Beavah

Yah, acco, da rationale for usin' youth on a BOR is over in that thread, eh? This thread is about the ethics and morality of followin' or not followin' societal laws and other forms of regulation. (Just keepin' up my reputation as da Thread Police, eh? ). Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, eh? He took solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the Catholic Church. Sure seems to me like he freely chose to become part of a "program" and then broke da rules, eh? Ghandi was an English barrister trained in law at University College, London, who swore an oath of allegiance to the King and service to English law. George Washington was a British Officer who swore a similar oath. Thomas More was Chancellor of the Realm with a special oath of fealty to the King. Same with those other "etc." Sorry, mate, yeh can't get around it. Da heroes our society holds up as examples are oathbreakers and rulesbreakers, who put goals and principles ahead of laws and rules whenever necessary. Stickin' always to da King or to the letter of the law gets yeh a seat on the Sanhedrin right next to Caiaphas, or the privy council next to Henry VIII. Still, I don't reckon any of our heroes would have left an organization on account of somethin' as trivial as who gets to do a 15 minute rank review in a kids' program, eh? I suppose in theory we in da BSA could insist on a centralized, one-size-fits-all program, with everyone else being shown to the door. We'd be much, much smaller as an organization. Da few, the proud, da (nearly) perfectly compliant who could look on ourselves as elite or whatnot. Dependin' on how nitpicky we are about showin' people to the door, we might not have any members at all. Like I said, I've yet to meet a unit dat's perfectly compliant. I think it's worth rememberin' that as unit Scouters, we sign up to deliver the unit's program, under the direction of the CO. Not the BSA's program. We are agents of da CO, not the BSA, and da CO is legally liable for our actions, not the BSA. Understandin' agency is really important to understandin' how BSA Scoutin' is run. As district or council scouters, we do not deliver program at all, but rather assist the COs' units by providing training and resources. What happens over in Troop 612 really shouldn't affect da program of Troop 413 at all, eh? Can't see why it would anyway. So I'm not sure why Trop 612 doin' something different should matter to a unit scouter in Troop 413. If you're havin' trouble followin' your unit's program in Troop 413, I reckon yeh have to look at da unit scouters in Troop 413 rather than blamin' others for poor outcomes with your kids. Anyway, back to the topic... is it a moral imperative to always follow (apparently) every rule of any society or organization that you have chosen to join or were born into or whatnot? And if that's the case, what are we to make of the Declaration of Religious Principle, which says that only those who owe a duty to a Higher Power can be the "best kind of citizens?" Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BobWhite, da ethics thread is over in issues and politics, eh? Let's keep it there. This thread is about CO's and units flexibility in a practical sense. I expect a few units feel that they must follow most jots and tiddles of da various BSA program guides. I've never yet seen one anywhere that did everything "by the book" so to speak. We all recognize that BSA units are different. LDS units are different than units run by a Catholic school are different than units run by PTOs. Troops run by military or ex-military folks are different than troops run by granola environmentalists are different than troops run by business management types, eh? Patrol structure varies, commitment to advancement method rigor varies, level of outdoor program varies widely from troops dat mostly do camporees and shut down in the summer to units that run an activity almost every week and two to three high adventure trips a year. Urban Scoutreach units are different still. Dat's OK, eh? Unless we really feel that everybody should be exactly like us, eh? Dat every unit should do things exactly the same way as our unit does... presumably because each of our units is perfect. Or dat the "BSA program" (as interpreted by us who presume to speak for da BSA) is perfect... even though we're constantly modifying it. Nah, there's a reason we encourage families to check out different troops and crews and packs. Because we know they're different. They're supposed to be different. AlFansome, I agree with you, eh? COs shouldn't "make things up as they go along." Nobody would recommend that. A CO who has the ability to generate its own program like that doesn't need to charter a Scoutin' unit. But it's a different thing to make thoughtful choices based on goals and values. So a troop that's been around for 50 years with youth-run Boards of Review hits 1990 when da BSA shifts that practice. They like youth run BORs. It's worked well for 'em for 50 years. They try adult BORs and don't like da change in patrol dynamic and youth leader responsibility. It doesn't meet their goals. So they back off and return to includin' at least some youth on a BOR. That's not makin' things up as they go along, eh? If anything, da BSA made up the new "no youth on BOR" rule as it went along. The unit is bein' thoughtful and rational about their goals and aims and how best to get there. Fact is, committee-only BORs really don't work fine for "all the other units out there." We've got several troops in our council that have small committees of professionals associated with da CO, but large numbers of kids. They'd never get BORs done in a timely way if they limited BORs to committee members. There's still quite a few units that use youth on BORs - and to be honest, I find da Eagle candidates in those troops to be more interesting and prepared as often as not. We've seen in posts here that some committees only are willin' to hold BORs every three months, eh? I reckon I'd encourage usin' other folks on BORs instead of settlin' for that, eh? Point is, there's just not many things yeh can point to that work fine for all the units out there. Good commish's will understand the reasons for BSA program elements... like da risk in all-youth BORs of the board becomin' personal, or too hard, or too retest-y, and share those thoughts. Then help a unit use the BSA materials to achieve their goals, eh? Not use the BSA materials perfectly - but help 'em to achieve their goals perfectly. That's what the Charter Agreement means. To respect the aims and goals of the CO and offer the resources of Scouting to help in meeting their objectives. Offer, not force. And da CO runs the unit according to its own guidelines and policies (first and foremost, because they are the ones who have legal and moral responsibility for the unit, not the BSA), as well as those of the BSA (to preserve the BSA's interest in the reputation of its program and materials). Beavah

