Bob White 20 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Mike F, Just a reminder of something you wrote in your original post. "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.) My post was largely based on that specific piece of information. Coaching and guiding the scout in his leadership position is the main purpose having a Scoutmaster. You cannot punish the scout for the SM not doing his or her job, especially when you admit that that was a significant reason for his situation. If the committe members on the BOR agree that the scout failed due to the troop leadersip not doing their job, then the problem here is not the scout. He is only at Star rank. The troop, by fixing the adult leadership deficiences, still has time to develop the skills of the scout. But if you gig him because of an adults shortcoming you may lose the boy from scouting. You can't fix the problem if he is not there to work with. Let the BOR make the determination. Bob White (This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to post Share on other sites
Hunt 11 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 If "serve actively" means something more than "serve" alone would mean, I don't see how anybody could have this requirement signed off if they performed none of the obligations of the position. It would certainly be unfair and wrong of adult leaders to thwart a scout's efforts to perform those duties--but it would be dishonest to pretend that the scout had actually performed them. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 "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." This sticks out. The Scout realizes he didn't do his job. So why should the requirement be signed off? And the short answer to your question "Can the SM be directed to sign a requirement he doesn't believe has been met?" is no. Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Does the advancement program specify that the Scoutmaster is the one who has to sign the requirement? No. This push and shove attitude within a troop is self-destructive. If the Scoutmaster doesn't feel the Scout has completed the requirements according to the Handbook then he or she should tell that to the board prior to the BOR beginning. It is not the Sm's role to approve or deny advancement. Let the BOR do their job. How do you expect a boy leader to do his job if the adult leaders don't do theirs? Can you really justify penalizing the boy for something that the troop admits is a "significant failure" on the part of the adults? What justification is there for not allowing the Board of Review to "review" the situation as an impartial body and determining a resolution? Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Mike F, Correct me if I'm wrong but the Scout never had a BOR, did he? From what I read the SM made the determination during the SM conference that this Scout didn't perform the duties of his office. And that is his perogative. Sure there are some problems in this Troop. There are problems in every Troop. And the Scout admitted he didn't really do his job. And since there is a new SM the situation will hopefully change regarding the training of the youth leadership. I think the SM in this case handled this situation well. Signing off on this requirement at this time would be a great disservice to the Scout and could set a dangerous percedent in the Troop. Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 The name Mike Walton has come up here a few times, it may be interesting to read what he has to say about Scoutmaster conferences: http://usscouts.org/boyscouts/smconf.html I am not saying he is right, or he is wrong, only that he is a respected Scouter. Nowhere does he talk about the Scoutmaster's duty to decide if the scout has adequately met all the rank's requirements, (leastwise not that I saw). I realize this is only an opinion, and as with most things, opinions vary. Link to post Share on other sites
dsteele 20 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 I agree as well that the Scoutmaster can not be forced by the CC or anyone else to sign his/her name as approval for anything. The CC is one of the people that approves leaders and he, therefore, can dismiss -- he can be trumped by the chartered organization rep because that's who approves the CC position. However, I don't think that "fire everybody" is a good answer. No, you can't shoot the boy's parents, either. I agree that this is where the problem lies. The parents need an education like the one the boy is receiving -- Boy Scouts isn't about badges. Badges are a tool we use to educate a young man. I'm proud of this Scout for agreeing with the Scoutmaster that he needs more time to develop his leadership. Man I think that the Scout knowing that is a bigger part of what we're trying to do than the date that will be entered on his Eagle application for earning the rank of Star. In some ways, I think flunking my board of review for Second Class when I was a kid was one of my best lessons. It was hard at the time, but I learned from it and still made Eagle . . . a bit before the deadline. Okay, way before the deadline, but that starts long threads, so I won't go there. DS Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2780 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 >>I think the SM in this case handled this situation well. Signing off on this requirement at this time would be a great disservice to the Scout and could set a dangerous percedent in the Troop. Link to post Share on other sites
Mike F 10 Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 Barry, You make an interesting distinction that we'll probably make use of before all is said and done. In SM Handbook, pg 120, under Step 3 - A Scout is Reviewed, it starts off by saying "After a Scout has completed all of the requirements for any rank from Tenderfoot to Life, his progress is reviewed in two stages: - Scoutmaster conference - Board of review" In this case, the SM determined that the Scout had not completed all of the requirements for Star, therefore the SM Conf they had was one of progress review, not the final one for rank, and he didn't sign the SM Conf block either. Without this, there shouldn't be a BOR. Bob White, Again, we don't look at it as "penalizing" the Scout - he needs a little more time to develop and grow, that's all, and we're committed to giving him the opportunity and assistance to do so. What's a couple of months in a 7-yr scouting career? A bit more time helping him to really be ready to proudly wear the rank might be the most valuable time he's spent in Scouting, so far. Alternatively, he will move forward with a cloud of doubt - the SM has already told him he's not ready and Scout knows his parents are pushing the system to advance him anyway. The other boys also know he didn't complete the POR requirement. I also don't like the idea of the SM handing a scout off to the BOR knowing he didn't complete the requirements. The way I understand the checks and balances, the SM basically presents a scout that he believes is ready. The