Dozy

I was resopnding to evmori. My more heated contentions were sent through private email. I have not had a problem with anyone elses advice. I felt like I was being attacked and frankly, so did two other persons who read enmori's response. I know this person does not speak for anyone by him/herself. Because there is a difference of interpretation of policy here on this subject (and some others), it's time to stop bickering and find out WHAT REALLY is correct. I will do so as I go UP THE LINE until I receive "Clarification of Policy". What we think does not matter, what matters is what IS (what BSA thinks). I plan on being in Scouts for a very long time and I don't want to get it right 10 years from now. My apologies and I bid everyone, a good life! (This message has been edited by Dozy)

All good to know, thanks... Since there's such a huge difference in timeline, looks like I'll have to do some of my own digging. Knowing the exact timeline will help alleviate some of the "waiting game" jitters!(This message has been edited by Dozy)

Agreed (and I've been told here to get out of the book and use common sense! To me, common sense shows, "hey, there's a book that we're supposed to follow... let's follow it!") AND MAY I ADD, that National isn't very happy with what's going on in our Troop or our District. Even though we have no Unit Commissioner and No District Commissioner.... Even though WE HAVE a Disctrict Advancement Chairman and Committee to whom we made an appeal... well, let's just say that the DAC may or may not be aware of their power. National feels absolutely that the situation that happened in our BOR was totally wrong. Our District wants to do another BOR for the scout (just found out today, to be scheduled for next week). The SM, parents and I feel that it would be wrong to subject the scout to another BOR because it would justify the fact that the first BOR had a legitimate outcome. In our case, our BOR made a decision, AFTER the fact, and created paperwork, citing reasons that were NOT the true reasons for deferment... not to mention bogus reasons for deferment (which, as a reminder, the reason for deferment was satisified close to immediately after the BOR concluded). Anyway, National states that the Troop Committee AND the District Advancment Chairman has the RIGHT to overrule the BOR if the BOR is not run properly. National states that what is needed is a "Clarification of Policy" and yes, National IS being quoted here. SO LET ME ADD, there there have been plenty of heated discussions in this forum... and on one particular issue against me I might add, regarding Merit Badges and Rank advancement. 1) Is the MB Counselor GOD? is what he/she says or does IT? Instead of our opinions, what counts is Nationals... some people here need a "Clarification of Policy" . If the answers can't be obtained, or you have an uneasy feeling about the answer you receive at your District or even your Council Level CALL TEXAS! Don't post it here, you'll get 10 different answers. Post the answer National gives you! 2) Who is responsible for the Scouts advancement? The Scout or the Scoutmaster? Instead of beating ME over the head with it, and calling me names, how about if you call TEXAS. You NEED a "Clarification of Policy" and when you get the answer, post it here! On these two issues, because there's so much contention, if it becomes a concern for me, I'll got up the ladder. COMING INTO THIS FORUM, I wanted to learn one thing... do other Troops have issues with their Troop committees and how do you handle them? I have learned that yes, it happens, but perhaps not to the extent as dysfunctional and untrained as my Troop committee is. Misery loves company, and when you know that you are not alone, you can move toward the first step to deal with it. Most of the advice I received in here was terrific, plenty of food for thought, and will be filed away for future use -- and for this, I thank you. But I did learn another very important thing that I'd like to pass on... BSA does not want the boy to be held responsible for an adults misguided, although perhaps sounding logical, opinions or ideas. They have rules and we ARE to follow them, not subtract from them or add to them, but follow them. If there is an area where there seems to be toooo much room for interpretation, don't take matters into your own hands and start the interpretation merry-go-round... You need the tower of power! GO UP, AND UP AND UP until you find an answer that is correct. DON't hurt that boy! General consensus... it's best to lose the adult than the Scout. (I've read some horrendous stories on this forum back to early 2005 on how some Scouts were hurt due to misguided adults who add requirements or redesigned the program. I'm sure that National has an opinion and correction or "clarification of policy" for every single one... if only the Scout could return to scouting?) AND MAY I SAY, I'm quite happy that National is concerned for just one boy and are willing to help us. They are not TOO BIG, or too far above us to let one boy slide fall through the cracks. (AND will speak to our District to set them straight.) Thank you ladies and gentleman... Dozy

