SM Conference for higher ranks ONLY on campouts?

[Thunderbird 179]

@Hawkwin Take a look at section 4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference:

"The conference is not a retest of the requirements upon which a Scout has been signed off. It is a forum for discussing topics such as ambitions, life purpose, and goals for future achievement, for counseling, and also for obtaining feedback on the unit’s program."

The board of review is also not supposed to be a retest (section 8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or “Examination”).

[Hawkwin 299]

4 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

@Hawkwin Take a look at section 4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference:

"The conference is not a retest of the requirements upon which a Scout has been signed off. It is a forum for discussing topics such as ambitions, life purpose, and goals for future achievement, for counseling, and also for obtaining feedback on the unit’s program."

The board of review is also not supposed to be a retest (section 8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or “Examination”).

Thanks. I don't think my troop is very big on the GtoA. The fact that I, a lowly parent, had to quote it to the SM and CC illustrates that lack of clarity we have on this issue. Wish me luck!  

I'll likely post my proposal here over the weekend to gain feedback before I send it to the subcommittee. We might end up with a "crowd-sourced" solution.

[Thunderbird 179]

@Hawkwin It might also be helpful to get a copy of the  Troop Leader Guidebook  (replaced the Scoutmaster Handbook).  I do not have a copy of it, but I believe that there is a section on Scoutmaster (unit leader) conferences.

[Eagledad 2777]

The tone of Scoutmaster conferences are a reflection of the Scoutmaster's personal vision of a scout. Their visions are as varied and different as their personalities. Scoutmasters can learn a lot from other scoutmasters in technique, but they can't hide the reflection.  I've had many conferences with scouts and they never even knew it. Especially on drives to camp. I would drum up a conversation and we had good long talks. 

BORs should be the opposite. The 2 key requirements for productive BORs is a humble Scoutmaster wanting input from the board, and consistent BOR questions. A program shouldn't be measured from the review of just one scout, thus all the scouts should have consistent reviews, at least enough to measure program quality.

A lot of adults who join the BOR are motivated by the opportunity of working personally with the scout.  The challenge is that working personally with the scout doesn't always produce consistent questions. That's why at least one member of the BOR should be very experienced so they can guide the rest of the board to stay on track. Questions can vary some, but the intention of the review is quality control of the program, or more importantly, the SM. 

Us old timers aren't big fans of BORs because they used to be a retest of a scouts skills. Todays BORs are a layer of protection from the SM. But, the problem is that youth being reviewed by a group of strange adults doesn't generally help the scout feel free to speak openly. Honestly, while the scout who studies his skills the night before  might feel some apprehension toward testing, he knew exactly the reason for the review and how to prepare for it. Most adults today don't understand the purpose of BORs, much less the scouts. So, the scouts are even more apprehensive because they can't prepare. 

I guide new troops to look for BOR test questions off the internet and issue them to the BOR members. They are pretty good questions and they keep the reviews consistent.

Personally, I think  the best BORs are run by retired Scoutmasters. They are most at ease and know what to look for in the questions. The questions aren't personal, but the scout feels a personal connection from the way the questions are asked. 

We asked older scouts to participate on our BORs (not in the BSA guidelines) because we wanted the Boy Run aspect all the way through the program. We found the presence of older scouts relaxes the inexperienced scouts. They ask the same questions as the adults, but like the retired scoutmasters, they seem to ask the questions better. 

Barry

[gblotter 372]

6 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

Even if the committee adopts my recommendation at the next meeting, it will still be late October or even November before a SMC is granted.

@Hawkwin  I am so sorry.

In many forum threads, we talk about the game of Scouting and how Scouting dies when the fun is lost. Is there any more effective way to drain fun from the experience than what you and your son are going through? Waiting another 1-2 months to adopt recommendations from a subcommittee - really?!? For crying out loud, this is a 15-minute Scoutmaster Conference - not a SCOTUS confirmation hearing!

[gblotter 372]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

• Increase the youth's comfort and skill talking eye-to-eye with adults.
• Help the youth reflect on his scouting career and make plans going forward.
• Help adults discover what is inspiring or discouraging a youth ... in hopes of finding ways to encourage or exhort him/her.
• Help adults discover what the youth would like from their unit, but really never thought to ask.

My Scoutmaster Conferences have mostly focused on point #2. These other points are great - thanks for the ideas.

[Ranman328 40]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:12 PM, Hawkwin said:

CC emailed me back tonight. Apparently they heard from the district. CC indicated they had already made plans to discuss this at the next committee meeting. Was not happy that I did not give them enough time to respond to my emails or that I got the district involved. I apologized for not giving him enough time to respond. I assumed the best intentions for four days but on the fifth day, I gave up and got the district involved. My fault. I will own that.

CC meeting is on Tuesday. Will see how that goes. I get the sense that this policy might actually change.

Don't apologize!  Four days is more than enough time to respond to a Parent or Scout Concern.  If their life is so busy that they can't or won't read or respond to emails, then maybe they need to take on a lesser role with the Troop.  As a CC, CM and now SM, I try to respond within 24 hours or sooner even if it is only a response that I have received the email and am working it.  Isn't is odd that they already had plans to discuss this very situation at the next committee meeting but they couldn't inform you of this.  You did the right thing.  I feel that I serve the Scouts ad will do whatever necessary to make sure the Scouts Rank up as soon as they can.  It is sad when sometimes the power of being in charge and holding a Scout's rank advancement in their hands makes them feel important. 

[Ranman328 40]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:50 AM, Hawkwin said:

Yep. Glass half full; win but still lose result.

Where do good ideas go to die? Subcommittee.

Both sides shared their opinion and the SM eluded to being incorrect without admitting such and tried to tie being "active" to the SM conference and I replied that being active may be a requirement for advancement but it is not a requirement for the SMC. If there is an issue with activity, that is something for the BOR to resolve, not for the SM to require in advance of the SMC. I saw a lot of heads nod at that comment but the end result was it was referred to an adhoc subcommittee, for which I am now a member, to discuss and bring back to the committee at the next meeting.* It was also brought up by another committee member that if the SM is simply too busy to do them outside of campouts, that he should delegate. I grinned and nodded at that comment and saw others nod at that as well.

Doesn't help my scout. His advancement is still delayed as the SM still has not replied but I am going to see this result as a glass half full result. I will now have direct input on not only this unwritten rule but also they vague and inaccurate rule the troop uses to define active participation (I learned a lot from the thread about what defines active). Even if the committee adopts my recommendation at the next meeting, it will still be late October or even November before a SMC is granted. Thankfully, the incoming SM will be on the adhoc committee so I will hopefully be able to influence him as well. I plan to draft a proposal over the weekend and proactively email it to the subcommittee members. The chair of the sub has not contacted us to schedule a meeting or discussion so perhaps I can expedite the process.

*In hindsight, I think I should have been a bit more forceful on this point. We have expert opinion that the troop policy is both wrong and that it isn't even a written policy - it is one the SM made up based on his incorrect interpretation of what defines active. I should have driven that point home, delicately, and then again requested my scout be granted a conference while the subcommittee discusses what the correct policy should be going forward.

Your Scout should not have to wait that long for a SMC.  That is entirely unacceptable!  I would request that either the SM do it immediately or he turn it over to an ASM to accomplish.  The Scout is being punished in this situation.  Absolutely ridiculous. 

[Hawkwin 299]

Proposal ready! I would love some feedback before I send it to the subcommittee. Sections to be changed are one color, quoted GtoA is another, and my response is another.

Policies of Troop XXX

These polices have been developed and approved by the Troop Committee to insure fair and equal treatment of all Scouts. These policies are to inform parents and Scouts of the policies of the Troop.

 1.    Troop Policy and Organization

1.1     Attendance

a.  It is recommended that the Scout attends as many meetings as possible to gain the most benefit of the resources available to him.

b.  Advance notice of missing a meeting to his respective leader would be an appreciated courtesy.

c.  Continued absences will need to be discussed with the Scoutmaster since "active" participation in the Troop is a BSA requirement for Rank advancement.

d.  It is the Scouts responsibility to find out what he has missed during any absences.

