Jump to content

Not passing Board of Review

Recommended Posts

I agree with Beavah.


Wens seems to be asking (several times) how the troop can ask this scout to go back and do more work when the troop has accepted POR with little or no effort in the past?


Wens: Yep, that is the question. Now that you are hip deep in the swamp, how to you get out? Yeh, there are troops out there where a POR is just a formality. After six months, it is signed off even if the scout did not do a thing.


My experience is the scouts dont like it, if anyone bothers to ask them. They feel it is unfair to those who put forth effort in a POR to give credit to a scout who did not. Cheapens the efforts of those who put forth the effort. And yes, the leadership should have put a stop to this before, but that is in the past.


Unfortunately, I have been in both extremes. I was part of a troop where PORs could be a joke, and part of one currently where POR evaluation is run like a Fortune 500 job review. Try to set reasonable standards for boys.

What do you do now?

Suggestion: Revisit with the scout as suggested above. Perhaps he will agree he did not really do much. Get this one out of the way with the lads buy in. Importantly, give him a clear path forward.


But for your troop, I suggest you discuss this in committee, agree there has been a problem in the past and set some standards for the future. Then, bring this to the PLC. I think you might very well find the PLC is supportive of assuring that scouts put forth some effort in the POR. Get them behind you.


With the PLC and committee aligned, announce in a meeting that FROM NOW ON, the following standards apply to POR credit in our troop (insert whatever reasonable rules you come up with). Then put the past behind you.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That is complete bull. A board can not make any changed or require additional things beyond what it states in the requirement. I suggest reading the Guide to Advancement, it is extremely enlightening.

I suspect that the BOR members are adding requirements for the Life rank - which would be a violation of policy.   What requirement did the boy not complete?   The Scoutmaster already signed of


Your right, the entire committee feels like we are sinking in the swamp because we realize its our fault.

We are doing just as you suggest, holding a committee to raise standards, let the PLC vote on them, let the boys know what is to be from now on, meet again with the scout and ask him the recommended questions.

I agree with Beavah and anyone else who said it, adults at fault, many of us owe him an apology.

We have good leadership with Powderhorn and Woodbadge training. Most of the time things run smoothly but every now and then we have change of leadership, change in spl, etc. and standards end up slipping.


We have no intention of making board of reviews like a fortune 500 company but the scout should feel like he accomplished the rank when he is done with one!

Link to post
Share on other sites



I hope the boy will buy in.


Always have a Plan B.


What's your Plan B if he does not buy in? I'd recommend that conversation be between SM, CC and UC.


BTW, who is talking to his parents to get them on your side of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

John in KC - Would you believe parents are CC and an Asst SM. Two eagles in the family already. They know the drill and have respectfully stayed quiet until we figure this out. However, they do want to take part in our special meeting that addresses these issues for the entire troop.


We are working on Plan B now, thanks for the advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I almost wonder if a Troop never has a Scout ?remediated? from a BoR if the BoR has any real purpose whatever?


I just had my first Scout ever(3 years), sent back from a First Class BoR without advancement at the current time.

I won't cover specifics but the basics were that in comparison with his peers this particular Scout was the least able to carry his end of the conversation in regards to skill questions or terminology that should be present in any basic grasp of the material in a couple of areas. He was viewed as unprepared. Then he was given a remediation plan and a time frame in which the Board would be pleased to complete their meeting with him.


At the post event meeting I was given a hotwash of what they saw, why they thought he was unprepared, what they thought the problem MIGHT be and how I and my ASM's MIGHT choose to fix what they saw. They also said the majority of the issue lay with the boy (and most likely a possible box check and forget attitude)but that they could see how the fix they suggested could benefit not just this one but might make a better experience for all upcoming Scouts. Given the scenario I actually agree and don't feel slighted for me. I am worried about how how this Scout feels and have already had two additional conversations with him about the situation and that is isn't about "No" but about you just really are missing a little bit of "What this Troop thinks a Scout of this rank should be able to do and be." and that that means the Adults are really interested in helping him be a great Scout and not simply busting his chops for some unknown reason.


My point is, the BoR is there for a reason -and can be a useful tool for the SM in ensuring standards aren't slipping(see Eagle thread going on right now) or that some new evolutions in teaching may be more useful than what is going on right now or some other problem or opportunity with the program.


Now if they start kicking them back all of the time it may be that they are over-reaching or that I'm not doing my job - either way it's coffee time with somebody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunny, remember the Board OF Review also reviews the scouts view of the troop, the composition of the BOR is such that the scoutmaster and Asst Scoutmasters are not present so the scout may feel more free to discuss what he likes or dislikes about the troop.


In a troop operating accrosing to Hoyle, the BOR should be focusing on the scouts and how to improve his experience, with his inout natrually, and not so much outlining how to get the scout up to an acceptable skill level

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 years later...

That is complete bull. A board can not make any changed or require additional things beyond what it states in the requirement. I suggest reading the Guide to Advancement, it is extremely enlightening. The board can however ask how he demonstrated leadership in his position but after he answers it must be moved on from and can not be held against him. The requirements are the requirements regardless of how a board or its members may feel. Again, read the Guide to Advancement, I am so glad I did because there was a lot of surprising things in it. For example, If a scout doesn't show  up to the BOR in full uniform, it can not be held against him, they can ask why but after he answers its a done deal. Read it.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

The situation as described was an inappropriate use of the BOR. There may be more to the story, of course, but:

To sign-off all the requirements, then fail to advance the Scout is absolutely wrong - once signed off the rank is earned.  If the youth did not fill the requirements of the leadership position, he should have been replaced in the position long before completing his tenure in the position.  It is absolutely reasonable to set minimum standards, how many meetings, how many activities, and so on, but these should be written, and part of the bylaws, not sprung at the BOR.

G2A says: "The concepts of “reasonable” and “within reason” will help unit leadership and boards of review gauge the fairness of expectations for considering whether a Scout is “active” or has fulfilled positions of responsibility. A unit is allowed, of course, to establish expectations acceptable to its chartered organization and unit committee. But for advancement purposes, Scouts must not be held to those which are so demanding as to be impractical for today’s youth (and families) to achieve. Ultimately, a board of review shall decide what is reasonable and what is not. In doing so, the board members must use common sense and must take into account that youth should be allowed to balance their lives with positive activities outside of Scouting."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...