fred8033

We have to write a check for $17.50 to pay for the background check.

Just reading the referenced policy. It was updated in April but announced to parents today in our school's daily email. The big change is that it's now like scouting in that you pay to volunteer. LOL. "The employee or volunteer will pay an amount for the criminal history background check that does not exceed the actual cost of the service. An applicant who accepts employment will be responsible for paying the cost of the criminal history background check, with the amount deducted out of the first paycheck the employee receives. School or program volunteers must provide a money order or check payable to the school district in order for the background check to be completed."

Our school district just announced radical new procedures. The school district adopted the idea that volunteers need to fill out an application to register as a volunteer. New also is background checks for volunteers who server as chaperones or interact with students without staff supervision. So before now, if you chaperoned a 5th grade field trip that stayed overnight in a hotel, you didnt need a background check. Now, you do. Pretty ground breaking ideas for thirty years ago. I was surprised five years ago when our state started requiring background checks for school bus drivers. I was surprised that it wasnt already required. It is ironic that BSA is a continual target for youth protection accusations but schools even up to now had no background checks and no tracking records. You would think that schools would set the standard. So until now, our schools had no record of who was doing what with the students. The person coordinating probably had an idea. But no records. No tracking. No coordination. Think of all the school, sports, and extra-curricular groups dozen plus sports, cheer leading, dance line, drama, debate, arts, academic all with some type of booster / support group. Many with local and overnight trips. How about the volunteer reading assistants who pull kids out of class? Sort of makes me wonder if and when the school district started doing background checks on coaches, assistant coaches, staff that only receive stipends for services, etc. Hmmm..

Amazing how the people wanting "flexible" youth protection policies are the same leaders willing to ding scouts because of minor issues during scout events or outside scouting events. I view that as hypocritical and I've seen many scouts complain about such hypocritical leaders. Hypocritical or not, it's a power struggle. An organization that says here's the rules and leaders that say they can't live within those rules. .... Oak Tree: "The G2SS doesn't allow Boy Scouts to drive "for Scouting activities". So does this mean I have to tell my 16 and 17-year-old Scouts that they are not allowed to drive to a meeting? Yeah, right." As many have pointed out, we don't have control of how scouts and families plan to get their scouts to meetings and activities. And events / meetings do have a planned start and end. Plus it's not our place to monitor the scouts or their families outside scout events. But the interactions with registered leaders is different. Scout leaders don't have a light switch to flip on and off to start and stop being a scout leader. You can't say your not a scout leader at 6:45pm but then become a leader at 7:00pm. You can't say that you've yet to arrive at the COR church so the leader rules don't apply to you yet. Uniform on. Uniform off. Meeting on. Meeting off. The clapper. Common on. When working with the scouts, we represent BSA and are subject to the policy. Playing such leader boundary games is not worthy of scouting and an incredibly poor example to set for our scouts. The no one-on-one boundary needs to be firmly established to protect our scouts. Anything less just promotes the ostrich head in the sand problems of the past. ... qwazse: - Your solutions are pretty much the standard I've seen. Small work arounds when youth protection policies require it. Not going into a room yet. Asking another family to drive someone home. Having another adult wait with you in a parking lot. I fully agree also that "repetition" is a key. But there's two "repetitions" to monitor. One dangerous repetition is one-on-one contact between specific individuals. The other dangerous repetition is leaders that dance around the policies to do what they want anyway. I've only been a leader for ten years with three scouting groups. In those ten years, I've easily been on 300+ nights of camping and many scout meeting / activities. I've never really seen a situation that couldn't have been solved with reasonable accomodation such as grabbing another adult, bringing my son or a small adjustment to the plans. I'm scared for BSA if this discussion thread reflects how seriously the new youth protection policies are being followed.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah - You continue to twist information. I do see it that way. CDC and BSA have pretty clear statements. Your interpretations take work to arrive at the conclusions and are done by choosing tangential points to justify violating the key statements. When CDC says organizations should clarify, our organization has clarified. That's BSA. BSA chose the CDC recommended 1st path of no one-on-one contact. From the dark shadows of anonimity, you don't get to claim experience and authority; and, to choose an interpretation that on first sight and second sight directly contradicts the BSA policies. ... Inside versus outside meetings? We wouldn't want our scouts to do that tap dance. Yet, you rely on it? Our role as a scout leader does not end when the flags are put away. You know the scouts because you are a scout leader and you have credibility with their parents because of your role as a scout leader. If you resign from BSA and not be a troop leader but keep showing up and talking with the scouts ... then your just a creepy man hanging around kids. Registering as a leader, serving as a leader and wearing the uniform creates a basis of respect and authority. Just because the flags are put away, our role as a leader does not end and expectations are not any less. Beavah, your the one saying things are not simple enough to be answered simplistically. But then you want to justify behavior by being inside versus outside scout meetings. That's the simple excuse for violating the youth protection policies by categorizing our scouting relationships into tight clean boxes of now a scout leader and at other times not a scout leader. It doesn't work that way though. Heck, we always tell our scouts that the Scout Oath is about how you lead your life. You don't put away the Scout Oath when outside scouting. It is the same with being a registered BSA leader. You can't put it in a tight box to be put away when not convenient. Heck, saying this is a scout event and this isn't a scout event is pretty darn simplistic and down right shaddy too. We as scouts must do better. ... Using rediculous arguements about driving your grandson is a youth protection violation is mocking, rediculous and distracting noise. ... Different level of experience? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I suspect your from the old school where way, way, way more was different then just no one-on-one contact. Times have changed. ... I fully agree that statistically the biggest source of child abuse is family and in-home relatives. Neglect. Phyisical and psychological abuse. Probably sexual abuse too. But, few groups attrack as many abusers as youth groups like BSA. That's why a firm policy interpretation is needed, recommended by CDC and and established by BSA. Your tap dancing around scares me because it lowers the guard of others to allow behaviors that do lead to abuse. Yeah, I've only known two SEs and they've seemed fairly okay people. I've seen issues just disappear that I hope was handled behind closed doors. ... acco40 - Been in the parking lot situation mutliple times myself and used the same solution. Another adult sticks around until the parents show up. Dealt with the public bathroom situation too. No good clear solution. Just need to make the best decision you can.

yadda yadda yadda ... The danger isn't about false positives and statistics. The danger is in justifying "interpretting" youth protection rules because of tangential distacting arguements like the statistics of false positives. If you notice an adult going into a bathroom with a non-related youth such that they would be alone together for a period of time, you mention it to the adult that it's something we try to avoid. If it's a pattern that ASM X goes into the bathroom when scout Y is in there, then you deal with it. If you hear a scout can't come to a meeting because he doesn't have a ride, you find a way to get him there without violating the no one-on-one contact rule. BUT ... if you can't find a solution ... the scout misses the meeting. That's the right solution. The wrong solution is you pick him up alone and get him to the meeting. Most importantly, if you have an adult who wants to tap dance around youth protection rules, you get that adult out of the program. But if you can't get the adult out or get the adult to follow the rules, you get your kids out of that program. ... I read this article today, I find the "Eyewitness inaction" and "Stepping in" sections interesting. http://www.livescience.com/17031-penn-state-child-abuse-eyewitness-psychology.html

qwazse: Your riding the bus with your venturer is not an issue. DeanRx: This is not about being the moral police or monitoring non-BSA people outside BSA events. Beavah - You have a truely evil gift to twist peoples words. I've read the document. The CDC never says one-on-one contact is necessary. CDC's first advice is "Limit one-on-one contact". It gives three options of which BSA has chosen NO one-on-one contact. That's the policy. If ya don't like it, you should never have signed a leader application. I don't have BSA's reasoning, but I suspect BSA chose no one-on-one contact because BSA does not think it's necessary as a regular on-going part of the program and also because BSA can't manage the risk, screening or supervision. For the other CDC suggested, non-BSA chosen, options, CDC says additional supervision and screening and program risk assessment. Big Brothers of America is an implementation example of these options. Big Brothers has extensive screening and supervision such as monitoring volunteer Facebook and other social media activity. Requiring supervisory monthly meetings between paid staff and volunteers, youth and parents/guardians. So if BSA can afford professional staff to coordinate and meet each month with each registered volunteer, each scout and each parent and have enough volunteers to monitor each investigate and research each volunteers social media activities, then cool. I'm fine with it. But I have a hard enough time getting parents to show up even once a year to a annual parent information meeting. Beavah - I'm amazed at the depths you go to twist quotes. You scare me. Honestly scare me. The CDC "Balancing Caution and Caring" is the basis for designing the youth protection policy of which CDC's first advice is limiting one-on-one contact. We show caring, love and concern for our scouts at meetings, at activities and outside scouting too but we follow BSA's youth protection policy of no one-on-one contact. Playing games such as at a scout activity or not at a scout activity is just wrong. Justifying violating youth protection because the violation once led to discovering real abuse is perverse. Sure it probably does discover abuse at times, but it probably creates more abuse more often. ... Beavah - You keep trying to differentiate between "actually" and something else. Actually screen. Actually care. Actually protect. The trouble is the "actually" doesn't exist. Never has and never will. Youth programs attrack abusers. Always has. Always will. BSA has always had a losely coupled structure. CORs really don't screen and supervise volunteers much at all. Unless BSA wants and can afford the infrastructure of programs like Big Brothers of America, we have a program that needs the firm enforcement of no one-on-one contact. ... I guess you can twist and mock with examples of public transportation, uncle joe or the mom's boy friend giving the ride or a car full of popcorn. Those all are all useless distractions. BSA youth protection includes no one-on-one contact. That's the program. If you don't like it, then don't be part of it. .... DeanRx: I need to address your assumptions. You wrote: "1) An abuser doe NOT like to draw attention to themselves and their activities." ... Yeah, that's not true at all. Jerry Sandusky created "The Second Mile" program with hired staff, fundraising and a very visible program. Look at the LA Times published scout files. Filled with good examples of scout leaders recognized in local papers, receiving significant scout awards and only later discovered that they were abusing scouts at the same time. Those LA times published exammples seem consistent with other examples of teachers receiving special awards / acknowledgements, etc. Good quote: "Despite stereotypes of creepy-looking men in white vans, child abusers are actually usually the most likeable, gregarious people around, Issa said. They get close to kids not only by charming them, but by charming the people protecting them. ... "They don't only groom the kid, they groom the parents," Issa said." ... http://www.livescience.com/17031-penn-state-child-abuse-eyewitness-psychology.html you wrote: "2) An abuser looks for opportunities to isolate a youth and gain trust. Pretty hard to abuse a youth in a moving car while you are driving!! Maybe someone could do some grooming, but there is a time limit, unless the drive is unusually long. " ... One time, maybe. If it's a recurring event, it gets much easier. A hand put in the wrong place. Making excuses for why a 15 minute trip took 30 or 40 minutes. Even if it's a direct ride, it's a grooming situation by being issolated and vulnerable. you wrote: "3) You better damn well have some pretty good evidence before you go calling the DE or SE on every little YPG issue. Otherwise, you are more likely to be known as the council-wide "chicken little" at best, and at worst open yourself for a defamation lawsuit. Get everyone kicked out and pretty soon you are the only leader left. " ... I doubt that. There are privacy rules. Any SE violating those rules would be in significant trouble. ... Plus, I've yet to have a case where I had to contact the SE. I have had cases where I've talked with adult leaders. Most recently, I've had to call a new adult leader out of a youth tent because they were playing magic cards alone with the youth in their tent. It was their first camp out since becoming an adult. ... I've had discussions with other adults about driving youth and other situations. Continually we have planning discussions so that we don't violate the no one-on-one contact policy. Commonly, those discussions are at a camp out on Sunday morning around 8am when we are planning for who rides in who's car. ... BUT ... if I heard of a registered scout volunteer reguarly driving a scout alone in their car, I would either directly deal with it or contact the SE. You can't assume the volunteer is a good person even if that volunteer is your best friend. I'm not saying you scream abuse. I'm saying you deal with it. DeanRx - I'm not the self appointed sheriff on anything. I'm just disgusted that people make excuses for violating the BSA protections against child abuse. It's creepy. .... The earlier CDC publication on "Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth Serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures" had as a primary author Janet Saul, Ph.D., Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Dr. Saul said ... "...criminal background checks weren't sufficient that training and firmly enforced prevention policies also were essential..." ... http://www.lhacbsa.org/News/YouthProtection(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah, It's more than a claim. And youre saying you've dealt with more because of your profession and experiences is ignorant of at least 50% of the facts. Youve asked for evidence or reasoning. The trouble is that most of this is obvious common sense. Obvious that you follow the rules that youve put your name on the paper to follow. Obvious that you set an example by your own actions. Obvious that an organization that attracts child abusers needs to take child abuse seriously. Obvious that your example set boundaries that others use for appropriate behavior. That if you let your guard down then you are opening the door to abuse. http://www.cbc.ca./news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/06/25/scouts-talach-reaction.html ... Robert Talach, a lawyer in London, Ont., who deals with sex abuse cases, says 'an organization that deals with that many children will in perpetuity, be attracting sex offenders you have to be eternally vigilant.' I hope we can pretty much all agree on this. Thieves rob banks because thats where the money is. Same thing with scouts. But if you want to take BSAs rules as only advice, how about using CDC advice from the US Gov., page 11. One on one interactions Out of program contact restrictions. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/PreventingChildSexualAbuse-a.pdf CDC also has a good statement in the introduction. Balancing Caution and Caring ... The same dynamics that create a nurturing environment, and may ultimately protect against child sexual abuse, can also open the doors to sexually abusive behaviors. Research has shown that youth who are emotionally insecure, needy, and unsupported may be more vulnerable to the attentions of offenders. By promoting close and caring relationships between youth and adults, organization can help youth feel supported and loved and thus reduce their risk of child sexual abuse. But that same closeness between a youth and an adult can also provide the opportunity for abuse to occur. When developing policies for child sexual abuse prevention, organizations must balance the need to keep youth safe with the need to nurture and care for them. CDC recommends limiting out-of-program contact. It's part of BSA's rules. No one-on-one contact. Not limited or do your best or only if you think it's okay. It's no one-on-one contact.

Beavah - I have no trouble believing you and most scouters mean well. One time events because of exceptional situations (car full of popcorn, etc), tolerable. Not preferred, but tolerable. Also, someone else can define if driving your "god-son" home is driving a "related" youth. But let's be clear. CHILD ABUSE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION YOUR TAKING. Absolutely. I'll stick with what I said. And this is not an extreme of being on an internet forum. If you regularly drive a non-related youth to and from scout meetings, I may or may not confront you on it ... depending on our relationship. But if it continued, I would contact the council Scout Executive both on the phone and in writing to document our conversation providing your name, the scout's name and the situation. I pray that all leaders and knowledgeable parents would do the same. ... The example in this thread I was refering to is the one ASM162 descibed. Regularly driving a non-related scout of a single mother 10 miles between towns. That's 100% wrong and it's a grooming situation to prepare that scout to be abused. ... Beavah wrote: "Do yeh honestly think da SE is goin' to have any say in such things, which are fundamentally custodial choices of da parents?" ... Registered BSA leaders represent the BSA. BSA has laid out the expectations. If can't live within those rules, you should not be a leader representing the BSA and having authority over the scouts. Single unique situations are not good, but do happen. Patterns need to be recognized and curbed quickly. In this day and age, if a SE is confronted with such a situation, I'd expect the SE will deal with it. I probably won't hear the results due to privacy rules, but it will be addressed. ... Beavah - Since you don't take one-on-one contact as a strict rule, how about other youth protection rules? Sharing a tent? A shower? Skinny dipping? Hazing? Bullying? Corporal punishment? Heck, do you host youth sleep overs at your house? How do you pick and choose which rules your "judgement" deems optional! ... Beavah - Your advice on this is just plain old creepy. I'd hope we'd all have learned something over the last 20 years. ... OldGreyEagle wrote: "Having said that, if everyone, parents and leaders get to know each other then everyone is well served." As far as youth protection, gettting to know each other doesn't help. What does an abuser look like? How do they behave? Well, they look like you and me and can be our best friends. They build trust. They often dedicate much of their life to helping youth. Usually, they are trusted friends of the scout and/or his family ... as Beavah's god-son example. Often they volunteer to take the extra step to help youth. ... "Sure, I'll drive you home." ... "Come over for extra practice." ... "Let's meet at my house." Once or twice raises a red flag for me to watch for a pattern. The shortest pattern of YP violations needs to be dealt with quickly.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

"active user number" - meaningless data. Press refresh 10 times and it increases by at least ten. Poor algorithm for deciding who's active.

Beavah, Often your advice is excellent. Often, debatable. But your advice in this thread is indefensible. It scares me that a BSA registered leader says this. It scares me that people might listen to you. And don't for a second cloak your advice and fallacious arguments in being Christian or doing a good deed. It is NOT a personal decision. We MUST follow BSA youth protection policies. No one-on-one contact is a key barrier to abuse. Once you have signed your BSA leader application, that rule applies between you and scouts whether you are in a uniform or not; whether it is before, during or after a meeting. As long as you are a registered leader, it applies 24 hours a day. As long as I'm a registered leader, I'm going to apply that rule to my personal life too. I don't let youth in my house unless my wife or my sons are there. Even then, I usually don't let kids play in my house unless my wife is there too. For myself, I'm as concerned with the perception as the reality. ... Now I'm 100% serious about the following statements. If you are a registered leader (or parent) in my scouting units, you're going to know youth protection expectations. If you are a registered leader (or parent at a scouting event), in any unit, I'm going to expect your behavior, decisions and actions are with-in BSA youth protection boundaries. If you regularly skirt any of the YP guidelines, I'm going to look suspiciously on it. I'll be forced to question whether you are an abuser. At best, I'll know you don't take your commitments seriously. At worst, you are now a red flag that I'll be watching. If, as in the thread example, you regularly drive a non-related youth to and from scout meetings, I may or may not confront you on it ... depending on our relationship. But if it continued, I would contact the council Scout Executive both on the phone and in writing to document our conversation providing your name, the scout's name and the situation. I pray that all leaders and knowledgeable parents would do the same. Our BSA adult leader application says: "Notify your Scout executive of this report, or of any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies, so that he or she may take appropriate action for the safety of our Scouts, make appropriate notifications, and follow up with investigating agencies." ... It's not a personal choice. You are a risk if you violate BSA youth protection. ... Beavah - The simple fact that you treat this as a personal decision does put a red flag in my head about you. I'm sorry but it does. I'm aghast at the advice and it makes me question what else could be going on. And that's a direct result of your advice on youth protection. Again, I apologize. But you have thrown up a huge red flag. If you actually practice what youre preaching, I'd end up calling the scout exec to protect myself, to protect the charter org and most importantly to protect the scouts. ... We had a local SM who repeatedly did minor YP violations, small things that for YEARS raised eyebrows. But nothing to the extent that triggered a phone call. Turns out he was privately abusing selected scouts for YEARS. Grooming them and eventually abusing them. I'm pissed at the SM. I'm sad the scouts didn't say anything. But I'm really, really angry at the ASMs, other leaders and parents who wondered but never did anything. I encourage everyone to hold each other accountable and to lower the bar for when you'd call the Scout Executive with concerns.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

???? Big time virus infection?

SeattlePioneer wrote: "You return to your chartered organization after an outing. Parents stop by to pick up their Scout. One Scout is left over --- no parent has appeared to pick him up and you have no contact with the parent. What would you do? " ... Plan to have another of the leaders have his scouts picked up there too. Or have one of the parents wait with you until the last scout is picked up. .... Eagle92 wrote: Dad needing tarp situation ... No youth protection violation. That's one reason why we need two leaders on a camp out. One reason is to prevent abuse. Another reason is to provide coverage during hard situations. .... Eagle92 wrote: "One of our staffers fell and broke his arm. I had to drive him to the hospital. I put him in the backseat while I drove." ... I don't think anyone would complain about that violation. When we do ER runs, we always have had two adults in the car. But some understanding can be had in these situations. .... Eagle92 wrote: I know of one case where a leader is renting a room from another leader, essentially living with the family. They are in same troop, how to handle transport if one dad is working late and the leader renting needs to bring the Scout to the meeting?" ... Ya know some examples just get too weird and creepy. I'm sure such examples happen. I think I'd want to ask for clarification on how to handle such a situation.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I'm disgusted. Now I can't pretend to be 100% perfect. I've had two cases where my sons were not with me when we needed drivers to drive kids home. In one case, I dropped two kids off at one scouts home and the other scout's parents picked him up from there. In the other case, I dropped off the youngest scouts first and dropped the oldest scout last. But depending on "who", I may not have risked that as I want to protect myself as much as the scouts. ... With that confession though, I get really scared when I hear excuses and tricks to game the system: ---- Waiting to put on the uniform when at the meeting. ---- Driving to the meeting isn't officially part of scouting. ---- Getting a permission note from the parents The rules are very clear. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx#e Of course, edge cases exist to test any rule. But you don't "plan" to violate the youth protection rules because it's too hard. ... Maybe any specific individual is or is not an abuser. That's not really the issue. And you can't justify any plan because the scout will be "safe" with you or you think they will be safe with someone else. The issue is that these rules are in place to protect the youth. We set an example so that parents and others know what to expect and hopefully to prevent abuse by others. We set an example that protects our scouts. The trouble is most abusers also easily justify their actions. Bringing the kid to a game. Driving him home. Having him over to work on a project. Being his only ride to scout meetings. While edge cases exist, I am disgusted that anyone would plan to game the system because it's not practical. ... If you have a scout that can't get to meetings and you feel so strongly about driving him, then contact your council risk manager or scout executive to get a waiver on the rule. Until then ... - If you want to be a good respected leader that does the right thing, you work with-in the rules. If that means a scout misses meetings or does not earn Eagle, that's the right solution. - If you want to do a really good deed, you find a way to bring the scout to the meeting and still work within the rules. Your wife rides with you. Find another scout to join so you are driving two. Coordinate other rides. Just don't ever pat yourself on the back for what you accomplish by choosing to violate youth protection rules. .... As for driving or hikes, it's the one-on-one rule that applies. Two deep for trips and outings. A hike though is just part of a larger event. One-on-one seems fine there and within the rules.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

BSA doesn't block other organizations from forming. But they do protect their trademark property ... as any company does. So if you want to do similar things under different rules, just don't call yourself Boy Scouts or generally any combination of Scout and Boy. Try other names like YMCA, Outward Bound, 4H, Camp Fire, Woodcraft ####, Awana, Rangers, Young Pioneers, Pathfinders or one of many other organizations.

Cool. Thanks.

Just curious what happened to the forums over the weekend. I'd post this in the forum admin site, but I don't have permission there.

