Board of Review

[JC - CC]

A Scout has his handbook with all of the requirements for Star signed off. The Scoutmaster has had the conference with the Scout and has "passed" the Scout and has requested a Board of Review for him.

The leadership position that the Scout will be counting toward his requirements is Troop Instructor. The Scout has done nothing to fulfill his requirements as a Troop Instructor. Everyone in the Troop is aware of this fact.

I am in charge of the board, which takes place very shortly. I don't see how I can recommend the Scout for promotion, given every BSA guideline that I've read.

[ASM-142]

A Scout has his handbook with all of the requirements for Star signed off. The Scoutmaster has had the conference with the Scout and has "passed" the Scout and has requested a Board of Review for him.

The leadership position that the Scout will be counting toward his requirements is Troop Instructor. The Scout has done nothing to fulfill his requirements as a Troop Instructor. Everyone in the Troop is aware of this fact.

I am in charge of the board, which takes place very shortly. I don't see how I can recommend the Scout for promotion, given every BSA guideline that I've read.

If the SM signed off on the position of responsibility you can not question it. If you do not want to advance a scout you will need to come up with another reason.

[OldGreyBear]

Have you talked to the scoutmaster? What is his explanation ?

[JC - CC]

Who or what says that if the SM signs of on it, you can't question it? That position is neither supported by the BSA guidelines, nor in line with the stated purposes of the Board of Review.

The SM, fortunately, is a close personal friend of mine. We have discussed this extensively and researched it together. The SM was pressured by the Scout's parents (the Mom) into giving the Scout a position, after the Scout was trounced last year in an election for Patrol Leader. It seems the Scout had completely alienated his entire Patrol. The parents didn't want the Scout to be "off track" by not having a leadership position.

The SM gave in to the parents and assigned the Scout to the position, then never followed up on equipping the Scout to fulfill his responsibilities as Instructor. On the other hand, the Scout showed no initiative toward fulfilling the requirement, either. His parents didn't even question anyone about what the Scout should be doing.

The Scout has not fulfilled the requirements; the Board is supposed to verify that he has fulfilled them before recommending the promotion.

[OldGreyBear]

So, the way I see it, and I will admit to hyperbole here, your friend the scoutmaster caved to pushy parents and you are out to stick it to the scout. How do you see the BOR being done, who will write the remediation plan and who will oversee it? What will be done to the scoutmaster who is apparently not trustworthy?

[PaulSWolf]

Who or what says that if the SM signs of on it, you can't question it? That position is neither supported by the BSA guidelines, nor in line with the stated purposes of the Board of Review.

The SM ... assigned the Scout to the position, then never followed up on equipping the Scout to fulfill his responsibilities as Instructor. On the other hand, the Scout showed no initiative toward fulfilling the requirement, either. His parents didn't even question anyone about what the Scout should be doing.

The Scout has not fulfilled the requirements; the Board is supposed to verify that he has fulfilled them before recommending the promotion.

I'm going to take a contrary position (which AFAIK is the one BSA would take if the BOR denies advancement and the Scout appeals).

The key is, as you said "The SM ... assigned the Scout to the position, then never followed up on equipping the Scout to fulfill his responsibilities as Instructor."

In such a case, if the SM and the PLC allowed the Scout to serve in the position for the requisite period, you cannot now go back and say to the Scout, "You didn't do your job." Failure by the SM And PLC is NOT grounds for denying the Scout the rank, even if he didn't do much as Instructor. If he wasn't doing the job, he should have been officially removed from the position long ago.

You said "The Scout has not fulfilled the requirements". Yes he has. He served in the position for the required period. Did he do a good job, Apparently, NO.

You then end with "the Board is supposed to verify that he has fulfilled them before recommending the promotion." Yes, that's true. You're supposed to verify that he served in the position for the required period. Which he did. You're also supposed to check to see that the program is working as it is supposed to. Is it? Apparently not, but that is still no reason to deny advancement. It's a reason to improve the program.

The bottom line is you should not deny advancement to a Scout because of inaction by the adult or youth leaders.

[evmori]

The requirement states While a First Class Scout, serve actively 4 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility. So just having the title of "Instructor" doesn't meet the requirement.

I would explain this to the Scout during the BOR, tell him because the SM already signed-off on the requirement that you have no choice but to pass him and for his next rank he will actually have to do something AKA "serve actively" for his POR.

[wagionvigil]

OK, Define Actively. BSA would say registered or appointed to or elected to a position.

[evmori]

Actually, I don't think the BSA does define actively. I think it would be up to each individual unit to define. Active means moving, doing or functioning and just wearing a POR patch on you sleeve isn't doing any of those.

[JC - CC]

Well, we're definitely not out to stick it to the boy, wherever that came from; on the contrary. We are trying to teach a VERY intelligent young man how to use the talents that he has to become a gentleman, or a leader, or whatever other phrase or name you choose to apply.

AND, my friend the SM is entirely trustworthy, but is not in the practice of telling any of the Scouts that they can't go on to a board. He's soft-hearted to a fault.

