Suspected Drugs...

[rdclements 10]

"behavior contract" - man I hate that term.

In a Crew, you've got the Oath and Code; in a Troop, the Oath and Law; Cubs have the Promise and Law.

That's all you need. Anything else is waste and distraction.

[dScouter15 11]

eolesen - Glad to hear that things are settling down, and reasonable actions are being taken. It sounds like you're making the right decisions.

 

Beavah - I agree that memos and contracts are "silly" and a bit wishy-washy. However, so are anonymous tips, which seems to be all we have to go off of in this situation. Fight silliness with silliness, if you will. As far as I understand it, the OP doesn't know for sure whether there is a problem he needs to confront, and I feel that a gentle way of communicating to both scouts and parents that the leadership is aware of and prepared to deal with any potential problems might be a good amount of deterrent. And, should an real problem actually develop, the SM has one more weapon in his arsenal to support whatever decisions he makes on how to deal with it. As far as "not having a clue how to handle it" -- its not really a SM's job to "handle" these problems. Its is job to make it known that certain behaviors will not be tolerated at troop functions, to set and enforce clear and reasonable consequences for these behaviors, and to refer certain issues to more appropriate authorities (parents, law enforcement, etc) for "handling."

 

While involving law enforcement is always an option, I don't think that you'll get anywhere based off an anonymous tip. And you certainly won't get drug sniffing dogs dispatched to a troop meeting room in the hopes of finding a couple joints. I'm not basing this off any "pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo," but instead off my experiences working with law enforcement officers and drug-abusing minors. The possibility (based off an anonymous tip) of a teenager smoking a couple joints on a back country trip probably isn't going to be very interesting to the police. While its up to you to decide the point at which you do involve the police (if at all), I would also encourage you to move away from the "other report it if he's dealing/supplying" train of thought. If you actually witness any illegal behavior - possession, use, intoxication, dealing, whatever - it's up to you to decide when or if to involve the cops. Trying to determine whether the scout is dealing or not brings you back into this undercover sleuthing that's inappropriate for an SM.

 

Personally, I agree with the course that its sounds like you're taking - making it clear what kind of behaviors are acceptable, having consequences for violation, keeping a close eye on a POSSIBLE troublemaker, and having a plan for the chance that something actually develops - sounds like all you need.

[Beavah 205]

If this were a school trip...what would they do?

 

They would call the Police immediately and have them search.

 

Yah, I hope this was a joke.

 

While yeh do see media reports every now and again of public schools that go "over the top and around the bend" on somethin' like this, I'm happy to say that for da most part a higher level of competence and professionalism prevails in most places.

 

Law enforcement also has better things to do than playing substitute teacher or school administrator. And of course, law enforcement does need probable cause to search a person's belongings.

 

Beavah

 

[sherminator505 10]

Beavah,

 

I agree with what you're saying, except for one thing. I have three children in public school, and it has been my experience that the public schools tend to go "over the top and around the bend" more often than not. It is not an unusual occurence at all!

[CalicoPenn 729]

I like most of the suggestions being given - I think some of it is spot on. Calling off the dogs - spot on. I can't think of any reasonable reason why you should have to call in dogs, let alone would call in dogs.

 

And while most of the suggestions are good, I'm not a fan of some of them being used in this instance - and the reason is twofold - first, it's presented to us as an anonymous tip (which suggests that the tipster is anonymous to eolesen and the crew's leadership). When the tipster is anonymous, we can't really tell if the tipster has any credibility. (This is different than a media-reported anonymous source - the reporter may not release the name of the source, but chances are pretty good the reporter knows the source and can judge the credibility - even Deep Throat, who wasn't known, still provided some kind of corroborating documentation).

 

Second, and I mean no disrespect of eolesen, is the statement later that "Frankly, he fits the profile for what I'd consider an at-risk kid for using drugs.". Now it may very well be that eolesen has been trained in what would be a profile of someone at-risk for using drugs - but the majority of people, including Scouters, have no real training on what that profile would be. I see the words "I consider" and it suggests to me someone who has developed their own profile based on the information they have found, or picked up talking to others. If you were to ask a police officer, or doctor, or counselor trained in such profiles, you're going to hear, most of the time, a flat out statement "he fits the profile for a kid at risk for using drugs" with no qualifying "I'd consider" or "I think" words. Of course the lad may very well fit the profile of a person at risk for using drugs, but none of us have enough information to say that he does.

