Beavah

Yah, packsaddle. Trend of the future, eh? By just about every measure - graduation rates, grades, academic interest, college matriculation rates, etc. - everything but standardized test scores - boys are falling behind girls in K-12. Kinda scary, actually.

Yah, it's true. Then we have to ask the question of "Why?" Why don't the CO's know? Around here, the bigger guys do - the LDS and Catholics by and large understand the relationship and use it well; the Methodists somewhat. I reckon the LDS and the Catholics benefit because they have their own nationwide institutions to inform/train/assist the locals, eh? But for churches or social organizations or PTOs and such that don't have that kind of nationwide organization, I reckon it's up to the BSA and its volunteers to properly inform and maintain good relationships, eh? That's where it breaks down. A lot of SE's don't really want lots of independent-minded COR types on "their" council boards or pushin' things at an annual meeting. A lot more pros are really concerned that if the CO's truly understood the responsibilities and risks they were takin' on, they would drop their units. And that might be true, eh? But are those the CO's we really want in the first place? As I've said before, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of DE's that actually took their responsibility of meeting with each IH at least once during the year seriously. Eamonn is one of the rare birds who actually mailed a reminder about a district meeting, but then I think yeh also have to look at what they're being invited to, eh? Most district meetings tend to be just scouting details - info on the next camporee and such. An IH or COR can't contribute to that, eh? It's a waste of his/her time. If yeh want to get the big guys out, you put them on a real board of directors and you meet at most quarterly. So I think the weak link is the BSA councils. The big CO's work the system through the regional and national Relationships Committees, and then inform their member congregations to some degree through their own channels. The smaller or less structured COs don't do as effective need the councils to draw 'em in. And the councils just don't do the job. (edited to add...) Now, maybe it should be that all unit FOS and popcorn revenues go exclusively to the CO, and then the CO gets to decide how much goes to the council. That might make 'em get serious about developin' strong CO relationships, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, acco, but your location puts you in a pretty high-density urban area, eh? Gets different in other places. Still, I reckon with a bit more effort units should be able to find non-unit-leader board members. But then yeh run into how well experienced those folks are? If yeh add the local grocer (who is also a vet, but never a scout), puttin' an assistant unit leader on might be necessary just to help "coach" some of the inexperienced board members. All just depends, eh? I've seen units in bases that were closin' down where things were quite a scramble. Sometimes yeh just do what you can to do right by a lad. Beavah

And when it is the dad who hit them they usually "do not remember" or they "walked into a door". Yah, at least that's the way it works on TV shows, eh? This is again why I think mandatory reporting by non-professionals is not particularly helpful. A physician who sees lots and lots of injuries is qualified to recognize bruising that's unusual, and evaluate whether the injury could actually result from da mechanism that the "story" provides. An amateur can't. Same with a professional educator or social worker, whose trainin' and experience in kid behaviors far outstrips our typical volunteer. Is unusual aggressiveness a sign of abuse, or is it within da normal behavior range of a boy with autism spectrum disorder? Or both? A professional might be able to make a decent call as to reasonable suspicion, but I'm not at all convinced an amateur could. Even if they're provided with one or two "examples" by an expert, that ain't enough to develop expertise. These things rarely present in a clear-cut way, eh? At least not in families who are likely to be in scouts. B

