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 Tiger Cub den :-).

She and I have always had a great relationaship, so I said, "What's with the Tiger Cubs...I thought you said..." and she cut me off with a big laugh and said, "I know, I am SUCH a hypocrite!"

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 that it was an unfair advantage is if the course was an easy grade. But it's not -- it takes significant amount of work (in school and out), and mandatory participation (evenings and weekends), and most likely money (high quality instruments and private lessons) to get an A.

Guy

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."

My wise old SM -- he's still teaching me after all these years :-).

Guy

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 shouted at us, when he thought we were singling out his Scout for special treatment. We'd have to apologize to the others, for doing their best to make it to outings, despite busy school and sports schedules (that includes both of my sons), especially if it really wasn't necessary for them to do it. We'd have to apologize to those we challenged, through agreements, to actually be active and be active in their PoRs. We'd have to apologize to one Scout, and his frustrated dad, who also agreed to similar "conditions", but seems to be making little progress (3 months to go), which is why his dad is so frustrated. And at this moment, I'm not sure who else. How about the Scout who hasn't held a PoR since becoming Star (3 years ago) -- all the while others had a title, but did nothing? He's about to age out, and has been overwhelmed (for at least a year) of the requirements he's facing.

So I don't know...I'll have to think about apologies. I'm very confused where fairness starts and where it ends. Maybe I'll see where the DAC/EBoR ends up first, then contemplate it.

Guy

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. He had a Life BoR in May '09 (a correction from when I first started this thread). His next, and only outing, was August '09. After that, no sign of him. No meetings, no outings, no service projects, etc. If I read your point of view correctly, then you are considering him as 6 months active as of November '09.

Yes, granted a lot of stuff happened in between, including a change in advancement policy, not only on the national level but with our troop.

Chris' point of view, which I am choosing to support, points back to a discussion that the Scout had with him in January of this year. "What do I still need to do?" The answer was 5 more merit badges, a project, a position of responsibility, and be active with the troop (attend as many meetings as you are able, and attend half of our outings, over a six month period -- that turns into a metric of 3 outings, even though we had some 10 or 11 outings in that time period, two service projects, and a couple of Eagle projects). The Scout agreed. Probably would have been the best time to negotiate.

He fulfilled most of the agreement -- that is not in dispute [side note: NJCubScouter, the PoR is not in dispute, let's just leave it at that]. He did attend troop meetings, several of them, and he was reminded monthly that he still needed to show up on outings.

I do understand your point of view, and I fully realize that the DAC and the EBoR might view this case differently, and I am fine with that. I am not trying to sink this Scout, and if he advances to the EBoR, and passes, I will be happy for him. I will congratulate him. With this history, I am guessing that he will opt out of an ECoH with the troop. I will support him if he decides otherwise.

I have many concerns that I feel must be kept in balance. I have to support Chris -- he and I have come a long way in 3 years, and we have many more years to work together. I have to support fair policy for all Scouts in the troop, and see that it is applied equally. I also have to follow national advancement rules. We reach gray areas when we talk about old policy versus new policy, and I have to reconcile those too.

Are we being unfair to this Scout? I'm not sure. Would we be unfair to all other Scouts if we went ahead and signed? I'm not sure of that either. Unfair to all Eagles? I don't want to even try and comprehend that one. I've enjoyed the various responses in this thread. Many respondents are very clear about what they think in this case.

Guy

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". Later on, the other one came due for a Board, and he sailed through too. When I asked about it, I was told that they co-led the patrol. So earning Star and Life, they both received credit for being PLs (in non-functional patrols no less). It was in this sort of advancement environment that Chris and I stepped into, and when he volunteered as Advancement Chair, he started to make corrections in our advancement policy.

Which leads up to their last six months before turning 18. Both were handed PoRs, and knowing that they wouldn't be putting all that much effort into it, the PoRs were kind of non-challenging, but fit their schedules. One stepped up. The other, well he didn't. He wasn't even skirting the line, he just wasn't doing it. With about 3 months to go, I talked to Chris about it. This was just before he became SM.

Chris washed his hands of it. He told the SM that it was his mess and he'd have to take care of it himself. The SM took the easy way out and signed (rather than disappoint the mom, I guess). Even at the CoH, it was kind of like mom's show.

The other Scout -- well, at least he tried. He got the signature. Did the EBoR, and then he disappeared. Didn't want the ECoH.

I really do appreciate the constructive criticism that everyone is providing, but there is some expediency involved here. I can't always give the full story of the state this troop was in, and how difficult it has been to try and improve standards.

I've said all along, it is near impossible to improve standards in a troop (such as what, actually following rank requirements?) without actually improving the standards. We got a lot of flack along the way, sometimes being accused of singling out a particular Scout, when in fact I think we've been pretty fair at equal treatment across the board. There comes a time where, yes, you really do have to expect more out of an individual (or a lot of individuals).

