Question regarding "Scout Spirit" - is this being abused, or misused?

[Krampus]

Who interprets the standard?

 

So you think the SM is never wrong. That is a very dangerous prideful attitude. You must feel the BOR is a waste of time.

 

BORs used to be done by the Scouts. Why do you think the BSA changed the policy?

 

Barry

 

I am saying that we follow the BSA established guidelines for rank advancement. I was pretty clear in what I said. The boy has met the requirements for rank. The boy knows his stuff. The boy meets BSA's requirements for having AND PASSING a BOR. What on God's green Earth could cause a BOR to fail a Scout who meets all of these requirements?

 

Instead of asking more questions, Barry, read what I wrote and tell me under what circumstances a Scout that prepared could FAIL a BOR? 

 

As for our "active" standard, there's no interpretation required. The boys established a threshold that meets the GTA requirement years ago. The Scout must be registered. The Scout must be in good standing (we have official probation, if not on that you are considered in good standing). The Scout must be active. Active is defined by attending 50% of all cumulative service projects, camping trips and troop meetings. That is to say you combine all three of those things to get your 50%. The alternate litmus test defined in the GTA can also be used. Pretty black and white. We go the added step of having the PLs let anyone know who is falling below the 50% threshold to get their attendance up. NOTE: We have NEVER had a Scout fail his level of activity test using either the troop standard OR the GTA's "alternate" test.

 

Our Scouts know where they stand BEFORE they go in to the BOR. In fact, they would not even be sent to a BOR unless the met those requirements. So, again, if a Scout meets all the requirements laid down by BSA, where the heck does the BOR get the right to deny him his rank?

[Stosh]

When a SM does his/her job correctly, there should be no red flags thrown up by the BOR and added requirements tossed in to boot as described by the OP.

 

The BOYS are the responsibility of the SM and his/her staff, not the troop committee.  The job of the troop committee is to insure the PROGRAM of the unit is functioning properly. 

 

So then when did it become the responsibility of the committee members and ad hoc others to evaluate, judge, retest, and/or in any way question the validity of the scout's efforts after he has already been fully vetted and approved by the SM and his/her staff?  I can fully understand a BOR asking the boy how his experience has been in the program, maybe ask for some input in how it could be improved, whether or not he is planning on staying with the program, is he having difficulties with personalities in the troop both youth and/or adult. etc.  All these thing relate to the quality of the PROGRAM, not the success/failure of the BOY.  The adversarial part comes in when the troop committee begins to re-vette the boy and question his success at attaining rank.  That's not their job.  They haven't been on the campouts, they haven't been at the training opportunities, they haven't had much if any contact with the boy so their little inquisition is intrusive and uncalled for.  However, in the OP, not only is the boy's honesty drawn into question, so is that of the SM and staff as well as adding more requirements to the process, all of which is borderline bullying and political posturing on the part of these people. 

 

Nope, if a BOR ever pulled this on one of my boys, they would get an earful from me, my staff and I would do it in front of the boy who's honesty is being questioned.  He has a right to know why they feel obligated to bypass BSA policy and play games.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Stosh

[Eagledad]

 

Our Scouts know where they stand BEFORE they go in to the BOR. In fact, they would not even be sent to a BOR unless the met those requirements. So, again, if a Scout meets all the requirements laid down by BSA, where the heck does the BOR get the right to deny him his rank?

I get it, you program has been whittled to perfection. I can't even think of a good reason for a program like yours to need a BOR. Can you?

 

This reminds me of an interview of a CEO for a very successful company. The interviewer asked for the CEO's secret to their success. The CEO said "to do everything perfectly". He was asked "How do you get to this perfection?". "By changing those things that aren't perfect", he said. Is your program perfect? Oh no, nothing is perfect.

 

I applaud your program that every attempt has been made for scouts to be prepared for the BOR. I really do. I would like to see your troop in action. But I think your troop has lost understanding for the purpose of the Troop BOR and I hope your adults humility is equal to your confidence.

 

Barry

[Krampus]

I applaud your program that every attempt has been made for scouts to be prepared for the BOR. I really do. I would like to see your troop in action. But I think your troop has lost understanding for the purpose of the Troop BOR and I hope your adults humility is equal to your confidence.