LOL . I just tried to clarify da points I thought Kudu was makin', eh? Take it easy, guys! And Bob, that was BadenP's quote, not mine, eh? I don't reckon he was even talking about anything you wrote. I'll make one additional effort at clarifying. The issue has nothing to do with what anybody here on these forums advocates, eh? Nothing in my comments nor Kudu's (I think) are personal. They're all programmatic. And the program questions are somethin' like this: Which of the following statements of the requirements best conveys what we want to see happen in Scouting programs, to adults who admittedly have limited training: 1) To make First Class, a boy should be able to demonstrate all the Tenderfoot and Second Class Skills and then use them on a 15-mile, adult-free overnight hike with a small group? or 2) To make First Class, a boy cannot be required to re-demonstrate any of the Tenderfoot or Second Class Skills, and only needs to go on a 5-mile in-town day hike (with adults)? I reckon if an adult with limited training reads #2, it is unlikely that they're gonna sit there and say "yeah, but we could do all this additional stuff and that would be great for kids!". More likely, they'd claim (correctly) that expecting anything like #1 is "adding to the requirements." A cardinal sin in modern Scouting. But if they read old documents, or stuff from other scouting associations, or what the Founders wrote, they might get new insights and understandings into the current program and its possibilities that they didn't have before. If 70% of adult leaders don't in fact understand scoutin', we might consider where we're not being as clear as we should be. If we really want the entire program of da BSA to be the reinforcement of scout skills, then let's say that, eh? Retesting / recertification is expected, for both adults' training and youth requirements. Or we might say "great - whatever materials you can find to help you understand scouting better - go for it!" I'm not necessarily an advocate of Kudu's position, eh? But I'm sympathetic to it enough that I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, yeh know, it's interestin'... I think the whole red state/blue state/polarized politics game is a hangover from the Vietnam era and the baby boom generation just reliving its old fight again and again. Like a bunch of school kids that never grew up. I'm heartened by the next generation that's grown past all that. Perhaps Obama, but I also find it interesting how young people have embraced centrist or libertarian mavericks like McCain and Ron Paul. I reckon the next generations are goin' to put us all to shame by embracin' pragmatic solutions rather than emotional causes. B

Yah, EagleDad points out one of the pitfalls of district-level EBORs. Not just for kids with special needs, but for kids with various personalities - really shy, etc. The unit committees know the lad in ways the district folks don't. When doin' a district EBOR, I always like to have the CO's representative as a board member (lets 'em see what they've been supporting), which helps. I also like to have the SM come in first to give his endorsement and a brief background on the boy before retrieving the lad for a formal introduction. That's saved us on many occasions, from "his sister was killed in a car wreck last month" to "you can't really tell, but he has Autism Spectrum Disorder and here's a couple hints about how to ask him questions." Beavah

I think it's helpful to look at examples, rather than just abstractions, eh? Here's some of the things Kudu has actually mentioned as being worthy program features of the past (IIRC - Kudo, correct me if I blow it). Rub downs weren't on the list, but things like: Patrol Leader training that focused on practical skills rather than "leadership theory." I read that as "if two tent-mates are having an argument, here's what to try" rather than "here are the four leadership styles Blanchard proposes in his academic paper on organizational theory." Outdoor challenges that demand personal skill proficiency. So a 15-mile no-adult small-group overnight rather than a 5-mile in-town day hike for second class. Emphasis on skill proficiency and retention (through retesting), rather than one-time testing. Very similar to CPR and BSA Lifeguard certification renewal to maintain proficiency, rather than pass-a-class-and-done school-like approach. Learning through playing the scouting game (video-game type learning), rather than learning through instruction (school-type learning). It's OK to do "old" stuff - signaling, tracking, etc. Kids are still interested in that. After all, more than half of the video games they play involve medieval-era stuff. Greater emphasis on patrol method. All those things seem pretty worthy things to remember and consider from the past, eh? Beavah

Yikes. Prayerful silence. Boy almost to Eagle, dad SM. I sure hope they weren't arguin' about Eagle. I confess I also read these things differently, eh? A confession made by a youth without legal counsel after being held until 1:00am the day his family died just gives me the heebies. I hope everything's on the up-and-up and they've got things right, but I sure would have wanted that lad to have representation. This is a good time for units to stop a moment and look at how they are Prepared. Does your unit have plans in place for "when bad happens?". Contact and communications stuff? Resources and "standard procedures" to turn to when everybody is upset and not thinkin' straight? Does someone at the CO know how to handle the press? Would you be ready to help a kid or a family in sudden, desperate need? Like this kid, who needed a friend and an advocate? For those who do work at the council level - do you really have things in place? Trained folks to handle media, contacts for crisis counseling teams to go help a unit deal with something like this, defense attorneys to go help a boy or a scouter? Are those plans robust enough to function if the SE and Program Director are gone to a Regional Conference and out of contact? Bad Happens. Be Prepared. B

