Board of Review

[moosetracker 132]

my interpretation of how to use a guidebook, is you read it, you follow it, and if parts of it don't work so good and you have bottlenecks and collisions and problems, you sit down with the guidebook, check to see if it is really a guide, or a mandate.. If not a mandate, figure out a better procedure that will work for you unit.

 

Mind you that is my interpretation..

 

It is like starting a buisness so you read buisness for dummies book.. It says your secretary is suppose to secretary, your Financial officer is to finance, your computer guy is suppose to computer, you are to be the boss & be bossy. Secretary goes on vaca.. who is to answer the phones now?? Book doesn't say.. so you the boss guy answer the phone... Whose going to come into your company and tell you, you have broken the golden rules of how to run a company?..

[bnelon44 17]

perdidochas,

 

A lot of troops are short staff, and people step in when needed. That doesn't really give carte blanch for an ASM to sit on a BOR though. People responsible for delivering the program should not be the ones analyzing quality of the program.

 

 

[acco40 95]

For the life of me, I just don't get adults signing up to be be leaders and signing an application promising to deliver the BSA program and then immediately going in the opposite direction and ignoring the program.

 

One may caveat and rationalize away until the cows come home but why not just follow the program?

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello acco,

 

Because Irving, Texas is really not the be all and end all of Scouting, despite what they may think.

 

Because there are really lots of ways to run a quality Scouting program, and quality programs may in fact be impaired by following trivial, nitpicking rules.

 

Because Scout Troops have their own personalities and practices, many of which work just fine.

 

Why is Irving, Tx making a lot of pointless, nitpicking rules that really aren't important and that they cannot and do not enforce?

[JMHawkins 15]

Seattle Pioneer,

 

Hear, Hear.

 

Some days I think the B in BSA stands for "Bureaucracy" instead of "Boy."

 

For the life of me, I don't understand why Advancement needs to be so complicated. Well, no, I guess I really do understand. It's partly because folks at National feel like they need to Specifiy The Rules, or else... well, or else I don't know, there will be chaos and we'll have Eagle scouts who can't tie a square knot or something.

 

But it's also partly because a lot of adults seem to be screwy about Advancement. Credentialism is rampant in our society, and what official awards someone can claim is awfully important to more people than is healthy. So we're passing that neurosis on to our kids by turning their Tenderfoot badge into something that looks more like the grievance process in a union shop with a long history of bad blood between labor and management.

 

So it's not all Irving's fault. I do blame them however, for not standing up and saying "fer cryin' out loud people, it's a youth program meant to teach, among other things, responsibility and good judgement. Adults will need to model good judgement by using it, which means we can't publish detailed rules to cover every possible situation."

 

Instead, they publish a Guide to Advancement with bullet points four levels deep. Section 8.0.0.3? Really? Really? That's an example where National is catering to the wrong folks.

 

As to SMASMs serving on BoRs, I completely agree with CalicoPenns' history lesson observation that BoRs are an opportunity for the Committee to evaluate the program as delivered by the SMASMs, and as such it's best not to have the SMASMs sitting on the BoR. But that doesn't require four-deep bullet points to get across. In fact, it would be an improvement if Irving threw out the existing G2A section of BoRs and replaced it with CalicoPen's post above.

[CalicoPenn 729]

I can't help but think that it would take a lot less time to make sure the policies and procedures are followed the way they are written that it does to try to justify why people can't or won't follow the policies and procedures.

[JMHawkins 15]

I can't help but thinking we would be better off if there were fewer rules and the ones that existed focused more on desired objectives and expected judgement than on detailed proceedures.

 

I program computers for a living. They need very detailed rules to work. Witing detailed rules that work is way harder than most people think, and the most effective techniques for getting detailed rules to work would be impossible to implment for rules people are supposed to follow.

 

 

[Eagle92 110]

Me personally I wish that Scouts could once again sit on the T-2-1 BORs like they could from 1972-1989. IMHO one of the few good things outta the "urban Scouting era,' and national screws it up. Oh Well.

 

I think we all know why the GtA is around: folks not following policy. Whether they intentionally ignore it ( seen it happen), changes to advancement policy occurred and no one knows about it ( been part of that one, i.e sitting on BORs as a youth after the August 1989 policy change), Not being properly trained ( seen lots of it) and those who misinterpret policy.

