Eagle Rank, SM Conference and Drug Use

[IM_Kathy]

given the more info if I were in your shoes I just wouldn't sign off. I would make the boys go through district EBOR and stay out of all of it.

 

That being said thank you for stepping up, but for others reading this take things into thoughts now and maybe state I will not take on this position with this situation without a,b,c. Whether those mean removal from unit, or whatever else you might want in there.

 

If this happens to any boys in my troop I would let them know this is councils decision, the troop has decided on such and such before you can have your blank signed off. And I'd have the troop decision of what needs done written down and signed by scout and parent that they have read and agree. If they don't agree then they are free to leave the unit. And by troop I would want COR, CC, and other members sign and agree. And I certainly wouldn't want parent of said child to have any say in these requirements. So if it were CC's kid they would not be in meeting discussing what the troop was putting down - they would only sign it as a parent.

 

Also if I had any scout on a suspension whether by troop or council I would have a sit down with scout and parent right before that term was over - for sure before they were allowed to attend again.

 

Kids mess up - trust me I know this I made plenty. So I do think they should be given a chance to make right their wrongs. So far I don't see that happening from your post - hence why I say I wouldn't sign off

[T2Eagle]

I think Packsaddle has some solid advice.

 

You can't change the decisions made already, if the suspension included stipulated conditions but no reporting mechanism then that's how it is today. You cannot change the past, even if you disagree with everything that was decided.

 

Something to keep in mind is that these decisions are about these kids. We sometimes get caught up worrying about whether a particular kid is really what an Eagle Scout should be, and because we want the kids who most deserve the award to be fully recognized for having really accomplished something we tend to think in terms of will this kid uphold the reputation. But it really doesn't work that way; lots of kids become Eagle scouts, some go on to great things, some go on to be terrible as representatives, but most fall somewhere in between and in the top half of that in-between at that. So don't think about whether these kids will or will not reflect well on the program down the road.

 

The task before you is to think only about these kids, today. You need to decide whether you believe they deserve to be Eagle scouts in light of all you know. If you don't think so, speak up, if other people think differently then they'll pick it up and they'll work within the system to allow them to demonstrate that they do. If that happens don't feel bad about it. There are plenty of good people who would decide differently than you, they're not wrong, just different. If you think these scouts should be allowed to continue then review their accomplishments, set them some tasks, and let them decide to complete or not complete their trail. Whatever happens, remember that these young men have probably been in scouting for more than a decade, we've had an effect on them, how much only time will tell.

 

 

[Scouter99]

The leadership switching that was agreed to include:: the SM was made CC and his son is the 1st one up to age out in 2 months. They are also one of the ambivalent ones. . This switch was approved by the CO.

Wow, whoever came up with that really screwed you.

[Twocubdad]

Ditto, Scouter99

 

But I'm rather interested in the agreement behind the "leadership shuffle" which led to you becoming SM. It sounds like the council was involved in that. If so, that would be highly unusual that the council involves itself in unit leadership issues. . Either way, you've been put in an impossible situation -- bound by both your obligations to run a program which lives up to the Oath and Law while hamstrung by the terms of the agreement.

 

So here's my advice: punt. Boot the whole mess, wash your hands of it and get on with the business of Delivering the Promise to your troop. Your time, energy and loyalty needs to be with the other half of the troop which wasn't involved in this mess. There are good Scouts there who are being impacted by this situation through no fault of their own. They deserve a good program, absent of the stench the other Scouts and their families have brought into the troop. That's where your focus should be.

 

Send a letter to each of the four plus you don't feel are forth coming and tell them you decline further participation in their quest for Eagle. If they choose to pursue Eagle, they must do so under the protocols for Eagle under disputed circumstances. At that point, by national policy (see the Guide to Advancement) you are out of it. The troop committee can choose to continue forward with their Boards of Review (or not). Or it can be dealt with by the council advancement committee. Copy the district and council advancement chairmen on your letter and let everyone know that you neither accept nor respond to further communications.

