Troop role for Eagle Court of Honor after EBOR Disp Circumstances

[David CO]

Ownership is the incorrect word. The CO does not own the unit. The unit is chartered to the CO. The CO owns the assets of the unit, however the unit is still a BSA unit. The CO does not have the authority to add or subtract to the requirements for advancement. The CO might not provide a good program but that is quite different.

 

Not true. The CO does own the unit.  BSA does not own the units.  

 

A CO licenses the BSA methods and materials from BSA for use within its youth program.  The trademarked methods and materials belong to BSA, and the unit is still owned by the CO.

 

Yes, ownership is the correct word.

Edited May 16, 2017 by David CO

[fred johnson]

No Fred, that is simply not true.  

 

BSA rules do not say that a Chartered Organization must tailor its program, or its POR's, to match up with the advancement requirements.  You are just making this stuff up.

 

The CO owns the unit.  The CO can create and eliminate POR's at will.  The CO can set its own requirements for POR's.  The CO can set the length of service for POR's.

 

In fact, a CO also has the right to decide what camping opportunities it offers to its scouts.  A CO could have its troop do only cabin camping (if it wanted to), which would exclude all of its scouts from advancement.  It would be a terrible idea, IMO, but the CO has the right to do it.

 

A CO could charter a unit solely to take advantage of BSA's STEM program, for example, and not do any camping at all.  Again, I think this would be a terrible idea, but the CO has the right to do it.

 

Neither the written rules or the spirit of the rules require the Chartered Organization to give its scouts a program that would allow its scouts to advance in rank.  The CO owns the unit. It is their decision.

 

My experience is things get muddied because people purposely create mud to obscure their actions..  

 

Similar, discussions fail when people are set to do it their own way. 

 

If your COR wants to create different non-BSA requirements to support a different non-BSA rank, go for it.  Just tell your scouts that your troop doesn't use BSA advancement and chooses to use your own advancement program.  Be honest and open.  Then, I wouldn't argue with you and I could understand.  

 

But if you claim credit for BSA advancement and ranks, follow BSA.  

 

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by fred johnson

[Col. Flagg]

Meh....

 

From the Charter Organization Guide Rule Book:

 

 

Packs, troops, teams, ships, and crews are owned, operated, and administered by duly constituted, community-based organizations whose objectives, mission, and methodologies are compatible with those of the BSA.  - Page 3

 

[Charter Orgs agree to...] Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies. They may be found on the My Scouting website and at the following location: www.scouting.org/ Membership/Charter_Orgs/resources.aspx. - Page 17

 

So it appears the units are owned by the CO, however, they are responsible for implementing the BSA program in accordance with the rules, regs and policies of the BSA.

 

Sounds like you are both right.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[David CO]

My experience is things get muddied because people purposely create mud to obscure their actions..  

 

Similar, discussions fail when people are set to do it their own way. 

 

If your COR wants to create different non-BSA requirements to support a different non-BSA rank, go for it.  Just tell your scouts that your troop doesn't use BSA advancement and chooses to use your own advancement program.  Be honest and open.  Then, I wouldn't argue with you and I could understand.  

 

But if you claim credit for BSA advancement and ranks, follow BSA.  

 

Who said anything about creating a non-BSA rank?  What nonsense.  You guys are much to focused on rank.

 

A POR is not a rank.  Yes, the unit can create its own unique POR.  There is no rule prohibiting it.  Some BSA literature actually encourages it.

 

If a POR matches up with advancement requirements, that's fine.  If it doesn't match up, so what?  It doesn't have to.

 

My point is that the council has no right to tell a unit to have its POR match up with the advancement requirement.  It does or it doesn't.  

Edited May 16, 2017 by David CO

[fred johnson]

It's not about PORs being only BSA PORs.  Lots of troops have special unique PORs.  That's absolutely fine.  

 

It's about the specific practice of possibly not crediting a scout because they step away after nine months.  That's mis-representing BSA's advancement program to shore up an individual troop whim.  Be less advancement focused by using BSA's advancement program as documented and spend your energy on getting your scouts outdoors and doing things.  Requiring more or different advancement expectations is being overly advancement focused and just not scout friendly.

 

It's about delivering the program as designed as documented and as promised.  If you have a BSA recognized POR and the scout wants credit for it after six months in the job and the rank requirement is for six months, then he's fulfilled the rank at six months.  Requiring a year or equivalently not crediting him with the POR or not crediting because they step away after nine months is wrong.  Period.   

 

If there is over emphasis on the advancement, it's with those manipulating advancement to shore up their own program.  

 

Anyway, this is turning nasty and not progressing.  I should step away.  

[David CO]

I think you are being a bit condescending, Fred, when you assume that a unit must be acting on a "whim" when it sets its POR responsibilities.  The fact that it doesn't line up with advancement requirements doesn't in any way indicate that it was done on a whim.  The unit may have a very good reason for it.

