Re: BOR Help -- to retest?
(no name) ((no email))
Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:30:34 -0600
At 06:55 AM 12/8/95 -0800, you wrote:
>Mike Walton wrote:
>>They don't pass him at that time. There's NOTHING that says that the
>>to be approved for the next rank RIGHT AT the "three month" or "two month" or
>>"four month" point. Each Scout advances at his *own* level...if that means
>In my troop a few years back we had a BoR that requested a young man
>increase his knowledge of a skill before they passed him (he could not do a
>requirement, may have been more then one, been a while). That young man and
>his parents protested and took their case to the Council Advancement
>Chairman. We were told at that time that if he has it signed off then the
>BoR HAD to pass him. They could NOT retest him.
This is wrong, and you should have (if you had a copy of the BSA's
Advancement Guidelines booklet) waved that booklet in that person's face and
tell him or her that "you cannot add anything to the BSA's policies. You're
NOT "retesting him"; he failed the initial Board, and has to once again
participate before the Board.
>The only person who could
>request that he wait before advanceing was the SM in his conference. To me
>that puts a lot or responsibility on one person. I know that none of you
>out there would use personal reasons for not letting a young man advance -
>BUT- what about the SM who would?? OH, the BoR could refuse on the basis of
>Scout Spirit only. (do not want to get into the discussion on that subject
>going on at this time).
Where are they getting that stuff from, John? A Board can refuse to advance
based on any number of factors, including the fact that the Scout didn't show up
in "full uniform". It's "permissiable", but we would hope that Boards would
deny advancement based on more concrete reasons instead of "off-the-wall"
reasons like "he didn't wear his Merit Badge Sash" or "he wasn't wearing
official Scout pants". Yes, those things are important (especially when he
attends an Eagle Board of Review), but at Tenderfoot or Second Class, what's
more important is the fact that the Scout is learning the skills and able to
apply the ideals of Scouting to his daily life.
>>A lot of you don't remember when we had our Scouts to conduct the Boards of
>>Review for Tenderfoot, Second and First Class. There was a LOT of "multiple
>>visits" to the Board, which was composed of the Patrol Leaders' Council
>with >the Scoutmaster or a member of the Troop Committee serving as
>I do remember those days and infact believe that the PLC should be the ones
>testing the young men for advancement. There were not very many scouts who
>had to make a second trip to the BoR let alone a thhird. They learned they
>had to know the requirements to pass. I agree the youth were harder on each
>I agree every member of the committee should be trained. And have worked
>long and hard to get them there. But there are always a few who for one
>reason or another do not go.
>I believe that the BoR should have the BITE to ask a young man to increase
>his knowledge before being passed off on a rank, But have not been able to
>find it in any recent publication. We do look at the youth and ask them to
>show or tell how to do different requirements. But this is to look at how
>well the skills are being taught in the troop and not as a retest, and the
>scouts understand this going in. If anyone can point me to a recent
>publication that states that a BoR can request that young man wait for his
>rank advancement then I would apprecitate it.
On the Advancement Report, John, there's a space at the bottom for "Scouts whom
were interviewed but NOT ADVANCING (my emphasis). This is where you should
place those names of the Scouts that Board of Review talked with but DID NOT
approve their advancement.
As far as having the Board to request that a Scout waits, there's not
anything I can find here; however, there is the option of failing the Scout
at this Board
rather than to pass him. As I wrote earlier, there's NOTHING that says that
we HAVE to pass the Scout "in due course". There's no policy, no
guidelines, nothing. If a Council is "mandating" such a policy, they are
doing so in violation of National policy, which ALL local Councils are
supposed to be following.
>Through out this I have purposely used the term - a young man wait for his
>rank - rather than - refuse a rank advancement- because the BoR needs to
>encourage a young man to increase his skills and then have him come back,
>rather than turn the young man off and have him leave scouting because he
>was refused a rank advancement.
I tend to agree with you, John, with the terms you are using, but I would
rather tell the Scout "at this point, you're not ready to advance", than to
tell him "he needs to wait for" the next rank. The first starts a dialogue
with "Why not", ending with "The Board needs to see you increase your skills in
such-and-such area, or that you need to work toward using the Scout Law in
more of your everyday life, or whatever. Having a Scout to "wait"
encourages him, but begs the question "how long?", which whatever answer you
"locks the Board" into "passing him" at that point.
(MAJ) Mike L. Walton (Settummanque, the blackeagle) (
co-Owner, Blackeagle Servics of Kentucky __)_
174 Chapelwood Drive, Henderson, Kentucky 42420-5036 | ** |]
(H) 502.827.9201 (F) 502.826.7046 (W) 800.816.6746 coffee? anytime!
also via Blackeagle Services 502.826.7046 or 800.816.6746 /BlkeagleS@AOL.COM
"Ask about Geoworks, Leaders' Online & visiting *your* place to talk Scouting!!!
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City