Beavah

To answer da legal structure issue... The national council holds a congressional charter. These aren't being awarded any more, but da old ones are still allowed to exist. IRS recognition as a NFP entity for tax purposes is separate from (and doesn't require) incorporation. The national council is recognized as a particular type of NFP, a ©(3), as an educational organization, making donations deductible for the donor as well as income tax exempt for the organization. Local councils are usually incorporated in their respective states, under state law. As such, they are not under the control of and do not report to the national council in any legal sense. That's important for risk protection reasons, eh? If they were controlled by national, then national would be on the hook for their liabilities. A council can go under for financial mismanagement or lawsuits in excess of the BSA coverage limit and not affect the national organization. Because of this, a council executive board has moral and fiduciary duty to the council, not to the BSA, as should an SE. Councils are granted charters to administer BSA programs within a geographical service area for one year terms. In their administration of BSA programs they are expected to comply with national's general guidance, use national's official literature, and even adopt national's model corporate bylaws. They don't have to use all da BSA materials, however. For example, many councils do not offer summer camp program, but those that do should follow NCS. They may also do their own thing in other ways, offer additional non-scouting or scouting-related programs and services, tweak their implementation of scouting support to fit their local area, etc. The BSA grants them a license to do scouting support for an area, that's it. Councils hire and fire their Scout Executive and other employees as they see fit. Councils are members of da national organization, not employees. As members, their representatives attend da annual meeting and vote to elect the national executive board. Councils typically have their own IRS finding as 501©(3) organizations. That membership model repeats itself at da next level down. Chartered Organizations apply for membership in the local council, and are awarded a charter to license BSA program materials for their youth work. As members of the council, they vote at sa annual meeting and elect the council executive board. Their charter grants them a license to use BSA materials in their youth work, but they may also use other materials or do completely unrelated youth work. Where they use BSA licensed materials (like the advancement program), they are expected to comply with the rules for use, but much as a council is not obligated to run a camp, a unit is not obligated to use advancement. Most chartered organizations have their own IRS finding as a not for profit entity, either as a 501©(3) or as a ©(7), but some are small and solely scouting focused and are neither incorporated nor have gone through the trouble of securing an IRS determination. Da structure is a clever one, eh? It insulates each level from legal and financial responsibility for the lower levels, while nonetheless exercising a degree of control through the chartering process. The membership model is so layered and diffuse, and da bylaws written so cynically, that it is well nigh impossible for da scouters in the field to effect any sort of change. They'd have to first convince da COs, then overrun da councils, then have enough council reps to affect da national organization. At each level, legal challenges can tie things up. It's far easier to get a federal law passed. And to add to da confusion, the BSA runs it's own employment service and executive training program, eh? So even though an SE is the employee of the local council board and morally and legally bound to follow da directives of his employer, his long term prospects for advancement depend on national's metrics and staying in good graces. This is what we refer to as a classic conflict of interest. Mostly da system muddles along OK, since we're all good natured souls. Organizationally, though, it's quite a cynical, even unethical setup. And that's probably why yeh see so much us-vs-them stuff at da council level, and everything from such high executive compensation to rank and file dissatisfaction at da national level. Now I've opened da door for Kudu to come in with a BP-esque soliloquy about "corporate scouting", so I apologize. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with MikeF. Yeh give the new troop a heads up, both positive and negative. B

I think I will go ever EDGE with him and show him how it can be used to teach younger scouts outdoor skills. Yah, yeh might want to think about that a bit, Eagle92. For a shy kid who doesn't have a lot of physical presence, that sort of approach isn't always comfortable or successful. Standing out in front as the explainer and demonstrator might not be da right way to go for a lad who isn't comfortable with that. As Eagledad describes, younger fellows often aren't. I would instead build off the fellow's strengths, eh? He's got good knowledge and can work well when he's doing stuff, so Id do something like set the webelos a challenge and then have your fellow coach and give hints and such. More one on one, one on two type of stuff where his shyness won't matter as much. And more active, where his explanations won't matter as much. Beavah

