NJCubScouter

Beavah, What you seem to be saying is, you don't think that the added (or accelerated) requirements imposed in some districts/councils are actually enforced to the point of denying anyone Eagle if they have complied with the national requirements -- or at least, that you have not seen it happen. Admittedly I have not heard of this happening in my district either. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen in my district, or elsewhere. Anecdotal evidence, either yours or mine, is of limited usefulness. It would be interesting to know whether it actually does happen and to what extent, and I have seen nothing in this forum that provides that information, one way or the other. What I do know is that boys (and their parents) are TOLD in some districts/councils that if you don't do certain things by a certain date, you won't make Eagle, and when those things and dates are contrary to what national says, I think it's a problem. While some districts may set up a procedure that is designed to reduce the last-minute panic, in some situations the "added" procedure will make the last-minute situation worse. If, for example, the council signature in Requirement 6 on the application does not actually have to be there before the birthday, requiring that it be there before the birthday DOES add to the pre-birthday panic. It did in my son's case. As for "courtesy", I completely agree with you about that. I can tell you that while my son is always courteous and respectful of adults in in-person settings, he created a lot of extra work and rushing-around for adults who were WILLING to do it for him, but who should not have had to do it. Even though I had told him months before that a last-minute rush had to be avoided, and the reasons why (including the inconvenience to others), the last-minute rush happened anyway. He could say "I know, I know" 50 times (and probably did) but I still don't think he was fully conscious of the burden he was about to place on others. I think that's a normal teenage reaction. I do think that as the last-minute rush was happening, he finally "got it." So maybe that's a positive. But if, at the Eagle BOR, he had been "graded" on how courteous he had been of other peoples' time, he would have had a problem.

How odd. Usually when the postal service issues these stamps it's because they think people are going to want to buy them, to produce revenue. I think that a stamp explicitly geared toward the BSA and the 100th anniversary would produce some sales. I don't know who is going to be rushing out to buy this.

I don't see anywhere in that article where the President supports "cutting and running", unless you think the plan was for us to stay there forever. I don't think that was ever the plan.

I would drop the shoulder loops (and epaulets) completely, including for adults. In theory, at least, every adult leader is wearing a position patch, which tells me not only which program he/she is in, but what his/her role is in the program. The silver and gold loops are particularly non-informative; the silver are worn by everybody from a Unit Commissioner to the (council) Scout Exec, while the gold are worn by everybody from a uniformed employee at a national Scout Shop to the Chief Scout Executive.

Either follow the rules or work to get them changed. Isn't that what we teach the Scouts? TwoCubDad, are you implying that some adults in the Scouting program, including some in very important positions, are not always perfect role models for how we would like the Scouts to behave? I'm shocked!

Beavah says: As a CubScouter, yeh may not be aware that there is no requirement that a BOR has to be held before the lad's 18th birthday. Also no requirement that all da paperwork has to be in by the birthday either. It's completely routine and ordinary for Eagle paperwork and reference letters and Eagle Boards of Review to be conducted after a lad turns 18. So what you're worried about just ain't an issue. Beavah, I don't think you correctly understand what I have written, or what CNYScouter has written. Despite the fact that my account-name has the word "Cub" in (because I never changed it after my son crossed over and I became a troop committee member, six years ago), I am very familiar with the application and the application process, especially the added requirements imposed by my council, because I have just been through this with my son (as I have written about in this thread.) I know the application by heart at this point. There are two places for the "council" to sign, one is under Requirement 6, which a "council representative" (on my son's application the person's title was "administrative specialist") has to sign before the BOR can take place. The second is under Requirement 7, where there are two spaces side-by-side for the BOR members to sign, and then the line for the SE's signature. I understand that Requirement 7 need not be done before the 18th birthday. What I have a problem with, among several other things, is that MY council requires the council signature under Requirement 6 (meaning that everything above that needs to be completed and signed as well) BEFORE the 18th birthday. (In other words, the application must be turned in at council twice, once before the BOR to get the sig under Requirement 6, and again after the BOR to be signed by the SE and sent to national. National does not seem to require that EITHER event occur before the 18th birthday, but my council requires that the first turning-in happen before the birthday.) It is all well and good for you to say that it need not be turned in before the 18th birthday, because that's what national says, but a Scout who follows your advice in my council is NOT going to make Eagle. That's a problem. Likewise, it is all well and good for you to say that the reference letters need not be turned in before the birthday, but according to at least some of the information CNYScouter's son is receiving, if the letters are not in by his birthday, he's not going to make Eagle either. (Well, I think he is, but it may be because national overrules his council.) So it IS an issue, because the councils are adding requirements. I find it difficult to believe that this thread has gotten to its sixth page (and now its seventh) without everybody being clear on that.

