Beavah

LOL. Nah, JoeBob, a Patrol has N-deep leadership, where N is the number of boys in the patrol! Maybe that's what's wrong, eh? We keep using "leader" to mean "adult leader" when da reality in Scouting is and should be different. Like Proud Eagle says, a troop might well have a lad who was on the aquatics staff at camp who is far better trained and more capable than an average adult at supervising a water event. We let a parent who has never camped join immediately as a "leader" with his or her son. But we don't consider a 17-year-old Eagle with years of camping experience and vastly more training a "leader" for the purposes of supervision. That's just nuts. For a troop or patrol, we'd probably be better up addin' up the number of people with below-first-class skills and make sure that they are each supervised by someone with above-first-class skills and experience. Then it's safe. That might mean that the patrols need to lend a few older scouts to help supervise the adults. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Accusing someone of stealing without proof is potential libel, eh? Yeh want to be careful about that. It can get yeh in a lot of trouble. Especially since it doesn't seem like any other folks are convinced of the crime based on what they know, and think you might be the problem. Sometimes, people steal things and get away with it. Life isn't perfect. Sometimes, what we think is theft is really somethin' different, like holding onto a deposit when someone cancels out of an activity. It's up to the person who was stolen from to file a complaint. If that's not you, let it go. Beavah

I think any time yeh have a young person die while under supervision of a non-parent yeh have a potential cause of action. Whether the family chooses to sue depends on their own values and whether they see the supervisors as "us" or "them". Yah, and to some extent on whether their own financial circumstances make the offer of a plaintiff's attorney tempting. Simple fact in da U.S. is that kids die rarely, eh? So when a kid dies we feel like somebody should be at fault. That's an American thing. The rest of the world doesn't have that sense of entitlement to safety. They see accidents as accidents, eh? A tragic part of life where we come together and grieve, rather than pick sides and try to win. It's hard to defend such cases, even when da facts are on your side. American juries see a dead kid and they want to find fault even if there's none to really be found. They tend to be caring folks and want to do something for the grieving family, not recognizing the cost to other families and businesses of that impulse. To some extent, insurance makes it worse, eh? If da real choice of the jury was "should the Scoutmaster and his family be bankrupted and all local scouting shut down?" then yeh might see more balanced judgments. But the presence of a magical lottery pile of money that can be tapped without seemingly hurting anyone else directly makes the natural bias easier. Da thing about heat illness is that a few kids seem to be more susceptible than most others, eh? When the football player collapses and dies in August drills, there are 50 other peers standing around sweating and tired but typically none of 'em require treatment beyond a Gatorade. The symptoms mimic those of just being out of shape, and boys being boys they tend to suck it up rather than bow out when they're feelin' ill. Yeh see that in the comments of the scout who was "determined" to go through with the hike for his MB. So even paid professionals, with professional trainers, miss the call on these things. Yeh might claim it's negligent, but I think it's often just that the call is hard to make. How do yeh tell that this one kid is especially susceptible? A colleague of mine is an attorney and Catholic priest and canon lawyer. In church law, the duty of the legal representatives of both sides is to find the truth. I confess that sometimes when I see da behavior of colleagues in our adversarial civil system who are duty-bound to make the best case for their side, I find the alternative attractive. BrentAllen, yeh should go for the $2M umbrella. It's not too much more if yeh tie it into your other coverage, and it means yeh tend to get higher quality representation when the insurer defends yeh, because they have more on the line. Beavah

