Imprimis

[mc99218]

Decentralisation

 

OUR principle of decentralisation is the accepted method for the administration of the Boy Scout Movement.

 

Scoutmasters are given a free hand in the management and training of their Troops under the general supervision of the representative of Headquarters, viz. the Commissioner, whose business it is to see that the lines of policy on which our charter was granted are not departed from.

 

These Commissioners also act as the representatives to Headquarters of local needs.

 

For committees we substitute individuals as responsible heads of the different departments of administration. Then the Local Association gives the necessary backing and help that may be needed by the Scoutmasters in their work.

 

Thus these officers are not bothered with committee or office work, as is so often the drawback in other societies, but are free to devote the whole of their spare time and energy to the main work, namely, the training of the boy.

 

Frequent conferences of officers give full ventilation to the various questions requiring it, and supply all with a better understanding of what is going on and of what is needed in the Movement.

 

If and when they find this method does not work satisfactorily, it is open to officers -- indeed it is their duty to the Movement -- to represent the fact to their Commissioner.

 

The system has been arrived at after very full consideration and after much experience -- sometimes bitterly bought. The point is that officers come into the Movement with their eyes open and that this is the form of administration which they accept in doing so, and to which they further bind themselves where they take the promise to carry out, inter alia, the Law of Loyalty.

 

Every horseman knows that the only successful method for managing a spirited horse is to be on good terms with him, through the rider having a firm seat and giving him his head with a light hand on the guiding rein.

 

I am certain that it is through our use of this same principle in the form of local government under a light-handed supervision on a well-defined policy that our brotherhood has already shown such splendid corporate energy coupled with that united spirit which is the driving force behind it.

 

BP Outlooks November, 1917.

 

all scouting is local

Take some boys camping

 

MCCET

PMTNPO

OWL

 

[Kudu]

mc99218 writes:

 

Headquarters, viz. the Commissioner, whose business it is to see that the lines of policy on which our charter was granted are not departed from.

 

1917, huh, MC?

 

Departing from our 1916 Charter is modern "outside-the-box" thinking!

 

The whole point of Wood Badge is to teach CEO-Wannabes how to systematically violate the "policy on which our Charter was granted!"

 

Sec. 30902. Purposes

 

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/bsa_federal_charter.htm

 

vs.

 

"Our goal is not to teach someone to rub two sticks together and make a fire. But when you rub two sticks together and make a fire side by side with an adult of good character, you're going to learn about who you are and go on to lead men...

 

"You can teach a kid about character and leadership using aerospace and computers. The secret is to get them side by side with adults of character.

 

"We run the risk of becoming irrelevant if we don't adapt to things that attract kids today... We recognize the evolving science of leadership. We've had CEOs on our board say they want to send their people to Wood Badge, our adult leader training program, because we use state-of-the-art techniques (Chief Scout Executive Mazzuca)

 

http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http//: kudu.net

[SeattlePioneer]

If we weren't going to do anything except the program as it existed in 1916 we would:

 

1) be using an axe and saw to cut down trees to construct lean tos for the night when we went camping.

 

2) have no Cub Scout program

 

3) still be wearing these uniforms:

 

http://www.njscoutmuseum.org/TourImages/100_0012-sm.JPG

 

 

 

 

Change for change sake is no good either. Changes in the program need to be evaluated carefully in the light of current needs. But arguring that we should be straight jacketed into the program as it was in 1916 is absurd.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Why not simplify your criticism of Wood badge?

 

Baden Powell didn't hold the first Wood Badge course until 1919, and of course that was YEARS after the Boy Scout Charter was approved in 1916.

 

So obviously it must be a violation of good Scouting practices.

[Kudu]

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

If we weren't going to do anything except the program as it existed in 1916 we would:

 

As a few people have already pointed out to you, the Congressional Charter does not limit us "to do anything except the program as it existed in 1916," it only requires that those Scoutcraft requirements continue to be included in the future.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

1) be using an axe and saw to cut down trees to construct lean tos for the night when we went camping.

