MinnSM

Does anyone have a "job description" for the District Advancement Chairperson? Or something similar?

Our Council's DAC's (and there are many in our large Council) have developed their own job desriptions, based largely on their personal interpretation of Scouting goals. Unfortunately, some Ditrict to District inconsistencies seem have popped up and have resulted in some messy situations, especially when it comes to Life to Eagle advancement. The DAC's have very different philosophies and styles, and some appear to have drifted along way from the role that the BSA intended them to fill.

I would be interested to know what other Councils are doing to drive some consistency across Districts in terms of advancement, particularly with how DAC's handle the process of Life to Eagle. Do your Councils have leader specific training for these critical roles?

Any thoughts or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

There are still happy endings. And my faith in the greater BSA Organization is renewed.

A Council BOR was held last night for my son. The Council Advancement Chair along with 4 veteran Scouters sat on the board. The board unanimously over-ruled the DAC and awarded my son the rank of Eagle Scout.

We have received some wonderful feedback from those attending, and are extremely proud of the way our Scout handled the unfortunate mess. The board members asked the tough questions, but as my son said, "I felt like an Eagle Scout when I was answering them". The BOR did a great job in turning around an ugly situation and making a young man feel great about his many accomplishments.

Hats off to these folks!

And thanks to all of you for your feedback and support.

MinnSM

Sorry, I didn't intend to get into a debate about gatekeepers. But, here we are.

I believe that our role as Scouters is to help as many Scouts as possible reach the gates, and then limit only those that shouldn't for "good reason" pass through. I think there are some in our organization that have things reversed. They establish gates and then help only those that they have allowed through. Help then limit, or limit then help? I think we should try and get as many Scouts through the gates as possible.

John-in-KC's list of gatekeepers is correct, but I hope that our organization would be more tolerant and be more willing to help people overcome mistakes. I sure hope we don't need to add another point to the Scout Law, "A Scout is Perfect"???

Just my opinion.

KoreaScouter,

You were not too harsh, and I agree with your comments.

It appears I'm one of those 1960's Scouts who did have Fred McMurray as a Scoutmaster. His example was a key factor in me becoming a Scoutmaster. It might also be why I have such high expectations for my fellow Scouters. He actually allowed me to make a few mistakes, learn from them, and I still received my Eagle.

As a father and relatively new Scoutmaster, I've learned a great deal through this experience and, not all of it is positive. YOU CAN BE SURE THAT I WILL NEVER LET SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN AGAIN TO A MEMBER OF OUR TROOP. I think it's sad, however, my focus has to turn to protecting my Scouts from unreasonable adults who appear to view their roles as gatekeepers, aren't there for the prupose of assisting Scouts, and have self-appointed themselves as "protectors" of their personal vision of Scouting. I guess I expected more, but I have learned.

I have been very encouraged, however, by the support we have received from the good people at the Council. They are moving to schedule a Council level BOR and we are optimistic the situation will be resolved favorably. I also appreciate everyone's support on this forum. I also look forward to continuing as SM and to future involvement in bringing needed change to our district.

MinnSM

Thought I would update those who might be interested in the recent events regarding the "Eagle Denial" post. A BOR occurred last evening, following a painful wait of nearly two months. The DAC finally scheduled it after being contacted by the Council, and told to do so.

The Scout's Eagle advisor and the troop committee chair were allowed to speak briefly with the Scout out of the room. Both attested to the Scout's level of character, and that they had each given verbal project approval (without formal signatures)to proceed on his project. They fell on their spears saying they should have followed stricter procedures in advising the Scout and making sure things were in line.

The scout spent the usual amount of time with the board. The committee chair was allowed to listen but not speak during the meeting with the Scout. He reported the Scout had done a wonderful job and handled himself as an Eagle Scout.

Following Board's deliberation, the Scout was briefly informed by the DAC that he was denied, based SOLELY on the lack of the DAC's signature. All other aspects qualified him. He would have had the rank if he had the DAC's signature and not relied on the e-mail response that he took as an approval. I guess we should not have been surprised by the outcome. It only takes one "no" vote and the board was selected by the DAC who repeatedly said they would deny the Scout. There was hope that reasonble minds would resolve the matter positively for everyone involved.

The DAC did tell the Scout it had been a difficult decision since he was such a fine young man.

Well, I guess my faith in this organization and its leadership (or lack of) is rapidly fading. If it were not for the 35+ other Scouts and another son in the organization, I would have already retired. Sad to say that one person's

signature (intended to make sure the scout doesn't fail) is more important than the Scout living the Scout Oath and Law for all those years. It would appear that Scouting today has no place young men who make a mistake and then take accountability for it.

I guess I should rest comfortably, however, knowing that we have the leadership within our orgaization that does such a wonderful job protecting the ideals of Scouting.

