When a Scout Doesnt Live the Oath and Law

[OldGreyEagle]

I spun this off, as it deserved to be

 

this is the quote that started this thread

 

"OGE,

Problem is that even if you do have issues with someone who is not living up to the Oath and Law, if they appeal the BOR's decision, they usually win."

 

So, scouts who don't "Pass" a Board of Review for First Class appeal and win? For Star? For Life? How many appeals occur at your troop? And for what ranks?

 

When do we start "really looking at" the scouts charactor? DO they get a pass until Life and then they have to start acting like Eagle Material, whatever that is?

 

Early intervention, in anything, whether behavior or health issues is always preferable, is it not? How many times do we get comments that the scout just skated through by the "skin of their Teeth" but now that they are Life and closing in on Eagle by God, they have to start being serious...

 

And the adults recoil in horror at the youth's inability to accept responsibility when lack of it has never been an issue until that point. As a District Advancement Committee member I have done several perhaps hundreds of Eagle Boards of Review. A couple comments from the Troops stick in my mind. They are along the lines of "We can't beleive you gave that guy Eagle, he is such a loser"

 

Excuse me, you the troop certified he met all the requirements from Scout to Life and how does such a loser do that? Its the District's job to weed out in 30-45 minutes the losers?

 

Making sure the scout lives the Oath and Law is something for all scouts, not just the ones close to Eagle

[John-in-KC]

I absolutely agree.

 

Living the Scout Oath and Law begins the day a Scout joins. Peers, SMs, ASMs, Committee folk, and yes, parents accept an obligation to make support the youth in doing that.

 

If a Troop passes a youth member up the line, then changes their mind at Eagle, I'd be asking "what changed and why?"

[Eagle92]

I'm the one who made the comment, and it is based upon things commented here on the board, as well as talk at district anc council functions. It seams as if whenever someone is passed over at a BOR, it always goes up the food chain, and the scout wins the appeal. Again this is hearsay as I have only sat on a BOR once in at least 11 years.

 

That said, I agree that things should be caught WAY ahead of time. I also liked the practice my troop did up until '89 or so, whether it was legit or not I don't know, but we had a member of the PLC, or Leadership Corps (in my troop LC members were part of the PLC)sit on and chair BORs up to First Class with adult committee members. I remember one real "interesting" BOR, and the scout couldn't deny the rationale for the denial. Especially since some of my patrol members were victims of the prank.

[jhankins]

My district has major issues with boys getting to Eagle boards that we find out during the board or later have major issues with their scouting experience. Boys who don't know what a Senior Patrol Leader is, boys who can't explain what points of the Oath and Law mean to them, boys with their merit badges stapled on to their sashes, brand new books with nothing marked, project books incomplete...

 

When we get a boy like that, as a board, we send a letter to the Scoutmaster and the Committee bringing up these issues. These things have to be addressed at the unit level, and seldom are. It's not the district's place to do this, our job is to visit the boy's final rank, not the times that have gone before.

[well-up-in-his-60s-guy]

OldGreyEagle -

 

"To me the real issue is how did this guy, having major maturity issues and believing that as long as you don't get caught it's okay ever get in a position to be awarded Eagle in the first place?

 

Someone who isn't a good role model for other boys in the Troop is an Eagle? We may need to dump the gay talk and talk about how a program founded in charactor and honor can have one as described reach this top honor"

 

Why would that be of any consequence to the majority of posters on this forum? It seems to me that the majority of them cheered when the young man referenced in "Eagle Problems.....Big" was awarded the rank of Eagle by National over the protests of his troop, district and council who were concerned with issues of character and honor. Lying, or being untrustworthy, is apparently not something that should be held against today's scout. A "good role model" sounds like something that you would have to be subjective about and I don't think that fits in with the big picture on what we are allowed to decide in today's scouting program.

[John-in-KC]

jhankins,

 

Actually, not true. ACP&P (online), p32:

 

"?The candidates unit leader introduces him to the members of the board

of review. The unit leader may remain in the room, but does not participate in the board of review. The unit leader may be called on to clarify a point in question. In no case should a relative or guardian of the candidate attend the review, even as a unit leader. There is no set of questions that an Eagle candidate should be asked. However, the board should be assured of the candidates participation in the program. This is the highest award that a boy may achieve and, consequently, a thorough discussion of his successes and experiences in Scouting should be considered. After the review, the candidate and his unit leader leave the room while the board members discuss the acceptability of the candidate as an Eagle Scout. The decision must be unanimous. If the candidate meets the requirements, he is asked to return and is informed that he will receive the boards recommendation for the Eagle Scout rank."

 

Emphasis added.

