Beavah

Yah, I'm with all da other posters, eh? The issue yeh have before you has nothing to do with advancement or rank. It's far more important. You're bein' given that rare special gift - a moment when you can teach a young man about honor and honesty that may last for his entire life and be passed along to his children and grandchildren. Don't waste it worryin' about advancement. Talk to the boy, figure out what's goin' on in his head.... and then stop it! Make da result of his poor choice at least 5 times worse than the payoff he would have gotten had he gotten away with it. If yeh don't... if the consequences are only minor... then there's no reason for him to change his behavior, eh? Since not every adult is goin' to call him on it when they should, he'll get a good payoff at least some of the time. Your disappointment, the disappointment of his brother, delayed advancement, apology, talk with parents... missing a fun event or two... whatever yeh need to do. Don't squander a wonderful chance to make a real difference in a lad's life. Beavah

When can a Unit use the Charter Organizations tax id number? Whenever the CO says it should. As the unit is really just a program of the CO's, the proper answer is "whenever it needs to" and there isn't a very good internal reason not to. We have used it in the past only to open our Unit's Checking Account at a nearby bank... Our leader mentioned that it was discouraged to use the CO's tax id because of paperwork hassles for the CO. Yah, not sure what paperwork hassles are a concern? Can't think of too many. Generally speakin', a lot of states have sales taxes which allow a NFP exemption from the tax. To my mind, not using an exemption specifically allowed by law is not being thrifty. In fact, it's being foolish, and workin' against a clear public policy of your state. So most CO's I know routinely issue sales tax exemption forms (includin' their EIN or state equivalent) for that purpose. And it would be perfectly fine and responsible for a scout volunteer to ask! Also, we found out that DL has been holding money she earned from selling Council Scout Show cards back in April. This is a different issue, but unless there are some clear (and clearly communicated) procedures bein' violated and we're talkin' a 4-figure amount, I'm inclined to agree with Gags, eh? Yeh give a gentle reminder of procedure and collect the money (or she uses it for da picnic seed money or whatever). Not time for a federal case, since you're clearly talkin' about an active and helpful volunteer. Beavah

Yah, zdlamkin8195, often far more than your degree, your first job or two determine your direction in life. Make sure this is a direction you want to go. Being a scouting professional as it's currently set up is a job in sales / solicitation (fundraising)... asking people for money. Plus administration. Plus evenings gently herding cats (scouter volunteers) to try to support a bit of program here and there. It does not include service to youth in any direct way, or outdoors stuff. In some councils, the position can be a hopeless one. Your evaluations will depend on things over which you have very little influence or control, at least in your initial years - demographic growth, goodwill of local people and volunteers, the local economy. Do not take a job in an area where those are not all positive, because it will be very frustrating and often a career dead-end. The job of your boss, the SE, is set up in a way that is fraught with conflicts of interest and can be similarly impossible. As they say, manure runs downhill, so with a mediocre or bad SE your life can really be hell. Take other DEs or staff out to lunch and talk privately about what their job and life is really like. Any hint of negative means you're probably facing a work environment that will be pretty highly dysfunctional. In a lot of ways, getting a background in the real world of business or NFP management before coming to the BSA would be a blessing for the BSA (which often doesn't live in da real world!), but being a DE is an entry-level job and we don't recruit folks with outside experience. In short: 1) Make sure you want a job in sales/volunteer relations/administration. 2) Recognize the job description is set up for failure unless you enter into a healthy district (good volunteers, strong committee, good SE, robust local economy, strong local goodwill toward scouting). 3) Know that there's a fair chance you'll be faced with hard business ethics choices. Be prepared to do the right thing, even though it may compromise your employment. Your background as a youth member may help in this, as you've met and worked with the young folks we do this for. The BSA can be a rewarding career for someone with a lot of talent who wants to stay in the NFP service world. But there are definitely more landmines than usual. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It does seem ironic to lament that one side twists facts and plays word games, and to use the same approach in making the lamentation. Yah, that was the point of that post, eh? The irony was intended, and the comment was in part self-referential. Which is why da personal slam from you was all the more out of place. B

