Beavah

Yah, I had to go look this up, eh? Can't say that I'm happy with da concept. Are we really tryin' to teach youth members that they can get awards for money? If that's da case, why not steer 'em toward saving up and earning da James E. West? That way, they'd also learn a bit about philanthropy and endowments and such. Eagle Scout should be recognized as Eagle Scout. No special "silver" for those who can give more gold. Of course, as a marketin' ploy by NESA, I bet it'll be at least moderately effective. There's always somebody who wants to look a bit more bespangled. B

You might be sued if your strategy was to ignore rules and sage advice, stash a few epi-pens in your first aid kit, and at the first sign of trouble stab your "patient". Yah, and yeh might be sued by an upset parent if their kid died and yeh didn't have da industry norm standard of care in place, eh? I don't reckon anybody is breakin' into the local pharmacy, stealing 1:1000 epinephrine ampules, and stashin' them in their first aid kits itching to shoot people up. Gern's a kind of funky guy and a liberal, but I don't reckon he does burglary . Fact is, many lay folks and even professionally trained folks in a true emergency fail to start CPR when they should, let alone whip out a syringe. To have access to the drug, a physician had to write a scrip with instructions eh? So this really falls into only two possible categories. A trained person is operating under a physician's direction according to an established protocol, or a semi-trained person (like someone who has a severe allergy or a child with a severe allergy) is considerin' using their personal medication on someone in distress. The former is just fine, and shows good risk management, thoughtfulness, and prudence. The latter is a lay person put in an awful situation over their head and tryin' to do their best in good faith to help someone in dire need. No problem with da former. For the latter, it's an awful circumstance we all hope never to be in, eh? That's why gettin' trained and establishing protocols in advance is worthwhile, and why Wilderness is on da right track thinkin' about this stuff in advance. But if someone's in that awful place, it's a personal choice. Remember they aren't without trainin' or experience at least with their own/their child's condition, and they're tryin' to balance an apparently life-threatenin' condition against a risk that is described by a panel of EMS physicians as "extremely small." Intervenin' would not be the best legal choice. But it might be an acceptable moral choice. All this is fairly far afield from Wilderness's question, which was definitely da first case. It perhaps makes for an interestin' ethical dilemma to share with older scouts and crew members. Beavah

