scouts-l Mail Archive for February of 2000: Re: What Sayeth the List?
The Gross Family (Gross144@GATEWAY.NET
Tue Feb 15 2000 - 22:48:41 CST
Paul Wolf said:
> In fact, if he has served as SPL for 6 months since becoming a Life
> Scout, you can NOT deny the advancement because he didn't meet YOUR
> definition of "active" [snip] How well he served is
> not a criterion.
I have learned much, as have many on the list, by reading Paul's posts.
So, when I ask this, it's because I really want to understand. I think
I understand the response to the specific question (SPL not camping does
not fail this requirement), but I want to understand the more general
Does this mean that a Scout can fulfill this requirement simply by
allowing someone else to appoint him to a position (many Eagle qualified
positions in many troops are appointed), and not letting his
registration lapse for 6 months?
Does this mean it is not "legal" to counsel a Scout about fulfilling the
responsibilities of the job, at least if that counseling implies we will
not sign off under any circumstances except registration lapse?
Is it at least "legal" to look the Scout in the eye, and ask him if, in
his opinion, he has fulfilled the requirement? And if he says "no",
help him find a way to do it?
Is this really the intent of the requirement?
How do I face the Scout who puts his heart into his job (whether he
succeeds or fails, I understand kids who do their best) and gets the
same requirement signed off?
Thanks Paul, for making me think (again :-).
SA, CSRTC, Eagle/3, OA-B, AOL