maybe next time

[FScouter]

Agreeing with Kudo, Scout Spirit seems to frequently be the justification for denying advancement when nothing else seems to fit. Scout Spirit is clearly defined in the Handbook, and attitude is not part of it. If his attitude is lousy and he failed the Scout Spirit requirement, lets hear some specific examples of what a board might tell a boy theyve declined to advance.

[Lisabob]

Plenty of people use the internet these days Bob and my intent here is certainly not to tell tales out of a BOR that might embarrass this young man if someone from our troop, or a nearby troop, were to read them and recognize him. So no, I'm not going to post lots of details and yes, I was venting a little frustration in my original post rather than looking to be critiqued or nit-picked (though, "feedback is a gift" and I'll accept that).

 

Here though, I am really interested in hearing how others deal with this:

 

One point of frustration/exasperation I've occasionally had with BORs, especially for older/higher rank scouts: How can you make any sort of BOR conclusion when you can't get a scout to answer questions about his experiences to date? Mumbled, mono-syllabic answers that don't indicate any kind of thought, or "don't know" answers without a willingness to elaborate, leave the BOR with very little to go on, even after attempting to draw out a scout. I'm not talking about occasional shyness, nervousness, etc. - I'm talking about a general unwillingness to respond that seems more common among some older teens (and I guess we've all seen this once or twice in our lives).

 

Even more generally I think we have yet another catch-22. If troops allow boys to slide through at the very lowest level all the way to LIFE, then when they become Eagle candidates, we have lots of belly aching going on about the poor quality of Eagle scouts these days, blah blah blah. At that point if a boy really isn't able or willing to answer questions to the satisfaction of the Eagle BOR, then he may be denied rank, but it will likely be over-ridden by higher powers, leaving EVERYONE with a bad taste about the process. This outcome is something I truly hope to avoid with any boy.

 

But if it happens, it would be our own fault for not a) having a higher standard to begin with and b) changing the standards as the boy goes along and c) not providing the boy with a quality experience from which he grows through out his scouting career. In other words, although I can understand some responses, I hardly think it makes one a "scoundrel" to wish to avoid setting up a boy for failure at his Eagle BOR.

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

Ed or anyone, if the SM Conference isn't a pass fail requirement, then if the Scout has done the rest of the work are you saying I am then required to sign off, that they have had a SM Conference - and can then request a BOR, which (as I understand it)in theory cannot retest(as a pass/fail) the Scout on anything and so really is just another sign off?

 

If the SM & the Scout get together for a SM Conference & it takes place, the requirement gets signed. A SM Conference is nothing more than a chat between the Scout & SM.

 

OR, if Scout spirit is lacking how do I address it w/o a SM Conference after they have completed the rest of the work for the next rank? I'm positing that I have been talking to them about it as we went along.

 

If the Scouts Scout Spirit is lacking the SM can refuse to sign off & give the Scout his reasons & a plan to get the requirement completed. Or the SM can send the Scout to a BOR & advise the BOR the Scout Spirit requirement is not signed off & let them deal with it.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Gunny2862]

But Ed you just said that if the conference takes place it has to be signed off?!

"If the SM & the Scout get together for a SM Conference & it takes place, the requirement gets signed. A SM Conference is nothing more than a chat between the Scout & SM."

 

Then you said,"If the Scouts Scout Spirit is lacking the SM can refuse to sign off & give the Scout his reasons & a plan to get the requirement completed. Or the SM can send the Scout to a BOR & advise the BOR the Scout Spirit requirement is not signed off & let them deal with it."

 

How do you reconcile these two opposing views? I'm not getting it.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

[Bob White]

using polysyllabic words is not a BSA advancement requirement.

 

It is also possible the bor asked really poor questions or failed to make the scout at ease.

 

So in the written letter to the scout and his parents what requirement did you say the scout did not complete and what appeal process was he informed of in accordance with the BSA Advancement Policies?

[Lisabob]

Yes it is possible that the BOR members don't ask good questions and/or that they failed to put a scout at ease. Having been there, having been trained, having had some experience with BORs, I would say this was not the case in this particular situation. You can dispute that, but then again you weren't there.

 

Beyond the particular scout in question - how do you folks deal with a scout who is capable but apparently just not willing to provide answers to reasonable questions? Shrugs, grunts, and "don't knows" aren't much for a BOR to go on. Sometimes it seems like pulling teeth! Is there a point where you tell a scout "enough" and adjourn for another time or do you just let it slide? It's one thing if it is a young fellow who isn't familiar with the troop, the leaders, the process, etc. but it is another when it is an older scout who knows the people, the process, and the expectations but just seems uninterested in participating. I've met a few who fit this description. From what Bob has written it sounds as though he'd say the BOR should sign off anyway. I can't bring myself to that conclusion.

 

I don't agree with very much that President Bush says, but he had a line in a state of the union speech a couple years ago about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and that, I think, was exactly on the mark.

[Oak Tree]

Gunny,

 

There are actually two separate requirements. The conference is not pass/fail, but the Scout spirit one is. They have separate sign-offs in the book.

 

For shorthand, many people talk about these two requirements as one combined requirement, which it generally is in practice. I'm fine with talking about them as one, but there is a tendency on the this forum towards encouraging fairly precise terminology.

 

I would say that "attitude", while not appearing explicitly in the Scout spirit requirement, is clearly there. A Scout is to be friendly, courteous, and kind. These are often what people mean when they talk about attitude.

 

I'd say that a board needs to be able to ascertain if a Scout has met the requirements. They can determine that they are unable to do that based on the Scouts responses, and I think it would be fair to tell the Scout - "You need to come back to the board and explain in more detail how you completed requirements X, Y, and Z." I think it would also be ok to tell the Scout, "We have determined that you have not met the Scout spirit requirement. In order to meet that requirement, you would need to do A, B, and C."

 

I support the idea that a board can hold to reasonable standards.

 

[evmori]

Gunny,

 

Scout Spirit is a separate requirement from the SM Conference. Sorry if I failed to mention that.

 

using polysyllabic words is not a BSA advancement requirement.

 

True but answering yes or no or I don't know or just shaking his head while staring at the coffee stain on the floor is not what should be expected, either. And yeah, maybe the questions asked could have been better. But a BOR is not just something a Scout does & get signed off for. A BOR can decide not to pass a Scout on to the next rank.

 

The Board of Review is an opportunity to review of the Scout's attitudes, accomplishments and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals. And based on Lisabob's posts, attitude was part of the problem.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Gunny2862]

Lisa,

I have had the situation you most recently describe, in a SM Conference(non-advancement in the case mentioned below). Remember that I am relatively new to the Troop and as a SM so it's possible that not everyone is familiar with and comfortable with me yet.

 

I just had to kind of stop the process (it wasn't going anywhere any way) and tell him that I really needed to know what he thought. That I was sorry, there still are wrong answers but I really didn't think he'd be giving them. And that we couldn't fix any issues unless we could communicate about them. When he was really convinced that I was interested in what he thought I found a lot out about HIS view of some Troop dynamics I had never seen.

 

I think you MAY get the same kind of results if you can convince the Scout that you think what they think IS important.

On the other hand, if they are non-responsive(or minimally responsive) then in the upper ranks it should be addressed at some point before they go for an EBOR shouldn't it? Of course I could be Waaayyyy out in left field here, too.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

lets be sure we are using the correct vocabulary, I inadvertently used the wrong phrase and was excoriated for it. When we speak of "Scout Spirit", it may be usefull to see how BSA defines the term:

 

"Scout spirit applies to how a Scout lives and conducts his daily life. He shows Scout spirit by being a role model to his peers, living by the Scout Oath and Law. The concept of Scout spirit is not based on how many Scouting events or outings a Scout attends, but rather by how he helps bring out the best in others as a reflection of his own character and attitude in his daily life."

 

http://old.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

Now, if the scout is being a bully, a jerk or otherwise not a nice fellow on campouts, that is a Scout Spirit issue, but why wait to the Board of Review to discuss the issue with the scout. That type of behavior is to be handled head on at the time it occurs, not months later.

 

If the scout has had problems with monosyllabic answers in the past, where questions asked that need complete sentences to answer? If so, and very short answers were given, what research has been done to see if this trait is unique to BORs or does the scout have diffculty in all aspects of youth/adult communication. If he does, what is being done to address the issue. Is the scout to work on his speech patterns alone or with adult guidance? Not being there I can't say if the right decision was made, I do know that if you deny a scout a rank, you have to be willing to work with the scout to mend deficiencies. If the scout were to appeal the decision because he felt you were adding to the requirements, how would you respond?

[RememberSchiff]

LisaBob, thanks to your BOR for maintaining the integrity of the program, hopefully that scout will learn from your feedback and become the scout he should be. I am sorry the situation was not handled earlier by Scoutmaster conferences as it should have been.

 

Whether you call it "Scout Spirit" or behavior or attitude problems, I have seen a variety of such "problems" stopping Scoutmaster Conference signoff for rank advancement. With my scoutmaster conferences for rank, there is no automatic pass. Some colleagues argue that I should advance them anyway "to keep them in the program". Sorry no social promotions.

 

Here are some scouts that I have held back:

1. Mr. Smoozer - tries to charm his way through the program, very animated, very UNprepared, good buck passer, talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

2. Mr. Cool - has the shades, the look, and catchy repartee which rhymes with partee, knows jack. Only troop office he is interested in is being "The Man" and everything else sounds like school - uncool. Uniform is optional. Trustworthy?

3. The Dude - his Scout Law is simply "Whatever", really misunderstands the Patrol Method as just hanging. Inarticulate, bored, whatever.

4. Mr. Resume - selfish, if it is not related to advancement why do it and does the minimum at that. He's on the Eagle Track lookout, gone after ECOH. Annoys me the most - all legal.

 

I'm sure there are many other unscoutlike attitudes.

 

We are here to guide them on the scout trail and sometimes we have to pull them aside and check the trail map. Sounds like your scout was off-trail for quite a spell.

 

Again thanks for caring about the Scout program.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

The bottom line is that you cannot refuse advancement unless there is a requirement that he did not complete. At this point LisaBob has not mentioned a sigle problem with any requirement.

 

Nor has she mentioned if the board followed through on their requirements to inform the scout as to what requirement is not done or how to appeal.

 

Who is more negligent the adults or the youth?

 

If I were in Lisa Bobs place I think the board need to contact the scout and say "we all made mistakes at the bor. We need to give you more informastion and we need you to be ready to talk about yourself and the troop and do so openly. Lets try this again. This time lets all come better prpared to do our roles correctly."

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Gunny2862]

OGE, I agree with your definition. No really, no argument I do.

 

By hypothetical way of example, if an Eagle Scout wanted a SM conference on his accomplishing the rest of the requirements for his first Palm, but he: 1) had never been seen on any camp out since his Eagle, 2)Came to one Meeting since his Eagle COH (1 meeting in sixteen), 3)Had not been on either of two Eagle work days for either of another Eagle candidates projects 4) Did not show up for any of several service projects 5) had previously stated a desire to help the SM in the transition to a boy-led troop but has only been around as stated above. And had had many messages left by but no conversations with the SM - the family in the hypothetical screens calls with religious fervor.

 

But is a bright, engaging, charming youth with excellent social skills and a good and usable vocabulary should he still "Pass" in his Scout Spirit? The only thing he might be missing otherwise would be in "regular association with the SM". Or does he get held back until he has some measure of Adult association - Or does that get fulfilled in his Merit Badge work. I (hypothetically)never signed any of those blue cards by the way - assume the former SM did that part.

No (hypothetically)there is no valid reason why he could not have been more involved.

 

Could one say that some element of Scout spirit was lacking here? Could the Palm be denied? Under what grounds, if so, if any?

 

 

[Lisabob]

Bob you are making some incorrect assumptions. I (rather pointedly, I thought) decline to post some details and you assume that this means we didn't follow procedures. In fact the adults in this situation are well aware of the requirements and the scout in question was given a set of specific expectations or remedies, both verbally and to follow, in writing. The advancement chair, committee chair, and SM are also included in the loop. I'm not going to post the specifics and your badgering isn't going to get me to do so either, but that does not mean you are correct in your assumptions. It would be more helpful - to me, and probably to others too - if, rather than attempting to play "gotcha" here on this forum, you used a different approach in sharing your knowledge.

[Bob White]

Share on what, the BSA policies? I have done that. But since you refuse any details you leave posters no choice but to guess at what you did and why you did it.

 

Everyones posts so far are just guesses not just mine. My guess is that the scout has a signed handbook and you have no evidence that he has not completed every requirement.

 

Until you can say he didn't do a requirement then the BSA policy and procedures says the adults on the board did not do their role correctly.

 

I think you owe the scout another chance immediatley. Either find a requirement that was not approved or one that was not performed correctly, or pass him. To stop his advancement because you were unable to relate well with him is not within the role or responsibility of the bor.