Beavah

Hi Acid, Sorry to hear of your struggles, eh? Yeh should know that your current council is followin' da official BSA policy on the matter. Yep, some individual councils are doin' their own work-arounds and such. BSA is squeezin' 'em, though. This is one of those places where you're right in many ways. You're right that makin' you divulge your SSN is inappropriate borderin' on illicit. You're right that a Criminal Background check does not require an SSN, which is really used primarily for credit checks that da BSA should not be doing. You'd be right if you argued that the BSA's method of doin' Criminal History checks is easily spoofed and offers very little real safety/protection of kids. And you'd be right in sayin' that the policy has been costin' us some good volunteers, and because of that has lost us some units and some kids. But yeh aren't gonna win, eh? Sometimes being right is less important than supportin' rules and process. You might be right about the call and the ref might be wrong, but often it's best for everybody if yeh support the ref. If it would make you feel better, I'd ask your council if there's a way you can use the online secure SSN entry system that they set up for us old-time volunteers. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're stuck. Beavah

Yeh know, nowhere did I say "keep doing what you're doing." But I've let yeh make that characterization because I took a few moments to try to understand what you meant by it. You are trying to express that you think her problem with this one SPL requires more drastic action than just keepin' a hand on it and mentoring the lads through the situation as a learning experience (which if yeh go back is what I proposed, along with some tips for how to coach the election process when dealin' with kids who aren't used to elections that mean something). You think that restructuring her troop into two age-stratified patrols would be better, and by comparison, my notion is "keep doing what you're doing." I get that. So by takin' just a minute to try to understand your point of view, I was able to avoid accusin' you of fabrication and misrepresentation and all that, eh? I don't agree with your viewpoint, I think you haven't been listenin' to gwd closely enough or long enough. But I'm not gonna berate you in public for your representation of your personal view of da meaning of my approach. Yeh might try that approach sometime. Do unto others, eh? Beavah

Yah, I think acco was makin' a "real world" argument, eh? If a Scoutmaster approaches a COR and makes a convincin' argument that the CC is a problem, there's gonna be a new CC, eh? Same with a committee that votes to replace its CC and presents that to da IH. Practically speakin', we all hope this "when push comes to shove" stuff happens only rarely. IMO it happens frequently only when a CC oversteps his/her bounds (or gets lazy) and begins appointin' people to positions on his/her own. Appointin' positions is the most important thing we do, and whether it's to fill a vacancy or make a replacement, it should be done right. That means it should be done only with the actual involvement and affirmative recommendation of da committee. B

Who is responsibily for ensuring leadership is secured and trained? Tut, tut, professor. Yeh changed da question, eh? Your original question was who is responsible for securing and training da SM, eh? The Committee, I'm sure you'll agree, is not responsible for training the SM. I want my half point back! Now, we do have to fix some of your understandin' about da role of a CC, eh? You're confusin' it with the authority of the IH or COR in some cases. Can the Committee Chair remove the Scoutmaster...Yes, with the knowledge of the Charter organization representative or the Charter Instituitional Head. Nah, you're not understandin' da materials. A signature on a form is not the same thing as authority, eh? The authority for securing a Scoutmaster you've already correctly stated lies with the Committee, not the CC. When the Committee recommends a new candidate to replace a current SM, da CC signs the form on behalf of the Committee. It would be dishonest and inappropriate for the CC to sign the form without the formal approval (by vote or consensus) of the Committee. The committee works for the committee chair. Nah. The committee works for da CO. Yeh won't find any statement anywhere in da BSA literature that says the committee works for the CC. Quite da opposite, eh? The CC works on behalf of the committee - helpin' organize and coordinate its functions. IF you follow the prescribed program, that is . when push comes to shove...CC and the CR each has authority over the Scoutmaster that the scoutmaster does not have over either of them. Again, false. That statement only applies to da CR, and to a more limited extent to the Committee as a whole. One of da things that's necessary when readin' BSA materials is to have an understanding of the way Committees and boards work in the rest of the world, eh? The BSA system is patterned after that, because that's what people know and understand. Otherwise we'd need a much longer Committee Guide which included explanations of how "the committee (and SM) works for the committee chair". Just like in da rest of the world, in the BSA system the committee chair has no independent authority, except when he/she is speakin' or signing on behalf of the committee. The authority is with da board, not its chair. While some may not like that fact, it is a fact none the less. B

