POR term (need clarification please)

[fl_mom_of_2]

My son asked his SM for a scoutmaster conference (for LIFE rank) and was told by the SM that he could not have it because he held two different position of responsibilities for the 6 month term. My son became a STAR scout on 4-22-08. He was den chief until 5-31-08 but had to stop after that date because the pack does not meet over the summer. He then became Troop Instructor from 6-1-08 - 9-7-08 and then switched back to den chief on 9-8-08 once the pack started meeting again. If I understand it correctly, boyscout regulations state "hold one or more positions of responsibility". Shouldnt the time my son was troop instructor count towards his 6 month requirement. If my son speaks to his SM and he still refuses to give him a SM conference what should we do?

[nolesrule]

"5. While a Star Scout, serve actively 6 months in one or more of the positions of responsibility listed in requirement 5 for Star Scout (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop). "

 

The requirement itself is a total of 6 months. Doesn't matter how many positions held or when they are held (other than WHILE a Star Scout).

 

If a Boy is Star for a year, he could server the last 3 months of a POR at the beginning of his tenure, take 6 months to just be a regular patrol member if he wants, and then begin another position that covers the last 3 months of the requirement (and it doesn't need to be the same position as the first 3 months.

[kraut-60]

A Scoutmaster should NEVER refuse to have an SM Conf. once a Scout requests it. This SM is doing this Scout and others a dis-service if he operates this way...when a Scout asks me for a SM Conf. I am ready to sit down and listen to what he has to say.

[John-in-KC]

Scoutmasters should never be too busy to have a SM conference. If they are, something is wrong. I agree fully with kraut-60 on this.

 

The SM here is denying a SM conference for the purpose of going forward to an advancement. His grounds are most likely not supportable in ACP&P #33088 or Requirements #33215.

 

That said, one of the things a SM has to do is evaluate the quality of the service in tenure of the POR. There are ways to ask tough, open-ended questions which allow the Scout to evaluate and perhaps re-consider if he's ready for advancement.

 

But we're not there. We're at a conference denial.

 

Option 1 is do nothing and continue to rack up quality service in tenure. That's not a bad option, truth be told. The only rank EagleSon did boom-boom was 1C to Star. He had all the MBs, he needed tenure and spirit only. Star to life he had to do some things , many at Scout Camp.

 

Option 2 is to ask your boy to have a non-advancement BOR with the Committee. Have him ask why the SM doesn't follow Requirements #33215. See what happens.

 

Option 3 is for you to have a quiet talk with the CC about Requirements. Is the understanding challenge restricted to the SM, or is it happen through the Troop.

 

Option 4 is to bypass the unit and go straight to the District Advancement Chair. CAUTION: You will almost certainly cause a stir and an upheaval in the unit. Your son, and you, may well become unwelcome in the unit. You may be invited to become the Scoutmaster after the current one resigns ... because you undercut him. Tread very carefully in deciding to move to this level, without having worked through options 2 and 3.

 

For most young people, Option 1 really is pretty good. I know of few youth who could not learn more from an early volunteer job they have!

 

Let us know how this turns out.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

From your prior post history, yeh seem to be findin' quite a bit of fault with your troop, eh? Maybe I'm just readin' it funny, though. Could also be just innocent questions about how things work.

 

I think, as a first cut, yeh let your son handle this, eh? The boy is going for Life rank, after all, one step from Eagle. He should be mature enough to work with his scoutmaster and his rank advancement on his own, without mommy runnin' interference as AC. That has da added bonus of not makin' it look to other people like the son of the CC and AC is gettin' special treatment because of his parents. Even when it's not really true, the appearance of that can be really harmful to a troop and to a kid, eh?

 

Beyond that, it's hard to say from afar.

 

As a UC, if I felt the SM just didn't understand and it was an innocent mistake, I'd clue him in. That might be an option for yeh - just a friendly nudge from a friend. Not from mom or dad, though, eh? Gotta be from someone neutral.

