Re: Dads as MB Counselors
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:01:28 -0400
At 07:24 PM 7/10/97 +0600, Daniel Brown wrote:
>At 02:20 AM 7/10/97 GMT, Ben Parker wrote:
>>You are foolish to
>>publicize your violation of policy so publicly.
Were he violating policy, he might have to worry about ---
>Oh no! The dreaded policy police.
But since he is not violating any policy, and since there are NO policy
police, I don't think there is anything to worry about.
>Actually, it wouldn't be the first time in 33 years of scouting that I've been
>in trouble with the policy police. I was persona non grata for several years
>once. Probably won't be the last.
>. . . . and its not even the first time this month I've been called a fool.
>To borrow from one of my favorite poets. "I'm not as wise as those lawyer
>guys, but just between us two" I think Bruce Cobern's post on the same subject
>today will cover our policy,
To add to yesterday's post on the subject, something I forgot, but which was
certainly in Dan's original post on the subject and his reply of yesterday,
is that even if this theoretically WERE against policy, there is nothing
that says that people can't AGREE to something locally that might be in
violation of policy. After all, if Tim wants to go to his father for a
merit badge, but his father has agreed not to counsel him, what is Tim going
to do? Who is he going to complain to?
Let's get real.
(Dan, obviously this is meant more for Ben than for you. I haven't seen,
for some reason, any of Ben's postings on this subject, so I am using your
reply to him as the vehicle for my response. Thanks for your comments above.)
Bruce E. Cobern
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City