Limit Number of Mbs with One Counselor?

[JMBadger]

Basementdweller: "Soooo, is limiting the number of merit badges that a scout can get from a merit badge councilor adding to the requirements??????/ "

 

In my opinion, yes. If the BSA does not impose such a limit, I don't think a troop committee or SM has the right to.

 

I've heard from a few SM's that if a boy has an incomplete blue card over 6 months old, he must restart the merit badge. BSA doesn't make that requirement; SM's don't have the right to do so.

 

The SM of my troop told me he made a boy completely redo his swimming merit badge after the boy turned in the completed blue card! Seems the SM saw the boy at the local city pool and felt the boy could barely swim the width of the pool. The SM justified his action saying he probably saved the boy's life by making him actually learn to swim.

 

I admit I'd be suspicious of a boy who had the same MBC for all his merit badges (or should I say I'd be suspicious of the MBC?) but once he has a completed and signed blue card from a registered MBC, the merit badge is his. BSA doesn't preclude a father from being the MBC for his own son, but some troops' adults do, and they are wrong.

 

Page 127 of the SM Handbook says "The Scout obtains from his Scoutmaster a signed merit badge application and the name of a qualified counselor for that merit badge." Does that mean the boy is required to use that counselor? NO! If the boy says, "Ms. Rawpork is on the other side of town. Mr. Burnedpot right across the street from my house is also a registered counselor for the cooking merit badge. Can I use him instead?" the answer should be "Yes, you may."

 

Our job as Scouters should be to administer the program we have today, as it is written today, not to administer the program as it was 30-, 20-, or 10 years ago, and certainly not in accordance with our own wants and whims. Has the program changed over the years? Sure. Changed a lot? Absolutely. Changes all for the better? I won't even touch that one. But the program we have is what it is.

 

I have been accused at times of invoking "sea lawyer" talk, nit-picking, "hiding" behind the written rules. This is the sort of accusation made by people who know they are going against the rules and don't like others pointing it out. Will any of my speechifying change the attitudes of many here? Nope.

[Twocubdad]

You won't find this written anywhere so don't bother asking me to provide a reference, but I personally feel a big part of my responsibility as Scoutmaster is to help boys get the most out of the program and their time in Scouting. Of course the biggest part of that is providing them wiht a quality program. But another aspect is to help guide them through the program so that they get the most the from it. That include guiding them to good MB counselors.

 

If Mr. Burnedpot is an idiot and is known to pencil-whip merit badges, the better answer is, "No, I know it's not as convenient to you, but Ms. Rawpork across town is an amazing counselor. You'll really enjoy working with her and learn a great deal. You really should work with her."

 

In our council MBC are approved by the district, but generally are recruited by and work with individual troops. Counselors have the option to counsel boys district-wide or for their troop only. All SMs have access to the entire list and I have occasionally called counselors specific to other troops to ask if they will work with my guys on highly specialized MBs. They always agree.

 

Personally, I like this system. It allows the unit to manage the MB process by the folks who know the counselors best. Over the years we've had a few turkey counselors. A year later they simply realize its been a long time since any Boy Scouts have called.... In terms of the number of MBs counseled by any one person, this system allows the troops to control that by the number of MBs each counselor is registered for. We simply don't register counselor for dozens of badges. That doesn't involve the boys at all, so there's no issue of "added requirements" if that is of concern.

[Venividi]

From the Merit Badge Counselor Instructors Guide:

 

A merit badge counselor can counsel any scout, including his own son - although this is discouraged in order to offer a scout the chance to meet a diverse group of outstanding adults.

 

There is no limit on the number of merit badges that a counselor may counsel with one scout. However, the Scout will benefit the most from working with a variety of outstanding adults.

 

 

Net take away: a SM should consider the circumstances when selecting the MB counselor so as to provide the best possible experience for the scout. If multiple counselors are available, the SM should send the scout to a variety of outstanding adults. If the scout wants to work on an obscure badge where only one MB counselor is available, and the scout has already completed two other badges with that counselor, the SM should still provide that counselor's name and phone number.

