Beavah

Yah, NeilLup's right, eh? This is some of da local folks who have strong feelings about having staffers usin' drugs at their camp pushing the limits of their authority as an independent corporation. Again, da Regional office can accept the lad's BSA membership application and the troop can accept him as a member. The council can still prohibit him from attending events on council property. Beyond that, it's up to either Region or your Chartered Org Rep. whether the issue merits bringing additional pressure on the the council executive board. I think your COR should send a letter to the Region, cc'ing the Regional Director and President, simply asking that Region accept the boy's re-application on behalf of da BSA since the council won't. Your son can then pick up where he left off in his troop, with the exception of attending council events. I think he should consider the latter a lasting lesson in the long-term consequences of betraying people's trust in him. After the boy's application is approved by Region, your troop should send a note to the SE, cc'ing the Council President noting that fact, and acknowledging that you'll respect the prohibition from council events for the year. I think everyone would be satisfied with that outcome and simmer down, eh? And who knows, maybe it's time for your son's troop to try out a camp in a neighboring council this summer. Beavah

If anything, it seems more likely that heterosexuals who want to have relationships with teenage minors to have done this, since they make up the majority of people involved in adult/teenage relationships. But not the majority of our problem cases within Boy Scouting. Ephebophile to my mind is a term used to obscure as often as to define, eh? As you point out in the quoted sentence, these are homo and hetero relationships with large age/power differentials. But they're still homo or hetero relationships. A male coach who sleeps with his female teen basketball star is hetero, eh? And a male scoutmaster who molests a teen scout is homosexual. There is also da practical issue of gay male "recruitment" of (typically younger) men, which is a part of the culture. And necessary in light of da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality. Had to deal with that with an ASM in a troop once and 16-17 year old scouts. B

Yah, people are always pickin' on us industrious Beavers!

Has anyone ever had a big gap in ages like this in a patrol. Will it be a problem or do we need to force the other two patrols to rearrange in the spring? We could solve the problem this year by putting the new scouts into the other two patrols, but we'd have an even bigger age gap next year. Yah, da answer really depends on the personalities of the lads, eh? Both old and young. Some older boys really blossom when given younger lads to teach and watch out for. Some younger lads are used to "older brothers". Some also depends on the dynamics of your troop. Are patrol competitions "inclusive" in that everyone has to contribute, and the kids are cool with the notion that their performance often depends on their smallest guys, and we cheer no matter what? But to find the real answer to your question, yeh ask your boys. Let them work it out. Like BobWhite says, they know the personalities and players better than you do, eh? Only put a few adult requirements down, like "all patrols must have enough people to be viable on every campout" and let 'em deal with it. They might choose to dissolve patrol C and be a two-patrol troop. Or yeh might find that a lad who is lookin' to break free and become another leader wants to head up a new patrol. All kinds of things. Let 'em figure it out. Beavah

Yah, Buffalo, yeh need to give yourself some space and the boys some space, eh? This weekend's hike should be an absolute no-go for the two brothers involved in the incident. You call 'em up and explain that you'll meet with 'em next week, but for now they're suspended from the weekend's activity. Joseph needs to feel safe and welcome, and yeh can't do that in a day. Those boys need to learn that there are consequences for racist attitudes, and part of da consequences are that good people don't want you around. Most importantly, it gives the lads and you some time to work through things before yeh put all three of 'em back in the mix together. Yeh should do that right away. Since it's a repeat offense, I'd be more inclined to make that "time off" a bit longer, eh? Along with a loss of da SPL position. Is that the example yeh really want set by your "top boy". Somethin' more than just the advancement hold. In terms of measurable improvement, that's easy, eh? They come off your black list if Joseph is happy. If Joseph is coming on outings, is excited to be there, is feelin' encouraged by these two scoundrels, then you're over the hump. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, though. Two brothers. Multiple incidents. This racism is goin' to be a family thing. Yeh might find that the parents aren't really supportive of your position beyond lip-service (and perhaps not even then). Be Prepared. Beavah

Bugler is listed as a POR for Star and Life, but it isn't listed for Eagle. Is it an error of omission or is bugler the only POR allowed for lower ranks that is not allowed for Eagle? It's not an omission. Bugler isn't allowed for Eagle POR. Also, what about a POR that the scout has done "in name only" for the entire time he has had the job. If the Scoutmaster signs off on his book, then I'm assuming the committee must approve. The reason there's a committee is as a check and balance on the SM, eh? If da committee in a BOR really doesn't feel the lad has met the requirements, they are honor-bound to say "no." The SM may choose to appeal on da boys behalf, and the district or council or Irving may agree and award the rank. None of that changes the committee's duty to call it like they see it, and be honest about whether the boy has fulfilled da requirements. Beavah

