Adding to requirements

[PACK15NISSAN]

Beavah, not that you need it but you have my support on this. Even in everyday life we see interpretation and changes in laws, rules, and ordanances depending on the circumstances. Not every situation can be approached with a book, if so the BS handbook would come mail order like the encyclopedia britanica.

 

I shall remind or enlighten some of you of the problems that McDonalds had not too far back. A company filled with books and rules that one must follow to the letter without question or modification. Some one (posing as a law enforcement officer) called managers and told them to that certain employees had drugs on them and strip search them. These managers not having a section in their books to tell them what to do obliged. Common sense should at least to an extent override the rules. Had these managers not been trained to be mere drones they would have known this was not only wrong but stupid. If we teach our youth that you have to follow the book to the letter and don't teach them to challenge themselves, think on their own, or use common sense will be no better off then corporate drones spouting off rules and ordanances.

 

The real problem for most doesn't seem to be the modification of requirements rather that we don't see what benefits these modifications have to the youth we serve. If you are going to modify the existing requirements than you should be able to explain your reasoning to some one else, show them why you think this will help the boy, not just because I the SM and I said so.

 

Power corrupts absolute, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think many of us on the side of Beavah forget that not everyone has or uses common sense. Some are power driven, some are vindictive, some are just plain stupid and that can create problems of arbitrary changes that have no benefit except for the gain of those in charge.

[Beavah]

I think many of us on the side of Beavah forget that not everyone has or uses common sense. Some are power driven, some are vindictive, some are just plain stupid and that can create problems...

 

Yah, this is true, eh? And it does happen every now and again in Scoutin', though far less often than people seem to be claimin'. Scouters are good people, and care about kids. Most of the "this man is stupid and vindictive" stuff comes from adults who have a different vision (ex. helicopter parents, Daddy_O's race to Eagle, etc.).

 

If we're lookin' for a solution to leaders who make bad decisions occasionally, good luck. We all make bad decisions from time to time. No policy will change that.

 

If we're lookin' for a solution to truly poor leaders, it's find better leaders. No policy will ever help.

 

If we're lookin' for leaders who always agree with us on their approach, good luck. No policy will help. Dat requires cloning, eh?

 

--------

 

The registrar evaluates 2 students who have successfully completed the same coursework (at the same U), and tells one to go take another class, and approves the second for graduation.

 

Not what we're talkin' about. Da proper question would be whether the registrar at Harvard would accept the graduation requirements for Podunk, or even Yale. Answer: No.

 

Or a professor gives Mary an A with 87% and Billy a B with 88%. Because Billy wasnt active in the class

 

Happens all the time. Bein' an active contributor to the class is a graded expectation in many college classes, especially in ones which require performance. Seminars more than lectures, of course, but in da BSA we don't do lecture.

 

My point is this is a slippery slope.

 

I think we're mixing up two different things. Is it OK for different troops to have different expectations? That's like different families havin' different curfews, or different colleges havin' different graduation requirements.

 

Second is whether we modify our approach for different kids. That might be havin' the same required classes but changin' expectations a bit within those. Yeh haven't said, Daddy_O, but do yeh have more than one kid? Most parents find that it's necessary to ski that slippery slope, eh? Because much to our surprise, our kids are different. What worked for one doesn't work for da other. George is bright and lazy, he gets grounded if he doesn't get A's; Melissa struggles but works hard, she gets praised for B's. Lovin' 'em the same sometimes means treatin' them different.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Not that I disagree with the statement about "...whether the registrar at Harvard would accept the graduation requirements for Podunk, or even Yale. Answer: No.",

 

but if you watch this video, you might wonder about the 'excellence' of Harvard. I show it to my students at the beginning of the course and then refer to every stumble thereafter as a 'Harvard moment'.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html

 

[sandspur]

Or a professor gives Mary an A with 87% and Billy a B with 88%. Because Billy wasnt active in the class

Hey, happened to me. Aced all the tests and got a B in the course. When I complained, Prof said I never attended study sessions. That I didnt need them was, to him, beside the point. Yeah, I thought it unfair, but I was careful about call attendance in the future.

