Beavah

Yah, I can't think of a single troop I've ever known that didn't have it's own rules or policies. There's always somethin' a group is strugglin' with, and there's always a need for communicating "standard operating procedure." Of course many CO's will have policies that are bindin' on units, too. I got a chuckle out of Hunt's list, because there are some councils out there who have some of the rules he listed. Local rules are part of what the BSA is. But I agree with him and OGE in principle, I don't like to see troops have long Bylaws and Policy documents. Those really do seem like a lot of unnecessary adult intervention. OTOH, Troop Committee bylaws, kept short and straightforward, can be helpful in gettin' everyone on the same page. They can be particularly helpful when a group of "young turks" joins a committee and wants to change everything, by providin' an organized way to slow things down and deliberate, but also move forward with changes. Helps de-fuse "personalities." Yeh gotta come up with those on your own; there's no BSA version because unit committees are so diverse across COs that one size wouldn't fit anybody.

Yah, I think most of da troops up our way are like Joe's, eh? Heavy trailer campin'. Does seem to be a lot of work, but it has advantages in storage. I think the real advantage is in makin' it a pleasant camping environment for the adults. Troops with "heavy" gear tend to get a lot of dads (and even some moms) out on trips. They in turn add to the heavy gear with the latest gizmo or inflatable hot tub . Visitin' as a Commish, it's pretty nice. On the downside, it sometimes encourages a bit of beer-drinkin' and smokin' on the side by the adults. Recently we've seen a few troops "go light" like Dug and CA. Maybe this is comin' out of LNT training, or information out there on lightweight camping like on kudu's site (http://www.inquiry.net/outdoor/equipment/lightweight_camping.htm). But I think it's mostly an influx of younger adult leaders who have grown up in a LNT/backpacking/wilderness adventure world. I think the lightweight troops really do patrol method better on average, just because there's nothing that provides a temptation to troop method (like a "troop" trailer or a big "troop" encampment). The kids can carry gear and set up fast and on their own, without adults needin' to manage to keep kids focused on harder, longer setup or teardown tasks. Just the way it seems. I know that the lightweight troops like Dug's do more adventurous and varied activities. If you've got gear that works for every adventure from mountain' climbin' to sea kayakin', those things are much more approachable. Those troops naturally attract kids and adults who want to do those things, so it's sort of self-fulfilling. Sometimes, their outings are a bit tough for young first year boys (or dads!) who discover they aren't (yet) into that. Ups and downs to both approaches, eh?

I agree with and support every word in SR540Beaver's post above. -Scouter Terry Fair enough, eh? Da guy that owns the press gets to decide how it's operated. Leaving the choice to the rest of us whether to purchase. And leavin' the choice to the rest of us what kind of community we want to be and represent. Me personally, I've never liked the rationale that "hey, we're not as bad as the UseNet scouting groups" or "We're not as bad as we were." I'd never accept those excuses from scouts. I honestly hope none of us would. "Gee, Mr. Beavah, I don't swear as much as some guys in my school" or "Golly, Mr. Beavah, I'm not as big a bully as I used to be, I don't punch kids any more." I think we should push our selves and push each other to live up to higher standards, same as I hope each of us does with da kids every week, eh? Yah, I've also never liked the notion of ignoring other users, tempting though it's been. Too much like ignorin' the bully or the kid who needs help in a troop. Just me, perhaps. Seems like it works for the individual but doesn't help the community. I do share da crowd's more general aversion to "heavy" moderation, which quenches the voices and ideas of anyone but the moderators. Never would I suggest that, especially here where the moderators are already the most frequent voices. So I'll keep an eye out for a friendlier and more courteous venue that also allows those of us who serve in official capacities (or who just don't like givin' out our emails) to keep some degree of anonymity. In the meantime, since we're agreed that moderation is goin' to be "light", I'll keep the conversation goin' with a once-a-month thread in Issues on Forum Courtesy. Always have believed that education is a darn sight better than rules and policing, so I suppose it's OK to be asked to live the principle. Beavah