 

While you cannot undo what's been done, you can and should revisit his trail. The other thing I would recommend to your DAC and District Chairman is that they send a co-signed letter to the Charter Organization Representative if there are deficiencies with the Scout and the Unit. The Commissioner's Service is to be a friend to the unit, but the Advancement Operations Committee serves to maintain the standards of the Boy Scouts of America.

[jeff-o]

I've often heard it mentioned here about "passing" and "failing" ranks. At the same time, I've heard that the "Scoutmaster Conference" is just a conference -- and it "has" to be signed off when they meet and have the conference, and no SM can ever refuse (or should refuse) a conference.

 

To me, this is sort of conflicting. On one hand, we have a program of advancement that's based entirely on individual scout achievement. But on the other hand, there are "approvals" of things like the scout oath and law. Do we, as Scoutmasters, actually have the authority to reject requirements that the scout has met (according to the scout)?

 

For example, say a scout has completed all the requirements for Second Class. He's 11-12 years old. He has physically completed requirements #1-10. They appear for signoffs on the Scoutmaster Conference and the "Demonstrate Scout Spirit" requirements. Oh, and they're a real slacker. They've gotten in trouble before for stealing at campouts. They've been sent home from a campout for bringing some prohibited item. They start fights a few times a year and are instigators. They stay in line enough to not get thrown out, but not much more. They have been talked to a number of times and given behavior-type goals to meet. They meet some of them, but not others.

 

So, they sit down, and they give concrete examples of demonstrating living the scout oath and law -- leaving out any of the problem times. What do you do as a Scoutmaster? Does the Scoutmaster have the authority to say, "Sorry, you're not living up to the oath and law?" From what I've read here, it seems the majority opinion is tell him, "Gee, you're not doing so good. But here you go, you get to advance because there's nothing I can do to stop your advancement." And sooner or later, this same Scout makes it to an Eagle board somehow before he is arrested.

 

So bottom line, how do you prevent a scout from advancing if they're not living the oath and law, but they are meeting the basic requirements -- especially if there is an appeal process that will stop any attempt to refuse advancement?

[skeptic]

If you are the SM, you do what needs to be done. If you do not have the strength to do so, then perhaps you are not in the right position. Part of the job is counseling the boy; and that includes making them accountable.

 

JMHO

[evmori]

I've often heard it mentioned here about "passing" and "failing" ranks. At the same time, I've heard that the "Scoutmaster Conference" is just a conference -- and it "has" to be signed off when they meet and have the conference, and no SM can ever refuse (or should refuse) a conference.

 

The Scoutmaster Conference is a "participate in" requirement.

 

Participate in a Scoutmaster conference.

 

Other requirements are different.

 

Demonstrate how to display, raise, lower, and fold the American flag.

 

Earn 6 merit badges, including 4 from the required list for Eagle.

 

These type of requirements require the Scout to "do" something. The Scoutmaster Conference is nothing but a chat with the Scoutmaster and once that happens, requirement complete.

[OldGreyEagle]

Lets take a look at the way the BSA defines an "Active Scout", my intention is not to discuss the definition as much as to make a point:

 

1.He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).

2.He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

3.He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on).

 

Number three has more text, but that is not important here. Number two is,

 

2.He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.

 

If you have a scout who steals, starts fights, instigates and brings along prohibited items, then a stern talking to is warranted, then after that doesnt work, its time to set behavioral expectations with clear consequences for not meeting them. That has to include exlusion from the Troop. We cannot say that the BSA gives us no recourse to scout behaving badly and we "have" to advance them.

 

We have no right to complain that the scouts do not take responsibility for their actions when the Troop is not accountable to the program

 

 

 

 

[shortridge]

"So bottom line, how do you prevent a scout from advancing if they're not living the oath and law"?

 

The Scout Spirit requirement. It's a simple tool, but I'm amazed by how few SMs use it.

[Eagle92]

Sometimes I'm told that appeals for Scout Spirit have arisen. Again I haven't sat on a BOR in years, but that is what I've been told.

[John-in-KC]

Here's the deal:

 

- If a Scout is not attending meetings, don't recharter him.

 

At the same time:

- If Scouts are not attending meetings, ask yourselves and them are you delivering a program which is interesting, challenging, and exciting?

 

If as a SM you hear that Billy is doing something which is outside the Oath and Law at school, have a Scoutmaster Conference with him. Model the standard.

 

If the Scout refuses to attend a SM Conference, make a note of it. Then, talk to you District Advancement Chair. The Troop which is working to support the Aims and Methods will get more support from the DAC than the unit he visits after an appeal is started.

 

What am I saying:

- It's the Oath and Law for the Scout to live.

- It's up to us, the Scouters, to know what is happening in our charges' lives, and how they are living the Oath and the Law.