Can rank be taken away after committee has approved

[evmori]

Something is amiss here! Nothing posted by kittle indicates a reason to revoke the rank. It sorta sounds like time in a POR.

 

If the advancement form has not been turned in yet then nothing is official & the unit can choose to revoke a rank.

[SMT224]

Kittle -

 

It sounds like the taking back of your sons Life rank is just the tip of the ice berg. This Committee sounds cruel and poisonous. This is not what Scouting should be.

 

I guess you have three possible choices: 1) Don't make a fuss and try to stay off the Committees radar and hope you can bite your tongue for the next 15 years; 2) Stand up to the Committee and let them know their behavior and tactics are wrong; 3) find another Troop.

 

I wish you and your sons the best in which ever you path you choose.

 

 

Intimidate

tr.v. intimidated, intimidating, intimidates

1. To fill with fear.

2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats.

intimidatingly adv.

intimidation n.

intimidator n.

Synonyms: intimidate, browbeat, bully,

These verbs all mean to frighten into submission, compliance, or acquiescence. Intimidate implies the presence or operation of a fear-inspiring force.

Browbeat suggests the persistent application of highhanded, disdainful, or imperious tactics: browbeating a witness.

To bully is to intimidate through blustering, domineering, or threatening behavior: workers who were bullied into accepting a poor contract.

 

 

Bully

n. pl. bullies

1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.

v. bullied, bullying, bullies

1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner.

v.intr.

1. To behave like a bully.

2. To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation

 

[Beavah]

Yah, SM224, knock it off.

 

Yeh don't know these people, so you've got no business callin' them names or accusing 'em of anything.

 

Kittle, evmori has the right of it. You haven't shared what da reasons were for the committee changin' their mind after some reflection. Until you share that, there's not much more any of us here can offer.

 

I suppose I'm a bit curious how yeh happen to know the real content of a private phone conversation between an MC and the cubmaster? If you're runnin' around trying to run interference for your son then I reckon that may be the source of "the politics of it." Your prior posts have some of that, eh? No way to tell from afar how much is attributable to da troop committee and how much is you/your son.

 

If I may suggest goin' forward, your son needs a leadership position which you are not involved in. The Den Chief role where you are so heavily involved in the pack was a poor choice. I suspect da other folks in your small troop need to see your teenager stand on his own two feet, eh? I suspect your teenager really needs that, too. There are a lot of benefits from adult association.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SMT224]

Whoa there Beavah!

 

Once someone posts in these here forums it's all our business to help 'em figure it out and come to a solution that works best for everyone. If a SM and Scout feel like they cannot speak to a CC or any CM as to why something like this happened, then there is a problem. Of course we don't know what the story is on the other side, and we have to base all our advice on what has been posted. In the mean time, someone like kittle can take our advice or leave it - and hopefully provide us with more details things evolve on their end.

 

As far as your message, at no point did I call anyone names or accuse!

 

Maybe there is nothing wrong with this committee and this all stems from communication problems. But a Scout, parent and ASM should get a far better explanation for such an action, and should be able to approach the committee to inquire as to the reasons for their decision with out concern as to how the EBOR will be handled.

 

[Lisabob]

That sort of an action certainly raises red flags. Let's start with an assumption that everyone is in earnest and nobody is trying to play politics on any side of this. (That might not be an accurate assumption but sometimes it helps to suppose that good will and common sense can prevail, and proceed from that assumption to a range of possible responses.)

 

Based on that assumption, this might be a "goof" of an inexperienced committee who either did not understand the BOR process, or who did not realize the implication of their action. Friendly communication, perhaps including the CC and SM, can fix this. Perhaps your son can request a SMC and ask the SM to help him understand what happened here, as a way to get this particular ball rolling.

 

It might be that there was genuine question about the time frame in which your son performed his den chiefing duties. That might have arisen from a lack of record keeping on the troop's end (or the pack's end). That can probably also be resolved by your son politely showing the SM a calendar with dates of his DC service marked off. For future reference it might also help to teach your son to confirm all sorts of details (like purely verbal POR appointments) in an email to include all relevant parties. And then to save that email in perpetuity. (A good skill for adult working life, too) Something like "Dear Scoutmaster Smith and Den Leader Jones, I am excited to accept the opportunity you have offered me to be a den chief for den 3 of Pack 100. As we discussed, I'll expect to begin on ___ date. I look forward to working with you to flesh out the details of my den chief service. Thanks again for this great opportunity. Yours in Scouting, Jimmy Scout."

