scouts-l Mail Archive for February of 2000: Re: Committee positions?
Darryl Hammill (darryl.hammill@NCMAIL.NET
Thu Feb 24 2000 - 07:33:04 CST
As a Committee Chair for our Troop I see a humorous side to this - in the fact
that with a ghost Committee they are successful. With the occasional friction and
time wasted on my Committee because someone on the Committee decides to push a
personal agenda instead of just supporting the Scoutmaster, I sort of wish I had
a ghost Committee from time to time.:) Then reality sets in and I realize that I
have a wonderful Committee of committed parents. I would not want to "carry the
water" alone - nor would I want to put the all the "business" burdens on the SM
back. In our case, I believe our Unit benefits from an active Committee.
I suppose an argument could be made, in this case, "if it ain't broke don't fix
it" (though that concept generally scares me). It is inevitable that something is
eventually going to occur within this Troop that requires an active Committee -
and that is when this ghost Committee might be woefully lacking. I have always
subscribed to the rule of thumb - learned in SMF long ago - that BSA has many
years of experience in tweaking this program, and that the operations of a Unit
has been tested over time. Therefore, to alter or change it just to suit your
needs will eventually come back to haunt the Unit. The rules on a Committee are
clear - a minimum of 3 (best operates at 7) (source: Troop Committee Handbook).
This Troop has not broken any rules - so until the day some crisis occurs (if
ever) demanding an active Committee their "ghost" Committee seems to be working
To the matter of his lack of interest in Commissioners - perhaps this is one of
those situations that you can:
a) devote your limited time to units actually in need of help
b) or, find out if there is a real need for this unit and fulfill it.
Just my .02!