A cancer in the troop?

[Twocubdad]

In a functioning troop, maybe, but not this one.

 

Perhaps I'm reading between the lines, but I'm seeing an entire troop is disarray, not just a problem with this one Scout and dad. The Scoutmaster seems to have gone ROAD (Retired On Active Duty), the SPL is burned out, an entire crop of PLs served in name only, one dad is hijacking both committee and troop meetings. This isn't about one pushy dad who wants his boy to earn 120 merit badges.

 

Evry needs to start with a battle he can win. Yes, every journey starts with one step. And if it were any other boy, a Board of Review would be a good place to start. But I'm telling you, starting with this particular boy won't go well -- been there, done that, got the patch. If he's lucky he will spend the next six months arguing about advancement procedures, boards of review authority and the appeals process. And that's if it all stays civil.

 

If Evry wants to fix this troop, turning down this kid for advancement was not going to advance that cause.

[sherminator505]

The parent needs to be dealt with. The Troop Committee needs to be made aware of this situation, if it isn't already. Further, the COR needs to be made of this situation, if (s)he isn't already. The parent needs to be counseled on the appearance of his actions and modify them, and if this fails, he needs to be politely asked to step back.

 

As an aside, it is adults with red, white and blue square knots that behave like this that give the rest of us with red, white and blue square knots a bad name, and I am thus chagrined.

[evry]

Twocubdad....you hit the nail on the head. It is as your describe. To deny this particular Scout his rank at this time would be seen as picking on the Scout for the actions of his dad, and of all the leaders sitting at the BOR, I was certainly not going to be the one to do that. There is no question in my mind that the troop is completely in total disarray. Picture this:

 

The other two Committee Members sitting in the BOR were the Committee Chairman (a member of the old guard who had his son Eagle from the troop in the early 90's) and the Advancement Chairman (his son is presently in the troop). Both of them are very aware of everything that occurred and have expressed displeasure in private at the way the rogue dad is acting. However, they don't want to rock the boat and don't want any confrontations, so they remain silent. Additionally, the Scoutmaster came and sat in during the BOR to "observe." He didn't ask any questions etc. The Scoutmaster is also part of the old guard and he is actually the founder of the Chartering Organization that sponsors the troop. Whether the Committee decides on the direction that they want the troop to take, the Scoutmaster will still do it his way because he is the "owner" of the troop. In this instance, the Committee directed the ASM dad to ask the Scouts whether they wanted the Fly Fishing MB Clinic. When the dad responded that the Scouts requested it over a year ago and he was just setting it up as the Scouts had requested, the Scoutmaster jumps in and says that he approves of the MB Clinic and in essence blasts me for raising an objection.

 

I have only been with the troop for 18 months and I handle the Membership. Besides the three of us, there are probably 2-3 other parents/adults that are truly involved in the Committee. This is from a roster of 45 registered adults! (yes...the old guard have their wives and sons as registered adults even though we have never met or seen them). There is nobody that will confront the Scoutmaster out of deference and respect, and everyone accepts the fact that he started the CO that in effect sponsors the troop etc.

 

You may advise that this should be taken up with District and the Unit Commissioner, but I'll give you one more bit of info. Another of the old guard is very well known in the District and in the Council. He is also a powerful leader in the community. He is a Unit Commissioner himself (for other troops in the District), but he has so much influence that the only thing that District would ever tell him would be that they heard that there was a problem with the troop, and he would probably respond with something like..."Yes...I know, but we are on top of the situation." That is all that is going to happen!

 

One of the ASMs has stepped up and has agreed with me, and is going to put a plan in place to get the troop back in shape. I hope that he is successful and I will support him. If not, I'll visit some other troops in the area with my son and find one that is more suitable.

 

Sorry for tiring you guys out with our troop's issues. I will tell you however...this is the sort of politics and adult control that keeps the scouting program from flourishing to what it should be. BTW, although we have 42 registered Scouts (25 active), we only have 5 active Scouts that are 14+ years old. Tells you something or is that normal?

[evmori]

To deny this particular Scout his rank at this time would be seen as picking on the Scout for the actions of his dad, and of all the leaders sitting at the BOR, I was certainly not going to be the one to do that.

 

No it isn't. By your own admission this Scout did nothing in his POR and since there is no such thing as a "backup POR", he should have been denied advancement based on that and told what he needed to do to advance. But apparently no one wants to deal with dad so the rubber stamp was brought out.

