Questionable Eagle Project

[OldGreyEagle]

Rudd Buddy, again, we have to disagree. The signature of the scout leader on the blue card for a merit badge occurs before the scout starts the merit badge. If a scout gets a leader signed blue card and comes back with a signature of a counselor who is registered for that merit badge indicating a completed badge, the troop committee has no business deciding if they will award the badge. The scout did all he was supposed to, you cant deny him the badge.

 

I do understand what you say about Summer Camp merit badges. However, here is a thought, why not have your troop committee go to your council and demand the teaching of the First Aid merit badge come up to standards? Knowing a bad situaiton exists and allowing it to continue is not scoutlike. Rather than ignore the situation, why not be the catylst of change? The troop sounds like it has a lot of passionate dedicated people, it would be nice if they also followed the program

[RuddBaron]

Ruddy Buddy? There's a college flashback!

 

I'll go look at a blue card again. It's been a long while since I've done a merit badge, but I seem to recall having to have approval before AND after from the SM. But, I'm going to my Scout office today, so I will check.

 

As for the summer camp, the troop DID tell the Council. It told them that they would not acceot First Aid until the Council changed the quality of its program. In the meantime, the troop had a responsibility to maintain standards, especially with something like First Aid.

 

As for the troop not following the program, I must disagree. You may find it amusing that the SM when I was in the troop is a rather "famous" Scouter currently serving on National Committee.

[Bob White]

The troop maintains quality by being aware of who is approved to sign off on testing, not by artificial manipulation of the requirements. The fact that the SM is on the a National committee does not justify altering BSA advancement policies.

 

Rudd rather than take our word for it I invite you to take BSA's. There is a manual called the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures that will support everything we are trying to explain to you hear.

 

Since you are confident that you are not violating BSA rules wold it hurt for you to read the manual? I think you will be surprised. For instance it makes it very clear that once the MB signs the card NO ONE may deny the merit badge.

 

Please take the time to review this manual. It is available for sale at your local council office.

 

Do not expect the DE or Scout executive to know these rules, that is not their function.

 

Bob White

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[RuddBaron]

My dear Scouting Legal Gray Eagle,

 

Here's another one.... If an Eagle Candidate showed up to an Eagle BOR out of uniform, let's just say the BOR wouldn't have gone so well. There's no REQUIREMENT to be in uniform that I have seen. But...especially since the troop maintained a supply of FREE uniforms, there was no excuse.

 

And, while we're at it...most colleges have set requirements for a degree. However, the adviser, chair, and registrar generally have to approve all courses for a degree. At least where I went the individual school could make some changes. Courses had to be completed with a certain degree of performance to count. Having standards like I mentioned for an Eagle Scout does a good job preparing Scouts for real life.

[OldGreyEagle]

(just a note to all you Fractious Older Guys and Gals, notice how we disagree but no one, even Bob White (hee hee) has personally attacked anyone?)

 

The problem with comparing Eagle requirements with college degree requirments is the BSA has set the standards. There is no comparison. The BSA isnt like a college, its like the BSA.

 

Now, about this Camp where scouts enter in a week and leave as First Class, THAT is a problem unless a major amount of requirements are already done. I agree with you there, that does sound like somethings wrong.

 

It looks like we could take this Eagle thing around and round and I am not sure any of us will change. So, this is my last post on this thread. I look forward to your contributions on other issues

[mk9750]

Rudd,

 

In re - reading my post, it is obvious to me that I didn't emphasis my main point. Let me try again.

 

I feel it is our (Troop adult leadership and committee) to GUIDE an Eagle candidate to making his own determination of what is an acceptable display of leadership. I feel it is NOT our responsiblity, nor do we even have the right, to "approve" a project. We simply acknowledge with our signatures that we have done our duty to guide the Scout. Approving the project is the duty of the District Advancement Chair, and reviewing it after completion to determine if it adequately met the requirments (all of them, not just the leadership provision) is the duty of the Board of Review.

 

As to your specific example, I would certainly not let a Scout who was seeking my guidance think that this is an acceptable Eagle project, with the facts you state, regardless of whether the Troop spent 10 hours, 100 hours, or a million hours.

 

Lastly, your post seems to indicate that you believe an Eagle project must be completed by the Troop. Although I will agree that the Troop is often the group with the most time involved in a project, they are not the only people who can be involved. Quite to the contrary, I advise Scouts when they develop their plan to try to include as much help outside the Troop as possible. Although this has a couple of benefits, the one I think that is most important is the experience that comes with leading friends and relatives. Let's face it: It's pretty simple to "lead" a bunch of guys who feel that they have to be there, that the only way they are going to get reciprical help on their project is to be at someone else's, and to lead guys who an Eagle candidate has likely led before. It demonstrates a whole different level of leadership when some of the group to be led are school friends and ands and uncles. Please understand that I don't ever make this a requirement. But I do point out both the long term and short term benefits of doing so. How a Scout utilizes my guidance is up to him.

