What happens if I sign this form?

[Abel Magwitch]

Should you decide for whatever your reason not to sign the Eagle application, the Scout may appeal your decision.

 

Two sets of circumstances may lead to the appeal of a decision.

 

First, if the unit leader or unit committee does not recommend the Scout for a board of review,

 

or if the unit leader or unit committee does not sign the Eagle Scout application, the Scout or other interested party may appeal the decision at the next level.

 

Of course the other circumstance is if the appropriate board of review does not recommend the applicant for the rank advancement.

 

A Scout may appeal a decision all the way to national if necessary.

 

So actually, you do not have to sign any form if you do not recommend the Scout for his board of review. But the Scout does have the right to appeal.

[CalicoPenn]

Ok, so the form hasn't been signed yet (I was unclear on that).

 

With the additional info, things seem a bit clearer - I think we all assumed that time in rank was involved with the "5 months, 10 days is enough" statement, but that now doesn't appear to be the case - if he got his Life in mid-March, he's got his time in rank - 6 months from mid-March is mid-September.

 

So if it's not time in rank, it's time in POR. If he's served as a Den Chief since mid-March when he earned Life, he would have his 6 months service done in mid-September. However, it appears as if he had less than a full 6 months of service in as new POR's were elected/appointed. I'm guessing it's dad that got the district poohbahs involved because the lad has 15 to 20 days left for POR and the unit wasn't willing to allow him to continue to be a Den Chief for the 20 days or less he still needed. Instead, the unit (or Scoutmaster) is forcing the lad to wait another 6 months in order to get a POR to complete the 20 days or less. Is that an accurate assessment?

 

Ok, let's say you hold firm and say he's not going to have a POR until the next go round. What happens in 6 months if he isn't elected PL or SPL - do you wait another 6 months before the next elections rather than appoint him to a POR? Do you never appoint him to a POR again because you want him in a peer leadership role? What if he never gets elected as a PL or SPL - does he age out never getting his Eagle, after completing the project a few years ago because you didn't let him complete a POR?

 

You offered him the position of OA Rep for 6 months - well, that's all well and good but the fact is that after 20 days of being OA Rep, he's got the time in POR. You can't add another 5 months, 10 days to the requirement - it's spelled out - 6 months, in any position or combination of positions, is all that is required - once he's fulfilled it, your job is to verify that he's served the 6 months time in on POR. That's part of what your signature affirms. Let's say he takes the OA Rep - he serves the 20 days needed - makes it well known to the district poohbahs that it appears his father got involved because his father has assessed that you have moved the goal post after the kick. On day 21, he resigns as OA Rep. You've got a dilemma - he's served 6 months - people know he's served 6 months - you can't force him to serve more time. Now what? Refuse to sign? What message does that send? What does that accomplish other than to make this Scout decide never to use his new status as Eagle to continue to help the Troop, and have him come away believing that his Scoutmaster was a world class crank - because that's the story he's going to be telling when he's meeting other Scouts in college - how his Scoutmaster was a crank who tried to keep him (or succeeded in keeping him) from earning the Eagle Scout rank). You mentioned you didn't know he would be a complete and out Scout - are you sure he was? If he wasn't then, I wouldn't be surprised if he's become one.

 

I wonder if this is really a windmill you want to be tilting at. Eagle Scout rank only requires leadership in one context - the Eagle project. All the rest are Positions of Responsibility. With less than 20 days of POR time to go, most Scoutmasters would be bending over backwards to make sure a Scout had the POR to complete the time - and would be discussing what the next steps for the Scout would be - how many Palms he wants to earn, any special awards he wants to earn, how he can use his Eagle Scout rank to better serve the Troop - maybe by putting himself up for PL, or SPL, or Troop Guide. I'd be trying to keep the lad in - this can only serve to help push the lad out.

 

Respectfully, if you don't have any major Scout Spirit issues (and what Scout hasn't had to have a few Scout Spirit discussions with their Scoutmaster), and the only sticking point is the 20 days, find him the 20 days and get on with it. If he leaves afterwards, you'll always be wondering if it was because he wanted to "get and git" or if it was because he felt as if he was getting the shaft. I think I'd have the "what's the future look like" discussion now too. Then just move on.

