Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 109

Thread: AGM query

  1. #61
    Senior Member oneiros's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Worcestershire, UK
    Posts
    457
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 166 Times in 103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    8/ Districts where leader training was never completed
    I suspect that every District has a fair few of these. What choice do they have? Volunteers find the training/validation programme a pain in the ****, so they repeatedly 'forget' to do it; line manager either turns a blind eye or risks losing another adult helper.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to oneiros For This Useful Post:

    Pricivius (12-01-2018)

  3. #62
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,159
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 2,605 Times in 1,427 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    I am aware that such things do happen but I agree with Ian these are by far the exceptions out there and that the vast majority of Districts and Groups are run to the rules as closely as possible (its impossible to register youth members on Compass but the rules still say I have to do so!) and its important to make that point clearly.

    Not sure how the system could be made much simpler whilst still actually complying with Charity Law without further overburdening Leaders i.e. removing Group Execs and making Leaders the only charity trustees and responsible for all finances as I believe Guiding does.
    The problem is that so many look at the problems and simply walk away - okay, it took us 20 years, but walk away we did. If people walk rather than report, then there is no problem.

    As far as the kids are concerned none of this matters one iota. But a lot of what does and doesn't go on is not right. We all too often do a Nelson for all the wrong reasons.
    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

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

    Pricivius (12-01-2018)

  5. #63
    Group Scout Leader
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 370 Times in 192 Posts
    There was a consultation a few years ago about Groups opting to be goverened by the District rather than having their own Trustees. This, if I recall correctly, was for those Groups with straightforward assets (i.e. meeting at premises they do not own).

    Never heard the outcome of the consultation, but nothing changed.


    Paul

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

    Pricivius (12-01-2018)

  7. #64
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,159
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 2,605 Times in 1,427 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by oneiros View Post
    I suspect that every District has a fair few of these. What choice do they have? Volunteers find the training/validation programme a pain in the ****, so they repeatedly 'forget' to do it; line manager either turns a blind eye or risks losing another adult helper.

    That, right there, is the problem. I did say that I could sort of understand the motivation in turning a blind eye, but that does not make it correct.

    If I had a leader who didn't wish to do the training (not wasn't able to), then I would let them go, and I did. I still had 27 adults in my team.

    Okay, what sort of people do we want as Leaders, as role models? People who commit, who do as they say, who are prepared to do things properly and correctly and safely? Yes? In that case there is a whole raft of such people out there, so why are they not knocking the doors down to help?

    Could it be that they want to be part of something that is right and proper and safe, and they look at what they see and think, "Nah, I don't want to be part of that, it looks a bit risky to me. I'll let the kids go but I can always pull them out if things get too much."?

    So, an accountant who sees a group with dodgy accounts ( and his/ her perception of dodgy will be a lot more refined than ours - they either jump in with both feet , take the Treasurer's role and do it right, or they keep out of it.
    So, a teacher who looks at bad practice in a Leadership team, thins, crap, I get enough of that at school... and so on.

    Actually, I think that adults joining want to be protected against the risk of harm... if they don't feel safe then that is a disincentive. It may explain the high Leadership churn - maybe.
    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

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bushfella For This Useful Post:

    Pricivius (12-01-2018),Sparks (12-01-2018)

  9. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    This is my frustration. I joined Scouting as a complete newbie. I did the training - First Aid and two full days of Scout School, taking advice from a Training Advisor on what courses would be most relevant and useful after I had done the basics. I set up the website, arranged email addresses through it, used Print Centre to ensure we were using the right fonts etc. on posters, arranged a Pinewood Derby event to try to bring the Group together, committed to camps, fun days and Grow Your Group training at weekends, helped out with another section when they needed another leader, etc.. I was committed and invested. And now I'm out because the Group would not meet me halfway when I raised concerns.

