fred8033

5yearscouter ... Your 10/26/2011 1:09:06pm response ... Example scoutmaster conference ... Perfect. That's how it should be. 5yearscouter ... Your 10/26/2011 1:15:52pm response ... Bylaws for active ... I don't have a problem with setting unit expectations. The challenge is enforcing. Ranks T21 already have some measures for involvement and no where to cleanly apply additional unit expectations ... or that I understand. Star, Life and Eagle have four and six month active expectations. GTA now allows unit expectations for those four and six month qualifying time windows (can glue together to make four or six months as necessary). But after that time window is done, there's no "advancement" enforcement again. Unit expectations can exist, but how to enforce? I'm scared suggesting this (because I don't want it in my troop) but how about applying unit expectations to events (camps, activities, ...). Something like ... "Successful events (trips, camps, activities) depend on scouts being prepared. The troop expects scouts to sign up at meetings, attend 50% of the meetings and attend the meeting immediately prior to the events. Scouts will not be allowed to attend events if they failure to attend the troop meeting immediately before the event and fail to communicate in advance that they won't be at the meeting." .... Beavah ... you must be reading a different set of BSA books than I can find at the scout shop.

JMHawkins - Nicely worded.

"And that's honorable??" Abolutely 100% honorable. And don't imply anything different. The kid did what was asked. If your disappointed by the expectations, contact BSA, NHS, FFA, churches, rotarians and get them to change their requirements. Just don't lay a guilt trip on the kid for doing what was asked.

Beavah... Your disdain for "precision scouters" is a reflection of scout leaders that will do what they want and find a way to run their own fiefdom under the BSA name. Shame. Shame. Shame. You assert solutions #1 to not sign off on scout spirit or #2 preemptively drop the scout from the roster and handle it as a re-admittance issue. Scout spirit not signed because of attendance is wrong and mean. Completed the "active" requirement but not scout spirit because of attendance. Huh?? BSA says in the GTA "We can say however, that we do not measure Scout spirit by counting meetings and outings attended. It is indicated, instead, by the way he lives his life." Spirit is about how the scout treats others. Not signing off is telling the scout he does not treat others well and is against BSA documented instructions. To preemptively drop a scout is killing the patient to cure the disease. And it's just plain mean and promotes dishonesty by the adult leaders. If I heard of any troop doing this, I'd tell the scouts and parents to run and run fast. I'd be glad to accept a transfer application from any scout in such a situation. We've done it in the past and will again in the future. In fact, I'd give them the application and help them fill it out. Our troop doesn't play those childish games. We feel duty to deliver the BSA program and with compassion and support for the scouts in our troop. ... Your final comment is a rejection of precision scouters and an emphasis on helping scouts and on the whole program. Interesting, but I just don't buy it. Denying a scout their due to correct other issues is wrong and gives scouting a bad name. The best way to help scouts is to deliver the program BSA documents, no more, no less. And guess what, that means understanding the BSA program in detail.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 ... I fully agree with you. If you met the requirements, you "EARNED" your advancement. My example was never a scout fully gone. Just a scout mostly gone and not meeting unit expectations. But to be honest, that's just noice. IMHO, if a scout met the requirements, he advances. twocubdad wrote "But 8 months is a different deal. " ... To me, absence/low participation is not a question of recognizing past achievements. If a scout's done the work / met the requirements, give them their due. Now if a scout shows up and expects us to jump to help help him with merit badges or other requirements, then the scout probably needs his reality corrected. We'd still support him, but we probably doubt his committment. ... The original question came up because I was wondering about "unit expectations" for the "active" rank requirements. From what I understand, the unit expectations only affect advancement during the time windows used to fulfill the four or six month "active" requirements. After that window, the requirements are completed. Then, unit expectations can be expected, but not used to block advancement.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

"Choices are part of life. ... Doesn't do a lick of good to let 'em by with less by double-counting. It's da wrong lesson. " Huh. You made a choice to be a registered leader in the BSA. As such, you made a choice to support BSA advancement. What your promoting is not the BSA program.

