Is Eagle Candidate Considered To Be "Active" When Last Campout Was 1-1/2 Yrs Ago?

[dluders]

I have a nearly-15-year-old Life Scout in my troop who's working on his Eagle Project again after a 1-year delay. His last troop campout was over 1-1/2 years ago (in Oct 2005). He attends about 1/3 of the troop meetings, due to conflicts with other activities. As his Scoutmaster, should I consider him to be "active" for the purposes of rank advancement to Eagle Scout? Why or why not?

 

[NOTE: Our troop does have a policy in this regard, but I'd like to solicit the opinion of experienced Scouters nationwide when I'm asked to justify my answer to the Scouters in my troop.]

[John-in-KC]

Let's go back to BSA Requirements #33215 and the BSA Eagle Application (Bin Item #58-728A-2006 Edition). What do they say?

 

BSA Requirement 1: Be active in your troop and patrol for at least 6 months as a Life Scout.

 

BSA Eagle App Requirement 1: Be active in your troop, team, crew, or ship for a period of at least six months after you have achieved the rank of Life Scout.

 

I don't see anything on the app about WHEN the six months of activity is completed. If early in his tenure as a Life Scout, a former SM of the troop signed off on the requirement, then it's done.

 

My District Advancement Chairman has told me this story, more than once: There was a Life Scout who complained of prejuidice in advancement against him. The DE asked the COR if the District could investigate. The COR said yes. The DAC investigated, and determined there was a prejuidice in the unit against the Scout. The DAC withdrew the authority of the unit to advance the Scout. A SM conference was held for the boy by another unit. An EBOR was convened totally of District EBOR guests. The Scout earned his Eagle.

 

Neither add to, nor subtract from.

 

My thoughts. Others will have different thoughts.

 

YIS

[dluders]

Just to clarify the specific situation about this Life Scout:

 

a) He became a Life Scout at a Board of Review on Feb 8, 2005.

b) He has had the same Scoutmaster (me) for the past 3-1/3 years.

c) He was much more involved in troop campouts, meetings, & other activities before his last campout 1-1/2 years ago (in Oct 2005).

[evmori]

Has he held a POR?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Lisabob]

I agree with John re: the simple answer - if he met the official requirements (active for at least 6 months as a Life Scout, no matter when those 6 months were) then you shouldn't hold him back based on this criterion. If you have a troop policy that contradicts the BSA advancement policy then you should ask whether your troop policy is valid to begin with; as John suggests, you'd probably lose any challenge that the scout made to the District under those circumstances.

 

Still I think it makes sense to have a conversation with this boy about what it means to be an Eagle, how it is impossible to be a leader when you aren't there, etc.. He may not fully understand the expectations that go with the rank. Or, he may have good reasons for being absent from your camp outs. To me, the fact that he is attending 1/3 of the troop meetings even though he hasn't camped with you in a year and a half is, frankly, astounding and suggests he still cares about scouting. Otherwise he'd have been missing from those meetings too - not very many boys stay in scouts for the meetings!

 

And as a matter of practical advice you might point out to him that he should consider being more active in the present tense if he expects his troop-mates to help him on his Eagle project. After all, many of them probably joined the troop since his last camp out and they probably won't be as inclined to lend a hand if they don't know him.

[FScouter]

See, now you've got yourself in a pickle. You have a boy who has a Boy Scout Handbook and an Eagle rank application which tell him the requirement is be active for 6 months. Then you have a troop policy that no doubt conflicts with the the requirements the boy has. (Elsewise why would the troop write a policy unless it was different from the book.)

 

So now the dilemna is how to tell the boy the book and application requirements don't apply, or how to tell the troop their policy is not allowed.

[SR540Beaver]

Just for funnsies, I'd like to know what the "invalid" Troop policy is.

[NeilLup]

Hello dluders,

 

Per your post, if the Scout made Life in February of 2005 and was active in the Troop until October of 2005, he has met the "active" requirement for Eagle Scout.

 

If he held some position of responsibility during that period, he has met that requirement for Eagle Scout also.

 

Nowhere in the requirements does it say or imply that the 6 month active service must be immediatly prior to his Eagle Board of review.

 

If he is nearly 15 in April of 2007, then he made Life Scout at TWELVE! That's pretty doggone active. Someone was really pushing -- the Scout, his parents, your unit or some combination. Is that someone now pushing him to do other things for high school, college, etc. (Do I hear the gentle whoop, whoop of the blades of helicopter parents in the background?)

 

As was said, if he is attending 1/3 of the meetings, either he likes something about Scouting or else he is doing just enough to not be considered dropped out.

 

What to do? I believe that National policy is that IF you reject the boy based on some percentage attendance at meetings or campouts, particularly after he did meet the requirements while a Life Scout and IF the boy would appeal, the appeal would be upheld. A couple of ifs there. Appeals are rare.

 

Do you know what the boy is doing and if it truly precludes him being more active? I would imagine that if, for example, he were a national calibre concert pianist and had concerts and recitals every weekend, this would be considered an appropriate use of his time and not attending campouts would not be a problem.

