Beavah

Do all of you mean that your troop has regular weekly meetings during the summer? Yah, that's exactly what we mean! I've watched this phenomenon of "summer's off" troops grow steadily across quite a few areas over the last 20-30 years. I honestly can't figure it out. Summer is da perfect time to be more active. Yeh have the lads undivided attention. Yeh don't have the pressures of school interfering. At least up here in da north you've got great weather. Even if some of your boys are involved in soccer / band / other camps, those usually run for only a week, eh? If your schedule is out early enough the lads have no trouble scheduling around it, and who cares if yeh have a few boys missing each week? You've got that because of sports/homework during the school season. Offer program to the rest of 'em. And if your regular indoor meeting place isn't available during the summer, even better! It stays light out late, meet at a local park! Yeh know, outdoors . Scouts meeting outdoors, eh? Who'd a thunk it? My best guess is that it happens because that summers-off thing is a feature of Cub Scouts, where da program tends to be tied to the school year. Then parents who move up from cubs tend to keep running things cub-style in all kinds of ways, including the summer's off thing. Beavah

Yah, LIBob, welcome to da forums! Agree with much of what yeh wrote with respect to watersports, though I'd never heard anybody at NCS or anywhere else cut da "recreational swimming" definition as fine as that, eh? I'm curious, however, about but for liability reasons you should leave BSA out of it. What exactly is your theory of liability in such a case? Beavah

Yah, all things in balance, eh? A lad shouldn't need to have the skills down before he goes to see the counselor. At the same time, the lad should have the maturity etc. to be successful if he works with the counselor. Sitting still for da discussions of International Law that are part of Citizenship in the world might not be da right fit for an ADHD 11 year old, eh? Shotgun might not be right for a weak 60-lb. lad with confidence issues. Those are the sorts of cases where a Scoutmaster should act like a Scoutmaster, and steer the lad toward success rather than disappointment. I think da other spot where the SM needs to be thoughtful is when the MB is taught in a "class" type environment in a fixed timeframe. Yah, that's not what any of us old-timers like. Yah, that's not what da MB program should really be. But it's a reality out there, eh? In that case, the SM also needs to be helpful to the counselor and the other boys in the class, and only send boys who are really prepared to be successful at the badge under those conditions. If yeh send a boy who isn't ready, or mature enough, then all you're doin' is disrupting the class for the counselor and the other boys. Much as we might wish that every counselor is superman and can accommodate every boy's needs equally in limited time and space, that ain't reality either. And again, it sets the lad up for a bad experience. Balance and common sense. Beavah

