Re: Daily Mail & Sacked Leaders

On 26 Oct, 14:47, "Ewan Scott" <ewansc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dave" <dave.barwic...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Ewan Scott" <ewansc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7vCdnfKSxJ5JC3jXnZ2dnUVZ8oSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx

SNIP
Dave,

Have you lost the plot? Groups with no representation at District? That
is what District is about, surely?

What do you mean by representation?


Many years ago it was in POR that there should be a rep from each group on
the Exec. This rule was taken out a long time ago.

Much like the idea to have Districts run Group execs - seen as a way of
getting around the shortage of volunteers, no doubt.

The reason is that besides the fact that it was usually a Scouter who
represented a Group - someone who has enough on their plate running a
section rather than fundraising and making decisions for the District.
There are other platforms for Leaders to discuss District matters like
Group Leaders Meetings and District Leaders Meetings that deal with
Scouting issues.

I would suggest that the majority of members of many DECs are
scouters. DECs I've served on generally comprised 3 officers (non-
warranted, but mainly ex-warranted), DC, about 3 non-warranted (2 of
whom had specialist adviser type roles, e.g. legal advice), and then 5
warranted + DESC + 2 'Network' (u25s).

In my last district not every group was represented on the DEC.

However, the DEC was the management committee for the district and its
members represented the district and 'worked' for the district, not
groups.


Not always.

But there should be.

A Leader on the exec is expected to be a member of the exec and as such
would be a District Trustee and have the responsibillities that go with
that.

Yes.

The would be expected to assist in making decisions that could be at
conflict with their role as a leader

If there is a conflict of interest then they should declare it and
withdraw.

and make potentially difficult
decisions on the fate of others that are referred to the exec by the
appointments panel etc.

Doesn't happen.

DEC doesn't rule on appointment decisions/suspensions/dismissals of
appointed members.


So, let's see, when at some point in the dim and distant, some wag had this
idea that the District spend £X,000 on a project that they thought was a
good idea, but would have resulted in people who did not need nor want that
project paying for it, I should have ignored my Group instinct and rubber
stamped the "District" idea?

So, rather than protecting my members at Group from a levy increase because
of the inaction of the District I helped push for the disposal of
liabilities rather than allow the status quo to remain. That was wrong?


The DEC must work with the interests of all in the district. Action
can be taken against incompetent DECs.

Now don't get me wrong - we are not in that position but it is what I
beleive should be the case if we had the manpower.

Ideally, every section should be represented. I have to say that I
initially got involved because I believe in getting involved.

Most DECs are ideally constituted to be representative of the
district.

A person's role on the DEC is not to represent their group or section.


So if you have 10 Groups with 3 sections that is 30, plus the DESC and 4
ESLs, plus DC, plus 4 ADCs, plus the chairman, sec, treas that gives you
43 at the Exec meetings (providing you don't nominate and elect separate
people). I'm suprised you make any decisions with a committee of this
size.

No, if every Group were represented, that's 10, plus one from each section
across the district, maximum of 13.

In my last district it would have been at least double this by your
reckoning.

Unworkable.


What happens then if the elected and nominated members (if you had them)
decide that the District levy is to be £5.00 per member as the committee
cannot raise the money required by the District Team to run the events
planned and agreed by the budget. The Leaders on the committee wear their
leader hat and revolt so 30 against the normal exec and nothing would get
passed.

Exactly. What if the District raised the levy for unwarranted purposes.
Should I not represent my members, my Group?

The responsibility for setting district levies rests with the DEC. If
you don't like what they set then complain or at least raise the issue
with them. If you're still not happy, then vote them off at the next
DAGM.

If they raised a levy for totally unwarranted purposes - such as? -
then you can take recourse against them through the usual channels.


However, I was shortly glad that i did when I found out
some of the ideas being discussed and how they would impact upon Groups
(especially those with larger numbers!)

But that is because your District is using the Exec as a Group Leaders
Meeting. The DC should be representing Groups at the Exec and feeding that
info back along with the ADCs to ensure that the meetings do not get to
large and long.

