Attendance Requirement

[Basementdweller]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

[Basementdweller]

If the patrol leaders are doing their job, why do you even have an ASPL? That has to be the most useless job in the troop. The bugler has more responsibility. On an outing, the SPL is the second most useless person. If the patrols are 300' apart, how does the SPL keep track of everything? If the troop is looking to the SPL and ASPL for leadership on the campouts, they are barking up the wrong tree. The PL's should be running the show in their patrols. What are the PL's in your troop doing when the SPL and ASPL are running the show? Nothing? Taking orders from the SPL and ASPL? That's gotta be confusing for everyone.

 

Basically if the ASPL is attending regularly but has trouble on the weekend with job and school, I don't see this as any real problem. Same for the SPL, especially in a small troop. Have a PL pull that stunt, then there's reason for the fur to fly. For me the highest ranking POR in my troops were the PL's. Everyone else down to the CC SUPPORTED the PL's in their jobs. That's where the real leadership needs to be.

 

Stosh

For a one Patrol troop, you have no need of an SPL, ASPL . Do away with the positions.

[Stosh]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

What some often miss is that the scout can serve in more than one POR during the time period. That doesn't restrict it to PL AND TG, but can also be PL or TG. If he has to show evidence of his work as PL for two months and then show evidence of his work as TG for two months, he has met the requirements.

 

These "6-month" terms between elections is pretty bogus in my books. It definitely encourages abuse. I was elected as PL and that makes it official for 6 months regardless of what I actually do. Just enough is okay and the boys tend to push that envelop to the extreme, but they always have the "I was elected for 6 month" argument to fall back on.

 

During SMC's I would simply ask the boy to give evidence of his functionality as POR that totaled up to 6 months worth of effort. The onus is on the boy. If he says he did PL work, served at SPL at a camporee, worked as QM on the big outing, organized getting the boys to summer camp as Scribe, and then taught 4 classes for the younger boys as an Instructor, it sounds pretty good to me. Now, compare that to the boy elected PL. He showed up for all activities and sat on his hands. He showed up for all outings and sat on his hands. He showed up for all PLC meeting and sat on his hands. Now your Attendance Rule is useless and so is your PL.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

Stosh, you say tomatoes, I say tomatoes. The 6th month term doesn’t encourage abuse any more than letting scouts adding up 6 months worth of multiple POR time because the human SM is still judging if the scout performed six months’ worth of responsibility. I know this because we also allow scouts to add up all their POR time. You like your style of Scoutmastering better, so you think it encourages better boy performance. And maybe it does in some aspects, who knows. But in the big picture, it is still up to the adult to judge the scout’s performance. I’ve seen and experienced enough program styles to understand that one program style does not insure better leadership performance than another. It’s up to the adult and their style of program and observation. I had the same argument with Kudu years ago. I can assure you that our elected scouts work their tails off for 6 months. The question asked wasn’t how should the OP overhaul the troop program to make the scouts work better, he asked how to measure and encourage better performance. The answers to that question will work with just about any program style. Barry

[Tampa Turtle]

If a guy is missing but he still get's his guys organized and ready than we are open to an argument. And we allow them to count the time during a "summer lull". I think the whole thing is kinda messed up by BSA's over-emphasis on building leadership to validate the program. Some POR's are more management than leader as has been discussed on this site ad infinitum. The world needs good staff officers too. The air traffic controller might not be a natural leader of men (I acknowledge he needs to be assertive) but it sure as hell important.

[qwazse]

Good question. This hinges around another question, which Stosh hinted at: is your SPL/ASPL an instructor or an administrator? Ours are mainly administrators. Which means attendance at meetings is most important because that's when they make sure our plans for the weekend are reasonable, based on their experience. Then, they can delegate responsibilities to other scouts. Now, if your troop really needs an instructor in the field, and your ASPL is the guy, then you're gonna be hurting until he can take off work to be at camp. Regardless, accountability is what I look for in these situations. Who was it that said "Hey, Roy, can you assist the SPL for this weekend?" If it was the ASPL a meeting or two in advance,u I'd chalk it up to successful delegation. If it was the SM Saturday morning, I'd have a problem.

