Eagle Scout Advancement and POR requirements

[ASM915 90]

BEWARE!!!

 

The DAC informed us tonight at the District Committee meeting that somewhere in Council, a District EBOR rejected an applicant on the grounds of NOT carrying out his duties in his POR. The Council EBOR appeals team followed suit, only to be shot down by National. The reason, The Scout had held the position for the required 6 months even though he didn't do anything.

 

As the DAC then stated, "Like I've told everyone in the past, IF HE ISN'T FULFILLING HIS JOB REQUIREMENTS FOR HIS POR, FIRE HIM BEFORE HE HOLDS THE POSITION FOR 6 MONTHS AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE".

 

Any comments?

 

Eric

[evmori 11]

The SM is at fault if a Scout has a POR for the required amount of time & does nothing.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[scottteng 11]

They made the by the book correct decision and will continue to do so like they should. That is why some of us have been hammering away at this very issue. He was left in the POR as long as he had rechartered they won't hold him back even if he has not attended a meeting or outing in the six months. If you want to hold em accountable you need to be on it like ugly on an ape from the beginning not after the term is over. Once its done its done.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I said I would do the same thing on an earlier post, then at least the council would not have been embarassed at National. When the BSA website says:

 

"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."

 

I guess that means they mean it, who knew?

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Train

Assign then

Supervise

Mentor and repeat these last two as needed

 

We've had this discussion in recent threads.

 

Here is the National FAQ on the subject:

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

Here's a conversation we've had here:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=158762

 

From several conversations here, we seem to have a consensus of 95-99+% of our Scouts will successfully serve their tours in POR. For that last increment, the sad truth is the SM has to be ready to remove a kid for cause and be able to document the removal.

 

From conversations away from the list with some distinguished Scouters, the issue is an Eagle appeal at National burns time, money, and work energy. A secondary issue is parents have threatened Councils and the National Council with lawsuits over Eagles denied.

 

What's the point? Train, assign, supervise, mentor. Most Scouts will be successful, with some teaching and a fair bit of direction. If a Scout is obviously failing, step up the mentorship. If needed, work the Scout so he realizes he's not cutting it, and he steps away from the assignment. Get the Scout to agree his POR time has been unsat, and should not count!

 

My thoughts.

[Beavah 205]

I wonder a bit about how long it will take before this starts costing us units and volunteers. Or maybe before units and councils start their own recognition programs and give up on da BSA's "advancement" scheme.

 

On the up side, it's a big step toward the underlyin' goal of making Boy Scouting the middle school program of the BSA, with Venturing the high school program. Sorta following the LDS model. In that scheme, you've got to make Eagle half way between Arrow of Light (just "do your best") and Silver/Ranger/Quest, etc.

 

I have mixed feelin's about that, but then I'm an old traditionalist at heart I guess. The numbers loss in early HS does make a strong case for "forcing" a new, more age-appropriate program at that level.

 

Beavah

 

[Hunt 11]

BSA is facing the old problem of how much autonomy to give people in the organization, and what to do when they mess up. It seems to me that BSA is just letting us know that we still have autonomy, but when we mess up, the benefit of the doubt will go to the scout, not the adult leader. BSA would rather award some Eagles that haven't really been earned than deny Eagles that have been unreasonably hampered by adult leaders.

[John-in-KC 311]

Train, Assign, Supervise, Mentor.

 

That's the point I think we should concentrate on in training Scouters and Scouts in LEADERSHIP.

 

Give the Scout tools for the toolbox. The giver of tools may be a more experienced Scout, it may be an adult, depending on the tools.

 

Give the Scout the job. This traditionally is a SM working with the SPL. I say traditionally because I had to pass muster with both my SPL and my SM to get a Scribe's Warrent, and then an Instructor's Warrant, waaaay back in the early 70s.

 

Supervise the Scout. This is the job of the SPL and ASPLs. Technical backup for warranted offices may come from the adult Committee person overseeing that support area. The SM conducts broader oversight and supervision.

