Webelos scout with issues

[inthewoods]

As the Webelos Den starts to visit the Boy Scout Troops, it makes me wonder about a specific scout with some issues. Some of the issues. Many of these issue have a malicious intent in getting other scouts in trouble. I used to think that it was an unknowing innocence, but many of the other leaders in the Pack side more on the malicious side. It has made it hard for anyone to want to be around this scout (leaders and other scouts). Should prospective scoutmasters be told about such issues? Or should they find out on their own? I want the best for all scouts, but I think this scout should have a eye on him to prevent more issues.

[SSScout]

What are you to this boy? Cub master? Web Den Leader? Concerned other parent? How have YOU dealt with the Scout's behavior? Does he need an "escort" during activities? What exactly have YOU observed? Is the behavior truly "malicious" or merely "mischievous"? A boy might enjoy seeing another get the blame for something, but what does that indicate? What do you know about the family dynamics? Have you spoken to the boy's parents about your concern?

"It has made it hard for anyone to want to be around this Scout". Maybe that is a problem to deal with. It sounds a little like this Scout NEEDS to have some good people "around him".

[CA_Scouter]

I would submit that its not just the scout that has issues, but the parent(s) as well. Echoing SSScout to some degree, how have the parent(s) been involved with these issues and how the pack has dealt with them? If no involvement, then there is your main issue and the Scoutmaster should be told. If there is involvement then that's a good sign and again the Scoutmaster should be brought into the loop so there is continuity with the parent(s).

 

re: "A boy might enjoy seeing another get the blame for something, but what does that indicate?" Ding! Ding! Ding! Red Flag! Trouble on the horizen, 'shields up, Scotty!' That's what it indicates. I had one of those kids.. I told him that I was going to hold him responsible for his actions and that I expected good behavior from him... then he hit another scout, that scout hit him back, and he came to me complaining about being hit back. I told him because he instigated the action that he was responsible for the response. He had a fit, called Mama to pick him up and quit 2 weeks later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eagle90]

AS a SM, I normally sit down with the Webelos 2 leaders a few months before crossover and get their evaluation on the boys who will be crossing over. Who gets along with who, which ones are "mortal enemies", who should and should not be in the same patrol, who has family issues that need to be dealt with, any medical issues we need to know about, etc. It can ward off potential problems in advance. BE PREPARED!

 

 

[BadenP]

inthewoods,

 

Medical conditions aside a problem scout is not all that rare, in my experience many times it is due to either parents who do not believe in discipline or just do not care and have not given the boy enough attention at home. Getting into trouble is the way this boy is crying out for any kind of attention. During the time I was a Webelos leader I had two such cases and in both of them I helped the boys learn how to refocus that energy into positive interaction with other scouts resulting in them getting positive feedback and more friends in the process. The parents of both of these boys were about as uninvolved in their lives as they could be without being charged with neglect. The sad part was both boys parents commented to me how much better behaved they noticed their boys were at home lately and that scouting was what they needed, in other words they were clueless. I politely suggested to both sets of parents that they might also consider becoming more involved with their sons scouting experience to help reinforce this positive change.

 

Years later I was invited to both boys Eagle Court of Honor and was asked to present the Eagle Award at both ceremonies. Sometimes all it takes is giving a little attention and focus to the boy, and direction to the parents.

 

(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[Beavah]

Should prospective scoutmasters be told about such issues? Or should they find out on their own?

 

Hi inthewoods, welcome to da Forums!

 

I think yeh know the answer to this, eh? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

I think a scoutmaster deserves to know so that he or she can prepare to provide the right kind of support for all the boys. Might make a difference in the Troop Guide assignment (assigning a second TG, even), which affects other boys' scouting and advancement and such.

 

I've never seen a scoutmaster who was alerted to such an issue hold any special prejudice against a lad. If it turns out that the boy is just fine now that he's away from cub scouts and cub parents, that will be obvious to any boy scout adult. But if da issues continue in Boy Scouting, it's good to have a plan in advance.

 

Beavah

 

[ntrog8r]

If I were the SM, I'd want to know about all the new Scouts. HOW you pass this on is important but I definitely pass on the facts about the Scouts joining the troop.

[Eagle92]

I would not only inform the SM, but also the SPL as the YOUTH is in charge of the troop.

 

Better still would be to have a Webelos Den Chief who has worked with the "challenging" scout, and give his own recommendatiosn to teh SPL and SM.

