Beavah

Yah, GKlose, interestin' tale. I think yeh approach this with patience and sensitivity as "the new guy". The question to ask yourself is this: "What is the single most important issue to address for this troop, that I have the time and talent to contribute to?" If yeh need some guidance, ask your son (and some other lads durin' their BOR's ) what they think their troop's weaknesses are. My guess is it isn't BORs, eh? Practically speakin', lots of troops ask skill questions at BORs and run fine programs. Done well, it can improve confidence, and reinforce learning. Sounds like Eagletrek might be on the right track, eh? If campouts are lightly attended, patrol method is weak, etc. then my guess is that the BORs are detectin' a real weakness in the program. Kids aren't learnin' and experiencin' what they should. A committee's job in that case is to sit with the SM & ASMs and find out what they need by way of support to improve in those areas. Improvin' those is hard work, eh? Takes a lot of time and changin' of approach. As yeh get there, though, kids will be able to answer skill questions on BORs easily because they've really learned. Then the board will naturally shift to bein' a more complete BOR that addresses the other purposes. But if yeh just change BOR's so they don't check to see if the scout has learned the skills, yeh might allow the weak program to continue and the troop to become an adult-run, non-patrol-method advancement mill, eh? Beavah

Hi Pack283. Welcome to the forums, and good job thinkin' big and tryin' to have an exciting and well-funded program this year. GoldWinger is right, eh? The printed restriction is on solicitin' money for the troop. Here's the way to understand it. Good people at your district and council need to go out to businesses and "higher net worth" individuals in your area in order to ask for money for community Friends of Scouting, to support your council and all its programs. If you go to Joe's Ice Cream Parlor and ask for $50 or 20 gallons of ice cream, Joe might be happy to give it. Now along comes your district chair and district exec, who know Joe's Ice Cream makes a lot of money a year and likes to support local youth programs. They want to get a $5000 donation out of the business as part of supportin' CubWorld for your pack and others. But Joe tells him "we already gave to Scouting this year - 20 gallons of ice cream to the Cub Scouts!" That's what you want to avoid, eh? Also think of it in terms of the businesses and how it feels. If yeh live in a bigger town, a youth-friendly business might get solicited by a number of packs, and troops, and crews. Pretty soon it sure feels to them like they're bein' nickeled-and-dimed to death by Scouting, and Scouting seems to always "want something." That's not good either, eh? We need to be courteous and respectful to our local businesses and our colleagues at the council who are raisin' money. If you do that, then I reckon you will be fine. Easiest way is to do as BobWhite suggests, eh? Otherwise, it's bein' mindful of who you are solicitin' and coordinating with your district and council. Of course, nothing stops your CO from soliciting for its youth programs, especially from its own membership. Beavah

Nowhere does the program instruct or support the conmmitee members being elected. If it does then share with us where you find it. Nowhere does the program instruct or support a notion that the committee members should not be voted on by whatever committee is doin' the selecting. If it does then share with us where you find it. The committee is selected and approved by two of three people, and nothing in the BSA program says anything else. Incorrect. All of the BSA materials indicate that positions like the committee chair are screened and selected by the committee or by a steering committee chosen by the CR. The Supplementary Module on selecting leaders and committee members is quite explicit in making this a committee role, not an individual one. Approving the selection is done by one of two people - the IH or the CR. While the committee or others can "suggest" whatever they want they have no authority. Only the IH CR and CC do. Incorrect. The CC does not have the authority to select or approve of any position on his/her own in the BSA system. Why yeh persist in instructin' units not to follow the Scouting program is a mystery, eh? I can only assume that at present or in the recent past you were one of those CC's (perhaps like lynn07's or vcrew66's) who didn't properly understand his job description and thought he should be "president" or "king", even though that's not the BSA program. Since only the IH or CR have individual authority (subject to the internal governance rules of the CO), they can set up any system for selection of leaders that they want, eh? But if they follow the BSA's recommendations, they will use a committee for that purpose. But yeh know that already, eh? Because I know you've read the materials. So now you're just bein' stubborn. Lynn's unit would serve the scouts best by learning what the BSA supports and following that rather than the hearsay of other units whose success and quality of program are totally unkown to them. Yah, well, here I agree, eh? Which is why we're all takin' the time to offer a different perspective to the non-BSA system you seem to feel you like better. Nuthin' necessarily wrong with your system, mind. I've seen a few OK units run with a strong CC who was very collaborative. But if yeh get an uncollaborative CC in such a system IMO it's a recipe for conflict and a weak program. Yeh might have had that experience, given your deep-seated feelings on the matter? Practically speakin', most unit committees run more collaboratively, with a more friendly and open attitude toward parents. Whether by consensus or vote, they proceed through their business in some reasonable sort of "friendly parliamentary" fashion. If you've had some poor experiences with da CC as president over parent consumers way of lookin' at things, yeh might consider a more collaborative approach in the future. That, I reckon, would be more consistent with da BSA's new Parent Initiative, eh? Beavah

