nolesrule

So, the end result of the "trial" is I've been suspended from ASM duties in the troop for 3 months because they didn't like the tone of my email. I've also been banned from attending troop meetings during that time, which is questionable under the Guide to Safe Scouting, but whatever. They've also decided to revoke in general ASM access to view scout advancements in scoutbook. I guess they didn't like people looking over their shoulders. On the positive side, I was told the committee decided to take my requests to improve communication and record keeping seriously, so I'm happy about that. I hope no more scouts are mishandled. There won't be new units created out of this. There's no point to it. For one, the troop isn't large enough to support a split into 2 units. And it's not something I am interested in taking on. Besides, there's a strong girls troop nearby and a strong Venturing crew with which my kids and I already have some established relationships through camps, OA and NYLT. I'm not going to politic to take other scouts with us should the time come to move on.

@qwazse I think it's time you give it a rest on the moon observation thing. This really goes way beyond that and the fact you keep trying to say my scout didn't earn the merit badge has gone from annoying to downright offensive at this point. Just because you don't agree with how the camp chose to do it doesn't mean it's wrong. It's beginning to feel like trolling rather than actually being helpful.

Welp, this is not going to end well. I was told by our other ASM that the CC engaged in character assassination at the committee meeting when our COR decided to essentially hold a trial where I spoke to the committee and then left, and then the CC got to say her piece (she did not witness what I spoke about). This was supposed to be about conflict resolution. That other ASM took exception to what was said about me but as an ASM was not permitted to speak or ask questions. He was so angry at how things went that he resigned and withdrew his daughter from the troop. My daughter has told me she no longer trusts the CC and SM. The whole point in the GTA is to handle things in a manner which won't destroy the trust between scouts and adults. This is double and triply a shame because the SM is course director for a council training that my daughter and I would be staffing in November, and he's also the SM for the female jamboree troop, which both of my kids are registered for.

@qwazseI think you are making a fair and thoughtful point, and I don't know what we can do as program leaders about monitoring the specifics of the verbs in every requirement. We have to put some level of trust into those who counsel our scouts to do the right thing. But also as leaders when we do have questions we cannot shortcut the process and jump to conclusions. To undo something that has been affirmed as done, in some cases by multiple people, we have to be absolutely sure. To do otherwise is an implicit accusation of lying. The more I've contemplated, this is just a symptom of a larger topic that needs to be addressed within the unit. The SM and CC are husband and wife. I don't think they are doing anything with any sort of malicious intent here, but I think they are starting to internalize ownership of the troop. The SM does not delegate program tasks to program people when things are overworked. And the CC does not delegate committee tasks to other members of the committee. Instead they tend to delegate the tasks between themselves with no external communication to other leaders. These are good people and in general I like working with them. I'm not sure they realize they're even doing that. At one time we were a smaller troop and they had to take on a lot of things themselves. We're still small, but we have more hands to help than we've ever had, and it's time to take advantage of that.

I wouldn't say it's vague. While there is room for ways to handle it, there are definitely procedures to follow. The language used in the wording does not imply an optionality ("should"). It describes how things will happen. And certainly the the scout law should be followed. There will be a consultation with the MBC/camp/MB event. That consultation determines if the scout really did it or not. It gives the person who signed off on the MB the opportunity to correct a mistake if one has been made, on the assumption that they are trustworthy and sometimes make mistakes. If you as a unit leader think it was impossible, part of that discussion should be to ask how it was done. Should a decision be made without having all the information?* No. If from the consultation it's determined there was an error issuing a completion, the unit leader will have a discussion with the scout to vet out the situation further and explain how things will be handled to finish the merit badge. Lastly, this should be handled in a timely fashion and if the scout or their parents think it's wrong, then they can request a meeting with the troop committee for further discussion. There are a lot of words in the section, mostly discussing what the section is not for, but when you strip it down that's really all it says. If one is to follow the scout law, and everyone involved should be doing so, the unit needs to assume the MBC/camp is trustworthy and that if a mistake was made they will step up to correct it. Timeliness and open communication are also a key. None of this should ever be coming out of left field. ------ * Seeing as I was the facilitator between the unit and the camp staff in this conversation, I know for a fact the unit did not wait to get the answer to the question of how it was done, so they proceeded purely on speculation and the assumption the camp lied. If the unit wanted me not involved due to the scout being my child, I would have requested from the staff and then provided to the unit direct contact information and then stepped out. I was just trying to be helpful.

