adjourning a SM conf without signing

[highcountry 13]

Some of the things I am reading here are a tragic shame, be they the written rule or what, they seem to me to run contrary to what kind of young people we are supposed to be developing. As the rule is supposedly written is basically ludicrous and undermines what I as SM should be doing to develop youth. This is why I will not operate that way as I feel it is crazy to pass a scout off on a requirement for simply participating even though they failed miserably. I would hate to find my wife's surgeon got his credentials to operate because he particiapted in college but his grade average was a 36 ! To get around this by the BOOK I see one out....when an unqualified scout comes to me for a BOR, I can refuse and tell him the reasons and the areas he needs to improve and perhaps he should work with some of the experienced scouts in implementing that plan and that I am happy to support him. Then since I refused, there was no official scoutmaster conference so nothing to sign off. But what if I have a coaching session with a scout that needs development, if this is anything "Approaching a sm conference" by the book am I supposed to sign ? Based on the last post, what constitutes ANY type of SM conference ? If I speak with a scout on his progress or goals or development or needs and plan for improvement in a coaching and mentoring conversation, who is to draw the line if that was any kind of SM conference ?

Given some of these scenarios, the ablility to guide the youth gets taken out of the SM's hands due to a very poorly written rule or guideline. Apply this scenario your place of work, your boss tells you that you did a good job on some project, you argue that was a performance review and he should have signed off on your raise and fight it, despite the fact your otherwise are a less than average employee and based on the BOOK the company agrees with you. This undermines your bosses ability to be an effective manager since the company can over ride him with counter productive moves, bet your boss will be looking for another job soon for a company that backs him up on the job they empower him to do.

I have a couple scouts that I am anticipating will come to me for SM conferences soon that do not deserve a move up in rank and I do not intend to pass the buck to BOR to hold them back. Both are non participatory in scout spirit, attendance at meetings and activities, they simply do not do theri POR's in any way, thay have attitiudes, hang with thier clique and don't help out to put it simply. When they come around for SM conference I will be discussing these issues as an attempt for them to identify what they need to grow, and since they plainly do not pas muster there is no way I am signing the requirement, to do that is a dis-service to the standards of BSA, regardless of if a review took place. If they want to appleal it I will deny any SM review took place I would admit to a coaching sesssion. If Council or other wants to over ride me, my response would be to say thanks for passing along a scout who is not even close to meeting BSA expectations and requirements, why not hand him a couple merit badges for free since he says he think he did them. My last communication would be that since you know better how to run the troop than the SM who is here and knows the boys then you can run the troop and resign immediately. The pay's the same, why be second guessed over a poor rule when you as an SM are trying to develop leadership, responsibility and some adherenace to the oath and law ?

[Bob White 20]

I believe Highcountry's misub=nderstanding of the BSA's Boy Scout advancement program is summed in what he wrote ehn he posted "I have a couple scouts that I am anticipating will come to me for SM conferences soon that do not deserve a move up in rank"

 

The fact is no one has asked or instructed him to make a subjective determination of who "deserves" to earn a rank.

 

The BSA determines thrugh the official requirements who has "earned" a Rank. The Scoutmasters's role is to see that learning, practice, and testing take place correctly before the each individual requirement is approved. If a scout has not done the work according to the requirements of the BSa then all parties involved need to by asking the Scoutmaster why he or she did not manage the advancement program correctly.

 

There is no requirements in scouting that the unit leaader must determine that the scout "deserves" the rank, the Scout has either earned it according to the BSa requirements or he has not, and that decision is the responsibility of the Troop Committee during the board of review.

 

 

The problem here is not that with program, the problem is that leaders who have the approach and opinion shared by Highcountry do not understnad what the program is.

 

Nothing in the BSA advancement Method says that a Scout who does not have the skills or spirit should advance. It says that making sure that the scout has the skills BEFORE the requirement is accepted as being completed is the responsibility of the Scoutmaster.

 

 

If a iunit has scoputs who are advanceing without the skills they are suppossed to have then you need to be looking at the Scoutmaster for the solution because that is where the problem is.

