Re: Advancement w/ no SM?
Steven G. Tyler (sgtyler@EROLS.COM)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:27:02 -0400
WAHowland@AOL.COM wrote:
> 1) Are these advancements "legal," since I am not the SM for real?
> 2) Is my co-SA right when he says, "No problem, SM conferences can be
> done & signed for by any SA"? I can't find anything that says anything other
> than "Scoutmaster."
I'll leave the chapter-and-verse to others, but in general the decision
as to who can sign off on advancement and conduct SM conferences resides
with the SM. In some Troops, the SM holds this task tightly to
him/herself; in most others, the SM delegates some part of this to
selected individuals, such as ASM's.
In this case, if the prior SM had typically delegated the SM conference
to available ASM's, I'd say that policy would continue until changed. If
you're really concerned about the legality, just submit a change of
position for you to SM, until a 'permanent' SM is found. Watch out,
though -- the 'temporary' may prove to have long-term 'stick'! ;-)
> 3) Does this mean that no advancement happens until the TC gets us
> another SM?
If there was any further need to illustrate the absurdity of a
restrictive definition, this would do it. What would be more absurd than
*preventing* Scout advancement until the Scouters get their act
together.
> 4) What about all the MB completions that need SM signatures now? Them
> too?
Yep, as above.
I appreciate the desire to use an advancement holdup as a reason to push
the committee along, but I don't think that's really fair to the Scouts.
Further, without a SM, the unit is in technical default under its
charter, and will *not* be rechartered without a designated SM.
Therefore, the committee should already have ample incentive to act in a
timely fashion.
--
YIS, Steve on Cattail Creek (Steven G. Tyler, Esq.) <sgtyler@erols.com>
The Computer Counselor -- Technology Consulting for the Law Office
Webmaster, Troop 339, BAC, BSA (http://members.aol.com/troop339)
