Jump to content
fred johnson

Council too tightly managing communication - Venting

Recommended Posts

My concern is one of privacy. Not all parents meet the requirements for membership.  I would not want to draw attention to the fact that a scout's parent is not eligible to be a scout leader. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David CO said:

My concern is one of privacy. Not all parents meet the requirements for membership.  I would not want to draw attention to the fact that a scout's parent is not eligible to be a scout leader. 

 

 

Come on now, having those bank robbers and other miscreants around the campfire will up the bar on conversation.  "So Mr Smith, how easy was it to evade the FBI?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, David CO said:

My concern is one of privacy. Not all parents meet the requirements for membership.  I would not want to draw attention to the fact that a scout's parent is not eligible to be a scout leader. 

 

 

Yet you want them around your campfire? Driving your kids? Not me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye all, 

There's a principle I think we're missing here, the principle of charity. The less used definition of charity is: "kindness and tolerance in judging others."

Taking @David CO's comment:

30 minutes ago, David CO said:

My concern is one of privacy. Not all parents meet the requirements for membership.  I would not want to draw attention to the fact that a scout's parent is not eligible to be a scout leader. 

 

 

If I'm being charitable, I try to read his comment with the best intentions possible. He isn't saying, "I want every parent to be eligible, from drug runners to bank robbers," vs  He's saying "Boys talk, so it's not a great idea for the information of 'Who's eligible vs who's not" to go further than the CO Rep, IH head, CC, and SM. " That information spreading can be embarrassing for a family and that Scout. The other boys may treat that scout differently because something his parents did. 

I know in my troop whatever goes on in the Committee is basically an open secret to the boys. Case in point or SM transition. Scoutmaster announced to the Committee in June he was stepping down in 2018, and was waiting till December to tell the Scouts. Probably 2/3rds of them already knew, because some folk(s) on the committee cannot keep their mouth shut. That's not anything close to the seriousness of loose lips talking about so and so's record. 

Not to call out @Col. Flagg specifically. It's been something I've been thinking about on the forum for a while, and I know I've done it to folks in the past and we all see it quite a bit here. I think us not trying our best to be charitable with other people's posts causes some needless arguments that we can avoid by assuming the best intentions in our fellow Scouters. 

I know I fail to meet that standard often,  but that's honestly something I'm striving for if for no other reason than to treat people better and keep my blood pressure down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Not to call out @Col. Flagg specifically. It's been something I've been thinking about on the forum for a while, and I know I've done it to folks in the past and we all see it quite a bit here. I think us not trying our best to be charitable with other people's posts causes some needless arguments that we can avoid by assuming the best intentions in our fellow Scouters. 

I know I fail to meet that standard often,  but that's honestly something I'm striving for if for no other reason than to treat people better and keep my blood pressure down. 

You know, when a mod implies my program is adult run by virtue of one of my posts, then when called out on it does not back down but doubles down with the "agree to disagree" phrase, posts like this above are a bit absurd. You can't "not call out" someone and then literally call them out. How about @RememberSchiff and his antics? Really. At least @NJCubScouter fessed up getting off topic yesterday despite all you guys chidding us whenever we sway a bit (or, realistically, a lot).

If you are "not going to call out" people and hold folks to a "charitable" standard, then let's please do so for EVERYONE! Moderators included. And please don't delete this post with the excuse of "problems with mods should be sent to Terry". If you are going to call out people IN PUBLIC then the RESPONSE should be PUBLIC too!!!

Let's be fair...to everyone!

Edited by Col. Flagg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

You know, when a mod implies my program is adult run by virtue of one of my posts, then when called out on it does not back down but doubles down with the "agree to disagree" phrase, posts like this above are a bit absurd. You can't "not call out" someone and then literally call them out. How about @RememberSchiff and his antics? Really. At least @NJCubScouter fessed up getting off topic yesterday despite all you guys chidding us whenever we sway a bit (or, realistically, a lot).

If you are "not going to call out" people and hold folks to a "charitable" standard, then let's please do so for EVERYONE! Moderators included. And please don't delete this post with the excuse of "problems with mods should be sent to Terry". If you are going to call out people IN PUBLIC then the RESPONSE should be PUBLIC too!!!

