Re: Last Minute Eagles
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:30:02 -0400
> From: Barry Griffin <bgrif138@WAGA.NET>
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 10:08 PM
> 1. OA must never interfere with a scouts duty to his troop.
This is very fine sounding, in theory, but I have seen too many SM's who
use this as a weapon against the Scout. They intentionally schedule Troop
events to conflict with OA events and then hold the Scout's feet to the
fire by demanding that he ALWAYS make the troop his first priority. The
key to making this work in the real world is for the SM to realize that he
needs to help accommodate the Scout's desire to be active in both the
Troop and the OA.
However, in the case of Larry's son, there was a totally different issue.
Here the SM made commitments to this young man about how the SPL would be
chosen if he did not take the job again, and then did something entirely
different, by appointing the SPL instead of conducting an election as
promised. Aside from the fact that the SM should NEVER appoint the SPL,
what the SM did, if we believe the one side of the story we have heard so
far, is to LIE to the Scout and thus totally disillusion him with this
particular troop. It is to his son's credit that he has chosen to stay
involved in Scouting at all since, in most instances, an adult pulling a
stunt like this would result in the Scout just walking away completely.
> 2. A scout is expected to LEAD in a leadership position. Not just have
> a position. The key word is: LEADERSHIP in Leadership Position.
Well, Chris tried, but I guess it is now MY turn.
The ONLY place in the entire advancement process where there is ANY
mention of leadership is in the Eagle PROJECT. The troop positions which
must be held for advancement to Star, Life and Eagle are POSITIONS OF
RESPONSIBILITY. They are NOT leadership positions. Forgetting for the
moment national's policy that holding the position is enough to qualify,
NO leadership need be shown by a Scout holding one of these positions in
order to qualify for rank. He can do the job, like take minutes to
actively serve as Scribe, for example, and NEVER demonstrate any
leadership whatsoever (faithfully keeping the minutes would demonstrate
responsibility, but not necessarily leadership), yet he would definitely
have fulfilled the requirements for advancement.
> I had a life scout that came from another troop. He was in our troop
> for two years not showing leadership. He did his project and throughout
> that time I told him he had to show leadership to someone other than his
> family (mother, Father & Brother) and I. On three separate occasions I
> told him this. He and his father thought he was finished and came to me
> saying that he still needed four months on a leadership position and
> wanted me to appoint him a position, he also only had four months left
> before he turned 18. First I told them that I didn't appoint positions
> that the SPL did. Then I ask "if you get a position are you going to be
> here every week of you final four to fulfill the position". He said that
> he had football every week and could not. I said: "I'm Sorry."
In this case, the first question I would ask is whether at any time from
the time he had become a Life Scout this young man had been in any of the
qualifying positions for a total of 6 months, in EITHER troop. If he had,
then he had already me the position of leadership requirement and had he
chosen to appeal your refusal to allow him to advance then you would have
lost and he would have become an Eagle.
If, however unlikely, at no time during the 2+ years that he was a Life
Scout had he accumulated six months in office, then there might have been
a basis for denying him Eagle.
Bruce E. Cobern
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City