How'd this get around to EDGE? I suppose it must be another Kudu rant. . Too bad, da original discussion was kind of interesting without da hijack. I think EDGE is an amusin' BSA acronym. Far be it from me to tread on da turf of the psychologists, but I think they'd tell us that there's absolutely no evidence in da scientific literature on teaching or learning that anything as trite and simplistic as EDGE amounts to a hill of beans. While I've certainly seen adult presenters EDGE (usually with a lot more of the first E than is necessary or appropriate), I'm not sure I've ever really seen a kid learn that way. EDGE smacks of classroom education. Explain da problem on the board. Demonstrate the problem. Guide them on the practice problems. Enable them to do da problems for homework. Bah. Boring. Fine for school where yeh have only one instructor for 35 kids and you've put all da kids of the same ability together so they can't help each other. But much as it might be da way of the classroom, it's really not the way of Scouting. Kids mostly learn by watching and example and trying, not by somebody blah blah blahing an explanation or demonstration. Yeh could probably drop da E and D and we'd be better off. Just be competent yourself so that they can see what that looks like, then guide and enable. Or pose 'em a challenge like a patrol competition or a COPE obstacle and have 'em work it out, eh? We don't explain, demonstrate, guide, etc. a COPE course. We let 'em work the challenge, maybe dropping a hint here or there. Beavah

Yah, I can see kudu must be back to his usual whipping horse. I agree with everyone else; we do teach leadership in scouting, and it's not exclusive of scout craft. But I disagree with da notion that you can be a leader without knowing what you're doing. Yah, yah, we have Congress to point to... Bunch of folks with a law degree and "people skills", but very little practical expertise in anything. Many never held a real job. Look what it gets us So I'd agree with Eagle92's committee. It's best if yeh find a fellow who has outdoor skills and kid skills, because da BSA training isn't sufficient to teach those things. For a pack it's not as important as it is for a troop, I'll grant, but even for a pack yeh find that da most successful packs, and especially webelos programs rely on such people. Same with da kids, eh? They learn leadership in da outdoors because they become skilled and experienced in outdoorsmanship. That gives 'em the background and confidence to move into planning and leading others in the outdoors. Our version of leadership is workin' your way up from the bottom; da fellow who was once a new scout who becomes an SPL is like the fellow who starts on the line and works his way up to CEO because he knows the business from the inside out. He's not like one of these management CEOs with "people skills" who like as not wrecks a company because he doesn't understand da business. After all, when two different people have different ideas, yeh have to decide as a leader, eh? And that takes knowledge and experience in da field, not a leadership seminar. I think that's where Kudu is right, despite his habit of runnin' off da rails. Good scouting starts with outdoor skills. And just like we say adults should be the model for proper uniforming, it's even more important for adults to be the model for outdoorsmanship. Because developing outdoorsmanship takes work, eh? It's not as easy as shelling out some bucks and getting mom to sew. So it's vital that the adults provide an example that it's cool and worthwhile to put in that work to be good at their outdoor skills. Not that they keep one chapter ahead in da book or try to remember the thing they learned at one weekend training. So I'm not sure it requires "professional" scouters. But I reckon it's best when scouters show some signs of professionalism. Since our BSA training doesn't get 'em there, and since training people in outdoor and kid skills takes more time thant the average volunteer is willing to put in, they'd best be recruited for that skill set. Beavah Beavah

I use da HTML italic tags. {I}This is a quote{/I} Except of course use < instead of { and > instead of }

Yah, I'm always a bit mystified when I hear about a lad being held by da activity requirements. Can't for the life of me figure out how he could possibly have really learned all da other skill requirements with so few activities. To me it's the sign of of a very weak troop program that needs to be addressed.

