Good Program and Bad Program

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ah, the fascination of the American Anti-Hero, either JR Ewing or Gordon Gekko in the 80's and many others, but how does this square with to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law?

 

[Beavah 205]

what one holds sacrosanct was not important, how to help a unit was more important. But you have hit what I meant. If a CO wants to reward effort and "trying" and wants their Troop members to feel success, what if they said, you earn 18 merit badges and we will spot you the other two?

 

Yah, you and Hunt "get" each other, OGE. But I'm still mystified by the need to create these straw man hypotheticals to satisfy the urge to call something "wrong." I think you're gettin' to a weird answer because you're asking weird questions.

 

Start for a moment with the premise that our role is to be of service, and the question "How can I help?" I think dat's what folks who post to the forum are lookin' for, eh? Help. Service. Friendly ideas. In most cases, quotin' a rule at people (and perhaps decrying their actions) really isn't helpful, eh?

 

Now Troop 2 comes along, and they have a very active program with a near perfect safety record. But they don't own a copy of G2SS, or it sits on a shelf somewhere (like most troops, eh?). One of 'em remembers flippin' through it once and laughing. But the SM is a former professional whitewater guide and instructor, and the Venture Patrol ASM is an AMGA certified climber and mountaineer. A second ASM is a teacher and part-time instructor for Outward Bound. (I don't actually remember what each was anymore, but this isn't far off the mark; I think somebody on the committee did legal work in Risk Management).

 

If yeh ask "How can I be of service?" you look at their program and say "Wow. This is the tightest safety I've ever seen in a troop." And then you move on to other things. If I recall, that troop really needed some help planning for a few years down the road when some of those key adults might be leavin'.

 

But safety wasn't worth spendin' time on. They had that wired, G2SS or no. Yeh see, Safety is the principle, G2SS is one possible mechanism to get there (and a relatively poor one at that). If they succeed at the principle, dat's enough, eh?

 

Close as I can figure, some would be waivin' G2SS at 'em and sayin' "Not optional." A bit like an EMT-Basic tellin' the ER Doc how to handle a trauma case by quotin' field care protocols. Then sayin' something like "If we let him get away with it, then everyone will be insertin' chest tubes!" And it really does get silly to follow the Guide without engagin' your brain. I can't wait to tell George (our camp waterfront director) that he must install lights and firefighting equipment on all da Sunfish sailboats this year (G2SS Black-letter Boats guideline #6).

 

Yah, they're not a bad map and guide, eh? But G2SS and all the BSA materials are meant to be read while keepin' our eyes on the prize, and our mind on the road.

 

Followin' rules becomes a character defect when the rules don't serve the purpose for which they were intended, or fall short of a higher principle - Like not stayin' Mentally Awake, or unnecessarily infringing on creativity or freedom, or servin' as a mechanism for exercising a person's ego rather than their charity.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am not sure I ever understood what a strawman argument is, but I know its not a complement to me. I dont understand why you feel the need to get worked up at those who follow the rules, then again, its a big program and I wish you success as I dont see either of us changing out views anytime soon

[FScouter 24]

I'm not sure what it is that the "former professional whitewater guide" and the "AMGA certified climber and mountaineer" would be doing that would be contrary to the rules found in the Guide to Safe Scouting? They don't sound very professional if they can't follow a few simple safety rules.

 

I'd be very wary of any person that advocates tossing out program elements, policies, and safety procedures to be replaced by the personal ideas of any one individual. How arrogant for Joe Doitmyway to think he knows better that the collective wisdom of thousands of Scouters?

 

The best way to be helpful and to "be of service" is to provide leaders with the resources BSA provides.

[Hunt 11]

"In most cases, quotin' a rule at people (and perhaps decrying their actions) really isn't helpful, eh?"

 

I agree with the part about not decrying people, but I simply don't agree that quoting the rule isn't helpful. I have seen numerous examples on this very board of people who wanted to know and understand the rules, and others who needed to know them. As I've said repeatedly to persons who thought it was enough to quote the rule, it also helps to explain why the rule is important.

 

"But safety wasn't worth spendin' time on. They had that wired, G2SS or no. Yeh see, Safety is the principle, G2SS is one possible mechanism to get there (and a relatively poor one at that). If they succeed at the principle, dat's enough, eh?"

