From <@tcuavm.is.tcu.edu:owner-scouts-l@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU> Thu Apr 2 09:01:58 1998 Return-Path: <@tcuavm.is.tcu.edu:owner-scouts-l@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU> Received: from tcuavm.is.tcu.edu (TCUAVM.IS.TCU.EDU [138.237.128.148]) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA24256 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:01:58 -0500 Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU by tcuavm.is.tcu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6913; Thu, 02 Apr 98 07:53:53 CDT Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5653; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:47:11 -0500 Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8b) with NJE id 5640 for SCOUTS-L@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:45:54 -0500 Received: from TCUBVM (NJE origin SMTP@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5639; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:43:40 -0500 Received: from ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU by tcubvm.is.tcu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Thu, 02 Apr 98 07:43:36 CDT Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com) by ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU (PMDF V5.0-5 #20456) id <01IVDWTAKEM800FC4G@ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU> for SCOUTS-L@ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU; Thu, 02 Apr 1998 07:42:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.10) id IAA06502 for SCOUTS-L@TCU.EDU; Thu, 02 Apr 1998 08:42:06 -0500 (EST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <199804020837_MC2-38B8-E9C6@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:36:31 -0500 Reply-To: Joseph Alessi Sender: Scouts-L Youth Group List From: Joseph Alessi Subject: Re: Help on BOR go/no go X-To: Scouts-L Mail List To: Multiple recipients of list SCOUTS-L Status: RO X-Status: Gladys Jenner wrote: >> Please help us on this as need something that will stand up to appeals! << Gladys: I'd hate to say it, but it is almost impossible to be upheld on appeal on either of these two points. First, the scout spirit requirement, which actually reads as follows: Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. = Being disruptive at meetings is not considered grounds for withholding approval of this requirement. In fact, BSA = reworded this requirement several years ago to make sure that we focus on activity outside of Scouting. Now the fact that the boys have been in trouble at school might be factored in, but it will be hard to argue at an appeal. If the boys appeal, what would happen is the appeal board would first meet with the SM. The SM would be asked to describe the overall situation. He would be expected to provide specific *NON_SCOUTING* examples of the boy not following the Oath and Law. They should be recent, and not things that happened a year ago. He would also be asked if he held SM conferences at the time these came to light to counsel the boys, and if he explained to them the possible effect on their advancement. He would be asked for any documentation. Next, the appeals panel would talk to the boy. They would ask him how he lived the Scout Oath and Law in his daily life. He would be asked about the incidents that were provided by the SM. He would be asked to explain how he reconciled this with his previous statement. He would be asked if he met with the SM, and if the SM counseled him. The panel would then discuss the issue and come to a conclusion. IMHO in order to deny the appeal, the infraction(s) must be recent, and either very serious or very numerous. The SM had to have previously counseled the boy, and there should have been written = documentation, preferably with a written plan of improvement that was not followed by the scout. The more of these elements that are missing, the more likely that the appeal would be granted. One thing to look at is the nature of advancement. It is not a "reward" for good behaviour. It is one of our methods. A troop should not use the threat of withholding advancement as a "club" to get the boys to do what the leadership wants. This does not mean that "anything goes". There should be a "Code of Conduct" for the troop. The Oath and Law do fine for this. The only issue is what should be the consequences when a boy shows "less than acceptable behavior" at meetings or campouts. Rather than withholding rank, there should be other consequences. For example, at meetings: first offense: a warning. Second offense: sit out game and activity. Third offense: call parent to take him home. Do the same thing on campouts. If a boy gets sent home more than once, have a procedure where he needs to = "earn" his way back into participation in the activities. Focus on solving this problem rather than trying to figure out ways to hold up advancement. In my experience, there are boys who don't really care about advancement, anyway. You can't reach these boys by withholding advancement. This is a tough issue, but one that is faced at one time or another by almost every troop. You can get through it. Just remember to be fair. Include the PLC in setting up the policy (the best thing might be to discuss the overall issue of behaviour with the PLC. Hopefully, they will also feel that it is a problem, and will come up with some good solutions). Make sure that the troop policy is applied to all (if an ASM's son acts up, make mom come and pick him up!). Good luck! YIS = Joseph A. Alessi in Ozwin 2.14 JosephAlessi@Compuserve.com Vice Chair - Program, Lafayette District ASM Troop 313 Advisor to the Treasurer, Unami Lodge I used to be an Owl