scouts-l Mail Archive for February of 2000: Re: What Sayeth the List?
Joseph T Gulick (troop212@JUNO.COM
Tue Feb 15 2000 - 22:24:38 CST
"One: Band is a class. It gets a grade and it is part of the accum!! It
may even count towards an honors accum. That statement is as stupid as
saying he didn't have to take another year of Spanish, he should have
had his butt at the PLC meeting instead of doing homework!!"
Bill and Scouters,
Band is an extracurricular activity in the state of TX. Yes, they get a
grade, but it is also an extracurricular activity that they don't HAVE to
take. You obviously missed the statement where I said that "The only
acceptable excuses are illness/death, homework, and school activities."
If that Scout did in fact take another year of Spanish and had homework,
then it wouldn't count against him. Public degradation is not necessary,
and I won't dignify it with any other comment.
"Second: You have no right to declare what is more important: Sports,
band, chess club or Boy Scouts!! Our last SPL was on Deans list, and
started all 10 games as tight end. In that time he missed or was late
for every meeting and missed all the campouts until December. (Those
games he started are played on weekends!) He did go to all campouts he
could, he did take part in the fund raisers, he did work with the
younger scout patrol, he did go to summer camp. He did complete his
project and his merit badges. He had his Eagle BOR last Tuesday. The
same day he signed his letter of intent. Thank goodness he was both a
Scout and played football. The coach who signed him like that fact."
Good for this Scout, but I had a Scout that was not active for the first
month and a half of his term as PL. The APL was doing all of the work,
so why shouldn't he have the title if the other Scout didn't even show
the courtesy to the APL to call and let him know that he wasn't even
going to be at the meeting. So, the PL was removed, and the APL was
moved up to PL. This was done on this Mon. and was the first time that
we have used the rule in over 4 yrs that I have been SM of this Troop.
It is not my rule, but one agreed upon by the Troop Committee.
"Third: Some kids aren't born rich. They need those things you call
"extracurricular activities" to get into college. I used a partial BAND
scholarship to go to college, myself."
I am not saying that they can't be involved in these other activities,
but rather if they are able to, then do it. It makes them a better
well-rounded individual, but why should they hold an office, and not
attend Troop/Patrol functions? If they are in a sport where practice is
every meeting night, and go on games every campout weekend, then it is a
choice that they have made. They have decided that being active in the
sport is more important than the leadership position at that time. Life
is about making choices, and the chioce between a sport, or other
activity, and Scouts is one of those choices. If practices are on
non-meeting nights, and games are on non-campout weekends(or if he comes
out after the game, or on the next day), then I would be glad for him to
be the starting QB and the SPL at the same time. I want the Scouts to
have to make these kind of choices. If they aren't in a leadership
position for that 6 mos. because of other activities, then fine, there is
always the next 6 mos. If they are able to do both at the same time,
even better. I don't want them to choose Scouts first necessarily,
because there are many other things to life than Scouting.
"Your policy is short sighted in my opinion. Some kids do not have what
you call a "CHOICE". You shouldn't limit their options even more."
Again, we do not limit their options, but if they make a COMMITTMENT to
be a Troop/Patrol leader, they should be compelled to follow through with
that committment. Why should we not expect them to do what they were
elected to do? If we ask them to just hold the Title and not do the job,
what have we taught them to do when they get into the real world, and
what will they do as an adult?
If we don't expect a young man to be a leader in unit as is described in
the requirement, then we have in effect CHEATED society out of a
potentially good citizen and good leader in the future. Why is that so
hard to understand? If we teach our Scouts that when they committ
themselves to do something, if they decide not to follow through with
what they are expected to do, then we have failed to guide and mentor
them. I guess I am trying to help the future too much. I guess our
Troop is TOTALLY misguided by the flames I have received both publically
on this list, and privately. I guess this is why many leaders become
discouraged in their efforts.
If we are going to give up on our youth by shortening their goals and
expectations, then we have done a disservice to them. If we don't hold
them responsible for their actions, then what kind of service have we
provided? If we allow them to act irresponsibly, then how can we call
ourselves leaders? When did we start allowing Scouts to not explore
their potential, but to merely go through the motions, but never learn
anything from their experiences?
Maybe I am too outdated for Scouting, or have to high of ideas for
Scouting, but my Troop is happy with me, and our numbers are growing
rapidly these last 4 months. We must be doing something right, but
according to many on this list, I must have taken a wrong turn along the
I hope this response makes things a little clearer about my stance on
leadership positions within the Scout Troop.
Eagle Class of '90
Scoutmaster Troop 212