When to "count" the POR

[dfscott]

So, I have a 1st Class Scout that I (and the SPL) feel like not been meeting his POR for Star. Part of the problem is that he hasn't been around much lately due to sports, but part has been that we haven't really given him much access to the Troop trailer, which is where most of his duties "live." The SPL has been pushing to remove him, but I asked that I be given a chance to talk to him to give him a chance to be successful.

Two questions:

 

1) Since I haven't yet removed him from the position (since I wanted to discuss it with him first) am I correct that I should still count his time served towards his rank?

 

2) Last night, I asked him to step down and take a different role (Scribe) that he would likely be better at, but he refused the new position and asked if he could do something else instead. However, all our PORs have an attendance requirement of at least 75%, and regardless of what he picks, I know he won't meet that. Assuming that he takes a new role and I have this same discussion in 2 weeks, should I count time served in *that* new role and then pull him out again? I'm afraid he's going to "grace period" his way to meeting the requirement, which doesn't seem like a good precedent to set.

 

Frankly, my biggest concern is that this family (and I do mean family -- Dad is pushing him and his younger brother hard) seems to bail on anything that doesn't directly tie to advancement. "Going on a campout? Are we working on any specific requirements? No? Then I'm skipping it." The last straw was yesterday when two days before the campout they bailed out, and he was the grubmaster. Dad's response was "they didn't want to go because not many people were going." When I told him that this puts us in a bind, his response was "I'm doing the best I can -- it isn't easy handling an 11 and 12 year old boy". As father of a 12 and 10 year old boy myself, I have little sympathy for this statement.

 

[qwazse]

Trust your SPL. Sounds like he has his head on straight.

[fred johnson]

You will get a million answers all over the board on this.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Do what you think is best, guided by the Guide To Advancement (Section 4.2.3.4) and a soft heart.

 

..... Guide to Advancement

..... Section 4.2.3.4 Position of Responsibility

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

 

--------------------------------------

 

You do need to trust your SPL. Otherwise, you will be subverting his role and he won't take it seriously.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Offering scribe? "Officially", scribe is SPL appointed. The way to avoid scouts using grace periods to complete rank is that if they do poorly on one (such as SPL asking to remove him) then the SPL won't be appointing him to another position.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Deal with the scout, not the parent. Inform the parent if he asks, but deal with the scout.

 

--------------------------------------

 

As with his purchasing the food example, you have an opportunity to talk and share with the scout how he affected his fellow scouts. Have him find another scout to purchase the food. He accepted responsibility. If you step in to save the day for him, then he won't understand the impact.

 

--------------------------------------

 

You can't force scouts to attend and outside activities (sports, etc) are a valid excuse for lower participation rates.

 

--------------------------------------

 

QUESTION - You asked him to step down. Did he step down? Or does he still have the POR?

[fred johnson]

One final comment. You can "chain" positions of responsibility and time in position counts. It does seem reasonable though to explain with the next position of responsibility that he needs to demonstrate doing something with the position.

 

Communicate and set expectations EARLY and BEFORE he starts in the next position.

[dfscott]

You will get a million answers all over the board on this.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Do what you think is best, guided by the Guide To Advancement (Section 4.2.3.4) and a soft heart.

 

..... Guide to Advancement

..... Section 4.2.3.4 Position of Responsibility

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

 

--------------------------------------

 

You do need to trust your SPL. Otherwise, you will be subverting his role and he won't take it seriously.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Offering scribe? "Officially", scribe is SPL appointed. The way to avoid scouts using grace periods to complete rank is that if they do poorly on one (such as SPL asking to remove him) then the SPL won't be appointing him to another position.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Deal with the scout, not the parent. Inform the parent if he asks, but deal with the scout.

 

--------------------------------------

 

As with his purchasing the food example, you have an opportunity to talk and share with the scout how he affected his fellow scouts. Have him find another scout to purchase the food. He accepted responsibility. If you step in to save the day for him, then he won't understand the impact.

 

--------------------------------------

 

You can't force scouts to attend and outside activities (sports, etc) are a valid excuse for lower participation rates.

 

--------------------------------------

 

QUESTION - You asked him to step down. Did he step down? Or does he still have the POR?

 

He doesn't have the POR anymore. I think the key part of the Guide to Advancement is:

 

When a Scout assumes a position of responsibility, something related to the desired results must happen.

 

I asked him what he had done as QM and he said, "nothing really."

