Jump to content

How does your district handle Eagle references?


Recommended Posts

Letters are solicited by the Scout AFTER application and project are turned in to the office.  The letters are not absolutely required, and the basic paperwork must be time stamped prior to the candidate's 18th birthday.  While relatively uncommon, the absolute last minute paperwork issue is real.

 

The letters are mailed back to the council and then given to the review committee.  If any are not received in a timely manner, they do not cause further delay, though the Scout is reminded normally if they are not forthcoming in a reasonable time frame.  We normally get at least 80% or better, depending on the candidate and if an employer is included.  While it is not on the list directly, we also ask the SM or if necessary, his representative to submit one as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that whether or not all these variations are 'adding to the requirements' is another issue but does anyone have any idea what the rationale IS behind all these variations? It's one thing to have different rules here and there...it would be nice to know why. Just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that whether or not all these variations are 'adding to the requirements' is another issue but does anyone have any idea what the rationale IS behind all these variations? It's one thing to have different rules here and there...it would be nice to know why. Just curious.

 

The rationale is that BSA sets the basic requirements.  Based on the council infrastructure and council, the council advancement committee may establish different processes.  In our council, the scout has the designated responsibility to handout the references.  The troop leader (scoutmaster) is designated to have the responsibility to collect the references.  (... and as such as the right to open then ...)  

 

Council advancement committee members—or others designated—have the responsibility to secure recommendations....

 

It is up to the council’s designated representatives to collect the responses. ...

 

But even if the advancement all falls apart, it is not the scouts responsibility to make sure references are received.  That is a key consistent point.

 

An Eagle Scout board of review shall not be denied or postponed due to unresponsive references.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We basically interpret the application literally: "Demonstrate that you live by the principles of the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your daily life. List the names of individuals who know you personally and would be willing to provide a recommendation on your behalf."

Nothing there that requires the scout or the unit to do anything more than supply the names. So that's all we do.

 

I'll add that our district doesn't make these decisions, the council does. I've never known whether or not any of those names are ever contacted for letters. I've also never heard of a candidate having problems as a result of the references. It seems like if you can find someone to provide the reference, it is unlikely that the reference will be a bad one.

That's what our council does.  They then send out forms to the references with a envelope addressed to the Scoutmaster.  The Scoutmaster (or his designee) brings the references to the Eagle BOR. 

Edited by perdidochas
Link to post
Share on other sites

In our council, I as SM, was asked to provide a recommendation by filling out a form.  That was my only participation in the process.  If one did not return the form or if it was not a glowing recommendation, the application process was halted until it was "corrected".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that whether or not all these variations are 'adding to the requirements' is another issue but does anyone have any idea what the rationale IS behind all these variations? It's one thing to have different rules here and there...it would be nice to know why. Just curious.

Like the Italians would say, "America e` grande!"

 

It's a big country, with varying grand traditions and attitudes toward central authority that pre-date scouting. E.g., I live in Whiskey Rebellion country. So, it takes a lot of convincing when someone tells us the equivalent of "pay tax in dollars" when we only get paid in doubloons ...

 

You cite the "adding to the requirements" principle. There's also the "no secrets in scouting" principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In our district the scout requests the recommendation and sends/gives the recommender the review forms with a SASE addressed to the SM or Eagle package coordinator.  The latter keeps the letters and turns them into the council, unopened, with the application and project workbook.  We tell the scouts to put some sort of code on the back of the SASE so they know who has returned and for what category.  The district BoR members bring the package with them to the BoR where the letters are opened and reviewed by the board.  The letters go back with the BoR members.

Edited by walk in the woods
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks but I am still hoping someone can provide a rationale for all these variations. What I'm reading is more evidence of still more variations of how this is handled. No one seems to know 'why' we do it all the different the ways we do it except that for unknown (or unexplained) reasons, we've always done it this (whatever) way.  The term 'arbitrary' is coming to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks but I am still hoping someone can provide a rationale for all these variations. What I'm reading is more evidence of still more variations of how this is handled. No one seems to know 'why' we do it all the different the ways we do it except that for unknown (or unexplained) reasons, we've always done it this (whatever) way.  The term 'arbitrary' is coming to mind.

Didn't this post answer why?

 

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/27578-how-does-your-district-handle-eagle-references/?p=423738

 

The GTA provides a rough set of guidelines but not a definitive process or outcome. I think that's why there is no standard across councils. Otherwise I am sure the knowledgeable folks here would have pointed that out. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, I can read the responses and I have read the documents. To say that one is following some set of instructions is not the same thing as a rationale. It is merely admitting that one has substituted directions from an authority for a rationale.

So regarding the references, if the most direct way is simply to follow the instructions on the application and let the council contact references if they like, then what is the motivation to elaborate on that with scoutmasters or advancement chairs (whoever the designated person might be) collecting sealed envelopes and all the other variations?

 

If absence of reference responses cannot stop the BOR, then it is clear that failure of a reference to respond should not hurt the scout. So how many candidates have been disqualified as a result of bad references, letters from persons who agreed to act as a reference and who then took that opportunity to 'bad mouth' the candidate? Any at all? Would we really trust a reference like that? If the number of such disqualifications is very small then why all the hullabaloo in the first place? Wouldn't the BOR discover some problem without the references? Or is that the reason, that we simply distrust the candidates?

Edited by ya lazima vumbi
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right.  The letters are far more of a PIA than any illumination they bring to the board of review. 

 

 In my opinion, the real answer to your question is prior to 2011, the year the major overhaul of the advancement policies were released, there were no standards a all for handling letters.  Apparently it was common to require the Scout to manage collecting the letters and to hold up his Eagle until they were all submitted.  That was the case in our council.  My opinion is that national "declined" (a polite way of saying "lacked the cajones") to implement a standard policy.  They left to each council how to handle the letters with only two main provisions -- that the Scouts can't handle the letters themselves and that a lack of letters cannot hold up the process.  Frankly, that's not a bad trade off.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rationale by its very nature is subjective. You have policy which should be stated. You have process which should be outlined. You should always follow policy and process. Where there is no process it is acceptable to make up your own, provided you follow policy and don't go against the stated process. That's what councils do now. That's why you have differences: a lack of end to end process.

 

For rationale you'd have to ask each council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BadWolf, LOL, in other words, they don't know what the rationale is, they're just doing something..LOL.

Yes, they're making it up. But they seem to be following the policy and initial process. Where they're making things up is where there is no process, but they seem to be following policy.

 

I suppose their rationale was to get the work done. Why they may have selected the process they did only they can answer.

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...