 

It might be that there was a miscommunication between the den leader, the cubmaster, the committee member, and the scoutmaster. Who knows exactly what might have been misconstrued there. This can be resolved by your son politely asking to be clued in, and rectifying any misinformation that was passed along.

 

It might be that your son (somehow unbeknownst to you) has been routinely skipping out on den meetings, not doing as the DL has asked, or otherwise doing a very poor job as a den chief. While unlikely, it remains possible. In that case, I agree that the troop and the pack have been remiss not to bring up any problems long ago. And to some degree, this is one of those where "time in POR" counts, whether the POR is done well, or not. That's the policy side of things. On the other hand though, if it were my kid and he was doing a really lousy job, while I'd far prefer that nothing came out of the blue months later, I'd also want him to learn a lesson that poor performance does not entitle you to promotion. If that's the situation, I'd encourage my son to come to some agreement with the SM about what he needs to do in order to improve, and then to do it. And later, I'd have a side conversation with the SM about how the troop might better prepare and monitor boys while they are in their PORs, too.

 

In all of the above scenarios, I would also hope that the troop (and pack) adults would do a refresher course on their training. If a friendly and competent UC exists, that might be a good thing for that individual to advocate and arrange. If no such UC is present then a friendly chat with the SM, the CC, and the Cub leaders all at the table together might still result in agreement for better training and better communication so that future boys don't have to deal with this adult miscommunication.

 

And for what it is worth, I don't think it is fair for your son to have been caught between adults like has apparently happened, no matter what the explanation.

 

 

 

 

[sherminator505]

"Rank can be "taken back" - ask a few "former" Eagles who've had their rank removed."

 

This exact question was raised on another thread and no one posting there is aware of a specific case where this has actually happened. Do you have any more information on this?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[kittle]

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.

 

Beevah, I have not been trying to run interference for my son. If I had been, he would already been Eagle and we would be out of the Troop for a few years. I know the content of the conversation because the CM shared with me the conversation before she knew what had happened to my son.

 

My son chose this POR because he wanted to help the Cubs in this small Pack and to do his part to maybe keep it active for the boys in our town. I was not overly involved from February when he took on his duties until this last week when I took over as DL and brought my younger son back to the local Pack. I have helped the CM out as she has needed it and helped to teach some of the skills that she might not have been as familiar with.

 

Most of you have been really friendly and tried to help. I will try not to come back to this forum for help in the future. It has been nice.

[NealOnWheels]

Sorry you are having a bad experience here. Something I have learned long ago is you need thick skin to post on internet forums.

 

It seems to me that you do not have any idea why your son's Life was overturned. Your son is entitled to know why and what should be done to rectify the situation. You should be able to get that without making a big fuss. Until you have that information then no one here can give you any advice on what to do next.

 

Don't let some peoples judgements bother you. And do come back and let us know how it goes.

[sandspur]

For what it is worth, a BOR decision is not final.

 

Case in point:

 

We had a scout present me (the advancement chair) with a record of passing his BOR. Unfortunately, when I checked (he obviously had not scheduled the BOR through me) I found he did not have enough eagle-required MB to meet requirements for the rank. Therefore, even though the BOR had not caught this and the SM had not noticed in the SM conference, the rank was not awarded.

 

In kittles case, it seems the BOR advancement was rescinded, rethought, whatever term you want to use. But we do not have enough information to know why. It may be the committee member brought to light a case where the requirements were not met and the BOR had not noticed. Maybe not. Her son is entitled to a clear answer and I hope it clears things up. I suggest she talk with the SM and advancement chair. If they are doing their jobs, they should be able to make the reasons for this action clear.

 

[SR540Beaver]

kittle,

 

I do hope you come back. With all due respect, you brought an issue to the forum asking a question. After repeated attempts to get to the heart of the matter, you still have not answered the question of why the SM said your son's rank was rescinded. We end up having to read between the lines. For instance, here are my assumptions. Your son claimed Den Leader as his POR. Was the POR approved by the SM prior to him holding the office? Was there an assumption that he had fulfilled the duties of the POR and then a claim made that he had not after the BOR had taken place? There has to be a reason.....legit or not....as to why they felt a need to rescind the rank. We still don't know what that is.

