Beavah

??? Yah, BW, it really doesn't take much effort to scroll back through da thread and recognize that quote came not from me, but from jblake, eh? Especially since I only had one short post on da entire thread! Maybe Kudu's right, we should be spendin' more time on things like Kim's Game to teach observation skills. I understand where you're comin' from on da rest of it, but I think it's the wrong approach. It's fine to say "Yah, TLT and our other materials aren't near enough, it's up to the Scoutmaster." But our job as the BSA is to provide materials and trainin' to assist the unit. If our materials aren't enough to lead a novice SM to success, if our trainin' ain't enough to teach da practical side of doing patrol method and youth leadership, then to my mind that's our fault, not the Scoutmaster's. Kudu's point that Basic never really mentions patrol method at all is a telling one, eh? It's too easy to blame da SM for everything "wrong," especially when most SM's are fairly new to da job, eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Schedule a court of honor. Then have as surprise guest speakers an emergency room doctor and a police officer. Have each give graphic detailed reports on the dangers of hood surfing, then inform the parents that it has come to the troops attention that there are scouts in this unit who participate in this activity. Yah, hmmmm.... no. I may be funky, but I would never, ever do that to a Court of Honor. A Court of Honor is a place where we celebrate boys and their achievements, eh? A place where we applaud kids. It should never become a place where we lecture them, and dilute their achievements with a disciplinary action. I don't think it should ever be a place where we raise money, either, but that's a different story. I expect that most of da parents involved are gonna land on these kids like a ton of bricks, eh? I don't expect yeh need any additional consequence in Scouting, because it wasn't a Scouting activity. But if yeh wanted to do something, I'd suggest workin' with those young troop leaders to have them do a presentation to the younger lads at a meeting, where they apologize for bein' poor examples and explain how dumb it was. I reckon that will have the most impact on the younger lads, while also teachin' the leaders how an honorable man lives up to and corrects his mistakes. Beavah

Yah, BW's got it, eh? The BSA rules apply only to unit trips (where da unit is arranging/providing the transportation, and is therefore responsible). If the unit is just meeting somewhere for a meeting or event and it's up to the boys/parents how they get there, then G2SS is not in play. It's up to da boys/parents how they get there! We don't want to be managin' the carpool from the soccer practice to the meeting night, nor do we want to be collectin' insurance information from Uncle Fester who is droppin' young Pugsley off because his parents are celebratin' their anniversary. Beavah

I would strongly disagree with Beavah that the leadership skills a scout learns cannot be applied outside of scouting. In fact I think horse hockey would be putting it mildly. Yah, that's fine, eh? I think it's horse hockey too! Mostly because I never said anything even vaguely like that. I'm in complete agreement that one of the fine things a successful scout unit will give to a lad is the ability to both lead and follow (and communicate/negotiate which!) in a variety of circumstances. Da question is how is that outcome achieved within Scouting? Does it happen because we sat down with lads at TLT and taught them from a book about directive, delegating, etc. styles? Because we discussed with them leadership theory? NO! The outcome is achieved because Patrol Method and Youth Leadership when done well in a troop allows for years and years of observing, practicing, coaching, and reflecting on real, live leadership and followership in a setting which makes success or failure easy to recognize. That's where da real work of leadership development in Scouting takes place. The leadership theory bookwork and instruction contributes barely an iota. Kudu thinks da bookwork detracts because it distracts less experienced adult leaders from the more important stuff. It's an interestin' argument. I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but I do agree that it's possible, eh? Certainly the current TLT is an example of how that might happen - just go over leadership styles and a job description in a class and the SM is done! Yah, sure, an experienced scouter is gonna add a lot to that, eh? But I think our materials should be geared more toward practical advice for novice scouters than stuff only experienced scouters will know how to implement well. I guess I do agree with Kudu that da leadership theory stuff is irrelevant. Yeh can dispose of it and not affect outcomes at all (and perhaps reduce boredom). BSA was successful at developin' leaders long before that stuff got inserted. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... now there yeh went and confused me, svendzoid. Work at the district level is very different than work on the EB. I'm all for you helpin' out at either level, eh? In part because I think our business in Scoutin' doesn't end at age 18 or 21. Young people IMO should be introduced to service on boards and good boardsmanship, and understandin' how significant charitable giving and good governance is, eh? A council board seems like da perfect place for a lad who has grown up with Scouting to get that initial experience. I think, though, BW is right, eh? Yeh have to figure out what it is you really want to contribute to. The best and most important jobs in Scouting are at the unit level. That's where the real work gets done. Second most important are the folks providin' unit support at district, if the district and commish staff are actually workin' right. All da rest of us are low-level critters who just exist to quietly support infrastructure. If you're lookin' to district or council positions as a prestige thing then your thinkin' is all backward, eh? I can't imagine that it's hard to get involved at the district level. Just start showin' up for District Committee meetings. Listen, introduce yourself around, ask questions durin' breaks, sit in on a committee you're interested in. After a few months when you start to figure out what's up, approach the District Pres or a Committee Chair and volunteer to help out. Easy! If yeh have an interest in board work, ask your SE if yeh can just sit in quietly at the next meetin' because you want to learn what a NFP board does and how it operates. If he's a dingbat and says no, go ask over at your county Red Cross chapter or GoodWill or such and I bet they'll let yeh. It might well be that when yeh see what a board really does, you decide that's not where you think you want to contribute, but that's OK, eh? B