 

That falsehood is typical of Cub Scouters who hate Boy Scout Scoutcraft. A lean-to is a permanent structure that takes more than a day to build:

 

http://inquiry.net/outdoor/shelter/adirondack.htm

 

Certainly few Eagle Scouts would qualify as a First Class Scout by 1916 standards:

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm

 

Woods tools are only mentioned twice:

 

Tenderfoot Requirement 6. "Use properly knife or hatchet."

 

First Class Requirement 8." Use properly an axe for felling or trimming light timber; or produce an article of carpentry or cabinet-making or metal work made by himself. Explain the method followed."

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

2) have no Cub Scout program

 

Good riddance.

 

If Little League had invented the Cub Scout program, every red-blooded American boy would hate baseball as much as they now hate Scouting

 

And all the militant Cub Scouters would be praising the Chief Little League Millionaire's plan to replace baseball with soccer for Hispanics.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

3) still be wearing these uniforms:

 

Offer exactly the same thing in camo and most boys would love it, even with those baggy hip hop pants!

 

That BDU was a state of the art outdoor uniform in its day, certainly less embarrassing to 21st century boys than the 1980 Oscar de la Renta dress-designer uniform that we only recently got rid of over the objections of the national uniform committee, supported to the death by Wood Badgers and adult Eagle Scouts who think the Uniform is an indoor method.

 

The leggings (called gators) are useful when a Patrol is not limited to the Webelos III camping that our cross-over Cub Scouters love so deeply.

 

The old Campaign Hat is still official and still worn with pride by some Boy Scouts.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Changes in the program need to be evaluated carefully in the light of current needs.

 

Changes in the Boy Scout program are only evaluated in the light of the "current needs" of indoor lawyers, indoor millionaires, and militant Den Leaders on national "safety" committees, certainly not by recreation experts or insurance actuaries.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

But arguring that we should be straight jacketed into the program as it was in 1916 is absurd.

 

Yes, it is "absurd:" Reductio ad absurdum to be precise, but "reduced" from an untrue premise:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

The 1916 program is not my ideal choice, but it is the law.

 

I would go with Baden-Powell's 1938 program:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/por/index.htm

 

Or William Hillcourt's 1938 BSA program as featured in his thousand-page Handbook for Scoutmasters (but I would add the critical First Class Journey back in).

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Baden Powell didn't hold the first Wood Badge course until 1919, and of course that was YEARS after the Boy Scout Charter was approved in 1916. So obviously it must be a violation of good Scouting practices.

 

That is a perfect example of bad Cub Scout logic: Baden-Powell's Wood Badge (as well as his 1938 program) included all of the BSA's 1916 requirements.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Here we have Kudu, picking and choosing among the things he likes and doesn't like about Scouting in 1916 and the things he likes today.

 

He is in fact no different that the Chief Scout Executive doing the same thing. Only their tastes in program are different.

 

His willingness to dump the Cub Scout Program that provides 85% of Boy Scouts these day, and his willingness to be contemptuous of the leaders who provide that program is telling.

 

Not even Kudu is willing to live within the straight jacket of the 1916 Boy Scout Program.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[Proud Eagle]

Burn all the heretics!

 

Or is that supposed to be witches?

 

I forget.

 

In any case, we have this lovely stake and pyre all set up, so we may as well burn something.

[SeattlePioneer]

Where would we find someone able to get the fire started Proud Eagle? I thought that was a lost art even among Eagle Scouts!

[Proud Eagle]

I have considerable sympathy for Kudu's position, though I suspect we are far from being in full agreement.

 

That being said, I think the current BSA program also does much good for many boys and is run by people of good will. It just happens that the road to hell is also paved with good intentions and that I am rather acutely aware of what some of the limits and down sides to our current program are as well.

 

Now, if we were to test two first class scouts, one from BSA of 2010, the other from Baden-Powell's British SA of 1910, on a few basic Scout skills, which do we think would do better?

 

Let us have a test of the six basic knots, some simple lashings, finding directions with and without a compass, using a map, building a fire with flint and steel, maybe some basic test of observation? What odds would you lay?

