Is Eagle Candidate Considered To Be "Active" When Last Campout Was 1-1/2 Yrs Ago?

[dluders]

Our troop's policy is:

 

"To be considered active in Troop xxx, a scout is expected to attend 50% of scheduled Troop meetings and activities during the Troops annual plan calendar. Participation in extra BSA functions will be favorably considered, and at the discretion of the Scoutmaster, may offset some missed Troop functions. Any scout not meeting these standards will be reviewed by the Scoutmaster and committee on a semi-annual basis for continuation in the troop. To be considered for a Troop Brownsea scholarship, a higher standard of participation is expected."

 

Obviously, this doesn't jive with BSA Policy (from what I'm hearing from other Scouters on this post). Believe it or not, this troop policy is actually watered-down from the policy I inherited from the previus "regime" 3-1/3 years ago. It used to be that 50% attendance at troop meetings and campouts was REQUIRED for advancement to Eagle Scout. Obviously, this was illegal and unenforcable.

 

Yes, the Life Scout in question has served in a Position of Responsibility (POR). He was our Troop Chaplain's Aide for 6 months, and he honestly did a great job.

 

The Scout is very active in Theater (12 hrs/week), and he spends 1 hour/week on voice lessons. Theater is his passion.

 

Yes, it would be nice for an Eagle Scout candidate to display leadership regularly on troop campouts. However, for busy Scouts that are athletes, actors, etc., this is difficult for them to do on a regular basis.

 

What bothers me is that this Scout was once a go-getter who was a "fast burner," then he completely shifted his efforts to other activities. I suppose that TECHNICALLY he has met the 6-month requirement for Eagle Scout by serving as the Chaplain's Aide.

 

No, I haven't yet had a Scoutmaster's Conference with him. His dad isn't the biggest fan of my leadership style, and I know that he would absolutely EXPLODE if I told him that his son was considered to be "inactive" per the Troop Policy. Now that I know (from this post) that our Troop Policy is basically illegal, I won't stop the Scout from pursuing his dream.

 

When this young Life Scout approached the Troop Committee about his Eagle Project a year ago, everyone raised their eyebrows. They KNEW that he might be too young to successfully "pull off" an Eagle Project, and we were right. He hasn't done much for a year. Now that he's more mature, he's giving it another shot.

 

Thanks to all for their inputs and guidance. I still would appreciate more comments if folks have time to type replies. Thanks.

[John-in-KC]

Dluders,

 

As SM, you are the PROGRAM OFFICER of your unit. You have the inherent authority to invite folks to Troop Committee to discuss PROGRAM issues.

 

May I recommend to you two meetings?

 

First, have a private sitdown: The CC, you, the COR, your Unit Commissioner, and the District Advancement Chairman. Get this policy to the light of day. If your Chartered Partner and COR is at all caring, he can simply "wave the wand of Scouting ownership" and make this policy disappear instantly!

 

If, however, your COR is less active and caring, in your role as SM invite the UC and DAC to an early Troop Committee meeting? They can then lay out why the Troop policy will risk this young man (if not others) in their implementation of the Advancement Method.

 

PS: The Scouts' Dad would have every right to be irate if you tried to lay your current policy down. He would have every right to complain "of the record" to your COR, UC, and DE. The object is to make this a win/win.

 

PPS: The Scout in question has not "technically" met the standard on his POR. If you or another signed off on it after his six months tenure, he has met the standard. IMO, any attempt to claim otherwise would be the kind of error which results in unit EBORs being overturned in favor of the Scout. Boards being overturned make unit Scouters look like fools. That is most certainly not a good thing.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[nldscout]

dluders, and all,

 

I see 2 things here,

 

first I dislike a policy that has hard and fast percentages. They limit your ability to work with scouts properly. Get rid of that policy quick.

 

second is, like others I want to see this "National Policy" that says registered equals active. I for one can tell you it doesn't exist. No one has ever produced a document from national that says that. "Ask ANDY" is just another scouters opinion, just that an opinion. This discussion is almost akin to the urban legend that the CO owns the equipment and money of a troop.

 

 

John-in-KC,

 

The DAC has NO authority to withdraw advancement from a unit. If the unit let him do this, then shame on them for allowing it. The scouts only choice would be to appeal if a unit denied him advancement.

