts that actually more resembles CUB Scouts.

 

That is the only reason Cub Scouts was brought into the conversation.

[NeilLup]

Please let me totally support John-in-KC

 

Scouting works best as a consensus organization. Any time that I have seen or gotten involved in a "you work for me" discussion or a "who's the boss" discussion or a "who can fire whom" discussion in Scouting, it's a really, really bad sign. We have enough challenge trying to keep up with and stay ahead of the Scouts. We don't need to have fellow adults going for our ankles.

 

If there's an honest, friendly discussion among adults about how best to do things, that's one thing. But when it's "You work for me, do what I say!" all is not well at all.

 

Scouting for adults is supposed to be fun and rewarding. Ultimately, each of us has a personal bank of good experiences that draw us to Scouting. When a good meeting occurs or a youth does something special, that's a deposit in the bank. But when negative things happen, it's a withdrawal from the bank. And if it's a really negative thing, it can be a big withdrawal from the bank and maybe even a "bankruptcy."

 

As long as the bank balance is nice and positive, then one's experience in Scouting is strong. But if the balance gets close to zero, then it's very appropriate to ask how one should change one's relationships with Scouting so that the experiences become very positive again.

[acco40]

Yes, John-in-KC (since he like the Tigers and not the Jayhawks ) got it correct but just so nobody parses his language incorrectly ...

 

He reports to the Committee, The "He" references the Scoutmaster and I believe John is implying that at committee meetings, the SM "reports" to them what is going on with the Scouts. He is not implying a functional organization "reports to" as is a subordinant.

 

The Scoutmaster and the Committee Chair are specifically accountable to the Chartered Partner through the COR. The rest, ASMs and Committee people, are accountable to their respective principals, who in turn, need to coordinate any personnel matters with the COR. Yes, but the COR/IH/CO approves ASMs (or more properly SAs , and Troop Committtee members just like any other adult leader of the troop.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[John-in-KC]

acco,

 

From my understanding of the program materials,

 

The SM does have a "report-out" function to the Committee. He's to keep them informed on the direction of the program, the needs of the unit,and the needs of the members. I think this can be taken as a responsibility to to Committee.

 

A properly functioning Commitee is a check and balance. Through the use of Boards of Review (among other tools), they ensure the SM and his assistants are executing the program.

 

Indeed, as you said, all leaders are approved by the Chartered Partner through the COR. That said, I do expect ASMs to follow and support the SM. It's his vision that matters. Equally, I expect committee member act collegially, and follow and support the CC.

 

As Beavah said, it really does help when our adult egos stay out of the way

 

BTW ... I'm going over to Columbia twice next week. Tuesday is the spring concert of the University Bands program. Saturday is the Black and Gold spring football game (and a performance by Marching Mizzou). I will most likely stay over and go to church with my son on Sunday

[acco40]

Many folks use the term "reports to" as a chain of command type description. For example, as a department manager, I report to my functional Director. In this way, the SM does NOT "report to" the CC.

 

Yes, the SM does have an obligation to "report to" the committee what is going on and one of the purposes of a BOR is for the troop committee to evaluate the program and report back to the SM their observations - good and bad. As a SM, that was one of my beefs. I never heard any feedback from the board. Pretty much they said no news is good news.

 

When you get a chance tell me how Gabbert is doing! I heard the defense is well ahead of the offense, a rare recent occurance at Mizzou.

[WestCoastScouter]

Of course this is supposed to be how it works... I once saw a Pack create a "Executive Committee" that was "above" the Pack Committee. It was made up of the CC, CM, and ACM. They essentially said they had to power to make final decisions, and even removed two den leaders who they did not "approve" of their program. They said they were given Carte Blanche by the COR to do whatever they wanted. The COR was never seen... Maybe that's why 1/3 of the pack left to go to another pack....

[WestCoastScouter]

Of course this is supposed to be how it works... I once saw a Pack create a "Executive Committee" that was "above" the Pack Committee. It was made up of the CC, CM, and ACM. They essentially said they had to power to make final decisions, and even removed two den leaders who they did not "approve" of their program. They said they were given Carte Blanche by the COR to do whatever they wanted. The COR was never seen... Maybe that's why 1/3 of the pack left to go to another pack....