How to respond to griping parents

[OldGreyEagle 5]

If the topic is courtesy, I do not see how calling a parent who is requesting information gets termed "griping" as opposed to inquesitive. If the posters here responded too vehemently on the side of the parent and scout without knowing the whole story, then labelling the parent who made the inquiry griping and a helicopter parent is discourteous as well

[Lisabob 13]

Thank you, OGE. You said what I've been thinking for some time as I've read through a few of these related threads. I came to this board looking for information, when my own son was miserable and begging to quit scouting, as a first year boy scout. What I found here backed up my perception at the time, that the troop, for all of its good qualities, did not have a very strong first year program. Symptoms included the fact that the entire cohort of first year scouts from the year before my son, and all but one of the boys who preceded my son's group by two years, had dropped out of the troop. By the time I'd found this board, 8 months into my son's first year with the troop, about half of my son's cohort had left scouting too and I didn't want my son to be the next to go!

 

I know that some people felt I came across as a "griping parent" to use Beavah's term. And sure, I agree that there were things that I understand better now, close to three years on. But you know what? I learned a lot here, including about how other troops handle some of the issues and problems I saw with our troop's first year program. And I'm happy to say I think we've improved our program somewhat as a result. At the very least, we no longer lose half or more of the boys that cross over within the first year! We do a better job communicating with webelos leaders and parents, and "selling" our troop in a way that reflects who and what we're really about. We hold new parent/new scout sessions to introduce the parents/scouts to the troop right after they join. We teach the new cross overs how to prepare for winter camping more than two days (which is what my son got) before we send them off on their first camp out. And we do a gear shake down designed to make sure they're reasonably prepared. We do a scout skill camp out shortly after cross overs to help those new scouts build their basic skills right away and get them started on the right footing. We use troop guides more effectively and have an ASM for new scouts/patrol advisor (adult)assigned to the new patrol(s). NONE of this was happening when my son joined the troop.

 

I think if parents who are new-ish to boy scouting or to a specific troop/pack/crew/ship/team/whatever take the time and energy to find this forum and post their concerns in a reasonable manner, then they deserve a response *besides* "you don't know what you're talking about - quit hovering - stop griping." After all, these people are a step away from becoming leaders, themselves, if they've already gone to this much trouble. And let's be honest, if a boy quits a troop because he's that miserable, or because of some silly rules that the adults put in place that fly in the face of BSA policy, the chances of him finding another troop are pretty low. In reality, that's yet another boy who is probably done with scouting.

 

So I want to thank all the people who have given me good advice, including both practical suggestions, points of comparison (this is how we do it...), and occasionally, perspective on choosing battles wisely. It is in no small part thanks to your responses that I've seen some changes for the better with my son's troop, AND that I've come to understand how to help my son grapple with some of the challenges that a more or less "boy led" program brings with it for the participants. And I'm happy to say he has grown and found his place in the program these days, after all.

[Eagledad 2781]

Hi All

 

In my business, I learned to constantly re-evaluate my work and performance so that the product improves. I took that habit with me into scouting and I quickly learned to evaluate the reactions and comments of our customers, or families. I find that 90% of the time their questions or comments are directing our attention to some part of the program that needs some kind of tweaking. Most of the time the tweaking is something simple like educating the families better about our program. We have discussed here that something as simple as "boy run" is not very simple. So I learned to explain boy run, aims and methods, character and so on well enough to paint an accurate picture of our program. Sometimes the changes require changing the adult Leaders around or even asking one to leave.

 

That being said, of course parents can push hard. If you dont want to work with difficult people, dont be a scout leader because parents are protective and ambitious with their kids. You are either working with them or against them. When they feel it is against them, some parents just dont have very good social skills. Your job is to either change their mind or change the way things are and some folks just have a hard time serving people like that.

 

In general, what most are saying is important and means something probably needs a little tweaking even if that tweaking means just explaining things better.

 

I struggle with those: I am the SM and that is the last word kind folks. That isnt a very good example of servant leadership or living the scouting principles.

 

I love this scouting stuff.

