Board or Review Members

[Beavah]

This has been mistakenly misinterpreted that one can't ask a Scout to tie a knot or demonstrate how to administer first aid at a BOR. That is false. One way to evaluate the quality of the program is to see what the Scouts have learned. If they have not learned anything, that is valuable information about how the SM and SAs are carrying out the program.

 

Yah, acco, I don't think that bold faced bit is really part of a quote from the Scoutmaster's Handbook, is it? I think yeh need to be careful or you might inadvertently mislead somebody. That's your interpretation, not a quote.

 

For that reason I usually think it's better if we just let people read the documents on their own, eh? And then discuss 'em here. That way it doesn't get all confused.

 

But in terms of documents, the SM Handbook 1998 printing you quote from is superseded by the ACP&P 2007-08 edition, which is current. Subsequent editions were issued temporarily but recalled. So some things, like "membership of an Eagle BOR is determined by local council policy" gets replaced by a longer statement which includes:

 

The board of review for an Eagle candidate is composed of a minimum of three members and a maximum of six members, 21 years of age or older. These members do not have to be registered in scouting... - ACP&P (bold is in the original)

 

Additionally, ACP&P goes on to state:

 

The candidate's unit leader introduces him to the members of the board of review. The unit leader may remain in the room, but does not participate in the board of review. The unit leader may be called on to clarify a point in question - ACP&P, emphasis mine

 

I'm not sure where you're gettin' your other statements, whether those are just your opinion or whether you took 'em from somewhere. It might be yeh have one of da copies of the ACP&P document which was recalled. But da current version states that

 

The review has three purposes:

* To make sure the work has been learned and completed.

* To see how good an experience the Scout is having in his unit.

* To encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. - ACP&P

 

Havin' dealt with a lot of law and policy in my life, there are a few fundamental errors that are often made. One is just not knowing the "rules" that well. The other is not takin' the time to really understand how both the rules and the system that makes and uses the rules really work in order to provide justice for society.

 

Happily, Scouting is about kids, not about rules, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

I do agree the BOR is not for hard testing, and failing of scouts. The first troop our son was in did that, one boy was flunked 3 or 4 times until he passed. We would practice test with our son for a week grilling him with all sorts of questions on the rank he was going for and the below ranks so that he could pass it. They were brutal! Later we found out it wasn't the proper way to do a BOR.

 

But, the EBOR can choose to not pass an Eagle canadate. take the scout who comes into a EBOR and states he is an atheist. Or there is something not right about the project the scout did. Like one boy stated his project would be X,Y,Z and came back with a completely altered project that had no benifit to the community.

 

Our current Troops BOR has also choose to delay the BOR for another evening when a scout came to it in his soccer uniform. Once it was rescheduled also when a scout going for the rank of LIFE could not say the scout oath. His next board would be the EBOR and he couldn't recite the oath? Also the error was like the first thing done in the meeting and the boy just went downhill from there because he was internally beating himself up for the mistake. It was just better to have a redo the next week, the boy came in prepared and confident and the whole BOR was so much better for him.

 

We will always have 3 registered committee members on the board, but could have a 4th from the community or a visiting Adult Leader Scout from another unit. We try to have a district member sit on the BOR for Star & Life, the scout needs to get use to having different people on the board before going to the Eagle board where they will all be different people.

 

As for the SM & ASM's not being present for the BOR.. I believe that is a must. The BOR is trying to find out what they can improve in the unit. If there is a problem the boy has is with the program or the SM, they will not speak freely with them in the room. It is rare to get a scout to open up as is if they feel that what they say will get back to the SM by the adults in the room, but it is a sure thing it will not happen if they know the problem is a negitive reflection on someone who is sitting in the room, and who they fear could make their next rank advancement a real nightmare.

 

The SM had his time with the scout during the SM conference, he does not need to be present at the BOR. If something pertains to him, the committee should address it but not with a "Johnny scout says ...." but at a different time so it is not obvious it came from Johnny. It would probably be brought the the CC or COR attentions so they can be the ones to address the issue with the SM or ASM.

[acco40]

One of my beefs with our troop committee is that I, as the Scoutmaster, never got any feedback, good or bad, from the Board after a BOR. Like you stated, I wasn't interested in getting to know exactly what "Johnny said" but some feedback on how they perceived how the program was being run should have occured at some point. It did not. It was requested.

