Busy doing nothing.

[Eamonn]

All this chat about POR's has got my little gray cells working.

In the "Real World" I'm trained and spend a lot of time being trained to do stuff that with luck I hope never ever to use.

At work I'm on the HNT (Hostage Negotiations Team). With drills and training's this takes up a fair amount of time.

In our department we have a lot of other people who are trained in other areas, learning skills that they hope never to use.

Nearly all the people on these teams hold other positions and volunteer to be on these teams.

They of course are informed what the team does and what is expected of them, before they sign on.

For me, I'm happy knowing that if need be? I'm ready to do my bit, but even more happy to be doing nothing.

 

While maybe some people might disagree? I think that some of the POR's entail more heavy lifting than others. I think that the SPL carries a lot more responsibility than say the OA-Rep.

This isn't the fault of the Scout or the SM.

It is what it is.

Hopefully the SM understands what is expected to fulfill the responsibilities of each position.

He meets with the Scout and goes over what is expected.

If the Lads is not doing what is expected,the SM should meet with the Lad and provide a very friendly kick in the pants.

Maybe along with this very friendly kick in the pants, the SM might issue a stern warning stating that this is a position of responsibility not just a position and failure to do what was agreed needed to be done might result in the Lad being removed from the position.

I have never been part of a Troop that had Bugler.

I can see that Troops that do have use this as a POR, only call on his services for events when the entire Troop is in camp. A Troop that holds elections every six months might put him to work a lot at summer camp, while maybe the Lad who is Bugler over the winter months might not get to play his bugle that much.

This isn't the fault of the Scout.

We could sit around all day and argue about how much responsibility it takes to play the bugle. (It seems that Bugler can now be used as a POR for Eagle Scout rank)

 

If I were the SM of a Scout who was informed that being the Bugler didn't show any real leadership and was turned down by a BOR for this reason. I think I'd be more than a little upset.

The issue is not what I think, or what the board thinks, it should be all about did the Lad meet the requirements that are laid down by the BSA and did he do what he agreed to do when he took on the job?

If he was never asked to toot his bugle? Is that his fault?

Eamonn.

 

(I should add that I don't have at hand a copy of the Boy Scouts Requirements 2009. I read about Bugler being acceptable for Eagle Scout rank on Merit Badge. com)

[ntrog8r]

According to the National website, http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/eagle.aspx , Bugler is NOT an option for Eagle. The acceptable PORs are Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, or instructor.

 

Of course, your point is still valid - SPL is defineitely more leadership than say historian. But the requirement isn't for leadership, its for responsibility. So while the SPL my be responsible for the Scouts and the troop meetings, the quartermaster is responsible for all troop eqiupment.

 

How each troop uses each of these PORs varies widely, and I've seen some scribes who do absolutely nothing except wear the patch. I saw a Chaplain's Aide who never led a single service, presented a blessing, etc. He was the Chaplain's Aide because he had earned the religious square know as a Cub. I once had a troop historian who I gave some goals and a "to do" list. In six months, and with monthly conferences he accomplished exactly none of them. As the SM, I did not count this for rank advancement, and told him so four months out that I wouldn't if he didn't try to complete his tasks.

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

I kinda thought that Merit Badge.Com had it wrong!

Sadly th search on the BSA site and your's truly just don't seem to get on!

The thread about a Board feeling that a Lad who was a Den Chief had failed to show leadership, was my reason for saying leadership. (We now know that it seems there was a mix up with the length of time he held the position.)

The ability to be able to accept and take on responsibility is a big part of learning to lead.

 

In the District I serve we have one Troop which really has gone out of its way to ensure that every Scout who is still around after his fifteenth birthday will make Eagle.

The Troop is very much adult led. The SPL doesn't do much, other than lead the Scouts in the Oath and Law at the start of each Troop meeting. If they have more Scouts who need a POR than spots are available they just add a few more ASPL's!

Thankfully I have never had to sit on an Eagle Scout BOR for any of these Scouts.

To be honest, I'm not sure what I'd do.

Part of me would know that if the truth be known this POR was in name only, but being as the SM had signed off? I'd be between a rock and a hard place.

Is it the Lads fault that he is unfortunate to have a SM who is willing to bend or find ways to get around things?

Eamonn.

