Beavah

There is nothing in the BSA YP program that encourages or suppports reckless or false reporting. So the cost associated with that kind of behaviour is not relevant to the BSA training or to a leader's responsibility of reporting reasonable suspicions. Yah, BobWhite, this is da politics forum, eh? It's an OT thread about the public policy issue of laws mandating that fellow citizens report on each other to the authorities, and whether those are good and useful laws or not. It isn't about da BSA Program at all (except perhaps the extent to which such laws impact us positively or negatively). B

Yah, OakTree, I've seen what you're talkin' about, where a Boy Scout troop essentially charters its older boy high adventure program as a Venturing Crew. Sometimes they stay all boys, sometimes not. Often they have some sort of dual-registration or dual-involvement expectation. Here's da advantages I see: 1) Venturing is more age-appropriate for older boys, and has a lot more support materials and programming than do Venture Patrols within a troop. Fact is, we're pretty much phasing out Venture Patrols, eh? Ranger Award in particular can be a good fit for this type of crew. A few things, like hunting, are only allowed in Venturing. 2) Venturing opportunities also make great Junior Leader Training programs for older scouts, who then can bring back those skills to the troop. In fact, there's quite a bit of "teach others" expectations in Venturing recognitions. Same for adults, eh? Venturing training is much better tailored to the needs of high-school-aged youth and high adventure programming than any of the Boy Scouting training. 3) Venturing gives CO's a way to deal with the oddity of having an 18-year-old "adult" suddenly separated from his 17-year-old same-grade "youth" peers. You don't have to make an 18-year-old lad an ASM or throw him out, and yeh don't have to get into separate tent nonsense and all that. 4) For youth who Eagled early, it provides a new set of challenges. Alternately, it provides a unit where there isn't any "advancement" or "uniforming" adult pressure, so kids who are becoming turned off by that can find a home. 5) The crews tend to be fairly long-lived, because there's a steady supply of new blood coming up through the troop. One of the hard things about independent crews is that they often don't manage "continual recruiting" well, and fade out when the initial group ages out. 6) Because the crews are mostly drawing from a "known" program, they tend to have relatively "high" high adventures. There's not as much need for a crew to spend time on basic skills for new members. 7) There's a real incentive for boys to stay active in the troop, because the crew looks even more fun and exciting and cool. They look forward to it. 8) Your district and council folks will love yeh for adding a unit. Downsides 1) These crews really never develop the same feel or character as independent crews do, and don't become as involved in district or council Venturing activities. 2) Often the crew relies on Boy Scout adult leadership, and Boy Scouting adults sometimes don't "get" what works for high schoolers. You have to find some young lads and lasses who work well with the high school age group, and be careful about usin' da parents who came up as Den Leaders then ASMs. 3) Da crew members can become a bit "elitist" within the troop if yeh don't keep an eye out. 4) When they're coed, they tend to draw sisters of boy scouts and their friends. That's not so bad, but has to be watched for bad dynamic. They also can draw girlfriends. That has to be watched much more closely That what you're lookin' for? Feel free to ask more questions. Beavah

Yah, OK, da parent thread brought up lawyer jokes, eh? So before that one starts a whole mess of lawyer jokes, here's a fine new thread to write on! What's the difference between a carp and a lawyer? One's a scum-sucking bottom dweller. The other is a fish.

Yah, now that's twice moderators have used da term "legal mumbo-jumbo". I hope it's in good fun, and isn't really implyin' that folks who do legal work or offer that kind of insight should be devalued or dismissed, eh? Wouldn't want any hurt feelings. Lawyer jokes are bad enough, eh? Beavah

Yah, Pack378, any of the decent custom embroidery shops will do 'em for yeh. It helps if you bring in a real one as a sample; I've found that when they work from drawings they make 'em just a touch too large. Partly because many of da custom shops do higher quality work than the mass-produced BSA ones - the edges seem to hold better and be crisper. B

