The Active Equals Registered Thing

[OldGreyEagle]

Some day Beavah you are goung to write a response that I understand, at this point I have no idea of what you are trying to say but thats ok, obviously you dont understand what I am saying either

[Beavah]

Hiya artjrk, thanks for wadin' in.

 

I and I expect a large number of scouters I expect feel as you do, eh? The active requirements (which only apply to the S-L-E ranks, not da T-2-1 ranks/requirements that FScouter mistakenly refers to above) are clearly designed to overlap the serve in a position of responsibility requirements. So I reckon it's just fine to consider those in parallel.

 

What you're doin' with your "blue cards" routine is what many units have done. You're clarifying your expectations for "active" and "serve in a Position of Responsibility." I think that's a fine way to go, especially for kids goin' for Star who are new to that type of requirement.

 

Unfortunately, what the BSA program office states is that active=registered, and serve actively in a position of responsibility = hold a title and don't get fired. So, under that interpretation, if one of your boys or families chooses to appeal, the lad will get his badge even though he hasn't fulfilled his "blue card" and your mutual expectations, just because he is registered and held the title of Patrol Leader for 4-6 months without you removing him. If yeh don't want him to advance, yeh have to remove him from his position or from the troop, not keep workin' with him until he improves and learns real responsibility.

 

And, like as not, a whole bunch of kibbitzers out here in internet scouting land will tell yeh you are a bad leader who is "adding to the requirements" and such.

 

Of course, I expect most good scouters and good kids just go ahead and teach responsibility and commitment and such anyway, in the way you do. Yeh can take solace in the fact that you're adhering to the BSA's Rules and Regulations and youth leadership handbooks, even though you're playin' a bit fast and loose with the current advancement program guidance.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

Here's the rub:

 

"Be active in your troop, team, crew or ship for a period of...."

 

Words have meaning. If National's intent is a boy only has to be a registered member of BSA to qualify, they can dang well change the handbooks. "Be a registered member of a Boy Scout troop, team, crew or ship for a period of ...." is a perfectly reasonable requirement. But that's not what is in the handbooks.

 

Active (ak'tiv) adj. 1. Being in physical motion. 2. Functioning or capable of functioning. 3. Disposed to take action or effect charge. 4. Engaged in an activity, participating.

 

Active DOES NOT mean registered. It DOES NOT mean my Scoutmaster initiates contact with me occasionally. Active DOES NOT mean your mom dropped off a check at recharter time.

 

I can go along with the idea that strict numerical attendance requirements implemented by a troop are not in keeping with BSA policy. It is a principle of Scouting that the program is flexible and we are to judge a Scout on his own merits. To disqualify a boy because he attended only 49.3% of meetings allows no room for a reasonable judgement of the Scout's abilities and personal situation. But a kid who has gone on two campouts in 3 1/2 years and attends something below a quarter of troop meeting, including prolonged absences, DOES NOT meet the simple definition of "Be active in your troop...."

 

I'm going to do my job as Scoutmaster to the best of my ability and according to my plain language understanding of the requirement. If the Director of Gutless Definitions in Irving wants to overrule me, it's his obligation to do his job as he sees fit. But I don't have to sign the application and I don't have to make the presentation.

[asm 411]

perhaps the BSA likes the second definition -

2. Functioning or capable of functioning.

 

The Scouts are always "capable" of functioning. Just like my son is always "capable" of cleaning his room.

 

On a more serious note I think the real trouble here is that Scouts are active in life. For instance last fall we had two Scouts in football. One showed up each week 20 minutes before the end of the meeting still in his football uniform. The other one not at all.

 

Do we give the one who showed up "out of uniform" credit? He was not in uniform and he was late every week. How about the other football Scout who showed up at the camp out on Saturday afternoon after the game? Does he get attendance credit, he was only there for half the camp out. These guys did the best they could to fit Scouting into their busy lives.

 

We want Scouts to be good citizens right? So do we punish them by not giving them credit when they are involved in the community (sports/band/clubs)? Tough call.

