A Modest Proposal ...

[KoreaScouter]

It seems that one of the things we're trying to do as a parallel initiative is get some of these renegade units that are run like Greek city-states to get in step with the mainstream. The hope being that if certification is a recruiting retention tool, that the renegades will reluctantly fall in.

 

Well, if that's one of the intents here, there's a really quick easy way to do that (compared with using a certification process to do it), and it comes around once a year. It would go something like this:

 

June: UC reports and other "measurables" indicate a renegade unit.

 

June: Letter goes out to Chartered Org with copy to Committee Chair, similar to academic probation.

 

October: UC reports and measurables reviewed again; which direction is the unit headed?

 

October: Recharter packages go out to units, with one of three letters with them.

 

1. Congratulations on a great year; please return your paperwork by Nov 15th.

 

2. Your unit has "issues" but is moving in the right direction; you'll be rechartered in probationary status, and get a lot more scrutiny next year.

 

3. Your unit has "issues" and they're not getting demonstrably better; your recharter package will be held pending appointment of new (SM, CC, CM, etc., circle all that apply).

 

Bottom line; BSA grants the charters on an annual basis...sounds like Irving bats last.

 

KS

[OldGreyEagle]

Semper, I agree we should all follow the program, but my experience, given by what I have read on the forums is that there are a significant number of troops that just flat out dont follow the program yet they get to opererate just like the ones that do. Such a program would give guidance to units that have trained leaders but aren't always sure of the next step. If it could be incorporated to an exisiting part of the BSA great! I just know I meet and hear from too many people who destroy others perception of the scouting program because they dont follow the program and nothing can be done about it.

[fotoscout]

I have to wonder if this would lead us to a one program fits all philosophy. We know that not all boys like the same program, AND, that not all leaders are capable of pulling off the BS program as its laid out in the books.

 

So where would we end up. A two tiered system? With one tier, acting as a cookie cutter duplicate of the next, and the other tier functioning like many troops do today, doing there best to put on a worthwhile program that the boys like.

 

Face it, Cub Scout Leaders and Parents would not bring their boys to non-Certified units. So, all of the non-Certified units would ultimately go away. I believe thats a bad thing.

 

I would be more in favor of going the other way; pull the charter of units that have strayed too far, and are not providing a program that looks anything like the BS program. Units that take it upon themselves to rewrite the entire book (well almost the entire book). In the big picture I think this would be more beneficial than Certifying Units.

 

We also have the Quality Unit system that could be reworked to help in this area.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

[BPwannabe@137]

I think adding some of these requirements to the quality unit award is the way to go. That patch should really mean something, and yes, make it darn difficult to attain.

 

Last year our district did not recieve quality district for the first time in (as the old timers old me) many year. They were really, really, really upset. talked about it for months. The district failed on recruitment and webeloes to scout transitions (not to sure if it was a numbers or paperwork mistake). Anyway, they turned around and really are correcting their mistakes.

 

They took the quality patch (award) for granted. I think many of us do too. Change the requirements. Make a quality troop really a quality troop!

[acco40]

A unit commissioner is a "friend" to the unit. If the program is changed so that his job description includes a pass/fail/probation grade - which will be subjective - it is not a good idea. Let's say I witness the following from a troop that I serve as UC: Adult (Eagle Scout) volunteers to help out as a Scouter and states that he would be happy to serve as CM or SA. SM and CC decide CM would is best position to be filled. However, this individual helps with program planning, attends most outings, i.e. has many quasi-SA responsibilities and actually takes more direction from SM than CC. He also sits on BORs. Is this a policy violation? No. Is this a violation on the intent of the policy? Maybe. A patrol of five only has one youth attend an outing and the SM & SPL agree to lump him in with another patrol for that outing. Does this show disregard for the patrol method? It is observed that once a month, the SPL/SM arrange to have a MB counselor come to a troop meeting to teach a MB class selected by the PLC. Is this a violation of the advancement guidelines? I could go on and on.

 

What I feel is really lacking are educated consumers. Most parents and almost all of the Scouts don't have the slightest idea on how a troop should be run. What do they expect when the troop isn't run properly. I tell prospective families before they join our troop that I, as SM, try to see that the troop follows all BSA guidelines and policy (which is really a committe function which I wish they would do in my case!) and that if they se anything different to please bring it to my attention.

 

I to dislike Scouters who so often use the phrase of "I know how it is suppose to be but I disagree with it so we run it this way." The problem is when you get parents who let that happen.

