Re: Eagle project problem (additional)
Cheryl Singhal (csinghal@CAPACCESS.ORG)
Tue, 8 Oct 1996 10:34:34 -0400
On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Bruce E. Cobern wrote:
> On Oct 07, 1996 12:06:04, 'Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CAPACCESS.ORG>' wrote:
> >On Sat, 5 Oct 1996, Ted Sarah wrote:
> >> 3. After the boys first SM conference, in which it was pointed
> >> out that he did not have two deep adult leadership at all
> >> of the work dates, adults magically appeared on his list of
> >> workers when he had his second SM conference. His SM
> >> that the write up be redone, as it was not written up in the
> >> proper manner, this is why a 2nd SM conference.
> >You're saying the Eagle candidate *lied* verbally in the SM conference
> >and again in writing on his write-up? Does anyone but the candidate have
> >a copy of that first write-up?
> Without getting into the question of whether an Eagle Service Project is an
> "activity" for purposes of requiring two deep adult leadership, there IS
> another explanation of the "magically appearing" adults, and that is that
> the Scout just forgot to list some of the adults who might have been
> present, but who might not have been actually involved in the service
> project itself. It is also possible that they were actually helping but
> were not listed. I find that there is a great tendency for candidates NOT
> to list adults, even when there and working. I have a set of papers in my
> possession now from a Scout in my own troop where my presence on the second
> day of his project is not listed. I don't know why not, and I don't think
Several have suggested I over-reacted. I may have done. My impression
of the post was as I posted: the Scouters thought there were falsehoods
on the writeup.
If I mis-read the sub-text, I apologize.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City