Beavah

Yah, winter always makes itself felt in our area, eh? Not unusual a bit north of us for kids to ride snowmachines to school. Troops ski and snowshoe backpackin' in -20 degree weather happins regularly with no big fuss. Been out with older boys at -45 in a gale (-100 "wind chill"). A bit nippy, but no problems other than burnin' yer tongue on hot coffee. There's no such thing as bad campin' weather, just poor choices in clothing. Fact is, it's much more fun campin' in winter than in black fly season . I'd hate to see another "rule" to govern temperatures. So da real answer to your question is that you modify or cancel an outing whenever you feel that your unit, as a team, lacks the gear or experience to be safe. Yeh gotta be careful with that, because sometimes adults and older boys have the gear and experience, but yeh have to be mindful of the team as a whole. Yeh also have to be careful that adults who don't like winter campin' don't mess up the boys' plans for their own reasons, too . It should have nuthin' directly to do with broadcast "warnings." You should understand, and should teach your boys to understand, what such "warnings" mean, eh? They are general alerts to the "average" members of society, with a bit of a lean toward the weak (ex. elderly) and the foolish. Listen to 'em, understand 'em, but make your own decision. If your team has more experience and is better equipped, there's nuthin' wrong with chuckling over the "warning" and proceeding. If your team is poorly equipped or experienced as a group, the absence of a "warning" doesn't mean its OK for you to go out either. "Average" members of society don't go campin' in bad weather, so there's no need for da media to "warn" them about that, eh? Sounds like yeh made an excellent decision for your group. That kind of good judgment in a "no go" decision is what safety is made of. Especially given webelos (why exactly are webelos comin' on a Boy Scout Klondike??). But don't be down on the da other troops that went out, or on the Council for holding the event. They hopefully made their own good judgments, based on the gear and experience of their teams. Seems like there were plenty of indoor spots to retreat to in a pinch, so this was a good spot to learn to winter camp. I'd let the $10 go. You should never be makin' a safety decision based on whether you get a refund or not anyway, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Well, make that "almost obvious" exceptions.

Yah, nobody is advocatin' "everyone gets to do as he pleases." But then I also hope nobody is really advocatin' tellin' Jesus he can't cure the sick on the sabbath because it's against da rules. "I don't care who he is, we have no choice but to follow the rules" and all that. Stayin' seated in a canoe is a good idea. Until it's helpful to do somethin' else for safety. Not fraternizing between adults and kids is a good rule. One that should be upheld, even strictly. Until it's interpreted to mean two college aged adults can't go to a movie together even if their behavior in the crew is exemplary, their morals impeccable, and their parents and church approve. I think it is perhaps reasonable to trust our Chartering Partner Catholics, Methodists, LDS, VFW, and our fellow scouters to handle obvious exceptions without the production of yet another formal document from Irving. Aside from da TV lawyers in the group who enjoy that sort of thing, do we really want BSA regulations to become the size of the U.S. Tax Code? Or can we instead trust good people to do the right thing without a 23-part rule? The latter is usually what we mean by "partnership." That's the BSA's structure. We don't dictate to our partners. Gettin' too shrill and discourteous here for this old critter. Shame. I'm goin' off in search of a different venue. Well, maybe I'll go play in our fresh snow first. Hope everyone has a safe, prosperous, and fun Scoutin' year. Beavah

Yah, but Fuzz, these lads didn't set out to deliberately commit arson and burn down a forest, eh? They were bein' kids and bein' stupid. That's a bit different than committin' murder, dontcha think? Insurance is one way society spreads risk. It's a recognition that we're all stupid sometime or another. Drivin' too fast. Lettin' ourselves get overweight and more prone to disease. Waitin' too long to fix that light socket. Bein' a kid and playin' with matches. We pay into it recognizing that our money is going in part to bail out our neighbors and fellow citizens who have been dumb. And we hope that we're never that dumb, but boy, when we screw up we sure are relieved that our neighbors paid in to bail us out. Bypass surgery is expensive, eh? Da kids have learned a lesson for a lifetime, I expect. Same as the guy who has a heart attack learns a lesson for a lifetime. But it won't really stop other kids from playin' with fire, any more than it stops other adults from bein' overweight. I agree, though, when da insurer attorneys come swoopin' in and circlin' the wagons, they do get in the way of boys and adults owning up to the truth, eh? Almost teaches the wrong lesson - like teachin' coverup, rather than owning up. Better for the boys to stand up and apologize, and the BSA to do the same. The boys should spend a good part of a summer plantin' trees and teaching other scouts about fire safety. Da BSA should stand up and say "yes, of course, we'll pay fair restitution."

