Boy led - Hypothetical elections

[Beavah]

If the scout is savvy, he knows he was in the position for 6 months and according to the rules, he compelted his POR because he was never remvoed. If the scout appeals and it gets to District where I am on the Advancement COmmittee for the Disitrct, the scout is getting credit for his POR, not because he did anything, but because the Troop allowed him to be in that postion for 6 months and according to the rules, thats all it takes.

 

So what lesson have we taught the lad??

 

We've taught him that it's more effective to play at being da worst sort of sheister lawyer than it is to work hard and live as a responsible, honorable man.

 

Do as little work as you can. Find da letter of the law. Interpret it in the most strained way possible. Use that to try to force others to give you what you don't deserve.

 

In short, teach boys how to be Enron accountants. Then make everybody applaud them for their "success." Fine Texas tradition, eh?

 

We have sacrificed the Aims of Scouting, our reason for existing, to comply with a poorly thought through memo from a small office in Irving. A memo that conflicts with da clear intent of the real BSA Rules & Regulations.

 

Shame on us for not living up to our own values.

 

Every other document, writing, practice, and principle in Scouting is that we work with kids, we don't remove them. Kids get to try requirements for as long as it takes until they are successful. What VeniVidi describes is da Scouting program.

 

Beavah

[OldGreyEagle]

If its dishonorable to follow an organization's own rules, then I am dishonorable.

 

I wish all scouts and scouters well.

[FScouter]

What is dishonorable is the Scoutmaster putting himself in the position of having only two choices: promote the boy the next rank without his having successfully served in a position of authority, or informing him he failed and denying him advancement. If boys are not making good choices, we have failed our Mission. There is no honor in that.

[Venividi]

I guess I am a complicated individual because I have no issue with a district or council, or anyone else outside of the troop ruling in favor of a scout's appeal for advancement. Even if from a unit's perspective, it is not in the best interest in the growth of the individual scout. Granting those appeals may very well be in the best interest of BSA as a whole. District, council, and national have different concerns than unit scouters. They have demands on their time, and must make decisions on which battles are currently the most important for them.

 

Please don't take disagreeing with a statement from national, and discussing it here as an indictment or criticism of someone that follows it as a deciding factor when reviewing an appeal. This isn't the same degree as Mai Lai, where following orders was clearly not acceptable. Beavah has said in another post in this thread that he thinks the folks at national are by and large honorable people. Most of us here invest a lot of time in scouting we beleive it plays an important role in boys lives. That we disagree on specific methods of implementation, and in fact do implement differently from unit to unit I beleive to be more of a benefit than a liability.

 

 

Beavah has said in a post in this thread that he thinks that the folks at national are decent folks; I agree with him on that. I would hope that a discussion here on the merits of a particular rule i

[Venividi]

"If boys are not making good choices, we have failed our Mission."

 

Fscouter, I hope I am not taking this out of context, but I think I disagree with this as written. If boys are not making good choices, we don't prevent them from making bad choices (safety issues excepted). Our role is to help them learn to make good choices. Making bad choices is part of the learning process.

[Kudu]

Venividi wrties:

 

"I believe society has moved way too far away from personal responsibility."

 

I believe that the BSA has moved way too far away from Baden-Powell's Patrol System which, after all, is a game for boys. All of this discussion about an adult judging the Scout's "responsibility" seems to have missed that point.

 

A Scoutmaster could use B-P's principles to make this process boy-run while still working within the existing BSA structure:

 

1) Move the "stick" from the after-the-fact Scoutmaster's Conference to B-P's pay-as-you-go evaluation by the Court of Honor (the Patrol Leaders in Conference).

 

2) For each Merit Badge the Star Scout wants to take, he submits a Blue Card to the Court of Honor.

 

3) The SPL asks the ASPL to report on the Historian's recent contributions to the Troop.

 

4) The Patrol Leaders hear the ASPL's report, then vote (the COH always meets in secret sessions) and instruct the SPL to sign or not sign the Blue Card (as "Troop Leader").

 

5) If unsatisfied with the verdict, the Star Scout may ask for a hearing before the Court of Honor.

 

6) The COH hears his appeal and deliberates in private. The Scoutmaster does not have to remain silent in these sessions and, of course, he is always free to work his "adult association" magic with the Historian at any time previous to this crisis to motivate him to contribute as he should be doing.