 

That last one has been a problem in my own district. Some folks who have been around a long time and should know better have misinterpreted the EBOR process (instead of seeing the either a unit committee with a council rep on the BOR or a District EBOR, they say the committee holds a BOR prior to see if the Life Scout is ready for the actual BOR, which we all know is incorrect).

 

Hence the stringent policies.

[Scoutfish 16]

kay, so as far as I have seen, I was the only one to specifically mention having( being) an ASM attending- wellbeing on the Board - of a BOR.

 

And I spoecifically said it was a MOCK EBoR.

 

And let me be very clear about this as some totally read one thing, but came away with another thing:

 

This is completely voluntary - done only by request of the scout - mock EBoR.

 

Kinda like a practice test. We offer it to scouts who want it.

 

We do not suggest they do it, we do not require that they do it, and out of the last 6 Eagle candidates, only one asked for us to do it.

 

Thing is, our scouts may not act like , look like or do anything like your scouts do.

 

Our District EBoR may or may not have the same "ambiance" that yours does.

 

I have no ideas as I have not sat on an actual EBoR.

 

So...... our scout asked us to do the MOCK EboR. He was appreciative afterwards.

 

The AC asked to see his sock because the EBoR may do this. Why? Because maybe they expect the scout to wear his ENTIRE uniform - and wear it correctly - at the EBoR. And does this shock anybody? I don't know why since many, many members of this site expect a scout to bring his handbook as they consider it a part of the uniform.

 

The AC of our troop aslo asked a few other questions too. JUst to get the scout in the mindset of how things "might" go.

 

The scout also brought his Eagle project workbook, permits, e-mails, and pictures.

 

The AC made a few suggestions that the scout might want to make it look cleaner and neater.

 

Again, all suggestions and not orders or commands.

 

Just stuff to help the scout prepare even better for his EBoR .

 

So, again, the only reference I read about an ASM being on a BoR was my reference to me ( ASM) being on a MOCK EBoR.

 

 

[Venividi 35]

 

the other current topics about what lisabob's son was over heard saying, people's ideas on changes for the Guide to Advancement, the differing views as to whether it is better for the boys to go with once and done or have some level of proficiency of skills, the dkurtenback's observation on a disconnect between skills needed for advancement and skills needed for sucessful outings got me to thinking of some good questions to ask at a BOR, perhaps for first class and above:

 

BOR question 1: You've spent the last x years learning and practicing the skills needed for high adventure trips; week long backpacking, canoeing, mountaineering are all potential troop trips in the future. If you needed one of your first class skills while on a high adventure, how confident are you that you would still know how to do it without looking it up in your SHB?

 

BOR question 2: While you are on a HA trip, you will be dependent on the skills of the other boys in your crew. Your life may even depend on their navigation skills or first aid skills. How would you rate the first class skills of the other boys in the troop? If you had an emergency while in a remote location, do you think that they know scout skills well enough to respond?

 

BOR question 3: What suggestions do you have for changes in the troop in order for you to be confident that the first class scouts have the skills that they might need on a high adventure trip?

 

Could be very revealing, and good material for a program discussion between the advancement chair, CC, and SM. My bet is that when helping the boys to connect the skills to adventures, they would not be proponents of once and done.

[acco40 95]

Scoutfish et. al. - What is the purpose of a mock BOR? As a Scoutmaster, I would laugh if the committee suggested they ran voluntary mock SMCs to prepare the Scouts.

 

I think the trouble now with the BSA is we have a bunch of parents who want to run the troop for their precious children, who are of course more special than any other children, and they view "Irving" as getting in the way with a bunch of silly rules.

 

For them, just go down to the Scout shop, purloin a few Eagle patches and be done with it.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Seattle,

 

I think its interesting that there were, at the outset, 2 possible ways for the discussion to diverge, and that in this case, the discussion diverged both ways - Congrats on the Double!

 

We've had discussion on the role of the UC in regards to BORs. I've not seen anything from the BSA that states that a UC can't sit on a BOR for a member of a unit that the US serves - but it wouldn't surprise me at all if that is something that folks have been trained to believe. Your unit asked for help and you, as a friend to the unit, gave it when they needed it, and helped them keep a lad's advancement on track - something they were activley insuring by asking for your help in the first place - and it gave you one of the Scout's view of the Troop - My opinion? Great Job!

 

As for the Advancement Policy, you're right - you're covered as a non-committee member because it does have an out. Don't worry about that part.

