Eagle Scout Service Project Approvals Set Precedent?

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

On a different note, when I did my project, it was one page. I needed the SM's signature, beneficiary's signature, and the DAC's signature. That was it.

[Krampus 696]

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=48d6ee3b99d3b3a97b1bf189e1757786&rgn=div5&view=text&node=29:3.1.1.1.31&idno=29

 

PART 570—CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION

§570.33   Occupations that are prohibited to minors 14 and 15 years of age.

(g) Outside window washing that involves working from window sills, and all work requiring the use of ladders, scaffolds, or their substitutes.[/size]

 

Seriously? You are reading WAY too much in to this. It specifically says "occupations", not tasks. If they are doing a service project or working around my house that is not an occupation. Any decent attorney could get that thrown out on its face...assuming you could even get a indictment. 

 

I can find obscure laws that would throw you in jail for chewing gum on Thursday wearing a red hat. Doesn't mean anyone would enforce it.

 

LOL!  My first job after my paper route as a kid was washing windows inside and out at the local library.  Guess where the windows are at the library!  30' ladders outside, and 10' ladders inside where I could get up on top of the book shelves and move from one window to the next to wash.  I was 13 years of age at that point!   By the way, when one works for the library, they are a city government employee.  And I didn't need to walk through the snow uphill both ways to get to the library.

Exactly! Heck, there was a unit that washed the windows of the courthouse here. THE COURTHOUSE!!!! No one got arrested. Heck, they had a unit sponsored BBQ after the event.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Krampus

[fred johnson 936]

Doesn't apply, any more than Child Labor daily/weekly time limits apply to school extracurricular activities. No one is doing these tasks as a requirement of employment.

 

So you say.  Others view it differently.  

 

http://www.ehow.com/about_5513233_volunteer-labor-laws.html

"Child Labor Laws

One of the toughest areas of labor law enforcement is child volunteering. Though the Fair Labor Standards Act (which governs child labor laws) usually doesn’t apply to volunteers, it is in the best interest of both the organization and the child to adhere to these laws. States are particularly observant of child volunteers and may have even stricter laws than actual employment would dictate.

Experts advise to follow child labor laws—volunteer or not—when involving minors, and a signed parental-consent form is a must."

 

https://www.nonprofitrisk.org/advice/faqs/volunteers2.shtml

[Krampus 696]

So you say.  Others view it differently.  

 

http://www.ehow.com/about_5513233_volunteer-labor-laws.html

"Child Labor Laws

One of the toughest areas of labor law enforcement is child volunteering. Though the Fair Labor Standards Act (which governs child labor laws) usually doesn’t apply to volunteers, it is in the best interest of both the organization and the child to adhere to these laws. States are particularly observant of child volunteers and may have even stricter laws than actual employment would dictate.

Experts advise to follow child labor laws—volunteer or not—when involving minors, and a signed parental-consent form is a must."

 

https://www.nonprofitrisk.org/advice/faqs/volunteers2.shtml

 

Funny....I think I said that the FLSA didn't apply to volunteers. Your quote notes it doesn't but says it is in the "best interest" to adhere to it. Thanks for validating my point.

 

Try enforcing the FLSA on any farm in the US. I thank God I live in a state where the police and judicial system have a broader interpretation of the FLSA so as not to apply something that is obviously meant for employers to private citizens or volunteers.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Krampus

[Stosh 3452]

I think it's in the best interest to have the BSA put out a disclaimer on the scout/scouter registration form that all have to have a notary signature stating that in order to participate in the program they realize that it involves a certain degree of adventure which means a correlating degree of personal risk of harm.  If one is not willing to take that risk, please don't sign up.

 

There is a reason why people sit on their living room sofas and interact socially with the world electronically.  It's all part of the issue of personal safety.  Simply stepping out the front door without sunscreen and bug repellent immediately places one's health and safety in jeopardy and they have yet to let go of the door to shut behind them.   Then we can consider any cracks or imperfections in the porch, steps and sidewalk.  Then, getting in the car, buckling up, and..... well, just don't let me get started on that!

[fred johnson 936]

I never said it was about law enforcement.  But G2SS reflects a choice by BSA to align with national child labor laws.  Many volunteer organizations have done this.  And, I had not even thought about the fact that BSA hires many many youth.  As such, I can see that there is a need for consistency.  Plus, BSA is putting it's name on the project with the signature of three registered BSA leaders.