Moved this from da Namby thread because it seemed like an interesting topic. I personally believe that people tend to identify "rogue units" primarily in districts and councils that aren't doin' a good job with service. Here was my posting, and OGE indicated he would clarify his position. ----- Let me see if I've got all the signs of a rogue unit by your definition: They have had poor experiences with commissioners. They don't use the council summer camp but instead go out of council. They don't sell popcorn. They don't attend camporees. When asked, they complain about the quality of council service. And for some reason, that seems to really get da goat of some folks. I dunno. I guess I'm more relaxed about this sort of thing. That could describe the best troop in a district or the worst. What it does probably describe is a district or council with weak programmin', though... and perhaps a real "bad apple" or two in the past that really ticked somebody off. Just like we tell troops - to engage and keep kids, provide good program. Same for districts and councils that want to engage and keep units. It's all about the quality of program and buildin' relationships. And yeh gotta be careful about ticking off a customer. Relationships take a while to build, but they can be destroyed overnight. People remember when they've been treated poorly for a long time. I don't particularly get in a lather about a troop that isn't really usin' council resources much, and therefore doesn't feel like payin' for council resources it's not using. Fair enough. We get their numbers on da books at least. And we know we've got an area where we should be tryin' to do a better job of service. Beavah

Sometimes simple is most effective: within Scouting report to SE, outside Scouting report to hotline. Like Cordelia says, "Your job is not to investigate, your job is to recognize and report." Yep, dat's a good simple rule of thumb. Along with YPT's final admonishment: tell no one else. Report to whom you should, and then be silent and let 'em do their jobs. If you're lookin' for simple, that's the way to go, eh? BSA YPT is like civilian CPR in that way. Keep it simple. I hope most adult leaders care enough about this stuff to keep learnin'. Ed and Eamonn and LongHaul have real points. When you actually encounter these situations they're rarely clear-cut and simple. Most cases are ambiguous, with "real world" issues alongside CO and BSA stuff. Cheffy's example is a good one - what to do with a second-hand report from a minor 600 miles away who has a whole bunch of issues with his new troop? This is where havin' a deeper understandin' of the issues helps, including the proper role of the CO, SE, law enforcement, social services, and legal system. Civilian CPR is simple and OK, but it can be worth learning CPR for da professional responder and AED use, which goes a bit beyond simple; it can even help to have someone who gets a higher level of trainin'. Certainly, it shouldn't be discouraged. For all da grief they've gotten, I have to commend da Catholic folks for their new efforts. Their training focuses mostly on crimes against children, not child abuse. It's ongoing, with "continuing education" modules to keep learnin'. And they've developed a very sound institutional reporting infrastructure. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I really do not care what it costs, I find it disgusting that some adults might put the cost of protecting children over the ethics of stopping child abuse. Yah, this is really fascinatin', eh? Of course the point was that the mandatory reportin' policies might not work at all. But let's stick with costs. I'm learnin' a lot about the way some folks look at things. Yeh dodged all my other questions, so I'll try this one last attempt. Statistically, men are far more likely to be abusers than women, particularly of Boy Scout-aged boys. Married men of course most likely. Since fiscal and social cost is no object, do you favor banning all male leaders from Boy Scout Troops? Or at least all married male leaders? It would undoubtedly save many boys from abuse within the Scouting program. Or is the cost of having some abused kids every year in Scouting worth it in order for a lot of other kids to have positive male role models? I won't get in to the publicity and FOS losses from banning male leaders. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

