Beavah

So, if the biggest guy on the block BSA wants to protect the little guy (developing NSO's)so they can have great Scouting, but the "man" wants to spend money on lavish offices and projects that waste money to the detriment of those that need it most - it is a bad thing? Didn't say my own opinion one way or da other, BSACompass. Just tryin' to make sure we all don't ignore Eduardo and Volker while sittin' on our American High Horse. Yeh gotta mix into the soup the understandin' that in a lot of European Scouting, Scout Centers figure far more prominently than they do here. Every troop has a chunk of land and its own scout center building in some countries. That's how scouting is done. Here in the U.S. our equivalent is probably camps. And we never get protective and possessive of our camps, even when they are losin' money, do we? I think the Scout Centers were an OK thing to try, eh? Just like a big camp or like Philmont, offer a regional resource that troops from countries in those regions can go to as a "mountaintop experience." Plus, make 'em available for rental by other youth programs. We do that camp rental in the U.S. with scout camps a bit, but it's far, far more common in the rest of the world. Of course, we had Philmont just given to us, so we didn't actually have to build it da way WOSM has to. Which do we do here in the U.S., BTW? Do we fund Scout Centers with our BSA dollars (Philmont, Seabase, Irving etc.)? Or do we provide direct aid to needy troops and programs? I think if we're honest we'll admit we act a lot like da WOSM model - our FOS contributions go to funding Scout Centers (council offices and camps), not individual troops in need (ScoutReach excepted). Our National fees go to funding Irving and the Regional offices and national centers, not needy councils in poor areas (at least not very much). And I'm not sure any of us could call BSA finance and decision-making "transparent." All that havin' been said, I supported Mr. Perry in this, eh? I think da BSA and Sweden made a good case, and there were some reasons to act in a timely fashion to avoid throwin' good money after bad. Of course, I'm an American culturally . But I admit we did pull a "California secedes" kinda thing, eh? That's not da best way to make friends or support democratic institutions. Just look at Quebec, eh? We've got a lot of fences to mend, and we should bear the financial burden for buyin' out Dr. Missoni. Beavah

where he doesn't even have firsthand knowledge or access to court records Yah, well, that makes two of us then, eh? My sources were the Post Register series primarily, and a couple of legal pro friends who live in eastern Idaho. But yeh can get everything I wrote just by a careful and informed read of the Post Register articles and experience in workin' with Boy Scout camps. I think Merlyn and the Post Register both suffer a bit from a desire to sensationalize, and from a lack of understandin' of Scouting. For example, if yeh think a camp program director is an older, trained professional with a lot of experience, then it sure looks like he should have done more work on the background check. But if yeh recognize that in BSA camps, a program director is typically a young guy in or just out of college, working a temporary summer job at long hours and low pay, your view is different. In the latter case, it's understandable after you discover there's no police record to go with the great recommendations on the guy from people you know and trust, rather than diggin' further. How many NCS trained aquatics directors do yeh suppose are sittin' around eastern Idaho to choose from, eh? It also helps to have some experience with how reporters who are lookin' to move up in the world tend to write . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I didn't SAY that. I said the records were sealed by the BSA's lawyers. Now we should be clear about a few things here, eh? Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge. A judge sealed the records after the settlement of the original cases, in all likelihood to protect all parties especially the victims. What the newspaper states quite clearly is that the newspaper is requesting that the records be unsealed. The BSA's lawyers are opposing that motion on the grounds that doing so harms the victims. Sometimes it's hard for yeh folks in big cities to understand, but in da rural west it would be an ordinary and just thing for the BSA to do on behalf of families that couldn't afford to hire an attorney to oppose the newspaper. Beavah

