goodkidsmom

Yes, Boleta, I agree. Whether he stays with the existing troop or not, and whether SM backs down or not, with the various District and Council people I've contacted, plus the letter I'll write, SM is likely to get a clarification of the rules/policies. (I'd like to say that he WILL HAVE TO follow them, but I guess I'd better not be that definite.) This morning we talked about running from the problem vs holding firm and fighting it - he said he wants to fight, emphasis on the word "fight". He's certainly being assertive now! Interestingly, my son says he really likes his troop and would like to stay in it. That could be a problem given this SM and our relationship with him, but it's my son's decision, and will likely be based on how this plays out. Thanks, GKM

FScouter, ScoutingAgain, EagleinKy, Boleta, Scoutnut, Caveagle, and ScoutlDr - As always, thanks for the responses - Wow!. I appreciate the translation of the "alphabet soup" titles. I've had long phone talks with people from the District and Council, one of whom called CC (also DAC) but didn't get him and left msg. We've also been talking to people from other troops. My husband talked to ASM who is coordinating summer camp and said they are likely not going. This ASM also participated with SM in the SM Conference in question; he said he thought it was ok to hold up a boy they thought might be mature enough, but my husband pointed out that the requirements are very clear. ASM is going to talk to SM about it and also say that IF they go to camp SM shouldn't try to corner my son for for a talk, as concern about this plus such a talk would ruin camp. However, at this point I doubt that they'll go, as SM is not particularly flexible. I can't believe trying to deny an Eagle a Palm. There doesn't seem to be any room for denial there, as long as he's got the time and badges. What a creep. I agree that cutting and running isn't the best approach, but I'm afraid that butting heads against a brick wall isn't something we want to deal with any more. Great advice about signing blue cards. The troop he's probably going to join has 4 Scouts who can't go to camp with the troop and will be going as provisional campers a different week. My husband and son may just go with them, and by then they may be part of the new troop anyway so will have that SM sign the blue cards. Re troop bully and SM - SM is trying to "save" the boy (who DOES have potential - is bright and CAN behave and work hard when he chooses) - says he's like a surrogate father to him - but also cracks down on misbehavior. I save all emails, and have one from SM to me in which SM refered to Bully as the "troop idiot". Bully is at Star rank now, having fulfilled all the requirements - Whether SM overlooked some of "scout spirit" is arguable, but not worth it. Yes, there is some inconsistency there. My son is definitely NOT the first kid to leave the troop because of this SM. SM has said more than once, "I don't care what the book says, this is the way I want it done" (emphasis on the "I") . We will definitely write a letter documenting everything to all of the people mentioned in your posts. I'll probably have to let the letter cool off a bit and edit it when it stops sizzling, but as you can already tell from my long posts, I have no problem writing! And yes, we'll be sure the chartered org knows as well - however, they're kind of clueless and useless. It is ridiculous and sad that a boy and his family have to deal with nonsense like this in Scouting. I am so proud of my son for standing up to the SM! If that's not assertive, I don't know what is, but clearly SM has his own agenda. GKM

Evmori - it says "take part in". And Yes, that's exactly what's happened. Plus, when the boy DID show the assertiveness of calling him, the SM further rejected him. Scoutldr - You're right, it's "On". What do IH and SE stand for? Your advice about the letter - and what to leave out - is good. Everyone - What now? Should he go to summer camp? Should he even try to complete the BOR with this group? Is running away from camp and from this troop a mistake? If he goes to another troop, does he have to start over with any of the requirements - e.g."Be active in YOUR troop..." - is that now the new troop? Technically he shouldn't have to repeat the SM Conference - the ASM who already did it signed off. However, it would make sense for the SM and adults in the new troop to get to know him for awhile - and a new SM conf with a new SM shouldn't be a traumatic experience (though I can see why he might not WANT to do it again). I guess it'd be a "getting to know you" talk.

