Star Scout on "Hiatus"

[Bob White]

"During his disappearing act he did not "complete' his job (in a satisfactory manner) as ASPL and due to a weak SPL the troop could have really used his efforts. I don't think he has been on an outdoor activity in the last twelve months...He is currently acting as Chaplins Aid for his POR requirements...and will be given his eagle..."

 

If all he is missing is his requirement to actively serve in a leadership position, and he is now completing that requirement, then no one is "giving" him the Eagle Rank...he is EARNING the Eagle Rank.

 

The only requirements he has to meet are the ones set by the BSA. Whatever else others want to see him do is irrelevant.

[isvirtual]

I agree with Bob White.

 

If the Scout has had the job but not participated, I would want to know why the troop leaders let him proceed. I see this far too often. A scout is given a position of responsibility. He is not held to any kind of minimal requirements. Then when the time has expired, the troop's leadership doesn't want to give him credit.

 

I get really annoyed when adults and PLC try to punish the scout when they didn't do their jobs properly.

 

If the boy held the position of responsibility and no one made him perform, I believe the fault lies with the troop leadership. Fix the real problem. Don't punish the scout.

 

 

[John D]

Good discussion. The local committee chairman suggests I (SM) approve the rank and have a serious talk with the lad and get him to sign a "contract" that he will come to meetings over the next few months and perform his job. Another suggestion is I approve the rank and ask the Board of Review members to give him a "grilling" over this issue, shake him up a bit. What do you think?

[anarchist]

First, BW, I did not say he completed all his requirements. I said he disappeared and did not participate with the troop or in the troop activities for a year. I am not 'adding' anything... BSA is pretty clear about 'being active' for 6 months and Demonstrating Scout Spirit (etc.) in your everyday life...does that mean just go out a be a good boy and 'forget' your troop? You seem to be 'stuck' on adults trying to make things (Eagle'star/life requirements)more difficult (perhaps its experience from your far more vast experience here) and turn a blind eye towards 'coasting' scouts just 'doing time'...my point was I don't relish making those decisions, 'cause I tend to take them ( requirements 1 and 2 for Eagle) as serious requirements.

 

and

isvirtual...you're way off base son, "he is not held..." "no one made him perform..." What planet are you on? These are scouts, in a voluntary, boy led movement; not soldiers and not dumb animals. We don't (can't/shouldn't?) 'make' them do anything. You certainly can't make him attend meeting and campouts so how do you make him do his job...and no where did I say the SPL/PLC or SM did not try to get this boy to do his job...I said he did not do his job...period, which was my judgement! and I was glad I did not have to sit on his Eagle board. BUT I do get annoyed at 'conclusion jumpers', who way too often want to give a _______ scout (you fill in the blank..may I suggest; mis-prioritzing,lazy, manipulative, misdirected, calculating, or just immature)... the benefit of the doubt and by default an unearned rank or award "'cause its not his fault" or they don't want to 'turn him away from scouting' and then you blame volunteer adult leaders you do not know for not MAKING him perform...give me a break, please.

Sorry for venting but I believe you both missed this one completely! Sometimes the scout just does not deserve an award...particularly an unearned Eagle.

anarchist

[John D]

Some of these posts suggest the SM and SPL have some responsibility to track down absconding scouts, like the kindly SM of the '50s puffing his pipe on the living room sofa and discussing Johnny's progress. We ain't in Kansas anymore and I have better things to do. A scout who absconds should face the consequences, I'm not the truant officer. The SPL has enough hassles without this, I can't ask him to do it. The absconder still gets the weekly Troop email, he can choose to read it or not, he can choose to come or not.

Excuse the somewhat cranky tone of this post.

[Bob White]

Anarchist post 1

"During his disappearing act he did not "complete' his job (in a satisfactory manner) as ASPL and due to a weak SPL the troop could have really used his efforts. I don't think he has been on an outdoor activity in the last twelve months...He is currently acting as Chaplins Aid for his POR requirements...and will be given his eagle...

