I'm spinning off from my own thread because of a situation we have developing. I am honestly interested in other opinions, so please let them fly.
It is about one newest Eagle candidate. He's 17, turning 18 in late January. He recently completed his project, and had completed all other work. But it is his backstory that is a little troubling.
His Life BoR was in April '09. Although I didn't witness it, I've been told that at that board he came across as bored and disinterested in the troop. At that point, he had been a patrol leader, but then again, at the time the troop was pretty much allowing do-nothing PoRs. I don't recall him showing up much after that, and he didn't attend summer camp in July. There was an August '09 5-day canoe trip that he went on.
Over the next couple of years, I don't really recall seeing him at any meetings, except when he came to some specifically to talk to me about two merit badges I counsel. I would guess that this was 2 or 3 meetings. No outings, and that didn't surprise, given that I'd heard that he projected "bored and disinterested" at his Life BoR.
The next time I heard from him, it was an email note in Aug '11, where it sounded like he was collecting date for an Eagle app (it was a question about the dates of the two merit badges I had signed off). I asked him about that, he confirmed it, and after I checked our Troopmaster records, I sent him a query about his PoR while a Life Scout. He told me that he felt that he had completed it, because it had been signed off in his book by the SPL.
[more backstory: the troop had major problems with no-nothing PoRs, which included this particular SPL -- we rarely saw him the year he was SPL, but apparently sometime after the Life BoR in 4/09 and the canoe trip, 8/09, he signed off a PoR for this Scout for Eagle; meanwhile an Advancement Chair, now our SM, and I, now our CC, had been working on rebuilding the troop and working on actual fulfillment of PoRs]
Anyway, a signed-off PoR in a handbook versus no knowledge that a PoR had ever been held.
Things got messy from there, which I think I can skip over -- CC, dad, Advancement Chair, SM and I all got involved. Scout explored moving to another troop, and was sent back to us (a gentle suggestion that he should work out his problems with us rather than move).
All that leads to sometime earlier this spring. The old Advancement Chair/new SM has a conference with the returning Scout. They come to an agreement of what the Scout should do in his remaining months. He needed to have an actual PoR, and an easy one (troop historian) that he could work on in his spare time was opened up, he was asked to participate in some troop meetings, and participate in 3 outings. He needed to finish something like 5 merit badges and a project. He was looking to have his application signed this week.
So actively participating in the PoR hasn't been an issue, although as the recipient of his troop history information, he didn't really spend all that much time on it, and certainly there was no leadership involved. It was kind of bare minimum. His project was finished at the beginning of this month.
He has shown up to some meetings, but it is the "3 outings" part where we've had an issue. He attended one day hike. No other outings. In fact, only one reported night of camping since Aug '09. The troop has had nine outings, since March, and a couple of service projects. The SM, through email, warned him a couple of months ago that he had agreed to attend some outings. The Scout's response was "I am aware of that."
When he contacted us about signatures last week, the SM reminded him again about outings, and the Scout said "can't we come to some kind of compromise?". We set up a conference with the Scout, the SM and I last night. We reviewed the project workbook signed that off, then debated the application signatures.
The Scout's position started with a hardcopy (that a family friend, an old district advancement guy had given him) which explained the old "active = registered" advancement policy. I pointed out to the Scout that the 2011 Guide To Advancement had clarified that a unit is able to set a "reasonable expectation" of participation. In email last night, when I sent him a link to the document, I stated that I thought that the "reasonable expectation" would correspond with the agreement that the SM and the Scout made, for him to attend at least 3 outings, only one of which he had.
The Scout claimed that he had wanted to attend one outing that had been cancelled (it was an overnight with our Cub Scout Pack that was scuttled with a severe weather forecast) and that on at least two other outings, he had actually been traveling with his family. That leaves about seven outings he isn't talking about.
The SM's position is pretty clear...the Scout had made an agreement, and didn't take advantage of any of the nine outings that had happened. He argues that if the Scout thinks Eagle is important enough, he would find a way to attend.
The Scout's position is also pretty clear. He argues that he is busy, and that he had conflicts for outings. After I sent him the link to the Guide To Advancement, he read the section on "active" pretty thoroughly, and was working on an argument that justified his not participating on outings.
So, as more background...one of his fall conflicts is HS marching band -- my oldest son is in the same band, so I know the schedule. I know that if this Scout wants to, he could probably make appearances at our fall outings (September, there is a Saturday 9am to 2pm rehearsal; October, there is a Sunday event; November, there is a Friday game, and a Sunday parade -- Saturday is open).
I'm pretty sure what my next steps will be -- I'll outline some of those ideas after I hear what you'se guys have to say...
By the way, the SM reads this forum, and may respond, especially to clear up any problems with what I've said :-).
