Beavah

Yah, Gern, you're right to point out that there's all kinds of emotional arguments out there, eh? Lots of folks that "believe" in government-run education like it's a faith, rather than lookin' at it as a practical problem. Our Canadian neighbors support Catholic, private, and government school programs openly. Don't see them as bein' a 3rd world, feudal society. England, France, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Germany and on and on... all of 'em believe in Education, but they don't condone a monopoly on tax funding to government schools. In fact in Britain "public school" is really what we would call private, eh? No 3rd world feudalism there, either. Fact is, you don't really hit government school pseudo-monopolies like ours until you get to places like Saudi or North Korea. Sterling examples for us to emulate, eh? Merlyn would have us sanitize diversity from the public square. I think that's the way to feudalism. If we really care about diversity, we should fund anybody who's doin' a public work. Do we think for a moment that students graduating from Notre Dame or Purdue are less American than those graduating from Indiana State? Do we really care if it's the BSA or the Jewish student union that's giving a safe ride home to kids who need it? Strength in diversity is to allow each group to contribute without having to change to become more like the government, and to fund all groups performing a public service without regard to their beliefs. Like da free world does, eh? Beavah

Yah, J-dawg, I agree with you, eh? I don't think in the situation you describe that anybody short of a "real authority" would have been listened too (and even then, it made him mad, right?). Here's somethin' to add to your approach, though. Praise in Public, Reprimand in Private. It's pretty tough for either a youth or adult to take "correction" when it's being done in front of their friends and associates. That's doubly true when a "small little life scout" is talking to an adult. Guys start gettin' testosterone poisoning and argue just to argue. Better to try to find a way to pull them aside, in private, away from peers and support group. "Excuse me, scouter, can I talk to you for a sec?" and step away from the line so you can have a private conversation. Same thing on the river. "Could you hold up a sec?" and then chat in a small eddy. Yeh set it up so there's no real need for them to "save face" - in fact, you set it up so that the way they show their authority isn't by arguin' with you, but by takin' care of the problem. At the first sign of an ego gettin' involved, take it quietly off to the side. That was J-KC's reference to Matthew's gospel. If your brother's being a jerk, pull him aside in private and let him know. If he listens to you, you've got your brother back. If not, give it some time, then take one or two other people and talk to him in private again. If he listens to you, you've got your brother back. If not, give it some more time to sink in, then if you have to take the problem more formally to the whole community/authority in a more public way. If he won't even listen to them, you aren't ever going to get through. You've done all you can, it becomes da Great Scoutmaster's job after that. Key is to do da first two steps in private. Beavah

You know what makes perfect sense? Getting Uncle Sugar out of the education business. Yah, Gonzo, I rather expect that had any of the Founding Fathers even conceived of government schooling as a possibility, the Bill of Rights would have included: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Education, or prohibiting the free pursuit thereof." We remain the only nation in the free world that does not support educational freedom of choice at the K-12 level. Any surprise that our kids lag behind all those other nations? A capitalist nation with a Soviet-style educational delivery system... right down to expunging religion so that kids are taught allegiance only to the State. Beavah

Great advice from da Lisa'bob, too, eh? And without the accent One more trick for your bag, dluders. If you run the outing, make sure da kids get some advancement done, or present 'em with a special award at the next COH. A little bit of "Hey, I want one of those" or "Hey, how come my kid didn't get..." also adds a bit of incentive to participate. Beavah

A good gent named Paul Fairbanks puts together a wonderful resource book called "Scout Camps USA" that has information on every scout camp in the U.S., plus a lot of additional material on high adventure, gear, and such. Well worth it as a good reference if you're lookin' around at different camps. http://www.scoutcampsusa.com Beavah (who has no financial interest in or association with Paul)

Yah, J-dawg. Thanks to yeh for what you do for the program and for your fellow scouts. You're learning an important lesson, eh? Age and titles have very little to do with competence, common sense or good ethics. Older folks are just as mean, just as stupid, just as selfish as young people. Often worse, 'cause they've got experience at it! Don't let it get to you, but do remember it... and resolve never to be "that guy" yourself when you're growin' old and feeble. Beavah