Eamonn - thanks for your post. I agree with you that about roots, wings, and "I". He does all of the "I" parts of the Oath and Law himself. The lack of assertiveness regards dealing with problems, but I think that tonight he gets an A++ in assertiveness. Standing up to an adult who is in the wrong is beyond a lot of people, including adults, and since my son did it by himself I'm very proud of him. Yes, I'm afraid we will have to change troops. Bob White - I think we'll do a combination of both. We'll talk to the Council tomorrow - the people I spoke to Tuesday had already offered to talk to SM. I don't want to just jump ship and leave SM to continue playing by his own rules. We'd like our son to finish the BOR in this troop before leaving. There are good troops in the area, including the one in which he was a Cub. (He and the other cubs in his grade went to the present troop years ago to escape Pack Bully, but Pack Bully followed them to the same Troop). He's pretty shy about joining new groups, so I hope he'll give that a shot rather than just quitting entirely. It's just such a shame that this kind of (*&(* has to happen. GKM

This is related to the discussion a few back about the SM trying to change my son's personality, by requiring my son to be more "assertive" before he would sign off that the SM Conference took place. I'm hoping to get some more feedback from a new thread rather than adding to that long one. The situation has just gotten far far worse. For those new, the summary: My son has held his SM Conference for Life, and the SM refused to sign off b/c he says my son needs to be more assertive and participate more. The boy was already signed off on Scout Spirit (by the SM) and Participation (by an ASM). This was his second SM Conference - first he did it with an ASM, and then the CC said he had to do it with the SM so he did. Since he "took part" in the SM Conf, he has completed the requirement, but the SM has thrown up a roadblock to his BOR and also has tried to add a requirement. Re Scout Spirit: He is very well behaved, honest, courteous, helpful, etc. They have never had a behavior problem with him. He has a quiet personality and does not speak up for himself. He is also under treatment for clinical depression. Neither of these is related to Scout Spirit. Re Participation: He does not like rougn'n'tumble games that are often played in meetings and avoids participating in them. However, in the past year he has attended 9 weekend campouts, participated in 2 Eagle Scout projects, participated in all of the troops approximately 7-8 service projects, and volunteered for a number of things at school. He completed 8-9 MBs and held 2 troop positions in the past year. SM holds against him that he missed two recent campouts: for one, he had been ill and on the way to the campout he was seriously depressed and broke down crying, so we said he couldn't go. SM told him he was irresponsible in not fulfulling his commitment to go (even after KNOWING of the clinical depression). For the other, he fractured his big toe a few days before and the Dr. said he couldn't go. I talked to two people at the Council / District, who offered to talk to the SM and CC but I said we wanted to try to handle it ourselves. My husband, who is on the ALC, talked to SM, but didn't get anywhere. CC, who is also DAC, is out of town. Here's where we are now: Today my son got up the nerve to be assertive and call SM and to tell SM that the handbook says the requirements say "take part in" and that he did, and that the handbook does not list "assertiveness" as a requirement, and that the requirements can't be added to. SM said that he's been doing this for 20 years and he wasn't going to be told how to do things by a kid. He also said he was requiring more assertiveness and holding him back from the BOR for my son's own good. He said he would discuss it with him further at summer camp (starting this Sunday). After that, my son broke down crying for the rest of the evening. My husband talked to SM several times, saying that he was out of line, that my son has completed the requirements, that he is very depressed, that the SM shouldn't be messing with his head, and that now it was unlikely they'd be going to summer camp. SM won't budge, saying that CC (who is also DAC) told him not to pass on kids to the BOR when he sees a problem. My husband and son were looking forward to going to summer camp Sunday (my husband goes on lots of troop outings), but now I doubt that they'll go. Being with this man for a week will be awkward at best, and would be very miserable for my son never knowing when/if SM will try to corner him to give him a lecture. It also turns out that SM has engineered my son and troop bully working together on something at camp - troop bully got in major trouble last year with the school and police for making implied gun threats against my son, and there's no way this man should try to throw them together. My son and husband will likely change troops; this SM may mean well, but he's overstepped his bounds in terms of the requirements and also in the way he's dealt with my son. I just hope that my son doesn't drop out entirely after this horrible experience. What do you all think? Is there any way to salvage this situation? What should we do? GKMom

Hi Laurie, thanks for the thoughts. It looks like you've been doing a great job trying to get your son to speak up. It's too bad he was (is?) having a tough time with the SM. Due, I think, to his depression my son really doesn't care - he'd just as soon crawl in a hole or lie on his bed staring at the ceiling (obviously we're getting him help for that). It's critical to keep him active and involved, hence Scouts and Karate. If we didn't also participate in activities with him and, when necessary, speak up for him, he'd likely drop out. The idea of having him write a note is a good one, but my son is also dyslexic and avoids writing as much as possible; he'd want ME to write it, and the SM would likely know or suspect that I had. We hope that improvement in the depression and maturation will lead to improved confidence, etc. - but in the meantime we need to help on the things he can't do for himself (e.g. standing up to an authority figure who is apparently in the wrong) and/or the things that are really important. In other cases, if he doesn't speak up then he'll have to take his lumps. Thanks for writing, GKMom

