Should we limit leadership to one type of person?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, in the parent thread ScoutMomSD said she found it "creepy" that adult men and women who do not have kids in the unit are involved in Scouting at any level.

 

This gets into other issues, like whether scouters should be men, or da way GSUSA quietly discriminates against men, even dads, in unit leadership.

 

Is there any merit to a notion that scouters should only be parents? Is there any downside?

 

Is there a real downside to having non-parents as scouters? Increase in risk? Perception problems as ScoutMomSD describes?

 

B

[skeptic 992]

Sorry, but the idea that people without kids is "creepy" is lame IMO. When people no longer have kids in the program do they suddenly lose their abilities to contribute constructive service? Are we to simply deny skills offered by experienced scouters, or scouts who either have had their kids leave home as adults, or were not blessed with kids for some reason?

 

Just think of it; if Lemuel and his wife had not adopted Whitey, they would not have been able to be leaders. Then where would we be? What would Scouting be without FOLLOW ME BOYS?

[SMEagle819 10]

Yeah, I'm one of the creepy ones that do not have a son in the troop where I am SM. As a matter of fact, I don't have a son, but 2 beautiful daughters.

 

I stayed on with my troop after I turned 18. When I went off to college (in another state), I joined a troop there as an ASM, and was active until I graduated. Moved back to my hometown, became an ASM in the troop I grew up in, and eventually became the SM about 12 years ago. Yes, I am one of those "creepy" people who believe that it is good to give back to a program that one believes in. My wife is all for me staying on as SM. I remember when I took over as SM; there were rumblings that I did not have a son in scouting, I wasn't married (at that time), I was too young, blah, blah blah. But, as the parents saw how the troop was functioning, and how the program was being driven, they bought in, and the rumblings stopped. Currently, some of the new parents I am meeting are amazed that I give my time to other people's sons. They are truly thankful that I am there.

 

This is my opinion, but the people I find "creepy" in scouts are the adults who are there for their own recognition; they seem to be there for themselves, not the scouts. A while back in my district, there was this gentleman who owned a business that began making items for scouting events, and offering them for sale. He became the "sole supplier" of items like t-shirts, imprinted bags, and the like. It seemed he only "showed up" when there was a district event. Somehow, he earned the District Award of Merit, and kind of faded away. Did he "buy" this award by making items for sale at events? Who knows...

 

As someone stated in another thread (excuse me for not remembering who), "Scouting is my drug." I believe that statement. It is something I really like doing; I really like seeing the scouts learn something new, and applying it in the field; I like giving out awards to those who have earned it. I plan to stay on as SM as long as the CO will have me.

 

 

[BulldogBlitz 10]

add me to the list of the offended. i was a boy scout for 7 years. i was awarded eagle scout. i loved all the trappings of boy scouts. i regret now that i am 20 years removed from my youth, i am just now coming back to the program. my son is only 9. one day he will at least sign up for boy scouts, if he doesn't stick with it, that will hurt, but will be what it is. i am getting more offended by the day by people that meet me and immediately think the worst of me. i have to almost constantly remind people within the troop that i have been in the program before and i am an eagle scout. i am here for the program, not here for some lurid and deviant behavior that they have been programmed to believe happens "all the time" when youth interact with adults who are not their parents. i'm also offended by the hovering parent who was cubmaster and webelos leader and has now forced themselves onto a new troop because of "their son" and when "their son" makes eagle, and how fast "their son" is advancing and ... UGHHHH! now we have parental involvement on campouts that attracts(?) parents who never ever should be in the outdoors (without their A/C, refrigerators, etc.)

 

get in the program because of your kid, but don't run the program into the ground because of your kid.

 

hehe... and there i had passed over that other thread because the actual topic didn't interest me.(This message has been edited by bulldogblitz)

[asm 411 10]

I was quite taken back by the creepy comment. Like several other people I have seen plenty of great Scouters without Scouts in the program.

 

I think that the more involved a Scouter gets in the program the more they see the benefits. I think the comment was short sighted and perhaps she will reconsider over time.

 

I think that having a Scoutmaster that has no Scouts in the troop is a benefit because his perspective of treating all Scouts equally is easier to obtain. There is no Scout in the troop that has an easier or harder path.

 

Do others find Scoutless Scouters creepy? I don't thinks so because this is the first time I have heard the question even raised.(This message has been edited by asm 411)

[Eamonn 61]

Should we limit leadership to one type of person?

No I don't think we should.

 

I do however see that some people might think that is is a little odd that someone with no kids might be involved in a youth organization.

I would hope that we do find ways to help these people overcome their fears.

I don't know how good the check that National does is?

While I'm sure that someone is going to post that Chartering Organizations should be selecting quality adults and all that good stuff. The fact is that in the area where I live the main qualification to be a adult leader is to have a warm body. The paperwork involved is most of the time seen as just a hassle.

While serving at the District level I did at times have people come up to me saying that a new volunteer who didn't have any kids seemed a little too interested and we needed to keep an eye on him or her.

 

I was 27 years old before I married HWMBO. I had been a SM (Scout Leader in the UK) for a number of years before getting married. During that time and up till the present I have really enjoyed the company and working with young people.

Sure I like to think that along the way I have done some good. But the truth is that I have very selfish reasons -I just enjoy working with the youth.

I have never seen myself as being in any way creepy.

 

When OJ did get involved in Scouting I like to think that I went out of my way, not to get in his way and made a special effort to not come off as an interfering parent.

Sadly some of the Den Leaders and a few of the Scouter's I have worked with do seem to be involved mainly because they want to ensure that their kids do well.

