Beavah

Yah, I think emb's international comparison is a bit too simplistic, eh? While many nations run scoutin' programs within sections, those sections are all part of one "group" (we would say "unit"), with a unit scoutmaster and unit-level assistants. Boys and girls progress from section to section more in the way that lads in our cub programs move from wolf to bear - they stay in the same "unit." Except the "dens" in the international scene are multi-year. So you'll do some full group meetings/campouts/award ceremonies from age 6-26+, with older scouts helpin' lead and teach younger, and you'll do some section meetings/campouts as webelos or scouts or ventures. But if yeh ask 'em, they'll always say they're in Group (troop) 12, not in Boy Scouts or Venturing. The other thing that's very true is that scouts and ventures in most other countries are given a lot more freedom and independence to act as leaders than we ever do here in the U.S. Much less fear overseas. In fact, far from bein' the home of the Brave, a trip overseas will teach yeh that we're really the home of the Irrationally Terrified. No talk of liability, permits and the like anywhere else. Odds are a scout has keys to his troop buildin' and can go there with his buddies and just camp out some weeknight with no adults around - fires and swimming included. High school aged youth like as not can take out a motorboat or sailboat in international waters on their own, with younger scouts aboard. There's a lot of interaction and mentoring across ages within and between "sections," and youth are trusted as leaders. Would (and does) make our G2SS and liability mavens nuts, eh? But yeh really can't equate us with them on age grouping without considerin' all the other differences. Beavah

And yet you are disappointed almost every time. What an odd reading. And an inappropriate jab, eh? I heard jblake sayin' he was not disappointed every time. That the boys he's had contact with, when held to a high standard of leadership and service, rose to meet that challenge and were proud of it. In the course of meetin' that challenge, they developed and demonstrated personal character, rather than self-centered award seeking. Seems like far from bein' a disappointment, they are examples of success in our scoutin' mission. Beavah

Yah, too much Hollywood, eh? Cars don't explode IRL, but they do burn eh? That can be quite dangerous. This is the sort of ruling that only happens in a place like California. . Here the majority on the court eviscerate the Good Samaritan protection with one of da most convoluted arguments I've seen, arguin' "legislative intent" against the plain wording of the statute. And their construction of "legislative intent" as the dissenting opinion points out, is patently ridiculous. Yah, and clearly contrary to what many state courts would rule as obvious public policy interest. A bit like creatin' a gay marriage right out of thin air in the face of precedent and voter-approved statute. This court just seems to make stuff up. I expect the California legislature will end up rectifyin' this, so the woman will in the end be spared a judgment, but not mountin' legal costs. There is another interestin' issue here, in that it might be worthwhile for ARC to add a short bit in their CPR trainin' that talks about auto accidents and spinal injuries. Just enough so that the average civilian responder gets the "cars don't blow up" and "don't move the victim" messages. We should probably do that for our scouts too, eh? Beavah

In most other countries, boy scouting (or just scouts, if its co-ed) are for boys (or boys & girls if co-ed) 11-14/15. At this point the young must move to the next section (Venture, Venturing, Exploring, Senior, whatever its called). Yah, but that ain't quite da complete picture, emb. In other countries, those program divisions typically happen within a single scout unit, eh? That is to say, one "troop" or "group" consists of cubs and juniors/webelos and scouts and seniors/ventures and rovers and adult leaders eh? Unlike the U.S., they don't quit their unit when they go up a program level, so the older girls and boys are often acting as leaders to younger ones, in addition to runnin' their age-specific stuff. Very different feel from the way we do things, so I'm not sure it really compares. B