Ah, but we parents *do* pay for professionals...we pay the professionals at BSA via our annual payments. And we parents expect that the adults *are* trained to the level that is necessary to handle *any* situation that arises. If yeh really think that your $15 recharter fee earns yeh the services of a hands-on professional outdoor educator for a full year then you're out of your mind. If yeh want a professionally run outdoor experience, go contract with Outward Bound. It'll cost yeh $1500 or more per week, not includin' transportation. And they won't come to your neighborhood, you have to fly to them; nor will they teach your son how to plan his own trips, or focus on character, or give him access to folks to let him investigate careers, or... You will get a WFR-trained guide with a good amount of outdoor experience and a strong organization behind him or her. But odds are they'll also be young and might not have the life experience to recognize the special needs of an overweight teen or da various different sorts of presentation of heat stroke. Nobody anywhere, even the pros, is trained to handle any possible situation that arises. Outward Bound has fatalities too, eh? Public school sports and field trips have fatalities too. Scouting's safety record is truly exceptional for an all-volunteer outfit of its size and scope. I think the BSA reps on the show should have been more up-front and honest. Outings have risks we can't control. We do what we can, but when we're hit by one of those risks, then we also train people to respond. And even when we do that, there are no guarantees that a response to a complex situation is goin' to be successful. Those are just the risks of life. The facts of da case are tough, eh? Without an autopsy, we can't even be sure this was heat stroke as opposed to some other ailment. The delay in callin' for help is easy to second guess after the fact, but hard in da situation. Yeh have a tired, sweating teen who is resting. You feel fine. The other kids are fine except for givin' their water to the tired fellow. Based on that, you're goin' to call for a $15K helicopter evac? When the lad vomits, now a really sharp medically trained person might connect it to brain trauma and heat stroke and make the call for help, even though he's been resting and being treated. That's not really covered at all in any standard first aid course, though. But da helicopter evac time was over an hour, and the lad was in full arrest in 20 minutes, so callin' at that point wouldn't have mattered. To my mind, the prevention point was probably the boy's fitness level. I assume this was the 20 mile hike for Hiking MB. I wonder what his prep hikes looked like. Beavah

Another I dunno...but if it was the boys, how would one boy get assigned to two positions at the same time? Can happen quite easily. SPL knows Joe is reliable and a hard worker. SPL wants both jobs to get done. Joe isn't in sports or band this term, and he knows Joe is the best fellow for both jobs, and is willing. Yeh don't get a job because you "need" a job, eh? Yeh get a job because you convince a potential employer that you're the best guy for the job he needs done. Is that "favoritism"? I dunno, maybe. It's also both fair and smart. A lad should learn not to wait for a job to be assigned to him because he "needs" it. He should go out of his way to demonstrate to his peers a willingness to work hard and be reliable, and take on tasks that need doing without being asked. Do that, and I'll bet he gets selected by his peers for responsibility... over and over again! Beavah Beavah

Yah, I feel for the family and the scout leaders. As nld says, a complaint is just a complaint, eh? Yeh have to put in everything yeh can, and make the best case (not the most complete/accurate case) that yeh can. Then the defendant responds and yeh have a trial to determine whether any of the complaint has merit. I would think most of da complaint would be easy to respond to; still, for this kind of action yeh would want to settle rather than try it. Loosely speakin', when an attorney goes to try something in the media like this fellow is, he's hopin' for a big settlement. Probably a bigger settlement than the base facts would support. It isn't the BSA and the defendant scouters who called Nightline, eh? It'd be interestin' to know what the demand is. That portends an extended round of settlement negotiations. BadenP, this is what insurance is for, eh? There's no reason to believe that the church or the scouters will be hurt financially, or that the scouters will lose their membership. As to the facts of the case, a 20 mile hike on flat land in 92 degree humid weather does not seem unreasonable to me. The boy in question had over a gallon of water with him, on top of whatever he had beforehand or refilled along the way. Da real issue would seem to be the boy's poor personal fitness. Young, badly overweight lads do have a hard time regulating temperature, and the difficulty they're havin' can surprise a reasonably fit adult who is personally feeling OK. It would take some degree of real first aid experience, not just training, to pick up on da problem, especially if the lad was trying to "tough it out" as most do. I was also struck by the poor care for the family after the accident, as TwoCubDad was. I know Irving doesn't agree with me, but I think yeh send the SE and the IH of the chartered org. out to do the death notice, or at least to do immediate follow-up. Yeh care for the family first. Yah, yah, legal fellows will always advise not to talk to the family because anything yeh say might be used against yeh, but I think that's balderdash. People have a much harder time suing folks who have been human and compassionate, who have sat and cried with them. It's da ones who hide that get people's ire up, as in this case. Besides, our values should come first, not our legal strategy. There's probably nothing the BSA could have done to avoid the editing job Nightline did to their responses. Just the nature of the game. I think they could have been better advised. Certainly somebody could have done a better job of prepping Richard. Again, yeh get trapped because da legal team doesn't want yeh to say anything that might affect the case, but that makes yeh sound dense and evasive. It's another case where the best legal advice is not the best PR and communications advice, and in this case the PR and communications side should have won out. Still, given da nature of the piece as a hatchet job, I think they did as well as can be reasonably be expected. The BSA does have an interestin' challenge that someone pointed out. If the standard of care we're being held to is that of other professional organizations and guide services that take kids into the woods, that's a standard that most of our volunteers are not likely to be able to meet. Yep, an experienced professional would have recognized heat stroke earlier and been quicker on the draw in terms of gettin' help, but that's not somethin' I would expect of a first-aid trained volunteer. The volunteer isn't goin' to associate stumbling with brain trauma, they're goin' to associate it with fatigue. They're goin' to associate vomiting with stomach illness not heat stress, and they're not goin' to expect symptoms to worsen while the lad isn't moving. Heck, that's stuff some pros would miss unless they'd seen it a few times. So da plaintiffs are lucky I'm not on the jury, eh? Because I wouldn't see this as negligent given the volunteer's level of experience and training, and I don't think it's negligent to let volunteers lead hikes if the parents choose to do that rather than pay for professionals. Beavah