Correct. The DEC must not be run as a GSLs meeting.

DCs I've worked with in the past have always had 4/5 GSLs (+AGSLs)
meets in a year. (Roughly one per term, plus one floater, plus one at/
near census time).

That meeting constitutes the 'district team' and it's where the DC and
her/his GSLs and ADCs in the groups discuss/formulate/inform, etc
policy, leadership, programmes, etc across the district.

For example, if the DC decides the district can't sustain 10 groups
and one (the weakest one) needs to go and the rest reform to
accommodate, then that's discussed at the GSLs meeting, not the DEC.
It only gets discussed at the GEC if there are EC issues and if
closure is to take place and there are financial/legal issues.


Far from it. We simply have no Distric Leaders meetings because the leaders
refuse to turn up. The District exec does not plan ANY District events.
Though we do prepare to bale them out if we have to.

The DC doesn't get to meet GSLs + ADCs at least once per year in a
formal meeting?

Wow.

IME very rarely did a GSL/ADC miss a GSLs meeting with the DC. If you
were going to be absent you sent in notice beforehand. If you had no
excuse to miss it then you went!

I can recall running late once for one such meeting. The phone at home
rang just after I left: 'Where is he? Tell him to shift his ass!' Or
similar words! :-)

If you weren't prepared to be an active member of the DCs team then s/
he would be quite prepared to resign your GSL's appointment.


It may be that once in a while the Exec need to meet the Leaders and get
some feedback but every exec meeting is not the place.

Whyever not? Maybe a full house at an Exec meeting would let people see how
screwed up things are and maybe they would get the finger out and be part of
the dolution rather than part of the problem.

DEC meets for DEC business. They don't meet to discuss general leader/
group business.

I'd be delighted to have one representative from every Group at the
District Exec.

The Exec is concerned with the business of supporting the District ans
making certain decisions like the budget based on what the Districvt
Team put forward and represented by the DC at the Exec (although ADCs
are often invited).

Yes that's how it roughly should work.


If you have the DC, ADCs, Sec, Treas, Chair, 3 Elected and 3 Nominated
then add 8 or so Group reps you are not running a proper committee.

Why isn't that proper?


What sort of decisions should the Exec be making that affects Groups do
you think.

Everything the District Does impacts on the Exec. The District Exec is
supposed to ensure that Groups run properly. If we have Groups
represented we are halfway there.

You don't need to have every Group represented.

So lets say a decision needs to be made to merge some Groups - that is a
decision to be made by the DC and their team in consultation with the
Exec.

Correct.

Made by the DC. Advised by his/her 'team'. In consultation with the
DEC.

Would those Groups who are in this position be willing to discuss
this rationally in front of all the leaders from other Groups and everyone
else know their failings and weaknesses. It needs doing in other ways by
involving the Groupsd concerned but not at a District Meeting.

It's up to the DC on how best to go about the issue.

A good DC will acknowledge certain sensitivities in some issues.


Whyever not? Maybe out of open discussion with friends they would perhaps
find a resolution they could not find on their own.

The DE can add its costs to annual subscriptions. I think I'd want Groups
to be part of that decision.

So what if Groups say 'no'. And as 70% of the exec are Group personell
they don't want to help raise money for District was 'we have to raise it
for our own Groups'. Too much conflict of interest.

C'est la vie. Such is domocracy at work.

If the district has to levy groups at census time for a district levy
then that's what it should do. It should present what it's going to
levy at an appropriate time and place, e.g. DAGM. But the size of the
levy, etc, is a matter for the DEC, not groups. If groups don't likke
the decision to raise a levy then they can deselect the DEC at the
next AGM.


The District Exec can
engage in business that has an impact upon the Groups - such as running a
District Campsite.

Yes it can, but this sort of thing is either run by a specialist sub-
committee or put in a trust.

But unlsee people in the Groups are helping to mange that campsite it in
none of their business. Yes consult them in other forums to help find out
what they want but don't have hours being discussed at District Exec.

