Nova Scotia Council

I think that that this isn't really an issue with the Power that the CEO has as as that the action on this issue was the responsibility of the CEO. Particularly given the short time Ms Yale as been in the organization this was NOT a one person decision. In essence she and Steve are the action arm of the B of G.

I am having a little trouble with the issue here. One of the clear, to me anyway, mandates of National is to insure the integrity of program delivery nationally. In my mind it doesn’t take much imagination to see where we would be in 10 years if each council went independently in their own direction. We don’t know and shouldn’t speculate on the specifics of “philosophical differences”. We also all know that good people can be pretty driven at times to follow paths that they come to believe strongly in, and that is not directed at Scouter Whyte only. That being said it doesn’t surprise me that on occasion very well meaning and competent leaders are occasionally going to let local agendas conflict with policies. As frustrating as policies can be they are essential to our existence.
Don’t get me wrong here; I do NOT speak to the policies. The efficacy of the policies constitutes a separate discussion. Nor do I speak to the Bylaw processes which are yet another separate issue.
The objections as I perceive them seem to be misdirected. Ms Yale has responded to a concern perceived by National to be of serious significance to national unity. I am prepared to assume that Ms Yale, Scouter Whyte and others have been involved in dialogue over the issue for some time. It is also, in my view, quite likely that a good part of Scouter Whyte’s team would chose to be of a like mind and stand firmly behind their leader possibly at the expense of the greater team.
The change of CC process is very lengthy consisting of a period of open receipt of nominations, input from members and then the CC appointment process, then the appointment by the new CC of a team. I speak here as a DCC who is sitting on a nomination committee now for nearly a year trying to get nominations to fill a CC position. The procedure she has taken would seem to me prudent in terms of continuing delivery of program support in a divided Council. I would be inclined to commend her for this action in that a much more common response would be to avoid the short term pain and let situations like this fester for long periods resulting in disastrous morale consequences. I am also not assuming there may not have been a better solution to the situation. We are, after all is said and done, humans and very seldom will someone else resolve an issue in the same way we would have and an even rarer situation is the choice of the best solution. Especially given the extremely shallow knowledge of the situation on which some of us are basing our judgements. We need to weigh the value of our efforts and dialogue against the work that needs to be done to resolve the core issues. We need to wish our Nova Scotia brothers all the best in resolving this situation in the best interest of the youth of Nova Scotia.
In reply to Garth’s concern about previous examples. I would think situations such as this are generally worked out through dialogue and very seldom ever escalate to the requirement for this kind of response. Bylaw 2 quite clearly mandates the process of appointing a CC then the CC appointing DCC’s. In this philosophically charged atmosphere, which none of us have any real appreciation for; the new CC is being given a clean slate to start with where, in a more typical situation, a new CC comes from an existing healthy team which would likely continue with very little initial change in the team.
I agree that there are democratic and other aspects of our Bylaws and Policies that need some attention. Let’s concentrate on fixing some of these issues and not get distracted by the consequences of frustration over some of their spin off symptoms. We all have at least one member of the board of directors living in reasonable proximity to us they will be in touch with the rest of the board many times before November 2011. If change is necessary these are the people we need to address. If they are not prepared to listen then we have a nominating committee who need to know that. The nominating committee is quite ready to receive your suggestions for replacements. There are 3 voting delegates in each Council who have been elected to stand up to vote on your behalf at next year’s AGM. Only the CYC is appointed a voting Delegate. (Bylaw 2, Article 3, i, 1,2 and 3) Only 12 delegates are required to present an issue for a vote at the AGM. If we want change we need solid well thought through suggestions effectively presented and we can git’er done. Developments in recent years have made it quite clear that an atmosphere of change has arrived.
Gary Petersen,
DCC, Northern Lights Council

I'll have someone take a look at this tomorrow, Errol, I'm a techno-putz.

Actually, I logged on to post a letter that Fred Whyte, Interim Cape Breton Area Commissioner, distributed to Nova Scotia Scouters late last week. Fred's given permission to post it here.

YIS/JPetitti

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Happy New Year

December 29, 2010



Dear Scouter;

As I take up my appointment as (interim) Cape Breton Area Commissioner, I thought this Christmas holiday period would be a good time to send you my best wishes for the festive Season, and also to reflect with you on my time as your Council Commissioner.

