Beavah

Yah, I think in some units and many scout camps, we teach some of da "bad Eagle leader" stuff by example, eh? Be honest, how many of us have seen Scouters who are "pushy, bossy, and never-wrong-about-anything"? They're a pretty frequent occurrence in most districts and many troops. "I've dictated/read you a rule, you must follow it" is pretty common, eh? If that's the example and expectation we're setting, it isn't a surprise that's what we get as a leadership style from former Eagles. Yah, to be honest, some of our military guys also get a bit two caught up in that kind of management style, too, eh? Round here, "old" Eagles are also some of da worst when it comes to Leave-No-Trace camping ethics. Old dogs and new tricks I guess. Beavah

Yah, what ScoutNut said, eh? In term of developing skills and talents that will be of use to others in da future, college life, college academic clubs and extracurriculars and such are going to be as important or more important than working with a Venturing Crew. In all likelihood, if your school has an outdoor club or program, it may well be more skilled and more active than the newly formed crew. Spend your time bein' a college student first. That will give you all kinds of new insight and perspective on things, as well as some "outside gifts and life experience" to bring back to Scouting. With the time you have left over, choose the one area of Scoutin' that seems the most interesting or fun to you. If you join the Crew, remember that Advancement is not a method of Venturing. There is no focus on awards in this program, and many crews don't actively pursue any badges or baubles. Ranger and/or Silver may still be worthy challenges to undertake, but don't make 'em first in your mind. Be a crew member and active contributor first, and then be thoughtful about the awards stuff as you go. Scout salute to your enthusiasm, Lee! Beavah

Yah, it's interestin' how Merlyn drives us back to constitutional law all the time, eh? But I'm really not talkin' about law. Fact is, if every dispute or disagreement becomes a matter of law and litigation, our system would come apart. As it is, we spend way too much of our time and resources litigatin' stuff that really could and should be handled with some understandin' and civility. The legal system isn't built to referee every dispute between neighbors, or every complaint that a citizen has about each decision of each level of government. I disagree with a lot of tax abatements, which go to all sorts of silly purposes and special interests because they supported the majority that won the last election. Fact is, no government grants or contracts are available to "any or all groups." Grants and contracts are given for reasons (good or bad), to specific groups. Merlyn, if I'm hearin' yeh right, you're sayin' that the Boy Scouts receivin' reduced rent in return for giving the city a free building is the same thing as Stormtroopers comin' for your family. Every impingement on your "rights" is "serious", eh? Imagine a world in which every time the neighbor's kid cut across our yard I filed for trespass (gotta protect every one of my property rights!!). Some things hurt neighborliness or society if they are pursued with too much vigor. Spend your time on warrantless wiretappin' or such, the rent of a kids' service organization ain't worth the damage caused by being disputatious. But certainly, I think arguin' the extreme is not a way to win hearts or minds. Beavah

Yah, It's Me. It's hard bein' a new parent comin' into a Boy Scout program. We adults come with all kinds of preconceived notions and expectations. Adults who care a lot and who are "organizer-types" often want to dive in and "shape them up." That's always a disaster. My advice to you is to take a step back for the rest of your son's first year. Every time you find yourself gettin' near that "going nuts" point, step back and get out of the way. If that means you need to withdraw from an ASM role, do that. I'm never particularly fond of usin' new crossover parents as ASMs the first year. First impressions are fine and all, but to be honest, most of us notice the bad things and the unimportant things in early impressions. It takes time to see the good things and the important things for the long term. As Lisa'bob suggests, give it a year. It's your son's troop and the SM's troop, not yours. Give 'em some space, give yourself some time. After that first full year (or two), you'll have a much more complete view of things, and you'll have built up some respect and "social capital" among the troop adults and kids. You won't be the obnoxious new guy anymore. At that point, you'll be able to select the one area which is (most) important to improve and which you have the skills and desire to work on. Volunteer for and do a good job with that, and let other people do their bit, eh? We'd all like our children's experience to be perfect. That's our need, though, and often has little resemblance to our kids' needs. Kids learn more from mess than they do from organization most of the time. Trust your son. Beavah

