Beavah

Yah, I'm comin' at this from my own weird perspective, eh? I really, really, really dislike misbehaving commissioners. What yeh point out is one of da reasons a commissioner should never commission a unit where he is involved as a parent. Da roles get all mixed up. For the purpose of this bit, the fellow is a parent, not a commissioner. I personally think he should show up to troop events in civvies, not a silver tab uniform. So what yeh have in this case is a misbehaving parent tryin' to short-circuit da unit's process in order to get his own way. Or, if he really is your UC, you have a UC who has gone off da reservation and is tryin' to micromanage a unit. Either way, the response is the same, eh? Yeh thank him for his input and then file it where it belongs, with a brief reminder that it's the PLC's call. And if it gets too bad, da CC sits down with the fellow and explains expectations for adult behavior. Blue Ridge is a fine camp, and it seems like you have a fine plan, and good buy-in from da PLC and the committee. Yeh just proceed. Da folks tryin' to hijack the process will grumble and complain. Ignore 'em. If they pull out of camp, wish 'em well. They and their kid will get to listen to all the great stories about camp afterwards and wish they hadn't been so silly. And as an aside, your CC or COR should place a private call to da district or council commish, eh? We don't always know all da things our UCs are doin' out there. Some backchannel information can help us with makin' appropriate changes to how we staff da commissioner service in the next year. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... T259Eagle, I think yeh need to go back and re-read my comments in a different light, eh? Yeh asked whether we thought it was OK if you quit the SM position you agreed to serve in. Some folks answered "well, maybe..." and we all started talkin' about stuff. We weren't all talkin' to you, we were also talkin' with each other, and the conversation was goin' its merry way as all big conversations do. If yeh wanted private advice instead of public discussion, yeh can send any of us a PM. As a part of that bigger conversation, I mentioned to the group that I was lookin' at it differently and thought commitments were important things to honor. So often I see folks (kids especially) commit to one thing and then dump it as soon as they work out a better offer. And I suggested that if you did quit as Scoutmaster, it was not your business or the current Cubmaster's business to select the new Scoutmaster or Cubmaster. It goes back to the troop and pack committee to proceed as they see fit. Yeh shouldn't, mustn't do their job for them. Your only decision is whether to resign as Scoutmaster because this other fellow wants to apply for the job even though he didn't bother a week ago. In response to boomerscout who seemed to think it was OK for you to bail because you were the only nominee, I wrote a longer response, where I praised you for your good values in raising your son because of his being thrilled about and trusting of your commitment. Boys who have that kind of faith only have it because their parents have spent a lot of years and a lot of effort being faithful to them. That's rare, and it's special, and I was praising you for it. And encouragin' you to think about this decision in that light, rather than in da calculus of manipulatin' adult staffing in two units (which isn't your job anyways). Believe me, many lads would dread their dad becomin' SM, or quietly fret about it rather than publicly celebrate it. I said that in my humble opinion that honoring one's commitments is a timeless value. One that you have lived up to in your son's eyes, and should keep on with. Where yeh got all this other dross about me belittling you and all that I have no idea. I do reckon it's true that da language of my particular profession is a bit argumentative and abstruse, and even within that I'm a bit of a thickly-accented colloquial fellow . I apologize for my lack of clarity. I wish yeh the best in your decision. You now have a full range of thoughts and opinions from which to inform your mind and your heart. Whatever yeh choose, may the Great Scoutmaster grant you his Peace. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, we adults are so odd sometimes. Yeh might opt to just sit with the lads as they got out of da pond and talk about risks and use it as a moment to teach SSD. Then tell 'em to go get dry. Or if yeh want to make a bigger deal of it, yeh get with da PL and let him know how disappointed you are and then ask him what he's goin' to do about it, and observe his follow-through from a distance. Now, we don't know if there's a longer history here with this PL, so that this became da "final straw". Seems more likely da SM was tired or gettin' on his last nerve about something and this was what popped da cork. B