I agree with those who say, visit the "usual" troop. For one thing, that might cut down on the resentment if your boys still all decide to go to the "new" troop -- but that's not the real reason to visit the "usual" troop. It really is just a good idea to visit at least two. After that, it's up to the boys. And as someone else said, the choice of a troop is not permanent. Our troop probably has an average of one boy switching in and one boy switching out per year, and the "switchers" have ranged in age from 11 to 17. Recently we seem to be attracting a small stream of boys from a town in another county, where these boys probably have to pass about 20 other troops to get to ours. You just never know.

Well, Beavah, I guess we disagree. Or maybe we are talking about different things, which as I have said before, is a problem in this thread. If we are talking about the requirements for what has to be submitted to the council, and when, those are set by national and should not be changed by a council or district. In CNYScouter's example, I think it is simply wrong for the council not to accept the application before his son's birthday for the reason that the application is not accompanied by five letters. The national procedures do not say five letters, or any letters, have to be submitted before the 18th birthday. Now, it's easy for you to say "tell the lad to get the letters" and "he'll be just fine with it." But CNY's son's birthday is tomorrow. He doesn't have all five letters. Assuming that we don't learn from CNY tomorrow that the five letters did appear before the deadline, are you saying his son should not make Eagle because of a "local requirement" that his council decided to add to the national requirements? What my council (or district) does is bad enough, by requiring THREE letters or the BOR will not take place, when national says the BOR cannot be delayed or denied due to a lack of letters. But that "local requirement" is much different than what CNY's son is facing. In my son's case, "tell the lad to get the letters" is what happened and there was no problem getting it done, because the BOR can take place 60 or 90 days after the 18th birthday with no questions asked, and an extension can be given after that. (Fortunately we did not need to find out whether it is 60 or 90, since my son passed his BOR three weeks after his birthday. Although one of the letters was not actually in the SM's hands until very shortly before the BOR. And, although I didn't ask my son, if I had to guess I would suspect that they didn't even look at the letters. Three of the BOR members have known my son much longer than two of the letter-writers anyway. In this case the letters were really a meaningless paperwork exercise, but far from the last my son will have to comply with in his life, so I'm not upset about it.) So I guess what I am saying is, sure, try to follow the local rules. Make every effort. But if it turns out to be impossible, and the national rules have been complied with, then the council should just back down and process the paperwork rather than make the Scout (now an adult) go through an appeal that, according to national's rules, should be a slam-dunk.

CNYScouter: Excuse me for thinking like a lawyer here, but: Do you have a piece of paper -- either an e-mail, or a note signed by the Eagle clerk, or someone else in the hierarchy -- verifying that the application WAS submitted yesterday (or in other words, before your son's birthday), but is incomplete because there are not enough letters? I ask because, if you haven't already, you want to take steps to limit the number of issues that would be involved in any appeal. If you do have to file an appeal, you want National to be able to say, ok, there is no question that the application was in on time, now we just have to decide whether the council was correct in requiring five letters to be submitted with the application. And since the national policies say what has been reported in this forum, it is difficult to see how National would uphold the council. But you don't want there to be any question that what was submitted on time, was submitted on time. (In our council when you give them paperwork, they give you a pre-printed receipt that says something like, your project workbook was received on such-and-such date, and when I handed in my son's application AFTER the BOR I got the same receipt, and I said, but this isn't really correct, this is for the application, not the workbook. They said don't worry about it, and I didn't make a scene because at that point it was past his birthday anyway, but I did follow up with an e-mail and got confirmation that the application was submitted to National. Several weeks earlier, on the last business day before my son's birthday, they tried to give me a receipt and I said no, I need a signature on the application today, and I'm not leaving until I get it. (I was much more polite than that, and I got what I was asking for.) The only reason I mention this is to advise you that in your case, DON'T accept a generic receipt. You want a piece of paper, BEFORE the birthday, saying the Application was submitted on (date) and, if possible, it should also say that it was not accepted because (reason.)) In other words, you want to set up your appeal and make sure that non-existent issues (like when did you try to submit the application) don't become real issues when National starts asking questions and the clerk becomes defensive and won't verify that the application was even submitted on time. (This comes from long and sad experience dealing with bureacracies.) And when I say "you" I actually mean your son, it was just easier to write "you." Good luck.

