Bending or Changing the Guidelines

[SeattlePioneer]

Yes, Bob White, purposely ignoring rules can be a function of good leadership and an obligation of good leadership too, for the same reasons I gave.

 

Good leadership is knowing when following rules is wise, and when ignoring them is wise.

 

I don't know how you can misconstrue things that are so plainly written, but you do it over and over again.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[Kahuna]

CNYScouter: Sorry, I misread your original post. It is a problem when the unit you are in doesn't use the program properly. I think most of the advice I could offer is already in thread. Good luck with your mission.

[Hunt]

A couple of years ago I taught an adult Sunday School class using a set of curriculum the church bought (at my suggestion). The curriculum was pretty good, and I generally followed it, but it included these "touchy-feely" exercises with each lesson that I didn't want to do, and that the class didn't want to do. So we left those out. Did I substitute my own judgment for that of the creator of the curriculum? Yep.

By contrast, I'm currently developing an on-line course for a college, and the course has to meet certain specified criteria. I can't--and won't--deviate from those. In at least one respect, I think it would be better to do it a different way. Does that matter? Nope.

To my mind, the BSA program falls between these extremes. It has a number of clear rules that you can't deviate from and honestly saying you're doing Scouting right. The Guide to Safe Scouting is the prime example, but there are others. At the other extreme, there are lots of program helps and suggestions that are totally optional (I remember a bunch of these from Cub Scouting). Some of these just may not work for the group of scouts you have, just as those sensitivity exercises didn't work for my Sunday School class.

In between the extremes, there are important elements of the BSA program that aren't absolutely required, but which most people would agree should be followed. For example, there's no "rule" that says a troop can't decide that it will do only one campout a year, but I wouldn't think much of that troop's program.

I guess my point is that the "program" is not one monolithic thing that you take or leave. The base is the Scout Oath and Law along with the firm rules and regulations, followed by the essential program elements, followed by things that are more or less optional.

(Example: some troops have the SPL serve for six months, others for a full year. I'm pretty sure that there is no rule governing this, and I don't know what the guideline is. This may be an element of the program that can be left to the PLC to decide based on the needs of the boys in the troop.)

[eagle90]

This weekend I was doing some research for a newsletter article I was writing and came upon the following quote which is quite appropriate to a few of the topics we have been discussing:

 

"Many a Scoutmaster would probably desire I should give him all particulars in detail. But this would in reality be an impossibility, because what suits one particular Troop or one kind of boy, in one kind of place, will not suit another within a mile of it, much less those scattered over the world and existing under totally different conditions."

 

Baden Powell

 

So I guess even the founder gives units some leeway in doing what is best for their individual unit!

[Bob White]

"Yes, Bob White, purposely ignoring rules can be a function of good leadership and an obligation of good leadership too,"

 

You cannot possibly be serious. Breaking rules is an "obligation" of a good leader???

 

Whatever happened to the obligation of a good leader is to achieve the goal and keep the group together? What part of that makes breaking rules an obligation?

 

So if someone meets the goals delivers a good scouting program without ever needing to break a rule then they are a poor leader for not fulfilling their obligation? That's a frightening approach to leadership and to scouting.

 

If you cannot teach good citizenship without breaking rules then you just aren't doing it right.

 

BW

 

 

[Oak Tree]

To quote one section of the G2SS: "A responsible adult supervisor, who understands his or her responsibility and the elements of safety, can exercise discretion regarding certain procedures while maintaining safety."

 

Oak Tree

[Bob White]

The ability to excercise discretion in your decision making and the ability to operate within the rules of an organization or community are not mutually exclusive. people make decisions every day based on their discretion without ever violating a law. I can play a game of basebal and make all kinds of discretionary decisions and never break a rule of the game.

 

Why would anyone see that as impossible to do in scouting?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori]

No one is saying it is impossible to do. What part of achieving the goal and keeping the group together requires following all the rules?

 

We should be here for the boys. If we aren't then we are here for the wrong reason. If we are here to make sure everyone dots all their i's & crosses all their t's, then we are here for the wrong reason. We should be here for the boys.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

"What part of achieving the goal and keeping the group together requires following all the rules?"

 

Isn't that the same thing the Israelites said to Moses when he brought them the Ten Commandments?

 

That is that attitude that has been used for centuries by people who only want want benefits themselves without a care for the impact of their actions on the community.

 

 

 

[evmori]

No. I think you better read that part of the Bible again. And that's a poor analogy. The BSA isn't God.

 

Maybe I should re-phrase the question?

 

What part of achieving the goal and keeping the group together requires following all the rules and guidelines?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter]

"We should be here for the boys."

"What part of achieving the goal and keeping the group together requires following all the rules and guidelines?"

