Beavah

Yah, hops... one of da things you''ll learn about the adult world is that there are a lot of folks who just go in for the trappings. Whatever those trappings are - "elite" college, degrees, "status" clothing or the right gated housing community, titles, "prestigious" professional jobs, you name it. They never learned that it''s not what you get, but what you give that counts. Sad for them. Sad for us, too, because in pursuin'' trappings they make us all weaker. Even some decent parents who made good choices for themselves have a hard time keeping perspective when it comes to their kids. We all want our kids to "succeed". Most of us remember that "success" means "be happy using your own gifts and talents to do what good you can"... if we think about it. But it''s sooo easy to fall into the trap of wantin'' a kid to be the star on the team or the valedictorian or the Eagle Scout. Probably because parenting is da roughest job there is, and parents need some "positive feedback." So even when they know better they can go for the trappings. So, your first assignment: Call up your parents and say "Thank You." Thank you for lovin'' me and teachin'' me to care about real stuff. Then call up or write your old Scouting leaders and do the same. And then, if you want, every time someone posts something like what you described, jump in and in your most creative, lighthearted and kind voice say "Hey, Scouting was great for me, a big part of my life and who I am. But I sure am glad I didn''t make Eagle Scout... all that adult crap would have taken the fun out of it and I wouldn''t have learned half as much." Or whatever other fun, (more) gentle, and to the point thing yeh come up with. Teach... the parents well... Beavah

Yah, Joni... remind me of what your position is in the troop? I think I must have missed that, too. All this drama should be the exclusive realm of the SM, CC, COR, IH, and SE. Nobody else. This needs calm, firm adult professionalism. Tasking a youth member JASM to go talk with this accused boy is pretty poor judgment, and only ups the drama. If the unit owners (COR & IH) have decided this woman is not welcome, then if she shows up the SM is instructed to call law enforcement and have her removed. Period. Doesn''t matter what the BSA says or thinks, it''s their unit, their property, their responsibility. Nobody else need be involved, save the CC and SM making a generic announcement to all of the kids and families saying that because of "inappropriate behavior" Mrs. Jones is not welcome at any scouting events and kids should have no contact with her. If da CO is a church or other organization with trained professional staff, they *might* take additional steps to get her help as well. Not your problem though. Provide behavior documentation at your leisure to your SE so that they can make an informed decision about whether to continue her BSA registration. As for her accusations against the youth, once again you notify the COR & IH and the SE, and you let them do what they have to do. The SM and perhaps a professional counselor might then talk with the boy and his parents, and then take things where they need to take things both to protect the boy and his peers in the troop. The family of the boy likely has an excellent defamation case against this woman. These things are not "amateur hour" issues. They are not good candidates for Youth Leadership method. You bring in the big professional guns and you step out of the firing zone. That''s how you avoid and defuse "drama". Drama can only continue while it generates energy and spreads to different people. You need competent folks to take charge of it. Beavah

Yah, there''s other complications, eh? The more involved the BSA is in unit leader selection/qualification/supervision (including such things as mandatory training requirements), the more liable the BSA is for what happens in the units. They don''t want that. It''s fine to play insurer for da CO''s. It''s different to be the named party in the action. As we''ve seen particularly for molestation cases, the exposure can quickly exceed the BSA''s insurance coverage. Good risk management requires the BSA stay well clear of becoming the "supervisor" of unit leaders. It''s the CO''s game to select, supervise, and set training expectations. Beavah

we don''t want confrontation and strife in an event that should be fun for all involved Yeh may not want it, lad, but you''d best Be Prepared for it. Alert the park rangers ahead of time of the potential for needing assistance. If you''ve got a parent in law enforcement who can come along on the campout, I''d ask him/her nicely to do so. Have a strategy in place for removin'' the boy from the scene and notifying the real parent/guardian. Have in your own mind some strategies for defusing confrontational behavior. Yeh haven''t mentioned that you''ve done it, but I assume you have - talk to the real parent/guardian of the boy for instructions. Beavah

