sign offs and BORs

[Lisabob 13]

In the thread on PLs signing off on rank requirements, Eagle76 wrote:

 

"Also, we recently had a Scout come up for a Scoutmaster Conference for First Class, only to have his advancement postponed because, although the requirement was signed off, he had not yet served as patrol cook on a campout, procured the food, etc. I don't believe this was due to dishonesty; I believe the Scout, a relatively new-but-eager-to-advance Scout, did not understand the requirement, and the Scout signing him off did not take the proper time to verify it had been completed properly. (I know, training and instruction for the older Scouts is needed.) "

 

------------------------------------------

Let's say that this scout gets to the BOR and it becomes apparent at the BOR that he did not actually do some or all of one (or more) requirement(s). Let's also assume that this was not a nefarious scheme on the scout's part, but as Eagle76 describes, the result of excitement about advancing and/or a misunderstanding of the requirement(s) in question.

 

What can the BOR do? Is it ever appropriate for the BOR to ask a scout how or when he completed a specific requirement, particularly if they have reason to believe that the above situation might be the case?

 

Lisa'bob

[OldGreyEagle 5]

A Board of Review can elect not to advance a scout. If such an incident is discovered, the Board informs the scout of such, then tells him what needs to be done to remedy the situation, sends a letter to the scout outlining what must be done and supports the scout in getting the item accomplished and then they do another BOR.

[scoutldr 739]

It is incumbent on the SM and SPL to ensure that all requirements have been fully completed before recommending a scout for a BOR. The BOR is not the place to discover this.

[Lisabob 13]

Right, OGE, but I guess I'm unclear on whether the BOR can, in effect, challenge something that has been signed off. Not so much in a confrontational way, but if it becomes clear that the scout didn't actually do the requirement and somehow got signed off anyway.

 

What I was thinking is more along the lines of, are those sign-offs inviolate, even when everyone involved (scout included) agrees that somehow, the sign off was incorrect. I have limited BOR experience but my impression so far with this is that the BOR acts like a rubber stamp in most cases; if it is signed, they have to accept it as having been done.

 

Scoutldr I agree that this should be dealt with before a BOR. But I can't help but think that it happens occasionally anyway (actually I know it has happened with a couple of younger scouts in our troop and I'm wondering what the BOR could have done). Also in our troop, as long as everything is signed (incl. SM conf) the boys can sign up for BORs. They don't need the SPL's rec at all, and the SM's only in so far as he has to sign off on the conference first. Not sure if this is the same as what you meant?

 

Lisa'bob

[FScouter 24]

One of the purposes of the board of review is to determine whether the Scout has completed all the requirements. That doesn't mean to simply make sure all the boxes are initialed. Through careful questioning (not retesting) the board should be able to determine if a requirement has been completed. For example, "Did you have any difficulties when you cooked dinner for your patrol? Would you do anything different next time? How did your assistant help?"

 

If it is clear that requirements were not completed (the boy may even agree that he really didn't do all the parts of the requirement), the board should not advance him.

 

Boards of review are covered in the Troop Committee Guidebook, and in the Advancement Committee book. There is also a unit of training available. See http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/supplemental/18-625/index.html .

[Kaji 11]

I got turned down by a board once. Got told they didn't believe I was demonstrating leadership by serving as a den chief, and so they made me keep a journal of what I did in my job for 3 months. Got it on the second try. Little brother (who made Eagle in the very end) went up for his Tenderfoot board 3 times due to the fact that he had trouble remembering his knots after he got them signed off. If he hasn't actually completed the requirements to the satisfaction of the board, then they have the right to ask him to improve and come back.

[Oak Tree 15]

What Kaji describes is technically against the guidelines, although I can't say that I have a big issue with it.

 

What FScouter describes is exactly in line with the guidelines. It is explicitly one of the purposes of the Board of Review to determine if all of the requirements have actually been met. I think of it as a separation of powers issue, as a way to keep the Scoutmaster honest. We always quiz the boys on their accomplishments. "How did it go when you cooked for the patrol? Which trip was that on? Who else from the patrol was there? How did you like being cook? What did you cook?" or "Who taught you the bowline? Do you like learning knots? Do you think they taught you well? Do you still remember how to do it?" or "Where did you pass the swim test? How did you know it was 100 yards?"

 

Oak Tree

[Trevorum 24]

A BoR should never "fail" a candidate. Rather, if there are problems, the board may elect to adjourn to a later date. The candidate should be told explicitly what the problem is and what he needs to do to resolve it. Upon resolution, the candidate requests the board to reconvene, whereupon they continue where they left off.