Sorry, I guess right wasn't the right word. It did sound a bit too - hmmm, formal? legalistic? I certainly didn't mean to offend. Let's see - Ought he? Is it appropriate? within his purview? Not sure what the right word is, but I'm sure you know what I mean. GKMom

My son WAS signed off by one of the adult ASMs for "Scout Spirit" as well as for "participate actively". (the same ASM who also did his SM Conference that the CC later would not accept and made him repeat with the SM ) So as far as we're concerned, he has completed ALL requirements except for the BOR. Now, beyond my son's issue, where does the SM have leeway to deal with kids who misbehave, aren't ready to move on, etc? Clearly "Scout Spirit" and "Participate Actively". Certainly a scout who misbehaves, is slovenly, unfriendly, rude, etc could be dealt with in Scout Sprit. I wonder, though, if lack of assertiveness would fit even there? I suppose it could fit in with brave.....but semantics aside, is "assertive" is a requirement, EVEN as part of Scout Spirit? Assertive and its synonyms are not part of the Scout Oath and Law, and I don't think they appear anywhere in the Handbook. Speaking up for oneself is certainly a sign of maturity and leadership - but not the only sign, and kids do vary in maturity and leadership. For that matter, are maturity and leadership requirements? Certainly they are needed for Eagle - but we're not there yet. That brings me to the original title of this post, in which I refered to "personality". Is a quiet shy kid who won't interrupt adults and doesn't speak till spoken to less deserving of rank than the in-your-face variety? Certainly SM doesn't have the right to REQUIRE a change from quiet and shy. Does the SM have the right to even TRY try to change quiet and shy? SM has the right - and perhaps responsibility - to try to change discourteous, dishonest, unclean, etc - those things that violate the oath and law - but personality traits that are not in violation? I don't think so! GKMom

I had an interesting talk with my son about the content of the SM conference. 1) SM did it WITH an ASM - why, to have back-up for a pre-planned "fail"? Or, maybe it was to make my son feel more comfortable b/c there HAS been some awkwardness with the SM? But maybe what looked like a two-against-one situation was uncomfortable? 2) They talked about the usual - what he's done, what he likes/dislikes, goals, strengths and weaknesses. When asked about weaknesses my son said "not participating in the games during the meetings and I need to be more assertive and speak up more". SM then said "I'm glad you brought this up", talked about those issues, and then said he'd be looking for a change and they could do the SM Conf again in about six months. Later in the meeting, after the boy told Dad SM wouldn't sign off and Dad talked to SM to find out why. SM said "six months" and Dad said "no way". After some discussion, SM left it at "when I see some improvement, I'll sign him off". Of course that's not acceptable, neither the six months or the when he sees some improvement part. We already know that he can't add a requirement or not sign off on one that was completed. BUT what I find interesting here, is that MY SON is the one who brought up the lack of assertiveness, recognizing and admitting that this is a weakness - so then SM turns around and slaps him in the face by saying "you're right, so I won't sign off"????? Real nice! SM definitely needs "Psych 101 for Scoutmasters - How to Help Kids Effectively" GKMom

Yup, I agree again. But we wouldn't be here if he spoke up. He just plain won't. Personality, depression, not challenging an authority figure, whatever - he won't. Trying to get him to deal with this one himself would a) result in major family fights b) him going to his room crying and getting more depressed and c) possibly dropping out of Scouts. Challenging an authority figure with whom he's had an uncomfortable experience (to say the least) is way beyond him at this point. Mom and Dad will deal with this one because it seems to be a pretty serious instance of a SM stepping out of bounds and is not something for a kid to try to fix. However, we'll continue to back off and encourage/bug him to speak up for himself more on issues that he can / should handle himself. Last night he wanted me to talk to the Karate teacher about something and I told him nope, it was his problem, and he could deal with it. (He didn't, so took the consequences, but yay for Mom!)

