Resolving disagreement on passing leadership rqmt

[Mike F 10]

Our SM was just directed by our Committee Chairman to sign off on a 1st Class scout's leadership requirement for advancement to Star. The term of office is over but the SM didn't think the scout had come close to meeting expectations and wanted him to further develop and show his skills by accomplishing an additional leadership project.

This signature block is the SM's. Can he be forced to sign it against his will?

 

Background:

Position - Scribe. Scout has some minor mental disabilities. He was put into his position with consultation of previous SM who departed after new leadership term started. Scout did attend troop JLT and was trained in his position. He also had a written outline of the position description, specific duties, etc. Scout was physically present for most activities, but by his own admission pretty much didn't do anything. One very significant failure that wasn't the boy's fault - he didn't get much (if any) coaching and guidance along the way. (Troop leadership - Scout & Adult - recognizes this and is working to ensure won't happen again. This was one of those myriad details that got missed during somewhat chaotic handover of SM and the boys didn't think of it.)

 

During SM Conference, the SM told Scout that he felt like Scout needed the opportunity to develop his leadership skills a bit more and we would find him some appropriate opportunities. Scout was disappointed, but seemed to agree. SM also explained this to one of Scout's parents in 2-hr conversation after SM Conference. Parents upset - went to Committee Chairman. After some discussion about rationale, the CC finally told the SM he was hereby directed to sign off on the requirement immediately and then to help Scout grow through those additional responsibilities.

 

Either way, the Scout will presumably have met the spirit and intent of Star leadership requirement within a few months of sign-off, so we won't have undermined the foundations of Scouting too much, but it brings up a serious issue and the SM is about to throw his badge into the campfire.

 

Wording in SM and Committee handbooks isn't clear enough about how to handle disputes. CC is basically saying they have the authority to direct, if required, since they selected SM. SM thinks he gets the last call on this since it's his signature in the block. COR isn't in the picture - he works facility and support requests with CO and won't get involved in things like this. SM consulted with District Commissioner (who supported him), but that caused a real eruption in-house.

 

We know we all need to do a better job about preventing this kind of problem from getting to end of term and surprising Scout/parents. Not to mention giving Scout the support he needs to be successful. No arguement - please don't beat us up over that - we blew it, we know it, it won't happen again.

 

Can the SM be directed to sign a requirement he doesn't believe has been met?

 

Thanks in advance for your insights.

[ScoutNut 147]

One question - If the Scoutmaster was holding this scout's SM Conference for Star Rank, why weren't all of the requirements already signed off?

 

If the Scoutmaster was second guessing a requirement that had already been signed off, that was wrong. It doesn't matter if the scout admitted he did nothing much during the tenure of his leadership position. If the requirement has been signed off it is not up to the SM to question it. What he needs to do is make sure this boy has the opportunity in the future to perfect his leadership skills.

[Proud Eagle 13]

I can't tell you what the "book" says about this subject. I can tell you what my "gut", informed by 13 years of Scouting says. If I was the SM, and believed a requirement had not been completed, I would not sign it. The Committee can not force the Scoutmaster to do anything. They can replace him if he does not buckle to their demands.

 

As to weather or not the SM should sign off on the requirement in this case, I can't make that determination based on the information provided.

 

ScoutNut:

I do not agree with you. If during the coarse of a conference, board of review, or at other times, it becomes known that a Scout has not completed a requirement, I would not accept it. The SM conference should not be used to retest requirements, nor should the board of review. However, if the Scout provides information that indicates they have not completed the requirement, that is much different from retesting.

 

 

The issue of what should be counted for the various leadership requirements is a tricky one. My troop has faced the same problem. In our troop the relatively low number of Scouts makes the standard troop model impracticle many times. This means that many of the listed leadership positions do not carry the same level of responsibility as they are intended to. (For example: if a troop has only one patrol the SPL/ASPL end up doing the traditional job of the PL/APL.)

