Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... So da actual requirements themselves, which are what da BSA defines as the sole authority on awards, are unclear. I think that leaves it up to da individuals who are making the award to decide on how to interpret it. Da Aquatics Supervision Manual has no authority to supersede or correct the Advancement Requirements. It's a guidance document for those doin' Aquatics Supervision. I think da clear intent of the Mile Swim is made clear by havin' the boys discuss safety with the counselor for long distance open water swims, eh? Why would we ask all the lads to do that as part of da requirements if we didn't really intend this to be an open water event? As others have said, swimmin' in a pool is a very different thing, physically and psychologically. So I'd suggest that da way to view this is that it is meant to be an open water swim. In those cases or areas where boys don't have ready access to suitable open water (drought, shark infestation, sanitation, etc.), then it's OK to use a pool instead. But da pool should not be da first choice for a scout who is on his honor to do his best, nor should it be da first choice for a scouter runnin' a program who is on his/her honor to do the best for the boys in the program. I reckon it does speak a bit to the way we keep Disney-ifyin' Scouting. Lads can ostensibly do Climbing MB in an indoor park facility as well, but I would never recommend that. They get so much more out of real rock and gettin' outdoors where Scoutin' belongs, and da safety issues and learning are so much richer outdoors. Heck, if yeh read da Canoein' MB requirements they can all be done in a pool as well, I suppose. Nuthin' says they can't, and da only requirement that would be challengin' would be that 50 yards in a straight line would require a 50m pool. But yeh could do da 50 yard "course" in a regular pool if yeh believe that laps are a "course" as some describe. Rather than pink-book lawyerin' da requirements in a way that even shark infestations... I mean lawyers... would be embarrassed by, it seems like we should honor da intent of da requirements to pose a reasonable challenge and adventure to the boys for them to overcome and grow from.

Yah, comchair, welcome to da forums, eh! Yeh are raisin' one of those issues that falls in da grey zone in terms of modern life and families. Do yeh stick to the rules that envision an intact, two-parent family even though there's really no issue of youth safety, or do yeh act with understanding and compassion toward those whose lives aren't as perfect as some busybodies would prefer? Which is best for the scout? For all the scouts? I think yeh have to ask your Chartered Organization for its views, since you work for them and have a duty to represent their values on the matter. If your chartered organization is a church, they may feel that the man-with-girlfriend is not the sort of example they want in their youth program. Or it might be quite the opposite, and they feel that the role of their youth programs in da church is to bring families and kids together. The difference between man-with-girlfriend and man-with-fiancee might well be that ring in his pocket that's comin' along on the campout. Askin' your chartered organization and followin' their lead also helps disarm the busy-bodies yeh have in the pack. Anyway, be alert that this is a minefield. It's one of those things that gets adults to misbehave on both sides and leaves a lot of hurt feelings unless handled with compassion and firmness, and a touch of creativity.

Yah, hmmm... I don't reckon they're confused. It's da old BSA don't ask, don't tell policy for youth, coupled with a Christian mission for both youth and adults. I think Sentinel947 has da right of it. Trail Life is tappin' into a population that has been disenchanted with da BSA for a variety of reasons, and the membership change was just the last straw. If they build a good program, maybe a bit less G2SS crazed, maybe a bit less paperwork, maybe a bit more outdoor sportsman focused than da BSA, they could become a bigger draw. Just depends. Close as I can tell da initial group was pretty evangelical, but as they've grown it's become more moderate. Might eventually offer da BSA some competition in many areas in da country. I'd lilove to be a fly on the wall for liablity protection discussions. Yah, not sure why yeh think this is goin' to be that hard, Tampa Turtle. Liability insurance is a commodity item, and da general rules for the game are pretty well known. I don't know who's workin' with 'em, but they seem to have da resources and expertise to handle that sort of routine stuff without a problem. Beavah

"either a person is a fundimentalist in their faith, or they not following their faith." Yah, hmmm... I reckon perhaps this might be da case for a more strict, hierarchical faith like da Mormons or da Catholics. Leastways I hear some of 'em make that sort of argument sometimes, though I think both of 'em would object to da term "fundamentalist" since that tends to refer to fringe schismatics in those religions. For da rest of us Christians who aren't biblical literalists (which is what da term "fundamentalist" generally refers to) I'm not sure I'd agree, eh? Da point of a Christian is to follow Christ. Da human expression of faith like all things human can oft go awry. Heck, even da biblical literalist fundamentalists eat pork BBQ.