 

I don't see a slippery slope. I also think that this is an esoteric discussion, as I suspect that this issue is rare.

[Oak Tree]

Basementdweller: "Soooo, is limiting the number of merit badges that a scout can get from a merit badge councilor adding to the requirements??????/ "

 

Umm, no. The Scoutmaster is told to give the Scout the name of a counselor. Nothing is said about what criteria he may or may not use in order to provide that name. No slippery slope here from what I see.

 

I see a little bit of the other side of the slippery slope - making everything too legalistic. Every adult behaving badly is a "youth protection" issue. Every time someone tells a Scout what a requirement means, they are "adding to the requirements." When Scoutmasters make a decision, they are apparently violating some rule or another.

 

Just keep the boat between the buoys, use common sense, and enjoy the program.

 

 

[JMBadger]

TwoCubDad: Unfortunately, Ms Rawpork was recently indicted on 2 counts of pedophilia.... (My apologies if there is anyone reading this actually named Ms Rawpork!)

 

But seriously, if you've discovered a counselor is "pencil-whipping" the cards, you should bring it up to council immediately. Getting a reputation among boys as an "easy badge" could be a lure by a molester.

 

But unless you have serious evidence against the boy's choice of counselor, you should not prevent him from going to whomever he chooses.

 

I reviewed my district's MBC list and many counselors are listed for 15 or more merit badges. But when I reviewed the merit badge list, a lot of badges have only 3 or 4 counselors in the whole district (comprised of 4 counties). So it isn't a matter of going across town to find a new counselor, it's going 20-30 miles away. Small, somewhat isolated troops with just a few volunteers compensate by having those volunteers become MBCs for several different MBs. So he can wind up getting 5 or 6 badges from one counselor.

 

Then you have MBUs. Do you prevent a boy from getting a merit badge there because the instructor for that badge was the boy's counselor for 3 other badges already? Of course not.

 

Horace Greely wrote "Common sense is uncommon." Everyone thinks their way is perfectly logical and if everyone else would use a little common sense, they would agree. People don't want to change the way they do things because that would be like admitting they were wrong. That's why we have written rules, and it isn't being legalistic to expect each other to follow them as best we can. And if those written rules are changed, our behavior needs to change accordingly.

 

[Venividi]

"But unless you have serious evidence against the boy's choice of counselor, you should not prevent him from going to whomever he chooses."

 

 

Well there is the MB procedure provided by the BSA that says that it is the scoutmasters responsibility to select the counselor. You may choose to do otherwise, but to tell others that they should not follow the BSA procedure is a bit of a stretch.

 

 

 

[JMBadger]

I'm not telling anyone to not follow BSA procedure. I'm saying if the boy would rather go to Counselor B instead of Counselor A, then the Scoutmaster should select Counselor B for the boy to see, unless the SM knows of a very good reason why scouts should avoid Counselor B.

 

And if there is a very good reason, the issue should have already been brought up to the Scout Executive.

[Proud Eagle]

So the only basis for assigning MB Counselors is the Scout's preference (very likely uninformed) and concern over being a pedophile? So anyone who is not a pedophile is thus a fine choice for MB counselor so long as the Scout thinks so? Well, I am sure when BSA learns this it will make the process for approving MB counselors much easier.

[moosetracker]

As far as I am concerned, the BSA does general sketchy rules and does not nitpick for a purpose. It allows the units to nitpick with what is termed bylaws.. You must follow the BSA rules, after that you can firm up what they do not in bylaws.

 

So when you find that the way your unit just sold popcorn caused you to have a family steal hundreds of dollars from either the unit or the local population. You can save your unit from getting into this predicament again with bylaws.

 

When a boy or their family is ruining the program for the rest of the boys in your unit and you want a way to kick them out, you may just kick them out or have the boys come up with some sort of "1-2-3 your out" policy, not found in any BSA rules.

 

If the unit has fundraisers that some families do not participate in, yet they are the same families spending alot on awards or asking for handouts with the pack paying for their childrens fees and uniforms, you may have a bylaw that ensures they participate in the fundraisers to get the charity.