I agree with SR540. Amidst the noise created by un-Scoutlike behavior by one or more posters, I am not even sure what issue(s) is/are being discussed in this thread. Is it (1) what the national rules actually are? (2) what the national rules mean? (3) whether there are variations between the national rules and what councils and districts actually do (which there surely are) (4) whether the national rules should be changed (an entirely different subject from #1 or 2) and/or (5) what a Scout and his parents should do when confronted by #3. I've seen a little of all five in this discussion, but it sure gets confusing when so many different aspects are being discussed at once.

OGE, you do that low Frasier Crane voice so well... "I am listening..." Your advice is correct. Get the letters. Get the letters when, where and in the quantity that your local DAC or council says to do it. If your DAC says that the Scout is never supposed to have possession of the letters, ask your letter-writers to send them to the Scoutmaster (or whoever is prescribed in your district, I almost said area but then people might think I meant Area in Scout-speak) and, if you have time, give the letter writers stamped envelopes with the Scoutmaster's address on them. (My son was strongly advised to do that, but he did everything by e-mail and it was tough to fit an envelope into the little wires.) Then, when the deadline for the letters (the 18th birthday in CNY's son's case, the BOR date in my son's case, but that's only because the SM was able to come to the BOR, if not we would have had to make yet more arrangements) is a few days away and you don't know whether they've been sent yet, start sending polite but annoying e-mails to both the letter-writers and the SM to find out. But wouldn't it be nice if everybody, in every district, were following the same rules? If the national rules say that the BOR will not be delayed or denied due to the letters not being there, then that is what the district should follow. In my district that's not what they follow and in CNY's district it is even worse because apparently the letters have to be in sooner.

CNYScouter, I feel your pain. My son's birthday was about a month before yours and he seems to have followed a similar time-line. The difference between my district's "local procedures" and yours is that my son's letters did not have be in before his birthday. They only had to be at the BOR, which as you probably know, can take place after the Scout's 18th birthday. I think that whatever the rules are, they should be the same for every council and district. Why should your son have had to get the letters in on one date, when my son could get them in by a later date, and when a Scout in a different district might not have to worry about them at all? And why should my son (and yours) have had to get the application in before their 18th birthdays, if that is not what national requires? (I say "if" there; I do not think it is required, but I am not positive.) I realize that to some, this may not seem like a big deal. And in an ideal world, it wouldn't be: Every Scout who goes for Eagle would plan well in advance and get everything done in plenty of time without having to rush around at the last minute. This would leave time for the "extra added" things that you find out about at the end (as I had told my son, starting around his 17th birthday.) But it's not an ideal world, and when your son's Eagle comes down to a single piece of paper that may or may not be able to be completed or submitted in the next three days, or whatever, it becomes a big deal. It's a shame to see years of work not produce the intended result because some local person decided to add to the requirements -- even if, ultimately, it's the Scout's fault.

OakTree, I think that when BSA National talks about diversity, they are talking about the "traditional" senses of diversity -- racial, ethnic, and in effect, economic as well. I don't think the gay or religion issues even enter into it. I don't think ideology enters into it (in other words, I don't think they worry too much about, say, heterosexual people who oppose the blanket exclusion of openly gay people; they either think such people don't exist in large numbers or that they will simply "go along", which is often the case.) It is the same "diversity" that the BSA has been seeking since the 70's with the "urban handbook" (which I don't think was really a disaster, but that's a different subject), with soccer programs, Scoutreach, other urban-oriented programs, and all the rest of it.

