Beavah

Yah, one of da things I've noticed is that da folks who are plugged into various online communities like this one are the only folks who are either aware of the lasertag/paintball/toy gun bans or actually take 'em seriously. Outside of our small groups, these activities are goin' on regularly. Last month I was browsin' around cub pack websites in our council and a neighborin' council. Believe it or not, almost every single pack calendar which was posted (not all of 'em posted calendars for public view) listed a lasertag event. Many added other "simulated firearm" activities like squirt gun wars. Da rank and file aren't dumb, they're makin' their own choices about safety and values, and nobody has any interest in enforcin' this stuff. To my mind, we just look foolish raisin' this as an issue. And the more we look foolish, the less likely folks are goin' to pay attention when we have real advice about safety and program. I can't be effective talkin' to a troop to encourage trainin' or better use of advancement if their first reaction is "Oh, no, here comes that anti-gun idiot who thinks laser tag is the same as promoting Columbine." Beavah

Plus if anything happens, you are on your own. Yah, so what? Same as havin' a birthday party or a barbeque at your house, eh? You're "on your own". Fact is, it's probably better if yeh have an event at da local paintball or lasertag outfit. They provide supervision and have insurance. Beavah

Yah, SPL229, welcome to da forums, eh! Can you tell us a bit more about what the two methods are? What the current method is for patrols that the committee and SM put in place (roughly how each patrol is made up, how new boys join patrols, how the PLC is made up, how youth leaders are selected) and what the method you're proposing is like? Also, do yeh know what problem the committee was tryin' to solve when they "blew up patrols"? There are dozens of different ways of thinkin' about patrols in the BSA, and troops that use all of 'em successfully. Lots of different "right ways" of doin' things out there. You've only been in scouts for 4 years in one troop so you've only seen one way so far, and you've naturally become used to that way and personally successful with it. Dat's why you're SPL, eh? We never like to change things when we're comfortable and successful. So I'd be thoughtful about whether you're just resistin' what might be an OK change just because you're actin' like an old person who doesn't want to see anything change. Most scoutmasters will tell you that da youth leaders are the ones who are most resistant to new ideas and new things. That doesn't mean that the committee shouldn't have involved yeh in the discussion and process, eh? That's a lesson for you for your future life - you need to get "buy in" from people before you make big changes. So while their new idea might be a good thing and worth givin' some time to work, their way of going about it might not have been the best. My guess is that if yeh sit down with your SM and listen closely to what he and the committee were tryin' to accomplish, and give up da notion of doin' things the same way just because that's how you've always done 'em, that you'll be able to come up with a compromise or a "third option." Do tell us, though, what the details are, and we'll comment some more! Beavah

Yah, hmmm. Messy. Some times I really think we need a unit of trainin' for DACs on how to navigate all these shoals. Is your current DAC just gettin' tired/bored with the work? Distracted by other things in life? It happens. That might be why it seems the appeal is bein' taken up in a different district. Could be yeh don't have a functioning district advancement committee at all. I think you've got the right of it. Before yeh take over the DAC this summer you want to have a sit-down with him/her and go over all the outstanding cases and whether yeh actually have a committee. Figure out the lay of the land before you agree to wade into a mess with no support. B

