Volunteer causing multiple instances of "conflict"

[smtroop168]

Who else?

[AquilaNegra2]

The ACPP (12 Steps Step #8) says "The Scout may have no input into the selection of the board of review members."

Is this a recent change? #1's was a District Executive, an elected official, and someone of his choice who knew him well. They grilled him. The District Exec approved the choices, time, and location. But #1 proposed the board composition based on the parameters he was given. I guess #2 will not be so lucky! The CC doesn't particularly care for me, and I can't imagine that not carrying over. We're only human.

[smtroop168]

My mistake...the pulled back version of the #33088 contains the verbiage about the scout having no input to his BOR members. I'm pretty sure this will be in the next release of the book.

I can't imagine that a DE would sit on an EBOR or your DAC or CAC would go for it just in case the EBOR goes into an appeal.

[FrankJ]

The bit about the scout not having input into his EBOR members is in the PDF version of 3088 that currently on scouting.org. 2009 printing? So I would take it as the current requirement. Still if I where selecting a BOR I avoid putting some one on it that has active conflicts with the scout.

[smtroop168]

It's the 2008 printing dated 1-20-2009 pg 30.

The board of review for an Eagle candidate is composed
of a minimum of three members and a maximum
of six members, 21 years of age or older. The Scout may
have no input into the selection of the board of review
members.

[AquilaNegra2]

I can't imagine that a DE would sit on an EBOR or your DAC or CAC would go for it just in case the EBOR goes into an appeal.

My bad. It was the DAC who sat on the board (and who worked the project with him).