BOR issue

[Hunt]

I'm strongly against retesting at BORs of any kind, because I know from experience that some adults can't resist overdoing it and "failing" boys who can't remember how to tie a particular knot on command, or who get flustered and say the elements of the Scout Law out of order. Personally, I would rather have BORs be a rubber stamp than an adult power trip. As others have noted, if the SM is doing his job, the BOR shouldn't have to worry about whether the requirements have been done, and can rather have the kind of positive discussion a BOR is supposed to be. (Note: the idea that the BOR is a "rubber stamp" if it doesn't look over the SM's shoulder on rank achievements is just a misunderstanding of what the BOR is supposed to be.)

 

Ed, of course if you find out in the course of the discussion that a requirement wasn't done, then obviously the BOR should adjourn so the boy can fix the problem. If, however, you ask whether the requirements were really done, in my opinion you are showing disrespect for the Scout and for his Scoutmaster.

[evmori]

Not baiting, Vicki. You brought it up!

 

Asking a Scout a question about how he completed a requirement isn't retesting.

 

The purpose of a BOR for advancement is to ensure the Scout has completed the requirements for rank. If the BOR can't ask questions about the requirements then there might as well not be a BOR. End the rank advancement with the Scoutmaster Conference.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Stosh]

Yet I'm curious how a BOR can "fail" a boy when all of his requirements have been marked as approved/accomplished.

 

Let's say Bobby 2nd Class come up for his BOR & the boards asks him when he completed 2D & he states I never did and it was signed off in his book. A requirement for rank wasn't completed so Bobby 2nd Class would "fail" his BOR. Naturally, the board would tell Bobby 2nd Class what he needed to do to complete the requirement & reschedule a BOR for a later date.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

>>>>> The first question I would ask in this situation was how that boy got past his SM conference with that scenerio? Sounds to me like the SM isn't doing his job in the conference very well. If I had a boy come before me in a BOR with that situation, the first person I'd be talking to is the SM, NOT the boy. The question would be clear and simple: "Why is the boy being presented to the BOR when you as SM know he's not completed his requirements?"

 

I go into advancement BOR's with the assumption that the MB counselors, TG, SM, ASM/Advancement, and everyone else has done their job of making sure the requirements are fulfilled and properly recorded. Showing up at a BOR specifically called for advancement and the boy hasn't completed all the requirements, then there's something seriously wrong with the troop's record systems.

 

"However, Stosh, it seems to me the BOR IS the last requirement for advancement otherwise, and I hate to be really simplistic about this, there wouldn't be a box the same size as the one above it (where the SM signs) for the chair of the BOR to sign. That says to me, quite clearly, that the BOR can deny advancement much the same way the Senate can "not approve" an executive appointment. Or maybe I'm just making a complicated thing way too simple (sarcasm here is intended to be gentle).

 

I see it as a checks and balances system and however troops want to implement it within the really general guidelines we're provided is up to them. It's a really good way to see if your program is working but it absolutely should have a "formal" feel to it, IMO."

 

>>>>> The "boxes" you refer to for the BOR Chair and SM are indeed checks and balances, but not as a means to judge the boy. They are checks and balances to insure the integrity of the system supplied by the adults. For example, what's to keep the SM from simply writing off requirements for his son or pet scouts and over loading those who he doesn't like. Or a BOR that has too much ego and feels boys are too whimpy to progress at a level they expect. These two requirements make sure the system works as it should, not as someone's personal opinion suggests. Two deep leadership is for the protection of everyone, not just the boys. If a boy is not getting his requirements fulfilled in an appropriate manner/time frame, a BOR is conviened to inquire why. If a boy's requirements are being signed off and he's not doing the work, a BOR is conviened to inquire why.

 

A BOR is a working fuction of support within the troop. If it's only showing up to pass judgment on boy's advancement, they are simply not doing their job, and that's not the boy's fault. The troop can be a failure to the boys as much as the boy can be a failure to the troop.

 

Stosh

[Vicki]

Stosh, the boxes are there to indicate that the Scout has completed the advancement required for the rank and four to seven adults (or older sccouts) agree. That's one SM and three to six on a BOR, per the book. SM does the basics and program, the BOR does the "philosophical" stuff and program. In an ideal world, that's done without power trips or judgment and a scout is never "denied" advancement, he is simply advised as to what he needs to do to complete the rank. I've been pretty lucky, I guess, cuz in the troops I've had the pleasure of serving it's worked pretty well. Obviously YMMV.

 

But, Stosh, I think we're closer to agreeing on the basics than we are disagreeing on the fine points.

 

Vicki

 

 

[Stosh]

Vickie,

 

I don't think we are disagreeing on the fine points, but the basic understanding of the purpose of fundamentally what the BOR is all about.

 

There are those who think the flow of authority runs from top down like a military or business organization. Sure, the PLC is "boy-led", but the mandates are still from the top down. The BOR is evidence of this dynamic. Adults passing judgment as if the boy's responsibility and/or authority is able to be challenged.