Also these are listed as leadership positions. The requirement states "serve actively". To learn and exercise leadership suggests, strongly, that a Scout would exert at least enough initiative to ask someone "what am I supposed to do as instructor?". That didn't happen in this case. The problem is compounded by the Mom that pitched a fit to get a position for her son. Neither her nor her son did anything that would remotely resemble being "active" at all in this case.

"Active" to me could have been when the Scout came and at least tried to find out what he was suposed to be doing. The SM appointed him and never followed up. The Scout didn't do one single thing. Where is the "active" in that?

And why would the BSA include the word "active" in the requirement, if it only required that the boy be elected or appointed? Why not "get elected to one of the following"?

If nothing can be done once the SM signs off, why have boards? That one is just not right and it's not part of the guidelines.

I sound argumentative, and maybe I am at this point. We are really trying not to pencil whip this. We really do want this Scout to succeed. The Scout did not "serve actively" as the instructor.

It is painfully clear that this young man has not learned or exercised any leadership skills. It is evident in the way that he treats his fellow Scouts and in the way that they react to him. If he had done something or anything at all while in position as instructor, at least we'd have something to work with. To promote him to a rank that would put him in position of potentially greater responsibility, when he has yet to show that he can handle any responsibility, is wrong to him and the other members of the Troop.

I plan to board him, then recommend that he spend four more months as 1st class and serving actively as instructor, if he chooses to remain the instructor. If he so chooses, he will be provided with at least one person to mentor him through it this time. We have screwed up here. We have definitely learned. Passing this Scout along doesn't atone for it, as some have suggested.[/i]

[commish3]

JC
I think you need to talk to two people. the scoutmaster and the Scout. ask the scoutmaster what goals were set for the scout regarding the position. What directions was the scout given in carrying out the job responsibilities, what training did he receive. At what point was the scout told he was not meeting the responsibilities and what guidance was he given?

Then as the scout the same questions. And ask him if he feels he met the requirment and why.

If the scout was given goals, training and memntoring and did not meet the goals set by the SM and the scout then he needs to filfioll the requirement successfully.

If he was given an office and left to fend for himself, then shame on the adult leadership. You cannot hold the scout responsible for poor adult leadership, that is the committee chairs responsibility. In this case you will need to advance the scout or be prepared to have him advanced by an appellate board.

[ASM-142]

It is painfully clear that this young man has not learned or exercised any leadership skills. It is evident in the way that he treats his fellow Scouts and in the way that they react to him.[/i]

I do not know this scout but just because a person is not like and then not elected to a position does not make him a bad leader or someone that does not have leadership skills. In my work experience looking back some of my best bosses were people that I did not like and would not socialize with for any reason.

[ASM-142]

I plan to board him, then recommend that he spend four more months as 1st class and serving actively as instructor, if he chooses to remain the instructor. If he so chooses, he will be provided with at least one person to mentor him through it this time. We have screwed up here. We have definitely learned. Passing this Scout along doesn't atone for it, as some have suggested.[/i]

If you do not pass this scout at this time it can be over turned by National. You also need to let this scout know at the time of his BOR that he can appeal to National.

Also, if you do not pass this scout at this time you should be ready to remove the SM for not doing his job. You should also be ready to step down as CC for not doing your job.

[Lynda J]

jC cc I have a problem with a SM that puts a boy in a position then drops the ball on training him, then wants to blame the parent and the boy. Did the CC, SM or PLC set up opportunities for this scout to teach or help other boys learn something? Did they do any training with this boy on the position he was holding?
After our troop elections and appointment to positions our SM and I sit down with each boy and go over the job discription for that position.
We then talk about how they are going to fufill their responsibilities. We let him know that we are open at all times to answer questions. Also if we see a boy having problems with his position we talk to him about how either we or the PLC can help him, we don't try to set him up for failure and wait until time for SMC and BOR. If this SM did none of this he is the one responsible for this boys failure to perform.
A SM is responsible for giving a boy the tools he needs to do the position he is holding.

You have admitted that you and the SM messed up by not giving the boy the guidence he needed. To be honest it sounds like the SM and you are upset with parent for putting pressure on the SM. That since neither of you had enough backbone to stand up to the parent, this is a way of getting back at the parent through the boy. BIG TIME BAD. We have a parent that would pressure us if we allowed it. Our SM simply told the father of one boy that this is a boy run troop. The elections are held within BSA guidelines. If his son wanted a position it is up to him to announce he is running for elections or that he is interested in a position.
There are a couple of boy in my troop that are not my favorite. Ands one whose mother is a real pain in the rear. But I would hope that I am a big enough person to not take out on the boy my resentment of the parent.

You had better believe if this happen to my son I would be in contact with the District Advancement Chair immediately and protest. Andyou better believe I would be filing a protest with National.

[Mrw]

Unfortunately for everyone involved, it is probably better to pass the on his BOR unless there are other issues as well that come up.

