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

[InquisitiveScouter]

Just now, fred8033 said:

There is some flexibility for units.  Very similar to the BOR discussion in this thread.  Units can correct for clearly unearned badges. 

My point is it is absolutely wrong to think / treat the unit leader signatures as approving the badge.  That is absolutely not the point of the unit leader signing the badge.  Heck, even if the unit leader signs, you could apply the above GTA 7.0.4.7.  

The point is:  The MBC approves the badge; not the unit leader.

Agreed, but I do see it as my job as a Unit Leader to ask the Scout some questions to determine if they actually completed the badge.

Not a retest, but a confirmation of completing the requirements as written.

This is the dirty underbelly of Scouting, IMHO...  If you peel the onion back, I'd bet you find many, many badges are not completed according to the requirements... especially those acquired at Summer Camps.

I have gotten to the point that I do not really peel the onion back, but just ask the questions to provoke thought in the Scout about his personal integrity.

[fred8033]

17 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Agreed, but I do see it as my job as a Unit Leader to ask the Scout some questions to determine if they actually completed the badge.

Not a retest, but a confirmation of completing the requirements as written.

This is the dirty underbelly of Scouting, IMHO...  If you peel the onion back, I'd bet you find many, many badges are not completed according to the requirements... especially those acquired at Summer Camps.

I have gotten to the point that I do not really peel the onion back, but just ask the questions to provoke thought in the Scout about his personal integrity.

Agreed.  The MB program is not highly consistent.  I'm not sure it  needs to be.  I have less trouble with summer camp than others as I'm more concerned about giving the scout new, unique, growing experiences.  Others treat jumping the MB requirements as the key point of the game.  ... It's probably somewhere in between.  

Then again, I don't think the leadership or troop program or camping expectations are very consistent either.  Scouting has a huge variance away from average.   

It's one reason I'd almost rather have rank reflect number of nights camping / hiking, etc.  IMHO, there is little reason an Eagle scout doesn't have 100 nights of camping.  I'd be happy with an Eagle scout at 75 nights.  IMHO, an Eagle scout should never have less than 30 nights of camping.  Heck, I'd expect a first class scout to have 20+ nights of camping ... or (20 - 2*(number of overnight storms)) ... LOL.

Edited October 31, 2022 by fred8033

[qwazse]

@InquisitiveScouter and @fred8033 are working sides of the same coin ... that of mistrust.

Once upon a time (those of you who are older than me may snicker now) before districts were the size of councils: counselor lists were a district function, camps were district camps, it cost real money to communicate out of your area code, and SM's knew councilors quite well.

All of the verbal gymnastics in the GTA boil down to "a how to" when SM's or MC's don't trust MBC's. However, we need to understand that this is a truly tragic situation. Not because it happens, but because we've once again lost the skill of being plain-spoken. Take this phrase ...

19 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

... Not a retest, but a confirmation of completing the requirements as written. ...

Might as well tell the scout you don't think he's trustworthy to read requirements and act accordingly.

19 hours ago, fred8033 said:

... Then again, I don't think the leadership or troop program or camping expectations are very consistent either.  Scouting has a huge variance away from average.   ...

Might as well tell scoutmasters that you don't think they are trustworthy to deliver a scouting program.

I like Fred's idea about more nights and less minutiae, but the bitter truth is that as long advancement has to be completed within 7 years or less, someone is going to find the high speed, low drag method of executing whatever requirements we conjure.

I'd rather tell a scout and scouter that 60 years ago National instituted an ageist policy regarding advancement, MBs evolved to be more like school and less like adventure. The complexity of advancement is the fault of neither scout or scouter. So, rather than circling that GTA drain, ask what your troop can do to bridge the gap between what an MBC actually taught and what we actually should have learned from the MB?

Instead of fretting over who skates by and who doesn't -- making BoRs dreadful things in the process -- let's make advancement scouting again.

[InquisitiveScouter]

Not mistrust...

For an old man, you do jump a lot... to conclusions, that is.