The standard in criminal law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the Scout in question hasn't plead guilty or been found guilty and any appeals exhausted, that tends to argue to me that the issue should not be considered by Scouting ---it's premature. Yah, hmmmm... I think we all have to make a distinction in our mind between what's appropriate for the government when it is arguing for a citizen to be deprived of liberty, and what's appropriate for a parent or youth development program that's trying to help a lad learn a lesson. Yes, when the state proposes a criminal penalty that involves the loss of liberty, we want da threshold to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But when we're tryin' to raise and teach a child, no parent or youth program should ever set such a restriction, eh? Heck, a good parent or scout leader might well penalize a lad for mouthing off with profanity, somethin' that would be protected free speech in the eyes of the state. We're not talkin' about jailin' the lad. We're talkin' about not giving him an award for meritorious conduct. There is a difference! And the proper answer for the latter is not "innocent until proven guilty" it's "no award until yeh convince us and the community yeh interact with every day that you meet the requirements for such an award." Then just be honest. If your son took your car and drove it drunk, how long would it be before he was off probation for you as a parent? What would he have to do in the mean time? If yeh were asked to write a parent rec. letter for Eagle rank, when would yeh be ready to say "yep, he's now demonstrated the character required for such an award?" Don't try to think like da court or do the court's job. Do the job of a scout leader. Tell the boy straight up what it will take before you will again consider his character and judgment worthy of the highest award in Scoutin'. I'd suggest as a test it's sometime after yeh agree to let your youngest child ride home with the boy driving some evening. Beavah

