Beavah

Yah, Svendzoid. It's always hard to hear about the sale of program resources, especially camps. Despite the actions in some councils like Chicago, which are despicable, there can be good reasons and OK ways for a council to sell a camp. As close as I can tell from your site, your council is tryin' to be prudent. The contract establishes a partnership which calls for joint use for at least 5 years, so Boy Scouts still have access year-round. And the contract calls for a right of first refusal for 15 years, so if they wanted to re-sell or subdivide the camp the YCC could buy it back. This might not be so bad, eh? Depends on what they use the $ for. If da good volunteers in your area really want to block this, sellin' patches and signin' petitions isn't going to do it. Yeh have to get 20% (or whatever it is) of the council membership (COR's primarily, since your MAL's are more likely to support the sale) to immediately petition for a special meeting of the council. The sole business of the special meeting should be an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation (not the Bylaws) that requires any contract for the sale of real property to be approved by the active members of the council at a regular meeting. Yah, and perhaps stipulations on the use of the proceeds. I think such a provision is good policy anyway, eh? All councils should change their Articles to require the full council membership to approve before selling a camp. Makes sure there's no funny business, and makes sure the issue gets a full, fair hearin'. Saves you from a lot of ill will and bad PR that can last for decades.

I was thinkin' as much about wheeled tennis shoes, solo tentin', and cub scout knives as I was about pranks when I copied this. We slip pretty easily into the "I heard an ER doc on Oprah who said he's seen injuries from these" or "I remember reading about an incident back in 1806 somewhere in Georgia" and there oughta be a law/policy. I'm with anarchist. Most learning happens when there's some pressure, and possibility or reality of failure. Military basic training capitalizes on it, sure. But then so does school tests. And so does sports. And so does computer games. Adversity is tough. Overcoming adversity is wonderful.

No imagination running wild here. Yah, but even in that case yeh had 3 people in a tent and it didn't help. Only got more girls hurt. Yeh could require that youth have to sleep with adults, but that would raise other issues. And the few murders that have occurred on the Appalacian trail, they killed adults. So adults wouldn't really be a help. You could prohibit tent campin' entirely, and require campin' in locked cabins. Some GSUSA councils did that after that incident. Or yeh could require adult leaders to carry handguns on all trips so as to be able to shoot all the criminals that are lurkin' around in the forest. Bad things happen. They're tragic. Evil men should be punished severely. We should try to be reasonably safe. But not at the cost of common sense and liberty. People die each year on staircases. That doesn't mean that cub scout policy should prohibit the use of stairs. Even when we can imagine gruesome consequences .