Looking back over the past 11 months, I believe we have made good, solid progress for Scouting in 2010. We were successful in gaining very positive media coverage for Scouting in Nova Scotia, from a full page in the Chronicle Herald early in February to our Strategic Planning Meeting on November 27th, 2010. I believe there arose in the Scouting community a sense that we are on the verge of a great resurgence in our Movement. The program delivered by the groups throughout the province is strong and is well supported by Area and Council events, including the Schools in Scouting Program and our Adventure Camp for Youth at Risk, sponsored by the Department of Community Services. I was most encouraged by the fact our youth membership grew by 5% for the 2009-2010 year. Not only that, but the Nova Scotia Council showed a financial surplus while completing the construction of the new Scout Office in Dartmouth. But, really, it was the happy and enthusiastic Leaders and Youth that I met at the different events I attended as your Council Commissioner that made the past year so rewarding. With the National Action Plan and our soon to be created Nova Scotia Strategic Plan as our guide, I have confidence we can build on these successes into the future. With new groups starting and established ones increasing their numbers in the 2010-2011 scouting year we are moving in the right direction.

For me, one of the historic markers of our progress was the 100th Annual General Meeting of Scouts Canada - Nova Scotia Council, held on November 7th, 2010. Sometimes, our annual meetings can seem rather dull and uneventful, but this one absolutely was not. Not only was the annual renewal of appointment of Council Commissioner confirmed with the nominated slate by our voting membership at the meeting, but we had two members of our Council selected by secret ballot on contested elections.

We should all be very proud of the motion presented at the Annual General Meeting (amended by one of our youth members) that every member of Scouts Canada in Nova Scotia over the age of 16 shall have the right to vote, and not merely representatives appointed by each Group and Area. With the adoption of that resolution, the Nova Scotia Council became a truly democratic body within Scouts Canada. To me, it seems no coincidence that our Council would so honor a democratic tradition which began here in 1848 when Nova Scotia became the first colony of the British Empire to achieve an elected and responsible government.

To be your Council Commissioner during this period has been both deeply satisfying, and very humbling.



On December 17th, I had the opportunity to be in Halifax, and attended the reception at the Delta Halifax Hotel which was hosted by our Chief Commissioner. Certainly, I am grateful to Steve Kent for his remarks expressing appreciation of my work on your behalf as Council Commissioner. During his podium address, our Chief Commissioner mentioned my recent radiation treatment, which apparently led some Scouters to believe that the termination of my appointment was by reason of ill health and that I may be facing a condition which is immediately life-threatening.



Because of those concerns expressed to me, I felt I must state clearly that my health is in no way related to the circumstances under which I have ceased to be your Council Commissioner, and that I should now elaborate a little, as reassurance to my many comrades in Scouting.

The reason for the radiation treatment is because I was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. This condition was first suspected when a routine PSA blood test read high about 18 months ago. A visit to a specialist led to another PSA test and then a biopsy on April 9th, 2010. On May 4th my specialist confirmed that cancer cells were present and recommended surgery to remove my prostate gland. That weekend, while in Halifax for the Grand Opening of our new Scout Office, I informed my Council Support Team and also Steve Kent, who was in Nova Scotia for the festivities, of my condition. I have kept them and my Area Commissioners informed of developments all through my treatment. A plan was put in place to insure the smooth operation of the Council during any period of my absence.

On July 19th I was operated on and my prostate was removed. My recovery took about 3 weeks and I then felt pretty good. Then, on a follow up visit to my doctor, I was informed that not all the cancer cells could be removed and I would have to have a course of radiation treatment. On the first Monday of November I received my first of 33 radiation treatments, the last of which I received on December 17th. I believe I am now cancer-free and do not have to see my cancer specialist again until June 2011. Actually through the diagnosis and treatment, I never felt sick and continued as normal, except for the 3 weeks after surgery. My radiation treatments went well, with very few side affects besides being a little tired. Now I consider myself a survivor and am ready to carry on with the rest of my life, and any new challenges which Scouting may offer.

