Beavah

Yah, I reckon BOR's were a good idea that got all muddled up by adults. One thing that happens a lot in troops is Cub Scout Creep. Parents crossin' over bring the Cub Scouting age-based-awards / do your best approach to Boy Scouting advancement. That gets reinforced by misunderstandings of New Scout Patrol / First Class Emphasis. And there is a natural tendency to not want to "punish" young Bobby by not givin' him an award because he was sick on the last three campouts where the boys did firebuilding. So what happens is that Step 1 of Advancement Method - "A Scout Learns" - gets shorted. The boy gets signed off before he really has learned. It shouldn't take a lot of repetition to maintain a skill, as OGE proposes. A campout or two a year. CPR, Lifesaving, First Aid certification gets renewed only once every 1-3 years, eh? Youth Protection, SSD, Safety Afloat the same. Heck, I haven't built a fire in years (da kids in da troops and crews always have it done before I visit), but I could go out and build one in the rain tomorrow, eh? It takes many years (and old age!) to forget a skill you've truly learned. But if the scout didn't really learn, that's when he won't remember the skill a few months later. And that does reflect on da troops program. Problem is, if a BOR isn't permitted to ask any skills-based questions, then the committee may never know. They may never find out that their troop's use of Advancement Method is poor. They'll also never know if their SM or an ASM is doing something like teaching outdated First Aid or poor LNT ethics ( both are pretty frequent), because they never ask da questions that are needed to identify those problems in da program. Most troops don't have very good feedback to the SM from a BOR, and most kids won't share honest impressions with strangers about their attitudes, ideals, and perceptions. Especially not in da 10-15 minutes a BOR is supposed to take. And Eagledad's observation on how it's become completely divorced from youth leadership is also well taken. I reckon Its Me has a point, eh? The thing in a lot of cases now serves little real purpose, if folks try to implement it as written. Pity. I like servin' on BORs Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

How far down the road should a new troop reasonably expect to be able to get such a thing off the ground? We have about 5 boys that are 14 or over, but only three are above 1st class. The rest of the boys are mostly Tenderfoot and 2nd class ( with two 12 yos that are 1st class). Havin' a First Class requirement for Venture Patrol makes some sense, eh? It says a boy has all of the basics of personal camping and safety down pat, and is ready for da next step. But at this point, if you've got a bunch of 14-and-overs, I'd be thinkin' about setting up for your first high adventure activities. They don't have to be great big things, but a bit more adventurous. A short climbing, paddling, skiing, caving, etc. adventure can open up possibilities for the future, and help cement skills in your older boy leaders. Secondly, are Venture patrol boys assigned to their own patrol and a regular patrol or just the VP? There are a bunch of different ways of organizin' patrols within a troop, eh? Some troops work on age-based patrols. In that kind of setup, a Venture Patrol would be a "regular" patrol of older boys itself. A large troop in particular might have New Scout Patrols that develop into "Regular" Scout Patrols and then become Venture Patrols as the boys grow up. Like there are three semi-independent program divisions. BobWhite and several others speak eloquently about da merits of this approach. Some troops work on mixed-age patrols. In that kind of setup, or in a smaller troop, a Venture Patrol would be more what emb describes, eh? A temporary association of older boys who work together toward some high adventure activity. They continue as members of their regular patrols/positions in the troop, and a new Venture Patrol gets formed for each "SuperAdventure." This was the original BSA Venture Patrol model when it was first introduced. And of course there are all kinds of other ways of approachin' it, too! Like making the Senior Patrol/Leadership Corps/PLC your temporary Venture patrol, and combinin' Troop Leader Training and high adventure in some fun way. Do those boys only do VP things or do the do regular troop activities and VP activities? In all cases, they'd participate in both. Just like regular patrols should have both patrol outings and participate in troop outings. If yeh want 'em to be separate, start a crew! We haven't purchased that much equipment yet. We are thinking that it may be better to just purchase lighter weight back packing equipment up front even though the cost would be greater. Or do most troops maintain both types of equipment? If you're really lookin' to do adventure activities, whether with a Venture Patrol or with the whole troop as Eagledad suggests, then lightweight, flexible equipment that can be used in many environments and many different types of outings makes a lot of sense. Da units I know who've gone that way have never looked back. They feel it opens up a lot more possibilities and freedom to pursue different activities. There is some additional cost involved, for sure. I reckon it doesn't have to be prohibitive. A lot of the car campin' units I know spend big dollars on trailers, dining flies, cast iron cookware, laterns and da like, which you can completely leave off. Yeh have to add the cost of propane tanks, trees, hoses, wrenches, etc. to the burner cost for the heavy gear, too. A higher quality, smaller tent will be more expensive, but many of 'em also last longer or come with "lifetime" warranties. Or skip da tent and just use a lightweight fly and you might be savin' some bucks. Beavah

