Troop Committee Membership

[LifeScoutForEver]

Greetings,

 

I am a newly elected Troop Committee (TC) Chair and I am looking for advice and information about TC membership and composition.

 

In the process of doing our Charter membership review during our last TC meeting, vocal objections were raised in opposition to maintaining a long term TC member (8+ years) on the Charter. The person in question was a previous TC Chair, two Chairs ago, but has moved on and is now Chair of the Council Activities Committee. I have never seen him attend any of our TC meetings in the past three years (I was TC Treasurer before Chair). Our Chartered Organization (CO) is a local volunteer fire department (VFD) and the spouse of the person in question is the newly elected president of our CO.

 

There are two members of my current TC who have very negative opinions of the person in question and they independently and publically voiced the desire to drop him from our Charter. There were no motions to that effect made to the TC during our meeting, just discussion. They believe, based on undisputed events but unknown intentions that he is working for the betterment of his image at council sometimes to the detriment of our Troop.

 

My question is who decides who is on the TC? Can the TC decide, as a body, to exclude someone from the TC? Does the TC have the authority to self determine its own membership? That is, who to include, or by default not include, on the Charter?

 

The TC guidebook doesnt seem to cover this issue; it is primarily concerned with TC recruitment and who can be a member.

 

For background, I have a fairly decent TC, with approximately 4 very active members, 12 helpful members and about 4 members who, lets just say, like to show up. The members who voiced their opposition are in the active and helpful contingent. The TC is split about 50/50 between adults with current Scouts and adults with past Scouts.

 

My relationship with the current Scoutmaster (SM) is excellent. He was my sons Den Chief from Bobcat/Tiger to Arrow of Light and helped recruit me to the Treasurer position while he was an Assistant SM. We see eye to eye on the means and methods of providing the best possible Scout lead program. Also, my relationship with our COR is very good as a consequence of our experiences in replacing the previous SM last year. My relationship with our Unit Commissioner is in repair mode since he was an advocate for the replaced SM to the bitter end. However, Ive been attending District Roundtables in an effort to get to know him better and repair any damage.

 

I guess, after re-reading my note, that I am asking a political question as much as a procedural one. Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Thank you in advance,

LifeScoutForever

 

[BS-87]

The decision is the CO's to make.

 

The reality is that if you complete the charter with or without said person, the COR will sign it anyway.

 

You have a couple of options:

 

1. If he pays the Troop for his membership renewal, you can just keep him on because it doesn't hurt anything.

 

2. Your committee can choose to drop him and IF he notices, you guys can just have him fill out a new app.

 

 

[NealOnWheels]

Procedural answer:

 

The chartering organization selects the leadership (they will sign off on the charter).

 

Political answer:

 

You mentioned this person's spouse is now the president of the chartering organization. The spouse will have ultimate authority over the charter.

 

Practical answer:

 

What does it hurt to have this person on the charter? Perhaps a few dollars for a registration fee. Other than that no damage done.

[eisely]

Lacking any written bylaws governing membership on the troop committee, it is ultimately up to the chartered organization. Given the spousal relationship you mentioned, for purely political reasons you likely will want to leave this guy on the roster.

 

When I chaired a troop committee several years ago, I encountered a similar situation without the political sensitivities you mention. That troop was carrying, and paying for, a large number of adults whose sons had aged out and were no longer contributing to the troop. I took it upon myself to call as many of them as I could reach to directly and personally ascertain their real interests. Not a one of them wanted to either stay active or burden the troop. I cleaned out over a dozen names that way. To be sure, these were all nice people who had contributed in the past, but paying for their continued membership was pointless.(This message has been edited by eisely)

[ScoutNut]

All adult members of the Troop are approved by the Committee Chairman, and the Chartered Organization Representative, or the head of the Charter Organization.

 

No Troop Committee approval is required by BSA for any Committee member, or any other adult unit volunteer.

 

Who pays for this person's registration?

