Beavah

Yah, hiya Michael! Thanks for your service in the OA, and your thoughtful question. Sorry to hear yeh don't have fun plans for the 4th. Then again, those men that met in Philadelphia back in 1776 weren't havin' a lot of fun either, eh? If yeh aren't havin' fun, at least have courage and do good work. I think BobWhite and John-in-KC gave yeh the right steer, eh? While the BSA program in a lot of ways is centered around outdoor leadership, its focus is on teachin' young men how to make good choices, build character, grow values. I reckon if you think about it, there's a lot of that which happens in small ways in the patrol kitchen (who is cleaning the pot?), on the trail, and around the campfire. The BSA wants the adults who are the examples and leaders in their program to share the goals and values of the BSA. You can't be an example to others unless you also walk the walk. Duty to God is part of what we teach, and yeh can't teach that well if you don't believe it yourself. The same thing applies to youth leaders and members, eh? An SPL, a Patrol Leader, a fellow scout a boy shares a tent with - all these people are examples to their brother scouts. Especially to younger boys! You have to admit, a 13-year-old might not listen to Mr. Jones, but he will pay attention to the 16-year-old SPL who he thinks is cool! To teach Duty to God well, the scouts themselves are a big part of it. They set an example as much as the adults. And yeh can't teach fellow scouts if yeh don't believe it yourself. There's times for full diversity, eh? But there's also times for havin' everybody on the same page. I bet in school you have taken some regular classes and some "advanced" classes, eh? There are some advantages to "advanced" classes, where everyone shares an academic background and a desire to challenge themselves and succeed. Yeh can learn more about the topic in an advanced class (though perhaps less about "people"). Same with BSA and duty to God. We're the advanced class, where everyone is on the same page in believin' in a duty to somethin' greater than ourselves and our nation. That means, like your advanced classes at school, we do keep some people out. Now, it's certainly true that all of us have doubts now and then. Young people that are learnin' and growin' and questioning their beliefs are just fine. In the real world of Scoutin', many of us have sat on BOR's where a lad has declared himself an "atheist". That's part of learnin' and growin'. Like you talkin' with your tent mate about God and doubt late at night. Nobody is goin' to do anything more than help a lad with his quest under those circumstances. Discuss, challenge, ... that's part of teachin' and carin' for each other. One of the lads who once declared himself an "atheist" to me at his 1st Class BOR is now a minister. We passed him for 1st Class, BTW! Where it's tough is when a boy and his family are really convinced atheists and they have an agenda, eh? They want the BSA to change. That's what BobWhite is talkin' about ... it's like joining a Christian church but refusin' to say the creed, or joining a model airplane club but insisting that you want to fly rockets instead of planes. It's tryin' to hijack the group. For those situations, the BSA has to set policy, just as Merlyn describes. So if someone chooses to be difficult, we can point to written documents when things become adversarial in court. That's why the policy has to read as firmly as it does. Hope that helps a bit, eh? Beavah

Yah, rmiessler, your question is a bit unclear and is therefore generatin' a bunch of different answers, eh? If you are referring to the Rules and Regulations of the BSA, then epalmer is correct. That is a specific document. It is the set that you agree to when yeh sign an adult leader application or a CO signs a charter. It is not generally published nor made available to folks who aren't members of da National Corporation (yellow tab scouters / council reps attending national meetings and such). You can request a copy through your council Scout Executive. Expect him to be a little bit cagey and want to know why. If you are referrin' to more general program regulations and guidelines, like specifics on advancement or G2SS stuff or whatnot, then BobWhite is correct, eh? Those things are scattered all over the place in various program documents and such. That's because, unlike R&R which are formally adopted by the National Executive Board, da program-level stuff gets generated by staff members and individual program offices and committees and such. So they tend to show up in publications put together by that program group. Because those are youth program materials, da lines of what constitutes "rule" vs. program guidance are blurry and sometimes meaningless. There's not necessarily a consistent policy adoption process, so in that context "regulation" often refers to how strongly the writers or program office feel about that item's importance as a program feature (or how da current staff is handling that issue on a regular basis). If you're into legal analogies, yeh might sort of think about R&R as "laws" while all da other stuff is administrative regulations, departmental work product, and guidance. Beavah