[added] Yah, good catch, OGE! I reckon that Rikki12 thread is the same poster. Interestin' to review. [/added] Oh, and by the way, the Charter Rep. wrote a wonderful letter in support when we made the initial appeal to Regional. Yah, I'm with NeilLup, though, eh? I can't quite figure what's goin' on. BSA membership is da BSA's to confer. If the BSA Regional office is conferring BSA membership, and the Chartered Partner is conferring membership in the unit, then there's really nothing the council has a say in. Just send da signed application to your regional office askin' them to type it into ScoutNet. Sounds like there's some additional issues or backstory at the local level. If da COR is on board, then the Chartered Org. Rep, armed with a copy of the successful appeal and the blessing of the IH, should demand a meeting with the council president and SE. Up to the IH and COR how important they feel the matter is, and how far they're willin' to go to deal with the council's behavior if it's not consistent with the mission or values of da organization. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

For example, homosexual males in all states have the same marriage rights as every other male - they may marry a female. All are the same. Homosexuals want extra or new rights which is society's right to grant or deny. Yah, and don't think the extension of that special right doesn't matter, eh? Has big implications for health care and pension costs of employers. Fairly easy for hetero friends to "marry" with a "pre-nup" just so that an uninsured friend can get covered on the employed friend's insurance. Some universities and businesses that extend same-sex-partner benefits have to write long convoluted rules about how to define partner so as to prevent this kind of fraud. If you were a single person and your uninsured best friend got cancer, wouldn't you do that for 'em? Always look at da possible negative effects of a policy change before yeh conclude that it's worthwhile. Beavah

Part is that prior to this year we averaged 22 months to 1st Class so the first years are caught up with the second years and even some of the third and forth years. Yah, that's it, eh? When yeh switch from a traditional program to a First Class First Year program yeh will get that kind of backlog. In a traditional program, lads advance about a rank a year, some a bit faster, some stalling occasionally. Gets 'em to First Class right about the time they're Ages & Stages mature enough to want to start steppin' forward into leadership roles. In FCFY, they'll make FC in a year or so if they're reasonably active. Then yeh have 6 years worth of kids needin' POR's for rank. Doesn't work to have 6/7 of the unit be "chiefs" and 1/7 be "indians." A lot of units just press on, gettin' lads positions as 7th and 8th graders so that they Eagle by age 14. That way after a bit you work through the backlog and yeh only have two years of kids needin' positions. Older boys go join a crew or join an older scouts patrol focusing on high adventure and maybe servin' as instructors. Alternative is that after First Class the lads have to do patrol-level jobs for a year or more, if yeh have strong patrol method goin'. Patrol QM, APL, patrol scribe, etc. While they don't get credit for rank advancement, they do develop the skills needed to move successfully into a troop-level POR down the road. I always tell units that it's important for 'em to decide consciously what their vision and plan is, eh? Not just let it happen. Plenty of successful units operatin' traditionally, with mixed-age patrols and boys makin' First Class in 2-3 years and Eagle at age 16+. Plenty of successful FCFY programs with boys makin' Eagle at 13-14. And a fair number of the FCFY who then let kids play and develop responsibility in the patrol before they take on troop positions and Eagle at age 15-16. But while each is successful, the outcomes for the kids are different, eh? A unit should decide what it wants in terms of outcomes, and choose the right method to get 'em there. Beavah