[BrentAllen]

Eamonn,

I think your attitude about SMs being infallible needs some further contemplation. You stated in the other thread that if a CC questioned your judgement as SM on a POR, you would resign. Now, you are stating you would have problems failing to qualify an Eagle candidate at his EBOR when you know he hasn't met the requirements. What in the world is a BOR for? Is it just a rubber stamp for the SM?

 

Making tough decisions is part of leadership. Being between a rock and a hard place is where all the character a Scout has learned should pay off. If someone in the district doesn't ever do their part in the BOR (make sure the work has been learned and completed) and ask questions to reveal the failings you mentioned, nothing is ever going to change with that unit.

 

I'll ask another question: Is it the lad's fault that the district has allowed this charade to go on for so long, resulting in the lad being denied the chance to really learn leadership and responsibility, to be given the promise of Scouting?

[JerseyScout]

Do the two newly recognized leadership positions (Troop Webmaster and Leave No Trace Trainer) count for Life and Eagle? I'd imagine that they would, but I'm curious.

[Stosh]

What totally amazes me with this whole discussion is that the POR (Position of RESPONSIBILITY) does not mean that the boy has to show LEADERSHIP! The Eagle Project does that! Not the POR. If keeping equipment organized, clean and distributed/collected back up means the boy did leadership, great, but otherwise he fulfilled his responsibility to the equipment. A Webmaster only has to listen to what someone else tells him to put into the web design and then do it. No leadership, just follow along and fulfill your responsibility.

 

One better listen closely to the wording on the patch Position of Responsibility, not Position of Leadership. When we work through the definition properly maybe we can forego some of the "added" expectations we as adult leaders impose over and above the requirement.

 

Stosh

[AlFansome]

Troop Webmaster, LNT Trainer and Bugler are all (as of 1/1/2010) valid PORs for Star, Life and Eagle. There was a misprint (suprise!) in the 1st printing of the new handbook that left out a few PORs for Eagle.

 

However, at Philmont, it was confirmed to me by speakers from National, that it was indeed an oversight and those 3 are valid for Eagle as of the 1st of the year. Expect a new Eagle application, of course, as well.

[BrentAllen]

Wow. I always thought that Scouts holding PORs of either Senior Patrol LEADER, Asst. Senior Patrol LEADER, or Patrol LEADER had to show leadership.

[AMulls]

Brent, I think that was part of Stosh's point.

 

Some PORs do require leadership (SPL, ASPL, PL, etc.), but others do not (Scribe, Historian, Webmaster, etc.).

 

Basically, all leadership positions are PORs, but not all PORs are leadership positions.

 

However, to be signed off on the position, a Scout must have fulfilled the responsibilities of that position, whether it be running the troop (SPL) or maintaining the equipment shed (QM).

[Eamonn]

Brent,

Old Chap!

I don't think anyone is infallible.

I thought I was wrong once, but I made a mistake.

 

As I see it there are two different things going on here.

One has to do with me!

I'm very much a man of my word. At times even a bit of an old book thumper.

If I sign off saying that a Scout has met the requirements for whatever has to be done as having been done, you can bet your last penny that the Lad has done it.

That leaves us with the "Gray Areas" - Scout Spirit and Leadership.

There really are no hard and fast rules for this.

We might agree that a Lad who does or fails to do some things, clearly just isn't there yet.

Some of the Scouter's I know only look at how the Scout is when he is at Scouting events, others take into account everything they know or think they know about the Lad inside and outside of Scouting.

I like to think that I have a relationship with the Scouts I serve and base things on what I know or at times what I feel.

Someone at one time or another thought I was the man for the job and they offered it to me.

For them to come back at a later date and say "Hey! Hold on, your judgment isn't good enough!" Is as far as I'm concerned a kick in the teeth.

If they really feel that way the best thing for everyone is for me to go.

Twocub Dad was right when he posted that he would accept my resignation. If they feel that I can't be trusted and I feel that they don't trust me. It is far better for all concerned that we have a parting of the ways.

The other issue is one that as yet I have not had to face.

A leader who clearly not doing what he should be doing.

My problem as I see it would be appointing blame.

Is this the fault of the Scout?

As we all know the District does not have the power?? To fire a leader.

I happen to think that the people who do this sort of thing know and are aware of what they are doing. So any claim of ignorance would be lost on me.

