If a scout is trying to scam the system by doing a lousy job on a project that some beneficiary signs off on a project just to get by, then after all those years "A Scout is Trustworthy" really doesn't mean much to him. One does not need a 10-page detailed report of every penny and every minute spent on every aspect of the project to let everyone know that.
Scamming ... Yeah, I've seen that both in scouts and at work. Essentially, the person wants success based on the end product being accepted and avoid evaluating the idea, the effort, the planning or if it was even a quality product. And, then acting as a victim if you push back because of their circumventing expectations.
In scouts ... I've seen a few EBORs where the scout just didn't do a quality job planning and developing the concept of his project. In fact, I've seen some where the scout effectively just put in worse than junk in his plan. If he had been on my team at work, I question whether I could trust him to lead again. He'd require more observation until that trust is earned again. And, I would have not signed off on his work product. I would have extra work now finding a way to get him or someone else to fix it.
The challenge is EBORs want to pass the scout. They want to give him that positive experience and recognition. I think the front end and back end need to be taken more seriously. The proposal reviewers need to emphasize the planning, developing and leading. The project report reviewers and the EBOR members need to be willing to push back on poor quality.
Edited by fred johnson, 02 May 2017 - 11:26 AM.