Beavah

Yah, it is a routine and ordinary task for a council to provide a certificate of insurance. It's also fairly ordinary for a council to list another organization or outfitter as "additional insured" to indemnify them. Sometimes organizations specify coverage limits like $1M, $2M minimum, etc. That's fine, too. Just be aware that above a certain $ amount council has to refer it to Region. Not a big deal, just means a few days delay. Beavah

Yes, Gern, the liability insurance applies. As Ed says, the supplementary health care coverage would be the unit's discretion in some areas, or automatic in others. Your council can provide you with a certificate of insurance coverage or even name the metropark district as "additional insured" on the BSA coverage to make them feel all warm and fuzzy, eh? But be careful about one thing... make sure that they don't really mean errors and omissions/liability as a construction contractor. In other words, makin' yeh liable if da roof falls down on somebody ten years from now. That's a more complex thing that your council would have to refer to Region. Beavah

Holy Smoke! I never even thought to check da Dutch Oven thread for the Halloween Reappearance of... The Liability Boogeyman! Aieeeeeee!!!! I can honestly say this doesn't come up in our area. I take that back... there was one dingbat DE who made a comment like that once. I think he was fired a month or two later and is now sellin' insurance . Seriously, though, the Liability Boogeyman is not in one single piece of BSA literature. It's not in any training syllabus (your trainers do follow da syllabus, don't they?). It's not even in any of da cool books of Ghost Stories our council scout shop sells! Talk about Americans and our Culture of Fear, eh? Folks, be reasonable out there and have fun teaching the kids. There are no monsters in the closet. If you're not afraid of having your kid's friends over in your back yard to play (without signed permission slips and copies of health forms!), or driving the soccer carpool (without doing license checks on the other drivers and annual vehicle inspections), then don't be afraid of anything in Scouting. There is no such thing as the Boogeyman. Beavah

Certainly a bunch of middle aged scouters with way too much time on their hands don't stand a chance of ever finding any solutions. Wow. Someone else was actually readin' this drivel But I'm really flattered, eh? I haven't been called "middle aged" in a fair number of years! Pack, I'm afraid yer too slippery for me. Yeh talk about the need for feds to "stem the violence" then say "oh, I wasn't really talking about violence or segregation, just about prejudice." Fine. Everyone in da south was prejudiced. Had not a thing to do with religion. Plenty of atheists and non-church goers were prejudiced. Then you'll come back to the "christian" bigots justified it with the bible, and I'll say the scientific bigots like Watson and others justified it with science. Bad biblical readin'. Bad science. Get it? And in the end, da Christian majority in the nation defeated the nonsense based on Christian belief, and organized social resistance that was primarily organized through Christian churches. Didn't see many scientists organizin' busloads of people to head south. But if pressed, actually I'd say NO, sometimes the results are crystal clear to everyone. Slippery again. I said "do they ever disagree" and you say "NO, sometimes they agree". Yeh looking for a job in da Bush whitehouse? Love da crickets! Beavah

Yah, Gold Winger, Oak Tree's thread had da answer yeh wanted, and I PM'd the answer to yeh too. The answer to your question is that every general liability policy has an exclusion for criminal or intentional behavior on the part of the insured. That's not English. That's Legalese. "Intentional" in this context refers to an intentional tort. Dat's two steps above negligence and one step above reckless. To quote from da other thread: Not every intentional tort is necessarily criminal, and finding someone criminally culpable requires a higher standard of proof. For example, physical hazing in a Scouting context is not a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. But a really bad case of physical hazing may well be an intentional tort, as well as a violation of BSA policies. The scouter must have desired to commit harm, or believed that harm was substantially certain to occur from his/her actions. That's a darn sight different than "intentionally" taking an action that breaches a duty of care (ex. not making kids wear PFDs, etc.) which through a series of circumstances results in an accident. That would be ordinary negligence. So... not making kids wear PFD's = ordinary negligence. Taking away a boy's PFD because you think the boy is a pain in the neck and you'd like to "teach him a lesson" in the big hydraulic on the next rapid = intentional tort. Don't count on an insurer for the second. Now, da BSA has an excellent reputation for stickin' by its leaders even in these kinds of dumb cases, but it would be their discretion, probably only up to the self-insured limit, and partly because defendin' the leader is also defending the CO. Of course they'll stick by the CO. Can yeh imagine 'em abandoning an LDS ward on an accident claim? Good way to become a much smaller organization quickly . All that's above your pay grade as a commish, though, eh? Da point is that you as a commissioner need to be honest and Trustworthy. And makin' up nonsense about insurance not coverin' or bein' personally hung out to dry just isn't honest or Trustworthy. It's not in your training or any training syllabus. And there's no reason for such tactics, eh? The reason we introduce units to G2SS is to help them understand how to keep kids safe. It's a Friendly and Helpful thing to do, and should be done in that spirit. No need for threats. That's not the way friends act. My advice at this point is to take a week or two off this commish thing and relax. Go campin' with some kids. Remember that Scouting is fun. Then decide whether or not yeh can really participate in that fun, friendly, low-key way as a commish. If yeh can't, that's OK. Be honest about it, say it's not your style, and turn in your patch. There's lots of other volunteer positions at the district level that I'm sure you'd do a great job for. Beavah