I agree completely. The committee wanted to avoid having scouts with behavior problems sliding through by getting a young ASM to sign off. The committee thus decided that only the SM could do the SM Conference for the higher ranks so boys couldn't slip through the cracks. This was well-intentioned, but incorrectly thought out. Clearly the committee should have said that only the SM (or perhaps specific adult ASMs) can sign off for "Scout Spirit" and "participate actively" as well as the SM Conference. That would take care of not letting behavior problems slip through b/c the adult ASMs and SM would take those two requirements more seriously than some of our younger inexperienced 18 yr old ASMs or junior ASMs or whatever they are. This should not affect my son, because he has completed all requirements, however we will be sure to talk to CC and committee as a whole to correct this problem for the future. Thanks for the post! Mom

Uncleguinea, you do not offend me, and you are absolutely correct. I agree with you 100%. He does NOT speak up, and we DO come to his rescue. We want him to speak up for himself. He will have to start sticking up for himself more as he matures. Teaching Karate, Managing Stage Crew, etc., as well as Mom and Dad backing off (which I HAVE been doing more and more), will (we hope) help with this. However (yup, I get a however too!) the immediate reason for my posts is whether or not SM can refuse to sign off on the SM Conference because of assertiveness or the lack thereof, i.e. whether SM can change or add to the requirements, and everything I've been reading and hearing today is that the SM is out of bounds. After all this is over we - AND SM if he wants to - will continue to encourage him to speak up for himself, and will continue to step back so he'll be more likely to do so. Thanks for your post, it is well taken! Mom

Good advice, Bob - thanks. Note that CC and District Advancement Chair are the same person, so he SHOULD know that "assertiveness" is not part of the Oath or Law and that it can't be added at whim. When my husband talks to him tomorrow, if he senses that he is sticking with the "assertiveness" bit, we will go higher. My son does know that this is not a requirement - it's a shame that an authority figure whom he should respect is holding him back on something that's not even legit - but your post points out that we should arm him with a polite response. I think we'll suggest that if the term "assertiveness" comes up during the BOR he could politely suggest that they could schedule a troop activity to work on leadership and assertiveness skills, and then change the topic back to something more relevant. As an aside, my non-assertive kid does not speak up when an authority figure is being authoritative, but tonight he WAS effectively teaching and correcting students in a younger kids' Karate class, then went on to work out and also help in his own class, then worked effectively with adults in the adult class (5:30-9:00). Today we received an unsolicited letter from the school librarian thanking him for his "wonderful" volunteer work throughout the school year (easily 6-10 hours/week) with the library and audio-visual department, including managing the stage crew, video-taping school productions, "always being there to help", etc. Hmmm..... maybe he's not assertive, but he's certainly "friendly", "helpful", and "trustworthy" at the very least! Good night, Mom

Wow, I never expected so much help - what great group you are! Scoutingagain - no need to apologize; I didn't realize just how active he was until I added up all the campouts etc. My guess is that more assertive means speaking up more (he is VERY quiet). He does not make his wishes or complaints known. He comes home and tells us whatever was bugging him (i.e. troop bully) and then we come to the rescue. Sticking up for himself on this issue would certainly count, but at this point his personality just isn't like that. As he matures that may change, or maybe it won't. Maybe if assertiveness is so important to SM he should do some workshops or get in some speakers. acco40 - we joked around about your point about jumping in the lake. It's tempting......but of course he shouldn't and won't do it. I think it'd be a great idea for him to call SM and say "The requirement says "participate" and I did, so as far as I'm concerned I've met the requirement, so I expect you to sign it. There, is that assertive enough for you?" I would do that, but I'm assertive and he's not. How does He want to handle it? He is so disillusioned by this whole mess that he really doesn't care. He just wants to crawl into the sand and have it all go away. He is not accustomed to rejection and when he does get it he doesn't handle it well at all. Update: I talked to two district (council? not sure of the difference) execs, each of whom offered to talk to SM and CC (I said not at this point), and each of whom suggested talking to the CC. Our CC is also the district advancement chair, so there's a possible conflict of interest here. Each agreed that Participate means exactly that, and that assertive is not a requirement. We all agreed that SM probably has the boy's best interests at heart, but that this isn't the way to help him. My husband talked to SM tonight. (My husband is NOT assertive so it was probably not as strong a talk as I would have had.....but that's not necessarily bad). SM said the Committee said he should not pass along boys to the BOR if he thinks they're not ready - behavior, scout spirit, etc. Since he thinks assertiveness is important and wants my son to become stronger in that area (how? by being rejected?), he didn't want to pass him along. SM said to talk to CC to clarify that and that he'll go along with CC. Since CC is the Distr. Advanc. Chair, he *should* go along with the actual requirements. Where did that come from? There were some instances in our troop where boys with problem behavior (i.e. troop bully and some of his gang) got young ASMs (in one case an 18 yr old who had attended only 1-2 meetings in the past year) to sign off on "scout spirit" and "serve actively" and SM Conf, and then showed up for the BOR with all requirements completed. Some parents - including me - objected strongly to these kids getting advanced when their behavior was so disruptive, and suggested to the committee that they not be allowed to slide through like that. In response, the committee said that only the SM could do the SM Conf for the higher ranks. That was well intentioned, but they *should* have included "Scout Spirit" and "serve actively", and perhaps opened it up to 1-2 select adult ASMs (we are blessed with a LOT of adults) in case a particular scout might be more comfortable with a different adult than the SM. Then the behavior problems etc. couldn't slide through. Anyway, that suggestion obviously backfired here! My husband has placed a call to the CC so we'll see....... Thanks so much, and I'll let you know how it comes out, and of course will be interested in any more suggestions or comments!