 

Mentor the Scout. This is the job of the SM, and can be done with an encouraging word, a smile, a pat on the back, or Scoutmaster Conferences of varying intensity.

 

As needed, you provide additional training (new skill or clearly, he doesn't understand a skill), supervision, and mentoring.

 

There is a last step, when the job is done: RECOGNIZE!!! When the job is done and done well, you praise the young man.

 

I've advocated for a long time two key elements:

- Make sure Mom/Dad understand and will support the Scout in his assigned duties. I've seen Mom and Dad say "$$$$, No!! Billy isn't going to maintain those old tents!" Assigning Billy to be Quartermaster when Mom/Dad are actively opposed is setting the Scout up for failure. As true as this is for appointed offices, it is more so for elected offices.

- Make sure the Scout understands the POR he wants before its assigned him, or before he's elected to it.

 

BTW, I've seen exactly one Scout removed for cause: He was so disruptive he was sent home from Scout Camp the day he was to be called for camp honors. We never saw him again, he's since been in trouble with the gendarmerie.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, KC, but what yeh describe ain't what National Advancement Committee says we should be doin', eh?

 

"Mentoring" and providin' additional training take time. They can't easily be force-fit into a 4 or 6 month window. They're long-term, personal relationships, and it takes time to get additional trainin', or for mentoring to sink in.

 

Even supervision would have to be pretty aggressive, eh? And it gets into this whole odd thing about needin' to "fire" a scout from a position within a certain space of time. Scouting isn't supposed to be a job, eh? Any more than it's supposed to be school.

 

There is a last step, when the job is done: RECOGNIZE!!! When the job is done and done well, you praise the young man.

 

Yah, absolutely! The reason for the whole advancement method!

 

But yeh just broke Terry Lawson's new rule, eh? The job doesn't need to be done or done well. Recognition comes when the lad has had 4-6 months of seat time without bein' fired.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC 311]

B,

 

I think the bulk of the program is grades 6-9, with some form of downward curve for grades 10-12.

 

Each kid is an individual, and if we unit serving Scouters are not treating him as an individual, woe betide us.

 

No one ever said a SM/ASM/Advisor's job was token. We're choosing to invest heavily into growth and development of boys.

 

Let's use a Quartermaster on a six month tour. He learns:

- How to inventory tents.

- How to inspect tents.

- How to inspect patrol boxes and cook gear (unless the SPL reserves that for himself).

- How to help a patrol draw its gear.

- How to check gear when it gets turned in.

 

He's going to learn almost all that by doing. Some of it he should learn as a S-TF-2C Scout, drawing gear, and turning it in after the weekend or the LT camp.

 

Do we expect perfection from him? NO. There are going to be holes that slip by him. There will be grease on someones plates; BUT HE LEARNS. If we wanted a parts and materials shopkeeper III from the US Dept of Labor wage boards, we hire one. We don't want a parts shopkeeper!!, we want a boy to learn by participating in the grand game.

 

We're the ones who are obliged to convert seat time into something meaningful. If Terry Lawson doesn't like that, he needs to wander down the corridors either to Chris Wolfe's office (I think he's in the Comptroller shop right now) or Jim Terry's office. Chris was my council comptroller until Jim dragged him back to Irving (I am and remain a working stiff volunteer... highest position I hold is District RT staff), and Jim was Chief Eagle From the Sun, one of the best SE's since Roe Bartle himself, and he was dragged back to Irving by Mr Williams.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Taylorism as a management method, but it has some application for young kids. We are teaching basic skills as we do the grand game. We owe these young men the best start in life we can give them. They're going to be the ones running the Nation when we are deep into our retirement years. They'll have an easier road with the really big challenges if we help them learn the little challenges now.

 

B, I know you have the passion, I hope my passion for raising young men is getting through.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[scottteng 11]

Responsibility

1. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.

2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.

