Beavah

Hard to say about "trouble". I reckon plenty a young lad can stir up a fair bit of "trouble" here and there. In terms of issues that really tear units apart or cause 'em to sink, it's always adults. I'm not too hard on the "generals" who are really still workin' with kids in the field. They have a lot of experience and they make things work. Because they have a lot of experience they often come off as gruff or "my way or the highway" types to parents, since it's hard to keep givin' long explanations over and over when yeh really just want to work with the boys. They do tend to leave a big hole when they finally retire, though, and sometimes they push other good people away. Da "I'm going to get this for my son, come hell or high water" group is probably the biggest drain on da program. They just take up so much leader time and energy, eh? Cause leaders to lose the sense of fun, and really hurt the program for all the kids. Da unit leaders who are so confrontation-adverse that they don't address poor youth or adult behavior are pretty bad. The Cub Scout parents who haven't been deprogrammed yet can be a real challenge. I like AK's group, too... the folks who think their online SSD training allows 'em to tell the fellow with 15 years as a Lifeguard what to do, eh? Those who confuse remembering quotations with having knowledge. The adults who have way too much ego tied up in this kid's game. So here's a question... what are your best ways of dealing with each type or group? As long as we're griping, we might as well share some solutions, eh? Beavah

Giving a scout who has no knowledge of the troop program a choice as important as the patrol is like leading him blind folded in the middle of the woods and then taking it off and telling him to choose a trail that gets him back to the troop. Yah, this was the essence of my point, though Eagledad is so much more poetic is his wording. Da issue isn't giving boys what they want, it's givin' 'em what they need. What they want is to do awesome cool stuff without having to do chores, be too uncomfortable, or ever falling down. Like that game Eagledad mentions. What they need is a home, eh? A stable structure that works and becomes the base from which they launch on their adventures to Philmont or whatever else. Somethin' that gives 'em buddies to do chores with and someone strong to help 'em up when they fall. Da structure just depends a bit on your philosophy and goals, eh? Most important is to find one that works for what yeh want. I've seen all of 'em be successful for folks, because different folks are lookin' for different kinds of outcomes or growth, and because people sorta adapt to structures and make 'em work. Given all I've seen, like Eagledad my own feelings run toward the traditional scout patrol of mixed-age lads, just because it seems to do better at the character and citizenship stuff that I care most about, and tends to be a good fit for da more adventurous outdoor programs I like to see. But yeh have to figure out if that's what your real goals are, what your activities are like, and recognize that the structure is just one piece, eh? The other bits like adult association and outdoors and all da rest are what help the structure to work. Beavah

Yah, I hate oscillating mileage. Also don't really care for the whole-troop "patrol reorganization" bit. Can't imagine how that works with real patrol method. It's one of the things I don't care for in age-based patrols, where inevitably the patrols "consolidate" as the lads get older, just when it seems the boys are ready and comfortable with the group so as to be able to lead. Troop22, I think yeh can accomplish what yeh want by introducin' just a few things for the PLC boys to consider as part of their thinking in taking on new guys. They have one of 'em: the "good fit" notion in terms of personality or whatnot. Probably then yeh just need to add one or two other things for them to balance. The boys can pretty early on make a guess as to whether a new lad is "timid" or "fearless", or perhaps "gung-ho" or "quiet". Just gently encourage 'em to try to balance the distribution of "gung ho" guys while still thinking about good fit. From what you describe, yeh might try "focused" vs. "bonkers" to try to capture da behavioral challenges . Just the addition of somethin' "tangible" like those quick tags helps the boys to include that thought in their planning, and is often enough to sort out the problem. Beavah

Yah, thriftyscout, I hear where you're comin' from. I really think you'll have too many negative consequences from making an "elite campers" patrol. I'd do somethin' like what jblake suggested, but since your lads aren't familiar with it yet, offer some additional guidance. Do yeh have rough attendance figures for your boys? If not, the lads can just guess 'em for each boy. If a lad has 50% attendance on average, then he counts for half a person. If he attends 70%, then he counts for seven tenths of a person. Have the lads make patrols that total up to at least 6 "persons". They can figure out how. If yeh want to do the mixed thing, have 'em also try to shoot for roughly even ranks between the patrols. That way yeh get some experienced, gung-ho campers and some part timers in each patrol. Yeh need the experienced, gung-ho kids to keep da patrol lively with its own identity. A patrol with just a bunch of part timers will never gel, and will do less, and so will fall behind, and then have less attendance, and.... That's also why I disagree with jblake on one point, eh? I think there are reasons to split up a group of gung ho kids that get on well together (or, well, to gently suggest such a course of action to them). That's to provide servant leadership to others who need 'em, which also gives more of them the opportunity to actually use their skills leading rather than just one or two of 'em. We're not just a camping club where yeh go camping with your buddies. In Scouting, we help other people, we serve others, and we challenge ourselves by stepping up to new things. Beavah

The first question I would ask is what do the new boys want? If they don't get what they want, they will quit. Nonsense. The new lads don't know what they want yet, eh? They don't know what this "patrol" stuff means yet, so they can't make an informed decision. They want fun, adventure, challenge and to be accepted. So a better question in terms of retention would be somethin' like "In your unit, what will make da new fellows feel accepted?" If yeh have older scouts who don't enjoy the challenge of leading and workin' with younger fellows, or yeh don't have real patrol spirit that way that thinks of da younger fellows as "one of us" instead of "those little kids", then the new fellows might feel better accepted by an adult NSP ASM and a chosen TG. Alternately, if yeh do have a strong patrol identity and a sense of service leadership by the older boys, then that's a better way to go. The younger fellows will feel more attached to those great older kids, and will really feel accepted and "fit" within their patrol. All this makes me wonder if we can't come up with some loose guidelines for which method is strong at what. For example, NSP's seem to work well for troops that do mostly car camping and the like (at least with the New Scouts), since a ratio of one TG to 8 or so new boys that TG is workin' pretty hard just car camping, eh? He couldn't handle the lot on a canoe trek. Troops that do canoe treks with the younger fellows have to have 'em in regular patrols (or break up the NSP for the trek) so that they can get enough support from the older scouts. Beavah

Yah, Thomas54, it depends what your goals are, eh? From what you describe, the problem isn't so much with your patrol makeup as it is your use of the Patrol Method. Yeh should go read one of Kudu's expositions on 300 feet . Right now, your patrols might just be administrative groupings rather than real teams. I get that because if the Patrol Leader felt real ownership and responsibility for his patrol, he'd never split it up and leave da younger fellows to go fend for themselves. So my question would be why your older scouts don't feel that sense of responsibility. Might be that since yeh have switched back and forth, they've never really seen what a real patrol and a responsible PL looks like. In that case, yeh have some work to do as a Scoutmaster. Venividi's point is a good one, eh? Age based and NSP's shifts yeh back toward more adult run, kids-hang-out sorta operations. "Oh well, we tried..." kinda thing. Patrol Method, if yeh don't have it going on, takes a while to build. It's worth it, but yeh need to do a lot of conversations and coaching and just being a good example. AND yeh need to set things up so that it's natural. Like campin' 300 feet apart, or running competitions, or whatever. Good luck with it. Beavah

Yah, good point by Calico, eh? Never assume as bad ethics that which can be explained by lack of understanding or competence in recording. Is it common for Scouts to bail out of a unit instead of answering for their mistakes? In my experience, yes. Especially in da Life-to-Eagle stage when usually it's harder to work around and try to find da weakest link within the troop, because troops usually have consistent people work the Eagle process. So lads (or parents) who are used to da work-the-weakest-link approach who get stymied often go try to find a weaker-link troop. It often has exactly da flavor Eagledad describes, eh? It's always the SM who is out to get their boy, even though they've had 5 years in the troop where the SM was just fine. To my mind it wouldn't be a bad thing if we required a boy to earn Eagle in the same unit in which he earned Life, except in cases where that's impossible because of a family move or failed troop. Part of being Loyal. it would help avoid cases like I've seen, where a lad claims (and forges signoffs) that he met da six-month POR and scout spirit as SPL in his old troop, only to discover that he had really only ever been APL. Sorta like residency requirements for college degrees, which many schools have, eh? Yeh have to do at least all of senior year, or all of junior & senior year, or a certain number of credits to earn a degree from that school. Beavah Beavah

but the facts I presented in front of you are accurate, and they are similar for hundreds of scouts. And yeh know this how? For a lad who pretends an interest in science, I'm curious if yeh can share your data. You do have data, don't yeh? Before making an unsupported assertion? Or are we to trust in "faith"? Yep, no doubt a troll. My answers to the two questions are yes (based on the evidence available until that point), and no (based on the additional evidence of deliberate deceit and misrepresentation). I'm glad yeh enjoyed your time in Scouting. I wish yeh had gotten more out of it in terms of developing character and integrity. I wish yeh the best on your future studies and personal growth. May yeh develop the wisdom and maturity to realize "trolling" doesn't make yeh smart or cool, but integrity does. Beavah