What I made quite clear was that you fabricated every point you brought up And what I brought up was that from my perspective I didn't fabricate a thing, eh? I simply voiced what that solution could feel like to other people. It might not be a person's intent to create a dull, inappropriate, adult-run, lecture/presentation at a COH. The person proposin' it would never use those words, I'm sure. The point is, intent or not, that might very well be the effect of such a choice, eh? And those are da only words which can be used to describe the effect. As an aside, your reply demonstrates that it can be really difficult for adults who are used to bein' "in charge" to grasp the real meanin' of the leadership principle "Praise in Public, Reprimand in Private." That's somethin' where reminders from fellow scouters and friends can help. Hopefully they can catch us before we lecture (or worse) someone in public. [added] FScouter, here's a question for yeh. Did you do a presentation for your boys on the dangers of hood surfing at a Court of Honor last year? If yeh really thought it was a danger that should be addressed with education, then yeh should have been doin' it as a regular part of da program before the incident, right? Just like we all do with da Second Class requirement about drugs. If yeh really feel it's somethin' (like drug abuse) that needs to be addressed with youth in your area, then add a requirement . Teach it, check their understanding, reward their understanding as a part of your regular troop program. Respondin' with a one-shot presentation immediately after da fact isn't how we teach in Scoutin'. It's more like "pilin' on" to me. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, BW, yeh have to move at least a few hundred miles further north and work on dat accent a bit, eh? To my mind, nuthin' you proposed actually responded to gwd's need. When someone asks for help, I don't reckon they're usually lookin' for someone to come along and say "No, no, you're doin' it all wrong, just give up what you're doin' and follow my recipe (even though I don't know what ingredients you're workin' with!). Takin' a small troop and splittin' it into two patrols too small to stay intact on an average campout isn't an answer to a lad who "buys" an election. In fact, I'm pretty sure in da BSA literature yeh won't find a single word about what to do if a lad "buys" an election. Not even a single word about how to conduct an election. The real question as a commish is not whether we can quote materials, eh? It's whether we can succeed in helpin' people. Here we can ask gwd-scouter what suggestions she found most helpful. I always tried to do that as a council commish too, eh? Ask the unit scouters how helpful their commish had been. Ones that weren't, we replaced. Beavah

Who signs the adult leader membership applications? the Scoutmaster or the Committee Chair. The Committee Chair and da COR, eh? Does the scoutmaster have the authority to approve ANY adult membership in the unit? Nope, but in any good unit yeh can bet the SM is consulted and his/her recommendation followed, eh? Of course, da CC also does not have the authority to approve any adult membership in the unit, eh? Who is charged with securing and training the scoutmaster? Securin' the scoutmaster: the committee, not the CC. Trainin' the scoutmaster: da BSA. And, practically speakin', the former SM and other direct-contact leaders who are ASMs Who owns the unit and who is appoved by the Charter organization head to oversee the operation of the unit? Da CO and da COR. The Scoutmaster may not "answer to" the CC in a militarey chain of command sense. But the CC has authority over the scoutmaster that the scoutmaster does not have over the CC. False. This would be a misunderstandin' of the relationship as presented in da BSA materials. Now, practically speakin', do some units run this way? Yah, sure. I don't care for it myself. Makes for a poor troop dynamic at the adult level, and leads to all kinds of problems and extra work on da part of the commissioner. It's particularly a problem when da CC is a former SM. The Committee has some important roles to play, eh? But da CC, on his own, has no personal authority in da BSA program. Beavah

The point yeh missed in all that careful dissecting of sentences, BW, was the real point. To anybody sitting in the Court of Honor, a lecture from da SM and the troop is exactly what the presentation you're proposing would feel like. Kids and their parents aren't stupid. They know exactly what incident you're talkin' about and what people your little presentation is targeted at. And they'd be right, eh? It isn't really a safety discussion. It's a response to a particular incident that you've chosen to make everyone sit through. The lads involved will be suitably embarrassed. The parents of the lads involved will either be embarrassed or livid. All the other kids will know exactly what's goin' on and be able to snicker about it or feel sorry for their buddies. And that's clearly the intent, eh? What you're proposin' is not the same thing as a sermon on Sunday. Unless your pastor and half da congregation witnessed you doin' something stupid last week, and he chose the reading and the sermon for da week to talk about how stupid the action you did was, in front of everybody. While you sat there and squirmed, your family got angry, and everyone else sat there feelin' embarrassed for you and wonderin' why they bothered to come to church to listen to it, eh? That's what a COH presentation feels like to me, eh? Loved your example of DARE, though, because DARE is da poster child for a big, expensive, long-term, "have to do something" program that didn't work. In Scoutin', we teach scout leaders to respond to youth behaviors with courtesy, kindness, bravery, and a constructive manner. I don't see a COH presentation which is clearly a response to a particular incident as bein' consistent with the Methods or Values of Scoutin'. Just MHO. Beavah

