BobS

Bob White:

I agree completely with what you said - from a philosophical point - it's the implementation that's always a challenge. In my experience in our unit, the committee is usually made up of parents who don't want the day to day involvement in the program, but "know" how it should be done.

Myself and the Assistant Scoutmasters have all gone through various levels of training, including Wood Badge (5, including me, have their beads and a 5th is working his ticket currently), however no one on the current committee has yet to complete any training. I understand your viewpoint and explanation of the BOR responsibility, but still don't see how it can be done practically and on a consistent basis (at least in our unit). As SM, I've had discussions with the Committee on a number of these issues because it comes down to personal opinion and agendas. Here are a couple of examples of the issues I've had to work with/on with regards to this situation:

1. Committee members felt that a Scout should not be allowed to pursue Eagle after they turned 17, because if the Scout really wanted/was Eagle material they would have completed the requirements before then (old committee). They were "tired" of Scouts cramming at the end of their Scouting careers.

2. CM felt the SPL wasn't doing a good job, because he wasn't running the PLC meetings as efficiently as they wanted.

3. In the example you gave, interpreting the requirements (while I've not had to argue that a weather rock is "useful", I've had some other equally insane discussions)

These are just a small sample of some of the issues that we've run into, along with the usual "Does this qualify as an Eagle Project because there's not 100 hours of work, it doesn't seem hard enough, is that really a worthwhile cause, wouldn't (this) be a better or more worthy projcet?" etc.

I believe the question/answer comes down (once again) to training. Our unit needs to get the committee members trained. I know that. Until then these discussions will continue, however I don't think that's a bad thing. I personally believe these "philosophical" discussions within the unit are a training opportunity in themselves, and the more we can get everyone involved in the discussions, the better the unit ultimately is.

One question for you - under your description, do you consider it proper for the BOR to turn down a Scout for rank advancement, because they don't feel he earned (met the requirements) for a merit badge?

Again, a couple of different situations in the past. The Advancement Chair didn't like the fact that one of the Scouts earned a MB at a "one-day clinic" and wanted to not count that badge toward Star or Life. In another situation a candidate for Life could not remember what he did for a specific requirement for one of the first merit badges he earned his first summer at camp.

In both of these situations, I met with the Board after they met with the Scout, but before they made their decision. Just curious, how would you handle this?

Beevah responded to a comment in another thread:

(original thread) "Also, what about a POR that the scout has done "in name only" for the entire time he has had the job. If the Scoutmaster signs off on his book, then I'm assuming the committee must approve."

(Beevah's Response) "The reason there's a committee is as a check and balance on the SM, eh? If da committee in a BOR really doesn't feel the lad has met the requirements, they are honor-bound to say "no." The SM may choose to appeal on da boys behalf, and the district or council or Irving may agree and award the rank. None of that changes the committee's duty to call it like they see it, and be honest about whether the boy has fulfilled da requirements."

Interesting quandry which we've had great discussions on in the past in my unit. There's a couple of issues here:

1. If I sign off on a requirement, how can the BOR turn down the Scout because they feel he didn't meet the requirements? Isn't this adding to the requirements? Isn't this re-testing?

My understanding has always been that if the committee has a problem with this, they are supposed to address it with me, as an issue of MY performance - not the Scouts'.

2. Is the Committee/BOR really qualified to know if a Scout has met the requirements of a POR?

This discussion has come up in our unit because members of the BOR didn't feel a Scout was doing a very good job as XX (pick a position, it really doesn't matter). As committee members, all they ever see is quite literally - 1 hour a week. Based on their observations, which do tend to be much more superficial, they are making a judgement about something much larger. Often it comes down to "he doesn't seem very enthusiastic in the meeting", or "I'd like to see the Librarian become much more active in promoting the use of the Library", or "I think the Quartermaster should be doing this".

For the SPL/ASPL, that one hour may be enough to get an idea, but most of the time "meeting the requirements" is going to happen outside of the weekly Troop meeting. Unless you are on a campout, you're not going to see the bulk of the real work done by a lot of the youth. Some of the best examples of leadership, I've found, come in the middle of the week of summer camp when everyone is melting down and the youth leader steps forward and keeps things going. Other examples are much more subtle - quite often it seems that the Committee is looking to define "leadership" as being "the boss" and being out front all of the time. However, if I am really doing my job well as SM, then you're not going to see me at the front of the room during the meetings. This is a concept we work hard to educate the Scouts about (the difference between leading and bossing).

While most of the positions have a meeting time component, I would argue that most of their work happens before, during and after a campout,or some other outing. That said, how can a committee member determine if the Scout has met the requirements, if they don't truly see the Scout in action?

Just wondering how others see/handle this situation?

Thanks everyone for your input - it's exactly what I was looking for and expecting.