I remember once helpin' with a troop whitewater trip. Da Scoutmaster was a decent enough chap. I recall, though, an awkward scene where he yelled at the professional guide because "it was against the rules to stand up in a paddle craft." Of course, we all recognize that there are times when it's perfectly appropriate and even necessary to stand up in a paddle craft (like when you're approachin' a rapid and need to get a bit better view so as to position your boat for the entrance). It's a common professional practice, eh? Even improves safety. That doesn't make the rule wrong. Beginners and folks in general should stay seated or kneeling in a paddle craft most of da time. But it does show that there's a difference between quotin' a rule, and understandin' the rule. Or knowin' the way things really work.

Yah, I'm with Gonzo, eh? I've seen plenty of dining hall camps, and some patrol cookin' camps, and some patrol cookin' in a dining hall camp. In terms of Scoutin', and positive effect on da boys, patrol cookin' is the way to go, eh? As is keepin' patrols together and not foldin' 'em in to Troop Method or Camp Method. Da problem is that our patrol cookin' camps are fadin' out. As close as I can tell, that's because so many troops are so Troop Method driven. SR540's right, eh? The demand is for the catered dining hall and MB experience. But that's because so many troop programs are so weak, that their kids (and adults) wouldn't be able to execute patrol cookin' for 5 days and still have time to play. And probably because their MB programs are equally weak, and expect badges to come from fast-and-easy classes, eh? I've generally found that in a troop with a strong program, da PLC prefers independent patrol campin'.

Yah, Oldman. Yeh really should think about an orientation session for all new parents to explain how Boy Scouting is really very different from Cubbin'. It's a harder transition for the parents than it is for da kids, eh?

Yah. I get it. It's all about rules and authority. I just disagree, eh? It's about service, and kindness, and doin' the right thing. But we can do Authority, too. Though I worry sometimes about the long-term success of a program like that, eh? I had to talk to Irving today anyway, so I also connected with Charles Holmes, the National Director of Venturing and creator of the Venturing program. Charles is a great chap, partly because he comes from da northern midwest, no doubt (even if it is that state...) The official word is... "We don't have this anywhere in writing. And it's different for crews with high schoolers and crews that are college-aged youth who are all mature adults. We recognize that it's not our place to control or monitor the behavior of young adults outside of the program. We just ask that within the program (on trips and such), that their behavior reflects the ethical standards of the BSA and especially of the church or other chartered organization. We think the crew leadership and the Chartered Partner should have the say". (Emphasis his, not mine) We went on to have an interesting conversation about the growth of Venturing, particularly within individual large chartered partners, and the use of Venturing in college-aged populations. Also about crews he knew with married or other "couples," where the issues turned around the behavior of the individual couple as decided by the crew itself. In response to Jenn's specific question, with the ages she gave me, "no problem" (if it's OK with the CO, of course). Just be good examples and courteous crew members. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

This is a pretty good, if longwinded, review of the structure from the National Council on down. It only covers the volunteer/governance side, not the executive/staff side: http://usscouts.org/aboutbsa/bsaorg.html Here's a typical organization chart of the paid staff of a council: http://www.illowabsa.org/office/OrgChart.html That's fairly straightforward, eh? Here's a lose description of the functions of a district, which is the only council level most units have contact with outside of summer camp: http://www.bsa-gyc.org/sections/districts. District leadership is often called the "Key 3" - the District Executive (paid staff), the District President (oversees membership, finance, program committees), and the District Commissioner (oversees unit commissioners, who in theory provide direct service to units).

Yah, LongHaul. I feel your pain. Doesn't seem like much risk, though. Bein' expelled vs. not bein' allowed to join. There's no risk of charges of child abuse or molestation here folks. These are consenting adults, not children. The BSA membership categories don't get to redefine legal age of majority, eh? Take a deep breath and relax, gents. You're goin' to scare poor Jenn and her fiance away with all this noise! And seriously, can any of you imagine a rule prohibiting husband and wife from participating together surviving its first contact with the Religious Relationships Committee? Nah, da CO's win this one, hands down.

