Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 192

Thread: AMS 2016 and new rules for ECs

  1. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Feltham, Middlesex
    Posts
    885
    Thanks
    298
    Thanked 106 Times in 67 Posts
    My Group Treasurer earned her beads about 30 years ago - will she still have to complete Modules 1 and 3?
    MatSav


    GSL 10th Feltham, Nights Away Adviser
    "Three Into One Will Go!"
    Thameside Grand Union District
    Scouting Throughout the London Borough of Hounslow
    in the Districts formerly known as Feltham, ABC, and H&I

  2. #47
    Very Old Member BigBadBaloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Bracknell, Berkshire
    Posts
    4,514
    Thanks
    1,510
    Thanked 893 Times in 567 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mediamanager View Post
    ...................Not what you wrote (and I quoted) so apology accepted

    Some people elect not to receive HQ emails.
    Nope, what I actually wrote was:

    "...................and as for emails from HQ! I have seen reported elsewhere recently that even those members that should be getting them are not so I don't set much store that the members on the exec will get them......................................"
    Peter

    Former CSL - 2nd Bracknell


    A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.¯ Lao Tzu (600 BC - 531 BC)

  3. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 708 Times in 412 Posts
    Made perfect sense to me Peter!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to mang21 For This Useful Post:

    BigBadBaloo (17-07-2015)

  5. #49
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,661
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,751 Times in 1,055 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Byron View Post
    Yes HQ made the link. A version of Module 1 specifically for Executive Committee Members will be launched in January 2016 and will include all essential information that new Executive Committee members will need to know. This will include a new e-learning package.

    Byron
    as i said in my OPs, i did suspect that there would be a new module 1 for EC members. thank you for confirming this.

    the current module 1: essential information is unfit for inducting/preparing a person to take on an EC role. i think you would agree that is more suitable for new leaders, managers and supporters (LMS), which was probably its original intention on design.

    i'd rather not see us go into a renumbering of modules please!

    however, a module 1 for all would be unsuitable. for example, your average EC member - not also LMS - might welcome being made aware of fundamentals and values but probably sees little point to delve into the importance of the promise and how the programme is structured around the purpose and values and delivered through the scouting method, among others. however, an EC member should be made aware of their responsibilities and potential personal liabilities and what being a trustee actually means which the current module 1 barely touches on, if at all. of course we have people who fulfil a need to learn both aspects as they have roles as trustees and LMS, such as section leaders.

    i would prefer to see an module 1 with say 10 elements for which the training requirement varies according to role, for example: a GSL or section leader may be required to do all 10 elements as they potentially have dual roles; an assistant leader or section assistant may be required to complete a specified 6; a GEC member on the other hand may be required to complete 5, but a largely different 5 to the assistant leader, or some such like.

    i would certainly hope any training would cover the relevant bits of POR and the responsibilities covered in publications such as CC3.

    i think we also need to retrain those who undertake an EC role but whose module 1 training was done some time ago and who cannot provide evidence (APL) of meeting the module 1 aims.

    some people such as myself do provide a wider induction to the GEC role than that provided by module 1 and include appropriate elements of POR and charity law, an understanding of a trustee's role and responsibilities, and a session on CC3. (normally at our first GEC meeting after the AGM running for about 40 mins plus 20 mins Q&A.)

    while i don't welcome the burden of extra training responsibilities (and we do need to ensure there is an APL element), if HQ can get this new learning module correct then it should be welcomed by all and should go a long way to helping some of the poor practices and confusion surrounding ECs that is out there.

    TM
    going...going...still here...just

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to merryweather For This Useful Post:

    scoutgamer (19-07-2015)

  7. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,428
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 708 Times in 412 Posts
    I guess the next question is whether we have sufficient people capable of training and assessing new EC members in these skills!

  8. #51
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,661
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,751 Times in 1,055 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mang21 View Post
    I guess the next question is whether we have sufficient people capable of training and assessing new EC members in these skills!
    good question!

    we should have these for GECs as the existing chairmen and GSLs should have put some people through an induction.

    however, what is clear is:

    1. quite few groups do not seem to follow a structure and management given in POR and there is confusion in some places over understanding who is and who isn't a trustee.

    2. some groups operate GECs in a very loose manner, many running them wholly within the GSM.

    3. the awareness of relevant chapters in POR and appropriate aspects of charity law together with advice and responsibilities given in CC3, for example, let alone knowledge of these, is sorely lacking in some places. while many groups will have someone capable of producing a statement of accounts for an AGM, many struggle to put together a competent annual report, which clearly shows a lack of awareness of what's required and some fundamentally missing skills and knowledge.

