FScouter

Good luck trying to keep any thread "on topic". These things take on a life of their own. But since the operation of a board of review is the topic, the makeup of the board members certainly seems appropriate. We seem to have a tough time getting some adults to understand that a real board of review requires some careful questioning and insightful discussion with the boy candidate. Replacing adult board members with troop boys is just as wrong as adults quizzing the candidate with 20 questions from a checklist and tossing a rope at him.

The Scoutmaster Handbook, chapter 10 Advancement: "Scouts are expected to complete the current requirements as they are written for ranks, merit badges, and other awards. No requirements may be added or omitted." Boy Scout Requirements (not guidelines) book, merit badge section: "You are expected to meet the requirements as they are stated - no more and no less. You are expected to do exactly what is stated in the requirements. If it says show or demonstrate, that is what you must do. Just telling about it isn't enough. The same thing holds true for such words as 'make', 'list', 'in the field', and collect, identify, and label."

Part of the committee chairman's responsibility is to make sure the committee is staffed and all functions are being handled. If the CC has no outings person, then the responsibility belongs to ...

I think the publications are written under a basic premise that the reader will read the entire publication and make an effort to learn and understand the purposes of the board of review. If a boy shows up for a BOR wearing a complete and correct uniform, what does that say about the boy's commitment to Scouting, and what does it say about the program is being operated by the SM? If a boy shows up in dirty sweatpants, you have a discussion point. The discussion should give the board a litte more insight into the way the Scouting program is being implemented in the troop. A board of review requires a little more thoughtfulness on the part of the board members that just going down a checklist.

I personally don't care what "your" standard is. If our Philmont crew is cutting switchbacks, I'd welcome and admire any adult that cares enough to speak up and correct the boys. Because that's a Philmont standard. Same for the uniform standard. Or any other BSA standard. People are so overly sensitive about their "feelings". Is there anyone left out there in the world that would respond by saying "Gee thanks, I didn't know my Scoutmaster patch should be on the left sleeve instead of the right. That must look kinda silly!" Instead, we get indignation and "mind your own business." Where do people get this hateful arrogance?

What I like about BSA publications, guides, policies, procedures, etc. is that they represent the combined best practices of thousands of troop around the country. These practices are all developed to fulfill the mission, by achieving the aims, through working the methods. Yes there will be others that say in my troop I do or BSA publications are written by idiots. Lisa make 5 observations that some say this, some say that, and other have still different ideas . It can all be so confusing trying to sort out all these comments. For my part, I dont have time to second guess proven practices. If BSA says a board of review is should not be an examination, thats good enough for me. Besides which it makes sense too.

Some good comments here. To restate a couple of points already made, the JASM is at least 16 years old, and appointed by the SPL with the advice and consent of the SM. The Troop Guide is at least 1st class rank, and is also appointed by the SPL with the advice and consent of the SM. The Troop Guide works as a mentor to the members of a New Scout Patrol. He assists the patrol leader of the NSP. A NSP is a real patrol, with a real patrol leader from day 1. How long does a NSP exist? When most of the boys have advanced in ranks, and can function well on their own without a TG, they arent new anymore. That may take a year. There is no reason to break them apart and shuffle them off into other patrols. They can continue on as a regular patrol without the new designation. I suspect the inclination some have for breaking them up comes from wanting to fill up the holes in other patrols that were not successful in recruiting new members and keeping the boys they have. If other patrols are having difficulties, the solution isnt to bust up another patrol.

"I do not see how a BOR can ensure a scout has completed all of the requirements if it is not allowed to ask such as described by Mike F." The board IS allowed, and encourged to ask those kinds of questions. The questions the board should be asking are exactly what Mike F listed in his post. They generate a useful discussion between the boy and the board. Those are the kinds of questions to ask to determine that a boy has indeed learned and completed the work.