Acco, I too agree that we must submit to the MB counselor. If the MBC signs off, then it's signed and done. Somehow the MBC was approved... but not necessarily the greatest according to perhaps OUR expectations. Some MBC's are too heard, some are too easy, and only Goldilocks finds the one who is "just right". If the TC or the SM is not happy with the MBC, anyone can drop that person from the list, or submit a complaint about that person. If an MBC adds to the requirements, that's another issue altogether. If he is subtracting from the requirements, same issue. It's a tough call all the way around, and on a case by case basis. I am just sharing what our Former District Commissioner said about family outings. Family is family and scouts is scouts and they are two different camps.

It works two ways when adults do not hold respect for the scout. However, you are right, in a perfect world with perfect scouts, we'd have perfect BOR's and they'd present themselves perfectly. Do we hold it against them if they don't say, "Sir, yes sir!" We have a Troop, 1 of which is autistic, and 3 of which are ScoutReach and have poor interpersonal skills, 3 of which have severe ADHD and are on medication, and most of these kids have very poor skills with adults... in other words, adults terrify them. In our situation, the adults have not made an effort to respect the scout, to learn their names, to make friendly contact. In the world these children live in, adults are the enemy. No two troops are alike, and no two children are handled alike or are exactly the same. We have to get them to the point of trusting the adults around them. The SM and ASM has their trust. I do as well because I spend a lot of time with them. Unfortunately, I was not a part of this BOR, so the adults there were strangers. At a BOR we want honest answers from the Scout, not answers the BOR expects to hear in a certain military manner they expect to hear it in. Each Troop will have an expectation. We're trying to make all the boys equal, regardless of their background, or parental involvement, or lack of inter-personal skills. This all comes with time and gentleness. Scouting is not a military organization and we should not expect Scouts to behave in a manner to which they are unaccustomed... just gently push them in that direction. I cannot expect an inner-city kid to act the same way as a country kid. Our African American kids do not act the same exact way as the white or asian kids. The cultures are different -- the way they handle their peers is different, and the way they handle or respect adults is different. We try for uniform standards, a median of sorts so that all scouts feel equal and no scout is singled out because of a skill he lacks. We just quietly recognize the lack and work on it. A BOR has to recognize this. If a Scout desires Eagle, he will know that the standards are much higher. I have said that in our Troop, our last 3 Eagles spent two years or more as Life Scouts being. During that time, it is everyone's responsibility to get that Scout to realize what is expected of him. If he's shooting high, he's going to have to work harder at the skills he needs to present himself well. Each BOR, takes us to the next step. In our Troop we have not had enough "get to know you" BOR's and Scouts became terrified each time one was held because it was ONLY for advancement. Even though they felt confident that they had achieved the next Rank, facing the adults was an experience they all share as horrific. The BOR's I sat on, I tried very hard to go by the book... to make it a friendly atmosphere. But I also KNEW the scout and KNEW his accomplishments. I KNEW his skill level and have seen him in action. I shared the SM's confidence that his Rank advancement was genuine. We live in a world of dysfunction, much as we'd all hate to admit it, we have to accommodate to our surroundings. It's supposed to be "for the boys" and not "for the adults". And Scout's is not the place to beat the boy up for not saying, "Sir, yes sir!" or slouching, or answering, "Yeah." I'm sure that all of the people here have had involvement in Troops quite different from the make-up of mine. Some will disagree and feel we're too lenient. Trust me, lenient is NOT what our SM is... but all people, all Scouts want fairness. When it's not fair, they'll be the first to point it out... and that's a good thing. Because of such cultural diversity, we have to find a median and work within that circle and then slowly, and then step up the pace to raise the standard to that of what we believe a Life Scout, and Eagle Scout, etc., should represent. AND even there, there's always a difference of opinion. No one here is pushing scouts through the Ranks. They EARN their Ranks, no matter how long it takes. They DO the work ON THEIR OWN. They EARN their MB's by their OWN work. Then advance on THEIR OWN MERIT. A boy who is not EARNing, needs a little prodding, needs confidence and the friendship of his leaders and junior leaders so that he can gain confidence in himself. The book says, "when reviewed monthly by the TC, Scouts will recognize the importance of advancement. The only person in our Troop who has ever stressed advancement is the SM. He's the one ultimately responsible when the District sends out it's reports and troop comparisons, no one loos at the TC, they all look at the SM. Scouting had at it's beginnning a focus on fatherless boys. In a way, it's still that kind of service. In our Troop we have 6 fatherless boys. We have to raise them, keep that victim mentality out of their heads, and have them rise above their situations so that they can have the foundation to keep away from gangs, drugs and violence.