    If I had not bothered with half of that, been a nodding yes-man, kept my head down and just done the bare minimum and ignored everything else, I would still be in Scouting. How is that right?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Pricivius For This Useful Post:

    johnL (12-01-2018)

  11. #66
    Senior Member Kastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,350
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 527 Times in 292 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    Any DC that ignores such things is not fit for office, what they should do is arrange for support to bring the Group or Section in question up to scratch, e.g. get the District Chair to help them recruit potential Exec members and hold an AGM, or arrnage help to recruit more adults and in the meantime sort additional temporary cover.
    Assuming that the minimum Group Exec is GSL (or GSL Acting), Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer over half the Groups in my County don't have valid Execs in that they are missing one or more of those roles. All the Districts have deficient Groups some in excess of 75%. The best District still has 30% non-compliance.
    Last edited by Kastor; 12-01-2018 at 02:48 PM.
    To get more kids we need more adults - are we getting the message yet?

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

    Pricivius (12-01-2018)

  13. #67
    Senior Member recneps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bath and Bristol
    Posts
    8,735
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 2,205 Times in 1,417 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kastor View Post
    Assuming that the minimum Group Exec is GSL (or GSL Acting), Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer over half the Groups in my County don't have valid Execs in that they are missing one or more of those roles. All the Districts have deficient Groups some in excess of 75%. The best District still has 30% non-compliance.
    I dont think anyone is saying that you can't have a functioning exec in the absence of one or more of those roles for a short period of time.

    I've argued before that the secretary role is, these days, outdated. For us the non-trustee part of the secretary role is done by our group administrator (who chooses not sit on the exec but does a very good job of our admin), and were we to elect a secretary it would be purely an honorary role. The minutes tend to be taken by my AGSL.

    However, for a group to function long term without a treasurer, or chair, is an issue... at least for a large group.

    This perhaps brings us back to a previous conversation about combining execs for smaller groups to reduce the volunteer shortage.

    In the OP's case... unfortunately there are good and bad scout groups, good and bad districts, and i dare say, good and bad counties.
    Dan Spencer

    Group Scout Leader 66th Bath
    Deputy District Commissioner (Programme) - City of Bath District
    Nights Away Adviser and member of District Executive Committee - City of Bath District
    Member of Avon County Appointments Advisory Committee
    Event organiser "Be Prepared" Resilience Events
    Formerly CSL, SL, ASL and Jamboree Communications Lead

    Web designer


    It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to recneps For This Useful Post:

    merryweather (14-01-2018),Pricivius (12-01-2018)

  15. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,444
    Thanks
    1,248
    Thanked 951 Times in 692 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    Okay, what sort of people do we want as Leaders, as role models? People who commit, who do as they say, who are prepared to do things properly and correctly and safely? Yes? In that case there is a whole raft of such people out there, so why are they not knocking the doors down to help?

    Could it be that they want to be part of something that is right and proper and safe, and they look at what they see and think, "Nah, I don't want to be part of that, it looks a bit risky to me. I'll let the kids go but I can always pull them out if things get too much."?
    I think that skips over the initial hurdle - which is, Scouts is a hobby for most. Potential volunteers (I doubt) will be wanting a second career out of it. They just want to come down and maybe put something back into the community. I don't imagine they'll want a rough approximation of what they're doing at work. (and even at work it s a chore everyone try to avoid - the half year review... eeurgh...)

    Also, I think they assume - since Scouts has been around for a while, that it already is right, proper and safe. Obviously if they join and the group operates in a way that obviously isn't, then they have a decision to make...

    And at that point you're into all the good stuff which is talked about here at length - entrenched views, poor habits, old farts who still do their scouting as if its 1940 etc etc etc. That seems to be what Pricivius has encountered.

    I don't think anyone (or hardly anyone anyway) thinks about volunteering for Scouts because of the stellar bureaucratic practices we have in place - if anything, it puts them off.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by recneps View Post
    However, for a group to function long term without a treasurer, or chair, is an issue... at least for a large group.
    I know of a group that hasn't had a chair or secretary for eight years.

    Its not that far away from us... Quite close...

    I hear they job share...