 

Council types do have a tendency to speak in a condescending tone to the Chartered Organization and its officers.  It is not attractive.

 

In an ideal world, the CO and the council would have had each others back. The unit would have approved the rank advancement, and the council would have told the scout to obey his Scoutmaster and do the 3 months service.  But we don't live in an ideal world.

 

Councils and CO's are often adversaries.  The council types want to deny the CO's legitimate ownership and control over the unit.  The unit retaliates by thumbing their noses at the council and ignoring their rules.  It happens all the time.  I just wish it didn't have to take place in front of the children.

Edited May 16, 2017 by David CO

[fred johnson]

Not condescending.  But yes I am trying to mask my emotions as it doesn't help.  I don't like these situations.  Units creating rules they can only enforce with the ignorance and submission of their own scouts.  

 

My experience is that BSA, councils and CO's are absolutely not adversaries ... usually.  It does happen at times though.  Usually in situations like you describe.  

Edited May 16, 2017 by fred johnson

[David CO]

Councils and CO's are often adversaries.  You council types make it so.  This tread is just one illustration of it. There have been many others.

 

Why would anyone assume that a CO can only enforce its policies with the "ignorance and submission" of its scouts?  Aren't you now being a bit condescending toward the scouts?

 

What reason do you have for believing that there aren't parents and scouts in this unit who completely agree with the Scoutmaster on this matter?  

 

Council types need to step down out of their ivory towers and address the issues between the councils and CO's.  All of this condescension doesn't help.

Edited May 16, 2017 by David CO

[David CO]

My experience is things get muddied because people purposely create mud to obscure their actions..  

 

Similar, discussions fail when people are set to do it their own way. 

 

If your COR wants to create different non-BSA requirements to support a different non-BSA rank, go for it.  Just tell your scouts that your troop doesn't use BSA advancement and chooses to use your own advancement program.  Be honest and open.  Then, I wouldn't argue with you and I could understand.  

 

But if you claim credit for BSA advancement and ranks, follow BSA.  

 

Yes Fred, we are honest and open. I believe in transparency in both our program and our finances. I have said this many times.

 

Should a unit with a 1 year commitment on its POR's make this fact known?  Yes, I believe it should. I have no reason to believe that the unit and Scoutmaster in this thread didn't make this fact known from the very start. 

 

Even if the scout didn't know about it before he joined the unit, he certainly must have learned about it long before he was approaching eagle rank. I am sure he knew.

 

The scout had plenty of time (several years) to switch to a different unit with 6 month POR's, as is more to his liking.  He didn't do that. He chose instead to remain in the unit all the way up to his EBOR, and then complain to council.

 

I think honesty and openness goes both ways. If a scout has an issue with a unit policy, he and his parents should be forthcoming about it from day one. They shouldn't wait until his EBOR and ambush the unit leaders.

 

Yes Fred, I think you would argue against the CO, even if its policies were as transparent as glass. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by David CO

[NJCubScouter]

I think this is getting a little too "personal". For example, there is no need to put labels on other posters, nor should we be speculating about what a particular poster might say in a different situation. Let's please stick to the issues.

[Stosh]

All of our local McDonald's restaurants in the neighborhood are owned by individuals that sign agreements for the franchise rights to sell McDonald's food items.  That agreement states they can only sell McDonald items. 

 

I used to work for an institutional food distributor that sold to many different franchises under different corporate entities.  One could not sell McDonald food wrappers to anyone other than McDonald franchises.  AND they could not even so much as sell a broom to a franchise without the specific consent of the corporate entity.  Now in the business world this is precise and legally wrapped up tighter than a drum.  With Scouting, there is a bit more reliance on the honesty of the franchisees when it comes to protecting the BSA brand.  Just because one can get away with something doesn't make it an honest effort. 

 

As everyone on the forum knows, rank advancement for the sake of rank advancement is not something I adhere to.  I want my boys to learn and be successful.  If the requirement says 6 months, then anything after that is up to the boy.  He has choices to make.  First he had to choose to go the 6 months, then he has to make the choice of staying on.  I have no problem with a PL of the NSP aging out with the same group of boys that came in with him.  That's 7 years of PL POR.  But if the boys in his patrol don't think he's doing a good job, he can be out in as little as 1 day.  The other boys have choices too.  They can have anyone they want as their PL and tomorrow's a new day, a different day than today. 

 

I had one scout take on Den Chief of a Wolf Den.  He received the National Den Chief Award after a year, and then continued on working with the boys until they came into the troop.  He was selected by the boys to be the PL which he did until he aged out an Eagle.  Two of his boys went back and were DC's themselves and another took over a different patrol as PL for a while to get experience and eventually came back and was the PL after the Eagle left.  The long term legacy of the PM is very interesting to see.  Too bad it's an exception and not the rule.  The only "rule" I guess is: I let the boys decide for themselves what's best for them. 