 

As to the Cub Scout program, I have rather mixed feelings about it. I understand very well why a Cub program of some sort was as natural of a development as boys taking an interest in ideas of military Scouting. Yet, it must be remembered that the core of what is Scouting is the Boy Scout program. All else is a development or outgrowth from that core. The sad fact is often the Boy Scout program is considered entirely secondary to the great things that are Cub Scouts and Venturing (which is afraid even of the words "Scout" and "Scouting" and certainly wants to be kept apart from those childish ideas in the Scout Oath and Law, having instead a much more mature 1990s set of ideas that will certainly never sound dated and will certainly never sound like the product of a committee or marketing firm.)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[Proud Eagle]

Don't worry about starting the fire. I am sure there is some budding arsonist in the crowd willing to lend us a light.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Proud Eagle,

 

 

I have no objection at all to discussing the merits or lack thereof of any part of the Scouting program. That's the spice of life as far as I'm concerned.

 

I merely object to references to the Scout Congressional charter as if it was some kind of Holy Writ.

 

The program and changes to it need to justify themselves on the basis of facts and rational argument as far as I'm concerned.

 

We've already noted that Baden Powell didn't get around to conjuring up Wood Badge until 1919. The idea that innovation and change should stop in 1916 seems ludicrous to me.

 

And frankly, my primary interest is in the Boy Scout program. I was sold on being district membership chair and working primarily on Cub Scouts by my district Executive in 2004 who pointed out to me that "You can't have a youth program without YOUTH!" As a practical matter, without Cub Scouts a lot of Boy Scout Troops would die on the vine.

 

By working to recruit Cub Scouts and strengthen Cub Scout Packs I figure I'm helping to keep Boy Scouts in business.

 

The figures I've seen say that 85% of Boy Scouts come from Cub Scout Packs. The strongest troops may do OK recruiting outside of Cub Scouts, but they are usually the Troops who manage their relationships with Cub Scout Packs with the greatest care, too. Without sucking up a good many boys from Cub Scouts they would usually be headed in a downward spiral.

 

Perhaps that's not the case for Kudu, and I give him credit for that. I take him at his word that he has developed effective methods for recruiting and an attractive program.

 

 

Unfortunately, that's not something that is easily replicated for a variety of reasons.

[Kudu]

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Here we have Kudu, picking and choosing among the things he likes and doesn't like about Scouting in 1916 and the things he likes today.

 

What is that supposed to mean, SeattlePioneer? Which of the 1916 requirements do I not like?

 

Do not bear false witness.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

He is in fact no different that the Chief Scout Executive doing the same thing.

 

The Chief Scout Executive seeks to keep 12 year-old Boy Scouts out of tents. Why do you admire that?

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

I merely object to references to the Scout Congressional charter as if it was some kind of Holy Writ.

 

It is not "holy writ," it is the law. When you break the law (as you are advocating here), do you tell the judge that you "object to references to speed limits as if they are some kind of holy writ"?

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

The program and changes to it need to justify themselves on the basis of facts and rational argument as far as I'm concerned.

 

As I detailed above, you "justify" on the basis of outright lies, not facts. You do not make "rational arguments," just emotional accusations. You do not engage in dialogue but merely repeat the same false misconceptions over and over and over again.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Not even Kudu is willing to live within the straight jacket of the 1916 Boy Scout Program.

 

You only consider the 1916 program to be a straight jacket because it requires actual Scoutcraft skills. Again, which of these 1916 requirements are you falsely claiming I do not like?

 

Proud Eagle writes:

 

Now, if we were to test two first class scouts, one from BSA of 2010, the other from Baden-Powell's British SA of 1910, on a few basic Scout skills, which do we think would do better?

 

The final requirement of a Baden-Powell First Class Scout is the First Class Journey: a solo journey seven miles into the woods, an overnight which includes cooking requirements, then a return trip and a journal. How many 2010 Eagle Scouts have done that? Maybe 1 in 100,000?