Ah, Eamonn, you are one of da few who are catching on... If you''re a politician these days, yeh don''t raise taxes. Raising taxes is bad. So instead you raise fees. Put fees on all kinds of things. Increase fees on roads and bridges. Increase campsite fees, hunting license fees, auto license fees. Put "demonstration program fees" on camping in what used to be free federal lands. Claim that the fees just go to the park/forest ... then take away all their original funding. Every government level is doing it. ''course business has caught on, too. What are the ATM fees up to these days? Having to pay money just to get our own money back from the bank! Imagine what it would cost ''em to hire old fashioned bank tellers if we all stopped using the boxes. Beavah

Yah, Holy Smoke! I confess to having missed the accusation in Joni''s longer message about youth-on-youth sex at a campout. Kudos to LongHaul and others for catching it. Unfortunately, Joni, he and Lisabob and others are right - that puts this in a very different space, eh? Your committee has received a credible report of a YP issue and a PR disaster. Everything else halts and you follow the procedures established by your CO and the BSA to investigate and respond. Delicately, respectfully, and firmly. Get help from professionals, now. Sprint, don''t run, to your IH/COR and your Scout Executive. Beavah

Hotdesk, There''s not quite a problem with what your district has written, just with the way you''re reading it. There''s nuthin'' wrong with a unit using fundraised dollars to buy a backpack for a scout to use. But the troop owns the backpack, eh? That way it can be used for other boys who might need a backpack on the next trip, or the next year. There''s certainly nothing wrong with fundraised monies being used for provisions or other trip costs, or other items that are directly related to the organization''s charitable purpose for fundraising. But now let''s say a lad and his family does a great job selling popcorn, top of his council. Earns enough to buy a used SUV. The SUV would be used for transportation to scout events and for his parents to drive kids on outings sometimes. Do yeh think it would be OK to use fundraised dollars to buy the scout his own car? Nah. Now if not a car, how about a bike? Plenty of biking activities in Scouting. Or how ''bout his own boat? Givin'' tax law and other such advice in a specific way just isn''t possible with people livin'' in different states, and with CO''s that run the gamut from charitable organizations to fraternal organizations to loose collections of parents. You should not consider anything I or anybody else says here to be legal advice, it ain''t. But in general the principle is that fundraised dollars have to be used for the charitable purpose for which they were collected, i.e., for the organization, not for an individual to build up a bank account or a gear closet. If a portion of the proceeds is given to workers at the fundraiser in dollars or merchandise, then that portion should reflect a reasonable wage for the work - and that''s income that must be reported by the CO (or recipient) to the IRS. Yeh can check out IRS Publication 1828 or its equivalent for different exempt organizations. Don''t even need to call, plenty of stuff available on-line. Just understand that the specifics of individual cases can be complimicated, and yeh really want to talk to someone local who knows what''s up if yeh want a real legal opinion. Even da IRS will tell you that yeh can''t rely on what someone on their helpline says. Now of course, a lot of this stuff flies under the radar and generally isn''t big enough dollar-wise for anybody to do more than slap someone''s wrist over. That''s your CO''s call as to how "informal" to be. For me, though, I''d say it was an issue of substance and ethics. When a boy puts on a uniform and sells something to a member of the community "for Scouting" the proceeds shouldn''t end up in his pocket or in his closet. Beavah

