Beavah

Yah, it's one of those trade-offs, eh? A strong program and an experienced SM will use the T-2-1 advancement well. They'll make it fun, they'll take their time, they'll let the lads go at their own pace, they'll give 'em time to practice and learn before being "tested" or challenged. In the end a First Class scout will mean something in terms of skill and character. So for that sort of program, adding on tenure requirements doesn't make much sense, and only holds up a lad who got stuck for a bit over pull ups or swimming or whatnot. The stronger a program, the more experienced the leaders, the less guidance they need (and the more guidance interferes with doin' the right thing). A weak program, an inexperienced SM, and pushy parents will use da T-2-1 advancement poorly. That's why I never cared for FCFY, eh? Strong and experienced folks tend to ignore it and just work with individual lads, but weak programs tend to think that they need to set up classes and timetables to rush every boy to First Class or better in a year. For those programs, more explicit guidance of some form seems necessary to help 'em keep from running off the rails. Properly speakin', it should come from a savvy commissioner, but the commish corps most places is just a hollow shell of trained but shallowly experienced folks themselves. So the temptation, and perhaps the need, is to try to give more explicit guidance through rules and requirements. Includin' tenure requirements, perhaps. It's an age-old tension, eh? Da BSA program by and large assumes some experience, character, and common-sense on the part of its leaders as being preferable to tryin' to create 1000-page guidebooks and long, procedural training. Beavah

Nah, for all the blather about earmarking (and all of the other pork-barrel practices), earmarking doesn't amount to much in the way of real dollars compared to the deficit. Earmarking is mostly an obnoxious practice, like no-debate filibustering or one-member holds on nominations, but it's not a real contributor to the deficit. It's entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, veterans benefits & other retirement), defense, and the social safety net that are the essential components of cost-side of the structural deficit. Add to that the ballooned cost from unfunded wartime expenses and unfunded private sector bailouts. So if we're goin' to balance our books, yeh have to do it by cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veteran benefits, defense, and welfare/unemployment/etc. If we're going to keep da Bush tax cuts, then we have to cut Social Security, Medicare, veteran benefits, defense, etc. even more. That's why I think da Tea Party folks are denser than lead. A vote for tax cuts and smaller government must be accompanied by serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, etc. Either that, or yeh devalue the dollar and tax the middle class indirectly while also cutting programs just by reducing what the dollar can buy. Either that, or yeh end up like Greece, and bankrupt the nation.

Yah, hmmm... So we've gone from First Class First Year to Star Scout First Year. Sorry, John-in-KC, I have to disagree with yeh. The only "promise" being made is the one that the submitting SM or Advancement Chair signs on the Advancement Report: "I certify that the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America." A Blue Card is an Application for a merit badge, eh? Like all applications, it can be denied. And a Board of Review's job is to make sure that the work is learned and completed. They, too, can insist that a boy actually earn the badges he claims to have earned. A one-hour indoor Orienteering Badge is a non-starter. So is a Camping MB with no long-term camp. Neither meet the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America. No one with any sense of character or integrity would ever allow such things, even if they were signed by Big Bob M. himself. Our job, our duty, our oath, our only reason for existence is to teach boys honor and integrity. Whatever your position in Scouting, be it unit or district or council, if yeh don't have the personal integrity to say "no" to a clearly erroneous or falsified award then do the Movement a favor and have the decency to resign your position and membership. So, yes, momof7scouts, of course the SM, the AC, the CC, and/or the COR should call the MBC and find out what's going on. And of course if the MBC admits that the standards weren't met the MB application should be denied. And of course the SM, CC, and/or COR should be having a heart-to-heart with the district and council advancement chairs about their expectations of integrity and proper MB counseling at that level, and of course if they find that some MBC is doin' a lousy job they should refuse to allow boys in their troop to use 'em again. Honor and integrity are obvious, of course. Even more to the kids than to us. Our actions speak so loudly that they can't hear our words. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The first two are 6th graders in good shape, active in soccer: Yah, hmmmm... Those two sixth graders would be in the bottom 20% and bottom 5% respectively for boys their age on pushups, and the bottom 25% on pullups. Is being in da bottom quartile "good shape"? Maybe it's just that our expectations have changed. Perhaps what's goin' on is that the boys are all playing soccer full-time, and not swimming/climbing or doin' any other activity that provides for upper body development.

