New Definition of "ACTIVE"

[Abel Magwitch]

Then your council and some of its adult leadership are in the wrong.

 

As far as a Scout is concerned, he is to do the requirements, no more and no less.

 

And as far as the Scout's adult leadership is concerned, no council, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from advancement requirements.

 

I would start with your district Advancement chair on this one.

 

Abel

[FScouter]

The obvious problem with an attendance percentage requirement is that it does not make a boy active. A boy sitting through another dull troop meeting, playing with his cell phone or poking the kid next to him and being a pest is not being active. Hes just being a pest. Yet, some troop adult can declare he is active because his attendance percentage is over some arbitrary figure.

 

All a percentage requirement really does is prove that the unit has failed to develop a program where boys WANT to be active and ARE active.

 

Of course, if a unit writes a percentage requirement into their bylaws, that solves the problem and makes a boy active, right? Heh heh heh.

[Abel Magwitch]

Writing a percentage requirement into a unit's bylaws

 

Again I quote "No council, district, UNIT, or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from advancement requirements.

 

What I have found to be true in many cases is that many problems in Scouting arise because others decide to ignore the written policies and procedures and choose to make up their own. If only people would follow what is already written. The writer of the current Advancement Policies and Procedures book wrote me a letter concerning this very topic

 

Unfortunately this is the constant battle when well intended volunteers decide to set their own standards instead of following the existing programs. I am constantly amazed at how and why people think they have a 'better mousetrap' and if everything was done their way the world would be a better place. Somehow the idea that others also have a brain and perhaps 'stuff' has been thought out and is as it is for 'real' reasons escapes some folks! If all of us were equal in brain power, resources, geography, family and financial status then perhaps some specific parameters as to hours, #'s of participants, durability, percentages etc. would be in order. However, this is not the case anywhere in this country or for scouts of traveling military families, diplomatic families, etc. Thus, boys need to be judged on their own merits and talents as to access, availability, & performance where the standard is absolutely just as stated in the requirements. No more or no less.

 

And as I have told others, these are not my policies and procedures; they are BSA policies and procedures. If anyone disagrees with them, they are welcome to write their suggestions to national in care of the national advancement task force. But again, problems arise when others in positions of power decide that they can circumvent policies and procedures. In the end, it is the Scout who loses out.

 

Abel

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[Twocubdad]

Abel;

 

In response to your first post, this isn't my unit so I have no business meddling in their affairs. Neither and I on the council advancement committee, so I have no standing to inquire into the situation. I'm just wondering from afar.

 

In the past year or so, the instruction we've received from the advancement committee is that hard-and-fast percentages are out. A unit may, however, use a Scout's participation as one of several "guidelines" to determine if a Scout has met the active participation requirements. (Which is pretty much the policy my troop follows.) We were also told that even then we sould expect to be overturned on appeal if we chose to follow that advice.

 

The advancement committee was not, however, willing to take on fury that would ensue from trying to force these units into compliance with a straight active=registered attendance policy. Obviously, the question I posed, "I wonder if the council advancement committee will enforce the new clarification?" was rhetorical. Nothing will change.

 

As to your last post: the writer of the letter you copied is spot-on accurate --

 

"If all of us were equal in brain power, resources, geography, family and financial status then perhaps some specific parameters as to hours, #'s of participants, durability, percentages etc. would be in order. However, this is not the case anywhere in this country or for scouts of traveling military families, diplomatic families, etc. Thus, boys need to be judged on their own merits and talents as to access, availability, & performance where the standard is absolutely just as stated in the requirements. No more or no less.

 

The heart of the matter is what comes next:

 

"Consequently, the Boy Scouts of America has adopted a "least common denominator" policy in which ensures all registered Scouts, regardless of their actual participation in troop and patrol activities can meet these requirement."

 

--- OR ---

 

"Conseqently, the Boy Scouts of America entrusts the men and women who devote hundreds of volunteer hours in service to these boys and who understand their personal and family situations to make reasonable and fair determinations as to what 'participate actively' means for the Scouts in the units they serve."

 

 

So how does your letter end?

