Us vs. them?

4. Go to your Area and Council AGMs, even if you are not a delegate. If the National AGM is in your area, go, again, even if you are not a delegate. You are allowed to go as a member of Scouts Canada, you just can't vote on resolutions unless you have been voted by your Council as a delegate.

5. Send Steve Kent, John Petiti, the Board, etc. e-mails. Sometimes they answer them, especially if they are thoughtful and considerate.

This is at the root of the problem. Every volunteer should have one vote, as the organisation belongs to them and the youth. The idea of a military or corporate style of a chain of command is ridiculous when dealing with modern volunteers. People have to feel that they have a stake in decisions made.

This is at the root of the problem. Every volunteer should have one vote, as the organisation belongs to them and the youth. The idea of a military or corporate style of a chain of command is ridiculous when dealing with modern volunteers. People have to feel that they have a stake in decisions made.

Both Steve and John always answer their E-Mails in my experience...they don't always have the answer for you, but they do answer the E-Mail and tell you where to find the answer.

is it just a grass roots desire for one member one vote that creates this conflict? is there even a real conflict or just a few people?

Hi Sam,
In every org that I have ever worked in, there is always an “us vs them”. Humans always want to feel special.

I don’t believe that this is a grass-roots thing. I believe that there is a lot of untapped potential out there and some people want to use their potential for Scouts. Problem is that they are not being asked. For example, Beaverees. I’ve been a leader for 3 years but have never been asked to help out with one. I have offered to run different area events (always with a “no thanks” answer) or even help. Instead, the same group is relied on time after time. There is untapped potential that we are not using.

Do we all need a vote though? No. Frankly, I don’t want to vote on everything. I don’t have time to discuss and learn about all of the major issues nor do I have time to be involved in the construction of many projects. If everyone gets a vote, either the voting becomes skewed (“us 10 really want it, and only 17 will vote”) or normal leaders become too deluged with fact finding.

Perhaps it’s the project governance that is lacking. Are we not reporting enough on what is happening? Is the report format wrong (78 pages!!!) Or, should we be classifying our changes (small, medium, big) and then deciding who gets a vote based on the change side?

I know that I am upset because I see so much money going to national yet I see little returning to me.

Sorry for asking more questions than I answered.

I am so special.... they named a padded room after me. LOL

I agree I dont want to vote on all kinds of things. I am a cub leader. frankly while I might have an opinion on beavers or scouts issues at the end of the day its not my area, I dont know it well (1 year as a beaver leader was more than enough) and if something at that level doesnt work right then so be it. at the national level I dont know. I dont see anything realy problematic given to us right now.

I get that there are always conflicts between people with strongly held beliefs, and thats not a bad thing. I wonder, am I seeing a few people with more issues, or is it a good sampling?

I have offered to run different area events (always with a “no thanks” answer) or even help.Instead, the same group is relied on time after time.

I can sympathise here, I applied to help organise the Venturer Jamboree. I was probably the only leader with experience organising a Venturer adventure race (we do one around here every year) who applied, but I was turned down (without even the "no thanks"). When I look at the list of appointed people, I see many names that have occured elsewhere, and are known to be liked at the national level. Its like I tell the kids, in life its often more important who you know, not what you know.

Do we all need a vote though? No. Frankly, I don’t want to vote on everything

While there are a lot of leaders pushing for a return to democracy, I myself believe being allowed to vote (and ask questions, etc) is more important than actually doing it. It's like federal/etc politics, while it would be better if everybody voted, having a system where only some people turn up to vote is a heck of a lot better than one where you are not allowed to vote. The overall hope is that is if all the area/council/national commissioners, board, etc were voted in from below (rather than being appointed from above), then they would be more intune with the membership at large, and dissasterous policies (such as selling off so many valuable camps) would never have happened.

Is a return to democracy a fix for everything? Possibly not, but it should be better than what we have now, and we need to try something to help the organisation.

I supose that in an area with an abundance of help that might be a good idea. here, at the group level at our AGM there have been times where all the parents that attend (not many) get told "look scouter X is stepping down as treasurer, if we cant nominate someone to do that who is acceptable then in the end we will have to fold the program". finaly someone steps up, and is acclaimed.

at the group level we are I believe set up for an anual nominations for all group comitee members. never seen 2 nominations for any position.

heck we have a hard time getting someone with time to be a cub section head. no its not me. maybe if my lotto ticket was good.

the ability to vote might be worth something, but if there is an old boys network would they not have critical mass to keep themselfs going?

is it just a grass roots desire for one member one vote that creates this conflict? is there even a real conflict or just a few people?

In the first place, I humbly believe that it just a few people who really want this to happen. On the other hand it used to be the way in Scouting; only to a point. I feel that many, if not most, Scouters will never excercie their vote; but irt is nice to have the right and make your decision as to how to use that right.

It used to be that the Group Committee was directly elected. Then the representative of the Group Committees in the District elect the District COMMITTEE; the Committee appointed the District Scouters who then became part of the District Committee.

The Reps of the District Committees then elected the Provincial (Provinces were the divisions then, not Councils) Committees, who the appointed the Provincial Scouters who then became part of the Provincial Committee.

Representatives of the Provincial Committees attended the AGM and elected the National President and members of the National Committee. This National Committee then appointed the National Commissioner (today CC). The National Committee also appointed the Chief Executive Commissioner (today EC/CEO)

At each level, it was the Committee President that ran the meetings. This was so until the changes when Councils came into being. The whole system changed.

So there never was really one vote one person all the way up. I understand that there are changes in today's system coming in time for the 2012 AGM and the election of Voting members to it. We'll just have to wait and see, It is all part of the ACTION PLAN

Do we all need a vote though? No. Frankly, I don’t want to vote on everything. I don’t have time to discuss and learn about all of the major issues nor do I have time to be involved in the construction of many projects.

I think this is too prevalent in all areas of our society. We need to make the time.

we need to make time, yes. but to say we need to make time for every issue no. I am a cub leader. saw a debate on this board about vents moving from groups run to area run. Frankly in my city right now we dont (to my knowledge) have any vents. As my current plans have me staying with the pack for the forseeable future I realy think that I should confine my major interest to Pack and some things in beavers and scouts as we overlap with these sections. Just an example but no one is going to be able to spend the time to get into every decision that Scouts Canada needs to make.

Maybe we don't need a vote, per say, but our input should be actively sought on major decisions.

Both Steve and John always answer their E-Mails in my experience...they don't always have the answer for you, but they do answer the E-Mail and tell you where to find the answer.

Answering emails is far different to listening to people.

I am not surprised in the slightest that when the CEO stepped aside and the commissioner (ie, leader) stepped up, that an apology was issued. Unless you have dmoecratic accountability for the leaders and major policy decisions, you'll never have the buy-in required to run a volunteer organisation successfully.