When to seek help on short-timer

[VenturingL]

Just to muddy the waters further, I don't know who to contact for charter org - Troop is chartered by a church. Congregation is moving to new building & congregation that bought the existing property has agreed to become the charter org. My intention in all this is not to destroy anything - just see that corrective action is taken. SM forgets that I did go to a Committee Meeting & was basically shot down (Feb.'07). Wish I had taken a stronger stand then, but did not have as much information. I guess the SM minute at the last 2 meetings pushed me over the edge.

[VenturingL]

Yes, they have a written book. The forms I mentioned in previous posts are within it.

[wagionvigil]

You are not going to get anywhere with the church. You need to contact your council and Do it now. You are wasting valuable time.

[smtroop168]

Someone has to have signed for the Chartered Organization to get the troop rechartered but it sounds like they did it in name only. I just offered that as a suggestion as the CE may ask as well.

I agree with wagion that they probably won't be of help and you need to get the council engaged.

If they have these items in their "written book", it doesn't matter since they are in violation of National policy. Take the book and appeal their "requirement" to the District Advancement Committee.

[deweylure]

Sounds like the SM and others need training to get with the program. My advice like others have written. Take it to the District Executive then up from there.

SM can be replaced . Our trrop has already done it . The new Sm is on the program.


I wish your son all the best.


Deweylure

[WVBeaver05]

VenturingL -

Looking at the SM response, maybe all he needs is some training. I admit it is a long shot, but it sounds like he hasn't had the training he should have. At least it is worth a shot. If he was trained then he should know that what he is saying is wrong and he can get the Troop back on track.

Another possibility is that he has been trained, but that the training didn't cover the material correctly (we have seen discussions of that here as well).

YiS

[RWSmith]

ANY measures relative to Boy Scout advancement, even if unintentional, even if they appear to be unrelated, into a Troop's local policies, verbal or written (notably, done so in the name of standards) is bad for the Scout, bad for the unit, and bad for Scouting. And believe me, that covers a lot of territory. A whole lot. Attendance or participation standards, even performance standards, of any kind, is altering the requirements and must not be tolerated. These so-called standards actually take away from the relationship between SM and the Scout; and, it creates unwarranted road-blocks and imposes additional requirements, instead keeping them fair and equal nationwide.

The standards already established at the national level are the only standards to be applied regarding advancement... to every Scout. The progress, time-wise, of every Scout is to be individually unique. If the SM (or TC, or whatever) sets an attendance policy, then they are wrong. Period. Attendance, participation and performance are all important. But, these are all uniquely individual for each Scout and should be assessed and addressed as such, via recurring SMCs. That's the (primary) reason for the SMCs.

Venturing requires a transformation on the part of Troops. It occurs over time... it takes work; hard work; lots of hard work. And it takes educating people... and, more often than not, it involves educating and re-educating the same people, several times. And, on top of that, this transformation is taking way too long and it is certainly not being properly managed, if at all. Seemingly, National makes policy changes and simply expects it to flow down the ranks... without resistance. Yeah, right. Don't get me wrong. The folks at National aren't stupid. And surely, they must be aware of this problem. But, I certainly don't know what they're (successfully) doing about it, if anything. And that, is in-and-of itself, another indication of how this problem has been addressed, or, more correctly stated, not.

This is one area where the District and Council leaders are failing Scouting. More and more frequently, these changes are being forced from the ground up, rather than taught from the top down. (Yes, a certain minimum level of training should be mandatory. And yes again, it's coming to that... just not soon enough.) And it would seem that, more often than not, District and Council (even National) leaders are choosing to turn a blind eye and ear to units they know are defying National policies. Unfortunately, this comes down to counting beans. More and more, Scouts (and/or their parents) who try to do it the right way, are getting punished. VenturingL and alfmom are not the first to come here with this problem; nor, unfortunately it seems, will they be the last.

District and Council leaders need to be pro-active on this. Whenever they receive a report about this problem, they need to immediately set up a face-to-face meeting with the unit's key three. Layout the who, what, when, where and why for the corrective action to be taken. Namely, in this case, removing ALL personal- or unit-level advancement policies, including grudges against Venturing, I might add. And then, follow up, and if necessary, take whatever corrective action might become necessary to set it right. This way, we lose less good leaders who have gotten used to thinking their way is the right way, while eventually weeding out and replacing those who absolutely refuse to run a FAIR program.

BTW, I'm not alone in this. The admins here have professed these true standards for a long time. I'm not disagreeing with wagionvigil; I'm just giving y'all new-comers the long version.