[nldscout 18]

I would tell you as a SM, no one could direct me to sign an advancement for anything. If the CC tried this it would be time to move on. I would not impune my integrity by doing this. The repercussions could tear this troop apart.

 

It appears the Scout thought he was ready for his BOR, and asked for his SM conference. As he should. The SM did a conference and explained why he didn't think the scout was ready, and the scout, reluctantly, agreed.

 

I think its time for CC and parent to step back and retink thier issues. I do think the SM and SPL needs to spend more time with this scout so he will be ready in a short period of time and can be proud of his accomplishment.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Can the SM be directed to sign a requirement he doesn't believe has been met?"

 

Let's change this a bit . . . May the Scoutmaster direct an Instructor to sign off on a Scout when the instructor's opinion is that the requirement hasn't been met? I don't think so. I sure that it happens but it shouldn't.

 

The SM should stand his ground, saying, "You hired me to run the program. If you don't like what I'm doing, fire me." Many of us should do this in our professional lives as well but the pressures of mortgages and car payments make us swallow our ethics.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

From the USSSP Advancement page

 

5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively 4 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop)..."

 

The scout did serve actively, it is acknowledged the boy did not meet the Scoutmaster's expectations, but as has been pointed out the Troop knows they are at fault for allowing this situation to exist. I see no reason to punish the boy and make him do more than the requirement because the adults didnt do their job. The Scoutmaster should sign off and make sure plenty of support is available for the scouts next Position of Responsibility. Even with plenty of support, the scout will be expected to do the job satisfactory.

 

Note that I did say the Scoutmaster should, doesnt mean he has to or that anyone can "force" him to. I think this is what Bob White is talking about when he says there is no need for formal "votes" at a Committee or Troop level. This needs to get worked out without anyone forcing anyone else to do something.

 

 

[Mike F 10]

Thanks for your input, so far. Good discussion and insights.

 

A few points of clarification:

1. The POR block had not already been signed off. It's fairly common in our troop for the SM to include a discussion of scout's experiences in POR as part of SM Conf. (Same for Scout spirit.) Scout is always given a form as part of JLT with blocks to fill out showing some examples of things he does to meet the various requirements of his POR. This Scout didn't bring form to SM Conf. SM took a reasonable approach and decided to talk him though it instead.

 

2. The requirement does say "...serve actively..." as OGE points out and that's where we're hung up. Just because he wore the patch and came to troop activities does not mean he "served actively" in his position of responsibility. In order to do that, the Scout has to accomplish at least some of the objectives for the job. In this case, SM determined that Scout wasn't anywhere close.

 

3. Like I already said, there's plenty of blame to go around and lessons to be learned. Adults didn't recognize and address concern adequately. Boy leadership didn't either. Scout - who had information on requirements in hand - didn't seek help. Parents - one of whom is active in troop and know their son's capabilities and limitations - didn't bring concern to anyone anywhere until after time was up and they wanted signoff.

 

4. We try not to frame it in terms of "punishing the boy." I see the successful completion of his first position of responsibility as one of the significant growth steps leading up to Star. This builds skills and confidence the Scout needs for future success in troop and life in general. Instead of punishing him, I think we're cheating him if we pass him on something he hasn't accomplished. (Not to mention impact on other boys in troop who are aware the standards weren't met.)

 

Thanks again for your insights.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Whatever happened to the concept that if a Scout doesn't know what is expected of him, he should ask? They don't hesitate to ask about putting up tents. They don't hesitate to aske about lighting stoves. I rarely hear of one asking for help as Scribe, Historian, QM.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

First a scoutmaster is neither hired, or fired. Second if anyone is teaching, or believing, that ethics can only be lived when a paycheck is not involved that is very sad. Ethics and values should not be worn like a coat that you take off if things get too hot.

 

On to the question. You have a scout leader who says that it is the scout's responsibility to do the job, and a scout who says he had no support or development to do the job. Who is right? The Scout.

 

Why? Because we are not in this program to "run" an efficient troop. We are here to develop young people. I gree that the scoutmaster should not sign anything that he or she does not agree with. However...nothing says that that requirement must be signed by the scoutmaster. That is just an assumption on your part.