Kudu... Thanks. Your site and links are very interesting. I will definitely use them as a reference to think and learn. "Traditional Scouting" is misleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Scouting It is not "BSA" scouting and it is seems defined by the whim of those talking about it. But then again, I forget that everyone on this site does not necessarily promote BSA scouting. "Experts" on this site are often promoting another scouting program or vision. When I hear "Traditional Scouting", I think Cubs, Boy Scouts and Venturing without Learning For LIfe. Others hear something different. The problem I have is that "Traditional Scouting" advice often reflects mixed materials and conflicting sources. A good example is how to select a patrol leader. I can't find BP's answer. Green Bar Bill (who I never met and have only read tangentially), encouraged the ideal that patrols elect their patrol leader ... (but then you don't necessarily have the best leader or most skilled.) ... BUT Green Bar Bill allowed the SM to appoint if it's a really new patrol. But that conflicts with BSA promoting Troop Guides to mentor new scouts and new patrols. .. so in the end ... As I only have a fully document BSA program, I promote use of troop guides and let the scouts elect their patrol leader immediately. As I don't have a fully documented Green Bar Bill scouting program, I only use his writings for reflection. It might be different if I could find a "current" set of "Traditional Scouting" program materials to use. But they don't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong ... please ... But even if they did exist, I signed up to represent the BSA program, not something different that I can't find documented. ... This reminds me of the UK scouting situation. The UK has 17+ scouting groups which are members of six or more different "world" scouting organizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_and_Guiding_in_the_United_Kingdom And "Traditional Scouting" (started in 1970) refers to Baden-Powell Scouting / Pathfinder scouting. Which is not the main scouting organizations in the UK. And not the main scouting org in US. ... I can fully appreciate the views and goals of "Traditional Scouting". I like alot of it. I just have trouble implementing it as it's not documented and it's not the program I'm signed up to present.

I apologize. I did not mean to start a debate on how to structure patrols. We've been there and done that. With that said ... Kudu wrote: "Still, the goal of Traditional Scouting is to have the Troop's most mature Scouts serve as Patrol Leaders for as long as they are the best natural leaders." I always fear when people talk of "tradition". Usually, "tradition" reflects unit or individual traditions that are not defendable by what BSA currently publishes and often not even what BSA published in the past. "Tradition" often means what some units do but not all units. "Tradition" almost never means official or documented. Most importantly, "tradition" often means what was done in the past and is no longer done. I recognize there are multiple ways to structure patrols. BUT, it's misleading to say "Traditional Scouting" says to use senior scouts as patrol leaders. BSA identifies new scout and regular patrols. BSA identifies troop guides as "senior scouts" who mentor the new scout patrol and the new scout patrol leader. BSA says "An older, experienced Scout often is assigned as a troop guide to help the new-Scout patrol through the challenges of troop membership. An assistant Scoutmaster should also assist the new-Scout patrol to ensure that each Scout has every opportunity to succeed right from the start." http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/PatrolLeader.aspx The thing that I try to remember is that leadership roles exist to practice leadership. BSA says in "Introduction to Leadership Skills for Troops", page 21: "Just as adult leaders must step back and enable Scout leaders to lead the troop, senior Scout leaders must work with, train, and encourage less-senior Scout leaders in the troop to fulfill their roles and practice their own leadership skills." (Google "BSA PDF Introduction to leadership skills for troops") ... I've never found anything from BSA that says to use senior scouts as patrol leaders. Seriously, I'd really like to find something published by BSA now ... (or in the past) ... that says to use senior scouts as patrol leaders for less experienced scouts.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Side note ... I don't think that you need an older scout to be an effective PL. Older PLs have an advantage because they are older, but I also think it's a hinderance to them and their patrol mates because they don't experience leading their piers. IMHO, the PL's that learn the most and the patrols that grow the most are the same-age patrols. But that's me. I know others have other opinions.