Hiyah Rob! Start with trainin', as John suggests. Never forget, though, that trainin' ain't the same thing as experience. Right now, identify another local troop that has a great, youth-run program that you like, and whose leaders you get along with. They're going to be your sister troop, your mentors. Visit them often - make it part of your personal schedule. Yeh need to see and feel ideas in action with kids, which trainin' will never give you. And you need friendly adult resources, and some good older boys to tap. Doin' a couple campouts with your "sister troop" the first year or two can be a big help. Second thing, go slow. Nuthin' worse than a new guy comin' in tryin' to change everything at once, even if a "facelift" is needed. You have to build up support, a personal reputation, and some "social capital" before either the boys or their parents are goin' to follow you into new territory. Set a goal for yourself of bein' a good troop 3 years from now, and a great troop 6 years from now. Map out that gradual course. Don't try to rush it. Third thing. Talk to your spouse/significant other. Get her on board, help her to see why this is important to you. Share your vision. Get in the habit of sharing your trials and successes. Listen to her advice, and include her in some way, however small. Save time so that you do the same thing for her "special projects." Fourth thing. Talk to your buddies. You need to recruit or find a couple of good friends to be part of your adult team. Scoutin' is much more fun, and you'll stay much more balanced, if you're doin' it with your friends, the way the kids are doin' it with theirs. Last thing. In whatever way you're comfortable, pray lots. Workin' with kids and their parents is often draining. Yeh need the help of a good Father to keep sayin' "Let the children come to me." Scout Salute! And good luck.

Since this was a Summer camp, then the Summer Camp Staff may have felt they could rewrite the rules to mean what they wanted them to mean. Yah, it's a mistake to believe that rules keep people safe. Just doesn't work that way. Knowledge, experience, judgment keep people safe. If yeh rely on rules and then on blame, you hurt people. Better to use different techniques. We also have to remember that da G2SS is just a mishmash of compiled stuff from other BSA documents. Camps don't run on G2SS, they run on the National Camp School standards coupled with local policies. Betcha find that many camps do the Wilderness Survival overnight without two adults. The Council has been noted in this forum before as being an independent entity of the national BSA. National has the most money and most Councils would love for National to back their negligence. Councils are an independent entity from the national BSA. They are separately incorporated, and receive a charter in a manner similar to a CO, eh? Yah, the relationship is "tighter" in some ways, but you must remember this setup is National's choice. It insulates them in many ways from liability and other issues created by the councils. Councils, like CO's wouldn't "love" National to provide umbrella liability coverage in the event they're found negligent. They would expect it. It is one of the terms of the charter. And of course, councils end up payin' some insurance cost, eh? I feel that when a person or persons decide to change the rules to meet their own desires then they must assume the responsibility for the consequences. I still think that the minors are all guilty of this offense and that National should not be involved. The Council may take some of the responsibility but most of it rests on the individuals that started the fire. Yah, I think yeh can debate that as an ethical/moral question. When a kid in a troop screws up, do the adults bear any responsibility? Still, I think most of us would say the adults do. In terms of the law, though, there's little question, eh? Even with allowances for variation in state law. Respondeat superior. The employer is liable for the actions of its employee. And we might say that they're "all guilty" in that any of them could have stopped it, but we use a different standard when we are talkin' about legal guilt or innocence, eh?

Yah, as I sit with my swampers dryin' and my cold toes warmin' by da fire, I think I'm with Lisa'bob and the others, eh? I think that's what's meant by the Requirements Book when it says: Merit badges, badges of rank, and Eagle Palms are for boys who are registered Boy Scouts or Varsity Scouts. With the exception of Venturers working on Star, Life, and Eagle (given explicitly later in the same paragraph), it seems the intent is to allow working on Boy Scout advancement only if you're registered as a Boy Scout. I'm pretty sure there's an "official" statement somewhere to the same effect - that Cub activities should not count toward Scout advancement - but I can't lay my mittens on it. Yah, I think for most units, that makes the most sense. The standards for Cub advancement ("do your best") and Boy Scout advancement ("meet the standard") are different, eh? Especially for fitness and such things that we want kids to develop as a habit, it seems perfectly reasonable to repeat. They repeat again in Personal Fitness MB, too! As always, allowances for a CO that wants to do a creative, highly integrated program or somethin', and for fellow leaders tryin' to do their best for their units and kids. As for me, I say "come on Joe, let's try some more situps... they're kinda fun when you get good, eh? "

