Scoutmaster denies 17 year old Life Scout Eagle

[TAHAWK]

Interestingly enough, B.S.A. does not say that.  Instead they have written rules that they require a CO to formally promise, in writing, to follow.  

 

B.S.A. may or may not enforce those rules - do something about those who do not keep their promise, but your giving a pass to a CO that, for example, requires Scout to finish confirmation as a requirement for Eagle, changes neither the rules nor the promise to follow them.  

 

"Rules?  Pshaw!"  Great lesson for 'da youth.

 

Council?

 

Unit number?

Edited June 15, 2016 by TAHAWK

[David CO]

I think we need a moderator here.

 

TAHAWK has now asked me 3 times for identifying information.  

 

Isn't this a breach of this forums rules.  If not, it should be.

[Beavah]

Interestingly enough, B.S.A. does not say that.  Instead they have written rules that they require a CO to formally promise, in writing, to follow.  

 

 

Yah, yeh should sit and read 'em sometime.    They don't include everything yeh think they do.

 

Again, it's da BSA's role to decide who is and isn't a BSA unit, not yours.  

 

I reckon da youth should learn about rules, sure.  Learnin' about rules also means learnin' about da scope of rules, and the limits of rulemakers, and an understandin' that if you are goin' to pretend to be a proper interpreter of da rules, your job is to be an agent for the rulemaker, eh?   Not a grammarian. 

 

So when we're in councils providin' friendship and guidance to units, our job is to act as da BSA intends us to act, eh?  To build up Scouting, not to tear down units and leaders.  To serve our Chartered Partners, not to try to throw 'em out because they want us to leave some space for their confirmation program.  

 

Scoutin' is about relationships, not rules.   We need our Chartered Partners, eh?  They don't need us.  I don't know what you're describin', @@TAHAWK, but it isn't BSA Scouting.  In da BSA I know, we're spendin' a lot of time and energy worryin' about how to keep kids and units and grow new ones with new partners, eh?   I'm not seein' any metrics in professional evaluations on throwin' out the impure.

 

Beavah

Edited June 15, 2016 by Beavah

[Sentinel947]

*Moderators note* Nobody needs to provide identifying information about themselves or their unit.

Forum rules are follow the Oath and Law.*

 

Sentinel947

[Stosh]

I think we need a moderator here.

 

TAHAWK has now asked me 3 times for identifying information.  

 

Isn't this a breach of this forums rules.  If not, it should be.

 

  Is this one of the made up rules as we go along?  All one need to is say, no, I do not wish to provide that information.  And they can do that right after the first request was made.

[Stosh]

*Moderators note* Nobody needs to provide identifying information about themselves or their unit.

Forum rules are follow the Oath and Law.*

 

Sentinel947

 

As long as this issue has been volleyed back and forth, polarizing camps are being formed, maybe it ought to be moved over into I&P so it will die on it's own merits.

[TAHAWK]

A moderator when a question is asked?

 

Of course no one needs to provide identifying information.

 

Oh noble Castor, you see things in such stark terms - the aberration in David's unit or the highway.  How about  "our job is to act as da BSA intends us to act, eh?  "  David's unit could do what B.S.A. seems to require.

 

As for reading, one can but try. However, I don't see the point for those, like you, who routinely dismiss B.S.A.'s pronouncements as merely suggestions subordinate to your insights into how things ought to be, however correct in a cosmic sense I might think you are on occasion.

 

 

"This publication clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as “must†and “shall.†Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered, without the written permission of the National Advancement Committee."

 

B.S.A, Guide to Advancement at p. 2.

 

"No council, district, unit, or individual has the authority to produce or require additional forms, or to add or change requirements, or to make any additions, deletions, or changes in the text, outlines, links, graphics, or other layout or informational elements of the workbook. It is permissible, however, to print, copy, or send individual pages or forms within the workbook as long as they are not changed in the process."

 

Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook 512-927

 

 

9.0.2.7 “Proposal Must Be Approved … Before You Start† The Five Tests of an Acceptable Eagle Scout Service Project. The proposal is an overview, but also the beginnings of planning. It shows the unit leader and any representatives of a unit committee, council, or district, that the following tests can be met.

1. The project provides sufficient opportunity to meet the requirement.

2. The project appears to be feasible.

3. Safety issues will be addressed.

4. Action steps for further detailed planning are included.

5. The young man is on the right track with a reasonable chance for a positive experience

 

B.S.A., Guide to Advancement 9.0.2.7

 

This language seems to me to preclude adding a requirement that the Eagle candidate complete any religious requirement before commencing his Eagle Service Project.  In fact, as far as I read, the inquiry into whether the candidate is meeting his religious or spiritual obligations is by the Eagle Board of Review.