Yah, sometimes da clock just runs out, eh? We would like to have had time to stage a last-minute comeback, but time ran out and the referee had to blow the whistle. Tough to be da referee sometimes. Especially when you're rootin' for a lad. But cheatin' on the clock, or cheatin' on the requirements, doesn't do anyone any good, eh? The clock ran out here. It ran out on the project, and it seems to have run out on four badges. That's a lesson the boy needs to learn before he goes off to college and the work world. Big things can't be rescued at the last minute. And I bet if yeh were to sit with the lad, he'd admit it, and cop to his end-run. On da district side, I would be havin' a cup o' joe with the MBC from the other troop, eh? Feedback is a gift. So is maintainin' an accurate list of qualified and responsible counselors. B

The rowdiest kids are always going to dislike the adult that requires them to behave. Yah, this is true, eh? But what's interestin' in several of these cases in da last year or so is that it was other regular posters who jumped in on behalf of their colleagues - even colleagues they disagreed with. Like packsaddle in this case, eh? He wasn't initially the guy whose posts were deleted, he was a bystander. I think when regular posters as bystanders start objectin' to things as being unfair, we have to sit up and take a lot of notice. Eamonn offers some suggestions as how to "receive" moderation. I reckon those are just fine, eh? I've been through 1-4; maybe it's time for some version of #5? I don't know. I try to consider those things and a few others in any event. In a similar spirit, I've got these suggestions for moderators on how to receive feedback from us users: 1) Assume anyone who takes the time to write is someone who cares deeply about Scoutin' and about this little online community. Treat 'em as your best friend and fellow scouter pullin' you aside. 2) When groups of your "customers" get together in public to share a perception of unreasonable moderation (or a need for more moderation), don't make excuses. Take 'em seriously and at their word. Folks don't start public discussions of moderation unless there's been a breakdown. And a breakdown is somethin' yeh need to learn from and try not to repeat. 3) We all have folks who get under our skin, eh? Work it out so that others handle 'em, just as Eamonn suggested one moderator did. And when yeh get feedback from such a person, set it aside to re-read it when yeh aren't annoyed, or privately ask other "regulars" for their honest perceptions. 4) When the task starts to annoy you or get your dander up, it's time to quit, eh? 5) Recognize that moderation is an act of authority, and folks expect authority to be fairly and consistently applied. Rightly so. Coordinate and discuss with other moderators before, rather than after the fact. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Government money always comes with strings attached, for good or ill. So true. In da days of smaller government, it was easy to avoid such strings, eh? When the government has grown to the point of bein' 40%+ of GDP (not countin' the additional slice they're takin' by way of the federal debt), it's much harder to avoid such strings. Only some businesses and organizations can afford to write off nearly half of their potential market, eh? The larger the government, the less the freedom. I'd like to see da ACLU take on that problem, eh? But I'm not holdin' my breath. And while da ACLU's mission statement is defendin' the Bill of Rights, we have to be honest, eh? They're an advocacy group like any other, and on the whole they're way out on da left edge in terms of their approach to Constitutional Law. Yeh didn't see 'em filing on behalf of Hiller in the D.C. v. Hiller case did yeh? Nor did they come rushin' in on the side of Kelo, eh? IMO they'd be more intellectually honest if they were staunch defenders of individual rights across the board. But they aren't the devil, either. Some ACLU folks have done good work, hard work, necessary work to keep government in check. I reckon it's fine to disagree with a lot of their board's very liberal agenda (and some really silly case choices) and still acknowledge some of their positive contributions. B

