Board or Review Members

[acco40]

I disagree. Local councils/districts sometimes do look at signatures. Also, the national council does look at dates for all ranks (during an Eagle application review). Why put that at risk by having parents who may not be well versed in the process?

[The Blancmange]

While I agree that the best practice is to have registered committee members sit on BOR's, the idea that one is risking being denied Eagle, or anything else, because of an arguably improper board composition is nonsense. I asked this question before in the context of unregistered MBC's and never received a response: Certainly, if this were BSA's practice, somewhere in its 100 years and 2 million Eagles, there would be at least one example that someone can point to where a scout was denied rank because of either an unregistered lower BOR member or unregistered MBC. Given the abundance of anectdoctal evidence of these practices on this board, one would expect many examples. No one can point to any examples because it simlpy hasn't happened.

[Beavah]

How are district and council folks goin' to look at signatures that aren't required by the electronic system?

 

There is no risk. Nobody at any level is ever goin' to hold up a boy on such a thing. Certainly not Irving; they award Eagle based on whether or not a lad was registered and breathing, remember?

 

But let's pretend for some odd reason yeh get some district git with way too much time on his hands and they still aren't takin' electronic filing, the unit simply files an amended report form. Presto, no problem. Or yeh file an appeal and let National tell 'em to get a grip. Honestly, I've never seen such a thing anywhere, ever.

 

Da notion that "National is watching!" the Eagle Scout applications is just urban legend. How many Eagle apps do they get a year? The limited staff they have are workin' full time just to get da certificates out.

 

And no, National does not look at rank dates either. That review is done by your local council registrar.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[NJCubScouter]

There is no risk. Nobody at any level is ever goin' to hold up a boy on such a thing.

 

Really? No risk whatsoever? I seem to recall an old saying that nothing is certain besides death and taxes, and this is neither of those.

[Beavah]

Yep, no risk.

 

But if yeh can figure out how National is supposed to check signatures that were never collected on forms that were never sent to National against personnel records that are years old in archives that are not maintained when doing that is in no one's job description, I'm all ears. They can't even keep da training records accurate on people that took training this year. And have yeh ever looked at da old forms before electronic filing? If I could read one signature out of three it would be a lot in many cases.

 

Seriously, though, even if the data were available, who would do that? Who anywhere, at Irving or elsewhere, would hold up a scout on that kind of adult technicality? "We couldn't read the signature on da form that was filed 6 years ago, so we're not going to authorize Eagle Scout because you may not have earned Tenderfoot." Certainly not the national office. For all their foibles, they've never, ever taken that approach. And if some cockamamie council did they'd award Eagle on appeal before yeh can say Green Bar Bill.

 

No risk.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

"There is no risk. Nobody at any level is ever goin' to hold up a boy on such a thing."

 

So what if there is no risk? Sounds like you're advocating "do whatever you want" since there's no risk.

We do what is right because it is the right thing to do, not because there is a risk of getting caught.

 

Bottom line here - boards of review are done with committed, knowledgeable, registered committee members. If a troop doesn't have that, spend the effort necessary getting the right people in place instead of making excuses for grabbing any old warm body.

[Beavah]

I'm sayin' that sort of bureaucratic technicality does not fall into a category where I should spend my time and energy judging other good scouters as being "wrong" or out to "do whatever they want."

 

Like the BSA, I trust fellow scouters to make reasonable, prudent choices for serving kids in their units, and I support them even if they're not da same choice I would make in my units.

 

If an LDS unit with a 3-member church committee and 80 scouts wants to use community members and unregistered parents on BORs so that the boys can get a timely BOR rather than waiting for 3 guys to schedule 'em, the BSA is not going to object. So I see no point in any ordinary scouter gettin' on a high horse.

 

What would I recommend? In most cases I'd recommend da same thing as FScouter. Use MC's who are well trained, good at talkin' to kids, who know the program and the CO. And put a youth or a visiting SM from another troop on if yeh feel it's appropriate in addition to the MCs.

 

They don't have to take my recommendation, though. And to be honest, only about 1 troop in 5 meets that standard, eh? For all da rest, yeh modify as you need to in order to do the best yeh can with what they've got.

 

Beavah

 

[BartHumphries]

The Blancmange said, "That is, of course, different from a parent who has absolutely no training in the purpose or procedure for a BOR." Is there a better way for a parent to get that sort of hands-on training than to (unofficially) sit in on a board of review?(This message has been edited by BartHumphries)

[FScouter]

Yes. A better way is to demonstrate an interest in the troop and a commitment by becoming a registered member, taking some basic training, attending and participating in troop and committee activities. Then, if that parent wants to sit on boards of review, he can read some of the BSA writings about the purpose of the BOR and how to conduct one. Then, after becoming prepared, he can get his hands-on training by sitting on a board with a group of other experienced committee members.

 

Warm bodies dont work as well as committed committee members. Boys arent properly served by warm bodies. Do it right and build the committee instead of taking the easy way out and excusing a poor practice just because other troops have a lousy practice.

[Beavah]

Yah, FScouter...

 

But if it's such a poor practice, why do we allow and even encourage it for Eagle Boards of Review?

 

It doesn't seem like it's really all that bad, eh?

 

Some CO's restrict committee membership to their own faith leadership; others don't like large, unwieldy committees. They aren't interested in "growing their committee".

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[acco40]

Warm bodies are not encouraged to sit on EBORs. Non-Scouters who have knowledge about the BSA program may serve on EBORs.

[Beavah]

Yah, but it's a false dichotomy, acco40. Same as da "right" vs. "wrong" bit. Yeh can have all kinds of folks not registered as MCs who aren't "warm bodies", from CORs and IHs to former Scoutmasters to da SM at the neighboring campsite who agrees to join to make 3 so the lad can finish his rank at camp.

 

Heck, most scouting parents have a decent understanding of da program after a year. Some units sign up all parents as MCs when they first join, eh? I don't see that as being any less "warm body" than a parent who has been with the program for 5 years but isn't registered.

 

Honestly, da trick to good BORs is having folks learn from other BOR members and then seeing how well they actually listen to kids. Lots of trained, registered MCs are pretty darn lousy when it comes to encouraging and really listening to kids.

 

Beavah