scoutldr Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 From page 3 of the latest version of the Scoutmaster Handbook (2001 rev): "These are the minimum requirements for becoming a Scoutmaster or Assistant Scoutmaster: - be at least 21 years of age." Is this a typo or a policy change that slipped by me? My understanding is that SA's must be at least 18 years of age, not 21. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 18 - 21 yr of age are the "tweener" years. To old to be a Boy Scout, to young to be a SM or SA (ASM). However, Venturing offers a good program for these ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 19 year old Darrell Lambert an ASM and was at adult leadership training when he outted himself as an Atheist? That is 2 years shy of 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purcelce Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Tweeners can be ASM's. However you still must have someone 21 or older at Scouting events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I have always understood that ASM is the only position someone between 18 and 21 can register for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 That's what I've always understood, too, and my DE agrees. But as has been stated in other posts, "if that's what the BSA meant, they would have said it." Can the pros shed some light on this? If it's just a typo, that's one thing, and the BSA should put out an errata notice, but as I have been recently told, "a Trainer ought to know this stuff." It's hard to tell a class of new SMs "18" when the book in front of them clearly says "21". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Once again the written word is inconsistent and misleading. Shocking!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle74 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 If this is the case (21 years old) there sure have been alot of ASM adult leader applications accepted from our troop in error. We currently list at least 5 in the 18 - 21 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 If your council is accepting and processing adult applications for ASM positions for people between 18 and 21, I suggest that is evidence that the Scoutmaster Handbook is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsteele Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Just a pro weighing in. I'm at home on a Friday evening, so I apologize for not having my resources in front of me. I'm 98% sure that we're talking about a typo in the Scoutmaster Handbook. The reference I wish I had with me is a simple adult application (which is being revised.) The age requirements, I believe, are listed on the inside front cover, as are the declaration of religious and other stuff. I would take that fine print as the rule. Bob White is correct that you have to have a 21 year old (or older) lead any tour or expedition. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 It's a typo scoutldr. If you look at page 15 in the description of the JASM it says that upon turning 18 he will be eligible to become an Assistant Scoutmaster. As stated in another post the only office that an 18to 20 year old can hold is ASM. All other adult positions require you to be at least 21 years of age. Bob White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 SOmething wrong in a BSA manual? How can it be? Can we trust nothing anymore? Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Ed, The written word is infallible. You just have to be sure you are looking at the correct words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now