Beavah

As well meaning as Beavah may be...the information I shared is straight from the BSA Youth Protection training, as are the policies and procedures I outlined for cheffy. Nah, BobWhite. You're misquotin' BSA Youth Protection, which explicitly refers to the guidelines for each council that are to be made up in accord with that council's individual state laws. Those wonderful BSA professionals and child care experts and such yeh refer to do that because they understand that information is different for different states. They'd be irresponsible if they tried to make a single "national" version, eh? That's the danger in takin' one-hour training. It's easy to misinterpret bits and pieces because yeh don't have time to learn the underlyin' structure for how things work. Or worse, you might get a one-hour-trained trainer! Da other thread I referred yeh to gives a more complete explanation of some of the issues. ---- GW, I know you're never gonna listen to this furry critter, eh? But for anybody else who is interested, the way yeh read that line is The following persons who, in their (professional or official) capacity not The following persons who, in their professional (or official capacity), because, of course, the latter would not make grammatical sense. So a doctor who is seeing a patient as a doctor has to report reasonable suspicion of child abuse; a doctor who is an ASM on a scout trip does not. Whether he should or not is an ethical choice, not a legal one. At least, that's how this furry critter would read that statute. Oops... and for those wonderin' why the Feds collect and disseminate this information for all the states, it's because a Federal Statute, CAPTA (42 USC 5106g) mandated that states pass these laws, in a particular form, and that the department collect information from the states to evaluate compliance. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I encourage folks who are interested to search via da official department site: http://www.childwelfare.gov rather than third-party sites. The federal site makes it more clear that Virginia mandatory reporters are limited to professionals acting in their official capacity. As always, if yeh want a truly reliable answer, yeh have to ask an attorney licensed to practice law in the state who has experience in that area. Not a well-meanin' BSA trainer. Not "somebody told me so." And not an old Beavah who lives a thousand miles or more away . Anyway, here's a reminder link to the last thread where we went through some of this, eh? http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=169589 It's also a really good example, because the case that looked serious to all of us based on hearsay and what was posted to da forum turned out not to be a real issue at all. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, scoutldr, that depends, eh? If by "clear" you mean "clearly does not apply to a scout unit leader" then you are correct. An organization responsible for the care, custody, and control of children would be something like a group home, orphanage, or perhaps licensed day-care center and such. B

As an adult if you suspect that physical abuse has taken place agains a child you are required by law in nearly every state to report that abusise to the proper leagal authorities. If you suspect that such abuse has taken place in relationship to scouting, then you are required by BSA policy to report your suspicions to the Council Scout Executive in the council where the suspected abuse took place. Yah, we've discussed this in other places, eh? But this statement is inaccurate and should not be relied upon. Please, please, if you're not legally savvy or trained in these areas do not give people what amounts to legal advice. And especially in this sort of remote, hearsay from a minor kind of situation, things are tricky. Cheffy should call the lad's parents and encourage them to talk with their son. I think its safe to say that if the kid who got poked were injured, his parents would already be on it, eh? So despite the sensational language about "branding", there's probably nuthin' more than a minor poke here. A youth discipline issue, for sure, but not a stop the presses call the cops situation. Only thing that's at that level is a true suspicion of abuse by the parent on their own kid. And that's got to be first hand. And if that's for real, they gotta be goin' to Child Services and/or someone in their state who knows what they're talkin' about. Beavah

I actually do not like "feeder" relationships...I am a strong advocate of deploying Den Chiefs from Troops back to Packs throughout the Cub lifecycle. Yah, I was curious about this, eh? 'Cause usually, the only place I've seen stable Den Chief relationships is in situations where there was a "feeder pack/troop" relationship which enabled the Den Chief thing. Often within the same CO. In the more open free-for-all Lisabob describes, there's typically not stable Den Chiefs. Do yeh have somethin' different, KC? For the open situation Lisabob describes, it's a bit like colleges tryin' to guess enrollment based on applications. If yeh get so many webelos who visit, how many will join? Mostly yeh can guess right. But every now and then yeh might be slammed by a big crowd or be short. Can't say I've seen any great solutions that allow for good plannin' on a troop's part, so I'm interested in ideas too! Beavah