[Gold Winger 9]

I don't believe that an SM can or should recommend advancement or non-advancement to a BOR. All you can do is say whether he met the requirements and the only one that has any level of objectivity is "Scout Spirit." If you don't sign for that, there's no BOR and no advancement. Once you sign for Scout Spirit, it's up to the BOR.

[NeilLup 13]

And that is the problem, highcountry and Gold Winger. There have been many cases over the years where there is a personality conflict between a Scoutmaster and a Scout or between the Scoutmaster's family and the Scout's family or between the Scoutmaster's church and the Scout's church or ..... You get the idea.

 

A Scoutmaster does not have a veto power over a Scout's advancement. The Scoutmaster does have an extremely strong influence over a Scout's advancement. However, to ensure that there is no veto power, the Scout may request a Board of Review even if the Scoutmaster declines to sign for Scoutmaster Conference or for Scout Spirit. The Scoutmaster would then inform the Board of Review of his or her opinion of why s/he believes that the Scout has failed to meet the requirements. The Board of Review considers and makes its decision.

 

I would say that if a Board of Review (which consists of Troop Committee members) passes a Scout in spite of Scoutmaster non-recommendation, then I would imagine it is time for a very serious review of the Scoutmaster's tenure. There would seem to be some very major disagreements between the Committee and the SM.

 

It also can happen that there is a personality conflict between the Scout and/or his family and the Scoutmaster plus the Committee. This is the reason for the appeal process to the local council and to National. I have particularly seen this on a couple of occasions when the Scout is the son of a former Scoutmaster who left under less than great conditions.

 

Needless to say, none of us on this list would every do something like that. It always happens in the other Troop in our town.

[highcountry 13]

I can certainly agree that an SM who has some personal issue with a scout or his family should not fail to sign off on a scout's advancement because of personal conflict. That is unethical and working outside what scouting is teaching, but I am talking about the more frequent problem os scouts who without a doubt are in no way deserving of an advancement due to behavior, lack of activity or worse, teh SM should be able to say NO, this individual isn't even close to derving at this time and needs to plan and implement improvement. If I am supposed to sign off just because the SM was held, why even have the conference, jsut sign off, the SM's signature has Zero value with that concept. I had a real trouble scout who thankfully is no longer with the troop, 18 months back he came to me for a SM review to advance. I had the SM review and pointed out his numerous serious issues and tried to get him to plan to improve. I did not sign off. How responsible is it of me as SM of the troop to tell this kid, that peeing in someones water bottle was wrong, peeing on a tent is wrong, beating up other scouts is wrong plus many many smaller issues were wrong, but sign off just because we HAD the SM conference. No way, I will not do it, it was not a personality thing, it's a right and wrong thing. The 2 scouts I have coming soon for SM conf's I am thinking of, never go on activities, are absent from meetings for months at a time, do zero leadership or their patrols, when they do make actvities they arrive late and leave early o avoid set up and takedown of camp, don't help or lead when there( Fooling arround together instead). I already told theri parents the patch on their shoulder does not advance them if they are not doing the job and when they come for SM review be prepared for me to request they show imnprovment and come back in a couple months. Bottom line I WILL NOT sign off for those who's actions and behhavior does not deserve it and no one can make me sign it period.

What credibility would I have to sign off for a very poor scout when my exceptional scouts get the same sign off. What would I tell scout A who has gone over the top when he asks why I signed off on scout B who everyone knows should be kicked out of the troop for his actions and behavior. Soon other scouts realize they can coast and the SM still will sign off. Not a good message we are sending is it ?

Again, at the end of the day it is a moot point, no one is standing over my shoulder to make sure I sign that off, I am making good decisions and if anyone challenges it I will deny any conference ever took place. No one can force me to sign it. This is not something held agaisnt indiivduals, this is doing what is right. The rule is dead wrong in my opinion.

[Bob White 20]

Where you are are misusing the advancement program Highcountry is when you want to withold advancement for peeing on a tent or peeing in someone's water bottle when instead you should be removing their membership.

