johnponz

Awww Q this is where we disagree and our arguments will not reconcile. The "shareholders" of BSA are the chartered organizations not the volunteers.

National exists to service and represent the chartered organizations not the volunteers. Most of the volunteers do not even have formal ties to National, they work for the individual units or individual chartered organizations.

BSA is a non-profit organization and operates as such. For some reason everyone thinks of it more like a government that represents all of the people.

As I said in a previous post, looking at the BSA as a government is not the right way, and to look it rules, regulation and policies as laws is also comparing apples to oranges. The closer analogy is a business one. When the Board speaks, and it comes through a company's president in general the rest of the employees fall into line, and for the ones who don't fall into line, they leave. It is the reality of working in a corporate environment.

The BSA is organized in such a way. However, it is much harder to ask someone to leave because the "employees" for the most part are volunteers so instead of the above, you hear a bunch of grumbling how National does not know what they are talking about, and a refusal to follow the plainest of rules.

The one that started this thread is the simplest of rules with plain language, and a clear purpose. The rule is Commissioners must not be registered as Unit Leaders (paraphrased but close enough for discussion). This rule makes sense and has a dual purpose:

1. Allows people to concentrate on their primary job in Scouting (especially important for Unit leaders). In my role one of the biggest problems I see is that people stretch themselves too much and do not do any of their jobs well. Are there exceptions yes, but as with HR policy in the "real" world, a corporation writes policy for the masses not for the exceptions.

2. Prevents conflicts of interest. Previously I described one way this may happen

In a corporation, employees may grumble they do not like the policy, but in the end they would fall in line. In BSA everyone rationalizes why the rule does not make sense, and then basically ignores the mandate.

It is true that some of our rules say may and should, etc. This is explained really well in the new Guide to Advancement. However the language of the Commissioner holding one position rule is clear and has a purpose. I did some research and it appears that this particular mandate has been around for a long time, so it is not new and something the current leadership dreamt up.

Am I a little bit of an idealist when it comes to Scouting...Guilty as charged. I see Scouting through rose colored glasses because of the great experience I had as a youth, and I am trying my best to help the youth have the same experience. I want to continue seeing Scouting in the best life and assuming that those guiding the movement are doing the right thing.

The Executive Board are volunteers too, not paid.

I am very excited. I will be attending WB weekend 1 this coming weekend starting Friday, August 24.

I explained this in a previous thread but will do it here again. The National Executive Board really does not represent the interests of the volunteers. Their job is to represent the interests of the Chartered Organizations. Think of the Chartered Organizations as stockholders and the Executive Board as the Board of Directors in a for profit corporation, the more units that a chartered organization charters the greater their influence.

This is why CORs get votes at the Council Executive Board level. They are the group that really controls things within BSA, and the Executive Board represents their interests. The CSE works for the Executive Board so through the Board he works for the chartered organizations as well. The misconception Scouters make is that the BSA is somehow a quasi-government organization. It is not. It is a non-profit organization and functions as such.

If you volunteer as a Commissioner part of your "job" is to support the decisions of the BSA Corporation and your council so in as way you represent the chartered organizations as well. Volunteers of a non-profit are employees that do not get paid. I am sorry to break it to you, but no one at National represents you or should they.

The ultimate customers (consumers in BSA language) are the parents and the Scouts. They get a "vote" only in the sense that they can choose to participate or not. They do not get a vote and no one at National represents them. Again think of a corporation. If you do not own stock, you do not get a vote even if you shop at a corporation's store every day and are their best customer. No stock, no vote, same as our National organization.

For me this is a true big picture philosophical issue. It comes down to does the ends justify the means. My answer is no. For me it is the process that "builds character" not the results. This is particularly important when working with youth whose characters are still developing. By picking and choosing which rules to follow, you are saying that you as an individual know more than the BSA as a group. This is often manifested by comments such as "they" do not know what "they" are doing. Guess what by choosing to belong to the organization, "they" are "us" if BSA is to have any meaning. "They" have been duly chosen by the organization to set the rules and standards that tell the rest of us what to do. One Council, one council, or one Scouter or Scout should not purposely supplant the rules for their own good. Process matters. For example, is it ok for a football coach to break the rules and commit a foul to get a tactical advantage? I say no, this is not ok, breaking the rules to get a favorable outcome is not a desirable outcome.