Maybe, Dozy, it's time to get out of the books & into the Troop. Work with the Scouts. Teach them & learn from them. Common sense is a must! " Then you disagree with the BSA? Or do you know better than the BSA? Come on, do you have another avenue besides: let's attack Dozy because she quotes from BSA guidelines! Sorry, that doesn't cut it! Is that the only way people justify themselves... they know better? and Shoot the messenger? Why bother with training? Why bother with books? Lets do a Chinese menu. We'll make up our own rules, but when we disagree, we'll see what the book says. Hey, that's my Troop Committee. And you're clearly trying to tell me that I don't have any common sense? Is that a personal attack? (This message has been edited by Dozy)

- When was the last time the District Commissioner, ADC, and (most importantly of all) Unit Commissioner visited the Troop? It feels like there are "gut-check" level issues with delivery of the Scouting program here. - When was the last time the District Executive paid his annual call on the IH and COR? They have responsibilities to the youth of the program by seeking out volunteers for the program and ensuring they are trained! .... we have no current District Commissioner, the post is vacant. We have a former DC on our committee, and he's part of the problem--likes to throw is weight around. .... We do not have a Unit Commissioner .... We are having a meeting with the District Executive in August to hopefully solve our training issues. We'd like him to say, "get trained or get out". .... ADC? I can't place the initials. BTW, if the BOR denies review, there is the option of the Scout (and his family) filing a complaint with the District Advancement Committee... .... it's been done, June 23. There's an unwritten rule of advancement, told me by my District Advancement Chairman: Surprises in advancements are a BAD THING. .... agreed -- but that's been the rule not the exception here. To the last question: If the Scoutmaster and the Committee Chair are not on the same wavelength regarding advancements, it's time to bring in the Unit Commissioner (I'd say COR first, then UC, but you've indicated you have a less than engaged COR--SM and CC are accoutable to COR). .... yep, not enough hire ups to help us deal with this. May I add this. I've had years of experience being a volunteer... I've sat on many committees, I've chaird a few,(I'm on 2 others currently, co-chair of 1) but none involving kids, or are as intricately structured as a BSA committee that can have a direct postive and negative impact on a human being, a boy. I have never ever encountered such volatile, hostile, or rude people on church or secular committees.. I think it's the nature of the program that creates the monster. There in it for THEIR son, not yours. Or worse, for their own self-importance. No, I have not been on a sports committee. Can I assume that it's not as pleasant either? because of the nature of the beast? Anyway, this is a volunteer organization and there is only so much you can say to a volunteer. Volunteers must be treated kindly and with respect, otherwise, you lose them. (We've lost two in one day due to how the CC treated a mother and a daughter -- I don't need this! is what I got, plus an apology to me for not being able to stick it out.) When certain volunteers get to be in charge, I don't know, it's not all of them, but there are some that have a chemical meltdown in their brain and they become Grand PooPah's and beigin treating other volunteers horribly. Why would anyone stick around? How does one politely tell a CC or a CM that they are being obtuse? or unreasonable? or rude? let's add a kind incompetent? It's practice in standard Roberts Rules, but only if there's a good CC, that the volunteer is used around in various areas until his/her niche is found. The person is a warmm body and needed, and they want to be needed and used. Use them properly and with respect and you can also have a great friend. Abuse them and they're history AND a big hole is created. Roberts Rules of Order is not used at our CM's. We've tried gentle prodding. We've tried to elevate our concerns, always dancing around the subject, not being direct. I'm a very direct person, but we had a 60th Anniversary Banquet to plan quickly (an idea first proposed a year earlier by the committee dragged and dragged and finally the CC jumped on it because suddenly someone was dying and we had to honor him... so our 60th Anniv was celebrated in year 61) and it took a quite a lot of time away from Troop planning (no Blue and Gold ever went through so much aggravation or even a party planner!). No one wanted that boat to be rocked until the Banquet was over... and indeed it was an amazing success, but again, only a few people did the work. We ended on a high note, but quickly, morale has tumbled (especially after the CC took the credit -- for doing absolutely nothing). Seriously, it took a year just to beg for regularly scheduled BOR's. Frankly, how does a boy attend scouts regularly and not become Tenderfoot after 2 years? Is it the boys fault? the SM's? or the Committees? I'm not ready to blame it on the boy. I have a few weeks to plan and outline a strategy. First I need to plan the desired outcome and choose an alternate outcome and then handle the course of action accordingly. There is no one in any corner pocket. We're not attending the meeting as "US vs. THEM". Everyone will be defending themself and I guess, their vision. It will be up to the District Executive to see which vision belongs to the BSA and which vision is trash, and we'll take it from there. So if I'm wrong, I will submit to the DE. BUT, the DE is well aware that our Committee has been having problems, and fully aware that there's a lack of training and this has been a problem for years. A meeting was supposed to be held 3 weeks ago but the CC changed the date twice already. We assume it's to try to find a new SM. However, since it took nearly 3 years to find this one, I don't think that one will pop out of thin air as quickly. I am proposing a reasonable set of committee by-laws (we don't have by-laws), plus what the SM wants: a Parents Handbook. AND I will be ready with that material in hand. Any suggestions on what else I can propose?(This message has been edited by Dozy)

