Scoutldr & Fscouter - I'm in violent agreement with you guys. You've made great points.

 

I agree that we should consider each case on its own merits. I can certainly see the possibility of a scout coming to the committee; explaining his dilemna; showing that's he's worked hard, but is up against the wall; and asking if there's a way to help. I don't like the thought of all scouts blanketely getting a handout based upon this policy.

scoutldr says, "My fear is of unethical precedents."

 

Me, too.

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Fscouter writes: " Ignore precedent; a worthy project gets help, a poorly planned project does not."

 

I've been following this thread with interest. As a committee member, I can see a difficulty arising with the above approach, Fscouter. While in theory you are right, in reality, one could argue that every Eagle project that is approved is "worthy." Otherwise, the committee wouldn't have approved it to start with. Now this might be a poor argument - maybe some Eagle projects really are more worthy than others. But then that leads down a road that I personally would not want to travel. On the basis of what objective criteria should the committee be determining which of the Eagle projects they approved are worthy of funding, and which are not? Would the committee ever turn any of their scouts down for funding, after approving the project itself? Would it divide the committee and possibly the troop if/when that happened? Is it worth finding out?

 

It isn't a fear of what others will think - it is a fear of whether or not this is setting one's feet on a path that leads directly into a morass, in plain view from the trail head. I'd think most of us would prefer to avoid that if we can.

 

Lisa'bob

 

I saw Trevorum's response before it was "edited by a staff member" with no explanation. I saw nothing offensive in it. As Beavah would say, "wassup wit dat, eh?"