TT, by administration, I mean leading PL's in establishing program. For example, in the troop I grew up in, SPL lead campfires. It was just part of the unwritten job description. In Sons' troop, the SPL finds out if the boy needs to be MoC for communications MB, or appoints a really charismatic scout, gets a rough outline ahead of time, and let's the campfire run itself. SPL chills (this summer, that meant sitting back and playing his guitar for background). ASPL (who was Son #2 at camp this year) did not need to do much but be a member of his patrol until SPL had to leave a day early).

 

The past two summers both SPL/ASPL had already racked up enough POR hours for their next rank. So their was no "lording" advancement over them. SM told them what needed to be done. They made it happen ... cheerfully.

 

This fall there was a breakdown because of commitments to sports and academics, so Son #2 suggested the troop elect two boys who've never held the position and will turn 18 early next year. They did. Again, neither boy needs the position for the next rank, yet SM and I have every reason to expect the best of them.

[Stosh]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

I wouldn't argue the point that the elected boy isn't capable of working his butt off for the position. But what happens when he doesn't. He goes into this BOR and the board asks, "What did you do for your POR requirement?" The boy can answer, "I was elected PL for 6 months." Okay, what's he got to brag about concerning his tenure? And he answers, "I was elected PL for 6 months, and I did PL things for 6 months." One isn't getting much traction here. "Like what?" "I showed up for all meetings, I attended every activity, and I was at all PLC meetings." It still doesn't tell you whether or not he did one iota of work, but he did serve in a position of responsibility. Can't really argue the point, it's true.

 

But if the Board asks, "What did you do for POR for 6 months?" and he answers back with a litany of brags as long as his arm, it kinda puts out a pretty convincing argument. And the Board, being stickler for rules, says, "But what POR were you elected/selected to?" He says, "I didn't get elected or selected this time around, but I inventoried the troop equipment because the QM didn't have time, and I signed up the troop for summer camp because the Scribe was busy, and I am a trumpet player in school, so I worked as Bugler at the last two camporee. And the SPL and ASPL both took the high adventure program at summer camp and with the PL's busy with their patrols, I went to the SPL meetings and brought back the information for them", etc. and the Board comes back with, "But you weren't elected to any of these POR's, right? Maybe we ought to postpone this Board until you get elected."

 

The elected boy in your troop that can show he worked his butt off is great. I have no problem with that especially when his litany of accomplishments is as long as his arm.

 

As you point out, yes, the work is subjective to adult judgments, but that applies whether the boy was elected or not. But the boy has the onus of evidence of work when he isn't simply elected to serve in a certain role. Or how about the APL of a patrol who has a slacker PL that carries the load for the patrol. Because the requirement says he can't get credit for it does that automatically disqualify his efforts? If he was selected as APL and had to do all the work because of the absent PL, in my book he gets credit for it! "The PL was absent, so I did this." "The PL was not around so I did that." "The PL was in sports for 2 months so I....." etc. I guess I'm not ready to tell that boy he just wasted 6 months of some really good leadership in the patrol.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

I agree with everyting you say in the contrext you give, but where we difference is you keep putting responsibility of accountibility on the scout, not the SM. It doesn't matter if the scout performed for one POR or a dozen PORs, it's up to the SM to set the standard of accountibility and measure the scouts performance. If a scout says I was a PL for six months and nothing else, the BOR will straighten out the SM to help coach the scout explain himself better, or suggest the SM step it up on guideing scouts during their 6 months stint, not just at the end. If the scout didn't live up to expectation, that is a SM problem. And as I explained in TTs post, a SM Conference is a little late to hold the scout accountible to bad performance because he may have felt he did well. The SM sets the standards of accountibility for the program. Now the BOR should have some say in that, but the SM directs the factors of performance for the whole program. I do agree with you that scout should learn the skill of explaining themselves well to those who are responsible of holding them accoutable like the SM or BOR. I like that. Barry

[fred johnson]

I created campout attendance requirements. It makes it so much easier to have the discussion Eagledad mentions. What I'm learning is the clearer the expectations the easier it is for the boys to grasp them and harder for them to fudge them. The SPL or ASPL has to be on every campout baring an act of God. Same for PL and APL of each patrol. The PL is expected to go on most of the campouts (yes, that's fuzzy for a reason).

