Beavah

Yah, I thought of that one after a recent email exchange with an international scouting colleague. In many other countries, it's completely normal for youth leaders and other senior scouts to have keys to their scoutin' facilities. Even to da point where they can take out boats and other gear on their own. One interestin' side effect is that they also do more work maintainin' the gear and facilities because it feels like it's theirs, and they're able to do work on their own schedule. No question dat many/most U.S. troops run into an Institutionalized Adult-Run element here. Just important that we call a spade a spade... and maybe reflect whether it really can be negotiated. Yah, 99% of them that squalk about "liability" don't know what they're talkin' about, and fewer still recognize that liability is something that we have to willingly accept in order to do anything worthwhile. Beavah

Yah, acco, uniformin' is a method, not an aim, eh . Each troop gets to decide how it uses each method. Da troops I've been involved with on the leadership side were all pretty well uniformed for events, and wore appropriate outing clothes on outings. Uniforms were pretty much "full" or small substitutions like an alternative olive pant that still looked uniform. Dat's my personal preference, and what I advocate to those who ask. But I respect volunteers and units who do different, eh? And I'd encourage you to do that, too. Plenty of units who run very respectable Scouting programs who are less "full" in their uniformin'. That can be because of demographics, or finances, or philosophy. Not mine to quibble. More often than not, those units do a darn sight better at other Methods than well uniformed troops. Keep da aims in focus, use the methods in smart ways to get there. And most important, don't tick off good adult volunteers by treatin' 'em like kids and yapping at them about uniforming. Those adults are important in the life of some boys, and deserve our respect. Beavah

Yah, Kudu, yeh know... I think there's a lot of merit to sharin' different ways at looking at things in Scoutin', to help people who are tryin' to do a good job with kids. And like you, I think there are a few things that more experienced editors and writers and proofreaders should have corrected in various BSA publications. There are also times when I think da good people in various offices down in Irving get a bit insular, or hang on to positions for too long and get stale. Yah, yah, we all "vent" about National a bit as a sorta pasttime, eh? But I still think they're good people. And I still think da BSA puts together a pretty darn good program overall. Seems like there ain't no reason to call people cheats and such. None of us get everything right even when we have lots of time and resources. I think yeh do other Scouters a disservice when yeh get quite so strident, because as often as not they'll stop listenin' to you, and then you won't have helped 'em with their problem, eh? Beavah

Here's a good one: Only adults have keys to the gear room/meeting place. Youth leaders don't.

Yah, I think da units that do it best tend to hold monthly PLC meetings away from distractions for a longer period than half an hour. The norm seems to be a separate night once per month, rather than canceling one troop meeting. Especially when you're teaching kids how to handle meetings for the first time, you need a longer stretch. The half-hour-before-meeting (or after meeting) times are a good thing to do each week to handle the last-minute prep/planning for that night's meeting or the next week's. But it doesn't usually work for doin' longer-term stuff. No youth-run troops ever do the Roberts Rules/read the minutes stuff, any more than small adult organizations do. Best is informal, by consensus operation the way TheScout describes. Beavah

Yah, I can't say that I've ever seen a well-uniformed committee meeting, and all the BSA literature seems to show committee activities conducted in civilian wear. So yep, I'd say that's da norm. Key committee members holdin' public positions of responsibility should wear uniforms when exercisin' that position in a formal way. So a CC servin' on an EBOR perhaps, or an Advancement Chair doing a function at a Court of Honor. But that's not the norm either, eh? Mostly, I'd say it isn't worth gettin' too bothered about. Be happy the adults are givin' their time, and thank 'em for that. And it might be a worthy lesson for the boys that in our great nation, da highest level of folks wear civilian clothing, not uniforms. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so what if somethin' like this were da topic of an Ethical Controversies discussion with our scouts or venturers? How would we frame the ideas and the choices for the kids to help them make their own decisions (rememberin' that one of da primary ways they learn is by watchin' us, eh)?

