Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- From: Ewan Scott <ewanscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:40:14 +0100
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:53:15 +0100, "GAGS"
<absolutecrapgags.nw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ewan Scott" <ewanscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:515652ppuc9ja9b00a3qhaloj1bhrr293q@xxxxxxxxxx
to
It's the occasions 'in the middle' where sometimes there can be a bit of
mis-understanding leading to a bit of 'friction'. For example, you want
andbuy some expensive camping gear and there's enough money to support the
purchase, however, your programme isn't geared to doing a lot of camping
thatexperience might be very low, then it would be correct for the GEC to
question the purchase and maybe ask whether it was appropriate (at this
time) or the best use of funds. Leaders can then sometimes get the idea
it'sthe GEC is saying no and being a nuisance and blocking leaders whereas
actually saying 'think again'.
That may or may not be the case. But it isn't really up to the GEC to
say no anyway.
Which is what I said. :-)
Let's say a group has some old equipment and the
leaders don't like using Patrol tents and Dining Shelters, Tilley
Lamps and Primus Stoves ( If there are any unwanted ones around - I'll
buy them). So, they don't do much camping. They feel that if they
have new six man Khayams, battery powered, or wind up lights, a camp
kitchen and a mess tent, that they would do more camping, then the
Exec has no right saying you don't camp now so you can't have in
future.
Absolutely correct. I would still assert that it would be correct for a GEC
to question whether it was an appropriate purchase at that time (what I said
above!) and thus ask the leader(s) to review their request and back it up
with something that will show the purchase will be appropriate and will be
used (which is what you said). The GEC would be correct in saying 'hold on a
minute' if evidence showed there was little use of it in the past and no
plans for use of it in the future.
If there are no plans to use kit and the purchase is gratuitious then
it is a waste and the GEC would be right to intervene if they thought
that was the case, but only if they thought that was the case. Of
course by my way of thinking the purchase of such equipment should not
impinge on "normal" operations.
If my Exec operated in that fashion we would never have planted 150m
of hedging, we would never have developed the Archery facility, the
kayaking facility or the pioneering or sound and light facilies.
if an exec operates on the basis that you don't do it now, so we won't
fund it tomorroe, then it is failing.
Correct.
It does not matter one iota if a
group spends £1,000 on computer equipment and it gets used only once
or twice.
I think it does matter! No one wants to see £1000's worth of assets being
left to gather dust. If there was a plan at the time of purchase to make
full use of it then that's fine, even if, due to unforeseen circumstances,
it doesn't get used as much or hardly at all.
No, it doesn't, if the £1,000 was spent from funds specifically raised
and for a purpose then it isn't an issue. It is an issue if the
replacement of well used equipment is delayed because fuinds have been
dipped into to fund this other project - but that, in my perfect
little world should not happen :-)
Several years ago we had plans to set up an IT Room, we had two adults
prepared to manage the IT Room, and the Groups could put all records
on the system etc. We had agreement from the leaders, and the Scouts
said that they were interested. So I went out and found the money to
buy the first PC, and we supplemented that with two donated machines.
When we set them up, no-one who had said they were interested actually
used them. The only thing they got used for was games. So, with one
thing and another I cut off the Internet access and the PC now gets
used maybe twice a year. I don't think the purchase was a waste, it
didn't impinge on what we do anyway, and we learned a valuable lesson.
We also have an asset that we can use if and when we need to.
I'd agree that gratuitous purchasing is wasteful and that is what the
GEC is there to prevent, but, in all other cases, they should support
the decision of the Leaders. Again, I clarify, any additional project
must be funded without impinging on "normal" operations.
It is the leaders' job to say: 'We would like to buy this', it is the GEC's
job to say: 'Why?' If the leaders say: 'Because we're going to do this and
have plans to do this - and all have been carefully thought out', then the
GEC should be saying: 'Great! How can we help you?' However, if the leaders
say: 'Don't know really, haven't given it much thought at the moment, just
think it may be okay for us, etc', then the GEC is perfectly entitled to
say: 'Okay we want to go along with you on this, but can you have a few more
thoughts about how it's going to be used and come back with some more
concrete ideas next meeting? Once you've got things clearer in your head
then we can look at ways in which we can realise your plans'.
That is fair comment, but they should not be standing in the way of
such projects by simply saying, No!
Snip
Give it a couple more posts :-)
Crikey! I've only been back a minute and now I'm agreeing with you!
Ewan Scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- From: GAGS
- Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- References:
- how does an exec meeting work?
- From: poison dwarf
- Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- From: GAGS
- Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- From: Ewan Scott
- Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- From: GAGS
- how does an exec meeting work?
- Prev by Date: Narrowboat Weekend
- Next by Date: Re: Narrowboat Weekend
- Previous by thread: Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- Next by thread: Re: how does an exec meeting work?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
