Once again, "active"

[Abel Magwitch]

The Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America define both an active member and an associate member.

 

The definition for active as it is now written in the Advancement Policies and Procedures book is more in line with an associate member rather than an active member.

 

So the question why did the BSA decide to re-define active in their advancement policies when there was already a definition for active written in the BSA rules and regulations?

 

The new definition seems contrary to what is already written in the rules and regulations. I wonder if the national advancement task force even took a moment to review the BSA rules and regulations prior to publishing their new definition?

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Abel

 

 

Active as defined in the advancement book -

He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis.

 

Active as written in the BSA rules and regulations

 

ARTICLE VII YOUTH MEMBER

 

Active

 

Clause 1 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, as promulgated from time to time by the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Associate

 

Clause 2 Any youth member who, in the judgment of the unit leader and the unit committee, is unable to meet 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 the year and in all other respects is guided by the obligations of an active member.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

[NeilLup]

Is your copy of the bylaws current? I ask because when I looked at a recent copy of the bylaws, I couldn't find the definition of an "associate member." Of course, I may have just messed up and missed it.

[Abel Magwitch]

Hi Neil - there are the charter and bylaws and the rules and regulations. They are separate. The definition for active is in the rules and regulations.

 

Abel

[Scoutfish]

"Definition of "ACTIVE

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

 

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

2.Not dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons

3.Engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (informed of unit activities through Scoutmaster conference or personal contact, etc.

4.In communication with the unit leader on a quarterly basis.

(Units may not create their own definition of active; this is a national standard.)

 

If the Scout does not initiate communication, the unit leader is to contact the Scout and ask if the youth wishes to remain in Scouting. If the answer is negative, then the unit leader should no longer communicate with the Scout. If the answer is affirmative, the unit leader should provide the unit calendar. After six months of nonparticipation, the unit leader may cease to contact with the youth and drop the Scout from the unit at recharter time.

 

The Scout may return to the unit at any time while on the unit charter. At any time a Scout is dropped from a charter, the youth may re-apply to a unit for readmission; the acceptance of the application is at the discretion of the unit. The youth would be reinstated at the rank and level that can be documented by either the Scout or the

unit."

 

 

 

So why the new definition? Because the old one wasn't quite as clear.

 

Is this one perfect? Not hardl;y, but a bit more clear and precise.

 

Before, you could pay your dues and never show up, never do anything and that was okay... as long you paid your dues each year.

 

Funy about the associate position though...That one sounds like you can pay your dues, but never show up, except at re charter to pay your dues. Just a way to keep the money coming it. But hey! If those scouts or parents want to keep giving the money... let them!

[Stosh]

One cannot accurately pinpoint a definition on a subjective, arbitrary situation. In the computer programming world the process is known as fuzzy logic. If a boy attends all activities and fulfills all that is assigned to him is he active? Sure, no one will argue that point. But if he misses one activity or doesn't do what is assigned to him is he active? Well, yeah, I guess so. What if he misses two? three? What if he has a good excuse, and what constitutes a "good" excuse? Is it different if he's active in his church and school than if he was a couch potato? At what point does being active change? Everyone will have a differing point.

 

What then is being tried to accomplish with this thread is define precisely where that differing point lies. Good luck, it just ain't gonna happen!

 

 

[emb021]

"Funy about the associate position though...That one sounds like you can pay your dues, but never show up, except at re charter to pay your dues."

 

Not funny, but fairly standard.

 

 

Most orgs have different membership classes. Two common ones are "active" and "associate". Active members to maintain this status must be coming to meetings/activities of the org (usually a set minimum). Associate members are those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to met the active requirements. They still must pay dues and come when they can. Being active usually gives you more rights/privileges (hold office, etc).

 

For some reason, the BSA can't seem to follow this. I guess the sticking point for them is that for any group that has these 2 classes, THEY and not the parent org, set the standard for active. And I guess the BSA isn't willing to allow troops to do this.

 

[John-in-KC]

Be careful of what you ask for. You just might get it.

 

Folks asked for a program definition of active. National provided it.

 

Folks said "Not good enough." National enhanced it.

 

Folks are now saying "It doesn't crosswalk to the rules and regulations." Who here cares to bet that sooner or later National will change the R&R to conform to the new definition?