[VenturingL]

My son and I discussed what the "next step" is last night. Because his SM's reply included a statement that the Troop's policy had been in effect longer than he or I had been part of the Troop, my son wanted to give the SM the benefit of the doubt one more time. He hates being in the center of what could become a "fire storm", but also realizes there is an obligation to fix this for the younger scouts in the Troop. I sent an email this a.m. to SM, CC, & another leader who was cc'd on the SM's reply to my original email (see previous post). I copied & pasted National's requirements for "Active" and, since it includes a statement that, if a scout isn't fulfilling the obligations of his leadership position, he should be removed, I added a piece from non-rank advancement SM conference about counseling a scout to correct errors. (I do have concerns about possible retaliation - it would be after the fact - I confirmed with my son that the TFC mentor has never counseled him about anything he needs to be doing better or differently in his role as Troop Guide.) I also pasted the exact links within National's website. I am waiting on reply at this point. If the reply is defiant, or indicates further delay, I will forward everything to District Advancement Chair & CE.

[wagionvigil]

Get ready to push the button as I do not see them giving in.

[VenturingL]

Unfortunately, you are right. This is the reply I received (names deleted):

"While I really do not have time to do email battle with you, it is clear that you are on the wrong track. And, as I respect your son and would like to see him succeed, I will offer these additional comments.

First, what you are quoting to be "National Rules" are guidelines and it is clearly stated as such on the website you have so kindly directed us to.

Second, what you have chosen to ASSUMING is used to determine if a Scout is "Active" (requirement one for Star, Life and Eagle) by the Troop is incorrect. In fact this very issue has been debated several times as it is typical for Scouts to complete all their requirements for Eagle except their Project and disappear for a year or two only to come back at the last minute to complete their project along with the Scoutmaster Conference and Board of Review. When we are asked to sign for "Active", it is sometimes difficult to do when we have not seen the Scout for a year or two. Fortunately (or Unfortunately, as it may be), it is quite clear that the measurement of this is for a Six month period after achieving the prior rank and not specifically the Six months prior to being considered for the new rank. Being "Active" in the troop has been left to the Patrol Advisor's discretion.

The tracking chart that I was reminding the Scouts about in our meeting on Monday is used to demonstrate fulfillment of the requirement to "Serve" actively (for Star and Life, this is requirement five, for Eagle, it is requirement four). From the same site you have so kindly directed us to, I have copied the requirement for Star (it will be slightly different for Life and Eagle for time required and acceptable positions). "While a First Class Scout, serve actively for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop) * Boy Scout troop. Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, �senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, bugler, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, or instructor." If you look at the same requirement for Life and Eagle, you will notice that the positions available change as the implied responsibility of the rank increases. I believe Troop XX has provided a very good representation of this requirement in our Gray Notebooks and through our tracking chart. Further, we review the Gray Notebook periodically to make sure that as National makes changes, we have incorporated them into our Gray Notebooks.

If you have a burning itch to change the way Troop XX does business, I again, encourage you to attend the Committee meetings. If you are concerned about your son's ability to complete his requirements for Eagle, I suggest that he (XXX) work with Mr. XXX or come talk to me or Mr. XXX about what he (XXX) has left and what efforts he (XXX) is making to complete these requirements."

Is the word "guideline" used as he states? The sentence reads "is not required to attend a certain number of percentage". I write ISO documentation at my job - if it were a guideline, it would read "SHOULD not be required".

[wagionvigil]

They cannot add to the requirements plain and simple and their Guidelines add to the requirements. AS I said You were going to get no where with these folks.

[wagionvigil]

Dumb Question but may mean alot later.
Are any of these involved big FOS Givers? If so you might need to bypass council and go to National

[VenturingL]

I have no idea about the FOS question - I end to doubt it.

[VenturingL]

OK, with shaking hands, I sent an email to the District Director, District Executive, District Advancement Chair, and Unit Commisioner.

[WeeWillie]

VenturingL,
Regarding being "active"... The following is a direct quote from the National Council's (BSA) web site:

Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop and patrol" defined?
Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:


• He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).
  
• He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.
• He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).
The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position.

Note, the resonsibilty to maintain contact is the Unit's leaders, NOT your son's. There are NO requirements for attendance, etc., nor may any be imposed. If your son wasn't removed from the POR, then the time counts. Period.

See also: http://www.meritbadge.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1975

The above is not the requirement listed in the 2008 Requirements Handbook. It isn't listed in the Scout Handbook or the SM Handbook either. You can't expect SMs to follow requirements that aren't listed. The rule about adding or deleting requirements is a two edge sword.

The existing requirement is a subjective requirement that is open to multiple interpretations as evidenced by the frequent discussions on meritbadge.com. It is also an open ended requirement since it establishes a minimium time in rank, but not a maximium. Don't blame SMs for intepreting a poorly written requirement.

Personally I think 80% partiipation is unreasonable. It fails to account for circumstances such as illness, injury, death in a family, moves and religious obligations that are beyond a Scout's control. I can understand the troop's (SM's) desire to create an objective requirement.