 

Scoutfish, My hunch is that the nagative reaction to a "mock" BOR is that it's just not traditionally done, and unless there is a really compelling reason for holding one (and I think of a couple of limited reasons that a practice BOR might be held - for instance, a lad on the Autism spectrum who might not handle a BOR with strangers, as opposed to the adults he already knows, very well). I believe the program already provide 5 "practice" BORs for the Eagle Scout BOR - I call them BORs for Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star and Life. But, that all being said, I don't recall seeing any specific proscription against having a practice BOR so if it works for you, ok!

 

All - I've always come at these issues from a perspective that, whenever I post it, I get immediate flack for it from people who think I'm nuts. But I'm going to try again. The Boy Scouts of America is one of the country's biggest Franchisers - the only difference between the Boy Scouts of America and McDonalds is that the BSA is non-profit and McDonalds is not.

 

Every time the BSA signs a charter agreement, they are issuing a franchise to that chartering organization which has agreed to provide the Boy Scout program as provided by the Boy Scouts of America. All of those guides and handbooks are the program as set out by the Boy Scouts of America. All those guides and handbooks are no different from the operations manuals that McDonalds puts out to their franchisees. I've seen those manuals - I've lived those manuals (I was a fast food restaurant manager for both Jack-in-the-Box and McDonalds - they both have these manuals).

 

There are specific instructions and steps a person needs to take to make a Big Mac. There are specific instructions and steps a person needs to take to become First Class. If a franchisee decides to leave out the middle bun, or the secret sauce, the Big Mac is no longer a Big Mac. If a unit decides to leave out a requirement for First Class because they think they know better, then it is no longer the First Class rank - at least not of the Boy Scouts of America - maybe its a Troop BBB first class rank, but it's not the Boy Scouts of America rank.

 

Why does McDonalds have such detaile rules? So that not matter where you are, when you buy a Big Mac, it's the same, from Maine to California. The Boy Scouts is the same way - an Eagle Scout in Florida and and Eagle Scout in Montana will have completed the same requirements - the only differences will be in merit badges earned and what was done for a project.

 

Like McDonalds, the BSA also allows a way for its franchisees to alter the program within certain guidelines. A unit can't change the basics (just like a McD's franchisee can't change the make-up of a Big Mac and still call it a Big Mac) but they can do things like the LDS has done and use Boy Scouts for 11-12, Varsity for 13-15 and Venturing for 15 and above - perfectly acceptable and well within the guidelines. A McDonalds Franchisee doesn't have to offer everything on the menu that McDonalds offers - thus the "at participating McDonald's" you hear at the end of a commercial. It would be stupid for a franchisee not to sell Big Macs, but they might decide not to sell McRibs when they have the chance, or not to sell the breakfast burritos if they aren't a big seller in their area.

 

Bottom line - Irving, over a period of many, many years, has developed a program that works very well when you follow the program. Are there times when a unit might have problems finding people to fill all the roles? Undoubtably, but the first answer to that should be finding someone to fill the role rather than lets just wing it.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, CalicoPenn, you're nuts, and I'm goin' to give yeh immediate flack for it.

 

If yeh had ever seen a commercial franchising agreement, yeh would know that they are nothing like the BSA relationship to chartered partners. So when yeh use that comparison, yeh are giving false information to fellow scouters.

 

There are good reasons for that, eh?

 

For one, children are not hamburgers. There's no such thing as a "standard product".

 

For another, Chartered Organizations have different missions and goals, where McDonalds franchisees have a uniform commercial goal of investment profit.

 

No standard goals, no standard product, no standard resources or input, completely different agreements, completely different organizational structures, on and on. The comparison just doesn't work. It's like sayin' a school bus and a banana are the same thing because they're both yellow.

 

Da closest comparison is probably somethin' like a professional association that publishes materials. Let's pick one off da Internet... How about the National Association of Independent Schools (to pick one at random). Its voting members are the member schools, but individuals can also be members. It provides training and resources to its member institutions, but da member institutions run their own program and pursue different goals. None of 'em follow all the guidance of their national association, and that's OK, but the Association is there to help. It has a small centralized staff, but also has regional affiliates. I don't know if it has an awards program, but let's say it does for argument's sake. There seem to be documents on risk management advice, curriculum, etc. Probably offers a risk management/insurance pool of some sort.