If the younger Scouts were "failing" that says more about the counselors teaching than it does about the younger Scouts. Yah, hmmmm..... You've got a funny way of lookin' at this, Calico. Yah, it's possible that a lad who doesn't have Camping MB can be helped to succeed at Wilderness Survival, and it's possible that a boy who has never fired so much as a .22 at a stationary target can step up to a 12-gauge and sporting clays, and it's possible that a lad who hasn't bothered to finish Swimming MB yet might be able to make it through Lifesaving. I reckon we can imagine a combination of really tough go-getter tikes and really exceptional counselors with all kinds of time and resources who would make it possible. Thing is, it ain't likely. When yeh put a boy in over his head, and stress him with challenges he's not ready for, you're far more likely to harm the kid. Not physically, though that's certainly possible, but certainly mentally. That lad who fails to experience any success with a shotgun, who can't keep up with his Lifesaving buddies, who is all but in tears sleepin' out without a tent... yeh haven't done him any favors. You've taken his sense of trust and adventure and crushed it. I think in your mind yeh keep imagining the few kids who might be "held back" by a prerequisite, but you're neglecting the many kids who will be hurt without 'em. Makin' a lad who is a good shooter do Rifle and then Shotgun isn't goin' to hurt him at all; the fellow who likes shooting sports will enjoy it. The same good instructors that you're imagining will challenge him appropriately. Lettin' a lad who is tentative and uncertain who just squeaked by his swim check go do Canoeing is a recipe for tears and frustration and a permanent "I HATE Canoeing!!!" feeling that is hard to overcome. There is a natural progression to these things, and yeh really do have to be able to swim before you can swim strongly, and you really do have to be able to swim strongly before yeh can train in lifesaving. Lettin' a lad know that isn't holding him back, it's being responsible for creatin' a safe, positive experience for the boy. MHO, anyways. And shortridge makes a good point too. In a camp setting, it also helps create a safe, positive experience for the other boys by ensuring they can rely on their partners, and ensuring that the instructor's time isn't monopolized by the lad who isn't ready for the challenge. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There really is no skills progression from Swimming to Lifesaving And yet, da American Red Cross Learn to Swim progression does exactly that, eh? It defines a skills progression from swimming to lifesaving, where the top level of da swimming skills progression includes preparedness for Lifesaving. ARC seems pretty competent at this stuff, I tend to trust 'em. There really is no skills progression from Swimming to Canoeing. Yah, except da American Canoe Association's Paddler's Checklist starts with "Be a Swimmer - know the difference between, and when to use, aggressive and defensive swimming". We don't teach that in da First Class requirement, but we do a much better job with Swimming MB Let's take a look at some of da other Swimming MB requirements that apply to paddle sports: * Demonstrating water rescue methods (both how to rescue, and how to be a good "victim") * Demonstrating ability to swim when wearing clothes, and when using flotation. * Swim more than the bare 100 yards, with a variety of strokes. * Know how to handle cold-water immersion. None of those would be present in a lad who had only passed da swim test. Most seem like a pretty good idea. For my part as a canoeing critter, there's a level of comfort with the water that comes with Swimming MB that isn't present with the fellows who only pass the swim check. That allows 'em to be successful with all the in-the-water parts of the badge. There really is no skills progression from First Aid to Lifesaving. And yet all da Lifesaving certification programs that I'm aware of have a First Aid prerequisite or co-requisite, eh? Because to be successful at lifesaving, yeh need to be able to handle the immediate care for the person after yeh pull him or her from the water. Are yeh saying that ARC, ALA, and all those other agencies are wrong? Lifesaving MB requires the passage of the 2nd and 1st class swim tests before any other requirements are worked on. Yah, sure. Except any agency or aquatics person knows that yeh need to be a strong swimmer in order to be engaged in Lifesaving, eh? That's what Swimming MB is supposed to accomplish - being a strong swimmer, who is capable of diving entries and swimming in clothes and swimming with flotation and handling cold water and being able to swim underwater and retrieve objects from depth. Those seem like good prereqs for Lifesaving to me, eh? In fact, I don't think a lad would be successful at lifesaving without 'em. a hunter's education course is usually pretty comprehensive on safety But light on experience. And besides, when yeh read da Shotgun MB requirements, that's one of those "OR" things. Complete a state hunter education course OR obtain a copy of the hunting laws for your state and explain 'em. Guess what most lads do when given da easy out. Now I know we keep putting more and more faith in bookwork requirements these days, but I reckon there's something to be said for some practical, hands-on training on a range with a .22 aimed at a static target before handing a lad a 12-gauge and havin' him trying to hit sporting clays. All kinds of practical habits and safety sense yeh pick up hands-on that yeh don't by reading the hunting laws. Just my thoughts is all. I agree with First Aid before Emergency Prep too. How can yeh be prepared for an emergency without knowing first aid? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Well, I pretty much disagree with your line of thought Beavah. Not unusual... Is it "growing up" if you end in the bottom of the pond? I didn't say anything about "growing up". Nor did anybody else. Perhaps you're mixin' up this thread with something else. Can I ask what your personal experience and formal training is with aquatics? We've got a bunch of certified lifeguards and water safety and canoe instructor specialists hangin' around here. Kinda like visiting the doctor, eh? Yeh don't have to take the doc's advice if yeh don't want to. But if you're goin' to dismiss the advice of folks with more training and experience in an area than you have, just be honest about what you're doin'. Especially with Mrs. Engineer61; she deserves accurate reportin'. A Boy Scout in a properly fit PFD on a closed private pond followin' all da other provisions of Safety Afloat will be just fine. In fact, we do that sort of thing with Cub Scouts, eh? Real little tikes. Now, might be that yeh live in a part of da country where water activities aren't that common. Around here, we've got thousands of lakes and rivers and such. So adjust to your area as yeh see fit, and then remember that da life of a parent is overcoming our own fears for our kids a lot of da time. Beavah

Yah, don't forget international stuff, eh? Next year, looks like stuff in da Euro zone is goin' to be cheap.