 

Mark

[Bob White]

A scout is not required, nor can he be required to use other scouts or his troop to do his Eagle project. he is required to plan and give leadership to the project. No specifc workforce or size of workforce can be required according to the advancement policies of the BSA.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[RuddBaron]

I must stand corrected on the blue card issue. However, in the case of things like First Aid, Lifesaving, etc., I must say I would support a troop who wouldn't recognize a merit badge knowingly performed in a half-ass (can I say that on here?) manner...policy or not.

 

[mk9750]

Rudd,

 

As to the signatures on the blue card, two Troop signatures are required. One is on the first third of the card that is the application itself. The Scoutmaster or other designated adult signs this to verify the Scout is eligible to begin working on the badge. The second signature is on the second third of the card, which I am almost certain is the Scout's record. The signature is there to verify that the unit has knowledge that the Scout has completed the badge. We use this signature as evidence that it has been entered into TroopMaster. If a Scout can show me a blue card with this second signature on it, he gets his badge even if I don't have a record of it. If I signed it, but it doesn't show up in TroopMaster, I goofed, not the Scout. But in no way do we use this as an approval. I have always assumed I was not allowed to "approve" anything, unless I was the MB Counselor. My signatures "verify" that the Scout is eligible to begin work, and verifies that he has reported completion to me.

 

I agree with OGE about the college example. You are right, but colleges do not have the same processes or standards as the BSA, and the BSA does not have the same processes or standards as colleges. You are right that Scouting is an excellent prepatory effort for success in college, but that is not one of our goals. It happens, I agree. But it's a by product , not the reason, we Deliver the Promise.

 

I am beginning to sound frighteningly like Bob. Oh well, it could be worse. Lot's worse.

 

Mark

[Twocubdad]

It seems to me that you gentlemen are arguing over the meaning of the word "requirement." Certainly, to say to that a project must include 200 manhours -- not 198, not 199, but 200 -- and documented by time cards would be an inappropriate added requirement.

 

But it sounds to me that Rudd's committee is simply using an estimate manhours as a guideline for evaluating the scope of a project up front. I don't necessarily see that as an added requirement -- although I will allow you that it could easily be turned into one.

 

The key difference between an Eagle project and other service projects is that the Eagle project requires you to provide leadership to other. If a project requires only 10 or 20 hours of work by others, I don't think that provides a Scout an adequate opportunity to demonstrate his leadership abilities (although I'm theoretically open to the idea that with certain projects in special circumstance, it may.) On the other hand, if a proposed project will require 5,000 hours from a 15-boy troop, I think the committee has the responsibility to the troop to steer the Scout in another direction.

 

Both of those judgements require that some consideration be given to the hours a project requires. But just because you're using hours as a measure, doesn't mean it is a requirement.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, Rudd, I hope you understand BW and OGE's points as well. The nuances of a requirement vs. a guideline vs. a "tool for evaluation" can easily get whittled down to "Eagle projects have to take 200 manhours." There is a lot of room for abuse and for manhours to become the primary criteria for evaluating projects.

 

I do you want you to explain something for me, Rudd. Several times you mentioned that the 200 hours was based on the size of your troop. I don't understand how that's a factor. If you are saying that all 40 of the boys in the troop need to be involved in a project, then I think you've added an unnecessary constraint to the projects. I can think of several projects where the depth is more important than the width.

 

It all reminds me of an English teacher I had who when asked how long our essays need to be always said, "It needs to be long enough to adequately answer the questions. However, in my opinion that will be difficult to do in less than 500 words." There was always the hope that we could distill the meaning of life into 100 words, but she wasn't counting on it. Rudd, if that's all your committee is doing, I don't have a big problem with it.

[RuddBaron]

Ah, twocubdad gets it!

 

The point about the size of the troop was that the entire troop was considered at the disposal of the EAgle candidate, and Scouts were expected to help out their fellow Scouts on their Eagle projects. In fact, many projects were camping trips. Mine was 400 miles away and took a week. So, with the troop tradition of working on the projects as a troop, that is a HUGE labor supply. My own project indeed had around 40 people working on it from the troop alone. It's EASY to get WELL over 200 man-hours. It's just a matter of the culture of the troop. In a different troop culture, such a guideline or tool for evaluation would not perhaps be appropriate.

 

Now...here's an unsolicited plug. Under "Advancement Resources" there is a new topic about an Expert Horseman Award. I would appreciate the views of others on this.

[mk9750]

For what it may matter- My son's Eagle project proposal estimated that he would need over 800 hour man hours. As Advancement Chair, I still guided him to alter his project because there was not enough evidence of leadership. In the end, his project required a little over 500 hours, but he demonstrated a significant amount of leadership thoughout almost the entire project. And he was questioned quite critically about this by his BOR (upon my suggestion to the District Advancement Chair).

 

Time means practically nothing.

 

Mark