Scout spirit, "active" and attendance

[Beavah]

fulfills a member's obligation to the unit - what exactly does that mean?

 

Like I said, it's subjective and unit-dependent, eh? But it's better worded than that other thing about bein' "engaged by his unit leadership."

 

Hoestly, I don't know how you can fulfill the POR requirement (or the laternative project requirement for Star/Life) without being active

 

Yah, yeh need da second half of the modern interpretation.

 

"Active=registered" so "Serve Actively = don't get fired". You fulfill da POR requirement so long as you get some position and the SM doesn't remove you in time. I'm sure yeh can find that in the advancement FAQ.

 

So an inactive scout can advance so long as da SM doesn't remove the boy from a position and block him from taking other positions. Otherwise the lad can just take another position and not perform in that one either, racking up his time in position, and meriting everyone's applause for his character development at da next COH.

 

I do know a couple of troops who are doin' this... conducting monthly reviews and "firing" scouts from positions with a minimum 6-month prohibition in serving in any other POR. I can't say I'm fond of da approach. A bit like kicking a boy out of the unit for droppin' below 75% participation or whatnot.

 

It's what da program wonks in Irving are pushin', but to my mind it doesn't really serve the kids.

 

Beavah

 

[Hal_Crawford]

The problem with the subjective nature of this requirement is that it can be used arbitrarily to impede a scout that a leader does not like for whatever reason.

 

When I first joined our troop and became a committee member there was a scout that one of the ASMs (an oldtimer active on the district level) did not like. I think it had to do with association with an almost Eagle from our troop who had gotten into serious trouble with the law. At any rate this scouter was telling everyone who would listen that the scout could not earn Eagle because he had not been active in the troop for a full six months as a Life scout. The scout had missed about 8 meetings in a row and had not gone to camp with the troop. Why? Because he had been working as a counselor at one of the Cub Scout camps at the same reservation as our camp.

 

I do not recall his POR at the time but it was probably instructor or Guide. Whatever it was the SM was satisfied with his fulfillment of the responsibilities of the position. My feeling as a new CC was that he had represented our troop while at camp and that he had encouraged some Webelos to give our troop a look. While he may not have been a physical presence in our troop during that time, he wore his uniform (with our troop number on it) for six days a week for six weeks of camp and was actively engaged in the mission of scouting.

 

The scouter who objected to the scout was not in a position to do anything but exert influence and both the SM and I took it under advisement and then dismissed it.

 

My point is that a subjective judgment can by definition differ from one person to the next. It can be positive or negative; it can be fair and on point or it can be based on bias or a grudge. I can imagine that (and I am not trying to pick any fights here) that Kudu, Beaver, Packsaddle, Ed and I could all look at this requirement and each apply it differently, perhaps to the same scout. Would that be fair?

 

Hal

[highcountry]

I agree with 2 cub dad, the BSA tells us to develop leadership, hard work and personal responsibility in boys through the program but then tells us that if the boy never shows up or participates we are supposed to advance him .....What ? Sounds like a contradiction. If all a boy needs be is to be registered and not kicked out he is considered active. I ask you then, why even have troops, lets all go to lone scouts. Why make the efforts to encourage patrol method and leadership when the scouts see that an inactive do nothing gets to move along just as well as the boys who actually show, learn and particpate ? Thats a bad lesson to pass along, to show that one can take the lazy way out and still advance in ranks. Any smart kid would end up asking himself why he bothers to participate when he can lone scout it and get the ranks ?

I really don't care if a scout is 50% active (meetings and events) or 100% active as long as he is not making 20% of meetings and 0% of activities.

Being active in a POR for 4 or 6 months is tough to call. We all try and give kids a second chance and coach them instead of yanking the POR from a kid after only a few months of inactivity, however, our troop is now more vigilant to yank a POR more quickly for an inactive scout so he can't claim he held a POR (for which he did nothing) for the required time and thus he earned rank.

Fortunately I have very few problem scouts like this, the most recent was looking to earn Eagle early this summer but has been AWOL on nearly all troop meetings, patrol Leaders Council all campouts for 9 months (made only one in the last 15 months) and did NOTHING regarding his POR. He was told verbally to not bother any longer as he would not get his Eagle Project Approved, would not get merit abdges credited and would not get Scout Spirit or SM review due to his being totally absent and un engaged. HE learned he wouldn't win the battle and disappeared. I am not talking about a generally decent scout otherwise, I am talking about someone who is alomost NEVER there, shows no effort or leadership, did nothing, his mom just wants to see him get his Eagle. Sorry without being here to demonstrate leadership and spirit you don't deserve it.

[Venividi]

"The problem with the subjective nature of this requirement is that it can be used arbitrarily to impede a scout that a leader does not like for whatever reason. "

 

That's why I like the team approach to scouting. Hal goes on to describe a situation where an ASM had an issue with a scout, it was brought to the attention of others (in this case the CC and SM), and resolved. Seems that checks and balances worked. Ideally there are enough ASM's to allow at least one of them to get along with a scout an SM or other ASM just doesn't mesh with. At least that is how I think it is supposed to work.

 

And is it fair that all of the folks listed would apply requirements differently? I believe "yes". All CO's likely have objectives that differ from each other. Each adult leader should be acting in accordance with their CO's objectives (and be replaced by their CO if they are not). Plus each individual brings a unique set of experiences, which is beneficial when considering the adult association method.

