Is Eagle Candidate Considered To Be "Active" When Last Campout Was 1-1/2 Yrs Ago?

[John-in-KC 311]

Dluders,

 

Thanks for the update. A couple of comments.

 

1) I think Troop Committee Challenge, conducting by a member of your District Training operating committee, would be a great thing for your committee to undertake. That prior CC was definitely crossing into your area of responsibility.

 

2) When I was a CC, I insisted the Treasurer be bonded. There are any number of incidents, including things involved with their youth, which cause Treasurers to make the books un-auditable. From several different youth-serving organizations experience, I'm sorta coming to a conclusion that Treasurers should not have their kids in the program anymore.

 

3) A Scoutmaster Conference is in order, but it needs to have solid open-ended questions. Look at the Scout, delve into his interests, find out if the basic outdoor program of Boy Scouting is the right vehcle for him.

- Is there a Venturing Crew founded on theatrics in your area? It might be a better fit.

- Have you thought of linking the young man up with your OA Lodge Ceremonial Team? Lots of acting opportunity there.

- Maybe he's ready to serve on a Scout Camp staff? There's lots of room for thespians and hams there, and he gets a 24/7 Scouting environment.

 

There's room for a big win/win, if we apply some thought and imagination.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I guess I'm late to the party.

 

So let me take a step back. I think in the end, if we focus too much on specifics, we lose the goals. Dluders, in your mind, is this boy an Eagle Scout? That is to say, is he a boy that you'd be happy standing up in front of a room of other people - and especially other younger boys you're trying to mentor - and saying "This is what an Eagle is". Then joining in applauding the lad.

 

I think that if he is, none of the other particulars matter. That's been Terry Larson's point in dealing with all the percentage stuff. Gettin' all persnickety about 48% vs. 52% attendance isn't a good thing, and one that National is trying to discourage. Don't hold up a boy who really is an Eagle over technicalities, or adult communication failures.

 

But if he's not a boy you can genuinely hold up to the parents, CO, and especially to other boys as an example and "hero" of sorts, then yeh have an obligation not to, and to keep working with him. And if your program is promotin' and signin' off on such lads, then yeh should be about fixing that, too. Eagle isn't the spot to catch things. A Star Scout should also be a good example to younger boys.

 

Personally, I agree with many here that National's current trend is toward giving Eagles away when asked. That's partly just fatigue from dealing with obnoxious little-league parents all the time, and partly fatigue from dealing with rules-quoting dingbats in troops and districts who hold up great kids over minutia. And partly time for some new blood in that office. Da problem is that when they try to correct the troop and district dingbats with broad "policy" statements the unintended consequence is that they also convince other well-meaning folks that they have to give away the farm rather than really help a boy grow.

 

Still, I have seen denial for lack of participation upheld on appeal all the way to national. Not everything gets rubber-stamped in the boy's favor. But it's gotta be clear that the lack of participation was "gross" not "technical", and the documentation of adult communication with the lad and his parents must be very sound.

 

So there's nothin' wrong with a troop having a participation rule. That's a good thing, often, to help boys and parents understand commitment expectations. I think troops should keep such things. But in the end, we all have to decide "is this boy becoming the example we want him to be?" and use our opportunities to mentor him at Star and Life as much as Eagle. Rules are only tools to help with that mentoring.

 

Beavah

 

[kb6jra 10]

dluders,

 

You've gotten great advice and lots of very accurate and useful info.

 

My only addition would be what I've experienced.

 

I had a similar situation with a scout who burned bright for many years and dimmed quite a bit in the attendance department after about 1 year of being a Life Scout. He was very active, hyper active in fact up until that time. He then got busy with school and socializing. When he came back to work on Eagle, we had some issues, much like what you're going through.

 

Our troop has a policy that wants to see roughly 70% participation in troop meetings, outings and activities. We call it the 80% rule, but it's closer to 70%. It's completely un-enforceable as it pertains to advancement, unless you are talking about the fulfillment of the Position of Responsibility and minimum requirements to fulfill those positions. You'll find that whole argument on another few hundred threads here without much searching.