Yah, this topic seems to come up every few months, eh? Funny to come back from visitin' a few camps to this. It always involves da same moderator. Despite repeated requests, that moderator almost never "signs" or takes responsibility publicly for his choices. Like Eamonn, da other moderators when they comment tend to disclaim knowledge. That moderator, in my personal opinion, tends to be one of the few here who take sniping potshots at other posters (see Ed's small set of examples) without necessarily contributin' substance, insight, or experience to the topics. It seems to me his assumption is often that his fellow scouters are bad folk, or have an agenda, rather than readin' things in a more balanced light of bein' good people with a different outlook. A number of folks, myself included at times, have opined that the particular moderator seems to play favorites or have personality conflicts with some members, and tends to act on those feelin's rather than just da content of the posts. Especially when that happens, I sometimes feel he's apt to shoot first, and perhaps PM afterward or perhaps not... As much as I appreciate F's active involvement (because sometimes I think a little gentle redirection would encourage improved dialog and courtesy), I can't help but think that this topic arising on a regular basis - and particularly the animus he sometimes shows toward specific individuals - is a sign that the job is gettin' annoyin' for him, rather than being fun service. That seems like it's da time to take a break and let others have a go, eh? Leastwise, that's what I counsel good Scoutmasters when they reach that point. I have more concern about some of da new "Pirate Code" (or are they more like Guidelines, arrrh! ). There's lots of stuff there that's pretty broad, eh? Yah, I can't help but think that this poor old Beavah is goin' to be a target just for his cuddly North Coast accent! Or some other Scouter who perhaps didn't have the benefit of a good typin' teacher. When the guy who posted da Code can be interpreted by others as missin' points, perhaps it merits a more critical look before bein' adopted? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

This is rarely the case. A unit usually removes an adult for reasons such as personality conflicts or simply not getting their job done. Those are not grounds for the BSA to revoke membership. Yah, I should have been clear, eh? There's two ways membership can be revoked. One is for serious violations such as YP and whatnot. That's a permanent revocation of membership, eh? Yeh are banned from da BSA for life for all intents and purposes. The second is for membership to be "dropped." This happens naturally at recharter time, o'course. But in da interim, a volunteer who is no longer a member of the sponsorin' entity can (and should) also be dropped until such a time as they file an application with another unit, get re-vetted and re-approved. Good SE's and DE's will see that this gets done, either formally or informally dependin' on da nature of the reasons for removal. Typically when it doesn't happen it's because the unit doesn't communicate with da council. But YMMV, eh? I too have seen da "promote them up and out of the way" bit. Beavah

Yah, BW's right, BSA membership and unit membership are two different beasts, eh? But often intertwined. Ordinarily, if a unit removes an adult for sufficient cause, da SE will follow the CO's lead and similarly revoke BSA membership. And vice versa. And Ed is similarly correct, if a unit drops an adult then they also lose their BSA membership unless they are dual registered with another unit or district/council. There's no way for an individual to register or maintain registry with da BSA except through annual approval of a CO or BSA division. But to Eagle Foot, da IH and COR each are allowed to "unilaterally" remove a volunteer from their program. If da CO allows such things, the committee can make that recommendation to them (signed by da CC) for their consideration and action. Da "real world" can of course be less straightforward and more entertainin' from time to time. B