 

We have another Scout who his a straight A student but has to work hard for it. He misses almost every meeting. He shows up and helps every Eagle candidate with their project. He showed up at our Webelos camp out to help for a few hours. Heck he even showed up to help get ready for summer camp and he was not able to attend. He just submitted his Eagle application. His attendance was great before he hit sophomore year. Did we even think of dinging him for participation. Nope we did not even a think about it. He is a good Scout - good citizen, great character and physically fit. What more can we ask?

 

There are other situations of course where the Scouts are truly inactive. These are just a few where making rules about uniforms and attendance don't make sense to me.

 

So I think active has to be considered on a case by case basis. No hard rules. There are too many circumstances.

 

 

 

[Beavah]

We want Scouts to be good citizens right? So do we punish them by not giving them credit when they are involved in the community (sports/band/clubs)?

 

Schools want kids to be good citizens, right? So do they "punish" kids by not giving them credit for Chemistry when they are involved in the community (scouts/sports/clubs)? Or do they "punish" them by not giving them a Varsity letter when they miss half the practices because of scouts/theater/an after school job?

 

Of course they do!

 

Not giving someone an award IS NOT PUNISHMENT, except in adults or society who have totally gone overboard on da notion of entitlements. A boy who is not yet First Class rank is not being punished by his troop. He just hasn't earned First Class yet. A boy who has not yet lettered in baseball is not being punished by his team. He just hasn't qualified for a Varsity letter yet. Even if he never qualifies for a Varsity letter or never gets an "A" in Chemistry or never gets an Eagle scout badge that is not punishment. The lad is not entitled to any of those things by virtue of being a good kid.

 

Yah, I think what it says to boys and families and the community when we just give awards to people because otherwise we feel like we're "punishing" is that we don't value our awards, and neither should they. When we give our highest scouting awards to boys because they're great varsity soccer players or trombonists in the band it says scouting isn't worth anything compared with soccer or band, so as long as you're doing one of those things, we'll give you our award too!

 

Now, that doesn't mean we have to be pricks, eh? Most of us aren't goin' to be too upset with a lad who comes to a meeting in his sports uniform (especially not if he takes 30 seconds to change into his scout shirt when he arrives... he did bring it, right? ). But I certainly hope we're not goin' to give the lad who blew off all the meetings and outings during the three month fall football season an award based on the fact he was active (=registered) for those three months. He can wait and show us he's really active in the winter, eh? Makin' him wait 'til winter is not punishment.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

"Not giving someone an award IS NOT PUNISHMENT"

 

???

 

Punishment is when the boy completes all 12 requirements, yet some adult tells him that's not good enough. We made up rule #13 and you didn't come to enough boring troop meetings and do-nothing campouts.

 

You're keep talking like "active" is the only requirement for an award, when in fact completing all the requirements proves he was active.

 

I still think this hangup with "active" is all about adults feeling snubbed that some insolent kid dared to miss a boring meeting, and we'll show him he can't get away with that.

[highcountry]

Fscouter, I don't know what kind of world you are living in. As I noted I have an inactive scout and I could care less about his lack of attendance at meetings and activities as far as my feeling insulted....whatever.

 

Mine, and all the other adult leaders and pretty much every scoout in my unit feels he is not a good scout as he is not there, he shows no leadership, no responsibility, he makes some commitments and then blows them off. To pass this kid along to eagle would be an insult to every kid who actually did the worka and EARNED IT. The rank is the highest one scouting offers and to cheapen it and give it to kids who really do not desrve it waters down it's value and cheapens the BSA.

 

I like your simple minded assumption that the meetings and campouts for units you do not have one clue about must be boring or useless. MAybe if your units activites and meetings are boring does not automatically make every units the same way.

 

Sure a scout can be registered, do all his MB's at colleges and at home, set up an eagle project and have friends come out and help out with it and never show to a meeting or activity. That doesn't show much in the way of leadership, responsibility and the other values we try to teach, he is not part of the team, not part of the group, he is not contributing he is not learning much of what the program is all about. If BSA wants to allow kids to be considered scouts when all they are doing is basically homework to finish badges, then why bother with troops and all the troop activities at all ? Why pass a kid along to eagle who is MIA and demonstrates little to none of the qualities we try to teach when other kids who do show up, do contribute, do learn and grow and help make the troop/patrol function get teh same award. FScouter, kids aren't dumb, they see the slackers and trouble makers and will tell you it is unfair that lazy scouter A earns the Same Eagle Ambitious scouter B gets. Do you not realize that that happening you will get some scouts who will loose faith in the value of the program and drop out, and others to not bother with Eagel since the award doen't seem to mean much, yet others that may say to heck with it, I'm takin the easy route and doing merit badges at home doing a quickie eagle project and getting the award with the Least possible work....just like Lazy Scout A we just passed who was MIA all the time. In the real world that is what things will evolve into and down the road, making Eagle will have no value at all.

