Eagle BOR Fatal Flaws

[nldscout]

well I for one would still like to know the incident that was refered to in the initial posting

[Eamonn]

I was tempted to reply to juris!!

However instead I think the best thing to do is to take plenty of no notice. It just isn't worth it.

Eamonn.

 

[Lynda J]

I am of the opinion that in many cases kids do need a second chance. Do we hold something against them for the rest of their lives.

I don't think so. Has this boy been in any trouble since the first incident?

One of my very best friends got in trouble about 15 years ago. Spent some time in jail. She got out, got counseling and turned her life around. She is one of the greatest people I know. She can't be a scoutleader because of her criminal history but I would trust her with my life or the life of my child in a heart beat.

Kids will sometimes do dumb things. But it doesn't mean they are bad kids.

If we are going to hold boys to a standard of

NEVER making a bad judgement call. Then we must hold ourselves to that same standard. We must never break a speading law. Never park in a handicap parking spot for 5 minutes to "just run in". Never taste the grapes to see if they are sweet before we buy them.

If this kid has worked hard and has been doing his best to live by the Scout Laws. Give him a chance.

The appeal is the route to go.

 

[Backpacker]

Without knowing the nature of the offense there is no way to answer this question accurately. You can quote rules and regs all you want however the BOR sole purpose is to determine if a scout has qualified for the Eagle, they are not to be a vigilante group deciding what is moral and what is not. The rules do not always cover every situation that might surface at the BOR. When a situation of this sort occurs the BOR would be better off postponing their decision and getting expert advice before lowering the boom.

 

If scouting was truly a microcosm of society, which it is not in any way, there would be a lot more of immoral and gay Eagle scouts which would mirror our society today. Scouting is supposed to instill values in the youth that far exceed our current culture/society. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Bob White]

Actually Scouting was founded on the tradional values that our society was built on, not on ones that have yet to be achieved.

[Backpacker]

BW

Once again you are in error with your idea of what a microcosm of our society really means.

 

A reflection of our society does not mean what we were founded on but what we are today as a culture.

[BadenP]

I have seen BOR's all over the place arguing about what they can and can not do, what their authority is, and their true function. It is their sole job to determine whether or not a scout has passed all his req's for Eagle and nothing more, not be judge, jury and prosecutor.

 

I wish BSA would put out a video on how to properly run a BOR and require everyone who is or has sat on a BOR to review and study it. I feel this would help eliminate many of these BOR horror stories we hear.

[Bob White]

Backpacker, You appear to have chosen to combine to separate comments on two unrelated comments. During a discussion on the bor system I pointed out that the appeals board is not unlike the appealate system of our courts.

 

You chose to turn the discussion from the topic at hand and chase after my reference to the review process of the advancement program being similar to elements of our own society, trying to turn it to a discussion on the values of the program saying "Scouting is supposed to instill values in the youth that far exceed our current culture/society."

 

I do not know anywhere where the BSA

makes such a claim. I pointed out that the BSA is not designed to instill values that exceed our culture but on traditional values that our culture was built on.

 

The systems we use for troop operations are modeled after various aspects of our government branches.

 

Our values are modeled after traditional family values. You would be in error to try and combine these separate intentions.

 

I hope you will allow the thread to continue on its original topic.

 

Thanks

BW

[Backpacker]

Sorry Bob but your previous post on this thread speaks for itself, I just reread it,I never claimed the BSA stated anything just pointed out the error of your analogy and erroneous use of microcosm.

You can pm me with your personal comments in the future instead of going astray on the thread.

[iaeagle]

My response is a question -

In the orginal post, SCOUTLDR mentioned something about the individual unit being able to conduct a Eagle BOR. Is this true, I have never heard of it. Any paperwork evidence to support this?

[scoutldr]

Yes, it is apparently a Council option. The BOR is conducted by the Troop or Crew Committee with a District representative present.

 

I have seen it both ways...I prefer the District BOR...better quality control.

[CalicoPenn]

Quite a few people have asked for the details in order to properly answer but the following gives me all the info I need to opine that the BOR was flat out wrong to deny this boy's Eagle:

 

"The offense (disclosed to the board in a reference letter, which was not intended to be a negative comment), was an egregious violation of "morally straight", by most measures, except maybe the moral standards of most teenagers these days, whose attitude is "stuff happens". The SM knew about it (as do all of the other scouts in the troop), however, it was felt it was "not relevant" and not important enough to mention to the Board prior to the BOR."

 

The "offense" was apparently not seen to be morally wrong by the Scoutmaster or by the Scout. More importantly - much more importantly, the person who wrote the recommendation letter did not make any moral condemnations about this "offense" - indeed, as the writer of the recommendation did not make a negative comment about the offense, we have to trust that in the writer's view, their was no moral issue in the first place.

 

The Board of Review has imposed their standards of what Morally Straight is over the standards of the recommendation writer, the Scoutmaster, the Scout's Unit, the Scout's Parents, and the Scout himself, who pledges to do his best to be morally straight, not to be perfect.

 

When the BSA publishes a book outlining exactly what actions are considered morally straight, and what actions are not - rather that the purposely ambiguous language it now uses, then the Board of Review can make judgments on the scout's adherence to morally straight - until then, the board is in no position to make its own determinations of what is and is not morally straight.

 

CalicoPenn(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[Bob White]

Actually Calico you have it kinda backwards. If the BSA did indeed give you specific moral boundaries there would be no need for a board to make a decision, it would simply be a checklist.

 

The BSA has purposely left the issue open for the board to be able to discuss these things with the scout. Keep in mind the board cannot just say that the scout didn't meet a requiremnt, goodbye. They have to tell the scout which requirement was not yet met, AND what the scout needs to do to complete the requirement.

 

If the scout doesn't agree he has the right to appeal. A right that the board is required to tell him about. If you were a member of the board and you voted your conscience thats all you can do, regardless of whayt the outcome is. If the no votes were wrong the appeal board will take care of it.

 

 

 

 

[scoutldr]

And that's what happened. Initially, when reading the letters of recommendation, one of the Board members said, "I have a problem with this."...at that time, the Board was recessed (before even calling the scout in), and guidance was sought from the Council Advancement Chair and the SE. The guidance was "you must proceed with the Board and let the chips fall where they may." The Board was reconvened and the scout was examined. The final vote of the Board was not unanimous and the scout was not advanced. He was advised of his appeal rights. I do not know if he chose to appeal or not.