How About We Simply Work the Program to the Best of Our Abilities

[skeptic]

In reading various recent historical efforts on Scouting, and going back and reading older ones, it is apparent that there is little similarity between today's professional and the ones that were working prior to 1950 or so. Story after story about how they were paid next to nothing, ran camps all summer, went without pay at times, had huge issues with which to deal that today we would simply not see; yet they persevered and kept the basics in focus most of the time. While I would not like to see today's pro's have to live with some of those conditions, I would like to see more of them allowed to focus more on the youth than numbers of any kind. And I really would like to see National make some serious adjustments to the inequities in pay between the men that still try to do the job at the lowest levels, and the few that have somehow made it near the top. Like in all corporations almost, the highest few could lose about half their salaries and still be well paid; and that money could be used to keep people at the lower levels long enough to build more consistency within councils. Better yet, would love to see ALL high level pro's, including council top men, spend at least a month working directly with the real units, including on staff at summer camp and day camp for at least a couple of days straight, doing the job of counselor or even working in the kitchen or maintenance. We might actually see a bit more recognition of the realities of the challenges we face.

 

Another great change, at least for me, would be an actual National policy that would require each council board, all the way up to the National level, to have about one quarter of the people on it be involved in units directly in some capacity. That would mean either using COR's on local level as active members of the board, not just paper signatures, or pulling people from unit committees or districts. Of course, that also would require the COR to actually know what his job really is. One can dream I suppose. But I am not holding my breath.

[Scouter99]

I am focused on the boys when on the ground. The only time this issue has come up is when someone thinks we need a unit policy for dealing with when one Scout doesn't want to tent with a gay Scout. I simply asked why we needed something specific to gays - every campout there can be a scramble to avoid tenting with any particular Scout for a variety of reasons.

 

I have kept my actions at the National and District level only so fa.

 

Barry - The BSA stigmatized themselves through their actions, communications and lack of communications through the years. We as an organization are obviously still learning how to handle PR in the modern, connected world.

Mook: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mook

[Scouter99]

Skeptic and TJ and packsaddle all have good points. Discussion and disagreement is good, but we also have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

I went and looked at the onmyhonor website as they had a "major" announcement today. Well, the announcement was a bust but I did look at their forums. Besides arguing over dumb stuff like what to call the equivalent to Eagle, there is a thread on membership requirements. Turns out I wouldn't be allowed to be a scoutmaster there, even though they do want to make it non-denominational. I guess we have different definitions. But I did notice an argument as to who would be allowed. One guy said Jews and Christians should be allowed but not Muslims or Buddhists. That started a fight. They've just shifted the line but they sound just the same. The point being, there will always be people that disagree and we should learn to be civil. We're all volunteers and we're all trying.

So if they're going to allow gay youth, why leave BSA to begin with? Babies.

[Scouter99]

In reading various recent historical efforts on Scouting, and going back and reading older ones, it is apparent that there is little similarity between today's professional and the ones that were working prior to 1950 or so. Story after story about how they were paid next to nothing, ran camps all summer, went without pay at times, had huge issues with which to deal that today we would simply not see; yet they persevered and kept the basics in focus most of the time. While I would not like to see today's pro's have to live with some of those conditions, I would like to see more of them allowed to focus more on the youth than numbers of any kind. And I really would like to see National make some serious adjustments to the inequities in pay between the men that still try to do the job at the lowest levels, and the few that have somehow made it near the top. Like in all corporations almost, the highest few could lose about half their salaries and still be well paid; and that money could be used to keep people at the lower levels long enough to build more consistency within councils. Better yet, would love to see ALL high level pro's, including council top men, spend at least a month working directly with the real units, including on staff at summer camp and day camp for at least a couple of days straight, doing the job of counselor or even working in the kitchen or maintenance. We might actually see a bit more recognition of the realities of the challenges we face.

 

Another great change, at least for me, would be an actual National policy that would require each council board, all the way up to the National level, to have about one quarter of the people on it be involved in units directly in some capacity. That would mean either using COR's on local level as active members of the board, not just paper signatures, or pulling people from unit committees or districts. Of course, that also would require the COR to actually know what his job really is. One can dream I suppose. But I am not holding my breath.