Yah, figured I'd spin this off from da other thread so it wouldn't be hijacked. What do folks think should be the proper prerequisites for work on different badges? I never did get why they dropped Swimming MB as a prerequisite for Lifesaving MB. That makes no sense to me. Lifesaving MB should have both Swimming and First Aid as prereqs. I reckon it would also be a good idea to have Swimming MB as a prereq for most of da boating badges, eh? Maybe not motorboating, but definitely canoeing and small boat sailing. Those MBs require things like open water capsizes, where yeh need the ability and level of comfort in the water that comes with Swimming MB. That's not the same thing as canoeing activity, which is what da previous thread was talkin' about. But for da MB work, I think Swimming should come first. What do the rest of you feel? I also think that Rifle MB should be a pre-req for both Black Powder and Shotgun, eh? Give 'em solid basics in a more controlled way before yeh move up to bigger firearms and a more open range. Any others? Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I go back to my "Qualified Supervision" piece from da other thread, eh? A Qualified canoe instructor should make these calls. If yeh aren't one of those, you should trust and listen to da fellow who is. On a closed, flatwater pond like da ranch you're talkin' about, with enough skilled paddlers and capable folks about, I'd think you could accommodate a non-swimmer safely and easily. BSA allows that, eh? Da non-swimmer just has to be in a canoe with someone who has lifesaving training. Now, if you're talkin' about a fast-moving Class II+ river, then there's really no way yeh can have a non-swimmer along. PFDs don't help much, and can be ripped off by strainers and current, da lifesaving-trained person can easily be washed away from da struggling non-swimmer, and other folks might not be able to respond as quickly as needed. So it just depends, eh? That's why da first point of Safety Afloat is to get qualified supervision to make these kinds of judgment calls. Me personally, as a long-time ACA canoe specialist and furry flat-tailed water rodent, I wouldn't be at all concerned about da former case. With a bunch of boats about, a PFD on, and a lifeguard within 10 feet yeh literally have rescue overkill available to help the lad. No matter what happens, help is available within seconds. That to my mind is da perfect environment for improving the confidence and comfort of a young lad with water activities. Honestly, it's safer than your son being in da shallow end of a public pool. So perhaps Mrs. Engineer61 may be right on this, eh? You might be playin' momma bear when your cub really is growin' up enough not to need it. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Sctdad, I reckon we need a bit more info, eh? Name of river or lake, time of year, expected wind & weather, type of canoe and whether or not it's loaded and how heavily, size and experience of paddlers. Hard to give yeh anything useful without all that.

Yah, Eagle92, da case you're referring to was discussed here at some length, eh? It had nothing to do with patrols. It was a Wilderness Survival MB class that was part of a summer camp program, and the youth leaders were camp staff. Also at issue was da camp doin' wilderness survival in full during a burn ban, which was an adult decision. Red Herring. A bit like da mandatory YPT rollout after da Oregon decision. It was incidental to da decision, but it becomes da thing to do when "something should be done!!". Easier than addressing da core issues. Just another part of da current chaos in the Irving office. Beavah

Yah, LanceEagle, listen to da moose! If yeh go the way you're suggesting as a new parent, yeh can count on any experienced scouter or parent in your unit to roll their eyes and quietly under their breath mutter "not another one of these snowplow parents who has to plow the road for their kid in order to fulfill their own dreams as parents.". Yeh aren't likely to get anywhere with that. Sounds like your son chose a good troop with some good people in it who care about kids. Now yeh need to step back and support the lad from the sidelines, not be one of da parents who is out on da field telling the coach and the refs what to do. And as an aside, if your lad focuses only on schoolwork from sophomore year on, you'll pretty much guarantee that he won't get either da admissions decisions or scholarships he wants. Colleges and employers are looking for a lot more than just schoolwork Beavah

