Life Scout Tenure

[jjshoe43@hotmail.com]

Like many troops, our troop is divided up into many age groups. Our question refers to the older scouts. We have many 15-17 year old scouts that have been with the troop for 4-6 years. At least 5 of them received their Life Scout rank more than a year ago. They were active in the troop for quite awhile after that , but now are more into their jobs, after school activities and sports. They still come to some meetings and attend some outings, but after years of scouting, they have other options for their time. Our questions comes in, they all fulfilled the tenure requirement which states that they had to serve in a leadership position for at least six months after achieving their Life rank, but now as they work towards Eagle, I have had others warn that they may not be approved as they have not been active in the troop for the "last" six months. Any idea what the official ruling is on this? thanks Eagle96

[OldGreyEagle]

lets see, what does the requirement read?

 

"Be active in your troop and patrol for at least six months as a Life Scout."

 

I dont see "last six months" anywhere, you have a bunch of adults trying to add their thoughts to the BSA program.

[jjshoe43@hotmail.com]

Thanks OGE. that's the way I read it also. In the 2004 requiement book it does state that they had to serve in a leadership position, but as I said they all did that. This subject came up at a recent council Eagle BOR, when I expressed a concern, the Chairman said that if someone from the troop brings up a concern regarding the scouts attendence that they have to consider it. Think maybe they are reading too much into it also? Thanks Eagle96

[OldGreyEagle]

re reading my post, I may have come off as too gruff. Here is a post from a similar topic

 

I am very much against defining Active with some percentage number. Lets say Troop A has a 75% attendance at meetings and 50% of events policy and Troop B has a 50% Meeting and events policy and Troop C has no numerical formula. In Troops A and B scouts routinely drop out and do not advance and look back on their scouting careers and think, boy, I wish I had done more in scouts but with band and baseball (etc) I couldn't fit it in. Then there is Troop C. They have scouts who are active at different times of the year and then arent so active. These scouts advance when they show up and do the requirements. They can look back at their scout career and think, wow, scouts were fun and I was able to do all those other things as well. The added kicker is if any of the scouts of A, B, or C earn Eagle, they earn Eagle. There is no asterisk attached to any of the Eagle Certificates delineating the attendance record of the scout.

 

But, I digress, the question at hand is how to define active. Here is how I look at it. To advance in ranks up to and including first class, certain requirements have to be met. Shopping, Cooking, Camping, attendance at a set amount of troop activities. When the scout accomplishes these requirements, I think you have to say the scout was active; after all, he accomplished all the requirements that were presented to him.

 

Now, when a scout is First Class, things do get interesting, in order to advance he has to complete (make that satisfactory complete) a position of responsibility for at least 4 months. As is normal all the requirements say the scout is to be an active member of the troop, patrol ect, to advance. Now, I dont think a scout can satisfactory complete 4 months in a position of responsibility for 4 months and still not be defined as an active scout. The key is the way the position of responsibility is handled. The scoutmaster or designee goes over the job description with the scout and assures the duties and expectations are understood. On a periodic basis the scoutmaster or designee reviews the scouts performance and highlights strengths and they talk about how to improve weaknesses. When the four months is through, there is no question that the scout was active, he had to be to complete his job. Then the scout becomes Star and a six-month Position of Leadership is required. Again, the job description is reviewed, the expectations set and the monitoring begins. After six months, if the job is done well, the scout had to be active. The Scout is now Life and in another 6 months he could be Eagle, the cycle being followed again.

 

Lets say a scout joins a troop on his 11th birthday. Its a really happening troop and he goes through the ranks and becomes a first class scout on his 12 th birthday. In 4 months he becomes Star and 6 months later Life and indeed 6 months after that, when he is 13 and 4 months old he reaches Eagle. He has satisfactorily completed the requirements. He held three positions of responsibility and always understood the expectations and always met them. He attends 90% of the meetings and 80% of the events. Then after his Eagle Court of Honor, he is never seen again. Well, he is seen, just not as a scout. He completed his requirements and in Irving, he is listed as an Eagle.

 

Then you can have another scout. One of many interests and an eclectic lad by nature. He also joins at 11, and he takes one year to make first class. But then after his 4 months stint as historian, satisfactorily completed, it takes him another 12 months to accomplish the required merit badges for Star. After earning Star he drops out of sight for 6 months and them comes back, assumes the Quartermaster position and goes great for 6 months then when his stint is over, it takes him another 6 months of spotty attendance but he makes Life. Then it takes him 18 months to make Eagle with 6 months of solid ASPL work, but due to band and baseball, little else. It takes the second scout considerably longer to achieve Eagle, but as both met the requirements, in Irving the names are in the same file, under Eagle Scouts. Was the second scout as active as he could have been? No, Was the first scout? No, But if they both met the requirements, and performed them satisfactory, so I would say they were both active.