Yah, lawnboy. In yer last thread I gave you some references to the Catholic Scouting email list and the National Catholic Committee on Scouting. Did you check with them? My advice to you is that you really, really need to sit down with the pastor in a friendly, non-confrontational way and try to work things out. Be sure to bring someone who is well-versed in Catholic lingo, who is knowledgeable of their mission, values, and guidelines - preferably who is known by the pastor. If yeh want, a friend and fellow Beavah is a COR for a Catholic parish, and works with NCCS. If yeh private email me I'll send you his contact information for an additional contact. As a rule, Catholic parishes tend to be very active, supportive, friendly CO's for scouting units, and are usually pretty welcoming of other faiths, especially kids. They also do have a service mission that includes Duty to God and Reverence. Yeh have to respect that. To answer your questions: 1) No. Public schools are discouraged from chartering units. Too many legal entanglements. However, separately incorporated PTO's at public schools are frequently chartered partners. They're not always the best, but in a rural area you should have no problem. 2) Per the BSA's Chartering Agreement, the CO agrees to: * Conduct the Scouting program according to its own policies and guidelines as well as those of the Boy Scouts of America. * Include the Scouting program as part of its overall program for youth and families. * Appoint a chartered organization representative who is a member of the organization and will represent it to the Scouting district and serve as a voting member of the local council. (The chartered organization head or chartered organization representative must approve all leader applications.) * Select a unit committee of parents, and members of the chartered organization (minimum of three) who will screen and select unit leaders who meet the organizations standards as well as the standards of the B.S.A. (The committee chairman must sign all leadership applications.) * Provide adequate facilities for the Scout unit (s) to meet on a regular schedule with the time and place reserved. * Encourage the unit to participate in council outdoor experiences, which are vital elements of the Scouting program. * To cooperate with the council in its .fund-raising effort through the Friends of Scouting Campaign for units. * Require each adult leader to participate in a council-sponsored youth protection training seminar. In addition, Catholic CO's are bound by other rules under church "canon" law and there are a bunch of guidelines for them in the U.S., which is why I referred you to those other places. 3) I've helped units change CO's, but only when da original CO was dropping the charter by choice. Simple answer is that your unit can't change CO's unless the pastor drops the charter (refuses to run a pack anymore). So it isn't an option for you, eh? Individuals can quit the unit and go start another pack at a different CO. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, msnowman. I think you're role in this is to encourage the kids to talk to the SM, eh? It's good that they trusted you. Now, teach 'em how a Scout is Brave. Even consider makin' an appointment to go with them, but let them do the talking. Then it's no longer your job . Most of the others talked about the different ways for the SM to respond. I think havin' a "Roses and Thorns" type discussion after a trip might be good. Provided there's some gentle encouragement and coachin' of the boys on how to offer productive "feedback" to adults beforehand, eh? It helps if this kind of honest debriefin' is part of your troop culture. I expect Grandma hearin' it from several kids, including her grandson, in a forum that's "safe" and private (in terms of not in front of many other adults), might be the best way to get the message across. Trainin' is too abstract, and not immediate enough. "Grandma, it really hurts when you do that, because it's like you don't trust me" or "Mrs. Jones, it really makes me feel like a kindergartener, and makes me not want to come on any more campouts." ain't abstract at all, eh? But yeh have to set up the safe haven, and the expectation of honest sharing of good and bad (no arguin!) to pull it off. Committee's not the place for it. If yeh can't do Roses & Thorns, it should be SM and UC with the CC over a cup of coffee, in private.

A friend of mine sent this to me from another Scoutin' forum. Seems apropos to some of da other discussions. ------- I happened to hear an interesting statistic yesterday. Violent crime is down 20% in the last 30 years, but the reporting of violent crimes in the television media is UP 600% in the same period. No surprise. These days locate a plane crash somewhere to report on, even if it's half way around the world. Goodness knows it's also mandatory these days to include a terrorist attack and a threat to children in every broadcast. The statistic above reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away in the 90's. They were the sweetest, most generous and friendly people. Took in my cousins when they lost their father. Welcomed strangers. But in the last years of their lives, they stayed at home more, watched more TV. They started locking their doors. They avoided participating in the local block party. They worried more, became less friendly, were less happy and less generous. They were victims of our Culture of Fear. Scouting is also increasingly falling victim to our Culture of Fear. People can die. We must have more protection. We must fear for our kids. To do anything else is irresponsible. Un-American. Fear of liability, even though the accident and claim rate is completely ordinary. Fear strangers... so we teach "stranger danger" so effectively that boys hide from rescuers searching for them, and fail to trust the police and neighbors when abducted by bad men. Fear friends, so that if a teacher gives you a hug, there's something wrong with that. And when you're thinking of suicide or harming others, there's no one to talk to, because your Scoutmaster and teachers and minister will never let themselves be alone with you. And you'd never admit that EXCEPT when you're alone. Fear tools, so that half of Scouting believes boys should never pick up a power tool or climb a ladder over 6 feet. Fear flying, so that even though it's 10 times safer than driving, we need special tour permits and waivers and restrictions to fly once around a boy's neighborhood for Aviation MB. Fear the internet. Fear guns. Fear toy guns. Fear lightning. Fear playground equipment. Fear food. Fear lawyers. Fear laws. Fear hospitals. Fear games. Fear drinking water. I'm coming to believe that the single strongest cultural message of modern America is Fear. That's what we stand for, and are teaching our kids. That's what uniquely identifies us among other cultures in the world. Shame on us for doing that to the most optimistic nation on the planet. And double shame on us for letting that culture of fear and regulation into Scouting. My New Year's resolution is to fight the trend. How about you?

