Venividi

OGE writes: So, thanks to Beavah and Merlyn for a demonstration of a civil disagreement and discussion. I add my thanks too. It now appears that there are some other posts that seem to be baiting to try and get a reaction. I will offer up that perhaps I unintentionally started it with my previous post that included loose wording about prayer in school. I had meant school sanctioned prayer, not personal prayer. Ed picked up on that - Ed, I appreciate your pointing that out, and will try to be more careful in the future. But now, in this thread on civil society, there are some posts that appear to be calling on Merlyn to defend the constitution, the bill of rights, and the supreme court's interpretation of them, and explain once again, why the courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science. I think that is unfair, though I am amazed at his level of knowledge. In addition to dismantling civility by going to loggerheads, I think it just as uncivil to continue asking the same questions in sarcastic manners (whether intended or not, the "hoot" and "Lucy" comments come across very sarcastic to me, and, given the number of times that the same people have asked the same types of questions in multiple threads, I can think of no useful purpose to continue to do so.)

Wow, Merlyn, I think you just provided an example of the point that I beleive Beavah was trying to make. And I am one that DOES believe that religion/prayers/etc. belong in the home and the church and DO NOT belong in public schools, nor that private organizations should get special treatment from government bodies. I think that you bring a lot of good points into these discussions and provide a viewpoint that is worth sharing, but I think a lot of people just tune out and dont hear or consider the logic behind the message because of the way its said. Your style reminds me of Bill OReilly on the OReilly Factor. I have watched his show occasionally, and have found very little of what he says that I agree with. While I think it worth hearing and understanding the positions he expounds on, because they tend to be so counter to my own, I just can't take his "my position is the only right one" style, so I tune him out completely. (I'll bet you never would have thought that anyone would compare you with Mr. OReilly. And I don't mean to single you out; there are others that post comments on their position in a similar style.)

>It isnt the fault of a national policy when adult leaders preside over a troop and allow a boy fail to fulfill the responsibilities of his position. ????? I thought that scouting was a place where boys were allowed to fail. Yes, the adults are responsible for training and coaching and encouraging and mentoring to helping a boy grow. That is what adults should be doing, and if currently not, should taking steps towards doing so. Perhaps not common, but I for one have encountered a scout or two that took a POR and would not follow through even with training/coaching/mentoring. I think I am missing something here.

Trevorum wrote: I also believe that there is no transgression, no behavior, no moral lapse so awful that it should ipso facto deny a boy Eagle advancement, so long as he demonstrates understanding, genuine remorse, and character growth. Trevorum, I don't see your position as being outside of what Beavah wrote. If you see a scout with genuine understanding, remorse, and character growth after a mistake or moral failing, and believe showing understanding/remorse/character growth is the behaviour showing role modeling, then by all means, proceed with the award and hold the scout up as role model behavior. I do believe that it is appropriate that units have the ability to set their own standards here. Some CO's would have difficulty with some activities/behaviour/transgression/moral lapses. And should be able to make such a decision through their BOR decisions. Personnally, I think there are some things that are deal breakers, no matter how remorseful. Hypothetical examples: participation in an inter-high school fight that ends in a death; drinking and driving resulting in a fatal accident. Though I do not presume to speak for everyone.

In another thread, some potential reasons were suggested about why a SM signs off on scout spirit requirement for scouts that have actually demonstrated LACK of same. I am sure that there are sufficient examples to make such arguments; I would like to offer another prespective. Summary from the other thread: 1) Too many SMs don't want to do the heavy lifting of truly mentoring scouts... 4) Then the problem falls into the laps of the BOR members, who are not generally in a position to DO anything about it. Does the SM hope that the BOR will bail him/her out by showing fortitude where the SM didn't? Or does the SM want someone else to blame? Or does the SM simply want to complain - because any or all of these are the likely results of dumping this sort of problem in the BOR's lap. I will offer that it is tough to sit across from a scout, one on one, and explain to him where he is lacking, and that he is not yet ready to advance. I had that experience when I was a new SM, it is tough. I will make an analogy, and say that I expect it would be easier for someone that has been a teacher and had experience talking to students ( and their parents ), who were complaining about grades that the teach gave. Let me provide some background: As a new SM, I took a position with a very hands off committee. 25 - 30 boys; troop committee meetings that might have 4 - 6 people in attendance, unless there was a major issue. One ASM. No outings committee, no adult quartermaster, no chaplain - If I as SM did not do those things, they did not get done. The advancement chair, who was an Eagle scout, gave me the advice that sometimes you have to grit your teeth and sign off, but that as long as the correct number of MB's had been obtained, that was sufficient. It took a little while to see that this was not working, and was not effective in helping the scouts become men of character. It took much longer to get the committee to provide the support that they needed to provide so that the SM actually had time to have those mentoring talks with scouts. And even longer to get a majority of parents to buy into advancement not being automatic. Based on my experience, I dont think that there are too many SM's that "don't want to do the heavy lifting", but rather there are many SM's that a) haven't reached that point on their learning curve where they realize that they are not helping a scout by signing off on scout spirit that has not been demonstrated, or b) don't have the available time to mentor 30 scouts, on top of filling other troop roles, or c)don't believe they have the backing of parents and troop committee. There are probably other reasons as well. I ask that everyone recognize that bringing scouts is a team effort. It takes everyone working together to make a troop a valuable experience for the boys. And there are times when we as adults need to back each other up. When the committee is having a difficult time getting camping reservations made, the SM may have to do it. And when you have a SM that has a difficult time mentoring a troubled scout, the BOR may have to be the heavy. But then get together to discuss the issue, and how to work together to resolve it. Perhaps in some instances it is a SM that is unwilling to do the heavy lifting of mentoring and the best course of action will turn out to be to replace him/her. but my suspicion is that is not the majority of cases.