Yah, Joni... just a few points/corrections, eh? Second Class requirement #2: "Using a compass and a map together, take a 5 mile hike (or 10 miles by bike) ..." First Class requirement/BSA swim test is 100 yards (75 using a strong stroke, 25 with a resting stroke), not 200 yards as you suggest. Granted, that''s still quite a bit farther than 25 feet. Can you share what the actual nature of the disability is? As far as doin'' paperwork goes, as long as you''re hip-deep in it, yeh might as well deal with the alternate MB needs if there are any. Get it all taken care of at once. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... First, there is a difference between the BSA policy on homosexuals as adult leaders and the BSA''s position on youth member homosexuals. Da latter is "nuanced" and involves more flexibility by the Chartered Partner, responsiveness to counseling, and a whole mess of other things. There are plenty of boys who for various get-attention reasons declare themselves to be homo who later grow up, get married to a lovely woman, and have plenty of kids as avowed heteros. So interpret the BSA policy toward "avowed" kids to be one of balancing understanding and compassion against example and public perception. The BSA will support a CO in removing a boy for being gay. The BSA will take no action independent of the CO on a boy who declares himself gay provided that there isn''t a public shouting match, a perception of endorsement of that lifestyle by the unit, or a youth protection issue. There''s room for good people to work with a kid. But there''s not room for a kid and his family to become public advocates for homosexuality in scouting, or for holding up a gay boy scout as an example of what we value to other boys. Hence the obscure "leadership position" stuff. So Joni, there''s room for good people in your unit to work with this boy.... as long as it doesn''t become a public issue for other parents or the BSA, and as long as the unit is clear about not endorsing that lifestyle by holding this lad up as an example to other boys. Certainly, I would hope that some caring adult who got along with the lad would have some conversations with him about the MySpace stuff, the same as we would about any unhealthy risk-taking behavior by one of the kids we cared about. That''s my insight and info anyway. Good luck with it. Beavah

We probably got better candidates out of smoke filled rooms than out of the current primary system. The primaries make both major parties too susceptible to their more extreme activists, as these are the folks most likely to vote in the primaries. Amen to that. Problem with a parliamentary system is that yeh have to also look at places like Italy and Israel, not just Britain. If yeh don''t have a clear majority party in parliament, the small nut-job parties end up having a disproportionate influence because they''re needed to form a governing coalition. Anyone want GreenPeace (if you''re right of the aisle) or Jerry Falwell (if you''re left of the aisle) effectively controlling such a coalition government? And of course, those parliamentary systems have a wonderful track record for stability. What''s Italy on now? Something like 100 different governments in the last 70 years? Still, it would be nice to be able to recall a real dunderhead as packsaddle suggests. Perhaps a no-confidence vote of the state legislatures, weighted by electoral college votes for the state. Get enough state legislatures to vote no confidence in the president so that a supermajority of EC votes are in favor of removal and he''s toast. Beavah

Yah, OK... Close as I can tell this gent is neither a parent nor a custodian/guardian for this kid. So this is for all intents and purposes an outside adult with a criminal record and confined probation asking to come on a cub scout outing (which would incidentally violate his parole). Uh... no. Who is the custodial parent and what do they have to say? Beyond that, in cubbing it''s OK for another adult to be designated as "parent" for the outing, as long as the ratio is no greater than 2 boys per adult. So any other parent in the pack can double-up with this boy if the boy is known to them. In short, make it work for the lad, but as your DE said, this is a non-starter for the adult. Beavah

Yah, a PTO includes Teachers and Administrators in addition to parents. I''d think there would be a lot of upside to having the Assistant Principal as a COR. 1) Lots of "clout" when scheduling facilities or dealing with any issues from facilities use. 2) Lots of "clout" and experience if the COR is ever needed to deal with parent misbehavior or refereeing a pack committee dispute. 3) Lots of experience working with kids of this age group. and 4) Lots of downside to trying to move him/her out if he/she doesn''t want to go. Instead of trying to make a change, I''d try to improve the relationship. Are you inviting the COR to events? Are you discussing longer-term "strategic" issues for the pack with him/her? Do you ask how the pack can contribute service to the PTO or school? Do the cubmaster, committee chair, and COR have a regular "key 3" meeting every month or three? Getting the COR to training at your district pow-wow or other venue is a good first step. Then reach out. Lots of good people are busy people, and won''t stick their nose in unless they''re either invited or have to deal with a problem. So invite! Beavah

