NeilLup

Eisley asks the very interesting question of whether one can set expectations for a Scout for the Position of Responsibility and I believe that I mostly agree with BW on this.

However, I would suggest that the Scout can always set expectations for himself, freely and voluntarily.

The problem comes when the expectations are externally imposed, particularly after the fact (We, in our infinite wisdom have decided that you didn't meet the standard which we think you should have met.)

So, in order of decreasing acceptability (and increasing likelihood of reversal upon appeal)

a) The Scout sets standards for himself in advance

b) The Troop leadership suggests standards and the Scout freely and voluntarily accepts them in advance

c) The Scout freely and voluntarily decides after the fact whether he has done the job. If not, he does not consider himself to have met the requirement.

d) The Troop leadership imposes standards in advance and the Scout really has no choice if he wants the position

e) The Troop leadership after the fact decides whether the Scout has done the job with no a priori performance standards set. The Scout is given no choice whether to accept this decision.

My understanding is that in case "e", an appeal to the National Council will be upheld. Other than case "c", I am not sure how the other cases would turn out upon appeal.

A point is that the Scout can always freely and voluntarily add requirements for himself or can interpret the requirements in a more strict manner. It is the adults who cannot add requirements.

Hello Yarrow,

There is an excellent brochure put out by the BSA on "Selecting a Scoutmaster" or Selecting Quality Leaders or some such name. Your District Executive can get it for you.

I would only suggest that you should not select from the individuals who are interested, rather, you should identify a number of candidates, rank order them and then start at the top of the list and do your best to get them to be interested. It is a sales job. You may have your current interested person at the top of the list. Or maybe not.

The best SM I ever recruited had no interest when first approached.

Personal experience

I was contacted by the National Advancement Committee in writing through our local council scout executive, asking me to chair an appellate board on behalf of the national office. >>

Fascinating. Different from my experience from a couple of points of view. That's what makes Scouting such a great organization.

Hello Bob White,

I am not questioning what you were told nor that you chaired a local council appeal board. I am not questioning that, in the best of all possible worlds, those should be the instructions given to an appeal board. However, unless you sit on the National Advancement Subcommittee of the National Boy Scouting Committee, I do not believe that you chaired a National appeal board. Am I mistaken and you do sit on that group?

I continue to stand by my statement of how the National appeals are interpreted, rightly or wrongly, until a concrete example is given indicating that I am wrong.

With respect, Bob White, I stand totally by the statement that I have made.

If a Scout is rejected by a Board of Review for advancement and the reason is that a performance standard has been applied to service in a position of responsibility and the Scout appeals this to the National council, the appeal will be upheld and the Scout will be advanced.

I am not talking here about an appeal board at the local council but instead the final appeal to the National council.

National is particularly troubled by cases where a boy is allowed to believe that he has met all the requirements for Eagle Scout and then the Eagle Board of Review decides that he is not "worthy" of Eagle Scout status or is too young or some other such reason.

I do know of a number of cases where such an appeal has been upheld. I would be very interested to know of any recent documented case where National has upheld the application of a performance standard to service in the position of responsibility and so has sustained the non-passing of a Board of Review by a Scout.

I am not necessarily saying that I agree with this policy on the part of the National council but just giving information on what I understand the policy to be.

My understanding is that if a Scout has held the position of responsibility, is rejected by the BOR and appeals to the National Council, the appeal will be upheld. National has said that, from an appeal point of view, there is no performance requirement. If a boy is not doing the job, National says that they should be removed from their position, otherwise, they qualify for advancement.

Similarly, if a boy meets the tenure requirement and is registered as an active member of the Troop, is rejected for not being sufficiently active and appeals, the appeal will be upheld. National has said that being a dues paying member meets the "active member" requirement. If a boy is insufficiently active, they say he should be transferred on the rolls to being an "associate" member.

This is not saying that a Troop cannot have performance requirements for leadership or active membership requirements and cannot turn boys down at a Board of Review on this basis. It simply means that if that happens and the boy chooses to appeal to National (which rarely happens) the appeal will be upheld and the boy will be advanced.

As far as what to do, the BOY can always decide that he has not done enough and agree to the deferral of his advancement. The appeals to the local council and to National occur when there is a disagreement between the Scout (and/or his parents) and the Board of Review.

Hello Ha Ha HA,

It isn't always good to be the king, is it?

You are facing an interesting problem and an interesting life experience. As a child (and all of us posting on this board have been children at one time or another), you are subjected to extremely one-sided leadership. Your parents have extremely powerful authority. They can tell you to do something and, ultimately, you have no real choice. Same thing with your teachers with very few limitations.

But that isn't the way that most leadership is in the adult world. The status of the leader and the followers is much closer to being equal. There is far more selling and inducing in leadership than there is telling and directing.