Yah, eisley, this self-charter option as "the parents of Troop 1234" or "the friends of Pack 9876" is something you'll see in many councils. It hit its high-water mark after da Dale case fallout as cub packs and troops in some areas got evicted by their former CO's. It's far from ideal, IMO, and not encouraged by da BSA. As BobWhite has described, real CO's tend to provide long-term vision and stability, stable meeting place, etc. as well as a real legal structure. "Friends of Troop XXX" is typically an unincorporated association, and how those are treated varies quite a bit by state (if they're recognized at all). Not really a problem on a daily basis, unless it becomes a problem. Beavah

Yah, well, and then there are those few... Now, we're gettin' a call from a 15-year-old, and seein' it through his eyes, eh? Have you talked to your former SPL's parents, cheffy, to get their take on the matter? I like youth leaders, truly I do, but there's a wisdom that comes from maturity. I'd start there. For my part, if adults truly have reasonable suspicion that a parent is bein' physically abusive (in the legal sense) of their child, then yeh call Children's Services and make a report, and yeh notify the SE if you believe that abuse has gone on in Scoutin'. Then yeh let the pros do the investigatin' and take action. If it were a mature and reliable 15-year-old, I might assist him in makin' the report to Children's services. The parental abuse is the biggest worry here, eh? Not that there aren't other worries. As for the kid who got poked with the hot fork, you're a bit far removed, cheffy. I think yeh discourage your SPL and the other boys in the troop from "doing something about this" and instead encourage him to have the boy who was poked tell his parents, or have your former SPL's parents call the other lad's parents. Then it's their game. But I'd also start a thought in your head in a different way. Be aware of the possibility that your former SPL really liked your troop, and is goin' to find fault with another troop no matter what. That might take the form of complainin' to you about all da things that are "wrong" about it, in ways that are more "enthusiastic" than the real situation might cal for, eh? Hard to tell from afar. I think your role is to call your former SPL's parents, and then it stops. Beavah

if they say late in the game that they want to join our troop (or any other) and get told "no, sorry we're full" then they will in all likelihood quit scouting instead of seeking alternatives. Yah, well, there's good and bad ways to do anything, eh? That would be a bad way . But that "wait 'til the end" thing only happens because they believe all troops are "open" and will take 'em whenever. If you change that expectation, you'll also change that behavior as long as you communicate up front. Generally, units that are as big as they want to be just suspend recruiting. Put on no webelos events, etc. Just rely on word of mouth. That sometimes works. I liked Eagledad's "we just raised dues through the roof." I'd never heard of that approach. Makes sense, but with that "rich kids' troop" reputation risk. I know a few troops who only take scouts at crossover, not any other times. And I know ones with semi-flexible limits. They'll expand to take den-mates and siblings, but additional dens they'll turn away. All that is communicated up front, eh? And every troop I know will help kids make contact with other troops in the area. Many will hand-walk kids and families over to another troop they can recommend. In the towns where I've seen troops place some limits, it doesn't seem to be at all an issue the way EagleDad describes. Parents and kids are pretty used to rec. league sports teams having maximum numbers and such. I think it's more honest and better for kids than takin' more than you can handle, and havin' kids not get as great an experience or drop out as a result. Beavah