However this is not a boy scout outing, no tour permit filled out we approve the project simply that he can use it towards his advancement. Yah, that's an amusin' legal theory, eh? An intrepid attorney for da BSA's insurer might give that a go at trial. It would look great in da newspaper, eh? "Boy Scouts deny responsibility for Eagle Scout project, expect taxpayer to foot the bill for their negligence." or "Scoutmaster says BSA accident insurance won't cover boy working on Eagle project, family may have to sell only car to pay for treatment." I don't think it would hold water. The boy is a minor, after all. If a scouter is on site, he's goin' to be da presumed supervisor and he's goin' to get named in the suit and the BSA's insurance cover is goin' to defend and indemnify him. Tour permit doesn't matter a lick. But if some BSA fellow was floatin' that notion, you could see why da city would start demanding proof of insurance for allowing a minor to lead a project involving lots of other minors on their property. And maybe parents wouldn't let their boys participate. Remember, if you're makin' da city responsible, then the city is goin' to do what it does with other volunteers, eh? They're going to exercise their responsibility by supervising. Which means they're goin' to be on site closely directing all the boys and running things. Same with parents of other boys, eh? And then it isn't goin' to be a valid Eagle project. This really isn't hard, eh? Scouting is a partnership with da community. We give them something (service), and in return they give us something (unusually open access so that we can use our program to help boys become men). If our partner needs proof of insurance in order to be responsible to their constituents, as good partners we provide it. And to my mind as good partners we don't make spurious claims like "an Eagle Scout project is not a scouting activity". Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, SR540, I really didn't understand your speed limit reference at all, eh? The law allows some regulatory body to set a maximum speed for a stretch of roadway under a set of conditions. Citizens are then free to drive at any other speed. To paraphrase your words, since the law doesn't say a person can't go 45, going 45 must be acceptable. Actually, Bob was a "the lit is king" kind of guys. Except in this case, where da lit very clearly says that the CC does not make these decisions. Like I said, oddly out of character. I reckon there were a lot of reasons he drove folks nuts, eh? I think scoutldr and eisley have da right of this. Under ordinary circumstances, we all want things to be friendly and efficient and proceed by consensus or at least general assent. When things aren't ordinary, though, even if it's just one fellow who wants to get his way, it's nice to have formal procedures to fall back on. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Would a judge accept a claim of, "well the law didn't say my client couldn't do X, so therefore it must be acceptable"? ABSOLUTELY. When yeh live in a free society, da law is to be strictly construed. In fact, if da law is even too vague or general it will be struck down. That's what it means to be free, eh? if the lit said that a CC makes an assignment Nowhere in da BSA literature does it ever say that a CC makes an assignment. When it comes to selectin' unit leaders and committee members, OGE gave all da references that exist. And those references say that a committee, not the CC, makes the decision. It doesn't specify how the committee is to make the decision, so da only logical thing to conclude is that since the BSA makes no recommendation on how the committee should decide, it's entirely up to the committee. My guess is that ol' BobWhite was one of those "CC is King" fellows when he was a CC. Odd because he was generally on board with da literature in most other things. It's not entirely bad to have a strong CC, eh? Keeps the committee on task and protects da SM. But appointin' leaders is definitely a few steps too far. That's a big, important task, and it needs participation and "buy in" from a lot of different folks. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think we want to be honest about "a scout pays his own way" and fundraising and donations, eh? We in da BSA all recognize that it's not possible for an average scout to truly pay his own way. At least not without violating da child labor laws in most states! In da present economy, where jobs that were traditionally held by teenagers are being filled by adults, it's hard even for a good teenager to pay a portion of his real scoutin' cost, let alone an expense like Jambo. We can encourage a family to pay their son for chores, eh? But some families don't have money to do that. And other families don't believe in that - they feel chores are just part of being a family. We do run some fundraisers, eh? Like popcorn. Simple reality is that while popcorn and car washes help a bit, they're really just a fraction of da total. Every sizable NFP everywhere relies primarily on donations, not fundraisers. So we collect FOS donations to provide camp at reduced cost to all boys. Not a single scout anywhere truly pays his own way for camp. And we solicit money for camperships to pay even more for boys who can't afford it. And more money for Scoutreach in urban areas, where we even pay professional scout leaders to run units. Our troops everywhere receive discounts and donations on gear and all kinds of stuff. There is nothing dishonorable about giving to charity or boys in need. And there is nothing dishonorable about accepting scholarships to college or camp or anything else that are provided through the generosity of others. If you've been to Philmont, you didn't pay your own way. Waite Phillips paid most of it. Receiving aid or seeing your friend receive aid is one of those mustard seeds that grows into a doggone big tree when the lads grow up and "pay it forward" a hundredfold over their lifetime. Yeh can bet your shoulder loops that goin' to Philmont has caused a lot of former scouts to be similarly generous with da BSA. To my mind, not donating to charity is a sign of lack of character. And not accepting the generosity of others when a child is in need is naught more than selfish pride and ego. William862, there are all kinds of organizations and individuals that can help, eh? Individuals are always the best bet. People are the most generous donors of all in da U.S. Your CO, your local community foundation, your friends and neighbors and church, and your DE and scouting contacts in your district are all good places to start. Ask. Ask lots. It doesn't take much money to have a big impact on kids, eh? That's da magic of Scouting. With just a few generous people yeh really could get all your boys to camp. And that's a good and honorable thing to do. For uniforms, I reckon just a request to scouting families in your district will net you all you need. Start there. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

His name was the only name in the hat. He accepted because there was no-one else. Yah, dat's the way it always happens, eh? In fact, as OGE pointed out in da other thread, that's even the way its' supposed to happen. The committee identifies the best candidate, and approaches him. It's his to accept or decline. Only if the fellow declines do they move on to their second choice. T259Eagle was da only one nominated because he was the fellow everyone felt was right for the job. He accepted their offer. They have moved on to other business relying on his acceptance. His family has moved on to other business, relying on (and proud of!) his acceptance. He's made a commitment to all of 'em. I may be old fashioned, but I think a commitment is a commitment, eh? A man's word is his honor. Yeh don't renege three weeks later when yeh get a better offer. And yeh certainly don't short-circuit the committee by tryin' to shove someone else into the job who they never nominated. T259Eagle's son is right, eh? Out of da mouths of babes. He's expecting his dad's word to be his bond. I expect he learned that from watchin' how his dad has conducted himself over many years. It's the sort of lesson that a boy learns from the example of his father. And his dad agreed to be Scoutmaster. And his dad knows that others are now relying on him. And he's rightly proud of his dad for that. So da only choice his dad has is whether to live up to the commitment he's made. All the other stuff is just distraction and excuse. IMHO, anyways . Like I said, I'm an old-fashioned fellow who thinks values really are timeless. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Thanks for da clarification, OGE. What you list makes it clear, eh? There's nothin' in those references that says that there is "no voting" on the Steering Committee or Troop Committee during the unit leader selection process. All those references state is that some group of folks gets together and makes a list, then ranks the list, then selects a top candidate to go make an appointment with and to recommend to da COR. Ranking and selecting by a group of people requires a decision-making process, eh? That decision-making process is absolutely not specified in any BSA materials. It can be praying to the Holy Spirit and a spiritual call. It can be selection by lot. It can be consensus (which I personally recommend to units most of da time). It can be voting. It can even be partial abdication, and recommending three people equally and lettin' da COR choose. The BSA doesn't specify how a selection committee or any committee is to make decisions at the unit level, because there are so many different CO's and ways of doin' it. But voting is definitely one perfectly acceptable way. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, policy or not I reckon it's just reality, eh? Imagine in da adult world if some fellow shows up at the doorstep of your club or professional organization and demands to be an officer his first week. Not only is it not goin' to happen, everyone is going to think the fellow is a cad. I expect a "troop policy" in such a case is at least partly a way of saving a boy's feelings. Easier to complain about the policy and then get on with things than it is to make a very negative first impression and get shot down. And it's partly just a practical thing, eh? Every troop does stuff differently, and a new fellow needs time to learn and adapt to da new culture before he's ever going to be successful leading. I think da real issue is that adults have to get whapped upside da head every time they try to rush rank advancement on some sort of schedule, or encourage that attitude in boys. Getting comfortable and making new friends is far more important to a lad who is transferring in. Let that happen. Election to leadership and other recognitions will follow when it's time. Beavah

