Eagle BOR – passed without POR

[mmhardy]

Here is another wrinkle. True Story. Eagle candidate served two terms as SPL as Star. Then as Life Scout took position as Scribe then Troop Guide during his tenure. Has he fulfilled his POR requirements?

[evmori]

As long as he has served the necessary time, the positions he served in are fine.

[John-in-KC]

Absolutely agree with Ed. There's nothing in any program material I've ever read that says: Progressively move from POR category X to Y to Z.

 

PL has the same weight as SPL has the same weight as Quartermaster has the same weight as Venturing Crew Secretary on an Eagle app.

[Mafaking]

 

'Here is another wrinkle. True Story. Eagle candidate served two terms as SPL as Star. Then as Life Scout took position as Scribe then Troop Guide during his tenure. Has he fulfilled his POR requirements?'

 

No not for Eagle. He did not complete six months in a POR after reaching Life.

 

 

[Bob White]

Would you care to explain your answer Mafaking? In mmhardy's post he fails to say how long the scout spent as a Scribe or as a Troop Guide.

 

How is it you are so sure that he did not serve for the required 6 month total?

 

His post does not supply the necessary facts for you or anyone else to be able to make that conclusion.

 

 

[Mafaking]

 

Bob White it was presented as a riddle.

 

At first you would glance over the facts and think four POR's Life to Eagle OK.

[evmori]

The requirement reads

 

While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of six months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility:

 

The way I understand this is a Scout can serve an in one or more POR's as long as the total time is greater than or equal to six months.

[ScoutNut]

Mafaking posted - "At first you would glance over the facts and think four POR's Life to Eagle OK"

 

Where do you get 4 POR's?

 

From mmhardy's post - "Then AS LIFE SCOUT took position as Scribe then Troop Guide during his tenure."

 

That is 2, not 4, POR's.

 

No "riddle" here. Both Scribe and Troop Guide are acceptable POR's for the rank of Eagle. As long as the Scout served a COMBINED time of 6 months between the two, he is fine.(This message has been edited by scoutnut)

[ilduncans]

wow ... so much emotion on this! Glad I'm joining late - hopefully everyone's cooled off. (and hopefully the degree to which I am apalled by this won't reignite any personal conflicts).

 

A couple of thoughts ...

 

0> when the BoR approved him, it was all over -- anything past that point is just academic conversation. Pending a couple of rubber stamps, the young man is an Eagle Scout as of the date of that BoR.

 

1> I highly recommend a copy of the "Advancement Committee Guide Policies and Procedures" for folks who want to be involved in this -- it's available through scoutstuff, if your local council doesn't stock it ... part # is 33088 - and make sure to get the current printing (presently 2008).

 

2> since most unit folks won't know of the existance of this authoritative resource, and won't have a copy, there is no substitute for

a> a district/council training committee that puts on a training curriculum for how Boards of Review ought to be conducted

b> a Unit Commissioner who actively promotes such training to the unit

c> a Unit Committee Chairman, Unit Training Chairman, and/or Unit leader who actively make sure BoR members are trained in what they are doing

d> a District Advancement Committee that ensures Eagle BoR members are trained in what they are doing.

 

3> Computers are a good thing. If the council is requiring the new electronic Eagle application (most councils are doing this now), then the computer will automatically reject this application unless you actively put false information in the system about -when- a leadership position is held. This would likely prevent a Board from ever being convened in the first place.

 

 

Quoting from the "Advancement Committee Guide Policies and Procedures":

"The members of the board of review should have the following objectives in mind when they conduct the review:

* To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rank

* To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit

* To encourage the Scout to progress further"

 

So there you have it from an authoritative source, in clear and unambiguous terms -- The Board of Review is supposed to make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do. This Eagle Board of Review failed utterly in achieving this objective.

 

Why the youth didn't fulfill the requirements, whose fault it was, and in what circumstances you should pass a youth who has not completed the requirements are not part of anything in the policy and procedure. (The closest they come to that topic is how to change requirements in special circumstances).

 

Of course, as has been adequately pointetd out by others -- everyone else leading up to the Eagle BoR also failed this young man, and fundamentally, he failed himself -- either by knowing the requirements and not filling then, or by not knowing them.

 

The real pity of this is that in their attempt to not "penalize the Scout", they did the greatest disservice to the very one they were trying to protect. By sending the clear message if it's at all possible to put the blame on someone else, then you won't be held responsible for your own part in a comprehensive failure -- (sounds like the basis for about 300 different episodes of Law & Order, yes?) -- we've taught this youth the opposite of how we'd like him to conduct himself in the real world. Arguably, we'd have done better to teach him nothing at all, than to give him this lesson.

 

At the ludicrous extreme, one wonders how this board would treat a young man who was applying for Eagle Scout without ever having read any requirements, or even registering with BSA -- but vigorously defending that none of that was his fault. His parents wouldn't let him sign up, no one every told him where to read the requirements, the leaders didn't want him, etc. ad nauseum. Would the Board "penalize the boy" for this? If not, where between the above case, and my ludicrously extreme example would they draw the line? (and why?)

