Where Authority Lies

[Beavah]

In the other thread on questioning authority, Eamonn writes:

 

In some units the program has been tweaked to such an extent that the authority has shifted from the BSA to the unit.

 

Yah, I certainly hope so.

 

We must remember that's the way the BSA works. The BSA is limited by its Congressional Charter and bylaws to collaborating with community agencies - to assist them and serve them as they run a part of their youth outreach. The authority should always reside with the unit/CO. Both the authority to run their youth program, and da voting authority to control the BSA.

 

Anything else ain't scouting, leastways not the BSA brand, eh? If yeh want a central authority, you need to start your own scout association.

 

What gets really bad is when a council or district tries to "tweak" da BSA program and start to order the units and volunteers about. We've all met those gnomes, eh? The ones that try to make EBOR's their personal fiefdom, the ones that make it all about the council, or who try to lord it over others by quotin' some obscure guideline, or who view themselves as such an authority that they can ignore the vote of their annual meetin'.

 

The ones who forget that the district, the council, and da BSA exist not as Authority, but exist only to be of Service.

 

Only to be of Service.

 

[LongHaul]

     First off I could not to decide where to respond to this thread, in Eamonns or in Beavahs. I learned something in high school   before you get into a lengthy discussion it is best to define terms. Just what do we mean when we use the term authority? Beavah says it should or does lie with the CO/unit, Eagledad wants it to be in the hands of the PLC. Just what is IT?   The second term we need to define is tweak and separate it from change. When we discuss advancement on this forum we constantly get into where the line between interpretation and addition stands. The right to define The Program is with National. Everyone of us tries to deliver A program but is it BSAs program? OH! Wait a minute maybe we should define program. My point here is that we really need to know exactly what we mean when we use certain terms, before we take a stand.   I know that Beavah does not mean that what every we do as long as it is  CO sanctioned is SCOUTING.  Eagledad is not proposing throwing out the GTSS.  JUst what level of authority are we discussing?

LongHaul

[John-in-KC]

LongHaul,

 

At the end of the day, the buck stops with the Chartered Partner. The CP Organization is where the liability insurance provided by BSA is designed to give full cover. The Chartered Partner, in return, is expected to recruit leaders and youth and execute the Scouting Programs per the various guidelines set forth by the National Council.

 

In both a Troop and a Crew, the authority of the youth leadership to design, coordinate, and implement the program is a delegated authority per the Charter Agreement (that clause about executing the Scouting Program...). That authority comes with responsibility:

 

- Events must conform to G2SS. Generally the SM overwatch ensures this ...

- Events must be paid for. This means fundraising efforts within the rules of Scouting, or the old, "Dad, may I have...?" method.

- Events must be supportable logistically. East Coast PLC which decides their annual trek is to be along the Pacific Crest Trail may find their parents balking at 8 days of driving time (RT) + the trek time, and may have to find other transport ... which leads right back to events must be paid for.

 

We talk a lot about PLC as the decisionmaking body of a unit, but the fact is their authority is constrained by their responsiibilities, just as any republican form of governments' governing body is!!!

[LongHaul]

So are you saying that if my CO decides that Family Life shouldn't be required for Eagle and decides to award every scout Family Life merit Badge upon registration that that "at the end of the day" that authority rests with the CO?

LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[LongHaul]

Before we get to far down this road lets recap. The original post was in reference to numbers published by National which did not reflect general experience. The math just didnt work with the numbers presented. A forum member questioned the need to question National on the numbers. This lead to the question of whether we, as Scouters, encourage or suppress the questioning of things said or done by someone in a position of authority. This lead to this thread about where the authority lies. Connecting the dots one would be lead to believe that it is being said that the CO or CP has the authority to post numbers for National. Again I ask What are we talking about?

LongHaul

 

[Beavah]

Yah, good thoughts, LongHaul. Let me throw a log on da fire in my den here and see if I can figure out what I meant .

 

I'm mostly a practical sort of guy. We're all tryin' to provide service to kids, so it's worth talkin' about who is really capable of doin' what.

 

Reality is that all scoutin' is provided on the backs of, and out of the pockets of, volunteers. After that, it's provided out of the support created by networks of families loosely affiliated with a CO. So the program the kids experience, the service they are provided, is under the authority of those volunteers/networks/COs. Outside of ScoutReach, almost all the money & time that makes scoutin' work is located here. Da folks who are doin' the work are the authority, no matter what anyone else says. And they should be the authority, as a matter of simple justice and common sense practicality.

 

Now,da average Tom, Dicks, and Harrys have no time or inclination or ability to generate program materials, and they can't be experts on everything. A lotta things you get from other Toms, Dicks, and Harrys, for sure. Especially in these days of internets makin' Roundtables a lot bigger, eh? But even after that, some things are worth outsourcing. Contracting out for.

