Eagle BOR – passed without POR

[Mike F]

In a recent discussion with Eagle BOR Chair, I learned they passed an almost-18 yr old candidate although it came out in discussion that he had only served in one position of responsibility for one 6-month term while a First Class Scout and was given advancement credit for Star, Life, and Eagle.

 

The Board said the troop adult leadership were the ones who made a mistake and they couldnt penalize the Scout. I questioned the purpose of the Board of Review if they werent going to ensure the requirements had been met and act accordingly, but they vaguely suggested this direction came from Council.

 

Your thoughts?

 

[evmori]

While it does sound like the adult leadership of this unit dropped the ball, the Scout should hold some responsibility for knowing he didn't complete all the requirements, too.

[Beavah]

Yah, the trend has been that at the upper levels, they cave to the boy and the family in almost every case. That direction has been comin' out of the Boy Scouting advancement office in Irving since Terry Lawson. In most cases, it's just because they don't want to deal with the argument, the publicity, the threats or reality of frivolous lawsuits and the like.

 

Lots of councils have been followin' that lead. Yeh even hear it quite a bit on forums here, eh? The notion that not giving a boy an award is "penalizing" the boy. In fact the only thing that penalizes the boy's growth and character development is givin' him an award he hasn't earned. These are the folks who think it's better to give out high school diplomas than it is to make a lad go back and learn how to read.

 

Yah, so I guess that makes my position clear, eh? I think the EBOR failed to do its job, subtracted from the requirements, violated the BSA's Rules and Regulations, and most importantly hurt the kid and the program. I'd want to re-educate or remove 'em. Sad fact, though, is that their attitude is pretty pervasive these days, and is comin' from the top. So whether you're able to fix it just depends a lot on the integrity of the local folks in your council.

 

To be fair and balanced, though, it's a hard choice if you're lookin' at what appears to be a fine young man, a good scout who has done a worthwhile leadership project and has the recommendation of his troop, but somethin' like this comes up, eh? Doesn't excuse it (why not file for an extension?), but does make it understandable.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[ScoutNut]

If true, the EBOR, council, his Troop, his SM, his Troop Committee, and every BOR from Star up has done this boy a huge disservice.

 

Because this was done to him, he was made to feel it was ok to lie on his Eagle Application. He was taught it is OK to lie because everyone around him lied also.

 

If true - What a shame, and NOT at all what we should be teaching boys.

 

Unfortunately, if this is true, with his Troop backing him up, there is nothing that can be done at this stage of the game for this boy.

 

However, there IS something you can do for the Scouts in YOUR unit. You can make sure that your Troop follows the BSA program, and the youth in your Troop get the best BSA program possible.

 

 

 

[scoutldr]

As someone who frequently sits on EBORs, the EBOR charter is to ensure that the requirements for EAGLE have been met...not to go back and ensure that the requirements for STAR or LIFE have been met. That being said, if the POR for Eagle (6 months since earning Life) was not done, the Scout would get a NO vote from me, regardless of whose fault it was. Let the appeal board waive the requirement...that's above my pay grade.

[Buffalo Skipper]

Not to point fingers, but the two biggest failures here are the Scoutmaster and the Scout. How can a SM sign of Life and then Eagle without a POR? Prehaps more importantly though, this is the scout's repsonsibility. Knowing that he was not filling the requirement for a POR, why would he have even asked for a SM conference? Obviously (to me) the scout must have been completely familiar with the requirements for Eagle, as he did jump through all the right hoops for his ESLP.

 

I agree with Scoutldr on this one. BoR should say no and let if necessary, let it be apealed. There is no "appeal" before the BoR. I will add that this troop's leadership needs to really be look at itself closely; they should be paid a visit by their UC; and their COR should be brought in as well to look into issues of training and more.

[Bob White]

While youare correct the Scout did not fufill the requirement, the EBOR was also correct in recognizing that the problem was with the mismanagement of the advancement program by the Scoutmaster of the unit, and also recognizing that a denial of the advancemnt would have been overturned in appeal. So rather than spoil the scouts experience and memory of Scouting they approved the advancement and avoided the appeal.

 

I would think that had the Scout been younger and had time to complete the missing requirement prior to his 18th birthday. But considering that there was not time to do this the board correctly chose nor to punish the scout for errors of the Scoutmaster.

 

 

[BadenP]

And this argument proposed by Bob White is why the Eagle award continues to become less meaningful an accomplishment and the BSA program continues to lose credibility. To state that the BSA is afraid of lawsuits is also bogus, and no it is not a given that if the BOR had done their job and denied the award that the decision would be overturned.

 

The scoutmaster and the scout were equally culpible in this screwup and to say well the hell with it he is almost 18 and give him the Eagle says loads about what is wrong internally with the politics and credibility in the BSA program today.

[NeilLup]

There would seem to be plenty of "fault" to go around.

 

First and foremost, the Scout. He is almost 18 years old and presumably can read. The requirements have been the same since he joined. He knows that he did not meet the requirements.

