POR contracts

[shortridge]

 

Mike F. mentioned written and signed job contracts with detailed expectations as one way to make sure Scouts carry out the responsibilities of a POR.

 

How many other troops on here do that?

 

I hope this doesn't come across as criticism ... but to me, it sounds awfully legalistic, not to mention boring. It seems to me that such a system would detract from the organic, constructive relationship between a PL and his Patrol, or the SPL and the troop officers. It also makes the Scout think in terms of just getting by and fulfilling the minimum requirements, instead of taking initiative, exercising creativity and dreaming big about what he *could* do.

 

Whatever happened to the SPL simply telling the PLC and his other leaders - "You will attend every troop and patrol meeting, and come to every outing. If you can't, it is your job to find someone to back you up. OK, that's the basics. Let's talk individually over the course of this campout about your new job and what you want to do."

 

Are there positives that troops with POR contracts have encountered that I'm just not thinking about?

[Buffalo Skipper]

We definatley use POR contracts, which we have tailored for our troop and program. We have been using them for 2 years to good effect. One NJ contingent SM borrowed them and put appropriate criteria for a contingent troop and used them.

 

We make a formal deal out of it, but the real purpose is not merely as a "binding contract" as it is a way to communicating to the scout that this IS what is expected, and that before elections he should have a good understanding of this so he knows what he is "getting into."

 

It does not specify percentages of attendance or the like, but it does give a clear path to follow if he cannot attend a meeting. It does indicate things like "set the example by wearing the uniform" and such.

 

Contracts are signed by the scout holding the office, and to whoever he reports. So the SPL contract is signed by the SPL and SM; the PL contracts by the PL and the SPL; the APL by the APL and PL and so on. As we now have no ASPL all the positions like Scribe, CA and Historian report to the SPL, where in the standard troop plan they would report to the ASPL. We can always change our contract if we choose as we grow.

 

As I said, it has worked well for us thus far.

[CalicoPenn]

POR contracts?

 

Can anyone show me the recommended POR contracts in the Scoutmaster's Handbook, the SPL's Handbook, the PL's Handbook, the Boy Scout Handbook?

 

No? Ever wonder why they aren't there? Because they aren't needed, or desired.

 

If the BSA expected and/or wanted units to use POR contracts, they'd provide them to the units.

 

POR's are about learning responsibility and leadership - not contract compliance.

 

Written POR contracts are an admission that the adult leaders are either too lazy or too incompetant to provide the Scouts the mentorship they need in order to be successful in their POR.

 

If you have contracts, please stop - just stop. Get rid of all that business theory garbage infecting your unit - and go back to being a Scouting unit.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[Twocubdad]

Well, actually, BSA does, they just call them job descriptions and don't ask for a signature.

 

Have you looked at the standard JLT syllabus? All it is is a series of job descriptions and the "training" generally consists of not much more than the SM and SPL reviewing the job descriptions. Change the terminology to "contracts" and it's not much difference.

 

Several years ago our troop re-wrote the job descriptions to better fit the division of labor in our troop and to include specific tasks and methods of operation. That others choose to ask the boys to acknowledge in a formal way that they've received the information and training seems to be an allowable exception.

 

We have a made up "Oath of Office" administer to new troop and patrol officers. That's not in the book either, but like Ingaugural Day, serves to remind folks that a change of office has taken place and who the new players are.

 

Maybe Mike F. has been reading the forums here and sees how much grief comes from Scouts serving PORs in name only and decided to do something proactive about it?

[ctbailey]

Hear Hear! POR contracts are precisely an admission by a SM that he or she has not read or understands the Scout Master Handbook.

 

Often when a kid is slammed at a BOR due to poor performance in his POR the SM pulls out his "signed" "contract."

 

If you think you are such a great Legal-Eagle, then you understand a contract always has two sides, and these "POR" contracts rarely if ever place any responsibility on the shoulders of the SM to do his/her job and mentor/counsel/guide the youth.

 

POR Contracts are complete and total hog wash.

 

Craig

[rdclements]

Yep, I know some units that use those contracts. They are the best adult-run troops around. The contract is really helpful because then the untrained and inexperienced parents will know exactly how to do the job for their son. It's also a lot easier because the adults take care of all the annoying details like planning outings and leading the meetings. The best part is that no scout ever has to worry about failure.

 

The troops that I know like that are also using the Troop Method so they don't have to deal with all that patrol nonsense. Lots of guys make Eagle - cause that's all that really matters on the college application - parents are happy, the charter org gets to ignore the unit, and FOS donations are nice and high. Everybody wins.

[John-in-KC]

When a Scout is going to take on an office or a POR in a Troop, at least four conversations need to happen:

 

- Current SPL/ASPL and boy: What the job entails

 

- SM/ASM overseeing program role: are you willing to do your best for this?