eisely ... I agree. How about for star? It's another rank. Not as well know as Eagle, but on the same advancement ladder with requirements documented in the same way. If the scout completed all requirements including "active" and then less than ideally active for six or eight months, would you deny him advancement? To be up front, I hope not. He earned advancement and deserves recognition. Plus, the heart felt conversation should be about moving forward and not about re-earning what he's already completed. Beavah ... Thank you for your point. It's not at all addressing the question raised and pretty obvious, but thanks anyway. At least twocubdad addressed the question.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Okay. I take that as a yes. You would deny rank advancement to a registered scout who's completed requirements because he's been gone for a period of time. Interesting. eisely - I've heard horror stories like you've described. Sort of related, but not entirely. Change your example slightly. What if the SM and district had reviewed and signed off on the project earlier; the project was cleanly executed and all pieces of it were closed out. You even had the post-project write up in your hand. ....... Then the scout disappeared for nine months. When he returned would you signed off on his rank advancement?(This message has been edited by fred8033)

"I reckon a SM might well sit down with 5yearJr. and talk about no matter how many hours yeh put in in service durin' the week, an honorable fellow still does his duty to God and puts in his hour in church on Sunday. No matter how much work he did for client X, an honorable fellow wouldn't charge that to client Y. " "The double-dipping lesson isn't about service. ... It's about personal honor and integrity." Ya know, that's just plain old wrong. I'd use other words, but it would not be polite. The last thing I'd do is lay a guilt trip on a scout about being less than honorable after he's done something nice for someone else. I expect all leaders in my troop to respond with nothing less than "wow, that's great" when a scout starts talking about service he did for others. It's not our issue whether a school, NHS or church cares about double dipping. That's their issue, not ours. You might be disappointed that BSA does not expect more, but that's not the requirement and it's not our place to look for ways to make the program more difficult. That's just mean.

I'm just trying to understand how to interpret the new GTA. I've seen multiple cases that are pretty close to the example. I agree there's many tangents and many directly related topics. And most of those topics come first when dealing with a real live scout. I just want to understand how to correctly interpret the GTA. About once a year it comes up for debate. I just want to make sure I'm relaying good information.

Beavah - Please don't throw out the example. It may not be perfect, but I'm trying to understand the boundary of "unit expectations". And I did say mostly, not completely absent. Happens all the time in scouting that one or two of forty scouts in a troop has attendance problems for a period of time. TEST CASE EXAMPLE ... Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations". Do you advance them? We've had scouts that for periods of time don't attend camp outs, bike to one meeting a month and then cut out early. Lots of different twists. Some also just gone for several months, but when you ask they say they want to stay with the troop. The question is if a troop has unit expectations of say 50% or more of meetings and 50% or more of camp outs, could they advance? They previously fulfilled the BSA requirement and the unit expectations. But, they have not met "unit expectations" recently. IMHO, they advance. They met the requirement. Requirements can not be un-completed. "Unit expectations" are only for the time period of the requirement time.

Twocubdad ... I wrote "IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise." because of the sentences that I wrote that followed it. The active time frame exactly overlaps the POR requirement time frame. I can see zero cases where I'd consider the POR requirement fulfilled when the active requirement is not fulfilled. ... Twocubdad ... Warm and fuzzy troop? I just don't see that. I'll put the shooting skills, camping skills, hiking skills, canoeing skills, adventurous nature and good character of our scouts against any. Our scouts are often the ones that organize impromptu football or capture-the-flag events that run late into the night. They are helpful and I am very proud of them. I want my sons in a troop that focuses on doing things and on setting a good example. I just don't want my son in a beurocratic troop that spouts their own made up rules. My apologies if that sounds harsh. ... QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION EVERYONE EVERYONE EVERYONE ...For Star, Life and Eagle, the "active" requirement is for a time frame. Four or six months. As people often say, once a requirement is completed it's always completed. So do you see UNIT EXPECTATIONS of "active" to be for the requirement stated time frame or something different? BSA says units can set their own expectations. It doesn't say anything about setting time frame or it must be the last X months. TEST CASE EXAMPLE Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations". Do you advance them? They fulfilled the BSA "active" rank requirement in May. They also met the unit expectations in May. Or do we "undo"/"not credit" the completed requirement because they don't currently meet unit expectations? ... Related ... If you have 75% attendance requirement, can a scout in December use the 75% attendance in April and May and then also in September and October? Or do you expect it to be a consecutive time frame since the last advancement? For BSA's active, they let you glue together time frames. ... Probably the reason I don't like unit expectations is that it feels like it's giving more control over advancement to the adults. (i.e. adults weighing scout attendance and other noble activities) I've always been a firm believer in a scout controls his own advancement. Now adults can say "oh your attendance is not good enough" even though the scout meets BSA requirements and is doing the best that he can.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: "Remember, da "active" requirements are almost all associated with matching POR requirements, eh?" I think Beavah's point is key. IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise. The real debate should be: "did the scout do his POR?" It's like a logic truth table. I just don't see it possible to have a combination of FALSE for "active" and TRUE for "POR". I wish BSA would either drop the active requirement or rewrite it as "... is a BSA registered scout". ... As for the comparing scouts to sports or school clubs, I view that as a purely academic debate (no pun intended) best left to Norm and Cliff Claven. School clubs and sports are tightly focused on goals (winning a competitive game, putting on a play, ). Seasons start and end. Scouting is about the whole person and is more of a lifetime commitment. Advancement is only one aspect of many that includes adventures, service, character, friendships, citizenship, .... Perhaps if we only camped ... and camping was a competition ... and there was a championship of camping ... and there were trophies ... and winners and losers ... and the camping season was August through November ... and ..., I might buy into attendance percentages. The BSA rank requirements are the BSA rank requirements. Perhaps, the real question should be "should BSA make star, life and eagle more difficult?" I just don't view it as my personal job in my unit to make advancement more difficult than BSA requires.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