 

To clarify, when I said "offering" the scout Scribe, that was misleading. When the SPL indicated he wanted the scout gone as QM, I suggested that we ask him do Scribe, and he agreed, since we had lost our Scribe. I was going to have the SPL speak to him but the SPL was sick the night the QM came back and I didn't want to let any more time lapse.

 

So, our troop has a participation level requirement for POR. We already asked our ASPL to step down since he was going to be gone all summer (working at a Boy Scout summer camp, but gone nonetheless) and would be unable to fulfil the duties. He agreed. As I see it, you don't need to participate to meet the "active" requirement, but you do in order to fulfil your POR, or am I off-base here?

[fred johnson]

As I see it' date=' you don't need to participate to meet the "active" requirement, but you do in order to fulfil your POR, or am I off-base here? [/quote']

 

Yeah, that's my understanding too ...

 

Active ... Scout is registered and not dismissed. Scout participated to reasonable troop expectations or has alternative explanation. This scout had sports and probably qualifies for "active" under the alternative route.

 

Scout spirit is what you use when everything else falls apart.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

Key points from GTA section 4.2.3.4.5 "When responsibilities are not met"

 

----- Early action by scoutmaster

 

----- Credited time is a joint decision between scout and scoutmaster

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

My only advice ... delivery a great program and have a kind heart. This scout is getting a lot of pressure and mixed messages from his dad. I'd hope scouting could be his safe haven. You as scoutmaster can focus on delivering a good experience for this scout without feeling any need to be a rank gatekeeper. Let BSA requirements be the bad guy, if you can.

 

I know it's hard when a family is driving so hard with eyes only on advancement. Sometimes you just have to smile and remember that you can't save a family from itself.

[Tampa Turtle]

Our rule of thumb even if he is absent it is still his responsibility to get it done. And we have had guys who had big conflicts and were the QM come in at odd times to clean, sort, and refurbish gear; help get the trailer loaded even on campouts they weren't going on, delegate certain jobs and follow up. It can be done.

[dfscott]

Update: No surprise -- Dad contacts me last night and says son said he's not going to get credit for his POR and wants to know why. I explain that he hasn't done anything towards the position. A he-said/she-said conversation ensures (with me copying the COR and CC on it for documentation) where he claims that the SPL was sabotaging him and wouldn't let him complete the duties. (I should also add that this parent is already on "probation" for getting into huge argument with an ASM at a campout in front of the boys and being disrespectful for the Troop Treasurer at a parent meeting). To add insult to injury, he said that he was "insulted" that it was suggested that his boy could move to Scribe, as it's a "lame" POR (*my* POR when *I* was a First Class Scout was Scribe)

 

After my email, the CC and COR got on the phone. At this point, it looks like the CO is going to have to ask both boys in that family to find another troop. Sad, but I guess sometimes you need to focus on the people that really want to be there.

[qwazse]

[CalicoPenn]

I wrote this last night before your update (and the system glitched and wouldn't post it) - nothing about your update changes my mind:

 

Two things jump right out at me - and if this was a lad working towards Eagle and was getting his BOR on a disputed basis over this and I were on the BOR, I suspect they might tick me over to the Scout's side.

 

The first is your admission that part of the reason for this Scout's "failure" to perform his duties is that the Troop hasn't given him much access to the Troop Trailer, which he needs access to in order to fulfil his duties. Yes, he's had the sports thing too - which I'll discuss in a bit - but you have admitted that the Troop has failed to give him access to the thing he needs to get access to in order to do his job. That's on you - not him.

 

The second is the 75% rule - now it's probably ok to make a 75% participation rule for the positions, but those rules have to pass the reasonable test - are those rules reasonable? I could lean towards maybe if it weren't for one thing - you asked the ASPL to step down because he wouldn't be available this summer so wouldn't be able to participate in 75% of the activities. The kicker? He's unavailable because he's working at a Boy Scout Summer Camp. Want to know my first reaction when I read that? It was "Are You People INSANE??????" Want to know my second reaction? It was "Holy Boy Scout Batman, are those people insane?????" That pretty much ticks me over to the "That rule is not reasonable" column. When you are penalizing - and you are - a Scout for working at a Boy Scout Summer Camp by not letting him continue on in his POR, then you all need to step back and re-evaluate whether you've created these rules for the right reasons or whether you've done it just to play gatekeeper.

My goodness, if you don't have an exception to the 75% rule for an ASPL working at a BOY SCOUT summer camp, then how can you possibly call that rule reasonable. Sure, the lad "agreed" but he probably felt he had no choice.