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    Pricivius (12-01-2018)

  17. #69
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,655
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,671 Times in 1,049 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pricivius View Post
    Thank you!

    i suspect you were quickly labelled a trouble maker. YES INDEED.

    i can only surmise that your concerns about someone not following the rules were not taken seriously and that your continued press for action may have upset some people. IT SEEMS THAT WAY.
    scouting, more so than many other hobbies, seems to attract people who take their hobby to heart in a very OTT way and go about things in a very blinkered way. they completely miss the point that getting to the heart of one's scouting hobby means actually sharing the adventure with others, working with others, reconciling with others, and sometimes agreeing to disagree.

    all our visions of scouting have to be shared with others because if not they won't work.

    ABSOLUTELY. I WAS MORE OR LESS TOLD AS MUCH. UNFORTUNATELY, THE LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATORY ASPECTS OF POR WAS COMPOUNDED BY OTHER ISSUES, SUCH AS LEADERS WITHOUT DBSs AND TRAINING, ELECTRICAL WORKS CARRIED OUT ON THE HUT BY UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE, RUMOURS OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES AND VARIOUS HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES AT THE HUT AND ON CAMP. I WAS A TIMES TERRIFIED TO BE IN CHARGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. I HAVEN'T GONE IN TO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL AS I WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE NEXT AGM AND HOW THAT SHOULD WORK, BUT IT WAS NOT JUST THE LACK OF AN AGM IN THE LAST 3 YEARS THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.
    dysfunctional groups and scouting people exist in many places. i'm sure i'm seen as dysfunctional by some! working with some people can be difficult and challenging. often we have to find ways to make these relationships work which are very unlike those methods one can use in paid employment. ewan's oft-quoted comment about parents' attitudes...'after all it's only scout club'.... is often matched by adult leaders who view it as....'their club'.

    trying to argue with some leaders about the importance of the regulatory aspects of POR is frankly quite a waste of time. Is that because these regulations are too difficult to comprehend? generally, no! it is simply because no matter how close you put a POR rule in front of their nose, or how many times you tell them, they just obstinately refuse to understand; you might as well talk to them in some old serbo-croat dialect!

    how many times have we heard the old myth about having to wear uniform to be insured? dozens and dozens, but surely by now most people know that it's a myth? one would think so, however, only 18 months ago at a district GSLs meet i heard the myth trotted out once again, by a GSL, and it received a round of nodding approvals from those present. (i was busy at the time descending into the land of nod!)

    i think if one asked every leader who they thought comprised the GEC, i suspect a (surprisingly) significant number (a few double figures at least!) would say: GSL, chair, secretary and treasurer. period!

    even though it's clearly mentioned in POR what is the correct compostion.

    I JOINED SCOUTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015. I HAVE NEVER BEEN A SCOUT OR BEEN INVOLVED AT ALL BEFORE THAT. I APPRECIATE I PROBABLY GOT THINGS WRONG BUT I WAS TAKING GUIDANCE FROM THE DC AND TSA. AT NO POINT WAS THE DEC MENTIONED BY ANYBODY. THE DC DID NOT PASS MY CONCERN TO THE DEC OR TELL ME TO CONTACT THEM.
    you did not get things wrong! it seems as though you were in a situation were the blind were leading the blind. i don't mean that to insult you. i don't know what it is about having a GSL or DC or CC or 'manager' tag in one's role but it seems to some with those responsibilities that they must always be the one to make a decision and be seen to make a decision, without reference to anyone else, even if they know diddly-squat about what they're trying to decide.

    i recall some time ago being in a meeting with others and a DC where they were discussing a point about, iirc, the role of the group scouters meeting. i believe the answer that was given was completely wrong. okay fair enough, we all get things wrong (especially me!) but in the very same room there was also someone with an HQ appointment who did know the answer but was completely ignored! The DC had to 'rule on the matter'.

    Quite obviously in your case the DEC was not involved because if it had been doing its supervisory role it should have raised questions why AGMs were not being held. I suspect the DEC was comprised of a couple of people who made the decisions and the rest a just a set of 'churchills' ('oh yes' as in the dog!)

    THE CC RECEIVED WHAT WAS REQUIRED. 2015/16 WERE LATE BUT WERE FILED.
    okay so we're more likely then to be looking at technical details surrounding procedures? i suspect that there isn't the level of knowledge at district/county to see the potential problems that they can cause, not just them falling foul of POR.

    there are quite a few people who believe that POR is merely 'guidance' and that almost following it with just a few tweaks to suit is okay. it's not okay. so you didn't have an AGM...so a few people didn't get a chance to attend a boring 1h meeting...so we didn't get to change anything which anyway wasn't ever going to be changed...so where's the problem?

    i suspect that minor difficulties were overlooked. it is a classic case of driving at 33mph in a 30mph zone and resolutely claiming that one didn't break the law.

    so should we bother? i'm with you - yes we should! it does not take much effort to make sure procedures are followed, i's doted and t's crossed. it's trying to get others to see that doing things properly is actually no greater effort and potentially saves time and effort in the future.

    AGREED, BUT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN OVER A YEAR TO CALL AN AGM!
    no it should've not taken so long! however, attending the AGM and posing the question: why the delay? might have given you an answer or caused them to uncomfortably lie or mumble!

    why? your complaint should've been to the GEC, with any appeal going to the DC. County will not want to get involved. HQ most definitely won't want to get involved! NO ONE TOLD ME THAT!
    once you appear to have made it a personal issue of you v them then i suspect others will have shied away from getting involved. i always say that the most often made decision made by a DC is to make no decision. DCs love to sit on the fence!

    wrong advice. the DCC should have simply directed your complaint to the DEC. THE DCC SENT MY EMAIL BACK TO THE DC, WHO HAD A GO AT ME ABOUT IT! I ASKED HIM FOR AN UPDATE AND HE TOLD ME TO GO AWAY OR GO FORMAL. I COULD NOT WALK AWAY FROM ALL THE ISSUES SO FELT I HAD NO CHOICE AS NOT A LOT WAS HAPPENING.
    frankly that's appalling behaviour. i think you had become pest no 1 by then and they just wanted you to shut up and go away.

    the complaints procedure is seriously flawed. management in many instances doesn't follow it and some complaints are handled at different levels, with gaps in between, and any appeal equally likely to be flawed.

    i recall advising a GSL friend some time ago now. One night their assistant cub leader broke up a fight between two cubs - a pushing, barging match with a few 'slaps' typical of the age group - both at fault and handled by the leader. meanwhile one parent complains to the DC about fighting in the pack. giving the impression that a war has broken out. DC not happy. a few weeks later another 'fight' - more like a squabble -breaks out, different kids but again sorted. the parent who complained first heard about the fight from her son but decides to go back to the DC. the DC is now very unhappy, she investigates and a formal complaint is made. she hauls in my GSL friend for 'a chat about the fighting going on in the pack'. it's news to my friend! the cub leaders dealt with the issue in the pack and would've have discussed it at the following group scouters meet (which hadn't taken place by then) and did not feel it important to inform the GSL. of course if correct procedure had been followed then the parent should have been directed first to the GSL and this could have been handled much easier. the DC was wrong to get involved and investigate and she could have compromised any appeal, if such had followed. the DC should have referred the parent to my friend, but no they felt that it was important and got involved. i heard that when the DC finally got the correct advice from the IC at HQ they apologised. but it should never have gone that far!

    sorry i digress.

    A WIN TO ME IS THE GROUP FUNCTIONING BETTER WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE. PERSONALLY, I'VE KNOWN FOR A WHILE THAT I'M OUT.
    personalities!

    tradition will tell you that the DC is always correct. you do not challenge your DC. you learn that on day 1. I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT MEMO!
    it's what i got told on day 1 from my GSL.

    you can have worked in an area or speciality for 25 years, it means nothing; when it comes to ruling on matters in scouting, district knows best. APPARENTLY SO.
    it's what most believe!

