issues with eagle candidate

[Bob White 20]

If you follow the Scoutmaster Handbook and the Senior Patrol Leader Handbook then the only junior leadership position that requires the scoutmaster's approval is Junior Assistant Scoutmaster.

 

As for the junior leader reqirement (not to be confused with the membership requirememt, while the scout has the responsibility to serve acively the scoutmaster has the resonsibility to coach and counsel actively. So who should we expected to do their job better the adult or the youth?

 

If the adult has not actively done their role then you should not punish the scout for not doing his.

 

If scout isn't going to get credit for his office and the adult hasn't performed their role, then maybe the adult should not be rewarded for the office he or she has held either?

[Beavah 205]

If the adult has not actively done their role then you should not punish the scout for not doing his.

 

Yah, I don't think anybody was talkin' about punishing a scout. Besides, in Scoutin' we use "constructive discipline", not punishment, eh?

 

The question was whether a scout deserved an award. Whether he deserved to be called up in front of his peers and the community and publicly praised an applauded for his exceptional character and service.

 

Not receivin' an award is not punishment, unless da troop is a "social promotion" troop where everybody always gets an award at da same time. But that's not Boy Scoutin', eh? Heck, it's not even Cub Scouting. In Scoutin', kids work on things at their own pace until they become successful and deserve recognition.

 

I think there's always things that we as scouters can do better, eh? But just because we're not perfect doesn't mean a boy deserves public acclaim for nothing. Especially by the upper ranks, the responsibility should be shifting to the boy.

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White 20]

There is nothing constructive about an adult leader denying advancement to scout when the adult did not do their job.

[Venividi 35]

I agree. When a scout has earned advancement, there is nothing to be gained by denying advancement to the scout. The correlary is that when advancement has not been earned, there is not a denying of advancement; simply that the advancement has not yet been earned. And providing social advancement is not helpful to anyone but the adult, who thereby avoids the real work of actually helping a scout learn and succeed.

[evmori 11]

When a scout has earned advancement, there is nothing to be gained by denying advancement to the scout.

 

The key word in this statement is earned. Ranks are earned, not given.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutingagain 20]

I think the question is,

 

Is it fair to withold advancement from a scout, if you believe he has not met one of the subjective requirements of rank advancement,( i.e. scout spirit, actively served, etc.)yet, based on the requirements set by National as quoted by John-in-KC, you are relatively certain if the scout were to appeal your decision, your decision would be overturned on appeal.

 

It's not that we're all worried about appeals, it's more about being trustworthy. While I may not like the way a scout has performed in his POR, if I have not removed him from office within the time required to fulfill the position, I am quite certain if he were to appeal my decision to withold advancement, my decision would be overturned. In this circumstance, I could not look the scout in the eye and tell him he has not fullfilled the requirements. I could ask him how he felt and if he felt he had not fulfilled the requirements, and would like more time to properly complete the POR, that's a different issue.

 

 

SA

[evmori 11]

I don't think the Scout must be removed from a POR if he is not performing it up to the standards agreed upon between the Scout & the Scoutmaster. This could be an excellent learning opportunity for the Scout. And if the Scoutmaster doesn't advance the Scout for this reason, that's the Scoutmaster's call. If advancement is just given because time has been served, what are we teaching the Scouts?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[PeteM 10]

In the "real" world, when an employee doesn't fulfill his job duties, he could be "removed from his position", or in other words...fired.

 

His boss should have noticed that he wasn't doing his job and therefore, has the right to fire him. What about the employee that has a job, but doesn't do it to the best of his abilities? He isn't fired, he just doesn't get the awards (promotions, raises, etc.).

 

It is the same thing, but in Scouting, where the scout can learn from his mistakes.

 

Would you rather give him the credit for just sitting on his hands for 6 months instead doing his job or talk to him and tell him that he has to do the job as it is outlined in the handbooks, leaders guide, troop position rules, etc?

 

Don't give him the credit for the POR until he has done the job in the proper manner.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I hear scoutingagain's argument, eh?

 

I'd encourage yeh to consider whether there's a second half to "Trustworthy", SA. That's bein' Trustworthy to the boys when you tell 'em it matters whether they're responsible and do hard work to do their job. That rewards come (only) to those who really earn 'em. And there's bein' Trustworthy to the community - to colleges and employers who look at Eagle Scout as being a young man who has worked hard to live up to his responsibilities, and done an exceptional job.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I think as many times as this comes up, there will be as many opinions. One thing for sure, I have to wonder what is going on in a troop where a scout is allowed to sit on his hands for 6 months without doing anything. I understand it can happen, time slips away, attention is elsewhere and boom, six month are gone and the scout has done nothing. I hope what scouters take away from these discussions is that the Troop should be set up (if at all possible) in such a manner that a youth never does nothing for 6 months, there are processes and mechanisms in place to give the youth a regular appraisal of his performance.

 

How to handle the rare time when this happens? I know what I would do, and I expect you guys will do what you know is right as well, whatever that is

[scoutingagain 20]

Ya Beavah. It goes both ways.

 

In a perfect world, in addition to your upfront expectations I'd say each POR gets a review after say 2 months. Feed back given on performance and areas to improve, with another review after 4 months in office with ongoing coaching. At that point the candidate is either performing or not, and should be told whether or not he will likely get credit for the position or not and what he needs to do to start getting credit and restart the calender. If the job really matters and it's not getting done then maybe it's time to give it to someone else.

 

Oh I fully admit I'm far from perfect in doing this myself.

 

Letting it go 6 months and then telling a scout he didn't do the job doesn't seem fair to the scout though.

 

Although I understand the argument that just because an adult leader didn't do his/her job shouldn't mean a scout automatically should get credit for their efforts or lack thereof.

But it seems like in the few disputes I've been aware of, National or the Council is heavily biased towards supporting the scout when a leader has not done their job.

 

SA

 

 

[anarchist 10]

Wow,

 

I can't help but recalling the old saw..."you can lead a horse to water...." And once again this forum thread is full of "it's the adult's fault" if the scout fails to do his job.

 

Having never been a SM (and not feeling I could ever do the job well) perhaps I am missing something. I have seen many good and a few not so good SMs in my years of serving our troop. One of the best SMs I ever had the pleasure to work with had several excellent experiences with SPLs but he had one boy (who by all appearances was Mr. Super Scout). Our SM just could not find the "right button to push". The young man gave all appearances as the perfect All-American youth...involved in everything, excelled in most, excellent politician, started his own landscape service great grades, class president, and he lied through his teeth whenever anything went south. His mother was a typical mother bear and lept to his defense when ever anyone tried to say sonny boy was anything less than perfect.

 

No matter what the SM worked on with the boy if something "more important" came up scouts got shorted. No notice Un-attended meetings, planning never carried though, weekend events almost called because he had not do what he said he would do. If this boy did had not had a good ASPL whose father was a stickler for being sure his son acted as a perfect "wingman" the troop would have been a basket case.

 

The Scoutmaster tried and tried, I watched the whole painful process...replacing the boy was out of the question...the Committee did not want to take on Momma bear(an ASM) and the SM did not want to admit defeat...so it was the adults fault I guess...this boy stood for election and then bailed whenever anything more important to his resume came up (did I mention this was his senior year)...

 

He dwaddled over his Eagle project, too. He bent and broke several BSA eagle project safety "rules" about youths using heavy power equipment because it was more convenient for him; in the process causing some serious problems for the troop with the church... which was also our CO,(one of which cost some serious cash). In the end he waited until the last possible working weekend and the weather washed his work plans out...so he never actually did his project...in which case, I guess it's Gods fault? And I guess to some here even this was still an adults fault???!!!

 

Sometimes folks, it is the boys problem...not the adults...sometimes it is a committee or a CO's issue with seeming too harsh that allows failure to continue and sometimes, yes, it is the SMs fault...but not always!

 

anarchist

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Seems like it was somebody's "fault" not to stand up to the mother.

[anarchist 10]

OGE,

I love ya man,...but standing up to her was not a viable option...she simply made the troop miserable...she would not listen to anyone! She had three sons in the troop, the SM and Committe did not want the controversy to effect her other two sons, both she and her husband were ASMs (in fact he had a heart attack at summer camp one year before coming to our troop and was viewed as a very special guy)! Both parents were quite active, having come from another local troop due to "differences" with the SM (evidently he was another of those "twits" we love to denounce). These folks had gobs of BSA training, were merit badge councelors for about twenty M.B.s and they liked to support activities. She had also single handedly run a cub pack for 12 years...and it was hoped that she would become a strong asset for the troop.

 

But most important, outside of refusing to renew their registrations there was little to be done. She would not be reasonable, even a slight remonstration for not coming through with his part of a program became a small minded or jealous attack on her wonderful son. She had plans for #1 son and no one was going to smear his resume... she even backed up his outright lies ...the committee wanted no more turmoil.

 

The SM (a really good guy, eagle scout, etc.,) did not want to give up on the boy and he had a hard time admitting he could not "reach" this young man. As part of her end game, she withdrew both of the younger boys from scouting when her number one blew his eagle...as he aged out.

 

In the end the boy was too busy, too involved in other more important things (including his "company"), wanted the SPL POC and Eagle on his resume and figured he could sweet talk his way through...some times it is more than we mortals can handle, try as one might.

 

anarchist

[evmori 11]

anarchist,

 

Leaders that have their own agenda do no one any good.