follow BSA YP training, forget it it's a bunch of hooey, even advice to to nothing unless you have "proof". Yah, hmmm.... Sorry F. Read da whole thread. Couldn't find anybody who said to forget YP training it's a bunch of hooey. Couldn't find any advice that said to do nothing unless you have "proof." Unless you yourself are advocatin' those positions? In which case, I disagree. YP trainin' is fairly good, given the constraints its designers were under. What's a Scouter to do? Follow it, with understanding. Continue to seek out new information and more training and work to learn even more, eh? Because that's the sort of examples we want to be for the kids - lifelong learners who are self-motivated to seek real understanding. And who know that a half-hour online course probably isn't the last word on a subject. We wouldn't want to be ones who just check off a requirement once and then forget about it, eh? And, if as a Scouter you get in the soup and are lookin' down the barrel of a problem that yeh know is too big for you, seek help from a competent professional in your area. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There are people (or so Beavah suggets) who would be more concered with the cost of investigating those reports rather than be concerned over the number of children that could be helped. Yah, I'm curious, BobWhite. Are you strongly in favor of the expansion of da Children's Health Insurance Program (the one that Bush recently vetoed)? Those that oppose that would naturally be the ones worrying about costs of another entitlement program, and the increased tax/debt burden for the nation "over the number of children that could be helped." Are yeh ready for da tax increase to fund it, or should we put it on the National Debt charge card and bill our grandkids? Are yeh in favor of open borders for all immigrants from anywhere? Those that oppose such a notion would naturally be the ones more concerned about the social costs of such a policy "over the number of children that could be helped." Are yeh ready to have 'em move into your neighborhood and business? In favor of doubling your tax millage for schools? Or do yeh worry about costs "over the number of children that could be helped." For that matter, do yeh believe in allowing children to ride bicycles? Bicycles are one of da major causes of serious injury and death among kids, eh? Are you in favor of banning bicycle use for anyone under age 18? Because "if it could save just one child's life...."? A heck of a lot of children's lives would be saved by banning bicycles. "If it could save one child's life" and "thinking of costs over the lives of children who could be helped" are Lobbyist Language, eh? It's emotional spin designed to portray someone else's position as malign so as to advance a special interest agenda. Costs of policies, both fiscal and social, are a fact of life, eh? Yeh have to take 'em into account and address 'em as part of the evaluation of the policy. Now, yeh still might end up favorin' the policy. The costs may be worth it. But for me, I don't reckon I've done my job as a Mentally Awake citizen unless I've gone past the lobbyist hype and at least looked at the costs. Given Social Services with a limited and fixed budget, and the reactions of people to mandatory reportin', there's a fair chance that these reportin' laws made it worse for kids at risk. They're fairly recent, and it's hard to tell. But lookin' at costs ain't being uncaring. Quite the opposite. It's what yeh need to do in order to be able to do the right thing. Beavah (edited to remove acronyms)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, just to be clear, eh? I think LongHaul's position, as well as FScouter's, is a very human and compassionate one. It's one that I would expect all of us to take. It's certainly the one I would take myself. My hope for this thread is different, eh? It's a thread about public policy, not personal choice, which is why I put it over here in da Politics forum. One can be an advocate for doing things personally, while at the same time not being an advocate for a law that requires everyone to do that same thing under penalty of fines or incarceration. Or at least maybe you can . For example, I think it's great to stop and help people on the side of the road. But then, I'm a licensed EMT-W. I wouldn't support a law that required everyone to stop and assist at an accident. That, in fact, would create a dangerous mess more often than not. So I'm interested in thoughts about reporting as public policy. Beavah

Sigh. That's quite a confused muddle, BW. It becomes very difficult to respond to in any coherent way, eh? Which is why I suggested takin' a more general discussion of YP to a new thread, eh? In the issue of reporting, I'm givin' folks the straight story. I'm sorry you don't understand it, but I reckon most of da other folks readin' will. I'd caution you a bit about bein' quite so declarative about things you don't seem to have much background in. You did somethin' similar in the thread on self-chartered units, where yeh really muddled up association law. I'd also caution you again about narrow reliance on BSA materials. Da BSA Handbook and Fieldbook are good, eh? But we'd still welcome insight from pros at REI about fitting a backpack. Of course nobody is suggesting not caring for youth who might be at risk, eh? Certainly I'm not. I'm just explaining how to care for youth who might be at risk. The reasons do include not doing harm to innocent adults. I believe that's an important value, too, as does the BSA. Da reasons also include not inadvertently exposing yourself and the BSA to liabilities for doing harm to innocent adults. Like you, I have been involved in the removal of volunteers (and paid staff), but sadly quite a few more than just one. Such things are challenging in a number of ways, and not something an average volunteer should have to deal with. Which is why we recommend the things we do in training, as I have described. Beavah

Yah, like I said, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your thoughts on the theory of how this might work, eh? I think you're underestimating the challenges in * Getting adults to understand and support that vision, especially without regular SM contact. * Getting youth leaders to really learn their roles without the direct example of older youth that is greatly reduced by an age-stratified setup. It's easy to write that "the committee should address that" or that there will be "an abundance of boy leaders to handle that." It's a much, much harder thing to get that to happen. Let's just look at your "overabundance" of youth leaders, as an example. You figure, over time, that half of the troop (75) will be older, high-school-aged boys, because you've had great retention. Problem is, they're all part of venture patrols, eh? They aren't available to be PL's of younger boy patrols, though a few may be TG's of NSPs. And those venture patrols are going to be off doing their own patrol activities while your younger middle school lads are out learnin' things, so those older boys really aren't around as leaders. What yeh have instead is a young 12- or 13-year old PL, who doesn't have as much maturity and experience, and who therefore needs a lot more directive support from whatever adults are workin' with him. And because of that, when he becomes a 14- or 15- year old, his experience has largely been with adult-supported stuff, rather than true youth leadership. Now, it's true you might have 5-10 older boys who could handle a QM position in a regular troop. But da QM position in a troop of 150 is a much, much bigger job, eh? That takes a troop QM and a staff of division QM's. So yeh really need many of those available boys to serve in QM roles. And each and every time a QM doesn't do a great job of trainin' his replacement, or a Scribe, or... there'll be room for an adult to jump in. Like I say, go for it! Just set aside for yourself a weekend every six months or so to stop and take stock of how well you're meeting the vision, and where yeh may need to make adjustments. B