To answer a couple of the points made - I did indeed check the Scoutmaster Handbook and read the section pointed out by Bob White. After reading Mr. White's response, I read the SMH again - I guess it's a matter of perspective or frame of mind when you are reading. I don't like to "interpret" what's written, but I guess that the frame of reference where I was coming from (the Troop making up the rules) I saw that section to be a list of possibilities, instead of a list of authorized personnel. I guess it's a lot like someone sending an email, or writing a well-intentioned post that the reader mistakes for sarcasm

The "unworkable" situation in our Troop is this - the previous Troop rules stated that any Scout who had successfully attended Council JLT could sign off on rank requirements for Scout through 1st Class (except for Scout Spirit and SM Conference of course). We used to send 3 to 5 Scouts to JLT every year. When the switch was made to NYLT, it was explained to us that NYLT was essentially for incoming SPLs and units should not be sending as many Scouts as before (this has since been revised by council). As a result, I'm down to the last 2 Scouts who actually attended JLT and they will have aged out by next summer.

I did miss the section from the advancement guide however (must have a page missing in my book) and after reading the post, I do remember seeing it before. With everyone's suggestions and comments I think I now have an idea on how to proceed.

Thanks again.

Question for the group -

How do your units handle signing off on Rank Advancement requirements? Our Troop has been using a Troop rule for at least ten years, that is no longer workable and I'm looking for ideas. I've tried getting the PLC to come up with suggestions, as it was originally a PLC that created the current rule. Unfortunately, the PLC elected to "delegate" the revision of the rule to the Scoutmaster - me.

I always thought the "official" or original plan was to have the Patrol Leader sign off on a Scout's rank advancement. After a review of the Boy Scout Handbook, the Scoutmaster Handbook and the Advancement Committee Guidelines, I can't find anything at all. Maybe I've missed it in there.

Anybody have any suggestions, or care to share how things are done in their Troop?

Bob

Very interesting discussion. I have just entered my second year as Boy Scout Roundtable Commissioner and am struggling with many of the same issues. When I stepped up last year one of the first things I did was work with the District Commissioner to change the format a little. We did exactly what some of the members of this discussion suggested. Announcements were cut back dramatically to only critical ones - and only to the appropriate group. We added gathering/fellowship time (15 minutes) before the official start, and we have a table for fliers, announcements, brochures, etc. Roundtable begins with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed immediately by the very few announcements and any kind of recognitions (Leader training awards, Recent Eagles, etc.) In less than 10 minutes we are splitting into the Boy Scout/Cub Scout groups.

When I took over last year, I went looking for help as well. I got a copy of the Roundtable Commissioner Training program and went through it thoroughly. A couple of years ago, BSA stopped producing Boy Scout Roundtable guides - they want you to use the program helps. This didn't help at all. I did follow their suggested agenda with multiple items for each meeting. It worked okay, but where we've ended up is this: The Boy Scout portion of Roundtable usually starts off with a presentation - hopefully from a guest speaker - and then we go into a structured discussion of a specific topic. We try and close with a 30 second recap of activity by each unit present. That's it.

Our group has struggled with Roundtable for quite a while, and my first attempts last year kind of got lost with too much stuff so I've scaled back - for now. The discussions have been getting better and attendance seems to be improving based on our attendance sheets. We'll keep working on this and as everyone gets more into Roundtable, I'll reintroduce some of the other items.

Our presenters have included: the District Eagle Advancement Specialist, local DNR and Forest Preserve Rangers, Cabellas, local archery outfitter and others. Discussion topics tend to be front-line stuff, either direct from that section of Scouting magazine, or items and issues I've pulled from forums like this.

Oh, and I've found it's very helpful to distribute a printed agenda. Makes it much easier to quell the gripes and direct the curmudgeons back on topic.

Thanks to everyone - I've picked up a couple more good ideas from this thread and will use them soon.

Lynn,

Your question and the various responses brought back a lot of memories for me, mostly unpleasant. I'm a Wood Badge trained Scoutmaster (Antelope C-19-01) and have been Scoutmaster for the last 7 years. I've lived through almost every one of the scenarios described in these postings:

Committee Chair attempting to "fire" the Scoutmaster and Incoming Scoutmaster (me).

Parents looking to replace the Committee Chair.

Committee Chair trying to run the program by telling me what/how to do things.

Absent Charter Organization.

We've had a mass exodus of older youth and involved parents from one of these issues, which meant we needed to start over - and paid the price for that.

My observation and advice is similar to one of the other posts:

- First of all remember why we are all doing this - For The Boys. Most of our problems occurred because some adults (parents) lost focus and were doing things for their own benefit.

- Secondly - follow the Scout Law. Of all the issues that we've had with these topics the one that was handled the best was when one of the parents approached the Committee Chair as a friend and gently told them that they thought it was time for them to move on - that he wanted the job because he thought he could help make things better. No tears, no wailing, no accusations and most importantly, the transition happened without affecting the Scouts. Both parents are still involved with the Troop, no Scouts left and the committee is re-energized.

In other words, handle the whole situation in a "Scout-Like" manner - you can't lose.

Bob