Ah, silly me. You were talkin' about real risk, not legal risk. Da problem, of course, is that BSA guidance is increasingly written by lawyers who don't go campin' with kids, eh? It's designed for legal risk management. I agree with your last paragraph, but then we're two fellows with some training and experience, and I expect we're also in states with more rational approaches to controlled substance possession. Others may not be as comfortable navigating those areas, and of course lots of parents are reticent about sharing detailed medical information. It takes an adult leader with some knowledge and experience to navigate that sort of conversation sometimes. I still am uncomfortable with your #3 - taking the medication away from the boy and assuming possession of it as an untrained, medically unlicensed adult, in a "secure location." I just wouldn't ever advise someone to do that. There's little upside and a lot of potential problems. Beavah

Yah, shepo1, welcome back! Glad to hear things are goin' well. You'll find troops are all over the map on this. In some, the adults pay their own way and then quite a bit more to boot. In some, most of the adults pay their own way and then quite a bit more, but some (college-aged ASMs still in school, older fellows on fixed incomes) are supported in their fees in whole or in part, much like scholarships. I think many if not most troops pay for gas for regular leaders in some way. Just seems fair. Many troops pay for adult training and registration. Some camps and outfitters give discounts to adult leaders, or "comp" one free adult for every 10 youth. A few troops just pay adult leader costs in toto, eh? They feel that the amount of time the adult leaders are giving is their "fair share" contribution to the program so they shouldn't also have to fork over $. Those $ should come from the parents who aren't spending a full 30-day month in the field with the lads every year. (of course some of those adult leaders then in turn make donations to the troop, but that often feels better than having to pay out of pocket. ) Here's what I'd say. I think if yeh have good adult leaders like this SM, the role of the committee is to support him and make him more willing, not less, to spend his time with kids where he's doing good. So I think to properly serve the program, yeh do whatever is needed to keep the SM and ASMs supported and happy. If that means payin' gas or camp fees, that's goin' to be what? 25 cents an hour for the SM's time? If that means giving the fellow an REI gift certificate for wear and tear on personal gear every year, so be it. If that means giving him a big shiny new plaque every year to show his boss or an all-expense-paid night on the town for SM and Mrs. SM to keep the home front sound, so be it. All of those are really cheap investments that yield big dividends for the program. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

For some reason that I have never understood, our troop prefers the scouts to use merit badge councilors from the troop. It is frowned upon to go outside our own list with the exceptions of merit badge colleges and camps. Some units have that as a CO restriction, because the CO has stricter requirements for background checks or youth protection training than the BSA does. In other units, the SM doesn't use outside counselors where he or she can't guarantee the quality of the boy's experience. Yeh will even see some good SM who prohibit boys from taking First Aid or a badge like Citizenship in the Community at summer camp, because da quality is often poor. In still other areas, the district doesn't have a good merit badge counselor list, and the SM got tired of sending lads off to meet with dead people. Most of what you describe as problems seems like it is just the product of adults having busy lives. That's pretty common, especially in this economy. In da modern world, kids get pretty used to adults being at their beck and call, eh? Getting adult attention "on demand." A scout troop teaching that yeh have to make an appointment to meet with the SM on Sunday a few weeks in advance seems like a reasonable thing to teach good life skills and courtesy. Though it's a bit counter-cultural, fer sure. Only thing that seems like a program weakness is da bit about "The ASM's son, then, does not get any of the sign offs for the the things covered." Why are things being "covered" on an outing? Scout skills are things that are supposed to be learned, and then tested. Most can be learned or tested on any outing. If not this month, then next month, or next meeting. If the ASM is conducting "advancement classes" on an outing to "cover" some requirement, then I reckon da problem isn't that his boy can't get signed off, the problem is that he's signing the rest of the boys off for sittin' in a class that "covered" a topic. Scouting is about running, jumping, playing, and turnin' trees into their component molecules. Yeh learn it, yeh do it a bunch, and yeh get signed off when yeh get good at it (and your former tree adds to the atmospheric CO2 problem) . Leave off the "covering" bit. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There are some religious folks (interestingly, of many different faiths), who believe it is improper to wear shorts in public (both for men and women). Is it then the duty of the rest of us not to ever wear shorts outside of our own backyard for fear we might cause someone offense? Of course not. But if we were invited to their house as guests and knew of their feelings, of course we would choose not to wear shorts. Similarly, some folks find it offensive to eat meat. But if they are invited to a neighborhood barbecue in someone's back yard, they can expect to find people eating burgers and brats, eh? They can choose not to go, or they can choose to go and bring their own tofu and be neighborly. But it's not proper for 'em to go to someone else's home as a guest and take offense. The audience members of a campfire skit are guests of the boys on the boys' campout. We are in the boys' house, and we know what da nature of campfire skits is. As such, it's improper for us to be offended if they are engaged in otherwise good natured boy-humor. Hey, yeh knew you were coming to a kids' barbecue, eh? Don't expect tofu, and don't expect everyone will refrain from wearin' shorts. Or whipped cream. Beavah