Yah, easy there, BW. The "troop" in the BSA program literature is a lot of different things, eh? Sometimes it refers to a gatherin' of patrols (though that's actually a quote from those old Scouting materials yeh dis on so often. ). Sometimes it refers to a youth program owned and operated by a CO through a Troop Committee. In my experience, it's most common for requirements for PL and SPL positions to be set thinkin' of da troop in the second way, eh? As adults guidin' youth development. I'm not advocatin' one way or another, particularly, only commentin' on what I've seen in programs that have been successful. I think if yeh read gwd's postings carefully and fully over time, you'll find that her program has experienced a remarkably positive turnaround over a couple of years, and is really doin' fine things. I think the evidence suggests what she's doing is working very well. She got confronted by somethin' that all good SM's hit at some point durin' the transition to youth run - that kids just don't "get" elections. For many lads, Scoutin' is the first time they've ever voted in an election that actually mattered in any way. Workin' through that, balancing adult coachin' and lettin' kids feel the consequences of their choices, is what a good SM does, eh? Close as I can tell, gwd is doin' that just fine. Yah, I don't quite get your bold bit, eh? In a small troop, she is following the Boy Scout Program methods and mentoring the scouts. She conducted elections by the book, and is dealin' with the results. What we're tryin' to offer is ways of thinkin' about the Scoutin' methods that would be helpful in the specific circumstances she's confrontin'. Just like any good commish, eh? Beavah

Yah, well, maybe we all traded in our moral compasses for a new moral GPS! Way cooler, but yeh do have to remember to bring extra batteries. I'm with packsaddle on this, eh? Whether yeh point to Kitty Genovese all those years ago or to the Good Samaritan, I believe my fellow citizens are good sorts, but not always knowledgeable or brave sorts. I've been at lots of accident scenes. They've never been short of people who were standin' around willing to help. Those folks just didn't know how to help. That's a failure of education, not of morals. Worth askin' your scouts who have First Aid MB what they'd do (or better yet, set it up as a scenario somewhere safe and see!). Hopefully they'd know how to secure the scene, care for da victim, and direct bystanders. If not, time to work on how yeh teach First Aid! We need more scoutin' and more Red Cross courses and whatnot to empower good people, not groanin' about people bein' "bad." Beavah

I'm far more appalled at the idea that discussion should be avoided at a court of honor. The venue will have far greater attendance of parents, siblings, and Scouts than any troop meeting, committee meeting, PLC meeting, or campout. And nobody is going to come to a special meeting to talk about it. Yah, perhaps there's a reason for that, eh? The reason is that most parents and kids don't want to voluntarily spend their time bein' lectured to by the Scoutmaster. Rightly or wrongly, they think that folks should Praise in Public, and Reprimand in Private. Rightly or wrongly as parents they figure they're better equipped to take da keys away from Johnny Scout and have an intense "family discussion" or mete out consequences than da guy that only sees the kid once a week for an hour. Rightly or wrongly, they've got better uses for their time. So what is bein' suggested is that in response the Scoutmaster should take an event that they want to come to - an event designed to Praise in Public, an event designed to recognize achievement in ways that youth and adults find valuable enough to attend - and steal it from 'em. Turn part of it into a lecture on safety. Make what should be a celebration into a downer. Only thing I reckon that encourages is lower attendance at a Court of Honor, or people comin' late or leavin' early to avoid the dull stuff. When workin' with Scoutmasters, I always tell 'em that it's hard to confront individual kids, firmly, in private. It takes personal courage, strength of conviction, and real love and concern for the lad. It's far easier to organize a lecture to a whole group about rules, eh? Or to get da committee to pass a "policy" for everyone. That way the SM can hide behind the support of his friends in the group and behind da rules. The SM doesn't need to show either personal courage or personal love and concern to another individual, but can still feel like she's "done something". A Scouter should be Brave. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Just to fix a quick misconception, in da official BSA literature, the "troop" sets the age, rank, and other qualification standards for PL and SPL. Lots of ways of doin' that, but most common is the Scoutmaster settin' 'em, not the PLC. When I work with troops, I spend a lot of time listenin' and observin' first. I'd never recommend something, and certainly never quote literature at 'em (whether helpful or gobbledygook), until I had a real good sense of where they were at and where they wanted to go. Internet forums are tough in that way, because I can't see before I give advice or share a thought, eh? From my perspective, the outcomes gwd describes were what I expected when da thread began, eh? An immature 13-year-old who is pushed into leadership by a parent's ego need is gonna get upset and frustrated. No BSA literature is gonna solve that problem. Yeh either prevent the possibility by creatin' an age-based program where adults and older boys really run things for NSPs and mid-level patrols (preventing the frustration), or yeh build a mixed age program where kids understand da challenges of leadership and mature lads aspire to it. Along the way, you're naturally gonna have kids who do what this 13-year-old did, eh? That becomes a powerful lesson to everyone about electing a kid based on bribes, or assuming responsibility that way. It's part of da process of a unit growing and becomin' stronger. So gwd, I think yeh did fine. You get bonus points for keepin' the 13-year-old from droppin'. Now yeh need to find a spot as a first-tier follower for him to succeed at, eh? And help the group move back toward leadership being a call to service for your older, stronger lads. What yeh don't want is to repeat the struggle a few times without adjusting and learning. Beavah

