New Life Requirement for our Troop.

[Beavah]

The actual requirement text is

 

"While a First Class Scout, take part in service projects totalling at least 6 hours of work. These projects must be approved by your SM." (33215p14-15)

 

So a Scoutmaster refuses to approve a project that doesn't include a leadership component. Then the recourse is to ask the Troop Committee to fire the SM.

 

Or, perhaps, a troop committee instructs a scoutmaster not to approve projects that doesn't include a leadership component. Then the recourse is to ask the COR to fire the troop committee.

 

In any case, you had better be ready to step forward as SM or be ready with a new set of committee volunteers.

 

Some things aren't worth fightin' over. Yeh can do more damage insisting that you're right in an arrogant way than bein' Loyal to the volunteers who are doing their best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hunt]

While a SM might successfully impose any requirements he or she wants to, a conscientious leader will want to know what the requirement is supposed to be, and will not add requirements, even if he or she knows the boys are unlikely to challenge them.

 

To respond to some of LongHaul's points:

 

"You say a SM should not impose conditions but the requirement makes no reference to what should and should not be approved as a service project."

 

But a sensible reading of the requirement, especially when compared to the Eagle service project, helps one understand what is appropriate.

 

"Is the SM forbidden from requireing more from a Star Scout than a First Class Scout?"

 

The service project requirement is identical for both Star and Life ranks.

 

"The requirement states at least 6 hours, does that men the SM can set a 20 requirement?"

 

No.

 

"Does at least mean no more than?"

 

No, it means "at least." The Scout can work more hours, but when he's worked 6 hours, he's met the requirement.

 

"We all know what we are trying to accomplish in being leaders and sometimes read things into the words or fail to read the words to suit our goals."

 

Well, I agree with this--to me the words are pretty simple, and those who try to add a leadership requirement or increase the required hours are making the error you describe.

 

"What I would like to discuss is how we interprete the written word consistantly. Unless National puts out a diffinitive list of acceptable projects it's the SM's choice to approve or not approve. Saying service is service and that the requirements for approval for Life should not exceed the requirements for approval for Second Class, except for duration, is an individual interpretation. In the end the wriiten requirment states that the SM must approve the project before it is done, it sets no other conditions. The requirements do not say that service projects shall not become more involved or demanding as the boy progresses in rank. The requirements set a minimum hour limit but do not set a difinitive hour limit. That is to say a service project lasting six hours is not necessarily acceptable as a Life project even though it may have been acceptable as a Star project. The requirements just don't say that even though some interperate them that way."

 

They interpret it that way because it is the most sensible interpretation of the requirement as written. It is clear that helping an Eagle candidate with his project is appropriate for both the Star and Life requirements, and this may involve something pretty basic, like digging holes. The Star and Life ranks both have leadership requirements--position of responsibility requirements--leadership in a service project is a requirement only for Eagle candidates.

Now, let me again qualify what I've said, and emphasize that I can imagine situations in which a SM might refuse to approve a service project. Examples: (1) paid work, or work for a for-profit organization. (2) work to benefit scouting (for the same reasons it isn't allowed for an Eagle project. (3) work that's part of the routine duties of the Scout (i.e., if he's an usher at church). (4) A project that is so trifling that it's unworthy--I admit that this one is subjective, and could be twisted to include leadership requirements and everything else, but I can't pretend that I would approve it if a scout came to me and told me he was going to, say, spend 6 hours watching cartoons with a sick friend.

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, I understand we tend to take different viewpoints on subjects so I am trying to see this from your viewpoint.

 

Are you saying that because a volunteer is a volunteer its ok for that volunteer to change the program that that volunteer volunteers for and to chanllenge that volunteer means that the person who is doing the challenging has to be ready to replace the challenged volunteer elsewise be silent?

[Lynda J]

Our troop has added Leading a Service Project to the Life requirements. This was done in an effort to prepare Scouts for their Eagle Project.

 

THe requirement for Life states

 

"While a Star Scout take part in a service project totaling at least 6 hours."

 

It does not require that a Scout must LEAD that project. By adding the work LEAD this troop has added a requirement.

 

If their boys are not getting to Eagle with enough leadership skills then it is a leadership problem within the troop. And the SM and Committee needs to address that and not add requirements.

[Beavah]

Are you saying that because a volunteer is a volunteer its ok for that volunteer to change the program that that volunteer volunteers for and to chanllenge that volunteer means that the person who is doing the challenging has to be ready to replace the challenged volunteer elsewise be silent?

