BOR w/ problem scout

[TreeClimber 10]

As a Committee member on a BOR, what do you do when the kid 'advancing' (shall we say to "Star") happens to be the scoutmaster's kid, and you know very well that the kid did not learn the skills, was rubberstamped on a lot of MB's, lied about his service hours and would not be able pass 'scout spirit' by any reasonable measure? We are talking about rudeness, non-participation,and lack of teamwork in the troop. Pressure is on from the SM....He (SM) is holding up other kids of the same age because he wanted his kid to get there first. I know the biggest problem isn't the boy at this point, it's the SM, but what does the BOR do with the scout?

[Gold Winger 9]

If the BOR knows that the boy did properly get signed off it has an obligation to not promote the boy. This situation should be referred to the CC who should have a conversation with the SM about ethics. It might be time for a new SM.

[scoutldr 732]

How active is your COR? The SM doesn't "work for" the committee or the CC. He reports to the COR, and is charged with training and mentoring the troop Junior Leaders who deliver the program. The BOR (consisting of at least 3 committee members, NOT SM or ASMs), has an obligation to uphold the advancement standards (no more, no less). If the boy did not perform, don't advance him, and let him know what he needs to do to meet the standards (which are set by BSA...not the SM). Let the chips fall where they may.

 

Just a caveat, though. If he has signed blue cards by registered merit badge counsellors, those are a done deal. The only thing you can do is work to fix the problem and restore the standards of quality to the advancement program. "Scout Spirit" means living the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives...not attending meetings or activities. As a BOR member, I like to craft questions in the "Socratic" method...to lead the scout to his own logical irrefutable conclusions as to whether he met the standard or not.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Gold Winger 9]

"The SM doesn't "work for" the committee or the CC."

 

Hmmmmm . . . not really. The CC selects the SM with the approval of the COR.

 

If you look at the org chart in the Committee Guidebook, the troop committee is above the SM.

 

" If he has signed blue cards by registered merit badge counsellors, those are a done deal."

 

Once again, not really. If you know that the work was not done, you don't have to accept fraudulent blue cards.

 

(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, treeclimber, welcome to da forums, eh?

 

I think on da surface, GW is right. As a BOR member, one of your tasks is to make sure all the requirements have been learned and completed. It's OK to defer a lad who is "not there yet," givin' him some good guidance on what he needs to do to complete the rank.

 

Generally speakin' that should be somethin' that's done in cooperation with da SM, eh? Or at very least, in a situation where the SM and committee are on the same page about expectations and roles. The only way a BOR "no" really works for a boy is when the SM then meets with him and says "my fault, we didn't check everything together and see that you were prepared, but we'll work on it together now." Or da lead ASM, eh, because a lot of good SM's won't do signoffs or conferences with their own lads.

 

If the committee and the SM aren't on the same page, then I reckon sayin' no is a recipe for adult conflict, eh? I think if yeh have a SM who is really and truly doin' what you suggest - favoring his own son, cheatin' the requirements, holding other boys back, then that's a problem the committee needs to address with him directly. Yah, and perhaps with his successor, eh? Don't put his son in the middle.

 

Beavah

 

[Gunny2862 11]

The CC needs to have a cup with the SM in question and see if the CC comes away with the impression that the SM is intentionally doing what he is being accused of or if he didn't realize how others were perceiving what may be his innocent but possibly wrong actions. Followup with the COR and IH Might then be appropriate.

 

In my case, As SM I don't do the final sign off for ANYTHING regarding my own son with the exception of the SM Conference. I can and do pre-check his skills if asked and then he finds an ASM or the CC for the sign off. His Eagle application( I hope), I think but haven't checked, will require my signature but we will have the CC countersign my signature there if our procedures run true to form.

[Gunny2862 11]

As to the actions of the youth, has this pattern played out at the lower ranks also or is it new behavior?

If it's not new then how about explaining your new view of the situation at the BOR and explaining that what has been "good enough" in the past will no longer get it done. Maybe even giving the with greater rank comes greater expectations speech while acknowledging the commmittees lack of holding the standards in the past.

If it is new behavior then a little conversation about it at the BOR should help you decide which direction to go with the Scout.

[John-in-KC 311]

I'm in agreement with GW, Beavah, and Gunny.

 

1 - If the young man is the symptom of a problem, then address the problem.

 

2 - The right person to first have the friendly cup is the CC, then if needed involved the COR. If you have a Commissioner Service worthy of the name, bring them into the loop.

 

3 - If there are questionable MBs etc, have the CC or unit advancement person coordinte with the District Advancement Chair. Rogue MB Counselors aren't needed around Scouting; he's the one who signs off on their ability to Counsel!