Bob White

Congrats Dancin' I'll see you at Jamboree! BW

"I personally will have no problem taking a boy aside and pointing out he can improve his uniform" Mega kudos to Laurie for sticking to a fundemental rule of good leadership..Praise in public, Correct in private. Don't waste time or confuse minds by showing people how do something wgong, and never criticize a scout in front of others, even if you believe you are being really cute at it. BW(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Sure you do. Every youth membership must be acceped by the charter organization and have the Scoutmaster's signature, without it he cannot join. Now the more important question. Have you met with the scout and his family yet? Why does he want to join? does he understand the promise he must take to obey the Scout Oath and Law. Is he preapred to show better behavior and judgement than he has gained a reputation for. Once he joins if his behavior is a danger to himself or others, or if he is disruptive to the program, the committee can choose to revoke his membership. Bob White

Bravo! OGE, that is the proper response to this situation. BW

There is where you make a huge mistake Ed. "The Troop" did not make a decision not to sign the book. "The Troop" is a gathering of patrols. "the Scoutmaster" has decided not to sign the book, and "the scoutmaster" is by no means "the troop". The question here is not "can the scout advance without the SM's signature. Of course he can. The SM is not the only person who can sign. The question here is what to do about a situation where there is a disagreement over whether or not a scout has met the requirements to advance. That is a prime responsibility of the Board of Review. There ia also the question of did the adult leaders do their job in training and guiding junior leaders. Evaluating unit operation is another prime responsibility of the BOR. The troop Committee has a responsibility to the CO to see that the program is working. The BOR is made of committee members for that very reason. How can ANY of us sit here and from just a couple of posts from only one person's point of view, decree whether the scout passes or not? There are more sides that deserve representation. It is the BOR's job to determine this scout's advancement, not the scoutmaster's and certainly not ours. Bob White

Mike , I'm not saying the SM should sign or not sign. I'm saying it is for the BOR to review the situation and make a unanimous, impartial decision for everyone to follow. Yes, the SM reviews a scout's progress, but you cannot stop reading at that point. The SM reviews the scouts personal growth and goals. The BOR determines if requirements were completed according to the handbook. You want the SM to do the BOR's job. So far you have the SM doing everyone's job but his own, to train and develop the junior leaders. had he done that there would be no issue to this point. You even agree that this was a significant problem. All I'm saying, along with others here, is that it's not the Scoutmaster's role to determine advancement, that job belongs to the BOR.

Bear in mint twocubdad, this string is based on the scenario shared in the opening post not the situation you offered, although they do share some elements. So the questions I asked have little to nothing to do with the situation you wrote about. I think the original situation was intended to be a barely cloaked jab at the scout but mostly at the scouts parent. I think to use you office3 and the ability it gives you to speak in fron of the pack as an instrument to shame, ridicule or scold a boy's parent is way out of line. You bring up an interesting point. "But my point is that just about anything we do can be offensive to someone." and I'm not convinced that statement is valid. I have seen effective uniform inspections done using only positive statements toward the boys. "Wow, Tom you look really sharp with your shirt buttoned and all tucked in." "Billy you got the uniform pants that looks terrific." "Shawn I like the way you have your kneckerchief that is the perfect length." James your new haircut makes you look so grown-up." You do not need to criticize a scout over any piece of uniform he doesn't have, just compliment him on the pieces he does have. The boys will realize that the better they wear the uniform or the more uniform they wear, the better the feeling they get. That will motivate a scout to a full uniform faster than anything else. "But it seems to me we are in the business of teaching boys right from wrong." Here is a different perspective, We are here to teach the scouts what is right, so that when the need arises they can recognize right from wrong and be able to make the right choices. Bob

Twocubdad, which do you think is more important, how the adult meant it or how a child percieves it. If every adult and every scout present finds the imitation funny except for the boy who was in the orange shirt (that for all we know a parent made him wear) is the stunt still worth it? What lesson will be learned the loudest, dress better, or that it is okay to ridicule? Should setting the example as a leader mean setting a bad example too? With all the scouting methods at our disposal do we need to add embarassment as a new one?