As I said before, we need to be reasonable. A troop needs to be able to require performance in a POR or minimal qualifications for a critical position like SPL. If the expectation in a troop is to wear full uniforms to a campout, so be it.

BUT, we adults should not pedantic. one overly concerned with formalism, precision or rules. Sound familiar? The problem is, there are some of those in every group. In all honesty, I have even been guilty a few times. And yes, I have tried to use the we cant change BSA requirements argument to reign them in. Have to admit, it didnt work though so I am moving more to the what are we really trying to accomplish here argument. 55 and still learning

 

[Twocubdad]

Here's another angle on added requirement. Many of them are simply classic bureaucracy building.

 

If you've been here long you've read my complaints against the insane level of picky bureaucratic hoops our council requires of Eagle project proposals. If I'm SE for a day (or even program chairman) the entire system, volunteers and all, get thrown out and we start over.

 

But still, the guys on the committee aren't bad people or even bad Scouters. They've built a bad system, one stupid bureaucratic brick at a time. Anytime a problem is encountered, a rule is created to handle it. Part of the issue here was the decision many years ago that Eagle projects will be approved at the council level. Maybe that was good then, but the committee, which only meets once a month, usually has between 20 and 40 projects to review per month. That's an impossible amount of work. In response, the committee has created a rediculous list of items which has to be included in every project or the proposal gets bounced.

 

It's the old fighting gators vs. draining the swamp. They are so focused on slogging through the stack of proposals in front of them, they've forgotten their purpose is to make sure the projects are of value and allow the boys to demonstrate leadership.

[Eamonn]

There is adding to requirements and adding to requirements! I dont believe this. IMO there is just adding to the requirements

 

"When I read you guys defending your arbitrary raising of the bar it amazes me how you rationalize it! Changing the rules published by your own organizationon a case-by-case basis is the most unfair demagoguery."

 

Sometimes life just isn't all that easy.

 

As we are so often reminded there is no requirement to wear or own a Scout uniform, in order to be a Scout.

That would seem clear enough.

There is an expectation that Scouts will wear a uniform to certain events. - For example a BOR.

There is no such requirement, but it is kinda expected.

If you are going to wear a Boy Scout uniform, it is expected that it will be a full uniform that is in neat and clean condition.

Life is getting harder!!

A number of Troops in the area where I live don't wear the full uniform.

Then we get to some of what I see as the silly stuff.

I've seen Scouts be asked to wear clean polished shoes to ESBOR!

I've seen Scouts asked if they have their membership card in a certain pocket!

I've Scouts be told that they ought to have a clean handkerchief in another pocket.

Thats before we even get into the right time and right way that sashes should be worn.

 

I'm OK expecting a Lad to wear a uniform -Even if it's not required.

I'm not ever going to ask a Lad who is almost 18 to rush out and buy one.

I'll admit that I wish that each and every Scout did wear the full and correct Boy Scout uniform, but I know that so many adults tell parents and Scouts that "We don't wear the pants in our Troop" That it's almost a lost cause.

As for the membership cards, polished shoes, hankies? To my mind that's pushing it.

I think when we start imposing our will on the Scouts about things that fall outside of what is considered the norm? We are going too far.

I personally have a long list of things that I'm not keen on.

I don't like tattoos, piercings, I think that the spiked hair thing was just strange. (I look that way first thing in the morning without the gel.) I'm glad that the baggy pants and long shorts fad seems to have past.

But there is no way if Scout attended a ESBOR that I was a member of with his ears pierced, his hair spiked, his pants baggy and I love my Mom tattooed on his arm that I'd hold it against him.

Eamonn.

I would also expect him to be able to recite the Scout Oath and Law.

But if he fumbled it? I'd bear in mind that sometimes even Supreme Court Justice's can make a mess of things.