Yah, I wouldn't confuse training with paperwork CNY. It's a good thing that the units are offering training, eh? In fact I reckon that all training should be offered as close to "on demand" as we can make it. Besides, it's more fun and you're more likely to get folks to sign up doin' it with other adults from the unit. In terms of da paperwork, yeh do the best you can. How would yeh handle it if two boys said they earned a MB from the deceased fellow that never got filed? I expect most of us in that case would ask a few questions and then take the boys' word. Can't see why you'd do anything different for adults. As to following da syllabus, I confess that I'm always a bit disappointed when a trainer adheres slavishly to / just reads the syllabus. If da training can be done in that kind of mindless way then it should just be done on-line. Computers are good at that sort of thing. Da benefit of a live trainer is that yeh get the personal interaction and experience of da trainer (and participants), and that always departs da syllabus. Now of course if a fellow doesn't have enough experience to provide good personal insight, then yeh should never have approved him as trainer, eh? But if he does have enough wisdom and experience I can't imagine why you'd micromanage the man. That would only cost you a good trainer and make your work harder. There are also a lot of good things to be said for adapting training to local conditions. Safety Afloat for da rivers of the west coast (which tend to be fast and cold) should be done a bit differently than SA for da great plains waterways. Same advantages for tailoring training to da program and needs of a unit. Beavah

Yah, wonderin' what people are thinkin' now. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/10/national/main6568712.shtml Young girl is missing at sea, with EPIRBs goin' off, 400 miles from da nearest boat, frantic parents trying to coerce the U.S. and other foreign governments into mounting a very expensive remote rescue operation to try to recover their daughter, the nearest vessels adding tens of thousands of dollars of costs and delays to their trips in order to render assistance. Eternal Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep Its own appointed limits keep; Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee, For those in peril on the sea! May God keep her, even where others may have failed her. Beavah

Yah, sometimes there are adult and youth personalities that just clash, eh? I always encourage adults to recognize that, and then let others work with that boy. Seems to work best all around. Separation, as someone said. Happily, different adults tend to get "irked" by different youth, so it works out OK. When an adult goes a bit off da reservation, I've generally found that da best responses come from the wise "old guard" fellows in the unit, if a unit has any. The folks who've been around a while, built up a lot of respect, and who can approach the adult calmly for a conversation or some humor or a gentle remonstrance and just re-focus the thing. Those people are invaluable. Sometimes they're former SMs, sometimes they're UCs or CCs, I've known one or two active CORs who were good at it. Lots of times it's da SM. Loosely speaking it can't be a "peer parent"... someone whose kids are the same age. Has to be someone with some more gravitas. A few times, maybe more than a few, yeh find adults with somewhat fragile egos who can't take teen push-back and turn it into one of those molehill "respect" wars. I confess that I don't think yeh can help in those situations. Adults with fragile egos should not be workin' with teens, it's just not a good fit. I usually help 'em work into a committee position or some other support role. Workin' with teens yeh have to be well grounded. They generate enough sparks on their own without us adding any. Beavah

I respect your opinion, but also just as respectfully disagree with your take on SSD. Again, as above, I have the feeling that you and I are reading two different documents or took two different training courses. SSD is expressly designed for an adult leader to run a unit swimming activity. It does not require a BSA aquatics director/supervisor or even a BSA Lifeguard. Nah, I think yeh missed the major point of the trainin', shortridge. SSD is definitely not expressly designed for an adult leader to run a unit swimming activity. No 30-minute online training could accomplish that, and we would never claim that it could. SSD training is "awareness" training, like Climb on Safely or Safety Afloat or whatnot. Just because you've taken SSD doesn't mean you're qualified to supervise aquatics activity, any more than taking da 30 minute Climb on Safely course qualifies you to supervise climbing or Safety Afloat qualifies you to run a whitewater raft trip. The first point of SSD, Qualified Supervision, is the major piece of the puzzle, eh? One of da two things that forms the "bread" that makes the Safety Sandwich, remember? Da point is to make people aware of what they don't know, and to tell 'em to seek out experienced help when necessary. "All swimming activity must be supervised by a mature and conscientious adult age 21 or older who understands and knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of youth members in his or her care, who is experienced in the water and confident of being able to respond in the event of an emergency, and who is trained in and committed to compliance with the eight points of BSA Safe Swim Defense. (It is strongly recommended that all units have at least one adult or older youth member currently trained as a BSA Lifeguard to assist in the planning and conduct of all swimming activity.)" So what yeh should have taken from the training is that generally speaking, it takes someone with lifesaving skills and experience to supervise swimming activities. Doesn't have to be a BSA lifeguard, could be ARC, could be other agencies, could be da college swim team ASM and his buddies, but that level of skill and experience, eh? If yeh don't have that, then you should find someone who has it, and then defer to their judgment and experience as supervisor. SSD doesn't qualify you to supervise, or to direct others in running a swim setup. Again, 30 minutes of online trainin' doesn't give anyone da experience to be trusted with that sort of thing. It takes more skill and knowledge than can be conveyed in a Flash presentation to understand how to apply the 8 points to novel circumstances like what SMT224 is talkin' about. The point that we want you to take from SSD is that you shouldn't guess how to do it, and you shouldn't claim that you can do it on your own by reading the 8 points off your card. You should find qualified supervision. And then, Point 8, demonstrate the discipline to follow whatever directions da qualified supervisor gives. If you are running swim events as supervisor or directing others just by virtue of having taken SSD, then you failed the training. Beavah