Yah, hello christineke. Yeh pose a tough question, eh? Kids with Aspergers spectrum I'm told often lack da ability to interpret social cues. They just don't read body language or voice inflection the way the rest of us do. Imagine if yeh had a brain that couldn't process a frown as a sign of displeasure, eh? How hard would that make relatin' to and figurin' out other people? As a result come across as "very rude" or inappropriate. Most of us learn what is and isn't appropriate by reading the reactions of others, after all. If a lad can't do that, then he's goin' to have a hard time, and need help. This will be even more pronounced in an ADHD lad, who will be more apt to blurt things out. Certainly involve da parents if yeh think it will be helpful. Other than that, one thing that can work is if yeh establish an easy, non-threatening way to give the boy the feedback that he's missing. Establish some norms that allow you or other adults (or the Den Chief might even be better) to pull him aside and just give him an explanation. "Joey, when you repeat negative things about someone out loud like you just did to me, it hurts them." "Joey, these actions you did for the charades were good, but this one was bad. Don't use it again." Yeh have to think about this a bit like programmin' a computer. How do yeh give him clear signals that he can interpret? For Boy Scout aged boys, I encourage adults to share this with all da Patrol Leaders, eh? They are da biggest assets in workin' with kids if yeh treat 'em like adults and bring them in on things. I think it also helps to explain the problem to all the other boys. If the other boys know that Joey doesn't understand when he's being annoying, it helps them to understand it's not what he's trying to do, eh? Makes 'em less likely to be negative back. Lots of times, Aspergers' kids get a rap for hitting other boys for that reason, eh? They're being annoying but don't know it, the other boys respond the way they would to a kid who is deliberately being a jerk, the Aspy lad strikes out (or storms off) because he feels he's being picked on for no reason, the rest of the lads feel he went nuts for no reason, etc. If yeh break the chain at da first link, yeh can better support the lad. So in conclusion, what you're experiencin' is fairly normal for this sort of boy. It's a product of his disability, and he doesn't understand what's goin' on. Yeh don't want "discipline" here, any more than you'd discipline a lad in a wheelchair for gettin' places more slowly than the rest of the boys. Yeh want to look for ideas that help the adults and the other boys support scoutin' for the lad, and help the lad slowly figure out how to do scoutin' well despite his disability.

I was just passin' through checkin' to see if this software was any better. Looks like yeh are gettin' a bit more traffic anyways. Mostly I'm contributin' here and there on one of da social network groups when I find some time, but other things are takin' up too much of it these days.

