POR assistance please!

[SMT99]

Help me with this one folks...

"Can a Scoutmaster put a minimum percentage of participation on Scouts serving in Position of Responsiblity?"

 

Problem: Scout accepts position; Scout fails to show up or shows up less than half the time; and MOM still expects SM to sign off on POR for advancement.

 

Solution: SM types list of expectations for POR's, INCLUDING clause that says, "You must attend at least 50% of meetings, outings & campouts." Discusses this with Scout, and Scout signs it, agreeing to the expectations.

 

MOM calls our illustrious District Commish, who tells her, (not me) that I cannot do that!

 

Well, can I or can't I?

What do you do in your Troop?

[Eagledad]

I dont think there is any wording that suggest one way or the other. I do think it is bad form, but that is a different discussion on another day. As for you and this scout, he did signed the contract in good faith and there is the pesky Demonstrate Scout spirit requirement.

 

Good luck with mom he said walking away quickly.

 

Barry

 

[gwd-scouter]

Hey STM99 and welcome to the Forum!

 

This question has been talked about in many threads. I had the same situation and questions when I first became SM and was dealing with a Troop history of PORs not actually being done but scouts getting credit.

 

First, no, there is no National written definitation about what active means and what serve in a position of responsibility, meaning there is no defined percentage of time, etc.

 

There are many troops out there that have by-laws that scouts sign (like yours) that say you must attend 50% or 60% (whatever) of meetings and outings. This, of course, is a troop policy, not a National policy, and some will say it is adding to the requirements (also talked about at length in other threads). In essence, unfortunately, unless you removed the Scout in question from his POR before the six months was up, he gets credit. I don't agree with that and many on this forum don't either, but that's pretty much the way I understand it.

 

In our Troop's history, all the guys were given credit for their POR whether they did anything or not. We use TroopMaster and it will count the dates from the time you enter a Scout's POR. Then, magically, 182 days later they get credit for time served.

 

I can only share with you what I have done over the past year and a half in our Troop to change that culture.

 

Every month, I meet briefly with those guys that have PORs. If they were showing up and doing their jobs, they got a big "atta boy" and encouragement to continue. For those guys that are not attending meetings or outings, a warning that their POR would not count toward their next rank unless I saw improvement over the next month.

 

I pretty much laid it on the line for them. We read the requirement together. I told them that serving in a position of responsibility for six months meant BEING at scout meetings, GOING on outings, DOING the job requirements. I did not give them a percentage.

 

The end result of this drastic turn around in our troop's culture: 2 guys that have been sitting on Life rank 2003 stepped up to leadership, did it VERY well, and this year made Eagle.

 

Still have 2 more Scouts that have been sitting at Life rank since 2003 because they will not serve 6 months in a POR. Oh yeah, they get elected to something, but then we never see them again or only sporadically. And yes, they know that I am NOT the same Scoutmasters they've had. The result, their job is removed and someone else is put in their place. They will just have to try again.

 

These ideas by the way were given to me by reading the advice of some very experienced Scouters on this Forum.

 

Oh, before anyone gets on my case about removing a Scout from his POR and not letting the SPL, ASPL or patrol members do it - we're just not there yet. We are only a year and half into these guys actually KNOWING they are actually supposed to DO their jobs and that the patrols/scouts can elect to "fire" their PL/SPL and elect someone else. Still have to have a lot of SM oversight, but I'm stepping back more and more each month.

 

Admittedly, this change in our Troop's culture was met with a lot of resistance. It's been a slow bumpy road this past year and a half, but oh how I do love to see the progress we're making!

 

SMT99, good luck to you. You will probably lose the fight over this one Scout. But maybe you can help change the culture in your Troop and raise the bar of expectations without arbitrary percentages for attendance.

[Beavah]

SMT99, yeh should of course do what is right for the boy, eh? You know that, we all know that. And what's right for the boy is to teach him (and all the other boys) that a position of responsibility requires livin' up to the responsibility.

 

If you're quick on the trigger, remove him. If you're not, don't sign. If a bureaucrat of a Commish gives you grief, tell him to go back to trainin' on what our aims and methods really mean.

 

It's sad that every youth activity - school, sports, scouts, bands, theater, whatever - has parents like this mom. Some of da saddest cases are when the first person to say "no" to a young man is a judge pronouncing sentence. Do your part to uphold the expectations the way a man of courage should. That's the example dat the boys and the parents need, eh?

[nldscout]

You are the SM, not the District Commisioner. You deceide if he has fulfilled the requirement. If the DC doesn't like it, politely tell them to take a hike.

 

If MOM can't accept it she can take son to another troop and start all over with POR again.

[John-in-KC]

1) SM should NOW, TONIGHT, be talking with the COR. COR has authority, push come to shove, to tell the District Commissioner to butt out.

 

2) SM should, tomorrow, have a long talk with the District Advancement Chairman. What do other units do?

 

3) SM should find a copy of the old unit JLT package. Every POR has a detailed job description in it. SM should have PLC write up a contract between POR holders and the Troop. Doesn't have to be formal, can be done around the flagpole "on my honor."