FYI, my problem scout A was missing again last night at the troop meeting. With 12 weeks to go to 18 he still hasn't changed. I am being a little prick and sending him a note he is stripped of his POR due to lack of doing anything. I have full backing of all adult leaders and every single scout sees this kid for what he is. If he wants eagle he will have to find another troop to sign stuff off and drag him across the finish line.

[evmori]

Entitled is a word that should be removed from the English language. Awards are earned, not given. Just participating in something doesn't mean you get something for participating. You get what you earn. And if you don't earn anything, well, you don't get anything. You are entitled to nothing! It must be earned!

 

Frank,

The hang up on active is the way National will rule on appeals. If I as an SM don't feel Johnny Life Scout has shown Scout Spirit because he was constantly flushing the new Scouts socks down the latrine at every camping trip, I'm not going to sign it off on it until Johnny Life Scout shows Scout Spirit. He can appeal & he will probably win because all the other requirements have been checked off!

[Beavah]

We made up rule #13 and you didn't come to enough boring troop meetings and do-nothing campouts.... I still think this hangup with "active" is all about adults feeling snubbed that some insolent kid dared to miss a boring meeting, and we'll show him he can't get away with that.

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

All I can figure, FScouter, is that you've had some really sad experiences as a youth or adult leader in adult-run programs.

 

In most troops, the boys on the PLC are selecting and planning the outings and meetings. So a boy who chooses not to show up doesn't affect the adults at all, eh? What he's showing is a lack of support and respect for his peers and fellow scouts. Now, call me crazy, but I think if a lad voted on a set of activities and promised to help run 'em, he should perhaps show up and support the team. Even if his ideas for activities didn't win, he should support the activities the majority voted for, not stay home and pout.

 

"Boring" meetings and activities in a proper scouting program happen when lads in leadership positions aren't really active or don't really live up to their responsibility. They let the other scouts down. Has nuthin' to do with adults.

 

We should of course reward such behavior with our highest honors for character and citizenship, because otherwise we might be seen as punishing the poor boy.

 

You're keep talking like "active" is the only requirement for an award, when in fact completing all the requirements proves he was active.

 

Yah, yeh need to re-read da requirements, eh? It's "Be active in your troop and patrol" not just be active in Scouting or the community. As highcountry says, a lad can get MB's from dad or the council Merit Badge Mill Weekend, and can get 6 service hours because his class at school collected canned goods for hurricane victims. He can serve as a mediocre den chief or OA representative (goin' to 2 out of 6 of the lodge meetings when they looked fun and he had nothin' else to do). All the while he's AWOL from every troop event and meeting.

 

Active isn't the only requirement, eh? But honestly, in terms of teachin' character and citizenship, it's the active, scout spirit, and position of responsibility requirements that are the biggies for the Star and Life ranks, not da six hours of service. As a result, it's the active and position of responsibility and scout spirit requirements that are most frequently disputed by entitlement-minded parents or kids lookin' for cheap bling.

 

Yah, sure, sometimes there are adult or program issues in a troop, eh? But not all the time or even most of da time. The rest of the cases the troop can have a fine program, but the boy hasn't yet learned responsibility, or the parent hasn't yet realized that their kid isn't entitled to every award because he's a nice boy and hasn't committed any felonies this month. I'll grant yeh the first happens on occasion. Will yeh grant the rest of us that the second and third happen on more than a few occasions as well?

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

first off, I am working on how you can flush anything down a latrine, but that isnt the point.

 

if you have a scout who likes to destroy the property of others and continues despite multiple warnings to cease and desist then you don't have a scout spirit issue, you have a criminal issue. What new scout is going to hang around to see his property destroyed? I think the situation that Ed describes is perfect for removing a scout for disciplinary reasons. I don't like to remove boys from units, but the security of others and their property is more important.