Why should we be in the business of excluding or removing anyone from this program when its goals are building better citizens? Because sometimes that's how yeh build better citizens. Seriously. Consequences are a necessary ingredient for learning, eh? If the lad doesn't learn that this kind of thing is a big deal now, what kind of citizen are we building? Scoutin' is just a program. Learning this lesson is important for life. More important, da victim and all da other boys in the troop are watching, eh? We have to build them as better citizens too, eh? They have to learn that there are consequences, and that choosing to keep their noses clean and not do stuff like this has rewards. That they're not chumps for believing that sort of thing is wrong and will be punished. Now, if this really is a case of a dingbat teenager, then by responding strongly and reassuring the other boys and parents that yeh take stuff like this seriously, yeh have credibility as adult leaders. Then if yeh decide to let the boy come back to da program under certain conditions they will trust you and believe in you. You might save the lad's scouting career. However, if yeh don't respond strongly, then the other boys and parents won't believe in you, and will act to protect themselves and their kids. Rightly so. That will end the lad's scouting career for sure, as no parents want him near their kids. So like most things, if yeh do the right thing as adults, it's more likely to work out better for everybody. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Life is so much easier when parents behave like adults. So da folks asking the question are unit leader types, so I'm goin' to respond from that perspective. 1) You've been told and have confirmed that somethin' which may be considered sexual battery was committed by one boy against another on your watch, and you know it caused injury. 2) The parents of the injured boy aren't in an understanding mood. Yeh really have very little choice in the matter, because this is somethin' that could become a big deal. The boy who committed the act gets the boot, at least temporarily. Yeh notify the SE immediately because this could become a big deal and yeh need him to get on board and up to speed. As a unit, yeh take the side of the victim, and yeh ask if they wish to press charges. If so, yeh put 'em in contact with the appropriate folks in law enforcement. Don't get into the middle of the between-family stuff, eh? Yeh want to stay far, far away from that. Da SE will, if he's smart, expedite the health insurance claim to avoid da risk of somethin' bigger. Now, the way this likely plays out if the unit and the SE take it seriously is that the parents of the victim are reassured that we scouters don't have our heads up our behinds, and they start calmin' down. When we cover da medical expenses, it reduces the pressure and probably saves the perpetrator from some legal difficulties too. Positive results all around. Then, when all that settles (and only then!), yeh figure out if it's reasonable or possible to re-admit the boy to the troop under some strict conditions. Yah, you're in a slightly different place, dhendron, unless your crew is chartered to da same CO as the troop. If it isn't, then you're a separate entity and have some more wiggle. But yeh have to make a serious judgment call. You can be the port in the storm for the boy who misbehaved, an island where he gets to acknowledge and talk about his mistake and learn how to handle it from a mentor (along da lines of what Lisabob describes). Or, your unit can look at it as another area of concern on top of the other groping that the lad was doing and decide you need to take some form of action to protect your crew and the rest of your kids. That's a serious judgment call, eh? If yeh choose to be the port in the storm, be sure, as sure as yeh can, that the lad is genuinely remorseful and "gets it." If yeh think he doesn't, or yeh feel his parents are enabling his behavior, protect your other kids. Lots of times it's possible to pour water on fires like this, eh? But da first step is always to acknowledge in no uncertain terms that there really is a fire. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