Question: Would anyone review backout and non-payment during an SM conference for rank advancement and discuss with the scout that this is not demonstrating scout spirit, and reschedule another conference when payment has been made and/or he has demonstrated several months of keeping his word? From one viewpoint, it is often parents that are the cause of the backout and nonpayment; however, scouting expectations are that the scout is to be responsible.

Advice? Consider it a learning experience, and a reason to get together with other unit scouters to discuss the extent to which pushing, proding, cajoling, reminding scouts to advance is actually benefiting the scouts. Experiences like these can help make adults better leaders - you may end up modifying how you work with such scouts. Keep reminding yourself that you are positively affecting the character/citizenship/fitness of many scouts, and they are looking at you as a role model. Heady stuff. Keep up the good fight.

Interesting thread. As MBC, I have only occasionally been contacted by a scout over a period of 9 years. Once for gardening. Seems not many people in this area have gardens. Once for first aid. When a scout from our troop came back from Summer camp without a record of MB work completed there. Scouts prefer to get the MB at summer camp because it is easier. A couple of times for snow sports - though I know many more kids that like snowboarding. Never for animal science - though this is the edge of suburbia and adjacent to farmland, there is very little livestock in the area, so this is understandable. Received two calls from parents who asked if I would sign off on snow sports MB for their son because they recently been on a ski trip. Received a call from a troop committee chair asking if I would teach a first aid MB class at their troop meetings. (I responded that I would be happy to provide first aid instruction at a troop meeting, if asked by an SPL, and that interested scouts could then contact me directly for MB, but that I was not interested in doing MB classes at a troop level. Not surprisingly, I never received that invitation).

Barry, Great post. You are right that being SM should be simple. I think difficulty creeps in when there isn't a go-getter in the troop - whether due to personalities, or conditioning because adults always interfere, and we lose some scouts to the "boring meeting/my patrol never does anything" syndrome while we as adults try to stay in the background, and no go-getter emerges. I do believe that eventually one will, but not until the scouts do realize that the troop is in their hands. That, I think, is a difficult balance to achieve - what steps did you take to keep scouts interested until you were able to encourage and motivate a go-getter (of whatever age)?

I had tried this. I don't recall where I saw that it was recommended; I think in BSA literature, but am not certain. It has been a few years, but as I recall, I didn't think that any of the new scouts came away with anything beneficial. The troop guide had the responsibility to accompany the the new scout PL to PLC meetings. A new scout as a PL for a month came to the PLC meeting and was typically bored and started fidgeting. So perhaps it was the SPL that got something out of it, as he had a more challenging time in running the PLC meeting and keeping it flowing.

We have had a tradition of one RT per year was cooking, and each troop prepared a dish on site. Everyone wandered around and tasted each others food, and shared recipies and tips. (good incentive to bring more than one person to RT.) This was typically dutch oven type stuff, but has occasionally included things like fruit punch. I do like ASM and Trevorum's suggestions. Blue skying here - perhaps asking various troops to demonstrate a specific method of cooking, and incorporate their excellent suggestions into one event, where folks can wander around and see various methods of cooking (and enjoy tasting them).

For those that have removed a scout from a POR for not performing his duties, could you describe the experience, and the steps taken? I suspect/fear that, while the removal would be done in a private conversation between the scout and the scoutmaster, the facts of the removal will become quickly known by the rest of the scouts of the troop, and the removed scout would be subject to embarassment among his peers. I also suspect that the parents of the removed scout would come barrelling down on the SM like a freight train, no matter how delicatly handled, and how much coaching, requests, and conversations had been held prior to removal. So question to those that have done removals, how do you handle it to minimize/prevent embarassment to the scout? How do you convey the facts to the rest of the troop, and minimize razzing done by the other scouts at school the next week? Are such concerns overblown? Thanks, Venividi

>Do you vote for the charismatic kid who never gets anything done, or >do you vote for the serious/semi serious kid who while he might not >talk alot, he gets things done. It may take awhile and the youth may >have to live with the consequences of a poor choice, but they are >living out democracy. Another outcome is kids decide the troop is boring and drop out. Note: I am not trying to argue for appointment over election. I am just making an observation. I have also seen charismatic kids that get things done, and watched a serious/semi serious scout, who as SPL, neither talked a lot nor gor much done.