[funscout 11]

Trevorum, I'm glad you mentioned that a BOR never FAILS someone, but just postpones the completion, until all requirements have been satisfactorally finished. My son didn't pass his first BOR for 1st class, because he didn't give thorough enough answers. He is a poor test taker, and tends to "choke" under pressure. When I asked him about the BOR later, it was clear to me that he DID know the information, but the way he communicated it looked like he didn't know it well enough. I was pleased to see that the leaders reassured my son that there was nothing wrong with not passing the first time around. He passed easily the following month, since it wasn't so new or intimidating to him.

[firecrafter 10]

Just for the sake of discussion...what happens when you have an older Scout, Star or Life rank, who have merit badges that you know they did not complete. Example: they were to "report to their troop or patrol", yet no one has ever seen them do this or remembers them doing so. The Scout is vauge at best when asked. As an added kick, the merit badges were done with relatives (not a problem-unless there's a problem). CM were told that BOR cannot question things after the requirement/badge is signed off. You guessed it AC, also a relative. LOL Wondered what you think? Thanks.

firecrafter

[funscout 11]

Firecrafter:

 

Our troop leaders never sign off anything for their own son. I'm not sure if this is an official rule or not, but I think it's a good one. If most of your boys and leaders are related, then that could be a problem finding a non-relative to sign off. We don't have any nephew or grandson relationships at the moment, but I would think that they also would be encouraged to go to a non-relative for sign offs.

[firecrafter 10]

In our group the only the SMs sons go to other leaders for sign offs. He does things that way so his boys will have a chance to talk with adults other than himself. We have avoided making a policy about this, as we like to think "a scout is trustworthy" covers it. In most cases it does. There is only one family in our group who are related. This is the scout who ONLY has his relatives sign things off. He seems to receive 3-4 merit badges a month. Just seems funny to everyone else, since he barely participates otherwise and certainly can't be considered a go getter. Mom & all 4 grandparents signed up to be MB counselors, but we never see them, and they only work with the one scout. The situation doesn't go unoticed by the other scouts either! Everyone has been told we can't question it-after all, an approved MB councelor signed off on his cards.

I do know that it is perfectly within BSA policy for a relative to sign things off. As a MB counselor myself, I checked with our council to be sure I could work with my own sons. I think I'm fair with everyone, but probably tougher on my own. The problem comes when you have adults who are less than scrupulous. Just burns me up to see adults willing to "cheat" to move a scout through the program. Yeah I know, they are cheating him... How hard is it for them to understand that the advancements & badges are the means to an end-good character. These folks sadly see only the "prize" at the end.

firecrafter

 

[FScouter 24]

If you feel there are MB counselors that are letting boys slide by without really completing requirements, make your concerns known to the district merit badge dean or district advancement chair. They are the ones that approve counselors and should appreciate knowing about any of their appointees that are not holding to the standards.

[Venividi 35]

firecracker,

 

I suggest you discuss the issue among the committee and SM/ASM's.

The SM does not have to be approving the scout for 3-4 MB's per month. Or even 1 per month, if he does not think it is in the scout's best interest to be working on them. It amy be appropriate for the SM to tell the scout that he would like to see the scout "do more of xxx", where "xxx" is something that the scout is ignoring - particpating with his patrol, fulfilling his obligations in a leadership position, etc. - if the scout is not performing them consistent with expectations of scout spirit.

The SM also has the ability to direct a scout to a particular MB counsellor. If the scout is coming to the SM with requests to work on MB's that are counselled by his relatives, the SM can direct the scout to use a different counsellor somewhere else in the district.

 

 

[firecrafter 10]

Venividi,

Believe it or not you advice comes as quite an eye opener to me. I appreciate it. I think our SM has had so many conflicts with this family that he is pretty weary. They push the envelope on EVERYTHING. As I stated, the boy doesn't participate (doesn't camp or even come to meetings) but the parents fight like mad if anyone questions his behavior or actions. Problem is, the parents have no standards, so it's pretty hard to communicate what the boy needs to do. And for the record, they have been told, many, many times.

FScounter, I agree that the District Advancement Chair needs to be made aware of the situation. I am hoping the SM can be convinced to speak to him. It was interesting to see the other ideas on how to handle this. We just seem to trust that "this is how it's done", because it has always been done that way.

We've always been told A Scout can choose any MB counselor in his district. Also, this boy's dad was an ASM for a time. His dad signed MB cards for him (even though the SM asked dad not to). CO asked that the dad be removed as ASM, and he was. So that was a move in the right direction. I've honestly never dealt with people like this in Scouting.

firecrafter