Some more training: SSD Safe Swim Defense SA Safety Afloat CoS Climb on Safely NLE New Leader Essentials TLT Troop Leader Training JLT Junior Leader Training (the old version of TLT) WFA Wilderness First Aid WFR Wilderness First Responder LNT Leave No Trace Some training providers: ARC American Red Cross NRA National Rifle Association PADI Professional Association of Diving Instructors ACA American Canoe Association NOLS National Outdoor Leadership School LNT Leave No Trace center for outdoor ethics Some weird ones that come from the two-letter position code used when registering adults: MC Committee member SA Assistant Scoutmaster IH Institutional Head (CEO of the chartering organization) The big kahuna: CSE Chief Scout Executive (top paid official in the BSA)

BSA's YPT rules are very organization-specific. Oh, I dunno. From where I sit, keepin' kids and adults safe is not organization-specific, eh? That's the only point I was makin'. YPT offers a few pithy rules for inexperienced adults. What more can yeh get in 20 minutes? A social worker who deals with kids all the time is goin' to be far better trained, more alert to "signals", more aware of resources, better at recognizing issues and keeping kids safe. Yah, blowin' through da online YPT is not a huge annoyance, eh? Just a minor annoyance. But as we see in da "molester of the week" news reports, it also isn't all that effective compared to having an alert and experienced person around. But whatever. If yeh don't like that example, choose one of the others Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, dat's exactly what I'm referring to, ScoutMythBuster. The BSA relies on people with prior skills coming in as leaders. In fact, someone like yourself with years of experience is goin' to be far, far better at doing instruction than some newbie who just finished the course for the first time. Since we're relying on prior experience for safety anyways (because we all admit da BSA training ain't enough), there should be a way to easily acknowledge real experience and not make a fellow repeat stuff that's redundant. Requiring IOLS of the former Outward Bound instructor makes as much sense as requiring WFA of the ER doc, or requiring YPT of the social worker, or NRA of the former marine rifle instructor. That is to say no sense at all. Now, at da same time I really don't buy the "just look it up in a book" bit. I don't think yeh can really learn any skill just by looking it up in a book. Try doing that for swimming. Or climbing. Or rifle. Or sailing. Or... Just doesn't work, eh? Especially when you're talking about also teaching the skill, and taking kids out and being responsible for them. That takes experience, eh? And da judgment that comes only from experience. Da adults who scare me the most in scouting are the inexperienced fellows who think that because they've been "trained" in an evening or a weekend or by taking an online course they actually know what they're doing. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Oldsm, I'm completely befuddled. Why would being a victim of abuse preclude a boy from getting Eagle? Let me tell yeh, childrens' services departments have far from a perfect record in their investigations, eh? Odds are for an older teen they're not goin' to find anything, even if something is going on. Or is it that yeh think the lad has been lying repeatedly about this? That would be pretty unusual. Very, actually. Where are yeh goin' with this? Beavah

Scouting relies on prior skills from the adults, you say. I'll ask what needs to be asked: If that's a good thing. Maybe, maybe not, eh? You're right in that da folks with prior skills are a limited pool of people, eh? Essentially former scouts, military, and those who've been through other outdoor skills programs (Outward Bound, NOLS, college outing clubs, etc.) or just family background. In truly urban areas, there aren't that many of 'em. And if we're honest, I think in truly urban areas there isn't much good scouting. But what's da alternative? We claim that in the best youth program we can come up with it takes at least a year's worth of weekly training and a dozen outings to make it to basic outdoor skill competence (First Class). At that point yeh can start to take on a position of responsibility, but it takes yeh at least a year and a half more of an intensive program and practicing core "required" skills and other optional ones in order to be solid... as a youth. Presumably more to be responsible as an adult. And that's just outdoor skills and such, eh? Takes even more when it comes to teaching and leading groups. So a new adult volunteer steppin' in with no prior skills, you're talkin' about 'em working hard for 2-3 years before they're really ready to lead as an ASM or SM. I reckon that's about right, eh? Would we really trust children to an adult with only a few weekends of camping experience? Or one weekend of IOLS and some online course with a cute little animated fellow? That really would be negligent. Yeh could do it in an intense one-month training program, I suppose, like a NOLS outdoor educator course. But what volunteer can afford to do that, eh? Plus it would kill most of our overweight fellas. I think we're just stuck with relying on volunteers who come with prior skills. In fact, I can't think of a strong troop that isn't led by one or more adults like that. I understand da claim that the SM can just be a CEO and "hire" other adults who have the skills. But it still requires those other adults to come with prior skills, eh? And honestly, I've rarely seen that work. Most troops are too small to have an aloof CEO-SM. Most rely on a SM who personally knows da business. And that's the kind of fellow (or lady) who takes 'em out to see da bears! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

