Boy Does Not Camp, SM Okay with Advancement

[MarkS 11]

nldscout... Common sense says those examples aren't applicable to the discussion. It's certainly not in the best interest of a scout to compromise his safety. Scouting is not of the same level of importance as school. No crime was commited.

[nldscout 18]

These examples and many others do apply. If you are willing to over look this requirement, now the ball is rolling down the slippery slope.

 

The rules are made to be followed. If you had stuck to your guns and said no, then this woulnot be a problem. The minute we compromise our integrity, then nothing matters.

[John-in-KC 311]

NLDScout:

 

Well spoken, Your Honor!

[Kudu 186]

MarkS writes:

 

At the time, it was a judgement call of the SM who advised the board to put the higher priority on the aims of scouting instead of the methods of scouting...He is an Eagle Scout...Wood Badger including staff...

 

Is it really any wonder that an Eagle Scout Wood Badge Staffer thinks that the Outdoor Method is not important?

 

What do you think is the meaning of "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle"?

 

It means that we believe that Lord Baden-Powell was wrong to require them to surrender their badge if they do not re-qualify for all of their Scoutcraft badges on a regular basis. And why is that? Because we believe that the Aims of Scouting that Eagles supposedly embody are more important than the absolute mastery of outdoor skills that "Eagle Scout" should represent. The ends justify the means.

 

Likewise through their actions all Wood Badge Staffers support the dumbing down and out of the ONLY important Scouting Leadership skill: Outdoor Patrol Leadership.

 

Why did we dumb the Outdoor Method out of Wood Badge? Why did we destroy the standards that were defended and preserved by the tough old geezers who once controlled Wood Badge on the local level? Because Den Leaders do not attend training in sufficient numbers to support their own Cub Scout Wood Badge. The ends justify the means.

 

People who make the kind of personal attacks to which MarkS has been subjected are usually guilty of "projection." This is the hypocrisy of public condemning someone for the moral shortcomings that we are secretly guilty of ourselves.

 

I don't know what the motivating personal blindness is in this case, but I'm sure that those who attack MarkS would never be so "brutally honest and not mamby pamby" in confronting the adults that "perpetuated the fraud" found in our BSA handbooks. How about the "out and out deceitful cheating" involved in making up the fake Baden-Powell quotes that pepper our publications?

 

And why do our national "ethical choices" experts lie to Boy Scouts about reading Baden-Powell? Because if we lie and cheat about "Scouting is a Game with a Purpose," it lends authority to the fundamental moral fraud that the so-called Aims of Scouting (the "Purpose") are more important than the Outdoor Method (the "Game" of Scouting). The ends justify the means.

 

If you want to disband or reorganize an organization under leadership that doesn't cheat, why not speak truth to power with the indoor values experts in Irving Texas?

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[acco40 95]

If I interpret the post from MarkS correctly, the Socutmaster in question essentially decided to "waive" a requirement. That is wrong. As Scouter's we do not have the authority to add to or remove from a requirement.

 

However, in special cases a Scout who is unable to complete any or all of the requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class rank because he is physically or mentally disabled may complete alternative requirements. But, a strict set of criteria must be met to formulate the alternative requirements. This would involve the district/council advancement committee, physicians, parents/leaders, etc. This can't be done by the Scoutmaster alone.

 

However, the Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program for their unit. That doesn't mean he has carte blanche to disregard the policies of the BSA. But, let's say a Scout went camping with his troop, arrived Friday night, got in the tent around 10:30 PM, stared at the tent roof for two hours, freaked out, got out of the tent and went crying to the Scoutmaster (who then called his parents to come and pick him up at 12:30 AM) - may get "credit" for one night of camping, or may not get "credit" - it is the Scoutmaster's call. It is not the call of the advancement chair. It is not the call of the Committee Chair.

 

 

 

 

[red feather 10]

As a SM of the troop that I serve with 3 yrs as a SM and 12 yrs in other duties with the troop. I can relate with this conundrum.

 

Regardless of the experience of the current SM and the history of the scout, the issue seems to me to be one of why does this parent have so much influence on the advancement of her son?

 

If he is a 'fast track scout' then that is one thing.(Don't like them but they happen) If the scout is one that needs special care that is another. I wonder what the scout thinks and what he wants, nowhere have I found that question asked on this thread or in any of the responses from the oringal poster. Does the son require his dad to be there? Has anyone asked the scout what he wants?

 

I do not know what overnights that 'mom' demanded a parental chaperone but, I think a sit down with her is very necessary and her requirement be fully understood, Dads input might be useful also. If it is a situation where the scout needs his dad there that is one thing but to allow a helicopter mom to require this is another. Personally when a helo parent has required something I tell them to come along to insure what they want.

 

It is insulting to me when a parent says I trust you as an Adult Leader to take care of my son at a meeting but I do not trust you on an overnight.

 

Funny how they suddenly have other 'requirements' when THEY have to live up to the requirements that they 'demand'.

 

 

yis

Red feather

 

[Eagle1982 10]

While I believe Boy Scouting can be beneficial to every boy, I also can realize it's not for every boy. While it's an admirable thing to work hard to retain the youth, in the hopes of reaching them, it does a disservice to the boys that actually did complete the requirements for the rank.

 

I've come to understand Scouting is not for everyone, and I'd rather a kid move on to something he will truly enjoy than stay in a troop and be a part time participant.

 

Scouting is both a team activity, with the patrol method and the whole troop, as much as it is an individual activity, with rank advancement and merit badges. It is an outdoor program. If people aren't hip with that, they should simply move on instead of wasting their time and the leaders time.

 

If the boy really really wants it, he'll convince his parents, recruit friends his parents like to go on outings too or whatever.

 

Now the other question, if you don't go on activities, is that considered "Active in troop and patrol?"

 

 

 

[Knot Head 10]

I've been asked stuff like can the boys come early to a weekly meeting and cook dinner in the parking lot over a coleman stove to get the 2nd class cooking signed off.

 

I've always said no, if it says "on a campout" that means they have to be camping to get a signature. If you want to play soccer that's fine, but if you ain't camping it ain't gettin' signed.