Beavah

Yah, in the case of the boy, I think you follow your conscience and da advancement requirements, eh? And maybe, if things are really what you say, yeh should just drop this boy from the roster. He really isn't participatin'. How many school clubs or sports teams do you know that would keep a boy on the rolls if he hadn't shown up for nearly 3 years? Unfortunately, yeh have a more serious problem. You've got a CC who is interferin' where he shouldn't, and perhaps a CC and Committee who aren't on the same page with you in terms of their vision for what the troop is trying to accomplish with young men. That's something to address. If by the grace of God you actually have a decent unit commissioner, yeh might pull them in, along with the Chartered Organization and its representative. There might be some need for trainin', but there's certainly some need for developing a common vision. The CC should be your partner and backup in keeping the troop on the road to success, eh? And if he can't be that, then yeh need a new CC (or they need a new SM). It's ideal to address these things when you're not having a "big issue" that everyone is getting all emotional about. Address it as a discussion of what yeh all value, and want to achieve positively for kids. Beavah

If being a smart-aleck in the 8th grade is a legitimate reason to deny the Eagle, none of us would have received it. Yah, dat's for sure, eh! I think we're talkin' 12th grade here, though. Also from da sound of things it looks like the SM wasn't makin' a knee-jerk reaction, but spent some time talkin' with other people before he made his decision. While mdsummer45 worries about that introducin' "bias" here and there, I see it as more healthy than that - a guy who is askin' his colleagues for advice on a hard case, much as most of us would do. It's a hard case, eh? Even an interestin' test case on whether a troop can base part of an advancement decision on a boy's involvement level without strict adherence to arbitrary percentages. A lot of folks have spent a lot of time on it. I think there may have been a window in there sometime in da last year where a different adult who had a different approach may have reached this lad where these adults didn't. Maybe; it's hard to say. A tough lesson for the boy, perhaps. Yeh can't always expect that people will take your words and actions in the best light, and avoidin' an issue doesn't make it go away. A tough lesson for da parents, perhaps. In a volunteer organization, decisions are usually made by those who volunteer. I'm not sure there's really anything more to be accomplished by calling various execs, though it may make mdsummer45 feel better. She and her son should add their written statements to the record and then the appeal will go off to National. B

Yah, no guidelines from da BSA other than you should not force boys to attend services outside their own denomination as a condition of participation. So if I'm gettin' this right, your troop does the right thing by trying to accommodate both its Catholic and Protestant members' needs. Because there is a lot of Catholic adult participation that is not a problem. But because you can often only get one Protestant adult to come out, sometimes you have to take everyone to Catholic services for two-deep reasons? Seems simple to me, eh? If Protestant parents don't want their kids to go with da troop to Catholic services, they should get off their duffs and volunteer to help with outings so that all the kids' needs can be met. If they don't, then they've got no business complainin'. Da Catholic scouters are already bearin' more than their share of the load to make the troop run, eh? Beavah

This gets more bizarre by the day...how can a District hold an EBOR without the Scout's (and parent's) knowledge and consent? They didn't, eh? Mdsummer45 is just havin' selective amnesia or wasn't listening closely. There are pages in this thread where I and Eagle92 and others tell her that the district will be conducting the EBOR, and where she acknowledges that it will be a district BOR. So there's nothin' bizarre here. She and her son were well informed, but in the emotion of the month that fact got lost. Dat's why it's best to read cautiously when listenin' to only one side. I think the local folks have collectively determined that the lad has been a minimal participant in the unit who had some serious attitude/behavioral problems when he did participate, and who never responded appropriately to those issues when they were addressed in person and in writing. Instead, he either blamed the adults or avoided the adults, and continues to avoid any notion of personal responsibility. Now I'm just guessin' and projecting, eh? That may or may not be their side of it, but I expect it's close. Mdsummer doesn't hear that (or us sometimes) because she's just seein' her son as the great student and kid he no doubt is. So she and her son aren't acknowledgin' the other side. That's the nature of such disputes, eh? There's some truth to all of it. Both the good kid and the smart aleck who isn't taking responsibility. Tough to hear as a boy or a parent. Tough for folks to sort out. Very hard to say anything about from afar, other than that the troop, district, and council have been followin' the appeals procedure well - indeed, better than most. Beavah