I am the President and CEO of my company. I can fire anyone who doesn't do exactly what I say. And I know that they know it. But I would essentially never use that authority to enforce a directive. I make requests. I ask. I explain what I want. I explain why. I "sell" what needs to be done. I do not punish. I do reward. If I ask for something and the person does not want to do it, I negotiate.

If you have the opportunity to participate in JLT, you will learn some other techniques to get people to do what you wish. That is, after all, the essence of leadership.

As far as how to punish the Scout, you report what happened to the Scoutmaster. That is your "punishment" of him. The SM takes it from there.

But you also need to work with the SM in helping you to have the necessary authority to get the Troop's business done. The SM needs to be sure that the Troop members know that when you or the SPL ask them to do something that is reasonable, they are expected to do it.

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I wanted to be an Eagle Scout and that required the Personal Fitness Merit Badge. For my age (13-14), that required one to do six pull ups.

I was a pudgy kid and there was no way in the world that I could do one pull up. It ended up taking me 18 months to get 6 pull ups.

One thing that one of my leaders suggested was putting the pull-up bar up hung with strong rubber bands rather than with rope. In this way, I could build muscle strength without pulling up my whole weight. As I got better, one could put more rubber bands and make the demands greater. Finally, I got to the point that I could lift my entire weight.

In a method like this, I could show improvement also.

Having twice been on a selection committee, I can indicate that what Eamonn and BW have written is essentially exactly in line with my experience.

A few additional items:

1) The council may request that a particular person be included in the pool. This request may, or may not, be honored.

2) I believe we were given about 8-10 names and folders to consider. In one case, we interviewed three and in the other four.

3) The individual is essentially hired immediately after the interview day before the candidates leave.

4) This is an extremely structured process. While it is unusual for volunteers, it is very common for the regional staff.

Should I just quit? I heard alot of extolling on leadership and working together. They didn't understand that we had been there and done that already...>>

Scouting should be fun and rewarding for all participants. In your unit, rather clearly, the SM has a vision of how things should be and the CO buys into that vision. You appear not to share that vision and, instead, to have a very different vision.

As I see it, you have a limited number of choices at this time:

1) Change your vision to be in line with the SM and the CO

2) Suck it up and be frustrated

3) Do #2 while waiting for the SM to leave and/or the unit to fail

4) Find a Scouting unit more in line with your vision

5) Start a unit in line with your vision

6) Give up on Scouting

I hope that you don't do #6. Scouting is a great organization with enough freedom and flexibility for everybody to do what they wish.

At this point, I would consider changing Troops if I were you. Life is too short to be frustrated, angry and hurt over an organization which is supposed to be fun, uplifting and rewarding. A Scout is Loyal is a two way street and the ultimate loyalty should be, in my opinion, to oneself.

There is nothing wrong with promoting one's own view of how things should be in a proper manner and then, if one concludes that one's vision does not fit in Troop A, trying to find another unit where you fit better.

With respect to your CC:

Number 1 is so much horse poo. The point of the law says "A Scout is Courteous" not "A Scout is Courteous unless, of course, it is an all male group." If there is a problem with what this female ASM might say, then that conversation should occur with her and ensure that she is comfortable with not making the Scouts uncomfortable. At the same time there are certain standards of courtesy. I don't remember anywhere in the "How to be a Guy" handbook which says that you get to burp and break wind whenever you want. The boys can do that as much as they want with no adults present.

2) This is so much horse poo also. I know a CC who absconded with funds. Does this mean that no CC should be trusted with funds? I know an SM who abused children. Does that mean no SM should be trusted with children? If you don't trust the woman's morals, then she shouldn't be an ASM. If you don't trust the morals of the male SM and ASMs, then they shouldn't be leaders. But setting an example for the boys that males are so randy and so lascivious that they can't be trusted on a camping trip (or that females are) is setting an extremely poor example and communicating most unfortunate information about how adults behave.

A Scout Troop can be and, in my opinion, should be an example of how adult men and women work together as leaders. Neither pretends to be the other and both work together. We are training our youth to be leaders 20, 30 and 40 years in the future and THIS IS HOW SOCIETY WILL BE.

It would seem that your CC has very strong feelings on gender roles. She seems to want to be training the boys for America in the 1950s. This is not doing the boys any favors and, arguably, is failing in your Troop's duty to train boys for the future they will face.

Hello Dozer,

You can be as annoyed as you wish, but facts are facts. In today's society, if the BSA is not scrupulously careful (and likely even if it is) it gets sued and sometimes loses. And that can be very expensive. Check out the Stella awards if you want to see how amazing lawsuits can get.

If you wish personally, you can get as far out on a limb as you choose. But the BSA really does not have that alternative; the risk/benefit ratio is too unfavorable.