[EagleInKY]

OGE - I agree with your idea in concept. I think it would be difficult to manage. And, I believe we would end up in the same "give everyone who tries an award" concept that we see with the Quality Unit program.

 

Perhaps another (similar) solution would be to have multiple levels of quality unit. Today we have two QU patches (regular and 100% Boy's Life). Perhaps there are bronze, silver and gold levels of quality units. One of the requirements for the gold level would be to provide at least one person to be a UC for another unit. That way, everyone who participates at this level would have a UC that would have to certifie the gold standard.

[JimmyD]

I just think the whole quality unit status is fine. I just think another program thing like this would just make things more complicated for the troop/district/council even more.

 

Parents won't know the difference between the status anyways.

 

 

[ozemu]

Certified to me indicates that the unit has an authority to operate. No certificate would mean that the unit is not actually a part of BSA.

 

I know that is not what you mean but semantics can do that. Not knowing anything about quality unit I have to say that term indicates a unit that is doing the job to the highest of standards. So maybe Quality should be beefed up.

 

I know our QU badge is easy to get (not that ours has arrived from Mar this year! but that is another story)

 

I also suggest a mix of qualitative and quantative assessment. Numbers can mean little and words are cheap. Together they paint a more exact picture. For similar reasons I suggest self and external assessment together rather than one or the other. How about a user (parent/Scout) assessment?

[anarchist]

OGE...you know I love your depth of knowledge...

but I see in your 'Modest proposal' the formation of the "TROOP POLICE" and like others in this thread have said a one size fits all template.

 

Lets look at your 'renegades'...are all of them bad? I don't see it, some maybe truely bad but most are just different. So what if they don't offer a gold plated 'BSA -by-the-book program'...they are giving 'some' scouting to 'some' boys...aren't they? If their programs don't meet a need they will die...its that simple...capitalism is the American way.(?)

 

Usually, the case is (unfortunately) they (the renegades) like 'their' program and they are going to do it 'their' way, like it or not...but you know, OGE...no one else in their 'area' has the brass to take over the 'renegade program' or offer a competing 'troop' that may or may not survive against the renegades program...

 

And if the new "TROOP POLICE" say "our way. or the highway"...guess what? A true renegade is going to tell you just where to stuff 'it'.

I write this (knowing that our troop is striving hard to do it the BSA way) but thinking about a small troop in which a long time friend's son is a member. I have seen them at a few District events and most of the boys can 'camp circles' around other troops! Most of their boys advance and earn buckets of merit badges and yes, some times I seem to hear martial music in the background when the SM or SPL 'bark' out an order. They do not follow 'boy led' or NSP program to the extend you (or I) would like. Many boys (or their parents) do not 'fit in' with this small troop and relocate to another troop or drop out of scouting (sad)...but the boys who are there will walk through fire for their SPL or SM.

 

Would I like to see them follow the 'rules'- yes!

Would I rather see that troop disbanded or be labled 'officially' a renegade unit? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

And in the end, if BSA started a "Certification" program, you and I both know the Lawyers would soon move in and the 'TROOP POLICE' would soon become the "STORM TROOP POLICE": for the sake of BSA all troops would have to be certified...period!

OGE-Nice thought, but just keep chipping away one unit/outfit at a time. One size fits all will just lead to more boys leaving scouting.

my 2 cents

anarchist

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not so much for one size fits all, but that the rules are applied evenly, if you see that as the same thing, ok but I dont. I am talking about troops that don't elect SPL's, dont use the patrol method, require a set precentage of activities or hold Board of Reviews that last hours.

 

All I can tell you is I see so many posts about units, both in Cubs and Boy Scouts that are run by power mad twits and it just hurts me. I'll live, but I just want everybody to have the same fun I am,

[FScouter]

A totally voluntary system should not smack of "troop police". Any unit desiring the Certified distinction is free to work towards it. Units that are happy where they are can continue business as usual. They just won't be on the "Certified" list.

[Eamonn]

I didn't see the idea that OGE proposed as the formation of any type of police force.

I would like to see "Commissioners With Real Power". Units that lose youth members because the SM or Cubmaster is a twit and doing twitish things that cause youth to leave the program need to go. They are of no use. Leaders that are not even trying to use the methods of Scouting are not leading a Scouting program, let them do whatever it is they are doing some other place.They would be no great loss, they weren't Scouting in the first place.

Eamonn.