 

Locally, there is a scout who had major brain damage for falling from what was essentially the height of a four foot ladder.  It happens.  And when it happens, I'd be really surprised if lawyers could not successfully argue negligence and liability when labor laws have decided it's a bad idea.  So law prevents you from having an employee do it, but you can use an unpaid volunteer?  Yeah, doesn't surprise me G2SS is relatively aligned with child labor laws.

 

I let my own sons use power tools (skill saws, sawz-all, power miter boxes) under my direct supervision.  But it's because I want them to learn.  I know other 17 year olds from other families that I would not trust anywhere near a power tool.  

 

I also view power tools as a risk on Eagle projects because there is no guarantee adults are present when the projects are executed.  As such, a consistent set of safety rules is important. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by fred johnson

[Krampus 696]

I also view power tools as a risk on Eagle projects because there is no guarantee adults are present when the projects are executed.  As such, a consistent set of safety rules is important. 

 

What???!!!

 

It is a unit function. As such, all the same rules, regulations and policies that apply to a camp out MUST ALSO apply to an Eagle project. That means you must have a minimum of one trained leader, weather training, Sweet 16 applies, etc.

 

Fred, for someone who wants to go by the book on the FSLA related to volunteerism of youth, I'd fully expect you to make sure your unit is following BSA policy on all unit activities...especially Eagle projects!

[Stosh 3452]

I totally agree, @@fred johnson that there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere.  I for one will never touch a chainsaw.  All the trees and firewood I've cut has been with axe and bucksaw.  I've dropped some pretty big trees over the years and had many neighbors offer to cut it for me.  All of which I have taken them up on it because they know what they're doing.

 

But simply knowing one's limits and the risks involved, one is not going to be able to keep kids from hurting themselves.  I don't know all the rules and regs, but I do know that training and supervision go a long way to reduce risk and that's more important than rules.  One may have a scout that has been building bat houses for years, selling them along with this blue bird houses and wood duck houses to pay for all of his scouting activities.  Power tools are a way of life for him, but when he gets to his Eagle project has to use all hand tools, which he hasn't used for years, to do it.  Doesn't make much sense.  One has to always consider a lot of different dynamics in the issue and not rely on just a one-size-fits-all rule someone made up to insure the clumsiest person in the world won't hurt themselves.  Heck, the number of times I've smashed my fingers far exceeds the number of times I've fallen off the ladder climbing to the roof to shingle.  I hate heights, I'm really careful with ladders, and yet at the end of the day, my thumbs take months to heal.    Know the rules, and be smart with the known and unknown risks involved in all projects.  That's the best insurance.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Stosh

[fred johnson 936]

What???!!!

 

It is a unit function. As such, all the same rules, regulations and policies that apply to a camp out MUST ALSO apply to an Eagle project. That means you must have a minimum of one trained leader, weather training, Sweet 16 applies, etc.

 

Fred, for someone who wants to go by the book on the FSLA related to volunteerism of youth, I'd fully expect you to make sure your unit is following BSA policy on all unit activities...especially Eagle projects!

 

Ya know.  You're right.  I'm caught with forgetting Guide To Advancement, Section 9.0.2.14 Risk Management and Eagle Scout Service Projects ... for risk management the Eagle projects are effectively part of the unit program.

 

The challenge is there is no requirement (and explicitly listed as NOT appropriate) to have the troop approve work dates or plans.  It seems BSA has setup a contradiction.  

 

It is still ingrained in my mind that Eagle projects are NOT a troop function.  And in most ways, Eagle projects are NOT a troop function.  There is no requirement to use another scout.  There is no requirement to communicate with the troop ... beyond signatures for the proposal and report.  Scouts do much of the planning and initial prep fully outside the visibility of the troop leadership.  

 

Saying an Eagle project is part of the unit program just seems to lay liability on others without setting up an effective structure for those to manage that liability.  

 

Even then ... with two deep leadership ... there would be no guarantee that when the power tools come out ... that there was an appropriate leader observing it every moment.  ...Unless BSA establishes rules for locking up power tools, a certification program for power tool trainers and power tool range masters.  

 

To be frank, GTA 9.0.2.14 Risk Management really muddies the structure of an Eagle project and creates a huge inconsistency. 

[RememberSchiff 3667]

Scouts have died on campouts, canoe trips, hikes, tree falls, swimming.... We learn from mistakes, educate and train ourselves to be prepared for the risks that life presents. What is the current marketing slogan Prepared for Life? Or it that BS?