Yah, so Merlyn, if I misinterpreted your position or otherwise put words in your mouth, I apologize, eh? I'll try your words this time. Ah, so as long as I can come up with a more extreme abridgement of civil rights, lesser civil rights abridgements are "OK"? Are you sure you want to go down that road? Yes, I'm quite sure. I think if we're intelligent enough to recognize that there are differences between extreme, mild, and incidental impingements on others, that we should also be bright enough to match our responses to those different levels. For mild and incidental things, I suggest that understanding and tolerance are good choices, rather than makin' mountains out of molehills. Is reduced rent so important to you that you're willing to ride roughshod over my rights? LOL. I can't see how the rent for a buildin' in Philly really affects your life at all mate, let alone "rides roughshod" over your rights. There's all kinds of things I wish my tax dollars weren't goin' toward, or where (as in this case) I think the taxes or fees should be higher. Doesn't affect my rights none. I see many actions of government as just an expression of the society. If you had an Atheists youth program that was serving 40,000 young people in the city of Philadelphia, of course I'd support a reduced rent for your group. Though I disagree with your beliefs, you're doin' good work for kids, and are an expression of that society. I'd be happy to tolerate your odd beliefs in exchange for such a sizable contribution to a lot of young people. Certainly wouldn't be somethin' I'd get uncivil about. Beavah

I know I probably sound arrogant but I can't help that I feel that I could be more help by being on the district committee. Arrogant? Nah, lad. Yeh have to understand that district service is a step down from unit service! The most important work that happens in Scouting happens at the unit level. For that reason in Scouting, the wisest and best trained folks are all out in the units, not in district service. Our best people have to be where the kids are. Those of us who do district, council, or regional work are custodians in the Scouting Building. We take out the trash, keep the windows clean, make sure units get their support materials and such. We're their servants and employees. We've got no control over them, it works the other way. Never forget it. Unit Scouting positions are the premiere jobs in the organization. Beavah

Yah, lee1989. Lots of folks have given yeh the official answer, eh? The official answer really doesn't matter none, unless your district chairman really thinks that it does for some odd reason. You keep your registration as ASM with your old troop and help 'em out as you feel called. Most district volunteers have their registration with an individual unit. And then you go to district committee (or subcommittee) meetings anyways. I've never known a district committee that wasn't "open". So just keep showin' up, and volunteer as you feel the urge. The subcommittee chairs and district chair will let you know if there's anything that you need to navigate in a special way because of your age. But honestly, I'd expect they'd welcome the enthusiastic help. Beavah

In the original thread, Merlyn suggests that it's an OK thing to go to loggerheads with folks and be fanatical about issues of rights or perceived infringements or whatnot, with Hunt makin' the opposite case. Let me cast a vote for Hunt. I think a Scout should be courteous, kind, and patient. One of the most common killers of troops and causes of lost scouts that I have seen in all my years with the program is when adults dig in their heels on some "serious issue" or another. They off and declare the other side "wrong", then define "wrong" as "evil/wicked/out to get me/out to hurt my kid" which justifies any and all kinds of attacks and behavior on their part. The result is almost always a weaker Scoutin' program, with half the folks gone. Or it's a folded unit. (which is why I'm generally tryin' to tone down people's extreme declarations around here, eh? ) I think da same thing is true in society at large. When one group or another digs in its heels and starts yellin' that the others are "wrong", and then defines wrong as "evil/out to get me" so as to justify attacking it, all of society suffers. We balkanize. We dismantle the ways of thinkin' that make us society. And we do it at our peril. So yah, Merlyn and company draw the line over religious expression in schools. So the fastest growin' school system in the nation are private Christian Academies and homeschoolers, which in turn mean less $ and less support for "public" schools, less interaction of ideas, and more citizens apt to vote in stark ways that Merlyn doesn't like. That doesn't give us the best public officials now, does it Merlyn? As Hunt suggests, bein' extreme only hardens the other side, and pushes the moderates away from you. Me, I'm all in favor of youth programs. I don't particularly care who offers 'em, I welcome them in communities and schools. NGOs like Catholic Social Services do great work, and have an important place in the public square. I'm a Christian and personally feel Islam is misguided or even blasphemous, but I'd put up with a crescent or a Koran quote on a public building, especially where the people who paid for that public building were largely Muslim. A decoration ain't worth bein' uncivil over. We can try to emulate Iraq, where the "other side" of Sunni/Shia/Kurd is "wrong"/evil/out to get me. Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave our children? A country in tatters, that can only be held together by a dictator of some sort? I think it takes courage and compassion to recognize that a decoration or a reduced rent or a reflection offered at a football game ain't the same as Stormtroopers come to get your family. But that's how we build a civil society, by showing respect in the public square. Beavah

