Denial of Advancement

[John-in-KC 311]

LongHaul wrote:

"If a boy is elected PL just how long to we give him to show that he is doing the job to our satisfaction? One month? Two months? If a PL is elected in April for some reason and does a shaky job (first POR) do we remove him before the summer when many programs dont meet every week? Where is the line between mentoring and micro managing? Where is the SPLs role in this? If time in position is the standard instead of performance must we now seek weekly performance reports on all PORs? Who sets the standard the TC or the SM? How would you write up the MINIMUM standard for the position of PL?"

 

We'll start with the SPL's role. He's the immediate supervisor. Between him and his ASPLs, the tasks get assigned, the oversight happens, and a certain amount, albeit small, of mentoring happens.

 

The SM, to my way of thinking, keeps a longer view, acts as a cheerleader, and does the heavy lifting of mentoring.

 

Go back to WB. Remember the Leadership Psych embedded? A first-time leader, be he one of Gunny's squad leaders or a new Patrol Leader in Scouting, is most likely in the lower right hand quadrant. High direction, relatively low support. As he matures, he will move through the quadrants. Sometimes he'll move backwards. We deal with that.

 

The SM mentors constantly. A question, helping a brainstorm, a word of encouragement, somtimes a "wake-up" call. He makes the call on "how much failure" is OK. Some is. Lessons learned in failure often are stronger than lessons learned in success. Some won't be. You don't let the hamburger spoil for want of ice. Hit the teaching points, and get ice in the cooler!

 

The SM, working with the CC and the Committee, decides in broad terms what risks are acceptable, to my way of thinking. Then, it's time for the Committee to butt out. The SM then watches the Scouts perform.

 

Gee, there's starting to be a common point: The SM watches the kids perform and helps them learn and absorb lessons.

 

Let's remember: 95% of the Scouts who pass through our care will grow and rise to their POR. It's our investment in the last 5% which will take much time, energy, and emotion from us.

 

Finally, if there is an big disconnect between the Scout and his POR, there's probably a backstory. It's our job to find out what the story is, and how we can help make lemonade from the lemons.

[FScouter 24]

"According to National the SM has NO CHOICE, time in position constitutes approval."

No, that's not a correct statement. "National" does not say that.

 

"Remember that the scout still gets FULL CREDIT for all time served, performance not withstanding"

No. Time served is only one aspect of the requirement, not the entire requirement. The duties of the position must be fulfilled as well.

[LongHaul 10]

I'm sorry FScouter, did you read the statement from the Clinton Valley Council?

http://www.cvc-bsa.org/advancement/bsAdvancementFAQ.html#posResp

 

Unless we are saying that this is a false statement and the "decision recently handed down by National on an appeal" dose not infact say what Clinton Valley Council claims it does then National has said that time in position constitues completion of the requirement. >>"The following is quoted directly from that decision: Serving in a position of leadership means that if they are elected or appointed to a position, such as Patrol Leader, and serve in that position for the required time, they have satisfactorily completed that requirement.

[evmori 11]

It's seems to contradict itself. The way it reads is time in position constitutes the requirement being fulfilled however, if the local BOR decides the Scout didn't do anything in his POR, he can be denied advancement based on that. Now what happens if the Scout appeals the decision of the BOR? Would it be overturned based on time in position?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter 24]

Stuff found on a local council website should be taken with a grain or two of salt. One can read stuff all over the internet: council, district, troop, private websites, and discussion forums. What one reads may reflect national policy or it may be something else. Official BSA policy is best found in official BSA publications available to all Scouts and Scouters.

 

Two lines quoted from a confidential letter about one particular Scouts advancement appeal says very little. What does the rest of the letter say? Have they been quoted out of context to support a personal opinion? What were the circumstances of the advancement denial? Of the appeal?

 

Why do those two lines contradict a dozen other BSA sources?? They fly in the face a ton of official BSA writings about positions of responsibility and advancement.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, F, I think someone else has posted the wordin' from the National site, which says the same thing although it's a bit more ambiguous (or just poorly worded! )

 

From what I'm hearin' in da field, where the strict "time in position must count if the boy is not fired" thing is coming from is a couple of gentlemen from the National Advancement Committee who have been conducting various training sessions for council advancement chairs at PTC and a few other venues. Well, maybe not official trainin', maybe more like "info sessions."

 

My take on it is that the gents doin' those sessions might be goin' a bit overboard, but that they probably are honestly representin' National's general take on the topic (in the Boy Scout Advancement group anyway). The fact that, as you point out, their current take is in conflict with the spirit and letter of other program materials doesn't seem to matter. That's just one of the eccentricities of how da office in Irving works; individual committees are semi-autonomous and don't always coordinate well. And we have to remember it takes resources in staff time (and sometimes legal expense) to handle (or deny) an appeal. That can be wearisome.

 

Explains how we get lots of odd notions in da field, though, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter 24]

I believe the quote from the national web site to which you are referring is However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position.

 

Somehow that has been twisted around to support a notion that if a boy does nothing in his position, he has still met the requirements as long as the SM or youth leadership has not removed him from the position before the time portion of the requirement has passed.

 

I missed the Philmont training, but somehow I doubt that was what was being taught. What we may now be hearing on these forums is the 16th generation of hearsay. Ever play the telephone game? I wouldnt be so quick to blame this on the eccentricities of how da office in Irving works. Its the generations of gossip that follow that get it all mucked up.

 

When in doubt, look it up in writing.

[Hunt 11]

Here's the passage from the FAQ on the National website:

 

"Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop and patrol" defined?

Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:

 

He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

While I too think this is somewhat ambiguous, I think it's consistent with the idea that time in the POR counts for advancement, whether performance was adequate or not. It suggests that the remedy for poor performance is removal, not denial or delay of advancement. The question is, if this is truly National's position, how do we respond to it? Rather than trying to work around it at the SM conference or BOR stage, I think we should focus more on setting the expectations for the POR at the beginning them, and monitoring them along the way.

[ogghall 10]

Replying back to the original post I think the verb "award" is getting mixed up with noun "award" Denying the rank advancement because someone hasn't completed the requirements is not denying someone an "award" it is denying them the rank advancement. An award is something you get for bravery, service, etc and is something other people think you should get. Now there are probably somethings in a grey zone in-between those two definitions but let's not get mixed up when we say "He was awarded his rank advancement."

 

As far as the POR issue this post turned into discussing this shouldn't be a mystery. It should be the responsibility of the SM/ASM or other adult the POR works with, to identify if the scout is not performing the duty and meet with him and remove him if he doesn't have the skill, motivation, or maturity to perform the job. Definitely let him know why just like you might handle someone at work not performing their duties properly. If this happens too often you may want to look at how well the duties of the position are known by the scouts or how well defined you have the positions. If the position does not have a lot "history" in the troop I wouldn't expect the scout to define it for himself that is where the SM or committee person should be helping out with defining the resposnibilites.

[evmori 11]

Ed, that is not correct. The requirement is not for a boy to get a check-off in his book. The requirement is to do the work and learn it.

 

Missed my point. When the requirement has been completed, the Scout's book is signed off. Asking him to do more for a requirement that has been completed is adding to the requirements.

 

Somehow that has been twisted around to support a notion that if a boy does nothing in his position, he has still met the requirements as long as the SM or youth leadership has not removed him from the position before the time portion of the requirement has passed.

 

No twisting being done. That's what it says!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10