Now in reference to Richard B. if memory serves, he is in the field serving as a unit leader. Yah, this can work both ways and even be a problem, eh? Nuthin' worse for a district than when one troop contributes a lot of district personnel. Every troop always thinks their way is right/best, eh? Nature of the beast. We're all proud of our own programs. So when they get to da district, they want every other unit to do things the way their unit does things. I reckon we see this on da forums occasionally . Even worse if yeh want everyone in the country to do it your way. If Richard's unit hasn't figured out Patrol Method yet, has never read Green Bar Bill, and does the weaker version of FCFY, then he could easily see patrol outings as irresponsible, eh? Just like we see parents who have never let their kids walk to school who feel it's irresponsible to let any kid walk to school. I agree that there are way, way too many layers in da BSA which insulate the Irving Office from the field. National, Regions, Areas, Councils, Districts, COs, units, adult volunteers, kids. Average national fellow only has occasional contact with councils, and average council fellow only has occasional contact with unit adults, let alone kids. It's too remote. But while it's nice to serve as a unit volunteer, it's not enough, eh? Yeh have to see and participate in a variety before yeh get a real sense of what's out here. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so here are some of da things safe, successful troops and crews in our area have done by way of independent patrol outings: 1) (most common) Troop arrives at trailhead, driven by adults. Each patrol has its own hiking plan and proceeds on its own. Chooses its own route, campsite, pickup. Older boys might go some distance, younger fellows might be shorter and accompanied by adults. Adults hike/camp on their own, but might check in with a patrol in passing and boys know where they can be found if needed. One troop I know uses radios in case of emergencies. Yeh see troops most comfortable with this sort of independent patrol outing involving high school aged boys / venture patrols or mixed-age patrols with those boys leading. If a group of boys just came back from two weeks at Philmont, they can handle a 10-15 mile weekend backpack trip on their own. Camp Friday near the troop dropoff, meet up Sunday at the pickup point. 2) Patrol designs its own outing, goes somewhere local that they can either hike to or be dropped off at. Most common is private land owned by CO, troop member, or friend of scouting. Also common as a day trip, like to do da 2nd class hike/bike. Sometimes it's a service project rather than an outing. Occasionally, I hear tell of patrols that just get together after school to go skating or mountain biking or whatnot. Yeh also hear of patrol trips to da arcade or laser tag emporium . 3) Leadership-School style. Venture Patrol or crew goes on a backcountry trip with adults, but as terrain, weather, and experience allows are sent on independent hikes for the day with designated meet-ups and emergency procedures. Might involve several days of "solo". The units I know that do this sort of stuff on average have lads and young ladies who have more training than most scouting adults. 4) College-aged crews, of course, are yet another different beastie. To my mind, these really aren't safety concerns at all, eh? Da units that do this prepare the lads well. Safety concerns come more from weaker/inexperienced adults in my mind, who are doin' activities for the first time. That's when ego sometimes substitutes for experience. The other challenge I suppose is that in an advancement-mill type program the boys won't develop the skills to really do this on their own. So the extent to which we continue to weaken the advancement program so that requirements mean "did once, with help" rather than "can do on my own, without help", we compromise da ability to do patrol outings. That's Kudu's 300 feet point, eh? We should be teaching outdoor skills, not management school skills, so that boys can operate on their own where it's "inconvenient" for the adults to watch over their shoulder or them to turn to another patrol for help. So Richard needs to work on those fellows in da program office. Given that approach, the ability to camp on their own for a weekend is well within the safety scope of a group of First Class scouts, eh? Especially where the SM knows 'em and has signed off on their plan. Beavah

Ah NealonWheels, don't ask Little Richard that, eh? He'll be tempted to make somethin' up and then we'll all be stuck with da confusion for years. I read it as patrol outings are still fine, eh? Just don't be a moron and send 'em on a solo whitewater adventure down the Grand Canyon. Of course nobody's doin' that anyway, and if anyone is they're not goin' to listen to a detailed read of page 17 the way we poor scouting bureaucrat-addicts are, eh? So in truth, there's really no need for National to get into it. The folks who are uncomfortable with patrol method/outings shouldn't and won't do them. Da folks who are comfortable with patrol method and outings will continue to do 'em responsibly. There's no need for a least-common-denominator "rule" or definition. But if yeh insist on one, da office rats are goin' to think in terms of a rule that fits a NSP full of 10 year olds, and we'll be left with all of Boy Scouting dumbed down to that level. Do yeh want that? Irony is that given training and relative fitness levels, a group of six experienced high school aged scouts is goin' to be safer on the AT than a group of 4 with two typical BSA adults. The kids are all sure to have had recent camping experience, first aid training, and decent fitness. None of those is required for adults. How many adults to we kill or medically evacuate from Philmont each year? Beavah