 

You have now stopped or delayed advancement of 2 Scouts in your troop by your actions - one is borderline, and one is just far beyond the pale - who will you blame if they leave for greener pastures? And what will you do as the lads get older and have even more outside activities to attend (because by the time they're 14 and in high school, there are far more activities available to them) - how will you retain older scouts if they can no longer advance because they've decided to join football, or band, or theater?

 

Just because you can pass a 75% rule, doesn't mean it's the smartest thing to do.

[ScoutNut]

What Calico said!

 

My first reaction on reading the original post was - So,they are punishing a Scout for the failure of the Troop?! How could you possibly expect this boy to do a job when you did not give him the tools to do it???

 

Yeah, this boy's family is wacko (I notice you blame the child for THAT as well!), but, in my opinion, your Troop is not a whole lot better.

[fred johnson]

Dfscott ... at this point ... asking the father to switch troops is not unreasonable.

 

But use it to reflect. CalicoPenn and ScoutNut have excellent points.

 

 

Trailer access ... you do need to support scouts having the resources to do the job.

 

QUESTION - Could you have made the trailer more available ... AND ... do you think he would have done anything with it?

 

 

SPL asking to remove a scout ... I've never seen an SPL ask for a scout to be removed. It is interesting. I've rarely seen a scout leader want to remove a scout from a position. It does make me wonder what is going on.

 

 

POR attendance ... 75% is high, but I understand if you want to make the position work. It is not necessarily and by-itself unreasonable, but it is high. Our troop focuses on "are you helping in your position". Are you doing something with it? No attendance percentages.

 

ASPL & summer camp ... We've never asked a scout to step down from a POR because of staffing summer camp. You do want to congratulate your scouts that work as staff. They don't earn anywhere near minimum wage to do it. It's a great experience and brings great scout spirit back to your troop.

 

QUESTION - Does your troop have weekly meetings during the summer? Was the stepped-down ASPL at summer camp with you? Would the ASPL not being there really affected the troop during the summer.

 

----------------------------------------

 

IMHO, I don't like percentages on positions at all or attendance requirements. I am okay with making sure the scout did something with his position, but you need to address it early and not after-the-fact.

 

The other comment is scoutmaster can be difficult to balance all the competing attitudes. Just remember to stay on the scout's side and avoid getting too caught up in creating the perfect troop or executing the rules perfectly. I like to know the rules inside-and-out if possible, but then see what I can do to support the scout and create a great positive experience for our scouts.

[MattR]

Calico, of course he's insane, just like all the rest of us that volunteer.

 

The scouts in my troop with any POR volunteer to temporarily put their POR on hold if they know they can't fulfill their responsibility. They will usually find another scout to take their responsibility during this time. These are good kids.

 

There seems to be a few issues with the boy. First, the troop has not given him an opportunity to succeed. Bad on the troop. Second, the boy hasn't shown up. Well, if he had an opportunity to succeed, would he have shown up? Nobody knows. That's water under the bridge. Third, dad's a butt, there's no loss if you ignore him. Fourth, the boy doesn't show up. One question is was this boy given very clear expectations when he started? If not, there's no way he can succeed. My guess is not, just because he can't get access to the trailer. I might be wrong, but I'll go with my assumptions.

 

The problems that you have any control over are 1) clear expectations and training for his POR, 2) support for his POR, and 3) his participation. Time to talk to the boy and the ASPL, or whoever is supposed to be training and supporting the POR.

 

Something I'd do in this case is just tell the boy the new credit doesn't start until he starts doing it at a campout. I'd also look at his old participation and if he hasn't been doing much I'd set clear expectations of what has to go forward.

[scoutergipper]

Here's another post that got glitched

 

I just had this happen last week. Scout wanted a SM conference for Star, but has been an infrequent camper (also due to sports) and really hadn't done anything with his POR even when on campouts. So I just flat-out told him - without giving him my opinion - to take some time and think about whether he had fulfilled the responsibilities of his POR. He came back the next day and said "no" - that he was going to pick up a different POR in the Fall and work at that one. Not helpful in your position, if this kid and his family aren't interested in living the Oath & Law, but it was gratifying to have a kid - especially a young one - "get it."

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Were exact expectations communicated to the officer at the outset of his term, and did he meet these? If he met the clearly defined, and clearly communicated expectations for his position, he gets credit, if not he doesn't.

 

As pointed out above your SPL appears to have a handle on things, and this young man works for the SPL, not you.

 

It's best to have frequent SMC's for office performance through the year to attempt to keep things on track, but in the end the scout has to own the position, and fulfill his duties, and on one can do that for him