ScoutTrainer

8 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

We need to be careful using the term mastery.  BSA advancement is about demonstrating and discussing, but "mastery" infers a higher level than found in BSA requirements.  Swimming is the closest to mastery when it says demonstrate swimming in a "strong" manner.  

Point taken.  Poor choice of words on my part.  Thank you.

Thank you all for your feedback and input.   I'm personally very against the "everyone gets a trophy" syndrome that seems prevalent today.  That is what this reminds me of.  The SM/Troop (in my opinion) is wrong on many levels. 

I'm still contemplating whether this is worth the fight or not - I certainly do not want the SM "defrocked" nor do I want the Troop Charter revoked.   My question was not one of vindictive or malicious intent.  I do, however, have very strong feelings about following requirements exactly as written.  If it takes a long time to complete a requirement - so be it.   If a Scout (and his parents) are unwilling to devote the time necessary to master a skill, then the Scout does not advance.  If BSA advancement were easy, every Tiger Cub would become an Eagle Scout.  It's about growing, facing challenges, testing limits, and being proud of what you've accomplished.  

All the while, I completely understand alternate requirements for disabilities - we have one or two in our Troop, completing approved alternate requirements due to a documented disability is a far different situation than "just signing off" in a book because one doesn't want to rock the boat with helicopter parents.

18 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

That is dangerous.  First off they shouldn't get signed off on that requirement unless they pass the test.  What lesson are we teaching them  But more importantly, what happens in a water situation where the scout goes into the water and can't swim safely?  

I would say something in my opinion 

Exactly.  It is a life safety lesson.  And it defies the whole "trustworthy" part of the Scout Law.

Who would you suggest saying something to?  I know our DE would turn his head the other way.  He avoids conflict at all costs.  Not really sure about the Council.... 

20 minutes ago, TMSM said:

I am guessing there is more to this that was not said. Perhaps they passed the swim test for summer camp so the do not retest before signing off.  

No - it was expressly clear that he does not require the swim tests for advancement requirements. He stated that he just signs that off in their book and skips it.  He says that none of his Scouts swim at summer camp.  He himself is also a non-swimmer.

I would like opinions on a Troop that I have encountered a few months back, but it's been festering in my mind.

While talking to a Scoutmaster at a local Merit Badge University, the subject of swim test requirements for rank came up.  He (somewhat jokingly) said that his troop was a magnet for drop outs from other area Troops because his Troop "just signs off" on the swim test requirements without a Scout ever having to attempt even the beginner test.  My response was a quick laugh and "Thanks for the laugh.  I needed that!"  He said "No, I'm serious - it's just not worth the hassle of fighting the over protective, helicopter parents and enforcing the rules.  My son is on the downhill stretch toward Eagle and when that happens, I'm outta here.  I'm tired of fighting the parents."

I was speechless.  Now, I'm by no means an expert or well-seasoned Scouter (only 6 or 7 years mostly Cubs - figuring out the Troop thing slowly but surely), however, I do read and the 2017 Guide to Advancement clearly states  

Policy on Unauthorized Changes to Advancement Program

No council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to, or subtract from, advancement requirements. 

It's a serious disservice to the Troop to let them bypass requirements that are clearly meant to challenge and help the boys grow.  Aside from that, it kind of smears the Scout Law into a blur.

Would you do or say anything about this?  Or no?  Thoughts, discussion and advice from the many experienced Scouters here is welcome.

Thank you all for your input and advice.  Much appreciated.  We will work with the ASPL and see how things go from there.

I guess you have to ask - what is more important, a Librarian of a Senior Patrol Leader.  If the QM, Scribe or Librarian is elected, they can always appoint someone to their old position.

Point well made.  

Scouts, no matter how much trouble I got in to in school or wherever else, it is the one thing my mother would never punish me from.

Exactly!  And through all of this, he's been in a lot of trouble, spent many hours counselling with our SM along with the parents.  The SM tried to encourage that Scouting was a very positive item in all of the negativity surrounding this.  However, at the end, due to some extenuating circumstances, it became apparent that pulling him out (for now at least) is best.  It's a very sad situation.