 

 

 

 

[sandspur]

As you say, we need allow room for different troops to define what works for them. I have been a member of two troops as an adult scouter (and two as a scout).

Troop A wore shirt and necker but not the scout pants. Troop B wore full uniform including pants and socks. Both OK by me.

Troop A never wore uniforms on monthly troop campouts (got dirty and torn up), Troop B wore full uniform on the trip out and back and changed once camp was set up. Both OK by me.

On the other hand, troop As Eagle projects were a BIG deal, with full troop participation the norm. Troop B not so much. Troop As meeting were much more organized and productive than the more official troop Bs. Both seem to work.

However, when a troop starts adding or subtracting requirements for rank advancement or altering the core BSA program, I start to have issues. When they lose sight of the goal (the scouts) and start to focus on (their) RULES I have issues.

I guess it comes down to Dont sweat the small stuff on the one hand, but dont change the core program and still call yourself part of the BSA on the other.

What is core? That debate will go on forever.

 

[AMulls]

I have to agree with Beavah as well. To an extent.

 

I think the spirit behind "adding to the requirements" is generally well-intentioned. I, for one, feel like it would be pretty difficult to describe a flag that I've never actually seen. Imagination can go a long way, but when you have 10 scouts in a new scout patrol that all need the "describe your patrol flag" requirement signed off, seems like step 1 one should be to make a patrol flag if one doesn't exist. How else are they going to describe it accurately? And if the person signing off the requirement has never seen the flag, then how does he know if the flag was described correctly?

 

On the other hand, keeping boys from getting Eagle before they turn 17 is wrong. That adds what wasn't meant to be a requirement. There is no specific age requirement, so adding one arbitrarily in order to keep kids active is underhanded and un-scoutlike. They'll stay active if there is a good program to keep them active. That should be the goal - keep them active because they want to be, not because you are holding a rank hostage.

 

Uniform requirements are tough. A big part of it is money. Putting together a complete uniform can be pretty expensive. Which is probably why most trooops don't require the full uniform. When I was a scout, my troop only required the shirt and neckerchief. There were ways to encourage scouts into the full uniform, though. We made a day trip (from Virginia) to the 93 Jamboree and were required to be in full uniform to go with our troop. Adding a requirement? Nope. No rank involved. Just common sense that we look appropriate at Jambo. Another way I've seen it done was at OA functions. Lining up for chow time at the dining hall, scouts in full uniform got to go first. Again, no rank requirement involved, just general encouragement to be in full uniform.

 

Overall, I'll go on a limb and say that many of these "added requirements" fall within the nebulous Scout Spirit requirement. So, it could be argued that it's not really adding to the requirements at all. And I'm fine with them for the most part. But I agree wholeheartedly, that common sense should dictate the decisions on it.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

A McDonalds in Boston sells a McDonalds cheeseburger consisting of one meat patty, one bun, a sprinkling of onions, 2 pickles, ketchup, mustard, salt and pepper - the standardized McDonalds cheeseburger per the book.

 

A McDonalds in Seattle sells a McDonalds cheeseburger consisting of one meat patty, one bun, a sprinkling of onions, 2 pickles, ketchup, mustard, salt, pepper and a tomato slice. Is it a McDonalds cheeseburger?? Answer - no, it is not a McDonalds cheeseburger - a McDonalds cheeseburger is defined - adding a tomato makes it something else - it's similar to a McDonalds cheeseburger, but it isn't a McDonalds cheeseburger.

 

Now maybe you like tomato slices on your burgers, so adding to the ingredients isn't that big a deal to you - but you still didn't get a McDonalds cheeseburger.

 

I feel I'm channeling a poster many of us know - but someone's got to say it - you're either delivering the Boy Scout program as franchised by the Boy Scouts of America, or you aren't. If you're adding to the requirements, no matter how much you try to justify it as "character building", you aren't. You're providing a program that is similar to the BSA's, but you aren't providing the BSA program. Once again, the question becomes, "What makes you think you're smarter than the BSA?"

