The Webelos Scout
who didn’t visit a Troop with his Den and consequently didn’t complete
the requirements for his Arrow of Light continues to be on your mind!
Here are some more Scouters’ thoughts on this…
Dear Andy,
I was reading in
your April '05 issue about the concern for visiting a Troop. Is it
possible that this Webelos Scout could go as a "Lone Scout," as they
have in Boy Scouts where there are limited opportunities? Is “Lone
Scout” available for Cubs? (Bob Blarr, ADC, Erie Shores Distrct, Greater
Niagara Frontier Council [Owl Patrol-NE III 151])
Yes, a boy can be
a "Lone Cub Scout." And, had this particular boy been one for some
significant part of his Cub Scout/Webelos Scout tenure, he certainly
could have visited a Troop sans Den. But, I'd be about the last person
on this planet to suggest that, having consciously passed up two
opportunities to correctly meet this requirement with his Den, this boy
should now be reclassified as "Lone" so that he can circumvent the
stated requirement and slide in via a side door, so to speak. Why do I
feel this way? Simple: One of the "lessons of life" is that there are
consequences to all of our actions (and inactions), and the earlier we
learn this important lesson the sooner we can move on to other life
lessons that we'll need to learn!
Dear Andy,
I’m feeling the
same way I did the first time I stood up in one of my college courses
and disagreed with a professor, but here goes…
While I totally
agree with your reasoning to “S.T.” for the Webelos Scout who made the
decision to miss the opportunity to fulfill the requirement to visit a
Boy Scout activity with his Den (twice) and is now unable to fulfill the
requirement for Arrow of Light, I don’t think that the passage you cited
in the Cub Scout Leader Handbook is pertinent. The reason is simple:
Through attrition or other factors, Dens can easily fall below the
preferred 6-8 member level of participation. Sometimes they’re not at
this level to begin with, because of dropouts from previous years or low
recruitment. Usually, by the time they’ve fallen to this level, it’s too
far into the year to combine Dens, or maybe this is the only Den at that
level of age/rank. So, while I believe in year-round Scouting, it’s
difficult at best to convince some Den Leaders, who are eyeing the
summer as a three-month, “vacation,” that they need to meld two Dens
together and “disrupt” their status quo. In reality, this would be good
for the summer, since now you would have twice as many adults to share
the leadership with; however, it seems to fall to the leader with the
most boys, while the other falls inactive, unless convinced to take on
another Pack position. But this too, can be an indicator that the Den
Leader whose attendance has fallen off is not doing a very good job of
providing a good program to keep the boys interest. Anyway, I just
thought I’d throw my two cents in. I still think your responses should
be “required reading”! (Charles Wickersham)
I think your
point are well made, and I, too, would have preferred that this boy and
his father invested themselves in success instead of (perhaps
subconsciously) sabotaging the final path to Arrow of Light. Yes, Dens
can have attrition, but they can grow, too! The thing to avoid, at
least in this situation, is "stretching" a fundamental beyond
reasonableness just to "get a badge."
And now, on to
other matters…
Hey Andy,
The Boy Scout
Handbook (edition around 1975) shows Chief Scout Alden Barber wearing
his Eagle badge. What’s good enough for Chief Scout Alden is good
enough for me. I wear my old Eagle Scout badge proudly. (E.B.)
The eighth
edition of the Boy Scout Handbook, like the sixth, seventh, and ninth
editions, contains artwork and not photographs. Perhaps you can tell me
what page you're looking at, since the only reference to Alden G.
Barber, Chief Scout Executive, that I can find is on page 2, and there's
no illustration of any kind there. Of course, I'm looking at the first
printing of this edition. Perhaps a later printing contained what you're
referring to? So, let me know what printing of the eighth edition
you're looking at as well as what page you're looking at, and then let’s
talk some more.
Meanwhile, why
don't you go back to the handbooks of the early 1920's, so you can wear
your Life badge before you wear your Star rank? Hey, that's the way it
was, then, and if it was good enough 80 years ago, why not today, too!
Wrong is wrong, my Scouting Friend. But you already know this. To
posture that some obscure, 30 year-old representation somehow justifies
your resistance to what's right doesn't hold much water. Get with the
program, Pal.
