What constitutes an "outing" and who decides?

[scoutmom5]

At a recent committee meeting our Committee Chair stated that he though the scouts should attend 60% of the camp outs in order to advance. I replied that "outings" shouldn't be strapped only to monthly camp outs. I would hope that each individual boy is considered when he is reviewed for his activities. Has he helped out with eagle projects, helped with the Church clean up, demonstrated helpfullness with the young ones...etc. Between Sep and Feb it seems the older boys fall out a little due to School activities. I do think that the boys should attend the camp outs don't get me wrong, that is very important to scouting (yes yes I've heard the term without outing there is no scouting)Then the CC went on to say that summer camp should not count as an outing. WHY??I asked. "because everyone wants to go to summercamp it's fun"

Please help me Lord. Aren't all the camp outs fun? My boys live for the monthly camp out. As a parent footing some of the bill for these outings, I would like for summer camp to count. I can't for the life of me figure out his reasoning, so I've come to you the very experienced, wise and diverse group here at the scouter forums. Maybe it's something I'm not getting. Or is it that this CC wants complete control?? Doesn't the scoutmaster have some say?

Thanks for all the advice in advance.

 

[gwd-scouter]

Scoutmom:

 

Others on this forum have far more experience than I, but I say without hesitation that an outing is an outing is an outing. Doesn't matter if it's summer camp, weekend camp, or a day trip to go hiking (or swimming, or fishing, or bowling, or service projects, or putt-putt, etc. etc.).

 

At least that's how it is in our Troop.

 

 

[FScouter]

Rank requirements are printed in the boys handbook. Irregardless of how outing is defined, and irregardless of whether 60% is a good number, adults are not authorized to add additional requirements.

[EagleDadx3]

First of all, I can understand that the Committee Chair wants to promote outings and camping. These are essential parts of Scouting. However, not all boys are campers; there needs to be a place for them in the troop also.

Even the Committee Chair can't impose requirements for advancement that are not already in place. He may be saying that campouts are required to show Scout Spirit which is required for advancement.

In our troop, the boys implemented a rule that said Scouts must attend 2/3 of the weekend campouts in order to attend Summer Camp.

As for your other questions:

Or is it that this CC wants complete control??

Yes, and hes out of control. Reel him in.

Doesn't the scoutmaster have some say?

Yes, and so does the rest of the committee.

[Trevorum]

FS is right: neither the CC nor the SM nor the CO has the authority to modify any advancement requirements. They are what is printed, period. The only grey area is the SM's assessment of "Scout Spirit", which from what I can tell, varies tremendously from troop to troop.

 

(The CO can set unit membership requirements which are stricter than the BSA national requirements)

[Hunt]

Perhaps a diplomatic way of explaining this to the CC is that the Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement. The SM authorizes who can sign off on requirements.

For Second Class and First Class, there is a requirement to participate in a certain number of troop/patrol activities. Obviously, summer camp is an activity. The requirements say how many of the activities must be campouts.

More likely, what is going on here is the CC's desire to set a rule for what constitutes "active" for purposes of Star, Life, and Eagle rank. There's a thread about this on the Advancement board. You will find that there is some difference of opinion here on whether a unit can or should set an attendance rule. However, I'd be surprised if most people--even if they have a rule--would think that summer camp or other non-camping outings don't count.

[SemperParatus]

60% ?!?!

 

Nothing like setting such high expectations. Doesn't that equate to a D- in school? I am glad it is just his thought and opinion, and not a component of the BSA advancement policies or a decision by the troop. Your CC sounds like the type that has difficulty with flexibility and needs bright line tests.

 

 

[Lisabob]

I can't see how the CC can pull this off, or why he'd want to, scoutmom. If attendance at campouts is a real issue, the better approach would be to ask why. Maybe the program isn't very exciting or there aren't enough new experiences for returning scouts, or they're too challenging for the newer scouts, or something else is lacking. In that case, setting a mandatory attendance policy won't fix the problem and it'll probably just accelerate the drop out rate.