Beavah, do you prefer to have a wider mix if ages in patrols (as opposed to the NSP) so the older Scouts can mentor & lead the younger Scouts? Yah, I work with a lot of different troops, eh? I try not to have preferences . I think da system that works is whichever one the adults in a unit can wrap their brains around and feel invested in, and then get da kids to buy into. So I've seen lots of systems work great some places and fail in others. What I really believe is that if you're havin' lots of issues and problems and you don't like the way it "feels", you should change! Try somethin' new. And then keep tryin', until you're gettin' what you want for the boys in your program. Now I reckon there are a few general rules, eh? I think with rare exceptions that by and large an 11-year-old isn't ready to lead a group of same-age peers, and they aren't ready to accept leadership from a peer. So for NSP, success or failure really depends on the TGs and ASMs. Whether or not they have the title, they are the Patrol Leader for that gang. Some units give 'em the PL title, which I think works well. Others rotate that title among boys so they get a mini-introduction to troop operations. Some appoint an 11-year-old (da "natural" gang leader) and then groom him to be the PL when the TG moves on. Some follow da BSA bit and do elections and then try to do the same grooming thing with whoever is elected. Yeh can make any of 'em work, though I think da elections bit is the hardest. But to make 'em work, yeh really have to recognize that the TGs/Instructors (or ASM-NSP in some units) are the Patrol Leaders in everything but name. The alternative is da system the BSA used until relatively recently, where patrols were mixed-age, and older boys in each patrol were da leaders/PLC/Leadership Corps/etc. After all, a lad isn't really ready to camp on his own until he's a First Class Scout, eh? He's not goin' to be able to start leadin' until he can at least camp on his own, plan a weekend's meals and all that. Older boys as PLs in a mixed age patrol I reckon is a more "natural" thing, eh? Younger lads care about what the older boys think, and follow their lead and example. They can learn da way boys learn best - by watching and mimicking rather than by "instruction." And it helps da second year guys grow up a lot when they have younger fellows that they have to impress . Also you can really have patrol competitions, and I think patrol competitions are a grand thing for gettin' boys to really work hard. That system also has its general rules, eh? It takes some time and some forthright adult example and conversation to build da kind of "service ethic" that makes older boys care about younger boys (patrol competitions also help, since da performance of the first year fellows can make or break yeh!). If yeh don't build that service ethic, da mixed-age thing can become a hierarchy of privilege, where the older boys get all da privileges and assign all the first year boys the ugliest chores. Short step from always being assigned K.P. to outright hazing and such. If patrols get way out of balance and da "service ethic" ain't quite strong enough, this can feel like "babysitting" to da older fellows. Yeh have to work to make PLC stuff age-appropriate for older scouts (perhaps includin' some higher adventure), but yeh also have da advantage that the PLC really functions like a PLC because its members are all capable older fellows who really can run things themselves. Yeh aren't just "faking it" with 7th grade PL's da way I've seen lots of troops do. So if you're not likin' what you're gettin', kenk, try something different. Might be that mixed-age patrols with older scout PLs is an option for your unit that you should think about. Beavah