You can bet that a BSA camp is eitrher already set up...OR you WILL adhear to the SSD rules. Yah, sure. Until yeh do the mile swim. Or go snorkeling. Or da lake gets a bit too turbid. Ever seen a camp cancel all waterfront activity for that? All this is why we have Aquatics Directors and BSA Lifeguards and the like, eh? Trained folks with some experience who can interpret and apply the guidelines to the specific circumstances. Dat's why the first requirement of SSD is proper supervision, eh? Shortridge's SSD duty as a non-aquatics guy is to step aside and let the folks with aquatics experience set up da system. If he doesn't have folks with experience to set up the system he shouldn't be doin' it at all. Certainly shouldn't be directing others. Half an hour of online trainin' ain't enough for that. That online training was meant to tell non-aquatics folks "hey, you don't know enough to do this on your own. Job 1 is gettin' qualified people who can run this." Now, again, if you follow SSD , there is not a "pain to trhe public" exceptionary rule or "public inconveinence opt out". Yah, right! Unfortunately, there's also not a "but they're Boy Scouts, and Boy Scouts can do what they want" opt out of the rules and regulations of the pool or state park lake, eh? Yeh all may have different local pools, but none of da pools I've ever been to has separate non-swimmer, beginner, and swimmer areas. Some have a line separating the deep water (swimmer from beginner) but none have the other one. Most, especially the open-water ones, do not. And nobody is goin' to let you string your own lines or appoint your own lifeguards in their swim area. Just the way it is. We Boy Scouts are courteous to other visitors, and respect da rules of the landowners whose lands we use. Those things are in da G2SS and BSA training too, eh? Beavah

Yah, shortridge, I'm curious. When yeh go to the local public pool or state park lake which doesn't have a separate roped off beginner area (sometimes they have a roped off deep-water swimmers area, sometimes they don't)... do yeh start putting up ropes? Seems like that would lead yeh to be escorted to the door . SSD was developed for the camps, eh? That's its history, and that's why all BSA camps are set up that way. It made its way into the G2SS from there (G2SS is a compilation of stuff from other places, not a stand-alone document). It's a good program, but we can't impose it on da YMCA pool when we go visit, nor can we hog up a public swimming hole. The elements, though, can still be thought through and kept in place. Yeh mention that you're not particularly experienced on the aquatics front, so perhaps yeh need to step back just a bit from giving such strident advice. One of da things that beginners often do is that they hold on to the "rules" like a lifeline, without really understandin' their application. Nothing wrong with that, it's helpful to beginners. But not one of da council aquatics directors I know would take quite the same line as you are if they were asked this question. Beavah

Yah, knotter, welcome to da forums, eh? Just out of curiosity.... how do yeh know from looking at a website whether or not (a) the materials are copyrighted, and (b) whether or not the site has permission to use 'em? Lots of different things must be considered in determining whether somthin' is inappropriate with respect to copyright law. Awfully hard to judge from afar without da risk of libeling someone. I reckon it's a good example to scouts not to be a busybody, eh? Beavah

Also if its on the internet its in public domain. Yah, I reckon that if it's out there it might be available to da public. That's not da same thing as being in the public domain though! Most of the stuff on the net is copyrighted material. A lot of the kids don't quite realize how their Facebook comments do go out into the world and never come back, eh? I know a few undergrads who were shocked when employers asked 'em about old Facebook comments and pages, and when they possibly lost job offers as a result.

Yah, to some extent da text of SSD was developed with a camp waterfront in mind, eh? Yeh can't be goin' to someone else's swim area or pool or whatnot and stringing up barriers and floats and buckets. Even your average public pool doesn't really have a separately roped off "beginner" area most of the time. Besides, havin' a lot of line in the water when there's a current is a dangerous hazard in and of itself. Yeh do what's reasonable, SMT224. Know your kids, know their abilities, know the local hazards, have the right gear, keep a lookout appropriate to da environment and situation. You know the drill. Beyond that, be courteous to other visitors. Beavah

Yah, yeh sit with the lad, have a chat, explain things, get his assent. And yeh have him surrender the rank. Mistake, misunderstanding, deliberate fraud, whatever. Da reason doesn't matter. If yeh didn't legitimately graduate from college, yeh shouldn't put it on your resume. If yeh didn't legitimately earn Tenderfoot, yeh don't wear it on your uniform. It's one of those honor things, eh? Best learned early and often. If it really was deliberate fraud yeh might also have other consequences. If not, it's just a private thing. No reason to get the committee involved, and yeh can leave it on file with council if yeh want, just repeating everything else in-troop. Won't matter having his date be earlier on da Scoutnet Records. Beavah

Yah, I like da units that attract and use young people. They make better role models to teens than us old farts. Internationally, it's pretty typical for those of Rover age (18-26) to be running pack and troop programs, not parents. Works great. Beavah