Nah, BobWhite, I'm not at all incorrect on my terms, eh? But I am simplifyin' a bit to help you and others understand a very important principle of BSA YP reportin' that yeh seem to have missed in your training. Now yeh know what to look for when you take your refresher trainin' this year, eh? One of the hard things is that BSA YPT spends about 10 minutes out of the hour on such things, eh? Ten minutes of bare-bones trainin' is hardly the definitive word on such a subject, eh? If you or anyone else is interested in improvin' your real knowledge of the topic rather than just quotin' such a weak source, I'd encourage you to do so by pursuin' deeper trainin' on such things outside of the BSA. That can be a wonderful way to bring better insight to your troop or district, and develop a base of knowledge that makes you less likely to inadvertently give folks poor or incomplete advice. But sure, if yeh want, we can add terms. For reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect (committed by a custodial adult typically outside of scoutin' but discovered in scouting), report to Children's Services. The abuse part can be physical, sexual (which is physical, eh?), or (in some states) emotional. The neglect can also be either physical or (in some states) emotional. For reasonable suspicion of battery, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, statutory rape, or any of a dozen other crimes against children (committed by a non-custodial adult like a scout leader, and during scouting events), report to the council Scout Executive and/or the CO reporting officer. In general, "emotional abuse" is not a crime in this context and is more a case of poor adult leadership, which naturally should also be reported to da person's supervisor (CO, Camp Director, SE, etc.). That's what BSA's Youth Protection training says, and in general terms for a 10-minute training session, it's good advice. Yeh should encourage folks to follow it. As far as the other stuff you mention, perhaps it belongs in another thread, eh, rather than bringin' in all the different components of YPT to this thread that just raised a very narrow question about reporting. Beavah

Yah, jblake, thanks for your patience, eh? I apologize on behalf of my fellow scouters for any discourtesy. I hope and expect it was unintended. I didn't want to let da troop size discussion go completely, without givin' yeh a few more things to think about. I admire your enthusiasm, and feel you should pursue a large troop size with your new unit if that's how you think you can best serve kids. I think your theory of troop operation in that way is just fine, even exciting. As you do that, though, I'd encourage yeh to keep an eye out. Just because what I and other folks are telling you is that while the theory can be great, there are real sticking points in practice. Here's a list of a few: * Few places to camp. Large groups are not LNT-compatible. * As you've suggested, very large troops split into program sub-groups, by patrol or (what happens more commonly) by New Scouts/Gr 7-8 Scouts/Venture aged scouts. * This requires a lot of adults, to support the many patrol outings and the different program levels. * It is very difficult to find that many adults who share both your vision and the necessary skills. And it takes hands-on time to really train 'em. * The age-stratified program division leaves the lower two groups without a lot of youth leadership skill, or contact with the best youth leaders (the older boys). * The venture patrols tend to attract adults who are more comfortable with youth leadership, leaving the younger guys who have weaker leadership skills with adults who want to impose more structure. * For coordination, you need a host of ASPLs and support adults to serve in "middle-manager" type roles. * Because the SM feels a bit "remote", even a great Patrol Method/youth leadership advocate starts to "push" from top down through the middle-managers. * To run a troop this size also requires a huge, well-coordinated adult support staff, lots of fundraising, etc. * If yeh have a large adult support staff, yeh sorta need a fairly homogeneous and agreeable community. Otherwise, you'll get all kinds of adult conflicts to manage. * 90% of the SM's time moves to dealing with other adults, with a small sliver for working with the SPL and giving SM minutes. Yeh gotta want that kind of role. Most SM's for smaller units want more kid-contact time. With a large troop, you typically end up with a very "school curriculum" FCFY program, and a very "directed" leadership style for the grade 7-8-9 guys. Very much like what BW describes, eh, because that's what works. But that's not what you were shootin' for. Alternately, at some point yeh don't take a necessary step, like yeh don't start creatin' middle managers or the SM keeps tryin' to stay more involved with kid contact. In that case, your growth plateaus and you start losin' kids who become disconnected or "fall through the cracks" because the troop is too big to be within the span of control of a single SM / youth leadership team. So you might be accepting a lot of kids, but you're not doin' right by 'em. Just my observations. Not tryin' to rain on your parade, by all means, go for it! But yeh now have a whole mess of folks warnin' you about the same pitfalls, so you're goin' into it with eyes wide open. B