 

I know there's a lot of folks talking about what their opinions of "Eagle Scout material" is. I don't have a personal opinion on what that is - I look only to the requirements as the statement of what Eagle Scout material is. Whenever anyone asks me what I think Eagle Scout material is, I tell them to read all of the rank requirements, from the joining requirements (Scout) through Eagle Scout requirements - and all of the requirements of the required Merit Badges - and once they've done that, they know exactly what I think Eagle Scout material is. If they've completed all of that stuff, they're Eagle Scout material. It doesn't matter what elective Merit Badges they worked on, or what their POR's were, or what their service was, or what their Eagle Scout project was - if they've completed those requirements, they have done many things - and should be awarded the Eagle Scout rank.

 

I suppose my final comment on this is to you as a Scoutmaster wondering if you should resign over this. Recently there was a thread that brought up a similar type of issue - about quality of work in a POR and a Scoutmaster who signed off on it with a BOR that bounced it back saying it wasn't good enough. My answer was that I would have a cup of coffee with whomever needed it and ask them a compound question: What makes your judgement on the requirements better than the BSAs? Can you base your decisions on the requirements as they are written by the BSA? Answer those questions for yourself and follow you heart. I believed I ended by saying this - if you can't advocate for the Scout, it's time to move on. I know you have the best interests of the Scout in mind - the question is are those best interests also in line with the requirements as written? At the end of the day are you advocating for the Scout and the BSA or are you advocating for what you think is best?

 

Calico

 

 

Aside on the point Eagle92 makes about Den Chief and summer - as long as a lad hasn't been removed from a POR, he is considered to be serving actively - it doesn't matter if the Pack isn't meeting in the summer or isn't doing any activities in the summer, unless he's been removed, he is still serving as a Den Chief. This idea of trying to regulate time served in POR's based on what's going on with a unit is a record keeping nightmare, and should be anathema to Scouters - I see it only as a road block deliberately put in the way of Scouts by adults for no good reason other than the adults feel they can do it. Why should the Den Chief POR only be available 9 months out of the year when the other POR's are available 12 months out of the year? The BSA never set it up that way. I can see it now - a Quartermaster doesn't get credit for the POR in December, January and February because a unit doesn't camp so the Quartermaster doesn't have anything to do once he's stored the gear for the winter - would anyone really buy that argument? In the spririt of transparency, my POR for Eagle was Den Chief - in fact, my POR for all of my ranks was Den Chief - though I did serve as Scribe, PL (for a full year) and JASM as well, but I became a Den Chief at 12 and didn't stop until I was 18 - I consider Den Chief to be one of the 3 most important POR's in Boy Scouts because Den Chief's help perpetuate the Boy Scouts be serving as a living recruitment poster in a Cub Scout Pack.

 

 

[Beavah]

What makes your judgement on the requirements better than the BSAs?

 

Yah, I can answer that one, eh? Da Owl knows the boy personally, and da BSA doesn't.

 

Besides, when we're talkin' about the BSA's "judgment", it's worth rememberin' that the stuff is mostly assembled by some office folks in Irving who aren't working with kids, advised by some big committees of folks of various backgrounds most of whom haven't worked with kids in quite a while, and copy edited by a company that doesn't have much of a scoutin' connection at all.

 

They're all good folks, mind, but they aren't exercising any "judgment" of da sort you're thinkin' of. They're just doin' their best to put out some decent materials that meet the corporation's needs and can be used by a whole mess of different programs around da nation and world.

 

Can you base your decisions on the requirements as they are written by the BSA?

 

I reckon he's tryin' to base his decisions on the Aims and Mission of da BSA, and da purpose of Advancement which is detailed in the Rules & Regulations which he agreed to. Which is what we all should do, eh?

 

I believed I ended by saying this - if you can't advocate for the Scout, it's time to move on.

 

I think he is tryin' to advocate for the scout, eh? The scout is a young fellow who has some lessons about responsibility and character that are as yet unlearned, and da Owl wants the boy to learn them.