Yah, Mollie, you've gotten good answers, eh? I would just add the thought that many non-LDS troops may be reluctant to accept 4th graders. Generally, 4th-grade-and-out is not something to encourage as a webelos den leader or cub advancement chair. 4th graders can have an awfully hard time fitting in and being successful in a program that's naturally designed for 7th/8th graders and includes high-school aged kids. In a few cases, it's OK, eh? But generally, work on offerin' a full, complete, and fun webelos program that gets kids to AoL and crossover durin' their 5th grade year. Even that's a bit "early" for some kids.

That said, Beavah's post is a good strawman! Yah, it brings to mind the Scarecrow song from Wizard of Oz. "If I only had a brain...." The BSA printed guidelines for legal adults in Venturing border on the bizarre, so I wouldn't be surprised if a CO did its own thing. Most churches have certain expectations of married couples, eh? And a certain moral value placed on married life. I can't see any of 'em followin' LongHaul's advice and tellin' the husband his wife has to join a crew at some other church. The BSA Venturing folks in Irving would quietly agree with the churches, eh? Just like epalmer's reference suggests (twice... ). Besides, tellin' a 21 year old man that he can't "fraternize" with his 19 year old wife because that would violate "youth protection" is positively hysterical. If they are good crew members, then some accommodation can be made. To do otherwise is just silly, not to mention a potential legal and PR nightmare. The BSA really needs to supplement their printed materials in some rational way. The registration as "youth member" was a convenience in part because it meshed nicely with the computer system, without havin' to make a separate category for "adult member" vs. "leader". Don't think it was really meant to try to redefine the state's definition of "legal adult," eh? But it's very hard to write all the possible permutations into "policy." Yah, better just to use common sense, eh? (Of course LongHaul lives in Chicago, and their council doesn't exactly have a reputation for common sense, eh? )

Yah, we're mixin' things up here. There's a criminal act. Dat's where someone violates a statute and may be subject to fines (paid to the State) or loss of liberty (jail/prison). Only a person who participates in committin' a crime, beyond reasonable doubt, is subject to this bit, eh? If yeh commit a criminal act that's prosecuted by the People (in the person of a district attorney), your employer isn't on the hook for that. Nor is your insurer. You hire your own attorney (or use a court-appointed one) to keep you out of jail. Then there's a tortitious act. Dat's where someone does something dumb, that may or may not be a crime in itself, but which harms someone else. They may be subject to liability - to payin' a person/company/agency restitution, if it's shown they should by preponderance of the evidence. If yeh commit a tortitious act and are sued in a civil action, your employer (or the group for whom you are volunteering) is typically on the hook for that, if the act was committed while you were serving as a volunteer/employee. They have a responsibility to select, train and supervise you. More importantly, they are the one benefitting from your labor, so they must also bear the burden for your failure. Your employer's insurer (and your own) will defend you. Of course, as a volunteer in a not-for-profit charitable organization, you individually are typically immune from civil action. But your CO is not. So, for da Utah blaze, there's no particular question of a criminal case, because the state can't meet the evidentiary burden of identifying an individual or individuals who beyond a reasonable doubt caused the fire. Fuzzy's right, the BSA's insurers probably won't defend an adult in a criminal case (though in some cases they might, to help mitigate a follow-on civil case). But that doesn't apply here. But this is a civil case, where the agency possibly can prove by preponderance of the evidence that the BSA through its employees/volunteers (and their lack of supervision of youth) were responsible for the fire, and should pay damages. The BSA and its insurers will always defend the CO/leaders in these cases, because the liability falls to the CO and thence to the BSA anyway. Defendin' the leaders is trivial, because they're typically immune. This is fair, because in the charter agreement the BSA assumes part of the responsibility for selecting and supervising, and all the responsibility for training the leaders. The BSA also benefits from the CO's labors (membership, dues, popcorn, FOS, public recognition). So it's "right" for the BSA to defend the CO. It's also necessary, if yer ever goin' to get CO's to charter units. All this is hopelessly simplified, and must not be relied upon or considered as legal advice or guidance. Just as a basic outline of citizenship issues, eh?