1.2     Dues

a.  Yearly Troop dues are $135.00.  We will collect $100 in November prior to rechartering and the remaining in Q1 of the following year.  If you have multiple scouts in the Troop or new to the troop, the dues are just $100.

b.  The dues cover the following Troop expenses: patches, programs aids, adult and Scout training and some operating expenses.

c.  Dues also include annual registration ($24.00) and insurance $ 1.00), and Scout magazine. In cases of multiple boys from the same family, each boy will receive their own copy of the magazine.

d.  A scout will not be re-chartered if past year’s dues are unpaid.

1.3     All patrol names, flags, insignia, mascots, etc. must be approved by the Scoutmaster prior to use.

1.4     Uniform

a.  Proper uniform must be worn to all Scout Functions.

b.  Proper Class A uniform consists of:  Approved BSA shirt, pants or shorts, socks or knee socks, belt, and sash.

c.  For Rank Board of Reviews, the Scout must be in the following minimum uniform:

(a)  -- Scout, Tenderfoot, 2^nd Class    BSA shirt with all badges and patches applied.

(b)  -- 1^st Class                                     BSA shirt with all badges and patches applied.

(c)  -- Star, Life and Eagle                   All items listed in 1.4.b above

d.  Alternate Troop tee shirt may be worn when approved by the Scoutmaster.

e.  There will be a uniform inspection at least once a month.

1.5     In case of serious discipline problems, parents must be willing to pick up their son from meetings, events/outings.

1.6     The Scoutmaster reserves the right to remove a Scout from elected or appointed office after two counseling sessions when said Scout is not performing the requirements of that position.

1.7     All parents or guardians may voice their opinion or concerns at a committee meeting.

1.8     All registered Scouts and adult leaders will be provided the required patches showing their: Troop position, Troop number, Quality unit, Crossroads of America Council, merit badge(s) and Rank.

1.9     The Troop will have a Court-of-Honor, at least semi-annually, if any Scout Rank advancement has been achieved.

1.10  No sheath knives or personal axes are allowed at a Scout function, unless being used by an adult for training.

1.11  All Scouts must have a Totem Chip in order to carry or use pocket knives or other wood tools.

1.12  Any purchase for the Troop's use may be reimbursed upon the approval of the Scoutmaster and the Troop committee.

1.13  Scout’s Troop Account

a.  Each Scout will have an account in the Troop.

b.  There will be no minimum required in the Scout's Troop account.

c.  The Scout's account balance may be used for anything Troop related, such as; dues, camp fees, registration, etc.

d.  A balance sheet showing all account activity for each Scout will be provided to Scout's Parent at each Parent's meeting.

e.  Any balance in a Scout's account will revert back to the Troop general account if he leaves the Troop. The only exception for this is when the Scout transfers to another Troop; we will transfer the money directly to the new Troop upon request of the Scout after 30 days of being active in the new Troop.

1.14  Fund Raisers

a.  Fund raising events will be held in order to purchase equipment for the Troop and offset the operating costs of the Troop.

b.  The Troop Committee will decide the allocation of Troop income and fund raiser moneys.

c.  All income and fund raiser moneys will be credited to the following Troop accounts: Troop general account, Troop designated account, or Scout’s account.

d.  The Scout will be told prior to the fund raiser, the percent or amount that will be credited to their Troop account if they participate in the fund raiser.

1.15  Eagle Projects

a.  When a scout is ready to start planning, he should obtain the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook from the scouting.org website.

b.  The scout should discuss the project with the Scoutmaster and the Troop Committee Chair before he begins the planning.

c.  Eagle Projects should avoid any date conflicts with major troop fundraisers.

2.    Rank Advancement and Merit Badges

2.1     Board of Review for Rank Advancement

a.  A Scout must be in good standing with the Troop.

b.  The Scout must be active in the Troop, which means attending at least one Troop meeting a month and participate in some of the events/outings.

 Guide to Advancement (GtoA)

4.2.3.1 Active Participation

The purpose of Star, Life, and Eagle Scout requirements

calling for Scouts to be active for a period of months

involves impact. Since we prepare young people to go

forth, and essentially, make a positive difference in our

American society, we judge that a member is “active”

when his level of activity in Scouting, whether high or

minimal, has had a sufficiently positive influence toward

this end.

