Failed Life BoR

[NJCubScouter]

I have never been any kind of commissioner for any length of time, so I will not comment on what the Unit Commissioner's role may or may not be here. (Well, maybe a little; see below.)

 

I am, however, advancement coordinator for my son's (former) troop and have chaired almost every BOR in the troop from Tenderfoot through Life for the past (almost) two years, and served on many boards before that. In that position, when the new Guide to Advancement came out last year, I made it my business to read it, and I know where to find things when I need to. Section 8.0.1.5 (I hate the overly bureaucratic numbering system, but so be it) is very clear on what is supposed to happen when a BOR does not approve an advancement:

 

In any case, a follow-up letter must be promptly sent to a Scout who is turned down. It must include actions advised that

may lead to advancement, and also an explanation of appeal procedures. (See Appealing a Decision, 8.0.4.0

 

Apparently, that was not done in this case. The Scout was entitled to be told, in writing, what the appeal procedures are, so that he and his parents can decide whether to appeal. So that needs to be done, and I don't see anything wrong with a helpful and friendly reminder from the UC to the CC that this is what needs to be done.

 

And then it's the decision of the Scout and his parents as to whether to appeal or not. I am not big on appeals in the advancement context, because it does lead to hurt feelings, but in this case I think the BOR needs to be overturned, both for the sake of this Scout and those who come after him. (Based on the facts presented in the post, that is.)

[Oak Tree]

There are separate questions here.

 

One is whether the board was right in what it did. The majority here seem to believe it was not.

 

The second question is what should the UC do about it.

 

I'd shoot straight from the hip and unconditionally on this one.

 

I am not and have not been a UC. But as a unit leader, I can tell you that if you were a UNC who did this with our troop, I'd just politely tell you that you aren't welcome to back to our meetings. I don't want a UC who is going to shoot unconditionally, and I don't want him to go to the COR without talking to me first. Now, a UC who is willing to listen, he might be able to help. I don't need someone saying "You can't add to the requirements." I, as SM, am well aware of that. I also doubt that if you come barging in and tell the committee that they are doing the BOR all wrong, that that's going to have a magical effect of changing their minds.

 

For the long term health of the unit, you need to deal with the relationship problem, not just one advancement issue that is a symptom.

 

I like several suggestions from the group:

"mediate this dispute" [which is going to involve listening]

"contact the CC & SM to see if they agree with the findings of the Board. As part of that conversation, you want to find out what the BOR's side of the story is" [again, listen]

"give them the benifit of hearing them out" [more listening]

"suggest a sit down to discuss the issue" [but you need to let them do the discussing. You can ask questions, or provide facts when asked, but you need to listen. They need to know that you are listening, or they aren't going to listen to you.]

"I'd advise the parents to consult with the SM first" [Yes, absolutely.]

 

why NOT involve the COR? It could be that this would just make things worse. Get everyone all good and riled up.

 

I always thought UC had to guide, but they could strongly guide during time of crisis. Most of the time, people don't want to be strongly guided. Maybe there are situations where they want someone to tell them what to do, but no one wants someone to blatantly try to override them.

 

Most people here are saying the board is wrong, but most people are also saying that you are the UC, you have to be a friend to the unit.

[moosetracker]

I always thought UC had to guide, but they could strongly guide during time of crisis. Most of the time, people don't want to be strongly guided. Maybe there are situations where they want someone to tell them what to do, but no one wants someone to blatantly try to override them.

 

Stongly guide, is not the same as blatantly override.. It is guiding as you would do by holding a instructional supplemental training. Or either handing them the Advancement book with the important pages marked with sticky notes.. But guiding is guiding. If they don't want to learn, but want to do things their way, then that is their choice.. You can't force anyone to do what they don't want to do.. But you can enlighten them if they are making mistakes through ignorance.

 

But, I guess not. You from what I hear here, you take notes and inform them with subtle comments if they survive the fall-out..

 

I guess that is why I never was impress with any UC I ever had. They were doing their jobs. Like when I was CC of a troop that only had the SM, one other parent, my husband and myself as the only unit leaders. The SM refused to listen to me, as I stated he could not sleep in a large tent all boys & adult leaders together, and refused to listen as I said that troop events were not the time to take his adult pals who had nothing to do with scouting on the trips with them so they could party, or put scouts in cars of strangers we don't know their driving background or insurance on.. It was basically a thrill for him to do everything I said he shouldn't do.. Inactive COR.. Asked the UC to get involved, and he dug his head in the sand and didn't contact us again, never answered my phone or emails.. So out family and the other committee member moved to another troop leaving the SM to be the only adult leader. Which I informed the UC & DE of, and they allowed him to run as a one man show the rest of the year.. They invoked the "Do not get involved" rule of the UC..