 

7) Given the existing BSA Advancement requirements, if the Historian tries some jailhouse lawyer end-run, the Patrol Leaders can always delay judgement on the Scout Spirit requirement, and the Scoutmaster does not have to be in a rush to grant a Scoutmaster's Conference.

 

Kudu

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>A Scoutmaster could use B-P's principles to make this process boy-run while still working within the existing BSA structure:

[Beavah]

Goldurn, I hate this digital stuff sometimes. Re-readin' my last post I sound way more strident than when I sounded it in my head while I was writin' it .

 

If its dishonorable to follow an organization's own rules, then I am dishonorable.

 

I don't know which message this responded to, perhaps it was mine. I'll just share my loose thoughts.

 

Here's what da Rules & Regulations of the BSA have to say:

 

Article X. Program (Advancement) Clause 1

"Education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and it shall be the basis of the advancement program."

"In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration."

 

Clause 5.

"There shall be four steps in Boy Scout advancement procedure: learning, testing, reviewing, and recognition."

 

Clause 2.

"All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America."

 

Those are the Rules & Regulations we sign up for, eh? So I think if we take that as our point of honor, then we should interpret da procedural manuals and guidelines and memos so that they are in agreement with the organization's Rules.

 

* Does an adult removing a boy from a POR really serve our "chief function" of education?

 

* Does removing a boy from a POR harmonize with our aims of citizenship, fitness, and character?

 

* Does a boy who has not really fulfilled the expectations of a POR show "leadership, attending and participating, living the ideals, and proficiency" which are required for advancement? Is "seat time" really sufficient to demonstrate those things?

 

* Does giving a boy who has not yet fulfilled the expectations of a POR follow the required 4 steps, including "learning" (by the boy) and "testing" (by us adults)?

 

 

Our answer to each of these questions may depend on da boy, and our own best judgment. It might be the right educational lesson to remove a particular boy, or it might not. It also might be da right thing to let him stay in a position, but not give him credit for the position until he makes real effort and achieves some success.

 

I think it's never the right thing to give recognition or rank if a boy hasn't yet learned Responsibility. That doesn't harmonize with our Aims. A troop or a district or council or national office that does that is breakin' the organization's Rules. I understand it; good people sometimes give in to practical considerations of time, resources, and fatigue dealing with belligerent parents and manipulative kids.

 

OGE is probably right, though. A truly honorable man at any of those levels wouldn't allow it. He would stick to the Rules, and expect a boy to learn Responsibility before earning recognition.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC]

Venivedi,

 

I think we have to divide up the pie a bit here.

 

One situation you described involves ELECTED Scouts. If, in spite of mentoring and coaching, they are not doing the job, the SCOUTS have recourse: They get to learn the meaning of the term "impeachment."

 

For the young man you suggested, you don't get to the six month point: Historian misses the first opportunity. MENTORING. Scout misses the second opportunity: MORE MENTORING. Third miss: It's time for an urgent SM conference with the boy, and phone call to parents. There may well be a backstory. The other part of the new info from the National Council is "Leaders must engage..." Maybe the family doesn't understand Scout needs access to the family camera on that weekend. Maybe Scout doesn't know how to use a camera. The other side of the coin is help the young man find resources so he can succeed.

 

OTOH, there may not be a backstory, the Scout may never have had his feet held to the fire on a task before. The spirit of a shirker may lie within him.

 

I'm not Kudu, nor do I play him on TV. That said, I re-read "Footsteps of the Founder" last night. Even B-P talks about shirkers. Both the Good Character and Good Citizenship Aims of Scouting push us to teaching the young man that doing what he is assigned to do is that important to the Troop as a whole.

 

Maybe the better consequence than a Trumpish "you're fired" is a POR Scoutmaster Conference (well before the time of the advancement SM Conference) where Scout and Scoutmaster mutually agree:

- Scout isn't doing the job.

- Scout isn't a good fit to the job.

- Scout would be a much better fit in some other job.

- Scout accepts he is not getting credit for time in the first job.

 

Your thoughts, good Sir?

[Kudu]

John-in-KC writes:

 

"I re-read "Footsteps of the Founder" last night. Even B-P talks about shirkers."

 

Anything you would like to share? Most of the text of Footsteps of the Founder is available online, so to save typing you can Google a sentence and then cut and paste the whole passage from there to here.

 

It is interesting to note that Baden-Powell designed the above procedure for applying for Proficiency Badges so that the Patrol Leaders in Council could put a check on the sin of a Scout working on his own advancement without spending an equal amount of effort working on the advancement of the rest of the Troop.