Yah, I think da OP is dealin' with the aftermath and reaction from an incident which must have occurred today, eh? I reckon he needs to get with some folks tonight and in the comin' days to work through that. Anybody who's ever worked EMS knows what he's goin' through. Hurt kids are the worst. Snake River at Alpine is runnin' 19,000 cfs. That's good excitin' high water. Been quite a while since I paddled out that way, long enough I don't remember that stretch well or what I level I paddled it at. It's mostly Class III stuff, but it's big water. Three Oar Deal looks like one of those Class II rapids with Class V consequences if yeh blow the move. That kind of feature can cause a lot of grief. It's described as a symmetrical hole comin' off a shelf river left in the main current, with a sneak route right. They might not have known about it, or they might not have been quick enough to make the move. At 12,000 cfs it's described as a potentially deadly keeper hole. At 19,000 cfs it's gotta be grim. B

This whole scenario is deceptive and manipulative (and yes, I'm going for the negative connotation there) and conflicts with more than one point of the Scout Law...at least 4 by my count. Yah, we're always so good at seein' fellow scouters as being ugly, bad, deceptive, manipulative, unscoutly trolls around here. Da facts in evidence don't support the conclusion. Yah, sure, a troop can choose to drop everyone who falls below its definition of active from it's roster. In which case the lad gets dumped from all chance of advancing a year ago. Some troops choose to do that (I think it was my third or fourth option above). I suppose it makes it all neat and tidy for da folks who spend their nights on campouts readin' ACP&P. Me, I'd just as soon keep da light on for the lad, make him welcome at the few meetings he shows up for. There's no reason he shouldn't continue to think of his troopmates, young and old, as friends. But that's not da same thing as feelin' he's ready to be given an award for his character and scouting spirit, or held up as an example to da younger fellows and the community. I'd keep the light on for a lad who was strugglin' with drug addiction myself, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend him for Eagle. Happily, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't have to be a choice between the two. I listed at least five options that I've seen troops use pretty well, and I know a few dozen others. Yeh just pick one that makes sense for your CO and your adult leaders and your boys, eh? Yah, sure, some adults and CO's really value da notion of commitment. That's not unreasonable since every other youth organization which gives out awards expects it. Other adults or CO's may not share that same value, and choose to run their units differently to achieve different character goals. Of course, my role in Scoutin' these days is to help a wide variety of COs and unit leaders use the program to advance their own values and goals, eh? So my perspective is just different. Unit leaders by and large are proud of their troops, and naturally feel their way is always the best way! Only thing that's not OK is if da two of 'em forget all those things about bein' Reverent and Courteous and Kind and Friendly and Clean and start accusin' each other of being bad people. That never serves Scouting or boys well. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... Generally speakin', I don't think too highly of 3rd parties that widely publish someone else's communication without askin' permission. I think ljnrus exercised poor judgment on that score. That havin' been said, I didn't find anything in the published excerpts to be inappropriate or unusual. A bit vague perhaps, but I'm not readin' the whole thing. Yah, and if da folks suspected their stuff may be published across da country, they might also choose to be indirect in their writin'. The quantity of material does put to rest da notion that the council did not have all of the information it needed. Mdsummer did share with me via PM the name of her council. I can say that it is not a council which has a reputation for being political or being an "old boys network" or any of that. Quite the opposite, it is a council which is very highly regarded in many scouting circles, both volunteer and professional. It is safe to say that da district and council folks are well trained and independent. So we're back to da issue that all of us with whom mdsummer has shared have only an incomplete set of facts from one aggrieved party in da dispute. No fair person would ever settle a case by listening to da hearsay testimony and evidence of only one side. And I expect nobody who thinks for a moment about da Oath and Law would heap shame and abuse on fellow scouters with otherwise good reputations based on that either. If mdsummer and her son desire, da appeal will go off to National, and they'll do their best to sort through it. In the end, we have to trust da folks who spend so much of their free time helping other people's children, and those who are able to view the evidence and testimony from both sides of the dispute. Beavah still proud of all our scouts, our Eagles, and our volunteers(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I really didn't intend any special emphasis on the word "giving," since I used it in da following paragraph too. Substitute "awarding" if yeh like. I think it's just fine for nolesrule's troop and CO to choose to do what he suggests, eh? To say "Hey, we have no problem with him being absent this last year and putting his part-time job as a priority." They think that shows fine character and scout spirit and merits an award. I'd support them in that approach. I might even agree with 'em. I also think it's just fine for ASM206's CO and unit to say "No, we believe that citizenship and character demand active participation, and that's the example we want to set." To satisfy all da pink book lawyers out there, they might then cite the Rules & Regulations and say that the lad is only on Associate Member status right now, and to proceed with advancement they expect him to return to Active status. I'd support them in that approach. I might even agree with 'em. I think it's OK if another troop feels very strongly about the issue and lays out its expectations in advance, and drops the lad's membership for being inactive. That is, after all, what most other high school extracurricular programs would do, eh? I'd support them in that approach, though I might not agree with 'em. I think it's fine if a troop or CO feels that their goal is to get boys to move through the ranks quickly, adhering to the minimums to develop a habit of obedience and guided achievement. There are a fair number like that, eh? Some that do it because their program continues with Varsity or Venturing to further develop other aspects of character. I'd support them in that approach, though I might not agree with 'em. There's all kinds of ways of approachin' this, eh? No one right or wrong way, no one "BSA Approved way." I know fine troops that use each of these approaches and more. The outcomes they get for kids depend on their choices. So ASM206's unit should select the outcomes they want. What's their CO's and unit's vision of da Aims? Remember, every other boy and parent is watching. What they choose to recognize and award tells everyone in their program what they value, what they feel is worth the challenge and the striving for. The only thing dat itches my fur a bit is settin' the bar substantially lower than other high school aged activities, and then claimin' that Eagle Scout is as (or more) valuable than those activities. To me, that's just dishonest. So if a troop makes a big deal about earnin' Eagle Scout, celebrates it as a fantastic accomplishment with Eagle Charges and formal ceremonies and letters from da governor and such, then I think they have a duty to make their expectations for achieving that honor match up with their rhetoric. Or if we feel that a boy should get an award as long as he's a nice dues-paying fellow who shouldn't be punished for anything, then we should also be honest and say that Eagle is not somethin' appropriate for a resume, college application, or banquet. Beavah