 

I had one boy earn his Star rank by taking on two different POR's, QM for 2 months and then switched over to Instructor for 2 months.  He wanted a variety of different experiences and was trying them out.  Does this disrupt the troop in anyway?  Nope, different boys then have the opportunity to step up and try a POR more frequently than just once a year when elections are held.  Then if they don't get elected, they can sit on their hands for a year waiting the next round.  Sorry, not my style. 

[NJCubScouter]

In fact, a CO also has the right to decide what camping opportunities it offers to its scouts.  A CO could have its troop do only cabin camping (if it wanted to), which would exclude all of its scouts from advancement.  It would be a terrible idea, IMO, but the CO has the right to do it.

 

A CO could charter a unit solely to take advantage of BSA's STEM program, for example, and not do any camping at all.  Again, I think this would be a terrible idea, but the CO has the right to do it.

 

Neither the written rules or the spirit of the rules require the Chartered Organization to give its scouts a program that would allow its scouts to advance in rank.  The CO owns the unit. It is their decision.

I just wanted to address this general concept, without beating the "POR issue" to death any more than it has been already.

 

The Annual Unit Charter Agreement (http://scoutingwire.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Annual-Chartered-Agreement_English.pdf) lists what the CO is agreeing to, including the following: "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies."  What is the "program"?  In a Boy Scout troop, the Scouting program includes the advancement requirements.  (No, it doesn't actually say that.  Maybe it should, but I think the BSA was trying to keep this document  very short and simple.  Maybe that is no longer possible in this day and age, where are arguments seem to crop up over everything.)  So I think that if a CO decides to omit portions of the Scouting program and the omissions make it impossible (or even very difficult) for a Scout to meet the advancement requirements, the CO is not complying with its charter agreement with the BSA.

Edited May 17, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[David CO]

That may be your opinion, and you are entitled to feel that way, but BSA has never said that. In fact, they have often said the exact opposite.

 

Have you ever read the BSA literature about "In-School Scouting" that BSA was sending out to schools in the 1980's. It specifically said that a scout troop is a "mix and match" program. The Chartered Organization may utilize as much or as little of the scouting program as it wishes.

 

You don't even have to go back that far. Read some of the pamphlets they are currently sending about STEM scouting.

 

Those of us who have been in this game for a while know that BSA has always been much more flexible with its Chartered Organizations' use of the scouting program than most of the die-hard scouters would like.

[fred johnson]

Use of program - Yes BSA has been flexible.  Units can emphasize areas and do more or less. 

 

Advancement related - BSA has been very clear and even more clear recently.  Units can't add to the requirements.  A rank requirement of six month in a POR is six months in a POR.  Your unit can choose to have elections every three months or six months or every year or even just elect as people step down.  That's fine.  But when the scout hits six months, the POR rank requirement is complete.  In terms of Stosh's post, it's a clearly well document francise rule and expectation.

Edited May 17, 2017 by fred johnson

[NJCubScouter]

Have you ever read the BSA literature about "In-School Scouting" that BSA was sending out to schools in the 1980's. It specifically said that a scout troop is a "mix and match" program. The Chartered Organization may utilize as much or as little of the scouting program as it wishes.

No, I did not see "In school Scouting" literature in the 80's, and I was not involved with Scouting during that decade. More generally, I do not pretend to have seen every pamphlet or brochure ever published by the BSA, even those from today. But I also have never seen any BSA publication that suggests that a Boy Scout troop does not need to offer the advancement program and the activities required to advance, and I think the Charter Agreement at least strongly implies otherwise.

 

You don't even have to go back that far. Read some of the pamphlets they are currently sending about STEM scouting.

I haven't seen those either. Essentially all I know about STEM Scouts is what I have read in this forum and a few documents that have been linked here. STEM Scouts is not being piloted in my council. But I do know that a "STEM Scout Lab" is not the same thing as a Boy Scout troop. I do not even know whether advancement is a "method" for STEM Scouting, as it is for Boy Scouting. That would make a difference.

 

Those of us who have been in this game for a while know that BSA has always been much more flexible with its Chartered Organizations' use of the scouting program than most of the die-hard scouters would like.

Most of the times I have heard someone use the term "die-hard scouter" it was meant as a compliment, but that does not seem to be the case here.  I am not sure what make one a "die-hard scouter" or whether I fall into that category.  I do think that there are certain basics that one should expect to see in a Boy Scout troop, such as at least making an effort to use all the methods of Boy Scouting - not necessarily succeeding, since none of us are perfect.  Exactly where that line is, I am not sure, but I think that, to use one of the examples you used, a Boy Scout troop that does not go on camping trips at all due to a decision by the CO, is not delivering the Boy Scouting program.