Nah, let's not get overbroad about BSA "policy," eh? Da goal of advancement is to help grow kids, so units and councils do set policies for their area to do their best job with that. There are some councils, for example, that refuse to approve a MBC for more than 5 MBs, just to encourage kids to get around and avoid issues where one SM counseled everything. Yah, not in accord with the guidelines but also perfectly legit in terms of the way things really work. The general interpretation of da rules is that the SM selects or at least approves the MBC's in advance. This is an important program feature for many of our religious CO's, who have an institutional interest in designating certain counselors for badges like Family Life, eh? Or who have their own stricter training and selection criteria for youth-contact positions like MBC's. So it's fairly common for units to use that approval process to restrict counseling by parents. Frankly, it's a reasonable and prudent thing to do in order to keep MBs from turnin' into webelos activity badges. I reckon every one of us can remember a parent in our units who would have gone that route if permitted to, eh? At the same time, I reckon that none of us would stop a lad from working with his dad if his dad is the only Law MB Counselor in their town, eh? That's the intent of the BSA rule. Kids should not be deprived of access. Nor should there be a general restriction against parent MBC's which might interfere with, for example, a home school cooperative that uses the Scoutin' program and strongly believes in parent MBC's. There's a time and a place for every purpose under heaven. A time to restrict, and a time to relax, a time to signoff, and a time to refrain... from signing. To everything, turn, turn, turn... Beavah

In terms of limitin' size, can I ask what yeh all do if a patrol gets too big? I imagine yeh form a new patrol, eh? That would be my preference for how to limit size of a troop - start a new troop! In my experience, each unit has a "natural size". For whatever reason, if a troop's natural size is twenty, and I convince a mess of webelos to cross over and bring 'em up to 35, by the next year, they'll be back down to 20. Like pourin' too much water into a small glass. Can't say I fully understand the reasons, just what seems to happen. As a result, I'm less opposed to troops tryin' to keep to the size they "like" than I was as a younger guy. Just seems more fair to the kids than takin' everyone and disappointing a bunch of 'em. But from a district or council perspective, units that are considerin' turnin' people away are the only spot in a "mature" area that you're gonna be successful in adding a new unit. There's an excess of demand! Plus there's a successful unit that's willing to serve as friend and partner for the first year or two, which is far better "training" than any class. Two healthy "sister" units operatin' at da sizes where they do their best job for kids is better for scoutin' all around. Beavah

Do we have any any council people on this forum that would give some input as to why Scouting is trying to incorporate as many boys as possible while sanctioning troops that limit their membership? Yah, sure. Because we want more units! Units fold for various reasons all da time, eh? If yeh really encouraged the formation of megatroops you'd get down to a few large troops with very little program diversity or resilience. Yeh wouldn't be meeting the needs of CO's who wanted troops, but had a hard time competin' against a "mega" program in terms of glitz. And leadership turnover in a "mega" unit often (not always, but often) crashes their membership. Yah, and there is the issue that da mega-units are typically more adult-run. I think what you're not figurin' in, jblake, is that it's hard to get the numbers of adult leaders a megatroop needs and make sure those adult leaders really understand and are able to work in the patrol vision you describe. Yeh see how hard it is to convince even some experienced scouters here, eh? So addin' adults pulls things back toward adult-run. Sometimes it's a "revolt" by new parents who don't care for youth leadership, other times it's a more gradual shift by da leaders of sub-programs like New Scouts. Successful mega-troops usually develop an "adult club" thing among the adult leaders and campin' parents, because there's a whole mess of 'em out on every campout, eh? Kinda like hockey families, if yeh know the type. Not to say I haven't seen 150-scout troops that didn't run fun programs that pleased some kids and families, eh? All kinds of ways to play this Scoutin' game. But not my cup of tea, as Eagledad says. Beavah

In da parent thread, jblake laid out his thoughts and reasons for building a "mega-troop" (which I'll loosely define as a troop of 100 or more). Those certainly exist, eh? I've known and seen a few, and jblake fairly accurately describes their corporate structure of multiple ASPLs, an age-based/stratified program and the like. Far be it for me to stand in da way of his enthusiasm. So, for other folks who have had experience in or with Mega-Troops, what advice can we give to him as his troop grows, what problems to watch out for, etc.? B

Yah, it has, eh? One of da things where Merlyn has a point (gosh, did I really say that? ) is that in court filings different places da BSA has tried to have its cake and eat it, too. IIRC, in a number of cases involving our membership policy, we have out and out declared to be a religious organization seeking First Amendment protection. In a number of other cases involving access, we have claimed not to be a religious organization. I understand, but really dislike, that kind of lawyering. Formally being a religious organization makes da membership argument more moot. But a religious organization doesn't necessarily get the U.S. Army to host its Big Event every four years, eh? Beavah