 

It is tragic that a scout died falling off a ladder, in whitewater rapids, from self-afflicted gunshot wounds, screwing around with hand sanitizer, lightning strike. But many, many more scouts were taught by adults how to safely face those risks, how to setup a work area, properly use materials and tools, and first aid.
 

Sure it is safer to opt-out of every new challenge; let someone else lead the path for the wagon train west, explore Antarctica, or go to the Moon.

 

Those someones used to be called scouts.

 

My $0.02

Edited April 1, 2016 by RememberSchiff

[Krampus 696]

Ya know.  You're right.  I'm caught with forgetting Guide To Advancement, Section 9.0.2.14 Risk Management and Eagle Scout Service Projects ... for risk management the Eagle projects are effectively part of the unit program.

 

The challenge is there is no requirement (and explicitly listed as NOT appropriate) to have the troop approve work dates or plans.  It seems BSA has setup a contradiction.  

 

It is still ingrained in my mind that Eagle projects are NOT a troop function.  And in most ways, Eagle projects are NOT a troop function.  There is no requirement to use another scout.  There is no requirement to communicate with the troop ... beyond signatures for the proposal and report.  Scouts do much of the planning and initial prep fully outside the visibility of the troop leadership.  

 

Saying an Eagle project is part of the unit program just seems to lay liability on others without setting up an effective structure for those to manage that liability.  

 

Even then ... with two deep leadership ... there would be no guarantee that when the power tools come out ... that there was an appropriate leader observing it every moment.  ...Unless BSA establishes rules for locking up power tools, a certification program for power tool trainers and power tool range masters.  

 

To be frank, GTA 9.0.2.14 Risk Management really muddies the structure of an Eagle project and creates a huge inconsistency. 

 

Totally agree on the validation of workplans and dates. While there is no official sign off (and there should be), I usually "heavily suggest" that our Eagle candidates have their draft plan done at the same time I review their proposal. This make sure that they are on the right track.

 

I disagree about the project not being a troop function. I suspect you meant that you mentally consider them not a troop function even though the workbooks specifically calls out that they are:

 

"All Eagle Scout service projects constitute official Scouting activity and thus are subject to Boy Scouts of America policies and procedures. Projects are considered part of a unit's program and are treated as such with regard to policies, procedures, and requirements regarding Youth Protection, two-deep leadership, etc. The health and safety of those working on Eagle projects must be integrated into project execution. Since an Eagle Scout service project is a unit activity, unit leadership has the same responsibility to assure safety in conducting a project as with any other unit activity. The unit leader or unit committee should reject proposals for inherently unsafe projects. The candidate should plan for safe execution, but it must be understood that minors cannot and must not be held responsible for safety concerns. As with any Scouting activity, the Guide to Safe Scouting applies. The “Sweet 16 of BSA Safety†must also be consulted as a planning tool. It can be found at: www.scouting.org/scoutsource/healthandsafety/"

 

I suspect your unit does treat them as such. I know many around me that do not. Most units that do usually have vigilant folks like you reading them chapter and verse, that's why I said I'd be surprised if you weren't telling your unit to abide by this.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Krampus

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

@@Krampus,

 

Gotta remember that once upon a time, the Eagle project was NOT (emphasis) a unit activity, but rather the Life Scout's activity. Troop could provide manpower and tools, but the Life Scout was in charge. Heck, adults were not even needed to be there. For my project, only my Mom was there, and she was not registered. All she did was drive me to the location and wait.

 

The idea that a service project is a UNIT  activity as opposed to an INDIVIDUAL ( again emphasis) activity is a very recent change. Kinda hard to remember the change when you have been doing something one way for 40+ years. Heck, Venturing and Venturers are still having issues being called 'Venture Scouts" and "Venture Crews," and the venture crew/patrol concept was only around approx. 9 years, and was not a major part of Scouting during that time period!

[fred johnson 936]

Totally agree on the validation of workplans and dates. While there is no official sign off (and there should be), I usually "heavily suggest" that our Eagle candidates have their draft plan done at the same time I review their proposal. This make sure that they are on the right track.

 

I disagree about the project not being a troop function. I suspect you meant that you mentally consider them not a troop function even though the workbooks specifically calls out that they are:

 

"All Eagle Scout s... "

 

I suspect your unit does treat them as such. I know many around me that do not. Most units that do usually have vigilant folks like you reading them chapter and verse, that's why I said I'd be surprised if you weren't telling your unit to abide by this.