Bah. Pack, if it's a parent's medical issue, yeh get another parent to be the lad's designated adult. Easy. I wasn't talkin' about excludin' either parents or kids. I was talkin' about running the outing with whoever wants to come. Those folks that stayed air conditioned playin' video games get to hear how great an event it was from all the participants after it's over. What shouldn't happen is "a few parents that are concerned about the heat index" causing the event to be canceled for everyone else. Beavah

This is why troops who routinely inject New Scouts into Experienced Patrols commonly complain about not being able to get the patrol method to work well. It's not that the patrol method doesn't work, it is that the leaders do not realize that every time the patrol make-up is altered it will diminish the ability of patrol for a period of time. Yah, this is perhaps an example of Kudu's point about the risks of "management theory" like formin'/stormin'/etc. It may lead adults to a different goal: obtain and maintain a "high ability patrol." If a SM sees his/her role as movin' toward creating such a "performing" patrol, they'll naturally think in terms of startin' with a low-ability patrol (NSP) and movin' 'em up year after year until they "graduate" as a high-ability patrol. Like school. In that setup, it's natural to teach TLT the same every year, I suppose. Each year yeh have a new patrol class that needs it. If our goal really is "performing" patrols, then da best situation is to have only one PL for da whole time, and each member finds his place on the team and gets better and better at his job within the patrol. Specialization. For me personally, a "performing" patrol ain't my goal in Scoutin'. My goal is more individual growth in character and service. So I honestly don't care about da "formin'/stormin'" management theory of industrial work groups, because I'm not tryin' to put together a team that performs well on some task like buildin' an automobile or even runnin' a campout. My goal of character development depends on each boy's role changing over time. Goin' from a novice who is trying to learn by example to an advanced beginner who needs practice to an intermediate who is a good example for da novices and eventually to a supporter and a leader. New lads being added to a patrol are great because they provide ways for the older boys to care for others, and to use what they've learned. And it's great for the younger lads because they have good examples to watch. The growth in character comes not from becoming a high-performing group. It comes from becoming a high-performing person within a broader group - a man who can lead and serve and whom others look up to and hope to be like. That experience can be given to every boy in Scouting. And it has the added bonus of creatin' permanent patrols with long-term loyalty. Rather than "the NSP class of '08" we have da awesome Beavahs of Troop 7 who range from age 85 to 10.5 and who get together and sing "I used to be a Beavah, and a good ol' Beavah, too..." Real patrol method. In that case, TLT becomes what Eagledad describes, eh? A supplement done differently each year to give the group a "boost" in a particular area that needs it. Yeh don't have a new "class" comin' up that yeh need to offer TLT 101 to. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

So it would seem that you agree the difference is in the people. Me personally? Yah, for sure. I agree with you completely on that point. In my experience if yeh find the right sort of person to be unit leader, they do what it takes to get good at it. They read lots, take trainin', talk to other people. Most important, they pay attention to kids and adjust what they're doin' when it doesn't work. They might not make Patrol Method work right away, but they puzzle it out and improve. If yeh get the wrong sort, there's not much you can do. They've had a lifetime of experiences which make 'em a great undertaker or insurance salesman or marine, but not a great Scoutmaster. No amount of BSA trainin' can counter that lifetime of experience. Even when they try to do what yeh tell 'em for youth leadership or patrol method or advancement, they'll make a hash of it. Often just because the tone of their communication with kids is off. Worst cases are ones whose maturity and judgment is off. By far da biggest impact on a program is had by a Committee and COR doin' a good job choosing adult leaders. Easiest way to wreck a unit is to appoint a "warm body" or not be thorough in vettin' a selection (or not makin' a change when they see a problem). Beavah

