First Class First Year

[Bob White]

If you would like evidence that I have not done a flip flop, check the contents of my past posts.

 

May 20, 2002

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=10471#id_10473

 

July 28, 2002

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=13117&p=2

 

Aug 23, 2002

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=14511&p=2

 

Bob

[dan]

Bob

If a scout is elected and does not ACTIVELY SERVE, but no leader points this out to him or trys to help him. The scout floats through the 6 month term with no feedback, would you sign him off than?

This is what I remembered you typing. No need to to research back for proof! I have been incorrect B4!

 

This thread took a turn from what I started it for! (This message has been edited by dan)

[Bob White]

If I remember the thread you are referring to the leader said the scout was at the meetings but did not have a leadership role. I asked if the scout was never offered one, or if he refused one. I also believe I asked if the scoutmaster knowing the scout needed a leadership position to advance helped to find a position for him if he was not elected or selected to one.

 

Unless a scout refused a position he has little control as to being elected or selected. It is the SM responsibility to know the needs of each scout and to help that young man find a position to satisfy the advancement requirement.

 

I will admit that if I was with a troop and a scout was elected to a position and was never trained to help him succeed and then the SM refused to sign his leadership role I would remove the SM and could easily be persuaded to find in favor of the scout. I would also give him a leadership role again and train him to do it.

Training junior leaders is the #1 priority responsibility of the SM. If they don't get trained the fault is entirely with the SM.

 

I have always said in my posts that the leadership requirement does not say hold office it says to actively serve.

 

Bob White

[Bob White]

Just for the record I found the string in question.

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=11128&p=1

 

In it a comment was made by AdvanceOn

"1. If he was elected or appointed to a leadership position and held it for 6 months it counts whether he did anything or not (you'll find this discussed a lot throughout this forum)."

 

I resonded by posting "A note to anyone who feels this is what the requirement states, Please read the handbook again. The requirement is not to hold an office. The requirement says to "serve actively". There is a distinct difference."

 

I just wanted to keep the record straight. I have always represented the requirement as it is stated in the Boy Scout Handbook.

 

Bob

[evmori]

If a Scout holds a POR & does nothing in this position, it is the responsibility of the SM to have a sit down with this Scout & explain the duties & responsibilities of the position. If the Scout feel he can't carry out those duties & responsibilities or the SM feels this way, it is the responsibiility of the SM to remove the Scout for his POR. If a Scout does nothing in his POR & completes the tenure required and has completed all the other rank requirements, he can advance. IT is too late to point out that the Scout did nothing in his POR & hold back advancement.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

So Ed,

 

You said my hypothetical band member would be a member of your troop until rechater time. What if he comes back and says he had a great time in the band, planned on being active as a scout until next fall when he would again be in the band, then what? Does he get dropped ?

[Bob White]

Sorry Ed, but nothing you wrote in your last post is correct according to anything taught or written in the Boy scout program that I am aware of.

 

I understand that what you wrote may be your opinion, but it simply is not part of scouting.

 

The scouts position of responsibility was either elected by the scouts or selected by the SPL or Patrol Leader. It is not your job to remove him. That is between the scouts.

 

The Handbook is very specific about the leadership requirement "actively serve" not just hold the office. During the scouts tenure it is your responsibility as SM to train and develop him but it is the scouts responsibility to actively serve. If the scout cannot give evidence of "active service" you are not required to sign the advancement requirement.

[CubsRgr8]

A scout in a POR can not be removed? What about when his performance is so poor that it is hurting his patrol or the troop?

[fboisseau]

First you take the youth leader aside and ask him if he thinks he is doing a good job. If he says no then work with him to improve, if he says yes then you take it to the next step and talk to the members of the patrol/troop and find out what they think. If they think all is okay then you can not do anything, they are happy. If they say no then you offer suggestions of what they can do the fix the problem.

[evmori]

Bob,

Actively serve. OK If he does nothing & is not told about it until his SMC or BOR, is that fair? Is it fair to the rest of the Troop to let a, for the lack of a better word, nonfunctional Scout in a POR contimue? I would answer NO to both questions. If the Scouts don't want to remove him because they are friends then isn't this detrimental to the Troop? I would say YES. Being a SM, I can't see letting a Scout in a POR who is not doing his job continue. This does no one any good. And if the Scouts won't rectify the situation, I will.

 

Bob, where exactly would I find how a Scout is removed from a POR?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

With the exception of the section in the Guide to Safe Scouting that gives direction on what to do with scouts who violate scout behavior and the Advancemnt Committee Policies and Procedues, the resources of the BSA are not written to tell you what to do when things go wrong. They are written to tell you how to do things right. In almost every case in scouting when things go wrong it is because they were not done right to begin with.

 

In most cases when things go wrong, if you go back to doing it the BSA way (read as right way) the problem is solved.

 

A good example is elections. If you do not allow the scouts to elect or select their own leaders and things go wrong don't be surprised and don't look for the resources to tell how to deal with negatives. Look to the book to see what would have been the right way to choose leaders in the first place.

 

If you follow the BSA program, every position is either elected by scouts (Patrol Leaders and the Senior Patrol Leader positions) or they are selected by scouts (patrol leaders select all patrol positions and the SPL selects all troop positions with discussion with the SM). Once in office it is the adult troop leaders responsibilities to train and develop the junior leaders. If the leaders don't do that then replacing a non-functioning junior leader is pointless. They will all be non-functioning.

 

If the a scout accepts a position and refuses training or refuses to actively serve then what do you do? WHO elects or selects junior leaders? The scouts. If they want to live with a non functioning leader it is their choice. OR they can excercise their program responsibility to elect or select a leader to perform the job.

 

But it is not the SM's troop nor is it his/her authority to appoint junior leaders.

 

Bob White