I find that the individual counselors do a much better job of guiding Scouts as they fulfill the requirements.

Your average 15-year old teaching a bunch of Scouts at summer camp??? Not so much...  A whole heck of a lot of pencil-whipping going on.

But hey, that's what parents are paying for, right?  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge...

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter

[Oldscout448]

On 10/31/2022 at 1:18 PM, yknot said:

Nowhere in the GTA does is state that a BOR can fail a scout for being nonresponsive in the actual room out of fear of someone on the BOR or stage fright.   

In 20 some years of sitting on  BoR I've declined  to pass two scouts. One had clearly doctored his older brothers blue cards, the other wouldn't or couldn't talk to us. Just hugged himself and cried.  

 So to play devil's advocate here;  if a scout can pass a BoR without responding in any fashion to a single question or comment, why is the scout even there?  

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Oldscout448

[PACAN]

The scout is there so he can blame the adults for being unfair and picking on him and so some other adults will overturn the BOR on appeal.  😝

[mrjohns2]

On 10/31/2022 at 12:18 PM, yknot said:

Nowhere in the GTA does is state that a BOR can fail a scout for being nonresponsive in the actual room out of fear of someone on the BOR or stage fright.   

Are you playing Devil’s advocate? 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Are you playing Devil’s advocate? 

No it's what I think.  GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by yknot

[Oldscout448]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

No it's what I think.  GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me. 

There are a few things that caused raised eyebrows.  Such as ' punitive, high stress''and  ' fashion show'. But if yknot is correct in his assessment of the GTA, then the BoR has been reduced to little more than a  ceremonial rubber stamp and we might as well let them go the way of woolen uniforms and canvas tents.

[DuctTape]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

No it's what I think.  GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me. 

I do not believe the SM clears the scout for the BOR. The SM conference is not necessarily the last requirement signed off, nor is the SM conference a check of readiness or completion of the other requirements. It is the responsibility of BOR to ensure completion of the requirements. While we may quibble over pass/fail, the BOR can just be suspended and scheduled to reconvene at a later date.

Another aspect which I believe needs further discussion is the concept of not penalizing scouts for adult error. It appears that this has been taken to the extreme. What constitutes error vs outright fraud? Is a scout granted all ranks just because some adult signed all his requirements in the book? Do we just throw our hands up and say "we dont penalize the scout for adult error" and give the kid his Eagle badge? If not, then there is some discernment to be made for situation less than this ridiculous scenario. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to formulate a legalistic description as individual scenarios cany vary.

I submit this is one purpose of the BOR, to make this judgement at the local level. Not a retest of requirements, but when discovered a requirement was not completed it can be rectified. The BOR should  discuss with the scout how to rectify the situation, suspend the BOR and reconvene.

[MattR]

I'm trying to imagine a youth baseball team run like a scout troop with ranks and BORs. "You can't retest a player's plate sliding skill at a BOR. You can talk to them about how they learned the skill or how they taught the skill but you can't test the skill." That would never happen.

I read these discussions, and I've participated in them before, but now it just says to me that there's something wrong. The test for a sports player is on the field. The test for a 4H participant is in their garage or barn. The test for the orchestra is on the stage. The adults aren't needed for the test.

The real skills used in scouts has  very little to do with ranks and advancement. Advancement is just a way to motivate scouts to play the game, where they'll learn teamwork,  the scout law and the outdoors. To me, that's the problem with the BSA's version of scouting. The motivation is one step removed from the game. The game should be the only motivation.

Rather than have long complicated documents about how advancement should be run I'd much rather see help on how to motivate scouts to just play the game.

[DuctTape]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

I'm trying to imagine a youth baseball team run like a scout troop with ranks and BORs. "You can't retest a player's plate sliding skill at a BOR. You can talk to them about how they learned the skill or how they taught the skill but you can't test the skill." That would never happen.

I read these discussions, and I've participated in them before, but now it just says to me that there's something wrong. The test for a sports player is on the field. The test for a 4H participant is in their garage or barn. The test for the orchestra is on the stage. The adults aren't needed for the test.

