Beavah

Yah, that's a good point, OGE. My bad, as the kids say. There is a whole chapter in the Troop Committee Handbook describin' how the committee is to go about selecting and recruiting adult leaders. It's even described as "the single most important responsibility of the troop committee." But when yeh read closer, the actual text describes the committee function as "assisting in the selection". So you're quite right. The clarity of the writin', though, leaves a bit to be desired. The overall chapter does leave a new committee member with the wrong impression. Beavah

Yah, kenk... OK.... So where would yeh like us to begin? Or are yeh just lookin' for brothers and sisters to share your pain? Not ideal, to be sure. But what's your kid's experience been like? Sometimes a good SM can manage a decent program despite an odd parent committee. Beavah

SR540 in da parent thread commented: I would think that the unit committee that chooses to be closed to non-committee members is the unit that will find it difficult to get adult support for driving, fund-raisers, etc. Except for very special circumstances, it would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. This seemed like a good topic to spin off, eh? In the official BSA troop committee model, doin' things like "getting adult support for driving" or "working fundraisers" is NOT part of the role or responsibility of the committee. (Yah, you bookish types can go look it up, Troop Committee Handbook, p. 13 ). In the BSA system, the troop committee is a small group of individuals who are recruited and selected for their expertise. They act like a board of directors. They don't get involved in micromanagin' the nitty-gritty of troop operations like driving or fundraisers. That's the SM's job, eh? Or more properly, da PLC's . BSA-style troop committees only handle director-like functions. They select the SM. They advise on CO and BSA policy. They oversee finances and troop property. And they provide special resources and expertise when a SM is dealin' with serious behavior problems and other challenges. They're the board of directors of a private organization. Lots of units, though, operate on an "open committee" model, usin' whatever parents show up. Cub packs are the most common here, where the adult committee essentially is the group of workers who plans events and trips. Yah, but plenty of troops hang on to this adult-run-worker committee like they were still in cub scouts, eh? The committee spends its time on things like drivin' and whether the kids should be allowed to set up tents in the dark. Both can work, eh? Especially in small troops of like-minded families, bein' open is just fine and friendly. I think there's a reason why the BSA promotes the board-of-directors committee for troops, though. It helps keep parents from micro-managin' and adult-running things. And it helps avoid "adult wars" at the committee level, like we read about in da forums all the time. So, what kind of Committee does your troop have? And if they're not doin' it da BSA way, how do yeh find it better? Beavah

Yah, OGE a committee isn't an "organization", eh? Yeh gotta go look at the text and context of that regulation. It only applies to youth activities. Council Executive Board meetings and committees are "closed" a lot of da time, eh? Same can be true of troop committee meetin's. Some CO's run on small CO-based committees that aren't advertised to parents. Even troop committee meetings that are generally "open" can be "closed" to consider sensitive topics like awardin' camperships, disciplining scouts, etc. What the best setup is for any given troop or CO is a good discussion, but it's just incorrect info to say that a troop committee can't be a closed body if it or the CO so chooses. Beavah

Yah, I agree with FScouter, eh? Get another dad, and take as many kids as you can manage on Friday night. If the SM can "anti-recruit" nothin' says you can't recruit. Settin' up in the dark, doin' night-hikes, being in the woods on Saturday morning is fun and adventure. Just make it awesome, so they all talk about it... Or start encouragin' your son and any like-minded kids to plan separate 2-day weekend adventures... packin', canoein', climbin', bikin', whatever. Open 'em up to his patrol, or to all the boys who want to come. It might be that yeh have a troop of wimps, but my guess is that you've got a troop of kids that hasn't realized what they're really capable of, because the adults are holdin' 'em back so much. Beavah