Also in da news today, CBO says the Social Security system is now in permanent deficit mode, drawing down on the non-existent "trust fund". Or in other words, draining tax dollars. The part of Social Security that provides Mr. Dobbs with disability income will exhaust its trust fund by 2017, a scant 6 years from now, and then be effectively bankrupt. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110126-716874.html I suspect that the private insurers will still be around, eh? Beavah

Interestingly, there was a long piece in today's NYTimes Magazine by the executive editor of the times, detailing their involvement in the Wikileaks release and their editorial decisions along the way. A fascinating read. Assange comes off as quite a flake. B

I always use the metric that the project should be a good "stretch" for the lad, and beyond what he and his family could do on their own. What that "stretch" is depends on the boy. For younger fellows or boys with challenges, it might be a bit shorter. For others, a bit longer. Because of what nolesrule indicates, I tend to be a bit disappointed by projects under 100 hours for an average lad. 150 feels better, 200 is pretty solid. That's just my sense in terms of da amount of learning/growth the boy experiences in doin' the project. Beavah

Yah, as nldscout says, there's no one true answer here, because circumstances can vary. A bit depends on how the unit and CO are set up; some depends on the law of the state in which you live; a bit depends on the source of the funds and donor intent. Personally I consider da Rules & Regulations provisions to be unenforceable. A bit like the BSA's claims in da Chicago Council fiasco. Yeh can write anything yeh want into your bylaws, but just because you want doesn't make it so. Practically speakin', the amounts we're talkin' about tend to be too small for anybody to bother to pursue, so odds are possession will determine. The cost of tryin' to sort out such things would vastly exceed the funds or gear in dispute in all but really extreme cases (any units out there own chunks of real estate or have 6-figure bank accounts?). But if I were to sketch the most likely case, with an incorporated CO, I'd say the CO owns the unit assets. Just da opinion of an annonymous furry critter on the internet, of course. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, not that Assange is the arbiter of truth. The truth was what we wrote in our diplomatic communiques. Research and comment by professional American foreign service professionals. We were the speakers of truth, eh? Except only to ourselves. All Assange did was make it available to the people of Tunisia. On the internet. B

Oh, 007, I wasn't talkin' to you or anybody. I don't think anybody means to be condescending at all. I just think yeh want to avoid that accidental appearance. Yeh don't want to suggest in the least that yeh disapprove of their choices or that you think they haven't made a good choice. Churches in particular have a lot of husband-wife pairs in ministry, eh? The family that prays together stays together and all that. So yeh just go out of your way to avoid that appearance by being respectful and deferential. Yeh just give 'em the information and treat them like the competent adults they are. Even if they ask "what would you recommend" yeh want to be circumspect, eh? Yeh say "this is really your call, because you know how you prefer to organize your ministries and volunteers. What some other organizations like yours do is... " and give 'em a few examples. B

Yah, I sorta like da rescue element. Lifesaving or High Angle Rescue (for climbing) or confined space rescue (for caving). Of course then we'll no doubt have lads who have phobias of water, heights AND confined spaces. B

Yah, this is entirely the COs call, eh? I wouldn't condescend to them by suggesting that some arrangement or another wasn't a good idea unless they asked. Two options for yeh, CNY. The first is to meet with the CO and briefly explain the COR role. Then state who da current COR is and ask if they're comfortable with that person in the position. If they say "who?" then yeh mit suggest they find someone new or at least chat with the current person. I've also found it helpful to bring someone who is familiar with scouting who is also a congregant or member of the CO or at least that type of CO. COs have all different sorts of governance structures. Sometimes the listed IH isn't really da IH. Or the IH is the pastor but the ministry committee handles this stuff, or... It really helps if yeh have someone who understands their structure and speaks their lingo / values. In some cases, COs with a regional or national presence actually have printed job descriptions for COR or suggestions about who in a local chapter/church should serve in that role. I find that bringing along such a person is really vital in other ways, eh? Lots of times an IH doesn't have a clue, and once he gets that there's more responsibility to this than he thought, he can freak out . That's one of da reasons DEs don't like to do annual visits, eh? Having somebody there that knows the organization and speaks the lingo can be really valuable in helpin' with that sort of conversation. Beavah

Some of the most meaningful Eagle projects I've seen were for well-deserving individuals. Yah, ds way around this is to get a NFP to ask for it as a project, eh? Consider Habitat for Humanity. The house yeh help build benefits a deserving individual in need, but da project is done for Habitat for Humanity. If yeh know a person or a family in your area that genuinely needs help, ask your CO, a church, or a community service agency to approve the project on their behalf. Then just like Habitat, the person in need gets the help, but the scout is doing the project for the NFP. Beavah

Especially these days, when we seem to hear almost weekly of some new ridiculous law suit that resulted in someone winning an amount of money disproportional to the alleged offence. This to me is the key, eh? It's the essence of all of Americans' irrational fears, from fear of lawsuits to fear of drive-by child kidnappings to fear of airline travel. Our pervasive national media makes its living on finding the isolated oddball cases where da system didn't work and a bad thing happened, and blasting it into our living rooms over and over and over again. If yeh can't find an airplane crash or murder or child abduction in da U.S., then surely yeh can find one in... Bolivia! And when all else fails, just report the absurd suit when it's filed. Then omit any coverage when the absurd suit is thrown out the following month. It's really not all that bad out here in da real world, no matter what yeh see on television. Schools are safer from gun violence than they have ever been. Kids are as safe or safer from stranger kidnapping and molestation than they have ever been. Flying in an airplane is safer than driving your car. Scouting is remarkably safe. And the legal system, for all its flaws, generally works just fine. Yah, sure, in some of that I may have more experience. That's why I don't believe the TV. I don't think that invalidates my claim, though I get that da scariest thing is the unknown. But in the end, fear is a choice. It can even be an addiction. If yeh choose to be fearful, yeh can always find ways of justifying your fearfulness. Just watch da news. Losing a boy is goin' to be traumatic no matter what. I don't know any scouter put in such a circumstance who wouldn't spend years worrying about whether he or she had done all they could, even if they had. It's the worst possible nightmare for any of us, and that should keep us mindful of our need to do our best, stay fit and seek training and all the rest. Compared to that the legal squabbles that come months or years later are really just annoyances. I've never known a scouter who wouldn't be harder on him/herself than a courtroom would ever be. Beavah

Yah, there's an option for a genuine medical condition. Otherwise, there's the option of doing something hard and learnin' to swim. That having been said, I know plenty of boys in Scouting who stayed at Tenderfoot but who had 7 full years of fun and adventure and growth in Scouting. At da risk of Nolesrule comin' after me with a Tomahawk (or whatever those Seminoles down there use ), advancement is only 1/8 of the scouting program. With proper use of the other 7 methods it should never be such a big deal that a lad quits. Or just use Advancement differently, eh? Challenge the lad to get more MBs than any Eagle in your troop has ever gotten, and forget about ranks. Or find somethin' non-water-related (climbing? geocaching? snakes?) that he can really excel at and let that be "his thing." If a boy quits a program just because of advancement, then the program is too focused on that and is not using the other methods well. Fix that, don't try to fudge da requirements. Beavah

Yah, I noticed da father's comments (among a bunch of other random comments by the dad) and just wrote it off to being a father's comments. If this is true, then would it have made the difference to replace some of the water with gatorade Yah, sure, a little. Even Gatorade is hypotonic (less sodium content than your blood). Yeh can't make an isotonic (same sodium content) drink without it tastin' awful. So you need to be eating as well as drinking. The woman who died of hyponatremia in da Boston Marathon did so while drinkin' lots of Gatorade. That's especially true if yeh haven't acclimatized to exertion in the heat. One of the body's major adaptations to hot environments is to significantly reduce the amount of sodium and other electrolytes you sweat out. That can matter especially to an overweight or bigger fellow who is apt to sweat a lot. But like I said, it takes 8 or more days of at least a few hours of exercise in the heat for that adjustment to happen. If the lad also skipped breakfast... One of da interestin' symptoms listed for hyponatremia is loss of appetite. I think it also is interestin' that the food he had was all granola bars (he ate only one). Granola bars are pretty low in sodium IIRC. A big can of Pringles might have been a wiser choice, with some other real food. All this is just speculation, of course. I'd be curious what all our medical pros think. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, dScouter, just different perspectives, eh? Or perhaps not. I don't consider participating in a dispute resolution process to be anything more than an annoyance, eh? Of course I have more experience with such things than some others. I agree, though, that havin' to deal with the aftermath of losing a lad is far far harder. That's why in da Florida thread I said I thought it was a shame that the scouters and kids involved didn't immediately avail themselves of the offers of support and help from the professionals on the scene. I think you're exactly right. Every time someone brings up legal issues it distracts and detracts from the real issues that we as scouters should be talkin' about, eh? Issues of judgment, and training, and preparation. How we balance safety. Whether there are better approaches to an activity. The question is not whether insurance covers, it's whether a kid might be hurt. That's why I dislike trainers who start making up legal nonsense to "win" an argument or try to impress people. They're not being honest, and they're not doin' Scouting any favors. Unlike you, I think it happens most often when the person can't offer any real safety justification for their position, so they retreat to legal mumbo-jumbo. Either way, though, legal stuff is all just after-the-fact dispute resolution, eh? It's not to be feared, and by itself it's just an inconvenience. The real issues are program for the kids. I'd love to see us stick to that, too. Did yeh see the stuff clemlaw dug up in da other thread? I think that makes for a better program discussion about the Florida accident than da legal stuff. Beavah

What nld said, eh? The BSA has an excellent reputation of standing by its volunteers. That's why the paranoia on da forums about insurance and liability is just so hard to fathom. Relax. As volunteers, you are about as well insulated and well protected as can be in modern America. Worry about drivin' your kids' soccer carpool or having your son's friends over for a birthday party if yeh must, but when it comes to scouting, relax. Do your best, try to do the right thing. Take care of your kids. Yah, we live in a disputatious society, and yeh might see a bit of that now and then, from the family that argues with yeh over MB requirements on up. And in civil society, we allow the disputatious their day in court if they so desire. There's nuthin' to fear in that. Courts aren't perfect, juries aren't perfect, but they're often pretty darn good. Yah, they make mistakes every now and then, just as scouters make mistakes every now and then. For that, we have insurance. The Florida thing is tragic, and we should all look at it to see what may be learned. The two scouters involved continue to work with their troop, and aside from some mild annoyance being available for depositions and a grandstanding plaintiff's attorney who's been callin' all the media, their life goes on. When the case eventually settles, they'll continue in their lives and their scouting service. Wiser, perhaps, for having lived through a tragedy we would wish on no scouter. Tragedies happen. Disputes are normal. Adjudication sometimes is necessary. Insurance sometimes is necessary too. Relax. Your scouting service should not be weighed down by these concerns. The BSA works very hard to make sure that you can give your time and your love to kids without that worry. Beavah

Ah, Scoutin' is so much fun except for the occasional adult . Thanks for your service, bsasfl. Don't let the occasional turkey get yeh down. B

Yah, there yeh go posin' hard questions, BrentAllen . Actually, I don't think da question is hard at all. I can't speak for what 007 is thinkin', but as an EMT I would of course administer lifesaving medication to someone as needed in an emergency situation. Just like the whole cock-and-bull about needing to "assist" the gasping 6-year-old with injecting himself. What complete nonsense. Yeh grab the injector and you administer the medication yourself so that you're sure the boy is getting the treatment he needs. After the fact yeh can play wink-wink-nudge-nudge about "assisting." I love law and policy, eh? It serves an important purpose in society. But it's only valid so long as it serves its purpose. Hard cases make for bad law. Medical emergencies are not the place for legal professionals to be tryin' to split hairs. In an emergency, yeh do what you have to do to try to save a child's life. Then, if need be, yeh deal with the other stuff later. And in that, you rely on the good will, common sense and decency of the review board, the county prosecutor, or your fellow citizens. Having known folks who have done exactly that, I can say that I've never seen anything close to an adverse outcome on licensure, let alone anything worse. But if yeh sit there and watch a boy die when yeh have the wherewithal to treat him? How could yeh live with yourself? And I reckon the exposure is every bit as great. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hi bsasfl, welcome to da forums. Whoever told you that is smokin' something funny, eh? From the BSA's perspective, of course you can be a COR and a District Chair. As a COR you are a regular member of the District Committee and therefore completely and fully eligible for nomination and election to the Chairmanship. Yeh can also serve on the Executive Board for the council or in any of the council officer positions, including Council President. In fact, as a regular member, one might even argue that you have more right to serve in those positions than an "at large" member whose membership is contingent on annual re-election. The only proviso is that some Chartered Organizations caution that yeh not take on District or Council duties that will interfere with your ability to do a good job as COR. But while some CO's give that caution, I'm not aware of any that prohibit their CORs from serving. Now, I will say that sometimes less than honest DE's and SE's try to "stack" district committees or council executive boards with at-large members that they hand pick through the nominating committee process. This almost always leads to weak councils. Strong exec. control, but weak councils. So if yeh get a sense that that's what's goin' on, it's your honor-bound duty as a regular member to resist it. So by all means, go ahead and serve! Good luck, and thanks for your continued service to the program and the kids! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)