Serve Actively?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

This is what BobWhite posted regarding serving actively and I want to be sure I understand and didnt want to disrupt the parent thread"

 

"In my conversations with members of the National Advancement committee and with the information in the Boy Scout Handbook, this is not the case. The requirement clearly states "serve actively" not "hold an office". The Scout is expected to particpate in the responsibilities of the office.

 

Where units get in trouble is when they fail to train scouts in those responsibilities or do not help the scouts set measuable goals.

 

But if the scout accepts a role and then does not particpate in that role to activiely serve then the requirement is not met.

 

What the BSA does not allow is for the troop to set attendance requirements. The purpose of the requirement is to develop leadership not to force attendance."

 

Now, I understood that if a scout is placed in the position of respomsibility and nothing is expected of him,and is given no guidance, at the end of 6 months, he will have fullfilled his 6 month obligation. So, if a Life scout is on the books as a Quartermaster and does nothing Quartermasterly for 6 months, and then a year later his scoutmaster can tell him that since during his stint as Quartermaster he did nothing, that wouldnt count for an Eagle POR because he wasnt active participating as a Quartermaster. Do I have this correct?

 

[Nike 94]

The problematic word is "active." If a Scout is active simply by virtue of being registered, then what are we to make of "serve actively?" Serve while being registered? What of the word serve? Does this mean participate?

 

Perhaps National should strike "active" from the requirements and change it to "registered," since this is what they mean anyway. Then "actively" could actually mean that the Scout is participating.

 

 

[BulldogBlitz 10]

i think i remember a different rule when i was in the program in the mid 80s. POR was defined as something of substance, like SPL or ASPL. Chaplain's Aide, Library, etc. where little or no leadership actually occurs were not valid positions for a Life to use as credit toward Eagle. For First Class, Star, and Life the positions could be of the non-leadership end of the spectrum.

 

Life (not the rank) is full of choices, and if someone has decided that band, football, job at Dairy Queen is more important, then so be it.

[evmori 11]

To me, "serve actively" means to actually do something in the POR the Scout is in. In other words, if a Scout is the Quartermaster & he does nothing for his term of POR, then he didn't serve actively hence didn't complete the basic requirement for the POR.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[standerson 21]

Nike: I like the idea but here is the problem. National Council, Districts and Troops cannot define "active" by assigning a number.

 

I also would like to see "active" mean participating but I am not sure that will happen.

[John-in-KC 311]

It goes back to what ACP&P says, and what the FAQ on the National website says:

 

http://www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/GuideforMeritBadgeCounselors/RankAdvanceFAQ.aspx

 

"However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position."

 

Then there's the double-edged sword, which I hope few ever have to use:

"If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

 

The onus is on the SM, ASMs and any Committee folk who have folios supporting a POR (equipment coordinator for Quartermaster and so on).

 

Make sense?

 

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

Mr Anderson: It won't for a long time to come. As I believe has been pointed out in other threads here, the definition was changed at National, to reduce exposure to lawsuits over Eagle Appeals. ACP&P (2007) was the implementation. Our control point is the use of the youth member's leadership positions.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So is BobWhite correct when he says that the scout must actively serve in the position and that merely occupying the position is not enough? I ask because it seems like we have spent a lot of time saying that if a scout does nothing and is not told to improve performance and he reaches 6 months then the time counts. I know a lot of people disagree but I am talking about that. If the scout does nothing for 6 months and is not told by the troop adults that he is not doing his job does he complete the 6 months POR? I am not saying should he or what is your opinion, but what is the BSA position, does anybody know?

[Beavah 205]

I am not saying should he or what is your opinion, but what is the BSA position, does anybody know?

 

No.

 

As close as I can tell from tryin' to hunt this down, NAC and some of the staff have made a complete hash of it because the presentations at PTC and the regional level haven't been consistent or have presented things with so much added emphasis on da individual presenters' pet peeves and notions that folks walk away with the wrong impression (and then repeat it and post it with their own spin, etc.).

 

With da National shakeup and reorganization, maybe there will be improved clarity, at least on the staff side. Then again, maybe not!

 

So I continue to tell people to do what's right to build character and citizenship in da youth, eh? Don't present awards for a level of service that really doesn't merit public recognition. But in doin' that, be consistent. Set reasonable expectations, communicate 'em well, and adhere to 'em for Star and Life. Eagle ain't the place to be surprisin' a lad.

 

But then that's all just my personal opinion, eh? It at least has the merits of bein' consistent with da Rules & Regulations of the BSA, where arguably "active=registered" and such does not. It doesn't answer da question OGE asked, though.

 

That answer is still "No."

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[scottteng 11]

Why do we have to constantly rehash this if you leave them in their position even if they are not performing then they have fulfilled the time requirement in their position. It is your responsibility or your troop junior leadership's to remove someone who is not performing. It's just like that raise you get after being on the job 6 months if your boss does not want you to get it he needs to fire you! Find a job they like and give it to them and it won't be work it will all be fun! Reminder den chief is a great position for some scouts the cubs love some attention from an older boy. The only place that demonstrating any leadership is required is in the eagle project otherwise responsibility is what is the standard.

