What is an active Scout?

[nldscout 18]

You cannot make them inactive. That catagory doesn't exist anymore. Just tremove them from troop, refund camp money and say "see ya later, BYE"

[fgoodwin 23]

nldscout writes:It appears that National has finally put into print a definition of Active.

 

Now I would tell you that if you read it very carefully you can see there is still room for Troops to still hold scouts to a standard.

 

"He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on). "

 

Now tell me what that means and what is "regular"???It means the burden is on the unit leadership (and in particular, the SM) to "engage" the Scout; it is not up to the Scout to engage the unit leadership. And the unit leadership must do so on a "regular basis".

 

Anyone want to lay odds that you'll ever see a unit committee require an SM to "engage" an inactive boy at x% of troop meetings or at x% of campouts?

 

While we are quick to require boys to meet attendance percentages (in direct violation of BSA policy), it will be a cold day in you-know-where before adults ever hold themselves to the same standards!

 

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, see how quickly adults rationalize the decision not to define "regular" in the form of a hard and fast percentage!

[Hunt 11]

It seems to me that this makes it clear that the only way BSA will allow you to deny advancement to a boy who has become inactive is by removing him from his position of responsibility. And I suspect that even this will only be allowed if the POR had clear expectations, communicated in advance, that the boy didn't satisfy.

 

But it's a different question entirely whether a unit can set expectiations for all scouts in order to be able to summer camp, for example. Many troops have required shake-downs for high adventure trip, and you could certainly have required summer camp prep sessions as well.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Parts of this section from

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

 

have been mentioned, but I think it is best presented in its entirety:

""Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop

and patrol" defined?

Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:

 

He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position. "

I cant wait to see how this gets interpreted by those who adhere to the percentage tradition

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[fgoodwin 23]

OGE writes:I cant wait to see how this gets interpreted by those who adhere to the percentage traditionSeveral of the members of SCOUTS-L (where this same discussion is going on) have already said they plan to ignore this guidance.

 

"A Scout is obedient".

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Well, I guess ignoring information is a form of interpretation...

 

The issue I see is now this information is posted on the BSA website, it is available for all to see. I wonder how long before a "percentage attendance" Troop has an appeal based on this policy?

 

I bring this up because as a member of the District Advancement Committee, I will at the first place the appeal ends up once it leaves the Troop and I can tell you the appeal will be upheld. Not because of my personal beleifs, but because it stated on the national website. I would rather not make adults look bad if I can help it, but I could not turn down an appeal based on attendance requirements either.

[John-in-KC 311]

OGE,

 

I can just hear the whining when that 1st appeal is upheld ... and you know it's coming, sooner rather than later.

 

I'll be interested in hearing what the losing adults say afterwards...

[scottteng 11]

The whining is already going on we are in the process of rewriting bylaws. Some wanted to add even more attendance requirements. In order to stop them from enacting something which can not be enforced I was adamant that these should not be included. We need to focus on these areas: non participating scout to be dropped at recharter regardless of whether someone stands ready to pay for him, prompt removal from POR for non-performance or non attendance, and improving the quality of the troops program to where the boys buy in 100 percent and you have to in the hospital to not want to go on the outing. Do all troops have their deadwood? Yes by all means but those are not usually the boys looking to advance either and hopefully are not languishing in POR's which they will be given credit for regardless of attendance.

[Venividi 35]

scottteng wrote: Do all troops have their deadwood? Yes by all means but those are not usually the boys looking to advance either and hopefully are not languishing in POR's which they will be given credit for regardless of attendance

 

Gotta disagree with this comment, as it was not my experience. The hardest deadwood to deal with were those scouts from families that wanted their son to put Eagle scout on "their" resume, or were holding driving privileges until their son earned Eagle. Seemed to drive kids to try and advance with as minimal of an effort as possible.

 

I do recognize that your experiences may be different.

[Mr.Maynard 10]

O.G.E

 

I have read the link that you posted

 

Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop and patrol" defined?

 

Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if: He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current). He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

 

He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

 

Ok my question is Lets take life for this the requirements go like this:

 

1. Be active in your troop or patrol for at least 6 months as a Star Scout.

 

If you are not there how can you advance?

 

2. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life.

 

3. Earn five more merit badges (so that you have 11 in all), including any three more from the required list for Eagle. (A Scout may choose any of the 15 required merit badges in the 12 categories to fulfill this requirement.)

 

4. While a Star Scout, take part in service projects totaling at least 6 hours of work. These projects must be approved by your Scoutmaster.

 

Scout is never around (how can this requirement happen)

 

5. While a Star Scout, serve actively for 6 months in one or more of the troop positions of responsibility listed in requirement 5 for Star Scout (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop).