 

Anarchist post 2

I did not say he completed all his requirements. I said he disappeared and did not participate with the troop or in the troop activities for a year."

 

You did not mention that there were any other requirements other than the Leadership role and that he was in the process of meeting that. If there were other outstanding requirements they were not mentioned.

 

John D. To abscond the scout would have had to have been there and escaped or run off suddenly. I thought you said he just stopped coming? You never mentioned that he managed to escape.

 

Who said to track him down? He came back to you didn't he? Would it be too much to expect the SM to sit down and talk to the boy? If he wants to advance he should be able to prove he met the requirements. You don't have anything against the kindly old SM setting his pipe down and asking the scout if he believes he met the requirements and how?

 

I don't blame you for being cranky. The thought of open communication with a scout in hopes of helping him to make ethical decisions as he matures just makes my blood boil. Who does he think he is coming back to a troop meeting? What does he think we're running here some kinda club for boys!!! The nerve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John D]

Yes, Bob, he did come to a meeting, two weeks befor BOR, for a SM conference. I told him we were dissapointed in his attendance, that he had let down the younger scouts and I wasn't sure I could recommend him for Life. I fail to see how a scout can miss 3/4 of the meetings and still somehow get rank, no matter how reasonable the excuse or well intentioned the Scout. If these "v

[John D]

....cut off. If the "virtual" scouts advance with everyone else all my senior guys could sign up for soccer and drama on scout nite and still stop by once a year to collect their badges.

[OldGreyEagle]

JD, Did the scout serve actively and fulfill the expectations for the position of responsibility for 6 months and has he met all the other requirements ?

[evmori]

If he isn't there, he can't perform his POR. And no we are not charged with tracking down the missing from our Troops & Packs. We need to be there for the Scouts who are there. And considering he is a Troop Guide, he can't complete his POR without being there!

 

Sure he came back. But why? From the posts it sound like he is getting the Troop information & realized he didn't "get" his rank yet & decided to "show up" so he could "get" his rank. Sounds like poor Scout Spirit to me and where is his loyalty to the Troop!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Ed, could we wait for the facts before we jump to conclusions?

[anarchist]

Sorry BW, but in my posts I did mention he disappeared...and not attending calls (at least in my mind) to question both the first and second requirement of Eagle rank...

What we have in this thread is a split in the discusion...one side is 'its always the adult leaders fault' if a boy does not do his job, (ie. the soccer mom- "everybody gets a trophy syndrome")and a group that feels rank and awards should be worked for, or earned and not given for "time served" ( BW would probably say the "grouchy old guys who want noone to get EAGLE")and I doubt if anyone will be swayed to the other side.

 

From my side of the fence (as a CM) we see some boys, who seem to feel they are owed rank for just appearing and filling in a few merit badges and frankly, I feel that the 'ACTIVE' and 'SCOUT SPIRIT' requirements are as important as the merit badges and PoR.

 

We see boys who show up 3-6 months before they turn 18 and expect the our SM and CC to figure out how they can get their 3-5 merit badges. Many throw together questionable projects that are approved by District and executed but that if you 'mentioned' them (to strangers) around the campfire would lead to that old refrain..."WHAT...that's no eagle project" or worse!

 

BW, again, I say sometimes the rank is not earned and should not be awarded but today we are so much into 'not hurting feelings' (or is it maintaining a client base?) that we "kill" the messenger... The saying...you can LEAD A HORSE TO WATER BUT YOU CAN"T MAKE "EM DRINK, came from somewhere!

To 'hold' that leaders can 'make' someone do it or that it is the SM/PLC's failing because every boy doesn't perform is just plain wrong.

 

Yes, there are bad leaders; yes, there are less than competent leaders and yes, some may even be too tough...but a few (of us?)really do know whats going on out there and want quality programs over quantity.