Yah, keoki12, sorry to hear of your experiences, eh? If you're lookin' for sympathy, you have it. I'm more of a fix it and get on with things sort of fellow, though, eh? Your lad's biggest struggle is with school. So fix it, eh? If the public schools aren't doin' it for him, you have to look non-public. Lots of the larger public school systems get very bureaucratic and institutional in their responses by necessity. If yeh want more personal attention for your boy, pay for it. Scholarships and financial aid are even available. There are quite a few private schools with a special mission toward kids like your son, and many of 'em have outdoor and other experiential programs to boot. I can't imagine why a parent would keep their son for years in a school setting which was failing. Scoutin' has to be a safe haven for all boys, eh? And boys trusted with adult roles like servin' on camp staff are under special scrutiny. While I'm not at all fond of "zero tolerance" policies myself, yeh need to understand that most parents don't want their sons exposed to illegal drug use in Scouting, especially not by the older boys they look up to. Your son crossed a line that's typical of lads struggling with depression, but it was a big line. We have to balance the risk to other lads and to the program against the needs of one boy. Remember, every boy who is caught abusin' drugs claims it's their first time, and is genuinely sorry (for being caught). It's hard to tell the difference between them and da (few) kids who might really have been caught on their first few tries and be truly repentant. Scoutin' errs on the side of caution so as to protect other people's kids. Yah, and while I certainly understand your frustration and da purpose behind retaining legal counsel, understand that's a bit like mobilizin' the army, eh? It causes the other side to go into defensive mode and mobilize their army too. Not the right choice if you're really lookin' for compassion and understanding from 'em. Beyond that, there's no way I can sort out your troop/council issues, other than apologize on behalf of Scoutin' for the cloak-and-dagger behavior. Too many legal opinions, not enough character and spiritual fortitude I reckon. The folks who should be advocatin' for your son at this point are the Chartered Org. Rep. and Institutional Head for the organization (church, civic group?) that sponsors your troop. They are the voting members of the Council Corporation. And, to be honest, they can choose to allow your son to continue to participate in their troop (assuming liability for him themselves) even without your son being re-admitted to BSA membership. If they want to go there. No uniform or rank advancement, mind - those are BSA's. If yeh want or feel the need to contact the council officers directly, those names are listed in the council's IRS form 990 filing every year. But again, that's a bit like contactin' the board of directors at GM over your lemon. The way to address council-level issues is through the COR and IH of your troop's sponsor, if they choose to become involved. Beavah

Yah, lots of good advice here. Only thing I would suggest is that you not treat it as a case of "bullying" or not call it that to the kids at least. Sadly, "bullying" has gotten all fuddered up in kids' minds as a result of the school bullying policies and adult hypersensitivity. Like as not, if yeh start talking about "bullying" the natural kid reaction will be to roll their eyes and assume that this is just "some adult thing." Real bullying to boys means physical stuff. Focus instead on the harm done to Joseph, the harm done to the troop, and how the boys have badly disappointed you and damaged their own reputations and the reputation of the troop. Guilt for real harm done, not automated responses based on buzzwords. Beavah

Yah, thanks for the additional info, jet526. I was figurin' you were a bigger unit. Does this unit have a higher number of older boys perhaps? Or maybe a really aggressive FCFY program? I'm tryin' to figure out what's causin' the congestion, so to speak. Sometimes with a FCFY program yeh get all the lads to First Class pretty quick, but then they may be havin' fun scouting for a while buildin' up skills and confidence before there's an opportunity to serve in a more responsible role. I think that's OK, eh? No need to rush through ranks. If the unit has a lot of older lads, yeh might consider doin' pull-out high adventure patrols for a high adventure or three. Those might have their own Patrol Leader for a stretch, givin' you a few more . Interestin'. I do wonder how common this problem is. Beavah

Yah, in da parent thread jet raised the followin' thought, and it seemed interestin' enough to spin off: My troop currently has 30 scouts 1st Class through Life. I have an additional 8 Eagle Scouts for a potential leadership pool of 38. Of those 18 currently need a POR (After BORs this will go to 43 and 26). Added up the troop has openings for about 20 PORs plus as many Den Chiefs as I can field. After elections and appointments I still have 6 scouts that need PORs. Some I'm working on getting them connected to Dens as Den Chiefs, others can wait until the next elections, etc. But two are 1st Class Scouts with less than 18 months until they turn 18. Neither has the temperament to be Den Chiefs and they can't blow a bugle. So, you bet I'm giving them opportunities to lead special projects. I can't make them succeed, that is up to them, but it is my responsibility to make sure they have the opportunity. My position that jet was respondin' to was (and is) that it isn't the SM's or Committee's job to provide POR's. POR's are earned by boys, either through election by their peers or appointment by their peers. One might expect even in a big troop that an interested, capable lad might hold more than one position if he was good at both, rather than making the lad do less just so someone who contributes less can have a shot. If they don't perform well enough to be selected for responsibility, then they probably shouldn't advance, eh? What says the group? Jet doesn't say how big his troop is overall, but I'd also wonder how common this problem is? Beavah

Yah, forget da illegal advice, eh? We dam beavahs do the dam-dest illegal things sometimes. Just look what da nearby state of Michigan tried to do to us, eh? $10,000 fines per day! http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/dammed.asp Beavah and a good ol' beavah too!

