sandspur

Hal:

Your reply got me thinking when you wrote that as a Committee Member, Huzzar should probably not sit on a BOD for this scout. I see your point but here is another facet: What is a BOR for if not to determine if the scout has completed all rank requirements and the award should be made? A BOR is not supposed to retest skills (although that is another discussion). So if, as a BOR member, you really dont think a requirement has been met, should you stay silent? Isnt declining to participate in a BOR where you have the same suspicion the same as staying silent on the BOR? Does that make the BOR just a rubber stamp (in which case we ought to drop the BOR requirement). I am not sure what I would do, but I incline towards the thought that on a BOR I would ask the scout about the MB and bring up the requirement in a friendly way (so, what did you do to fulfill this requirement?). If the scout is in the clear, it seems like a normal friendly question. If he lied, I would expect the deer in the headlights look. And no, I would not vote to pass him on the BOR if I got that reaction.

Huzzar:

A quiet word with the SM is in order. If he thinks there is a problem, the SM can discuss it with the MBC. If the Advancement Chair has not turned the advancement report in to the council, it is an easy matter to have the MBC pull back the MB card. If it has been turned in, the council can still correct their records easily enough (I have seen that done with clerical errors in the advancement report). How to handle it with the scout is up to the SM and MBC. I think if I was you, I would be very quiet and have a brief, polite word with the SM or MBC, and let them work it out. I would also give a lot of thought as to how I presented this. A lot depends on how you came by the knowledge and you dont want to be seen as having an axe to grind. This assumes you are correct and there is no way the requirement could be complete. If you are wrong, well, think of how you will feel. So if I were you, I would present my concerns and leave room that I might be wrong and hope I am, but thought it needed to be brought to the SM attention. Any other advice on how to handle the scout is out of place here since the SM or MBC have not had a chance to act.

The most popular scout running gets elected. As long as we have elections, and not appointed leaders, that will happen.

You write that as if it were good thing

Not good, bad or indifferent. It just is. Facts are neither good nor bad. They just are.

So, require certain qualifications for SPL.

Yeah, its called gaming the system.

Adults do that all the time to keep the most talented natural leaders out of office, so they can teach business manager skills to a greater number of Scouts. Of course the central contradiction of Leadership Development is that business managers are appointed, aren't they?

Ill game the system any day (and any system) to do what needs doing. Dont do it for the wrong reason (keeping power in the hands of the adults) but for the right reason. Making sure the important SPL post is not held by a popular 13 year old second class who is not ready (but may be ready next year). To help scouts choose from a slate of candidates that can do the job. Who they choose from the qualified is still up to them, but you can have minimum qualifications.

Twocubdads point about emphasizing the importance of the post and the reason not to elect the cool guy over the competent guy is well taken. A scoutmaster minute right before an election often works wonders.

Finally, as far as appointed vs. elected: In the civil war many units elected their officers and NCOs. They tended to be the important men from back home. That usually lasted until the first battle. Then qualified leaders were appointed. Ironically, you can survive a bad governor but probably not a bad major. Not suggesting scouts should not elect the SPL, but dont be afraid to set standards and qualifications for the office as troop policy.

Why does the less qualified scout get elected?

Well, we adults do this too (see any national or state election).

But more to your point, we need to remember that in spite of the ideal of the boy led troop, scouts are boys, not mature adults (and, as observed above, even we screw it up).

The most popular scout running gets elected. As long as we have elections, and not appointed leaders, that will happen.

So, require certain qualifications for SPL. Maybe Life Scout, attended/passed leadership training, others?

Use a JASM to backstop a weaker SPL. After all, you can appoint a JASM.

If unqualified PLs are elected, work with them to improve their skills. If they do not improve, remove them and elevate the APL.

And I agree that it is about time we differentiated between the leadership positions and the PORs.