 

My PLC just had to deal with a PL that hasn't been on a campout with his patrol since he became a patrol leader 4 months ago. The expectations above triggered a discussion with the boy and the PLC that was good. Turns out he's in over his head with all sorts of activities. They finally agreed that it would be good for the PL to swap with his APL until he can get things under control. The participation requirements made it easier to start this conversation. It's a tool, I try to use it wisely.

Attendance requirements are perfectly fine ... as long as they are reasonable. The place where I have the problem is with the: "I created campout attendance requirements." That's not the scoutmasters job. It's the PLC job. AND ... it's not the SM job to guilt or corner the PLC into creating such requirements. Only to guide and help the PLC learn and choose wisely.

 

Your troop can do as it wants as long as no one knows better ... but if challenged and put against the BSA GTA, the GTA uses the phrase reasonable and measures against competing issues.

 

*** READ GTA section 4.2.3.1 *** ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained" ...

 

Personally, I'm glad my troop does not have your attendance requirement. It's forces the older boys choose between scouting and other activities. I'm afraid at 14 / 15 years old, many will choose the other activities and it's the beginning of the end of their scouting career. It also puts the focus on the wrong place. Scouting is about character and advancement is not gate keeping.

 

Our troop's approach is to make sure the scout knows his job and help him learn how to do his and see that's it gets done. He doesn't have to be there to execute his job. He has to lead such that his responsibilities are fulfilled. It's a learning experience for everyone.

[fred johnson]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

[fred johnson]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

"The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements." ... BSA says a BOR shall not be denied if requested.

[fred johnson]

If a guy is missing but he still get's his guys organized and ready than we are open to an argument. And we allow them to count the time during a "summer lull". I think the whole thing is kinda messed up by BSA's over-emphasis on building leadership to validate the program. Some POR's are more management than leader as has been discussed on this site ad infinitum. The world needs good staff officers too. The air traffic controller might not be a natural leader of men (I acknowledge he needs to be assertive) but it sure as hell important.

Well said.

[Basementdweller]

Lots of opinions exist on this and many many many are wrong. Period. Read what BSA says in the Guide To Advancement. You can't go wrong if you do your best to implement the program you signed your name to running on your BSA application.

 

Read GTA section 4.2.3.1 ... "impact" ... "making a difference" .... "reasonable" ... "a lesser level of activity is explained"

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

 

Want clarifications? Read the advancement news.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/...ment_News.aspx

You can argue all you want fred, The lad did not meet our expectation for the position. He can request a BOR. But he will lack the signature for his POR, end of story

[Basementdweller]

First thing, the ASPL is not an elected position it is an appointed position by the SPL.

 

 

 

We have an attendance policy it is 75% for normal membership and 90% for Leadership and the only thing it applies to is requesting a BOR. The CC will not see a lad if he does not meet those requirements.

 

 

I would discuss with the SPL what he would like to do. I would try to guide the SPL into asking the lad to do the right thing, which in my opinion is stepping down in my opinion.

 

Second under no circumstance does he meet the requirement of 5. While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility.

Life happens. Lad prefers work and money to scouting no problem

The key here is in our unit this will never come up.

 

A lad who attends and grows into the job won't have an issue.

 

A boy who has poor attendance and fails to do the job will be removed well before he fulfills the POR requirement, making the GTA and all the Bull pucky it spews irrelevant. So go ahead and find another unit if you like, you still have not fulfilled the requirements.

 

 

GTA is for weak leaders or guys like KDD who don't have the stones to remove a lad who is PL who doesn't show up for campouts or meetings. An SMC with the lad exploring his attendance with him and his obligation to the troop, hopefully the lad will do the right thing.

 

I get sports and band. The boys can complete POR's during their off season. If they are too busy for that then they too busy for scouting.

 

Sure my SPL is terrible, but he is growing into the position and has good attendance. I can work with both.

[Basementdweller]

If a guy is missing but he still get's his guys organized and ready than we are open to an argument. And we allow them to count the time during a "summer lull". I think the whole thing is kinda messed up by BSA's over-emphasis on building leadership to validate the program. Some POR's are more management than leader as has been discussed on this site ad infinitum. The world needs good staff officers too. The air traffic controller might not be a natural leader of men (I acknowledge he needs to be assertive) but it sure as hell important.

so you guys don't meet during the summer?

 

We scout year round.

 

Our attendance requirement will not penalize a lad for missing one campout or a meeting or two. But a kid who has football for 4 months should not be a PL or SPL.