 

The other option is to leave the whole stinking mess where it is, take the remaining boys and either move to -- or start -- a new troop.

[scoutldr]

 

 

The other option is to leave the whole stinking mess where it is, take the remaining boys and either move to -- or start -- a new troop.

That's where I'm at. I would walk rather than compromise my moral position so that drug dealers can be awarded the Eagle.

 

[packsaddle]

Well that's sure one option. I wish the SM the best of success if he takes that option. I'm fairly certain that those boys would not be the first felons with the rank of Eagle. They'll eventually get what's coming if they continue on that path.

[Huzzar]

I wouldn't sign off Scout Spirit for these boys until I saw a real change in behavior and attitude. Then it goes back to Council and possibly National for an EBoR under disputed circumstances. You'll be asked to state why you won't sign and they'll have to decide if your actions were "correct."

 

As an aside, I never would have agreed to step up as SM under the conditions that you have. I would have advocated dropping the boys from the charter and telling them to come back in a year or find some other patsy to sign their forms. Had the SM and CC insisted that drug leaders be allowed to continue I would take my son to a different troop.

[Rick_in_CA]

looking for some advice- have several boys caught using/dealing cannabis, including one arrest, in the community and admitted (by them) at scout activities. After investigation by council, was given short 3 month suspensions and allowed to return. This in addition to parents/leaders not forthright in there knowledge of activities and attempt to keep it hidden, and given the same treatment but shorter susspensions. Upon reinstatement, part of the agreement was leadership shuffling. I was asked and agreed to change from ASM to SM since current SM involved in "problem". I agreed. Several boys were in process of finishing their Eagle projects during this and allowed to continue even during suspension.

 

... snip ...

 

This has been bugging me since I was asked to take over. How do I honor the Laws and Oath the we have the boys learn and follow, as well as honor them myself when dealing with this situation?

 

Lots of good advice already, one thing I would add.

 

How much do you really know about what happened? Do you have the whole story? What did you witness? Did you get your information from the scouts and scouters involved, or have you been getting details from others? How did your sources get their information? There is a reason hearsay is suspect.

 

Before picking a course of action, you need to be sure you have the complete and real story or not (maybe you do, it isn't clear from your posts). And if you don't, that should color your choices (it isn't fair or trustworthy to lower the boom on someone when you know you don't have all the facts). I've been surprised at how often what "everyone knows" turns out to be incorrect.

 

Good luck with a tough situation.

 

[jr56]

Wow...talk about between a rock and a hard place. I agree with other posters. If you don't feel comfortable signing off on their Eagle requirements, don't. Put your reasons in writing and submit them to the EBOR, if it gets that far.

[fred johnson]

I wasn't going to say anything as I am not sure I had anything unique or different to add. .... but ...

 

... caught using/dealing cannabis ...

 

"Dealing" ... This is very inflammatory word. It may be right but it can be a wide range of scope. Given what's happened, I suspect the situation is one scout started experimenting. Then, he mentioned it and more friends tried it. And so on. Then, they used one person to get more by one person taking the money and purchasing and handing it out. This is "dealing" but it's also the same way we bought concert tickets when I was a kid or bought many other things our parents didn't know about. ... I'm betting he would not be back in scouts if he was making money or recruiting new users or the TV version of a drug dealer.

 

At least in my area which is a very upper end city, pot is easily available in school. People know who and where to get it. Every middle and high school has police officers and locker inspections with dogs. If you are caught, it is an "arrest", but you never leave the school. You go to the principals office with the officer. Your parents are called and you are routed through an intervention program run by other youth .... and as part of the penalty you have to serve on it.

 

If you complete the program and stay good, it all falls off your record.

 

I'm just saying this scenario is very very common.

 

These kids have already had the legal system serve judgement. And, the local BSA council serve judgement. And, you accepted the situation by stepping up as SM. I do not think it would be fair to hand out more "punishment". If it was such that they should not have the change to get Eagle, they should probably have been removed from the troop. But they weren't.

