Col. Flagg

You don't have to buy it. We lived it and I can assure you it happened. This lead to us being very vigilant since that 2010 requirements change to make sure our guys know the timeline and get their ranks closed out before the deadline. Well we used to do it your way until we had two guys lose their book with no back up. Despite telling them to take pictures and store them in the cloud somewhere, they didn't. Books got lost and re-constructing service hours, camping, rank, etc., was arduous. Never again, so we went with TroopMaster and have not looked back. Never had the issue since, though we have had to help a Scout reconstruct their history...made a TON easier with the software.

I'd be careful. Most councils have their own systems and they can vary.

Again, it does not have to be an onerous process adding in the approval of the plan. Look at what we have today. We simply get a proposal approved and some councils/districts take eons to approve. It is NOT the process, it's the people running it and mismanaging it. THEY need the training, but it's not the process that's broken. IF we could get the council/districts reps the proper training AND compel them to follow it, THEN adding in a project approval process would eliminate a great many of the "lack of detail" issues we run in to during the EBOR. 70 families x $100 per (on average) x 4-6 units = a minimum of $28,000. That's a significant hunk of change that got council's attention. Plus, when word got out the action grew past just 6 units.

This is a very extenuating circumstance. I would, though, wonder why the SM was not more proactive in their role in getting the word out to the Scouts. If you don't have any advancement tracking software, I would recommend getting one (like TroopMaster) to help in your role. This will help identify Scouts that may be in jeopardy like this much sooner. Good luck.

All you need is an accelerant and an ignition source to cause severe damage. Those can come in many sizes or can be made by various objects (think battery and steel wool). This ban is based on credible evidence of a possible event.

If volunteers are missing something as easy as rank advancement changes, I shudder to think what else they are missing in their application of the outdoor program. This is elementary. What happens when it comes to issues of safety such as swimming, boating, shooting sports, etc.? Doesn't every registered Scouter get at least Scouting Magazine? There's a resource that discussed this issue which should have been obvious. Shouldn't UC's have been doing their job and checking with units to make sure they were 1) aware of the changes, and 2) aware of the deadlines. I can sympathize with the "we're just over-worked volunteers" argument, but with the number of resources espousing these changes you'd have to really try not to see them.

Huh? His Eagle application got kicked back from National because of the problem. They spotted it and told him he had to "fix the problem" because he had a date that was considered "invalid" by the system and National. All I am saying is that 1) This is a VERY real problem, and 2) Get council to give you a decision on how to proceed, then save that for a rainy day should national kick back his application.

But here's a potential problem with that approach: What happens when someone at council looks at his records in Internet Advancement and says, "Gee, your BOR was after 1/1/17 and you should have been using the 2017 requirements." We had that happen 2010 when the requirements changed last time. A guy going for Eagle went past the "grandfather" date given by national for the new EDGE requirement, so he had to complete that to get rank. He didn't because his SMC and BOR were after the start date of that requirement. Council told him to go back and do the requirement. Good thing too, because he would not have made Eagle as a result. I'd get council to weigh in and note in his record their response, otherwise, as well-meaning as everyone is this may come back to bite him.

I wouldn't think so. Though strictly speaking he hadn't completed Second Class by the deadline, so technically he would have to complete them according to this blog on the topic. If the mistake in not getting him the BOR was an adult-driven issue (e.g., could not get volunteers) then you would err on the side of the Scout. If the Scout sat on his posterior knowing he needed a BOR and waited and waited, then this might be a good opportunity for him to learn.

I was going to say something similar. Just because I have had to use a weapon to take someone's life, doesn't make me a bad Christian.

I get that. But they have failed miserably as evidenced by the adults demanding more, not following guidelines and adding to requirements. BSA would be much better off offering a standard class that all council Eagle reviewer would be required to pass (note, not just take) which grinds in to their heads the process, parameters and prohibited actions from some of these wanna-be Napoleons.