Of course some might get involved to ensure the safety of their children.

We all need to do what we can to ensure the safety and well being of all the youth that we know.

Sadly people who are determined to do something do find ways of doing it. Our job is to do what we can to prevent it and train the youth to take care not to become victims.

Eamonn.

[ElyriaLeader 11]

Now bear in mind that as a scout, my SM never had a child in the program, and his senior most ASM had his son eagle several years before I was in the troop, these were gentlemen who were experts at what was being taught in the '60/70's to scouts, and I had an immense amount of respect for these men, so much so that upon the death of "my" SM (while he was still a SM!) almost 2000 people attended his funeral to pay their respects. Creepy? I think not, would you consider that male teacher your son admires creepy even though he has no kids in school or never had kids? No you wouldn't, because that was his chosen "career", so what is the difference if the SM with no kids in the program does this for the love of the program? what is wrong with getting that good feeling when you see a boy that finally "go it" when learning something? If this is creepy..then I for one would love to have that "creepy old SM" that you are shunning! My oldest sons SM hasn't had a child in the program for at least 15 years, he does this for the satisfaction it brings him, and I hope he I can continue to serve under his tutelage until my youngest is ready to pass through the ranks.

Beavah asked is there a downside to having only parents as scouters (as well as merits) I can think of more downsides: continuity in the troop leadership is kept, thus the program is not rewritten with each turn of a leader. A quality SM will have a committee that has a system that works for the administration of the troop, again not redoing it every couple of years. The SM is most likely highly trained/experienced in all that is required to lead the PLC. and I could go on. any merits?: none that I can think of right now.

increase in risk? no more than if you have a "experienced" and thus to ScoutMomSD,"creepy" teacher,counselor,mentor,clergyman,. I guess it all boils down to this, my SM became a friend to me even though there was a major age difference. He treated each of us boys with respect, and in turn expected us to do the same with him, and each other, those that could not would eventually leave of their own volition.

I now step down from my soapbox.(This message has been edited by ElyriaLeader)(This message has been edited by ElyriaLeader)

[ScoutMomSD 10]

Beavah - thanks so much for starting this thread.

 

I will freely admit that this week I am "charged up" being in Calif with the whole prop 8 issue, including the interface with the LDS church.

 

Here is where I am at - its a lot like the southpark episode with Big Gay Al who was the scout leader. They kicked him out because he was gay and brought in an ex military guy who wanted to take naked pics of boys. At the end they ask Al to come back and he says he doesnt want to be in a group that doesnt want him.

 

I have NO issue with out of the closet former scouts who are gay being involved. I DO have an issue with folks like the "conservative moral" folks like Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, etc - there are a ton more, most are not as high profile. And with regard to women, of the 37 people in 06, 07, and 08 who were involved in scandals NONE were women (from wikipedia). Because there are men who want to be involved with boys in an inappropriate way and its like putting a cooked steak in front of my dog and saying "dont touch it".

 

Is every single man or man with kids who are older a threat to boys - of COURSE not. But if you quizzed a group of men about how they would like to spend their free time when they dont have kids, I have to say I would question more highly the ones that choose children as a priority than those who dont.

 

thats my opinion.

 

[gcnphkr 11]

Better a scouter with no children in scouting than a helicopter parent that is only willing to be(and may insist on being) an ASM for Huey Jr's patrol.

 

Some of the scouters I respect either never had or no longer have children in scouts. Give me a fat old guy still willing to ride a sled, paddle a canoe, carry a pack, cross a monkey bridge or climb a tower his scouts have built any day.

[BulldogBlitz 10]

so what are your other opinions which are formed by south park?

[AnniePoo 13]

Yes, scout leaders should be limited to people who (in increasing order of importance):

 

Have a pulse

Are breathing

Have extra money to spend as a scouter

Think they have extra time

Like to have fun

Are energetic, have a positive attitude, and believe in what scouting has to offer for kids

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

I think we should limit leaders to one type of person! The type of person who wants to work with kids, meets the BSA requirements & is willing to take the necessary training to help understand the program they signed up for! All others can go away!

 

I'm one of the creepy ones! But y'all knew that! My son earned his Eagle & aged out in 1999 & I'm still hanging on!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[perdidochas 658]

Beavah wrote: Is there any merit to a notion that scouters should only be parents? Is there any downside? Is there a real downside to having non-parents as scouters? Increase in risk? Perception problems as ScoutMomSD describes?

 

 

 

I think it depends on the level. IMHO, Cub Packs should be parent led. Boy Scouts should be led by a mix of people.

[eagle77 60]

SUPERR THANKS FOR ASKING,

 

I think what offended me so much from the "creepy" or "evil" remark is the fact that I did have shall we say a bad expierence with the last of the 3 scoutmasters I had as a boy. Though he never really got the chance to do anything, I got out and walked home. I did not have at that time anywhere or one that I felt I could go to. If I would have taken this to my dad I would have been visiting him at the state prison. The reason I say this is he had a son in the troop and a daughter that was in my classes at school. So the idea that being a parent and leader as being "safe" just is not on my top list. In addition to my Eagle Charge I also swore I would never let any boy that I led to ever, ever have to go through the internal torture that I did. For the last 15 years all my scouts have to worry about is whether it will rain on the campout and do I have enough socks.

 

Bill

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Creepy man here as well, my son is now 24 so I have been scouting without a boy in the program for six years now. I wonder if you went over the Silver Beaver's for each year for each Council and looked at how many had children still in the program, what percentage would you guess?

 

Most of the Council Committee Chairs are people without youth in the program, because if they had youth in the program, they would be working with the unit, usually of course