Beavah

Yah, Brian85, I reckon you're wanderin' a bit beyond your ken, eh? If a unit violates the GTSS then they are not covered by the group insurance provided by the BSA. Incorrect. Da terms of the master contract are what govern the BSA general liability policy, not the G2SS. If the medical form provided by the participant does not match the form on record with the health insurance provider, guess what? Uh... I give up. Da person's health care coverage is still goin' to be in force. The BSA's health care supplemental coverage is still goin' to be in force. The BSA's umbrella liability policy is still goin' to be in force (but will have a great counterclaim of contributory negligence if the person's non-disclosure led to his injury). So, does HIPAA apply? Yes. The protected health information clause is very applicable. Incorrect. Da PHI clause is an amendment to the Act and is subject to the terms and definitions of the Act. It applies only to covered entities. Have any of you been given medications to provide to youths by the parents? We are not legal guardians, and most are not licensed medical people, able to retain medications for distribution. Imagine if you got arrested for possession of controlled prescription drugs for one of your Scouts. Another great headline... Yah, this is just complete poppycock, eh? What you're talkin' about isn't a function of federal law, it's a function of state law. Dependin' on da state, the law may be more or less ambiguous in a few cases, but nobody is ever goin' to object to you assisting a minor in transporting, storing, or assisting him in takin' his own prescribed medication. Now, if you're usin' Rx medication on others (like you use an epi pen you're carrying on a fellow you run across on da trail who has been stung by a bunch of hornets and is goin' into respiratory arrest), then you should be doin' so in accord with your training and certification and generally under a physician's standing orders. The ARRA of 2009 expanded the applicability of HIPAA statutes to all business entities irt PHI. Incorrect. ARRA expanded da scope of HIPAA to business associates of covered health care entities as described in the Act. That includes things like the billing firms used by hospitals, the IT firms that transmit electronic health records and the like. No readin' of that law could possibly make the BSA or a BSA unit subject to the Act as a business associate. Beavah

Yah, SMT224 has it right, eh? Doesn't matter what we call it, it's behavior that's unacceptable and must be addressed. "Hazing", however, has a legal meaning as a crime in many states. And it just ain't trustworthy to accuse anyone, especially children, of a crime if it isn't so. Generally speaking, da criminal definition of hazing involves (1) forced participation; (2) initiation ; (3) intention and recklessness; (4) bodily harm or serious risk of bodily harm. Most also limit it to (5) schools or organizations affiliated with school. This case fails on (1), (2), possibly (4), and probably (5). Now, OA ordeals come much closer to da legal definition. They are forced participation for initiation. So let's just call it what it is, eh? Stupid, mean, inappropriate. We don't need to have a law or a regulation or a definition to teach the kids right from wrong. Beavah

Yah, but in this case, the fellow isn't a custodial parent, eh? I think we'd all agree it's reasonable to do background checks on folks who don't have kids in da program who want to come along. Some units may waive that for custodial parents on the grounds that da parent is responsible for the lad and has a right to observe. But that isn't really the case in the same way for a non-custodial parent. I think yeh at least have a conversation with the man in that context. Or da CO may consider payin' for an online background/records check itself (just on name/address basis), or askin' the local PD to run one. That'll be faster than the BSA's if the campout is comin' up. Beavah

Yah, I sorta liked da balance bit someone came up with here. Somethin' like the Totin' Chip card for electronics. Teach 'em how to use such things responsibly and respectfully. I reckon otherwise you'll be fightin' this war non-stop in your unit. The things are too small to catch unless yeh start strip-searchin' the lads. And honestly, with the Handbook available on the iPhone/iPod and some some really amazin' tools for electronic guidebooks, plus GPS, plus ... seems like it's a reasonable tool for how much weight it is. Had a fellow show me his at Round Table a couple of months ago. My problem is da text is just too darn small for my old eyes, eh! Beavah B