The council would not be providing the insurance the project sponsor would. This is not a boy scout project thats why you dont do it for them. Yah, actually we don't do things for the lads even if it is a full-out Boy Scout outing, eh? This is actually both, and the BSA General Liability policy definitely is in force. Remember, we approve da projects in advance, eh? Screen them for safety and age-appropriateness and all that. By that very act we expose ourselves to liability regardless of whether or not we're on the site with the lad. And if a scouter does happen to be on site with the lad, we are goin' to defend him if he's sued for it. Simple as that. In terms of da city, as I mentioned, it's routine to attach an additional insured rider for da city or whatnot. Happens all the time or we wouldn't be able to do the outings we do in a lot of places. I suppose we can get in an adult pissin' match with da city manager and blow up this lad's Eagle Project on a matter of principle, but I reckon that it's just easier to use the mechanisms the BSA provides to satisfy the city and let the boy do his project to the benefit of all. That way we get good PR for scouting, and goodwill as a partner from da cities we live in. Now if the city or other entity gets off its bureaucratic nonsense and applies some common sense and decency to da situation as well, all the better. I'm just not used to seein' that from government workers. Always safest for their employment to be a mindless bureaucratic cog. Nobody's ever likely to hold 'em accountable for quality of service. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, scoutldr, there are just lots of different types of boards, eh? Generally speakin', governmental entities are under statutory requirements to vote on budgets and expenditures and to approve public records (minutes). Similar statute and regulation applies to some corporate boards, particularly of publicly held corporations. Even in da Policy Governance model there are votes, eh? Da board votes on the selection and evaluation of the Executive, on establishing its goals, on restrictions to the executive, etc. By and large it tends to be da religious organizations and boards that don't have a culture of voting. That and smaller NFPs (which often have religious underpinnings). I think that da reason is that religious organizations can rely on folks already sharing an underlying set of goals and values and ways of doin' business. Maybe also because they de-emphasize personal ego through cultural pressure. Policy Governance is an interestin' thing, BTW. It's not a bad way of doin' business, particularly for a professional association. In my experience it unfortunately tends to come unglued da first time the Executive screws up. Also doesn't last well through board turnover since most folks comin' on aren't familiar with it and don't necessarily buy in. Yah, sorry, didn't mean to ramble . Beavah

Be aware that any Range you operate without a properly qualified operator supervising it will most likely remove you from the Insurance window and possibly place you, personally, directly in the legal line of fire if a mishap were to occur. Yah, these kinds of statements just make me feel so... Can't for da life of me figure out why so many amateurs want to go on about legalisms when there's no need. In the event you are supervising any event anywhere for anybody you will almost always be personally named in a negligence action ("directly in the legal line of fire"). Your level of trainin' is irrelevant. In fact, in some cases having more training can be a detriment. Whether or not a particular situation meets the terms of an exclusion clause in an insurance contract is the only thing which forfeits coverage (or da "insurance window"? ). The internal policies of da BSA are irrelevant. And then an awful lot depends on da facts of a particular case, eh? And da state. So this again falls into da Universal Rule #3 for Detecting a Scouting Urban Legend: If someone tells you that insurance won't cover or that you'll be personally liable, they probably are talkin' out of their hat. People who really understand this stuff don't talk like that. The reason we get training, the reason we set up safe outings has nuthin' to do with lawyers or insurers or boogeymen. We get trained, we act responsibly, we try to keep kids safe because we care about kids. That's reason enough, eh? No need to make stuff up. Crew_21's got this right, eh? Yeh get certified by takin' the requisite program at National Camp School. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm goin' to approach this from a different angle, eh? The Troop Committee and Chartered Organization have selected you to be Scoutmaster, and you agreed. You consulted with your family, and they agreed to make da adjustments and sacrifices required, and celebrated your commitment. It's not OK for you to work out somethin' different with this other fellow on the side, as though you two are the only ones who really matter. That's not your decision to make. A Scouter is Trustworthy. You volunteered to be Scoutmaster. You were selected after deliberation as Scoutmaster. You must serve as Scoutmaster, or violate their trust and not fulfill your commitment. To my mind, that's the only decision you have, eh? Runnin' around behind people's backs workin' out deals with this other guy is just not OK. There may have been reasons why folks on the committee didn't ask/nominate him that you're not privy to. And if this other fellow really cared about da job, he would have spoken up and nominated himself at the proper time. In a year, when the decision comes around again, yeh might take different counsel. But for now, your time to bow out ended when yeh didn't withdraw your name before you were selected. Quittin' now just ain't honorable. And I think yeh already recognize that it's not the example yeh want to set for your son. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