    4. having been to a number of meetings/events where ECs, or aspects relating to the work of GECs, have been discussed, it's clear that in some places it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

    TM
    going...going...still here...just

  9. #52
    ADC (Support) & DMM mediamanager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 328 Times in 200 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hathi_Cambridge View Post
    I would rather see a group struggle on, not offering the best Scouting experience (ideally with support offered to improve this), than force the group to close and use the support to create a new group. My belief is this gives the Scouting experience to the maximum number of people.


    That's my take on this point, carried to the limiting case. If, as I think, you are taking the opposing view on this then I'll agree to differ. If your argument is more convoluted then feel free to restate it and you may persuade me to change. Good luck with that though
    I never try to change people ..... only they can do that.

    I do feel that sometimes we see a problem that doesn't exist and erect a barrier / excuse without even trying to implement.

    Module 1 isn't onerous and can be covered, as somebody else mentioned earlier, with a simple informal gathering in a relaxed environment with light refreshments.

    Providing individuals with support in this way can actually increase their feeling of being valued and part of a team.

    What I often read is a resistance from the outset - including excuses and assumptions that others won't participate - and yet that in itself can be the barrier .... not the training.

    We have trustees on executive committees .... all are equal in the eye of the law.
    If some do not participate in training then we have created two levels of the role and this isn't appropriate.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MatSav View Post
    My Group Treasurer earned her beads about 30 years ago - will she still have to complete Modules 1 and 3?
    Would it do her any harm and she could potentially pass on some experience to others with less service?
    Mark Pullen
    Bradford South District (ADC (Support) & DMM)
    Trustee - 7th SV Gomersal Scout Group

    Formerly:
    Cub SA - 3rd SV Scholes Scout Group
    Hove Edge Scout Group (GSL, Trustee)
    West Yorkshire Scout County (ACC Cubs, Agent 2:007, County Secretary, County MM, Gang Show Secretary, Gang Show Media)
    Keighley District (ADC Cubs, ADC Beavers, DMM, Trustee)
    8th Keighley Scout Group (ACSL, CSL, GSL, Group Chair)

    All posts made by myself are of a personal nature.

  10. #53
    Senior Member Hathi_Cambridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    614
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 64 Times in 46 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mediamanager View Post

    I do feel that sometimes we see a problem that doesn't exist and erect a barrier / excuse without even trying to implement.
    I feel sometimes we refuse to accept that there could be a problem so press on regardless, rather than preparing for possible difficulties. The Law of Unintended Consequences is usually worthy of some consideration.

    Module 1 isn't onerous and can be covered, as somebody else mentioned earlier, with a simple informal gathering in a relaxed environment with light refreshments.

    Providing individuals with support in this way can actually increase their feeling of being valued and part of a team.
    I don't disagree with any of this.

    What I often read is a resistance from the outset - including excuses and assumptions that others won't participate - and yet that in itself can be the barrier .... not the training.
    No. I disagree with this fairly strongly. In physical terms a fence is a barrier, opening the gate, walking round the fence or climbing the fence are all actions to overcome the barrier. Being unable to do this for any reason, mental or physical may be a further barrier that is highlighted by the creation of the first one.

    We have trustees on executive committees .... all are equal in the eye of the law.
    If some do not participate in training then we have created two levels of the role and this isn't appropriate.
    I'll agree that this wouldn't be ideal, but then many other things within Scouting are not consistent between groups/districts/counties either.
    Ultimately this takes me back to my simplest question above.

  11. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    716
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 131 Times in 99 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    The mass-formalisation that's going on is a drain and works against the goodwill that comes with people who are prepared to volunteer... a lot of people are put off by things like 'mandatory training' - it just seems like work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Byron View Post
    Or providing training can be seen as being supportive, providing clarity about what is expected of you and presenting a professional organisation worth being a part of.
    Is it "either or"? I think you're both right. Providing training is supportive. Enforcing too much training is professionalisation. A "professional" approach is seen as a good thing these days, and understandably so. However, in reality, "professional" is what we cannot be, because we are volunteers, we don't make our living out of this, and we have to manage our time and commitment. For some people, who feel that they can barely manage the time needed at the coal face, training is one more demand.

    Now I did my training as soon as I could, up to and including Wood Badge - in an age when that was only required for the section leader, a role I did not take till many years later. But some of the really good people I've worked with since didn't get their training done.

    Does it matter? I'm not sure. It matters to have some trained people around, or there's a danger it won't be Scouting that is delivered or (worse) it won't be safe. But everyone? I think there was a lot in the old idea that the section leader needed more training than the assistants.