Yah, I always get a chuckle out of da BSA's language on the matter. So yeh license a program from Microsoft to help with your business. One of those click-through things that yeh never read. Then yeh go out and buy a computer and a monitor and a hard drive and a bunch of other stuff to run the program. Later on yeh decide to switch to a different program and dump your Microsoft license. Now, in Microsoft's Corporation's Rules & Regulations, they say that if yeh stop using their software then they require yeh to turn over your computer and hard drive and monitor to them. Actually, some of those click-through licenses are about that bad, eh? But they're really unenforceable nonsense. This kind of overbroad legal language has always been around, but it's gotten a lot worse in da last decade or so. Yeh should see some of da crap I see. I think it's dishonorable. Really it's a way of a big player with a lot of resources to try to coerce a small player with limited resources. So to answer da original post, "it depends". Each case is goin' to be a bit different; the troop may be incorporated or recognized as a 501©(3) as an unincorporated association, yeh may have a big donor who gave things with donor restrictions, yeh may have "scout account" money that was actually paid by families that you're really holdin' on a custodial basis, yeh may have loaned gear, etc. Da person who has title to da trailer is probably da one who owns da trailer. In general, though, da troop is a youth program of the Chartered Organization; the adult leaders are volunteers for the Chartered Organization, and da Chartered Organization owns the money and gear, no matter what da BSA's internal Rules & Regulations (which da CO typically doesn't even have access to) state. Now, to the OP, tell us what's really goin' on. I suspect perhaps your CO is dumpin' the charter over da membership policy change? In that case I think yeh sit down and be trustworthy, loyal, and friendly with 'em, eh? Yeh tell 'em da gear is theirs, and yeh ask what they want yeh to do. It could be they want it for da Royal Rangers or somesuch, in which case yeh behave like good scouts and clean it all up and pack it neatly and turn it over with a handshake, and then volunteer to help their Royal Rangers leaders if they need it getting set up. Havin' other groups takin' kids into da woods and teachin' citizenship and character is a good thing. I suspect what's more likely is that they don't really need it or have any plans, in which case yeh can ask if yeh can take it with yeh so the kids can keep camping, and I bet they'd be amiable. Or yeh can offer to pay 'em fair market value, up front or over time. Da point is to be friendly and helpful and courteous, like a good scout should be. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... My question would be why is this lad and his dad still part of da trek crew? When they didn't meet da obligations that they signed a "contract" for, they should have been removed from the crew. Otherwise what example are yeh setting for the other boys? No wonder they think electin' a trek leader doesn't matter, eh? Yeh couldn't even hold to your agreement on fundamental requirements for participation. So I'd say yeh sit with the lad and explain that you're sorry, he hasn't met his obligations that he agreed to, and refund his money for the trek. Expect a blow-out. Make sure yeh have da support of your CC and COR in advance. It will do a world of good for the other boys and for the program in the medium and long run, however. If yeh aren't willin' to do that, then at very least trek leadership positions should be completely off the table. Da issue should be probation and what he has to do with the crew between now and the trek in order to be allowed to participate. Go with the second lad if he's been a good egg.

Yah, MarkSHancock, welcome to da forums, eh! In a word, "yes." The actual relationship is that the Chartered Organization owns the unit, selects the unit leaders, makes policies for the unit, is legally responsible for the unit, and uses the unit to advance the chartered organization's goals and mission, which the BSA agrees to respect and support in the charter agreement. A BSA Youth Application is an application, eh? The application requires a Scoutmaster's signature, and can be turned down by the SM or Chartered Org.

Yah, it just depends, eh? Depends on da needs of the lad, mostly. Some lads need a lot of independence, and tend to shut down or become rebellious if there's too much adult presence. Other lads need some supportive affirmation at the start and along the way. If yeh have a younger troop, then a young SPL may need some more support, coaching, and direction. A wise Scoutmaster will take some of the load so as to allow the boy to be successful and build experience, and then shift the load back to the SPL as he is ready for it. There's no one right answer. It just depends on the needs and experience of the boy and of all the boys. A good way to think about it is safety, eh? A strong and experienced older scout SPL can be trusted to handle planning and running safety without adults doin' anything more than watchin' from a distance. The boy may be a better lifeguard and stronger swimmer than any of the adults, in fact. A younger SPL without as much experience, da SM is goin' to support and backstop more. If the lad is gettin' overwhelmed just handlin' reservations and basic communication for the outing, the SM is goin' to handle the safety side on his own with the other adults. Same with other things, like communication or budgeting. If a lad is buildin' a buildin', we provide the scaffolding so that he can work at da proper level. As more of his building gets built, we take down the scaffolding because he no longer needs it. We should never be afraid to offer scaffolding, but we should always be lookin' to take it down. Beavah

Yah, I reckon in the end da change costs us 25% of our membership when all is said and done. Maybe a bit less if public opposition is light; maybe more if opposition is organized and coordinated among major partners. Blow will fall heavier in areas where da BSA has been strong, but won't significantly improve membership in da areas where da BSA has been weak. With stresses on so many councils and camps already, figure yeh see a 50% retrenchment in those areas in terms of loss of camps and council consolidations. Won't kill us outright, eh? Just be a part of da long slow twilight years that are occurrin' for da other reasons yeh mention.