Yah, Joni, da system is a bit of a mess. I feel your pain. It used to be that for T-2-1, the unit could waive or substitute requirements on its own, with no need for any approval from above. Problem was, some "my kid tried his hardest and still can''t do a pullup" types started waiving requirements anytime a boy''s "best" at that moment didn''t meet the requirement. So they took the authority away from the unit (at least nominally... not that anybody would check). Da thing is, there was never any guidance issued to councils, and most council folks don''t have any real experience with disabilities. So there''s a few councils out there who have some good people and make it work intelligently, but mostly it''s what you describe. The thing to ask yourself is whether the boy''s disability really prevents him from being able to swim, or whether it just makes it hard for him to do right now. "Upper body weakness" doesn''t sound like a good reason for a waiver; it sounds like a good opportunity to work with a boy to do something hard that will benefit him in the long run. But permanent neuromuscular deficit in the arms that makes stroking slowly impossible would certainly be good cause for a substitution. Does the boy need to use a modified bicycle when he rides (because of arm weakness)? Off da cuff, I''d call a 2.5 mile bike ride for First Class a bit weak as a substitution, given that Second Class requires a 10 mile bike ride. If I were to advise your committee, I''d suggest something that requires some skill development in the same way that swimming requires some skill development. Perhaps make that a 5-10 mile mountain bike ride over a mountain bike course, which requires developing some biking skills beyond straight-and-flat? But then I don''t know this boy at all, so take it for what it''s worth. Yeh have to tailor it to the boy''s condition. Just remember: Dagoal is not to "get" the boy the rank. The goal is to "get" him the experience, confidence, and peer recognition that comes from facing a real challenge, working hard, and overcoming it. That''s what makes the rank mean something. Beavah

It''s really moot, eh? No way yer going to get 75% of the states to ratify that constitutional amendment, eh? It would take a lot of small states giving up their clout to get that through. Ain''t going to happen. The electoral college is here to stay. Problem right now is that we haven''t recognized that there''s such a thing as a statistical tie. When things are close enough, you can recount 20 times and get 20 different answers and outcomes. Polling just ain''t an exact science. The Florida 2000 vote was a statistical tie the moment it became clear that the outcome depended on interpretations of dimpled chads. Then both sides got into tryin'' to manipulate the outcome. Why not fix the statistical tie problem in state law? After one statewide recount, any election closer than .1% is a statistical tie and gets resolved just like a tie. Flip of the coin, hand of poker, whatever. Save everyone a lot of grief, money, court costs and incivility. We all know that with weakly kept voter rolls, people who can''t read ballots, etc. an error rate of 1/1000 is about right. Beavah

Yah, I think BA or somebody listed a bunch of names in a previous thread, eh? They were almost all tainted - people talking way outside their expertise, or heavily "subsidized" by special interest polluter money. A couple were "real", but their comments were "spun" and didn''t actually reflect their full statements. That''s just da way it is, eh? The evidence has piled up so deep that there aren''t many genuine alternative theorists. About the only thing of some interest are the solar scientists speculatin'' on changes in solar flux, and that evidence is really thin (and I believe now financed by special interests). It''s fine to say "I believe we should pollute and change the environment as much as we want if it gets me/us/ours more wealth." At least that''s honest. Chinese and Indians are doing it, which is why Global Warming is probably inevitable. Displacements to our kids and other poorer people be darned! Da Republicans I voted for are putting the costs of everything from war to infrastructure onto our credit cards to be paid off by our children and grandchildren, who also get saddled with keepin'' us in our "lifestyle" until we die. Why should they do anything different with the environment? Give us what we want now, for free! Let our kids pay for it! Da rallying cry of the modern borrow-and-spend "conservative." Ignore deficits, they don''t matter! Ignore environmental risks, they don''t matter! If yeh can''t suppress the data, spin it, or just blow chaff to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Let our children pay! I voted for da bum, but GWB goes down as probably the most incompetent president ever. I''m with packsaddle. Three cheers for Gore, who found something he is good at and who pursued it. The American Way. Whether it''s basketball or business or farming or service work - find something you''re good at and pursue it. He did and he''s reaping just recognition. Carter did, too, after his mediocre presidency. He grew into a statesman as an advocate for service and peace. Who knows. Maybe someday GWB will wake up and realize he makes an OK rancher and have some success there that he never achieved as a businessman or a leader. Beavah