With this in mind I'm not sure if a friendly chat would do much good. Maybe worth trying but I wouldn't hold my breath.

There was a thread a week or so back about rechartering and I said that the Commissioner Staff should be meeting with the CC. This would seem like a great time to go over issues like this.

Ea.

[Stosh]

My CC and committee have a tendency to ask the question, "What did you do while holding your POR that was really fun?" and "What did you do while holding your POR that you think you would like to work on to improve?"

 

While it is not "re-testing" it does give the BOR an idea of how well the boy is FUNCTIONING in his POR. When I do a SMC I suggest to the boy to write down all those things so he would have something to brag about to the board. For some of the boys that's a pretty short list and they are somewhat embarrassed with what they have to present to the board. Taking that one step forward, what does the boy say when he knows he hasn't done anything? At that point he will quickly realize that his BOR isn't really going anywhere and that they have sufficient evidence to recess the board until the boy has time to come up something to talk about.

 

I would prefer a PL candidate say, "I tried to do all these different things and the boys blew me off and wouldn't do a darned thing." than the standard answer of "I didn't do anything."

 

Stosh

[IM_Kathy]

Stosh I would prefer to hear that too... but what I hear all to often is from a boy that is highly active and working hard on advancement coming through for his BOR and telling me how often they've had to step up and fill in for they're PL or QM or whoever because they don't show or don't want to do the work... and then I see the mentioned boy go for his BOR but with other committee members and him getting his next rank.

 

when I hear from the boy doing so much to help out I always ask why he felt the patrol voted the way they did and it's always because he has more friends in the patrol and that the boy said he needed it for rank.

 

I don't know how you can give advancement to a PL who never attended a campout during his time and made it to only 1/2 the meetings and often left them early.

 

sorry, turning into a vent...

 

I did have 1 boy that had to miss a bunch due to football that came up to me and said he felt bad that he missed so much and had to have another boy fill in... I had a task that I knew of that was really needing done and related to his POR and mentioned that if he could pull it off I could see that filling in for the time missed... and boom he got it done and was glad that he did it - made him think he wasn't just sneaking by with an "in name only" POR. Him doing that and actually coming forward made me look at him as a boy that really was grasping the idea of scouts, teamwork, and responsibility.

[Stosh]

IM_Kathy:

 

I have had boys who were unable to "attend and fulfill" their POR because of sports, etc. I asked them what they did while they were away. Did they still do the communications for the patrol? Did they still plan the meetings for the APL? Did they do the follow-up and make sure things went well in his absence? I'm a firm believer that with busy boys, they can in fact fulfill their POR's when measured in terms of doing the work vs. showing up and attending meetings.

 

If one follows that logic to it's conclusion, a PL can "fulfill" his POR by showing up every meeting night, totally unprepared, do nothing for the evening, badger everyone in their patrol to do the work needed to be done for activities at the meeting.

 

Is attendance a good measurement of leadership? I don't think so, but that's my opinion, your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh

[IM_Kathy]

trust me stosh - the ones I was venting about don't do a thing whether they are there or not... don't attend PLC, don't inform patrol of what's going on, don't help plan campouts regardless of attending or not, don't inform other boys when they can't attend to get APL or another boy to officially fill in for him... it is typically the couple of go-getter boys that will just do it because they know it needs done, and these are the boys that never get elected because of who is friends with who. But these go-getters since they don't get PL often take on another troop position like quartermaster, historian, and the like and basically end up doing 2 POR

[Twocubdad]

One of my Eagle Scouts served a term as QM while playing high school football. He consistently showed up a half hour late for troop meetings with wet hair and his uniform in a grocery bad. He rarely made campouts, but when we showed up to the hut on Friday evenings to head out on a campout, there was a pile of gear in the middle of the room and a note with instructions. When we returned Sunday he would be standing at the hut waiting to help unload. Did I sign off on his POR? You betcha.

 

Unfortunately, that is by far the exeption.

 

I do expect to see a demonstration of leadership from boys in positions of responsibility. As noted, that's fairl obvious for SPL, ASPL, PL or troop guide. But I expect the troop scribe and QM to demonstrate leadership by leading and organizing the patrol scribes and QMs too. If a scout purports to hold a position of responsibility within the troop, we expect that they will lead by means of setting a good example, if nothing else.