johnponz

Eamon, I hear you. I am just debating the philosophy of breaking the rules and it is not against anyone personally. I have seen too many people in Scouting who break the rules for their own reasons, and do not seem to mind. I really try to stop that kind of behavior because it set a bad example (in my opinion). I welcome Unkiewill back to the fold, and hope that he can make a difference especially in his unit because SM is a very meaningful, diffucult, and rewarding position. Welcome and good luck.

I believe most of the posters are saying they do not feel comfortable doing this for themselves, but do not care if other people want to do it. Many Scouters are humble people who believe that boasting about giving money is not want they want to do for themselves. This is one of those issues where you have to do what you are comfortable doing for yourself. If you are eligible to wear the knot, and want to wear it, you earned it so go ahead and wear it. If you do not want to wear it, you certainly do not have to.

Eamon, I disagree with you whole heartedly; we are supposed to be building the character of the youth. This is what the program is all about. What you are suggesting is it is ok to ignore the rules if they are inconvenient, or do not fit in with the way that you want to do things. You are further saying that you do not have to obey the rules if no one is watching, or they are not being enforced. I must say that is not the way to build character by giving a good example. We need to do our best to work within the framework that National has developed. Is it easier to skirt the framework, and do things the way we want to (yes)? Is it harder to work to recruit people who meet the requirement outlined in the policies (yes)? Will our number of Unit Visits and Commissioner ratio numbers look better if we break the rules (yes)? Isn't it right to do what is harder to stay in the rules, and make the numbers mean what they are really supposed to mean (yes)? Let's not have Scouting be like the rest of society, and instead of doing what is expedient, do what we all know is really the right thing to do. This is especially true for the Commissioner staff who has a role as a sort of "quality control." If this group does not follow the rules who will? Is it ok for Units to change the Eagle requirement and make them harder or easier than the guidelines? Some would say, that's the way we do it in these parts so it is ok, or the requirements are not hard enough so we modify them a little so as I have heard, "the boy has to earn it." It is not the troop's place to modify these requirements, nor is it the Council Commissioner, DC, or ADC's place to modify the rules of Commissioner recruitment. Isn't it time someone stood up and did the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do, and not because you might get caught or punished?

BadenP, You should review your behavior in the last several posts. You certainly have not been friendly, courteous or kind (25% of the Scout Law). Because of this lack of Scout Spirit, I am no longer going to respond to your posts. I have expressed my opinion without trying to demean anyone or make personal attacks. I would say that should be the way of Scouters.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Oak Tree, You make a good point. However, in this context we have to dig a little further than the definition page at Scouting.org. I direct you to the Commissioner Administration of Unit Service Publication http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Commissioners/Manuals/34128.aspx Here on page 3 it states, "In Cub Scouting, the unit leader is the Cubmaster, who shares the responsibility with den leaders; in Boy Scouting, it is the Scoutmaster and assistants. In Venturing, it is the Advisor and associates." So you can see in the Commissioner context the Unit Leader position really refers to the entire Unit Leadership team not the specific unit leader. This is further corroborated by the fact that the publications specifically state that a Commissioner can be a Committee Member. This implies that they cannot be in another direct leadership position such as ASM. As I said without some digging, I almost agreed with you. (This message has been edited by johnponz)

By the way, I have met Tico Perez, and he does not seem to be the type that would want other Commissioners to break policy so I do not really believe that "national realizes that it is necessary to have people multiple register as commissioners and unit leaders."

ADC in NC posted..."UVTS reporting is done by me or one of my ADC's for the mentors." So the "mentors" are not registered as Commissioners and cannot use UVTS so ADC is entering their visits for them. This is what I mean by circumventing the rules. I do not believe that National knows (condones) this. If they did they would use language like "should not" instead of "must not." (This message has been edited by johnponz)

My problem with the mentoring program is that they are entering the visits in the UVTS. This system is clearly for Commissioner visits only and this program is being used to circumvent the spirit of the BSA policy.