There was no twistin' there, BobWhite, and sayin' so is just bein' petulant. You know as well as I do that unit scouters are volunteers and agents for da Chartered Organization, not the BSA. Their duty of "obedience", as you put it, is to the CO. That is a proper understandin' of the BSA program. Now, to address twisting. Nowhere in this thread has anyone talked about positions being elected by the parents, eh? That's you twistin' the conversation. We were talkin' about unit committees and subcommittees of various sorts, which as you know in a proper BSA program consist of individuals selected for their expertise and broader experience from more than just the parent community, and/or from a subset of the parent community. Yeh twisted it to parents/consumers to make your own unrelated point, eh? Individual CO's can of course set their own expectations, and don't need to buy into the (sometimes unfortunate) BSA view of parents as "consumers." Some religious CO's, for example, place a great deal of emphasis on the primary role of da parents in the education of their children, and may mandate parent involvement in governance; PTO chartering orgs may also place a greater emphasis on parent involvement. That can work well, or poorly, dependin' on the situation - but it is aligned with their goals and values and supported by the BSA. For such CO's, it would be improper to think of parents as "consumers", more like "collaborators" or "partners", eh? That can be a nicer way of thinkin' about parents, IMO. If anyone can find any BSA reference that supports electing committee members then I urge them to produce it. Yah, this style of approach gets old too, eh? If yeh have any BSA references that prohibit votin', then I urge yeh to produce 'em. But you can't, because as we've demonstrated through this entire thread, the BSA materials do not specify the details of committee operations, which are left to the Chartered Organization. Where the BSA does suggest a method for selectin' committee members like the CC, it involves a committee nominatin', screening, ranking, and selecting individuals, who are then approved by the CR/IH. In rankin' and selecting people, the committee has to make a decision somehow, eh? Votin' seems like a reasonable choice that's well understood. Workin' harder for consensus is often good. I suppose they could roll dice, but that doesn't strike me as bein' all that effective. The only thing that is not supported by da BSA program materials is your continued reference to the CC being individually responsible for selecting/appointing/approving, rather than just bein' a leader of the group that selects/appoints/approves. While a Chartered Org. can set up a CC in that way (by makin' the CR the CC), that isn't very common. If da CC is not the CR, such a setup is not obedient to what you call the "BSA program." And I agree, eh? If yeh set up a CC like that, you're more likely to get substandard results over time. Beavah

I managed to do about 100 miles on the AT and 80 miles at Philmont last year with my shirt tucked in. It isn't that big of a problem. Yah, I said bein' truly active, eh? Try to do that runnin' around playin' a wide game, climbin' trees, racin' your buddy in a sprint to the trading post and the like! Beavah

In a Scouting situation, that authority is the policies and procedures of the BSA programs. Yah, incorrect again, eh? In a unit scouting situation, the primary authority is the policies and procedures of the Chartered Organization, since they are the party legally responsible for the actions of their Scouting volunteers. But yeh knew that, I expect. Beavah

Your pleas must have moved them, for while they must still attend Ship activities, the new revised Adcvancement Committee Policies and Procedures now says that a Venturer can earn the QM Award. BobWhite, I think you're gettin' old-critter memory, eh? In that original thread, I was the one who told you that the new revised ACP&P indicated that a Venturer could earn the QM award. In fact, that's been true of every copy of ACP&P, not just the newly revised one. You and emb both objected, and when trackin' it back to the source, it turned out that you were right and ACP&P was an error that wasn't caught before it went to press. To earn QM, a boy or girl must be registered as a Sea Scout, bein' registered as a Venturer does not make 'em eligible. I was informed that an entire unit can dual-register if they want, eh? So a CO could charter a Crew and a Ship with identical membership. But an individual Venturer cannot earn QM without dual registering with a Ship. They are separate programs. Now, it might be that after the dust has settled from the reorganization, this will be revisited. It certainly makes sense that if Sea Scouts can earn Ranger and Quest, etc. that Venturers should be able to earn QM. But AFAIK that's not the way it stands now. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, for dress occasions I think untucked just looks sloppy and disrespectful, eh? So put me down for "tucked." But the new uniform is bein' marketed as outdoor gear, too. Here's hopin' it will work well as outdoor gear, and is a uniform that will get dirty, smelly, sweat-stained, dunked in rivers, etc. like the uniform of an outdoor program should. I can't say I particularly care about tucked or untucked when it comes to outdoor gear. If you're bein' truly active, keepin' a shirt tucked in just seems like unnecessary extra work. So maybe if the new uniform does what it's designed to do, I should lighten up a bit about tucked shirts. Beavah