So a Scoutmaster who says that in his troop the BSA uniform consists of the uniform top and jeans, then he is in league with Moses, Elijah and the prophets.... Who knew? LOL. Exactly why it's so absurd to claim that da BSA uniform regulations are the same thing morally/ethically/by analogy/by example as the laws of a government or society. They're not, eh? They're just the guidelines to a children's program. BobWhite's right, eh? Not usin' NSP and instead insisting that older boys mentor younger lads as part of regular patrols gets you perhaps a few boys who respect servant leadership better, but yeh don't get your face on Mt. Rushmore. That requires somethin' like ... Treason against your lawful ruler under God. And just so the point is once again clear, all those heroic people didn't break just any law, nor did they break rules just to do what they wanted, although there was always an element of that. Those are all just stooooopid straw man arguments, though they're quite funny. Those good men and women just put goals, principles, and higher law above idolatry of human law and rulers. Their example is not a license to break human law willy-nilly, it's a call to serve above all else - to serve Christ the King, not Henry the King, in da language of your tradition, OGE. BobWhite, you're a long way from your last Bible Study class or history seminar, eh? Time for a refresher I reckon. Let's let some others have an at-bat, though, eh? Beavah

The issue as I see it, is because there may be many different way to use the textbook and other teaching methods, just having a 4.0 GPA will not get you in most Post Secondary Educational Institutions, they also require either ACT's or SAT's, why? because an A is not an A is not an A. Yah, and I reckon if we're bein' honest with ourselves, an Eagle is not an Eagle is not an Eagle, eh? As Kudu is wont to point out ad nauseum, one BSA Eagle can be a 12-year-old who has never worn a backpack. Another can be a 17-year-old who has backpacked on three continents, can discuss in detail da current financial markets mess from his Personal Management and Citizenship badges, and led the effort to build a new nursing home in his town. Yah, yah, we can claim that these things are differences between boys and not programs, eh? But every council I've ever looked at you can see big differences in things like Eagle Project service hours by unit. Some units average 250+ hours per project, some less than 50. Those are unit differences. I know people get all in a lather about such things, but I reckon those differences are OK. Fact is, as OGE points out, we can't really point to any organization that successfully maintains identical program and standards across a wide area. Schools don't. Colleges don't. Businesses don't, at least not when they're dealin' with humans instead of hamburgers. And where we do try to set one uniform standard, by necessity we set it at the next-to-least common denominator. A few fail, but all da rest succeed. Lots of attorneys who pass the bar shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a real case, eh? BSA has done it right. We've offered a program that allows for adaptation and adoption and variance. That way we've got a program that can be used a lot of different places, and accepted by a lot of different people. And we don't have to be responsible for it. Look at GSUSA for a contrast, eh? One set of values that turn off a lot of people. They are responsible for it, so da level of restrictions on unit activities is 10 times what da BSAs are. Result over the years has been real competition from groups like Campfire and now Heritage, and only bein' able to hold the attention of cub-scout aged girls. We've done a lot better. This is not true. Through the annual recharter agreement, the CO is allowed to use the BSA program. If they stray too far from the program, then I'd assume a Council wouldn't sign on the dotted line next year unless the CO gets back closer to the program. Yeh might assume, but you'd be wrong AlFansome. Droppin' a charter can't be done at the council level. Has to go up to National. And it's very, very rare. About as rare as a curriculum publisher refusin' to sell their program to a school. It happens, but only when things are really nuts. Nobody's goin' to lose their charter over a lad sittin' on a Board of Review. Nor are they goin' to lose their charter even if they do somethin' major like not allow any boys over age 13 to stay in their troop. Nor does a UC have any authority over a unit, beyond the authority freely given by the unit if he or she is a good friend and mentor. Heck, these days da UC was probably recruited from the unit, like as not. The point is, parents and youth don't sign up for the BSA program. They sign up for a particular CO's program. BSA feels so strongly about this that we encourage transitioning webelos to visit several different troops so they find one that's a good fit. We know that da programs are not the same, eh? By bein' not the same, we can find spots for a lot more diverse set of consumers. And when CO's license the BSA materials, they do so to run their own program and fulfill their own mission and goals. Not to make a generic scout troop, but to make a unique scout troop. Yah, it's a partnership. Two parties workin' in good faith with at least some common, shared interests. But da CO is the Senior Partner with controlling interest. COs ultimately govern the BSA, da BSA doesn't govern the COs. And da CO owns the unit. All this is just jawbonin' among old furry and feathered critters, though, eh? Fact is, it's just a children's program, and nobody sweats the small stuff like this. Not worth any time when we could be campin' together. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BrotherhoodWWW, I agree with your insight, eh? In fact, I've seen internal studies within the BSA that show units with a committed, permanent CO fare better in da long run than things like "friends of Troop 223" parent groups. Havin' watched this over the years, I think it relates to acco's point, eh? Da presence of a CO brings with it a certain set of values. In a way, even just da occasional involvement of the CO sets a tone which keeps everyone on the same page in terms of goals for that particular unit. That tone attracts like-minded families who want not just Scouting for their child, but that kind of Scouting. Mormon scouting. Catholic Scouting. VFW Scouting. High Adventure LNT Scouting. Drop-in recreation program Scouting. Whatevah. What happens when a CO gets too remote, or there's an improvised CO like "Parents of...", is that yeh get new parents joinin' who don't hear da values message, and bring their own agenda. Eagle should be tough, Eagle should be easy so my kid can get it fast, everything will be perfect so long as we read da book, the book should be ignored because I know better, whatever. Those internal squabbles among adults over goals and values only happen when there isn't a shared vision. And there often isn't a shared vision because da CO isn't there to gently project its own, preferred vision. Yah, sure, a long-term, well-respected Scoutmaster can sometimes be da "keeper of the flame" in terms of vision, eh? But even they eventually drift off, or keel over. Real long-term vision comes from an interested and (lightly) involved CO. Beavah

Yah, thanks evmori! Can't say I can figure that out either, eh? Right after I was agreein' with BobWhite on his reformulation, too. Then he hits me with R1, R5, and R3, plus his typical "lets make this a personal dig" twist, eh? BobWhite, I reckon folks who start believin' that da rules of a human community are "sacrosanct" as OGE put it inevitably face the alarmin' contradiction that most of our heroes are flagrant rulebreakers. Moses, Elijah and the prophets, da Maccabees, Jesus and the 12, da early Christian martyrs, St. Francis and probably most of da saints in the Christian tradition, the nobles who ambushed King John and made him sign the Magna Carta, Martin Luther, George Washington and the American founding fathers, Harriet Tubman and the members of da Underground Railroad, Schindler, and Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Even Thomas More, who I'm told is da patron saint of lawyers. We rightly hail as heroes those who reject da notion of "sacrosanct" human law because it's naught more than a form of idolatry. Only God is sanct[us] (holy) and only He deserves sacro[um] (reverence). Therefore only Divine Law is sacrosanct. Of course, we can also point to many villains who break laws, eh? Maybe the worst of us break laws, and da best of us try to perfect laws. And all da rest who just follow laws are da mediocre herd. Or I reckon it may be that da worst of the villains are those that make laws. At least for our own ends. Or maybe it's only that they're villains when they break divine laws, eh? Not human ones. Anyways, as citizens of a free society, we have all kinds of mechanisms to nullify laws in particular cases, from law enforcement discretion to prosecutorial discretion to jury nullification to executive pardon to many levels of judicial review. Da only place you'll find uniform, consistently applied laws without situational discretion is in the lands of dictators and madmen. Universally applied law is unchecked and unbalanced law, eh? I reckon good Scouters are ones who follow their CO's notion of good citizenship, because that's who they work for. And since most of our CO's are Christian churches, I reckon that means they admire da likes of Moses, and Jesus, and those other law-breakers, eh? I suspect most of da rest of our CO's have an admiration for Washington, and those fellow citizens on the green at Lexington. Rulebreakers and Oathbreakers all. Heroes and what da BSA calls "the best kind of citizens." Da only thing that would be dishonest is if a Scouter didn't uphold his or her CO's values, or tried to pretend that da rules in a children's game were the same thing as Divine Law - sacrosanct. So that would be a J10, J14, J19 back at yeh. And maybe Oak Tree will credit me with a new one or two. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I was goin' to let this run for a bit before chimin' in again, but I like BobWhite's reformulation, eh? I think if we treat da principles as moral imperatives, and servin' the goals of those to whom we owe allegiance in the same way, we're far closer to what I would consider an ethical person. So roundin' down on MBs or whatnot as OGE suggests generally isn't acceptable, because it really doesn't accomplish the goals of the CO or, indirectly, the BSA. I'd prefer not to see it. At da same time I have to recognize that the BSA's employees at camps very frequently do exactly that, in order to meet a different goal of consumer satisfaction. Sometimes, I reckon we've just got to be on da same page of what the goals are, eh? Either way, I really wouldn't have any objection to a SM who "rounded up" on behalf of a lad who had just spent 3 months in chemotherapy, and needed a "success" in his life right then for other reasons. In fact, I might consider it unethical not to. BobWhite, while I agreed with your first bit, yeh lost me again though with the ethical imperative to follow da laws of the community. Followin' the law is generally a reasonable thing, to be sure... but even the law makes quite a few distinctions about how important any individual piece of it is. Thou shalt not commit homicide bein' a bit more imperative than thou shalt always remember to feed the parkin' meter. And da actual practice of the law is rife with individual discretion and judgment, even among those charged with its enforcement. At least in a free society. Human rules are ... human. Sometimes reasonable, sometimes silly, sometimes selfish or even evil. Never perfect. Makin' it an ethical imperative to always follow somethin' that's imperfect just doesn't seem sensible to me. That would be choosin' to put yourself in what Catholics used to call "the near occasion of sin." Can't speak for other traditions, but it goes against a long tradition in the Christian community and the Western World. Beavah