 

 

[NeilLup]

You have gotten good advice. However, regardless of what all the posters say, your wise action as a BSA leader is to follow the official BSA literature. May I suggest that you obtain a copy of a manual which, I believe, is called "Advancement Policies and Procedures" or else the manual for District Committees. Both speak to advancement, particularly as it relates to Eagle Scout advancement. I believe that the manual explicitly states that percentage requirements for being active and for position of responsibility are not proper. However, don't take our word for it. Look it up yourself in the official literature. Among other things, this gives you powerful ammunition in dealing with your Troop Committee in changing policy.

 

I would also comment that I can I can understand your reluctance to deal with the boy's father. However, that's why you get the big bucks You should counsel with your Troop Committee, etc. and have them by your side, but if something needs to be done, it needs to be done. Sometimes "A Scout is Brave" is the toughest point of the law for Scout leaders dealing with parents.

 

We wish you well. Most of us have been there at one time or another.

[FScouter]

Andy makes a very good point which simply is that no Scout works his way from Tenderfoot to the brink of Eagle, earns 21+ merit badges, and completes an Eagle leadership project without being active. It ought to be clear enough to determine whether a boy is active or not by looking at what he has accomplished. If attendance percentages were the best way to go, would not the publications say so?

 

The best ammunition towards dismantling an attendance percentage policy is the lack of support for it anywhere in the Scouting program.

[theysawyoucomin']

This is one of the fundamental problems with the program.

 

Who did the Life Scout mentor whilst he was away?

 

What leadership example did he show to the younger boys in the Troop during his absence?

 

So now our Cowboy blows back into town for something HE wants. He will possible ask the yearlings and the 7th grade scouts for labor for his Eagle project. They barely even know him!!!!!

 

WHY HASN'T HE MADE AN EFFORT TO ATTEND A CAR CAMPING CAMPOREE SEMI ANNUALLY?

 

HAS HE SHOWN ANY SCOUT SPIRIT SITTING AROUND A FIRE WITH A YOUNGER SCOUT LEADING BY EXAMPLE, SHOWING THE WAY BY HIS ACTIONS?

 

OTHER THINGS TOOK PRIORITY, BUT NOW HE NEEDS THIS FOR HIS COLLEGE APPLICATIONS NEXT YEAR.

 

 

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT

official requirements (active for at least 6 months as a Life Scout, no matter when those 6 months were) then you shouldn't hold him back based on this criterion.

 

The BSA allows this but they shouldn't.

 

This is why the Patrol method is so difficult. National allows people not to show up for the patrol to be led.

 

But hey give it to him cause if you don't :

 

The parents will whine to the DE and their congressman and all their other "lower the bar" friends.

 

You'll help the kid by lowering the bar.

 

younger kids can be led by adults instead of the boys.

 

dluders- I'm not yelling at you. You get high marks for seeing the problem and asking for advice.

 

The National Policy needs to be re-written. We would have a lot less Cowboys breezing into town to get the goods, right after pledging "to do more for Scouting that Scouting has done for me", never having made an impression- never having mentored in the outdoors, and our Hero rides off into the sunset, and he didn't even get a chance to thank us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[scoutldr]

Ditto what uz2banowl says. I have a scout in the same situation. Nearing 18, and we haven't seen him in over a year. Unfortunately, he transferred from another troop where all the requirements were signed off 2 years ago. All he has left is his project, and he will look to me to sign off on it.

 

I agree the BSA rules need to be changed...in many areas. What power do we Scouters in the trenches have to make suggestions to National on program issues? Or are we just pawns who are expected to "love it or leave it"?

[Lisabob]

Well now wait a moment, as SM don't you have the ability to decide whether or not this scout is demonstrating scout spirit? I'm not saying that this is necessarily the issue in the specific cases mentioned above, but people make it sound like the SM is powerless and in fact he/she is not. But it is like any process, you have to follow the steps all along to get the desired results. "No surprises" doesn't mean "automatic advancement;" it means, don't wait until the last minute to tell a boy he isn't living up to expectations.

 

I see the problem as follows:

 

1) Too many SMs don't want to do the heavy lifting of truly mentoring scouts, especially scouts who are not 110% gung ho all the time about scouts. Ie, those young men have other priorities in their lives and we take that a little too personally sometimes.