 

I decided to have a couple of SM Conferences with the young man and explained my concerns dealing with his obvious disconnect with the troop and lack of leadership. After our talk, he made every effort to re-enter the troop as a JASM, become active as much as he could, and promised to give me and the troop 6 honest months after his Eagle Board of Review. That was 18 months ago and he still stops by to help when his college schedule permits.

 

If you're having issues with the Father, sorry to hear that, but you should be talking with the scout about these issues and not the parents. They may be committee members but the scout is the one you're mentoring. If he's only 15, he's got lots of good opportunities to give a hand in leading the troop in the future. Give him the opportunity to be that leader and give him a job he can get his teeth into. You may be surprised at what you latch on to. If the father wants to take exception to what you and his son agree to, have him take it up with the committee -- it's not your deal to stand toe to toe with a parent, you should have your committee on your side for these matters.

 

Good luck and by the way, I wouldn't abandon any attendance policies to easily, I'd just explain your expectations to the boys in the troop and give them the opportunity to fulfill those expectations as best they can.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

If a boy doesnt want to come to meetings and activities, is making an attendance rule the best solution to fix that? Why doesnt he want to come? Band, baseball, girls, TV, snorkeling, fast cars? If a troop program is going to compete with whatever it is a boy is doing when he skips the troop activity, the troop is going to have to offer a better deal.

 

Develop a more attractive program and those non-attending boys will suddenly chose Scouts over some boring baseball game, band practice, or video game. Another rule in the committee rule book is not a reason for a boy to want to come to Scouts.

[Beavah 205]

If a boy doesnt want to come to meetings and activities, is making an attendance rule the best solution to fix that? Why doesnt he want to come? Band, baseball, girls, TV, snorkeling, fast cars? If a troop program is going to compete with whatever it is a boy is doing when he skips the troop activity, the troop is going to have to offer a better deal.

 

I agree with FScouter in principle here. Even in specifics for some boys. Boys that "fade out" may well do so because a troop isn't grabbin' and holdin' their attention in the way that it should.

 

I just think that communicatin' expectations does play a role. All of us would love to get something for nothing, or something completely on our personal convenience/schedule/desired price. Like the ability to put Scouts on our resume, or to come to one or two things a year to hang with friends or have some fun without makin' a commitment. We'd love to do that for band and for sports teams and for da school newspaper and our girlfriends too, eh? Which is why all of those activities also come with well-communicated expectations about "being active and committed."

 

I personally believe Scouting is important. It's a big contributor to growing fine young men. It shouldn't apologize for setting expectations in the same way that other activities like kickin' a ball around the field do. Fact is, we should apologize to kids if we don't set such expectations, because we're sending the wrong message about what's valuable, and what Loyal means.

 

Like F says, though, that also means we gotta produce that valuable product.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Beavah,

 

I really like your last sentence. We, as leaders, owe these young people a top-notch product. To my opinion, that means using all our resources (gee, didn't I hear that in WB???) .

 

Almost every Council has resources far beyond the ken of the local Troop... if the Scoutmaster is willing to get a young man to where he needs to be for the best of his growth and development.

 

I think that's a problem we Scouters have. We're locked into "Troop XXX is the best for all boys." Well, it may not be. The young man may need structured co-ed more... and a Venturing Crew. He may be ready to come out of Scouting proper, and be in a LFL Medical or Police Explorer Post. Perhaps he's ready to commit to acting, and belongs on the Lodge C-Team of OA.

 

My point? We who are leaders have to avoid myopia to our own units, and instead look to the interests of the young man.

 

YIS.

[kb6jra 10]

In my own defense...

 

The boy I had issues with "this time" had so over committed himself to epic proportions. He heard from someone who heard from someone who talked to a guidance councelor that competitive college applicants who show other interests besides academics are preffered over those that concentrate solely on grades. With this dangerous amount of info this young man not only tried out for every sport...I'm not kidding, every single sport, he signed up for at least 8 clubs on campus, most of which he had no business joining...

 

It was just incredible. I also believe in a solid program to draw the kids back every week. It's not an easy job by any strech of the imagination, which is why we have a minimum performance expectation for those taking on key jobs within the unit, to ensure there is a solid program. I suppose in the end all of us would do almost anything to get them there and keep them there.

 

I don't think it would be possible or realistic for National to define a performance standard as it pertains to attendance and participation, however IMO they should stipulate that to the individual units. Let's face it, if a boy joins a troop and cannot meet the standard set there, 99.9% of the time there is another troop just around the corner who's standards he can meet. Of course arguing that in my head brings up some other points as well, so I'll just quit while I'm behind...

 

[NeilLup 13]

Actually, dluders, depending upon how things are interpreted, I am pretty comfortable with your Troop policy.

 

I believe that you said that your Troop policy is that a boy is "expected" to have a particular level of attendance. If that is regarded as a guideline and not as an ironclad rule, I think it could be pretty workable.

 

If the boy makes that standard, he has some concrete data when he goes to the Board of Review. If not, it's not an automatic rejection, but gives the SM in the SM Conference and the Board of Review a concrete place to start saying "This is our expectation. You didn't meet this expectation. Tell us why. Tell us why, in spite of not meeting the expectation, you should still be advanced." Then the ball is in the boy's court and if it is possible for him to answer that question and be advanced, it's an interesting approach.

[Hunt 11]

"Develop a more attractive program and those non-attending boys will suddenly chose Scouts over some boring baseball game, band practice, or video game."

 

I think there are (at least) two kinds of boys that show this problem, and the statement above applies strongly to one group, but not so much the other. The first group are what you might call "slacker" kids who need motivation to do much beyond playing video games--to get them to attend, you need an exciting program, and you probably also need to have the PL call them before every meeting to remind them to show up. You hope that a kid like that will eventually catch the vision, and some of them do.

On the other hand, there are "achiever" kids. They aren't just in the band, they are in the All-State Band and the Regional Youth Symphony. They aren't going to skip a boring rehearsal, at all. They're not just playing touch football in the backyard, they're on the varsity team in high school. They're Mathletes, or debaters, or members of the Greek Dance Troop. With these guys, you are going to have to figure out how to get the most out of them in the chunks of time you can get them. It will probably be worth it, because they will probably bring their achiever attitude to scouting, as long as you let them. If you make it too hard for them to achieve (ie, advance) however, they won't stick around. If you force them to choose between Scouting and one of their other intense activities, most of them will choose the other activity unless their parents have a strong tie to Scouting. This is a challenge, a some troops may reasonably decide that it's too disruptive to the program to accommodate this kind of person.

[scoutmaster52 10]

As a Scoutmaster, I have also been in this position. After taking over as scoutmaster, the "older scouts" who had been there before me started thinning out. A number of them were 14 year old life scouts. One boy after being elected Spl made only half of the meetings and less of the other activities. After one year he showed up even less( at one point he even was dropped from the roster). Along comes age 17 and he decides( with the push of the former scoutmaster) that he wants his Eagle.

I sat down with the CC, the Eagle COH Chairman and the DE to discuss the situation. We came to the following conclusions:

1. The boy had served his time as SPL as Life and was signed off for his POR

2. He had "activly" served six months as a life scout.

3. As far as scout spirit we judged the boy by his actions in his life not just Scouting.( The boy was an EMT and a jr. member of his volunteer fire dept., though not an explorer)

The end of the story was that the other scouts in the Troop decided that there must be a better judge of Active. Within the PL council it was decided that the active part had to be tied to the leadership position. Their thought was how doese one show leadership if the leader is not present. Now if the POR holder does not meet a % of activities, he can be removed by the PL council.