 

[Scoutfish]

Dang! Now, see what you did TwoCub?

 

I was starting to get the idea that BSA wrote it just right and that it didn't need clarifying at all.

 

I thought Mabel pretty much gave me a nice neat package to fall on when it came to advancement:

 

The heart of the matter is what comes next:

 

"Consequently, the Boy Scouts of America has adopted a "least common denominator" policy in which ensures all registered Scouts, regardless of their actual participation in troop and patrol activities can meet these requirement."

 

Basically,I understood that as "We are looking out for the small guys too and that's why you CANNOT CHANG ANYTHING! Do as it reads and that it!"

 

Sounded simple. I understood it at a deeper level too.

 

 

But then...You had to go and say ...well point out that BSA said... this:

 

 

"Conseqently, the Boy Scouts of America entrusts the men and women who devote hundreds of volunteer hours in service to these boys and who understand their personal and family situations to make reasonable and fair determinations as to what 'participate actively' means for the Scouts in the units they serve."

 

 

 

So now it's right back to square one! "Reasonable and fair" are matter of opinion and perception right?

 

I will bet my last dollar that the troops/dens that do require percentages to be met or those that add to the requirements HAVE NO DOUBT that they are being resonable and fair.

 

Not saying I think they are being fair, but that - they have the opinion of themselves that they are being more than reasonable and more than fair.

 

 

Mabel, I still like what you typed and plan on following that idea and sentiment, but it might be a good idea to tell BSA that what I just said is a given to those who do have higher requirements.

 

Kinda like what I learned in EMT training: An insane person has no doubts about their own sanity what so ever!

 

Like wise, those who add to advancement requirements have no doubts what so ever that they are still very fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

The obvious problem with an attendance percentage requirement is that it does not make a boy active.

 

Of course not. Yeh can't "make" a boy do anything . Lads are active if they like da scoutin' program and have good relationships with their leaders.

 

What an attendance expectation does is set a standard for achieving an award. Nuthin' unusual about that. We use goals and awards to teach lads how to be good citizens, eh? And da first rule of being a good citizen is that yeh have to show up. An attendance expectation also sets a standard for how you are loyal to your community. Yeh don't just show up for the fun stuff, yeh show up for the work, too. Lots of lads are just kids being kids, eh? They might not show up for a meeting or service project because it's work, not because it's boring.

 

Now, when we're talkin' about some of da "required" seatwork badges, those we have to make required because they really are boring.

 

What I have found to be true in many cases is that many problems in Scouting arise because others decide to ignore the written policies and procedures and choose to make up their own.

 

Yah, Abel, gotta agree with you. Da BSA Rules and Regulations that we all agreed to abide by have the official definition of active:

 

"An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a

parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates

himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's

obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his

or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program

based on a member's age."

 

Problem is just that the program office has gotten lazy and decided to ignore the written Rules and Regulations of the BSA and made up their own goofy thing that no volunteer with any knowledge of kids would ever think made sense.

 

If they'd just follow the Rules and Regulations yeh wouldn't get all this confusion and poor scoutin'.

 

So now da poor unit and council volunteers have to figure out whether to follow the Rules and Regulations which they agreed to do in their membership application, or whether they should follow da program guidebook which is ignoring the Rules and doin' it's own thing.

 

I expect most of 'em just keep on doin' what's right for the lads in their care, and most communities, parents, and BSA folks are grateful for it.

 

Of course they do have to put up with fellows who never bothered to read the Rules and Regulations yell at 'em for being "wrong." But no good deed goes unpunished.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

The obvious problem with an attendance percentage requirement is that it does not make a boy active. A boy sitting through another dull troop meeting, playing with his cell phone or poking the kid next to him and being a pest is not being active. Hes just being a pest. Yet, some troop adult can declare he is active because his attendance percentage is over some arbitrary figure.

 

Making the assumption Troop meetings are dull is not accurate.

 

National defining active as being registered is just as pointless as using attendance percentages. Neither makes a boy "active" but they do make the numbers look good.