 

Likewise if you find that a boy is getting all their merit badges from a parent, and it is either highly suspect he is earning any of them, or your unit wants him to use the program for it's intended purpose of learning to work with others.. They either may have the the SM be the gatekeeper or come up with a by law for it.

 

I see nothing wrong with bylaws.. The thing with bylaws is that exceptions may be made. Our troop had the bylaw of no parent working with the son, but the SM could lift it when he saw a perfectly good reason to. My son earned family life with me and home repair with his father, because both were really worked on in the home with the parents and then just reviewed with the counsilor.

 

No one complains to council about poor MBC's they just quietly take them off the list the unit uses.. Why??? Because of the feeling the council or district would do little to address the problem anyway. Easier to just not use the concilor..

 

Take the mother in our unit who caused our "no parents for MB" bylaw.. She was MBC for all the Eagle required MB plus any electives her children wanted to take. Her oldest was pretty much through most of his MBs when discovered, her youngest had only 5 or 6 so far by her. First we found out from others using her for the Eagle required she was very unfair to them. Like for family life, she would accept being their MBC, meet with them even, the boy would start his 3 month charting to find out it was not accepted by her she demanded they start over again, because she did not tell them their starting date.. She also would belittle the boy taking the merit badges, force them to recite difficult information by memory during a "discuss with your MBC", refused written assignments without giving guidence on what to improve.. I fixed one of the boys who started with her and was near dropping out of the troop over the issue.. I told them they could change councilors (something they did not know they could do).. Another boy recited the same nightmare with her, again I offered to fix it but he never came to me, or finished his Advancement. Neither wanted anyone else in the troop to know they or their son hit this problem.. They both displayed a shame, like a victim who felt they caused the problem.. I made the SM & committee aware anyway without nameing names and we did not use her any more in the unit.. But never reported her either..

 

Later we figured out that she was really just using the MB system to push her son's through. They surprising got the badges easily with her.. But there was something else going on where she was trying to get some meritbadges slipped into council having forged the SM signature also and a big blow up about that..

 

Anyway my husband who is now District Advancement Chair never hears of a problem, with a councilor. But I can see him more taking a story and wanting to check it out before acting on one complaint, or waiting for several similar complaints. For all he knows it could be a personal feud that has gone on for years, and someone is overreacting or nit picking.. It is hard to check out the MBC with others who have used them when you have no listing of who used what MBC.

 

Frankly there is no way to check that MBC are registered at all, and we know some units don't bother to register their MBC's.. "Too difficult a process".. The district only knows from the troop the MB was earned, not who the MBC was..

 

Also in approving MBC's, the district get paperwork on someone wanting to be an MBC, some things like swimming and Rifle shooting are checked for proper certification. Everything else is just approved, with no knowledge of how good the MBC will be. So it is really up to the unit to police this type of stuff. Some do it well.. Some not so well.

 

As far as I am concerned.. Units by-law away.. Let the boys do the by-laws (most of which wont want others in their group getting all MB's by their parents.) or have the SM be the gateway, or have the committee do the bylaw.. Bend the bylaw when it is practical to do so.. Just ensure a rich and fair program for all in your unit.

[JMBadger]

"So the only basis for assigning MB Counselors is the Scout's preference (very likely uninformed) and concern over being a pedophile? So anyone who is not a pedophile is thus a fine choice for MB counselor so long as the Scout thinks so?"

 

When someone rearranges my words to make it seem as if I said something that I didn't say, it's the same as lying.

 

I said you should have a very good reason for not going with the boy's preference, if he has one. Pedophilia would be an extremely good reason, but not the only one. I agree finding that a counselor is pencil-whipping the cards is another good reason. Surely there are others.

 

The SM has the task of assigning a MBC because the boy may not have the resources to find who is qualified and registered on his own. The SM becomes the knowledgeable resource. But if the boy does have the wherewithal to locate his own counselor, and if the SM doesn't have a good reason for not selecting that counselor, then the boy's choice should be the one assigned.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

If the merit badge list contains the name of a recently convicted pedophile, your District is in deep trouble, did anyone report the manner to the Council exec who would suspend the perp?

