POR Credit

[sandspur]

OK, looks like this has been discussed in the past but I do not see a direct answer to my question, so I ask the wisdom of the group:

We all agree (at least I do!)that scout POR for Star and above require satisfactory performance by the scout in the POR. However, our troop in the past established specific guidelines intended to remove subjectivity. These include rather specific requirements to attend high percentages (75-90% depending on POR) of meetings, campouts etc. If the scout attends less, does not turn in self evaluations, does not attend troop leadership training etc. partial credit is given. Most scouts in our troop get partial, not full POR credit.

However, the only guidance I can find from BSA is:

Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active in your troop and patrol" defined?

Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:

1. He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

2. He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

3. He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position.

This specifically states that attendance is not a requirement and that removal from office is the correct response to nonperformance (after efforts to correct the situation).

Therefore, I feel we are not correct in requiring minimum attendance and giving most scouts partial credit , and should instead require performance (not specifically attendance), counsel when needed and remove if necessary. Thoughts?

 

[Beavah]

Yah, sandspur, welcome to da forums, eh?

 

Before this goes off the rails in debates about BSA language, let me try to focus this on you and your unit.

 

Who is your Chartered Organization? What are their values and their goals for having a scouting program?

 

If you are chartered to a church, and you went and sat down with the pastor (IH), could you explain and justify your approach? Would that person support what you're tryin' to do for kids, and how you are tryin' to do it?

 

As a unit volunteer, you work for the chartered organization, NOT for the BSA. So if yeh feel some level of performance in a POR is important, and that's part of your institution's goals and values, you need to stick to that as best you can.

 

I think sometimes units go a bit overboard in tryin' to "remove subjectivity." Raisin' children, teaching children, is about relationships and values, and those are subjective things that can't be reduced to numbers. I'd encourage your unit to embrace values and high standards, and not get too caught up in an illusion of objectivity.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[sandspur]

Charter org is a church, but the minister is not really involved. More to the point I really dont want to make a big stink.

My concern is that scouting.org gave no real positive guidance, but specifically seems to disallow attendance quotas. Yet the Adult leader in charge of that part of the program is gung ho on just that.

I think something is wrong when most scouts get 2-4 months POR credit for a six month term. No counseling or effort to improve poor performance, just a grade at the end. However, changing this may well start a major row in the troop. I still think we are overboard.

 

[Twocubdad]

Set attendance aside. Otherwise, how are the boys fulfilling their position of responsibility. If a Scout is a patrol leader but attending half or so of meetings and campouts, how is he carrying out his responsibilities to the patrol?

[regi]

This is something that drove me crazy when I was troop's advancement chair.We had to accept POR credit as long as they were on the books as holding position.We had to accept this even if we knew the person had not made a good faith effort to perform duties.

Have had PLC set up a contract for their members that gave parameters for minimum requirements.The youth could ask the person to step down if they were not doing job and new leader would be elected.

It's not a perfect solution.

It's very hard to use attendance It seems that my best leaders were the ones that were active in a wide variety of activities that sometimes conflict.A good faith effort to perform task would be if leader is unable to attend a meeting he would appoint a proxy and prepare him to fill in.

It's nice to have some set requirements within the unit but it's hard not to have some level of subjectivity.

 

[Eagle007]

The only way I see a POR credit being denied is if the scout is absolutely NOT fulfulling his responsibility, i.e. he is NEVER at meetings nor activities nor does he have a valid explanation of why when confronted with this. "Hey, XYZ, where've been? We've missed you as our patrol leader." "Oh, I just haven't felt like coming the past four to five months."

 

In that situation, I would have had him removed from the POR/had him replaced and explain that in order for him to be given credit that he has to meet the responsibility of that position. Then I would assign him to another six month POR.

[CalicoPenn]

I'm going to disagree with Beavah here. Yes, the chartered organization has some input but the chartered organization has already agreed to provide the Boy Scouts of American program as provided by the Boy Scouts of America. You may be "working" for the Chartered Organization, but your work is delivering the Boy Scouts of America programming that the Chartered Organization has agreed to. You are providing the "Boy Scouts of the 15th Baptist Church of the Methodist Islamic Hierarchy" program here, you providing the Boy Scouts of America program - as written.

 

The Boy Scouts is pretty clear on what active means - and that a percentage attendance metric is not a measurement of active. Does it make any sense at all then, for there to be some kind of allowable attendance metric is the performance of a POR? Of course not.