LOL. It's like insurance misinformation is the stock in trade of trainers who can't follow the syllabus. Like a bad penny, it just keeps turnin' up. The passage you refer to, BW, citing an exclusion for "intentional or criminal acts", is also a term of art. That refers to something like molesting a child, where there is an intent to do harm (regardless of whether it is found to be criminal). It is certainly true, and quite proper, that liability insurance will not protect an individual who molests a child, commits a "road rage" incident, or who otherwise intends to hurt another human being. Yeh can feel free to look up "intentional or criminal act" in any beginner's text on tort law and insurance at your local library. No need to trust us furry, flat-tailed fellow scouters. But it's also true that da insurance will protect the CO and the other volunteers even when a horrible case of molestation occurs. Even if they didn't do a perfect job with Youth Protection. So in the example of da driver with a heretofore spotless record, if he runs a red light (racing the yellow...) and causes an accident his insurance will cover him, eh? It'll cover him even if he was speeding. Heck, it'll even cover him if he was drunk! That's why he pays that premium. To protect him in a case where he really is at fault. I'll return to my main point, though. If we want to help scouters do a better job, we help 'em to understand and make sound judgments about safety. That means explainin' the whys and wherefores of the guidelines, and how to balance risk against learning or other things we care about. To talk about children, and not about lawyers. If we find we need to make up fake reasons like losin' insurance, then we're not doin' our job of being Helpful. And we're hurtin' Scouting's reputation and our own in da process. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Michigan? Say yah to da UP, eh? Don't mind da others, thebigguy. They just don't know how to listen to a charmin' northern midwest accent. Personally, I think high adventure is best when it builds toward a longer-term trip. Older boys do very well and get a lot out of long-term trips, eh? Yeh don't have to be too expensive. For hikin', there's Isle Royale National Park in your state, for example. North Country Trail goes through too, eh? You can go cyclin' anywhere. Bet there's some OK mountain bikin' near you. Lots of fishing. Lots of decent paddlin', too. You are a bit climbin' poor in Michigan, but there's areas within a reasonable drive. Except for ice climbin', of course. Lots of that in da UP, eh? Decent skiing and snowshoeing. And snow machining, too, fer sure. And lakes! Small, and large. Boating from sail to stinkpot. Waterskiing, wakeboarding, you name it. SCUBA too, if yeh don't mind a bit nippy . Talk to the Lisa'bob. She lives in your fair state and has a lot more to share, I'm sure. But you're really limited only by your willingness to encourage the imagination and dreams of your scouts! Beavah

Yah, highcountry and BW in da parent thread say: "or are we going to bow to the pressure of lawyers and special interests and regulate everything to the point it becomes too much of a hassle to do or it is no longer fun to go on? " and "How far should lawyers get to regulate things? That is up to your courts and the state and federal governements not the BSA." Now, much as I appreciate a good lawyer joke, I just have to say... it ain't da lawyers who are tryin' to regulate everything, and it certainly ain't da lawyers who are pushin' extreme interpretations of da meaning of the "sphere" of Scoutin' . And those legislative types, they may have J.D.'s but most of 'em never practiced an honest day of law in their lives. Don't blame lawyers for da politicians! How 'bout it, folks... just a wee bit of respect for da poor attorneys... Beavah

