Conflict of Interest

[Dozy]

1) Is it a Conflict of Interest if an Assistant Scoutmaster is also the Advancement Coordinator?

I can't find anywhere where this is prohibited, yet our Committee has outlawed this and removed the AC responsibility from our ASM.

2) Is it a Conflict of Interst if a Scoutmaster signs off his own sons book?

I've been told at our District meetings that there is nothing in any policy that states that a SM should not or may not or cannot sign his own son's Handbook, or put him up for review, or even approve him for Eagle.

3) Is it a Conflict of Interest that a Committee Chair cannot sign his own son's Eagle application?

Again, why not.  Why do sons of SM's have to be singled out "as if" SM's or CC's can't be fair with their own sons?

------------------------

In #2, my son was told by our Committee that his father MAY NOT sign his Handbook, that it MUST be signed by the ASM.  They told him that at his 1st Class & Star BOR's YET, they have never said anything to the SM.  Of course, this is totally inappropriate to tell a Scout at a BOR.

 

[Lisabob]

The AC job is generally held by a committee member and not an ASM. See page 16 of the troop committee guidebook for a description of this position.

 

The argument that a qualified leader may not sign off on their own child's books is one of those urban legends of scouting. Yes, the SM certainly may sign his son's book. He may do the SM conference. And if he is a registered mb counselor for the mb in question, he can work with his own son and sign off on his blue card for that mb too.

 

HOWEVER. The vast majority of leaders I know greatly prefer NOT to sign off on things for their own boy when possible. Two or three reasons. One, you avoid even appearances of impropriety. Too bad that's an issue but sometimes it is. Another is to avoid actually being either too easy or too hard on one's own son because they're your kid - it's unfair to the scout and often hard for parents to recognize when they're (hopefully inadvertantly) doing this.

 

Probably more important: one of the methods of scouting is "adult association" which means that the boys learn to interact with adults and to view (appropriate) adults as role models. Working with a parent means the boy misses an opportunity to work with another adult, and maybe learn something new or learn to think about something from a different perspective.

 

It isn't a rule, no matter what your committee members may say - but it does seem to be something akin to standard practice in most cases.

 

Dozy, once again, training is a wonderful thing. Committee training and SM/ASM leader specific training will do wonders in helping answer questions like this for your whole group of adult leaders. Maybe you can even make a pact with them now that you'll all go - even those who have gone before (refreshers can't hurt) - this fall when your council offers it next. It'll go a long way toward solving some of your problems and bringing the fun back to your troop.

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

[scottteng]

My son would much rather go to an outside merit badge counselor than to me. It seems I will add on extra work to make sure of his depth in a subject and have the power and inclination to ground him for the foolishness that he has not yet outgrown. I am also his school teacher so can make his life extra miserable with extra assignments that are after all school work and are just peripherally related to the merit badge in question. I cannot of course do this with other merit badge candidates.

[Dozy]

My son went to a LAW MB gentleman told my husband, sizing him up that he's way beyond the requirements in the book and wanted my son to do other things... even though he had already done some research on the requirements, for this MB man, it was for nothing.

 

Yes, we have since learned that a MBC cannot add or subtract, but must stick to the script. AND that's a good thing.

 

As for committee training... I am the only one Committee Trained, BOR trained and Youth Protection trained. All of the current members training has either expired (Youth Protection), or the other two, they never attended and they don't feel the need to, even the CC. So what can lowly me do?

 

At a Life to Eagle class I recently went to, the District guys there said that there is no rule regarding SM's and sons, etc., and there won't be one and it should be a non-issue on the committee. Whatever the SM, MBC or CC, etc., feels comfortable with, that is what they can do. If a parent is a qualified MB for let's say, Citizenship in the Nation, his/her son should not be required by some silly committee rules to go outside to someone else (that is unless the Scout choooses to do so). The Scout has the right to choose his MB counselor from the approved list, and if that's his parent, that I guess he's comfortable with his parent (or grandparent, or brother, sister, aunt, uncle, etc.)