 

2) Because too many SMs don't want to do the mentoring mentioned above, the problem drags on and on, with the scout never getting a clear signal that he isn't doing what is expected of him.

 

3) So that when the scout asks for his SM conference for rank advancement, the SM feels as though his or her hands are tied.

 

4) Then the problem falls into the laps of the BOR members, who are not generally in a position to DO anything about it. Does the SM hope that the BOR will bail him/her out by showing fortitude where the SM didn't? Or does the SM want someone else to blame? Or does the SM simply want to complain - because any or all of these are the likely results of dumping this sort of problem in the BOR's lap.

 

At the end of the day we have to make some tough calls. SM's need to be more upfront, earlier in the process, about what their expectations are regarding scout spirit and how it might be demonstrated.

 

 

 

 

[scottteng]

A national appeal would not be needed the troop will loose as soon as the scout or parent appeals to district or counsel. The policy on percentage requirements is clear they are forbidden. Our district advancement chair has put that in writing to every troop so they will not have to listen to the scouts and parents who are irate at being held to such a standard. If one wants to be Don Quixote and tilt against the windmill one can, but why not instead look to improving the troop and overall program so kids will come more often even when the blush is off the camping rose.

[OldGreyEagle]

At this point I would like to touch on another point in the original post that no one has yet mentioned. dluders has posted that the scout's last campout was over 1.5 years ago and attends about 1/3 of the troop meetings. Apparently this violates the troop "policy" on attendance. Other posters have stated that National takes the view if you are registered you are active (one that I share). Now I have some questions.

 

If the scout has not lived up to the Troops definition of "active" and has not for over 18 months, why was he re-chartered? If he was a good enough scout for his registration money to be accepted and have him counted a member of the Troop and the BSA, then he is good enough to advance in rank, there is no "probationary" status in Boy Scouts. If you want to enforce your Troop attendance policy, then you must do so at charter time and drop all scouts who dont measure up. If you recharter one scout who hasnt fulfilled your own policy you have indicated that exceptions may be made and then you have to be able to prove the scout you recharted had an exceptional reason and why the current scouts in question situation is not as dire and you can see where I am going with this.

 

dluders says the scout in question did a great job as chaplain's aide and then says that he "supposes" that "TECHNICALLY" he fulfilled the POR. A scout either meets the requirement of the POR or he doesnt. If the Bachelor of Arts degree requires 100 semester hours, I dont know of any student who would say he wanted to earn 110 semester hours before he would accept his degree since he was taught to always give 110%. I dont know of any school that would allow him to do so.

 

Mention was also made that the scout in question approached the scoutmaster and committee with an idea for an Eagle project and that while eyebrows were raised, his project was approved. Where is the logic in that? If we know that a scout can't handle a project, we allow him to go ahead anyway? Was there any counseling done? Support given? Did anyone take him aside and explain the concerns? Is this what we do? Approve projects for scouts we know can't do the job and then stand aside and cluck our tongues when the job isnt done and we say we knew it all along? Where is the logic in that? I beleive it is one thing to have scouts learn from failure, that experience is a powerful learning tool, but to purposely set a scout up to fail is not the way to go.

 

Now, dluders, I dont mean to berate you, you came to the forum for opinions and you have received them. The situation you describe is often talked about here and my response would be the same to anyone asking the same question.

[anarchist]

like beating a dead horse....

 

can't add to the requirements...can't reduce the requirements (except for exceptions)....

 

Lets face it...If he pays BSA his registration and has a pulse...he gets his Eagle...its as simple as that...EVEN if his project was not approved, EVEN if it was done before it was submitted, EVEN if his write-ups were 6th grade quality on torn "spiral" paper in pencil...as long as his parents raise a howl and go to council or national...HE GETS TO BE AN EAGLE...(not hyperbole - really happened folks).