Good questions, twocub. I don't think I'd ever advocate requiring a parent to come along as a long-term solution to a problem - not at the troop or crew level. For a few outings, to help the troop leadership get a handle on how to help the boy, sure. After that, you're not really providin' the scouting experience for that boy or for other boys, and yeh have to look at not continuing. There's always exceptions, but I think the unit leaders have to be completely comfortable with the exceptions. Sometimes with youth with behavioral problems, the parent is goin' to be as much a part of the problem as part of the solution, eh? So I think yeh have to weigh that too. I'm sure we've all seen plenty of cases where the parent enabled the poor behavior. Asperger's kids run quite a range. I've found it really helps if yeh can take the time to explain to other boys how the disease works, so that they understand about the communication difficulties and the missed social cues. They're on the "front lines" for their fellow scout, so you need to enlist their support. That really can defuse a lot of problems. But boys who are gettin' bigger and who get crazy violent, despite the best efforts of non-professional volunteers, we have to protect the other kids. Beavah

Yah, so Zahnada suggests that ye olde Limericks are da best form of poetry, eh? So here's your chance to show off your talent. A Scoutin' Limerick contest! Any scouting topic is fair, so is jestin' about any forum member (in good taste). You can enter as many times as you like, but only one entry per posting. (that way) Everyone can vote for their favorites by hittin' the little "thumb's up" icon! The award will be the esteem of your fellows, a chorus of Gilwell starting with your favorite critter, and undying fame.

It was my opinion that the tone in that thread wasn't very nice and I didn't see any reason for the thread to continue. Yah, mate, but more than half the stuff came from postings in other threads, and matched the tone there, eh? So if that's the criteria, how 'bout respondin' in other threads when it shows up. No need to close threads, just off-list reminders or feedback for the most part, eh? There once was a guy did his best, To educate, prod and to jest, But 'bout once a year, Folks'd have too much beer, And he'd cut em off unless they confessed. (Sorry, Zahnada, best I could do on the fly)

Beavah, You apparently have a great network of friends. Wish I was so fortunate! Yah, friends in high and low places . Honestly, though, I think it's like MB counselors. If a boy, family, or unit needs a resource, I go out and find it for 'em. That's the real job of us district and council types. Scoutldr's right, though, yeh have to be low-key, meet on neutral ground, and be like Grandpa Beavah and his buddy sharin' a cup o'Joe, not like the guy bringin' the shrink to tell 'em what's wrong with their kid. Lisa'bob, your examples are really tough ones. Like all real-world examples, they're complex, and it really helps to know the players. I'd begin in each case by bein' non-judgmental but alert, and gather more information. But here are my loose thoughts. 1.A boy's mother approached her son's DL about YP issues. Specifically, mom wants to know if the BSA has any material that could be used to help a boy who is living in a domestic violence situation... It's unclear whether the woman is asking for help for her son, or some other boy she knows. I would start a conversation, listen carefully, and ask her directly - are you or your son victims of violence? Do you feel one or both of you are in danger? Then I'd get her to the appropriate help. If there's imminent danger, straight to law enforcement and child services. If she's credible and it's about her son but there isn't an immediate threat, I'd be on the phone to child services with her. If it's about another boy she knows, I'd encourage her to call in the report to child services, and help her with that. I'd notify the CO and SE only if there were a connection or possible impact on Scouting (like a custody issue they need to be aware of). 2. A boy's mother is rather open about the "business" she was running from her home, with the boy present. She was allegedly engaging in behavior that is illegal and probably by most judgments, also immoral... Yah, we've had a dad in our district arrested for runnin' brothels. This kind of stuff goes on, eh? For single moms, sometimes it's the best way they know to support a family. I think yeh have to consider what's in the best interest of the boy. If mom is otherwise loving and supportive, and her activity doesn't pose a direct risk to the child, is it really better to lose him to scouting in the foster care system? Yeh haven't actually seen her hooking, eh? Would you report a dad who is rather open about another crime, like cheatin' on his taxes? Tough call. I'd advise a scouter to have a "behind doors" conversation with the CO, especially if the CO is a church or school. They might already be in the know, and certainly have greater resources to help out. 3)A boy's parent openly acknowledges that they have had their license revoked for various infractions of a serious nature, but drives anyway, including driving the boy around... Yah, reality is almost everyone who has their license suspended still drives, eh? Otherwise, they'd be unemployed and impoverished in many cases. One of the faults of the system that's understood well by the working poor, but not by us upper-middle-class types. Does it help the boy to have his parents slapped with another large fine and be sent to county jail on weekends? A big question here is whether yeh think dad drives drunk with the boy in the car. In that case, pick up the phone and call child services. Otherwise, I think a dad who's doin' his best to get his boy to Scoutin' is really tryin' to do his best, eh? I'd quietly see what I could do to help. Some pro-bono legal assist to get his license restored (yeh gotta remember guys who can afford real lawyers almost never lose their license). Perhaps a free tuneup for the old jalopy to make sure the important things like brakes work, and no exhaust is gettin' inside. Maybe along the way a visit to the house, and then droppin' a note to the "Christmas in April" folks. You know... on my honor I will do my best to help other people at all times. Beavah