 

Use the following three sequential tests to determine

whether the requirement has been met. The first and

second are required, along with either the third or

its alternative.

1.     The Scout is registered.

2.     The Scout is in good standing.

3.     The Scout meets the unit’s reasonable expectations; or, if not, a lesser level of activity is explained.

Alternative to the third test if expectations are not met: If a young man has fallen below his unit’s activity oriented expectations, then it must be due to other positive endeavors—in or out of Scouting—or due to

noteworthy circumstances that have prevented a higher level of participation. A Scout in this case is still considered “active” if a board of review can agree that Scouting values have already taken hold and have been exhibited.

In light of the above, denial of a Scoutmaster conference due to the inability of a scout to attend a campout violates the Guide to Advancement as it pertains to active participation. In my scout’s case, his noteworthy circumstance was hiking 15 miles in the Smokies. The GtoA clearly suggests that scouters to take other commitments, other extra-curricular activities, into account if a scout misses a meeting or an event for worthy reason. I recommend item 2 be restated as: “A scout must be active as defined in the Guide to Advancement, 4.2.3.1.”

 

c.  The Scout must have his dues current or a plan in place with the Troop Treasurer.

 

Guide to Advancement (GtoA)

8.0.0.2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When

Requirements Are Met

A Scout shall not be denied this opportunity. When he

believes he has completed all the requirements for a rank,

including a Scoutmaster conference, a board of review

must be granted. Scoutmasters—or councils or districts in

the case of the Eagle Scout rank—for example, do not

have authority to expect a boy to request or organize

one, or to “defer” him, or to ask him to perform beyond

the requirements in order to be granted one. Neither can

a board of review be denied or postponed due to issues

such as uniforming, payment of dues, participation in

fundraising activities, etc.

 

Denial of advancement due to non-payment of dues violates the GtoA. I recommend removal of item c.

 

d.  The Scout must have fulfilled the requirements of the potential Rank.

e.  The Scout must have had a successful Scoutmaster's conference.

 

Guide to Advancement (GtoA)

4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference

The unit leader (Scoutmaster) conference, regardless of

the rank or program, is conducted according to the

guidelines in the Troop Leader Guidebook, No. 33009

(volume 1). Note that a Scout must participate or take

part in one; it is not a “test.” Requirements do not say he

must “pass” a conference. While it makes sense to hold

one after other requirements for a rank are met, it is not

required that it be the last step before the board of review.

 

As the SMC is not a test, the verbiage used above appears to be misleading. What would be an unsuccessful conference? Simply taking part in one defines success. I recommend the removal of Item e. A SMC is already required. No reason to list it here. Additionally, if a SMC is denied the scout, the scout may proceed to the BOR without it (as listed above).

 

f.   The Scout must be in proper uniform.

g.  The Scout must request a Scoutmaster Conference and when ready, a Board of Review. (see sections 2.5 and 2.6).

2.2     Rank Advancement

a.  A Scout will receive his new Rank patch as soon as possible.

b.  The Scout will receive his Rank Advancement card and mother's pin at a Court-of Honor.

c.  The Troop will hold a Court-of Honor at least semi-annually.

d.  The Scout's parent or guardian is encouraged to attend the Court-of Honor.

2.3     Merit Badge

a.  The Scout may work on any merit badge with the approval of the Scoutmaster.

b.  The Scoutmaster must sign the merit badge card before the Scout begins the merit Badge.

c.  The Scout will be responsible for having the merit badge requirement(s) signed off by an appropriate merit badge counselor.

d.  Parents or Guardians may not sign requirements for their sons, unless they are an approved merit badge counselor for that merit badge.

e.  A Scout must be in good standing with the Troop to receive his merit badge.

f.   The Scout must be active in the Troop, which means attending at least one Troop meeting a month and participate in some of the events/outings to receive his merit badge.

 

There is no active requirement for Merit Badges in the GtoA. In general, the SM should not refuse to sign a card allowing the scout to start work. The GtoA states. “It is then the Scout’s decision whether or not to proceed with the merit badge.” I recommend removal of item f.

 

g.  The Scout must have fulfilled the merit badge requirements to receive his merit badge.

h.  The Scout must turn in blue Merit Badge card to the Troop Advancement Chair.

2.4     BSA Scout Book

a.  The Scout will be responsible for recording their advancements and seeking appropriate signatures for their BSA Scout Handbook.

b.  The Scout will be responsible for recording all appropriate service time and events/outings in their BSA Scout Handbook.

c.  Before a Scout can go to a Board-of-Review, all required blanks in the BSA Scout Handbook, must be completed, initialed and dated for that potential Rank.

d.  Only registered adult Troop leaders may sign the requirements in the BSA Scout Handbook.

e.  Parents or Guardians may not sign advancement requirements for their sons.

 

2.5     Requesting a Scoutmaster Conference

a.  For the ranks of Scout, Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class:

(1)  The Scout requests a Scoutmaster Conference from the Scoutmaster or any Assistant Scoutmaster prior to the start of the meeting.

 

b.  For the ranks of Star, Life and Eagle Palms:

(1)  The Scout requests a Scoutmaster Conference by emailing the Scoutmaster at least one week in advance.

 

When a scout requests such via the proper method what should be the scout’s expectation of a response? We should list a required time frame for a response from the SM or his delegate. As of this writing, my scout has still not received a response regarding his request for a SMC at a day and time outside of a campout.

 

Additionally, what if the scout does not have access to email? What did the troop do before email was widely available? Requiring a scout to request such in this method feels like it takes away from a part of the spirit of what a SMC should be.

 

More:

 

4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference

The conference is not a retest of the requirements upon

which a Scout has been signed off. It is a forum for

discussing topics such as ambitions, life purpose, and

goals for future achievement, for counseling, and also for

obtaining feedback on the unit’s program. In some cases,

work left to be completed—and perhaps why it has not

been completed—may be discussed just as easily as that

which is finished. Ultimately, conference timing is up to

the unit. Some leaders hold more than one along the

way, and the Scout must be allowed to count any of them

toward the requirement.

 

While it is intended that the conference be conducted

between the unit leader and the Scout, it may sometimes

be necessary for the unit leader to designate an assistant

unit leader to conduct the conference. For example, if the

Scoutmaster is unavailable for an extended period of

time or in larger troops where a Scout’s advancement

would be delayed unnecessarily, then it would be

appropriate for an assistant Scoutmaster (21 years old or

older) to be designated to conduct the conference.

 

My son and I requested that the SMC be delegated and we were denied. Advancement is being delayed unnecessarily.

I propose the following for this section:

Scoutmaster will respond within one week to all requests for a SMC and schedule such to happen within the next two weeks of the initial reply. If the Scoutmaster or the scout is not available to meet at their preferred time and day due to active participation in other activities, then the Scoutmaster will delegate the conference to an assistant Scoutmaster who will coordinate with the scout to complete the conference within the next two weeks.

 

As an aside, I recommend that Scoutmasters actively seek out scouts to conduct SMCs and not wait for them to approach the SM. In the best case scenario, SMCs are happening more frequently than just once and only before the BOR (which means a scout could go a year or more without a conference). My scout attended summer camp with the SM as well as the recent Ordeal. Either of those times might have been very appropriate situations for the SM to seek out the scout to hold a SMC.

 

The larger question of the SM only offering conferences on campouts or lock-ins – nowhere in the above policy is that written. It is a rule fabricated by the SMs interpretation of what active means. If the SM wants to offer SMCs only on campouts, then the SM should be willing to delegate the SMC to an ASM if the scout is “active” but otherwise unavailable to attend that specific event.

 

 

 

[Buggie 110]

I didn't get all the way through it because one of the things that struck me was the uniform requirements. BORs can't make such a requirement above what BSA requires. A scout shows up to the best of their ability. Some scouts can't afford the full uniform. We had a scout lose everything in a fire. While he did get a shirt provided as a gift that was the best he could do. And i know in my case we couldn't keep my son in anything long as kept growing out of everything. A shirt was the best we could do.

[DuctTape 1230]

Personally I would delete most of it as either redundant or dumb. 