Yah, Crewmomma. Welcome to youth programs in da age of Attack Helicopters! What you describe isn't unique to Scoutin', it's there in coaching, teaching, and every other youth activity. I suspect it's probably the #1 reason why good people in all those positions burn out. Best emotional support is you and the other adult leaders, just as you describe. Sit and vent, and then tag-team or brainstorm a solution. Best practical support is a strong CC or COR. I've found it works best if da CC or COR are viewed as a "hard case" or "bad cop". That makes da SM the "good cop" in the relationship. Personally, I've never found the "sign 'em up as an ASM or committee member" solution to be very effective. Sometimes they take you up on it, and then you have to deal with them all the time instead of occasionally. Yeh should never put a nutcase in a position of responsibility. I'm more of an advocate of an open door policy. "Da door is open, you're free to leave". I think volunteer organizations have to be really thoughtful about whether they renew the membership of people who monopolize leader time and energy like this. One attack helicopter can really drain a SM and consume a lot of time, which really hurts the program for a lot of other kids. Everybody gets to have a bad day or two, but if you're a troop of 50, each parent having one bad day a year means da SM is gettin' hit every week. That's too much, eh? If you've got somebody who's havin' a lot of bad days, I think yeh have to protect the SM and the program. I've seen the Attack Helicopters go after the SPL or PLC as well. I confess I'm with Eagledad, I've got no patience for that stuff. Our first job as adults is to protect the environment for the kids. However you need to, that sort of behavior has to end the moment it's begun. Hit the eject button if necessary. Beavah

Yah, just to be clear, I did include a few where da BSA itself has institutionalized adult-run elements, eh? Like adults sitting BOR's instead of kids, or adults setting conditions or requirements to be eligible for election as SPL or PL. We have to recognize that these are adult-run encroachments same as any that are dreamed up by individual troops. No particular reason why well trained and experienced boys couldn't sit BOR's and as peers have an even bigger impact on their mates. And it's the job of the adults to see that they're trained, right? Of course it's always easier to take it over. And it can be necessary if the kids aren't ready. The one I hate the most is the adult-run, school-like MB and T-2-1 classes. Not only do we take leadership and teachin' T21 away from the PL's, we turn all the fun into the most borin' version of school class we can find. Poor use of Advancement, poor use of Adults, poor use of Youth leaders, poor Personal Growth. Gad, is there a Method or Aim it doesn't undermine?? Sometimes it seems like every troop I visit slides into this. The one I have the least problem with is adults settin' expectations for or limitations on outings. A few gentle parameters to help the boys frame the problem is a good thing, and keeps 'em from just boppin' from activity to activity without an underlyin' purpose. But sure, I'd hand this off, too, if kids were ready to run it. I think the "sweet spot" for each troop meets the needs of those kids and adults where they're at, but we should all be tryin' to phase out every one of these institutionalized adult-run elements. Use 'em sometimes when we need to, but don't hold on to 'em. We can't phase 'em out all at once, and I doubt any troop would ever get all da way, but it should be our Holy Grail. Beavah

Yah, Gunny's thread raises an interestin' issue. Nowhere in any of da BSA material has there ever been information on removing boys from a Position of Responsibility. Not in a single publication. The presumption has, I think, always been much the same as the one VeniVidi mentions: we work with boys, we don't fire 'em. Same way we work with 'em on their First Aid or their livin' by the Oath and Law. Now along comes the folks in the Advancement Office with the first ever notion dat the proper course is to remove a boy from a POR. And not the youth doin' it, but the Scoutmaster removin' the boy. Or if da SM doesn't, then the boy gets an award for service in a POR even if he never really served, or never served successfully. What do yeh all think of this? Should SM's be removin' boys, or should it be like the rest of Advancement, where the SM works with a boy until he succeeds? What do you do in your troop? Beavah

