Re: "Double-dipping"
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:15:13 -0500
At 08:29 PM 12/26/98 -0500, EC92@AOL.COM wrote:
>Lets look at this concept.
>
>Can a Scout accumulate time in a leadership position for Eagle while he's
>first class? No. He can accumulate time toward Star. Ditto with the service
>projects, so far as I can recall, although I don't remember if they contain
>that "while a x scout do x hours of service" or not and I do not have a
>handbook around for reference.
That is correct, these requirements specifically have to be done "while an X
Scout," and he is when he is attempting to use the Venturing positions,
totally in accordance with BSA advancement policy. However, BSA policy also
is that, unless otherwise specified, Scouts can work on any requirement at
any time. Thus, this prohibition is the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE.
>Given the statement that I remember DOES exist for leadership positions for
>rank above 1st class, I would guarantee that a youth could not double-dip in a
>leadership position for both the BS advancement and Venturing at the same
>time.
On what basis could you guarantee that? If the purpose of that requirement
is for the Scout to demonstrate that he possesses certain skills or
personality characteristics, what is to be gained by requiring him to
demonstrate those skill or characteristics twice, other than extracting a
pound of flesh because somehow it seems "wrong" to allow the performance of
one action to count towards two awards?
We can go back to the CPR requirements for the various aquatics merit
badges. If I follow your logic then a Scout who is working simultaneously
at summer camp on both canoeing and rowing merit badges, possibly with the
same counselor even, would have to demonstrate the same CPR twice within the
one week of camp, because he couldn't "double dip." I think we all agreed
back then that this would make no sense at all, so why does it make sense
with holding a single position of responsibility that happens to qualify for
both awards?
>I would not allow it as an advisor and we will not be encouraging it when I
>take over as the Exploring/Venturing District Chair on 1/1/99. This is a
>simple concept described right there in the requirement "While a first
>class/star/life/Eagle scout...".
I'm curious on what basis you would refuse to accept that time in position
for either award. Even if the Venturing program contains an "after having
done X" statement, it would still be possible for the Scout to have met both
the rank prerequisite for Eagle and the Venturing prerequisite for whatever
Venturing award he is trying for.
As much as you see it as being obvious that it SHOULDN'T count, I see it
being just as obvious that it should. And, certainly, unless and until the
requirements for either of these awards or both are changed to specifically
preclude the double counting any Scout who is denied the use of the time for
either award would win an appeal without even working up a sweat. The first
one might have to go to national, but I think that district or council
advancement committees, if they believe in the "you can't add to the
requirements" doctrine (which I would hope they do) would quickly realize
that there really is no question here.
>
>So I would SUGGEST to an Advisor with this situation that the youth has to
>have an unscheduled Advisor's Conference to discuss priorities. Which is more
>important, the new award he can earn until he's 21 or the BS ranks that cut
>off at 18? It should become obvious real fast what needs to be done and in
>which order. At best a youth entering at the EARLIEST age (a graduating 8th
>grader who hasn't had his birthday yet) could advance by alternating ranks, at
>worst an older youth should easily determine what needs to be done first.
I would certainly agree that a wise advisor would counsel his Venturers who
wish to work on Eagle while in the crew that it would be prudent to work on
Eagle first, because there is an extra three years to earn the Venturing
awards, but that need not include having him forego using things he is doing
that meet Venturing requirements merely because they also meet Scouting
requirements.
>
>Venturing National Committee meets in February. I am not on it but if its
>serious enough a situation that this simple, obvious solution is not enough, I
>can do what is needed to assure it is written into the future requirements. It
>only takes the word of a few here off the list with details about WHY this
>would be important and I'll make sure its in the right hands.
Well, I would hope that they have already considered that, or that if they
consider it now they would decide that extracting an extra pound of flesh
from a young man accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to satisfy the
"sense of propriety" of some Scouters who feel there is something inherently
wrong with maximizing the return on investment of things done in Scouting by
qualifying for more than one thing simultaneously.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