 

To return to an earlier dialogue, for those who are interested in how the selection of Patrol Leaders and the SPL was detailed back when the BSA Handbook for Scoutmasters was not 178 pages but 1,142 pages I offer the following. Note William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt's capitalization Scouting's program elements:

 

"How to Select Patrol Leaders

 

"The question then arises 'Should the Patrol Leader be elected by the Patrol or

selected by the Scoutmaster?' The answer is an emphatic--and apparently

paradoxical--'Yes!' As a matter of fact, he should be either elected by the Patrol

or selected by the Scoutmaster, or maybe both--according to the Troop's age and its

peculiarities.

 

"Since the Scoutmaster has the ultimate responsibility, he naturally should decide

upon the method to be followed. It is obvious that under different conditions it may

be necessary to use different methods. A new Scoutmaster starting out with new boys

with no previous Scout experience might want to select the leader himself, while a

Scoutmaster, himself a Scout with several years' work with boys to his credit,

because of his experience or viewpoint, would follow an entirely different course.

 

"Under the ideal Patrol Method, the Patrol Leader is selected by the expressed wishes

of the members of the Patrol he is to lead. There is seldom any danger that the boys

will choose the wrong boy for their leader. If they have had a chance to come to know

each other through association in the Troop, their choice is usually the boy peculiarly

fitted to their needs. The chosen leader may not always be the one the Scoutmaster

might have most preferred, but the wise Scoutmaster should not override the Patrol's

choice, except in a serious emergency, in which case he exercises his power of veto.

It may be preferable to let the Patrol suffer for a short while the handicap of an unwisely

chosen leader and thus learn by its own mistakes.

 

 

"The Scoutmaster's Part

 

"If a very definitely unfortunate selection seems imminent to the Scoutmaster,

through his more mature knowledge of the Scout in question, he may decide to call the

Patrol together and have it a talk on the necessary qualifications of a Patrol

Leader. This talk may even be so designed as to narrow the choice to the boy the

Scoutmaster would like to see chosen. Almost invariably the boys will follow

suggestions thus diplomatically given--and will feel that they, after all, did the

choosing.

 

"A modified election scheme is the method by which two or three boys in each Patrol

are nominated by the Scoutmaster or the Troop Leaders' Council [PLC] and one is

elected by a vote of the Patrol [3rd Edition BSA Handbook for Scoutmasters,

pages 183-184]".

 

It should be noted that (similar to Baden-Powell's Patrol System) in Hillcourt's Patrol Method, the SPL is elected by the Patrol Leaders, and NOT by the whole Troop:

 

"The office of Senior Patrol Leader is also an important one, for he is the link

between the Patrols and the commissioned Scouters. He serves as a Troop leader, not

attached to a Patrol, and should be selected by the Troop Leaders' Council [PLC] with

the approval of the Scoutmaster. He ranks in the Troop next to the Assistant

Scoutmaster [3rd Edition BSA Handbook for Scoutmasters, page 128]."

 

Kudu

 

[Venividi]

John in KC,

 

My thoughts: Excellent suggestions.

 

As you point out, the back story (or lack of one) is an important consideration. There are no one-size scouts, and thus there shouldn't be a one-size-fit-all method to work with them.

 

Thanks,

Venividi

[Hunt]

It seems to me that this discussion boils down into the simple question of what a SM can or should do when a boy simply isn't performing his POR. I think what BSA is responding to is the unfortunately common situation of the SM waiting until the Board of Review to do anything about the lack of performance. This may be most common for PORs that aren't mission-critical (i.e., Historian, or Instructor)--and the result is either advancement that hasn't really been earned, or denial of advancement without adequate mentoring or warning. What I take away from this is that it's essential to establish the expectations for a POR at the very beginning, and to do some performance checks early on. In most cases, performance will be OK, in a few it will be substandard, but can improve with more mentoring and support, and in a very few it will be clear that improvement is just not going to happen. In those very few cases, I think it is reasonable to remove the boy from the post--he'll probably agree to it in even most of these cases. Maybe he can be switched to another POR for which he is better suited, or maybe he just isn't interested in leading or advancing. To take the extreme case, is there anybody who wouldn't remove a boy from a POR if he simply stopped attending, and didn't respond to requests to return?

[Gunny2862]

Thanks for the great discussion! I AM still lurking and learning on this one.