New Definition of "ACTIVE"

[Beavah]

I can pretty much say that you are about the quality of the program and put advancement at the bottom of your list of things that mean squat. That is to say,your vision of scouting is about the trip, not the destination.

 

My personal vision of Scoutin'? Nah, it's about the destination: buildin' young people of character and values. And the trip should be fun and inspirin' . Everything else is just tools. Advancement is a tool, and a valuable one if it's used well. Certainly not on my list of things that mean squat. Like any tool, yeh have to know how to use it and when.

 

But if a scout does not do a single thing in his position, and he's given 2 other positions that he does nothing in...then to say he's met the requirements is absurd!

 

Now see, there yeh go usin' your head and disagreeing with the "rules."

 

I'd assume somebosy would say something to him about his duties, If he isn't doing anything at all, he's just there for his next patch and working the system.

 

Oh, yah. Often the SM will say somethin' over and over, though a lot of SMs want to do that in person and if a lad is a frequent no-show, a month or more can go by before the conversation can happen. Sometimes in frustration the committee will put it in writing as a "requirement." There are still those lads (and parents) who are just there for the next patch and are working the system.

 

Some lads have parents that never say "no", eh? Teachin' those boys that there are other caring adults in the world who will say "no" is an important part of their learning to be men. So we have to do it.

 

Just that the stuff from Irving should be making the job of caring unit leaders easier, not harder.

 

Beavah

[Scoutfish]

Okay,when I said destination,i just meant getting the next rank for the sake of getting it...kinda like collecting patches. I like your version of destination better.

[Oak Tree]

Yuck.

 

It's hard to even parse that statement to figure out what it means, and unless you are paying particularly close attention to things, there's just no practical change from the existing definition.

 

Can anyone point to an official source for this? Google can't find it on scouting.org.

[Abel Magwitch]

Beavah, I have to disagree.

Eagle Requirement 4 - While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility...

A position of responsibility - responsibility is the key word here. This goes beyond simply holding a position in name only. If a Scout is a senior patrol leader, but never shows up to a meeting or an event, then that Scout is not "leading" his Troop. The troop needs its senior patrol leader to show up so he can manage the troop. It's a position of responsiblity. And the troop has every right to take away this position of responsiblity from a Scout who is not showing up because he is playing soccer.

What I found interesting was your analogy of the Scout losing his position and then whining about losing the it and requesting another position from the SPL. I don't believe a good SPL would allow that Scout another position of responsiblity unless he could be assured that the Scout would carry out the position responsibly. A good SPL would want a quartermaster who is willing to do the job. That's why he is the senior patrol "leader".

"Besides, we don't remove boys who are strugglin', eh? That's not Scouting. We work with 'em, but we don't reward 'em until they succeed. So a good SM works with a boy who is tryin' to figure out how to be responsible in his position, but he doesn't reward the lad until responsibility is really demonstrated for 4 months, or 6 months. That's the Scouting program. We also don't remove lads that the other boys have elected. That's up to them, eh? It's how we teach citizenship. That's the Scouting program, too."

Struggling? A Scout who makes his own choice that he will be an active participant with his soccer team instead of coming to Troop meetings and activities; a choice not to carry out his leadership position responsibly is not struggling. The Scout has simply chosen his priorities.

Don't get me wrong, I want Scouts to succeed. Our council advancement committee wants Scouts to succeed. I have stated before on this forum that our council advancement committee disagrees with actually dismissing a Scout from the program because he is not showing up all the time. If a Scout comes to even one meeting a month, Scouting can still be a positive influence on him. But if the Scout chooses sports or other activities that will completely take him away from Scouting, then why should he be given a position of responsibility in name only? Doing so would not be fair to his fellow Scouts who are counting on him.

Are we not volunteering to teach Scouts leadership? A leader needs to lead. How can a boy show leadership in his position of responsibility if he never shows up to meetings?

There are other Scouts who do actively participate and want to do their positions of responsiblity well. These are the Scouts who are showing leadership.

Abel(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[John-in-KC]

Oak Tree,

 

At the moment, it came from the folks on USSCOUTS.org who parse advancement program items in great detail. I have heard the 2010 edition of ACP&P has not hit the Scout Shops yet. I will be asking my DE to pick up a copy of 2010 Requirements.