God is the Light. But He wont show himself to someone who refuses to come out of the darkness. Yah, careful there Rooster. The Lord appeared to Thomas who doubted. The Lord appeared to Paul while he was hell-bent on persecuting and even eradicating Christianity. I reckon the Light shines always in the darkness. Challenges it. Disturbs it. Invades it. When confronted by da light, I reckon yeh have to go well out of your way to run back and cling to da darkness. And then He follows... I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him, down the arches of the years; I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways... Merlyn claims to be an atheist, eh? But he sure seems to have a deep-seated need to spend a lot of his time with us theists. I reckon da Hound of Heaven is on his tail. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Science is the search for truth - Linus Pauling Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume... Freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus I deem [an] essential principle of our government. Thomas Jefferson (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Merlyn, yeh quest for an absolute truth in science too, eh? Cosmological "theories of everything" and all that. But lots of scientists don't agree on what da absolute truth is, or even what we know at the moment. Those arguments, too, like debates on da cause and potential consequences of global warming or the age of the universe or whatnot - all "end up being argued by humans in any case." It's usually just the usual fallacy of an argument from (scientific) authority or reputation, eh? What you're describin' is how all human knowledge progresses. Rooster just gave a beautiful example of how Christians see progress and deepening of their understandin' of God over time, as God reveals more to us and we listen more intently and with better informed hearts. And yeh have to be a bit careful about how yeh read the bible, eh? Da "slavery" of the OT was not the same thing as the chattel slavery of black Africans by the West. Still not morally OK as a social institution, but social institutions are not really da purview of religion, eh? Especially in a period of time before democracy. Religion concerns itself with personal morality and relationship with God. What is just behavior for an individual living in such a time, whether da individual is a ruler or a peasant? Remember that it was da faith-filled believing Christian folk who aggressively pursued the end of chattel slavery in the West. Many of 'em sacrificing their fortunes and their sons to the cause. I confess, though, that I have an old-fashioned moral compass, eh? I think the torture of people, includin' prisoners in your care, is everywhere and always wrong. And as someone with a legal background, I think that in democratic civil society the suspension of habeas corpus (among other acts!) is a gross violation of da social contract, and the solemn vow to Protect and Defend the Constitution. To have any meaning, religious values and absolute morality must be applied first and always to ourselves, and our friends, and the country to which we pledge allegiance. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Some units, for example, have a strict percentage attendance requirement for being active and for leadership. In other cases, there may be a formal or informal age requirement for certain ranks. According to the National guidelines, that is not proper. Yah, NeilLup, I think we have to be a bit careful, eh? First, both da SM handbook and the SPL and PL handbooks specifically allow a troop to set age requirements for POR (and thereby for ranks). I've never seen a troop set an "arbitrary" attendance requirement either, eh? Generally, attendance requirements get introduced by thoughtful, caring adults and youth leaders as a way of respondin' to a particular problem in their unit - usually that some boys and their families aren't taking their commitment seriously, and they feel da best way to teach 'em is to establish an objective standard. That makes sense, since objective attendance standards are something that every kid and family is familiar with from sports, school, band, theater, etc. It's good communication technique. Do I agree with it personally? Nah. Especially when it's used as a line in da sand rather than a guideline, eh? I just think it's dead wrong and more than a bit unfair to many very capable scouters tryin' to do their best to label it as "arbitrary." Not every troop is in the same spot, eh? What might be necessary in one troop may not be in another. Especially troops that are tryin' to rebuild after a period of neglect - they usually need more clear, strong communication about (re-instituted) expectations. I think if yeh aren't goin' to allow bein' irresponsible in a Position of Responsibility to have an advancement consequence, then yeh also need to offer a real alternative. Yeh say not to associate responsibility and character with advancement and do somethin' else. What else? I suppose a troop could chuck BSA advancement and develop their own. And if advancement isn't to be associated with demonstratin' responsibility and character, then what is the point? ----- NJ, I think includin' youth input on advancement is a fine thing for all da reasons you suggest. Up until the early 1990s that was part of da BSA program and it worked just fine with a bit of adult oversight. For your other questions, I don't care for da notion of a BOR overridin' a SM on a POR decision. I think da SM is closest to the action, eh? If he signs, the BOR should take him at his word. Now, there are times when a SM may think it's a better lesson coming from the board rather than him. That's especially da case if the boy is the SM's son, eh? I tell troops to do a "wink and a nod" in such cases so the board and the SM are workin' as a team to mentor the lad. None of da troops I'm currently familiar with and none of da crews have adopted a policy of adults removin' youth from their positions of responsibility as NAC has suggested. I haven't seen it, but I personally can't see it as bein' very helpful. As you say, yeh give the lad a couple months to get in the groove, then you start focusin' more closely. I doubt any unit would remove a kid before month 4 or 5 (and I reckon I'd consider 'em way too harsh if they did). Then what? As soon as yeh give him a second chance in a different job, he still earns the rank. Does he not get a second chance? Do yeh ban him from Positions of Responsibility for a year? Makes no sense to me. Feels like a top-down policy designed to make life easier for those who are supposed to be makin' life easier for da units. But perhaps NeilLup or someone else can offer a practical alternative. So I reckon for da moment most troops that run strong programs are doin' what they always did. Settin' expectations for PORs and not signing if the lad hasn't yet met those expectations. Beavah

