nolesrule

"It seems the district and council decisions were made based on one-sided information. Why? It seems that's all they have! " I was wondering about that myself. And it was the district's responsibility 9as the first level of appeal) to solicit information from all parties involved either in the form of a statement or an in-person discussion, not just review what was submitted by the troop. Was the scout solicited for a formal statement or an interview after he requested the appeal? And a general question... what happens if an appeal is not handled in accordance with the appeal procedures?

Twitter isn't a mini-forum (its singal to noise ratio is too poor for that use)...it's micro-blogging. And can be used for far more than that. It's a fast mass-communication platform that can be more direct than email because it can also be integrated with text messaging. Think of it as a modern implementation of the phone ladder for short messages.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

Eagle BOR decisions are final, though subject to appeal in the case of an unfavorable result. However, this wasn't an Eagle Board of Review result. This was about refusing to sign the Eagle application (as well as Scout Spirit and participate in a scoutmaster conference requirements). Although it seems to me a SM conference was held regardless of it being signed off.

While there is always a need for someone to step up to the plate and volunteer for scouting, there are many reasons for someone to be apprehensive. Not all reasons are equal. The fear of not being good enough is something that can be overcome, but the fear of having a negative impact on your family is not something you'll be able to push past. Family should come first. My suggestion, which merely echoes what everyone else has said, is to politely decline. For the last few years, I've been serving as a commissioner. My wife is pregnant with our second child (first is daddy's little girl) and due in a few months. I already told our District Commissioner that if it's a boy, I'll resigning to become a cub dad (and probably den leader) as soon as he's old enough. But I have no plans to over-extend myself away from my family for Scouting. You know, I'd never really thought about it before, but I just realized that all the scoutmasters I've ever been directly associated with as a scout, scouter or UC had no daughters.

John, that's part of my point. The whole active = registered argument (regardless of which side anyone falls on it) isn't even relevant to this discussion because the only requirement where it applies to ranks is tenure and POR, both of which had already been completed at some point prior. But this issue has gone on for a year. At some point they went through a recharter and had the opportunity to drop him from the troop roster and then not accept his application when he tried to re-register. The troop chose to keep him on as a member. The other part is that he had the discussion about his attendance with his scoutmaster a year ago-- before he stopped showing up regularly. Nothing was said AT THAT TIME about this issue not being good enough. Nothing was said at the 12 or so troop meetings he attended where he was being "helpful" over the course of that year. Plenty of opportunities for a scoutmaster conference on this issue, or maybe even a non-advancement board of review. For the last year, he had every expectation that he could continue his advancement process until his 18th birthday, because his registration never lapsed and he was not informed that he could not continue his advancement opportunities. Now that he's had a chance to resume while school is out, they want to tell him he can't finish what he started? And what's their reason? Is it that he's not worthy of being an Eagle Scout? Nope. It's so they can make an example out of him in order to ensure their other scouts show up to meetings. Are you kidding me? This whole scenario is deceptive and manipulative (and yes, I'm going for the negative connotation there) and conflicts with more than one point of the Scout Law...at least 4 by my count.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

The Eagle project workbook requires 3 signatures, unit leader, committee and district. The signatures are for pre-approving that the project is worthy of an Eagle project. They aren't a referendum on a scout's attendance the previous 12 months.

"I just can't learn to think that not giving a kid an award is negative reinforcement. " Who said anything about "giving" the kid an award? We're talking about preventing him from earning it by not allowing him to complete the remaining requirements. I consider that a huge difference. It is negative reinforcement when you can say, "if you don't show up to our meetings, we're not going to let you ear rank, regardless of whether you actually complete requirements" and then hold this kid up as the example. We're not talking about someone who spent meeting nights committing vandalism, he was working. "There's nothing wrong with not getting an "A" in Chemistry, not earning a Varsity letter, or not earning Life Scout." Very true. But if you put in the work necessary according to the criteria set forth, you've earned that "A", that letter or that rank. While none of these (other than Life Scout or a college chemistry class) are apt analogies to working on Eagle, this is like not allowing the kid to sit for the final exam or knocking off a letter grade in chemistry due to an undisclosed attendance policy. You keep making it sound like he's never done anything for the troop his entire scouting career, then disappeared for a year, and now is back to finish up the last remaining requirements to earn Eagle (the project and Personal Management merit badge). We're talking about a 17.5 year old Life Scout. What was he doing for the troop for 5 years while earning those ranks? Sitting on his butt? Nah, unless some evidence is presented to the contrary. He earned 20+ merit badges, served in PORs for at least 16 months, plus all the other requirements along the way. During the last year, he didn't disappear, he didn't even abandon the troop. He told his scoutmaster in advance (a year ago) that he wouldn't be able to make many meetings or activities because he got a job, it was the school year, and obviously it required him working evenings. Yet he still managed to show up once a month, and when he did he was "helpful" (darn that pesky Scout Law). Why didn't the scoutmaster address this 12 months ago when he was completely up-front with his scoutmaster about his ability to attend meetings? Why wasn't it addressed at any of the 13 meetings he did attend? Perhaps then he would have been able to re-prioritize his own family, school, employment and scouting lives to align better align with some unverbalized expectations. Anyway why'd the scoutmaster let him work on Personal Management merit badge if they were going to not let him work on an Eagle Scout project? Are they not going to award him the merit badge when he completes the requirements?

