Beavah

Yah, sorry. For clarity, da BSA reports the % of the Boy Scouting membership that earns Eagle each year. So if 50,000 earn Eagle out of 900,000 Boy scouts, they report 5.6% That's not the same thing as the percentage of boys who join Boy Scouting who earn Eagle. That number is much higher. Since an average boy spends about 4 years in Boy Scouting, usin' the above numbers da Eagle percentage would be 5.6% per year x 4 years per boy = 22.4% chance of earning Eagle per boy who joins. Those are pretty close to what da real figures are. Beavah

Objectively, earning Eagle has become more common. Where it used to be 2% of da membership earned Eagle in any given year, it's now up over 6%. So a 200% increase in 20-30 years. At da same time, membership has declined gradually. I reckon there are a lot of reasons for the trends, eh? Some good, some bad, some just different. Beavah

Yah, thanks for takin' the time to update us, 5scoutmom. Lots of times I've seen things go very well for families like yours when they find a new program. Don't look back, it will only let da former experience shadow the new one. Let all that old stuff go and just have fun supporting your sons new scouting home. BG

Yah, welcome chkhboom. Yeh can't be Chartered Organization Representative (COR) and hold an appointment as a unit leader (Scoutmaster - SM) or assistant unit leader (Assistant Scoutmaster - ASM). You can, as COR, be dual registered as a Member of the Committee (MC) or as Committee Chair (CC). Generally speakin', your troop leaders should go to the Institutional Head of your chartered organization (IH of your CO) and ask him/her to select the COR out of the membership of the chartered organization, and then get that person to COR training. It's best when the COR comes from and represents the chartered organization, and helps keep the troop in touch and vice versa, because that's the real role. Yeh don't want that stuff takin' up the time of those who are doing the more important work of directly supporting the kids' program. Thanks for da work you're doin' to support scouting in your area, whatever your role! Beavah

Nuthin' wrong with any of that, jblake (well, except for the Toyota analogy, which lost me completely ). Kids workin' hard, figurin' things out, learning to be independent, being able to determine their own rules and such are all important ingredients and outcomes of Scoutin'. Da only question is how to successfully support that development. How to put up temporary supports when needed or a set of group norms to allow that to happen, and how to avoid expectin' new fellows (and new parents) to go from zero to 60 in 4 seconds or less. We want lads to be able to think for themselves, problem solve, set goals, adapt, etc. by the time they leave scouting, eh? Not just some of 'em, but all of 'em! That doesn't mean we can expect every boy to do that from the time they enter Boy Scouting. So whether within a patrol, learnin' from the example of independent-thinker older boys, or within a troop, learning as a patrol class from adult and youth instructors and guides, it takes a progression of skill development and practice and time for each lad to get there. Beavah

Yah, I think Eagledad has what's likely the right take on this, eh? Selling youth leadership to parents is an ongoin' work of evangelization. Someone in the unit has to be preachin' the Good News pretty continuously, with backup from da choir of older boy parents. Compared to other youth programs and to Cub Scouts, Boy Scouting requires a bit of a conversion in attitude on the part of the parents, and yeh have to devote yourself to that cause as much as to the boys. The other piece of it is whether enough support is happenin' for the younger fellows, particularly any PLs who are young fellows pushed into sink-or-swim leadership roles by their choice of patrol. Yah, sure, it might be that the lad gets it together with a parent's help at home, and yeh see the results jblake47 talks about in the troop. But jblake may not be seein' the frustration and struggle on the part of the boy that the parent sees at home. So the two perspectives are different. Yeh gotta get people communicatin', so jblake figures out if/when more support is needed and da parents learn the vision of why the frustration and struggle and hard youth leadership work is really the best sort of thing for their kid's growth. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... That's a pretty dark interpretation there, OGE. Now, maybe a better notion would be to educate than ban. Callin' mom at midnight for a wet sleeping bag is a bit like calling 911 because yeh stubbed your toe. That's somethin' a lad (and mom) needs to learn. Still, having watched many youth dutifully be lost in texting or facebook posting or private music while they are with other people, I reckon that there's some need to teach courtesy. And young folks or even young leaders aren't automatically courteous, eh? If yeh have a longstanding troop with solid youth leaders yeh can leave it to them to police their own. But if yeh don't yet have youth leaders who have learned such things themselves, then I reckon there's a place for adults to step in. I can particularly see the merits of a "ban" if it's a "no until you've proven you can handle it" sort of thing. Kinda like the Tech Chit idea. And to be honest, if it were just phones and music, I think prohibiting them wouldn't hurt anything. Just relieves the youth leaders of an annoyance so they can focus on other stuff. Problem these days is that the phone is also the wristwatch, alarm clock, GPS, camera, portable field guide to edible plants and Scout Handbook. With that being the case, the bans become silly, and we just have to teach 'em how to use the tool properly. Beavah

