Getting a eagle project shot down

[John-in-KC]

I tend to agree that this project should have passed muster.

 

Most Scoutmasters I know in my District tend to be near the room where the ELSPs get pitched. Most already know our DAC well, and know what will/won't fly. If a Scout is deferred, the reason is almost always targeted to a specific issue.

 

About once a year, the DAC and another long serving Scouter give "The Life to Eagle Process." It's inevitably well attended by youth, their parents, advancement folks from Troop Committees, and yes, Scoutmasters.

 

For now, my immediate recommendation is for Mr Scoutmaster to ask the DAC what happened and why?

[FrankBoss]

I was rather sick I've been so for a few months.. so I did not make the meeting and wanted to hear some other points of view before going threw the motions of trying to get the kid motivated, it kinda broke his spirit. So I asked the other adult to tell me what happened and this is what they told me.

 

"The Eagle Board did not like the fact that his project was not adding

value. His project was replacing the fence at the Kiwanas park and they deemed

it to be a maintance project that are no longer allowed. Now if he was adding

fence to section off an area that may pass. But just replaceing something is no good"

 

Frank

[T2Eagle]

BS (basically stupid).

 

So who do they think is going to replace that fence? Would the Kiwanis operating budget routinely have enough money in it to put in 700' of fence? If not than it is not routine maintenance.

[evmori]

Horse hockey! I'd take this over their heads to the Council Advancement Committee.

[FrankBoss]

well so far what I got was this is no more than maintenance.

 

I think our councils interpretation of the guidelines are needing addressed.

 

I'll see who I need to talk too.

 

Frank

[Crew21_Adv]

Frank and Fellow Scouters,

 

Greetings!

 

If I may comment on discussing a project between a Life Scout and an Advancement Committee, then my thoughts on the scope of ESLPs.

 

On many occasions, our unit committee discuss scope, safety, schedules, and etc with a Life Scout. We attempt not to expand the scope beyond their idea (what ever it may be, monumental or very minimal). But we attempt to keep the topics to safety, leadership and communications. Quiet often, I am the adult stating, "Write that down!" to the Life Scout.

 

Now for the irony and humorous part. Often after that initial interview, the life Scout returns with one modification (from all the scribbled notes, and usually its not the safety measures). Our Committee is not attempting to be mean or cruel, we don't attempt to change the Life Scout's idea and agenda, but we do want to see the minimum in leadership, communications, and safety though. Many time the first draft project arrives with just a scope and no more.

 

Now for my thoughts on the scope of the ESLP.

 

I sometimes provide a Roundtable topic on Eagle Scout Projects, and make a good attempt to state BSA policy, and then Crew21'ism thoughts, concerns and beliefs. "The manual says this...." and "Here are my own thoughts..."

 

Also, my troop will occasionally receive a young adult (early 20's/Eagle Scout/ASM) and sometimes a young business man (mid-late 20's/Eagle Scout/ASM). Their commitment and attendance may very, so we usually ask them to serve as Eagle Scout advisor and aggressively inquire with all our Life Scouts, "How you doing?", "What MB are you working on now?", "What's your next plan?", and etc.

 

My concerns, a few Life Scouts will be extremely high functioning and very proactive. They are all good Scouts, but may drag their feet during the Life to Eagle process. I've told the Advisors that they need to be proactive and not reactive to encourage the Life Scouts.

 

Equally. I tell Scouting friends that my threshold for Eagle Scout projects is very low. I like to see written plans(maintaining a rotating schedule of Scouts/employees), I like to see safety, I like to communications and leadership. Just as long as they barely communication their plans and safety briefing to two or more Scouts which work for two hours or more, they've met my minimum.

 

I express to my friends, that the potential Eagle Scout(s) will always know the scope of their project. When that Scout is 30, 40, 50 years old, they will always be able to look back and recognize what they have done to earn Eagle.

 

As an Eagle, they will determine if they Soar with many of their Fellow Eagles or if they stumble around the nest with just a handful of Eagles?

 

So, remembering the Life Scouts I've spoken with, I really enjoy the 1000 hour project, with days of planning and 100 Scout participating in rotating shifts. But I'm am equally happy with 2 hours, 2 (or more) participants to lead, and a first aid kit sitting within running distance. The Scout will always remember what they have done to earn Eagle.

 

I wish I could state it is my own "Crew21 Adv" view, and that I wish everyone would adopt my view. But I'm not that original, and its not my own idea. You can say I'm satisfied with minimalist, but I am really knocked out by monumental ESLP.

