fred johnson

Yeah, I've seen a similar ... not the same, but similar ... situations too. Of course the specifics affect the decision, but I strongly lean toward your view. How can I maintain the trust of other parents? How many parents will send their kid off for the weekend with relatively little supervision with a scout that brought and offered pot to other scouts? It's not just a matter of trust between myself and the offending scout. It's a matter of trust with everyone in the troop and their families. But the specifics and the individual scout would affect the decision.

Eagledad / Barry ... My sons have had both really great MBCs and some very poor MBCs. I, in now way, view their receiving MBs from either as unethical. It was the experience they had. Simple as that. Plus, I really don't like the inference other scouts have an ethical dilemma if they accept a badge from a less than quality merit badge counselor. ============================ IMHO ... Troops are 90% removed from the merit badge program. I sort of wish the last 10% was detached too. For example, MBC are approved and maintained by the district. If a MBC didn't follow the requirements or mistakenly awarded a MB, the district staff should be the ones to address the situation and talk to the scout about his not really have earned it. Same with summer camp, summer camp MB program is administered by the camp and council. If there is an issue, it should be corrected by the camp or council, not by the unit.

Time for me to re-read the GTA. Section 7.0.4.7 was not in the 2011 published version. This version is over a year old and I did not notice it. IMHO, GTA 7.0.4.7 is well meant, but I really fear how far some diligent leaders will take it. It could be easily argued ... and has been in th past ... that no merit badge can be successfully presented in a group setting that has requirements verbs such as discuss, present or show. Yet, that's how summer camp does merit badges. For example ... my fear is that 15 scouts take emergency prep at summer camp and 12 scouts earn the badge and three scouts from one troop get signed blue cards but their leaders take it away because there was no way that over a period of four hours that 15 scouts could do each of the requirements properly. It then becomes an inconsistent experience. Inconsistent experiences are very demotivating for the scouts. ================================ GTA 7.0.4.7 does say that it is not to be used to apply a different set of standards. But that is a very slippery slope. "Discuss" ... did the words come out of each individual scout's mouth or was he one of fifteen scouts that stared into the sky and listened to a discussion between two MBCs at summer camp. ================================ I'm glad there is recourse. Some scouts do game the system and unit leaders need recourse. But I'd rather see the procedure focused on correcting the MBC or the process.

I must confess our troop does have a MBC for each Eagle and many other merit badges. But ... it's rare for our adults to teach MBs. It's more so that scouts have a resource to close out partial badges after summer camp or after MB events. To be honest, even our leaders that appear on district MB lists rarely get called by other units or even used by our own scouts. Most scouts earn MBs now at summer camp or at MB events.

Old_OX_Eagle83 ... Fair enough. I'm coming from a troop where our scoutmaster for years was the financial controller for a mid-sized company. He was excellent at teaching personal management and well qualified for it. Another local troop has a doctor as scoutmaster. He's very well qualified for teaching medicine or fitness or .... I think the main concern people have is the same concern that happens anytime anyone with an existing relationship with the scout becomes the MBC for that scout. Scoutmaster. Parent. Teacher. Coach. Etc etc etc. BSA has repeatedly said it's okay for a parent or unit leader to be a MBC for their own scout. Mistakes will happen. Some people will game the system. It happens. I'm not too worried about it. Eagle requires 21 merit badges. Many scouts usually end up with many more. It's just not that big a deal. --------------------------------------------- IMHO, the real way to address these concerns is when registering MBCs. Districts should better screen MBCs. BSA should suggest a guideline that districts only approve individuals for three or fewer merit badges ... unless extenuating circumstances exist. Maybe five badges if the individual can show strong knowledge in all five topics. There is a local district where it is not uncommon for merit badge counselors to be approved for 10+ merit badges. In those cases, scouts could earn Eagle by only working with two merit badge counselors, theoretically. I doubt if it ever happens, but I would be sad if it did because the scout would have lost out on a great opportunity.