 

Ed,

 

The point I was making was not about the content, it was about the micromanagement of the National Council. The latitude to make decisions on the ground gets removed as the "big organization" publishes ever more explicit guidance. Unfortunately, if you look at any franchising system out there, that's the common path of the moment ... remove any variation by the franchisee for any reason.

 

Sigh.

[Beavah]

Yah, Abel, I'm right there with yeh nodding my head and agreeing.

 

Lots of lads are learnin' how to manage their time, eh? They can have big eyes or big hearts and want to do everything. Sign up for everything. Promise everything.

 

Then reality hits, and they end up not fulfilling their responsibilities. What a wonderful gift that is to a lad, to learn that kind of thing before he's out on his own in college or a job or a family of his own. So what does a Scoutmaster do? He works with the boy, helps him to balance, helps him to make choices between things, helps him to resist pressure to do something he cares less about, helps him to see the value in doin' hard, often less fun, responsible jobs rather than just fun stuff. That might involve removin' him, but not always. But it shouldn't involve rewarding him until he actually has shown responsibility.

 

Now I don't know about da SPLs and patrols in your neck of da woods, but I've found the boys tend to be pretty kind, eh? They give other boys second and third chances; they tend to be pretty slow to vote someone out of a job. And lads do deserve second chances to show they can be responsible, eh? So I don't find it strange that even though a lad was irresponsible in one position he'd be given a shot at another.

 

Now, I agree with you completely about what responsibility and that requirement should mean, eh? Problem is, like da weird definition of "active" that started this thread, that program office in Irving interprets requirement 4 to mean "hold the title". If the lad held the title for any combination of those jobs for a combined total of 6 months, then he's met the requirement. It's up to the Scoutmaster to remove him before the six months are up (and presumably not give him a second chance) if the SM doesn't think the boy should advance.

 

Yah, it's poppycock. Yah, most good units are just ignorin' this stuff and goin' on their way teaching real values. Where it comes up is with younger units or less experienced unit leaders who think they have to go along with this interpretation, or with helicopter snowplow parents who grab those "definitions" and use 'em to try to browbeat good volunteers into givin' them the badge they want. That's why I don't think these mealy-mouthed definitions do Scoutin' any service.

 

And this recent one, while it tries to move in the right direction, is so poorly written that it creates even more confusion and problems.

 

Da CSE really needs to do some housecleanin' in that office, IMHO. Some enterprisin' reporter somewhere is goin' to pick up on this stuff and run a feature that will be a major embarrassment to the organization.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

I don't see this as a new definition of active at all - it's the same definition, just clarified. A Scout is active as long as he is registered and regularly engaged, and as long as he hasn't been removed from the Troop for disciplinary reasons. It clarifies what being regularly engaged means (which answers the question of whether that means the Scoutmaster has to contact the Scout every week, or is once a year enough) and it makes crytsal clear that a Unit may not develop it's own criteria for defining Active as far as advancement goes - in other words, National is telling the units that have created attendance percentages and requirements to knock it off. Is there any reason other than advancement to create attendance percentages anyway? All a percentage attendance requirement accomplishes is a Scout making sure he earns Eagle Scout before he leaves middle school then leaving a unit. Dumb.

 

So who is most likely to benefit from this clarification? The Scout who has earned Life Scout and since becoming a Life Scout, has served the time required POR for 6 months before he turns 16, who then becomes more active in school sports or activities (because it looks good on the college application), works a part time job to help pay for college (or a car), and has less time for Scouts than he did when he was 11-14 who still attends meeting and outings as best he can with his busier schedule, and still has maybe an Eagle Scout project to complete and a couple of Merit Badges. Although not around as much, he's still engaged with the Troop, and in just under two years he manages to finish the service project and Merit Badges before his 18th and is ready for an SM Conference and BOR. Do we really want to deny this Scout Eagle Scout because he didn't attend X percent of meetings and Y percent of outings over the last 2 years? I really hope the vast majority (meaning 99%) will say "No - we aren't going to deny him rank". Unfortunately, that's not what's happened in the real world so the BSA has stepped in to let the volunteers know what the standards are.