 

If it is the volunteer, then I would let it go. What difference does it make if his primary registration is with the Troop, or the council? How could his continued registration as a committee member be "detrimental" to the Troop when he never participates with the Troop at all?

 

If it is the Troop, then I suggest calling the individual, and asking him if he would mind if you dropped him from the charter as his volunteering focus is now solely at the council level. If he wants to stay registered with the Troop, request that he pay his own registration fees.

 

I would do the same for everyone who is on the charter in name only.

 

 

[LifeScoutForEver]

The reason the objection was raised was because as a TC member, he receives a copy of the monthly Treasurer Report (TR) and one of the vocal TC members does not want him to receive the reports. The last thing I want to do is create a list of which committee members do and dont receive a copy of the TR. To me it should be all or none. Otherwise, it will just create a mess and just be the wrong policy. I want to keep my helpful/active TC members happy, but Im also sensitive to the potential political issues.

 

An objection was also raised due to our attempts to reduce our registrations of inactive members.

 

For reasons similar to eisely, I have been working to establish an ability-to-pay rule for adults to try and off-set the cost of adult registrations and minimize the number of adult registrations paid by the Troop. It has work very well, and we now have only the active Scoutmasters (by TC policy) and a few (

[frankpalazzi]

Yes, consult with your COR for guidance on this issue.

[Twocubdad]

I think you're buying trouble.

 

Let me see if I'm understanding things:

 

Basically the two TCs don't like the old CC. Maybe he's a little egotistical (almost a requirement to be on council committees) and may spend time sawing on the troop's branch. But no real evidence.

 

Two committee members don't want the old CC to have copies of the financials, which really should be open to anyone who wants to see them anyway. Besides, all he would have to do would ask his wife, the IH, for a copy.

 

You are trying to cut down on the number of inactive committee members in order to cut the adult registration cost to the troop, which is, I believe, still $15. You really have adults who can't afford $15?

 

One thing you don't mention is how/how much the old CC contributes to the troop. Does he show up for TC meetings? Does he add to the troop, or is he just keeping his unit registration as primary for his council job?

 

 

Other than several adults who seem to enjoy wizzin' on each other's pants, what's the point of all this?

 

If the old CC doesn't contribute anything to the troop anymore, send him an email and let him him know you're cleaning up the charter and are going to drop him and all the other inactive folks. If he wants to keep his registration, fine, but let him know the deadline for paying his dues.

 

Then have invite the two loudmouths on the committee out for a cup of coffee. In a nice way, ask them to grow up. Causing a stink with someone who, A) is married to the president of your chartered organization, B) is an active and apparently influential member of the council, and, C) has given a lot to the unit over the years, is just childish.

 

You need this heartburn like you need a sucking chest wound.

 

One legitimate issue I think you have is in the way your run the committee. Sounds like you run is as a democracy. It really shouldn't be. The committee should be more of a clearing house than a legislative body. Things should run on concensus rather than a vote. But if that's not how you handle things, having wild card committee members has the potential to be a problem.

 

Say the committee is faced with a controversial decision. The "regulars" work through a solution and have a handle on things, but then a bunch of inactive hot heads decide to show up and want a vote. If they all have BSA membership cards which say Troop Committee on them, it's hard to tell them they can't vote.

 

The key is consistency. If the committee is a voting body, then you need to consistently keep up with who is or isn't a voting member. Or consistently run the committee as a consultative group and don't go the voting route at all.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[qwazse]

"I'm not about to be bothered by the burrs up other folks' butts, including yours."

 

Quote that around our council and someone might just ask if you've been talking to me!

 

I hope your SM has the same attitude. In other words, he credits the work that folks do for boys and discounts personality conflicts among adults. Above all, he respects committee members in proportion to the service they give. In some cases, that service amounts to one hour a month (or maybe less), but if that's an hour doing what nobody else wants to or can do, it means a lot. (Just think about the man-hours you could waste in committee deciding who would do that one job!)