 

In PowderHorn, crew advisors learn all about contracting out for high adventure trips. In traditional Boy Scoutin', the BSA is a preferred contractor. They provide program materials, and uniform parts, and contract summer camps, and some insurance cost poolin' that may help smaller COs. And occasional consulting services, maybe. But they really have no money or time or skill invested in actually runnin' youth program directly, and really have no money or time or skill invested in managing/supervisin' youth program.

 

In short, the real common sense, practical business model of da BSA is that of an outside contractor hired by COs/Volunteers to provide some support services. In addition, there's a community of mutual volunteer support called "Scouting" where volunteers share information, ideas, resources & training. Neither has any resources invested in bein' "authority," which is good because they also lack the necessary skill.

 

So the "IT" in my case is the provision of services to the youth. And the "authority" for that is in the unit/CO, and (hopefully), the PLC. Exactly where it should be, eh?

 

[LongHaul]

So the "IT" in my case is the provision of services to the youth. And the "authority" for that is in the unit/CO, and (hopefully), the PLC. Exactly where it should be, eh?

 

On that sir we can agree. The authority to provide the A program was granted to the CO/unit in the form of its charter from the National Corporation. It came with the stipulation that the CO/unit conform to National Corporation policy. As I read his post Eamonn was referring to COs and units who have tweaked National policy to the extent that they are usurping Nationals authority to set policy. Just because National said it does not make it true (i.e. the numbers from the original post) but just because National has issued it does make it policy(i.e. the ban on girls and gays).

LongHaul

 

[Beavah]

As I read his post Eamonn was referring to COs and units who have tweaked National policy to the extent that they are usurping Nationals authority to set policy.

 

We must remember that even our charter documents, which are really just an outsourcin' agreement, state that the program will be run [first] by the policies of the Chartering Organization, and [second] by the policies of the BSA (of which there are preciously few). And in the BSA structure, the CO's are the majority voting members who are supposed to set BSA policy (though the corporation in some ways has "tweaked" things in bad ways to limit that voice).

 

On a practical level, the BSA's only interest is not hurtin' their outsourcing business by some public act of embarrassment, eh? So yah, if you admit girls, they might stop sellin' to you in order to maintain their brand identity. But then, none of their materials are designed for girls, so why would a CO that wants to run a girls program use 'em in the first place?

 

But if yeh do a lousy job teachin' a Merit Badge or skip requirements for 1st class yeh think are dumb, if your SM is a jerk, if you live in da north and choose to drive to outings at night in the winter in violation of G2SS, if your CO pays all da fees for your kids and ignores "a scout pays his own way", if the CO holds a fundraiser for its youth programs without filin' a money-earning permit and on and on... then there's really nuthin' the BSA does or can do. They have no staffing, skill, money, or other resources invested in runnin' youth programming or the oversight of youth programming. And their business model requires maintainin' good relationships with even their cranky customers, eh?

 

If we're honest with ourselves, we recognize that even when they're providin' youth program on a contract basis (i.e. summer camp), a heck of a lot of times they don't police themselves with regard to MB quality/requirements, quality of service, G2SS details and all dat.

 

In general, though, different CO's are goin' to offer youth programs that look pretty similar, eh? Same as most high school biology classrooms workin' out of the same materials are going to look pretty similar, even though nobody (outside of Texas ) is goin' to be doing all the chapters in order and on the same day. So BSA brand Scouting is naturally goin' to stay pretty consistent and recognizable. If a CO really needs to heavily "tweak" the materials, then the materials are of less value to them, and they start shoppin' around for other contractors (or opt to do their own thing).

 

So all practical and almost all institutional/legal authority for the youth program we call "BSA Scouting" rests with da Units/CO's. As it should, yah? They are the ones with the skills, who are committin' the resources. Only thing weird is there are some "true believers" out there who ascribe more infallibility to Irving than Catholics ascribe to the pope.

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

I think the more accurate business model is the franchise. You don't by a MacDonalds or a Burger King and open up something that looks like a Chili's and serve entree's, soups, salads and appetizers. You have entered an agreement with the corporate headquarters to operate a franchise where you build a building according to their plans, wear their paper hat and knit pullover and serve the food that is delivered by their trucks from their distributors.

 

You are a team and your joint success depends on each other doing their job.

 

A chain can't grow national without selling franchises and franchisees can't own one of their successful stores without following their plan.

 

Local and regional history are usually taken into consideration when decorating the out of the box building and local customs and laws usually play a part in how the franchise is operated. But the corporation who licensed you to operate the franchise has the final say about the brand while they could care less what bank you choose to use or what janitorial service you employee.

 

There is plenty of leeway for the CO to flavor the troop, but the BSA decides the layout of what IS "scouting". A council can not have their annual charter renewed if they chose not to live up to their end of the bargain and the same goes for a unit within the council.