 

Similar thing happened when a Venturing Crew tried to pull all their crew members by stealing them from the Troop. No one got involved. Troop took to the challenge and wiped the crew out.

 

Sometimes units need guidence and mediation so that they don't implode.. But I guess that is not the job of the UC.

[Beavah]

Sometimes units need guidence and mediation so that they don't implode.. But I guess that is not the job of the UC.

 

The job of a UC is to help a troop become better, eh? To offer ideas and suggestions and gentle nudges. Sometimes there's a bit of mediation, but in order to do that well yeh really have to be in the middle, eh? Not taking sides, listening carefully, tryin' to pull people together. Sometimes yeh help by connectin' people with new resources or helpin' 'em think differently about their approach. Lots of times, yeh try to be a sounding board and the fellow or lady with more perspective who helps 'em see past the petty worries of the day to the bigger picture.

 

In many ways, it's not that much different from what a good SM does for an SPL and a PLC, eh?

 

The BSA does not supervise units or tell 'em what to do. That's not our role. As Oak Tree points out, a commish that tries to come off that way does nuthin' but alienate people, and is quite likely to be shown to the door and told never to return.

 

I've never seen a commissioner be successful at saving a troubled unit by comin' in and "strongly guiding". I have seen some remarkable saves through patience and thoughtful direction.

 

By and large, though, no outsider is goin' to ever stop a unit from "imploding" if that's what they're hell-bent on doin'. That requires an insider, eh? Someone who is personally committed to the unit who is willin' to step into the role of workin' fantastically hard to build a fresh culture and repair bridges and all the rest. Units that are imploding need a Scoutmaster and a CC, eh? Things that the BSA can't provide.

 

If yeh feel that is your calling, then you are called to unit service, not to the commissioner corps.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[frankpalazzi]

OOPS..I think I miscommunicated! As COR I would kick butt, not as the UC. The UC should advise and counsel only! If I (as COR) became aware of this situation, then *I'd* require all the adults be retrained, etc., etc. The boy and/or parents should approach the COR if the SM and CC are not on the same page, not the UC. Since the scout was not given a written explanation, or a procedure for appeal.

 

I'll now go surrender myself to the grammar police for misplacing modifiers.

[Basementdweller]

Only failed on scout in a board of review.....

 

He sat there and looked at the board, single word answers with no support......Ya know after he failed it he became a much better scout.

[Venividi]

 

I can't gather from dfolson's post what this scout is like, what he did or didn't do, what the culture of the committee and BOR participants are, the SM's personality and style, any more than any one else can from the distance of a forum description and request for feedback. Those in the unit know these things best. Those in the unit know what they want scouts to get out of their experience with the troop. I agree with those that say take a neutral position, listen, and help the unit move to become better in the long term implementation of their vision.

 

I tend to have a different view from those that think that it is not acceptable for a BOR to tell a scout that he is not yet ready to advance. From my viewpoint, one of the worst tricks that adults can play on a boy is to tell him "congratulations! you met all the requirements of [insert rank here], when they don't believe it, and it is apparent that he hasn't.

The scouts understand which of their peers make effort and which don't try. They won't say anything, but they recognize any hypocracy when actions of adults speak differently than their words. (Note: this is a general comment related to the "a BOR shouldn't do that" responses that have been provided.)

[Twocubdad]

That the Scout has met the requirements for Life or not is a moot point. As others have noted, the issue is dfolson's response at a UC.

 

Sounds that you've already been in touch with the SM, but my suggestion would have been to call the CC and say, "hey, I want to give you a heads-up regarding a phone call I got from one of your parents. Is there anything I can do for you to help with this?"

 

I agree with Beav -- you polling the BOR members is overstepping your authority. That's the job of the troop committe to handle. It's their board of review. This really isn't an issue for the SM to solve. Now as a SM, if I've got a board of review slapping one back in my face like this, you bet I'm going to be involved. And, ultimately, if I'm this far out of sync with my committee, it's time for them to find a SM who shares their understanding of the program (as wrong as they are about it.)

 

Anyone who has been a unit leader for long has dealt with a BOR going off reservation. The BOR needs training and perhaps advice from the district advancement chairman on advancement policies. You need to help make those resources available to the troop, not drilling into the problem itself.