 

Note carefully the phrasing "dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons". I think that should make it clear that Troops shouldn't be dismissing Scouts from their unit for attendance reasons. Any DE/DC/UC worth their salt will look at a units recharter application and wonder why Billy Scout, who was just seen at the Fall Camporee, is no longer a Scout in your unit - and will, with kindness, explain the error of your ways if you removed him from the charter for not attending anough meetings.

 

Besides, why would any unit want the extra headache of keeping track of attendance percentages?

 

p.s. how does national have the authority to dictate otherwise? National owns the program - they can make the rules - the CO's are like franchisees - they either follow the rules, or they can decide to forgo the program. The BSA states Cub Scout Dens are not allowed to camp as a den - a CO can't overrule that policy and say yes they can. The BSA isn't overly onerous about rules and regs and policy - but what rules, regs and policies they do foment, CO's must abide by them, as they agreed to. It's the same principle as a McDonalds franchisee being told they can't serve Whoppers.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[Beavah]

All a percentage attendance requirement accomplishes is a Scout making sure he earns Eagle Scout before he leaves middle school then leaving a unit.

 

Yah, except then yeh read posts by BrentAllen and others who do have really strong expectations of attendance, and you see how those expectations make for a strong unit of honorable and responsible young men. So perhaps, just maybe, attendance requirements can accomplish somethin' else.

 

So who is most likely to benefit from this clarification?

 

Yah, Calico is right that there are occasional adults who go so over-the-top with their own rules that they forget why we're here.

 

But this definition isn't goin' to change 'em. If they have half a brain, they're just goin' to drop the lad from the charter. So if anything, this has a shot at makin' things worse in those rare cases.

 

So who is really most likely to be affected by this clarification? The snowplow parent who wants to get an Eagle badge for their parental resume who can now rail against the SM that is just tryin' to teach their little darling how to be responsible and make choices.

 

It's the same principle as a McDonalds franchisee being told they can't serve Whoppers.

 

Nope. Legally and practically speakin', the relationship between the BSA and the Chartering Organization is very different from a franchising relationship like those used by McDonalds. Tryin' to use that as a comparison will lead you to the wrong conclusions most of the time. As it does in this case, because a CO certainly can serve whoppers, eh? It can contract with Campfire USA for services and run a Campfire trip whenever it doesn't care for the BSA's rules. It can run a BSA Venturing program with 100% overlap with a GSUSA Seniors troop or with their Pop Warner Football program. It can even open a McDonald's franchise .

 

The BSA licenses program materials and provides resources for the CO to use at its discretion. Chartered Organizations are our customers, as in "the customer is always right." We don't dictate how they run their youth program. The BSA can say how it (the BSA) runs its advancement program, sure. But not how (or even if) the CO chooses to use it. Lots of Venturing units and a few scout troops choose not to use advancement/recognitions at all.

 

All things in moderation and balance, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BrentAllen]

"The Patrol Method is not A way to operate a Boy Scout Troop, it is the ONLY way. Unless the Patrol Method is in operation you really don't have a Boy Scout Troop."

Baden-Powell

 

Calico,

How does a Scout who is rarely there participate in the Patrol Method? How about the Outdoors, Leadership Development, Personal Growth and the Uniform? How are any of these Methods used to meet the Aims for a Scout we never see?

 

If you have a Life Scout how is meeting this bare definition of active, he is only there to get his Eagle. He is not doing anything to help the Troop, it is all about him. That's not a lesson I want to be teaching. We teach the boys early in their Scouting career that when you earn Eagle, you are not at the end of the trail. A true Eagle Scout will turn around and offer his hand to the next Scout following him up the trail. I'm afraid that barely-active Life Scout will earn Eagle and then disappear, ruining the message we are trying to instill.

 

This whole problem comes from parents who see Scouting only as a program to work for the rank of Eagle. They don't care about the Mission, Aims or Methods - only getting Eagle so their son can put it on his resume. If the parents cared about the Mission, Aims and Methods, they would agree their son needs to be present as a Scout to benefit from the program.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

"If the parents cared about the Mission, Aims and Methods, they would agree their son needs to be present as a Scout to benefit from the program."