Yah, seems like we're on the liability and insurance kick again. Now, to correct some really bad information: It is not true that liability insurance only covers you if you exercise "due diligence." If that were the case, the proper cost of liability insurance would be $zero! "Due diligence" is a term of art, and it relates to whether there should be a finding of liability in the first place. If a person has exercised due diligence, meaning they've done everything a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, then they are not liable. They did not breach their duty of care. General liability insurance, including the general liability policies that da BSA provides as part of the charter agreement, applies when you have goofed and are liable. It is thus in force whether you exercised due diligence or not. It is also untrue that insurance applies only to natural persons. In fact, in da unit context, the natural persons will generally have statutory immunity from a simple negligence tort. The risk is to the CO, a corporate person, and da BSA general liability policy will definitely apply for that organization. It is true that BSA accident and general liability policies are different things, eh? Their terms of coverage are different. As a rule, da general liability policy's coverage is substantially broader than the health coverage, not narrower as BobWhite suggests. It applies in all cases when a CO or volunteer leader are facing a tort action for any reason (short of deliberate acts intending harm), not just to members/guests. By contrast, da HSR policy is just a cheap, low-limits thing, eh? Finally, it is simply dead wrong and it does a substantial disservice to Scouting to claim that the BSA will not stand by our leaders and CO's even when they aren't trained, even when they mess up da paperwork, even when a kid gets hurt. We pay millions of dollars a year in claims under exactly those circumstances. Our insurance even covers unregistered adults, not just those who are registered but not trained. It is our promise to our volunteers and our CO's, and is a key ingredient in how we recruit support for Scoutin'. In this day and age when people get all fearful about this legal stuff, it is vitally important that da BSA maintains its well-deserved reputation of being a good partner. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Neither the Guide to Safe Scouting nor any other BSA publication gives a parent permission to approve another adult to sleep in a tent with their boy. Yah, this is exactly da wrong way to think about this issue, IMO. In fact, you guys are scarin' me by how cavalier you're being. This is sod surfin', eh? A parent's rights and authority are not bestowed by the Guide to Safe Scouting. It's da other way around, eh? A parent's authority over their child is a societally recognized one, while G2SS is not. Parents' authority over their own children trumps, as it should. Now, we can always tell a boy that he may not come on a campout under those conditions, eh? It is our outing. But do we really want to do that in cases like these? Again, IMO, our negative exposure to bad consequences, and, dare I say it, "liability", is far greater if we reduce effective supervision by a designated adult while pretendin' it's a "youth protection" issue, eh? It's neither wise nor honest. Dat's why we call it "negligent", eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya fl_mom. Another explanation is that the list includes only troop positions, eh? Patrol Leader is a troop position by virtue of a lad's work on the Patrol Leader's Council. All the other positions also serve the troop, rather than just a single patrol. That havin' been said, I've seen what Lisa'bob describes sometimes. I think a Scoutmaster should be wise in his/her use of PORs, eh? If an APL in a unit is functionally a co-PL, a lad should be recognized for that. And if a Librarian or Bugler really don't need to show anywhere near the responsibility of a PL, they should not be recognized for those positions. It's really about kid learnin' and growth, eh? Beavah

I am the father of a scout that just finished his first year, so Im pretty new to how things are supposed to work in scouts....Is this worth bringing up at a committee meeting Just depends, eh? Are you ready to step up and be Scoutmaster and Committee Chair if da other folks who've been doin' this successfully with kids for years get annoyed with you and leave? BSA has had different views of BORs over da years, eh? Lots of units still run quite successfully on older materials which placed a greater emphasis on learnin' and skill development, rather than pro forma "social" promotion. For a few units it's the unit owner's conscious choice, for others, more like tradition. If it's workin' for kids in your troop, which it sounds like it is, I think yeh spend your time more productively on helpin' out in other ways. If yeh find there a fair number of lads who don't pass their first BOR, then the adults in the program should take a time out and look at how they're doin' skill instruction and whether the committee and SM are "on the same page" in terms of expectations. If yeh find that BORs are becoming the equivalent of Ph.D. orals, then it's also worth scalin' back. Remember, though, a boy never "flunks" a skill test or BOR. Not bein' ready is just not bein' ready. It's never a failure unless da adults turn it into one. Beavah