Yah, welcome to da forums oldisnewagain1! And a big Thank You for your long-term commitment to Scouting. Like the others, I think it's a no-go. If your Mrs. is expressin' concern and you're feeling uncomfortable about missin' important time with your daughter, I think yeh have your answer. Unless the CO is willing to run a pilot coed program . No matter how great yeh feel the committee and other ASMs are, it's always goin' to be more work and more time than you predict. That's the nature of all children and all programs that we love, eh? Beavah

Yah, all kinds of weird legal speculation here. Relax, folks. You're making up ghost stories. To my mind, the issue is a boy with a serious medical condition and a hard-to-manage drug cocktail. When you get a medical form like that, I think yeh want to make sure it's detailed and legible, and then review things with the parent and physician so that you're sure you know what the boy's needs are. Havin' a medical practitioner on your committee who knows the program and can look over these things can also be a big help. Then you need to think carefully and honestly about whether yeh can accommodate the boy's needs, or what additional resources you'll need to be able to support the lad. Sometimes, if the conditions are serious enough and your level of medical knowledge is limited, yeh might have to say "we're not comfortable with your son participating unless we can get X, Y, and Z." Beavah

But don't sacrifice him to improve attendance with younger scouts.... Yes, I have an issue with adults using negative reinforcement, which is how I see this whole question being spun Yah, I reckon this is just my personal learning disability, eh? I just can't learn to think that not giving a kid an award is negative reinforcement. For me, giving kids awards is positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is the whole point of the advancement method. We give boys awards for achieving something substantial and worth rewarding. We recognize them as special for how they've developed their skills and character. We go out of our way to say how special it is because such a small percent of scouts merits our highest award, so as to make the positive reinforcement even stronger. If da award (any award!) is really an entitlement, so that not giving a boy the award is "sacrificing him" through negative reinforcement, then the award is useless for positive reinforcement. Everyone who wants gets the award for being registered unless the adults are mean, nasty louts. If everyone gets one, it ain't worth striving for. There's nothing wrong with not getting an "A" in Chemistry, not earning a Varsity letter, or not earning Life Scout. We'd like to think if most boys work hard enough they can do any of those things, eh? And we hold out that positive reinforcement to get them to work hard and build skills. But there is somethin' wrong if a lad earns an "A" in Chemistry just for being registered in the class, or earns a Varsity letter for showin' up to one practice a week and no weekend games. It means the adults are failing to use positive reinforcement properly, so the award isn't helping boys grow. ASM206 did ask what to do, eh? There are all kinds of options besides those two. The boy has almost 6 months. I think a good one might be that yeh sit with him, say that you're glad he's got renewed interest, and talk about what Scout Spirit really means. Ask him if he wants to be the guy who just wants to get his medal and move on, or whether he really cares about the troop and the example he's setting for the younger guys. When he goes before his ECOH, does he want those younger fellows to look bored and roll their eyes ("Who is this guy?"), or does he want them to be cheerin' ("I know him! He's so cool! I want to be that kind of Eagle Scout!"). Then set him up as a JASM and see if he walks the walk between now and November. In other words, set the boy a challenge to achieve that leads to real personal growth. And if he achieves that growth and character, recognize it with an award to reinforce it for him and for others. Dat's how the Advancement Method in Boy Scouting works, eh? Beavah

