Jump to content

Adding to requirements


Recommended Posts

It has been pointed out many times that it is inappropriate for a unit to add to the requirements for rank advancement. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss what does, and does not constitute adding to requirements.

First, the easy case: Unit A decides that it will not approve any boy for Eagle unless he earns the Backpacking merit badge. This is adding to the requirements. There is no question of interpretation at all.

But let's take some other scenarios. Scout: Mr. SM, I helped the custodian raise the flag at my school this morning--does that count as a flag ceremony? SM: Did you do anything beyond just raising the flag--salute, say some words, etc.? Scout: No, we just raised it. SM: Well, it seems to me that this doesn't really amount to a ceremony. Why don't you ask SPL to put you in the color guard for the next meeting?

Does anybody think this SM has added to the requirement? I don't think he has--he's just used a common-sense interpretation of what "ceremony" means.

What seems to trouble people the most is when a particular unit wants to institutionalize an interpretation that is not spelled out by BSA. The one that's been discussed most often is what it means to be "active." Is it really adding to that requirement if the troop says that active means attending more than half of meetings or events? I don't think it is--it's not saying that you have to do something more or other than be active--it's just interpreting what the word active means. Certainly you might disagree with this interpretation, but it's not the same as saying that the unit has added to the requirement.

Another example--everybody in the troop shows up to work on Joe's Eagle project. Is that a troop activity that counts for the lower ranks? I can see a good argument either way: on one hand, the troop did it and it wasn't a meeting; on the other hand, an Eagle project isn't really a troop activity. If a SM refused to count this as an activity, I wouldn't say he was adding to the requirements, but rather that he was interpreting the requirement.

I guess that there can be interpretations that are so extreme that they constitute adding to the requirement (i.e., I think this is where I would place a decision that summer camp was not a troop activity.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of room for leeway, I think, and it's a double-edged sword. I've seen some really rational interpretations of the rules to suit individual needs, and I've seen some pretty wacky interpretations as well. And, probably an equal share of both.

 

As you say, Hunt, some things are pretty clear. A unit simply cannot add their own requirements to an advancement list. The problem always comes in interpreting things like "Scout Spirit", and "active", just as you commented.

 

So, let me take a moment on "active". I don't think it's defined anywhere, for one thing, so it's really left up to the units to decide. What I've decided to do in our troop is to ask the Scout whether they think they've been active. Let them think about it a bit. I might think that 30% attendance might not be enough, but if I ask the Scout, I get to hear his view on why he might not have been there more. Maybe 30% in my mind was actually 90% of the meetings he could have attended, for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, they know if they've been "active", and will usually say so, truthfully, if given the chance in a conference. If I think that they're trying to "get one past me", I just ask them to explain why they think they've been active if, for example, they never attend troop meetings. We've just started doing this, so it's kind of early to tell if it's an effective way of measuring "active" or not. But I do think that, for the most part, arbitrary activity requirements are just that, arbitrary. You can have Scouts attending 100% of the meetings but never really participating, and others coming to 25% but doing more than anyone else while they're there.

 

The one place where I have been a bit of a stickler is for the youth leaders. There, I basically have a "3 strikes" rules, that is, 3 unexcused absences and you can't be a leader anymore. For awhile, our elections were mostly popularity contests. Because our troop was small, we didn't utilize the troop method as effectively as we might have, and so our patrol leaders were more "for show". More recently, as the troop has grown a bit, we've gone to much more extensive use of the patrol method, so missing leaders are a lot more obvious (as are leaders who don't "lead"). I make the point repeatedly at PLC that a big part of leading is showing up and being there. You can't lead if you're not there. This has led some of our Scouts who are active in other things to start to think about whether they can be leaders if they're tied up in a sport for 4 months and don't attend meetings. These would be "excused" absences, really, but it gets them thinking a bit more about what leadership is about.

 

Regards your example, Hunt, how the leader words things could define whether something is an activity or not. If I say, "The troop is going to get together Saturday to help Joe with his Eagle project; stop by if you're able", that, to me, is clearly a troop activity. If I say, "Joe is going to be working on his Eagle project this Saturday. Stop by if you're able.", I'm thinking that that's not a troop activity. But, I'll be honest and say that because we are always thinking about ways to help Scouts advance, it's pretty normal for us to state the activity however we might, and then add, "and remember, this will count towards......". Or, we'll say it's not a troop activity, but come if you want. Etc.