Per the original post ... There is no rule issue or ethical dilemma in the original question. BSA GTA section 7 ( http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf'>http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf ) doesn't strictly cover the specific question because it can't document every "what if" without becoming too thick and too overwhelming a document. Just apply the basic rules and the answer is clear. Old_OX_Eagle83 ... "Why is it unethical for the SM to approve himself as MBC" ... Scoutmasters do NOT "approve" anything related to merit badges. Scoutmasters confirm the scout is eligible to work on a badge, provide a list of counselors that the council / district have approved as MBC and confirm they had a discussion with the scout. The scout can use one from that list or use another MBC. The merit badge process is mostly in the scout's control and only the MBC approves anything. See BSA Guide To Advancement, Section 7.0.0.3 "The Scout, the Blue Card and the Unit Leader", page 45. Old_OX_Eagle83 ... "Why is it unethical for the SM to approve himself as MBC" ... He doesn't. The council / district approve MBCs. Old_OX_Eagle83 ... "it requires signatures of separate people for a reason." ... It does not require separate people. In no way and no where is that required. Two or three different "roles" need to sign. But those roles could be the same person. --- "before" - scoutmaster confirms scout is eligible to work on the badge plus a discussion plus a MBC list --- "during" - MBC approves. It's the only and final approval. --- "after" - scoutmaster (or unit leader) signs to confirm the troop received the badge card and that they had another brief discussion on how it went. That's it. ================================================== = I fully agree with Eagledad. Too many scout leaders are boxed in by make believe rules that are really only urban legends. Extra rules are created by well meaning leaders, but in the end "good ideas" should not be treated as "rules". We should encourage every scoutleader to read or get to know the BSA GTA and discuss "rules" based on interpretting that document. ... http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

Old_OX_Eagle83 ... "Failure to notify the SE and CO is a Charter violation" ... Show me the BSA document or explain your rationale. In this specific situation, it's moot as the camp as notified (thus SE) and SM and CC are involved. (representatives of the CO). "SM and/or CC don't get to decide ..." ... Unit leaders have the right to kick them out of the troop. SE also may choose in to kick out of scouts. Both SE and unit leaders have to choose to keep the scout. "Felony" ... If this was a felony situation, the kid would be done. Period. But we're talking a misdemeanor, not a felony ... unless he has a large amount or is selling it for profit.

Leaders did the right thing. They were asked to explain a hot button policy that they did not establish and they did not believe in. It would have been showing up to receive a verbal tongue lashing for a politician's benefit. Plus, the parents in the units are probably a not a harmonious group believing all the same thing. So no matter what position you take on the issue, you would have burnt bridges. Selling water and picking up trash is as non-controversial as you get. But when someone chooses to make it controversial .... ... Best to walk away

Horizon ... Argumentative. I used the definition correctly. But you did not use the definition of Socratic correctly. If you had, you would have more questions and quite a bit fewer statements and assertions. If you want social change, fine. That is very respectable. If you want to participate in an organization that you disagree with their policies, fine. There is usually a workable middle ground. But if you want social change that contradicts with your church and you hijack their pulpit without permission, then don't be surprised when you are shown the door. The scout uniform is BSA's pulpit.

Their scout leaders in those units did the right thing. Both the local council and BSA national put the scouts in the middle of a political fight. They did the right thing by saying our scouts can't be in the middle of this issue.

Horizon ... You are being deliberately obtuse. Columbus Day? MLK? Cinco De Mayo? None of those are hot button political topics. Participation is a celebration and patriotic and is not controversial. Everyone rational scouter knows BSA would approve marching in those. Marchers in the previously mentioned parades KNOW it is controversial, KNOW that BSA does not want them using BSA images in such events, KNOW it's a political hot button topic and are using BSA for their own agenda. BSA has communicated multiple times to multiple people and many of the specific marchers. If they do not want to follow the BSA lead, then they should be removed. Period. And anyone who wants to change the course of any organizations knows that's the risk you pay to protest your own organization. But mistakes do happen. Robert Bolingbroke should not have used his scouting title or credentials when participating in the political topic. He was probably asked because of his Boy Scout alignment. He does have first admentment rights and he should have been more careful then injecting a visible Boy Scout leader into the process. I suspect BSA national did have a conversation with him about it.