but, re: good samaritan laws, we are really not in a position where they apply. We are not good samaritans in the whole sense. we have taken on a duty, and, if we act in a way that causes harm, i believe negligence could be there given the right facts. Nah, yeh really shouldn't be playin' amateur attorney, eh? You're confusing yourself. Tort liability (negligence) is based on the actions of a reasonably prudent person in the community, not the G2SS. In fact, if yeh fail to act like a common-sense, reasonable person because you're following every line of G2SS, then you ARE being negligent. Like waitin' around with an injured kid while the troop packs up so as to comply with two-deep. Good sam laws will most likely apply to medical treatment yeh offer a scout in an emergency as a first aider because that's what they're designed for. We want first aiders to respond, not just sit and wait for the ambulance. In addition, as a scouter, volunteer statutory immunity from negligence torts most likely applies. As a volunteer for a NFP, yeh get the same statutory immunity as the good sam laws (in fact, stronger in some cases). So relax. Despite what yeh may think, your neighbors aren't likely to hang yeh if yeh behave in a common-sense fashion. i agree that 1 on 1 is dangerous, both for bsa and the leader personally. Not really. Leastways, I wouldn't use da term "dangerous". Lots of one-on-one raises the opportunity for abuse, which is nonetheless quite rare. One-on-one raises the possibility of false accusation, which is also quite rare. So it's a prudence thing, but nowhere near as "dangerous" as not wearin' a seatbelt. liability exists whenever we take a troop out, both for abuse allegations, but also for negligence, No, responsibility exists whenever we take kids out. We have some duty of care. As we should! Tort liability for claims of simple negligence against us probably is not present, because of statutory immunity. Tort liability of the CO or the BSA is a different matter, and depends on the state and the circumstances. But most importantly, a finding of negligence requires that we failed in our duty of care in a manner that caused foreseeable harm. So be prepared, exercise da judgment of a reasonably prudent person, and yeh will not have failed in your duty of care and therefore will not be negligent. But if yeh make ordinary mistakes, yeh also are protected. And then on top of it all, you're insured. So relax, and just do good scouting, eh? And if a lad gets hurt, take care of him. Don't tie yourself up in knots worryin' about the G2SS or the liability boogeyman. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, folks, a form is just a form, eh? It's paperwork, not policy. Nuthin' has changed in BSA policy or program guidance beyond the reporting form. Even though the dang thing keeps gettin' longer, they're reducing the reportin' requirement to save on staff time. No more national tour permits approved by the regional office. Explicit guidance that tour plans should only be used for longer trips or trips with special technical risks, not for everything. Nothing else changes. Two-deep is still defined the same way: one registered adult with current YPT, one other (possibly non-registered) adult, one of 'em over 21. Patrol outings are still allowed. Insurance is still the same. Your council will probably still handle these on the same timeline you're used to, which will be less than 21 days because nobody ever gets the paperwork together that far out. It's just a form, folks. Take a deep breath and then just keep on scoutin' like you're used to. Yah, like everything, we can roll our eyes at some of da stuff, eh? Nobody carries AEDs, CPR on a victim of a rock climbing accident is goin' to be useless, and it should be the BSA providing the service of tracking training dates to the units, not vice versa. The thing ain't been edited all that well. So what else is new? Don't let it waste any (more) of your precious scoutin' time. Beavah

Hiya dennis99ss, I don't think yeh need to tie yourself in knots over this stuff, eh? All that's required of you as a volunteer in an emergency situation is that you act like a reasonably prudent adult. Remember, the G2SS has nothing to do with legal liability, nor does it dictate how yeh should respond in an emergency. It's an internal guidance document to help with program implementation under normal conditions. That's it. So long as yeh act like a reasonably prudent adult, yeh have no reason to be fearful. So by all means, take an injured boy to the hospital. If yeh have the ability to do so without significant delays, take an older first-aid trained scout along to assist, or another adult. Of course if yeh really have a lad who is seriously injured or goin' into shock, call for an ambulance. Remember, yeh can ask an ambulance to meet or "intercept" you at a particular point, eh? That often works best in remote areas. Leave the other adult in camp with da rest of the boys. Don't create more confusion, communications problems, delays and risk of injury by trying to take everybody to the hospital, or to get a bunch of other drivers to come out and evacuate everybody back to home while the one adult is away. That doesn't meet the test of being a reasonably prudent adult. Establish how you're goin' to re-establish contact after the ER visit, and take the lad in. Now, if yeh are goin' somewhere a long way from home, don't forget that scoutin' is a wonderful community. Before yeh go, contact some scouters in the area where you'll be travelin'. They can give yeh information on local features, attractions, and deals. And, in an emergency, fellow scouters will be there for yeh. I've gone out to help with a unit that had a sick adult, and I have no doubt others would at the drop of a hat. That's one of the greatest benefits of scouting, eh? We don't do it alone. Yeh have brothers and sisters a stone's throw away no matter where yeh go, and yeh can count on 'em to help other people at all times. Beavah

Yah, saschuster, I think yeh have to be careful about judgin' other people, eh? Sometimes a smartphone is a necessary business tool, even paid for by work. Sometimes that clubhouse is somethin' a friend provided at cost or in exchange for in-kind labor. More often than not, the lad whose mother is drinkin' at the bar every night is the one that needs scouting the most. Even if that's not the case, as a volunteer in a youth program, yeh can't change adults. Yeh can't teach other parents how to budget better. Yeh can't tell other families what their priorities should be. Tryin' to will only cause you heartache and their kids grief. All yeh can do is provide a scouting program that maybe teaches their kids a thing or two that their parents can't, eh? And in doin' that, make their hope for life a bit brighter. God grant us all serenity to accept the things we cannot change, strength to do what we can for kids, and wisdom to know the difference. If yeh really feel the pack is bein' taken advantage of, yeh refer that sort of thing to the COR and IH for their decision. That's not a call you want to make personally, nor is it one that should be aired in front of the whole committee. Beavah