Wow, what well thought out replies! I'll try to address them all here: Hunt - in the last year he has gone on NINE weekend or overnight campouts in addition to week-long summer camp. He opted out of ice camping and a Klondike, but the ones he went on included skiing, a historical trail, a mini-camporee, and 2 OA ordeal weekends (one for his ordeal, one as Elongamat). He takes Karate classes and is great at self-defense and helping the younger kids' classes, but the instructors would like him to hit harder..... Two weeks ago we did a short Appalachian Trail hike as a family outing and he had a ball climbing rocks, and last weekend he and Dad went with a Scout group on a 14 mile AT hike with fully loaded backpacks, in preparation for a trip later this summer to Kandersteg International Scout Camp in Switzerland. He has completed the Camping MB and also Snow Sports; I think the rest are the more academic ones. He'll do Swimming at camp this summer. What he does not like and does not participate in unless he has to is when the troop plays "Brawl Ball" or other aggressive sports involving pushing and shoving and kicking balls at each other. Re being with Dad "too much", Dad is usually in committee meetings or with the other adults, he definitely does not cling to Dad, and went on about half of the above without Dad. Eagle in KY - I have no doubt (ok, little doubt) that SM is trying to act in his best interests. My son is definitely Eagle material; unless this kind of *&*& turns him off, he will definitely complete Eagle. I'm pretty sure that SM is trying to help develop his leadership by requiring him to be more assertive. In and of itself, that's fine, but refusing to advance him in rank is not the way to do it. As Bob White pointed out, SM has in fact added a requirement that is not in the BSA list of requirements. Bob White - I'm with you 100%. SM DID hold the SM conference, but has refused to sign off on it. Hence my son DID "participate in a Scoutmaster conference" therefore completed the requirement. SM says that he's going to keep an eye on the boy and when he sees more assertiveness then he'll sign off. i.e., he is adding a requirement for rank advancement. We want to avoid making a big stink by involving others (which is why I'm seeking advice here). At this point it looks like my husband is going to have a talk with SM about reconsidering, pointing out that assertiveness is not a requirement and that the boy did participate in the conference. And, finally, Bob White - also good points to keep in mind! Scouting has been great for both my husband and son, and I hope it will continue to be a positive experience no matter how far they go. Mom

thanks for the suggestion. It's a good one, especially in terms of opening SM's eyes to a variety of kids. SM does need to realize that every boy has different interests and strengths - shouldn't that be obvious? I don't think I'll do it, though, b/c I don't want to harp on the depression aspect - regardless of the depression, the problem here is that SM is playing by his own rules, and that's what my husband and I are going to work on. Thanks!

Thanks, Mike F. I don't think his depression to the point to be a special need - but certainly some empathy would be appropriate. I've talked to and emailed SM quite a few times re the depression etc. He seems supportive, but then continues to push for the assertiveness so he's clearly missing the point that trying to make the kid into something he's not is backfiring. Example: My son was planning to go on a weekend campout last winter but on the way broke down crying and was such a wreck he couldn't go - we told SM at the time that he was ill. Later SM commented that the boy didn't fulfill his responsibility that weekend because he was "supposedly" ill, so I told him the truth about why he couldn't go. Then tonight at the SM Conference the SM actually told my son that he had been irresponsible about that campout! The guy is lacking in tact, to say the least. A few weeks ago I talked to SM and CC about the several attempts to schedule the SM Conf and B of Rev, and noted that the boy kept getting put off (later, no time, can't do...) and that each attempt to schedule it was becoming increasingly difficult b/c of the rejection. It didn't do much good....I guess having Mom interfere was another example of the boy not being assertive. Then tonight after the SM Conf my husband talked to SM about the depression, the abundance of service, preference for non-physical activities - SM stuck to his guns about waiting till he sees "a change" and more assertiveness before he'll sign off. My husband will talk to the CC soon, and yes, I'll keep you posted. You guys (?) are great! Thanks, Mom

