SPL in Hot Water

[ScoutNut]

What Calico said - in spades.

 

The SPL was not the one "cussing". It was on a video of someone else (music video?), on his personal (not public) page.

 

A FRIENDLY (not confrontational) talk with his parents and him when he gets back is in order.

 

Anything else is way over the top and just plain wrong.

 

 

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

I don't do facebook so I do not have all the facts. I leave it to the SM and trust if they are such a good Troop, SM, and SPL a reasonable outcome will result despite the DE and the parents. Agree this is a SM-Scout issue.

 

I had an issue with a Mom who almost led a huge revolt over bad language by some scouts. What a morass! I over-reacted but the SM wisely choose to ignore it and make general comments to boys about being Clean. Since then I have learned her boy is one of the worst offenders when it comes to "corrupting" the newbies.

[qwazse]

Is the DE actually getting involved? Or is he just telling Cross what he would do in a similar situation. It's unfortunate that the DE got involved.

 

Not because the SM will need to change a thing that he's doing, but that in addition, he should respond in writing. Not E-mail. Probably old school typed or handwritten with one copy going to the boy (probably by hand when the SM has to break the news to the kid). I had to do this once. It was very handy in getting aggrieved parents to talk *to* me rather than *around* me.

 

The gist of the SM's message to the DE is that he appreciates the concerns of the parents, but lacking any evidence of predatory behavior, council needs to let this rest firmly with the unit leaders (SM, CC, COR). And, that it being a boy-led troop, and seeing this particular youth being an honorable lad, he will leave the decision of how to response entirely in the SPL's hands and no one else's. [Obviously if the SM intends to do something specific he can rephrase that.] Finally, any concern about the SM's choice of action can be relayed to the SM through the unit commissioner, and discussion of this matter outside those channels of communication will be summarily dismissed as uniformed gossip.

 

(Boy, do I hate paperwork.)

 

No offense Cross, but if you weren't asked by the SM to run interference you had no business talking to the DE (except maybe to give him the SM's phone number, just in case they have the wrong one at HQ).

 

Be far quicker to listen to the boys. They may be mortified when they realize so many adults got involved in this. They need to know that you all are standing by them.

 

[Kudu]

"No offense Cross, but if you weren't asked by the SM to run interference you had no business talking to the DE"

 

I'm with Crossramwedge on that. Except for the coerced apology, it sounds like both he and the SM understand that this about Boy Scout led vs. parent led.

 

I once saw a DE (an Eagle Scout) help control-freak parents dumb a boy-led Scout Troop down to the Cub Scout level behind the Eagle Scout SM's back. If the DE is talking to the parents, I'd want to hear firsthand what he is saying.

 

Crossramwedge, would you please answer my question about the file?

 

Is this just something from the Internet for which the SPL provided a link on Facebook? If so, what is the original file name or URL?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

 

(This message has been edited by kudu)

[Beavah]

I had a talk with our DE and found out that "concerned" parents have talked to him.

 

Yah, I'm never quite sure what an adult hopes to accomplish by talking' about other people's kids behind their back to unrelated individuals like a DE. Da proper response of the DE is that it's none of his business or theirs, but if they're really concerned they can call the boy's parents or the SM.

 

And da SM's proper response is "thank you for the information.". And then filing it appropriately for a quiet mention if he feels it's appropriate somewhere down the road. Or not.

 

I'm in agreement with FScouter on the adult behavior. If your volunteering really depends on every 16 year old complying with your personal mores 100% of the time, then I reckon yeh should turn in your badge of office and go find somethin' else to do with your volunteer time. Workin' with kids isn't for you. Going' behind people's backs and threatening to quit just isn't appropriate adult behavior.

 

Beavah

[Crossramwedge]

I happen to be the CC/COR so that is the reason I am involved and that is the reason I talked to the SM and the DE and the DE is the one who let me know that he was approached by "Concerned parents". He is not really sticking his nose in it. I originally went to him and asked him what he thought about the BSA "Media Guide lines" and of he thought that that should be thrown in the kid's face . These parents seem to think that those guidelines ought to be enforced on a "Scout" personal page. That is another discussion.

 

Kudu, yes the video is on you tube,(This message has been edited by crossramwedge)(This message has been edited by crossramwedge)

[ScoutNut]

While all Scouts and Scouters should aim to follow the Scout Oath and Law in their everyday life, BSA's Social Media Guidelines are NOT aimed at personal social media pages. They are aimed at UNITS, and/or councils/districts, using social media for SCOUTING purposes.

 

This was the Scouts own, personal, page - NOT - a Troop page used for Troop communication. Yes, the younger Scouts were "Facebook friends" of the SPL. I would bet that a lot of non-Scouts are also his "Facebook friends". Perhaps he even considered the other Scouts in his Troop his personal friends as well. That is why he gave them access to his personal Facebook information.

