Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'board of review'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to SCOUTER Forum
    • New to the Forum?
    • Forum Support & Announcements
    • New to Scouting?
  • Open Discussion - Program
    • Open Discussion - Program
  • News & Politics
    • Issues & Politics
  • Unit Fundraising
    • Unit Fundraising
  • Order of the Arrow
    • Order of the Arrow
  • The Patrol Method
    • The Patrol Method
  • Cub Scouts
    • Cub Scouts
  • Wood Badge and Adult Leader Training
    • Wood Badge and adult leader training
  • Advancement Resources
    • Advancement Resources
  • Patch Trading Central
    • Patch Trading Central
  • Working with Kids
    • Working with Kids
  • Uniforms
    • Uniforms
  • Camping & High Adventure
    • Camping & High Adventure
  • Girl Scouting
    • Girl Scouting
  • Summer Camp
    • Summer Camp
  • Scouting Around the World
    • Scouting Around the World
  • Council Relations
    • Council Relations
  • Venturing Program
    • Venturing Program
  • Scouting History
    • Scouting History
  • Scouting the Web
    • Scouting the Web
  • Scoutmaster Minutes
    • Scoutmaster Minutes

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Occupation


Interests


Biography


AIM


MSN


Website


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype

Found 2 results

  1. I wanted to probe the notion that Boards of Review should be only for rank advancement. (E.g., Since Eagle Palms are awards they should not require a board of review.) Where did this idea come from? Not from the handbook, as far as I can tell. Scout is now a rank. Even so, it requires no boards of review. Venturing does not have ranks, but they do have awards. The core ones require boards of review. (Okay, Venturer requires a "meeting" with the advisor and crew president.) We have sent some scouts to disciplinary "boards of review" ... ones who've started tuning out the SM and needed to hear that some other adults were expecting better behavior from them. You all can debate how kosher that is, but it's helped us get through some rough patches. So, in my mind, sometimes a scout was up for review, sometimes he wasn't. Those times weren't ever distinguished by a rank vs. an award being in play. Is this something that anyone wrote about? Taught in a course? If you thought this was the way things should be, can you recall who gave you the idea?
  2. So, tonight's crew meeting got derailed. One of my venturers had a suspended Life BoR at his troop last week because, when tested, he couldn't tie a bowline, didn't have complete documentation of his service hours or a good explanation of what he did in his PoR. So they basically told him to come back better organized and demonstrate his skills by tying that one knot. Well he came back this week. The ASM asked him if he was ready. He calmly said, "Yes." Then went to meet with the board. I went off to prepare the crew meeting. A whipstich later, the scout comes into our meeting saying "They failed me again!" Well, actually, he told the committee that they went beyond the bounds of the board by testing scouts, and said he would not tie a knot because it was not relevant to this rank or to the purposes of the board. Then one of the committee told the boy he was immature, and would never be an Eagle scout. (I suspect the guy did not mean to be that harsh, but he is an Eagle and a little high-minded.) The boy said he doesn't want to earn Eagle in the troop anymore. I told him he could advance in my unit, but I wouldn't bother our board with a Life scout who can't demonstrate the skills. He said, "I would do any of those requirements for you. I just don't respect those adults anymore." What a mess.
×