BOR, training (kinda long)
Craig Bond (CraigB1051@AOL.COM)
Fri, 19 May 1995 13:07:55 -0400
J Hugh Sullivan asks, "If you haven't read the "Rule Book", how can
you be qualified to sit on the Board or make comments? That is not
to say one can't have opinions, it is only to express my opinion
about their credibility. ... I believe that questions, where
answers are opinions rather than BSA principles or facts, should be
asked to determine what (and that) the candidate thinks, not to
start a debate or find out what the Board thinks. That's my opinion
after 21 years on the Board - 10 as Chair."
Indeed. We're currently visiting the issue of district-level vs.
unit-level Eagle Boards of Review. Our units have indicated a
preference for district-level; following an unfortunate episode of
improperly conducted BORs in another district, our Council
Advancement Committee some years ago decided that EBORs *must* be
held at unit, not district level. The issue on which all this
hinges is a misunderstanding of the role of a board of review and
a distinct unease (IMHO) with the concept of the difference between
"reviewing" and "testing".
Of course, one is tempted to ask how restricting EBORs to unit
committees isn't begging the question, even with a district/council
representative. Is this one representative supposed to exert some
control over the others relative to reviewing vs. testing? And if
we can train this one, cannot we train others?
If I don't understand the fundamental concept of reviewing, I need
more than a trained keeper.
Any other opinions?
.........................
And speaking of training, Ron Fox made the observation, "Training
is a continuous process that must occur throughout the Scouting
career of the individual."
Which brings to mind a conversation I had last Friday with the
Scoutmaster/father of a Life Scout/Eagle candidate in my district.
The boy is having a rough time and the father is largely at fault.
He attends no Roundtables, does not read Scouting magazine or the
council newsletter, and argued his way through Scoutmastership
Fundamentals. He has been SM *strictly* to see his son to Eagle.
As a result, the son's EBOR resulted in a rejection of his project
because it was clear that the father directed the project, the son
did not show leadership, as required.
Anger, rage, finger-pointing (why didn't Mr Bond, here, who is my
boss, tell me about this...) followed the board's announcement.
(Yes, I did tell him I wasn't any volunteer's boss; I'm a DE and
don't boss anybody, I'm the bossee). Anyway, the board recessed to
allow the Scout to select and conduct a second project.
Well, a second project was done, the boy demonstrated appropriate
leadership, the board reconvened, signed off, and the package went
to Council and National....
.... where it was noted (for the first time), that he had not
earned the Family Life MB. He'd used an "old" application that did
not list Family Life as one of the required badges, and neither our
Council secretary who reviews the applications, nor the BOR or SE
had noticed the deficiency.
More rage and recriminations.
Me, I think this is a good case for "requiring" continuing
education for SMs, possibly through the Quality Unit route as some
have suggested.
Am I missing something here? Does anyone agree with the SM that as
DE I've abrogated my responsibility by not bringing this important
requirement change to each and every SMs individual attention,
rather than relying on them to read Scouting, attend Roundtable,
etc.? Any other thoughts? Go ahead, hit me; I'm tough.
............................
One last thought, and I'm through.
Warren (warren2248@aol.com) wrote:
> BSA No. 34169 "Leadership Training: Plans, Procedures,
Materials," 1994 > printing, includes progress records for each
position's training award, key, > and arrowhead honor. The card
for "Roundtable/Huddle Staff" is only for the > training award.
There is no mention of the arrowhead honor (as on > Commissioner
cards) or a key (as on Commissioner, District Committee, and > Unit
Leader cards).
>
And Randy Sessions replied:
>
>>One half of the card is for the Arrowhead Honor, the other half
>>is for the Training Award. The Arrowhead Honor is one of the
>>requirements for that award.
Actually, Randy, I've just reviewed the award card and the only
mention is on the heading for this sheet; there is no independent
discussion of how the Arrowhead Honor is to be earned. So, I
called the National Council and asked if there were an error made
or if I was simply not comprehending something here (a too-frequent
occurrence).
Well, seems like the guys I need to talk with about this are in
Chicago at the National Meeting, so the definitive answer will not
be available until Monday or so... depending on the confluence of
the stars and various schedules. (I love using "confluence";
drives my spell-check crazy and sometimes I get to spell
Monongahela). :^)
Craig Bond
Mandeville, LA
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City | 