Yah, FScouter, I'm not sure there's any need to try to get in a personal slam like that, eh? So I'll just assume you're tryin' to make a not-so-funny joke about my background. I'll cop to that background, eh? Where I come from, I mostly expect something that pretends to be "policy" to be written well... and written like policy. This is neither, which is why I reckon it generates such silliness. B

Yah, sorry, this was meant to be a spin-off thread to talk about da subject more generally, eh? Not to create a second thread on video games . Partly because I had the lightning thread in mind, where some parents really felt that it was the adults' job to bunker the kids whenever storms were predicted. So let's keep this one more general and leave da video games thing over on that other thread so people can follow! And yah, Lisabob, I agree I presented two ends of a range... in da hopes that folks would comment on where on the range they fell. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm still back to the best choice for the parents being to volunteer to help chaperone the next event, eh? I've been to a few of these videogame fests. With bleeping boxes all over da place and kids switchin' games in and out, there's no way for adults to "guarantee" anything without bein' a police state (strip searchin' lads at the door, or posting an adult guard at each game box who must decide whether the chip matches the box it's in - no boys allowed to touch chips on their own without supervision! Can't happen. So makin' the guarantee at the adult level will never work because it's not somethin' adults can guarantee. That means yeh need buy-in from the youth leaders to what many will see as a very arbitrary restriction (because they're old enough to play such games, or their family lets them because the most challenging/fun games are in the upper ratings). Buying into what seems like an arbitrary restriction is not what teenagers do best, eh? It means cashin' in on a lot of adult relationship good will, and having a really effective and responsible PLC. Not all troops have both of those. So I'm back to "best not to go there." On a parental side, I reckon if a troop offers one of these it's best to view it the way yeh view high school dances, eh? Yeh trust that there are reasonable chaperones and rules, but yeh also recognize that some kids will bring alcohol or worse, some kids will dance inappropriately or sneak out into a dark hallway to go necking or whatnot. Yeh have to trust your kid to do the right thing (or never let 'em go to a dance/grow up, I suppose). Compared to a middle school or high school dance, a troop video game night is pretty tame, eh? And both dances and game nights are always lookin' for more chaperones! Beavah

Yah, in da previous thread sheldonsmom talks about parents getting very upset with the troop leaders rather than with their son when their son played an M-rated videogame at a troop lock-in. Makes me wonder what parents think da role of adult leaders in a Boy Scouting program is, eh? One view, expressed by these parents, is that da role of adult leaders is to sanitize the environment of boys so that their son is never exposed to the slightest risk or temptation. Adults best limit video games to Mario Brothers, movies to Disney, prohibit toy guns, and shelter the whole camp in a bunker whenever there's a chance of thunderstorms (to borrow from the lightning thread and the suit against the NE camp). To protect kids at all cost. Another view is that da role of adults at Boy Scout age is to help the boys make choices about how to manage their own environment. To engage in activities that have some risk - some chance they'll be exposed to foul language, friends playing Halo, getting rained on, falling overboard and the like. Rather than protect them from such things, our role is to help them grow stronger and navigate such things and such choices themselves, with our encouragement and support. Traditionally, Boy Scouting has done the second. But we're increasingly being pushed to do the first, eh? I'm wonderin' where parents and scouters here come down? Beavah

