Re: Arrow of Light--Attendance policy
Steven G. Tyler (sgtyler@EROLS.COM)
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:34:28 -0500
Kim Moye wrote, in part:
> The pack has a boy that most members of the pack committee feel should get
> his Arrow of Light at their Blue and Gold next week. The problem is his
> den leader feels that he should not, based on the fact that he has not
> met with the den for an excessive amount of meetings. The Webelos book
> states be active for 6 months and does in fact mention meetings as part of
> that requirement.
> I forgot to ask, but will find out the following, and any other suggestions
> you can give me:
> *was this situation brought to anyone's attention before now.
Kim, I think this is the key inquiry. I don't have a definitive
definition of "active," but my first question for the DL who questions
the sufficiency of the Webelos' "activity" would be "What steps did you
take to encourage his participation?" If all you get is yammering about
"regularly scheduled meetings" and "it's not my job to be sure the
Webelos attend," I'd be inclined to side with the Webelos, particularly
with the indications of personality conflict and the DL's son's
objection.
OTOH, if the DL can plausibly recite numerous efforts with the Webelos
and/or his parents, and there's no clear national guidance to the
contrary, and the rumors prove unfounded, I might side with the DL. In
general, though, I "default" to awarding advancement otherwise earned in
such circumstances. The "damage" caused to others by a marginally-earned
award is fleeting, but the hurt and damage caused by DENYING an award
the boy feels was earned can last a lifetime, and turn off the boy to
Scouting. Is this really what we want?
--
YIS
Steve on Cattail Creek
sgtyler@erols.com
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
