sandspur

It all comes down to being reasonable. Unfortunately, not everyone is. I used to be more on one side than the other on this issue, but I have seen too much silliness with nothing to restrain it.

The troop requires scouts show up in full uniform for a BOR (GOOD!) but then a BOR makes an issue out of a scout not wearing official scout socks under his official long scout pants (PULEEZE!)

Troop established performance requirements for leadership positions -you dont to do the job you dont get full credit (GOOD!) but then 90% of the scout leaders do not meet expectations (PULEEZE!).

Wear your uniform to scout functions (GOOD!) but wearing it to an Eagle project involving painting (is there intelligent life in the troop?).

All actual examples.

Easer said than done, but BE REASONALBE!

Charter org is a church, but the minister is not really involved. More to the point I really dont want to make a big stink.

My concern is that scouting.org gave no real positive guidance, but specifically seems to disallow attendance quotas. Yet the Adult leader in charge of that part of the program is gung ho on just that.

I think something is wrong when most scouts get 2-4 months POR credit for a six month term. No counseling or effort to improve poor performance, just a grade at the end. However, changing this may well start a major row in the troop. I still think we are overboard.

Interesting. Just transferred to a new troop/city. This troop asks skills questions (typically knots, first aid, orienteering) and re-examines even skills from lower ranks. About 25% of Scouts seem to take the BOR twice for skills deficiencies. I have never seen this before.

OK, looks like this has been discussed in the past but I do not see a direct answer to my question, so I ask the wisdom of the group:

We all agree (at least I do!)that scout POR for Star and above require satisfactory performance by the scout in the POR. However, our troop in the past established specific guidelines intended to remove subjectivity. These include rather specific requirements to attend high percentages (75-90% depending on POR) of meetings, campouts etc. If the scout attends less, does not turn in self evaluations, does not attend troop leadership training etc. partial credit is given. Most scouts in our troop get partial, not full POR credit.

However, the only guidance I can find from BSA is:

Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop and patrol" defined?

Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:

1. He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

2. He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

3. He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position.

This specifically states that attendance is not a requirement and that removal from office is the correct response to nonperformance (after efforts to correct the situation).

Therefore, I feel we are not correct in requiring minimum attendance and giving most scouts partial credit , and should instead require performance (not specifically attendance), counsel when needed and remove if necessary. Thoughts?