[deleted because it was a response to comments edited by a staff member which now don't make any sense ](This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BSACompass, I think we have to be a bit careful about takin' either side of the argument at face value, eh? Mr. Perry was tryin' to make the best argument he could for the BSA's actions. We Americans aren't above "spin" in our politics. I think this whole thing does illustrate da difference in perceptions and cultures. Americans view international cooperation as a voluntary thing, something we do out of goodwill and generosity. Because we're a major donor (to both the WOSM and da UN), we want our voluntary contribution to be spent well, and we feel "taken advantage of" sometimes when it's used in ways that we don't agree with. We figure it's just fine if we withdraw our voluntary contribution to get things done more to our liking. For some of the rest of the world, the UN and the WOSM are something more than something to do out of goodwill and generosity. It's their only real voice in world affairs. It's necessary, not voluntary. They can't go it on their own. For them, their voice in international organizations is crucial, and it's crucial that it not be overridden by da biggest guy on the block. So for much of the rest of the world, the U.S.'s unilateral actions are undemocratic and bullying, undermining their only voice and ability to contribute. Imagine if California said "we don't like what congress voted, we're going to withhold all of California's tax contributions and bankrupt da national government until silly little states like Oklahoma and Idaho and Connecticut decide to do it our way. If they want a bigger voice, they can pay more." Sometimes it's hard to see da way we look to others. Even when we're right, it might not be pretty. Beavah

Exactly. Glad yeh finally took the time to do that, GW. Now, did yeh understand what "willfull and wanton [not 'wantfull'] misconduct" means? Those are legal terms of art, that have a particular meaning in our legal system. They could indeed include deliberate disregard of G2SS, under certain very limited circumstances as I have described in previous threads on the topic. You can look these legal terms up on any on-line law dictionary. willful adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious and directed toward achieving a purpose. [it is sometimes a synonym for malicious] wanton adj. grossly negligent to the extent of being recklessly unconcerned with the safety of people or property. Examples: speeding by a school while it is letting out students or firing a shotgun in a public park. We put da two together, and we have "that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it", which is the definition of intentional tort that we discussed before. No need to trust da silly Beavah again. You can go visit any law library and pick up an introductory text on tort liability and insurance. The quote above is from a text called da Restatement (Second) of Torts, but yeh can look in any introductory text on Tort Law. Da real thing to note is that the Guide to Safe Scouting is not mentioned in the insurance contract language as an exclusion. Therefore da G2SS does not define the terms of coverage for da BSA's insurers. Which of course we all knew because the BSA said that directly in the court papers of the Utah forest fire case (where, you'll recall, da BSA's insurers covered 6.5M of damages despite violations of NCS standards and G2SS). Very best, Beavah