I don't think that this should be the official BSA policy (either the actual policy or implied policy) because of the substantial risks to the health and safety of the Scout that supposed to be taking the medication, and the troop as a whole. Can yeh explain this, dScouter? I'm not sure quite what risks "to the troop as a whole" you are anticipating. The BSA guidelines are tailored to minimize (legal) risk to the adults and the troop as a whole, by stating clearly it's not a unit responsibility. It's up to the boy and his parents, and the free-will choice of any volunteer whether to take on that responsibility for a campout. Yah, sure, we can all anticipate circumstances where a lad might forget to take his meds, or feed 'em to the raccoon. So can a rational parent. In such a case, it's up to the parent and adult leader whether or not the boy can/should participate in the event. Personally, I don't think it's wise/good advice on a standing basis to take custody and/or control of medications as an adult volunteer in the program, or otherwise assume responsibility of dispensing Rx meds (with the exception of certain lifesaving meds under standing orders). As nldscout points out, the variety of approaches taken by da several states to the control of substances makes any specific recommendation across state lines foolish. Beavah

Yah, sure a unit can. There's no obligation that a CO use the advancement method/program. Lots of crews don't use da Venturing recognitions program at all. Some troops don't. A few troops might, on religious or ethical grounds, not offer a particular award. Perhaps a troop chartered to da Society of Friends and Rifle MB. A CO can even create its own recognitions program and ignore da BSA one. I think, as other people have said, it's more of a "not offered here" sort of thing. At least I'd expect that to be the tone. "Our unit does not offer the XX award." I expect you'd get a lot of parent support for such a position with respect to video games. But if it's goin' to be a shooting argument among the committee, then it's probably not worth the fight. Beavah

Nope, doesn't sound Friendly, Helpful, or Thrifty in many respects. Yah, but it can be Kind. As often as not, parents are harder on their own sons, eh? And sometimes, sons are harder on their own parents. Mostly, it's a way of preventin' abuse of the system by a parent who is still operating in Cub Scout "Akela" mode. National also doesn't put a limit on the number of MBs a single person can counsel, but some councils and districts do. So it's allowable, eh? It's even arguably in the spirit of the "no parents on a BOR" rule. After all, BORs are largely rubber stamps. If yeh can't have a parent on a BOR because of the potential for problems then havin' a parent as MBC or signing off on requirements seems worse, eh? Beavah

Yah, thanks for the info, jcb. Can yeh share with us the nature of the condition/medications? As you can see from the discussion with dScouter and TwoCubDad, there are two competing things that we all think about as adult volunteers. The first and most important one is to stay within our own level of comfort and responsibility, eh? If yeh don't feel comfortable guiding kids down a whitewater river, don't do it. If yeh don't feel comfortable or knowledgeable enough to be responsible for a lad's medical condition or medications, don't do it. It is the boy's and the parents' responsibility. The second thing is that we all also try to help boys have a happy, safe, and productive scouting experience, eh? So when we do have the knowledge or ability to help with a boy's special needs, most of us would do that. Or if we could acquire that knowledge or ability without too much effort. If a boy has a bee sting allergy, many scouters and scouts would learn about it, talk to the boy's parents and physicians, take training in epi-pen use, etc. That's never required, eh? But if yeh can't make the accommodation and the parents' won't attend and be responsible, then I think yeh point the boy toward another troop that has those resources. Same with more severe medical issues, eh? Beavah

