POR assistance please!

[anarchist]

SMT99,

Assumptions:

1.Since it sounds like it is "sign off time"...his 'PoR tenure' is done.(?)

 

2. Scout was told expectations (or better given copy) for his PoR.

 

3. Scout was counseled several times as to his "short-comings" during his tenure...and warned.

 

If so... the next sound you hear is a flush.....for this one...doesn't mean he can't try another PoR...just does not get credit this time...

 

Talk with your CO/COR and give them a "blow by blow".

If appropriate, send the scout a written review and outcome, even invite him to "stand" for a new POR (election or appointment) and copy COR.

 

Make sure COR will stand with you -if so, then tell the District Commish to shove it (if the CO/COR won't back you it's not worth the effort...)

 

Let him (DC) know your CO intends to bring up his (DS's) lack of discretion and non-profressional technique as well as a lack of confidence in his (DCs) value to the district with the Council Exec at the first opportunity...

 

In the end a boy either does or doesn't do his job...we owe the boy our best effort to help him succeed..but if he refuses to participate in your efforts, he deserves to fail... hopefully he will be stronger for it...if Mom doesn't muck up his life too much...you are the SM you do the sign off not the DC...

Sic Semper Tyranis

Anarchist

 

[SR540Beaver]

I've only been with our current troop since around October and have only been thru one election cycle. At first, I thought it was kind of overkill until I really gave it some thought.

 

In our troop, we have various age and rank requirements for POR's. Everything is in writing along with the job description and what is considered active in the troop. The boys interested in serving in a POR are given an application whick they fill out with 3 positions they would be willing to fulfill. If they are not elected to a position, there name goes on a list for appointed POR's they are interested in so they can be selected for the POR. As I said, job duties, qualifications and activity expectations are all in writing. Both the scout AND his parent must sign the application. The parent signifies that they understand what their son is getting into and pledges to support him in his POR. A mandatory JLT is held within about a week of elections and appointments. It does not matter if you have been to 4 or 5 troop JLT's, if you have a new POR, you come to JLT.

 

The result has been a very committed youth leadership corp and we seldom have a problem with a parent or boy concerning earning credit for a POR. They both walked into it with their eyes wide open.

[Lisabob]

I like flmom's thoughts on this. This might be a parent who just doesn't understand the whole process. (Then again, it might be a parent who understands it fine and is just overly pushy, but I'm giving mom the benefit of the doubt here)

 

Even if she's way out of line on this, having a quiet and polite discussion about why you don't think junior has done a sufficient job in his POR might leave her feeling that she can't reasonably disagree. Perhaps include junior in this discussion. Mom - hopefully - won't get all huffed up in front of him.

 

Good luck...

 

Lisa'bob

[Beavah]

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.)

 

Nor knowledge of the rules and relationships it would seem. I love it as a UC when people in support positions start to think of themselves as feudal lords, eh?

 

I'd encourage you to write up the conversation as a formal complaint, then trot it off with the COR to the district chairman and the DE (with cc's to the CAC for courtesy). Nothin' about the requirement issue. The real issue is that this guy is out of line, backdoorin' the SM and advancement committee like that. He can cause a lot of damage and ill will in programs with that approach.

 

Then I'd just ignore him, eh? You're CEO of your program, your job is to do what's right for your kids. You don't report to the DC, you report to your unit committee and CO.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>or use the "Demonstrate Scout Spirit" as a catch-all?

[acco40]

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.

 

We, as Scoutmasters, may not add additional requirements - such as an attendance percentage for rank requirements. However, we are empowered to make the call on if a Scout met the "serve actively ..." portion in his POR. There is a fine line between the difference.

 

To give guidance to the boys on what our expectations are for "serve actively" we may include an attendance percentage but it may only be a guideline - not a requirement.

 

Also, as hard as it may seem, don't worry about what parents feel. During a Scoutmaster conference, I have conversed with a many a Scout on what his definintion of "serve actively" is, and they are usually much harder on themselves as I would be. They are also very good at self evalutation.