Anyone know how long it usually takes to receive Eagle approval from National? Anyone know exactly how fine the teeth in the comb are when going over the Eagle candidates records? I'm always concerned about errors coming back to haunt the scout.

Well, in this I guess we'll agree to disagree. BSA "Advancement Committee Guide" Policies and Procedures, page 25: Troop Advancement Goals. The Scoutmaster must be in charge of advancement in the troop.... It is important that the TC and the SM set an advancement goal for the year. By doing so, Scouts become net contributors to the troop and are able to care for themselves and others. I guess this is left up to interpretation. I cannot find anywhere in the book where the MB choices and timeline is left up to the scout. I'll be inclined to submit if I had it in print. SM guided advancement does not take away from a "boy led" troop. MB's and Rank Advancement are for skill learning and exploring possibilities. POR's are for leadership. Page 23. The Boy Scout advancement program is subtle. It places a series of challenges in front of a Scout in a manner that is fun and educational. As Scouts meet these challenges, they achieve the aims of Boy Scouting. The Scout advances and grows in the Boy Scout phase of the program in the same way a plant grows by receiving nourishment in the right environment. The job of adults concerned with advancement is to provide the right environment. Me thinks advancement is a goal. The MB is a method. Me thinks advancement is a goal. The MB is a method. Me thinks advancement is a goal. The MB is a method. Making choices, both right & wrong, learning from them & growing, is what the BSA program is about. The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. MB choice has nothing to do with ethical and moral choices. It has to do with advancement. Under the MB program the scout is gaining self-confidence, overcoming obstacles, learning career skills, social development, learning physical skills, perhaps hobbies for life. Adding service to the RA program is another method to achieve the goal. Although the goal IS advancement, as each method is carried out, the boy learns and implements a myriad of skills. The ethical and moral part comes with learning how to be a good follower, a team player and then a team leader, plus somewhere in there, learning how not to follow a bad leader, learning how to trust in his own judgement. But this is done through mentoring, not on his own. Troop Program Features, Vol II, page 6. As SM you serve as the "advance" person.... Review the advancement status of each scout. Look carefully for basic skills needed by your Scouts and also for key merit badges that should be introduced... List some goals for the Troop. Page 7. Meet with TC to review the calendar and potential troop goals... (paraphrase) Present these goals to the junior leaders of the troop for implementation. Looks to me like there's plenty of adult involvement in a "boy-led" troop. It just should be done the RIGHT way... the BSA way.(This message has been edited by Dozy)