 

But there's also a chance the SM is tryin' to use the advancement method to teach character, eh? I'm pretty suspicious of a situation where a lad is able to switch on a dime between two different PORs in the way you describe, fl_mom. Sounds to me like the advancement and youth leadership methods aren't bein' used as well as they should. Real positions of responsibility aren't assigned continuously to serve advancement, eh? They reflect a level of service and commitment that's longer term. A lad shouldn't become Troop Instructor just as a "holding pattern" for the summer so he can "get his time in." That's not the way it works if we care about our Aims.

 

So I'm inclined to support da SM in this. As Den Chief, your son's experience so far has been pretty broken up. A month here, a month and a half there (perhaps with a different den?). Da Troop Instructor position seems like a filler. I could be wrong on both counts, eh? But unless your son is in "time danger" for Eagle, I think he'd benefit a lot from da extra time in service.

 

I do agree the SM should still talk to the lad, even if he's not ready to recommend him for a rank. Just like I personally feel regular BORs without rank advancement are a fine thing, eh? But in your unit where you're pretty small and lots of folks are wearin' multiple hats, that might not be practical. S'OK.

 

If yeh don't particularly care about annoyin' the SM, makin' da rest of the troop feel you're playin' favorites with your son and all that, the proper route of appeal is as KC suggests, to the troop committee for a BOR without da SM's endorsement. And then to the district advancement committee. I agree with KC, that's playin' with fire. In a small unit like yours, it might well be a choice to sacrifice da troop for the sake of your son's Life badge.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah says:

 

But there's also a chance the SM is tryin' to use the advancement method to teach character, eh?

 

I don't see how an SM can "teach character" by adding to the requirements. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that this Scout did not "serve actively" in one or more POR's for a total of six months -- except for the fact that it hasn't been six months yet, I think he has three days left.

 

However, if this cannot be resolved within the troop, I'm not sure an appeal to council would be a good idea, unless the Scout is 17 and Eagle is becoming a time issue. By the time it all gets resolved the Scout will probably be almost at the six-month mark at Den Chief anyway, and an appeal will probably leave a lot of bad blood behind. However, this should be resolved going forward so that future Scouts will not have to pass more stringent requirements than are in the book.

[fl_mom_of_2]

This will be the second year my son has served as den chief for the same den. He wants to stay with the den until they receive their arrow of light early next year. He will soon be able to earn his den chief award and really likes being a den chief. Last weekend he was finally able to attend the den chief training put on by one of the districts in our area.

 

We are a small troop and relatively new (since Oct of last year). We are all still learning how everything works. I still think its unfair for our SM to add to the requirements. If BSA policy states one or more PORs, then we should be following the rules.

 

And I am no longer advancement chair! I had to resign from the committee. Yes there are alot of problems with our troop but my son is happy so we're staying put.

[CalicoPenn]

If he stopped being a Den Chief and became an Instructor for a short period of time, he did so with the knowledge of the Scoutmaster so the Scoutmaster should have no problem with this, if the Scoutmaster is following the advancement policies and procedures, which don't require a Scout to hold one POR continuously for 6 months.

 

For that matter, there is no requirement that the Scoutmaster Conference be held after all other requirements are met. The Scoutmaster could hold the Life Scoutmaster's Conference the day after a lad earns his Star rank and it counts.

 

You son should ask the Scoutmaster again for his conference - if he refuses, you and your son should request a meeting with the CC and the Scoutmaster and ask the Scoutmaster to show you the rule that says a boy must serve only one POR for rank. When he can't show it to you (and he can't), ask again for a Scoutmaster's Conference. If he refuses, and the Committee Chair backs him up, go to the Chartered Organization Representative and make your case with him/her. If this person refuses to intervene, start looking for a new troop, and simultaneously, go to the District Advancement Chairman and ask that the District finalize his Life Rank reviews.