Oh fer cryin' out loud. Kids around the world live in hotter environments than northern Virginia without even the benefit of air conditioning! (the horrors!) Take along a big cooler and lots of ice; make lemonade and gatorade constantly available and have at it. If some parent wants to keep their kid in an air conditioned cocoon, they don't have to come, eh? B

Team dynamic models? What defines "forming?" Good grief! I reckon this is what Kudu's talkin' about, eh? The real issue for the PL is "What do I do with Joe who keeps fudging on meal cleanup?" B

Yah, I dunno MichaelOA. If yeh start talkin' like me at school in California, yeh best be careful. Women love a man with a charmin' accent! Here's another thought to put in your head and bake. What's your troop doin' high-adventure-wise? You seem like a mid-sized, young, but growing unit. That'd be about the perfect time to take some of the capable and mature 13-and-up guys and start thinkin' bigger. Pushin' your boundaries doin' some longer-term adventures would test your leadership skills and also really improve da skills of your troop POR's and older PLs. You might want to consider a position as "founding" Venture Patrol Leader. How about leadin' a week of climbing at Joshua Tree or Red Rocks (Las Vegas)? Or a couple weeks learnin' to whitewater raft and kayak on the American? Glacier travel and mountaineering on Shasta? Seems like that might be right up your alley, eh? The added bonus is that if yeh do those things with an eye to learning and getting good at them rather than just "experiencing" them as a guided tour, you'll bring those skills back to da troop, eh? Teachin' the youth and adults whitewater safety, or climbin', etc. Strong, skilled older scouts make for a strong troop, eh? Might be a good option for you to consider. Beavah

But if there is ample information out there for some to learn it then there is ample out there for all to learn it. It is much easier to show evidence of quality resources than to show evidence of quality leader selection by units. Yah, while I'm not really a fan of Kudu's hyperbole and such, this is where I think yeh miss the mark, BW. Just because some folks learn something doesn't mean that the information is readily available or taught well. Even the worst classroom teachers on the planet can point to a few kids who get A's. But havin' a few kids get A's doesn't mean the teachin' or resources were any good. It means those kids were really bright, came from supportive families, and came with a lot of knowledge and experience before class even started. To evaluate teachin' and resources, yeh have to look at what the middle and lower-middle folks are doin', eh? Not just da folks gettin' A's. So I reckon it's a lot harder to show evidence of quality resources than you think. If, as you have claimed many times, there are a lot of people who just don't understand what they were trained in, that's a tell-tale sign of poor trainin' resources. Pointin' just to some folks who are successful is more likely a reflection of quality leader selection, or at least serendipitous leader selection. A lucky find of BP's "right sort." Kudu doesn't need hypotheticals either, eh? The "success" of the management/leadership theories in da real world of business where they were developed has been remarkably poor. Bad resources. But there are good businesses out there, largely because of good people. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, MichaelOA, it's hard for any of us to give yeh advice on a POR by remote, eh? Too much depends on how your troop works, whether TG or JASM makes the most sense for yeh. I figured you for older based on 3 years as SPL, but I wasn't leadin' you astray. In most units, JASM is done as a SM appointment rather than an SPL appointment. Life in da real world of troops doesn't always match what gets printed in our handbooks, eh? BobWhite and your SM are right, though, da SM Handbook advises the JASM position be used for a strong leader 16 or older. If your SM isn't comfortable with usin' you in that position as a 15 year old, TG is a good option if your unit really uses one. A TG is typically used if a troop puts all of its new boys together in a New Scout Patrol. You sort of become the "den chief" for the first year boys - the older scout who helps guide the new scout Patrol Leader and teach/help the new boys have a good start in Scouting. Troop Guides are often the guys most responsible for the long-term health of the troop, because more than anyone else you make sure the new guys learn and have fun and are "brought up right." In many ways you are the "functional" patrol leader for the NSP because those lads aren't really ready to be thrust into leadership. If your troop runs more open or mixed-age patrols then a Troop Guide might not be used at all (like you mention), or might be an older scout who keeps track of all the first year boys and helps each PL work with his youngest members. Yeh might do some instructional stuff like Tenderfoot skills just for first year boys. Just depends on how you're set up. There's also da option of a SM-assigned leadership project until yeh turn 16. That project can include doin' JASM-like things. Includin' trying to help da troop move toward more independent patrols and service-leadership from chain-of-command. There's a caution, though. If your SM hasn't had JASMs in the past he/she might not have figured out how to use the position well. Some SMs and ASMs have a hard time treatin' young folks as fellow ASMs. If in the end yeh go that route, I think yeh want to be sure to work out what your role will be and what you'll lead. Time to have a conference with your Scoutmaster and talk about these things, eh? And with your ASPL. As a friend he might have good insight into where you can best help da troop when he starts as SPL. Our friends often see our strengths and interests better than we do, eh? Good luck with it! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Aside from violating the spirit of scouting, it is a serious crime that MUST be reported to the authorities (and here I mean the actual authorities, not just the council or CO). Sorry, OneHour, but before we close da thread, I have to address packsaddle's repeated advice. I think his advice can be fine, eh? There are times when a lad needs to be woken up by a scary encounter with the law. BUT I think folks should be aware that the high grades he gives to the local PTI program in his area is far more an exception than a rule in most jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions don't have alternate sentencing available at all. Many alternate sentencing programs will only put a lad with kids whose behavior goes far beyond smokin' a joint, and by so doing will be a worse influence on him. Many jurisdictions won't even bother with a first offense marijuana possession beyond a hearing and a fine. Some jurisdictions will have a "tougher than tough love" judge who tosses a lad into county lockup. Many jurisdictions won't entertain prosecution based on a report filed by civilian volunteers without evidence confiscated by law enforcement with proper chain of custody. So in da bigger world, the results you're gonna get from filin' a criminal complaint are going to be pretty durn unpredictable. If yeh know that you have a great local program like packsaddle's, and yeh have a personal relationship with the folks that administer it, by all means go for it. Otherwise, I'd strongly caution you against it. Especially because, in a Boy Scouting or Venturing program it's very likely that the offense was committed in a different jurisdiction (and possibly a different state!) than your home county. I'm still left wonderin' if da folks who are so eager to involve law enforcement would call the cops for a fight between two kids (battery), stealing a knife from someone's tent (theft), etc. These are all crimes too, eh? Beavah