All of this being said, SP, I believe it is perfectly ok for someone in a position to help out by being involved in a "special project" that may be outside the scope of their usual position. I believe a lot of what you describe is really these sorts of ad hoc projects which are ok. For example, supporting one troop as a UC is way different than juggling 3 or 4 as my UCs do.

As I said before I have 4 units, and I attend a multitude of District Meeting. This is hard and I am sure I could not be a Unit Leader and do this. I do not know how to be a good Unit Leader without performing all of the jobs listed on the JD. It is a hard job, and should not be shared with another hard job. Then there are conflict of interest issues. As a Unit Leader you are beholden to the chartering organization. As a Commissioner, you are beholden to the Council and BSA. Even in dealing with other units, I can see where there might be a conflict. For example, maybe you would gently guide the unit leader of a Cub pack to send the best of his pack to your unit rather than a Troop's sister Pack (same chartering org.). This would be in your unit's best interest but not the Council or BSA. There are real life examples of such things, but as a Commissioner I do not share my units dirty laundry.

To sum up if you believe results are more important than process, and if you believe that you as an individual know more than the collective wisdom of the organization than go ahead and pick and choose which rules you think you should follow. For me, I will try to always take what I perceive to be the high road even if it is a little bit rockier and longer.

I am not going to file a complaint nor do I want to. I really do not operatew like that. However, I do believe National puts these rules into place for a reason, and I encourage my Units to follow the rules so I do so as well. We have problems recruiting Commissioners just like everyone else but still choose to follow the rules. We want to make a good example for our Units and Youth. When I am talking to Unit leaders about getting their Charters in on time because that is what we need them to do, they know that I am coming from the high ground.

I am probably going to be the DC next year, and the District will continue to operate in this manner.

This is the definition of an Ordinary

"In those hierarchically organised churches of Western Christianity which have an ecclesiastical law system, an ordinary is an officer of the church who by reason of office has ordinary power to execute the church's laws."

Again if district and council scouters will not follow the rules who will? Believe it or not part of a commissioner's job is supporting these rules and policies.(This message has been edited by Johnponz)

"Rarely is the Pastor the final say in a Church. There are usually governing boards that have the ultimate authority, including firing the Pastor."

This is not true in the Roman Catholic Church. You have to go to the local ordinary (Bishop) to overrule the Pastor. Good luck with that!(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I can't believe it, but I actually agree 100% with BadenP

Again, the rule is clear a Commissioner (any Commissioner) must not be a Unit Leader. This is in the Fieldbook of Commissioner Service and you can follow this link to verify it. http://scouting.org/scoutsource/Commissioners.aspx To quote, "Commissioners must not be registered simultaneously as unit leaders. Some commissioners may be registered on a unit committee because they have a son in the unit or because of previous personal history in the unit, but their principle Scouting obligation should be with commissioner responsibilities. Commissioners may be currently registered in only one commissioner position."

Any justification that it is somehow unfair is a rationalization. The language is quite clear.

I am a ADC and only have that position. My son is in Cubs, but I decided for various reasons that I could help the movement better as an ADC. If I ever want to be a Unit Leader, I will give up my Commissioner role. With how busy I am, district level meeting almost every night, and I directly service 4 units, I cannot imagine someone giving this role or any Commmissioner role the attention that the role deserves if you split the time as a Unit leader.

The language in the Field Manual for Commissioners (see above) is unambiguous in this regard. The language used is "must not." This is about as clear as it gets. Later on in the Field Manual, "Unit Leader" is defined as the Unit Leader and the various leaders that assists him/her, e.g. ASM, ACM, DL, etc. (this is paraphrased). The only leaders not excluded from a Commissioner position is a MC or a CC. Otherwise, it is a "stand alone" position as it probably should be.

