Boy Does Not Camp, SM Okay with Advancement

[acco40 95]

Okay, the Board asks the Scout for documentation and he pulls out his trusty Boy Scout Handbook and shows that the requirement had been signed off. Is that documentation enough? If not, what is and who is responsible for that documentation? What if simply asked, the Scout replies that yes, he met those requirements?

 

I'm aware of all of the trials and tribulations and therefore, as Scoutmaster, try to keep meticulous records while combating all the parents that tell me that I can't use attendance percentages as a litmus test for requirements so why do I bother? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Gold Winger 9]

"Okay, the Board asks the Scout for documentation and he pulls out his trusty Boy Scout Handbook and shows that the requirement had been signed off. "

 

Just because s requirement is signed off doesn't mean that it was met. If the BOR knows that Mr. Brown (not his real name) wasn't feeling well so he just signed everyone off on square knots so he could take a nap, that doesn't have to be accepted.

 

Another common problem is that people think that the SM's word is law. He wants Johnny to advance so Johnny does. It's not supposed to work that way.

[John-in-KC 311]

Acco,

 

If the Scout says "On my Honor" I met the requirement, I'm not going to second-guess.

 

If the requirement is signed off in the handbook, I expect the signer to have upheld the standard. That can be a youth who is authorized signoff, or an adult.

 

Now, if in a BOR, I ask a question about what Bobby found enjoyable about cooking, but Bobby replies with "I didn't do that, but Billy signed me off anyway," all my questions are going to move to honor, integrity, and doing the right thing.

 

My subsequent questions to the Scoutmaster will be "Why are folks signing off when the Scout didn't do the task?" That's a legitimate question the Committee may ask the Program Officer in the BOR role of program evaluation.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All that aside, once Pandora's Box is opened, it doesn't close easily... if at all.

[acco40 95]

I'm aware of the "rules." Just because s requirement is signed off doesn't mean that it was met. Are you stating this from a "legal" sense or a litteral sense? Because, yes, if a requirement is signed off - that requirement has been met in the eyes of the BSA.

 

Another common problem is that people think that the SM's word is law. Again, the Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program so yes, the SM's word is law! (Can you tell I'm a Scoutmaster.

 

What the Committee / BOR members should do if they feel a Scoutmaster has signed off a requirement that a Scout has not met is talk to the Scoutmaster, as suggested by many, and if push comes to shove, take it up with the COR.

 

I think I'm stating the same thing as Jonh-in-KC (tell your son I'm a '79 Tiger grad).

 

Goldwinger - think of it this way. If a jury of my peers convicts me on a charge - I'm guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of the fact I did what I was actually accused of. Same thing with Scouts, a signed off requirement is "proof" that a requirement has been met. If the BOR or others have reason to doubt the system, go ahead and try to remedy the process, not take away from the Scout.

[FScouter 24]

A purpose of the BOR is to determine if the requirements were completed, not to just see if the book was signed. An improperly signed book does not equate to fulfilling the requirement. If the boy didn't do it, the board isn't taking anything away by asking him to go back and do the requirement.

[Gold Winger 9]

"Because, yes, if a requirement is signed off - that requirement has been met in the eyes of the BSA. "

 

Not true. Not true at all. You need to review the purposes of the BOR.

 

 

"Again, the Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program so yes, the SM's word is law! (Can you tell I'm a Scoutmaster."

 

Sorry. Wrong again. A Scoutmaster doesn't get to change the rules. Look at your manuals again. When I was Advancement Guy and if the SM dared to come to me and say, "Johnny doesn't camp but I want him to advance anyway" I'd have responded "So?" (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Gags 10]

From Mark's 2nd post:

"The SPL signed off that the boy completed the requirement. However, it was clear to the adults that he really did not complete the requirement. Sometimes in a boy-run program, we let them suffer the consequences of their mistakes."

 

Not to derail the current debate over what a signed handbook really means, but no one's brought up the fact that it was the SPL that signed off on the requirement. I think a point we may be missing is that accountability should start with the SPL. Do we know _why_ he signed off? Was he aware that the requirement wasn't met? Does the SPL have any suggestions on how to help remedy the situation?

