Position of Responsibility - actually doing something?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

What should a BOR do if a Scout shows up with his position of responsibility signed off by the Scoutmaster but everyone knows that the Scout didn't do squat.

 

For example, we have a Scout who was given the job of Troop Photographer. He actually sought out the position and the SM wrote up a job description which included using a digital camera to take pictures at as many troop functions as practical and providing those pictures to the Troop Historian and the Troop Webmaster. However, I can only recall two times in the past year that he's actually been seen with a camera and NO ONE has seen any of the pictures that he's taken, if any. I know that the Webmaster has talked to him, the SPL and an ASM have also spoken with him about the need to do his job.

 

Now, he's coming up for Life and I'm pretty sure that the SM is going to sign off on the POR. Back to the original question, what should the BOR do?

 

 

[mk9750 11]

FOG,

 

I can tell you what I'd do.

 

Either before an actual BOR, if possible, or during if necesary, I'd be asking the Scout if he really thinks he completed the requirment. If he said yes, I'd be asking him to produce the job description to which he agreed when he took the job, and asking him to explain how he met the requirements of the job description. After he tried to justify his effort, I'd ask him to either go back to the SM and discuss whether he really met the requirement, or feel free to submit to a BOR. I suspect that in 90% of the cases, the Scout and the SM would come to an understanding that results in the Scout delaying his own advancement. In the other 10%, I'd fail him at the BOR.

 

Mark

[scoutmom 10]

Good question, FOG. I don't know the answer, and I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of responses you get.

[evmori 11]

I would get a copy of what the SM wrote up for the position & then compare what the Scout has actually done to the requirements. And the copy I would get is the one the Scout has. What you find would determine your course of action. If the Scout didn't complete the requirements the SM assigned to the position, then I would not recommend he pass his BOR.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I can see happy go lucky Bob Scout come cruising into the the Board of Review. All is right with the world. Mr Scoutmaster has signed off his position of responsibility and he just has to talk to these guys and be done with it. What a a surprise he has comming...

 

Before you ambush the kid, and I undestand he hasnt done his job, why not ask the scoutmaster prior to the scoutmaster conference what kind of job the scoutmaster feels the scout is doing? Why wait until the Board of Review? Let the scoutmaster know that the Board of Review will most likely turn down the scout based on his position of responsibility performance. I think it would be best for the troop, the scout and the scoutmaster if its addressed privately. The scoutmaster should provide a path to advancement, what needs to be done so the scout may advance. Now, if the scoutmaster signs off on it anyway, you have two issues, a recalcitrant scoutmaster and a boy who should not advance. First the Board of Review has to turn his rank down and provide a path for the future, what needs to be done to advance and them the scoutmaster needs some type of counseling. HAving the Board of Review turn down a scout based on a topic the scoutmaster signed off on is embarrasing to all concerned. But just becaue its embarrassing doesnt mean it shouldnt be done. It needs to be done in support of the kids who take their positions seriously and do the work.

 

Good luck FOGGER

[EagleInKY 14]

Something we do in our troop is having the SM & BOR discuss the scouts before the BOR. If the board has an issue, they should bring it up then. It also gives the SM a chance to give some areas for the board to emphasize/encourage.

 

The only downside to bringing it up at this time would be that, if the BOR convinced the SM that the boy hadn't fulfilled the requirement, the SM would have to go back and tell the scout that he wasn't ready to board. But, this is better than getting kicked back by the board.

[boleta 10]

We recently had a scout come to a BOR for 1st Class. His 1 mile orienteering requirement was signed off by the ASM for his patrol. I had encouraged the guys to do the activity at summer camp when it was offered and I knew that this scout had decided to play that afternoon. The SM had signed for the conference and here he was at the BOR. I was a member of the Board. When he was questioned, it was clear that he had not done the activity. The BOR was halted and he was instructed to complete the requirement. (I was the one who set up the course and instructed him and 2 others on orienteering). He then completed the BOR and advanced.

Some guys will try to get away with it if they can.

[CaveEagle 15]

I agree that the Committee should confer with the SM privatly before the BOR. I have had to kick back a boy recently and called the SM to the table to discuss why the boy was sent to the BOR with obvious holes in his case.

 

Weather is a position of leadership, Orienteering or a service project, it is the resposability of the committee / BOR to objectively review each boy. I believe we are preparing each boy for his potential Eagle BOR. Eagle BORs are run by the Council in our area and I do not want any of our boys to take any BOR lightly.

 

CE

[Eamonn 61]

"...A Scout shows with with his position of responsibility signed off by his Scoutmaster but everyone knows that the Scout didn't do squat."

OK, if I'm sitting on the Board. I would have to turn this Lad down. As long as I was sure that the goal that HE HAD SET, with the Scoutmasters approval hadn't been met.