Yah, wbcarley, welcome to da forums! You're describing a situation which is very common, and I salute you for takin' on the task of getting this troop back on track. You'll find a lot of similar tales and discussions in the forum archives. Now, I do think yeh need to be thoughtful, and think of this as being a multi-year effort at improvement. Yeh won't fix everything overnight, and doin' too much at once might cause a backlash. Remember, a lot of boys and their parents stuck with this troop because they liked the program as it is, eh? You're goin' to need time to gradually re-educate and age them out, while bringing in younger boys and new families who buy into your improved vision. So I think when you're dealing with a few of these older boys, you need to mostly honor the older rules. Only shift 'em part way. Try to get 'em to put in some time before you sign off as BW suggests, though recognize that your council and national might not back you up on that if push comes to shove. For the future, I think there's one big change you can make that will matter. You need to drop boys from your roster who are not participating. If a boy hasn't been around at all for six months, he's not really a scout, eh? When recharter comes around, remove his name. A boy can always re-apply, but then yeh get to have a SM conference and set expectations, or simply say "no." Your roster should reflect boys who are really active. If you're doin' recharter at the start of the year like some councils do, that means you can clean things up this month. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The mistake that the BSA has made for decades is to extend the boy scout program pass the age of 14. Yah, that was an interestin' quote from the original thread that seemed worthy of a separate discussion, eh? I know what emb is gettin' at here. And I know he reflects a lot of current BSA thinkin' that has shifted boy scouting into being a middle school program with coed Venturing being our high school offering. Me personally, I disagree. I think if yeh look at any troop that runs an active and traditional program which gets older boys workin' as leaders that they are proud to stay in their troop, and proud to be looked up to by younger guys. Eagledad talks about this eloquently. Age 12-17 boy scoutin' works great if it's done well. What's happened is that the BSA has made a shift down in age for Boy Scoutin', gradually movin' from the original 12 to 11 to 10 year old entrance. And the materials have shifted down as well in their style and pattern (includin' 6th grade webelos 3/FCFY). I reckon a big part of that has been an unconscious response to outside forces - like the development of middle school in most of the country, and the sense that we should make our program match our sponsor schools. And what a great choice, eh? Middle schools in da U.S. by and large are an educational disaster. Great thing to model our program on! So we've chosen to turn Boy Scoutin' into a middle school program, followin' the example of our Mormon colleagues. And because we've chosen to do that, Boy Scoutin' isn't as attractive to high schoolers. Eagle Scout in a lot of units has become more like Arrow of Light for an 8th grader than it is a "big deal" award appropriate for a young man goin' to work or college. I think that's what's really behind all da advancement debates, eh? Some folks run 12-17 programs still, where Eagle Scout is somethin' a strong high school student leader/valedictorian earns and is proud of. And some folks run a more modern program where ranks are to encourage kids age 10-12, and withholding a rank expecting high-school-like independence and achievement is "punishment." I personally think the mistake we made is shiftin' the Boy Scoutin' program down into little kid land, not shiftin' it up. Though that may now be irreversible. What do the rest of yeh think? Beavah

Yah, that would be three uncalled for personal attack posts from BobWhite to one from BadenP. Beginnin' with "I would ask BadenP..." Knock it off already. For the record, I was da guy who first mentioned frivolous lawsuits. BadenP disagreed with me, and that's fine, eh? Disagreement with a position or an idea is not a personal attack. I reckon all scouting is local. It may well be that in this particular instance, for this particular lad, the EBOR's decision was the right one for reasons similar to what bsrsakima posits. No way to tell, eh? There are times to make exceptions. All the rest of us can do is evaluate whether the EBOR's actions should be accepted as a more general principle. Here I join BadenP and others in disagreein'. I think da notion that not giving out unearned awards is "punishing" kids is foolish, and devalues all of the work by boys who strive to earn our awards. To earn Eagle it's not enough to just not to do anything bad which merits punishment. You have to do a lot which is pro-actively good to really merit recognition in the community as a young hero. Yah, I think what we're missin' here is that in a proper scouting program boys should not seek positions in order to earn rank. Boys should seek positions because they care about their troop, they see things they think can be better, and they want to contribute. They show personal character by stepping forward voluntarily not out of self-interest in an award, but out of selfless interest in service. It is that which is worthy of our recognition. Just like da outdoors, eh? Boys don't cook meals in order to get a rank. Boys cook meals as part of their duty in their patrol and the natural outdoor program of the troop. In pursuing the natural program of the troop, they build skills and merit recognition through rank. Advancement is the byproduct of that work. "A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boy's progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit." - BSA Rules & Regulations So if a lad hasn't naturally in his unit stepped forward to show responsibility, he has not earned recognition. And awarding him recognition hurts the boy by teaching him that such passivity and lack of commitment is worthy of high praise, and hurts all the other boys by teachin' 'em the same thing. That's why, at least in general, we should not subtract from the requirements as this EBOR has done. It does not advance our mission of developing character in youth. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Lex, BW's right, eh? You're caught in a dual-role time-space distortion field. (had a cub scout tell me that tonight...) As COR, you're tryin' to figure out what makes sense for the combined programs of your church. As advisor, you're tryin' to figure out what's best for the crew. That's tough to balance right, eh? I think yeh get with a few folks you trust and take a step back and talk about how you and the CO really envision the various programs working together for kids. Does the crew appeal to a different group of church and community members so they should really run in parallel without much crossover? Or do yeh see the program as being a progression from troop as a middle-school-focused program to the crew as an age-appropriate high school program? If da second one is the case, how do young ladies fit in? Does a GSUSA unit feed into the crew as well, or will your church support a girls program that matches the troop program for middle school girls? Point is to get out of your current rut and think about mission and values and what a youth scoutin' program for your church should be, eh? Off da cuff, I'd say if you've got a bunch of 13-14 year old Eagle Scouts, then the lads are right, eh? It sounds like the troop right now is running like a middle school program, with the boys reachin' our "capstone" award in 8th grade if not sooner. I'd trust what they're tellin' you. Given how your troop has structured its program, it's time for them to move on to the crew and an age-appropriate high school program. The crew members can still serve as part-time or on-call instructors for the troop, and yeh still might run a dual event once or twice a year. That can be a fine way to go, and a lot of da BSA materials and some of our bigger chartered partners promote such an approach. If yeh decide that's not your church's vision for its boy scouting program, then I think yeh have to address how you're approachin' boy scouting in your troop, and make some changes that reflect a notion of retaining high-school-aged boy leaders. Add more venture-patrol style outings for the troop, slow the race to Eagle a bit so that Star-Life-Eagle leadership gets redefined as stuff worthy of a strong high schooler rather than an active middle schooler. Mix ages in patrols so older boys lead younger ones and young ones are proud to become and stay leaders of their gang. And perhaps break a cub-scout-like approach to advancement? (hard to "read into" your post). As to meetings, are you imposing the once-a-week thing on your crew? Yeh might want to talk to them about that, eh? High schooler's schedules tend to run in streaks. Quite a few crews find that fewer but longer meetings/events seem a more natural fit, with periods of high-activity "push" for a big trip and periods of lower activity that allow 'em to study for finals or whatnot. Beavah