Let's be fair...to everyone!

I'm glad you brought up that post. It actually demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. Assuming that a troop that has a large number of adults registered is not a youth lead troop is not being charitable. I could definitely call out more people than @RememberSchiff for acting like the way their troop does things is the only way to do things. It may true in RememberSchiff's Troop, but that doesn't make it universally true, as @Col. Flaggs troop may demonstrate. (Not that'd I'd know since I have never visited your Troop!) 

We all take pride in the service we provide to our Scouts and scout families and the time and effort we've put into Scouting and it definitely hurts if somebody says we're doing things wrong, or have bad intentions or any other ways of putting down other Scouters efforts or units. 

I'm not holding anybody to that standard. It's an aspiration I'd like to see here, but I'm not going to enforce it via moderation, because frankly, I don't care enough and I don't have the time. I do think it would cut down on arguments people are having. If I've offended you by using your post as an example, I'd be happy to take it out, but I think my broader point stands regardless. I tagged you in it because I figured there was no way around it since I was referencing your post. It would either be implied and look passive aggressive, or I can confront the reality of it and still look passive aggressive. If I just made a general post and didn't reference something specific I think most folks would be like "What the heck is he talking about?"

 

Edited by Sentinel947

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 11:54 AM, Col. Flagg said:

Can't?

I am the SM of the girls troop. You are the SM of the boys troop. We are going camping but neither of us have critical mass to go unless we go together (2-deep, # of adults, cars, etc.). *BOOM* you now have two units camping together. If mom or dad want to go along exactly how many troops are going to say no?

We don't officially have family camping now, yet many troops do it. How is having gender-separate units going to stop anyone from doing family camping?

You are right, but missed the point.  We've all identified that same work around. 

The issue is BSA is marketing a contradiction.  BSA is promoting "family" scouting, but hinted at single gender troops.  That design would be inherently a contradiction, an oxymoron and no different than today but with girl troops.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Yet you want them around your campfire? Driving your kids? Not me.

In one case I know of, yes I would trust him with my son. I was in a unit that had a dad who did something really stupid 20 years prior when he was 18. He learned his lesson, and was a model citizen since. He was willing to do anything and everything to help out to make sure his son didn't do anything stupid like he did. When we got desperate for a leader and was asked, he was up front and honest about it. We told him to try anyway. He was rejected. While he can not register as a volunteer, no one can stop him form being around his son.

Here's the crazy thing. Even though he cannot register as a volunteer, he has done YPT, and everything else needed to be "trained." Yes he has done SM specific and ITOLS, so that he has an understanding of Scouting, and keep his son on the right path.

 

Yes, every situation is different. And I was skeptical when I first found out, but realized what he had accomplished since his mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess according to BSA there's no such thing as paying one's debt to society.  I know a lot of great people who did stupid things early in their lives that have done much, even more than normal, to make up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Yet you want them around your campfire? Driving your kids? Not me.

I think that would depend on why they are ineligible. If it is because they don't believe in God, then yes, I would let them sit at my camp fire and drive my kids. I wouldn't let them be a scout leader, though.

My concern with creating an expectation that all parents register as leaders is that it draws unnecessary and unwanted attention/speculation/gossip to the parents who are not eligible to be leaders. People will sometimes assume the worse. I don't want that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David CO said:

I think that would depend on why they are ineligible. If it is because they don't believe in God, then yes, I would let them sit at my camp fire and drive my kids. I wouldn't let them be a scout leader, though.

My concern with creating an expectation that all parents register as leaders is that it draws unnecessary and unwanted attention/speculation/gossip to the parents who are not eligible to be leaders. People will sometimes assume the worse. I don't want that.

 

My best friend’s dad had a minor conviction as a college student. He was always very open about it and was turned down by bsa to be a leader or even parent. Still he worked in the background doing so much for our troop. He repaired the trailer and many other things. He always put it out there to us “don’t make my mistake” and everyone respected him for it. He wasn’t embarrassed nor was his son. My dad still let me hang at his house. I think you can have a policy like Col Flagg says and still allow people to keep their dignity. It’s all how you handle it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×