Boards of Review

[GoldFox]

We have a unit that still conducts boards of review for the first 3 ranks using youth scouts who hold the rank of the BOR or higher. Then an adult signs off on the advancement form. This has been going on for at least 9 years that I know of. I have alerted the district about this and the DE and to date nothing has been done to stop this practice. I do not want to go to Council because I do not want to penalize the youth because of their adult leaders. Any suggestions on how to fix this?

[evmori]

Alert the Council. This is a direct violation of the Advancement Policies.

 

You can also find a new unit.

[hendrickms24]

Was conducts boards of review for the first three ranks by youth scouts ever part of the Advancement Policies? My troop during the 80's did it that and I was just wondering if that was policy at one point.

 

Thanks

 

Mark M.

 

[Eagle92]

Yep my troop also had youth onthe T-1-2 BORs in the 80s. They stopped sometime in the late80s early 90s. A few things I liked about the policy.

 

1) it gave the youth experience in conducting things simliar to BORs like job interviews.

2) Youth at times have a better grasp of the indiviudal's attitudes than adults.

3) It reemphasizes the leadership roles and responsibilities of the youth leaders.

 

Again i don't remember exactly when or why the troop stopped having youth on the BORs, but I did like the idea.

[click23]

We still have a few troops that do it that way, and the troop I was in while I was a youth in the mid 90s did it that way. One of the cons is that the BOR is a quality control indicator for the troop committee.(This message has been edited by click23)

[OldGreyEagle]

Yes, Youth on Boards of Review was a part of the Program, but it no longer is. Having youth sit on the Boards of Review is like having a scout Morse Code or Semaphore to get First Class, yes it was part of the Program but now it isn't.

 

At some point each leader decides to follow the program he promised he would when he signed up or they decide to go their merry way cherry picking what they like and ignoring what they don't. Some may suceed and some may fail. I dont think its right, but thats jut my opinion

[ljnrsu]

Ditto Ed alert Council.

Yes T-2-1 reviews were done by Scouts from 1972-1989, they were called Progress Reviews. The PLC did the review with 1 TC nonvoting member.

[Beavah]

Yah, and before then too, eh?

 

Youth servin' on boards of review goes back a long time. The program change happened in 1990, and a lot of units shifted only gradually. As GoldFox points out, there are still plenty out there that use the practice, or some hybrid of includin' one youth member.

 

GoldFox, if you've alerted the district and the DE, then you've already alerted the council, eh? The DE is on the council payroll, and several folks on the district committee serve on council committees and boards. You've done everything you can do unless you hold a senior adult leadership position in the unit, which I'm guessing from your posting that you don't.

 

So at this point, relax and go with the flow, or go find a different unit to be a part of if it bothers you so much. In the grand scheme of things, this is an old program feature, but it's not an awful thing or a youth protection issue.

 

Of course, if yeh keep it up, the troop may ask yeh to go find a new unit as well.

 

Beavah

 

Added: GoldFox, please tell us you aren't usin' this issue just to make trouble for the troop that moved in across the street from you and is competin' with you for members (?).

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[John-in-KC]

My take:

 

If that's the single biggest challenge your District has, you have tremendous Troops in your District.

 

Agreed: It's no longer strictly according to Hoyle.

 

Disagree: It's a dangerous program/support element which will result in major G2SS and YP violations.

 

Has your COR been trained to understand what right should look like? Is he instructing the Troop to follow National policy? Has your friendly Unit Commissioner been by to make a quiet comment to the CC and/or SM? Are your SM/CC/ASMs/MCs current on training?

 

If no, you've not yet used all your local resources...

[Lisabob]

What is your relation to this troop? If you are an adult in the troop or if you are on the district advancement team, or if you are the unit commissioner assigned to that troop, or if you are part of the charter org. for the troop, or if you are the parent of a boy in the troop then you have a legit reason to pursue the issue. How you pursue it, or to what degree, may depend on a bunch of other things, but at least you have "standing," so to speak.

 

If you are none of those, then you run the risk of being viewed as a nosy outsider looking to cause trouble where none is warranted.

 

You're right that the troop is not following current rules and for that reason alone, probably ought to stop it. But there may be a laundry list of other, more pressing, priorities for folks to concentrate on dealing with first.

 

 

[GoldFox]

Bevah,

 

I was with the troop and am no longer there. It bothers me because the boys on these BORs retest the youth and it becomes a popularity contest. Boys who don't like one boy are harder on them then others. I was pretty sure I had done everything it just gets in my craw that this unit knows it it wrong - they have been told many times - but continues to do it anyway.

 

By the way they are not the unit across the street.

[Beavah]

Yah, GoldFox, yeh did what you could, eh? Couldn't change 'em so you voted with your feet. Other parents and kids might make different choices.

 

Time to let go of old negatives and throw your positive energy into your boy's new troop. Much more fun and productive!

 

Beavah

 

[Kudu]

You can always tell a bad idea in Scouting by how quickly someone quotes the "rules."

