Board of Review

[moosetracker]

Well the info about ASM's being on the board is highly recommended, but not a mandate per National, due to the wording in the Guide to Advancement which uses the words "may not" when you read it, you may think "may not" is pretty definate, but it really means it is not, just recommended, although your Council may set up it's own mandate if they so choose to.

 

This publication clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as must and shall. Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered, without the written permission of the national Advancement Team.

 

Recommended best practices are offered using words like should, while other options and guidelines are indicated with terms such as may or can. Refer questions on these to your local district or council advancement chairs or staff advisors. They, in turn, may request interpretations and assistance from the national Advancement Team.

 

 

Our troop followed the rule to have the Advancement guy be a committee member, yet still allowed him to wear both hats.. He just always register as committee, then allow him to wear both hats.. Advancement guys are usually a cross between both worlds, they work more closely with the boys, even if it is in guiding the older boys in how they are signing off on requirements.. But, normally they are also well trained in scout craft.. You know the skills that make them valuable ASM's..

 

But looking at the Guide to Advancement, info SP & Info Scouter posted The ONLY thing mandated is 3 to 6 "members" on the board.. the info about ASM, SM & parents being on the board are recommendations, but not required (and the council may mandate them.).. But as for the board members being all committee members, their is nothing about "must", "shall", "may" or "can" so this is really low key guidence, something even the council can not mandate.

 

Me, I think the no relatives and no SM are a good thing for a troop to follow.. ASM being used would be desperate measures. As stated I think using an outsider is a good thing (not the same one all the time.. But, I would say if you have 3 committee members use them, and make an outside visitor a 4th, 5th or 6th Board member..

 

But again, that is only my idea of a good mix.. No better or worse then what any other troop chooses to do in order to pull together the 3 to 6 members..

 

Just remember, the GUIDE to Advancement, like the GUIDE to Safe Scouting has some mandates.. But most of what is written is guidence and recomendations. Pay attention to the wording before you go whipping the information in it around like it is criminal to have a difference of opinion, and have your troop choose to do things differently.. It is good to KNOW what is in the GUIDE, to make informed decisions about the best way to take your troop, and make sure that which are mandates are followed.

[Scoutfish]

NACAP.

 

I never said the mock EBoR was required or mandatory. It is offered to any scout who would like to have one.

 

Call it a practice ebor if you want.

 

The Advancement chair ran it.

 

And the scout was grateful for having had it for many reasons, a few examples of which I will offer here:

 

1) As soon as the Scout came in, the AC asked him what time it was. The scout said 7:03. The meeting was scheduled to start at 7:0

 

The AC told the scout that he should plan to show up about 15 minutes early. At the very least, he let the scout know that a handful of people from the district were taking time out of there lives for the upcoming EBOR and that the scout might just insult them by being late.

 

2) After the scout sat down, the AC asked him to stand up and pull one of his pants legs up a little bit. The scout did not know why ( neither did I) but did it. The AC then tells him he did a great job as he had his scout socks on. Apparently alot of scouts do not think of this.

 

3)Alot of questions get asked. Some of them are totally random, off the wall questions. The Ac asked a scout a question about our involvement in Irag and what he thought about that.

 

Nope. there wasn't a wrong answer, but the scout did get thrown off track and locked up for a little bit.

 

So, while you may have assumed it was a requirement that out evil troop tortured the scout with, it is something that is offered to every scout - if they so choose - to help them through what is probably one of the most intense and nerve wracking events they will face.

 

[NACAP]

Fish....I don't call it torture but mock or practice BORs for any rank are just plain unnecessary if the SM has properly done his job to prepare his scout. A confident scout who has completed all the requirements for Eagle Rank will never have a problem with a BOR. Tell them to relax and show their stuff. Nothing wrong with "locking up a bit". I've done almost 100 and with the exception of one where it was determined he didn't meet the project requirement, all did well and never had to practice.

 

Your #1 sounds a bit harsh and puts fear into a scout that is unwarranted

 

Your #2 is adding to the requirements as the scout is not required to have scout socks to have a BOR

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Moosetracker,

 

 

>

 

 

Unfortunately, the longer this thread gets the more disgusted I get with too much nitpicking detail that can't really be understood by a reasonable person acting in good faith.

 

Too much of an attempt at top down management and control when it would be better to trust the good faith of the leaders involved. Especially when when push comes to shove, units are just going to do what they consider to be reasonable in any case, with perfectly satisfactory results.

 

 

 

 

[moosetracker]

SP.. Don't know if you were say "I agree with you".. Or if you didn't realize what you said agrees with my statements..