[FScouter]

The requirement is to go camping, cook food, earn a merit badge, hike a trail, SERVE in a position of responsibility, work on service projects. These are the things that make a boy ACTIVE.

 

I stand by my conviction that if a boy doesnt want to come to meetings or activities, the solution is not to write an attendance rule. Of course for an adult that feels he must DO something about it, writing a rule is the simplest approach. But if the result is a fidgety, disruptive kid warming a chair in a boring meeting, then that only proves that adding an attendance requirement has not worked.

 

The standard for performance must be to PERFORM, not merely sit in a chair to meet some arbitrary percentage number. Attendance is not a goal or a standard, its a byproduct of performing and being actively engaged in the program. Engage the boy and he will attend.

[BrentAllen]

FScouter,

Just curious - who is planning and running these boring meetings your Troop is having? Is it the adults, or the Scouts?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[eagle77]

Too bad it is just not that easy. I know of other leaders who are dealing with low attendence at times, just as our troop is, not because of a boring program but because of mandatory attendence at other activities. Many times it is also not the choice of the scout as much as it is their parent or parents. There are many parents out there leading their second childhood through their sons and daughters. Though I do not feel the need to set attendence rules I do understand sometimes why others do. For our scouts attendence means better and more interesting activities that they plan and put together. Certain times of the year the program is just plain, nothing I or the scouts can do about it, when over 3/4 of the troop is involved in one or two activities at the same time, like it or not program suffers and so do they. Their choice though not mine.

[evmori]

The requirement is to go camping, cook food, earn a merit badge, hike a trail, SERVE in a position of responsibility, work on service projects. These are the things that make a boy ACTIVE.

 

The desire to go camping, cook food, earn a merit badge, hike a trail, serve in a position of responsibility and work on service projects is what makes a boy active. If the boy doesn't have the desire, all the activities in the world won't make him active. And National's definition doesn't help. Oh and not all of those things listed are required.

[Abel Magwitch]

Beavah, I want to thank you for posting the definition for active right out of the rules and regulations. It has been a real eye opener. It makes me feel that I have wasted my time in the advancement committee. It is apparent that in scouting as far as national is concerned, anything goes. New rules are made that supersede other rules.

 

Unfortunately, the rules and regulations are no longer available from national supply. One cannot simply walk into the scout store and purchase a copy for a buck and a half. A volunteer now has to go through council so a request can be made of the chief scout executive. I have to ask why has the BSA taken the rules off the shelves of national supply? It looks like the BSA wants to hide the rules and regulations so others can make up their own rules and regulations.

 

I am reminded of the movie blazing saddles when slim pickens and his gang found themselves in front of the le'petamane toll booth. Someone has to go back to get a s**t load of dimes.

 

And once they got to the phony rock ridge, slim pickens realized they were had. It was a fake! They were duped.

 

I have been duped.

 

I now have a copy of the rules and regs of the bsa. And was surprised to also find a definition of an associate member (a scout that is not active).

 

And yet the very few times our council had a scout who failed to pass his Eagle BOR because the scout had chose not to be active in the Scout program because of sports or what ever he chose to do instead of scouting, the appeal always came back approved by the national advancement committee. No reasons were ever given.

 

So our advancement committee wrote their letter to national requesting the definition for active. And we received an answer. The new definition of active has been published in the advancement policies book. But the definition is not one for active; rather it has nothing at all to do with active.

 

Yet now I realize that there was no reason to have to ask for a definition for active. It was already spelled out in the rules and regs as well as a definition for inactive. It really looks like those at national are just a bit in error by making up phony definitions that are being published in their advancement literature which you can purchase while at the same time making it a chore to get the real answer that was there all along.

 

Thanks again Beavah for the info.

 

And for TwoCubDad, how did the letter end? Actually something like this - it's not a perfect world, but we try to do our best. Thank you for your service and passion in trying to ensure the advancement program is fair for all scouts.

 

Now I say horse puckey.

 

As for the heart of the matter - I now truly believe that it's the first paragraph you wrote

"Consequently, the Boy Scouts of America has adopted a "least common denominator" policy in which ensures all registered Scouts, regardless of their actual participation in troop and patrol activities can meet these requirement."

