Program Cops?

[Eamonn]

Have to admit to having never heard this before.

At some stage I suppose if something is changed or altered enough it stops being what it once was.

When someone picks up the ball, changes the shape of the ball and adds a few extra players, it isn't soccer any more it's something else.

American football is like rugby, which is like, Gaelic football, which is like whatever they play in Australia.

What we know as soccer today is a lot different that what was played and outlawed in the UK during the middle ages.

Back when I a Lad a lot of my summer was spent in the local park with a few pals playing what we called soccer. We had a soccer ball, grass, the goals were made of four shirts, there were no sidelines, no refs, no offside, no free kicks, no penalties, no timed game.

It was great fun.

But was it soccer?

We thought so.

The Lad who joins a Boy Scout Troop, unless he has been in some other Troop accepts what is offered as being Boy Scouting. Many if not most parents are in the same boat.

I'm not sure who the "Cops" might be?

If they are the Commissioner Staff? I, if I'm the SM can let our UC know that I don't require or want his/her services and tell him/her to take a hike.

He or She can report me and all my wrong doings to just about anyone he or she thinks will listen. If they decide to take it further, I can tell them to take a hike as well.

Maybe if the CO becomes unhappy with my performance, they can tell me to take a hike.

Who are these program cops?

Eamonn.

[evmori]

The cops are some of the posters in this & other forums who feel the BSA leaves no room for interpretation.

 

A blessed New Year to all.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Gonzo1]

Eamonn,

I think there are many program cops.

If the SM is doing SM conference behind closed doors, the first who adult who spots it should be the cop.

If the unit is admitting girls, etc., the CO/COR had better be the cop.

If someone is signing something off for advancement that wasn't really done, the SM and/or the BOR better be the cop.

I suppose that if the SM doesn't like what the UC has to say, that might be fine, but might also be too bad for the SM. Maybe the SM is hiding something or can't accept constructive criticism.

 

[Gonzo1]

Ed,

I think our posts crossed.

I agree that there is some room for interpretation, but when it comes to BOR, 2 adults + 1 scout does not equal 3-6 members of the troop committee. 1 or 2 members and some parents is far more preferable than using older scouts.....IMO. A solution is register most parents.

 

On the other hand, the SM taking scouts on a hike without other adults is wrong.

 

Not having a fire bucket handy is kinda wrong.

Passing a kid for Star for example when he did not do a service project is wrong.

 

Passing a kid for any rank that requires POR when he didn't have one is wrong. It's OK if the SM assigns the lad a special project or special position.

 

Passing a scout for a merit badge when the scout dodn't do the work is wrong. It's the discretion of the MBC about the quality of the work performed.

 

 

[Eamonn]

While I can't say much about what happens in other parts of the country.

In our District /Council we have a number of units that are offering what I might call a cafeteria type program.

Someone at sometime has chosen what parts of the program they like and will use and decided not to use parts or bits that maybe they don't like.

Somehow the term Program Cop, to me seems to say that someone, someplace has the power to make them stop.

As far as I know, other than the COR (And the SE in some cases) No one can arrest these "Offenders", no warnings or citations are available to issue.

So there are no program cops.

As for:

"The cops are some of the posters in this & other forums who feel the BSA leaves no room for interpretation"

If you ignore them or just don't read them you aren't going to get upset. -Try doing that to the cop that pulls you over!!

Eamonn.

[SR540Beaver]

Awww, come on Gonzo....those are just tweaks and adaptations. After all, it's for the children.

[Gonzo1]

Eamonn,

Here is a rare time when I disagree with you. As with Beavah, EVMori Brent, SR540 and others, I appreciate your comments and insight, even your mentorship. However, since you brought up the topic of Program Cops, we must all be cops at times. What would you do if you saw an adult and a scout heading off to the bath house together? I might observe and see which doors they enter. I'd remind the scout about taking his buddy. As a UC, I'd suggest to the SM to remind the SPL about using the buddy system.

 

I understand the balance of picking the battles. So, if someone is wearing an "Untrainable" patch, I mught laugh. If someone is wearing the wrong shirt for the program, (Boy Scout wearing Venturing) or the whole troop wearing cammo, I might make a bigger deal of it. All youth on BOR, I'm stopping that. Adult planning and cooking for boys, I'm coaching that into boy lead, boy run, boy done, etc. Using woods tools and no "official" axe yard set up, I'm coaching that quickly for safety.

 

If a troop is teaching and learning skills, if the retention is OK, if the troop treasury is OK, if the troop goes camping, does a monthly activity, that's OK. If a troop does no district or council activities, I'd suggest that they do in the future.

 

SR540,

 

I know.

G

[SSScout]

Perhaps 'cops' is too strong a term. Sounds like a punisher. I watched the show 'Cops' last night in between new years music shows and steamed shrimp with the family ( good new years eve party, small and intimate, ya know?). One of the 'cops' said he saw his job as keeping the streets open and safe, and reminding people what they ought to do. Catching and punishing bad guys was the last thing he WANTED to do.

 

Perhaps 'Program Uncle'? I kinda remember my uncle Melvin as a fellow who was just sort of there when I needed to be reminded about what I 'ought' to do.

 

Isn't that the promise? "On my honor, I promise to do my best, to do what I ought to do..."

 

YiS some more

[Beavah]

Yah, I think the term "cops" as in "Uniform Cop" or "Program Cop" is a jest used to poke fun at those of us who take themselves a bit too seriously about such issues, or who enjoy a bit too much the role of self-righteous, indignant authority, and hop into the role even when the authority isn't ours to exercise.

 

If an Orienteering MB counselor meets 5 boys at a local city park to counsel the badge and do an orienteering hike around the park, is that really "wrong?" I don't even think it's contrary to da guidelines, eh?

 

If a Catholic troop takes their boys to Confession with the IH, it is almost by definition one-on-one behind closed doors. A scouter may take a tearful boy into a room so as to allow him to regain his composure out of the sight of the boy's peers; another may opt to drive home the lone scout left at the meeting because his parent's car broke down. Should these all be immediately smacked with da YPT brickbat? I'd say followin' regulations isn't always the right thing to do.

 

I dunno if a parent with no training (registered or unregistered) is really a more appropriate BOR member than a 17 year old Eagle who has served as Troop Guide and JASM, and represented the boys as a voting member of the Troop Committee for 2 years. I suspect not. And I doubt da BSA was really "wrong" for all the years its official program materials said to use Scouts as BOR members.

 

Lots of troops pass kids for holdin' positions like "Bugler" or "Librarian" that involve very little work or responsibility in that troop. But they're followin' the program, eh? Some troops won't pass kids for holdin' a position like PL and not showin' up. They're not followin' the program, eh? But I wonder what da boys and their parents feel is really "right?"

 

Yah, shouting "wrong" at each other and waiving rules in our colleagues or kids' faces is an activity we should all resolve to do less of in the new year. I don't think implyin' fellow scouters are molesters is a position to start from. Yah, sure, we all will find things to disagree about, and a modicum of due diligence is appropriate. But it's incumbent on us to recognize that people who give the kind of time and energy to young men and women that Scouters do are really a remarkable bunch. They deserve first and always our respect and admiration.

 

I suspect our boys recognize as they move up da ranks that there's little merit in declaring how "wrong" someone is, but a lot of merit in being their friend. Leastways, I hope they do.

[frank10]

"If a Catholic troop takes their boys to Confession with the IH, it is almost by definition one-on-one behind closed doors. A scouter may take a tearful boy into a room so as to allow him to regain his composure out of the sight of the boy's peers; another may opt to drive home the lone scout left at the meeting because his parent's car broke down. Should these all be immediately smacked with da YPT brickbat? I'd say followin' regulations isn't always the right thing to do. "

 

 

Beav,

I'm a live and let live kind of guy. If you wanted to pass out eagle badges to first year scouts I could care less.

BUT YOUTH PROTECTION IS NOT AN OPTION!

Every time a SM tells a youth that it is ok to make an exception he is putting that scout at risk. Socouts in my troop are taught that all exceptions are to be reported to me and their parents.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Health and Safety is an issue anytime and for everyone.

 

Money problems are an issue that needs to be reported to the DE before it gets reported to the real Cops.

 

Most of the rest is secondary to making good relationships with those you wish to influence.

 

Change comes slowly and then only if a person trusts you.

 

fb

 

[Gonzo1]

Beavah,

I agree it's about knowing when it's time to say when.

 

Nothing wrong with someone driving the kid home, taking 2 hours on the scenic route to do it is another matter.

 

I'm not sure about confession in the catholic church without the parents. I'm a Methodist, it's not our thing. Maybe having another adult nearby is OK.

 

Happy New Year.

G

[evmori]

Gonzo,

My point is not everything in the BSA is set in stone even though some think it is.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Beavah]

BUT YOUTH PROTECTION IS NOT AN OPTION!

Every time a SM tells a youth that it is ok to make an exception he is putting that scout at risk.

 

Yah, given da behavior of a few Catholic clergy, that might be true, eh? But I'd still let the boy go to confession behind closed doors. It's not "two deep" that prevents abuse, eh? It's knowin' the boy.

 

I'd agree with wingnut's statement if it said "Protecting youth is required" or such. But we'd just best be careful not to confuse a set of procedures (BSA Youth Protection) with really protecting youth. Those procedures aren't enough, eh? They're nowhere near sufficient. Takes a lot more, includin' Gonzo's alert eyes. Yah, and while BSA YP makes for good institutional guidelines, they can also become silly.

 

I worry about that sometimes, eh? The times a lad has talked to me about thinkin' suicide, the times lads have shared real serious personal or family issues, the times boys and girls have shared their concerns about a friend's drinkin' or drug use - always happened when I was effectively alone with the kid. Yah, sure, maybe that's "last men standin'" at the campfire. But it's also been drivin' a kid home from a meetin'. The one-on-one times are da only times boys are likely to share those things, eh? There's a reason why dem Catholics build confessionals, eh?

 

I'd hate to think we were so all-fired zealous about Youth Protection by rules that it got in the way of really protectin' kids. We can put metal detectors at doors and have zero tolerance policies in da name of "Youth Protection", but it just ain't goin' to compare with reachin' out to kids in need and just bein' there.

 

And there's the practical, too. Round here, sometimes the only way for a boy who lives a bit out of town to make a meeting is if a scouter gives him a lift. We don't all live in da 'burbs, eh? And not all kids have a parent who cares.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

These are simple problems in math/logic.

 

A SM is asked to drive a Scout home but he also wants to maintain two-deep leadership. How does he do it if he does not have a son in Scouting?

 

If a Scout will only divulge personal information to one other person, then how does a leader maintain two-deep leadership during a counseling session?

fb