Re: Life to Eagle requirements, is this fair?
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:32:43 -0500
On Mar 13, 1996 08:43:54, 'David Burgart <djb@TEAMQUEST.COM>' wrote:
>My first question is: During the meeting he stated that if the boy's
>name was not on the attendance sheet for that night, he would not even
>look at the Life to Eagle Packet (much less sign it) because the
>meeting was a requirement. Can he do that? Do other districts do
>that? Isn't that an additional requirement that he is putting on the
As you've already heard, yes it is an additional requirement and is not
permitted. I do this session every year and encourage attendance but do
not require it. (It is easier to explain these things once rather than
having to do it for every Life Scout one at a time.)
>1. The boy could not sent him the Life to Eagle Packet to sign, or
>have a parent or SM drop if off. Rather the boy had to come in person
>and do a oral presentation of the project--"...sell me on the project,
>make me feel like it is something you really want to do...", he said.
>I could not find anywhere in the requirements that said the boy must
>do a oral presentation of the project, is this a requirement?
No, this is not part of the requirements, per se. However, the
requirements include his approval before the project can be started. The
method of approval is not stated. I, personally, insist on a personal
meeting with the Scout, his SM and a member of the unit committee, although
I will hold the meeting without the member of the committee. I do this
because before I give my approval I have to satisfy myself that this
project, as it has been planned, meets the criteria of an Eagle project.
Of course, in a "crisis" situation I am flexible and have approved projects
over the phone, etc. But it is very definitely my policy and preference to
meet with each Scout to approve the project. I see no problem here.
>2. The project must be 100 hours.
There are not and can not be an arbitrary hours required of a project,
although 100 total hours including the Scouts own time provides me with a
good starting point for my evaluation, a guideline, not a requirement.
>3. The results of the project must be typed.
Not required. Period.
>4. It must be something the boy wants to do very badly, not just
>something that the parents or SM talked him into.
Well, I don't know how one measures this, other than by a gut feeling which
you certainly can't get unless you meet the boy personally, but in theory I
agree. I ask all of the candidates how and why they picked their projects
and have been known to attempt to dissuade them from projects where I
sensed their hearts weren't in it. But if the project meets the
requirements I wouldn't deny the approval.
>5. The boy must involve the other boys in the troop. (I do not have a
>problem with this, but I don't see it in the national requirements.)
Others, absolutely! Other Scouts, not necessary. I have had SMs tell me
that they require this but I actually give a lot of credit to a Scout who
involves his NON SCOUTING friends in his project. I view this as a plus,
not a minus.
>6. It must be finished in one years time after getting signed off my
He can't require this, but he can certainly ask for an explanation of the
delay. Remember, he will probably be sitting on the BOR which must be
unanimous. One of the things the BOR must do is decide whether the Scout
successfully completed the project. While I do not take any formal steps
to decide this before the BOR I know other district advancement chairman
who do. I have no problem with it.
>Who should I complain to?
Start with the district advancement chairman himself. If that gets nowhere
follow the trail up the ladder as others have mentioned.
Bruce E. Cobern
Dan Beard District
Queens Council, NY
PS: Mike - is Chris really the senior advancement person here? I have 20
years in as a district or council advancement chairman. Has he been at it
longer? I don't know, but curious minds (mine) want to know. :-)
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City