Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As has been stated before, a discussion needs to be held with the DAC and/or the CAC to see what counts as approval or not. If the youth went ahead in good faith that the DAC had approved the project then that is not the Scout's fault.


This comment bothers me.

'But we make compromises on all kinds of little stuff like this all the time.'


Do we want to compromise and Eagle award? What does that say about Scouting. "Don't worry, we will just compromise, you don't have to do it right?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of the BOR is to ensure that the candidate has earned the right to wear the badge. I certainly don't think everything must be done to perfection. There may be any number of items during the review which the Board may deem "imperfect". As SPL could he have handled a situation better? Maybe. Could he have done something better on his Philmont trip? Perhaps. Should he have made sure he had all the signatures? Certainly. These things are discussed, and the Board provides advice. I have never thought of a BOR as being judge and jury. More so, it should be a review of progress, a pat on the back for a job well done, and advice for what good have been done better. If a Scoutmaster lets a boy get to BOR without being ready to pass, he has done a disservice to that boy.


I celebrated the 30th anniversary of receiving the Eagle Award this year. Every day I try to "Do My Best". And sometimes I fail miserably. And still the Lord forgives me! Are we to be so hard hearted and unforgiving as Scouts that we would deny this young man the honor he has earned? From all accounts he has met the requirements and then some...with the exception that he neglected one signature. Nobody has yet disputed that the project was unworthy.


I think I would be honored to sit on the BOR for this young man and would gladly welcome him to stand next to me as an Eagle. As a final point, I don't know how many of the contributors are Eagles, but I would guess that group would probably vote highly in favor of acceptance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an Eagle Scout.

I am however a Queen's Scout.

Back when I was District Chairman and again over the summer our District Advancement Chairman was working some strange shifts and I was asked to fill in.

I enjoyed meeting with the Scouts and going over the plans they had made for the project. Just about every Scout I have ever met who has got or come that far is a really nice Lad.

Most Scouts when they have presented their projects for approval don't seem to understand or grasp the idea of planning. As a rule we have a little chat about that.

I then give them my best pet talk about it being a Leadership project and we chat about what different styles of Leadership they are going to need and use to get the task (Project) accomplished.

From what has been posted I'm unsure if I have the communication skills to do this via E-mail.

It does seem almost clear that there was a break down in communication somewhere along the line.

It is my opinion that the Scout should be invited to attend an Eagle Scout Board of Review.

I think the DAC is out of line not inviting him. (I'd take it to the Council Advancement Chair -But that's just me!!)

I'd be happy to let the Board fight it out.

Maybe? The DAC was wrong, maybe he wasn't very clear? Maybe a lot of things?

The Board can or could:

Approve the application, they could deny it, or maybe they could grant an extension if the Scout is willing to redo the project requirement.

If they deny the application the Scout can then go through the appeal procedure.

From what has been posted I think he would receive the Eagle Scout Rank.

But I don't know what was in the E-mails?

Maybe I should add that some time back someone else posted a case like this where the Scout had not got the approval and it seemed from what was posted had not communicated with the DAC. In that thread I posted that the Scout had not met the requirements and needed to redo the project. Understanding and following requirements is a leadership skill and this is a Leadership Service Project. (If my memory is working in that thread the Scout felt redoing the project was unfair and it seemed he was unwilling to redo it.)

In this thread it does seem that a misunderstanding or some break down in communication is at fault and I think the BOR should try and find out what happened.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I'm goin' to suggest a different tack, eh? The kid screwed up, the DAC is holdin' the line, that's fine.


Apply for an extension of time.


These take about a month to process, and the boy can proceed with a new project while waiting for the extension to go through. It is fairly straightforward to get an extension for under 6 months from his 18th birthday, and I have every confidence that given the circumstances this extension would be approved.


Of course, that means the boy needs to do another project, WITH full signatures and prior approval, eh? But I think that would be da sort of penance that any BOR anywhere would respect and honor.



Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of a sudden I feel really blessed to have had the Troop leaders I had 'way back when'. I don't remember ever having that sort of problem as I was advised and counseled thru my Eagle. Come to think of it, yep, it was almost 30 years ago. I would think the boy has learned the important lesson that, often, "a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on". GET IT IN WRITING.


Somewhere in the bowels of the National headquarters is some paper with signatures on it that attests that a bunch of Old Fogeys thought that a certain young man was worthy to hang a multi colored cloth patch on his pocket. I feel very grateful to them for that confidence. I don't remember that I made any great mistakes along the way. Perhaps it was the OFs that helped me avoid those. Could the OFs in this case be reminded that PERHAPS some one of them glanced away, rather than looked over the boys shoulder at an opportune time?


Good Scouting to you, MinnSM.


YiS(This message has been edited by SSScout)

Link to post
Share on other sites



This comment bothers me.

'But we make compromises on all kinds of little stuff like this all the time.'

Do we want to compromise and Eagle award? What does that say about Scouting. "Don't worry, we will just compromise, you don't have to do it right?"



From what I gather from the original post, the candidate had fulfilled every requirement, was in good standing in the troop, and has had a misunderstanding with the adult who was supposed to provide the signature. I fault the adult here just as much as the scout, and I fault the scouts leaders equally with all involved.


Do you really think my post was meant to undermine the integrity of the Eagle Award? For a clerical error? Please note that the phrase I used was 'little stuff'...


Like I said in my post... if it was YOUR son...........





Link to post
Share on other sites

As I believe I said in my post, if the youth did everything right and it was an oversight of the DAC and/or miscommunication then it should be on the DAC.




However, compromising is a slippery slope. If adults compromise on little things or let little things go by the wayside, what does that teach? In theory youth will learn that they don't have to do all the work because the little things will be 'compromised' on. Plus, what happens if more and more and more is compromised on? People can say, well we let x go why don't we just let this go as well.


Again, this is all my opinion and the main point of my post is the first paragrah and this: find out who really was at fault and move forward. Let the adult take responsibility if it was their mistake and let the youth do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it sends the wrong message if we exact excessive punishments for trivial offenses. Denying a boy Eagle is a big deal. If he made a simple paperwork mistake, it's excessive. We still don't really have enough facts here to know who made the mistake and how big it was. Did the boy believe (albeit mistakenly) that he had received sufficient approval to go forward? Or did he know that he didn't have approval, but figured somebody else would fix up the problem for him later? To me, that is a distinction that matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites



OK, can see where your role as Dad (don't want to push son, want him to earn on his merits) hit a snag vis a vis your role as SM (make sure the youth understand and follow the process).


Please, use the lesson as a positive takeaway: You or your Life--->Eagle Coordinator will watch each young man as they set themselves on the Trail to Eagle. The youth need mentorship. Sadly in our world today, mentorship in bureaucratic processes is part of the package.


Spend time with the DAC at Roundtable. Understand how he implements the National standards. Be able to share that with the youth.


Help the future young men get it done right the first time.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, OK.


It's too bad your son didn't try the Extension route. Would have been easier, and more respectful.


But in the end, if everything else was in order, the project was reasonable and would have been approved, was well executed, and the boy was worthy of being an Eagle Scout in the eyes of the EBOR in every way except paperwork, then we must return to our principles:


A badge is a recognition of what a young person is able to do, not a reward for what he has done.


If the young man is able to do, then we should Recognize that.


Get the reasons for the denial in writing, which the EBOR is required to do. Have the CC and Eagle Advisor write up an Appeal to the Council Advancement Committee, and then to National if necessary. Keep yourself and your son out of it; it's now up to the adults to fix the system on his behalf. I can all but guarantee that an appeal to National under these circumstances, with the adults taking responsibility for the error, will be resolved in the boy's favor.


Then someone needs to take your DAC out to the woodshed. It's [WHACK] about [WHACK] the Principles [WHACK] not the [WHACK] bureaucratic [WHACK] rules [WHACK] [WHACK] [WHACK].




Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...