Yah, lots of good comments here on how to handle da situation. Just to be clear for others, what yeh read on the internet ain't always true . The text defining hazing from an advocacy group like stophazing.org is what it is, eh? The text from a lobbying organization that benefits from having da broadest definition possible. The legal definitions in the subset of states that actually have laws on the books are (happily) far more narrow. And da traditional definition of hazing is somewhere in between. So in most jurisdictions this does not meet da legal definition of hazing as described. In fact I'm not sure it does anywhere, but it's a big country. And unless this was really part of an initiation where the lad was expected to drink urine or suffer repeated nasty pranks or whatnot, it doesn't meet da general definition. None of that matters much, eh? It's still poor behavior, bad judgment, possibly nasty and malicious. Still need to deal with it with the lads. Still should end up with some serious consequences. But we have to be trustworthy and accurate in our use of terms, and we shouldn't need some website's mumbo-jumbo definition in order to respond appropriately to what happened. Beavah

Yah, T2Eagle, Blancmage has da right of it, eh? HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules do not apply to either the BSA in general or a BSA unit in particular. Period. Moxieman, it's just hard to say what you're describin' at your university, eh? Generally speakin', human subjects research is under still a different set of laws and regulations. Not HIPAA, but usually somethin' called an IRB ("Institutional Review Board") is mandated, which serves as a local branch of da federal regulatory enterprise. B

If a public school is the chartering partner, the school is running the club. This requires the school to illegally practice religious discrimination. Yah, so generally speakin', public entities aren't allowed to lobby either. So if a school district charters a National Honor Society chapter from a lobbying organization (NASSP), is that illegal too? Troops and Crews at least are youth-run, eh? So if a group of students in a public school gets together, they can form a student-run club as a scouting unit. Now, if a school district just allows 'em to do it without supervision or insurance, then the people in that school district are liable for anything that goes wrong, eh? But if the district contracts with da BSA, then they get qualified volunteer leadership and insurance. Again, serves a public purpose by providin' resources that protect the district and its students while not infringing on what those students are constitutionally allowed to do. And what's more, odds are that zero district funds are expended, since da normal practice is for troops to pay their own way. Given da trend in SCOTUS rulings on this stuff, yeh really have a weak case in making a constitutional argument if the school district is doin' things right. Just MHO. It'll never actually be litigated because there's no point in takin' the time and expense when yeh can just juggle paperwork to get the same effect. Shift da charter to the PTO and everything stays the same. B

Yah, I think SMT224 has da right of this, eh? The lads all get sent home, and their continuing Scouting is at least placed on hold if not in permanent jeopardy. Anything less is just a lack of courage and conviction on da part of the adults. The legal issues are really irrelevant, eh? We're not about callin' da cops to solve every issue of youth behavior. Lads occasionally get tired and frustrated and throw punches or make other bad decisions, too. That doesn't mean we book 'em for assault and battery. Beavah

And if public schools or law enforcement agencies, which cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, owned & operated AA private clubs, they should be stopped, don't you agree? Nah, we don't agree, Merlyn. Dat's the point. Schools really do operate atheist clubs, or they should if the kids are interested. And if AA provides good materials for runnin' that type of club, they should charter with the AA to provide those services to their kids. Because havin' kids find a club that they feel meets their needs for expression and belonging in school, and that teaches 'em to be thoughtful and skeptical and express their views in a respectful way serves a public purpose. It's not da State advocating atheism, it's the state providin' room for the expression of atheism within its institutions by such adherent taxpayers, and usin' the contributions of those adherents to enhance education. Keepin' all of religion and atheism out of schooling is obtuse. It deprives kids of real knowledge of da values and beliefs of their fellow citizens; it denies them a richer understanding of how those beliefs shape public policy and history; it alienates good folks who would otherwise be advocates and funders of public education or colleagues in workin' for da common good of the country. Yah, yah, there is a "balancing test" here, eh? We must be careful not to let open access become evangelical, either directly or incidentally. A school in a majority atheist/agnostic district should be on guard against that in da same way a school in a majority Christian or Muslim district should be, eh? My kids shouldn't be forced to attend da AA club, and da AA club shouldn't sponsor the school dance. But what you're advocatin' isn't a balancing test, it's absolute exclusion with a scorched-earth policy, and we disagree with that regardless of whether it's da AA or the BSA you're excludin'. You pay taxes too; you have kids too. Your kids should have school-sponsored clubs that meet their interests and needs same as ours. Beavah