 

Scout is never around (how can this requirement happen)

 

6. Take part in a Scoutmaster conference and Board of Review.

 

You cannot do this without requirements #1,4 & 5

 

7. Complete your board of review.

 

Please dont take this the wrong way.

 

I dont understand how he can advance if he is not active refer to requirement #1

 

Mr.Maynard

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Mr Maynard,

 

The operative sentence is "The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis."

 

Source: http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

The obligation is to the adults, hopefully through the youth leadership, to present the opportunities. Yes, the boy has to work them, but let's be frank. 6 hours of community service isn't a lot. Most youth Scouting engages, through their schools and churches these days, are getting way beyond 6 hours of service per school year. (Granted, the SM has the decisionmaking authority on what is/isn't acceptable as service).

 

The fulfillment of the POR is where the youth is directly accountable.

 

Now, if your Troop QM isn't attending meetings, but the Troop trailer is always ready to go, and he's getting the job done, is he active? Yes, imo.

 

If the Scout is not around, drop him at the next recharter. Until then, your Troop is on the hook. As Beavah said in an earlier post: "Then you thank the two of 'em for their participation several years ago, and refund their money for summer camp."

 

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

I'm bringing this forward from Beavah's Denial of Advancement thread, because this is a more logical place for Venivedi, others, and I to discuss this....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Venivedi wrote:

 

Hunt,

I am with you on BOR decisions that a boy is not yet ready for advancement should not be common. Much better for SM/ASM to continue to work with a scout until the scout has earned the rank, and then recommend them for BOR.

 

I think right now that things are in a state of flux/confusion as a result of the memo from national stating that time in rank fulfills the POR requirement. While searching the net for a copy of that memo/letter, I found the following on the Clinton Valley Council web site, which indicates that, while scouts are to be given credit for time in POR whether they have done or learned anything or not, national expects that the scout may not pass his BOR if his service was unsatisfactory. I find this rather confusing, as it seems to move decisions from SM/ASM (where mentorship occurs), to BOR, which is composed of folks who are further removed from the scout.

 

Here is the text, and also a link to the source:

 

The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review.

http://www.cvc-bsa.org/advancement/bsAdvancementFAQ.html#posResp

The text is from the response to the FAQ titled "What can a Scoutmaster do if there is a Scout in his/her unit that is performing poorly in a position of responsibility or doesn't show up at all?"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Denial of Advancement

Posted: Tuesday, 7/3/2007: 12:52:44 PM

Venivedi,

 

HUH???

 

This goes directly against this FAQ on the National website:

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

"... However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

 

I'm going to double back to a POR thread, otherwise we're gonna hijack something Beavah meant for the good of the order!!

 

Venivedi,

 

To me this goes right back to our other conversations. Of course, we're not talking about 95% of the youth who come through our program, we're talking about that last 2-5%. If what you said is true, then the object of removal, sad as it may be is to definitively stop the tenure clock for advancement.

 

That goes back to leadership and mentorship by the adults. If we want young men to succeed in the program, then we have to provide the resources, training, and support.

 

Now, having seen your note from the CVC Council, I think I might ask their webmaster (or the page content owner) where they sourced their information. The information either has an audit trail or it was made up, either by interpretation or from whole cloth. There isn't another option.

[Venividi 35]

John,

 

Thanks for moving this. I was hoping to find a copy of the decision somewhere on the web so that I could read exactly what was in it. I was very surprised when I came across the statement about BOR being responsible to resolve whether service was satisfatory. They do show it in quotes, and attribute it to the same decision by National.

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Venivedi,

 

I hope you find it; this is starting to get entirely too curlicued for me. Responsibility should be linear... assign, train, mentor, evaluate performance, more mentoring, completion.

 

What we seem to be describing now feels to me like circular logic.

[acco40 95]

This question seems to come up on this forum and other forums time and time again. Instead of quoting BSA policy let's look at it from the Scouts point of view. The participation requirement is explained in The Boy Scout Handbook by TO GAIN FULL ADVANTAGE of all Scouting has to offer, you need to be present when things are happening. Take part in meetings, in planning activities, and in the fun of adventures. If youre there, you can do your part to make your patrol and troop a success.

 

During a SM conference, ask the Scout if he feels he has met this requirement. As for myself, the Scoutmaster runs the advancement program and they determine if a Scout is active. It is also understood, with a history of appeals from the national council, that set percentages may not be used to determine active. That said, I take attendance and have at my fingertips during a SM conference the boys attendance records at troop meetings, service projects, camping trips, fundraisers, etc. I use 50% or above as a rule of thumb but not a hard definition of active.