Hi Andy,
I need some
advice. For the second time this year I have had a Scout in our
District complete an Eagle Scout Project without getting all the
required signatures. They all had the Scoutmaster, the Committee, and
who the project is for, but they neglected to get the approval from the
District. Both Scouts have done outstanding projects (thank goodness!),
and are well documented. For the first of these two Scouts, I had him
add more stuff to his project, to make it more in-depth, and then I
signed off his project book. But then it’s happened again! This time, I
can’t see a way to add to the project, so I’m at a loss as to what to
do. The unit leaders involved are trying to take the blame, and they
deserve some of the blame because they’re supposed to be guiding the
Scouts. But the Scout himself still has to READ, and should not escape
the blame here. What could you suggest for me to be fair, but still not
compromise the spirit and intent of signatures on an Eagle Project
packet? (Bruce Stohlman, Eagle Advancement Chair, Mid-America Council)
I understand your
situation and dilemma completely. I'm not sure I'd be inclined to "add"
to an already completed project. This sounds too much like it's flying
in the face of the "no one can add or subtract from a requirement"
hammerlock, and that's a hammerlock I respect (read some of my earlier
columns for more on that point).
Actually, the two
Scouts in question have been darned lucky! Imagine what would happen
if, say, a Scout turned 18 years old and the Board of Review rejected
his project because it was deemed inadequate! Now, we have a Scout
who's out of time, and out of luck!
I agree with you
that the two situations you’ve described represent shared oversights. A
bunch of folks are guilty here, including the Scoutmaster, the
committee, and unquestionably the Scout himself. Frankly, I fail to
under-stand how a Scout could entertain the notion of proceeding with a
project not signed by someone at the district or council level when the
workbook itself clearly states...
IMPORTANT NOTE: You may proceed
with your leadership project only when you have …
- Completed all the above mentioned planning details
- Shared the project plans with the appropriate persons
- Obtained approval from the appropriate persons
...and there's an
unsigned line! But, you're right…We can make it foolproof, but
we can't make it idiot-proof!
If I were in your
shoes right now, here’s what I'd do...
First, send a
letter to every Scoutmaster and every Troop Committee Chair in your
council and, in it, state, straightaway: “Effective immediately,
unless an Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook has all signatures
in place before the project itself is undertaken, the project
will be rejected as qualifying for REQUIREMENT 5 of the Eagle
Rank Application--There will be no exceptions, and ‘appeals’ will
not be heard.”
You will want to
state, further: “This standing policy is being
enforced to the letter in order to prevent the potentially disastrous
situation wherein a project completed without all necessary signatures
is later deemed of insufficient magnitude or significance by the Eagle
Rank Board of Review.”
Send these
letters by first class mail, with your personal return address on the
envelope, and have them all sent on exactly the same date. This
eliminates anyone from later saying, "I didn't get one..." because any
undeliverable first class letter will be returned to the return address.
Then, visit all
of your Districts’ Roundtables and present a review of Eagle Service
Project protocols and processes.
Finally, stand by
what you've said. Period.
Dear Andy,
I’m working on
Environmental Science Merit Badge. One of the requirements is to do a
timeline on how the BSA contributed to environmental science. Do you
have any idea where this information can be obtained? (Ben Denton, Troop
7, Pinehurst, NC)
The requirement
you're referring to asks you to "make a timeline of the history of
environmental science in America" and then identify (on that timeline,
we can assume) contributions made by the Boy Scouts to environmental
science, including dates, names of people, and so on. Now I don't
happen to have the pamphlet for this merit badge in front of me, but I
do know how these pamphlets are written. Usually, there's a section or
chapter in it for each of the requirements. It will be descriptive
text, of course, and not a "timeline," in this case. So your job, Ben,
is to read this section and then, from it, construct a timeline, which
is a very specific way of showing the "history" of something. Not as
hard as you might have thought!
Dear Andy,
If a Scout goes
on a mission trip with his church, can he count that trip as service
hours for rank advancement? (Marty Hughes)
Starting with the
Second Class rank, a Scout will "participate in an approved service
project." For that rank, it's a minimum of one hour; for First Class,
it's skipped; for Star, it's six hours; and, for Life, it's also six
hours. So, as long as the Scout has obtained approval from his
Scoutmaster in advance, a mission trip with his church or any other
group should be just fine, so long as the minimum hours are met.
Dear Andy,
Are Latter-Day
Saint Troops required to adhere to the religious principle of Scouting?
Specifically, the principle states that religious teaching is done at
home and within one’s religious organization or church. Does this mean
that a Troop cannot teach religious principles? I’m asking because it
seems as though if they can, it necessitates discrimination against
other boys who are not LDS. (David L. Port, Jr., UC)
I may be an Eagle
Scout, but that sure doesn't make me a "legal eagle"! I do know that, in
the Annual Charter Agreement that's signed by the head of the chartered
organization and a professional representative of a local council of the
BSA, it states that the organization being chartered agrees to "conduct
the Scouting program according to its own policies and guidelines as
well as those of the BSA." I've also seen the BSA's Declaration of
Religious Principle, which states that the BSA "is absolutely
nonsectarian in its attitude toward...religious training. The BSA's
policy is that the... organization or group with which the member (i.e.,
the Scout) is connected shall give definite attention to religious
life." These two excerpts, noted without reference to any other
information that may be available, suggest that (a) if a chartered
organization is a church, synagogue, or other religious institution, it
can certainly stand by its own essential principles, and (b) those
principles can be espoused so long as they are presented in a universal
manner and not in a way that would promote or signify any specific
denomination, sect, or specific faith or belief set. But, hey, that's
just me.
