BHunsaker

What do I think? You asked for it... We are all guided, yet restricted, by the rules and policies set down by National. In one sense this is very good as you know what you will get, just like going to any McDonald's around the world and ordering a Big Mac. On the other hand, it is important to allow local troops to offer some differences as not all boys nor their communities are alike. It would be a very sad world if every restaurant only served McDonald's food. The definition of "active" provided on page 20 of the 2010 Boy Scouts Requirements represents an absolute bare minimum that a boy must do to be active in his troop and patrol. With the further explicit statement that "units may not create their own definition of active; this is a national standard", we are now restricted to that minimum. This does nothing but lessen the value of the rank. The youth we work with are not stupid. The easier it is to get an award, the less it will mean. My son's room has soccer trophies collecting dust. They mean nothing to him because everybody on the team got the trophy whether they showed up for one game or all. Every team in the league handed out trophies no matter whether they won every game they played or lost every game. The same thing happens with Boy Scout ranks. As the Scouts see others being advanced for doing nothing but the minimum, they determine it has little value. I don't see how you retain boys in a program that rewards minimum effort. As for the position of responsibility, it is about teaching the Scout how to be responsible. Allowing him to "get away" with doing nothing is unacceptable. Scouting is an education. Learning from mistakes and failures is part of the process. Let it happen. If a Scout takes a position of responsibility, and no one mentors him, and then he comes up for a board of review and is denied because he didn't do anything -- it is OK - don't freak out. It will be an early lesson that life is not fair. From this experience, the Scout will learn that a) it is his responsibility to find out what the tasks are expected in any future job, b) it is his responsibility to perform those tasks to the best of his ability even without supervision, c) he should seek help, nay, demand support from others, and d) be able to report his accomplishments to a review board or his boss. These are invaluable life lessons which are denied to the Scout using the current policies. Yes, a Scoutmaster can remove a Scout from a POR. I am loath to do so. Mostly, it is because hope springs eternal in my world. I'm always saying to myself "give the boy one more month and he'll catch on." Four or six months is not a long time. And removing a kid from a position of responsibility is far more public than letting him complete the time and then having the conversation with him in private. Some Scouts do step down of their own volition when they figure out the job is more than they expected. Others will want to keep trying and you better believe I encourage that attitude. As for the board of review, there appears to be no possibility of a Scout failing. If it is to be nothing but an interview without consequence, then let's get rid of having the BOR members vote. Call me an old curmudgeon, but I think they had it right 25 years ago. From my council's "Advancement Policies and Procedures" manual from 1984: Section X - Active Service - A Crucial Requirement "In establishing this requirement, the Boy Scouts of America intend that all youth in this program be participating members, contributive by his presence and involvement. A valid advancement in [the council] is, therefore, one in which the Scout demonstrates in progressively increasing quantity and quality, attendance, appearance, and attitude, which clearly indicates his involvement in the program; actively assimilating the training by others in the acquired skills and other constructive talents. The demonstration must be evident over the required period of months set out for the rank sought. Periods of inactivity, for whatever cause, cannot be considered as part of the required period of activity." Be careful what you ask for :-) Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to McDonald's for that Big Mac.

I discussed this with our district advancement chairman this weekend. Here are his thoughts: Attached is a copy from page 20 of the 2010 Boy Scouts Requirements book. Every unit should have this book in their library. It is updated every year and is available in the Scout Shop late January or early February. This book is the "bible" if you will regarding Boy Scout Advancement policies. It trumps any other publication. The definition of active as listed on the attached document was introduced about two years ago due to the issues you described in your e-mail. I was first introduced to this definition in 2005 at Philmont National Training Center. It has taken several years to get it published. National has pulled the 2010 and the 2009 printing of the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, thus you will not find this definition in those publications. The bottom line is: The responsibility is on the unit leadership to engage the scout regarding his active participation. If the unit leadership does not engage the scout during his period of required tenure regarding his lack of performance for being active, the scout has met the requirement. Simply stated, if the scout never comes to a meeting or attends any scout activity during his required tenure and the unit leadership does not consult the scout regarding his lack of participation (active), the scout has met the requirement. The unit leadership should document the content of the conversation with the scout and document the agreement between the scout and the unit leadership for meeting the requirements for being active. The scout should receive a written copy of this agreement. This does not mean that a unit can establish an "active requirement" that states the scout must participate in a quantified number of meetings, campouts or other activities. His participation in these activities is reflected in his meeting requirements for his rank advancement. I sent him the following message seeking further clarification: Thanks for the reference. The particular page seems to apply more to the 1st requirement of "be active" for Star, Life, and Eagle. I'm looking for the "actively serve" in a position of responsibility. Now, if you say we are to really to apply the definition of "active" on page 20 to the position of responsibility, is the following statement true: If the Scout is registered in the position of responsibility for the required time period, then he has "actively served" in that position and fulfilled the requirement - regardless as to whether or not he performed any of the responsibilities of the position. And here is his reply: The answer is yes. [emphasis mine] The key to any of this is the unit leadership has the responsibility to communicate with the scout and properly guide the scout. If the unit leadership does not fulfill that responsibility, then the decision goes on favor of the scout. This communication must occur before the end of the required time in leadership, not after the four months or six months.