[Beavah]

I think the more accurate business model is the franchise. You don't by a MacDonalds or a Burger King...

 

Yah, franchises are interestin' business models. Da burger franchise doesn't map well onto the BSA, though, in a legal or practical way. Biggest thing is that kids aren't burgers; youth programs are much more tailored. There aren't many youth program franchises to point to... maybe Heritage Academy schools. Franchises don't seem to be too successful in youth programmin'.

 

Here's where I think the differences are between McDonalds-type franchises and the BSA business model.

 

1a) Both the CO's and the BSA are not-for-profit. So there isn't the same "common interest" in making money. The common interest is much more subtle, and much weaker. This leads to...

 

1b) The CO's have their own youth and character-building program and agenda, of which a scouting program is typically only a "part" according to the charter. This is very different from the "agenda is to make money" of a Burger Palace, eh? Mormons, Baptists, VFW posts, private schools, PTO's, neighborhood associations, etc. are goin' to be a bit different in how they view "character", and how a unit fits into their other youth programs. Dat's not just a "meet the local building code" like a McDonalds, it's "adapt to fit the individual mission and quirks of the owner". The BSA in its charter and documents agrees, and both allows and encourages such adaptation.

 

2) McDonalds Corporation invests a substantial amount of money and personnel resources in franchisee compliance. They send inspectors to franchises on a regular basis. They perform audits of franchisee books. They do independent customer satisfaction polling. In short, they have a supervision and enforcement operation. Aside from a cursory review for the Eagle Scout award, the BSA does nothing of the sort. Its business model commits not a single paid staff person or dollar to such an effort. The BSA doesn't see that as part of its business.

 

3) The franchisees of McDonalds do not have any vote, let alone a controlling vote, in the policy of the central corporation. BSA chartered organizations & councils do.

 

4) McDonalds requires franchisees to purchase most supplies and materials from the corporation. That, too, is partly an investment in compliance. The BSA does not. Nobody is required to buy a Handbook, or a uniform, or a BSA-brand backpack. Units are free to use a different Outdoors Handbook, subscribe to Outside Magazine instead of Boys Life, are free to make up awards of their own, routinely use their own (Class B, Varsity, Venturing) uniform for most things, etc.

 

5) In all normal measures, units/CO's are independent of the BSA. That's the legal structure (units are legally an activity of the CO, not the BSA; the CO, not the BSA, incurrs liability). That's the financial structure (unit/CO sets dues, sets fees, determines budget, sets financial controls, is responsible for financial reporting, etc.). That's the personnel structure (unit/CO "hires" and "fires" all staff, sets internal policy for volunteers, establishes training rules, determines compensation/reimbursement/ etc.).

 

6) Scouting youth programs are staffed by volunteers, and the "buy in" in terms of time and money is low. Burger Joints are paid jobs, and the "buy in" for a franchise is very expensive. The commitment on the part of the scout unit is much less than the burger franchisee. So there's very little ability or interest in the BSA operatin' like McDonalds Corp. in terms of what it demands of its members. Low commitment makes it easy for a CO or disgruntled volunteers to show the BSA the door.

 

7) The business is just different. People want a standard, reliable, burger. Parents and kids want programs that recognize their child's unique qualities, and build relationships and growth opportunities around those. For burgers, we want standard. For children, we want custom.

 

 

So while it's not awful, the Burger Franchise analogy is really fairly inaccurate in a number of important ways, especially when we talk about "authority" or business model. BSA as professional association or community association might be closest; materials supplier and contractor isn't bad.

 

I think you're right on with the McDonalds vs. Chili's analogy. Any CO/unit that chooses to charter with da BSA is lookin' for that kind of program and support services. They're all goin' to be recognizeable as "Scouting" because the Authority - the unit/CO - wants that sort of program. Yah, sure, they're goin' to "tweak" and adapt it a bit to make it work a bit better for their kids and goals, but they still want that sort of program. If they didn't, they'd be contracting with someone else for a different program.

 

So it's the CO's choice/interest, not the BSA's "policy", that makes a unit "Scouting."

[LongHaul]

So if a charter is issued to any not for profit organization whatever they chose to do or condone as a part of their youth program becomes Scouting by way of the charter being issued? If they want to open up their pack and troop to female youth its Scouting. You said none of the BSA materials are designed for girls. Just what part of Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts is gender specific? What activity is unsuitable for a young female? We are not talking about what National would do if they were made aware if a CO admitted female youth but just your view of what is Scouting . I am by no means trying to take a counter point to anything youve posted on this subject I only seek your views. I dont believe we must adhere to National as though they were gods.

LongHaul

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

A person, group , District, etc. can go their own way, do their own thing, dance their own dance until it gets to court and then those who followed their own drummer will be out. Every group agrees to follow the rules of the program. A group may even have their Charter taken from them for not following the rules. Power to make the rules rests solely with National.