But now I'm going to try and present this new group method to my scoutmaster possibly at the next committee meeting. Good for you, eh? A good SM is always learnin', especially from the boys. Do it respectfully, of course! Show it to him in advance... don't blindside him at a committee meeting. And good call on steppin' aside and voting for your ASPL. 3 years is plenty as SPL. Yeh should be applauded for your service, and for recognizin' when it's time to pass the baton. Requirements for JASM are set by your unit. JASM is often a position taken by former SPLs. In most units, JASM is a position appointed by the SM. Beavah

Maybe it is just confusing since jblake says he is a Beaver? Yah, that must be it, eh! All of us dam Beavers are trouble-makers! We all have da same toothy grin, too. But that jblake character, he doesn't have da same charmin' northern accent, eh? B

Yah, hmmm.... Well, that's better anyway. Perhaps it would help if yeh told us a bit more why you were lookin' for information like this? Are yeh tryin' to address an issue? Or just tryin' to understand things more generally? I find specific examples help a lot more than organizational charts or command chains. B

In the parent thread, I expressed my firm opinion that a Court of Honor was no place for a disciplinary lecture and presentation, eh? One of our other regulars felt that a court of honor was a time for a group meetin' with parents, to address such things as "Youth Protection, Summercamp promotion, annual program plan, popcorn kickoff, certainly health and safety concerns, etc." Yah, and disciplinary stuff. Now of course I couldn't find any references in da BSA literature that would suggest that's what a Court of Honor is for. At the same time, I've certainly seen CoH's and especially Pack Meetings used for this kind of stuff. FOS presentations also. And I hate 'em all. I think Courts of Honor are award ceremonies for kids, by kids. They should be our focus, and the event should be for them. Co-opting it to do fundraisin' or "Announcements, announcements, announcements!" while leavin' our honored guests bored is truly a horrible way to die. From what I've seen, this sort of thing happens in more adult-run units, where an adult feels a need to stand up and blah blah blah... I can't imagine youth leaders and MC's doing this on their own. IMO, there's lots of other ways and places to handle parent communication. What do da rest of you see/think out there?