Troop role for Eagle Court of Honor after EBOR Disp Circumstances

[David CO 1783]

It is certainly true that I am not representative of this group of scouters on scouter.com.  Then again, this group of scouters on the forum is not very representative of scouters out in the real world.

 

Only about 4% of scouts are eagle scouts.  The percentage of eagle scouts on this forum is much higher.  The percentage of scouting parents on this site whose sons are eagle scouts is also much higher than average.

 

Consequently, people on this forum tend to identify more with the scouts who are pursuing eagle scout rank.  I tend to identify more with the other 96% percent.

 

I think scouters in the real world are more conservative, more religious, and more closely aligned with their Chartered Organizations than are most of the folks on this site.  I'm with them.

 

Happy Mother's Day. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by David CO

[fred johnson 936]

It is certainly true that I am not representative of this group of scouters on scouter.com.  Then again, this group of scouters on the forum is not very representative of scouters out in the real world.

 

Only about 4% of scouts are eagle scouts.  The percentage of eagle scouts on this forum is much higher.  The percentage of scouting parents on this site whose sons are eagle scouts is also much higher than average.

 

Consequently, people on this forum tend to identify more with the scouts who are pursuing eagle scout rank.  I tend to identify more with the other 96% percent.

 

I think scouters in the real world are more conservative, more religious, and more closely aligned with their Chartered Organizations than are most of the folks on this site.  I'm with them.

 

Happy Mother's Day. 

 

Ok.  I chuckled.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Consequently, people on this forum tend to identify more with the scouts who are pursuing eagle scout rank.

To me it usually seems like the opposite. Where I am, anyway, both leaders and parents focus on Eagle more than the average poster in this forum. Actually I mean the average long-time poster. People who show up here to ask questions or tell stories about Eagle in their first post are, not surprisingly, often focused on Eagle.  But there are a number of long-timers here who talk about how First Class is the most important rank, or Eagle is over-emphasized, or similar ideas.

 

 

I think scouters in the real world are more conservative, more religious, and more closely aligned with their Chartered Organizations than are most of the folks on this site.  I'm with them.

 

Again, maybe it's because of where I am, though there are some very conservative and very religious people in New Jersey.  (A lower proportion than where you live, I'm guessing.) But on the first two items I see the opposite.  As for "more closely aligned with their Chartered Organization", I think it depends on the CO, both in this forum and in the real world.  And as an adult, I have only had direct experience with two CO's, one was a PTO that for all intents and purposes was invisible as far as the pack was concerned, and the other is a church that has some involvement with the troop but is mostly hands-off.  So I can't really draw any conclusions from that.  In this forum I have read about an entire range of CO's, from invisible to very involved.

Edited May 15, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Our troop leadership's primary argument was that because our troop uses 1-year leadership terms and my son had to resign after 9 months because of sports commitments.  Leadership insisted that because he didn't fulfill a full term, he needed to do an additional three months of service (despite the leadership requirement being 6 months).

I guess I never got around to responding to this.

 

First, congrats to your son on the successful completion of the process. It sounds like the ceremony went well.

 

Our troop also has 1-year terms for SPL, ASPL and PL. (And by "default" for the other positions but there is a tendency to rotate those before the year is up.) But this is not a requirement for advancement. If the Scout is active in the position for 4 months while First Class, or 6 months while Star or Life, their POR requirement is signed off for the next rank.) We have had Scouts resign their position after the 4 or 6 months but before the year is up, so someone else is appointed or elected. It has never come up at a BOR.  (I do recall one whose resignation probably left him short of the POR requirement for Life, but he also didn't have enough Eagle-required MB's for Life at the time of his 17.5 birthday, so he wasn't making Eagle anyway.)

 

So this sounds to me like an appropriate use of the "under disputed circumstances" procedure. The troop was trying to add to the requirements.

Edited May 15, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[David CO 1783]

Things are very different where I come from.  We feel that it is important that boys learn to complete the tasks they undertake.  They should finish what they start.

 

If a scout seeks a POR with a 1 year responsibility, then he should finish out the whole year.  No quitting and no shirking.  Finish the job.

[fred johnson 936]

We feel that it is important that boys learn to complete the tasks they undertake.  

 

So ... You expect the scouts to fulfill their commitments.  Yet, you put your signature on a BSA application that says you choose to lead and represent BSA's program.  BSA clearly documents the requirement is fulfilled at six months.  Done deal at that time.  Not to pick a fight, but isn't there a contradiction there.  Do I say, but not as I do? 

Edited May 15, 2017 by fred johnson

[David CO 1783]

So ... You expect the scouts to fulfill their commitments.  Yet, you put your signature on a BSA application that says you choose to lead and represent BSA's program.  BSA clearly documents the requirement is fulfilled at six months.  Done deal at that time.  Not to pick a fight, but isn't there a contradiction there.  Do I say, but not as I do? 

 

No contradiction here, Fred.  That is not what the charter agreement says.

[Stosh 3452]

Things are very different where I come from.  We feel that it is important that boys learn to complete the tasks they undertake.  They should finish what they start.

 

If a scout seeks a POR with a 1 year responsibility, then he should finish out the whole year.  No quitting and no shirking.  Finish the job.

 

I guess this would mean that either that year entails 2 rank advancements or it takes a scout 3 years to do Star ->Eagle?  I have a small troop and our boys cover multiple POR's and they are all under First Class.  They may be able to serve their 6 months in one position, but if that boy isn't doing his job, say PL, then he is replaced once the patrol decides on a PL that will do the job.  That means he put in 2 months as PL and 4 months as QM.  It doesn't say it has to be in all one POR.

