Elected Troop Officers Problem -- Leadership Position for Rank Advancement

[Vigil522]

Back in July our troop held troop elections. Those elected are supposed to serve for 6 months (until January). Since elections though, none of the elected troops officers have attended any events or meetings, not one -- 0% attendance. Therefore, none of the officers have actually fulfilled any of their responsibilities. Many of those elected even need this leadership position for rank advancement and some need it for Eagle. However, three months have passed since elections with no participation or leadership from those elected and so I do not feel that they should be allowed to count this leadership term for rank advancement since they are not really serving in the elected capacity. Is there a certain attendance percentage that a Scout must have in order for the leadership position to count toward advancement? I have reviewed the SM Handbook and cannot find any information pertaining to any of these questions? What should be done and how this problem be handled? Any input and opinions are greatly welcomed and appreciated. Also, any links to official information regarding this issue would be nice as well. Thank you for your help.

[eisely]

I am not aware of any official guidelines on this subject. I also am completely sympathetic to your view that these youth should not get credit for filling a leadership position. We are going through such a controversy just now in our troop. I was on a board of review that recently turned down a scout seeking advancement to life scout. He should never have gotten past the scoutmaster conference. The action of the board has triggered a controversy and the troop will establish written guidelines for each position. We will not require 100% attendance or participation, but at least we will be more up front with those boys, and parents, who are simply expecting a ticket to be punched. In the case I was involved with, the youth was months away from his 17th birthday, so he has ample opportunity to recover. The adult leadership has to be fair and clear about its expectations. The whole concept of the "patrol method" and a "boy run troop" effectively goes down the toilet if the elected youth leadership is not committed to even showing up.

 

Establishing expectations for youth leadership is up to the adults.

To repeat myself, I am not aware of any official guidance. You may wish to contact your district advancement committee, particularly if eagle ranks are involved. Otherwise, you are on your own. I strongly advise that these youth be contacted immediately and informed that they will not receive credit if they don't act immediately to start fulfilling the responsibilities they took on. Good luck.

[sst3rd]

Eisely is again, right on target. When selections are made for a variety of leadership positions, as the Scoutmaster, the positions must me needed (other than PL, SPL; like Quatermaster, Librarian, and Chaplain's Aide). The Scout is interviewed and clearly told of the expectations. The responsibilities have to be fulfulled. If a Scout misses a meeting or two and possibly a camp out every so often, most of these offices can still be taken care of. I have a Chaplain's Aide who misses several camping trips in the spring because of baseball, but he prepares the material and plans the worship service with several other Scouts in advance. To me, he is meeting the requirements. As Scoutmaster, I am aware of the positions being successfully executed. Where there are shortfalls, I talk with the Scout and advise him of my concerns. I have several Scouts finishing up requirements for Star and Life, but their leadership requirements aren't happening. They know it, and their advancement will stop at the Scoutmaster's Conference. We'll discuss what needs to happen, and see what the Scout does. This isn't easy, but must be done to protect the integrity of the program. Our Troop hasn't had to go to written policies for this yet.........

 

Anderson

[jmcquillan]

While there are no "official" guidelines to answer your question, there is plenty of information and suggestions out there on the web. One of my all time favorites, which our troop has taken and edited as we've seen fit, is at the USSCOUTS.org website. The link to the actual document is here:

 

http://usscouts.org/clipart/ScoutDoc/Troops/TroopPositions.doc

 

It's a document written by a fellow by the name of George Hutcheson, and is one of the best base guidelines I've seen to answer questions like yours. Do a "save-as" to your own computer, print it our, and edit as you see fit...or just use it as is. It takes a lot of the guess work out of the issue.

 

As an aside here, I would offer the following advice, which I've found to work very well over the past 20 years or so. Your Scoumaster should be using the Scoumaster Conference more often than he might be doing, in person, or by phone when dealing with a non-attending Scout. That conference is not meant to be used at pre-board of review times only. It should be used all the time for the SM to sit and talk about issues like this with the boys, especially those who are guilty of non-participation. In those forums, the SM can, and should, be telling the Scouts about their responsibilities to the troop, and reminding them of the fact the merely wearing the patch of position does not mean they're getting credit for it towards rank. They can, and should be, removed from the position if they fail to do the job and don't have a very good excuse for absences. The SM and SPL should be made aware of absences prior to meetings and events, and the reasons should be discussed with the subject Scout. He should know that the SM and troop is aware of unexcused absences, and that they are not acceptable. He should know that he stands to lose his position, and thus not gain his rank.

 

Allowing a Scout to maintain a position, and yet not show up for it and never do the job, and only tell him he's got a problem just before the Board of Review is doing the Scout, and the troop, no favors. As guides and mentors, the SM and his ASM's should be doing all that they can to make the Scout understand the responsibilities commensurate with the position and the patch. If, after trying that route, the Scout still has no clue, or interest, and doesn't perform...remove him from the position. That would be better for the troop as it sets the example of consequences, in the troop and in life, when the job is not done as and when expected.

[Rooster7]

jmcquillan said "Allowing a Scout to maintain a position, and yet not show up for it and never do the job, and only tell him he's got a problem just before the Board of Review is doing the Scout, and the troop, no favors."

 

I agree with this statement strongly. In fact, the site that he refers to (http://www.usscouts.org/), has debated this same issue. In that thread, it was stated by more than one person that if the Troop does not remove the Scout from his position (for poor performance and/or attendance), that they have no case. In other words, any time spent in the position, poor performance or not, should count (including for rank advancement). They based this argument on the fact that National has always sided with the Scout when this issue comes up (i.e. the Scout appeals to BSA). Also, as jmcquillan pointed out, it's not fair to the Scout to advise him at the Board of Review. His notice concerning his performance should come long before that time.

 

[Vigil522]

I agree that advising the Scout(s) of this problem just before the Board of Review is not good. We are only three months into the 6 month term, so we have time. We have considered the following solution: Provide leader training and extend their current term for 3 additional months so they will have a full 6 months of active leadership. We are not sure if this is acceptable to do. We may just advise, make corrections, and then write a guidebook with expectations that will be put into effect for the next group. Thanks for the info and please provide more if you find anything else.

[eisely]

It seems pretty easy to reach a consensus on this one. Certainly the board of review is absolutely the wrong time to inform a scout of his obligations.

 

I am somewhat conflicted about boards of review. No scout should appear before a board who has not met the requirements of the rank sought. Adverse board actions should be rare. Nevertheless, the newest materials that I have seen out of national clearly envision that boards have this authority and are not expected to rubber stamp every scout that comes before it. Boards need to be consistent and fair. Our internal problem was a result of poor and unspoken policies. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

[Mike Long]

I've been through this one before as the chair of the review board.

 

We need to make a very important distinction here between poor performance and NO participation/performance. Poor perfomance can be worked with but you can't do anything with nothing.

 

While I do agree that the BOR is well past the time to inform a scout of his obligations I still will not pass a scout on by who has not fullfilled the requirements. Ever. Regardless of where the failure ultimately lies it helps no one to rubberstamp. Especially not the scout because you have just taught him an even more damaging lesson, that he can get away with and be rewarded for not fullfilling his responsabilities.

 

That being said it is important to for me to say that in our troop we have a meeting with all the newly elected and appointed leaders and I tell them exactly what the troop expects of them. They are also made aware that if they don't live up to the troops expectations the requirement will not be signed off. One of the major points of leadership is that the scout holding the office has to be sure that their work is done and if they can't personally get it done they need to be sure that someone handles it. If it turns out that they can never be there to do any of the work personally then they need to step down from the position. This pretty much take care of guys with other interests that can't always be at troop functions.

 

I think that failure is an important if not the most important part of learning. Not that we should encourage failure but we should help our scouts learn from failure. I don't have a problem with signing off the leadership requirement for a scout who didn't do a good job in the position as long as he truly learns from it.

 

What I'm getting at is that three months into the postion is a great time to review progress and make adjustments. I wouldn't extend the term if the scout corrects the problem and makes a strong finish. That's what learning is all about. Screwing up at first and finishing strong.

 

This is an issue that when handled poorly will bite you in the butt. In the two cases I delt with this only one came out a positive for the troop. Luckily both boys went on to earn their Eagle but one did it in another troop.

 

Consistency and fairness are the main issues here.

[yarrow]

Every troop appears to have some sort of this problem. I have proposed to our committee that we go to the printed job description handed to each scout and their parents. To the scout so that he understands what is expected of him and to the parent so they understand the time commitment so that the boy will have parental support in forfilling the obligation.

 

Boards need not only be held at rank advancement. Boards can check on a boy's progress at intermediate points as well. This might catch the boys who have blown off their obligation before they "fail" and give them a chance to get back on track.

 

The check list/ job description can include an officer to report to, as described in the leader handbook and the troop may require a written report of the boy's experience. The job description sheets that I have seen from various troops include a requirement that the officer must attend junior leader training as part of their term of service.

 

Some of this may be more than your troop is willing to do but the leadership training is so beneficial for the boys and some young men tend to do what is inspected not expected.

[jmcquillan]

yarrow wrote: "Boards need not only be held at rank advancement. Boards can check on a boy's progress at intermediate points as well."

 

I not so sure that's entirely accurate. The Board of Review is a "rank advancement" review only. Any other "review" of scout progress between ranks should be handled in the Scoutmaster Conference format. That's exactly what the SM Conference is for...reviewing, with the Scout, his progress in the troop, in his patrol, towards rank, or towards better behavior, if that's an issue. Sometimes conferences of these sort, especially in larger troops, can be handled by ASMs, but only with the full confidence and knowledge of the SM, just for continuity of the message being delivered. But I've never heard of BoR being involved in "mid-term" review of any sort.

[OldGreyEagle]

I dont know if the syllabus has changed, but when I took my scoutmaster fundamentals a few years back, I remember the instructors telling us that Boards of Review didnt have to be solely aimed at advancement. They can be done for a scout who is not advancing as well for motivation reasons or just to let the scout know the troop cares. Since a Board of Review consists of Troop Committee people, having dfferent faces, not the scoutmaster or asst scoutmasters amy help the scout open up more.

 

Now, to the matter at hand, if the scout is not performing in the role of responsibility to which the scout has been elected/appointed, I beleive a Scoutmaster conference should be done at the 2 month mark with expectations clearly spelled out. If the requested improvement does not occur, a Board of Review should occur at the 3 month mark. This brings more people in the mix and eliminates the possible argument the scout could have that the SM just has in "in for me". If the scout doesnt measure up to the commitees/troops expectations I see no problem in removing the scout from the position and no credit earned towards rank advancement.

 

I see a lot of comments about "paper eagles" and how scouts are sometimes rushed though the process, well, if the troop doesnt stand up to non-Eagle like scouts, they will get the troop they deserve. Having clearly defined expectations with some wriggle room is definatley a plus for every troop to have.

 

 

[shemgren]

I agree with Vigil522, the solution involves training the junior leaders.

 

The "Scoutmaster's Junior Leader Training Kit", available from national supply; has a one page job desription and a script for laying out the expections for every junior leader position in the troop.

 

Plan on conducting this training soon as possible to give these leaders a opportunity to understand their obiligation to the troop.

 

Also, the problem should be addressed lon before the BOR part of the advancement process. However, the BOR has the responsibility of being the final quality control of the advancement program in the troop.

 

Scott Hemgren

ADC

[FScouter]

We had a Star candidate once that sat for his Board of Review. The board didn't feel he was ready for the rank and sent him back to get better prepared. He was stunned, as were his parents, and they squawked about it. The board felt he had been doing the bare minimum to squeek by and wanted to put a stop to it. This was a wake up call to the Scoutmaster too. Part of the responsibility of the board is to ensure that the Scoutmaster has been properly working with the Scouts so they are truly ready to advance. A rubber-stamp board is a disservice to the boys. This particular Scout sat again for his Star rank, passed, and eventually earned Eagle.

 

The point is that although the board of review is not the ideal place for the boy to find out his leadership was not adequate, what message do we send by passing on a boy who held the position but failed to demonstrate any leadership?