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 choices.

What does this mean to you?

If you do not have a leadership position:

We expect you to put in the same effort you would for any other group activity such as a school athletic team or band. We understand that events collide and this can reduce a scouts participation during certain months. What we ask is when this happens the scout let his Patrol Leader, the Senior Patrol Leader and the Scoutmaster know what is going on. When there is no conflict we expect the scout will attend the troop meeting/outing/service project.

So if you think a sports team would accept a 50% attendance at practice and events then we expect the same. Personally I have not met a coach who would accept that level of participation and allow you to remain on a team.

If you do have a leadership position:

We expect you to put in the same effort you would for any other group activity such as a school athletic team or say band if you were say the team captain. We understand that events collide and this can reduce a scouts participation during certain months. What we ask is when this happens the scout let the senior patrol leader and scoutmaster know what is going on. When there is no conflict we expect the scout will attend the troop meeting/outing/service project.

So if you think a sports team would accept a 75% or less attendance at practice and events then we expect the same level of commitment. Personally I have not met a coach who would accept that level of participation from a team leader and allow you to remain as a team leader.

Certain ranks (Star-Eagle) require participation leadership role execution. Consider this when accepting a leadership role. If your attendance is deemed unacceptable you will be replaced and the role will not count towards the rank.

We really prefer that scouts put forth a good faith effort and that we don't need to deal with this issue. That said, if the troop feels a scout is not making a real effort to attend meetings and outings the troop will set explicit participation requirements for that scout in order to advance. This is especially true at the higher ranks.

--

Guy's note: this policy was put in place about a year ago. In other words, prior to the agreement with the Scout in question. Enforced? It hasn't been an issue, until now, and I think there are 3 other Scouts with verbal agreements (like this one) in place. Two of them are doing just fine, and progressing, and the third one appears to have dropped (he's another long story, but I would guess that you've had enough long stories from me for awhile!).

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 looking for advancement records, and records of attendance for this Scout, on outings and on service projects. If you'd like to see those specifics, I'll post them here.

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 policy isn't right, we'll probably discuss it, and then modify accordingly. But that's a separate issue.

Guy

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 question that had completely slipped my mind until then, and I'm sorry I didn't add it to the discussion here earlier. He asked me if we had a written troop policy on attendance, which applied to everyone, and whether or not the troop committee had approved it or not. We do have one, and it is fairly liberal. There is a link for it on the front page of our troop website.

He further told me that he will gather his notes from the various interviews, and talk to the Council AC. We both know the CAC -- he used to be our DC back when we were a different district -- the DAC and I were about half of the district committee at the time :-)

So the DAC and the CAC will decide on whether to refer this case to an EBoR. The DAC did tell me that they've had a philosophical discussion about this sort of thing in the past. He said that they agreed that unless it is a case of "Scout discipline" (being removed from a troop for disciplinary reasons, after some sort of incident) that they would probably always refer it to an EBoR. I told the DAC that I don't have any problems with that at all.

So if this is referred to an EBoR, that will happen on 9/20, provided they haven't already filled up every slot for that night already. In that case, the EBoR would be on 10/18.

Guy

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 completed it pretty much the day he wanted to, on his plan, which was right before his family took off on a week-long trip to Canada (by the way, that same week, the troop was in Canada as well, at a summer camp). The day after all of us returned, HS band camp started.

So about the timeline -- I took this to mean that he had mapped out in his head that he'd get requirements complete on schedule, then he'd hit a September EBoR. The missing signature put a wrinkle in his plan. I, too, think that is the reason why he is going forward without the signature. It fits his plan.

Guy

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 we still have a long way to go).

Guy

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 signature representing the committee (just my signature, near as I can tell)? I was wondering, in case it came up, if this should be discussed as a committee.

Ultimately, I decided that I most likely would not sign the application. I fully support Chris, with everything that he has done to support the rebuilding of this troop. We are, in fact, on the same page.

All that being said, I'm disappointed that the Scout didn't just come on two more outings (starting sometime back around February -- the troop had 10 outings between then and now, and one more which was cancelled).

50 hours? Not even -- I proposed, since I know the HS band schedule, that he make an appearance at our September and October outings, which is exactly what my older son will be doing. After the band season is completed, we have at least 3 more outings on the schedule, prior to his 18th birthday.

One odd thing the Scout said at yesterday's "conference" -- he said that he had stopped coming on outings because he didn't feel like he needed to any more. This was kind of like the "old guard" of the troop. Everything was about advancement, and when Scouts no longer needed outings (say for Camping MB), they didn't attend. We literally were down to 6 to 8 Scouts on an outing, out of a troop of 28. Two years at regular summer camp, then one or two years at "Eagle Week" for Eagle-required MBs. At that point, Scouts considered themselves done with camp.