 

One of the reasons for the committee doing the BOR is to discover how the troop and the troop leaders are doing. If the BOR agrees with the scout, that he was not supported or developed during his tenure, then they should accept the requirement and counsel the adult leadership to attend to their responsibilities by giving more support and guidance to junior leaders.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

Serve actively. Another one of those terms that can mean many things to many people. I feel it means perform the duties of the office. Was this Scout aware of the duties of the Scribe? Did he ever ask how he was doing? Did the SM ever review how he was doing?

 

Ed Mori

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"First a scoutmaster is neither hired, or fired."

 

Gee, do they just walk and take over?

 

hire

 

n : the act of giving someone a job

 

fire

Informal. To discharge from a position; dismiss. See synonyms at dismiss.

 

I would argue that the troop committee hires the SM and fires him when necessary.

 

As for ethics, you're right but that isn't always the real world. As I stated before, doing the right thing is often tempered by the need to keep a paycheck coming into the family. The wife and kids aren't going to be very proud of you for standing your ground after you lose the house.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Just a quick thought, doesnt the COR ultimately approve and remove all adult leaders?

 

Its not the Committee's job to hire or fire anyone, leastwise not in the conventional sense. Now, if the COmmittee has a huge beef with a scoutmaster they may invite him to resign, but its still up to the scoutmaster as to what he/she wants to do. If he/she is buddies with the COR, then it may be the entire committee that ends up with an extra hour a week.

 

Then again if the COR gets tired of the bickering the entire lot may go, along with the unit, leastwise thats what I understand, I could be wrong...

[Bob White 20]

The BSA sees it as, a leader is selected and asked to volunteer service. They serve as a volunteer at the pleasure of the charter organization. A leader can be removed from a position but since they are never hired they are not fired.

 

The real world is what you make it. If your ethics are based on your income, then that is YOUR real world. For others ethics and values are like magnetic north. Their personal compass points the same direction regardless of how much money they have in their wallet.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike F 10]

Ed,

I think I've already answered these, but

Yes - the Scout was trained at Troop JLT which included some one-on-one time to discuss requirements of his particular job. No - he did not ever seek feedback or assistance. No - the SM did not review how he was doing. (No excuses, but new SM was in process of taking over very large troop with a huge number of other very hot concerns to work - this one slipped through the crack.)

 

Bob White,

Come on. SM is not saying it was the Scout's responsibility to do the job solo. He's saying the job wasn't done.

Scout did NOT say "he had no support or development to do the job." When discussing his performance with SM - while looking at a copy of the job description, list of responsibilities, etc. that he got when trained, the Scout admitted he hadn't done very much. He agreed with SM that he needed to develop his leadership capabilities more. (This is in direct agreement with your note about us being here to develop young people. Easy way out would be to cheat the Scout and sign him off.) Unfortunate combination of events, but recovery plan was on track until parents went on the offensive.

 

As for who should sign - nobody in troop is saying the Scout did the job.

 

If a Scout participates in some knot instruction, but comes away unable to demonstrate how to tie a knot, do we sign him off because the instructor didn't teach him effectively? No - we have him take a breath to calm down and we work on it some more, maybe trying different techniques. He might not get signed off today, but he's making progress and will get there. (We also need to take a look at the instruction side, of course, to see if there's a bigger problem than this one scout.)

 

We're a very big troop and have a lot of leadership positions. In spite of the SM changeover, I believe all of the rest were successful in their jobs. One Scout needs more guidance/coaching and another month or so. Not a big deal and really pretty good, overall.

[evmori 11]

Mike F,

Thanks. It seems from your last post that the Scouts is in agreement with the SM that he needs to develop his leadership skills more. It also seems from an earlier post that the parents are really the ones pushing this Scouts acvancement. Since he is the SM and he doesn't feel this Scout has performed the duties of his office he has every right to do what he did. A little more time might do this Scout a lot of good.

 

Ed Mori