[anarchist]

"a totally volunteer system"...??? Please try to remember the "law of unintended consequences"...CO's will want certified units. Then you have the real 'leader material' DL's ,CM's etc. wanting their sons in certified units and so won't join a troubled troop...thus sucking the chance of change out of the programs...and not necessarily killing that program...just 'institutionalizing' it's leadership structure with a continum of renegade leaders. Certified troops will want other troops certification pulled cause 'they don't do it right".....then the troop police come.....

 

and for "commissioners with real power"? aren't we just looking for moving twits up the line...who does more damage; a twit as a cub master/ troop master (note lower case) or a twit with 'real power' as a commissioner? Thank you, but I would rather keep power decentralized... 'damage' is done to fewer boys.

 

And finally, I would like to return to a line of so called 'thought' that I have brought up before...

We need not always jump to the conclusion that every problem or twit we 'hear' about in these forums is/are accurate discriptions of the situations or that we ever get the whole story and background data...

 

What do you say to the 'twit' that has a boy in scouts and steps up to the bar to be an SM,(cause no one else will?) and then can't make the 'BSA way' work...either the troop elects the 'wrong' leaders, (he is not skilled enough to teach the 'wrong' leaders to be leaders)

The boys can't be motivated to do it right, CO and parents don't support...but he is trying...and 'settles' into a 'system' that works for most of the current boys and families? Maybe what 'works' it seems is the way he remembers scouting??? Some may be distressed that it is not the 'BSA way', but is the program then not worth anything? Would the boys be better served to simply not have a scouting opportunity...

 

Gosh, there are whole volumes of 'what if's' and 'renegade twits' that we can only seem to condemn ...I wonder if, in many of these cases, we would rather see no scouting program at all rather than a 'non- by the book' program???

 

Folks, I speak from experience here...many moons ago my guys joined a troop (our lil' county pack was the natural feeder to this troop). It was apparent soon after, that the troop was 'SM led' even though the committee said otherwise....the program had an "older boy only" slant and the older boys while friendly and great kids, where off in their own world when it came to young scouts (unless they needed eagle project labor). Several of the new dads suffered in moderate silence for a year to try to change the whole program...At several points we were seriously looking at starting a new troop...and sucking the life blood out of the existing troop, Two of us were Cub Master and ACM of the 'feeder pack' at that time .

 

If there had been certified troops this one would not have made certifcation...certified eagle mill, maybe... but not certified troop! Many of the current (real world now)leaders of the Troop would not be here today they would have gone to a 'certified' program...less hassle up front.

Instead we infitrated the leadership, started offering more program, more structure, NSP... all to the younger scouts in a parallel sort of program, inviting, but not telling any of the old guard to come along....some did, some just faded away.

 

One thing I can tell you is that if the old program had been radically changed (forced) three or four boys who eventually earned Eagle would have dropped out...They liked the old ways and never did embrace the 'new troop'. OGE...they did what the BSA manuals told them to do...fulfilled the requirements... got their ranks and left... I am glad they got their Eagles (it would have beeen terribly wrong to change the rules on them at the end) but their program was not the true 'BSA way'...are they less 'Eagles'? If the older leadership hadn't offered some kind of program...these boys would have had no program at all...and no Eagles...I believe in fighting the good fight, but I also believe that we can not change the whole scouting world...and like government...BSA can sometime do more harm than good with paper work and rules...so 'be careful what you ask for'is always a good caution. Let us all foster the best programs we can...and help others...but be cautious in looking 'down' at the twits...it may just be our own reflections...

thusly ...

anarchist

[OldGreyEagle]

Well, I guess I should have known that anyone with a name like Anarchist would be against having more rules, and I understand your point. I am just so fed up with the posts I see here and elsewhere, my council wont let me work on merit badges until I am first class, I have to wait 3 months between ranks, the scoutmaster decides at what age merit badges can be taken, Boards of review take hours as knots and stoves are bing tied and lit, it just gets overwelming the amount of stuff that goes on in the name of, but isnt really the program.

 

BTW, I had a friend who joined the Anarchy movement but he got thrown out, seems he wouldn't follow the rules...

 

[Eagledad]

>>We need not always jump to the conclusion that every problem or twit we 'hear' about in these forums is/are accurate discriptions of the situations or that we ever get the whole story and background data...>Please try to remember the "law of unintended consequences"...>and for "commissioners with real power"? aren't we just looking for moving twits up the line...who does more damage; a twit as a cub master/ troop master (note lower case) or a twit with 'real power' as a commissioner?