In regards to the use of Scout Account money for personal equipment and uniforming most Districts and Councils recommend the use of the money for the purpose of such things. Nah, I don''t think that''s the case, eh? Isn''t even true in the segment that you quoted if it''s read carefully. And yeh have to be careful. Lots of times individuals in districts put things into print without considering some of the implications. Just like troops, eh? District folks are only volunteers. A unit committee allocating funds for exclusively Scouting-related uses: fine. A unit committee allocating funds to pay for individual activity fees for kids: probably OK (see "educational goal") below. A unit committee allocating funds for purchasing a personal uniform for a kid: edgy, but probably OK... in the same way that uniforms are deductible expenses for adult leaders, because they have no non-scouting use. Better as a long-term loan, with an agreement to return it to the troop uniform closet when he outgrows it. A unit committee allocating fundraised dollars to a boy so he can buy himself a rain jacket: almost certainly not OK (in the same way that a rain jacket is not a deductible expense for an adult leader even if it is used in Scouting, because it can be used for all kinds of other personal activities). In the end, the way the committee allocates fundraised dollars has to be consistent with the charitable purpose. In other words, the use of scout accounts must have an educational goal of teachin'' kids about responsibility and work, etc. - they must not be just a way of "dividing the spoils." Beavah

Yah, I''m not expectin'' personal saintliness from Big Al. He''s a politician, after all. Doesn''t mean that because he''s not a saint about his own energy use that his message is wrong. If that were the case, then all of the overweight Scouters who supposedly are promoting "fitness" should be flogged mercilessly, and da BSA should be dismissed as silly. "Look at them - advocating fitness and not living it." Yah, glass houses and stones, eh? Beavah

Hmmm... ditto what packsaddle said. In the wider world of ideas, there''s always someone who has an alternate set of "facts" and a competing theory. Some folks believe that waiving crystals and magnets around is more effective than modern medical practice. I know someone who believes that the Aliens are coming back during the next conjunction of Jupiter and something or other. The point is, not all theories are created equal. When you''re diagnosed with cancer, you''d best go with the consensus of modern science, or perhaps a new experimental treatment based on evidence working off that consensus. Running off to an African tribal witch doctor, while an alternate theory, is.... stupid. It is not a virtue to consider that "other side of the argument." When we''re talking about an emergin'' scientific consensus, then, you''d best come with some real evidence and some humility when proposing an alternative. It just ain''t the case that "my opinion is as valid as anyone else''s". That sense of humility is important. Even as a convinced Christian, I must balance what God wrote in the stars and rocks and molecules along with what He wrote through human history and the Bible. And, yes, even to trust the scientific consensus on what is written in Nature, because those folks are better at reading that kind of text. Then come with humility to discuss where the other Writings apply, and where the text of Nature is incomplete and best informed by Biblical writings and evidence. Otherwise I''m no better than those that dismiss scientific consensus out of hand in order to believe in Purple Pixies. Beavah

I''m afraid I''m unclear, however, as to why it doesn''t fit? Because the prodigal son was a sinner. Pursuing alternate activities like band or soccer is not a sin. Because the Father in the parable is God. Scouting is a fine youth program, but it is not God. Leaving Scouting just ain''t the same as rejecting God. Because the prodigal son came back expecting and demanding nothing. "I am no longer fit to be called your son, just give me a place as a lowly servant." A boy who comes back expecting or desiring to earn the highest award is not displaying the same kind of character as the prodigal son. That''s the "test" I proposed - welcome him if he''s coming back only for Scouting - to be a "servant". Not if he''s coming back for Eagle. Now, the parable of the Prodigal Son does illustrate the downside that I described. The feast for the prodigal badly upsets the loyal son, who feels cheated and refuses to participate any longer. There is a real emotional cost to the family in that welcome. And the Father responds "everything I have is yours" (the loyal son''s).... perhaps including awards. Which gets to KC''s notions. Beavah

