Do you think this qualifies for leadership time?

[Zahnada 11]

Bob White,

 

I think we're very near an agreement except I've used the logic to go an extra step. Those 6 months should be a learning process for the boy. However, if he fails to actively perform his duty then the SPL or SM needs to counsel him on what that duty entails. If he still refuses to put the effort into his job then there should be more conversations. If these conversations don't help then the boy should be removed of his office. An unactive leader hurts the troop, the patrol, and the other scouts.

 

Therefore, if the boy makes it through his 6 months in a leadership position, it is assumed that he was an active leader during those 6 months. If he was inactive, he never should have made it that long.

 

I believe that this is the thinking behind the requirement. As you said, "I don't know if he was ever told or trained as to what those responsibilities were. If the Scoutmaster didn't do his job, then I feel he has no right to punish the scout for not doing his." It is not helpful to the scout or the troop for the SM to simply take attendance records and then add up if he thought the boy was active during the 6 months.

 

If he retained his leadership position for the required time then it is my understanding that he fulfilled the requirement. However fair or unfair that is doesn't matter. The boy should have been coached throughout the time of his office and if he refused to respond to the coaching then he should have lost the responsibility of holding an office.

 

(Please note: My arguments mainly involve the "activeness" of a leader. It is true that some boys may struggle with leadership througout their term of office, but if they put in the effort they should receive the requirement no matter how effective their performance. However, if a leader does not participate then they are not leading. This issue should be addressed and dealt with long before the 6 months are complete.)

 

I think this post may have indirectly answered the posts by Fat Old Guy and Ed. If not, I apologize and will try again.

[Bob White 20]

"If these conversations don't help then the boy should be removed of his office."

 

Where in the scouting program is this ever described or supported?

So if the teacher cannot teach then we dispose of the student? That certainly makes the job of the teacher must simpler doesn't it.

[Zahnada 11]

Bob,

 

Please read the parenthetical section of my last post that begins with "Please note".

 

I never say that a struggling leader should be removed from office. Some boys will have difficulty with their positions no matter how much help we give them. If they exert the effort, then they pass the requirement in my book.

 

My argument deals with how active a boy is. If a boy does not show up and is not performing his functions as a leader then he should lose his responsibility as a leader. Then there would be no arguments about whether he was active during his 6 months of office because he wouldn't have finished the 6 months.

 

These arguments are for the boys who might try to be patrol leader and a player on their school football team during the same period. If they can't make it to meetings because of practices and they can't make it to outings because of games, the SM should have a conversation with them about their priorities. For the benefit of the troop and patrol, if the boy decides to devote his time to football instead of scouting, then he should not be patrol leader at this time. To me, removing the boy at this time is preferable to waiting until the end of his term and then complaining that he was never around.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Dear Jasm,

 

I hope you have learned that if the horse isn't dead when we get through with it, then it will be shortly. Actually, the deader the horse the more lively the discussion. (*poetic fragment) Or, we could type one to death if it were to come within ear shot of one of these threads. (? I think the name should be called ropes.)

 

Good luck on sorting out an answer and tell your Scoutmaster to stay away from these dern things.

 

Disclaimer: This was intended for humor purposes only. Don't confuse this with the end of this thread, not that anyone will but just in case it throws a slight delay in the next twenty replies.

 

FB

 

[Zahnada 11]

Haha!

 

Very well, Fuzzy Bear. I can take a hint.

 

Besides, I have a feeling that only you, myself, and Bob are the only people still reading this thread/rope. But why cut it off at page 2? I wager we could have at least gone to page 5.

[LauraT7 13]

I think the point you are trying to make is that if there is a problem, it should be addressed long before the 6 months come to a close......

 

We have put clear expectations of boys taking and office for advancement - actually for all the boys.

 

If a boy is not going to make a meeting, he needs to call his PL, the SPL or ASPL, or the SM and let someone know that he isn't going to be there and why.

 

A PL need to let the SPL or SM know.

 

Not that we would tell someone, "no, that's not a good enough excuse, you gotta show up" - but requiring the boys to call someone, usually eliminates those who just "don't feel like it tonite"

 

Separate from Advancement stuff - we have an annual outing that each boy has to 'earn' in order to participate in - and part of the requirements for that is no more than 3 unexcused absences from planned meetings and activities.

 

if a boy has a commitment to sports - we sit down and look at the schedule and he STILL has to LEAD, even if he misses meetings. We had one boy who left his APL with the bag - so the SM had a talk with him, and the APL got credit for 3 months of 'POR', as the PL had just blown off his duties. The PL woke up and did his job after that. BUT - it was discussed with him a couple of times before he took it seriously, and we addressed it long before the 6 months was up.

 

We have also had problems with harrasment - we now have a very clear troop policy and a ZERO tolerance for it. Within the troop and outside it.