OK, in the spirit of not rehashing what others have said but trying to see the best way out for your son, I make the following observations:

1. I think that 2 AM incident was a bigger deal than you or your son see it as. Think about this: EVERY scout leader has dealt with noisy scouts in tents after lights out. It is old hat for scouters. Leadership 101. So, for the ASM and SM to make such a big deal about this one, SOMETHING was out of the ordinary. The two hints are the 2 AM (more than just some trouble settling down there) and your sons walking away from the ASM. I respectfully suggest that your son might want to take a hard look at the way he acted (as a senior scout and troop leader) and might want to acknowledge that he did not handle it well. If the reviewers see some indication of responsibility being taken here, it would go a long way. Denial will work against him. Where you say your son feels he is being pushed to say he did something he didnt do, well, what did he do? Or what should he have done? Yes, the ASM could have handled it better, but he is not under review and up for an award here, your son is. And your son could have handled it better. He needs to realize it, say so (and mean it).

2. Yes, attendance percentages and quotas are not allowed, but they are an indication yes? While a troop cannot REQUIRE 75% attendance, when evaluating participation and input to the life of the troop, it is pretty hard to participate when you are not there. Pretty hard to be an instructor when you are not there. If someone told me a scout was not performing up to snuff as an instructor and not showing leadership in the troop, I would ask and why do you think so? Answering that he is there only about a third of the time seems a pretty good reason for the judgment. You need to have a good reply to this other than just that percentage attendance requirements are not allowed. Perhaps the best way is to point out your sons entire performance as a Life Scout. But again, acknowledge, do not deny, the problem.

Good luck!

The whole issue feels Big Brotherish. Or Lawyerish. Or both.

If a competent physician certifies an adult is able to physically participate in an activity, who are we to look at some idealized chart written for another purpose and deny him that opportunity?

Look to ban smokers next (makes about as much sense. They have reduced lung capacity, less endurance etc.). Age restrictions (must be under 50?). After all, something MIGHT happen and we MIGHT be sued!

I know a lot of leaders that would not make the cut here. I suspect the real discussions will occur when participation in these activities drops. And it will. We do not have so many active leaders we can cut a lot of them out and not feel the impact.

Nolesrule writes: each level of review has come up with a separate reason/excuse in order to not overrule the SM, which is not the same thing as agreeing with the initial reason for not signing the application

Yes, but I still have that alarm going off in the back of my head. Remember, the SM, Committee etc are not on this forum and posting their side. Even if they are on the forum, it would be improper of them to post what might be confidential or disputed information.

I make no judgment as to who is correct here. I do not know. But I do know I have heard only one side of the story.

Click23 write: No one has the power to decide who is Eagle worthy and who is not, or to decide what an Eagle Scout should be, the requirements do that for us

Click: I agree with the latter part but not the former. If no-one has the power to decide who is Eagle worthy, what is an EBOR for anyway? (I know it hasnt happened here yet).

If a BOR just rubber stamps the check boxes in the scout handbook/application, then why do we even have them?

Like Beavah, I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling we dont have the whole story here. I have seen unreasonable SMs and individuals before, but the list keeps growing. Everyone who sits and hears both sides seems to agree with the SM. If the story is as clear cut as it seem(ed) to be, surely someone would be agreeing with the scout by now.

Beavah:

Well, I always did agree with 95% of your position here and after more thought I am coming around on the driver issue. I still will not argue with troops wanting to establish limits for drivers. However, I am less sure of how I would cast my vote if it came up in committee.

After all, our troop uses busses, and only some scouters have the CDL necessary to drive them. I have declined to get a CDL even after I was asked to because although I have not had an accident in 30 years or a ticket since high school, I am just not sure of my experience level in driving a vehicle that big with 20 scouts aboard. But that is a personal decision. I drive scouts in my own vehicle all the time.

Acco40:

What you describe is more a comfort/fun issue. If you stick it out, bet those scouts without proper gear are more prepared next time!

As you are from Michigan, how about this one:

A storm front is moving in. We are well equipped for the weather but there is a 70% chance of an ice storm. The roads may become skating rinks and dangerous. We are scheduled to pack up and leave tomorrow morning. Do we leave early to avoid potential (but not certain) dangerous driving conditions tomorrow morning or stick it out?

No clear answer, but you are sure to have to make the best judgment call you can.

Hal:

The point about 18-20 year olds serving in the military is frequently brought up, occasionally even by me!

I too see no logical reason why a 19 year old can shoulder an M-4 and die for our country but not drink a beer. 21 is arbitrary. Blue laws are still with us.

However, I am infamous for seeing both sides of an argument. The counterpoint here is that having 18-19 year olds in the military has a lot to do with physical maturity, physical stamina for combat and trainability.

