Scouts-L Mail Archive for October of 1998: Re: Boards of Review Question
Re: Boards of Review Question
Timothy J. O'Leary
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:06:06 -0400
I agree with Steve Featherkile on this one. When I was a Scout, about
30 years ago, there were "time in grade" requirements for all ranks - even
Tenderfoot. These requirements were done away with. Thus, it is quiter
that to delay the Board of Review process is to impose a new requirement -
time in grade -
that is "troop dependent." This, in my opinion, is clearly wrong.
I can see no good in conducting the First Class Board of Review three
months, one month, one week or one day
after the Tenderfoot Board of Review when it was the Tenderfoot physical
fitness test that delayed
the advancement process. To argue that the counseling process, growth
process or whatever
willl be somehow facilitated by this delay is, in my opinion, specious. It
does a disservice
to all concerned. Were I the UC for a unit enforcing this type of delay, I
would be doing my best to
educate and convince the Troop Committee to change its ways.
The decision on a Board of Review belongs to the Troop Committee and the
boy - not the SM.
And, by the way, a Scout cannot "fail" the Scoutmaster's conference. Read
the rules - he has to
have a SM conference - not "pass it." Hence, if the boy has the signitures,
and has the SM
conference - whether or not the SM likes the outcome, the TC/BoR and the
boy can conduct
the BoR and advance the boy.
For those that don't like the interpretation - ask National to change the
Tim O'Leary, CC Troop 772, Crew 769, RT staff, etc.
>Tom E Sullivan wrote:
>> I can't believe how many of the members of this list find it acceptable
>> to hold multiple Boards and SM conferences on the same night.