Have any others here sit on EBs? I would love to compare notes. FireKat requested it, so here it is. A place to compare notes. I reckon we've got everything from youngsters who've done a couple to old codgers with 20-30 years or more. For my part, I think EBOR's are one of the great paycheck moments in Scouting. It's rare that yeh don't have a candidate that makes yeh walk out of an EBOR and say "That's why we do this Scouting stuff." I wish I'd had a video recorder for many of 'em, just to play quietly for their parents afterward. Or to use in a Scoutin' commercial. Gotta say the paperwork and regulatory shenanigans have reached ever increasin' heights, though. Gets folks all tied up in knots unnecessarily, IMO. Too easy to lose sight of the scout in front of you when you're spendin' too much time lookin' down at the forms on the table. . Beavah

Yah, Artigas. No problems, mate. Happens occasionally. The 3 regular board members all got to ask their questions, so yeh had a perfectly legitimate BOR. Wear your wings with pride. Eisley, there's nuthin' wrong with a person registered with the candidate's unit serving on a district or council level EBOR. In many councils, unit-level EBOR's are conducted, eh? In fact I suspect that's the more common method. So if 3-5 unit level registered folks are OK in some places, I can't see gettin' upset by one unit-level registered person on a district or council review. Only restriction is no currently registered unit leader/assistant unit leader types. That's SM/ASM, Coach/Assistant Coach, or Advisor/Assistant Advisor. They've already had their go when they signed off on the requirements and SM conference. Most places like and encourage 'em to be present; EBOR's are part of the reward of being a SM! But they shouldn't be actin' in an official board member role. Beavah

Beavah, this is in your area. What does the TP do for us here? Nuthin'. In terms of institutional risk management, the risk is driving, eh? And to some extent supervising kids that aren't your own, but in this particular environment that's probably not a big risk element. If they're all just goin' as separate families, you and Bob have the right of it. There's no institutional risk to guard against where a tour permit would be helpful. B

I'm not sure I'm seeing any lack of trainin' here. As reported, siftin' through EO2's strong feelings, the committees seem to have done their job of reviewing the project before it began. The only awkward moment seems to have been the change of meeting times, which sometimes happens with adult schedules. I'd view this as a youth issue - if you've got a meeting with the committee on Sunday at 3, Sunday after church probably isn't the time to be writin' the report. And if you're not ready for Saturday, just say you're not ready and can't do it then. I'm wondering if there was some age/date pressure that was pushin' the group to try to rush the review to give the boy enough time to work the project. EO2, I understand your frustration, especially bein' away from your family doin' our nation's work. I certainly can understand bein' mightily ticked off at actions or words by the SM that you thought were not helpful or appropriate. But it sounds like the man was "conscripted" for the job on short notice, eh? As BobWhite suggests, sometimes the only available warm body ain't the right guy for the job - but he's the only available warm body. Bob's right in other ways, too, eh? The Eagle project was your son's, not the SM's. Most troops don't have the SM around for projects unless the boy requests it (well in advance, and only if the SM is available), or to pop by briefly perhaps. It was your son's time to "solo" and lead on his own, with no "backup." That's why committees take some time lookin' over the project concept and plans. It might feel like a "grilling" I suppose, but those folks are the boy's friends, eh? They're trying to help him have his plans in place so that he can succeed when he's left to lead on his own. Sounds like he did fine, and I expect his overcoming of challenges figured prominently in the discussion his Eagle Board of Review had. Let it go, mate. The SM has moved on. Celebrate your son's great accomplishment! And my thanks to you and your family for your sacrifices on behalf of our country. Give your fine lad a Scout Salute from da Northern Midwest, eh? Beavah

