yes or no?

[Beavah]

Nuthin' wrong with your perceptions of how BOR's should go, Lisa'bob. It should be a progression. TF should be just enough to let a boy shine; 2nd class a bit more involved. 1st Class he's headed into leadership roles, so some focused open-ended questions are good to add. Star the boy has had his first run at leadership and some of the required merit badges, and questions should begin to be about character, recognizing that he's just developin' understanding.

 

By Life, a boy is a long way into the program, and we don't have him for that much longer. He should be 50-75% of the way to what we hope to see in an Eagle Scout, eh? So the board should reflect that, and be 50-75% of what an Eagle Board is.

 

This way, our expectations grow with the boy, eh?

[Lisabob]

Yes I am certain about the issue with "scamming" and mbs. This happened at camp over the summer while I was there and the boy freely boasted to adults and other scouts that he had convinced some camp staffers/MBCs to sign blue cards for two of the less exciting eagle-required MBs, even though he was not registered for, and had not worked on, the requirements toward those badges. Actually he appeared to be rather proud of having accomplished this. The committee and SM later discussed the matter and came to the conclusion that since the cards were signed by a registered MBC that the troop more or less had to honor the cards and award the MBs. However I believe the SM required this young man to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter to him personally, prior to signing off on one or more of the requirements (spirit and SM conference - not sure if this pertained to one or both of those).

 

Since the SM did eventually sign, I expect that means the boy satisfied the SM that he knew the material. I don't know though, as I have not heard that from the SM himself. (This speaks to some of the communication difficulties that arise sometimes between the SM and committee, where people who are in a position to sit on BORs do not always know if or how various disciplinary situations or "growth opportunities" have been handled.)

 

 

[LongHaul]

Lisabob,

       IMO the boy should not have been advanced. Attitude being one reason. Lack of understanding of his role in the dynamics of the troop being a reason. Lack of understanding as to how his attitude projects the wrong image to those he is there to lead, see Setting the Example ( do they do that in NYLT ?)

Packsaddle,

       In looking over the post in which Lisabob first brought up the issue of boys getting blue cards signed as complete for merit badges they didnt actually earn I see that you didnt participate. Ill let Lisabob enlighten you and others about this as it goes to Scout Spirit in my book. You said that if the boy has done the requirements he should get the award or rank. One of the requirements for every rank is to complete your board of review. If it is your opinion that in order to complete a board of review the only requirements should be the completion of, or more specifically haven gotten credit from a person designated by the SM as having such authority for the completion of, the other requirements for that rank or award; then I ask you what is the purpose or need for a board of review? We have been down this road before in these forums but it always comes back up. Why do we need a boy to sit in front of us if all we are doing is checking to see that all the boxes have been checked off? We cant possibly think we can determine a Scouts character or degree of or lack of Scout Spirit in 20 minutes. The BOR is supposed to be made up of adults not involved with the day to day administration of the troop program. Thats why SMs and ASMs are excluded. If a CM is at all the meetings and outings what differentiates them from the SM or ASM, what code is used on the charter? Your supposed to be reviewed by adults you dont normally come into contact with during your Scouting experience. Is there any reason, provided all the boxes were appropriately checked, that you would deny advancement? LongHaul

[packsaddle]

Most of the BOR guides I've read start with something like this: "Purpose of a Board of Review: The members of a Board of Review should have the following objectives in mind:

* To make sure the Scout has completed the requirements for the rank.

* To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit.

* To encourage the Scout to progress further.

Additionally, the Board of Review provides "quality control" on advancement within the unit, it provides an opportunity for the Scout to develop and practice those skills needed in a interview situation, and it is an opportunity for the Scout to review his accomplishments. The Board of Review is NOT a retest; the Scout has already been tested on the skills and activities required for the rank. However, the chairman of the Board of Review should ensure that all the requirements have been "signed off" in the Scout's handbook. Additionally, the chairman should ensure that leadership and merit badge records are consistent with the requirements for the rank. The Board of Review is an opportunity to review of the Scout's attitudes, accomplishments and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals."

The abovewas from the Orange County Council, I did the bold type:

[LongHaul]

Packsaddle,

     Ok two questions up front. First; "The Board of Review is an opportunity to review of the Scout's attitudes, accomplishments and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals." Doesnt this indicate that the BOR is expected to be more than the part you chose to put in bold type? Second; If the boy says or does something during the review that provides direct evidence to the board that he is not qualified for advancement, Other than being a Scout who Mumbled one word answers accompanied with shrugs and blank looks, very little reflection, inability to provide specific examples of scout spirit, how he puts the scout law into action, difficulty articulating or apparently grasping how he is a role model (as a scout in a visible and important POR in the troop) to other scouts, etc.. This scout appears to view advancement as just a bunch of hoops to jump through with little or no meaning to them."  Just what would he have to do? You mention being out of uniform, for a bold type guy on this issue where is being in uniform a requirement, officially that is? From the first question I asked, this scouts attitude was bad, his accomplishments were in question (i.e. merit badges actually earned ) and his acceptance of Scouting ideals non existent difficulty articulating or apparently grasping how he is a role model (as a scout in a visible and important POR in the troop) to other scouts, Advancing this scouts says to me that the ideals and aims the program is supposed to be about are not important. What is important is getting credit, no matter how you do it, its a matter of getting credit and once again this scout has accomplished THAT goal.

LongHaul

[packsaddle]

LongHaul, my point is that if he says nothing, we have little or nothing for evidence one way or the other. In the example I chose to relate, we did not 'fail' him for the advancement. Rather, in this instance we allowed him the benefit of our review and kept open his opportunity to succeed. The decision to fail was his. He could have at least finished as 'Life' but his decision not to return kept him at 'Star'. He was in control of his fate.

The uniform is not required according to the guidlines. I mentioned that because it was true, not because we 'failed' him for it...we didn't. Collectively, his ignorance of the basics and inability to relate to any aspects of the program gave us nothing upon which to base a factual decision so we didn't make a decision...except to give him another opportunity to provide something for us to review.

I know this is a fine point. Because we didn't 'fail' him, we essentially kept open his opportunity thus eliminating the need for a later appeal, should he have chosen such. We were fair to the program and to the boy.