Yah, since this was about the eleventy-first time Merlyn brought up da Grand Teton Council case, I went and read through the Idaho paper's "expose" and talked to a few friends in eastern Idaho. Like any time kids are hurt, the case is sad. Like many of da Rocky Mountain BSA incidents, some of this gets caught up in LDS Relationships issues. But while there were some dropped balls and some coulda-mighta-shoulda's, I'm really not seein' any of da nastiness Merlyn is claimin'. The case involves a lad, himself a victim of (non-Scout-related) abuse at age 12, who at age of 15 or 16 molested (probably fondling, not rape) a 6-year old neighbor. No charges were filed in that case, but the boy was sent for 6 months of therapy, with a resulting belief by the therapists that it was a one-time incident. The BSA hired the 16 year old as a youth staffer for camp, not knowin' the history (and of course no background check would have revealed it anyway). He molested his first scout (youth-on-youth) that summer. The BSA had no reports, and continued to rehire him in successive summers. By all accounts he was perceived as a neat, clean, "good kid." Around about the time the boy was 18 or 19, the BSA was informed by someone about the incident with the 6-year-old which had occurred several years before. That was a third-hand, hearsay report (the man heard from his LDS bishop who had heard from someone else), about an incident outside of scouting with no record from when the guy was a minor. Around this time, the young man was also no longer in the BSA, being away at college and on LDS mission. Four years later, done with his mission and with college, the young man was sought out by the camp program director (probably also a young guy) to serve as aquatics director. The program director was told by a teacher at the local elementary school about the incident with the 6-year-old back when the guy was 16 (again, a third-hand, hearsay report with no documentation). The program director did inquire about a police report, but felt that with no documentation of the supposed incident he had to hire the guy. The camp director had heard the same rumors, but also agreed. During the summer, LDS central contacted the BSA and also passed along the (now 5th-hand) information about the old incident from when the guy was 16. The SE checked it out, got stellar endorsements from the local LDS folks, the young man admitted to the prior incident as a teen but said he had been treated for it, and didn't do that anymore. The man worked two more summers, moving up to program director at the camp. There were no further reports, but his abuse of kids (mostly fondling and masturbation) continued and got more brazen. Some inappropriate "back rubs" or minor incidents of violating two-deep were noted. Persistent and brave reports by a young 14-year-old camper spurred the camp director to call law enforcement around the middle of that 3rd summer. ------- So what did the BSA know? They had a well-liked former Eagle Scout, whom parents approved of, who was an effective and enthusiastic camp staffer. The guy was a regular dinner guest and family friend of the boys who eventually blew the whistle on him! Against that, the BSA had a few third-hand reports, all of them about an incident that had occurred when the guy was a HS sophomore, with no police report or documentation. When they looked into it, they had testimony from everyone that it was a one-time "incident" he had received treatment for and "was over." I dunno. Do we toss a "great guy" based on rumors of what he did as a sophomore? No question, the BSA could have done more by way of pro-active supervision in light of the reports about the prior incident. But we all know what camp is like, eh? Long hours, and not long on staffing. And unlike some YP programs, YPT ain't great at teachin' folks to recognize "grooming" behaviors. I see no evidence in the reporting to suggest, as Merlyn claims, that the remaining victims have requested the records be unsealed. Quite the opposite, from here it looks like da BSA is trying to protect those victims from an intrusive press. The whistleblower victim suffered mightily for being a whistleblower, droppin' out of high school because of the teasing. Why should anyone else be made to go through that to feed a voyeuristic media? Da case is a sad one, about one of our own scouts, our Eagles, doin' the unthinkable. And it's a brave one, of a young scout whistleblower. It might even be a story about redemption, of a perpetrator who has since put his life back together and (apparently) stayed clean. But while sad, with parts that make any of us truly angry, I just don't see anything that merits a general indictment of da organization. Just seems unconscionably cheap to use such tragedies to advance a personal agenda. Beavah

Without Advancement, why would any Scout sit through tedious conversations with MB Counselors to help them develop a sense for personal management, or why it is fathers are important in a family? Or why some people feel the civic duty strongly enough that they willingly put on our country's uniform and risk their life? Or why the most important hard skill a Scout will learn in Scouting may be 1st aid? Why would any kid want to do that? Yah, hmmmm.... I'm left wonderin' why Personal Management MB would be pursued through tedious conversations. Though I reckon nothin' can save Family Life from tedious conversations. Seriously, I've never seen a kid develop a sense of honor and commitment from treading out merit badge signoffs. They start thinkin' of da service because it's cool to be the guy who helps and protects younger scouts in the field - the one who's strong and skilled and not afraid and stands for somethin'. And if our kids are pursuin' First Aid because it's an assignment to finish we really need to shut da program down and start over. Blood and guts are cool. Knowing what to do when the chips are down is awesome. Kids don't crave badges, eh? They crave skill. Crave being important. Crave being treated like an adult because they know as much or more than adults. Crave adventure and video games because adventure puts them in hard, challenging places where they have to rely on their own skill. Golly, yeh all have me startin' to think me colleague with da brogue is right and we should dump da method after all. Beavah

If the SM has delegated lower level advancement item signoff to a PL, Troop Guide or ASM, and that person signs off on a requirement, the requirement is completed, period. Nah. The paperwork is completed. Not the requirement The first ingredient of Boy Scouting Advancement is "the Scout Learns." If the Scout really hasn't learned, it doesn't much matter whether he has managed to complete paperwork or scam a test signoff from "the weakest link." We don't do kids any service by givin' 'em awards they don't deserve, or recognition for something they haven't achieved. And da BSA does set a standard for rank advancement, both for T-2-1 and for MB's. It's not expert-level "mastery." But it is proficiency. In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through... proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration." (Rules & Regs Article X). Mostly, I've found that kids live up to the expectations we set for 'em. And the extent to which they value Boy Scouting in the long term is directly proportional to how high and how challenging our expectations are. Provided, of course, we care enough to stick to 'em, and to live up to them ourselves . Beavah

