Issue 566 – May 8, 2018

________________________________________
Dear Andy,

My dad has been reading your columns for years and he suggested I write to you about a problem I’m having. My family just moved here from another state and I’ve joined up with a new troop. This troop doesn’t have Order of the Arrow elections or anything. So, on my own, I found the lodge for this council and joined as a Brotherhood member, which I was in my first council and lodge. But when I wore my new lodge flap at our troop meeting last week, the other Scouts sort of laughed at it and asked me why I joined a cult. I’ve never heard this before. Why would they think the OA is a cult? (Life Scout, Council Withheld)

Probably because that’s what the adult leaders of that troop told the Scouts, which usually means these adults weren’t elected to the OA when they were Scouts themselves. So, my advice is simple. Ignore this nonsense. Don’t defend and don’t waste your breath trying to explain. Just hold your head high and have fun. (And if you find there are more things in Scouting these raisin-brains continue to deride and disparage, even though you know better, it may be time to go find a smarter troop.)
==========
Hi Andy,

While reading some of your back-columns I saw one that intrigued me. It was asked by John Burnham and it had to do with a November 2017 Second Class Scout in the sixth grade who will be First Class on December 6th and then, about four months later (April 2018) while still in sixth grade, will be eligible for Star rank.

But there’s a Star requirement (no. 6) that says he’ll need to earn the Cyber Chip award for his grade. So the question was: Since this Scout apparently did this as a sixth grader in September 2017, and he’ll still be in the same grade when he earns Star, does he need to repeat this requirement?

At that time, you said that since the Cyber Chip requirement doesn’t say “While a First Class Scout…” this Scout doesn’t have to do a repeat.

But the current BSA GUIDE TO ADVANCEMENT (Topic 4.2.0.1) says: “All requirements for Star, Life, and Eagle, except for those related to merit badges, must be fulfilled after the successful completion of a board of review for the previous rank.”

According to that GTA statement, if this Scout did have his First Class board of review in December 2017, anything he did prior to that December date can’t be applied to his Star rank requirements.

Yes, as you’ve said, we must strive to be “gate openers”—not “gate keepers.” This is why I want to make sure I understand the language of that GTA topic correctly, and that it’s being applied correctly in our troop.

Am I misunderstanding either the situation or the GTA statement? Thank you. (Lisa Walsh, New Member Coordinator, Hudson Valley Council, NY)

The GTA 4.2.0.1 surely does state that “…all requirements for Star, Life, and Eagle…must be fulfilled after the successful completion of…the previous rank.”

I’m obliged to say that this appears to be a small but important glitch in the GTA.

Let’s work backwards, using the annual BSA BOY SCOUT REQUIREMENTS book. There, all requirements for Eagle, save req. 3 (merit badges), tell us that the Scout must hold Life rank. All requirements for Life, save req. 3 (merit badges), tell us that the Scout must hold Star rank. Then, all requirements for Star, save req. 3 (merit badges) AND req. 6 (Cyber Chip) tell us that the Scout must hold First Class rank.

Star rank requirement 6 is based on the Scout’s grade; not the rank he holds at the time. It seems to me that the actual requirement language would supersede all other guidance. If this is indeed the case, then the Scout in question here can proceed to Star rank with impunity, having fulfilled the precise language of the requirement. (Besides, it’s a fundamental tenet of Scouting advancement that, once completed, no requirement is repeated or retested.)

On a personal note, I’ve very rarely read a book—whether fiction or nonfiction—that was entirely free of at least one hiccup of some sort, be it a typo, an historic error, an incorrect word, an oversight, or something else. In the case of the GTA versus that written requirement, I’d put this in the oversight category.

The key point is this: When confronted by an inconsistency such as this, find the seminal document or language (in this case, the requirement itself) and then choose the path that most helps the Scout.
==========
Hi Andy,

My son, Jonny, is working on his Eagle project. When finished, it will be an off-the-ground wildlife platform at the local land trust—an 8’x8’ deck about 5 feet off the ground. Jonny’s been working with the beneficiary for over a year, mostly to get approvals from the town. They’ve been very helpful along the way. Jonny’s design originally came from the Lowe’s website (just plug in the dimensions of what you want to build and it spits out a design and a materials list). He brought that list to Lowe’s and they gave him the materials at cost (just under $500). He also received matching funds from my employer.

Last fall, Jonny and his crew dug the holes and poured the post foundations the platform will need. But then, over this past winter, the beneficiary representative reviewed the plans a second time and made some changes to it that will make the construction easier and the platform sturdier. But, to do this, Jonny will need more materials than the original design and budget called for, to the tune of another $150.

Based on his schedule in school and sports (besides regular Scouting activities), he has to start the final construction very soon—too soon to be able to carry out a fund-raiser for the additional money needed. He might go back to Lowe’s, but they’ve already been mighty generous and Jonny doesn’t have the kind of negotiating experience that may be needed for this. The same applies to my employer and further matching funds. His mom and I aren’t broke, but we don’t exactly have lots of “rainy day” funds either (besides, we don’t think that family-funding would be in the spirit of the project). Could he ask the beneficiaries themselves? Or is this out of line?

Reverting back to the original design really isn’t a good option, because it did have some flaws that, if kept, would produce a weakened structure with vastly less life-expectancy.

On behalf of my son, I’d sure appreciate any suggestions or advice you might have. (Name & Council Withheld)

Not in any particular order…

Jonny can initiate a serious talk with the beneficiaries, and flat-out tell them that he just doesn’t have the money for this. Then see what they have to say (there’s absolutely nothing wrong at all with a contribution from the beneficiaries in light of the end-product they’re receiving at almost no cost whatsoever). If the beneficiaries can’t provide the funds, maybe they can go out and buy whatever else is now needed, using their tax-free status.

You and your wife can help Jonny out with the extra money he needs (this, also, is completely okay and absolutely doesn’t impinge on the spirit of the service project).

Johnny can find a way to cut costs somewhere else, or approach the troop’s sponsor for some funding, go back to Lowe’s and make the request, go to Home Depot or your local lumber yard, or even consider GoFundMe.

Jonny can get a job at which he can earn the remaining $150 (yes, it’s also okay for the Scout himself to make a contribution, although I’d personally consider this a last resort because he’s already providing his own thinking, time, leadership, and work crew at no cost to the beneficiary).

Good luck, Jonny!

Happy Scouting!

Andy

Have a question? Facing a dilemma? Wondering where to find a BSA policy or guideline? Write to askandybsa@yahoo.com. Please include your name and council. (If you’d prefer to be anonymous, if published, let me know and that’s what we’ll do.)

[No. 566 – 5/8/2018 – Copyright © Andy McCommish 2018]