Re: BSA Organiztion/National
Richard C. Ickler (icklerr@SOCA.COM)
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:23:18 -0700
At 02:36 PM 4/27/99 -0400, Anthony Mako wrote:
><Steven G. Tyler wrote>
<HUGE SNIP>
>works well. For the most part, the BSA HAS discovered email, they just
>want to maintain their traditional communication system so that THOSE
>WHO SERVE ARE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THOSE BEING SERVED!!!!
>
>The BSA would not be able to serve you or your Scouts any better with
>an email address than McDonalds would be able to serve you if you had
>to order everything through their corporate headquarters!
>
Up to this point, I disagreed with your position but I could understand the
logic. What possible comparison is there between a BSA email address and
ordering from McDonalds?
>YIS
>A. J. Mako, ajmako@nls.net , Scoutmaster Troop 381
>Home of the Unofficial Win95 Boy Scout Desktop Theme,
>http://members.aol.com/Scouts381/
>Old Portage District, Great Trail Council, BSA
>"I used to be an Eagle (C-7-97), but I'll always be an Eagle (1981)"
>
>
Maybe I'm too cynical but I often get the feeling the primary reason is
that the current system allows both sides a lot of lee-way to avoid
accountability. If National will not talk directly with local volunteers
and hides it's basic governing documents, Councils get away with a lot of
"it's National policy (which you are not allowed to see)". By the same
token, National gets away with a lot of "go see your Council" when it wants
to avoid dealing with an issue. One of my few complaints about BSA is its
absolute paranoia about information getting into the wrong hands or through
the wrong channels.
To a certain extent it is an apples and oranges comparison but I still look
at the churches, particularly the Protestant denominations. They have been
very active in promoting individual contact with the national staff via
electronic media including establishing their own on-line service (ECUNET)
and web pages. I really have never seen the issues which BSA seems to be
so scared of raised by the churches. I happen to be an active and lifelong
Presbyterian (PCUSA). There are a lot of differences in organization but
in the Presbyterian system there is a lot of similarity in independence and
accountability between Congregation-Troop (Chartered Organization),
Presybtery-Council and General Assembly (National Office)-BSA National. In
the Presbyterian Church I can go to Louisville (by e-mail even!!) and ask
for any document and reasonably expect to get it (unless it is closed for
legal reasons such as personnel performance reviews and such). In BSA I
cannot ask to see a copy of the basic Rules and Regulations with any hope
of actually being allowed to see it unless I happen to stumble upon the
right person who actually has a copy and is not afraid to get in trouble by
letting me see it. Judging by the discussions on this list, I doubt if I
could ask to see a copy of the org chart with names and get it. In the
church proposed changes are widely disseminated and input solicited if only
because substantive changes have to be approved by a legislative vote at
several levels. In BSA, most proposed changes are only disseminated to
select Council Scout Executives and quietly test marketed in select areas.
When changes are made, they are only issued to Council professionals who
then can choose to ignore them and wait for people to hear about them
through the grapevine or maybe several months later in Scouting Magazine if
they aren't enthusiastic about them.
As I said before, there are a lot of differences between the two types of
organization and the resources available. However, I think it is a valid
comparison in basic philosophy between two organizations which are
volunteer driven. In BSA, you have an organization which feels VERY
threatened by communication which isn't through tightly controlled
channels. BSA will only provide one-way communication which it feels is
innocuous enough for public consumption. Many of the churches believe in
open communication among all levels even going as far as establishing
online systems open to anyone. It's like BSA not just monitoring groups
like Scouts-L or the US Scouting Project, but officially sanctioning them
and providing the computers to host them and the staff resources to support
them. Even (GASP) trusting professional staff to respond in an official
capacity without fear of retribution.
It's just my $.02 but I am often appalled by BSA's paranoia about
communication. I've seen too many cases where it ends up generating a lot
of confusion, misinformation, and anger which could be avoided by timely
and free dissemination of information. Despite the defenders position, I
think that BSA's system of communication has NOT served it well and
desperately needs changing.
Richard Ickler
Troop 14, Asst. Scoutmaster
Long Beach Area Council (CA)