I think it's a fine ideal to try to run every single campout. If you can do it, those boys come back and say what fun they had, and your participation goes up. But there's the real world, eh? I think yeh gotta honestly look at the wear and tear on your adults. If the adults want to go anyway, great. But if there's resentment or they feel like their time is bein' taken advantage of, you have to respect that. And it's a tossup sometimes what's the better lesson for the boys, eh? It ain't particularly courteous to tie up an adult's time and then blow him off for "other plans." That's a conversation you need to have with your PLC when you "debrief." Lots of times kids doin' planning don't fully appreciate or understand "family plans" and pressures. That's why a committee review of the calendar is a good thing . Is the Scoutmaster really expected to go on EVERY campout, no matter whether his own son can go and no matter how low the attendance? What would YOU do? No reason da SM has to go on every campout. That to me would sound like a unit that really needed to be recruitin' some more qualified and active ASMs. But as SM, I do think your commitment is to da program, not (just) to your son. You should live up to that commitment, and always do what you can in ways that are best for the program, even if they aren't what's best for your own boy. Otherwise you're a find dad, but you're not really a Scoutmaster. That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at your own time/availability - it doesn't do the program any good if you burn out, eh? Just that your son's participation or needs shouldn't be the primary factor in your decision. Beavah

I just read in another forum that National might be requiring at least one contingency leader be trained in WFA for Philmont starting in 2008. Will this also apply to Northern Tier? Yah, you're right about Philmont requiring Wilderness First Aid beginnin' in the 2008 season. Don't know about da other high adventure bases, but it seems like a reasonable thing, eh? As for your other questions, I'm aware of a few councils that have somethin' like a High Adventure Committee that requires or "strongly encourages" additional training, but they're pretty rare, and probably happen because of a very conscientious volunteer who really pushed (or a few bad accidents). It's more common that an individual state has requirements, and councils in those states try to keep their people up to date on the state regulations. Otherwise, councils don't do much of anything, eh? O'course, it's a different question about whether or not we should, eh? Beavah

Yah, Merlyn, yeh know I jumped in on this thread against my better judgment, in part to defend you on matters of law and in part to bring in a balanced perspective. But I surrender. I think you're caught up in solipsistic arguments, and like many with entrenched positions you aren't at this point capable of empathy with the other side. So rather than law being an arbiter of civil polity, law is a battlefield on which you can attack the other tribe. Easiest way out is for the district to contract with the PTO (or another organization) for Saferide services, and the PTO in turn to charter a Venturing Crew. No change to the reality for the kids. B

Yah, diannasav in her other thread was talkin' about crew committees. I was just wonderin' what others experience was. 'Round here, crew committees really don't do much. In a typical well-run crew, most of what is typical committee function is just done by the youth. Seems like committees sorta fade, from cub committees that tend to do all the planning, to troop committees that do the logistical support, to crew committees that... ???

Is it OK for the government, which controls 40% of the GDP, to give subsidies only to areligious groups?...Of course. Why wouldn't it be? Is it OK for the government to give subsidies only to religious groups? Would it still be OK if the government controlled 100% of the GDP for it to only give money to areligious groups... eliminating institutional religion entirely? To provide a captive audience of young people only with areligious messages? Like reading, writing, and arithmetic? Sure. And like History sanitized of religious viewpoints, literature selected to exclude religious expression, philosophy courses that only presented areligious or anti-religious worldviews, school assemblies that belittle, critique, or simply censor religious perspectives. Is it OK to provide a captive audience of young people in government-supported school with only religious messages? Yah, perhaps that atheist perspective doesn't include "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," eh? Your argument would have more merit if you supported equal access everywhere - includin' to government resources and government sponsored environments. As it is, it seems to me you are just tryin' to be more exclusive and discriminatory than you claim da BSA is. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, diannasav, it's really hard to picture these things properly in our minds from afar, eh? Some of what yeh mention when done one way would be a bit problematic, but yeh know all units get a bit over-adulty sometimes . OTOH, some of those same things can be OK in some circumstances. It's possible to help a new leader by workin' out a "script" or agenda for a meeting, and it's possible to overdo adult "scripting" for a more experienced youth leader who's ready to fly on his own. The answer to your big question "How would you handle this?" is clear (unless maybe you're CC or COR): You shouldn't handle it at all. Your son or daughter should. If you're CC or COR, yeh might gently encourage training, or learning by visiting other crews/going to Venturing RT, etc. - both for the advisors and for the crew members! Teens who see youth-run happenin' in another crew are pretty likely to (politely!) insist on it in theirs, eh? Beavah

So yeh didn't answer my question, Merlyn. Is it OK for the government, which controls 40% of the GDP, to give subsidies only to areligious groups? To provide a captive audience of young people only with areligious messages? Isn't that the identical choice to sanction particular speech and quash rights that you're complainin' about?