So DS and Twocubdad, What do you think of the method proposed in the topic of the thread? Is this a good way to promote correct uniforming in the specific scout and/or in the unit? Bob White

Here is an excerpt from a string in another thread... "Last week the boy came to a Pack meeting wearing an orange tee shirt under his uniform shirt. The tee shirt sleeves were longer than the sleeves of his uniform shirt. He had on a pair of charcoal grey sweat pants with his CS belt tied around his waist, and of course he was wearing very beat up white sneakers that were not tied. I may very well show up at our next meeting in a similar costume just to put an exclamation point on how foolish this boy looks." Here is what I don't get. How does this improve uniforming in the unit or in the specific scout. I am open to explainations. Bob White (This message has been edited by Bob White)

DS correct me if I am wrong but, Scouting for food is no longer a national Good Turn program but is suppored on a District or community level, and can be done independently by units or as a multi-unit coordinated service project. BW

Does the advancement program specify that the Scoutmaster is the one who has to sign the requirement? No. This push and shove attitude within a troop is self-destructive. If the Scoutmaster doesn't feel the Scout has completed the requirements according to the Handbook then he or she should tell that to the board prior to the BOR beginning. It is not the Sm's role to approve or deny advancement. Let the BOR do their job. How do you expect a boy leader to do his job if the adult leaders don't do theirs? Can you really justify penalizing the boy for something that the troop admits is a "significant failure" on the part of the adults? What justification is there for not allowing the Board of Review to "review" the situation as an impartial body and determining a resolution? Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Mike F, Just a reminder of something you wrote in your original post. "One very significant failure that wasn't the boy's fault - he didn't get much (if any) coaching and guidance along the way. (Troop leadership - Scout & Adult - recognizes this and is working to ensure won't happen again. This was one of those myriad details that got missed during somewhat chaotic handover of SM and the boys didn't think of it.) My post was largely based on that specific piece of information. Coaching and guiding the scout in his leadership position is the main purpose having a Scoutmaster. You cannot punish the scout for the SM not doing his or her job, especially when you admit that that was a significant reason for his situation. If the committe members on the BOR agree that the scout failed due to the troop leadersip not doing their job, then the problem here is not the scout. He is only at Star rank. The troop, by fixing the adult leadership deficiences, still has time to develop the skills of the scout. But if you gig him because of an adults shortcoming you may lose the boy from scouting. You can't fix the problem if he is not there to work with. Let the BOR make the determination. Bob White (This message has been edited by Bob White)

The BSA sees it as, a leader is selected and asked to volunteer service. They serve as a volunteer at the pleasure of the charter organization. A leader can be removed from a position but since they are never hired they are not fired. The real world is what you make it. If your ethics are based on your income, then that is YOUR real world. For others ethics and values are like magnetic north. Their personal compass points the same direction regardless of how much money they have in their wallet. Bob White

WOW Dsteele, You mean if you do as much professional development as an accountant, teacher, programmer, or police officer, that you will get a 3/8" X 1" piece of cloth and they don't? Man how cool is that? You are so lucky!

Acco, I agree with you tha speaking with another leader is a good thing if done for the right reason. You are doing it as a benefit for the scout to allow him a different sounding board than his own parent. Thats a good reason. To be concerned about the apearance of favoritism stems from a misunderstanding of the purpose and procedure of the requirement. As far as who makes him go to the BOR. No one. It is not about making the scout do anything. Explain to the scout prior to their first BOR what a Bor is and when they are held. Let him know from the start of his advancement that BORs are done on a regular basis whether you are advancing or not in order to help the troop committee evaluate how the program is doing. Then when it is his turn for a board, ask him to be thinking about sugestions he might have to make the troop better and be prepared to speak to a few committee members about his ideas and opinions. Bob White