Yah, hello momof7scouts! In answer to your specific question, from the Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures, "the Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates" for advancement requirements. So it's up to your SM to decide who is qualified to sign off which requirements. That's the "official policy." I'd say it is fairly normal in most troops for the SM not to allow parents to sign off requirements for their own sons, for da reason BrentAllen points out. If nothing else, it's a good way to teach boys about the importance of avoidin' the appearance of conflict of interest. I'm not sure quite what yeh mean about the registered MB counselor "sign off even one requirement" bit. It may be that you're not understanding how MB counseling works. Unlike regular rank requirements, where different people may sign off on different requirements, a boy who is pursuing a MB does so with one counselor who is responsible for testing the lad on all the requirements. If the boy switches counselors mid-badge, then the new MBC does not have to accept the "partial" of da previous counselor, eh? It's his/her job before signin' off on the MB to make sure the boy meets all of the requirements. He or she may take another counselor's word (most of us do) or the SM or parent's word (if that seems appropriate for da requirement), but it's up to the MBC. What definitely should not be happening is a parent signin' off on MB requirements if the boy is using a different counselor for the badge. And it's SM's discretion which counselor a boy is sent to to work on a badge, as John-in-KC says. Many troops with strong programs don't send boys to their own parents for MB counseling unless it's a rare badge and the parent is clearly the only qualified counselor available. A troop limiting the number of "open" MBs is a grey area, eh? Not technically kosher, but a good way to help lads finish badges or at least be respectful of counselors' time. Not somethin' worth fightin' over, eh? The amount of volunteer time yeh take up arguin' with people would be better spent by them working with kids like your son. So it sounds like your troop isn't that far off the mark, eh? Leastways, from what little you've provided they seem to be doin' what's typical for many strong programs. Can I ask if there's some other issue/history goin' on here? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think Cubmaster Randy's list covers some of the types of information that is helpful for you to know, eh? I'm not sure very many of 'em should really influence your choice of troop, and some of 'em seem to be sorta limited in their scope. Given what you've said, I think Id have only two questions: For your son: In which troop did your son seem to "click" the best with the older boys in the troop? How about the adults? Those relationships are usually much more important than the activity list. For you: In which troop were you most impressed by the character and knowledge of the older boys? And in which will yeh be happy being a follower/supporter as an adult? The older boys show yeh what your son can/will become in that program, and da best programs are the ones where you feel comfortable being a supporter/follower. Yah, sure, down the road odds are you'll be recruited as a leader. . But for your son and your family to have a good fit, yeh have to start out being happy to be a supporter. Beavah

Yah, jcb, welcome to the forums! Scoutfish gave yeh the official policy. Officially, it's not required of you as volunteers to take responsibility for meds. Different troops and different volunteers, however, may choose to offer some additional support for scouts (or adults), depending on their own level of training and comfort. But yeh should always stay within your comfort zone. Or at least not stretch very far from it. Can I ask the same question as dScouter? Do yeh have a specific issue that your unit is trying to deal with? Beavah

Yah, I think one of da things that happens when we hear new ideas is that we imagine what would happen if our own program (which of course is successful ) were to suddenly make that change. That kind of sudden change would feel "arbitrary" and we can easily imagine all da thing that would be bad about it. It's quite a different thing to imagine what a program feature would feel like if it were fully in place, from da ground up so to speak. Same age/rank/skill patrols have a very different feel than mixed age/rank/skill patrols, eh? Neither is arbitrary. Same age-rank-skill tends to follow da school program thing, eh? Schools do pretty much what jblake describes - track kids by their current age, skill and ability, so that all the kids who are together can work on the same stuff. They can "work on Star together" as jblake says, and leave those fellows who didn't finish First Class yet behind. Jblake's program is a tracking program. In order to make that work, yeh need somebody from outside the patrol to provide instruction, eh? Yeh need a teacher, whether adult or older scout. Yeh also need somebody from outside to "test". Usually an adult, but most importantly not the PL, eh? The PL is at the same rank as his fellows. Having a homogeneous group makes it much easier for a teacher to teach a class on somethin', and test everyone together. Kids and adults are used to this system, eh? It's very comfortable for 'em. Has the downside that the high-track kids can get a bit cliquish and snobby, or that the low-track fellows can become discouraged. Like an ability-tracked sports team, there's no place for a slower, weaker fellow, and so not as much within-the-patrol opportunity for real servant leadership. But yeh can go do things at a high level. Mixed age/rank/skill is just a different beast entirely. Yeh join the patrol yeh "click" with personality-wise, maybe because you really think the older scout PL is cool, or maybe because that patrol does more water stuff and you and your close friends like water stuff. Then yeh stay with that patrol forever. It's your home. There are no "classes" because everybody is at a different level. Instead yeh learn from doin' stuff alongside older/more experienced scouts. When yeh get "tested", it's your PL who does the testing. Each year, your patrol recruits new members into its illustrious ranks, and they learn da secret signs and handshakes of the Burly Beavahs from the old hands. There's a sense of tradition, passed down. As you grow, maybe you start to do the teachin' and eventually, you become that cool PL that you once looked up to. Adults and older TG scouts are goin' to be better at teaching classes, eh? But that doesn't mean that is the best way for lads to learn. Same age/ability is goin' to be comfortable and familiar like school or sports. Mixed age/ability is goin' to be more like home, with family. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, 83, we folks in flyover country are blessed, eh? We have neither sea cucumbers nor sand fleas. Nor Ivy League institutions, eh? Say what yeh want about our erudition or logic, that clearly means we have da most common sense! B

