By-laws

[OldGreyEagle]

::voice from the Gallery::

 

You Go Girl!

 

 

Show up in full uniform nothing more intimidating that someone in a full uniform talking the truth. Bring along the Scout Handbook, Scoutmasters Handbook and Advancement COmmittee publication and speak in soft measured tones. If the conversation starts to get loud, speak softer, she will have to tone down to hear you. Stay on the BSA side of written things and see what happens

[Bob White]

yeah just what he said "You Go Girl!"

[FScouter]

OGE has good advice.

 

One approach would be to ask what problems does the troop have that are not addressed in the BSA resources. If there is a problem with troop merit badge counselors, deal with that issue and if a by-law is the best way to solve that problem then write one. Ask, "Who is the counselor that is not being objective and certifying completion of MB requirements that have not been done?" Ask "What evidence do we have of this allegation?" Ask "Have we discussed the problem with him?" If he has continued to be a poor counselor, has the committee advised the district merit badge dean that one of the approved counselors is doing a poor job? Ask "Is there any reason why we should not pursue having him removed as a counselor and solve the problem that way."

 

I'd guess that no one will want to point a finger, and if they won't, then it must not be much of a problem.

 

I would question if a by-law would be respected and followed if the BSA policies are not being respected and followed? If there are adults that refuse to follow the BSA policies found in the BSA resources, the problem will not be solved by writing a by-law. The problem is the adult.

 

One other thing. Committee job descriptions suggested by BSA can be found in the Troop Committee Guidebook

[ScoutMomAng]

Well, today I decided to make some phone calls to some district people to see if they could put their hands on a copy of BSA policy or rules and guidelines and they are working on it for me. However, I also found out that the district knows of the situation at hand and sees nothing wrong as to what happened and said it is for the troop to figure it out, which I guess is why we all of a sudden need new "by-laws". I told the guy I spoke to what I thought about by-laws even though I know the troop he is involved with has by-laws and he said agreed with me that if we are following BSA than we don't need by-laws. The things that are in their by-laws are things like a parent can be a merit badge counselor to his own son as long as he has at least 2 other boys participating because they have several sets of twins in their troop but...

 

I told him I feel like a lot of people in the troop have a grudge against one particular guy and thats all this is and if that is the case then some of the adults in this troop need to take a step back and look at what they are doing because now it doesn't seem like its for the boys but a vendetta (sp) against one or two people.

 

I guess I will be the squeeky wheel and you all know what they say about the squeeky wheel!!!!

 

Thanks for the advice! I will get my own set of Scoutmaster books, merit badge book, scout handbook and Advancement committee publication and go to that meeting well prepared. As a regular committee member I should have a uniform??? Hmmm...should I just switch the tabs from cub scout to boy scout and just go with the shirt I have or should I get a second one??? Maybe I should just get a second one! Might be easier in the long run!

[eisely]

I count myself among those who believe that written policies or by-laws, whatever you may wish to call them, are desirable. They need to be simple and short. There are grey areas that BSA does not define and leaves up to units to work out. When there is a controversy, it is a little late to work things out that should have been worked out in advance.

 

My most notable example is the leadership position requirement for Star, Life and Eagle. These rank requirements all use the same language, i.e. that a boy "actively serve" in one or more of a specified set of positions of responsibility (POR) for a specified period of time. The problem is that the notion of "actively serve" is not defined. Does this mean that a boy who is elected or appointed to a position should get full credit and get his ticket punched on the trail to eagle if he never shows up or does anything at all in his position? Is that all that is required? As an aside, the boy is not required to be particularly effective or successful in his POR, just that he "actively serve". This is one of those areas where a unit is well advised to set some written expectations so that all can be fairly and consistently judged.

 

If BW or anybody else can show me some guidance from BSA in a BSA resource, I would really like to see it.

[Bob White]

Not a problem, how about page 172 of the Boy Scout Handbook for starters. Then there is the leadership job descriptions in the Troop Junior Leader Training program and the job specific counseling outlines in the "Introduction to Leadership Conferences" in the same manual.

 

 

[evmori]

I have asked a question twice & I don't want to ask it again cause Hunt will yell at me! I guess since my question isn't dealt with it is an acceptable by-law.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

I continue to think that the worst vice of by-laws is the really large number of wrong ones. But as you discovered, that vice can be just as bad--if not worse--if the by-law is an unwritten one. You're going to have to tease out all the bad rules over time, whereas if they were all written down, you could go after them all at once.

 

I think Eisely's example is something that often causes people to move to by-laws. Nobody thinks about it until a boy shows up for a rank BOR, and the adult leaders don't really feel that he "actively served" in his POR. But he was never told in specific terms what would qualify as "actively serve" and what would not. I don't have the references that Bob mentioned here, but in previous discussions of this I believe he has advocated the idea that the SM needs to go over what are the responsibilities of the POR when it is assumed by the Scout, and then that this understanding will constitute the criteria for whether he "actively served" or not. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So I suppose you could write a by-law that says, "When a position of responsibility is accepted, the SM will discuss with the scout what the responsibilities of the position are, and what will constitute active service in the position" and then cite the materials Bob has mentioned. But that bylaw isn't really for the scouts--it's more to remind the SM that he needs to have the conversation. So is it necessary? I don't know.

One thought--if you are going to have by-laws, maybe having a citation to the relevant BSA rule, regulation, requirement, GTSS, or other document would help avoid problems.

[Bob White]

Why not just train the CC and CR in their responsibility to select quality leaders and see they are trained in the scouting program?

 

If you use the bylaws to simply repeat the scouting program you could just take the covers of the Scout handbooks and make new covers that say "Troop Bylaws".

 

If you expect people to read the bylaws why can't you expect them to read a scout manual?

[FScouter]

I look at by-laws as the lazy man's attempt to fix problems in the troop.

 

As Hunt pointed out, the board of review is not the time to figure out that a boy has not fulfilled the responsibilities of his leadership position. If the Scoutmaster has not taught the boy what the responsibilities are, and has not followed up to ensure the job is being done, and has let it all slide week after week after month, into the board of review, how will a by-law fix that problem?

 

The SM already has the Scoutmaster Handbook, the Troop Junior Leader Training Kit, and he has completed training. If he does not use these tools, and fails to fulfill his responsibilities as the Scoutmaster, how will a by-law fix that?

 

The problem is the leader, not the lack of a by-law.

[eisely]

BW,

 

I have to admit that I have never been involved in JLT and do not have that material readily at hand. If it provides a better answer, I will concede the point.

 

P. 172 of the handbook talks about PORs briefly but does not provide a definition of "actively serve".

 

As others have pointed out, if the SM is doing his/her job in providing guidance to scouts when they accept a POR, then perhaps a written standard would not be necessary. Certainly this cannot be resolved fairly at the BOR level. If a boy has not "actively served", as measured against some agreed standard, then the boy should not be passed on to the BOR by the SM. In lieu of written standards, I would not have too much difficulty with the idea of a SM arriving at an agreement with a scout when he accepts a position and noting those terms in a diary or log of some sort. However, this runs against the goal of "consistency" which is one of the words used in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual.

[Hunt]

"If you expect people to read the bylaws why can't you expect them to read a scout manual?"

 

If this were a matter of "a" manual, then I would agree with you. But on various issues we've discussed, many of them relevant to scouts and scouters in different roles, the answers can be found in the Scout Handbook, the Guide to Safe Scouting, the Advancement Committee Manual, the Requirements Book, or even specialized training material. I submit that the decentralized nature of all this stuff may be one reason why so many people have so many misconceptions.

This is why I've come around to thinking that it would be useful to have a FAQ, ideally an official BSA one. If anyone doesn't know, a FAQ is a "frequently asked questions" document which sorts information in a question and answer format. Rather than being a set of rules, it is rather a resource to help people find helpful information more easily.

I suppose a troop could create a FAQ, and I repeat my suggestion that if it did so, it would be preferable to include references to the authoritative BSA document, if there is one.

Maybe this would also answer Ed's question, since you wouldn't need a "by-law" on routine matters, just an answer to a question.

Examples:

Q: When does the troop meet?

A: Thursdays from 7:15 until 9:00.

 

Q: Can scouts play paintball?

A: No. See Guide to Safe Scouting, ___.

 

Q: Can a parent serve as a Merit Badge Counselor for his own son?

A: Yes. See Advancement Committee Manual, p. __.

 

 

Also, putting together a FAQ can be therapeutic, because it can identify questions that aren't adequately answered in existing written materials.

Example:

Q: Who chooses the Merit Badge Counselor?

A: I think the answer should be "The scout, with the assistance of the Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster will identify adults who are authorized to counsel the merit badge, and then the scout contacts a counselor, etc." But there is disagreement about that, and the documents I've seen aren't clear enough. BSA could clear that up in a FAQ.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

If you mean a reference sheet, with applicable BSA publications cited, I could see that for general public use. It would have to be reviewed annually to be updated, but I can see the value in it.

[evmori]

eisley & Hunt both have valid points.

 

Serve actively is not defined in any BSA publication I know of. So having something in writing at the Troop level would help eliminate any confusion.

 

I love the idea of a FAQ section on the National web site AND on each Council site AND maybe even at the District level. As long as it's current & accurate!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter]

I'm not convinced that "serve actively" needs to be formally defined. Any Scoutmaster worth his salt know whether a boy is actively serving in his position of responsibility. The boy too knows in his heart whether he is serving, and how actively he is doing so.

 

Writing a formal definition would include necessarily include metrics like hours per week, or meetings attended, or jobs completed, or issues resolved, or progress made. That then requires some kind of record keeping system to keep track of the evidences supporting the definition. I see this as a bookeeping nightmare and a source of further discussion or arguing about whether the formal requirements in the definition have been properly met.

 

If the boy is in the gray area of "active", hows about the Scoutmaster meeting with him to talk about it and agree between themselves whether he has been actively serving?