Any time you take on a new position whether it is Troop Scouter, Area Commissioner or Camp Committee Chairman, it takes some time before you feel comfortable in your new role. I had just come to the feeling that I was finding my stride as Council Commissioner, and was looking forward to my second year of duty. Thus, it is with disappointment that I became aware that I was not to continue as Nova Scotia Council Commissioner. That is not to say that I will not do my best to advance Scouting as Area Commissioner for Cape Breton. I am first and always a supporter of Scouting and a believer in the Principles under which our Movement was established by Baden-Powell. Our paramount concern must ever be the best interest of the youth who will benefit from participation in our Scouting programs.



In closing, I would like to thank everyone who has helped me in the last year and that would include every Scouter in Nova Scotia from section leaders to Council team members, also the wonderful staff in our Nova Scotia Scout Office. I wish to acknowledge individually, every member of my Council Support Team, Kevin MacDonald, Herb Ripley, Diane Burns, Colin Dickson, Derek Mitchell, Doug Marshall, David Lincourt, Don Sanford, Dan Devries, and Peter Comeau for their support and assistance. Their wise council and willingness to take on any task certainly made my job much easier.

It has been a great 11 months with Scouting in Nova Scotia. In this time of transition, I certainly offer my assistance to the interim Council Commissioner and his support team in their mission to take Scouting onward in Nova Scotia. And, in the true spirit of the principles of our Movement, I ask you to do the same.



Yours in Scouting

Fred Whyte

What is the message that National is trying to send through the dismissal of the Nova Scotia CC and his team?

I hear the concerns of my fellow members regarding the act in question in and of itself and I believe that there is merit to these (even if all that comes of this concern is that we all learn a little bit more about just what exactly BP&P says, and more importantly how this is interpreted). What is not clear to me is what the underlying message of the mass dismissal was intended to be. I understand that National may have felt there was reason to let Fred go (a rumored email which I have never seen which publicly expressed his concerns about the safety of members as a result of new training practices/standard) which is questionable on its own, but I'd like to shift attention away from this and look more closely and how the dismissal was done. Even more important than the how is the why it was done the way it was done. I cannot believe for a moment that this decision was not made with some forethought regarding the consequences and effect of the decision and so I am left wondering what the message being pushed is.

My suspicion is that the intended message is something along the lines of "tow a tight line or the hammer comes down". Why is this my suspicion?

• It was a public dismissal. This could have been done behind closed doors and so have left the sting of (at least the appearance of) a public spanking alone. Public spankings are typically example-making enterprises and so I wonder just what example is being made. [As an aside I think it is a very good thing that it was done publicly since this is more in keeping with the ideals of a democratic Scouting Movement and perhaps this was part of the reasoning for making the issue public].
• The letter comes from Janet, not Fred. If it was a mutually agreed upon decision then why is Fred not writing the letter? Why does it not read something like, "Dear fellow Nova Scotia Scouters, After much though and reflection I have decided to..."? Having the letter come from Janet presents the issue as Janet's decision (or at least her responsibility)---not Fred's---and as such it does not seem to be mutual at all, even if she celebrates his contributions and new position.
• It was well timed. The dismissal happened just before the winter holiday season which, as far as my 29 years of experience with the movement have revealed, is a time where nothing much happens. There's a campfire with treats and maybe a Venturer company going dog sledding over New Year's somewhere, but that's about it. Council issues pretty much get put on hold and everyone goes to be with their families and friends (quite possibly the same people that they are involved with in Scouting, but let's set that aside). Given the holiday shutdown AND that the end of the term for the team was apparently the end of January, why even bother doing it? To make a point that could afford to be made because the on the ground consequences were minimal.
• It was a mass dismissal. Perhaps as Garth has said this is without precedent and cause for alarm. Perhaps has others have said it is well within common practice to have the CC choose his or her own team. But what interim CC would "choose" an entirely new team during a holiday period that almost completely overlaps with the remainder of the term of the outgoing CC? Who would even counsel this? It's just plain strange. Further, why not separate the acts into two letters? One from Janet dismissing Fred and one from the new CC thanking the old team and announcing a new one? The only thing that seems to make sense is that dropping everyone sends a message that those associated with anyone with whom there is an "issue" will also be punished.