[jjshoe43@hotmail.com]

Secod case, exact secnario. Thanks again, Eagle96

[acco40]

Now, when a scout is First Class, things do get interesting, in order to advance he has to complete (make that satisfactory complete) a position of responsibility for at least 4 months.

 

The requirement as I read it uses the term "serve actively in one or more of the following positions of responsibility." Again, it all boils down to a definition of active (not satisfactory) and since the Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement (see Advancement Guide) I'd leave it up to the SM to determine the definition. That said, the balancing act is to create a known definition so that the Scouts know what is expected (which is why many state percentages) but also be flexible enough to be able to tailor it to each Scout's circumstances (and risk being accused of playing favorites). What I do as Scoutmaster is have as guidelines a percentage that I feel if met indicates active but I also encourage the Scouts (not their parents) to give me feedback if they feel they can not meet those requirements. The problem I run into is that the feedback is given when they want to advance, not before. It is a balance of trying to set concrete expectations but still maintain flexibility.

 

For example, I have a Scout who attends troop meetings fairly regularly but does not attend outings. His position of responsibility is Patrol Leader. He does attend PLC meetings too. His patrol doesn't attend outings much either (total patrol has attended only two outings all year, one Scout attended summer camp and three Scouts for our May outing. We have an outing every month.) Now is he active? Should it depend on why he has not attended outings or is that irrelevant?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[LongHaul]

Acco40,

You are correct that the decision finally rests with the Scoutmaster, I would hope that the SPL and PLC had some input. As to your example, if this scout is First Class then he has gone on outings but has now stopped. This would need to be discussed in a Scoutmaster conference in our troop. Our troop meetings though not entirely by the book do follow the concept of 4 weekly meetings preparing for a monthly activity. We try to have a theme for the monthly outing and that theme is used to prepare the weekly meeting plan. If a scout will participate in the planning and preparation but not the event I question whether I could consider this active. You will practice with the team but not show up to play in the game? You say this patrol has participated in only two outings one being summer camp. Does this reflect good leadership on the part of the Patrol Leader? What part can this patrol play in the monthly outing? What planning and preparation can they be doing for the monthly outing if they dont participate in the monthly outing? Why do they come to meetings? This is all material for a Scoutmaster conference with the members of this patrol BUT what we are discussing is what constitutes serve actively.

The Set up; We have 4 weekly meetings and 1 monthly outing, that is 5 activities add a monthly PLC thats 6 activities of which a patrol leader participates in 83.3% of the scheduled events. Going on numbers I would have to say he is active, thats why numbers cant be the final determining factor. What about serve? Is this boy executing the duties associated with his position? What does he actually do at troop meetings if he is not going on the outing that is being prepared for? Is the training and education part complete without the practical application? IMO This is an example of a boy that holds a position but is not truly executing the duties of his office. He is active but is not serving his patrol in the capacity of Patrol Leader. This all hinges on defining terms, is the coach of the last place team any less the coach than the coach of the first place team? He may not be as good of a coach but he is still the coach. As I have posted elsewhere the POR requirement has been a requirement for a long time but the actual wording has changed several times. Being assigned or elected to a position of responsibility, holding the title, and actually executing the duties of the office are all different things and are not interchangable .  IMO How serve actively is going to be interpreted must be made known to every scout at the beginning of each rank. Once a boy begins working on a rank these interpretations should not be changed unless the boy approaches the Scoutmaster and requests some special consideration for which the boy is prepared to state his case. Scoutmasters must be fair and consistent but should not be so inflexible that a boy is denied advancement because of something beyond his control.

 LongHaul

[ScoutingEMT]

Acco44 wrote:

"For example, I have a Scout who attends troop meetings fairly regularly but does not attend outings. His position of responsibility is Patrol Leader. He does attend PLC meetings too. His patrol doesn't attend outings much either (total patrol has attended only two outings all year, one Scout attended summer camp and three Scouts for our May outing. We have an outing every month.) Now is he active? Should it depend on why he has not attended outings or is that irrelevant?"

 

Better question..... WHY isn't he going on outings? Perhaps SM needs to sit down with the scout and discuss this.... perhaps the scout isn't the right choice for PL... sounds like he is leading by example.... just not the example you want to see.

 

As for 16/17 y/o life scouts.... let me jus say "Girls and Gasoline" - at that age, scouting starts to compete with too many things, and it is difficult to stay involved.

 

Jon