Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fred johnson

Eagle project hours

Recommended Posts

One of the questions in the workbook is something like "What changes did you make in your project from the start to finish?"  I would have the scout  tell the story about the aborted project and the change to the new, successful project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the questions in the workbook is something like "What changes did you make in your project from the start to finish?"  I would have the scout  tell the story about the aborted project and the change to the new, successful project.

When you think about it, if under the same beneficiary a boy said, "Because of border disputes, I couldn't build a bridge across the ravine, instead I was requested to built a guard tower. So I changed plans ..." The bridge-planning hours would count.

 

But, it the boy said "I couldn't build a bridge for community Y, so I built a wall for community X ,,,"  The bridge-planning hours would not count.

 

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you think about it, if under the same beneficiary a boy said, "Because of border disputes, I couldn't build a bridge across the ravine, instead I was requested to built a guard tower. So I changed plans ..." The bridge-planning hours would count.

 

But, it the boy said "I couldn't build a bridge for community Y, so I built a wall for community X ,,,"  The bridge-planning hours would not count.

 

:confused:

 

 

But the requirement is to give leadership to a project. The project can have two parts, the bridge (not completed for reasons out of his control) and the wall (which was completed). Not sure why he wouldn't include both. There's nothing in the workbook or other BSA docs that I can find that would preclude doing this, so why not include them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to post again, but there are two issues that keep bugging me about this thread. First, is whether or not to count the hours spent on the first project. Second is this whole concept of "failing" a Scout in the BOR.

 

On the first point (two projects for one requirement) I can't find anything in the materials that specifically address this issue, though I think I have found a possible smoking gun. Also, like @@fred johnson, I would have sworn that I read somewhere that the BOR could "unapprove" a project as meeting Requirement 5.

 

In looking for proof one way or the other, I came across this in the Eagle Workbook. The quote below in blue I believe would apply here for issue of two projects.

 

Evaluating the Project After Completion (See the Guide to Advancement, topic 9.0.2.13)
 
Eagle Scout projects must be evaluated primarily on impact—the extent of benefit to the religious institution, school, or
community, and on the leadership provided by the candidate. There must also be evidence of planning and development. This is
not only part of the requirement, but relates to our motto to, “Be Prepared.†However, in determining if a project meets
requirement 5, reviewers must not require more planning and development than necessary to execute the project. These
elements must not overshadow the project itself, as long as the effort was well led, and resulted in an otherwise worthy outcome
acceptable to the beneficiary.
 
There may be instances where, upon its completion, the unit leader or project beneficiary chooses not to approve a project. One
or the other may determine, for example, that modifications were so significant that the extent of the service or impact of the
project was insufficient to warrant approval. The candidate may be requested to do more work or even start over with another
project. He may choose to meet these requests, or he may decide —if he believes his completed project worthy and in
compliance—to complete his Eagle Scout Rank Application and submit his project workbook without final approval. He must be
granted a board of review should he request it. If it is thought a unit board may not provide a fair hearing, a board of review
under disputed circumstances may be initiated according to the Guide to Advancement, topic 8.0.3.2.

 

 

This quote is from the workbook's Final Report section. I provides for the Beneficiary and the SM to approve the completion of the requirements. Once that is done, no one should be able to take away credit for the completion of the requirement. Disallowing the completed project during a EBOR as being "appropriate" would do just that, and is on its face, not allowed.

 

In my opinion, this Eagle Scout service project meets Eagle Scout requirement 5, as stated on page 4 of this workbook.

 

 

Or is there other documentation within BSA that contradicts this position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going by memory and 3rd party story. We had one Eagle who did so poorly on his project, the beneficiary cancelled it mid project, hired a contractor to fix the problem, and no longer allows Boy Scouts to do projects on their property. 

 

I know this problem was in his book as part of the process, especially the mistakes he made, and what he learned from it. And he did another project to completion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But the requirement is to give leadership to a project. The project can have two parts, the bridge (not completed for reasons out of his control) and the wall (which was completed). Not sure why he wouldn't include both. There's nothing in the workbook or other BSA docs that I can find that would preclude doing this, so why not include them?

They key principle here (and in your subsequent Workbook reference) is that the scout continues to deal with the same beneficiary.

 

Fred's candidate ditched the 1st beneficiary (or they ditched him), along with the 1st project. So, the 2nd beneficiary, when they sign off, is really only acknowledging the plans and modifications and completion of the 2nd project.

 

Is that enough of a difference to not include project #1's hours in the calculations? I have no clue. Honestly, I'd take my cue from my district's advancement committee ... knowing full well that the next district over might be directing some other scout to do the opposite.

 

Also from your non-highlighted quote of workbook:

"... or he may decide —if he believes his completed project worthy and in compliance—to complete his Eagle Scout Rank Application and submit his project workbook without final approval. ..."

 

It speaks volumes about the scout that he didn't push to submit project #1 and all its troubles unsigned with his Eagle application. He clearly wanted to accomplish something. So, I think that should be discussed at the BoR. That discussion might be a good moment of reflection for the boy and the leaders in the room. But ... does adding the 1st project's hours to the total on the Eagle application "for statistical purposes only" do anything for him? The unit? The district/council?

 

If it doesn't, isn't this one of those "keep the BS out of the BS of A" moments?

Edited by qwazse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They key principle here (and in your subsequent Workbook reference) is that the scout continues to deal with the same beneficiary.

 

Fred's candidate ditched the 1st beneficiary (or they ditched him), along with the 1st project. So, the 2nd beneficiary, when they sign off, is really only acknowledging the plans and modifications and completion of the 2nd project.

 

I don't see anywhere where it says anything about one or two beneficiaries. If that's not specifically stated, why make it more difficult? Assume "Beneficiary" is the group or groups for which the work was done, be it Project #1 or Project #2.

 

My fear is that if we do get too lost in the semantics of trying to read too much in to this, people might begin to question if the requirements was actually fulfilled. If he were my Scout I'd tell him to bundle the two together and discuss them as two separate parts of a project that ultimately fulfilled Requirement #5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anywhere where it says anything about one or two beneficiaries. If that's not specifically stated, why make it more difficult? Assume "Beneficiary" is the group or groups for which the work was done, be it Project #1 or Project #2.

 

My fear is that if we do get too lost in the semantics of trying to read too much in to this, people might begin to question if the requirements was actually fulfilled. If he were my Scout I'd tell him to bundle the two together and discuss them as two separate parts of a project that ultimately fulfilled Requirement #5.

What would make them question that the requirement is fulfilled? There is a beneficiary's signature ... for project #2.

 

The number of hours is being reported "for statistical purposes" whatever that means, but we have been assured on the application that it is not for the purposes of assuring that the requirements were fulfilled. So, if it's not to make sure the boy met the requirement, who needs it? Why?

 

Like I said, I honestly don't know. I'm open to the idea that there's someone out there who would care that those hours of futility would be tallied as Eagle project hours (vs. JTE or whatever). But, lacking knowledge of who benefits from that line on the Eagle application having a larger number that includes the time our Life scouts spend on non-starters, I'm not willing to commit to one action or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I honestly don't know. I'm open to the idea that there's someone out there who would care that those hours of futility would be tallied as Eagle project hours (vs. JTE or whatever). But, lacking knowledge of who benefits from that line on the Eagle application having a larger number that includes the time our Life scouts spend on non-starters, I'm not willing to commit to one action or the other.

 

I could envision someone looking at Project #2 as not demonstrating enough leadership, equating hours spent to level of leadership. That's why I suggested using both projects. The GTA seems to back that up (see above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could envision someone looking at Project #2 as not demonstrating enough leadership, equating hours spent to level of leadership. That's why I suggested using both projects. The GTA seems to back that up (see above).

Our DAC pounds it into our heads that we are not to equate hours spent to leadership. We get that talk (along with a few recent "for-instances" by way of example) every year at round-table because the units around here host the EBoRs with a rep. from the advancement committee presiding. Some MC's can be pretty rough until reigned in. So, I can see hours that are "overly padded" might give a committee member trained this way some pause.

 

I'm sure other districts have committees who promote other aspects of the project, and maybe they encourage folks to look for a robust man-hour figure.

 

Either way, the boy can overcome those nuances by actually talking about what he actually did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It depends".   Reporting service hours is keeping score. The hours worked SHOULD be counted, it just matters how...

 

1)  Consider:  Did the first project actually accomplish something worthwhile, despite having to be "abandoned" ?  Was it a total waste of time?  Did somebody benefit from the effort? Anybody?  

2)  Hereabouts , we have a school requirement for "Student Service Hours", whereby the student is expected to do some volunteer work in the community. Soup kitchen, church, Cub Scout Day Camp, litter pick-up, lots of possible possibilities. The requirement is that it must fulfill some need from an "approved" agency, not just on the student or family, say, say-so.  Can the workers on the first project use those hours, still?  The school systems give awards and recognition for mucho hours or creative projects.  Even Eagle service projects can be counted.

3)  I must agree with Col.Flagg here. As was reported above, the Scout planned and managed a project with some obvious success.  If the hours were worked 'in good faith" for a previously approved project, and , as has been said, it had to be "abandoned" thru no fault of the Scout or his supporters (wow !), report the hours.   I would separate them out from the "successful" project, but definitely report the effort expended.   Report them for the Eagle BoR, report them to "Good Turn for America (or whatever it is called now).  Report them for the units JTE.   

 

4)  After all is finished and in the can,  I might be persuaded to take this story to the local media and explore exactly what and why it happened.   Some bias perhaps?  Some unforeseen licensing/permitting problem?   It would be educational for the next Scout who might have a similar idea.  Perhaps the City/County needs to  see what happened, not just the Scout and his supporters.  Talk it up amongst the Scout intelligentsia of the area.

5)  Lastly, at the Scout's ECoH,  I would give him the "Stick -To -It -tiveness" Award  (a nice mahogany plaque with his name and date and a tube of Cryacrilic attached ). 

 

See YOU on the trail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the GTA says a BOR is granted when requirements are met. That means he's completed his requirements and been signed off. Can't add or subtract, so they can't fail him.

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/BoardsofReview.aspx

 

I finally had time to find the reference.  Sorry for being late back to the party.  

 

GTA 9.0.2.8 near the end.  "Boards of review should use common sense: Did the project meet the requirements or not? Was there planning and development? Was there leadership of others?"

 

GTA 9.0.2.13 also says "At the board of review, if an approved proposal and any subsequent effort represents planning and development that was adequate to the project, and the project was well led and carried out to the satisfaction of the unit leader and project beneficiary, only in a very rare case would rejection result. It would have to be clearly established that Eagle Scout requirement 5—as written— was not completed."

 

BSA Advancement New August 2014 says "Ultimately the decision of a Scout’s board of review relies not on how complete his workbook is, but rather on his project’s impact and whether he showed sufficient planning, development, leadership, and helpfulness to the beneficiary, as stated in requirement 5. Final plan or not, the Scout should be prepared to explain to his board of review how he met the requirement as it is written, and to discuss the project’s impact ."

 

I believe these can be clearly read as the EBOR does consider the project, not just the signatures.  I say this because our district does look at other leadership the scout has presented if they consider the project to be leadership thin.  In another words, our district EBORs want to positively pass the scout.  If the project is thin, they work to find another way to pass the scout.  It's only happened a few times, but I have seen it and I respect the EBOR coordinator working hard to find a positive way to pass a worthy scout.

 

I also find this as positive because otherwise the district needs to hold a higher standard for more details and more specifics in the Eagle project proposal.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe these can be clearly read as the EBOR does consider the project, not just the signatures.  I say this because our district does look at other leadership the scout has presented if they consider the project to be leadership thin.  In another words, our district EBORs want to positively pass the scout.  If the project is thin, they work to find another way to pass the scout.  It's only happened a few times, but I have seen it and I respect the EBOR coordinator working hard to find a positive way to pass a worthy scout.

 

I also find this as positive because otherwise the district needs to hold a higher standard for more details and more specifics in the Eagle project proposal.  

 

I am not tracking here.

  • The Beneficiary, SM and district/council approve the project.
  • The Beneficiary, SM sign off on the final project as meeting requirements.

How does a district/council approved project -- that has been accepted as meeting not only the project plan, but Requirement #5 as well -- get second guessed and possibly denied by a district/council EBOR?

 

That's not right. The district/council already reviewed and signed off on the proposal. If the plan was executed to the Beneficiary's satisfaction, and the SM signs off, the requirement is COMPLETE! The BOR does not have standing to over ride the completion of the requirement.

 

That would be like an SM not allowing a completed blue card. This is a slippery slope.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not tracking here.

  • The Beneficiary, SM and district/council approve the project.
  • The Beneficiary, SM sign off on the final project as meeting requirements.

How does a district/council approved project -- that has been accepted as meeting not only the project plan, but Requirement #5 as well -- get second guessed and possibly denied by a district/council EBOR?

 

That's not right. The district/council already reviewed and signed off on the proposal. If the plan was executed to the Beneficiary's satisfaction, and the SM signs off, the requirement is COMPLETE! The BOR does not have standing to over ride the completion of the requirement.

 

That would be like an SM not allowing a completed blue card. This is a slippery slope.

 

If the EBOR could not consider the project, then the district / council would need to require far greater detail than a proposal provides.  By allowing a district approval based on a proposal, the scout can focus on the project instead of the paperwork.  

 

It is a slippery slope.  But I fear that much less than the bad experiences districts put scouts through to approve the projects.

 

IMHO, I think BSA did strike the right balance this time.  BSA did a great job cleaning up the Eagle project process.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Flagg on this one. The board has no right to fail anyone. The requirements have been met.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×