Rejected posting to SCOUTS-L@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU
L-Soft list server at TCUBVM (LISTSERV@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU)
Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:44:46 -0500
You are not authorized to send mail to the SCOUTS-L list from your
Scouts-L%tcu.edu@MAILHOST.ACCESSCOM.NET account. You might be authorized to
send to the list from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another
mail program which generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no
way to associate this other account or address with yours. If you need
assistance or if you have any question regarding the policy of the SCOUTS-L
list, please contact the list owners: SCOUTS-L-Request@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU.
------------------------ Rejected message (88 lines) --------------------------
Received: from TCUBVM (NJE origin SMTP@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a
/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3535; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:44:28 -0500
Received: from ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU by tcubvm.is.tcu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with TCP; Tue, 26 Aug 97 07:44:26 CDT
Received: from mailhost.accesscom.net (ux.accesscom.net)
by ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU (PMDF V5.0-5 #20456)
id <01IMVZ0S77ZK000VE1@ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU> for Scouts-L@ALPHA.IS.TCU.EDU; Tue,
26 Aug 1997 07:43:04 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue Aug 26 12:44:15 GMT 1997
Original-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:42:55 -0500
Original-Subject: Eagle App. & BoR commants...
Not-Delivered-To: due to 11 Transfer Failure ORIGINAL MESSAGE ATTACHED (rmail:
Error # 24 'Translation command failed', rc = 255)
En-Route-To: thompson ======= Surrogate command ======= :mailalias -Pmailhost!
-Pux! -Pmailhost.accesscom.net! -Pux.accesscom.net! -S@ux.accesscom.net
-S@mailhost.accesscom.net -S@mailhost -S@ux -r -p thompson ==== Start of
stderr === ==== End of stderr ===
Received: from pucc.princeton.edu(18.104.22.168) by ux.accesscom.net(smtpd 1.1.
4) with SMTP id smtp027377; Tue, 26 Aug 97 07:43:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 9269; Tue, 26 Aug 97 08:39:20 EDT
Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (NJE origin MAILER@TCUBVM) by PUCC.PRINCETON.ED
U (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3283; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:39:20 -0400
Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@TCUBVM) by
TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3505; Tue,
26 Aug 1997 07:42:32 -0500
Received: from TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8b)
with NJE id 3501 for SCOUTS-L@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU; Tue, 26 Aug 1997
Received: from TCUBVM (NJE origin SMTP@TCUBVM) by TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3500; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:41:50 -0500
Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com by tcubvm.is.tcu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with TCP; Tue, 26 Aug 97 07:41:48 CDT
Received: from h.sullivan (user-2k7i52r.dialup.mindspring.com [22.214.171.124])
by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA05485 for
<SCOUTS-L@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:40:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: email@example.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:42:55 -0500
Reply-To: "J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sender: Scouts-L Youth Group List <Scouts-L@tcu.edu>
From: "J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Eagle App. & BoR commants...
To: Multiple recipients of list SCOUTS-L <SCOUTS-L@TCUBVM.IS.TCU.EDU>
Bob Gallo <rmgallo@NETGSI.COM> wrote:
Subject: Eagle Application Procedure
>My District Advancement Chairman says that "new" policy from National
>Council does not permit the parent of an Eagle Scout candidate who is
>serving as the boy's unit leader (Scoutmaster, Varsity Coach, Explorer
>Advisor) to sign as the unit leader on the boy's Eagle Scout
>application. Can anyone verify one way or the other?
As recently as 2 months ago I had an Eagle candidate whose father was SM and
approved his application. Since it was approved by National, the "new"
policy must be very recent.
Mike Walton wrote:
> The father/Scoutmaster still CANNOT participate in the Eagle Board of
> Review. While others here will say otherwise with good reasoning,
I suggest reading the Guidelines VERY carefully. They do not use the term
"MAY NOT"; they say "SHOULD NOT". Opinions will vary as to whether those are
the same or different terms. Using Webster I can make a case that they are
different - one is prohibition, the other is merely expected. I have
previously suggested that the Guidelines were written loosely to accomodate
potential adverse court decisions. I also guess that, if challenged, the
courts would allow parent(s) to sit.
As to reality, there would need to be 2 court decisions for parents to be at
our Boards: (a) one allowing them to be there (b) another allowing them to
be close enough to see and hear. 8-)
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City