Some Councils and Districts choose not to follow the rules, and, frankly, shame on them. How can they expect individual units and Scouters to follow any rules when the Council and District do not follow them?

Double post. The forum has been acting weird lately(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Consistency of thought is important as it helps to avoid the hypocrite label which to me is about as bad as it gets, but we do all have our own value systems.

double post(This message has been edited by johnponz)

The uniform guide exists for a reason, and I believe we should try to follow it. That being said if someone knows the rules and chooses to break them, not much we can do. Scouts are required to be obedient by the Scout Law but there is no punishment if you're not. It is just a matter of honor.

However that should not stop someone from going up to a person and letting them know what the rules are (my assumption is that they do not know the rule if they are breaking it, and I just want to inform them so they can fix it if they want to. This is being courteous, kind and friendly). In the instant case someone specifically asked what the rule was and it was answered, why all the consternation that someone knew the rule and was friendly enough to answer?

I have to chuckle at BSA 24's comments though because I do not understand how in other threads he is so adamant that Scouts must wear the official pants (I agree with this by the way). I guess someone appointed him to be the authority of which parts of the uniform guide were required and which were optional.

This thread about the BSA President eliminating the ban on gays really took a wrong left turn somewhere.

SP,

For some reason I think you got me all wrong. I am actually a fairly religious person, but I understand that you cannot rationally explain a belief in something that you cannot see or measure. You simply have to BELIEVE, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having faith. It has gotten me through some really tough patches in my life, and I am certain that there is a God.

I was just trying to explain how BSA is organized and why I think that the organization is unlikely to change its collective mind anytime soon. I really think a lot of people associated with Scouting believe that national is some sort of government or democracy when it is not. People think that the National organization is incompetent. However when you look at it from the standpoint of how corporate governance works, you start to realize, they pretty much act like any other business or non-profit.

That was my only real point.

Not that it really matters, but I happen to agree with BSA's policy, but that is really not the information that I was trying to convey.

I would never quote Rush Limbaugh in a conversation like this . He is hardly an expert in anything. However, your comment makes me chuckle a little as it brings us full circle to the point that made people a little crazy. If you do not like the policy, leave. This is probably the single best thing you can do if you really want to "force" the organization to change. I am really not for sure where BSA gets most of its money from though. I have a feeling most of it comes from corporate sponsors so leaving may not have as much of a financial impact as you believe. Additionally, we do not know how many people would quit if the membership policy was changed. I have a feeling that it is a wash at best.

Beavah has pretty much confirmed what I said in my previous posts. The entities with the power to make this change are the chartering organizations as they are the ones with the votes at the annual BSA meeting and even at the annual meeting of the individual Councils. If these chartering organizations want to change the policy it will change. If they do not want to change it, it won't.

Most of these organizations are religious organizations that BELIEVE that the policy is the morally correct one. In a religious organization that BELIEF is more important than any rationalization anyone can make. Rational arguments just do not sway religious people when it comes to faith. Because in a religious organization faith trumps rational thought. These organizations will not change, and thus more than likely BSA will not change.

You can have as many corporate people on the Executive Board that you want whose organizations have inclusive policies. When it comes to being on the BSA Board and representing the BSA shareholders (read chartering organizations), they will reflect the wants of those organizations.

As rank and file members (consumers), you can complain as much as you want, and it will not change the way the BSA operates. By the way, if you want to make a change from within, how do you do that? Who do you complain to? I guarantee you complaining on an internet board will have 0 effect. I guess you could go to the Council Executive Board meeting, but getting the topic on the agenda might be difficult.

We are back to the comment, if you do not like it leave...This is probably the only possible way to force BSA to change, but, alas, this too will probably have little effect.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

BadenP,

I believe we basically agree as to process. You are right that the Executive Board must use National's list which is what I meant in my post by the word "certify."