Good point FScouter... but the Scoutmaster is responsible for advancement. It would be irresponsible of him to let the boy go off on his own and make the wrong choices. The SM can give him the choice of which ER badge he wants to work on and at the same time, give him a choice of which standard badge he wants to work on. Not all scouts are able to discern a timeline for their advancement... that's up to the SM to keep on target with. Somewhere down the road, you want that boys Scout Spirit to soar and to have his eyes on the prize... or for the rest of his life he'll be saying that I didn't have enough MB to make Eagle and it's because of ______. And you know what? It would be the SM's fault not to give proper guidance to the boy. I am not of the group that gives children the choice to do anything they want. It's not, "hon, do you want to pitch your tent now or later." it's "do you want to pitch your tent here or there and why." They must have clear choices and give reasons behind them... in order to be productive adults and make the correct choices. A "no" is OK by the SM in my book because that choice is not available to the Scout because the Scout is not responsible for his own advancement, he is guided by an adult who is ultimately responsible. That adult should give reasons why there's a "no" and they should be sound and reasonable, not impossible. So, it all depends on what freedoms you allow the scouts... is it total or is it guided freedom?

The only values that matter are Scouting values. Agreed and that's what we keep trying to get back to. It's worked for 96 years and still, people come along and think they know better -- or let things slide here and there. Heck, every now and again, things will slide, but still, it doesn't do justice for the boys to circumvent protocol. Scouts aren't stupid and will learn either one of two things... that shortcuts are always OK, or that they were shortchanged and won't shortcut when it comes to their lives or their own children. Either way, we'll have an impact... however, we'd should want our protocol to be the correct one so that they can copy it... not have to figure out that we were wrong or were too lazy to follow the correct BSA path.

Just remember for the future that to do our job of buildin' character, the other ranks have to mean somethin', too. Each should be a significant "step up" on the road to Eagle. If yeh make that a part of your troop culture, the kids will help you if you show you're serious. They want ranks to mean somethin', same as you do. Amen to that! Dependin' on what the offense was, maybe he should not be allowed on campouts for a couple of months? Can't help the Scout if he isn't around. Dad wants him in, the Scout wants out. If the Scout is out, he gets what he wants. If the Scout is in, he gets to work, and the consequences are immediate. As for Summer Camp, what I wrote was only the tip of the iceberg and happened over 4 days (Sunday to Wednesday). The remaining 2 days there was an evident change in the boy who wanted to break the SM. Believe it or not, the SM did not get angry. (My husband, who worked with a great many youth in ministry over the years -- no pun -- has the patience of a saint.) He used consequences and service. He reminded the Scout that he is not behaving like an Eagle nor as a proper OA rep AND it seemed to work. There indeed WAS a change. It seems that this by age 17, this boy had perfected his whine and had been sent home on many, double that, many, occasions, during his scouting career. The previous SM's policy was "out of sight, out of mind". A schoolteacher who is taught to remove the boy for behavioral problems. This new SM feels, "if he isn't here, I can't do my job". Although this scout was a bad example to the rest of the troop, the rest of the troop needed to see that even Eagles have consequences, and that even Eagles can have incident reports. To note... the rest of the troop in witness were not whiners and ranged in age from 11 to 16. The Eagle whiner was the oldest, but not the SPL. The 16 year old was the SPL AND also an Eagle.