I do agree with all of that @qwazse. A good camp merit badge program will want to know if they made mistakes in issuing a merit badge completion and will take the opportunity to get feedback and also make the corrections.. Merit badge counselors should never be signing off on requirements that cannot be personally verified. We had a case where someone took E-prep at camp and the First Aid merit badge requirement was signed off even though I knew they hadn't earned it. I said something and they fixed it. It would not have issued a completion anyway because there were other requirements that could not be done at camp, but getting the specific requirements correct in the records for an incomplete merit badge is also important. All that said, this thread did end up being a debate about requirement interpretation, when what I was trying to ask was about following procedures specifically written for these scenarios, regardless of a requirement in question. It's black and white for things that are objective, like a thunderstorm closing the waterfront on the last day of camp or someone marking camping days complete without ever seeing a signed camping log or marking a requirement that a merit badge must be earned for another MB's requirements without proof of it. But overall I have some concerns in how things are being handled on the advancement side in our growing troop beyond this particular issue and I think it's due to the CC trying to do too much resulting in procedural errors and records omissions to the point others have to speak up about it regularly. Some of the major committee responsibilities need to be offloaded to other members of the committee (we have 5 committee members, the CC, Treasurer and 3 others who have no assigned functional responsibilities). I've suggested it before, but only small tasks have been handed off, as if the CC is reluctant to relinquish control. This incident gave me the opportunity to have a friendly chat with our COR about my concerns and the need to start delegating tasks.

The summer camp's Program Director has taken it upon herself to get this matter resolved, so I am stepping back. I appreciate everyone's input and feedback here, even in the cases where I disagreed with some of the reasoning.

@fred8033 #1 My involvement in this was to actually facilitate the information gathering when this past Tuesday I was told that the CC reached out to someone but never got a response. The camp used Group.me for information sharing during camp with a separate channel for each week. It was still active, so I reached out to ask the questions and got aresponses. And then I provided the screengrabs of the conversations. That's the extent of it. However, this is not the only advancement-related issue I've been noticing with the troop (the others are not related to summer camp) and it is effecting multiple scouts, so I am planning to get more involved to advocate on behalf of all of the scouts. The other things are less egregious but still a sign that something is wrong. Like putting in a Completed merit badge as a partial because not all the individual requirements were listed as complete in the requirements section (okay, that's just as bad), or not updating scoutbook in a timely manner when something has been earned, then doing all of the data entry for the entire quarter the week before the court of honor, and missing something getting entered. In one case it was a rank advancement that was 2.5 months earlier. Our troop does the mother's pin thing, and that scout was not recognized for the rank and there was no mother's pin ordered to give to the mother. Frankly it was an embarrassing moment, and I would have expected the delayed record entry to be fixed. And since all of this involves our CC pulling double duty as CC, there's also been a history of not signing the scoutbook at the board of review. There are patterns in failing to carry out responsibilities. #2 Nope. All she got was an email from the CC telling her to redo the requirement. No communication of any kind from the SM in all of this. Also, that sit down with the SM is supposed to happen only in the even that MB actually could not have been completed. Clearly it was. So it should not have even gotten to this point. #3 She's ambivalent. She doesn't care enough about the subject to redo the requirement, but she does feel that she has been wronged. We have our court of honor tomorrow. When she received the new badges, those earned from camp and 2 others, she said she will leave a gap on her sash where this one would have gone as a silent sign of protest. This whole bad situation is a case of adults inserting themselves into the process improperly, so there isn't any point in even dragging the scout into it. As for 7.0.4.7, none of the scouts came home from the camp with merit badges they didn't sign up for, and the CC was the one who handled the registrations. And there were definitely incompletes for those that could not be completed. As a MBC I am personally working with scouts in our troop who received incompletes at summer camp either by design (Cooking, Camping) or due to other circumstances that caused camp events to be cancelled and thus requirements not to be completed (Communication).

