BSA service model?

[Eamonn]

I have never heard or read about a "BSA service model"

What is it?

Where do I find it?

I can't find anywhere anything that states that a Council can change the age of the participants in each section.

I have to disagree with:

"The only reason to have age groups, or to have a program, is service of the kids. It's not some magical talisman that exists for its own bureaucratic perpetuation"

If we go with that why not allow 12 year old Venturers?

Why have the a deadline for completing Eagle Scout?

Playing the game by the rules is a service to the youth we serve.

Changing the rules to suit whoever and whatever is not setting the example we should be setting.

This does nothing to help the youth we serve learn about making ethical choices. In fact it does the opposite.

Eamonn.

[Beavah]

Yah, it all depends whether our personal ethics are tied to rules or to Principles, eh?

 

But that's gettin' way too far afield.

 

The case in the other thread involved changin' one little administrative feature - not allowing a boy to be dual registered in a Pack and a Troop. It did not involve changing a single national rule about ages for joining or remaining in either program. Close as I can tell, the only reason it's "not allowed" is that it wasn't programmed into ScoutNet. And we all know that's an amazingly well-designed program .

 

Some things, a few, really are national policies. But it's funny, isn't it, how almost all of those come with tweaking procedures. The 18-year-old limit for Eagle is a real policy, but then that limit for Eagle can be waived for disability, and a whole procedure exists for extensions of time of various lengths.

 

So we recognize that justice, common sense, and service of kids almost always involves breaking, modifying, or waiving the rules at some point in order to do the right thing. Even when they're "hard" rules (moreso when they're just good practice guidelines and administrative regulations!). Not all the time. Not even most of the time. But some of the time.

 

In fact, some of us teach that not adjusting the rules when it's the right thing to do is often an act of cowardice or meanness.

 

I personally think that's a fine lesson to teach, and the proper ethic to live by. It's an act of righteousness to cure people on the Sabbath, even if it's against "the rule." And it's even an act of tolerance and compassion to let other people live by slightly different rules as they try to do good works the best they can.

 

Oh, yah, and I reckon the BSA "Service Model" is in National's internal marketing and strategic planning documents, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[John-in-KC]

Beavah,

 

There are things worth my time, energy, resources and effort to help change.

 

There are other things which are not worth my ... to change.

 

I think my Council's imposed MB Counselor limit of 6MBs per Counselor is not worth changing.

 

I think my Council's interfaces between the OA Lodge and its internal Honor Camping Society may well be worth changing. There will come a time when I expect to have the resources to attempt to influence that change.

 

I do not think having concurrent membership between the Cubbing Program and the Boy Program is worth my time and resources to change.

 

I do think, formally asking the question of the Cub Scout Division and the Boy Scout Division might be worth the effort.

 

To those who would ask the question, I caution: Sometimes, questions are best left unasked. Let sleeping dogs lie.

[FScouter]

Thats an interesting concept; that of justifying what we do or dont do in conflict with the program, if we preface it by saying were doing so in order to do the right thing. That sounds like a self-serving model.

[Beavah]

Thats an interesting concept; that of justifying what we do or dont do in conflict with the program, if we preface it by saying were doing so in order to do the right thing. That sounds like a self-serving model.

 

Yah, it can be.

 

Or it can be a humble recognition that our own understanding may be imperfect.

 

Or it can be an honest recognition that programs and other human rules are imperfect, and bigger principles come first.

 

Or, as J-in-KC says, it can simply be that prudence and kindness make it unproductive to raise a fuss!

 

Me personally, I don't care one way or another about dual membership in boy scouting and cubs. Someone's council thinks it'll help? OK. They should talk that out and maybe give it a whirl.

 

I just care that we support our fellow scouters with kindness and generosity of spirit. Even when they exercise their legitimate discretion. Even when they do it differently than we would. Even when they make mistakes.

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[FScouter]

How about a humble recognition that the thousands of volunteer leaders each with years of experience and insight, who have designed, tested, and perfected the Scouting programs before they are adopted and published by our national organization, might just maybe have a better way than the personal opinion of joeleader-doin-the-best-he-knows-how? How about guiding our fellow brother and sister Scouters away from the concept of reinventing the wheel? Surely that would be more helpful to the movement than encouraging everyone to do whatever they feel like.

[Beavah]

Yah, I don't know. I think some wheels need to be reinvented. I do that all the time with kids; I expect most of us do, eh? Most of Scouting is helpin' kids discover for themselves things that we old folks already know.

 

I think a big part of learning involves trying things yourself, not just listening to someone else. Trying things ourselves builds experience to go with book knowledge. It makes us richer and wiser. That's why I prefer it when people begin by sharing from their own experience, what they've done and what they learned. It doesn't just give us an answer, it helps us to think. I expect most of us prefer to learn that way, too. We'd prefer to tinker and get our hands dirty gettin' a feel for something rather than have someone just tell us what da answer is.

 

Supportin' that is the Scouting Way, eh? Like supportin' the SPL even when we personally would do it different, or better. And if we're wise old critters, we pay attention and even we can learn a thing or two from the experiences of the kids.

 

No difference for how we treat adults, eh, except that we should be even more supportive and "hands off" than we are for kids.

 

That's not "people doing whatever they feel like" or any such incendiary talk show blather, any more than following rules is "acting like a tyrant." It's avoiding both of those extremes in favor of workin' together as friends.

 

Now, if any of us knows of another council that tried dual registration of cubs and boy scouts, I think that's a fine thing to pass along to them if they're thinkin' about it. Same as we all pass along our personal experiences with rotatin' NSP PL's and such. Neither are currently "standard program", but for some unit or council somewhere, it might be just the ticket to get past a rough spot or get to a bigger goal.

 

And that's what we're about, eh? Principles and bigger goals.

 

All those BSA documents compiled by editors from comments from hundreds of fellow volunteers are written with deliberate ambiguity. They're guidelines to be helpful, because everyone who's been playin' this game for any length of time knows that no two successful troops are alike, and no two successful councils do things exactly the same. Fact is, the most successful of each are highly personalized, not generic.

 

So we honor such folks when we use their materials wisely, with kindness, generosity, and wisdom, to learn from, not judge others by. And to take what we learn, and what we try, and what we experience, and do right by kids.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Oak Tree]

Oooh, oooh, oooh, can I play? I know I've heard this discussion somewhere before... Now where was it?

 

Let's see if I can recap:

Beavah (parent thread): J15

Eamonn: R8, R3

Beavah: J16, J1, J2, J15, J15b, J8

FScouter: R9

Beavah: J1-13,15b (rules are imperfect)

FScouter: R2

Beavah: J15

 

Based on the discussion, I've updated my list of canonical arguments for following the rules or using your judgement.

 

 

Reasons to follow the rules:

 

R1. Obeying rules set by legitimate authorities is a moral imperative in itself.

R2. Rules are set by persons with greater knowledge and experience and thus should be followed.

R3. It's important to show respect for rules in order to set a good example for others.

R4. Breaking small rules will lead to less respect for more important rules.

R5. If you agreed to follow the rules, you are obligated to follow them.

R6. If everybody picked and chose what rules to follow, there would be chaos, and dumb people would ignore the wrong rules.

R7. If you violate the rule, you may be punished.

R8. If its ok to break a rule, its ok to break all rules. You either obey rules, or you dont.

R9. If it's ok to break a rule, people will break rules just to do what's best for them.

 

 

Reasons to use your judgement:

 

J1. The rule is unjust. (Favorite example - failing to turn over Jews to the Nazis and lying about it).

J2. The purpose for the rule clearly does not apply to the particular situation. (This may be the case with Kahuna's visit to the waterfront. Another simple one might be the requirement to "take a number" when there is nobody else waiting.)

J3. The rule is routinely violated and rarely enforced. (This is probably the true reason most people speed a few mph over the limit.)

J4. The rule is silly. (Perhaps the fact that although it is shaped like a pocket flap, a Tot'n Chip is not supposed to be worn on the pocket flap of the uniform.)

J5. The rule is inconsequential, and the consequences of violating it are too small to matter. (This is in the eye of the beholder, of course--perhaps wearing green socks that are identical to Scout socks, but without the red stripe, under long pants.)

J6. The rule is inconvenient. (Ignoring two-deep leadership because a second adult wasn't available would be an example.)

J7. You just think you know better than the people who make the rules. (Taking scouts to play laser tag or paintball, maybe.)

J7a. The person really does know better than the rulemaker, because of unique personal expertise, or insufficient time/attention paid by the rulemaker.

J8. Following the rule will cause one person to be singled out/embarrassed.

J9. Other substantial negative consequences to following the rule (maybe, in Cub Scouts, one family's tent collapses during a rainstorm in the middle of the night, and they move in with another family who has a large tent.)

J10. It's the spirit of the rule that matters, not the letter of the rule (maybe allowing a couple who has been together for 15 years, but isn't technically married, to share the same tent)

J11. There is an overriding reason of a health or safety emergency (often comes up in these discussions, but is non-controversial in reality, as everyone tends to agree it's ok to break a rule to save a life)

J12. The rules suck all the fun out of the activity. (maybe the rule is you have to listen to a one-hour safety lecture before firing a bb-gun. Or, at a local camp-o-ree, here are the local rules, which were thought up by someone who seemed to have no experience with actual Scouts)

J13. The rules, as written, appear to be bizarrely complex.

J14. The rulemaker exceeded his authority in making the rule.

J15. The rules are in service to a greater principle, and the greater principle is what matters (e.g. service to the kids)

J15b. The rule is very general and does not (and can not) take into account all of the specific situations it may apply to. The situation may allow the rules intent to be achieved through alternate means.

J16. People in authority indicate the rules are flexible.

 

I thank Hunt for compiling the original list. My own tendency is to try to figure out what's best in a given situation. Usually, and by default, that's to follow the rule. But I really want to do what's best for the boy. Following greater principles and using judgement are both good things in my book.

 

Oak Tree

[Beavah]

LOL, ROTF!

 

Yah, thanks for my mornin' laugh there, Oak Tree. What a hoot!

 

I suspect it all comes down to how much you trust other people with their own freedom. Me, I'm a trusting sort. Freedom is a good thing. Or maybe judging others without walkin' in their shoes is a bad thing.

 

Now, is that J17?

 

The funniest thing in this thread is that nobody's breakin' a rule. Doing this is within the discretion of the council Scout Executive in the BSA. Oops, that J16 again. Darn!

 

Still laughin'...

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SR540Beaver]

I've heard that the registration numbers are down in our council. I've also heard that the Girl Scout program isn't what it used to be. Perhaps we can convince the SE to open the Cub and Boy Scout programs to girls of the same age as a pilot program in our council. The girls will get a quality program and the numbers will be up. Just a minor tweak and after all, its for the children.

[Trevorum]

Oak Tree,

What a great list. I think we should all copy it and just start using shorthand in our banter - "I'll see your R3 and raise you a J5 ..."

 

One edit: R1a. The rule is divinely inspired.(Was used to justify slavery; still used to justify social discrimination.)

[OldGreyEagle]

Gee SR540Beaver you may be on to something, since punk and EMO girls love to wear cub uniform tops, why not open cub advancement to college age girls as well, after all they can be in Venturing, why not Cubs as well?

 

[BrentAllen]

Beavah writes "Now, if any of us knows of another council that tried dual registration of cubs and boy scouts, I think that's a fine thing to pass along to them if they're thinkin' about it. Same as we all pass along our personal experiences with rotatin' NSP PL's and such. Neither are currently "standard program", but for some unit or council somewhere, it might be just the ticket to get past a rough spot or get to a bigger goal."

 

Wrong, Beavah. Dual registration between Cubs and BS is not mentioned in the program materials. In fact, the procedures outlined specifically prohibit it. "Scoutmaster holds Webelos application until he graduates and moves his membership..."

 

Rotating PL's in an NSP is mentioned and allowed, as described in the program. I'm sure you can find it, but if not, let me know and I will be glad to point it out to you.

[FScouter]

OGE, in someones head that might work. It would be an application of J7 and J15, which could be combined into "My supreme arrogance trumps all else".

[Beavah]

Yah, yah...

 

Let's see, that's another R8, a book quote, and a slam on anyone who thinks about things differently.

 

I answer J16 and logical fallacy, wrong book (you need the one for SE's not for SM's), and SL 5&12.

 

And conclude with J15 for emphasis.

 

Then I'll site SL12 and say everyone is free to believe whatever they like if it makes them more comfortable.

 

After all, WebelosMom's SE can tell her directly what he's allowed to do (like alter program procedure but not real policy like admitting girls or atheists). She doesn't have to believe any of us internet garden gnomes.

 

Beavah