David CO

I totally agree. Wouldn't it be great if the scout accepted responsibility for his actions, and their consequences, and came to a meeting to apologize. Not to complain. Not to be let back in. Not to get an Eagle. Just to apologize. That would show some positive growth and character.

I don't know if it is pride or pragmatism. The scout could probably achieve his goal faster and more reliably if he changed units and started with a clean slate. Some boys (and some parents) act on cold calculated self-interest. They don't want empathy, they want results. What they want may be an Eagle rank, it may be a starting spot on the football team, it may be straight A's. Whatever it is that they want, they won't let anything or anybody stand in their way of getting it. Be prepared.

I agree. I don't think we are really that far apart. From my experience, scouts will leave if we impose any significant consequence on them. So the question of zero tolerance or sliding scale is moot. I find this true in school as well. Any significant consequence (punishment or low grades) will almost always result in the parents sending their kid(s) to another school. It wasn't always this way, but this is the reality we live with today.

Some people can't be deterred. Zero tolerance policies are not designed solely to deter behavior. They are also designed to remove people who we cannot deter.

As a Catholic school teacher, I don't earn more than a DE. I work pretty long hours and I don't get paid overtime. I do, however, get to spend much of that time working directly with kids, ...and that has made all the difference.

Cambridgeskip, I would disagree with you when you say that a zero tolerance policy is rarely of much use. It is often very effective, and of great use. That's why we use it. Of course, a zero tolerance policy is not always appropriate for all types of misconduct. Some types of misconduct do, as you say, exist on a sliding scale. In these cases, it would be disproportionate to impose the same (harsh) penalties to every offense along the sliding scale. I think we agree on this. However, I think you are mistaken when you generalize this concept of a sliding scale to all misdemeanors. Sometimes it is about flexibility and adapting to circumstances, but at other times, it is about standing fast and holding the line.

Hi Frank, It doesn't sound to me like this Scoutmaster is clueless. He sounds to me like an experienced leader who, for one reason or another, is at the end of his rope.

We agree on one thing. There is a big cultural divide between Europe and the USA.

Cambridgeskip, Your're telling me that the scout leaders running the jamboree knew there was an illicit supply of alcohol in the sub camp, and yet they did nothing about it. They didn't conduct a search? They didn't boot the offending unit out of the jamboree? There is no grey area here, that is definitely permissive. Not only should the 14 year old scouts been sent home, the leaders who turned a blind eye to it should have been sent home as well. I don't think this story is the slightest bit funny. The actions of the scout leaders were wrong.

I largely agree with the Adan Smith quote, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." It is true, every scout joins scouting for a different reason. Every parent signs their boy up for a different reason, too. Many parents sign their sons up for scouting in order to keep them away from bad influences. What about the scouts who leave scouting because their families don't want them to be around drugs or associate with drug users? Don't they count? It is the permissive scout units that take the easy road. They feel that they bear no responsibility for driving good kids out of the program.

Some of the younger scouts still think my puns are funny. The older ones usually issue a muffled tone of dissent. They've groan used to my jokes.

OA kept your son in "scouring"? That is an ordeal. I do like to keep the units cookware clean and shiny. If more of the OA boys were kept in "scouring", I might consider changing some of my views about OA.

Drug users are liars. They lie to acquire their drugs. They lie to hide and store their drugs. They lie to secretly use their drugs. The life of a drug user is a life of lies. Drug use is entirely inconsistent with the values of scouting.

We have been very honest and upfront about our zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol. All of our parents and scouts have known of our policy, and they have made an informed decision when they joined our unit. When I read some of the comments here, I have to wonder how many units have been as honest and upfront about their permissive attitudes as we have about our zero tolerance policy. On scout night, did they tell parents that drug users are fairly common in the senior scout ranks? Did they tell parents that there is always some weed or smuggled liquor going around? You may feel that my units policies are draconian, but at least we have been honest about them. We have allowed our parents and scouts to make an informed choice.

We don't know why the boy was sent home from the camp out. It is sometimes necessary to send boys home. I wouldn't criticize or disparage a Scoutmaster for sending a boy home unless I was confident that I knew all the facts. It is a serious thing to send a boy home, and it should only be done when it is absolutely necessary, but sometimes it is necessary.

I agree with you in that a scout cannot be "stripped" of his rank. The COR/IH should definitely have a sit down with this Scoutmaster. I don't agree with you, however, on removing the Scoutmaster. None of the actions described in the OP merits that.

I agree. Once the requirements are signed, they are done. The COH is a different matter. If a boy were to commit a serious act of misbehavior between his BOR and COH, I might consider not having him honored at a COH. Just quietly give him his patch. If I was really angry, I might mail it to him, but I wouldn't withhold a rank that has already been earned.

I don't think this is so much a question of "who knows who" as it is a matter of "who submitted what" to the council. If the rank advancement has already been submitted and it is in the database, I think you're good. The scouting program does not have an official "warning" such as a demerit or a yellow card. The most serious thing you have mentioned, in my opinion, is having your son sent home from a camping trip. The Scoutmaster does have this authority. I've done it myself. It is not something to take lightly. I cannot offer an opinion on the appropriateness of sending your son home, since you did not share the reasons for this action.

Group showers. I have heard a variety of different and conflicting statements about prohibitions against scouts using group showers at non-council facilities; campgrounds, YMCA's, park districts, school, etc.. The council's campground has changed from group showers to individual shower stalls, so it is not an issue there.

It has become a common practice to use the word "mistake" to describe intentional misconduct. I think a mistake is an inadvertent or unintentional act, not a deliberate and planned out crime. Yes, boys make mistakes. Lots of mistakes. Clumsy mistakes. Foolish mistakes. Awkward mistakes. We need to understand that and make allowances. It is wrong for us to treat mistakes like they are crimes. It is equally wrong for us to treat crimes like they are just mistakes.

BSA is certainly a lot more liability conscious. I wouldn't call that strict.

I am surprised at how permissive scouting is today. It seems like nothing is out-of-bounds anymore.

It doesn't matter. Students are also subject to school rules on all school activities away from campus. If the boy was wearing the troop # on his uniform, he was representing the unit and the Chartered Organization. Schools may disqualify a student for extra-curricular activities for drug and alcohol use, even if that use does not take place on school grounds or during an off-campus school activity.

You don't think schools should have the authority to discipline students? The Chartered Organization has the right to revoke the membership of any youth or adult who violate its rules and policies.

If Frank was a star scout at age 16, and he made Eagle Scout before he turned 18, his unit must have given him a free pass on his misconduct. He couldn't have spent much time in the dog house. What Frank did was not a solitary or isolated crime. He exposed other scouts to his misbehavior on several occasions. He led other scouts to take a casual attitude toward recreational drug use. A Boy Scout Troop is supposed to be boy led. It is important that the boys leading the troop show a good example to the younger boys. Frank did not do that. He did the exact opposite of what a boy leader should do. I am disappointed that Frank's troop elected him to a position of responsibility. Frank should have been banned from holding any position of responsibility for at least a year. If he was a 16 year old star scout at the time, this should have kept him from becoming an Eagle Scout. Since my Chartered Organization is a school with a zero tolerance policy, we would have pulled his membership. I'm glad that Frank has had a good life. I hope that all the boys he misled into developing a casual attitude toward illegal drug use have had an equally good life.