Yah, guess I should clarify my "not the first time" statements, eh? Of course there's a first time for any kid usin' drugs. But da math and the psychology and the simple reality is that it is extremely unlikely that a lad is going to be caught by adults his first time. Almost never happens. The result is that almost every time a boy, or especially a naive parent, claims "But it was his first time!!" they're lyin' or fooling themselves. Parents really want to believe it was "the first time." It allows them to excuse it and feel better and avoid the hard work of really knuckling down to get on top of helpin' their kid. Kids use the claim to avoid punishment as best they can. Longhaul's stories are good ones. When a boy is offered drugs at a scout camp, if it really would be his first time, he's going to say no. Yeh don't do your first hit in that kind of risky, public way. Yeh do it way out of the way, in private, where yeh aren't going to get caught. If we had fewer parents who were gullible enough to believe "oh my kid would never do drugs" and "oh, this was his first time", we'd be a lot better off. That attitude really is "turning our backs on" the real needs of a kid. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there's just no one right way here. Most small troops have folks double up, eh? Even if they register as MCs for paperwork purposes, they might serve as SAs in a lot of practical ways. Just to clarify for folks, though, the "no secret societies" bit applies to youth members and activities only. Parents are allowed to attend any youth event, including traditionally "secret" stuff like OA ceremonies. But that rule doesn't apply to adult stuff at the unit, CO, or council level. Troop committees, and council committees, can be "closed" to folks not on the committee if they so choose. That's not too common, but there are some CO's where it's normal, and there are some circumstances where it's appropriate in any unit. A parent can't demand to attend (or speak at) a committee meeting if he/she is not a member of the committee. Beavah

Yah, Rikki, so if I understand you right, the boys who were smoking pot were camp staff members? Not CIT's, but paid staff. And the boy in question did not exactly go turn himself in, eh? He was caught in the act. No question it's tough, eh? But staff members smokin' pot at a youth camp pretty much guarantees gettin' fired and being excluded from future contact with youth. It has to. That's our promise to the other kids and parents to maintain a safe environment. And the lads were the council's employees, eh? The troop really doesn't have a say in this, unfortunately. It happened on the council's time. And I'll bet my favorite fly fishin' rod that it wasn't the boys' first encounter with cannabis. Bad mistake. Tough mistake. Hopefully one that the lads will learn from and remember for a long time. For the rest of it, I'm sympathetic with your complaints. I ain't comfortable with how we fundraise and where we spend money sometimes, and nobody is happy about the occasional major screw-ups from membership fraud to the Chicago and Idaho debacles. I believe there are some real structural and "corporate culture" problems in the BSA, and I'm a bit of an internal critic from time to time . Most BSA execs aren't well trained in, and don't perform well doin' youth supervision or crisis management. Youth work isn't a very large part of the job, that's where the volunteers do their thing. Yeh can't expect 'em to be great at mentoring or whatnot. And lots of times, I'm disappointed by volunteers, too, like the EBOR member (a volunteer, not a paid staffer) whom you mention. While I agree with yeh on many things, be careful about paintin' with too broad a brush because you're upset. There's many good folks, paid folks even, within the BSA. And runnin' an organization is a hard job, with a lot of competin' pressures and interests. Sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. The program ain't perfect. But for all its warts, it's still pretty good, and worth supportin'. Beavah

Bravo Bob! :) Never stop learnin' and tryin' to do even better!

Yah, jambo, I hear yeh. I too have seen the "hands off" scouters who let the kids fail without ever tryin' to teach 'em how to succeed. They make a big deal about sittin' in the adult patrol and being "boy led", forgettin' the second half "adult guided". Like I said, there are two errors to avoid: 1) Believing the kids can't do it, and doing it for them. 2) Not doing a good job teachin' and helpin' the kids grow, and instead letting 'em flounder. You object to #2, and I agree with you. But then you seem to embrace #1, which is just another version of failure, eh? Sure, kids have lots of "field trips" and activities that way. It's great fun to have others do all the work. It looks glitzy. But the kids don't learn a darn thing that way - they never get to make it "theirs", they never experience struggle and success, they don't really grow. Just like #2, I think it's a lazy way out for the adults. "Let's just do it ourselves" rather than "let's do the hard work to figure out what it takes so that the kids can do it for themselves." Great scouters aren't lazy. They work really hard. But they put their work into kids, not into activities. Beavah