The problem with that is that you are incorrect in your premise. Venturers can indeed earn the Quartermaster Award. We've been down this road before, eh? That's what I thought, too, but you corrected me in this thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=182722&p=3 I later checked with Venturing Division, and they confirmed you were correct, eh? A Venturer cannot earn Quartermaster as a Venturer. To earn Quartermaster, they must be registered as a Sea Scout, because those are separate programs. Beavah

Yah, da problem with the "one big program" notion is the contradictions, eh? Venturers cannot earn Sea Scout Quartermaster, so why should Sea Scouts be allowed to earn Venturing Ranger (or any of the other specialty Venturing unit awards)? They are different programs. And what's sauce for da goose.... Similarly, Boy Scouts are not allowed to continue working on Arrow of Light until they graduate from 5th grade or turn 11.5. Once a boy joins a Boy Scout troop, Cub Scout advancement to Cub Scouting's capstone award is closed off. So if Boy Scouts are not allowed to earn the Arrow of Light, why should Venturers and Sea Scouts be allowed to earn Eagle? They are different programs. B

Troop Committee Guide Page 7 The charter organization Representative...Bullet #3 "Secures a troop Committee Chairperson and encourages training" Yah, this time yeh got it right, eh? Secures, not selects. Then if yeh read da supplemental module, you'll learn a suggested mechanism for how a CR may secure a CC. By havin' a committee screen and select, and then reviewin' and approvin' their selection. The supplemental module is available at scouting.org, eh? Yeh can look it up yourself. You'll recognize the process that's recommended for unit leaders is also recommended for CC's. Troop Committee Guide page 14 The Committee Chair. "You can have a full committee with a reasonable amount of recruiting effort. The first five positions are essential fill them first." Yah, yeh got the headin' wrong there, eh? The heading is "Troop Committee Organization and Responsibilities" not "The Committee Chair". The you in your quote refers not to the CC, but to the committee. and Bullet 1 "Organize the committee to see that all functions are delegated, coordinate and completed." Exactly. As I indicated, no mention that the CC appoints or assigns positions, eh? Just works to lead the committee to see that all functions are bein' accomplished, eh? That's why there's a whole separate section on recruitin' committee members, and why every job description says "report to the troop committee" and not "reports to the committee chair." So who appoints and approves committee members??? The CR and the CC. You can see that on every adult application. Sorry, BobWhite. There's nuthin' in any of the BSA materials that says the CC appoints and approves anything on his/her own without the agreement of the committee. Nor is there anything that says that on the adult application. There is only a signature line for the CC to sign on behalf of the committee which indicates the selection and approval by the committee. Misunderstandin' a line on the application should not void all the other BSA materials which explain the proper role of the CC. Everything in every resource of the BSA regarding committee members ay thay76are selected and approved by the CC and CR. Nope. Nuthin' in the materials says that about the CC. In fact, nuthin' says "select" about the CR, either. Only "approve." We just recognize that the CO as owner can act unilaterally through its representative if it decides to, eh? But that's definitely not the case for a CC. Nor is it what's generally recommended! Your come back was to compare a business world board chairman not selecting his board. But I never used that model. I used the more appropriate model of the president and his cabinet. Yah, that's your model, eh? You might think it's more appropriate. It's not the BSA model, though. The BSA's model is that "The troop committee is the troop's board of directors" [Committee Guidebook, p. 13]. The BSA materials do not support your notion that the CC is an executive role like a president and his cabinet. the Charter organization which is represented by the IH, CR, and CC... Well on page 8 of the troop Committee Guide it says As the troop committee works on behalf of the charter organization Exactly. The CR represents the Chartered Organization, and the committee works on behalf of the CO. The CC has no special status in that, and his/her role as CC is not to represent but to work on behalf of. That's an important distinction, eh? As you know, the BSA also designates specific individuals who represent the BSA, and not everybody who works on behalf of the BSA gets that authority. The CC is just one member of a larger group that works on behalf of the CO. Yah, da rest of your post just reiterates the argument that havin' a signature line for the CC on an adult application form magically voids all the other BSA trainin' and materials. That's a novel interpretation, which might come from your notion of da CC as a president-type executive. If yeh instead understand the CC role as the BSA does - as a chair of the board - then yeh understand that the CC signs on behalf of a decision made by the committee. ****** All this I'm sure is tiresome for the other forum members, eh? We both know that the CO has the authority and responsibility to set up whatever mechanism for committee selection and appointment they like. Yah, and we both know that often even that is left to the committee. That makes the real situation in different units very different, so when respondin' to a particular issue, it's important to listen and be a friend and work to resolve any conflicts within the structure that's in place. That's what all da rest of our Commissioner Fieldbook says and means, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

