Does National Care?

[Eagle92]

I hate top say it, but it depends. For some at national the spark is out, and its just a job. For others the spark is still there, but they are stuck with a bunch of bureaucrats. And others never had the spark to begin with.

[Venividi]

Sherminator,

I'm not sure that I agree with you. National needs to be concerned with a national program, that boys want to belong to, from a big picture perspective. If a particular boy is given an award that he didn't really earn, it doesn't affect the program too much.

 

At the unit level, scouters get to know eack boy as an individual. They (hopefully) learn what motivates him, and know when to encourage him, when to congratulate him, and yes, even tell him that he is not yet ready.

 

Same emphasis on providing a program to develop youth, but a different focus.

[sherminator505]

Venividi,

 

I follow your argument to the extent that National probably can't concern itself with whether or not every Tommy Tenderfoot has done everything he needed to to earn Second Class. But National does have some vested interest as they set the requirements for Second Class. Here we see a linkage between what National has prescribed and what happens at the unit level.

 

Compare that to National's approach to, say, training. Rather than maintaining a distinct training continuum for each program, everything funnels into a common W21C course. Now the question in my mind is "Does this training regime best support operations at the unit level?" Based on my own experiences and the feedback I've seen on these threads, I'd have to say no. Here we see a lack of linkage between what National has prescribed and what happens at the unit level.

 

Now the question becomes, how might a lack of linkage such as this be addressed? And the answer is, unfortunately, we don't know; that leads us to feel some of the frustration that the OP is expressing.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[The Blancmange]

 

Now the question becomes, how might a lack of linkage such as this be addressed? And the answer is, unfortunately, we don't know; that leads us to feel some of the frustration that the OP is expressing.

That hits the nail on the head. Many organizations survey their membership to find out what people are concerned about. One would this this would be particularly helpful in a organization that is as dependant on volunteers as is the BSA. We see anecdotal statements like "almost everyone wants it that way" "people would leave the organization if . . . " etc. Maybe it would be helpful to conduct such a survey. Maybe certain powers that be don't want to know the answers. Maybe they have done it but not publicized it. I certainly don't know.

There are a lot of good comments in this thread. I guess, originally, I was speaking to more "big picture" issues that aren't really going to come up in the context of a RT or district committee meeting. Even if I could, for example, get my council president to latch on to an issue, would he even have much voice in taking that issue higher? I suppose what I was really looking for was some more insight into how the BSA operates at its higher levels. (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

[Venividi]

Sherm,I see the point your getting to, and dont disagree.

[BadenP]

I think that Eagle92's assessment is the closest to the truth about National. Unless they can see a BIG influx of membership or money they really don't give a rat's ass about ANY ideas coming from the outside scouters in the field. So the less any unit or district depends on National to solve their problems the better off they will be.

[BSA24]

Also, you don't wear both the medal and a knot for something, like if you're an Eagle you don't wear both the Eagle Medal and the Eagle Knot, you pick one or the other.

 

You can wear the knot and the medal together. You can pin the medal right under the knot on the top seam of the left pocket. I assure you it will attach there nicely.

[Abel Magwitch]

I have to agree with BadenP.

[Maethros]

Having worked closely with several National folks at Jamboree, I think I can share a little insight: For the most part, the folks at National do care.

 

However, consider the number of volunteers we have, each having varied opinions on every aspect of program. If the National staff fielded opinions directly from volunteers, they would get nothing done because they would be continuously chasing their tails.

 

This is why we have the various National committees, made up of volunteers. It is these volunteers who you need to convince if you want changes made. Or if you really want to influence change, work your way onto one of the national committees.

 

 

[skeptic]

Having dealt with "gold tabs" at Jambo too, I would have to say that overall, they seem to have the good of the overall program at heart. That saying, I had encounters with two of them, one from OA, and one from National Supply, that did not give me confidence in their purpose; they sounded more like power trip individuals. Then, perhaps it only had to do with them "immediately" disagreeing with me about the point of discussion, such as they were. I was pretty much summarily shot down and then shouted, so to speak, down with indignation.

 

Hopefully, the two negative encounters were anomalies. Certainly my short meeting with Tico Perez was very positive.

 

Now, in relation to paid people, I really do not know on a National level; but local can often be very dicey at times, especially at the highest level.

[Beavah]

Hiya Maethros. Welcome to da forums!