The real price of membership in this Troop will be unfailing regular attendance at its meetings and outings, and steady progress in all the things that make a Scout "Prepared." If I put my own time into the activities of this Troop I shall certainly expect you to do your part with equal faithfulness. Is that plain - and fair? Yah, I like that. I reckon one of da things that gets lost in this modern era of hyper-scheduled kids is the notion of courtesy and loyalty to our adult volunteers. Our scouters have to be there at the meetings and outings, eh? They have to make sacrifices in their families, use vacation time from work, and give up other activities so as to meet their obligations to the troop. Seems like common courtesy and loyalty demand a similar show of commitment by the boys who are benefiting from such an adult's generosity. At least to show proper Scout Spirit, eh? Beavah

Yah, almost forgot First Aid practice! Winter is da best time of year for first aid scenarios. It really makes 'em think about patient care and comfort, keepin' shock victims warm and all that. Lots of roles for "support staff" and creative thinkin' about evacuations. B

Yah, I can't see as how any honest BOR can give a lad a rank without havin' fulfilled the POR requirement with a valid position, eh? Whether backdated or forward-dated. Even if they didn't give him a note in writing (honestly, most don't), that doesn't change the fact the boy didn't meet the requirements. And it isn't the SM's or Committee's job to "get the scout a position", eh? Boys earn a position either by election or through appointment by their peers. Yah, well, in this case maybe selection by da SM . Even then, either the SM is selecting based on ability/what's best for the troop (in which case the boy never demonstrated he was ready to lead), or on trying to fill rank requirements ,in which case, da SM is goin' to be giving positions to those who have a reasonable shot). This lad's quest for Eagle is over, eh? That doesn't mean his Scouting is. I'd encourage the boy to stay involved and keep camping! That's the way to go with these things, instead of turning not making Eagle into a big deal. I reckon the next thing the lad should be encouraged to shoot for is an ASM patch in 5 months. Have him take adult leader training, and start workin' with him as a young adult in the program. Beavah

Merlyn, da Dale case turned mostly on freedom of expressive association, and there are all kinds of public school programs where protected classes are discriminated, from single-gendered sports to experimental single-gendered schools to voucher programs for religious schools to public schools targeting the special needs of minority groups (includin' religious minorities like the Amish). Da line ain't really so bright, eh? And our nation would be a poorer, more polarized place if it were. B

The BSA's status wasn't clear until Dale Horse hockey. Da BSA's status was always clear. Even "public accommodations" are private entities eh? And da NJ ruling was spurrious. Plus, as I have pointed out before, when you have thousands of public schools running your clubs, you aren't private. Horse hockey. Da BSA is a materials and program provider. Tens of thousands of other private materials and program providers contract with public schools every year. Textbook publishers, lab equipment manufacturers, consultants, food service contractors and da like. All private. Only time you'll see when a government enterprise contracts exclusively with other "public" entities is when we finish becoming a socialist state. Right now we're only 45% there. Well maybe more after we finish nationalizing finance and da auto industry. Beavah