In a slightly
different, but, I believe, germane arena, I'm aware that, when one
delivers an invocation or prayer to a mixed group of people, it is
perfectly acceptable for it to be specific to the faith of the speaker;
it does not have to be "universal" to the point of losing all color.
Combining all of
these points leads me here: It would seem OK if, in an invocation or
prayer at the beginning or end of a Troop meeting, the faith of the
speaker is revealed via content; but, the actual teaching of a specific
set of religious beliefs or principles has no place in a Troop meeting,
because this would violate the "nonsectarian" principle of the BSA
program.
It further seems
to me that, even if the entire Troop were made up of youth of the same
faith, such teaching would still be inappropriate, because "teaching
religion" is simply not part of the Scouting program. If the Troop is
composed of youth of a variety of faiths, such teaching would be much
more than merely inappropriate--it would be flat-out wrong.
But, like I said,
I'm no legal eagle. Check this out with your own council's Scout
Executive.
Dear Andy,
A question from a
Troop came up recently, about if wearing the BSA “Class A” uniform was
allowed or appropriate when the Scouts are participating in service
activities such as collecting food for a food drive or collecting worn
US flags for proper retirement. We know that the uniform should not be
worn for unit fund raising activities, but is wearing them to sell BSA
popcorn OK? (Al Metauro, DC, Raritan Valley District, Patriots’ Path
Council, NJ)
I've always
personally believed that the more visibility Scouting can give itself,
the better! That's why, when I was a Scoutmaster, our Troop did just
about every gosh darned thing in full uniform! Camping, hiking,
traveling to and from activities, you name it. And, yes, we absolutely
wore our uniforms when we performed service for our sponsor, community
and council. I wasn't alone, either. Virtually every one of my fellow
Scoutmasters did, or attempted to do, the same thing! Same with Cub
Scouts. The BSA thinks this way, too. That's why there are just three
instances when a uniform wouldn't be worn: If doing so would imply an
endorsement (of, say, a political candidate), if the activity could
dishonor Scouting in some way, or if selling something is involved. So,
for selling a product or service, even for unit, district, or council
money-earning purposes, we followed that BSA stipulation of no
uniforms. The popcorn that Scouts sell would fall into this category: It
isn't "Scout popcorn”--it's TRAILS END popcorn, sold by Scouts.
But,
since activities such as collecting food for a food drive or collecting
worn American flags for retirement are clearly in the service area and
don't involve selling or endorsing anything, and clearly bring credit to
Scouting, you're 100% in the clear!
One more thing:
Encourage your Scouts to wear their FULL uniforms. This presents to the
public a much more cohesive impression. Besides, anyone ever seen
Michael Jordan go into on a B-Ball game wearing his jersey with jeans or
cut-offs? Or the Yankees without their pinstripes head-to-toe?
Dear Andy,
Recently, you
said something about there being three national "lifesaving" awards,
suggesting that the three other meritorious action awards are for
"non-lifesaving" situations. That's not consistent with our experience.
In our District, a Troop recently performed a wilderness rescue when one
of the leaders collapsed. One Scout treated the victim for shock and
applied CPR while other Scouts either stayed at the site to assist or
hiked out to call for a “medevac.” The National Court of Honor bestowed
the Medal of Merit on the Scout doing first aid and CPR ("saving the
life"), and the other Scouts received National Certificates of Merit. I
had first thought that the "life-saving" aspect of this incident would
yield a Heroism medal; instead, I was told that the top three awards
must involve some degree of risk on the part of the rescuer as well as
threaten the life of the victim. The criteria for the Heroism medal call
for "minimum risk to self " but "minimum" is a slippery word. It could
be interpreted to say "little or no risk to the rescuer," which would
apply to this rescue. But it could also mean "the rescuer should face
enough risk to exceed some (undefined but small) minimum amount." In
this incident, it looks like the National Court of Honor used the second
interpretation. Don't get me wrong--I'm not angling for a better award
for these Scouts; they're rightfully proud of the recognitions they've
already received. I'm just trying to understand how things are supposed
to work. (Rick Smith, Council Advancement Chair, Eagle Bluff Council)
Thanks for writing, and sharing this incident and thoughts. What I
described comes from BSA literature, as I pointed out. I didn't "say
something" in any general sense. I described precisely what each award
is for. Nor did I say what you're describing. So, I'll say it again:
There are two National Court of Honor award categories. The first is in
the area of saving life, and the second is for meritorious action that
does not involve life-saving.