Nah, right away yeh had new folks commenting on them, so I reckon the resurrection is goin' to "take" for a while. It's OK, eh? I just couldn't figure out why yeh suddenly seemed to have so much to say about pinewood derby. Like it was your hidden fetish or somethin'. At least yeh haven't lobbed any artillery my way for creating one of those dastardly eponymous threads. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, all in all havin' refereed more of these things than I can count, I prefer da CO to be brought in and be assertive in its authority, rather than it be left to adults within da units squabbling on an equal basis. So I don't have as much issue with Kamelian that others seem to. This is a CO call, and they should be informed, not kept deliberately in the dark by the people who are workin' for them. Now, Kamelian, what I'd also be tellin' the CO is that the most energetic volunteers are the ones who generate the most complaints about "running over" or "intimidating" others, eh? They're the folks who get things done on a timeline, which feels like being run over to folks who are clueless or stalling. They have a clear sense of purpose and goals which are driving 'em, which feels intimidating to those who don't. If yeh drive out such people, yeh win the battle but lose da war, eh? Yeh end up with a much weaker cub pack, one that might not survive. Proceed gently, with grace. Have da SM or ASM visit the pack meeting, or maybe be appointed ex officio. My guess is that the folks aren't really evil subverters, more like they're committed folks who have a vision, and it just doesn't happen to match yours. Yeh want to win 'em over and broaden their vision, maybe with a push and a nudge, or at least with enough room to save face. Beavah

Yah, this was a nice thread to pop and match back up with your other thread about da parents of 6th graders in your program complaining to the DE, UC, and anybody else that too much is being expected of their kids. That doesn't jibe with da notion of treatin' 'em like kindergarteners. More like throwin' 'em in the deep end without enough examples and mentors in a way that isn't age appropriate. Closer to my "go build a factory" example, eh? This seems to be causin' yeh grief and possibly losing you kids. Boys bond by shared experience, not by age. If yeh put 'em in an age-stratified environment where all your experiences are with the same age fellows, then naturally they'll bond. If yeh put 'em in a mixed-age environment with mixed-age fellows who share their experiences, then those kids will bond. Only difference is that if yeh keep 'em all together by age like they do in school, yeh have to provide an adult teacher to help 'em to grow. I'm not tryin' to be a pest, eh? I'm just readin' between the lines and offerin' a few suggestions that yeh might achieve even more success if yeh experiment with ways of offerin' a bit more support and structure to your first year fellows. Yeh can do that with da adult/troop guide/webelos 3/FCFY type thing, but that doesn't seem your style. So perhaps da older youth as patrol members and natural mentors would be a better fit. Or somethin' else. But it just seems to be a thing yeh would like to address, so we're offerin' ideas. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Watchin' the Obama administration trying to deal with the events in Egypt and the middle east is really painful. It's the classic case of a whole bunch of managers who are in out of their depth when leadership is called for. The mixed signals they keep sending are goin' to cause nothing but harm. I would wish that the fellow would get up and give one of his oratorial masterpieces... "It is true, in a world as complex and fast-changing as this one that governments and leaders often take the easiest path. With the best of intentions, to protect our interests, to do what we think will help our people, we make compromises in small ways with our values and principles. Those small compromises can add up over the years to be come bigger compromises, and bigger, until we find after many years that we've done as much harm as good to the nation we love, or we've supported a foreign leader out of political expedience rather than supporting freedom out of principle." "But make no mistake... in the United States, our government is answerable to our people, and our people stand for freedom. The people of the United States stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Egypt and all of those who yearn for peace and liberty. The blood of our martyrs who gave their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor in the fight for freedom is one with the blood of the martyrs of the people in Egypt and Tunisia and in every land who suffer that their sons and daughters might live in Liberty's great light." "Effective immediately, I am suspending all military aid to Egypt. Our people will not be party to the funding of oppression when the will of our brother citizens in Egypt is so clearly manifest. I call upon outgoing president Mubarak to listen to the true patriotism of his heart, and support the will of his people, for all of us in government service must ultimately answer to them and to God for our stewardship of a nation. I call upon the professionals in the Army of Egypt to live up to their mission to safeguard the people... the people who are their great nation. Our military professionals in the United States pledge their loyalty not to a man, not to a party, but to the Constitution that enshrines forever the supremacy of the will of the people, their right to assemble, and speak, and petition the government for redress of grievances. That is the calling of a true soldier, to serve his nation's people, to serve the cause of freedom, not to serve any individual." "While we must for now suspend military assistance, the people of the United States stand ready to assist the people of Egypt. We will stand with those who strive for freedom, as many a sympathetic friend aided our young nation in its struggle for liberty. We will cheer for them, we will cry with them, and when they call for aid, we will be there. I am asking the departments of agriculture and defense to activate plans for medical and food relief, and call upon our friends and allies in the middle east and in the world to be prepared to assist the people of Egypt and the government that they establish." "Until that time, our Jews, our Christians, our many Muslims and Hindus and others join the people of Egypt in prayer for a rapid, peaceful, and successful transition to true democracy." Yah, well... I can dream, can't I? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, the question I have is what is the threshold that the treasury must cross with those bond purchases to trigger the catastrophe? Nobody knows, eh? Could be ten years, could be ten weeks. My guess is one likely trigger will be one of the rating agencies downgrading U.S. debt, perhaps coupled with an oil price run-up. The rating agencies have signaled the potential for downgrade already. If U.S. debt gets downgraded, that triggers an automatic sell-off by many large pension funds and institutions worldwide that are required by the terms of their charter to hold only highest-grade instruments. That would either be a really big hit or da rock that triggers the avalanche. Good time to start diversifyin' out of dollars. One of da wonders of the modern world is how easy it's become for the average person to hold international currency accounts. Beavah