    Train the Executive? Include them, yes. Offer training, yes. Explain what trustees are, definitely. But if you want the Group run properly, with the Executive and Council in their proper place, train the GSL and get District to ask a few pertinent questions about when your meetings were and so on. Then stop using obscure names and make the election rules less complex - not so much change them, as just make them clearer.
    SL, 11th Hitchin

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to DKRSL For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (20-07-2015)

  13. #55
    Sea Scout Leader richardnhunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,641
    Thanks
    917
    Thanked 416 Times in 257 Posts
    ^^^- definitely this. And to add:

    Exec members should be "core team" members anyway - including them is useful.

    Training - much if the wood badge is useless in terms of effective delivery. My favourite example is the history of scouting module. Lovely info but adds little, especially when the quiz supporting it is so far out of date.

  14. #56
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,714
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked 2,970 Times in 1,616 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DKRSL View Post
    But if you want the Group run properly, with the Executive and Council in their proper place, train the GSL and get District to ask a few pertinent questions about when your meetings were and so on. Then stop using obscure names and make the election rules less complex - not so much change them, as just make them clearer.

    Can you explain the above, please?

    The GSL is part of the EXEC so why would he need to know when the meetings HAD been held, he should have been there. Also, what is so complicated about the election rules? What is so complicated about the terminology.

    Chairperson - heads the meetings and represents the Group
    Treasurer - looks after the accounts
    Secretary - takes minutes and handles correspondence.

    Hardly difficult to understand.

    Election. Who wants to be a Trustee? Okay, fill this declaration out. You are a Trustee. No, seriously, it isn't much more difficult than that.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  15. #57
    ADC (Support) & DMM mediamanager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 328 Times in 200 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DKRSL View Post
    Is it "either or"? I think you're both right. Providing training is supportive. Enforcing too much training is professionalisation. A "professional" approach is seen as a good thing these days, and understandably so. However, in reality, "professional" is what we cannot be, because we are volunteers, we don't make our living out of this, and we have to manage our time and commitment. For some people, who feel that they can barely manage the time needed at the coal face, training is one more demand.
    I'm not sure that volunteers cannot aspire to achieve, or deliver, professionalism.

    Saying we cannot be professionals because we volunteer is inappropriate and insulting - the only difference is remuneration and I for one did my best without a second thought to monies.

    Whatever path in my life, I lived by - and continue to do so - the Scout Laws and doing my best is applicable whether as a volunteer or employee/employer.
    Last edited by mediamanager; 20-07-2015 at 07:16 AM.
    Mark Pullen
    Bradford South District (ADC (Support) & DMM)
    Trustee - 7th SV Gomersal Scout Group

    Formerly:
    Cub SA - 3rd SV Scholes Scout Group
    Hove Edge Scout Group (GSL, Trustee)
    West Yorkshire Scout County (ACC Cubs, Agent 2:007, County Secretary, County MM, Gang Show Secretary, Gang Show Media)
    Keighley District (ADC Cubs, ADC Beavers, DMM, Trustee)
    8th Keighley Scout Group (ACSL, CSL, GSL, Group Chair)

    All posts made by myself are of a personal nature.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to mediamanager For This Useful Post:

    merryweather (20-07-2015)

  17. #58
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,661
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,751 Times in 1,055 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DKRSL View Post
    Is it "either or"? I think you're both right. Providing training is supportive. Enforcing too much training is professionalisation. A "professional" approach is seen as a good thing these days, and understandably so. However, in reality, "professional" is what we cannot be, because we are volunteers, we don't make our living out of this, and we have to manage our time and commitment. For some people, who feel that they can barely manage the time needed at the coal face, training is one more demand.
    in some places training is seen as a cudgel to beat you into doing something you really don't want to do; in other places it is supportive, timely, appropriate and good.

    i think you over-complicate the professionalism aspect. we can (and must) be 'professional' in our outlook and the things we do but it must be focused and cannot extend beyond our time and commitment.

    good training is a good thing. we need more of it. sadly in some places we don't have enough good training.

    nobody wishes to sit for 2h on a wednesday evening 'wasting their time' learning how to complete record cards for your beavers when you've already been trained to use OSM or listening to someone drone on to a large group of people about beliefs and values, or some such like. we do need to be better at making people feel that training is worthwhile and necessary.

    we need to focus more on delivering what people need to know not what we think they need to know. we do not do enough APL. we 'blanket' too many training events delivering the same old stuff in one style to your 'average' leader with 'average' needs (who does not exist).

    our training scheme may well be flexible but in many places its delivery certainly is not.

    Now I did my training as soon as I could, up to and including Wood Badge - in an age when that was only required for the section leader, a role I did not take till many years later. But some of the really good people I've worked with since didn't get their training done.

