Re: ACTIVE, PART2
Cheryl Singhal (csinghal@CAPACCESS.ORG)
Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:49:00 -0500
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, blaine a. jackson wrote:
>
> As long as everyone is helping Linda, how about some advice for me.
>
> Steve Scout (Sam's brother) is the Troop QM. Since he took office, the
>
> I do not think that he has been active in his position as QM. A
> significant reason, however, is that normally his duties would be carried
> out on Troop campouts and activities, and we have not been doing those
> activities. We are going on a hiking, climbing and rappelling campout
> this week-end, but he is in a mandatory driver's education class.
ummm, I _really_ don't see how you can hold it against him that he didn't
do something that didn't need doing. I mean, it sounds like he's been
there, you just haven't needed his services. Hardly his fault or his
lack. This coming weekend, OK, he's missing one elective to do a
required... hardly an immature choice and again, I don't see that you can
hold it against him. If the Troop had 8 events and he missed only 1,
then he was there for the other 7; seems immaterial that the one he
missed was the one you might need him for. From his point of view, he
may well be seeing it as, the one time I can't go, they want me to do
something.
>
> Sam and Steve's younger brother Sheldon is my Troop Librarian. There is
> not much for a librarian to do in our troop, and he has done it all.
>
> He certainly has not been "active", but he has done everything there was
Again, the lack of need is hardly Sheldon's fault, and seems to me the
fact that he was willing to do the job at all should count as active.
Both these situations look to me like circumstances beyond the Scout's
control and that being so, I see no benefit to the Troop or the Scouts
themselves in penalizing the two Scouts.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