"Beavah, oh my Beavah?!" Yeh should try "O Captain, my Captain!" I don't look too much like Honest Abe, though. Yah, BobWhite, I reckon mikecummings157 has gotten his answer, eh? I figure he and the rest of the readers aren't particularly interested in your continuin' education, so this'll be my last post on the topic. I've already pointed out a number of crimes which do not void liability coverage. I take it that you concur with those examples. Yeh can add others by the bushel, from drunk drivin' to starting a fire during a burn ban (where, you will recall, the BSA's insurance carriers covered the individuals and the council in full, to the tune of a $7 million judgment plus legal expenses). So your statement that "liability protection can be abandoned if the Scouter is in the commission of ANY crime during the incident" is simply erroneous. Any insurance carrier that could duck a $7M judgment would, eh? When you refer to your breaking and entering example, you finally meet the definition of intentional tort, eh? You intended to cause that damage as a deliberate act. It wasn't negligence, or gross negligence, or careless and reckless, eh? It was deliberate and the result was intended. The equivalent of that when we're talkin' about children in a Scouting program is somethin' like molestation, where an adult leader intends to harm a child. But there can be other things, of course, like beating a child as punishment and causin' serious injury. I think we all recognize that insurance cover at that point is contrary to public interest and justice. It's a narrow exception, though, not a broad one. That's why it's important to have a deeper understandin' of how things work that goes beyond a quick question at a trainin' session. The real answers aren't always clear. There are "grey areas" too, eh? Things which depend on state law or are questions of fact. I don't want to get into all that, other than to say that da BSA has a marvelous reputation within da industry of always standin' by its volunteers, even in such cases which are "grey area." And that's as it should be. We are good partners to our volunteers and Chartering Organizations, and that's a reputation which is very valuable to uphold and maintain. Beavah NB: As always, nothing above constitutes a formal legal opinion on any individual case or issue, and should not be relied upon as such.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Glad we could help, Mikecummings157. Good luck on your recruitin' efforts! Sounds like fun, and a great way to get boys into Scouting. Let us know how it goes, eh? Might be lots of other folks who can learn from what you do! Beavah

I'm buyin' the new-and-current. One set of each of da fabrics. Just seems like what I should be doin' as a commish to be an example to the units and to introduce 'em to the new stuff. Also to help 'em figure out how to deal with any issues like the pockets . I have to admit I like the notion of bein' able to wear the uniform outdoors for real. I agree that I'd like to see ankle zips come back so the legs are easy to switch out without takin' off shoes or boots, but that they should be long enough zips to let us folks with big feet take 'em off over boots. Old ones weren't. I might bribe Mrs. Beavah to sew in some zips on the new ones for me . Anyway, to me bein' thrifty means payin' for good, versatile gear that lasts and can be used well. Not just goin' cheap. B

Yah, I've watched it a lot over da years since Venturing came to be Lisabob. I have to admit that I don't think either Scouting or Venturing is served by allowin' this sort of weird accommodation within Venturing. It makes Venturing less its own program. For coed crews, it's really offputting for the female members, especially if male officers try to steer the program toward helpin' them in their advancement. It also gives encouragement to Boy Scout leaders who are dual-registered or crossed over into Venturing to turn a crew into "older Boy Scouts, with girls" rather than really runnin' a Venturing program. That's lots of big downside. Only upside seems to be the "get a boy Eagle" bit, because for the moment Eagle has more recognition than Venturing Silver/Ranger/Quartermaster/etc. In the balance, it just doesn't seem worth it. I think there's a good argument to drop the crossover stuff. I'm not even in favor of allowin' Sea Scouts to earn Ranger or the other Venturing program-specific awards, for da same reason Sea Scouts are against lettin' other Venturing units earn Quartermaster. Each program should stand on its own. Beavah