Yah, interestin' thoughts, Lisa'bob. I agree with your observations. I think most scouting volunteers fall in line with the American cultural norm where Religion is a Taboo Topic. I suspect that mentality goes right up the chain. As just another example, we have 1st Class Scouts meet with a judge, attorney, or public official to discuss their Duty to Country (rights and responsibilities as a citizen), but we never have 'em meet with a religious figure of their choice to discuss their Duty to God. Personally, I think our unwillingness to talk openly and frankly about religion impoverishes kids, and perpetuates sectarian strife and prejudices. I'd like to see there be some requirements. It's just hard to overcome the social taboo. Yah, there will always be those who interpret or execute the requirement poorly. Same as anything. But faith is an important part of our world, and another thing that they won't get any introduction to in school.

Yah, ADud, how'd yeh get that cool animated smiley face? No rule about 2 per a tent, as you recognize. But nothin' says you can't make a rule for your unit if you think it's necessary. I think it's a good idea just to do sometimes. First year boys or boys with serious health issues should usually have buddies. So should adults with limited experience or health issues. Yah, and other times, like boys with a bedwetting problem, it might be best for the boy to let him tent solo, eh? The "someone could sneak into their tent and harm 'em" bit is too funny, though, unless you're talkin' about pranksters. Or maybe a bear lookin' for the stash of candy (in which case havin' a buddy gets 2 kids hurt instead of one!). Don't let your imagination run away with yeh there! I'm with SR540 and Oak Tree on the bigger tent thing, fer sure. Two to a tent (or solo) makes for a much quicker evening and better sleep all around. Three lasts quite a while longer. Get much larger and it's a guaranteed all-night fest unless da SPL or SM exercise Supreme Authority with Fear of Imminent Bodily Harm .

Yah, Scout Salute to yeh, DE, for doin' a hard job. And for keepin' your heart in the right place. Bein' honest about where we're at helps us all get to where we should be goin'. Beavah

Yah, good thoughts, DE. Thanks for sharin'. Here's some thoughts back to continue the dialog. this is the company line I've always passed along to businesses ... I'm not going to put that idea in their head. You feel OK with that? Me, I'm more a fan of being completely honest with people. Supporters of the program are supporters of the program, eh? If someone gives to a unit, you have better unit program, more kids, more parents, and more donations to both units and to council. If they're happiest givin' to a unit, they usually give more. Our goal is to grow the program, not the company . This is a symptom of one big issue within the BSA... a problematic corporate culture. Do you really want the person in that position with "Lifeguard, YMCA" as the most important position on his/her resume? Yah, of course not. What I really want is the person in that position havin' a real MBA in NFP management and some genuine experience in NFP work in several different organizations. I don't mind payin' market rate for that. Problem is, I know very few SE's with those qualifications, and as a board member I'm not allowed to go out and find someone with that experience set. I'm stuck with National's short-list of guys with fairly limited real-world training and management experience in only one organization. The don't deserve market rate (often at the high end of market rate). I'd love to pay a full SE's salary for a full NFP executive. At the Chief Scout Executive level, the compensation rate is just not justifiable. I talk about camp scholarships but can't guarantee that the local kid in the troop down the street will get (or even need) that scholarship. I talk about how our Council provides accident insurance free of charge to our members but that doesn't quite give people the warm and fuzzies. Out of our council's 2.6M budget, I think $16K goes to camp scholarships. Accident insurance at an average of $2 per member also isn't the best justification for $2.6M. I agree yeh have a hard job makin' that sale that way I've seen the impact that professionals can have on scouting... I've viewed a couple of posts on here that mention that there aren't any professional scouters in the UK and the program works fine. Not just Britain but the rest of the world, eh? Our extensive system of professionals is quite an anomaly in scouting. But I have to take your word on the impact of losing professionals, and on the potential positives. I think that's true, too. It might be even more important in our current era of both parents workin', long work hours and such. The social systems in other countries provide more time and encouragement to volunteers. This is high pressure and challenging job with a ton of turnover even though the wages aren't that bad. Ah! Da crux of the matter! I agree with you completely. I think the structure of the DE's job is a miserable one. Very hard for anyone to do successfully. And the "corporate culture" of the institutional BSA often isn't the best. I hate losing fine young DE's to a high turnover created by the poorly conceived position. That's one of the consequences of havin' SE's who really don't have any professional NFP management experience. They can't conceive that there are different, better ways of operatin', that put people in positions where they can have fun and truly excel. If the BSA is committed to the Scouting-as-corporation model, then they should commit to doing that well, beginning by looking at the management structure of other successful NFP membership & service organizations, and hirin' SE's with real-world experience. Your job would be a lot more rewarding. And the volunteers and CO's who "own" the corporation would be happier, too.