@qwazseAgain, we'll have to disagree on the aspect of how a scout is getting short changed in scouting. I would contend that improperly executing the Methods is what shortchanges the scouts, because it is the Methods that instill the Aims and Ideals. The only thing this kind of situation teaches scouts is that they shouldn't trust adults. My daughter doesn't need this merit badge for anything. She wears them on her sash in the order she earns them and has decided to leave the spot open on her sash if it never gets awarded. She has already decided she will not redo a requirement she has already satisfactorily completed as a matter of personal integrity. She is a Life Scout, is intelligent, independent (other than not being able to drive) and the kind of person you expect a scout to be. She is well regarded within our council by youth and adults alike. She was our troop's second SPL, and the first to do it the way it is meant to be. She is a regular on NYLT staff and also on our council SEALS course, which is kinda like an ILST that we offer to younger scouts (not to be confused with SEAL). She'll be finishing up her Eagle project by the end of the year and only has the new Citizenship in Society merit badge left to earn, and has already scheduled that with a counselor for next month. All in all I'm proud of her and the accomplishments she's already done and those yet to happen. Sadly I am disappointed in the way she has been treated in this matter. It was carried out in secrecy, the communication only happened once they got caught, the investigation was carried out and a determination rendered without actually having the proper information in hand while making bad assumptions and it wasn't communicated through the proper channels or in a timely manner as proscribed. Since the DAC has so farchosen not to return my emails and I do not have a phone number (I was able to find the email address from a district newsletter), I have elected to get our District Commissioner involved to assist in conflict resolution, as this is not the only issue we've been having lately in regard to handling of advancements... there have been 8 incidents since the spring in which a scout has been wronged either by intentional action or by inattention to record keeping.

She only came back from summer camp with completions in what was signed up for that was actually completed, as did all our scouts. Scouts returned with incompletes for those merit badges that were designated as not able to be completed at camp and also those that due to various circumstances were unable to be completed due to weather or other reasons. Our troop has gone to that camp 2 years in a row, and both my kids have gone an extra week each summer. The camp staff is extremely trustworthy in that regard and has solid lesson plans. It's my understanding that this particular requirement has been carried out at the camp in this manner going back to at least 2019. Other scouts in our troop have taken this badge in previous years, including the SM and CC's own daughter when she was part of her first troop. So if it seems like I have a grind to gear, it's because I sense a double standard / conflict of interest.

@qwazseI see your point, but I disagree with it. The requirements are the requirements. Asking someone to do better than the minimum is fine. Denying someone credit for something they did that meets the requirements even though there is a better way is not fine and is ultimately a disservice to all involved. Why set the minimum as the minimum of that's not really the minimum? It's changing the rules of the game, and this is supposed to be a game, right? It's moving the goal posts, and that is a bad thing, not a good thing. It seems to me the language is intentionally vague, so as to allow for these types of situations. Maybe it was to be able to accommodate differently abled. Maybe it was to manage bad weather situations or excessive light pollution or timing issues. Or all of the above. I really don't know. I didn't write the requirements. If you want to make the requirement be the better option and only the better option, write it in such a way so there is no confusion that the better way is the only way it can be accomplished. There are plenty of examples of requirements that greatly narrow how you must accomplish a specific task even though there may be multiple ways. And this one I could think of a pretty easy re-write to accomplish it. But am dismayed at how you try to twist things around to make abuse of the provisions of the Guide to Advancement into a good thing. Your intentions are good, but that's not the program we are supposed to be delivering. They went to the DAC to get advice on how to proceed prior to having all the information, just an assumption that the requirement could not be met. The advice should have been to follow the procedures of 7.0.4.7 in order, which starts with getting all the information needed before making a decision, and doing so in a timely manner. They chose not to follow them. Trustworthy works both ways. But I do appreciate that you took the time to provide feedback.

@DuctTapeyour response is fair, and so are how you would handle the discussion. I'm not the counselor here, but I would handle things in the same manner. Essentially the CC/AC declared the requirement impossible on the basis of the moonrise time and knowledge of the camp's layout and the rules of camp regarding when scouts are required to remain in the campsite at night due to curfew. The point here is they did not take into account even the possibility of other means that meet the wording of the requirements. Is using imagery okay? The camp thinks so. I asked around in other places and it seems it's not an unusual practice given what can be done at camps. Would it be better to do it with a direct observation? I think so. But better isn't what ultimately is the determining factor, is it?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that in the case of a cloudy night for someone not visually impaired, one could hold up a tablet with a night sky map (without lines or labels) and do the identifications. It is, for all intents and purposes, the same steps. Okay. Here's the requirement; Sketch the phase and position of the Moon, at the same hour and place, for four nights within a one week period. Include landmarks on the horizon such as hills, trees, and buildings. Explain the changes you observe. So here's the question at hand. Does this require actually looking at the moon in the sky on 4 different nights in a one week period? or can some other means be used to get the visual data for the sketch as long as it includes the same hour and place from 4 different nights in a one week period and includes objects on the horizon. If you tell me there is only one way to parse that without involving an advanced degree in Lingusitics then I will defer to your expertise and inform the camp they've been doing it wrong for several years, although quite frankly I am friends with a PhD in Linguistics, so I may have to ask her for her opinion on the matter.