 

So teach me.  Point out the enabling language for this sixth test for an acceptable Eagle Service Project.  Please.

Edited June 15, 2016 by TAHAWK

[Beavah]

 

So teach me.  Point out the enabling language for this sixth test for an acceptable Eagle Service Project.  Please.

 

Nah, you're thinkin' about this in entirely the wrong way, eh?   Da owners of the unit don't need "enabling language" to allow 'em to pursue their goals and mission.  Heck, if they want to they can shut down the entire program during confirmation season, the way some troops and most packs shut down durin' the summer.

 

Stop tryin' to lawyer a kids' program!  And for goodness sake, stop tryin' to undermine chartered relationships.

 

@@David CO's unit is a great example of what we want in partners, eh?   A stable, youth-focused organization that wants to use Scoutin' as part of its mission for youth.   If we maintain that relationship, we'll have kids from that organization in Scouting forever, eh?  Way more stable than small "Friends of" chartering partners. 

 

Simply put, nobody's goin' to deny @@David CO's school a BSA charter.

 

By contrast, I reckon most of us would drop da council registration of a fellow who took your approach with a partner.     Holdin' on to Catholic units has gotten more shaky in some areas, and the last thing we need is some fellow tryin' to start a fight over their confirmation program.  Now, were I servin' @@David CO's unit(s), I might work with 'em to try to integrate da confirmation program more tightly, eh?   There's no reason why service hours shouldn't overlap, with Scoutin' supporting the church and vice versa.  Maybe work Ad Altare Dei in as well.

 

Recognize that Advancement, includin' the entirety of da Guide to Advancement, is just an instructional method in a kids' program, eh?  One of eight Methods, in fact.   Stop thinkin' about it like it's da United States Code.  Besides, we're talkin' 8th graders here, eh?  Thirteen year olds.  You're imaginin' a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Beavah

Edited June 15, 2016 by Beavah

[Stosh]

Just because someone can "get away with it", doesn't mean under the principles of Scout Spirit they should.  People drive 5 mph over the speed limit all the time, they have accidents and kill people all the time.  Even if one death could have been prevented by people driving under the speed limit it would be worth it.

 

The CO signs a legal charter/agreement/covenant and says that on their honor they will uphold their end of the deal.  National BSA is only interested in accumulating numbers of units and members, they don't have the time to check up on whether or not everyone is honoring their pledge. 

 

Obviously not everyone is as honorable as the next.  How not honorable does one have to get to then be defined as dishonorable?  5 over?  6 over?  7 over?  8 over?  Well, when they went 1 over they were speeding.  After that it really doesn't make much difference does it.

[TAHAWK]

OK.  The provisions that BSA says are mandatory are merely suggestive.  ""[O]ur job is to act as da BSA intends us to act," means do whatever we believe is better, regardless of what B.S.A. says.  After all, B.S.A. rules are surely less important the the U.S.C.

 

So what about Ad Altare Dei  plus Pius XII for Eagle if 15 or older?

 

And why not require Hiking, Swimming, and Life Saving for Eagle?  They were a good idea until the wretched New Scouting Program appeared in 1972.  Why not require them in your troop?  Real Scouting!

 

I mean, we do want 110% Eagles, right?  

 

And why in the name of North American mammals should we stop at Eagle?  Why not added requirements for all the ranks?  Why deprive First Class candidates of the benefits of added requirements?

 

And if the Scouts in your unit have to do more than the Scouts in all the other units, why it's good for them to do more.  Anyone who disagrees should be thrown out of Scouting.

[qwazse]

Unlike @@Beavah, I'll play "saint's advocate" and step into the parsing regs to see if, in rules as written, a CO has latitude in terms of scheduling service projects:

As for reading, one can but try. ...
Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook 512-927
 
 
9.0.2.7 “Proposal Must Be Approved … Before You Start† The Five Tests of an Acceptable Eagle Scout Service Project. ...
...
5. The young man is on the right track with a reasonable chance for a positive experience
 
B.S.A., Guide to Advancement 9.0.2.7
 
This language seems to me to preclude adding a requirement that the Eagle candidate complete any religious requirement before commencing his Eagle Service Project.  In fact, as far as I read, the inquiry into whether the candidate is meeting his religious or spiritual obligations is by the Eagle Board of Review.
 
So teach me.  Point out the enabling language for this sixth test for an acceptable Eagle Service Project.  Please.

