Troop CC selection

[FScouter]

Yeah, people are basically crazy. A committee chair oughtn't be "forcing" his will on the SM or assistants. Nor should the SM and his gang be piddling around with how the committee manages Scout accounts and finances. Worst of all is adults jockeying for power and forcing their will on the rest. It really is a sign of weakness when one resorts to subversive manipulation, and shows failure to work well with other human beings, and sure doesn't exemplify our Mission or Aims or any Scouting values.

[Buffalo Skipper]

FScouter and Beavah, you are correct in what you say. I had a similar experience, in reverse, and it was a bit of a power play. One long standing committee member did not want scout accounts, claiming that the troop as a whole was where the scouts' loyalties should lie, not with an individual account from which they would benefit. He made the claim loudly and firmly. The parents wanted accounts to help defer costs; the SM/ASMs wanted it too. The committee member didn't want to have to deal with it (no longer has a son in the troop, but is a very active leader).

 

Clearly in Pack212's case, there has been no mention of what the parents/scouts/families want. If everyone but the SMs want it, then they are in the wrong to oppose it. Right or wrong is immaterial. Everyone should choose to support the desired system. Based on what has been presented so far, I do not see that the CC was necessarily out of line. If more information comes out, I may well change my opinion.

 

Prehaps most importantly, prolong power struggles will only hurt the scouts in the long run.

 

My 2.

[Pack212Scouter]

A little more background on that decision then. Basically, Troop retention was tanking both because of program and because of cost. The established Scoutmasters wanted to continue on, wheras the CC and committee said they needed to look at how they were advising the boys, because there was an issue somewhere. On the Scout account side, there were many parents that wanted their sons to be able to fundraise to pay for the Scout events. Troop policy had been for summer camp only. The Scoutmasters wanted to continue on a cash colection basis with no accounting of funds (not implying that there was anything going on here, just bad accounting policy) and the parents had to pay cash out of pocket for the other approx $400-$500 of events over the year. At the request of many families, the CC and committee implemented usage of Scout accounts for all events.

[Beavah]

Yah, that's where the CC went wrong, eh? He doesn't have the authority to do that on his own, and the committee as a whole shouldn't. They should work together like adults to build a consensus or at least an agreement to try somethin' new for six months or so.

 

It might just be that da SM doesn't want to deal with floating a big amount on his credit card when right now he can just pay the cash, or he doesn't want to deal with all the paperwork accounting of who was there, who wasn't , who signed up but didn't show, who has enough in his scout account, who doesn't, who paid cash even though they had money in the account,, who didn't . The committee voted to add a huge additional burden of work to the SM because da parents don't want the work. What did they add for resources?

 

The subtext also seems to be that the committee doesn't like the PLC's event planning, and wants more parent direction/input/veto.

 

Like I said, when a committee does something TO their scouters rather than WITH their scouters, they always damage da goodwill and effectiveness of the program. Yeh either end up losing a SM, or losing a CC, or degeneratin' into adult squabbles and losing a troop. And committees that don't trust their PLC boys don't do the program any favors either.

 

So right or wrong, they tried to dictate when they should have collaborated, and now the COR is doin' his job of refereeing the adult behavior to preserve the program by replacing the CC. The committee pushed things to a final decision by authority, and they got one. The CO owns and runs the program, not the parents.

 

That's the way it should be, eh? Now a wise COR or UC will also sit down on da side with the SM and try to help him address some of the underlying tension in a more productive, collaborative way, eh? I think they need to address the concern, even if it's just to make clear what the expectations and philosophy are.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[nolesrule]

Hey Beavah, I agree with you in principle that this sort of thing should be handled by concensus with program and committee working together. I also agree that the COR/IH gets the final call on these matters.

 

That said, this is a finance issue, not program. It also appears that the committee is listening to their customers (scouts and families) and wanted to make some financing changes to accommodate their customers (scouts and families) needs, while the SM is not. Th SM should really not be getting involved in finance issues. The program side should not be collecting money, should not be distributing money. The SM should be concerned with making sure the program is good.

 

In all the years as a UC I've been sitting in on troop committee meetings and watched troops operate, only one time did I ever see a SM meddle in financial operations, and it nearly tore the troop apart.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

[Beavah]

Yah, nolesrule, it's just too hard to say from da little bit we're gettin' from Pack212, which is comin' from just one side of da argument, eh? I agree with yeh that money matters frequently cause conflict, but in my experience it doesn't really matter what the money matter is or who is doin' the "meddling."

 

As a commish, I'm also not sure I buy your notion that the "program" side isn't involved in financial stuff or in handling receipts or payments. Nuthin' like that in any of the program materials. Quite the opposite, eh? Patrol or troop scribes are supposed to collect dues and fees in a traditional youth-led, patrol-method approach. Not the committee! It gives boys a sense of responsibility and teaches important lessons about planning and budgeting for outings and paying for resources that they use. Heck, what's the point of Personal Management MB if not to help the lads budget and plan to pay for things (like outings) that they want to participate in?

 

Yah, in some units the adults take those responsibilities away from the boys and the program, and there can be decent practical reasons for that. But if the SM is running a more traditional boy-led program, yeh can see where the committee's action is a major (and inappropriate) grab of control away from the boys in a way that undermines da Methods of Scouting as the scouters see 'em.

 

Again, it doesn't matter who's "right" or "wrong" in anybody's eyes. Da point is that the means were inappropriate, regardless of the validity of the ends. Yeh can't have a committee doin' this without buy-in from the scouters. The unintended negative consequences will always overwhelm whatever good they thought they were doin'.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[nolesrule]

Now, now Beavah. When I say "program side" I'm referring to the adults. As most conversation about problems in scouting are, it's about adults and how they play together. Youth responsibilies such as scribe are a red herring in the discussion, otherwise they'd be the ones running the treasury and there would be no need for a committee.

 

Seems to me it's really an issue of the program people not wanting to add more fundraisers to the schedule to help defray cost of participation.

 

Again, you need to listen to your customers. I'm pretty sure I'm quoting you when I say that, but it might have been someone else.

 

 

And all that said, I still agree. The COR gets to make the call on this.

[Beavah]

Nah, not a red herring at all, especially if yeh remember you're hearing only one side. The SM and other scouters want to "keep collecting cash" in the eyes of the parents. No (adult) accounting. Seems to me like the boys aren't runnin' the treasury, but they are expected to pay their way. That can be a fine lesson, and in fact it's a traditional part of the program. Plus yeh have da parents complainin' about the trips the PLC has planned (too expensive, too far, etc.). None of us workin' with troops have ever heard that one, eh?

 

Honestly, though, I was more respondin' to your notion that the "program side" shouldn't be involved in collectin' money or making expenditures or somesuch. Yeh might not have meant to make that kind of blanket statement, but that's what it sounded like. It's the committee's role to support such things, not to take over those responsibilities from the boys or the front-line scouters who are workin' with the boys. Just as it's properly the boys' role to select fundraisers and put 'em on the program, not the committee's.

 

Yah, yeh should listen to your customers, fer sure. But sometimes the answer needs to be "no." Your duty, or rather the committee's duty, is to the program.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)