Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Eagle project hours


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#21 qwazse

qwazse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6502 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 12:20 PM

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, 14 March 2017 - 12:21 PM.

  • 0

#22 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1220 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 01:47 PM

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.


  • 0

#23 qwazse

qwazse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6502 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 02:50 PM

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.


  • 0

#24 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1220 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 03:13 PM

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).


  • 0

#25 qwazse

qwazse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6502 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 03:52 PM

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.


  • 0

#26 SSScout

SSScout

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3996 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:34 AM

"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.


  • 1

#27 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1514 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 11:45 AM

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....dsofReview.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.  


  • 1

#28 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1220 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 11:51 AM

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.


  • 2

#29 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1514 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 12:40 AM

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.  


  • 0

#30 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 528 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:07 AM

I'm with Flagg on this one. The board has no right to fail anyone. The requirements have been met.
  • 0

#31 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 12165 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:41 AM

My only concern is why the council needs to "approve" some scout's project in the first place.  The purpose is not the project, but to show leadership on the project.  The SM and Beneficiary should be able to determine whether or not there was leadership or not.  If someone is going to short-change the leadership requirement, they are going to be able to do that whether the council approved the project or not.  it is a useless step of extra hoop-jumping that validates nothing, insures nothing and doesn't help the scout in anyway.  After all, is it the scout's project?  or is it the council's project? 

 

I have often wondered why this project has become so important in the first place.  If the SM is going to allow the boy to a lousy job on his project, he/she's probably cut a few corners on all the rest of the Scout -> Life requirements as well.  To me, those requirements are just as important that a single project requirement.


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#32 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1514 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:46 PM

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

 

I'm just reflecting what BSA has in the GTA and how EBORs can operate per those rules.  

 

IMHO, it's a good discussion whether or not councils need to approve projects.  Probably same argument whether districts/councils should approve the Eagle rank.  

 

Beyond that though, I like how it's setup.  Council can filter out during proposals some bad out of place projects.  Beyond that though, districts not approving projects is meant to be rare.  It's really the after-the-fact evaluation that happens during EBOR.  And even that is almost automatic as a project needs to be really out-of-normal to run into an issue. .... but some districts are not as supporting.  :)


  • 0

#33 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 528 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:14 PM

I'm just reflecting what BSA has in the GTA and how EBORs can operate per those rules.  
 
IMHO, it's a good discussion whether or not councils need to approve projects.  Probably same argument whether districts/councils should approve the Eagle rank.  
 
Beyond that though, I like how it's setup.  Council can filter out during proposals some bad out of place projects.  Beyond that though, districts not approving projects is meant to be rare.  It's really the after-the-fact evaluation that happens during EBOR.  And even that is almost automatic as a project needs to be really out-of-normal to run into an issue. .... but some districts are not as supporting.  :)


They can "evaluate" all they want. They have no jurisdiction to fail a scout for theirnapproved project that's been signed off as complete by the unit Lead and beneficiarybb
  • 0

#34 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 12165 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:38 PM

I would think it would be a good time to do a little bragging about one's project at the EBOR.  If the candidate is not as articulate, that shouldn't matter, but if the boy just does a couple of grunts when it is time to brag, it might indicate a problem for further discussion, but not as an opportunity to judge and fail.   An opportunity is opened up about the project, the candidate gets a chance to speak off the cuff a bit about it and a "good job on the project" from the board goes a long way to lead into a congratulation to the Scout and would be a nice way of finishing out the Review.


Edited by Stosh, 19 March 2017 - 07:39 PM.

  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#35 Eagledad

Eagledad

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5915 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:07 AM

Eagle project reviews (approvals) are intended to verify that all the parties involved know what to expect, and that the project is within the BSA recommendations. You would be surprised of how many scouts just take off and start a project without informing the beneficiaries of the project. And because some scouts take on more than they can handle, there are a few half completed projects littering communities. I remember one member many years ago explaining that their district was pretty tough on accepting projects because the local new paper had written a couple of uncomplimentary articles of unsightly uncompleted Eagle projects that left the community dealing with the cost for clean up.

 

Reputation can be a tall hurdle to bring down. Not and Eagle project, but the Canadian Border Agent that our crews had to visit before continuing through the Canadian side of the Boundary Waters had a book of pictures that showed the destruction of Canadian boundary water camp sites from the Boy Scouts. Now I could tell by the pictures that many of the sites weren't from Boy Scouts, but there must have been at least a couple of incidences that created the bad blood leaving the other 99 percent of the scouts suffering the long lecture by the Border Agent.

 

Barry 


  • 0

"Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives the test first, then the lesson."


#36 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1514 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:21 AM

They can "evaluate" all they want. They have no jurisdiction to fail a scout for their approved project that's been signed off as complete by the unit Lead and beneficiary.

 

Actually, per BSA GTA 9.0.2.8, BSA GTA 9.0.2.13 and BSA clarification from BSA Advancement News Aug 2014, an EBOR does have jurisdiction to consider the project.  It's not about failing the scout, but there can be postponement until issues are addressed.  

