the rubber stamp

[packsaddle]

I and the parents in this unit and the community, for that matter, see this process as an opportunity for the boy(s) to grow and learn. If a boy breaks the law in some way, rather than punish, we try to address the behavior and the decision-making that led to it. We have had instances of theft of public property, drug violations of various sorts, vandalism, alcohol, etc. In each case the response has been to condemn the act, not the boy. The community has been very good at supporting measures to remedy the thinking errors as well as the infractions and it one reason that I strongly support the PTI process. This has worked very well and in this community, the family gets tagged with responsibility as well as the boy. It doesn't work perfectly but to my mind it is far better than writing the boy off.

As far as scout advancement goes, we take things on a case-by-case basis. After one of these occasions, and by the time the dust clears and people can even think about consequences within scouting, it is pretty clear to most of us what the best responses are. There is no black-and-white set of guidelines for this and if there were they would not be an effective substitute for good sense with the well-being of everyone in mind.

[OldGreyEagle]

oh, wow, Pack

 

So, what you are saying, in an attempt to eschew obsfuscation is that you do not have any "zero tolerance" policies and you want to look at each individual on his own merit?

[CalicoPenn]

Basement - you asked some specifics - I'll answer them:

 

Scout spirit.... Would you delay advancement because the scout never shows up to the meeting never wearing his scout shirt (Nope - because there is no absolute requirement by the BSA that a Scout has to own and wear a uniform in order to be a Scout and advance in rank. Yes, the uniform is a method of Scouting - but it isn't an Aim of Scouting. Unless you can show me where the requirements to advance in rank tell a Scout that they must have and wear a uniform, I'll hold to this position. He's still attending the meetings - presumably he's getting something out of it. There may be a lot of reasons why a Scout isn't wearing a uniform. Maybe there is affordability issues - and I'm not about to ask. I've mentioned the diversity of the Troop of my youth in the past - a couple of the lads in the Troop were Mennonites - and they advanced in rank just like the rest of us - but they never wore a Scout uniform - they wore the same plain clothing they wore everyday which is expected as part of their religion - the boys hung their patches and rank badges up on their bedroom wall and never wore them. I wouldn't dream of holding lads like that up on advancement for not wearing the uniform)

 

Hiding when it is his turn to clean up the dishes (No - only because I won't be holding up his advancement, he will. I'll not hold up a T-foot or 2nd Class if he's done all the requirements and is behaving in this manner - I'd rather meet with him to make sure he understands what will happen if he continues this behavior. What will happen is he will not receive any POR until he is ready to show that he is willing to be lead. This is the way I would hold up advancement - you can't earn Star without a POR, and I would tell the young man that he's not earned a POR by this behavior. This way he is holding up his advancement, not me. I'll also ask the SPL to meet with the lad's PL to come up with a plan to make sure the lad is doing his share of the work - even if it means holding the entire Troop up on an activity until the lad completes his task if its his trun to wash the dishes. Let peer pressure handle it at those ranks).

 

Complains and whines while completing tasks. (Probably not - I know a lot of folks who complain and whine while completing tasks - they may not do them cheerfully, but they get done. Again, this is time for a discussion of what could happen in the future if this behavior continues - and again, it's related to earning a POR (and for those purists out there, by earning, I mean proving himself ready.) I'd be much more inclined to let the lad know that as SM, I hold the key to nomination to the OA - a Brotherhood of Cheerful Service - and I'm not seeing much evidence of cheerful service in him. I'd also be reminding him that Cheerful is part of the Scout Law).

 

Does not show up regularly to meetings unless it is his BOR night? (How can he possibly advance then if he's not done the work? If he's Star, Life or Eagle bound, and not showing up, I'm removing him from his POR (unless there is some good reason he's not showing up - and yes, I consider most High School activities good reasons, and would want to make sure he's in a POR that still gives back to the Troop even if the lad isn't always there - maybe he can't make Troop meetings on Monday nights for a few weeks, but he can make a local Pack's Den and Pack meetings on Thursday nights during that time - hello Den Chief).

