Re: Positions of Responsibility
Anthony Mako (ajmako@NLS.NET)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:27:42 -0400
<Marcie Ward wrote>
Geoff was assigned in Feb. to serve as an Instructor for his 4 month
position of responsibility to advance to Star. Everything else has
been accomplished. His assignment was given to him by the Senior
Patrol Leader . . . Geoff has asked the same Senior Patrol Leader
numerous times for his badge. He was told he has to be patient, and
that the Scout store is frequently out of them and it takes a while to
arrive. Meanwhile, Geoff has on occasion asked the Scout leader for
the new Scouts patrol to help out with instruction, and has been told
no thanks, it's not needed . . .
When conferring with the Scoutmaster's wife 2 weeks ago, Geoff was
informed that he was actually never entered into the computer list as
an instructor, and therefore this past 4 months doesn't count and he
will have to start over.
</Marcie>
Marcie,
There are two things wrong here. First, the SPL can choose anyone he
wants for most troop positions of responsibilities - WITH THE ADVICE
AND CONSENT OF THE SCOUTMASTER. It appears that either the SM was
never informed of Geoff's position, or Geoff was told he had the
position but it wasn't "official."
It's important to remember that the badge of office isn't really
necessary. While the excuse given for not giving him the badge is
suspect, not having the badge doesn't mean he doesn't hold the office.
Since the SPL asked him to do the job, nothing else matters. The fact
that his name was never entered in the computer also means nothing.
Geoff's tenure in the Instructor position began when he was installed
in the office by the SPL. He did the job for four months, so it
doesn't matter where the breakdown in communication occurred.
<Marcie continued>
In researching this problem, I have spoken to other boys that were
listed on the computer as instructors, and they have done less than
Geoff has done towards this position. Including not attending the
training campout.
</Marcie>
The Scoutmaster's responsibility here is to develop the leadership
skills of his Scouts. As other discussions on this list have shown,
the SM should expect more from a Scout than just occupying a position
of responsibility. If a Scout holds a position and does nothing, the
SM has the responsibility to correct the situation. If he doesn't,
nothing he or a BOR has to say will keep the Scout from advancing if
there is an appeal.
<Marcie continued>
[snip]
I was under the impression that the building of confidence and trust
in yourself and others is a prime goal of the scouts, and this has
seeded a deep resentment in this child towards the word of the Scouts
in higher positions. It's a shame, because this is all Geoff has, and
when his friends are advanced ahead of him, he will most likely drop
out. I will do my best to not let this happen, but it's a matter of
self respect, and he has been let down by those he trusted.
</Marcie>
As I said before, as far as I would be concerned, Geoff has completed
the required tenure for Star. The reason is simple: he was asked to do
the job by the SPL. He took on the position, trusting that the SPL was
acting with the approval of the SM. It's not Geoff's responsibility to
make sure his name is entered in the computer for the position. Since
he did everything required of an Instructor for at least four months,
he CANNOT be penalized for someone else's mistake! I emphasize that
because it's EXTREMELY important.
<Marcie continued>
The position of some of the adult leaders has been one of, "Well, why
didn't he ask me?", " We only have a finite number of positions, and
too many boys!", "Why didn't he notice he didn't have a position noted
next to his name on the roster?", and "Well, we can't just GIVE it to
him!"
</Marcie>
Allow me to refute each of these in order. First, "Well, why didn't he
ask me?" Perhaps he didn't ask the SM because it wasn't his
responsibility. He took on the position in good faith after being
asked to do it by the SPL. Why didn't the SPL ask the SM?
"We only have..." Let me get this straight. The SPL needed someone to
do a particular job and asked a Scout to do the job. The Scout DID the
job. Now, the reason he can't get credit for doing the job is because
there aren't enough positions? Sorry, the logic doesn't follow. Even
if it's agreed that Geoff never held the actual position, he did carry
out a "leadership project" assigned by the SPL, presumably with the
consent of the SM. Either way, he has completed the requirement for
Star.
"Why didn't he notice..." Most Scouts trust their troop leaders to
keep tract of the important things like who holds which position, who
has earned what badge, etc. Perhaps he did notice the roster
discrepancy, and figured the adult leaders would correct it. In 18
years as an adult leader, I can't imagine a situation where every
adult leader in a troop doesn't know which Scout hold each position of
responsibility. This is just another example of penalizing the Scout
for the failure of the adults.
"We can't just GIVE it to him!" Now this one really steamed me up. In
fact, I even had thoughts of wanting to actually meet the adult leader
who said this, just to say a few unScout-like things to him or her. It
seems to me that there's enough evidence to prove Geoff actually did
the job, so they wouldn't be "just GIVING it to him."
<Marcie continued>
My feeling is that none of the adults took the position of making sure
Geoff and actually 2 other boys as well would have the opportunity to
serve during this period of time, and therefore didn't even bring up
the subject of positions of responsibility. And when it was brought
up by other adults, Geoff's answer was always, well, I already have a
position! And who's responsibility is it to make sure the Scouts are
getting access to opportunities to fulfill requirements? We are new
to this level of advancement, and just don't know how much parental
involvement is necessary to make sure the scout is not falling behind.
</Marcie>
The adult leaders of the troop (SM and SAs) have the responsibility of
making sure the troop program provides all Scouts with the opportunity
to advance. This doesn't mean the troop program has to be based
entirely on the advancement requirements. It simply means, the adult
leaders should know (or have access to) what requirements each Scout
needs for advancement and they should make sure the opportunity to
complete those requirements exist.
Parents should be involved enough to encourage their sons to advance
at their own pace. Both parents and adult leaders should be
encouraging Scouts to understand the requirements, know which
requirements they need, and to look for opportunities to complete
them. Additionally, parents need to be involved in some way with the
adult leadership of the troop (including the committee). This doesn't
mean they need to register as an adult leader. At the very least,
every parents should know who the SM is, who the CC is, and at least
some of the other leaders and committee members. Parents also need to
be ready to take their concerns to the troop leadership.
That's enough general information. Now for something specific to your
situation, Marcie. If I were you (or even your troop's SM), I would
make a formal complaint to the troop committee. Let them figure out
what happened, and how to fix it. Another possible way to get some
attention paid to the situation is for Geoff to request a BOR. Not for
advancement, but to answer the question of his advancement. This is a
pretty drastic step to take, and not an easy one for a 12 year old
Scout. Above all else, this is something that can and should be
resolved within the troop.
YIS
A. J. Mako, ajmako@nls.net , Scoutmaster Troop 381
Home of the Unofficial Win95 Boy Scout Desktop Theme,
http://members.aol.com/Scouts381/
Old Portage District, Great Trail Council, BSA
"I used to be an Eagle (C-7-97), but I'll always be an Eagle (1981)"