Yah, there's clearly somethin' here about stuff that went on at summer camp, involvin' multiple boys. We need the real, full info, Rikki. Me personally, I'd be inclined to take a tack similar to PeteM's, eh? But it just depends on the boy and the circumstances. The fact that this seems to have occurred at a council camp and perhaps involved staff seems like it justifies the council's direct involvement. Now don't take it personal, but callin' folks names and such just ain't the best way to go about makin' a presentable appeal. I don't mean to be triggerin' anybody's "Mama Bear" instincts, but I suspect yeh might make a better case by following your son's example. Don't blame others (like the BSA) or conditions (like ADHD) for the consequences of his actions. Acceptin' responsibility is, as you suggest, the first step. Then acceptin' consequences. If both you as parent and him as child do that, then perhaps friendly scouters can prevail on the powers that be on a boy's behalf. That's the only shot that has a chance of success, eh? Yah, I'd still encourage you to assume this ain't the first time, no matter how much you want to believe that as a parent. A kid apt to act impulsively at camp is apt to act impulsively at school, and as yeh mention, there's a lot more drugs at school. You'll do your son much more service by watchin' him like a hawk from here on. At very least, follow the President Reagan doctrine: Trust, but Verify. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Question though, Is the G2SS a "Guide" or is it some additional Rules and Regulations that National has given to us, or is it simply a clarification of the existing rules? Yes. It is primarily a guide, and the majority of the document is exactly that. It is also a compilation of guidance and rules that appear in other places and documents, to make things easier for volunteers to find. That's why it has a "choppy" sort of feel, as it excerpts things from other documents. Those would not be "additional" rules, just rules, and they are never a clarification, just an excerpt. B

To punish a boy for his disability is like hanging someone for being left-handed. Yah, OK. I gotta say I believe it is simply wrongheaded and darn poor parenting or educating to maintain that a boy is not responsible for his actions because he happens to be ADHD. If this were really the case, then the boy should not participate in Scouting because of the safety risk he would pose to himself and others, being in an environment where impulsive actions can really hurt someone. B

Yah, Rikki, it's hard as a parent when one of our kids has to face consequences for his actions. There's good and bad ways to handle it, though. The good ways generally involve helpin' a lad take responsibility and accept consequences, even ones which are hard. Fact is, most youth programs are going to take a pretty dim view of illegal drug use. That's going to get a kid kicked out of any camp, get kicked off any school sports team, etc. Especially now that you seem to be sayin' this was a summer camp incident and there were some confused issues about some kids supplyin' pot to other kids, the BSA response seems pretty "normal." As a parent, I sure as heck would expect a firm response to a youth leader smokin' pot on a trip, especially when Scouting tells me that my son will be to some extent supervised & led by those same youth leaders in his troop. Honestly, I've got a fair bit of sympathy for your more general complaints about the corporate BSA. It does have its downsides and weaknesses. We all can tot off inanities like the Chicago Council mess and the Greater Alabama and Atlanta membership fraud cases, or the Idaho child abuse shuffle. I'll even agree that some SE's have been abusing the "drop someone's membership" option in recent years. To my ears, though, your passion over this particular incident is drivin' a really emotional argument, not a rational one. Get the kid some help for his drug use. Let him see that drug use has consequences that even his parents can't control. That's an OK lesson, hard as it is. There are other extracurricular opportunities to join and grow from, provided he learns that lesson. As you say, though, I don't know the kid or the other players, so that's just how it's looking to me from afar. Feedback is a gift you are free to discard. Beavah

Yah, one thing to add, eh? As a rule, when a lad is caught smokin' a joint, it's almost never the first time. No matter what the lad says. We parents are pretty naive about this stuff sometimes. Usually, a kid gets caught because he's been doin' it often enough that he's become careless. Like doin' it on a scout trip, as opposed to doin' it in the wooded area of a park after school with no adults around, or the hundreds of other places where there's no chance of gettin' nabbed. Never believe that it's really "the first time." B