Yah, it's tough, eh? While the adult and youth leadership blew it if they made a promise up front, one of da things that's hard these days is that the game and MPAA ratings aren't well accepted by many families. Even organizations, eh? Some PG-13 movies are awful for kids, some are just Harry Potter. Some R-rated movies are very explicit, some just have a single scene of vile language which is easily muted. Game and video makers try to "up" their rating artificially for better sales. I helped a Catholic unit tryin' to find a movie to go see. They used their own Catholic rating system. Some PG movies were rated Objectionable and some R movies were rated fine. So while for one family it may be a big deal, for another it isn't, and for different families different things can be a big deal. Makes it hard for the lads and adults to keep a consistent standard even when they're tryin'. And I confess I don't even know or understand da game rating system, nor would I be able to ID a game or most movies by sight in terms of their ratings. Best might be when the adults can view a movie or game first, eh? But even that's no guarantee. I wouldn't be too hard on the troop leaders. It's a tough thing to get right, especially if you're supposed to be monitorin' things all night and yeh have boys of different ages for whom different things are acceptable. While I appreciate what da parents are sayin', I think a better tack as a parent is to say "I understand how hard it is, so next time I will volunteer to help chaperone instead of complaining afterward." I also reckon that with Boy Scout aged boys, it seems sort of odd to me that a boy would choose to play a game he knew he wasn't supposed to would then turn around and blame others for it. As a parent, I'd be havin' a firmer conversation with my son than with da troop leaders. He knew what was up and did it anyway. Blamin' others isn't fair when he made a choice. Personally, though, my real feelin' is that it's best just not to run these events. I don't think the video-game fest really contributes much to a Scoutin' program. Rather than bringin' boys together as a team (the way lasertag does, lol!) it separates them into individuals engaged with da box. And the diversity of youth and parent opinion only makes it likely you'll get in trouble. Beavah

No it's no legend -eh?? Perhaps not. But if I remember right, you're in a small district in a small council, right? Seems like they're the only ones out there who even make the attempt. And then only rarely. Da situation with the MBC list consisting of dead people is far, far more common. I'm curious what you'd do in the case you describe, eh? A lad comes to his EBOR and says that his first aid MBC was Dr. Jones 4 years ago. Then someone on the EBOR pulls out da list of counselors from four years ago? Can't say I've ever seen anyone bring da last seven years of lists to an EBOR, but I hear new stuff every day in these forums! So you've discovered Dr. Jones wasn't on the list. Then what? You're goin' to deny a fine Eagle candidate because of some adult paperwork snafu? Me, I've seen those blue cards, eh? I'm lucky if I can read one signature out of three. I can't imagine a "Dean of MBs" or anybody else sittin' around tryin' to decipher 'em and compare them against years-old lists, only to try to trip up a lad coming for an EBOR. Especially when out-of-district, jambo, camps and units that don't use blue cards and whatnot are all thrown in too, and they won't be on your district list. But to each his own. Beavah

Having people who are not approved and o the District MBC List, does have the potential of maybe causing problems at a later date. I'm think of when a Lad makes his Eagle Scout Application. Yah, I reckon this is one of those silly Scoutin' urban legends, eh? When a council registrar signs off on an Eagle application, all he/she does is check the app against the ScoutNet records (and advancement report forms when ScoutNet loses stuff, as it usually does). There's no record of da name of the counselor or whether the counselor was registered, so there's no way to check. Now the council or district can check if they demand a merit badge app be turned in with the advancement report before it gets entered into ScoutNet, eh? Problem is blue cards are not required, so what a unit or camp uses for a merit badge app is goin' to be different. And then I'm not sure how the council is supposed to check a scrawled signature, or a badge from an out-of-council camp or outfitter, eh? And those are certainly allowed. Happen all the time. Yah, I've seen a few districts try to do this. They almost always give up after a few months. Ain't worth the time or effort. So really, the one and only place verification of a MB counselor happens is at da unit level. Like almost everything in Scoutin', whether advancement is used effectively or not really just depends on the local folks and the guy or gal wearin' the SM hat. That's as it should be. Stick by your guns, coastal. The SM decides on the MB counselor and on whether a lad is ready to take a MB at all. Many fine scoutmasters out there won't endorse "Merit Badge University" work or other stuff that really is contrary to BSA policy and common sense. Use parents when yeh have to and when they really are the best available for the badge, but otherwise give the lads the real experience of seeking out an expert who isn't mom or dad. Cub scouts is over, eh? Beavah