LOL, another liability question. You'd think a scouter was bein' sued every minute! And boy, OGE ain't gonna be popular in Irving this week. They just love floods of direct phonecalls from the several million members. Scoutmomma, if there's one stock urban legend that gets generated by poor trainers, it's the "insurance does not cover if you ....". As a rule, yeh can dismiss out of hand any trainer who makes that claim. Or, if you want to be blunt, ask 'em to show you that in the training syllabus, and when they can't, make an offhanded comment about "gee, shouldn't you be following the training syllabus?" The point of training is so that we can do a better job providing a program to kids. That's the one, only, most important reason for training. No need to make up other reasons. We all care about kids. There is no training exclusion in the BSA master insurance policy, nor is there a training exclusion in the BSA charter agreement which obligates the BSA to provide insurance coverage. Honestly, general liability policies are pretty much a commodity item. It wouldn't be worth an underwriter's time to do the actuarial work to build in that kind of exclusion, and it'd be foolish for da BSA to accept that kind of policy if one did. But like OGE says, if it's a real concern and yeh want a more definitive answer, send your COR or IH to go see your council's business manager who handles the insurance issues. Make sure they express their concerns about continuing the units' charter, and ask to see the terms and limits of coverage for themselves. Beavah

Yah, I agree with FScouter too, eh? There is always that fear. Perhaps there is also even that risk, but I really don't think it's very large. Da very few folks who are out there who are hell-bent on ignorin' the rules are going to do it anyway. They don't need an excuse. They make 'em up themselves. For the rest of the good Scouters out there, I think helpin' them interpret and understand the guidelines is a reasonable thing. For one, it will keep 'em from getting in trouble while doin' something stupid in following the rules. For another, talkin' about the reasons and intent for certain rules helps 'em understand the whys and wherefores, and makes it more likely for them to follow the guidelines and exercise good judgment. Just like with da kids, eh? I expect very few scouters, and certainly very few good scouters, get all adult-directed and tell them "just shut up and follow the rule... trust me, I know what I'm doing, and if I tried to explain it to you you wouldn't understand anyway." The good scouters I know take time to explain da whys and wherefores, and answer questions, and help da kids develop understanding and good judgment. That reinforces the rules, in the long run. Now, as to meds... I don't know what state you're in, or what your local council rules are, eh? But there's just no BSA rule like what you say for unit activities. In fact, if yeh read the G2SS rules or yeh take Trek Safely training, yeh learn that the leader reminds youth and adults to (themselves) bring and take prescribed medications. My advice to you is that you not take a lad's medication away from him and assume responsibility for its administration. Them's dangerous waters unless you have the medical training needed to assume that responsibility - extremely so if it's contrary to the parents' desires. Another case where understanding helps improve safety and risk management, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Patrols function best when scouts are grouped with other scouts whom they share common interests and skills. Yah, I agree with this, eh? But I don't think that has to translate into "friends," at least not up front. Tight friends who form their own patrol can even feel a bit like a clique rather than a patrol, eh? In fact, haven't we all seen older scout patrols get cliquish? I think we can learn from other youth activities. Kids do great and learn a lot from playin' soccer, or hockey, or in the band. They join those things because they share a common interest. The friendships often come later, after they've shared experiences on the team. And not everybody on the team is always a good friend. Some can just be good teammates. In good patrol method, yeh come together as a group because you have a shared interest in the patrol. In competition, adventure, doin' a good job, helpin' younger lads grow, lookin' up to older lads in starry-eyed awe. Yeh become friends, and in fact you make friends that you never would have chosen otherwise. And that's how yeh grow in character. Beavah