 

A CO agrees to use the BSA program as it is presented.

A SM agrees to follow the rules of the BSA.

A Cub Scout follows Akela.

 

Now, for the other side of the coin.

 

Say a unit or a church decides to use the BSA program as their own. So, they decide to break the rules a little and have one program just for 10 and 11 year olds and another for 12 and 13 year olds and another for 14 and 15 year olds, and the last for 16, 17 and 18 year olds. They even name the first and the third programs themselves. Since their church has small congregations and they even use the same building for several congregations, they are able to have many COR's and leaders that are all involuntarily appointed by a higher authority. They find that they are able to vote in mass for their changes on the Council level. Since this church sends out missionaries, they find that they not only have churches across the country but also they have developed large voting blocks in the BSA. National then decides that they should best listen, so instead of ousting them, they decide that the new programs be made into pilot programs. Based on their influence on National, they adopt one of their programs for the 14 year olds and change another program to reflect the one for the 10 and 11 year olds. So, in this manner National listens to the local unit or church that has the power to change policy.

 

Change in Scouting is a two way street but only if there are enough votes to make it so. IMHO fb

 

[Beavah]

Yah, sometimes I feel we just do a lousy job with training, eh?

 

The Annual Charter Agreement (28-182R) describes exactly the role of the BSA as I have outlined it above. Nowhere does it say that "A CO agrees to use the BSA program as it is presented." Instead, we have:

 

"The Boy Scouts of America is an educational resource program. It charters community or religious organizations or groups to use Scouting as part of their service to their own members, as well as the community at large. The BSA local council provides support service necessary to help the chartered organization succeed... The [bSA] council agrees to respect the aims and objectives of the organization, and offer resources ... to help in meeting those objectives."

 

The adaptations that our friends in LDS wards make to the BSA educational resources are exactly how the BSA is designed to work and in fact how the BSA is required to work by its congressional charter and its own bylaws. That the BSA helps provide materials to help LDS be successful with their adaptation is exactly what the BSA is supposed to do. Authority for runnin' the program rests with the units/CO's. The BSA provides materials and support.

 

I imagine LDS units get tired of the way they get belittled by fellow Scouters for usin' the program the way it is supposed to be used. Shame on us for doin' that. They're our brothers, and good folks. If you want a more "standardized" form of Scouting, you need to go find another scouting association or maybe start a JROTC program in your area. That's just not what da BSA does, eh?

 

[FScouter]

If were going to start quoting the charter agreement, lets quote a little more completely. The agreement also says The chartered organization agrees to conduct the Scouting program according to its own policies and guidelines AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA.

 

A reasonable person would conclude CO policies and BSA policies need to not conflict. If the CO policy is to tweak the BSA program out of shape and out of policy with BSA, thats a conflict. CO policies cannot trump BSA policies.

 

I also wonder why were even discussing who has the authority, unless one is looking to justify the tweaks, additions, and deletions theyve made to the BSA program. Ultimately, I suppose the authority lies with whoever grabs it and says I, ME, MINE.

[Eamonn]

I suppose I ought to say something!!

Let's start with the:

Membership in the BSA is a privilege not a right.

The BSA owns the program.

When we sign up as leaders we agree to deliver the program.

I might be very good looking and very gifted (Don't I wish!!) but I don't have the authority to change the program.

While I wish more CO's took a more active role in Scouting, I kinda think if we were honest we'd have to admit that most Executive Officers know diddle about the program and their big concern is what shape the meeting hall is left in when the Scouts go home.

Most of the changes/ alterations/ tweaks that are made to the program are made with the very best of intentions.

In another thread we have the Troop that has changed the uniform.

Some forum members don't see this as a bad thing.

It seems that when we read of the Scout who is being grilled and retested at a BOR, we think this is not the way it should be done.

Some time back some one posted a link to a very large multi-page document of Troop rules and regulations. Many of these Troop rules and regulations dealt with attendance and set a percentage needed in order to advance. Some seemed to just echo what can be found in any Boy Scout or Scoutmaster Handbook.

I'm not sure when a Scout unit who strays from the program ceases to be a Scouting unit?

Our church has a youth group and also charters a Pack and a Troop. The Troop is fairly new; about six or seven years old, they seem to follow the BSA program use the methods of Scouting. Other older Troops in the District say that they do this because they don't know any different.

Many of the Boys in the Troop also belong to the youth group.

I'm sure at the end of the day both the youth leaders and the Scout leaders share many of the same ideals.

The youth group is very much in the hands of the people who are involved. They do of course answer to the Parish Council, but other than that they are free to do what they like. The Scouts who are in both seem to know that there is a difference. Some of the youth group leaders have said to me that they find the Scouting program to be too structured. The Scouter's have said that they like the structure!!

Eamonn.