scouts-l Mail Archive for June of 2000: Re: Troop Leadership Positions
Thu Jun 08 2000 - 16:10:12 CDT
In a message dated 6/8/00 3:28:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, PGerlach@AOL.COM
> If he held the office for 6 months, he fulfilled the requirement. There is
> no "productivity standard" involved. I would think this would be
> by the fact that his absence was due to injury, not negligence - though
> again, if the PLC did not remove him, even negligence does not disqualify
> the time spent in office.
> While his regret about his performance is admirably, there was no "special
> treatment" needed - he fulfilled the requirement.
> And in doing so improperly added a requirement. If all other requirements
> had been met, he had already proven himself "worthy."
As I said, the Scout did not feel like he fulfilled the requirement. To give
the badge to him when he felt like he hadn't earned it would be, in my
opinion, very unfair to him. In addition, if younger Scouts felt like the
candidate did not properly earn the badge, that could certainly cheapen the
badge in their minds.
There does need to be some level of quality control -- not extra
requirements, but meeting some level of achievement. Remember that one of our
"aims" as Scoutmasters is the development of character. I'm proud that the
Scout in question had the character to decide that he fell short of the mark.
And the rest of the Scouts respected him for it.
If we don't teach (and expect) such character in out Scouts, what's it all