Generally speakin', in most of da districts and councils I'm aware of a "low end" project from a troop that operates as a bit of an advancement mill is in da 40-50 hour range. Typical are projects in the 100 hour range for an ordinary program. Da strongest, truly youth-led units tend to have Eagle projects come in in the 250 - 400 hour range, just because their lads are so used to leadership in smaller stuff and weekend campouts and such that it takes a project of bigger scope to challenge 'em. A few projects here and there break da 1000 hour mark. That's usually because it becomes sort of a community thing where a lot of folks can contribute independently, but occasionally it's somethin' that an exceptional lad is actively managing. All of that of course is mostly in "scout hours" as TwoCubDad puts it. Ain't goin' to be as efficient workin' with 12 year old helpers as it is with experienced adult workers. Beavah

Yeh sit with the lad, and you listen to him, eh? You ask if he is thinkin' about suicide now. You ask if he has thought about how he would commit suicide (does he have a plan?). You ask if he has thought about when or where he would commit suicide (has he committed to a time to act on his plan?). Each is progressively more serious, eh? Then you make it clear to him that you care about him, that he's valuable to you, and that you don't want him to ever hurt himself. You let him know that you will always think that, no matter what. And you'll help him face whatever is challengin' him. Then you let him know that you're goin' to talk to his parents and other folks you know who care about him and will work to help him. Yeh let him know that it'll be hard, but that you know he is brave, because it was brave of him to share his feelings with you. Yeh let him know that the help that comes will sometimes be goofy or stupid or ineffective, but that some of it also will be good so it's worth stickin' with it. Then, dependin' on how far along things are and your own best judgment, yeh can take him to the psychiatric ER in your area and have his parents meet him there, or yeh can call his parents to come down and talk with 'em together, etc. When yeh work with da parents, I reckon it's best if yeh chat with them privately first, and put 'em in the right frame of mind rather than blindsiding them in front of the boy. Let 'em know that right now he just needs their love - no judgments - and their support. Then, if yeh have any, yeh let the parents know of good contacts or community resources they can turn to. And along da way, you keep your promise to the lad. Beavah

Yah, da problem with MB classes isn't so much that they take away from patrol method/youth leadership (they do), it's that they mis-use advancement method. There's nothin' wrong with a PLC decidin' that wants to go canoeing, eh? But if they want to go canoeing, da focus should be on canoeing, not on badges and certainly not on conducting a "class." So they go canoeing. New fellows learn how to fit a life jacket and launch safely and paddle forward. Guys who've been canoein' a few times work on steering strokes and draws and such. Older fellows who have been canoeing with da troop on more outings over the years get to practice and demonstrate rescues or teach. At some point, one of those older fellows decides he wants the badge and goes with a buddy to a counselor. The counselor runs him through da paces, gives him pointers, pushes him a bit. Maybe corrects or updates a couple things he learned in his troop. Then presto, he's got the badge, and is now a resource for his troop. Point is that da kids' interest and kid-run program leads naturally to advancement recognition for the lads who are interested in reachin' that level. The program drives advancement; advancement doesn't drive da program. Troop meeting MB classes, MB camporees and universities, etc. are all examples of advancement drivin' the program. That doesn't work well. It's a sign of bein' adult-run (because boys don't think that way), it's a sign of poor use of youth leadership and patrol method (because it's boring, and youth aren't involved except to be on da "receiving end"). It's a sign of poor use of Outdoors Method, because lads should be running and swimming and poking and prodding and explorin' and getting tired, not sittin' and listenin' and doin' homework. And it's a sign of weak advancement, because boys learn at different speeds and have different commitment levels. So settin' it up with an expectation that they'll go the same pace and finish together either means you're really slowin' down the fast lads, or more likely really pencil-whipping da badges of most of the boys. No exception for First Aid. First Aid skills are somethin' that if you learn 'em in a weekend class you'll forget 'em by the next month. For boys who are learnin' those skills from scratch, yeh want 'em to be using 'em often, and repeating and practicing. Takes a couple of years of growth and reinforcement. But we only award a badge for what a scout is able to do, eh? Not for sittin' through a class. Beavah Beavah