Hello Mike,

I've been reading through this thread and one thing puzzles me that you wrote.

You contrast "Do Your Best" and "Do What you Can." To me, in the context of Scouting, those are exactly the same thing. Each boy is challenged and encouraged to do HIS best and to do everything that HE can. His own capability is the standard and he is being measured against himself, not against some other boy.

In the same spirit, in the Scout Oath, there is "I will do MY best to do MY duty ..." Again, the boy is being measured against himself and his own personal best.

If competition encourages each boy to stretch himself and improve his personal best (You beat me this time, so I'm going to get better and stronger so I can beat you next time. But either way, I'm doing my best and that's all that can be asked.) then it is healthy and positive. But when it is a method of reinforcing status and peck rights then it is a problem. And children do quickly revert to a "Lord of the Flies" situation.

So this, I would suggest is the challenge. If a skilled Scout leader can use competitions to motivate and encourage each and every boy, then they are a powerful tool. But when they become "I can do this and you can't" and particularly when parental egos get involved, they they are probably out of place.

In the Scouting books of the 1950s, they discussed "champ-nit" contests. In these, there would be a competition in some skill area like knot tying. The winner would be eliminated and the loser would continue. There would be a "patrol champ-nit" selected and finally, the patrol champ-nits would compete and the ultimate loser would be the "troop champ-nit" in the contest. The book suggested then having that troop champ-nit compete against one of the boys eliminated in the first round. It suggested that because of practice, that troop champ-nit would beat the first round winner.

If it worked that way, it would be great. But otherwise, otherwise, that kind of competition could be brutal. Great fun for the people running the contest and for the boys watching but not much fun for the champ-nit.

The Order of the Arrow made a subtle change in elections a few years ago in this vein. Previously, the number of positions on an OA ballot was limited so that about 50% max of the boys could be elected, regardless of how good the candidates were. Now, the Troop members can vote for all or none so that each boy competes against himself and no one else. It isn't necessarily easier to be elected and there's really no place to hide if one is not chosen. But now, the standard is "Did you do your best" rather than "Are you better than he is."

You ask a very good question, Eaglewings. If I were you, I'd be very alert for the SWAT team from Irving TX parachuting into my next meeting

Somewhat more seriously, there really is no need to worry. If you inadventently didn't follow the Guide to Safe Scouting, there is no problem. The G2SS provides guidance on what to do particularly to run a safe unit and to ensure insurance coverage for you and continuing coverage for the BSA. You now know about the guide and what it contains. You can follow the rules next time.

I believe that skills review is NOT part of the SM Conference. Rightly or wrongly, once a requirement is passed, then it is passed and cannot be taken away or rechecked.

The SM can, of course, at any time ask a Scout to demonstrate a skill, etc. but it cannot be in the context of an advancement recheck. The SM can designate who can approve requirements or can delegate this authority to others or to the PLC. But one a person with the authority says that the Scout has passed the skill, that is the end of the matter as I understand it.

Rightly or wrongly.

This is not an official (or an approved) part of the advancement process. I believe that if a Scout were to appeal failure to advance because of this procedure, his appeal would be upheld and the unit would be directed to give him a Scoutmaster's Conference and Board of Review.

As an informal part of the process, that's a very different matter. If the Scoutmaster would ask that the youth leaders of the unit review the skill levels of the Scout before the SM conference, that might be OK. But if, for example, the Scout were to go before the peer review board with a skill requirement approved and have the review board check his skills, determine that he didn't have enough knowledge and refuse him advancement, that is strictly forbidden and any appeal would be upheld. Once a requirement is met, there is no rechecking as a condition of advancement.

Having said that, you likely will get away with it. Most Scouts don't know enough to appeal and wouldn't do so even if they did know enough.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

This has been discussed at length on another Scouting e-mail list.

The National Health and Safety group does not believe it appropriate to have any game or activity in which Scouts (or any human beings) are real or simulated targets or in which real or simulated harm or injury is done to the Scout (or any human being). This is why laser tag and paintball are prohibited and why all offensive types of martial arts are prohibited.

Game theory is a wonderful thing. If we use it, we can have competition and still have everybody improve their citizenship, character and fitness.

In my town, we have the Boston Marathon. They have a great motto "Everybody wins, just some win faster than others."

Not every game needs to be a zero sum game. The Boston Marathon is one where everybody can consider themself a winner. The opposite example is the NCAA basketball tournament where 63 of 64 teams lose their last game and have their season end. So those 63 teams can be considered "losers." Our society likes to position people as winners and losers. We are doing our Scouts a great favor if we can teach them to compete, not win, not consider themself a "loser" as a result and even be able to bounce back if others consider themselves losers.