there is no voting in the BSA, well voting to "elect" adult unit positions at least. Yah, folks here keep bringin' this up. I'd love to see a reference. Of course, there is no reference, because nowhere in any literature does it ever suggest that folks at any level in the BSA should not vote. We vote to elect council board members and officers. Da council EB votes to appoint an SE or renew his contract. We vote to elect district committee members at large and district officers. We vote to elect SPLs and PLs. We vote on council budgets and district proposals and in lots of troops da PLC votes on events and other decisions. In fact, da purpose of keeping minutes of any meeting is to record votes. So of course it's OK, just fine, and ordinary procedure for unit committees and subcommittees to vote on issues, and to conduct votes to ratify decisions taken by consensus. By and large it's a good thing to vote, even if it's only voting on a recommendation. It's a lot better than units where da CC behaves like King and Emperor. The reason why the BSA materials do not specify how troop committees are to make decisions is because we have a lot of different Chartered Partners, eh? The structure of scoutin' at the unit level is really not up to the BSA, because it is the responsibility (and liability) of the chartered partner. If the BSA were to tell 'em what to do and how to do it, then the BSA would be liable, and we don't want that. It's their organization, and their unit. It's entirely true that some Chartered Organizations operate on religious governance traditions where folks may be selected by lot, or "called", or are appointed by local or area religious leaders. So the BSA is not goin' to recommend to them that they vote, eh? At the same time, lots of COs operate on governance models that value broad democracy and input. They elect their pastors, the elect their board members and CEOs, they vote on major policy decisions. It is to be expected that in their scout units, votes and elections are used regularly for similar purposes. There is absolutely nuthin' wrong with voting. In fact, in try to teach and be an example of Citizenship, there's a heck of a lot that is right about voting. If we're part of one religious/CO tradition, let's be careful not to project our own way of doin' things as the only right way, eh? Scoutin' is big and broad, and used by lots of different organizations. There are lots of right ways. And Voting is one of 'em. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nothing changes behavior quite so much as another youth - especially an older well-respected youth - telling a boy that what they did was uncool and not acceptable. Yah, this is why I've never cared for da notion of an 11-year-old Patrol Leader for a NSP, eh? Not only are yeh putting a kid who does not have the necessary skills into a role which demands those skills, you're settin' him up for failure on da social side. Eleven year olds aren't ready to "stand out" from da group, and even if they are, their peers aren't ready for it and will undermine it. Jblake's idea is a good one, but it's pretty "high-risk," eh? Takes some finesse to pull off. Introducing one or more older scout Troop Guides is a good idea, but only if yeh have one or two boys who the younger fellows really admire and who have da right personality to pull it off. You're right that young lads are "risk adverse". For that reason it often helps if yeh break 'em up so that they're working one-on-one or one-on-two with older scouts away from da rest of their peers. That way they aren't threatened by standing out from their group and can't retreat into da disruptive avoidance behavior. "Divide and conquer" has its benefits, eh? Mixed-age patrols have several benefits when dealin' with this sort of thing for a bunch of the above reasons. Yeh might think about them. They also have their own downsides, of course. I'm a bit more interested/concerned about da overall lack of attendance you report from this crowd of first-year fellows. Part of makin' NSP's work is a good ASM-NSP who has the right personality and energy level for that gang, and who goes after such lost sheep. Perhaps you don't have the right person in that ASM role? Beavah