Yah, Merlyn, other nations generally approach discrimination differently, eh? And very few, dare I say "none", are as fastidious about separation of church and state. Da Europeans generally provide government money for religious schools and religious programs routinely. Yeh claim that such "discrimination" is illegal in da U.S., but that has not been established. Yeh claim that da BSA is committing fraud, but that is an unfounded accusation of criminal activity, eh? Even if everything yeh said was true, it would not amount to fraud. So in fact, what you are doin' is called "defamation". Not a crime, but a civil tort. And not very ethical to boot. But zealots everywhere never really think about whether their own actions are appropriate. As long as they're fightin' da Great Satan or "illegal discrimination" or whatnot, any and all actions are justified. Beavah

Yah, Ed, but I'm really enjoyin' Merlyn's speculations on international law and da law of nations. His understandin' of da U.S. ain't that great, but his speculations about international legal issues are hysterical. There are always folks who just hate others because of their beliefs, eh? In some parts of da world they strap bombs on their chests. In da U.S. they file suits and try to choke off funding by lobbying efforts. Different weapons, but exactly the same mentality. Da BSA program is quite weak, and covers only a small fraction of the market. If Merlyn and his ilk had any savvy they could start a competin' outdoors and citizenship organization that could bury the BSA. But they can't get past their zealotry. Zealots always want to tear the other down rather than build somethin' valuable themselves. B

Yah, except there is such a thing as private correctional facility, eh? Lots of states are contracting out facilities. Similarly, there are more private law enforcement and security folks in da country than public law enforcement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100665_pf.html This is why yeh don't let your prejudices and agendas get in the way of your thinkin', legal or otherwise. Beavah

Nah, Engineer61, it's just that Advancement Committees of mostly untrained volunteers get all funny and weird sometimes, eh? Like most beginners at somethin', they kinda grab on to individual words in a long document without really understandin' how da system is supposed to work. FrankBoss, I think yeh do a couple of things here. Yeh have a sit down with the DAC and the CAC, and try to nudge things back into line so that the district committee gets some outside perspective. Yeh can share some of da posts from the forums to illustrate that this project would be approved in all districts polled across the country. Then yeh suggest to your Eagle candidate that he get a more clear letter from Kiwanis detailing how this is really a capital improvement for 'em, and how important it is to get that done. A clear statement from the beneficiary that this is not routine maintenance and how it will provide lasting value to their camp. The lad might even find a Kiwanis club leader who is willing to come to his next review and say that in person. Between da two things - the lad providing additional, clear documentation and you havin' a side conversation where yeh politely let the committee know that they've wandered off da reservation, yeh should be able to get this thing goin'. It'll be a good experience for the boy in terms of documenting things well and providin' evidence and coming back at things politely, and a good service to your district to get your advancement committee back on da straight and narrow. Beavah