There's a big difference between shaping your program to assist the scouts with their T-2-1 advancement/encouraging advancement and forcing boys to get their books signed and attend boards of review. Some of the lines on the quality unit form are about meeting numbers, not necessarily about a quality program (correlation does not equal causation, and all that jazz). asm206 asked what to do. You either encourage him to complete the goals he has set for himself, or you give him the DE's phone number so he can find a troop that will meet his needs. But don't sacrifice him to improve attendance with younger scouts. That might just backfire on you with the other boys, especially if any of them have respect for the older boy. Yes, I have an issue with adults using negative reinforcement, which is how I see this whole question being spun. It goes back to an experience I had with a teacher in high school. Perhaps I'll tell the story at some point, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.

I know it's just one person's opinion, but I'm in agreement with it so I'll just quote the latest Ask Andy column... 'Further, the BSH (p. 187) states: "Your rate of advancement depends on your interest, effort, and ability," and also (p. 14) states: "...you can advance at your own pace..." There is no statement anywhere in BSA literature or handbooks that even remotely suggests that one's adult leaders will determine or influence a Scout's advancement pace.' BSH = Boy Scout Handbook If the boy is registered with the troop and he has not yet reached age 18, he's eligible to work on his advancement. You can try to use your "lack of attendance" reasoning on the active requirement, as seems your wont, but you cannot apply that to the other requirements. Attendance just isn't necessary to work on merit badges or to carry out the service project. There also seems to be this impression that he must be "active" (by some arbitrary definition) all the time, or for the 6 months just before the board of review, but that's just not the case. The active requirement for rank can occur anytime between one board of review and the next, no matter how many years between them. Heck, he can even be unregistered for years after being "active" for 6 months, re-register 2 months before he turns 18, complete the remaining requirements and have his board of review. Again, there seems to be all this focus on Eagle Scout, but it's just another rank. Would there be this much to-do if he had come back before his 18th birthday to earn Tenderfoot, or Second Class, or First Class, or Star, or Life? The Eagle Charge or Eagle Challenge or any other text read at an Eagle Court of Honor, while it may have some personal meaning to the Eagle Scout, is just text to make the Eagle Scout Court of Honor more solemn and officious, yet it's not even official program materials. And yes, I am proud of having earned Eagle Scout, despite what I wrote. I consider it one of my greatest achievements as a youth, but let's keep it in perspective, it's an award for completing requirements. Yes, it is a recognition of skill and character and of being an example to others. When you complete the requirements, you've achieved all those things and should be recognized for it. Turning away a boy for an arbitrary reason is not character building, and can have a lasting negative impact on the individual for no apparent reason. Don't advocate throwing one of the good ones under the bus for DOING HIS BEST-- there's been nothing put forth to dispute he is one of the good ones, and nothing put forth to suggest he was not doing his best. The time for telling him he'd need to do better was 12 months ago when he met with his scoutmaster regarding his future attendance. Eagle Scout is not a job interview where only the best one gets the job. Finally, if you are using advancement to force participation you have the program backwards.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

I don't recall the requirements for Personal Fitness merit badge nor the Eagle Scout Service Project requiring anyone to be active in the troop or patrol. That's a separate requirement, which I will assume was already completed since it was not included in the answer to my question about what requirements the scout has left to complete. Beavah writes, "Me, I'm always caught on da notion of a boy coming back to get something for himself. I think a real Eagle Scout comes back to da troop to give something to others in the troop. " A real Eagle Scout is someone who completes all the requirements. Nothing more. Advancement is a method used for growth, and it's a personal method. A scout can work at his own pace, on anything at any time within the requirements, so long as he is registered. As an Eagle Scout, I don't recall giving back to the troop being one of the requirements. It's a nice idea, but let's not make the rank out to be more than what it is. Scouting is supposed to be a part of a scout's life, but it shouldn't BE his life. I find it ironic that Personal Management is the last merit badge he has left. He's probably in a better position to understand the requirements now that he's held down a job for the last year than most scouts who earn the merit badge.

And here I thought you were using the OA as a pool of potential employees.

Seems we're all on the same page on this one.

"The boy told the scoutmaster he wouldn't attend a lot of meetings due to his work schedule. When he does attend he is helpful. " He was attending meetings, albeit infrequently. He told the scoutmaster he had a job, and would have to miss meetings due to the schedule. He brought it up ahead of time, he didn't just disappear for a year. If that was going to be an issue in his advancement, it should have been addressed when he first brought it up to the scoutmaster, so that way he'd know in advance how to proceed toward Eagle on your terms.