[John-in-KC]

I think we now have two pieces/parts evolving ...

 

One part is dealing with Mom. I like Lisa'Bob's idea of a SM conference with Scout and Mom, talking about duties and expectations.

 

The other part is an off-the-reservation District Commissioner. SM and CC really do need to have a business talk with COR and IH, get their support, and then go to the DE, District/Council Advancement Committees, and Council Commissioner.

[Beavah]

Minimum requirements is your opportunity to help boys develop habits that lead to character.

 

Yeh really think so, Eagledad? I've always thought of minimum requirements as a sort of a bureaucratic self-defense mechanism to try to fend off complainers, eh?

 

In my mind, I've never associated meeting just the minimum requirements with what I'd call "character."

 

Da Scout Oath and Law aren't about minimums. They're about maximums. Each boy doing his personal best to do his duty, to go out of his way to serve others, to work hard to develop his skills and fitness.

 

In da character business, a boy who is workin' flat out but not succeeding at a POR might get a pass. A talented, high-achieving boy who is nominally "successful" by doin' the bare minimum really shouldn't.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagledad]

>>Yeh really think so, Eagledad?

[CalicoPenn]

Interesting dilemma, not easily solved (the POR service, not the DC issue - that one is easy to solve).

 

I'm not 100% positive but I don't believe that National has ever explicitly stated just what it means by serving in a position of responsibility - they don't tell us what serve means. So, in order to try to figure out what they mean by it, we have to try to decipher what it means based on National's past actions. For instance, the requirements state "Be active in your troop and patrol" without stating what active means but based on the experiences of many Scouters in the past, in practice, National interprets "active" to be "maintaining paid membership in the BSA"

 

So, what is National's common practice in regards to "serving" in a POR? That is the question (and I don't have the answer) - if National hasn't dealt much with this question in rank advancement appeals, then the answer is still determined at a unit level.

 

I'm not sure I see making a statement that serving means showing up to 50% of the activities as "adding to the requirements" - I'm leaning towards saying that is DEFINING the requirements, not adding to it (at the same time, stating that showing up to 50% of the activities is required to be "active" would be considered "adding to the requirements" since we know what National's definition of active is). Of course, this is all based on the supposition that National is expecting individual units to define what it means to serve.

 

As for the District Commissioner - present a united front with your COR, IH, Committee Chair, Committee Members and Assistant Scoutmasters and send a letter to the District Chairman, copying the District Executive, Scout Executive and Council Commissioner, that you will no longer welcome the advice or services of the district's commissioner service until the current District Commissioner is replaced and that the commissioners are to stay out of the affairs of your unit, and state clearly your reasons for this. The commissioners are there to provide help and advice to units - but units are not required to listen to these folks. If the Unit Commissioner shows up at a meeting, politely tell that person he/she is not welcome and to please leave (Boy Scout meetings are not public meetings open to anyone who wants to attend). Unfortunately, you'll have to do this even if you like your present Unit Commissioner - just let them know its not personal and when your main issue is resolved, you'll welcome them back with open arms.

 

So why send this letter to the District Commissioner? Because, District Commissioners are approved and appointed by the council executive board, with the concurrence of the Scout executive, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DISTRICT NOMINATING COMMITTEE. Guess who has the responsibility for appointing the district nominating committee? Yep, the District Chairman - and he can quietly make it clear to the nominating committee that this guy should not be reconsidered, and is likely to do so if you quietly share this little tidbit: " I told this to the District Commish, and he said, and I quote "they're wrong; you answer to me; I AM the District!"" As Scoutmaster, you don't answer to anyone but the COR, members of your troop committee, parents, and your scouts (in differing ways of course).

 

CalicoPenn

 

[John-in-KC]

The letter you described needs to be over the Chartered Partner Executive Officer's and the COR's signatures, not the SM/CC.

 

Why? The CP is the "owner of record" of the unit, and the Chartered Partner is the voting member of the Council.