Smoking breaks laws. Speeding, too. As long as we're sitting in judgement, where is the line? Wherever we choose to draw it, eh? That's our role. We're trying to teach young folks what good citizenship and personal honor look like. So what do they look like to you? To your CO? To your community? That's who we represent. And all da other boys are watching, eh? They know what's goin' on, probably better than we adults do. They've heard the stories at school about the lad getting drunk at parties and drivin' home. Some of 'em might have been at the parties. They know he got caught. Their younger brothers in the troop have heard about it, too. And they're all waitin' to see what happens. Do the adults who talk all important-like about the Oath and Law and Honor and Citizenship really mean it? Or is it just more nonsense adult-speak? Did I do the right thing choosing not to drink even though my buddies made fun of me, because I really wanted to be an Eagle? Or was I a fool listening to the adults because in the end does it not matter what choices I make, I can get Eagle regardless? On behalf of your CO, your community, and scouting, what do you want to teach the boys by your example? That's where yeh draw the line. I've known scouts who were killed by people drivin' DUI. Thank the Great Scoutmaster this lad didn't hurt anyone. But do yeh really want to hold him up to the other boys in the troop right now as someone whose character and choices merit our highest award? Beavah

Where does it say a Venturing Crew needs bylaws? In all of the Venturing program materials, including the crew officer's orientation. Crew bylaws are an explicit part of the Venturing program. At least according to the BSA Now, where does it say anywhere that bylaws are not recommended for any other units? Answer: nowhere. Now, yeh might have a CO like the Society of Friends that for its own reasons doesn't like bylaws. Absent that, however, there's no reason to take a position that they aren't recommended. I think da bigger question here, though, is what we trust or allow the youth to do, eh? Beavah

Will he be able to get his Eagle rank? Not right now. First, let me say that when a lad is caught using drugs or excessive alcohol it is almost never the first time. Kids get caught only after they've been usin' for a while and started gettin' careless. Hopefully, all the adults in the boy's life recognize this, and respond like Eagle007. Otherwise, sadly, it is often those of us in the legal system that are left to deal with such things as best we can. For juveniles, it's always best if those whose trust was broken take the lead in the response. Now Apache Bob, yeh might be one of those special scouters for whom this lad is the equivalent of a son to yeh. In that case, I think yeh should act that way for him. Go to court with him. Lay down the law with him, because that's what love demands. If not, yeh wait and let the parents and the others in the boy's life do their thing. And yeh wait for the court to do its thing. If an EBOR was pending, you postpone it indefinitely. If a project was pending, yeh postpone it as well. Then, down the road, when the lad is clean and when the lad comes back to you expressing a desire to pursue Eagle rank, yeh sit and have a SM conference with him. Yeh discuss where he's at, whether he's met all the terms of his sentence and probation, whether he's done his community service and then some. Yeh discuss how he restores his position in the troop and the respect and example that an Eagle should be. Maybe he teaches the second class boys about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. But he should do somethin' to acknowledge that he disappointed his fellow scouts, and to restore his honor in their eyes. Only after that... after contrition, after restitution, after all debts are paid and commitments to the future secured... only after that should Eagle be back on the table. Then yeh tell him it will be hard, others may ask him questions, but that you'll support him. No promises, but whatever level of commitment and character he demonstrates between now and when he turns 18 will count in his favor. If he lives up to that, then I reckon most EBORs would approve him for the rank. More than that, Scouting will have done its part in helpin' him learn one of life's important lessons. But now is not the time. Deal with da other things now, because they are far more important. Eagle can wait. Beavah