 

When things break down at the top, everything else follows. And it's really apparent to me that the top rules and regs are being purposely kept out of sight.

 

Sigh...

 

I have really learned a lot from this forum about the politics of scouting.

 

Abel

 

[Eagle92]

What I find interesting is that the new definition of "ACTIVE" Is different than the one from the BSA's July 2007 edition of the RULES and REGULATIONS book, page 6, found here

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8919606/Rules-and-Regulations-of-the-Boy-Scouts-of-America

 

Active

Clause 1 An active member is one who, with the approval of parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly, fullfills a member's obligations to the unit, subscribes to the Scout Oath or code specific to his or her program; and participates in a program based upon a member's age as promulgated form time to time by the Boy Scouts of America.

 

What I find intersting is that the RULES AND REGULATIONS do allow the unit to downgrade a member from active to "ASSOCIATE" a term that I've only seen once, the 3rd. ed. SM HB. Again page 6 of teh Rules and Regulations

 

Associate

Clause 2. Any youth member who, in the judgement of the unit leader and unit committee, is unable top carry out the requirements of active membership may be carried on the unit records as an associate, provided the individual attends at least one meeting of the unit within a year and in all other aspects is guided by the obligations of an active member.

 

So is it me, or is there a major disconnect between the the Advancemnt Policies and Procedures, and the BSA's Rules and Regulations, which supercede everything except the by-laws?

[Eagle732]

Well, I have an Eagle SMC this Tuesday. Oh, and he'll be one day away from turning 18.

 

On Positions of Responsibility, in this case he served 2 months as ASPL then quit showing up. Next time I saw him was 5 months into his POR. We talked and he got credit for 2 months. I offered him a position of Troop Guide which he turned down, seems he wanted another chance at the easier ASPL job. The next SPL gave it to him. He barely showed up enough to consider him completing his obligation. POS completed, that was two years ago.

 

On being active, the Scout attends very few meetings, maybe 6 last year and only one camping trip, which he left early. I won't turn him down for attendance since by the rules I can't. However, I can not judge Scout Spirit if I don't see the Scout on a regular basis (say at least 2 times a month).

 

If I decide not to sign off on Scout Spirit then he can appeal and we'll see where it goes. This is exactly the situation being debated at length in another very long thread!

 

If you allow a Scout to pass with poor Scout Spirit (lack of participation) then you set the precedent and standard for other Scouts to follow.

 

As far as re-registering Scouts who haven't had contact with the troop goes our policy is we send out notices for dues with a deadline two months prior to re-charter. After a few reminders, if a Scouts doesn't pay his dues we do not recharter him. If District wants him re-chartered then they can pay. We've actually had council take money from our Scout Shop account to pay in these cases. We now keep no money in that account.

[ScoutNut]

I really get tired of "Scout Spirit" being used as the catchall dumping ground for a SM to use as a club on a Scout at the very last minute.

 

Scout Spirit has NOTHING to do with participation.

 

From the current Eagle Application -

 

REQUIREMENT 1. Be active in your troop, team, crew, or ship for a period of at least six months

after you have achieved the rank of Life Scout.

 

Notice it states ONLY SIX MONTHS. Not six months immediately prior to application for Eagle, or 2 years, or the entire time as a Life Scout. Notice it also does not mention "Scout Spirit".

 

You stated he successfully (perhaps not wonderfully, but it WAS approved) completed SIX MONTHS in a POR. That is all the "participation" time that is REQUIRED for requirement #1.

 

REQUIREMENT 2. Demonstrate that you live by the principles of the Scout Oath and Law in your daily life. List the names of individuals who know you personally and would be willing to provide a recommendation on your behalf.

 

Notice the requirement states LIVE the principals in your DAILY LIFE, not participate in the Troop a specific number of times/ways.

 

It is not up to the SM to "judge" a Scout's "Scout Spirit". The recommendations provided by the Scout's references do that. The SM is not even included in the list of references, and does NOT have to be included.

 

If you want to keep your older Scouts participation up to your standard, give them a program they WANT to participate in.