Yah, I'll echo local1400 and gwd as well. I've been involved in quite a number of new unit startups (or in some cases, re-starts) in various roles. To my mind it takes at least one person with real kid talent and scoutin' experience, and a group of people who are committed to bringing the program to a location or an area. Good people who are mission-focused, not "my kid" focused. It also takes havin' a location or area or group of kids who are a "target market" that you intend to try to serve, and that will be around for many years. Cannibalism, just takin' market from other units rather than reachin' new kids, usually makes little sense. Disgruntled spin-offs are usually failures. It takes a sense of joy and deep commitment to make a new unit go, and yeh just don't get that from anger and rejection of what the last troop did. Most challenging part? I dunno. I reckon all parts are challenging enough! But honestly, with a few good, experienced people and a good market, they're all manageable. Partnership with an existing troop for the first year or two really helps. A supportive CO and some donated "seed money" really helps. Puttin' together a first six months program and lookin' on-the-ball and organized really helps. Gettin' the parents to buy in early and get to quality training really helps. That sort of thing, eh? Beavah

Yah, gwd, first a well deserved pat on the back and "good job." Now, a moment to pause. Transfer scouts can be a real challenge sometimes. There's no way to avoid the fact that they're gonna come in having been "inculturated" into scouting in a different unit, eh? Even if there's very good reasons for the transfer (which is a 50-50 shot often), you're gonna have some "storming" time, from both parents and kids. I always encourage yeh to talk to their current SM/CC at some point just to be informed. Because transfers are older scouts, they're also gonna have a bigger impact on your troop and the kids in it. Are yeh ready for 6 new guys to demand/push for leadership roles? Twelve new MC/parents to try to take things in a different direction? Take some time to think things through and put a few firewalls in place. The bigger yeh get, the less like a small friendly "family" it is, and the more yeh have to think on an "organization" scale. For incoming new guys, you're getting near that magical size where you've got to consider your longer-term patrol structure. Are you gonna welcome them into existing patrols, keeping your experienced guys as patrol leaders and PLC members so as to preserve your culture and bring the younger ones up by example? Or are yeh gonna task out their training to an ASM/TG in the NSP model and move toward a more age-based approach as you grow? How will the transfers fit in to that if they come? As their own patrol? Do you see patrol competition, formal or informal, as one of your techniques or not? Choosin' patrol structure is probably one of the biggest and most important choices for you and your PLC to make. Flip through the old threads on the choices. And finally, give up on the 20 - or - so thing, eh? I reckon you're going to move fairly quickly to double that in the next few years. Keep us posted on your progress, eh?! Beavah

As a unit leader I would never support a Scout troop becoming that large. 30-60 is optimum size in my opinion. As the Scoutmaster you have the responsibility of knowing the needs and characteristics of every member. I just don't believe that can be accomplished in a troop that size. Also in a troop of 100 plus you have a PLC that is really to large for a youth leader to lead comfortably. Just as patrol leaders do best leading a patrol of 6 to 8, so does an SPL with a PLC of 6 to 8. My last reason is logistics. Troop activities for 100 people is difficult. You are greatly limited to where you can go and what you can do in activities befitting scouts where A) you can fit people in, and B) where you have time for everyone to participate. Yah, I agree with BobWhite, eh? Particularly in a LNT world. Also because while I've seen some very large troops work well, it takes a particular kind of leader and community to make 'em work. Often they collapse when that leader leaves. What does the group think? Such a thing as too big or too small? Beavah

