Positions of Responsibility

[Themis 10]

When a Scout takes on a Position of Responsibility, can the Scout be required to attend a certain percentage of outings and meetings in order to have completed the POR and have it placed on his record? The Scoutmaster is proposing this to the Troop Committee.

[evmori 11]

This has always been a sticking point. The term "serve actively" is associated with POR's. And if a Scout is in a POR, he should be setting the example for the rest of the unit. I don't think there is anything specifically stating you can't require a certain percentage but you will get the argument that this is adding to the requirements.

 

I think the Scoutmaster and is ASM's need to come up with a better way to determine if the Scout is "serving actively" and not just holding the POR and doing nothing. Requiring he attend a certain percentage doesn't accomplish this.

 

Why is this going to the Troop Committee? This is an advancements issue and the Scoutmaster is the gatekeeper.

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

My thought on this is both "Yes" and "No." I think there needs to be an expectation (in advance) that success in a position can only happen when one is actively involved.

 

For example a patrol leader who misses 4 of 6 campouts would hardly be seen as doing a good job of leading his patrol. But what if he was working closely with his assistant patrol leader, helped the scouts pack (the trailer) for outings he could not attend, held montly Patrol meetings, had 2 patrol hikes in the same 6 months, completed 2 service projects, and earned 2 National Honor Patrol stars?

 

I would be glad to have a PL like this in my troop. It can be quite subjective. As a SM, I would make my expectations clear in advance. We have a PL contract. It contains no "attendence" requirements, but measures success by the progress of the patrol. Interestingly, our PL contract is signed by the PL and SPL (not the SM). If you have a good SPL, have him work with the PL also, and get the SPLs opinion of the success/progress of his patrol.

[dg98adams 18]

Expectations agreed on the performance of a POR is worked out not only before a Scout in our Troop takes his POR, but he gets counseled during his tenure.

 

One element (attendance, participation or what ever you want to call it) I speak to, is the reality that the Scout won't be able to make every meeting/outing/function... but the expectation is he is to "prepare" and "confirm" either his assistant or an older Scout goes to fill in for him and lets him know about the event/outing/meeting.

 

That will be noted on the monthly ASM Mentor (with the ASPL) review of the POR when counseling him. It's not useful or responsible to wait till the end of the POR to tell him he is not doing his job.

 

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

Are there any other barriers to advancement that the BSA does not have that your Scoutmaster wants to propose to the Troop Committee while he's at it? Frankly, putting these kinds of "policies" in to play is a sign of sheer laziness and perhaps incompetance on the part of the adult program leaders. There are already mechanisms and methods available to use to deal with participation/attendance issues - use the tools that are already there rather than invent tools. If the BSA thought that participation/attendance metrics were a good idea, then they would have recommended them - long ago - that the BSA has resisted such a recommendation for such a long time should suggest that it's just not a part of the program the BSA wants delivered.

 

There is a mechanism for preventing a Scout from getting full credit for time served in a POR - and that's to remove the Scout from the POR if the Scout is not doing the job. If he's required to hold a POR for 6 months, and after 3 months, he's not done anything in his POR, remove the Scout from the POR - he keeps 3 months of POR credit on the books, and has to prove up that he's ready to take on a POR again and will work diligently on it to get the remaining credit.

 

Once the Scout has served 6 months in a POR - he gets credit for the 6 months of time served - there is no attendance/participation review after 6 months to see if he gets credit - it's too late at that point. The time to deal with those kinds of issues is early in the POR term - SPL hasn't shown up for 7 of the last 8 Troop Meetings in the first two months? Remove him from the position and elect a new SPL. Why wait until the 6 months is up and let his absences damage the Troop's program?

 

Finally - if there are participation/attendance issues, perhaps you should be asking why? Did a Scout take on the responsibility then discover something that takes on more of his time than he thought? Is the program being delivered keeping one interested? Is there a sudden conflict with a Troop meeting night that may be temporary but no one's communicating with each other to determine a solution? A participation/attendance requirement is useful only as a punitive deterrent - A football coach may be able to get away with an "attend all practices or don't play this week" requirement, but exactly what purpose would such a requirement satisfy in Scouts? Tell a Scout he has to attend all 4 meetings every month to go on that month's camping trip and the first time he misses one meeting because of another issue and can't go on the trip may be the last time you see that Scout bother to come anymore.

[Venividi 35]

"Tell a Scout he has to attend all 4 meetings every month to go on that month's camping trip and the first time he misses one meeting because of another issue and can't go on the trip may be the last time you see that Scout bother to come anymore."

 

WOW! I didn't see anything remotely like that in Themis' question. Not even while trying to read between the lines.

 

Themis,

Welcome to the forums. I like seeing new forum members and the prespectives they bring.

 

Venividi

[Lisabob 13]

After several years of do-nothing PORs (the appointed ones, primarily), this year my son's troop took the approach that people in PORs would be removed if they failed to attend 3 consecutive PLCs and did not submit some kind of report indicating what they had done in their POR during that same time frame.

 

Frankly, this is a pretty minimal bar. A boy who can't call, email, text, mail an old-fashioned letter, or otherwise communicate with the SPL or ASPL and who doesn't attend any PLCs for three months straight, is almost certainly not doing the job to which he has been appointed.

 

 

[hotdesk 10]

While I was an Jr. Assistant Scoutmaster the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader worked with the Senior Patrol Leader and Scoutmaster to create criteria that would describe if the youth leaders were not fulfilling their position.

 

The Patrol Leader Council voted on and passed these requirements. It included attendance requirements (for Quartermaster, Troop Guide, Patrol Leaders, ASPL, and SPL) and other requirements.

 

It also included a written evaluation form that would be completed monthly by the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader (for the Quartermaster, Librian, Scribe, and Historian) and the Senior Patrol Leader (for the Patrol Leaders and Troop Guide).