Yah, I'm with da "it's not your baby" on this one. Surely there's enough work for yeh to do in the units you commission for to keep you busy? If yeh start pursuing every rumor or tale, true or false, across your district yeh won't accomplish much beyond hurtin' your own access and credibility. I say this in part because I've been on da receiving end of a lot of rumors and tales, and 95% of 'em are fish stories, or things da local folks already dealt with, or just not that big a deal. Your "fingers in ears" response I think was exactly da right signal and tone. Leave it there. I say that in part because paintball at commercial establishments is not a safety issue. They in fact have a much better safety record than Scoutin' does. It's a philosophy question about "wargaming" and image. So even if I was their UC, I'd only be havin' the friendly conversation to get 'em to think about the issue in those terms, to make sure they've considered it, eh? 'Round here, though, we're not a very liberal, anti-gun, anti-hunting culture. Da use of paintball doesn't really affect Scouting's image or reputation negatively, in fact, some of the other youth groups run by our COs run paintball, and at least one local (non-BSA) camp does as well. In your area it might be different, though, so a Scout paintball thing might be viewed negatively and hurt our image. Just depends. Anyway, not your problem. Lots of adults and kids in da units you commission who merit your time and attention instead. Beavah

Yah, I've seen it, Wilderness. Well done movie. Dumb kid. Did yeh know there was a bridge over that river about a half mile away? Nuthin' quite like starving to death less than one day's walk from a highway. We do this Scoutin' stuff so that lads can find fulfillment and the wonder of the wilderness. While learnin' more, seeing more, and exercisin' better judgment. Beavah

Yah, I'm not sure what Secret's referrin' to, since I usually skip award threads. Like baden, I've served on a few selection committees. It's hard work, always tough. One thing I used to do that sometimes helps put $ in perspective is to translate volunteer time into dollars. If a scouter has served as a volunteer at any level, how many hours is that a year? Figure his (or her) time at da hourly salary + benefits cost of a pro with a similar number of years of experience. Da numbers are daunting, eh? Viewed in that light, da SM of an active program is givin' Scouting a very serious "dollar" donation. For an EB member or other donor to merit recognition on a primarily monetary donation basis, they should be matching or exceeding that "dollar" contribution. Waite Philips should be recognized, for sure. But at da council level, a donor must be quite generous to merit recognition, which is as it should be. Then yeh get into reputation/PR/visibility candidates, like if yeh have a well-known state politician with scoutin' ties nominated. Nuthin' is ever easy! Beavah

A boy may ONLY sleep with his parent or legal guardian, Or with another boy or boys, Or by himself. NO other adult may sleep in the same tent with a boy. Yah, this is da sort of thing that can land us in hot water, eh? A wolf cub on his first campout, afraid of da dark, uncertain of his surroundings. Grandpa Joe is out with him, but da Cubmaster, despite the parents' instructions, refuses to let Grandpa Joe sleep in da same tent. Even threatens Grandpa Joe with removal. Wolf sleeps alone or with another wolf. Somethin' bad happens, perhaps when da wolf gets up in da middle of the night, perhaps b/c of the lad's medical/emotional history, whatever. As trip leader, did you have a duty of care? Yes. Did yeh unreasonably violate that duty of care, accordin' to the standards of the greater community? Arguably Yes. No reasonable youth leader would make a 2nd grader sleep without an adult on his first campout if his grandfather was there with da parents' express or implied consent. Did forseeable harm result? Arguably Yes. More to the point, it's likely that grandpa and da parents would be upset, da boy would never be in Scoutin' again, and the reputation of Scoutin' would be damaged. On da flipside, there's no real exposure for Scoutin', since Grandpa Joe is not a registered leader or agent of da CO, eh? Even if Grandpa Joe is molestin' the lad, he doesn't need the campout to do it, eh? He's already got access. Guaranteed it's goin' on all over da place outside of Scoutin', so yeh certainly run no risk of makin' it worse. Yeh aren't lettin' him sleep with any other kid (the real purpose of da rule), and perhaps an alert YP-trained adult might even clue to da issue. The guideline is perfectly sensible, and should be followed in its intent. It's da senseless application that can do damage. And lest yeh say it should be changed, it just ain't possible to write a rule that says "don't sleep in the tent, except in the case of this, that, or the other thing, but not in the event of A or B, etc." All rule writers at some point rely on the intelligence and common sense of the average good citizen. B