 

If a scout master knows a merit badge counselor "pencil whips" mert badge, then its the scoutmaster's duty to bring it to the Distrct's attention and have the counselor either removed or counseled or something

[JMBadger]

OGE, I brought up contacting Council and the Scout Executive in my second and third comments in this thread.

 

And NO, to my knowledge, my district doesn't have a pedophile on its MBC list.

[Venividi]

The word for word statement in BSA's Merit Badge Counselors Instructors Guide is:

There is no limit on the number of merit badges that a counselor may counsel with one scout. However, the Scout will benefit the most from working with a variety of outstanding adults.

 

I do think that is a pretty solid reason. It does not say that a SM cannot approve a counselor that a scout asks to work with, and depending on the situation, to do so may be a good course of action; (or it may not - that is for the SM to decide, not for us to tell him/her how it should be done. It is still the SM's decision.

 

JMBadger, where I no longer followed (or agreed with you) was where you stated "But unless you have serious evidence against the boy's choice of counselor, you should not prevent him from going to whomever he chooses.". It doesn't mesh with what is in the MB Counselor Instructors Guide. A SM can make selections based on providing the opportunity to work with a wide variety of scouts, as it says in the instructors guide. I know of nothing in any BSA literature that implies "if the boy would rather go to Counselor B instead of Counselor A, then the Scoutmaster should select Counselor B for the boy to see, unless the SM knows of a very good reason why scouts should avoid Counselor B.", as you say SHOULD be done. Providing the opportunity for a boy to work with a wide variety of adults has nothing to do with avoidance of a particular counselor (though for a SM to consider such as a factor is permitted).

 

 

[JMBadger]

In my opinion, it goes back to the boy-led troop. The boys are the troop. The leaders are there to provide guidance, not force a course of action. The adult leaders make sure the boys aren't doing anything illegal, against the rules, and make sure they are aware of opportunities available to them.

 

If the SM wants to assign a particular counselor and the boy requests counselor B instead, the SM may choose to find out why. Does the boy consider the second councilor an "easy badge," or get "doe-eyed" when referring to them? That would be bad and needs serious investigation. When talking to other scouts who have gone to counselor B, do they seem more confused on the subject than before they went? This and any other problems regarding counselors should be brought to the Council's attention.

 

Perhaps the preference is simple familiarity. Some kids are shy. Then talking with the boy, explaining to him the need to meet different people, may be the right thing to do. Suggesting to the boy that the SM would like to get the boy's opinion of the counselor, or that the boy would be helping the new counselor to "practice" his counseling skills might be enough to get him to go.

 

But perhaps counselor B has already been teaching the boy the subject, such as a high school coach (the boy's Swimming badge counselor) going through the Personal Fitness badge, or the World History teacher (who was his counselor for two of the Citizen Badges) preparing him for the third Citizen badge. Should the SM's desire to have the boy visit different people override the boy's choice to work with knowledgeable adults with whom he is comfortable and respects?

 

Should the SM have the power to prevent a boy from earning his Eagle by demanding the boy visit one particular counselor the boy doesn't want to use? A Life Scout with a single required MB left stopped in his path to Eagle by a SM who demands "My way or the Highway!"?

 

Okay, now I am stretching. I have a hard time imagining a SM actually doing that. And I agree diversity can be a good thing. But I don't think the desire for diversity alone is a sufficient reason to override the boy's choice in this matter.

[Venividi]

JMBadger,

It appears that we are reaching common ground. Your last post is much different than the earlier posts where you indicated that it is to be the boys choice unless the SM has serious evidence of misbehaviour on the part of a counselor. So I trust that you can understand my previous disagreement, as I do not consider providing an opportunity of meeting with quality adults as equivalent to serious counselor misbehavior.

 

I would note that also have not seen anyone indicate that a proper reason for a SM to select a particular MB counselor is to control a boy and/or to prevent progress towards Eagle, which appears to be one of your fears. If that were the case, the troop has bigger problems than their MB program.

 

Ultimately, it is the SM's call, as BSA has charged the SM with that role, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not. I trust that the majority of SM's will make wise choices for their troop's particular circumstances. BSA does.