[Stosh]

sailingpj,

 

I'm thinking that the "errors" one finds during BOR's is just a cop out. I'm thinking that following a BOR the SM getting feedback on why the boy didn't pass, etc. are all bogus.

 

Two requirements for advancement are have a SM conference and complete a BOR. Okay, what SM sends a boy off to a BOR without making sure ever "i" is dotted and ever "t" is crossed? If this is the case then the SM needs to be brought before the Board and asked why are boys coming into the BOR unprepared and incomplete?

 

A Board that grills the boy after the SM has done his job isn't playing by the rules either.

 

Any time either of these two issues surface it doesn't appear to be the boy's fault!!! Either the SM is setting him up to fail before the Board or the Board is failing him because he wasn't prepared for the questions.

 

It's time the Board and SM work out a process that works for the troop! If I as SM know I have a hard-nosed Board, I'm going to work that much harder on making sure the boy is fully armed and armored for them. If I am a CC and have a SM that is sending his boys up to the Board with only half their requirements done, I'm going to be riding that SM on a regular basis. Then as a SM and/or Board there might be times I randomly pick out a scout and sit them down, knowing full well they are not ready for rank advancement and simply inquire: "How's it going for you? Let's review where you are on your next rank advancement." Sure, the BOR is "not complete", but the boy doesn't "Fail" anything either.

 

A boy that "fails" a BOR is a victim of adults that don't have their act together. The petty politics that occur are more likely than not be based in the adult's hangups than with the boys. These two requirements are part of the adult association that is necessary for every scout. In your troop, do they help or harm?

 

I don't worry about feedback, I know what will occur when my boys go into a BOR. I had a SMC with them. If I want feedback and it was important, the Board will pass it along. No news is good news.

 

If I have a boy that can't tie a certain knot and he knows it, I may toss him under the bus and let a board member know this. All he has to do is have a SMC to find this out. It's not something he passes but he might get a chewing out for not being prepared, it is suggested he work on the requirement to perfect it. If he goes into the Board and he still can't tie the knot, they chew him out too, then the next time I won't be in such a hurry to sign off on his advancement, he knows he has to step up to make it work.

 

I had a boy that needed POR and asked if he could recruit a patrol from the new Webelos boys that would cross over soon. I figured it would be a good idea, said yes, and the boy did absolutely nothing to be or do anything PL during this 6 months. He didn't even bother to collect the names of the AOL crossovers so he could welcome them into our troop. None of them ever came. It was a total disaster and at the SMC he told me that he had the patch to prove he served as a PL. He then informed me he had now had his SMC and would be lining up his BOR in the next week.

 

Yep, I tossed him under the bus. When the BOR got around to his POR, he had nothing to tell them. The CC informed me he would wait a full 60 seconds of silence. So, what POR did you do? "PL" And how did that work out for you? "Fine" Fine? What did you do? (60 seconds of silence) Surely you must have done something as a PL. (60 seconds of silence). Did you enjoy doing the PL stuff? (60 seconds of silence), etc. 60 seconds of silence is a VERY long time at that age, any age for that matter. My CC did an excellent job on supporting me, the SM, in this process. The next rank SMC, I asked him what he was going to tell the BOR about his POR. He had a list a mile long. He took on PL for the patrol that existed and actually did the job, he did QM inventory of all troop assets, organized everything for the boys to get to summer camp and then served as SPL for it, helped his brother on his Eagle project by taking on one of the work crews, etc. etc. etc. They had to politely interrupt him so they could go on with the rest of the BOR.

 

He passed both the SMC and BOR both times, but how it was handled was very different.

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

 

It's time the Board and SM work out a process that works for the troop!

 

Yah, I think this is the key, eh?

 

If everyone is on board with the system, whatever the system is, it can work just fine.

 

I know excellent troops where the BORs ask some tough skills questions. The boys are usually enthusiastic about showin' off their knowledge. But I remember visiting one such troop one night where they realized that an ASM had been teaching improper First Aid. So they sent the boy back to re-learn it and talked to the ASM. Boys weren't upset, they came back within a week or two and nailed it. If I remember, I think da SM had 'em teach and test the ASM after they re-learned it. All fun and good natured. There was no notion of failing a board of review, but it was possible to not yet pass.