Yah, OGE's post that spun this thread got me thinkin'. And we haven't had a good, long, uniform thread in a while Seems to me that da folks for whom uniforming is a big deal are old fellows like me, who hale from a bygone era where dress and other social interactions were just a lot more formal than they are now, eh? Yeh "knew where yeh stood," and clothing was one aspect of how you distinguished yourself from others. In some ways, that was da very purpose of clothing, to emphasize distinctions. I wear professional attire to distinguish myself from non-professional folks. Some of my fellows wear very expensive, designer professional attire to distinguish themselves from others who are less monetarily successful. Hey, if they look successful, it helps justify their fees. Da princes of the state and of the church wore even more elaborate uniforms (some still do), to distinguish themselves from the commoner. In fact, yeh were expected to dress up in your best finery even to approach such "nobility" in court or sacristy. Hence the notion of "courtliness" or "court-esy". Dressing like nobility shows respect at court, eh? Because da nobles cannot be expected to treat with a simple commoner. Despite our protestations to the contrary, that's still da purpose of uniforming, eh? To distinguish between people. To identify the police officer from the citizen. To tell the physician from the candy-striper. To distinguish the general from the lieutenant. To tell those who belong from those who don't, and those who are important from those who aren't. It's a deep cultural thing, eh? People should know who their "betters" are. That's why yeh see 3rd world leaders in all their regalia, eh? They mean to distinguish themselves from their fellows and especially from their citizens. It's only been in da democratic west startin' with America where yeh see those distinctions breaking down. Our Commander in Chief follows Washington's example and just wears a business suit like any ordinary professional. Even when he meets with royalty, he shows up in da dress of a commoner. In fact, even if he was once General of the Army he leaves that uniform behind when his status changes. All so very nouveax and dis-court-eous. Clothing should distinguish a person, eh? Personally, I find myself slippin' into that old mode of thinkin' all the time. I like to see scouts in neat uniform. Hate the blue jeans thing, in fact. Blue jeans when I was growin' up were the work clothes of the commoner, eh? Wearin' 'em in the presence of your betters was dis-court-eous. I wonder if I'm just an old fuddy-duddy. In fact, I don't wonder anymore, I'm pretty sure I am . And I wonder if the lads don't have the better notion than fuddy-duddys like me. Even those who wear jeans with their scout shirts like a common working man. Just a random thought on a Friday, as I go off to spend some time with some great lads saluting some great veterans, who served with distinction, then surrendered their distinctions to return to the uniform of a common citizen. That's not somethin' that used to happen in the days of court-esy. And those old veterans are all the more special because of it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Let's go with you "status" argument. My "status" is a Scouter, an adult leader. Hence, I wear adult leader knots. Well, by that the boy's status is "youth member". Hence, he should wear all da awards he earned as a youth member. One difference is that when a youth fills out an application for a unit, he signs on as a Boy Scout, a Sea Scout, a Cub Scout, or a Venturer... Now that's quite a creative stretch, Eagle92. We register youth as part of a particular unit, eh? We also register adults as part of a particular unit and position. No difference. Only at the adult level we add district/council/national registration as an option. There is no generic "scouter" registration in da BSA. Da meaning of "status in the program" is pretty clear unless you're really stretching for a work-around to allow yeh to do what yeh want. Why bother tryin' to come up with such tortured explanations? It's only a guidebook in a kids' program, eh? If yeh feel there's some important goal for youth that is best served by wearin' a bunch of cub scout training knots on your Venturing greens, and if that method is the best one and doesn't create any significant downside for yeh, then just ignore the guidebook and do it. Nobody's goin' to arrest yeh. I think da real issue is that it's really hard to find any significant goal for the youth that wearin' knots from outside your current status actually serves. I suppose da Venturing Advisor could make the new Venturing parent feel more at ease by pointing to his scouters' training knot & device and saying "see, this means I'm fully trained (for Cub Scouting)!" I'm sure da parents will be reassured by that as they send their daughter off on the whitewater kayaking trip. Beavah

