Re: what exec?
- From: "poison dwarf" <newsgroup.2nd4th@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:34:06 GMT
"Ewan Scott" <ewanscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I find the above difficult to digest. usually there is a reasonably
clear case one way or another. Here though there seems to be an
explosion of issues all coming to the surface at once. It happens.
It seems to me that there is a them and us situation and, for some
reason the Exec seem to think that they have the upper hand. Your GSL
should have made it crystal clear that the Exec is there to support
the Leadership provide Scouting for every member of the Group. That
means if the SL decidede to lead an expedition of Squirrel Patrol up
Everest, providing they have done the training, they are fit enough
and they have proven their committment, then the Exec is duty bound to
help raise the funds to make that happen.
Execs should always include the Leaders and again, it seems to me that
your GSL has been complicit in arranging meetings that Leaders cannot
attend.
Since I don't have sectional accounts funding here is a question of
ask and it will be provided. The situiation where Leaders leave and
signatories are not changed is limited by having the Exec the
signatories to accounts and issueing funds as required.
Once again on the question of equipment, the GSL seems to be at fault
as he should be supporting his leadership team. I don't quite
understand why anyone who takes on a role in Scouting should wish to
restrict acces to facilities or funds. Seems odd to me.
There does sem to be a conflict here that centres on mismanagement.
Oddly, that may have arisen as a consequence of , for some reason,
puting in place a tighter than average control on the Group by the
GSL/ and Chairman (I presume).
It is quite, quite possible to have a Group which has a management
that dots every I, crosses every T and has immaculate paperwork, but
gets very little in the way of Scouting done. On the other hand it is
quite, quite possible to run a Group with minimal management
intervention and do great things in Scouting.
Given the situation that has arisen with your Group, and it is always
worse with a husband and wife team involved - I know. There is a need
to step outside the ring and seek resolution - I'd say ask the DC for
some asistance but I suspect that would not help in this case 9for
some reason). So invite the Field Development Officer (whatever they
are called today) to step in and arbitrate.
There must be some common ground that can be cultivated to reap a
positive reward.
Ewan Scott
The fact that we are husband and wife is one of the things we hate, as we
are both on cub account and regularly have to sign chqs together. We have
been waiting for exec to sort so John would be put on scout account, with
another leader, and be removed from my account. I have a leader willing to
become co-signatory to replace John. This has been waiting since April 2005!
Thanks for info regarding Field Development Officerm sounds perfect, someone
who isn't involved or been involved with the disagreements, which at moment
district is.
Worst problem right now is that our fete is tomorrow, and the GSL is my
father-in-law who isn't happy with me or John!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: what exec?
- From: Dave
- Re: what exec?
- References:
- what exec?
- From: poison dwarf
- Re: what exec?
- From: Shaun Joynson
- Re: what exec?
- From: poison dwarf
- Re: what exec?
- From: Ewan Scott
- what exec?
- Prev by Date: Re: Blue knickers
- Next by Date: Re: "Scout Master" found guilty of paedophillia
- Previous by thread: Re: what exec?
- Next by thread: Re: what exec?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
