Beavah

Even so, if I had "program strength" and "boots at the meeting" challenges at the same time, I think I'd start by solving the program strength challenge. Yah, KC, I reckon that's too simplistic an answer, eh? I expect what you'd need to do is figure out why yeh have program strength challenges. It might be because your youth leaders aren't makin' real commitments and aren't showin' up often enough to plan and execute a good program, eh? So you'd start with the boots problem. Or you'd say that they need more fun and excitement like a high adventure program, which gets yeh back to da boots problem 'cause that's necessary for most high adventure programs (because of safety and planning/finance requiring commitment). Just one example. Those band and sports team folks, they don't start with program, eh? Football team could be 0-12 and bottom of da league and they'd still expect near 100% attendance . Beavah

No alteration of, or additions to, the official uniforms, as described in the official publications, or the rules and regulations covering the wearing of the uniform and the proper combinations thereof on official occasions, may be authorized by any Scouting official or local council or any local executive board or committee, except the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America after consideration by the Program Group Committee. Yah, OGE, then yeh have to understand what it means . That is to say, how it is properly interpreted. BSA Supply division makes minor changes to da uniform all the time without takin' it to the National Executive Board. By your logic, that's breakin' the rules. AFAIK, Switchback Pants were one of those "non-approved" changes (a change in material, not in color or look/function). Insignia guide changes every year or two, also without da approval of the National Executive Board. So followin' the Insignia Guide, by your logic, is breakin' the rules. It's not the Insignia Guide which spells out the rules and regulations that the paragraph you quote is talkin' about. Da paragraph refers to the major uniform features adopted by the National Exec. Board. That's a different thing, eh? It's primarily concerned with usin' BSA insignia and uniformin' in public performances and such. Just like da YP and reportin' stuff, quotin' things without understandin' the real issues and background makes for good 1-hour training, but not good understanding or judgment when dealin' with real issues. Beavah

Da other thread had mostly degenerated into other things, so I thought I'd share an article I thought was a good one. And perhaps return da discussion to whether public-private partnerships really have to be restricted based on the belief of the private entity... or whether they should be based on whether the public entity is achieving a public purpose by the partnership. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/20071026_Punishment_will_hurt_community.html Punishment will hurt community By Hans Zeiger Almost 80 years ago, the City of Philadelphia granted to the local Boy Scouts a low-cost rent on land at 22d and Winter Streets, "in perpetuity." This has proven to be a valuable partnership, both for the city and for its most important youth organization. But last week, the city penalized the Boy Scouts for its membership policies by raising the rent from $1 to $200,000 a year. This was wrong. Proponents of the high rent say that the scouts' policy prohibiting homosexual members and leaders conflicts with the city's nondiscrimination code. But that's not necessarily true. Before the city finishes off its relationship with the local Boy Scouts, we should note the nature of that relationship. The purpose of the relationship is not to enforce the Boy Scouts' membership policies on the people of Philadelphia. The scout oath is only applicable to scouting members, who swear to it. The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. As government cannot dictate the scouts' membership policies just because it has a partnership with the organization (the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to establish its own membership rules in 2000), the scouts cannot change public policy by effect of its partnerships with government. Therefore, the scouts' ban on homosexuals is none of the city's business. Government must work with the private sector in a variety of ways. Whether it's selecting a coffee brand for the mayor's office or contracting out maintenance services, governments must often do business with private corporations. Just as important, city government can and should partner with private civic or faith-based organizations. Through the Amachi Program, people of faith in Philadelphia are able to volunteer with the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Churches and other religious organizations comprise 40 percent of Philadelphia's welfare-to-work programs. And hundreds of churches and synagogues across the city partner with public schools for campus safety and mentoring. Philadelphia is a model for the nation in these kinds of partnerships, which makes the weakened relationship with the Boy Scouts all the more bizarre. Government cannot restrict its relationships with the private sector to morally "value-neutral" organizations. To force such restrictions on public-private partnerships would suggest that value-neutrality is even possible (it is not), and that organizations that emphasize moral and religious values are inferior to strictly secular groups. In fact, it is organizations such as the Boy Scouts, which do emphasize moral principle, that are far more effective than other kinds of organizations at addressing the challenges of inner city schools, child poverty, drugs, and gangs. Yet public-private partnerships are in no way a public adoption of the beliefs and values held by private organizations. It makes no difference to a broken inner city school whether it is the Boy Scouts (which exclude atheists and homosexuals) or the Girl Scouts (which do not exclude atheists and homosexuals) that come to improve the playground. If the Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs and City Hall decide to work together to raise money and talent for an after-school program, who could say no? For nearly eight decades, it has made sense that the Boy Scouts have their headquarters on city property, and it has made sense to help the Boy Scouts in doing their "good turn daily" by making that headquarters available for low rent. People in Philadelphia have understood what the Boy Scouts mean to the community. Scouting serves 40,000 children in Philadelphia. That's 40,000 children who are learning and growing and contributing to their neighborhoods. When the Boy Scouts face the unfortunate task of cutting back from essential programs in order to pay rent, the big tragedy will not be the loss to an historic nonprofit organization. The tragedy will be the lost opportunities for the city of Philadelphia.