 

I can also imagine you'd get some boys who would still attend because they feel they have to for advancement, rather than because they want to go on a particular campout. Boy, aren't they going to be fun to have around? Nothing worse than a group of sullen pre-teen/teen boys who feel they've been coerced into something they don't want to do. I'd hate to be the adult leader, let alone the SPL or PL, in charge of them.

 

As for his summer camp argument, that's just nuts. Remind him that scouting is all about "fun with a purpose." In his opinion, does knowledge require suffering?

 

This is all quite aside from the fact that he can't add advancement requirements and it certainly seems he's trying to. If he has been trained he should know better. If he hasn't been trained (or was, but in the days before electricity), that's a separate issue. Help him sign up for the nearest training session and/or get him to roundtable for a refresher in "best practices."

 

 

Lisa'bob

A good old bobwhite too!

[anarchist]

Scoutmom, lisabob, and all,

The scoutmaster has a lot to say about the program as should the scouts...but,

as was said in one of the posts...the CO owns the troop and can have tougher membership requirements than the BSA. The CC "works for, and at the pleasure of the CO...as does the SM...they do not work (technically) for the scouts nor the parents (though thats why we do this)...if the CO agrees with the policy (or made the policy)...guess what...thats the policy...

 

On "outings"...they are activities in this case it sounds like camping(?), so helping with younger kids is not "outings"...that should be easy to understand. Helping...may be considered in other advancement requirements (teaching younger scouts) but not as an "outing"...activity...

 

Summercamp:

funny, I don't hear anyone saying the BSA Camping Merit Badge which restricts the use (counting) of summercamp nights for total number of "camping nights" credit is crazy or not right? This type of "Policy" is designed by the Co(?)and/or troop committee to meet the needs and desires of the CO's program...(at least one would hope so)

 

So for laughs, lets assume the CO wants the scouts in IT'S UNIT to be really active...therefore, they can set the policy for troop membership and level of activity whereever they like...no? yes? Is that unreasonable? It is their troop isn't it? No one forces any of us to join a particular troop, do they? So if you think its nutz...find a new troop or work within the existing framework for change...but don't be surprised if you get static.

 

All that said, in our troop we have a written troop policy of 50 % meetings and 50% "outings" for advancement consideration(we call them activities and events) If they (outings activities, events) are on the PLC calendar they are counted...and Summercamp is counted...as 1 activity (not two or three or five or six...just 1). If a scout wants to do less than 50% thats great but he should not look towards advancement...(one of my sons found "this" a perfect fit-for a while, he loved to camp but not to "work" and "advancement" was not his thing...other son "Eagled" this summer and is now an ASM).

 

If a scout is big in football (Soccer/band whatever) and has missed the last five camps for "sports, etc."... that's ok...but he will not get a SM conference for rank until he makes it to 50%...so it's not really a big issue...and if it would someday become an issue with a scout or his family...the CO (a church in this instance)showed the committee the location of all the doors in the scout area...just so we knew where they were...does that sound harsh? I don't think so...We give each scout and parent an orientation or three, a troop policy handbook and a good Q&A session...we do not sugar-coat things and it has certainly cost us some membership in the recent past but we have grown over the years from 15/20 scouts and are currently at 58 boys and seem to be doing well.

 

And no, lisabob, not all campouts are fun in some troops...some of them are work and some of them require intestinal fortitude and after a few years some of them can be down right boring to the older boys who "have done it all" for four or five years...Sometimes it's the troop leadership's fault (program failure)and some times the boys are just going through the motions to last long enough to get to Eagle...

 

And lets face it, a cold, wet camp is nowhere near as exciting as cruzing the local strip with Cindy-lu in the shotgun seat...staying home looks awfully good from a 16-17-18 year-olds perspective...which is great, (trust me, it is!) but if "it" becomes an issue the scout shouldn't expect the troop to advance him...just for being registered...In the end the CO determines the policy for membership in their unit...where is the problem in that logic? (or should I say let the howling begin?)

anarchist

[FScouter]

BSA grants charters to organizations that agree to use the BSA program in accordance with the policies of BSA, as well as those of the organization. If a CO wants to set an a minimum attendance policy for a boy to remain a member, that does not conflict with BSA policy. However, there is no support for a policy that would add an attendance requirement on top of BSA rank requirements. No one, either adult leaders or the CO, may add, modify, or delete BSA rank requirements.