Yah, it may just be that the SM didn't think the CC should be doin' it without prior approval, but had to give the lad an excuse that didn't make the CC look bad. I reckon there's some merit in makin' sure the people doin' swim checks have some background and experience in aquatics, eh? Especially if the swim checks are bein' relied on as part of da safety for other aquatics events. No requirement for BSA Lifeguard, but nuthin' wrong with a unit or SM expecting that. That's what we require at camps for the swimmer classification, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Based on this it would seem reasonable to send the application on to council for processing by the to be convened BOR. Yah, the part of this that you're missin' is that the council is not who convenes boards of review. The council office is where the administrative staff and executive staff work, but advancement reviews are a volunteer function that isn't performed by those folks, eh? I have no idea what da council staff would do with an incomplete Eagle app with no letter attached, and every reason to expect it would take 'em a while to figure out what it meant and follow-up. It sounds like they've set up some sort of means of addressin' the issue and hearing an appeal. So my completely uninformed guess would be that they're considering whether to overrule the unit and proceed to schedule a BOR. I'd expect the lad to show up in uniform and make his case why they should do that. If they choose to do that, though, it's still goin' to get held up because of the need for permission from National to hold the BOR. Like extensions of time, those are fairly rare birds usually granted only do to circumstances way beyond the scout's control. So it might just be over, eh? Either way, I think yeh need to be a bit circumspect as a scouter from another unit gettin' mixed up in things. Better to simply encourage her to call and speak with your DAC directly. Beavah

Those recommendations decide whether or not the Scout has fulfilled the requirement not Unit Leadership. Nah, that's incorrect. Yeh can't be a fine fellow at school and a foul-mouthed bully in your troop and expect to earn Eagle. Those outside recommendations along with the SM's and TC's recommendations determine whether or not the scout has fulfilled the requirement. That's why there's a specific appeal procedure for cases like this where the SM or unit leadership choose not to endorse an application. It's also why the requirement doesn't say "outside of scouting" the way it does for the Eagle project, eh? It's just that we don't need to get separate recommendations from the unit leadership because in most cases we have their endorsement already on da application. That six month period could have been immediately after the Scout earned Life YEARS ago. Yah, I reckon that's why I was interested in da answers to NeilLup's questions, eh? I think it's really hard to determine from afar whether da inconsistency in reasons is real or is a factor of mdsummer's reportin'. I think Twocubdad's insights are right, the adults are likely to be makin' the best case for their position they can. As is mdsummer and her boy (to the point of collecting information and arguments from all of us!). Dat's just the nature of disputes. For my part, I'd be loath to turn rank appeals into legal proceedings with opposing counsel. That to my mind is just adult malarkey. Every appeal I've been a part of has involved good folks on the committee who were lookin' for the truth and the right thing to do. Dat's the way it should be for a youth program, eh? We've got enough of attorneys and lawyering in da adult world without bringin' that into scouts or little league or whatnot. Anyways, mdsummer, your next appeal is to the council advancement committee. Sounds like you're settin' that up. Same routine, be polite, be respectful, address the concerns not da personalities. You can attend with your son. National won't accept an appeal except after da council advancement committee has ruled, so there's no short-circuiting the process. And council folks are a bit more remote and objective, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hi jark. We seem to be havin' a rash of these lately . Or maybe it's just that da other thread on this has gone on so long. Proper procedure when da SM refuses to sign is for the boy to appeal to the Troop Committee. That should not be just da CC, it should be the committee. If they deny the appeal, they should give their reasons in writing and tell the lad how to appeal to the district advancement committee. That's generally done by calling the district advancement chair and requesting an appeal. Just sending an incomplete application to da council administrative offices is a surefire way to have it get lost, because da folks who open the mail aren't part of the process and aren't goin' to be able to figure out what to do with an incomplete application. So unfortunately, I think yeh didn't give 'em da best advice. It sounds like there's something goin' on in terms of a district or council-level appeal. So the lad should show up to that! Since the boy is now outside da 180 day window past his 18th birthday, he does need permission from National to even sit a BOR, even if da appeal is approved. Might very well be that his Eagle quest is over, and it's time to just move on to college. B

Yah, Smithgall, welcome to da forums! All da rest of the folks have given yeh the answer, eh? There shouldn't be any dispute in your program. What the SM says goes. The Scoutmaster and the people the scoutmaster designates (youth or adults) are the ones who can "sign off." So "any official" would be incorrect. Supposed to be that way even at camp, eh? Camp staff should not sign T-2-1 requirements. They're there to teach those things, but it's up to da SM and his designees to sign off. A SM can take the word of da Aquatics staff (and almost everybody does) but he's not obligated to. Beavah

