Eagle Denial

[MinnSM]

I need the help and advice of my fellow scouters. I don't know where to turn to help a fine scout.

 

I am the scoutmaster of a scout that has apparently hit the wall in his path to Eagle. He joined scouting as a Tiger Cub and has been extremely active. He just turned 18. He's a great kid, leader and friend to everyone in the troop, elected to OA when first eligible, attended council level junior leader training, SPL for one year (2 years ago), active camper, Philmont, captain of his sailing team, coaches youth sailing, good student etc. etc. etc.

 

Problem is he moved ahead on his Eagle project without the formal signature of our district advancement chairperson. The scout did not follow instructions in the packet and forged ahead with some e-mail feedback as "go ahead but with these changes". He then carried out a good project and received the needed troop and advisor sign offs. He had all signatures (except the one), completed all other requirements, had his letters, but was told that there was no hope, and there would be no district Board of Review. There was no consideration of any of his other qualifications, just denial based on the lack of the signature which I believe is intended to make sure scouts don't select a wrong project and fail on it.

 

He knows he screwed up. He clearly understands he didn't follow procedure, regrets and takes responsibility for his error. He would have done another project, however, he was within days of his 18th birthday when he was informed there would be no signature. He's willing to take remedial action if asked.

 

It seems a real shame, and counter to the original goals Baden-Powell set for scouting that some procedural error is going to destroy this kid. I know he has learned a life lesson through this adventure. I don't want him to learn that he can't make mistakes and correct them. It is wrong to me that he is being judged on one ill timed mistake. What's important here, the kid, ideals of scouting, or a rigid format intended to help the scout? Some help!

 

As a scoutmaster I've helped troubled kids, bullies, thieves, etc. work through issues and achieve the Eagle rank. They made their mistakes earlier in their scouting experience. I have trouble believing we will publically punish a fine young man to protect the honor of all of us old Eagle Scouts.

 

I'm worried about the lasting message this sends to him, his fellow troop members, our scouting families, and the boys we are trying to recruit. I am also questioning my association with a group that appears to have lost its focus on the original ideals of scouting in favor of rigid inflexible rules.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts, advice, and any help you might offer.

[OldGreyEagle]

Tough situation and an eloquent write-up. Have him appeal the decision through the District, Council and National if need be. I would love to see how this turns out.

[scoutldr]

I'm afraid the scout may be in for a hard life lesson. "I didn't read the directions" is not likely to be met with much sympathy, unless perhaps, he was ill-advised by an adult mentor. As my troop's "Eagle mentor", I am VERY careful to make sure they understand that NO work may begin until the approvals are obtained.

[CalicoPenn]

MinnSM - First, welcome to the forum.

 

Does the lad still have copies of the e-mails from the District Advancement Chairman stating he could go ahead with his project with the changes requested? I hope so - if he does, get them printed up and run to the Council Advancement Chairman to appeal the decision of the DAC. Despite the lack of a formal signature on the form, an e-mail approval from the DAC to start his project would certainly seem to me to be all the approval he needs and suggests that the DAC was willing to sign off on the form.

 

Don't get discouraged yet - talk to the folks at Council - they may very well be ready to help.

 

CalicoPenn

[Trevorum]

MinnSM, welcome to the forums.

 

I agree with Calico's interpretation of the emails. If he does not have them, he should ask his ISP - they may retain emails (for law enforcement reasons?) I dunno.

 

Anyway, who said, "there would be no BoR?" I think the district advancement chair is being highly unreasonable. I suggest a face-to face between you and the council advancement person. If that doesn't work, talk to the SE. Hold the EBoR. If it is rejected by Council, then appeal to National. I have a 99% feeling that this is the type of case that would be a no-brainer for National. The scout made a mistake, yes, but he should not be penalized for the rest of his life.

[eagle_scout98]

If the Scout has made a mistake and he was the only one then he may be out of luck.

 

If the DAC screwed up because he didn't sign but gave all of the approval through other means then it shouldn't be the boy's fault.

 

DON'T PUNISH THE YOUTH FOR MISTAKES ADULTS MAKE.

 

The youth move through the program with the understanding that the adults will direct them in the right ways.

[MinnSM]

So, I had a scout who stole thousands of $$ worth of stuff at scout camp. He was caught, confessed under pressure, made restitution, and was put on probation with the troop. He sought counseling, made his peace with the troop and did everything the troop asked during the probation period. He got his Eagle.

