Re: ref tour permits
GMarmet@AOL.COM
Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:45:54 EST
<< If it is NOT stated up front to the scout that it is a requirement then it
is a different story and the scout should not be penalized for it. That
would definitely be adding requirements after the fact especially since
policy on filing tour permits is pretty much a Council option and filing
them is a Committee responsibility.
>>
So the concept is that a Life Scout who has successfully (in the opinion of
the Scoutmaster and the beneficiary of the service) completed his Eagle
Service project, and has gotten all the requisite signatures to his "Life to
Eagle" workbook, has met all the written (in the handbook) requirements for
Eagle, will be failed at his Board of Review because he did not file a tour
permit?
This means what? That he files a tour permit retroactively, then goes to
another Board of Reveiw. Which is, I suppose an appropriate punishment
(unless he is almost 18), though hardly sensical since the retroactive filing
does nothing for the reason a tour permit is to be filed in the first place.
Or do you throw the entire Eagle Service project out, and make the boy find
another project and do all that stuff again, finally having another Board of
Review?
At the risk of falling into the "give everyone an Eagle" group, I have to say
that neither alternative has much appeal to me. I would certainly not fail an
Eagle candidate because a tour permit was not filed, and for two reasons.
First a tour permit is generally part of the responsibility of adult leaders,
not youth leaders. I simply cannot see this as part of the Eagle candidates
job. It may be required by the Council, but it is not the youth's
responsibility. So why should it count against him? To say that it is the
youth's responsibilty, to me, would justifiy saying that an SPL should be
dunned for not making sure that a tour permit was filed for a campout. If
that is part of an SPL's job, then I have missed it in the literature.
Second, I really believe that the Council who rejects an Eagle Candidate for
this reason is adding requirements to National's requirements, a distinct no-
no, as we all know. Understand it is one thing for a Council to require
(whatever that means) a tour permit for an Eagle project, and quite something
else for the BOR to throw out the project because it (the tour permit) was
missing. Councils have often required tour permits for every campout (whether
the National rules require them or not). Does the Council, that requires this
procedure, revoke the charter of every troop that fails to file or files late?
I don't think so. The requirements a boy must complete should be the ones in
his Scout Handbook (as updated). This Council made rule simply isn't there.
I am an attorney. I understand law. To understand law means that you have to
understand its limits and how to use it. Whether we like the concept or not
"law" is not black or white. We must interpret law for the benefit of those
it is designed to protect or foster. Breaking laws, even in the world of real
law and courtrooms, does not or should not have draconian results. Sometimes
it has no results at all. There is not always a punishment (even probation)
meted out for crimes. Why on earth would you throw out an Eagle project (with
all the work that was produced) because of an administrative or procedural
rather than substantive foulup. We have done that in the real law in the
past, but we try to avoid it. We should in Scouting as well.
Yours in Scouting,
G. John Marmet