Yah, OK. Packsaddle pulled things back a bit, so it's worth lookin' for a moment at corporate responsibility. In 20:20 hindsight, yeh look at some of da stuff in Idaho, or some of the stuff done by other groups, and it's hard not to get truly angry . Merlyn, I don't think anybody here is anything less than upset by things that look like avoidance/coverup behavior which allows abuse to continue. But there are reasons why corporations that work with children do not publish their child abuse/molestation cases. Some are bad reasons, some are OK reasons, some are actually good reasons. Mostly, they fall in da category of "the lawyers told them not to." The number one reason is that a lot of cases never make it to criminal verdicts of "guilty." Instead, employment action or dismissal of a volunteer may be taken. But publishing such cases as "molestation" can be libel, eh? When yeh don't have someone "dead to rights" talkin' about 'em as molesters might not be fair or just, eh? Often, settlements include sealing the records. Keep in mind that victims are also interested in seeing records sealed, so the incident doesn't "follow them around" the rest of their life. Publishing accounts tends to encourage litigation. After every public accusation, new accusations emerge. Some of 'em are legitimate. Some of 'em are frauds, takin' advantage of the system. When yeh publish molestation cases, you increase your exposure to other claims and to fraud which can be hard to defend. Some accusations you believe to be genuinely false, but you settle anyways. Do we want good men and women to be fired just based on an accusation? How awful would that be? But da risk after the fact is if it turns out to be true and happens again. For all these reasons and a few more, often legal counsel gives what amounts to good legal advice, but poor business or ethical advice. Weak administrators, folks in over their head, business folk lookin' to just get it over with and get on with things, etc. will tend to just follow the advice of counsel. It's fairly rare that an organizational leader has the personal courage to tell their attorney "no" in such cases, especially if the consequence is compromisin' insurance coverage. Sometimes what's best for the business in the short run turns out not to be a good strategy for the long run. Second-guessing is easy, respondin' properly at the time is hard. What would you do if a victim asks that the record be sealed? What would you do if the advice of counsel is that publishin' the record may expose you to suit for libel? What would you do if the counsel for your insurance company insists that the records be sealed so as to discourage fraudulent "pile on" cases? Would you say "no" and face those cases without insurance? Molesters and the falsely accused often look at lot alike. Are yeh willin' to let accusation = guilty for your volunteers and employees? Da real world is sometimes complimicated, and makin' good ethical decisions is hard. We should all be a bit careful about judgin' too harshly. Beavah

1) tries to seal molestation cases to conceal how a known pedophile was allowed to continue molesting minors; 2) sets up a committee to review their child protection practices, but refuses to give even their own committee their internal data on how many volunteers have been removed for molestation and similar reasons (and which is only brought to light by lawsuits over (1) above); And it is right to be Angry about this, eh? But it has nuthin' to do with the fact we take kids into the woods, or promote citizenship and fitness, or have a merit badge for Disability Awareness, or don't admit avowed homosexuals as registered leaders. And claimin' it does is the worst sort of public advocacy. Usin' a tragedy to advance a personal political agenda. Beavah

No adult and no crew should either harrase them about wearing it, or tell them they shouldn't. Certainly nobody should harass a youth, eh? But a crew does set its uniform. Remember the purpose of a uniform. To show you are all members of a team. To eliminate differences between people. To show your achievements so as to encourage others in the crew to achieve them, etc., etc. Puttin' stuff on a "uniform" that other members of your team are ineligible for/excluded from is just poor uniforming. Now, pick up your copy of the Insignia Guide. Go to Boy Scout Insignia. Note the lodge flap displayed as part of Boy Scout uniforming on the right pocket flap. Note the text specifying that and wearing an OA sash with your tans. Turn now to Venturing Insignia. Note the absence of a lodge flap on the right pocket flap. Note also that there are no Order of the Arrow uniform components listed for wear with the Venturing uniform. Ain't no Uniform Police. Nobody should harass anybody. But if yeh care about the method and the message, yeh might consider doin' it one way instead of another. Just a thought, worth only the paper it is printed on Beavah

