Eagle BOR – passed without POR

[Bob White]

"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"

 

Not only did I not miss it, It was not there. You completely fabricated that information and posted it as a fact. Not a single thing in Mike's post even alludes to what you posted. You took it upon yourself to construct a fantasy regarding what happened, and then you needlessly and without a morsel of evidence attacked the character of a boy you know nothing about.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Mike says that he was not there and I am quite certain that you were not there either. He said that the board chairman and the entire board determined that the error was not the scout's but was the fault of the Scoutmaster and troop committee for taking one term of office and saying that it counted for all the leadership requirements.

 

You have absolutely no idea what leadership skills and character this scout has, and that topic was not even broached by Mike at any time.

 

Your attack on this young man is deeply disturbing. Your behavior contuinues to consist of nothing more than personal insults without the slightest contribution of positive or accurate information on the scouting program. I do not care that you say you "used to be" a professional, I care only about what you are, and if you are someone so callously bent on trying to insult me that you would make up lies to slander the character of a boy then you have nothing to offer on this forum that I care to read. You have joined one other equally uneeded poster on my ignore list.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[bsrsakima39]

BP, with all due respect, I would recommend rereading BW's post.

 

I can certainly see both sides of this argument. On one hand, the scout did not complete the requirement, and should have known better, especially if he was almost 18. On the other, the SM really screwed up here as well... How do you not know that a scout hasn't had a leadership position? And then, how do you sign off his Eagle application realizing that? And, the biggest question already raised, what did the application say for the POR lines?

 

I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that we are teaching youth that lying is O.K. I don't believe that we are sending the right message on this one, but it is more a message of blaming adults for mistakes than outright lying. However, I'm certainly not condoning it. Being an Eagle Scout, this does sadden me a little. But, the board must have seen him otherwise qualified.

 

Overall, I must agree with the boards decision because he was still a youth. I once saw this message in an e-mail, and I feel that it is appropriate here:

 

1. The Youth are the reason for and own the Scouting movement.

2. Anything that supports #1 is good,

3. Anything that diminishes #1 is bad.

4. In cases of confusion, consult #1.

 

Having recently aged out in the beginning of this month, I guess that I might sympathize with the kid more than some of the...ummm...more experienced youth on this forum. Passing a kid because of an error is not the end of the world, nor does it lead to the corruption of the rank of Eagle. I have, sadly, seen youth leaders never do their job, and SM's still sign them off, simply because they held the position on paper. For all we know, this youth may have been more of a leader than the SPL of his troop. He could have unofficially served in a number of positions. Just because there is not a paper trail of leadership, does not mean that he did not live up to the spirit of the Eagle. However, when in doubt, consult #1.

[NeilLup]

Hello brssakima39,

 

Welcome to the ranks of the adults. And thank you for a very well written, very thoughtful post.

 

I believe that all of us would completely agree with your four points. The tricky thing is to try to decide which more supports the youth:

 

a) Passing him on his Eagle in spite of his not having a POR and risking sending the message that he doesn't need to take responsibility and can blame someone else or

b) Not passing him on his Eagle (or "encouraging" him to conclude that he didn't meet the requirements and step down from consideration) sending him the message that he is responsible but then risking that he will get down on himself, hate Scouting, hate everyone in sight, feel self-justified and screwed, etc.

 

There is no 100% certain right answer in a case like this and no matter what decision the SM and BOR make, there is a risk that they will be making a decision that is not best for the youth.

 

At one time in our society, there would have been no question as to the decision. You don't meet the requirements, you don't get the award. That has changed and now, as others have stated, the benefit of the doubt is strongly given to the Scout.

 

Which is best? That's why being an adult is such fun There are no certain answers. But we are all trying to do what supports the youth.

 

So we wish you well with the new part of the Scouting journey. I hope you will find, as many of us have, that Scouting as an adult has helped us learn and grow as much or more as Scouting as a youth ever did.

[Bob White]

bsrsakima39,

 

You show great promise young grasshopper. Your understanding of the importance of serving the scout rather than blaming the scout is outstanding.

 

Welcome to your new adventure as an adult leader. I hopw you enjoy it for many years.

 

BW

 

[RangerT]

With all due respect to Bob and Baden there is something to be said with both arguments, however Bob was the first to cast insults at Baden who then defended his position against those insults, in either case a lose lose situation.

 

On topic, what happened here is a perfect example of poor adult leadership in the troop and shows a desperate need of further training. The sad part is that this boy will always know what happened and that Eagle may not mean quite as much, time will tell.

[Bob White]

I believe you misread the posts RangerT. You need to look again at the badenp's first post. Pay special attention to the fabrication regarding a statement about lawsuits that no one made.

 

His posts contain false and malicious comments. If he wants to waste time trying to attack me thats fine, but to use that against a scout and falsify information that attacks the boy's charcater is uncalled for.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Mike F]

Hal asked what the candidate put on the application for leadership position.

 

First of all, I wasn't there and haven't seen the app. From my short conversation with the EBOR Chair, I conclude he put the position and original dates. Since these dates were earlier than the dates he inserted for Life BOR (directly above), the EBOR started asking questions.

 

The Chair didn't convey the feeling that the candidate was lying or covering anything up. Just that he was confused since he had served in the position that one time and thought it counted for everything.

 

It was immediately noted that there is a training problem in the unit. This specific issue was immediately addressed with SM and UC staff is discussing how to help get unit on track in general.

[evmori]

If the Scout put a POR on his Eagle application that he knowingly didn't have, that is falsifying the application and the Scout should be held responsible for that.