 

So given that, let's review. We have an anonymous tip without any corresponding proof, and a belief that the Scout fits a certain profile, which may or may not be an accurate profile - and we're ready to bring in drug-sniffing dogs, law enforcement, contracts, parent conferences and singling out the youth for a pre-trip conference. Doesn't sound very Scout-like to me.

 

I do think keeping an eye out is appropriate - but that should be par for the course on every trip. I'd be keeping that eye out on all of them - it's the ones that never seem to give people trouble that sometimes are the biggest drug users.

 

I like the suggestion of the pre-trip letter that was suggested and including a reminder about the Scouts policies on drugs, alcohol, fireworks, smoking, etc. You're signaling that you aren't blind to the fact that experimentation with these things happen at this age level, warning anyone that was thinking about it that you're going to be keeping an eye out, and your suggesting to the parents (without spelling it out) that they have an obligation to know just what their crew members are packing for the trip. I just wouldn't turn that into a contract - it's a bit too heavy handed for me.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea of singling out the lad for a pre-trip conference, or for any extra scrutiny. There just doesn't seem to be enough fact behind the suspicions to justify it.

 

Calico

 

(of course, all of this could be moot in this case if in fact eolesen's anonymous tipster isn't that anonymous, and if the statement that the lad fits a profile is based on training received - but I'm commenting only on what we've been told and my comments may therefore fit in other situations)

 

[shortridge 184]

A very off-topic clarification. Deep Throat, aka Mark Felt, *was* known to the reporters and editors involved, and it was because of his position and knowledge that he was trusted. He wasn't just some random guy spouting off in a parking garage who happened to have some supporting paperwork in his hand.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled law enforcement summit ...

[Scoutfish 16]

A letter reminding of the policies of drug/ alchohol annd other substance abuse before EVERY trip is a great idea...but a contract>?

 

Nah, you don't need it, you already have it by way of application. G2SS has spelled out in no uncertain terms what BSA's policy is with alchohol, drugs, substances, etc..

 

As far as the fate of this kid, I wouldn't call the cops to send him to jail. Not sure if my earlier comment about the cops was misunderstood or not, but as an active community memebr and former fire rescue person, I have seen cops have freindly, yet meaningful conversations on a personal level ( meaning not an official action or paper trail) to youth who have strayed abd crossed the line. More times that not, that talk scares the crap out of a kid and sets him straigh whereas going to lock up "may" introduce him to things that are bigger and better than he dreamed of.

 

No Ev, I do not ,mean that everybody who goes to jail get worse, but you know that if you go to Juvie, you have to step up and be tougher and meaner to survive.

 

Myself, Had a talk with a certain police chief when I was younger. Like I said I "USED" to smoke some weed myself.

 

As a scouter, I thing guidance and mentoring is the order of the day, not arrest.

[Vicki 11]

I "USED" to - fill in the blank.

 

Yeah, there's a lot of us who can say "there but for the grace" - hence my unwillingness to jump to conclusions or adhere to black/white dichotomies.

 

Vicki

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I join rdclements in hating "behavior contracts". Partly because they teach kids entirely the wrong thing about contract law. They're not a contract at all, they're an imposition of rules that has nothing to do with contracting.

 

My experience has been that every adult who decides to do da "behavior contract" thing is either weak in character or doesn't really know how to deal with kids. Because they can't bring themselves to address the behavior of a child directly and personally, they make up some contract nonsense to hide behind. Strong adult leaders take personal responsibility for their own decision as an adult - you let me down, Joe Scout, you let your friends down, so I am sending you home. Weaker adults need to twist it around and pretend the contract is sending the boy home. It's da same with units that want to turn everything into a behavioral policy. I'm not the one making the decision, it's the policy.

 

It's just BS. And let me tell yeh, a bright lad is going to do a Merlyn and try to twist da language of the contract every which way, or find a behavior yeh haven't yet thought of a policy for. Then what do the adult cowards do? Hem and haw and write more contracts and policies.