 

Last thought. Anybody who thinks that summer camp isn't a troop activity is just being, well, "silly". Wasn't there a thread in the last couple of days where somebody said that they don't count summer camp because everybody wants to go to summer camp? What does that mean? Activities that count are the ones people don't want to go to? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiousity, would people include attending summer camp as a provisional scout toward the "active" requirement (or for the "participate in x-number of troop/patrol activities" for tenderfoot/2nd/1st Class)? While there one is a member of a provo troop, it just isn't one's home troop. My son did that last summer because he couldn't attend camp with his own troop. It hasn't been a problem in terms of how his troop interprets this and anyway he has, by pretty much any reasonable definition, fulfilled the activity requirements, but I'm interested to hear what others think. Provo camp, a troop activity or not?

 

Lisa'bob

A good old bobwhite too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a can of worms you opened, Hunt. But one that needed opening.

 

Yep there are the obvious. Active isn't one of those. It is not defined by the BSA (except for Sea Scouts) so I would agree with the others that it is up to each individual unit to determine. So that said, is it fair if Troop A has a 75% attendance requirement and Troop B considers being registered synonymous with being active? Sure is! The same guideline is used for each Scout in the unit. And like someone posted in another thread, if you don't like the requirement, switch units!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prairie Scouter, I think your approach to "active" is reasonable--but I will just point out that you've decided to accept a range of interpretations of what the term means. As you suggest, there may be limits to how broad you will allow that range to get--and then, you're interpreting the requirement, too.

It's certainly within the power of BSA to offer clarification on a point like this if it wants to--it has done so for other issues (for example, it has made it clear that there is no 1-year time limit for merit badges, no limit on parents serving as MBCs, and no limit on the number of badges earned from one MBC). I'm not sure what we can infer from BSA's choice not to clarify the meaning of "active." Maybe BSA thinks it's OK for there to be a range of interpretations on this point?

Also, I'd like to make it clear that I think there are bad or wrong or unreasonable interpretations. For example, I would criticize a troop that required perfect attendance to be considered "active," just as I would criticize one that felt a boy was "active" who didn't show up at all. I really dislike the interpretation of the Camping MB requirements that some MBCs apply, requiring all the nights of camping to occur after the blue card is signed, for another example. I couldn't claim that such a MBC is adding to the requirements, because the requirements aren't specific on this point, but I can give lots of arguments on the merits why I think a different interpretation is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One small comment Hunt. The Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement and therefore should be in charge of the "Scout spirit" and "active" determinations. Now, the CO determines who the SM is and owns the troop so you could infer that "the unit" decides these term but I just want to make sure that when the rubber meets the road, the determination by the Scoutmaster is the one that counts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer Lisa, I would say yes. Attending summer camp as a provisional is "active", as long as he is otherwise "active" in his own troop. Frequently, scheduling problems are unavoidable, and the scout should not be penalized for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my 2 cents.

I don't try and over-think or over analyze things.

We as adults are here to serve the youth that join our programs. If the time ever comes that we forget that it's time we quit. We serve one youth at a time. Boy Scout advancement is an individual thing. Trying to make it into one size fits all, seems to me be where we run into problems. Where the requirements are specific and the Scout doesn't have any special needs, life is easy. However if you look over a lot of the requirements they are as you say open to interpretation: "Help plan a patrol menu.."? What does "Help" mean?

Isn't this where we as Leaders need to look at what is really behind the requirement and put the learning before the requirement.

Help could mean just writing down what the PL comes up with!! However I feel that if we are doing a good job a lot more thought would go into this. Teaching a Lad how to write a menu, why Twinkies and Soda pop aren't such a good idea for every meal. Looking at a balanced diet, taking a look at the food pyramid. We are not adding to the requirement we still require that he helps write the menu, but he is doing it with a little know how.

Taking the example of the Lad and the Flag that Hunt gave. Being as we are in the business of helping people make ethical decisions, I wonder what the Lad would say if you asked him if he really thought that he had met the requirement?

Eamonn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Taking the example of the Lad and the Flag that Hunt gave. Being as we are in the business of helping people make ethical decisions, I wonder what the Lad would say if you asked him if he really thought that he had met the requirement?"

 

I don't disagree with you at all--although I think I have encountered a few boys who really might not know what a "ceremony" is. Once it was explained to them, then I think your approach would likely be effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...