Even in the military, how many 19-20 year olds are truly supposed to be on their own in a combat situation without more experienced NCOs nearby or in the chain of command and if it happens (as I am sure it does) is it by intent and planned that way?

More to my point, the military trains those young men very, very intensively to deal with the situations they will encounter as leaders. Drivers Ed is not even remotely comparable.

Again, let me say I have no problem with 18-20 year old leaders and value them (one of my sons is one) but I can support driving restrictions in the troop.

Eagledad: I hope nothing I said indicated I thought any scout leader did not take the scouts safety seriously. I and my sons have been involved in scouting for many years and I have never encountered a scouter who did not take their responsibilities seriously.

I have entrusted my sons safety to the leaders in our troops for a long time and will continue to do so without a qualm.

By the way, some of the scouts/leaders from my troop (at the time) were involved in the tragedy at Little Sioux last year. Both of the senior scouters running that program and on site when the tornado struck were good friends of mine. I have trusted my sons to them and would do so again today without hesitation.

Yes Eagle 92, but arent they making their feelings known if the Troop Committee votes to restrict drivers to over 21? As far as no blanket policies, how else do you do it? We cant give a driving test under adverse conditions (night, rain, ice) to every driver.

I know there are a lot of 19 year old drivers out there that are better than some 35 year olds. But experience is gained one hour at a time.

Look at the NTSB investigation of the tragic plane crash in Buffalo. Both licensed commercial pilots but:

1. Both inexperienced.

2. Neither experienced in flying in icing conditions

3. Both poorly trained/inexperienced in the stall warning system (thus trying to climb and gain altitude when the stall warning went off rather than the proper action of diving and gaining speed).

4. Distracted in the approach by idle conversation with each other rather than paying attention to deteriorating conditions.

The conclusion being that a more experienced pilot could easily have recovered. And 50 people would have lived.

OK, I know a car is different, but the experience equation is not. When we load a half dozen scouts in the car and take off into the rainy night we are not so different from a commuter pilot.

I guess I see both sides here. I think young adult leaders are great, and a troop should be proud to have them. I cant see any more risk than a new dad you know nothing about.

Driving a car full of younger scouts though? I know this is touchy Eagle92, but there is a difference in experience between an 18 year old driver and a 30 year old, no matter how level headed they both are. Same reason I feel safer with a pilot that has 1000 hours vs. 100 hours. Driving a car full of other folks kids is a big responsibility and always gives me pause when I do so. After all, an 18 year old is more likely to be in a conversation with 16 year old passengers and distracted than an old fogy that the youth is talking around rather than to. There are a lot of studies that show youth drivers accident rates go way up when there is another youth in the car due to distraction. So if a troop wants to restrict drivers to older adults (and even eliminate very old adults to Beavahs point) I wouldnt argue. I cant think of anything else I might feel the need to restrict 18 year old leaders on though.

I was about to opine that I could not see a SM or adult in charge going forward when another leader was adamant that it was unsafe. Unless the guy had a reputation as unreasonable. Then I read Jblakes post.

Now I just think I hope I am not one of those with the cavalier attitude and hope no one else in our troop is.

To True Believers point, He is an attorney and I am not, but I guess if you did decide to over rule another leaders objections and proceed that inviting the opinion of other leaders present might at least demonstrate that the SMs actions were not unreasonable.

To clarify, we ask new scouts not to vote because they dont know the older scouts well enough to cast a thoughtful vote. However, if they feel they can do so, we dont prevent them from voting. Most agree with our thought and do not vote until their second year.

Well, times change.

I am old and grey enough to remember when calculators first came out. I purchased one to get me through freshman chemistry ($100 for four functions). Many profs banned them from tests (unfair to those using slide rules dontya know) also, you might use one of those fancy ones with a memory function to store a constant or formula you were supposed to memorize! Cheater! It would hamper your ability to perform math (kills the brain!)

Now my son is required by the teacher to purchase a graphing calculator that is really a mini-computer.

We went from calling calculator use cheating to requiring it.

So while I would not support a cell possession ban in our troop (and we dont have one) I still say abide by your troop rules and try to change them if you disagree. When we say change troops, that assumes the issue is so important to you that is causes you to break with the troop. I doubt that is really the case. But it is your last resort. But for me, I would not ask my scout to disregard a troop rule just because I disagreed with it.