 

The only real world route you can take to avoid the resume "fillers" ...is to withdraw the troop from the "deadwood"...a harsh and problematic solution. But one we have found workable. After several counciling sessions if a scout can not maintain a "reasonable activity level" (a term whose definition you have to decide upon), - he is simply not rechartered...He can give us his check -but it gets sent back...this is the desire of both the Troop committee and our CO (which sees "active" scouting as part of it's mission- perhaps a "lesson" from LDS troops?) In otherwords if you want to be with our program you must be here...if you want to "come back" just to get an Eagle; "there is a troop just up the road..." As I said, harsh but effective and thanks to the wording of the charter agreement perfectly leagal as well as ethical as long as it is the desire of the CO.

 

(let the howling begin)

Anarchist

[scoutldr]

As I have posted before, I have first hand experience with EBOR and appeals. We had a scout once who was denied Eagle at the EBOR. He had a child out of wedlock and was living "in sin" with the girl. SM and CC knew about the situation, but scheduled the EBOR anyway. They either did not think it had anything to do with Scouts, or expected the EBOR to "do the heavy lifting". One of the troop committee members on the Board was livid, based on Scout Spirit and "morally straight". He was even more angry that the SM and CC had withheld this information, which only came to light when one of the Letters of Recommendation revealed it. The secret ballot was not unanimous. The scout appealed, a District EBOR was held and he was given the Eagle, because "he had met all the requirements". So in my experience, I no longer have much respect for the process. 99% of the Eagle candidates I see are worthy...most 110% worthy. But anyone else who asks for it will get it too...eventually. I am an Eagle, class of 1970. I feel the process has been watered down so much, for the sake of keeping the numbers up, that I feel it's been cheapened and doesn't mean much anymore.

 

Edited to add: The rule of "can't add or subtract" is fine, when you're dealing with objective requirements that can be measured. It's the BSA's lack of definition for the subjective requirements that gives us trouble, so most leaders just sign off. When we try to assign metrics to "Scout Spirit", we get derided for "adding to the requirement". Can't win. When it gets appealed, the District won't deal with it either. BSA needs to either allow the SM to interpret the requirement, or remove it. Can't have it both ways.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[scoutldr]

Another comment on "dropping" inactive scouts from the roster. Recently, our SE ordered that any scout who was not re-registered would be called...by the DE or Commissioner staff. Many responded that "nooooo, we didn't quit...we still want to be members!" The units were then told to get their money and get them back on the roster. Gotta keep those NUMBERS up! Doesn't matter if they are "active" or not. Bottom line is, if they pay, they're in.

[John-in-KC]

I think we've hit on a key point. The SM or Crew Advisor is the gatekeeper on many items associated with the Advancement Method. He or she has to get to know every young man rather well. He has to know and understand the program. He or she has to know his peers in the District... maybe Crew X is a better fit for the young man than Troop Y.

 

At the same time, we need to remember we're trying to help Dluders deal with a concrete problem... not an abstract one.

 

So, to Dluders: Have we heard your problems accurately? Have we answered your questions? Are we inspiring new questions?

 

 

[dluders]

Thanks for all of the additional replies. I'd like to answer some questions that some of the respondents had:

 

1) Since the Life Scout DID serve admirably as Chaplain's Aide for 6 months, he fulfilled his Position of Responsibility. I don't know if some Ass't Scoutmaster signed off on this in his Scout Handbook yet, but I can't deny his eligibility for Eagle Scout on these grounds.

 

2) The Scout DOES show "Scout Spirit," but since he only comes to 1/3 of the troop meetings (and no campouts) anymore, I was hoping for more "Scout Spirit." I agree with others that he should be mentoring the younger Scouts.

 

3) This Scouts' dad is our Troop Treasurer. Our Troop Committee is rather fragile right now. Our Troop Committee Chairman is new in 2007, our Chartered Organization Representative is invisible except for Rechartering time, and we haven't had a Unit Commissioner during the entire 3-1/3 years I've been Scoutmaster.

 

4) I'm still willing to meet with the Life Scout and his dad, but the outcome will be similar to one I had a year ago with another Life Scout who didn't attend any more campouts either. When I talked to that dad (the Troop Committee Chairman at the time, a former Unit Commissioner, and Wood Badge graduate) about his son's lack of attendance, he said that I as "COMPLETELY out of line."

 

5) I know our Troop Policy is basically illegal. It hasn't been enforced in the 3-1/3 years I've been Scoutmaster, but it's a vestige from the "Old Geezers" who used to run the troop years ago. We can (and probably should) scrap it.