I continue to wish for a list of all cases that were brought against the BSA, and we could see which ones they backed and which ones they didn't. That could at least end some of the hypothetical nature of the discussion. Nah, I don't think that's as worthwhile as you'd think. That's after-the-fact stuff which really only applies to people dealin' with aftermath. And the answer is that such cases are always settled. Nobody takes a kid injury case to trial if they can help it. What I wish they'd do is release accident and incident data (and do a better job of collectin' it from units). That would be somethin' we could use with unit leaders up front as an educational tool to really improve safety. Far more effective than readin' some bland rule on page 38 of G2SS and expecting 'em to remember it. Reading accident data and selected case histories really helps people understand what the issues are, why the rules are in place, and how to interpret them properly so as to keep kids safe. It ain't the unusual high adventure stuff and "rules violations" that causes most damage. It's our day-to-day stuff and issues of youth supervision. Beavah

Your contention that only a small number of whites held prejudicial views on race in the '50s and '60s is suspect considering what measures were ultimately taken by the federal government to stem the violence. Not at all. You're continuin' a classic error in observation. Fact is, a small number of people can cause a lot of damage. Most riots and insurrections involve less than 5% of the population. Can I judge all scientists base on da action of 5%, while ignoring the action of the majority (>50%) in opposition? That's terrible science, mate. Regarding data. Scripture hardly qualifies as history, much less as objective scientific data. Ah, again with the prejudice. "History" is written accounts of human activity supplemented by archeaological findings. "Scripture" is written accounts of human belief and faith (supplemented by history and archaeological findings). I fail to see the difference, other than that the subject is "moral belief" rather than "political organization". Objective scientific data is a fallacy anyway. It's an OK way to think for lab experiments on chemicals and such, but "objective scientific data" when it comes to more complex systems which can't be isolated... like humans ... is ridiculous. Data is data. It's what one person with particular views chose to measure, in one place, at one time, with what instruments were available. Show me the religion that does this as a matter of fundamental doctrine So because religions have a different approach to epistemology than science, they must be flawed? Prejudice again. Actually, my understandin' is that the long Christian tradition is that defining God and what's right is very hard. It is far easier to determine what is wrong. So the old church councils very rarely established "creeds", but often criticized erroneous belief (heresy). Sounds a lot like your science eh? Errors can be rejected, but "truth" is never completely established? Separate 'sin' as a concept from any kind of religious background, and I might be able to grasp it. Yah, that's funny. Try to separate "Linebacker" from any kind of sports background. Or "electron" from any kind of science background. Some things only have meaning within a context, but that does not make them less real. Regarding Watson...yes he is prejudiced. Please explain the genetic theory, the reasoning, and data that Watson has employed to form his prejudice. I would like to know this myself. So would I. But clearly he was a product of and believer in your "science." I accept it if yeh say that he was misinterpreting your scripture (writings) and history (data) or used faulty reasoning. Same thing happens with religions, eh? I wouldn't condemn science for it, or even talk about him being prejudiced "like other scientists". His prejudice doesn't have anything to do with science, even though he framed it in scientific terms in a science interview. So why would you not show the same courtesy in reverse? Because in your prejudice against religion, yeh want to believe that the oddballs are connected with the mainstream. Um, no, it's not. Trev probably has more data on this than I do, but there are other cultures from other times in history that have had no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. Yah sure. Not many left, are there? Anyway, da presence of other isolated examples doesn't disprove the point. Most of humanity for almost all of time and across many, many different cultures have been of similar mind. Only in America and Western Europe do we see a shift, and only within the last 30 years. So the more likely scientific hypothesis, based on that data, is that this is an odd cultural phenomenon found in modern America and Western Europe, growing out of a (similarly odd) sex-focused culture in those two regions. Yah, sure, American culture tends to look down on the rest of the cultures of the world, like all strongly prejudiced folks do. Yeh prove that point. Tough bein' multicultural sometimes, ain't it Beavah