MBA? Masters of Banal Administrivia? Yah, I'm with Ed and Be. B

Yah, great illustration of how good, well-intended rules create headaches in da real world, eh? First rule: No matter what any book says, as an adult runnin' a trip with kids you are always responsible. Second rule: Because you are responsible, you must make judgment calls. Yeh have that authority. You can't give that authority away, nor cede it to a book, nor pretend someone in Irving has the authority, because you are always responsible. See rule 1 . So if we're not comfortable using common sense and good judgment on our own, we shouldn't be servin' as leaders in a youth program. It isn't hard, eh? It's da same common sense and good judgment we use when we invite kids over to our kids' birthday parties (where we are also responsible!). The purpose of the "no one other than a parent or guardian can sleep in a boy's tent" is to avoid all appearance of impropriety, eh? A SM sleepin' with someone else's kid is pretty creepy, eh? Even if innocent, it raises all kinds of common-sense potential for fallout. Now, in your community, would you feel that sense of creepiness if a cub scout's grandfather was sent on the campout by the boy's parents? Of course not. You would rightly conclude that havin' him sleep in a tent with grandpa was far better than havin' him sleep in a tent alone, unsupervised. Would yeh feel that sense of creepiness if everyone was sleepin' together in a 50' circus tent? Of course not. You'd rightly say that was fine, too. Notice I said "in your community", eh? Dat's important. The sensibilities of your community matter. Violatin' them is what exposes you to real trouble, and da BSA can't write specialty manuals for each community. So if in your community people are hyper about not leavin' kids alone with grandpas, then yeh shouldn't do it. But da reverse is also true, eh? If in your community leavin' kids with grandpa would be thought of as fine, but instead you forbid that and left a kid in a tent alone for the night unsupervised, then you are exposed. You've done somethin' the ordinary folks in your community think is unreasonable. That's when folks find themselves in trouble. Now, da purpose of havin' a parent-designated adult acting in loco parentis at a cub outing is so that someone who knows the boy well (and who the boy respects/trusts) can be responsible for the lad's care and supervision. In da real world, that can be a teenage baby-sitter, eh? But in an institutional world like Scoutin' we might need to be a bit more formal, dependin'. I think permission slips designatin' the adult caregiver are a fine thing. I'd encourage them. I'd even insist if I thought for some reason the real legal guardian was goin' to be unavailable. But for cub campin', we're mostly talkin' pretty local stuff, eh? Stuff where it's very easy for mom or dad to meet yeh at the hospital. So it's not strictly required, or unreasonable not to. Just your call. Finally, if someone is really carryin' a full legal power of attorney document signed by da parents, yeh treat 'em just as you would the parent, period. Hope that helps. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Again misunderstanding of the rules is what causes the problem in your case as well. I'm not havin' any problems here, BW. Well, besides Mrs. Beavah given me da "look" last night, eh? 30+ years workin' with youth, and not a serious incident to mention. Mrs. Beavah even forgives me most of da time! As I said there were 40,000 deaths or accidents related to chain saws last year alone. Yah, so this is one of those cases where we have to use a little common sense judgment when we read, eh, or we fall victim to someone else's deliberate spin. 40,000 deaths or serious injuries would be spectacular. There'd be congressional inquiries! Accordin' to NEISS, there were zero chainsaw fatalities for da last year of record (2006). A whoppin' 25 reported cases that required hospitalization overnight. All the rest were "treat and release" or just examined and released, and was still estimated at only around 30K, so yeh must be reportin' an old year. By contrast, da number was 148,000 "treat and releases" for usin' ladders, with nearly 12,000 hospitalizations. Guess we'll see a G2SS prohibition on ladders next, eh? I'm not sayin' chainsaws aren't a serious tool. Point is just that da presence of risk, by itself, doesn't justify a prohibition. And the perception of risk by well-meanin' folks is not always very accurate, eh? After all, cars are a serious tool, and a much higher risk. But we do let teens drive, even in da BSA sometimes. If you want to do whatever you want but then have the BSA foot the bill Yah, nobody here has made any statment about doin' whatever he/she wanted. All we're doin' is answerin' the original poster's question. What rules and policies do we think get in the way of providin' kids a good program? Mine was da same as Ed's, it's mostly how people misinterpret or apply rules poorly dat hurts. But we could do better on the rules, too, and especially on buckin' the trend toward constantly addin' rules. My favorite last year was "water chugging" is now unauthorized. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Gunny, did I miss somethin', mate? I haven't really seen yeh do what you claim. So yeh might just be havin' an unsettlin' feeling because of something you ate! Me, I'm most always wrong. BobWhite taught me that months ago! My unsettled feelin', though, comes from "that look" dat Mrs. Beavah gives from time to time... like right now. Gotta run! Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Yeh know, sometimes good people make tough calls, eh? When dealin' with a problem parent, we all just try to do da best we can to work around. If the year in the program had been enough for mom to get to know and trust the adults so the boy started campin' enthusiastically, it would have been a win. That havin' been said, I've seen this a lot, eh? Adults tend to overweight da importance of disappointing a lad or having a lad quit. Kids get disappointed anytime anyone says "no" for anything, eh? It's part of growin' up. Most of the time they don't quit. And if they do, that's an important character buildin' lesson for them, too, eh? "Life will go on without me, it doesn't revolve around me." It's a sure sign an adult is jumpin' off da deep end whenever he/she starts thinkin' that not receiving an award is the same thing as punishment. So yah, da SM blew the call, IMO. A lesson to be remembered, but still water under da bridge. The way out of this little snafu is for the SM to have a conference with the boy and help him grow and give him some direction as to how to meet da requirements. It can be very positive, and establish good rapport for an ongoin' relationship. But it has to be firm, eh? No boys really want an ongoin' relationship with weak adults. I don't think it should go to a BOR unless the boy insists and therefore needs a firm "no." But if it does get there, it should be a firm "no", eh? Beavah