 

It's da toughest thing in the world when the parents don't share that goal. Whether it's da "winning is what's important" parents who ignore sportsmanship in da youth leagues, to "the Eagle badge is what's important" parents who don't buy into character, fitness, and citizenship in Scouting.

 

uz2bnowl, these cases are just hard, eh? Some times you are goin' to lose 'em, especially when you are tryin' to change a troop's culture. I always advise that if yeh don't like the outcomes you're gettin' in terms of Eagle Scouts, the place you need to start is with First Class scouts. Then with Star. Then with Life. Since Eagle is the finale, not seein' what yeh want by way of character at Eagle means da problem is with all of your advancement, not just the last step. Best to roll up your sleeves and change how yeh do things earlier in the chain rather than try to hold da line at the very end.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

Very, very well said, Beav.

 

I would add that as Scouters we have the obligation to advocate for both the Scout and the Scouts. The two aren't necessarily the same.

 

I'm dealing with a situation now with a Scout who served his six months in the POR but did a very substandard job of it. Removing him from the position prior to the six months would have created a strong legal position for the troop, but would have cost the boy a chance at Eagle (he's close to 18). He was, however, counseled through the term that his performance was substandard and given advice for how to improve.

 

Now it's time to fish or cut bait and either approve his Eagle app or not. What precedence are we setting? Do we really want our boys working the "quantity not quality" approach to PORs or the "registered=active" view of participation? Our Scouts know the quality of work this Scout has done. Two SPL would not have appointed him to a POR without my insistance and, again, costing the boy Eagle. (Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut.)

 

One of my concerns is the message this sends to the rest of the troop. Who is to advocate for them?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[John-in-KC]

TCD,

 

You've made a bed for yourself. Now, you're about to sleep in it. I hope you enjoy the thorns, they are there.

 

- The performance wasn't acceptable, yet your SM did not remove the Scout from the POR. What lesson in Character did that send? What about Loyal and Brave? The adults did not have the moral courage to remove the youth. Now, if the SM fails to sign the Eagle app, if the CC fails to sign the Eagle app, you've set him up for an appealable event.

 

Had you opted to follow guidance, you'd not be there. This young man would age out as a Life Scout, not having had the opportunity to enter upon Eagle. As Beavah has noted so often before here, the Method is Advancement, not Earn Eagle.

 

BTW, if his performance was substandard now, what was it as he moved 1C--->S, and S--->L? Problems do "just pop up", but more often there's a behavior that started a couple years ago.

 

I suggest you start having talks with your District Advancement Chair, Unit Commissioner and COR right now, to get ahead of the curve.

 

~~~~~

Uzz2bnowl, got your PM, will be answering you same...

[evmori]

The performance wasn't acceptable, yet your SM did not remove the Scout from the POR. What lesson in Character did that send?

 

Why does he have to be removed from the POR? It is possible the SM was giving this Scout every chance possible to fulfill his POR but the Scout never did. The lesson this sends is the SM is willing to give you every chance possible yet you failed to step up to the plate and take advantage of that.

[theysawyoucomin']

Ev,

The Scout must be removed. I will qoute it chapter and verse tonight off the Scouting website.

 

 

It's too darn bad it has to be that way but the box checkers have taken over and Idealists don't stand a chance against the helicopter parent generation. Trouble is these little sheltered waifs will be running the country whilst I'm sitting on the porch waiting for the dirt nap.

[BrentAllen]

Personally, I think the "remove him or pass him" mentality for POR is absurd. How is a Scout ever going to be given a chance to learn in that system? He either does a good job right out of the gate, or gets removed? Where is the oppportunity to learn how to do the job correctly?

 

That's not how we operate, and I don't make decisions based on fear of an appeal. If a Scout (or family member) wanted to appeal or go over my head, I would tell them they obviously don't trust my judgement, and if you don't trust the judgement of the SM, it is time to find another Troop. How can you, as a parent, trust me to take your son on all kinds of trips, in all kinds of weather, from weekend trips to High Adventure, but yet you don't trust me when it comes to a decision about advancement? Time to find another Troop, or start your own.

 

Our current SPL was Historian earlier this year. He started a Troop photo album, but it never went any further. He would ask Scouts to bring pictures to put in them, but got very little response. We discussed his performance, and we agreed that he needed to get the photo album up to date, meaning pictures from each camping trip or outing, or I wouldn't count the position for his POR. He didn't threaten to appeal or argue with me. He decided he had the opportunity to do a great job, and set a standard for those who took the position after him. He brought the album in for our September COH, and it is a work of art! He far exceeded my expectations!

 

If my only two choices were to pass him or remove him, we never would have ended up with a great photo album, and more importantly, a great standard for the position of Historian.

[OldGreyEagle]

Where does it say

 

"He either does a good job right out of the gate, or gets removed?"

 

A well run troop will have the POR explained to the boy, there will be a written description of what is expected and opportunity for the boy to ask quesitons and assure himself he understands what is expected. There are periodic evaluations on the youth's performamce, someone asks him how is it going, are you doing alright, do you need help? And this is done from the beginning of his term to the end. If the young lad is not doing well, as soon as it's noticed the position is reviwed with the scout, plans for improvement are put in place and expectations laid out. If after going through this process more than once, how many are up tot he unit, and the performance is below expectations, than you may have to consider removing him from the position.

 

I am not sure anyone is in favor of summary dismissal, but being held responsible for ones actions is one of the scouting values I hold, I think most of us do.

[Lisabob]

Just wanted to point out that I don't recall Owl saying this scout's performance in POR was unacceptable - but rather, that Owl wanted him to hold a different position of responsibility, such as PL or SPL, rather than den chief. In fact, I'm pretty sure I read in one of his posts that the den leader said the boy had done a good job as den chief.

 

So the question at this point is, can a scout master tell a scout that a particular position isn't suitable?

 

I think there may be times when the answer to that should be a qualified yes. For example, a scout who only wants to serve as troop librarian or something like that. Getting the boy to try something new could be useful and prodding the ones who just want to coast is important sometimes too. This is part of the mentoring and "adult association" that are so vital to scouting. I do not think it makes sense to tell a boy they must serve as a PL or SPL or ASPL in order to gain a signature on an eagle app though.

 

In the meantime, it appears that this scout's position as den chief did not become a major issue until 20 days before the boy finished his 6 months. If it had been a major issue sooner and Owl had never wanted him to serve in that capacity, then presumably the boy would have been removed from his claim on that position 5 months and 10 days ago.

 

Having waited to the end game, I do not think it is a good plan to try to block the boy's advancement on this basis now. Despite good intentions, it will almost certainly be perceived as very unfair (the boy's dad's comment about "moving the goal post after the kick" is not surprising, I suppose, even if it is disappointing in some regards)

 

That said, I think I understand - and appreciate - what Owl is trying to do for this boy. I just think he needs to use a different carrot to get the boy to move on to a more challenging leadership position. The advancement carrot (or stick - refusing to sign the app) is unlikely to work here, will probably create a lot of ill-will along the way, and is more likely to cause the boy to leave the troop immediately upon receiving his award, than to cause him to take up the SM's challenge and grow a bit more in the process.

 

 

[BrentAllen]

"I am not sure anyone is in favor of summary dismissal,"

 

Are you reading the same posts I am?

 