Do you have examples? The scouting history "The Scouting Party" says exactly the opposite: Dan Beard spent half his time complaining about how much more money than him that the other pros were making, he charged troops/councils for visits, and kept publishing his own camping books post-BSA to supplement his income. Seton was more generous, but an extreme ego. Boyce promised $10,000/yr then never coughed it up for years til the board begged him for it.

 

There's no broad stroke to paint the past with; it doesn't serve to over-romanticize.

[Twocubdad]

""I learned a few years ago to do my best to avoid the garbage that comes from our local council all the way up to National. I feel if we bring that stuff to the troop level, we are doing a dis-service to those we serve."" Agreed, but this has gone way way above National into the limelight of the national media and political process. Every person (youth and adults) who considers going to a scouting activitity (recruiting?) is wondering which side of the "us against them" they are on. And there will constant reminders by the media and politicians of just who side you should be on. We the people (sheep really) let the Pop Culture take our program away from us. Barry

I've been surprised at the number of people who have approached me wanting to discuss this. A lot of folks around know I'm The Scout Guy and I think are genuinely interested to know about the issue first hand. And some want to give their opinion and just have someone listen (this tends to be folks involved in the program at some level). I try to listen and do my best to give my understanding of the factual issues and my personal view on the topic -- and to identify both. I keep waiting for someone to approach me with an ax to grind, but (knock, knock) so far the folks have been very civil and engaging.

[skeptic]

In reading various recent historical efforts on Scouting, and going back and reading older ones, it is apparent that there is little similarity between today's professional and the ones that were working prior to 1950 or so. Story after story about how they were paid next to nothing, ran camps all summer, went without pay at times, had huge issues with which to deal that today we would simply not see; yet they persevered and kept the basics in focus most of the time. While I would not like to see today's pro's have to live with some of those conditions, I would like to see more of them allowed to focus more on the youth than numbers of any kind. And I really would like to see National make some serious adjustments to the inequities in pay between the men that still try to do the job at the lowest levels, and the few that have somehow made it near the top. Like in all corporations almost, the highest few could lose about half their salaries and still be well paid; and that money could be used to keep people at the lower levels long enough to build more consistency within councils. Better yet, would love to see ALL high level pro's, including council top men, spend at least a month working directly with the real units, including on staff at summer camp and day camp for at least a couple of days straight, doing the job of counselor or even working in the kitchen or maintenance. We might actually see a bit more recognition of the realities of the challenges we face.

 

Another great change, at least for me, would be an actual National policy that would require each council board, all the way up to the National level, to have about one quarter of the people on it be involved in units directly in some capacity. That would mean either using COR's on local level as active members of the board, not just paper signatures, or pulling people from unit committees or districts. Of course, that also would require the COR to actually know what his job really is. One can dream I suppose. But I am not holding my breath.

Scouter99;

 

You need to understand the difference between founders and pro's. While Beard and Seton were established youth group men with their own organizations, and were directly involved early (Beard until his death), they were not paid exectuives working in the field. Read Win Davis' new book, MEN OF SCHIFF, or A PIONEER'S JOURNAL of SCOUTING STORIES, by Waldo Shaver, or Harold Pote's FIFTY YEARS of SCOUTING IN AMERICA. There are others, but these are major ones.

 

And Boyce promised $1,000 per month, not $10,000 per year; see Petterchak book on Boyce. On page 70 and 71 there are a number of references regarding Boyce's financial support. "In January, 1911, Boyce supplied funding for Robinson (YMCA co-founder) to open an office at 200 Fifth Ave, N.Y.......The new stationery listed 75 National Council members, including Boyce ...." (p 70). "Boyce company treasurer Frank Reynolds recalls that he was responsible for sending money to West 'every month, not only for salary, but also for incidental expenses. Mr. Boyce never questioned the amount. In getting the national charter for the Boy Scouts of America, Mr. Boyce paid all expenses, including legal fees."

 

After reading these, perhaps you will get a better understanding of the huge differences.

[perdidochas]

Skeptic and TJ and packsaddle all have good points. Discussion and disagreement is good, but we also have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

I went and looked at the onmyhonor website as they had a "major" announcement today. Well, the announcement was a bust but I did look at their forums. Besides arguing over dumb stuff like what to call the equivalent to Eagle, there is a thread on membership requirements. Turns out I wouldn't be allowed to be a scoutmaster there, even though they do want to make it non-denominational. I guess we have different definitions. But I did notice an argument as to who would be allowed. One guy said Jews and Christians should be allowed but not Muslims or Buddhists. That started a fight. They've just shifted the line but they sound just the same. The point being, there will always be people that disagree and we should learn to be civil. We're all volunteers and we're all trying.

