BOR approval on POR

[Oak Tree]

Gold Winger points out the following quote on a council web site.

 

This is about the most non-sensical thing I've read recently. I know what Beavah is talking about when he says that councils sometimes make a hash of things. Is this really the national position?

 

Serving in a position of leadership means that if they are elected or appointed to a position, such as Patrol Leader, and serve in that position for the required time, they have satisfactorily completed that requirement. The conclusion is that time in position fulfills the requirement.

The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review.

 

So a boy can satisfactorily complete the requirement with unsatisfactory service? Any lawyers want to parse this one?

[Gonzo1]

It was posted some time ago that a BOR des not "withold" advancement, but can declare that the scout has not earned the next rank - yet.

 

Allow him ( and his parents )to know why and what corrective action to take.

 

[CalicoPenn]

So what would be the corrective action? Serve another six months to complete a requirement they have already "satisfactorily completed"? Make the Scout do the requirement twice? What's next - make a Scout go earn a Merit Badge twice because the BOR wants him too?

 

This reads to me a way of saying to a Scout "You met the requirement but you didn't meet the requirement". Huh??? It also reads to me "You will never be a Star (Life, Eagle) Scout because you met the requirement but we decided you didn't do a good enough job and we can't make you do the requirement over again since you already met the requirement".

 

I wonder if this is a view point of just this Council's advancement committee or is this universal?

 

Calico

[Gonzo1]

Simply being elected to a POR and sewing on a badge of office (I'm sorry, having mom sew on the badge of office) doesn't *satisfy* the requirement. The scout should perform at the office, to include a laudry list of items like attend and participate in PLC's, get trained, lead your patrol in __________, etc. Corrective action may or may not be another 6 month term, that's up to the unit. Instead of whining about poor performing leaders, MAKE 'EM LEAD or they haven't earned the next rank.

 

Look at it this way: Scout joins at 11, he has until he's 18 to earn Eagle. If the scout drags his feet, that's HIS problem.

 

[evmori]

The Scoutmaster is the determining factor for POR. If a Scout has the time in a POR & does nothing & the Scoutmaster signs the requirement, done deal. The BOR is to review. If during that review, something comes up it can be addressed with the Scoutmaster to prevent future happenings.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[John-in-KC]

The old Junior Leader Training materials had very good job descriptions of what was expected for a position of responsibility. The paperwork, though, is just a starting point.

 

A POR begins with the SCOUTMASTER, as the PROGRAM officer. He is the one who sets standards and expectations. He should do this through his SPLs (over time) and PLC. If the bar is high, the quality of what the individual Scouts do will be fairly high. If the bar is low, then the quality will be low.

 

From my experience, the Scout seeking a POR has to "buy-in" to what he's going to do. Further, his parents have to buy-in to what the POR is. If the parent isn't going to support the kid, or worse, is in active opposition to the kid (yes, I've seen it happen), the Scout is almost set up for failure!!

 

When a Scout gets a POR, we have to remember that most will probably be high-direction, low support (lots of telling him what to do), and will move to high direction, high support (still lots of telling him what to do, but more encouragement and praise). The SM, ASM, and Committee folk overseeing particular tasks (equipment coordinator, advancement coordinator) have to understand and buy into this.

 

Understand me clearly: If a kid doesn't perform, we have to do some serious evaluation, both of him and of us. If we are not clear in expectations, if we are not clear in providing him the training he needs to do the job... be that training youth led or adult led, woe betide us Scouters, we have let the Scout down.

 

I've said it before here, I say it again: Removing a Scout from his POR and invalidating the time served is the program measure of last resort. If we're using the tool given us in the 2007 ACP&P #33088 more than 2% of the time, we as Scouters are wrong. By and large, kids want to succeed. Kids want to impress their peers and betters.

 

So, if a Scout is an open question mark for the quality of service rendered at his rank advancement BOR, then it's time for the CC and the SM to re-visit how PORs are implemented in a Troop; something is not right in Scout-town!

 

YIS

[scoutldr]

I sit frequently on Eagle Boards of Review as the District representative. Quite frankly, when a scout enters the EBOR room, and he is either within spitting distance of age 18, or already over age 18, it's too late to be deciding if he performed or not. The SM is the one who certifies that the requirement was met on the Eagle application. If there is a troop culture of "wear the patch, sign it off", without requiring the scout to actually DO anything, then the troop committee needs to address that during earlier BOR, when there is time to correct it. But to string a scout along for years and then have a "District guy" (me) come in and demand a higher standard is not fair to the scout. These are matters of troop leadership that is the realm of the Troop Committee, SM and Unit Commissioner. Yes, I have signed off on EBOR where the scout didn't have a clue what his POR meant. But then is not the time to raise the BS flag. Scoutmasters, start doing your jobs!