 

Attends and spends the entire meeting texting or playing with his cell phone. (Again - discussion on earning/keeping POR here - again, he's holding his advancement up - not me).

 

 

[Beavah]

Splitting the hair mighty fine, eh, Calico? . I'm not sure a kid would buy your distinction between saying no to a POR and sayin' no to Scout Spirit. In both cases it's the boy holding up his own advancement, and in both cases it's you saying no. Only difference is that PORs are supposed to be decided by the boys, not by you, where Scout Spirit truly is your call.

 

I'm fine with people setting different expectations, because different organizations have different goals and different notions of character. A VFW post might put a bigger emphasis on uniforming, a church might put a bigger emphasis on taking the Lord's name in vain. Just be clear, offer boys support where needed, and allow for exceptions when those are truly called for.

 

Da problem comes when adults start mixin' up true out-of-the-control-of-the-boy exceptions, like da young Mennonites, and just being too loose to develop the character or outcomes that they desire. It's when it shifts to the latter that a boy comes up for Eagle and da disappointed adults suddenly try to block it, and the other boys learn the wrong lessons by example. Exceptions should be relatively rare, and balance da needs of the individual with the needs of the group. And da rest of us should be careful not to argue that everything should be an exception.

 

Beavah

[CalicoPenn]

Yep - I just might be splitting that fine hair - but what's more likely to succeed in changing behavior - telling a Scout he isn't going to proceed because he's not meeting Scout Spirit (past behavior) or telling a Scout he's not going to proceed because his behavior will prevent him from getting and holding a POR (giving him a chance to change past behavior for future success)? If I'm doing a Scoutmaster's Conference and pull the old Scout Spirit out for the first time to hold back a rank, I'm doing a disservice to the boy, in my opinion. But, if I pull the old Scout Spirit out and focus on consequences and future behavior, isn't that a better way to approach it?

 

You make a valid point about it being up to the lads to elect/appoint - but there is nothing that prevents a Scoutmaster from pulling the Patrol / SPL aside before elections/appointments and asking them if they feel someone who hides during dish duty or whines and complains about the tasks he's asked to do, or plays his games/texts/doesn't engage when at meetings is the kind of person they want to elect as PL/SPL or hold an appointed POR. The Scouts will get it.

[qwazse]

NielB - There is no mention of not taking God's name in vain ... Scouting is non-sectarian, ... If the boy feels he is doing his best to satisfy his personal religious obligations and demonstrates that in tangible ways (like attending church) it is not for you to impose your personal religious beliefs on him as a Scouter.

 

I was not referring to my own personal anything. I was referring to a practice common to young scouts where they violate the tenants of the religion they claim as their own.

 

Is there a religion where the needless spouting the name of a deity (especially one that is not your own) is a required practice? I have not encountered one. If I do, I'll try to work a balance with the other boys in my unit so they don't get offended. Then when it comes to that 12th point, I'll ask, "Boy, have you cussed as much as your folks said you're supposed to today?" If he hasn't met his quota, I'll tell him to come back next week when he's managed to fulfill his duty or paid the appropriate pennance for "vanity inssufficiency." The higher the rank, the more tightly I'll hold him to it!

 

Returning to the OP's question. Here's another "stamp stopper": When I cover the scout slogan, if I ask a boy "so what was your good turn for today?" and he comes up with nothing. That's a definite "see ya next week."

[packsaddle]

OGE, yes. I'd say it more clearly but I'm still chewing on that obfuscation.

[neil_b]

Beav,

 

I didn't say it would be a double jeopardy for the troop to punish a boy for getting into trouble with the law, only meant if the troop punishes him twice.

 

And, no, I don't think delaying advancement for Scout Spirit is always punishment, but it certainly can be used as punishment.

 

In the case of the vandelizing Scout, I believe it is punishment, because it appears they are seeking retribution for this one act and wanting to penalize the boy. The other things like his taking off his uniform shirt quickly are minor things which would have been overlooked if not for the vandelism.