 

Why is a boy who has pees in someone's water bottle still an active member of the troop? This is not an advancement issue it is a membership issue.

 

What exactly would it take in the program you lead to realize that this is a heallth and safety issue as well as a behavioral issue?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Bob White 20]

Where you are are misusing the Program Highcountry is when yo want to witholfd advancemenrt for peeing on a tent or peeing in someone's water bottle when instead you should be removing their membership.

 

Why is a boy who has pee's in someone's water bottle still an active member of the troop? This is not an advancement issue it is a membership issue.

 

What exactly would it take in the program you lead to realize that this is not an advancement issue but a heallth and safety issue as well as a behavioral issue?

[Gold Winger 9]

" when instead you should be removing their membership."

 

Why? I guess that you never did anything stupid when you were young. Or maybe you were never young.

[Bob White 20]

Even when I was that young I knew the differnce between stupid and malicious. I can only attribute it to better parenting.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Perhaps urinating in a water bottle once is youthful hijinks, but as detailed the behavior also included urinating on a tent. Once perhaps is poor judgement, twice? Thats a pattern. Beating up other scouts? Thats no being a kid, thats a real problem.

 

The two scouts who are comming for a Conference. If they have not been doing their jobs, they don't qualify for advancement. That one is easy. Have you told the scouts they lack the Position of Responsibility? Have you notified them they no longer are qualified to wear the patch? There is no reason to advance raspscallions, tell them when they screw up and in no uncertain terms, don't wait until a scoutmaster conference to do so.

[highcountry 13]

OGE, my posts are long enough but even at that I didn't give all the detaisl for folks to understand the story of the scout in question, yes he absolutely should have had membership revoked, I have not told all the details, but how it evolved......

 

Lets call the scout in question A. He had always been a trouble, picking on kids at meetings, campouts, mean attitude. He has been frequently suspended from school, has a patrol officer due to arrests for burglary, severe vandalism and othe things. A's mom is a drug addict in prison, A's dad is a piece of work to put it nicely. A's poor behavior pattern in the troop was established under the previous scoutmaster. A pulled a knife and threatened a scout from another troop in an out of state campout I did not attend 3 years ago. Previous SM told A he was out of the troop. A's Grandmother, the one who brought him to meetings, begged previosu SM to give him another chance as the troop was the only family A had and about the only chance A had to maybe learn to grow up right. Previous SM agreed but under a heavy list of conditions. Then a few months later I inherited the troop. As some have read I inherited a very dis-organized troop that need major attention and reshaping of every aspect of it, I was learning to be a SM self taught (Got trainings as they were available) and at teh same time had the battel with tehCC from helll that I described some time ago. This distraceted me from dealing with Scout A who was minding a bit and not beong a major problem. A few months before he was "removed" the peeing on the tent (He missed campiouts as a result), bullying started (My youngest son defended teh younger scouyts and flipped him on his back and told him to never do it again which he stopped for fear of what either of my sons were going to do next) then teh bottle peeing incident which I found out after his request for a SM review. The continued bullying, mean tactics and peeing on the tent was my refusal for him to get a SM conference and advance, the bottle was my reason to toss him out. Thats the reasons on how this all evolved.

The 2 scouts I have coming up have had some warning, I told ASM's and Advancement coordinator that I was ready to yank both thier POR's due to non participation, they both said the better way is to bring up the problem at teh SM conference and tell tehm to try again in a few months after tehy improve particiaption and actually demonstrating leadership.

The first of these scouts goes to no unit campouts, instead of summer camp with the unit, he goes to RAMS all on his own. We just had a Greenbar at the last campout and he drove over for the Greenbar (Which he talked with friends and paid no attention the entire meeting) and left as soon as it was over. I told him and his parents in May he needed to start to make meetings or he was not going to advance and I go the old "Oh well ya know...baseball" response.

The other scout last went with us to summer camp 16 months ago, no activities since, he arrivees at meetings alte, leaves early and misses more than half the meetings. The ONLY thing he does as PL is hold the flag ! I just switched him to a Den Leader (He is soft spoken with kids his age but good with young ones) and told him he needed to participate and do his job or I would not sign off, I told him I took him out of the PL spot as he did NOTHING in the spot other than wear a patch.