About time they posted that on-line rather than tryin' to get $5 bucks for it everywhere. Glad to see da new trend of offerin' up-to-date guidebooks and other printed materials electronically. B

Here is what I suggest think creatively and work hard to have the PLC put on a program so amazing no-one young or old will want to miss out... yes this is eaiser said then done, but look at the past, if it has been done, it can be done again ... Yah, more fuel for da fire... Is it more likely to put on an "amazing" program if attendance is higher (and expected)? Easier to get adults out? More likely to have kids be enthusiastic in support of each other? Most important, aren't yeh able to do more advanced and interestin' stuff with higher attendance? Around here, da one area where troops and the council are fairly firm about attendance expectations is high-adventure trips. If you want to participate, you must do the pre-trip meetings and shakedowns and such. This preparation enables the group to do something more challenging successfully. If they just had 50% or less attendance, then those guys would be a safety hazard or would hold the whole group back from doin' the tougher, cooler stuff. Same as band or sports, eh? Those high adventure trips, though... da boys come back sayin' it was the best thing they ever did in their life. They come back fired up and enthused and wantin' to do more. It might be that program leads to higher attendance.... but it sure also seems like expectin' higher attendance is a key ingredient of stronger, more exciting program. Beavah

I certainly agree that demanding 100% participation is ill advised at a minimum and impossible to attain anyway. Yah, I asked Lisabob this in a PM, but maybe I should ask everyone. Do yeh have any kids in sports? In band? What do yeh tell them when they demand (near) 100% participation (usually without settin' the schedule as far in advance as a good scout troop)? Is it really ill advised? Truly impossible? Or is it a choice to value Scouting less? To value volunteers' efforts less than those of paid professionals? Just curious how many would pull their kids out of football rather than deal with a "you must be at every practice" expectation from those nosy coaches who have nothing better to do than decide what our family's priorities should be for us Beavah

Nah, you're supposed to be a registered committee member to sit on a Board of Review, eh? Not that more than 20% of the units out there really adhere to that . But you're right about all the other. It's a difficult and fuzzy line balancing good example with compassion. Seems like the difference between "being a full participant with your son" and "being a role model and leader for other boys" is an OK place to make a hard call. Beavah

Funny - someone just sent this to me this mornin'. If it works for you, great. ------ A Scout is Courteous Courteous is a funny word. Sometimes when new scouts first say the Scout Law, they have a hard time with what Courteous means.... that and Thrifty are always killers. Usually scouts will eventually come up with "holding the door open for someone" as an example, or maybe saying "Please." What courteous really means is to treat others as though they are at least as important as ourselves. We hold doors open for people instead of just trying to rush through first because trying to rush through first says "I'm more important than you." It's a selfish thing. We say "please" and "thank you" because other people are as important as we are - there is no reason why we should expect them to give us what we want just because we want it. That's selfish. So we ask them. One important way of being Courteous is to be respectful of other people's time. That's especially important when other people are giving you their time for free. When your Patrol Leader spends his time making plans for a meeting, or working hard to put together food for an outing, he's giving his time for free. It's courteous to honor that gift by saying "thank you" and actually showing up for the meeting or outing. Or, if you can't, to call ahead and apologize for not being able to make it. The scouters and the older boys who serve as leaders make a commitment to be here, to make the meetings and the outings run. It would really suck if they decided "hey, I'd rather go dancing with my wife this weekend" and canceled the outing. Honoring their commitment with a commitment of your own is a form of courtesy. It says "your schedule is as important as my schedule" and "I'm grateful for you giving your time, and because you're giving your time I'm going to do all I can to give mine." And a Scout is Courteous.

