Not passing Board of Review

[shortridge]

First: It is a position of responsibility, not a position of leadership. The BOR's point of view seems to be a little out of whack if it's looking for demonstrations of leadership.

 

Second: The SPL should have been the one to set expectations of the Instructor he appointed from the start. Were they? If those expectations were not communicated, it's very difficult to judge someone on their performance.

 

Third: The SPL and SM see on a weekly basis the performance and progress of the youth the SPL appoints to leadership positions. They are the two people the BOR/committee needs to be meeting with to discuss this issue. It's apparent the first chat, about the OA rep, didn't take.

[John-in-KC]

What a can of worms.

 

First, why are not the CC and the SM sharing a common vision for the Troop? They need to have each others back. They need to cross-communicate, regularly ... and often away from the youth members.

 

If a Scout requests a BOR over the lack of recommendation of the SM, four people need to know about it, in advance:

- The youth himself.

- The CC.

- The youths' parents

- The Committee Advancement guy.

This is where Stosh's policy of delegating POR signoffs comes home to roost. I'm glad this is not Stosh's troop.

 

If you read various statements online, if a Scout is doing a poor job of executing his POR, one of the sad duties of the SM is to remove him before the clock tolls completion. If the Scout is allowed to complete his POR, if there isn't an audit trail about training and performance, the Troop will lose. Is there an audit trail? Was he removed for poor performance during his tenure? Who signed off on the POR service as acceptable? If it was anyone other than the SM, why?

 

Not passing an Advancement Board of Review is denial of advancement, according to ACP&P #33088. The Committee is obligated to do several things:

- They have to be able to share exactly why they are denying advancement.

- They have to share with him an improvement plan. He has to accept it.

- If he does not accept their improvement plan, they have to tell him about how he or his parents can challenge advancement with the District.

 

Most District Advancement Chairs I know are going to be really upset about dealing with an appeal below Eagle. Your Chartered Partner is going to get more "franchisor help from above" than you can deal with. I know at least one DE who will tell the IH/COR that he expects them to assert their ownership of the unit; he expects that the unit serving Scouters will smile as correct methods are rammed up where the sun does not shine.

 

Reading what we have here, to me, it sounds like the BOR needs to talk not about this boy with Mr SM, but needs to have a business discussion about leadership training and supervision during a boys' tenure. Now, if the boy has the correct training (unit JLT, council NYLT, a previous track record of success), then that's a different story, and upon the boy.

 

That this Scout will not advance today should be a surprise to no one in the unit. If it was a surprise, there are deep, systemic challenges between the committee and the program, and between the Scouters and the Scouts.

 

ETA: Shortridge, I agree with you that the SPL/ASPL should have been talking about quality of POR service with Mr SM all the way through, but at the end of the day, as Barry says "The Scoutmaster keeps the flame." He should be the one who signs off on the POR as acceptable.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[ScoutNut]

>>"When the board ended, the scout was asked to step outside so the board could discuss his advancement. Since it was time for the troop meeting to end, the scout ended up seeing his parent in the parking lot and leaving. His 6 months of Star actually is in the middle of the week so he knew his book could not be signed until the next meeting."

[eghiglie]

This is a tough position to be in. But having a BoR before the 6 months means that the Scoutmaster Conf was held early also, which does not quite agree with 6 months in the handbook. Believe it or not a Council will reject an Eagle app if the boy has less than 6 months between positions, and it does look strange if exactly 6 months passes between BoR's.

 

In the Council I'm with if a boy protests failing a BoR the decision will 99.99% of the time decide for the boy.

 

Good luck.

[Wens]

The BOR was two days before the 6 months. We were holding the review and then signing off the following troop meeting.

 

We will meet as a committee with the CC and SM to discuss the SPL/ASPL and even SM making sure these responsibility positions are being upheld to the best of the scouts ability. My question was actually if a Board of Review can even deny advancement and if I understand correctly, the answer is yes. I don't actually think that in this case, it is the right thing to do considering the SM Conference and lack of instruction from leadership for him.

