Boy run BORs?

[frank10 12]

Age aside, The scouts should not be on a BOR for the same reason that the SM and ASM are not allowed. The BOR is an independent review by someone other than the folks delivering the program and signing of the requirements in the handbook. It is a review of both the scout and the program.

 

Second reason is that in the best cases the scout will someday face an Eagle BOR run by council and I asume that one will be all adults. Do you realy want the scout to face his first adult review then?

Have you had any scouts make Eagle under this system? how did it go?

[Sturgen 10]

Hunt, i dont mean to be insultive if you are not, but are you a mother?

Scouts do not judge the person, the judge how well they follow the scout law and oath, as i have said before and i will say again it is the job of the SM, ASM's, and JASM's at the back table (around 5 or 6) to insure that the kids dont vote popularity, and the rare time that occurs, it is the job of the SM to remind the boys what they are voting on then have them vote again, the second time has always come up with a fair vote, if for somereason it does not then i suppose the SM and his asst. could make an executive decision although i would strongly suggest against it

the scout being "judged" is always given a chance to rebutle any complaints against him, some common question the scout are asked are:

What do you think you rate on a 1-10 scale (as a leader, in regards to the Scout law and oath, in your skills)?

What do you think it means to be a (2nd, 1st, Star, Life, Eagle) Scout?

Do you think you are/deserve to be a (2nd, 1st, Star, Life, Eagle) Scout?

How many trips have you lead/assisted on/gone on?

Occasionally there will be a skill question like tie this knot, but these are rare

as you can see we force the scout in question to evaluate themselves, and my policy was to base my vote on how honest they were with themselves, most often a scout who is not ready for a rank will ask not to go through the board or after the board resigns himself from the vote, and most of the time they earn the rank at the next COH in 6 months. (may i note, i was turned down for star three times and life two times, there were tears as there sometimes are, but those boys were some of my best friends and still are today)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"Hunt, i dont mean to be insultive if you are not, but are you a mother?"

 

Oh geez and a misogynist as well

[EagleInKY 14]

Stepping lightly into the fray... I'm not going to get into the middle of the argument here. I'll just give my opinion and jump out of the way.

 

I was disappointed when I returned to Boy Scouts to find the boy-led BORs were gone. That is because I had positive experiences with it in my troop. The SPL and 2 or 3 other senior boys would do BORs for all advancement up through First Class. Star and Life were conducted by adults. The Eagle Board, of course, was run by the district.

 

The reason I liked the boy-led BORs were two-fold. First, the young newbie Scout was not as intimidated to go in front of the boys (but I do see it in the Tenderfoot Boards today). Second, the senior boy leaders of the troop got to demonstrate great leadership and maturity in conducting the BORs.

 

My understanding is that they were done away with because of many examples of abuse. I'm sure this is the case. Unfortunately, many good ideas have been shot down by people who abuse them. I believe it is said that "self government doesn't work without self-discipline". I wish there had been a happy medium to this. Perhaps an adult sitting on the boy-led BOR would have been a work-able compromise.

 

Until then, I'll stick to the rules. Committee-ran BORs is what we do and will continue to do.

[Hunt 11]

Sturgen, your comments don't insultivate me at all, but I'm not a mother--I'm a dad. Your additional descriptions make the process sound even more like a communist self-criticism session than before (and, I must confess, feed my suspicion that you may be trolling). I don't believe that a troop that used a process like this to repeatedly turn down advancements for boys who had met all the requirements other than the subjective ones would last very long. I also had to laugh at the idea that if the vote was unfair the SM would make the boys vote again to achieve a fair result.

One could sensibly discuss the concept of a boy-led BOR for lower ranks, if it were a small group of boy leaders conducting it (and it sounds like this is what BSA tried and dropped)--but the idea of the whole troop voting on the fitness of each boy for advancement--and routinely turning boys down--is so obviously wrongheaded I'm not sure it's worth say more, except it's hard to believe anybody really does it.

[acco40 95]

Knowing how FOG loves ruling by "national" down in Texas, it is my understanding that the SM or any other leader, may not revoke the "POR" requirement based on how that position of responsibility was conducted. For example, if a boy was elected SPL, and "served" in that position for six months and never really did anything, he met that requirement. However, the SM has discretion in the "Scout Spirit" requirement and the BOR has discretion in passing the boy. What the BOR does NOT have discretion in is invalidating requirements that have been signed off.

 

For reference (courtesy of MacScouter)

To make sure the Scout has completed the requirements for the ranks.

To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit.

To encourage the Scout to progress further.

 

The BOR doe NOT test and should only check to see if all requirements have been signed off.

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>I was disappointed when I returned to Boy Scouts to find the boy-led BORs were gone.>For reference (courtesy of MacScouter)

To make sure the Scout has completed the requirements for the ranks.

To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit.

To encourage the Scout to progress further.>The BOR doe NOT test and should only check to see if all requirements have been signed off.>My understanding is that they were done away with because of many examples of abuse. ..........

 

I wish there had been a happy medium to this. Perhaps an adult sitting on the boy-led BOR would have been a work-able compromise.

[acco40 95]

The BOR is needed as part of the check and balances of the program. The boys should have a confidant to go to if he has input about the behavior of the adult (SM & SA) leaders or boys in the troop. Scouts on the BOR may impeded this. No SM or SAs on the BOR too. No parents of Scouts. I see no problem right now.

 

A BOR can still ask a Scout to demonstrate a skill. They DO NOT have the authority to pass judgement on that skill from a requirements point of view. For example, a Scout may be asked, did you know what a rescue knot is? (bowline) The Scout may tie the knot and beam with pride! He may also get flustered and have trouble. He may also be totally clueless. If the latter happens, the BOR can use that information to evaluate who is signing off on that requirement and to make judgements on how the program is functioning BUT THEY CAN NOT TAKE AWAY THAT REQUIREMENT IF IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SIGNED OFF.

 

I for one would see a boy led BOR as a disaster. One aspect that is rarely done, but the program allows is to have a quasi boy led BOR (but don't call it that) to evaluate Scout Spirit. I know that SMs like to hold on to that req. exclusively but I do not believe the program prevents other "leaders" from signing-off. Just my two-cents worth.

 

Oh, and when we sign up to be leaders, aren't we signing up to deliver the BSA program not the program as we envision it should be? Deliver the BSA program to the boys and if desired, work through other channels to get the program changed or improved as you see fit.