 

Guide to Advancement has a few mandated items, but most of it is a guide.. Best to know what is the BSA recommendation, then from there tweak the program to what works best for your unit, but keep an eye on what is really mandated, so you don't tweak that aspect of the program.

 

Units are not the same as a McDonalds franchise. Don't expect to walk into each one, and see a carbon copy likeness.. Everyone has their own interpretation of how to acheive the vision & the mission. It is was keeps this forum in such a lively debate..

[NACAP]

Moose...I wasn't 100% sure where you were going with the "may not" post.

 

Take it back to the purpose of the BOR...It's the Committee's responsibility. It's to give the scout a chance to speak honestly about his scouting experience and for the CMs to have a chance to assess how the troop is meeting the Scouting Program's goals. Chapter 8 Particularly 8.0.1.3 of the Guide to Advancement lays it out pretty well. The Committee then can provide feedback to the SM about the scout's statements offline.

 

ASM, SM, parents, observers etc in attendance or sitting on the BOR itself detract from the Committee's job and may keep the scout from giving forthright answers.

 

For the EBOR, the approach is a bit difference since the Eagle project requirements involves people outside the scouting program. I've seen the project sponsor sit as a member of EBORs

[bnelon44]

The SM may introduce the candidate and may remain in the room, but only to observe, not participate, unless called upon. ( GTA section 8.0.1.0).

 

[moosetracker]

But again, it is just guidelines, and why National thinks thier guidelines are the best. They are not mandated rules..

 

So a unit definately SHOULD read the guidelines, The unit definately SHOULD either follow them, or have an open discussion on why the guidelines do not meet their vision for their troop.. The unit then SHOULD do it the way it works best for them..

 

Due to it being an important measuring tool for a committee, I don't see why after reading through the guidelines and reasons for them, a unit would choose to have NO committee members simply SM, ASMs, parents and outsiders... But, maybe this works for someone strange vision.

 

But, I don't see the reason so many people started out in this thread with .. Committee members only..!! No outsiders, unless in dire need, and if that happens shame on them !!!

 

So what in these guidelines state that it is not reasonable for there to be 3 committee members and one outsider? Or two committee members and one outsider? Or that that it can't be held outdoors on a beach in a bathing suit, eating ice cream and hanging upside down on a monkey bridge?.. Not because of dire needs that force the issue, but because the committee has said thank you National for the advice, but it doesn't meet our needs, we think it best to go this way..

 

Some people feel they can no longer have an SPL sit in on a board.. OK, I see that this may be similar to a SM, and the scout may not talk about the poor program with the SPL in the room.. But some people liked it.. The SPL could not be one of the 3 signatures from the Board. But, really what hard & fast rule prevents him from being the 4th or 5th observer?

 

I agree SM, ASM, parents would be a distraction.. But, if the troop up the street thinks it's ok. Well, their vision is different then mine.. No one will yank their charter because they do it differently then I think they should be doing it.

 

I voice my opinion a lot, and some people agree and others say Pthhhhhhhhhh....

 

We get good guidelines, a few rules, but the rest is local.

[Lisabob]

Moose, I have never heard a district training chair refer to the advancement guidelines as optional ideas for how advancement "might" be conducted. Are you sure about that?

[bnelon44]

Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices

This publication clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as must and shall. Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered, without the written permission of the national Advancement Team.

 

Recommended best practices are offered using words like should, while other options and guidelines are indicated with terms such as may or can. Refer questions on these to your local district or council advancement chairs or staff advisors. They, in turn, may request interpretations and assistance from the national Advancement Team.

 

http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement.aspx

[moosetracker]

As bnelon44 - shows.. I am simply following what is outlined in writing in the Guide..

 

Now mind you.. I am a big one on first being educated as to WHAT National thinks is good practice and WHY.. Rather then just going off and making un-informed rules based on stupidity.. If what National suggests sounds reasonable and sound advice, don't fix what's not broken!

 

As far as the rule that you can not add or subtract from the requirements for each rank, or merit badge.. Well that is a mandated rule. Still we can argue as to whether signoff is at the first sloppy attempt, or when they show proficiency. And each unit will hold the bar at a different height and still we will not get a cookie cutter operation.

[CalicoPenn]

Sorry, Moose - when followed by Not, May and Can very much become definitive directions as the word Not siginificantly modifies the words May and Can. When the advancement guide states that a SM or ASM may not serve on the BOR for a member of his/her unit, or a Parent may not serve on the BOR for his/her own child, it means just that - they are not allowed to serve on those BORs.