    THIS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD TO DO BY THE DCC AND THE TSA! OH WELL!
    so what happened to your official complaint?

    but i thought that the accounts were published by the GEC just not presented to an AGM? i suspect what you're also saying is that they weren't approved by the GEC, or rather by the clique that operated as the GEC? HARD TO KNOW. I THINK THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE GEC CLIQUE, JUST NOT SHOWN TO ANYONE ELSE IN THE GROUP OR AT AGM
    so falling foul of not following the correct procedures. unfortunately, it seems that there are some people who think that bending a rule here and there doesn't matter and that to do so make things easier and doesn't cause an issue.

    okay so the report and accounts weren't published, but they were approved of a sort and district got a copy and seemed happy, so what's the problem?

    well officer i was only doing 33mph in a 30mph zone!

    not ideal but if district are not going to move forward on the 'anomalies' then there's not much one can do. they obviously see no big issues, some 'technicalities', and wish to wipe the slate clean and move on.
    that's clearly what they seem to want.

    IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHO IS NOMINATED/ELECTED...
    following POR and getting them to follow it - or if they don't they literally hang themselves by shouting out and telling all that they're breaking it - is the way to go. you need to get people who want to make changes elected to the GEC.


    THANKS AGAIN FOR EVERYONE'S HELP. I HAVE LEARNED THE HARD WAY WHAT SCOUTING IS ALL ABOUT AND IT'S NOT WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS. IT'S EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING BUT LIFE GOES ON. IF NOTHING ELSE, I HAD A 40FT PINEWOOD DERBY TRACK MADE WHICH IS GOING TO WASTE!

    don't throw in the towel!

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

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

    Pricivius (16-01-2018)

  19. #70
    Senior Member Kastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,350
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 527 Times in 292 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by recneps View Post
    I dont think anyone is saying that you can't have a functioning exec in the absence of one or more of those roles for a short period of time.

    I've argued before that the secretary role is, these days, outdated. For us the non-trustee part of the secretary role is done by our group administrator (who chooses not sit on the exec but does a very good job of our admin), and were we to elect a secretary it would be purely an honorary role. The minutes tend to be taken by my AGSL.

    However, for a group to function long term without a treasurer, or chair, is an issue... at least for a large group.

    This perhaps brings us back to a previous conversation about combining execs for smaller groups to reduce the volunteer shortage.

    In the OP's case... unfortunately there are good and bad scout groups, good and bad districts, and i dare say, good and bad counties.
    Looking at the Groups some I would say have not had these positions filled for years. About a quarter of them have only two positions filled, almost 10% only 1!. These are not just "changeover" situations but long term vacant.

    If "we" no longer require these positions to be filled (as you say secretary seems fairly redundant these days) then POR should change to say so, and everyone can stop wasting their time trying to fill them. Guides seems to manage without all this baggage why can't we?
    To get more kids we need more adults - are we getting the message yet?

  20. #71
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,655
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,671 Times in 1,049 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    You what?!

    How can you say that after all that you have previously said about how I should have gone down the official complaints route?

    Here we have someone who has gone down the proper route and you are advising that he parhaps should not have! Make your mind up Tarquin.
    no! here we have someone who has experienced issues with the GEC of a group (along with other issues which they have now brought to light) but somehow it's being handled by a deputy county commissioner who is advising that they make an official complaint? how bizarre!

    this should never have got anywhere near county!

