Beavah

If one works at it long enough, they ought to be able to justify just about any action, decision, or rule-breaking they might wish to do. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's correct. Yah, or justify just about any kind of absurd rule or tyranny. "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven." That's why education, learning, and developing hands-on experience are most important, to know when and why a choice should be made. Educatin' an upright conscience and a healthy, rational mind. We want to develop Men of Service, not men who are servants. B.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

"Daddy, Mr. Jones says it's important that you never break the speed limit. How come we're going 80 mph when the speed limit says 70 mph?" "Well, son, let's see. Look around you. What do you see the other cars doing?" "They're all going about the same speed we are." "OK, now let's try an experiment. I'm going to slow down to 65 mph to stay a bit below the posted speed limit. Let's watch what happens." [car slows, several other cars change lanes quickly, one car swerves. Multiple cars pile up behind trying to scoot forward to pass. Two cars honk.] "See, what we've created is called a 'moving roadblock'." "Wow, Dad, that's pretty scary. It's almost caused a couple of accidents already." "That's right, son. You see, traffic safety really depends on being able to rely on what other drivers are doing. So when someone does something unexpected, it makes things much less safe." "But if everyone obeyed the speed limit, wouldn't that be predictable?" "Yes, son, it would. That's good thinking. Now watch again [dad slows down to 65, chaos ensues]. How many cars are there behind us now?" "Oh, about 12." "How many do you think there'd be if we stayed at this speed?" "A lot more. We'd cause a traffic jam." "That's right. In fact, people have tried that, driving the speed limit with cars in all the lanes. They've caused massive traffic jams and accidents." "Well then how come they don't set the speed limits better?" "Well, that's a good question. You see, the people who make the laws aren't really traffic scientists. They do their best, but at times a lot of prejudice and other stuff creeps in. And in some places, they set the speed limits deliberately slow so they can catch people and make money." "Wow, dad, that's not really fair." "Well, it is and it isn't. They do post a sign after all. But the biggest reason is it's hard to make one rule for everything. See, today it's bright, sunny, and dry. But what if it were dark and rainy? Or if it were a big snowstorm?" "Then everybody would have to slow way down to be safe. They'd have to go way below the speed limit!" "Right again, good job. So you see, in that case, the speed limit would be too high, and by following the speed limit you'd be unsafe. OK, now you try to write the law." "That's too hard, dad. You'd have to have a whole bunch of different speed limits for different conditions. And for different roads. And even for different cars and drivers. I wouldn't want Old Mrs. Fussbudget to go 80, she can't see very well." "So what do you think the solution is?" "I think you have to understand the way things work, dad, and then do the right thing." "I think so too, son. And you have to trust your fellow citizens to do the same, even though you know occasionally one will make a mistake. In some countries they don't even put speed limits on highways or side streets, they just trust their citizens to be responsible. But I think rules are a good place to start, while you're learning. When you first start driving, we're going to pay close attention to speed limits until you develop some experience for a year or two." "That sounds good, dad. But how come Mr. Jones says it's always bad to exceed the speed limit?" "Well, I think Mr. Jones is telling you that because he knows you're a beginner, and he wants to make sure you start out right. And it might be because Mr. Jones knows there are some rules that are really very firm, like you should never drink and drive, and he doesn't want you to think that it's OK to break rules because you might break a rule like that." "But dad, I'm not stupid. I can understand things if people trust me and explain them well." "I know son. I'm proud of you." (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So Lisa'bob (and some of the rest), as I asked in the original posting, what's your own personal ethical framework and background, so that we have a context in which to place your comments? Seems unfair to start by attackin' without first sharin'. Like SR540 says, that's too easy, anyone can do it. Ethics and ethical discussions require personal investment to be meaningful. Understandin' Eamonn's background, for example, helps to place his words in broader context. His religious tradition places a much greater emphasis on hierarchy and obedience than those of us from a more Protestant background, where personal conscience and faith play a more central role. Knowin' that, each of us can frame our discussion in a way that's respectful of the other's tradition. Eamonn, me personally, I think Kindness is the hardest of the Law. These days, rules are a dime a dozen and are multiplied daily. Impossible to memorize 'em all even if you're a lawyer. No doubt after the tragedy in Virginia, we'll generate still more rules... when probably what was needed was a few acts of kindness to an awkward, lonely young man when he was new to the country and talked funny. Kindness means givin' up the notions we have that we are better than even the poorest of men. Yah, Kindness is hard. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, my own personal perspective is as a "main line" and convinced Christian. "Main line" in that I'm not of Fundamentalist background, but rather believe that human reason and enlightened personal conscience have key roles to play in helping us toward what is right. Christian in that I believe in an objective, accessible, caring "external Truth" that can be known and accepted in faith. My tradition's view of the role of law and principles is perhaps best defined by Jesus' interaction with the scribes and Pharisee's in Matthew's Gospel, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and Luther's writings on the bishops of medieval Germany. Yah, and I have some personal experience with civil law on both the practical and policy side, and believe American jurisprudence is grounded in the same tradition. So personally, I believe having some rules and norms are a necessary feature of any society, including our little Scouting societies. But some rules are more important than others (Ex. constitutions vs. statutes vs. executive orders). All rules, however, are meant to serve principles, and to lead people to the point where they rely on principles rather than rules. The average citizen does not need a law to know murder is wrong, we just know it to be contrary to our principles. That's where I want our kids to be. Murder is not wrong because "it's against the rules and I'll be punished." Murder is wrong because "it's my role as a man to help and care for others." In that vein, all human rules are subject to the authority of universal principles, as decided by reason and enlightened personal conscience. And all rules are subject to pragmatic and rational good judgment in their execution, so as to best achieve their just ends. ----- Breakin' longwinded pontification with fun example ----- So I would teach scouts to use reason and judgment and personal conscience in the application of any rule. If the troop rule is "no candy while on a campout", but the PL knows Bill is homesick and needs some conversation and some comfort food, I want the PL to say "J2, J15, J15b" and sit down to some M&M's and some Cherry Coke with the lad. At the same time, when da PL finds the young rascals Joey and Scott with candy in their tent, I expect him to say "R2, R3, R7", take the candy away and give them an admonishment about the rule and the reasons for it. Making individual adjustments for Bill does not mean "everybody can do anything." Now, if I thought the PL blew the call, I might let it go and let him learn on his own, or I might privately share other ways of thinking for him to consider, but I would never condemn him as "wrong" if he were doing his best - especially not to a member of his patrol. Our telling someone on the forum that "your SE is wrong, go argue!" feels to me exactly like telling Joey "your PL is wrong, go argue!". I'm astonished by it. ------- End of Example ------- I would hope any young man or woman I've had the pleasure of serving in Scouting would be able to make the same judgment for any of the J's or R's, and any rule. I think the mission of Scouting is to get them beyond the beginner notion of "just follow the rules because they come from Authority" to a level of deeper and more principled understanding. So dat's my personal belief, and the perspective of my tradition, eh? Yah, I don't want to argue it with anyone, but I hope in the spirit of SL12 that it's understood, welcomed, and respected. At least to the point that when it's offered, the response from one of da moderators is somethin' other than sayin' I'm teachin' the youth to make unethical choices. Yer brother in service, Beavah

