GKlose

A few years back, I had invited an old college friend to dinner at my house, along with her husband and young sons (under 5 y.o.). In the course of talking about various activities, I told her about my sons and I being involved in a local Scout group. She said, at the time, "I strongly suggest you reconsider your involvement with an organization that doesn't support inclusion." I didn't have much to say, other than I thought the issue was largely misunderstood. I bumped into her a few times in the intervening years, but last winter, I bumped into her at a HS basketball game, with her Tige

My WB patrol (feeble but wise Owls, we are) decided to bead together, which was just a delay of a month or so. A Buffalo, a friend to everyone, roamed into our ceremony, and we were happy to have him. The location was interesting -- it was at the site of an old Scout camp, since turned over to the state, in the district of one of our patrol members. Nice facility, nice lodge.

B-dweller, I don't have a good answer for that question. We do an annual renewal every fall, for our recharter by the end of January (for an April 1 charter date). We didn't have a policy of dropping inactive Scouts in the past. If a parent does the renewal with us (and in this Scout's case, his older brother was in the process of earning Eagle, so he was renewing regardless) then we'd recharter him. Our entire committee is new now -- so I imagine that Chris and I will talk about this, and then decide what to discuss at a committee meeting (in terms of revisiting policy).

Unrelated to Scouting, but Beav, the most egregious case of this I saw in our local school district was about two years ago. A woman complained to the HS principal that the existence of an Honors band program was an unfair advantage to the kids enrolled in it. They had the potential of having a higher grade point average (than her kid, which was the subtext), therefore a higher class standing. The principal washed her hands of it by referring the matter to the town school committee, who then acquiesced. All along, I thought the argument was ridiculous. The only way it could be construed t

Forgot the most obvious one: Scout Litigation -- Do Your Best as a Scout Lawyer (sarcasm intended!) Guy

Shortly after my older son joined a troop, and I signed up as a Scouter, I was in an email conversation with my old Scoutmaster, from some 40 years ago (he was only about 10 years older than his average Scout at the time), and I was complaining about something or other, and how it was different than we did things way back when. He responded with something along the lines of "congratulations, you've just learned your first lesson -- you've learned that the Scouting program is whatever any individual volunteer wants it to be, and you'll soon learn that you have no control over that." M

I don't want to push this into argument territory, because Fred, I really do appreciate the reasoned responses you have added to this thread. But I will honestly admit that my first reaction, on seeing that an apology would be in order, provoked a fairly negative reaction in me. I decided not to respond right away. But I just got to thinking, moments ago -- I think it would be far more important for us to first apologize to several Scouts that we delayed from Boards of Review, and to the ones we delayed, and who decided to leave the troop. We'd also have to apologize to the dad that shout

BTW, I am staying out of this debate (given the other thread that I started), but I would say that I really do dislike Scout Litigation (a term I used last week), which not only includes Scout Lawyering, but also Scouter Lawyering. Others have said the situation is simple (with advancement), either he met the requirements or he didn't. But Scout Litigation pops up when either party is dabbling in the gray areas. Guy

Fred, I appreciate what you're saying (and I am resisting the urge to post something in the other thread -- I have a thread here, so I see no need for a possible hijack of the other one -- I'll read it, and pay attention to the responses). But I think that you are seeing this situation a little differently than Chris and I. We did have some "transition Scouts" that completed advancement under the previous administration. A story I told yesterday, just about this followup, is about a Scout who didn't even do a bare minimum. He gave up, and the previous SM still signed. But this Scout.

Fred, this hurts to admit, but last year, we had another Eagle who fits that mold exactly. All along, it was pretty clear that he wasn't interested and put in minimal effort. I received email from him that really sounded like his mom had written them. This Scout, and his natural buddy, in the "old days" of the troop pretty much scammed their way through a PoR. Just after I joined the committee, sitting on a board for one or the other of them, I saw that his PoR was listed as Assistant PL. I asked the other board members about that, and I was told "oh, well he was kind of like acting PL".

Our written participation policy, verbatim: Troop Participation Expectations Our troop, like any organization, does have expectations for participation. Scouts are members of patrols. These patrols are set up to make a functional team. When a scout does not participate they affect the whole team. This limits what a patrol can do and their ability to compete and grow. All that said we understand there are many demands on a scouts time. For that reason we are not setting an explicit requirement for participation. Rather we expect the scout to learn how to make intelligent ch

Basementdweller -- I'm relatively at peace with the process now, and don't feel all that invested. I feel more an emotional attachment to this thread. All of you have been great asking for clarity, offering advice, etc. so I feel as if I should follow up, not only with what is going on in this circumstance, but also to answer questions that pop up. Beav, I'll post our participation policy later on. As I said earlier, it is fairly liberal, and is written to reflect the question of "sufficiency" back to the Scout. A legal document it ain't. :-) Newest news: the DAC sent me a note back

B-dweller, I think you missed it in what I wrote, but I will hereby admit to over-bloviation :-). We do have a written policy, approved by the committee, and it is on the front page of our troop website. I do believe that Chris addressed Scouts, at one of our past meetings, and talked about the policy. Also, and I don't mean to overanalyze what you're saying, but I don't really view this as a possible overruling. If the DAC/CAC and District Advancement Committee decide to go ahead with an EBoR that's fine with me. Now if they come back to us and tell us that our troop attendance

I wish I knew a bulk source for the Tri-San tablets that our summer camp provides. But until I find them, I'm content at using Steramine tablets too. I think a box of six bottles was about $20.