Yeh know, Merlyn, if yeh name any organization in the country that works with kids, I can point to cases like this. Unfortunately it comes with the territory. Form National Atheist Youth Association, and there will be cases of abuse within it. And they'd be tragic. And sad. And it'd be right to be Angry at the men or women who perpetrated it or any who knowingly allowed it. But such cases should not be the fodder for blatherin' debates about unrelated organizational policy. Just cheap it is, eh? Beavah

I wish all leaders could have the guts to say "That's not quite good enough, Scott. Practice it and try again next week." Yah, I think yeh hit the nail on the head here, MollieDuke. In the end, makin' sure kids learn and actually meet challenges comes down to some youth or adult leader sayin' exactly that. Or Mother Nature makin' 'em cold and miserable and nobody "rescuing" them, but that's harder to guarantee, eh . The troops I know that use advancement well have adults who share the vision, like VeniVidi describes. And they never approve a MBC or an adult who DOESN'T share the vision. Kids are kids, Advancement is a game. If yeh can take a shortcut to get to the next level, that's one way of playin' the game... "find da weakest link"! If the adults share the vision, there won't be a weak link. Often there's one SM or CC or such who can be identified as "the keeper of the flame." They're the ones who are most likely to say "Great try, now practice some more" and to push other adults in the same direction. They're also da ones who step up and confront all da usual nitpicky "don't add to the requirements" "handbook loophole" "my son should not be denied advancement just because he is clueless about CPR" complaints that are inevitable. If da SM is the Keeper of the Flame, QC happens at SM conferences. If da CC, it's BOR's. Either way, havin' somebody who keeps the Standard allows everybody else to insist on it who otherwise might waffle. "You better learn it well, George, because you KNOW Mr. Scoutmaster is going to catch you if you don't." Beavah

Yah, sure, MollieDuke. That attitude is out here, eh (North Coast/upper midwest rural/small city)! On da kid side I don't see it as a big change. Glad in some ways that they're goin' for their GED rather than just droppin' out. Lots of kids do the GED then part time Community College route, which seems more like "strategy" than anything (get an Associate's Degree two years early, make more money). There's some kids who can do 13 years plus 4 straight through. I think a lot benefit from workin' along the way, time off, etc. 5 year undergrad degrees are becomin' a norm, too. The one that I think is new, and is everywhere, is the enabling parent. Parents who search for ADHD diagnoses to get their kid the "perqs". Parents pushin' their kids through school and scouts and sports by haranguing the teachers/SM/coaches. Used to be nobody read the school handbook, eh? What da teacher said was law. If the teacher called home, Life As You Knew It would end. Now both the kids and parents read the handbooks lookin' for all the loopholes they can exploit. Just like Advancement Requirements, eh? Most popular reason to sue a school in most states is athletic eligibility, varsity letters, and who gets to be valedictorian. Some schools are even droppin' valedictorian, the way Eamonn wants to drop Advancement . Often school or scouts is da first time the kids run into an adult who says "No." Beavah