 

 

I think we are talking across purposes here, Barry.

 

The topic we were discussing was the BOR "failing" a Scout and where, if anywhere, they (the BOR) have the right or power to do so.

 

What it sounds like you are talking about is BOR feedback on the program. If that's the case, I totally agree that's the purview of the BOR. In fact, to answer your questions, that's the role of the BOR. I am MORE THAN HAPPY to accept criticism, feedback and compliments on the program.

 

I just don't see how a BOR -- while asking questions about how a boy likes the program or what his experiences have been -- would find grounds to deny him his rank. He'd have to violate something pretty significant in my mind which, I hope, we would have found out long before he was recommended for his BOR.

 

Is that where you were going?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Krampus

[fred johnson]

They have always linked the "scout spirit" requirement to active participation; e.g, anytime we have a service project for our charter org or provide some other level of assistance to our charter org, the "threat" is always made that scouts had better attend IF they want to receive "scout spirit" for their next BOR

 

I've always hated both sides of that behavior.  Both sides being encouraging because you'll get credit and ominous messages about repercussions if they don't participate.  

[fred johnson]

Regarding what "Active Scout" means, the GTA also is clear on that. In section 4.2.3.1 the BSA lays out three requirements to be considered active:

• Must be registered. If he's registered with the unit this is done.
• Must be in good standing. If he's not on an official probationary status then he's considered in good standing.
• The Scout must meet the "reasonable expectations" that define being active. HOWEVER, the GTA notes that "If, for the time period required, a Scout or qualifying Venturer or Sea Scout meets those aspects of his unit’s pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then he is considered active and the requirement is met." I added the emphasis here because the unit MUST pre-establish what they consider to be active. In other words, they need to have an official policy that says to be considered active you need to attend 50% of all camp outs in a calendar year, or x% of the meetings, etc. If they DO NOT have such a policy then they MUST allow BSA calls the "alternative to the third test" to explain activity.

 

Kudos to you for quoting GTA.   ... Quick clarification ...

 

2.  The only probationary status is with the council or BSA.  A troop needs to dismiss the scout for him to not be in good standing.  As long as the scout is not dismissed, he passes test #2.  It's sort of circular with requirement #1.  Must be registered.  Just lets the council put a probationary status on the scout.

 

3.  Also has an alternative path if the scout does not meet their expectations and still be deemed active.   

 

Again kudos for bringing in GTA to the discussion.

[fred johnson]

RECOMMENDATION - Take a step back and think about how you and your son feel about the troop and his experiences.  Talk with your son saying that you were disappointed in how he was treated and it's not how the program is supposed to work.  ... BUT ... if your overall experience is positive, go camping and get that extra camp.  Get it confirmed that it would fulfill the active participation.  ... THEN ... just move on toward the next rank.  

 

Sometimes fixing a wrong only causes more damage.  Make a choice on which way to go.  Know it's wrong and use it as a learning experience with your son.  But, find the best path for your son.  Perhaps it might be best to move past the wrong and just go camping one more time..

 

You never know if the next troop will be a good fit or do it better.

 

You never know if other issues will happen.  Perhaps, he won't enjoy the next troop as much.

 

Just be clear so that your son knows how he should treat scouts when he grows up.

 

IMHO, I bet the troop committee is trying to be egalitarian and let everyone in on the advancement purpose to build consensus.  IMHO, it's not needed and it's explicitly wrong per how the program is to run.

 

PS - And if you're still upset, you don't need to award the mentor pin to anyone at his Eagle COH.  

 

Good luck.

Edited April 8, 2016 by fred johnson

[Stosh]

I've never used the % of attendance to measure Scout Spirit in the troop/patrol.  From day one I always emphasize that Church, Family and School take priority over Scouting.  IN THAT ORDER!  And surprisingly I don't have an attendance problem.  I have a "problem" with a few of my scouts not progressing through the ranks very fast because they miss more than others.  I have a few that couldn't make it to summer camp because of family vacations or the "other parent" has visitation that week, etc.  But I don't have many boys that miss scouts unless they have to.