Yah, what scotteng and Lisa'bob said. Take a deep breath, go indulge yourself in a large hot fudge sundae (usin' only Wisconsin ice cream, of course) . You've got 4 separate issues. 1) Visitors from another troop who return to try to make it work with their old troop. Hey, you did what you could and provided and open door. Cheer for a unit that's doing what it can to improve. Keep in touch, and you still might get some folks in the future, or maybe you can pool resources and semi-merge to stay healthy. 2) Opened doors to webelos to fulfill AOL requirements, then went to other troops. Yah, I think this is more slimy, if those other troops really weren't providing any opportunities for webelos. Nuthin' you can do about it, but it's OK to be a bit peeved by the mild discourtesy. 3) Requests from boys in another troop to join your kids at summer camp. Just say no. Summer camp is a time for your boys to have fun, get to know each other better, exercise leadership. Summer camp is also not the time to be hosting boys who you haven't gotten to know through other outings, whose parents you haven't gotten to know through at least a few months of participation. You're taking on a lot of responsibility and some risk, without really having any authority. Bad situation. If they want, their parents can take/send them as provisional campers to camp. 4) Private school starting up their own troop. Yah, applaud and help 'em get started. This is the way the BSA is supposed to work, with CO's building a program to meet the needs of their kids and support their unique mission. Be proud that you got 'em excited about doing it. Recruitin' is always just odd. Seems like years I see troops workin' hard at it they get nuthin'. Then all of a sudden one year when they don't work that hard they get deluged. Consider your recruiting efforts as deposits toward that deluge year, at the same time don't be afraid to ask parents why they chose somewhere else, to get hints at how you can polish your image. And keep on keepin' on! Beavah

I created my own monster. Yah, sounds like One of the hardest things for Committees to figure out is how to stay out of micromanagin'. The SM is in charge of program, individual committee members support the program in their positions of responsibility, under the direction of the SM. The committee as a whole also sets "big picture" goals and policies, as well as some feedback and oversight, which is where things often get muddled up. Good luck with it, eh? Let us know if you're lookin' for additional ideas or suggestions. Beavah

What is the term of office for the Troop Committee Chair? The CC serves at the discretion of the COR and Chartered Organization. Their registration must be renewed each year with the BSA, but the term is up to the CO and unit bylaws. Is the term up to the Charter Organization? The CC serves at their pleasure. Can Assistant Scoutmasters be on the Troop Committee? No, ASM's can't be dual registered as Committee members in terms of their BSA registration. In terms of how a unit committee operates, though, that's up to the CO. So if it's OK with the CO and CC, an ASM can attend, participate in discussions, even vote. Da structure of unit committees varies a lot between units. So why don't yeh tell us what's up?