However, I believe the answer by the SE as to who he works for would depend on the SE. Ours is adamant that he works for the Council, and I will bet that North Star's SE would say the same thing.

I really do not want to get into it with Baden P. However, I was just involved in the process as a volunteer, and the Council Executive Board hires the SE who is a Council employee. You do have to hire someone from a list that national provides, and the person's boss on the professional side is the Area Director (this is what the corporate world would call a matrix reporting relationship-the SE has 2 bosses).

The SE reports to the Council President and the Executive Board of the Council (on the local side).

This is spelled out on the following two websites from 2 different councils-it is the best documentation that I can find.

http://www.scoutingalaska.org/Council/Leadership/CouncilStaff

http://www.yocona.org/openrosters/viewaboutorg.asp?orgkey=2096

Both of these sites verify that the Executive Board "hires" the SE. Whoever hires you is your employer.

BSA professional employment is complicated though, and I believe it is safe to say that they work for 2 masters which is never easy.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

The SE is a Council employee, but National "certifies" the individuals who are eligible for this position so I suppose they could take away that certification, and a new SE would have to be found.

They also can hold the charter over the Council's head. National could say that the Council cannot recharter as long as the current SE is there. Finally, National could just refuse to recharter the Council which means no insurance, no advancement, etc.

They could also "Black ball" the current employees in that Council so they could work in no other Council in professional positions.

National has many types of "strong-arm" methods if they want to use them. I guess the more important question is why should a corporate parent allow one of its chartered entities to break a national policy that it (National) has set? It seems to me that National is within its rights and probably has the responsibility to bring this rogue entity into line.

In the business world, who votes and has the say at annual meetings of stockholders? Of course, it is the stockholder. The "ultimate customer" does not get a vote. If you do not own stock, it does not matter that you are a customer of Comcast and have TV, phone and internet service through them. Same with BSA, the ultimate customer does not get a vote at these meetings.

There is a difference between Comcast and BSA though. BSA (I believe-I do not know the numbers for sure) gets the bulk of their funding through corporate sponsors. The sponsors get a tax break for the donation.

In the end BSA's Executive Board acts like a Board of Directors that serves the interests of the stockholders who in this case are the chartered organizations. When viewed this way the actions of National make a lot more sense than viewing them as some quasi-National government which they are not.

"That's really the crux of the matter, Beav. The BSA is not your club. It's not my club. It's an organization for the youth we serve."

The above statement is not really true. The Chartering Organizations are the real customers and "shareholders [think stock]" of National. The "Ultimate Customer" is the youth membership, but National's direct customer is the Chartering Organization. There is no doubt in this fact. National, Region, Area, Council and District are all there to support the Chartered Organizations. These Chartering Organizations are the entities who really run the BSA, and the National Board speaks on their behalf. It is these individuals who have the votes at the Annual Meeting if they really want to change the policy (any BSA policy).

Guess what, for whatever reason the Chartering Organizations do not want to change. More than likely, the reason is they view that allowing gays into the organization violates the principles of their organizations. Who are some of the biggest of these, LDS (Later Day Saints), the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church? These organizations probably do not want to let gays into the BSA.

The National President, CSE and others are simply reflecting the wants of the Chartering Organizations (think corporate governance-not governance of the masses). Guess what the Chartering Organizations probably do not want the added headache of setting this membership standard. It is probably better for them if they can point to a National policy rather than defend a local position. It is nice when Corporate takes the heat off a little.

The individual Unit Leaders and Scouts do not get a vote here. Why because they are not stock holders (as in a business). To reiterate National does not represent the individual Scouts or leaders but rather the interests of its stock holders (chartering organizations).

Scouting is not a quasi-government or a quasi-democracy but rather a non-profit business entity with an Executive Board that reflects the wants of its Chartering Organizations. Sometimes those of us in the field forget that point.

To change National's viewpoint, you would need to change the viewpoint of the chartering organizations. Considering who those are, and their religious beliefs, I wish you all good luck with that.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)