 

Second, the SM and Troop Committee. Same comments. They know that he didn't meet the requirements.

 

And finally, the EBOR. Perhaps their decision was correct and in the greater benefit of the human race. Perhaps not.

 

But I would agree with ScoutNut that there is nothing that can be done relevant to this Scout but in the Roundtables, Training, Council Newsletter, etc. of this council, plenty of noise can be made about POR.

 

That one is hard to fathom. The need for POR is clear and well known. I'm really surprised.

[Bob White]

With over 95% of scouts not reaching the Eagle Rank to think that Eagle Ranks are being handed out willy nilly is obsurd. To blame these kinds of choices by the Eagle bor on a perceived deteriotaion of scouting is uninformedand unsupportable.

 

 

"To state that the BSA is afraid of lawsuits is also bogus"

 

I agree, thank goodness not a single poster made such a statement.

 

As far as bringing in the UC or the CR that really isn't relevant as as Eagle boards are not a function of unit but of the council and all Eagle boards have a representative of the Council/District Advancement Committee sitting on it, and the decision is required to be unanimous. It appears that the council rep when he was unsure of the procedure and called for more information. I think that it likely that it would have played out much the same way in any council based on the criteria used in appeals.

 

I would ask BadenP to stop trying to make this a personal thing with me. I did not write the rules or the appeals guidelines. I have however served at the behest of the national as the chaiman of an Eagle appellate BOR and so I am very familiar with the process and with what is likely to win in appeal. I guarantee you if it comes down to an error caused by an adult then the board will have little choice but to make a judgement that benefits the scout.

 

It seems some a few scouters forget who serves whom in the Boy Scout Program. We are the adults, we are the ones who are supposed to know how the program Methods and procures work and we are supposed to doing it correctly for the benefit of the youth.

 

When the adult makes a mistake you do not punish youth. The Scout's only error was that he trusted the decision of the Scoutmaster in signing off requirements that the SM should not have signed. Trusting that the Scoutmaster was doing the right thing is not a punishable offense in this program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Buffalo Skipper]

BW,

I get the impression that you thought I meant for the COR or the UC should be brought in to fix the situation with the EBOR. Sorry if I was misleading in that way--that was certainly not my intention. I disagree with how the EBOR allegedly handled the situation, but that is only my opinion, but really not the point I was trying to make.

 

I suggested bringing in the UC and the COR, because I felt that a unit which was exercising an obvious lack of checks and balances is a unit which is likely to have many significant problems. If something as basic as a POR is being overlooked by the Scout, Scoutmaster and committee on multiple occasions (same scout, Life and Eagle), what else are they missing or misrepresenting?

 

And certainly I don't mean to send in the UC to fix the unit; we (and most of the group) know that is not a UC's job. However, if the units problems are this systemic, then it is obvious that some action needs to be taken to get this unit and it's leaders back on track. Doing this through a UC and the COR seemed the most logical place to begin.

[evmori]

While youare correct the Scout did not fufill the requirement, the EBOR was also correct in recognizing that the problem was with the mismanagement of the advancement program by the Scoutmaster of the unit, and also recognizing that a denial of the advancemnt would have been overturned in appeal. So rather than spoil the scouts experience and memory of Scouting they approved the advancement and avoided the appeal.

 

This is the kind of attitude that will destroy Scouting. If the requirement isn't met, the Scout doesn't advance! Plain & simple. By the time a Scout gets to this level, he should know what is expected of him. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

Ed Mori

A blessed Christmas to all

[Bob White]

You are right Buffalo Skipper I thought you meant on this spefic BOR decision. I apologize if I misunderstood. I agree that there is A LOT wrong in the unit for this to happen. And finding someone willing to try to turn this entire group around will be needed.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Hal_Crawford]

Mike F:

I'm curious; what did the candidate put for requirement 4 on his Eagle application? I would think that a blank would get the application kicked back at some point. It has always been drilled into me (I was CC for 5 years and about 8 Eagle boards) that the form must be filled out completely and correctly or bad things will happen. All blanks must be filled in and the dates must add up etc.

 

How did this situation get handled? Did they retroactively assign him a POR? Did they just leave it blank? Did they attach an explanation to national as to why it was blank? Or is it a myth that anyone actually looks at the applications?

 

Hal

[BadenP]

Once again Bobby you missed the point, this kid knew he did not complete the requirements and he failed to show leadership and responsibility that Eagle scouts should and try to rectify the situation before the BOR. Instead he tried to slip it by last minute and in essence was rewarded for his dishonesty and irresponsibility with the Eagle Award, what an example for all other scouts and what a poor example of what an Eagle Scout is supposed to represent. BW you are always such a stickler for following the rules so your position here is hypocritical at best.

 

As far as your response to my post I don't know who you were quoting but it wasn't me, I never said anything about 95% of Eagles..., so as you are so fond of saying please try and get your facts straight before you make such ludicrous and inaccurate statements, thank you.