I also agree with Gold Winger that even the CO should not be able to do whatever they want. There have to be some limits. Yeh have to remember, it's the CO's program, eh? They really can do whatever they want, because they're the owner, not the BSA. BSA is just a resource provider. Kinda like a school and a textbook publisher. A textbook publisher might spend a lot of money, come up with a super-duper math curriculum, test it and find that it works great if it's followed. Even offer trainin' to teachers from schools that want to use it, and awards for levels of achievement of students and such, and even insurance for schools that use its curriculum because it's more risky than average. A school might like that, and buy the curriculum from the textbook publisher. May or may not send its teachers to the trainin', may or may not use the awards system well. The school is the responsibility of the principal/superintendent/school board, eh? Not the textbook publisher. That's as it should be, because da school has to be responsive and responsible to its constituents. They may choose not to use some pieces of the curriculum, or emphasize other parts, or add some of their own stuff. Maybe they feel their kids should get more business math, or do algebra earlier, or incorporate peer tutoring, because those things fit their goals, even though dat's not part of the textbook publisher's curriculum. It's their school, their kids and families, their responsibility. All the textbook publisher can do is offer guidance on how it designed the program to work. And maybe, if a big enough customer wants an adaptation, to do that for 'em. Or, if da school is a complete mess, they can refuse to license the curriculum to them, because they don't want to ruin their curriculum's reputation. If you're lookin' for a centralized authority model of Scoutin', that's not da BSA. GSUSA is closer, eh? Not really sure we want to follow their example, though. Scoutin' in the rest of the world is even less centralized than we are. So by and large, I reckon if you're lookin' for a more uniform, centralized youth experience Scouting is not da right choice for you. You should consider somethin' like the Civil Air Patrol or JROTC, both of which are excellent programs for youth. So when yeh go off to BSA trainin', you're gettin' the word of the curriculum publisher on how it's designed. When yeh come back to your unit, you're workin' for the CO, and da COR is the principal and your employer, and the Committee is his staff. Yeh can advocate for doin' the curriculum as its designed, but they can say no. That can be annoyin' sometimes, especially if your unit is runnin' off the rails a bit. In the bigger picture, though, it's the difference between bein' a small organization with a lot of liability exposure, and bein' a big organization with reasonable liability exposure. Just look at da rules, prohibitions, and limitations in GSUSA to get what I'm talkin' about. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Probably swamped it then broached it on a rock (partially folded it around da rock by water pressure). That'll kill a canoe fer sure. No easy answer. Insurance for non-owned property (technically property under your care, custody, or control) ain't real common for individuals. Can even be somewhat hard to obtain for businesses. Properly speakin', this should be an insurance claim on the part of da person who owned the boat - same as if he had wrecked the boat himself. Just like if they had borrowed his car, eh? If he didn't have coverage, or had a large deductible, I think da only honorable thing to do is for the guys to pay to make him whole, eh? That's the cost of havin' "free" rentals from friends (and the cost of not paddlin' within your ability level as adults ). The only way I can see the troop indemnifying 'em is if the two were the required two adult leaders for the trip, and borrowing the canoe was the only way they could come and the trip happen for the boys. In that case, yeh might consider it. Or, if yeh look at things and you say "we really need these two adult leaders, and they're so upset about this they're goin' to quit" - maybe because right now they just can't afford that kind of hit without cuttin' back on their scouting. In such a case, maybe yeh split it with 'em. Or you do it with da understanding that they'll make an offsetting donation to the troop over the next year or two. Mostly, though, it's a matter between them and da guy who was dumb enough to lend 'em his shiny new boat, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Jei64822, most one-time posters here who want to get into this kind of discussion are just trollin', eh? If you're interested, you can find this rehashed again and again in the "Issues and Politics" forum. On the off chance you're really interested for some other reason than being an outsider trolling someone else's board, yeh can send me a personal message with your reason for askin' and I'll reply because a Scout is Helpful. But yeh have to avoid the sort of biased, judgmental comments you make in #4, eh? Beavah

I'll start, eh? Since as a Thread Policeman, it's best to lead off bein' a good example and all, eh? In da parent thread, BobWhite opines The rule of thumb in a civil society is the less ethical the individual the more flexible they are with other peoples rules. Yah, not sure whose rule of thumb that is. What do the rest of you think of that as a rule of thumb? I can't see it myself. Da person who I view to be the most ethical individual in the history of humanity fairly routinely was flexible with other people's rules, eh? Washin' hands before meals, doin' labor on the sabbath, eatin' with the "unclean", even releasin' convicted felons under the death penalty. The foundin' fathers of this country I consider by and large to be a very ethical and brave lot, and to have founded the most civil society on Earth. But I reckon we all have to admit that they played pretty fast and loose with other people's rules. So I say J15, and when it comes to a kids' program, J16 and some others, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, seems we're back into a recurrin' theme, eh? That would be da theme where some folks equate all rules, guidelines, and program features, even those of a kids' program, as bein' moral imperatives. And others, who view goals and principles as bein' perhaps more important than individual (human) rules, or at least don't see da program features