Yah, while there's no pass or fail on da Scoutmaster's conference per se, there is a pass or fail in terms of the Scoutmaster recommending a boy for Eagle Scout. No signature on the form, no BOR without an appeal. And there's nuthin' particularly wrong with a troop expecting a lad going for our highest award to actually be present and contributing to his unit. Leastways, as our mission is teaching character, that's an aspect of character which is important. I'd take a different tack on this, eh? If your son doesn't care for the troop and the feelin' is mutual, why does he want to receive Eagle from the troop? He's only 16. He should find another crew where he feels comfortable as a regular participant and leader, and apply for Eagle from the crew with the approval of his new advisor. All the project stuff still counts. It'd be a quick thing. People of strong character don't hang out at the edges of organizations they disagree with strongly just to get an award. They voice their disagreement, and either stay and fight for changes in an active way or leave and go do somethin' more worthwhile. Beavah

Yah, the trend has been that at the upper levels, they cave to the boy and the family in almost every case. That direction has been comin' out of the Boy Scouting advancement office in Irving since Terry Lawson. In most cases, it's just because they don't want to deal with the argument, the publicity, the threats or reality of frivolous lawsuits and the like. Lots of councils have been followin' that lead. Yeh even hear it quite a bit on forums here, eh? The notion that not giving a boy an award is "penalizing" the boy. In fact the only thing that penalizes the boy's growth and character development is givin' him an award he hasn't earned. These are the folks who think it's better to give out high school diplomas than it is to make a lad go back and learn how to read. Yah, so I guess that makes my position clear, eh? I think the EBOR failed to do its job, subtracted from the requirements, violated the BSA's Rules and Regulations, and most importantly hurt the kid and the program. I'd want to re-educate or remove 'em. Sad fact, though, is that their attitude is pretty pervasive these days, and is comin' from the top. So whether you're able to fix it just depends a lot on the integrity of the local folks in your council. To be fair and balanced, though, it's a hard choice if you're lookin' at what appears to be a fine young man, a good scout who has done a worthwhile leadership project and has the recommendation of his troop, but somethin' like this comes up, eh? Doesn't excuse it (why not file for an extension?), but does make it understandable. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Buff, more than anything the lads watch how we handle these tough situations, eh? I think you've acted the proper part of a Scoutmaster, and your tenure in the role and the fun you'll have will be all the greater for it. Scout Salute, mate! Beavah