Aw, shucks. I was respondin' to dScouter off-line because I figured this thread had run its course, and here it reared up again. dScouter is correct that epi administration is not part of da DOT First Responder curriculum. My bad for not bein' clear. It is part of all the WFR courses I'm familiar with, and some of da WFA classes as well. Not cardiac injections, of course! Just standard-dose sub-q or IM stuff. Field use of that has been a recommendation of the Wilderness Medical Society for years, so it really is not hard to find an outdoor program physician to supervise and train. As I mentioned, it has been common in professional and volunteer outdoor programs for many years. From a legal perspective, da situation is a furball across da several states. That's not really an issue for anyone operatin' under physician direction, of course. But the trend is clear, eh? Because of the "peanut parent" lobby, states are increasingly authorizing even lay persons to administer epinephrine in pre-measured doses. That's particularly true for schools and camps, where often such emergency protocols (under a supervising physician) are being mandated. The prescription medication carried more commonly by wilderness trips is epinephrine, most often in auto-injectors, for life-threatening allergic reactions. Its use is supported by the Wilderness Medical Society, and other experts on anaphylaxis, yet it remains a prescription medication, and as such there are legal constraints to its use. Most commonly the epinephrine administered is the patients, and the care giver assists the patient. However, there are examples of new onset anaphylaxis in outdoor programs that have been treated by epinephrine carried by the program. We teach [WFA and WFR] students to recognize a severe allergic reaction and to correctly administer the epinephrine. There are an increasing number of state laws that allow for the administration of epinephrine by a lay person to an individual experiencing a life threatening allergic reaction. This is likely to be an area of continued discussion and evolving laws and regulations in ensuing years. Tod Schimelpfenig, Curriculum Director Wilderness Medicine Institute of NOLS Moral of the story is quite naturally, get trained! Establish and follow protocols! Learn more, understand why da pros have made this a standard of care for wilderness programs, and do what you can within your level of commitment to be a strong adult leader. Folks who are trained, and in fact all of us, have to exercise our own best judgment when confronted with a genuine emergency, eh? I think that's Gern's only point. Someone in severe respiratory distress is in a world of hurt, eh? If mechanism and other symptoms reflect anaphylaxis, then yeh have to make your own decision as Gern suggests. The potential for harm following administration of subcutaneous epinephrine is extremely small but not nonexistent, and primarily involves the inappropriate administration to patients who are not actually experiencing anaphylaxis. There are several case reports of adverse effects following field use of SCE, but no formal studies document any systemic hazards from SCE, and concerns regarding cardiac effects in the elderly appear to be unfounded. - David C. Cone, MD, for the National Association of EMS Physicians Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, da whole thing really needs a re-write and a good editor, eh? "Shall" language in guidelines, "may" language in 'policy', some policy stuff that really doesn't belong, some outdated material. Problem is G2SS has always been a compilation of miscellany, not a stand-alone document. Da fuel-in-a-locked-box bit comes from NCS, which in turn comes from OSHA and various fire codes. It was never meant to apply to unit camping, but only to units like Sea Scout Ships that might be storin' significant amounts of fuel at a fixed base. Yah, sure, GAHillBilly, it's just fine for yeh to do some educatin' around your area. Da Guide is meant to be a service to help units with their program, eh? B

Yah, climbin' gear. I've found da outlet resellers like www.sierratradingpost.com sometimes has good discounts on new climbing gear. Keep an eye out in places like REI Outpost, MountainGear sale pages, that sort of thing. I'm with le Voyageur on da First Aid kit. Start with a list from Wilderness Medical Society or some other source, then customize a few kits for your area and each activity. For water stuff, yeh want a decent kit in a dry box, with stuff for that environment. For backpackin', yeh want a good group-sized but lightweight kit. And on and on. In the long run, the group will save by bulk orderin' supplies from a medical supplier (yeh can never have too much gauze...). B

Im far more fearful of the idiot that thinks he has understanding and thereby excuses himself from rules, guidelines Yah, I'm never sure where this comes from, eh? Nobody said a word about excusin' anybody from rules, guidelines, or trainin'. Almost exactly da opposite, in fact. Those with trainin' know that a First Responder is trained on the protocols for administration of epinephrine, and so would anyone else be who was operatin' under a physician's direction. That's why this is consistent with da rules and practice guidelines of many outdoor groups, and increasingly of in-town schools. Those Scouters familiar with NCS know that BSA summer camps are required to have a licensed physician to write protocols and standing orders for the camp. It would be well within his/her purview to include standin' orders for epi and other Rx meds. Almost all camps are dealin' with this these days, as we struggle with special needs kids, food allergies and da like. Da more important question is whether we should be content not having the trainin' or guidelines in place. Wilderness isn't. She's alert to the issue (sorry 'bout da gender mixup, W!), and thinkin' about the best way to improve safety in her program. Happily, many outdoor programs aren't led by "idiots." They're payin' attention, and thinkin' about these things, because they care about kids. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Any adult leader in the BSA who is not licensed to handle medication (excluding than external ointments) had better have some really good lawyers behind them if they administer them to someone else's child. [Channellin' Ronald Reagan] "There you go again!" There's no such thing as a "license to handle medication." There's differences between practicing medicine and responding in an emergency. There's BSA adult leaders who are First Responders and EMTs and nurses and docs. It is in fact common practice, from home care givers to school personnel to wilderness leaders, for physicians to write scrips under standing orders. For epi, it is increasingly becomin' a regulatory or statutory imperative for those that work with kids, in part because da negative side effects are very unlikely in younger people, eh? And da consequences are so severe. In short, da world is complex, BobWhite. It ain't easily reduced to a single pithy statement or rule. Understanding is key. But there's one important reality, eh? If someone is in anaphylaxis and you are unable to respond due to fear of "handling" medications, you get the satisfaction of watching them suffer and perhaps die. Promotin' irrational fear has a real cost. Not just to life, but to our soul. Beavah

