Re: [Fwd: Policy Question re: Delaying Advancement]
Jeff L. Glaze (jglaze@SUBASIC.SCIATL.COM)
Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:06:12 -0400
At 02:05 PM 7/23/97 -0400, Steven G. Tyler wrote:
>As spelled out in information posted to the list, this is no longer an
>open issue. If a Scout is permitted to remain in the position for the
>requisite time, he cannot be denied advancement based on a subjective
>reading of "active service." The unit will lose on appeal. As to those
>who say, in effect, "Who cares, I KNOW I'm right!", I'd suggest a quick
>review of the Scout Law -- Trustworthy, Loyal and Obedient, especially.
>What example is set if you knowingly disregard a BSA policy?
Well, since I disagree that a BSA policy (cite the source please) is being
knowingly disregarded.... and since what I see is mainly a disagreement
of the understanding of the wording "serve actively".... I take exception
to your implication that I am being untrustworthy, disloyal, or disobedient
to the Scout Law.
>that, how can you defend failure to counsel (and if necessary, remove) a
>Scout who is not satisfactorily performing?
Did I do that.... no I said, "The suggestion to remove a scout who is not
serving actively is an excellent way to approach this subject."
You seem to insist it is the only acceptable approach.
Adding nothing to the requirement, and detracting nothing from the
requirement as written..... "While a xxxx Scout, serve actively for
x months in one or more of the following troop positions of
I, and many Scouters interpret "serve actively" to mean more than
just "hold title".
I understand your position quite clearly (even the implied character
regarding my position and my "example") but I respectfully disagree, until
such time as a "official" policy statement from BSA may be referenced.
Jeff L. Glaze, Vice-Chairman
Northeast District Advancement Committee
Atlanta Area Council, Boy Scouts of America
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City