Good luck Matt. Wish you the best. These situations are never easy and there are no step by step instructions. Good luck.

Was it signed off? If so, it's done. The back detailed list of what was completed is only necessary if it was a "partial", not completed at camp. If so, the merit badge counselor could have been signing dozens of these and accidentally started signing 5c and 7d instead of signing 5d and 7c. Don't sweat it too much. I would follow through to understand what happened, but it's a small issue. Mistakes happen. I'd be more concerned with whether the scout learned something about Fish and Wildlife and if it was a positive experience such that he now has interest or can share his experience with others and whether it was positive such that he wants to work on more merit badges. If we get too detailed or legalistic, scouts get negative vibes and might stop working merit badges and the scout program.

I don't think the "delegate" applies directly to your question. GTA "delegate" statements are so that the scoutmaster is not over burdened in a big troop or so that scouts are not delayed if the scoutmaster is absent. Strictly speaking, there is no issue. --- The pre-signature is not an "approval". It's just that the scout is registered in the unit and can work on the badge. --- The MBC signature is absolute in reflecting the MB is complete. If the scoutmaster is good with the topic, great. He can register as the MBC and teach it. Plus, it's a nice way to get to know your scoutmaster better. --- The post-signature is also not an "approval". It's proof. The troop returns the "applicant" section of the blue card to the scout (immediately) with the unit leader signature, Then if the troop loses their part, the scout can show his portion with the unit leaders signature to prove he handed it in and that they received it. I'd hope that every MB is not counseled by the SM, but, one or two, fine.

Horizon ... Scouts at RNC or DNC is about pride in our country. It's not about a specific topic or issue. Marching in this parade would be similar to scouts in uniform picketing an abortion clinic. It's using the good reputation of scouts to fight a hot button topic. If the scouters did not stop when requested, they should be thrown out.

jblake47 ... Glad your scouting units are doing well. Our cub scouts are down year after year. That directly affects our troops. I'm glad to be a friend to any youth. I'm glad to help in any way I can. .... IMHO, trust is everything. If I can't reasonably trust him, I don't want him on camp outs. On camp our outs, scouts are often on their own for hours at a time. Other side of camp. Hiking. Transitions between activities. The biggest one is eight hours a night for sleeping. We don't have someone up all night. We need to trust them. At troop meetings, scouts often spend 20 or 30 minutes playing games outside and burning off energy. We don't observe scouts minute to minute. Trust is key. So maybe let him continue as a member, but no camping. At least he gets to choose whether he completes his Eagle rank then.

dedkad - Urine tests was a fear the scout had and not a court assignment. It was posted by basementdweller, not MattR. Plus, troop communications should never include what's happening between courts and a youth. You only have 2nd hand access to that information. But if you did, you can't share that information in a email to the troop because it would come to haunt the scout through his peers at school. Maybe he'll have to take a drug test. Or maybe a 2nd. But that's it. These things close out fairly quickly.

jblake47 ... It's not a Pollyanna issue. No scout is perfect and every scout screws up. But all screw ups are not equal and some screw-ups cross boundaries. Scouting has a higher expectation because we need to trust our scouts more. Schools have inspections and can bring in drug sniffing dogs (our high school does that every month or so). Baseball and soccer coaches can watch every member during almost every moment of practices and games. But as scout leaders, we can't do body pat downs or keep a constant eye on the scouts. And, scout leaders are not trained or experienced with this ... and they don't have the resources to handle it. This may be fairly common and minor in the eyes of society, but in scouting this is a more major issue. --------------------------------- Reputation ... Plus troops compete for scouts. Our city has six other troops. If you have a troubled scout, that gets through the grapevine quickly and a bad reputation sticks around for years. When parents make the choice of which troops their son can join, this could be a major strike. I've also seen the active committee members who say "yeah, if any scout needs scouting, this kid need scouting". But it's the committee members very own sons who then stop coming to scouting. As long as Boy Scout troops have to compete with other troops to get Webelos to join them, this is a significant issue. My opinion may be different if our troop did not need to compete with six other troops for local pack Webelos. --------------------------------- I'm not saying I would thow him out. The details decide that. But that's the level where I'd be discussing it. IMHO, I would be less focused on punishment. He was sent home from summer camp (which is plenty) and generally scouting does not use "punishments". We use positive corrections. As for help, the courts and family are going to deal with this plenty. He's going to have enough people "helping" him. If he stays in the troop, I'd have to trust him. That's the issue.