Lee1989, congrats on joinin' a crew! You're goin' to find that a crew is as different from Boy Scouting as Boy Scouting was from Cub Scouting. Be willin' to let go of Advancement and Honor Societies and all that. Get to know your crew mates. Develop friendships. Have fun. Do stuff. Take your leadership skills to a new level. Get out into the deep woods. Plan international trips. Go huntin' together. Keep growin' up. As for Venturing recognitions, pursue whichever seems to fit with what you and your friends in the crew are interested in. If yeh all want. Or pursue other things like LNT Master, Wilderness First Responder, and other "adult" certifications. Your Venturing program should be about fun and friendship and adventure and learning. Don't try to make it ABS/wg (Advanced Boy Scouts/with girls). Formally speakin', Order of the Arrow is a Boy Scouting program. Ain't open to Venturers. Practically speaking, it's up to your crew and your lodge, at least for things like work days and such. Who turns down extra willing hands? There are some efforts at formin' Venturing Honor Societies like Corps of Discovery. IMO, they're mostly tryin' to do ABS/wg again, rather than really learnin' the Venturing program. They haven't gotten much traction yet, but yeh should feel free to look into 'em. Nuthin' wrong with you keepin' up with the OA, though. I'd encourage yeh to stay involved with your lodge. GW's got the right of it; yeh just need to be a registered member of the BSA to stay active in OA. Venturing is OK for that. At least if my old noggin' is rememberin' right. That havin' been said, I wouldn't encourage wearin' lodge flaps from a Boy Scouting program like OA on a crew uniform in a coed crew. Uniforms are supposed to bring people together, not separate 'em. When in your crew, do (and wear) Venturing. When workin' with your lodge, wear tan. Two uniforms, two leadership opportunities, two different programs. Double the fun, eh? Beavah

Yah, it saddens me. And angers me. Seems like I see one of these a week on my news feed. Scout leader accused. I always feel torn between sadness, and da risks of false accusations, and wantin' to spend a few minutes alone with the guy, just me and my shotgun. One or three a week would still be a pretty small percentage of scout leaders. Better than da number of coaches. Way better than the number of parents who commit abuse each week. But one is too many. My prayers tonight for da kids and their families. And shame on anyone who would take such a tragedy and use it for personal political ends or a special interest agenda. Beavah

Yah, Shilue, congrats on findin' a fun and well-run pack. Well-run packs and troops usually won't take a "person off the street" directly into a leadership position, eh? That's smart. Get to know people, see how they fit in, figure out what their talents are and where they might best contribute. Makes for a strong program. Be patient. Be a Tiger dad, that's work enough. As they get to know yeh over time, yeh may find other opportunities open up. Beavah

Yah, ChrisC. Eagle projects are a lot of work, especially ones that are challengin'! To get through them, it's important you're working on something that you really care about, eh? So, ask yourself what you really care about. What things in your area have been "special" to you? What outside organizations have you volunteered for in the past? What are your personal interests? What "adult things" have made you mad in the last year that you wanted to do something about? The hardest thing to do for an Eagle project is to see a real need, and step up to fill it. Your experience as a Life Scout will take yeh the rest of the way in terms of planning and execution. So consider this your Biggest Challenge as an aspirin' Eagle. Find a real need, somethin' you care about, and be the guy who steps up to fill it. Good luck on your journey! Beavah

Yah, hmmm... No national BSA rule. Council may have a local rule which applies to council & district events (but would only be advisory for a troop event). Troop may have a local rule which applies to troop events. State may have laws about knives in terms of concealed carry of "weapons." Sounds like ASM misinterpreted a council rule as applying to a troop outin'. Or he may have just heard someone offerin' good safety advice a bit too stridently, and interpreted it as a rule . Beavah

Yah, Eamonn must be channelin' my thoughts. I sat in on a Life Scout BOR in a local troop last month. Boy was a fine Life Scout candidate, has about a year to go before his 18th birthday. Talk came 'round to Eagle. Boy said "no." Firmly. He's seen other kids go through it, felt the parental pressure. Doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the paperwork. A couple of the troop committee really got on his case (inappropriately, IMO) and only reinforced his notions. He said he only finished First Class to go on high adventure trips, and Star and Life sort of fell into his lap just because he was doin' stuff that was "natural." Funny thing is, the kid is stayin' in until 18, serving as ASPL and instructor, willing to be an ASM after that, and clearly was a fine lad. So here's a kid like Eamonn's bunch - achievin' exactly what we want him to learn through Scouting, who is being turned off by Advancement. Been thinkin' about that for a month now. Sure does seem like if a Method ain't working, it's time to drop da method, eh? Especially in Boy Scouting, where things are supposed to be youth-run, but Advancement is almost always an adult thing. I can't say as I'd miss it. We'd still be teachin' kids the stuff we care about, and still be recognizin' kids for achievements on occasion. We just wouldn't be turnin' it into such a production. And while some good guys out there like Eagledad are able to keep the mindset right, it seems like the presence of all the Advancement stuff engenders a lot of folks to get the wrong mindset. Just look at da text used here on da forums havin' adult debates about picky Advancement issues . Might be better just to do away with it and "lead us not into temptation." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Excellent, gwd! Nice job, eh? For both them and you! Keep stretching! Beavah