    Reading this thread I would hazard a guess that having met with a brick wall at the Group, Pricivius has gone down the only route left open, the official route.
    no let's be careful here. so did they bang into a brick wall? so the group hasn't held an AGM for a number of years? if that group was in my district then district would be asking questions. yes in the past round here we've had AGMs that have been 'delayed' and the proceedings of some have frankly been decidedly dodgy but these groups haven't been allowed to get away with it. there again district haven't exactly gone in and made a fuss blowing their police whistles, no, more often it's done on the quiet.

    the politics of districts can be laws unto themselves and sometimes you have to play along and strike at the right moment and place. no district is going to support the public breaking of POR rules and make a fuss over it without being able to defend itself. this is where the complaints procedure falls down because some districts can seem to get away with things if kept quiet and those who police them keep quiet too. no DC is going to publicly admit, for example, that their safeguarding procedures have gone awry and have let in a dozen adults without DBS and such like and then claim that they're not particularly bothered. no, let's keep a lid on things and sort them out on the quiet is the approach many would take i suspect.

    Frankly, most people would simply have walked away.
    sorry to repeat this story.

    some time ago i got asked an 'innocent' question just like the ones asked here by the OP. i responded in good faith with an honest and, most importantly, accurate reading of the rules. would a district treasurer be likely to be in a better position than me to give an answer? yes, most likely! so therefore it was wrong of me to reply? eh!!!? who i was and what role i had (i was not a DT!) was irrelevant, the information i gave was accurate.

    (most people here discuss and respond in many discussions on subjects outside of their role and responsibilities but nevertheless through their knowledge and/or experiences they can do so accurately, often better than others who should know but are less well-informed. i digress.)

    someone took exception to my replies on the basis that i wasn't in the 'correct' scouting role to be handling such a topic. the line management supposedly got interested and i was told that i was in serious trouble with HQ and my responses were 'under investigation'. at the time i was extremely concerned and worried about what i had done. i now know that i wasn't under any investigation but was being scared off simply because at the same time i was discussing the subject, and totally unrelated, the district were trying to handle an incident on the quiet and apparently didn't want anyone to do something that might draw attention their way. i was given a warning at the time not to repeat what i had done and not to poke my nose into business which was not my responsibility. it caused me no end of trouble and has shaped my scouting ever since.

    Actually, I think that the reality is that Privicius' experience is that of a great many people in Scouting. However, they turn a blind eye to it and get on with helping out and doing their best. It is the dichotomy of TSA that it has created a very successful concept, but executes it despite the best efforts of some of its hierarchy and adult membership. It is the British way.
    i disagree: i don't think it's widespread but this sort of thing happens far too much in scouting. yes people get away with it, so to speak, because people keep quiet.

    driving at 33mph in a 30mph zone is breaking the law! it's not a capital offence and 9/10 times i'm sure it causes no harm or issues but that's no excuse; it's still breaking the law.

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

  21. #72
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,655
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,671 Times in 1,049 Posts
    i'm with wilko and shifty here!

    they are exceptions and it's unfair to give the impression that such behaviour is endemic; it's not but where it does happen it can be worrying and what is often more worrying is seemingly the lack of action to tackle the issues in some places.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    I really don't think that is true our Group complies with the rules and it really takes very little effort to do so
    same here. i may be viewed as a stickler for the rules at times but it doesn't take much effort to follow them.

    Any DC that ignores such things is not fit for office, what they should do is arrange for support to bring the Group or Section in question up to scratch, e.g. get the District Chair to help them recruit potential Exec members and hold an AGM, or arrange help to recruit more adults and in the meantime sort additional temporary cover.
    correct.

    1/ A Group operating a single section with just a single Leader
    2/ A Group with a single section, a single Leader and no Exec
    3/ A Group with no Exec and no bank accounts, no AGMs
    4/ A Group with One Trustee and a GSL, two Leaders and four kids - two cubs/ Two Scouts ( Acting DC closed it) because they were so far outwith POR they were all at risk.
    5/ A group reported and caught misrepresenting its membership on the census
    6/ A Group failing to pay its AMS for two years - even though they had taken in the AMS from its members
    7/ A Group where the accounts clearly did not represent their Income and Expenditure - overlooked by the DT and the DC for several years.
    8/ Districts where leader training was never completed
    9/ Leaders who failed to complete their training properly were awarded their Woods Badge
    10/ County hiding - no better not do that one
    11/ Local rules being put in place counter to Policy and supported by TSA as they facilitated getting around other local rules.
    12/ Failure to suspend - no better not go there either...