Leadership

1. The position or office of a leader: ascended to the leadership of the party.

2. Capacity or ability to lead: showed strong leadership during her first term in office.

3. A group of leaders: met with the leadership of the nation's top unions.

4. Guidance; direction: The business prospered under the leadership of the new president.

 

I submit again that there is a difference between leadership and responsibility. To use John's Quartermaster example the quartermaster who takes all the tents home and dries them himself is fulfilling his responsibility to the troop the Qm who enlist the troop members to take home a tent dry it and bring it back at the next meeting while keeping track of who has what is demonstrating leadership. Some of the POR's require very little leadership. "Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, bugler, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, instructor." I think we get confused because the alternate to the POR is a leadership project and some of the POR's require leadership but the purpose is for the scout to fulfill their duties to the troop no matter how limited those duties may be. Come on now how much leadership do you get out of a bugler whose job is to bring his horn and an alarm clock on campouts?

[derf56 11]

National got it right, the distict and council got it wrong.It is called a "position of responsibility" not a "Position of Leadership". (by the way an Eagle candidate shows the required leadership when he does his project) The EBOR or any BOR is not supposed to judge a scout on his POR, that is the SM's job. If the SM signs off on the POR than he has fulfilled that requirement period.

This is Nationals stand on it and I applaud them.

Just like merit badges and the previous ranks the EBOR cannot take the POR away from the scout or question if he did them.

If a scout fails while doing his POR, blame the SM. Never remove a scout from his POR, work to make him better. No matter how good or how bad he does his POR he gets credit after he puts in the time. Removing the scout does not make him better it will only turn him of. I know this from experience.

 

[Gonzo1 10]

derf56,

I disagree. If the scout fails blame the SM. I see in this case, blaing the scout and his family. Instead of being a man about it, he whined and appealed. He could have assumed a new POR and performed at a level of higher expection.

 

You say the EBOR can't question if a scout did his POR? That's nuts!

 

EBOR: So son, what position have you held lately and what did you do?

Candidtate: I was QM and really didn't do anythng, I didn't do any inventories and lost 5 DO's and 3 tents.

EBOR: Oh, you were QM and didn't issue any gear? You lost 5 dutch ovens and 3 tents?

 

Result: He passes because we don't want to hurt his feelings - nonsense!

 

I agree that the SM should have removed him sooner. There apparently was little supervising and mentorship.

[evmori 11]

I gotta agree with Gonzo1. If the Scout in his example gets denied at his EBOR, it would be overturned on appeal, but, the EBOR would not be the ones who passed the Scout.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[John-in-KC 311]

To go to scotteng's point,

 

Some Scouting jobs are simply "do the work." Yes, the Bugler simply has to show up, do the calls at the right time, and he gets it done.

 

Now, if the bugler is just learning the bugle, and all he knows is "To the Color," then the TRAIN and MENTOR of "Train, Assign, Supervise, Mentor" mean the SM helps him learn more bugle calls. Now, whether the Scoutmaster farms out the technical skill to a musician or not is irrelevant: He helps the Scout learn.

 

Keep remembering: The vast majority of youth we touch will meet or exceed our expectations. We're talking about how we deal with a distinct minority. An old adage I learned in church volunteerism and military leadership: 85% of the work (of your time) is done by (is consumed by) 15% of the folk.

 

The same applies to the OATR: He has four simple tasks:

- Go to Chapter meeting each month.

- Go to Lodge events as they come up on the calendar.

- Bring information back to the PLC and the Troop as a whole.

- Cheerlead participation in OA events by Scouts and Scouters.

 

What's a reasonable standard for a SM to set: Attend all Chapter meetings, report back after each one. If you cannot attend, tell me in advance and tell me why. If it's a scheduled absence, find a substitute to cover your duties.

 

Good job descriptions and good expectations were in the old unit JLT package.

 

If we the Scouters let the kids ride out their time, don't set expectations, and don't expect results, we deserve to be over-ridden on SM Conference and BOR appeals. We've not done our share of developing our young charges.