Yah, I can't speak for dan, eh? But my guess is that he and GW were makin' the same point. Folks who live in white-collar and strongly religious communities may have a very strong aversion to incidental use of 4-letter words. Some are even a bit "prissy," misinterpreting common kid slang like "that sucks" as being profanity. I think it's fair to say that there are other communities where incidental or informal use of some 4-letter words is more common and acceptable, and that some 4-letter words that a few think are vulgar really aren't when used in a different context. As GoldWinger was sayin' politely and properly, and reasonably carefully (before a moderator from the aforementioned first community ran amok ), a lot depends on da context. Some things most of us would just shrug off. Other things I reckon I at least would be even more aggressive than Bob at pullin' a leader aside. EO2 has expressed some really strong feelings toward some of the adult leaders in his troop in other messages, though, eh? I'm wonderin' how much of this is part of a bigger picture... B

Ya, EO2, yeh seem pretty worked up about adult leaders in your son's troop, eh? Can I ask what's really going on? No matter how justified yeh might be, goin' online to try to "build up evidence" so that yeh can go after volunteers in your unit because yeh disagree with their approach almost never ends well for anybody. Might I suggest instead that you invite the adult leader out for a cup of coffee and politely express your concerns? And then, after that, if yeh feel your concerns have not been met, have the same sort of chat with the troop Committee Chair. You don't need a "policy" to give friendly feedback, you just need to be a concerned parent. Of course, naturally anyone bringin' criticism should also be prepared to be asked to serve as a volunteer, eh? In answer to your question, there's no BSA policy beyond our common understanding of the Scout Oath and Law, and the BSA's belief in "constructive discipline." The troop's Chartered Organization may have different expectations, particularly with respect to its youth leaders taking the Lord's name in vain. And naturally, there's verbal stuff that's "over the top" and can amount to abuse or assault, but I don't get that to be quite what you're talkin' about. Sounds more like a tired and grumpy character (and perhaps a particularly rebellious teen?) Ultimately, I reckon few of us here care much for the chronic "shouters." My personal preference is that adult leaders only raise their voice when they have to shout to somebody during a storm! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, yeh know. I'd never met a Catholic who sounded like an evangelical before! Me, I confess I find Catholic theology a bit contrived (purgatory? limbo??). I find Mormon theology unfathomable. But I've known quite a few scouts and scouters of both persuasions and found 'em to be good people by and large, whose faith called them and challenged them each day to be better people. I reckon that's the real test, eh? A faith that has real value is one that challenges each individual personally to strive harder, pray more deeply, sacrifice more, love more unconditionally - and reach out without reservation to the Samaritan, the tax collector, the adulteress, the leper, the blind, the lame, and the children. Not a faith that you can hang a cross or a crescent or a star of David on so as to view yourself as more worthy. To me, that's also where faith should inform Scouting. Scouting must truly challenge each individual boy - to give more, to care more, to live a life of honor and service, to reach out to da young lads in his patrol and troop, and then to the wider community, to grow and do hard things and learn well. Not a Scouting where you can sew on a patch, don some beads, or add a resume line so as to view yourself as more worthy. B

Huh. That was interestin'. Sorry to interrupt da Pot Roasting again. First, there appeared on Sunday a message from me in the middle of page 3 that was really a response to some of the text on page 1 of this thread. That message was unintentional; it was a response that I had typed much earlier but chosen not to send. Not quite sure why it posted. Reckon I must have somehow clicked through it in a window I left open. My sincerest apologies to the group if folks felt it was in any way inappropriate or out of place. When I noticed it a bit later I eliminated it in favor of a pot roast and other foods comment. Yah, then da soup thickens. That comment was apparently deleted by FScouter for reasons that weren't clear to me (and that actually annoyed me quite a bit). But I think I just figured it out. It seems the scouter.com system allows simultaneous edits. When I go grab an edit window on a message, it just stays open, eh? The edit can be posted at any time. If another edit happens in between, it just gets deleted when da first edit posts. I just did it with da messages "Testing...." and "Testing... Again" back a little ways. That edit window I left open for hours. So I reckon F and I were workin' the same message, he finished first, then I replaced his or vice-versa. Dat's fine, eh, the message was unintentional and out of place and again I'm sorry for it. F, if yeh again feel da need, you can replace your "smack down" of me that I deleted while testing. And da rest of you are now aware of an interestin' system quirk that surprised me, and had me quite annoyed with F though I don't reckon it was his fault. [need a sheepish looking smillie!] We now return you to Pot Roast. I believe I voted for Voyageurs venison version...mmmm..... Beavah