At almost any parade ... except this parade. In this parade it's a political statement. Everyone knows that ... including the uniformed. IMHO, anyone using scouting to make a political statement should lose their membership ... either side. It's one thing to present the flags when people discuss controversial topics such as at a political convention. It's a very different thing when presenting the flags IS the political issue.

Scouter99 ... You are right. I hinted at it. What do you tell all the parents of the other scouts? It's a very important communication. They will learn about it from their own scout. So you better get ahead of the communication headache. Unlike school and neighbors, scouting is a voluntary association and chosen because of the likelyhood of being with scouts of good character. Now a scout offered another scout an illegal substance at camp. Now the troop is a less safe environment for their kids. You have to explain to parents how this won't happen again when they trust you with their own scout. ----------------------------------- The reputation of a troop is a fragile thing. Because of BSA's recruitment model, the reputation is the life and death of a troop. A bad scout drive many scouts away. A bad reputation can kill a troop. It's one of the reasons I take a more hard line view of behavior issues. I can sympathize, but I've got to protect the future of the troop.

Fine. None needed. Preferred yes. Needed, no

jblakely ... Be careful. When you just said can easily be turned around to infer character and quality issues about you as a scout leader. Dimishing comments reflect more on the speaker than the scout.

Baseballfan ... I fully agree with you. ... " because he has read and heard these "too young" conversations and knows that some folks will always look at him as a lesser Eagle... and I hate that. It is snobbery at its finest. Your experiences are no more or less valid than his. " I'd also add jealousy to the mix. Highly motivated kid. Very supportive parents. When I hear people "paper Eagle" or similar, the arrogant rude gall of the statement reflects on the speaker and not at all on the Eagle Scout.

TAHAWK ... It's interesting in the inconsistencies. I've seen differently. If a scout that has an incident such as this one resolved and behind him, I've seen those as successful even if the scoutmaster won't sign off on the SMC or the Eagle application. BASEMENTDWELLER ... "I would do everything in my power to make it as difficult as possible for the young man to receive his Eagle." ... If you don't want to support the scout, fine. Then, get out of the way. If you don't trust him in your troop, remove him. But it is NEVER EVER our job to block a scout. Not help, fine. Not sign, fine. If you want to let him lay in the bed that he made, fine. But to be an obstacle or even blowing threatening hot air is just being a mean sob and a poor example of a scout leader. Maybe it's just me. I've seen scouts that have faced too many challenges to believe that my job as a leader is to add to their headaches.

How does your troop normally handle camp out finances? Go with that. Then the cubs learn how the troop finances will work. Our troop tries to estimate cost and then add $5 on top for padding. Some events we end up ahead. Some we lose money. Go with what your long-running policy is. Especially as your troop probably had costs that were hidden (propane, gas pulling trailer to camp, wear and tear on troop equipment, etc etc) You might also want to recognize that your troop took the risk. If you lost money, you would have been hard pressed to ask the cub scouts for more. You might want to also recognize it's hard to get individual money back to individuals. That requires volunteer time and energy. IMHO, the "COR" is just trying to show his knowledge and expertise and his value. He's making an issue out of nothing. It's just not a big deal. No event can be balanced to the penny. Sometimes you end up behind. Sometimes you end up ahead. You just need to make sure troop never goes bankrupt. You can refund extra back to the packs ... if that's what the troop leaders want. Just realize the packs might not refund the $$ to the indiviual.