But it leads to the issues we have of rejection. It is a simple process followed in the business world on a daily basis. I have an idea. I develop a brief proposal. I complete the basic elements of the proposal so I can articulate it's scope, impact, cost and how I will demonstrate leadership. I get feedback on the proposal, make changes and resubmit my modified proposal. I get the proposal approved. I know create my DETAILED plan, based on my approved proposal, to show how I will accomplish all that I have articulated in the proposal. I get feedback on the detailed plan, make changes and resubmit my modified detailed plan. I get approved. Result: Beneficiary, unit lead and district/council have seen both my proposal AND project plan (detailed) and APPROVED them. They are award of how I will accomplish my plan and can evaluate me based on my results as articulated in my final report. It is a quantitative process which has measurable milestones.

I agree @fredjohnson, Scouts should be evaluated solely on the leadership demonstrated during the planning and execution of the project. But having a complete process which requires evidence of detailed planning, does not necessary mean that BSA needs to create an onerous documentation requirement. What is currently in place is sufficient, they just need to put an approval of the project plan. HOWEVER, there needs to be a mechanism in place at the council level to make sure this process is consistent and standardized. Because if BSA doesn't we end up with people like @@andysmom has to deal with... Sounds like she's a great candidate for a BSA class on how to be an Eagle Coordinator. She simply cannot require anyone to come to her class. She can certainly require a meeting to approve the proposal, but her role is not coach, it's district/council rep to review and approve. A few things: No one approves the project plan and she cannot require it. She's clearly adding requirements. The project plan is NOT optional. The only time the word even shows up in the work book is in this sentence, "A project coach's involvement and review of your project plan is optional, but it can help you avoid many problems or mistakes." This means the review and involvement of the coach is optional, but the plan most certainly is not. If she rejects a project she needs to give a reason (if asked). The GTA says, "If requested by the Scout or his parent or guardian, an explanation of a proposal rejection will be provided in writing, with a copy sent to the council advancement chair and staff advisor. It will indicate reasons for rejection and suggestions concerning what can be done to achieve approval." Lastly, it is not "her" district. The GTA allows for someone else to pass judgement is she's incapable of being impartial or following the rules: "If the candidate believes he has been mistreated or his proposal wrongfully rejected, he will be provided a method of redress. This will include the opportunity for a second opinion and approval, either through another volunteer or professional advancement administrator, or the Scout executive, as determined by the council advancement committee or executive board." In short, she can pontificate all she wants to, but any parent and unit lead with a backbone would take her one and get council to appoint someone who will follow the rules. If she's throwing up road blocks the council needs to know. We had a similar issue once with a training chair. Several units tried to address the issue and she refused to hear our concerns and treated our guys like dung. So the units banded together and simply didn't participate in FOS that year. When asked why we told them. Within two months the council "retired" her, gave her a silver animal of some sort and found someone compassionate to fill her role.

My son took that out of the "usual" ECOH script when it was his turn. Instead, he re-arranged the script entirely to be funnier and more interactive. It became the script used for Eagles after that.

Sure it is. When you read all the applicable sections of the GTA and the Eagle workbook, it limits the scope and the instances under which an EBOR can reject a project or fail a candidate. Look at my example. If a Scout, beneficiary and unit lead follow ALL of the directions in the workbook AND follow the GTA to the letter, there would have to be a minuscule set of circumstances -- which would need to be quantified by the EBOR -- in order to reject of fail a candidate.

@@NJCubScouter, I think you are obfuscating a few things here. When the Beneficiary and the Unit Lead sign the report, they (the closest to the project) are attesting that the project meets requirement #5. On that we agree. When the Unit Lead signs requirement #5 in the Scout Handbook he is saying it is done. Completed. Signed off. Just like he has 50 times previously from Scout to Life. Signed = Done. Note the wording of requirement #7: "The applicant appeared before the Eagle Scout board of review on this date, and this application was approved". It does not say "review and approve the final report and Eagle project". It says the applicant "appeared" and the "application" was approved. Not the project. Not Requirement #5. But this statement is what we disagree on: "The EBOR has the authority to decide that in carrying out the project, the candidate did not demonstrate planning or leadership." This is ONLY in the event that the Scout, or those advising him, did not follow the processes outlined in the Eagle Workbook or GTA. Simply put, if I have a Scout that has followed EVERYTHING in the workbook and GTA to the letter, the EBOR better darn well rubber stamp his application approved. Why? They have no basis within the GTA to reject him. Any rejection has to be substantive and quantitative. Having followed all the processes I don't see how there could be any rejection. Now, go off the reservation? That's a TOTALLY different story entirely.