Given these acts the message seems obviously to be "tow a tight line or the hammer comes down." If you have other ideas I'd like to hear them.

Whether this was the intended message we likely won't ever know.

Whether it is the appropriate message is a question open for discussion.

It seems to me in light of Fred Whyte's copied letter on this forum of Dec 29, two points come to strike me;

1 - The NS Council apparently held a Council annual renewal election which would be completely outside of the Bylaws of Scouts Canada. If this was in fact the case I again ask the question, How would National have any other alternative response?

2 - If there is need to change the way we are doing things (appointing/electing commissioners) we have bylaws which provide a clear method of doing that.

I like the suggestion made by someone here on this thread recently that we get out of this whine and complain thread and open one to develop a workable democratic system and make some changes. We need only 12 Voting delegates to present a motion to the AGM. If there is not enough of us with interest to drive change then how much more democratic does life get. I am one who would like to see a change to a more Democratic system.
Someone that is more Tech savey than me open a thread "Action to Democratic reform" and let's get busy and make it happen.

To all Scouters – An open letter in response to the Dismissal of the Nova Scotia Council Commissioner and the Nova Scotia Council and Council Service Team


The members of SCOUT eh! find the action taken by the CEO to remove the Nova Scotia Council Commissioner and his Council Service Team from their positions to be fundamentally wrong and unjustifiable.

There is no authority granted in BP&P section 4002 or anywhere else in the BP&P concerning the Dismissal of a Council Commissioner by the EC&CEO. Likewise,
there is no authority that warrants dismissal of the Council Commissioner's Team by the EC&CEO. The pretended assertion of "practice" is of no account as there is no such practice related to dismissal of a Council Commissioner. This is unheard of, unprecedented. This action flies in the face of Scouting Principles.

Scouting is a Movement that operates from the grass roots up not from the office of the CEO down. We would expect a much more even handed approach to this situation than was exhibited. Staff at all levels of Scouts Canada need to know how to manage a volunteer organization without this kind of tactic. This
dismissal sends the none too subtle message that should a Council Commissioner or any volunteer who has a "Philosophical Difference" with the CEO can be
sacked. We would suggest that if these philosophical differences cannot be handled in a more constructive manner, particularly in the Scouting Movement,
then we will cease to be a volunteer based movement. Control of the organization by the staff is contrary to the WOSM principles. The sole duty of the employed staff is to support the volunteers.

This action also sends an intimidating message to all Scouters in positions of administrative authority, "Toe the party line or you get the heave ho". By these
recent actions, Scouters in senior positions have effectively been reduced to being flunkies and yes men. Our Founder wanted leaders who could think and act
for themselves. He believed that individuality amongst leaders was a good thing. It makes the program more immediate in response to local factors and stimuli. Things that staff in far away offices may very well be unaware of. It is apparent that Democratic processes at all levels of Scouts Canada are either
non-existent or in a very sorry state.


We are quite frankly, very surprised that the persons appointed as substitutes by the CEO or those who accepted appointments from the CEO's appointees did not themselves question the validity of the process. We would have thought that those volunteers would have counseled a more moderate approach to solving the issues that existed. Unfortunately, we feel that they are partaking in a divisive practice that allows staff to set one part of volunteer management
against another. Clearly this is not the wisest course of action in a movement that is purported to be Volunteer led and Staff supported.


We understand that the Nova Scotia Council was ousted at the fiat of the CEO. This should not have happened. This action is contrary to both the best interest
of Scouts Canada and its lifeblood, the volunteers and is contrary to the Scouting Spirit that motivates Scouters around the world.

We urge the immediate revocation of this unwarranted action and would further urge a mediated solution that is equitable for all parties concerned.

Scouter Ted Claxton
Chair, SCOUT eh!

Actually...

going against the Action Plan clearly is unacceptable. Which stands to make a point, we are trying to move forward. How can we move forward as an organization if we cannot support the goals as a collective group. There is a time and a place to review plans - this was not one of them.

Additionally...

denying training through the e-learning system is in it self, counter productive. Not everyone has the time and flexibility to attend outdoor training sessions and attend meetings and live a normal life.

