CC/MC Refused to Approve My ESLSP Proposal....

[smtroop168]

Not to be a naysayer but the Appeal Process in the #33088 does not apply to ESLSP.

It would be interesting to actually read his write up as I find it hard to believe that the number of hours is the only reason the CC won't sign it. We use a specific checklist to ensure all the elements necessary for the scout to succeed in his project are covered in his plan. The number of hours is not a known quantity when the project is approved at the various levels as I've seen what was thought to be a 200 hour project turn into 300 very quickly based on foreseen and unforseen issues at the project.

IMHO....The scout should go back to his SM as suggested and work from that angle first vice going to the DAC. He has other avenues within the unit such as the COR he can use since this may be a recurring problem.

[Cowboy]

Work your way up the ladder, but keep in mind the organizational structure. The SM actually works for the TC. All of them work for the Chartering Organization though. After your SM, talk to your Charter Rep first. Then work your way up. I suspect something unrelated to you or your project is actually causing the issue here.

[evmori]

I'd go back to this bonehead of a CC and ask him where in the Project Workbook it states the minimum number of hours that are required. Then I would point him to page 2 where it states

No minimum number of hours is required.

This kinda stuff is what gives Scouting a bad name.

[Bill Pitcher]

Ed's right, but take the SM and a parent with you.

[evmori]

Ed's right, but take the SM and a parent with you.

And don't call him a bonehead!

[RWSmith]

Not to be a naysayer but the Appeal Process in the #33088 does not apply to ESLSP.

No, that's not correct.

A Scout, or his parent(s)/guardian(s), may lodge an appeal for any advancement-related issue that they believe to be unreasonable or unjustified, or otherwise interferes with the nationally established advancement standards. It doesn't have to be for an unfavorable decision, i.e., refusal to sign off an SMC or Eagle Appl., or the result of a BOR. It can (and should more often) be used in cases just like Jack's, i.e., where some responsible party refuses to be reasonable and has no justification for failing to carry out his own responsibilities correctly, or in some other way interferes with the advancement process. E.g., An SM who sets an arbitrary 50% attendance policy for advancement. Or, a CC who refuses pre-approve an ESLSP due to lack of "X" hours.

[Jack459]

Update... I finally got a hold of my scoutmaster and we had a meeting along with a few of the ASM's. They said that they were going to have a meeting with the CC today to discuss my project.

[evmori]

Excellent Jack! Please let us know what the outcome is!

[Bill Pitcher]

Yeah, Jack. Keep us "up to date!"

[smtroop168]

Not to be a naysayer but the Appeal Process in the #33088 does not apply to ESLSP.

No, that's not correct.

A Scout, or his parent(s)/guardian(s), may lodge an appeal for any advancement-related issue that they believe to be unreasonable or unjustified, or otherwise interferes with the nationally established advancement standards. It doesn't have to be for an unfavorable decision, i.e., refusal to sign off an SMC or Eagle Appl., or the result of a BOR. It can (and should more often) be used in cases just like Jack's, i.e., where some responsible party refuses to be reasonable and has no justification for failing to carry out his own responsibilities correctly, or in some other way interferes with the advancement process. E.g., An SM who sets an arbitrary 50% attendance policy for advancement. Or, a CC who refuses pre-approve an ESLSP due to lack of "X" hours.

The #33088 (Pg 33) says there are two sets of circumstances in which a scout or his parents may appeal a decision. 1) the unit leader or unit committee does not recommend a scout for a BOR or refuses to sign the Eagle Scout Application and 2) the BOR does not recommend a candidate for rank advancement.

From what we know, neither of these apply to his ESLP and I can't find where the #33088 covers what RW is saying about "any advancement related issue". Johnny really did tie those lashings and the SM won't sign off....Some parents would appeal to National!!

The scout is using his SM to help him get this resolved. Appealing outside the unit is very premature and I know our District wouldn't entertain an appeal unless all internal avenues were covered.

[DadScout]

Jack459,

I'm from the same Council as you. If you need any contact info at Dist/Council just let me know. From what you've written your project falls within the norm for Eagle projects in the area.

[FrankJ]

Under Article X Program (advancement)--Rules & regulations section 1 clause 7 (Boy if that does not sound like boy scout lawyer talk ) Anyway Pub. #33088 pg 17. It tasks the district advancement committee with generally overseeing unit level advancement. So if the unit is not following policies then it can be brought to the district advancement committee.