of a kids' program as bein' a moral imperative. So let's have that rehash discussion over in this thread, eh? And try to keep the others focused on more specific options and consequences. As a reminder for those who like da shortcut, Oak Tree's list of canonical arguments on this topic can be found here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=184944#id_184944 Beavah Yah, cool, I figured out how to make a link! (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Scouter760, good question, eh? Let's stop a minute and ask who your Chartered Organization is, eh? And then what your position is in the unit? And what your community is like? Yeh see, what you are describin' is a conflict in goals/values. You seem to have a separate goal of rules-followin'. That can be a fine thing, provided you remember that BSA program rules are not at all da same thing as public laws like runnin' stopsigns. What you're hearin' other folks in your unit tell you is that there are other goals and values in play, eh? Those people you dis on a bit as "old timers" might have goals of participatory youth leadership, for example. I think yeh have to listen to 'em. They are your fellow adults. In Scoutin', most of our program "rules" are only valid when they serve a purpose of advancin' the goals of the Chartered Organization. That's the only reason da BSA exists, eh? To assist Chartered Organizations (and, indirectly, parents) in achieving their goals. So I think if da Troop Committee is tellin' you that their values and goals include havin' youth serve on BORs, you need to be very thoughtful about makin' waves. A perfectly OK response from them is to tell you to go find another troop, because you don't share their goals and are makin' headaches. And I reckon they're always goin' to be able to find work-arounds if they care about it enough, whether it's appointin' youth to da committee, or sittin' a youth as a fourth "unofficial" board of review member or whatnot. Practically speakin', this ain't a hill to die on. Boy Scouting worked fine for a lot of years of youth serving as the Board of Review without any adults. Havin' one token youth BOR member is a small thing. If your role in the unit is as an assistant unit leader or an MC, you've done your duty by bringin' it up. Now do your duty by abidin' by da Committee's decision. Let it slide and spend your time on more important issues. The answer may be different, of course, if you're a UC. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, exactly BobWhite. I agree with yeh. Older boys in same-age/Venture patrols become an example of what's possible when/if a younger lad makes it to that level. To interact with younger lads, they come down from da mountaintop to do a special job or service, eh? That can be great. That's a very different feel from sharin' a campsite and campsite chores as a fellow patrol-mate on an ongoin' basis. Of bein' a fellow Gryffindor, and workin' alongside older and younger lads for the honor of our patrol. In da former, the older boys are responsible for teachin' and assisting. In the latter, they're responsible for leading. In da former, the younger scouts see da older boys on the mountaintop. In the latter, they see 'em in the common room. Which yeh choose depends on what your goals are, eh? I do believe, though, that ends up bein' an adult choice, or at least an adult-guided choice. Just because da goals are program goals, adult goals. Whether it's be good re-enactors or teach servant leadership or promote high adventure, patrol method is central to achievin' those goals, and should be used thoughtfully. Had a parent in one program tell me over da weekend how interestin' it was that her younger boy had become a real friend to older boys in his patrol - to the point where they call him to invite him to go bikin' or to da rock gym or their birthday or whatnot - without his older brother. While in all da rest of the world the younger boy would just have been "their older son's little brother" to those older boys. I reckon jblake is right, eh? If we care about it as part of our goals, we adults can make the age thing irrelevant. Left to themselves, though, the boys would choose what they're familiar with from the rest of da world. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm not takin' anything personally, ASM59. Just continuin' the conversation with a friend. Please don't worry about offendin' me, I don't offend very easily at all. I think about things this way. "What am I trying to accomplish?" and "Will my actions actually accomplish that?" I think if what I'm really tryin' to accomplish is "to [not]allow the boys to see that adults dont have to follow the rules" then I've got a problem, eh? Because as an outsider, those boys don't know me from Adam. If I come over and make some comment to them and/or their Scoutmaster, da only likely response from the boys, parents, and adult leaders is "Who is this jerk?" and rightly so. The boys don't know me, but they know and trust their scout leaders. Da parents of the boys don't know me, but they know and trust the unit leaders. Da unit leaders don't know me, and aren't likely to pay me much heed because all I've demonstrated is that I'm an officious busy-body. And to make matters worse, I could be wrong. We've all certainly seen that aplenty, eh? I might be wrong on da issue, or I might be wrong on the values of the Chartering Organization that sponsors the unit. Not every CO shares the same view of obedience and rules, eh? Nor of sexual morality. Scoutin' is a big organization. And da BSA guidelines and such aren't the same thing as laws, eh? I'd be lyin' to people if I pretended they were. At best, all I will have accomplished is to cause folks to think I'm a nitwit. At worst, what I've accomplished is to get boys or parents to doubt their unit leaders a bit, or demonstrated to 'em it's OK to argue with the Scoutmaster. Or if I'm a commish, maybe I've made myself unwelcome. Or if I'm a district scouter, maybe I've ensured they stop coming to camporees or round tables to avoid people like me. None of those things is good for da unit, eh? Or I've demonstrated that folks who care about da rules are kinda petty, so I've actually harmed my original goal, eh? I think what I would accomplish successfully by goin' to tell folks off about breakin' the rules or fuddlin' up da guidelines or whatever is that I would make myself feel better, and perhaps even feel more important. That may be important for some people, some times. Da BSA can be a spot where they feel important and knowledgeable. In terms of my own personal ethics, while at times I yield to that temptation just as we all do, I'm almost always sorry for it. Scoutin' isn't about me. So I have to be better than bein' right, eh? I have to choose an approach that is likely to lead to a positive outcome. And I've got to do it in a way dat's Friendly, Courteous, Obedient to my role and relationships, truly Loyal to a fellow Scouter and especially Kind. Ain't enough to be right. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, jblake makes good points, Cardinal. Once yeh have a developed patrol structure, the boys can continue it. I think yeh do have to consider BobWhite's and others' more directive style in the short run, though, because yeh have to get 'em going on the patrol method to start. Provide 'em a structure to get goin', then they can figure it out from there. Da big question in some ways is whether you see your older boys as bein' mentors and instructors to your younger ones within a patrol, and whether patrols should be "permanent" like school houses in Hogwarts. Or whether patrols should come out of da webelos den model of same-age friends, and be more transient. The former, yeh grab your older boys who are the stronger leaders and rascals, and yeh have them select the guys they enjoy bein' around and working with. If yeh think it's necessary, you can have the younger lads write down who their friends and best buddies are, though mostly I expect the older boys know this kind of thing already. If yeh think it's necessary, also call their attention to each boy's participation rate so yeh make sure every patrol is always "viable" on campouts. Now your more experienced scouts have real responsibility for all the lads in their patrol, and your patrols are fairly evenly balanced for patrol competitions and such. New boys get "sorted" into these existing patrols either right away or after a brief period in a New Scouts Patrol. Just like da Hogwarts Sorting Hat, the choice of the lad matters . The latter, yeh grab the one or two boys in each age cohort who are natural leader types and make 'em PLs (or encourage 'em to run for the job). Then yeh let 'em form up with roughly same-age group friends, shepherdin' the "unpopular" lads into one patrol or another. Yeh can formalize this process as BobWhite suggests, or be a bit more loose, but yeh want to have a good handle on it either way. Because this will result in unbalanced patrols, patrol competition won't be a big thing in your troop, and you're goin' to want to be committed to a high-adventure sort of program for your older boy patrols since they won't have as much challenge and responsibility for teachin' the younger guys. New groups will come in as webelos dens together as a New Scout Patrol, and often remain as that patrol until attrition forces 'em to consolidate in high school. If yeh just let 'em self-select, you'll likely get the second type of patrol setup, because in all da rest of their life they stay just with their same-age peers, eh? School, sports, etc. Kids are conservative types, they stick with what they know. As middle schoolers especially, they prefer to blend in with da crowd, not be singled out. So if yeh want the first type, yeh have to be a bit more explicit settin' that up. One thing I wouldn't necessarily do is start by pullin' out SPL, ASPL, and troop positions (QM, etc.). I think yeh want to build your patrol structure first, because it's the foundation of good Scoutin'. Then, as they feel the need, the boys can step forward and be voluntarily demoted from their patrol to troop service jobs. PL's are da team captain. SPL is the guy who organizes the league schedule, QM brings the balls out, etc. Get 'em to recognize the PL's as the real team captains first, eh? Beavah

Yah, ASM59, I'm not even sure we disagree, eh? At least not in principle. I think in the specific incidence of the DE and his fiancee, a lot of folks were doin' two things. First, they were tryin' to do da SE's job, without really understandin' that the SE has to worry about a lot more things, eh? Pesky things like the law. Morality clauses in contracts are by no means a "get out of jail free card," particularly in a very ambiguous case like this one. And how much of da council's money are yeh willin' to put into that effort, eh? Second, they were imputin' a lack of morality to someone when they had no evidence of any immorality at all. Dat's the kind of judgment that I reckon any good Christian should recoil from. In short, in obeying the Scout Law, we should be Loyal to our fellow Scouters, Friendly, Courteous, and especially Kind to our fellow Scouters and Professionals. And Obedient to da proper organizational structure, which means not tryin' to take the SE's job until we're wearin' that patch (with wreathes or whatever ). If I had a personal, positive relationship with this DE, would I at some point have a "Hey, George... about Melissa..." moment with him? Yah, sure, if da moment was right and I thought he was in a spot where he might listen. But if I was a unit scouter at camp, and didn't have a personal relationship with this DE? Not my business or my role, eh? I should be spendin' my time on my kids, and lettin' the SE do his job. And in the meantime, be Friendly, Courteous, and Kind, eh? My struggle with those that like to whack people over the head with Rules (often rules which they don't fully understand, eh?) is that more likely than not they ignore 3, 4, 5 or more points of da Scout Law and at least 1 or two of the Oath in order to hammer at that Obedience thing, eh? Like da Pharisees of yore, I reckon that sort of behavior is a far, far worse example to our youth of proper moral or ethical behavior. Jesus never condemned the adulterer or the tax collector. But he sure did have some negative things to say about them that thought they were enforcin' God's rules. "Brood of Vipers" was da least of it, eh? But YMMV. Da intellectual descendants of Caiphas are as strong as ever, and make seemingly good arguments. Yours in Scoutin' service, Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Or do they fudge it, by having the 15+ year-old instructors teach the class and the 18+ year-old area directors sign off? Right in one.