 

So thats some of the detailed background. Bothe the scouts I am having issue with have been warned that they better participate, show up and demonstrate responsibility and leadership which si what we are supposed to be teaching them and if they don't step it up, don't ask me to sign off so they can advance, THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT. I lety them know it is up to THEM to achieve and advance.

 

As the way this "rule" has been portrayed, my old Scout A who finally got teh boot, could have gone to council and said one of the coaching/disiplinary talks we had was in fact a SM conference. Had I been over riden and that extreme troublemaker been advanced in view of the scouts I have that actually worked and earned and learned, it sends a bad message. If this "rule" removesmuch of the value of the SM conference why even have it ? "Hi Mr Scoutmaster, Hi A, how have you been ? Good, I have to see my parrole officer another 6 months as I got caught burglarizing a house.....Oh that's nice A, well look here, you don't know any of your scout skills, you are awful to have in the troop, you are learning nothing and you don't try, but since we talked I have to sign this and advance you along OK"

How insane is that ?

 

I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone here, but really, how CRAZY is this ? The book says I am supposed to sign off if we just had the talk, never mind teh kid is in no way deserving ?

 

Milder example is the 2 scouts I have coming up soon. Gee I warned you and your parents you contribute nothing and are learning nothing, and you didn't change your behavior, but I rally cannot do anything about it as the "Book Rules" pull any teeth I have abd make me sign off just because we had "a conversation" never mind teh fact you are a do nothing and since several warnings continue to be a do nothing ?

 

Again, insane scenario, and again, if the scout is un deserving, I am not allowing them on to the next rank.

[evmori 11]

highcountry,

 

Based on your last post, I am wondering why Scout A is still in your unit?

[Gold Winger 9]

BeeDubya, don't be so modest, it really has nothing to do with your parents. Come on, admit it, you're the most perfect human being ever born. When you went to confession, it only took about 30 seconds because you simply said, "bless me Father for I have never sinned and I never will." Nooooo . . . I got that wrong, you said, "Bless you Father for I am perfect. In the name of the Bob and the White and the BSA."

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Neil-up's "over the shoulder" conference is instructive. I've held a number of similar SMC's where the ultimate outcome was that the Scout was not recommended for a BoR. The Scout and I did, in fact, conferred, so I signed off on the conference requirement without recommending advancement.

 

In all those cases, however, there was some other requirements in which the Scout was defficient, usually related to the satisfactory completion of a position of responsibility, but sometimes related to behavior/Scout Spirit issues.

 

On the other hand, Eagle92's appeal to National notwithstanding, I alone get to decide when a conference is a conference. I confer with my SPL and youth leaders several times during the course of a troop meeting, but that does not mean I consider those "official" conferences for the purposes of meeting the advancement requirements. Most certainly I would not consider a session with a Scout regarding a discipline problem to be an "official" conference. To meet the objectives of a Scoutmaster conference, there are certain things I want to cover.

 

I will also add that much of the discussion on this thread seems to be predicated on the Scoutmaster and troop advancement committee never talking. The few times I've completed conferences but not recommended the Scout for advancement the very first person I would talk with would be my advancement chairman. In 99.9% of the cases, if a Scout approaches our advancement chairman with the conference signed off, the advancement chm. knows he's good to go for a BoR. If that's not the case, I make sure the AC knows it.

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

" The few times I've completed conferences but not recommended the Scout for advancement the very first person I would talk with would be my advancement chairman."

 

I'm really baffled by the rule or rules of advancement that all you to recommend or not recommend a Scout for advancement.

 

"In all those cases, however, there was some other requirements in which the Scout was defficient, usually related to the satisfactory completion of a position of responsibility,"

 

Hmmmm . . . adding to the requirements again. Deciding if the Scout did a good job. Nothing in BSA advancement literature says anything about doing a good job, all the Scout has to do is hold the position.

 

Talk about your rogue Scoutmasters.