Yah, dan, not sure of your point, eh? Sounds like your council does things exactly the same way mine and most others handle this. Dat's consistent with the rules and guidelines, eh? As I read it, John was more concerned about whether the adults blew off the contacting of references (so none were available at the EBOR to assess how the lad lived the Oath and Law in his everyday life). I agree with him and you; the references should be "in" before the EBOR convenes. Makes for a better EBOR. If you're sayin' it's somehow too burdensome for a boy to give a reference a sheet of paper and an envelope, then that's just funny, eh? I thought we were all about youth responsibility and leadership, adult association and all that. Good practice for college recommendations for 'em. And I find the letters much nicer than "telephone notes" when conductin' an EBOR. Better for the boy, too. Sometimes the guy takin' down telephone notes is havin' a bad day . Yah, sure, if you've got another method that does the job well and works better for your lads and committee members (or is more consistent with your CO's values), tweak away. But don't fret yerself just to take a simple job away from the kid, that the kid can do just fine.

Yah, JASM's are best used as ASM's. Invite 'em to all the adult meetings, treat 'em and use 'em just like an adult. The only thing to be cautious of is that their younger siblings and same-age peers will never quite see them as an adult, so put 'em with other kids. JASM's typically have better skills and more "field experience" than an adult ASM, and better fitness. Can't beat da recent experience of 5-6 years of monthly scout campin'. Usin' them in the field as a trusted "adult" works great. JASM's are also usually pretty good at gettin' the tone right in terms of fun/friend vs. serious/adult when they work with younger kids. In the beginnin' they can tend toward too strict with the young or too loose with the older boys (somewhat the opposite of adult ASMs). But they learn fast with a bit of coachin'. Make sure you select a JASM carefully, in the same way you select an ASM carefully. It shouldn't be an "automatic" thing for a former SPL or to "fill slots" as patrol coaches. Should be a genuine "we recognize this kid as a colleague in all but age."

I agree with yeh, John. I'd like to see an emphasis on LNT, "how to work with kids", and safety in adult trainin'. We typically only give cursory lip service to each. I wouldn't drop this on the Chartered Partners, though. It's a BSA support function. * Why aren't knowin' and demonstrating LNT principles part of the T-2-1 requirements (and explicitly "central" to IOLS/BALOO/OWL, etc.?). * Why aren't techniques for workin' with, settin' expectations for, responding to behaviors of adolescent boys anywhere in da BSA trainin' or materials? * Why is G2SS our sole safety document, and why is even that often a training footnote? Why is there nuthin' on case studies, nuthin' on judgment/skill/buildin' experience? And why is G2SS such a poorly written mishmash? * Why is there no experience requirement for SM or Crew Advisor? Trainin' is all well and good, but we all know that trainin' is the first 10% of learning. The rest is experience and reflection. This incident happened at a BSA summer camp. On BSA property. With BSA staff in charge. We should acknowledge and fix our own problems, not try to pass the buck to the CO's. Or hide behind 15-year-olds in court, eh? Maybe da CO's should amend the charter agreement to put an emphasis on BSA responsibility and service. But yah, I know what you're gettin' at, eh? The statistics tend to point to one Chartered Partner a bit. Just like a rambunctions scout, though, I think we're best to respond with harder work toward service. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, John. Da point of the references is that an Eagle Scout shows Scout Spirit by livin' the Oath and Law in his everyday life, eh? So in order to figure that out, we have to ask people from the rest of the boy's life, in addition to his Scoutin' life. School Life, Religious Life, Work/Volunteer Life, Family Life. I encourage a non-scout peer reference, too. So I read it the same way you do. The references need to be contacted/give information to the EBOR. It's important. It shouldn't be blown off. The most common (in fact the only) way I've seen this done is by askin' for reference letters. Every council I've been associated with expects to have 'em in hand before the EBOR meets. But I know most good adults will call a reference if a letter is MIA, or especially if some "follow up" is necessary because of the content of da letter . Never had an EBOR have a problem with a reference or two that came as an oral report based on a phonecall by the chair. Da letters usually give great insight into the boy, and make for good conversation starters. Super for puttin' the boy and the Oath and Law in a broader context.