Yah, well, perhaps find a good tax attorney! Yeh can usually get 'em to give you a steer on a small issue like this in exchange for a decent single-malt scotch. Honestly, though, the amounts that are probably involved here are likely to approach immaterial. But I reckon Eamonn's right about the donations aspect, jblake. Da crew is a program of the CO, not of the local BSA council, eh? Just because the BSA council is a 501©(3) entity doesn't mean the crew can receive tax-deductible donations. In fact, the IRS guidance that I'm aware of is exactly the opposite. Now, I reckon the council could accept a donation designated to the unit custodial account . B

Yah, hmmm. This was pretty depressin', eh? My way of lookin' at it is that if we're telling someone that they're "not doing the program", and especially when we imply (and often state outright) that what we mean is they're not being trustworthy, then we're really sayin' they shouldn't be a Scouter at all. Dat's pretty personal, eh? Here's some of da things over the last week or two where we've told someone they aren't a worthy fellow scouter: * Troops or Councils putting restrictions on who can be MB counselors in order to address a particular concern. * If scouts dont plan all hikes and campouts. * If the SM doesnt choose the same leadership style da poster would in that circumstance. * If the SM addresses another boy instead of the SPL. * If a patrol does a patrol outing the same weekend as a troop outing. * If a trainer offers personal suggestions or insight. * Teaching additional skills beyond those that are listed in the T-2-1 requirements to first year boys. * Mentioning or trying any _former_ Scouting program element from Hillcourt, B-P, BSA, etc. * Having an adult patrol. Are we really sayin' that someone is not a fellow Scouter because they talk to a PL rather than an SPL? My suggestion is very narrow. Just eliminate that kind of thing, and the slams about not following the Oath and Law and such. Not limit da discussions of things that seem important, nor refrain from politely offering BSA information that may be helpful. But I reckon if we really want to be of service, and listened to, especially by someone we feel needs to hear the message, we catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If yeh feel something is unsafe, by all means say so, and explain your reasoning why. Help a fellow scouter to understand. I don't reckon any of us wants a hurt boy. Dan did that at one point without all da "you're not doing the BSA program!" stuff. He said in essence "Hey, I don't think PVC pipe can reliably handle da pressure, and here's a link to why I think that. You should be really thoughtful about that." Classy. If yeh feel somebody should be more flexible about an advancement rule, by all means say so, and explain your reasoning why. Help a fellow Scouter to understand. "I interpret that advancement requirement to mean XXX, because YYYY, and that seems to me to be a better way to get to ZZZ. I think you might consider re-thinking how you approach it." I'm not tryin' to ask for miracles, eh? Heated discussions are at times worthwhile and fun among friends and colleagues. Just lets try to rein in da language that says "I'm not your friend or colleague." Da dialog has taken quite a shift recently. That's worth reflectin' on. Beavah

Someone in da parent thread commented on how a Children's Services worker made a claim "I'd rather conduct 10 false investigations than miss one positive one". That's a very human and compassionate position. I think all of us share FScouter's bias that ethically we do what we can to protect innocent children, and we're willing to assume certain risks as individuals in that regard. But public policy positions also have to balance costs, eh? There's a bit of debate on whether the mandatory reporting statutes actually improve things or make them worse. There is a cost to overreporting. That cost is Children's Service workers mired in investigations so that they get to real cases more slowly, or can't offer the attention that kids in trouble really need. Lots of investigations become cursory as people try to get through da backlog. There are only so many staff hours and so many dollars, eh? How many reports of botched child protection have you read about because of overworked Children's Services staff? I know I've seen plenty. There are other costs to reporting statutes. In the beginning, mandatory reportin' was limited to trained professionals, who had a professional sense of what "reasonable suspicion" really means. Some states have moved to "everyone" being mandated reporters. "Everyone," however, is not a trained child care or medical professional. That leads to overreporting. More important, there's a real cost to making average citizens part of law enforcement. Anyone who has read about Mao's China or Stalin's Russia has read about how neighbors were required to spy on and report their neighbors for various crimes; even children and family members required to report suspicions of their parents or relatives. It can be a scary thing, ripe for abuse. We see that kind of abuse in reports, eh? People who don't believe white parents should adopt minority children reporting their "suspicion", etc. For that matter, there's a real risk even for mandating professional reporters - how many kids might be denied medical care or kept out of school because their parents are worried about being falsely reported ? I've certainly heard reports of parents who choose to occasionally spank their children (in non-abusive ways) keepin' their kids homeschooled for fear the teachers and the government would try to take their children. As with most things, da world is a complex place, eh? There's often other aspects to things that need to be balanced. When considerin' the merits of a law or policy, it's best to look beyond the one-sided arguments of da lobbyist or enthusiast who's toutin' its (potential) benefits, and look at the costs and consequences. And we should be very cautious about requirin' people to report their neighbors to the authorities based on suspicion. I reckon we should be able to protect kids without that, eh? Just da humble opinion of a furry critter, is all. What's yours? Beavah