This is long but makes two seperate points: Everyone has good reasons for breaking the rules that they want to break. Some SMs say Eagle is too easy now so they make their own requirements. Some MC believe that a 20 mile hike is too long so they shorten the requirements. They all justify these breaches by reasons that seem logical to them. This is kind of the end justifies the means argument, and leads to relativism (nothing is really right or wrong we can all decide for ourselves). BSA has a good reason for this rule, and has the rule published all over the place. They use their strongest policy language, "must not." They could have used "should not" but chose "must not." Why is this? BSA expects (again it is in their publications) Commissioners to treat the position as their primary position. BSA knows that for Unit Leaders to do an effective job, they cannot have another BSA job that is primary. The Unit Leader job is the most important in Scouting as it has direct contact with our final customer (the youth member). This important Unit Leader positions should not be compromised by the Unit Leader doing another job. We are volunteers and as such do not have unlimited time to devote to Scouting. Having all of these positions, although noble in purpose, does not allow us to do a good job in any one position. BSA wants Unit Leaders to understand that their primary (only job) is to serve the final customer, and that responsibility should not be watered down by other positions. This is especially true for the SM position. This position done correctly requires so much time and attention that I can not imagine a volunteer who could do the SM position as a secondary position since if you are a Commissioner by policy that position has to be primary. Let's not short change the Commissioner position by allowing people to do it who are not going to devote the time to do it properly. (This message has been edited by johnponz)

Eagle, Remember to get the National contract from BSA the supplier would have to be able to supply Cub Uniforms, Boy Scout uniforms, and to a lesser extent Venturing uniforms (as you mention there is more looseness here in uniform requirements). This includes the red jackets, wind breakers, winter coats etc. At this point, I am not for sure a domestic supplier could handle that diversity at the volume the BSA needs at a competitive price point. I do not know because admittedly I am not involved in sourcing of clothing. However from what I have read, the companies who do this best at the most reasonable prices are now located overseas. If you can prove to me that you have done the research and there are suppliers who can handle this at a reasonable price point, I will change my mind. However without facts to the contrary, I have to rely on the information that I have read. People on this thread are all very noble about saying they would pay more for made in the USA product. The US consumer has already voted and the fact is they have demonstrated they want cheaper prices. That is why so much in Target and Wal-mart is made overseas now. I have a feeling if Scout uniforms became 20% higher priced the same people saying to buy American would start buying look alike products at the stores made overseas. My experiences through the years have been that Scouters love to complain about uniforms, and they like to justify not wearing the complete uniform with any reason they can muster up. Today it is because they are made overseas. Tomorrow it is because the price is too high. The people who follow this pattern are the ones who get most defensive when you say that you like the current uniform, and believe that all Scouts should wear it per the Insignia Guide.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

If the Commissioner staff is not following policies, how can they ask others to follow them? These policies are in place for a reason and should be adhered to. Setting up mentors seems like a way to get around the letter of the rule but violates the spirit of the rule. Would you approve of a Troop modifying advancement guidelines because they were not convenient? What is the difference?

Just because a few venturing crews are buying uniforms from a local manufacturer does not mean that the supplier can meet the specs that BSA has for uniforms. Nor does it mean that they could handle the National contract. The volume is much higher than a few local crews. I am not going to stoop to your level and make any personal attacks.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Sorry double post-probably bad hardware because it was made in Korea or some place(This message has been edited by johnponz)

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

By the way, I do not mind supporting National. Don't you think it costs a little bit to open a new high Adventure base? If I have a choice of buying a non-BSA product or a BSA product, I will buy the one that supports the program that I love so much. I also try not to badmouth the people who are trying to do their best to deliver the program.