Jacob's comment seems clearly aimed at professional outdoor ed groups, notivce that he is talking about an "industry" standard. Yah, well. There's this whole world out there outside of Scoutin' that does outdoor education. And believe it or not, Scoutin' is actually a part of that "industry." It's pretty easy to recognize. Take, for example, the collegiate outdoor programs. They typically have a very small "professional" staff consistin' of one director and a few paid student staffers, eh? Then all of their trips and activities run on volunteer power. Just like us, eh? Except BSA professionals at the director level are often paid more. John's comment was actually made in addressin' such groups. Biggest difference between BSA and the collegiate programs is that the trainin' and screenin' of leaders is usually better and more comprehensive in the collegiate programs, despite the fact that leader turnover is probably higher. As Wilderness describes, all of his compadres are WFR certified, eh? Most BSA volunteers aren't even WFA. So it is correct to say that Scoutin', at both the unit and council level, typically operates below the industry standard level of care. That havin' been said, I do know of several BSA units that carry Rx meds under standin' orders on wilderness trips. And these days with food and other allergies, if we aren't willin' to do that, we'd have to be excluding a lot of fine boys from Scouting. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

You have stated in earlier posts that you are a novice at the outdoor stuff. So perhaps finding back door ways to carry controlled phamaceuticals is a little more than you and your group should be biting off at this time. Yah, I must be havin' a hard time readin' these days. I'm pretty sure Wilderness indicated that he was WFR certified, eh? Wilderness First Responder is a professional certification. A licensed medical practitioner in many states. One poster says that "most" volunteer groups of this sort carry epi-pens. Not only am I sure that it is untrue, I am sure it is unprovable. I would welcome the poster to provide us the reference source of that data, as I am confident no such data exists. "The use of epinephrine in Outdoor and Adventure Education programs has become an 'industry standard' in the last decade, driven by the imminent emergency that anaphylaxis poses, especially in a delayed transport context. This would certainly be the standard of care that your staff would be measured against in the event of an incident gone awry." John Jacobs, Adventure Risk Management, Wilderness Medical Associates Jacobs goes on to say "In my experience with programs across the US, there are more programs who have had incidents with anaphylaxis than those who have not." And of course, we have to remember that there's more at risk than just fatalities, eh? Severe anaphylaxis is quite a trauma for the body, with both high short-term costs and long term morbidity. Jacobs and WMA are of course one of da premiere providers of Wilderness Medicine education and outdoor adventure risk management consulting in the nation. Now for collegiate programs, Rick Curtis at Princeton's Outdoor Action program is a recognized leader. He did a survey of programs on this issue a few years back that I remember from a risk management conference. I'll try to post it if I find it. Of course da Princeton OA volunteers carry epi, partly because they take a lot of novices into the field each year. So it seems like those collegians leadin' an outdoor program in beautiful Georgia wouldn't be out of line, eh? [added since I overlapped with Wilderness's post] Yah, Wilderness, if you're lookin' for a dose to carry, yeh should consider the Verus Twinject. http://www.twinject.com/. Yeh administer a first dose like an epi pen, then can add a second dose a bit later while you're tryin' to get antihistimines aboard, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Much as there's a soft spot in my heart for da law and those who practice it, it's also worth bein' aware of its limits. An attorney is professionally bound to give you the best legal advice he or she can, eh? That isn't always (or often) the best medical advice, or business advice, or even ethical advice. The theory is that it's up to you to make those other decisions, and to disregard your attorney whenever other considerations are more important. Those other things aren't the attorney's responsibility, they're yours. An attorney is only a counselor. And that theory works just fine, as long as you understand, as a client, the limit of the attorney's competence, and don't get all twitchy about "liability." I reckon this kind of thing falls more in da realm of competence of physicians, wilderness/emergency medicine practitioners and outdoor educators, eh? Even in Georgia. Beavah

