boleta

In January 2000, our Troop Committee voted that full uniforms would be required at all Troop meetings and when traveling to and from weekend events. My son and I joined this troop in May 2000. Our pack did not have an associated scout troop and my son knew the boy who was the SPL. We bought our uniforms and placed the insignia correctly. To my surprise, my son was one of only 3 or 4 out of 20 active scouts that followed the rule and always wore his uniform. I became an ASM.

This troop had a reputation (unknown to me at the time) for boys that misbehaved. I asked why the uniform rule was not enforced and was told that no one wanted to enforce it. I asked if it was OK if I enforced it and was told by the SM that it was. We decided that a scout would have 3 passes where he did not have a full uniform and would be advised about the rule. After that, the parent would be called and the scout would be sent home to get his uniform. NO baseball player would be allowed to play if he was not wearing his uniform.

In 3 months, everyone was in a full uniform. We lost 2 or 3 kids who refused to follow the rule and stopped coming. These kids were hooligans anyway. They were in a group that constantly hazed younger scouts, disrupted meetings and even bragged to younger scouts about shoplifting at a museum gift shop that the troop had visited! We had a new SM who took over from the last one who had a stroke. The adult leadership would not or could not enforce discipline in this unit.

In 2000, none of the webelos scouts bridged into this troop from the pack. They all went to other scout troops in our area. The parents had heard about our problems. In 2001, five scouts came from the pack. In 2002, eight scouts bridged. This year, 20 webelos bridged into our troop. It is a boy run troop of 50 active scouts now. The adults are rarely involved in discipline issues. No one has to tell a scout to go home and get their uniform. There is improved order in the troop. We look good at camps and assemblies and represent BSA well.

Did the problems in this troop go away because the boys are in uniform? Was it the change in the adult leadership? It is true that BSA does not REQUIRE a uniform. But it sure can help when the boys know what the rules are and that they will be enforced uniformly.

I think I have discovered the source of my problem with this thread. Some feel it is PUNISHMENT to ask the scout to follow the rules and complete the requirements for a merit badge. Others feel it is a form of PUNISHMENT to give a badge that isn't earned. What exactly are we trying to teach?

The discussion proposed by Hunt has another problem. When the scout says "I don't care if is poor scout spirit, give me the merit badge even though you and I know I did not do all of the requirements." Does the SM hold up the next rank advancement for poor scout spirit?

You are presumptuous in thinking that the founders of the Scouting movement were thinking about Christianity when the Oath and Law refer to God.

Respect the beliefs of others. I have said nothing about taking God out of the Oath or Scouting. I ask only that YOU respect the 1.2 billion Hindus in this world, the 1.2 billion Bhuddists in this world, the Muslims, Jews, etc. ALL of these religions are represented by the religious award in the Boy Scouts of America.

Religious institutions that are incompatible with the tenets of the BSA are not allowed to be Charter Organizations. If it insists on allowing gays, it would not get a charter since this has been defined by National as not compatible with the program.

Clearly, the religion that calls me infidel for failing to believe the way it believes has a problem with the respect part of the Scout Law. Baden-Powell said nothing about Christianity in his original Handbook.

Well...

Jason and Rooster are making my point exactly. Some are so insistent on following the guidelines of the program exactly as written. The HB says respect the conviction and beliefs of others in matters of custom and religion. Now we see that many will refuse to do so. Aren't they failing to follow the program? Why should this be any different than dismissing the atheist for not following the program? This is why such respect is the most important part of the 12th point.

Bob White,

I acknowledge that you are absolutely correct in your explanation of the rule. This will not stop the adult leadership of troops insisting that the Scout complete the requirements when it is known that they were not done. I guess it depends on what your definition of "earned" is.

Bob White,

I have the advancement committee p & p manual in front of me. It clearly states that "scouts must be tested individually and they must meet all the requirements". MUST. You continue to insist that a signed blue card is the evidence of this and that it is then too late to intervene. I submit it is not.

You feel a scout is being punished if the blue card is withheld when it has been signed, even in the face of a failure of the counselor to do his job and a failure of the scout to do as required above. Even when the Troop leadership knows with absolute certainty that the failure has occurred. I think there is a more significant violation of the spirit of scouting when the blue card is submitted without following the above guidelines.

Since an error has to be committed- submit a MB where the Scout has not met all of the requirements (MUST), OR hold the blue card and ask the scout to complete them, it might as well be the error that ends up with the scout legitimately fulfilling the requirement. Choose your poison.

Clearly, these problems with merit badge camps and summer camps should be discussed by the troop committee, SM and Advancement Chair so that a clear procedure can be worked out in advance. I like the suggestions of EagleInKy. If in doubt, maybe the counselors should be asked to indicate those completed requirements for the badge but not to sign the Blue Card until reviewed by the Advancement Chair or SM.

