BOR unable to fail an unqualified Scout

[John-in-KC 311]

What an appropriate time for this thread...

 

Last night, had a BOR for Life. The young man had his MBs done, had his service time done, had his leadership time done.

 

Divided up the labor as CC: One member would ask about MBs earned and planned, along with the deeper parts of the Scout motto and slogan. Another was going to take his service and the Scout Oath. I took his leadership and the Scout Law.

 

We didn't get very far before asking him if "Being Prepared" including being prepared for his BOR. It's hard to ask about how the Scout Oath and Law play out in his daily life if he locks up at Thrifty...

 

We asked him if he would prefer we adjourn the BOR for two weeks ... He nodded sheepishly yes.

 

We praised him for his moral courage in saying yes to adjournment.

[Hunt 11]

In my son's troop, there is a long tradition of asking each scout to begin the Board of Review by reciting the Oath and Law. For a Tenderfoot, there might be a little gentle prompting. I haven't yet seen a more senior scout freeze up, but I'm not sure what we'd do. I guess I agree that a Life Scout simply must know the Scout Law--but on the other hand, that requirement has already been signed off. I know we're not supposed to retest, but this is pretty basic. I guess I have no problem with how John-in-KC handled this--although I suppose I can imagine a situation in which I would cut even a Life Scout slack for this, if I knew he really did know and live the Scout Law, but tended to freeze when speaking in such situations.

[John-in-KC 311]

Hunt,

 

Problem is, I've seen a couple of Eagle District Guests in action...

 

They've just said "This board is adjourned," handed me back the app, and walked out.

 

I cannot think of too many worse ways to humiliate a young man.

 

So... I want to get to the deeper matters of the Oath, Law, ad infinitum "Why is Loyalty important?" "How can Loyalty and Obedience conflict with Trustworthiness?" "How does Reverence work together with Helpfulness?"

 

It's sorta hard to do that when he doesn't know the material.

 

I cannot stop the advancement. Not the BOR's job. I can work with the young man to help him to learn to deal with pressure. The best tool I know to deal with task pressure in the workplace is to (no surprise here) BE PREPARED for the task at hand.

 

By the time we get these young men as Scouts, we grown-ups are fine-tuning their character. We have to make each opportunity to do that count.

 

My thoughts.

[Venividi 35]

I would recommend a discussion with the CC and SM, and then a committee meeting agenda item about what the committee wants the scouts to get out of the program, and what that means for standards for advancement. You may find that the SM agrees with your position, but did not believe that he would have the committee backing if he had called the scout on not completing requirements, and then not approved him for advancement. SM's, BOR members, and committee members have learning curves too, and are susceptible to the fear of upsetting someone and not wanting to make waves.

I speak from an experience I had as a new SM. Our troop had one scout that was very focused on his own advancement. He did the physical requirements, earned merit badges, but was lacking when it came to showing scout spirit by living according to the scout oath and law. Not that he did anything terribly bad, but he would do things like dissappear when it was his turn on the duty roster to clean up. At his SM conference, found it difficult to tell the scout that I wouldn't approve his advancement. There was no guidelines from the committee; I was on my own, and the culture of the troop had been that the SM provided encouragement, and everyone got approved unless they seriously violated the scout law. This scouts father was the advancement chair, and he let it be known that he expected his son to be advanced. So I as SM, and the BOR, approved his advancement. I found that the scout did not become any more trustworthy, loyal, or helpful over the next 6 months, but he was right there for another SM conference with the right number of MB's. This time I got together with a few key adults and discussed the situation, and they agreed that the scout was not yet ready for advancement. Knowing I had the support of other parents, I had a conference with the scout and told him what I expected before I would approve his advancement. I still found it difficult, but it was a learning experience for me. I came to realize that I (and the BOR) had not been trustworthy when we told a scout that he was ready for advancement when we knew in our hearts that he was not.

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Interesting post Venividi.

 

 

As I understand it, it's really the Scoumaster's job to determine whether a Scout has properly met leadership and Scout spirit requirements. And I don't think Scouting is doing its job if boys are allowed to skate and fail to meet reasonable standards for such requirements.

 

One thing I've seen suggested is that Scoutmaster Conferences be used to set standards for how such requirements are to be met. For example, Scouts should understand that being present to perform cleanup jobs is essential if they are to advance in rank.

 

And I don't think you need to wait for rank advancement time to have such a Scoutmaster conference. When the Scoutmaster becomes aware that a Scout is having such problems, he should investigate the nature of those problems and then make time for a Scoutmaster conference to discuss those problems with the Scout. If that discussion leads to the conclusion that the problem is real, then you can decide on setting goals that the Scout needs to concentrate on achieveing, and perhaps additional conferences can be scheduled after a couple of weeks or a month have gone by to review how that behavior has improved.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[Venividi 35]

Thanks, Seattle Pioneer.

 

The point I was trying to make was that adults need to be on the same page on what expectations are in order to minimize the potential for advancing an unqualified scout, which was the issue that started this thread. Without proper communication among the adults, everyone is running on assumptions - assumptions of what the committee will support; assumptions that things are the way they are because that is the way the SM wants them to be, etc.

 

I agree with you that helping a scout set goals, coaching them, and then evaluating is part of what a SM does - to the best of his/her ability with the time available. I also agree that impromtu conferences are called for when needed. Actually, in the example that I gave I had, but did not include in the description for the sake of brevity.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Yes, I think talking over such issues with other Scouters is an important part of decision making. It will gain additional information on a person's behavior, and add additional ideas on the best way to proceed. This results in better decision making.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer