What would be your definition of Active?

[BrentAllen 10]

scoutldr,

How would you explain the growth of our Troop? I have that very text in a presentation I give to all Webelos parents who visit us, and I read it out loud. I discuss it with the Webelos during a SM conference. I make sure all new members understand our stance. 6 to 26 Scouts in two years. I would hardly call that "dwindling down to nothing."

 

That future major-league pitcher - how much slack does his coach cut him to miss practice and games? If you want to make Varsity, you don't miss any games or practices - yet, they don't see membership dwindling.

 

You want to make the highest rank in Scouting? Just show up went you feel like it. Hmmm. Does that make any sense?

 

I would argue that Troops lose far more boys due to boredom and lack of program focus than they do because of vigorous attendance and participation requirements. Imagine trying to play on a baseball team where only half the boys showed up for practice or games. How much fun would that be, when you can't really learn and play the game? When the same thing happens in a patrol, they never get beyond the Forming and Storming, which can be extremely frustrating, and no fun at all. No fun = No Patrol Spirit = no Scouts.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I guess I see no problem with da BSA's real definition of active in the Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America:

 

An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a

parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates

himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's

obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his

or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program

based on a member's age

 

Sounds reasonable, and lets da unit have some discretion in interpretation.

 

What's a bit objectionable is when a few office staffers ignore the Rules & Regulations and come up with their own definitions, eh? In any ordinary workplace, you'd get fired for that. But we all know da BSA rarely fires high-paid execs when they participate in fraud, never mind waterin' down the program to suit their own ends.

 

Also gotta agree with BA. What boys want is to get good at stuff as a group and feel successful. That requires effort, and boys need help connecting the need for effort with that reward of feeling strong and bein' able to do cool stuff. Da troops that help lads by demanding/expecting high levels of participation are the troops where boys are learning and growing and they can feel it. Those troops always have lots of boys.

 

I never worry about those troops, eh? Da troops that have weaker expectations tend to lose boys and putter along, and are always strugglin'. Not just with membership, but with behavior as well.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Twocubdad 665]

Dang lawyers! You keep contradicting all the opinions with the law. I suppose, Beav, are here to suggest that the Rules and Regulations of the Boys Scouts of America have more weight than a FAQ web page targeting merit badge counselors? Bah!

 

I find it interesting that a usually argumentative group of experienced Scouters posting here is in fairly close agreement as to how this SHOULD handled, and all generally disagreeing with the national proclaimation on the subject.

[SR540Beaver 116]

scoutldr,

 

I'm going to differ here with you a little due to my perspective changing over the years. My son crossed over a week or so before his 11th birthday. His 17th birthday is quickly approaching. Those six years have changed my perspective as my son has grown. If I were to cut anyone slack, it would be the older guys more so than the younger guys. My son is now a JASM and only has his Eagle project to do. He has a truck, a girlfriend and a job. His time is much more limited NOW than it was when he was 11, 12, 13, 14 or even 15. It was during that time when he had fewer outside interests and wasn't mobile. It was during that time that he was an APL, PL, ASPL, SPL and TG. It was during that time that he went to Jamboree, Northern Tier, Philmont, staffed NYLT, staffed summer camp and co-ran the troop TLT. He took from the troop and he has/is giving back as his work schedule allows. While he is still involved in the troop, he is also giving back to scouting at another level by being youth chair of the district Cub Winter Day and serving as Vice Lodge Chief. The SM cuts him slack because of everything he knows he has done and is still doing. If he can't be there every meeting or campout, the SM doesn't sweat it. He will take his experience and influence when he can get it. The "active" expectation of the new scout coming up thru the ranks is a little higher than the old salts. They have the "freedom" to be there every time the doors are opened when they are younger as opposed to when they are older. The SM who doesn't allow for that will more than likely lose the older boy rather than retain him.

[Abel Magwitch 10]

The current definition of active though weak does allow for a Scoutmaster to use his discretion in relieving an inactive Scout from his leadership duties. (Eagle requirement 4: While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility) and opening the leadership position for another Scout who will actively perform the leadership duties.

 

In this way, an inactive Scout can still remain a member of his troop. I believe that Scouting can still be a positive influence on even an inactive Scout who may only attend a Troop meeting once a month or less. But this inactive Scout will not be able to earn the Eagle badge as he cannot complete requirement 4 because he was relieved of his position because he was not able to do the job because he was not showing up.

 

Perhaps national has written its definitions for active the way it did to thwart off any lawsuits that might be brought against them by disgruntled parents whose sons had failed their Eagle BOV because of somebody elses tough definition of what active should be.

[acco40 95]

If a scout misses an outing, meeting or service project why should it matter why he missed?

 

If two scouts have identical attendance records, identical behavoir while attending and identical performance in carrying out their POR why should it matter, for example, if one was curing cancer while one was playing video games while not attending / participating in a scouting event?

[SR540Beaver 116]

acco,

 

Priorities matter. There is a difference between a PL missing a campout because he is taking his SAT and the PL who chooses to play video gams instead of lead his patrol. At least there is to me.

[evmori 11]

I gotta agree with SR540Beaver. It's all about priorities.

