CynicalScouter

12 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Beyond that though, we are friendly toward our fellow scouters.

Very well said. Open hostility and being "not very cordial" is no way to run a unit or to treat another human being. And despite what some in this forum may think, district/council/national leaders are human beings. I don't think Roger Mosby has horns, fangs, and a tail.

Not even offering a cup of coffee (assuming made, of course) is just rude.

A scout (and scouter) are Friendly, Courteous and Kind.

10 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

There are lots of reasons for a unit to want to be more insular. I'd always gathered @David CO's comments were more focused at district/council/national Scouters who they wanted nothing to do with. 

Yes. Hate and bigotry come to mind. And it is NOT just district/council/national Scouters who they wanted nothing to do with

21 hours ago, David CO said:

It's true that we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  It is also true that we don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts.

I just want you to leave us alone.  

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

The question is why would anyone not welcome people from the same organization to see what they are doing.  That's a red flag for a group that is going a different direction and perhaps a direction that contradicts fundamental assumptions / directions/ guidance.

Or as Louis Brandeis put it

Quote

Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

and

Quote

If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.

30 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The question is why would anyone not welcome people from the same organization to see what they are doing.  That's a red flag for a group that is going a different direction and perhaps a direction that contradicts fundamental assumptions / directions/ guidance.

YPT/Guide to Safe Scouting prohibits such secret groups.

Quote

Program Requirements

The BSA does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program.

And this as well.

Quote

No secret organizations. The Boy Scouts of America does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders.

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

  That's a red flag for a group that is going a different direction and perhaps a direction that contradicts fundamental assumptions / directions/ guidance..

Or that knowingly contradictions the rules of the organization.

1) The Adult Application

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

2) The Scouter Code of Conduct

Quote

I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training,

3) The Charter Organization Agreement

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to...Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies.

28 minutes ago, David CO said:

It is the same at their public school, Hooligan Jr. High.  They don't think constantly disrupting class is misbehavior.  They don't think they're badly behaved.  Their parents don't think they're badly behaved.  This is the expected behavior at Hooligan Jr. High.  It is a part of the school culture.

Stereotype much?

Most of the young men in my unit are public school educated. They are disciplined, intelligent, and compassionate.

Sorry that not all of us can afford Catholic School.

Is this why you said

Quote

 

19 hours ago, David CO said:

It's true that we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  It is also true that we don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts.

I just want you to leave us alone.  

 

Because these young men can't afford catholic school?

12 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Ahem...let's focus our discussion here on interacting with fellow scouters including professionals who show up "in your house" (meeting place, campsite, activity) either suddenly or invited. Friendly visit, unwanted interruption? Unasked for advice or criticism? Too busy. Can't get past disagreements? Showing scouts how to get along?

So as @evmori might say, how about a warm slice of pie with your coffee. We are fresh out of sour apple, but we have pumpkin and blueberry. 

 

@MattR @John-in-KC

We have had it happen. I will tell you that we were not openly hostile, mean spirited, and yes we did offer them a cup of coffee.

My unit welcomes anyone and everyone. We have nothing to hide. We don't tell young people or adults "we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  We don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts. We just want you to leave us alone."

A scout if kind, courteous, and friendly.

So are scouters (or they should be).

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

 A member organization not welcoming leaders from the same organization is also a red flag.

Exactly. Could indicate that they know they are doing something wrong.

A well run unit should welcome scouts and scouters from other units.

But then again, see what @David CO had to say about that.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

It's true that we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  It is also true that we don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts.

I just want you to leave us alone.  

That simply scares me for the sake of the scouts in his unit.

14 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

I think we can find some middle ground here. The two deep thing should've followed a K.I.S.S. philosophy, but National did National things. 

National did what was legally necessary to protect itself and the program from future legal liability. If they did NOT make it as broad as possible, as expansive as possible, they were no doubt told they'd be open for lawsuits down the road.

And again, this is the difficulty in the language and perspective of the unit leader vs. National. From a unit leader's perspective, the rule may seem ASININE. From National's perspective, they may view it as ASININE BUT NECESSARY to ensure that the organization does not walk into another dozen lawsuits.

So, the choice was:

Create a YPT policy that was UNDERinclusive (from the perspective of National's lawyers) and wait for the lawsuits.

Create a YPT policy that was OVERinclusive (from a unit leader's perspective) but helped to shield scouting from liability.

National opted for the second choice to ensure the stability and longevity of the program overall/long-term and I get why they had to do it.

18 minutes ago, David CO said:

I may not welcome you, but I won't harm you.

That has to be the least Scouting thing I can think of.

That has to be the least Christian thing I can think of.

"You are not welcome here."

I mean just wow.

EDIT:

Quote

It's true that we don't want our kids to go to school with your kids.  It is also true that we don't want our scouts to go camping with your scouts. 

I just want you to leave us alone.

I cannot believe this level of bigotry. Just sheer outright, bigotry and hate.

Seriously, what kind of Scouting program are you running where you are telling/teaching scouts not to welcome people? That they should not want to go to school with "those" kids? Or go camping with "those" scouts? That other people should just "leave us alone."