Yah, SR540, I hear yeh. I guess I'm just a lot less certain that I know what "the right path" is for everybody, eh? Mostly I'm grateful that I only have to make hard decisions occasionally. It's so easy to get those wrong, and do people harm by not bein' thoughtful enough or listenin' enough. Especially since judges do tend to buy my arguments more often than not. And a lot depends on what my position is, eh? If I'm a unit leader in a situation, dat's different than bein' a COR in a situation, different still if I'm a commish, and very different than if I'm just another scouter who wandered by camp to say hi, or if I'm an EB member or a camp accreditation team member or whatnot. A wise man knows that his role in a situation matters a lot, because it's important to respect da roles and relationships that others have. So in the case of a dad openin' a beer, been there. Many times. Sometimes da answer has been "do nothing" because other folks were there and aware and it was their role to respond, not mine. Sometimes the answer has been to tell someone they were no longer welcome as an adult leader in Scoutin'. Sometimes it's been to say "Hey, George, save me one, will ya?... but let's save 'em together for tomorrow when you're dryin' the tents out, eh? Right now we're here for da lads." And a few other more creative approaches to boot, eh? Thing is, had I chosen the wrong approach in each case, it would have been worse for everyone involved than if the dad had just had a beer in peace, eh? It's so easy to end up damagin' relationships, messin' up units, or hurtin' kids. Been there once or twice too, eh? That's da risk and downside of thinkin' I know da "right path" when really I'm just bein' an equine derriere. Beavah

Yah, ASM59, I think you're lookin' at the organization all wrong, eh? I reckon you need to take 3 months off of readin' online forums and get out in da woods with real kids and real volunteers. You'll find they're good people, and good colleagues, and good friends. I'm actually a bit more serious than I am tongue-in-cheek, mate. Listen too long to this online palaver and yeh really can get a warped sense of da world. Scoutin' is a voluntary association of Chartering Orgs and folks who enjoy working with kids in the outdoors and other informal settings. Yeh have to view it like that, because that's what it is. Like meetin' fellow sailors, if you're into that. Or fellow reinactors, if dat's your pleasure. Or bein' with other folks in your profession at informal gatherings. No cops, no judges. Just good folks associatin'. Sharin' ideas. Sharin' guidelines to help with safety. Sharin' best practices. Stop thinkin' of the BSA as though it's the government, and it's publications as though they were statutes, with police and a judicial branch and legislature and all that, eh? It's not what we are. I'm a part of a good many associations and clubs and hobby organizations and the like, eh? National organizations with local chapters, much like da BSA. Each one has all kinds of folks. Most of 'em are good friends or at least solid, friendly acquaintances. Some are just odd ducks, eh? A few I find boors, or just folks I don't much care for. Especially in my profession, eh? What do yeh do if you don't care for someone's approach to your hobby or profession of choice? Why, show 'em cordial respect as a fellow hobbyist or professional and then avoid 'em. Now, if someone is a friend, or if I have a relationship with him for some reason (like a commish is supposed to be a real friend to unit folks, though I reckon many fail at that), and an opportunity presents itself where help is needed or a suggestion will be well received, then dat's great, eh? But if it's a fellow hobbyist or professional I don't have a relationship with, I just shake my head. Buttin' in is the sort of thing we call "rude" and "inappropriate." Of course, things eventually change when we hit da real world of laws and such, eh? Or genuine, life-threatenin' safety. Then it becomes a matter of personal ethics. When is it appropriate to call da Coast Guard to report a fellow sailor, or the FAA to report a fellow pilot? Each of us makes that call if we ever get there, eh? By and large, that kind of decision we only have to face once a lifetime or so. In Scoutin', that's the decision about when we call the cops. For the rest, a fellow reinactor is a fellow reinactor, even if he's a bit of an uncommitted hack, eh? A fellow pilot is a fellow pilot, even if I wouldn't fly with him because he tends to bounce his landings all da time. And a fellow scouter is a fellow scouter. Beavah

Yah, ASM59, in this case I think yeh have to be ready to admit that you might not even know what da rules are, eh? G2SS is not the rule book for councils and council employees. That would be things like the employee handbook, state and federal employment law and the like, eh? Generally speakin', takin' employment action based on a single, non-criminal act done by a man in his own temporary residence is somethin' that keeps attorneys that do that kind of work in clover, eh? Our laws in da U.S. generally don't allow a boss to fire an employee over what guests he has in his home, eh? Nor evict a tenant on the same basis. And rightly so. So yeh see, for all you know, both da SE and the DE are followin' the law/rules. Good judgment and best practice are different matters, perhaps. Dat's why folks like Eamonn and I and adams are all sayin' that once the "powers that be" are aware of the situation, it just ain't the business of the rest of us. Just as Jesus in the story of the adulteress makes it clear that it ain't the role of the crowd to condemn or correct the woman for her fault, eh? That's between her and her Boss. Beavah