 

Barry

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, as I mentioned, the original poster wrote, among other things, that "it teaches them that they are not to be trusted and it is also arrogant of the Troop. "

 

That sure sounds like griping to me. But if I misinterpreted, mea culpa. My point was not to attack da original poster, but to illustrate one possible "other side of the story" to all of those who joined in on attacking a fellow scouter.

 

So I apologize profusely if in any way I misinterpreted or wrote poorly or was in error. And I'll send a personal private note to the original poster as well.

 

Now, here's an interestin' question....

 

Will da other posters who attacked scout leaders who they didn't know also apologize to everyone? I at least "witnessed" the parent's words personally. Nobody here "witnessed" the scouters actions.

 

For all we really know, the troop in question did everything right. It is the SM's prerogative not to approve a particular MBC, especially if he/she believes the counselor or camp isn't following the full set of requirements or the BSA's standards. For all we know, the troop's position may have been stated clearly at the pre-camp meeting (but the dad didn't attend) and in writing in the pre-camp mailing (but the dad didn't read it), and to the scout at camp (but he really wanted to try riflery for fun and the counselor generated a printout because that's his job, even though there was no SM-signed blue card). As Lisabob points out, there's a LOT of stuff that a new parent gets flooded with, and it's hard to absorb all at once. Takes a year of seein' things in action before they're really understood.

 

And if we're all to be judged based on whether our troops have a communication failure with a particular family, then I reckon we're all "ignorant morons" .

 

How 'bout it, folks?

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah 205]

Won't let me edit...

 

Make that apology include:

 

And I apologize for using a live human as an example in any event. I agree that is not a courteous thing to do in public.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad 2781]

>>For all we know, the troop's position may have been stated clearly at the pre-camp meeting (but the dad didn't attend) and in writing in the pre-camp mailing (but the dad didn't read it), and to the scout at camp (but he really wanted to try riflery for fun and the counselor generated a printout because that's his job, even though there was no SM-signed blue card).

[FScouter 24]

Gee, responders to the original post have nothing more to go on than what was posted. We dont know the background, the personalities of the individuals involved, the kids, the parents, the history, the extenuating circumstances, or the other side of the story. If responding posters withheld comment until they get the whole story, these forums would be nothing more than a collection of original posts.

 

Its not fair to characterize responses as attacking an individual. If the original poster relates a story about bad, belligerent, bullying behavior, responses are directed to the behavior, not the nameless faceless, individual. Its not even important how true or embellished the story may be; responses are to the story presented, not whatever the unknown truth may be.

 

No apologies are warranted.

[Beavah 205]

I suppose it depends whether yeh think of da forums as one of those TV-talking-heads shouting matches, where folks take an out-of-context statement and yell about someone who isn't there to defend themselves ...

 

or whether you think of da forums as someone seeking advice from some mature, experienced commissioners and fellow scouters.

 

As a commish, I watch these adult-level squabbles harm units all the time. We're constantly refereeing a few. Folks who come to da forums need the same service - a balanced perspective that helps 'em understand issues and possibilities, and appreciate the other side. Not gasoline and verbal attacks.

 

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't respond. It's a statement about how we should respond.

 

We could ask for more facts and clarifications.

 

We could exercise a little bit of common-sense judgment and apply a little bit of empathy for a fellow scouter, rather than assume he's out to hurt kids and trash the program.

 

In short, we could respond in a mature way. In a measured, balanced, "consider all the possibilities" way.

 

Which, do you suppose, is a better example for kids? Which, do you think, shows greater character or is more in line with the Oath and Law we claim to hold dear?

 

And when we don't do our best at that Oath and Law, shouldn't we apologize?

 

I've certainly failed at parent communication from time to time as a scouter. I've certainly made more than my share of program mistakes. I hope I've also done a lot of good, eh? I expect everyone else here who really has been involved in troop-level Scouting can say the same, and knows exactly where I'm coming from. I think we'd all be really upset if someone used one out-of-context communication failure with a new member to encourage folks to do everything from lop off our heads to quit our troop to report us to the authorities.

