who can sign rank requirements

[Eagle92 110]

BDPT,

Let me explain how my old troop did T-2-1 BORs at one time. You had 2 committee members and 1 youth, with the youth being the 'chairman" in that his signature was the first one and he made the announcement to the youth of passing. Everyone one on the BOR signed the book. usually the scout onthe BOR was a member of the Leadership Corps, which loosely corresponds to the Venture patrol today. I think that when a nationalmade it adults only, the troop changed it, but I could be wrong.

[Narraticong 15]

Our troop does every BOR and SM by the book. But if there is ever consideration that we should do things right, meaning youth leaders running T-2-1 BOR's, I'll be the first to sign up.

 

As to Beavah's point about it being prudent to assume that the boys are not always trustworthy, I find that to be very sad. A Scout is Trustworthy. Not sometimes, not when it's convenient, not just when someone is looking. When a boy puts on the uniform, raises his arm and repeats the Law, I do not "assume" he is trustworthy. I (and everyone else in the troop) must EXPECT he is trustworthy. Do boys break this trust? Everyone of them does at some time. And that is the great thing about Scouting. We fail, we pay the consequence, we learn from our failing, and we start again fresh.

 

The other boys learn to forgive. They learn the value of a man's word is all he has. That is something sorely lacking in our country today. If we tell a boy he "should" be trustworthy, but then put all kinds of checks in place to makes sure he obeys the rules, we are telling him we expect him to fail. We encourage him to find a way around the checks.

 

If we say, "I trust you" and then go about our business as though we really do, we encourage a boy to succeeed. Those times he does fail our trust will result in a deep felt remorse.

 

It's not an easy thing to live by the Law. But nobody ever said it would be, did they?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, well, that was one of my points, N. I get where you're comin' from, and I agree with you. We all express confidence in the kids, and expect 'em to live up to their Oath.

 

What struck me was that your youth leaders said they did not believe the boy had passed a swim test, and the boy said he did. So two different Trustworthy youth disagreed on a point. I was curious why you assumed the boy (who is not allowed to sign his own requirement) should be believed, but your youth leaders (who are allowed to sign the boy's requirement) should be assumed to be untrustworthy. I just didn't get it. For me, I'd assume that the youth leader was being Trustworthy in his signing or not signing, eh?

 

I think when a youth leader signs for a requirement, that signature is his word that the boy had passed the requirement. I wouldn't force him to give his word when he couldn't. Same for an adult. I wouldn't give my word that the lad had passed if I hadn't seen it myself. That wouldn't be trustworthy in my book.

 

That was my real point/question. I wasn't really sayin' that we assume the lads aren't trustworthy. Sorry I got all wordy and wasn't clear.

 

One of the reasons I think it's important to think about this carefully is because some of those skills are important, eh? The BSA swim test is a big part of our Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat. A boy who really hasn't passed a swim test "in a strong manner" can be put in some real danger if he's permitted on the basis of that signoff to participate in a more advanced water outing. Swimmin' into deep water, fallin' off a boat, flipping a canoe, gettin' into some whitewater. Accidents in water happen fast, eh? We had a cub scout drown this last month within three minutes of arrivin' at a pool, despite lifeguards and lookouts.

 

With that in mind, I can understand why your youth leaders might be reluctant to give their word that the boy had passed his check, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Narraticong 15]

It wasn't the "leadership" who suggested the boy may not have taken the test. We were a brand new troop and barely had "leadership" at the time! Troop was almost entirely Tenderfoot or less. The test took place at summer camp and was the normal BSA test for "Swimmer". It's arrival day at camp, the boys are all excited and none of them are charged with monitoring who passes and who doesn't. I don't think the boy went back to the lake the rest of the week. He's not a "high energy" type kid.

 

The subject of whether he passed the test came into play after we were home from camp. He was part of our camp T-2-1 program, but they do not mark the swimming requirement on the sheets returned to the Scoutmaster. When we asked who passed the Swimmer test he said he had. Again, we expect he is telling the truth. But a couple boys suggested he might not have. Of course, they were also excited and involved with their own test at the same time. After much consideration, we decided to take his word.

 

It was our first year at Summer camp, so yes there are lots of things we will do better this year. Your question of safety is a valid one. The boy passed Second Class Swimming in a pool just fine. So I am pretty comfortable he is a capable swimmer. I think he may just have not taken the test at all. I find some boys just do not like to swim in a lake. In a pool they are just fine. But retesting would have been the smarter move, in the end.

 

By passing him on the test, I was trying to impress the importance of his word upon this boy. It was explained to the other boys why I was doing so (quietly) and they understood. I believe it made an impression on them also.

[asm 411 10]

Our Scoutmaster and I use trust but verify all the time. In most cases it becomes obvious pretty quickly if a Scout did something.

 

I might have asked something like this: "During the swimmers test which lap did you find the hardest? The third lap or the backstroke lap?"

 

There is no trick there just an honest question.

 

Often times I have found that asking a Scout about the experience makes them remember or not remember something important.

 

Just a couple weeks ago a Scout requested a Scoutmaster's conference for First Class and I was sure he did not do the orienteering requirement. I asked where he did the requirement. He named a camp that does not have an orienteering course. He had mixed up Map and Compass with Orienteering. It was an honest mistake. I explained the difference. No big deal. I then went to the older Scout who had signed him off on it and talked to him about verifying what he was signing off on.

 

Lot's of good lessons here.

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

I am all for Scouts signing off Scouts. But I had a situation turn up last week which concerned me, and may be reflective of a bigger problem. I had a scout signed off for 2C req 7c (Water Rescue) while on a campout in the middle of the winter, in a non swimmining situation.

 

I have read the requirement, and it does not exactly say it has to be done in the water, but I do not feel the scout should have been signed off.

 

What is the best way to handle this without undermining the PLs authority? The scout who is up for 2C has completed all other requirements.

[Lisabob 13]

A very similar thing happened in our troop recently. Our troop's policy is that boys Star and up can sign off on most T-2-1 requirements. One of our new Star scouts signed off on 2nd class requirements 2c and 2f without verifying that the scout in question could actually do those things. His explanation was that the boy in question had his totin chip and firem'n chit and so was more than likely qualified. While perhaps that would fly for 2c, it definitely doesn't work for 2f.

 

A quiet word to the Star scout who signed the book was enough to help him better understand his new responsibility. As for the other scout, the Star scout went back to him, explained his honest mistake, and offered to teach the younger scout how to actually do the skills in question/let the scout demonstrate his knowledge on the next camp out. Problem solved, I think.

 

One thing this did highlight for me was that if boys are going to be given the responsibility for signing other scouts' books, it is also incumbent on us to teach the boys what the expectations are, that accompany that responsibility. Once they know, they are usually very good about abiding by those expectations but we shouldn't expect them to be mind readers.

[eghiglie 10]

We do Leader Training every six months and part of that is how to teach and test.

 

In our Troop its fairly simple, for T-2-1, any boy who is 1st Class or higher can sign. Except for activit requirements, Scout Spirit and anything that requires verification of completing something like recruiting or the drug awareness.

 

No scout or adult can sign off for a family member.

 

If a scout comes to me for a T-2-1 signoff on most of the demonstration requirements I ask the SPL why.

 

For Star and higher only an adult can sign off.