You are joking right? There is no specifc training on Muscular Dystropy either...or on Tourettes, or on visual or audio impairment, or on Spina Bifida, or on Downs Syndrome, or on any of the HUNDREDS of other possible individual and symptomatically unique problems that a scout aged youth could have. Nope, not jokin'. I think our business in da BSA is providin' training and service for the hardworkin' folks in the units. If a UC comes to me with info on a troop that needs support in some area, I think it's our job to help provide that support. That's why we put all those "community contacts" on Executive Boards, eh? For conditions like ADHD and Autism Spectrum that have become so common that a significant number of units (and every single council) are dealin' with 'em, I think we have to be more efficient in providing those resources. Ad hoc doesn't cut it when it comes to higher volume stuff. Of course National agrees with that criticism, because that's exactly what they've started doin', eh? Beginning with da work on ADHD. I think yeh can expect to see materials on Autism Spectrum from National in the future, especially in light of da suit against the BSA in California. Beavah

Yah, F, I think you're comin' at this with a very negative view of Scouting volunteers - "arbitrary", "roadblocks", "kick a boy down", "renegade", etc. Where's all that comin' from? I don't know why your Scoutin' experience has been so negative, but I can say it's far, far from the norm. Unit volunteers are typically great people, at least well-intentioned if not always experienced. They struggle with how to respond to kid behaviors the way any of us parents struggle to respond to kid behaviors, eh? Needing to ground a lad or take the keys away for a while is not a sign of an arbitrary parent who kicks a child down. It's a sign of a caring parent who takes teachin' responsibility and character seriously. Same for a Scoutmaster who is mentoring and usin' the advancement method as an incentive to encourage achievement. In short, I think they're a lot like da folks NJBaldEagle describes in his unit. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on da rest, eh? I think the notion of a SM removing a boy from a POR was a new thing, and inconsistent with all the rest of da BSA materials. I think da stuff OGE quoted, where a boy's only responsibility is to be and stay registered, is a new thing. It too is inconsistent with all da rest of the BSA materials. I think that really is causin' a lot of confusion, eh? But I really do sympathize with da reasons for doin' it. Disagree, but sympathize. Beavah

he doesn't want leaders to change, or charter organizations to change, HE WANTS the BSA to change. Yah, I think we have to try to remember that for an average parent, the understandin' of the difference between BSA National, separately incorporated BSA Councils, and wholly independent Charter Organizations and unit-level volunteers isn't well understood. I read AhoyDave as bein' frustrated with his experience, and not understandin' the difference between the BSA and his son's troop. Now here's da thing, though. I think we have to take criticism where it's due. The BSA's role is as resource provider. What resources does the BSA provide to unit-level adults confronted with an Autism Spectrum lad showin' up on their doorstep? There's no specific training on autistic/asperger's youth. There's no BSA commissioner trainin' specific to inclusion issues of autistic/asperger's youth. There's no BSA professional expertise or trainin'. Unless da CO or local council sets it up, there's no provision for a standing consulting body of medical & educational professionals to assist unit leaders or districts confronted with inclusion issues. Unless da CO or local council sets it up, there's no clearinghouse for support resources. etc. Da problem is when dealin' with inclusion of a challenged lad, a generic pamphlet or training that tries to talk about "disabilities" in general just doesn't cut it. Different disabilities require very different types of support. There's a lot of room for BSA to improve here. And they're workin' on it slowly, eh? I think there's now a supplementary module that tries to address da specific needs of ADD/ADHD kids, for example. But I reckon some criticism and "call to action" isn't unfair. AhoyDave, I hope yeh now understand a bit from all of us that your broad-brush criticism may be a bit unfair too, eh? Individual troops are separately owned and operated, and have different resources. BSA doesn't have direct control over 'em. Their capabilities are as strong or as weak as the adult volunteers they have available, eh? Some troops run spectacular high adventure, other's can't. Some troops like OGE's have great depth of resource dealin' with physically challenged kids (the boys' physician on staff!!), others have adults who have no experience with handicapped youth and no idea how to proceed. When yeh talk about unit leaders in your son's troop avoidin' him, I imagine adults like that, eh? Not bad people, just folks who aren't equipped and don't know what to do. They didn't exclude your son, eh? They just didn't know how to do the best job by him. Beavah