[inthewoods]

Thanks for all of the responses. I am the cubmaster. I attend most of the Pack functions. The parents are involved, but not at everything. Since Webelos don't have to have parents at each function, it seems like the parents like to drop him off. This scout is on medication, but we could only guess what it is for since we have not been made aware of what they are for. At first I was thinking that many of the issues are related to the reason for medication, but many of the other leaders are convinced that the actions are beyond that and to a malicious level. It almost appears that the medication has become a crutch and an excuse for the actions. Most of the boys would prefer not to go on an outing than to share the experience with this boy. He really needs to have someone watching over him to prevent problems.

 

I didn't want to make it look like I was trying to discourage a troop from accepting this scout.

 

 

[Greaves]

"This scout is on medication, but we could only guess what it is for since we have not been made aware of what they are for. "

 

Don't you have a health form on this boy? The "medication" block says, "reason for medication." (Am I suggesting an inappropriate use of health information? It just seems common-sensical to me. Before I took my den to Webelos Resident Camp, I reviewed the forms so I knew for whom I was being responsible.)

[inthewoods]

A health form would be nice, but the Mom conventiently comes to the camp registration to turn in the form directly to the camp nurse. I don't have a copy of his original health form from when he signed up in our Pack and the Mom hasn't turned in an updated form. With just a few months to go in Cub Scouts for the boy, I am not going to worry about getting an update.

 

 

[CubsRgr8]

"With just a few months to go in Cub Scouts for the boy, I am not going to worry about getting an update."

 

Then I sure hope you don't have any more activities off-site from your regular pack meeting and/or webelos den meeting locations. Pack and Den leadership are putting the Chartering Organization and themselves - personally - at risk if there is not a current medical form on file, as I'm pretty darn sure possession is a BSA liability insurance requirement. Evasive mom (and that's how she comes across in your post) can provide it in a sealed envelope, to only be opened in case of an emergency, but she is supposed to provide one.

 

Back to your original question, YES! Brief the scoutmaster of the troop he chooses, but not until after he actually tenders an application (and a current health form).

[Oak Tree]

CubsRgr8, I will follow the advice that we give out frequently on this forum. Can you show me in writing where that statement comes from? I'm inclined to disbelieve that "possession is a BSA liability insurance requirement."

[Eagle92]

While it says nothing about insurance, the new healthform that is mandatory effective 1 January 2010 found here

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34605_Letter.pdf

 

states the following

 

Parts A and C are to be completed annually by all BSA unit members. Both parts are required for all events that do not exceed 72 consecutive hours, where the level of activity is similar to that normally expended at home or at school, such as day camp, day hikes, swimming parties, or an overnight camp, and where medical care is readily available. Medical information required includes a current health history and list of medications. Part C also includes the parental informed consent and hold harmless/release agreement (with an area for notarization if

required by your state) as well as a talent release statement. Adult unit leaders should review participants health histories and become knowledgeable about the medical needs of the youth members in their unit. This form is to be filled out by participants and parents or guardians and kept on file for easy reference.

 

What I just noticed is the phrase Both parts are required for all events that do not exceed 72 consecutive hours, where the level of activity is similar to that normally expended at home or at school... That ALL EVENTS could be interpreted to also mean Pack Meetings, even though the examples given are activities.

 

(This message has been edited by eagle92)

[Oak Tree]

To follow up on the insurance question:

 

From the Guide to Safe Scouting

Accident and sickness insurance pays regardless of fault as long as the accident occurred during an official Scouting activity From the BSA (lots of different council websites have identical terminology):This coverage provides primary general liability coverage for registered volunteer Scouters with respect to claims arising out of an official Scouting activity with the exception that the coverage is excess over any insurance which may be available to the volunteer for loss arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle or watercraft.

...

There is no coverage for those who commit intentional or criminal acts.I looked up intentional acts in a law dictionary. I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like this is referring to intentional torts, where a tort "is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages."

 

It went on to define intentional torts with lots of paragraphs, including:The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called willful and wanton behavior, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.I start to feel like the loss of liability insurance is the boogeyman that some people in Scouting use to try to get other people to do the "right" thing. (CubsRgr8, I'm not saying this is you. I'm guessing someone told you this.)

 

"Jimmy, eat your vegetables. If you don't, the dreaded boogeyman will get you."

"Bob, collect your health forms. If you don't, the dreaded loss-of-insurance clause will get you."

 

I've asked here before, and no one has ever been able to point out a time that someone lost their BSA insurance, but the threat of losing it comes up with significant frequency.