Oh, I dunno, BA. He and jblake playin' tag team with SR540 and BobWhite is kind of entertaining! Even makes for some elements of a good discussion. I agree with yeh, though. I think the problem is more often what jblake describes in terms of SM attitudes. WB is nice and all, but it's only an experience of a few days. Boy Scout specific is even shorter, eh? Even if WB and Basic trainin' were awful, they wouldn't have da effect Kudu claims. And I don't really think they're awful. I do agree with him that teachin' "leadership styles" and all that drivel to kids is boring, and too abstract for a young adolescent male brain. Being focused and practical works much better, especially if the SM has in mind that the patrol is goin' to go camping without any adults. Beavah

Yah, MichaelOA, John-in-KC has the right of it. I believe you are thinking of this wrong. The reason why you can't find a chain of command anywhere is because there isn't one. You can find some examples of troop organizational charts, but I find those pretty problematic since they misconstrue the Patrol Method. Often when I hear youth or adults talk about "chain of command" they're referring to something like "who can order somebody else around" or "who reports to whom." That doesn't make a lot of sense outside da military, eh? Congress does not "report to" the president, nor vice versa. Representatives don't report to the Speaker of the House, nor can she give them orders. A better way to think of things is to talk about who serves whom. In scouting, a Patrol Leader serves his patrol - the boys who elected him. They evaluate, give him feedback, "hire and fire." He represents their interest to the other PL's at the PLC. He might delegate tasks to individual boys in his patrol, or lead in other ways, but it ain't a "chain of command." The SPL serves the PL's, by providing coordination between patrols and leading the PLC, and (with the ASPL) supervising support services for the patrols like the QM and Scribe. On the adult side, the Committee and SM/ASMs all serve the Chartered Organization. The committee has a "legislative / support" role and the SM/ASMs are the "executive". The CC serves the CO by leading committee meetings and coordinating the "legislature's" agenda and committee members' assistance to the SM. Like the Speaker of the House (or Board Chair in GW's example), the CC has no personal authority in chain-of-command style. Da SM does not "report to" the CC, he/she reports on the state of the unit to the Committee. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

That's why he graduated from an Ivy Leage School, earned an MBA, was governor of one of our largest states and is now President. Yah, probably why we need an amendment that prohibits dynastic candidates for president, whether it be sons or spouses. All such folks are likely to get to positions by virtue of their association and da efforts of their family, rather on their own merits and accomplishments. Bad enough when it destroys a family business, as happens often enough. With three hundred million people, I figure there have to be quite a few folks with the capabilities to do da job well, without relyin' on da "next in line to succeed to the throne." B

Yah, BW, dat's quite a stretch, eh? I think all scouts are bright lads, and what we do is important. But we ain't med school. I agree with yeh, though. This is a serious matter, and should be handled as such. I think lots of times well-meanin' adult leaders get caught up in a "save every lad" mentality, and forget about all da other boys. The ones who are watchin' to see if the adults really live up to the values they profess. The ones that resisted peer pressure and da attraction of drugs, and are lookin' to see if they made the right call. I reckon we owe a good answer to them first, eh? Make the consequences serious. Yeh can't do fun stuff if yeh betray da trust of others. After that, though, we've got to figure out how best to help a lad where he's at. Sometimes that's gonna be "hit him with a load of bricks." Tough love. Other times, it might be a bit different. Da good of the many outweighs the good of the few... or the one. Except sometimes we leave da 99 and go after the one who is lost, eh? Beavah