Bottom line: counting back from now, in the three previous years, this Scout had been on exactly one overnight, and one day hike. Since his agreement, as I said above, there were some 10 outings that he had opted not to attend.

Guy

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% of meetings and outings, to my knowledge) that he would be expected to meet. The Scout thought about it a little, and came back to our troop.

The odd part, to me, is the elapsed time. The initial request from the Scout came in May 2011. He came back to our troop ("to rejoin", his words) in Jan 2012. The "exploration" took about 8 months total.

One other quick story -- one night, a second-year Scout from another troop (same one as the one above) showed up at one of our meetings, with his mom. As a (former) membership chair, I make it my business to make sure that a PL or SPL pulls a Scout into immediate activity, and to greet the parent. Mom tells me they are thinking of transferring, but doesn't disclose the reason.

The following weekend, I was doing my second Woodbadge weekend, and the SM from the other troop was there too. I knew who he was, but hadn't really talked to him before. So I said hello, and I also told him that one of his Scouts had approached us. I told him that I don't believe in poaching and had not contacted them beforehand, they just showed up. He thanked me, told me he knew who it was, and he told me that there were issues with the family that they'd been trying to work on. Later on, he told me that everything was fine with them, and they were staying with his troop.

If I learned of a Scout seriously thinking about leaving our troop, I would tell them about the other two troops in town, and how each of us are slightly different, and tell him there is no harm in trying to find a better fit.

Guy

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 Scout needed to have his say, and I didn't interject commentary along the way. So he had his say. Afterward, I am left with the feeling that most of what he said is not meant for me to share. I will say, however, that if I were a board of at least three adults, it would have made an excellent Eagle board.

I witnessed about half of the conference, this last week, between Chris and the Scout. I think like any average 17-yr-old, the Scout heard what he wants to hear, not necessarily what was said. Sensing that, I asked him two questions -- the first was if he'd expected the outcome of the conference was going to be a signed application (he answered yes). The second was if he understood why Chris was choosing to not sign the application at this time, and he said yes, and explained the reason.

We talked briefly about the agreement -- end of January, when the Scout was coming back to the troop, Chris outlined the remaining requirements the Scout had for Eagle, and his expectations. The Scout's posture, at the moment, is that he agreed that he would try to attend 3 more outings, not that he actually would attend.

Towards the end, I outlined what I consider are the Scout's two choices -- honor the agreement, and then get the signature, or to proceed with the unsigned application as a disputed application. I told him what little I knew about the process (it is turned over to the advancement committee, it is out of the troop's hands, although I expect Chris and I might be solicited for input, that the process is confidential, and that we are not supposed to hear anything about the deliberation, and I said that I have no gut feeling of what the outcome will be. I told him my opinion, that choosing the first option would likely be the simpler way to go. I also told him that if he didn't get satisfaction from the council involvement, that there was a national appeal process that he could pursue.

This was one point where dad spoke up -- he asked if the Scout had any idea of which option he might pursue. The Scout was very clear -- he said he would be pursuing the disputed application process.

So that's where we sit -- I haven't been through this process before, so I have no idea what will be happening. I do know the District Advancement Chair, so I may drop him a note (without much elaboration) that this process is being started.

If you're interested, I will followup as the process unfolds.

Guy

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 NH 4k-footers, to a weekend where our guys built a monkey bridge, but soon had more interest in rolling in the mud pit beneath it, followed by jumping in the lake right next to it, or one of the two summer camps we went to, one of which was in Canada.

He did come on one outing -- he didn't camp either night, but he did a day hike of Mt Tecumseh, one of the 4k-footers in NH. And he said that he wanted to come on the Troop-Pack overnight we had planned, but had been cancelled because of a severe weather forecast.

Guy

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 short, with what appears to be minimal effort?

This is one of the struggles I have. Yes, black and white is easy. Requirements complete, sign the application. But minimal effort, to the point that some kind of value judgement takes over whether they are really complete or not?

That was a point that Chris made in his post at the top of pg 2. The Scout was asked for participation, a metric was placed on that, and he agreed. Reminded along the way, several times, of the expectation. Didn't do it. What now?

Chris isn't signing otherwise (so #2 isn't happening). He's already made that clear. From that alone, we'd have a dispute playing out at the district level.

I agree that #3 is lose-lose. But is #3 the only option after #1 has not worked?

I've seen rismith's response too -- I was reading that section of the G2A this morning, to familiarize myself with the appeal procedure.

Personally, I think the Scout has two options at this point:

a) go on the outings, get the signature, proceed to EBoR

b) start on the appeals process, by notifying the district of the disputed circumstances

I think the choice is clear. I think a) is win-win. Choice b) may or may not end in the Scout's favor.

Guy