Scout Lawyering

[SeattlePioneer 144]

With the proliferation of very legalistic "rules" on the Scout program from national, I'm wondering how long it will be before Scout Lawyering is recognized as a specialty in the legal profession.

 

Perhaps a professional journal could be a place for legal research to decide so many of the issues considered on these forums.

 

I would not be surprised if a founder of this new specialty would be a lawyer who obtained his Eagle rank as a youth on an appeal to national that had been denied by his Scoutmaster and unit because they didn't think he had properly completed the Eagle requirements.

 

 

[Horizon 97]

We see this in Little League as well, where a protest gets filed over something and a game gets a restart. Soccer, however, doesn't seem to have the same problem because they have declared that what the ref calls is what officially happens. A ref might be removed from the list, but that is it.

 

Rules lawyers for Scouts occur because of the value that Eagle has gained over time (rank advancement in the enlisted ranks, "points" towards college applications). That puts more value on the Eagle, and with value comes fighting over receipt.

[eisely 13]

A new merit badge perhaps?

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello eisely,

 

 

Heh, heh! Wow --- you are WICKED!

[Eagle732 27]

I think Scouts appealing Eagle should have to argue their case in person before the District, Council and National Appeals Boards. It's too easy now to just write a letter and let someone else sort out the mess.

I think that's part of what's going on in the recent case where a scout would rather appeal than go on three camping trips. Easier to write a letter and put the CC and SM through the mill.

[Basementdweller 608]

As CC and SM I would refuse to participate.....

 

While he can still claim to be an eagle it is a smack in the face if your SM refuses to sign because in his eyes you have failed to met the requirements.

[Eagle732 27]

I've been in that position and it's not an fun place to be.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well, when you read the Guide to Advancement, it almost seems to be National's intention to create a legal/judicial setting, with district, council and national acting as judges rather than Scouters when it comes to advancement. It is very much a legal document. (But it is far from perfect, legal-writing-wise. The problem is that once you send a "guidance document" over the line to being a "legal document", you really need to go all the way and make it a good legal document.)

 

At one of our committee meetings I was reading portions of the thing out loud, and people were horrified that it has come to this. (And I was agreeing with them.) It may not be long before the Scouts have actual lawyers to represent them in this process -- apart from their own parents (some of whom may be actual lawyers), that is.

 

I am very thankful that we have seen virtually none of this in my troop. I think the reason has to do with the specific requirements that seem to cause all the trouble, mainly, what is "active." We seem to have been successful over the years in getting the message through that to be in the troop, you need to participate -- and this is without a specific attendance requirement. We also have not had people disappear for two years and come back at 17.5 to "go for Eagle" -- well actually we did have one who tried, but he (and his parents) did not like the "terms" of coming back (such as actually having to do the requirements), so he found another troop to "make Eagle" in. Maybe that case is why we have not had the problem again, although that was so long ago that none of the current Scouts would have known that Scout.

[Tokala 16]

I'm involved in our annual pre-camp inspection. Our Scout Executive regualrly invotes folks from our risk management team. There report usually has items that need attention such as loose railings, loose decking, etc. I always ask if anyone has explained to them limited budgets and priorities. The risk management people aren't ever involved in any Scouting activity and have no idea of the finances of the Council or how it's managed.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Tokala, I could be wrong, but I think that's a different subject from what SeattlePioneer was talking about.

[JMHawkins 15]

Tokala, I could be wrong, but I think that's a different subject from what SeattlePioneer was talking about.

 

Well, I'd say yes and no. Both what SP lead with and what Tokala mentioned are instances of "bureaucrats" making decisions without understanding how they impact actual program, and without having any real responsibility for making their rules work.

 

In Tokala's case, it's guys saying a bunch of improvements need to be made that the camp cannot afford. Now, on the one hand, you think gee, if the place can't be maintained well enough that it's not a hazard, then maybe it shouldn't be open. But on the other hand, my experience with risk managment types is that they do not prioritize or differentiate risks very well. They tend to lump everything into one bucket and say it all has to be done. This can have the effect of actually lowering the safety of the place, as the really important safety improvements have to be done on shoestring budgets in order to fund the trivial ones.

 

In SPs hypothetical Eagle appeal process, it's idiotic advanceent rules that declared "active" to mean "registered" and then got so caught up in the hype surrounding Eagle rank that a special appeals process exists. But those folks don't need to invest the 80 hours that unit and district volunteers report spending on cases like this. And they don't have to deal with explaining things to the other scouts when Danny Do-Nothing gets awarded Eagle on appeal when every boy in that troop knows he's a slacker and just gamed the system.

 

 

[GKlose 24]

BTW, I am staying out of this debate (given the other thread that I started), but I would say that I really do dislike Scout Litigation (a term I used last week), which not only includes Scout Lawyering, but also Scouter Lawyering.

 

Others have said the situation is simple (with advancement), either he met the requirements or he didn't. But Scout Litigation pops up when either party is dabbling in the gray areas.

 

Guy

[Eagle732 27]

No legal case is simple, nor is the outcome predictable.

 

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

Scouts are human beings. So among them we find some seeking MB and rank awards via dishonest quibbling and shortcut cheats. Parents are also human beings and a few may be more inclined to put feathers in their sons' caps than character and knowledge into the heads on which those caps sit.

 

But when we hear Scouters' complaints about these Scouts and their Parents, it's worth remembering that Scouters are also human beings and they can be wrong, even in numbers. Some Scouts or Parents about whom we may hear complaints, may actually be doing Scouting a good turn. They may be engaging in community level FON Ops.

 

In Freedom of Navigation Operations, vessels navigate disputed waters to assert the right to do so and to prevent any power from establishing illegal precedent that it controls those waters.

 

[Sentinel947 1205]

I also think we've also lost focus in this discussion on how many Boys pass through Scouts, reach their Eagles, and become successful businessmen,soldiers, civic leaders, lawyers, ect, ect.