LOL. I'll cop to that, Aquila. Yah, my fault for respondin' back and lettin' the rant continue. Just throwin' wood on the fire, and I know better. As my only defense, I've never raised the issue in public without first raising it multiple times in private. But the topic was serious, the tone here is really quite poor sometimes, almost embarrassin'. And that often comes from our more frequent posters. So how do we email the site owner about changin' the moderating staff so that we're just a touch more quick about cuttin' off the grenade throwers (and so perhaps some of 'em aren't on the moderator staff)? I'm not for too much overt moderation, but just a touch more nudgin' and private educatin' at the edges. Beavah

Withholding medication on a regular basis can be viewed as reasonable suspicion that this childs need are possibly being neglected. Yah, so this is an interesting case to discuss. Joe is an ADHD kid in your troop, eh? Yeh know from other boys and from Joe that he takes Concerta every day for school. But on your last weekend campout, the parents sent no meds along, and now they haven't even listed his medication on the summer camp health form. Joe tells you "Oh, my parents don't have me take medications on weekends or in the summer." Do you 1) Call Child Protective Services to report suspicion of abuse & neglect? 2) Call your Scout Executive to report suspicion of neglect? 3) Call the parents and find out what's up? I vote for (3). If it seems appropriate and the parents are OK with it, I might bring along a child psychologist when talking to them, just to offer some expertise and perspective. If I'm aware of family financial issues that might be affecting whether they can afford Joe's medication, I would steer them toward agencies that can help with that. So in short, I would try to be supportive of the family by providing resources, but I would not, at least at first blush, consider this neglect. ----- All training is meant to be helpful and informative, and good folks do their best to make it as useful as it can be given the limits of time and media. The purpose of training is to build deeper understanding, and provide access to more resources, so that we can do our best for kids. Is every sentence in every video or booklet to be taken as literal policy? No. Is it proper to say a region, council, or unit is "wrong" because they may do things differently to achieve the same ends? No. It's also probably not courteous or helpful, even if we do think they could handle it better. Is training worth attending and listening to? Yes, if it's done well, and taught by people who are truly knowledgeable in an area.

So if I'm understanding correctly (now), the question for the thread is "What kind of things would we choose to intervene in / report, and how would we intervene/report, when we were worried about a kid?" Ekmiranda's quote that started the thread was referring to running away and medication holidays - things that were not criminal. If we take the example of a boy who is showing up at scouting events with persistent bruising, that's going to land in the "child abuse and neglect" category in all states, so a different set of expectations apply. what was suggested is not consistant with BSA policy according to the YP tape. I think it's important for everyone to understand that training videos, including the YP tape, are not policy documents. They aren't updated frequently enough, and we are not able to produce separate videos for each state to reflect state law and local conditions. Instead, properly done YPT is supposed to provide participants with written and verbal information that informs them on those important issues for their area. Here in our state and in most others, when reporting suspected child abuse by parents, scouters are advised to call child protective services, and not the SE. The reason is that calling child protective services (or law enforcement if that's needed) protects the scouter with statutory immunity, while telling the SE (or any other private individual) that you think someone is abusing their kid may expose the scouter to suit for slander. and second mandatory reporters really needs to be defined before advice about it is given. If you are mandated by law to report something means that as a scouter you are mandated by YP policy to follow YP policy in that case. Defining "mandatory reporters" is a good idea. Da way I'm usin' it, "mandatory reporters" is a legal term that refers to those persons who have a legal obligation to report suspicions of abuse or neglect to child protective services." Who is a mandatory reporter varies by state, but in most states it refers to professionals who have close contact with children (teachers, medical professionals, etc.). In some states, everyone is a mandatory reporter. Mandatory reporting applies only to child abuse and neglect, not to any other crimes against children. In most states, only parents or guardians can commit child abuse or neglect. So when we're talkin' about reporting, we're talkin' about reporting a boy's parents to child protection authorities. There's no connection between being a mandatory reporter (a state-specific legal term) and anything in the BSA. It's also worth being clear that the BSA doesn't have anything called "YP policy." It has YP training, to help inform leaders of issues, and help them to be alert to signs of abuse and neglect. Da BSA also has some policies that we associate with YP, like "two deep" and "no one on one", but those don't address suspicions of abuse or neglect. Saying that all information provided in YP training materials is "policy" is not correct. I think the real question is always "how do I help the child?" Where or when I learned of something isn't particularly relevant. So in the example of the boy with persistent bruising, as a professionally trained mandatory reporter in my state, I would call child protective services. I would also let my CO and SE know that I had done so about "a boy" (no names) in the unit, just as a matter of courtesy. If I were an average scouter (not a mandatory reporter in my state), I would also call child protective services, but if I was really uncertain, I'd solicit the advice of a trained professional (the SE, the CO, or someone else), sharing only the observed facts, and let them handle the follow-up.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Would that have been more acceptable even if it appeared directly after the post to which it obviously refers? Is attacking what a forum member posts acceptable as long as no names or references to just which post the attack is related to are used or made? I think "attacking" is probably bad form in general, eh? And I'm glad you recognize and admit that was really your intent. But yes, removing personal references and addressing arguments is a good first step. The next step is actually to address the argument and not the person. Yah, and adding in an example, which helps clarify misunderstanding. "The example I want to propose is a boy who shows up with persistent bruises, like the example used in the Adult YPT video. In such a case, I think it is important to notify the SE as the video suggests, because X, Y, Z." or "I had a case once with a boy who A, B, C, and here's how we handled it. The outcome was good, but if I were to do it again I'd do X, Y, Z" to which I would have responded "Oh, I missed what you meant, because the first posting is about a boy running away or not on meds, and talked about non-criminal suspicions. If a person has a suspicion of child abuse or neglect, that is criminal and different rules apply." I think the biggest change in tone that's needed on these forums is from "I'm right and others are wrong" to "this is the way our troop handles this, and here's what we've found." Beavah

