Good topic to jump into.
My question is this, if the patrol or troop that elected a person to a POR do not want removed him from that position, despite poor performance, should he be removed just so that he can be denied time in a POR for advancement? If the answer is yes, then you are going against one of the foundations of Scouting, the patrol method. If you deny him tenure due to performance after serving his term, you are going against an policy in the GTA that changes often.
Me personally, if it's a choice against a foundation of the Scouting program that's been around since August 1, 1907, or a policy that changes every so often, Sorry I go with the foundation.
Also you have to remember that one repsonibility of the BOR IS "... decide whether he has fulfilled the requirements for the rank. (GTA 8.0.0.1). If he did not the BOR should "... advise the young man that he might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what he might do to improve his chances for success. It is, however, the Scout's decision to go ahead with a board of review or not." (8.0.0.2)
Finally, from what I am reading form the section of the GTA below, if you advise the Scout while counseling him to improve his performance or the time will not count IS allowed by the GTA.
4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit has clearly established expectations for position(s) held, thenâ€â€within reason (sic)â€â€a Scout must meet them through the prescribed time. If he is not meeting expectations, then this must be communicated early (emphasis). Unit leadership may work toward a constructive result by asking him what he thinks he should be accomplishing. What is his concept of the position? What does he think his troop leadersâ€â€youth and adultâ€â€expect? What has he done well? What needs improvement? Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded.
If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position. It is the unit leader's responsibility to address these situations promptly. Every effort should have been made while he was in the position to ensure he understood expectations and was regularly supported toward reasonably acceptable performance. It is unfair and inappropriateâ€â€after six months, for exampleâ€â€to surprise a boy who thinks he has been doing fine, with news that his performance is now considered unsatisfactory. In this case, he must be given credit for the time. (emphasis)
Only in rare casesâ€â€if everâ€â€should troop leaders inform a Scout that time, once served, will not count. (sic)
If a Scout believes he has performed his duties satisfactorily, but his leaders disagree, then the possibility that expectations are unreasonable should be considered. If after discussions between the Scout and his leadersâ€â€and perhaps including his parents or guardiansâ€â€he believes he is being held to unreasonable expectations, then upon completing the remaining requirements, he must be granted a board of review. If he is an Eagle candidate, then he may request a board of review under disputed circumstances (see "Initiating Eagle Scout Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances," 8.0.3.2).
Does this mean Boy Scouts can earn the Ranger Award now? Sheesh, Boy Scout leaders were complaining about having an award as outdoor oriented as Ranger, hence the NOA. Now Venturers are eligible for the NOA. My question is this who wanted Venturers to get the NOA, adults or the youth?