SMOH

I am stating that the DAC chair intentionally and willfully delayed an eagle project for over 10 months without any reason other than the ones he invented. The DAC chair directed his committee to refer any requests, whether from the scout or from anyone else, to him. But, he intentionally did not return any communication attempts from the scout. He admits this behavior. The SE has acknowleged this was very wrong, and eluded that he did abuse the scout. I am working with both district and council to fix problems that may arise in the future. This seems like we are moving in the right direction, and will likely prevent this from happening to other scouts. This is by no means an isolated incident, but it is the only one that I can prove. Other troops within our district have similar horror stories. Whether the DAC has issues with me or not, it does not change the fact that the DAC chair intentionally affected a scout in a negative way. This is abuse. If left unchecked I have no doubt he would continue this behavior.

So, what you are saying is... If a person willfully and intentionally affects another person in a negative way, is not abuse ? The fact the they are volunteers is irrelavent.

The project was submitted via email with a followup phone message. The DAC insists that each email be followed by a phone call because he "does not get every email" After 4 weeks, the scout repeatedly sent emails and left voice mails for the DAC. Not one of them was answered. Bouncing back to January, I met with th DC and DE. This is what prompted the meeting in February. It seems that the only way to get a response from this committee is to get either the district execs or council execs involved. The council advancement committee "researched" what happened beginning in June, and determined it was "a communication breakdown". Council blamed the whole problem on me, stating "you just piss people off when you get involved". However, they fail to acknowlege that the scout gave the DAC ample opportunity to respond BEFORE I got involved. I did not instigate the problem. I simply went up the chain when the scout was left out in lala land, waiting for a response that will never come. How is it that the DAC does not have to live up to the scout law ? I do remember courteous and kind, but I must have missed rude and disrespectful.

I do not think I explained this very well... here are some facts to clear things up: The project started off as "invasive plant removal" covering about 6 acres of a city park. It evolved into planting over 100 trees and removing the plant removal from the write-up. 1. the scout was trying to get a verbal approval from the DAC before doing the detailed write-up. 2. The DAC had an open offer to do this at roundtable 3. The project was rejected without any reasons 4. Similar, but different, projects have been done at this park 5. The DAC, during my meetings with them, stated "we don't like repeat projects" 6. The DAC told the scout to proceed with his detailed write-up in Feb 7. The DAC told the scout "we are rejecting your project because of the reasons we told you in February" The way I see it, an intentional, deliberate delay (by not returning messages) or any other intentional delay is mental abuse. The behavior of the DAC is not unique to this project, or even my troop. It is not uncommon for them to instruct the scout to make changes, then at later meetings, tell him it needs to be changed back to the original. One of the DAC members was having a general conversation about a project. She said "I have not read the project yet, but I am sure that I will find something wrong with it. We'll knock him down a peg or two"

I believe our district advancement committee is abusing scouts. scout X submitted his initial write-up back in Oct 08. He did not recieve any response. He sent emails, left phone messages, etc. I got involved about December. Meeting with the committee at roundtable to try to work through it. They were very distant. They made statements along the lines of "your project will not be approved" but did not give any reason. Eventually, in Feburary, after I contacted my DE and DC, the committee met with the scout, myself, and the scouts father(an ASM). At this meeting the committee told the scout "make these changes and we will approve your project" The scout spent 2 months working on his detailed write-up, reviewing with me as he progressed. Early April he submitted his write-up. After 4 weeks without a response, he started to send emails and voice mails, without any response. I got involved after 6 weeks of silence. I started with the DE, and was referred to council advancement. After voicing my concerns, they indicated they would look into it. I was told by council advancement that it's my fault because I got involved. The scout eventually got his project signed in early July. When the adv chair showed up to sign the project he made some disturbing statements: + "I'm sorry you got caught up in all of this" + "National prohibits plant removal in Eagle Projects" I believe the only reason for the signature was to make this problem go away. What recourse do I have to force the removal of this committee ? How can I force the committee to justify their decisions/actions ? Should I get Child Protective Services involved ?