 

Sometimes, not talking about it, and keeping the issue below the visible horizon, really is the best course of action.

[evmori]

Yeah that's a good idea John. Let's keep inconsistencies consistent. That makes sense

[John-in-KC]

Ed,

 

OK. When the change comes, no whining.

 

 

[Abel Magwitch]

I find it disappointing that the BSA has chosen an easy route by making up an alternative definition for active rather than upholding the current definition as written in the Rules and Regulations. Like I said before, I wonder if the national advancement task force even took a moment to review the BSA rules and regulations prior to publishing their new definition. I wonder if they even know about the rules and regulations.

 

So John, now you see a change coming in the rules and regulations. Instead of national reinventing the wheel, why cant they just stick to whats already written?

 

Quite frankly, the definition for active and associate in the rules and regulations were sound definitions. They made sense. Unfortunately, those Scout's who did not pass their Eagle BOR because they chose not to be an active member by obligating himself to attend meetings regularly; didnt fulfill his obligation to the unit because he had other obligations outside of Scouting generally won their appeals at national. Of course national never provided any details on how they reached their conclusions. The boy simply had his Eagle approved. And why was this? Was national trying to avoid angry parents and lawsuits?

 

National failed to follow their own rules and regulations. I truly believe that those who came up with the new definition (which is really not a definition for the word active) never took the time to investigate whether there was a definition for active already written.

 

Be careful of what you ask for. You just might get it.

 

Folks asked for a program definition of active. National provided it.

 

You are correct - folks asked for a definition because the BSA rules and regulations are not readily available. They can no longer be purchased at the Scout store. Unless you have a copy and read it, there was no other place where active was defined.

 

So what policies are to be followed? Which ones will be allowed to be broken? The BSA states that they have timeless values and strong character. The BSA should stick to their policies and procedures.

 

National did not provide the definition for active they simply made up a new one. The BSA should really change the requirements for Eagle removing the word active all together.

 

[Scoutfish]

National should never ever give an"End all" definition of active. And I'll tell you why:

 

Suppose National has a meeting and it lasts a whole 2 weeks, The members attending do their best to come up with the best definition of active possible. They consult lawyers and even allow for certain exceptions.

 

It is printd, every council, district, trooppand pack gets that final end all definition.

 

it is implimented and actively enforced.

 

Then 1 week later, a scout has an issue pop up that nobody foresaw as something that could happen.

 

Then what?

 

Thing is, nobody anywhere can forsee all the possible issues or problems that couls foreseeably arrise. There is no way to adjust or allow for all potential isses.

 

So the prudent thing to do is allow flexibility for unforeseen issues which is what they have done.

 

The rule isn't perfect - no doubt about that, but it allows "Common Sense Flexibility.

 

So far as read, the rule says how to determine if a scout is active , and how to mske sure you don't drop a kid who was about to get active again.

 

 

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

What "Common Sense Flexibility"? If he's not in jail and still on the charter, he's active! That's just stupid!!

[Scoutfish]

No, it's not stupid. As soon as National sets an exact distinctive definition to what curtails"active", then within 1week, you will have a hand full of scouts who in one way or another do not exactly fit those requirements. You will have a bunch of "Well, this particular situation isn't covererd " or a bunch of "but what if "this" happens?"

 

 

For example:

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm with yeh Scoutfish.

 

The easy answer here is simply to trust the unit leaders, eh?

 

We're trustin' 'em with the lives of boys in the wilderness.

 

Surely we can trust 'em with the judgment on when the lad deserves an award.

 

A lot of national chartering-type organizations, like National Honor Society which was brought up in another thread, don't allow for any appeal beyond the judgment of the folks who are running the local chapter. In fact, when yeh look at NHS, the individual schools are also allowed to set higher standards for their award than the national organization's minimums (http://www.nhs.us/Membership.aspx).

 

Beavah

 

[Scoutfish]

In my opinion, it would make sense for National to define "Inactive" .

 

In that event, if a scout did fall within the parameters set by National without any exceptions other wise, it could save you a long process.

For example: Instead of saying must be reasonably ( by who's definition) active for a period of 6 months.....it could be changed to not participating or showing up at scout functions, activities or campouts in a 8 month consecutive period wwithout calling or communicating to SM/ CM about outside obligations.

 

Obligations would be work, school stuff etc.