Let me just remind folks that there are really two very different things that go by the popular name of "abuse." One is child abuse. As a general rule of thumb, child abuse can only be committed by a parent or guardian (or perhaps state-licensed child care worker). It has special legal status because a parent or guardian has legal control over the child, and the child is dependent on them for its health and welfare. For that reason, there are special rules to encourage or require reporting, since otherwise the parents' control over the child would make it very difficult to discover. There's also a special, confidential investigating arm in Children's Services departments, to handle investigations based solely on reports of suspicion, in ways that try to protect families if the suspicion is unfounded, and that protect da person reporting from civil actions for defamation. When a scouter has reasonable suspicion of child abuse, YPT instructs us to contact children's services. The second is physical/sexual abuse of a child by another (non-custodial) adult like a scout leader. This is generally not child abuse, but another set of crimes including battery. It does not have special status under the law. There are no reporting requirements, and no civil suit immunity for people who make reports. There is no confidential investigative arm that tries to protect individuals if the suspicions are unfounded. These things are handled by law enforcement aka the police. Complaints are public records, that are typically reviewed daily by news media. When a scouter has reasonable suspicion of physical/sexual abuse within Scouting, YPT instructs us to contact the council Scout Executive (or, for unit activities, the CO's reporting officer). Naturally, in either case, when there is direct evidence or a child's credible report of abuse, we protect the kids and call law enforcement. But how we handle suspicion is a different thing, eh? There we are rightly told not to play cop or investigator or to run about makin' accusations. We are to hand the situation off to the folks most capable of investigatin' and responding appropriately and sensitively. Childrens' Services for child abuse. The Scout Executive or CO Reporting Officer for sexual/physical abuse within Scouting. There was more discussion on this thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=169589 Hope that helps folks understand the why behind YPT trainin'. The above explanation talks about general principles across multiple states, which is all da national YPT syllabus can do, eh? The statutes and case law in each state are different. Nothing here or in any internet forum or in any BSA training syllabus should be considered a formal legal opinion, or be relied on as legal advice. Your YPT trainin' should include a briefing by local council folks (although I've found many local councils do a very poor job of this, unfortunately). Even that should not be considered legal advice. In individual cases, things can be complex, especially for stuff that happens at summer camp in a few states. If yeh want good legal advice, yeh go to a good attorney in your jurisdiction. Or, yeh just follow YPT, now that you understand the reasons for it, and make da SE earn his salary! Report within-scoutin' physical/sexual abuse to da SE, report child abuse or neglect by a custodial adult to Children's Services. Beavah

Yah, givin' advice in an internet forum is tough, eh? I reckon the real answer should be "Your son should ask his Patrol Leader or Troop Guide for help." And you should ask one of the "regular" adults who has been with da program for a while. I reckon they'll know what you need for where you're goin' better than anyone here, eh? Beavah

Yah, da boys chose the camp, eh? Why in the world would yeh worry about this at all? Certainly, why would you be nervous if the boys are not? Me, I'd buy the Camp Director a cigar and say "Good show, old boy!" It's supposed to be a camp, not summer school! B