Hi diannasav, Somewhere in the archives I think you'll find a long thread about appointing PL's vs. electing PL's. Baden Powell and most traditional scouting used appointed PL's, selecting boys who were the natural leaders. The BSA system departed from the founder and places a greater emphasis on democratic election. What your troop chooses to do is up to the SM. There are good arguments either way. A lot of troops do a hybrid system, where the SM approves candidates (based on rank, behavior, etc.), then the boys elect from the candidates. Real patrol method, though, doesn't really have much to do with how the PL is selected. It has more to do with how the patrol operates independently under the direction of the PL. Sometimes, appointing a PL may allow for better patrol method, because the SM can then trust the PL with greater independence. Sometimes not, because the patrol doesn't feel it has control over its team leadership. Yah, so the answer is "it depends". I wouldn't be too hard on your SM if they opt to handle things this way. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, OK, so here's a question or two. Can a Venturer who is dual registered in a Boy Scout troop wear red shoulder loops on green? Can a Venturer who is dual registered in a Troop wear his SPL position patch on his green Venturing shirt? Do kids wear a baseball team cap with their soccer uniform? What's the difference for OA? It's still wearin' one program's uniform item (Boy Scouting) on another program's uniform (Venturing). As for adults, I'm a firm believer that those of us who work multiple programs should set the example of good uniformin', by havin' an appropriate uniform for each of the programs we serve, with patches and knots specific to that program and no "excess insignia." Beavah

Yah, dan, great song, eh?! Nah, I'm not in favor of convoyin'. Nuthin' but a road hazard, that. But I don't think LauraMO was talkin' about convoying, just the regular BSA bit about common departures and meet-ups for youth protection reasons.

Yah, dan, and then we have "A common departure site and a daily destination point are a must." and "Pre-arrange a schedule for periodic checkpoint stops as a group". (G2SS p. 4) So it seems we are supposed to start and stop at the same points at roughly the same time. I disagree with FScouter. I don't think da conversations about the meanings of isolated words come up when people are tryin' to avoid the regs. I think they come up when beginners get caught up in the letter of the law rather than approachin' things from a perspective of common sense and good judgment. Mostly they just need to step back, take off their amateur lawyer hat, and put on a good ol' fashioned Scouter campaign hat in order to see the thing in da right light. Beavah

Gonzo nailed it. Should be not must be. Big difference. It is a suggestion not a rule. Yah, yeh gotta be careful tryin' to parse any BSA document as though it was written by pros with a careful attention to word choice. Here's some other G2SS "shoulds": "The unit should inform the Scout executive about all incidents that result in a physical injury or involve allegations of sexual misconduct..." "Discipline used in Scouting should be constructive and reflect Scouting's values." "For unit swims in areas where lifeguards are not provided by others, the supervisor should designate two capable swimmers as lifeguards." "All participants should know, understand, and respect the rules and procedures for safe activity afloat." "Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco." "[Except for law enforcement/Venturing hunting], firearms should not be in the possession of any person engaged in camping, hiking, backpacking, or any other scouting activity other than those specifically planned for target shooting." The whole thing is a compilation and guidebook tryin' to be a helpful resource to units. I think it's best not to try to read it as though it were carefully crafted legislation. Some of those "shoulds" are really pretty firm, eh? Beavah

Yah, da parties will please retire to their corners. End of round one. For the record, the ex post facto provision applies to both criminal and civil matters. The city of Philadelphia could not retroactively raise fees back to 1928 and then bill the BSA for 80 years of back rent. But because an eviction is a future event, this is not an ex post facto situation, eh? It might be a contract law matter, or perhaps even a 5th amendment taking, though. Mirlyn, are yeh really bein' careful about your facts, mate? The one year termination bit seems a remarkably naive thing to accept in the initial contract if you're gifting a brand new building to someone. I seem to recall somethin' from a few years back about the city changin' the provisions by ordinance. That jives with da news reports that this vote was also a change in city ordinance rather than a contractual matter. But really, this isn't a question of law in my mind. It's a question of ethics, like other grants of entitlements that are relied on by people. Can the government drop social security benefits to someone who joins a monastery at age 75, because the money would be goin' to the monastic community and therefore supportin' religion? Or is the social security system really an implied contract with the people, where doin' something like that just wouldn't be right. Same deal here. Yah, da proper place to resolve poor ethical practice by public officials is the ballot box. The BSA should really face the music and develop a strong associated lobbyin' organization. Given the demographics of Philly, I'd guess that a petition drive to amend the city charter would have a fair shot, with the support of the black churches (who really agree with the BSA on membership ethics). Dat's the problem, Merlyn, if yeh play the hardball of divisive politics all the time. The BSA, if it really opted to move aggressively into the lobbyin' game, would beat your interests senseless. A formal Scouting lobby would be very effective. Anyway, I'm just fine with the government not gettin' as much revenue from a NFP youth service organization using a public building. What really gets up my nose is my tax dollars funding LGBT programmin' at state colleges and universities. So we can say your tax dollars go to the latter, and mine go to whatever might have been funded by higher BSA rent, and live in peace, eh? Beavah

Yah, whoops. I replied to the other thread before readin' this one. I'm with the Ol' Oak Tree here. Madame CC, yeh gotta get on the same page with your SM. Either by goin' along to get along, or by gettin' along and goin' to get a new SM. The pop-up camper ain't my vision of Scouting either, but it's more important that the adults in a unit be unified. Yeh definitely don't want to be havin' this discussion in front of the whole committee, I don't think. All kinds of hurt feelings and bad outcomes possible that way, and near zero potential upside. For the other (daylight driving) one, it's OK for the parents to tell the SM that other drivers just can't get off work early, nor can kids doing school extracurriculars, so it just isn't possible to leave early on a regular basis. But this camper thing is just goin' to come across as personal. Go there only if your intention is to lose a SM in a messy, public way. Otherwise, I think you and another respected adult have a private side conversation about the concern with the SM, and see where it goes. B

Yah, LaurelMO. This is the problem with havin' too many "paper" risk managers about settin' rules, eh? I think it's very safe to say that there isn't one troop in a hundred that follows this policy (and if they do, it's probably because they're doin' a lousy job with the Outdoor Method). In the councils of the central region, tour permits for long, out-of-area drives are routinely issued, even when the entire drive will take place after sunset. There are dozens of safety guidelines and black-letter policies in G2SS and other BSA documents that don't make sense in many situations. A Scouter stays Mentally Awake, eh? We all have to remember that our friends in Irving for the most part aren't professional policy writers. They're doin' their best, but they don't always think of all the realities, especially when those realities hit folks north of Texas a bit harder. So submit your tour permits, and when they're approved, show the stamped approval form to your problem parent. At da same time, I wouldn't force any driver who's uncomfortable drivin' at night to do so. I know a few people like that, and they're true hazards on the highway at night. So by all means proceed with headin' out camping on Friday evenings, but take drivers who you know are comfortable doin' the miles. Beavah

Wow, a real, thoughtful membership committee!!! Scout salute to yeh! Dat's right rare, that is. I've been involved in a lot of unit startups over the years. For troops, yeh seem to have the right ingredients - a growing boy demographic in a healthy, growing community, with at least one troop showing explosive growth to the point of bein' "too big." So you've got demand. If yeh don't have demand, it's never going to work. Next question is, do you have capital? All the demand in the world doesn't get you the capital resources yeh need to be successful. Human resources are first - you need some young, dynamic leadership that's going to be around a while, and comes in with some skills rarin' to go. Physical and support resources next - CO? Meeting place? District "seed money" or equipment donations to get 'em started? A "sister troop" to help 'em their first year or two? A year's worth of local and area outing & meeting plans they can choose from to get started well? Next is marketing, eh? Not just advertisin', mind you, but real marketing - settin' up your product to match the demand. Generic Boy Scout units, as you've learned, aren't attractive just because they're Boy Scout units. You have a small local troop and a very large, rapidly growing local troop. What's different about 'em? That big troop is doing marketing - they are matching their program to the demand. Yah, yeh have to learn from that. To be successful, your new unit has to capitalize on that - talk that talk, walk that walk. Meet the demand. With all that in place, yeh need a plan. Specifically, you need to identify a "critical mass" of boys and leaders who will join the new unit as a group. That can be a large graduatin' webelos II den, or a split from the big troop in town, or some other group. What you're lookin' for is enough folks to really get things going, who already know/like/get along/work together. I've always found it very difficult to successfully get a new unit runnin' with dribs and drabs, a couple boys here and there. Too much formin' and stormin', not enough to really run right. Your goal should be to have everything possible in place for a great first year, right through second recruitin' season. Even then it'll be tough, eh? But the closer you are to that, the greater your likelihood of success. Beavah

They never changed the terms; it's always had a 1-year cancellation clause. "in perpetuity" in a lease just means the lease doesn't need to be renewed every year/month. Such leases always have other ways to terminate, since they never lapse. Well, not always . Always is a pretty far reach. "In perpetuity" also expresses a principle or intent, which is relied on by the recipient of the grant. No organization would agree to build a building and then turn the brand new building over to the city for free if in fact it could simply be "taken" by canceling the lease after a year and one day. Parties rely on statements of intent all the time to engage in commerce. It is a matter of ethics, and only those who are the most abusive of ethics look for technicalities to dodge the clear intent. Same with Social Security, eh? It is a promise to provide payments until death - payments for the full remaining life of the person after designated retirement age. Can the congress simply revoke that entitlement at age 80 for persons who are believed by the majority of the legislature to be discriminatory or otherwise obnoxious? Perhaps, given a properly stacked federal bench; terms of benefits can be changed. And payments to a religious person may be construed, after all, as government support of religion. But is it ethical to do so, when one party has relied on the clear principle and intent of the other to provide such payments? Beavah

Same with the Boy Scouts' lease; it goes against the city's Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance. The city can't subsidize a discriminatory organization. Yah, this is an interestin' argument, eh? So a government agency, the City of Philadelphia, grants an entitlement to a person or organization (perpetual free rent) in exchange for compensation (a free building and perpetual maintenance/renovation costs). How ethical is it to change the terms of the entitlement by subsequent legislation? Particularly when that subsequent legislation targets particular groups for engaging in constitutionally protected activity? We should think about this in terms of other government entitlements. Can the Federal Government, by legislation, eliminate the Social Security entitlement to a person who they feel discriminates (even though that entitlement is also "in perpetuity" in exchange for prior compensation)? What say you, Merlyn?

Yah, Mr. Maynard. There are procedures for this, eh? Yeh go to your council registrar, and you tell her/him that the boy and his father should be moved to "inactive" status on the charter. Then you thank the two of 'em for their participation several years ago, and refund their money for summer camp. There's no such thing as a "done deal" when we're talkin' about making the program work for kids. A Scouter is Brave. We all must do the right thing to protect da program for all the adult leaders and boys. And if yeh all feel the right thing is for this family to "move along", then there's ways of doin' that. Beavah

And the BSA didn't build the building, they've been leasing it for peanuts since 1928. I expect they've also been maintainin' and renovatin' it, eh? That's not "peanuts." That's an interestin' question, eh? I wonder if the City of Philadelphia is ready to purchase the undepreciated building capital assets from the BSA if they force 'em to move. Seems to have been an issue of negotiation (see below). And at least some news accounts do support da notion that they built the building: Home Council Boots Boy Scouts By: Jim McCaffrey, The Bulletin 06/01/2007 Philadelphia - It was almost 80 years ago, December 1928 to be exact, the City of Philadelphia gave the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts permission to build a headquarters on city-owned property at 22nd and Spring Streets in Fairmount Park. The Scouts built their headquarters at their own expense and, complying with the terms of the agreement, immediately turned over the property to the city. In return they remained housed in their building rent free - until Thursday. City Council Thursday evicted the Boy Scouts from their headquarters giving them until July 20 to find a new home. The Scouts believe they were ambushed by Council's decision as they were given no warning the resolution was going to be presented Thursday. The city is evicting the scouts at least in part on grounds the national organization discriminates against homosexuals. The council resolution, introduced by Councilman Darrell Clarke and passed by a vote of 16-1 Thursday, claims the national Boy Scouts organization "has a policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation ... and has required the local Boy Scouts to implement its discriminatory policy by excluding participation on the basis of sexual orientation." It continues, "The local Boy Scouts unfortunately has implemented that discriminatory policy and publicly has declared its intention to continue doing so." The eviction resolution points out the city is bound by non-discrimination provisions in its Home Rule Charter and its Fair Practices ordinance. It asserts, "The Boy Scouts' policy and conduct is directly contrary to the principles of equal access and opportunity enshrined in Philadelphia law." The city, it says, must ensure city assets are made available to all citizens. "The city's ongoing subsidy of a discriminatory organization through the allowance of free use of a building is directly contrary to the city's policy and practice of refusing to support discrimination," the resolution complained. There is one possibility the Boy Scouts' headquarters can be saved. They can continue to use their building if they agree to pay market value rent. The Fairmount Park Commission set the eviction clock ticking last summer when it voted to evict the Scouts from the building that sits on parkland. Councilman Brian O'Neill was the single vote in council against the eviction. "This was too big an issue to have no hearing on," he said after the vote. "The Boy Scouts were negotiating in good faith. They were negotiating to be paid for the improvements they made to the building so they could start again somewhere else. "The local chapter was opposed to the national chapter's discrimination policy. I hate to see a group that agrees with us to be pushed out." Lobbyist and media consultant Jeff Jubelirer spoke on behalf of the Cradle of Liberty Council. "We had no idea this was coming today," he huffed saying they learned of the resolution from a lobbyist who was in council chambers when the resolution was introduced. "When the Fairmount Park commission voted to evict us [last July] we didn't get invited to the meeting. There's been a pattern of the city not giving us any information and doing things at the eleventh hour behind our backs. We were blindsided." Jubelirer maintained the Scouts met with Councilman Clarke and City Solicitor Romy Diaz as recently as March to discuss the eviction issue. "We were hoping to come up with a win-win situation," Jubelirer claimed. "There was no indication this would happen. This could cut off 40,000 youths from after school programming in a time when there is a rising murder rate among city youth." He conceded there were strong efforts from the lesbian and gay communities to push the eviction. "They have every right to," he conceded, but maintained the Cradle of Liberty Council does not discriminate. The Scouts are investigating legal options to fight the eviction, he said. "In the long run we want to work something out," Jubelirer maintained. "We asked what full market rent would be but they have not gotten back to us with an answer. " Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, issued an Internet bulletin to subscribers after the resolution passed recounting the eviction story and noting the legislation "came about [in part] because of the Boy Scouts discriminatory policies."