Hunt had an interestin' comment about how units may (often?) institutionalize adult-run elements. Adult-appointed PL's might be an example. So here's some institutionalized adult components I've seen, that I bet lots of units use. If yeh see one you like, grab it and explain why yeh think it's OK, or under what circumstances it helps get to the Aims. If yeh see one you hate, grab it and tell us why yeh think there are better ways. If yeh don't see one you're lookin' for, feel free to make up your own! Please share your own perspective on one or two first, before we start arguin' with each other -------- Adults select or limit the pool of candidates for troop or patrol positions (including things like rotating New Scout Patrol Leader). Adults require uniforming for various events. Adults offer MB or T-2-1 classes for advancement. Adults determine the gear patrols can purchase or take on campouts. Adults set expectations for or limitations on outings (1 per month, none in summer, must do summer camp yearly, etc.). Adults require weekly collection of dues. Adults set dues amounts. Adults determine participation rules/fund distribution for fundraisers. Adults determine fundraisers. Adults work fundraisers. Adults sign off on T-2-1 advancement. Adults sit on Boards of Review. Adults plan parts (or all) of outings. Adults plan parts (or all) of meetings. Adults determine safety plans/respond to first aid needs/ etc.

Easy there, OGE. I don't think anybody was bein' insultin' or denigrating. Your chimin' in was very polite and to the point. Yah 'tis true, the current BSA literature advocates elections for PL and SPL. That's worth remindin' people of in a general way. I think that works just fine for an established, high-functioning troop with some good coachin' at the patrol level. Workin' with kids, I expect we all adjust our approach dependin' on the kid. Quiet, shy kids get a different sort of encouragement than rambunctious, rowdy boys. Kids with handicaps get more support where and when they need it. I believe it's da same with units. We've gotta approach each unit where it's at, with ideas to support 'em that work for right now. Units like Gunny's that have a current handicap might need more support, eh? Da literature isn't always the best for that, because it doesn't help with progression. We give people an overall, perfectly functional model, but no sense of how to get there from where they're at. Yah, and of course also no sense that some of 'em are tryin' to get to slightly different places, based on the mission of their CO. I'm a big fan of da BSA program materials. Lots of good stuff in 'em. But they're meant to be adapted by units to meet the needs of their kids. No point in holdin' on to elections if they're runnin' yeh off da cliff . Beavah

Yah, but OGE, in this case da original poster is describin' a situation in which the program literature method has failed in his unit. Seems like referrin' Gunny back to the program literature doesn't make much sense, eh? The question is "given that elections in da troop are a blow-off, what options do I have as SM?" Unfortunately, there's precious little in the official text to draw from... so it's more like da sorta thing that yeh get answers from friends at Roundtable, eh? Beavah

Yah, ask your DE, eh? Official rule is 5 youth members with primary registration in da crew. They can be dual to a troop or team, but you're supposed to have 5 who pay in the crew. Your SE has the authority to waive the rule for reasonable cause, both in terms of number and registry. Practically speakin', your council staff aren't goin' to stand in the way of a legitimate restartin' attempt for a unit, they're goin' to try to help yeh succeed. So tell your friend to "Just do it!" Beavah