I am now more worried than ever for ANY scout that is in range of you.

1 minute ago, David CO said:

It truly scares you?  OK.  I think that's a bit of an over-reaction on your part, but OK.

I think an "overreaction" is your original comment that

5 hours ago, David CO said:

On the rare occasion someone does show up, we aren't very cordial.  We don't even offer them a cup of coffee.

What kind of Scouting program is that openly hostile to anyone about anything? That acts and encourages such lack of hospitality?

That's simply rude not to mention unscoutlike (friendly, courteous, kind).

And if your CO was/is a Catholic parish I think you said, I'd say downright Unchristian.

15 minutes ago, David CO said:

Councils can pretend to own us, but they don't.

They don't. But they do enforce the rules. You may recall reading this on the adult application(s) you signed and certified you would comply with.

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

43 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Essentially, explicitly saying you sign kids up as BSA scouts, but then say you're independent scares the crap out of me....Unregistered leaders on camp outs?  Unapproved activities? 

Especially where it comes to Youth Protection and Guide to Safe Scouting. You want to quibble with too many/too few Eagle required merit badges? Sure. But outright hostility towards YPT?

I said it before, I'll say it again: I personally could never sign the adult application and by reference the Scouter Code of Conduct and affirm/certify that I will comply with BSA's rules knowing I had no intention on doing so.

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

BSA doesn't give us independence.  We are independent.  We always have been.  Independence isn't a gift from BSA.  BSA doesn't own the unit.

You (as an adult leader) or you (as a CO) enter into a written agreement to abide by BSA's rules. No one made you sign. No one made you agree to this. You are 100% independent to not agree to what BSA has to offer in terms of its rules.

Rather than just petty down-voting, can you explain how or why it is acceptable to agree to BSA's rules, in writing, knowing full well you have no intention to abide by them?

How is that "authentic" leadership?

1) The Adult Application

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

2) The Scouter Code of Conduct

Quote

I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training,

3) The Charter Organization Agreement

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to...Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies.

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

BSA doesn't own us.

True. But BSA sets the rules that you are to abide by and that you (as a registered adult leader) agreed to "comply" with, to "respect and abide" and (if you are a CO), conduct yourself/your program with.

EDIT: And @David CO you can continue to over and over again down vote when I point this out, but you have never, ever provided any substantive explanation (other than down votes) as to how you can sign/agree to these conditions knowing and intending to NOT "comply", "respect and abide" and/or "conduct" yourself/your program in open and direct contradiction to the BSA rules.

1) The Adult Application

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

2) The Scouter Code of Conduct

Quote

I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training,

3) The Charter Organization Agreement

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to...Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies.

10 minutes ago, David CO said:

On the rare occasion someone does show up, we aren't very cordial.  We don't even offer them a cup of coffee.

That's simply rude not to mention unscoutlike (friendly, courteous, kind).

And if your CO was/is a Catholic parish I think you said, I'd say downright Unchristian.

37 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Anybody else out there look into this closely and find something different??

No.

My son's unit had an SM that had checked out for years and finally replaced. The new SM came in 12 months before we arrived but you could tell the years of damage. The newer/younger scouts were in the position in some cases of teaching the older scouts because they had done things like knots and 4 steps to advancement for AOL rank. I listened to several conversations that consisted of older, theoretically senior scouts, saying things like "yeah, sounds right I think" and having to scramble to find things in their own Scoutbook.

For get EDGE, the crossover (or new) scouts were EDGE-methoding the older ones.

But the unit was cranking out Eagles left, right, and center.

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

That unit level Scouters think that national is continually putting membership & money ahead of program.  Decisions like the seemingly arbitrary changes to YPT rules.  The last minute hikes in fees.  That unit level Scouters feel pushed around by DEs and council volunteers. 

Ok, there's a second level you are picking at. Mine was macro (larger U.S. trends). Yours micro. But mine leads to yours.

The need to put membership & money ahead of program. The arbitrary changes to YPT. The last-minute fee hikes. Why do you think that is? The abuse cases + collapse in membership = financial stress + bankruptcy + the need for YPT changes (semi-constantly) in order to avoid any additional legal liability and prop up an organization that has seen massive membership declines.

BSA lost its authenticity. Its claim to moral clarity (remember calling someone a "boy scout" once mean squeaky clean and trustworthy, pure Americana) is gone. Its claim to financial goodwill in the form of donations is gone. It alienated the traditionalists and non-traditionalists.

BSA was built and developed for a post World War II era and relied on public trust and confidence in institutions of all sorts. Those are gone. Name a single institution that can garner majority support. The courts are the only one (and that's as a whole, poll the African American community how they view the institution of the courts). Military also still polls over 50%.

Check out Gallup.

Even if BSA was 100% "authentic", even if the abuse cases never happened, no COVID, nothing, the organization was going to collapse because it relies in an undercurrent (60s Americana and a devotion to country) that is gone. Add in the abuse cases, and you get what we have now. And the "gays and girls" drove out a lot of the "traditionalists."

