In the Dumpster

[jmcquillan 10]

Off topic here, but I think this is of note:

 

Hey Rooster....no double posts here!!!!! Ya got it fixed?

 

[eisely 13]

Terminating a youth's participation in scouting should be a rare event and undertaken only after all other approaches have failed. Grounds for termination in my mind would be misconduct that creates dangerous conditions, or persistent misconduct that makes it impossible to have a positive program for the majority of well behaved boys. A year ago our troop expelled a boy after numerous warnings and counseling sessions, and only after he had seriously injured another boy. At such a point the adult leadership is taking on a serious personal legal liability in keeping such a youth around.

 

From everything that BigBeard has told us about the incident and the boys involved, this does not sound like that kind of situation. I still feel some kind of hearing is over the top and fraught with difficulties of its own. BigBeard is the scoutmaster and vested by the committee to act within his own discretion. He has gathered a great deal of information and sought the counsel of others, and going into a more involved procedure would be redundant, distracting, and possibly destructive. Hopefully his committee will back him up on his decisions.

[Rooster7 11]

eisely,

 

I agree with your comment, "BigBeard is the scoutmaster and vested by the committee to act within his own discretion." The Scoutmaster should be able to meter out discipline in a manner that he deems appropriate (within reason of course).

 

However, I have to take issue with your first statement, "Terminating a youth's participation in scouting should be a rare event and undertaken only after all other approaches have failed." More to the point, I'm willing to terminate a boy's participation much quicker than your troop. No offense intended (all of your posts reflect a thoughtful and principled man), but given the facts in your most recent post, wouldn't you have to say that your troop's policy (i.e., expel only all other approaches have failed) failed to protect the boy who was injured? You make a valid point when you note that the adult leadership was exposing itself to serious personal legal liability by keeping such a youth around. Nevertheless, the fact is, serious damage was already done (i.e., injury to another youth) by attempting to accommodate and reform a boy who obviously was unwilling to yield to your authority and/or leadership.

 

[eisely 13]

The particular event that triggered the action mentioned in my previous post surprised everybody. The injury occurred at scout camp and did not involve a boy from our own troop. I was not at the camp and so have to rely on second and third hand information. I think the camp director may even have requested our troop to send the boy home at that time, and the troop action followed. I did not hear about this until well after the scoutmaster had acted. Take note: the scoutmaster acted on his own volition and did not seek permission of the committee. The committee chair concurred, and the incident was discussed at the next regular committee meeting, but nobody had any trouble with what the scoutmaster had done. It did cause anguish with the boy's parents, but the decision was the right one.

[bigbeard 10]

In the Dumpster, Part II

 

Hard as it may be to believe, I must confess that my situation is even more confused than it was last week.

At our Committee meeting, the two offenders and two witnesses came as promised, and individualy gave their versions of events. These were the four boys who, based on the statements of the other Scouts and the written statement of one of the offenders, had direct knowledge of just what went on. The "victim", with his parents present, gave a sincere, perhaps somewhat coached version that matched with other statements from the Troop. I believed him. The other four Scouts lied. They lied about their part in things, lied about what they saw, named participants who were INSIDE THE BUILDING AT THE TIME!! There were a few honest facts from my one "truthful" Scout, but even he twisted his earlier words to minimize his role. I told each boy that his story was very different from the others, discussed the Scout Oath and Law charge to be trustworthy and honest, and asked if there was anything they wanted to add or change. The were no takers.

With all the boys out of the room, I told the Chairman that we needed to get all the boys in the same room and go over things again. At this point, the victim and his parents had to leave; the Chairman told them he would be in touch.

For the next 15 minutes, the Committee and I battled over the next step. They felt that there was no point in digging any deeper, that it really didn't matter exactly what happened, and that my remarks to the Troop on the night of the incident and the Committee's investigation was enough. Their recommendation for action was for each of the boys to write a letter of apology to the victim for what they did, or, if blameless, for what they failed to stop, plus another talking-to that night. I stressed the point that the boys had lied to the adult leaders of the Troop to avoid the consequences of their actions. They had blamed innocent Scouts for their poor judgement, including the witnesses called there that night for the honest facts. I argued that the proceedure was completely unacceptable to me. If the Committee took the easy way out, what kind of leaders does that make us? How could we sanction lies to cover-up personal responsibility? What about honesty and character building? I also advocated additional pennance by way of KP chores on our January camping trip, along with specific letters of apology to the victim, not "it wasn't me but, hey, sorry it happened" notes. (The parents wishes did not figure into my thoughts. They are going to do what they were going to do - so be it. (I think maybe they are going to lighten up a bit. I hope so.)

At the vote, I was overruled. After the Committee Chair explained what was required of them, I told the boys that they had been born with something that could never be taken away, only given away - their integrity. I explained what that meant, and charged each of them to consider just what the true cost of what they said was.

That's where things stand. I'm sure I've left out details that are important, but the gist of the story is there. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? My bottom line is:

 

I've got darn good boys in our Troop, and I want to do the best I can for them. There is a lesson here I feel they need to learn.

 

After reading Rooster7's post, I feel I owe the victim more justice than he has received. Too many Scouts heard him yelling for them to Stop.

 

I am blessed with concerned, active parents who I feel have made a mistake. Do I fall on my sword over this, or am I taking the drama too far?

 

I'll take any suggestions I can get. Thjis Scoutmaster business isn't easy. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

[eisely 13]

bigbeard,

 

An interesting turn of events. You know your own boys best, but I would not necessarily infer that they are all lying. Eyewitness testimony is normally contradictory, confused, and inconsistent. You, and any other adult present, were not paying enough attention, but this is not reason for you to fall on your sword. If we all threw in the towel every time we made a mistake, there would be only a large pile of towels left in the room and no people.

 

As far as the offenders are concerned, they did apologize. I don't know what else you would get out of them after this.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hey BigBeard, Take it easy on youself. You learned, the scouts learned, you will be more vigilant, as will every one connected with the troop. It may be time to move on and not rehash the events. Start the troop looking forward to Klondike and emphasis what's good in scouting.

[FScouter 24]

I too learned a lesson awhile back regarding an incident. I interviewed 5 boys (eyewitnesses) about an incident and got 5 different stories. Each of them omitted parts of the story that implicated them. They all put a spin that put themselves in a better light. That makes is very difficult to weigh which kid was most at fault.

 

You could interview and investigate until the cows come home, but would that gain benefit? All your boys were wrong to some degree; the two that did the dumping, and the rest that either encouraged it, or did nothing to stop it. Consider that your troop is not a collection of individuals, but a team. The team did something wrong, and the team needs to learn from this. The "good" kids have some degree of responsibility to control the "bad" kids. They must learn that to stand idly by and watch is not the right thing to do.

 

Your talk about honesty and integrity and the Scout Oath and Law is the way to go. Some of those boys will remember the incident, and your speech about their character for a long time. They'll forget about the KP by the time they get back from the campout.

 

Your committee, and the boys, is lucky to have such a scoutmaster.