Eagle Project Problem
Pete Townsend (ptownsen@HYDRA.CS.GMR.COM)
Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:41:41 -0400
I sympathize with your dilemma. I've seen the problem of too many
sibling/parent/personal hours and few other participants. In most
cases, however, it was MY objections, the SM having supported the
In each case I was able, in good conscience, sign the app, by
quizzing the boy on what he did in leading. There are some very
innocent sounding questions that can be asked that will show who
was in charge during those work sessions. (I've never run into a
case where the boy himself did all the work, i.e. no leadership).
Although I have a generalized problem with the parent/sibling
work parties, if leadership was shown, I buy into it.
I'll be very interested in what resolution you bring this to, for
my own future reference.
As an aside, since I'm almost always the District rep that is
involved in approving the projects for which I will eventually do
the board of review, I've established the practice of always
doing an in-person review. I like to sit down with the candidate,
his troop Eagle advisor, and occasionally the advisor from the
beneficiary, sometimes at the site of the project. During that
review, I look for content (too much/too little), consideration for
on-the-job safety, and planning. During the planning review I almost
always bring up the subject of who the helpers will be. When there
is an indication that the workforce could degenerate into a sibling/
parent situation, some counciling corrects the situation. It doesn't
always work completely but enough that I can later sign off in
Keep the dialog coming.
Keeping FUN in scOUTING, Pete Townsend ASM T188, Rochester Hills MI
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City