How long has he been a Life Scout? What other requirements does he still need to complete besides the project? Just because he has had limited activity for the past 12 months does mean much on its own. There are other factors involved. Finally, as a Scouter, it's not our role to put up arbitrary road blocks toward advancement. If he can complete the requirements before his 18th birthday, he should earn the rank.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

"An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age. - BSA Rules & Regulations " That's a bit meaningless, isn't it? Obligates himself to attend the meetings regularly - doesn't actually say you have to attend regularly, just obligate yourself. Making a commitment and following through are 2 entirely different things. fulfills a member's obligation to the unit - what exactly does that mean? Hoestly, I don't know how you can fulfill the POR requirement (or the laternative project requirement for Star/Life) without being active, so none of this should ever be an issue.

I'd have an issue with someone who hasn't practiced in 20 years filling out a medical form. Medicine has changed a lot in 20 years.

Beavah, that's in the rules and regs, but that's not the official advancement policy. Different documents have different definitions of "active", but for the purposes of advancement, the "law" is the ACP&P.

"Some FAQ on some web site doesn't change that." I thought it was printed in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures book. I don't have a copy, but I've seen several websites that cite that as their source for the definition of active. The speed limit analogy isn't a good one. 65mph is 65mph. It's measurable on a radar gun, on a spedometer, it's the same. But define active in scouting. Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 answers. Is it showing up to 50% of meetings? 30%? 75%? Is it attending 90% of camping trips? 25%? 40% 60%? Who gets to set the percentage criteria? the PLC? The Scoutmaster? The Troop Committee? The Advancement Chair? The district? The council? What happens when these groups disagree? Is it fair to a scout that two different units have different criteria as to what is active? The active periods don't have to be consecutive months. If you set a percentage, what method of calculation do you use? Is it based on days? weeks? months? If you set your criteria for 50% active and he shows up to 1 meeting a month for 12 months, does that meet the criteria? It's only 25% for the 12 months, but if you calculate in 2-week periods, it's 50% for 6 months. (This message has been edited by nolesrule)

Did she sign it as a doctor, as a mom, or both? You could always ask for a copy of her medical license, in case anyone has issues.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

The logic behind it is you are not allowed to change the requirements. Unit 1 requires 50% attendance Unit 2 requires 60% attendance Unit 3 has no attendance requirement All for the same "be active..." requirement. These are not the same criteria. Which one meets the actual requirement? Only one can be correct, because you cannot change the requirement.

As a Floridian, I'm not surprised by the spelling errors.

I'm thinking that we may need to review the Aims and Methods of Scouting.

Agreed John. I hit up committee meetings all the time. I keep my mouth shut and listen. Every once in awhile, I get asked for my opinion on an issue. If there's something that needs course correcting that I'm not asked about in that setting, I'll make a mental note to mention it to the CC in private. One time, I got copied on the minutes for a committee meeting that I was unable to attend. In the notes, they had been brainstorming ideas on how to get scouts to "mandatory" annual CO events. Apparently it was suggested that tying attendance at these events into rank advancement could be an option. I had a quiet polite conversation with the CC about that a few hours later.

Hehe. Good one scoutldr. It's like having your spouse be your marriage counselor. It's like having someone involved in a court case also serving on the jury. It's like performing surgery the night after staying at a Holiday Inn Express. Ok, maybe not the last one.

Innocent until proven guilty, but I'm responding based on the content of the articles. "I assume the Reid that forced him to drink the urine was 16 year old Harrison Reid. Not 21 Year old Joseph Reid." Nope. The article doesn't mention the names of anyone other than Joseph Reid until the last sentence in the article. I don't mean to sound insulting, but you seem to be having some reading comprehension issues, or are deliberately reading things out of context and jumping to conclusions. The Fox article says J Reid sent him back to camp. The Gainseville.com article named all 4 of those that assaulted him, and J Reid was one of those named. There is no way you can infer from the articles that J Reid was not involved beyond sending him back to camp. And having read things again, I think I figured out what they menat by four other scouts. The newspaper articles don't seem to differentiate between Joseph Reid at age 21 being a scouter rather than a scout. So what the article means is the boy who was assaulted was a scout, and thefour others who assaulted him were also scouts. "The gainesville article defends J Reid even more. The boy was accused of using a racial slur, and J Reid probably was pissed at him, and told him to leave swimming and go to back to his campsite. Then, as he was walking back "four others ran out of the woods" and jumped him. Again, from gainesville. Both articles so far defend J Reid and indite H Reid. " Learn to read. None of the articles say any such thing. In fact, the Gainseville article says that the alleged slur had occurred earlier in the week, not immediately before he was sent back to his campsite. In addition, neither J Reid nor the other 3 were part of his troop. This whole incident appears to have been planned in advance. From the gainseville.com article... "Investigators arrested Joseph Wendell Reid, 21, two 16-year-olds, and a 15-year-old, all from Ocala, last week on a charge of kidnapping. Officers allege the four held a 12-year-old boy against his will, first taping his mouth shut and then forcing him to drink urine, according to the Sheriff's Office." I can't believe you are defending an ADULT who is this deeply involved (assuming the articles based on the local sheriff's office are correct). I can't also believe how you are completely mis-reading these articles.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)