What Is An Appropriate Consequence?

[OneHour]

... as always, E., well said. With that, I will let it go.

 

YIS,

 

1Hour

 

ps: for some reasons, I always try to read your posting with an English accent!

[Bob White]

"Appropriate Consequence is what is in the best interest of the Scout."

 

I would strongly disagree with that statement. What is in the best interest of the scout will differ with each parties point of view.

 

I guarantee that the time we had parents drive over 1000 miles to remove their scouts from National Jamboree for bringing marijuana on the trip, neither the parents or the scouts felt that our actions or the punishment awaiting them was in their best interest.

 

However what we did was in the best interest of the other scouts in our protection, and it was best for the council we represented.

 

"Appropriate" is responding in a way that is legal and controlled by existing rules and procedures.

 

Criminals are usually punished according to what is in the best interest of society. not the best interest of the criminal.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

I can't answer what you 'should do' or 'should have done'. I can answer what WILL happen in this unit if something similar occurs. The shot to the head would have gone straight up the line as Bob White noted in the beginning. The CO would have made a hard decision, probably allowing a second chance under the circumstances you mentioned.

 

Smoking pot (or other drug abuse) on an troop outing will be turned over to the local police and the parents invited to bail him out. CO and council will be called after the police have been notified. End of story. This is CO policy, not mine.

Smoking pot NOT on a troop outing gets a review by the committee but hasn't (at least not so far) resulted in ejection from the troop. So far, in those cases (only a couple), the program tries to engage the boys in manner that encourages a change in their decision-making skills.

[Eamonn]

BW,

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

To my thinking, while I don't in any way disagree with the action taken when the boys at the Jamboree were sent packing with their parents.

I do however think that your argument is flawed.

When you say:

"Appropriate" is responding in a way that is legal and controlled by existing rules and procedures."

These Lads were in fact breaking the law and the police should have been called to deal with the situation.

However it would seem that someone? Made the decision not to call the police and call the Scouts parents.

Some BSA Trainings do point out that some older Scouts and Venturers are going to experiment with illegal drugs. While maybe I'm guilty of reading something that isn't there? It does seem to me that the BSA while of course not condoning this behaviour, does accept that some experimentation is going to happen with some kids.

Each and every case is different, just as each and every Scout is different. This being the case I'm sorry I just fail to see how blanket statement like ""Appropriate" is responding in a way that is legal and controlled by existing rules and procedures." Fits the bill.

We are here to make the words found in our Vision and mission statement come to life and have real meaning. Before we start talking about existing rules and procedures we need to think what is in the best interest of the Scout.

Yes there are times when calling the police and allowing the "System" to deal with it is the best course of action, but that might not always be the best course of action.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

[Bob White]

My point Eamonn was that what is "in the best interest of the scout" will depend on who you are in relation to the scout. I doubt the scout will see your turning him over to the police as being "in his best interest". He would probably rather that you chose to give him a concerned look and another scoutmasters conference.

 

I believe that having the parents come get their child , regardless of how inconvenient to them it may have been, was in the best interst of the the scouts involved as well as the other scouts on the trip. The parents I can tell you did not feel the same way.

 

What is best for the scout who endangers others is rarely a primary concern. My primary concern is for those he puts at risk who were following the rules.

 

And while the BSA does tell you to expect that some youth will experiment they also make it quite clear in the safety policies of the BSA that it is not to happen on scout property or during a scouting activity.

 

What was in the best interest of the scout would have been for him to live by the values that the program and its leaders tried to instill in him, rather than choose to ignore and disobey them.

 

The appropriate response is that the youth understand that there are serious consequences when you make seriously bad choices. We should care enough for the scout not to take such inappropriate behavior lightly, lest he should think that what he did was unimportant, leading him to make larger and even more inappropriate choices.

[Basementdweller]

What I am reading is that some here feel scout law supersede judicial law. I am with packsaddle on this one. Turn him over to local Law enforcement and DAD will have to deal with it.

 

You wonder what impact an arrest will have on his future. Suppose he can't get into the college of his choice because of HIS CHOICE. Not my problem he is setting a horrible example for the younger scouts.

[packsaddle]

Read my response to the spun thread. I note the access to PTI that will be unavailable once he turns 18.

[evmori]

I know FScouter I should PM Bob White with this but as I have told you, there is a reason I didn't. Hopefully you will remember what that reason is & not delete this post.

 

I'm confused, Bob. 1st you posted

 

That is a decision for the Council and the Charter organization to deal with. After all it was their rules he violated not yours. The Scout violated the law, he violated a BSA policy, he violated his Oath, he endangered the assets of the charter organization.

 

seems to indicate this Scout should have been turned over to the authorities and then you post

 

I guarantee that the time we had parents drive over 1000 miles to remove their scouts from National Jamboree for bringing marijuana on the trip, neither the parents or the scouts felt that our actions or the punishment awaiting them was in their best interest.

 

which seems to indicate you handled this very similar situation "in house". Can you clear up the confusion, please?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Understand that I was not the leader of the unit nor was I the the scout executive, so while I had input I did not make the final decision. We were on the road in another state when the contraband was discovered and there was no way that the trip was going to be altered for the other two bus loads of scouts who followed the rules because of two that did not.