What I have directly observed is a LARGE number of white people, years ago, expressing racial prejudice and justifying it on the basis of scripture. Yeh aren't very good at social science data collection are yeh, mate? Perhaps yeh should stick to physical science. What yeh missed was the white Catholic president and his attorney general brother, and the huge number of white, Christian religions legislators and voters and federal marshals who were the folks that actually were successful at combating racial prejudice in the south. Mrs. Beavah drove down to Selma in those days to help. So yeh saw a small fraction of the population (which of course looks large when it's concentrated in one area), ignored the majority, and came to the wrong conclusion. Nice use of scientific data, there, eh? But Watson does not base his prejudice on some central body of scripture that a large group of scientists accept on faith alone and worship as Holy. If I am wrong please correct me. Happy to. He bases his prejudice on genetic theory, part of a large body of commonly accepted scientific writing (aka "scripture") that is accepted based on historically reported data which most folks don't collect personally (aka "faith"), and which he committed his life to (aka "worshipped as Holy"). He comes to some odd and off-da-reservation conclusions based on that. So does Fred Phelps. So scientists took away Watson's institute. And a bunch of Christian plaintiffs and jurors just took away Fred Phelps' church. What exactly is da difference? I sure hope it's not just the terms used. That would be... prejudice . Beavah

As I already mentioned, I don't understand the concept of sin. I understand dishonesty. If consenting adults mutually agree for any reason to engage in acts that have no effect on me, I try not to make judgements about them. Let's try that with a different topic, eh? If a friend of yours were a "practicing" alcoholic or drug user (engaged in acts that have no direct effect on you), would yeh not make a judgment about that? Not care enough to try to help? If a friend got into gambling and was spending way too much money lookin' to get rich quick (engaged in acts which have no direct effect on you) would yeh not make a judgment about that? Not care enough to try to help? I would consider that a failure of charity, a violation of the Scout Oath and Law (divine positive law). Sin which is self-destructive, which leads a person to be less than he/she could be, is also harmful. Just because it doesn't hurt you doesn't mean it doesn't hurt others or, through them, society at large. Yeh might not jail people for such things, but surely it's OK to teach that such actions are harmful? OK to not hold the person up to kids as a fine example and role model? The attraction to alcohol, or drugs, or gambling is neutral, and we don't fully understand the causes. But isn't acting on that attraction a problem, as BrentAllen says? That said, if a particular physical activity between male and female are the result of mutual love and attraction, then I most certainly do NOT condemn the same thing between males or between females as wrong or sinful. Can't say, however, that I can base that on scripture of any kind. Sorry. Scripture is just data recorded by folks across many cultures based on their observed interaction with God and each other. In fact, the data that is reported was filtered in the same way science was filtered - over time, by humans selecting what was most relevant and important and "successful." Plenty of abandoned religions and religious theories along the way. 4,000 years that's pretty good. So at least we have some data, eh? Your statement, as close as I can figure, is based on no data at all, beyond your personal prejudices and experiences as a child of da 60s in America. Beavah