Not sure if this should go in the success or disaster thread... Had a new scout patrol, first campout, made dutch oven pizzas. Bisquit dough for crust, pizza sauce, mozzarella cheese. Wasn't long and the smell of pizza wafted through the air. The new scouts took their pizza inside to eat (Winter campout, but we cooked outside). Ten minutes later, one of the scouts came out and told me that the other scouts (middle school age), ate most of their pizza. I found out that the older scouts showed interest in the pizza, and the new scouts, quite proud of their meal and wanting to score points with the older ones, offered them some of thier pizza. The middle schoolers took advantage of the offer, and helped themselves to generous helpings of the pizza.

fgoodwin, Letting it go silent may well result in the problem going away. You likely won't hear anything more from the other boys. You will know that there is an undercurrent view of the adults being unfair with the favoritism that you have described - that wont go away on its own. I saw similar situation in the troop that I worked with. This will simply stay there under the surface until the guys that are aware of it age out and/or they observe that favored treatment stops. You will probably have other scouts and their parents wanting the same type of corner cutting for their sons - I've seen it. I do like Beavah's suggestion for a heart to heart talk with the boy that you overheard talking. You may be able to help ease the view of unfairness, and you may strengthen a bond between you and this boy. You would be sharing and having a meaningful discussion with him, and he will likely trust you more for it. Venividi

2cubdad, A question: has someone sat down with the dad in question and explained expectations to this dad? If no one has had a discussion with the father, that needs to be done quickly. SM would be a logical choice for this talk, as he/she owns the program, and dad is interfering in it. Discuss with the SM. Could be that he/she is hoping that the problem just goes away by itself, that the SM is afraid of confrontation with the dad, that the SM is not sure that he/she will have the backing of the troop committee, or that he/she doesn't have the personality or comfort level to have such a talk. If that is the case, a combination of the SM and CC, or SM and ASM's may make the conversation easier. It might be as simple as explaining that he needs to step back and remain hands off unless there is a melt down. If the dad has been asked previously to remain more hands off, consider finding more jobs for this dad so that he has less time to intervene with his son. Perhaps he could be cook for the adult patrol, assigned to take care of equipment, and, work with the troop quartermaster to plan and conduct gear maintenance cleaning, etc. Discuss between SM and ASM's to keep an eye on things, and whenever dad is seen intervening, call him over for a consultation on "some topic", and give him a gentle reminder that he is getting too involved, and his son needs him to step back.

Ekmiranda, Thanks for the further explanation, it helps. I have a differing opinion that the fact that a scout left camp to go try and hitchhike home may somehow imply that there are underlying issues with the troop that would cause him to attempt to do so. I think that it is more likely that it is a case of a boy wanting to do what he wanted to do, and then acting on it. I am not trying to disuade you from your view, but merely offering a different one. Cheers, Venividi

I have had several experiences with scouts doing things they knew would not be acceptable, but did it anyway, hiding from those that he would suspect may intervene. Including things such as: - making a flame thrower with a can of spray deoderant. - calling a parent to come pick him up because he was tired. - ditching a buddy and going to the camp trading post alone. Working on developing character such that a scout resists impulses for short term focus on his immediate "wants" takes time and repetition, as does considering hike safety requirements such as carrying whistle, water, etc.

OGE, Color me confused. I will attribute that to the nature of forum postings, which do not always lend themselves to conveying complete or intended meanings. Your statement in your last post "...[we]tell scouts who dont come on many activities that to advance they have to be active, the scouts decide by their actions what happens. Those who attend advance, those who dont attend stall. It's their choice." reflects a position that I did not find evident in your post on Gerald Ford/Bill Bradley, which seemed to imply that they would have been too busy with football/basketball to meet scouting participation expectations. Also, in another thread on scout spirit, I read into your post that we should measure scout spirit solely against what a scout defines it to be. As I don't recall anything in your post that a SM could/should counsel a scout with low definition of scout spirit to raise his standards and then demonstrate living by them before the SM signed off on the scout spirit requirement, I hope you can see why I was confused. I am glad to read that you do have participation expectations for a scout to advance, which had not been apparent in earlier posts.

