Re: advancement policy question?
Chuck May (cmay01@INTERSERV.COM)
Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:15:53 -0400
Fred,
I agree completely. I have been in similar situations, as SM and as
District Advancement chair. I was SM when my son made Eagle, and later was
simultaneously SM and District Advancement.
> I agree with this whole-heartedly. When my son had his Eagle Board of
Review,
> it happened that I was serving
> as both Scoutmaster and District Advancement Chairman. BUT, my position
as
> father took precedence.
My son was our troop's first Eagle, in spite of my attempts to keep our SPL
(2 years older) moving ahead of him. I knew I couldn't hold my son back,
but wanted very much for one of the other boys, not the son of the SM, to
be the first. I suppose National might balk at this, but what we did was to
double-sign the Eagle application. I signed as SM, and the principal ASM
co-signed next to my name, on the same line. I believe we typed a 2 - 3
word explanation immediately under the signature. Apparently National did
not object, as the application went through with no trouble.
> For
> that BoR, I was "down the hall" with Paul's mother, anxiously awaiting
the
> outcome. While I was SM, all of Paul's
> SM Conferences were conducting by an ASM. We used the same one all
through his
> career to provide the
> important continuity to the process. As much as I enjoyed working with
Paul, I
> think it was excellent for him to
> have that kind of contact with another adult.
Ditto. Our procedures specifically state that a parent (or sibling) never
does SM Conferences, and are never present at Boards of Review, even as
observers.
> I would also add that, while I was in the dual role of SM and Advancement
> Chairman, I never sat on a BoR for
> a scout from our troop. I always arranged for someone else to represent
the
> district on those BoRs. Even today
> when I am no longer SM, I generally have someone else sit on the BoR for
scouts
> that I served as SM. I don't
> feel there is a "conflict of interest" but someone else may and I choose
to
> avoid even the appearance of it.
The appearance of conflict is key here. When I was District Advancement, I
provided a written procedure which called for me to excuse myself from any
board or appeal which involved any boy in my troop.
As District Scouters, though, it is difficult to avoid all boys whom we
have known since we meet so many through their active parents, etc. I limit
my personal restriction to boys whom I have directly counseled, or who were
in my Troop while I was SM. I haven't decided what to do about boys who
were in my old Troop, but who arrived after I had departed.
Interestingly I chaired a board on Friday. Two of the board members were
young men for whom I had been _their_ board chairman (And I'm not even an
old fogey yet <g>). They did an excellent job.
Chuck May
Vice Chairman - Program, Seneca District
National Capital Area Council
Gaithersburg, MD
cmay01@interserv.com
http://home.sprynet.com/interserv/cmay01/
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City | 