My son asked me about a troop policy he thought was wrong and I told him to work to change it in PLC.

In our troop we ask new scouts (less than six months) not to vote since they dont know the older scouts in the troop well enough to judge.

I thought the requirement was 51% of scouts voting in the election, not 51% of scouts registered in the troop. That is the way our local lodge has done it with the troop.

I tend to like the idea of a safety hold. If you are SM or not is less important that your feeling on the safety of the situation.

So my vote is if you are SM, ASM, Scouter, or anyone in a position of leadership and you truly think that the situation is not safe, even if the others do

Throw yourself in front of the juggernaught! Dont be talked into something you think is wrong. How will you live with yourself later?

If you are on the other side and you just cant convince the holdout. Maybe time to take a deep breath and ask if he is right.

NewLdr wrote: If was never explained to this boy before just that he figured out he wasn't included pretty quickly

Wouldnt he notice that his name was not on the ballot? Wouldnt everyone know?

None of the troops I have been associated with had a SM who consulted current OA members on who went on the ballot. I guess it is not forbidden, just not normal.

In the past, Ive seen OA election issues when scouts do not really understand that a scout needs more than 50% of those voting to cast ballots for him or he doesnt get elected. Not so say most scouts dont realize this, but in a normal election you only vote for one candidate. It only takes a few scouts who vote for one person on the ballot to drop someones chances of an election.

We had an election a few years back where one twin got elected and his brother did not. Ouch! The elected twin declined the OA until his brother got in. Still, no way around it unless we take control of the selection process out of the hands of the scouts. That changes the whole program.

That said, I hate to see a SM pull the troop out of OA and deny that opportunity to all his scouts.

If it is truly an honor to be tapped, then everyone does not get in. If everyone gets in, Ho hum. Just like a service pin. Big deal.

Yeah Beavah, I agree but in reading your post I assumed that the scouter with more experience was the one counseling caution.

Just for the sake of clarity, how would you make the call if the SM or scouter in charge of the outing felt the river was too high/fast and the situation was more risk than he felt warranted, but another scouter with years of BWCA and river experience felt it was OK? If the SM still cant be convinced?

Under those circumstances, I still would not fault the SM or designee for erring on the side of caution.

Weve all seen Gung Ho Charlie who knows what he can do with his years of experience but not so much what an inexperienced 12 year old can do.

Looks like the cell phone issue has reached the point where no-one is convincing anyone else. To each his own and set your troop policy as you see fit.

The more disturbing sub thread to me was the thought that if troop policy contradicts family policy, family policy overrides, even if the scouts need to clandestinely override troop policy.

Unless troop policy directly impacts the safety of the scout or contravenes family morals (hard to imagine) parents need to adhere to troop policy. If the issue causes that much heartburn, the family needs to switch troops. The families that have their scout carry the cell phone anyway but tell the scout to just dont let the SM see it are a bigger worry to me than the cell phone.

My troop has several policies I dont particularly like. So I argue them in committee. But until (if ever) they change, we abide by them.

Sound like this issue is surmountable.

Since major population occurs only rarely, there should not be a long term impact if national plans like it should. That area has plenty of water and we can run tankers in to supplement. Yes, a lot of portable toilets, but again we can bring them in. Nothing we are not doing at AP Hill. Traffic is another issue. I presume the roads can handle it but if not does National have a plan? Dare I assume that was looked at before the site was chosen?

Evacuation? OK, we can develop a plan.

If the local politicians are on our side (should be, else they would not have bid), seems we can get on track for 2013.

Frankly for our troop the bigger issue is the cost of attendance. Going through local council as mandated runs thousands $$ per scout. We can run a high adventure in spring to the Rockies (ski and winter camp) and a second high adventure in summer (canoe Minnesota or hike the AT) and come in for a third of what our council wants for Jamboree for the two high adventures combined. Our scouts didnt hesitate for a minute but went for the high adventures.

Sound like the usual NIMBY stuff (Not In My Back Yard). There is always some group that does not want anything new and altered in their area. If it is a road, factory, park or wind power farm, someone is against it.

Hard to believe they will prevail against the economic impact of 250,000 visitors on the local economy. Especially these days.