POR; time frames

[troutmaster]

As an extension of this earlier discussion; what about huge gaps in the time since the leadership occurred? A boy held the positions, then was totally inactive for two years, then came back and did the fairly typical crash course in getting it done just prior to 18. Should the scout really be doing this leadership current with his advancement effort, or is it okay to have these kind of gaps? Strength of the leadership is really what I wonder about.

 

I have reiterated this question, as it did not get any response as part of the original thread.

[John-in-KC]

If the Scout has completed his POR, and the Scoutmaster signed off on it as being acceptable service, then he''s done. Period.

 

If the Scoutmaster didn''t sign off, then you have to make a decision. I would certainly consult your District Advancement Chairman before making the decision. If the Scout says, I was OATR, On My Honor... well, a Scout is Trustworthy. I suspect the DAC will say "it''s done", if he/she''s anything like my DAC.

 

Here''s the rub: If the Scout or his parent complains to the DE, a Commissioner, the COR, or the DAC, then the issue may not be what he did... it may be "what is Mr Troutmaster''s credibility? Is he following the program?" As I have said elsewhere, I have seen at least one DAC withdraw a Scouts advancement from the unit. Right or wrong, it has happened.

 

Talk to your District Advancement Chair. Buy him or her a cup of coffee, and figure out how to make this a win/win.

[FScouter]

What requirement did the boy not complete? If the boy held a position and performed satisfactorily, any period of diminished activity subsequent to that does not affect whether he did or did not complete the POR requirment.

[troutmaster]

Clarification here; I know the requirement is met as written. I guess what I am asking is more of an opinion of the real intent of the requirements of "be active for six months as a Life" and hold POR for six months. Should we expect a candidate to have the two done concurrent with each other, and close to the time he applies for his final approvals? What does active really mean? Should the lack of any active participation for two or three years affect the leader''s approval, or should he be expected to show the activity and leadership more currently?

 

Guess it really is a question of interpretation. Do we perhaps lower the bar by not holding higher expectations or stricter interpretation?

[NealOnWheels]

You stated "I know the requirement is met as written". As leaders we can require no more nor no less than what the requirements state. Therefore he has met those requirements.

[John-in-KC]

We''ve been here too. Go read this thread:

 

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

 

Read the 5th (Beavah''s) and the 7th (ScoutNut''s) posts in this thread. Whether we as volunteers like it or not, National has set a standard: If you accept the app and the bucks, he''s active.

 

A distinguished Scouter with excellent home office contacts gave me the backstory offlist. I would not be surprised to see the quote ScoutNut gave to be in Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures at the next printing.

 

Whether you like National''s policies or not is immaterial. If you deny him a SM Conference or an EBOR, you must explain to him the appeal procedures. He''s on your rolls, he''s active. That''s the long and short version. If he appeals, your Troop will most likely lose. How important is the credibility of your Scouters? Do you want to be shown up by your Distict Advancement Chair, Council, or National?

 

Cut your losses. Accept he''s active, and press on with the tasks at hand.

[Beavah]

What does active really mean? Should the lack of any active participation for two or three years affect the leader''''s approval, or should he be expected to show the activity and leadership more currently?

 

You ask good questions, troutmaster. But they''re questions yeh have to answer for your program. In what you want boys to learn, do you include real (i.e. current) active participation as a sign of loyalty? For your CO''s purpose in running a youth program, does the Organization believe that its Highest Award should go to boys who other boys within the program can immediately recognize as exemplary by their current activity, and therefore worthy of recognition?

 

For the Advancement Program people in da BSA, they don''t care, eh? Their goal is not to build young men of good character. Their goal is to sell program resources to CO''s with a minimum of fuss and controversy. So from their perspective, there is nothing to be gained by not giving out an award when one is asked for by any party.

 

Some awards are given to recognize past work. The Nobel Prize is one, where an outside group gives an award to someone for achievements already done, not current. Some awards are given to recognize current work and participation in a group, like a varsity letter. I think in terms of character-building, scout ranks are meant to be more like the latter than the former (otherwise we''d give out Eagle to boys who were valedictorians of good character, regardless of whether they''d ever been scouts).

 

But don''t expect da BSA as materials provider to do your job for you in terms of building character and servin'' your CO''s mission. If you feel a lad who has been inactive for a year is not an example of a team player, then it''s your job to drop his registration from the team. And if yeh don''t feel that coming back to the program right before you turn 18 just to get an award for yourself is a worthy example of character, then just say "no." It''s a membership application. No need to accept it, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC]

Beavah is absolutely smack on ... if you haven''t accepted the young man''s application and dollars yet

 

If you have accepted his application and dollars, then you''re in the loop my posts describe.

 

For others who may find this thread through whatever search, read well Beavah''s post above. If you take the boys'' app, if you recharter him from year to year, then National defines a standard.

 

If OTOH, he gets to 14 and drops out a bit beyond Life, you do not have to automatically recharter him. Year to year, at recharter time, look at each youth member and adult on your books.

[CalicoPenn]

You ask a good question regarding intent - what is the intent of the POR time in service requirements. Let''s come at it from a different way - what it the intent of the Eagle Leadership/Service Project. We rarely give the intent behind that much thought. Now I readliy admit I''m extrapolating from experience and am in no way quoting any official writings of anyone, as far as I know, so what I''m about to say is my belief as to the intent.