For our troop... IMHO ..., program produces participation. Requiring and debating participation is a distraction and a bad frame of mind. "active" - We're not going to add unit expectations. That's putting a gate in to block scouts advancing. Our unit's leaders role is to help scouts succeed. We'd rather focus our energy on supporting the scouts completing the requirements as published by the BSA. "POR" - POR participation is about keeping the troop running. We will work with the PLC to clean up POR expectations and get mechanisms in place to hold scouts accountable. Probably something like a POR status at the monthly PLC. If a scout/POR is a 100% totally without any effective contribution, we'd probably remove the scout and work with the SPL to find someone else. It's a matter of keeping the troop functioning. Then, we'd ask the scout how much credit he thinks he deserves for POR time span ... and that's how much he gets.

Ya know, one of my all time favorite courses in college was a Philosophy dept Logic course. And perhaps, I'm guity of a causal falacy. Perhaps, it's just a hot topic spurs debate. Just interesting.

Scoutfish - My apologies if my assertion makes you uncomfortable. I'm just pointing out a trend I've noticed. - start ----- end - 2011-10-17 - current - Tough questions (spun from the 2011-10-13 one) - 2011-10-13 - 2011-10-20 - When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership - 2011-10-12 - 2011-10-13 - Florida School Board Rejects Grant ... - .... - ... - (there are a few in here too, I just can't find them quickly) - 2011-09-27 - 2011-09-30 - Which "lifestyles" are acceptable - 2011-08-30 - 2011-09-28 - Where does BSA tell us homosexuals are not allowed? - 2011-08-25 - 2011-09-01 - Potomac Falls woman removed from sons Boy Scout troop - 2011-08-13 - 2011-08-18 - So a scout tells you ... Each overlaps slightly or only has a few days between. I can keep going backward for a very long time through the archives. I just don't have time to search and list each. Many of the people in the discussions are truly discussing it. I'm just noticing a bit of a manipulation (baiting, seeding the discussion, etc). Now I love a good discussion as much as the next person. I love politics and political discussions. And this topic is fascinating and one of the modern day hot button topics. But I feel offended the same way as when a person offers me friendship to only start pitching AMWAY products the next day. Or, a person starts a friendly conversation to only learn later make a political pitch. All of it could be avoided by up front saying "Oh, I'm selling AMWAY." Or, "I'm an representative of the ##### party or political action group." There's a trend in the thread that's more than just discussing the present day hot button topic. That's all I'm trying to point out. If my thread topic makes you uncomfortable, you do not need to read it. It's your choice to open the topic and respond. Feel free to ignore the subject if that suits you. It's the same action you yourself suggested.

