Help Eagle advancement DENIAL

[evmori]

Here's the problem I have with this, NeilLup. It has been posted he was caught shoplifting. It is also possible he and/or his parents can't talk about this because the case is not finalized. And it is also possible they won't talk about it. And there is a good possibility they will lie about what happened to secure this Scout his Eagle.

 

If I was on this EBOR, I would vote no.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[John-in-KC]

Ed,

 

As Beavah has more than once told us, we don't know how much we don't know here.

 

The guy asking for help is a District Advancement Chair. He's obviously hit the wall in terms of a quandry.

 

Not our job to vote this one; what we can do is help him prepare an EBOR, that if it goes the denial path, will be as close to non-appealable as anything out there.

 

That means...

 

- Having a certain amount of factfinding.

 

- Having appeal-proof procedures when the Board does convene.

 

- Making sure the next layer of key players are "in the loop" as this plays out.

 

Come to think of it, there are two other folk who need to be in the loop: The Professional who advises the Council Advancement Chair, and the Council Registrar. They both should have all manner of connections.

[packsaddle]

This broken record is about to skip again, sorry.

In our area this is what pre-trial intervention is all about. At 17.5 he would be eligible for this if someone would merely press charges. The eagle rank is really not that important compared with this boy's entire future life. At age 17.5 he has so far learned that he can commit a crime and merely apologize. Six months older he will likely have a similar mindset and the punishment will not allow for any kind of intervention, he will incur a permanent record, and he may do time. The difference is profound for the sake of his life and the eagle rank is unimportant in comparison.

 

I know of honor students with no priors in this community, who have made a similar poor choice thinking it was of no real consequence. PTI was brought to bear and believe me, getting cuffed at the front door by the police, getting fingerprinted and sitting in jail, waiting to get bailed out by parents, and then standing in front of a very stern judge with the power to really, really change one's life is a much more powerful lesson than a letter of apology. At his current age, the message would be loud and clear, "THIS option is closed for your future, be advised."

However, as Beavah also has mentioned, I recognize that PTI doesn't necessarily work well everywhere as it does here. But I mention it as one possible way to proceed.

 

As for eagle rank, inform the BOR, let them do the review and then vote in whatever manner their conscience will allow. And then honor their decision.

[NeilLup]

Agree, packsaddle, but of what do you inform the BOR?

 

1) The boy has been "caught" shoplifting? You better have photos, a witness or some other such incontrovertible evidence/data

2) There is a rumor that the Scout has been caught shoplifting? I'm not sure how I would react to that if I were the board? That's why I suggested my third option

3a) There is a rumor that the Scout has been caught shoplifting. We looked into it and to our satisfaction, it is only a rumor and appears not to be true OR

3b) There is a rumor that the Scout has been caught shoplifting. We looked into it and we are not able to confirm or deny the rumor to our satisfaction. The Scout and his family (did/did not) cooperate with us in attempting to address this rumor.

 

What exactly would you say to the BOR?

 

Neil

[packsaddle]

In this case, the leader knows something without doubt. There was a crime. There was a confession. There was an apology.

 

There is an expectation that a BOR will render a fair decision. There is no expectation that a BOR will do this in an uninformed manner. If, for example, a member of the board asks if the boy has ever stolen anything, I would demand an honest and complete answer from the boy.

Although the leader is not supposed to be a member of the board, the leader is entitled to attend. If I was the leader, I would inform the boy of my intent to attend, and my expectation that he will inform the board of the facts of his poor decision. I will demand that he answer questions honestly.

 

This sounds biased and it is. But it is biased toward getting the boy to honestly speak to the issue in his own words. It is biased against keeping the board in the dark, by causing the information to be given from the primary source.

But the question to me is a hypothetical. And I can't know for sure how it would work in real life. But this is one way I can envision handling it and I'm open to other suggestions.

[scoutldr]

"In this case, the leader knows something without doubt. There was a crime. There was a confession. There was an apology."

 

If this is indeed true, then there should not be an EBOR. The SM should not sign the application because all of the requirements have not been met, to wit, Scout Spirit. When you knowingly commit a criminal or immoral act, you should permanently forfeit your right to be held up as a role model to all other scouts. When the SM signs the application, he is certifying, on HIS honor, to the EBOR, the Council, the National Council (and to ALL the Eagle Scouts who have come before), and to the general public, that "this Scout is worthy of Scouting's highest honor, the title of Eagle Scout."