The real skills used in scouts has  very little to do with ranks and advancement. Advancement is just a way to motivate scouts to play the game, where they'll learn teamwork,  the scout law and the outdoors. To me, that's the problem with the BSA's version of scouting. The motivation is one step removed from the game. The game should be the only motivation.

Rather than have long complicated documents about how advancement should be run I'd much rather see help on how to motivate scouts to just play the game.

I agree Matt. I have always looked at advancement and the requirements as part and parcel of the scouting adventure. If the program is diverse, and adults do not shortchange the kids, the requirements will be accomplished by and within a quality program. 

You are correct there is a disconnect from advancement and program. or worse, the program is advancement.

Example: Every campout the scout should be presenting themselves to their PL with proper clothing and a complete pack. This should be SOP. It is SOP when I lead trips for adults. I provide lists and help to ensure they have what is needed; allow them to borrow gear from me. But prior to me leading them into the woods, I make sure they have everything. Final check at the trailhead. 

If done well, a scout will rarely one&done any requirement because they are all a regular part of the adventure. If most reqs are one&done, then take a look at the program and where the scouts are being shortchanged.

[Eagle94-A1]

23 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I find that the individual counselors do a much better job of guiding Scouts as they fulfill the requirements.

Your average 15-year old teaching a bunch of Scouts at summer camp??? Not so much...  A whole heck of a lot of pencil-whipping going on.

But hey, that's what parents are paying for, right?  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge...

 

Sadly this is 110% correct. And I would go on to add some ADULT SCOUTERS  (emphasis) believe MBs should be handed out like Halloween candy at summer camp. I remember fielding a lot of complaints one year when NO ONE passed my Lifesaving MB class because A) the class was to large (25+ Scouts), B) The disruptive Scouts I had could not be kicked out of the class per the Program Director, and C) because of said size and disruptions, not all of the skills were taught and reviewed.  I think many a SM just handed that MB to their scouts, despite them not earning it.

 

12 hours ago, yknot said:

GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready... I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. 

page 52 of the Guide to Advancement states:  "[BOR's] purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. If so, the board not only approves the Scout’s advancement but also provides encouragement to continue the quest for the next rank. (emphasis added)"

Later on Page 52 it states that it is possible to fail a BOR. While a BOR must be granted whenever the Scout requests it,  "In a case where there is concern that the requirements for a rank as written have not been fulfilled, it is appropriate to advise the Scout that he or she might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what might be done to improve the chances for success."  Page 54 states 'If a board does not approve, the candidate must be so informed and told what can be done to improve.  If it is thought that a Scout, before his or her 18th birthday, can benefit from an opportunity to properly complete the requirements, the board may adjourn and reconvene at a later date. If the candidate agrees to this, then if possible, the same members should reassemble. If the candidate does not agree, then the board must make its decision at that point. In any case, a follow-up letter must be promptly sent to a Scout who is turned down. A copy of the letter should also be sent to the council’s designated appeals coordinator, council advancement chair, and advancement staff advisor. The letter must include actions advised that may lead to advancement, and also an explanation of appeal procedures."

If a Scout is not responsive to questions, how can the BOR confirm the requirements were actually fulfilled, per the GTA cited above? In over 35 years of sitting on BORs, only once was a Scout not able to answer fully the questions asked by the BOR. Even then, that one Eagle apologized profusely for not being able to recall things and mentioned how he suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a car accident that has affected his memory. Knowing the story of the accident, he was nicknamed the "Miracle Eagle," because his injuries were so bad, he should have died in the accident. he had 2+ years of hospitalization, physical and occupational rehab, and ongoing neuro care due to the TBI.