I really do not agree with your premise (and you have shown no evidence to sway me) that we can get US manufactured goods at a reasonable price. You made up a number of $5 more before and $5 more certainly is not competitive with the volume BSA does. I really doubt any US manufacturer could really handle the volume. Even if they could, it would be at a much greater cost. By the way the jobs are not in R and D but rather in the process. Textiles are not the manufacturing that we want to do in this country. WE CAN DO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT!! I guess we just disagree.

By the way, I like the britches, especially the Suplex (this may be wrong but I hope everyone knows what I mean) ones. They are very comfortable and seem to hold up very well. My only big complaint is that they melt if a spark hits them-but you can't have everything. I really like the new canvas shorts.

I believe someone has misunderstood me because the article is supporting my point. We should be concentrating on training workers for the higher skilled, higher paying manufacturing jobs that will take our economy to the next level, not trying to keep antiquated low skill jobs here that can be done with cheaper labor overseas. Let's make the USA great by doing the type of manufacturing that cannot be done in Asia, and letting them do the type that can be done cheaper there. According to that one article, there are 600,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs here now. Lets get people trained for them and back to work, and stop worrying about where our BSA britches are made.

YOU BADEN P ARE MISSING THE POINT OF THE THREAD. I never said that manufacturing should not be in the US. Instead I said we need the "right kind" of manufacturing, and textile manufacturing does not fall into that category. I have copied an article from the Huffington Post that explains what I am saying and will post it for you. The author is not talking about textile manufacturing. The following quote is in the article but emphasizes the point: "They may be right, but it is not because we cannot create a new generation of advanced manufacturing jobs. The problem is a workforce woefully lacking in the skills needed to work in modern manufacturing. Right now we have about 600,000 good manufacturing jobs going begging." We need to get the unemployed trained so they have the skills for these jobs not minimum wage textile jobs. The whole story follows (Author attribution is at the end): The U.S. economy is gathering momentum and the key driver is manufacturing. Not only is our industrial sector growing, but after more than a decade of losses in manufacturing jobs, we are actually going in the other direction. We added 50,000 manufacturing jobs in January on top of 32,000 the month before. This is a welcome trend that augurs well for the near term future. As former President of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Manufacturing Institute, I am well aware that manufacturing jobs have a powerful multiplier effect on the economy, supporting jobs in services and other industrial sectors. On average, 100 manufacturing jobs support 58 other jobs. There is no great mystery why this is so. Manufacturing is intensely innovative and dynamic. It pulls raw materials from Mother Nature and transforms them with human creativity and liberal infusions of energy into finished products that enhance the quality of life for all of us. This is why the several states compete so vigorously for new manufacturing plants. State government officials understand that manufacturing is the straw that stirs their economic drink. The comeback of manufacturing is just what our economy needs. There are cautionary voices insisting that manufacturing will never again become an incubator of millions of jobs. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and more recently former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer have emphasized this view. They say manufacturing jobs have gone away and are not coming back. They may be right, but it is not because we cannot create a new generation of advanced manufacturing jobs. The problem is a workforce woefully lacking in the skills needed to work in modern manufacturing. Right now we have about 600,000 good manufacturing jobs going begging. The big impediment it seems to me is one of perception. Young people have an antiquated perception of what manufacturing is like. Modern manufacturing is not your father's greasy factory floor; it is more like Star Trek - clean, dynamic and challenging. This is not a new problem. For all of my many years at the NAM and the Institute, we heard the same refrain from our members about the skills shortage. It is a major reason many U.S. firms build factories overseas. Some years ago, the Institute launched a visionary program, Dream It! Do It! to attract more bright young people into manufacturing careers, and map out a route for them to follow. This program has been well received and effective, primarily in regions where manufacturing is highly concentrated. But it should be everywhere, coast to coast. This is a program of business, by business and for business. If your company is not on board with Dream It! Do It! it should be. Jerry Jasinowski, an economist and author, serve d as President of the National Association of Manufacturers for 14 years and later The Manufacturing Institute. Jerry is available for speaking engagements. (This message has been edited by johnponz)

