Why does ONE charter org have to sign multiple charter org papers?

[fred johnson]

Our charter org has a troop and a pack. Others have a troop, a crew and multiple packs.

 

Why does the CO sign multiple charters? That just seems wrong and annoying to the CO. It should be one charter with one COR and one master CC. The troop should have committee members that run it and report to the CC. The pack should have committee members that report to the same CC. Same with the crew.

 

Not only is multiple recharters annoying, I think it's a root cause problems in that units are structured to be separate and thus even within a COR, units often don't talk and troops usually don't mentor / support their packs. There's always the exception to the rule, but generally I've seen a large separation with new troop parents leaving their previous pack volunteering in the dust after their son's cross over.

[AlFansome]

Fred,

Except for a couple of extra peices of paper, there's absolutely nothing in the BSA structure to prevent exactly what you suggest. A Chartered Org has complete control over which adults are in which positions in their units. If a CO wanted the same person to be the Committee Chair of all their units, then it's a done deal. If a CO wanted their COR to also be the Committee Chair of all their units, it's a done deal since a COR can dual-register as a CC or a Committee Member.

 

The issue is that 90+% of all Chartered Orgs don't take the time to understand the program and actually "run" the program to their likings.

[Beavah]

Yep, I agree it's silly.

 

One charter agreement should be sufficient.

 

As for da rest, as AlFansome says, one master CC is possible, but that's really what da COR's role is supposed to be, eh? Da cubs need somebody to run cub committee meetings who knows cub scouting, and those skills are very different from what a troop or crew Committee Chair need to know or be able to do.

 

Why create somethin' new when da current structure provides exactly what yeh suggest?

 

Beavah

[Eagle92]

Seen the same group of leaders run the troop and crew. They just exchanges roles, i.e committee folks in the troop were the Advisers for the crew, and Sm and 21+ ASMs in the troop were MCs in the crew.

 

 

[qwazse]

Yep. We put on double hats, but nobody likes to do somebody else's paperwork. So we have the mess that Fred's complaining about. COR is a little week that way. Part of the dysfunction that makes our units unique.

 

You could have a COR who challenges the units to step up their collaboration, but be careful what you ask for. The "strong COR" model was tried, and the leaders of one unit did not like it and raised a stink unit reps were switched.

[fred8033]

Beavah - "... that's really what da COR's role is supposed to be, eh? ... Why create somethin' new when da current structure provides exactly what yeh suggest?"

 

I think that's partially what the COR is ... or could be. The issue is that most CORs don't take ownership of the job to think strategically about the success of the units in their charter. They see names on an application. They work with the IH to get the charter signed.

 

I think key is that most (not all, but greater than 75% if not greater than 90%) charter orgs are just not significantly involved. So each unit charters separately and is left to struggle. Troops leaders struggle with recruitment. Pack leaders struggle with how to provide a good program. BUT ... the packs could support the troops in recruitment and the troops could support the packs in putting on a good program.

 

So your right in that Charter Orgs could structure their units as I'm suggesting.

 

I just think that most won't as they are already doing a good deed by providing a room to meet in.

 

I've heard rumors of a one-unit approach. I really hope it's more than just lip service of automatically registering cubs in the same COR's troop. I hope it really is re-engineering scouting to be a one-unit concept. Maybe different meetings and different outings. But, designed to be one unit.

[Beavah]

Yah, but I'm not sure COs really have da skill set to do things like recruitment or helping packs provide a good program, eh? That's da whole reason they contracted with the BSA in the first place. If they had the internal ability to generate program, there'd be no need for the BSA.

 

Most of our partners are churches, eh? When a church chooses to have a program, they either pay for their own professional staff or they use knowledgeable volunteers and outside resources. We're in da second group, eh? They're usin' volunteers and payin' for BSA support. What's a minister know about runnin' a youth outdoors and citizenship program?

 

If units are sufferin' in da way fred8033 suggests, that's a failure of da BSA and the local council, not the Chartered Org. We aren't livin' up to our end of the bargain.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[ScouterAdam]

Each Scout Unit is seperate and run seperately even if the CO is the same. If they were not, then you would have Tigers to Venture in one unit.

[fred8033]

Beavah - I think we are confusing each other's words. I agree with you on this topic. COs don't have the skills for recruitment or helping packs provide a good program... as a rule of thumb. But then it's a catch 22. COs could structure their units in the one-unit-style if they are strategic about it. But COs aren't skilled in scouting. So they don't. The result is that units work separately within the same CO and not leveraging each other. Even worse, alienating each other.

 

The COR could do this, if they thought strategically. But most CORs don't. They just represent the authority of their CO.

 

...

 

I also agree. The failure is not in the CO. It's in the BSA and the councils. I think BSA needs to address the scout unit structure to make up for the lack of CO guidance.