OGE, I am trying to understand your comment about Gerald Ford and Bill Bradley. I do not doubt that both missed scouting events. Are you trying to imply that they could not have spent 4 months as a FC scout, 6 mo as a Star, and 6 months as Life where they were able to be active beyond a token effort, or you are trying to convey a different message? I have no way of knowing about these two, but my experience with people that accomplish a lot, is that they ARE able to juggle many things at once, and give enormous focused effort to each of their interests. If I were a betting man, I would bet that both would earn Eagle in troops with participation exectations. Venividi

OGE, I will rise to the bait. Some possible responses are embedded in the quotes that you included your initial post: Tenderfoot requirement #13 p60 - all of it. Then provide him with some specific examples. Second Class and first class requirement refer to: "Set high standards for yourself." Help him define those high standards,and provide encouragement and incentive to reach them. Star Life Eagle: "Be Prepared ...to get along with others ..." and "By now, many other people should be seeing qualities in you ..." Then discuss what you and others you have talked to have been observing. Like many other things, one can find justification to be so lax with scout spirit that it becomes meaningless, or so overly strict that it becomes impossible. However, neither of these positions are very effective in incenting a scout to grow into a man. I gotta agree with Beavah, BrentAllen, and Eagledad on this. But then you probably already knew that. I will add that if you find your method of asking the scout to define his own level of scout spirit works for your scouts, then keep doing it. Venividi

Put me down on the OGE side. Pranks can be abused. While I was not in scouts as a youth, I did receive more than my share of razing and hazing. The kids involved probably eventually turned into fine people, but frankly I have no desire to ever see them again. Was I thin skinned? Probably. Not everyone is outgoing and gregarious. I don't think that their actions and words could in any way be attributed as being beneficial to my development. Did it help me develop a sense of humor? Looking back, I still cant find humor in things they did and said. Did it help me develop a thick skin? I suppose you could argue that it did in the same manner that picking fights with a weaker individual would help them build muscle strength. I think that pulling pranks amidst and amongst a bunch of close friends is much different than pulling pranks on a scout that isn't in that inner circle of friends. I also think that pranks pulled on college age young adults who are expecting to be the butt of pranks as initiation into a fraternity is different than pranks pulled on an 11 year old scout by an older scout. I suspect that in a fraternity there may be more collegiality about it. Similar pranks pulled by older scouts on a younger one that looks up to them is a betrayal of trust. Especially the second one, after the older scout swore on scouts honor that he was on the up and up. Pranks have their place with the right set of people, attitude, and target, but the prepetrator(s) risks stepping out of what could be considered within the guidelines of trustworthy, loyal, helpful... etc. if not careful. As leaders, we need to advise our charges on how to tell the difference, hopefully before, but definately after, someone feels victimized.

SR751Fox, It is apparent that I touched a nerve that I did not mean to touch, and appologize for doing so. I AM with you on training. Training is important for everyone that works with the youth. But that wasn't my point. Nor has there been any indication in this thread whether or not this SM has been through training. The point that I was trying to make was that training does not provide the end-all on how to deal with difficult boys. Nor can it. People get college degrees and doctorates in such things. I have been a SM. I have seen and experienced parents jump over SM's because they didn't handle a situation the way the parents wanted. Have seen them threaten to pull their son out of scouts if the SM didn't handle difficult situations their way. And second guess their (and my) adequacy. SM's are human beings. They sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes make sub-optimum decisions when they are out on the front lines working with a large group of boys, especialy when they include ones that are, to use a euphamism, less than cooperative. Training isn't going to help that situation. First, you can't cover every potential problem in a two day (or even week long)class. Second, the human mind cant remember it all. Third, tiredness and stress causes reactions that people wouldn't make under normal situations. What will help such situations is learning by experience, and then reflecting on it - as previously suggested in using thorns & roses. I reread my post, and nowhere do I see any indication that I indicated that use of rank demotion was appropriate or allowed. Sure, the SM made a mistake, or had a lapse in judgement. I advise helping the SM learn from it. I don't think that telling him he needs training, or specifically telling him to ease up on the throttle is the right way to do that. Sure, that is one possible way, but I think that there are gentler ways that will be a whole lot more effective. Imagine someone coming up to you after witnessing something they didn't like, and, not knowing your background, assumed you hadn't been to training, so told you to go to class before spending any more time with the scouts. I applaud your working with ADD/ADHD kids (am making that assumption based on your reference to having many scouts with Ritalin prescriptions). I do note that you reference that you have plenty of EXPERIENCE with unruly kids. And that was the point that I had intended to make - that dealing with unruly kids is learned by experience, not in a weekend class. Given your last paragraph, I don't think that we really disagree.

>>I am also concerned that a leader would manage to allow a young Scout to call his bluff on such a ridiculous and unenforceable threat. Not only does this leader need training before being allowed responsiblity for a troop of boys, he needs to be specifically warned to ease up on the throttle.

Depends on what you want for your son. A nice medal, or personal growth.