 

The problem I see with da national committee structure and in fact all of da national structure is its level of insulation from da field. Most folks workin' district or council level have stopped working with kids in units themselves, eh? Some because it was time, some because they really weren't very good at it.

 

By the time they're movin' "up" to contribute to area or regional stuff or national committee work, they're pretty far away from the day to day life of da program (which they might not have been good at to start). And in order for most ordinary mortals to really push for change through da national committee structure, they need a lot of time and hudzpah, eh? Those committees are ridiculously large and diffuse. Plus, as we've seen with issue like lasertag "safety", a lot of da decisions really ignore the committees and are just taken by Irving staff during the document editing and promulgation process.

 

So the organizational structure is pretty insulated from da rank-and-file, and there's no incentives at the exec level to change that. Nuthin' in their evaluations or bonuses or other organizational structure to encourage anything more than a token effort.

 

It's an organizational structure problem, mostly.

 

Beavah

 

[emb021]

"This is why we have the various National committees, made up of volunteers. It is these volunteers who you need to convince if you want changes made. Or if you really want to influence change, work your way onto one of the national committees."

 

In most similiar organizations, the members of the org make up such committees and are the ones (under the direction of the elected leaders of the org) who make the decisions and such.

 

Sadly, in the BSA the professionals seem to run the show above the unit level, and too often the various committees above the council (and even some of the council & district ones) are very insiliar and cliquesh, making it very difficult for someone with drive and new ideas to get involved.

 

While what Beavah says is correct about SOME people on such committees (out of touch with youth, no long involved with units, etc), I can say from experience its not true of all.

 

 

 

[boomerscout]

let's get the Chief into an episode of Undercover Boss!

[Eamonn]

Does National Care?

I'm not sure.

I have served at on our Area Committee.

I was the youngest member on the committee, everyone else had me beat by at least ten years or more, in most cases a lot more. All the members seemed to be very well heeled and all were white males.

Most of the time at the meeting was spent grading the 13 Councils. Looking at Membership and finances, trying to ensure that the Councils met the standards set down by National.

There was a guy who reported on the OA. He spent most of the the reporting on which Lodges hadn't sent the paperwork for Quality Lodge in on time.

The only areas of program that were ever discussed was the selection of adult leaders for the World Jamboree and Wood Badge Training.

The meetings were about as interesting as watching paint dry.

Still to be fair.

As we all know the things that really matter happen at the unit level and a good many adults at the unit level see any involvement from outsiders as interference and some type of spying.

National was very slow to embrace modern technology but is doing a better job of communicating thanks to the web.

My problem with the way things seem to be set up is that stuff comes down from above which very few people have very much input, involvement or say about and then the members of Executive Boards and Area Committees are tasked with pleasing the powers that be.

Over the years I have met and worked with a few of the guys who work for National. These guys are all very nice and do present the stuff with great enthusiasms at times covering for National.

Friends who are SE's attend the Top Hat Conference. A few pals attend the National Conferences. Both of these meetings seem to be about passing on what has already been decided.

Every now and then we do here that some idea is being field tested in some areas. I've never been in a field test, but wonder if the test is about making the shoe fit or really looking to see if whatever it is really does work? Or is just a bad idea?

Eamonn

 

 

 

 

[Gary_Miller]

I think sometimes to to the level we are working at we lose prospective. The further we are from actually working with the boys the more the easier it is to forget why we are actually involved.

 

A personal example: I have always been for the boys. I've worked hard to make sure the boys needs come first. I bumped heads with lots of adults trying to ensure the boys are running the program.

 

While I have over the years served several time at the unit level and district level mostly at the same time. I currently serving at the district level as the Advancement Chairman and I'm not involved at the unit level (not by choice, LDS scouter).

 

I was complaining too my 19 yr son (OA Lodge Chief) about not getting any involvement from units on the district Advancement committee. And how coming up in February is the district MB pow-wow, and how I want the units involved in planning this event. I told my boy I was thinking about just canceling the event if I could not get any help from the units (adults).

 

My son asked me one simple question that that got me to think I was losing prospective.

 

He asked "Dad, what are you in the program for? Is it to help the boys or is it to get the dead beat leaders to do their responsibility? Who loses if you cancel the MB Pow-wow?

 

Nothing like a Youth to knock the train back on track.