[Beavah]

Yah, that would be three uncalled for personal attack posts from BobWhite to one from BadenP. Beginnin' with "I would ask BadenP..." Knock it off already. For the record, I was da guy who first mentioned frivolous lawsuits. BadenP disagreed with me, and that's fine, eh? Disagreement with a position or an idea is not a personal attack.

 

I reckon all scouting is local. It may well be that in this particular instance, for this particular lad, the EBOR's decision was the right one for reasons similar to what bsrsakima posits. No way to tell, eh? There are times to make exceptions.

 

All the rest of us can do is evaluate whether the EBOR's actions should be accepted as a more general principle. Here I join BadenP and others in disagreein'. I think da notion that not giving out unearned awards is "punishing" kids is foolish, and devalues all of the work by boys who strive to earn our awards. To earn Eagle it's not enough to just not to do anything bad which merits punishment. You have to do a lot which is pro-actively good to really merit recognition in the community as a young hero.

 

Yah, I think what we're missin' here is that in a proper scouting program boys should not seek positions in order to earn rank. Boys should seek positions because they care about their troop, they see things they think can be better, and they want to contribute. They show personal character by stepping forward voluntarily not out of self-interest in an award, but out of selfless interest in service. It is that which is worthy of our recognition.

 

Just like da outdoors, eh? Boys don't cook meals in order to get a rank. Boys cook meals as part of their duty in their patrol and the natural outdoor program of the troop. In pursuing the natural program of the troop, they build skills and merit recognition through rank. Advancement is the byproduct of that work.

 

"A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boy's progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit." - BSA Rules & Regulations

 

So if a lad hasn't naturally in his unit stepped forward to show responsibility, he has not earned recognition. And awarding him recognition hurts the boy by teaching him that such passivity and lack of commitment is worthy of high praise, and hurts all the other boys by teachin' 'em the same thing.

 

That's why, at least in general, we should not subtract from the requirements as this EBOR has done. It does not advance our mission of developing character in youth.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Mike F]

Ed,

 

I must not have been clear. I don't think he put false info on form and scout didn't attempt to deceive. He listed the position and dates served when he was a First Class scout and didn't understand this only gave him credit for Star advancement. When questioned, the scout confirmed he had served in the position as a First Class scout and had used the same period of service for credit for Life and now Eagle.

 

I don't know the troop. EBOR Chair was very frustrated that adults in charge had such a poor understanding of the program that they would let this happen, but he didn't want to punish the scout because of the adults. I'm glad I wasn't at the board. Come to think of it, I haven't been asked to serve on any more EBORs since the time I questioned a candidate about why all of his Tenderfoot through First Class requirements had been signed off on the same day by the same person. I was expecting to hear a story about losing his book and getting past things documented - then was shocked to hear a story about how his troop did a First Class Saturday when he was a new scout and they completed everything at once. I knew the scout to be very solid, so didn't make a big deal about it with him, but had a discussion with his SM later about their FCE program which has since been revised.

[evmori]

I must not have been clear. I don't think he put false info on form and scout didn't attempt to deceive. He listed the position and dates served when he was a First Class scout and didn't understand this only gave him credit for Star advancement. When questioned, the scout confirmed he had served in the position as a First Class scout and had used the same period of service for credit for Life and now Eagle.

 

Mike,

 

If this Scout has read his handbook, he should know the requirements for each rank. It's fraud at best!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Mike F]

Ed,

It would have been fraud if he falsified dates on his Eagle application so his POR incorrectly appeared to have been completed after he had been awarded Life and the reality (and fraud) came out in discussion during the EBOR. Scout did not do this. The original dates from when he was a 1st Class scout working on Star on the Eagle App are what started the discussion. Rather than assuming fraud on the part of the scout, I'm willing to accept he didn't understand what I agree is very clear wording and/or his adults told him not to worry about it.

Mike

[evmori]

How could he not understand? While I agree the adult leadership dropped the ball here, this Scouts should also be held responsible for knowing what he needed to do to advance.

[scoutldr]

I, too am a bit puzzled. In our council, no EBOR happens until the Eagle App is signed by the Council Registrar who checks all the dates, MB, etc. If the POR date is hinky, no signature and no EBOR. Seems like a LOT of blame to go around, but I have to agree, the Scout is responsible to know what he needs to do, and the SM and Committee are responsible for checking that they were done. I stand by my original post...if I had sat the EBOR, no Eagle from me.

[NeilLup]

Having read this thread a few more times, I have a thought that is somewhat different from my original posts.

 

Let's say the scenario went like this:

 

Scout: I'm not sure exactly what these requirements mean. I'll ask my Scoutmaster.

 

Scout: Mr. Scoutmaster, I'm not sure what these requirements mean. Do I have to have a Position of Responsibility for each rank or does what I did as a First Class Scout count for Life and Eagle too?

 

Scoutmaster: That's easy and clear. What you did for First Class counts. You don't have to do it again.

 

Scout: Thanks very much.

 

 

The point is that in this scenario, the Scout had a legitimate question and asked the most reasonable and appropriate source for information -- his Scoutmaster. The SM then gave bad information.

 

In this case, where should the Scout be expected to go to get correct information after he has spoken with his SM? It really isn't the Scout's place to call the council or call National, particularly if his SM was very definitive.

 

Now to me, there can be no question, the requirement is totally clear

 

"While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility: "

 

It would also seem that this Troop rarely gets Eagle Scouts, so it seems very strange that its Eagle candidate doesn't have a POR. But that kind of thing can, I guess, happen.

 

But as I think of the above scenario, I do ask where the Scout could and should be expected to go for information if his SM is clear, definitive and wrong?