[Chadamus 100]

Why no sheath knives? 

[MattR 2659]

I'm not sure I like the words "redundant or dumb" but there are just a lot of words in these policies. No slight to the lawyers among us but when things start getting into that much detail it sounds like there's just no trust between the SM and the scouts. Much of it is already in the GTA so maybe that's what DuctTape means by redundant. Also, so much of it just begs for more complex answers. It says there will be a uniform inspection at least once a month. What if there isn't? So what if there is? If a scout shows up in blue jeans then what? Is this really a policy or is it what the troop usually does? If it's not policy then remove it. The scoutmaster can remove a scout from a POR if he doesn't fulfill his position's requirements and there have been two meetings. And those requirements are specified where? It says the scout should ask for a conference at the start of the meeting for the lower ranks. Does this imply he'll get one? What if it's the week before a COH right after summer camp and 10 scouts ask for a conference? The SM is going to do all of them? What if the meeting is a bike ride to DQ? Is the SM still going to do all of them?

Rather, I'd suggest writing a document that just describes how things work. Don't call it policy. Explain how the scout or a parent can get things clarified. As long as the SM and committee treat all the scouts the same and there are no surprises then nobody will complain. My troop has been around for 20 years and we have few policies. We do have a document that describes how things are done.

To me it sounds like the real problem here is a lack of trust.

[ParkMan 1293]

6 minutes ago, MattR said:

I'm not sure I like the words "redundant or dumb" but there are just a lot of words in these policies. No slight to the lawyers among us but when things start getting into that much detail it sounds like there's just no trust between the SM and the scouts. Much of it is already in the GTA so maybe that's what DuctTape means by redundant. Also, so much of it just begs for more complex answers. It says there will be a uniform inspection at least once a month. What if there isn't? So what if there is? If a scout shows up in blue jeans then what? Is this really a policy or is it what the troop usually does? If it's not policy then remove it. The scoutmaster can remove a scout from a POR if he doesn't fulfill his position's requirements and there have been two meetings. And those requirements are specified where? It says the scout should ask for a conference at the start of the meeting for the lower ranks. Does this imply he'll get one? What if it's the week before a COH right after summer camp and 10 scouts ask for a conference? The SM is going to do all of them? What if the meeting is a bike ride to DQ? Is the SM still going to do all of them?

Rather, I'd suggest writing a document that just describes how things work. Don't call it policy. Explain how the scout or a parent can get things clarified. As long as the SM and committee treat all the scouts the same and there are no surprises then nobody will complain. My troop has been around for 20 years and we have few policies. We do have a document that describes how things are done.

To me it sounds like the real problem here is a lack of trust.

If we had something like this happen in our troop, this is what we'd do too.

Someone would pull together a short presentation - perhaps a few slides or a one page summary.  It would generally capture:

1. the problem
2. the BSA rules and guidance on the subject
3. a recommendation of how we proceed

Then we'd walk the group through it.  In our case, most leaders would say "interesting... never realized that. Guess we need to do something different."  We'd discuss the recommendation - make a change or two and then pretty much go with it.

One thing I have learned along the way is that in these meetings it's generally easier to get agreement when I describe the problem as something "we're doing wrong" as opposed to the "Scoutmaster is doing wrong."  It's a subtle difference, but it does make it easier for the SM to support it.

As for the content of the presentation, it pretty much matches what you wrote and have been discussed here.

 

[gblotter 372]

On 9/20/2018 at 1:03 PM, gblotter said:

For crying out loud, this is a 15-minute Scoutmaster Conference - not a SCOTUS confirmation hearing!

After reading through the proposed policies, I literally groaned. I never realized that some troops are run like this with such a heavy hand. I was wrong to compare things to a SCOTUS confirmation hearing - instead it sounds more like an IRS audit. If that policy doc is reflective of how your troop operates, I would spend no further efforts at reform. I’d be moving my BSA membership to a different troop immediately.

Rigid governance docs like this are just so foreign to my Scouting experience. Where is the fun? Where is the adventure? Are the boys involved in any of this? The problems of this troop obviously extend far beyond just a SM conference. Ugh times 3.