Attendance Requirement

[fred johnson]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

Basementdweller wrote: "GTA is for weak leaders or guys like KDD who don't have the stones ..." ... That's funny. I always thought the leaders who had trouble with the GTA were too busy on a power trip to avoid playing abusive head games with their scouts. But, I guess it's a tomAto / tomahto thing.

 

The funny thing is that you recommend exactly what the GTA says should happen ... removing the scout. If a scout isn't doing the job, remove him. That's even what the GTA says. And that's the type of stones the GTA expects leaders to have. But the GTA exists to protect scouts from abusive leaders.

[fred johnson]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

Basementdweller ... Yeah, but if you leave the scout in the position and he pushed it he could advance under protest thru the district. You mentioned it in another one of your posts. If the scout is not meeting your expectations, you should remove him. But if the scout gets to the end of his term and time is up, you can't start telling him he's not meeting expectations ... after the fact. The scout gets credit for time served. Especially in this case where the scout attended all metings except two. That means he could argue he did make a contribution thru his position.

 

Basementdweller ... as you mention, remove the scout if appropriate. ... AND ... work with the scout to decide how much time the scout thinks he should get credit for time served. It's a joint decision, not a SM only decision and more with what the scout thinks he deserves.

[Stosh]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

This is why I have problems with term elections. It's kinda like being elected to advance, especially when the scout is popular. On the other hand, electing someone because they need a POR for advancement is another whole arena of abuse.

 

Pigeon hole requirements are pretty much an adult attempt to quantify a subjective subject. Really can't be done gracefully.

 

Rules for being responsible ->

1) Show up for X% of the meetings, activities and outings.

 

That's the one "measurement" that can be used for any POR's. Other rules would be position specific. But simply showing up is not doing the job. Why is it even there in the first place? And every adult will say, "Because!"

 

It's a kinda feel good thingy on the part of the adults.

 

Scout: "I showed up for the meetings, I delegated responsibility to others, I kept notes on what didn't get done."

SM: "Yes, but nothing got done."

Scout: "Yes, I know, but I still get credit for the POR. You can't penalize me just because the other boys didn't do what I told them to do."

 

So being responsible has nothing to do with leadership. I can fill that position and demonstrate NO leadership and I still get credit.

 

And THAT is why I don't put POR patches on my scouts' uniforms.

 

SM: "Hey, what are you guys doing over there, you're not supposed to be doing that!"

Scout: "Yeah, but this job has to be done before we go on the campout next weekend."

SM: "Did the QM tell you to do that?"

Scout: "No, but I was worried it wasn't going to get done, so I asked John, Pete, Fred to help me make sure the troop was ready to go."

SM: "Well, I'm telling you to get away from there. That's the QM's job and if he isn't going to do it, the adults will handle it at the next BOR."

 

So where's the real leadership? It surely isn't with the SM and QM. And the next time real leadership is needed, where is it going to come from?

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

I enjoyed reading Turtle's post on the BSA over-emphasizing the leadership part of the program. I agree that is a problem, but I don't agree the the BSA is the source of over-emphasizing. It's the unit adults that struggle with the leadership method. And personally I don't care about the difference between leadership and management. We are really talking about responsibility in the bigger picture, aren't we? I find that idividual personality will lead a scout to a style of manager or leader. However, the reason unit leaders struggle with the leadership Method is the same reason they struggle with the Advancement Method, they are looking at the wrong goals of growth. The goal is Character Growth, not leadership growth, or advancement growth, or camping growth and so on. Oh of course we want the scout to become a better leader because that is a great life skill and frankly easy to measure. But if a scout finds that he is not capable of living up to expectations and decides to step down to help his team perform better; is that not character growth? When adults shift the focus to the higher mission of character growth, they usually find themselves changing the way they guide and judge each scout's performance of the "methods". Then as Turtleman said, we appreciate each scout better for their differences of performing and customize the expectations on each method. It's more challenging for the adults, but much more rewarding. Barry

[EagleScout441]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

"1) Show up for X% of the meetings, activities and outings.

 

That's the one "measurement" that can be used for any POR's. Other rules would be position specific. But simply showing up is not doing the job. Why is it even there in the first place? And every adult will say, "Because!" "

 

 

Because showing up is the first piece of actually serving in a POR. If they don't "simply show up" they aren't in a POR at all, are they? Much less doing the job.