A great reference is the old Appendix to the Scoutmastership Fundamentals course. Part III, part A-11 has Suggestions for Religious Observance and part A-13 has Suggested Interfaith Worship Services. This may be covered in the current Scoutmaster Specific Leader Training.

The most important part of the Reverence point of the Scout Law is "he respects the beliefs of others". Unfortunately, some people have beliefs that are incompatible with this portion of the Scout Law which is a direct quote from the current BS Handbook.

I have sat on Eagle Boards of Review where the Scout thought that reverent meant Christians only. I was shocked the first time this happened and almost voted to deny the scout based on his failure to respect the beliefs of others. I hope this generates a significant amount of discussion. In my opionion, if we can exclude some individuals because they do not adhere to the Scout Oath (morally straight or duty to God and Country), then Scouts and Scouters that are unable to respect the beliefs of others should not be allowed in the organization as well.

Dan,

The point is that the scouts sat passively for 4 hours and did NONE of the requirements to get the signed blue card. They did not Demonstrate the proper technique for CPR (it wasn't even taught). They did not Explain how they would obtain emergency assistance from the home. They did not have to prepare a first aid kit for their home. They did not teach a first aid skill to another scout. They were simply given signed blue cards for this important Eagle required MB.

Sorry, I understand the principle but just can't agree with the reality. Many of the MB counselors at summer camp are 15 or 16 year olds where a large number of them are supervised by a single adult without any Quality Control. If the boy clearly has not completed the requirements because the MB was given at a "giveaway" program (I hear the National Jambo MB Midway can be like this)and the troop leaders discover this, the mere fact that a blue card was signed should not allow for automatic signature by "a" unit leader.

One year, all scouts at Summer Camp got Blue Cards signed for Camping MB. All admitted that none cooked a trail meal for the patrol on a lightweight stove as required. The Camp Director was told of this after the Camp was over. The SM of our troop held the Blue Cards until the requirement was completed.

I think Hunt's idea of challenging the scout to come to an ethical decision of not accepting the MB is the ideal. But, if the Eagle required MBs are not "earned", then what's the point? Asking the Scout to do no more and no less is REQUIRED to earn the merit badge. If the SM learns that the counselor was not trustworthy and signed the card when this did not occur, I think he should have some discretion to not accept it. It is not a punishment when the scout did not do the requirements in the first place.

The issue of the requirements is addressed on the usscouts web site. A letter from National is referenced. A link to the site is http://usscouts.org/mb/framesindex.html

If the scout starts the merit badge, then those requirements can be used until he is 18. If a MB is discontinued, then he can still get that badge until he is 18 if he has started it before the year that it is discontinued. If he chooses to use the new requirements, he must use all of the new req. and not mix the old and new.

I agree with BW in principle, but let's examine the reality. In 2000, my 11 year old son went to a weekend campout MB giveaway. Our troop did not realize the nature of the program. My son "earned" First Aid Merit Badge by sitting in a class for 4 hours and left with a signed blue card. No examination was required. CPR was not covered. It would have been inappropriate for the SM to have signed this card. My son had the character to agree and retook the MB at summer camp the next year. I think it would have "punished" him to give him the MB without earning it.

The current- Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual 33088C states on page 24- "The steps to follow in the merit badge program are outlined in the current Boy Scout Requirements. This book lists the requirements a Scout meets to earn each of the more than 100 merit badges that are available. Scouts must be tested individually, and they must meet all the requirements. No additional requirements may be added. A merit badge cannot be taken away once it has been earned, provided the counselor is a registered counselor for the merit badge."

We have had several instances where the blue card was signed by a summer camp counselor but we knew that requirements were not complete. The blue card must be signed by the unit leader before it is submitted. This may be a final control by the unit leader to make sure (especially in the case of Eagle required MBs) that it was properly earned.

On the inside cover of the book- Boy Scout Requirements 2004, "the requirements for merit badges, ranks, and Eagle Palms are effective January 1, 2004. These requirements are effective through December 2004" and "The requirements in this book are the official requirements of the Boy Scouts of America". This book even overrides the Boy Scout Handbook for CURRENT advancement requirements. Pages 22-23 have the introduction to merit badges. On page 23- "The requirements on the following pages might not match those in the merit badge pamphlets because the pamphlets may not have been recently revised." If requirements are altered for merit badges or rank, the new requirements are in effect in the calender year.

Although I cannot find it, I have seen a reference that says the old requirements can be used if started on within 3 months of the change and completed within 6 months of the new requirement.