 

Why single out the son for the father's or mothers Scouter position?

[FScouter]

The Scoutmaster is the adult in charge of administering the Scout program. The Scout has no "right" to select his MB counselor except from choices offered by the SM.

 

The committee ought not to be micromanaging the SM. If they don't like the way he administers the Scout program, they can work with him to achieve consensus, or select another SM.

[Dozy]

F Scouter: What do you mean by?: The Scout has no "right" to select his MB counselor except from choices offered by the SM.

 

If there is an approved MB list, why can't the Scout choose with whome he'd like to work? Perhaps he would prefer a male over a female in a particular area, or vice versa. Perhaps he does not want the MB counselor for "basketry" who is a scouts mother, with whome he does not have an affinity with, so he'd prefer to go outside the troop and choose from the District list. If the SM says, I approve for you to do this Merit Badge, is should be OK for the boy to receive the list and make his phone calls and set up appointments with whomever he wants. He's not going at it alone, he will have a buddy, the list is approved, etc. What right does the scout not have?

 

Also, "The committee ought not to be micromanaging the SM. If they don't like the way he administers the Scout program, they can work with him to achieve consensus, or select another SM. "

 

That's the biggest problem, isn't it... the troop committee wants to run the program and the SM. Micromanage is a word I've been throwing around for months.(This message has been edited by Dozy)(This message has been edited by Dozy)

[Dozy]

LisaBob,

 

You said, "The AC job is generally held by a committee member and not an ASM."

 

Generally, yes, but is it a rule somewhere the the ASM absolutely postively cannot be an AC?

 

... after all, to start a troop only a minimum of 3 CM's are needed.

 

Our Troop did not have an ASM when my husband took over as SM. One of the Adult Leaders who was AC at the time decided to help and become an ASM. Our CM had a difficult time with 2-deep leadership. We didn't know it at the time, but many activities were cancelled as a rule because 2-deep wasn't always secured.

 

Since my husband came along, the 2-deep has not been an issue because of me... I am self-employed and can be available at a moments notice. My husband the SM is also self-employed. That's why were able to always be available (in spite of working 70 hour work weeks sometimes and often).

 

At first, they did not want any ASM's and discouraged it. Reason? Who knows why? Our AC who became ASM was a former CM and always felt that an ASM is a positive benefit. He continued as an AC for 6 months until the CC decided he/she (husband and wife) they wanted him out. Personally, I think it was to make it harder on the SM.

 

So I'm just asking if the term "generally" applies to what most troops do, which it seems to me that's the case, but is not a BSA rule, because I can't find that rule at BSA or Council guidelines that prevents this dual position. AND in a small troop where there aren't enough adults who want a job to go around, some people have to double up... usually it's the parents of scouts who DO and the CM who don't have scouts in the troop just sit back, vote and do nothing much else except create headaches.

[MaScout]

Dozy -- While you consider the 2-deep leadership to not be a concern as you and your husband are available to team up...I caution you against relying on this. While it is technically "legal" to have a husband-wife team be the 2-deep, my husband & I avoid this situation whenever possible. Think WHY we utilize 2-deep leadership. If any accusations of wrong-doing should be made against either of you, the other's testimony wouldn't hold much water...Just a thought. Ma

[Dozy]

MaScout,

 

I totally agree. We have a weak, almost non-existent COR. How do you get Troop Committee people to actively participate in a program they seem to be wanting to sabotage?

 

We're trying to be there "for the boys" and I'm relied upon in emergencies and that's all too frequent since there are only two adults willing to provide that second 2-deep. None of the others are willing to share that burden, not even on a rotation basis. They only go one events that interests them to go on.

 

Recently, one lady said "never again" and that was just supervising four Scouts on a field trip to D.C. AND one of the Scouts was her kid!

 

Yes, I wish I knew the extent of the "deadness" of this committee when my son joined in Feb 2005. I joined the Committee in Aug 2005 and have slowly found out how awful of a program they had, how much the new SM is trying to change things, but with a committee which is SUPPOSED to SUPPORT the SM, just isn't.

