Re: [RR] New program question?

[Jose Rodriguez]

Dear Commander Trowers,       Here is my response to your e-mail:   How would you define the "big issues?"   When I say "big issues" I mean big issues...okay maybe that didn't help.  Big issues are large issues, issues that the MAJORITY would label "extremely important" or controversial.  I constantly use the example of "women in the Royal Rangers" and "the New Program" because those are the topics that have popped up the most on RangerNet.  You can't compare "removing service stars" to "I'm going to change the ENTIRE Royal Ranger program."  The biggest reason that I was mad about the new program was that in my eyes there was nothing wrong with the old program to begin with and some other commanders I talked to felt the same way.  I felt my voice was NEVER heard.  I was just a powerless commander in a little outpost far away from the "all powerful" national office which could change the program on a dime.  And yes I already know that Brother Trask was the one who made "the call" in the first place (this has been discussed here on RangerNet many times already),  I'm just describing the feelings I had when the rumors first started regarding the new program in the year 2000.  The point I'm trying to make is that I felt completely powerless, I wished that they had had a nationwide vote like the one Cmdr. Marvin suggested.  Yes it is true that at the present time I now agree with many but not all of the changes made to the Royal Ranger program, once again I'm just describing my self at the time.    It's interesting, but I don't hear complaining about women in Rangers or about the new program any place but RangerNet. Sure, I hear a question now and then, but nothing like the "discussions" that are held on RangerNet about these topics. As for not complaining after the vote is over, see my comments below. And do you know why that is?  It's because there are different kinds of commanders.  Some commanders are afraid or just cautious because to be labeled "trouble makers" and afraid people with accuse them of being rebellious and not "submitting to those in authority."  There have been examples of this here on RangerNet saying that we are suppose to respect and submit to the National office and except their decisions.  are also commanders who are just: "oh well what can you do about it."  There are also some commanders who are AFRAID to say something contrary to the National, Regional, or District.  The majority might just feel it is impolite or even worldly to talk about such things in front of other (or just some) people.  And finally there are some commanders who just want to look "good" in front of others.  The difference here on RangerNet is that we are faceless and ambiguous.  I don't know how you look like and you don't know how I look like and we live miles away from each other in different states and countries.  We don't have to worry about our "apperance" here on RangerNet. So the point I'm trying to make here is that just because you don't hear complaining doesn't mean it doesn't happen it usually means they are just being polite.   They would be paralyzed waiting for the vote to be finished. Have you thought about the mechanics of trying to do a nation-wide vote? Commanders would procrastinate until past the deadline, and then insist that they be given more time to vote. If you think I exaggerate, ask any staff member who has tried to have a pre-registration deadline for a Rangers event!   Not if you handled it like we do here in this country.  Everybody here in the US has their ONE DAY to vote and so you either vote or don't vote.  So there would be no paralyzed waiting because those who don't vote on time just lose their vote just like in political elections.  So you would just anounce a "voting day" and they would have to send in the votes on that specific day or they would miss their chance to vote.  So if some commanders procrastinate too bad for them!  Remember there are a lot of people here in this country who don't end up voting either because they can't or because they don't want to so it would be the same thing here.   And when it comes down to it, the Assemblies of God does have the nation-wide vote on "big issues" that you are calling for. Anyone who qualifies can vote. The next such vote comes next August in Washington, D.C. at the next General Council. If you are an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, you may go to General Council, speak your mind and vote. If you really care about women in Rangers, or the new program, go to General Council and speak up. See that's the problem, I do really care about those issues but I am not an ordained minister so I wouldn't be able to vote so that nation-wide vote is only good if you are an ordained minister.  Marvins idea gives EVERY COMMANDER the right to vote.   Allowing people to vote does not mean that everyone will accept the results, especially when the election goes against what you wanted. People don't forget and move on.   I never said that everyone would except the votes nor did I say it was perfect just better in my opinion.  It obviously normal for people to be upset with the results of a vote, for example I was furious when Bill Clinton won the presidency but eventually I accepted the fact and just waited until the next election since there was nothing I could do to change the situation.  Most people do move on.   The important thing here is that we commanders get a chance to have our voices heard and not be powerless to do anything.       ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Trower To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [RR] New program question? At 11:25 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, Jose Rodriguez wrote: Dear Commander Holland,       To responed to your e-mail I decided to use part of an e-mail I sent to Bob Triphahn since my response to his e-mail would respond to your comment regarding bombaring the National office our votes before anything got decided or acted upon:     I our church we have business meetings in which we the congragation vote on certain issues.  Yes we do have a church board and they will vote on issues were not allowed to vote on BUT on really big issues that affect the congragation we do vote.  So I'm not saying that EVERY LITTLE THING would be voted on, but for BIG ISSUES like the new program or women in the Royal Rangers that would be something that would be voted on by every chartered outpost in the nation. How would you define the "big issues?" To some, the new program or women in Rangers are the big issues, but to others it is a big issue that they are being asked to remove the service stars from their sleeves, and women in Rangers is a non-issue to them. Years ago the floor of national council got bogged down with endless debates and votes over "big" issues on the uniform, so the executive committee finally was charged with making all decisions about the uniform. Uniform issues do not even come up for a vote at national council anymore, because of the difficulties of having 300 or so Royal Rangers leaders discuss and vote on the issues. Imagine what it would be like when "really big" issues come up for a vote with every RR leader voting! Especially if we can't all agree on what the "big issues" are. As for complaining, yes there might be a few people that would complain but not like we've been complaining here in RangerNet.  We would not be criticizing the national office or thinking of "what if Cmdr Barnes was still alive" because we were the ones who voted and made the decision not them.  The majority rules, the people have spoken, that type of thing.  Once again the votes would be done for BIG ISSUES, issues and decisions that affect the Royal Rangers throughout this entire nation. It's interesting, but I don't hear complaining about women in Rangers or about the new program any place but RangerNet. Sure, I hear a question now and then, but nothing like the "discussions" that are held on RangerNet about these topics. As for not complaining after the vote is over, see my comments below. So as you just read the National office would not be "bombarded with votes."  The nationwide voting would only be for BIG ISSUES.  For example when the National office decided that the ENTIRE Royal Ranger program had to be changed that would have been an issue that should have had a nationwide vote like the one Marvin was suggesting.  You fail to recognize the fact that it was not just the national Royal Rangers office that decided that Royal Rangers needed to be changed. This decision was made much higher in the hierarchy than the national RR office. Brothers Trask and Crabtree called for this change, in response to what they had heard from the field. The National office would still function the what it does now, the only difference would be that our outpost would be able to vote on the really big issues.   They would be paralyzed waiting for the vote to be finished. Have you thought about the mechanics of trying to do a nation-wide vote? Commanders would procrastinate until past the deadline, and then insist that they be given more time to vote. If you think I exaggerate, ask any staff member who has tried to have a pre-registration deadline for a Rangers event! And when it comes down to it, the Assemblies of God does have the nation-wide vote on "big issues" that you are calling for. Anyone who qualifies can vote. The next such vote comes next August in Washington, D.C. at the next General Council. If you are an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, you may go to General Council, speak your mind and vote. If you really care about women in Rangers, or the new program, go to General Council and speak up. But you know, it's interesting. When there is a close vote, folks don't forget about it and simply go home. Last General Council a certain vote was taken about the qualifications for a minister in the A/G. The resolution narrowly passed. That resolution is still being debated today, and there are folks who would love for another opportunity to vote to overthrow that vote. The half that lost have not given up. In this country, we had an election two years ago. George Bush won the presidency in that election. To this day, there are folks who belive that he didn't win, didn't deserve to win, never should have won, etc. The half that lost have not given up. Allowing people to vote does not mean that everyone will accept the results, especially when the election goes against what you wanted. People don't forget and move on. Jonathan ------------------------------------------- Jonathan Trower South Central Regional Training Coordinator E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 254-420-1941 Fax: 254-710-1091 Home Page: http://pwp.clearsource.net/jtrower _______ "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you." -- Luke 6:31 (NASB95) "Do to others as you would have them do to you." -- Luke 6:31 (NIV) List host: http://eBible.org/mpj/ List info: http://RangerNet.org/faq.htm To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm