eisely

Coming back around to this business of what does it mean to "actively serve", in the absence of guidelines or standards formally adopted by the unit, I would be inclinded as SM to keep a personal journal of my conversations with individual scouts and parents on these kinds of matters, just to create some kind of record of what was said and agreed to.

Concerning who "works" for whom, the Troop Committee Guidebook refers to the troop committee as the "board of directors", but think that is intended only as a metaphor. I see the CC and the SM as co-equals. The CC is somewhat higher in the pecking order in that the committee has overall responsibility (in my mind) for the performance of all the adult leaders in the unit. But the CC cannot unilaterally fire or discipline the SM or any other volunteer. This power resides with the Chartered Organization Representative.

It would be naive to say that power politics has no place in volunteer organization. Ultimately somebody has to exercise some real authority when that is needed, but hopefully that is extremely rare in scouting. We are all idealists to some degree, or we would not be here. At the same time we are ambitious for our sons and want them to get the most they can out of the program. Everybody has to take a deep breath and no body should be setting themselves up as the dictator. But I ramble...

LaCrosse? I was just there and expect to return from time to time. What was the name of that place and where is it located?

I certainly concede that many issues are raised that are addressed somewhere in some BSA document or training curriculum. One of the difficulties, as pointed out, is that there are so many of these scattered around, that it is not easy, even for experienced scouters to find answers to common questions. As BW frequently, and rightly, points out, too much variation from the basic program creates something that is not a scout program, or at least not in sync with what is intended. Training is a partial answer, and an important answer, but it carries one only so far.

Coming back to the issue I raised as an example of lack of clarity, I am familiar with a situation where a boy was turned down at his Life BOR on exactly this issue. Maybe the BOR was wrong, but there were no standards and the SM probably should not have waved this guy through. The boy had time to recover and still get his eagle, but he dropped out. This particular incident was more a reflection on general troop management than a reflection on the rules. However, the lack of clear rules was a necessary pre condition for the fiasco.

BW,

I have to admit that I have never been involved in JLT and do not have that material readily at hand. If it provides a better answer, I will concede the point.

P. 172 of the handbook talks about PORs briefly but does not provide a definition of "actively serve".

As others have pointed out, if the SM is doing his/her job in providing guidance to scouts when they accept a POR, then perhaps a written standard would not be necessary. Certainly this cannot be resolved fairly at the BOR level. If a boy has not "actively served", as measured against some agreed standard, then the boy should not be passed on to the BOR by the SM. In lieu of written standards, I would not have too much difficulty with the idea of a SM arriving at an agreement with a scout when he accepts a position and noting those terms in a diary or log of some sort. However, this runs against the goal of "consistency" which is one of the words used in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual.

I count myself among those who believe that written policies or by-laws, whatever you may wish to call them, are desirable. They need to be simple and short. There are grey areas that BSA does not define and leaves up to units to work out. When there is a controversy, it is a little late to work things out that should have been worked out in advance.

My most notable example is the leadership position requirement for Star, Life and Eagle. These rank requirements all use the same language, i.e. that a boy "actively serve" in one or more of a specified set of positions of responsibility (POR) for a specified period of time. The problem is that the notion of "actively serve" is not defined. Does this mean that a boy who is elected or appointed to a position should get full credit and get his ticket punched on the trail to eagle if he never shows up or does anything at all in his position? Is that all that is required? As an aside, the boy is not required to be particularly effective or successful in his POR, just that he "actively serve". This is one of those areas where a unit is well advised to set some written expectations so that all can be fairly and consistently judged.

If BW or anybody else can show me some guidance from BSA in a BSA resource, I would really like to see it.

This link should, if I have done this right, take you to an online newsletter of the Mt. Diablo Silverado Council, May 2005 edition. Go to page four for an article on insurance and liability that should clear some things up.

http://www.bsa-mdsc.org/smokesignals.shtml

There is nothing preventing a parent from being a MB counselor for their own son, and in some situations it is unavoidable. On a canoeing expedition several years ago I signed up ahead of time to be a canoeing MB counselor so I could properly train the boys and sign off their requirements. I was the only adult on that expedition so qualified. Did that mean that my own son could not earn the MB? I actually cleared it with the district advancement chair before we went, and he had no problem with it.

To the extent possible I would think that there should be multiple counselors available for "eagle required" MBs in particular. Boys should be guided to non parent counselors for these MBs, but guiding is not assigning. While most parents will probably be more demanding of their own sons, there have been and will be instances of a parent letting a boy slide by on something. There really is no way to prevent that. The system is based on the presumed integrity of the participants of all ages.

Packsaddle,

If I were a parent who lost a child due to some negligence on the part of an adult leader, I too would be angry. If I felt that the leader were competent and not reckless, and everything reasonable was done to manage the risks, I would be much less angry.

One of the more nonsensical ideas one hears is that "we can't put a value on a life". In fact we do that every day. One has to recognize that in cases of civil liability for a death, be it an auto accident or whatever, one of the main things that is looked at is the earning power and the financial responsibilities of the deceased. Minor children are not looked at as earning assets but as liabilities and a death benefit of only $10,000, while not compensation for the feelings of the parents, would be consistent with how courts would look at this situation. A parent who is the primary breadwinner for a family has real responsibilities and a court would likely award far more.

Concerns about liability is not making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I agree that the risks are somewhat overblown. I have seen far more serious injuries in one season of youth soccer than I have seen in seventeen years of scouting as an adult. Like everybody says; understand the BSA rules, get the training, follow the BSA rules, obey the law, and act reasonably. If something bad happens you probably cannot avoid getting sued, but you probably would not end up being held liable. Now let's all hit the trail and stop worrying.

BW,

That is good news. It also reinforces the point that local councils have a great deal of latitude in how they go about insuring themselves, their youth members and their volunteers. Probably the best advice for anybody reading this thread is that; yes, there is coverage, but you will have to find out the details from your local council.

The optional supplemental accident coverage to which BW alludes is just that. It is supplemental coverage only for medical expenses resulting from an injury. It is also a no fault policy. The companies that offer these coverages work through councils and the information and application is usually available with your recharter package, if the council is making such a program available. I don't think all councils do this. This year, our brochure showed up with the new charter, one third into the year for which coverage was being offered.

In my mind these policies are generally a good deal for the unit, the youth, and the adult leaders. Typcially there are fixed amounts for different types of injuries, and these amounts are quite small compared to the likely expense. However these coverages probably handle deductible and co payments in most individual or family health insurance plans. The premiums are also pretty low.

While we are talking about liability downsides, if there is an accident on your watch, and the family of the injured youth has health coverage, you should expect that family's health insurer to make a claim against whatever liability coverages are available, either personal or council.

We have been told in our council, that notwithstanding all the training and compliance with rules, the scouter's own liability insurance is primary. Most homeowner policies provide coverage for volunteer activities. If you do not have homeowner liability coverage you ought to look into it, and if you do have it, verify your coverage. Automobile liability coverage is also primary.

It doesn't bother me that our council's liability policy is secondary because this way they can provide more dollar coverage.

I had always understood hats to be optional, but I had occasion to look at the language of the inspection sheet the other day, and that language seems to contradict the idea that hats are optional. It is clear that everybody has to be the same within the troop, but as in many areas, there seems to be a contradiction here.

Are hats considered an optional part of the uniform? Is it required to wear a hat at all?

As far as I know, BSA sets no limit to the size of knives. G2SS is correct that a good folding knife meets all normal camping needs. In prior threads on knives the participants identified two situations where sheath knives are essential equipment: white water kayaking and scuba diving. But then those are not camping activities.

There was a guy on Guam on this forum in the past. There the scouts use machetes to clear trails when they hike. The stuff grows back so don't get too excited about LNT on Guam. The point is, the equipment has to be matched to the circumstances and need.

Regarding blade length, I advise parents, scouts, and scouter trainees here in California that any blade over 2 1/2 inches long is considered a weapon under California law. The largest blade on most common folding knives falls within this.

Perhaps you are talking about Wicca which is not black witchcraft. Wicca has come up before in these forums. While it is not an established religion it scarcely disqualifies one from being a scout or a scout leader unless someone insists on following a monotheistic religion. But then Hinduism is perfectly acceptable to BSA.

Vicki,

I disagree with your colonoscopy analogy. Having worked with clients on IRS audits and having had more than one colonoscopy I think I can respond from true knowledge. The hardest part about the colonoscopy is the preparation. The procedure itself is no big deal and when it is over it is over. As you know, some IRS audits never end. Probably the best part about an IRS audit is that there is nothing you are expected to do to prepare for one other than get your returns in on time. Speaking of which....

But I digress.

I think the thing that disturbs most people coming into a troop treasurer position with some level of financial/accounting experience is the lack of rules. There are many areas where BSA leaves a lot of flexibility to units. Finances is one of those areas. There is an advantage to this.

Having some kind of subcommittee audit or review the accounts annually and/or upon change of treasurers is probably a good idea. I have never seen it done.

The story about the kid coming back into the troop reminds me of how I approached this job. My first adult volunteer position was as treasurer for a cub scout pack. The amounts were much smaller and of course the pack and committee met only monthly. What I found was that people would shove odd amounts of currency at me at pack meetings to pay for some activity or whatever. I immediately purchased a receipt book that made copies. When I started handing out receipts some people responded that it was not necessary because they trusted me. My response was that this was not for their benefit but for my benefit. It was the only way I could make sense out of the cash receipts at the end of a pack meeting. The lesson is that there is probably nothing wrong with making the disbursement that scoutmaster requested. Making a note on the check itself and making the check payable to the council, not an individual, is probably sufficient documentation, along with a system of tracking funds paid and disbursed on behalf of the boys generally.

With regard to the Venture Crew funds. I would not co mingle funds for separately chartered units. If what you are referring to is a separate group of older boys within a troop, then tracking those funds on a sub account of some kind is both appropriate and sufficient.

Vicki does not say so directly, but having some kind of voucher or payment request form is not a substitute for a dual signature account. I object to forms that I don't consider necessary. What is necessary is some kind of approval process for major expenditures. I share Vicki's enthusiasm for setting a dollar limit for requiring committee approval. I too don't know what that number would be. As Uncle Guinea says, a petty cash fund is also a good way to handle minor scoutmaster outlays without committee approval for every postage stamp.

The last quote from ML's original post says it all. The ACLU itself admits to its real agenda.

"A-C-L-U spokesman Edwin Yohnka says his organization's goal was to end

the practice of the government's direct funding of the Boy Scouts over

the long term."

If there was ever any lingering doubt in my mind about the worth and value of the ACLU, that quote finished it off. I have a real problem with people trying to legislate policy from the judge's bench and unrepresentative organizations like the ACLU participating in that. ML will simply argue that they are trying to enforce the bill of rights. He can maintain that rationale if he wants to do so, but the real agenda of hostility to BSA and everything it represents has been revealed.

As I write this post, Pope John Paul II is not yet gone, but it is clear that he will pass shortly. This may be jumping the gun, but I thought that this was an appropriate place to express my personal respect for him and sense of loss in his passing. Whatever you may believe, or choose not to believe, and whatever you may think of the Roman Catholic Church, one has to agree that this was a great and good man. He contributed greatly to the demise of the communist tyranny over Eastern Europe. You always knew where he stood. How many contemporary politicians, business and religious leaders are unambiguous in their beliefs?

Related to the question of two signatures is the idea that the treasurer, committee chair, and scoutmaster should all come from different households. Granted that a two signature account is not foolproof and is also more cumbersome, but it certainly will make someone intent to steal think a little bit harder about the idea. Requiring monthly reports and having an audit committee look at the records annually will also be sound safeguards.

The fact is that non profit organizations are more vulnerable to theft of funds than either a regular business or a government entity. While we all trust one another, sensible safeguards are just sound practice. When you consider the amounts that have been diverted from large corporations in sophisticated schemes, it is obvious that no system is completely fool proof. Minimal safeguards will go a long way to deter petty theft, but will not stop a determined crook.

Nobody thought Mr. Smith at the national office was into child pornography either.