 

YiS,

 

Gags

[Gold Winger 9]

"The SPL signed off that the boy completed the requirement. However, it was clear to the adults that he really did not complete the requirement. Sometimes in a boy-run program, we let them suffer the consequences of their mistakes. "

 

It's "boy led" not "boy run". However, letting the boys make mistakes means letting them forget food or to check the weather not short cut advancement requirements.

 

Letting that boy skip requirements may have kept him in the program but at what cost? The other boys will know that the system cheated and that he didn't have to do the same things that they did. The boys in the next town will be cheated because they have to do extra work to get to the same rank. Cheating never does anyone any favors.

 

" He is an Eagle Scout and 30 year scouter having held the SM . . ."

 

Sorry but that really doesn't impress me if he isn't following the rules. It's like when a guy is a 30 year umpire but has a wandering strike zone, awards and such means that he DID a good job but says nothing about current performance.

 

In my tiny mind, there are two places where you can't shortcut the systems: advancment and patrol method.

[John-in-KC 311]

MarkS said in part, and I'm not sure we answered him...

 

"I want to do the right thing for the boy without having to refuse to sit in on another BOR where he has not completed his camping requirements while keeping him active in the program."

 

My opinion here. The right thing is for the SM and the CC to be Trustworthy and Loyal back to the Scout in question. They need to tell him they crossed an integrity line in allowing advancement. The SM and CC need to own up to their mistake and accept the consequence of a loss of confidence in their integrity by the Scout in question (and probably his parents).

 

Then, SM and CC need to ask the young man to revisit, in his heart, the issue of whether or not he has earned, truly earned, his new rank.

 

There's a risk: Scout may well say yes. SM and CC are done then; they are the ones who went out of bounds from Scouting policy.

 

MarkS, I hope that actually answers your question. There is no good answer, this to me is one of the lesser bad answers.

[nldscout 18]

Let me be brutally honest and not mamby pamby this issue.

 

Mark, you and all the adults that perpetuated this fraud should be removed from your position. The troop either disbanded or reorganized under leadership that doesn't cheat. Beacause this is out and out deceitful cheating.

 

What rule are you guys gonna bend or break next?

[MarkS 11]

Well, I won't be mamby pamby either... That's the most narrow-minded/short-sighted post yet nldscout. Not at all representative of the ideals or aims of scouting.

 

For the rest of you. Appreciate the effort to recognize the big picture and help with the best path forward since the plan to get this guy camping and on track didn't pan out--probably only delayed him losing interest and dropping out.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[nldscout 18]

Call it what you may, narrow minded, short sighted, what ever. This problem is the troops own making. This is why kids quit, cause we don't enforce the rules. If he was in school taking a test and got a 40, would you pass him. If he stole from a store, would you say "oh thats fine, we will get harder next time"??

 

Again I ask, What rules are you not going to follow next??

 

or

 

What about a scout that can't swim, lets just let him advance and move up?

 

[thebigguy 10]

I highly disagree with the actions of this troop but dont you think you over simplifying just a bit. I think or well atleast I hope that they see the bigger picture now. not sure how dissbanding is going to help anyone.

[John-in-KC 311]

MarkS,

 

My opinion:

 

This young man would have been better served if the SM and CC had taken Mom and Dad out for coffee months ago. The purpose of the visit would have been to explain that Scouting uses life in the outdoors as a cornerstone of its program. The Aims and the other Methods leverage outdoor life. If Mom and Dad refuse to accept that fundmental point of Boy Scouting, then we're the wrong youth serving activity for that young man.

 

As I said earlier, be prepared to deal with 2d and 3d order consequences to the actions of the SM and CC; I do not think they will be pretty. How they deal with the next Scout saying "But you let Bobby...!!!???!!!" will be something the SM and CC must face for months to come. Lord willing, SM and CC will not have to face that question from the COR or the District Commissioner, who is fact-finding for the Council SE.

[MarkS 11]

John,

 

The conversation you suggested occurred. Mom still wants dad to go camping with the boy before he's allowed to go camping.

 

The advancement was given to the boy about a year ago. So far the 2d and 3d order consequences have not come up. Now he has just a few requirements (including camping) before he'll be ready for an SMC on First Class. Probably won't happen until the fall but I want to make sure he doesn't show up for his SMC and BOR unless he's completed all of the requirements including camping.