 

- If applicable, Committee member whose support duties overlap the youth members: I am willing to help you learn, and I will support you.

 

- Finally (from sad experience), SM to parent: Are you willing to support your child in this effort of his, and not backstabbing him? Yes, folks, I have seen this happen

 

A no answer at any of these points should cause an immediate SM conference, for the Scout may be being set up to fail

[Beavah]

Yah, I sorta like KC's conversations, eh?

 

I don't think contracts are completely evil. They're an attempt at communication, and all attempts at communication have some merit.

 

I just like conversations a lot better.

 

In da legal world, there are all kinds of things that make a contract valid. These adult-to-kid behavior contracts never seem to meet any of 'em. So they're really bad instruction in contract law . Like adults who rely on lots of policies or "authority" with kids, they're just a poor way to go. Better are explanations and friendships.

 

So like da others, I'd challenge our contractors to "think different". Not because they are or aren't in da BSA literature, and not because I think you're terrible leaders or any of that stuff.

 

Just because I think you'll find other ways of doin' things that are just a lot more effective and more fun.

 

Beavah

[Mike F]

Wow - some surprising emotions here!

 

I used the term "contracts" which seems to have led to some imagined legal excess.

They are simply written job descriptions which scout and his immediate "boss" sign at the conclusion of initial training at the start of the term.

 

I have used them in two different troops for over 10 years and believe they help more than hurt.

 

I agree when our friend Barry says, Boy Scouting is like the adult world scaled down to a boys size. Real jobs have real job descriptions, real expectations and an agreement with the boss. Nothing complicated about this one it fits on less than a page with lots of white space.

 

Nothing about this leads to mediocrity. Ive never seen any indication a scout was holding back on his creativity or enthusiasm to do more because it wasnt required based on his job description. Most boys greatly exceed the minimum and we barely glance back at the document.

 

Who said this was adult run? This program is run by the SPL. He uses the written job descriptions to work with his PLs and staff. The guys plan and execute the program. I dont know what their plans are for the next troop meeting, except that its in general to prepare us for the next campout with a shooting theme. The shooting campout has been a PLC priority for about 2 years and we finally got enough adults certified to support their desire. This is example of PLC pushing the adults past our own comfort zone.

 

For me, the #1 reason to have written, signed job descriptions (or contracts) is to give you another tool to use when a scout is not meeting the minimum expectations in his position after training, receiving and signing clear expectations, getting continual feedback/mentoring/coaching, and doing everything else the youth and (eventually) adult leadership can do to get him to successfully engage. Sometimes in spite of our best efforts, the scout simply does not keep up his end of the deal.

 

When faced with a scout who is not properly performing his POR in spite of all efforts to get him in the game, you have three choices:

1. Sign his scout book for rank advancement because he wore the patch for the required number of months.

2. Remove him from the POR as soon as it becomes apparent he is not willing/able to do the job.

3. Work with him throughout his term to seek improvement, but make it clear to him (and parents) that hes not yet meeting minimum acceptable performance for rank credit and it will take more effort/improvement to get to the next step.

 

Discussion:

 

The purpose of all this isnt rank advancement its helping boys grow. If we just sign the book, WE are taking the lazy way and not helping the boy get the benefit of the full growth experience. It makes parents happy and saves us the trouble of dealing with unpleasant situation, but its letting the boy down.

 

I am personally opposed to yanking the boy out of a POR, unless he is in a critical position and the troop is really having difficulty working around the weak/missing leader. Working with SPL, we have had to do this, but its usually more along the lines of convincing the leader he needs to step down because his personal conflicts (school/sports/band/job) make this a bad time to be in a critical position in the troop. I have never seen a boy removed involuntarily from his position and I hope I never do because I think this causes more damage than good.

 

Perhaps a specific example would help illustrate.

 

We have a Star Scout who is working toward Life. He recently finished a 6-month term as an Instructor. Our (simplified) written expectations for Star-ranked Instructors is that - working with the ASPL - they initiate, plan, and lead skill instruction events as part of the troop meetings and campouts. This scout helped with some instruction events, but refused to participate in planning and took no initiative. ASPL worked with him. SPL worked with him. I worked with him. He absolutely knew he was not doing what was expected and he absolutely knew what needed to change, but he chose not to. We had enough Instructors to work around him, so we did. At the end of the term, he and his parents knew he hadnt done what was required to make Life and they didnt even bring it up.