[EagleScout441]

If the patrol leaders are doing their job, why do you even have an ASPL? That has to be the most useless job in the troop. The bugler has more responsibility. On an outing, the SPL is the second most useless person. If the patrols are 300' apart, how does the SPL keep track of everything? If the troop is looking to the SPL and ASPL for leadership on the campouts, they are barking up the wrong tree. The PL's should be running the show in their patrols. What are the PL's in your troop doing when the SPL and ASPL are running the show? Nothing? Taking orders from the SPL and ASPL? That's gotta be confusing for everyone.

 

Basically if the ASPL is attending regularly but has trouble on the weekend with job and school, I don't see this as any real problem. Same for the SPL, especially in a small troop. Have a PL pull that stunt, then there's reason for the fur to fly. For me the highest ranking POR in my troops were the PL's. Everyone else down to the CC SUPPORTED the PL's in their jobs. That's where the real leadership needs to be.

 

Stosh

Technically it is two patrols of 6-8, although the last two outings have been only one patrol.

[Basementdweller]

Ok remove the POL and just focus on the POR

 

So if a lad misses 80% of the meetings, how is he fulfilling his responsibilities? be it SPL, PL, Quatermaster, scribe or patrol member.

 

The is NO BECAUSE. Do it or ya don't. A lad growing into the position is the expectation.

 

 

While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility

[Eagledad]

Ok remove the POL and just focus on the POR

 

So if a lad misses 80% of the meetings, how is he fulfilling his responsibilities? be it SPL, PL, Quatermaster, scribe or patrol member.

 

The is NO BECAUSE. Do it or ya don't. A lad growing into the position is the expectation.

 

 

While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility

So why when did the scout start missing meetings. Why?

[EagleScout441]

Ok remove the POL and just focus on the POR

 

So if a lad misses 80% of the meetings, how is he fulfilling his responsibilities? be it SPL, PL, Quatermaster, scribe or patrol member.

 

The is NO BECAUSE. Do it or ya don't. A lad growing into the position is the expectation.

 

 

While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility

Or, how is he fulfilling his responsibilities if he doesn't attend any outings?

[scoutergipper]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

As I note in our "Advancement after First Class" document - "A Scout cannot show leadership on a campout he does not attend." He may show leadership before or after.

[Basementdweller]

Ok remove the POL and just focus on the POR

 

So if a lad misses 80% of the meetings, how is he fulfilling his responsibilities? be it SPL, PL, Quatermaster, scribe or patrol member.

 

The is NO BECAUSE. Do it or ya don't. A lad growing into the position is the expectation.

 

 

While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility

Video games, SPL called off on a camp out when Black Ops 2 came out last fall spent the weekend getting double XP.

 

Band

Religious training, Latino Catholic thing

Football

Wrestling

Sick

Moves

 

We lose some because of lack of interest......I would be kidding myself if it isn't the case.

[qwazse]

Ok remove the POL and just focus on the POR

 

So if a lad misses 80% of the meetings, how is he fulfilling his responsibilities? be it SPL, PL, Quatermaster, scribe or patrol member.

 

The is NO BECAUSE. Do it or ya don't. A lad growing into the position is the expectation.

 

 

While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility

E441, depends on the troop. Like Stosh mentioned, his troop operates in the field pretty much independent of the SPL/ASPL. Our troop is like that too most months. (This term, the SPL has disabilities that limit his participation, so the ASPL is "the guy" for outdoor activities.) Other troops, if the ASPL is absent -- especially if the SPL does not arrange for someone to fill in for the SPL, things start to fall apart.

 

Like BD, the issue is more one of Loyalty. And this applies to every first class scout. How are you showing your loyalty to the troop? My SM and I ask that of every scout in the troop. We really don't care about the patch you have on your sleeve.

[Tampa Turtle]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

Scoutergipper, I agree a guy could show leadership before and after if he thought hard about it. But usually the ones who don't show up don't so that either. I have seem exceptions.

[Tampa Turtle]

Ah heck half our POR patches are wrong. Dang patch magic. I am pushing for:

(1) POR starts about time you sew on correct POR patch.

(2) If you have your old POR patch and dont take it off I'm gonna make you do that job if I need to (that might get rid of the lazy ones)

(3) No SMC will be scheduled with wong patches.

[Tampa Turtle]

Ah heck half our POR patches are wrong. Dang patch magic. I am pushing for:

(1) POR starts about time you sew on correct POR patch.

(2) If you have your old POR patch and dont take it off I'm gonna make you do that job if I need to (that might get rid of the lazy ones)

(3) No SMC will be scheduled with wong patches.

I'm gonna start carrying around blanks for them to paper over them.