Yah, in da parent thread nolesrule was talkin' about meetings and what percentages of a boy's life are spent in scoutin'. It sounded like a fun puzzle to share in a less serious thread. Let's take an active troop and an active lad. 48 meetings a year at 90 minutes = 72 hours. Ten weekend 2-day campouts at 48 hours each = 480 hours. Summer camp for six days = 144 hours. PLC meetings for an hour once a month, plus a one-day planning conference/TLT = 24 hours. Four Courts of Honor = 8 hours. Say four merit badges earned outside of camp, 10-20 hours each, call it 60 total hours. Packing and unpacking for events, buyin' food, sewin' patches, planning activities or doin' POR roles... gotta figure 100 hours or so at a minimum. Add in a couple of days of fundraisin'. Gets me to 904 hours out of 8760 in a year. About 10% of a boy's life. If yeh correct for sleep time of 8 hours per day so we only look at waking hours, I get 696 / 5840 or about 12%. Toss in a one-week high adventure trip with prep trips/meetings and we are up to 15 or 16%. When yeh consider some of da "very active" troops and da hyperactive scouts who are involved in OA and such, we creep up even higher. Dat's a lot of time da kids are investing in our program, eh? My guess is an average troop dwarfs most other extracurriculars. Take a season of a sport. Three months worth of weekday practices for a couple of hours, plus a game a week get us about 4.5%. Seat time in school, not countin' homework, is around 21% includin' lunch. A very active lad in an active troop can probably be givin' as much time to scouting as school. Any way we count it, da lads are givin' us a major investment of their time and energy, eh? We should always remember to honor their investment by givin' 'em the best program we possibly can! Beavah

If they are not meeting the SM's definition of Scout Spirit by way of "actively serving", then WHY keep them on the roster? I reckon because advancement and the advancement requirements are only one method out of eight. We don't remove kids from da program for not meeting the advancement requirements for a rank. A lad can be gettin' somethin' out of other aspects of the program which may be beneficial, even if he isn't advancing. Right now, I know one troop that's dealin' with a lad from a single-parent family, very insecure, spotty attendance, a bit disruptive. Lad is dealin' with a lot of issues and growin' up. He's not makin' any real progress in advancement, but I don't reckon they should drop him from the roster. In terms of membership, most scouters I know bend over backwards to try to keep reachin' out to a kid, encouraging, keepin' a light on and the door open. In this case, though, they're not spinnin' it on "active", but on Scout Spirit, eh? As in he hasn't been "a role model to his peers", hasn't "brought out the best in others", hasn't met his obligations as a member, etc. within da part of his life that is in the Scouting program. A mix of behavioral issues, attitude, and lack of commitment as close as we can garner from what's been reported. And I think we can all agree that da Scouting program is and should be a significant part of the life of an Eagle Scout, not less than 1%. All of da Eagles I know consider scouting to be a major part of their life growin' up. Da troop has been the model of proper procedure throughout da appeals process and mdsummer reports that the SM has a high level of training, so I don't think we have a case of not understandin' the system where a book quote can help. I think there's a genuine difference of opinion on substantive matters between people of good will. And I'd never try to assess Scout Spirit from a keyboard listenin' to only one side. So all we can do is give some advice and direction to mdsummer, eh? While respectin' our fellow scouters. Sometimes when yeh get above a group of more closeknit folks at da district level yeh gain some perspective. That's what da appeals process to the council advancement committee is for. I'm still curious about da answers to NeilLup's questions myself . Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Pardon me if I misunderstood, but I thought National had defined "active" for us. Yah, it has, eh? Dat's the one I was paraphrasing from the Rules and Regulations: An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age. That's the official definition, eh? The one we all agreed to live by and uphold when we signed our adult leader applications. Beavah