 

One last thought - it really wasn't neccessary for your son to "give up" his Den Chief role because the Pack doesn't meet in the summer. Most packs and many dens still do an activity or two in the summer, especially if they are trying to earn the Summertime Pack Award. The POR duties are met even if the Den does not meet weekly and the Pack does not meet monthly. The meeting patterns of Packs and Dens have been like this for a very long time - active meetings in the school year, little to no meetings, other than activities (like a pack picnic, etc., in the summer and never have Den Chiefs been required to "step down" over the summer because the Pack is less active than during the school year.

 

Calico

[fl_mom_of_2]

This will be the second year my son has served as den chief for the same den. He wants to stay with the den until they receive their arrow of light early next year. He will soon be able to earn his den chief award and really likes being a den chief. Last weekend he was finally able to attend the den chief training put on by one of the districts in our area.

 

We are a small troop and relatively new (since Oct of last year). We are all still learning how everything works. I still think its unfair for our SM to add to the requirements. If BSA policy states one or more PORs, then we should be following the rules.

 

And I am no longer advancement chair! I had to resign from the committee. Yes there are alot of problems with our troop but my son is happy so we're staying put.

[John-in-KC]

I held two PORs, more than once, when I was a youth member:

 

I held Instructor and Scribe.

 

I held SPL and Instructor.

 

I held Den Chief and Patrol Leader.

 

My thoughts are that your son should have asked for a SM conference jsut after he made Star, or asked about road-mapping his leadership posts at his 1C to Star SM conference. If he's been DC for two years, then he should have seen the speed bump of minimal summertime activity.

 

OTOH, are you saying his supported Pack completely shuts down during the summer? The Packs I know send kids to Day Camp, to Family Resident Camp, to Webelos Camp. Even if he's not with "his" Den, there are plenty of opportunities to be serving the Pack as a whole. What about 4th of July parade? Does this Pack not strive to earn the BSA Summertime Pack Award?

 

I see no problem with your son being BOTH an instructor and a Den Chief.

 

Let me take you the the conversation I might have with him:

 

Billy, how was your time as an Instructor. What did you do? Do you think you've learned all you can from the post?

 

What about your time as a Den Chief. What have you done? Do you think you've learned all you can from the post?

 

Do you think you have fulfilled the requirements of these Posts in serving the Troop?

 

When Billy says NO (and if a SM doesn't know how to guide leading questions to discovery learning, that's another reason to take WB), then comes the important one: How do we together solve the challenge? How would you like to get it done? When should we get back together to see how you've done?

 

Then I finish: Being true to yourself is the most important personal value you can have. A good man is one who can look himself in the mirror every day and respect the person looking back. I'm proud of the decisions you made, Billy. You're going to do just fine. If you need any help, call me. If it takes every Scout and every adult in this Troop for you to be a success, you'll have the resources you need... all you have to do is ask!

[fl_mom_of_2]

Our pack does not hold pack meetings over the summer but does have outings such as a parade, picnic, and usually bowling. My son asked our SM if he could continue his job as den chief over the summer but he said no. That is why he had to get another job until the pack started again.

[Lisabob]

Easy answer: the SM is wrong.

 

OK, that's the easy answer. The hard one is, what should be done? Let me ask you this: Does the troop meet or do any kind of activities over the summer? While I think that the SM is out of bounds in terms of the actual requirement, perhaps the SM is also thinking that "hey, Billy here was a Troop Instructor yeah, but during that time the troop didn't meet at all. So how could that count?" In that case, while the SM is still technically wrong in how he dealt with it, the underlying thought pattern is more understandable and the best response might be different as a result.

 

Honestly, if you want your son to continue to be happy and reasonably well-received within the troop then you have got to choose your battles. Depending a bit on circumstances, this might be one you want to pursue, but as noted, it is likely to cause some uproar. Is that going to negatively impact your son more than waiting a couple months for Life would impact him? That depends a good bit on exactly why the SM wants him to wait, I think. And as noted by John and others, it is your son - not you - who ought to be making the decision at this point since it is your son - not you - who is reaching for the second highest rank in boy scouting here.