Yah, F, Ed's got the right of it. A unit restrictin' MBC's to a smaller group than what is approved by the council is completely legit. Best example is CO's that require their own background checks and YP trainin' for direct youth contact positions, includin' MBCs. I was glad to see da BSA add the more explicit "discouraged" and "as part of a group" language to the parent-as-MBC. I think "allowed but discouraged" is the right balance, eh? I expect most scouters agree. If a boy's parent is clearly the most qualified counselor available for a particular badge, of course that should be allowed. But in other cases, where another equally or better qualified counselor is available, the boy should seek them out. Beavah

Yah, I enjoy practical jokes, eh? I think they can be a fun part of Scoutin'. Nicknames too. There's merit to what GoldWinger says, eh? Can a Snipe Hunt be a good practical joke? Yah, sure. But for some reason most of the time they seem to have too much of an "edge." Or maybe it's just that American 11-year-olds are too emotionally immature for 'em. Either way, I'm not particularly fond of Snipe Hunts. Just don't like the dynamic and results. Along with F, I wouldn't mind seein' 'em die out. As for Ordeals and Hazin', sad to say in this modern day and age of over-regulatin' and over-protecting, I'd say the Ordeal should be re-thought. It's far too close to the legal definition of hazing in some states, and certainly far too close to what is becomin' the "common" definition. How would "we deprived children of food and shelter on an outdoor work weekend" play in your local media? I think it's a shame, but the ordeal is probably destined for the dust heap. And to be honest, I have seen a few times over da years when some over-enthusiastic sorts really did make it hazing in some ways. Beavah

Yah, there's a few BSA trainings to take, as others have said, eh? That'll give you an overview. Next, make an appointment to sit down with the former CC. Pick his brain. He knows how da troop has run recently, and how they've created a successful large, active scouting unit. For your first six months, buy the man lunch once a month as a standing engagement just to talk and get advice. Next, ask your DE to give yeh the contact information for 1-2 other very active and successful troops in your area. Call up their CCs. Set up a regular lunch with them, too... every 2-3 months. They won't help you for da first months as you're just trying to keep things running (see talk to da old CC above). What they will do is give you interesting ideas and suggestions that might help yeh improve things here and there over time. Plan on attending your district's round table and district committee meetings, at least on an occasional basis. Make contacts. Learn stuff. Become a lurker or participant in a couple of on-line scouting communities. And yah, sure, read through other stuff you can find online, eh? There are lots of great volunteers runnin' successful programs out there. That information is precious. Sometimes rough, but diamond in the rough. Just be careful about any of it that claims "one right way" rather than offering ideas and suggestions. Like BobWhite says, that sort of claim is almost always someone who doesn't know as much as he/she thinks, and is probably inaccurate. Beavah

Yah, high Wilderness! Good question you ask. Da answer is that most volunteer and professional outdoor programs carry epinephrine in their first aid kits for just such a circumstance, either as an Epi-Pen or as an injectable ampule with syringe. Other emergency meds as well, eh? The way you do this, is you approach a friendly physician and ask him to write the scrip and the "standing orders" for its use. That physician effectively becomes "medical control", and you as a first responder are operatin' legally under his/her medical license so long as you follow the protocol the doc establishes. It's fairly straightforward to do, and I would strongly recommend it for your program (or for that matter, for any Scouting/Venturing program goin' into remote areas, particularly on international trips). Yeh can PM me or ask here if yeh have any additional questions. Beavah