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv

[Twocubdad]

Perhaps this is just hyperbole or I'm otherwise missing your point, C21A, because I just flat-out disagree with that. How can a scout demonstrate leadership or render any sort of service in three man-hours? Newbie instructors devote more leadership and service into running a troop instruction. Patrol leader certainly put more into a campout than that. Star and Life require more effort than that. Why would you accept less for Eagle?

 

By the way, FrankBoss, you may want to point out page 84 of the new Boy Scout Handbook to the troop leaders. One of the examples of a good service project is to "repair a place of worship." While nothing on the page specifically references this as an Eagle project, if you go to the Eagle requirements in the back of the book, it refers you to pages 84 and 85.

[jhankins]

The reviewers *should* have told the boy why his project didn't pass muster, and offers suggestions to make it an outstanding project, and how to rectify any issues. A simple conversation such as this could even challenge the boy to think outside the box and add to or change an aspect of his project.

 

We do this in my council to great success. One boy realized while we talked that he himself wasn't dreaming and planning as big as he could physically take on with his available helpers, and his project in turn reached 100 more kids than it normally would have.

[Crew21_Adv]

Twocubdad,

 

 

Let me attempt explain my thoughts.

 

It only takes four signatures to start an ESLP. The benefactor, unit leader, unit committee member and district/council advancement chair.

 

At the end of the ESLP it only takes three signatures to accept completion. The Life Scout, the unit leader and the benefactor. No completion signature from the unit committee, nor no completion signature from the district/council advancement chair.

 

Many other fellow Scouters in my district and council have quoted urban Scouting Legends. That a project must be no less than 1000 hours, I've also heard no less than 100 hours. While those requirements may be added by units, district, Council. Those rulings on how many hours spent on an ESLP are documented in any BSA literature.

 

I still haven't seen BSA literature that established the minimum. I am not perfect and still learn literature and guidelines in the BSA that I've never noticed before. But I haven't seen minimum hours/leadership in the ESLP. Once I learn of any, I'll gladly enforce the ESLP minimums, and make sure the candidates comply.

 

The ESLP Workbook ask for, how many hours were spent planning, how many hours carrying out the project and then how many hours total on the project.

 

With the lack of a BSA ruling on how many hours, I and a few others see that the minimum could be 2 hours. Equally, the workbook states List who besides yourself worked on the project.

 

Now, I can tell you, I've been to a few district camp spring cleaning days. With advanced notice emails and handouts to all the unit leadership members in the district. Still, I meet about 3,4, or 5 friends in the parking lot carrying their work gloves. Each DE may expect a few dozen for each 1000 people notified. But nope, reality says the same old usually suspects of 3,4 or 5 will show up in the parking lot.

 

Similarly, a Life Scout may invite a few hundred Scouts, church members, classmates, and friends to a very service worthy benefactor, but then on the project day, and 2 or 3 Scouts show up. The Life Scout can encourage, beg, or bribe fellow Scouts to attend a project, but they cannot make them attend.

 

So when I view the ESLP Workbook completion. Like I've stated, I love 100 hours, I'll do a flip for 1000 hours, Crew21_Adv will dance for a 5000 hours. But if the Life Scout/Eagle candidate can only convince two Scouts to attend and they only work for two hours. Then the Life Scout changes the scope of his ESLP "List any changes made to the original project plan and explain why those changes were made." and obtain the benefactors endorsement to accept a toned down project.

 

My next question is, how many did you lead?

 

Then, did you communication a plan to them?

 

How many hours did you all serve?

 

 

I may not get the numbers of leadership, nor receive the hours I like to hear. But I still see it that the Life Scout satisfied the project requirements. They may be the lowest end of the scale when compared with other Eagles, they may flounder in the nest rather than soaring with fellow Eagles.

 

I just don't feel that it is up to me, Crew21 Adv, to state that a Life Scout did not meet the requirements of the ESLP; when I have never found BSA literature stating what the minimum requirements are, nor what is the lowest end of a measurable scale.

 

I do love lasting projects, big numbers and leadership of scores of Scouts, just like the next Scoutmaster. But as a friend told me years ago, "if we set the threshold low enough, maybe they'll just trip over it.". So my Crew21_Adv's low-end threshold for accepting the completion of an ESLP is very generous and forgiving. My chest won't swell with pride, I won't be dancing down the streets, but I'll accept a Life Scouts absolute best effort. Even if his best effort appears to fall short of initial goals.