Yah, fine words are nice and all, but what's da consequence? I suppose Mr. Kudu gettin' all angry can be a consequence that wakes lads up for a bit, especially if that's a rare thing. If it's a frequent thing, that might be entertainin' . More likely, an appropriate consequence for takin' everyone's time and slowing down the meeting with gab is that some cool thing they were looking forward to in the meeting doesn't happen... and they're all told in crystal clear terms why. Maybe instead of doing a fun game they have to do 10 minutes of "sign practice" until they get it right? It's the consequence that empowers the youth leaders and the "good kids" to do their own enforcement and actually be listened to. Otherwise it's just people yappin', and that can be ignored. Speakin' of which, anybody watching da CBS "Kid Nation" show? Kinda artificial, but kinda interesting. One young brat of a girl has been avoidin' doing any chores for weeks now, and all the other kids are frustrated. Dozens of "talks." More recently a few "punishments" that she ignores just like the chores. Kids haven't woken up yet to da consequences they control. "If you're assigned to cook, and you don't cook so that someone else has to, they don't cook food for you and you don't eat." Beavah

And here I thought COs agreed to conduct their Scouting programs in accordance with BSA policy . . . Sure, Fred. But that's the Official BSA Rules & Regulations (aka policy) that they agreed to, alongside and co-equal to their own organizational policies (which are actually listed first, since they are the "supervisor" who is legally responsible for the unit). Guidebooks and such aren't the same thing as BSA policy. They're under no obligation to even buy a Boy Scout Handbook, eh? Certainly not an Insignia Guide. Besides, is an American Legion patch honoring our veterans really a hill we want to die on? Or for that matter, a color symbolizing faith or God on a uniform that otherwise wouldn't have any such symbol in a God-centered organization? What do yeh think da Regional President or the Chief Scout Executive is likely to say to that? It is always OK to modify the rules in a manner the rulemaker themselves would if they were present. Beavah

Yah, oz, we Americans have to seem like strange birds to you. Imagine that you did what you suggested, and you got a few troops in your area together to run a joint, week-long camp somewhere. Kinda cool. One of da guys from another troop is a naturalist and did that. One of your adults with experience taught kangaroo stalking. Kids loved it, because anytime they can be outdoors for a week having fun they learn a lot and have a blast, and of course your scouts and Ventures and Rovers would be doin' a huge planning job. Now imagine that yeh were like us, and Scouting was a Corporation more than it was a movement. So da Corporation puts on summer camps, but they provide the trained people and resources, not the troops. And they set the schedule and activities, not the kids. But with a corporation, yeh can actually buy a big hunk of land and build lots of scoutin' buildings and such and make it available year-round. So there's upsides. Now it's an American corporation, eh? So that means fear of legal issues and lots of state regulation. I mean lots. So a volunteer couldn't possibly handle everything from food regulations to camping regulations to safety regulations to paperwork to inspections, etc. etc. That means da corporation needs a professional staff. And the National Corporation needs to establish National Rules on top of the state rules. And like any corporation, it generates paperwork and rules. Health forms, inspection forms, permission forms, medication rules, firearm rules, waterfront rules and forms and tags, etc. etc. So yeh have to train all these professional staff people about all these forms and rules, so you establish National Camp School (NCS) to do that for at least the core staff in each area (like aquatics). So what yeh end up with is that the average troop here never owns its own property the way that's common in some countries. The camp property is owned by the Corporation (and sometimes sold by the corporation to make money for professionals). That camp property is a lot bigger and more complete with better facilities than troop properties in other countries. The Corporation provides week-long camps all summer where paid professional staff offer programs and troops come and just let their kids do stuff (no patrols, no youth planning particularly, no cooking because there's a dining hall with professional cooks). Those camps come with so much regulation and paperwork that you would simply explode. Imagine the whole first day at camp spent with kids going from one station to another just being lectured about rules and turning in forms and taking tests for tags and signing up for merit badge classes as though they were registering for courses at college. But kids do earn a lot of badges that way, which makes the parents happy to spend da money ($200-$300) for the Corporation Camp. Dat's our life, eh? Aren't we Yanks a bit nuts? Beavah

Yah, fgoodwin beat me to it, eh? Depends mostly on troop size, but also on troop operations. Larger and more patrol-oriented troops really do have patrol equipment that's pretty extensive. In fact, IMHO dat's the proper way to do Patrol Method. There might not even be a troop QM. That applies to other positions too, eh? The stronger the Patrol Method is in the troop, the more likely that the patrol-level position has more responsibility than a troop-level position. In a troop that operates mostly on Patrol Camping and activities, a PL should have more responsibility than an SPL. A patrol should grow its own Instructor(s). A patrol should have its own Historian/Photographer. Let da patch (and the rank advancement recognition) go to wherever the real work is being done in your program. Beavah

Yah, probably what happened is that junior #2 came home and said "Junior #1 hit me with a knife" (leavin' out that it was plastic and no damage was done). Parent #2 then posted a question to an on-line forum saying "My son was attacked by a kid with a knife on a campout and the Scoutmaster didn't even inform me and the other boy wasn't punished at all." Then a bunch of people on da forum replied "The Scoutmaster is an idiot, this is clearly a youth protection issue, the first boy's parent had no business deciding what the punishment was on his own, you need to notify the district and council immediately and tell the other parent to stay away from your son and tell the CO to fire the Scoutmaster and if they don't listen you should immediately leave that troop because they're incompetent." And so he did. [Yah, sorry, I couldn't resist, eh ? All said with tongue mostly in cheek. ] Beavah

Hiya jhubb. Welcome to da forums, eh? One of the things as an adult leader that yeh just have to shrug off sometimes is parent behavior. It's not somethin' that you can control most of the time. So don't beat yourself up too much. You don't give us much of the reasons behind the disputes, but here's my take on it. First: Are you sure the troop adults responded appropriately and firmly to the original kid behavior? And ten are you sure that the response was communicated well to all those parents? Like, for example, after "resolving the issue" at the campout, did the SM talk to the parents when they were picking up their kids, or call them that evening (before they got junior's tale)? Usually, parents will only "get into it" if they feel that the troop adults are not firmly in charge and on top of it. Nobody likes surprises, and every kid is goin' to tell "his" version. Second: Never try to resolve serious stuff by email. The moment "email started flying around" the SM should have called the parties to set up a personal meeting with each of 'em... probably separately. Yeh can't pour water on a fire electronically. Third When yeh have to have a "sit down" with an adult about behavior, the first time it should be done by the troop leader who the adult gets along with best, and it should be a friendly thing on neutral ground. People get hot-headed sometimes. Havin' a friend say privately "Hey, George, that was a bit out of hand, don't you think?" gives him a chance to re-think things and save face. If he does, you've won a friend back. Da second time, it should be a couple of people, again in a respectful way, but the people should be both a "friendly scouter" and "someone official" like a CC or UC or COR. This is the "Hey, George, I know you were upset again, but that's twice now and it's really gettin' out of hand. We like your kid, and we like you as a volunteer, but it really can't happen again." Da third time, it should be a group like you suggest - all official. SM, CC, COR. Not more than 3 though. In some units it might be a committee subgroup, but it shouldn't be fellow parents. This one should be held on your turf. It's the "This is unacceptable and here's the consequences" bit. At that point, yeh know that chances are you're going to lose the adult and the scout. Consequences are goin' to be a suspension of the parent for a time, and perhaps a written behavioral agreement after that. For any of these meetings, I'd set em up for 3-7 days down the road. Don't let it be an "ambush". Leave some time for folks to cool down a bit before yeh get together. Close as I can tell, yeh jumped right to step #3 and skipped #1 and #2. That can be just fine, if the behavior was bad enough and you really felt the guy should be gone. But if yeh didn't, you jumped things up to give that impression. Now at this point, yeh probably can go back to Parent 1 and say "we had a serious meeting with Parent 2 about the behavior and they decided to withdraw from the troop. We apologize for what you had to go through, hope that our response was appropriate. Would you consider coming back?" Parent #2 is a goner, though. Help 'em find a new unit to continue their scouting in. Beavah

Yah, this is not a topic for a pack committee meeting. If, as you say, he just smells of alcohol and might be a bit "buzzed" by a couple of drinks after work, then this ain't federal case type stuff IMO. You and another trusted male adult should pull dad aside and let him know the no alcohol policy. Give him a chance to fix it. If he does, great, no problem, life is good. If not, I think I'd talk to mom next. Give her a chance to fix it. If she does, great, no problem, life is good. Only if this just kept going or gettin' worse would it move into the neglect suspicion/reporting kind of thing in my personal opinion. Only if yeh really thought the man was incapable of driving safely would I tell him, no, you're calling mom and not letting him drive. Only if he became belligerent and insisted in such a circumstance would I call da cops on the DUI rap. Yeh gotta remember, that can cause a heck of a lot of disruption to a family (out of cubs, loss of job of the major breadwinner, big expenses). You want to be sure, and you want to try a softer approach first and see where it gets you. Beavah