The rank requirement is NOT NOT NOT simply be registered and hold a title. Yah, I agree with you F. Problem is that's not what da PTC and on-the-road sessions NAC has been doin' have been teaching the last couple of years. I think dat's where a lot of the confusion is comin' from. If you look at OGE's statement copied from BSA materials, the requirements for being active are 1. Be registered. 2. Not get kicked out for disciplinary reasons (=stay registered). 3. Be "regularly engaged," which is not your responsibility but the Scoutmaster's responsibility. So the requirements for the youth are just to be and stay registered. As BobWhite describes, this is contradicted by the Boy Scout Handbook, but it really is how some appeals have been handled. Hence da confusion. Same with Positions of Responsibility. The TLT materials and the PL and SPL handbooks have some excellent descriptions of job responsibilities and expectations. But NAC has flipped all those youth responsibilities around to relyin' solely on a new Scoutmaster responsibility to "fire" a boy before da time limit. And here we all thought SPL's and PL's were elected, and troop positions were appointed by da SPL! I understand why NAC has done what it has, eh? I sympathize with 'em. It's a small staff and a tough job and all they get on some days is helicopter parents and lawsuit threats. Retreatin' to an objective criterion like time-in-office makes their life a lot easier. The rest of us, though, need to do our bit to serve kids and our partners. We don't fire SPLs... that's up to the kids. We do mentor and evaluate. We don't fire QM's, that's up to the SPL. We do mentor and evaluate. I think a good SM and program does some version of what NJ, BobWhite, and OGE have all suggested - they set expectations for positions, train kids, and do their bit to mentor. Then it's up to the boy to take responsibility, to show up for meetings, to not blow things off because soccer is more important or video games are more fun. Based on that, we evaluate. If a lad blew off the first two months promisin' but not deliverin', we work with da SPL to push him harder. Maybe we add extra trainin' or another Scoutmaster conference. But we don't give him credit for active service, eh? That wouldn't be honest, and it wouldn't help the lad. His growth in citizenship and character depends on really serving actively for the full time period. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah NJ Bald Eagle, your troop is by no means unique, eh? If we are goin' to build boys' character using the Scouting Methods, then "serve" and "actively" have to be real. I wouldn't get to overboard with settin' up an HR office for da lads, but certainly havin' expectations and coachin' 'em is a good thing. In Scoutin', whether it's tying a knot or being Quartermaster, we work with kids to improve as long as it takes, but we only sign off when they can really tie the knot or really have served actively. The example we set for other boys when we give a boy an award is important, eh? If da message is "you can skate by" or "your parents can argue and get you whatever you want" then we won't be successful at teachin' character. One of the things that's really hard is that National's gotten sick of those parents too, eh? So they've gone hands-off and taken a stance that they're only going to use objective (aka "easily defensible legally") standards to evaluate an appeal. So "be active in your troop" has become "be registered". Serve actively in a position of responsibility has become "hold a title and not get kicked out". So the guidance they've been givin' is opposite to the way most of us do Scoutin'. They'd prefer yeh remove the kid before the time period because that's objective. Yeh have to figure out how yeh negotiate that difference in your unit. I think you as a troop should do what you think makes sense for really teachin' the boys, and what is consistent with the mission and character of your Chartered Organization. Remember, you work for da Chartered Organization, not the BSA. Coach 'em, mentor 'em, help them grow. A boy learns, a boy is evaluated, and a boy is reviewed before he is awarded... those are da steps to BSA advancement. Learning and a successful evaluation are part of the requirements if you want 'em to be. As for dealin' with truly obstreperous parents, being a member of your troop is a privilege, not a right. An invitation to the door can work wonders. Protect the environment for the good kids and families who want to use the program to help their kids grow in character and citizenship. Don't let it be hijacked by resume-enhancers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Saying BSA is excluding non-mainstream boys is easy to say... but isn't it better to step in and teach others more of what we know? So with that in mind, perhaps we can shift back to suggestions and ideas for tagguy? B