Someone really must have an axe to grind. At this point, it's an awful lot of "someones", eh? SM, Troop Committee, District Advancement Committee. Might just be that we don't have da whole story. Unless his registration lapsed then there should be no question. Yah, I reckon most scouters feel differently, eh? That may be da Boy Scouting program office's approach for expedience' sake, but I reckon most of da rest of us take a closer look at da situation and try to determine whether a lad's level of activity and contribution to his unit really merits recognition with our highest award. Benefit of da doubt goes to the boy, but sometimes there's not that much doubt. Registration gets yeh a membership card (and a magazine if yeh want). Obligating yourself to attend the meetings regularly, fulfilling your obligations to the unit as a regular member, and participatin' in the program in line with da Oath and Law ... that's what makes yeh active. Droppin' da registration of boys is certainly an unambiguous way to deal with things, but I reckon most troops keep 'em on rather than pull da trigger. Yah, and most councils prefer that they keep 'em on da rolls too, eh? ------- To my mind, the weird thing in this case is how da adults' stories seem to be shifting a lot. Can't tell if that's mdsummer's understanding and reporting shifting, or whether it's genuine. Adult stories shifting is when I figure the benefit of the doubt should apply to the lad. Da current message seems to be the lad faded out and was presumed gone, then jumped back in as a deathbed Eagle... perhaps as one of those back-of-the-room disruptive fellows with a bit of a smart-aleck attitude that got him no sympathy. Or a bright kid who was playin' things a bit fast and loose and got to be a burr under some adult's saddle dat is still sore. I'm just not sure that's da same message that we were gettin' earlier. Mdsummer, your son has decided to appeal to the Council Advancement Committee, I take it? Has that been scheduled yet? Please keep da group informed. Yah, and it would be nice to know the answers to NeilLup's questions, eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

This suggestion has been made by a couple of the boys in the dynamite patrol and I think it's a pretty good one. A couple of those guys that are fighting over leadership would actually make good PLs once they had the position, some more training, and got separated. Yah, so if da lads have suggested it and you think it's a good idea, what are yeh waiting for? An engraved approval from the Founder? What to the current TG's think of the notion? I reckon if they like it, you should go for it. Eagledad talks pretty accurately about this, I reckon. Young guys age 10/11/12 or so are lookin' to figure things out and be a part of da gang. As they get older, they are lookin' to stand out and be recognized. The "natural" thing for boys is often to give da older ones responsibility where they can stand out, and da younger ones a chance to be a part of somethin' without standing out. Those dynamite guys I bet feel like they're the ones "in the know", the old-timers in your troop. They want and need to be the ones in charge and bringin' the younger ones up. As PL/APLs of the other patrols, they'll still get together with their dynamite buddies on da PLC. Your alternative would be makin' a 5th grader a PL? Forcin' him to stand out and take up all da slack of a departing Troop Guide without anywhere near that Troop Guide's experience, eh? Only way to make that work is to plop an adult into each NSP to coach and support. Or to break up da dynamites and put 'em in TG positions with the young fellows anyway temporarily? So just when they get it figured out and are bein' responsible and the young lads trust 'em you break it up in favor of goin' back to dysfunctional dynamites? Beavah

Cancelin' events because of possible snow and ice on da roads? Southerners should really learn how to drive, eh? Yah, good example of da need to look at the experience of da whole group. It's necessary to tailor the decisions based on that, eh? With drivers not used to snow & ice, yeh have to back down even if one or two drivers are just fine with it. With kids who aren't trained/experienced enough to handle things on their own, yeh have to back down even if da adults themselves are fine with da canoe trip. B