How did our unit get like this? Overprotective parents. Good observations, C-BOLT. I would add "fear" to your list. In fact, "fear" is probably what's behind overprotective parents. But it extends to scouters just as easily. Lots of fear out there. Legal liability fears come up a lot. For lots of adults there's fear of being "out of control." Or the fear of not really knowin' what you're doing. We create structures and behaviors to try to protect us when we're afraid. We "fort up", rather than opening up and looking for adventure or growth. Da forums here show you a pretty good spectrum of adult personalities and worries, eh? And fears. Hope yeh keep posting and reminding us of what it looks like from your angle. Beavah

I'm still not sure what we're talkin' about. Bruises on a kid might lead to reasonable suspicion of child abuse by a parent or relative. Child abuse like that is a criminal activity, which should be reported through proper channels, I think we all agree. My recommendation especially to mandatory reporters is to call child protective services (or law enforcement if needed) but not the SE. Calling children's services puts everything necessary into play to protect the child, without exposin' you to a slander suit in the way reporting to the SE can. There's a lot of cases where things are ambiguous, and you're just not sure, and you're not a mandatory reporter. Then go to someone with more training - the SE, a school counselor, or just call CPS and tell 'em what you've seen. Report the facts, not an accusation, and let them decide if they have reasonable suspicion to call CPS. That's consistent with BSA policy, BTW. SE notification is mandatory only for acts committed within Scouting (i.e. where there's a BSA liability component and insurance/risk management needs to be brought in). Beyond child abuse/neglect or assault (which in most states is defined in a way that limits it to physical, not emotional abuse), there's a whole mess of stuff that amounts to poor parenting. Pros who work with kids come up with names to describe some of the stuff - "ethical abuse" and such. Those have no legal meaning, and don't amount to criminal behavior. If someone is teachin' their kid it's OK to swear a lot it's poor parenting, perhaps "ethical abuse" but reportin' it to the SE or the State isn't goin' to accomplish anything. Yah, LongHaul's right in that coining such terms also becomes part of lobbyin' efforts to expand abuse laws, but mostly those haven't gotten much traction. I don't know what you do about "poor parenting" other than try to meet with and provide extra support to the parents. And continue to provide a healthy environment to the boy within' your unit. Beavah