 

And sometimes the boys benefit from someone with a troop connection puttering about council. A boy may have a project that spans several districts, there might be an opening on a council contingent that a boy might like, or you just might have the heads up on training opportunities.

 

So, if the SM has no current beef with the guy, call him. Ask him what he's been doing lately and if he needs to still be on the troop roster for his position at council. Support him as best you can.

 

The other two MCs? Ask the SM about having a conversation where he slips in that first line.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

The Executive Officer and the Unit Leader (Scoutmaster for a Troop) sign the recharter.

 

 

Best comment so far:

 

>

 

 

Second Best comment so far:

 

>

 

[JMHawkins]

Then have invite the two loudmouths on the committee out for a cup of coffee. In a nice way, ask them to grow up. Causing a stink with someone who, A) is married to the president of your chartered organization, B) is an active and apparently influential member of the council, and, C) has given a lot to the unit over the years, is just childish.

 

Indeed. Based on just the limited info available in this thread, I'd be more inclined to drop the two MCs from the charter than the old CC. Doesn't sound like he's going around causing trouble for the Troop, at any rate...

 

Unless there's something more here, way more, the two MCs are the ones who probably need to adjust things. It wouldn't hurt to ask the old CC if he still wants to be on the charter with the troop. Sounds like he needs to pay his own dues per your new rules - did he pay them last year?

[LifeScoutForEver]

I am responding to twocubdads (TCD) comments, since they seem to be the most comprehensive, so far:

 

TCD - I think you're buying trouble.

 

LSF Agreed. I intend to speak with the COR and expect to contact the former chair and inform him that we are pairing down our charter roll and he will be dropped unless there is an impelling reason for him to remain. If he intends to remain, then he will pay dues.

 

TCD Let me see if I'm understanding things:

 

Basically the two TCs don't like the old CC. Maybe he's a little egotistical (almost a requirement to be on council committees) and may spend time sawing on the troop's branch. But no real evidence

 

LSF Generally correct, but I think there is evidence of sawing the Troops branch, just a lack of knowledge of intent. Decisions have been made by him that have resulted in negative impacts on the Troop. I have not heard his explanation for the reasons for his choices, so I do not know the nature of his intent. He may have meant well, but it still had a negative impact on the Troop.

 

TCD Two committee members don't want the old CC to have copies of the financials, which really should be open to anyone who wants to see them anyway. Besides, all he would have to do would ask his wife, the IH, for a copy.

 

LSF Actually, during my tenure as Treasurer, I only sent copies of my report to the COR, committee members and scoutmasters. I just want to be clear; maybe we have been incorrect in our procedures. Plus, Im not sure I would give them to anyone who wanted to see them.

 

TCD You are trying to cut down on the number of inactive committee members in order to cut the adult registration cost to the troop, which is, I believe, still $15. You really have adults who can't afford $15?

 

LSF We are in a very rural area that would not typically be described as wealthy, and some of the parents are struggling to pay for college tuition as well as typical day to day expenses. So, when I was treasurer and received an adult dues envelop with a payment with only $5, I made no comment and took it as an honest attempt to pay what could be afforded.

 

TCD One thing you don't mention is how/how much the old CC contributes to the troop. Does he show up for TC meetings? Does he add to the troop, or is he just keeping his unit registration as primary for his council job?

 

LSF He does not attend meetings and he does not contribute time to the Troop activities. He adds nothing constructive that I am aware of, but I must admit I do not know what occurs at the council level and I do not know if the Troop registration is required for his council position.

 

TCD Other than several adults who seem to enjoy wizzin' on each other's pants, what's the point of all this?

 

If the old CC doesn't contribute anything to the troop anymore, send him an email and let him know you're cleaning up the charter and are going to drop him and all the other inactive folks. If he wants to keep his registration, fine, but let him know the deadline for paying his dues.

 

LSF In essence, this is what I expect to happen, after I speak with the COR.