 

We are here to use the methods of Scouting to achieve the aims of Scouting to fulfill the mission of Scouting. That's the "part" that requires following the "rules" and "guidelines" or whatever label you want to use. You cannot do Scouting if you don't follow the Scouting ways.

 

[Hunt]

"You cannot do Scouting if you don't follow the Scouting ways."

 

I think everybody agrees with this, up to a point, and the disagreement is where the point is. There are rules that can't be ignored, and program elements that must be present, for the activity to be Scouting. At the other extreme, there are ideas and suggestions. For example, on p. 129, the Handbook cites the Philmont Grace as one choice for giving thanks for a meal. I don't think anybody would argue that one must this grace in order to "do Scouting." There are other things that BSA recommends, but does not require, such as FCFY emphasis. You might think that this is a really good idea, and that BSA is correct in promoting it, but BSA itself doesn't require it, so a unit can "do Scouting" without it. Can a troop "do Scouting" without any outdoor program at all, for another example? Well, maybe if all the boys were in a hospital ward, it wouldn't trouble us, but it would be stretching it, in my mind, to call something "Scouting" if it was really just a chess club, say. Such a unit might not be breaking any rules, technically, but they'd be deviating from the Methods too far.

Here's my suggestion: rather than tarring people with a broad brush, as either "not doing Scouting" because they want to bend guidelines, or as overly rule-bound, why don't we focus on specifics? Is a particular rule, guideline, program element, or detail essential to Scouting? Is it important, even if not essential? Why or why not?

Thus--for example--we could talk about how often a troop should camp out to do the outdoor method justice.

[Bob White]

"Thus--for example--we could talk about how often a troop should camp out to do the outdoor method justice."

 

You could but that would not get you very far. First camping is not the only element of the outdoor parogram. A troop could camp every week and not have a godd scouting program. Oh they might become skilled campers but that is not the mission of the program. The minium expected camping can be accomplished with just two one night campouts and a weeklong scout camp.

 

There is a common misconception that a troop is suppoiosed to camp every month, but nowhere does the BSA program state that. What it says is that the troop should have an "outdoor activity each month" and the Quality Unit Award says 6 outdoor activities plus a week ling camp. There are a multitude of outdoor adventres that do not need to include camping.

 

But here is the impotant point. Ed wrote "What part of achieving the goal and keeping the group together requires following all the rules and guidelines?" and that is the inverse of the question we should be asking as competent leaders.

 

Given the choice of knowing violating rules or of obeying rules, I hope we can agree that the natural state of scouting is one of obeying. So the real question which we should be asking is "What part of achieving the goal and keeping the the group together requires that we break rules?"

 

I think everyone would have to agree that there is no part of scouting that "requires" anyone to break a rule. The program is perfectlt workable while staying within all the rules, so why do some 'leaders' choose to knowingly violate them, and why do some find themselves wrestling with how to lead without breaking rules when nothing in the program requires any rules to be broken?

 

Do some leaders really believe that to deliver the scouting program one must violate the rules of the program they are leading? Why would anyone submit themselves to such a dishonest behavior?

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

The program is perfectlt workable while staying within all the rules, so why do some 'leaders' choose to knowingly violate them, and why do some find themselves wrestling with how to lead without breaking rules when nothing in the program requires any rules to be broken?

 

If the program was perfect, it would never change! And herein lies the rub. Not everything in all the BSA publications are rules! There are suggestions & guidelines that some leaders interpret as rules because they are in a BSA publication! First Class First Year is a perfect example of a suggestion that some have interpreted as "If you don't do FCFY you aren't Scouting"!

 

We need to follow the rules. We also need to know the difference between a rule & a suggestion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SeattlePioneer]

Bob White remains stupefied by my suggestion that good leadership may require that rules be broken.

 

I'll give a simple example.

 

Suppose your Troop encounters a drowning swimmer. As Scoutmaster, you know that two Scouts have earned the lifesaving merit badge and completed the mile swim.

 

You encourage them to use their lifesaving skills to recscue the swimmer without delay.

 

BUT:

 

Oh, my! You IGNORE the requirements of the Safe Swim Defense that require that the Safe Swim Defense be reviewed before swimming. You IGNORE carefully scouting out the swimming area in order to be able to save someone's like. You IGNORE laying out and marking the non swimmer, beginner and simmer zones.

 

You use good judgement to decide which parts of the safe swim defense can be disregarded in the interests of saving a life.

 

What that leader does is to scope out the situation to make sure that a rescue is reasonable--- white water and rapids might require that no rescue effort is attempted. Providing a rope and support for the rescuer to swim out to the victim might be instantly decided upon.

 

In short, I continue to suugest that good leadership may require a decision to break rules when there is good reason to do so. That doesn't mean to break rules without a good reason for doing so.

 

 

Seattle Pioneer