Committee Meetings Open?

[markrvp]

I am an ASM in my son's troop. As an adult leader, I am not on the troop committee, however all parents and adult leaders have been invited to committee meetings in the past. The last meeting, however, was held with no notice to anyone but committee members. I found out that at that meeting some items were discussed of which I am the only member in the troop with actual knowledge of those issues. I asked the committee chair why parents and adult leaders weren't invited to the meeting and his response was,

 

"I am not aware that I am required to invite all of the uniformed leaders, if you can find a requirement in BSA policy for that, feel free to quote it."

 

So my question to the members of this forum is: Is there any official BSA policy as to whether or not committee meetings have to be open to anyone other than registered adults on the committee?

[dg98adams]

I don't have a Committee handbook, and I could not find a good reference online, but I would tend to agree the CC is not required to invite other positions in the Troop other than the SM (non-voting member).

 

You could start a feud with:

 

"I am not aware that Committee meetings are closed to all of the uniformed leaders and parents not on the Committee, if you can find a requirement in BSA policy for that, feel free to quote it."

 

[Frank17]

I do not know what the actual rule is, but our comittee has been traditionally open to all parents, ASMs, and other volunteers. As the SM, if this were not the case, they would have my immediate resignation, as operating in secrecy is a pet-peeve of mine. The only people who may not attend are the scouts themselves.(This message has been edited by frank17)

[bacchus]

We put most of the parents on the Committee. Issue resolved?

[sandspur]

He may not be required to invite anyone other than committee members, but is there a reason not disclosed that he did not do so?

 

Since that was past practice, I am left to wonder if this was just an oversight (unlikely if the above quote was his response) or if a sensitive discussion was held and the committee did not want certain folks there.

 

[emb021]

Ideally, the committee meetings should be open.

 

But people need to keep in mind that the only ones who should be talking/discussing stuff are the members of the committee. Any non-committee members there are there either to just observe or to provide information. (same thing is done by most groups, including those within the BSA like LEC and Council of Chiefs meetings)

 

If the committee feels they need to discuss something in private, the proper way would be to go into 'executive session' for that discussion, which means that any non-members need to leave the meeting room. Once this is done, executive session should end and everyone can come back it.

[Beavah]

Nah, there's no requirement that the committee meetings be open, unless the CO imposes one.

 

I'm not hugely fond of "wide open" committee meetings, because unless yeh have a strong CC they tend to become gripe sessions for individual parent complaints about this, that, or the other thing.

 

Generally speakin', the SM should be invited, and should represent the views of the youth and adult leaders. Generally speakin', there are a few parents on the committee who represent that perspective. Beyond that, being open doesn't get yeh too much. It's fine being open in a small troop with parents that all share in the vision; it can be a nightmare in a large troop with parents who have different notions of how they want things to run.

 

Sometimes, like when considering a disciplinary action for a scout or a parent or an adult leader, or when allocating camperships or such, it is proper for the meeting to be firmly closed to protect da confidentiality and privacy of the persons involved.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

>>We put most of the parents on the Committee. Issue resolved?

[Nike]

Was a disciplinary issue discussed? A financial issue? A problem parent or situation? Have you previously spoken to the SM or CC about it? There's a difference between being the only guy in the room who can explain rocket science and being the only guy in the room who knows exactly why and how the rocket engines were used to set the picnic shelter on fire.

 

Is this the hill you really want to die on?

[markrvp]

Thanks for your input everybody. I have it on good authority that the CC was trying to prevent one particular problem parent from attending the meeting and raising issues from the past. If he had told me that instead of the arrogant response he made I would have completely understood.

 

My concern is that my son was singled out for discussion in that meeting. In the past 3 months my son has earned 9 merit badges. Of those 9 badges, I was the counselor for two of them, Photography and Cinematography. In both cases, I am the only registered counselor in our immediate area. I ran a television station for 8 years and I am currently a professional photographer... My son will tell you that he got more than he bargained for taking those two merit badges, as I made sure he knew the material front to back and back to front. There is a mother on our committee who's sons have been in scouts for over 2 years and have only earned 5 merit badges each, all from summer camp and merit badge college. No one will tell me exactly what she said, but she at least brought up the question of the legitimacy of my son earning those badges. So, in knee-jerk response, the committee passed these "rules"

 

1.) No parent can counsel their son for a merit badge unless it is in a group situation.