 

While the SPL, and other youth, should follow basic internet youth protection safety guidelines such as never give out your full name and address to someone you know only online, this is NOT the same as the BSA's Social Media Guidelines aimed at the use of social media for the Scouting program.

 

Just as you can not dictate what a Scout writes, or reads, you and your Troop can not dictate what a Scout has on his own personal media sites.

 

Forcing the SPL to >"faces the Troop, apologizes and works on and gives a talk on the "Suggested Media Guidelines""< is out of line and has nothing to do with his posting of a video on his PERSONAL site that contains what some consider "bad" language.

 

You repeatedly state how your Troop is "considered to be the best", this does not sound like the "best" to me.

[qwazse]

Sorry I blew the DE connection out of proportion. Sounds like this guy was giving you his general opinion when asked. Not butting in on behalf of "concerned parents".

 

In matters like these, a CC should support whatever decision the SM comes to. Sometimes a kid will not respect the SM or his parents and it's time to haul him before the committe so that he gets that dismissal is not far off. That doesn't seem to be the case here. (Lucky you.) Most of the time a CC's job is to rally parents around the SM and support his decisions.

 

The COR's responsibility is to convey the CO's opinion on such matters. So, talking to your institutional head would be an appropriate step. But you may already know what they'll say. For example, most religious institutions would take a posture of grace and deal with a sin only in the area where it occured.

 

The boy should be made aware that his actions were found to be offensive. IMHO, how he makes amends is up to him, but I would advise him that an apology on FB would be in order. Apologising in front of the troop would not be appropriate. (For one thing, it would make boys who didn't see the video want to look it up!)

[Beavah]

Yah, Crossramwedge. Yeh have to decide as COR whether yeh feel the behavior and judgment of the adults in question is what your institution wants for its scouting program. The most important thing yeh do as COR is decide on your personnel, and set the tone for how lads should be treated in keeping with the goals of your organization.

 

If I were your UC, I would probably encourage yeh to accept da resignation of the adults in question. Yeh want the people who are representing your organization to be on board with the direction of the organization and the choices of your Scoutmaster. Nothin' more deadly to a program than adults who aren't on the same page, and then are whispering behind each others' backs. Yeh can destroy troops with that sort of thing, eh? And it happens only when da COR doesn't do his job of selecting leaders.

 

I also agree with everyone else. This has not a thing to do with BSA media guidelines, and those do not apply in da least.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Crossramwedge]

Most Troops have standards that the Scout should obtain before he is elected into a scout office. For instance we like our SPL to be at least 13, hold a First class rank, attend so many camp outs, wear his Scout uniform, attend at least 75% of regular Scout meetings so on so forth. We also explain to him that we expect him to adhere to the Scout Oath and Law in all aspects of his public life. This is explained to all of our "office" holders and they are required to read (with a parent or guardian present) and sign a statement that they will adhere to these standards in and out of scouting. There lies the problem. To a certain extent I personally believe he violated this standard.

 

Consider when you go up for a promotion at work. You are expected to have reached certain goals, met training requirements and are usually judged on your interaction with your fellow employees. You also may be required to hold up to certain standards in your public life. You pass on all accounts and are promoted. If you then let down your Employer by poor job performance at work or get caught in a compromising situation that directly violates said terms of employment (even though it happened in a private situation that was not work related) are you not in trouble? After all you agreed to the terms before you took on the job. The employer then has to make a decision on what line of tack he/she will take. That depends on the nature of the offense and how serious he /she deems the damage to be. If this is your first offense of this nature and have several years of exemplary employment I should think that the employer would be a little lenient with the stipulation that you will be watched and it better not happen again.

 

We are dealing with a barely 16 year old boy who in essence violated the terms of his contract as put before him when he was installed as SPL. Now as an "employer" do I choose to hit him hard or use the situation to show leniency and guide him and mentor him? After all he has been a very good employee (Scout) for 10 years. Yes a few hiccups along the way, but nothing of this nature. The employer (SM who by the way was also his Tiger Cub Leader) has chosen the latter. It is my position to back him.

 

On what Scoutnut said about BSA Media Guidelines is the position I took about the BSA "Media Guide Suggestions" when I talked to the DE. These Guide lines are aimed at the use of Media outlets used in communications by troops, patrols etc. who use the social media to discuss Scouting matters . They are good guide lines for Scouters. The basis for them in IMHO is the combination of YP regulations, Scout Oath and Law and normal internet guidelines that have been around for years about the steps you need to take to be "Safe" when using public media on the internet. They are not meant to be used to govern personal media sites.(This message has been edited by crossramwedge)

[ScoutNut]

Even if I held a job where my personal life was scrutinized minutely, I doubt that linking to a video with "cussing" in it on my personal Facebook page would be grounds for termination.