With the continuing drop in boy scout numbers and troops nationwide are we leaders willing to say NO to a boy who really wants to be a scout? I hear where BadenP is comin' from, but I just come at it a different way. My answer to this question is "Yes" we should be willing to say "No" if we don't honestly have the resources (human and material) to do a good job for the boy. In the case of a single troop, there are a lot of other troops out there. In da case of no troops that can support a lad, there are a lot of other youth programs out there. Shoving him in a Scouting unit that won't do a good job for the lad isn't doin' him a service. I also don't think yeh are ever goin' to see a CO step in and toss leaders just because they only seem to be able to manage a solid troop of 20 rather than 60. Nor would I encourage that approach, eh? Some folks just like the feel of small programs, like jblake mentions in da other thread. They don't want to get bigger, or they don't have the skills to do that bigger-groups thing. It doesn't suit 'em. And odds are just as likely if we took that approach that we'd kill the troop of 20 rather than create a successful troop of 60. So I'm just fine with small units serving kids. Heck, our national average troop size is only 14. Now, da flipside is that when we see that, we have to try to build programs to meet the boy's needs, eh? As a Scoutmaster, if yeh are directing boys away, yeh have to step up and find 'em another troop, or partner up and help start a new troop. Yeh even get a knot for that. As a district, when yeh see this goin' on, that's when yeh look to starting a new unit in that service area. Those are probably the only good times to start a new troop, not when da DE needs an extra unit to make his annual numbers. Beavah

No school access at this time, this is strictly controlled by the DE. You can't even send a flyer home without prior review and approval by the DE Yah, hmmmm... Can't see what business that is of the DE. I suppose yeh get tomfool execs who like to stick their noses in. Unless you're aware of some really special circumstances, I'd ignore the DE and just approach da schools directly. If they give flyer access to any outside groups they have to give it to you. Or, alternately, work with other kids programs like soccer leagues and such. Beavah

Yah, so for da "you earn it, you wear it" crowd, what do yeh feel about an 18 year old ASM wearin' an Eagle rank badge (or a Life rank badge for that matter)? How about a first year boy scout wearing a webelos badge? They earned 'em, eh? Quite possibly they earned 'em right before their status changed so they never got the chance to wear them. No different than a cub scouter who moves up to boy scouting right after earning a cub-related knot. Do we tell 'em that da guideline about excess insignia only applies to youth, but da adults can do whatever they want? As often as not, the youth put a lot more time and effort into earnin' their awards than a typical adult knot, eh? Just curious. Beavah

Yah, sometimes politics and law are like watchin' a train wreck, eh? Yeh just can't quite look away. So after write-ins in Alaska have apparently thumped Tea-Party favorite Joe Miller in da Senate race, yeh have to love Miller for filing a federal suit before the countin' is even finished. At issue? He wants to make sure that ballots like "Murkowsky" are not counted. It's a federal suit because a good states-rights, keep-the-feds-hands-off fellow like Miller naturally runs immediately to the federal courts before even botherin' with the Alaska courts, where everybody from the Supreme Court to da fellow who sweeps up the magistrate's office in Inuit agrees the standard is the intent of the voter. Politics is just so rich with irony and hypocrisy, eh? But sometimes, it can surprise yeh by goin' the extra mile. What's most amusin' is that by recent reports the good people of Alaska, anticipatin' such shenanigans (no doubt through long experience) have mostly spelled Murkowski correctly, so Miller is quite probably thumped no matter what da court does. This is one area where I see absolutely no downside to "loser pays" rules for suits. Anyone want to suggest to Joe Miller that he voluntarily adhere to that conservative credo? Beavah