Yah, so here's another example of what I'm talkin' about: After reading your post on courtesy and your request for sanctions against those you find rude I have to wonder about some of your other posts. Why would we report non criminal activity to our SE? Have you watched the recent YP Adult Leader video? While I know following rules is not high on your list how is telling those new forum people you are so worried about to disregard what BSA tells them? The first scenario on the tape discusses a boy that reportedly has bruises and refuses to talk with his leader. The tape suggests that this information be passed along to the SE. You consider yourself better educated and equipped to handle these situations than some professional scouter but do you feel those new forum members are equally educated? You will find this post to be a personal attack because it suits you. I am offended by your telling others that your method of handling a possible YP issue is an acceptable response in direct opposition to what BSA says. Its not your responsibility to investigate. Comes right from the tape. If your going to take positions that are directly contrary to BSA policy please do it in a less condescending manner. Many of us bend or disregard the written rule but don't chastize those who follow the rules. Note all da personal "you" language. "You consider yourself better educated..." "You will find this post a personal attack because it suits you..." "I know following rules is not high on your list..." etc. etc. Would it ever be acceptable to say these things out loud in public to someone? Leavin' aside that the comments are pretty far removed from the postings on the thread. I think this stuff hurts our little community. I wouldn't let a boy go on like this in public to another scout. Don't think it fits with what we stand for. So I'll return to my two suggestions: I think examples and sharing personal experiences help diffuse misunderstandings, and might have helped here. When we get abstract about rules and such, people read into things more than what's there, especially if they're wired to distrust rather than trust fellow scouters. And I think that time-outs can also help people get control of da "submit" button. Beavah

Yah, OK, I'll take a shot at a post-mortem here, and others can play off that. I certainly see Ed's point about parenting. I think Michael's parents set him up for a fall here, especially by not communicating with the troop leaders. Yah, poor parental choices are somethin' all of us parents make at some time, and certainly something all scout leaders have to deal with from time to time. So while the ball started with the parents, there may have been things the troop could have done to "catch" med vacations or be aware of run-away tendencies. Similarly, there may have been things the troop could have done to address the homesickness thing better. Don't really know without knowin' the people, though. I think most of us would agree that wanderin' around the woods aimlessly is not "What to do when lost." And a Tenderfoot scout has been certified to know "what to do when lost", right? So I think this is a Scoutin' issue. The requirement was signed and the rank awarded without the boy really understanding and being able to do, and that put him at risk. Michael's dad trusted Boy Scouting to teach him the things he needed to know, and in this case, we let him down. I think real Youth Protection is based on knowledge. Knowin' the boy and the parents, for sure, so we can support 'em as we need to. Also making the effort to be sure kids really can do something when they need to. Both would have helped in this case. Since no one-on-one came up, though, I think that's another good example. Kids knowledge of how to resist and report inappropriate adult behavior really matters, where the picayune details of "no one-on-one" really don't. But I suspect most of those who finely parse violations of "no one-on-one" never do youth-YPT thoroughly with the kids in their units. When kids don't have the knowledge they should, that's a scoutin' issue, eh? As scoutldr said, boys may need to use the things we teach 'em. Their lives may depend on it.