Baden-Powell said, "Correcting bad habits cannot be done by forbidding or punishment." and that "The spirit is there in every boy; it has to be discovered and brought to light." It appears that some with the power clearly believe certain mis-steps require a heavy hand, the need to crush the spirit, and snuff the light to protect position and authority. I agree with Baden-Powell when he says "........the Devil is best described by the term "Selfulness."

I just attended the 75th anniversary banquet for the troop I received my Eagle from 37 years ago. It brought back many great memories talking with my former Scoutmaster. But sadly, this just doesn't seem like the organization that I once loved. It may be time to move on.

MinnSM

I would like to thank everyone for their concern and honest feedback concerning this issue. As the Scoutmaster involved, your input has been very helpful in helping our troop leaders deal with the situation.

It is time to reveal another bit of information regarding the situation. I am not only the Scout's Scoutmaster, but also his father. I didn't mention that originally, as I didn't think it should impact your input.

As a scoutmaster/parent I have been particularly careful about making sure my son was advancing on his own merits. I guess he and I are paying the price for my lack of involvement and oversight. I made the assumption the adult advisers were involved at a level that would prevent a situation like this from occurring. I also assumed that they would be advocates for the Scouts.

I've learned that I need to do a better job of looking after the other Scouts advancing towards Eagle. I have the impression that some of the involved adult leaders view themselves more as gatekeepers than coaches and mentors. I find that unfortunate.

So it seems we will at best be involved in a potentially lengthy appeal process. Hopefully, we can find an outcome suitable to all. Thanks again for your ideas and opinions.

And by the way, he is a great kid, didn't scheme or deceive, made a mistake and takes accountability for it. He's an Eagle Scout in my eyes.

The idea of an extension is a good idea. Thanks. Everything else means a fight.

Anybody have any details on extensions? Who has to approve the extension, hopefully, it's not the DAC?

What bothers me is I why didn't the DAC make that recommendation? I'm pretty disappointed, it seems that our leadership is focused on things other than what's good for the youth.

No one in our organization is asking anyone to break rules, including the scout that is involved. He accepts his mistake and would like the opportunity to have his entire qualifications examined. He is willing to work to demonstrate his understanding of his error.

When a scout makes a mistake and recognizes it, I was under the assumption as adult leaders we work to find a path to help the boy succeed, as well as have a learning experience.

Much of what we do is subject to interpretation, in fact the Eagle packet says the scout can't proceed without "approval". Does that mean signature (doesn't say that), e-mail, conversation, what? It sounds to me like verbal approval with a follow up signature has been acceptable to some of you. Our DAC says NO.

So, I had a scout who stole thousands of $$ worth of stuff at scout camp. He was caught, confessed under pressure, made restitution, and was put on probation with the troop. He sought counseling, made his peace with the troop and did everything the troop asked during the probation period. He got his Eagle.

So we don't give the Eagle to the scout who didn't get a signature, but did a project that the DAC said via e-mail would "certainly qualify"???? Do we follow the rules for the rules sake, or do what is right?

I need the help and advice of my fellow scouters. I don't know where to turn to help a fine scout.

I am the scoutmaster of a scout that has apparently hit the wall in his path to Eagle. He joined scouting as a Tiger Cub and has been extremely active. He just turned 18. He's a great kid, leader and friend to everyone in the troop, elected to OA when first eligible, attended council level junior leader training, SPL for one year (2 years ago), active camper, Philmont, captain of his sailing team, coaches youth sailing, good student etc. etc. etc.

Problem is he moved ahead on his Eagle project without the formal signature of our district advancement chairperson. The scout did not follow instructions in the packet and forged ahead with some e-mail feedback as "go ahead but with these changes". He then carried out a good project and received the needed troop and advisor sign offs. He had all signatures (except the one), completed all other requirements, had his letters, but was told that there was no hope, and there would be no district Board of Review. There was no consideration of any of his other qualifications, just denial based on the lack of the signature which I believe is intended to make sure scouts don't select a wrong project and fail on it.

He knows he screwed up. He clearly understands he didn't follow procedure, regrets and takes responsibility for his error. He would have done another project, however, he was within days of his 18th birthday when he was informed there would be no signature. He's willing to take remedial action if asked.

It seems a real shame, and counter to the original goals Baden-Powell set for scouting that some procedural error is going to destroy this kid. I know he has learned a life lesson through this adventure. I don't want him to learn that he can't make mistakes and correct them. It is wrong to me that he is being judged on one ill timed mistake. What's important here, the kid, ideals of scouting, or a rigid format intended to help the scout? Some help!

As a scoutmaster I've helped troubled kids, bullies, thieves, etc. work through issues and achieve the Eagle rank. They made their mistakes earlier in their scouting experience. I have trouble believing we will publically punish a fine young man to protect the honor of all of us old Eagle Scouts.

I'm worried about the lasting message this sends to him, his fellow troop members, our scouting families, and the boys we are trying to recruit. I am also questioning my association with a group that appears to have lost its focus on the original ideals of scouting in favor of rigid inflexible rules.

I would appreciate your thoughts, advice, and any help you might offer.