BSA does not require two signatures on checks, but recommends dual signature accounts. It is a very good idea.

Our troop does not maintain accounts for individual scouts. If you are going to do this, you have to have an accounting system that will handle it. You will also need clear policies on (1) what share of fund raising efforts for the troop will go into the scout's account, (2) will this share be based on sales or hours spent at a car wash, etc., or both, (3) what kind of things may the scout spend money on (summer camp fees, outings, equipment, uniforms, etc), (4) what kind of documentation will be required for withdrawals, and (5) what happens to the money when the boy leaves the unit (drops out of scouting altogether, transfers to another unit, or moves out of the area.

The treasurer should take the lead in preparing an annual budget for the troop. Considerations in budgeting: (1) should all outings be self supporting or financed out of the general treasury, (2) what fund raisers will the troop undertake, (3) what share of the take from fund raisers will the troop keep and what will be held for the boys, (4) what should be budgeted for routine administrative expenses for the scoutmaster, (5) how will the scoutmaster be reimbursed (how often and what documentation - do you want to reimburse for every single postage stamp?), (6) what should be budgeted for advancement materials (rank insignia, etc), (7) what other recurring expenses does the troop have (e.g., we have to pay for storage for our gear), (8) will the troop pay training expenses for adult leaders (if so this has to be budgeted), (9) who on the committee will prepare an equipment budget, (10) what will the troop charge for annual dues, (11) will the troop charge for part year dues for new scouts coming in in the spring.

The foregoing is not an exhaustive list, but merely springs to mind from experience.

BW is correct that troops should not plan to build up an excessive cash reserve. Fund raising and dues should be geared to anticipated program expenses on an annual basis. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with accumulating a modest reserve balance for unanticipated expenses. There is also nothing wrong with establishing accounts for funds earmarked for future events beyond the current year, such as expeditions to Philmont that are planned on a two year basis.

You should plan to provide some kind of treasurer report on a monthly basis to the troop committee. There is no established format for this.

I have not seen a lot of BSA published guidance on managing unit finances. What little I have seen is in the Troop Committee Guidebook.

Good luck. You have taken on a serious responsbility.

I agree that BSA has no liability in this matter. It is an embarrassment, and nothing more. Anytime a person prominent in a community gets into trouble that community is tarred to some degree but that does not amount to liability for that individual's actions.

I agree with BW's first post that this is sad for everyone. I hope this individual will come to a resolution satisfactory to the law enforcement authorities and to his own conscience.

The fact is that, given the huge potential for abuse in our activities, youth protection largely works. There seem to be one or two cases each year where some BSA adult leader is accused of criminal activity involving pedophilia. The publicly available information rarely provides any detail about how those circumstances arose, but five will get you a hundred that youth protection policies were not followed in those cases.

Look at how the Roman Catholic church is still defending itself across the country. If the church had followed policies as strict as BSA youth protection policies, the church would not be in the trouble that it is in today.

We have much to proud of in how we have addressed these issues, and nothing to be ashamed of.

This is a developing story.

________________________

DALLAS, Texas - The national director of programs for the Boy Scouts of America has been charged with receiving and distributing child pornography, NBC News has learned.

Douglas S. Smith Jr., was charged with having pornographic photos that show "minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Sources in U.S. Attorney's told NBC that the images were of young boys and that the investigation started in Germany.

The Boy Scouts of America has yet to comment.

Smith, 61, would not comment when reached by phone at his home.

He was expected to appear in federal court Wednesday morning. If tried and found guilty, he faces prison time ranging from five to 20 years.

A resident of Colleyville, Texas, Smith is still active in troop activity and is himself an Eagle Scout.

My cub scout days are too hazy a memory, but I can tell you my oldest memory as a new boy scout. The scoutmaster of the troop that I joined had what in essence was a "new boy" program. One of things that entailed was a simple cookout on a large sand bar by the Missouri River. We cut some branches and cooked shish kebob and bread on a stick over an open fire.

How times have changed. Only one adult along, the scoutmaster. Cutting a branch. I don't think this last item was and is that big a deal. We were on private land and the farmer was more than happy to have the saplings cut back that were encroaching on his fields.