Yah, sad to say, Merlyn has a point and is at least correct on the law, eh? Law ain't the same as ethics, but in general we wouldn't want to be routinely excluding some kids from school sponsored activities. I have two issues. One there's no sense of proportion on either side. Is making a fuss over paperwork (that we all know is nothing more than token in terms of what really goes on in SafeRides) worthwhile for either side? Seems like blowin' up a good service over an issue of paperwork fails the ethics test. Society crumbles if every individual and group insists on havin' their way on every little thing. Da second issue is this. Government school funding continues to rise, and is slowly pricing out private and parochial schools. Effectively, this means that the alternate viewpoint - that there's merit in offering an educational environment that is values-based - is being suppressed. The government, by subsidizing "public" education and then by requiring it to be religion-free and all-inclusive, is trampling on the rights of those of us who don't believe that religion-free environments are good for kids or character. That those are the majority of Americans makes it even more tyrannical. Don't yeh see that, Merlyn? All your arguments apply equally to the other side. Government endorsement and subsidy of excluding religion has the same effect you'd claim for government subsidy of a particular religion. "Sure, you religious people can have schools, you just have to pay $10K per year." Imagine if we said to you, "sure, you atheists can have schools free of religion, you just have to pay $10K per year." Da larger government gets, the greater the societal effect of government social funding and subsidy. It was one thing for Tom Jefferson to talk about a "wall of separation" back when there were only 7 full-time employees of the federal government; it's quite a different thing when government jobs and funding amount to 40% of the Gross Domestic Product. If we insist as you suggest that all government social funding must be religion-free, that's a very large subsidy toward creatin' a religion-free nation, and tramplin' on the rights of those of faith. I think that's da push-back you're hearin', Merlyn. Da irony is that the religious folk would have been content if we all just didn't raise a ruckus about token things. But if you're really makin' a fairness argument, then we have to move to religious neutrality, which means government funding of schools and school programs of all kinds, regardless whether they have a religious component... much like we do with colleges, eh, where we have a system that's the envy of the world. And much like da rest of the Free World does with K-12 education and youth activities. Beavah

In terms of compliance with program materials, the only other one I'm aware of is when uniformed adults or youth inappropriately "represent" the BSA in something like a political or commercial endeavor. Those are da real Uniform Police, eh? National does review and approve proposed changes to local council corporate bylaws, and tends to be pretty finicky about 'em. As mentioned, they will occasionally "intervene" in other local council governance issues like membership fraud, non-discrimination policies, or the Chicago mess. A bit awkward that, since the councils are separately incorporated. So it's pretty rare, and they usually have to be "invited." The biggest (and really only) lever they have in compliance at the council level is that they have indirect control of the professional service, in terms of training, hiring, and promotion. That generally leads to pretty standard (and unimaginative) council operations everywhere. Beavah