I am not saying should he or what is your opinion, but what is the BSA position, does anybody know? No. As close as I can tell from tryin' to hunt this down, NAC and some of the staff have made a complete hash of it because the presentations at PTC and the regional level haven't been consistent or have presented things with so much added emphasis on da individual presenters' pet peeves and notions that folks walk away with the wrong impression (and then repeat it and post it with their own spin, etc.). With da National shakeup and reorganization, maybe there will be improved clarity, at least on the staff side. Then again, maybe not! So I continue to tell people to do what's right to build character and citizenship in da youth, eh? Don't present awards for a level of service that really doesn't merit public recognition. But in doin' that, be consistent. Set reasonable expectations, communicate 'em well, and adhere to 'em for Star and Life. Eagle ain't the place to be surprisin' a lad. But then that's all just my personal opinion, eh? It at least has the merits of bein' consistent with da Rules & Regulations of the BSA, where arguably "active=registered" and such does not. It doesn't answer da question OGE asked, though. That answer is still "No." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

BobWhite, I'm sorry if I inadvertently twisted anything you posted. As that sort of discourteous public accusation is gettin' very old, let me take a step back and address your actual words. I would have originally, except that kind of pedantic critique seemed inappropriate. Not to mention unhelpful to readers in this kind of forum. The Committee Chair is selected by the Institutional Head and/or the Charter Organization Representative. Incorrect. The BSA materials recommend a steering committee selected by da COR to identify and select the CC. The IH or da COR can of course proceed without the recommendations and screening of a committee. The Committee Chair selects the committee members... [and] assigns committee positions Incorrect. Other committee positions are also selected by a COR-appointed steering or nominating committee. Nowhere in the materials does it suggest or recommend that the Committee Chair select or assign. The Committee members serve at the behest of the Committee Chair and [iH]. Incorrect. Nowhere do the materials give that authority to da CC (unless it is specifically delegated by the COR/IH). There are no elections Incorrect. As you have admitted, there can be elections. The materials specifically tell the steering committee to select and rank candidates for positions, and they can choose to do that by voting or by consensus. That is the responsibility of the Committee Chair to make that decision, since it is his or her team to lead. Just as the president selects his own Cabinet , the Committee Chair selects their own committee. This is a poor understanding of the nature of a committee or Board of Directors (and recall that the materials specifically state that the committee is to act as a "Board of Directors"). A Chairman of the Board (CC) does not select the board. Nor does a chairman act in any way like an executive ("president") with a "cabinet." The materials do not list what you suggest as being the responsibility of da Committee Chair. the Charter organization which is represented by the IH, CR, and CC Incorrect or incomplete. The Chartered organization is headed by the IH, represented by the CR, and served by all the committee members (includin' da CC, but no more than any of the others). So should they have elections? NO Well, I agree sort of . But nowhere does it ever say that in BSA materials. Fact is, they should have elections if that's what da CO wants or what the CO/unit bylaws and regulations establish. Does the Committee have that authority to change others positions? NO Incorrect. The committee established by da COR has the authority to select, screen, etc. folks for committee positions. Only da COR and IH have real authority to approve such selections. Who does? The IH, CR and CC. Incorrect. No BSA material gives that authority to the CC as an individual. Only da IH or CR can act in that capacity. But who are the only two members of the committtee that can approve the membership? The CC and CR. Incorrect. Da CR does not need to be a member of the committee, and that role is never assigned to the CC by any BSA program material. It is reserved to da COR. When a CC signs an application, he/she signs on behalf of the committee, and only after the committee/steering committee/nominating committee appointed by da COR has made a selection. And on page 7 og the troop Committee Guide Book it says that the CR SELECTS the Committee Chair. Do you know of ANY BSA training or resource that contradicts that? Actually I think it says "secures", eh? And yes, the more recent supplementary module on selecting unit leadership recommends that da COR appoint a committee to do that selection, eh? As I said. Da COR can of course use any method he/she likes to secure a committee chair, and is not limited by the module. ****** Anyway, I don't want to hammer this anymore, eh? I just don't particularly like bein' accused of somethin' in public that I didn't do. It is was your actual written words which were inaccurate or incomplete, BobWhite, not my twist on 'em. That's not to say that a lot of what you posted is bad advice, eh? I think you were also helpful in your counsel in many ways, and that contributed to da discussion. I'd just be more leery about advocatin' too strongly for a setup where da CC has so much individual authority, which is what you seem to be doin' from where I'm sittin'. I think that's a recipe for conflict within a unit, and isn't consistent with da BSA materials. YMMV, of course. I have seen units that ran OK that way, at least for as long as they had a CC of da right sort. But I think yeh set up a unit for unhealthy conflict if yeh are a bit too strident in declarin' "this is the (only) BSA way", and your stuff reads that way to me. That doesn't serve a troubled unit well, IMHO. ***** Apologies to Lynn07 for the long stuff, eh? I think by now you've got the lay of the land, eh? You proceed accordin' to the methods established in your unit, if you as a committee member feel this is necessary to serve da mission of the CO, not what you personally want or who you like or such, eh? And if yeh don't think that system is workable, yeh recommend a different system to da COR to use goin' forward. But whatever yeh do, proceed cautiously, slowly, and respectfully, eh? These things can tear a unit apart if not handled with the utmost kindness and discretion. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BobWhite, there's a reason why hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court, eh? It's for da reasons you demonstrate so well. The reason I joked about leavin' such things as an exercise for the reader is because this is a Scoutin' forum, eh? Takin' up a lot of bandwidth tryin' to do legal education doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. But to get yeh goin', does your automobile liability coverage still protect you when you break a law like the speed limit, runnin' a red light, parking in a no parking zone, drivin' on tires which are bald, etc.? Does the BSA liability coverage still apply for those same things (after your auto coverage is exhausted) if you were drivin' on a BSA trip? Answer: Yes. In fact, if your insurance didn't cover you for such "law breaking" it would be worthless, because generally speakin' a finding of negligence and violatin' some rule, guideline, law, or regulation go hand in hand, eh? BSA insurance isn't worthless, it's an important benefit. If they choose not to then they have no accident insurance. the BSA does not provide it, it must be purchased by the council or by the unit from an outside vendor. In most cases accident/health insurance is already in force for participants because they purchase it individually or it is provided by an employer, and so the low-limit supplemental health care policy through HSR/BSA is irrelevant. It's primarily a backstop for uninsured boys or parents who hold only high-deductible Major Medical policies. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sorry BobWhite. Just because yeh sat in a session at PTC doesn't mean yeh understood the session properly. Nor does it mean that da folks presenting the session understood your question properly, or presented a response as well as they should, eh? If yeh read the Annual Chartering Agreement, you will find that BSA general liability coverage is still extended to unregistered volunteers on an excess basis. If yeh read and have the legal background to understand the BSA master contract with Liberty Mutual and the secondary insurers, you will understand that your claim with regard to the terms and limits of coverage is entirely in error. There are all kinds of reasons for why what you propose would be completely ridiculous in ways that would make BSA insurance of no benefit whatsoever to units or COs, but I'll leave those as an exercise for the reader. mikecummings157 (and everyone else), once again this is not somethin' yeh need to spend any time worryin' about. The BSA maintains coverage so as to allow everyone to do what they do best with kids without havin' to worry about such legal mumbo-jumbo, eh? That's better left to those of us who do that work professionally, not folks who remember hearin' somethin' at a trainin' class for novice volunteers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Bobwhite, you're entitled to your opinion, eh? It might be helpful to lynn07 and others if they are part of a program which is similarly run, and I think your contributions are valuable. I think yeh just need to be a bit more circumspect about bein' the Mouthpiece for da BSA, eh? Especially when, as in this case, your own understandin' of the program is very limited, and your "facts" in error. I know I won't ever change your view, but since it may be a service to others, I'll explain. No BSA material supports a notion that a CC makes committee appointments or does committee recruitin' solo. In the Troop Committee Guidebook under Recruiting Committee Members, that task is clearly associated with the committee as a whole. That same guide makes it a committee responsibility, and does not list it in da CC's job description. The materials that talk about selection of adults in a unit (Supplementary module) talk about how a steering committee appointed by the COR is to review, recruit, and select things like unit leaders and committee members including the Committee Chair. So in da only BSA material on the topic, it is not the committee chair, but rather the troop committee or a committee appointed by da COR which does that, eh? There is no restriction on the COR in the BSA materials, so the COR is free to appoint any committee, or to use the Troop Committee which he/she has already approved in that role. In short, every bit of BSA material is consistent, eh? The selection, screening, recruiting of committee members is a job for the committee, not da CC as an individual. There is nothing in da BSA materials anywhere which suggests that the Troop Committee or a leadership subcommittee or steering committee is not to take votes or make decisions by majority rule. That aspect is left entirely to the CO in terms of how it wants its committee to operate. The BSA is structured to work equally well for Chartered Organizations who have different approaches to committee operations. I personally recommend working for consensus, but that is not a requirement. Similarly there is no BSA material which supports the notion of "Key 3" or "three cooks" at the unit level. That's a part of district operations which you're gettin' confused by. District operations are under the BSA's control, and so it's natural for da BSA to recommend a structure. Unit committee operations are not under the BSA's authority, however. Unit committee operations are determined by the CO, and therefore the BSA does not specify how they are to be conducted because that would be improper. Again, the BSA materials are designed to work equally well for a variety of different CO's and CO approaches to committee structure and operations. Can a CO choose to structure and run a committee as you suggest? Yes, of course. It might work well for some CO's and da right kind of CC, though it's not personally somethin' I would recommend to an organization. I'm glad it's worked for you in the past, and that's a fine thing. Beavah