Good heavens, it's another BobWhite thread! Yah, I think the demand for clear answers from a manual is unrealistic, eh? Da real world is just too complimicated for a policy or guidebook writer to be able to anticipate and correctly answer any question in any given circumstance. Plus there's da law of unintended consequences, eh? Sometimes giving full, detailed, and nuanced answers can confuse novices who are lookin' for some sort of declarative, authoritative judgment. So they take a detailed answer and try to turn it into a simplistic authoritative one, with weird results. Da speed limit thing is an interestin' case in point, eh? As Ed mentions, speed limits are often set based on political or revenue interests, not on safety. And in a democracy, is any law ever valid if more than 50% of da population is violating it? Or is it OK for special interests to dictate rules to da majority? There has been a recent trend in state laws requirin' speed limits to be set on a more scientific basis, like da 85% rule (a speed limit should be set such that in daylight, dry-road conditions 85% of the drivers naturally drive slower than the limit). In most cases, when such a law is in place, speed limits increase substantially, and safety improves. People like BobWhite who drive artificially slowly based on a poorly set speed limit are a real hazard, and reduce safety. They actually place other peoples' lives at risk, even though they think they're being good citizens. To quote an article I quickly googled (with special interest for Scouters in Michigan): [the State Police Lieutenant] said, drivers traveling at the slowest speeds are statistically 100 times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers who travel with the pack - even if the pack is traveling above a posted limit. (http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/officials_agency_stall_speed_i.html) Or for more information, consider: http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/Speed.asp Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I got a good chuckle out of Eamonn's post too, eh? Been there, done that. IMO, the BSA doesn't have accurate trainin' records anywhere, so anybody reportin' 29% is a good laugh. Most council registrars just have never considered it part of their "real" job to enter that stuff, and most district trainers haven't been aware of any efforts to record that stuff. Nationally, 14% of the population is mobile each year, so it also doesn't take much time for people to become "disconnected" from their prior trainin' records. Plus these days there's plenty of people who take trainin' outside of their own district/council. What'd be more interestin' is feedback on how helpful trainin' was, or somethin' like Lisabob's study on whether trainin' makes any difference at all in terms of program quality. My guess is da answer may range from small effects at the early Cub levels to no effect at da upper levels, just as Lisabob's small study suggested. Mostly, though, it's just a proxy measure for level of commitment. Beavah

Hiya goodscout. I agree with your first bit but not your second, eh? I don't think askin' a lad a "when he did something" question is the same as asking him a skill question. I have sat on BOR's where we asked "what would you do for a really deep cut" and gotten a response like "Immediately put on a tourniquet." That just happens when a SM or ASM hasn't brushed up on his civilian first aid skills recently. But it's useful information, eh? Useful, because it's somethin' the committee can fix to improve the program - by getting the SM some first aid training and by makin' sure the scout re-learns his first aid before he starts throwin' tourniquets on his buddies! It all just depends how much a unit cares about its boys really learning stuff well (as part of character growth). In a strong program with good board members, skill questions can "break the ice" since they are easier and make scouts less nervous than open-ended questions about "values." A successfully tied knot, a "great job", and a big smile does a lot to put a Tenderfoot candidate at ease in ways that "What does Thrifty mean to you?" just can't. I think Irving went the way of social promotion just to avoid the fights. Nothin' like parents yellin' at you all the time and threatenin' you with more legal costs. They aren't that big an office, eh? And to be sure, I've seen some really odd adult behaviors on BOR's. Comes down to the same thing as acco's Michigan bureaucrats. Yeh just can't write a policy that is proof against the people in it. Better to quietly "fire" a poor board member by never usin' him again than dumb down the system for everybody. Beavah