    Does it matter? I'm not sure. It matters to have some trained people around, or there's a danger it won't be Scouting that is delivered or (worse) it won't be safe. But everyone? I think there was a lot in the old idea that the section leader needed more training than the assistants.
    everyone needs training but it does need to be focused.

    in part we suffer from lack of resources. our training function in some places is weak and under pressure in many others.

    we need a huge increase in the number of training advisers. there has to be a push to ensure that every group has a training adviser. i hear in some places this is happening with GSLs but no every group has a GSL.

    we need more trainers. it amuses me when i go on training courses to see the same people turning up to deliver the training time and time again. (i'm not suggesting they're useless, many are very good, but we need more of them!) it's funny when you're sitting in a district meeting and someone asks a question about POR 3.23, GEC, management, processes, constitutions, and the reply is: 'don't know but i'll forward your question on to the county trainer who covers this in training'. three weeks later one might get a reply; we always seem to have the same 'go to'!

    why are the eleven modules 27-37 so hard to access? i haven't seen or heard of any of these being delivered in any format in 'auchtermuchty'.

    why is it that training delivery is generally either course-based or e-learning? rarely have i seen it happen small group or 1-2-1.

    Train the Executive? Include them, yes. Offer training, yes. Explain what trustees are, definitely. But if you want the Group run properly, with the Executive and Council in their proper place, train the GSL
    we definitely need better and more appropriate training for GECs. we definitely need more and better training for GSLs about GECs. (we need more GSLs too!) we should aim to have at least three trainers in every district trained to deliver a module 1 for GEC/DEC members.

    and get District to ask a few pertinent questions about when your meetings were and so on.
    the DEC has a supervisory responsibility for GECs. some seemingly don't take up that responsibility.

    Then stop using obscure names
    such as? can you give examples please?

    and make the election rules less complex - not so much change them, as just make them clearer.
    can you explain please?

    the rules about the appointment of people to GECs are pretty simple but i would agree that many groups get easily confused and this is why you see many different structures in places.

    luckily in my district if we want to know about rules and process to do with GECs we always ask the district chairman or past chairman to explain, failing that there's always county.

    TM
    going...going...still here...just

  18. #59
    Senior Member Mallah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,224
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 322 Times in 230 Posts
    I completely disagree with the concept of 'mandatory' training in this area. Exec members tend to volunteer because they want to. The training should be available and 'encouraged' so that they also 'want' to do it, not 'have' to do it. Next issue is that most exec members I've come across probably have more knowledge than those tasked with the training!!!

    He who receives a good turn should never forget it; he who does one should never remember it.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Mallah For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (20-07-2015)

  20. #60
    ADC (Support) & DMM mediamanager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks
    407
    Thanked 328 Times in 200 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    I completely disagree with the concept of 'mandatory' training in this area. Exec members tend to volunteer because they want to. The training should be available and 'encouraged' so that they also 'want' to do it, not 'have' to do it. Next issue is that most exec members I've come across probably have more knowledge than those tasked with the training!!!
    I can't get my head around not requiring volunteers to undertake training relating to their role.

    The trustees are the legal guardians of our groups so it's paramount that, if they are expected to undertake the role correctly, they receive the appropriate training.

    I think that in many/most cases the trustees on group executives are oblivious to what's required and the committee itself is operating outside its remit and nothing more than a glorified social gathering for "old timers".

    As for experienced trustees - this is brilliant and they'll likely understand fully the importance of sharing good practice.
    Mark Pullen
    Bradford South District (ADC (Support) & DMM)
    Trustee - 7th SV Gomersal Scout Group

    Formerly:
    Cub SA - 3rd SV Scholes Scout Group
    Hove Edge Scout Group (GSL, Trustee)
    West Yorkshire Scout County (ACC Cubs, Agent 2:007, County Secretary, County MM, Gang Show Secretary, Gang Show Media)
    Keighley District (ADC Cubs, ADC Beavers, DMM, Trustee)
    8th Keighley Scout Group (ACSL, CSL, GSL, Group Chair)

    All posts made by myself are of a personal nature.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mediamanager For This Useful Post:

    johnL (20-07-2015),nevynxxx (20-07-2015)

Similar Threads

  1. Charnwood 2016
    By sitb2000 in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2015, 04:52 PM
  2. Roihu 2016
    By Kev in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-04-2015, 07:50 PM
  3. [Answered] Annual Membership Fee 2016
    By PaulArthurs in forum UK Chief Commissioner Questions (CLOSED)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23-02-2015, 01:43 PM
  4. Cubjam 2016 is launched...
    By cubjam in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-10-2014, 03:44 PM
  5. Cubjam 2016
    By wolfie in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 02:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •