A big stick?

[Eamonn]

"there is no testing and no enforcement of program standards unless somebody steps seriously out of line on something in a way that attracts public attention. "

 

This is of course right.

But it got me thinking.

If there were to be some kind of enforcement?

Who would the job fall too?

Eamonn.

 

[Beavah]

??

 

Yah, there aren't any "program standards" to enforce, eh?

 

So perhaps the first question would have to be "What would the program standards be?" What do we suppose is "proper" Patrol Method, for example? "Proper" Adult Association? What's our defined standard for "duty to God?" or "physically strong?" How would any of those things be measured?

 

But in answer to the question of who should be supervisor or enforcer, the answer is whoever is ready to accept legal and financial responsibility. Because of course, that's what those things mean.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Bob White]

The program is designed with layers of supervision.

 

If you are talking about enforcing "BSA Policies" the first layer is the integrity of the individual. The next layer is the Unit leader or Unit Committee. The next layer is the Commissioning team, the next layer is a local BSA professional, the final layer is the BSA National office.

 

As far as program quality...the first layer is the integrity of the individual. The next layer is the unit leader, then the Unit Committee Chair. The next layer is the Commissioning team, and the last layer is back to the Committte e Chair and either the CR or IH.

[RememberSchiff]

Back in the 60's...our Neighborhood Commissioner (weren't called District Commissioner yet) would monitor the program quality. How did anyone know that your troop was running a scout program? Your unit Neighborhood Commissioner said so. A visit my him would entail:

 

- Inspection of facility using check sheet.

- Inspection of troops and adult leaders using uniform sheet

- Attendance check by patrol and he wanted to hear a patrol cheer.

- Inspection of troop records - membership, attendance, program schedule, advancement, and bank account(very important!).

- Talk with Troop Committee, COR, SM.

- Talk with scouts.

- Enthusiasm. He was a ball of energy. He was keen getting scouts to attend camporee, Klondike Derby, summer camp and Philmont. He would lead a song or two at the end of the meeting. Maybe challenge a patrol to do a skit - a new skit.

- World of Scouting. For me, he was a link to the wider world of scouting beyond my troop. He was my contact for Philmont and CIT.

- Experience. He had it, more than our adult leaders. Lead by example.

- Handout of any council/district info. I can't remember if our district had Round Table and maybe that's a big difference like doctors making house calls (which was still true then too). Our Neighborhood Commissioner came to us, we knew him. At the end of the meeting, he gathered us for a little campfire - talked about scouting values and how we are doing. He would give us our total inspection score (complete with drama) and advice like this gem - "I want to see more scout handbooks ...OPEN scout handbooks". Our Scoutmaster minutes usually improved in subsequent meetings.

 

He would do this twice a year - Oct/Nov after new scouts joined and in Feb usually around Scout Week, at which time we were expected to have "improved" over the Oct/Nov inspection.

 

The carrot was simply a flag ribbon and pride. My troop was average - some years we earned the ribbon some years not or we earned some minor consolation ribbon. The stick, good question? Maybe re-charter was made more interesting for an under-performing troop.

 

Don't see this today.

 

[Eamonn]

As ever I could be way off base.

Still it sometimes seems to me that a lot of people would be happy if they or maybe somebody else?? Were accountable to someone or if there were some consequence for not doing things by the book.

This might of course be what OGE is getting at in the Thread "No Uniform Required"?

Some seem to think or want the BSA to have a policy on anything and everything!!

I do think or like to think that I know what we have in place now and how it is supposed to work.

I really disagree about the " The local BSA professional" I might agree with a SE but I think most DE's don't know that much. (Yes there are exceptions to every rule, but the turn over of DE's in some Councils is just too great.)

Beavah,

I'm not sure who you mean when you say:

" whoever is ready to accept legal and financial responsibility"

Could you explain?

Maybe I need to eat a little more fish!!

Ea.

 

 

[AvidSM]

It's all on the honor system. The BSA make everything look offical enough and hopes that people will follow it. The problem is there are some that stay in the program long enough to begin to see faults in the BSA's rules and regulations. They think to themselves, "if the BSA is wrong here, perhaps they are wrong over there too".

 

There is nothing wrong with using one's experience to make sensible changes to the program. There is a limit to how far you SHOULD go, but there is no limit to how far you CAN go.

[Beavah]

I'm not sure who you mean when you say:

" whoever is ready to accept legal and financial responsibility"

Could you explain?

 

Yah, sure.

 

If you supervise or enforce, then under a doctrine of law known as respondeat superior you become responsible for the behavior (and negligence) of those whom you supervise. That's a very simple statement of a complex topic, of course.

 

But it is one of the major reasons why da BSA will never take up this role, eh? If they become the supervisor of units and unit leaders, then they risk becomin' legally responsible for 'em. Right now, the BSA is very deliberately just a resource provider - provide materials, and training, and camping facilities and insurance to the CO's. Yeh don't assume much responsibility when you just provide resources.

 

This is a very intelligent legal risk management position on the BSA's part, and a smart business decision to boot. Yeh can allow a unit/CO or a council go go into bankruptcy from a judgment that exceeds your insurance cover instead of havin' to sell Philmont. If the Catholic Church had a similar model, it would have saved 'em hundreds of millions of dollars by now. Plus supervision/enforcement takes a much, much higher commitment of resources than just providin' materials and training. It's way too expensive, so it's never been part of the business model. In fact, if there's a trend, da BSA is goin' the other way - toward more "pure" resource provision like LFL with the sale of camps in some areas, and the broader resource approach of Venturing.

 

B