Yah, the Dale case was decided on relatively narrow grounds related to expressive association. That gets tricky for lots of other organizations, eh? Not da churches, but a lot of da community organizations of various sorts, and the "friends of" groups and such. Plus, it won't be long before the gay male dad who was turned down for a leadership position by a Catholic chartered organization gets picked up by the press to launch another media campaign about how da discriminatory BSA should dump the charters of any church or other organization that isn't fully inclusive. That will become da next "civil rights" issue.

Yah, hmmm... I can't even figure out what this thread is supposed to be about. For what it's worth, most intelligent contemporaries of their day believed Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein, eh? They were just reportin' da science based on the evidence. Da folks who were denyin' reality and ignorin' or tryin' to suppress science were the same then as now. Well-monied entrenched interests and their lobbyists tryin' to preserve their own place as bigwigs at the expense of others. Then, as now, they got a lot of ordinary folks to go along with 'em based on "religious values" and other made-up hocus-pocus. Does a real disservice to religion and real honor and values. Why should yeh expect it'd be any different now?

Yah, I think IM-Kathy is tryin' to say that there's a difference between a scout who admits his mistake, comes clean, and is sorry and a scout who lies and denies and is not sorry. For the first, the character lesson is how to rebuild your reputation after making such a mistake, eh? By goin' out of your way to demonstrate responsibility, includin' voluntarily withdrawing your Eagle application until you have repaired your relationships with others. That sort of boy yeh get help, and counseling. For da second, the character lesson is that when yeh don't take responsibility for your actions, yeh don't deserve the respect and time of other people. Yeh don't get awards. Yeh don't get other people giving you their time and energy for free. Yeh aren't trusted to be around younger boys. Yeh are likely not to be welcome in da company of good people. Our actions as adults have to change accordin' to where the lad is at, eh?

Yah, Fehler, we're not talkin' about sendin' a lad to jail, eh? For that, yeh need a jury to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. We're here as scouters, teachin' life lessons. That means that we respond to kids even when we think something is up, like when they're sneakin' around and giggling too much. Or when we have a suspicion that there's some bullyin' goin' on. Acting as friends and parents and scouters means yeh don't wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It means yeh care enough about 'em to respond when yeh feel the lad needs yeh to.

Yah, most of da time I can't post because I keep gettin' the JSON error qwazse is talking about. Something about "unexpected character". Really annoyin' after typin' a long message.

Yah, sure, some lads are incapable because of real handicaps, like baseballfan's kid. We all recognize that, and make exceptions for it. What's not true is that a healthy lad who can do 3 pull-ups is not able to improve to doing 4 pull-ups with a reasonable training routine and some effort. That is just nonsense, and we do kids a disservice when we make those claims and excuses.

Yah, sure, some lads are incapable because of real handicaps, like baseballfan's kid. We all recognize that, and make exceptions for it. What's not true is that a healthy lad who can do 3 pull-ups is not able to improve to doing 4 pull-ups with a reasonable training routine and some effort. That is just nonsense, and we do kids a disservice when we make those claims and excuses.

Yah, hmmm... Much confusion in my mind. Do yeh really think a MB day is a good idea? As a fundraiser? I'm sorta struck by Venividi's comment, and by the notion that in the BSA, merit badge counseling is one of da things we do for kids as part of Adult Association method, eh? It's not somethin' we do for money. Be that as it may: 1) Tour plans have nuthin' to do with insurance. They're to help units plan activities and transportation and such. Yep, troops from out of the area probably should do them, but that's up to them. 2) General liability insurance is in force automatically and is not at issue. However yeh might want to ask your council for a certificate listing the property owner where you're conducting the event as a named additional insured. That should be no cost. 3) Accident (health) insurance is optional. Some councils mandate it for everyone at registration; other councils leave it up to each unit whether to buy it. Some councils in the latter group will expect it to be in force for a unit to attend a council event, or will charge extra for coverage for that event. Having accident insurance in place takes care of deductibles and most simple injuries, and therefore lessens the burden for families and reduces da likelihood of somethin' becomin' a liability issue. That sounds like what's goin' on here. There's no link to a BSA website, this is a local council option. The general liability coverage would not get yeh out of this local requirement. Might I suggest a pancake breakfast instead?

