Position of Responsibility - actually doing something?

[NeilLup]

I was contacted by the National Advancement Committee in writing through our local council scout executive, asking me to chair an appellate board on behalf of the national office. >>

 

Fascinating. Different from my experience from a couple of points of view. That's what makes Scouting such a great organization.

[Bob White]

Differing from your points of view or different from your personal experience?

[NeilLup]

Personal experience

[Bob White]

So are you surprised that each appellate situation is not exactly the same, considering the number of elements that can vary in each case? But the rules of advancement do not change. The scout must complete the requirements and the adults can't add to or take away from the requirements.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eamonn]

I have never sat on any such board.

I can see that if or when it became apparent or obvious that the Scout wasn't performing or keeping his end of the agreement that he should have been removed from the position.

But that doesn't answer the question as to what the board of review is to do? In this case?

I am not as well versed on advancement as maybe I should be. So maybe you wise people could tell me why for all ranks other then the rank of Eagle Scout it says "Complete your board of review." But for the rank of Eagle Scout it changes and becomes "Successfully complete an Eagle Scout board of review." I can of course see why the words Eagle Scout are there but why does the word Successfully suddenly appear?

Eamonn

[scoutldr]

Neil said, "If a boy is insufficiently active, they say he should be transferred on the rolls to being an "associate" member."

 

 

I'm not aware of this membership category...can someone please clarify? As far as I know, they are either registered members and show up on your charter...or not.

 

 

To address FOG's original question, if the scout's POR is "Troop Photographer", I would ask him to bring his "portfolio" to the BOR for review. When he can't produce, ask him why he is there. The answer should be obvious, even to him. The purpose of the BOR should be to show the scout the path to making an "ethical decision."(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Bob White]

Neil up talks about a scout being an active member. But There is no requirement for advancement that calls for the scout to be an active member. The requirement in question here specifically says to "actively serve".

 

The associate membership he mentions is not available to youth members. It is a district/council membership category usually used for college students 18 years of age or older, who do not have the time to remain active in a unit, but wish to maintain their membership.

[evmori]

Neilup,

Realize one thing - Bob White is (in his opinion) ever wrong. You are fighting a loosing battle.

 

How can one actively serve and not be an active member?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[eisely]

This relates to other threads under active discussion. Am I to understand that BW endorses setting expectations ahead of time for what it means to "actively serve" in a POR? Can this be construed as adding to the requirements for rank advancement?

[John-in-KC]

The BSA unit JLT kit has POR descriptions & expectations(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Bob White]

Would you send a scout on a hike with no map and no destination, and then tell him if he got where you needed him to be after he stopped walking? How can expect him to fullfill a requirement like "actively serve, if he doesn't have direction and a destination?

 

Of course it is not adding to the requirement. You and the scout determine the conditions together.

[evmori]

Since there seems to be no definition of "actively serve" in any official BSA material, I would say it is adding to the requirements. But if this is true, how does one measure "actively serve" withing the BSA guidelines?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fat Old Guy]

Bobalou said, "Neil up talks about a scout being an active member. But There is no requirement for advancement that calls for the scout to be an active member."

 

Let's see . . . let's actually look in the holy Handbook of Irvin. Requirements . . . advancement . . . oh, yeah here it is . . .page 444, "Star Scout Requirements. . . 1. Be active in your> troop and patrol for at least 4 months as a First Class Scout."

 

Sound like active membership to me. Maybe "membership" isn't stated but "your troop and patrol" carries with it the implication of membership otherwise it would say, "a troop and a patrol" meaning that you could be active with the troop down the street.

 

 

 

 

pa

[eisely]

There is another context in which "active membership" comes up where no real guidance is provided. The OA election procedures which our lodge sends to every scoutmaster every year prescribes the necessary quorum for having an election as being 50% of the active youth present at the time of the election. Active is not defined. It is left to the scoutmaster to decide. My impression of this rule is that it wisely takes note of the fact that there may be scouts registered with a unit who have either moved away, dropped out, suspended from membership, or even removed from the unit. Nevertheless, it opens the door for judgment.

[NeilLup]

Eisley asks the very interesting question of whether one can set expectations for a Scout for the Position of Responsibility and I believe that I mostly agree with BW on this.

 

However, I would suggest that the Scout can always set expectations for himself, freely and voluntarily.

 

The problem comes when the expectations are externally imposed, particularly after the fact (We, in our infinite wisdom have decided that you didn't meet the standard which we think you should have met.)

 

So, in order of decreasing acceptability (and increasing likelihood of reversal upon appeal)

 

a) The Scout sets standards for himself in advance

b) The Troop leadership suggests standards and the Scout freely and voluntarily accepts them in advance

c) The Scout freely and voluntarily decides after the fact whether he has done the job. If not, he does not consider himself to have met the requirement.

d) The Troop leadership imposes standards in advance and the Scout really has no choice if he wants the position

e) The Troop leadership after the fact decides whether the Scout has done the job with no a priori performance standards set. The Scout is given no choice whether to accept this decision.

 

My understanding is that in case "e", an appeal to the National Council will be upheld. Other than case "c", I am not sure how the other cases would turn out upon appeal.

 

A point is that the Scout can always freely and voluntarily add requirements for himself or can interpret the requirements in a more strict manner. It is the adults who cannot add requirements.