 

You certainly can and should have a Scoutmaster's Conference with him. You can discuss with him the need to display Scout Spirit and state that if he attends no campouts and few meetings, it is difficult for him to show Scout Spirit in a way that the Troop can notice. You can have a frank discussion of why he is not attending more and see if some resolution can be worked out.

 

The Scout himself can always say that he needs to do more and not apply for the rank. But if the Troop takes this action precipitously, the Scout can appeal. If so, the worst thing that happens is that the boy is passed by the appeal group. That does not mean that the Troop's policies would not remain in place until the next boy appeals. You need to create the policies that you think are appropriate for your Troop and if an appeal happens, it happens.

 

Another important principle is "no surprises." It would be highly inappropriate for the this Scout to be turned down at his SM conference or Board of Review with no prior warning that he is not meeting expectations. You need to talk with him and perhaps with his parents about what those expectations are. They then can do what they consider proper which could mean complying with your expectations, dropping out, finding another Troop or appealing.

[FScouter]

"You can discuss with him the need to display Scout Spirit and state that if he attends no campouts and few meetings, it is difficult for him to show Scout Spirit in a way that the Troop can notice. "

 

Just a wandering thought - Is a Scout only required to show Scout spirit at meetings and campouts, and how many are needed so the troop can take adequate notice? Or do we assume he is also showing Scout spirit at non-Scout times as well? Or is it possible for a Scout to have great Scout spirit at non-Scout times but poor Scout spirit at meetings and campouts?

 

[emb021]

"I have a nearly-15-year-old Life Scout in my troop who's working on his Eagle Project again after a 1-year delay. His last troop campout was over 1-1/2 years ago (in Oct 2005). He attends about 1/3 of the troop meetings, due to conflicts with other activities. As his Scoutmaster, should I consider him to be "active" for the purposes of rank advancement to Eagle Scout? Why or why not?"

 

While your concern is valid (most organizations clearly define active membership to mean attending a minimum # of meetings/events), this question has come up every so often on-line.

 

Per National, their only definition of 'active' is 'registered in the troop'. As far as they are concerned, if this boy is on the troop roster, they are active.

 

If push comes to shove, and you denie this boy advancement and its appealed, National will go with the above definition.

[CalicoPenn]

I think we've discussed this before - National seems to consider "active" to be synonomous with "registered", not with quality/quantity of "activity", and has used the appeals process in the past to bolster this position. Since this seems to be the position of National, then "Be active in your troop and patrol for at least 6 months as a Life Scout" would be properly read to mean that they have to wait 6 months from the time they earn Life to the time they can earn Eagle - and they must be a dues paying registered member during this time. Your troops policies? They don't apply - they would never hold up in an appeal. Now some may come back that being active means doing things with your troop and patrol, but what of the SPL or ASPL or Troop Guide, or JASM that is also earning their Eagle - how can they be active in their patrol when they have no patrol - the requirement says troop AND patrol - that would seem to mean certain troop office holders wouldn't be eligible to become Eagle - something the BSA does not intend.

 

What it all boils down to is will you, as an adult, put roadblocks in the way of someone who is working on their Eagle - based on what you've written, he was active by the common definition we all know for at least 6 months as a Life Scout so should be passed on that. The suggestion that he might want to bump up his activity level a bit if he expects to get Scout help with his Eagle project is a good one, but keep in mind that there is nothing in the requirements stating the people he should be leading in his Eagle project should be, need to be, or even may be Scouts - he can lead a group of 30 year old carpenters and he can meet the requirements.

 

Calico

[FScouter]

Its been said several times before, and again today, that "active" or "serve actively" means nothing more than being registered, "per National". Can someone cite a written BSA source for this position?

[epalmer84]

Andy over at the NetCommish has a very good article on this:

 

http://netcommish.com/AskAndy95.asp

 

Ed

[OldGreyEagle]

Not to belabor the point, I have a question that has yet to be asked. If there is an issue with the scout, why is he working on an Eagle project? The scoutmaster and a committee member had to have met with him and approved the project, the scout has met with the sponsoring organization and received District approval for the project and he might not be allowed to attain the Eagle rank? When is this going to be brought to the youth's attention?

[John-in-KC]

Dluders,

 

Let me see if I can summarize our feedback to you (it's a gift!) thus far:

 

- Most of the Scouters here think this young Scout has met his six month "serve actively" requirement.

 

- We have not discussed if he has met the standard of serving in a POR yet, and leave that for another discussion. We don't have information from you on this matter.

 

- Most of the Scouters here want to know your Troop policy on "serve actively." Collectively, we think your Troop is at risk of losing any debates about the Scouts' advancement to Eagle.

 

- Several Scouters here want to know why this young mans' Eagle Leadership Service Project passed muster with the SM and the CC, if internal policies are driving him toward a unit level rejection of his Eagle app for "serving actively."

 

- Several Scouters believe a Scoutmaster's Conference between you and this young man is in order, the sooner the better. I'll add myself into this group.

 

- The Scout in question BLAZED his way from TF-Life, and has slown down a bit to explore life. What does the "whole man" picture of this young man look like? What is wrong with that?

 

YIS