Yech. I hate the net sometimes. Re-readin' my last post came off a lot harsher than intended. The way text reads is sometimes so different from the way it plays in our heads, especially when typin' fast. Sorry, SpongeBob. Do me the kindness of readin' like a friend, eh? And make that last somethin' like "You don't need a policy to do what any Cubmaster would do. Ask 'em to stop."

Put me down on the OGE side. Pranks can be abused. Yah, anything can be abused, eh? Did yeh read about the fool who drank water until dying a couple of weeks ago? But I'm still partial to a glass myself . I think it's important to remember that new boys in a troop here in the States are often a pretty sheltered, fragile lot. It's scary for them their first week at camp. Rarely do we think that a laughing reference to "getting shots at the health lodge" will reduce an 11-year-old to tears, but it happens. Best to err on the side of kindness. Most pranks aren't funny until you're among friends. At the same time, I think that for the older boys doing the pranking it's usually not an act of malice or even thoughtlessness. It's often a way of including others - they think they are among friends. Those pranksters could be ignoring the younger boys and treating them as not real scouts, not full troop members, or not worthy of their attention. Instead, they're followin' the Golden Rule - treatin' others as they themselves wish to be treated. Bein' pranked by friends. Bein' included in the fun. Pranks and tales of pranks are the stuff that makes for stories and friendships for years. Both sides need to come to the middle. The young ones should be coached to grow up a bit, develop thicker skins, quicker wits, and a sense that they won't (and shouldn't) melt in the rain. The older ones should put Kindness ahead of the Golden Rule for a bit, and assess individual self-confidence and comfort level before introducing elementary school children to adolescent humor. I think includin' the young guys in doing a prank first is a good way to go, as it is even more inclusive and also demonstrates how to be fun, non-destructive, and how to take a prank in good cheer. Of course, there are that small percentage of "pranks" which are deliberately mean/bullying. Those merit Wrath from On High. The toughest are older boys and adults who can't take a joke, even delivered well and with the best of intentions. Can't figure what to do with them. Try to coach the boys, fer sure. Mostly steer clear of the adults in more ways than one. Ends up just bein' a good lesson to kids about different personalities.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Lions was what it was back in the dark ages, eh? The progression was Wolf e Bear e Lion o Scout After they did away with Lion, when asked what a Webelos was, yeh often heard We 'll Be Lo yal S couts That's the only place I've heard "Loyal" is in the acronym. Some of the historians will probably have more to add.

Yah, yeh know, I probably couldn't sit still for a whole year either. But it's a good resolution, and it helps folks make it through at least six months. I think you have to be around long enough to understand and appreciate the good stuff, recognize the stuff that's just different, and of what remains, pick the one or two things that are most important to fix - if you're willin' to do the work to help fix 'em. Mostly, you should focus on buildin' on the good things, eh? So you're not allowed to do anything until you've identified those. Except safety, of course, but truly emergent safety that can't be tipped to the SM/SPL is fairly rare. I think it usually takes a year to get the whole picture. I reckon it takes at least that long to be seen as a competent friend to be listened to, rather than a problem to be dealt with. So all us critters who tend to be quicker on the draw also have to take extra effort to be gentler on the touch.