Hiya, Rikki. As hard as it is, step back and take a deep breath. Now, as packsaddle said, yeh need to drop a few things from your argument. The fact that there's no legal case against an adult (or youth), or that a DA chooses not to file charges in a case, is irrelevant. There are all kinds of real-world situations where it's right and proper for a unit to expel a lad or an adult without hard-and-fast proof of criminal culpability. A boy smokin' a joint on a campout is a tough thing. A unit needs to think not only of what's best for the boy, but what's best for the troop. Like it or not, other parents may pull their boys out of a troop that doesn't take a strong stand against illegal drug use. Still more parents will choose not to send their webelos to such a troop. "Did you hear they had boys smoking pot on a campout, and they're still in leadership positions in the troop? My son might get him as a PL!". That's tough for a lot o' parents to swallow. It takes a really, really savvy SM and a real strong communication effort to pull that off without hurtin' the troop and other boys. And yeh can bet that the parents who didn't like this one bit called the BSA council. Lots of times leaders in youth programs have to make the decision to do what's best for all the kids, and for the program, even if it's hard on one boy. Now, I'd say if the SM was a really strong, well-respected chap with good communication skills, and if he had the full backing of the troop committee and the Chartered Organization, and if he did a good job promptly communicating with the council to get them on board before they started getting outside complaints, and if he did a great job of communicating with all the parents to get 'em on board, THEN a troop could pull off something like what you describe. Maybe. It's really tough for a boy to be usin' illegal drugs on a campout, and for the average troop parent to see no real action being taken. The boy isn't suspended, he keeps his position of responsibility. If all that wasn't done well, then sadly this is the kind of situation where the CO or BSA is likely to step in. Personally, I would have advised the unit that a suspension and a loss of POR were necessary. The youth had it right, takin' responsibility for wrongdoing means losing positions of respect until you are able to regain people's trust. The lax response was the wrong lesson for the other boys, IMO. I doubt the situation is rescuable at this point, sadly. But to pursue it, letters from the troop and family will not be effective. This needs to be taken up by the COR with the council president and scout executive. Beavah

Yah, scoutmom2, there's just so many different ways troops and COs do this committee stuff, eh? It'd probably help us to help you if yeh let us know what all the fuss was about that's givin' you stress. In some units, troop committees are just like PTOs, they're open to all parents. In that case, an ASM or SM who is a parent should probably get a vote, eh? That seems only right and fair. There are quite a lot of troops who operate this way, probably because it's a very common cub pack arrangement. In da official BSA literature, committees are a selected group of people, parents & non-parents, who are to act sorta like a board of directors. In that kind of setup, the SM is like the CEO... he/she reports to the committee, but doesn't get a vote. Some units run this way. In some units, committees are sort of warm bodies, and mostly exist to fulfill paperwork requirements and handle a few administrative tasks. This seems most common at the Venturing level. This type of committee almost never "votes". There are other permutations, of course. Then there's a bigger question of "what should a committee be voting on?". Lots of problems get created when a committee starts to micromanage the program side... voting on things like individual campouts or gettin' in the way of the SM's job to administer the program. I don't quite agree with sst3rd that committees shouldn't vote; there's plenty that do just fine voting and there are some things (like expelling a kid) where a vote seems downright necessary. But I do agree with the sentiment; most of the time, the committee should proceed by consensus in ways that actively support the SM. Beavah

Yah, scoutldr, that's mostly me bein' too lazy to go through all my materials to try to find it, eh? But yeh gotta remember that the BSA is nowhere near the same thing as the regulatory compliance environment you work in. Yeh just can't think of it that way. BSA doesn't have the staff, expertise, or compliance officers to do that, and as yeh know, regulatory compliance like that consumes a lot of time & resources. Most importantly, that's not what Scoutin' is about. We're talkin' about helpful education program materials for kids and their adult coaches, not detailed and carefully worded federal regulations for da banking industry. I for one sure wouldn't want Scouting to develop the same approach as regulatory agencies! I once coached youth rec. soccer, in the days before the 6th grade professional travel teams. Went to the bookstore, bought a couple of books on coachin' youth soccer, had a few rules from the league that more or less governed how games were played with other teams. Scouting is more like that, eh? A fun game. Anyway, the guidance used to show up in ACP&P someplace, and it was also in a couple other national documents. Seems reasonable, anyway, that if a kid professes a particular faith that his Duty to God should be assessed by someone from that faith. Beavah

Yah, I'm in the "we don't do enough" group with many of the others. After all, yeh can get to our "highest level of training" from "zero" in just a few weekends. I'm with Gunny, though. There does need to be a kind of "challenge out" or "quick credit" mechanism to recognize scouters who already have a set of skills. No point in makin' people sit through stuff bein' bored. Beavah

Our SM came back from wood badge a couple years ago with 1st class/1st year as a goal, but has backed off as it doesn't really seem to work that way for most boys. This has been my experience in a lot of units as well. Unless the troop is very active, and the boy in question is comin' on everything offered, it's just hard to get there for most kids and still have time to be boys, have fun, and do all the other stuff besides advancement that Scoutin' offers. Or yeh do what Aquila describes, and you have a bunch of kids who have First Class on paper, but really never learned the stuff. They just parroted it for the signoff. Beavah