    Ok I have spent nearly my entire time in Scouting in the same Group and District (bar two years helping with a Beaver Colony in Sheffield when I was at Uni when I did not get involved at all in the running of the Group or District I just turned up each week to help). but in nearly 18 years involvement as an adult in Scouting I have not come across any of those apart from maybe individual Leaders failing to do their training in the required timespan.
    maybe you've lived a sheltered scout life shifty!

    i've seen some of these and while the response has sometimes been somewhat slow to address the issues i would not say they've been deliberately ignored.

    ewan's points 1 and 2 i've had direct experience. as a 'witchmaster general' i was parachuted in shortly after hearing the 'action stations' bell sound one august bank holiday (okay it was the DC giving me a call!) i was told to draw up an action plan, put things in order and report back at a certain time (6 months) with a recommendation. luckily when i did report back it was to say that the casualty was still breathing.

    I am aware that such things do happen but I agree with Ian these are by far the exceptions out there and that the vast majority of Districts and Groups are run to the rules as closely as possible (its impossible to register youth members on Compass but the rules still say I have to do so!) and its important to make that point clearly.
    yes.

    however, i would say that there is a general reluctance at times in some places to stamp out those doing 33mph in a 30mph zone, if you catch my drift.

    Not sure how the system could be made much simpler whilst still actually complying with Charity Law without further overburdening Leaders i.e. removing Group Execs and making Leaders the only charity trustees and responsible for all finances as I believe Guiding does.
    simply change POR.

    yes we could move to the guide model which has many advantages, however, one has to remember that the management model they use is tailored for their operations. would we be better off with single section 'groups'; do we want to place the burden of finances on leaders; how would a guide model made for single units in small districts work in somewhere such as big chris's district; would another 'division' layer be beneficial as well as smaller counties?

    there are good and bad things whichever way you look.

    where it comes to running groups and GECs we need better people who are better trained and better advised and better supported.

    scouting i believe is notably weak in the area of governance.

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

  22. #73
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,159
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 2,605 Times in 1,427 Posts
    Tarquin,

    Your 33mph in a 30mph zone is a red herring and does not really analogise the situation.

    When your speedo reads 30 mph you are actually doing between 27 and 28 mph. If driving at 33mph, in a car or light van, you are likely to be travelling at 30mph. If I were booked for driving at 32mph according to my speedometre, I would challenge it and win because my speedo and that of every car that I have ever driven reads roughly 10% low.

    So, in order to be done for driving at 33mph, your speedo would have to be reading closer to 37mph.

    If we wish to remain within the motoring analogy, TSA as it actually operates, has too many people driving at 37mph and quite a few above that rate, but this is compounded by the number of drivers who fail to use their indicators and the number of vehicles that are not insured or have not been presented for an MOT when due.

    As a member of TSA I adhered to POR, I did not breach any National rules - I did though question local rules. As a Freebooter in Navigators, I and my team operate within the law of the land and if truth be told still take our lead from TSA on mny things - it isn't difficult.

    If, instead of playng silly sods with the rulebook and instead of running scared of "losing" people, the hierarchy of Scouting imposed the rules that are set out in POR, then there would be a lot more people driving within the bounds of the Highway Code - as it were.

    If Group A is not operating to standard, it is the fault of the DC, and the DEC for not making sure that tey know the rules and play by the rules. Difficult to do when the DC and the DEC don't play by the rules...
    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

  23. #74
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,655
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,671 Times in 1,049 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulArthurs View Post
    There was a consultation a few years ago about Groups opting to be goverened by the District rather than having their own Trustees. This, if I recall correctly, was for those Groups with straightforward assets (i.e. meeting at premises they do not own).

    Never heard the outcome of the consultation, but nothing changed.