 

OGE, I guess I'm longing for the old days when parents would support the teacher and the scout leader, because that was how to teach their kids responsibility and character. These days every parent becomes a lawyer arguing their son's case with the professional and the volunteer adults in his life. What does that teach the boy? Do we really want to teach our children to argue technicalities rather than support caring people trying to do their best to help them grow? Do we really want to teach our children to argue everything they don't like?

 

Nothin' burns out teachers and volunteers more than the constant complaints and arguing. Nothing uses their time more poorly. So yah, I think anybody who decides to complain should first consider whether they're ready for that volunteer to take off his patch and walk away. Just like with marriage, sometimes bein' right is the wrong call.

 

I think our role is to support the good men and women giving their one hour a week to kids. We trust them to use their good judgment takin' our kids into the woods. We should trust them when they make a decision about a cloth patch or a signature. And if we really don't trust their judgment, we should replace them.

 

If yeh want a perfect rules-based, no interpretation award program, yeh can do it with a computer program online. Standardized test scouting. Me, I want a human workin' with my kids. And the price of that is supportin' him or her even when I disagree, because that's the right thing to do.

 

The service project requirement is identical for both Star and Life ranks.

 

Yah, the wording is identical. But should the interpretation be? What serves kids best?

 

The "Show Scout Spirit" is the same requirement for every rank, too eh? But I think most scouters interpret "Show Scout Spirit" differently for Tenderfoot compared with Life. That's a good thing. I'd support a leader doin' that; even encourage it. So I see LongHaul's point that interpreting the service requirement differently for Life vs. Star might be an OK thing, too.

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry Beavah, I am not sure I understood you but I will give it a go. So, its ok for the volunteer to change the rules just because he is a volunteer?

[gilski]

Beavah,

 

Starting to take offense here! You type like Im not in the room.

 

1. My son is not aware of this debate in committee; He completed a new service project leading 5 fellow scouts.

 

2. The parents both for and against are only the active working adults we havent blown the roof off the church.

 

3. I go on 85 to 90% of the campouts, pulling the trailer, Merit badge counselor, Chaplin, Training coordinator for the adults, and am involved in most BORs.

(If your troop volunteers work an hour a week I will move to your city).

 

The parents who question this include all the Dads who were Eagles themselves. The Parents who are in favor dont feel challenged, or threatened, they are looking for the right answers as well. And they are above the snipping going on here. We are searching for the right answers by asking those with experience and knowledge of the written word. I must be a simpleton, for when I was in Bible college I tried not to read between the lines, but adhere to the truth. Maybe I should ignore it now.

 

 

[LongHaul]

Gilski,

I started to reply to Hunt but thought I should speak to you directly instead. You say your son has completed a new project. This suggests an old project had been completed. If your son had already completed a project was that project approved by his then SM before he started the work? You have said your son has done work with missionaries in Mexico, was the work approved as a service project before he did the work? If the SM implemented new conditions after OKing a project then IMO that is adding to the requirements. A boy has to be able to rely on the word of his leaders. If on the other hand the new conditions simply just took effect and your son is one of the first affected then IMO the SM is not adding to the requirements the SM has just set a different set of conditions for approving a service project. We have a publication which comes out every January which lists the requirements for rank and merit badges. The current publication is # 33215B. This publication also contains sections on methods and procedures which should not be confused with the requirements. Once we start allowing interpretation of the requirements then we run into this type of problem. On the other hand if we try to go strictly to what the words say again we run into this problem. In my troop when a scout passes his BOR he is encouraged to read the current interpretations of what is expected for his next rank. My troop has each rank in a separate binder with explanations for each of the requirements. Exactly what is meant by service project is spelled out and examples of acceptable and non acceptable projects are listed. These interpretations were made by our PLC and SPL. I gave advice when asked and have final approval of all changes, tough I must say that there have only been two changes over the years to the interpretations arrived at by the PLC and SPL when this system was implemented in 1995. Once a boy starts the rank the interpretations can not change unless National changes the actual requirement. This has happened over my time as SM and when it did the boys who were currently working on the rank affected were asked to sit in on the interpretation of the new requirement along with the PLC and SPL.

However you work out this current situation I suggest a system where the boys know up front just what is expected, and what is required for completion of each requirement. Surprisingly the things I discuss in this forum are not the problems within my troop. Ive had more discussions with the scout and his SPL over useful camp gadget then acceptable service project or any other requirement.