To add a comment on da parent thing, I disagree. Seen lots of wonderful parents who were poor scouters, or who even failed completely in da task. Parenting involves being able to guide a few kids of different ages who you know intimately, and who have come to know and rely on you intimately. Scouting involves being able to guide a lot of kids of the same or similar ages as a group, none of whom you know intimately, none of whom know you initially, who come from different backgrounds and expectations and who aren't dependent on you. It's a very different skill set. Some of da best people at it are young folks and teachers who have never been parents. Beavah

Excellent post, Penta. Thanks for takin' the time. I think yeh point out a real conundrum. Especially from da legal/risk management side, da BSA is being pushed toward the "professional Scoutmaster" view, eh? That's in part because da national risk management and legal folks come out of that professional side. It's also because there just aren't that many (any?) youth services organizations that run on independent volunteers anymore. Certainly not many our size. Most operate on da ARC model you describe - the oversight and planning is done by paid pros, and the volunteers are just worker-bees. They're not leaders, nor trainers. Mandatory recurring training is a "pro" thing. It can be quite a burden on volunteers. So da BSA sorta does fig leaf training. Short stuff that nobody thinks is adequate to take and teach kids in the woods, but makes it look like they're "trained." I think that's what CNY is talking about, eh? And yeh can often read on da forums people who don't really have enough deep understanding or judgment to be reliable in the woods, though they can quote their training manual. It can be a bit scary. I think in reality we in da BSA rely on two things, really. First, we rely on adult leaders who come in with prior skills. They know outdoor skills because they are former scouts, or military, or have years of personal camping, not because they spent a weekend at IOLS. Enough are OK at teaching kids just because they're "naturals" - they like kids and are good at relating, and they bring teaching skills from their work or professional lives. Da rest are great for support roles. Second, we rely on adults who know their limits, and who care enough to work at self-improvement. This is da trickier one, eh? Particularly because our personal limits aren't the same as the kids' limits, and because we can occasionally get testosterone poisoning and overestimate our own ability (or estrogen poisoning and underestimate da kids ). The BSA tries to address this with things like da age appropriate activities chart, and things like SSD/SA/CoS/Trek safely, which really are just meant to be a "gut check" before doing something risky, not training to actually do that thing. Those have worked relatively well for us, eh? Most scouters do come with prior outdoor skill and prior kid skill, and most are pretty decent about not getting in over their heads. But they aren't da rigorous training-and-policy-protocols that happen in professional organizations. And since da national risk management folks come from the latter group and aren't a particularly bright or creative lot, there's increased push to try to force quite a silly mandatory fig leaf training and ever increasing policy book on scouting volunteers. It's really funny in a lot of ways, because they've never required da professional staff to take rigorous outdoor skills, education, and program supervision training, which would be da necessary first step in really implementing such a system. Beavah

Yah, jblake! So,the trombonist struggling to get into college will not jeopardize his grade Da thing is, as I understand most university admissions offices compute "corrected" GPAs after they subtract out Band and Basketweaving and all da other non-academic classes (and sometimes apply corrections for AP classes and such). I know at least a few around here that do that. Of course, just because the college thing is a fiction doesn't mean most parents won't still believe it. Beavah

I'm a big fan of lookin' at incentive setups in organizations, eh? Generally speakin', where they put their money is what they care about. And, sadly, in general there is no incentive in da organizational structure of the BSA to listen to the consumer, nor really any incentive to listen to da customer (CORs), who are in fact pretty well insulated from da decision making structure unless they really go on da warpath. So you'll get some good fellows and ladies who will do so because they happen to have the time and are good fellows or ladies, but it's somethin' that's extra, eh? Not somethin' that's expected or that they're evaluated on or rewarded for. So mostly, it doesn't happen. Best place to catch such people is at regional or national conferences and talk to 'em in person, or get appointed to one of da national committees. But yeh never know. The right mail or email might just be da lucky one that tweaks someone's fancy on a slow day. B

