Scoutmasters Conference

[click23]

Reading over the"Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures" guide book, I came across this:

 

"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.

 

And from the "Scoutmaster Confernce Training", http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/TrainingModules/ScoutmasterConferenceTraining.aspx,:

 

"The board of review is the final step in the advancement. However, the members of the board of review are troop committee members who might not know the Scouts as well as the Scoutmaster. If a Scout's advancement is to be deferred, that should come at the Scoutmaster's conference. While the board of review is not a rubber stamp, the Scoutmaster should not approve the Scout at the Scoutmaster's conference and then expect the board of review to defer the Scout.

The requirement for advancement is that the Scout participate in a Scoutmaster's conference, not that he "pass" the conference. Even after a negative Scoutmaster's conference, if the Scout desires a board of review, he should be granted his request."

 

 

Say a scout comes to his Scoutmaster Conference, and he has completed all of his retirements, what reason could there be to "defer" his advancement? And if he is deferred, isn't "creat(ing) goals that will allow him to succeed" adding to the requirements? For his BOR, if he completed all of the requirments correclty, is there any reason for the BOR to deny his advancement?

[OldGrayOwl]

It sure does sound like "double-speak". If the SM turns down the scout at the SMC, all the scout has to say is "I had a SMC, now I want a BOR" and we have to grant him one. But in the SM's training, it is up to the SM to defer the Scout from advancing, right?

 

How do you keep a scout from advancing even if he has done everything according to the "book", but has negative scout spirit, doesn't help out at all within the troop, etc?

[Eagle732]

If a Scout has completed all the requirements except SMC, Scout Spirit, and BOR the main reason he would be deferred is for Scout Spirit. I follow this as a guideline:

 

"Scout spirit applies to how a Scout lives and

conducts his 'daily' life.

 

He shows Scout spirit by being a role model to his

peers, living by the Scout Oath and Law.

 

The concept of Scout spirit is not based on how many Scouting events or outings a Scout attends, but rather by how he helps bring out the best in others as a reflection of his own character and attitude in his 'daily' life."

 

If the Scout does not live up to the above definition of Scout Spirit then I don't sign off on it and we discuss what he needs to change or improve on to be signed off. Of course before we even get to this point the Scout and I have probably had several discussions on how he can live his daily life with Scout Spirit.

 

 

 

[Twocubdad]

That's somewhat of a false premise. Part of the purpose of the SMC is to confirm whether or not the Scout has completed the rest of the requirements. Things happen. I've had Scouts come to conferences without having things signed off. I've had Scouts who had things improperly signed off. (And no, if I know a Scout didn't complete something properly, I'm not going to turn a blind eye just because he has it signed in the book.) In these situations I've signed off that the Scout completed the conference, but obviously told him he has to complete the other requirements before I recommend him for a Board of Review. In that situation it's important to let your advancement chairman know what's up.

 

One of the reasons many troops use the SMC to sign off on participation, positions of responsibility and Scout spirit is because those are much more subjective and lend themselves to more conversation. If there is any question about the completion of one of those requirements, the conference is the time to discuss it (subject to the above notes that it shouldn't be the first the Scout hears of it.)

 

On another point, I'll disagree a bit with the notes about not passing a Scout along to let the Board of Review turn him down. I've done that before in certain circumstances. But it's done in very close consultation with the Board of Review. I wouldn't just dump an unqualified kid on the board and hope they turn him down. Sometimes when I'm having problems with a boy, I've talked with him about an issue until he's tired of hearing from me. I've passed the Scout along to the Board of Review just so he hears the message from the board. I've also had Scouts pull some disciplinary boner after the conference, but before the board.

 

I'll add that the Scoutmaster needs to have a close working relationship with the advancement chairman and the folks sitting the boards. If I don't call him first, my AC always ask me "is there anything I need to know about this one?" We've got Scouts with learning disabilities and the board needs to know what to expect from these boys. Perhaps a Scout has an opportunity to do something and needs encouragement. Maybe a boy is Patrol Leader and having issues with another Scout. All this makes good fodder for a board of review.

 

 

[evmori]

Classic double speak.

 

If there are deficiencies, it is up to the SM to inform the Advancement Chair of these so the BOR is aware of them.