adjourning a SM conf without signing

[Lisabob 13]

In the parent thread on email communication, one poster wrote that scouts who refuse to communicate effectively, miss deadlines, don't pay attention, inconvenience others, etc., would find it difficult to get the SM conference signed off in his troop. Ed writes that if a SM Conference is held, the SM must sign off, because the conference is not a pass/fail requirement. This is regardless of the SM's feeling on whether a boy is ready for rank advancement. Ed writes that such issues should be dealt with in the BOR.

 

I disagree.

 

First, as a BOR member, my response to SM's who take this tack is (and has been) hey, thanks a lot. The SM is the program officer here, and the BOR is a quality control check. So why would the SM be sending a scout to a BOR who the SM thinks is not ready for advancement? That's just passing the buck and setting up both the boy and the BOR members for a nasty surprise.

 

Second, while a "failed" conference arguably might be verboten, on the other hand, why couldn't an SM adjourn the conference, to be re-convened and finished at a later date once the scout has shown the necessary changes in behavior? If a scout really pushed the issue then yes, a scout has a right to demand a BOR. But that's a rather different dynamic than the one Ed is suggesting.

 

Ed, if I'm reading you right, your approach leads to rubber stamp advancement because nobody feels able or willing to tell a boy "not yet." I've seen this in my son's troop from time to time (in fact, saw it last week! a kid who has been nothing but trouble, caused numerous problems at summer camp, and whose patrol fell apart under him while he was PL due to his breaking just about all points of the scout law when he actually bothered to show up at all, somehow got through his SMC for Life. I don't get it.) and it results in boys who are not good examples (let alone good leaders or even good scouts) "getting" ranks they certainly haven't earned. It cheapens the experience for other scouts who then question the integrity of the adults involved, the scout who is advancing, and the value of advancement as a method of scouting.

[evmori 11]

Lisa,

 

Read the requirement. It states

 

Participate in a Scoutmaster conference or

Take Pare in a Scoutmaster conference

 

There is nothing about passing or failing, just participating.

 

It's your time to get to know and develop a working relationship with that Scout and to gage how good or bad a time he's having being a Scout and a Scout in YOUR TROOP.

 

I don't believe in rubber stamping any requirement. But ya can't pass/fail a Scout for something he has to do nothing more than participate in. If a Scout doesn't show up much & all that other stuff it says in the other thread, how did the Scout complete all his other requirements? Remember, they don't have to be done in any order except the BOR which is last. The Scoutmaster Conference can take place 1st.

 

I would think if a Scout is this lackadaisical about Scouting, the BOR would be able to glean that & let the Scout know what he needed to accomplish so he would be able to pass his next BOR. After all, that is the job of the BOR.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Interesting thoughts. First I agree with Ed, the Scoutmaster Conference is not a Pass or Fail, it just has to happen, thats the way it's written. Then again, I disagree with Ed and here is why. Often times on the forum we will tell someone to remember that a Scoutmaster may have a Scoutmater Conference with a scout for any reason at any time. If a scout has been a prolem on an outing, perhaps taking the youth aside (in plain view of others I may add) and give him a quick Scoutmaster conference may be a good thing. However, what if the youth claims that quick Tete a Tete counts as the scoutmaster conference for rank advancement and then seeks a Board of Review? Clearly that is not the intent of the initial Scoutmaster Conference. Should the Scoutmaster clearly state, Johnny I need to talk to you and this is not a Scoutmaster Conference for Advancerment? If this needs to be done, are we not entering into the weenie world of uber semantics? What about if the scoutmaster tell the youth what needs to be improved and then, in the spirit of the title of this thread, says, we are not finished, we are adjourned until 4 weeks hence at which time we will discuss your behavior of the past 4 weeks. The youth can't claim the conference is over, because the scoutmaster said it wasnt, but again, is this the road to weenieville?

 

Anyway, I always wanted to agree with Ed before I disagreed with him

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

Evmori,

So what you are saying is that if the scout had not completed half his requirements in a year (as an example), and a SM calls a conference to review his progress (this is a SM conference, as described on page 124 of the SMH), he must sign off the conference, even though the scout is not ready to advance? I realize that this is one example, and applies to maybe 1 in 4 or 5 SM conferences.

