Leadership as "Authenticity"

[qwazse]

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

... I am trying to get them back to the point where the vision is realized...Scouts teaching Scouts, and signing them off...a work in progress...

Anybody else out there look into this closely and find something different??

A long-lived unit will cycle through classes of scouts who are inauthentic. They won't realize it's happening until someone calls them on it. When we merged with a younger troop, the SM at the time had faced this and as a result repealed all youth sign-off. I made it clear that I was going to help him roll that back gradually. It just wasn't our older scouts' culture and if they were going to stick with the troop, we needed to honor what authority they had and get the lead scouts in the younger troop up to speed.

I'll cherish the look in the SPLs eyes when he gave me the book of a scout he had just tested and asked me to sign, and I said, "No."

I explained further, "I didn't see the scout do that. If I signed it would be dishonest. If you saw him master it than you are obliged to certify it. Your signature on that line in this scout's book is more precious than mine."

Now that scout bled authenticity from the day I met him a few months earlier, so I was comfortable doing that. Other scouts need to be trained to only put their signature to what they actually observed. (The authentic definition of "scout": verb, observe and report.)

So, sure, you can find youth knee-deep in inauthentic culture. Arguing the Guide to Advancement -- even earlier versions that emphasize mastery -- is not going to help you out of it. The SM just has to hit some "reset" button, then inculcate an authentic vision that is in stark contrast to that of earning the next piece of bling. (E.g., share the vision of the pinnacle scouting experience of hiking and camping independently with one's mates then show how skill master can achieve it.) It's a steep climb, but worth it.

[David CO]

27 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Units can pretend to be independent, but their not. 

Councils can pretend to own us, but they don't.

[elitts]

21 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

Imagine being so cynical towards the BSA, you hate rules that are put in place that are meant to protect children.

Wild. 

That fact that something is "Done to protect children" doesn't automatically mean that action should be considered sacrosanct and accepted without question.  There have been plenty of foolish, stupid and even dangerous things (eg: banning books, banning sex ed, helicopter parenting) done over the years "to protect the children" and so rules should always be continuously reviewed to see if they are reasonable, if they function as intended, if they have unintended consequences or if they are even necessary anymore.

In the case of YP and the GSS, we have a set of rules that have in some cases gone so far past reasonable that they violate some of the key principles of rules making.  As a result, scorn for those rules in general is just natural.  In fact, that's the biggest problem with making stupid rules; when you do it, it makes it much too easy for people to simply decide "all these rules are stupid and unimportant".   The fact that the BSA generally refuses to even acknowledge that their rules and guides are poorly handled only further intensifies the feeling that they are out of touch or incompetent.

And just to be clear, the fundamental problem with BSA rules are that they violate the following principles:

• If a rule immediately requires exceptions and extensive explainations, it's a bad rule. (Two Deep Leadership being required for every activity)
• Don't make rules that you know are going to be ignored. (attempting to mandate Two Deep Leadership in people's home lives)
• Don't make rules that are inherently nonsensical or conflict with your own program. (Age Appropriate tool Use)

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

43 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Essentially, explicitly saying you sign kids up as BSA scouts, but then say you're independent scares the crap out of me....Unregistered leaders on camp outs?  Unapproved activities? 

Especially where it comes to Youth Protection and Guide to Safe Scouting. You want to quibble with too many/too few Eagle required merit badges? Sure. But outright hostility towards YPT?

I said it before, I'll say it again: I personally could never sign the adult application and by reference the Scouter Code of Conduct and affirm/certify that I will comply with BSA's rules knowing I had no intention on doing so.

Edited October 6, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, David CO said:

Councils can pretend to own us, but they don't.

They don't. But they do enforce the rules. You may recall reading this on the adult application(s) you signed and certified you would comply with.

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

[David CO]

53 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It absolutely TRUELY scares me that you would not welcome a council or national visitor to your unit. 

It truly scares you?  OK.  I think that's a bit of an over-reaction on your part, but OK.

I haven't seen any mobs of Catholic school children looting businesses, burning down buildings, tipping over cars, or assaulting police officers.  In the grand scheme of things,  I find Catholic school children to be amongst the least scary people around.  But you have a right to your own feelings.

It's true that we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  It is also true that we don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts.  But that shouldn't scare you.  You might not like it, but it shouldn't scare you.

A Catholic school teacher shouldn't scare you either.  I may not welcome you, but I won't harm you.  I detest violence, and I abhor profanity.  I don't want to hurt you.  I just want you to leave us alone.  

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

These positions actually do exist. 

There is an ACSE of Outdoors adventures (but his primary role is oversseing the HA bases).

There is a National Director of Program. She is actually an oddity in that she was never a Professional. She was directly hired to the position. Under her are:

National Director of Cub Scouts

National Director of Scouts BSA 

National Director of Exploring. 

I believe they eliminated the Venturing/Sea Scout Director position. 

I would think this would be a great position for the right person to make very visible.  It could really go a long way towards building confidence in the hearts and minds of volunteers if the BSA was out proactively talking about these things.  However, the challenge isn't to come out and talk about all the changes the BSA wants to make - but instead to be out listening to the obstacles volunteers are facing and then working internally to resolve them.