This is what I've been told by my SE. Is he wrong or right? Kudos to you, DE, for thinkin' for yourself. You must be new . Whether your SE is right or wrong just depends, eh? There are some troops and crews, and many Sea Scout Ships, that are separately incorporated with their own IRS 501©(3) status. You can give to them and deduct the donation to your heart's content. Most troops and crews are sponsored by churches, schools, or not-for-profit charitable organizations. You can donate to them, earmarked for their scouting program, and deduct the donation. Only those units that are chartered to "parents of..." or to ©(7) social clubs would put your donation in the technically not deductible column. Of course, not everybody itemizes, so for those that don't, it doesn't matter, eh? For the small amounts typical of troop donations, I expect it's fairly likely to sail by without a close examination, even during an audit. Any IRS auditors out there? Aw, they probably can't say. Da problem I have with donations to the BSA is the overhead. How much of your day is really spent providin' program/program support for the kids (vs. doing FOS/popcorn/internal management)? The BSA claims it's more than 85%. Certainly not honest for many, if not most councils. And while you don't make a lot, the CSE's salary is simply unconscionable, eh? The BSA generally has such a high administrative and fundraising overhead that giving to them isn't usually a prudent or Thrifty thing to do. Leastways, unless you're treatin' it like lobbying $ and are payin' for access.

Yah, SpongeBob, relax a bit. There's no insurance issue. There's no special risk of being sued. These kids' parents were there, and had no particular problems with their kids' activity, eh? So it sounds like there's only a limited "politeness" issue, or maybe just some sensitivity on your part. Yah, and don't get bent up over the "risks" too much, either. Sure, kids fall down and get hurt from doin' lots of things, includin' having wheels on their shoes. But bicycles cause a lot more and a lot worse injuries to kids every year. So do baseballs. So does travelin' in cars with adults. But we don't ban any of those, eh? No fair cryin' "boogeyman" to scare people into prohibiting Heeleys. Remember, too, in some cases these are the kids' only shoes. This isn't a policy matter. Yeh don't need a policy to give you permission to act like an adult. If it was inappropriate, talk to the kids or their parents and ask them to stop. Simple.

Not at all off base, prairie. That was goin' to be my answer. You prevent mischief by gettin' the adults out the trailer! Gonz, don't take this the wrong way, buddy, but this isn't your fight yet. You are a new member, and the surest way to sabotage your experience and your son's is to come to the first campout and start telling people what they should or shouldn't be doing. No matter whether you're right or have the best intentions! If you want your son to have a fun, long-term relationship with this program, you must do not an ounce more than politely nudge the SM. If that! Take the time to observe the good things, and build relationships, before you start tryin' to address the bad things. One whole year. If yeh know you can't manage that, stay home. But no matter what, don't go to a campout with prejudices based on hearsay. Yeh don't know what the Troop 3 scouts have to say about your friend's Troop 2, after all! Beavah

Mailboxes! Yah, I've replaced mine a few dozen times. Always thought about puttin' some high-strength steel reinforcing rods in it to thwart the buggers, or maybe put it on a swivel so it swings around and clips 'em in the back. Nah, not worth it. I do have to admit the one time they blew it up they did a darn fine job of it. Vandalism shouldn't be condoned, but I expect that the embarrassment of havin' to appear in front of you was a much bigger and better lesson than any long-term incarceration would be. Sometimes, nld, you gotta imagine that God puts you in the right place to make a difference, even if it's not what you wanted or expected. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