 

A SM conference should take place only after all other items have been signed off. Let's assume, instead, that the SM evaluates "scout spirit" at the conference, which I believe is a fairly common practice. If there are disciplinary problems or other less quantitative issues, they would generally fall under the "scout spirit" category. If not met, the SM should not sign off the "scout spirit," quantify the areas where improvement is needed, offer a timeline to see improvement, and have another SM conference after that time.

 

If requirements have not been signed off, regardless of whether a SM conference has been conducted or signed off, a BOR cannot take place.

[click23 66]

From "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures" guidebook:

 

"The requirement for advancement is that the Scout participates in a Scoutmaster conference, not that he passes the conference. When advancement is going to be deferred, the Scout should not come to the Scoutmaster conference thinking that everything is OK and then be surprised that his advancement is deferred. He should have had plenty of warning and guidance prior to the Scoutmaster conference. This is not a time to shut the door on advancement, but rather to work with the Scout to create goals that will allow him to succeed. However, even after a negative Scoutmaster conference for the ranks of Tenderfoot to Life, if the Scout desires a board of review, he should be granted his request."

 

[evmori 11]

A SM conference should take place only after all other items have been signed off.

I would agree, but it doesn't have to.

 

Let's assume, instead, that the SM evaluates "scout spirit" at the conference, which I believe is a fairly common practice. If there are disciplinary problems or other less quantitative issues, they would generally fall under the "scout spirit" category. If not met, the SM should not sign off the "scout spirit," quantify the areas where improvement is needed, offer a timeline to see improvement, and have another SM conference after that time.

 

I would agree the Scout Spirit requirement should not be signed, but if a Scoutmaster Conference was held, it should be signed.

 

I appreciate it, OGE, when you agree that we agree then disagree.

 

That says it in a nutshell click23!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I hope Bob Mazzuca gets that office under control.

 

Practically speakin' click23 and evmori are right on da documents. And da documents may be right on how best to run a small office in Irving which has to deal with complaints and threatened legal action all da time.

 

But da documents are wrong on how to develop character in children.

 

When we deliver "bad news" to boys, it should be the person with the greatest long-term relationship with the boy, who the boy respects, that has that conversation about behavior. Not a bunch of relative strangers on a BOR.

 

And givin' a boy an award because he's been registered, has held a position but done little, and has pouted through a SM conference about his behavior - and thereby "fulfilled the requirements which we can't add to", is da kind of sophistry that leads to lawyer jokes. Oh yah, and add da bit that even though the lad has been a twit in the troop, we should sign off Scout Spirit because his parents report he's been a good boy in his "everyday life" at home.

 

But maybe that's part of modern citizenship, eh? Be an idiot, don't live up to your responsibility to investors, have a conference with Ben Bernacke where you tell him you've screwed up repeatedly (but you're a nice guy in your "everyday life" with him on da golf course), win $850 billion dollars. What's a Boy Scout rank compared with that? Maybe we are preparin' these kids well after all!

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic 1002]

So, what we seem to have is an understanding that the conference of which we speak is for advancement, but the written description is not worded as such. So, perhaps the people with the ability should review a minor revision of the wording to make it fit the intent, and make it clear that this might lead to secondary, or possibly even tertiary conferences in rare cases. Of course, as a leader, we can also simply tell the scout up front that there is this possibility.

 

No matter what, you will have occasional difficult decisions as a SM, and also occasional misunderstandings or simply demanding scouts and/or parents.

[Gold Winger 9]

If we look at the documents from ancient times, a Scoutmaster was supposed to talk to a Scout's teachers, pastor, parents and probably others like the police chief to determine whether the Scout was exhibiting Scout spirit. That's all gone by the wayside.

 

Active in the troop? Pay your monies and you're active.

 

Skills? Heck, don't even try to find out if a Scout has actually learned anything or even attempted to do his job.

 

Why? Simple. The eternal greenback. If we "discourge" boys by not promoting them, they'll drop out and BSA will lose numbers and money.

 

It all comes back to my thoughts that most boys in Scouting don't want to be there, it's their parents who want them to be there.

[AvidSM 11]

When a boy came to me and said he was ready for his SMC for advancement, the first thing I would say to him is, OK - go get your handbook and I will have a look at. I would then check to see that he had completed all the requirements. If I saw something missing, I would try to see why that was and who's signature was needed. After checking the handbook, we would go over Scout Spirit and I would sign off on that. Then, I would start the SMC for advancement.