 

Someone asked me in a previous post why my Scouting career is coming to a close...this type of thing is in the top 10 reasons. I have witnessed more than one instance lately where the term "Eagle Scout" is a joke. It no longer has prestige and honor to those who receive it...just another resume entry...check the block and move on to the next spoonfeeding.

 

Harsh, maybe...but as a Scout and Scouter since 1963, those are my thoughts.

 

[packsaddle]

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I was under the impression that the sign-off had already occurred before the crime. And that the issue was being dealt with by the Eagle advancement chair for the district. Am I wrong?

Another puzzling aspect is the mention of a 'followup' BOR. Was there already a BOR as well? If so he must have failed. In that case, case closed.

Or is the 'followup' BOR the official BOR required for the rank? In that case I may have understood correctly. Maybe some clarification by ketchome is needed.

 

Edited part: repeated word(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutldr]

Good point, pack. I was assuming that the DAC was anticipating the upcoming EBOR on which he would be sitting, and trying to plot out what to do following the "no" vote. After re-reading the thread, I'm not sure either. But that doesn't change my position.

[NeilLup]

Hello Packsaddle,

 

I believe that ketchome's original post said:

 

At a recent mulit-unit outing the boy in question is supposed to have shoplifted an item and was caught. He wrote a letter of apology and the matter was "hushed." I have also heard but not confirmed that at a previous scout camp a similar situation occured. I am working on confirmation. The boy is 18"

 

Key word there being SUPPOSED. I interpret this to mean that ketchome has no definitive information. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

He is in a position of dealing with a situation where there are rumors and matters were "hushed." Absent a copy of the letter of apology or some other form of confirmation, I would say that he needs to deal with rumor and not with fact.

[packsaddle]

He subsequently confirmed it in a followup post. I was going by that.

 

"By the way the shiplifting issue has been confirmed at this point, he was 17 1/2 when the incident took place."

 

Edited part: ketchome, are you still reading this thread? We could use a little clarification here...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[ketchome]

Well thank you for all of your responces. Many were very insightful. But at this point I think that I have gotten to the very bottom of the situation. I have been aided in my meger investigation by the boy's unit committee chair. He is also one of my standard memebers of the EBOR. This incident was handled completely out of court and informally by the unit and council. And now the most important piece of information. This incident took place 4 years ago. Why it was brought up now by one of the unit scouters has yet to be answered.

The final story:

At a multi council event several (4) boys were in a store. One or more boys were seen by a patron, by-stander or clerk taking some candy. Being in uniform the wittness was able to write down the unit and council number and name. Council was contacted and in turn council contacted the unit. After questioning the boys who attended the event the boy(s) who was involved in the theft confessed and wrote a letter of apology. End of story. I did the math and that made the boy 13 at the time of the incident. This sheds a whold new light on the responce for the EBOR. I believe that one of the members of the EBOR may question him about the incident but in a different light, asking him what he may have learned from the incident or how it may have changed his life. At age 13 we do much dumber things and if there have been no further incidents and there is no pattern the EBOR should also consider it a learning experence for this young man.

Again thank you for all of your very insightful responces they made very good reading. Maybe my explaination will be more fodder for further threads.

Ketchome

[packsaddle]

That helped a lot, as a matter of fact. For me it moves the whole matter to the 'past history, lesson learned' category. Case closed. Let the EBOR proceed normally. When I look back on age 13, no...better not go there...I wish the boy success.

[evmori]

Now that makes a difference! As packsaddle said, proceed with the EBOR!

[NeilLup]

I concur completely. It appears you did an excellent job of obtaining information and determining how to proceed.

 

I would even comment that if someone on the EBOR suggests that he should be turned down because of the 4 years ago incident, I believe that is inappropriate. If the incident were that severe, he should not have received earlier rank advancements. You can't pass a boy for 1st Class, Star, Life in spite of a negative incident and then at Eagle decide that the boy is unworthy.

[John-in-KC]

Good work on the factfinding. I'd sure like to know the animus the Scouter who brought things up had against the Scout.

 

Yes, I've not been thrilled with a few young men who approached Eagle. I just stayed away from their EBOR.