 

BA - Thank God that someone is trying to run the program the way it was intended. How about to be truly active, he's not just benefiting from the program but actually contributing to the success of it!!!

[Abel Magwitch]

 

As I stated before in another thread, my council advancement committee requested thatnational define the word active and to publish it so that advancement committees everywhere could avoid the problems that could arise when others have multiple opinions concerning requirementswhere the word active is used.

 

An email was sent to national requesting a definition for active:

 

...In order for our committee to better serve our council in the future, our council advancement committee also needs clarification and a definition of the word active from the policy writers in the national committee. For the rank of Eagle Scout, the word active is used in the 1st and 4th requirements. A clear understanding of the word active and how it is applied to the Eagle requirements would help prevent any further misunderstandings

 

A reply was received with the following explanation for the word active:

 

Suggested BSA definition of active as it applies to Requirement #1 of Star, Life and Eagle advancement requirements:

 

A Scout will be considered active in his unit if he is:

1) Registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

2) Has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

3) Informs the Scout of unit activities and events. (Scoutmasters conference, participation in unit activities, through personal contact, etc).

 

(Comment: This definition could be added as a side bar or box on page(s) 24-25 of the Advancement Policies and Procedures book)

 

Adopted and approved 2/7/05

 

So in other words, national was approving appeals from Scouts who did not pass their EBOR because they were not active by using their suggested definition of active that was adopted and approved in 2005, yetnever published.

 

Another letter was sent from our advancement committee to national stating that the definition for active be published to the Scouting membership rather than being a suggested definition at the national level. The committee also stated that nationals definition for active was in error, but we would ensure that our council would carry out the recommendations of national and train our membership on how active is defined by the national advancement committee.

 

But we also made a strong suggestion to national that that they revise Eagle requirements 1 and 4 to read:

 

Requirement 1: Be a registered Boy Scout with all fees paid for a minimum of 6 months as a Life Scout.

 

Requirement 4: While being a registered Boy Scout with all fees paid, carry out a position of junior leadership, fulfilling the requirements of the position for a minimum of 6 months.

 

In other words we suggested to national to get rid of the word active altogether. These revised requirements would better reflect nationals definition of active. Writing the requirements this way would help put to an end the many disputes between scouts, their parents, and their leaders concerning requirements 1 and 4 for Eagle Scout. But so far, national continues to use the word active in the Eagle requirements.

 

So this begs the real question why does the BSA need to have alternative definitions for the word active in the first place? And why did national never publish their alternative definitions to the volunteer membership?

 

The only conclusions I could come up with was that to the BSA, the word active had two definitions one for the 99% of scouts who actually fulfill the requirements by being an active participant in his troop, and the other definition for the 1% of scouts who choose to circumvent those inconvenient requirements 1 & 4 because of a sports or other obligations the scout chooses to be active in instead.

 

Abel

 

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[John-in-KC]

I was just on the phone with my District Commissioner.

 

The light blinked on. Yes, the below is speculation, but I'll bet a steak dinner on it.

 

We volunteers are coming at this, looking at what's needed for the youth to succeed. Irving is looking at the issue of Active in regards to the membership scandals. They want an identifiable metric in the program materials; one they can point to when they swoop in on a council and audit membership, or when an are United Way or muckracking newspaper does the same. What happens to us? Pass the screwdriver, please... we've been had.

 

My (hopefully merely cynical) thoughts.

[Twocubdad]

Makes sense, if your objective is to avoid prosecution. Questionable if you're trying to teach citizenship, ethics, and responsibility.

 

From a PR standpoint, it may fly with some two-bit weekly, but I wouldn't want to go on 60 Minutes with that line.

[evmori]

Well, John, if that is what National was aiming at when they made this change, they missed by a mile!

[Twocubdad]

Here's another thought....

 

We have a few troops in the district which use firm percentages for determining active participation. No exceptions. 49.99%? Sorry, kid, come back when you meet the standard. Council has full knowledge of these units and their policies. Generally, the troop leaders are decades-long Scouters and carry and lot of weight in the council.

 

I wonder if the council advancement committee will enforce the new clarification?