Since this ol' silly topic came up yet again, seems like a good time to move it over here to Issues so that those who want to debate ethical systems get out of the way of those who are just interested in program. Maybe we can just come back here all the time and it will have unending life like the atheist thread, eh? The topic is "What is the proper role of rules and regulations in a small-scale voluntary society, and how do we teach kids that?" A corollary may be "How much do we seek to understand and courteously tolerate other views?" I ask as a favor and a courtesy that each poster begin with his/her own personal ethical perspective and background, so we have a context in which to place the comments which follow.

Yah, yah... Let's see, that's another R8, a book quote, and a slam on anyone who thinks about things differently. I answer J16 and logical fallacy, wrong book (you need the one for SE's not for SM's), and SL 5&12. And conclude with J15 for emphasis. Then I'll site SL12 and say everyone is free to believe whatever they like if it makes them more comfortable. After all, WebelosMom's SE can tell her directly what he's allowed to do (like alter program procedure but not real policy like admitting girls or atheists). She doesn't have to believe any of us internet garden gnomes. Beavah

LOL, ROTF! Yah, thanks for my mornin' laugh there, Oak Tree. What a hoot! I suspect it all comes down to how much you trust other people with their own freedom. Me, I'm a trusting sort. Freedom is a good thing. Or maybe judging others without walkin' in their shoes is a bad thing. Now, is that J17? The funniest thing in this thread is that nobody's breakin' a rule. Doing this is within the discretion of the council Scout Executive in the BSA. Oops, that J16 again. Darn! Still laughin'... Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think some confusion got introduced by the supplementary training module. The supplementary module pushes scout-aged buddies. That was AFAIK a personal notion of the author(s), but it does not change the real policy. The real policy, no one-on-one, is as Lisa'bob describes. Same as SM conferences, MBC must be done in the presence and view of others. Beyond that, it's up to the MBC, the SM, the boy, and the parent what they're comfortable with, eh?