Yah, DanKroh, don't know if yeh claim to be a "scientist" like packsaddle, eh? But if yeh asked packsaddle whether different scientists ever look at the same set of data and come to very different conclusions (or workin' theories or whatever), I bet he'd say "yes, all the time." The same is of course true for economics, psychology, history, etc. So I'm not sure what your point is in tryin' to hold Biblical religions up to a different standard than the rest of human endeavor. Do some Christian religions interpret things differently, or even pastors within the same religion? Sure, and that can be part of an ongoin' exploration and dialog. Often heated dialog, same as any other human endeavor. Do we have our nutjobs who go off da reservation? Sure, just like every other human endeavor. Religion doesn't make us less human. The Anglican communion is goin' through some of that heated dialog right now, eh? But because you're not a practicin' Christian or at least are fairly far removed from anyone teachin' yeh how it works, you're introducing a lot of your own personal prejudice. Christianity at least, and probably many of the others, believes exactly what you describe: Well, I think homosexuality is immoral, but Adam and Steve over there aren't necessarily immoral A good Christian condemns thieving as immoral. "Thou shalt not steal." But a good Christian does not condemn a thief. A good Christian condemns adultery as immoral. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But a good Christian does not condemn the adulteress. "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.... Nor do I condemn you, but go and sin no more." So, just like a scientist, we can say the equivalent of "If you (or anyone) touches this high-voltage line while grounded, the results for you are likely to be very unpleasant, and we would strongly advise you not to do that." But we can't see everything, especially what's in a man's heart, so final judgment is left up to God. It might be that despite what da scientist thinks, the power line is off, or the man's shoes are really well insulated, eh? But that doesn't make da general advice of not touchin' power lines bad advice. As far as degrees, I'd think of homosexual lifestyle as a serious sin, eh? But I'd expect all religions, not just some as you claim, would consider it "no more sinful" than other serious sins. Sin is sin. But that's not the same as the notion bein' simply "cultural." In fact, if yeh look at the data carefully, the only culture that is wafflin' at all on homosexuality is America and some of western Europe. The rest of the Anglican world is up in arms against the "renegade" American Episcopal church. So from da evidence, it suggests that it is most likely that embracin' homosexuality as acceptable is a strange cultural phenomenon of America. Part and parcel with America's sexually promiscuous culture in other ways... and a very, very short-term and recent phenomenon to boot. I wonder how many scientists make broad claims based on one short-term, very localized sample, eh? I bet not many good ones. Beavah

Yah, GoldWinger, Lisabob pretty much said everything I was thinkin'. Only thing I'd adjust is that rather than make a stink about LaserTag (honestly, more cubs get hurt running around at pack meetings), one of da "goodies" I might have brought is G2SS. I suspect they've never seen the thing. I wouldn't comment on it, I'd just leave a few copies for the CC, CM and such. Now, you'll forgive me for goin' into "lecture mode", but since bein' correct about things like Laser Tag is important to you, I have to point out somethin' you're not understanding well and are passing along as bad information. BSA General Liability Insurance Covers Chartered Organizations... ALWAYS. BSA General Liability Insurance covers registered adult leaders almost always (if yeh molest a kid you might be on your own). Insurance exists because we all make mistakes, do dumb things, don't read all the books, make errors in judgment, or are just plain asses sometimes. If insurance didn't cover us in those circumstances, it would be worthless. This is really important for you as a commissioner to understand, eh? Telling people that the BSA Insurance will not cover them does real damage to the BSA and to Scouting. When we market the program to our Chartered Partners and adult leaders, the general liability protection is one of our key marketing pieces. We want them to be put at ease and trust that when bad happens, for whatever reason, we will be there! That's how we get and keep units. That's how we recruit and keep adult leaders. There is nothing in any official BSA training or unit commissioner material anywhere that says "xxx will put the CO or unit leader at personal risk". Nothing. So please don't be dishonest with our customers. Beavah

Yah GaHillBilly, you're wise beyond your years! You're exactly right. One of da most important things for the adult leaders in a troop to do is to have some long and detailed discussions about what they are doin' and why. Just like a husband and wife should have such conversations about raisin' kids. The leaders in a troop have to share values and a vision for what they're doin', and keep in touch with each other. If you've got a strong CO, they help with that by choosin' leaders who share their vision. But dare I say that "proper" version of things only happens 20% of the time? * You're dead-on accurate about the amount of time it takes. Scoutin' is a real commitment for adults who care. And yeh probably need to have over 75% attendance . Beavah * [Just for OGE - yah, 20% is my best guess, based on what I've seen in a few councils ]

Yeah! I get to start!! Now how's dat thing go again?? I ustah be a Beavah And a good ol' Beavah too! Now I'm finished Beavah-ing I don't know what to do I'm growin' old and feeble (really!) And I can Beavah no more So I'm goin' to work my Ticket if I can! Back to Gilll-well Happy Land! I'm goin' to work my ticket if I can!