Yah, jblake, if I remember correctly, yeh have a relatively small troop, eh? The dynamics of da big programs might be somethin' yeh haven't experienced yet. Cubby, I think patrol structure is one of da most important things in scouting. What yeh choose depends a lot on your goals for the kids, and it's pretty independent of troop size. Most kids on their own at the start of Boy Scouting only have experience with age based groups, eh? School, sports, cub scouts are all age based. That wasn't the case for "natural gangs" in BP's day, nor is it true for modern gangs. In real gangs, yeh have a mix of older, more experienced leaders, of lieutenants, of members, and of newly inducted. Yeh learn from da older fellows by word and example, and rise up da ranks in your gang to become a member, then lieutenant, then perhaps leader. So jblake is right, eh? In da modern world, kids will initially stick to their same age group because that's all they've known. And Eagledad is right, the more natural gang and the way boys are wired is more mixed-age. If yeh choose to keep same-age, then the NSPs are easier to teach as a "class". They and their parents are more comfortable because it's just like webelos, and yeh don't have to worry about "splitting up" a large incoming den. They can advance more or less as a group through FCFY. If yeh keep age-based after that, as jblake points out the lads who make it to high school in the program will be part of a same-age patrol that can pursue more advanced activities and "high adventure.". Typically by then they won't be in the same patrol as when they started, because yeh lose quite a few along the way and patrols "consolidate". But in a big troop, yeh can run a First Year Program, a Grade 7-8 program, and a High School Program as almost independent entities. For whatever reason, a lot of big troops tend to be set up this way. And, as yeh can imagine, that means quite a bit of adult support for the middle school aged lads (or, if not adult support, then older boys who sometimes feel like they are "babysitting" outside of their patrol). This structure also tends to lead toward filling PORs in da way Kudu hates, because the boys "need" a POR to advance (or the patrol "needs" a PL) at an age when they are not developmentally ready to lead. Lots of these troops can be quite successful. The parents are happy with da advancement, they've got a high school high adventure program backed by big-troop resources, yeh can get a lot of parent involvement in running outings, etc, Mixed age just feels different, eh? A boy will stay in one patrol that is never "consolidated" for his whole scouting life. That may even be the same patrol his dad was in back in the day. Like Gyffindor . It's natural to have patrol competitions, because the mixed age patrols are fairly well matched, where a 7th grade patrol vs. An 8th grade or 9th grade patrol will typically get crushed. The older boys are da "natural" leaders in the patrol right when they need PORs. The middle lads naturally lead da younger ones by example, and it doesn't feel like babysitting. That young scout beating da young scout in another patrol in the knot tying game might well win it for the whole patrol, so it's worth it to cheer for and teach the younger guys. They are "us", not "them". The challenges naturally grow as the boys do, and yeh don't need an adult push for more guided "high adventure" activities for retention and challenge. And with a mix of ages and skills, yeh really can have all the patrols camp on their own at 300 feet or more away from yeh. In these troops the PLC /Leadership Corps is all older boys who are experienced scouts and leaders, so the PLC/Leadership Corps/Venture group becomes the locus for more advanced stuff not accessible to the younger fellows. It often can be a bit more youth-run than da typical guided-tour high adventure stuff, and it doesn't have to be high adventure. It can just as easily be service-focused. But no matter what, da key is havin' adults who have the vision to understand the setup and make it work, eh? That matters a lot more than which yeh choose. Of the two, I think mixed age has a qualitatively different feel and is "deeper" scouting, but there's nuthin' wrong with the other way. Same age is less counter-cultural and therefore more intuitive for a lot of adults, and therefore easier for less experienced adults to implement. Interestingly, yeh don't typically see as many mixed-age patrol mega troops, eh? That's mostly because I think da really big troops are more adult run, and the patrol-method adults don't tend to do that sort of push which is needed to become a really big troop. So from that, you'd say maybe a mega-troop should be same age in structure. Da mixed age, traditional patrol method troops seem to be happiest around BP's magic number of 32 - 45, though yeh can see da well established ones with stable leadership keep growin' to 60 or more. Just random speculation based on many years of workin' with troops lots of places. Your local situation is always unique, and will vary in some or many ways! Beavah

Yah, each troop has a "natural" size, eh? Dictated by its program and what the adult leaders can handle before some scouts and parents feel disconnected and drift away. When a troop admits more scouts than its natural size, it's just like pouring a half gallon of water into a quart container, eh? The extra boys just spill out and are lost. What jblake describes is very, very common. So I think it's best if a unit recognizes that sort of thing to encourage some boys or dens to look at another troop in the area, or even to help 'em start a new troop. Most successful unit startups happen that way. What I do think is a shame is when scouters who really aren't successful at keeping more than 20 active scouts recruit an additional 20 in order to be "open to all" or some such, and then just lose most of 'em over the first year. Generally speakin', most troops that do recognize this and "like" their current size handle things just by reducing their active recruiting. Beavah