Yah, generally speakin' troops have a natural size, determined by the interests and capabilities of their adult leaders and SM. When they get too large, they start losin' more boys to droppin' out of Scouting. To my mind, that's a bad thing, eh? We lose kids from scoutin'. At da point when wise leaders are recognizin' they're getting there, they probably are already there. As Eagledad says, though, splittin' a troop has serious pitfalls. Usually da troop got to its size because of a dynamic leader and set of good support adults. When yeh split da troop, whoever is in the half without the old dynamic leader feels a bit cheated. They don't do too well. Best if the big unit tones down its recruiting, and the unit with the district starts a new troop by takin' a big group of up and coming webelos. The big troop can loan some older boys or have a lad or two transfer, and provide some resources in the new troop's first year to help 'em get goin'. That seems to work better. All depends on IDing a good SM and some key folks. This is da kind of issue a good district and DE should be involved in (but sadly, usually aren't). Beavah

Yah, folks are funny, eh? I wonder if scouts are allowed to receive snail mail at home. Yeh never know, that predator coach might be sending him somethin'. No rule at all about scout emails beyond whatever the family rule is, Exibar. You'll find a small fraction of families have been made a bit paranoid about email and such, but most who have any personal or professional experience with it have no problem. I know a lot of Troops and Crews that expect or even require the lads and young ladies to have their own email for communication. Part of teachin' them how to be young adults in da modern world. Email is the modern version of the telephone. Each unit leader can also decide how paranoid he/she wants to be, but I reckon most have no problem calling kids directly on the phone. These days most teenagers don't use or expect calls on their family's house phone - even if their family still has a house phone! I know more than a few families who no longer have a land line and just use individual cell phones. If yeh call the parent's number your likely to get dad when he's away at a conference out of state, wonderin' why your so dense that yeh can't remember his son's number . Only issue I've ever seen with Facebook and such is young 18-20 year old ASMs, eh? When they have both scout and college-aged "friends", da scouts are sometimes exposed to da raucous nature of college life a wee bit early. That's a good conversation to have with your young ASMs. Otherwise, it just ain't an issue. Electronic communication leaves quite a documentation trail, so cc'ing folks really adds nothing to your or the kid's protection. Beavah

Yah, Ed is like a terrier that just can't let go, eh? If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the community; and if he refuses to listen even to the community, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17 Honestly, I'm a sort of biblical fellow on the matter, or at least I try to be. When someone jumps off the reservation, I usually PM them. When your brother sins against you, first approach him in private and all that. If they keep it up, I usually PM them again, maybe with another forum member or two. If your brother doesn't listen to you, go with one or two others and approach him in private... It's only after havin' several conversations in private that I feel inclined to move to a public admonishment. Or at least, that's how I try to behave, eh? Not claimin' I'm perfect by any means. If your brother still doesn't listen, take your case before the community. Generally speakin', when dealing with fellow Scouters on the forums, I almost never have had a negative response to a private message. Sometimes I'm the guy who blew it, sometimes the other is; most often we both apologize. IIRC it's only been BobWhite, Merlyn, Kudu and one other fellow (who I think was drunk at the time) who haven't responded appropriately in PMs, eh? Ol' BobWhite was the worst; he was an order of magnitude more rude in PM. So when that happens, I really do think it's OK to take the complaint before the community at large. In fact, I may have been da fellow who started an eponymous thread on ol' BobWhite. If they don't listen to the sentiment of da community at large, then I reckon it's OK to give 'em the heave ho from the forums, or send 'em to our (non-functional) ignore user list or whatnot. Anybody with a sense of character and decency who has to be confronted in public by a significant segment of da user community should take that as a "hey, I"m wearin' out my welcome" at very least. So I think there's a place for it, but it should be rare. Honestly, though, doesn't repeatedly calling other forum members liars and cowards and such rise to that point? Granted, Merlyn does that mostly in da Issues & Politics area where we all cut each other more slack, but this last round was in the regular scouting forums, not I&P. B

Yah, hey, I wanted my own thread, too.