 

Bah, humbug. A scoutmaster is a mentor, and a mentor is like a parent. We don't write contracts with our kids. We don't hand 'em books of policies. We behave like adults who believe in things, and have da courage of our convictions. That's how they grow up to have character and courage themselves. Teach 'em behavior contracts and they'll just grow up to be the worst sort of lawyer or unethical businessman, writing junk contracts to manipulate others.

 

Nah, save contracting for business relationships like buying a house. They have no place in raising children.

 

My (not so humble) opinion in any event. Yeh each must do what yeh think is right. But think about it, eh?

 

Beavah

[eolesen 10]

I wish we all had model scouts, leaders, and adults.

 

But the fact is we don't. We've all gotten the call from parents demanding to know why we didn't sign off on a skill the kid hasn't mastered, or worse, to explain why they need to drive 500 miles to pick up their kid for bringing fireworks to camp in an area with a burn ban.

 

This is a kid who has shown himself not to be trustworthy, loyal, courteous, and has not kept himself morally straight. I don't think we can afford to allow "you never told me that" to be in his repetoire right now.

 

If it takes a written document to 1) reinforce the fact that we are there to support him, 2) remind him what the terms "trustworthy", "loyal", and "morally straight" mean, and 3) clearly spell out expectations and consequences for his and his parents benefit, so be it.

 

Try to remember that we all have different history with both our boys and their parents. In this case, we don't want any debate if "we" choose to send the boy home for his actions. He's also at the age where if we do wind up revoking his membership, he likely won't have a chance of earning Eagle (redemption is sometimes the only option in a small town with one or two units...). Lots of factors at play, and while we sincerely hope he will succeed, we need to be prepared, and there's a shared desire amongst the troop leadership to have a proper paper trail just in case he doesn't keep himself morally straight...

 

 

As for "at risk"... knowing the kid's history would no doubt fill in a few gaps I'm not about to commit to perpetual history on the internet.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, eolesen, please understand I was respondin' to the notion of contracts and policies and paperwork more generally, not to you or your individual case. No way I can do that in more than a generic way, not knowin' the players.

 

But let me just explore what yeh said a bit, eh?

 

This is a kid who has shown himself not to be trustworthy, loyal, courteous, and has not kept himself morally straight.

 

If this is the case, then why are you taking him on a high-adventure trip? Does that seem reasonable to you, either as an example of the sort of scout who should get to do such cool things, or as a safe or reasonable thing to do? If another boy gets hurt, or gets in trouble, because of your decision to include this admittedly problematic youth, are you ready to defend that decision?

 

And if the lad is not trustworthy or morally straight, what value does a written behavioral contract have? People who aren't trustworthy or straight violate contracts all the time.

 

I don't think we can afford to allow "you never told me that" to be in his repetoire right now.

 

Yah, so what if a boy or family says "you never told me that?" I mean seriously. Who can keep a straight face with a boy or a family claiming "you never told me that bringing illegal drugs on a trip wasn't allowed?"

 

It's a complete fallacy to believe that some piece of paper is going to make problem kids or parents behave any differently. They're still going to argue with you. They're still going to make excuses. They're still going to cry that you're picking on their wonderful son. The piece of paper changes none of that. And as a contract, it's less than worthless.

 

So if I were in your shoes, I'd probably choose not to take the boy and risk the trip for the other lads, if he truly is as untrustworthy as you describe. Just a standard safety decision.

 

But if yeh insist on taking him, then a behavior contract sure doesn't seem to be adding anything, and probably hamstrings your ability to respond appropriately to his behavior more than it controls his behavior. If you're worried about da parents paying for the plane ticket home if that becomes necessary, make 'em pay an extra deposit up front. Cash on the line speaks a lot louder than some bogus contract.

 

Beavah

 

[Vicki 11]

In this format, we can only respond to what we've been told. The situation has changed from a hypothetical maybe with an anonymous tip that a boy "may have a problem with drugs" to a scout with known behavioral issues which can't be divulged on the internet (understandably) who is on the verge of getting kicked out of the troop.

 

I can guarantee you the scout you are now describing would not be allowed to go on a high adventure trip with the troop I now serve. Probably not the last troop I served either, but they were a bit more lax in that regard.

 

And, as Beavah notes, written behavior contracts don't mean anything to people who don't accept accountability for their actions. He's also correct in noting that a contract implies a quid pro quo. What you're describing is an imposition of conditions, which, as noted, won't work with folks who like to blame others for their issues.