Actually, thinking about it some more, I wonder if the leader the BSA needs out talking to people is the National Commissioner.  Instead of the CEO (Mosby), should the most visible Scouter be the National Commissioner?  Should the BSA make the National Commissioner the Chief Scout?

Edited October 6, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, David CO said:

It truly scares you?  OK.  I think that's a bit of an over-reaction on your part, but OK.

I think an "overreaction" is your original comment that

5 hours ago, David CO said:

On the rare occasion someone does show up, we aren't very cordial.  We don't even offer them a cup of coffee.

What kind of Scouting program is that openly hostile to anyone about anything? That acts and encourages such lack of hospitality?

That's simply rude not to mention unscoutlike (friendly, courteous, kind).

And if your CO was/is a Catholic parish I think you said, I'd say downright Unchristian.

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, David CO said:

I may not welcome you, but I won't harm you.

That has to be the least Scouting thing I can think of.

That has to be the least Christian thing I can think of.

"You are not welcome here."

I mean just wow.

EDIT:

Quote

It's true that we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  It is also true that we don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts. 

I just want you to leave us alone.

I cannot believe this level of bigotry. Just sheer outright, bigotry and hate.

Seriously, what kind of Scouting program are you running where you are telling/teaching scouts not to welcome people? That they should not want to go to school with "those" kids? Or go camping with "those" scouts? That other people should just "leave us alone."

I am now more worried than ever for ANY scout that is in range of you.

Edited October 6, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Units can pretend to be independent, but their not. 

 

52 minutes ago, David CO said:

Councils can pretend to own us, but they don't.

Depending on how you come down on this discussion, the unit/council relationship is either one of:

• units are part of the larger Scouting team that includes national & council
• units are the customer of the Scouting team that includes national & council

In either case, it is important for leaders to cultivate the support of unit leaders.  Much of this discussion points out that there is a vocal constituency within the unit leader community that does support national and/or council leadership.  If I were a traditional business and a notable portion of my sales channel or my customers were disgruntled, I would be very concerned.

It just underscores to me the importance of leaders to getting out there and talking to unit leaders.  In those conversations, it's key to be open, honest, and to treat them with respect.

[yknot]

32 minutes ago, David CO said:

 In the grand scheme of things,  I find Catholic school children to be amongst the least scary people around. 

LOL the wildest friends I ever had were in Catholic school. Perhaps not outwardly destructive of private property but innocent faces often hid diabolical minds. 

[carebear3895]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

 

• If a rule immediately requires exceptions and extensive explainations, it's a bad rule. (Two Deep Leadership being required for every activity)
• Don't make rules that you know are going to be ignored. (attempting to mandate Two Deep Leadership in people's home lives)
• Don't make rules that are inherently nonsensical or conflict with your own program. (Age Appropriate tool Use)

 

 

I think we can find some middle ground here. The two deep thing should've followed a K.I.S.S. philosophy, but National did National things. 

 

I think the big difference i was trying to make (and I did a poor job, tbh), was that the poster was not arguing the rhyme or reason of a rule, but disagreeing with it just based on who made it (in this case Big BSA).

Edited October 6, 2020 by carebear3895

[carebear3895]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I would think this would be a great position for the right person to make very visible.  It could really go a long way towards building confidence in the hearts and minds of volunteers if the BSA was out proactively talking about these things.  However, the challenge isn't to come out and talk about all the changes the BSA wants to make - but instead to be out listening to the obstacles volunteers are facing and then working internally to resolve them.

Actually, thinking about it some more, I wonder if the leader the BSA needs out talking to people is the National Commissioner.  Instead of the CEO (Mosby), should the most visible Scouter be the National Commissioner?  Should the BSA make the National Commissioner the Chief Scout?

Very good thoughts, but I think if you wanted to make nice with folks out in the field, it has to be a paid National Scouter making time for these types of Town Hall Events. 

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

I think we can find some middle ground here. The two deep thing should've followed a K.I.S.S. philosophy, but National did National things. 

National did what was legally necessary to protect itself and the program from future legal liability. If they did NOT make it as broad as possible, as expansive as possible, they were no doubt told they'd be open for lawsuits down the road.

And again, this is the difficulty in the language and perspective of the unit leader vs. National. From a unit leader's perspective, the rule may seem ASININE. From National's perspective, they may view it as ASININE BUT NECESSARY to ensure that the organization does not walk into another dozen lawsuits.

So, the choice was:

Create a YPT policy that was UNDERinclusive (from the perspective of National's lawyers) and wait for the lawsuits.

Create a YPT policy that was OVERinclusive (from a unit leader's perspective) but helped to shield scouting from liability.

National opted for the second choice to ensure the stability and longevity of the program overall/long-term and I get why they had to do it.

Edited October 6, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

It truly scares you?  OK.  I think that's a bit of an over-reaction on your part, but OK.

It's from training that teaches warning signs.  For example, an adult touching the hair of a non-related child is a red flag. 

A member organization not welcoming leaders from the same organization is also a red flag.  It does scare me.  What are they hiding?  What's the concern?  

Edited October 6, 2020 by fred8033