The legal type stuff I quoted from before is from my council's policy (linked from the online Youth Protection training) - though I don't know for sure that it is legally correct, I suggest that people look at (and save a copy) of their council's policy, to give them guidance. Nuthin' wrong with it, eh? In fact, I bet they copied it straight from a social work fact sheet or some other local document. (Though I once caught my local council copyin' something from an out-of-state council which didn't apply to us ). Problem is just understandin' when and where that particular set of information is applicable. Beavah

Nah, Its Me... we were just respondin' as to why it's hard to change the status quo in a troop.... which really ain't that different from any organization. I'd even add the additional difficulty that like most organizations, boys and parents actually choose a troop (and choose whether to stay). So da folks who are in a troop for any length of time are very likely to be ones who support what's goin' on. Cub Packs are different, because folks mostly just join the pack at their local school rather than goin' looking for the "best" pack for them. I think all of us recognize that there are a few old, burned out, long-time SM's out there who are well past where they should have retired. I think all of us recognize that there are quite a few advancement mills and other adult-run programs out there (which unfortunately attract a lot of families who like that sort of thing). I expect all of us have also seen our share of nitpicking newbies who come in and disrupt fine programs by pointing out all da things they think are "wrong" based on readin' the handbook or havin' a day of training. More than 3/4 of those newbies push actively for "Webelos III" and complain about da unorganized "old guard" that won't let 'em take over positions and "run things right." And sometimes, personalities and egos just clash, and da disputes really have nuthin' to do with "program" though they sound like it. It all goes on. Which is happenin' in any given case only local folks can really figure out by goin' to watch and knowin' all the players. Dat's why it's best to be circumspect when commenting from afar. Beavah

Yah, gotta love us Beavahs, eh? Always industrious, but always someone complainin' about our dam work. I think da original was from Michigan, Eamonn. They have more dam bureaucrats over there than PA. http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/dammed.asp Beavah

Here's an attempt. Scouter.Com doesn't handle this formattin' well. This is just a discussion example. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The actual advice for inside each square is going to depend on the state, whether or not the person is a mandatory reporter, how child abuse is defined. It might also depend on da policies of the council and the chartered org. But if you're a district or council trainer, yeh might suggest that the SE have their legal counsel and child/social work professionals do somethin' along these lines to help folks, since there seems to be a lot of confusion. Or not... the feelin' may be that it's too complicated in real life and folks should just call for help, which is a fine thing. But I'm in favor of at least givin' people some kind of education up front. Evidence of abuse or neglect crime against a kid (kids testimony, you witnessed crime, clear physical signs of abuse like multiple cigarette burns on back, etc.) Crime Occurred in Scouting (or was perpetrated by a scout leader who had access to the boy because of Scouting) Crime did not occur in Scouting Parent/guardian/caregiver involved Notify law enforcement, help arrange for temporary/protective custody for child; notify SE and CO Notify law enforcement, help arrange for temporary/protective custody for child. Parent/guardian/caregiver not involved. Notify parents, law enforcement, SE, and CO Notify parents, law enforcement Reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect crime against a kid Crime Occurred in Scouting (or was perpetrated by a scout leader who had access to the boy because of Scouting) Crime did not occur in Scouting Parent/guardian/caregiver involved Notify/consult with SE and CO. Call Child Protective Services or ensure SE/CO have done so Call Child Protective Services Parent/guardian/caregiver not involved. Notify SE and CO. Take reasonable action to monitor and enforce BSA and CO policies to keep kids safe while investigation proceeds. Consult with experienced professional. Alert parents to your concern.

Yah, dat's pretty much right, Calico. It's so tough 'cause states are so different. In some states, everybody is a mandatory reporter. In most states, only professionals (who would be trained in recognizing the signs of abuse) are mandatory reporters, but other folks are "optional" or "discretionary" reporters. In some states, professionals are only mandatory reporters when they have contact with a youth in their professional capacity. In some states, professionals are mandatory reporters 24/7 da way Calico describes. In most states, child abuse can only be committed by a parent or guardian. Some states add caregiver. In some states, child abuse can also be committed by any other adult relative who lives with the boy. In a few states, child abuse can be committed by staff of a long-term camp or other long-term resident youth education program (boarding school, etc.) who are acting in loco parentis. In no states that I'm aware of can a scouter commit child abuse on a short-term (weekend) trip. Mandatory and optional reporting for nothing more than "reasonable suspicion" (and statutory immunity for reporting) apply only to child abuse, however your state defines it. Probably trainers should use some kind of decision matrix or tree rather than just tryin' to explain this stuff. I tried to post one, but it's too annoyin' to format. Beavah