I will bet a dollar that in te not to distant future it will change again....Thinks change, thats life. Yah, like da value of that dollar, eh? I don't have any problem with changes. LNT is a necessary change in our way of thinkin' and doin' business that's important. I don't miss signaling; I reckon portable radios are an improvement. I get a kick out of kids doin' GeoCaching. I like my new-fangled outdoor gear and backpackin' stoves and such. Those and others are all genuine changes in technology or practical changes to keep with our spirit and mission, eh? I think, though, that all changes need to be evaluated. They should be evaluated by national program folks, as best they can. But they also should be evaluated by local folks who are watchin' the outcomes for their kids. Does this change accomplish our Aims better? or not? It might be that da answer sometimes is "not." And in that case, we do our job for the kids by changin' what we do to find what works for us, and share that information with others. That's da best way for national program folks to change things, eh? Hearin' from folks in the field that couldn't make things work and tried somethin' different. Better than sittin' around in committees and theorizin'. I reckon Kudu's critique is not lookin' to go back to the past, but to do the best job we can for the kids now. He's makin' a claim, and perhaps a valid one, that we may have weakened our expectations over time. "Grade inflation" of a sort. Where we used to expect learning, includin' learning things well enough to be "re-tested" on 'em at any time, now yeh only have to pass a test once. Where we used to require First Class Scouts to travel the wilderness on their own for many miles, now we require them to car camp three times with their troop. Where we used to trust da youth to be responsible for honor and standards for advancement, we've now decided they're too tough, better have adults do it. BW's right. Da ranks are similar in name only. But we've got to ask whether we're doin' a better job now buildin' self-directed learners and older boy leaders or not, eh? If yeh think you are, great. If not, time to think different, perhaps. Not every new thing is a good thing, eh? As Voyageur points out, about some things like da Constitution, it might be good to be a touch old-fashioned. At least it's worth considerin' the Founders' Intent, rather than just blowin' it off. Maybe about a few things in Scoutin', too. Beavah

Any income or assets of the "unit" are likely considered as personal income for which a person or persons now owe income tax. (plus back taxes and penalties over the past nine years)...Not to mention the personal liability issues you have exposed yourselves to....Not formiing a corporation was a VERY bad idea. Yah, it's never bad advice to suggest consultin' with a local attorney. They're good people. And I'd certainly recommend havin' a real, long-term, incorporated NFP CO for a unit for a variety of reasons, as I've mentioned. Makes for a more stable, better program usually. But it's also not worth gettin' too hyped up about things either, eh? Most states recognize Unincorporated NFP Associations, and adopt some version of the uniform act. That act does establish such associations as separate legal entities, and does protect individuals from vicarious liability for the acts and omissions of the association. Da assets of the unit would never be considered "income", of course, but interest on a bank account would. Most small groups avoid filin' just by not usin' interest-bearing accounts. I suspect for jblake's crew the tax liability exposure is zero; I'm guessin' there's not a whole lot of excess revenue over expenses and they might even be covered under da gross receipts rule for 501©(3). In any event, I certainly wouldn't anticipate anybody spendin' any time on enforcement action. Goin' with incorporation and formal 501©(3) exemption status is a bit of a headache, eh? A bit too much effort for a small crew. Beavah

If a kid is getting abused, the legalities in various states don't mean squat as to whether a report should be made! Yah, I agree with this, to a point. I just feel people should be provided with the correct information, so that they can make their own choices. There's ethics in educatin' people, too, eh? Not just in protectin' 'em. What's tough is that when scouters use da term "abuse", they're often not referring to the legal thing called "child abuse." They're referring to some other crime that a scouter who is not the child's guardian can commit, like sexual battery. For those kinds of crimes, there is no statutory immunity for the reporter. Those reports don't go anonymously to Children's Services for a social worker to investigate. They go to a law enforcement agency as a public record of a filed complaint. A citizen should be very careful about making a formal, public complaint that someone is committing sexual battery against a child, eh? It might not be what you want to do based on suspicion. There are a lot of very real damages associated with that kind of accusation if it turns out to be false. Dat's why the BSA's Youth Protection Trainin' teaches that for that kind of suspicion within Scouting, you are to call the Council Scout Executive and/or your Chartered Organization Rep. Then you are reporting your suspicions to professional supervisory personnel within the program, who can conduct an investigation or take appropriate action. You aren't making a public accusation that someone committed a heinous crime. Dat's the "why" behind what gets taught in YPT. Beavah

Yah, my typical way of viewin' da forums is to use the "active threads the last 24 hours" link. Is anybody experiencin' the same problem I am, namely that even "stale" threads don't seem to go away anymore? There's so many threads listed now I really can't tell what's got new traffic. B