scouts-l Mail Archive for February of 2000: Re: Active Participation - Very Important Question
Robert Blau (rblau@ECLIPSE.NET
Sat Feb 05 2000 - 16:13:59 CST
On 2/5/00 12:48 PM Michael F. Bowman wrote
> In this discussion we've seen the rules quoted with multiple interpretations
> advanced by Scouters. Interesting - it is because the rules are purposely
> vague and not explicit as to what kind of meeting attendance is required.
> Now why would that be? It is because BSA units are organized in a wide
> variety of situations, where no single standard would work.
> Instead of
> creating an arbitrary rule, BSA has simply required that the Scout be
> "Active" -- no more and no less. There is no definition of what this means
> within BSA, because BSA has elected not to define the term. In the absence
> of a defininition of "Active" within BSA, it comes down to what is the
> practice that BSA honors? The simple fact is that as long as a Scout is
> registered as Active, BSA will treat the Scout as being active in membership
> and give the benefit of the doubt to the boy.
Mike then explained why in his opinion this interpretation of "active" makes
sense. I agree with him. Still I cannot help but think that all of this
controversy could be avoided, over and over and over again, if the rule were
simply changed to state that a scout must be "registered" with the BSA.
Then there would be no room for interpretation. Any registered scout would
be eligible whether or not their leader thought they were active.