Board of Review

[moosetracker 132]

Not saying I disagree with Nationals logic or yours (except I like the occasional outsider to sit in on the board).. But, I don't argue why it is not a good idea for the SM, ASM, or parents to sit in.. But, some troops may see it different then you or I..

 

All I am saying is if they do, and they make that decision logically, rationally and have good reason to do different then you or I.. The Guide doesn't say they can not.. It just says we would prefer that you did not, here are our reasons.

 

Introducing the Guide to Advancement or a Guide to Safe Scouting in a training as a Rule book and not a Guide book, with some rules sprinkled in with "Must" & "Shall" statements.. Is just as bad as telling people during a Training that the Tour Permit was required, and you were not insured unless you filled it out and processed it 2 weeks in advance.

 

Also if you feel strongly that something should be a rule, they do state that a Council may make those labeled "should", "may" or "can" into rules.. So you can always request that your Council make things you think should be rules into Council rules..

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Calico, thanks for the history lesson, I knew some of that but not all of it.

 

I think a lot of people forget that the "second purpose" of the BOR is for the Committee to learn more about the running of the troop. I specifically ask boys in BOR's, except maybe for boys who have been in the troop less than 6 months, what they like most about the troop and what (if anything) they think could use some improvement. For the latter question I often get "Nothing, everything's perfect" (especially from the 10-12 year olds) but now and then (especially at Star and Life BOR's) a Scout comes up with a meaningful answer. If the Scout says something that can or should be acted upon (either in response to that question or at any other point in the BOR) I make it a point to work it into a later conversation with the SM/ASMs - not necessarily identifying the Scout in question, depending on what was said.

 

Which leads to another question... as part of the early-70s changes, BOR's (which had a different name - Progress Review?) for T-2-1 were to have Scouts on the "board." If I remember correctly, it was ONLY Scouts, though that was a LONG time ago and I myself made First Class under the "old book" so I was never "reviewed" by other Scouts, so my memory of this is pretty hazy. (I guess I must have served on "boards" for younger boys, but I don't remember doing so.) So the question is, what happened to the idea of the Committee keeping an eye on what's going on in the troop through BOR's, when the boys were conducting the reviews? Were the boys supposed to be reporting to the Committee?

 

As for other units having ASM's on BOR's... well, I guess everybody has to decide how they are going to do this Scouting thing. My attitude within my troop is that if the book says to do something a certain way, we ought to do it that way unless there is a really good reason not to. And "we've always done it that way" is not a good reason not to go by the book, although in some cases it may be a good reason not to make changes suddenly, so as not to put too many noses out of joint.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

By the way, on this issue of whether having ASM's on a BOR is a "must not", a "may not", or anything else, here is what the Troop Committee Guidebook (at least the edition that I have) says:

 

Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters do not participate in the board of review.

 

Now, this edition says 2000 printing, so if someone has a newer edition and this one is out of date, feel free to cite chapter and verse. The statement is on page 30. I don't see any ambiguity there.

 

Though as I have suggested before, the fact that an ASM is sitting on a BOR does not mean the wrath of council must immediately be visited on the offending troop, accompanied by fire and brimstone raining down from on high. It's something to gently nudge back toward the "book" when you can, especially if you (like the original poster) are a commissioner and don't want the "Welcome" sign suddenly pulled from the window the next time the troop sees you parking your car.

[moosetracker 132]

2000!!! Yes you are outdated.. Here is the link to the 2011 edition.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

All the stuff about the "must" "shall" "may" "can" etc. were cut and pasted out of this pdf document.

[acco40 95]

The unit Advancement chair was very well organized and with a lot of experience in the job. Also he is an Assistant Scoutmaster.

 

So exactly how does one dual register as a committee member and assistant scoutmaster?

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

Obviously like our troop, he is registered to one, but does both. In which case, he should be registered to the committee position in order to sit on the board.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

Sort of makes it pointless to have that kind of restriction, doesn't it?

 

I have to say that the bottom line of this discussion is to make me more cynical about BSA "rules." There are too many of them and they are attempting to impose top down leadership from on high in Irving, Texas for reasons that are pointless.

 

I'm readopting my original view that there is no issue with this practice of a highly skilled and experienced Advancement Chair being registered as an Assistant Scoutmaster. I wish I had as able a person serving as Advancement Chair in my Cub Pack, where advancement tends to be a shambles. If they were willing to be an Assistant Cubmaster too, they would be welcome to serve in both positions if they thought they had the time.

 

As a Commissioner, it's not something I plan on pursuing.

[bnelon44 17]

The BSA rules on who can sit on a BOR make more sense if you read CalicoPenn's post.

[moosetracker 132]

Yep.. Depending on how the troop utilizes the Advancement Coordinator. With many troops a good Advancement Coordinator has what it takes to be a good ASM.. They know their scout craft and must be good working with youth. Even if it is them guiding the older boys on how to fairly judge that a scout knows enough to be signed off.

 

I guess if the SM or ASM guide the youth in how to sign off younger scouts and you just use your AC for paperwork, you would not see this.. But, many troops use the AC, to help guide the scouts.. and isn't this what a ASM does? That is why for that job in particular the lines get blurry..

 

 

[bnelon44 17]

The SM is responsible for program. The Advancement Coordinator has other duties. They are not responsible for guiding the Scout. That is the job of the SM and his adult and Jr. Leader staff. Merit Badge Counselors are a District position they report to the District Advancement Chair (I know that is not how units see it, but that is not because it isn't fact, it is lack of training.)