So...

We need to be flexible and efficient instead of straight and demanding. Why not attend a camp with a group that has new leaders which require training and provide training while they operate the camp. Now we are providing training and a program all in one! This may even deepen the leader-youth relationship which is significant to any group. Now there is an idea!

Following is an update sent by Janet Yale to Nova Scotia Scouters:


January 30, 2011

Dear Friends in Scouting,

I am taking this opportunity to follow-up on my earlier message to you on December 12th, 2010. Many of you undoubtedly have questions and concerns about the changes made at that time to the Nova Scotia Council Commissioner and the Council Service Team, and I wish to address some of these issues here.

The steps taken by National Office were actions that were not taken lightly. Unlike other Councils across Canada, previous Nova Scotia Council Leadership Teams had been selectively choosing those elements of Scouts Canada bylaws and policy they wished to adhere to, and ignoring those elements that they had issue with. Such practice in our organization is not acceptable, nor would it be acceptable in any other national organization or group.

It may have come to your attention that an anonymous group of individuals have questioned Scouts Canada's decision and submitted a proposal with multiple ultimatums related to the governance and management of Scouts in Nova Scotia. These anonymous individuals are presenting themselves as open to constructive dialogue with Scouts Canada. However, they have simply presented us with ultimatums that are directly at odds with Scouts Canada policy and bylaws.
The newly-appointed Nova Scotia interim-Council Commissioner, Terry Greenham, interim-Council Leadership Team and the interim-Deputy Council Commissioners have been taking the necessary steps to ensure Scouts Canada bylaws and policy are adhered to in Nova Scotia.

In keeping with Scouts Canada policy, recruitment for all Council positions will be posted as part of our public appointments process, starting with the Council Commissioner. I expect this to be posted publicly within the first quarter of 2011 and all Nova Scotia Scout volunteers are welcome to apply.

Further, the democratic process that will be conducted in Nova Scotia leading up to the Scouts Canada AGM is the same process followed by every other Council in the country. Scouts Canada applies a double "set of elections" - one at the Council level and one at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) - to ensure that a full democratic process is pursued. The people who make the "laws" and set policy, our Board of Governors, are duly elected by voting delegates, three of whom are elected by each Council to serve as their representatives to AGMs. Any changes to our governing "laws" must be approved by our membership through a vote passed by two-thirds of the voting delegates at an AGM. Scouts Canada's full democratic process is applied consistently and without exception across Canada.

We have responded to the proposal we received from the unnamed individuals and informed the sender that while it is unacceptable in its current form, Scouts Canada remains prepared to pursue positive, productive discussions in an environment of confidence and good faith, without ultimatums.

If you have any questions regarding this or any other Scouting matter, feel free to contact me at jyale@scouts.ca or 613-224-5134 ext. 278. You can also contact your Interim Council Commissioner, Terry Greenham, and other members of your Council Key 3 and your Council Office:

Terry Greenham - nscouncilcommissioner@scouts.ca
Jimmy Khatri - jkhatri@scouts.ca
John DeRosenroll - jderose@ns.sympatico.ca

You can also call the Council Office at (902) 423-9227

I would also encourage you to share this information with your fellow Scouters, and would like to thank you once again for your commitment to Scouting.

Yours in Scouting,

Janet Yale
Executive Commissioner and Chief Executive

Further, the democratic process that will be conducted in Nova Scotia leading up to the Scouts Canada AGM is the same process followed by every other Council in the country. Scouts Canada applies a double "set of elections" - one at the Council level and one at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) - to ensure that a full democratic process is pursued. The people who make the "laws" and set policy, our Board of Governors, are duly elected by voting delegates, three of whom are elected by each Council to serve as their representatives to AGMs. Any changes to our governing "laws" must be approved by our membership through a vote passed by two-thirds of the voting delegates at an AGM. Scouts Canada's full democratic process is applied consistently and without exception across Canada.

It is recognized by those who are cognizant of the situation that Policy 1014 is dysfunctional. Indeed our Chief Commissioner and Chair of the Board knows this to be the case. My understanding is that the whole process is under review because it is well known that Policy 1014 is dysfuncitonal. In my Council, Central Escarpment, the elections team could not get enough group participants registered to hold an election so the prior year's voting representatives were recycled. Was that Council dismissed for failure to follow Scouts Canada Policy? No.