Unit by-laws are not be needed - everything needed to run a unit is provided by the BSA. So when da BSA tells Venturers that they should adopt bylaws, the BSA is lying? Units occasionally deal with serious disciplinary matters, for either adults or youth. Please show me the BSA procedure describing how the committee is to handle and make a decision that involves suspension or expulsion of a member. It's a task given to the committee, with no guidance at all on how to go about it. Units deal with lots of money. Please show me the BSA procedures for accounting controls and how major purchases are to be approved and handled. Da point of course is that we definitely do not provide everything needed to run a unit. That's why we partner with chartered organizations and why we rely on volunteers. I know that there's always a temptation to go overboard with rules, whether at da local or council or national level (just take a look at G2SS ). But just because that trap exists does not mean that the solution is not to have any rules or bylaws to guide da group. The BSA has bylaws. The councils have bylaws. Many units are incorporated or unincorporated associations, eh? They need to have bylaws. The rest just should, so as to define da scope of their operations and keep the loudest person from runnin' away with the thing. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, saschuster, I admire yeh for your hard work. But from afar, this looks to be a values question, eh? And values questions get decided by the CO through the COR. If the organization's values are that it's the community's responsibility to take care of the less fortunate, then those values are naturally goin' to be a part of the financial structure of their cub pack. If parents aren't willing to buy into that sense of charity because they don't like a "welfare state" or whatnot, then they really need to go elsewhere for their cub scouting. Try to find a CO/COR that shares their own values and places less of an emphasis on "help other people at all times." Until then, your job as a volunteer for the pack is to help the COR achieve the mission, or resign as a volunteer. All kinds of positive ways yeh can help. Work up budgets, identify what kind of funding yeh need to make sure the awards and needs of all are met. Then work with da COR to obtain that funding. Maybe the COR gets an ongoing financial commitment from the CO, or finds a few donors. Maybe yeh re-think how you allocate fundraising and send it first to those most in need. Maybe yeh continue the current practice (which, to be honest, is what most colleges do, too), but yeh send donation letters to parents for the part of their dues that support other boys in the program so that they can at least get the tax deduction. Your COR is being a kind, caring, noble fellow. If your CO is a church, that's what churches call us to do, eh? Be kind, caring, selfless, noble people. That's their mission. That's why you have a cub pack to attend and contribute to. Help 'em in their mission, don't fight 'em. Beavah

Interestin' some of the comments. I think yeh have to think in terms of two different groups, eh? The troop committee should have bylaws that affect committee operations: quorum rules, votes, how new members or officers are selected, and da scope of the committee (what the SM or SPL can buy on their own from petty cash for reimbursement, what's a big enough expense to require prior approval, etc.). Then, a troop might also have a youth-level set of bylaws/policies that affect da PLC. Good way to teach 'em procedures and citizenship and how to make decisions that get "buy-in" and all the rest. That might include terms of office for youth officers, quorum rules, votes, as well as any "policies" the boys choose to set for themselves. We expect Venturing Crew youth to adopt such bylaws, but there's no reason why a troop can't. What gets funny between da two is yeh have to define scope of responsibilities for each group, eh? Generally I think yeh should restrict the scope of the committee and expand da scope of the PLC. So from some of the examples above, here are things people assigned to the committee that I think could properly be restricted from the committee and left to the boys: How camporees are paid for Choosing and buying gear What movie to watch What the troop dues are What the troop fundraisers are No reason for the TC to get involved with that stuff. Some other things might be a shared responsibility, eh? If a lad is expecting his fellows to help with an Eagle project, I don't know why he shouldn't take it before the PLC for approval and scheduling. Perhaps da PLC will even opt to authorize some money for his project. The committee bylaw could be "we sign off on projects only after the PLC's approval." Now no doubt some adult-run sort will imagine that the PLC will pick on some poor deserving scout, and that's why youth can't be trusted to look over a project plan. Or that youth don't have a proper sense for safety, and so can't be trusted. or... As Eagledad often says, da scope of youth run is limited only by the fearfulness of the adults. But if yeh feel that's the case, then da problem isn't bylaws, it's your program. If your program really allows a PLC to pick on unpopular boys, or if your program really doesn't teach boys how to make good safety decisions, then get off your duffs and fix that! We're here to teach 'em how to be good, responsible citizens, aren't we? So if the lads can't be trusted, then that's our fault as leaders, mentors, and examples. Otherwise, trust 'em. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what acco said, eh? Personal Fitness MB is da perfect place to alert boys to this kind if issue. If MBCs take their role seriously, they will save some lives. Plus, counseling sessions tend to be smaller groups of lads, where the sniggers are less likely. Leastways, as long as da badge isn't done at one of those classroom lecture badge events. Beavah