TwoCub, in our district the BOR's are conducted with all unit people plus the district representative. It doesn't change the fact that the district person has a checklist on which the 3 letters are a requirement, and the BOR isn't going to get signed off without those letters. Or the blue cards for every merit badge earned by the Scout, with dates matching the national advancement printout. Or what they call a "good variety" of signatures of merit badge counselors. I am not sure what they are really looking for there. I have a feeling they are just watching out for "cheating" and that if the blue cards show evidence of that, there's a problem. Otherwise, they find a "good variety." But these are the "requirements", regardless of the fact that all but one of the BOR members know the Scout.

Oak Tree: It got worked out, we need not say exactly how. No photos or powers of attorney involved, but yes, there were cell phones. Everything was authorized, everybody's happy. (With the possible exception of my cardiologist.) I realized I left out a few extra BOR requirements, but I'll have to write about those tomorrow. Hint: "Ok, Eagle candidate, let's see your 21 (plus) blue cards and check the dates against the national printout before we'll even talk to you."

I remember back in the last century (which it was, just barely) sitting at a pack committee meeting and hearing one of the other leaders make a remark something along the lines of the new DE being "hard to see at night." We all knew what he meant, and I couldn't believe my ears. (And this is in New Jersey, a supposed "blue" state; this sort of thing is not limited to one part of the country.) As I recall, nobody made a "scene", but several of us kind-of quietly made it clear that this kind of remark wasn't welcome -- along the lines of "come on" or "now now", "let's not have that", that sort of thing. Maybe we were too gentle. I am sure the guy would not have changed his attitude no matter what we did, but at least I do not recall any later remarks of that sort from him. This is not a question of liberal vs. conservative. I am sure a lot of the guys who were "clucking" along with me were pretty conservative. It was a matter of idiocy vs. non-idiocy.

The pain of this subject is very fresh in my mind, though it is receding, because my son did make it, just under the wire. (Within the past month; BOR within the past two weeks.) As I said in another post, I felt he was being made to do things that were not actually in the national requirements, and time was a real issue. (Of course, it was ultimately his fault that time was such a big issue, since he could have gotten it all done many months ago, but I was irritated that the "local" requirements were making it more of an issue.) Before his 18th birthday, he was required to have in the hands of the "Eagle registrar" at the council office (which is not very near where we live) his application, signed by the unit committee chair and Scoutmaster (which was an issue because people had neglected to consult my son and make sure their vacation schedules didn't take place the week before his birthday, when his project and last 2 merit badges were signed off. And yes, that was sarcasm back there; my son did not plan ahead as he should have.) I don't see where in the requirements it says the application has to be submitted before the birthday. I see where the requirements all have to be completed before the birthday, and I also see where the Scout has to sign that the requirements were all completed before the birthday (which come to think of it, would be unnecessary if the application has to be in before the birthday.) And, of course, the names of five references (including a parent) must be on the application. As for the letters, in our council they do not have to be submitted with the application. In fact they are never supposed to be in the Scout's hands. The letters do not necessarily have to exist before the 18th birthday, but the Scout is instructed to request them before the birthday. I believe that the purpose of this instruction is to allow the BOR to take place within a reasonably short time after the birthday. At least three letters (not five) are required at the BOR in our district. No three letters, no BOR. (If a Scout actually requested one of the letters a day or two after his birthday, which (ahem) may have happened in a case I know about, that's technically ok, as long as the letter shows up when it is supposed to.) The Scout is supposed to ask the letter-writers to mail the letter to the Scoutmaster, who is then responsible for getting the sealed letters to the BOR. All of this, the application before the birthday and requesting the letters and making sure they got to the SM and that the SM got them to the BOR, did happen in my son's case. But I don't see where it was required, and it certainly added a lot of aggravation (especially the before-the-birthday part.) However, both my son and I took the attitude, don't fight city hall, do what you're being asked to do, and fortunately it did work out.

I realize there are several issues here, I will pick one. Should a boy be Den Chief for all of his POR's through Eagle? Of course the easy answer is, if the Scout and his Scoutmaster (and I believe, either the Cubmaster or Den Leader, but I forget which) all agree, sure. It meets the requirements. The tougher question is, is it the best thing for the Scout? I, personally, doubt it. I think a variety of POR's, including at least one that either has the Scout in a true leadership position (SPL, ASPL, or PL) or working with younger Boy Scouts (not just Cub Scouts; in other words Instructor or Troop Guide), is good for a young man's growth and development. I remember that after my son's Star BOR, he said the board members strongly suggested to him that after a year as Den Chief, he move on to a different position (such as one of the above) for his next rank. (I believe "his" Den had graduated anyway, but there was always the possibility of switching to a younger den.) The suggestion made sense to him, and to me, and he followed it. I think it was good for him. Now, if my son had disagreed and insisted on staying Den Chief, what would have happened? What should have happened? I don't know. Fortunately the issue did not come up.