 

TCD Then have [to] invite the two loudmouths on the committee out for a cup of coffee. In a nice way, ask them to grow up. Causing a stink with someone who, A) is married to the president of your chartered organization, B) is an active and apparently influential member of the council, and, C) has given a lot to the unit over the years, is just childish.

 

LSF Good advice and the points should be stated one by one explicitly.

 

TCD You need this heartburn like you need a sucking chest wound.

 

LSF Agreed, but I feel dealing with unreasonable (passionate?) adults is buried somewhere in the job description for chair.

 

TCD One legitimate issue I think you have is in the way your run the committee. Sounds like you run is [it] as a democracy. It really shouldn't be. The committee should be more of a clearing house than a legislative body. Things should run on consensus rather than a vote. But if that's not how you handle things, having wild card committee members has the potential to be a problem.

 

LSF Here I have to disagree. I take instruction from the BSA - Troop Committee Guidebook, which states that All issues should be discussed and resolved in an open dialogue, which to me is part and parcel with a democratic process, not a clearinghouse, which if I understand your meaning correctly, is not an open dialogue but works as a briefing where one point of view is disseminated until consensus is achieved. Plus, the guidebook explicitly discusses a vote; and while it is in an exclusionary statement, The Scoutmaster (or assistant Scoutmaster) is not a member of the troop committee, and has no vote it still seems to assume a democratic process (i.e. voting) for TC meetings.

 

TCD Say the committee is faced with a controversial decision. The "regulars" work through a solution and have a handle on things, but then a bunch of inactive hot heads decides to show up and want a vote. If they all have BSA membership cards which say Troop Committee on them, it's hard to tell them they can't vote.

 

LSF I guess a lot depends on the controversy. But, if they are on the charter, they should have a vote. However, I am aware that one of the duties explicitly reserved for the Chair is interpret national and local policies to the Troop, so it seems that ultimately what is decided is up to the Chair, with the consent/approval of the COR. For my part, I would seek input from the members of the committee, and I guess I do that by running it with a democratic process. Maybe, I am being contradictory but I would be loath to resolve any significant/controversial decision in a vacuum.

 

TCD The key is consistency. If the committee is a voting body, then you need to consistently keep up with who is or isn't a voting member. Or consistently run the committee as a consultative group and don't go the voting route at all.

 

LSF Agreed. I keep a good handle on who is on the committee and nothing will turn people off faster than rules/procedural changes that seem to occur at a whim. That is the reason; in essence, we selected a new Scoutmaster last year. The last one was making the rules up as he went, without consideration of the effect on individual Scouts or the Troop as a whole.

 

[ScoutNut]

>>"He does not attend meetings and he does not contribute time to the Troop activities. He adds nothing constructive that I am aware of, but I must admit I do not know what occurs at the council level and I do not know if the Troop registration is required for his council position.">"Decisions have been made by him that have resulted in negative impacts on the Troop. I have not heard his explanation for the reasons for his choices, so I do not know the nature of his intent. He may have meant well, but it still had a negative impact on the Troop.">"The person in question was a previous TC Chair, two Chairs ago, but has moved on and is now Chair of the Council Activities Committee."

[LifeScoutForEver]

I'd like to thank everyone who provided helpful and constructive comments.

 

Very much appreciated,

LSF

[NJCubScouter]

Has anyone actually spoken with this person about whether he still wants to be registered as part of the troop committee? If that were done, he might (1) start participating, which some of your committee members might not like, but at least he is then a contributing member again, or (2) say, no, take me off the charter (maybe he doesn't even realize he is still on it), or (3) stay on the charter and at least start paying his own registration, which is an "option" that our troop does with non-participating adult leaders, in fact they often suggest it themselves when asked if they still want to be on the charter, or (4) keep things exactly as they are. It seems to me that 3 out of the 4 possibilities are better than what you have now, although my opinion might change if I knew what he had done that had a "negative impact" on the troop.