 

The SM passed him through to the BOR. I believe this is where it should have been said "wait, you need to work on that position of responsibility" and then instruction should have been given by spl/sm/aspl/pl before holding the SMC.

[Basementdweller]

The BOR reasoning seems sound to me. I wonder what else is going on. If he was in the POR why did he only function only once or twice in six months.......what else is going on?

[Twocubdad]

Wens, since you consider the situation with the OA Rep as precedence, does that mean no Scout in your troop will ever have to fulfill a POR satisfactory? At what point do you correct the sitution and how?

[shortridge]

The SM passed him through to the BOR. I believe this is where it should have been said "wait, you need to work on that position of responsibility" and then instruction should have been given by spl/sm/aspl/pl before holding the SMC.

 

Who signed off on the POR requirement? At a minimum, that's where that discussion should have taken place.

[Wens]

The SM signed off on the POR. That was my concern that the Board would be over riding the SM. Is it worth it or is it better to fix the problem by making sure from now on the scouts do a better job in their resonsibility and have this scout work on another position as a life scout with close supervision from the troop.

[John-in-KC]

Other tough questions, and the SPL probably should not be a part of these...

 

Who has responsibility to provide training in the POR (what do I do, how do I do it)?

 

Who has responsibility for 1st line supervision of the POR as it's done?

 

Does the supervisor have responsibility to show/approve critical events where the POR is done (OATR has chapter meetings and Lodge/chapter events, and needs to report back to PLC as one example)?

 

Who is the first adult keeping an distant yet attentive eye on the POR holder and his 1st line supervision?

 

If the position requires external support (transportation to a district meeting, such as OA chapter), who provides the logistics? If Mom or Dad, which unit serving Scouter backs up the boy and explains that transportation is required for him to fulfill the POR?

 

If the answers to questions like these are complete, then there seem to be clear expectations, and why was the Scout signed off? OTOH, if the answers are incomplete or incoherent, then the leadership supervision of youth officers lacks a brick or two, and training of adults is in order.

 

If a troop sets the standard that "wearing the patch is POR completion", then that's what they'll get. If the Troop sets a higher bar, it'll be achieved. The principal program officer is the guy who sets the tone for the bar to be higher.... your ball, Mr SM.

[evmori]

A SM conference can take place anytime!

 

If this Scout had not completed EVERYTHING for rank, then the BOR should have never happened! And realizing that this Scout still had one week to go to complete his POR requirement, the BOR should have stopped and told the Scout to come back when EVERYTHING was complete.

[BrentAllen]

I don't recognize Scouting as it is presented in most of this thread. Hemming and hawing, jumping thru loopholes, twisting wording, legal-ezing, etc. This is not corporate America, and it's not a government agency. This is a group of parents volunteering to run a youth program in the community, where they want the local boys to get the most out of the program.

 

I commend the Board for setting a high bar. Kenk asked where the boy failed to meet the requirements. Right here, copied from your own post: "The board should make sure that a good standard of performance has been met."

 

In Scouting, we allow the boys to learn thru failure, providing a safety net so they don't fall too far. The Board can point out to this young man where he needs to improve, and he can grow from the experience. This is a much better outcome than passing him for a job he didn't do, where the lesson is "be an Instructor for your POR, you hardly have to do anything, it is easy!" You can blame adults or youth who are "supervisors" if you want, but this boy is going for Life - he needs to show A LOT of self-motivation. He needs to be approaching the SPL with ideas, finding ways to work with the SPLs program, instead of waiting to be spoon-fed jobs to do.

 

Me, personally, I think that if I ever felt I had to go to the district or council to get them to force the Troop on an advancement issue, I would just find another Troop. You either trust the adults leading the program, or you don't. If you don't feel the adults are acting in the best interest of your son, he shouldn't be in that Troop.

[Eagle92]

A few of my observations.