Yah, BobS, da problem is that the materials tell us how to run a program well, eh? They don't tell us what to do when some particular aspect of the program isn't running well. What you're describin' has nothing to do with my original statement on how the program is supposed to run, eh? What you're describin' is a committee that perhaps wasn't chosen very well, and that doesn't have a lot of skill or training. Forget the BOR issue, you've got a bigger fish to fry. I'd suggest that your CC and COR start by placin' expectations on the committee for training, and then at recharter and for the future actually takin' time to select committee members. Recruit people with knowledge and skills from the CO, from the parents, from the community (a mix!). Vet people to make sure they understand and buy into the mission of the CO and share the vision for the unit. Just because you're SM and have beads doesn't mean you own that vision yourself. It's somethin' that you properly share with the committee, and that includes takin' feedback and negotiating parts of the vision with those other people of good will. So just as an example, while the committee shouldn't necessarily reject a badge earned at a one-day clinic, they certainly could tell you not to participate as a troop in such things in the future, and they certainly should go have a pointed conversation with the district staff if their examination shows that BSA's expectations for merit badge counseling weren't met. But yeh first need a committee that's a real partner, and that really represents the mission and vision of the Chartered Org. Beavah

And the role of the counselor is to see that the Scout has MET the requirements. Nope. The merit badge counseling relationship is a counselor-Scout arrangement in which the boy is not only judged on his performance of the requirements but receives maximum benefit from the knowledge, skill, character, and personal interest of his counselor. - National Executive Board policy statement on Merit Badge Counseling The Boy Scout Learns, the Boy Scout is Tested The scout's merit badge counselor teaches and tests on the requirements for merit badges... scouts must be tested individually, and they must meet all the requirements. - ACP&P #33088 Yah, sure, there are some requirements where it makes most sense for a boy to do on his own without the counselor physically present, eh? Attending a meeting or taking a 20 mile hike, eh? Those requirements aren't really testable or judgeable on performance. So we skip to step 3, the Boy Scout is Reviewed, and we review his report on the meeting or hike, and judge his performance through those. But that's not the case for First Aid, eh? A counselor who is doing his duty must test each boy individually and judge each boy on his performance of the requirements. Anything else is subtractin' from the requirements. What's more, anything else is just bein' lazy, and depriving the boy of the full benefit of the counselor's knowledge, skill, character, and personal interest. Camps pose a special case, eh? Can a waterfront staffer rely on his aquatic director's swim check done the prior day? Yah, of course. No point in bein' silly about this stuff. But is a Waterskiing MB counselor who takes some lads out on a boat supposed to rely on a First Class badge or First Aid MB earned 2 years ago to fulfill the CPR requirement? Absolutely not. He is supposed to test and judge performance on each requirement before approvin' the badge. No double-dippin'. Beavah

But I do want to emphasize that fighting, except to protect one self or another from immediate harm is not proper. So da war in Iraq was a mistake, and yeh didn't support it at the time? I reckon it's a good thing that we tell kids it's wrong to fight. That's our proper role as adults. I reckon most boys anyway recognize that isn't always true, and go through the experience of learnin' through a tussle or two. I think it's wrong for an ASM to use a racial epithet myself. Now, if I really care about that ASM and his learning and growth, I have to ask whether gettin' socked in the jaw might just not have been the best sort of lesson for him. No meetin' with the committee, no long drawn out process, no permanent damage. Just a lesson in the boy's act and especially in everyone else's quiet approval. There's a time for every purpose under heaven, eh? Beavah

I teach Motor Boating and Water sports on the same weekend at my home if the boys have first aid, and have passed the swimmers test we dont repeat these even once let alone twice. Yah, then you're subtracting from the requirements, which yeh aren't supposed to do. The requirement is that da boys show that they know first aid for all those things to you as merit badge counselor. Your job as MBC is to test each boy individually on those things before you accept they have passed requirement #1. Now, if yeh were working two badges at once on a weekend, no harm if yeh only test once. That might make sense for somethin' like motorboating and water skiing, though that kind of combination is fairly rare. But yeh aren't allowed to accept "oh, well, you have First Class" or "oh, well, yeh have First Aid MB" to fulfill requirement 1. They have to show first aid to you. Which, if yeh think about it, makes perfect sense since CPR and First Aid certs have to be regularly renewed. And I certainly wouldn't take a lad whitewater paddling whom I personally hadn't seen swim. The problem I have with tackin' the first aid requirements onto everything is that often da Motorboatin' MB counselor doesn't know enough himself to be able to teach or evaluate proper first aid. So it seems pretty natural for such a MBC to defer to others and the scout's prior skill. But that's not what's proper. Beavah

