Re: advancement policy question?

At 10:02 PM 8/23/97 -0500, Mike Walton wrote:

<snip>
>...the father/Scoutmaster SHOULD NOT SIGN his own son's application....
<snip>

I respectfully disagree.

To say that a father/Scoutmaster should not sign his son's Eagle application
implies that either 1) a father/Scoutmaster cannot be trusted to hold his
son to the same standards as he does other Scouts, or 2) the possibility
that someone might level a charge of favoritism is sufficient reason to
prohibit a Scoutmaster from performing one or more of his duties.

With regard to the former, if a father/Scoutmaster lacks the integrity to
hold his son to the same standards as he does other Scouts, then he lacks
the integrity to be a Scoutmaster in the first place. The position requires
a person of character, one who can be trusted to faithfully and fairly
execute all the duties of the office to the best of his ability and in
accordance with all the regulations and policies of the Boy Scouts of
America. Anyone who cannot be trusted to do so, whether because of kinship
or friendship or any other reason, should be permanently replaced by someone
who can. On the other hand, if a Scoutmaster is the person of good
character that he should be, then there is no reason to prevent him from
fulfilling all of his duties, including certifying his son's Eagle
application or, for that matter, any other advancement requirement,
including Scoutmaster conferences.

With regard to the latter, "because someone might think such-and-such" has
never been a good reason for not doing things correctly. Consideration of
what people may think has little or no value as a standard for behavior
because, no matter what one does, there is almost always someone willing to
find fault, either with what was done or with the way in which it was done.
Rather than seeking to avoid all potential criticism--an utterly hopeless
task, in the long run--our energies would be far better spent in seeking to
conduct ourselves in such a manner as to render invalid any criticism which
comes our way. By adhering consistently to established standards rather
than attempting to institute exceptions for this case or that, one
effectively denies a target to all would-be snipers; this is simpler and
more efficient that attempting to deny ammunition to any one sniper, which
can usually be done only at the expense of providing ammunition to another.
Davy Crockett is alleged to have said, "Be sure you're right, then go
ahead," and I consider that good advice; it is more productive to
concentrate on doing things the correct way rather than to worry about what
someone may think is the wrong way.

The concern over what some might consider favoritism on the part of the
Scoutmaster might have some merit were it not for the fact that the
Scoutmaster does not act in a vacuum. In signing the Eagle application, the
Scoutmaster is certifying that the Scout has met the requirements (many of
which have also been certified previously, during the course of prior rank
advancements); but the Eagle application also requires certifying signatures
from the Scout himself, from the unit committee chairman, from the council
registrar, from the chairman of the board of review, from a district or
council representative serving on the board (if applicable), and finally
from the council executive. That's a minimum of five and a maximum of six
signatures in addition to that of the Scoutmaster--and then it still must be
approved by the National Council's Eagle Board of Review. This hardly
leaves an opening for anyone to say "he only got it because his dad's the
Scoutmaster."

Finally, I would argue that, in the case of a Boy Scout applicant, the Eagle
application requires the Scoutmaster's signature, not that of some
surrogate. The wording on the form says "unit leader's signature," which
some may interpret as permitting an assistant Scoutmaster to provide the
certification. However, I feel that the use of the term "unit leader" is
not intended to include assistant leaders, but instead is simply an
economical way of saying "Scoutmaster/Varsity Team Coach/Explorer Advisor's
Signature." As "the" unit leader of a troop, the Scoutmaster ultimately
bears full responsibility for the program; therefore, he should be the one
to sign the form, even if he is the Scout's father. A registered assistant
should only sign the form in those cases where the Scoutmaster's signature
is not reasonably obtainable, such as when the Scoutmaster is away on
temporary military duty of some duration. In such a case, an assistant
could sign--not as an assistant Scoutmaster, per se, but as the "acting
Scoutmaster."

Yours in Scouting,

Russ Jones <csrtj@ttuhsc.edu>
Scoutmaster, Troop 575 & National Jamboree Troop 1636
South Plains Council, Lubbock, Texas
Eagle Scout, class of 1965
"I used to be a fox..." SC-295
"I used to be a staffer..." SC-430, SR-110, SR-206

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message
• Previous message
• Maybe in reply to