From <@tcuavm.is.tcu.edu:owner-scouts-l@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU> Thu Apr 2 10:04:41 1998 Return-Path: <@tcuavm.is.tcu.edu:owner-scouts-l@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU> Received: from mail1.bellatlantic.net (mail1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.32.38]) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id KAA08867 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:04:41 -0500 Received: from tcuavm.is.tcu.edu (TCUAVM.IS.TCU.EDU [138.237.128.148]) by mail1.bellatlantic.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08470 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU by tcuavm.is.tcu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7038; Thu, 02 Apr 98 08:54:58 CDT Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6757; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:42:55 -0500 Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8b) with NJE id 6476 for SCOUTS-L@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:41:53 -0500 Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6475; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:33:56 -0500 Approved-By: EIDSON@TCUBVM Received: from TCUBVM (NJE origin SMTP@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3311; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:11:50 -0500 Received: from ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU by tcubvm.is.tcu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Wed, 01 Apr 98 15:11:45 CDT Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com) by ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU (PMDF V5.0-5 #20456) id <01IVCY4QH3NK00ER2N@ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU> for Scouts-L@ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU; Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from NeilLup@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id PLKYa07411; Wed, 01 Apr 1998 16:08:41 -0500 (EST) MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 82 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4fa9fd28.3522acdb@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:08:41 -0500 Reply-To: NeilLup Sender: Scouts-L Youth Group List From: NeilLup Subject: Re: Help on BOR go/no go (long) X-To: sdjenner@AIRMAIL.NET, Scouts-L@tcu.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCOUTS-L Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 4/1/98 12:43:53 PM, sdjenner@AIRMAIL.NET wrote: <> Hello Gladys, First as far as your matter about appeals; maybe I have been lucky, but in my time in Scouting I have never had a boy involved in an advancement appeal. I have had boys turned down who later came back and passed, or else who decided to leave Scouting. I believe that appeals are extremely rare although to read the Scouts-L mail, one might think that every third advancement is appealed. However, I do occasionally sit on appeal type boards and those boards normally address the following type of questions: 1) Did the boy meet the requirements for advancement? 2) Did the boy have every reason to believe that he did meet the requirements for advancement? (You can't let the boy be active for 3-4 years, think he is doing great, then tell him at his Eagle board that he didn't meet certain requirements.) 3) Is there some personality conflict among adults in the troop? (This causes 75% of advancement appeals.) 4) Is there some personality conflict between the troop leadership and the boy's family (And this is another 24% of the advancement appeals.) As your SM said, the Board of Review meets to review the character and morals of the Scout, help set goals, etc. But the primary purpose of the Board of Review is to verify that the requirements have been approved by individuals qualified to approve them. So it might be improper to ask a Scout on a board of review to tie a tautline hitch (although this might be a "fun" thing to do if the board is going well, it is clear the boy is going to pass, he knows it, it is done toward the end of the board, it is clear the boy will succeed and the intent is to build spirit.) However, it is totally proper to ask where he tied his tautline hitch and who passed him on it. Some items, such as outdoor skills are objective. Either the boy did it or didn't. Others, such as Scout Spirit are more subjective. However, it is the duty of the SM to certify the boy as having met the Scout Spirit requirements. If the boy does not meet that requirement for a particular rank, then it is the duty of the SM to indicate what the problem is and help the boy meet the requirement. The Board of Review can only meet with the boy for a half hour or so. They can only get impressions of character, morals etc. It is not fair to expect the Board of Review to be the bad guys and reject the Scout if he has the requirements properly certified as passed. On an appeal board, I would find it no more proper to question a SM's certification of Scout spirit than I would a merit badge counselor's certification of a merit badge. And if the SM certified Scout spirit because he didn't want to raise a ruckus, then the boy would have every reason to believe that he met the requirements and the appeal board would likely so ind. This can make things really tough for the SM, particularly if the Scout is the son of a trusted ASM or is his own son. It can be necessary to involve the committee and other leaders lest the troop be torn apart. I believe it is possible for the Scoutmaster to authorize the boys to go before the Board of Review, but with a non-recommendation on Scout Spirit and an honest statement that he is uncertain concerning their Scout Spirit and wishes some assistance from the Board in forming an opinion. So if you are looking for general guidelines to avoid appeals and have good advancement principles, I would say the most important one is "No surprises." If a boy's general character performance does not meet standards, he should be counseled about that well before he comes up for advancement, just as would be the case for a cooking requirement, a hiking requirement or any other requirement. As was mentioned in other posts, you can have a Board of Review for non-advancing Scouts to help them get pointed right. If a specific incident occurs which calls a boy's character into question, then that should be addressed as soon as it is possible to be objective and detached. And I would suggest that the approach should be "Your character (Scout spirit, etc.) did not meet the required standards in the following incidents, A,B,C for the following reasons. In order to meet the standards, let's talk about what you need to do to demonstrate satisfactory character. " And the result should be specific actions and review points. Rejected advancements are really rare. And appeals normally happen and are sustained when no one was willing to bite the bullet earlier, but then, typically when the boy is getting ready for his Eagle Board, someone says "This boy isn't of Eagle Scout calibre." I hope this helps you. Best wishes, Neil Lupton