Yah, I always get a chuckle out of Andy. There is no statement anywhere in BSA literature or handbooks that even remotely suggests that one's adult leaders will determine or influence a Scout's advancement pace.' What a hoot! Has the man never seen a quality unit application? "It is important that the troop committee and Scoutmaster set an advancement goal for the year. A basic goal should be for each Scout to Advance a rank during the year. New Scouts should earn the First Class rank during their first year in the troop." That's in ACP&P, SMH, TCG, etc. etc. Somebody should also let Andy know that "Do your best" is a Cub Scouting program standard, eh? Boy Scouting advancement is different. It places a series of challenges in front of a scout that are fun and educational. Meeting the challenges should allow the boy to achieve the Aims of Boy Scouting - character, fitness, and citizenship. So we have to ask ourselves as we implement advancement in our units, "Does the way we are doing this really build character, fitness, and citizenship?" If not, then we aren't doing Boy Scouting advancement properly, and we're shortchanging the kids we've promised to serve. "Does advancement in our troop really provide a challenge? A fun challenge?" if not, then we're not keepin' our promise to the lads. Boy Scoutin' helps boys develop self-confidence by measuring up to an external challenge or standard. Not "do your best" like in Cub Scouts, but "meet this challenge." A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do, it is not a reward for what he has done in the past. And all Boy Scouting advancement must be administered in light of the Aims. Where'd all that come from yeh ask? Why, the Rules & Regulations, ACP&P, and our many other program documents of course. So the question I think ASM206 is askin' is one that we all need to ask ourselves and our COs - "what do we think represents good character and citizenship?" Being present, participating in the community, contributing positively? Arguin' each requirement so as to do the bare minimum? (hey, attorneys and bureaucrats have to come from somewhere, eh?). Then whatever each unit's view of citizenship is, it should be reflected in all da ranks, not just Eagle. Ask Andy always gets at least half of his blog right, and he's right about that. I always tell units that if they're disappointed in their Eagle Scout candidates, they need to focus on their expectations for 2nd Class, First Class, and Star. ASM206 should start with his young fellows going for those ranks, with a vision for what they should be when they become Eagles. Beavah

I feel states that at both the district level AND the council level ALL parties MUST be interviewed or written statements obtained. Yah, you're welcome to feel whatever yeh like, eh? It's just an internet forum, and I'm just a silly furry critter offerin' a perspective. I just don't think you're likely to get too far with that, eh? "Upon initial receipt of an appeal, the district and the council advancement committee charged with hearing the initial appeal shall provide for a prompt review to determine the facts. All parties must be interviewed or written statements obtained." Da key is the wording "the initial appeal". If yeh then read da previous paragraphs, you learn that if the original "no" decision was made by the troop, then the initial appeal is to the district. That's how it happened for your son. But in some councils, the district BOR might be the initial "no", in which case the initial appeal is to the council advancement committee. Whichever it is, the initial appeal body should do the interviews and such. For subsequent appeals it's not expected. I confess that I still think it's a nice thing to do, at least in councils small enough to be able to do it. I think yeh do what NeilLup suggested and call the council advancement chair and let 'em know you weren't well informed about da process, and you'd like them to reconsider after they get your son's written statement which you'll submit. And yours if yeh like (I'd just caution yeh that you limit it to what you personally observed, and avoid some of the hearsay and stuff that you've repeated here). If not, then ask that they include your statements in the appeal packet to National. Beavah