I am not to blame for this. I have not done anything to fuel this fire. I and othershave done everythingwecan to protect the boy(s) and support the SM and run a quality program, despite the heirchy. When someone tries to help, do we automatically call that person someone "who hurts"?.... or do we preferto make an issue out of people who "makes waves" or brings problems to light? Wow, we didn't have problems until SHE came along! No! They were swept under the rug! They were never dealth with! A problem exists until it is solved, no matter how many times it's swept away, the dirt keeps coming back. Are we to be peoplewho are on a sinking ship and grab the first lifeboat instead of help save someone from drowing? Is that what we are to teach our scouts? Quit and move on? That's what it sounds like what I'm reading.Leave a sinking ship and don't bother to save anyone... whether they drown or not, it's not your problem? Your suggestions would truly benefit reasonable people. This is not a reasonable bunch of coconuts. SM blew that call; Sorry, the father (the CC)was called and the father (the CC) insisted that the Eagle stay the week. SM's hads were tied. We live in a small community. Due to logistics, changing troops is not an option for most of the scout parents... it's either this troop or leave scouting altogether. The parents don't want to do this, they just want CM support of the program they like the SM doing, instead of a power struggle. The ScoutReach boys would lose completely. Quitting is not an option!(This message has been edited by Dozy)

In disagreements over values and mission, it's the SM's job to follow the lead of the committee and CO, or resign if he can't. When the SM interviewed for the job, he clearly and upfront stated his values and mission. The CM agreed, the CO signed the paperwork. However, the CM, which micromanaged the previous SM, wasn't counting on the fact that they couldn't micromanage the new guy to their way of thinking. The previous one wanted out so bad, he gave his resignation nearly 3 years prior, but stayed in "for the boys." He had heart. And the new SM refused to go back to a non-boy led troop with no PLC's which is what the CM wanted. The new SM insisted on regular BOR's. That was too much like work for the CM but the BOR's happened anyway, though not regular enough.

A scout can make a request, of course, for a particular counselor. But the SM can say "no." Agreed and understandable. AND YES, also agreed that the scout FIRST makes a request of the SM to work on an MB. The boy does not take the initiative to do anything else first, except for maybe check out the requirements of a particular MB to see if he wants to pursue it, and then approaches the SM. Our SM will give a valid reason for a "no" on an MB usually only if not enough Eagle Required have been done or started for their next Rank Advancement. Once the scout can prove that an ER MB has been started and he gives a timeline of it's completion, then a non ER MB can be added. This of course, is on a case by case, scout by scout basis AND I have no cause to challenge the SM's procedures on this, they appear valid to me and within keeping of the guidelines as well as a reasonable Rank advancement timeline expectation. Honestly, under the previoius SM there were 2 boys in our Troop for 2 years as only Scouts rank and didn't even make it to Tenderfoot, and never had a BOR, ever... no questions were ever asked of them as to why they weren't advancing. The new SM brought them both to Tenderfoot in less than a year. One quit (because scouting is too much work and he preferred basketball), the other is still here and now also a 'trained' Den Chief and has become more active than ever setting goals for his next RA (I guess scouting became fun, I hope)... the problem is his age (almost 15 and Tenderfoot). Not finding out why he wasn't advancing by the CM can have this boy Not achieve Eagle. I haven't done the math yet on his timeline but I'm sure the SM has. All it can take is 1 deferrment between Tenderfoot and Life and the Eagle is out, NO MATTER how much Scout Spirit or abilities or achievement this scout has shown. The Eagles in our Troop spent apprx. 2 years as Life Scouts before their Eagle BOR. A boy can be held back by a MBC who is a jerk or by a CM who is a jerk, and of course, by an SM who is a jerk... any one of these can mess up a scouts rank achievement chances. What do you do when the boy WANTS to try?