Hiya Rayburn, nice to see yeh back in da forums! Sorry about the nature of the incident, eh? This is the stuff where Scoutmasters really earn their pay! I think your plan is a decent one. Talk to the witnesses, then to the boy, then to the parents. Let the responses guide you. Now Beavah's rule is that no lad ever gets caught smoking the first time he does it, eh? The point when boys get caught is the point when they've been doing it long enough that they start getting brazen and sloppy. Like choosing to bring weed on a scout campout instead of doing it with friends in the woods after school, where no adults are around. Beavah's second rule is that most or all of the boys know what really went on, and know that the lad(s) involved have been smoking in other places for a while. Which leads to Beavah's third rule: What you choose to do now is going to be a measure of your character in the boys eyes for the next 3 years. Are yeh going to be wishy-washy, or do yeh stand for something? The kids who are watching yeh the closest are those boys who have believed you up to this point when you told them that a Scout keeps himself physically strong and morally clean. They want to know if you really meant it, or if you were lying. Your words don't count, eh? Your actions will speak so loudly that they will drown out whatever you say. I think if the boy comes clean right away, admits what went on, apologizes and asks for help, then with some contrition and restitution he can restore his reputation and have a shot at stayin' in the troop. Maybe. To be honest, though, I wouldn't hold my breath. Eagle is off the table completely, until perhaps right before his 18th birthday if he really shows remarkable improvement and mercy is called for. I think da most likely scenario is that what this boy needs now more than anything is the tough love lesson. I reckon he's apt to deny and equivocate and not take responsibility until boxed in, and then not want to admit that anything so serious should cause him to withdraw his Eagle application on his own. In that case, I think yeh have to be the folks that care enough to teach him the hard lesson. That's also likely to be the right lesson for all the other boys in the troop, and the lesson that will make all of your troop parents most comfortable with trusting you in the future. Yeh know your families better than I do, but I'd caution you that a 17-year-old smokin' on a campout really destroys any sense of trust your parent community has in youth leadership, eh? The boy getting Eagle will completely destroy advancement in the eyes of the boys and their families. So in most cases, without a very strong, clear, public response from you you'll be doing enormous damage to da program for all the boys. Don't kid yourself that it will remain confidential. The boys all know by now, and the parents aren't going to be too far behind.

"The coach simply shrugged and said it was just my build." Provin' that da coach was full of it. If yeh were doin' lots of pushups but very few pullups odds are yeh were creatin' muscle imbalances which could lead to longer-term shoulder injury. The reality of the thing is that compared with goin' from 20 to 25 pushups, goin' from 3 to 5 pull-ups is more work. Takes more time, requires more effort for a variety of reasons related more to physics than to build, eh? What I see most of da time in most troops is that adults want to give kids "outs" from this requirement because it takes more effort. So we adults come up with a whole lot of pseudo-science gibberish to justify lettin' the lad scoot by without workin' too hard. Is that da lesson we really want to teach?

