What Is the Most IMPORTANT Adult Position to Fill?

[acco40]

but the CC has more power cause they CAN replace the SM/CM with approval of the COR.

 

Please back this up. One of the responsibilities of the committee is to see that good leaders are recruited and trained. The committee may not remove leaders. The committee, the Scoutmaster or complete strangers may lobby the charter organization to remove adults leaders but only the charter organization may do so.

[5yearscouter]

If the CC can recruit a new SM/CM and take the application to the COR for approval. They can't fire the SM/CM without the COR's approval, but by having a new application filled out and ready to go, well it effectively fires the SM/CM from their position.

The SM/CM even though they are called the unit leader, doesn't seem to get as much say in who is CC, as the CC has a bit more control over who gets to be CM/SM since they have to APPROVE the CM/SM application.

 

I've never seen a COR replace anyone without the CC wanting it to happen. I have seen SM's and CM's be replaced with a single phone call from the CC to the COR telling them they have a replacement and need a signature of approval. I have seen a CC replaced by a COR, and in that instance the COR doesn't need 2 signatures on the application.

 

I think it comes down to semantics and most units should never have to have the discussion of who is over top of who in a chain of command. The 3 leaders, CM/SM, CC and COR should work together to provide a quality scouting unit to the boys under guidance of the CO.

 

Cubmaster/Scoutmaster approves the youth applications, without the youth there is no unit. CC and COR approve the adult applications, without a certain number of adults there is no unit.

 

I do think BSA could do a better job of helping units to make a plan for how to change the unit leader if the unit leader is ineffective. How to determine if they are effective, warning signs of issues, how to train replacement scoutmasters under the guidance of exisiting scoutmasters, an overview of best practices on how to make a smooth transition. It often ends poorly if CC/COR removes them, but then again involving a committee to choose unit leader it often becomes a committee decision with majority choosing someone based often on their personality rather than their true skills to effectively lead the unit's program side.

[Eamonn]

Have to say that when it comes to Scouts and Scouting the word "Important" Leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

The most important position to fill is the position that is vacant.

Scouting is very much a team game.

While maybe in soccer the center foreword might get a lot of the glory, the team still needs a good goal keeper.

But just for the heck of it.

Over the years I've seen units where the CO other than signing off on the charter once a year and there have been times when I've wondered if even that signature is real? Plays no part in the life of the unit.

These same units are very much a one man show. One man who does it all. He hand picks the committee members, selects the Chair. Calls the meetings if and when he feels like it.

While everyone knows this is not what the good books say how to do things. All to often this guy is loved by the members of the unit, the unit does well.

Sure, it might not have a lot of time for the District, will tell the Council where to go with its FOS and popcorn. But when it comes to membership and earned advancement you can't find fault.

The big problem comes when this one man band steps down.

Filling his shoes is next to impossible.

While maybe I'm thinking of a couple of guys that I know of, the truth is this happens a lot more than we are willing to admit.

Eamonn

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Yes, that's exactly the problem. It's a formula for a failed unit.

 

That's why it's a bad model to use. People who are in that position usually lack the ability to effectively ask people to help and delegate things to do --- they usually need help, whether they recognize it or not.

 

 

That's why I pick the Committee Chair as the most important position to fill effectively. That's the person who should be conducting the rest of the orchestra and finding new people to fill various positions.

 

When an effective Committee Chair is available, usually no one is overloaded with things to do and all the jobs that need to be done are manageable and don't require heroic workloads no one is willing to do.

 

Pick a dud as CC, and suddenly things are no longer getting done. Leaders who see the vacuum created start taking on additional tasks they really shouldn't be doing. Ultimately you wind up with the "Cubmaster who does everything" or whatever, and I high risk of failure when that person finally leaves.

 

 

That's what I tend to see, anyway.

 

So.... what kind of a Committee Chair does your unit have?

[fred8033]

acco40 wrote: "I agree, if a unit is struggling with "who's the boss" the unit is doomed."

 

Fully agree. What you said is key. We achieve by working together. We fail by putting up walls.