More data from last night, and NJ, I think you're foreshadowing this just fine :-) -- - yesterday, Scout's dad calls the council office, talks to our relatively new DE (I think he is a rookie), and is referred to the DAC. - as I said earlier, I sent email to the DAC, and he invited me to call him last night, and he said that he had a few questions - I responded to him, agreeing to call, and added a synopsis of the argument - I called, and talked to him for about a half hour last night; he said that he would also be talking to the Scout and to SM Chris The DAC asked me one quest

NJ, I think you're pretty much capturing the situation dead on. I'm sorry to be coy about what the Scout and I talked about on Monday (actually, I did more listening than anything else, because I sensed that the Scout wanted to be heard, not to debate his viewpoint that particular time). One of the things he mentioned was his timeline...he told me that when he returned to the troop, he mapped out a timeline for what he had to do, and that he had nailed it all along the way. It's kind of odd, in a way, because both Chris and I were getting updates on his Eagle project progrress, and he com

And so it begins :-) I sent email to our District Advancement Chair with no other detail than there is a "disputed application" that will be on the way. He responded very quickly, asking me to call him tonight so that he can find out some details, and find out whether this can be resolved prior to the "disputed" circumstance. NJ, I started a whole thread on "Rebuilding a Troop", which is under the Patrol Method forum. That post was the parent to this thread. That thread gives a more complete picture of what was going on in the old days, and the work it took to rebuild the troop. (and

Thanks, all -- I am fine with the decisions on both sides, and if asked, I'll submit a statement that lists my point of view, and I think I know enough about what has gone on in the past to give what I think is an fair and unbiased look at this situation. I had my own personal dilemma -- as CC, do I sign or not? At this point, I have not been asked for my signature on the application. I did some basic research, such as "what does signing this form mean?" (that I approve of the Scout advancing to an Eagle Board of Review, with a completed application) and is it my signature, or my signatur

Had one case of this :-)... A Scout was upset with us, mostly about not getting credit for a non-existent PoR, during a time period he was away from the troop (actual details provided on request). When it became clear to him that he would actually have to hold a PoR in order to credit for one, he became upset and began "exploring options." He talked to leadership of another troop (who did check with us for our side of the story), they informed him that not only would he have to hold a PoR in their troop, once he was elected for one, but that their troop had attendance standards (80%

Thanks -- I do remember that thread from a couple of years ago. So that was a national appeal -- I know we'll have to go through something at the council or district level first. Guy

Followup -- I met with the Scout yesterday, and his father sat with us and observed. He didn't really say much until the end, and even then, he was asking his son a few questions. Side note: I talked with Chris Sunday afternoon, and we are on the same page. When I first sat down with the Scout, I explained a few things from my end. One was that I couldn't overrule Chris' signature, I could not sign for him, and the prior SM could not sign for him. I also told him that advancement is very much a program concept, and that Chris is in charge of program. Overall, I sensed that the S

Aw, shucks -- now I'm blushing. But about the salary part, now that we have a treasurer, I can't skim my "salary" off the top any more. :-) Guy

Barry, sorry, I missed your earlier response. I was distracted by another thread :-). Yes, we've contacted Eureka, and we're working on getting replacement poles. I did that for one of my 5x7 tents too, a couple of years ago, and when another tent pole shredded, I bought a pole repair kit. But a free replacement from Eureka is a much better deal. :-) Guy

"If he changes his mind, great. If not do the boy a favor, give him the district advancement chair's digits so the lad can start writing his appeal while the troop is off camping." :-) This isn't my first smile of the day, but it's a good one. Chris did also make the point "if only he'd spent some of that energy...", which over the last six months, meant an outing where everyone was trying to see what kind of crazy stuff we could cook, on camp stoves, in dutch ovens, over fires; or to a Scout orienteering event, to a bike trip on the Cape Cod bike path, on a couple of hikes on N

Lisa -- I can't exactly recall the conversation we had with the Scout earlier this year, on his rejoining the troop, but I certainly would characterize it as #1, with some of those same words (we'd worked hard to rebuild the troop, it became vibrant again, with lots of new and interesting outings, etc). I think we did appeal to his sense of honor, and our desire to help him succeed at fully completing requirements (remember, at the time, several requirements were incomplete). Along with that discussion, of course, was the agreement. So with those parameters, what if the Scout still falls