Yah, this is interestin', eh? Kind of a funny departure from da other thread where everyone was sayin' the SM should make the decision for da group. Which is it, I wonder? I've seen this play out in both directions, eh? I've seen frightened parents with zero real experience try to hold groups hostage whenever they got scared (by thunder, or temps below freezing, or whatever). "Personal veto" can be a real danger to everyone if a parent or two and a few kids "go rogue". There's a reason why mutiny in times of war is punishable by death. And I've seen SMs with too little experience launch into conditions where discretion should have been the better part of valor. I think for scenario (1) I would just go along. Da fact that I have concerns about an activity later in the day ain't really relevant. I'd share my concerns, but until the group got there and looked at the actual conditions, I only have suspicions, eh? And I agreed to offer support, and that includes drivin' and being available when they consider alternates. I think for scenario (2a) I'd share my concerns and listen to da other parties. It may well be that I don't have the same knowledge or experience as da other folks. From there, it just depends, eh? Consensus is best, but I think I'd defer to those with more experience, and defer to a designated leader if I had equal experience and it was a judgment call. Only spot that gets tricky is when yeh truly have more experience but aren't da designated leader. I think for (2b), da option to just help with transport for the day is a good one if my safety concern is primarily for myself. Hey, can't deny it, I'm gettin' up in years! That's a challenge-by-choice sorta thing, and if I personally don't feel up to it I bow out. If it's I'm more concerned about da group and OK myself, then I reckon I'd still go along to do what I could to keep da group out of trouble or run a rescue if I had to. B

Can someone really tell me how the permit realistically makes us safer? Well, if yeh get attacked by a rogue horde of bureaucrats, you'll have had practice fending 'em off! Tour permits are primarily a service to da BSA, not to the unit. Helps us compile statistics, lets us know what's goin' on, gives us a chance to dodge any particularly odd liability risk or PR nightmare. So if you show up in da news and we start gettin' phonecalls for comments, we at least have some clue! Beavah

Yah... In some border states/councils it's OK to travel to Canada with just a local tour permit, eh? This is set up on an individual basis with councils where lots of cross-border travel is common and da regional office doesn't want to get flooded with weekend cross-border camporee permits. But yeh do need to have parent permission forms to cross da border with a minor child. The Canadians and others take the international convention on the prevention of child abduction seriously. If you're in uniform, they're a bit more relaxed because they get why a bunch of kids are traveling with a non-custodial adult, otherwise there's often more scrutiny. Da passport/enhanced ID requirement will apply to all adults and children over 16 after June 1. However, we did manage to (finally!) get an exception for school/youth/sports groups traveling under adult supervision, which includes scouts. So your 16-17 year old scouts can still travel to Canada with an ordinary ID and proof of citizenship (birth certificate copy) as part of a scout trip. Da "international letter of introduction" is a greeting between scouting associations if you're hookin' up in some way with a scouting association in the country you're visiting (like a national or international jamboree, not a private unit-unit contact). Other than that, they're not expected. You'll find da Uniform Police are almost completely non-existent outside da U.S. My advice is to wear your U.S. scout uniform when travelin', and when meetin' with scouts anywhere. You'll find a lot of brother and sister scouts and scouters will come up to you with spontaneous greetings and chances for friendship. Only exception is in countries where our scout uniform too closely resembles da military garb of the nation. In that case, adopt the universal international symbol and just wear neckerchiefs over your travelin' clothes. Beavah