Yah, adamsdwa, I commend your virtue. I think it's fine if yeh pick up lads for the pack meeting. Good shepherds go after the stray sheep, eh? Now, let me give yeh advice as a long-married man. Your wife is right. Always. Doesn't really matter whether she is or not. She is. Don't be lookin' for support from us, mate. We're too smart to get into that. Just say, "yes, ma'am!", salute, and do what she says. Your home and your scouting will be happier for it. Beavah

Yah, OldGreyOwl, it sounds like there's some backstory here, eh? Care to share? Generally speakin', as the representative of the troop's owner and a member of the BSA council, a COR not only can sit on an Eagle BOR, he or she should sit on an Eagle BOR whenever possible. Only prohibition for EBOR's is that the boy's unit leader, assistant unit leaders, relatives or guardians may not serve on the board. They may, as BW point out, be present. (Ref. ACP&P #33088) Beavah

There is nothing that I have ever read that states a requirement for one MB can't be used for another. Yah, Ed, yeh need to look at da requirements for Hiking MB, eh? http://scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/mb-HIKE.aspx Beav

Yep, that's written in the merit badge requirements that your son read himself and no doubt discussed with his merit badge counselor when he made an appointment to start work on the badge. It's not a quest to get badges, eh? It's a quest to grow and develop and learn and become a young man with outdoor skills and character. Skills take practice, and we can always use practice. Character takes time in the field working with others in a variety of circumstances. Your troop has the right of it. Don't deprive your son of the value of scoutin' in a quest for the trappings of scouting. Beavah

To me the question remains is the Council bound by the Region's determination that the scout should be let back in? Yah, I'm not goin' to get too deep into this, eh? But I will offer a bit of insight. It isn't right to think of the BSA in the same way yeh think of Government, with a hierarchy of laws and courts and such. As long as yeh think that way, you won't understand the dynamic. BSA is based on partnership. Chartered Organizations are our partners. They don't work for us, and while our mission is to provide services for them, we don't really work for them either. We can't tell 'em what to do with their youth programs, nor can individual CO's tell us what to do (other than go to h*** and drop the charter ). Same with council corporations. Councils are separately incorporated (or unincorporated) NFP entities in various states. They are also partners. Through some agreements and bylaws and such, their legal relationship with da BSA is tighter than CO's. Nevertheless, we can't tell 'em what to do, nor can they tell us what to do. That's important, eh? Because that means the BSA is not liable for the actions or contracts of a council. A council can go bankrupt without its creditors goin' after Philmont. As with anything, a good partnership relies on some mutual respect and trust, some common values, and an understandin' of limits. A council is an agent for da BSA in accepting a membership application. As such, it's bound to follow da BSA's rules for membership. That's not quite da same thing as being forced to act as agent for a particular transaction. For example, an independent insurance agent is bound to follow the insurer's rules when accepting a policy contract, but that same agent doesn't have to deal with Mr. Annoying if he doesn't want to have Mr. Annoying as a client. And even if the insurance company accepts Mr. Annoying's contract directly, the independent insurance agent can still ban Mr. Annoying from ever setting foot in his office. So when yeh get into these sorts of disagreements with one of your partners, yeh sort of work it out. Most of the time, if you value the partnership, you work it through or you work around it somehow. How yeh do that depends a bit on how much emotional investment each partner has in a particular issue. It's not so much that there's rules as it is that there's relationships. That's why in this case I'm suggesting everyone take a deep breath and acknowledge each other's positions. The directors of the council corporation don't want to act as agent for this transaction, and don't want this boy and his family on their property. Their position, quite frankly, is understandable. As a staffer, the boy saddled them with a real problem and a very real liability risk. The Chartered Organization, however, is comfortable assuming that risk, as is the BSA. So they should work that out, while respecting the wishes of the council corporation. Everyone values their partners, and everyone respects the scope and limits of their own authority. Leastways, that's the way I'd work da problem, eh? Beavah