Yah, hiya skscci, welcome to da forums, eh? Yeh didn't really provide enough info in your post to comment much on (not sure where everybody is gettin' the whole bit about building roofs... that was a different, much older post). Generally speaking, there are two different kinds of BSA-related insurance. One is accident (aka low-limits health) insurance. That is provided in some councils (usually for a $1 fee per registered person at reregistration), and is optional in others (the unit if it wants coverage has to send a check in to Health Special Risk, the insurer). That would covered registered youth, registered adults, and guests who are considering joining for medical bills for their own injury that their regular health insurance didn't cover (i.e. the deductible). It's very low-limits coverage, eh? It will handle a basic ER visit but not much else. It does not cover friends, family, etc. who come out just to help. Second is General Liability coverage, which applies to da Chartered Organization and adult leaders. That is very high limits, tiered coverage provided by multiple different insurers including a self-insured portion. It is in force automatically when a unit (re)charters. That covers only liability claims against the adult leaders and CO, eh? So it does not in any way cover the health expenses of friends, family, etc. who come out on any outing, nor does it cover them if they do something negligent which injures a troop member or third party. If they bash themselves in da finger with a hammer or back their car over someone else's kid, it's their problem, just as it would be if they weren't with da scouts. At your request, your council business manager or field director can issue you proof of (general liability) insurance if that is requested by a third party. At your request, your council business manager or field director can also have a third party listed as a named additional insured on the general liability policy, meaning that the liability coverage will extend to the city (in this case) during the activity which BSA adult leaders are supervising. Again, that's only liability, eh? It covers da city in cases where the city would be sued for negligence on the theory that they are responsible for the actions of the scouts working on their land. So if yeh drop a load of bricks on someone's car and they sue you and your church and the city, da BSA general liability policy will act as primary insurer for the lot. And contractor errors-and-omissions coverage is definitely not offered. How long it takes to get a proof of insurance certificate depends on what limits of coverage you request on da certificate. Below a certain dollar amount (used to be $500K, think it's more now) your council staff can issue a certificate immediately. Above that dollar amount, it has to go off to Regional, which is what introduces some delay. Amounts that exceed the coverage limit of the first tier insurer ($5M) take even longer. Dat's why the 30 days figure. It's well-padded to allow for delays between levels. I'm back to agreein' with FScouter, though, eh? While there's some merit to da city wanting some level of protection against a scouter being a bonehead, everyone is also workin' as volunteers on behalf of the city. The city's policies and any applicable insurance for volunteers should be in force, and da city should take responsibility for the E&O liability of any construction they authorize. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

You need to do fundraising instead of looking for handouts, else these Scouts will remain as poor as their parents when they get older. Yah, or maybe they'll actually learn that they have a chance of goin' to college, because there are generous people and schools out there who provide scholarships for good kids in need. And maybe in turn they'll learn to be generous with charity solicitations like Friends of Scouting. Are yeh a ScoutReach unit or do yeh have a Chartered Org. sponsor? If the latter, I would have a conversation with your sponsor about helpin' with boys in financial need. Beavah

Yah, there are lots and lots of ways for committees to run, eh? There is absolutely nothing wrong with voting, and nothing in the literature anywhere that says committees don't vote on issues. In some things, like recommending new MC's and unit leaders, they definitely must make a selection, and I reckon most groups make selections by votin'. It's just fine in a cub pack, and often even best, if da committee runs by consensus most of the time. BUT, there are problems with consensus, eh? Often passivity is confused for consensus, and passivity leads to opportunities for abuse. Treasurers embezzling, husband/wife teams running a pack for the benefit of their own children, all kinds of things. And a passive/consensus group often doesn't have anything in place to deal with conflict or hard decisions when they come along, where a group that at least conducts cursory votes does. So dependin' on your CO and your pack, it very much can be a democracy, and sometimes should be. Beavah

I'm always interested in hearin' folks different ways of doin' things. I was surprised and interested by SR540's troop's approach to "one big NSP", and so I figured it would be interestin' to share all of the different ways of handling new scouts. So what are the particulars of what your troop does in terms of incorporating new boys? How do they fit into patrols? For how long? Who does instruction? What's the average in terms of rank advancement? etc. What about that do you think works well for you? What do yeh feel da weaknesses are? Let's try not to critique or criticize different ways of doin' it, but questions should be welcome! Beavah

Yah, egad! There is absolutely nothing in any of the BSA materials that makes anybody a tyrant/king. That would be really a very poor understanding and use of da BSA program. Closest real-world comparison is a business model, eh? Committee is da Board of Directors, unit leader is the CEO. All are partners to achieve da corporate mission. COR is representative of da parent corporation, IH is head of da parent corporation. The BSA even uses the "board of directors" comparison in its materials. And tyrant/kings are just plain bad boardsmanship. Now the thing with Cub Packs is that by and large in most places the committee is just the group of regular volunteer parents. That makes the board of directors comparison fall apart, eh? If yeh put a bunch of customers on the board of a company, they tend to vote themselves largesse (high quality products for free!) at the expense of the company and workers. Pack turnover is so high that yeh don't tend to get the long-timer wisdom that anchors most troops. So with a pack, yeh have to find a way to work with that, eh? Loyalty to the CO is one way, in church-sponsored packs. Strong CCs or CMs is another. A spirit of consensus is another. No one right way. But da tyrant/king is definitely the wrong way almost all the time. Beavah