Yah, like always, da problem here is the shifting of expectations on the scout, eh? All your district advancement committee should be spanked soundly for that. As for general expectations, as yeh can see, districts and councils across our fair nation are far from uniform. I'd say your former method would be very far on the "light" side compared to average. Your new approval expectations are probably closer to normal, but slightly on the heavy side. For my part, I don't think it's ever appropriate for a boy to be collecting donations for a project until the project is approved. That's just fraudulent, not somethin' to be encouraged. He might have identified potential donors, but he should not have received anything. Have your committee think about what it means that a scout "cannot begin" his project until he gets approval, and why that restriction is there. I've seen projects disallowed where it would be necessary for a boy to return donations, and that's just awkward and bad for Scouting. I think a typed proposal is completely appropriate, especially in this day and age. I also think enough detail should be present so that da committee can determine how he'll show leadership, give advice as to scope and particulars, review the budget, and clearly identify and see that all safety issues have been addressed (includin' havin' the proper tools for a job, and the proper supervision for those tools). I agree with you that having actual names of workers is a bit silly, but a designated number of work days and the people needed for each seems reasonable. I'd suggest to you showing up with a few of the other SMs who were affected at the next District Committee meeting. Don't make a big ruckus, be respectful, but also offer firm feedback that this kind of "surprise" is not acceptable. Acknowledge that some of it is reasonable and may be helpful, but offer suggestions (like da workers thing) where you think it could be improved. Feedback is a gift, eh? Beavah

Yah, welcome Emperor! Most of us just look up, eh? When yeh find a branch, chances are it came from a tree, and most trees grow in stands. So typically, it's immediately obvious from context if you pay attention. A white-barked log in a patch of birch trees is probably birch, eh? Now, if you get wood from a lumber yard or some commercial outfit rather than off the ground, then typically you can just ask 'em what it is, or even specify what you're lookin' for when you order. It is possible to tell wood by color/texture/smell/bark/hardness/weight, but only if you're fairly familiar with it from handlin' it a lot. If you aren't, then it can take you a while to pick up on that. B

I love it when I learn a new, creative option. Thanks Oak Tree! I had never considered marketing Varsity Scouting to troops as a way of capturin' that older scout/high adventure element. As yeh mention, BSA has mostly targeted Venturing at that age group, but there's definite interest in the distinctive but troop-affiliated approach that used to be Venture Patrols. That to my mind has always been the beauty of Scoutin'. It provides program materials and resources that can be picked up and adapted by CO's to meet their individual youth ministry and service needs. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Ed, BW gave two examples, eh? A cub scout hit by a car, and a scout who fell to his death on a hike. In both cases, the claim being made by the plaintiff would be that the adult leaders were negligent in their supervision of the youth, and as a foreseeable result of that negligence the boy was hurt. In defending such a claim, a defendant can offer evidence that they weren't negligent (they proceeded with "due diligence"), or that their negligence didn't cause the injury, or that such an injury wasn't foreseeable, or any combination of the above and a few more to boot. In each of the cases, the defense offered evidence that the event was well-planned and supervised, and prevailed. The plaintiff failed to meet their burden of proof that the defendants were negligent. The judgment was against the plaintiff. Neither case relates to insurance, which was the original topic of da thread. The insurance was in force regardless. It provided the defense, and it would have paid in the event of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Beavah