Yah, LongHaul, I guess my definition is that they're registered scouters and their units hold a charter. So they've made a choice to affiliate with us and the folks in charge of makin' those choices for da BSA have agreed. I reckon if da National Organization and the local council both agree that a leader and a unit are doin' scouting by keepin' 'em on the roles, then that's that, eh? They are a BSA program. Who are we to say different? Unless Irving has appointed FScouter now as their official Scouting Program Certifier-in-Chief without tellin' da rest of us! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, thanks MarkS. Small committee of only three plus scouters in committee roles makes that really tight. Selecting from just ASMs makes it even tighter, eh? Was there any youth or parent input? Or didn't yeh see that as bein' valuable? What do you do for selecting an ASM? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, OK, it's been a while since I raised any online courtesy issue for discussion, eh? But I'm hopin' I can inspire folks to drop a particularly nasty comment that seems to be really common here on scouter.com and not so much anywhere else. The comment I'm referring to is "You're not doing the BSA Scouting Program!" in all of its permutations. Often it's accompanied by implications that the person is dishonorable, and not following one or more tenets of the Scout Oath and Law in his/her daily life. I can't see where directing such a comment at a registered scouter in a BSA-chartered unit is anything other than bein' deliberately rude. The rough equivalent of walkin' up to a guy who does engineering work and saying "Yeah, but you're not a real engineer!" and then implyin' he's being dishonest in his job. Like most rude comments, every time it's raised it either drives someone off da forums or it starts a more-heat-than-light argument. Now I and others have tried to explain da BSA's legal and organizational structure, and how it accommodates a very wide range of different program implementations, and how that's a deliberate organizational choice. I and others have talked about how program materials get written as support documents, not as paint-by-the-numbers must-do guides. And I've participated in a few of those arguments, demonstratin' how even folks who claim to be running the "pure" BSA program are making adjustments or misinterpreting things from time to time. That hasn't seemed to get anywhere besides havin' folks tell me I must be an anarchist and believe that anybody should do anything he wants or some such silliness - as yet another example of da discourtesy these things generate. So I'm gonna ask outright, eh? Can we agree, as a bunch of brother and sister scouters, not to ever again accuse a brother or sister scouter of "not doing the BSA program" in public, especially in a way that implies they are dishonorable or should just quit da organization? I think we'd all be better examples of the Oath and Law we claim to uphold if we did that. None of us are perfect. We can all learn from each others' ideas and examples, and its even fun to debate the merits of different approaches. But not in a way that slams another scouter or scouting program. Your colleague in Scoutin' service, Beavah

Haven't seen it. I'm mostly more fond of a less formal sort of conference, eh? At da same time, at an Eagle BOR, a lad will be asked to submit a leadership resume and a personal statement very similar to what you're SM is requesting, but more detailed. So it seems like that would be a fine thing to encourage in preparation, especially for Star & Life ranks. Beavah

??? We need a question mark smillie! ??? Yah, hotdesk, yeh done and confused me there, eh? Was that just you answerin' your own question? If so... um, good, I guess! Proceed! Beavah