 

The decision was made by the Scoutmaster and the council executive, and supported by the council jambo leadership team, that the scouts would not be allowed to participate in any further activities of the trip and that the parents would be required to remove their children from the unit within 48 hours or they would be turned over to the military police at Fort AP Hill.

 

The Jamboree director was informed of the incident and agreed to the action plan.

 

We are not police officers and are not trained in what each state's laws are concerning what quantities of marijuana are considered misdemeanor and what are felonies. We are scout leaders, and the rules we are trained in say that these drugs are not allowed on scout property or at scout activities, and that possession of them under those conditions are a violation of BSA safety policies. Our Jamboree rules stated that possession of such drugs, alcohol, or fireworks would result in the youth being sent home with no refund of fees.

 

The two scouts chose not to follow the rules, so we did what we said we would do. There was no confusion. The two scouts that broke the rules were punished, the 70 scouts that followed the rules did not have their trip interrupted. My concern was not for what was best for the two with the drugs but for the 70 good scouts, and what was best for them was to be free of the burden of the other two. The parents can worry about them, and should.

[evmori]

Thanks Bob.

 

A couple comments.

 

I would agree that not detouring or delaying the trip for the rest of the Scout was a good idea. But not knowing if a crime is a misdemeanor or felony or summary offense doesn't make it any less a crime. And just because you aren't the primary unit leader you still are part of the leadership in the unit that has the responsibility of all the youth in the unit on the trip with you. All leaders are equally responsible.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

"just because you aren't the primary unit leader you still are part of the leadership in the unit that has the responsibility of all the youth in the unit on the trip with you"

 

I do not disagree, in fact I said the very same thing. Our responsibility was to all the scouts there and so we acted accordingly.

 

I have no doubt that you or others might react differently in the same situation, not necessarily better, just differently. I am completely comfortable with the decisions that were made at the contigency, council, and national level, in this particular situation. Since it is the BSA's program, and a BSA activity, and the BSA was in on the decision, then I see no point in questioning what took place, especially considering it was 23 years ago.

[packsaddle]

Yeah, after 23 years things might change some but that's almost precisely the way we promise the scout parents that we'll handle a situation if such arises on a long trip. Thankfully, we've never had to follow through on the policy. Our trips have been exciting for all the right reasons.

 

But I thank my BSA training for help in travel with students as well. When I take them overseas or on similar long trips, I make them sign an agreement (they're legal adults) to (and on) a copy of the conduct policy in advance, or else they don't go. If they leave the group without permission, I promise to phone them with info on how to find an airport or perhaps a consulate so they can get themselves back on their own. If they get arrested for a crime like drugs or alcohol, I promise to notify their parents who can make arrangements with local attorneys, etc.

If they sneak away AND get in trouble, I promise that I will make sure their parents know approximately where they are (if I don't know exactly) and that they are missing. Then I will 'leave them on the beach' so-to-speak.

So far, we've had rather close-knit groups, heh, heh. And we've had really great times as a result.

[Eamonn]

BW,

I do agree that there are times when what is in the best interest of the Scout might not seem to be that way to him or his parents.

A young Lad who was a scout in the Troop back in England, started running around with a not so nice gang of Lads.

He got into a fight, pulled a knife and one lad ended up getting stabbed.

His parents did get him the best defense available.

He did get a five pound fine and bound over to keep the peace for a year.

His parents made him repay them for all the expenses that the trial cost and only allowed him out to attend Scout meetings and activities.

He went on to become a great Scout and is now serving as a Leader back in the UK.

He claims that this episode with the police and the law was the best thing that ever happened to him!

His parents could have paid for the lawyers and the expenses, but they made him take the money from his allowance.

I would hope that if we as Scouters do ever have to get involved with a case like the one OneHour has posted, that we do know the Scout and do look at all the options before we rush to a judgment.

Removing a Scout from an activity to ensure the safety and well being of everyone else is of course a no brainer. It's what happens next that needs to be given a lot of thought.

It's all to easy to just go with "Get him out of the Troop" But is that what we should be doing?

Is this really in keeping with the vision and mission?

Ea.

 

[Bob White]

Lets take a medical school whose vision and mission is to provide an eductaion that would develop quality physicians. There is a student there who chooses not follow the rules for being a physician that is required of ALL the students and his behavior detracts or distracts fron the education of the other students. Does the schools vision or mission require them to retain that student at all costs? Or is it there respponsibility to do what is best for those who willing do their best to learn?

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, BW, dat's quite a stretch, eh? I think all scouts are bright lads, and what we do is important. But we ain't med school.

 

I agree with yeh, though. This is a serious matter, and should be handled as such. I think lots of times well-meanin' adult leaders get caught up in a "save every lad" mentality, and forget about all da other boys. The ones who are watchin' to see if the adults really live up to the values they profess. The ones that resisted peer pressure and da attraction of drugs, and are lookin' to see if they made the right call.

 

I reckon we owe a good answer to them first, eh? Make the consequences serious. Yeh can't do fun stuff if yeh betray da trust of others.

 

After that, though, we've got to figure out how best to help a lad where he's at. Sometimes that's gonna be "hit him with a load of bricks." Tough love. Other times, it might be a bit different. Da good of the many outweighs the good of the few... or the one. Except sometimes we leave da 99 and go after the one who is lost, eh?

 

Beavah