Yah, packsaddle, I think if you are tryin' to judge a whole group by the actions of its most outrageous or misguided members, yeh can always find a way to condemn any group of people. In that case, all scientists can be tarred my Watson's recent racist comments about the genetic inferiority of blacks. Now how would yeh feel about talkin' about the "hate" and "prejudice" of science? The implication, even if unstated, is that the ideas of science and all who live by them are wicked. Dr. Watson (and others!) proves it. The fact that a few "Christians" tried to justify slavery with biblical quotes doesn't change the fact that emancipation in da U.S. was accomplished only through the persistence and single-minded determination of the much larger Christian faithful who objected to slavery as a morally reprehensible act. What yeh miss in your analysis is that western religions don't make "negative judgement of people" as you claim. At least, not the way you scientists like Dr. Watson do. Our moral code makes judgments about actions, and to some extent about attitudes that drive bad actions (like Envy, Pride, etc.). The effects of behaviors and actions on communities are determinable. The effects of attitudes like Lust or Gluttony can be seen in the effects on people. But your belief that the formal teaching of religious belief is negative judgment of individual persons is simply wrong. And prejudiced. And hurtful. It reflects you scientists like Dr. Watson who like to judge people rather than evidence, and assume the rest of us do the same. Yeh see how easy it is to use a bad apple and ignore what a group really teaches? It might be easier for you to make that error because your moral code comes only from personal experience in da '60s, rather than drawing from broader data derived from 4,000 years of religioethical data and teaching. Beavah

Yah, I agree with OGE, too, eh? I wouldn't take it out on the SM. I'd like to have a word or two with the committee and the UC, but I'd refrain from that, too. It is what it is. Nuthin' to be gained in assigning blame or makin' a fuss. The kids and families love the old SM enough to stick around eh? Yeh pick things up and you move forward. This stuff happens a lot more frequently than folks in long-time, well-run, fastidious units imagine. Get with each kid, figure out where the kid is "at", confirm it with the old SM, and file the paperwork. Then work on upping the quality of your committee and work with the kids to introduce them to the idea of BOR's goin' forward. Bring in a few Scouters from other units to help "coach" your committee members through their first BOR's. Plan where yeh want to be with this troop in 5 years. Then lay out a nice, gradual plan to get there that won't ruffle any feathers or upset any kids, and that addresses the most important things for the kids first. Recognize if you do too much too fast, you'll be eaten. And don't sweat the small stuff. Have fun with the job, and be a good mentor for the kids. Rebuild expectations and committee performance with your "spare" energy. Don't let it take away from the fun of playin' and campin' and learnin' together. Beavah

Yah, dat's hysterical, eh? I swear the offices in Irving never cross-check their stuff. Wolf and Bear cubs aren't allowed to earn their requirements because the age-appropriate guidelines won't allow it. Happily, in this case, Age Appropriate Guidelines are just guidelines. Yeh should follow the specific program requirements. So go ahead and let your Wolfs cook outdoors, including S'mores, with their adult partner's supervision. [Now before somebody gets that old, faithful, burr in their saddle about the evils of not following guidelines, let's quote: "Because of the varying development rates among youth, these activity guidelines are flexible and should not be perceived as requirements or rules. They address the mainstream of youth abilities while allowing for exceptions for Scouting units and groups based on the consideration and judgment of unit, district, and council committees and boards." ] Beavah