LongHaul

 

[evmori]

Three key words - take part in - not show leadership in.

 

The requirement is for a Scout to participate in a service project approved by the SM. The project is approved, not the Scout's role in the project.

 

If the Scout leads the project great! If he assumes a leadership role during the project great! But requiring the Scout to lead or show leadership for a service project for rank other than Eagle is adding to the requirement and that is forbidden.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Lynda J]

I have a question for those that don't see a problem with adding the word "Lead" to the Life requirement.

 

It has been said that all the parents and committee have agreed that this is what they want.

 

Ok. So the speed limit in front of my house is 35mph. My neighbors get together and decide that we want that speed limit changed to 50mph. Since everyone in the neighborhood agrees we change the speed limit. It is our right since we all agree.

 

BSA has requirements set for a reason. They also have a policy that leaders and committees can not change a requirement. So it is ok to change the speed limit just like it is ok to change the requirement.

 

NOT SO. I would imagin that if your Council were tofind out that you are adding a requirement to an Rank advancement you might get a good slap on the wrist. As you should.(This message has been edited by Lynda J)

[Eagledad]

>>If their boys are not getting to Eagle with enough leadership skills then it is a leadership problem within the troop. And the SM and Committee needs to address that and not add requirements.

[Lynda J]

I agree we should push our boys to an extent. But the rules should all be the same. It isn't up to each Pack, Troop, Crew or Post to make their own advancement requirements. A boy needs to know that if he moves across the country that his Advancement requirements will be the same.

If we allow Units to set their own advancement requirements then we stop being a part of the entire BSA group. We become individual units with no uniform advancement policy.

[Beavah]

Sorry Beavah, I am not sure I understood you but I will give it a go. So, its ok for the volunteer to change the rules just because he is a volunteer?

 

OGE, Eagledad expressed my feelings more eloquently than I could (tho he missed da Minnesota accent der, eh?) I don't really care about the rules in the same way you and Lynda J do. All I really care about are the aims and the principles. I think what makes us all scouts and scouters is not writing legal briefs over an advancement regulation to ensure uniformity, but doing our best to help our (own, unique kids) kids grow in character in our (own, unique) Chartered Orgs. with our (own, unique) sets of adults. As a UC, I've seen so many different but excellent units, with all kinds of different interpretations and adaptations.

 

I think it's contrary to the principles to make picky arguments about the rules. I think it hurts the program. I don't know what the SM knows; I'm not doing his job. So as a good citizen, I also don't think I should be tellin' him how to do his job - as long as overall he is doing good things for the kids. (Of course, if he's not doing good things for the kids, then that is the issue, not whether his interpretation of requirement 12c is in line with the current case law).

 

In short, I want my son to see that I support and approve of the SM even if I think the SM is wrong on a particular point, because I want my son to learn respect and kindness, and because I'm more likely to be wrong about how to get to the aims than the SM is (for that boy, in that troop, at that time). And I also don't want the SM's time to be spent arguin' with me over the right way to award a patch, I want his energy spent on encouraging and teaching my boy and his friends.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, If following rules is a bad thing, then color me guilty. I believe that following the rules of an organization I belong to is the right thing to do and if following those rules puts me in a group with Lynda J, I join that group gladly.

 

If someone posts here and asks an opinion about what I think, I will offer that opinion, if the post asks what I think about a practice that is against BSA policy I will point out that the practice is against BSA policy and make no apologies for doing so.

 

The aims of the BSA are the development of charactor, citizenship and personal fitness. I do not see how developing citizenship and charactor is aided by volunteers who do not follow the rules of an organization especially when these rules are known to them.

 

Like I said earlier in this thread, sometimes you and I see some things differently and this is one of them.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Vicki]

gilski, I feel your pain. If I understand your position correctly, you have a committee whose members have added a requirement to attain Life rank. You, as a group, are now rethinking that position in light of additional information because some parents (correctly, in my opinion) question whether or not this was appropriate. There's no rancor amongst you, simply honest discussion over coffee or soda.

 

You have sought input from a much wider and more diverse group of scouters (and some scouts) than you will find anywhere else. Well, you got it, in spades, right? IMO, the bottom line is that your committee has added a requirement with the best of intentions but the fact is that adding a requirement is not within your rights as a committee or troop. I think it really is that simple.

 

Vicki