Yah, depends on da river, eh? I know that the protocols for many of the whitewater guide companies are to stay on the river and away from shore. Rivers are about the lowest spot around, eh? Especially when you're in a rubber raft or plastic kayak. Safer than gettin' out on shore. I read through a lot of stuff after that odd boy scout lightning fatality out east with da lawsuit and settlement. Close as I could tell the rule should be do what's obvious... 1) If there's a hardened grounded structure around, go in it. 2) If you're the tallest thing around, be somewhere else. 3) If you're next to the tallest thing around (or a long conductor), be somewhere else. 4) If you can't be somewhere else, spread out, crouch down. Beyond that, it ain't worth worrying about. The rest is just part of da background risk of being in the outdoors. Close as I can tell, all the other advice is either false, unverified, or useless. The 45 degree cone of protection thing doesn't work, lightning can come well in advance of rain or thunder (the bolt that got the scout originated 18 miles away), it does somethin' fairly close to a random walk. Beavah

Too much paperwork? I'm with nolesrule, eh? That's just silly. How hard is it for an advancement chair to file one piece of paper a month? I think you've got da outlines of a good plan, eh? If you've got that many adults and the adults tend to hang around at meetings anyways, put 'em to work doin' BORs to keep 'em out of the kids' hair at the meetings. Try to move it to once a month so that your sticks-in-the-mud can get used to da idea, but then I'd go all the way to "on demand" (once a week) eh? You've got da people for it. Beavah

Yah, evmori, you are usin' an old copy of G2SS there, eh? Da policy changed last year. Yeh have to keep current, new pages get added every year! The rules are what DeanRx posted: Pointing any type of firearm or SIMULATED FIREARM at any individual is unauthorized. Personally, as someone familiar with firearms, I don't think super soakers, lasertag guns, or paintball toys look a thing like 'em, eh? But they do look a lot like each other. Space-age toy gun hooked up to a pack or reservoir. So if a lasertag toy is a "simulated firearm", so is a supersoaker. And there are plenty of other squirtguns, suction cup dart guns and the like that fit the bill too. Or we can use Lisabob's "it's not mentioned specifically" interpretation and say airsoft guns (which really do look like firearms) are OK. This to my mind is all just adults tryin' to twist things around and play word games. I'm with Eagledad, eh? If a kid reads this thread and just rolls his eyes at the silly justifications we have to come up with for prohibiting a safe activity, then we adults should be laughin' not arguing about "trustworthiness." Like I said, our membership, youth and adult, have already voted with their feet on this issue. More kids play paintball regularly than are in Scouting. The sport has grown 17% per year among our demographic while we've been static or shrinkin'. Every laser tag place advertises specials for cub scout and boy scout units and they get lots of takers. Not to mention both paintball and lasertag have a vastly better safety record than Scouting does, eh? Beavah

That is NOT the question. Nor, as far as I can tell, are super soakers a question in any sort of serious way. Yah, not for anybody with an ounce of reason, eh? But as DeanRx explains, da plain language of the policy is clear, and I reckon that the intent is the same. No pointin' a gun-like anything, squirt or otherwise, at a human. Unless it's a real firearm or cannon, and yeh sorta point over their head while being jostled and runnin' around a field in period costume. Problem is just that we didn't start up enough paintball and lasertag troops and crews fast enough. The key is to get a lot of units in place before someone tries to prohibit somethin', and then yeh can wave the numbers flag. Beavah