I think you're getting upset over an imagined controversy created by you and Beavah reading between the lines I don't think I was tryin' to create controversy, nor was I imaginin' things. Sometimes I pick a quote just because it triggers a thought that might start a new conversation, but I'm not really respondin' to that person. Prior to this thread we had a few folks in different threads comment about not usin' 19 year olds for stuff, or not allowin' any non-parent ASMs at all. So please don't think I was targetin' Scouter760 to stir controversy. I will admit that old folks discriminatin' against young folks is a minor peeve of mine. I also think it teaches everyone the wrong thing. At 18 they are adults in da eyes of the law, and they need to know that and act like it, eh? Continuin' to treat 'em as little kids does them no favors, and costs us a great resource. But that's just MNSHO. I'm outside of da range of Baby Boomers (and now Gen-Xers) who are into da age discrimination thing. I also am a countercultural curmudgeon when it comes to da whole fearful American bit. I'm really not at all afraid of what a 19 year old Eagle Scout I've known and worked with for 8 years is goin' to do, driving or otherwise. Can't imagine why anybody would be. So I vote with Gern, who said it more succinctly than I. Evaluate da person, not the stereotype or demographic averages. As to sandspur's bit, after 7 years of scoutin' a lad has had a lot more time with us than a recruit has in basic trainin', and three full years of drivin' experience in all kinds of weather. Again, lots more than they get before bein' handed an M-16 or a howitzer. Yah, at least for us northerners! I'd never trust one of da southerners to drive anywhere. Not enough experience with real road conditions, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Perhaps we're talkin' about two different "experts" here? Some seem to be referring to "expert" as someone who knows the skill set (an "expert" paddler), but does not know the group, or how to work with kids. That might happen, for example, when contracting with a guide service. I was thinkin' more in terms of "expert" as someone who knows both da skill set and the group, eh? I'd assume any scouter or patrol leader would know the capabilities of his troop/patrol. Another interestin' question is whether someone who is not an expert in da skill set can honestly or accurately assess the capabilities of the group? Can a SM who is not a proficient paddler really assess the readiness of a group for a paddling endeavor? Scoutin' is funny, eh? We're a bit different than the rec sports industry where there's an institutional approach and advancement path based on experience and trainin'. We're a bit more of a pick-up-sport, where da SM may just be the guy who had some time to give and a truck to haul gear. That might require a different approach. B

Not one of these banned items is a health and safety items. Yah, just depends, eh? Black, white, or red clothing or other gang sign may very well be a health or safety item in some school districts. And we won't get into da health aspects of soft drink dispensers in schools and da connection to youthful obesity. Point is that there are times when a prohibition is a reasonable and logical choice, and times when it isn't. B

However, my car insurance was expensive for a reason, and I don't think there's anything wrong with taking such things into account when setting troop policy. Yah, I might be missin' somethin'. Does your troop pay for da car insurance of adult leaders so that this would be an issue? I still don't buy da demographic risk argument. Large cars are almost twice as safe as small cars. Dat's a bigger difference than the difference between young and middle-aged drivers. Should we only allow minivans and SUVs on our trips? If we're willin' to accept one demographically higher risk (like male leaders or smaller cars) for practical reasons why not da other? It would be a lot easier to make a rule that applies to all leaders under 21 than to single out one that you think is a bad driver. How are you going to know they are bad driver until something happens? Don't yeh know da drivers on your trip? I don't know any troop with an ounce of sense that doesn't quietly "not invite" adult drivers of any age whom they have observed to be a problem. Most often is parents who aren't comfortable with highway or nighttime driving because they don't do much of it. Remember, though da actuarial risk for young drivers is slightly higher, your troop has a lot more old drivers, eh? So da real risk for a troop is in da older drivers because there's more of 'em, and therefore a greater chance to get a "bad" one. Once a boy becomes an adult, he has to understand that the program is not there for him. It's there for those who are still boys. If he wants to still be part of the program, he has to demonstrate responsibility and be willing to work with the CO and parents. And if after seven years in a troop, makin' it to Eagle Scout, servin' as SPL and JASM and as OA Rep to da Lodge, if a lad hasn't demonstrated responsibility, an ability to work with others, and puttin' service to da younger fellows ahead of himself then I reckon there's somethin' very seriously wrong with that troop's program. What's tougher in my mind is knowin' that about a new parent, eh? Unlike da young adult who we've had seven years with, we don't really know whether a new parent is goin' to be responsible, be willing to work with da adult leaders and CO, or put other kids ahead of his/her own. Addin' an older adult ASM should be a far scarier proposition because we know so little about 'em. Gen X, eh? Now I'm really startin' to worry that Lisabob may be right. We're progressively creatin' a culture that infantilizes our young people. Did yeh ever think that da reason you're a capable adult is that us old farts kept our worries and our fears to ourselves and trusted you enough to give yeh the space to grow? I'm sorry, I'm probably bein' more argumentative and curmudgeonly than I should, eh? I understand where folks who think this are comin' from, and it is very much part of modern American culture. Just like many troops don't trust their boys to hike and camp on their own or run adult-free patrol outings. It's not irrational, it's just somethin' that makes my fur stand on end. To my mind, an 18 year old is an adult, and should be treated like one. If he can be handed an M-16 and sent to drive a Humvee in a war zone, I reckon we shouldn't make a fuss about him drivin' an hour to a campout. I'll at least offer this: I'm happy to help any 18- 19- or 20-year old adult find a troop that will be delighted to make full use of 'em as adults if their home troop won't. Send 'em on to da district or council if you aren't goin' to treat 'em as equals, and we'll run 'em through NCS or have 'em leadin' NYLT. Beavah