Yah, highcountry. Never put a warm body into a position is the lesson of the day. The person who steps forward ain't always the right one for the job. There's a lot of emotion and energy in your post, so I'd start by takin' some time to relax, walk around the block, and remind yourself that this is just a kid's program. No point in lots of adult shenanigans or egos. It's a shame it's progressed so far down that there's probably little room left for a graceful out. So here's two options to consider. UNOFFICIAL Sometimes yeh just need to stop yellin' at each other and get on with business. Can you just ignore her when she goes off the reservation? As SM, can you just stop goin' to committee meetings? Call the volunteers you need (treasurer, etc.) directly. Have informal "side meetings" to get things done. In other words, just avoid the conflict and work around your CC by not including her. Committee meetings will get pretty sparse if the SMs and ASMs never show up and decisions are made elsewhere, eh? Host alternate committee meetings at your house. It won't take long before she gets tired of the game. That's harder, though, if she's showin' up for campouts and other events and interferin'. Does she have a son in the program? In other words, do yeh have to send her event notices? OFFICIAL Simply put, this is your COR's call. The district and council can do nothing if the COR chooses not to act. It's not their troop, it's the CO's. And sadly, da CO can choose to run it into the ground if they desire. There's always the other side of the story, too. Perhaps the CC really is doing the CO's bidding. My advice is that you make an appointment with the IH, the Head of the Chartering Organization who appoints the COR. Bring a few other key ASMs/parents. Lay out a very simple case, in a calm, dignified manner. If there is no change, there will be no adult leaders and the CO will effectively no longer have a troop. Understand that effectively you're asking for both a change in CC and a change in COR, so have two names and paperwork readily available to recommend. Yeh can't leave an ineffective COR in place, nor would a good one stay if he was reversed on a major decision like this. Be sure to be polite, and let the COR know what you're doing. If the IH agrees with you and makes a change, great. If he/she doesn't, then I think yeh all submit your resignations and move on. But since you've got a fairly healthy troop, I would at least work with your DE to consider forming a new troop with a different Chartering Partner. Beavah

Yah, Brotherhood, no question, eh? Scouting depends most of all on the fine men and women who choose to step forward as Scoutmasters and ASMs. After that, it depends on the parents and the boys for their interest and hard work. Just like da soccer leagues and such, though, it also depends on the league administration and on the folks who own the buildings and fields. In the BSA, the parent-only programs don't tend to have the same activity level or lifetime as those that have some real CO "ballast". Parents move on, and sometimes different parents have very different notions of what they want for their kid, eh? Everybody plays their role. What irks me is that sometimes the execs don't want active CO's, because active CO's can control council operations. Keep da CO's in the dark and an SE has a free hand. Beavah

Hi Boris, welcome back, eh? I think an important piece that you're missin' is that the BSA is not a centralized, authoritarian organization. Rather, the BSA is a resource provider, like a textbook publisher. There just ain't no such thing as "National will" when it comes to particular aspects of running program. If that's what you're lookin' for, one centrally-standardized organization like McDonalds, you need to go find a different Scouting group. That's not the BSA. Are there any sanctions against local units/districts/councils that choose to ignore stated NATIONAL policy? First, yeh gotta understand that when you use "National Policy" in that context, ACP&P isn't included. That's a support document. National policy (like no girls in boy scout programs) comes from the National Executive Board. The penalty for violations of those things is non-renewal of a charter to use BSA program materials. Are inspections or audits done by any BSA official outside the council to assure compliance? Nope. Compliance with program materials is really not part of the BSA business model, and no resources are allocated to it. There is in fact an expectation that local units are going to adapt BSA materials to meet the youth program needs of the Chartering Organization that operates the unit. On a council level, compliance comes through an effort at educating council level executives, but there is still an expectation that local councils are going to adapt operations to the needs of units in their area and the mandates of state law. Are there any penalties for failure to comply? With procedural guidelines? Not really. I agree with you, mate, havin' BSA documents online in a well-indexed manner would be a nice thing (but remember, BSA is a resource provider as a business, so don't hold your breath). But yeh have to understand that different materials have different revision cycles, and all materials have to be read with experience that comes through training and familiarity with all the other materials. Beavah