[scoutldr 732]

Not sure what we're disagreeing about, except the statement that some scouts' time is more limited than others. We all get 24 hours per day. It's how we choose to use them...one of my biggest beefs with adults who sit on their cans watching football while I'm out in the cold, wet woods trying to instill skills and character into THEIR sons. That future major league pitcher just successfully completed his EBOR, by the way.

[Eagle92 110]

Yep it does come to priorities. However I would make a few exceptions for scouting related activities like Jambo, summer camp staff, NYLT (unless the troop is picking up the tab, THEN it's a troop activity in my book), HA activities, etc. IMHO if you take away those type of activities, you will lose the older ones. Besides is Scouting suppose to be FUN and ADVENTURE.

 

As for extracurriculars, it IS possible to manage your time IF you are motivated and dedicated. On numerous occasions I've seen scouts coming to a meeting or outing directly from a game or meet. They brought their uniform on a hanger and changed in the bathroom. Oh did I mention my troop met on Friday nites? heck I've done it a few times myself.

 

As for work, most employers I've encountered are willing to work with you on scheduling. While I missed most outing due to work, I was able to attend 95% of the meetings. Once I got into college and had more flexibility with work, I was not only able to go on 95% of the outing as well, but also abel to arrange to working summer camp during the week, and then come directly to my job for an 8 hour shift on Saturday evening (that was a long, but fun summer).

 

(This message has been edited by eagle92)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, now here's a thought.

 

Rather than removin' a lad from a position, why not sit down with him and teach him how to prioritize and be creative about his schedule? I think a lot of boys (and families) need that sort of help and guidance.

 

If you're goin' to do that kindness for him, workin' with him over a period of time so that he learns how to be more efficient and responsible in his choices, he needs a goal, eh? And the goal is to pass the requirement. That's why we have Advancement Method, to set goals. So the goal is to demonstrate that he really can efficiently and creatively manage his schedule to be responsible for 4-6 months.

 

Doin' that for a lad takes some time and effort workin' with him. It means yeh can't remove him, and yeh can't sign off until he really meets the goal and achieves that 4-6 months of being responsible. But if yeh do that - if you use Advancement Method and Adult Association properly - you'll be giving the boy habits he will use da rest of his life.

 

What a great thing Scouting is, to give lads such gifts.

 

What a shame it is when we listen to balderdash from Irving and choose not to give the boys the real benefits of the program.

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn 61]

Reading what SR540Beaver posted.

He could have been describing OJ, when he was the same age.

I of course don't know much about the program that is offered by the Troop that SR540Beaver's son is in?

But the Troop OJ was in tended very much to tailor their program for the younger Scouts.

Summer Camp was always at the Council camp, same site, same week.

All this stuff about "Giving back"?? I just fail to understand. Where does it say that older Scouts owe anything?

 

I don't think it's possible to come up with a set of rules or what-ever you want to call them that is able to cover all the variables of why a Scout might miss Scouting activities.

 

We as a group of adults are as far as I can see very passionate about our Scouting.

I think I have a hard time understanding the Lad who might be a great kid. A kid that enjoys Scouts and Scouting, but also enjoys a lot of other activities of which Scouting is just one.

This doesn't make him a bad Scout. Maybe in some ways it might even make him a better Scout? I don't know.

At the end of the day isn't it all about us making the program fit the boy and not so much about making the boy fit the program?

Isn't part of what we do about providing a program that is just too good to miss?

Ea.

 

 

[dg98adams 18]

Active? If they are registered...fine.

 

Really I'd like to see more units hold the SCOUTS in the Troop to the POR they hold.

 

Can't do the job = removal & loss of any further credit to POR.

 

If they can prepare & inform an assistant who will be there and follow-up after, seems reasonable they can fulfill the POR.

 

Might not work if that continues to be the "norm", then the assistant should get credit and the actual should be removed.

 

If they aren't active they won't likely do outings, campouts, etc... and may have to look elsewhere to pickup the opportunity for advancement.

 

If they don't fulfill the role of the POR they certainly can't pass STAR/LIFE.

 

If they were active, and fulfill the POR and come back as a "deathbed Eagle" with a project or a final MB to complete shortly before 18, the phrase "the lack of planning on your part is NOT an emergency on my part" comes to mind.

 

I would provide reasonable assistance like I would to any Scout, but I would not cut any corners or "push" anything thru.

[Frank17 10]

I have to agree with dg98adams. Every single scout rank that requires a scout be active is also paired up with a POR. If the active requirement is failed because of a scout missing meetings/trips/etc., the POR requirement is also generally failed. Much easier to address the specific requirements of a POR than the non-existent ones of "active". IMHO, these problems are generally due to inattention of the SM or BOR members until it is after the fact. If Timmy is missing meetings and not being the SPL, PL, QM, or whatever, a contact is made to find out if they are going to participate and do their job. If they are not (sports, illness, lack of interest), re-assign their position to another scout. This is much less controversial than failing them due to "lack of being active". However, this requires the adult leaders in the Troop to pay attention to the PORs. Too many times in my experience, these issues come up at the SM conference or Troop BOR, and the scout has had no advance notice of any problems with attendance. Every POR also has a paired up adult mentor position. If the mentors are doing their jobs, "active" should never be an issue, even using National's definition(s).