I've seen Scouts who are involved in 3-5 high intensity activities who never seem to have time to attend meetings or outings. These Scouts need to make choices about their priorities and accept the consequences of those choices. It's called character. Strong Values, Strong Leaders, Character Counts sound familar?

Active participation reflects committment (A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal...) to your troop and patrol. Rewarding Scouts with Eagle who are uncommitted to their units is in punishing Scouts who are.

[milominderbinder2]

The above is not the requirement listed in the 2008 Requirements Handbook. It isn't listed in the Scout Handbook or the SM Handbook either. You can't expect SMs to follow requirements that aren't listed. The rule about adding or deleting requirements is a two edge sword.

Mike,

The Boy Scout Requirements and Scout Handbook do not provide adult leadership training. Neither provide Unit Commissioner or District training.

The classic example of leaders challenging whether a Scout is "active" is when a boy who has been inactive as a Life Scout for a year or longer and is now applying for Eagle.

All these years, the recharter paperwork has been very clear.

When the unit leadership and unit commissioner sign their annual recharter, they can only recharter "active members." You are instructed to "draw a line through the names of inactive youth members."

If a council allows units to falsify membership documentation, they can lose funding and grants and can face legal prosecution. Funding and grant applications typically ask how many members they serve.

If you find that a leader has made false statements on recharter paperwork, you have an ethical obligation to report it to their charter organization and your local council.

Also note this. The requirement to "be active" is not to be continuously active. A Life Scout may have been active for six months right after he earned Life or just in the past six months. But regardless, if the unit signed the recharter that the Scout was active, he was active.

- Craig

[smtroop168]

WeeWillie: A couple of other points/observations:

Troop Rules: In the original post, VenturingL speaks to a leadership form that must be signed off EACH WEEK by his mentor. This means he must be at every meeting (100%) to "qualify" to get his leadership position signed off. This is clearly not a subjective or open-ended requirement as you say and the troop cannot set one. It is adding to the requirements.

Also they told him he can't use the same leadership position for Star and Life. I don't read that anywhere either.

The scout is committed to his unit and Ventures just not to the level the troop would "demand". Is this a Venturing vs Scouts battle? What if the Scout was the OA Lodge Chief or Elections guy who missed meetings due to his OA duties and he was the Troop's OA representative as his leadership position? Same battle or does he get the requirement signed off?

You say don't blame the SM for poorly written requirement. He's the adult and supposed to be looking out for the boys. What does he hope to achieve by his actions? A little research effort on his part is appropriate as too many times folklore takes over. In addition the AC is referred to as "longtime". So he definitely ought to know better.

[VenturingL]

Each week meant each week a scout is there. This is then used to count the number of meetings, campouts, PLC, other leadership activities the scout did. I heard back from District DE. He asked for a little more information & has copied the District Advancement Chair (thought I had included him, but I didn't)

[WVBeaver05]

The above is not the requirement listed in the 2008 Requirements Handbook. It isn't listed in the Scout Handbook or the SM Handbook either.

True. It isn't a requirement. It is a national interpretation of the requirement. And, National is the final authority. (Sadly, or a least annoyingly for those of us who have "computer" or "software" in our profiles, the requirements don't tell all that is needed to be known.)

You can't expect SMs to follow requirements that aren't listed. The rule about adding or deleting requirements is a two edge sword.

I don't think this is expecting SMs to follow requirements that aren't listed. I do think it is expecting that either through some "magic" or research the SM will have to find the definition that goes with the requirement so he knows what is expected. So, in general, I agree with your sentiment - it is expecting that the SM somehow obtain the correct interpretation, and they shouldn't have to do that.

Active participation reflects committment (A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal...) to your troop and patrol. Rewarding Scouts with Eagle who are uncommitted to their units is in punishing Scouts who are.

While I certainly agree that "active participation" should encompass more than being registered and the other things quoted, I can actually sympathize with National. How do they draw the line to allow the interpretation that we would think is right and exclude things like the 80% attendance that we consider unrealistic (i.e. wrong)?

It's a hard task in view of the large diversity of skills and personalities that make up Scouting, in both Youth and Adults. You and I, perhaps, could wish for requirements written like a Software Test document or System Qualification document and everything (usually) would be clear - but it would be a pretty long document and I assure you there would be people who didn't like it that way either.

YiS

[wagionvigil]

Ran into an active problem several year ago during OA election Time. Short story is they required participation in two community parades to be considered active for the OA election Requirement. They were eliminating two boys that were in the School band from the elections because they did not march with the troop in these two parades. Of course the real reason was to keep the two most qualified candidates from being elected to the OA. This is one of the many episodes why National must take a stand in saying registered is Active.
By the way Both Boys were elected to the OA once I got involved.