 

Well, no. While you may think their violation of BSA's blackletter safety rules was trivial (ie, playing lasertag), BSA wouldn't agree. It's one thing to impose more stringent safety rules, but to ignore non-optional safety rules reflects a lack of respect for the organization that I find unacceptable. Again, would you make the same argument if they felt they were following the "principle" of advancement but switching the required merit badges for Eagle?

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Speaking of straw man hypotheticals, just how many rule spouting scouters in your council trot around with a backpack full of BSA materials to lambast rule breaking scouters like a drill instructor?

 

Are there some anal retentive scouters out there who polish their tent stakes after a campout? Sure, but they are the exception to the rule. Call it tweaks or adaptations if you want, but scouting has always been a flexible program within a basic framework. I don't know any scouter who doesn't realize that. But, it IS a program with elements that are not (or are not supposed to be) negotiable.

 

I don't care how much backcountry training or experience troop 2's leaders have, they have an obligation to know and use G2SS principles over and above their personal experience. A scout is trustworthy. When those leaders sign the tour permit, they put a signature on a line that says, "I have in my possesion a copy of Guide to Safe Scouting, No. 34416D, and have read it." I suppose that since their experience far exceeds the G2SS they could further continue to tweak their program by not filing a tour permit when they take the boys out to play paintball for the weekend. But that is just another straw man argument I guess.

[Beavah 205]

Right. It's (most) important to follow the rule.

 

I understand that position, gentlemen. I just disagree is all. I think the principle is service and the kids, and that's what's important.

 

The fundamental assumption of a rules-centered/Stage 4 reasoning society is the one that keeps coming up in the examples used: "Other people are bad (or will do bad things). They must be regulated." But one can also proceed from a different assumption: "Other people are good, and must be respected and allowed freedom." One can look at Troop (1&) 2 and see bad things to be stopped. Or, yeh can look at Troop (1&) 2 and see good things to be built on. Just different perspectives.

 

I know I shan't convince anyone by typin'. But this is the issues forum, eh? So let's live in the world of rules for a bit, and set up some of its straw men. Leastways, then yeh can chide me for that. I assure everyone that no insults are intended on my part, and none will be taken. And I apologize for any that may have been felt unwittingly, OGE. Think of this as fun jawin' around a campfire.

 

Ignoring black-letter G2SS rules is "unacceptable." So...

 

G2SS states as black-letter "policy" that [For] all boats under sail or power fire-fighting equipment and lights must also be carried aboard. When was the last time you saw a summer camp Sunfish sailboat equipped with a fire extinguisher and running lights?

 

G2SS black-letter policy states If a unit plans a trip within 500 miles of the home base, it is important that the unit obtain a local tour permit. Yet somethin' like a third of da BSA Councils out there don't require or accept a local tour permit for trips within their council service area.

 

And again, from G2SS, All driving, except for short trips, should be done in daylight. Yah, dat's my favorite, eh? That would end most weekend camping trips up here for 6 months out of da year. Not a single troop I know of in the North follows that one.

 

G2SS: Trucks may not be used for transporting passengers except in the cab. Dat rules out ambulances, eh? I've personally been part of a camp rescue where a litter was loaded into the bed of a truck because that was the best and safest way available to evacuate the kid. But apparently the better choice would have been to turn a fairly simple 30-minute evacuation into a many-hour ordeal in order to follow the rules.

 

And another: I think I mentioned in a previous post that some rural areas in da north are pretty confusin', and not highly trafficked. Very easy to get lost and stuck, which can be dangerous. Some areas of da west are even worse, eh? So, knowin' that it's safer when in those areas to caravan, do yeh do it? Or do yeh reduce safety by applyin' the do not travel in convoy rule which was designed for highways and towns?

 

No one-on-one contact. So, from another thread, do yeh allow the Catholic Scout to go to confession? And what do you lose when you don't make yerself available for the boy to confess that he's thinkin' of suicide? Boys don't do that in view of others, eh?

 

By G2SS, you may not allow the use of tobacco products at any activity involving youth participants. So goin' to the Native American powwow is right out, eh? And goin' to the county fair, where's there's bound to be people smokin'. And how many good scouters do we all know who sneak out for a smoke?

 

Of course it goes on and on. It's simply not possible to write a generic national rule that works everywhere, all the time. And like all human endeavors, sometimes mistakes are made or people with private agendas hijack the process for a bit (like da supposed rule about Laser Tag ).