 

BUT ... It's still very useful to understand how things are designed or documented.

 

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Image:Boyscout-troop.gif

 

I've seen it in several manuals. I think one was the Troop Committee Guidebook. I've also seen it in other documents but don't have them with me. Need to look it up. I've found several for packs.

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/ThePack.aspx

 

...

 

acco40: "The committee, the Scoutmaster or complete strangers may lobby the charter organization to remove adults leaders but only the charter organization may do so."

 

Actually, it's pretty easy to remove leaders from troop membership. I can do it by going to the scout office and asking a person be removed from our roster. It's adding a person that requires both my signature (CC) and the COR.

 

...

 

acco40: "It is not the committee's responsibility to approve or disapprove the program that the youth, in conjunction with your guidance, develop."

 

Pretty much agree and I've never seen it happen. But "strictly speaking" the troop committee can reject the program. It's a simple reporting hierarchy. If the committee / committee chair disagrees with the program, they can direct changes occur. (never seen it happen). And if the SM won't make changes, then they can replace the SM until the program is as desired.

 

...

 

As for forms ... LOL ... I've been working with the BSA forms for years. I never thought about the signatures. But it makes perfect sense. Cubmaster / scoutmaster signs off on youth. CC & COR both sign off on adults. LOL. I've been CC/COR for so long and have had the blessing of CM & SM to sign my name ("or designee") on the youth form. I forgot about the differences.

 

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

After this weekend...I would still say Scoutmaster. We are having a hard time finding a replacement. Almost had to resort to the "everyone keeps drinking until we wake up the next morning with one" method.

[ParkMan]

I think this discussion has really gone two different directions.

 

1. chain of command - sure the CM/SM reports to the committee (fred8033's links), but that does not mean he reports to the committee chair. The chair is the person that organizes the committee, not the committee - well at least hopefully not the committee. At the CC/CM/SM/COR level, it should really be all about relationships anyways.

 

2. most important - I was prepared to say you need both a good CM/SM & a good CC. However, the truth is that the right CM/SM & weak CC supported by good unit leaders can run a really good unit. A good CC and weak CM/SM supported by good leaders is much less effective. So, that would get my vote. Of course, in an ideal world you have both.

[Chairman1]

The SM, CC, COR, are the most important. They should work together to support the program the boys want. The SM spends the most time with the boys (nights, Weekends, weeks at summer camp, high adventure camps, national jamborees). Somtimes the CC, COR forgets what the SM does for the Troop.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Tampa,

 

 

>

 

 

Ahhh... a case study in unit leadership.

 

 

So tell us something about your unit, and the effectiveness of the Committee Chair and Committee in particular and why you are having trouble finding a new SM.

[Tampa Turtle]

We have a very good CC and things are firing well there--fundraising, advancement chair, treasurer, Life to Eagle, etc. Takes a lot of hands but real pleasure.

 

The Scouter pipeline is a problem. We had a lot of older Scouters who founded the Troop and their boys aged or are aging out. They did things more adult led and did not support the boy-led transition. They are more active in the support positions.

 

My generation is the parents of the middle aged scouts and we were a small group to begin with. We had a few guys leaving so the same Scouters gotta keep going most every campout to make things go. So we are burning out.

 

We had a big influx of 24+ new kids but only got 1-2 new ASM's out of it.

 

So the guys who should be SM are just burning out and not jumping at the chance. The older men are over it. The pipeline is trickling. We saw this coming and now the crisis is here. How do we get the parents to come out at camp-outs? Many hands make light work and all that.

[John-in-KC]

My opinion:

 

In Cub Scouting: The Den Leader. That's the point of program delivery.

 

In Boy Scouting/Venturing: It's two: The Program person (SM/Adv) and the CC. If the program side and the support side do not have each others back, there will be problems in River City. SM/CC have to share a common vision and goals. IMNSHO, they should be able to meet somewhere away from the madding rush, have an adult beverage or two, and talk honestly about where things need to go and how they want to influence the youth to get there.