Yah, FScouter's answer is the right one, mikecummings157. Your liability for guests on campouts is no different from your liability exposure for your regular scouts. BSA general liability coverage (and BSA accident/medical coverage if you have it), apply if you have guests who are potential recruits. BobWhite inadvertently misstates the terms of BSA general liability coverage, which applies to anyone serving as a leader on a trip including an unregistered parent or other adult. For a registered leader, BSA insurance is primary. For an unregistered adult, BSA insurance is secondary or "excess" coverage after any personal liability insurance is exhausted. For both registered and unregistered adults on trips, therefore, there should be "no worries" about coverage. The biggest message to pass to any leader in the BSA whenever liability or insurance questions come up is that, eh? No Worries. The BSA has your back, and you should proceed with being a scouting volunteer without any concerns about insurance or liability. It's one of our biggest benefits and sellin' points when recruitin' Chartered Partners and adult leaders. And if some trainer or BSA office worker or whatnot makes some claim about "insurance not covering", they're misinformed. Make 'em show you where it says that in the trainin' syllabus or master contract (it doesn't, anywhere). The only things that "void" general liability coverage are when adult leaders intentionally harm children. Things like molesting kids, eh? And that's as it should be. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, GAHillBilly, I think you're thinkin' about this Scouting Stuff right, eh? You've got a vision for what you want an older scout or Eagle to be and be able to do, eh? And you're willin' to honestly evaluate whether your program is getting them there, and to make changes if not. Next step is buy-in, eh? You have to start havin' that "vision" conversation with everyone, over and over, in small doses and large. With parents for sure, with committee members definitely, and also with boys. Those older boys aren't dumb, eh? They recognize those things, eh? But it's quite a blow to admit them, and even harder to ask for help. I think NeilLup has the best idea. Take those older boys on a few special weekends - only for 'experienced' older boys, where you can work on skills without embarrassment. Help the one lad to swim by hookin' him up with YMCA classes. Don't be judgmental, don't be negative. Start with where they're at and help 'em to move along. A good reason to work on those older boys is that they will learn faster, eh? They're stronger, they've got more school under their belt. If you encourage and provide opportunities where they're not embarrassed, they'll grow quick. And that will help your program a lot. Of course you're right that in the long run, the investments in your younger guys will be the biggest payoffs. And so by all means continue to give them opportunities, eh? Just don't forget that you're teachin' other things in Scoutin' besides outdoor skills - including how to be an older boy, how troop leadership and decisionmaking should work, etc. For a bunch of those things, you need those older boys to step up, and yeh certainly must not unintentionally undermine them. Yeh can't just work the younger side as a unit. Finally, as Eagledad always reminds us, don't forget about teachin' the parents! What's your plan for sharin' that vision with parents, new and old? Beavah