The Troop Guide works with a new Scout patrol. The Junior Assistant Scoutmaster functions as an assistant Scoutmaster. Good resources for learning about those positions (and all boy leadership positions) are the Scoutmaster Handbook, Scoutmaster's Junior Leader Training Kit, and the Troop Leadership Training book.

Sounds like a good idea. Kinda like what the district activities and civic service chairman should be doing.

In the grand scheme of things it would seem that minor uniform details should not cause such harsh feelings among Scouters. It is not appropriate to point out uniforming errors to members of other units Why not? Why would anyone take umbrage at a fellow Scouter pointing out an error? I see it as a Scouter being helpful. Indignation comes when one knows one is wrong. "So I guess a lot of the indignant responses (and non-responses) that the UP patrols receive have to do with the sheer number of times many of us have been told we're "doing it wrong" by somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about." There is no need to feel indignation when someone else is incorrect. Simply point out that you believe your position is correct. I see an indignant response as a defensive posture to justify a known incorrect practice. And whats with the term UP patrols? What is a UP patrol? I may be reading that wrong, but it sounds like a derisive comment toward fellow Scouters. Serving what purpose?

It is pointless to look for justifications for retesting. There is no justification at all and BSA makes it very clear that retesting is wrong. A little more time spent learning about the purposes of a board of review and the proper way to conduct one will help ensure that the objectives of the advancement method are met and that boys are having a quality Scouting experience. Quoting from the Troop Committee Guidebook, the Advancement Committee policies book, and the Supplemental Board of Review Training module : The board of review is not an interrogation, not a retesting of a Scout's competence. It is not an examination; rather, it attempts to see that the examinations that went into getting the Scout signed off were up to standard. It is a checkup to see that what should have been done actually was done. This review is not and should not be an examination or retest of skills learned. From the advancement book, one of the three purposes of the board of review is to make sure that the work has been learned and completed. Make sure does not mean re-test the Scout. The review is not an examination. The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined. This is a review. From this review it can be determined whether he did what he was supposed to do. The board of review is not a time to retest the Scout. The challenge for the board is to determine that the work has been completed and learned, but to do so without putting the boy through more tests. A skilled and thoughtful board can do this, but it takes careful discussion with the boy to make the determination. It should be the desire of the board to encourage the Scout to talk so that the review can be a learning experience for the candidate and the members of the board. The review also reveals what kind of an experience the Scout is having in the troop. With that knowledge, the troop leaders can shape the program to meet the needs and interests of the Scouts. The wrong way, (but the easy way), to make sure that the work has been learned and completed is to simply re-test the Scout. The proper way is to have a conversation with the boy. The Troop Committee Guidebook has a good discussion about how to conduct a board of review, and includes several samples questions board members can use to achieve the purposes of the review without retesting. A new guide on conducting boards of review is available on the national web site at http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/supplemental/18-625/index.html It is quite comprehensive and never once does it suggest that boys should be retested. There are lots of sample questions there to help the board meet the objectives of the review.

Lisabob makes a couple of good points about the NSP. Disorganization in a NSP is a possibility. That is why a troop guide and an assistant Scoutmaster should be assiged to work with and guide the new patrol to show them the ropes and get them started off to a successful experience. The maturity aspect is a good argument for age-based patrols versus mixed-age patrols. A NSP of young boys can still have plenty of interaction with older more experienced Scouts through the use of troop guides, instructors, and other troop positions of responsibility where the older Scouts work with everyone in the troop, including the young ones.

I wouldn't worry at all about opening the floodgates by doing some yardwork for an old lady on a Saturday afternoon. If someone else asks, you either say "sure we'd be glad to help", or "sorry, we're fully booked for the next few months." Now, if you ran an ad in the newspaper saying that your troop is offering to do on-going yard work for anyone that needs it, you'd kinda be obligated to follow through on your offer, but why would put out an offer like that? That is not the same thing as responding to an unsolicted request.