 

If boys choose activities other than Scouts, it is because "other activities" have more value to them. An attendance "law" passed by adults does not make Scout activities more attractive.

[Lisabob]

Well anarchist, I guess we disagree.

 

No, not all campouts are going to be a lark. But your comparison (joy riding with Cindy Lu?) is hardly fair. One can work hard, even struggle with something, and still enjoy it. Even if it is difficult at the time, one can still see the value in it at the end of the day. And we are talking about boys here, who are attending these events primarily because they choose to - most are not forced and those who are (by parents, etc.) usually don't get much out of it anyway. And then, if your older boys are downright bored at very many campouts, I suspect many of them will drop out of your program. Service to others (including younger scouts on campouts you've been through before) is important but so is maintaining interest among all your members.

 

So with due respect, yes I do think there needs to be a certain amount of enjoyment in the program if anybody expects the boys to continue in it. That doesn't mean no work, no growth, no learning.

 

As for setting advancement requirements, nowhere that I can find in the boyscout handbook does it say one must participate in x% of a troop's activities in order to advance. If you would like to show us all where it does say that, please do. Otherwise, it seems to me any such policy is equivalent to adding to rank advancement requirements.

 

And then the camping merit badge - here's what I found for requirement 9:

 

"Show experience in camping by doing the following:

Camp a total of at least 20 days and nights. You may use a week of long-term camp toward this requirement. Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched (long-term camp excluded). "

 

Now this may be interpreted in a couple ways I guess, but it does clearly say a week of long-term camp counts. My interpretation of the above would be you need to sleep in a tent outside for all of the days excluding those you spend at your week of long-term camp. Yours might be different, I don't know. I'm not a MB counselor for this badge but I know the people in my son's troop who are DO count summer camp.

 

Lisa'bob

A good old bobwhite too!

 

 

[evmori]

If a CO sets a minimum attendance policy for membership it DOES effect advancement therefore adding to the requirements. You can't advance if your not a member.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[RedHonorScout]

Since when does ANYONE trump, modify, or amend requirements for advancement?

 

Ever hear of the Lone Scout program, Scouts with Handicaps, etc. The B.S.A. sets guidelines for advancement and for special circumstances, not individual SM's or Troop committees.

 

NO ONE should take any stance to enhance requirements to fit their own machismo or group whims. Then we would have chaos. Thus the reason why some troops have better retention numbers than others. I would love to know the retention % for this troop?

[pargolf44067]

Our troop has a policy regarding attendance at meetings (not necessarily outings). If a scout misses more than 4 meetings in a row (without letting someone know the reason, thus, exempting people in sports/band), he becomes a "delinquent" scout. If the scout then returns, he must have a conference with the SM to discuss his continued committment to scouting. We have a boy in the troop who didn't show up all summer, suddenly at the end of the summer he showed up to a meeting, saying his dad promised him a car if he made Eagle Scout. He then didn't come to any meetings until this week's meeting (he plays football) which he showed up for not in uniform and left after a half an hour.

 

He only want to be Eagle for the car, and he certainly hasn't showed any "Scout Spirit" by his actions to date. If I am a younger scout and this boy makes Eagle, I would think that I could get away with doing little to nothing around the troop and still make Eagle. IMO, an Eagle like that truly devalues the Eagle Scout rank. I think this is a good reason to have some "attendance" policy.

[Kahuna]

It's just wrong to say that changing membership requirements changes advancement requirements. Everything affects advancement if you look at it that way. Nothing wrong with attendance requirements. If you have a full troop and kids waiting to get in, you should have attendance requirements. Personally, I wouldn't set a 60% or any specific requirement for advancement, but I would want the BOR to know if a Scout hadn't been much in attendance for any or all types of activities. There is a participation requirement.

 

BTW, I will mention one more time that the SM works for the Committee, not for the CO. The CO can say who can't be SM by refusing to approve the application, but it's up to the committee to say who he/she will be. I'm always surprised there is so much confusion on this point.