[Lisabob]

I agree with Beavah's assessment here, too. The UC position isn't a power position. When people make an appeal to a UC to come flying in and "do something about (whatever they perceive the problem to be)," it is often, itself, a power play. One side is trying to leverage the UC as a weapon or external authority, against another side.

 

One of the reasons why I decided I wouldn't be a UC for troops is because I didn't want to get drawn into that particular power dynamic.

 

Now - about the BOR - as described and with the details provided (and no others), it does appear that the BOR made a poor judgment. This is something the BOR/committee, CC, and SM should sit down and sort out.

 

But I've been on a BOR that denied a scout advancement to Life rank. And while I still think it was justified, I can imagine how the same story might be told very, very differently from other interested parties' perspectives.

 

Here's my perspective:

The scout (15 or 16 years old) was a known bully in the troop. He routinely picked on the young kids, had a foul mouth, and intentionally broke troop equipment. He was a distraction to others at troop meetings and could be counted on to start trouble when not watched closely. He was also extremely rude to many adults, including hand gestures and swear words. Honestly, I could not believe the SM had signed off on scout spirit, but there he was at a BOR for Life. Where he literally barely got past grunting monosyllabic answers to any question asked, about any topic. Half the time all we got were shrugs and glares. Anybody with teenagers can probably imagine this behavior. Based on his total non-responsiveness, I did not feel he had adequately completed the BOR at that time. He received the required letter from the advancement chair outlining the issue and his options.

 

He was delayed one week. The BOR (minus me) met again (they didn't tell me about it). The other BOR members passed him the 2nd time through. I heard later 3rd or 4th hand that the SM was miffed about the initial denial, but neither the SM, nor the CC, nor the advancement chair, nor the other BOR members or committee members ever said one word to me about it.

 

From other perspectives, this narrative might be different. Some folks might argue that my expectations were unreasonable, or added to the requirements (that he be minimally communicative is not a written requirement!). The boy's father might have said it was unfair. Who knows what the boy actually told his father! I could easily write the same scenario with any of those twists, except I really don't agree that (in this specific case), I was in the wrong to say "not today" to this young man.

 

Sometimes, a BOR denial isn't that they're off the reservation. Sometimes, it is a signal that there is disagreement about what the expectations should be. And that's also valuable information for all sides to examine. I have no idea if the boy changed his approach at the 2nd BOR. I do know, the way they handled the 2nd BOR signaled to me that this group of adults had very different ideas than I do about what is acceptable. And those conflicts didn't go away, perhaps because there was never any discussion about it.

 

For the sake of finding or building common ground (or recognizing the lack thereof and decided to part ways), maybe a good UC could have encouraged the SM and CC to open that sort of conversation, even helped facilitate the conversation (if the SM and CC wanted that). But the UC couldn't have (and shouldn't have) been the primary party in the discussion because, at the end of the day, the SM & committee need to be able to work together - and the UC is an outsider to that process. It isn't the UC's problem to grapple with; only (maybe!) the UC's to help the unit leaders work through, if they (unit leaders) actually want to try to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

By the way - the parent calling the UC - way off base. That's a power play. That the parent is also the ex-SM makes it worse. I wonder how the ex-SM would have felt, if some parent called some outsider and tried to pull rank on him, back when he was the SM?

 

 

[ScoutNut]

I have to agree that as UC it is not your job to "fix" this boys advancement issue.

 

It is also not your job as UC to "fix" this Troop. You can help/guide, but the "fixing" has to come from them.

 

If, as UC, I received the angry parent phone call, I would have listened, and calmed the parent down.

 

I would have then suggested that the parents get together with the SM, and CC, to discuss the issue, and find out exactly what happened, and why. I would further suggest that if, after that meeting, the parents still felt there were valid reasons why the rank should not have been denied, they should then start the process of filing an appeal with the council advancement committee.

 

As UC, I would have given the CC, and the SM, a heads up that I had received a complaint from the parents. I would have - gently - reminded them of the proper procedure laid out by BSA for when a BOR declines advancement.

 

That would be it. No interviewing BOR members, or actively taking one side over another.

 

I would follow up with the CC at a later date to make sure things were resolved, and to suggest that it might be a good idea to get the committee properly trained, including BOR training, to head off any future problems.

 

I would ask if he would like me to coordinate with the District Training Chair to bring training to them at a time convenient for them.

 

BTW - Former SM, supposedly fully trained, who does not know what to do when advancement is denied? Shady, very, very shady.

[Gunny2862]

I see a few possible scenarios here.

a) There's an untrained Committee or at least untrained members sitting on a BoR.

b) There's an un-addressed issue with the SM's program that hasn't been addressed by the Committee.

c) Someone has an issue with the Scout.

 

In any case the CC and the CC need to sit down and figure out with one or more of the above it may be and figure out what to do about it - If they have an issue figuring that out, maybe that's where they call in the COR if he's familiar with the BSA program, or maybe consult with the UC. But the SM and CC need to put their heads together and find the common ground here for sure.

[boomerscout]

It is the PLC's job to plan the campouts. It is the SPL's responsibility, in consultation with the PLC and his ASPLs, to plan the troop meeting.

1. Does the troop quartermaster receive a written job description with graphics, or is he just told to do a good job?

2. If the gear room was not up to standards, has everyone involved visited a different troop's gear room for comparison purposes?

3. Has the SPL apologized to the QM for failing him at training and followup?

 

A redo? Certainly! But, probably not 5 months away.

[ScouterCa]

This problem seems simple to me. The BSA Guide to Advancement 2011(pages 23-24) states the guidelines as:

 

4.2.3.4.3 Meeting Unit Expectations

If a unit has established expectations for positions of responsibility, and if, within

reason (see the note under Rank Requirements Overview,

4.2.3.0), based on his personal skill set, the Scout meets

them, he fulfills the requirement. When a Scout assumes

a position, something related to the desired results must

happen. It is a disservice to the Scout and to the unit to

reward work that has not been done. Holding a position

and doing nothing, producing no results, is unacceptable.

Some degree of responsibility must be practiced, taken,

or accepted.

 

4.2.3.4.4 Meeting the Requirement in the absence of Unit

Expectations. It is best when a Scouts leaders provide him

position descriptions, and then direction, coaching, and

support. Where this occurs, and is done well, the young

man will likely succeed. When this support, for whatever

reason, is unavailable or otherwise not providedor

when there are no clearly established expectationsthen

an adult leader or the Scout, or both, should work out the

responsibilities to fulfill. In doing so, neither the positions

purpose nor degree of difficulty may be altered

significantly or diminished. BSA literature provides

the basis for this effort: the Scoutmaster Handbook,

No. 33009, (The Boy-Led Troop); the Patrol Leader

Handbook, No. 32502 (Your Patrol and Your Troop);

the Varsity Scout Guidebook, No. 34827 (in explanations

of team organization); the Venturing Leader Manual,

No. 34655 (Leadership in the Crew); and the Sea

Scout Manual, No. 33239 (Officers Responsibilities).

 

Under the above scenario, if it is left to the Scout to

determine what should be done, and he makes a

reasonable effort to perform accordingly for the time

specified, then he fulfills this requirement. Even if his

results are not necessarily what the Scoutmaster, members

of a board of review, or others involved may want to see,

he may not be held to unestablished expectations.

 

4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit

has clearly established expectations for position(s) held,

thenwithin reasona Scout must meet them through

the prescribed time. If he is not meeting expectations,

then this must be communicated early. Unit leadership

may work toward a constructive result by asking him

what he thinks he should be accomplishing. What is his

concept of the position? What does he think his troop

leadersyouth and adultexpect? What has he done

well? What needs improvement? Often this questioning

approach can lead a young man to the decision to

measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the

service time should be recorded.

 

If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance,

then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his

position. Every effort should have been made while he

was in the position to ensure he understood expectations

and was regularly supported toward reasonably

acceptable performance.

 

It is unfair and inappropriate

after six months, for exampleto surprise a boy who

thinks he has been doing fine, with news that his

performance is now considered unsatisfactory.

In this case, he must be given credit for the time.

 

Only in rare casesif evershould troop

leaders inform a Scout that time, once

served, will not count.

 

If a Scout believes he has performed his duties satisfactorily,

but his leaders disagree, then the possibility that

expectations are unreasonable should be considered.

If after discussions between the Scout and his leaders

and perhaps including his parents or guardianshe

believes he is being held to unreasonable expectations,

then upon completing the remaining requirements, he

must be granted a board of review. If he is an Eagle

candidate, then he may request a board of review under

disputed circumstances (see Initiating Eagle Scout Board

of Review Under Disputed Circumstances, 8.0.3.2).(This message has been edited by ScouterCa)