 

Just a couple of thoughts, y'all are the folks on the scene and you'll do what you feel you need to do.

 

Vicki

[dScouter15 11]

I'd like to point out that sending out a memo reminding scouts of health and safety considerations in the context of a high adventure trip is NOT the same as a "behavioral contract." Asking for such a document to be signed is not an indication of a contractual agreement, but rather just a means to ensure that the communication has reached both the scout and his parent. Its the same reason we ask both the scout and a parent to sign a permission slip - to verify that the parent has read and understands the information conveyed through the scout. Seriously, how could this be a "contract" - there's nothing to agree to! The troop's rules, expectations and consequences are what they are regardless of whether a scout agrees with them or not.

 

I think its a bit extreme to accuse leaders who would use such a measure as being "weak in character." I believe using the approach I suggested a few posts up (which is NOT a "behavioral contract") would indicate that a threat of unknown credibility and validity has appeared on the SM's radar, and that he is prepared to respond in an appropriate way should an actual issue develop. I don't see any downsides to this proposed solution.

[Beavah 205]

I'd like to point out that sending out a memo reminding scouts of health and safety considerations in the context of a high adventure trip is NOT the same as a "behavioral contract."

 

Yah, I agree. Sending out trip information is just sending out trip information. Some trip information yeh have to send out (emergency contact numbers and such). I don't think yeh need signed statements back. Just seems like overkill.

 

But da issue is drugs on a trip. Do yeh really feel that a formal notice is needed to tell families it's inappropriate to bring illegal recreational drugs on a trip? That they need to sign off on such a memo? Isn't that, well, obvious?

 

And if it's obvious, isn't sending such a last-minute notice to all the parents going to make 'em wonder "What the heck is going on? Do kids have drugs on these trips?" That'll get yeh a lot of questions.

 

Collecting paperwork is not the same thing as being prepared, eh? And having paperwork that says "I agree that illegal drugs are illegal" doesn't prepare you for anything.

 

Beavah

 

[dScouter15 11]

Beavah - I feel like I'm getting to a point where I'm repeating myself, so I guess this will be my last post on the topic.

 

Asking for acknowledgement of receipt of important information is NOT the same as a contract. If its the signature thing that's causing a problem, fine - send me an email or give me a phone call instead. I would just like to be reasonably certain that important information gets into the hands of a scout's parents. Also, like I said, its not a matter of "agreeing" to anything, as it is in a contract. There are some rules related to safety that are simply non-negotiable in my opinion, and if you violate those rules, there will be consequences. As a Scoutmaster, I really don't care whether you agree with those rules or not, I still expect you to adhere to them.

 

In preparation for a high adventure trip, I really don't feel that its unusual to send out additional information on the health and safety needs specific to that event. In my mind, including a brief statement on drug use similar to what I suggested previously would not make for all kinds of suspicion on the part of parents. I think in most cases, the scouts and parents would say "OK, sounds reasonable," and not give it a second thought. In the possibility (and remember, its only a possibility at this point) that one scout is considering bringing some sort of illegal substances with him on this outing, a gentle but direct reminder that drug use is inappropriate and will be punished might be enough to trigger second thoughts. The idea is NOT that the SM will then have a "stack of papers to hide behind," but instead that he simply lets everyone know that he understands that its not uncommon to experiment with drugs at that age group, but reminds them that it is not appropriate at Scouting events, and that there will be consequences if necessary.

 

As far as parents who wonder "what the heck is going on" - well, something MIGHT be going on. The scoutmaster mentioning that he is prepared to deal with such problems should they arise should not be a sign that the SM is in some way less than competent.

 

And in my opinion, yes it is obvious that drugs should not be brought on a Scouting trip. But, there seems to be some concern that it may not be obvious to one young man. If it were me, I'd rather make a reasonable attempt at keeping the drugs off the trip in the first place. It it were me, I wouldn't think I had enough reason to directly confront the Scout on this issue, but I would still not feel comfortable completely ignoring the possibility. I feel that a blanket reminder to all participants and parents is an adequate way to address the situation prior to leaving for the trip, with the understanding the the I may need to intervene further if the situation continues to develop negatively.