Pushed around by DEs and council volunteers: First, some of this is baked in the cake of any organization that consists of more than 1 level. The higher level folks never, ever "get" those who are in the level(s) below. I'd lay odds complaints about "National doesn't get it" goes back at least to the 1970s Improved Scout Program. Second, see above. DEs and council volunteers are being told: boost your numbers and funding or your district/council dies. Funding and numbers are down, all around, in general (yes, there are bright spots). No one wants to get merged. So they press what buttons need to get pressed.

And there you have it. BSA has no authentic leadership, it is trying to tread water and stop the bleeding in order to get to something that looks like a stable membership and business model (and yes, I said business model). That doesn't mean Roger Mosby as an individual leader isn't authentic. Maybe he is. But he's coming into an organization where the cupboard is bare in terms of good will and faith.

What they need is Scouters who can say "I trust National is trying to do the best it can in a bad situation."

What they got, instead, is "What the heck is National doing?"

24 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Perhaps in a sense, the BSA leadership themselves are missing the point of authenticity in their own leadership style?

Let's go back to the original post.

Quote

Great leaders understand that their reputation for authenticity needs to be painstakingly earned and carefully managed.

BSA's reputation for authenticity got nuked with the abuse accusations and a American population that looks at Scouting as "hokey" and anachronistic. I'll take the second part first.

Scouting as hokey and anachronistic: Scouting did not move quickly to embrace changes in American culture (homosexuals, girls, etc.) On the contrary, it fought it tooth and nail, up to the U.S. Supreme Court no less in the Dale case. Thus by the time it did pivot, it had already lost any good will that might have been generated from it. Movements on homosexuals and girls were not looked at as positive actions to advance and expand scouting. They were looked as negative reactions of an organization that was floundering to stay relevant and alive. Or, put another way, the "authentic" position for BSA would have been

1) To have adopted these changes in the 1990s as a broader commitment to the America ideals

2) To have NOT adopted these changes at all and stuck to a diminishing, "pure" scouting experience

As it is, National's moves don't look authentic. They look like excuses.

The abuse accusations: National screwed up. Whether they were 10% responsible or 90% responsible, they were responsible to some degree. Rather than owning up to it quick, the went into denial mode. And there may have been good reasons (even admitting 1% fault was a bad LEGAL strategy, but would have been a better PUBLIC RELATIONS one).

And YPT is the same. Yes it is part to ensure youth protection. But it is ALSO to protect National, Councils, COs, and units from legal liability. They will never, ever say this quiet part out loud, however.

So National lost is credibility with everyone. The traditionalists hate the changes. The non-traditionalists look at it is as National dragged kicking and screaming and not doing it out of a change of heart but as a panic move.

It took decades to build up Scouting's authenticity and a decade to end it (or two if you go back to the Dale case in 2000 and want to count it from there).

4 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

@CynicalScouter, I think the High Horse you rode in on is ready to leave...

True. I think my point's been made.

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Authenticity and integrity are more a measure of principles, not the right or wrong of one decision or idealism.

Here here! I totally agree. Authenticity and integrity are key leadership ingredients. Absolutely.

That is why I look for leaders who do what they say they will do. For example, if they certify and affirm that they will "comply", "abide" and/or "conduct" themselves according to BSA rules, I darn will expect them to do so.

I stand for the principle that people should do what they say they will do.

Of course, staying true to your word/signature/affirmation seems to be out of fashion...

So, from the original post

On 10/3/2020 at 1:18 AM, fred8033 said:

People see authenticity as sincerity, honesty, and integrity....Ensure that your words are consistent with your deeds.  aka ... practice what you preach

3 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

Imagine being so cynical towards rhe BSA, you hate rules that are put in place that are meant to protect children.

Wild. 

But don't you know? You don't have to obey BSA rules even if you agree to them by signing up if they get in your way! Just do what you want, there's no rules other than what you/your CO wants. You don't have to "comply", "abide" and/or "conduct" yourself according to BSA rules because BSA National is bad!

You just run your scouting program the way YOU want. Who cares what National says?

/sarcasm

5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

I think so, as OBEDIENT is being misunderstood as an absolute...I would prefer VIGILANT replace it.

I agree with this. There's nuance in the moment.

What I disagree with is where adult leaders who have plenty of time to think about it, claim "authenticity", but then proceed to sign up for BSA and knowingly decided at the outset that they were not going to "comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA" or "abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training" or "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies."

26 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Obey?

Myself - I cringe when I hear terms like obey.

So, we amend the Scout Law

Quote

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Got it.

And to get back to "authenticity", I find a lack of "authenticity" in Scouters/Scout Leaders who sign and affirm statements that they will

• "comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA" or
• "abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training" or
• "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies"

(as it pertains to things like, I don't know, fundraising)

And then proceed to NOT comply, NOT abide, and NOT conduct themselves accordingly.

But I guess that's just me since it appears many (most?) here are perfectly OK with saying/signing/affirming knowing they will not in fact do so for "reasons".