 

For more information on the job of the Unit Advancement Coordinator see section 3.0.0.3 here:

http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/GuidelinesForAdvancement.aspx

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Moosetracker, I was actually quoting from the Troop Committee Guidebook, not the Guide to Advancement. Hopefully the current versions of both books have consistent information -- but in this case I think that what I quoted is consistent with what the Guide to Advancement says. In section 8.0.0.3 it says "Unit leaders and assistants may not serve on a board of review for a Scout in their own unit." It is clear to me that in this context, "may not" means the same as "must not" -- it isn't permitted. (Notice that in the list of definitions from the front of the book, it talks about "may", "must", "shall", etc. but it does not say anything about "may not.") The Troop Committee Guidebook says SM's/ASM's "do not" serve on BOR's. It all means the same thing.

 

I'm not talking about what the rule should be, I'm just talking about what it is.

 

Others have commented on the over-use of legal terminology and procedure in the Guide to Advancement. I agree. In fact we have discussed this in our troop committee, and of course everybody points a joking finger at me, as if I am personally responsible. While it's not good, to some degree it's understandable -- the BSA has seemingly taken all the issues that have come up in units, districts and councils across the country, and were not clearly resolved in previous publications, and gave those to some lawyers (or at least a group that includes lawyers) to write a document that covers all bases. So that's what we have. There will still be disputes over what it means, and then the next version will look even more like something passed by Congress.

[moosetracker 132]

Then they should put into the Mandated area that where ever the word "NOT" is used then it is mandatory.. or that "may not" or "can not" mean it is mandatory.. They do not.. So you interpret whether the word "NOT", changes the meaning of may or can.. I will allow my district people to read the info about Must & Shall and May & can.. And interprete for themselves what how mandatory the word "NOT" makes anything... Because you are interpreting your own conclusion, and everyone else has the right to read the info and interpret what they make of it.

 

To me it's a GUIDE book, not a RULE book, therefore anything not clarified as a rule or mandatory is not.. Therefore "NOT" does not change the meaning of "MAY".. nor does "MAY NOT".. become mandatory because no one said it meant it was optional. To me, if no one said it was manditory, then being in the Guide book, it is a GUIDE, not a RULE..

 

Probably best if they go back to marking in BOLD what is mandatory.. Because, I will never see your point, and you will never see mine.

 

bnelon - That is the job of the SM and his adult and Jr. Leader staff.

that is how your troop sees the function of the Advancement Coordinator.. Other troops see the Advancement Coordinator as an intricate part of program, and use him as such.. You can quote all your want from these Guidebooks, but a troop will use it as just that "A Guide" then decide the best way to carry out their mission.. If a SM who is responsible for program, sees the AC as being part of his program.. Then who are you to tell him how to run his program?

 

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

SeattlePioneer says:

 

I guess the idea of trusting the leaders is an obsolete concept.

 

At the very least it has taken a beating, that's for sure.

 

To Moosetracker:

 

Maybe you're correct that the Guide to Advancement needs to be clearer on this point, though defining a term like "may not" brings it even closer to being a "legal code." I think the meaning is clear. If you disagree, that's fine. I am "only" a troop committee member and advancement coordinator, for one troop. I don't have the power to authoritatively interpret anything for any other unit or level. In this forum, I just give my opinions, though of course I think my opinions are correct.

 

As for "guide" vs. "rules", let's assume that you're right, that the Guide to Advancement is not supposed to be a book of "rules." My question is this: What method is a unit, district or council supposed to use in determining which parts of the "guidance" to follow and which not to follow?

 

As I have said before, my troop is not 100% "by the book", either on advancement or some other things. There are parts of "the book" that I wish were different. I just think it's a good idea to try to get as close to "the book" as you can.

[perdidochas 658]

Officially, I'm the Advancement coordinator, however, because I go on most campouts and am fairly competent in scoutcraft, unofficially I act as an ASM. The role of AC in our troop is not just a record keeper. I also counsel and encourage the boys who seem to need a bit of help.

[bnelon44 17]

Moosetracker: That is how your troop sees the function of the Advancement Coordinator.. Other troops see the Advancement Coordinator as an intricate part of program, and use him as such.. You can quote all your want from these Guidebooks, but a troop will use it as just that "A Guide" then decide the best way to carry out their mission.. If a SM who is responsible for program, sees the AC as being part of his program.. Then who are you to tell him how to run his program?

 

That is like saying the Guide to Safe Scouting is a Guidebook, not a rule book

 

No that is how National spells out the role of the Advancement Coordinator in the POLICY book called the Guide to Advancement. The following defines it as POLICY not a guidebook:

 

The Guide to Advancement is the official source for administering advancement in all Boy Scouts of America programs: Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Varsity Scouting, Venturing, and Sea Scouts. It replaces the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures and Advancement and Recognition Policies and Procedures, which are no longer valid.

 

Be aware that statements or interpretations offered from unofficial websites and other such sources may be out of date or incorrect. They will not be considered in resolving advancement questions and issues. In situations not specifically covered in this guide, advancement chairs, coordinators, or other administrators should make decisions based on the aims and mission of the Boy Scouts of America, as well as the Scout Oath and Scout Lawand common sense.

 

http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Introduction.aspx(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)