Good, thoughtful approach, Brotherhood. Unlike jblake, I do think you need to choose clearly which you are looking to be - CC or ASM. Too much chance for confusion when you try to do both, and yeh won't be successful buildin' a real BSA program if you wear two hats that the BSA thinks are incompatible. Being honest about your own talents and interests is also a part of being Helpful and Loyal. It's OK to say "no" to CC and "yes" to ASM if you feel you'd be more enthusiastic/giving in that role. As CC, your job is to now build a real committee. Identify parents (and others) who aren't going to be regular outdoors folks but who have a desire to give. Start fillin' in jobs - adult QM, transportation manager, treasurer, funraising chair, advancement chair, etc. Get them job descriptions, get them trained, get them workin'. Go have a sit-down with your COR and your IH and get the lay of the land... and if you don't have a COR, get the DE to come with you to do his "annual" visit and help educate the IH to appoint a COR (it might be you, eh, if you're a member of the CO, which would tie in nicely to your district work). As you start relievin' da SM and ASMs of administrivia, encourage 'em to go (together!) to training. Find money to pay for it. Get a handle on the agenda and let da SM know when the committee will expect a calendar to approve (and in the process quietly drop da monthly adults-plan-da-program silliness). Have a monthly coffee time with the SM, develop a good workin' relationship with well-defined roles (hint: yours is to stay away from the boys). You get the picture, eh? Your job is to provide a workin' committee to support the SM's leadership team. Meetings should have the adult QM report on gear, and you askin' "OK, so how should we expand our gear for the future? New tents? Backpack stoves?". You're openin' up time and opportunity for the SM so he can do his best. Your committee should be an example and inspiration to da SM's... get committee training, have your AC go to the DAC for a personal, sit-down trainin', get 'em all to do supplemental BOR training, etc. Go do WB21 yourself, and encourage the SM's to follow suit. Can't expect your SM's to be into trainin' and enthusiasm if your committee isn't, eh? But yeh must not dictate program changes at the youth level. All yeh can do is provide support and a hint or idea here and there. Program is the SM's bailiwick, and the boys'. CC's a worthy job, and a big one. Make sure it's for you, though, yah? Yeh gotta like that behind-the-scenes support and resource creation bit, and excel at workin' with adults in an adult-style management environment. Yeh gotta work well with your SM as a partner, coverin' different areas of da program. But if it's what you like and are good at, it's a great gift to the troop to serve as CC. Beavah

Hiyah Gunny! Good question, eh? I think VeniVidi is spot on. Da place for adults in Scoutin' is to gently nudge things here and there to increase the likelihood of the boys doin' well. Mentorin' up front is the way, not dictatin' after the fact. For elections, that might mean settin' up a good process (maybe with a "screening step" like youth & adult nominating signatures, or rank, or...). It may include quietly encouragin' capable youth to run, perhaps insertin' a few questions for the candidates like "What trips did you help lead last year?" "What ideas were yours at the PLC?" Maybe, if da troop isn't quite ready for the election thing, it's appointin' PL's this year while you build up, or electing an ASPL who automatically will be next for SPL unless the SPL fires him for not doin' his job. That may be where you're at, if kids "intentionally" voted in "bad candidates." Kids need to see things runnin' right first, before they can be trusted to make decisions on their own. Problem is, once you let an election happen, I think you've got to let it play for at least a bit. Yeh might be surprised, and those characters might step up, eh? The boys may also know things that you don't. Mostly, though, it's a bad message if you step on the process (adults can just override us, so elections mean nothing!). And I just wouldn't vote "no confidence" in those boys without at least givin' 'em a shot. Yah, I'd sure be ready with a plan B, though! Give it long enough so that they experience some real pain and growth (and a few connect-the-dots comments like "Gee, the fun outing was canceled, you should talk to the SPL"), but not so long that you seriously injure da patient, eh? Beavah

Yah, layers and layers here. Love your enthusiasm, Brotherhood. I'm sure you'll be an asset to your son's troop goin' forward. I think yeh should take some time and get re-oriented to da program, though, before you jump into too much. To add to F's and meam's insightful comments, I've gotta ask you... Do you want to be the CC or an ASM? Everything you're describin' is an ASM's job, not a CC's. Those two ain't compatible. If you want to work with kids, be an ASM and assist the Scoutmaster toward buildin' a youth-run program. If you want to work with adults, be a CC, build a committee to support the kids and the SM - by getting out of program planning, and recruitin' some ASMs! Either way, grab some of the books, get some trainin', visit some other troops, and get yourself re-acquainted with Boy Scoutin' on the adult side in 2007. Kudos to the young man who knew enough to catch your mistake, though. Be sure to pass that along to da SM so the lad can be recruited to run the next orienteering event! Beavah