[yknot]

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

page 52 of the Guide to Advancement states:  "[BOR's] purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. If so, the board not only approves the Scout’s advancement but also provides encouragement to continue the quest for the next rank. (emphasis added)"

Later on Page 52 it states that it is possible to fail a BOR. While a BOR must be granted whenever the Scout requests it,  "In a case where there is concern that the requirements for a rank as written have not been fulfilled, it is appropriate to advise the Scout that he or she might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what might be done to improve the chances for success."  Page 54 states 'If a board does not approve, the candidate must be so informed and told what can be done to improve.  If it is thought that a Scout, before his or her 18th birthday, can benefit from an opportunity to properly complete the requirements, the board may adjourn and reconvene at a later date. If the candidate agrees to this, then if possible, the same members should reassemble. If the candidate does not agree, then the board must make its decision at that point. In any case, a follow-up letter must be promptly sent to a Scout who is turned down. A copy of the letter should also be sent to the council’s designated appeals coordinator, council advancement chair, and advancement staff advisor. The letter must include actions advised that may lead to advancement, and also an explanation of appeal procedures."

None of the above is at all in conflict with anything I have said. If there is a claim that a sign off might be invalid or missing, or the scout's registration or completion of any relevant terms of service are in question based on recorded dates, then the BOR clearly follows the above procedures. If the advancements person is involved in BORs or their scheduling, most of those items are generally checked before the BOR is scheduled. I have been part of a BOR that followed the above process and was rightfully suspended because a scout had lost his part of his handbook. In recreating the missing pages he had not realized that he had parts of both an old and revised handbook and they had not been properly collated. The BOR was paused while he found someone who was able to give him a needed signoff. Had he not been able to do so that night, it would have been suspended to another day. I have been involved in other BORs where suspension was threatened because there were adult arguments over whether a scout had fully completed a leadership requirement. Unacceptable. You can question the objective validity of recorded dates at the BOR and then proceed as above as necessary but you can't question the subjective aspect of how well you thought the scout "led". It's been signed off already so it can't be "retested".  Any discussion about that should have been held during the scout's term of service. That is also noted in GTA.    

 

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

If a Scout is not responsive to questions, how can the BOR confirm the requirements were actually fulfilled, per the GTA cited above? 

By the sign offs, unless you have reason to question them. But again, those powers, if you follow GTA, are much more limited than many scouters like to accept which leads to a lot of unnecessary stress and angst for scouts.  The Scoutmaster -- and I use that term as representative for the program and the entire team that implements it -- is responsible for ensuring education and testing are taking place. The BOR is not the judiciary in this situation. If the BOR reports to the Troop Committee that it has program concerns, it is the Committee's job to discuss with the Scoutmaster and program team. The scouts are not supposed to be in the middle of this. 

[Eagledad]

I learned from experience that behavior discipline, uniforms, and advancement are the most challenging parts of todays scouting for adults because they are the most controlled parts by the adults. They are challenging because adults look only at the technical aspects of the scout’s actions and misapply, misjudge and misunderstand how to used the actions for developing values of making decisions. 

For example, BORs are by design the only process in a Scout run program to be run only by adults. Does that make sense? Well yes, the SM conference is a adult process. But, skills are part of the program and guarded by the Scoutmaster. They alone are held responsible for program quality, so they should be given responsibility to measure their program.

im not even a fan of Scoutmasters signing off completed MBs. In fact, our Council uses MB white cards that don’t have that signature requirement. What is the point? The card was signed off completed by the counselor. As qwazse points out, any additional signatures are just questioning the scouts and counselors integrity. And, if the SM simply wants to learn the quality of how the counselor worked with the scouts, they can do it through a conference.

If the BOR is a check on the Scoutmaster’s program, then what is wrong with retesting. A scout is retested in school, work, sports and skills activities all their life. Scouting should be a place to encourage confidence of retesting. If abuse is the fear, well that is a problem with all aspects of the scouting program. The committee deals with it through a complaint process. And if adult intimidation is the fear, mix experienced scouts into the board. I’ve done and if fixes that problem.

My point is get advancement back into the proper place of ‘decisions making development’ instead of ‘stature ranking’. 

I would much rather have patrol leaders with the skills to survive 40 nights of camping. A camping MB should just be a gimmy for a true first class scout.

Barry

Edited November 2, 2022 by Eagledad