Sure, Lisa'bob, all good points, (even if the phrasing is a bit tough, eh? ). Those are good points because they talk about what's in the best interest of kids, and how to better reach them with what we offer. That makes for a good discussion among friends, and offers ideas to help. If there's real structural issues with the webelos program in the area, I agree that doin' this short-term dual-registry option is like rearrangin' deck chairs. It's not something I'd consider or even suggest to someone. My only comment was that this particular idea is well within an SE's discretion. That's not saying you or I can do such a thing on our own, mind you. That's sayin' that in the BSA, that sort of small adaptation can be made by the Scout Executive for a council. That's part of how the BSA really works, internally. Kinda like how NCS standards and G2SS differ in some ways, so quotin' G2SS at a camp director really isn't going to accomplish much or make any friends, since he's bound to NCS. But all most volunteers know or have access to is G2SS, so to those so inclined, quotin' G2SS feels righteous. In reality it's like an amateur trying to tell a professional the proper way to do somethin'. I'm just tryin' to save folks some angst and embarrassment. I think it's perfectly OK to raise the other issues you raise if an SE is considering such an approach - "What is the problem we're trying to address?" "Is this the best way to address it?" "How exactly will kids benefit?" "What are the potential downsides?" Especially if you're on the executive committee . All those fine things might affect our kids. I suspect the problem is that there's very little the council, and particularly the council professionals, can do to affect unit-level program. They really have no control over it at all, and the poor guys are bein' evaluated on a short-term basis on the results of all those unit-level programs. So they're doing the small things they can in the short term, hopefully while comin' up with some longer term plans as well. I do disagree with the belief that allowing dual registry discounts one program over another. Dual registry is common in the older scouting programs and for adults. Just because a council encourages boys to join Varsity Teams and Venturing Crews doesn't mean that they don't understand or that they discount the Boy Scouting program. And allowing an adult to dual as a Den Leader and an ASM is not a statement that cubs aren't valuable. Leastways, I don't see it that way. Quite the opposite, the programs should complement each other. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I don't know. I think some wheels need to be reinvented. I do that all the time with kids; I expect most of us do, eh? Most of Scouting is helpin' kids discover for themselves things that we old folks already know. I think a big part of learning involves trying things yourself, not just listening to someone else. Trying things ourselves builds experience to go with book knowledge. It makes us richer and wiser. That's why I prefer it when people begin by sharing from their own experience, what they've done and what they learned. It doesn't just give us an answer, it helps us to think. I expect most of us prefer to learn that way, too. We'd prefer to tinker and get our hands dirty gettin' a feel for something rather than have someone just tell us what da answer is. Supportin' that is the Scouting Way, eh? Like supportin' the SPL even when we personally would do it different, or better. And if we're wise old critters, we pay attention and even we can learn a thing or two from the experiences of the kids. No difference for how we treat adults, eh, except that we should be even more supportive and "hands off" than we are for kids. That's not "people doing whatever they feel like" or any such incendiary talk show blather, any more than following rules is "acting like a tyrant." It's avoiding both of those extremes in favor of workin' together as friends. Now, if any of us knows of another council that tried dual registration of cubs and boy scouts, I think that's a fine thing to pass along to them if they're thinkin' about it. Same as we all pass along our personal experiences with rotatin' NSP PL's and such. Neither are currently "standard program", but for some unit or council somewhere, it might be just the ticket to get past a rough spot or get to a bigger goal. And that's what we're about, eh? Principles and bigger goals. All those BSA documents compiled by editors from comments from hundreds of fellow volunteers are written with deliberate ambiguity. They're guidelines to be helpful, because everyone who's been playin' this game for any length of time knows that no two successful troops are alike, and no two successful councils do things exactly the same. Fact is, the most successful of each are highly personalized, not generic. So we honor such folks when we use their materials wisely, with kindness, generosity, and wisdom, to learn from, not judge others by. And to take what we learn, and what we try, and what we experience, and do right by kids. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Thats an interesting concept; that of justifying what we do or dont do in conflict with the program, if we preface it by saying were doing so in order to do the right thing. That sounds like a self-serving model. Yah, it can be. Or it can be a humble recognition that our own understanding may be imperfect. Or it can be an honest recognition that programs and other human rules are imperfect, and bigger principles come first. Or, as J-in-KC says, it can simply be that prudence and kindness make it unproductive to raise a fuss! Me personally, I don't care one way or another about dual membership in boy scouting and cubs. Someone's council thinks it'll help? OK. They should talk that out and maybe give it a whirl. I just care that we support our fellow scouters with kindness and generosity of spirit. Even when they exercise their legitimate discretion. Even when they do it differently than we would. Even when they make mistakes. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Why would it benefit him to do both? Why would he want to? I dunno. I expect the council that's considerin' this, if they are, has some notions as to why it might work for their 11-year-olds. I trust 'em. Most Scouters are good folks. I do recall back when we were askin' the same thing about Venturing. Why would a boy want to do both Venturing and stay in a Troop? The programs were designed very differently, targetin' different kids. I dunno why, but we found a fair number do both. Maybe to stay with friends; maybe to finish Eagle where they started (because Venturing really doesn't have an advancement method or focus). Maybe lots of other reasons, eh? Very different programs, but dual registration is OK. So why can't a boy who is eligible for membership in both a pack and a troop dual register, for similar or different reasons? Got plenty of kids around here who earn AOL and stay with their pack until they're done with the season and go to Blue & Gold and the spring picnic. Got some who jump right away. Both seem just fine. Seems like the middle would be just fine, too. So me, I'm in favor of supportin' my brothers and sisters in the field. I dunno if this'll be a good adaptation for them or not, but it seems like a pretty small thing, eh? Ain't worth sweatin' the small stuff. And who knows? One of these adaptations may very well become "the program" after the next revision cycle. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, it all depends whether our personal ethics are tied to rules or to Principles, eh? But that's gettin' way too far afield. The case in the other thread involved changin' one little administrative feature - not allowing a boy to be dual registered in a Pack and a Troop. It did not involve changing a single national rule about ages for joining or remaining in either program. Close as I can tell, the only reason it's "not allowed" is that it wasn't programmed into ScoutNet. And we all know that's an amazingly well-designed program . Some things, a few, really are national policies. But it's funny, isn't it, how almost all of those come with tweaking procedures. The 18-year-old limit for Eagle is a real policy, but then that limit for Eagle can be waived for disability, and a whole procedure exists for extensions of time of various lengths. So we recognize that justice, common sense, and service of kids almost always involves breaking, modifying, or waiving the rules at some point in order to do the right thing. Even when they're "hard" rules (moreso when they're just good practice guidelines and administrative regulations!). Not all the time. Not even most of the time. But some of the time. In fact, some of us teach that not adjusting the rules when it's the right thing to do is often an act of cowardice or meanness. I personally think that's a fine lesson to teach, and the proper ethic to live by. It's an act of righteousness to cure people on the Sabbath, even if it's against "the rule." And it's even an act of tolerance and compassion to let other people live by slightly different rules as they try to do good works the best they can. Oh, yah, and I reckon the BSA "Service Model" is in National's internal marketing and strategic planning documents, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Now I'm not so sure, at least for now. Yah, why not? Da Crews that tend to stay around are the ones that have a tighter focus, like Cycling or Shooting Sports. That helps 'em with the second ingredient - finding long-term, consistent adult support and CO sponsorship. It's like Eamonn says about Sea Scouts, eh? Same thing. The tighter focus and longer term adult interest are key ingredients. Go for it, both of you! Beavah