1) is it legal (probably a simple yes/no question) Nuthin' is ever a simple yes or no question . To get a real answer to your question, yeh need somebody who knows your state's laws on camp licensing and health care. 2) does it make sense? Do youth have the maturity necessary to handle this responsibility. Take, for instance, somewhat embarrassing medical problems including bed wetting, depression, OCD, ADHD, etc - should a youth be entrusted with knowing and safeguarding this information? Yah, yeh know, within a troop we're expecting youth to take leadership responsibilities. Manage a patrol, watch out for their friends and charges. Seems to me what doesn't make sense is not telling them about such issues, and how to handle it. If a PL knows about a bed-wetter, he can be alert for the problem and handle it quietly, or tip off an adult. If a PL knows about depression or OCD, he can become part of the help and support, rather than add to the problem. Far better to provide knowledge up front than deal with teasing and damage control after the fact. Personally, I think goin' through adolescence and teenage years is a tough task. No reason we should make it tougher by failin' to keep all of a child's caregivers well informed, so that they can offer support. Includin' their peers, who in many ways are as important a support as a boy's parents, eh? In a camp setting, with a 16 or 17 year old who was (presumably) hired for the position of first aider because of his knowledge and capability, I'd have no problem with it myself. Da kids I know at our camp are top-notch.

The leap between pack and troop is a big one and some boys aren't really ready for the independence, the responsibility, and the interaction with older (sometimes a little rougher) boys, without the adults there to mediate as much as may occur in cub scouting. Some boys will hang in there and take the time needed to make the adjustment (generally, because their parents are encouraging them to do so, in my experience). Some won't do this and will quit. Yah, this is very insightful. I'd add to it that the leap between pack and troop is a big one for the parents as well. That affects kids a lot as they are tryin' to find their place. Anyone remember Lisa'bobs postings, questions, and critiques for the first 6 months to a year after her son crossed over? Adjustment can be as tough on mom & dad as it is for the kids.

Yah, it's like anything, eh? Depends on the person. Disadvantage of youth is lack of experience, and so a tendency to overreact a bit until they've built up some of that experience. You can know all about how to treat a deep laceration, but until you've done it a few times it's tough to handle the technical skill at the same time you're carin' for the emotional needs of the patient, eh? Yah, and a hurt kid is usually goin' to want an adult to care for him. If a parent is present, the youth first aider might make them nervous. Youth and adults at camp tend to be an ongoin' sleep deprivation experiment, so that's a factor, too. Adults are often a bit better at performin' with lack of sleep, especially the college-aged crowd . I've never found youth to be less trustworthy than adults when it comes to confidentiality. Often times they're more trustworthy. A lot of bright lads who take ownership of an area get ridiculously efficient, workin' harder at it than many adults. Youth tend to run kids who missed meds down with gusto; few adults do. I'd think youth handlin' meds and paperwork would be fine, dependin' on what your state says. Get a RN to train 'em and pop in randomly once a week or two and you'll have a great system. So I think it mostly depends on bein' smart about your hiring process; a great youth will beat a mediocre adult. But with anything, be mindful of the strengths and weaknesses. Taskin' out an on-call adult for more "serious" cases to handle comfort/crowd/parent control seems prudent if a youth is giving primary care.

Ours are troop-level, with a district representative. That seems to be the more common way by a fair bit, at least for the councils I've had contact with.

Yah, here in the great and (now) white north headlamps are pretty much required. Don't think any boys or leaders use standard flashlights anymore, though the aged among us still remember the days of holdin' a maglite in our teeth. I've seen all kinds. Da kids tend to prefer the small, lightweight LED models like the Tikka. Old critters who can afford more to supplement failing eyesight will often go with a "dual" model that combines LED's for cookin' and settin' up camp with a halogen or hyperbrite to shine on the moose or bear from a healthy distance

Yah. Yeh know, I always wonder why we don't have youth teachin' at least part of the adult leader sequence. Some things, like C-Bolt's description of the "yeller" Scouter, are best conveyed by those who are still youth. They also still remember things like what it felt like to be a scared 10-year-old on his first troop campout, or worried about swim check at camp, or....

Yah, I think us old Bobwhites and Beavers aren't goin' to solve this one, eh? You're askin' the wrong crowd. Ask your son's friends who aren't in Scouts. Ask the other boys in your troop if they've invited friends (why or why not), and how their friends have responded. No point in us speculatin'. You have to be willing to see it "fresh" with kids' eyes.