AC

[Venividi 35]

 

Beavah writes: I think it's just fine if yeh have a sit-down with the CC and the SM and yourself and express your concerns. That sort of thing needs to be voiced, eh? Folks sometimes need the push-back to help 'em suit up for the game and resist the parents who are pushing.

 

I think this point should be emphasised. Units need frequent communication between the adult leaders to:

a) keep everybody on the same page

b) teach new adult leaders the expectations of the troop

c) give the SM warm fuzzies/comfort level that the ASM's and committee members support meaningful expectations; i.e., he/she has their support and agreement

d) etc.

 

Also, units also need frequent meetings with parents to convey this to parents and explain the troop's vision.

 

It is hard to tell from afar based on the limited info available why/how the current situation evolved to it's current state. Given that these families are leaving, the quickest and easiest thing to do sign and wish them on their way. As everyone has a limited amount of time, I can see where a SM would see his time would be better spent on other issues. Sign and send them on their way, and focus on working with those that are staying. They are now someone else's problem.

 

On a hypothetical note: If they had been staying, what I would do as SM would be dependent on previous history with these particular ASM's. If they normally are assets to the troop, I would remind them that I as SM have not approved parents signing off on their own children's requirements, then talk with the boys about expectations.

If these ASM's have continued to ignore my instructions, and/or consistently appear to be most interested in their own son's advancement I would ask them to resign for the good of the troop. I would also discuss with them why they chose to skip the troop event for an independent camping trip - I'ld want to understand the reasons.

 

Others may approach it differently.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

were the skills signed off on ever demonstrated to anyone?

 

If this were to happen again, I would be sure the boy who were signed off were tasked to teach one one the skills signed off on at the next campout. Not all of them, but one skills each at the next successive campouts, meetings even.

[tramthum@gmail.com 10]

thanks to all of you for all of your feedback on this subject. to clear up a few things, i never said i did not support the SM, i did and i do, i just said i could not believe it was ok for them to do what they did and i will stick by my belief that integrity did not play a big issue in this incident. this is not the first Issue with this same group of parents but i am glad it is the last at least for our troop. as the AC paperpusher parent that i am i do not believe i would be doing my job corretly as teh AC or as a parent if i just turned a blind eye and allowed a scout to receive something he did not earn. Not to many years back, if you earned the rank of Eagle you were special and everyone that knew anything about the scouting program knew you were special. they knew how hard you had worked for that rank. Today, it is handed out way to easy and it starts with practices like pushing it through and not ruffling feathers. i totally agree with the no more no less rule but also agree with the rule of show, demonstrate, tell. the general practice in our troop is that the Troop Guide will sign off on advancement for the scouts in the patrol he is working with for several reasons so our general practice was not followed. in teaching boys to be boy led they should be BOY led and having adults signing off isnt showing the boys that concept. in our troop, one of the jobs of the ASM's is to be an advisor for a patrol, they are there for the troop guide or the PL if they have any questions or issues to include signing off of advancement requirements. again, this clearly was not done. I have the support of the SM and he has my support. I have the support of the CC and he has my support. we, along with the rest of the committee are a team. the SM called me aside and told me to just take their initials and dates and i did. now, the boys that were at our annual scout lock-in instead of this family campout were not afforded the opportunity to earn initials on these requirements so they did the right thing and lost while these three families did the wrong thing and won. before you respond, this lock in is an annual event following a long 4 day winter campout. it was on our yearly calendar with final plans being decided by the PLC over a month earlier. these families chose to go on this family campout instead of supporting an already planned troop event because they were upset over an earlier issue of MB requirements. one of their group was signing off on requirements that had not been met, adding to requirements and deleting other requirements. after i told this mb counselor (with the support of the SM and CC) that this was not acceptable is when this group decided to go off on their own. this counselor had been thru the yearly MB counselor training and had actually been re-trained because of earlier issues but still refused to follow guidelines and policy so now you have the rest of the story. I have a very close relationship with the SM and supporting him was never an issue.

[qwazse 4345]

not afforded the opportunity to earn initials on these requirements so they did the right thing and lost

 

The lock-in sounds like a lot of fun. The boys who went are winners. They'll get all the initials they need when they're good and ready.

 

The other boys got helicopter-parented for the sake of a few check-marks, if that's winning it's a rather Pyrrhic victory.

[shortridge 184]

s the AC paperpusher parent that i am i do not believe i would be doing my job corretly as teh AC or as a parent if i just turned a blind eye and allowed a scout to receive something he did not earn.

 

But it's not your job. If anything, the issues you bring up should be the responsibility of the PL, SPL and SM, working as a program team.

 

You are on the support side, not the program side. You can alert the program leaders that a Scout hasn't completed all the requirements, or hasn't put in enough time in his POR, or hasn't done enough overnights to qualify for the OA. But issues of quality control are not in your bailiwick, unless the SM has delegated those responsibilities to you.

 

All that said - if the boys really did the requirements, they should be able to do them again. A quick demo on the next campout would not be out of line. So the SM, SPL and PL have a good way to backstop problems like this in the future and counteract helicopter parenting.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[trainerlady 10]

Maybe I missed the answer to this question or maybe it wasn't discussed yet. Did each boy's father sign his own son's book or did another father in the group sign the book? The reason I ask is if Billy's Dad signed Bobby's book and Bobby's Dad signed Joe's book and Joe's Dad signed Billy's book then what's the fuss about. Tram you said it was a group of familes that went camping together, so as long as no father signed his own kid's book what's the fuss?

 

I sign books for kids that go to my kids' school regularly. They come over to play and ask "Mrs. TL I can tie a bowline.Look." or we swim together at the Y and a boy will say "Mrs. TL watch me swim the BSA swim test." I'll tell the boys to bring me their books at the next meeting and I'll sign off the requirements, I'm a ASM with signing rights in our troop. I WILL NOT (emphasis)not sign for kids in other troops, but I'll drop a note to the SM via email that one of his kids did "X" for me, especially swimming/water related skills. Most troops in our area don't have regular swim nights in their schedules, they use summer camp for water skills. It's up to the home troop SM to decided on the sign off.

 

The above situations are examples of a Scout doing it on their own. Being a self-starter is a good thing in life. Foster it don't squash it.

[Basementdweller 608]

Curious

 

How long have you been the Advancement Chair?????

[Twocubdad 665]

"That's not your job" is a pretty short hike from "it's not my job," eh?

 

I would love to have tramthum in my troop. The very best volunteers are the ones who really take hold of a job, make it theirs and jealously guard the quality and standards. That's especially true in an advancement chairman. I don't want a paper pusher. I want a partner who shares my vision for the troop and understands advancement policy and procedures. And I want someone who will help me promote and enforce national policy and troop procedures.

 

In this situation, I would appreciate my AC coming to me and say "this isn't right. These dads and kids didn't follow our procedures with this." In our troop that IS the AC's job. If my AC catches some detail or knows something I don't I absolutely want him or her to bring it to my attention. Frankly, that's the job of EVERY leader in troop whether it's an advancement issue, leadership, discipline, safety or anything else. I expect all our volunteers to pull together.

 

Tramthum, in this case, I think you enter the data as the SM asked, but also ask him to help you understand his decision. My guess is, that with these boys already out of the troop, this is a hill he's just not willing to die on. But it is reasonable for him to clarify the policy and procedures so that you two remain on the same page.

[Venividi 35]

Thank you twocubdad.

 

I tried twice to compose a response that conveyed the meaning that you succinctly put into yours.

All volunteers need to work towards achieving the vision of the troop in a "we're all in this together" kind of a way.

[Basementdweller 608]

Be careful what you wish for, just ask Laureann about the vipers.

 

Jealously guard the job, Don't think so.

 

So how can you troop have it's own policy and procedure regarding advancement????? Isn't that adding to the requirements?????