Hi Hint, The answer to your question is that there is no BSA policy that requires a unit to schedule a BOR to fit the scout's schedule, and expecting a unit to do that is pretty discourteous. There is also no BSA policy which prevents a unit from holding BOR's only monthly, or even quarterly. Yah, that havin' been said, the general intent of da program is to allow boys to advance at their own pace, eh? So if they have the adults to do it, most units either schedule BORs as needed or they do a monthly gig. That's what most of us would encourage. Remember, your son is askin' other people for the generous gift of their time, eh? Time away from their own family to do somethin' nice for your boy. That's not something that you (or the BSA) can demand from 'em. Most people have a finite time they can give to scoutin'. Sometimes a unit schedules BORs because their committee members are doin' other things in the meantime (you know, like plannin' Eagle BORs or maintaining equipment or makin' arrangements for those outings your son goes on . So best bet is to ask nicely and be generous in your thanks (you and your son did write all those Eagle BOR members thank you notes, right? Your son did write his last specially scheduled palm BOR members thank you notes, right?). By bein' courteous and thanking people, you're far more likely to get 'em to think differently about the scheduling than if you start wavin' "BSA Policy" at 'em, fictional or otherwise. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... I can't for da life of me figure out what da CSE has to do with this. I suppose yeh can write your congressman and complain too, eh? Seems like the October disciplinary incident was a pretty big deal if some adult leaders were so disgusted by the lad's behavior that they considered quittin' scouting. We had that hint with da fact it triggered an immediate disciplinary meetin' with da parents. I reckon that sort of incident is a real Scout Spirit issue, and lack of follow through after the meeting with the boy and his parents would be a serious thing. Goin' forward, it seems pretty clear that da core of the issue is that the boy is being perceived as a smart-aleck who doesn't take responsibility (either for his negative behaviors or for helpin' the troop in positive ways). Da troop's expectations have been well-communicated, and their disciplinary responses and expectations fairly well documented. Succeeding on an appeal when the reason for denial is disciplinary/behavioral is much harder, eh? I think if he's goin' to be successful in an appeal, your son needs to overcome folk's perceptions of him. That's hard, eh? Might not be possible. But I'd suggest avoidin' some traps at least: 1) Don't imply that there's somethin' wrong with the SM for not hunting your son down for a meeting the way teachers do at school. Teachers are paid to be in the same buildin' with the lad 8 hours a day. The SM isn't paid, and sees your son about once every three weeks, perhaps less (based on his attendance figures). 2) Similarly, things like an adult usin' the S-word when boys woke him and a neighboring campsite up at 2am, or an adult playin' the radio loud in his car so as to help stay alert while drivin' (or not to listen to the boys' chatter) are trivial. By makin' them an issue you and your son look petty and argumentative. 3) It's not OK for a lad during a disciplinary incident to blow the adult off and walk away. No matter how "politely" he told the ASM that he wasn't going to listen to him any more, his actions spoke louder than his words. Most scout leaders would be on da phone with you at 3am telling you to come get your kid. As it is, the troop responded with a mandatory parent meeting on a disciplinary issue, as they should. Your son needs to take responsibility for that poor choice. 4) For older scouts who are leaders in the troop, responsibility goes beyond what they did personally. If you're with a bunch of lads who are smokin' weed, the argument that "I wasn't smokin' weed personally!" doesn't really matter. Same if you're an older boy in a tent that's disturbin' the whole area at night. A Patrol Leader is responsible for da actions of his patrol. An older scout is responsible for da actions of younger guys in his tent. Da point is not whether or not your son was being loud at night, the point is that he didn't take responsibility for the group. And still isn't takin' responsibility. That's somethin' he needs to address (or learn!). Some day when he's a manager in his job, he's goin' to have to take responsibility for his division, including the actions of his subordinates. I don't see the percentage attendance figures as bein' an issue in this case the way the others do. There's no evidence to suggest the troop is usin' a strict percentage cutoff for "active." Rather, your son's poor attendance is just more evidence that he isn't contributing to the troop as a good member or takin' responsibility. That's allowed. If a troop expects youth leaders to be there most of the time, and communicates that expectation clearly, then a lad who shows up only occasionally really is showin' lack of commitment, eh? It's da lack of commitment that's a Scout Spirit issue. Especially after a disciplinary incident and a letter outlinin' what he needs to do to improve. Scoutin' is a funny place sometimes, eh? Sometimes lads who do well in a highly structured environment like school become a bit edgy in the less structured environment of scoutin'. Based on what you've told us here, I would support da troop on the Scout Spirit issue, especially if your son's attitude mirrors your own. My advice would be that goin' forward to a council appeal, you stay away. Send your husband . And your boy should be ready to take responsibility for his attitude, for his effect on other scouts, and for the actions of those for whom he should be responsible. If he does that and means it, includin' admitting his earlier attitude and mistakes, that's good Scout Spirit. And that might be what convinces a council advancement committee to go his way, eh? This case is a bit on da edge, because there's some adult attitude and overreaction too. As the other posters show, we tend to be harder on fellow scouters than on kids. Scouters tend to give da lads every benefit of the doubt. Your son needs to take away the reasons to be lookin' at him instead of at the troop's actions. He does that by takin' responsibility without excuses or qualifications. That earns him the benefit of the doubt. Leastways, that's my opinion as BadenP's "all knowing expert" Or at least long-winded goof! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