It always makes me scratch my head when people are leery of divulging this kind of information. Identity theft can be brutal. It can ruin lives and destroy families. It can take years to get straightened out, and in da interim can cause people to lose their houses and businesses. Some folks work in jobs where retaliation is possible. A divorce attorney. A cop. A DA. A foreclosure specialist. A tax assessor. A teacher. All kinds of people work in positions where folks can get mad at 'em for one reason or another and want "revenge" or just want to mess with 'em. Some folks hide their background for legitimate reasons. They might have a family member who was a notorious criminal or an official with a poor reputation. They might have been stalked by someone in the past. Or they just may be private people. And if they live in an area where political, religious, or racial prejudice is still a factor, hidin' their background, a former name, etc. can be a wise choice. Just look at how much vitriol and innuendo there's been over Obama's middle name, eh? I don't think it's up to a person to explain why they don't want to spread their personal information around. I figure it's up to da person asking for it to justify the need and ensure the security. By any objective standard, BSA hasn't done either, eh? Most of us go along as an expression of solidarity, but that doesn't mean everyone should. I personally think da BSA should abandon the SSN collection. Too much risk for too little reward, and I've seen it cost us some excellent volunteers. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... BobWhite, I think you're quotin' resources without understandin' them. That's pretty easy to do, eh? I suppose it's a good illustration of da kinds of things that made Ahoydave angry with us BSA volunteers. Autism Spectrum disabilities are epidemic, eh? A large number of units are goin' to run into trying to provide services for these lads. One out of 150 boys diagnosed! Ultimately, success or failure in supportin' any differently-abled boy in Scouting depends on the care, ability, and resources of each unit. Ahoydave, I expect we're all truly sorry and disappointed your son had a relatively poor experience with scouting. There really are other unit where autistic lads succeed and thrive. Each troop, though, is only as capable as da people in it. I think there's room for da BSA to do a lot more by way of providin' support to units that are trying to accommodate such lads. Generic pamphlets on scouts with disabilities and an alternate advancement path are little more than token efforts. What units need are generally specific guidance and resources directed at each type of disability. But ultimately it just depends on the local volunteers. I feel your disappointment, but don't paint us with too broad a brush, eh? Tagguy, I'd echo infoscouter's and Fire's suggestions, eh? * Meet with the parents. Talk openly and frankly about the boy's behaviors and needs and how to manage 'em. Be especially alert for suggestions that an autistic boy can become violent/throw tantrums/etc. Those lads take more work than the kids who just tend to withdraw when they feel overwhelmed (though the "withdraw" lads can wander off...) * Meet with someone who knows about workin' with autistic kids. Often the parents can recommend someone who might even know that kid. Get tips, suggestions. * Have someone medically savvy in your unit review the boy's meds and brief the scouters. Some autistic meds are pretty strong, and can have withdrawal symptoms if a boy misses a dose or two; others might "knock a kid out" and should always be taken shortly before bed, etc. * Meet with your PLC and all of the boys in the new scout's patrol. What FireKat described I think is da most important thing for autistic lads - havin' fellow boys who include him and look out for him. The key to that is makin' sure the boys understand autism and how to work with the fellow. If they know that an autistic or Asperger's boy can't process "social cues" like their body language and tone of voice, they won't get upset when he seems to "act like a jerk." They'll consider it a sort of challenge to work with him instead. If they know the lad is likely to get fixated on some things, they'll be alert for it and will help redirect him. They can help with reminders about medications. Make your scouts full partners in the effort! * Don't hesitate to say "no" to a particular trip when yeh don't think you can manage a lad safely, but work with the parents ahead of time on it and then work with the boy to make the next trip great. IMO many Autism Spectrum kids won't necessarily need requirement substitutions. They tend to be really bright, eh? And as someone mentioned, their level of focus often lets 'em hike other boys into the ground. But yeh might find some pronounced fears of certain things (water, etc.) which may merit a substitution. Best to chat with the parents, then hold your judgment until you've had some experience with the lad. But if you're in a Council where da council advancement folks don't "get it", yeh might choose to start da paperwork early even if yeh don't use it in the end. I think every unit has to be honest with itself and with da family about what its real capability is to serve any given child. Better to tell a family up front that yeh don't have the skills to provide a successful Scoutin' experience and to steer 'em to another troop than to make a lad go through what Ahoydave's did, eh? Or to get a lad hurt. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