 

If not the Oath and Law, how about the Golden Rule?

 

Beavah

 

[Hunt 11]

I think perhaps we should approach all questions as hypothetical questions...even if they are posed as real situations. Prefacing reactions with things like, "If that's all there is to the story..." or "Assuming there's not some explanation we haven't heard..." or "While we haven't heard the other side of the story, it nevertheless seems..." might help a bit.

[Venividi 35]

Or how about advising to first talk with the person responsible to find out where their head is at, before advising to go over their head? It would be a more polite thing to do.

If a scout A came up to any of us and told us that "Scout B did XXX", none of us would assume that, since a scout is trustworthy, it means Scout A has all his facts correct, and therefore expel scout B from the troop. Rather, we would talk to both Scout A and Scout B, or prehaps, even advise the SPL to intervene.

It would be courteous to first assume the best of others until we have experience that tells us otherwise.

[anarchist 10]

Amen, Hunt and Venividi...

 

the whole story...we rarely get anything approaching two sides and we seem to take pleasure in judging others which is perhaps the worst part of this...

 

This last week I have been dragged into a minor troop crisis over what appears to be a difference of perceptions of what went on in a BoR...

 

Being the oldest active troop committee member, I seem to be viewed as everyones father confessor, referee or bartender (I am not sure which or even why...my people skills are severely lacking).

 

In this case; lad's dad (an ASM) heard from his boy that he "failed" the BoR 'cause of uniform issues...unfortuately, dad then went off on one of the BoR members in full view of half the parents (and some of the boys) in the troop...to further fan the fires, another ASM acting for our SM and doing the boys "introduction to the BoR" actually went back into the board and tried to change the vote...result -four very active committee members now refusing to do BoRs...one refusing to be in the same room or event with one of the ASMs!

 

I was not on the board...I did get calls from the dad, and all four board members...after the meeting. All hotter than hornets...and all with a differing view of what happened as well as several assumed motivations..

 

Relative truth appears to be that the prospective Star Scout (a good kid-I have known for six years-but the baby of the family and very inmature), did not take the BoR seriously... He stumbled through the oath, law and outdoor code, did not answer the majority of board questions without an "I don't know" or "I don't remember", plus a host of other "I forget" issues about his rank accomplishments, merit badges as well as his goals and his activities ...

 

This left all four board members wanting him to return in two weeks to give it a better shot...all feeling he had not demonstrated Star "qualities" -again to all four board members....

 

I might follow this with the information that (IMHO) two of these board members would usually (and have done so in the past) "pass" a scout as long as he had a pulse, if the SM said he was worthy...

 

So, Obvisously, for whatever reason the scout had a bad night...which was exasperated by the father and the other ASM both of whom crossed a very bad line that evening.

 

The only good part of all this was after the dad scooped up all his stuff and ordered his son out of the hall ("we're going home")...the lad walked back into the meeting room and finished the meeting...somewhat red faced but he sid not run from the problem...(I did tell his dad I was very proud of the boy...and "dad" acknowledged that his son was a bigger person than he was that evening)

 

Now the repair work begins...and it is mostly due to a lack of maturity and patience on the part of the two ASMs...the dad got overly tied up in his sons advancement/achievements and further complicated things by "going off a very deep end" without good, or complete information...he did not even try to get the whole story... Sorta like we do all the time in these threads.

 

Most of what some of us are saying boils down to: Try to remember, when answering a "are these guys bad guys or what?" type of question, is that the "petitioner" usually already has a dog in the fight and rarely gives the "other side" a fair "reading" and we can and often time do more harm than good buy issuing wholesale judgements and "rogue troop" verdicts...much like giving a child a loaded gun and saying now go to school and have fun...just try to be kind and well reasoned in your pronouncments...

 

finally-

 

I have met all kinds of scouter "twits" in the last 16 years...(of which I am surely one of the greatest) but I can honestly say not a single one of these folks could be honestly thought of as wanting to "hurt" the scouting program or the boys...they all think they are in some way helping and really mean to help....that has to count for something.

 

anarchist