New Life Requirement for our Troop.

[gilski]

Our troop has added Leading a Service Project to the Life requirements. This was done in an effort to prepare Scouts for their Eagle Project. They are not able to have SMC or BOR until they accomplish this task. Although it builds strong character some parents question this because it is an addition outside the clearly stated guidlines. Any thoughts?

[gwd-scouter]

Gilski, welcome to the Forum. I must say that as one of your first posts, this will certainly stir up some debate. Was that your intention or are you seriously asking if your troop's new requirement is OK?

 

A Star Scout working toward Life is required to do service project, but is not required to lead the project as he would doing his Eagle Project.

 

I understand your troop's desire to prepare your Scouts for Eagle, but please remember that we may not add, nor substract, from the advancement requirements.

[ScoutNut]

If this service project is ON TOP OF the requirement to take part in 6 hours of work on service project(s), then I am quite sure you know what the answer is. That would be adding to the requirements & would be overturned by your council if any family cared enough to complain to them.

 

If the service requirement has been changed to LEADING a service project at least 6 hours long, that is still changing the requirement. Even though it specifically states that the SM has to approve the hours, it also states that the boy must WORK 6 hours (not just supervise) & that it can be an individual or group project & that working on other Scouts Eagle projects would qualify.

[OldGreyEagle]

As mentioned, this is adding to the requirements which may be NOT done no matter how well intended

 

(Ok so I added the NOT) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[scoutldr]

I'm sure OGE meant to say "may NOT be done".

 

If a scout chooses not to do this, there's nothing you can do about it. This probably won't present a problem until someone challenges your unit's right to do this and appeals to the Advancement Committee. Then they win. Push comes to shove, your unit's charter can be revoked.

[evmori]

Nope. That would be adding to the requirements which isn't allowed. Nope.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[nldscout]

gilski,

You might as well squash this right now and not waste anymore of the troops time on this added requirement.

 

Why is it no matter how many times leaders are told not to add requirements they tigure the rules don't apply to them

[John-in-KC]

Gilski,

 

I have to agree with others here: This is adding to the BSA program, and thus is out of bounds.

 

May I suggest pointing this out politely to your CC and SM. If they don't listen, talk to your COR, the District Advancement Chairman, and your UC.

 

If they continue not to listen, the youth need to go into another Troop!

 

BTW,

 

If a Scout wants to be "ready" to design, develop, and execute his Eagle Leadership Service Project, encourage him to take Family Life, Personal Fitness, and Personal Management before getting Life.

 

Why?

 

All three have long-term record-keeping within their curricula. The records help teach time and activity management.

(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Double Eagle]

Why this added requirement? Just to prepare them for their eagle project is hogwash. Suppose we (all BSA) had this. Whether "successfully" led or not, he can still check the block. Then what happens if he did a poor job preparing/leading this life project? I would fight this all the way through council. If the life requirements change, I'll fully support them, if not, leave the "required"-leading-a-project to the eagle candidate. I would encourage all life scouts to lead a project before their Eagle Project, before making a star scout do this. Too much, too soon, and not needed as the additional requirement on the trail to eagle. It seems like they are having problems in the leadership development, or leadership issues on projects. This is not your solution to these problems.

[LongHaul]

First my browser or the forum will not allow me to format my post so I cant use bold font or italicize. Please bear with me.

 

Supervising is not working? Ive got a lot of management personnel who would take issue with that position. If the new requirement is in addition to the existing requirement 4 then it is, by definition, adding to the requirements. If it is a condition for approval of a project to be considered for requirement 4 then it could be considered acceptable as I read the following requirement.

For Star and Life ranks, a Scout must perform 6 hours of service to others. This may be done as an individual project or as a member of a patrol or troop project. Star and Life service projects may be approved for Scouts assisting on Eagle service projects. The Scoutmaster approves the project before it is started. (Source: 33215F - page 20)

The operative part of that statement is the last sentence. If the SM will only approve projects which require the Star Scout to lead a project that would be within the SMs right in deciding what will and will not be considered as approvable. The SM should be consistent in approving projects, what is acceptable for Scout A should be acceptable for Scout B, but that is not mandated or stipulated in the requirements publication. The word "may" found in the second and third sentences of the statement can not be taken to mean "must", which is found only in the first sentence. Just because a SM "may" approve work to be done does not mean that he/she "must" approve said work. The requirement states that a Scout must perform 6 hours of service and that the SM approves the project before it is started. All else is at the discretion of the SM.

 

If we were to replace the word "may" with the word "must" in the second sentence then any project or service rendered as part of a non scout group would not qualify for consideration. Work performed by the scout as a member of a church group, social club, school association, youth service group or just a bunch of local young adults with civic pride would be unacceptable. The requirements are left open to interpretation by the SM to accommodate the individual scout and the abilities and challenges of that scout. What constitutes service to others? How do we calculate the 6 hours? Do we include preparation or clean up? If materials were required do we include time spent acquiring the materials? For the SM to narrow the scope of what qualifies does not in itself constitute adding to the requirements, otherwise why require pre approval if any service qualifies? If not all service qualifies then who draws the lines and using what criteria? Many wish to cry adding to the requirements simply because thats not how their troop does it. Just because something is not expressly permitted does not mean it is expressly forbidden.

LongHaul

 

[John-in-KC]

LH,

 

The issue here is the way Mr or Ms Gilski gave us the info. If all is as it's written, then there is more work to do than simply doing service time.

 

To me, at 2d Class, Star, and Life, the idea is to inculcate the habit of service by doing just that: Serving. For these projects, the scout is part of the labor pool.

 

Only at Eagle does the requirement become design, coordinate, obtain approval for, and execute...

 

One of the problems I see, though is the "but we did out service hours..." whine. The habit is not yet ingrained.

[evmori]

The other issue is the requirement doesn't state the Scout must lead or show leadership to complete the requirement. If a SM is requiring this, he/she is adding to the requirement and that is a BIG no no.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

Also, you have to read the words of the requirement together. It clearly states that "For Star and Life ranks, a Scout must perform 6 hours of service to others. This may be done as an individual project or as a member of a patrol or troop project." I don't think this gives the SM to refuse to approve a project just because the candidate isn't leading it--i.e., if he's just a "member" of a troop project. I suspect this is yet another troop trying to slow down boys who might otherwise advance to higher ranks "too soon."

[LongHaul]

Yes Ed, but it also does not say that he should not lead or show leadership. If we have to read things as written and never dare to interperate intent then what ever standards a SM uses to decide what will or will not be accepted should not be considered adding to the requirements just because it's not specificaly specified in the text. Tenderfoot requirements state that you must sleep in a tent you helped pitch. No where does it specify where that tent should be so setting up a free standing tent in my TV room qualifies? Campout means exactly what? Look up camp in a dictionary and tell me where it says it can't be in my house. Out can, in terms of BSA policy, mean anywhere other than the normal meeting place. In another thread you said I should have accepted a budget of all zeros, why not apply that same latitude to what a SM should be allowed to require for approval of a project? Are we only adding to the requirements if we are asking the scout to do something he doesn't want to? Why doesn't the sword cut both ways? Service to others could be taken to mean service to those you are leading as well as those benifiting from the work. It doesn't say that service projects must not get progressivly more demanding as you progress in rank but it doesn't say that they shall not. We must give the adult the same extent of latitude we do the scout.

LongHaul

[Eagledad]

>>If a SM is requiring this, he/she is adding to the requirement and that is a BIG no no.