Yah, BW, there's always ways of tryin' to justify restrictions. The presence of risk, by itself, does not justify a prohibition, IMO. Lots of adults die from drowning every year, eh? Da proper policy response is to teach children to swim, not ban water activities. Same with chainsaws and ski-doos. The presence of risk, by itself, says nothin' about whether a particular response to the risk has merit. Lots of Scouters die from heart attacks in da field every year. That doesn't mean we should come up with our own BSA version of CPR, and ignore da industry standard. Same with water activities. The presence of risk must be balanced against da presence of benefits. AFAIK, da Catholic Church, for all its sexual abuse publicity, still justifies one-on-one private confessions and spiritual direction, eh? Beginnin' in 2nd grade! The benefits outweigh da risks. Same for a scouter dealin' with an upset teen. Da presence of one or even quite a few successes does not justify a policy. A teacher might be so bad that more than half of his students are failin', but he can always point to a few kids gettin' A's. Same with Cub Programs. Just because there are some successful Cub Worlds and packs that camp ain't enough, if we also have high cub scout attrition from boredom and a lot of weak cub campin' programs. Just because someone doesn't like somethin' doesn't mean they should tell everyone else not to do it. I knew an SPL once who wasn't much of a backpacker and tried to veto all backpacking activities. Even cited risk! Yah, a troop can be successful without backpackin', but that doesn't mean other troops can't use backpackin' well. Same with lasertag and such, eh? Ain't enough to look just at the risks. Ain't enough to look just at the effect of the rule if it were understood perfectly and implemented perfectly by everyone (and blame them if not). Ain't enough to look just at the benefits of a rule, real or imagined. In da real world, there are benefits that are worth the risk, rules are never understood nor implemented perfectly, and rules have costs and negative consequences. So of course they can get in da way of deliverin' a good program! Da cost of rules, includin' people who don't understand 'em or implement them well or follow 'em blindly or debate what da meaning of "is" is are a part of the effect of a rule that has to be taken into account when evaluatin' its merits. Beavah P.S. BTW, it was indeed true that da poorly written bylaws created and perpetuated da Chicago council mess. In a properly written set of Bylaws, the matter would have been resolved in one evening. Sadly, it's also true that a few folks told Irving that years before and even tried to do da edits for free.