Yah, to be honest the process varies a lot from troop to troop, eh? Though the books described give a good outline of a generic process. Take from those whatever you think is useful, and add what's missin'. The biggest problem with the books is that it's pretty rare that there's a big long list of candidates to choose between, eh? The one thing to avoid is "warm body syndrome". Selecting a SM is probably the single most important thing a scout unit does. It should be done with more time and attention than that committee debate that went on for two hours on whether to buy new pots . It should genuinely be a thoughtful selection. Nuthin' by "default." Qualifications? I think those depend on where a troop is at, eh? From what you describe, the troop has a lot of program buildin' to do. In that case, I'd look for: 1) Someone who's got a lot of energy and is a hard worker, who has a clear vision of where he/she wants the troop to go. 2) Someone who has some prior skill working with groups of kids, in terms of setting a "good tone" and expectations. 3) If you can get it, someone who has some real outdoor skill and some current (not ancient) scouting experience. If not, someone who has demonstrated in the past the character of a lifelong learner who enjoys seeking out and learning all he/she can. Energy, vision, and demonstrated ability to work with groups of teens come first; scouting can be learned. 4) Someone who has the time to spend and will be around for a while. Yeh don't rebuild a troop in a year, it's a longer-term growth process. There is a real advantage in promoting in-house, since you've got experience with that person "in action." But if that experience tells yeh you don't have what you're lookin' for in house, then you have to look afield. Problem is, a resume ain't enough - make sure you talk to adults and kids who have seen the candidate in action, and ask about specific strengths and weaknesses. Just because he was right for another troop and they "liked him" doesn't mean he'll be right for yours. Make sure you get specifics. If possible, go visit with some scouts and watch him "in action." Whichever way yeh go, make it clear that the SM appointment is for a fixed term of no more than a year (perhaps 'til next recharter date?). With a new SM, you want to have a graceful exit strategy if things just don't work out. Renewal is always possible, even likely, but should not be a "given." Keep askin' questions and fill us in with more details, and we'll keep tryin' to answer, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Danger. Yeh got a tough situation there. I think you're correct in not worryin' about Patrol Method. Functionally, you're only going to have one "patrol" until you grow a lot. And I think you're best not to worry too much about the "ideal form" of Scoutin' in a lot of other areas quite yet. Don't do elections. Appoint a PL who is a "natural leader" and a regular participant. That's what Baden Powell did to get started. Kids have to see it "work" for a while before they recognize what to look for when electing someone. Don't expect inexperienced 11-13 year olds to do adult-like sit-down "planning." Instead, plan events but offer them specific choices and responsibility in smaller, more controlled ways. Yeh have to build up to bigger things. Don't be afraid to insist on proper behavior from boys. Stop what you're doing if you have to. Give a boy a "time out" or send a boy home if you need to. Be firm enough to earn respect. It's OK to lose an activity in order to teach a lesson. One of da big issues with the poor safety record in LDS units is not settin' high enough behavior expectations in supervising the boys. Check on whether you can borrow a "patrol chief" (kinda like "Den Chief") from the Varsity or Venturing programs at the stake, so you have some experienced older boy support. Don't address a Committee with requests to get involved. Identify a particular task (ASM, Transportation Coordination, etc.) and then identify the person you want to do the task. Buy 'em lunch. You want to recruit help with a pistol, not a shotgun. Up-close, personal, and targeted. Hard to give you advice on finances. Does the stake allow you to bill for camp or trip expenses? In the short term, I would do that if I could, and use fundraising to build up general program money. Otherwise I'd go back to the stake with a budget and a request for funding from their youth ministry budget. There's a guy at the scout council called a "commissioner". Call the council office and ask for yours. Meet with him, and then perhaps with him and your COR for the stake. Lay out all the issues and ask for help and direction. Good luck, and keep us posted, eh? Beavah

Yah, dat's interestin', eh? I wonder who called the media. Doesn't seem like much news. Catholic Church decides who can teach in a church-sponsored youth program. Seems reasonable. And it's a different thing when you're invitin' someone so as to "encourage debate" and when you're invitin' someone to give a keynote talk to youth. Seems like yeh can welcome someone for the first who really wouldn't be appropriate for the second. As an outsider, the thing that strikes me as the deeper issue is the one that Aquila brings up: In a sinful world, who do you have left as leaders if you exclude all the sinners? Beavah

Yah, I've certainly seen council scout executives not sign an Eagle Application and have that upheld by national, even after a successful EBOR. So I think it's best to keep things squeaky clean. The boy is not an Eagle until national approves. But there's nothin' wrong with announcing that a boy passed his Eagle BOR and will be an Eagle scout "pending final approval from National" or somethin' like that. Beavah