Thank you all.  We were leaning to a special election, sometimes you just need to hear it reaffirmed.  

qwazse - We currently have four patrols which includes two patrols of brand new boy scouts.  About half of the two new patrols came over from Cub Scouts and the others are completely new to Scouting.  Th

deanofmac - The ASPL is adamant that he doesn't want the SPL position.  He really doesn't seem to have wanted the ASPL position either.  The SM and other Patrol Leaders have gently talked to him, offering support and encouragement.  He's pretty assertive with his "no".  

CalicoPenn - The field of candidates was pretty narrow and most of those Scouts are now in other roles like Scribe, Librarian, QM, etc.  The vast majority of Scouts in our troop that are not currently in a leadership role are the new Scouts (most are still working on Scout Rank).  Election time fell right before "school round up" night this year.

Our troop has been presented with a unique situation (to us) and we are seeking advice from others that have surely encountered similar situations.

Our SPL was recently pulled from the Troop by his parents.  They are adamant that he won't be returning to Scouting until these other issues are resolved (if they are at all).  In summary, he made a couple of very poor choices and unfortunately is in some pretty serious trouble.  

We hold elections every six months.  Elections aren't due for four more months.  All of the Scouts recently elected are just settling in to their new roles.  We've asked the ASPL if he'd like to step into the SPL position, however, he doesn't feel "ready" for that yet.  He's young, nervous and not ready for that responsibility.

So, what is the best route to take to fill that SPL role?  Should we hold an interim election or should the SM and Committee appoint someone to fill in the rest of the term?

Any advice or suggestions is most appreciated.

Absolutely not trying to make an issue out of this for any of my scout families. This went way off track. All I asked originally is if anyone had any thoughts on this related to YP or G2SS as pertains to leaders friending Cub Scouts on FB. I do not police my Scouts or their family life unless it come down to signs of abuse or neglect (which this clearly is not).

Please do not make assumptions about what I am trying to do when all I did was ask opinions.

Thanks Everyone for your comments and feedback.  

I guess one thing from all of the comments that really stuck with me is the comment by BSA Heretic regarding honesty.  These Cub Scouts are 9 years old.  The absolute minimum age for Facebook is 13.  So, the parents, in allowing this, are sending a message to the Scouts that it is "ok" to lie to accomplish what you want.  

Honesty is a point in the Scout Law.  In my humble opinion, "friending" someone who obviously lied about their age to create the account would also be condoning the lie.  I think, on that principle alone, the Leaders, including myself, should decline the friend request.

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for opinions, advice, suggestions on how to handle what may be an awkward situation.

It's recently come to my attention that two of our Cub Scouts have Facebook accounts (and Cub Scouts, both 9, are obviously under the 13 year old minimum age on FB).  They have already "friended" a couple of our leaders and I've received a friend request from one of them as well, but have not accepted.

I may be overreacting, but it sends up all sorts of YPT red flags to me.  We are about to undertake our annual review of bylaws and code of conduct and I'm wondering if we should add a clause or statement related to this somehow?

YPT policy states: Two-deep leadership and no one-on-one contact between adults and youth members includes digital communication.Leaders may not have one-on-one private online communications or engage one-on-one in other digital activities (games, social media, etc.) with youth members. Leaders should copy a parent and another leader in digital and online communication, ensuring no one-on-one contact exists in text, social media, or other forms of online or digital communication.

Even though I assume the parents are aware of their sons FB accounts, given the potentiality for the use of Facebook private messages between the Scout and a Leader, I'm thinking this needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

Thoughts?

Good Evening,

My role is that of Pack Trainer.  I've served for almost 5 years.  Recently, I've come across something in our Pack that I'm having mixed emotions about.

First of, I've found out that two of our Cub Scouts (both 9 years old) have facebook accounts.  I'm under the impression that their parents are aware of these accounts.  That 9 year olds have facebook accounts is disconcerting to me, but that is between the parents and the Scout.  I do not believe that 9 year olds have appropriate judgement and rationalization to handle that media.

What IS really concerning to me is that I've received a friend request from both of these Scouts and in so doing, have seen that two other leaders have already accepted friend requests from these Scouts.  

Does anyone see any red flags with this?  Or am I being overly sensitive?  Are we opening ourselves up to possible issues of impropriety? 

I'm very interested in hearing any thoughts or reading any regulations that you may be aware of on this.  I've not found anything that specifically addresses this.

Thanks in advance.