In the first
category--saving life--there are three levels: (1) the Heroism Award for
saving (or attempting to save) life at minimal personal risk, (2) the
Honor Medal for saving (or attempting to save) life at considerable
personal risk, and (3) the Honor Medal With Crossed Palms for saving (or
attempting to save) life at extreme personal risk.
In the second category--for meritorious service--there are also three
levels: (1) the Council Certificate of Merit for an act of service for
which the council advancement committee does not feel qualifies for
national recognition, (2) the National Certificate of Merit for an act
of service that is deserving of special national recognition, and (3)
the Medal of Merit for an act of service of a rare or exceptional
character that reflects an uncommon degree of concern for the well-being
of others.
As for your Troop’s experience, the National Court of Honor made a
decision, based on long historical criteria. I think what's most
important here is not whether you and they agree or not on definitions
but, rather, the fact that someone benefited from your having taken
action. We don't do this stuff for medals, you know. We do it because
that's what Scouting inspires in us.
OK, Andy, I phrased my thoughts poorly - let me try again…
I've had to review a half dozen different "meritorious action" incidents
since I started as advancement chair this year. I'm trying to
understand how the standards are applied in the real world as opposed to
what the literature says. Of course I've talked with people in our
council about this, but I thought it would be interesting to see what
you had to say. As you described, the published BSA regulations imply a
strong distinction between "life saving" awards and "meritorious action"
awards. In practice, I see the line is drawn a little differently. The
Medal of Merit and Certificate of Merit may be intended for
non-lifesaving incidents, but they're also awarded for lifesaving
incidents. It seems best to think of these awards as all being in a
single category of "meritorious action awards" with "lifesaving awards"
a special sub-classification of those. Clearly, the National Court of
Honor believes that saving a life is a "meritorious action," since they
will award the Medal and Certificate for lifesaving incidents. In my own
(albeit limited) experience, the "lifesaving" awards are bestowed on
individuals who face some degree of risk when trying to save a life,
while the Medal of Merit may be awarded in less extreme situations. In
our council, when we investigate a possible award situation, we
interview witnesses and participants in the incident as well as the
nominees. Then, when discussing the nomination, we try to call it a
"meritorious action" even if lifesaving was involved, and we try to
avoid saying "lifesaving" or "heroism" since we can't predict what level
of award the National Court of Honor will decide on, if any. I’ve never
heard of anyone being disappointed about "only" receiving a National
Medal of Merit instead of an Honor Medal, but I'd prefer to avoid the
question entirely. We do our best to follow the standards and
regulations, but the National Court has a broader view of the awards
than we do. No, we don't train scouts in first aid and lifesaving just
so they might win a medal. Personally, I'm not sure what a meritorious
action award really says about a particular Scout who received it, aside
from showing that the Scouting experience produced the right result. But
the recognitions are important because they illustrate the value of
Scouting in a very simple and eloquent way. (Rick Smith)
It
sounds like you have a pretty darned good handle on how all of these
recognitions fit together, and your heart sure seems to be in the right
place! Keep on keepin' on --
Dear Andy,
I’ve recently been asked by our new District Director to become our
District’s Training Chair. While I appreciate the vote of confidence,
I’m wondering exactly what my responsibilities may be before I say “yes”
or “no.” I’m already pretty committed in Scouting: Cubmaster and Webelos
Den Leader, also ASM in a Troop in which my older son is an Eagle Scout
(with 2 Palms!), and I’m also on the OLS training staff. So, while I’d
love to be involved at the District Committee level, I’m pretty well
strapped unless I can get a good understanding of the Training Chair’s
duties. The last thing I want to do is to commit to doing something and
then failing to get it done. (Charles Wickersham)
You can get a
handle on the district training chair responsibilities by checking out
the BSA booklet: LEADERSHIP TRAINING COMMITTEE GUIDE ((No. 34169E).
But, it think there's a more important issue here...
Let's
see...you're already wearing FOUR "Scouting hats." Are you seriously
trying to see how many you can stack on your head before they all fall
off (or your wife knocks 'em off)?!
Stick with
Scouting jobs that keep you close to your sons. Unless you can devote
countless hours to Scouting without fear, you're going to find yourself
in the midst of a house of cards crashing down! These years with your
sons are precious, and will fly by all too quickly. After they've moved
on is the time to take on other Scouting jobs. For the next bunch of
years, make your Scouting moments count, and give yourself and your sons
memories you'll cherish with them in the decades ahead. And, when new
positions are offered to you, understand that it's OK to say, "Thanks,
I'm honored, but not this year...ask me again in a couple of years."
Remember my Bruce
Springsteen story: "He can sing, and he can play the guitar, and he can
even blow a harmonica...but the minute he straps cymbals between his
legs, he becomes something else entirely."