Applications, money and camping registrations are always a pain in the .... Since our pack is very healthy right now, so we have some flexibility. - If we get an application, we submit it. Money or no money. If they took the time to fill it out, we'll get the kid on the roster and he starts getting Boy's Life mag. Essentially, we want the kids in scouts. - If they paid their dues, we re-charter them, active or not. - If they did not pay their dues, I call the den leader. Are they actiev? Family or job issues? If they are active, I re-charter them. If they are not active, I don't re-charter them. - If no family issues exist, I will contact the family about paying dues. - If they lost a job or other issues, the committee agreed that the Cubmaster and I (CC) can privately make a decision to waive the dues and other costs. - We have one family where the mom is minimally employed and the dad is unemployed recovering from three heart attacks, illegal drug addiction and other bad things. The boy loves scouts, camping and has a great attitude. For that family, we pay for camps and everything that we can in scouting. When we looked at the net financial affect in the pack for dues, it was less than $100 per year. Supporting the one family is about $300. Our pack dues are $40 and we fund raise $7000 each year. Our attitude is that we are trying to minimize volunteer headaches. If we get 90% to 95% of the families paying dues, we're happy. We're not paid as volunteers to be a collection agency. Also, we don't want to take parent issues out on the scouts. - For camp, when you ask to register your scout for camp, we ask for the money there and then. Your not registered until we get money ... officially. Unofficially, if I know you and can depend on you to pay, we'll register you. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Wow! What a great commentary. I yearn for a very different Boy Scout Handbook. I'd love to see pages on great american heros who have helped build and shape our country. I'd love to see more on patriotism and virtues. And more in-your-face challenges to the scout. More how-to. I'd love to see the book become dog-eared from reading by the scouts. Instead, it's more just a file cabinet for advancement these days. I strongly recommend reading the referenced article! I also like what it says about writing styles. The current one is pretty dry. I'd love to see it be a more exciting read. I'm a sucker for a tear jerking Reader's Digest article. I'm a sucker for old-time story telling. It may be arcane, but I think eleven year old scouts are too. It could be a combination of those 1950's american history educational comicbooks, Boy's Life magazine and Readers Digest articles. "He should be as manly as the knights or pioneers of old. He should be unselfish. He should show courage. He must do his duty. He should show benevolence and thrift. He should be loyal to his country. He should be obedient to his parents, and show respect to those who are his superiors. He should be very courteous to women. One of his obligations is to do a good turn every day to some one." Or Great moments in US history. Writing of the national anthem. Sewing of the flag. Or for character development ... "For example, under Courage: "It is horrible to be a coward. It is weak to yield to fear and heroic to face danger without flinching." There are examples, like the dying Indian who "faced death with a grim smile upon his lips and sang his own death song" and the cowardly knight who fled the battle of Agincourt, much to the disappointment of his lady at home. The original handbook teaches through heroes, providing Scouts with a host of manly examples to emulate. Above all, it cultivates spiritedness, teaching Scouts to defend their honor, their friends, and their country like the great men of the past who "were accustomed to take chances with death" for the sake of the things they loved." (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Fair enough. I feel like a schmuch because when I started replying on this board awhile ago, I naively got pulled into one of the thread discussions. Like many, I have strong opinions on the topic. I didn't realize it was just a rehash of the same ongoing discussion for the last several years.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

It seems that some topics / posters re-post the same subject but under a slightly different twist to advance a political agenda. I'm all for letting COs choose their leaders. I'm just not for advancing a political position by hijacking the forum by starting a new thread every time the previous thread dies. IMHO, it's the same as the protest rallies outside church during Christmas midnight mass or political acts inside church during a mass celebrating the renewal of marriage vows. (seen both for a few years now) Does anyone correlate thread authoring / branching and user accounts? Just curious.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Our troop has no trouble with double dipping. Why not? The scout did something nice for someone else. The response should be entirely "wow, that's great. what a nice thing to do.". It's about character development and not balance sheet accounting. But then again, we rarely have trouble finding service hours to list. It's key to emphasize we do service because it's a moral good and it's a reflection of our care for others. We are not doing service to legalistically check off a requirement (a bad lesson to teach). In my mind, "required volunteer service" is an oxymoron ... in the same way that sending a check to the IRS is not a charitable contribution. It's also an oxymoron to do volunteer service because of your own needs (checking off a requirement). For example we do camp service projects to say thank you and to leave the place a little better for the next group. Not because we need service hours for advancement. Advancement is a dance. We're looking to develop a scout's character but also must complete the requirements as stated. BSA never says anything about it that so why not count it. Favor the scout.

Wow. I knew units could use any night of the week, but I thought there was a fairly common standard. Monday - Troop meetings (fairly common) Tuesday - Pack meetings (not as strong of a standard) In our district, the vast majority of units meet on those nights. We encourage our dens to use the same week night as the pack meetings to free up other week nights of the week for other activities.

Redraw? Probably not. Reassign your unit(s) to another district? Very possible ... depending on who you talk to and how you handle it. Our district had a pack and troop that did that. Physically, they were located in a neighboring district. Officially, they were members of our district. I think they just said roundtable was much closer and all the scouts that joined their units and/or interacted with their scouts were located in our district. I'd politely and very softly pursue it. Then, just start attending the preferred district roundtables, activities and events. Eventually, the council will recognize the existing situation and more your unit(s) into the appropriate district. Essentially, the council has no way to "force" you to attend a specific roundtable and/or support a specific district. AND at the preferred district's roundtable, they will not ask you to leave. I think they'll be just happy to have your unit involved with a district.

