Removing Boys from POR

[Beavah 205]

Yah, Gunny's thread raises an interestin' issue.

 

Nowhere in any of da BSA material has there ever been information on removing boys from a Position of Responsibility. Not in a single publication.

 

The presumption has, I think, always been much the same as the one VeniVidi mentions: we work with boys, we don't fire 'em. Same way we work with 'em on their First Aid or their livin' by the Oath and Law.

 

Now along comes the folks in the Advancement Office with the first ever notion dat the proper course is to remove a boy from a POR. And not the youth doin' it, but the Scoutmaster removin' the boy. Or if da SM doesn't, then the boy gets an award for service in a POR even if he never really served, or never served successfully.

 

What do yeh all think of this? Should SM's be removin' boys, or should it be like the rest of Advancement, where the SM works with a boy until he succeeds? What do you do in your troop?

 

Beavah

 

[Oak Tree 15]

I've never removed a boy from a POR, and would be unlikely to, preferring the approach you describe. But under certain circumstances, I can imagine doing so - primarily if a boy either 1) indicates he cannot/will not perform the requirements of the job, or 2) he is setting a sufficiently bad example as SPL/ASPL. But I wouldn't be very quick on the trigger finger.

 

Oak Tree

[scottteng 11]

I was referring to removing a boy from POR based on non attendance at troop functions and meetings. The idea being that they have self removed themselves. The old way was to count attendance in their "active" or "scout spirit" sign offs so the "attendance" requirement needs to quite properly shift to fulfilling POR requirements. They are not likely to be doing a very good job at those responsibilities if they have been MIA for a month or more. If they are registered they are active scouts by definition.

[evmori 11]

Only had to do this once. My SPL never showed for a meeting. Told mom & dad he was going. Never told me he wouldn't be there. He went to the park with some friends to hang out. Mom & dad came to pick him up & he wasn't there. They had no clue. The rest of the Troop watched this whole thing unfold. The next week, I removed him as SPL based on not living the Scout Law. He understood & ended up earning his Eagle.

 

There is nothing that states a Scout can't be removed from a POR.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutldr 740]

The SM's primary role is to train the junior leaders to run the troop. The first step to getting trained is to show up. If they show up and are making the effort, the SM needs to counsel and bring them up to speed. If they are MIA, or willfully set a bad example through conduct, they should be removed.

[John-in-KC 311]

Beavah,

 

You're a former Council Commissioner. You should have some contacts, somewhere. Can you find out the backstory on this?

 

As to the process, I agree that mentorship is the name of the game here. This is part of the Adult Association Method in action. The process of overwatching the Troop youth leadership is fundamental to the basic job of the Scoutmaster, and has been for many years.

 

This goes back in some ways to OGE's thread on token PORs. If you're going to set a task, have the youth fulfill the task! At a minimum, I think it not unreasonable that an OATR will go to Chapter meetings and bring back the info for the Troop... I think it not unreasonable that a Bugler plays bugle calls ... perhaps not well (I've heard young trumpeters in my day)... I think it not unreasonable that a Scribe collate advancement info from Scout handbooks so an Advancement Coordinator can post it to Troopmaster. If you don't need a Bugler, don't assign a Bugler. If your Troop does not participate in OA, don't assign an OATR.

 

I think also part of the issue lies with a standard that says a "warm body" SCOUT slotted in a POR checks the advancement block. Does it? Really? Or are we, as I submit, shortchanging the young man if we don't give him something to do with that patch on his left shoulder?

 

No blindsiding. That's a rule even in industry now. We document every single infraction at the office, so that when the time comes, the Boss can say "Clear your desk out, I will give you your final check in three hours, you're fired." Why? He doesn't want to be stuck in court or admin law proceeding.

 

IMO, that process is on its head. Teach, mentor, grow. Allocate resources to continued growth and development. The vast majority of young men should complete their POR time and get credit. If we do our jobs right as Scouters, we have no Missing In Action Scouts in PORs. They're where they need to be, doing their job.

 

Am I making sense? Am I getting to your points?

 

YIS

[Gunny2862 11]

Just so we're clear, I would have to see some egregious, considered inaction by the Scout holding the POR to consider removing them, because they CAN'T grow into a position if they don't have a position. They can of course acquire a sense of responsibility elsewhere, but I thought that was a part of the character building we are trying to do here.

 

And there is the issue of how do you mentor someone about responsibility if they don't have any to be mentored about?

Really, IMHO the failure is ours if the Scout fails in the position unless they truly do not want to be there, or simply are Physiologically/Psychologically UNABLE to perform the job. And in the latter cases then we need to discuss accommodations, if any.

[Venividi 35]

gunny says: ...unless they truly do not want to be there...

 

I see wisdon in that clause in the statement. I think that to some degree one cause of the issue is that some are incented to take a position in which they "truely do not want to be there" but do take a position anyway, either to meet the advancement requirement, or for the prestige of the position.

 

The more I consider this topic and read and re-read the posts, the more I see the value in the position put forward by Kudu that mastery of scoutcraft skills is a better way to grow leadership & responsibility skills in boys than is focusing on the PORs directly.

 

 

[eagle90 125]

We have had to remove a few scouts from POR's. One was a SPL who had a run in with the law and would not be a good role model for our younger scouts. He understood and was OK with the decision and did continue on to earn his Eagle award. At our first PLC meeting of the year we let our POR's know what is expected of them in terms of advancement, attendance, uniforming, leadership, etc. If they don't measure up and do a good job, they will be replaced. You can't let the entire patrol or troop suffer.