It is not the "book." It is clear and non-ambiguous policy. If the Commissioner staff is not going to follow policy--who is? There is a reason for this policy that is being lost. It is the Unit Leaders job to pay attention to the Unit. If he is busy helping other units, he cannot possibly pay enough attention to his own unit. The BSA realizes that we are volunteers, and only can devote so much time and energy to Scouting. From what I have seen those that have multiple roles, in general, do none of those roles well. They can't, they just do not have enough time. Work, Unit Leader, Commissioner, Father, Husband (Wife), Troop Committee member etc. How can any one person do all of those jobs? They can't and when they try, they do none effectively. It is much better for the organization if we pick one role and do it well. At the minimum, stay within policy and do not be a Unit Leader and Commissioner at the same time. How can you in good conscience mention to a troop that what they might be doing does not fall within National guidelines if you choose to flaunt them yourself, and I will say again no Council Commissioner, DC or ADC should even allow a Unit Leader to perform UC duties. Our District has a shortage of UCs. However, I would never sign up a Unit Leader to be a Commissioner even if they wanted to. Instead I tell them they have a choice, either step down as a Unit Leader (be a committee member if you like) or a Commissioner but not both. You can choose to do this the right way even in the "real world." I know this because my district does it and continues to chug along. This is for the good of the volunteer, but more importantly of the Unit. (This message has been edited by johnponz)

The point is in today's economy (not the economy of yesteryear), these lower skilled, lower paid positions can be performed elsewhere leaving the skilled (higher paying) jobs for our children here. There are plenty of manufacturing jobs that require a high skill level especially in industries such as auto manufacturing, high tech manufacturing etc. These manufacturers are having difficulty finding the skilled employees that they need. We should concentrate on getting our children trained so they can do these jobs not be satisfied with a minimum wage job in a low-tech textile factory. The textile industry just does not require that skill level. We should want the right jobs to stay here (the ones that require training and skills) not just any job.

Except that it is against National policy. I am pretty amazed that this is all over BSA publications, and people actually serving as Commissioners do not know it.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I am going to quote Beavah from above because he said it pretty well: "Yep, it's important to keep those low-payin' jobs for untrained illiterates right here in da U.S. of A. Can't expect our kids to be educated for somethin' better. Don't believe in that education and guvmint stuff anyhow. " (This message has been edited by johnponz)

Lets start here COMMISSIONER FIELDBOOK FOR UNIT SERVICE (p.23): Commissioners must not be registered as unit leaders Although some commissioners may be registered on a unit committeetheir principle Scouting obligation must be with commissioner responsibilities. So, as you can see, this applies to more than just unit-level Commissioners; it applies to all Commissioners. On your further questions Unit Leader refers to, essentially, uniformed, direct-contact adult volunteers: Scoutmasters, Cubmasters, and their assistants, obviously, but in keeping with the principle should probably include Den Leaders, too (for pretty obvious practical reasons, despite their not being specifically mentionedbut this part is my own personal thought, having been a DC; its not a stated BSA policy). The above is from "Ask Andy." I know the advice is not official, but a lot of Scouters trust and liten to his advice. Finally, from the BSA website: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/commissioners.aspx "Commissioners must not be registered simultaneously as unit leaders. Some commissioners may be registered on a unit committee because they have a son in the unit or because of previous personal history in the unit, but their principle Scouting obligation should be with commissioner responsibilities. Commissioners may be currently registered in only one commissioner position." This language in unambiguous and is really not open to interpretation. It sounds like the people you have been listening to are trying to pad their "Commissioner ratios" by not following the policy as written.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

And from page 24 of the Commissioners' Fieldbook, Commissioners must not be registered as unit leaders." BSA is very consistent about this, and I wish people would not spread false information before they did a little research. This is why there are so many inconsistencies floating around. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33621.pdf(This message has been edited by johnponz)