Do you think this qualifies for leadership time?

[JASMtroop131 10]

Hello I am trying to solicit everyones opinion on this. All comments are welcome.

 

Their is a kid in my troop that is trying to get the six months leadership time to earn life. Here is an outline of what he has done in these six months.

 

He has attended 1 out of 3 campouts.

 

He has attended 2 of the 4 patrol leader's council meetings. (What we call our meeting where all the youth leaders get together and plan for the troop)

 

Of these 2 meetings he was very negative at one of them.

 

He tends to be physically rough with the younger boys of the troop.

 

His communications skills as his patrols leader have been below average.

 

Do you think he qualifies for the requirement to displaying scout spirit and acting in a position of leadership for 6 months?

 

Junior Assistant Scout Master

Troop 131 Old Colony Council

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Your post brings to mind a number of questions, some of which are relevant to the question you asked, and some of which are relevant to other questions:

 

What position of responsibility has he held for the six months? (At one point you say "as his patrols leader", is he a patrol leader? Or is he something else?)

 

Which requirement are you referring to? The one that says to be active in the troop and patrol for 6 months? The position of responsibility requirement? Or the Scout Spirit requirement? Or all 3. They are 3 separate requirements and based on the facts you have given it is POSSIBLE that he may satisfy 2 but not all 3. (I'm not making a definite statement though.)

 

Does this boy attend troop meetings? And if he is a patrol leader, apart from his attendance at PLCs, does he provide leadership to the boys in his patrol at troop meetings? And/or on the one camping trip he did attend?

 

Has an adult leader raised a question as to whether the Scout has satisfied one or more of the requirements listed above? Or is it just something that you are concerned about, for a fellow Scout?

 

Don't take this the wrong way; and this is another way of stating the questions in the previous paragraph: Is the advancement of this other Scout something that you need to be concerned with?

 

Is an adult leader aware that this Scout "tends to be physically rough with younger boys"? And, how rough are we talking about?

 

Just to give a hint of what I think, the paragraph before this one is probably the most important thing about your post, and it has little or nothing to do with whether this boy has "acted in a position of leadership for 6 months."

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

I am wondering what the young man that you have described wants with another badge or with Scouting at all? I believe that he has shown that being elsewhere is a higher priority and that acting the part of a Scout is not his main goal. It is curious that he has stayed around long enough to advance.

 

Is someone forcing him to be a Scout?

What does being a Scout mean to him?

What does earning this badge mean to him?

What does he consider to be important in life?

 

His behavior is confusing enough that the Scout master would do well to help him find some direction, even if it is not Scouting.

 

At the very least, his Patrol being the recipient of his behaviors, should find a new position for him.

 

Let us know how it turns out. Your concern for him is noted by your observations of his behaviors. What would you do if it were your decision?

 

FB

 

[JASMtroop131 10]

I am posting this message for my scout master who has raised this question. He is not overly computer literate so he had me post this to give him a second opinion. The scoutmaster, other adult leaders, as well as fellow scouts have raised this issue.

He is the patrol leader. He is a wrestler and has pinned kids to the ground on many occasions during troop events, but the adults are aware of this. This issue has been raised with him and his parents.

 

 

We are seeking an opinion on any or all parts of or both these requirements.

 

 

[evmori 11]

Since he is a PL the SM needs to determine if he met the requirements as PL. It sounds like you have a Scout Spirit issue based on your posts. Your SM will also need to define "active" as this might also be a sticking point.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[acco40 95]

Your question, "Do you think he qualifies for the requirement to displaying scout spirit and acting in a position of leadership for 6 months?" is really two separate questions about two distinct requirements.

 

This is what I have been taught and I even have references at home from the National Council that would back me up.

 

1. If he has been elected to a youth leadership position and his tenure has been the required length of time he HAS passed requirement #5 (While a Star Scout, serve actively 6 months in one or more of the positions of responsibility listed in requirement 5 for Star Scout (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop)." He has passed even if he never had shown up for any PLC or troop meeting!

 

 

2. Requirement #2 (Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life.) is entirely up to the SM. For me, I would not sign-off on this individuals requirement based on your information alone.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Based on the facts you give, it sounds like the boy probably has passed the "position of responsibility" requirement. There is no specific standard for attendance. It sounds like he does attend troop meetings, and he attended half of the PLC meetings.

 

"Scout spirit" is another story, but I am more curious about why this boy's regular pinning of younger boys to the floor is being treated simply as an "advancement issue." This is not acceptable behavior, and from what you say the SM has talked to the boy and his parents about it, and that's it. In a lot of troops this boy would have been suspended or even removed if he could not control his potentially harmful conduct.

[Bob White 20]

Whether or not he has completed the leadership tenure is between the scout and the scoutmaster. The requirement stipulates that the scout must "actively serve". When the scout was elected what performance expectations were established? Did he fulfill the responsibilities of being a patrol leader as they were explained to him? The Scoutmaster needs to counsel the scout and ask him, "do you think you did the job that was expected of you", "can give me some examples?", the scout knows if he did a good job or not, and with the right questions asked of him will either prove that he did or he will have to admit that he did not. It is the Scoutmaster's job to guide him to the truth.