Yes, the Insignia Guide is the correct reference manual. There are no uniform police in the BSA, they rely on the personal integrity of the members. Yes, the uniform does look funny when it is worn improperly. Scouting is a game, but a game with a purpose. It is not a free-for all to do as you wish. it has a structure. I would not assume that B-P, as a long time military officer, took the look of the uniform lightly. Have you ever seen a picture of him in an improper uniform? Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

The BSA program. The Scoutmater Handbook explains that BORs should be done for scouts who are not advancing as well as for scouts who are, in order to discover the scouts needs and motivation and help make scouting better for him. BW

First a scoutmaster is neither hired, or fired. Second if anyone is teaching, or believing, that ethics can only be lived when a paycheck is not involved that is very sad. Ethics and values should not be worn like a coat that you take off if things get too hot. On to the question. You have a scout leader who says that it is the scout's responsibility to do the job, and a scout who says he had no support or development to do the job. Who is right? The Scout. Why? Because we are not in this program to "run" an efficient troop. We are here to develop young people. I gree that the scoutmaster should not sign anything that he or she does not agree with. However...nothing says that that requirement must be signed by the scoutmaster. That is just an assumption on your part. One of the reasons for the committee doing the BOR is to discover how the troop and the troop leaders are doing. If the BOR agrees with the scout, that he was not supported or developed during his tenure, then they should accept the requirement and counsel the adult leadership to attend to their responsibilities by giving more support and guidance to junior leaders. Bob White

That's interesting, I have never seen those patches before but they appear genuine. I'll check some early leader handbooks, but they do appear genuine.

After reaching First Class, most Scouts should advance about one rank a tear according to the BSA. Based on that having each Scout appear before a BOR at least once a year would seem reasonable. It would seem to me to be far more unlikely that a scoutmaster didn't visit with a scout who lives in the same house than to imagine that they did visit. Remember this requirement is the scoutmaster documenting that he understands the scouts feeling about the troop, his understanding of scouting values and encouraging him to advance. I don't see how you can claim favoritism if a mom or dad say they know those things about their son. In fact, if they didn't know I would be far more concerned. Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Ed, quit making everything a personal dig. I'm just asking a simple question. This has no comparison to a merit badge or any other requirement in advancement. The rest all require the scout to prove a skill or action. There is no qualification to meet in a Scoutmaster conference. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, the scout needs no knowledge of any skill. All the scout is required to do is visit with the scoutmaster. How can you show favoritism in that. It is not as if you can visit with one scout better or worse than with another. All you are doing is recording that a visit took place. How can that be subjective? I'm not saying you can't let someone else do the conference, I just don't see favoritism as a logical reason. Bob White

Ed, quit making everything a personal dig. I'm just asking a simple question. This has no comparison to a merit badge or any other requirement in advancement. The rest all require the scout to prove a skill or action. There is no qualification to meet in a Scoutmaster conference. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, the scout needs no knowledge of any skill. All the scout is required to do is visit with the scoutmaster. How can you show favoritism in that. It is not as if you can visit with one scout better or worse than with another. All you are doing is recording that a visit took place. How can that be subjective? I'm not saying you can't let someone else do the conference, I just don't see favoritism as a logical reason. Bob White

Don't get me wrong, if the reason you want someone else to do your son's SC is because you want your son to be comfortable talking about his goals or his views on the values of scouting, I can see that. But how can you show favoritism in a requirement that is not a pass or fail situation. If a scout sits with you and says "I'm not trustworthy, or friendly to anyone, ever, and I have no interest in advancing", he still gets signed off on the Scoutmaster conference requirement. The scout is not required to satisfy the scoutmasters questions in any way. He is only required to have the conference. How can you show favoritism in a requirement that can't be failed? Bob White

In the olden days I do not believe there was a trained strip. Training was only evident by Knots or Wood Badge Beads. In the late 70's the SM and ASM patch was available with metallic threading to indicate completion of Scoutmaster Basic Leader Training. I don't recall if Cubmaster patches had similar threading. With the introduction of the current uniform style the metallic patch was discontinued and the Trained strip was introduced for all adult leader positions as well as for junior leader training recognition.