I need some clarification..

[SueM]

I'd like some clarification on the timing of the SM's Conference...Here's the situation..Back in mid-August, I had a boy come to me requesting a SM's Conference for Life rank. We sat down and did the conference. During the conference, I noticed that he still needed another month in participation time in rank before he could advance. But, we proceeded to continue with the conference and discussed what needed to be done, etc. and I signed off that he had participated in a SM's conference at that time.

 

Now fast forward..The boy came and requested a BoR for rank last night and was rejected for advancement for other reasons, but the question of the SM's conference coming before the time in rank was fulfilled came into question. It is not a problem with me to sit down with him again if I was incorrect in my interpretation and I would like to clarify it so that I don't possibly make the same mistake in the future.

 

Sue m.

[evmori]

Was the boy a Star rank when you held the SM conference with him? If so, done! Remember, the requirement reads "participate" not "pass" a SM conference.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SueM]

Ed,

 

Thanks...Yes, he made Star in March 06'..his time in rank date would have been in 9/06..he only needed like 3 more weeks in rank when I did the SM's conference. It's obviously been at least 3 months past that time now, so time in rank is complete.

 

And yes..that's why I did not think there was an issue..he had -participated- in a SM's conference.

 

I am still working to correct many of the "old ways" of thinking about things in the troop, so their feeling was one that the SM's conference should NOT be held until all requirements were completed...and that it would cause questions to arise on the future Eagle application. I have pointed out to them that the only thing that goes on the Eagle app is the date that rank was achieved..not all the other requirement dates.

 

I also told the Board members that they would need to send the boy a formal letter explaining why he was not advanced and what he needed to do still to accomplish that goal..they had no idea that this needed to be done either. I think that the boy was stunned that he was rejected, as in my memory..he is the first one who ever has been turned down!

 

Sue M.

 

 

[Hunt]

While there is technically nothing wrong with what you did, I do think that most Scouters think of the SM Conference as occuring after all the requirements are done--usually, that's when "Scout Spirit" is signed off, and the POR requirement is signed off. Completion of the SM conference usually means that the boy is ready for his BOR--this boy wasn't, because he hadn't finished his participation time yet. Since there are pretty good reasons, in my opinion, for waiting, I don't think it would be worth having the question raised in the future.

Also, you may well want to have another conference with this boy before he goes up before another BOR to ensure that you and he are on the same page as to whether he has done what he needed to do to satisfy the first Board.

[Beavah]

Yah, SueM. Please don't forget that those people on the BOR are your friends, adult colleagues, and supporters. And, also, in some ways, your boss. Mostly, they should inform the way you operate. Vice versa should happen only with great gentillity

 

A SM conference should occur anytime you or the boy wants one. There's no reason a SM conference has to have anything to do with rank advancement. Most Star and Life scouts should have a few SM conferences while in their rank.

 

That havin' been said, there's a very strong nation-wide "unwritten norm" that the SM conference used for rank advancement happens just prior to a BOR, after all da other requirements for a rank are done. I'd guess more than 95 troops out of 100 operate that way (in fact, I've never seen one that didn't). Just like the SM's signature on the Eagle Application prior to an EBOR, the SM's signature on the conference line is usually considered a statement that the SM is tellin' the board that all the requirements have been completed to the SM's satisfaction.

 

One of the biggest things usin' the SM conference this way does is that a SM can help a boy "practice" for the BOR as part of the conference. That really helps da quiet/shy/nervous lads, eh? And it helps the SM see weaknesses that might be shored up a bit before sendin' a boy to a BOR. In other words, its the SM's chance to help guarantee the boy a successful BOR.

 

Back in the 17th century when I was SM, I always took a deferred BOR personally. More my failure than the kid's, eh? I can honestly say that each and every time that happened I learned somethin' about our program and became a better SM, and the program was stronger as a result. Helped the kids be serious and work hard, too. Your job is to take the lemons given by some good scoutin' friends, and help da boys make a lemonade factory.

 

I'd use that with the boy, too. It's a powerful lesson to see a strong adult SM say "hey, I/we can do better. I'm grateful for the feedback." A much more powerful lesson given that the kid norm is to gripe and find fault.

[John-in-KC]

Sue,

 

You can hold a Scoutmaster's Conference at any time, for any reason. It's part of that wonderful Adult Association Method of Scouting.

 

If the only issue you had with the boy was finishing tenure in rank and in POR, then I see no reason not to have a word with the advancement coordinator or CC and say "he'll be ready right as soon as he asks after the 6 month mark."

 

OTOH, if there is mentorship to be done, either in incomplete requirements, quality of POR service, or Scout Spirit in his daily life, then have however many visits with the Scout as you need, until he's ready

[Eagledad]

Hi

 

There is nothing that really says that the SM conference requirement is intended to be the last stop before the BOR and I think your situation is the reason why. If it was written that way and a mistake was made, then there would be additional administrative hoops to jump through to get everything straight again. As it is now, nothing is required except to wait for the scout to complete the time in service requirement.