SR540, yeh really have a single patrol with 20 new scouts in it? That's a new one for me. Never seen anyone try that before. How does it work for yeh? Plusses and minuses that you can share? Yah, I'm all in favor of good scout leaders doin' what they need to do to make the program work in their circumstances. My point with FCFY is that yeh have to fudge it one way or the other. The thing wasn't thought out well enough, so it simply doesn't work as presented. Scouters either fudge by just ignorin' it and taking longer, or by reducing the requirements/expectations in some way. Of the two, I'd be more in favor of takin' longer to teach/earn First Class than reducin' the quality/expectations for the lads. I think reducin' the quality/expectations is far more common, though, when folks are actually focused on the FCFY bit. Thanks for pointin' to that absolutely dreadful First Class done as a school curriculum document. Always wondered where it came from. No wonder Chicago Area Council is such a mess, with so few traditional scouts. Reminds me of a fellow who once told me he encourages boys to earn Eagle as fast as they can because "after that, they can have fun!". Beavah

Yah, a person who is IH, COR, and CC? That's pretty involved, eh? Either that, or a small CO! I think folks just need to be told up front what da situation is before they become Den Leaders. Sounds like that might not have been done adequately. Most folks are pretty amicable if they know the lay of the land when they volunteer, eh? It's only when they had different expectations and then get surprised that it's an issue. Now personally, I'd also be counseling the IH/COR that he/she has to leave some room so that volunteers have "ownership" of their area, and so the group feels like a group that the organization values for its contributions and expertise. For that reason, it's good to create some boundaries and procedures, eh? This part of the budget is allocated to da DL to use as they see fit (no COR input), this part of the budget is controlled by the committee (COR input but agreement to go along with the group decision), this part of the budget is controlled by the COR directly (perhaps for camperships). Same thing with other stuff, eh? These are da CO's general expectations, these are specific CO policies we all live by, this level of thing must go to the COR for approval, this other level of thing is for the group/committee to decide, anything else is up to the CM or DL. In other words, establish some written or unwritten practices for different spheres of control so that folks feel real ownership of their area, and aren't steppin' on each other or getting hurt feelings. Beavah

Yah, KC, if yeh really want tort reform, go with a 100% government health care system and exercise sovereign immunity! I think there are some decent arguments to be made for discouragin' frivolous cases in tort law. Has to be done in a way that still protects the fellow whose doc amputates his leg instead of his appendix. Those ambulance-chasers we all complain about serve a purpose, eh? There are over 50,000 deaths in da U.S. each year that the medical industry itself attributes to medical error. If it happens to your family, yeh don't want tort reform, eh? What often gets lost in da discussion of malpractice impacts is the impacts of the billing system. Malpractice worries are attributed to a lot of "unnecessary tests". I've looked at it, and I don't think I believe it. I think da real thing driving unnecessary tests is that in our current system, docs get paid for each procedure, and each separate visit. So our current insurance scheme incentivizes lots of testing and brief visits to discuss tests. It does it so well that it's drivin' docs out of general practice (where they might want to talk to a patient) and into specialties (where they can perform lots of procedures). I think that's the bigger issue. The medical system I still don't know enough to know how to fix it. It does seem to me that there's merit to McCain's notion of moving away from employer-sponsored health insurance, eh? Make it portable for people. Make it so that health costs don't sink American manufacturers. Make it so that gold-plated health coverage is off da table in union bargaining and such. But to do that, we have to make it universal, and we have to eliminate da demographic skimming. And it sure would be nice to fix da billing issue. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)