Yah, you southerners! No such thing as cold weather, just poor choices in clothing! We have lads out all season long. Winter campin' sure beats mosquitos and black flies. Yeh do the same things winter camping that yeh do summer camping. Well, maybe a bit less swimming . Hikes, ski and snowshoe hikes, skiing and snowboarding, ice climbing instead of rock climbing, ice boatin' instead of wetwater boatin' (but if yeh like wetwater, rafting is possible and can be done all year!). Tracking is a lot more interesting and fun for beginners with some snow cover. Then add in some skatin', some hockey on the pond perhaps, insane, never-ending snowball fights (G2SS hasn't yet banned kids in snow camo tossing a snow grenade into da enemy patrol's camp ) and da like. Yeh can still do pioneering stuff, but it's even better with snow to build walls and igloos and quinzhees. A few troops hook up with mushers a bit further north and go dogsled campin'. And believe it or not, ice fishin' is popular with a unit or two. Shootin' sports are fine, too, eh? Lots of boys see their dads goin' out hunting in this weather; they're happy as clams to be usin' da rifle range in the snow. Yah, sure, there's some braggin' rights over sleepin' out when it's -30F (real, not "wind chill"). Just like there's braggin' rights for doin' a long bike ride or hard hike in the summer. Part of the fun, but by no means all of da fun. Kids and snow is like kids and bouncing rubber balls, eh? If yeh leave 'em alone, they have a blast inventin' new games and challenges. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hi urloony, Simple answer to your question: No, nothing can be done to give this boy Eagle. None of da things you mention really matter - the BOR, position of responsibility, etc. Simply the fact that he was first eligible for Star last July means Eagle is not possible. He would need 6 months from then to make Life, and then six additional months to make Eagle. All before his 18th birthday. So his clock ran out when he didn't make Star last April. I suspect that rather than bein' a case of a SM "screwing a boy over", this is da case of a boy who didn't get off his duff when he was younger. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm.... As always, I reckon it's worth takin' mom with a grain of salt, eh? Especially if she was a challenging parent in the past. Circumstances "on the ground" at da actual BOR might be a fair bit different than what mom suggests. I think it's fine to let the boy's old friend invite him along on a trip with your troop. I wouldn't do that as an adult, but I might nudge the kid . Beyond that, if yeh don't have a personal relationship with someone in da other unit or da UC, I doubt there's a good way to approach it. I do think it's a courtesy to give the SM and/or CC a call when yeh get a transfer application, just to ask how best to help the boy, find out if there's anything to be alert for, and pass some feedback along. Beavah

Hiya BobS! Welcome to da forums. Can I ask what you were doing up to this point that was unworkable? Generally speakin', I agree with you - the PL (and perhaps APL) should be responsible for their patrol, and should be allowed to sign off requirements for T-2-1. SPL/ASPL should sign for PL's and troop PORs. In short, boys should be takin' responsibility for the learning and development of other boys. Now, I think that's easier if you've got mixed-age patrols, where the PL's are older boys with solid skills and experience, eh? Yeh can't have a NSP PL signin' things off, and often it's a bit much to ask of some 7th graders. So in those cases, you might limit signoffs to older boys and adults whose skills and judgment you're comfortable with. That's da bottom line anyway, eh? Boys and adults whose skills and judgment you're comfortable with. Seen all kinds of permutations over the years, though. One of my favorites was a troop where da signoff had to be done by a different patrol leader. When a boy's PL thought he was ready, he sent his patrol member over to the camp of a different patrol, and that patrol leader did the testing and signoff. B

I think having bylaws falls under the motto of "Be Prepared" Yah, in case it got missed in my longwinded responses .... If da CO is an unincorporated association (like "Parents of Troop X..."), then I really would advise as mmhardy does that bylaws are a very, very good idea for da group. B

Yah, again, I think it's best when unit committees are relatively small, friendly, and share a common vision, eh? Then yeh really don't need bylaws, but you still need "traditions" to guide actions. In other cases, they might be helpful so long as they don't get too large or complex. In a few cases, as mmhardy suggests, they might be required or at least prudent, as when the CO is a "Parents of Troop X" kind of unincorporated association. I also think that da notion that a CR and CC make all the decisions and then task out committee members like worker bees is somethin' that is done occasionally in cub packs, but rarely in the rest of da program. To represent it as the BSA's recommended program is pure hogwash, you will not find that in any document. Quite the contrary, the troop committee is to function as a board of directors, which most definitely is a deliberative body. And the committee, not the CC, are charged with a number of tasks (including disciplinary expulsion, approving annual program plans and budgets, etc.) which definitely require deliberation. The thing about Boards of Directors, whether for a business or a NFP or a unit is that they often include "outsiders". A smart CO, like a smart NFP, like a BSA council will recruit outsiders for its committees and boards, because they bring valued perspective. So it would also be completely incorrect to say that having non-CO-members on a committee somehow means that the committee should not be permitted to do the tasks spelled out for it in the program. After all, a CC doesn't need to be a member of da CO either, eh? So we conclude again having the CC dictate policy or committee action is NOT consistent with the BSA program in any way. How a committee comes to decide policy and other committee-level tasks might be just by way of friendly cooperation, long tradition, or as spelled out in bylaws or CO documents. Da reason why the BSA doesn't offer more specific guidance is because this is properly a governance matter for the CO. Da BSA cannot specify to the CO how a unit should be governed or unit policy set without da risk of assuming liability for the actions of the governance model they required. So da BSA remains silent on the matter, leaving it to CO discretion. Besides, units are too diverse anyway to be able to recommend one set of bylaws. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)