Given what National currently advises, "The SM just does it." That havin'' been said, most of da responders here dislike that change in guidance. We''d rather work with kids to improve, then sign off when they succeed even if it takes longer than 6 months. Questions for self-reflection: 1) Was the boy appointed to this POR because he had real talent for it and interest in it. Or was he shoved in to fill a slot? A boy with weak writing skills ain''t goin'' to make a good Newsletter writer, and there''s nothing you''re going to do about that in the short term. A really shy lad isn''t going to succeed as a group leader/instructor in the short term either. 2) What have yeh done by way of teaching and coaching? Lots of times, boys who seem "lazy" about doin'' their duties really don''t have the skills to know where to begin. So like boys, they don''t ask for directions, they just blunder about or procrastinate . Have you told him how? Have you shown him how? Have you coached him actively as he made attempts? Have you seen him solo successfully without any help? Only if you''ve done all those things can you hold him accountable for choosing not to perform his duties. 3) Who appointed the lad in the first place? Seems like those that do the hiring need to be the ones who learn about making good hires - and learn about the responsibility for "firing." If da position was appointed by the SPL, I''d work with the SPL so that the SPL decides to make a change, and handles it himself. Great learning experience. If the position was elected (like PL), I''d encourage patrol members who complained to consider calling a new election, or at least introduce a blunt "Roses and Thorns" feedback session. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I think it''s important that truck drivers and courts set the agenda for scientific education in Britain''s schools. Maybe we can catch up to ''em on international tests and competitiveness that way. Amazin'' the modern neo-con willingness to ignore data in order to hold on to what it wants/thinks is right. BA, the Arctic perennial sea-ice results you list are scary evidence of ongoing global warming. The fact that the acceleration of melting the past two years is attributable to unique and new atmospheric patterns that started just in the last 10 years shows how the warming trend is changing atmospheric patterns (the last 10 years were da warmest on record) in ways which further accelerate rather than damp the warming. It''s a scary result. The models were off, but they were too conservative. The warming is worse because it''s being accelerated by atmospheric changes. Like any popular movie, Inconvenient Truth simplifies the underlyin'' science for the layman. In so doing, it does "lie" in the same way that any simplification lies by being too simplistic. That''s different than those that ignore the data and best analysis in order to create doubt so as to bolster a political agenda. Beavah

I am not about to penalize a boy just because he took off and "did other things." Yah, Vicki, I don''t see da penalty, eh? The boy got the benefit of doin'' all those other things. Simple choice. If the boy chose to do Scouting instead of soccer, he wouldn''t be "active" in the soccer program and wouldn''t earn a Varsity letter in soccer, even if he came back for the last two games. That''s not "penalizing" a boy. It''s properly recognizing the other boys who were more committed to soccer. If the boy chose to do Scouting instead of band, and as a result wasn''t as active in his school''s music program and therefore didn''t earn the Highest Award for music, that''s not penalizing him for Scouting. He is able to earn awards in Scouting that his friends doing band aren''t eligible for. Awards and recognitions, whether Varsity Letters or Music Awards or Eagle Scout, recognize outstanding achievement in that area. It''s just fine for a lad to choose which areas he wants to be active in/committed to, and just fine if those are the (only) areas where he deserves the Highest Award. The standard for Boy Scouting is not "do your best" the way it is in Cub Scouting. And chasin'' as many awards as you can, just doin'' the minimum, isn''t my personal view of strong character. There''s a lot of flexibility in da program, though. It''s certainly possible for a unit that wants every boy to "get" Eagle to make that happen, if it fits with their CO''s view of goals and character. Certainly dat''s the trend, given the increased % of boys making Eagle. But there''s other ways of lookin'' at it, eh? And other units/CO''s with a stronger standard of character may use the BSA materials to try to get their boys to reach that higher level of servant leadership and commitment. Differences of opinion to be sure. Worth thinkin'' about. Beavah