Thanks for the quick reply, FScouter. We will do what you suggest. This SM does sometimes insist on his own interpretations of requirements, as opposed to accepting what is stated in the handbook. We have brought some - not all - of these up with the SM over the years, and I'm sure he doesn't like us being critical of his way of doing things. Nobody can fault this SM on his enthusiasm - he really wants all the kids to participate and have fun - but not everyone has fun the same way. I didn't mention it in my l-o-n-g message above (sorry!), but in my response to the bully posts below I noted that the SM may to some extent be annoyed with my son (us?) for making waves about our local bully. I don't want this to become an us-against-him thing, so hope it doesn't have to go to the unit or district. I also don't want to have him turn against my son, though at this point we're thinking of switching troops after he completes Life. (He won't be the first to switch because of some of the issues I've raised.) OK, I've rambled on enough - thanks for listening!

My son is very quiet and not interested in sports or physical activities. He's an honor student, audio-visual aide and stage crew manager at school, and does a lot of service / volunteer activities. He has held positions like Librarian or Scribe and taken them seriously, organizing books and files, creating activity and attendance charts on the computer, and so forth. He does not like to take part in active games like kickball, brawl-ball, etc. The SM is quite different - a very gung-ho kidding-around type of man. He often tells my son that he has to participate more and be more assertive. That's ok as long as it's encouraging, but now the SM has refused to sign off on his SM Conference for Life rank because of it. My son has been ready for this SM Conference and Board of Review for several months, but the SM and/or Committee Chair keep putting him off for various reasons - he has asked for these things to be scheduled over a half-dozen times, but either there's not time, or they've been busy and he hasn't interrupted, etc. (Remember, A Scout is Courteous? My son isn't the in-your-face type, and if the SM is busy talking to someone else he won't go up and say "hey, let's do my SM Conference".) In fact he DID the SM conference a month or so ago with one of the ASMs, but the Committee Chair said he wouldn't accept it, it had to be re-done with the SM. So my son finally got it scheduled with the SM tonight, and the SM refused to sign off, saying my son needs to be more assertive. I guess I have to add that my son is clinically depressed and on medication. As I see it, the SM is messing with my kid's head. He's trying to make him into something he's not, and in so doing may well be harming him psychologically. Beyond that, where do the Scout Oath or Law say "A Scout is Assertive"? He also commented that "some of the other kids think" that my son always has to do everything with his Father. His father is very active in the troop as a committee member, goes to every meeting, goes to summer camp, goes on most activies and has led some. Since when is it a problem to have a father who is active in scouting, and what difference does it make what "the other kids think"? My son did not stick up for himself during this meeting, and did not point out the very long list of volunteer and service activities or campouts and activities (he does all the volunteer / service activities, and goes on all historical hikes / trips as well as other hikes / trips, skipping the most physical things). He also has far more badges than anyone else in the troop except one boy who just got Eagle. He is never in trouble. Obviously he's active, helpful, courteous, etc.....but no, he is not assertive. So, after all that, the questions - what do you think of all this? Does this sound right for a SM conference? Does the SM have the right to add a requirement, especially one that is trying to change a boy's personality? Do you see this as a problem, or is this standard stuff? Do the SM manuals - I assume such a thing exists - say that the SM is supposed to try to make kids be more assertive and other things that aren't listed in the boys' handbook? Now I'm sure some of you are thinking "uh huh, this is Mom, of course Mom thinks her kid can do no wrong, obviously there are two sides to every story, etc". Despite that, I have really tried to be frank in my post, and I am not exaggerating my son's strengths nor distorting the problems with the SM. I'd appreciate comments on this - thanks!

These are interesting posts. We have a boy who is always getting in trouble, mostly just bugging people, goofing off, not paying attention, leaving the meeting, but he also bullies some kids, including my son, in and out of scouts. My son is quiet and well behaved and has never been in trouble in or out of scouts (and this isn't just Mom talking, his teachers and other adults all agree). My son and husband and I have complained and documented the problems with the bully numerous times. The asst SMs have all agreed that he is a real problem. The SM threatened to kick him out several times, and the SM made him promise to stay clear of my son or else. After a few more times of bugging / interrupting / harrassing my son, the SM finally tried to kick him out, but his Mom complained to the council and the committee stuck up for her. They didn't get the point that the most recent few problems, while by themselves not necessarily enough to kick the kid out, were just part of a very long pattern. The kid is still in, and recently the SM has been critical of my kid - perhaps because mine was the one who complained? I'm going to put up a new post about that issue.......