Telling the scout what is required for a POR to be successfully completed is certainly not adding to the requirements. It only tells the scout what is expected. A SM in our district recently relieved a scout of his position of patrol leader. In writing, the scout was told that he did not complete the task of obtaining speakers for the month's troop meetings that he was required to do. All patrol leaders are assigned this task in rotation. They are all told this is required prior to their tenure as PL. A SM conference was held with the parent present and the scout was given the opportunity to explain what happened and why he didn't complete the assignment. He was given the opportunity to get the speakers for the next month and refused. He was then relieved of the position. The parent was mad and wrote a letter to district and council officers questioning the "added requirements". The SM did everything correctly and was supported. The responsiblities of the POR were defined prior to the tenure of the scout; when the job was not being done correctly, there was intervention and an opportunity to correct; and the scout was relieved prior to a BOR being held.

There is not an issue of permission for treatment of adults as they can give consent. Notary of the adult physical is therefore not necessary.

I just completed the Venture Leader Specific Training course. The new permission form for activities has a section for a notary!! Our activity chair is a pediatrician. She has told us that many Emergency Rooms and Insurance companies require notarization of the physicals to allow for treatment. I don't agree with this but accept it as a possibility. It is my understanding that this varies from state to state. We have therefore placed it in the bylaws for the protection of the youth even though it is not (yet) required by BSA.

cool.

I have just finished reading the entire thread and think it is sad that such sexist attitudes exist as have been discussed here. I think Shell is on the right track with most of her opinions. The troop I have been involved with has never restricted a lone woman leader or parent from participating on a camping event and we have had no major problems. Learning to respect the women present is important for the boys (and apparently for some of the male adult leaders as well). Our current Advancement Chair is a pediatrician who loves to camp. She has been invaluable on our camping events for first aid training as well as her organizational skills. If she had to find another woman to attend with her and couldn't, it would be the troop's loss when she didn't attend. I would leave this unit with its neanderthal attitude.

It is quite clear that Bob White has a tremendous amount of experience and skill as an adult leader. We have units in danger of folding because they need an adult to come forward and take the position of Scoutmaster. These leaders usually are not trained yet and do not have the experience Bob has. I get the message of this thread but still feel that bylaws are very useful tools to help with the smooth running of the unit.

Now we are getting off of the original subject. But since you brought it up... Telling me that the Scout Law and the Guide to Safe Scouting will substitute for a clearly stated discipline policy in the troop bylaws really begs the question of how the SPL, SM and others deal with disorderly young men. We know that 13 year old boys never lose their temper or get into fights, but, heaven forbid, something should happen, how is this going to be handled? Just send everyone involved home? Tell all to behave and act like perfect scouts and forget it happened? Something in between?

Safety Afloat and Safe swim defense have a discipline section but do not give clear instruction as to what to do when some kids are disruptive and worse. The bylaws and guidebook in our troop try to let the parents know how this will be handled. I have seen a dozen different ways to do this ranging from "let the SM handle it" to a card system similar to soccer where disruptions get a yellow card and 3 yellow cards get a call to dad to pick the scout up to go home- regardless of where the event is being held. This system is applied by the boy leadership of the troop and the adults stay out of it unless needed. The boys are usually stricter than the adults when it comes to disruptive behavior with this method.

I don't agree with everything in the Troop 48 discipline section of the bylaws, but it sure is better than nothing. The expectation is that the Scout Oath and Law will be followed. When continued misbehavior and disruptive behavior has known consequences that are clearly spelled out, problems with dealing with it can be minimized. On a rare occasion, a scout is asked to find another troop. If this should ever happen to you, I think you would want something to back you up as to why you took the actions you did. The Bylaws of the Troop do that.

Wow. Interesting ideas. Scrap the bylaws? They have a section on the discipline policy of the troop. I think this should be laid out to scout and parents at the time of joining so they know what to expect. I sure would like to see in writing where it says BSA does not condone bylaws.

I did not mean to imply that these documents are perfect. Our parents have MANY questions about the program. The bylaws and guidebook are meant to help answer these questions.

I agree with Bob White in principle. But the reality is that these problems arise all the time, even when there are well trained and knowledgeable volunteers. My son just went through this with an Eagle Palm. His attendance and leadership were questioned by the SM who would not sign off on the recognition. It took 3 months and a successful appeal to Council to get the Palm awarded. The Troop Bylaws will be changed on several levels because of this. Was it frustrating? Yes. But all benefitted from the exercise, including my son who now knows it is worthwhile to fight for change when the process is not fair or correct. You can view our bylaws- by checking out www.tidewaterbsa.com and linking on units, troop 48, bylaws or troop guidebook. Our Troop Committee is meeting to revamp the Bylaws concerning BOR after SM conference and After Eagle program.

It is wonderful when the SM is the ideal adult leader, but unfortunately, he is just an adult volunteer like all the rest of us. He makes mistakes, is unclear with the scout and occasionally gives mixed messages as to the demands of the scout. I go back to my previous post, the bylaws should spell out the requirement to be active. If the SM does not follow the bylaw, then there is a basis for a review to the BOR, the troop committee or beyond. If the bylaw is incorrect (by demanding more than is required) then district and council advancement advisors can intervene.