 

As a COR, I insist my Scoutmasters visit with any POR candidate before taking the job, AS WELL AS WITH THEIR PARENTS. A POR isn't just a commitment from the Scout; it's at least in part a commitment from his family. Not all understand, but they need 20/20 vision on this going in.

 

YIS

[Mike F]

I thought I knew a lot about this subject, but have learned some new stuff tonight.

 

John-in-KC - I've never heard about COR's authority to tell Commish to butt out of something like this and want to know more. Is this documented somewhere?

What if parents/scout appeal to council and national? Will COR's position still hold weight?

 

Thanks!

 

-mike

[Beavah]

What if parents/scout appeal to council and national? Will COR's position still hold weight?

 

All the weight he/she chooses to exert. The COR can always exercise the nuclear option. He/she can remove the boy from the roster.

 

Parents who aren't really interested in developing character and citizenship in their sons don't have an automatic right to participate in and earn scouting awards and honors.

[flmomscoutw3]

WE have had this issue on more then one occasion. I think that when you are dealing with young men who are gtoing in many directions and they have not yet learned to prioritize this will come up. I do like the suggestions of John-in-KC "As a COR, I insist my Scoutmasters visit with any POR candidate before taking the job, AS WELL AS WITH THEIR PARENTS. A POR isn't just a commitment from the Scout; it's at least in part a commitment from his family. Not all understand, but they need 20/20 vision on this going in." I would have been thrilled if the SM had spoken to Dad and me before first son took a POR. I can't even remeber what it was. I was so new to Boy Scouting then that I was clueless! Son did OK, but if I (his transportation) was aware of certain things he would have been able to do a better job.

Maybe MOM needs the conference with the SM to understand what is expected of her son. If he is not meeting the participation expected then maybe mom is not really aware of the reason behind the expectation. I think that sometimes we focus to much on the scout and forget that he is also part of a family that has demands on his time. Is there problems with transportation you may not be aware of, the scout may not want to share this info with you, but Mom may shed some light. It is easy to say we will help them in anyway, but if we don't know the needs we can't offer.

Just a thought to add to the pot.

YiS

[John-in-KC]

The COR is a voting member of the Council Committee and the District Committee. Google on COR Duties and you will get any number of Council COR training packages that say that.

 

"Mr Chairman, I move for a vote of no confidence in the Commissionership of...."

 

It's a nuclear option, because you never want to burn bridges, but it's an option on the table.

 

On a more practical matter, as a COR, I'd more likely be asking the DC (especially the DC, not the UC) to be talking to me and the IH, as well as the SM, and not responding to the parent directly. That is not what "being a friend to the unit" means.

[SMT99]

I did call a member of the District Advancement Committee; and he said they have a similar 'agreement' in his own troop that Scouts must sign.

And he suspects that most troops have similar methods. I told this to the District Commish, and he said, and I quote "they're wrong; you answer to me; I AM the District!" (tact is not one his strong suits.)

[acco40]

First in the interest of disclosure - I'm a registered Unit Commissioner (to three Cub Scout Packs) and a registered Scoutmaster. Yes, I know that bends the rules (Unit Commissioner should be my primary position and I admit it is not.)

 

Next a few facts: 1) the Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program of the troop (advantage Scoutmaster) 2) Scoutmasters (or anyone else) may not set up additional requirements like attend 50% of the outings. (advantage Commissioner)

 

Now, the requirement states active (in troop and patrol) and the Scoutmaster has the authority to determine what that means. He may also determine "shows Scout Spirit" compliance. In our troop, I try to lay out guidelines for what I view as active. This includes attending a majority of troop and patrol outings. Is this a hard and fast rule? No. But if the Scout does not approach me or discuss his individual circumstances and does not attend at least 50% of troop and patrol outings he does not fulfill these requirements in my eyes. However, as a Unit COmmissioner, if a Scoutmaster asked me if he could impose a 50% attendance requirement as a condition of advancement I would say (correctly), that no he may not.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[evmori]

What POR was it?

 

Did the SM inform the Scout of what was expected? If the answer is yes, tell mom her son knew what he was expected to do & he didn't do it! When/if he does, the situation will be re-evaluated. I'd tell the DC the same thing.

 

Regardless what the POR was, a youth in a leadership position should be setting the example for the rest of the Troop. Being there is part of that example. If the Scout is too busy with other activities, he shouldn't accept the additional responsibility he won't have time to fulfill.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SMT99]

acco40, What is the difference if I determine an arbitrary percentage to the expectations for POR's (which is undefined as it is) or use the "Demonstrate Scout Spirit" as a catch-all? At least with the percentage, the Scout has a number; he knows, in writing, what is expected. Not trying to determine what is in my head when I decide what Scout Spirit entails.

[MaScout]

By utilizing a contract, it appears your troop has already tried to avert some of the problems. Our Troop (and this doesn't help for what has already happened) stays on top of POR's. If they are not fulfilling their responsibilities (read: "active", "participating", "serving", "showing Scout spirit", etc.), they are conferenced. If the inactivity isn't corrected, the boy is removed from his position. Period. There are only a few positions which are elected rather than appointed. The appointed ones are easy. The elected ones are taken care of by a new election. You can allow for this in your troop election guidelines: you would need to have a new election if your SPL dropped out for some reason, wouldn't you? No position, no time fulfilled.