2.) A merit badge counselor may counsel no more than 7 merit badges.

 

These "rules" are in direct violation of the merit badge counselor guidelines in the Advancement Committee Guide Policies and Procedures (No. 33088).

 

My son has worked really hard as his goal is to earn 100 merit badges before he's 18 (he's 13 now). He may or may not actually do that, but at least he has a goal and a plan. The parents of the "slacker scouts" are standing in his way and it is frustrating to say the least. He's a First Class Scout who will be eligible for Star in 2 weeks, but the committee is not in any hurry to schedule a board of review for my son, nor the other two scouts who are also ready to advance.

 

As an assistant scoutmaster, I have been an advocate for the scouts when their requests to the SM and CC are ignored. This has made me unpopular with the SM and CC who I feel are too busy with their real life jobs to make time for Scoutmaster Conferences and Board of Reviews. I've been labeled a "pushy parent."

[dg98adams]

3 ways to take that ruling:

 

Ask for clarification what determines a "group", could be 2+ scouts? Abide by the 7 MB for the Troop. Keep on Scouting - The Troop does not manage Merit Badge Councilor approval (moot point).

 

Submit in writing to CC & COR the BSA policy on why those 2 rulings are conflicting with BSA policy. Wait for the clash.... it will come.

 

Too many troops out there to fight a despotic CC/Comm. Find a new Troop.

[Beavah]

Oh, enough with the comments about "despots" and finding a new troop and such!

 

What markrvp describes is pretty common policy across units and councils nationwide. I know a fair number of councils that won't register MBCs for more than 5 or 7 MBs. I disagree with it, but it's their prerogative.

 

I'd venture to say that most troops at least frown on parents as MBCs for their own sons, and quite a few don't allow it if there's an available alternative. Remember, it's da SM who approves the lad to take the badge and assigns the counselor, eh? So it's definitely an OK policy to implement in that way. Now in this case, if markrvp is really da only or the best counselor for those two things in his (presumably small) town, then of course his boy should take the badge from him, and I reckon he'll be like many parents and be stricter than usual.

 

But we've all seen some go da other way, eh? Where the parent wasn't really an expert in the badge, and was more lenient than usual. It's best to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and encourage the lads to get the full benefit of adult association with (non-parent) counselors as much as possible.

 

None of that even comes close to "despots" and dumping the troop.

 

Beavah

 

[Bando]

Our committee meetings are open to whoever wants to come, we usually get about 30ish people who show up (there's ~80 registered scouters in our troop, our membership is around 125 youth). We have a few former scoutmasters who show up and generally don't say much, our SPL comes, and we have very good meetings with a lot of great discussion. No real problems, no real griping, no clashes, and everybody goes home happy. It hasn't always been that way, but that's how it is now. We don't have random parents who come and complain their kid isn't getting enough of this or that or the other thing, either.

[John-in-KC]

The only time I held closed meetings when I was a CC was when I convened an executive session of the SM, the IH, the COR, and myself: Why, you ask? We were talking MONEY, in particular, how to get a couple kids to camp who'd otherwise not go to camp.

 

As far as I can see, the meeting has to be incredibly personal in nature to close the doors completely to an executive session.

 

(This message has been edited by john-in-kc)

[Twocubdad]

I don't think there is anything wrong with rules the troop developed, although I would make an exception for parents/counselors and their sons when the parent is the only counselor for a particular badge. I don't have my copy handy, but I don't think the ACPG specifically prohibits the restrictions the troop is imposing.

 

I'm okay with the limit on the number of MBs one person can counsel. When we joined the troop there was one lady who counseled every MB except Camping. There were a couple Eagles who never earned a merit badge form anyone but this lady and at summer camp. That defeats one of the main purposes of the MB program: getting boys out of their comfort zone by calling an adult, making and keeping appointments and assignments.

 

I would ask myself if the real problems is a papa bear response to your boy being singled out. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've been know to get down right grizzly from time to time myself.

 

But it is necessary for the leaders to discuss specific situations -- and individual scouts -- from time to time in order to improve the troop program. If the committee had concerns about the direction of the MB program and your son's situation provided a good example, there is nothing wrong with having that conversation. Mean or malicious is another thing, but do you have any knowledge that was the case, or was this just a frank discussion?