    Paul
    yes i recall this idea.

    it was a brilliant idea! it would remove the need for groups to find people for GEC roles, which many find difficult. it would remove all the nonsense about having to have an AGM, which was boring and hardly anyone attended. it would remove the need for these boring half a dozen GEC meetings every year, which always got in the way of leaders having time to do real scouting. and it would mean that groups could get some economies of scale and have more time and effort spent by leaders on real scouting rather than having them prat about fixing the roof or finding a new ballcock for the loo!

    the really good thing for us would that the savings we made could then be used to buy another 6 kayaks to add to our current fleet of 24. that's a win!

    er...

    er...

    what kayaks are these?

    our kayaks of course, the ones in our stores!

    er...

    no those are now districts kayaks and the DEC has decided it would be best if they were transferred to the 378th who are just starting out on their swimmers one badges and hope to be doing water activities in 3 years time.

    ..but we didn't vote for that!

    er...

    yes you did but your 1 vote on the DEC didn't tip the vote and it still ended 14-1 against you.

    now are you also aware that at the same meeting the DEC voted to use you un-dedicated activity funds of £4k to support the DC and her team going to the WOSM conference on governance in the caymans next year?

    er..

    maybe it's not a good idea after all.

    but there again the 279th is a registered charity and has its own premises so couldn't really give a damn what happens!



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

  24. #75
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,159
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 2,605 Times in 1,427 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by merryweather View Post
    yes i recall this idea.

    it was a brilliant idea! it would remove the need for groups to find people for GEC roles, which many find difficult. it would remove all the nonsense about having to have an AGM, which was boring and hardly anyone attended. it would remove the need for these boring half a dozen GEC meetings every year, which always got in the way of leaders having time to do real scouting. and it would mean that groups could get some economies of scale and have more time and effort spent by leaders on real scouting rather than having them prat about fixing the roof or finding a new ballcock for the loo!

    the really good thing for us would that the savings we made could then be used to buy another 6 kayaks to add to our current fleet of 24. that's a win!

    er...

    er...

    what kayaks are these?

    our kayaks of course, the ones in our stores!

    er...

    no those are now districts kayaks and the DEC has decided it would be best if they were transferred to the 378th who are just starting out on their swimmers one badges and hope to be doing water activities in 3 years time.

    ..but we didn't vote for that!

    er...

    yes you did but your 1 vote on the DEC didn't tip the vote and it still ended 14-1 against you.

    now are you also aware that at the same meeting the DEC voted to use you un-dedicated activity funds of £4k to support the DC and her team going to the WOSM conference on governance in the caymans next year?

    er..

    maybe it's not a good idea after all.

    but there again the 279th is a registered charity and has its own premises so couldn't really give a damn what happens!



    TM
    That was one aspect of the idea, the other was that those groups who were successful in managing funds would have to put into a communal pot and would end up funding those who couldn't raise the funds. Also, it would have made it impossible for any group to apply for a grant because thay would not be the constituted body.

    We discussed at one of our GEC meetings the possibility of taking on a neighbouring group as a satellite Group and helping them get back on their feet. The Consensus ( not a unanimous vote but the concensus) was that it placed an unfair burden on our team and the members of our group. We had a strong team of adults and high numbers, whilst they, drawing from the same pool of people, had failed to attract adult support nor members.

    I was, in my little Napoleon era, was keen to help the neighbouring group, put them back on their feet and perhaps, having done so, have set a model to be repreated by others in the District. I was outvoted, as it happens, quite correctly as within a couple of weeks the group in question collapsed. When we found out where its assets went, and how quickly they went, it was clear that the vultures had been circling. ( bit like the alactricty with which our old fleet was appropriated).

    Groups should be the autonomous operations within Scouting, with Districts offering management support and guidance - no more.
    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

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Flag query
    By wolfie in forum Programme Ideas & Resources
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 07:51 PM
  2. IT query
    By an hour a week! in forum Programme Ideas & Resources
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21-04-2010, 11:22 AM
  3. Facebook query
    By [email protected] in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 07:59 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
  •