 

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv

[Twocubdad]

Ah! A third option: a rhetorical exercise. But then two minutes, or two seconds would be an acceptable minimum, using that logic.

 

In the real world I still don't buy it. The book says an ESLP must be of sufficient scope for a Scout to demonstrate leadership (not a quote, but close). A scout cannot demonstrate sufficient leadership (planning, communicating, directing, problem solving, etc.) in that time.

 

And I don't buy the idea that it is no fault of the scout if no one shows up for his project. Actually, we've had that happen recently. We had an Eagle candidate show up at a troop meeting an announce he "might" be working on his Eagle project this weekend, but wasn't sure. If anyone wanted to help they should let him know and he'd be in touch if he decided to do anything (again, not a quote, but close). Is anyone surprised that no one showed up to help? And why not? Because of the Scout's absolute failure to lead. We had another scout a few years ago who couldn't get anyone to help because he kept scheduling work session for Sunday mornings, which fit his father's schedule. Surprised no one showed? Me either.

 

Unlike our council Advancement committee, I believe a Scout can have significant failures within his project and still complete the requirement. However he must demonstrate leadership and enough of the project be completed so as to have rendered a service to the beneficiary. But if you fail to execute the significant portions of the approved plan as approved you better be able to demonstrate some fairly heroic efforts at to complete. The "changes" need to be of the analyze, adapt, overcome variety -- no "here's what I didn't get done."

 

Solving and overcoming problems is one of the great lessons of an Eagle project. One of the reasons for the grander scale of Eagle projects is to have sufficient moving parts to create problems.

 

Good example: my son's project included a fair bit of landscaping and the location of several permanent benches and tables in the plan. He spent hours developing a detailed site plan. The first day, he, his brother and I spent a couple hours locating all the elements on site. When we finished, I explained that we had laid out the project mathematically, but I wanted to step back and see if the location of all the stuff was pleasing asthetically. He had a cow! He couldn't understand that adaptation and flexibility is part of the process.

 

You are correct that in the end, the scout, the beneficiary and the unit leader (me) are the only signatures required to show completion of the project. Generally, the beneficiary will be focused on technical completion and service rendered. I'm looking at that plus leadership and process.

 

Trust me. Two hours won't cut it.

[FrankBoss]

The Scout showed me his notes..

They did touch on the good stuff (Saftey equipment and refreshments)

But they said he needed to add "Value" since the fence already existed he could replace the fence and add a park bench.

 

Oh man.

 

I've heard so much of this catch phrase. "Adding Value"

 

It just baffles me...

 

FrankBoss

[Engineer61]

I usually go with my first gut instinct with something like this....

 

That first instinct says to me there's a hidden agenda or bias against the Camp, that has nothing to do with the scope of the project or the Scout.

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Nah, Engineer61, it's just that Advancement Committees of mostly untrained volunteers get all funny and weird sometimes, eh? Like most beginners at somethin', they kinda grab on to individual words in a long document without really understandin' how da system is supposed to work.

 

FrankBoss, I think yeh do a couple of things here. Yeh have a sit down with the DAC and the CAC, and try to nudge things back into line so that the district committee gets some outside perspective. Yeh can share some of da posts from the forums to illustrate that this project would be approved in all districts polled across the country.

 

Then yeh suggest to your Eagle candidate that he get a more clear letter from Kiwanis detailing how this is really a capital improvement for 'em, and how important it is to get that done. A clear statement from the beneficiary that this is not routine maintenance and how it will provide lasting value to their camp. The lad might even find a Kiwanis club leader who is willing to come to his next review and say that in person.

 

Between da two things - the lad providing additional, clear documentation and you havin' a side conversation where yeh politely let the committee know that they've wandered off da reservation, yeh should be able to get this thing goin'. It'll be a good experience for the boy in terms of documenting things well and providin' evidence and coming back at things politely, and a good service to your district to get your advancement committee back on da straight and narrow.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

Let's see. A destroyed fence is being replaced. The value being added is replacing the fence. And where does it state an Eagle project must add value?

[Twocubdad]

Yeah, Ed, I think there is a tendancy for folks to create their own buzzwords when they don't have a particularly good handle on the concept themselves and therefore can't really can't explain it to others. Our council Eagle project committee likes to label projects a "troop good turn" when they otherwise can't come up with a concrete reason to turn it down. I think the "no added value" phrase means the same thing.

 

What the really mean is "we want you to build something, by God. Chop up some treated lumber. Kill trees. Dig holes." They still hold the notion that Eagle projects require "permanence" but that's been pretty much discredited by national.