A (Council) Scout Executive can be fired, reassigned or put on the promotion list by the Professional Scouter above him or her. Nah. Not legally anyways. Councils are separately incorporated entities in the several states. The BSA has no legal way of firin' or reassignin' an SE over the objections of the council executive board. More importantly, if da regional staff really assumed responsibility for da supervision and termination of council scout executives, that would jeopardize the BSA's risk management program. Any attorney worth his or her salt would use that as evidence that the BSA should be responsible for da acts of the SE and those he supervises. In da case of a serial molestation, that would blow through our insurance cover and jeopardize the national council and its properties. As to "being put on the promotion list," that bit is sorta true, eh? But that puts an SE in an awful conflict of interest. An organization that should live by da Oath and Law and Timeless Values should do its utmost to avoid such ethical conflicts. To bring this back around to da original posting, this really is an example of how we need to improve our trainin' and service-minded orientation at the district, council, and national levels, eh? Nobody who comes into a position at those levels who is thinkin' it's a "chain of command" that they're in charge of is ever goin' to do Scouting a lick of good. They're all member or customer service jobs, eh? To do the job right, we don't "command", we serve. Beavah

Yah, slow day. I wasn't really watchin' this thread. Thunderfox, NeilLup's got da right of it, eh? There's no BSA chain of command, or top-down anything. We're a bottom-up organizational structure. Closest example is a NFP Association, which is da law we fall under in most states. A district executive does report to a council Scout Executive, but a council Scout Executive reports to da council Executive Board who hired (and can fire) him. The council Executive Board reports to da council members (COs and at-large), not to the BSA. That pattern, as you say, gets repeated at the national level, where national staff report to the CSE, the CSE reports to the national executive board who hired (and can fire) him, and the executive board reports to da national members (councils). What you describe I know gets talked about sometimes among execs and in executive trainin', but it's incorrect. A Scout Executive owes his full faith and allegiance to his local council executive board, and anything other than a support or advisory role from executives at region/national would be an unethical conflict of interest. It's like a Chamber of Commerce, eh? A business executive might use resources and trainin' from the Chamber to help his business, but he doesn't report to da Chamber, he reports to his company's directors. This is more important than nomenclature, eh? This is central to our organizational structure, our risk management, and our ethics/Timeless Values in our business operations. Beavah