Yah, that's about where I'm at, B. I think what da advancement folks are doin' is undermining the way the scouting program works. Adults in scouting don't "remove" boys. We work with 'em. But just because we're working with 'em doesn't mean that they're going to "get it" right away. Some lads already know how to swim. Others it takes many months or years to meet that requirement for Second or First Class. Either way, yeh don't "fire" the lad, nor do yeh sign off until they can swim the distance. That's the way PORs should be as well. Yah, sure, there are reasons to "fire" an SPL... like if he vandalizes the camp or some other behavioral issue. But aside from that, yeh work with him. At the same time, the adult workin' with him doesn't guarantee that he has the motivation to work himself, and it takes some kids longer to learn responsibility than others. So yeh work with him, but yeh don't give him credit for being responsible until he's learned that lesson. Same as for a bowline. Da notion that an adult should undermine patrol method and youth leadership by rushing to "fire" youth-elected or youth-appointed scouts just to block inappropriate advancement I find a bit bizarre. Sometimes folks at da national office are just office people, eh? Well meaning and hard working folks, but they look for office solutions, not scouting solutions. Yah, I know they get sick of appeals because whether a boy has shown responsibility is a subjective call, and Irving is obsessed with pseudo-objective evaluations. Yeh can always point to some scouter somewhere who's gone a bit overboard in his or her expectations. But da current convoluted scheme of promotion based on seat time with a requirement to "fire" a scout in a given period is just a bizarre departure from da way the Scouting program is supposed to work, and has worked for 100 years. Beavah

Yeh see this a lot, eh? Anytime folks (or lobbyists) want to push a harder-line response, they try to expand da definition of something. Da parent thread got me thinkin' about how bad it's getting in youth programming. Yeh see increasingly expansive definitions of things like bullying or sexual harassment or youth protection. Trying to sweep any and all negative behavior into some policy-governed or criminal category. So pretty soon da six year old who gives a classmate a peck on the cheek is guilty of "sexual harassment" and treated the same as the corporate CEO who makes sex with his intern a requirement for continued employment. I think some poor behavior is just poor behavior, eh? Not everything has to be criminal, and good people workin' with kids don't need a policy in order to do the right thing. Child abuse and neglect is a terrible thing, eh? It's defined in most states as when a parent or custodian deliberately harms a child physically (or in some cases emotionally) by action or inaction. Because parents/custodial adults have special rights over their children, and because the effect on abused children is so horrific, da law allows, and may require in those cases for a special social services agency to take reports based on suspicion so that it can conduct an investigation. Not all bad things that happen to children are abuse or neglect, eh? Thank goodness! Abuse and neglect is so awful precisely because it's committed by those who are entrusted with custodial responsibility for the child's welfare. And because of that special relationship, yeh need to allow reporting based on suspicion because it's hard to see what goes on behind da closed doors of a family. Physical abuse of children by other non-custodial adults is of course an awful thing, and a crime. But it's not quite of the same character. And therefore it's not treated da same way. Lots further down the chain, just plain hollerin' at a kid may be inappropriate. Sign of a poor coach or teacher or scouter. Or, in some cases, it may be appropriate (like when da kid tosses a rock off a cliff toward a trail below, nearly killing someone). But even when inappropriate, it ain't the same thing as child abuse. Claiming that it is is just ridiculous, and makes light of the horrible nature of real emotional abuse of a child by a guardian. I think we should try to avoid that sort of "expansive definition" in scouting. I don't think it does youth a service. I cringe to think of the mess that the current lobbyist driven anti-bullying legislation is going to make of schools. A lot of bad behavior just can't be addressed by laws and policies, eh? It's just bad behavior that has to be addressed by people. So me, I always tell scouters and units that respondin' to ordinary bad behaviors by kids and adults is why we're here, eh? Scouting exists to teach kids about behaviors and choices. That's what we do. There's no reason to retreat to policies, extensive bylaws, definitions, da cops, or da executive in an office 2 counties away. We all know what's right. Beavah

