Falsification of requirements

[SMT224]

Thanks for the point of clarification mbrigham.

 

Based on your earlier post, I thought he had signed his own book with his own initials.

 

But when the "scout had placed inaccurate dates and the initials of the other ASM", that is outright forgery. He clearly knew what he was doing and knew he was pulling the wool over everyone eyes.

 

If this were a Scout in out Troop there would be an SMC, and depending on the outcome, likely a meeting with the parents. This kind of behavior falls far outside the Scout Law - especially the first point. If he lies about it, or appears to have no understanding that he did something wrong, then the consequences could be far more severe than the recension of rank.

 

When I do SMC, I do not re-test, but I do discuss how he achieved the requirements for that rank. I ask the Scout about the requirement and what it was like to achieve it and what he learned. We talk about when he earned it and where that was - a camping trip, summer camp, or at a Troop meeting. Because I've been Scoutmaster for more than 10 years, I know the Scouts and usually remember when he achieved a particular requirement.

 

Since the SM in your Troop is new, he can't know everything and everyone, especially if a Scout is intentionally deceiving. No doubt this incident has made him more aware of when a requirement was completed and who signed off on it. Re-testing is not necessary, but spending a few moments talking to the Scout about how, when, & where he earned the rank requirements can help ensure that he really does deserve advancement.

 

[shortridge]

A few thoughts...

 

"We have never included the patrol leader as a part of the review of a scout for advancement."

 

Start doing this, and it'll solve many of the problems brought to light by this episode. The PL should have the most detailed knowledge of his Scouts' skills than any adult. In some troops, the PL and other youth leaders sign off on T-2-1 requirements. Even if you're a young troop and your PLs are mostly inexperienced, the boys will ride herd more closely on themselves if brought into the advancement process.

 

"Some scouts could have several patrol leaders before making a rank advancement."

 

Why? Only if they take a really long time to move from one rank to another, or if the patrols are more makeshift than real. Besides, is it too onerous a burden for the SM to talk with more than one PL and get their input and insight?

 

"Do you have them speak to living the scout oath and law? Not all patrol leaders go on campouts or are able to attend every troop meeting."

 

OK, I'm curious. Why aren't the PLs at every meeting, at a minimum, and at a strong majority of campouts? I can understand missing one or two campouts out of 10 or 11, and maybe a meeting or two during the course of a year. But it's their job to lead their patrols, and they can't do that without being there!

 

 

Not to seem critical, because I don't know your troop's special dynamics, but as a committee member, you may want to take a second look at how your troop emphasizes the patrol method. The patrol leader's job should not be viewed as a stepping stone to the "real" importance of the SPL's job, as many unfortunately people see it. The PL stands at the head of his patrol, the very building block of the troop. He leads them on hikes and campouts, guides skills instruction and has a voice and a vote on the PLC, the program decision-making body of the troop. As such, he is the most important leader.

 

So why wouldn't the most important leader in the troop *not* be involved in advancement?

 

 

Edited to add: In looking over this thread, my understanding is that there are two ASMs assigned to this single patrol. That seems like incredible overkill, even with a new Scout patrol. That's two adults to assist eight boys - boys who are supposed to be leading themselves! That has the potential to have the PL seen as just a figurehead. Am I misunderstanding the situation?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[boomerscout]

well, forgery is just plain wrong. The situation makes me wonder if he did this in Cubs as well. If these had been first class requirements, we would tell the boy we had failed him, and he would be better off elsewhere.

As for tenderfoot, in these days of not accepting personal responsibility, the SM should tell him he needs to start over, and that (for him) only certain specified people could signoff.

Has the badge actually been awarded yet? Sewn on the shirt yet? There may be time to retrieve it, and hold it for safekeeping.

[jr56]

Yes, there are alot of problems here.

1. Immediate SM conference with the young man. Rescind the rank.

2. Yes, get the PL more involved with the advancement process.

3. SM or ASM should have noticed the irregularities at the SMC.

3. BOR should have noticed the irregularities if the SM missed them. You mean nobody looked at the dates the requirements were signed off on, when they were before the boy joined scouting? Talk about a bunch of people asleep at the switch.

[evmori]

I agree with all but #3, jr56. A SMC is nothing more than a chat with the Scout and it is not a pass/fail requirement.