 

This way it could be discussed and documented if a scout ever needed to be removed from his office.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver 10]

I personally see nothing wrong in a troop committee setting guidelines for Scouts holding a POR. It should be done by the troop committee, not the Scoutmaster, who could and should provide input in the establishment of the guidelines. Why not just the Scoutmaster just coming up with some rules? The guidelines established are setting the standards that all Scouts, current and future, should be judged byand involving the committee provides additional perspective. A change in Scoutmasters shouldn't necessarily change the long-held values of the Troop. A new Scoutmaster would know the expectations for POR's before he takes the position and could lobby for a change if he felt so inclined.

 

A POR requires some degree of participation to be done effectively. Establishing a guideline helps to insure that all are going to be treated fairly and that everyone is aware of the criteria on which they will be judged.

 

There are continuous examples on this forum of a Scoutmaster's integrity being maligned because they hold their Scouts to some standard of performance. Conclusions are often jumped to with a minimal amount of background information, normally provided by someone who has an axe to grind, and it's always the poor Scoutmaster's fault. Give the man a break, have the unit establish some basic guidelines that he can hold his Scouts, all of his Scouts, accountable for! BSA leaves too many areas open to judgment calls and then admonishes someone for making one! Breathing and not being a criminal can't be the only guidelines that a successful program operates under.

 

Again, just MHO.

 

[qwazse 4365]

One other tactic that I heard recently: "The boys on the PLC set the minimum standard for attendance." This needs a little moderation from the scoutmaster, because the youth are their harshest critics. But, the bottom line is this is not a requirement from the committe or the SM's. It's what the boys feel they need in a leader to have a successful troop.

[Stosh 3452]

I have a problem with all the rules and regulations necessary to define a POR. One needs to be "active" by showing up for X% of the meetings, functions and activities. They have to jump through hoops X, Y and Z, then one gets the prize at the end of the rainbow.

 

What's wrong with just doing the job?

 

At all my SMC's I ask the question, what did you DO to be a PL, or a Chaplain's Aide, or QM, or whatever. If they say nothing, the patch on the shirt means nothing to them and they get nothing in determining the "prize", i.e. credit for advancement.

 

We've had people ask how many POR's can one have at one time? I have an Eagle Scout that's a jack-of-all-trades in the troop. Sometimes he's TG when dealing with the NSP. Other times he's a SPL at camporees, sometimes he's Instructor, etc. etc. etc. He wears no POR patch. If there's a job to do, he pitches in and gets it done. He doesn't need to get a prize, he's done it all, but the key is: He DOES it all!

 

If the PLC makes up all sorts of rules and regulations, I guarantee that that boys will see this as the ultimate, and the adults will see it as a minimum. These arbitrary lines in the sand don't get the job done. I did what I needed to do and now I can sit on my hands.

 

If I go into a SMC and ask a boy what he did to fulfill his POR and he answers me, "As little as possible." and it was exactly enough to get by, he's going to get the POR. The PLC hears this and ups the ante until the POR is so grandiose that no one can meet the requirements and one has only traded one problem for another.

 

If a scout sits across from me and is excited about all the things he did being a PL, or QM, or Scribe, etc. and he's proud of what he was able to do. Then in my book, he gets credit.

 

I had an Aspberger's Syndrome boy that had focus problems and needed a POR. I had him do a "special project". He had just taken the Communications MB and asked if he could do the next COH. Sure, why not. He came back with a complete COH script, the awards were all laid out for the PL's to make their presentations, and the candle holder was replaced with a work of art. He stumbled through the COH as the MC and seemed to be "lost" most of the time. But what he did do well was fantastic, that which he didn't do well was a major stretch that took a lot of courage. Did he get his credit for POR? Duh! No PLC could have put that together as a set of rules and regs.

 

Stosh

[Oak Tree 15]

Themis,

 

The official answer would be no, you can't retroactively tell a Scout that the time he was serving as POR didn't count. You can quite legitimately do what Lisabob's troop is doing. I realize there isn't much theoretical difference between them, but I don't think it's really fair to a Scout to have him thinking that his time is counting, only to later find out that it's not. It does seem legitimate to hold them to some standard, though.

[bnelon44 17]

If a Scout is not performing his job, it is the responsibility of the Scoutmaster to have the SPL remove him from that position. However, if a Scout is in a position for 6 months, and the Scoutmaster does nothing, the Scout should get credit for the position. That is in the R & R

 

I don't see anything wrong with telling a Scout up front he has to attend a % of meetings/activities to be considered as part of his job if it truely relates to his job (e.g., PL, or SPL). If he doesn't comply, remove him from the position.

 

 

[Themis 10]

bnelon44 wrote "However, if a Scout is in a position for 6 months, and the Scoutmaster does nothing, the Scout should get credit for the position. That is in the R & R"

 

The reference to R & R peaked my curiosity? Is this in the Scout manual or in the Scoutmasters handbook?

[John-in-KC 311]

No, it's not in the Rules and Regulations

 

It is now in Requirements. It's now in ACP&P.

 

Here's the cogent point: The Scoutmaster, working with his SPL and ASPLs, has the duties to:

 

- Define expectations before elections or appointments. Those expectations should be a two way street ... learning for the Scout, performance for the Scoutmaster.

 

- Ensure parental buy-in. I say that because I have seen parents set their kids up for failure, refusing them permission to do things that come as part of the POR.

 

- Observe performance throughout a Scout having a job.

 

- Cheerlead, mentor, encourage, and arm-twist as needed to sustain or improve the Scouts performance.

 

If all the above happens, it should be a rare day indeed that a SM has to remove a youth from POR and unwind the clock.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is:

The duty of a POR has youth, youth supervision and adult supervision elements.