Where Authority Lies

[Beavah]

I'm likin' Eamonn's rambles. Let me try.

Membership in the BSA is a privilege not a right.

The BSA owns the program.

No disagreement, if by "program" we mean its copyrighted and trademarked materials. If we mean the actual youth programs that are out there, they are owned by the CO's.

 

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

Actually, we agree to follow the Charter, Bylaws, Rules and Regs. Those are specific documents that I bet not one in a hundred scouters have read. And they're very limited in their scope. More importantly, we agree to deliver the program desired by the CO/unit, and under their direction. We work for them. Legally, we owe them our fiduciary duty, not the BSA.

 

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

Perhaps not, but your unit/CO certainly do. Almost everything about the delivery of program to youth is under their direction and authority (and is their, and your, personal liability), not the BSA.

 

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.

Yah, so they delegate their authority to the unit committees and scouters, eh? Same as they delegate their authority for their other youth ministries, or building maintenance, or whatnot. Da only real surprise would be if they didn't delegate these things. That would be one overworked IH, eh?

 

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.

I think one of the hardest things is that every scouter is proud of his/her own program and way of doing things, eh? We all want others to do it "our way" (which is by definition the "right way" ).

But if we're really honest, we recognize that there are lots of very successful troops doing things very differently from each other.

Some may ask more skills questions at BOR's. Some may tweak the uniform. Some may charter different units by age group and make a bunch of other modifications.

It's very clear that the BSA thinks this is OK.

They welcome and assist with LDS modifications.

They make no effort at all to ensure unit/CO compliance with program details.

It's OK with the BSA. It's only that every scouter is proud of his/her own program, and wants others to do it "our way."

It's a good thing to be proud of the job we do.

It's a bad thing when we let that turn into judgments that others aren't "real Scouting." Or assume we know what's right for their CO/unit and their kids.

 

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

I'm never sure why this is even a worthwhile question. Smacks too much of exclusivity and judgment where brotherliness in Scouting is more appropriate.

But the answer in the BSA is "at the point when the CO/unit or BSA choose not to renew the charter." And not a second before.

Even then, they might still be Scouting, in the sense of the worldwide youth movement / GSUSA / BP-Scouts, etc. We should still consider them brothers and sisters.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The LDS units have changed the Scouting program and done it correctly. They have also changed Scouting. I do not believe that they intentionally set about doing this because I believe they simply wanted to make the program conform to their own needs. The point is that if others try the same thing they run the risk of having their charter revoked because of a lack of central support. I don't know of another organization outside the military that could arrange leadership and order by mandate. So, if a lone unit decides that their church has needs specific to their program, such as admitting gays, girls and the godless; they should be aware that change only comes with the power to change. fb

[Beavah]

if others try the same thing they run the risk of having their charter revoked

 

The BSA of course has the right not to sell materials to or contract for support services with a CO, the same way the CO is free not to contract with the BSA.

 

But even here, the authority lies primarily with the CO. Do yeh know how hard it is in the BSA system to revoke a charter? Can't be done by a council, has to go all the way to National. Except in cases where their business reputation would be publicly compromised, the BSA sticks with CO's. And besides, we all recognize that the BSA commits not a single dollar or professional to any real sort of unit program evaluation or supervision anyways, so there's almost never a reason nonrenewal would even come up.

 

The reverse is not true. CO's can drop charters at a whim. The number of CO's that have dropped BSA charters vastly exceeds the number of charters the BSA has ever dropped. So when a CO wants a coed program, they leave and go to Campfire USA. Just lost a private school cub pack in our district to that switch.

 

But in terms of what LDS does in terms of what folks on this list like to call program "tweaks", that is how BSA Scouting is really supposed to be used. LDS isn't doing Scouting "different" or "by special dispensation." They're doing real live honest-to-goodness BSA Scouting! Dat's what the Charter and Bylaws and business model all mean.

 

While a part of me sympathizes with CNY's and others honest assessment that there are units out there that don't offer a good program, and it might be better if BSA were more centralized/standardized, there is a cost to that. In order to do the "McDonald's model franchise" the costs of buy-in and operation are much higher. All training required. Continuing education required. Real unit leader skill & ability qualifications that not every unit leader can pass. Consequently higher costs recruiting. Real unit performance evaluations (with consequent increase in professional staff and charter costs). Units required to buy BSA materials, uniforms, etc. All CO's required to believe and advance the "official BSA version" of "character."

 

The result would be a more standardized program. The result would also be a much, much smaller program.

 

The BSA has been very successful with its current, flexible business model, and has repeatedly chosen "large and highly tweaked" over "small and standardized." It's been such a successful model that Scouting is still a major national presence and deeply ingrained in our culture. Do don't expect da BSA to change their approach anytime soon.

 

If yeh want a central Authority scouting model, yeh have to look elsewhere.

 

 

 

[MarkS]

John-in-KC wrote, "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"

 

What about the axiom, "You can delegate authority but you can not delegate responsibility?"