But if he is still a registered, dues-paying member of the troop then he has every reason to believe he's more than just an alumn and friend of the troop - he is a member. Maybe, maybe not, eh? My guess is that ASM206 is tryin' to tell us that they don't feel he's a member in good standing, but I may be misreadin'. Either way, I think it's fine for a troop to have an inactive or associate member status. That's still on da books with the BSA too, though from what I hear it didn't get programmed into ScoutNet well. Somethin' that allows a lad to stay affiliated, maybe come on an occasional event. Or ASM206's troop can simply drop the lad from the roster at any point they feel he's inactive. That is what every other youth activity, from da swim team to the chess club would do, eh? And then have a conference with him if he decides to return, and lay out expectations for him bein' a fully active member and a good example to younger fellas before thinkin' about advancement. Everybody likes to advocate that the way they do it is the way everybody else should, eh? Fact is, I know fine troops that view this each way. Perhaps a bit depends on whether yeh view Eagle Scout as an individual thing a boy gets, or a community thing a boy is recognized for. Is it just a matter of checkin' off requirements, as nolesrule suggests, or is it a recognition of skill and character and bein' an example to others, as the Eagle Charge and almost every Eagle COH celebrates? Both ways can be managed well, or poorly. ASM206 and his fellow scouters just need to figure out what their vision for it is, eh? Beavah

Nah, before everyone goes sailin' off into the blustery winds of outrage and condemnation, NealonWheels isn't readin' his copy of ACP&P right, eh? Only the body charged with hearing the initial appeal is obligated to do a review to determine the facts (including interviews and written statements). In this case, the body hearin' the initial review for the BSA was the district, and they did that appropriately. Subsequent appeals can proceed based on just the written record (and indeed that's all that's used at National). Those of you familiar with da regular justice system will recognize that this parallels that system, where the court of original jurisdiction is the trier of facts, while appellate courts limit themselves to correcting clear errors in fact and deciding questions of law. So there's nothing amiss in what this council did. In fact all levels, from da troop on up, have done a very fine job of properly followin' the appeals process. It's really hard for me to imagine that there's any new information at this point, eh? Mdsummer45 and her son have written several letters as part of the appeal thus far. I think they should feel free and be welcome to include any additional statement they want, but I expect they've already made the best case they can. The council is goin' to send the full thing off to Irving, they're not goin' to leave off Mdsummer's son's letters or statements or da rest wouldn't make any sense. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... not sure what you're really tryin' to get at, eh? Da real answer to your question is Lisabob's. None. The deeper answer is that retention is "ongoing recruitment". What can you and the leadership boys in your troop do to continually "recruit" your current members, includin' these boys? The still deeper answer is to conduct exit interviews and figure out what da reasons are for kids leavin', and decide if they're worth addressing. B

I have come to see that this is a natural consequense of the scouts age. Nah, doesn't have to be. I know a lot of troops settle for this, eh? I always push 'em not to settle. I know troops in every district in every income range that have their over-16 guys fully active and participatin'. Lads with jobs and extracurriculars and girlfriends. It is not a "natural" thing that they withdraw from scoutin'. It's a program weakness that we can do better on. If yeh find you're not able to do that, I think yeh need to look at your program. What can you do to expand youth leadership to appropriately challenge older boys? It doesn't have to be high adventure... most older lads care as much about personal challenge as physical challenge like that. If they're comin' back to do projects, give 'em some in-troop leadership projects! Projects have the advantage of bein' able to be scheduled around their other activities. As for the inactive boy who returns lookin' to do a project and Eagle out... Me, I'm always caught on da notion of a boy coming back to get something for himself. I think a real Eagle Scout comes back to da troop to give something to others in the troop. ASM206, I think you and the rest of the scouters in your program just need to decide on what your vision is for your program. I think it's fine to have a friendly acknowledgment that he's not an active member anymore but is a good friend and alumnus, and to expect that only your active members are participatin' in the advancement program. I think it's fine, too, if yeh decide that he's givin' yeh what he can and is active in your eyes and on the roster, and you'll continue to support him with your time and energy toward advancement. One choice is not better than the other, eh? It just depends on what you want to teach. Either way, all da adults in your program want to be on the same page with what you're telling all the boys, young and old. Decide what you want your unit to be, support da values your CO wants you to teach, and then be friendly, kind, and consistent. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I like to see CAC's meet with folks, but in bigger or more spread out councils that isn't necessarily done, eh? I'd ask 'em to include whatever additional information yeh wanted to include with the appeal packet to national, or send it on yourself directly. Checking in with your council SE is a reasonable thing, as NeilLup suggests. I wouldn't get in a long he said/she said with Bill Evans or anyone else at da national office. Just find out how to send additional materials and how best to make sure your side is included. Can yeh share which council you're in? There really aren't many servin' your state. Do what yeh can, be respectful, and make your case. This last appeal round will take a bit longer at this time of year, so be patient. At this point, a lot of other folks have been lookin' at this a long while. If your council is generally one that's on the ball, then while you've got a decent chance with Irving, I think yeh also need to be prepared for a "No." Perhaps a tough lesson for your son, but maybe a good one. I'm sure regardless of da outcome he'll continue his record of achievement and his personal growth in college. Beavah