Well, gee, there Beaver, your SPL HB must be much different from mine, because I can't find anything you mentioned on page 86. I see "Have a Good Attitude" and "Act With Maturity" and "Be Organized" Yah, there are different print runs, eh. Turn da page. "Matching Leadership Styles to Leadership Needs" is the header. Goes on for a bunch of pages followed by scenarios. Persuasion/consensus is called "The Persuading Style of Leadership." If we're talkin' about decision-making it's "consensus." Glad you found the section on the Methods, though, that yeh hadn't seen before. Now for aims, check out page 4 of the TLT syllabus, where it instructs the SM to: guide (the SPL) toward understanding Scouting's role in developing personal growth - the values of citizenship, character, ideals, and overall fitness. As the two of you discuss this, help him understand that he is an important influence who can cause such growth to take place, and that it is a major part of his role as senior patrol leader... Sure seems like da BSA does make the kids aware and part of the Aims & Methods, eh? And wants us to guide our youth leaders to take responsibility for even that most important part of our program. Interefere would mean the SM needs them at the campout Yah, it's funny, eh? Sometimes the wordin' or the way we think locks us into notions and we don't realize we're bein' locked in. I wonder why the Scoutmaster needs them at a campout?? If the patrols are functioning, and the Patrol Leaders are well trained, it's their game, not the SM's. And if the campout is some kind of specialty campout where extra expertise is needed, then it would be their brother patrol leaders in the PLC who would ask them to come and help out because they were needed. Just a different way of thinkin' and actin'. Just don't claim it is the BSA way, and the rest of us are wrong, running adult-led troops. Ah, I think I get it. So let me take a step back. I think there are multiple "BSA ways". I think that because I see 'em every week. No two troops are alike, because no set of adults or kids are alike. There's not a "right" way, there are multiple right ways. And even when each of us is doin' a great job, there are ways to improve. When we come near nirvana, and have that youth-leadership mojo workin' full tilt, they have the nerve to graduate and leave us with a bunch of clueless youngsters again! That's why I share your dislike of bein' judgmental of fellow volunteers, or claimin' that one person's way is the only acceptable "BSA program." Inevitably when yeh look closely at even those units, they aren't runnin' a "pure" BSA program either, 'cause really there's no such thing. BobWhite harps about program, but he makes tweaks and adjustments and doesn't always hit perfect stride. I certainly am in da same boat, eh? I imagine jblake is too. Hopefully we're all constantly lookin' for new ideas, and constantly watchin' our kids lookin' to see whether we're reachin' the outcomes we want with each and every one of 'em. And if not, changin' what we're doing to get better. I only get book-quotey and and a bit chidin' with those who've locked into "one and only one right way", eh? Usually a fairly adult-driven one, though they don't often recognize it . Those folks have stopped learnin' and growin', and are apt to lead others astray. So I don't reckon anybody's really sayin' you or anybody else is doing it wrong. Leastways, I'm not. Internet friends and BSA materials and such are just an invitation to think and reflect, and perhaps pick up an idea here or there that maybe, just maybe, will help each of us do it better. Beavah

Snd since the position is in the Council, not in a unit, would I be correct in assuming that i should wear my silver shoulder loops? I reckon silver would be a fine choice. B

Yah, hotdesk, I'd expect that response anytime an adult stepped in the front of a crowded room and said "would one of you like to step forward." I bet yeh get the same response from a group of parents, eh? As jblake describes, it's a bit hard not knowin' your unit culture or history. But I think this is an adult association game. Yeh plant the seeds talkin' to prospective future troop leaders on car rides and on campouts. "You know, you've got some good ideas. You should be PL!" "You're clearly one of the most qualified, and I and your peers really trust you. You should think about bein' SPL." As the date gets closer, yeh might even ask privately. "George, I hope you'll step up and volunteer to be QM. We need someone like you." As Kudu suggests, if yeh identify the "natural" leaders and rascals and tap 'em out this way, you can be amazed sometimes. Beavah

I stand by my statement that he doesn't operate them under the BSA program. Yah, yeh know. I really wonder why people get their jollies tellin' others that they're "not doing the BSA program". Gotta admit I find it odd and more than a bit presumptious, when the locals seem just fine with grantin' a BSA charter. And sometimes it's downright funny, eh, when the accuser doesn't seem to really understand the BSA program themselves! But da most recent one is a doozy. A SM is not running the BSA program when he allows two events on the same weekend (a patrol trip and a troop camporee)?! I reckon that would kill off some fine Venture Patrols, and really alarm some large troops that run separate NSP events. I suppose a lad who has to put an Eagle project workday the same day as another troop event should also be overridden by the SM? To explain the SM Handbook quote in jblake's context, 1. The scoutmaster clearly does approve of the patrol activity, and 2. The scoutmaster clearly feels it will not interfere with the troop activity. Not sure why it should, eh? Three other patrols attend the camporee, camp as patrols, participate in da camporee as patrols. How is bein' one patrol down interferin' I wonder? And as jblake points out, those two rules apply only to patrol activities without adult supervision, eh? Da SM could send along an ASM and a parent on the patrol's outing and then it would just be a regular event. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)