"The Scout must be removed. I will qoute it chapter and verse tonight off the Scouting website."

 

"- The performance wasn't acceptable, yet your SM did not remove the Scout from the POR."

 

"and the performance is below expectations, than you may have to consider removing him from the position."

 

You even said it yourself.

 

So, a Scout is assigned a POR. First month, nothing done, counseled, promises to do better. Second month, same thing. Now, based on the "pass or fire" mentality, the SM has to make that decision - do I continue to work with him, or remove him? The box checkers would say, "He has served two months, and if you remove him from the position, he only needs to serve 4 months in another POR to earn the 6 months requirement," even though he hasn't done anything. So, yes, according to the box checkers, they have to be doing the job right out of the gate. If I had done that with our Historian, we would not have ended up with our results. If it works for you, fine.

[evmori]

So, a Scout is assigned a POR. First month, nothing done, counseled, promises to do better. Second month, same thing. Now, based on the "pass or fire" mentality, the SM has to make that decision - do I continue to work with him, or remove him? The box checkers would say, "He has served two months, and if you remove him from the position, he only needs to serve 4 months in another POR to earn the 6 months requirement," even though he hasn't done anything. So, yes, according to the box checkers, they have to be doing the job right out of the gate. If I had done that with our Historian, we would not have ended up with our results. If it works for you, fine.

 

So if the Scout does nothing for prior to removal from his POR, has he "actively served" in that POR at all? I say no.

[BklynEagle]

I've been reading this thread with keen interest, as my Troop has had a few questionable candidates slip through in years past.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the young man in question suddenly woke up one day and was no longer living in a manner consistent with Scout Spirit. If I had to guess, he was probably a cause of consternation from Day One. Now that he's going for Eagle (and with a stated intention of leaving after Eagle), his problematic nature is causing uz2bnowl some real agita. My question is this (and please don't take it the wrong way): Why didn't he cause uz2bnowl agita when he was up for his Life BOR, or his Star BOR, or his First Class BOR, etc?

 

I think that it's admirable that there is recognition of the fact that Eagle is a higher level, one of maturity, ideally the fulfillment of Scout Spirit; but why wasn't Scout Spirit taken into account with the previous ranks?

 

There seems to be an unfortunate tendency to overlook such things when the Scout is not going for Eagle; but, suddenly, as if a switch was flipped, the second he starts hankering for the red, white and blue badge, BOOM, "boys will be boys" goes out the window and they're suddenly taking the Doctorate Orals. THAT IS NOT FAIR. Naturally, we can't be complete nitpicking wackjobs, but we should be holding the boys to a standard from Day One, that way Eagle isn't such a big shock. I've sat on BORs over the years, and I've voted down candidates for ranks other than Eagle, and I've taken heat for it; but the message became clear: You're a Scout, you're seeking a position of leadership and authority, you're going to be held accountable, no matter what rank you're seeking. That's how we cultivate good Eagles.

[OldGreyEagle]

Now I am taking a leap, but this is from the BSA literature on how Acive is defined

 

"...The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

 

Until told otherwise I beleive this is what was talked about.

 

it doesnt say from the begining, it doesnt even say how or that the leaders "shall" its left as a possibility. What possible value would be in removing the scout before he has had a chance to perform, but how long do you subject the troop to poor performance before you correct the situation? Thats an individual decision each unit might have to make.

 

I think we read the same posts, we just take away different items is all.

 

Interesting note, the term "box checker" is new to me and apparently it's bad. All sorts of evil are associated with a box checker and I am not sure at all of the qualifications to be a box checker but I must surmise their bad.

 

So, to that end, if following the rules as laid in the BSA Literature is bad, and making sure each scout meets the requirements is the mark of a poor leader. All i can say is, OldGreyEagle at your service

[Beavah]

However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position.

 

Yah, if ever there was a statement put out by an office rat in Irving that demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Scouting and the entire rest of the scouting program literature, this one was it.

 

Da SPL and PLs are elected by the boys. They should be removed by the boys, through another election.

 

Da other PORs are appointed by the SPL and supervised by the ASPL. They should be removed by those boys.

 

Nowhere in the BSA program do the "unit leaders ensure" a boy is fulfilling a POR. Nowhere in the BSA program do unit leaders remove boys because they haven't (yet) learned the skill(s) or responsibility of a requirement.

 

Read the Scoutmaster's Handbook, the Troop Committee Guidebook, the SPL and PL Handbooks, the Rules & Regulations... our entire body of program literature. This website statement by da folks in the Boy Scouting advancement office is contrary to all of it.

 

BrentAllen is right. In BSA Scouting, we work with kids as hard and as long as it takes for 'em to learn and earn the requirement, whether it's complete a swim test or serve in a position of responsibility. But we don't sign off until the boy has succeeded.

 

Anything else just isn't Scouting.

 

Beavah