The real issue is that we shouldn't be encouraging people to willfully violate the G2SS Yah, I don't reckon anybody has been advocatin' "willfull encouragement" or anything like that. My point is just that this is a prohibition that is roundly ignored by many or most units conductin' official events. Seriously, how many of our units have really prohibited all "simulated firearms" since that additional restriction was added last year? By comparison, folks runnin' an unofficial or non-scouting activity are at least tryin' to comply with the intent, eh? They're tellin' everyone that this isn't an authorized BSA event. That's not "wink, wink" anything, that's a straightforward and honest statement. BSA doesn't allow this, but a bunch of us are going as a non-BSA activity and you're welcome to join. Can't for da life of me figure out why anyone who objects to this sort of thing wouldn't welcome that. The safety/lawyer thing is only a side opinion of mine that I think is secondary to the real issue. I only mentioned it to address some of the "cover your butt" type comments. Yah, and that's part of da problem, eh? We seem to have a lot of people doin' that. Sayin' that someone's lasertag business is unsafe or that people who patronize the business are exposin' themselves to legal risk is just not in keepin' with da Oath and Law. On reflection, I reckon we'd all agree that's a much worse thing than lettin' kids play with toy guns. ------ Honestly, the real issue here is that someone has hijacked da BSA process. We all know that the vast majority of our units and COs feel the restriction is silly, and we know that H&S does too. So both da BSA membership and the safety experts are in agreement. Only reason the restriction is still in place is that someone is acting inappropriately. That's what's causin' the tension and where da real problem lies. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Who's telling them it's unsafe? You're kiddin', right? Didn't yeh just a few posts back imply all kinds of personal risk and worries about "personal injury lawyers" and whatnot? G2SS is supposed to be a safety document, eh? And da lasertag bit is sittin' right there in the section that prohibits things like exploring abandoned mines. I'm with packsaddle, eh? On most things, I believe in local option. There are some units that are just fine runnin' their own climbing activities, and some units who don't have that kind of capacity. But we don't prohibit climbin'. There are some units that are capable of doin' unit whitewater activities and others that aren't, but we don't prohibit whitewater. Both of those are way more dangerous than paintball or lasertag. Same thing if it's not safety but just PR. There are some communities where hunting is viewed in a bad light and others where it isn't, but we still allow huntin' in da Venturing program. So I'm happy to support a Quaker unit that adopts our current G2SS policy prohibiting all toy guns. That's just not da same thing as tellin' tens of thousands of separately incorporated entities that they should act like Quakers. And I reckon as citizens we should remember that our choices have real effects on da lives and livelihood of our friends and neighbors. Beavah

Yah, there's no restriction on sailplanes. Sailplanes are not in the same class of aircraft as hang gliders, ultralights, experimental, or hot-air balloons. It can be a fine activity for older scouts or Venturers. For da scouts, try to combine it with Weather and Aviation MB's. Beavah

Da language was deliberate, eh? We are tellin' kids and families that it's an unsafe activity for their kids to participate in. That if their kids go to such a thing they'll be personally exposed to unusual legal risk. That's worse than a boycott, eh? It's defamation. Both unethical and dishonest. To my mind, that's the principle reason why these prohibitions are bad, eh? We do real harm to good people by spreadin' false information. Beavah

Yah, I agree with highcountry and like his idea, eh? Just encourage the youth to run the event on their own. It's a nice approach, eh? Perhaps da best for da circumstances. They get all the benefits of youth leadership and scouting without doin' scouting! But wait a minute... is that what we really want? And we wonder why they leave. Nuthin' wrong with my communications skills there Lisabob. Those ain't my units. I learned years ago that I work better with da Boy Scout and Venturing units, so that's who I spend my time with. Got another fellow who coordinates cub stuff. Frankly, I don't think much of commishes who try to help all three programs. They're way too different to be able to do a good job that way. Communicatin' is one thing, choosin' battles is another. Can't say the squirtgun fight is a battle I choose to fight. My rule is that if yeh can't say it with a straight face, it's best left unsaid. And I've stood next to DDs, FD's and SE's who have similarly chosen not to deal with it. Since it isn't a safety issue and it's at best a peripheral program issue, it just ain't worth spendin' time on. At least one of da local lasertag spots is also a good FOS contributor. And a nice family who doesn't really deserve bein' boycotted by us. Beavah

Yah, hey climberslacker. Welcome to da forums, eh! I understand that you're one of the important people not one of us silly old scouters! Yah, good, we get borin' after a while . And we're here to help. I think you're runnin' into the same thing we adults eventually learn, eh? Just because we've told somebody something doesn't mean that they listened, or understood, or care! "Telling" by itself - even good theatrical telling - doesn't really get us very far. So my question to yeh back is what can you do that doesn't involve "telling?" Demonstrate or help 'em sew? Take digital photos to show 'em they look bad (or good)? Have patrol competitions or such that involve proper uniformin' as a component, so they lose points or somethin' else they want, and start to make da connection? Have them do a uniform inspection on the older scouts or adults, so they think it's fun and learn at da same time? Find the young fellow who at least makes an effort and give him a lot of positive older scout attention so the others start to get the hint that the uniform makes you part of da cool guys? Be creative, eh!! Only thing you're not allowed to do is to yell at 'em or give 'em a lecture or anything else that has to do with "telling." Beavah