Yah, pack. But sometimes we just disagree about ideas, eh? In those cases, labeling the disagreement can be honest. Or at least helpful. Da point I think Epstein's tryin' to make is whether it's ethically sound to take those real disagreements to the point of incivility, or cultural warfare fought in the courts and polling booths and bookshelves and schools. Does disagreement really require building a "wall of separation"? Seems to me the merit of an idea is defined by how good it is at buildin' something, not how much it attacks another's building. In that, I think I agree with Epstein. Beavah

Yah, diannasav, there's no reason for the adults to get involved unless the scout requests, eh? Financial management is part of the leadership project process, and ties in nicely to Personal Management merit badge. Why take it away from the Scout? Unit funds are mostly the province of the CO. Funds for projects are mostly solicited on behalf of the agency the boy is doin' the project for, eh? In neither case does the BSA, either council or National, really have a (direct) say or a policy. It ain't their money, and you don't get to write policies for other people's money . If the amounts are large (more than $250 from a particular donor), there may be a tax incentive to working things through the unit account, or at least to make sure that either scouting or the beneficiary organization provides the required donation documentation for tax purposes. But this should be part of da scout's job, too, eh? He should be involved. Beavah

Yah, I think there's plenty of middle-schoolers who get into achieving adult-set awards. Kinda like a live version of pursuing levels on a video game. Sometime in early high school, boys become independent enough not to be fooled by adult-set awards, eh? This is called "growing up". High schoolers who still get "sparked" by accumulating badges because of adult pushing/recognition to my mind are an immature lot. So there's plenty of kids who give up the badges and baubles, but continue actively in Scouting in a mature, self-motivated way, doin' the things they enjoy, contributing to their troop. Of course, if da troop is mostly an Advancement-Focused troop, then when they get to that stage of maturity, there's nuthin' to hold them, and they fade out. Dat's a shame, eh? It's a sign of a troop that puts too much emphasis on advancement and doesn't have anything for the scouts who are growing up. Ultimately, a mature lad has to identify with the Eagle badge as being representative of something he cares about. Not somethin' that his parents care about. Not somethin' that other adults care about. A symbol of what he cares about and has accomplished in Scouting. That takes time, eh? It can't be "pushed," especially by the "biggest" adults in his life (parents). It can only be "pulled" a bit by scouting friends and adults makin' the connection. "Hey, George, you're a great guy and a super scout. You've given a lot to the program. You really deserve Eagle as a sign of all that, so that we can all celebrate - and so that you can give the best example to younger guys. Eagle only means something if guys like you are willin' to get it. Your choice, but I think you should go for it." Respect those kids who stall. They are the ones who are really growing up, and makin' Scouting, and Eagle, their own. Beavah

Hi Ed! Yah, in addition to the Scoutin' addiction, there's the Internet Forums addiction... And da patch trading addiction.... Da s'mores and campfire smoke addiction...

Why go into a situation knowing if you are challenged in court you will likely lose. Yah, OGE, I agree. Or rather, I agree that anyone should go into such situations with open eyes, eh? Remember that FOS and Scouting $$ aren't at issue. The cost of defending a suit would be borne by the school district (aka taxpayer). The reasons a school would go into such a situation are two: 1) Da local community agrees with the program, and doesn't expect anyone to mount a real challenge, eh? It's worth it to proceed with what they feel will work for kids at least until there's a challenge, and then take a closer look at the cost/benefits of fighting the challenge. or 2) Da local community is invitin' a challenge with every intention of making a test case of it, because they believe that's the right thing to do. Both are legitimate exercises by local government. It's OK for our elected officials & school boards to spend tax money, eh? Sometimes #1 turns into #2, as was the case for the Michigan school district that defended its policy of allowing the BSA full access to campus for recruiting purposes (and won, a bit to my surprise - appealed all da way to US Supreme Court, cert denied). Beavah

Ouch. Every Scouter's nightmare is the day when despite good planning and practices, the odd event happens and God calls one of His children home on our watch. Lots of times poles experience rot below ground level if moisture is retained in da soil. That can be very difficult to detect with an ordinary visual inspection. My heart and prayers go out to this boy and his family, and to the Scouters and Staffers who have to live the nightmare this week. May the Great Scoutmaster keep 'em all in da hollow of His hand. Beavah