Our council requires letters, and asks/expects the boy to make the request and give the reference the information/materials (same as college app.). Da letters are mailed by the reference directly to the district advancement chair for each district, to be passed on to the EBOR chair. Dat's been true of at least 2 other councils I've worked in. Seems more the norm rather than the exception across the U.S., as far as I can tell. Also a pretty easy, workable system.

Yah, Jenn. Da BSA rules become hard to figure for over-18 adults in Venturing sometimes. Case 1: Male leader over 21, you are over 21. No problem. Sign up! Venturing needs female leaders, and this can be a great volunteer effort to engage in as a couple. Only the obvious about "do what's right for the kids" and "be a good example." Case 2: Male leader over 21, you are under 21 but over 18 (or vice versa). Ah, you're out in da cow pasture here. BSA sort of considers the guy an adult advisor but you a "youth member". Yeh need to have a sit-down with your COR and figure out how your CO wants you to proceed. I expect most CO's will be rational in their interpretation. Case 3: Male leader under 21, you are under 21. BSA sort of considers you both youth members. So you might treat it the same as goin' out with a bunch of friends. Again, talk to your COR for how they'd like to handle it. Case 4: One or both of you is under 18. Expect some slightly more formal restrictions until you reach the age of majority or become legally independent (or married). Not a big deal. Sign up and go with the flow. I think in all these cases, you're participatin' as part of a group, not so much as a married (or almost-married) couple. Put the needs of the group first, be good crew members/leaders, and things are fine. A good committee and COR will put you at ease with expectations and appropriate accommodations.

Yah, Kudos to your troop for runnin' an interesting boy-led program, Lisa'bob. I think we all have to remember how hard that is to do, eh? It takes a lot of scouter time and energy to pull off that sort of thing. A lot of youth leader time and energy, too. And parent time and energy. It's hard to turn around and then ask 'em to do more for the minority who don't like what the group decided on. I don't think your council T-2-1 week will do what these kids need, eh? They need to become part of a patrol. They need to get to know and trust the youth (and adult) leaders in their troop, and learn how their troop/patrol handles things like cookin' patrol meals, not how someone else does. My advice is that the SM should discuss with the PLC what other troop events they'll have on the calendar for kids who can't make camp this year. It's pretty easy to get kids to think about that. And there's lots of ways to make it work if yeh don't get into other time conflicts. Beyond that, it's the kids' and the SM's program, eh? This is not an area where a troop committee should be micromanaging.

Scout insurance covers a unit (of any kind) only if the proper policies are followed. Nah, this isn't correct. If it were, insurance would be worthless. How many units do yeh suppose have memorized all da BSA policies and regs? Heck, they aren't even all located in one place, eh? If you've done nuthin' wrong, you don't need insurance ('cept for a small bit for defense against frivolous actions). You haven't incurred liability. Insurance is for when you've done something wrong. Your auto insurance covers you when you run the "still pink" light and cause an accident. Your homeowners insurance covers you when you plug too many cords into a socket and burn the place down. Liability insurance covers you when you've done somethin' boneheaded for which you are liable. BSA insurance is general liability coverage; self-insured for the first bit, then with several secondary insurers beyond that. Da BSA regs and guidelines are not exclusions in the insurance contracts (though a few things on the "unauthorized" list might be, like hang glidin' or sky divin' ). Da BSA has an excellent reputation of stickin' by its volunteers and chartered partners. They work hard to maintain that reputation. It's a big part of how we "sell" CO's on the program. Yeh shouldn't give bad information that compromises that reputation, eh?

Don't quite get your point, John. Or maybe I'm readin' differently. The council decides that the method for contacting the reference is to have the boy take a reference letter request to the references, and ask them to mail it back to the EBOR chair. Simple, straightforward, practical. And the boy is not involved in transmitting the correspondence between the persons listed and the council (just between the council and the persons). I think this is the most common way of contacting references, eh? Calls are usually done only if there's an issue with the written letter.