 

A society based on rules only survives if da rules are tempered by the judgment of good people. And if da people are good, we should respect their judgment, eh?

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

After reading this and the PM you sent Beavah, I think I understand. I think its in a persons philosophical approach. You see inconsistencies and appear to conclude that since these are unclear, all policies are flexible. I look at the same inconsistancies and try to do the right thing given the circumstances but when clear cut direction is given, then I want that direction followed, perhaps because there are so many grey areas. It is also a testimonial of a persons view of the world. You seem to hold that volunteers do what they do for altruistic reasons and should be unconditionally supported. My experince has not been that way. I understand your approach is a much brighter outlook, but I have met too many individuals who are in it for themselves and not the youth. I'll try to be more positive in outlook

[SR540Beaver 116]

Beavah: "I think the principle is service and the kids, and that's what's important."

 

I honestly don't know anyone here that disagrees with that statement. The only difference is those who think you can best be of service to the kids by using the methods, aims, oath, law and program as designed and those who think they are merely suggestions to pick and chose from based on personal philosophy.

[FScouter 24]

"Other people are bad (or will do bad things). They must be regulated."

 

It's the "bad guys" that feel their style being cramped that seem to be the ones that object the loudest to any hint if rules and policies.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, OGE, that's sort of it, eh? Leastways I think so. I'd say it differently. But the point is, as you say, "to try to do the right thing." Always.

 

And I agree that our responses are shaped in part by our individual experiences. I too have seen too many individuals in scouting who don't do a very good job for the kids, or even perhaps are "in it for themselves," at least in terms of feelin' important. Almost all have been rule-quoters, eh? Real skill, experience, and service earns its own respect. Rule quotin' can be a way for those with less skill and experience to demand respect. Sometimes that's OK, in the beginnin', for a shaky SM or PL who is still learnin'. But mostly not.

 

So yah, like SR540 says, I've seen too much of it in scouting, and I've seen it hurt kids and damage programs, or just be an excuse for lousy service. The pros in Troop 2 were exceptionally safe without needin' to pick up G2SS. The ones that put kids at risk in Troop 1 quoted G2SS without understanding the underlying principles. Bein' rescued from a snow camp by the sheriff with half a dozen hypothermic kids is more worrisome than playin' Laser Tag. Even if yeh have a tour permit.

 

Not sure if that's more optimistic, eh? Perhaps we're seein' different sides of poor leaders. But aside from that small bunch (who often seem to gravitate to district jobs ), I am impressed nearly weekly by the quality and service of the unit scouters I meet. They don't get everything right. None of us do. But they are there week in and week out for rambunctious, moody, exasperating and inspiring young rascals. And I see those young rascals become great young men every year. Dat's the important thing to get right, eh?

 

YiS,

Beavah

[Lisabob 13]

I've stayed out of this fray until now. But let me suggest one other reason for following "the rules" in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances: other people have entrusted us with the safety and well-being of their children. In most cases they have done so with, at least, an implicit belief that as BSA leaders we will be following BSA policy.

 

With a unit where the leaders took a "don't worry/trust me" approach to safety issues and set aside the G2SS to implement their own standards instead, as a parent I might be concerned. This speaks to the level of personal trust we have in each other, yes, and it may be a sad commentary on our society. But how do I as Joe-average or Jane-average parent know that said leader's personal judgment is superior to the BSA guidelines and bold-letter policy? Honestly, I probably don't. In most cases we're not talking about close-knit small town life where everyone has known everyone for decades. We're talking about a society where people are ex-urban, detached, highly mobile, bedroom-community-dwellers. Leaders come and go. Boys come and go. Parents aren't all terribly active in the troop, let alone in the community. Even if parents are active in the troop, it takes time to develop that sense of personal trust and I don't know about you, but 99% of the people I've gotten to know through scouting, I did not know in any other context prior to my son becoming a scout. Some of the activities we're talking about are fairly technical and/or are not things that the typical parent these days has much expertise with, thereby making it still harder to judge whether another adult really "knows better" than the BSA policies. There just isn't always much basis on which to substitute personal knowledge of the leaders' abilities and judgment for the knowledge that these same leaders know, understand, and have agreed to follow BSA policy.

