Scout non-responsive to Life BoR questions; fails BoR; passes new BoR outside his unit

[mtgavin]

I'd appreciate some insights into this situation, and if anything that occured should have been done differently, or is against BSA policies, ambiguous as they are.

A friend of mine had a Star Scout in my son's Troop, ready for a Board of Review for Life Rank. This Scout was given the BoR by our Troop Committee as requested. I did not participate personally in the BoR, but was told afterwards by multiple BoR participants that the Scout completely clammed up, and couldn't answer any questions unless the response was along the lines of "I don't know".  I believe the Scout likely has significant anxiety issues in front of adults (as many do), but there has been no formal diagnosis that special needs exist for this Scout. I don't believe the BoR questions were difficult or combative. This was not a retest.  Questions such as "What makes a good leader?".  etc.

The BoR declined to advance the (basically unresponsive) Scout to Life rank since it was not possible to determine whether "the Scout has a positive attitude, accepts Scouting’s ideals, and sets and meets good standards in daily life." as indicated in Section 8.0.1.2 of the Guide to Advancement (#33088).  No discrepancies were noted related to requirement signoff.

My friend (as well as our local ScoutMaster) was disappointed with the BoR/Committee for failing to advance the Scout.  The Scout needed to achieve Life Rank soon in order to partipate in upcoming Summer Camp programs exclusive to Life Scouts.  She decided to take the Scout elsewhere for a satisfactory BoR, to another unit in a different Council where she has friends in adult leadership.  This other unit provided a new BoR (for this Scout that is not in their Troop) and passed the Scout to Life Rank.  The Scout shows up in ScoutBook as a Life Scout in our Troop.  The Scout in question never left our Troop and remains a member today (working on his path to Eagle now.)  I believe this "alternate BoR" approach was done with the blessing and recommendation of our ScoutMaster.

Looking for your opinions:

1) Was it acceptable and proper for the BoR to decline advancing the Scout to Life Rank since the Scout would not answer standard well-intentioned questions such as those found in the Guide to Advancement (#33088), when given every opportunity to do so? I've read the Guide to Advancement thoroughly and I believe the answer is yes, but it seems murky.

2) Is it BSA policy that a Scout may have a (non-Eagle) Rank BoR provided by adults *completely outside* the unit committee of the Troop?  I can't find anything that says this is not permissible, but I suspect it is assumed that the BoR is provided by the Scout's Troop Committee, so this is not even addressed in BSA documents.

Thanks in advance.

[skeptic]

The info I do not see is if the actual troop BOR explained their reasoning and offered a repeat board in say three weeks or something of that sort, noting they needed to clarify specific areas of concern.  On the rare occasion we do not pass a scout, they are slways given a reason and a return option in a reasonable time frame.  

[fred8033]

So so many parts here.  I'll probably add and edit.

#1  Yes, a BOR can choose to not pass a scout.  ... I've seen hundreds and hundreds of BORs.  The scout should not fail.  If a BOR chooses to not advance the scout, the scout needs to be told in writing why.  ... in this case, it's clear.  The scout did not participate in the BOR.  ... The scout not answering one question should NOT be a reason.  The scout not actively participating in the BOR is a reason.  ... BUT, any adult worth being on a BOR should be able to solicit the scout's participation.  Any adult on the BOR should also be asking why did this happen.  ... it begs the next question ...

#2  ... What is the scout's history?  What happened?  Did the scout not trust the BOR adults?  To get to a Life BOR, the scout passed at least five BORs.  What is different this time?  ... I'd want the SM and other adults to honestly reflect on this.  ... Did the CC or another BOR adults chew the scout out previously?  Lose trust?  Did some adult treat the scout unfairly? ... even if just in the scout's view?  How did the scout pass several and now fail?  ... I'd also ask are some of the BOR adults normally interacting with the scout (camping, MBs, troop mtgs)?  If so, they should not be on the BOR.  