Since I first started looking in on the Scouter.Com forums a year or two ago, I was struck by the harshness of the tone. Indeed, many threads often degenerated into such slamfests, and many novice scouters trying to do their best were often lambasted very early on, certainly well before anyone has imagined being in their shoes. This has caused me to leave the forums twice, each time to be invited back by members who for some odd reason missed me. I think we need to have a discussion about courtesy, and perhaps a group consensus to present to Scouter Terry and an updated moderator team. Sharing ideas and how we do things differently in our various units, giving folks ideas in response to problems they're finding or new opportunities that arise are what we're all about. Since my most recent return, I've done my best to ask people at the start of each thread to begin by telling us how they handle it in their unit, and how that works for them. I've been grateful for those who have responded in that spirit and I have learned a fair bit. Where I think many threads start to go awry is when folks launch into harsh judgments of fellow scouters. Most of us have slipped occasionally, including me. Sometimes the forum with lack of verbal and nonverbal cues just "sounds" harsher than what was intended. The penchant for using isolated sentences from guidebooks as a truculent critique is one form of this, but there are others. I think sharing personal experience and techniques works better, and tends to diffuse this tendency. What I really find distasteful and over the line are postings which attack people, rather than debate arguments. The following was an example which was directed at me, but it is by no means the only example out there. I understand I am way too rigid for you but we will both have to live with that. You talk about not placing blame, but to my way of reading this post, you appear to want to place blame and place it on FCFY. You talk about respecting the fine volunteers of the program, but then talk how these leaders may not have taught the skills well enough. Going off the BSA program is fine for you as long as the person going off the program is pure of heart while those of us who follow the program could never have a pure heart and are thoughtless automatons. Fine, have it your way, you will spin this as you will. I wont try to rebutt anymore of your posts save when you say something patently wrong and I have the reference to back it up. I know you hate that but again, we will both have to live with it. It just wouldn't work for any of us if this was said around a real campfire, would it? So my proposal to all of us friends and fellow scouters is this: 1) That in discussing techniques, we begin by talking from our experience, so that others understand where we're coming from. "Here's our way of doing it, and how it works for us." It's fine to incorporate guidebook and regulation into that, but by presenting examples we understand better how each person interprets the rules to match the values and style of their unit - or simply to resolve the inevitable ambiguity in the guidebooks. For beginners reading, it helps to "see", rather than just be "told". 2) Whenever one of us runs afield and starts attacking a person, rather than responding to an argument, Scouter Terry and the moderator team gives them a week's vacation. Personal stuff can often be identified by a lot of "you" language, like the posting above. I think it's fine for there to be some "hot" discussions about issues and techniques, so long as they don't become personal. 3) I'm not quite sure what to do with comments like Bluntly, if the idea was thunk up by BSA and submitted as a good approach in the BSA provided book, it can't be nothin but no good. Homebrewed new-wheel inventions are far better. If you don't believe it, ask the inventor. and am open for suggestions. This doesn't have any "you dirty scoundrel" language, and I suppose can be read as a humorous, chiding comment said with an "aw shucks" grin, eh? At the same time, I suspect the intent was more barbing than chiding. 4) I'm also not sure what to do with comments like Da risk of FCFY is pencil-whippin' things to move 'em along. No retestin' or requirement addin', etc. etc., especially if that means takin' extra time to be sure the scout understands. I hope it didn't happen in this case where there's criticism of the risks/possible negative effects of program elements that might come off as harsh. I really believe that a touch more helpfulness and civility would be more welcoming to new posters, and more pleasant for all of our fellow scouters gathered around this virtual campfire. Eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Gern has the right sense of it, eh? No one-on-one is an Adult/Organization liability protection rule, not so much a youth protection rule. We all recognize that once we've made a predator into an ASM/SM/coach/teacher/minister or other "trusted adult" in the kids' eyes, we've provided access that no policy solution will ever protect against. So we each need to decide what our level of risk tolerance is. The chance of a false accusation is really very, very small, but the consequences are very large. For me, and I hope for most scouters, I prefer not to let fear keep me from doin' what is sensible and right for kids. So I act pretty much the way Eamonn describes. I'm alert to the issue, and I make my choices consciously with open eyes. Yah, as da case with young Michael Auberry shows, we all take risks by volunteering in a youth program, eh? If I'm going to assume those risks, I might as well do the job for kids as best as I know how, and not short change the Adult Association method because of fear.

When we feel in our heart and mind something is just not right is passing the info on to a professional scouter enough? Provided of course that we do not suspect criminal intent or activity? LongHaul, I'm not entirely sure what we're talkin' about. If we don't suspect criminal activity, why would we be passing information on to a professional scouter or anybody else in an official way (and what in the world would/could they do about it?). Non-criminal things might involve a boy showing signs of depression, parents showing signs of poor parenting, that sort of thing? Is that what we're talkin' about? I'd never report that to a BSA professional - they'd have no expertise and no ability to assist. I'd instead talk with the parents, perhaps askin' a friend who does child & family psychology to come along. A good reason to have someone on your troop committee who understands such things professionally, eh? They can be a great resource. I know one troop that works more closely with a CO private school, where they share information back to school counselors, so that can be another option. Introducing parents to other parents who are dealing (perhaps more successfully) with the same kind of issues can also be a big help to the family.