Mike didn't agree (we went with majority rule) and the committee made it clear that the "suspension" was a "minimum" of a year at which time we would reassess. Yah, so Mike had his say, and yeh made a decision. If Mike wants to leave based on that, he should have done so last year. I'm not sure how you would "reassess" a fellow who has been absent and unobserved for a year? Other than by his behavior in handlin' the situation, which by your account has been exemplary. I'm still a bit lost, though. Back rubs and a kid surprised to be tossed in the water on a whitewater rafting trip? There's got to be more to this than just that, eh? If I were your COR and yeh came to me with that for a one-year suspension, I'd think yeh all were loony. Are you sure there's not some prior history or prejudice against this fellow? Is he the only single dad? What does his wife say? Did he perhaps make a pass at Mike's wife? Based on what you're sayin', the only way out to my mind is to go to Jack, explain that Mike's still in a snit, and ask if he'd voluntarily stay away a bit longer to let yeh work on that without creatin' a big to-do. But to be honest, if Jack is willing to accept extending his suspension for the good of the troop, I think ASM Mike is your real problem and should be the one movin' on. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, welcome to da forums, ehweinmann! I think if yeh all told the fellow he'd serve a 1-year suspension then that's it, eh? Unless there's some new behavior, you're honor-bound to live up to your word. I also dislike folks with long-term grudges myself. A Scout is Kind. If it was serious enough to ban the dad for life, then yeh needed to do it last year so he could have taken his family to a different program. Now that his son has made friends in the troop, doin' an about-face for no good reason just isn't fair. The time for ASM Mike to speak up and demand a harsher penalty was last year. No double jeopardy. Perhaps I'm missin' something, though. To my mind, an adult who pulls/pushes a boy overboard during an ongoing water fight would be something pretty normal. Boys and adults flip each other's canoes around here all the time! And at swim events, one of the favorite things can be Mr. Scoutmaster tossing the younger fellows in the air (or the younger fellows tryin' to sink Mr. Scoutmaster!). Occasionally an adult may misjudge a lad's willingness to participate or fear of the water or whatnot, but I wouldn't consider that an offense that bans the fellow for a year. Was there somethin' else about how he touched your son, or other boys? I also wouldn't ordinarily get my dander up over back rubs. Leastways not until one of the ladies asked him not to and he persisted anyways. So is there somethin' else goin' on here? Dare I ask... is this man different than other folks in the troop? Different race or ethnicity or income level? Could there be some prejudice here by the others that makes 'em interpret what really happened more harshly than they should? Generally speakin', I think a guy who gets a penalty like this then graciously serves out his term is unlikely to be a problem. If he was really in it for anything other than his son he would have pulled out a year ago. And he's done everything right in terms of being surprised, and making apologies and such. Beavah Added: Can the SM remove a parent because that parent makes the other parents uncomfortable, or would that be a committee action (delivered by the CC)? It should be a committee action, approved by the COR, and if at all possible da IH as well. Do we need any sort of Council approval or intervention should we decide to invite the offending parent to leave our Troop? No, if you have da CO's approval, but you should let the council know. If there is a possible prejudice issue, I think that's somethin' everyone needs to be prepared for. As in what your response is goin' to be if the man shows up in the paper accusing you and your CO of being prejudiced against his [insert ethnicity here] family? "He pushed a kid into the water during a water fight" ain't goin' to cut it.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with VeniVidi on this, eh? Sure, it's possible that some adult somewhere will get a burr in his saddle about some kid. Honestly, though, it's pretty rare. Rarer still that a scouter would hold up a lad just because of that. Scouters by and large are pretty fair and reasonable sorts. More likely, a particular scouter can get his dander up about a behavior. Some scouters I know believe lyin' is a capital offense. Others don't take sass. Others really dislike bullies or "pranksters." That sort of thing I think is somethin' the boy, not the adult, should learn from. "Mr. OGE hates pranks and will think poorly of me for it, so pullin' pranks is something I shouldn't do here." For judgment calls and subjective perspective, that's why we have SPLs and ASMs and Committees and UCs and PLCs and CORs, eh? Even if one adult isn't readin' a situation right, others are around on da team to consult with. I often tell unit scouters that if one boy crawls up their nose all da time but gets along with another adult, let da other adult be his mentor and sign-off guy. Beavah