 

May gives you the option of doing something or not doing something - just because you may do something doesn't mean you have to do something. Using the word not after may removes the option. May not is treated in the same fashion as shall - it is a directive that must be followed.

 

Or do you want to be the person to explain to a parent who just told their son that he may not go swimming why their son decided that was just a suggestion from mom and dad?

[moosetracker]

then it should read "MUST NOT" or "Shall NOT" ..not .. "MAY Not"..

 

Personnally I prefer their old way.. the mandates were I believe bolded.. Rather then this subjective terms within what is already difficult to interpret words..

 

If I bring up Guide to advancement, I will point out it is a guide except for this blurb where if stated as Must or Shall it is a mandate.. But, I don't sit there reading word for word from the Guide, and interpreting it for them.. Now they can go home and interpret from it what they want to..

 

To be honest, I don't know of a troop that would state why a parent of a scout would make the best board member.. But, I guess you will have troops with ASMs serving on occasion.. Now the million dollar question.. Is it stupidity, or a well thought out reason why they wish not to follow Nationals advice..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Beavah]

Yah, regardless of our desire to do precision scoutin' by chapter and verse, moosetracker has the right of it, eh? The simple reality is that from a practical point of view, this stuff is up to the units. I have never yet seen any unit anywhere that doesn't fail to follow some of the program guidelines in some way or another, but most of those units run fine programs.

 

I still know some units that use scouts on BORs. Works quite well for 'em. I'm not sure we can really say with any degree of certainty that doin' it that way - the way the BSA did it for many years - isn't as good as havin' a bunch of MCs doin' BORs without the boys. For one thing, da current all-MC approach deprives the youth leaders of a role that they can do just fine, eh? A classic case of breakin' the Youth Leadership method.

 

I'd say an even larger number of troops use ASMs on BORs, especially if there aren't enough MCs around or the board is conducted in the field. Just not the same person who did the SM conference. And I've been glad to participate on any number of BORs at camp for different troops, where they invited not just the rovin' commish but a neighboring troop's scouter. Those are really interestin' and fun, because yeh get new perspectives and the lad gets a sense that this Scouting thing really is bigger than just his own troop. Other people care about his advancement.

 

Honestly, I reckon da biggest weakness in the system is committee members who don't really understand the advancement system and scoutin' methods more generally, who are asked to fill a seat on a BOR. I don't think this really benefits the boy most of the time, nor the troop. It's also hit or miss whether the MC takes away a good lesson unless there's a good "senior" BOR member to help coach.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

Maybe it will make a bit more sense when we explore the history a bit. Before there were people like District Executives, there were volunteers who were responsible for helping to create new units, and recruiting new youth, and recruiting Scoutmasters, and Chartered Organizations, and Committees. We called them Commissioners. Why were they called Commissioners? Because they COMMISSIONED new units! Your friendly, local Neighborhood Commissioner would identify a number of youth in a neighborhood who could use Scouting, then identified a partner to charter the unit. Working with the charter partner, the Neihborhood commissioner would identify people in the community to serve on the unit's committee - often, they would be members of the chartered organization, but sometimes, it might be the owner of the insurance company, or the bank manager, or a local store owner. It was actually rare at the time for a parent of a Scout to be a member of the unit's committee. Working with the committee, the Commissioner and Committee would identify and recruit the Scoutmaster and his assistants, to run the Troop program.

 

That leads to Boards of Review. Remember, at one time it was rare for parents to be members of their son's Troop Committee. The BOR was one way that the Troop Committee - made up of august men (and sometimes a woman) of the Community (and they were truly members of the community at large) - could review the progress of their Troop. To this day, we still say the BOR is the opportunity for the Troop Committee to see how the program is going through the boy's eyes.

 

So why aren't SM's and ASM's supposed to be part of their unit's BORs? Because the BOR is partly a performance review of them. Just as we would presume that a Parent would not be neutral when it comes to their own child, we must presume that a SM or an ASM can not be neutral when it comes to the unit's program. That's why they aren't members of the BOR.

 

I know, I know - things have changed, most committees are made up of parents now, and we can't expect parents to know anything about Scouting, can we? So since things have changed, other things have naturally changed.

 

Well I have this to say about that - a certain ancient maritime retail store (think about it) has been selling $5 4th of July T-shirts since their founding which seems to me is a violation of the Flag Code (I know, it's just a guideline) - they've sold millions of these shirts - things have changed - still doesn't make it right.