Should I tell the new Scoutmaster?

[Eamonn 61]

I'm very much with SR540Beaver.

A lot depends on what the reason was why he was asked to leave.

We all know that kids do at times do daffy things and make bad choices.

We know that some adults are more forgiving than others.

Much as I'd like to think I can forgive most things, there are some which I do feel do need to be shared with a new SM.

Or in my case the SM.

There was a Sea Scout in the Ship who was sexually touching another scout. He was also a member of a Boy Scout Troop.

The Ship Committee met and decided to ask the Lad to leave.

The Council and District were more than happy to pass the buck saying that this was a unit problem. (They of course were right, still it just didn't sit very well.)

The mother of the boy who was assaulted really more than anything else wanted the other Lad to get the help that he needed.

I met with the Lad's Dad and he promised that he would, but was trying hard to blame anything that he could.

The Lad has a lot of problems an alphabet full. He said that it might be because of a change in the Lads meds? That maybe it was due to him being over tired and the list went on.

 

I knew the SM really well, he had been my ACM when I was CM.

I felt it was my duty to inform him of what had happened.

The Troop is chartered by the church I attend, so I also felt a duty to inform the PP.

In an effort to not tell the whole world, the PP called a meeting of the Troop Committee Chair, the SM, the COR and I was invited to attend. The thinking was that having served on the District Key 3 I might be able to advise from that view.

The Lad was removed from the Troop.

At the meeting the Committee Chair said that she had heard that this Lad had done similar things to other boys in the Troop and while she hadn't said anything, she had informed her son that he wasn't to tent with this Lad.

This was a few years back. The Lad still has a lot of problems. (His mother and HWMBO are very close friends.) Everyone apart from his parents, when they meet this Lad seems to think from the way he acts and talks that he is homosexual.

The situation wasn't nice for anyone.

But my feeling is that I did the right thing.

I would hate to see a innocent little Boy Scout harmed or molested just because I kept my mouth shut.

 

This was/is the only time that a Lad has been removed from any unit that I have been in.

Some Scouts have quit. Some because they feel that they have been treated unfairly or under some sort of a cloud.

Some have rejoined other units. I really am happy that they are back, when asked by their new leaders about them I dwell on their good points.

When I meet with these guys. I know that the first minute or so is very uncomfortable for them. I try to do my best to let them know that I'm happy for them and that there are no hard feelings.

Ea.

 

 

 

 

[HICO_Eagle 93]

I think the most I would do at this stage is the suggestion to record the results (not the proceedings) of the Scout's BOR. I'm not even sure I would put in the bit about Council considering removing him for life -- the fact he failed a BOR should give the new troop pause for consideration without prejudicing his future in the troop. Remember that most other Scouters should (will?) be looking at the "new" boy with an eye toward the safety of the other boys in the troop as well. We need to balance the Scout's need for a fair shake and ability to change with the duty to the other Scouts to provide a safe and enjoyable environment.

 

For what it's worth, I almost always ask the parents and the Scout pretty detailed questions about why they are transferring from a local troop or when there's been a long break at a critical point like Life. I WILL always watch the Scout very closely at first to see if there was any reason to be concerned.

 

We had one Scout that transferred in as a senior Life Scout. The parents were quite open about having some friction with other committee members but I still watched the Scout at regular meetings and on a trek to Philmont. At Philmont, I found his conduct to be unsuitable for a future Eagle Scout -- I told him so in the private post-trek feedback session we held with each Scout on the trek and we also held a SM Conference at his parents' house with myself, the TCC, COR and parents. I explained very carefully what I saw and that while it wasn't a permanent block to his road to Eagle, I wouldn't recommend a BOR in the next six months.

 

His parents were fully supportive and I heard later (I had a military PCS a couple months later) from the TCC who succeeded me as SM that he completely turned his game around and not only did he make Eagle but he stayed on after making Eagle to continue contributing to the troop. In fact, I heard very good things about him when I returned to the troop years later.