It seems obvious that the "limit" solution is a clear indication that the local MB program is in trouble. It's a weak attempt to patch up problems ... Yah, I agree with this, too, eh? I think the biggest weakness in the MB program in the large majority of councils is failure to do a good job recruiting and screening counselors. When was the last time yeh ever heard of an application to counsel a badge being denied? Or of a district goin' to Mr. Beavah and sayin' "Hey, we just found a pilot and aviation engineer to counsel Aviation. Can you perhaps move off of Aviation and do somethin' else we need?" Yeh don't need to put "policy" limits in place if DAC's and CAC's do their jobs with vigor and gusto. They wouldn't be approving dluders to counsel Cycling if they had some semi-pro mountain and road cyclists around to offer it... enough to cover the kids who were interested. Then there wouldn't be a need for more artificial limits. The limits would come naturally from havin' the best people for each badge. Lots of "policy" happens because it's a poor substitute for knowin' what you're doin' and working hard to do the right thing. Beavah

Yah, the correct answer is yes. This is the kind of thing where individual councils and SE's have some discretion in setting local rules. This particular local rule is used by at least a third of the councils in the U.S., I'd guess. The supplementary training modules are written by outside volunteers as a resource for MBC's. They are not a BSA policy and governance document. The more important answer is still "Is this an issue you want to compromise your relationship with other volunteers over? Is it worth being 'that complaining guy'?" Yah, yah, I'm opposed to these limits because I think capable volunteers are a gift to the program and we should use 'em for all they're willing to give. But as a dad, my teenage sons would make an appointment with another counselor for every badge. Did Aviation with a local Flight Instructor, had a great experience. I think the overall experience for all badges is richer that way, even if I thought I was a better counselor (and don't we all!). And da kids listen more to somebody else than they would to me . As to inconvenience, kids have bikes, kids have friends, it's OK to meet at the Pizza Barn or with Mr. counselor's wife around, and junior was welcome to take my keys if it was a longer drive, eh? No inconvenience for me. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ah, you program tweaker you. Yah, I'll leave it to others to give advice. Like I said, I'd never seen this modification around here, and I'm not sure I could make it work well. Do let us know down the road what you find out, plusses and minuses! Beavah

The Lad has until he is 11 or he completes 5 grade to meet the requirements. Yah, so do we all have this straight now (thanks Lisa'bob!)? A lad has until he's 11 1/2 or until he finishes 5th grade, whichever comes later, to work on his AOL requirements. At the point he turns 11 while in 5th grade, he can choose to go join a troop, or he can choose to stay with his buddies in the pack and finish AOL. So why not both, if he has the time and interest? If we want to toss the requirements out the window? It's not going to be the program any more! Why bother having age groups? The only reason to have age groups, or to have a program, is service of the kids. It's not some magical talisman that exists for its own bureaucratic perpetuation. In this case, a council is lookin' at things and saying, "Hey, we're seeing a way we might be able to be of better service to kids. Maybe if we encourage the slightly older 5th graders to hop into willing troops while they also finish up in cubs, it will build connections. Those boys might be more likely to continue, and they might pull their slightly younger pack-mates along. Again, this is a decision where the council, in the BSA, has some discretion. If you're lookin' for a rigid, lockstep, standard-policy-across-the-US organization, you need to go somewhere else. That's not the BSA service model. As Lisa'bob suggests, we should consider whether such a minor modification is a good policy or not, but it should be on the merits of how well it serves children. A council or two that tries it gives us some "hard data", eh? Beavah