My prayers to da family and the scouters in this unit. Not bringin' home one of the kids is every scouter's worst nightmare. I don't know that river, but it sounds like da water level was way high if there was "debris" in it. Debris in rivers is typical of a flood-level flow, eh? Washin' things that are normally on the banks downstream. Takin' first-year scouts on a river at that kind of extreme high water ain't wise. Problem is most scouters don't understand how important current flow rate is in makin' decisions. Principles of Safety Afloat don't teach any practical specifics of how to be safe afloat. Beavah

When a lawsuit is filed against a corporation or organization it is filed against one or more or its corporate officers. Thanks for my laugh of the day! That's hysterical. Me thinks you're confusing service of process with named parties to a suit, eh? I suspect it's that lack of familiarity with corporate governance that's what's causin' your confusion about da BSA chartering structure. It can certainly lead to misinterpretation of roles and responsibilities. Happily, most volunteers don't really need an understandin' of those relationships to do a fine job workin' with kids. I agree with you completely on the "no chain of command, just a system of support". Beavah P.S. MichaelOA, yeh can see how silly we adults can get over this stuff, eh? Be prepared for that when you meet with your Scoutmaster. Be patient with him and all us old farts. Yeh might be tryin' to get him to think of how positions in a troop work a bit differently, and that will take some time to sink in! (This message has been edited by Beavah)

BobWhite, you're really gettin' out there, eh? I think yeh need to go back and re-read the materials and then talk to some good BSA trainers who understand organizational relationships. Chartered Organizations have responsibility. In fact, they can be sued when they fail to exercise it properly. If they have responsibility, they must also have authority so as to exercise that responsibility. That authority can be vested any number of ways. Mostly what you're missin' is that da BSA doesn't spell these things out very clearly because that's not the BSA's role. It's up to the Chartered Organization to determine the structure and scope of authority of their members and volunteers, including the CC and COR. They are free to do that in any way they like - create bylaws, use the norms of religious canon law, exercise open democracy, whatever. In some CO's, a chief executive might have final say; in others a board of directors or board of elders, in still others, a vote of the congregation. In the area of governance, the BSA entirely yields to da CO. For example, there's a COR signature line on the adult app, and an IH signature line on the charter. But in a CO, the real authority may be elsewhere, eh? It might need the board of elders to approve a charter. Approving a new volunteer may require CO youth protection training and a CO background check by the diocesan office as well as vetting by several people on da youth ministry team. An IH might not have authority to agree to the Charter, and a COR might not have authority to approve a volunteer. The signature line does not indicate authority to act as an individual, it only indicates approval of the organization as certified by a representative of whatever body really has authority. Yah, sure, it is possible for a CO to grant the CC the authority you talk about within its governance structure, eh? But it's happily fairly rare, because it's one of da worst ways to be structured. Just as a line on a form doesn't imply authority for the IH or COR, the line on a form doesn't imply authority for the CC. In da business, NFP, or government worlds, the board chair or CEO typically is designated as signatory for contracts, but that does not mean they have authority to execute contracts without the approval of the board (or other enabling institutional structure like bylaws, etc.). All this is why you won't find anything in the BSA literature that even hints that a CC has the authority you claim, eh? Not a word. But if you read carefully, you will find that the BSA does list those things as roles of the committee. For example, the unit committee approves a boy's Eagle Project, but the Committee Chair typically signs da form. The unit committee approves events and the annual calendar, but the Committee Chair signs da forms. The unit committee vets and recommends new adult leaders and volunteers, but the Committee Chair signs the forms. It's an ordinary legal convention, eh? Just because it's a pain to get everyone on a board or committee to sign a piece of paper. Beavah

I think BW is right in general, eh? Most units and unit volunteers aren't equipped to be partners in dealing with lads who have more serious behavioral or substance abuse issues. And if they're not equipped, it's a mistake to go there. We also have to recognize that there really are CO's out there that do have experience dealin' with such things, though. I know of Venturing Crews associated with youth-at-risk institutions, juvenile detention centers, and alternative sentencing programs. That can be a great partnership. Just like Ed's point, eh? Not every troop can deal with a severely handicapped lad or lad with serious medical issues. But some can. B

Yah, well, yeh can always hold out and hope for identity theft that can be traced back to da BSA, then become lead plaintiff on da class action lawsuit. Bet yeh always wanted to own a chunk of Philmont! B