[sandspur]

CalicoPenn

Yes, I agree we should not change the core program. But the BSA does not provide detailed guidance on most issues (and probably shouldnt try). Most of these arguments seem to be scouters trying to come up with policies for their troops where the BSA is vague or silent.

I asked a while ago how far a troop can go in adding requirements for what constitutes a successful completion of a POR by a scout. After due and diligent search, BSA doesnt really say. So I guess it is open for troops to set their own policy (please be reasonable says I, but if youre not, theres really nothing I can do).

But if BSA says the requirements for Eagle are 21 MB, then its 21. Not 23. Not 19.

Adding a 50 miler to the Eagle requirements is adding to BSA requirements and not proper.

Using the Scout Spirit requirement to justify what cannot be justified otherwise is dangerous. I oppose vaguely worded catch all provisions which allow one to do anything they like in spite of everything else in the regs. See Interstate Commerce Clause, US Constitution for such horror stories.

 

[Twocubdad]

But this isn't McDonald's. For starters, our "franchise agreement" is one sheet of paper. And I, for one, ain't counting the sesame seeds on the top of hamburger buns.

 

A regional Scout exec who retired with about 30 years in the business explained it to me that BSA policies are intentionally loosey-goosey for two reasons. First is to allow units the ability to craft a program which suits the needs of their Scouts, their CO and their community.

 

Since B-P organized his second troop, I'm sure one of the two complained that the other was "giving away" proficiency badges. The other likely though the first was adding requirements.

 

The second reason is that because the program is run by 1.5 million volunteers with untold variation in ability, training, intelligence, experience, eduacation -- any parameter you wish to consider -- that BSA doesn't want to create a detailed policy set lawyers can use to hang the volunteers.

 

"Mr. Scoutmaster, I refer you to page 573 of the BSA policy manual 'Fires, Camp Stoves and Combustible Devices.' This policy requires units to provide their Scouts with wooden matches at least 2.6 inches long. On the day of the accident, how long were the matches your Scouts were using?"

 

The lack of this sort of baloney regulations is why we get goofy rules like no sheath knives, no cigarette lighters and no open-toed shoes. Somewhere, sometime there seemed like a good reason for prohibiting these things.

 

That's the point of my post about the insane specifications our council has for Eagle project proposals. Sometime the local paper ran a photo of a bunch of Scouts working on an Eagle project who all looked the were in a rap band. POOF! A rule that everyone working on an EP must be in uniform. Somewhere someone got hurt on a project. POOF! A rule banning power tools. Somewhere it looked like a kid "got away" with something and POOF! a dozen rules proscribing all sorts of silly details and added requirements. Of course we know bureaucratic rules like this, once in place, never go away.

[Beavah]

Yah, it must be frustratin' to all those McDonalds-program adults when they discover that children are a lot more complimicated than two all beef patties on a sesame seed bun.

 

Da franchise thing is a pithy analogy, but it ain't the reality, legal or otherwise. The BSA Charter is closer to a licensing agreement. Roughly the equivalent of a textbook company which provides classroom materials, curriculum, books, and brief summer training for teachers. Da teachers and school chose those materials to help 'em with the school's mission of educatin' kids, and are free to adapt, modify, decide not to pay for training, skip chapters 12 and 13, add another supplementary text, etc. And da materials are designed to allow just that. Most schools pretty much follow the textbook with minor adjustments and supplements, but a few just use it as a reference or supplement for their own stuff, eh? I've known troops and crews that were run as school extracurricular activities by regular school staff, with no uniformin' or advancement to speak of. BSA was happy as a clam with their numbers, despite da different use of the materials. And to be honest, they did a fine job with da other six methods and we were proud to have 'em.

 

So I don't get all hot and bothered about this or that approach bein' "wrong." Just depends how it's used, and whether it helps programs achieve their goals and kids grow. On that score, I agree completely with TwoCubDad and others, eh? Lots of times da folks who love quoting "policy" add a "policy" for this, that, and the other thing without evaluatin' costs and unintended consequences. Those policies, whether done by a troop or done by da BSA in the never-ending expansion of G2SS are "wrong" because they don't help a program achieve its goals for kids. Just like shoutin' "don't add to the requirements" over minutia.