 

Likewise Baden-Powell Tenderfoot skills are retested before completing Second Class, and Second Class skills are retested before completing First Class. After First Class, all Proficiency Badges are retested every 12 to 18 months.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

(This message has been edited by kudu)

[SeattlePioneer]

Well Kudu, it's interesting to hear your pronouncements of the Scout Charter as "The Law," but do you have legal opinions to back up your claims from courts to support your claims, or are these your opinions as a layman about the Scout charter?

 

As I read it as a layman it's a rather honorary recognition of Scouting by the Ciongress and a mandate to go out and do good things. I think Scouting fully lives up to those vague hopes.

 

In short, I don't see the Scout charter as being anything more than being of symbolic importance.

 

But perhaps I am wrong. Do your have references to legal briefs and courts decisions that have intervened to direct the BSA to conform to the congressional charter in particular ways?

[Scoutfish]

KUDU,

Seattle only points out a small, simple but major flaw in your arguement.

 

You yourself are saying that anything outside of The Congressional Charter is in fact, breaking a law or at the least, the charter.

 

But ScoutCraft...which you majorly support was added after the charter, by BP himself. Thus, using the logic you have said so many times about things created after the charter was written being wrong or against the charter...then ScoutCraft would also be wrong.

 

Kinda a catch 22 don't you think? Post charter is WRONG! But Scoutcraft( which you support) is post charter.

 

So it's like this: Either post charter is wrong or it's okay. But it cannot be absolutely wrong .....except if you like it.

 

So the question that is on so many minds is this: Is Scoutcraft wrong because it is post charter, or is it possible that BP ( in the same manner as the Constitution and the Founding Father) intended that the charter be able to be modified as necessary and it just ends up that you personally don't agree with the current plan.

 

Now, realize that I am not saying the new stuff is better, equal to, or worse than what used to be. I do not know as I wasnot a part of it. But I do know that your argument is not holding up.

 

And when you asked Seattle about Macuzza: " The Chief Scout Executive seeks to keep 12 year-old Boy Scouts out of tents. Why do you admire that? " You obviously misunderstood him as he never said he admired the chief, only that by supporting Scoutcraft, you ( like Macuzza) picked some post charter things to support and stand by.

 

Again, I am not supporting pre or post charter, But seriously, you are argueing against yourself, not Seattle.

 

 

[Kudu]

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Well Kudu, it's interesting to hear your pronouncements of the Scout Charter as "The Law," but do you have legal opinions to back up your claims from courts to support your claims

 

Yes, the BSA itself cited the Congressional Charter recently in the landmark YouthScouts case (Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America):

 

"The BSA also noted that in addition to standard trademark protection, marks were protected by the congressional charter granted in 1916 under 36 U.S.C. Chapter 309.[2]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America

 

The final ruling of the San Francisco judge affirmed his preliminary finding that "a charter Congress granted in 1916 gave the organization the exclusive right to use 'scouts' and related terms in naming youth groups."

 

The BSA's use of the Congressional Charter as a legal instrument dates back to the year after it was issued, when it sued Randolf Hearst's United States Boy Scouts out of existence:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/b-p/deposition.htm

 

It is also referemced in the BSA's cease and desist warnings to groups like the US Baden-Powell Scouts, the UK Baden-Powell Scouts, the Rovers, the SpiralScouts, and everyone else in the USA who uses the word "Scout," including International Harvestor and the Girl Scouts:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/adult/bsa_vs_gsusa.htm

 

Scoutfish writes:

 

You yourself are saying that anything outside of The Congressional Charter is in fact, breaking a law or at the least, the charter.

 

No, I did not. The Congressional Charter does not forbid new stuff, as long as the new stuff does not replace the original Scoutcraft stuff.

 

Scoutfish writes:

 

But ScoutCraft...which you majorly support was added after the charter, by BP himself.

 

No, just the opposite, Scoutfish: "To train them in scoutcraft" is the second purpose cited under "Sec. 30902. Purposes," quoted in my first post, above.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net