I then went to Woodbadge and we used the rotating PL idea. AAA HAAA!!! That's where this thing comes from Dat's really funny, eh? But it makes perfect sense. A technique we use in WB to "compress" experience for adults into a small stretch of time gets taken to be "a way to do things" for NSP's. Just goes to show we always have to be careful when we're teachin' that people don't walk away with odd notions! BTW, Thanks EagleinKY for gettin' back to the original thread, eh? Yah, you longwinded gents know there have to be half a dozen vertical vs. stratified patrol threads out there, eh? Beavah

Yah, everybody's goin' off tellin' people they can't do this or that, it's not da program, yadda yadda yadda. I wonder if we'll ever get tired of it? A boy can join a troop without earnin' AOL once he turns 11. That same boy can choose to stay in his pack with his buddies to finish up AOL. So aside from bureaucratic and computer issues why can't he do both? What's the reason in terms of what's best for kids and our service to them? Yah, I can't figure any real reason not to, provided the troop is comfortable with acceptin' him out of season, so to speak. A few troops aren't, but most are pretty accommodatin'. I think we also have to remember that Council SE's are permitted to pilot program adaptations with National's blessing, and to waive some registration requirements as well. For example, I know a group that's currently workin' on a Varsity Team program for 11-14 year olds. Practically, I'm not sure if ScoutNet automatically flips the registration out of Cubbing when a Boy Scout App. comes in, but that's administrivia for the council registrar to work around. So I'm back to "Why not?" Why would this be bad for kids? Beavah

Yah, I agree with ajmako, but I think he's leavin' out a whole bunch of stuff. I don't believe the positive troop stuff he's talkin' about happens because the troop avoids havin' lots of policies and rules. I think the positive dynamic happens because of personal relationships with boys established by a certain kind of adult. Now, it just so happens that da right kind of adult is also one who doesn't agree with setting a lot of extra rules and policies (so we all can use that to help us find the right adults to lead troops, perhaps. ) But the cause of what ajmako describes is the right adults in a long-term relationship with kids. We won't get there by just doing away with rules/policies and sayin' "Oath and Law." Yah, yah, OK. But da problem many units face is a program that's been on "autopilot" for a while. Or, sometimes, a new unit leader comes in who doesn't have the knack for relating to packs of teenagers. Some poor behaviors happen, as they always will. One of three things happens then, eh? * The less experienced/savvy leader isn't sure of himself/herself or quite what to do, and lets the mild poor behavior go. Some adults don't understand boys well enough to even recognize the "small stuff" to respond to (like the dirty look, or the sideways mean comment). Either way, this means that the boy(s) will escalate, and behaviors will slowly get worse. Boys want to "feel the edges". * The less experienced/savvy leader isn't quite comfortable confronting a big teen or any individual boy, and instead will respond to the group. This might be a lecture to the whole group, or it might be a "new rule/policy" for the whole group. Such adults always seem to need a "policy" to do what is obvious. The kid who misbehaved isn't deterred, and now the group is resentful for bein' punished for somethin' they had no involvement in. * The less experienced/savvy leader will overreact, and start yelling and/or issuing threats or punishments that go beyond what's needed - and more importantly, go beyond the "social capital" that leader has with the boys. Sometimes, they'll activate "zero tolerance" policies in trivial situations. This kind of "raw" exercise of arbitrary authority throws even good kids into rebelliousness. I think ajmako's exposition is only tryin' to tell people to avoid traps #2 and #3. (He/she will have to let me know if that's right ) That's good advice, eh? But it ain't enough to pull off what s/he's talkin' about. ***** Yah, so what's an adult to do? Biggest thing is find the right adult to serve as leader!! But assumin' we're stuck in the situation with a kinda problem-type troop, where do we start? I think we have to start by gettin' to know the kids, personally. Know their interests. Know their hobbies. Know their families. Most especially, know what they're good at. Recognize 'em for their talent. Take a personal interest in each, eh? And, along the way, live the Oath and Law ourselves. Show humor, and be fun. Live a joyful life of integrity and service in their presence. Our authority in their eyes comes from our social capital. Dat's the part ajmako left out, eh? He's able to pull a kid aside and have a gentle Scout Spirit conversation because he's developed the relationship with the boy to pull it off. He just didn't tell yeh about that part . There will be some boys most of the time (usually the more active lads), and all boys some of the time, for whom talkin' will go in one ear and out the other, though. They need consequences, fairly and consistently delivered. Each adult will figure out da kind of consequences he/she likes. Pushups are just fine for some, kybo cleaning just fine for others, missin' ice cream or a favorite activity can be grand. I don't think it matters a lick what the consequence is so long as its "difficulty" matches the offense, it's delivered consistently (with sadness, not with anger), it causes the boy to express remorse, and after it's done the boy's slate is wiped clean in everyone's eyes. Yah, and we have to mean what we say, like evmori says! Consequences are a promise. If we don't follow through, we're a liars in all the boys' eyes. But when we do follow through, especially in real cases of "tough love" our social capital in their eyes goes way up - so much so that the good kids feel empowered to do some of their own policin'. That's how yeh get a rough troop back. Find the right adult. Know the kids. Build a reputation for both fun and integrity. Be firm and consistent in consequences as your reputation can handle it. Deal with misbehavior personally and in private most of the time, avoidin' "policy" and public confrontation. And be firm and resolute in those cases that demand "tough love". Beavah