Hours at a sub-committee meet but not at the DEC meet.


Oh, but it is. Let's take the case in point. Whitley Beaumont. It is run by
a committee. It makes a small surplus, that surplus reducing by the year,
the site degrading. The site entering an ever decreasing circle. The site is
run by the District Exec on behalf of Huddersfield North, Huddersfield South
West and ourselves, South East. IF it runs into problems, we WILL be going
toHudds N and SW and saying, okay, time to put your hands in your collective
pockets and pay up.

?? The site is run by a committee? The site is run by the DEC? Which
is which?

The site is run by a (sub-) committee on behalf of the DEC?

Or should it be the site is run by a sub-committee on behalf of all 3
DECs?


I'd much rather that they were part of the management

Are they?

Do they have the right to nominate/elect trustees?

and had a say in
developing the site, rather than just suckers we run to when times het hard,
to levy a duty on them whigh they will be legally obliged to meet one way or
another.  It is better that they participate and pay, than simply pay
because the Exec says so.

?? If they're not interested in managing/running the site/operation
and don't take up any sub-committee trusteeships, why are they
involved?

Every meeting we have had in the past 15 years has been dominated by one
Group or another. I'm not going into more detail but we need people to be
able to operate the system.

By that I take it you mean that they are a problem. If that is the case
then it needs managing and that is not the role of Mrs Smith who is BSL at
the 10th so why should she have any say in what happens at the Group.

Because Mrs Smith at the 10th is impacted by the actions of the naysayers..
I'd rather have more people on board who will ultimately give a more stable
guidance.

I'm lost here!


The District Leadership Team need to look at the sections and give them
support and the Dist Exec to support the Group Exec. If all fails then
between them they need to make a decision. Having 30 Leaders from Groups
will not make that discussion to find a solution any easier.

It doesn't need to be 30 Leaders, but it does need to be representative. If
I have a committee of six, then six people have to do ALL of the work. If I
have a committee of 18, then I can spread the load.

You don't need a DEC with 18 members methinks. One of the districts I
served in in the past had 21 Groups. It did not have a DEC with more
than 14/15 members. It operated prefectly well and adequately.

In the last Group I served in they had no representation on the DEC
and IIRC have had none for at least 7-10 years. That was not an issue
with the GSL of the Group.

My last district had a DEC which had 'representatives' from about half
the groups. (They were NOT representatives! People on the DEC
represent the district, not groups.) Most serve for about 3 years on a
rolling system of sorts. Not a problem.

GAGS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Daily Mail & Sacked Leaders
    ... Groups with no representation at District? ... There are other platforms for Leaders to discuss District matters like Group Leaders Meetings and District Leaders Meetings that deal with Scouting issues. ... The would be expected to assist in making decisions that could be at conflict with their role as a leader and make potentially difficult decisions on the fate of others that are referred to the exec by the appointments panel etc. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Daily Mail & Sacked Leaders
    ... of the district membership gets no input and little output. ... I agree there should be no Group representation on District Exec. ... then add 8 or so Group reps you are not running a proper committee. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Daily Mail & Sacked Leaders
    ... Groups with no representation at District? ... on the Exec. ... Group Leaders Meetings and District Leaders Meetings that deal with ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
    ... Of course their exec agreed it then some of them joined the ... maintenance etc and part into the District pot for Scouting. ... There is a paid manager and a small committee that runs the site and prepares the business plan, ... The larger committee has representatives from each of the four Districts and they look at the business plan and accounts, give the nod of approval and leave the small committee to get on with the job. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Message Ive just sent to the Cub parents.
    ... I see what you are saying, but the Group is an independent body, the District a third party. ... So all you leaders out there who don't attend Exec meetings, do you realise that your personal assets are at risk if everything at the group goes tits up? ... As a consequence we have just completed a series of meetings with Execs and issued them with copies of the factsheets on the roles of the Chair, Secretary, Treasurer along with copies of the constitution, equal opps, and trusteeship responsibilities, plus a Charities Commission Booklet on the Duties of Trustees. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)