 

However, there are those like myself who think this authority is reversed. The patrol is the highest authority and the PLC, SM, Committee, BOR, etc, are all there to give guidance and support. And guidance/advice is not the same as mandates, and when you have a group that can override the integrity and decisions of the patrols and/or boys, then you undermine the authority of the patrol method. If the BOR is not designed and mandated to support, guide, and assist the patrol and it's membership, then it is part of a adult-led troop and patrol and patrol leadership is a sham. I think that's why these two "requirements" for advancement are appropriatedly named Board of REVIEW and Scoutmaster's CONFERENCE. Neither word reflects authority, decision-making, or directing of anything. Adults who add these dynamics to the process are in fact overstepping their authority, IMO of course.

 

For those who believe that gives too much authority and leadership to the boys, then one has to step back and ask themselves, isn't that what we're all about in the first place?

 

Stosh

[Vicki]

Stosh, I'm not talking about mandates and it seems to me you're startin' to get a little personal here. But this is the internet and it's hard to read another person's intent. I'm known to be all about this boy-led stuff, but adults are supposed to provide advice, guidance and support. From p. 124 of my Scoutmaster's Handbook, "The purpose of the board of review is not to retest but rather to ensure that he has completed all of the requirements, to determine the quality of his troop experience, and to encourage him to advance toward the next rank. Each review should also include a discussion of ways in which the Scout sees himself living up to the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life." and "At the end of the review, the Scout will leave the room while the board members discuss his qualifications. Then they will call him back to tell him that he is qualified for his new rank, or to outline very clearly what more he must do in order to successfully complete the requirements."

 

That's pretty much how I described our BOR process and as long as you're covering those bases, you've done a BOR. If you're not covering these topics, without adding to them, then you may want to think about things a little bit more. It's a fine line we walk in guiding and teaching and allowing mistakes to happen and be learned from. A safe atmosphere in which to take risk is the goal (which I think I said in a prior e-mail). Boy-led does not mean only the boys have responsibility.

 

Vicki (fixed a typo)(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[Hunt]

In my son's troop, we have had situations in which there was a mistake that got by the SM, and the boy was not in fact ready for his BOR. This was pretty obvious from examination of the records (ie, not enough time in POR). There was no need to grill the boy about whether he had really completed the requirements. You really can't do more than spot-check, anyway, unless you have a suspicion that something wasn't really done.

However, I am aware of occurrences in other troops in which boys "failed" BORs because they were unable to demonstrate certain skills on demand, even thought the requirement was signed off (such as tying knots). Since the requirement is to have tied the knot, not to be able to tie it at the BOR, this is just wrong.

We've read accounts here of boys failing BORs becuase of perceived problems with their morals or degree of Scout Spirit. I can understand these, but there is a real problem in the unit if the SM signed off Scout Spirit and the BOR disagrees.

[Stosh]

A combination of TroopMaster software, ASM Advancement Chair, SM and the boy's record, we have a pretty good idea who's ready for BOR. If the system allows for a boy's record to be questioned at a BOR it's the system that needs to be fixed.

 

If there's a question as to Scout Spirit between SM and BOR, then there's something wrong with the communication between these two.

 

If there's a problem with any of this, it needs to be addressed and corrected by the Troop Committee.

 

And when all is said and done, the only one that ends up on the short end of the adult run system "stick" is the boy, and how often is it the boy's fault? In all my years of scouting I have yet to find the scout that is trying to sneak something past the "powers to be" and get an advancement he's not entitled to. I have had them question certain requirements, but they have been resolved long before they reach any SM conference or BOR situations.

 

Stosh

[scottteng]

Sometimes the problem is as simple as the BOR members define terms differently than the program side. Using the aforementioned requirement for second class 2D is: "Use the tools listed in requirement 2c to prepare tinder, kindling, and fuel for a cooking fire." if you ask any of the second or first class scouts in our troop if they have done 2D they will give you the deer in the headlights look. The question to ask them is if they have earned their totin and fireman chits. They will know they have those as those convey privileges that requirement 2D does not even though the material has been covered. We are sneaky we know they don't like to work on requirements so we put the pills in some fun syrup so they do not know they are getting them. Sometimes the people on the BOR need to be referred for some updated training like the committee member who asked me after my sons BOR for First class why he was confused on the use of a tourniquet. He had been asked when to use one and he had correctly answered never. I was at the Red Cross class with him where they covered this because someone had called attention to the fact that my first aid skills were severely out of date just like the committee member in question.

[acco40]

These are indisputable facts:

 

1) Scouts can fail a BOR

2) BOR decisions must be unanimous

3) One purpose of the BOR is to check to see if all of the requirements for rank have been met

 

Therefore, by definition, if a BOR member feels that they need to see the boys The Boy Scout Handbook to ascertain "3", ergo, Scout failed BOR.

 

Now, is that correct or fair? That is a different question.