Dealing with an inactive committee chair

[83Eagle]

BadenP, I really don't see how anyone could read any one of my posts and get that impression. If I wanted to keep all the power in the hands of the CM I wouldn't be looking to make any changes because that's exactly how it is now! I, as CM, took over a program where the CM handled 100% of the program planning--from the big decisions of what to do each year and at every single event and meeting, advancements, fundraising coordinator, rechartering, right down to making sure there were enough cups for juice at the pack meetings.

 

When the CM needed a new DL or even new warm bodies for the in-name-only committee, he presented an application to the CC who simply rubber stamped it. Nobody on the committee, including the CC, did anything for the program nor were they expected to.

 

This kind of control is "not a healthy situation." I've addressed a lot of it through involvement, collaboration, and delegation, but it is the situation--and only this specific situation--that the CC is inactive and the CM does most of the CC's job that I thought should be addressed.

 

Hopefully that clears it up, because the previous structure was perfect for a little CM-potentate.

 

***

 

Ok, to that end, what should I do, if anything? I fear that going to the COR/CC and saying, "Hey you hold these two roles, are you sure you want both?" could backfire badly. It might, it might not. I won't know unless I try. BUT is it worth the risk of backfiring?

 

So maybe we just take ScoutNut's approach. Right now we still have just a 3-member committee. The other two are actively contributing...but I'm still in the "committee leadership" role. This works at least for now. We have good collaboration and agreement around decisions and there is no infighting or bad politics. We have a great group of people and certainly aren't dealing with some of the power struggles that I read about here. In fact, quite the opposite.

 

So get more committee members etc on the roster, and don't worry about the "inactive" CC because the "overbearing" CC would be worse.

[SeattlePioneer]

83 Eagle,

 

 

Personally, I think it is worth a chance to try to get a good CC appointed.

 

From reading your comments the only thing we really know is that you have a person who is a fine COR but who doesn't want to do the job of the CC. He's had the chance but has only given it a half hearted try before dropping it.

 

Why NOT give him a chance to do the right thing? I'm guessing he will be glad to sign off the application in order to improve the unit. Heck --- as COR he could always reappoint himself to the position if he wishes to do so!

 

If he were to get angry or hostile, that would be a good reason to back off and consider a plan B. But give the person a chance to do the right thing!

 

Of course you know the person --- I do not. But that would be my bias based on the comments you have made.

 

Having the correct committee structure is a gift to future leaders. It's worth a try in my opinion.

[83Eagle]

Why do you say that this person is a good COR? This is an honest question. I know what the role of the COR is on paper but I guess I really don't understand what the COR is supposed to do.

 

Here's what I know about the role from the description, and who does what:

 

Help select the right leadership for the unit. THE CM DOES THIS.

Encourage unit leaders and committee members to take training. THE CM DOES THIS.

Promote well-planned unit programs. THE CM DOES THIS.

Serve as a liaison between the units and the organization. THE PACK HAS NO INTERACTION WITH THE CHARTERED ORG.

Organize enough units. WE HAVE ONE UNIT.

Promote the recruiting of new members. THE CM DOES THIS.

See that boys transition from unit to unit. WE HAVE ONE UNIT.

Help with the charter renewal. THE CM DOES THIS.

Suggest Good Turns for the organization. THE CM DOES THIS.

Encourage the unit committee to hold meetings. THE UNIT NEVER HAD COMMITTEE MEETINGS BEFORE BUT DOES NOW UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CM.

Cultivate organization leaders. CM DOES THIS.

Encourage outdoor program activities. DITTO

Emphasize advancement and recognition. ADVANCEMENT COORDINATOR DOES THIS.

Utilize district help and promote the use of district personnel and materials. NOT DONE.

Use approved unit finance policies. HAS NO INVOLVEMENT IN THIS.

Encourage recognition of leaders. DOES NOT DO THIS.

Cultivate resources to support the organization. DOES NOT DO THIS.

Represent the organization at the council level. IS NOT INVOLVED WITH COUNCIL EVENTS/ACTIVTIES/PERSONNEL/ETC.

 

(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

[Oak Tree]

Why do you say that this person is a good COR?

 

I'd say it's because it's very common in practice for a COR to be an inactive figurehead. Yes, the job responsibilities are as you list, officially. But it's very typical for a COR to act as you describe this guy acting. He could still wear the uniform and be associated with the unit, but can go on doing exactly what he's doing now, which is already what many/most CORs are doing too.

[83Eagle]

Ok, so then written requirements aside, what makes this person a "fine COR."

 

I'm really not being argumentative here, it's just that the consensus seems to be that while this person is not doing her role as CC, she is doing a good job as COR. So...why?

[SeattlePioneer]

OK --- maybe "fine" is stretching a point.

 

But as Oak Tree suggests (and my experience) most CORs do little or nothing. Yours is recognized by the Chatered Organization and the community and has a long history with the pack. That's a lot more than ANY COR I've had occasion to work with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[83Eagle]

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. Basically someone people recognize as being associated with a long and successful program, and all the more reason to be especially diplomatic.

[SeattlePioneer]

Yes. And for those reasons my assumption and hope is that she would recognize that an effective Committee Chair would be the right thing to do, and that she would support it.

 

That's an act of faith on my part of course. But I'd be hoping and expecting the best when you talk to the COR.

 

I wish you good luck with that!

[83Eagle]

Quick question--is COR a charged position on the roster? i.e., the IH is free, committee members are the usual $15. Not sure about the COR.

[UCEagle72]

'83 --

 

COR is a "charged for" position -- I happen to be looking at a re-charter packet right this moment.

 

[Alabama Scouter]

From what I've seen, having dual registered COR and CC is not healthy. While most COR's don't do much, when they are needed, it's often when to mediate between the CC, the SM, and others.

When dual registered, this puts too much power in the hands of one individual, to the detriment of the unit. imho

[BadenP]

Alabama

 

A COR/CC is a very common occurance in many units, one reason is that it provides a person who is connected with the CO and has to be actively involved with the unit. There really is no power involved here, technically the COR is the only one with any real power to remove any scouter in their unit not doing their job. Since many COR's, as others have stated are paper only, hands off, and uninvolved this actually leads to more problems when a crisis comes up in the unit, district or council. No scouter COR or anyone else should ever be on a power trip, if they are they should be removed. A solid well run committee should work like a team giving the CM,SM,or Advisor the help they need to deliver a quality program, that is their primary responsibility.

 

Another good thing about having a COR/CC is when a problem does develop you can take immediate action without having to go to a COR who is uninvolved and doesn't really want to get too involved with the unit. Having a COR/CC gives your unit all the players and authority in place to make decisions and deal with any problems in an efficent and rapid manner. As a CC/COR myself I can tell you from personal experience that it really does benefit the unit to have this combined position, it is NOT a matter of power at all, and it never should be(This message has been edited by BadenP)(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[Alabama Scouter]

BP,

Your situation may work for your unit, but in my view is not the ideal. The BSA system is a great one, and one that has worked for over a century. I don't think picking and choosing which section of the manuals we choose to enforce is a model I want to follow. Each scout unit has a personality, as does each committee. So what works for your unit may not work for another, just based on personalities alone.

While you say "it's NOT a matter of power", in fact quite often it is. I've seen it. Just saying it's not doesn't make it that way. At the end of the day, find what works for your unit and CO, and work the program to the benefit of the boys. Best to you.

[ScoutNut]

>>"The BSA system is a great one, and one that has worked for over a century. I don't think picking and choosing which section of the manuals we choose to enforce is a model I want to follow."