[sandspur]

He was told verbally to not bother any longer as he would not get his Eagle Project Approved, would not get merit abdges credited and would not get Scout Spirit or SM review due to his being totally absent and un engaged. HE learned he wouldn't win the battle and disappeared.

Highcountry:

Sad! I am 90% with you: You have more than enough to justify not signing off on scout spirit and getting a poor SM review. Approving much less completing an Eagle project would require he show up. However, I see no justification for failure to credit MB.

Probably wouldnt matter in the end, since he would need it all to get his Eagle. Still, I think you should credit his MB. They were earned.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm with VeniVidi on this, eh?

 

Sure, it's possible that some adult somewhere will get a burr in his saddle about some kid. Honestly, though, it's pretty rare. Rarer still that a scouter would hold up a lad just because of that. Scouters by and large are pretty fair and reasonable sorts.

 

More likely, a particular scouter can get his dander up about a behavior. Some scouters I know believe lyin' is a capital offense. Others don't take sass. Others really dislike bullies or "pranksters." That sort of thing I think is somethin' the boy, not the adult, should learn from. "Mr. OGE hates pranks and will think poorly of me for it, so pullin' pranks is something I shouldn't do here."

 

For judgment calls and subjective perspective, that's why we have SPLs and ASMs and Committees and UCs and PLCs and CORs, eh? Even if one adult isn't readin' a situation right, others are around on da team to consult with. I often tell unit scouters that if one boy crawls up their nose all da time but gets along with another adult, let da other adult be his mentor and sign-off guy.

 

Beavah

 

[SMT224]

Similar to the situation described by highcountry, I've had Scouts who did the absolute minimum possible, were disruptive on campouts and meetings, goofed off on service projects, and then came to a SM Conference and demanded advancement. Sorry, but no banana. The Scout Spirit item is not signed off and he is sent off with plenty of words of encouragement to do better next time.

 

Most of these kinds of kids don't want to be there anyway, and have no intention of working to become a good Scout or make the Troop better. One kid in our Troop who was especially terrible had been told by his mom, who was desperate to see him make Eagle (so her car insurance rates would be lower), that he could do no other activities unless he went to Scouts. He found every excuse in the world to get out of meetings and outings, and was a bully and very disruptive when he did come. When I denied him advancement, he threw a temper tantrum, and then his mom ran to the Committee saying how mean I was and how I just didn't like her son. The Committee backed me up, and just a few months later he was involved in some significant vandalism on a camp out and was expelled from the Troop. His mom still felt her son was perfect and we just had it out for him.

 

It depends on the Scout - not the time he did a particular activity. It's the quality with which he conducts himself and how much of himself he puts into Scouting. For me, the POR times are a guideline. If a Scout has done good in that amount of time, I have no problem signing off and sending him off to the next rank. If a scout has been a slacker or disruptive or just not there, I have no problem sending him off to work a bit harder on POR activities. Often a good Scout will stick with a POR long enough to do a really good job at summer camp or on a service project or some other activity, which usually exceeds the BSA guidelines.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Well, for the moment, it's John-in-Northern-Nevada. Those who are also on FB and in our group there know why.

 

Here is my take:

 

1) Never, ever, parse a paragraph with an attorney, unless you are his adversary in court. You'll lose

 

2) Beavah's right: The object of the Boy Scouting program, as found in R&R, is to deliver the promise to the boy: Outdoors, patrols, advancement, adult association...

 

3) Beavah's right: The boy, to get value out of the program, has to be active and involved.

 

4) The words found on the website, from which some assess "Active=Registered", derive from policy document Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures #33088.

 

5) Our obligation as unit serving Scouters is to ensure the youth members design, develop, implement the Boy Scouting program as a working laboratory of adulthood in the outdoors.

 

6) To meet our obligation above, we have to make sure the kids are engaged. Does that mean we contact them ourselves? Not necessarily. It does mean we ensure our youth members in leadership are doing their job.

 

7) Finally, Scout Spirit is about what happens the other 167 hours each week. If our young men are living the oath and law in their lives away from us, then they're living it on the trail, in camp, or at the Troop meeting.

 

My thoughts

[evmori]

John-in-Nevada,

 

I agreed with your up to

 

Finally, Scout Spirit is about what happens the other 167 hours each week. If our young men are living the oath and law in their lives away from us, then they're living it on the trail, in camp, or at the Troop meeting.

 

Scout Spirit is something that happens 24/7/365 whether in or out of Scouting.

[OldGreyEagle]

If you have scouts who are disruptive on campouts and meetings, goof off on service projects, and are bullies and very disruptive why are they still members of the Troop?

 

Why wait til advancement time to let the scout know where he stands? Of course, you could very well be holding multiple socutmaster conferences with the youth, counseling them on how their behavior will effect their advancement, even to the extent of including the parents if the situation warrants so that their lack of advancement is no surprise to anyone, scout or parent. I can see working with youth who have a bad attitude, you don't want to just be another adult who quits on a kid looking for something in life he can't define but at some point, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Just as long as its not a surprise to the few of course.

[John-in-KC]

Ed,

 

Your way is more elegant than mine. We are actually in close agreement.