 

Barry

 

 

[SueM]

Thanks to all for the advice. Our "norm" has also been that the SM conference is the "last stop" before the BoR and in all honesty, I had thought that he did have the time in rank done when we sat down to do it..I only discovered he needed more time as we did the conference. I didn't see any need to end the conference at that point and just continued and signed off on it..it did give me a chance to go over where he was at that point better. He did not have the BOR until well after the requirements was satisfied. He his POR was complete..could have done a better job at it but then it was probably one of the better efforts that we've had in the troop up to that point too! Their reason for turning him down was something completely unrelated to the time in rank/SM conference date...but this date item was just mentioned to me by the board afterwards. I will probably sit down and have another one with him anyway. Keep in mind though that this is a "recovering" from being an adult led troop..I do not have a lot of adult help at the moment..have no advancement coordinator..and the adults who I do have are not really well versed in the finer points of these kinds of questions..I wouldn't have been either if it hadn't been for the time I've spent on this forum learning from you all!!! So I was glad that they did raise the red flag..One of my goals is that they start to be harder on the boys during the BOR's and stop the "rubber stamping" mentality. It takes some of the pressure off of me in many ways for always being the labled as "bad guy" if I tell the boys something is not up to what I would like to see from them and it actually reinforces the "higher standard" that I am striving for them to reach for.

 

 

[Hunt]

"One of my goals is that they start to be harder on the boys during the BOR's and stop the "rubber stamping" mentality."

 

Well...just remember that the BOR is not supposed to be a retest. Before a boy goes before the BOR, his requirements have already been signed off, and the BOR is simply supposed to check that they've been done--not make the boy do them again. Then the BOR should address how the boy is doing, what he likes and doesn't like in the Troop, what his goals are, etc. In my opinion, a boy should almost never "fail" a BOR unless the Board discovers that an error has been made in the requirements.

[Beavah]

the BOR is simply supposed to check that they've been done--not make the boy do them again

 

No, and yes. Yah, a BOR should not retest all the requirements, make the boy cook a meal, etc. But a BOR is also supposed to make sure that the requirements have been done and learned, to an appropriate standard. A boy gets an award "not for what he has done, but for what he is able to do." And of course, a Board should do all the other things Hunt suggests, in terms of lookin' at the program as a whole and the boy's experience in it.

 

What's important is that the BOR remain a service to the program and the boy, not an anal gatekeeping function. What SueM describes is a service - to give her feedback, and to set a standard that is clear to the boys so that she can be the coach, not the "heavy." That can be a great way to operate, if everyone's workin' together.

 

 

[LongHaul]

SueM,

Sounds like someone in your Adult Committee is trying to get technical. Explain to them that "technically" there is no order in which the rank requirements have to be done, this includes the BOR. If a boy, 1 day after making Star, requests a BOR for Life technically he should not be refused the BOR. It is recommended that scouts who are not going for rank advancement be asked to present themselves for a BOR to assess their experience in and opinions of the program. Many of us fall into to the "thats how we do it" groove and loose track of why we do it that way.

LongHaul

[SueM]

Beavah,

 

Exactly! I understand it's not a retest, but if the Board members start coming back to me and saying "You know Sue...some of these boys who are coming to BOR's seem totally unprepared..don't seem to know how what a square knot is let alone how to tie one..can't remember the meal they cooked for the patrol, etc!"...then it not only tells me that something is wrong with the way things are going, but also gives me a way of reinforcing with the boys that they need to put more effort into things if they expect to be advanced in rank or they WILL be rejected. Then I'll need to look at who is teaching the skills and the job that they are doing there..who is signing off on requirements more closely.

 

I welcome the feedback, as long as the feedback they are giving is within the way the BSA program is set up to run! It's hard to overcome 'traditions'..especially when many are not sure that I know what I'm talking because I'm a woman!! (who was never a scout!)

 

Sue M.

[Hunt]

"But a BOR is also supposed to make sure that the requirements have been done and learned, to an appropriate standard."

 

Right--the standard is that it was signed off by an appropriate leader. Anything else will inevitably lead to retesting and a nervous boy "failing" his BOR because he can't manage to tie a clove hitch on demand. To put it another way, in my opinion a boy should not have to study up for his BOR, except perhaps to refresh his memory on when and how he did the requirements. If boys are showing up for BORs without the ability to perform Scout skills, then the problem is either with the system the Troop has for signing off requirements, or with the activity level of the Troop. Sorry for the rant, but I'm aware of too many cases of tough-guy BOR members "failing" boys over knots and other minor stuff. Just to make this clear, allow me to quote from the BSA Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures: "The review is not an examination; the board does not retest the candidate. Rather, the board should attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals. The board should make sure that good standards have been met in all phases of the Scout's life." The way I interpret this is that it's OK to ask a Scout when and how he learned to tie a clove hitch, not OK to ask him to tie one. I guess I agree with SueM that if he really has no idea what the requirements are or how or when he met them, it may be appropriate to send him back for more work, but that's different from "failing" him because he can't demonstrate the skill on demand.

[John-in-KC]

Remember that one of the purposes of a BOR is an internal feedback ("it's a gift!) loop between the Committee and the SM.

 

Let's suppose several BORs result in Committee members having a gut opinion that the quality of training/approval is below par. Their feedback to a SM can be a trigger for adjustments in program delivery.

 

The SM, as a result of feedback, may choose to:

- Clarify the standards expected for sign-off of program elements for advancement.

- Actively mentor a Scout holding a POR, if there is a consistent single point of failure.

- Choose to allow credit for the POR if the mentoring isn't working.

 

We have to remember that Advancement is a Method of Scouting. As such, it is interdependent of the other Methods, including (but not limited to) Outdoors, Adult Association, Leadership Development, and Personal Growth.

 

Just my thoughts

[SueM]

I thought I'd post an update..

 

I was basically told last night that in our district, that a BOR is not allowed to "fail" a boy for any reason! What do you all make of this??