Its entirely appropriate to point out uniforming errors. It may be unreasonable to expect or demand that the error be corrected. Most errors are probably unintentional and most Scouts or Scouters would be happy to know the correct way to wear a knot or patch. What I really don't understand is the indignation some express when an error is pointed out. What is gained by making derogatory comments about those who care about the uniform and strive to help Scouts to wear it correctly? And what's with the title of this thread? The message sent says a lot.

"... to not be in full uniform during a BOR is lacking in scout spirit." The Boy Scout handbook discusses Scout spirit in several places. The uniform is not part of the discussion at all. Certainly a boy should wear as complete a uniform as he can. And the board may certainly discuss the uniform and when it is appropriate to wear it as part of the review. But let's not perpetuate the myth that the uniform is a component of Scout spirit.

There are over 100 approved counselors in our district. I really don't have the time nor inclination to verify whether the district merit badge dean has properly done his job. There are some counselors I know do a great job and I will recommend them. But if a boy uses a counselor I don't know, I would never disapprove it. Frankly I don't think the SM has any business getting involved in approving MB counselors. If there are bad counselors out there, it is not individual Scoutmasters that should be trying to fix that.

I don't think the boy should be "put" anywhere. If he is "put" where he does not want to be, he will not have a good Scouting experience. 6 or 10 or 12 months is a very long time to be miserable in a patrol in which he does not want to be a member. My advice is to let any patrol invite him to join their group. The SM is there to help boys make decisions on their own, and here is a good opportunity. Unless his joining would be detrimental in some way (how?), or would increase the patol size to more than 8, why not let him be happy?

It is the counselor alone who decides whether or not to sign the card as complete. Neither the SM nor the committee has any veto power. If anyone has a problem with the counselor's decision, they can take it up with the district advancement chairman. It is the district advancement chairman (or designee) that approves adults to be merit badge counselors, and it is the chairman who must deal with improprieties or allegations.

The BSA literature on commissioner service does not lay down a lot of rules. But after reading and learning about the program, it is abundantly clear that a commissioner cannot properly perform his role as friend, BSA representative, prevention doctor, teacher, and counselor if he is part of that unit. The conflicts Jake mentioned in the first post prove the point.

"Commissioners must not be registered as unit leaders." - Chapter 3 of the Commissioner Fieldbook for Unit Service #33621. There is a lot of info about commissioners and unit service on the BSA web site. Click on "Commissioners" in the lower left hand corner. http://www.scouting.org

Welcome to the forums. Your description of the leader positions and relationships is a little confusing. Id suggest that you and all the adults that want to be involved with the new troop first get on the web and take Boy Scout Leader Fast Start Training. It takes about a half an hour. http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/faststart/index.html The Troop Committee Guidebook also has lots of good information

Gee, I think if we all had to wait for perfect information before making a comment, there would not be much commenting made here. By the very nature of these internet forums, comments made must be based on the information that is presented. Thus, it seems unreasonable to chastise comment makers from making their views known in an environment of less than perfect knowledge. In light of that, my comment is that if the troop committee arranges it's affairs such that a boy must wait 3 months for a BOR, the aims and methods of Scouting are not being met in a satisfactory manner, despite whatever kindness and generosity they may aspire to. If that is taken as a personal assault, let the evidence speak for itself.

Tenure for the next rank does not start until the previous rank has been earned. The previous rank is not earned until all the requirements have been completed. The board of review is a requirement, thus the rank is not earned and new tenure does not start until the BOR is completed. There is no reason the boy cannot begin work on requirements for the next rank. Requirements for all ranks may be worked on simultaneously, but the ranks must be completed in sequence, with the required tenure at each rank. In your hypothetical example, if boards are scheduled quarterly and the next board is 3 months away, the boy must have missed the last one by 1 day. Sounds more like the committee schedules only 2 or 3 boards per year. 3 months is a loooong time for a boy to wait. Good way to kill his enthusiasm for advancement. Same goes for presentation of awards and courts of honor.

Since you've demostrated the three-patrol idea works well, why no form 3 permanent patrols?