Yah, but Ekmiranda, the boy was running to home, not away from home, eh?

So, in the end it appears the wayward scout didnt want to be a scout anymore and decided to take off home. Apparently a pencil whipping scoutmaster in a haste to make his scouts first class is not to bame after all. Yah, I don't see any point in tryin' to place blame, nor in oversimplifyin' a complex situation. There's plenty to learn and think about from an incident we all hope never happens in our district, but which nevertheless does happen occasionally in someone's area. I think we should use this case to consider things like: How do we encourage parents to report to scout leaders on issues like medication "changes" or a boy "not wanting to come" on an outing? How do we communicate that "medication holidays" on scout trips might not be in a boy's best interest? What strategies do our youth leaders and adults have to recognize and deal with homesickness, like a boy who says he's sick and won't get out of bed, or a patrol member who tells us his tentmate is really sad and doesn't want to be there? How do we teach good "what to do when lost" procedures and ensure the boys are really proficient in them before earning Tenderfoot, so that rescue is more likely on Saturday or Sunday than the following Wednesday? A simple change in the weather on Sunday, after all, could have resulted in a much less happy outcome. Doin' a better job at any of these stages would probably have been enough to avoid a scary episode, and so is worth learning from.

Yah, sorry there SR540. I read "We adults watched the TG's do all of this skill instruction from halfway across camp in our lawn chairs. They had a lot thrown at them, so they spent the afternoon taking a 1.5 hour hike ... They came back and demonstrated their knowledge for the ASM's." That sounded like instruction/hike/signoff on the same outing. I'm glad you don't do it that way, but I really do see that fairly frequently in troops. And I bet if other contributors are honest, more will admit to it. I know I sure have done exactly that to "move a boy along" advancement-wise in days when I was a SM. It's not that FCFY is the cause directly. My worry is that FCFY is easy for adults to understand and adopt as a goal, which then drives them to "underweight" other more vital parts of the program to achieve the goal, or meet the kids'/parents' expectation for awards. Learning skills to proficiency and solid retention is hard. That takes a lot of effort by the kid and the adults. Youth leadership is hard, and also takes a lot of effort by kids and adults. Building deep adult/youth relationships is hard, and takes a lot of effort by kids and adults. etc. etc. Getting a kid a First Class award in a year is, by contrast, pretty easy to understand and to execute, eh? Even from the proverbial "Scouter's lawn chair". It's especially easy if yeh don't quite understand and execute some of the other things I just listed. I think FCFY often provides a spur or incentive to "go light" on the core methods of Scouting as an unintended consequence, especially in newer/inexperienced leaders and troops. We might all ask ourselves questions like these: Could an average Tenderfoot, right now, be dropped into Michael Auberry's situation and do the right things so that he's rescued on Saturday or Sunday? Could an average First Class scout, with no additional adult help, plan a safe weekend canoe trip for his patrol? Could I grab any boy above Second Class at random, present him with a serious bleed, and have him succeed at saving a life? Yah, I think for most boys, with the attendance expectations of most troops, gettin' to that level of skill takes longer than a year, eh? Especially if they're goin' to have a huge helpin' of just running around the woods chasin' toads and armadillos, or figurin' out how to get along with a tentmate in a patrol, or engagin' in any of those other pesky scouting methods. Skill proficiency is what advancement is supposed to mean, though - what a boy is able to do. And skill proficiency is necessary for safety, when we only have a few adults along, and boys might just wander off. So I'm curious what other people do, because what I see is that often a real strong FCFY goal, for average kids with average attendance, tends to short the core methods of scoutin'. My thanks to everybody who is sharing their experiences, their strengths, and their challenges.

Yah, FScouter, I'd ask you again to begin by telling us all how the unit(s) you volunteer for operate, what it's setup is for first year boys, where you feel it's successful for them at learning/retaining skills and where you think there's room for improvement. Just a simple courtesy for the discussion, mate, so we all understand where you're coming from. Lobbing stink bombs is easy, but working honestly on behalf of kids is hard. Leastways for those of us who don't come gifted with a textbook-perfect understanding . Beavah