 

All that being said, I am unaware of any porcedures or regulations for rescinding a rank. Due dilligence should be preformed by all adults involved to make sure all the ducks are in a row before the process ever gets to the end of the BOR approving the rank. If a boy were to lie or cheat and claim the fulfillment of a rank requirement when it was not actually done, I could see where that might raise an eye brow. For instance, he got approval for doing a required service project, came back and told the SM he did it and the SM signs off only to find out later that the boy never actually showed up and participated. In that case, he didn't fulfill the requirement and lied his way thru the SM conference and BOR and earned his rank under false pretenses.

 

Understand, I am in no way saying your son did anything like that. It is just that when we don't get the details, we have to use our imagination to come up with why and how something like the rescinding of a rank would occur.

[SMT224]

Kittle -

For my part, I do apologize if any of my remarks were offensive. Believe me, no disrespect to you or your committee was meant by my more vigorous investigatory remarks.

I sincerely hope you return to this forum, for if no other reason than to let us know how things turned out.

-- SMT224

[Beavah]

I sent an apology to kittle by PM, but will repeat it here.

 

It's very difficult to guess at what's up from limited information, eh?

 

"I am an ASM with the Troop and have been helping this new Pack get started and going strong as they are a very small Pack from a very small town. I went to any meeting with him that I did not have to work." That to me said that mom was involved in da pack for the whole time son was a Den Chief.

 

"Part of the problem is that the SM never wrote down in the records when my son started as Den Chief.... By the way, my son took over helping this Pack at least 6 months before the SM would let him be Den Chief." Just sent up all kinds of red flags for me about communication, whether da SM approved him as Den Chief or mom pulled him in for the pack she was tryin' to help.

 

I can be right or wrong, eh? Each of us offers a perspective based on readin' very limited information through da lenses of our own experience. That all of us offer different advice and perspectives is how we are tryin' to be helpful. Da strength of internet forums is that you get that breadth of perspective and interpretation.

 

In tryin' to offer our perspectives, we don't always agree with da original poster, we sometimes offer hard advice, and we sometimes get on a bit of a tear. But we do it in charity and compassion.

 

I'm sorry if that tone of charity and compassion fails to come across when it should in my typin'. But it's there, nonetheless.

 

Beavah

 

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

From kittle - "The question asked of the Cub Master was only if their Pack met during the summer, which the answer was yes. Then was asked if my son attended those meeting, which the answer was yes. I am an ASM with the Troop and have been helping this new Pack get started and going strong as they are a very small Pack from a very small town. I went to any meeting with him that I did not have to work. Part of the problem is that the SM never wrote down in the records when my son started as Den Chief."

 

Obviously we don't know for sure what the problem was, but from the above I would be willing to hazard a guess that the question came up as to whether said Scout completed his POR time as Den Chief because dens were probably not meeting during summer months. If this was the case, it should have been anticipated and an agreement made between the Scout and Scoutmaster as to what his requirement time frame would be (to count summer or not).

 

[Mike F]

Still curious to hear the rationale.

 

Since we haven't heard anything, I'm going to hazard a guess it has to do with the summer months.

 

Dens around here do not meet during the summer, so our Den Chiefs know those months don't count to meet minimum service time for advancement. Even if there's a monthly Pack meeting, the level of responsibility is pretty minimal for a Den Chief. I have granted summer credit for a Den Chief who worked every day of our Cub Scout Day Camp and supported other Pack events during the summer.

 

It's not about meeting the minimum months of service, it's about the boy's growth through the process. Den Chief is an acceptable POR for Star - Eagle. To ensure the Scout has an adequate growth opportunity as a Den Chief, we set increasingly challenging standards for a Scout depending on his current rank. A First Class Scout (working on Star) assists the Den Leader, teaches a few skills, plans & runs a game activity, assists with discipline, etc. A Life Scout (working on Eagle) is expected to run some of the meetings with the Den Leader's assistance. This gives him the growth opportunity more closely equating to running a Patrol or Troop - something you'd expect of your Life Scouts.

 

As an aside, kittle mentioned her son not being allowed to hold two POR at one time. Is this true? We have had a number of Den Chiefs who continued as Den Chiefs at the same time they held other positions in the troop. We have one who is "double-badged" as Instructor and OA Rep right now. Are the POR Police coming to get me?

[kittle]

Beevah and SMT224, I hope you both got my messages. With that said, I will post again when we are given the rationale behind it. My whole point to begin with was that if th BOR had a problem, why didn't they ask him to show proof or whatever they wanted before revoking and marking it out in is book. Wouldn't that have been the best and least hurtful way of doing things?(This message has been edited by kittle)

 

By the way, Mike, I think it is just the policy of our Troop.(This message has been edited by kittle)