[scoutingagain]

The issue isn't whether or not a scout should satifactorily perform in his POR, it's who gets to determine that.

 

I would find it very difficult to believe a BOR would reverse an acceptance of a POR. This is a unit level issue. If the scout is elected or appointed to the position and the SM signs off on the requirement, it's a done deal, short of a BOR proving conspiracy and fraud on the part of the SM and the scout. Poor or unsatisfactory performance or negligence on the part of unit level adult leadership will not negate a scouts passing this requirement. I've sat in on a number of Eagle BORs and other than asking a scout what his POR was, there has never been any discussion on how well he did or didn't do the job that would effect the finding of the Board.

 

Based on some of the appeals I know that have been overturned by National in my own district, I'm certain that any district level BOR that delayed a scouts advancement because they thought the scout did not perform in their POR, after the SM has already signed off on this requirement would be reversed on appeal.

 

While taking anything written in these forums with a grain of salt is a wise thing to do, I would say the same thing about anything written on a Council Website as well. These are not "official" BSA postions, but usually the opinions of council staff and volunteers.

 

SA

 

 

[Gold Winger]

A BOR is not a rubber stamp interview. One of the purposes of the BOR is to determine if the requirements were indeed met by the Scout. If a Scout is signed off for having cooked for his patrol and you determine that he didn't cook but the Troop Guide signed off because it was cold and dark then you withhold advancement at that time.

 

The same should be true for a POR. If you know that he didn't do the job then he shouldn't advance.

 

If National has another view it is for the same reason that they define "active" as "registered." $$$.

 

 

[evmori]

I dunno GW. If the Scout did nothing & was under the impression he completed the POR requirement because he wasn't given any guidelines or guidance from the SM, I would say the onus falls on the SM. Now, if the Scout did nothing & was given guidelines & guidance from the SM, then I would agree.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[gwd-scouter]

I have to agree with others who stated that it is the SM responsibility to see that Scouts with PORs are doing what is expected of them. Why would a SM want to wait until six months has gone by to then let a Scout know that he has not successfully managed his POR? Even worse, why would a SM sign off a POR, and then have a BOR decide to overturn his decision?

 

I was actually a part of something similar many years ago: Scout was having his BOR for Star Rank. I was serving as Advancement Chair for the Troop at the time and this was my first BOR so I was not even close to having the experience I assumed the other two members of the BOR had. I hadn't been to training yet and never served on a BOR, so I had no idea that when the other guys asked this boy to tie knots, that wasn't OK. When they mentioned his attendance was lacking (not 50% as required in the Troop bylaws), I didn't know that wasn't OK. They mentioned that because of his poor attendance, he shouldn't get credit for his POR (patrol leader at the time if I remember correctly). But what really got me was that both these men turned him down for advancement. One of those men was an ASM for the Troop, the other a Committee member who went on all the campouts. It seemed to me they had it out for this kid. Yes, I knew him, and he wasn't one of the more popular Scouts in the Troop. It just didn't seem right to me and I spoke up about it, but was overruled.

 

Boy's father came to the Troop meeting the next week and complained to the SM. SM said it was the Board's decision and he couldn't do anything about it.

 

So, I go back to what other's have said. It is most certainly the SM's responsibility to see that the requirements for advancement are being met. BOR provides feedback to the SM. We had an instance about a year back. After a Scout's BOR for 1st class, one of the members came to me and mentioned that during discussion about 1st aid, this Scout didn't really know what the Heimlich maneuver was. That was excellent feedback and allowed me to check the Scout's handbook and see who signed off on it. We had recently started having our older Scouts sign off for the younger Scouts and this gave me the opportunity to talk with the instructors and work with them to strengthen their skills sessions. Yes, Scout got his 1st class and does now know the Heimlich maneuver.

[FScouter]

"If National has another view it is for the same reason that they define 'active' as 'registered.' $$$."

 

It's fun to be cynical, kinda gives one a warm fuzzy feeling. But BSA doe not define active = registered. We hear that a lot around the ol' Scouting water cooler, from cynics. What pray tell does $$$ have to do with being either a definition of active or a definition of registered.

[evmori]

When they mentioned his attendance was lacking (not 50% as required in the Troop bylaws), I didn't know that wasn't OK. They mentioned that because of his poor attendance, he shouldn't get credit for his POR (patrol leader at the time if I remember correctly).

 

Sounds like this Scout was turned down for attendance rather than not performing his POR. Ya can't do that! There are no attendance requirements regardless of what the Troop bylaws require! The bylaws are adding to the requirements which is a big NO NO.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[gwd-scouter]

Yes, I agree with you Ed. His POR was tied into his attendance. You know, a guy can't do his POR if he's not there to do it, kind of thing. Fortunately, our troop has come a long way since those days.

[FScouter]

"Fortunately, our troop has come a long way since those days."

 

Does the troop still have "bylaws"?