 

There is one additional approval point after the Board of Review ...

The Council Scout Executive has to sign off

"I certify that all procedures, as outlined in Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, have been followed. I approve this application."

 

I've never heard of a Scout exec not signing -- but to my view, there's a legitimate case here that says the policy and procedures were not followed. There'd be fireworks everywhere if he bounced the application. For starters, the policy and procedure only acknowledges two possible sources of appeal, and this contingency is -not- addressed there ... but for my part I'd love to see a Scout exec take this approval seriously enough to think through this case before just rubber-stamping the application.

[Mafaking]

 

 

Oops, jokes on me I mis-read the post.

 

I agree with what evmori posted.

 

 

[bunchref]

Although the OP topic dealt with POR the discussion has morphed into the EBOR process. In my district (and my troop) there seems to be a greater emphasis on the number of Eagle Scouts advanced rather than upon the quality of the process and whether or not the Scout actually did what is required to meet the high standards for the Eagle rank.

 

The last Eagle Scout from our troop was on the eve of his 18th birthday. It didn't look like he was going to make it. Then, miraculously, he musters up a few of his buddies and does some type of service project. It wasn't approved in advance (not sure it this is still a requirement) and the way it was done surely didn't show any leadership abilities. It didn't even meet the normal procedure within our troop to include everyone in the project. It was a fly-by-night done with the sole purpose of giving the rank to a Scout that lacked the ambition to get it done himself. It was a massive push by the parent and the Eagle Scout coordinator to get the boy through as an Eagle.

 

How do you address or combat the district EBOR with this type of attitude? I'm not on the advancement committee and don't sit on EBORs because several years ago I didn't want to sign off on a Scout that showed up in tattered blue jeans. The chairman of the EBOR at the time said his home troop only required a Scout shirt so he was fully uniformed by their standards. I know this is getting off-topic, but if we expect boys that go to Jamboree or NYLT to be fully uniformed, why would it be unreasonable to expect a boy desiring the highest youth award in the BSA to have a complete uniform (or at least wear a pair of dress slacks that shows a little bit of respect and decorum for a solemn occasion)?

 

I'm sorry, but the Eagle Scout rank doesn't seem to hold a lot of distinction around here these days. Of course, that is just my opinion. To say I am disappointed would be putting it lightly.

[Beavah]

How do you address or combat the district EBOR with this type of attitude?

 

First, yeh build a troop where that attitude isn't present, and at least in your troop the lads know Eagle means somethin' worthwhile, and want to earn it for that reason. The boys really aren't interested in earning BSA's badge, eh? They're interested in earning the respect and recognition of the adults in their troop whom they admire, and the acknowledgment of their peers and the scouts that they know. No boy is really interested in earnin' a district badge; they want a troop Eagle.

 

Then, if your COR likes to go tiltin' at windmills, yeh send him/her off to the district with instructions to campaign and vote out any district chair and district advancement chair who cares more about handin' out patches than they do about teachin' character.

 

Beavah

 

[ilduncans]

This one shouldn't be that hard ...

 

from the 2008 requirements for the rank of Eagle:

"5. While a Life Scout, plan, develop, and give leadership to others in a service project helpful to any religious institution, any school, or your community. (The project should benefit an organization other than Boy Scouting.) The proj�ect plan must be approved by the organization benefiting from the effort, your Scoutmaster and troop committee, and the council or district before you start. You must use the Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook, BSA publication No. 18-927, in meeting this requirement. "

 

 

separately from the project workbook:

"Approval Signatures for Project Plan

 

Project plans were reviewed and approved by:

 

 

________________________________________

Religious institution, school, or community representative Date

 

________________________________________

Scoutmaster/Coach/Advisor Date

 

________________________________________

Unit committee member Date

 

________________________________________

Council or district advancement committee member Date

 

 

Important Note: You may proceed with your leadership service project only when you have:

0 Completed all the above mentioned planning details

0 Shared the project plans with the appropriate persons

0 Obtained approval from the appropriate persons"

 

If it wasn't approved in advance, then the requirement wasn't filled -- no real room for debate on this. Since one of the required approvals in advance is a district or council (not unit) advancement committee member, can't see how this got through the system. There almost has to be something missing from the story, unless this was another situation where a board decided to pass a boy that didn't fill the requirements (see previous posting to this thread above).

 

With respect to blue jeans/uniforming, there's a lot less written into the policy and procedure on this point, and with good reason. Some conversation around the circumstances would be appropriate, and I could imagine (and even compose) solid arguments for all sides on this one, assuming different environments and circumstances. Of course the ideal situation is obvious, but part of what we're teaching/modelling (hopefully)is how to -intelligently- discern the difference between when/where/how to be flexible vs. rigid ...