 

Frankly, this kind of measurement is used by unit leaders too lazy to actually do the kind of work needed to mentor the youth.

 

I'd like to see where in the literature it says it is ok to give partial credit on a POR that was held through term. We're not talking about someone being a Den Chief for 3 months then a PL for 3 months (as long as they aren't done at the same time, he gets credit for both - and that's 6 months - he doesn't have to serve the whole time in one POR).

 

In fact, Den Chief is a great example of how the timing works, whether a leader likes it or not. A Den Chief gets 6 months credit if he's Den Chief for rank POR from April 1 to September 30 - even though out of that 6 month time period, he probably had only one Pack event per month in June, July and August versus up to 5 meetings per month in April, May and September. The lack of Den and Pack meetings in the summer doesn't affect his time in POR.

 

If the Troop has left a non-performing lad in a POR though term, then shame on the Unit Leadership for not engaging the lad to find out why he wasn't performing, and for not propertly mentoring the lad - but despite the leadership's shame, the lad gets the POR credit - and you'll know next time to keep a closer eye out.

 

 

[regi]

Eagle07

I don't see myself as an adult having the option of taking away youth position or to appoint a youth position.This is for the SPL and his PLC as an adult you are there to advise and insure safety.

You can advise leadership to set up criteria for questioning a youth's position.You should not wait till the end of tenure to say you will not count leadership requirement.This would set you up for major trouble.If scout is not officially removed from position before end,the time technically counts.Good luck with the parent if you create your own rules and this holds boy back from advancement.

There needs to be a preset agreed to criteria that is acted on as soon as it's not met.First option is mentoring to help youth succeed then it is up to PLC.Appointed positions are done by SPL.

[OldGreyEagle]

I don't know how many of us have annual evaluations, but I know, that those of us who do would not appreciate being told at our annual evaluation that our boss thinks we have been sucking out for the past six months and the boss has just been licking his chops for the evaluation to let us know just how sorry our lame butt attempt to do good has been.

 

I think a decent respect for the youth is to let him know where he stands at least at the mid-point and then if he is not performing up to standards, whatever you have designated that to be, how to reach those standards and if not, then releive that scout of the POR before the 6 months or 4 monthd for Star is up. If any of the scouts in your troop appealed to the Disitrct Advancement Committee that they were in a position for 6 months and did not get credit for the position it would get overturned. Well, it should get overturned I know I would as a District Advancement person, You don't leave someone is postion and then not tell him if he is doing well only to tell him six months later sorry boy, you didnt cut the mustard. If the mstard isnt being cut, its told to the youth as soon as its noticed with help to adjust performance. if the youth doesnt adjust performance, then he is releived of the position just like real life.

[Eagle007]

Regi you obiously misunderstood my posting. I would never allow a scout to go all the way throught the POR time requirement, tell him that he never met the requirements and assign him to another POR. And yes, as an adult that is guiding the troop, I could pull the POR and have him re-assigned. You may do things a little different in your troop but so be it. If a scout is assigned a POR by the SPL and skips out on the POR following his assignment then it is up to the SPL/SM to have a conference with this scout about the responsibilites to the position. In our troop a scout would not be given credit for something he has not done and would not be left in a POR for six months without something being said. These are all hypothetical situations that have never occurred. Now, having said that, we don't have those types of problems in our troop. Our troop is awesome and we are in it only for the boys. Tonight we had four scouts present their dates for their eagle projects to the troop.

[FScouter]

Performance, yes! Attendance does not equal performance, thus the ol' percentage method means nothing.

[Mafaking]

 

What about a Patrol Leader who doesn't camp? Not one overnighter with his patrol over the entire six months.

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

True attendance doesn't equal performance but to perform one must be there! The SPL & ASPL & PL's of a Troop should be expected to be present all the time! They should be setting the example. If they aren't there, what impression does this give to the rest of the youth in the Troop?

[Eagle007]

evmori, Thank you. I could not have said it better.

[dg98adams]

One of the things I've tried to convey to our POR positions (& adult leadership), if a POR cannot be at a function, it's thier job to make sure the assistant (or someone else experienced at that POR) is there representing the POR, and is prepared for whatever your task/job was.

 

We don't count that as an absence as the Primary POR is following thru.

 

It's good to let SM know the POR can't be there, but that does not help your Patrol or the Troop.