So part of the challenge of a Scout leader is to place a high premium on competing and doing one's best. Making sure that the boys understand that the Brave thing to do is to take your three good swings and, if it happens that way, strike out, and not be afraid to try again the next day. We need to be very alert to boys trying things that are difficult for them and ensuring that their good work and effort are recognized and complimented.

This is part of the reason that I hate big prizes for Scouting competitions. Typically, the winner gets the big prize and everybody else gets diddely. Alternatively, everybody can get a ribbon with the only difference being the color.

Kids can be extremely tough on each other and can work hard to put others down to uplift themselves. This too is an area where we as leaders need to be alert and help.

It is probably obvious, but I would note that there doesn't need to be only one camp medical officer. Two or more persons can share the duty (spelling each other) provided they meet the qualifications as outlined. This could help on base as there might be several EMTs who each could take a day.

Not to be picky, ASM1, but under current guidelines, the CC does NOT need to have the same training as the ASM to be considered fully trained.

For the ASM, the training is

Fast Start

New Leader Essentials

Position Specific Training for SM/ASM

Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills

For the CC, it is

Fast Start

New Leader Essentials

Troop Committee Challenge (which is Position Specific Training for Committee)

It is always good for the CC to have more training, but not required.

Hello Scoutmaster Ron,

Your CC is a female who doesn't camp. It sounds more and more like the situation I mentioned with the Navy and submarines.

I am reminded of some of the comments about men and women in Army basic training when it was suggested that some fooling around might occur. It was suggested that when you are working with a person who hasn't bathed in several days under terrible conditions with bullets flying, it isn't that erotic a circumstance. But it certainly does seem that your CC doesn't trust someone.

Most of the posts have been on the topic of "can the Sponsoring Institution do that?" I believe they can. As far as is it wise, I don't believe so but not everyone would agree with me. It would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting of the CC with the Sponsor to learn whether words like "I really don't think that women should be SMs or ASMs" were said by your CC.

Perhaps the first campout that has to be cancelled because this woman's husband or another female won't go will resolve the matter. Or perhaps saying that you will be happy to abide by the rules if your CC or another female committee member will be the other female.

It's a shame that matters have come to this. Are you active with the sponsor? Can you speak to them and find out what they really think? And no, I don't believe that this would be violating lines of responsibility (I refuse to use the term "chain of command" for Boy Scouting as we are not the military and don't give commands.) Your CC already went outside normal good working relationships in a volunteer organization by presenting you this situation as a fait accompli.

Hello SM Ron,

Thanks for the additional information. As much as one can tell from a distance, things become clearer.

It reminds me of what I had heard of Navy problems with putting women on submarines on long cruises. The principal source of complaints was from the wives of the Navy men, not from the sailors themselves.

So in this case, it sounds as if the CC is either getting heat or anticipates getting heat from his spouse and the same may be true for some of the other committe members. So it may not be that the woman isn't trusted, rather, in the eyes of his spouse, the CC may not be trusted totally.

Does your CC normally go on camping trips and do committee members normally go on camping trips? One interim solution might be that if the males going on a specific camping trip don't object, then there is no problem.

Congratulations, Laurie, it sounds as if you had a great meeting.

If you have a community newspaper, you might want to put in an article together with photos of your meeting, and then try to do that again every meeting. Closing, of course, with "Our next meeting is at XXXXX; New members are always welcome."

Talk to your district about what you can do to get some more members for the fall. They should help you. And plan a couple of activities over the summer so you can earn the National Summertime pack award. I know of one Cubmaster who gave every boy some seeds to plant which came up blue and gold flowers in the middle of the summer. And who also gave the boys sunflower seeds to plant and said they should bring their best sunflower to the first Pack meeting in the fall where they had a sunflower competition (with every boy, of course, getting a prize.)

A couple of things not clear about your post.

You said that the vote was 4-3. Is that your entire Troop or is that just the PLC? You also said that you had a vote for SPL and talked about PL Joe. Does that mean that in a 7 boy Troop, you have an SPL and two or more patrols? In a 7 boy Troop, normally there really is only one "patrol" and there isn't much difference between the jobs of SPL and PL.

Rigged elections do happen and the "best" boy doesn't always win. It sounds as if your son took it well. If he is now Second Class, there will be many, many, many opportunities for him to be SPL of a good Troop and the most important thing is not what badges one wears but the growth in Citizenship, Character and Fitness.

I would suggest that a very important thing now is for him (and other boys) to complete First Class as quickly as possible and then to continue to advance if they choose. As a First Class Scout, he has so many more options and in most Troops, the SPL candidate must be at least First Class.

You do need to address the bullying although, as you know, it is part of life for boys. I would suggest that you be very careful that your addressing the bullying is not perceived as protecting (or even favoring) your son.