 

My point is, I didn't need any potentially prejudicial material. I would have wanted to know the facts of safety or disciplinary issues just to the point of knowing that they were observed and/or taken care of -- then let me as SM, ASM, TCC or COR deal with the situation as it exists in my troop.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello HICO,

 

 

Your post illustrates the reasons why passing on a lot of gossip to a new Troop shouldn't be necessary. Ask the boy and his parents what was going on and they will tell you, even if in a biased way.

 

I might tell the boy and family that I will be contacting the previous troop leaders, but I want to give them an opportunity to tell me anything important first.

 

Observe his behavior and you will come to know the boy as he is today.

 

While I would PRESUME that the council would pass on information about a boy who is poetentially dangerous, I don't actually know if they would.

 

Anyone know for a fact how councils typically handle such issues?

[Lisabob 13]

My experience is that council keeps out of things like this, and that includes adult leaders, too.

 

First, most units do not have a close relationship with council because they are "owned" by the CO and not the council.

 

Second, most units who have problems and do reach out to scouters beyond the unit level, tend to encounter district-level volunteers (like their UC, or maybe their DC). These district-level folks are often not closely plugged in at council level.

 

Third, council does not (efficiently) track the movement of boys from one unit to another. Chances are very high that most of the council staff have no idea whether a boy is in Unit A or Unit B, let alone whether he transferred from one to another.

 

Fourth, who is "council" here? Presumably when we are talking about revoking a boy's membership, we're talking about the SE. But at the day-to-day operational level, the people who keep council records, serve on council-level committees, and interface with unit leadership are all different people, who probably don't talk with each other much, let alone have a coherent view of the council as a whole. Most of them probably see the SE two or three times a year.

 

So the lack of communication and fragmented organization of "council" makes it quite unlikely that "they" will be proactive to initiate this kind of information sharing.

 

Finally, while at the district level your DE **might** be fully in the loop (and I'm not betting on that) about the boy and the unit(s) in question, the DE is paid to keep the numbers up, not to decide which unit, if any, a boy can belong to. That goal is not well served by spreading rumors (even when true) about membership or units. Most DEs are going to stay as far away as they can from this sort of thing.

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Our council can't track Webelos moving from Pack 1 to Troop 1. It is not remotely possible that seven months later someone at the council office will catch a application from a Scout expelled from one unit registering for another. If someone has knowledge of a system which tracks discipline issues -- other than those fully banned from the program -- please enlighten me.

 

Besides, who is "The Council." Aren't we "The Council." Didn't BSA loose an $18 million judgement last summer because the minister of a chartered organization -- clearly in his role as minister -- decided to give a Scout volunteer a second chance? I'd hate to have that jury and try to explain that I had no responsibility to share the information I had with the new troop. That case was up your way, wasn't it SP?

 

When a Scout transfers to our troop, I do as HICO describes. I ask transferring-in Scouts why they are changing troops and forewarn them I'll be talking to their old Scoutmaster, too. And I usually follow through. As much as anything, I consider it a courtesy to let the old SM know the Scout has moved on (it is disappointing how few boys will extend that courtesy themselves). I also ask the SM, "is there anything I need to know about the situation?"

 

I don't understand the concern that we're creating a bias against a Scout in the new unit. The bias was not created by the sharing of information, the bias was created by the Scout's behavior.

 

I'm all for second chances when the offending individual makes amends for his earlier bad behavior and demonstrates a willingness and ability to change. Absent such a change, giving someone a second chance is just that -- a chance. I want more than a chance things will go better the second time around. But to the point, I am unwilling to dump this chance off on another unit, who may or may not know they are taking a chance. If the boy has really turned himself around, if the therapy has worked and he is due a second "opportunity", then let's put it all on the table and make an informed decision.

 

In the end, I suppose my judgement is I owe a greater duty to the numbers of Scouts and Scouters in another unit that I do to one individual Scout.