I think there are good suggestions in the responses above. I have now been all the way through the Scouting program with my son (now 18) and have seen several Eagle Scouts in his troop who have had ADD/ADHD -- two of whom have been Senior Patrol Leader -- along with other boys who have had various other special needs. Some of the latter may make not make Eagle, but they have still gotten a lot out of the program. I find it a little disturbing that a parent would conclude about their 6 or 7 year old son that "there is no way that they will be able to earn their badges." How can they know that? As ScoutNut suggests, have they really looked at the book, and concluded that even with their help, the boy cannot do these simple activities? Or are they just not interested in putting in the time to help their son?

TwoCub, Thanks. No, I have posted only very rarely in this forum for awhile. I do stop in once a month or so to read up on what's going on, but even when I see a thread that I might contribute to, by the time I see it the discussion has pretty much passed me by. A larger issue is probably the fact that my Scouting "focus" for awhile has been dominated by the issue of whether my son was going to make Eagle. His 18th birthday was about a month ago, and he did make it -- just barely. He needed a lot of support, and I think some extra roadblocks were thrown in his way by the process that our district follows. The people involved both at the district and unit level were great, but there are these "checklists" that I think exceed the actual requirements and also require things to be done sooner than the requirements require them. Sorry to be cryptic. Maybe I will start a thread mentioning some of these issues, though I know it is not a new subject in this forum. The bottom line is that my son got the requirements completed and signed off under the wire, has now passed his BOR and his application is on is way to National, so all's well that ends well -- but it was an irritating and frustrating process, partly due to my son taking so long to get his act together, but partly due to the process itself. Sorry to go off-topic.

In our troop there is very little activity between the end of school (around June 20-25) and the beginning of school after Labor Day, the main exception being one week of summer camp in late July and a swimming test a few weeks before that. Nevertheless there is no "suspension" of credit for POR's. I have never even heard the topic come up (in our troop, that is... it comes up periodically in this forum.) POR's are for a one-year term (which I don't really like, but anyway...) so there is no issue of fairness between terms. I suppose if one were to try to justify the continuation of credit over the summer, one might observe that there are some things for the quartermaster to do before and after summer camp, presumably the librarian might have a thing or two to do if a book comes in, some may be doing other Scouting activities such as NYLT or participating in the affiliated Venturing crew (which has either one two-week or two one-week trips during the summer), but I guess this does not really address the overall issue. I think if the question were asked in my troop the most common answer would be something like "Ah, give the kids a break."

qwazse says: That said, our program exludes 11-13 y.o. females, which may make the younger boys feel a little awkward. I guess we'll be figuring that one out as we go along. In our council, there is an age minimum of 13 (or have completed 7th grade) to attend NYLT, unless that has also changed with the recent revisions. I am not sure whether that is a national minimum or a council-by-council thing. So unless they are changing it, the only age where girls would be "missing" is 13, since 14 is the minimum age for Venturing. It is my observation from when my son attended NYLT a couple of years ago, and from seeing who our troop generally sends to NYLT, that there are probably relatively few 13-year-olds attending anyway, the typical age seems to be more 14-15. So making the program "coed" would not result in a big change to the age mix, at least in our council. (I am noticing that my user name here has become even more anachronistic than it was previously, since my son has made Eagle and aged out of the troop (pretty much simultaneously.) I am nevertheless still a Scouter, for now at least.)

Hi TwoCub. I look in from time to time, but just haven't found a need to post in awhile.

I agree it was a little clunky and confusing (due to the recitation of part of the Scout Law at the very beginning), but I think they then made it clear that they were contrasting these peoples' behavior with that of Boy Scouts. "They're apparently nothing like Boy Scouts." Isn't that pretty clear? I heard nothing negative about the Boy Scouts at all.

Just trying to keep the pot boiling. For what purpose? Don't we have enough pots boiling already?