With our committee it would have to be significant before they would get involved. You would also would have to exhaust troop level remedies as well. The committee chair refusing to sign off on a project app after the scout master has approved it would probably be at that level. Of course the answer could still be no.

[AquilaNegra2]

Not to be a naysayer but the Appeal Process in the #33088 does not apply to ESLSP.

It would be interesting to actually read his write up as I find it hard to believe that the number of hours is the only reason the CC won't sign it. We use a specific checklist to ensure all the elements necessary for the scout to succeed in his project are covered in his plan. The number of hours is not a known quantity when the project is approved at the various levels as I've seen what was thought to be a 200 hour project turn into 300 very quickly based on foreseen and unforseen issues at the project.

IMHO....The scout should go back to his SM as suggested and work from that angle first vice going to the DAC. He has other avenues within the unit such as the COR he can use since this may be a recurring problem.

I agree with 168. It can sting to be denied, yet I've only seen one Eagle project that was approved on its first presentation. #1 went through a couple of rewrites and some rethinking. Ask him to PUT IT IN WRITING what is wrong with what you have. Do so with a humble attitude. It may be that you zeroed in on the hours when he had other concerns as well. Take it to the end before moving up the chain. Nobody likes it when an end-run is done.

[smtroop168]

Under Article X Program (advancement)--Rules & regulations section 1 clause 7 (Boy if that does not sound like boy scout lawyer talk ) Anyway Pub. #33088 pg 17. It tasks the district advancement committee with generally overseeing unit level advancement. So if the unit is not following policies then it can be brought to the district advancement committee.

With our committee it would have to be significant before they would get involved. You would also would have to exhaust troop level remedies as well. The committee chair refusing to sign off on a project app after the scout master has approved it would probably be at that level. Of course the answer could still be no.

Frank...the clause you reference refers to the responsibility of the Troop Committee under the leadership and guidance of the local council to make sure the program of the troop is conducted in such a way that Scouts have the opportunity to advance. Maybe that's what the CC is trying to do. We, as usual, only have one side of the issue. It is unclear what "policy" the unit is not following that would get the DAC involved.

DACs and CACs are most concerned with units that are not showing any advancement through their review of the individual units Advancement reports.

[FrankJ]

SM168:
I agree we only have one side of the issue. That is why I try never to judge specifics over the the internet. These things need to be done by people with boots on the ground that can get both sides of the story.

It is significant that the SM has approved the project and the CC apparently thinks it will never be an eagle quality project. (after keeping it 20 days) Is there more here than meets the eye? I don't know. Should the DAC be involved? I cannot answer that either. With what has been presented, I would at least discuss it with them & let them make that decision.

Our DAC will meet with scouts on the same night that they do EBOR (once a month) and review their perspective eagle projects as a help. They still have to do the normal approval route through the troop.

[evmori]

We might only have one side but that side is a CC stating there are not enough hours in the project. Read the project workbook! It specifically states there are no minimum hours required.

[smtroop168]

SM168:
I agree we only have one side of the issue. That is why I try never to judge specifics over the the internet. These things need to be done by people with boots on the ground that can get both sides of the story.

It is significant that the SM has approved the project and the CC apparently thinks it will never be an eagle quality project. (after keeping it 20 days) Is there more here than meets the eye? I don't know. Should the DAC be involved? I cannot answer that either. With what has been presented, I would at least discuss it with them & let them make that decision.

Our DAC will meet with scouts on the same night that they do EBOR (once a month) and review their perspective eagle projects as a help. They still have to do the normal approval route through the troop.

Agree 100%. My point was that the #33088 appeal process doesn't come into play. The resolution comes at the Troop level for now.

We might only have one side but that side is a CC stating there are not enough hours in the project. Read the project workbook! It specifically states there are no minimum hours required.

Agree 100%. I'm still fuzzy on how the CC knows the number of hours the project is going to take before it starts. I would like to read the scout's plan.

[ThunderingWind]

I am with Wagion on this. national needs to step and and squash these people with the biggest hammer allowed by law.

[smtroop168]

I am with Wagion on this. national needs to step and and squash these people with the biggest hammer allowed by law.

National is not going to do this. They will say that there is a process for removal of screwball adult volunteers. It rests with the COR and IH and possibly if egregious enough with the local council not rechartering the unit. Our new Pastor fired our bonehead COR on week one in his new job.

[Bill Pitcher]

So Jack459 . . . . what happened?