 

What did surprise the scout was the new incoming SPL refused to select him for another position. (Heres where the real growth takes place!) As I explained to the scout and his parents (separately), the scout had squandered his last opportunity and the other boys were pretty frustrated by his perceived laziness. Since PORs only come from being elected by the boys or selected by the SPL, the scout had some work to do to prove to his buddies that he was somebody they could count on. Right now, he does have a job and its called Patrol Member. Its not one that counts for rank advancement, but very important to the patrol and his future.

 

The scout seems to have gotten the message. He hasnt missed a meeting and was observed to be a big help to his younger Patrol Leader on the campout last weekend. Its when you see them (FINALLY!) putting the pieces together that I know why we are here.

 

The program works amazingly well when the parents will trust that were working darned hard with the best interests of their son at heart. Its not about rank, its about his growth. The trail usually has its rough spots and boys climb at different rates. We work with them and well help them get through it eventually.

 

By putting it in writing, the boys and parents all know the expectations are high, clear, consistent and fair. We keep it low-key when a scout misses the mark for rank advancement and just keep working to help him improve.

 

For those who say this is all wrong and wont be backed up by Council on appeal, you are simply wrong. Ive been down that path a few times when parents demanded immediate rank advancement and pursued their right to appeal. This encounter has never been in the best interest of the embarrassed scout. The troop program has been endorsed by Council because we have a very clear, documented process and an abundance of training, coaching, and mentoring to help the boys grow.

 

As always, your mileage may vary.

(This message has been edited by Mike F)

[evmori]

There are no contracts needed. The BSA spells out each POR very well.

[artjrk]

We don't require a signed contract. Instead at training we present each new leader a sheet containing the job responsibilities and who they need to report to (Both in the handbook) and then a list of goals they can try meet, all of which are practical ways of carrying out the above listed responsibilities. We tell them they do not have to do them all, they are just suggestions, and they can always add their own. What we do is at the end of the term, I have a conference with them to discuss how they feel they did at meeting their responsibilities. They can look down at the sheet and see for themselves whether or not they did a proper job, If we can agree, I sign them off. Otherwise we work out a plan to allow them to continue to try and fulfill their duties.

 

A second advantage to these is at the bottom we have a tear off slip with the effective start and ending dates, which the scout then gives to the Advancement Chair so we can keep the records up to date. This way we don't have any confusion at a later point in time. (when trying to fill out Eagle applications)

[Twocubdad]

"The BSA sells out each POR very well."

 

I don't often put things in such absolute terms, but I have to say that statement is just flat-out wrong.

 

Let's look at a typical job description. I opened the book and it fell to Instructor. Here's the official job description:

 

Instruct Scouting skills as needed withing the troop or patrols.

Prepare well in advance for each teaching assignment.

Set a good example

Wear the Scout uniform correctly

Live by the Scout Oath and Law

Show and help develop Scout spirit.

 

Anyone else here feel the need for a bit more detail?

 

I will suggest to you the "lazy and incompetent" leaders (as Calico describes them) are the ones who DON'T go to the trouble of further detailing the expectations for the job. Maybe this is done verbally, maybe in writing. Using good communications skills would include both, AND provide some means for the Scout to complete the communications loop by acknowledging that he had received and understands the job.

 

Hmmmm... that sounds a lot like what MikeF is saying.

 

 

No, our troop does not require signed contracts. Frankly, it's just another line of paperwork for someone to keep up with. But with or without the piece of paper, a good unit is doing all those things which would constitute a contract.

 

I think you guys are getting all wrapped around the axel over the semantics of calling it a "contract."

 

[Oak Tree]

I'm with Mike F and Twocubdad. I don't see anything wrong with reminding a Scout about what the duties are for the position, and in particular, spelling out how that plays out in a particular troop. There are lots of things that are troop-specific.

 

We tried these, but my experience was that the conversation had to be happening for these to be meaningful. If there is no conversation, there will be no follow-up on the expected job responsibilities, so the written descriptions don't help all that much. If the conversation does happen, the written description can be some help - so I do like the idea, but only as an aid to the conversations that are the essential part of teaching the Scout the job.

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm just curious how all you job-description-and-signatures folks feel about being youth led or youth run, eh?

 

Just because I reckon if we're honest no youth SPL or ASPL would ever suggest, voluntarily implement, or maintain such a system.

 

Also seems like yeh want da kids just to slot in to your structure and be managers. I suppose dat's sort of real world, eh? Leastways for mediocre companies and government jobs. But not much fun and not a great learning environment.

 

I always prefer to see units where boys are really leading, eh?

 

Again, nothing "wrong" with this sort of adult led stuff, but it's not great either.

 

Beavah

 

[BadenP]

Kudu might suggest that all this contract nonsense instead of a boy led troop structure is because of WoodBadge for the 21st Century trained scoutmasters. Maybe he has a point after all.