Yah, Cap'n Stosh, another case where generic nation-wide rules are inadequate to the local conditions and needs. I'm in agreement with the rest. Sea Scouts is Sea Scouts. If the BSA wants to handle it administratively through the Venturing Division, that's fine as an office organizational matter. But it makes no sense to merge them program-wise. Like tryin' to merge the Army and the Navy.

Yah, I'll join the chorus... What happens to boys who aren't in Scouting? We hope and pray and expect that God sends them other good people to plant seeds in their heart. Schoolteachers, coaches/sports, theater & music programs. Family, friends who are scouts or are just good friends. Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA's, Boys & Girls clubs. Pastors, youth ministers, church programs. Red Cross, Salvation Army, community law enforcement outreach. Social services and social workers. Hobby clubs and youth clubs and skate parks. It is a sin of pride to assume it is our job to save everyone. That's God's job, and He has many friends and servants outside of Scouting. We should do the task we are given with commitment and joy. Reach the boys and families and co-workers that we can, for sure. Pray for the rest, and trust that the Great Scoutmaster will use others to help them on their way. We are most richly blessed by the opportunity to play just one part in the lives of a few of His boys.

The civil rights office will say that public schools aren't required to create a limited public forum. Yah, well, start by collectin' info on all the other groups (PTO's, summer sports camps, etc. etc.) that they do allow "on campus." Then make the call. Or file yourself, eh? At least go to a school board meeting and be heard on the matter. You pay for those schools, eh? If they want the public to keep votin' millages, then they'd best be a responsive, open public resource. Beavah

In the first case, this is a major blow to us because the way that community's public schools are set up, all kindergarten students attend the same building - so doing spring Tiger recruiting just got A LOT more difficult. Actually we've been trying to come up with alternative, cost-effective, ways to reach the K population. It is a big community, and hard to come up with a good alternative that we can afford. Yah, Lisa'bob, your council should consider joining with other groups in the area and droppin' a dime on this. Either with their own challenge or with a complaint to the federal civil rights office. Fact is, I've never seen a district anywhere that's been able to pull off the "no fliers" thing. That means no fliers for anything - no college brochures, no information on soccer, or summer camps. Most PTO's are separately incorporated and so they're an outside agency too, so no PTO flyers or event information. It's a winnable complaint if yeh want to push it. Only the people in the area can decide whether that's the best approach or not. Beavah