sasguy

From the G2A, page 72: "9.0.2.12 Addressing Common Misconceptions 1. No unit, district, council, or individual shall place any requirement or other standard on the number of hours spent on a project. The Boy Scouts of America collects data about time worked on Eagle Scout service projects only because it points to a level of excellence in achieving the BSA aim related to citizenship. 2. Eagle Scout service projects are individual matters. No more than one candidate may receive credit for working on the same project. 3. There is no requirement a project must have lasting value. " The workbook asks that the project demonstrates planning, preparation and leadership. The problem with any collection project is that the infrastructure to collect and distribute materials, money, blood, etc. already exist. The project is turn-key, with little difference between that produced from Scout A to Scout B. The scout has little or no planning and prep, they take a preplanned event and execute it. The only way to overcome that limit is to plan the event as a teaching or marketing exercise, with collection taking place at the same time. Think about it as servant leadership, where the point is awareness and education, primarily in the Troop and the local community.

The situation as described was an inappropriate use of the BOR. There may be more to the story, of course, but: To sign-off all the requirements, then fail to advance the Scout is absolutely wrong - once signed off the rank is earned. If the youth did not fill the requirements of the leadership position, he should have been replaced in the position long before completing his tenure in the position. It is absolutely reasonable to set minimum standards, how many meetings, how many activities, and so on, but these should be written, and part of the bylaws, not sprung at the BOR. G2A says: "The concepts of “reasonable” and “within reason” will help unit leadership and boards of review gauge the fairness of expectations for considering whether a Scout is “active” or has fulfilled positions of responsibility. A unit is allowed, of course, to establish expectations acceptable to its chartered organization and unit committee. But for advancement purposes, Scouts must not be held to those which are so demanding as to be impractical for today’s youth (and families) to achieve. Ultimately, a board of review shall decide what is reasonable and what is not. In doing so, the board members must use common sense and must take into account that youth should be allowed to balance their lives with positive activities outside of Scouting."

Yes, as I said. As a Commissioner, many of the issues I have had to mediate have been entirely due to conflicts coming from areas that have been specifically left to the discretion of the unit or the charter organization, but have remained undefined - so Scoutmasters that think that they "own" the unit, Committees that don't exercise their oversight responsibility, different treatment of Scouts in similar circumstances, and the infinite interpretation of a selected phrase to mean that a scout or unit may do something that is strictly and specifically forbidden by BSA guidance. The relationship and reporting among the parties should be spelled out, I think. The Committee does operate independently of the CO, generally, but the specific relationship varies widely. From LDS units where the Bishop may be out with the unit regularly, to Elks and VFW units, which may provide a hall and nothing more, those organization should spell out the agreements. The CO also has a varied relationship with the parents and Scouts. The Committee also has areas which are specifically theirs to define, similarly the Unit and the SPL and youth leadership has areas that should be spelled out for members of the Troop. In each case, the statements are equally binding. In each case, it's agreements between different parties, that are specifically the responsibility of different leaders. They should cover only specific matters that the BSA has left to the discretion of the units, or reiterate the specific BSA policy. Identifying specific areas of discretion is the challenge. (original statement amended slightly for clarity)

A great discussion. I would question whether there is a practical difference between bylaws and various "Guides". I believe that in treating Scouts and families fairly, either would be as binding and should be equally hard to amend, exactly to the extent that the chartered organization is willing, toe review and enforce them. Several agreements might be necessary. Bylaws might best be reserved for spelling out hard and fast rules for Adult interaction, and interaction with the Charter Organization, and created as an agreement between Committee and its Charter partner. Guides are published to parents and is the agreement between families and the Unit, represented by the Committee, for the interaction between Scouts, families and the Unit. Generally, I'd recommend keeping both simple, specifically prefaced with a statement that if BSA policies are found to conflict with the guidance, or are changed such that there is a conflict, BSA policy controls. There are several areas where Units and Scoutmasters are specifically given authority to make a judgment. For example: Determining what qualifies as service hours, and how to credit the service - that is, whether a Scouts service can count for multiple purposes: JTE hours, Eagle hours, rank advancement, Awards, or other (Church, School, Order of the Arrow, etc). Rather than leave that issue open and arbitrary, the committee and the Scoutmaster should work out a consistent guideline and publish it to Scouts and parents. Financial reporting, auditing, and signature authority. Identifying the Committee responsibilities for Eagle Project review. Determining the conditions and process for removing an Adult from a volunteer position, particularly service as SM or CC. Determining the conditions and process for youth replacing a youth leader, say, a "no show" SPL or PL. Defining an "active" Scout and so on. There are a number of areas where guidelines are needed, or should specifically be identified as the personal discretion of the SM. Some of the issues mentioned in the discussion seem less like a matter for either bylaws or guides, but simple public announcement: meeting times, meeting places, dues, etc. should be a matter for discussion and revision based on circumstance. A simple public announcement should be more than adequate.