Agreed. Right, but it demonstrates that you don't actually have to see the stars themselves in the sky to be able to meet the requirement. You essentially just have to point to something held above you outside at night (there's a note on that particular set of sub-requirements that basically says it must be done outside at night). But someone else's intepretation of that requirement might deem that scenario to not be completed as written but rather a circumvention. This was not the requirement that was disputed as being impossible to complete. But a literal reading of the disputed requirement does not specify a direct visual observation of a celestial body is required, nor even that it needs to be done "in the sky" like the one in the braille example. The CC deemed it impossible nevertheless. Also, the plain language isn't entirely straightforward grammatically as it has a series of prepositional phrases in which it's impossible to say with any certainty what exactly they are modifying leaving it open to multiple interpretations. Honestly a rewrite of that requirement is probably in order if you start arguing over grammar.

Interestingly the merit badge in this case is Astronomy. I am not going to post the specific requirement at issue nor what methods the camp employed to meet the requirement because then it might in fact turn into a debate about interpreting the requirement. I'll also note that when doing research on this subject I found an old Bryan on Scouting post from 2018 which discussed employing creative methods for differently abled people to be able to meet requirements as written. One of the examples included how a blind person was able to complete the observation requirements for Astronomy. The thing is the creative methods aren't just restricted to the differently abled. But you have confirmed my understanding of the section in that is about ensuring the requirement was actually done and not how it was done. So if the MBC, when asked, says that the scout did indeed do the requirement to their satisfaction, that should have been the end of it.

Let's say that someone in the unit questions the completion of a merit badge based on their own interpretation of a specific merit badge requirement. 7.0.4.7 states in the first paragraph.... Is it not the purpose of this paragraph to give the merit badge counselor the opportunity to rescind a completion in the event the merit badge really was not complete? So what is supposed to happen if when consulting the MBC/org that administered the badge they affirm (or rather re-affirm) that all of the requirements were completed as written? Can the unit decide to overrule the information provided in the consultation, withhold awarding the badge and require the scout to redo the requirement with another merit badge counselor? Isn't the merit badge counselor the person who decides that a merit badge requirement has been met? Is deciding it could not have been completed despite the affirmation from the counselor that it was completed simply the unit "interjecting another set of standards over those of a merit badge counselor" (which is forbidden by 7.0.4.7)? This is not a hypothetical situation, but an actual case that is occurring in our unit with a summer camp merit badge. The scout involved in this is one of my two children in the troop and I am going to put that out here now, so you can all skip over the whole conflict of interest thing. I have 10 years experience as a Unit Commissioner and 3+ years as an ASM in this troop I have always used what I learned from my past UC experience to help ensure our leaders deliver our program to the scouts as it is intended. So let's not use this to get sidetracked. I'm interested in proper procedure. There have been other mis-handlings of advancement and I have advocated for the scouts in all cases. I had considered those other ones innocent mistakes, but now I'm not so sure. When I noticed the scout was being issued a partial despite the Advancement data saying the badge was complete, I asked our CC/AC why (yes, the CC is doubling as Advancement Coordinator despite other registered committee members that have offered to take on the role.... red flag), and was told it was because they felt a requirement could not have been completed and they reached out to the council but hadn't gotten any information. As I was trip leader for summer camp, I had the necessary contact information for the people who could answer the questions, and I reached out to them where they re-affirmed that all requirements were in fact completed, including the one that was being questioned. I sent a copy of this conversation to the SM and CC/AC, and assumed that was the end of it. I've been trip leader for summer camp to this camp two years in a row. The camp staff has always made every effort to have correct advancement report data, and always corrects it when there is a problem. They don't just hand out merit badges. I have no reason to believe they are not telling the truth and that the merit badge was in fact completed. Two days later, an email was sent by the CC to the scout telling them they had to redo the merit badge requirement and would provide a new counselor. The scout was never even asked about the requirement or how it was done at camp. When I asked our SM about it, I was brusquely told to take it up with the District Advancement Chair who he said gave them advice on how to deal with it. The abrupt communication was rather uncharacteristic of the SM, who is usually friendly and willing to listen. Whatever the DAC told them, it seems to me the advice contradicted the GTA in this matter. I did shoot the DAC an email with copies of the conversation with the camp on Friday morning and I have not heard back. I want to focus on this first part of 7.0.4.7 in particular, where the unit is just ignoring the consultation step entirely and doing their own thing, but I am also deeply concerned with how 7.0.4.7 was invoked and then not actually followed assuming they were even able to proceed past that first paragraph, such as the lack of any involvement by the unit leader, nor the fact that the completion report for this merit badge was acquired by the unit 10 weeks before the communication to the scout (by the CC, not the unit leader, via email and not a conference) with no indication in that 10 weeks there was an actual issue under dispute until the merit badge was entered as a partial in scoutbook. I don't believe this is one of those cases where leaving the troop would be helpful to any of the parties. It's a not quite 3 year old female troop, it's just finally starting to grow and I think we can all continue to work together to deliver a great program to the scouts.