 

Like Chartered Orgs, member schools serve different populations and have different missions. I see Catholic schools and posh private schools and small community schools and Montessori schools. Hmmm. Sorta sounds familiar. Though there are no doubt some big common values, there are in fact a lot of different programs because there are a lot of different kids and communities and visions. But they'd all identify as NAIS schools.

 

All analogies limp, of course. For example, NAIS acts as an accrediting body, and da BSA has no notion of accreditation. I'm sure yeh can find others. But da comparison is much closer than the silly one about hamburgers. A bit like a school bus and a semi truck, instead of a school bus and a banana.

 

Most importantly, it leads yeh to very different conclusions than those yeh posted, eh? Because kids are not hamburgers. Yeh can flip two burgers at the same time and get da same result. Yeh can do the same thing to two different kids and get two completely different results.

 

What we care about are results, eh? Not doin' everything the same.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn 729]

It's interesting - you fall into the camp that a Scout has to show mastery of a skill before being signed off on - that there should be certain standards that need to be met by all First Class scouts, by all Eagle Scouts, etc., which is exactly what the BSA has done yet you concentrate on the other variable to argue that the BSA isn't a franchiser like McDonalds.

 

The BSA is exactly like the McDonalds corporation because it's materials focus on the process to create a limited end product. A McDonald's operation manual details the steps in making a Big Mac. The BSA details the steps in making a First Class scout. It is this process that I find to be similar. What you're focusing on is essentially the building. Throughout the US, most McDonalds are physically different - different configurations, different signage - all as a result of the needs of their "chartered partner" and community. Yet despite so many McDonalds looking so different from each other, they still churn out the same product from coast to coast precisely because of their Operations Manual.

 

Yes, our COs and Scout are different, but if we follow the "operations manuals" that the BSA provides it's "franchisees", then regardless of any other differences, a First Class scout in Barrow, Alaska will be able to tie the same knots as a First Class scout in Key West, Florida.

 

That is the point of my notion that, in a lot of respects, the BSA is as much a franchiser of a product as McDonalds is.

[fred8033 1593]

Beavah - You decry treating scouts like hamburgers but at the same time you practice cafeteria leadership. Picking and choosing the published rules you will follow. There's a term for that.

 

...

 

Beavah wrote - "There's no such thing as a 'standard product'." ... Ummm ... really? The signed agreement is that the charter org will "conduct the Scouting program according to it's own policies and guidelines as well as those of the Boy Scouts of America." And that the charter partner will provide a charter org rep who signs a BSA membership application. And you know that it says "I agree to comply with the Charter and Bylaws, and the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America and the local council."

 

...

 

Beavah wrote - "Chartered Organizations have different missions and goals, where McDonalds franchisees have a uniform commercial goal of investment profit."

 

It's a parrallel analogy. McDonalds franchise investors have different missions and goals too. Perhaps buying a house and putting kids through college. Perhaps shielding money. Perhaps creating a local family fast food dynasty. But as McDonalds has uniform commercial goals, so does BSA. "... prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices ...".

 

...

 

Beavah wrote - ... Again you write ... "No standard goals, no standard product, no standard resources or input, completely different agreements, completely different organization structures, on and on. The comparison just doesn't work."

 

Dude ... Your incredibly brilliant and wise. But you must have been smokin somethin so you could choke out those words. Really? Have you never been to a scout shop? Book case after book case published by BSA to guide how to run the program. Have you never been to training? Dozens of classes .. if not hundreds. Our McDonalds University is called University of Scouting.

 

No standard goals? Really? BSA mission and goals statement applys here. If not that, how about the scout oath and law that every scout and scouter knows by heart!

 

No standard product? Every scout starts with a Boy Scout Handbook. How about your last visit to a scout shop? Every role pretty much has a handbook. Most committees too. They sell uniforms too. And they sell an insignia guide laying out the rules to wear it and inspection sheets to grade how your wearing it.

 

How about all the insignia used to differentiate the BSA hamburgers?

 

...

 

Beavah wrote - "Da closest comparison is probably somethin' like a professional association that publishes materials." Now your just far far off base. The McDonalds analogy is pretty close.

 

The one place I'd argue is about the tying knots. That's not the product. The product are citizens that make ethical and moral choices their whole life. Tying knots is just a nice side benefit of doing business with the BSA.

 

...

 

If scouting does not offer a consistent program, it's not BSA's fault. It's because of all the wise experienced people signing up as leaders to represent the program but then showing contempt for it and going rogue.