When a boy registers, it is pretty apparent from the contact information submitted whether his parents are married or divorced. Since we use Mr and Mrs in our Troop, it is pretty obvious if Mr Brown and Mrs Green bring Timmy Green on campouts that Brown and Green are not married. Yes, she could be a professional who kept her maiden name, but her son would most likely be Brown instead of Green. Yah, I guess we have another new application, eh? Last I checked da youth application only had one line for parent, so I'm not sure how you'd get marital status off that. As for the rest, without even lookin' up folks I can name a half dozen people who don't fit SR540's guess in the units I know. Dr. Spellman (female), married to Mr. Franks (male) with son Tommy Spellman (from first marriage). Goin' back a ways, scoutldr has the right of it, eh? Folks need to be careful. The Guide to Safe Scouting for Unit Activities does not apply to professionals or to council or national events. Those are governed by other things, includin' things like employment or tenant law in the several states. Dependin' on what state this is happenin' in, da SE may well be bound by the law, not BSA policy. Yeh see, the council here sure seems like it's providing a residence, one which is required to be used as a condition of employment, eh? In that case, much like a landlord, the council may have only limited control over things, eh? That is, of course, if you are interested in following the law. Dat's why I reckon all the busybodies out there need to be a bit more circumspect about things, eh? It's really difficult to know what's really goin' on in any adult's life or any organizational decision. A man I know and respect a great deal was once brought a woman who had been caught in a compromisin' position, violatin' a rule much worse than is obvious with this DE. When folks brought her, they were all hot to get her, because she had broken the rule. His answer was that he did not condemn her, and he challenged all those folks all hot and bothered about da rule with a straightforward challenge, eh? Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. I'd never be one to advocate for sex outside of heterosexual, committed marriage, eh? (which ain't necessarily the same thing as legal marriage, of course). Some things are sinful, and sinful things hurt a person, and I don't reckon I like to see people hurt. For da same reason, as a good Christian, I also don't reckon I should be pickin' up many rocks, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hi ScoutMomSD! Welcome to da forums, eh? Thanks for takin' the time to contribute your first post. I think you are quite right in your approach, and I reckon most scout leaders take a mature, adult, balanced view of these things. Perhaps especially in da hinterlands like highcountry suggests! I reckon we all need to listen carefully to the voices of those reportin' poor practices in scoutin', and not be too quick to dismiss 'em. Folks who get all worried about bumping a lad's leg with a stickshift or patting a boy on the shoulder get that way for a reason, eh? They've been exposed to others in the BSA who get very hot and bothered about anything that may be interpreted as even a minor violation of law or policy or guidance, and respond simply by avoiding any similar situation altogether. Makin' Scoutin' in their units or councils poorer. One might imagine someone readin' the last post decidin' not to ever use a scouting symbol or logo in a unit T-shirt or promotional item rather than tryin' to deal with the hassle and induced fear, eh? Especially someone unfamiliar with da topic or the law. And Scoutin' would be all the poorer for it, bein' less present in those communities. The views expressed might not be da real approach of the national organization, but the fear, uncertainty and doubt created still causes folks to change their practice to the detriment of Scouting. We even go a bit overboard officially sometimes, eh? Like da NE Region letter which did indeed direct councils to exercise increased oversight and censorship of skits and songs, eh? That sort of thing gets used by those who get hot and bothered about such things to "ban" all sorts of campfire fun which has long been considered traditional and appropriate. That's been goin' on at many camps out that way, and we shouldn't dismiss that feedback lest we continue to make the same mistakes with our guidance and policies, eh? Beavah

Yah, I reckon we've caused a lot of confusion for srisom here, eh? If da issue is "following the rules," then the issue isn't with the DE. The DE, by all reports, had permission to do what he did, eh? So if that's what yeh are worried about, stop talkin' about the DE. Yeh have to approach the Council President about da performance of the SE. If the issue is all yeh people with dirty minds think the man is havin' sex before marriage, my thoughts are you'd be better off bein' good Christian souls and not judging what you really don't know. Shame on you! I know a whole parcel of folks of different genders who live in the same house (as renters). Sharin' a dwelling, especially in these tough economic times, does not mean being unchaste. More often than not, it means bein' Helpful and Thrifty. Now, if yeh really have evidence that the man is behavin' sinfully or scandalously, then If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. - Matthew 18:15 All in all, I submit that there's a profound difference between bein' selfRighteous and bein' Right. Beavah

More likely he's just confused, eh? Two steps, actipis. First is fillin' out the first part of your Eagle project workbook, and gettin' that approved by the agency you're workin' with, your unit committee, and your district/council. Then yeh can work on your project. Second step, when you're done with everything, there's an Eagle Scout Application. That's the one that can't be turned in until yeh get all your Merit Badges done, because the council registrar needs to verify the merit badges and dates on that form. Beavah