... Similar ... why did the SM think a non-troop BOR was needed?  It smells like the SM knows the cause / reason.  

#3  Is a completely non-troop BOR acceptable?  No and yes.  BSA Guide To Advancement has the rules ... to be mixed with a kind heart by the adults.  GTA section 8.0.2.0 does say it is to be 3 to 6 unit committee members.  Since the BOR exists for many reasons, including improving the troop, the rule is clearly to use troop committee members.  That said, this is not really unusual.  We help the scouts.  We solve people issues when people clash.  ...  I do fear the SM doing an end-around the committee clearly subverts explicit roles.  What should happen next?  CC refuses to sign the scout's Eagle application?  CC protests an advancement report to the council?  ... SM should not have set up an alternative BOR.  That's absolutely NOT the SM's job.  GTA explicitly says it's the unit committee job to be guided/assigned by the troop committee chair.  

The CC could make a fuss about this BOR as the CC has real grounds.  The unit leaders did not advance the scout.  ....  BUT ... IMHO ... that would be absolutely, absolutely wrong.  This specific scout participated in a Life BOR.  It's done.  Period.  Let it sit.   We don't fight adult battles using the scouts.  

#4  BOR purpose is to give the unit feedback ... The unit committee got a huge ugly feedback dump by the scout AND the SM.  The unit is doing badly.  ... The question now is how does the unit committee fix the troop?  That's the CC/COR responsibility.  Honestly, should the CC/COR remove the SM?  The CC/COR has clear cause.  ... We don't penalize scouts, but we do remove adults that can't work together.  OR, is there a unit committee member (or members) that are not working well together and they need to leave?  

IMHO ... SM found a solution, but may have created more issues.  There is clearly a problem between the scout, the SM, the unit CC and the unit committee members.  Those adults better have some honest conversations soon about unresolved issues that will keep escalating.  

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by fred8033

[scoutldr]

Good answers by @fred8033.  In my view, the two main issues were a) the scout should have appealed to the District Advancement Committee, and b) the other unit should never have agreed to examine a Scout they did not know, thus usurping the authority of the Scout's own unit.  Since the Scout has already been told he is a Life, and it's recorded, I don't think District will take it back at this point.  If I were the Scout's CC, I would invite him to continue his journey in the other Unit.  As CC, I would also take @fred8033's point #4 on board and examine the Unit's role in all this.

[qwazse]

@mtgavin, welcome to the forums!

Fred answered your two questions (in four parts). His and other replies were making assumptions in the negative. I’d like to frame things positively.

As a crew advisor I had been put in similar situations. So, to help bring clarity for scouts, scouters and parents, this is how I describe how to proceed …
A BoR can be suspended to give a scout time to rectify deficiencies. In this case, the board should promptly write a letter regarding the perceived deficiencies (i.e., reticence in answering questions) and give the scout an opportunity to complete the review (i.e., as soon as next week). If time is of the essence, a handwritten letter will do. Done is better than perfect.

An SM or ASM would then be able to listen to the scout, and coach him/her in how to overcome the problem.

What’s not clear is if the SM discussed this with the scout’s troop CC. Working between multiple units, I’ve found that communication on all fronts is necessary. So, in a case like this when different people constitute the reconvened board, I would want the chair of the reconvened board to have the letter that the suspended board sent to the scout.

Let’s not assume there’s something interpersonal between MCs and scouts. Sometimes scouts have a bad day. Sometimes that day falls at exactly the wrong time for adults in one party to help in short order. Given multi-way communication between all parties, this is a great model to the scout on how thoughtful and caring adults can work together and provide opportunities for growth.