Your choice, eh? Here's da deal with pull-ups. If yeh look at the Presidential Fitness Award test for pull-ups, for 11 year old boys, doing 1 pull-up puts you in the top two-thirds of boys your age. In other words, not being able to do a single pull-up puts the lad in the bottom third of boys his age, or a third of our first year scouts won't be able to do a pull-up. Now, yeh can look at that and say that gee, it's goin' to be hard for those boys. If they're in the bottom 10th of boys their age, to go from zero to one pull-up is goin' to be a lot more work for them than it is for a more fit boy to go from 2 to 3 pull-ups. It's the difference between moving up 25 percentiles vs. moving up 10 percentiles. So if your program does First Class First Year, trying to keep boys together like Webelos, it's goin' to feel unfair and discouraging to those less fit boys. In that case, yeh might substitute a smaller improvement goal, like improving their flexed-arm hang time or giving credit for a partial pull-up. That will help 'em toward doin' a pull-up eventually. If your program is more traditional or a bit less advancement focused so that a boy can feel comfortable working at his own pace without gettin' discouraged, then I reckon giving him the gift of real fitness is a better choice. You and your youth leaders work with him until he can do a full, real pull-up. Then yeh celebrate that win and how much effort it took, and the boy learns the additional lesson that good things come with hard work, but he can do it. Either can be an OK choice. A lot depends on your unit's culture and approach to Scoutin', and what your goals are for the boys. Of the two, I prefer da second route myself. Yeh can also set loftier goals for your fit kids, eh? Perhaps they should go from 2 to 5 pull-ups to match da effort of the lad who is goin' from 0 to 1! Seems like we should expect the lads in a program with a goal of fitness and being physically strong to be at least in da top 50 percent for their age, eh? That'd be two pull-ups for an 11 year old, or 8 for a 17 year old goin' for Eagle. And probably 8 for all of us male adults as well, eh?

Yah, we will net lose units in our council, no question. And net lose members. After da initial losses nationwide, which might be fairly severe, I predict continued gradual decline. There just really aren't that many folks like packsaddle describes, and most of them are relatively well-off folks whose kids have lots of other opportunities to choose from. Scoutin' is just one activity of many, and will keep just one kid of many.

Yah, SoloTS, welcome to da forums! Two thoughts for yeh. First is that those Board of Review members are good eggs. Yeh should be grateful for them. Rather than just goin' through the motions, they care enough to do their part to help this lad learn a valuable lesson, eh? No matter how good you are on paper, you can lose your chance of going to your first choice college or your chance of getting a job or foul up your relationship with your future father-in-law by having a bad interview. That's an important lesson for this boy to learn, and yeh should thank 'em for their part. Now you should do your part, and meet with the boy and be a mentor, eh? Let him gripe and complain, then help him to see the point. Give him the talk about how yeh can be the best candidate for the job, and lose it because of a poor interview. Then help him to do a better job for next month. Help him develop a plan, meet with him for a new SM conference to practice before his next BOR. "Why do we fall down? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up again." Now, da second thing that yeh need to do is sit and reflect a bit as Scoutmaster, and maybe meet with da board or CC. Because they're also tellin' you something as SM, and that's that yeh might need to be strengthening your expectations a bit. Scout units are here to achieve some goals for kids, and within da unit the Committee should be the representatives of the owners in terms of the goals. They're tellin' yeh that your first Life Scout is not what they expected from a Life Scout, and they want to fix that in the program before they're dealin' with it at Eagle time. That's wise and prudent on their part, eh? So it's worth sittin' and thinkin' about what in your program led the boy to have the attitude that he did? What could yeh do better to teach respect and responsibility? More opportunities for mentoring and leadership, perhaps? More practice at a slightly more formal Scoutmaster Conference to learn how to handle interviews? I'd be particularly concerned about the boy not takin' anything away from NYLT to bring back to the troop and be effective. Perhaps yeh should have met with him after that and laid out a plan together as to how he was goin' to put those lessons into practice? I'd also be concerned about his lack of servant-leadership feeling toward the younger fellows. What examples is he seeing in the troop to show him that the very best of men are those who care for the newest and weakest members? Bein' a good troop means always workin' hard to improve, because da laws of nature are that things run downhill. If yeh aren't constantly workin' to improve you're gettin' worse. This is great feedback to inspire both you and the young man to be thoughtful and reflective and improve. Beavah

LOL. Yah, TwoCubDad, I reckon if yeh take a poll at your next troop meeting, you'll discover that all of the boys do not actually sleep with their sisters at home. I'm really gettin' too subtle with my points these days! B