 

For example, I know a few troops that have never had an Eagle under age 17. I don't think they really put up policy roadblocks so much as that's da troop culture. They want each lad to do his best before the finale. Like a high school diploma, eh? Da bright kids don't rush to finish high school at age 13 with da minimum requirements. They wait to get their diploma, and take a full schedule includin' AP classes until they've vastly exceeded da requirements and gotten everything out of high school that they can. They've got great retention, most of da Eagles stay around as ASMs when they're in town. I expect if they were confronted with a lad or family who was tryin' to game the system they'd put da brakes on, but who knows. Never been an issue.

 

Nuthin' wrong with that. Achieves their mission, works for their kids. Just as long as someone from such a troop doesn't take over da DAC job and decide everyone should to it their way, and start puttin' up roadblocks for other folks' programs.

 

Beavah

 

[evry]

Please comment on the following:

 

The MBC for the First Aid Merit Badge (who is also the Committee Chairman) requires all of the Scouts taking the merit badge to get certified in CPR before he will sign off on the requirement to "demonstrate proper CPR". His reasoning is that someone that is not certified cannot possibly demonstrate proper CPR.

 

During Summer Camp, there is a 10 minute demonstration of CPR by the Scouts and they get the requirement signed off for various merit badges (ie. Swimming, First Aid, emergency Preparedness). It's called CPR for Merit Badges.

 

The Scouts that went to Summer Camp and saw all the other Scouts from other Troops doing this 10 minute demonstation are not too happy that they are required to take a CPR class (which costs appx. $40) for 4-5 hours in order to get the requirement signed off by the MBC for their First Aid MB. Some of them actually did the demonstration at Summer Camp and have asked the MBC to sign off, but he doesn't accept it.

 

Personally, I think it's good that the Scouts are being asked to get certified in CPR, but when there is a disparity in the requirements from troop to troop, then there is something wrong with the system, and it creates a feeling of unfairness in the Scouts.

 

Also, bad feelings arise against someone (the MBC) who might also sit on their BOR for advancing to the next rank. Not Good!

[sandspur]

Well, he has a point. I suppose legally he cannot require it since BSA does not BUT, If you can perform proper CPR, why not get certified? How can you demonstrate proper technique but yet cant perform CPR if needed? Besides, recommended CPR technique changes over time and you should be aware of the latest.

 

No reason you have to pay $40. Depends on the class, the instructor and the certifying agency. I just re-certified (along with a lot of scouts and scouters) and it cost $6 (that was just for the book).

 

I would think that requiring scouts to pay $40 to meet a MB requirement is wrong. If the MB instructor is a CPR instructor, he can certify the lads himself. If he is not, he needs to find someone to do it for them. If the certifying agency insists on a small payment, I suggest the troop pick it up. It is a good thing for the troop and scouting to have a lot of folks CPR certified.

 

Instead of wanting to check off the requirement, maybe the scouts could look at it like the accomplishment it is.

 

The life they save may be yours.

 

[SSScout]

I am MBC for Farm Mechanics MB.

Requirement 2: "Explain how power is produced or ttransferred in a:

a: Diesel engine

b. Hydraulic system

c. Transmission or any other power system"

 

Point to remember: No where in the FM/MB book is a gasoline engine even mentioned. Only diesel.

When I take the boys thru the Farm implements dealer and work shop and discuss safety and operation of equipment, I talk and teach about gasoline and spark plugs and distributors and points and ignitions, along with Rudolph Diesel's invention. (and he used vegetable oil, not mineral!)

When we are finished, they still have to talk about diesel engines.

Am I adding to the requirements? No. Only to their knowledge.

Sometimes you have to add to the Scout, not to the requirements.

 

I have my own requirement: that the Scout be somewhat knowledgeable about the subject.