Wow, suddenly the recently active topics list of threads has about doubled. Has packsaddle taken his medications today? Beavah

Again, can you show me where the unit leader is agreeing to become an agent of the CO? I simply don't see anything about that at all in the adult leader application. Of course not. That's your membership application to the BSA, eh? In order to be eligible for registration in da BSA, you must already have been approved by the CO, which is why da CO's signature is required. The BSA can't appoint you to a unit position no matter how many application forms you submit to them. Only the CO can make you its agent and thereby a unit volunteer eligible for BSA membership. Don't mix the two up, eh? To be eligible for BSA membership, yeh must already have agreed to be volunteer and agent for the CO. Yep, yeh should think carefully about agreeing to do that if yeh aren't a member of the CO or have some fundamental disagreements with their positions on things which would affect your ability to represent them to the youth in your program. If yeh can't do that honestly, yeh have a moral obligation to resign. But that's why I didn't use da word "loyalty", eh? Your role in their service is limited to the youth work in the troop. Yeh do not owe them any duty of "loyalty" in the bigger sense beyond being an honest and conscientious youth leader to help 'em with their youth mission. You might disagree entirely with their other positions and lobby against them, so long as it doesn't compromise your ability to work on their behalf in the troop. Of course, I think yeh have an obligation to disclose that sort of potential conflict to 'em, so they can make an informed decision about whether it's too big a conflict for them to accept. But lots of scouters volunteer for programs at churches that aren't their own or at VFW's even if they're not vets or whatnot, and do so quite happily. Just like non-Catholics teach at Catholic schools, yeh see Jews as Scoutmasters in Catholic units, Catholics as Committee Members in Methodist units, and on and on. In the end, though, it's da CO that's on the line for your behavior and your actions, not the BSA. They are trusting you with their facilities, their kids, their reputation and their very existence. And in that, as TwoCubDad says, yeh have a duty. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nope, SP, this is one of those questions that has an answer, eh? Like what time the sun is goin' to rise tomorrow in Seattle. People can have different opinions about it, but only one of those opinions is goin' to be correct. Not a fine point, either... a fundamental point of ethics. Of course what may well be true is that I'm an ineffective trainer or communicator, eh? Like Lisabob says, I blame da accent. I guess you've never handled recharter paperwork. At the top of the roster is a signature line for the IH, which states that as IH he/she appoints all of the listed people to their positions and in so doing agrees the person listed as COR can make additional appointments during the year. The fact that the CO appoints you to a unit leader position in the unit that they own and operate makes you their agent. Yeh agreed to be their agent when yeh accepted appointment to scouter in their program. They can terminate you at will, even if the BSA and every parent in the unit likes you. If yeh served in a Scoutreach unit which might be run directly by a BSA council, then you'd be agent for the council. Aside from Scoutreach, though, the BSA does not allow its program to be used by "independent" scouters, only by community agencies. So yeh can't be a unit scouter unless you have agreed to serve as a volunteer/agent for a chartered organization. If yeh don't like that, yeh can always take on a district or council role instead. Of course, then you're still workin' for the council corporation, not the BSA. If yeh want to volunteer for da actual BSA yeh need to get yourself a gold-tab position. Now, your last post used da word "loyalty" which has some deeper implications, and which I deliberately haven't used. Your duty as unit scouter is to act as an honest and responsible agent for the CO in their program, and do your best in their stead to achieve their mission. That doesn't carry a burden of "loyalty" the way most people mean it. Yeh are free to leave and sign on with another CO to start a competing unit, for example. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

No, it's not a Ponzi scheme in the sense that all Ponzi schemes eventually suffer a dramatic catastrophic failure to pay. Social security won't do that. Sure it will. That's built in to da law when the fictional trust fund runs out. 2016 or so for SS disability payments. Alternately, it'll happen in da form of inflation, where you'll be "paid" but the amount will not allow yeh to purchase anything. Or, da mother of all... the catastrophic crash is when no one shows up to our treasury auctions, eh? We become Greece, lookin' for a bailout from the IMF, and the IMF's condition for bailing us out is that we end or vastly curtail our social welfare programs. Just like the demands da EU and IMF are making on Greece. Already, not enough people are showin' up to our Treasury auctions willing to pay for our bonds, so the Federal Reserve is buyin' the bonds instead. The Fed is essentially creatin' an artificial asset bubble in Treasuries, the way it did in mortgages and before that in stocks. How'd those work out? Bad for stocks, but people knew those were risky. Worse for mortgages, because people thought those weren't risky. What do yeh think the result will be of an asset bubble in an asset that everyone feels is "risk free"? Beavah

Yah, sorry Seattle, I doubled with yeh. BadenP is right, eh? I don't think you're really understandin' what the BSA is and how it works. Few Chartered Organizations have any written agreement with unit leaders requiring them to carry out particular policies for the CO. Written instructions are nice, but they're not required. It's the duty of the unit scouters to serve the CO. Some of da bigger COs with central organizations like the Catholics and the LDS do have written support materials, of course, but even for them most of the relationship involves unit leaders individually knowing and doin' their best without having to be "told" to in writing. Units are EXPLICITLY required to follow the rules and regulations of the BSA in their charter. No, if yeh read da Charter Agreement, the Chartered Organization agrees to "Conduct the Scouting program according to its own policies and guidelines as well as those of the Boy Scouts of America" and the BSA council agrees to "respect the aims and objectives of the organization and offer the resources of Scouting to help in meeting those objectives." The units I have been associated with are expected to act in their own interest to carry out the Scout program in good faith Then yeh did not get adequately trained, or yeh missed what is admittedly a subtle point in training. The units you have been associated with are expected to act in the interest of their chartered organization and to carry out that organization's scouting program in good faith. But now yeh know! Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... that might be one of da best examples yet of the dangers of relyin' on Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter). The legal and ethical notion of agency extends far beyond da commercial code. So let's take a look at the filing against Plantation United Methodist Church in da Florida Everglades hike case, eh? H.C. and A.S. were selected by defendant Plantation United Methodist Church as Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmaster, respectively. Both were serving in their roles as scouters during the accident. And, as such, they were servants or agents of Plantation United Methodist Church for which the Church is exposed to vicarious liability. In other words, the church is liable for the actions of its agents, the unit scouters. Hands-off or hands-on might describe the nature of the agency relationship, eh? Lots of legal agents have pretty hands-off relationships with their principals. Heck, that's da reason why the role of agent exists, eh? To handle things so that the principal doesn't have to be hands-on. So just because da principal is hands-off doesn't change the fact that a relationship exists. The Chartered Org. is responsible for the selection of unit scouters. Every year the IH, as executive officer of the Chartered Organization, signs a unit charter approving those adults listed in the charter to their roles as agent, and further authorizes the COR to act on his/her behalf in the selection of other unit scouters during the year. As a unit scouter there really isn't any question, eh? Legally and ethically you are an agent for the Chartered Organization, and yeh owe a duty in that role to them, not to the BSA. Just like legally and ethically a Scout Executive is agent for the council corporation and its board, not the BSA. I recognize that many scouters get confused by this, because ordinarily in their role they spend more time workin' with the BSA materials and council support staff than anyone at the CO. But those BSA materials and that council support is only available to 'em because the Chartered Organization contracted for that support to help its unit volunteers. Just like the CO can contract with ARC to provide CPR training to its scouters, too... it will look like it's the Red Cross to the volunteer, but actually it's da CO hiring the Red Cross for that service. Or, since people sometimes love BSA material quotes: Your troop is "owned" by a chartered organization, which receives a national charter yearly to use the Scouting program as a part of its youth work. ... The Troop Committee works on behalf of the chartered organization; your troop must be operated within the organization's policies. The chartered organization must also approve all adult leaders... In the chartered organization relationship, the Boy Scouts of America provides the program and support services, and the chartered organization provides the adult leadership and uses the program to accomplish its goals for youth. - Troop Committee Handbook Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, pohsuwed, I think you're failin' to make a few important distinctions, eh? I see district and council folks make this mistake a lot. It's important to remember that district and council volunteers are different than unit volunteers, eh? They're not the same. Unit volunteers work for Chartered Organizations and through them for kids and families. They work to help kids grow, and help the CO to achieve its mission. Council volunteers work for the BSA council, and through the council for CO's and unit volunteers. We work to help volunteers do a good job for CO's, and help the council to achieve its goals and mission. So it's perfectly OK and appropriate for unit volunteers to offer criticism of how well we council volunteers are serving them. They are customers, eh? In most ways, they are paying for the services of the organization we chose to volunteer for. Where they're not, donors are paying for the council so that we can provide excellent services to those unit volunteers. Criticism can be hard at times, but it's not at all a bad thing, eh? It's a good thing for da organization. Far better than if they just take their kids and their business elsewhere. We, as council volunteers, should look at that criticism and say "What can we do better?" Because serving those folks is the mission of our organization. The only reason we exist, the only reason we are volunteers is to do the best job we can serving those folks. If we are failing at that in their eyes, then we are failing at our mission as council volunteers. Da unit volunteers don't work for us. We work for them. We forget that at the peril of the very soul of organized scouting. Beavah

Beavah's model of adult as agent, though, has a point of breakdown as well: If the units are running well, then each has an agency obligation to the other. Huh? Yah, hmmmm.... Agency is an important concept, eh? It doesn't work in da way you suggest. More like a "know who you work for". Like a real estate agent needs to understand that they work for the seller, not the buyer. Unit leaders for the pack and da troop are agents of the Chartered Organization, not each other. The Chartered Organization is responsible, in a very real sense, for the actions of their agents. You are acting in their name and for them, eh? You are acting as them. Granting someone agency, the right to act in your name and on your behalf is an act of deep trust. Yeh put your welfare in their hands. In return, da agent has the deepest legal and moral obligation to act to the benefit of, and in a manner that would be desired by, the person who trusted them in that way. It ain't the same thing as "a pack and a troop should be nice to each other". It's "this organization trusted me to be the best possible youth leader to act for its benefit and mission" and thereby gave me privileged access to other people's children in their name. If yeh can't, because yeh don't believe in the values and mission of da organization, or because yeh have a conflicting obligation to someone or something else, then it is your duty as an honorable and trustworthy individual to resign your position. There's nuthin' ambiguous here, no two-way or three-way balancing test. You've been entrusted with a special relationship, one that in some very real ways puts da existence of the CO and its mission in your hands. That comes with a duty to act in the CO's best interest and direction. And if an agent isn't acting in a way that brings credit to the CO, the CO absolutely should be involved in resolving that situation. Now, all that being said, yeh have to look at da circumstances to determine what the best way to go about that is, eh? And the best way to educate da pack leaders, who are no doubt acting out of ignorance rather than malice. Tread gently and respectfully, but always in a way that's mindful of where da obligations really lie. Beavah