 

My advice is don't start a SMC for advancement with a boy unless you know for sure that all the requirements for that rank have been met, except for the conference and the BOR, of course. If you do this, then I agree that there is no issue about passing, failing or adjourning the conference. You just participate in one with the scout, the requirement is met and then you sign off on the requirement. The SMC for advancement is not the time to evaluate the boy and see if you feel he's "ready" to advance. In whatever way you think he's not ready, that's the requirement you should have not signed off on - before you get to the SMC.

 

My only question about click23's quote from the guidebook is, if a boy who has a "negative" SMC demands a BOR and is granted one, has he met all the requirements for advancement? Does a "negative" SMC mean that the SM did not sign off on the requirment? If not, how has that requirment been met?

 

If the SM conference is not for advancment, then there is also no issue of passing, failing or adjouring - it is not held to meet a requirement and there is nothing to sign off.

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

There is no "SMC for Advancement" or "SMC not for advancement." Read the requirements. It only says, "Take part in a Scoutmaster Conference."

 

If you have a conference with a First Class Scout because he peed in the campfire, you need to sign of in his book because he "took part in a Scoutmaster conference." To do or say otherwise is adding to the requirements.

 

Do I think that this is the best way? Nope but dem's the rules that you agreed to play by when you signed on the dotted line.

[AvidSM 11]

From page 120 of the Scoutmaster Handbook: "The Scoutmater Conference ... is held each time the boy completes the requirements for a rank." This what I meam by a Scoutmaster Conference for advancement.

 

From the same source: "The Scoutmaster Conference can be used as a counseling tool at any time and for a variety of other reasons." This is what I mean by a Scoutmaster Conference not for advancement. I you have one of these with a Scout, you are not meeting a requirement for advancmement. Nowhere does it says I have to sign off on any requirment if I have one of these SMCs. I am not adding to the requirements by having another SMC once he is ready to advance.

 

A SM can have as many SMC with a boy as needed, as long as he lets the scout know it is not for advancncement and his book will not get signed off. You can't ignore the Scoutmaster Handbook and take a litteral interpretation of the requirement, as stated. It makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

"The Scoutmater Conference ... is held each time the boy completes the requirements for a rank."

 

This makes no sense either. Since the SMC and the BOR are requirements for advancement, you can't hold the SMC until after the BOR and the SMC is completed but you can't do the SMC until after it has been completed. Everyone join me for a chorus of "I'm my own grandpa!"

 

The problem here is that you cannot have secret or parallel sets of requirements. What is in the handbook or the requirements book are THE requirements (requirements book takes precedence). If the requirements said, "participate in a Scoutmaster Conference AFTER you have completed requirements 1 through 7," I'd buy that. But it doesn't, so the talk for peeing on the tent has to count.

 

Unlike basketball, Scouting does not have a ethos of looking at the spirit and intent of the rule, it only goes with the letter of the rule.

 

 

[NeilLup 13]

Look over my shoulder as I talk with one of the Scouts in my imaginary Troop:

 

Scout: Mr. XXXX, I'm ready to advance. You remember that talk we had 3 months ago. That's my Scoutmaster Conference. I know that the requirements don't say that I need to pass it, just participate in it. So please sign the book and then I'd like to have my Board of Review.

 

Me: Sure YYYY. Happy to. Walk with me for a few minutes. I've been observing you as a Scout. I believe that you need improvement in several areas before you are ready to advance. I'll tell you specifically what they are. (Tells A,B and C.) I would suggest that we work on a plan of action to improve those items before you go before the Board of Review. If you still want a Board of Review now, that is your right. However, I will recommend to the Board that you not be advanced at this time; that I believe that you need improvement in areas A,B and C and that they should not advance you to the next rank until you have improvement in those areas. Can we talk now about the plan of action.

 

(You can stop looking over my shoulder now.)

 

I don't see the problem. If the Scout wants a Board of Review based on an older Scoutmaster Conference, then **I** initiate another conference on the spot and tell the Scout of the problems that I have with his advancing at this time.

 

Of course to do that, I need to know about the Scout and be prepared and ready.

[Eagle92 110]

I can tell you right now that if ANY type of SMC is done, whether negative or positive, it is considered a SMC and the requirement is met. IF a SM refuses to sign and the Scout appeals, the scout will win the appeal. Had this situation in my district a few years back and went all the way to national. National sided with the scout.