Thanks,
Guy
It is about one newest Eagle candidate. He's 17, turning 18 in late January. He recently completed his project, and had completed all other work. But it is his backstory that is a little troubling.
His Life BoR was in April '09. Although I didn't witness it, I've been told that at that board he came across as bored and disinterested in the troop. At that point, he had been a patrol leader, but then again, at the time the troop was pretty much allowing do-nothing PoRs. I don't recall him showing up much after that, and he didn't attend summer camp in July. There was an August '09 5-day canoe trip that he went on.
Over the next couple of years, I don't really recall seeing him at any meetings, except when he came to some specifically to talk to me about two merit badges I counsel. I would guess that this was 2 or 3 meetings. No outings, and that didn't surprise, given that I'd heard that he projected "bored and disinterested" at his Life BoR.
The next time I heard from him, it was an email note in Aug '11, where it sounded like he was collecting date for an Eagle app (it was a question about the dates of the two merit badges I had signed off). I asked him about that, he confirmed it, and after I checked our Troopmaster records, I sent him a query about his PoR while a Life Scout. He told me that he felt that he had completed it, because it had been signed off in his book by the SPL.
[more backstory: the troop had major problems with no-nothing PoRs, which included this particular SPL -- we rarely saw him the year he was SPL, but apparently sometime after the Life BoR in 4/09 and the canoe trip, 8/09, he signed off a PoR for this Scout for Eagle; meanwhile an Advancement Chair, now our SM, and I, now our CC, had been working on rebuilding the troop and working on actual fulfillment of PoRs]
Anyway, a signed-off PoR in a handbook versus no knowledge that a PoR had ever been held.
Things got messy from there, which I think I can skip over -- CC, dad, Advancement Chair, SM and I all got involved. Scout explored moving to another troop, and was sent back to us (a gentle suggestion that he should work out his problems with us rather than move).
All that leads to sometime earlier this spring. The old Advancement Chair/new SM has a conference with the returning Scout. They come to an agreement of what the Scout should do in his remaining months. He needed to have an actual PoR, and an easy one (troop historian) that he could work on in his spare time was opened up, he was asked to participate in some troop meetings, and participate in 3 outings. He needed to finish something like 5 merit badges and a project. He was looking to have his application signed this week.
So actively participating in the PoR hasn't been an issue, although as the recipient of his troop history information, he didn't really spend all that much time on it, and certainly there was no leadership involved. It was kind of bare minimum. His project was finished at the beginning of this month.
He has shown up to some meetings, but it is the "3 outings" part where we've had an issue. He attended one day hike. No other outings. In fact, only one reported night of camping since Aug '09. The troop has had nine outings, since March, and a couple of service projects. The SM, through email, warned him a couple of months ago that he had agreed to attend some outings. The Scout's response was "I am aware of that."
When he contacted us about signatures last week, the SM reminded him again about outings, and the Scout said "can't we come to some kind of compromise?". We set up a conference with the Scout, the SM and I last night. We reviewed the project workbook signed that off, then debated the application signatures.
The Scout's position started with a hardcopy (that a family friend, an old district advancement guy had given him) which explained the old "active = registered" advancement policy. I pointed out to the Scout that the 2011 Guide To Advancement had clarified that a unit is able to set a "reasonable expectation" of participation. In email last night, when I sent him a link to the document, I stated that I thought that the "reasonable expectation" would correspond with the agreement that the SM and the Scout made, for him to attend at least 3 outings, only one of which he had.
The Scout claimed that he had wanted to attend one outing that had been cancelled (it was an overnight with our Cub Scout Pack that was scuttled with a severe weather forecast) and that on at least two other outings, he had actually been traveling with his family. That leaves about seven outings he isn't talking about.
The SM's position is pretty clear...the Scout had made an agreement, and didn't take advantage of any of the nine outings that had happened. He argues that if the Scout thinks Eagle is important enough, he would find a way to attend.
The Scout's position is also pretty clear. He argues that he is busy, and that he had conflicts for outings. After I sent him the link to the Guide To Advancement, he read the section on "active" pretty thoroughly, and was working on an argument that justified his not participating on outings.
So, as more background...one of his fall conflicts is HS marching band -- my oldest son is in the same band, so I know the schedule. I know that if this Scout wants to, he could probably make appearances at our fall outings (September, there is a Saturday 9am to 2pm rehearsal; October, there is a Sunday event; November, there is a Friday game, and a Sunday parade -- Saturday is open).
I'm pretty sure what my next steps will be -- I'll outline some of those ideas after I hear what you'se guys have to say...
By the way, the SM reads this forum, and may respond, especially to clear up any problems with what I've said :-).
Thanks,
Guy
Comment