 

You can address current attitude or attendance. But the incident is now in the past. Recent past, but still the past.

 

Still though ... You have to decide your own situation. The details and the individuals are more important than the general situation.

 

I'm just saying "Dealing" is inflammatory and wanted to provide another view. And as always in scouting, each and every moment gives you an educational opportunity with the scouts. But you can't if you push them away. I'm not saying I'd go either direction.

 

I wish you the best.

[Twocubdad]

Fred, when explaining the situation to the parents of 10-y.o. Webelos looking to join the troop in two months, do you think they will be concerned with nuances of dealing vs. distributing, vs. providing vs. facilitating vs. passing out vs., vs., vs.?

 

My guess is they will cut to the chase and be concerned that one or more Scouts are bring weed to campouts and "making it available" to the other Scouts.

 

And when I signed up, I don't recall seeing anything on the application about agreeing to go along with the poor decisions of the prior administration or turning a blind eye to prior misdeeds. But that was years ago. I'll allow the application may have been updated.

 

We get some version of the "Scouts and Weed" thread once or twice a year. I've been in this situation before myself.. I've said before that whatever a Scout's personal situation may be, bringing drugs and alcohol to Scouts and "making them available" to other Scouts crosses a BIG line.

 

 

[fred johnson]

twocubdad ... And your point is?

 

=========================

 

... You updated ... And I agree. This thread has been dealt with multiple times. And like you, I view this situation the same as if a scout and his friends started drinking and started sneaking it on camp outs. It's a big time deal breaker.

 

I wrote the previous because "dealing" is inflammatory and makes the whole situation incomprehensible. Why did the council let a would-be felon stay in scouting? Yet, that's apparently what's happened.

 

I see it as the far more common issue of youth testing limits and experimenting with more mature habits. In this case, habits that are 100% incompatible with scouting and limits that once crossed are always very tempting to cross again. In my book, I would have a hard time letting them continue. But it was decided and this poster accepted being SM as part of the situation.

 

--- I do believe it is unfair and self-destructive to revisit the mess.

 

--- I do believe it would unethical to throw the kid out because it would help recuitment.

 

--- I do believe this is 100% okay topic for his Eagle SMC.

 

--- I do believe it is valid to address current attitudes. Though I'd avoid attendance topics as he's already sounding like he'd transition on and out.

 

--- I would have a boundary that is zero tolerance for them.

 

--- I would not feel obligated to sign his Eagle paperwork ... and I'd let him know that now.

[Stosh]

So where does one draw the line? Drugs? Weed? Booze? Cigarettes? e-Cigarettes? Lying? Stealing? Battery? Bullying? Conceal Carry? and when all is said and done, who makes the final decision?

 

National BSA didn't put SM's in that position to keep boys from Eagle by making zero-tolerance policies.

 

Where did this boy go wrong? Or is it, where did the SM go wrong? There's always two sides to every issue.

 

In all the years of working with youth, I have never had a drug, alcohol or tobacco problem to deal with, so I have no experience in dealing with this stuff after the fact. Just never let it get to the after-the-fact level.

 

Stosh

[T2Eagle]

Jblake,

 

Out of curiosity I just looked at marijuana use in teenagers. Over the last 25 years, use of marijuana within the previous 12 months among high school seniors has fluctuated between roughly 35 and 40%. Those numbers are certainly going to be different among different demographic groups, and scouts are certainly going to be lower than the national level. But those numbers tell me that although I've never had to deal with a marijuana or alcohol issue in my troop that more likely means none of my scouts have been caught more than it means none of my scouts have done it. What do you think?

[T2Eagle]

I will add that the really good news in the survey is that smoking is down from a peak of nearly 25% to 6.7%, and that's a steady decline not a fluctuation. For long term health outcomes that is tremendously good news since almost all smokers began smoking in high school and very few smokers begin past adolescence.