Rooster! What are you doin' here??! Good to "see" you again, eh? I hear what you're sayin', but I'm in Ed's camp on this. W. has been a major disappointment because he abandoned nearly all of da tenets of classic conservativism. I'm less upset that he fabricated a bit about WMD than I am about how he pretended to be a thoughtful conservative and patriot. He promised us in 2000 that during his presidency we would never engage in "nation building." Then he got us into da most absurd nation-building project in our history. He promised us in 2000 that he was a fiscal conservative who would continue a surplus budget while responsibly cuttin' taxes. Then he led us into borrow-and-spend recklessness with breathtaking abandon. Highest ever irrational subsidies. He promised us integrity after the smut and "what 'is' means" of the Clinton years. Then we got wartime fabrications, outing undercover CIA agents for political ends, signing statements, secret overseas prisons, warrantless wiretapping and searches, and executive memos authorizing torture of prisoners. Most disturbing, he promised us competence after years of Clinton crony-ism. Then he gave us the most bumbling cronies ever, from Brown at FEMA to Gonzales at Justice to nominatin' Myers for the Supreme Court. He promised respect for da men and women in the Service, and instead we got ignorin' the generals, stop-losses, nationalizing the Guard, micromanagin' field commanders and endless high-tempo deployments. Outside of judicial appointments and payin' lipservice to conservative social values, the man has been a fraud. Hasn't even come close to bein' a real conservative in my books. Hey, I'm a conservative. Like GAHillBilly's article says, I have to be honest. Beavah

Interestin' responses. I didn't want to comment at first because I've had a lot of time on Council and other NFP boards. One of the "rules of thumb" of NFP boardsmanship is "One third work, one third wisdom, and one third wealth." To do a good job as a board, you need folks who are hard workers committed to the cause, folks who are ideas people who bring vision, and folks who bring support in dollars and in-kind donations. BSA council boards sometimes drift too much toward da "wealth" end if the SE and nominating committee aren't being smart. Gets driven by the damnable evaluation metrics. I've had to pull at least two SE's aside in recent memory to teach 'em a better way of lookin' at things. I succeeded with one. We fired the other. svendzoid, I think yeh should pursue exec board and exec committee membership if yeh feel that's your calling to serve Scouting. I'd certainly welcome yeh. I think most good board members would. We need young people who have an interest in NFP and corporate governance to step up, eh? It's important work, and yeh should be encouraged. You'll learn a lot, and you'll bring a perspective dat us old bankers and lawyers and politicians need to hear, eh? Yeh should be aware that in da NFP world there is an "expectation" that board members contribute both time and treasure. When I do board orientations, I tell folks that we expect a donation... it can be $10, it can be $10M... that's up to their conscience. But it should be enough so that you have credibility in the eyes of the Scoutmaster in the field who is putting in more hours and putting in a lot of his/her own money out-of-pocket. It should express your commitment, within your means. Otherwise, yeh leave it to da "wealth" people on your board, eh? Be a good "work" or "wisdom" person and make that your primary contribution. Beavah

Yah, NealonWheels, I reckon he's talkin' about a combination of things, eh? Da Eagle project workbook for the project, and Eagle Application Requirement 6 (on the old form, anyway!): "Attach to this application a statement of your ambitions and life purpose and a listing of positions held in your religious institution, school, camp, community, or other organizations during which you demonstrated leadership skills. Include honors and awards received during this service." I think ChingKao is concerned about the length of this list. It ain't optional, but it also isn't somethin' to fret over. B

