Conflict between Scoutmaster and Committee member

[TryingHard]

We have a problem between our Scoutmaster and one of our committee members who recently did a merit badge for our Scouts. Our Scoutmaster felt like the requirements weren't fulfilled (and doesn't want to sign off on the cards) and the counselor felt like they were.

 

What do you think should be the procedure in resolving this conflict? Who has the final say? I though about having an outside person (Unit Commissioner?) come to help so that everyone felt that this was an objective decision. Who has the final say, the Scoutmaster or the Committee?

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

[John-in-KC]

Lots of missing info here.

 

Are both the SM and the MC(MBC) current in their training???

 

Is the MC(MBC) current on the Council and/or District MBC list?

 

Is there any other agenda at all between the SM and the Scout, the SM and the Scouts' parents, or the SM and the MBC??? This doesn't have to be Scouting related. (Sadly, yes I've seen grudges between grownups carry over to the Troop).

 

The RIGHT PERSON to settle this, if it gets to that level, is the District Advancement Chairman. His responsibilities include the training program for Merit Badge Counselors.

 

The UC is a good mediator choice.

 

OPINION: The "Game with a purpose" works a whole lot better if Scouts and Scouters alike understand the first three words of the Scout Oath: ON MY HONOR...

 

 

[Eagledad]

John-in-KC ask some good questions, and if everything is on the up and up, the short answer is the MB Counselor has the last say. The SM's signature is first on the card before the scout meets the counselor, the counselors signature is last after the scout completes the requirements.

 

If the SM feels the counselor isn't doing a good job, he doesn't have to approve him/her the next time.

 

Barry

[OneHour]

... requirements for the mb are set ... no more and no less. Barry is correct. If the SM feels that the counselor is not doing a good job, the counselor may not be invited to counsel again; however, if he or she signs it off, then the requirements are completed. If the scout has done all requirements as prescribed, then we cannot fault a scout for adults' mistakes, misunderstandings, or miscommunications.

[John-in-KC]

I'm not quite in agreement with Eagledad and OneHour.

 

If...

 

- The Counselor is indeed a registered Scouter, as he/she is supposed to be...

- The Counselor has completed MBC training, and understands "no more and no less"

 

Then I will absolutely agree with EagleDad and OneHour.

 

If there have been shortcuts along the way, well, that's another, and very sad, story.

 

The concept holds true, though: SM assigns a trained and qualified Counselor. That's the end of his job for a MB, unless he himself is the Counselor. The MB card returned to the unit means the Scout has earned the MB.

 

It's just the lack of information that holds me back from saying this unconditionally.

 

There are facts here we don't have, and I'm not prepared to make a call without them.

[Beavah]

I suspect the SM never approved the counselor in the first place, eh? That's a bit of a sticky wicket. In that case, the boys or the counselor were making an "end run" and it really is the SM's discretion whether to accept it after the fact. In such a case, someone needs to remind everyone involved of the appropriate procedure - the SM selects the counselor, and approves the boy working on the badge prior to the start of work. (BS Requirements p.22).

 

Yah, another way to go might be to have the unit Advancement Chair set up a mini-BOR with several of the kids who "earned" the MB. Go through and ask them about the requirements and what they did.

 

If they're honest and they didn't do all the requirements/learn all the material, then it's a quiet conversation over coffee with the MBC directing him to re-training before he can counsel a badge again, and a helpful pointing the kids to someone they can finish up the badge with "for real." With special thanks for their honesty.

 

Alternately, it's clear they did everything (perhaps not well). Then it's best to give them credit for the badge, but the SM may choose not to use the counselor again.

 

 

 

 

 

[LongHaul]

First I am going to spin off a seperate thread in reference to Beavah's post.It will be in the Advancement section

Let me play devils advocate here for a bit. I currently serve as Scoutmaster. Ive taken Scoutmaster training both pre and post 2001. Ive taken Woodbadge training pre 2001. Im a MBC and have taken MB training pre and post 2001. Which all means I have way to much information on policy to make this type of decision. As Scoutmaster it is my responsibility to see that the quality of the program and instruction meets my standard. I am Scoutmaster, that means I set quality control standards for the troop I serve. I decide what Demonstrate how to tie a bowline means. Demonstrate to me, to another scout, to the patrol, to the troop. Demonstrate as in tie the knot or demonstrate as in do a presentation. If you asked someone to come to one of your troop meetings to demonstrate CPR would simply doing the procedure on a training dummy without explanation be what you had in mind? The Blue merit badge application card has two places for the SM to sign. One for when he issues the card and one for when he accepts the completed card and forwards it to the Advancement Chair to be recorded. If the MB has the final word what is it the SM is signifying with his second signature? Remember the requirement for Star is to EARN 6 merit badges not obtain 6 merit badge application cards signed by an approved MBC.

The Advancement procedures state that the requirements must be met, no additions no omissions, no alterations. If you as a SM know that this has not been done do you sign the blue card anyway? Example; At a Merit Badge Day hosted by the U.S. Navy at a local training base one of the merit badges offered was Law Enforcement. The counselor was a Navy Officer with extended Shore Patrol Command experience. The entire session was composed of his telling war stories about his carrier in Law Enforcement. The requirements for the merit badge were never mentioned let alone met, yet every card was signed as completed when they were returned to the respective scouts. Do the boys get the badge even though everyone except the counselor knows they have not earned it?

The real problem for the SM here is the fact that the merit badge procedure has been ignored. The scout with a buddy is supposed to contact a MBC and arrange a meeting. The SM would not be present to know how the badge was counseled. Doing mass sessions is only recommended when special facilities or equipment is needed, this per the Advancement Committee Guide book. In the original post the MBC recently did a merit badge for our scouts. Having a MBC come to your troop to do the badge eliminates part of the procedure. Start the badge or complete the badge is another thing but present the badge entirely? My advice here would be for the SM or AC to know their MBCs and then dont micro manage and dont attend MB sessions if you have ethics problems in this area.

LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[TryingHard]

John in KC and the rest, here's more info:

I'm an ASM. The Merit Badge is Cooking and was done in 3 sessions.

 

SM is current in training including Woodbadge. He really knows how Scouting should be and wants us to do it right. (He clued me into these forums and reads here a lot.) MBC, also on the Committee, is registered as a MBC, but is not up on a lot of Scout training. She did a fantastic job with what was done, but it wasn't done "by the book". She wanted to condense it down and make it fun for the kids. She was very successful at that, there was lots of participation and fun was had.

 

Yes, there is a LOT more going on, but I view this as personal disagreements / personality conflicts and it clouds the issue. I've talked with both at great length and see a lot of misunderstanding and hurt feelings with both.

 

I hate to bring all the subjective stuff into the decision as to whether or not the Scouts should get the badge (or what more needs to be done), it really confuses the issue. I don't really see a good solution to the feelings side of the problem at all. MBC has a pretty hardened postion and isn't interested in working it out. She's going to sign off on the cards and if the SM doesn't, it's on him that they didn't get it.

 

I just would like to determine if the Scouts would get the badge as is, or if there should be more done.

 

Where I am clueless is who makes that final decision.

[LongHaul]

TryingHard,

I appologize for not addressing your question before going on. Who makes the final decision? First the troop Committee has no say at all. Second the MBC decideds whether or not the requirements have been met in his/her opinion. Third the SM has the obligation to the troop( read youth ) to insure that the proscribed policies have been followed. The FINAL decision rests with the Council Advancement Committee. If the SM refuses to accept the signature of the "approved MBC" the Council Advancement Committee can over rule him and award the badge.

LongHaul

[FScouter]

It is the counselor alone who decides whether or not to sign the card as complete. Neither the SM nor the committee has any veto power. If anyone has a problem with the counselor's decision, they can take it up with the district advancement chairman.

 

It is the district advancement chairman (or designee) that approves adults to be merit badge counselors, and it is the chairman who must deal with improprieties or allegations.

[Eagledad]

>> If the MB has the final word what is it the SM is signifying with his second signature? Remember the requirement for Star is to EARN 6 merit badges not obtain 6 merit badge application cards signed by an approved MBC.

[John-in-KC]

TryingHard,

 

Thank you for the feedback and accompanying clarification.

 

Given your response: The SM and MBC need assistance and mediation, perhaps on more than one level. Your Unit Commissioner is the right guy to help there. At the same time, FScouter is right: If there are questions of validity of requirements being met (ie issues of no more and no less) in this merit badge training and testing cycle, the District Advancement Chairman will be the decisionmaker.

 

Again, we only have what you give us. From that, my read is: The SM is questioning that the MBC truly ensured the Scouts met the requirements at the "no less" level.

[EagleInKY]

Here is my understanding. I'm a SM. Our district does not maintain a list of MBCs. Each troop maintains their own. So, I have some discretion over who even considered to be MBCs. Once I sign a Blue Card, however, my understanding is that it is out of my hands. Whatever the MBC decides, I have to accept. It could have a bearing on future use of that person as an MBC.

 

I have had situations, especially summer camp, where a scout receives a blue card and clearly did not complete the work. In those cases, I've talked to the scout and asked them what they felt was the right thing to do. In every case, the scout has agreed that he should complete the work. We've assigned a new MBC for him to work with to complete the MB.

 

I have had situations where I believe an MBC was too lenient. In every one of these cases it was the same scout and it was because of a fear of a "bully parent". I actually think this gives credence to the idea that the best MBCs are ones that the boys don't know through the troop. Unfortunately, in our district, it's just the way it is.

[LongHaul]

Eagledad,

My list of "credentials" was included to point out that at different trainings one will get different explanations or interperetations for the same question. Am I to understand from your post that you think a Scoutmaster is mMaster only up to First Class and then the MBCs decide what "earn" means? The "Blue Card" I refer to is the National Publication #34124 an example of it can be found at http://www.meritbadge.com/files/bluecard.pdf. When you refer to "the advancement proceedures" please remember that National allowes Councils to impose "local interprtations" on many points. We can comment on what the book says, what our council requires, or what we think the rule should be interperated as saying. If the SM won't pass the signed card on to be recorded on an advancement form the boy does not get credit. Please find the National publication which has the simple procedure for MBs that you refer to and I'll explain how what you quote can be interperated "locally". In my council "Committee Member" on an Eagle Application means Advancement Chair and only the Advancement Chair per the Council Advancement Chair. National calls this "local interpretation" We have to send the applicants records portion of the "Blue Card" in with an advancement report along with the council record portion and then the applicants record portion is returned to the scoutmaster by the Council Advancement committee after it has been recorded in Scout Net. Again "Local interprettion". National rarely addresses issues like this directly because it causes more problems for them but more problems for trainers who end up trying to explain the what ifs. One thing we all seem to agree on is that the District/Council Advancement Committee/Chair has the final say.

LongHaul

[Beavah]

It is the counselor alone who decides whether or not to sign the card as complete. Neither the SM nor the committee has any veto power.

 

Not entirely true, eh? Around here, in order to submit a MB, the unit advancement chair has to fill out an advancement report and certify that "the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the BSA."

 

If it's clear that the MBC didn't meet the standards, the AC doesn't sign and submit the report. Committee veto.

 

Practically speaking, in this particular case, the way to go is to accept and award the badge, avoiding any ill feelings. Then the SM or CC have to quietly make sure that next time the problem doesn't repeat; either by gently re-training the MBC so that it's both "fun" and "complete", or by using a different counselor.