Re: Active Membership
Jim Peterson (kupete@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU)
Mon, 3 May 1999 14:59:49 -0600
I wrote earlier about the BSA Rules and Reg document regarding being "active":
>>Hmmm. I don't read it that way. Seems to me that the obligations
>outlined
>>in the BSA Rules and Regs are put on the MEMBER'S shoulders, not on the
>>unit to "monitor and deregister" a member is not active.
>>
>>The document says, "an active member is one who....attends
>>regularly...fulfills a member's obligations to the unit....", etc.
Bruce Cobern replied:
>I don't have the document in front of me but, as I recall, there are
>specifically TWO classes of membership described in the R&R. Thus, the
>unit can choose to keep the Scout on the charter but not "active." As
>another alternative, the unit can terminate the youth's membership in
>THAT unit, which DOES NOT terminate his Scouting registration, but would
>stop the "active membership" clock.
And Bruce, you know as well as I that most troops, especially those with
memberships of 20-30 scouts, don't have the adult leadership depth to keep
that kind of tabs on "registration details" until charter time rolls
around. We are, after all an organization run by "an hour a week"
volunteers! <BG>
These troops will however, have a good SM who when Johnny comes up for
advancement and hasn't been to a meeting or activity in a year will say,
"Hold on son, let's talk about what you might need to do/think about before
I sign off on these first two requirements". And I'd back that SM up
every step of the way!
>>
>>And c'mon, we all know that our DEs and council execs would have a
>>collective coronary if we even suggested that we would actually start
>>dropping inactive scouts from the charter so let's not pretend that
>this
>>could actually be put into practice.
>
>Frankly, I don't think what the professional staff wants has any bearing
>on this. Somehow, I don't like the sound of the argument that goes:
>"He hasn't been active, and we wanted to take him off the charter, but
>the DE objected, so we left him there, and now he has to become an Eagle
>Scout because we left him on the charter."
And don't tell me that you don't know of scouts who have attained Eagle
who've not been to meetings, not provided leadership and not set the
example for a LONG period of time before their SM conference and BOR! Gee!
Just look at the postings on this list and you see several each year and
this list reaches only about 2,000 scouts and scouters.
While I empathize and even
>sympathize with the DE's and their goals, those goals are not always
>congruent with ours as leaders.
You said a mouthful there. I also have a deep respect for our scouting
professionals. But you are right....sometimes they're goals run contrary
to the best implementation of the scouting program.
When they are in conflict, you have an
>OBLIGATION to act in the best interest of the Scout and the program, not
>the DE. So, saying you can't do what is authorized and allowed because
>the DE's don't want you to is, to me, a cop out.
Exactly Bruce....and thats why I'm here on this list getting in arguements
with folks about this topic! <VBG!)
If you believe it is
>the right thing to do, you do it. If you choose not to do it, then
>don't complain about the consequences, intended or otherwise.
Ain't complainin'.
>
>However, don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with the positions that
>get taken once an appeal goes to national, but I live with it. The
>solution is to make sure resolution happens long before that point.
>Remember, this is NOT an adversarial process. Everyone is supposed to
>be working toward the same goal, and should be on the same page.
>Understandings should be reached, and misunderstandings resolved, LONG
>before it ever reaches the confrontation/appeal stage. My position at
>that point is almost always pro-Scout, unless the unit can clearly
>demonstrate to me that they conveyed their dissatisfaction to the Scout,
>obtained his agreement on what was necessary to correct any
>deficiencies, and the Scout then failed to perform.
I guess sometimes I understand why national takes the "waffle" position.
And John Dalrymple is a great scouter and I love talking to him. But every
time he says....."well, did he meet the requirements?"....I just wanna
holler, "I DUNNO! TELL ME WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE!" :-)
As always, Bruce, thanks for shovin' an electrode in this old brain of
mine! And especially, thanks for your generous good service!
BLUE SKIES!, Any day above ground is a good day!
Jim Peterson
BS RT Comm, Pelathe Dist
Heart of America Council Eagle Class of 1963
ASM, T-55, Lawrence, Kansas Brotherhood, Tamegonit Lodge
email: kupete@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Mic-O-Say: HW "Shieldmaker"