Yah, I don't think EagleDad is too idealistic. I've seen a number of troops "get it right" in the way he describes. Older boys love the responsibility of helpin' the younger lads, managing safety, growing into responsibilities. And it makes for a seamless transition into bein' ASMs eventually. But in trying to get it on the green, there's too big sand traps scouters can fall into, eh? One is not believin' it's possible to get there, and therefore not workin' on it. Lots of adults like this. Kids "aren't capable." "It's an adult job." "Have to enforce policy." etc. etc. The second is tryin' to jump there in one step. Goin' "hands off", sink-or-swim rather than building up to boy-run progressively with training and guided practice. This leads to various versions of "boy run into the ground." And in chippin' out of this sand trap, most folks end up back in the first one, eh? Not "OK, we've got to do a better job of training/coaching" but "boys can't do this, we have to take over." Beavah

It could be a neighbor, or a sister, or a parent, or his best friend. There's actually guidance somewhere that if a boy is part of a formal religious denomination/church, then the religious reference should come from the pastor/youth minister etc. of that church (not a friend or parent). Personally, since there's already a parent reference, our council likes to see a different person for this - peer, relative, etc., but not a parent. For "employer" when there is no employer, we encourage the boys to use someone/some organization for whom they have done substantial service. For eisely's question, I'd say give the boy a copy of the DRP, and ask him to write about what "higher power" or "outside himself" he owes allegiance to, eh? When he makes "hard" decisions or choices, what does he use for a reference that allows him to get past "self interest" and personal foibles? Beavah

Yah, the incidents of child abuse within the BSA are appalling, as are the incidents in other organizations like the Catholic church. The incidents of administrative malfeasance in each which allowed abuse to continue in some cases are simply infuriatin', no question. But they make news because the organizations as a whole are large, popular, and effective. The good each organization does makes the contrast from a few bad apples and wicked or lazy leaders especially stark. It's that good that they do, and the norm of being good, that makes failures newsworthy. Yeh won't get that kind of media coverage for the many atheist child molesters, eh? That's because the atheists haven't built many large, popular, and effective organizations that are known for their good works which would merit such coverage. Or maybe it's because child molesters bein' atheists is more the norm than the exception, eh? Nuthin' newsworthy there. Beavah

Yah, maybe some examples, eh? Which is Scouting: 1. The SM conducts a uniform inspection by-the-book, tellin' each kid what he got wrong and givin' him a score. 2. The Patrol Leader conducts a uniform inspection usin' the same materials, but maybe laughs at Billy wearin' the "deadly snorer" patch his patrol gave him after summer camp (and even gives him bonus points). Which is Scouting: 1. The SM fills out the Tour Permit, gives the Safety Afloat talk, and handles all of the supervision arrangements for the float trip. 2. The PLC fills out the Tour Permit, a Star Scout gives the Safety Afloat talk, the SPL with a couple of youth BSA Lifeguards handle all of the supervision for the float trip. Even if maybe they don't do a perfect job on da float plan. Which is Scouting: 1. The SM gives the PLC a long lecture on how they can't go do paintball because of policy and da chance that they might confuse a paintball gun with a real gun someday and become a Columbine-like murderer. 2. The PLC has a raucous debate on what that obscure passage means, and spend an hour arguin' over whether a paintball gun is a "firearm." Even if they decide in the end that the guys in the Explodin' Cow Farts and Killer Wabbit patrols will just get together and bike out to Mad Max's paintball emporium on Saturday as a group of friends, since they're all members and their parents let 'em play. Me, I vote #2 in each case. As I said in my original post, "the boys, not the adults" assume responsibility. There's some adults who don't believe in youth leadership. They can still run OK troops in a "school field trip" kinda way. There's some troops where da youth aren't yet skilled enough to lead (often where the adults aren't skilled enough to mentor/teach 'em how). They gotta do what they gotta do. Just that neither meets my personal definition of boy run, eh? Beavah

Yah, BA, that means for G2SS too, eh? The boys should be involved in safety plannin' and taught how. That's why 2nd Class rank requires SSD, and 1st Class requires Safety Afloat. So the boys, as Patrol Leaders, can be responsible for leadin' and usin' those things to make their program run, not the adults. Sure, youth leadership applies to safety and the outdoors method. Yep, it applies to advancement, havin' older boys instruct and do signoffs. Uniform method ain't any different. Should be youth leadership there, too, eh?