[Horizon 97]

Based on my read, it seems that the Troop SPL (and sometimes the SM) determines activity. Those positions that are served at the request of the SPL should be managed by the SPL. If the SPL does not remove the Scout, then the Scout has served the role. To tell the Scout at the end of 6 months that it did not count helps train our boys to be the types of managers we all hate in the working world!

 

When I worked for a University, I wanted to fire a poorly performing employee. I went to HR, and they asked me for any documention of poor performance. I had none, nor had my predecessor ever downgraded my employee. I was told that if I wanted to fire someone, first I had to give them a negative review and I had to provide a specific list of actions that the employee needed to cover if they wanted to get out of the dumps. Simply put, the employee deserved a warning before they could be dumped.

 

I can argue about how some of that put me in a bind at times, but the principle is a good one. We should teach our Scout leaders the same - if someone is not fulfilling the R of their POR, then they should be counseled by their superior and they should be given an action plan. If they do not act, then they should be removed from the position.

 

Other than that, BSA appears (to me based on the information at hand) to give the edge to the Scout in the position. If they did not serve actively, you would have removed them.

[John-in-KC 311]

Here's my take:

 

The Scoutmaster, the ASMs, and the Committee folk with portfolio have a specified task of mentorship. If the Troop adults do their job, we're talking a very, very few young men who will not complete their time in a POR to the expected standard. In fact, they may well serve in more than one POR along the trail.

 

Here's the rub: If the Scout does not meet the standard, and we don't pull the plug before tenure is complete, we can refuse to sign off on an Eagle SM Conference or Eagle BOR all we want. We're going to get overturned at the very next level up.

 

Is it ethical to refuse the sign-off? Yes.

 

Will it assuage our consciences? Probably.

 

Have we done our share of the lifting in the Scouts' growth and development? Debatable. Each event has to be dealt with on its own merits.

 

Will the Scout still earn Eagle, albeit not at our level? Again, probably.

 

Bottom line: We who are direct contact unit serving Scouters have to do our share of the training and development of the Scout.

 

My two cents. Think I'll go say this again in standerson's original thread.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Stosh 3452]

It's always interesting to see how people select the fight they are willing to fight. Everyone is all enthralled with "active(ly)", interpreting to actually doing something or just being actively registered. Unfortunately that's only one word of the requirement. The complete reference is to "actively SERVE". While active(ly) can be viewed as a passive action, serving cannot. If Mom were to serve up dinner and then not put any food on the table, there's not really any good reason to show up for dinner because one is not going to get anything out of the deal. Serve is to provide something of value to someone else. If just wearing a patch actually serves someone, I'd be hard pressed to see how. A POR is not something one is, it's what someone does. Too often we refer to these activities as BEING the SPL, or BEING the QM or BEING the Chaplain's Aide. Seldom do we actually say doing SPL things, or doing one's duty as a QM, or doing the job of the Chaplain's Aide.

 

Until the discussion is taken out of the realm of BEING and into the realm of DOING the job, everyone's going to just spin their wheels.

 

Every patch that gets handed out requires a commitment on the part of the wearer to actually DO the job necessary to make sure someone is truly served.

 

Stosh

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

Lawsuits because the kid didn't make Eagle?!?!?!?!!?

National fears these idiots?!?!?!

 

 

We sure are teaching them about how to be Americans, sue and you'll get your way.

 

 

I thought we only had to keep them from getting abused, hurt on a camping trip or keep the water out of their lungs while boating and swimming.

 

Now we have to preserve their self esteem for not doing their job.

 

I do agree about the counselling , it's just most of the leaders I have seen don't have the stomach to do it.

 

 

The world is nut's. In the 1980's they wouldn't let me join the military if I liked boys better than girls, Clinton said it was OK as long as I didn't tell anybody. I'm sure glad I got out before it was a requirement.

 

 

 

Train em' and make sure they do their job. Nobody is doing these kids any favors by putting up with this garbage.

 

we just had a long thread about doing half the stuff at 14 and the rest 6 months before you turn 18, all without showing up and a large majority of people are fine with it.

 

 

Bulldog you have no clue if you expect a kid to actually show up.

 

 

How in HADES can we expect a definition of active from a group that is afraid of lawsuits for it's highest award.

[FScouter 24]

I can't imagine even the weakest scenario to support a lawsuit regarding advancement.

[Bob White 20]

In Sea Scouts there is an actual attendance percentage that a Sea Scout must meet to advance, This is not the case in Boy Scouting.

 

The easist way to measue this activity in Boy Scouting is by the use of the Troop Leadership traioing program. Each scout recieves a job description card during the training,. By the end of the training he has had a personal conference with either the adult or an older scoutwho will be his coach and memntor. Together they determine 3 golals that the scout will accomplish while in office, and they document them on the back of the job description card. The Scout now has a written plan for completing this requirement and specific measuarable goals to meet to show that he has served actively in the unit.

 

There is a reason that the BSa provides these tools in the program for you to use. The more you follow the program, the easier the program is to lead.