Ah, movin' at da speed of bureaucracy. Are yeh part of a large council (youth-wise or geography-wise)? I like to see these things progress at a slightly better clip, but in some areas it can be more difficult. Patience and perseverance! B

fulfills a member's obligation to the unit - what exactly does that mean? Like I said, it's subjective and unit-dependent, eh? But it's better worded than that other thing about bein' "engaged by his unit leadership." Hoestly, I don't know how you can fulfill the POR requirement (or the laternative project requirement for Star/Life) without being active Yah, yeh need da second half of the modern interpretation. "Active=registered" so "Serve Actively = don't get fired". You fulfill da POR requirement so long as you get some position and the SM doesn't remove you in time. I'm sure yeh can find that in the advancement FAQ. So an inactive scout can advance so long as da SM doesn't remove the boy from a position and block him from taking other positions. Otherwise the lad can just take another position and not perform in that one either, racking up his time in position, and meriting everyone's applause for his character development at da next COH. I do know a couple of troops who are doin' this... conducting monthly reviews and "firing" scouts from positions with a minimum 6-month prohibition in serving in any other POR. I can't say I'm fond of da approach. A bit like kicking a boy out of the unit for droppin' below 75% participation or whatnot. It's what da program wonks in Irving are pushin', but to my mind it doesn't really serve the kids. Beavah

Nope, nolesrule. Da "law" is the Rules & Regulations. That's the only one scouters sign on their application that they agree to support, eh? And it's da official rules of the organization. Da rest is just program materials put out by some staff folks or whoever is maintain' the website this week. A bit like the difference between the Constitution and an advisory document put out by an executive department. Da Rules and Regs definition is the Constitution. Da laws would be da program policies of a division (like the black-letter stuff in G2SS). Da regulations would be stuff like the Boy Scout Requirements book. What we're talkin' here is an advisory circular put out by staff on how they might interpret a regulation. Not that all such legal falderol matters a whit when we're talkin' about a kids' program. Da real answer is da answer to the question "What do we want to teach our kids?" I expect most everybody agrees that we want to teach the lads that serving actively means somethin' more than being registered. But if you're into legal falderol, I expect yeh want to teach that followin' da law means first and foremost protectin' and defendin' the Constitution . Beavah

Personally, I think the requirement should be scrubbed. Its just too subjective. You can't expect equal rigor on the requirement from unit to unit. So its worthless. Yah, Gern might be bein' a bit sarcastic here, eh? Or not. Me, I think whether it's parenting or scouting working with humans is always subjective. We humans are just too complex to be reduced to some simplistic requirement, especially when it comes to learnin' character. In fact, whenever we set up a set of simple (or complex) rules, da most rational thing is what happens in these forums (and real life) all the time, eh? We work around 'em, we litigate 'em, we change our approach so the rule becomes irrelevant. Or we apply da rule where we shouldn't. Scouting is subjective. Whether it's knowin' what to do when lost or signin' off on treatment for shock or decidin' what Scout Spirit means for First Class rank. That's why we have adult scouters, eh? If da whole thing could be reduced to an objective rulebook, we could code it into a computerized video game and be done! (or be like sandspur's fellow with da ridiculous spreadsheet ). Da former Boy Scout program office folks that worked with advancement wrote up that FAQ and active=registered. They've since been reorganized. Who knows what da next group will do? The BSA policy, however, remains da same: An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age. - BSA Rules & Regulations That's subjective, eh? Even might vary between units that have differently defined "member's obligation to the unit." Anyone tries to put in some objective thing like active=registered, even if they're an Irving employee, just isn't following da Rules. But I am a bit puzzled, eh? Was fgoodwin makin' a point, or just feelin' da need to tell us every time National fixes a broken or misplaced website link? They certainly have a lot of 'em these days! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)