Beavah, I understand what your saying, but realize that no matter what a parent says, leadership of an event still winds up liable. Nah, this isn't necessarily the case at all, eh? Let's say da leadership allows grandpa to stay in a tent, and as part of a greater saga of ongoing molestation, one (of many) incidents occurs in the tent that evening. That's really unlikely, eh? Because a child molester who already has private access to a child wouldn't fool around with strangers present. Grandpa would just wait until they got home, eh? But however unlikely, let's say it happens. What did the leaders do? They let the child's relative, the parents' designee, a person clearly standin' in loco parentis, be with and supervise the child on a campout. That seems reasonable and prudent to me, eh? How about to a jury in your area? Would an average person view it as foreseeable that a child's grandfather when left alone with his grandson would be a monster? If the parents didn't foresee it, how could the scout leader be expected to? So yeh see, in general terms, the leaders would not be liable. And the unit isn't liable, because grandpa is clearly not an agent of the BSA or CO. By contrast, if the leaders interfered with the child's relative in his supervisory duties, despite the fact that he was the parents' designee and clearly stood in loco parentis, that's an issue. By preventing grandpa's contact and supervision, which would seem unreasonable, the unit leader assumes liability for what happens to the boy. Now, if somethin' bad happens during the night, like the lad sleepwalks and gets himself hurt, you and scoutin' can be in trouble. Would an average person and juror in your area view it as reasonable that you prevented grandpa from supervising his grandson, despite the parents' wishes? Would they see it as reasonable that you left a boy without direct adult supervision in a tent on his first campout? Is it foreseeable that a 2nd grader in a tent without an adult on his very first campout might get up and get hurt? Were other adults sleeping with their kids on the campout precisely to provide that level of supervision, which you denied to this boy? So yeh see, by following da rules foolishly instead of being Mentally Awake, the leaders become liable, in a situation where they ordinarily wouldn't be. Just like that silly case from Michigan acco reported, eh? The one where a bunch of bureaucrats "just followin' the rules" took a boy away from his family because his dad bought him a lemonade at the ballpark. They became liable because of their poor judgment, despite the rules. Of course, in both cases general liability insurance policies would apply, in the event a negligence case was filed against the unit and its leaders. Beavah DISCLAIMER: The above is only a general discussion of principles for educational purposes. It is not legal advice, and must not be relied upon as a formal legal opinion for any jurisdiction in the several states. For legal advice, consult a competent attorney in your area. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, KnotHead, OGE's got the right of it. It is permitted, because why would we ever deprive a kid of a shot at a badge if his dad was the only qualified counselor around, eh? But most good parents avoid being MBC's for their own son if they can, and most units and SM's will have some rules, formal or informal, to direct boys to other counselors or at least emphasize no one-on-one by requirin' another lad to pursue the MB at the same time. A lad gets the best experience that way, and everyone avoids "the appearance of impropriety" which can come with a parent givin' their own son an award. Beavah

you cannot find any guidance on how to work the concept in any BSA publication. Yeh can if you've got any of da original Venture Patrol materials from the early 1990s, eh? That was the recommended program back then when Venture patrols got started. Remember, at the point when VP's got started, BSA was advocating mixed-age regular patrols, and that's what was in place in most units. It was also the 1990 program revision that went NSP/age based, but we all know about BSA editing . The idea was that a Venture Patrol came together to pursue a "SuperActivity", which consisted of a number of months of preparation followed by the main adventure. Each "SuperActivity" would have a Venture Patrol with different kids in it, though obviously a lot of lads would overlap and be Venture Patrol "regulars". Venture Patrol materials and references have all but vanished now, as da notion is being phased out in favor of Venturing. Beavah

Holy Smoke! Yah, hmmm.... dat's quite a tale, acco! What a nightmare! You'll all notice, though, that the only attorney involved in the whole thing was representing the parents. Da problem with these things, IMO, is not necessarily the law. We need the law to be able to protect real kids at risk (well, at least some law. Michigan's seems like it might be a bit overbroad, eh?) The problem is foolish application of the law, and perhaps even capricious application ("I'm gonna mess with this uppity University Professor"). The people who make bad decisions like this should be fired. That's how yeh really fix these problems. Who wants people with such phenomenally poor judgment in a police uniform or makin' other (equally poor) decisions about the welfare of children? But I bet nobody in Michigan is talkin' about that, eh? They're all talkin' about the "system" or the "law" as though inanimate objects or words on paper are to blame. Never about personal accountability. Ah well. Keeps da attorneys employed (though in this case it looks like the parents were represented pro bono by da "shark", eh?) Beavah