Now that we've gotten da most serious issue out of the way, let's talk about that budget surplus. I agree with everyone - a troop's "general fund" should be sufficient to cover da yearly calendar with enough reserve to ensure good cash flow and guard against a "failed" fundraiser. Dependin' on the size of troop and da nature of your calendar, that reserve can be pretty substantial. Camp deposits & fees, high adventure stuff, all can be pretty pricey. A good sized troop can definitely get to da point in the year where they might have a lot of money in da account (like right now, before summer camp and summer high adventure payments). So first thing: check to make sure it's really 30K of uncommitted cash, eh? And that the 30K really represents a lot more than the annual budget plus one failed major fundraiser. Some troops with a lot of equipment will also have a gear depreciation reserve, eh? I know Sea Scout Ships with boats that might easily have that much money set aside like that. Now, if there really is no good reason for havin' that cash, then I'd encourage yeh to think of da cash as capital rather than operations. Instead of spendin' it on a one-time event like a free high adventure trip, spend it on capital expenses that will be of long-term use to your program. Perhaps: Buy a bunch of kid-sized backpacks to loan out. Invest in a full set of "lightweight" camping gear to encourage more adventurous trips. Replace those old, leaky tents. Buy a mess of canoes and a trailer. Rent 'em to other troops to pay for maintenance. Send a couple of leaders to Philmont Training Center or a NOLS Outdoor Educator course, where they can learn things that will have a long-term impact on your program. Set it aside to provide free "tuition" for your youth leaders to attend NYLT each year. Whether it's gear that enables more adventure, or training that enables more adventure, spend your capital cash on stuff that will have a long-term impact. Beavah

Yes, I am going after the worst possible scenario, but even then, what happens? What happens is everybody prays for da boy and his family. Maybe even does some fundraisin' to help out. And, perhaps, down the road a bit, a more mature, successful paraplegic young man makes it part of his mission in life to visit scout troops and talk about da real dangers of substance abuse. At least, that's what I would hope for. There is zero liability exposure for da unit or its leaders as described. The adults in da unit met their duty of care. Even if they had not, their action was not the proximate cause of the injury - indeed there is no causation in fact at all. The lad assumed the risk of driving under the influence on his own. Though I always love to hear novel theories of liability, there's just nuthin' here. I think all of us who really care about kids want to do what we can for 'em, eh? We want to be responsible for helpin' 'em. That's a good, sound, ethical position, consistent with doin' our best to help other people at all times. I think all good SM's feel responsible for each of their boys. Just because we want to be or feel responsible doesn't mean that we really are, though. Kids will make bad choices even when we do our best. Parents will send mixed signals, school counselors will blow it, or peers will be poor examples and override our best efforts. There's lots of other people in a scout's life. In most things, we aren't even morally responsible for da choices kids make. And da standards for legal responsibility are much, much narrower than moral responsibility. Beavah

Hi ChingKao! Welcome to the forums. You must be very proud of your son. Please pass along a "Scout Salute" for us, eh? We will all look forward to welcoming him to the distinguished rank of Eagle Scout. I think you can relax and let your son proceed according to his best judgment. There's no need to "pad" a resume, and in some cases padding a resume can be taken as a lack of character. Mostly, the Board will use the document as a conversation starter, to talk about leadership and values learned in Scouting that a boy has used in other places. I always tell boys to put on their resume all of the activities, teams, and awards that they're proud of, whether inside or outside of Scouting. Participation as a regular team member, too, not just as a leader or captain. I think it would be fine if your son included special BSA awards he was proud of (ex. 300 miles backpacking), but not every camp patch. As for whether a coach should be used for the educator reference, that's a good question for your son to ask his Scoutmaster. I think most Boards would be just fine with it, but it can vary a bit in different places. More importantly, taking the initiative to ask questions of leaders and adults is a good skill for your son to have down before he goes off to college! Be sure to let us know the results after your son's Board of Review!

I think it's absolutely correct to take such behavior seriously, but it's very difficult to give a concrete response without knowin' da players and relationships and such. Me personally, I'm not at all fond of "zero tolerance" only-one-response policies of any kind, eh? And, too, I know enough about da vagaries of da legal system. I'd never recommend a unit involve law enforcement as a standard, universal response. What next? Call da cops when one boy steals an iPod out of another's tent without askin'? I see da criminalization of youth behaviors as an awfully bad trend. If we can't deal with ordinary youth behaviors (or typical parent behaviors) without recourse to da boys in blue, we shouldn't be in da youth volunteer business. A good troop has to recognize that any kid brazen enough to bring weed on a scout trip has been experimentin' with drugs for a while, eh? And every other kid knows it. The response has to be serious, and tailored to da kid and his family, but also to supportin' the good kids who have resisted that temptation and pressure. Those kids need to see that there are real consequences, and that their decision to "stay clean" was justified. At the same time, a good troop also recognizes that teen drug use often goes hand in hand with depression, stress, and a lot of other things, eh? In a lot of ways, at that age it's just an immature response to da ordinary pressures of life bein' experienced for the first time. So I reckon da range of responses goes from what One Hour's troop did (loss of POR, suspension for a considerable time, return based on meetin' conditions designed to help the lad, probation, etc.) up to expulsion. In all cases, we should try to help the parents and the boy with pointers to other resources - counseling, programs, etc. And yah, in some (few!) cases referral to law enforcement might be da only or best route available. But I'd try to "set it up", eh? We don't want the lad to learn that he can get away with drug use for a fine less than a speeding ticket, nor do we necessarily want him incarcerated for an extended period - and both are possible in different jurisdictions, eh? Da legal system is terrible at education. Beavah

Not likely. It might impact their 501©(3) status but not all non-profits are 501c3 organizations. Just what category other than a ©(3) do yeh reckon a PTO would be, GW? Yah, termination of ©(3) status is a fairly rare thing, though not unheard of by any means, especially in cases of criminal wrongdoing like fundraisin' fraud. Whether a DA chooses to pursue a criminal matter depends on a bunch of factors which hopefully include intent and common sense. But there's a lot of dollars involved here, eh? It ain't chump change. And odds are current and former SM, CC, and treasurers benefited directly from this little scheme, eh? I'd expect at least an agreement for all of 'em to reimburse the unit in order to avoid prosecution. NLDScout is around somewhere, I expect. I wonder what he'd say as a judge faced with a bunch of folks who appropriated thousands of dollars of Scoutin' money for themselves as unreported income? The law is important here, because this is serious stuff and da consequences are pretty severe. But really, da reason a unit shouldn't do this has nothing to do with the law. It should never come to legal falderal in a Scoutin' unit. This is an Oath and Law issue. Scout units should not commit fraud on their friends and donors. If I were involved in da unit, I'd be lookin' for a way to make restitution to donors for monies that have been misappropiated in this way up to this point. If I was a beneficiary, I would be returning the money to the troop. It's just a matter of good ethics. One of the hard things here is that cubdad's unit has been doin' this for long enough that there's an expectation that people are owed other people's donated/fundraised dollars. Tellin' them they aren't gonna get checks anymore is going to be a bit of a PR challenge, eh? I'd recommend havin' an outsider (accountant, attorney, school district or BSA official) deliver da bad news. No matter how they do it, though, they need to get this under control. Guess this is why units are encouraged to file da "Unit Money-Earning Application" form, eh? B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, go somewhere nice, eh? Dinner, fun spot, whatever. Eagle SM conferences to my mind are primarily opportunities for a boy to tell yeh his stories in the troop and what he actually learned from 'em. To let yeh know what really is goin' on in your program. And just to enjoy each other's company as men, eh? Secondarily, an Eagle conference can also help a lad prepare for an EBOR. Types of questions the board will ask, etc. That's gonna vary depending on your local conditions. A good thing to do is to write down questions at previous EBORs to bring out as SM conference questions/examples. I'd be careful not to let da latter overrun the former though, eh? If your program is runnin' right, by the time a lad is comin' up for his EBOR, yeh already know he's an Eagle Scout through-and-through, and capable of handlin' the EBOR without much prep. Yeh should be welcoming the lad as an adult peer and settin' the tone for how Eagles take their Scoutin' experiences and continue to live the Oath and Law as men. Beavah

I may take on the SM position. In the meantime, I need to learn how to deal with various issue, eh? By the book, by logics, by passion, or by anything else. Yah, I spun this off from OneHour's specific thread so that it becomes a general discussion rather than one specifically associated with OneHour's case. If a SM or CC came to one of us with a tale of an older boy Eagle Scout on a troop campout who is caught smoking pot, what advice would we give him/her on how to proceed? Assume this is da boy's first "serious" offense, but he's had a few less serious incidents over recent years that amounted to "behavioral issues." What sort of additional information would yeh look for? What sort of process would yeh use to address da matter? What would be the range of likely outcomes? etc. Beavah