 

The irony is that the BSA is the only Scouting association on earth that tries to keep their rules away from their volunteers. The only actual BSA rules that most of us have ever read are the occasional passages that appear in bold print in publications such as the Guide to Safe Scouting. How many of you "obey the secret rules" advocates teach your Scouts to follow your personal example and sign things they do not bother to read?

 

Boards of Review are a bad idea looking for a new purpose.

 

Currently that purpose is to:

 

1) Provide "feedback" to a bunch of adults called a "Troop Committee."

 

2) Turn Scouting into business school by subjecting boys to job interviews.

 

3) Keep Scouting adult-run (in conjunction with other anti-Patrol Method practices such as Scoutmaster Conferences, Blue Cards, six-month PORs, and the ultimate adult-run wild card called "Scout Spirit" requirements).

 

4) Maintain the "Troop Method" (which is why Scouts serving on Boards of Review is just another bad idea looking for a new purpose).

 

The original purpose of Boards of Review (at the time called "Courts of Honor" in the BSA) was to take the power of advancement away from the individual Patrol Leaders (collectively what Baden-Powell at the time called the "Court of Honor") and turn Scouting into school (yet another YMCA-inspired direct violation of B-P's most fundamental principles of Scouting)

 

Courts of Honor in the BSA were a nightmare of written and oral examinations conducted by the local Council (The Scout Masters' Handbook, first edition, page 64). See:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/064-Scout_Exams.htm

 

If a Scout did poorly in his written exams, his entire Patrol was penalized by a point system maintained by the local Council (ibid, page 67).

 

Courts of Honor were based on the premise that a Scout is not really Trustworthy. According to the BSA theories that established BORs, the Scoutmaster (not the Patrol Leader) was the "real leader" (In fact that was one of the official BSA six methods of Scouting at the time ("The Scout Master as a Real Leader"): "Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader...The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader..." (ibid, page 85), See:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/index.htm

 

But "Scout Masters" could not be trusted to sign off on their own Scouts either! So in areas without local Council offices to administer school examinations, the "rules" (that everyone loved so much at the time) required Scoutmasters to find another local Troop to conduct these batteries of written and oral examinations (ibid, page 64).

 

So Scouts helping conduct BORs or not: When you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig.

 

My unit-based solution? Turn the BOR into a scavenger hunt in which a Scout is required to identify three Committee Members and collect their signatures in his handbook. The only rule is that when challenged, a Committee Member must acknowledge his position and sign the Scout's handbook immediately. If that adult is not a dult, he or she should be able to use the opportunity to strike up a productive conversation with the Scout. If not, then why institutionalize their incompetency by giving them power over that Scout?

 

For those who insist that a Board of Review should teach job skills, the "Board of Review Scavenger Hunt" has obvious transferable skills in the exciting field of process serving!

 

As far as "rules" go, maybe Beavah or anyone with a copy of the elusive BSA rules & regulations, can check to see if the so-called "Advancement Policies" are actual rules? Unless they appear in bold print in the uncensored publications, they are probably just the opinions of some national advancement committee.

 

The "Centennial Uniform" proves that we can always find loopholes to get around these anti-real-Scouting old men who serve on national Scouting committees.

 

Kudu(This message has been edited by kudu)

[CA_Scouter]

Woah Kudu!

 

Would it help if we keep the participants 300 feet apart?

 

;-)

 

 

 

[Kudu]

CA_Scouter writes:

 

"Would it help if we keep the participants 300 feet apart?"

 

Yes, that will solve everything.

 

Baden-Powell's suggestion that Patrols be kept a minimum of 100 yards apart on multi-Patrol campouts is the closest most "21st century" Troops can come to meeting William Hillcourt's BSA definition of a "Real Patrol" (one that hikes and camps without adult supervision).

 

If you read "What is Expected of Me" on page 8 of The Patrol Leader Handbook you will see that all 12 points are concerned with being a business manager and a good boy. There is no hint of adventure! (Only "activities," which the Chief Scout Executive defines as "sitting side by side with adults of character").

 

300 feet is all about inexpensive adventure on a monthly basis. It might not seem like much to you, but to boys it is something special, especially after dark. It requires real leadership, not the six-month-wonder TLT skills that replaced "Patrol Leader Training."

 

William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt was not able to overturn the BSA's YMCA legacy of boring schoolwork Merit Badges and adult-run Boards of Review, but through the force of the office of James West he did temporarily return to America a "lite" version of Baden-Powell's Patrol System, which the YMCA had stamped out in 1910 and business nerds stamped out again in 1965 and 1972 with their introduction of six-month POR requirements in 1965 (the year of GBB's retirement), and the invention of "Leadership Development" seven years later.

 

The 300' "Real" Patrol Method puts everything into a more boy-friendly perspective and naturally orders adult priorities.

 

Yes, and 99% of the BSA's popularity problems can be solved by moving the Patrols 100 yards apart. Everything else follows from that single physical reality.

 

Kudu