Yah, as a Cit World MB counselor, I find myself a bit surprised by this week's events in Tunisia. Trying to figure out where the Arab world is headed with its very young population and very limited freedom and opportunity is an interestin' thing, eh? But as fascinating as a popular revolt against a middle eastern dictatorship is, what's even more fascinating is the apparent trigger ... Wikileaks. The leaked U.S. Diplomatic cables detailing the level of corruption of the Tunesian leadership apparently were the tipping point that set off the protests that led to the dictator fleeing the country today. There is somethin' deep and profound in that, eh? While our diplomatic efforts so often mollycoddle these regimes... while we feared that the cable leaks would damage U.S. security, the reality turns out to be much different. The truth, spoken plainly in our "secret" cables, has a power that neither our diplomats nor our armed forces has, eh? Not a power to hurt us. The Truth, spoken plainly, is the bane of dictators and despots, not of liberty. The truth might well be what it takes to set millions in the middle east free. There's a lesson there, eh? I pray for the people of Tunisia. May they find their Washington, their Franklin, their Jefferson. May they find liberty. And may their example set the fire of freedom to the Arab world. Insha'allah. By the grace of God. Beavah Beavah

Nah, we've had this discussion before, eh? The BSA most certainly does not provide everything yeh need to run the unit. Money for example . Information on how to use it most effectively to achieve da CO's goals. How to deal with behavioral issues. Or any of the many things we discuss on this forum on a regular basis. Including how to structure and run a troop committee. If yeh have a committee of like-minded folks who share a vision, what Calico and I and others have said holds true, eh? Yeh run by consensus for the most part. However, when yeh don't have that sort of agreement, consensus breaks down. That's when yeh need bylaws and votes, so that one or two dissenters don't hijack the process for the rest of the group. Even when yeh do have a good group, yeh still want to maintain some policy controls, like how money is handled. You would think that the Oath and Law would be enough for the BSA, eh? Yet councils and the national organization have bylaws and policies nonetheless. They provide important structure, and can help in disputes, or help prevent impropriety, or just keep the loudest voice from dominatin' the group. Seems like what's sauce for the national and local scouting organizations should also be sauce for the units. Yah, there are a few things, like YP, that are conditions of the program. And there are a few things, like awards, that the BSA "owns" in terms of trademarked IP that it therefore has control over. For the rest, it's the CO's program. They're the customer, the BSA is the contractor they hire for support services. We need them, they don't necessarily need us. And we don't tell 'em how to run their program, because that would make us liable for their program, eh? We don't want that. Yep, da BSA can at some point decide that a particular customer is such a pain in the neck that they just choose not to do business with 'em anymore, just like a junior partner can quit. It happens very rarely, has to go all the way to National for approval. Far, far more often, the CO decides not to contract with the BSA any more. Doesn't cost 'em anything, but hurts scouting a lot. That's why we commissioners and DE's don't go into units to "fix" things the way Hawkrod suggests. We're friends of the unit. We provide support services that they paid for to help 'em with their program. We make suggestions, but we don't tell 'em what to do. Beavah

Yah, not sure what this thread is talkin' about anymore. I think we got hung up on the example, when JMHawkins' question was a broader one. I guess I'm with evmori, eh? What's in your bylaws? That'll give yeh a sense of whether the scouts have a say in that or not. If da bylaws are your CO's rules for volunteer leader selection, then probably not. If yeh use bylaws as a way of teaching the boys about citizenship and they cover things like what da quorum is for a PLC, then the lads should have a lot of say. Beavah

Hiya SPL1Warwick! Yah, I think like others I'd need more background to make any suggestions on how to handle it if this were a real case. As a hypothetical, though, let me do what I normally don't and just give yeh an answer. No. Barring some very unusual circumstance (like he's leading his autistic little brother from the Big Brother's program in doing something particularly challenging which will be a huge gain in the younger boy's development), I don't think yeh can demonstrate the leadership required for the Eagle Scout Leadership Project by leading only one other fellow. I wouldn't approve such a proposal, and if a lad modified his original proposal in that way I'd be hard pressed to approve da project requirement. I'm just an old, furry, long-toothed fellow, though. Others may feel differently. Beavah