There is no foundation for anyone to say that this 'double "set of elections" ' ensures that a fully democratic process is being pursued. There are approximately 100 voting members, only sixty (60) of them are elected through an unduly complex system that weights the voting in favour of appointees. 23 of the so called "voting members" consist of the Board of Governors themselves, a patent conflict of interest if ever there were one. We have 12 honorary voting members who are all appointees as well as 5 or six who are designates of the ASC, B-P Guild and Salvation Army Scouts. Since only 60 are "elected" by councils they cannot by themselves create a two-thirds majority to change the by-laws. The proposition that Scouts Canada has a full democratic process is without substance whatsoever. The proposition that it is applied consistently and without exception across Canada is not in accord with reality. By-law No.2 Created a top-down command driven structure that gave inordinate powers to the CEO and left the "ordinary-members" without any real control over their organization. Scout Canada has been thoroughly corporatized, has eviscerated the MOVEMENT and has put a cloud over the Scouting Spirit. Scouts Canada is not a democratic organization, the members have been effectively disenfranchised and have been marginalized in decision making processes.

We need less spin doctoring and more reality.

I wonder why the ASC, and the B.-P. Guilds, have a right to name voting members; I do not think that Scouts Canada has the same rights in their voting processes. WILL someone who FACTUALLY knows please advise whether or not I am correct.
I do believe that the Salvation Army has a special position as a "partner" of SC.

The answer is to be found in By-Law No.2
Have Faith - Scouter Ted "Knows ALL!.... well most of the time

(2) Honorary Officers and Members - The Voting Members may elect as an
Honorary Officer or Honorary Member of the Corporation any person they
may deem suitable. The number of Honorary Officers shall not at any time
exceed twelve (12).
(3) Voting Members -Voting Members of the Corporation shall be:
(a) three (3) representatives, one of whom must be a Youth Member
from each Council, elected annually by each such Council;
(b) the Members of the Board;
(c) one (1) representative from the Salvation Army Scout Association,
appointed by such Association;
(d) three (3) representatives from L’Association des Scouts du
Canada, appointed by L’Association des Scouts du Canada;
By-Law No. 2 3 September 24, 2004
(e) one (1) representative from the Canadian Council of BP Guilds,
appointed by the Canadian Council of BP Guilds; and
(f) all Honorary Officers.

Scouts Canada does have representation on the ASC.

A copy drawn from the By-laws of

L'Association des Scouts du Canada

Article 3 : Assemblée générale
3.1 Composition
Les membres de l’assemblée générale sont :
 les districts reconnus, représentés par au plus deux membres individuels;
 les membres du conseil national;
 un représentant des Boy Scouts du Canada.
La délégation d’un district est formée du commissaire et du président du district. Ceux-ci peuvent se faire représenter par des substituts nommés par le district.

OH! ye of Little Faith,..... a penance?

Ted wrote ...

the members have been effectively disenfranchised

Ted

Have you looked at the form we all completed last fall? We're "participants", not "members". Ya can't disenfranchise "participants".

John

We're "participants", not "members". Ya can't disenfranchise "participants".

The Youth Form is headed "Program Participant Enrollment Form " The blurb above the parent signature line says that the parent grants permission for the youth to become a member of Scouts Canada. The Adult forms still refers to 'Member' and is entitled "APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF VOLUNTEERS" I feel that it is part of the slippery slope that the youth application for membership has been entitled as it has. I can see the day come when there will be a definition of Member as a Member of the BOG and individual youth and adults will be mere program participants, not even the lowly degrading title of "Ordinary-member" will be accorded to us.
Ted

... I feel that it is part of the slippery slope that [...] not even the lowly degrading title of "Ordinary-member" will be accorded to us.

You are correct, that it could be a slippery slope. However, a "slippery slope" is also a fallacy. Thus your argument is invalid. In conclusion I ask, can we spend less time degrading the current system and maybe spend a bit more time making it better? (less negativity all around please)

Definition of a Slippery Slope: Site One, Site Two, Site Three