It's hard to advise without having been there. BUT ... -------------------------- DE-ESCALATE - The best SMs de-escalate situations. It's not good to take a relatively minor incident and formalize it into a corrective action. This sounds perfect for an informal sit down and chat. -------------------------- Treat as a grain of salt the comments of other ASMs / parents. Act on what you see and hear. Use their comments to alert you, but act on what you are sure happened. Way too often, I've found others misunderstood or only saw part ... OR are trying too hard to convince me of something. -------------------------- BE TIMELY - Digging up the past can do more damage. It's been weeks since it happened. By now, those patrol members have probably moved past that specific incident or have found a way to deal with it or are dealing with another situation. Plus, this sounds like a relatively minor incident. I'd watch and wait for something fresh to correct. -------------------------- DON'T EVER WAIT FOR AN SMC - SMC is for taking stock of advancement, encouraging and building a relationship. I would never prepare discipline for a SMC. If you feel need to address it, do it timely and way before a SMC. Maybe they need to wait a month for advancement. That's a judgement call. Just don't surprise a scout during a SMC with it. -------------------------- SCOUT SPIRIT - Take a whole scout view. Individuals regularly fail at specific times and can look bad. But if overall, they are okay, I would NOT make a big big issue of it. Plus, scout spirit is best decided as a joint decision with the scout. I'd avoid "guilting" the scout too much on this. Keep it to how do we treat others. How did the scout oath and law apply to the incident. AND how should we have acted in the situation. I'd also avoid the "I tell you when I think your ready to advance." A very important concept is that scouts control their own advancement. If it's 30 days, say it's 30 days. Don't leave the scout hanging on a whim. -------------------------- REFLECT ON THE INCIDENT ... active listening --- Do the scouts feel ownership of their patrol? You said it was their first time together. --- Were the scouts "hurting" / "resentful" from some other "dis" or something beyond their power? --- Why were the scouts acting out? --- Were they just testing limits? Scouts and adults do this all the time. -------------------------- SCOUT LAW says a scout is obedient. It does NOT say a scout is submissive and we don't want our scouts to be submissive. I say this because sometimes people want things to change without knowing how to speak up. Sometimes people see injustice without knowing how to correct it. Sometimes people are promised one thing and given another and then don't know how to pursue what was promised. Such people can often look like they are acting out. Teach these scouts the right way, time and place to change things. It is a valuable skill to have their whole lives. -------------------------- From what I understand so far, I'd treat this more as a scoutmaster minute opportunity. How do we treat others? The virtue of being a good follower. A quick roleplay or a quick discussion. Then, I'd leave it and watch how people act.

No

Well.... We had our annual fall join scouting night. We are a very healthy pack who has recruited 20+ cubs each year. The school district changed their policy this year to not send home flyers with the kids. Last year, we could send one home. Now, none. The result, five new cubs. Pack across town got seven new cubs versus 20+ last year. If this continues, I'm not sure our pack will be around in five years.

.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I've been reading this thread, but fairly silent as I've been traveling without a good keyboard. ... I'm in this Forum for strong, good debate; to learn and to get to understand the opinions of other scouts and to hopefully share my perspective too. I fully agree with raising and debating virtually any topic. In the original thread, I tried not to insult as much as to raise my main frustration. I fully believe Merlyn LeRoy / Brian Westley is not here to "participate". He's here to "manipulate". To advance his agenda. ** And *** his agenda is advanced by damaging discussion this forum. He had a chance to take a slap at scouting and he did it again. Did he have an excuse? Sure. LA times published another article. Not much new in it. Merlyn pointing out the news article was not so much about communicating yet another bad news article. It was more keeping an old worn out subject top on the posting list in this Forum. Merlyn / Brian has been very prolific on this topic for 16 years: Google groups ... Newspapers ... Yahoo groups ... original news groups ... "UK" forums ... Wikipedia posts ... wordpress ... newspapers ... topica ... patheos ... Food discussion forums