 

And finally, most of these posts are really pleadings asking where the magic 'line' is because 'Active' and 'Scout Spirit' in the end, are subjective not objective criteria. And any such answers are bound to be less than satisfactory.

nuff said

anarchist

[OldGreyEagle]

Back when I was in management, one of the tasks I hated to do was the employee evaluation. And I am sure the employees didnt like it either. We both tolerated it because it was a required evil. One thing I did learn was you don't wait 12 months to unload on someone all the mistakes they have made in tha past year. On a day to day basis you evaluate people and take periodic notes and see the persons performance over time. I have been at roundtables where adult leaders almost brag how shocked scouts were because the scoutmaster told them they had to redo the position of responsibility time because they hadnt done it "satisfactory". I think that is sadistic. There aren't a lot of people who will take a job without knowing what that job is. Our culture has made the term "job description" virtually ubiquitous with the work place yet many troops have no problem "failing" scouts from position of responsibility when the scout was never told what the measuring stick will be. When a scout receives a position of responsibility is given to a scout, the scoutmaster needs to assure the scout knows what his responsibilities are and what will determine success. I beleive thats what Bob White was after, if not, Bob, I apologize. But the scout should know if he has done the job the way he knows it should be done.

 

Now, that was a general response. The issue here is JD's prodigal scout who has left the troop to waste his time on wild and disolute living and now wants to come back. The question to be answered is did he complete his position of responsiblity satidfactorily? The reason I harp on this is simple. If he was a patrol guide for 6 months and did his job and at the 7th or 8th month he wandered away, he still did what was required. If he wandered at the 4 month mark, then he didnt do his six months. In the former situation he completed his active requirement, in the latter he did not. I have often told this story before, but for those who missed it, here goes.

 

You can have a scout who makes first class in a year, then 4 months to Star, he takes 8 months to make Life and then another 8 to make Eagle. During this time he makes virtually all meetings, outings, events, et al. The when he s awarded Eagle, even though he is just 14 he is never seen again at a scouting meeting. What do scouts learn from this? That if you do all the reuirements and earn Eagle you can leave and never be seen? In the troop I serve the kids said they hated to see anyone make Eagle, becasue that meant they wouldnt see them anymore.

 

Versus a scout who take a few years to make first class, he is energetic, but is very involved in many activities. He finally meets all the requirements when he is 13, then he "goes away" for six months and comes back and performs adequatley for 4 months and meets the requirements for Star when he is 14. Another period of 6 months goes by with nary a word, but he returns and after a few months of attendance he is given a POR which he does for 6 months and during this 6 months he meets the requirment for Life. He earns life at age 16. Now, he "goes away" for a year, but comes back at 17 and after talking to the scoutmaster shows hw will attend meetings, sompletes a POR and receives Eagle when he is 17 364/365 years old.

 

Which scout is the better Eagle?

[isvirtual]

I was no suggesting leaders should hunt down a boy and make them attend the meetings, events, etc. However, there should be clear, consistent, and enforced guidelines for positions of responsibility and attendance that are compatible with BSA policies. To wait until the end of the period to let anyone know they didn't meet guidelines (published or unpublished) is neglegent. I have seen this happen far too often. Maybe we are just in a bad unit.

 

In OldGreyEagle's examples, both boys have earned their Eagle rank. I don't think it is appropriate to say which is a better Eagle. Both allegedly have earned the rank following the same criteria established by BSA. It MIGHT BE appropriate to ask which is the better scout?

[John D]

OGE, sorry it has taken me a while to respond to you, it's night over here. The lad served 3-4 months in the spring so I estimate he has done a bit over half the 6 months needed over the past year. One idea from an ASM is a 50%rule. We have a BOR in November and June, to get a rank a scout must attend 50% of troop meetings in the previous 6 monts plus attend at least one campout in that 6 months. The ASPL has agreed to take roll at meetings, something we have never done. Sound reasonable?

John D