 

1) BOR was NOT legitimate b/c the time requirement was not met. As others have noted this can cause SERIOUS problems when it comes time to get approved for Eagle. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT AND DON'T WANT ANYONE TO GO THROUGH WHAT I WENT THROUGH (caps for emphasis, not shouting). Let's just say you always want to make sure council has THEIR records straight and the registrar puts in the info as reported on the advancement report, not when she puts it into the system.

 

2) The illegitimate BOR was NEVER completed as the scout left before the decision was made. Again if a scout leaves BEFORE a decision is made, he has left the BOR early and it cannot continue. This really, really surprises me. A scout who is going for Life SHOULD know the process by this point, going through it for the previous 4 ranks.

 

3)If parents wanting to leave is the excuse for the Scout to leave the BOR early, then it should be made clear that it was the responsibility of the SCOUT to inform them that he is waiting on a decision as he should have known the process at this point. Also the parent should hav known the process as well.

 

 

Edited: being asked to wait outside while deliberations are made is differnt from going outside, and leaving. And in my expereince, you can be asked to go outside twice during a BOR for deliberations.

(This message has been edited by eagle92)

[OldGreyEagle]

I can understand the strum and drang over having a boy advance when the requirements were not met. I also do not understand the furor over making sure the individual is held to the highest standards possible and very little, if anything, is said about the Troop, the person who signed off the requirements or the process that allowed an ill prepared youth to advance.

 

Having a boy not advance after a Board of Review should happen only once, after that, the troop would assure itself that boys going to a Board of Review would have completed the requirements by having controls on the system that did not allow unprepared youth in. The Board of Review also reviews the Unit's program and if the unit is allowing unprepared youth sit for Advancement Boards fo Review, changes are in order

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

I'm with BrentAllen here, eh? A whole lot of what's been written in this thread I don't even recognize as the Scouting program. It certainly seems to have very little to do with teaching boys character.

 

Here we have a young fellow who either didn't show much responsibility for his position of responsibility, or perhaps he was in one of these "make believe" PORs where da troop program doesn't really offer the opportunity to show real responsibility because that position isn't really used.

 

Either way, the boy didn't learn what he needed to at this stage in his scoutin' career. No problem, no stress, he just keeps workin' at it, and so does the troop. Not making rank is like not clearin' a level in a video game, eh? The fun and the game just continue. It's only adults who really don't understand scouting that get all steamed up about "passing" and "failing" and trying to turn a game into some exercise in pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo.

 

Wens, from my perspective, your committee members on da BOR did their job, eh? They reviewed the lad in light of what they and the CO want to accomplish with Scouting, and in light of the BSA's goals and expectations, and are telling the lad "nope, not yet." At the same time, they are reviewing the program, and are telling the Scoutmaster and others "Hey, we have to work harder on this. We let this fellow down, and we should do better." Both are exactly right.

 

If da SM gets in a twit about that, then I reckon it's time to find a new SM. Like TwoCubDad, I would accept his resignation. Scoutin' is a collaborative endeavor, and the SM ain't the king. And quite frankly, it doesn't sound like the fellow you have really has the vision and the spunk to make a scouting program hum. Bein' lax in evaluating PORs often means a program is lax in a number of other important areas. And as Eagle92 points out, da committee ain't helpin' by being lax about BOR dates either, eh? It ain't a race.

 

There's a big difference between doing what's right for kids and giving boys awards, eh? And a big difference between feelin' boys are owed awards and feelin' boys earn awards. In good scoutin', boys really learn skills and responsibility, and after they really learn it they get tested and evaluated for real, and after they get tested and evaluated for real they get reviewed to make sure that they really have learned and grown, and only after all that does a boy get recognized with an award, eh?

 

That's the scoutin' method. And if it's done right, everyone has already "recognized" this fellow as a Life Scout (especially his peers!) before he ever gets da patch. They see it in his skills and behavior.

 

Sounds like your program isn't there yet. That's somethin' to be fixed. Hold the line with the boy, because you owe it to him. Yeh promised to deliver the promise of scoutin' in terms of his personal growth, and yeh haven't done that yet. And hold the line with your adults and program, and make sure yeh make the changes to give the lad the scoutin' experience he deserves.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)