 

I know other excellent troops like jblake's, where a BOR is a rubber stamp but the SM maintains a high level of quality at SM conference time or in other ways. That works great, too, at least until the SM changes. Then yeh often, but not always, see a decline in expectations as the new fellow struggles a bit to fill da shoes but wants the boys to keep advancing.

 

I know still other excellent troops where BOR's don't ask a single skill question or "about" how you did the requirements question and instead are more a short easy-going conversation. That can work great, too.

 

No right or wrong way. Each way can be done well or done poorly. Da first can become boards of final exam with "failed" kids and wailing. The last can become loosey goosey badge mills. The key is to choose an approach that gets yeh the outcomes you want in a reasonable way, and then not get caught up in da notion that your approach is the only way to do a good job for kids.

 

Like BOR membership.

 

Beavah

 

 

[acco40]

The key is to choose an approach that gets yeh the outcomes you want in a reasonable way, and then not get caught up in da notion that your approach is the only way to do a good job for kids.

 

Is that just Beavah vernacular for "the end justifies the means?"

 

There are many approaches, both inside and outside of the BSA "way" that will get the same response. As parents, we can use any damn approach we want, but as Scouters, we should only use those that are inside the BSA "way." Go ahead and make snide comments about "rules" and such, but we should stick to what we promised to deliver - the Scouting program, not "Acco40's vision of how he feels the Scouting program should be" so to speak.

[Beavah]

Nah, that's Beavah vernacular for "the Methods serve the Aims". Kinda like "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Or, to put it in terms of what we all agreed to do as BSA leaders:

 

All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America - Rules and Regulations of the BSA, Article X, Advancement Program.

 

There are always folks who feel that their version or interpretation of being a Christian, or being a good citizen, or being a good scouter is the only way. I just disagree. Da form we sign as adult leaders say we'll follow the Rules and Regulations, not every page of every BSA document ever written. And in da grand scheme of things, whether a volunteer fills out a page of paperwork before sitting on a BOR is a small thing, eh?

 

Beavah

[acco40]

I guess that's where we differ. It doesn't matter if you feel it is "small" or if I feel it is "large" or anything in between.

 

For non-EBORs, one must be a Committee Member to be a BOR member. That is the program. We should deliver the program as defined by the BSA or do something else.

[Stosh]

acco40 is exactly right. If we don't like the rules, we are to petition to change them in an orderly manner.

 

Now, I say that as the company policy. However, when I have a boy who has waited a month for the committee to come up with enough registered MC's to hold a BOR only to have a room full of parents and turn him down because Joe got sick at the last minute and we'll need to reschedule, I get a wee bit upset. It's not the boy's fault, and he does need to learn a lesson on disappointment, etc. but this isn't the time or place for that. When the adults don't hold up their end of the deal and are not trustworthy, I think it's okay they do what it takes to make it work. If it's not quite kosher, so be it. Two MC's and grab a parent and get it done. Like everyone else the parent learns by doing and maybe at the end of the BOR the parent can sign up as a MC so that this problem doesn't happen again.

 

I'm not recommending this process as a recruiting tool for the committee, but the committee needs to be functional to be supportive of the boys. If it isn't trustworthy, maybe a review of what is important to show the boys needs to be addressed.

 

Stosh

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Stosh,

 

I'm glad you wrote that.

 

This isn't nuclear fuel handling, where very precise rules and regulations govern procedure.

 

This is not an assembly line where every part must be made just this way every time.

 

This is the Boy Scouting program

 

Our charge is to help raise 11-17 years old grow through their teen years to become adults. We're concentrating on character, citizenship, and fitness.

 

Scouting is independently licensed to each Chartered Partner. That club on the app? (IAW the rules and regulations...)? That's a self-policing clause. The fact this thread exists shows units function to the right and the left of the

centerline. Live with it, folks. BSA has a tool to protect the brand name: The local Council can refuse to recharter an organization and a unit.

 

Now, to Stosh,

 

If the Committee cannot get an advancement quorum, and a youth is being held back by the adults, it's time for the SM to have a quiet word with the CC and the COR: I expect you, Mr/Ms CC, to get your head out of rectal defilade and get this kid a BOR.