[gcnphkr]

evmori: 'there is no such thing as a "backup POR"'

 

There is such a thing. Although they are not backups.

 

"serve actively [N] months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility"

 

There is nothing to prevent a scout from holding multiple PORs at the same time. Even under terms of "If they don't do a good job they don't get credit" a scout could be successful at one and unsuccessful at an other. On any given month they would only get credit for one month of serve. If he did the job as Bugler then he should get credit for Buglar. If he did the job of Buglar for 3 months and only managed to get it together for one month on the Patrol Leader as long as it was a different month from the 3 as Buglar then he has meet the requirement.

[Jeffrey H]

"we only have 5 active Scouts that are 14+ years old. Tells you something or is that normal?"

I can't speak for your Troop or give you hard stats, but it's quite common for traditional Boy Scout Troops to begin losing boys after the age of 14.  The few that stay on in Scouting are active in Venturing or they are continuing toward their Eagle rank.

 

[evmori]

Yeah jet I know that. But based on what has been posted, dad wrote those other positions in. It doesn't sound like these other POR's were assigned by the SM.

[sherminator505]

"we only have 5 active Scouts that are 14+ years old. Tells you something or is that normal?"

 

Perfectly normal. That's why we have Venturing. Now if the majority of the Troop were over 14, THEN I would see a problem, as it would seem that new boys weren't coming in...

[ctbailey]

I have seen several responses to this issue that essentially say "if the boy did not effectively serve in his POR then he should not advance."

 

The adult leaders must not allow a youth to simply get stuck in the mud, and let him drown during his tenure in the POR.

 

I have seen time and time again a kid not performing well, and the SM or ASM's just let him drown until his BOR, effectively sand bagging the kid at the last minute.

 

Our jobs as adult leaders is the help the kid become successful! If we see poor job performance it is our DUTY to counsel, mentor, and guide tha youth into becoming an effective leader.

 

Let the kid fail, then assist him and get him back on his feet. Do this multiple times over the course of the POR if neccessary. I prefer to see a kid marginally improve during his 6 months as scribe versus a superstar who knocks it out of the park on the first day.

 

To watch the kid fail over 6 months, and do nothing - SHAME ON ANY ADULT LEADER! We can not in good conscience with hold a kid from advancing if WE do not do our jobs.

 

Heck - the youth might not even know he's doing a bad job, unless he gets some counsel from his SM and ASM.

 

Craig

[DeaconLance]

"serve actively [N] months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility"

 

This idea is pretty old. Wayback they made combo PL/Scribe and PL/Bugler badges.

 

[Mike F]

Craig,

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting you let the leader fail without intervention, then hammer him at the end by not signing. But sometimes, in spite of Troop Junior Leader Training, written/signed job contracts with detailed expectations, status checks, counseling, mentoring, etc, a boy will sometimes not step up and serve actively (ie, get the job done). In the troop I serve, he does not get credit for rank advancement and it is no surprise to him or his parents. We don't consider it punishment - we consider it a normal part of a boy learning the concepts of responsibility and leadership.

 

Whether or not the BoR and Troop Committee are willing to take this action, they should absolutely report to the Troop Committee and the Scoutmaster that they believe there is a weakness in the program which could use some improvement.

[TenBears]

>>This sounds like a badly run Cub Scout Pack. The current leadership does not even deserve to wear blue shoulder loops.

[moosetracker]

Jeffery H wrote "it's quite common for traditional Boy Scout Troops to begin losing boys after the age of 14. The few that stay on in Scouting are active in Venturing or they are continuing toward their Eagle rank"

 

Sounds like he is slanted toward ventureing, and had a bad or no experience in BS.. That is like me looking at my district of only 5 Venture Crews and close to 40 Troops.. Venture crew barely have 5 scouts and skeleton adult leaders.. Average length for them to survive is 4 to 5 years (Except 2 that are strongly tied and part of strong Boy Scout troops) yes Venturing Crews, not Venture scouts... While troops have some skeleton groups but alot of healthy ones in scouts and Adult leaders and celebrating 80+ years.

 

Now I could make a blanket statement here, negatively toward Ventureing.. But, fact is my statement would be that somehow we (at least my area) are failing getting these crews off to a strong start.