 

You quoted the words that are pretty much the same as the GTA 9.0.2.14 Risk Management that I was referencing.  In fact, I would have to check that the words are not the same.

 

Before BSA changed to the new format of Eagle workbook ... and I would not be surprised if even latter ... I'd have to check GTA revision history ... Eagle projects were NOT considered part of the unit program.  That's why the muddied waters.  Youth protection enhancements.  G2SS improvements.  Now to cover "Risk Management", Eagle projects are part of the unit program effectively for youth protection.

 

But the troop has no role in coordinating the plans or execution.  So it is really a mess where people are looking the other way.  

 

IMHO, it is up to the troop to make sure a leader is there.  Unit leaders should be asking the scout when the work days are scheduled.  It's the unit leaders job to staff it.  It is NOT the scout's job to make sure a troop leader can be there or to review the project schedule with a committee.

 

IMHO, I do NOT want it to move any more toward an integrated part of the unit program.   I do NOT want unit leadership to have additional signature or approval roles.

[DuctTape 1230]

I never completed my Eagle Project. I thought I had, the council accepted my report. It turns out, what I thought was my project wasn't.

 

20 years later I was in the area where my project was. I noticed that others in the community had continued the conservation project I began. My project was not the organizing, planning, and leading a group of boys for the 100 hours of work we did. I realized decades later, my project was was showing the community the value of conservation, and how to be a part of it. My project continues to this day, I hope it is never complete.

[Krampus 696]

Gotta remember that once upon a time, the Eagle project was NOT (emphasis) a unit activity, but rather the Life Scout's activity. Troop could provide manpower and tools, but the Life Scout was in charge. Heck, adults were not even needed to be there. For my project, only my Mom was there, and she was not registered. All she did was drive me to the location and wait.

 

True...it may be a recent change. However, the SM and TC are responsible for making sure that rules and policies are followed. Something like the Eagle Workbook, which you see several times a year, should be something that SMs know by heart. If you have a dedicated Eagle coordinator/advisor, they should CERTAINLY know it by heart and make sure that the candidate is working with the SM to make sure everything is followed.

 

The idea that a service project is a UNIT  activity as opposed to an INDIVIDUAL ( again emphasis) activity is a very recent change. Kinda hard to remember the change when you have been doing something one way for 40+ years. Heck, Venturing and Venturers are still having issues being called 'Venture Scouts" and "Venture Crews," and the venture crew/patrol concept was only around approx. 9 years, and was not a major part of Scouting during that time period!

 

I will grant you that it may be recent. Frankly I don't know when it was added. That said, you can't have it both ways. That is, when BSA makes a change you cannot use the excuse "Well, it's hard to remember that because we've done it this way for year."   I get what you are saying but as leaders WE owe it to our Scouts to read the GTA, GTSS, requirements and other docs when they get changed. BSA owes *US* the benefit of a Cliff Notes version of any changes made to ANY document they put out. We spend enough time doing Scouts already, having the changes highlighted -- like they did with the recent rank advancement changes -- would help IMMENSELY!!

 

IMHO, it is up to the troop to make sure a leader is there.  Unit leaders should be asking the scout when the work days are scheduled.  It's the unit leaders job to staff it.  It is NOT the scout's job to make sure a troop leader can be there or to review the project schedule with a committee.

 

IMHO, I do NOT want it to move any more toward an integrated part of the unit program.   I do NOT want unit leadership to have additional signature or approval roles.

I hear you, @@fred johnson, but at the same time I disagree.

 

I see no problem with the SM (or Eagle coordinator) helping the candidate work through and understand the need to observe the Sweet 16, tools/age guidelines, SM attendance, etc. That's all part of Requirement #5 in demonstrating leadership in my book. Just like the SPL pulling together a meeting plan and logistics, the Eagle candidate should be able to pull all of this together.

 

If the candidate is doing excavation he needs to call MISS UTILITY or whatever, how is coordinating a unit leader or SM being on-site any different?

 

I had a Scout recent build a retaining wall. He arranged delivery of dirt from the city, ordering of supplies from Home Depot, on-site leadership, person handling first aid, food delivery, had jobs assigned by age category so younger Scouts were not handling prohibited tools, etc. This was all part of his project plan. He ran the whole thing VERY well.

 

Why would we want to set the bar any lower and deny them this chance to learn?