Jumping to statements of felony, accusations and reprehensible is not what this discussion is about. Abuse is a description of an action. Not of scope or legal interpretation. ... A good example is a 30 year friend of mine. He's fun to be around and will bend over backwards to help a friend. I remember taking a job 1600 miles away with two days notice. He dropped everything so that he could help me drive the moving can cross country. He was a real life saver. But as I tell my wife, I feel sorry for women he dates and employees under his leadership. He plays mind games with people that belittle and disrespect the other person to make his point. Guess what, it's abusive behavior. I've told him. Others have too. It's not criminal. It's just a big character flaw. He's generally a great guy if you can deal with it. But, it's absolutely abuse. And, if anything ever happened to my wife and me, I would definitely not trust him to raise my kids. He might be able to show them the world and keep them safe, but I fear I would not like the type of people they might become. I have another 25 year friend who greets everyone with a smile and a handshake. He's kind, friendly and helpful. People naturally go to him because of the example he sets. I trust him implicitly and I would be very proud if my kids grew up to be like him. ... If it is "known in advance and consistently applied", then I agree it's not as bad. But it's only effective if the person is successfully humiliated. So they know in advance they would be humiliated as a punishment.... I'm not sure there's a difference. I just don't want that taught as leadership in any of my units. And it's hard to keep it fair and balanced. The SPL who hands stuff back to a friend but grabs early the stuff of a scout he regularily picks on. (seen that happen) I agree scouts can be filtered through and damage can be mitigated. But why go that direction at all? There's other things you can do. ... Yes, "singing as punishment" is not a huge issue. It's small. I would never suggest revoking unit charters or banning people from scouting because of it. In my mind, it's a small example that reflects a larger style of what we teach in our scouts. I just don't think leaders should play mind games with those trusting them. And yes, it's abuse. Very small, but abuse. As a manager, that's the hardest lesson to learn. The manager doesn't have to be the alpha-dog or the subject matter expert. His role is to build trust and relationships so that the team can be successful. ... If you want to toughen and challenge a kid, try a two day canoe trip in 40 degree weather where it rains the whole trip. Getting thru that builds character. No humiliation or tricks needed. A few good fire starters help though.

OGE wrote: "What is more important here, the correct use of the word Hazing or an attitude of how scouts and scouters are to be treated?" Terms be darned. The important thing in life is how we treat each other. Our actions affect other people and are a lesson how to treat the next guy. Humiliation (song punishment, etc.) and tricks (snipe hunts, etc.) are just yet another form of teasing and making someone the brunt of a joke. It breaks trust and damages the victim. And, yes. It's abuse. Proper terms are important to clearly define the discussion. Too often people mince words and hide behind tradition. Heck, the MX missle was the called "peacekeeper" to avoid discussing that it's sole purpose was to kill 100 million people. I'm not saying singing songs or snipe hunts are criminal, unaccepted or that big of an issue to everyone. I'm not saying those youth and adult leaders are evil. They may be the nicest people otherwise. But, the action is abuse. Using the proper terms helps us make decisions. ... I mostly made my mind on this topic, before researching it, when I saw a SPL (who had a bit of a mean streak) do the song bit to another scout. There was nothing constructive in it and SPL enjoyed the victim's uncomfort way too much. Listening in the car on the way home from camp I heard the discussions about doing it to someone else as a reprisal. That's how 11 year olds think. Later when I learned more on teaching and emotional development and BSA GTSS rules (constructive discipline), I became verbal on it in my unit. When it later happened to my oldest son at the 2010 Jamboree. He knew our troop was against it and I was also personally against it but he did not know how to respond. I felt bad. We had prepared our scouts how to treat others. We had not though prepared them how to respond if they do not think they are being treated properly by authority. I felt bad for him. It was just a long uncomfortable moment for everyone there. ... Scoutfish: Obedient. I think that is where a discussion of obedient is important. Too often leaders think obedient is snapping to attention and doing what the adults say. I think that's horse hockey. They are upset because the youth did not feed their own egos. "Obedient" is a much more complex discussion than this thread has size for. I wish more leaders actually reflected more on "obedient". It's a very important topic. ... Spanking is yet another debate. It can be good or bad. I'm not 100% decided either way. It might be effective in that it directly ties the bad behavior to the punishment and gets it done then and there. But I doubt spanking publicly, in-front of a large group with people laughing at you would ever be healthy. It changes the action from a painful consequence to a public humiliation.