 

Again, the SPL was NOT the one doing the "cussing".

 

The appropriateness of the video is really between him and his parents, not you.

 

You seem to have discussed this with everyone else in the country, have you talked to his parents at all?

 

And what about the failure of the adults in the Troop to live up to the Scout Oath and Law? What kind of "punishment" is being meted out to them?

[Beavah]

We also explain to him that we expect him to adhere to the Scout Oath and Law in all aspects of his public life.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

The Scout Oath and Law are methods eh? Or more properly, they are part of da "Ideals Method" of Boy Scouting. Like the Advancement Method and all the rest, they shouldn't be confused with da goals.

 

We try to teach kids positive values by givin' 'em some ideals to try to live up to, eh? Recognizing that no one lives up to 'em all of the time. One of my personal pet peeves is when some adult lectures a lad about behavior usin' the Scout Law. Da Scout Law and the Ideals Method don't work if they're a punishment - something that a kid dreads. They only work if they're somethin' positive to aspire to.

 

If being perfect in living up to all the positive virtues of the Oath and Law is a condition of holdin' office in your troop, then I reckon yeh don't have any youth leaders. Nobody could honestly sign such a "contract". And as ScoutNut says, yeh shouldn't have any adult leaders either, because none of us live up to da Oath and Law in all of our public and private life.

 

But, that havin' been said, you as the COR have to set the tone for da troop on behalf of your Chartered Organization. If yeh really feel that this merits a stronger response than the SM is willing to give in order to meet your organization's goals and values, then yeh have to ask the SM for his resignation, and find someone who is a better fit. What yeh can't do is override da SM without removin' him. That's just a recipe for every parent with any gripe to go traipsing over the SM's head to your door, and no good SM would stay around in such a circumstance. It can destroy your program.

 

So if you're really conflicted, I'd sit down with your IH and discuss how yeh feel about da organization's real goals and values. Not yours personally, eh? You're just a representative. And then yeh have to make the call. Do yeh accept da resignation of the anonymous "concerned parents", or do yeh ask for da resignation of your SM? No micromanaging da SPL allowed. When a problem hits da COR and yeh are speaking on behalf of the troop's owners, yeh have to make the real call for the program.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[lrsap]

"We also explain to him that we expect him to adhere to the Scout Oath and Law in all aspects of his public life. This is explained to all of our "office" holders and they are required to read (with a parent or guardian present) and sign a statement that they will adhere to these standards in and out of scouting. There lies the problem. To a certain extent I personally believe he violated this standard."

 

To back up what Beavah said, I'm not to keen on using the Oath and Law in such a manner. Now full disclosure being we've never met and all I know is what read, so this may be working great for your troop. But to me it sounds like such a hard line only sets you up for hardship down the road. Applying "failure to follow the Oath and Law" could lead to having to split hairs or have the discussion of which point of the Law is more important. Does a Scout who posts a video with naughty words on FB (A Scout is Clean) face the same punishment as the Scout who blows all his money in the camp store on candy and slush puppies the first day of SC (A Scout is Thrifty)?

[Crossramwedge]

My response to the situation is to back the SM. He sees no need in further embarrassing the boy. He is going to have a long talk with him. His stance is if the "concerned" parents do not like how he handles it ,then they can walk.

 

Just to let you know the video I started to watch was so full of vulgar language and innuendo that I stopped it after 30 seconds. It is still posted on his face book page. He will reap consequences outside our troop that I have no control over. He was (and I hope still is) well thought of by just more than our troop. He is well known by the whole Area Council.

 

To be frank the way we have been doing things have worked out for our troop quite nicely. Its spelled out in black and White. The CO is a large Church. We are known as a praying troop. Our unit number has biblical meaning. Our boys are known for being polite and well behaved yet have fun. NO we are not strict disciplinarians. We let the boys run the troop. That is a fact. It is what I call the helicopter parents who are the ones up in arms. They want to run the troop like a Cub Pack and we are trying to stop it.

 

We have plenty of good youth leaders and our procedures have seemed to help shape and grow good new leaders. No problem there. P>(This message has been edited by crossramwedge)(This message has been edited by crossramwedge)

[Twocubdad]

"... do I choose to hit him hard or use the situation to show leniency and guide him and mentor him?"

 

Do you really have to ask?

 

This whole thing with contracts and standards and concerned/nosey parents and DEs is just WAAAAY over the top. Someone, hopefully you, Cross, needs to be the voice of reason and throw a bucket of cold water on this fire.

 

The boy's actions merit a short, friendly, informal chat from a Scouter with a sincere interest in the boy's well being.

 

PERIOD.

 

 

I sure wish the scout would post here and ask for advice. If any more is made of this than the above friendly chat, he needs to tell you all, "thank you for your concern, sir, but with all due respect, my personal tastes in entertainment are really none of your business."