[Beavah]

That is the program.

 

According to your interpretation, eh? Even though the BSA Rules & Regulations state that how we administer the advancement program must harmonize with the Aims.

 

I think it's as John says, eh? It's up to the BSA to decide what things are small things and what are big things. And this is clearly somethin' that nobody in da BSA has any interest in making even a small deal out of, let alone deciding to tell a unit to "do something else" by pulling a charter. So if that's the BSA's approach - one of respect and support for da local volunteers - why should ours be any different?

 

I've seen a heck of a lot of units, camps, districts and councils over da years. I have never once seen a single unit that follows the letter of every scrap of program material. Not da units I work with, not acco's. Nobody. But that doesn't mean they aren't doing great scouting.

 

So yah, we disagree on that. . I think it's a difference in perspective between unit and district/council scouters. Every unit scouter is proud of his unit and thinks his unit is " following the program" and that others should do what they do. It can cause all kinds of friction when unit scouters move to district and trybtelling that to other successful units . Once yeh see that enough yeh realize that some diversity of approach is a strength of Scouting, not a weakness. Just MHO, of course. Don't sweat da small stuff.

 

Beavah

[AwHeck]

When I was CC for our troop, we probably 'failed' less than 5 scouts over a 5 year period. Some were a scout who could not sit up and maintain eye contact, appeared to have no interest in the process at all. For those, we simply requested that he re-evaluate and try again. My most memorable 'fail' was for a young man going through the board to achieve First Class rank. Our troop allows any scout of First Class or above to sign off on skills for T-2-1 so I asked a question related to that. I asked if a buddy came and asked him to sign off on something that the buddy couldn't demonstrate, what would he do? I believe that he correctly said that he wouldn't but when I followed up with 'why?' ... just wanting him to state that a Scout is Trustworthy - he couldn't articulate it. We tried to give him help, leading him to the scout law at which point he stated that he didn't know the scout law. This board was being held at summer camp, about mid-week. The board unanimously agreed that we could not accept a First Class Scout who did not know the Scout Law. He was told that if he came back to me by the end of the week and could prove that he knew the Law, Oath, and Promise, then he would be granted the rank. This did cause some consternation amongst his patrol mates but he managed to get back to me a couple of days later and was granted the rank.

 

No - we don't re-test and for the vast majority of scouts, the board is a rubber-stamp however when necessary, we will delay rank, usually not for long.

[frankpalazzi]

I have to agree with Jblake here. Why hold it against the boy if you can't round up 3 committee members? Remember, the advancement report the Troop turns in requires 3 signatures for a BOR, and nowhere on the form does it say that those signatures have to be those of BOR members, or even REGISTERED members for that matter. (Only one signature requires a "title."). Of course it's always preferable to use MCs, and I never have a shortage of 'em, lucky me! But the BOR is merely a formality to double check the completion of the requirements. The boy has actually already "passed" upon completion of his SM conference. The one thing that should be verified are POR time-served requirements. We actually had to turn a boy down because he was short on that requirement, but his agitated dad understood that if his son were going for Eagle, this would be double-checked by Council, and the Eagle app. would be rejected! (He DID make Eagle, BTW)

 

What I'm trying to convey, in summary, is that in a "pinch", I feel using a parent is OK. Git 'er done! But IMHO, it shouldn't be a common occurrence. Make sure the advancement report is signed by three MCs, and that will certify things "upstairs". Meanwhile, if you find yourself in this position frequently, recruit some more MCs!

[acco40]

So, Johnny turns 16 and has submitted his paperwork to the national council. They note that on his advancement report for 1st Class, the BOR members were not registered scouters and deny his application. Who is at fault? Who failed this Scout? Was cutting corners a good idea?

[Beavah]

Complete fiction and urban legend, acco.

 

Go talk to your registrar. National only gets a copy of da Eagle Scout Application, none of the other stuff. And da registrar's signature on the form certifies that all the prior advancement records are in ScoutNet.

 

Nobody anywhere looks at signatures to try to match to positions. Typically an Advancement Report Form comes in with a half dozen advancements on it, eh? They weren't all done by the same BOR, but there are only three signatures. Da modern electronic advancement submission doesn't even ask for those signatures.

 

Beavah