 

Requiring a boy to function for 12 months instead of the requisite 4 or 6 is adding to the requirements and holds the boys back on their advancement, unless the boy exactly times his rank advancement just right.  That's not part of the requirements.

[David CO 1783]

It is not adding to the requirements.  It has nothing to do with the advancement requirements.  You are trying to make the tail wag the dog.  A POR should not exist just to meet an advancement requirement.  The length of service should depend on the needs of the unit, not the advancement requirements.

 

You guys are much too focused on advancement and the eagle scout rank.

Edited May 16, 2017 by David CO

[Sentinel947 1205]

In my Troop we have our troop guides serve for a year. We happily would sign off the POR and Active in troop requirements for Star/Life or Life/Eagle if those are met over the course of the year.

 

Sometimes life happens. We'll be flexible with our Scouts.

 

I'm a big proponent of "soft power." I get to know my Scouts pretty well. They have a genuine desire to do a good job for the troop. We encourage that. We provide them the resources they need to be successful. Our Scouts respect our troop adults. They aim to please for the most part.

 

If a Scout backs out of his committmemt for one reason or another, we will credit him for what he's completed. It would trigger a Scoutmasters conference from our team. Whats going on in his life, why can't he make good on his committment? How do we avoid this in the future? How do we assist him and his family?

 

1 year for a POR like guide, SPL, PL is asking alot from a teenager. What if they want to play a sport or do band? Church youth group? How many capable Scouts never hold those PORS because of the year long committment?

 

If 1 year terms work for your troop than keep doing what you do. If not, consider why those positions are year long positions, and do they have to be?

[Stosh 3452]

I'm from small troops and it is our interpretation from the requirements vs. POR tenure that

 

1) The POR does not need to be all the same position.

2) The 6 months do not need to be consecutive

 

A boy starts out as QM in the summer, wants to do football.  QM Jun-Aug (3 months), Football Sep-Oct, then comes back as PL (Nov-Jan) of his patrol because the former PL took off for a school's theater production.

 

I can cite one example of where @David CO system and philosophy would prepare the boys for the real world.  The Military.  If one drops out before their term expires they are arrested and incarcerated.   Other than that, people are free to take on employment, volunteer work, and other activities for however they want, not some arbitrary number tossed out there for some requirements.

 

For example, I got called out last night for a 37-unit apartment fire for the Red Cross response team.  I wasn't on call..... but I went anyway.

 

They have limits in the requirements for a reason.  As far as the lessons on commitment are concerned.  I have 5 boys, all doing POR's that have nothing to do with advancement.  They are all under FC rank.  Some have served well over a year in a position they like and the others like them there doing it.  One doesn't need added adult rules to teach the boys commitment and responsibility with POR enlistment terms.

[fred johnson 936]

No contradiction here, Fred.  That is not what the charter agreement says.

 

I'm talking about the adult leader application that we've all signed multiple times.  

 

"I have read and affirm that I accept the Declaration of Religious Principle and qualifications for adult participation.   

 I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the Boy Scouts of America and the local council".

 

What you described in your posts does not match the intent or explicit content of BSA publications.  It's bad as you are holding the scout accountable for something you created by not being accountable to BSA.  

 

But each to their own.  I choose to follow the program I put my name under.  Per BSA GTA if a scout completed the time, he's completed his POR.  There can be reasonable extensions, but a six month duration made into a year is not reasonable.  It's doubling the expectation.  Not finishing the POR is not an issue as the requirement was fulfilled before giving up the POR.  As it was already completed, it should not be used as a penalty for not finishing troop level time in position expectations.  Troops get stuck all the time trying to enforce things they have no right to enforce.

Edited May 16, 2017 by fred johnson

[David CO 1783]

 

I'm talking about the adult leader application that we've all signed multiple times.  

 

What you described in your posts does not match the intent or explicit content of BSA publications.

 

But each to their own.  I choose to follow the program I put my name under.  Per BSA GTA if a scout completed the time, he's completed his POR.  There can be reasonable extensions, but a six month duration made into a year is not reasonable.  It's doubling the expectation.  

 

No Fred, that is simply not true.  

 

BSA rules do not say that a Chartered Organization must tailor its program, or its POR's, to match up with the advancement requirements.  You are just making this stuff up.

 

The CO owns the unit.  The CO can create and eliminate POR's at will.  The CO can set its own requirements for POR's.  The CO can set the length of service for POR's.

 

In fact, a CO also has the right to decide what camping opportunities it offers to its scouts.  A CO could have its troop do only cabin camping (if it wanted to), which would exclude all of its scouts from advancement.  It would be a terrible idea, IMO, but the CO has the right to do it.

 

A CO could charter a unit solely to take advantage of BSA's STEM program, for example, and not do any camping at all.  Again, I think this would be a terrible idea, but the CO has the right to do it.

 

Neither the written rules or the spirit of the rules require the Chartered Organization to give its scouts a program that would allow its scouts to advance in rank.  The CO owns the unit. It is their decision.

[Col. Flagg 909]

[DuctTape 1230]

Ownership is the incorrect word. The CO does not own the unit. The unit is chartered to the CO. The CO owns the assets of the unit, however the unit is still a BSA unit. The CO does not have the authority to add or subtract to the requirements for advancement. The CO might not provide a good program but that is quite different.