[mtgavin]

Thanks for your responses, especially @fred8033.   I believe there were some trust issues between SM and various committee members prior to the failed BoR event, but that event brought distrust up another level.   The Scout in question will soon be appearing before his unit Committee, looking for approval on his Eagle Project.  It has been requested by my friend, through the SM that certain committee members should not be allowed to participate in this meeting.  (For unit Committee approval, this Troop normally has the Eagle Project presented at a regular Committee meeting, which normally has many MC's and parents in attendance).  Going down this road (excluding various committee members from BoR's or Eagle project approvals) seems to be a recipe for long term mistrust. I believe the Troop needs to examine the underlying reasons for this event, especially #2 from @fred8033, before the Scout comes before the unit Committee for his project approval, and addresses them prior to that event.

[mtgavin]

Thanks for the welcome, @qwazse!  

Thanks for the information re: suspended BoR.  I've not had experience with these, but they seem to be a great idea....suspended sounds much better than failed. A quick turn-around time seems like the proper thing to do in these cases.  I also believe the adults on the BoR may not have been coached properly on how to elicit responses from unresponsive youth.  That should be part of the get-well plan for the Troop going forward.

Related to whether the SM discussed this event with the Scout’s Troop CC, I believe the CC at the time (due to other life issues) was essentially unavailable to complete the duties of the position at that time, so there was a void of leadership in the Troop that led to this event.  A new CC has been put in place since then who is trying to work the issues left in the aftermath of the event.  The previous CM's that my friend and the SM have some trust issues with, remain active in the Troop, so repairing those relationships will be an important task for the new CC.

[Eagledad]

As a retired SM of many hundreds of scouts and the trainer, advisor, and mentor of hundreds of Scoutmasters, I put the blame of this situation 100 percent on the Scoutmaster. 

First, I have said many times on this forum that I am not a fan of the current BOR process for two reasons; First, it interrupts the scout run process with a totally adult procedure that scouts could do themselves. Second, I don't like the adult run BOR for this very situation. The Troop brings young naive scouts and helps them build a trust of youth leadership, THEN throws them in room of adult strangers who asked them challenging questions in a testing format. I understand that the only objective of the BOR is to find issues with the program. But, it is the Scoutmasters program they are judging through the eyes of a scared shy naive youth. I have said many times that if the troop really wants to know how the Scoutmaster is doing, talk to the parents.

I experimented with adding an Older Eagle Scout to the board for the Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, and First Class BORs so the scout would have a friend in the room. And it worked very well. We couldn't do that all the time, but most scouts get comfortable with the BOR process by their 1st class BOR anyway.

I'm curious:

1. How did this scout get to Star in these BORs?

2. How is he going to get through an EBOR of total stranger asking difficult questions.

What bothers me about this situation is the Scoutmaster missed and opportunity to help the scout grow so he can deal with people that make him feel uncomfortable for the rest of his life. And, the mis-actions have divided the adult team's trust. The SM is not the leader of the adult team, that is the CC. And it is up to the committee to determine what to do with scoutmasters who don't live up to the expectation of the troop. In most cases, committees let the SM drive the Vision of the program and the process for working the program. But, in reality, the Vision and the program process should be created and guarded by the committee to have continuity over the years.

Part of the problem is that many Scoutmasters use compassion as their motivation without really even considering the scout's future. True, this SM save the day by totally ignoring the troop committee and presses further by choosing future committee members for the scout. Without, sitting down and discussing the situation with the committee to seek out what is really best for the Scout. The whole committee can't be heartless.

I also struggle with these scoutmasters because their Ego's many times tend to drive them to ignore normal policies and other ideas. We had such a SM on this forum who stated good ideals for the good of scouts, but tended to modify the BSA policies to fit his own unproven theories. After he was asked to  leave his 3rd troop in five years, he dropped off the forum. His compassion and theories where dangerous.

If the SM of this situation doesn't work with the committee, then they can look forward to other issues in the future. I watched a stubborn compassionate SM drive their troop to litigation. It was the wisdom of the CC who manage to find compromise with parents and save the troop a lot of money.

The CC needs to have a meeting with the SM and explain the loss of trust they have with decisions. The Committee and the SM corp need to go back to training together and if possible, team development training. Each adult member needs to learn the expectations of their position and trust each other to support the program.

