scouts-l Mail Archive for February of 2000: Re: Very Important Question
Paul S. Wolf (PaulWolf@CUYCTYENGINEERS.ORG
Fri Feb 04 2000 - 11:28:49 CST
"Richard C. Ickler" wrote:
> It seems like we are left with another situation which is written
> such that anyone can interpret the requirement any way they want.
Except where it says no one can add to the requirements. That's VERY
> The bottom line appears to be though that the responsibility lies
> with the UNIT to formally change the Scout's status the minute the
> Scout does not meet their standard and BEFORE the argument starts.
True. I'd be willing to bet that there are less than 100 members in
"associate" status in any council in the country, placed in that status
in such a way. It's in the books, but seldom used.
> If they don't, they will lose on appeal every time.
> It does make sense that the Unit is forced to tell the Scout
> immediately rather than springing a new requirement after it is too
> late to do anything about it. In this case I have to
> agree with National's position and can't agree that it is lowering
> the bar. To do otherwise tells the Scout that advancement
> requirements are a moving target which can change on a whim.
As I said in another post, the "Associate" status is designed for cases
like a Scout that attends boarding school in another state, an ASM away
at college, etc. It can also be used for a Scout that has really
dropped out, until the end of the charter year.
Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:Paul.S.Wolf@alum.wpi.edu
Advancement/Safety Webmaster, USSSP http://www.usscouts.org
Winding Rivers Dist. Advancement Comm., Greater Cleveland Council, BSA