Yah, awesome1. Yeh gotta make the call for your unit, eh? Sometimes new leaders don't pick up on the unit's "ethic" and style. But there's another possibility, eh? Those new leaders are telling you honestly "From what we're seeing, this lad is not the sort of example we want held up as an Eagle Scout." It's worth hearing them out, because you can bet other parents and new boys are thinking the same thing. Listen carefully to all input. I'd sit down with 'em over a beverage and explain all the great things this lad did as SPL after he became life, and how you think that measures up (compared to the other kids or whatever). In turn I'd listen carefully to their thoughts and feelings on the matter. Together, as the adult leaders in the troop, you should reach consensus on what your expectations should be. Yeh all have to be on the same page. I wouldn't make that a "BSA policy" matter. That's contentious and ugly, and you'll lose those ASMs if you whack 'em with policy rather than listening and hearin' 'em respectfully as colleagues. For my part, I agree with you for this lad. Chances are all the boys still remember him and his efforts, so the kids, who are the most important, will truly "recognize" him as an Eagle Scout. But yeh gotta watch the example you're giving to the new kids and parents, too. Will they come back at you and say "My kid deserves Star even though he never showed up, just like that other boy?" When we put percetages on attendance for Ranks aren't we adding to the BSA requirements? Yah, folks will make that argument. But like BrentAllen points out, we really do want the kids we Recognize and Applaud to be good examples to other boys, eh? And the BSA really does expect real, honest-to-goodness active participation. So I don't see anything wrong with havin' a percentage expectation to make things more clear to a boy or family. I don't think that's any more "adding to the requirements" than saying "when you demonstrate First Aid for a serious burn, it has to be part of a mock scenario". Or sayin' "demonstrating lighting a lightweight stove must include using proper safety techniques and selecting an appropriate spot to set up the stove safely." There's room for a MBC or a SM to explain how he/she interprets the requirements and what expectations must be met for a requirement to be fulfilled. Folks shouldn't hold on to percentages any more than they should hold on to any other "rule" if the result isn't fair or just. But nor should they just blow off the guidelines set by the SM to be helpful in explaining the expectations. Beavah

Yah, DanKroh, I'd expect some small funders for pedophilia. But now, how many funders are there for links between sexual preference and pedophilia? And what IRB is goin' to let that by? Just ain't goin' to happen. The only funders are likely to be from one side, and it's a human subjects taboo topic. Heck, it would be darn hard to fund and get approval for links between sexual preference and family background (divorce, family life factors, etc.). And small-scale research and self-report data ain't gonna cut it for these questions. Might be interestin', but nowhere near conclusive. So we're back in da land of pundits and lobbyists. Probably just as well. When was the last time yeh heard of a legislature actually payin' attention to data when making a decision, anyways . Beavah

Yah, DanKroh, I hear your objection, eh? I think it's valid. But can you name a single funder of real, objective research on the matter? I suspect yeh'd have to admit that this is a "taboo topic" that almost all funding agencies wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Can yeh think of a single Institutional Review Board that would allow objective research of this kind on human subjects? Can yeh imagine how long that approval process would take? Most senior faculty already have a research agenda, eh? What junior faculty member would touch this topic before tenure, particularly in da typically liberal university environment? Fact is, for all kinds of sociopolitical reasons, there just is no valid, objective research in the area worth talkin' about. That leaves the field wide open to pundits and lobbyists. Beavah

Yah, Gold Winger. One of da things they should have covered in your training is that you are a guest of the unit, not the boss. How many guests walk into someone's house and right off the bat tell them that their living room looks ugly and has bad Feng Shui? Not exactly da behavior of a first-time guest, eh? Lay off the judgments. Put da G2SS and everything else back on your shelf. Go visit and say nothing. Your job as a commish is to begin by listenin' and observin'. Yeh ain't allowed to make anything more than a positive comment for the first couple of months. As a guest, yeh complement the host on the meal even if it's burnt to a cinder. Only after yeh become a friend can you offer suggestions that will be accepted. And then yeh have to limit it to one suggestion at a time. What's the one thing right now which will do the most to help this unit out and make its program stronger? I bet it ain't Laser Tag, or even that the CM and den leader are the same. It can feel good to brag about what you know and tell them to do all kinds of stuff and not to do other stuff. But yeh won't accomplish a lick of good. They can just say "go away annoying little man, you are no longer a welcome guest." Or just not return your phonecalls, eh? So put your books away, hold your tongue, and call the CM. You started by burning your bridges with the CC, so reach out to the CM as a friend and go visit. Behave like a guest. Observe and learn. Only when yeh have found da packs 10 greatest strengths and everyone on the committee greets yeh with a smile by name are you allowed to comment on their first weakness. Beavah