So we don't give the Eagle to the scout who didn't get a signature, but did a project that the DAC said via e-mail would "certainly qualify"???? Do we follow the rules for the rules sake, or do what is right?

[evmori]

Completely different situations, MinnSM.

 

If this Scout didn't follow the instructions, that is his fault. If the DAC gave his approval via e-mail before this Scout started his project but never signed the packet, that is the fault of both the DAC & the Scout and the DAC should realize what happened & agree there was some miscommunication & move ahead with the BOR.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Even a verbal message over the phone should suffice for him to start...waiting for the signature at a later date. We have done this plenty of times. The email would be more solid evidence of getting this 'approval' but if I was the DAC I'd be willing to admit my approval even in the absence of the emails.

Ed, considering that whatever lessons to be learned from this have already been learned by the boy, what is to be gained by denying this advancement? How does this benefit the boy? How does this benefit BSA?

And please, please, don't come off sounding like Bob White.

[evmori]

Pack,

 

I would never sound like Bob White!

 

What is to be gained by denying this advancement?

 

I don't know if anything is to be gained. What it does do is stress the importance of reading and following the directions.

 

How does this benefit the boy?

 

By reminding him of the importance of following the directions.

 

How does this benefit BSA?

 

Do know that it does.

 

I really think the DAC & Scout should be able to work this out without either side caving in to the other.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[CA_Scouter]

How does this benefit the boy?

 

By reminding him of the importance of following the directions.

 

 

No, this does not remind him of the importance of following directions. What this young man will take from scouting is 'I got screwed out of my Eagle award'.

 

Yes, its a mistake on his part ( and maybe some adults along the way ). But we make compromises on all kinds of little stuff like this all the time. Something seemingly this minor should be able to be worked out.

 

For those of you who say 'tough luck', I think you might be whistling a different tune if it was your kid in this situation...

 

 

 

 

 

[FScouter]

The purpose of the board of review is to determine if all the requirements have been met, and if the candidate has the character and Scout spirit to carry on in his life as an Eagle. The chairman is essentially holding a 1-man BOR, with no discussion with the candidate, and determining the candidate is not worthy based on only one piece of evidence.

 

A better approach would be to hold the board of review with a group and through in-depth discussion determine if the candidate completed the requirements and is worthy of the rank. The review should certainly include discussion about why the candidate failed to follow the established procedure, along with discussion of all other topics a board needs to make a proper evaluation.

[jr56]

If the DAC did indeed give his approval via e-mails, verify it as much as possible, and file an appeal to the council. Good luck.

[LongHaul]

Over and over we have discussed and debated the meet the requirements as written, no additions or omissions. The requirement states that the project should not be done until the 4 specific signatures are obtained. How does the scout and scouting in general benefit if we as leaders allow boys to circumvent the requirements. MinnSm first says the DAC wrote, and used quotation marks which would indicate exact wording, go ahead but with these changes but in a later post used the phrase again in quotes would certainly qualify. The first could be interpreted as approval but the second? The question remains did the scout receive approval of the DAC before he started his project? The actions of the DAC would indicate that the DAC does not think so. Do we force the DAC to include a disclaimer or qualifier to all his correspondence and verbal conversations to indicate that these do not necessarily constitute consent or approval? If a scout says to the DAC I want to repair and renovate the war memorial in front of city hall and the DAC says That sound like a great project. Did the scout just get approval to begin the project? What I see as the question here is what constitutes prior approval? Have other scouts been allowed to begin on a verbal or email OK? Do we have past practice on this? The fact that none of us wants to deny a scout advancement if the intent of the requirements were met should not take precedent over the actual requirements. Why is the Eagle Project Workbook written to require the 4 signatures before beginning? What are we trying to teach or develop in the scout with this project? Is failure to receive prior approval a deal breaker? I recommend appealing the actions or decision of the DAC as far up the chain as is necessary to obtain a definitive ruling as to whether prior approval was indeed given AND/OR whether the scout was in a position to believe he, the scout, had received prior approval when in fact the DAC did not intend his mail or conversation to be taken as formal approval.

LongHaul

 

[EagleInKY]

The big question is whether the lad was trying to beat the system or not. I have an Eagle Candidate that tried some trickery like this. He told the DAC that I had approved his project, but was out of town and unable to sign it. The DAC went ahead and approved it. The truth was, I had not approved it, but had asked for some additional details.

 

When I told the DAC this fact, he offered to revoke his approval and make the boy start back at square one. Since I had a pretty rocky history with the family, I chose not to do that.