[BrentAllen]

Yes, I've held a boy up for Tenderfoot. (not actual names) Eric has Asperger's, and he has a real competitive issue with one of his peers, Chris. Both were going for Tenderfoot by the December COH. On the December camping trip, they were ruff-housing and Chris and other boys were bear-hugging each other, including Eric. Eric said if anyone else grabbed him, he was going to punch them in the face. Chris grabbed him and Eric punched him in the mouth. After discussing the issue with the parents, I learned that there had been other physical altercations at school. Eric admitted he did it, and I asked him if that type of behavior was in line with the Oath and Law. He said it wasn't, so we put Tenderfoot off for a month. We talked about how he needed to run his own race, live his own life, and not be so focused on Chris. He has been doing pretty well, but his dad told me Sunday that they had been called to school last week over another incident. Eric is about to finish the requirements for Second Class, and we are going to have to discuss the issue again. He takes advancement very seriously, so it can be a very powerful tool in working on his issues with behavior.

 

Not totally related to the subject, but I had another Scout who would get homesick occasionally, with lots of crying. He is one of the hard-chargers on advancement, and after he earned Second Class, I told him he was going to have to get over the homesickness - I couldn't have a FC Scout getting homesick in front of the younger Scouts. He said he would work on it, and he did. No issues after FC.

[neil_b]

qwazse,

 

Jesus was always getting accused of breaking rules like working on the Sabbath or eating with gentiles. I guess if he was a scout he might get his advancement denied for not being reverent enough.

 

Not saying you shouldn't tell a boy that breaking the 3rd Commandement in your presence is offensive to you, and they are supposed to be sensitive to other people's beliefs. I just am not sure it is grounds for holding back their advancement.

 

Neil

[Beavah]

Yah, double jeopardy refers, as do all enumerated rights in da Bill of Rights, to limits on the power of the government. Not limits on the power of parents or private organizations, eh? And in this case, they refer specifically to not having two trials for the same offense, not two punishments. Two punishments is allowed, as often a single act breaches more than one law, eh?

 

Not giving someone an award is never a punishment. People don't "deserve" awards and recognition from others. They earn them because in the view of the people giving the award the person deserves it. Because we using scouting awards specifically as a method for teaching character and citizenship, it is very important to proper use of the method that they be awarded only when a lad has shown good character and citizenship.

 

That's not evil, bad, punishing, trampling on rights or any such nonsense. It's just proper use of one of Scouting's methods.

 

Beavah

[neil_b]

qwazse - "Returning to the OP's question. Here's another 'stamp stopper': When I cover the scout slogan, if I ask a boy 'so what was your good turn for today?' and he comes up with nothing. That's a definite 'see ya next week.'"

 

I like this, qwazse, and totally agree. I want to draw a distinction here between "see ya next week" vs. "let's give it another six months and see if your Scout Spirt improves".

 

Our troop has a BoR once a month, so delaying a Scoutmaster Conference by a week might or might not actually delay the advancement. Either it will delay it a month (which isn't that long unless the boy is about to turn 18) or not at all depending on the timing.

 

Neil

[Basementdweller]

gotta chuckle here.....

 

so I asked the son what his good deed was today.....he replied he helped a girl on the bus that dumped her books and lunch on the floor. Scout neighbor came over, asked him same question. He said he mowed his grandma's lawn after school.

 

very nice, and I was surprised they both answered quickly. made me smile

 

 

[Venividi]

Don't forget that the sense of justice of young people is strong. The other scouts in the troop will see the hypocracy of adults talking about the importance of living according to the scout oath and law, and then giving out an award (that is in part based on living to the scout oath and law) to the scouts in the troop that demonstrate it the least.

 

Only the most brave and brazen will call you on it. The remainder will simply silently observe.

[neil_b]

Dictionary says double jeopardy is, "the subjecting of a person to a second trial or punishment for the same offense for which the person has already been tried or punished."

 

Don't like arguing about semantics.

 

Not giving an award because you are seeking retribution is punishment. Otherwise I agree.