Yah... hmmmm... leave it to Merlyn to turn a simple question into a teaser There were a bunch of changes in the leader requirements stuff in da last two years. As I'm re-reading the new wordin', I caught somethin' I missed before because I was thinkin' in terms of da way we naturally think about it and what gets taught in Venturing training. So here's the wording: Coed overnight activities require male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older. Now that's interestin', eh? We all know that a female SM and a female ASM are OK. So for a while now it's been true that a Boy Scout Troop could go camping with two female leaders. When Venturing got started, da requirements were that if you had female Venturers, you had to have a female leader for trips and outings. I think that's still the way we're supposed to interpret things. But readin' this wording, it suggests that if yeh have an all-female crew (or only the girls from the crew show up for the trip), then it isn't coed, and they can go camping with two male leaders. Just like Boy Scouts can go campin' with two female leaders. Only if yeh bring both boys and girls on da same trip do yeh have to have coed leadership. Dat makes all kinds of sense. Just goes to show yeh this stuff gets written by policy amateurs more than half the time. Beavah

Yah, it's kinda humorous to me that Scouter.Com posted an add for Champion Sports Bras with an attractive young lady right next to this thread, eh No question that us heterosexual types experience a degree of attraction to post-adolescent teens (who could easily pass for adults). Can't imagine why that wouldn't be true for homosexual types. In fact, there's all kinds of talk of the "recruiting" culture in some parts of the gay male community, eh? Older men "mentoring" young men in that way goes back to Greece and before. Da Catholic scandals have all been with adolescent and post-adolescent teens, not younger children. Still, I've always felt it to be a bit silly that as a man I couldn't lead a Venturing Crew with girls who are old enough to be my granddaughter, but Mrs. Beavah could lead that same crew with young, strappin' male teenagers. Attraction doesn't mean temptation, and certainly doesn't mean action. But I suppose it could mean "misinterpreted signals" in a very informal and physical environment like da woods, and culturally, the chance of "misinterpreted signals" from a gay man I figure would be unacceptably high for him. Beavah

Yah, there are lots of challenges, eh? I think yeh have to first be proficient in a skill before you can teach it in a hands-on, fun way. Yah, sure, we've all seen teachers or trainers who stay "one chapter ahead", but all they do is drone a lecture or (worse) make things up. So question one is: Are your scouts truly proficient in their skills? Or at least competent? If not, expecting 'em to teach is just being mean and settin' 'em up for embarrassment. Teachin' does help people who are competent become expert, but it won't do a thing to help a novice become proficient. If your scouts aren't proficient, then remember that's your duty in the BSA policies for Advancement. They shouldn't advance unless they are proficient. Catch your PLC up with an intense, skills-based JLT, and rethink how you're usin' Advancement Method. Now, just because someone knows how to do something doesn't mean that they know how to teach it. We all remember da teacher who was an expert at math but couldn't teach at all, eh . Question Two is: Did you ever teach your kids how to teach? Kids especially aren't comfortable with presentations. So yeh have to teach 'em how to teach and do presentations. Explain. Demonstrate. And then have 'em practice, and provide a good coach to work with 'em, same as you would with any other skill. Guide. And then give 'em feedback to help 'em get better. Evaluate. I hope that before you let a scout use a gasoline backpacking stove on his own, you've explained it, demonstrated it, coached him while he tried a bunch of times, and then watched and evaluated him until you were sure he had it down. Just common sense safety. Why would yeh do any less for a skill like teaching, where others were depending on him? Just common sense. Doin' anything else can also be a bad example to your kids, who might turn around and do the same thing, like allangr1024 describes. "Here, new kid. Make a souffle from scratch!" Beavah

Yah, let me echo OGE, FScouter, LongHaul and others just to reinforce the point... This is NOT something you take to a parents' committee meeting, EVER. Straight to da COR/IH, in private. CC, COR, and IH have coffee with the parties involved. CO makes a decision based on its moral position about these things. My guess for most churches is that forgiveness is more likely in the face of genuine remorse, and now that one of the two has left the program, there is no worry about "leading into temptation." But it's da CO's call. BSA will almost always follow the CO's lead. Beavah

I'm with Brent here. In a well-run troop, it's the parent and the boy who are appealing who are most likely to look like asses, trying to get by without meeting expectations. It's pretty easy for a kid to pick up a reputation as a "fake Star Scout" from his peers under that circumstance. "Yeah, you got someone to give you Star, you didn't do what we all had to do to earn it". Peer pressure being what it is, the behavior is self-correcting. No kid wants to look like an ass to his friends. For that matter, no parent wants to look like an ass to his/her peers. We forget that people in council offices mean very little to kids. What matters to them is what the people they know and work with think of them. Beavah