Fulfilling Merit Badge Requirments

[Back Pack 431]

It sounds like the intent is to ask the scout what he did. If he didn’t plan the event and get it approved then the counselor shouldn’t have signed off. Wouldn’t the sm be within the rules to disallow the mb? From what Flagg posts it looks like yes.

[Col. Flagg 909]

I'm familiar with the rest of the text.  The issue is the intention of the "challenge" is for more blatant in-your-face issues.  If "challenge" is taken to the point of referring to planning in Req #8, then it can really be applied to any individual requirement.  I'm not sure if even the "discuss" requirements can be safe.  I'd be more comfortable if the SM was challenging and said the scout never stood in front of the troop as a MC for the event.  But to say he did not "plan" is a subjective statement.  PLC approval can be as simple as the scout telling the SPL what he planned to say in the coming COH or the SPL and scout jointly deciding what is to be said.  That has the PLC effectively approve the plan.

 

It guts the MBC as the person who determines of requirements have been met and adds the SM as a 2nd approval.  And the SM has never meant to be an approval in the merit badge program. 

 

This is a check and balance section to the GTA and not a 2nd approval. We all know of instances where MBCs have signed off on requirements we know could not possibly have been completed by the Scout. This section allows the unit, through the unit leader, to check that process against what the MBCs should be doing. If the MBC is signing off on stuff they could not validate (or didn't bother to check or "subtracted" from the requirements) then the SM is within BSA's stated guidelines to challenge that approval.

 

Of course the word "challenge" is supposed to be done in an environment that gives the Scout the benefit of the doubt and can be as simple as asking "Did you plan the COH, script and get it approved?" If he says, "Yes" then there is no challenge. If, however, he didn't or cannot recall, this is when a well-mannered discussion takes place with the Scout, his parents and the MBC or an ASM to ascertain if the Scout did the work. Again, if he did, then we're done.

 

If, however, he didn't do the work then the requirement wasn't met, the MBC subtracted a requirement and the SM can legitimately not award the badge. He then works with the Scout under the above section to help him close out this partial.

[TAHAWK 1420]

I remember "The signed blue card is the end of the inquiry."  Not so much any more.  Might want to read this big change that appeared in 2015 (IIRC) (I was told it was a direct response to merit badge mills, but not so limited.  Decertification/failure to renew certification of camps has also been discussed, but seems as unlikely as it is warranted.):

 

7.0.4.7 Limited Recourse for Unearned Merit Badges

From time to time, it may be discovered that merit badges could not actually have been earned. For example, a Scout who returns from summer camp or a merit badge fair with signed blue cards for an extraordinary number of badges could raise concerns.

 

If, after consulting with those involved in the merit badge program—such as an event coordinator, the camp director, or a merit badge counselor—it becomes plainly evident that a youth could not have actually and personally fulfilled requirements as written, then the limited recourse outlined below is available. It may result in a decision that some or all of the requirements for a badge could not have been fulfilled, and thus, that the badge was not actually earned.

 

After such a consultation, the unit leader, in a positive environment similar to that of a unit leader conference, discusses with the Scout the circumstances under which a merit badge in question was approved. A parent or an assistant unit leader should attend as an observer. The young man shall not be retested on the requirements, but a conversation with him can reveal if he was present at the class and actually and personally fulfilled all the requirements. Such a discussion could cover who taught a class, what sort of activities took place, where and when they occurred, how testing was done, what the Scout might have brought home from the class, and other similar process-oriented details.

 

In most cases, with a fair and friendly approach, a young man who did not complete the requirements will admit it. Short of this, however, if it remains clear under the circumstances that some or all of the requirements could not have been met, then the merit badge is not reported or awarded, and does not count toward advancement. The unit leader then offers the name of at least one other merit badge counselor through whom any incomplete requirements may be finished. Note that in this case a merit badge is not “taken away†because, although signed off, it was never actually earned.

 

Just as we avoid penalizing Scouts for the mistakes of adults, it should be a rare occurrence that a unit leader finds the need to question whether merit badges have been earned. This procedure for recourse is limited and reserved only for clear and evident cases of noncompletion or nonparticipation [sic].

. . .

This procedure is not to be viewed as an opportunity for retesting on requirements, for interjecting another set of standards over those of a merit badge counselor, or for debating issues such as whether a Scout was strong enough, mature enough, or old enough to have completed requirements.

 

Unit leaders who find it necessary to make use of this recourse must act quickly—if possible, within 30 days of discovery. It is inappropriate to delay a Scout’s advancement with anything less than a prompt decision.

 

If a Scout or his parent or guardian believes a unit leader has incorrectly determined a Scout has not earned a merit badge, or more than 30 days have passed without a reasonable explanation for the lack of a decision, they should address their concerns with the unit committee. They should first, however, develop a thorough understanding of the merit badge requirements and that each one must be passed exactly as it is set forth.

 

Upon encountering any merit badge program where BSA standards are not upheld, unit leaders are strongly encouraged to [waste their time to] report the incident to the council advancement committee [which has no practical power to overrule the council employees largely responsible], preferably using the form found in the appendix (see “Reporting Merit Badge Counseling Concerns,†11.1.0.0)."

 

B.S.A., Guide to Advancement (2017)

 

I don't think this language allows a SM to, in effect, add a requirement in the OP case, but it is no longer the case that, as it once was, it's entirely up to the MBC to determine if the MB was earned

 

I think the motivation was sound but the language unfortunate.  THE SM is left to backstop the MBC in deciding if there was "noncompletion," making him a interpreter of he requirements.  It is not clear what the "unit committee" is empowered to do, once consulted by the parents.  Is there as appeal to council?  To national? 

[ValleyBoy 64]

This is a check and balance section to the GTA and not a 2nd approval. We all know of instances where MBCs have signed off on requirements we know could not possibly have been completed by the Scout. This section allows the unit, through the unit leader, to check that process against what the MBCs should be doing. If the MBC is signing off on stuff they could not validate (or didn't bother to check or "subtracted" from the requirements) then the SM is within BSA's stated guidelines to challenge that approval.

 

Of course the word "challenge" is supposed to be done in an environment that gives the Scout the benefit of the doubt and can be as simple as asking "Did you plan the COH, script and get it approved?" If he says, "Yes" then there is no challenge. If, however, he didn't or cannot recall, this is when a well-mannered discussion takes place with the Scout, his parents and the MBC or an ASM to ascertain if the Scout did the work. Again, if he did, then we're done.

 

If, however, he didn't do the work then the requirement wasn't met, the MBC subtracted a requirement and the SM can legitimately not award the badge. He then works with the Scout under the above section to help him close out this partial.

I agree with you above statement except for the following reasons. 

 

1. The scout ages out in December.

2.  Communications Merit Badge is Eagle required.

 

What I would like really like to know is how close the scout is to completing all the Eagle requirements before his 18th  birthday.

[Col. Flagg 909]

I agree with you above statement except for the following reasons. 

 

1. The scout ages out in December.

2.  Communications Merit Badge is Eagle required.

 

What I would like really like to know is how close the scout is to completing all the Eagle requirements before his 18th  birthday.

 

Well, if "planning" and getting "approval" seem to be the only thing really unknown, then one would hope the SM would take that in to consideration and discuss that with the Scout and his parents. Find a common ground. Maybe he could draft another script and submit after-the-fact. Not ideal but is a middle ground. 

 

Another approach would be to conduct an interfaith service at a mtg in November. That wouldn't be too hard but to me that would essentially discount the fact he MC'd the COH.

 

I'd hope the SM would be reasonable here. It sounds like a process may have been missed but it's minor in my book.