Yah, Eagledad, I didn't say that was my experience. Just that it was a thought for people who were interested in puttin' in rank requirements for positions . Me personally, I hate addin' a rule where judgment will do just fine or better. I wonder why you chose 1st class for JLT being your restriction (for da same reason)? I agree, da real things to think about are: 1) A boy should be fairly self-confident, and perceived as fairly competent by others, before he starts takin' up a leadership role. (i.e. set him up for success). 2) A boy should have some successful introductory/"lower level" leadership experiences before being asked to do a bigger job. (i.e. set him up for success). If a kid is progressin' through the ranks in a way commensurate with his maturity and skill, and if da ranks actually represent maturity and skill, then maybe my list is about right. Both of those have to be true for rank to be a useful indicator of a boy being "ready" for the next leadership step. O'course, yeh can also use such a list backwards as well. A boy who makes a good JASM (you're treatin' him like an adult ASM) really should be (encouraged to finish) Eagle. He's "there." And a boy who isn't yet ready for a position like SPL or ASPL perhaps isn't yet ready for Life. Beavah

Why do so many of you want to demonize Woodbadge? Its a training program to assist adults in delivering a fun-filled youth oriented outdoor program....Someone mentioned WB being like Eagle, and they're right. Yah, I don't think folks are demonizin' WB, necessarily. Critiquing, perhaps . It is a training program to assist adults in delivering a fun-filled youth oriented outdoor program. So it's a fair question to ask "Does it succeed?" Especially if it's our "capstone" training. I figure it helps a little. But I don't think it's like Eagle at all, except in da minds of adults who want to brag about their beads. Eagle requires basic knowledge of real outdoors skills just to get started. We claim it takes about a year to teach those well, perhaps a bit more. Eagle requires "advanced" knowledge in a bunch more outdoor skills and specialty areas. We claim it takes a couple of years to teach those. Eagle requires service in a POR that is observed, critiqued, and coached. And probably actual real-live instructin' of kids and such. An Eagle Scout has been through several annual planning meetings for real, and been a leader on a whole bunch of outings, etc. etc. We don't do much of that for WB, eh? We claim we don't have the time. It's a fine course, eh? Gives folks a few ideas, gives 'em enthusiasm, gives 'em a social network, gives 'em an incentive to try to work on somethin'. Nuthin' wrong with that. Well worth the time. But it ain't a Scouting MBA or an Eagle. And if that's what we really want it to be, we should rethink it. Beavah

Yah, this discussion sorta brings us around to what da entire progression of BSA training should be, eh? In that sense, I'm sorta with Gern. It would be nice to have a "capstone" training and recognition for each program (Cubs, Boy Scouts, Varsity, Venturing, District/Council), which reflected our stamp of approval and "highest level" of formal training. Much like the youth capstone awards of AOL, Eagle, and Silver. Seems silly to believe havin' only one capstone award to cover 'em all makes any sense, when we all recognize that the skills required for each program are so different. Almost as silly as believin' that one weekend is sufficient to teach anybody outdoor leadership skills. What WB does best now is create social contacts and get people fired up. That's about all da various fad "management theory seminars" that WB is patterned after succeed at. And that's a fine thing, eh? It's good to have social contacts, and it's good to be inspired. Mostly, I don't think the management stuff itself has much impact on troops. It may introduce an idea here and there, but such ideas area as likely to be misapplied as not. Beavah