 

What's worse is that we HAVE NO Unit Commissioner. All complains to the COR fall on deaf ears. We like our CO. We have about $400 in the treasury. We have a Troop history of 61 years at the CO and a ton of memorabelia in our storage room. The boys like each other, get along well together, work well together, have established patrols... they don't want to go anywhere else for fear of being seperated... and the SM is great and they like him. But the SM is not getting what he needs from the CM, CC or the COR.

 

I'm at the point of screaming... honey no longer works, it's time to light a bonfire.

[evmori]

The SM supplies the Scout with the name of a MB counselor for the MB the Scout would like to complete. If the Scout has a MB counselor he would like to use & the SM agrees, then no problem. Otherwise the SM picks the MB counselor, writes his/her information on the blue card, signs the blue card & gives it to the Scout.

 

I am the AC for our Troop and I am registered as an ASM. For us, it's not a conflict of interest. As for the other things you asked, there is nothing in the BSA rules & regs that prevents a parent from signing stuff for their son. But, if someone else is available & can sign, I would have them. When my son completed his Eagle project (I was the SM) the previous SM signed his application instead of me. I only counseled my son on 1 MB while he was in the Troop. I didn't sign any of his rank requirements. Why? Because I didn't want anyone to say "His dad signed it! I'll bet he didn't do it."

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Happy Birthday USA

[Beavah]

1) Is it a Conflict of Interest if an Assistant Scoutmaster is also the Advancement Coordinator?

 

The Advancement Chair is a member of da Troop Committee, and should be registered as an MC (member of committee). In the BSA, unit leader (SM) and assistant unit leader (ASM - "SA") cannot be dual registered as committee members (MC). This also makes sense, because the committee is supposed to be providing support and oversight for the unit leaders. So in my reading, your CC is correct, an ASM advancement chair is not in keepin' with the spirit or the letter of the system.

 

That havin' been said, if it works for you, it works. Some units choose to register a lot of ASMs, so if one has the time like Ed to do this, who cares, eh? As long as yeh all are extra-careful about the conflict potential. But I'd say it's within the CC's purview to require separation of these roles.

 

Is it a Conflict of Interst if a Scoutmaster signs off his own sons book?

 

It's a bad idea, and can lead to all kinds of misunderstandin' and grief. There's no national rule, but many units/CO's have unit-level policies against it at the Boy Scout level. Most good SM's and ASM's avoid it like the plague. Some councils also impose restrictions, like limiting da number of MBs a boy can earn from one person.

 

3) Is it a Conflict of Interest that a Committee Chair cannot sign his own son's Eagle application?

 

Not so much, because da CC's signature is really supposed to reflect the approval of the whole unit committee (by vote or common assent). For a dad to sign without the approval of the unit committee would be a dishonest thing to do.

 

What do you mean by?: The Scout has no "right" to select his MB counselor except from choices offered by the SM.

 

FScouter means exactly what he says. In the BSA's system, the SM, not the scout, chooses the MB counselor (and whether to allow a boy to work on a MB at all). A scout can make a request, of course, for a particular counselor. But the SM can say "no." This is an important part of the system, to ensure that the unit leaders know what's goin' on, and remain "in the loop" on youth protection and quality of experience for the boys. Most districts, in fact, have policies of not releasing the MB counselor list to anyone but SM's, and some get a bit peeved when someone gives a list to a boy.

 

The SM is not gettin' the support he needs from the COR/committee

 

Sounds more like disagreement over values and mission than lack of support or "dead" committee, eh?

 

In disagreements over values and mission, it's the SM's job to follow the lead of the committee and CO, or resign if he can't.

 

In the event of a dead committee, I'd encourage the SM to recruit a new COR and some new committee members, and then go to the IH (institutional head - the head of the CO) to approve them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dozy]

A scout can make a request, of course, for a particular counselor. But the SM can say "no."

Agreed and understandable.