 

Scout Spirit is the same. The Scout Handbook says that the scout is the best person to determine if he has lived his everday life by the Scout Oath and Scout Law. The scoutmaster should ask for evidence that the requirement has been met. Along with asking for examples outside of troop activities ask the scout about his treatment of other scouts to see if it is Friendly, Courteous and Kind.

 

Next the adult leaders need to ask themselves if they are doing THEIR job correctly. Allowing a scout to physically bully or harrass other scouts is a violation of the Youth Protection policies, for which the Scoutmaster is directly responsible for interceeding in this situation.

 

Such behavior is not to be tolerated and should have been immediately dealt with on the first incident.

 

Much of the problems you have related could have been minimized or dealt with more effectively if 1) the scout was given clear instructions and expectations as soon as he was elected, 2) Regularly trained, and coached in successful leadership skills, 3) counseled by the SM or SPL when he showed signs of negligence

4) Had his behavior been dealt with in a more timely and concrete manner.

 

This problem is not entirely the scout's, if the SPL and the SM have not done their job along the way. They need to look at both sides of the coin before they judge it's value.

 

Bob White

[ScoutNut 147]

I agree with Bob. Leadership abilites do not spring forth full blown overnight. Has this boy been trained?

 

You state that the pinning issue has been raised with the boy and his parents. Has it been solved? If it has, then it is a dead issue and should not affect anything. If it is still ongoing then your SM has a whole different problem than just if this boy qualifies for andvancement.

[eisely 13]

Bob White's response is on target. Expectations for fulfilling a leadership position need to be established and communicated before the boy assumes the position. The requirement is that he actively serve in the position, not that he be either effective or particularly successful. My view is that the boy should put in the effort and grow through the experience even if he makes mistakes. It sounds like this guy hasn't really tried.

 

The physical abuse/harrassment of other scouts is another matter. If it has stopped then he has learned and the issue is off the table. If it still going on then there is a different problem than just the leadership requirement issue.

[Zahnada 11]

My understanding of the leadership requirement is the same as Acco's. If a scout is not "actively" serving in his position of leadership, intervention must take place during the course of the 6 months. A discussion should be held with the boy on what he needs to do for improvement. If he still refuses or fails to be an active leader, he should be removed from office before the end of the 6 months.

 

This has happened several times in my troop where a boy thought he could juggle commitments to a sport and to scouts. After a conversation with the SM, they decided it would be best to finish the leadership requirement at another time.

 

In any case, it benefits nobody if the boy is allowed to be an inactive leader. I believe the thinking is that if he makes it through the 6 months and wasn't removed from office, then he must have been active. If he wasn't active and refused to be active, then he never should have been allowed to complete the 6 months.

 

So as I understand advancement rules, if he held the position for 6 months, then he has completed that requirement no matter how much work he's done. I've heard stories of boys who never attended a single meeting so the SM refused to sign off on the leadership requirement. The boy's parents complained to the higher ups and it was decided that he met the requirement by virtue of holding the position.

 

If I am in error on any of this please inform me. But it is my understanding that this youth has completed his leadership requirement.

[eisely 13]

Zahnada,

 

Unfortunately you are probably correct. We don't know how much counseling this boy got enroute, but it is difficult to close this barn door after the horse has escaped.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" He has passed even if he never had shown up for any PLC or troop meeting!"

 

How can that possibly be construed as "actively served"?

[evmori 11]

I gotta ask the same question! If he doesn't show up for the PLC's or Troop meetings, how is this considered active?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

"So as I understand advancement rules, if he held the position for 6 months, then he has completed that requirement no matter how much work he's done."

 

That is incorrect. The requirement is not "hold the office for 6 months". The scout is required to "serve actively for _ months". What constitutes active is dependent on what expectations were explained to the scout, and how those expectations were fulfilled.

 

To take an elected or selected troop officer and not tell them from the first day what their job is, or not give them the resources or training needed to succeed, and then tell them they did not do their job, is nothing short of an ambush.

 

A very complete list of what is expected of a patrol leader is found on page 8 of the Patrol Leaders Handbook. On page 115 of the same handbook is a list of responsibilities for the Assistant Patrol Leader. They are a team. If the patrol leader does his job organizing, planning, and communicating, to the point where The APL is able to step in for him during the PL's absence, has he done his job. I think yes.

 

The SM and the PL both know if he has been active or not. The role of the SM is to help the scout do a self-evaluation and be able to admit to himself and to the scoutmaster whether the agreed upon responsibilities were met or not.

 

Did this scout meet his responsibilities, I don't know, because I don't know if he was ever told or trained as to what those responsibilities were. If the Scoutmaster didn't do his job, then I feel he has no right to punish the scout for not doing his.

 

If the scout was aware of specific expectations and responsibilities, coach along the way in leadership skills, but did not do his job, then he has broken the agreement , and the advancement requirement has not been met.

 

BW