I could envision a Christian CO determining that a boy is on "the wrong track" if he has not fulfilled his religious duty. That they may want to see a boy's demonstration of service that carries no awards, is not logged in troop-master, or some national database for someone's bragging rights. That service to the LORD in concert with other young people doing the same for a proscribed period trumps service to any other beneficiary. That a boy to proceeding on an Eagle project without the explicit blessing of the CO is intrinsically a "negative experience."

 

Therefore; to ensure that "Test #5" is met for all of its youth, the CO might impose scheduling constraints. In their mind, it would be fulfilling, rather than adding to, the requirements. No sixth test needed.

 

Now, against all protests that the language of that test was only intended to reflect upon the execution of the project, we also have that 12th point of the Scout Law, and someone who holds a faith that is explicitly or implicitly catholic (i.e. universal) would necessarily make scouting fit into their religious framework, not the other way around.

Edited June 15, 2016 by qwazse

[TAHAWK]

Thank you for being willing to contribute to a discussion of this issue.

 

The fifth requirement for the Eagle Scout Service project, is indeed properly read as having to do with the Eagle Scout Service Project, not the Duty to God requirement,   And that language is only one basis for the conclusion that purporting to require confirmation for Eagle is an addition to the requirements for rank, all such additions being prohibited by B.S.A. (but not by the federal government)

 

As to the Duty to God requirement, we know how the candidate for advancement meets that requirement, and the requirement and the meeting of it are totally apart from the Eagle Scout Service project.

 

"Tell how you have done your Duty to God...."

 

B.S.A. has explained hoe this requirement is to be administered:

 

"It’s important to know what that means — and what it doesn’t. 

 

The new requirements do ask Scouts to reflect on their own belief. They don’t ask the Scout leader to have a two-way conversation about religion, to proselytize or to evaluate whether the Scout’s duty to God meets the Scout leader’s personal standard.

Look at the verb in the requirement: â€œTell how you have done your duty to God.†Not demonstrate, discuss, show or prove.

This is a monologue by the Scout. Not a dialogue between a Scout and his leader.

The requirement is complete once the Scout has told how he has done his duty to God. With young Scouts, this could be a very brief statement. As Scouts get older and their beliefs mature, this “telling†will evolve.

The troop leader is there to listen, not to evaluate a Scout’s expression against any standard. In many troops, the Scout leader and one or more of his Scouts will have different religious beliefs, and that’s perfectly fine. In fact, it’s healthy.

...

There is no requirement that a Scout identify a religious faith as part of his duty to God—although, if the Scout does have a religious faith, it is likely to be part of the self-reflection and expression. It is important to note that Scouting is nonsectarian and promotes no specific religion. In fact, a boy need not belong to any official religious institution—he could practice his beliefs privately at home. However, while membership in an organized religion is not necessary or implied, a Scout does have to ascribe to the declaration of religious principles, and express belief in a higher power. This condition of membership is acknowledged by the parent or guardian’s signature on the BSA Youth Application."

B.S.A., Scouting Magazine.org, June 14, 2016.

 

Having told the Scoutmaster how he has done his duty to God, the candidate has completed his Duty to God requirement.

 

...

The troop leader does not evaluate whether a Scout’s expression of how he shows duty to God is sufficient by any standard. In signing off the requirement, the leader simply acknowledges that the Scout has told how he has done his duty to God. The leader should make no judgment and the Scout should not be held to a standard of belief or activity in order to be signed off on the requirement. There will often be differences of belief among troop members and troop leadership—but the troop leader’s beliefs do not establish a standard for the Scout. The policy of the Boy Scouts of America is that “the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.†The troop leader is to respect those differences, with no attempt to impose his or her personal beliefs on the Scout."

 

And I do see how a religious leader might want more, although his CO has promised to abide by the rules.

Edited June 15, 2016 by TAHAWK

[David CO]

That is absolute nonsense.  It's double-talk.

 

BSA licenses its methods and materials for use within our Catholic youth ministry programs.  BSA knows that we're Catholic.  BSA knows that we are promoting Catholicism.

 

If a boy did not identify a religious faith as part of his duty to God and/or did not belong to any religious institution, he would never have to worry about an Eagle BOR.  He would never be allowed to register in our unit.

 

Scouting is non-sectarian?  That is ridiculous!  At the unit level, scouting can be very sectarian.  

Edited June 16, 2016 by David CO

[Stosh]

BSA has always been sectarian, separatist, discriminatory in it's policies.  Why would a unit not be as well.  The World Brotherhood of Scouting is really just political spin because in practice it is not always a true reality of what's occurring.  Like every other national or international organizations out there, there are rogue groups cropping up all over the place.

[David CO]

Stosh forgot to add "nationalistic" to his list.  Since its inception, scouting has promoted nationalism.