 

Hypothetical situation:  Johnny is there every activity while in 6th grade, 7th grade and 8th grade.  He's now first class and gets selected as QM for the troop.  He goes out for football his freshman year and is gone for 4 months, the 4 months necessary to hold Star before he goes on to Life.  He misses every meeting for those four months, every outing for four months, but the equipment necessary for every meeting, every campout, every activity is ready to be loaded up ready to go and when it gets dumped back in the scout room on Sunday, by Monday's meeting, it's all back on the shelves where it belongs. 

 

The rule says he has to attend 50% of the activities to show scout spirit... but he has attended 0%. 

 

So, what am I as SM to do?  Hold him back for another four months?  Did he fulfill his POR?  Yep!  Did he take care of his boys?  Yep.  Did he get his MB's done on his own time?  Yep.  Service hours on his own time?  Yep.  Did he do his duty to God and Country and help others at all times?  Pretty much.  Did he work at being trustworthy, and such?  Yep.

 

So the solution?  Don't make stupid rules in the first place and one doesn't need to worry about this kind of thing.  Train 'em, TRUST 'EM, and let them lead! 

[Krampus]

The rule says he has to attend 50% of the activities to show scout spirit... but he has attended 0%. 

 

In most units I know, @@Stosh, the attendance metric is used to track if a scout is considered "active" not for spirit.

 

I agree, if units are using that to measure spirit they are barking up the wrong tree.

[Stosh]

If a scout takes a 2-3 month sport hiatus, more power to him.  I knew an Eagle scout that lettered in 3 different sports and went on and became a medical doctor.  It can be done.  He's still active in Scouting.

[TAHAWK]

THIS is why adults are not supposed to be in charge!  I rest my case! 

 

Anyone, youth or adult, needs to follow the rules (if you can figure them out).  Otherwise every adult with leader power is running his or her own youth program.

 

The rules include adult BoR - at which they, like everyone else, is supposed to follow the rules.  

 

Accepting the OP's facts, this Committee needs to:

1) check the point of the Law on "Obedient";

2) become familiar with the rules they are honor-bound to follow when sitting as a BoR;

3) notice that the "method" of "Adult Association" that they are honor-bound to use is primarily about all the adults modeling the values, including the Law; and

4) follow the rules!!.

 

What the OP reports they have done is absolutely wrong. They are making up as they go along, "If anyone is lacking in scout spirit, it's the members of this committee. pure and simple."

 

Often the Committee is untrained and look to the SM as THE authority on all things Scouting.

 

Having said all that, the issue is what can be done to best help the Scout become a better person and citizen.   The Scout might get a lot of value out of deciding on the "what."

Edited April 9, 2016 by TAHAWK

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

I reckon it's hard to figure out what's goin' on with only the information from a parent who's gettin' a bit caught up in da drama of his lad's advancement.   Like everyone else I can't figure out whether da committee set (and is just adherein' to) reasonable participation expectations, or whether it's the SM, or it's other parents gettin' annoyed with a family that is playin' a bit fast and loose with da expectations and this is their effort to reign that in a bit.

 

Scout Spirit like all of da requirements can be signed off by whomever the SM designates.   He can designate the SPL; he can also designate the Advancement Chair or the Troop Committee.   In some ways, havin' a lad's patrol vote on signing off on Scout Spirit might make for a really nice lesson.  So might havin' the troop committee with the parents of all the other boys the scout has interacted with.

 

Best to remember the goals here.  We want the boys to learn to care about each other, to be loyal to the program, to learn dedication and commitment.  Sounds like some of the adults in the boy's life think that he still needs some help with those lessons.   As parents we all know our son is perfect and has nothin' to learn, but at times I reckon that's not a hill to die on.   What's one more campout in the life of a young lad?   Just another opportunity to lead and have some fun!

[TAHAWK]

All is well. Da' Beav is back. ^___^

[MattR]

Yah, hmmmm....

I recognize that accent.

 

Welcome back.

[Sentinel947]

BEAVAH!!!!! Where the heck have you been???