 

Once your son has decided how he wants to approach this then there are opportunities for mentoring and for modeling appropriate conflict resolution behavior for him (ie, he may need to be guided away from a scorched earth approach here, and you may - or may not - be a good person to guide him). And once he has had the opportunity to handle his own problem, a quiet, friendly, helpful, courteous, kind conversation between you and the SM and maybe the CC might also be in order, to resolve such issues for future scouts. But give your son some space to figure out how he wants to handle this first. We moms cannot always make the world work the way it should for our kiddos, and consequently they do need to develop their own skills at dealing with such problems too.

 

 

[Gunny2862]

It looks like fl_mom_of_2 has a solid case for wanting the advancement to move forward.

 

The SM in question may not have been to training or may not understand that 3 months plus 3 months non-concurrent equals six months. An untrained or new SM could be reading "serve actively 6 months in one or more of the positions of responsibility" as allowing the Scout to hold multiple PORS - but requiring six months of consecutive service in at least one of the PORS in order to advance. He'd be wrong, but without training how would he know? It DOES read that way without the amplification provided by training or reading the whole reference.

 

But having picked up all of the facts that have been given; the question of how to approach the issue remains.

1) As a new troop in which fl_mom_of_2 indicates there are problems I would like to make the case for creating an attitude of friendship, trust and SUPPORT among all of the adult leaders.

Just having a friendly sit down and non-confrontationaly talking about advancement as a whole and then this issue as a specific might be a better avenue.

Is the SM trained? Has the rest of the troop adults taken time to attend training? Are you all on the BSA page or the "this is how our troop is going to do things but we've never really come together to decide how that is page"?

If there are untrained adults especially the SM and CC, then this is where you need to apply your focus (rather than on the individual Scouts issue)- as this should solve this problem and prevent many future ones.

If the Troop isn't actually following BSA guidelines and are "making it up as you go" then bigger fights are coming - especially if you already have conflict among the adults due to no one understanding how everyone else see it. It's time to decide if you are going to follow the program or at the very least sit down and come together on how you will do things. If the latter then someone else will surely suggest the next things is to rename the organization to something other than Boy Scouts.

 

2) IMHO, The Scout in question should just engage the SM in question in regular conversation about advancement how it is supposed to work as the SM sees it and (in this way)see how the SM understands it. If the SM is factually wrong and the Scout has done the work to be able to SHOW it to him(and it isn't unreasonable for him to understand how advancement works)(and isn't confrontational about how he does this part) then, if the SM is a reasonable fellow then this situation should work itself out now and for the future.

 

3) If the SM refuses to discuss advancement with the Scout then there is a problem and the CC needs to have a cup of coffee with him about bigger issues than this one Scout's advancement. But if either/both of them are untrained then maybe even this should happen at a Training event.

 

4) Given fl_mom_of_2 's comments about issues in the Troop I'm going to have to disagree with John-in-KC (It had to happen sometime... ) about having the non-advancement BOR with the CC if there are training issues that need to be resolved. If training hasn't happened and/or the troop is running it's own show vice doing things the BSA way then backdooring the SM is not going to make other adults want to pick up his hat, and isn't likely to make him want to keep wearing it.

 

Remember that SM's are people too and just talking to them rather than wanting to somehow punish them for not making things turn out the way you see them may get you the result you want and win a friend if they see that you care about helping them do their job rather than cracking on them when they get it wrong.

I make mistakes - no doubt about it - but I also seek out training and value constructive input. But, like most, I don't really see "Hey, you're wrong! You really screwed this up!" as constructive.

 

[John-in-KC]

... and Gunny, if there is a lack of training on the part of the SM, then your missive is indeed smack on! We aren't that far apart.

 

??? Have you seen something in Florida mom's posts which indicate the SM has not been to training??? I don't always read someones posting history as deeply as I should.

[Gunny2862]

John just from this line of fl_mom_of_2's post...

"We are a small troop and relatively new (since Oct of last year).", and my own struggles to get to training and the national averages on "Trained" leaders it seems very likely that the Troop may have untrained leaders.

 

If the leaders are Trained then I still think they need to build a culture of working together than of smacking down anyone who isn't intentionally stepping outside the lines.