Yah, Buff, just one quick gut-check, eh? If you were a teenager, and you just got told you were losing your position of authority and being kicked off the second most fun outing of the year because some wussie black kid named Joseph ratted you out to the adults for callin' him names. What would you do or say to Joseph, or about Joseph to others, on this weekend's trip? When the adults weren't watching, of course. You're askin' for an ability to deal effectively with short-term emotions of anger, frustration, etc. that is beyond most teen boys, and I expect well beyond these two characters. Don't set these boys up for failure, mate. Lads need time to process and simmer down. Like it or not, you're the guy who is the responsible adult right now. Whether you hold the title or not is completely irrelevant. Somethin' happens on this trip, it's on you. Are you sure you want to be personally responsible for puttin' these boys back together in a youth led outing situation this weekend? And are yeh sure that yeh want to start your tenure as SM by not fully steppin' forward on an important matter? Personally, I don't think boys are real good at learning from punishments that come more than a month after their behavior. It feels like a sort of arbitrary punishment - an "adult thing" - rather than a natural consequence. "After all, if it were really important, he wouldn't have let me go on the December trip, would he?" Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, yeh aren't goin' to change a deep-seated attitude in three months, eh? Not everything has to be tied to advancement. Advancement is designed to encourage kids to work hard to do good things. It isn't set up to stop bad behaviors. In fact, if you use advancement that way, you cheapen it, because everyone starts to feel "well, I didn't do anything bad, so I deserve to get...". Bad behavior gets addressed through adult relationships (disappointment, losing trust), patrol method (positive peer pressure, group roses & thorns), outdoors (natural consequences), and youth and adult leadership (decisions about roles, participation, and membership). So I'd leave advancement out of this, eh? No need to talk about it unless they bring it up. They shouldn't advance until they've rebuilt trust, and until you see that they are demonstrating scout spirit and making a positive contribution to the program that advancement represents. That could be in three months or three years, whatever. Beavah

And again, let's deal with the person, not the supposed characteristics of a group. Yah, da real issue, at least as seen by those of us who talk funny from da point of view of you east-coasters, is not the person, eh? I'm all in favor of treatin' individuals with respect and dignity. (Even folks who think or speak differently. ). The real issue is the behavior. That's not the same thing as an individual characteristic like skin color or autism. And because it's not that kind of characteristic, it's disingenuous to pretend it's the same sort of civil rights issue. Sayin' "we want to have sex with whoever or whatever we're attracted to" might be a personal belief, eh? As with some of the conservative Mormon fringe sects, polygamy, virtual enslavement of women, and ephebophilia might even be a religious belief of sorts. Religious or not, personal belief or desire or not, it's not somethin' we want to accept as a society, want our kids exposed to at a young age, or want our kids to learn is acceptable "diversity." We don't believe it is. Nor do we believe it's responsible social policy to accord such relationships the same status as marriage. I'm far less sanguine than DanKroh about da biological nature of homosexuality. I think that's special-interest research, and special-interest research is always extremely suspect. Especially when it sure seems like a genetic trait that should be strongly selected against. Da question is who is funding or allowing any research on the other side, lookin' at homosexuality as the product of aspects of nurture or pathology? What IRB would approve that work at our nation's liberal universities? Yah, and Dan knows as well as I do that the number of promiscuous homosexual male partners vastly exceeds on average the number of promiscuous heterosexual male partners. Both aren't healthy, eh? Neither is a good example. But one does tend to be a bit uglier. Regardless of the nature of the urge, the issue is behavior. All of us have urges or temptations - to take stuff that isn't ours, to sleep around, whatever. Some things, like a propensity toward violence, may also be genetic in nature, eh? But we restrain our behavior, and we teach our children by word and example to restrain their behavior. Perhaps it even makes us less happy not to be able to steal or sleep around. I know some faithful but unhappy married couples, eh? That doesn't mean we should be encouraged to explore petty theft or wife-swapping to make ourselves more happy and fulfilled. I'm glad folks like Dan care for the emotional needs of folks who need that care. That is a work of love and service. But it's not the same thing as makin' a decision on social policy, or on what is appropriate for a youth educational program. Beavah

Yah, one man's stereotype is another man's statistical prevalence, eh? Much like da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality which is well documented.

I hear through the grapevine the SM will not allow one Star Scout to have a POR because he wants to hold off his advancement. I'm the COR and will be checking into it tonight. Welcome to da forums bacchus! Nah, yeh shouldn't be checking into this any more than being aware of it, eh? As a COR, yeh don't micromanage the SM, leastways not if you want a healthy program. You let da SM do his/her job, because he knows the boy and the patrol and the troop better than you do, eh? Yeh just stay informed as an observer, and then if yeh see this happen a few times, and with negative consequences in terms of your organization's goals, yeh nudge a bit. A respectful approach and a light touch as COR, eh? Beavah