Campdirector, yeh must be an old NOLS guy. Buddy of mine does the same twig fire thing. Here's a review of the Outback Oven, which I've seen work great on backpack trips. http://www.backpacker.com/article/1970 Here's an alternate lightweight dutch oven pot, which yeh can use for the twig fire or da flip technique. Also works with da Outback oven stuff I think: http://www.frybake.com/ Done the reflector oven a bunch of times with a large pizza box. Yeh can get by without a full shelf: http://usscouts.org/cooking/reflector.asp Yeh can get a free manual on a variety of outdoor breadbaking techniques here, includin' using a propane grill, boiling, and frying: http://www.preparedpantry.com/emergencybreadinfopage.htm Beavah

Yah, sorry for da confusion, mtm. I was responding to the other pieces in your post, eh? The bits about child abuse mandatory reporting requirements, statutory immunity and all that. It just seemed to me like a confused muddle that needed to be clarified. Reporting to the SE does not relieve your obligation if you are a mandatory reporter of abuse or neglect. Your responsibility in those cases is to report to the authorities, specifically the state children's services office. Reporting to the SE does not give you statutory immunity. There is no criminal penalty for not reporting a crime of battery in most states, what you posted only applies to child abuse (by a parent or guardian). The situation didn't involve evidence or a personal, first-hand report. In fact, as Joni describes, it was rumor on rumor. You're correct that "emotional state" is only one issue for a trained person to consider, and not something for a person not trained. Bad for me to say that here. Da real issue is having the first-hand report. I put that in only because sometimes kids have learned words but don't understand their meaning. I've seen kids (and parents) use the word "abused" for being made to miss dessert. So yeh gotta use some judgment. Thank you for correcting me on the emotional state bit. Beavah

I suppose it depends whether yeh think of da forums as one of those TV-talking-heads shouting matches, where folks take an out-of-context statement and yell about someone who isn't there to defend themselves ... or whether you think of da forums as someone seeking advice from some mature, experienced commissioners and fellow scouters. As a commish, I watch these adult-level squabbles harm units all the time. We're constantly refereeing a few. Folks who come to da forums need the same service - a balanced perspective that helps 'em understand issues and possibilities, and appreciate the other side. Not gasoline and verbal attacks. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't respond. It's a statement about how we should respond. We could ask for more facts and clarifications. We could exercise a little bit of common-sense judgment and apply a little bit of empathy for a fellow scouter, rather than assume he's out to hurt kids and trash the program. In short, we could respond in a mature way. In a measured, balanced, "consider all the possibilities" way. Which, do you suppose, is a better example for kids? Which, do you think, shows greater character or is more in line with the Oath and Law we claim to hold dear? And when we don't do our best at that Oath and Law, shouldn't we apologize? I've certainly failed at parent communication from time to time as a scouter. I've certainly made more than my share of program mistakes. I hope I've also done a lot of good, eh? I expect everyone else here who really has been involved in troop-level Scouting can say the same, and knows exactly where I'm coming from. I think we'd all be really upset if someone used one out-of-context communication failure with a new member to encourage folks to do everything from lop off our heads to quit our troop to report us to the authorities. If not the Oath and Law, how about the Golden Rule? Beavah

Yah, Lisabob is spot on. Just like any job or volunteer position, he needs to (1) get training and then (2) develop experience while being actively supervised before he's going to be able to contribute meaningfully (or understand all the safety issues, and where a troop accepts risks because the benefits are so important to kids). And a parent should avoid being an ASM for their own son's patrol. Kids at Boy Scout age need space to make the program theirs. A new ASM in particular doesn't have the experience to navigate that well. Beavah

I should add that one of da interestin' things to watch if yeh stay in a district long enough is troops that have a big batch of new folks come through determined to be "reformers." They see all the "errors" of the "older timers" eh? Lots of conflict, maybe the old timers move on, or maybe the new folks start to understand the issues better, or maybe some changes happen at a more reasonable pace. It becomes more comfortable for the new folks. Those new folks start becomin' old folks. They make their own errors of course, but "that's the way we do things." The troop that used to be great at youth leadership but lousy at communication now becomes great at communication but weak on youth leadership. Their kids get older, and their emphasis shifts. Pretty soon, a batch of new folks comes in an starts pointing out all the "errors" of the old timers. And then the cycle of judgments and mistakes and learnin' continues - unless the conflict gets heated enough that da troop just folds. Human nature, eh? Beavah