BOR/Troop Committee members then do a verification to ensure he has completed the requirements. While they are only reviewing one scout, they are also reviewing the entire program side of the troop. If a SM presented a scout for advancement and BOR determined he came up short, I would think a review of the troop's program would be in order. I suppose our SM could go ahead and get the heat off his back by signing, then recommending to the BOR that they not pass the Scout, but that doesn't sound like it's really in the Scout's best interest. (BTW - the generic problem of ensuring all scouts in POR get much more attention, guidance, and coaching has already been discussed extensively within the SM Staff. Fixes are in place for new rotation just starting.) Now for an idea about how to get this to resolution, incorporating some of Barry's ideas. Schedule another SM Conf for Scout. (Although not standard, I would consider having another adult, like CC, observe. CC doesn't really have an ax to grind - he just doesn't like parents yelling at him and wants the problem to go away immediately.) Explain to Scout that there has been a lot of discussion about his situation and performance in POR among adults. (He already knows this - parents have been vocal.) Discuss it all a bit to let him know that the troop let him down by not being more help. But also let him know that scouts of advanced rank and responsibility are expected to know when to seek help. Tell Scout that SM doesn't think he's really ready for BOR, but give Scout the option. Does Scout honestly believe that he has successfully completed the requirement for advancement. If he says yes, sign it and notify BOR. If Scout says no, that's all SM needs to tell other adults to back off and give the boy a chance to get ready - we're willing to help. (Sorry for another long post - this one's really bugging me.) Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Mike , I'm not saying the SM should sign or not sign. I'm saying it is for the BOR to review the situation and make a unanimous, impartial decision for everyone to follow. Yes, the SM reviews a scout's progress, but you cannot stop reading at that point. The SM reviews the scouts personal growth and goals. The BOR determines if requirements were completed according to the handbook. You want the SM to do the BOR's job. So far you have the SM doing everyone's job but his own, to train and develop the junior leaders. had he done that there would be no issue to this point. You even agree that this was a significant problem. All I'm saying, along with others here, is that it's not the Scoutmaster's role to determine advancement, that job belongs to the BOR. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 The requirement reads "After a Scout has completed all of the requirements for any rank from Tenderfoot to Life, his progress is reviewed in two stages: - Scoutmaster conference - Board of review" It starts with the word "After" which means once all not some of the requirements are completed the Scout is reviewed. During the SM conference it was determined by both the Scout & SM that the Scout had not completed one of his requirements and therefore didn't have his BOR. Seems to follow the way it is written in the SM handbook. Barry, Signing the book DOES mean you approve. OGE, Excellent point but from what I read, this Troop has decided to do things this way. Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 There is where you make a huge mistake Ed. "The Troop" did not make a decision not to sign the book. "The Troop" is a gathering of patrols. "the Scoutmaster" has decided not to sign the book, and "the scoutmaster" is by no means "the troop". The question here is not "can the scout advance without the SM's signature. Of course he can. The SM is not the only person who can sign. The question here is what to do about a situation where there is a disagreement over whether or not a scout has met the requirements to advance. That is a prime responsibility of the Board of Review. There ia also the question of did the adult leaders do their job in training and guiding junior leaders. Evaluating unit operation is another prime responsibility of the BOR. The troop Committee has a responsibility to the CO to see that the program is working. The BOR is made of committee members for that very reason. How can ANY of us sit here and from just a couple of posts from only one person's point of view, decree whether the scout passes or not? There are more sides that deserve representation. It is the BOR's job to determine this scout's advancement, not the scoutmaster's and certainly not ours. Bob White Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 No one is trying to decree anything. The question posted was can the SM be forced to sign it against his will? The answer is no. The Scout in this instance agreed with the SM that he really hadn't fulfilled the duties of his POR. And from the post, it seems mom & dad are driving the push to get the SM to sign the requirement. And since this Scout hasn't completed all the requirements for rank, based on what is in the SM handbook, a BOR isn't necessary! Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Here's a thought, since I think we all agree a BOR doesnt have to be only about Advancement, lets try this. The scoutmaster reccommednds a BOR be held to help straighten out the "mess". Three committee members sit down and talk to the scout about the situation. The scout says he didnt do a good job, ok, then the BOR asks what would it take for the scout to feel he did a good job. What kind of support will be needed and how that support is to be accessed. The BOR doesnt have to do everything the scout asks, but it starts a dialogue. At the end of the BOR the scout knows what must be done, how to get the support he needs, and the amount of time he needs to do. All should be layed out in a "letter of agreement" complete with check up dates to assure things are on target. Also on the agreement is the date of the next SM conference and BOR, both of which will happen whether the SM wants the scout to advance or not. Again, the BOR actually reviews the scouts progress. If the scoutmaster objects the second time, then reasons need to be shown, but if all have input to the agreement, and its followed, it shouldnt be a problem. This way its not the Scoutmaster against the world, its a group effort to help the scout and the scoutmaster isnt holding up advancement, he is facilitating it and following the process. As it stands now, it doesnt look like theres a plan, and that may be the biggest problem the parents have. Dont just tell the scout he has to improve, but talk to him about what the expectations are, have the scout verbalize them back Make sure he knows where to seek help. You cant just tell the scout Do Better, define what better is is concrete terms with a specified time line, Hows that? Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Bravo! OGE, that is the proper response to this situation. BW Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now