Yah, I've found there are a lot of adults who are mediocre at BOR's, eh? Just that in their regular life, most adults don't get to have that kind of discussion with teenagers, or listen to teens at all. Some are awful at it. So don't get your dander up too much, Brotherhood. It's not somethin' trainin' can fix. Da ones who are awful, yeh don't use again. The ones who are mediocre, yeh put up with, and they'll slowly improve. Yeh just make sure there's at least one really good member on each BOR, and that's enough. B

Yah, I think it's more misinterpretation and misuse of da rules that does harm to progam, not so much the real strictures themselves, eh? Worst are usually district level folks who aren't workin' with kids. Unit Scouters usually have a practical perspective, higher levels usually have more wisdom and less need to feel important. But if we're makin' a list: * BSA model Council Bylaws. Amateurish document, as the Chicago Area Council mess has demonstrated. * Emphasis on regulation rather than screening/alertness for Youth Protection. Kids need hugs. Kids need to be able to have one-on-one conversations with adults sometimes. Teen suicide is a far bigger risk than teen sexual abuse, eh? Tryin' to hang sheets from da rafters in a youth hostel or a church basement or whatnot is just silly, and discourteous to other guests. * Safe Swim Defense, in its NCS full throated glory. Way overkill for little benefit. Nuthin' sillier than units tryin' to do full SSD at the local pool or waterfront and gettin' in the way of the paid lifeguards. Nuthin' worse than da cold lake swim check hazing ritual for some new lads. There's a reason no other youth or waterfront program anywhere does it that way, eh? * Cub Scout campin' rules. Very harmful to developin' an effective cub camping program. * Cub Scout paddling rules. Restrictions are less safe in states where rivers are flat but lakes are big. * Chainsaw/logsplitter restriction is unnecessary for high-school aged OA youth, who would both learn a lot and contribute a lot if da restriction weren't in place. * Da summer camp medication tango. * Some restrictions are unnecessary - go carts for Boy Scouts, Laser tag, Paintball, tethered hot air balloons, huntin' for older boy scout aged youth, low limits on monkey bridges, not allowin' the local farmer to drive kids on a tractor hayride, experimental-class aircraft, no Boy Scouts on general aviation flights to destinations, nonswimmer canoeists must ride with a certified life guard, etc. Is any one of these restrictions a big deal? Nah. Just that every unnecessary restriction is one less way we have to reach a kid. More disappoinin' is the exponential growth of restrictions in recent years, none of which have really addressed da BSA's real risk profile. I'm leavin' off things that everyone automatically ignores like no drivin' at night, no swimming in greater than 12 feet of water, or that we must be carryin' a copy of da BSA Wilderness Use Policy with us on a backpackin' trip. I'm also leavin' off da odd fictions that too many rules generate, like no cookin' veal marsala. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

This is a followup to BA's thread on attendance expectations. Quite a few folks claimed to run their programs on a "drop-in" type of basis, claimin' that if they expected kids to show up regularly or whatnot they'd lose half their members. I'm curious how that works (or how yeh make that work)? How do yeh handle, for example, the lad who at the end of the first year is still a Tenderfoot while his buddies are all First Class? Don't you tend to lose 'em? How do yeh handle leadership positions and PLCs? Do those have higher expectations? Do the drop-in players lower your range of campouts for safety/comfort reasons, or do yeh find they're not ready for high adventure with their same age peers? I've worked with a lot of units over the years, and I can't honestly say I've ever seen a program that's handled this with what I'd call real success. I'd love to find some fresh, successful ideas to share with others. Beavah