Yah, T22, there are probably a couple of dozen threads on "Insurance" here if yeh want to look for 'em. In short, the BSA provides two types of insurance: 1) General liability coverage in excess of $15M for Chartered Organizations and volunteers. Liability coverage applies in all cases where at a scouting-related event you are accused of civil negligence leading to harm of another's person or property. That can include running the red light ("still pink!") and getting into an accident while on a scout trip to having a kid toss a gas can in a fire injuring several (negligent supervision), to accidentally burning down a forest. 2) Limited accident medical coverage (optional). If purchased by the unit or council, this coverage provides limited medical benefits for registered members and guests for accidental injury at a scouting event. We're talkin' enough to cover a deductible or a simple ER visit, not enough to pay for majory surgery or rehab. Insurance #1 is provided as a term of the charter agreement, and is governed by a contract. Internal documents like da Tour Plan or the Guide to Safe Scouting have no substantive bearing on insurance. However, a few things on da unauthorized activity list (like skydiving) are exclusions on the master contract, so if yeh hurt someone while skydiving that's goin' to be on the skydiving center's coverage or your own. Aside from those exclusions, however, or willful or wanton injury (like beating a kid), the general liability coverage applies. It's there specifically to help scouters who make mistakes, eh? Because if yeh didn't make a mistake, yeh aren't liable in the first place. Da coverage provides both for legal defense and payment of judgment or settlement. Both of those are nice benefits of Scouting, eh? They're there specifically so that you never have to worry about volunteering. That's their purpose, eh? To put your mind at ease, and make it easy for you to give your time and talent to the program, and make it easy for CO's to agree to charter scouting units. Anybody who lies about da coverage to try to scare you is doin' a profound disservice to the scouting community, by damaging our image and reputation with chartered partners and volunteers. They should be taken gently but firmly into a quiet side room for "re-education." Beavah

Yah, what Blancmange said. The fellow in your council is being completely irresponsible. Hopefully, most councils will be more service-minded and intelligent about things than what Troop22 reports. That's just dangerous, and whatever tom-fool told yeh that, T22, is really puttin' people at risk. Itineraries have to change all the time because of weather or other safety/logistics needs. If some poor scouter refuses to change an itinerary because he's worried about what his tour plan said vis a vis insurance, he might well be puttin' kids at risk. "I have to get there" leads to the worst sort of safety judgment. Imagine pushing a kid with heat exhaustion because yeh have to make your itinerary campsite. It's a Tour Plan, eh? Plans can and should change. Or as we tell scouts, the plan isn't important, but the planning is. Beavah

Yah, close as I'm hearin' this is a result of the take-down of da regional offices. If yeh weren't aware, da regional offices used to handle national tour permit applications (those for over 500 miles or out of country). Regional offices were all shuttered and moved back to national, eh? So the core of the matter is that national is getting out of the tour permit business entirely, includin' the online form. Everything is goin' to the councils, even long or out of country trips. That's why da extra week, for processing those harder things (national tour permits took a month or more, eh?) So pretty much this is all just Irving doin' something close to the right thing, and turfing things back down to councils where hopefully they know you better and can be more responsive. It should be an improvement. Of course, da communication has been poor and they gummed up da works with all the additions of when a tour permit is required language, which might make things a lot more confusing. What else is new, eh? Give your local councils time to sort out da confusion and I expect you'll find things settle down to somethin' that's workable. Da other interestin' thing is that they finally listened to someone in legal risk management and changed da name. A permit that must be approved implies oversight and supervision, which exposes da BSA and the councils in cases like da Florida debacle. Asking a unit to just submit a plan which is marked as received rather than approved is more prudent, and more accurately reflects da reality of the relationship and how these things are handled. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, JMHawkins, I still don't buy it. The behavior of the pack leaders is still dishonorable. Regardless of the level of CO involvement, they are still agents for the CO. Put simply, if they do something bad it will be the CO defending them alongside the BSA. Let's be honest, eh? Most COs are big, busy organizations and scouting is just one small part of their operations. A part that like as not is out of sight a lot of the time, off campin' in the woods somewhere. It's not really that reasonable to expect that the church pastor or youth minister is going to stay in close contact with 'em on their own. Those are busy folks. So it's the duty of scouters to do their part to stay in touch with the CO, eh? Scouters should behave like honorable agents, with personal integrity, and keep up their end of communicating with the CO. Not hide from the CO until you're forced to talk to them because of a disaster like a hurt kid or the treasurer is stealing the money. Then how will you look? What yeh seem to be proposing is that scouters should not do their duty in that way, or worse, should lie by omission. So they should essentially try to steal the COs name, resources and exposure to risk so they can do what they want without being accountable to anybody. I don't buy it. Yep, if they do their duty and talk to the CO they might not like the result. But it's still their duty! We don't do our duty only if we think we'll get what we want. And yeh know, for every one time a CO responded oddly I can name ten times when the improved contact was a real plus for the unit. Yah, would it have been better to be keeping the CO informed with positive stuff along the way? Of course. But yeh are where yeh are. Yeh do what duty requires as best yeh can, or at least yeh have da conversation to see if the CO cares about da issue. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Maybe it was because of that odd fellow they were sittin' next to . Can't say I've seen it that often. Pretty much scout openings resemble da openings of most state legislatures. A flag, a pledge, and a prayer. Ordinary expressions of citizenship. Yeh have to sorta go out of your way to object to such things. B