 

If a boy does the requirements, then he is active although it would be helpful if the BSA would be a little more clear on this issue. For all the sturm und drang this topic elicits, perhas a few phrases in a publication would be nice. Nice of course as long as I agree with it...

[Twocubdad]

This isn't a made-up requirement #13. This is requirement #1. I have the book in my hand. I'm looking at the requirement.

 

Why can't we enforce the participation requirement to the same level of expectation as the other requirements? For the First Class requirement to demonstrate how to find direction without a compass, we expect the Scout to demonstrate the skill. Not to have the Scoutmaster demonstrate it to him and not for his parents to buy him a GPS. Why is the activity requirement different? (Actually, that was a rhetorical question. I know the answer but don't care to argue right now.)

 

Again, let's not make this too black and white. Participation should be an objective measure, the same way Scout Spirit is judged subjectively. There are shades of grey based on the reason why a Scout misses activities (school, church, other legitimate obligations), what he does when he is in attendance, and his attitude toward participation. I've had boys miss activities for good cause, but then show up at the hut later in the week to get his job done. That shows me more than a boy who attends regularly but coasts through.

 

But just because there are shades of grey doesn't mean it doesn't fade to black at some point.

[evmori]

Actually, OGE, I was going to use the word toilet instead of latrine but I thought the Scouty language would be better understood!

[OldGreyEagle]

Ah, I understand, see if you would have said flushed the socks down the toilet or threw the socks into the latrine I would have understood.

 

Neither behavior is very scouty I am sure we all understand and it would take like twice to have real conseqeunces and I dont donr mean a stern talking to

[HICO_Eagle]

Wow, a LOT of discussion on this. I wouldn't go with an arbitrary attendance percentage threshold. Heck, even when I was Scoutmaster I missed a large number of meetings when work had me traveling.

 

I think the key is whether or not the Scout is filling his leadership position. If he is, he's active even if he has to do it all outside meetings or activities -- for instance, meetings could conflict with athletic team practice, activities could conflict with varsity games but he could be filling his responsibilities as Instructor by meeting with Scouts privately to help them advance. If he just flat doesn't show up or do anything, he's inactive. If he's borderline, the SM and committee should be meeting with him to see what's up.

 

We sometimes have a tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be.

[HICO_Eagle]

Mine, and all the other adult leaders and pretty much every scoout in my unit feels he is not a good scout as he is not there, he shows no leadership, no responsibility, he makes some commitments and then blows them off. To pass this kid along to eagle would be an insult to every kid who actually did the worka and EARNED IT. The rank is the highest one scouting offers and to cheapen it and give it to kids who really do not desrve it waters down it's value and cheapens the BSA.

 

highcountry, in this case you're covered. The Scoutmaster Conference prior to him seeing a board of review requires the SM to certify the Scout demonstrated Scout spirit. You seem to indicate that he hasn't shown Scout spirit. Now, to cover yourselves and make sure he can't complain about you sandbagging him by telling him about his failure to demonstrate Scout spirit in time to correct it, you should have a Scoutmaster's Conference with him and tell him his problems so he has time to correct it.

 

I had to do this with a Life Scout who frankly disappointed me at Philmont. We convened an emergency SM conference with him, myself, the TCC, his father and another father to discuss the issue. We told his father about the issue before the conference and then asked him to NOT get on his son's case (he was one of the classic fathers who was harder on his son than any other boy).

 

Honestly, the boy didn't get it after 35-40 minutes. He kept saying how things were going to change when he was Eagle and I finally got blunt and told him that not only wouldn't I sign off on his application if it were in front of me that night but the troop committee would fail him on his BoR if it was held that night. He finally got the message and I'm told (I had to move shortly after we returned from Philmont) not only reformed but was a model Scout through his 18th birthday and beyond -- and yes, he made Eagle.

 

The Scout spirit provision is one of the catch-alls available to you before advancement to ANY rank -- just make sure you cover yourself by 1) giving the boy a chance to fix the problem and 2) documenting his failure to live up to the Scout spirit.