Eagle BOR Fatal Flaws

[scoutldr 732]

As I have stated in other posts, as a member of the District Committee, I am occasionally asked to sit on Eagle Boards of Review as the "District Representative". While most Eagle Boards are joyous, explorative discussions with exemplary young men, on two occasions, this has not been the case, and in my opinion, the SM and Troop Committee were remiss in their responsibilities by even scheduling the Board, and they were either equally morally bankrupt or wanted someone else to be the "bad guy". I have not decided if I should disclose the details, however, these events have left me questioning the value and reputation of the Eagle Scout medal, and hoping sincerely that this is not a nationwide trend. It would certainly explain why the percentage of Eagles has been rising in past years to somewhere around 5% now. We can have all the Eagles we want if we are willing to turn a blind eye to serious character flaws and un-Scoutlike behavior when not in uniform. Is it a coincidence, or did the percentage start going up when units were granted authority to conduct their own Eagle BOR?

 

I would like to pose a question to the collective wisdom of the group: Is there anything in a young man's record, character or actions that should automatically disqualify him from being granted an Eagle Board? And who should make the decision? I'm not talking about the obvious advancement requirements or avowed homosexuality or atheism. We all know that you need to be straight, believe in a God, and have 21 MB. Should there be a list of "fatal flaws", that say, "if you are guilty of any of these, don't even bother filling out the application"??? Or, should we continue turning a blind eye and keep cranking them out? Perhaps I am just old fashioned and need to accept that "morally straight" just ain't what it used to be, and find another hobby that doesn't challenge my moral conscience. This last experience left me wanting to grab the SM by the throat and say, "which part of the Scout Oath and Law don't you understand????"

 

[Bob White 20]

The decision of the board must be unanimous. In either case you mentioned did anyone on the board make a dissenting vote based on their belief that the scout had not met the requirements? If not, then they are the only ones that can be held responsible.

 

How can you hold the SM or previous boards acountable for passing a scout who was not qualified if the board you sat on did as well? It only takes 1 dissenting vote.

 

As far as deal killers. If you can show that the behavior left a requirement open then the scout has not completed the advancement.

 

[evmori 11]

I have sat on numerous Eagle boards & never ran across anything like this. If I had, I would probably not voted for the Scout to receive his Eagle.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[red feather 10]

Not sure how to reply. Could there be a hypothetical, what if?, scenario?

 

Just curious.

 

yis

[KoreaScouter 13]

I've never believed in passing a difficult decison up to a BOR to make for me. If a Scout doesn't measure up, he won't meet a BOR for advancement. The buck stops with me.

 

I've heard of Scouts receiving their Eagle who didn't earn it, and saw one myself in a previous unit (I wouldn't sign off on a marginal project and substandard Scout Spirit; family waited me out, and after I moved, strong-armed a non-confrontational SM and committee right before the boy aged out). I think they're the rare exception rather than the rule.

 

Personally, if the percentage of Eagles is inching upward, I attribute part of that, perhaps a large part of that, to the proliferation of Troop management software that allows leaders real-time access to and organization of facts and trends that were difficult to divine before. We're better organized.

 

What should be automatic disqualifiers? I'm not sure. A traffic ticket? Two? Six? An arrest? Or, an arrest and a conviction? Or just an accusation? Too much parental involvement in the project? How much is too much? Writing "suggested draft" reference letters? Or, faking the letters? In a unit chartered to a church, how about missing Sunday church services X number of times? If you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 answers. And, every unit's different.

 

KS

[scoutldr 732]

Mahalo, KS for not merely quoting the book answer. No, the decision was not unanimous, however the scout was "highly encouraged" to appeal the decision. It was an unpleasant scene that didn't need to happen...the scout was angry, discouraged, bewildered (DUHHH!), and resentful. The poor dear had his self-esteem injured. Mom was in tears, SM was livid. A lot of work in a project for nothing. The offense (disclosed to the board in a reference letter, which was not intended to be a negative comment), was an egregious violation of "morally straight", by most measures, except maybe the moral standards of most teenagers these days, whose attitude is "stuff happens". The SM knew about it (as do all of the other scouts in the troop), however, it was felt it was "not relevant" and not important enough to mention to the Board prior to the BOR. My point is, none of this needed to happen. If we are not willing to accept the "morally straight" interpretation of most high-schoolers today, then we need to do a better job of communicating that through lower BORs, and SM conferences, and adult leader training. Hitting them with the 2x4 at the Eagle BOR is not fair, after having been encouraged and pumped up by the SM. It's also not fair to expect each unit to interpret the requirements on their own...we don't allow that with any other advancements.

 

News Flash: There's more to being an Eagle Scout than 21 merit badges,wearing a POR patch for 6 months, and bulding a park bench. Let's keep the bar high. The public expects no less.

[nldscout 18]

In order to make a judgement you need to tell us what this offense to being morally straight was. Its hard to judge without know what your refering to.

[scouter9933 10]

What about the scout who did something in the past, but in the past year has turned his life around and is living the Oath & Law, became an honor student, SPL and has matured, as well as admitting what happened and where he went wrong and what (scouting) helped straighten him out?

 

This is where the SM is suppose to help, isn't it? Does the SM let the BOR know about it, and does the scout lose because he did something he shouldn't have done?

[AnneinMpls 10]

Did this erstwhile Eagle get a girl pregnant? And do we even want to begin to consider the feasibility of setting up abstinance as a litmus test? Can you imagine trying to follow up on every accusation???

Sigh.

[Bob White 20]

I am glad the scout was encouraged to appeal. That is the correct advise and the next step. It is not a rubber stamp for overturning the BOR. If they have done their revue correctly and can show that the reason has to do with a specific requirement or requirements then their decision will be upheld.

 

The BOR's job is not to satisfy the opinion of the SM or to make parents happy. Their role is to make sure that the scout has met the requirements according to the BSA.

 

As long as the dissenting members made their decisions based on the requirements the the system is working just fine. You did you job and now it passes on too others to do theirs.

 

Scouting's systems are a microcosm of our society and its systems.

 

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

Last summer two scouts from our district were caught stealing things from the tents of other scouts. Both were members of the camp staff.

They were fired on the spot and their parents were asked to come and get them.

Neither the Scout Exec. Or the CO asked these scouts to leave. Both were from the same troop.I was a little upset that both were and are attending the jamboree.

I voiced my opinions at the time.

I happen to know both of them and do like them. One played on the same soccer team as my son and I had been part of the team that had trained the Mom of one of them when she became a Den Leader.

Once the dust settled this ex-den leader met me and asked what would happen about her sons Eagle. It seems that he was about ready to start on the project.

I explained that the BOR had to be unanimous and if I was asked to sit on the board that I would vote against her son becoming an Eagle Scout.

She became very upset and wanted to go over what had "Really" happened at camp. She was crying. I don't manage crying Moms very well!! When she calmed down, I said that there was still lots of time and if her son really tried and didn't get into anymore trouble he might be able to show everyone that this was just a mistake.

Both are attending the Jamboree, their home troop SM is my ASM. I haven't had any problems with either of them. However I heard from OJ, who is working at summer camp that one of them did cause a problem at summer camp.

I think that a Lad making a mistake or an error in judgment does happen. I also think that being as both these Lads were allowed to continue in scouting we have to give them every opportunity to do right.

Maybe telling the Mom what amounted to "Lay low" for a while is not good.

If I'm asked to sit on the BOR,either of these Lads I will bring up the summer of 2004 and depending on how they answer and how they show me how much they have grown is what I will base my vote.

Ea.

[acco40 95]

Scouting has intentionally blurred the lines on certain requirements. We have all seen the debates on this forum concerning the meaning of "Be active in your troop and patrol for at least X months", "Demonstrate scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life", "serve actively X months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility", etc.

 

Each SM may have a different interpretation of these requirements. Who is the gatekeeper for these? The SM? The BOR? It should be both with IMHO, weighted more with the SM who should have more contact with the boy than committee members. So let's say a SM has made the interpretation that a Scout has met these requirements but the BOR (Eagle or not) does not. In that case - the BOR should do its duty - give specific and written notification why it feels the way it does.

[Hunt 11]

It's very hard to generalize about this, but I'll try. It seems to me that there are certain things that would cause me to vote against Eagle rank, almost no matter what. For example, current membership in an organization with ideals antithetical to Scouting (i.e., a white suprematist group).

It's much tougher when you talk about a record of wrongful acts. It seems to me that you have to ask a number of questions, and then balance the answers. The questions would include:

1. How long ago was the wrongful act?

2. Was it isolated or part of a series or pattern?

3. How serious was it?

4. Did it harm others?

5. Has the Scout shown remorse for it? Has he taken responsibility for the consequences?

6. Has his behavior since indicated that the wrongful act was an aberration?

Thus, for example, I can easily imagine a boy who was arrested for drug possession as a 14-year-old turning his life around and becoming an Eagle Scout to be proud of. On the other hand, a 17-year-old who was convicted of shoplifting in the last few months--probably not.

The really tough question comes when a boy has turned his life around--but the continuing consequences of his actions have the potential to cast Scouting in a bad light. Being an unwed father might be an example of this. I think you swallow hard and judge the boy on his own merits, and not primarily on what others will think.

[juris 10]

In response to " Eamonn " comments ! I lost your reasoning. Is Scouting not a game for the boys,and a serious job for the adults ? Has not this boy met all the requirements, and the Scoutmaster signed him off ? Is it not the job of the adult leader's in he unit to mold him in becoming a good citizen ?Or, Is this a priesthood sociaty, where commiting a sin places you in arms way of going to ' heck' No it's "Scouting",a method of teaching worthwhile values of life , to our youth. If this scout got this far, therefor give him his earned award. And ,the so caled Distric Advancement commitee ,with all of it's pure virtues ,should lay of him. Congratulate him in joining our imperfect world. "AMEN " Juris,www.

[Bob White 20]

Signing off a requirement is not the final step no matter who signs it, even the SM. The BOR has had that authority for...nearly 30 years.