Second point, our troop does pretty well with fund raisers.... We have Scouts turning 18, leaving the troop, who are given a check for $600, $1000, $1200, etc. for the remaining balance in their account. Yah, I'm da guy who is usually pretty understandin' of different units/CO's ways of operatin', eh? So you'll appreciate how strongly I feel about this in respondin' directly and only to this part of your post, cubdad. ABSOLUTELY NOT! At least if I'm reading this right. You're tellin' people you're raising money for Scouting. And then, after some period of time, you're takin' the money you raised and giving cash payments to individuals who participated in the fundraising, to use as they please? If yeh are collecting dollars as a fundraiser for Scouting and then dolling it out as cash payments to the participants, you're committin' a criminal offense in all states I know of. That's fundraisin' fraud, eh? And tax evasion and some other stuff. There is a lot of enforcement interest in this, eh? Fundraising fraud is a big deal. It's an area where folks who prosecute offenses are really interested in prosecutin'. It can cost da PTO its NFP status. Your treasurer and leaders can serve time in jail. Restitution orders are common. It can ruin da image of Scouting in your area and hurt your council. Most important, it's just dumb! There's so many great things within Scoutin' that yeh can use the money for! If you aren't usin' it, give a big FOS check to your council to support camperships for kids in need! Yeh absolutely, positively must stop this practice. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... OneHour, there's just no way to answer your question without knowin' the players and the circumstances, eh? I think all good adults try to do their best and use their best judgment. None of us get da call right all the time, and some not much of the time. Plus I'm not sure us shorin' up your belief that your CC and SM are patsies and an ASM and his kid are dirty rotten scoundrels is the healthiest thing for you, eh? There seems to be a lot of emotional "history" there in your previous threads. It's hard when you've felt some "ownership" in a program to let it go. But you're no longer involved, right? If you take a deep breath and are honest with yourself, I suspect that yeh have to admit that you're not directly aware of the circumstances of what went on, either in the incident or da follow up. So I'd let it go, mate. If your son is doin' fine, celebrate his accomplishments in da troop. Find some good role at district, or when your son gets clear, go start a Venturing Crew or take someone up on da SM offer. The Scoutin' world is a big place. There's good and some bad and some just lack of courage. Don't let the bad get yeh down, there's a lot of good. And there's always another job to do! That's my best advice, eh? If it's completely off and yeh really need perspective on how other troops have handled similar things, I'll comment again. But think about it first. Da only thing I will offer is that I don't think any troop would file a criminal complaint with law enforcement unless a lad was dealin'. Yah, sure, "da law is da law" and all that, but we're youth volunteers. Our role isn't to enforce laws, it's to work with kids. Beavah

Yah, wow. Just a big "ditto" to Eagledad, eh? My experience is da same as his. 1-year SPL terms tends to be a feature of a mature program with a lot of activities and older boy leaders, typically from a mixed-age program. I think that's what you were describin' your troop as, or at least movin' toward with the addition of Venture/older scout activities. B

After contacting the ARC [American Red Cross] training headquarters for the southern region. This is what they said; In order to teach CPR using ARC training method you must be certified instructure. If you have an assistant training, they must be certified. Both must be certified as trainers. The training ratio is 6/1... if the trainer has multiple years of experience then an allowance up to 8/1 ratio can be made. Most important if your Troop, Pack, Crew, or any organization is considering holding CPR training, make sure they present you their certification as a trainer before you go and set it all up. If not politely find someone else. Rember... every Scout deserves to have a trained leader... Yah, Eagle Foot, I think you're not understandin' something here. I no longer teach for ARC, but when I did, it was common that certification as an instructor lasted longer than certification as a responder. This created da weird circumstance where you could be teachin' a class that you were no longer officially certified in. Happened all da time, just because folks didn't watch the dates. As an instructor, you could never sign your own card, eh? So what was generally done was yeh co-taught a class and the other instructor signed you off at the end. This was normal, ordinary, and in no way affected the quality of instruction nor da validity of the certification. That's why it's best not to micromanage da people who are givin' you their time, eh? And to be careful about quotin' rules at folks before yeh understand da system. I think what's probably goin' on is what I described. Even if not, I think it's a good sign that an instructor who's gonna be working with a bunch of kids brings in extra hands to help. Makes for a much better experience overall. Beavah

Yah, that's a big request, eh? Email worldbureau@scout.org and ask very nicely. Might help to say why you want it. Or to send 'em a donation. Beavah

Yah, it's an online e-learning course, CNY. Takes about 40 minutes or so. Then again, maybe there's a need to complete Planning and Preparing for (Hazardous Weather Training). You know, da stuff you need for training, how to make your BSA-incompatible computer actually access da training, makin' sure your BSA ID# links up so your trainin' gets recorded, etc. B