I get that. Remember, I said assuming a Scout, Beneficiary and Unit Lead follow the workbook and GTA to the letter, there's nothing an EBOR can do to the candidate...legally. Here's my problem with the whole Eagle process in a nutshell: Signing just the proposal, and not requiring an actual project plan AND approval, is silly. Much of this whole issue we are discussing can be avoided by mandating a proposal AND project plan, complete with detailed steps on how things will be done. Approvals of such proposals and plans should ONLY be rescinded if there is an obvious violation of rules OR if Requirement #5 is not met as spelled out in the proposal and plan. BSA's own literature consistently says that if a requirement or a blue card are signed off, then the award is considered earned. Yes, there are processes to follow if anything was signed off erroneously, but the process is clear. Sadly, as we've pointed it, that is not the same for Eagle Requirement #5. NOTE: I tell all my Eagle candidates that their proposal AND plan should, at length, discuss how they will demonstrate leadership during the planning, development and execution of their project. I have them focus on 5 quantitative and 5 qualitative things that will demonstrate this is accomplished. This way if anyone -- even a EBOR -- tries to discount what they've done, they will have to counter with substantive and concrete examples where the Scout failed to meet Requirement #5.

Now we have the GTA out of sync with the Eagle workbook and signature process, and that's my point. You cannot have just one sentence that says "the responsibility for success belongs to the Scout, and final evaluation is left to the board of review", but have other passages elsewhere advocating that once something has been signed off on it is considered earned. There is an inherent conflict. It should either say one or the other, having both leads to the very conflict we have now. I tell you, if an EBOR "failed" one of my guys, after having followed all the rules and guidelines laid down in the GTA, I'd be in his corner arguing all the way to National that they need to fix their GTA.

National Camping School training is good for some stuff like shooting sports, treks and COPE. https://www.ncsbsa.org/resources/ncs/2017%20Brochure.pdf NOLS is great for everything else. https://www.nols.edu/en/coursefinder/course_search/

Start with: Read the BSA Sweet Sixteen and Age Appropriate Guidelines. Make sure your adults and Scouts are trained. Adults will need first aid, WFRA and CPR. If you break up in to crews you will need two per crew. Make sure adults have all the optional online BSA training so they know weather, safe swim and safety afloat. You need to staff with proper adult:Scout ratios. Everyone needs proper gear. Everyone needs to be in shape. To be honest, you need a lot more help than you can get here and, frankly, not something you can do by googling or getting online help. If you've never done such a trek you need someone to sit down and walk you through all of the planning. You need someone who has done this before to spend HOURS with you so you can learn how to do this properly. Try your district or council, local outfitter or REI.

Discuss, yes. But they can only take action if proper processes and procedures, outlined in the GTA for Eagle and the project, were not followed. Otherwise, they can discuss all they want, but the rules have been followed and the EBOR can only say "approved".

But there would have to be a process not followed by the Scout, missed by the SM or some other issue that goes against other sections of the GTA applying to the project and Eagle rank. But assuming all the correct processes were followed in both the workbook and GTA, the EBOR cannot do anything about the project or Requirement #5, and that's my point.

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.

Interesting idea. I wonder, too, if BSA hasn't read through some of the tour plans -- or at least done an analysis of complete versus incomplete ones -- to determine if they are worthwhile. Since they are online and don't have a cost associated with them, I can't imagine it is a cost issue. Unless , of course, BSA has a group that reviews them or has to review them periodically for insurance purposes.

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: 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: 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.