AND YES, also agreed that the scout FIRST makes a request of the SM to work on an MB. The boy does not take the initiative to do anything else first, except for maybe check out the requirements of a particular MB to see if he wants to pursue it, and then approaches the SM.

Our SM will give a valid reason for a "no" on an MB usually only if not enough Eagle Required have been done or started for their next Rank Advancement. Once the scout can prove that an ER MB has been started and he gives a timeline of it's completion, then a non ER MB can be added. This of course, is on a case by case, scout by scout basis AND I have no cause to challenge the SM's procedures on this, they appear valid to me and within keeping of the guidelines as well as a reasonable Rank advancement timeline expectation.

Honestly, under the previoius SM there were 2 boys in our Troop for 2 years as only Scouts rank and didn't even make it to Tenderfoot, and never had a BOR, ever... no questions were ever asked of them as to why they weren't advancing. The new SM brought them both to Tenderfoot in less than a year. One quit (because scouting is too much work and he preferred basketball), the other is still here and now also a 'trained' Den Chief and has become more active than ever setting goals for his next RA (I guess scouting became fun, I hope)... the problem is his age (almost 15 and Tenderfoot).  Not finding out why he wasn't advancing by the CM can have this boy Not achieve Eagle.  I haven't done the math yet on his timeline but I'm sure the SM has.  All it can take is 1 deferrment between Tenderfoot and Life and the Eagle is out, NO MATTER how much Scout Spirit or abilities or achievement this scout has shown.

The Eagles in our Troop spent apprx. 2 years as Life Scouts before their Eagle BOR.  A boy can be held back by a MBC who is a jerk or by a CM who is a jerk, and of course, by an SM who is a jerk... any one of these can mess up a scouts rank achievement chances.  What do you do when the boy WANTS to try?

[Dozy]

In disagreements over values and mission, it's the SM's job to follow the lead of the committee and CO, or resign if he can't.

When the SM interviewed for the job, he clearly and upfront stated his values and mission. The CM agreed, the CO signed the paperwork. However, the CM, which micromanaged the previous SM, wasn't counting on the fact that they couldn't micromanage the new guy to their way of thinking. The previous one wanted out so bad, he gave his resignation nearly 3 years prior, but stayed in "for the boys." He had heart.

And the new SM refused to go back to a non-boy led troop with no PLC's which is what the CM wanted.  The new SM insisted on regular BOR's.  That was too much like work for the CM but the BOR's happened anyway, though not regular enough.

[FScouter]

Our SM will give a valid reason for a "no" on an MB usually only if not enough Eagle Required have been done or started for their next Rank Advancement.

 

It is up to the boy to choose which merit badge he wants to work on. The Scoutmaster can remind the boy that the Eagle rank requires certain specific merit badges and suggest that one of them might make a good choice. But remember that our mission is to help boys make CHOICES. When we say NO, the boy has no choice.

[Dozy]

Good point FScouter... but the Scoutmaster is responsible for advancement. It would be irresponsible of him to let the boy go off on his own and make the wrong choices. The SM can give him the choice of which ER badge he wants to work on and at the same time, give him a choice of which standard badge he wants to work on. Not all scouts are able to discern a timeline for their advancement... that's up to the SM to keep on target with.

 

Somewhere down the road, you want that boys Scout Spirit to soar and to have his eyes on the prize... or for the rest of his life he'll be saying that I didn't have enough MB to make Eagle and it's because of ______. And you know what? It would be the SM's fault not to give proper guidance to the boy.

 

I am not of the group that gives children the choice to do anything they want. It's not, "hon, do you want to pitch your tent now or later." it's "do you want to pitch your tent here or there and why." They must have clear choices and give reasons behind them... in order to be productive adults and make the correct choices.

 

A "no" is OK by the SM in my book because that choice is not available to the Scout because the Scout is not responsible for his own advancement, he is guided by an adult who is ultimately responsible. That adult should give reasons why there's a "no" and they should be sound and reasonable, not impossible.

 

So, it all depends on what freedoms you allow the scouts... is it total or is it guided freedom?