So, "Helpful" trumps all of the other Scout Laws, and the Ten Commandments too. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love he Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40). Yah, Kudu, well done, good and faithful servant! Wouldn't have thought it of you, paraphrasin' scripture like that. Love your neighbor, and da rest follows. It even resolves the odd cases like when being Helpful is the wrong thing to do, because lovin' the person means sometimes lettin' him struggle to learn and do it himself. Beavah

The purpose of a tour permit is so the council can reduce risk by spotting potentially unsafe outing plans and suggest changes that will reduce risk. LOL, this had me rollin' in the aisles. I ain't never seen a council or a regional office use the tour permit to "spot potentially unsafe outing plans". Dat's a hoot. These things are handled by very nice ladies in air-conditioned offices who may not ever have been campin' in their lives. They wouldn't recognize an unsafe outing plan if it left a cowpie on their desk. Tour permits are scanned to make sure all da lines are filled in and the boxes checked. That's it. They're "paperwork safety" and a legal fig leaf. Mostly, they do what Gern suggests - make Scouters at least nominally think about a few important steps. Beavah

Yah, I'm with OGE on this, eh? Yeh have a kid who hasn't been around for two years, why did you recharter him? There's a reason each unit is supposed to do a roster review as part of that there recharterin' process, eh? Lots of troops have had this issue crop up from time to time - a boy who doesn't participate in anything, but then shows up for camp because his parents want the BabySitters of America's low-cost week off. A lot of times those lads are pretty disruptive at camp, because they don't have a real commitment to the program or any long-term relationships with the leaders. Yeh gotta decide whether it's worth taking a shot that you can re-inspire junior to be a committed scout with a week at camp, or whether you're just bein' taken advantage of. If it's the latter, just say no, eh? Not a registered scout, no camp. Adult volunteers don't want to camp with a lad they don't know (who has a parent likely to give 'em grief if anything "goes wrong"), no camp. Yeh can't make a volunteer babysit your kid for free just because you want 'im to. As for the other stuff like a position of responsibility, I figure that mostly it's better when the lad's peers tell him they don't want him in a position because he never shows. No need for adult rules in a good youth-run program, eh? The boys will be more firm and frank than the adults. Then you just tell dad "Hey, I agree with da SPL. If your son wants a leadership position, he needs to convince the other boys that he's worthy of their trust." Beavah

Yah, John, dat seems like a pretty long and convoluted chain of causation, eh? I think even the most obnoxious of plaintiff's attorneys would have a hard time makin' a gross negligence claim out of a failure to file ancillary paperwork. Not a proximate cause even for a claim of simple negligence, eh? I think there should be a black-letter policy in G2SS and in every BSA train-the-trainer course. Nobody should ever use words like "liability" or other legal falderal when addressin' an average citizen scouter. Especially them as aren't trained in da law.