As a Troop Committee Member I would be very upset at the Scoutmaster. If he knows that the Lad hasn't met the requirements he has no business signing the requirement off as being done. Could be that he needs to be reminded about what his role in Scouting really is? Could be that the Troop Committee needs to talk to the CO about forming a selection committee to replace this Scoutmaster with someone who understands the program.

Eamonn

[NeilLup 13]

My understanding is that if a Scout has held the position of responsibility, is rejected by the BOR and appeals to the National Council, the appeal will be upheld. National has said that, from an appeal point of view, there is no performance requirement. If a boy is not doing the job, National says that they should be removed from their position, otherwise, they qualify for advancement.

 

Similarly, if a boy meets the tenure requirement and is registered as an active member of the Troop, is rejected for not being sufficiently active and appeals, the appeal will be upheld. National has said that being a dues paying member meets the "active member" requirement. If a boy is insufficiently active, they say he should be transferred on the rolls to being an "associate" member.

 

This is not saying that a Troop cannot have performance requirements for leadership or active membership requirements and cannot turn boys down at a Board of Review on this basis. It simply means that if that happens and the boy chooses to appeal to National (which rarely happens) the appeal will be upheld and the boy will be advanced.

 

As far as what to do, the BOY can always decide that he has not done enough and agree to the deferral of his advancement. The appeals to the local council and to National occur when there is a disagreement between the Scout (and/or his parents) and the Board of Review.

[Bob White 20]

"My understanding is that if a Scout has held the position of responsibility, is rejected by the BOR and appeals to the National Council, the appeal will be upheld."

 

That is not at all the case. An appeals board does not always find in favor of the scout. If the BOR and other involved adults did their job correctly then the appelate board will support the troop BOR.

 

The BOR has the responsibility to see that the requirements were met in accordance with the BSA requirements. If the scout was required to "actively serve" and did not do so due to his own decisions and choices then the BOR was correct to withold the advancement.

 

However, at the same time they are required to tell the scout in writing exactly which requirement was not met, and what specifically he can do to satisfy the requirement. At the moment he fulfills that requirement his advancement to that rank is completed.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NeilLup 13]

With respect, Bob White, I stand totally by the statement that I have made.

 

If a Scout is rejected by a Board of Review for advancement and the reason is that a performance standard has been applied to service in a position of responsibility and the Scout appeals this to the National council, the appeal will be upheld and the Scout will be advanced.

 

I am not talking here about an appeal board at the local council but instead the final appeal to the National council.

 

National is particularly troubled by cases where a boy is allowed to believe that he has met all the requirements for Eagle Scout and then the Eagle Board of Review decides that he is not "worthy" of Eagle Scout status or is too young or some other such reason.

 

I do know of a number of cases where such an appeal has been upheld. I would be very interested to know of any recent documented case where National has upheld the application of a performance standard to service in the position of responsibility and so has sustained the non-passing of a Board of Review by a Scout.

 

I am not necessarily saying that I agree with this policy on the part of the National council but just giving information on what I understand the policy to be.

[Bob White 20]

Having chaired such a board I am familiar with the instructions I was given to proceed by. If the scout did not complete the requirements even though he understood the requirement, was capable of the requirement and had the needed resources to complete the requirement, then the requirement is not yet done and the scout would be given specific instructions on how to complete the requirements.

 

The requirement is not to hold an office. The requirement is to "actively serve". If that service was hampered by an adult, for instance if he was not given proper instructions or training, or if he was not given the opportunity or resources to succeed, then a BORs decision to withold the advancement would be overturned.

 

Appellate BORs only overturn the unit BOR if an adult or adults misuse or misapply the advancement policies and procedures of the BSA.

[NeilLup 13]

Hello Bob White,

 

I am not questioning what you were told nor that you chaired a local council appeal board. I am not questioning that, in the best of all possible worlds, those should be the instructions given to an appeal board. However, unless you sit on the National Advancement Subcommittee of the National Boy Scouting Committee, I do not believe that you chaired a National appeal board. Am I mistaken and you do sit on that group?

 

I continue to stand by my statement of how the National appeals are interpreted, rightly or wrongly, until a concrete example is given indicating that I am wrong.

[Bob White 20]

I sat on a national appeals board of review. The scout had already appealed to council and was turned down, The councils explanation was not well documented and did not address the the actual problem. I was contacted by the National Advancement Committee in writing through our local council scout executive, asking me to chair an appellate board on behalf of the national office.

 

I hope that resolves any concerns you had.

 

While you are welcome to your opinion, my experience does not support your belief.(This message has been edited by Bob White)(This message has been edited by Bob White)