Eamonn''s post works for me - why unnecessary hurdles? It''s not about me as an adult - I''m in it for longer than this kid has been around or will be around. Yah, I can answer that, eh? It''s not about us as adults for anybody posting. It''s about the kids. Not just the one boy, but all of da boys. The question in my mind is always "What is the message we send to the other boys?" If we tell them that Eagle is our highest award, and that it represents character and commitment and loyalty, then the examples we give them of Eagle Scouts better measure up to our fine words. If they don''t, then we hurt those other boys. We diminish the rank in their eyes. We make it OK for them to take off and do other things and then come back to try to squeak by with the minimum. It is something to "get by on" not something to measure up to. Have no doubt, those kids are watching who we hold up to them as being the best that Scouting has to offer. And we adults have to live with that precedent and those remaining kids after that one "blip" goes through, eh? If yeh want Advancement or Eagle to serve da mission of teaching character, then those that receive awards must actually be examples of great character that are recognizable to your scouts. Not "Who''s this John kid who is getting Eagle? Don''t you remember, he was the guy who dropped out as our PL three years ago?" Upholding high expectations for Advancement is a gift we give all the other boys who are comin'' up the trail. So it''s a balance, eh? There''s room for forgiveness and charity, if a boy is really interested in Scouting not just self-interested in getting an award. But that has to be balanced against the needs of the other boys. Beavah

Yah, mamacat, if yeh want the adults in the unit to do their best job caring for your son, then they need all of the information, eh? It is irresponsible and dangerous to withhold medical information from outdoor leaders. In some units, not being completely honest on a medical form would end your son''s membership if the leadership felt it was deliberate. There''s no downside to letting the unit leaders know about your son''s ADHD. They can help by providing information on his behavior outdoors that might lead to medication adjustments, and they can be prepared with appropriate strategies to manage his behavior when it gets too distracted or rambunctious. There''s no downside to letting the unit leaders know about your son''s JRA. JRA in particular, as you know, is subject to "flareups" which might very well start on a campout when the physical stresses are higher. They need to be aware of that possibility and prepare for it with at least basic planning. And your son''s needs, if not planned for, can adversely affect the comfort and safety of other kids. Moving more slowly can mean getting caught in a storm, or stuck for an extra day, or being more fatigued and less careful. Da job of the unit leaders is to do their best to keep all the kids comfortable and safe. Do your part in helpin'' them do their job. Be up-front and honest in all your communications, especially medical and psychological needs. Fill out a health & medical form completely, write up a summary of your son''s condition, medications, and what sort of things they can expect (and what things they might see if the condition flares up), and have a brief meeting with the SM. Pass along everything you know about how to successfully manage your son''s behavior and arthritis. Beavah

Yah, I think I once took a straw poll around our district. About 70% used Scout Accounts where some fundraising was allocated to individual boys for activities. Of those, most allowed transfers to take the money to a new troop or crew, but not always. IMNSHPO, the boys/families can never receive the amount as cash or cash equivalents. That is either employment (work for remuneration, requiring income tax reporting) or fundraising fraud or both. For CO''s that are federal 501©(3) NFP''s, I also believe that the IRS would consider "personal equipment" as an inappropriate diversion of funds (fundraising fraud again) that would compromise the CO''s status. The funds raised must stay within the organization, to be used for its charitable purpose. You can''t claim to fundraise for charity, and then use it to buy a personal backpack. Best is to be clear and honest. All funds raised go to the unit. The troop committee may choose to allocate a portion toward individual dues or trip costs. No monies will ever be given to individuals as direct payment or gift certificate equivalents for gear. Beavah