I think Merlyn evokes such a negative response from many of you because he is usually right and is not afraid to let you know it. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Yah, Eagledad, I've sat in on a few where we decided the project was too big, eh? I can't think that we ever denied the project goin' forward for that reason. Generally what we did was say "This is really ambitious. We're going to let you select one of these three parts of your project to call your 'official' Eagle project. We want you to work on that one first and finish it up, and that will be sufficient for the rank. If you then want to continue to work on the rest as your gift to the community, that's great!" I'd say about half the lads got into the work and realized they'd badly underestimated the time it would take, and were grateful working hard to finish the 1/3 they'd chosen. The other half did some or all of the rest of their original proposal just to "show us" what they were really made of. All of 'em made Eagle. Beavah

There has never been a court ruling by an appellate court that public schools cannot charter BSA units as a matter of law. Merlyn is speculating that doing so would be found unconstitutional on first and fourteenth amendment grounds. That's his speculation. "Against the law" is a hyperbolic overstatement. Personally, based on how da court has treated educational issues in the past, I'd say it just depends, eh? My guess is that in the end they'd uphold the right of a public school district to contract with the BSA for services including traditional unit charters, if it was part of a broader program that had a secular purpose. That's my speculation, though . Nobody's goin' to contest it, since it just isn't worth the cost when yeh can get the same benefits by a simple work-around. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sasha, an open container means one that the driver or passengers can drink from. I don't reckon anyone is goin' to get a citation for havin' 8 ounces of white wine and an onion in a bottle in da spice kit that's packed in the trunk. I just looked in on this thread because I couldn't figure why a thread about alcohol stoves would be goin' on so long. I'm with John-in-KC as usual. If someone brings enough cooking sherry to cook a meal (as opposed to bringin' a gallon of the stuff) and you're gettin' heartburn over anything besides what you ate, then yeh need to get a grip. Go for a hike. Play with kids. Take your family out to a restaurant and have somethin' with a nice bordelaise that yeh share. Exception of course is if yeh have religious objections to alcohol. I don't know the position of the LDS, but my guess is that most would avoid the wine sauces. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... My question would be why are MC's talkin' about takin' the lads on a campout? Seems like the scheduling of campouts is a PLC thing, eh? The boys are the ones who say they want to go on a campout and put together an annual plan. Then the SM and the committee approve the plan (presumably lookin' at troop resources and wrangling more resources where necessary - like adding a fully trained ASM or two!). So if the committee is goin' to behave like a good troop committee, it needs to step back into the "big picture" role here, eh? That probably means pushing the SM to use the PLC better for annual planning, and then to get off its duff and recruit and train some more ASMs. Now, there's no "rule" that says two committee members can't be the adult leaders for an outing. The only rule is that yeh have to have one registered leader (MC counts) and one adult over the age of 21. One of 'em should have YPT. And at least one of 'em should have all of the necessary training to meet point #1 of the Sweet 16, eh? Be fully qualified to supervise inexperienced lads on that type of outing. Now, to my mind when you're using MCs in this role, the problem is da other half of the Safety Sandwich, eh? Discipline. Boys and youth leaders are far less likely to trust, respect, listen to, or obey an adult that they don't know well and that isn't familiar with regular troop operations. When yeh use an MC as trip leader odds are the MC also doesn't know the boys well - their quirks, their medical or behavioral issues, etc. So I reckon a lot of troops would be reluctant to put a pair of MCs in a position like that where there's a chance of things goin' amiss. Even if they're great outdoorsmen, they have to know the boys and be good at working with 'em. So it just depends, eh? If the outing is to the local laser tag emporium () so the risks are low, the activity is supervised by the outfitter, and there's not a big penalty for not knowing the boys that well, I'd go with it. If it's truly a campout, especially a campout that involves some challenges (springtime weather, hiking/navigation/backpacking, water activities, etc.), seems like it's prudent to make sure at least one ASM is along. In any event, if your SM isn't comfortable with it, the proper thing for the CC to do is to support the SM. Absolutely. Positively. No other choice. The CC should never, ever, under any circumstances contradict the SM on a safety or judgment call, no matter what da BSA materials may allow. Beavah