Yah, Merlyn, I agree with you, eh? I think that a suit against a public school district that charters BSA units has a very good chance of ultimately prevailing. That's not a done deal, of course, but likely enough as to not be worth the cost to defend (especially when yeh can keep the practice in place with only trivial paperwork changes). But in my mind you keep missin' the bigger picture. Constitutional law is a product of society, it cannot determine society. In the end, its just powers all depend on "the consent of the governed." In a nation where 55% or so of the population believe in biblical creation and 98% believe in a Higher Power, I think it's worthwhile to be listenin' carefully to TheScout and others when they complain of Imperial Judiciary and such. That's a deeply felt sentiment, which if riled will ultimately prevail. Constitutional change, selection of judges and justices, jurisdictional restrictions under Article III, section 2, direction of funding, other legislation, vouchers or per-pupil based school funding, etc. can all be employed when the mechanisms of law run too far afield of the People's view of justice. Dat's why I posted the "Atheist Fundamentalist" thread, eh? I think in your zeal you do your cause considerable harm. The more you use constitutional law to stick your finger in the eye of the majority over issues that are perceived to be relatively trivial or in ways that are perceived to be picking on good causes, the more you generate a backlash that undermines your position. One need only look at America's willingness to re-elect an incompetent but religiously faithful executive, eh? Imagine where you'd be if the conservative side had nominated someone truly capable. If yeh really want to protect the civil rights of non-believers, I think you have to take Greg Epstein's advice, eh? You have to build something, not (just) tear things down. That's how you earn da respect of the society that ultimately gives its consent to be governed. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

BeliefWatch - Newsweek Magazine by Lisa Miller http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ June 18, 2007 issue - It may not be fair to call what's happening in the atheist community a backlash, since atheists have always been and continue to be one of the smallest, most derided groups in the country. In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, only 3 percent of respondents called themselves atheists and only 30 percent said they'd ever vote for an atheist. No, what's happening in the "atheist, humanist, freethinkers" community is more like what happens to any ideological or political group as it matures: the hard-liners knock heads with the folks who want to just get along, and the cracks are beginning to show. At the center of this controversy is the humanist chaplain of Harvard University, a 30-year-old "secular rabbi" named Greg Epstein. In March, in remarks to the Associated Press, Epstein called the popular writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins "atheist fundamentalists." He accused the best-selling authorshe now includes Christopher Hitchens among themof being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive; his own responsibility, he says, is to speak out for the positive aspects of disbelief. "My problem with the atheists," he told NEWSWEEK, "is not that they're saying God doesn't exist. What I'm saying is we've got to build something." (Harris calls the term atheist fundamentalist "an empty play on words.") In the blogosphere, where the atheist community is very active, some people aligned with Epstein, condemning the marquee-name atheists for their mercenary and destructive impulses. "The polemicists are interested in nothing more than selling," says Jeff Nall, a peace activist and grad student in Brevard County, Fla., who wrote a piece on this issue for The Humanist magazine. "The danger is in this ridiculous star statusthey're seen as representative of the broader atheist community." R. Joseph Hoffmann, senior vice president at the prestigious Center for Inquiry, lashed out at Epstein in a letter he posted online. He accused Epstein of mushy thinking ("Gen-X humanism for the passionately confused") and of using the Harvard imprimatur to stake out a divisive position. Epstein is the destructive force, Hoffmann says, not Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins. "His heresy," Hoffmann told NEWSWEEK, "is that he has an obligation to be embracing." In other words, Epstein isn't wrong, he's right: the name-brand atheists aren't friendly, at least not in print. But maybe being friendly isn't their jobit's his. ------- ------- Interesting commentary, eh? Similar to our other threads on the relative merits of bein' "friendly" and on tearing things down vs. finding something to build up. Some of the original argument with more nuance can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501953.html?hpid=sec-religion Beavah