Re: 2ND post: Need Some Advice (Life to Eagle)
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:13:03 -0500
> From: Jim Peterson <KUPETE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 2:47 PM
>
> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. These boys could easily apply
> to get their Eagle through the Explorer Post. As a matter of fact,
> I (and several others) have encouraged them to do so. The real
> issue here is that these boys don't want to get Eagle through the
> post. Frankly, the post was created by a couple of father/leaders
> who will probably drop it within two years. My guess is that the
> Post will disband at that time. No, the boys want to get their
> Eagle through our 75 year old troop in which they have not been
> active for about a year.
I understood exactly what you are saying. I think you are stuck.
Question 1: Did these boys fill one of the positions of responsibility in
the troop for ANY six months since earning Life? If so then they have met
that requirement. Similarly, were they active participants (begging for
the moment the definition) for ANY six months since attaining Life?
Again, if so they have met the requirement.
If not, did they meet either or both of these requirements as members of
the Post? If so, then I believe they have met the requirement, regardless
of whether they wish to advance through the Post or the Troop. If they
wish to use Post time to qualify in the troop then I believe the SM should
have a discussion with the Advisor about how active they actually were in
the Post.
As to definitions, national WILL take the position that as long as they
have been registered in Scouting for the required time, and had not been
removed from your unit, they have met the requirement. So, did your troop
do anything to terminate their membership? With regard to the leadership
positions, regardless of how well they did or did not perform, the general
feeling about national's view (and I don't necessarily disagree with it)
is that unless the unit took some affirmative steps to deal with inferior
leadership, preferably by removing the boy from the position, then he has
met the requirement.
There is absolutely NO requirement that either of these two requirements
be met in the LAST six months before the Eagle board. If he makes Life at
15, stays till he is 16, then disappears until just before his 18th
birthday he has met the requirements, way back when.
> This issue began to surface last spring at our annual leader's
> retreat and planning session. At that time we drafted an
> attendance and participation statement. It was centered around
> the "show scout spirit" requirement. We stated that since the
> SM does not observe the scouts at school, at home or in the
> community that the only environment in which to observe the
> scout was in troop meetings and activities. Therefore, the SM
> could only evaluate whether or not the scout demonstrated that
> he lived by the scout oath and law was at troop meetings and
> activities. Unfortunately, that is a subjective call...is ONE
> meeting every two months enough to "observe"? Hmmmmmm.
But that is NOT what the requirement demands. The requirement demands
that the Scout live the Oath and Law in his daily life. The wording was
changed, as I understand it, SPECIFICALLY to prevent units from placing
arbitrary participation levels on the Scouts. If the SM doesn't see how
these boys act outside of Scouting, then HE needs to expend the energy to
go and find out, if he really has any doubts. He, or the unit, can't just
say that because we only see you in a Scouting context that is all we will
judge.
The only way that I have recommended this type of thing be dealt with is
to have had a SM conference EARLY ON and discuss what the SM or troop
would like to see in order for the Scout to advance. If he agrees to do
certain things then HE has agreed to the additional requirements and you
are not imposing them. Then, should he not comply, you can ask him
whether he had agreed to do these things and, if he has not done his part
of the agreement, why he feels that the troop should allow him to advance
anyway. In this situation it is still possible to have him appeal up the
ladder, but it is much less likely and you are much more likely to be
sustained.
In summary, AFTER THE FACT, I don't think there is really much you can do,
especially if these boys had met the time and leadership requirements in
the troop before moving to the post.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
Advancement Chairman, Founders District, Queens, NY
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City | 