Interestin'. Lots of folks puttin' it on da SM. I know some organizations (shooting sports being one) where anybody can call a safety hold. Would any troop do that, I wonder? I can see some troop havin' a fellow like Le Voyageur who really should be makin' water safety decisions, eh? What if your 21-year-old ASM is a NCS-trained BSA Aquatics Director and da SM isn't? Scoutmasters can't be everything. Seems like da James River troop could have been "the SM decides", but I wonder if anyone with more savvy raised questions? And what if the SM isn't there? Has to go to his niece's wedding. Now yeh just have two ASMs who don't see eye to eye. Or the SM is new this year, but there's a 16-year-old scout who has done the river 8 times before with da troop, holds Canoe and Whitewater MB, and is a BSA Lifeguard. Da safety stuff that hurts boys really has very little to do with clear cut G2SS rules, eh? It has everything to do with experience, skill, and judgment. I'm just curious how (and if!) troops think through these things in advance as part of being prepared. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Da one thing yeh didn't mention in all that whole long list and summary was the most important point, eh? It's not your call. It's da referee's call. Arguing with da referee is not the example we as parents should be setting for our kids. Now yeh want to start arguin' with all da folks you were askin' for advice too! I'll pass. If yeh feel that strongly about da issue, talk to the District Executive in your area of the council. He'll have a list of prospective organizations for chartering new troops. Step up and volunteer to be a Scoutmaster for such a new troop. Then yeh can try out your way of doin' things and see how it goes. Maybe you'll do some lads some good, and learn somethin' yourself along da way. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Personally, if I was the COR and I was going to allow ASM's under the age of 21, I would definitely want some limitations on what they could do. They could not drive other scouts, for example. Yah, hmmm... We seem to have had a run on this attitude lately, eh? No non-parent scouters, no young scouters, (no fat scouters, no skinny scouters, no female scouters, no...) I know I'm buckin' da trend of da Baby Boom demographic, the folks who once shouted "Don't trust anyone over 30!" who now shout "Don't trust anyone under 30!". Probably also buckin' da American Culture of Fear (don't trust anybody with your child!!!) But da notion of prohibiting our young adults from serving in scoutin' I think is the final death-rattle of da Scouting Movement in the U.S. In much of da world, it's the Rovers who are the backbone of Scouting. Those young late-teen college students and early 20-somethings are real role models for the teens and pre-teens. No old parent or grandparent will ever really be a role-model for a kid, eh? College-aged kids are da bulk of our best summer camp staff, and seven years of investing in their trainin' just to replace 'em with a dad who took "This is Scouting!" online and IOLS in a weekend seems borderline criminal. I don't buy the judgin' people by their demographic averages either. We're not da insurance company. We know the person and have seen their driving directly so we don't have to use averages. If we're goin' to exclude people because of the risk of their demographic group then we'd have to ban all male scouters, because people who molest boys are 20 times as likely to be male adults (over da age of 25 to boot!). Where does it end? Me, I encourage troops to sign up their 18- and 19-year old college students as ASMs. I think they're fools not to. What do you think? Beavah