You can take the opportunity of the BOR to let him know the decision is reluctant and that he needs to perform his duties better or there will NOT be a next rank advancement. Be very clear about what he is expected to do in his position and have an ASM or another older scout coach him along.

If Mom is upset, then she needs to be told that this is how the program works and her son needs to EARN his advancements himself. She can coach and encourage from home, but cannot do it for him.

[JC - CC]

To all,

Thank you for your time and advice. The SM and I have decided to resign our positions. We both freely admit our mistakes in this matter. We will have to communicate all of this clearly to those that are left in charge, so that this problem, which is not limited to this Scout, can be corrected.

As the Committee Chairman of our Troop, my conscience will not allow me to pass ANY Scout on a board, if I can't verify that he has completed the requirements; and I can't in this case. It just can't be proven that he has fulfilled his requirements. And the SM's initials in his book are not meant to be the only verification, else the boards wouldn't be a requirement.

As a Star Scout's Dad, I wish for my son to be involved with the program for as long as he wants to be, and I will support him accordingly. I hope that he gets 105% of what he hopes for out of the program. If he makes it to Eagle Scout, as I did, then it will be on his merit. I certainly do not want him to be a part of an organization that would espouse signing off requirements that haven't been fulfilled, regardless of whose fault it is. (So, you tell a boy that an adult caused his problem and that it excuses him from his responsibilities? That's just not right.)

As an Eagle Scout, I break my back to live up to the pledge that I took the night I got pinned, to "give back to Scouting more than it has given me". That includes removing myself if I turn out to be the problem. Once this smoke clears, I can be a Scout Dad that consults with the Troop leaders toward getting the problems taken care of.

[DadScout]

JC - CC before you pull plug think about a few things.
You have two adult leaders who feel bad enough about what happened to resign. Isn't it those types of adults, with values and conscience, that we want as examples for our youth? Adults that will stand up and say "I've made a mistake"

Most Troops don't have much depth on the bench when it comes to adult leaders. What's the impact going to be to the Troop if it loses its SM and CC? Is that impact worth it? Would the troop really be better off without both of you?

It seems clear that the boy didn't do much in the leadership position and at the same time was not asked to do anything. So he filled the requirements with sparkling color. Could an option here be to pass the boy on the board, noting the deficiencies and requesting that he take on a small leadership project. One that the SM and CC will personally coach on. One that clearly will not count to the Life rank.

Then the adult leadership can remediate their own deficiencies. Not give in to meddling parents, follow through with projects/assignements/roles.
There are many on this board that see things from different views. You might want to be open to some of those differing opinions.

[Rick Tyler]

Before you and the SM commit seppuku, try one more thing.

Have the Scoutmaster (or both of you, or the ASM that the Scout most respects -- whoever is appropriate) and use some Socratic method on him:

Were you an Instructor for the last six months?

What did you do as Instructor? What did you teach? To whom?

Do you think you did your best?

Do you think you could have done better?

(This is dangerous, and we are hoping the scout is honest with you. If he isn't, think about the SMs signature on the Scout Spirit requirement.)

[Scout's name here], from what you are telling me, you didn't do the job to the best of your ability. I'm not comfortable signing you off. What would you think about doing a service project for the troop, so that you and I both know that you did your best and deserve to be a Star Scout?

I just tested this on my almost-an-Eagle Scout son and it worked well. (Actually, he got little beads of sweat on his forehead until I explained it was role-playing.)

It's a legal, reasonable way to get out of an uncomfortable situation, and it moves the judging, consideration and planning down to the Scout, where it belongs. I've dealt with some interesting parents, but only the most wildly unreasonable would object to a solution that didn't "cost" four more months.

It might be worth a try.

[Mrw]

I saw the decision to resign at lunch time today. I came back wanting to say something at least four times this afternoon and couldn't. I was just speechless.

I, too, would ask you to reconsider as the example you are giving your boys seems to be what we should all aspire to give.

Rick Tyler's suggestion is a very good one. It lets the scout know there have been mistakes on both sides and gives him a chance to do the right thing. If he steps up, then he can still earn the next rank without all the pain involved in appealing a BOR decision of the upheaval in the troop by the resignations.

Mom needs to be told that the boy has to Earn his advancement if she complains. Make sure she understands that parents are not supposed to interfere in the advancement process and that is why the are NOT PERMITTED to do their own son's BOR or book sign-offs.

[ICanCanoeCanU]

I too agree with all of the above writers as to your not bailing on this. I think Rick's approach is great.

Another option would be to sign off the boy letting him know you aren't happy with the way his leadership role was conducted and by accepting responsibilty for not working closer with him on this.

There's no reason you, the SM and the other involved adults can't announce that the direction of the troop will be changing to work more closely with scouts in leadership roles and that the expectations for filling these roles will be attended to and looked at for any advancement. The specifics of who was at fault most in this doesn't have to be hammered out, just the fact that the need for change is evident and will be addressed. I would suggest approaching the scouts first about this and then hold a parents meeting, where the new expectations could be addressed.

I sure hope you will reconsider your options before walking away from this program.