 

I think it is a slippery slope.....

 

I think it is pretty dicey for family friends to sign off on each other sons advancement....

[Eagle732 27]

tram, does your troop have a "no parent sign off policy" in writing?

 

We do but I wonder if it's enforceable if a ASM parent pushed it. Of course an ASM pushing against the SM might cause unintended consequences!

[perdidochas 658]

I'm an Advancement Chair. While what happened to you would irritate me, I would enter the records. I would probably also have a long talk with the SM about my reservations about it. Since these families are leaving anyway, it would bother me a little less, although I would feel sorry for their next troop.

[eisely 13]

Having a troop policy about who signs off on requirements met is not adding to or deleting from requirements. It is simply an administrative policy. In our troop, patrol leaders and other youth leaders do most of the signing off on T-2-1 requirements.

 

While the general proposition that the troop committee supports the program of the troop is correct, it is not fair or wise to characterize the Advancement person as merely a paper pusher. That person is the first line of defense against outright fraud. Tramthum did the right thing in bringing the matter to the attention of the SM. The AC should not decide these matters on his or her own authority.

 

There are circumstances where a parent signing off is appropriate and unavoidable. For example, on canoe expeditions I sign off on canoeing merit badge for those who complete the requirements during the trip. I am the only canoeing MB counselor present or reachable within many many miles. I have signed off two of my sons for the merit badge under these circumstances. I did take care ahead of time to inform the SM of my intentions. It has never been a problem.

 

However, it is a best practice for parents not sign off their own sons under normal circumstances. This serves two purposes. It ensures even handed treatment of the scout and it creates an opportunity for "adult association."

[shortridge 184]

I agree that the units leadership on both the program and support side should be united and work together toward a common vision. But that means communicating clearly and effectively, not getting your back up over an issue of "integrity." IMHO - rather than telling these Scouts that what they did wasn't official because of some nonexistent rule, in this situation, the OP should have said "Hold on a second," stepped over to the SM, and asked for his take on the situation.

 

It is not the ACs role nor the role of any member of the troop committee to second-guess the program team on issues of program, unless they have to do with health, safety or overarching issues of finance. If a TC member wants to ensure the integrity of the program, he or she should become an ASM. Im speaking broadly here, not about tramthums situation, but weve seen quite a few threads over the years with problems triggered by overzealous Advancement Chairs who get swelled heads and think their job is to interpret rules and enforce standards. Thats just nonsense.

 

I believe that the formalization of the AC role really has the potential to damage the Patrol Method. An adult AC does nothing that the PLs and Troop Scribe arent perfectly capable of doing. In a well-run unit, the ACs job could be abolished without affecting a single thing.

[ScoutNut 147]

>>"now, the boys that were at our annual scout lock-in instead of this family campout were not afforded the opportunity to earn initials on these requirements so they did the right thing and lost while these three families did the wrong thing and won.">>

 

So the boys who went to the Troop event "lost" because the PLC planned activities that did not include these specific requirements? Really? What kind of events DID the PLC plan for the Troop event? What kind of events would YOU have preferred they plan?

 

How could these other Scouts "win" simply because they did different activities at an entirely different event?

 

Maybe you should inform the PLC that Scouts are not allowed to work on their own because then any others who have not done the same exact thing, at the same exact time, have "lost" out.

 

 

 

>>"before you respond, this lock in is an annual event following a long 4 day winter campout. it was on our yearly calendar with final plans being decided by the PLC over a month earlier.">"these families chose to go on this family campout instead of supporting an already planned troop event because they were upset over an earlier issue of MB requirements. one of their group was signing off on requirements that had not been met, adding to requirements and deleting other requirements. after i told this mb counselor (with the support of the SM and CC) that this was not acceptable is when this group decided to go off on their own. this counselor had been thru the yearly MB counselor training and had actually been re-trained because of earlier issues but still refused to follow guidelines and policy so now you have the rest of the story."