Yah, OK BobWhite, I get where you're comin' from, eh? My guess is that yeh have some experience in a unit where primarily parents served on da committee, and you had some issues, eh? That happens. And in those circumstances, you're right. Sometimes the proper course is for the COR to tell a majority of the parents who want to do things a certain way "no." There's lots of other possibilities out there though! Includin' times when a CC starts behavin' as though he were a COR and tryin' to dictate improperly to the committee. Every bit as bad if not worse. Where you're not understandin' the program properly is you're improperly "upgrading" the CC job description to bein' the equivalent of da COR, and you're improperly "downgrading" the role and scope of da committee. That is evident when yeh say things like "the Charter organization which is represented by the IH, CR, and CC". The charter organization is represented only by the IH and CR, eh? The CC isn't a votin' member of the Council Corporation, eh? The CC does not have the same independent authority the COR has. Rather, the entire committee as a group works on behalf of the chartered organization in runnin' their unit program. When it comes to representin' the CO in the day-to-day work and decisionmakin' of the unit, the CC is just one of many, all of whom are approved and appointed by da COR. Just as in a Board of Directors, the Chair by him/herself has no independent authority. Instead, the chair has a service role in da work of the committee. Where the treasurer keeps track of finances and the secretary takes meetin' minutes, the chair leads the meetin' and helps organize the group's work. The Chair's job is to keep things runnin' fairly and smoothly for da other members of the committee, and the committee's job is to work on behalf of da CO as directed by da COR. So in a properly functionin' unit, the committee workin' on behalf of da CO uses some consistent mechanism to recruit members and delegate responsibilities. That's why the Chair's job description in the BSA materials is only to "see that all functions are delegated, coordinated, and completed" not necessarily to delegate, coordinate, etc. as a chair. And why the committee, or a subcommittee or steering committee appointed by da COR, does the recruiting and selection of new committee members, not the chair. So when things are for some reason not runnin' well, the committee, which works on behalf of da CO, needs to address that, eh? And the recommendation of the committee, or its leadership subcommittee/steering committee, might well be to ask the CC to step aside and select a new CC (subject to the COR's approval), if the coordination/delegation/meeting organization of the committee's work is what's at fault. That's a committee doin' its job for da CO, eh? All that's perfectly consistent with da BSA materials. Now, the real question for lynn07 is whether to proceed down such a path, and how to proceed, eh? That's a different question which cannot be answered by BSA materials. The real answer to "whether to proceed" with replacin' the CC depends on how "hot" people are runnin', what functions of the committee aren't bein' handled well, whether it's compromisin' the CO's mission, etc. People who are runnin' hot over a particular issue should let things cool down, IMO. Then they can proceed more rationally about the rest. Particularly, they can think about whether they're really supportin' the CO or are instead tryin' to be a mob of parents supportin' their own agenda or own kid . The real answer to the "how to proceed" question also isn't answered by BSA materials, because it depends on how things are set up by da CO locally. Does the IH "call" da CC? Does the COR recruit personally? Is there a standing leadership subcommittee? Does the whole Committee serve that purpose? Are committee operations governed by Catholic canon law or Jewish custom or the PTO bylaws? All those and many more are supported by da BSA and consistent with da BSA's program materials and mission. So if we're gonna be helpful (and friendly, and ...) to lynn07, IMO we have to move her out of "hot", listen to her describe what the problems are in the unit (is it really the CC who should be changed or somethin' else?), and listen to her describe how her CO/COR/Committee operations are really set up, eh? It helps to have a whole mess of us, each with experience in different unit committee setups, because one of us might understand hers better and give advice which really "clicks", eh? And that's da BSA program, eh? A world with lots of people who are knowledgeable, helpful, etc. and are lookin' to give what they can to others as part of a Good Turn. Works a lot better than a book by itself! Which is why Scoutin' is such a wonderful thing. Beavah

Yah, Lynn07, BobWhite is correct in his description of the Charterin' relationship of the BSA, eh? Every scout unit is owned and operated by a community organization of some kind, and maintainin' that sound relationship is important. That's why there are so many different ways for a committee to be set up, eh? Each scouting unit must run under the rules and regulations of both the chartered partner and the BSA, with the first bein' the most important because they are actually the owner of the unit. In some chartered partners, adult leaders and committee members are "called" by their pastors. No votes, no selection by da committee chair, just assignment by the IH. In some chartered partners, a committee is structured according to a set of bylaws like a self-perpetuating board of directors. They may vote to recommend a CC and SM. In still other chartered partners, there may be nominatin' committees, selection by a board of elders, or even selection by lot like the early apostles, eh? That is one of da strengths of the BSA program, eh? It can be used and adapted by different community organizations with different business models and ways of thinkin' about youth service or governance. That's why the BSA does not specify how these things are to be done in any specific instance. Sometimes you'll run into scouters who don't really understand the program who believe that because there's a signature line for da Committee Chair on leader application forms, the CC can and should be able to determine how an entire committee is staffed and operates. But that would not be the BSA program, eh? That kind of authority in BSA units belongs solely to da IH/COR as unit owners (and practically speakin', sometimes not even to them if, for example, authority in the community organization is vested differently). Settin' up a CC in that way IMO often leads to all kinds of problems for units, which is why the BSA doesn't teach that. Practically speakin', Lynn07, yeh need to go talk to an "old hand" in your unit to learn how you unit operates. Like BobWhite, I generally would not recommend contentious votin' for positions either unless there's a long tradition of that and a lot of goodwill between folks. Scout units run best when fairly like-minded and caring adults work primarily by discussion and consensus in support of da SM. I reckon that's what you should strive for on your committee. Beavah

Yah btphelps, I didn't get to take da survey, eh? But I'm curious what yeh asked, because JLT is a discontinued program support material, eh? These days, it's TLT in the troop and NYLT at council. Did you ask about those? Beavah