Yah, that's an interestin' point FireKat. It would explain why it seems fairly unique to this particular online venue to me. Any of you younger, more savvy net denizens see this in other non-scouting forums? B

Testing... again....(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, jblake, I'm curious. How does what you propose meet 1333's major concern about the older guys needing to bond with and assist the younger scouts? When we separate the new scouts into their own patrol with just a few old scouts as PL/Instructor/TG, aren't we inhibiting that process rather than promoting it? I think 1333 has a sound vision of a unit where servant leadership and outreach to the young scouts is something practiced by everyone, not just the select few. I can't envision that happening by separating them. Am I missing something? B

Well, now... I reckon that back then it was da Christian Church, eh? Plus a wee bit of the Roman Empire. All of Christianity springs from that heritage and calls it it's own. 'Twas only later when you Catholic types split from the tradition and started claimin' all kinds of Central Authority in what used to be a Spirit-driven collegial enterprise that there was any muss and fuss, eh? And what did all that authority bring yeh? Sale of indulgences to finance papal armies and Crusades, eh? Da rest of us just kept goin' along like in the olden days, when St. Paul wrote to the various different churches in Corinth and Ephesus and Rome and such, eh? You folks have mostly come around to our way of thinkin' in the last century, though, so no hard feelings. Beavah

Hi EO2! Welcome to da forums, eh? I'm sorry to hear you had a difficult experience with your son's former SM. I'm glad to hear your son exhibited the patience, resilience, and maturity to deal with it. I reckon that was a well-deserved Eagle, eh? SMs on their way out I've found sometimes are just gettin' sick of the job, eh? They've put a lot of time and years in, and are just tired of it. Probably should have retired a year or two earlier, but maybe nobody stepped up? Water under the bridge. The SM has moved on, you have an Eagle Scout to celebrate! Don't take away from your son's joy and accomplishment with your anger over his old SM. Let it go. But encourage your son to stay involved because Scoutin' is a great program, and he would make a good ASM someday soon, eh? Beavah

Yah, I think we can safely say at this point that when jblake suggested that we have to empower these boys to be leaders (in reference to boys on the trail to Eagle), that he was thinkin' properly about Scouting, eh? B

Yah, EagleFoot. There are two possibilities here, eh? One of 'em is that someone in your council doesn't really understand the National Guidelines for council and district websites. I reckon that's the most likely, eh? BSA staff haven't been the most net-savvy lot. In that case, point them to http://www.scouting.org/webmasters/standards/index.html. The "Guidelines" section explains the rules for being considered an "official BSA council website" by national (which doesn't include the prohibition you suggest). The advice to councils section gives specific guidance on district websites. In particular "it is permissible, by the guidelines, to provide links to sites that provide content that is appropriate to the Scouting movement." The second possibility is that your council has established its own policy in this regard. In that case they should be honest about it, and not blame National, eh? Then at least yeh know where to nudge if you want 'em to change the policy. Me personally, I think links to da US Scouting Service Project are just fine. Links to semi-commercial sites like this one, or commercial sites, should be done with more thought. Hope that helps. Beavah

But how does one serve as an adult in a scout unit if they do not know what the vision we have for kids is? Empowering boys to be leaders is the core of Scouting. - BSA Scoutmaster's Handbook Yah, I figure to really understand the Scouting Program, one has to draw holistically from a number of sources, understandin' how da vision, and mission, and methods, and relationships, and trainin', and individuals' gifts and talents and such all fit together, eh? And each of us should never stop learnin'.(This message has been edited by Beavah)