requirements signed but not met?

[cheffy 10]

Here's a sticky situation that I need some help on.

We have a scout who just recieved first class a few weeks ago. During his scout master conference we reviewed the requirements, all of which were signed by either an ASM of troop instructor. Being the new SM I thought everything look fine and his conference went well.

Last night I find out that many of the requirements signed were not met and both those signing off and the scout basiclly lied.

What to do?

[evmori 11]

I would have a chat with the Scout & whoever signed the requirements that weren't completed. I would discuss the Scout Oath & Law.

 

The BOR can reconvene after the Scout has completed all ther requirements.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[acco40 95]

For 1st Class, I would not challenge the requirements. My take, once signed, once done. In the future I may restrict who may sign off on requirements and I certainly would talk to those who signed off on the requirements.

 

It looks like you have a case of a Scout (2nd Class) who really used the SA and troop instructor as role models.

 

Now, if you really believe the Scout/Scouters "lied" I would not sign off on "Scout Spirit."

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Stapler Guy, so what you are saying is that even though you and the Scout know that the award is fraudlent, you'd let him keep it?

 

The New Jersey Dude might have something to say but what I remember from my business shark baiting law class is that a contract that is entered into fraudelently is not enforceable.

 

This Scout knew that he hadn't met the requiements. I'm sure that his parents knew as well. This doesn't sound like a matter of simply forgetting to say grace before dinner (a requirement for 1st class). Gotta nip things like this in the bud.

[acco40 95]

If you take the time to review advancement policy, a signed off requirement is a completed requirement. Now, let me give you a real life example. The SPL in our troop signed off the "demonstrate line rescue" requirement for a few of the boys in our troop. He told me that he asked the boys how to do a line resue and everyone of them told him exactly and correctly how to perform a line rescue. Great I told him. However, the requirement is to demonstrate and that is very difficult to do in a church basement. He was informed that he should not have signed off. However, I did not "remove" the requirement from the two boys who were trying to complete that requirement. I also made sure the boys demonstrated the line rescue at a later date, not to get approval for the requirement but to make sure they know how to do it. Was fraud involved? Not in my estimation. Bad judgement? Yes. Lying? No.

 

Saying grace before dinner a 1st Class requirement? What program are you following?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[EagleInKY 14]

Acco: 

4e. On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook.  Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a.  Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup.

[Eagledad 2779]

Hi all

 

Based off the limited imformation, I would not change the results. However, there are two things I would do. It is important that the scout be held accountible for his behavoir. I would let him know my disapointment and that he lost my trust. He will have to prove himself to me in the future.

 

Then I would bring all the adult together for a meeting and explain the program all about encouraging behavoir based from the values of the scout law and oath. Then I would talk a little about the rights and wrongs of what just happened. If you don't end it with the adults, it won't end. Don't poiont fingers or bring up names, instead just lay out how you expect how the adults will behave in this Troop.

 

Barry

[sm41 10]

I agree with Eagle Dad.

 

I would talk with the scout in question. If you can encourage him to redo the req. with out taking away the 1st class do so. Do not make it a requirement to do. You can hold him to Scout Oath, Law, and spirit for his next advancement.

 

At your next PLC or Committee Meeting bring the subject up, and if need be change the process. In my troop two people need to observe the req. being met. It could be a ASM and another scout, the SPL and ASM, the SM and ASM, any combination of two people plus the scout being tested. This works well for me as my son is a scout, and I will not sign off on his book with out some one else there witnessing the req. He does not feel that he is held to a higher standard, and the other scouts do not say he is signed off because he is the scoutmasters son.

 

YIS

SM41

[EagleInKY 14]

There are some good points made here. I agree that some quality control is needed. The method I use is to have boys turn in something in writing for all of the requirements that it is possible (menu/food requirements, identifying plants & animals, etc.). They turn it in, I review it with them, take it home and check it off in Troopmaster. I return it to them at a future meeting indicating that I've signed off on it. They are responsible for hanging on to the paperwork in case I mess up. This doesn't work with "demonstrate a bowline", or several other of the requirements, but it can help keep things in order.

[EagleInKY 14]

And, regarding the original post, I agree that it is difficult to take the advancement back. It depends upon the scale and scope of the dishonesty. If the scout truly lied about the completion of requirements for the sole purpose of getting by without doing the work, then I would be talking with my District Advancement Chair for some guidance and support. At the least, I think I would hold up the Star Advancement #2(living by Scout Oath & Law) until I've seen a change of heart. This would most likely be done by showing some remorse and completing the requirements he lied about.

[KoreaScouter 13]

I'm not aware of any process to "annul" the decision of the BOR. (In the balance, that's probably a good thing.) There are a number of checks/balances built into the advancement program. Look, if a Scout is able to bamboozle his PL, Instructors, Guide, SPL, adult leaders, and the BOR, as this one appears to have done, that's as much the Green Bars' and adults' responsibility as it is his.

 

I know there's split opinion on allowing youth leaders to sign off advancement. Heck, in some units, ASMs don't even sign off advancements. There's obviously a variety of approaches to this. If the SM and SM alone signs off advancements, you know you don't have a standardization problem. If this responsibility is to be shared, however, everyone involved must know and understand what the requirements mean, and apply them consistently.

 

As a knee-jerk reaction, I'd consider appointing the lad as a Scout Skills Instructor -- the whole schmeer; knots, first aid, lashings, map/compass, plants/animals. Have him teach that stuff to your first year Scouts, and I guarantee you that at the end of his tenure, there'll be no doubt he knows his stuff.

 

KS

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"If you take the time to review advancement policy, a signed off requirement is a completed requirement."

 

Under normal circumstances but nothing that I've read in the advancement manual or the scoumaster's handbook or any BSA literature discusses outright fraud.

 

If you allow the award to stand, you are rewarding and even encouraging bad behavior.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

This is not a call for the Scoutmaster to make. It is the responsibility of the Board of Review to "review" how the advancement took place. While the SM does not have the responsibility or authority to revoke advancement that has been performed incorrectly (or not at all), the BOR does.

 

The BOR should tell the scout exactly which requirements they have determined were not done according the written requirements in the Boy Scout Handbook. The next step would be for the scout to go back and correctly pass the challenges, then he can return to the BOR for consideration for advancement.

 

The Scoutmaster should have an immediate talk with the scout and with those who allowed him to short cut the requirements. They need to be made aware that such behavior is unscoutlike and will not be allowed. I would remove the scouts who signed the book from the list of scouts authorized to endorse advancement, until they show they can be trusted. I would counsel the scout about his fulfillment of the scout law and let him know that continuing this behavior will effect him far beyond his scout years.

 

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>If you allow the award to stand, you are rewarding and even encouraging bad behavior.

[evmori 11]

If the Scout didn't complete the requirement he didn't complete the requirement! He still has the opportunity to complete the requirement. But by letting this go, the Scout Oath & Law has been put in your back pocket.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10