Just when you thought you had heard everything

[smtroop168]

We had a SM who signed a scout's Eagle Application because he was told he "had to". He evidently had/has a problem with this because when he discovered he didn't "have to", he took the Eagle Application and cut his signature block out of the page.

I told our DAC chair, we should shred his Adult Application and boot him out!

[Cowboy]

This is wrong on so many levels.
1) The SM does not have to sign the application until he feels confident that the Scout has fulfilled the requirements. Req. #2 of the application states:"Demonstrate that you live by the principles of the Scout Oath and Law in your daily life." If the SM has knowledge of inappropriate behavior, he should not sign.
2) Once an application has been signed, there is no taking it (the signature) back. But that brings up another issue:
3) Why did the SM have the Application to cut his signature out? Once it was signed the boy should have had it in his possession so that he could send it on to Council. Did the SM violate the boys personal property by "taking it away" from him?
4) If the SM receives information after the fact, he can write a letter to the EBoR relating that information. If he had the information before signing, but was misinformed of his duty, he should have done this.

Should the SM be removed? Hard to say with the limited information. My concerns would be both in the training of the SM (why did he not know that he was NOT required to sign until all requirements have been met) and exactly how did the cutting out occur? Did he have the app in his possesion, or did he take it away from the boy? Did he simply ask for it or did he go through the boys property looking for it? Cutting out the signature was wrong, no doubt, but this may be a case of teaching the right way instead of starting fresh with someone else. Finally: Why did he feel that he should not have signed? Was the Scout caught stealing, drinking, doing drugs? If so, is this what we want for an Eagle? Personally, I would be inclined to write a strongly worded letter with that information to both Council and DAC along with supporting documentation. But I can see a "new" SM doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

[jr56]

True, the worst part is his total ignorance mad worse by an inappropriate action.

[smtroop168]

I wish I had more details to share. I don't know if he immediately cut out his signature or if it was later. When the Council registrar received the form, it was cut out and stuff hit the fan. I'll see if the DAC can share more details but I won't see him for a couple of weeks.

[evmori]

I don't know that his application should be shredded! I would say whoever gave him the poor and totally incorrect advice is the one who should be taken out back!

[FrankJ]

Cutting his name out is a little extreme. Lining his name out would have done the same, and I am not sure if I would see an issue with that. There are procedures in place to deal with a SM not being willing to approve a candidate.

[smtroop168]

Like I said I don't have all the details but my impression is that this SM knew exactly what he was doing.

He didn't get any "incorrect" advice Ed.

FrankJ...Lining out his name doesn't have the same effect as his extreme action.

[evmori]

We had a SM who signed a scout's Eagle Application because he was told he "had to".

Who told him he "had to"?

[smtroop168]

We had a SM who signed a scout's Eagle Application because he was told he "had to".

Who told him he "had to"?

I believe the CC.

[AquilaNegra2]

Is the Scout related to the CC?
I think the SM ought to be given a chance to explain why he didn't want his name on the application. Sounds like he doesn't think the Scout earned it.

[evmori]

We had a SM who signed a scout's Eagle Application because he was told he "had to".

Who told him he "had to"?

I believe the CC.

Bad advice.

[smtroop168]

Is the Scout related to the CC?
I think the SM ought to be given a chance to explain why he didn't want his name on the application. Sounds like he doesn't think the Scout earned it.

Don't know.

Oh, the SM is gonna be given a chance.

[evmori]

Is the Scout related to the CC?
I think the SM ought to be given a chance to explain why he didn't want his name on the application. Sounds like he doesn't think the Scout earned it.

Don't know.

Oh, the SM is gonna be given a chance.

I'd be interested to see why he didn't want to sign the application.

[Bill Pitcher]

Keep us posted, Matt. This sounds interesting! There is a fine line here as to what, when, and why this happened.

[smtroop168]

I'm going to see some of the CAC this saturday and I'll see if they can tell me anything.

[smtroop168]

Snow caused us to move our MBC to 6 March. I may see our DAC at this week's RT and get an update

[Bill Pitcher]

Hey Matt, got an update on this?

[smtroop168]

What the District Advancement Chair from our neighboring district said was that the Scout was in the process of being asked to leave this troop. The scout did not recharter with this troop (or any other at the time) so technically he was not a registered scout when he presented his application to this SM. Since he "signed" the application and recognized his error, he chose to cut out his name block vice other actions such as crossing it out or holding on to it and getting other guidance.

Then the parent and scout (still unregistered at this point) went around the DAC and got the DE to grant the scout a BOR outside normal channels...got a bunch of non-scouter adults to sit on the EBOR and passed him. Supposedly his registration was "corrected" somehow.

Before you ask more questions....this is all I know and the DE probably wouldn't tell me anymore anyway.

[Billiken]

Then the parent and scout (still unregistered at this point) went around the DAC and got the DE to grant the scout a BOR outside normal channels...got a bunch of non-scouter adults to sit on the EBOR and passed him. Supposedly his registration was "corrected" somehow.

BSA - anything necessary to inflate membership numbers.

[evmori]

Setting a terrible precedent.