SKeptic,

 

My thought exactly. What's the difference between their policy and the BSA policy. My main worry is that they will attract away leaders/scouts in certain areas making them harder to keep BSA going in their area.

[TwoBlocked]

Here is how I paraphrase the new membership policy: "Just because a boy has a sexual orientation or preference does not mean he can't be a Scout." The inference is that what he DOES is what can bar him from membership. And if you believe that when the leaders live a squeaky-clean life, the scouts will choose to also (or choose not to be invlolved in scouting...), then what's the problem? But if you believe that setting an example doesn't mean a thing, well then you have much to worry about.

 

Myself, I have decided to not even go near the edge of morality. I have made it clear to the parents that if someone is not doing their best to live a squeaky-clean life (no shacking up, etc.) then they do not have my support, as Cubmaster, to be in a leadership position. We on the ground have much more influence than those in Irving, Texas!

 

[King Ding Dong]

Here is how I paraphrase the new membership policy: "Just because a boy has a sexual orientation or preference does not mean he can't be a Scout." The inference is that what he DOES is what can bar him from membership. And if you believe that when the leaders live a squeaky-clean life, the scouts will choose to also (or choose not to be invlolved in scouting...), then what's the problem? But if you believe that setting an example doesn't mean a thing, well then you have much to worry about.

 

Myself, I have decided to not even go near the edge of morality. I have made it clear to the parents that if someone is not doing their best to live a squeaky-clean life (no shacking up, etc.) then they do not have my support, as Cubmaster, to be in a leadership position. We on the ground have much more influence than those in Irving, Texas!

I am not sure I understand your position completely. Yes, the leaders need to lead by example, however there will always be someone who accuses us as not being squeaky clean. Not sure a Cub Scout is ever going to know the living arrangements off their Den Leaders.

 

Keep your posts flowing and we can give or 2 cents worth.

[DeanRx]

If y'all want to discuss Politics and or the Membership Policy we do have a sub forum for that. The reason we have separate forums isn't so that people can avoid discussing the political/culture war issues, but rather that those issues will dominate the whole forum, and there won't be an easily identifiable way to find out other Scouting relevant information. So we have a nice separate forum for that. Lets keep it that way. If ANYBODY thinks by them preaching and pontificating on an internet forum like this one that they are making a noble contribution to the political causes they care about, and they really helping shape the real world events involving those causes, they need to get a serious reality check.

Sentinel, I might take a slight objection to your theory that blowing wind on these forums doesn't have anything to do with shaping real world events / causes... I know of at least one or two folks from national that troll on here (one that has posted that I know of). This forum and others like it were calling for a census so to speak for about the last 3 years regarding the membership policy criteria.... it finally happened. Now, it might be a coincidence, or maybe not, but the GOOD part about this forum is it allows for the discussion of topics that may not be kosher (to borrow the word) at a round table, or to bring up to the local council, etc...

 

Especially, outside of the Issues / Politics forum. I have asked and answered several "What would you do / How have you handled this...." types of questions. Many I would not feel comfortable asking / answering at a round table meeting, nor on a one-on-one with a paid scouter rep from district / council. That is the beauty of the internet, right?

[BadenP]

The reality is most strong units with great programs can pretty much stand alone without council interference or those bozos at National who really think the membership change they construed and shoved down everyone's throats is really going to have real impact on the program or getting back corporate sponsors they have lost. Boy scouting is still IMHO the best youth program out there and the political game playing by National does absolutely NOTHING to improve, promote, or solidify scouting's reputation or credibility or program.

[st0ut717]

The reality is most strong units with great programs can pretty much stand alone without council interference or those bozos at National who really think the membership change they construed and shoved down everyone's throats is really going to have real impact on the program or getting back corporate sponsors they have lost. Boy scouting is still IMHO the best youth program out there and the political game playing by National does absolutely NOTHING to improve, promote, or solidify scouting's reputation or credibility or program.

Well said!