 

I'm actually on your side of this.  Years ago, I was screaming mad about how our district treated scouts during the Eagle project approval process.  IMHO, it's a much better process now.  EBORs do have great latitude in what they consider, but it should be extremely rare.  In my 12 years, I've only seen one where a scout did not earn his Eagle rank out of all in our district and we have a very large district.  And in that case, it was pretty clear cut and a sad situation.  

 

EBORs need latitude as districts approve a concept and don't see it again until the EBOR.  Now you can argued that districts and councils should not pre-approve a project proposal and that the decision should be fully kept in troops.  Fine.  That is a valid arguement, but it's a different issue.  ... As long as districts / councils approve project proposals, they need latitude to consider the results.  

 

I have seen multiple close situations at EBORs.  Unusually it was a highly parent-ally motivated scout.  In one that I remember, the scout proposed doing a large project and that is what the district approved.  Then, the scout re-scoped the project much smaller.  Beneficiary and troop approved the completed project.  BUT it was argued in the EBOR that the scout did not do the project that was approved in the proposal.   It was not an argument that there was not enough hours or effort.  It was argued the scout did not do the approved project.  In addition, it was clear the scout did not show anything beyond incidental leadership in his project.  Scope changes happen.  Volunteer participation changes.  In another, the project report was approved by beneficiary and troop.  But the EBOR discussion with the scout showed the project was pretty much 100% immediate scout family work.  I forget how that was addressed as I was not directly involved in that EBOR.  I'm just using these two examples as cases that show EBORs need discretion.  

 

It should be extremely rare and EBORs should be looking for ways to pass the scout, but EBORs need discretion to consider the project.  


  • 0

#37 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1220 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:08 AM

I think I see @backpack's issue with the BOR doing anything with regard to evaluating the project for any reason, other than a simply, cursory review.

 

The proposal signature area for Council/District says:

 

"I have read topics 9.0.2.0 through 9.0.2.15, regarding the Eagle Scout service project, in the Guide to Advancement, No. 33088. I agree on my honor to apply the procedures as written, and in compliance with the policy on “Unauthorized Changes to Advancement.” Accordingly, I approve this proposal. I will encourage the candidate to prepare a project plan and further encourage him to share it with a project coach who has been designated for him."

 

 

So this rep has already taken in to account the GTA and the pertinent sections quote by @fredjohnson. So the project is reviewed and approved. As others have pointed out when discussing the proposal versus the plan versus the final report, BSA does not require ANY pre-work review of the plan or the report and THAT is a problem. Many issues could be discovered if the Scout were to develop and have the plan signed off and not just the proposal.

 

Next is the approval of the final report and Requirement #5. The workbook says:

 

 

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

 

 
 
This means that the Requirements is signed off. This should be treated like a completed Blue Card or any other signed requirement. Remember, a Scout learns, is tested, reviewed and recognized. After the SM and beneficiary sign off on the requirement, the BOR cannot do a thing to revoke it.
 
They can find another basis to challenge him, but not on the project.

  • 0

#38 NJCubScouter

NJCubScouter

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5986 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:13 AM

Actually, per BSA GTA 9.0.2.8, BSA GTA 9.0.2.13 and BSA clarification from BSA Advancement News Aug 2014, an EBOR does have jurisdiction to consider the project.  It's not about failing the scout, but there can be postponement until issues are addressed.  

 

I'm actually on your side of this.  Years ago, I was screaming mad about how our district treated scouts during the Eagle project approval process.  IMHO, it's a much better process now.  EBORs do have great latitude in what they consider, but it should be extremely rare.  In my 12 years, I've only seen one where a scout did not earn his Eagle rank out of all in our district and we have a very large district.  And in that case, it was pretty clear cut and a sad situation.  

 

EBORs need latitude as districts approve a concept and don't see it again until the EBOR.  Now you can argued that districts and councils should not pre-approve a project proposal and that the decision should be fully kept in troops.  Fine.  That is a valid arguement, but it's a different issue.  ... As long as districts / councils approve project proposals, they need latitude to consider the results.  

 

The BSA says basically the same thing.  The last paragraph of section 9.0.2.13 of the Guide to Advancement (which you mention) 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. Under no circumstances shall project approval at any point in the process be withheld for reasons that have nothing to do with the project.

 

Additionally, section 9.0.2.1, paragraph # 4, says:

 

4. Guidance that maximizes the opportunity for completion of a worthwhile project will be readily available and strongly recommended. Ultimately, however, the responsibility for success belongs to the Scout, and final evaluation is left to the board of review.

 

So the EBOR has the final word, but given the steps that come before that, a rejection would be "very rare."  I have sat on about 20 EBOR's and I have never seen it happen.  I think the fact that our district adds an optional "post-project review" by the district project reviewer makes it even less likely that it would happen.  But it is theoretically possible.


  • 0

#39 NJCubScouter

NJCubScouter

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5986 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:16 AM

 

They can find another basis to challenge him, but not on the project.

 

 

That is not correct, based on the Guide to Advancement sections that have been cited and quoted.


  • 0

#40 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1220 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:30 AM

That is not correct, based on the Guide to Advancement sections that have been cited and quoted.

 

Read my post again. The Eagle workbook requires the Council/District person to read THOSE SAME SECTIONS and ATTEST to applying them. Note the quote above. 


  • 0




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


IPB Skin By Virteq