 

I believe that the intent of the Eagle Leadership/Service Project is to give our Scouts the opportunity, and the challenge, to transistion from Unit level leadership to Community level leadership. To take the leadership skills he''s learned as a Scout and use them for his community. The Eagle Project is not, I believe, intended to be some sort of final test of leadership ability. Nor is it to be the end of one''s leadership - rather, I believe it''s a new beginning, a new chapter, to leadership and service - a community based leadership and service.

 

How does this relate to your question about the intent of the POR time in service?

 

First is that more often than not, Eagle bound Scouts aren''t blowing through all the requirements to earn their Eagle at age 13 or 14 - I think that''s still fairly rare, though it does happen. Historically, most boys earned their Eagle while they were 15, 16 or 17 - and I think that''s still the case now. That just happens to be about the age that the Scouts are pursuing other interests outside the home and Scouts (such as work, school clubs, school sports, etc.) and therefore have less time to spend on Scouts - not no time - less time. That means an adjustment in what is referred to as "be active" - they may no longer attend weekly meetings, or make every campout as they did when they were 12, but that should be ok - we don''t seem to have a problem still calling an adult who was an ASM who spent 2 years attending every meeting and campout and then scales back to attending 3 campouts and 25% of the meetings "Active" so why should we have a double standard for our youth? It''s at about that age, oddly enough, when folks become more community oriented - where they learn that their community is important in their lives and they learn that giving back to the community is rewarding and important in keeping the community going.

 

Second is that most Scouts don''t earn their Eagle 6 months from becoming Life - I suspect the average is more like 2 years. They will more than likely meet their POR time in service requirements within that first 6 months, but may not even start working on their Eagle project until that''s done.

 

Third, I''ve got a gut feeling that the intention was for an Eagle candidate to focus most, if not all, of his leadership ability on his project for the community when he is working on his project - not to spend it being the SPL. I see being the SPL a full time leadership job for a Scout, as I see planning and running an Eagle project to be a full time leadership job for a Scout.

 

So, I think the intent of the requirement is that the Scout polish up his leadership skills for another six months then start leading his project - without worrying whether he is peforming a direct leadership role in his unit to satisfaction. If he can juggle both at the same time - hey, that''s great - but I wonder if one or both of those leadership roles suffer a bit.

 

Therefore, I think the intent of the requirement is that they be given the credit for their 6 months of service and that if it now takes them another year or two to earn their Eagle (and really, is there any reason to rush a 13 year old Life Scout into getting his Eagle in 6 months?) they not be penalized because they didn''t spend much time on a unit POR after they completed that requirement, or weren''t as active as they used to be before they had more things added to their plate of life.

 

CalicoPenn

 

 

[evmori]

Should we expect a candidate to have the two done concurrent with each other, and close to the time he applies for his final approvals?

 

They can be concurrent but don''t have to be. As far as active, that''s a whole other discussion. Being registered isn''t being active.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[John-in-KC]

OK, Ed,

 

Be my guest. Deny one of the young men in your Troop an Eagle SM Conference or EBOR for lack of your term of "active" ... and we''ll see what your Council Advancement Committee says.

 

Is it right, what the Boy Scout Division is doing? No, from every perspective except perhaps legal defense. There are rumors floating of litigation against Councils and BSA over denied advancement. From their perspective, setting the bar at "registered=active" makes economic sense. It saves money on legal fees, money which if sent to lawyers cannot be used for other Scouting purposes.

 

It is still policy? That''s for your local Advancement folks to tell you.

 

Do you, as a SM, or you as a CC, or even you as a COR, want to be overturned by Council or National? Will that help your personal and corporate credibility with the youth in your charge? I submit not.

 

It''s not right; it is how we seem to be expected to do business now.

[skeptic]

Time to stand up for what is right and to what is PC. The leader, SM or advisor, determines the grey areas of Spirit, Leadership, and Active status. It is our responsibility to hold the scouts accountable to the highest expectation to which he is capable, with the bar being raised at each higher level of advancement. When and if the time comes that the COR or council chooses to override me, most likely that will be the last you see me in the program, unless they can show me a valid reason for their decision beyond overbearing, self indulgence on the part of parents.

 

This nonsense of "suffering fools" because it is easy is not living up to the tenets to which the scout program supposedly stands. To be a leader is to not always take the easy path. Sometimes you make the tough decisions; but when you do, make it clear as to why, and make sure you are certain in your decision.

 

(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Hunt]

I think the key point was made earlier--if you want to uphold firm standards of service, leadership, etc., you must do it BEFORE the boy has achieved all the requirements on paper. So, if he''s not active, don''t recharter him. If he''s not active, don''t let him have a POR, or remove him from the POR he has. If he doesn''t perform well in his POR, remove him. As far as I know, there is no appeal process from such decisions.

[evmori]

John,

 

Never denied a Scout a SM conference. Have held back on the Scout Spirit requirement, though. And if the Scout wants to appeal, let him. That is his right.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[John-in-KC]

Ed,

 

I think the true issue here involves, as Beavah said, what the National Council thinks the program should look like. Lord knows we need the volunteers who serve the various National committees to be thinking very hard about what right looks like.

 

Away from the definitions, I don''t like the rubric "registered=active." I''m also waaay too far down in the trenches (as are most of us here) to have a say in this.

 

We need to push two comments up through our Advancement folks, to the National Council:

 

- Get away from registered=active.

- Set a reasonable standard for the word active.