 

In other contexts, EagleDad has commented that adults' fear is a driving force behind what we will, and won't, allow our children to do as far as activities are concerned, and as far as how a troop functions (boy-led or adult-dominated). This is an insightful comment on his part (at least, IMO). And I really think it helps reduce these fears, thereby allowing for a better program and more opportunities for the boys to grow, if parents believe that the people who are responsible for their child's safety will follow the rules and guidelines of the BSA.

 

As for extraordinary circumstances, it is hard to quibble with some of Beavah's examples where adhering 100% to the rules may not make a lot of sense, but for the most part these are not common place occurrences. (ie, evacuating someone who is seriously injured from a hard-to-reach location using available transportation rather than waiting hours and risking much greater injury in the process to get some other kind of transportation)

 

Consequently, in my view, the starting point for everybody ought to be BSA policy, particularly when it comes to safety issues, because this is what most parents expect of us when they entrust us with their children.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

It's the "bad guys" that feel their style being cramped that seem to be the ones that object the loudest to any hint if rules and policies.

 

Nah, yeh missed the point, F. I don't really think there are "bad guys" in Scouting. Precious few, anyways. But you and SR540 keep dodgin' the bullet with abstract objections and pithy digs.

 

Let's hear some concrete. What do you do with Troops 1 and 2? These are (or, well, were) real life, honest to goodness, flesh and blood programs with at least well-meaning adults and real kids in them. Or at least tell us whether you really refrain from driving on outings at night.

 

Parents seemed to have no problem trusting their kids to either unit, especially to Troop 2, though I understand the point Lisabob is trying to make. It is scary for parents, especially if a boy is their oldest. If I recall, the CC from Troop 2 required an orientation for new parents, and was very up-front about their program. I think parents are influenced far more by the percieved competence and character of people, and the happy reports of other kids and parents, then they are about an obscure guidebook none of them has read. And a good scout leader will take the time to explain to them the how's, why's, and whatfor's anyway if they ask. Or even if they look a bit unsure .

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

I believe that people are in Scouting for the right reasons and if they are not there for the right reasons, then they will leave on their own accord. This is a generalization, I know because we have documented evidence of people that sadly stayed in Scouting for years doing the wrong things and some were carted off to jail. Those doing the wrong things still do not make the cup half empty for me. When I read about people doing the wrong things, it drives a wedge deep into my heart and gut, as I know it does for hundreds and thousands of other Scouters that feel that somehow we all are implicated by association. I believe we must stand firm and not allow ourselves to be taken by associative guilt. This program and those that support it are too valuable and should not treat themselves with that cup of unkindness.

 

As for those that are in the program for self-glorification, it looks to me like they have reached a level of delusion that needs medication. Any job without a salary where a person spends their spare time and money requires a kind of gallantry. So, if a few adults want a pat on the back for their efforts, then that is their just rewards. So many that I know in Scouting are there to ensure a worthwhile program is perpetuated and could care less for the spotlight. They give because they openly love and desire to serve.

 

So, that brings me back to following the rules (Book). I believe most try to get training and abide by the rules. People generally don't openly flaunt the rules but I know some do. Maybe they are doing it out of ignorance or because the rule(s) don't make sense. It doesn't make any difference the reasons because they do not get to make the rules but if they don't follow the rules, then they will be left on their own to defend their actions (in court). It is much easier to arrange things according to the rules of Scouting no matter where a person lives. I believe that should be our number one goal as a Scout leader.

 

So, am I a bad Leader if I break a rule out of necessity? Yes, I would be guilty but before I break the rule, I will have tried my best to follow the rules. If a Scout is badly hurt and all I have is a truck to transport, I will use the truck. I will use anything that I have to not let the Scout nor the parents down. Every Scout deserves our best efforts and if it means defending myself in court for trying to follow the rules and failing, then so be it. fb

 

[Jeffrey H 25]

Troop 2 is the "fun troop" to be a part of, but I don't care for the arrogant attitude their leaders have toward G2SS. Troop 1 is doing a good job, but they are following a somewhat standarized program without much creativity.

 

Troop 2 needs to get on board with G2SS or they will find themselves in serious trouble. Diregarding the rules sets a poor example for the Scouts. Why should the leaders expect the Scouts to follow their rules when the leaders can't even submit to basic safety guidelines of the BSA.

 

Our unit has occassionally broken G2SS rules out of ignorance, but we try to follow G2SS in good faith. When we catch our error, we correct it immediately. We would only ignore G2SS in the case of an emergency when following G2SS would not make sense.