I still would like to ascertain source policy from the BSA Headquarters on this topic, but to date, I have failed miserably. Any suggestions for how one gets an answer directly from the BSA Headquarters? Yah, Boris, it all depends what your role or position is in Scouting, eh? But unless you're a council executive or council president, the answer to your question is "you can't." As an ordinary Joe, you are a consumer or customer. And let's face it, consumers or customers aren't really goin' to get answers from any large company's HQ, eh? At best, you get a help line in a call center in India . Just because you bought a Taurus doesn't mean you're goin' to be able to call up Bill Ford on the phone to ask him about your engine trouble. National doesn't have the staff to answer questions from every one of its several million members, and it's not their job. Just like Ford, though, da BSA corporation provides local dealers and service centers where you can get help and answers to questions. The way the BSA works is that your troop is owned and operated by a Chartering Organization. So if yeh have a specific question about your troop or its operations, you have to ask da folks who work for your CO - the Scoutmaster primarily, and then the Committee Chair. For troop stuff, the buck stops at the Head of the Chartering Organization or his representative. The BSA also provides a service center to assist the Chartering Organizations. The most common BSA services are provided by the district, but its job is to provide service to units and Chartering Organizations, not really to individual scouting consumers. If you're a SM or a CC or COR, you can get help from your district. So if you're one of those folks, you can call your Unit Commissioner or your District Chair, or your District Executive for help with BSA policy or procedures. But if you're not servin' in an official capacity for a unit, then the BSA doesn't really provide any direct support for you (beyond publications like Boys Life or uniforms from Supply Division). So you really have to direct your questions to the troop's leadership. That means "ask the Scoutmaster", or for your son it means "ask your Patrol Leader". Good folks here can answer questions in a general way, and can refer yeh to some documents to help. FScouter has listed the principle ones. Yeh just have to remember that general documents aren't usually enough to answer specific questions - you also need trainin' and experience and an understandin' of the background. Hope all that helps, eh? If not, give us a bit more to go on in terms of your role and the specific issue you're facin'. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Boris, welcome to da forums, eh? Can I ask why you're askin', and what your position is in Scouting? Most of the time, the easy and polite thing to do is to ask your district advancement chair. Without really knowin' people and circumstances, it's hard for us to say much. But I'll give it a shot. Seem to recall reading that national policy permits two types of Eagle Boards of Review: A District one or a Troop one. Can the Local Council deny a Scout's choice of requesting a District review? Actually, 3 types of EBOR's are allowed: by the troop, by the district, and by the council. Which is used is entirely at the council's discretion. The Scout does not have a choice in the matter. Of course, in the event of a negative decision, the scout can appeal to the next highest level. For a troop EBOR, the troop committee chooses the board members, not the district or council. The district/council sends one representative to join the (troop selected) board. Seems that I read somewhere that it is national policy that Scout leaders and Assistant Leaders are forbidden to participate in an Eagle Board of Review? Nah, that's not exactly true. Unit leaders and assistant unit leaders should not serve as members on the board of review, but it is just fine for them to come and observe. In fact, it is normal practice in most areas for the SM to introduce the boy to the board and to stay around. The board may ask the SM questions if it desires, and generally most boards are pretty tolerant if the SM makes a clarification here and there on behalf of the boy. The reason for not allowing the SM to "participate" is to make sure the boy answers most questions on his own, without his adult leaders jumpin' in to help him. Can the Local Council ignore national policy and staff the Eagle Board of Review with ASMs? With what ASMs? There are plenty of ASMs and SMs who also serve at the district level and might very well serve on an Eagle BOR, as long as it's not for a boy in their troop. Otherwise, whatever level is doin' the board should use folks other than the boy's SM/ASM. SM/ASM's are generally viewed to be too biased in favor of the boy, and they've already had their say in recommendin' the boy for the EBOR. All that havin' been said, occasionally somethin' weird will happen, where in a rural area or such an ASM will fill in as a board member at the last minute because of an emergency or some such. But it shouldn't be a normal practice. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hmmm... late filin', probably right up to the limitation. Odd that it's the mom suin' for medical expenses not the man suing for injury; must not have been any lasting damage. They don't mention a cracked head, only a cracked helmet. Readin' between the lines, this looks like an expedition fishing for a few bucks - "lost wages" from a 16 year old owed to the mom, eh? . But what is it with da Uintas and LDS scout units? The two together are like a recipe for inanity. Yah, da resolution of this one will be interestin', eh? ATV's may well be an exclusion on the BSA insurance first-tier master policy, I can't remember, and da exec looks like he was blindsided by the suit. The amount they're askin' for falls within the BSA's self-insured limit, though, so I expect the BSA will still stand by the CO and unit leaders. Too bad the outcome will probably never be public. Beavah