I could go on and on, but I have watched many BOR issues drive a wedge in troop programs because one of more adults decided they were right and took things in their own hands.  Unfortunately most of volunteers are not trained for many of the situations that occur in a volunteer organization and they let their emotions drive their actions around policies and procedures. And then someone like me gets a call from district to go and see they can get the program back on the rails.

Barry

[Eagle94-A1]

Anyone else remember when Scouts sat on BORs for the T-2-1 ranks?

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, mtgavin said:

The Scout in question will soon be appearing before his unit Committee, looking for approval on his Eagle Project.  

That may be your troop's approach.  There is zero requirement for the scout to present to a unit committee.  We could waste a debate on if that is an extra requirement.  But that's a different topic.   The Eagle project proposal review can be as simple as the scout approaching the CC asking for a signature and then the CC asking the scout "what am I signing?  tell me about it"  Could be two minutes.  Could be twenty.  There is zero requirement to present to a unit committee.

[mtgavin]

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

That may be your troop's approach.  There is zero requirement for the scout to present to a unit committee.  We could waste a debate on if that is an extra requirement.  But that's a different topic.   The Eagle project proposal review can be as simple as the scout approaching the CC asking for a signature and then the CC asking the scout "what am I signing?  tell me about it"  Could be two minutes.  Could be twenty.  There is zero requirement to present to a unit committee.

Understood. Researched this issue on Scouter.com last night and came to the same conclusion.  Either way the Troop shouldn't treat this Scout differently than other Scouts in the Troop, unless some type of special needs dianosis is provided, presumably.

[mrjohns2]

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Anyone else remember when Scouts sat on BORs for the T-2-1 ranks?

Yep. Tenderfoot to Eagle 1987-1990. 

[DuctTape]

IIRC BoRs were originally conducted by volunteer community members of high esteem with the primary purpose of helping scouts learn and grow in the interview process; to learn to sell themselves to prospective employers. It had little to do with actual rank, but was just another means, purposely created to which scouts would grow.

It is beautiful to see how all the methods and processes when understood and used with fidelity underscore this basic tenet of Scouting; Growth. I try to remember this with all I do. Every conversation, every suggestion, every decision is predicated on whether it provides for scouts to grow, or does it shortchange them the opportunity, the promise of scouting. I believe this is what makes scouting unique compared to all other youth activities except perhaps 4-H (although I am not sure how intentional it is within their history and structure as it is with Scouting.)

[qwazse]

“Trust issues” was repeated enough times to make it the real bottom line here.

It’s astounding how quickly a teen will catch on to that stuff. It may even be why the scout was intimidated at this BoR. Youth who are trying to be loyal to every adult in their troop … their response when they perceive a loaded question is to freeze. And if you don’t think “What makes a good leader?” isn’t a loaded question in an environment where scouters have been at odds, it’s time to polish the mirror.

Whatever ails your scouters needs to be fixed.

In the meantime, I’d cut the SM a little slack. She’s trying to help the scout accomplish whit should at this point be a fairly minor task.

[Eagledad]

12 hours ago, qwazse said:

It’s astounding how quickly a teen will catch on to that stuff. It may even be why the scout was intimidated at this BoR. Youth who are trying to be loyal to every adult in their troop … their response when they perceive a loaded question is to freeze. And if you don’t think “What makes a good leader?” isn’t a loaded question in an environment where scouters have been at odds, it’s time to polish the mirror.

I'm not quite sure what all that means. Who should look at the mirror?

Leadership is a standard BOR question on most BORs all the way to Eagle. Any question from an intimidating adult could be perceived as loaded. So, the issue isn't the question, it is the stressful BOR environment. And, if it is stressful for one scout, it is likely a problem for several. 

So, yes, something has to be fixed. And, it appears to me the SM is dodging the problem taking it on her own. That is not how to Fix the problem. The program has to be safe for all the scouts. Not just the one. I'm not giving a SM a break when their actions could cause more harm. I've seen it happen. 

Barry