 

We have a 1st Class scout from anther troop that transferred into our troop last fall. He already knew some of our scouts as he goes to school with them. He has been teasing some of them, in school and at troop events, calling them "gay" and "moron" - for no reason except that it's typical behavior for an 8th grader to a 6th grader. However, it is NOT acceptable in our boys - ANYWHERE. The SM talked to him privately a month ago, and when the behavior persisted, last night he had a conference with the boy and his parents. If the boy does not stop the verbal harrassment in school and at scouts - he will be asked to leave the troop.

 

I don't know if your troop's expectations are spelled out clearly for the boy in your question. if they are, then he has probably NOT met the expectations and does not deserve to advance.

 

If they ARE very clear, and his actions have been discussed with him before, then he should not be surprised to have his advancement turned down until he changes his behavior. Advancement is not guaranteed - boys have to earn it!

 

If they are not clear, and he hasn't been held accountable for his behavior in the past, then the ADULT leadership is as much to blame as the boy.

For starters, i would sit him down, explain where he went wrong, what is expected of him and give him a (shorter) time period to show some positive changes, at which time you would do another SM conference to review and possibly approve his advancement.

 

In addition, I would get the PLC to come up with a clear, WRITTEN set of expectations and job descriptions for your troop.

 

Laura

[acco40 95]

From our council training committee: In a decision recently handed down by National on an appeal, several key issues were considered and precedents were set. The following is quoted directly from that decision: Serving in a position of leadership means that if they are elected or appointed to a position, such as Patrol Leader, and serve in that position for the required time, they have satisfactorily completed that requirement. The conclusion is that time in position fulfills the requirement. The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review. The National Advancement Committee offers the following advice for Scoutmasters. Each time a Scout is elected or appointed to a position of responsibility, he MUST be given his job description and responsibilities. If you have a Scout in a position and he isnt doing his job, he needs to be counseled and removed if necessary. At some point down the road, he may be ready to try that position again or another one. Remember, if he served in the position for two months that is two months fulfilled towards completing the requirement. Also, if a Scoutmaster removes a Scout from a position of responsibility, he/she must notify the Scout and putting it in writing is preferable, though not required.

 

 

[Zahnada 11]

Thank you acco! I knew I wasn't completely crazy. There was truth in what just about everyone said during this post. And I assume that this decision applies to everyone? And is there any place where this decision is written down? Thanks.

[Bob White 20]

Serving in a position of leadership means that if they are elected or appointed to a position, such as Patrol Leader, and serve in that position for the required time, they have satisfactorily completed that requirement. The conclusion is that time in position fulfills the requirement. The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review.

 

Accu40, Is the bold section from the National office or a local addition to their text?

 

I ask because it does not seem to follow what the rest of the section says. As I understand it, national is saying the scout must "SERVE" in the position not just hold it. That the BOR can determine that the scout did not provide service and can withold advancement based on that decision. They go on to say that the Scout MUST be given clear goals and instructions at the time of his taking office, so that both he and the BOR understand what his performance will be judged on.

 

Nowhere in the quotes from National do I see them say or even imply that "time in position fulfills the requirement" as the line in your post states. Is that correct?

 

My guess is that in this specific situation addressed by the appeals board, it was determined that the scout (although not completing the requirement to someones satisfaction), had not been given "his job description and responsibilities" so was in fact set up to fail by the Scoutmaster. That being the case, the appeals board correctly decided in favor of the scout.

 

As I understand the passage that you shared, what the appeals board is politely telling this particular troop leadership is that if the adults do not do their job in preparing the scout for his leadership role then do not expect to gig him on his performance at the end of his tenure.

 

They are saying, yes, the scout needs to actively serve as the handbook says, but the SM has to tell him up front how he will be evaluted. If that is not done and the scout in in office the entire period of time then it is the adults problem and not the scout's.

 

Is that how you understand the decision as well?

 

[Zahnada 11]

Bob White,

 

I completely agree with everything from your last post. The definition of "serve" must be laid out for the scout before they enter into their position.

 

I interpret acco's post as saying that the BOR decides whether the leadership is satisfactory for advancement (as they determine whether completion of all requirements is satisfactory). However, after serving for the time period, the boy has then fulfilled the requirement. This is kind of confusing for me. So the requirement can be signed off, but the BOR can say that even the completion of the requirement is not enough to advance a rank.

 

Anyway, my previous arguments concern boys who do not "serve". As acco's post says, "If you have a Scout in a position and he isnt doing his job, he needs to be counseled and removed if necessary. At some point down the road, he may be ready to try that position again or another one. Remember, if he served in the position for two months that is two months fulfilled towards completing the requirement."

 

So any amount of time that a boy is holding an office, it should be assumed that they are actually serving in that office. If a boy will not serve then they lose their responsibility to hold that office at that particular time.

 

That's why I believe that a boy who held the office of Patrol Leader for 6 months should meet the requirement. It does not help him or the troop to let a leader who refuses to serve maintain their authority and then complain about them after the fact. If he refused to serve during his term, he should have been counselled and if that didn't work, he should have been removed.

 

I think I'm just extending the logic of acco's post to answer the original question of this thread.

 

But once again, I agree with your assessment from your last post.

 

Yours in Scouting,

Zahnada