{"id":2310,"date":"2018-03-20T17:43:21","date_gmt":"2018-03-20T21:43:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/?p=2310"},"modified":"2018-03-20T17:43:21","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T21:43:21","slug":"issue-560-march-20-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/2018\/03\/issue-560-march-20-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Issue 560 \u2013 March 20, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

________________________________________
\nHi Andy,<\/strong><\/p>\n

I just read your column last week, and the piece about the Scouts who did an opening ceremony at a hockey game and then stayed to watch the game. I so rarely disagree with you, but this time I think you “dumbed down” the requirements so much and just gone too far when you said these Scouts should be given \u201cservice hour credit\u201d for their travel time. Seriously? We should now count travel time? So a Scout takes an hour to get to a service project, does one minute of work, and then heads home, and you want to call that two hours of service? And get service hours for sitting and watching a game? No way!<\/strong><\/p>\n

What’s next? We should give him service hour credits for thinking about working?<\/strong><\/p>\n

These are the issues that really boil my blood. Scouting has enough perception problems, and if you count “leisure” time as service time, it becomes a joke to the Scouts. Service time is time spent actually providing a service. Not riding in cars, not sitting and watching games. Period.<\/strong><\/p>\n

You don’t have to be mean about. Just be clear to the Scouts about what counts as real service. (I’ve had Scouts show up for a service project and then sit around and play on their phones the whole time. They got a zero for service hours, and that’s the way it should be.) (Karl Smith, Grand Canyon Council, AZ)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thanks for being a loyal, long-time reader, and thanks for taking the time to reach out with your thoughts.<\/p>\n

I absolutely agree with you that Scouts who show up for ANY event and don’t actually take part in it don’t get credit for it, but there’s more to this that maybe first met your eye…<\/p>\n

As a volunteer, would you drive, let’s say, and hour each way (on your own time, of course) for a 5-minute meeting? A half-hour meeting? The answer might lie in how meaningful that meeting is for you. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you decided that a brief meeting that required a much longer drive-time just isn’t worth your total time.<\/p>\n

Let’s tie this to a fundamental reality: These (and all!) Scouts are our FIRST VOLUNTEERS! This is their “free time” they’re, in a real sense, giving up for Scouting, and not because it’s necessarily “fun” or “challenging” or “exciting”\u2014it’s because they’ve been asked to represent the Boy Scouts.<\/p>\n

But service credit for watching a game? Who said that? It wasn’t me, if you take a closer look. “Dumbed down” means simplifying; it doesn’t mean abbreviating a requirement… But I still get your point. Notice, however, that I didn’t say these Scouts should be given service time credit for watching the game. What I did suggest is taking a look at their overall commitment. But I deliberately offered no recommendation on total time because (a) I wasn’t there with my trusty stopwatch and (b) this is a Scoutmaster’s decision, and I trust this Scoutmaster to get it right.<\/p>\n

As for the question of what constitutes \u201cservice hours,\u201d take a look at what the BSA asks Life Scouts to do when they tally up hours for their service projects for Eagle rank. Note that it specifically includes planning time. So let\u2019s remember that we\u2019re not using a stopwatch and Scouts aren\u2019t \u201cclocking in\u201d and \u201cclocking out\u201d because that defeats what we\u2019re trying to imbue; ultimately, we\u2019re looking for outcomes.
\n==========
\nGreetings Andy!<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m a Unit Commissioner trying to quell a disagreement in one of my troops. Seems that their Scoutmaster signed off on a Scout’s service hours for Star rank, but later overrode his signature because, as he said it turned out, this Scout was about 90 minutes short, of his six required service hours. The controversy\u2019s not by Scout, but by his parents, who are saying that their son did complete the required six hours and a couple of the adult leaders in the troop are equally adamant that their son still has about 90 minutes more to go. They took the problem to me to mediate and I did some checking with those involved. Turns out nobody has any records at all, which sort of makes this a classic \u201ctempest-in-a-teapot.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

My own take on this is simple: Once a requirement is signed off by a qualified leader, there’s no flip-flopping, no recanting; just get past it and move on; besides, a Scout shouldn\u2019t held responsible for, or damaged by an error made by an adult. In short, once pen hit paper, that\u2019s that.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But this Scout\u2019s Star rank board of review is coming due, and there\u2019s still neither resolution nor accommodation between the two opposing sides. Because of this impasse, the troop\u2019s leaders won\u2019t grant him a review, and his parents are going to escalate this to the council level if the troop\u2019s adults continue to block their son from advancing.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I personally know this Scoutmaster, and know him to be a pretty good guy. But on this one he\u2019s just not budging (which would be the simplest solution that would make this whole thing go away!). Meanwhile, the parents are getting more and more inflammatory, to the point of demanding that this Scoutmaster be handed a \u201cYOU\u2019RE FIRED\u201d notice.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, I\u2019ve searched the GUIDE TO ADVANCEMENT and, so far, haven\u2019t been able to find a way to end this stand-off. I\u2019ve also talked this over with my District Commissioner and his point of view was for the parents\u2014if they really want to take it this far\u2014file for a \u201cboard of review under disputed circumstances.\u201d Any ideas here, Andy? (UC At His Wit\u2019s End!)<\/strong><\/p>\n

This mess is triggering a whole bunch of thoughts!<\/p>\n

First off, you\u2019re absolutely right that the simplest solution\u2014and a pretty non-lethal one\u2014is for the Scoutmaster to acknowledge that his initials are his initials, and if there was a record-keeping glitch or\u2014as in this case\u2014no record-keeping at all, then we accept the Scout\u2019s word that he completed the requirement and we all move on, folks.<\/p>\n

As for a GUIDE TO ADVANCEMENT reference point, GTA Topic 8.0.0.2 clearly states: \u201cWhen [the Scout] believes he has completed all the requirements for a rank\u2026a board of review must be granted\u201d (underline mine).
\nAs for advising the parents to pursue a \u201cboard of review under disputed circumstances,\u201d this applies only for a review for the rank of Eagle (see GTA Topic 8.0.3.2).<\/p>\n

Now some might say, \u201cWell, why can\u2019t the Scout just do another 90 minutes of service, to make this all go away?\u201d Here I\u2019m obliged to point out that the Scout already believes he\u2019s completed the requirement, the Scoutmaster already initialed it as completed, and\u2014in the absence of any hard records to the contrary\u2014the requirement must be considered completed. If this Scoutmaster or anyone else insists the Scout do 90 more minutes of service, this is in direct violation of a BSA advancement fundamental: \u201cNo council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to, or subtract from, advancement requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n

Happy Scouting!<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Andy<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Have a question? Facing a dilemma? Wondering where to find a BSA policy or guideline? Just write to me at: askandybsa@yahoo.com.<\/strong>
\n Please include your name and council. (If you\u2019d prefer to be anonymous, if published, let me know and that\u2019s what we\u2019ll do.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

[No. 560\u2013 3\/20\/2018 \u2013 Copyright \u00a9 Andy McCommish 2018]<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

________________________________________ Hi Andy, I just read your column last week, and the piece about the Scouts who did an opening ceremony at a hockey game and then stayed to watch the game. I so rarely disagree with you, but this time I think you “dumbed down” the requirements so much and just gone too far […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2310"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2310\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2314,"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2310\/revisions\/2314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/netcommissioner.com\/askandy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}