Sorry, Eagle92, an irate "sideline parent" is not somethin' that falls under any reporting statute. That stuff (and da protection for incorrect reports made in good faith) does not apply in this case. Nor does da BSA "report to the SE" guidance. That's for stuff like molestation, battery, fatalities on a trip. As Eagledad says, your SE really isn't goin' to take this off your hands. When yeh run a youth services program like a troop, somebody in the program has to have some cojones and take responsibility for handling poor behavior by youth or adults. That's part of da world of workin' in youth programs, and neither da State nor the Council nor local Animal Control is going to do our job for us if we scouters don't do it. And that's all this is, eh? It's poor adult behavior. No different than da sideline behavior of some adults at youth sports matches. (My "call the cops" thing, Eagledad, was referring to a direct, credible physical threat that crossed over into legal assault, eh? Somethin' where yeh had some real concern about future physical violence to the lad. That's not what we're talkin' about here, I agree). So someone in da unit has to step up and protect the kids from the poor behavior of this adult. Yeh do that by removing the adult... first from the situation, then from the unit if need be. But let's not pretend it's da same thing as child abuse or neglect. Beavah

Sorry, yellin' at a kid is bad behavior, but it's not emotional abuse. And if yeh call CPS they're just going to laugh at yeh. They have no jurisdiction over that kind of stuff. If yeh think it was a genuine threat of physical harm (aka assault) then yeh call the cops. There's no YP violation here. Being the only adult in a room with a few scouts is not a violation of 2-deep (think about an average MB counseling session). Two deep applies to outings for safety. No one-on-one applies everywhere for protection against allegations of (and actual) impropriety. What yeh have here is just poor parenting. And faced with that, when it becomes disruptive to da unit, the parent won't change, and other kids are being adversely affected, yeh really don't have any choice but to show the family to the door. It's either that or yeh lose your "good" families while failing to teach character. Beavah

Yah, same thing around here, eh? Da youth rec teams peter out earlier and earlier. Yeh get very competitive "cut" programs well down into elementary school now. Can't say I care for it much. And even where a middle school has a "no cut" policy they don't have an "everyone plays" policy. A lot of kids sit da bench or play the last few minutes of garbage time until they get the hint. B

Nah, short ridge, what CA is talkin' about isn't independent of da troop, eh? It's a patrol activity "within the framework" of a troop outing. The adults are on da outing, just not particularly close Word on da street is that da risk adverse legal types are runnin' da show on the new round of documents coming out, so I expect we will see some more potentially restrictive wording. Depending on how yeh interpret it Beavah

I guess one of the ASM's had to have a talk with him at the campout cause he was popping off so much Yah, just curious... was that part of da plan? Funny how kids watch our behaviors as adults and try to emulate us. Far more than they ever listen to us. B

Yah, B, welcome to da forums, eh? Funny to see this particular old thread resurrected. Yeh can probably find a few dozen others on da same topic. If I may be so bold, since this after all a discussion forum... What do you think? For da kids in your unit, or da kids in general, what do you think is the best way to teach 'em character and responsibility? To give 'em rank promotions for seat time? To fire them as an adult (and teach youth leaders to do da same thing)? To do da usual scouting thing and work with 'em until they get it, but not sign off until they get it? Your DAC has a different role than most unit folks do, eh? His job is to try to present da national program materials accurately and help the units by making sure district record keeping and counselors and such are in place. But it's da job of the unit leaders to use the program materials to teach responsibility and character. So what do you think?

Yah, CA_Scouter, that's pretty low-grade as an independent patrol hike, and you adults are going to be pretty close, eh? You've covered two-deep because you have two adults on the outing. Letting experienced lads hike and camp on their own for a short stretch should be a no-brainer. If you're comfortable with it, go for it. Actually, even if you're a little bit uncomfortable with it, eh? . That's normal adult jitters, like giving your teenager keys to the car. Beavah