Re: Posting from Mr. Sears (BSA)
Ed Darrell (EDarr1776@AOL.COM)
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:30:52 -0500
In a message dated 96-12-22 20:50:12 EST, Roger Morris said:
>All I did was point this out and state (correctly) that National currently
>permits only the official national BSA homepage and (as of 23 OCT 96)
>official local council homepages to be used for promulgating BSA policy.
>SCOUTS-L and other electronic Scouting forums are currently off-limits to
>the professional Scouters in their official capacities.
>They should not be.
There are probably several ways to spread information -- correct information
-- without getting hung up on the question of whether things are authorized
by the good people in Irving, Texas.
One, we could adopt a consensus that nothing in this forum is official writ
unless it is quoted from an official publication or from the official
homepage. That's an unwritten, de facto rule now. We just need to agree to
let national and council employees participate without holding their
statements as representing their employers. I'd be very comfortable with
Two, we could agree that nothing said from any Scout official is "really"
from a Scout official. Not just plausible deniability, but absolute
Three, we could ask the moderators to enforce the Scout Law with a vengeance.
I'd love to be the attorney representing a Scout employee fired for
following the Scout Law in an electronic forum . . . [that's poverty-struck
lawyer humor ;-)]
Four, we could agree to let paid Scouters participate under pseudonyms (do
they do so now?).
I'd favor the first option here. Dialogue is a potent tool to reach
agreement and achieve shared visions of worthwhile goals.
It seems ironic to me that Scout officials would let escape the wonderful
opportunity of participating in this forum. "Official policy" plays such a
small role, really. We'd all benefit from the stories and experiences of
Scouters so lucky they get paid to do it.
Ed Darrell, Duncanville, Texas
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City