Agreed. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. No one is going to force you to wear your medals, square knot or no square knot. For that matter, no one is going to force you to wear the square knots either.

My two year old daughter is outside blowing bubbles with her great grandmother right now. :-)

I came across this last night. Thought it would be relevant to the discussion at hand. http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-four-charts-that-explain-what-the-protesters-are-angry-about-2011-10

"In short--- BSA should change it's policies on homosexuals only if it's decided that it's the right thing to do." I don't disagree with the Dale decision. It's one of the tenets that makes this country what it is. But the BSA itself shouldn't have a homosexual policy. The responsibility should fall onto the Chartering Organizations to decide if a leader meets their needs as a leader of scouts (Ideals, Aims, Methods, etc.). If the BSA is taking on that responsibility beyond criminal background checks, then they begin to decide that the morality of certain religions is more important than others... and that's not respectful toward all regions, is it? There are religious organizations out there who recommend or require their member congregations to no longer sponsor BSA units based solely on this issue.

The outside perception all come down to a couple of things. Most people see the BSA as camping, knot tying and merit badges and that they discriminate against homosexuals. To outsiders, there's no mission, Aims or Methods, and as such there's just a lack of communication in general. It's a public relations nightmare that the BSA doesn't know how to handle, and it's costing them come recruiting time. It is resulting in loss or reduced access to schools for meetings and recruiting, and you take a big hit when it affects recruiting. When you can hit up schools, you are having an opportunity to get in front of close to 100% of your target audience. If you are limited to recruiting elsewhere, that number goes much lower. As for this specific hot-button issue, what happens when religious values and good citizenship are in conflict? I don't have an issue if a CO were to choose one way or another on this issue, but the BSA taking a stance like this makes them much more than just a provider of program materials. Not to get preachy, but there's only one thing in the bible regarding homosexuality that is considered an abhorance, and that shouldn't be going on in front of kids anyway. Neither should the heterosexual non-abhorant version.

Certainly not. In what manner you spend the money is somewhat different, but the principle is the same. Cash flow and growth are the keys to a thriving economy. People tend to ignore the cash flow issue and focus on the buzzwords with big red numbers like debts and deficits. You know what hurts cash flow? CEOs taking 2-digit millions in bonuses and laying off thousands of workers at the same time so that they can earn the bonus by decreasing expenses rather than actually trying to increase revenues. 1000 people making $40,000/year will put more money back into the economy (and thus increase revenues from taxes for all levels of government) than one person who gets that $50-million bonus. We've heard the trickle down idea before. I still don't buy it, because it overlooks the natural propensity toward greed and the hording of wealth.

I agree with Beavah, and so do economists. That's "economists", not "communists". Whatever happened to "You have to spend money to make money"?

And the money is used for LFL-related programs in public schools.

Welcome to Pinellas County. In other news, our Board of County Commissioners voted to end fluoridation of our drinking water last week.