Beavah

Yah, SaintCad, it's a jury trial, eh? It's hard to find negligence here unless all outdoors activities are negligent. The NWS issuing a thunderstorm watch for an area? Most of us mow our lawns half da time under thunderstorm watches. I feel for the family in their grief. But the paintiffs wouldn't want me on the jury.

Yah, LongHaul, thanks there! I had missed that bit in the Official Requirements Book, eh? Leadership service projects shall be meaningful service not normally expected of a Scout as part of his school, religious, or community activities (Boy Scout Requirements, p. 20). Never knew they were even called Leadership Service Projects for Star and Life. Given that most of the boy's service hours were part of religious missionary work, it may also be that the SM didn't approve them because of the above clause. Or perhaps because the SM didn't want to get into whether to count prostyletizing as service. Yah, FScouter, I agree with you. Also possible that some adults on a trip are jerkin' a kid around because of their own agenda or rules. Most of those don't last in units too long. They all end up at the district or council level. Hard to tell which is which here, eh? Especially from a distance. Best to support the SM.

Once you use the law to limit opportunities for a group of people that another group can have - that's discrimination! Yah, of course it's discrimination, eh? That's the whole purpose of law, to discriminate between choices so as to encourage one choice or discourage another. Criminal law discourages some behaviors. Tax law and subsidies encourage some behaviors (buyin' hybrid vehicles) and discourage others (smoking). Being discriminating is a good thing. The law encourages some kinds of social partnerships (heterosexual monogamous unions) because society feels they should be encouraged. Think of that the way you think of an ethanol subsidy. Trying to encourage a stable mom-and-dad family is actually a far better investment than an ethanol subsidy.

Yeh must remember da legal structure of da BSA, eh? National can't fire an exec. He's an employee of the independent local council corporation. The council exec. board has to fire him. Our council has, and fixed "other issues" as well through internal pressure. But you're right that it's hard, and that some structural issues in the BSA are designed to make proper oversight difficult. Those should be fixed. They allow a corporate culture that is not service-oriented to develop and to some extent thrive.

I believe that following the rules of an organization I belong to is the right thing to do But that's just my point, OGE. The rules of the organization gilski belongs to state that a Life service project should include a leadership component. I think gilski and his son should honor and follow the rules of his troop, even though they may disagree. It's a different question what the SM should do. But we aren't giving advice to the SM. We're giving advice to gilski. I think he should follow the rules and support the SM. Unless he's willing to be the SM somewhere; then he gets the hard job of figurin' out how to best serve the kids in the troop. That's what all of us Commissioners do. Support and assist the unit leaders, not act as policemen. That's what the BSA's entire side of the Charter Agreement says - the BSA supports and assists the unit leaders and CO in their youth work; it does not act as policeman. The BSA as an organization is a model of service leadership. So much of the time adults get into rules because it's all about control, when it should be about service. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Sorry Beavah, I am not sure I understood you but I will give it a go. So, its ok for the volunteer to change the rules just because he is a volunteer? OGE, Eagledad expressed my feelings more eloquently than I could (tho he missed da Minnesota accent der, eh?) I don't really care about the rules in the same way you and Lynda J do. All I really care about are the aims and the principles. I think what makes us all scouts and scouters is not writing legal briefs over an advancement regulation to ensure uniformity, but doing our best to help our (own, unique kids) kids grow in character in our (own, unique) Chartered Orgs. with our (own, unique) sets of adults. As a UC, I've seen so many different but excellent units, with all kinds of different interpretations and adaptations. I think it's contrary to the principles to make picky arguments about the rules. I think it hurts the program. I don't know what the SM knows; I'm not doing his job. So as a good citizen, I also don't think I should be tellin' him how to do his job - as long as overall he is doing good things for the kids. (Of course, if he's not doing good things for the kids, then that is the issue, not whether his interpretation of requirement 12c is in line with the current case law). In short, I want my son to see that I support and approve of the SM even if I think the SM is wrong on a particular point, because I want my son to learn respect and kindness, and because I'm more likely to be wrong about how to get to the aims than the SM is (for that boy, in that troop, at that time). And I also don't want the SM's time to be spent arguin' with me over the right way to award a patch, I want his energy spent on encouraging and teaching my boy and his friends.

Are you saying that because a volunteer is a volunteer its ok for that volunteer to change the program that that volunteer volunteers for and to chanllenge that volunteer means that the person who is doing the challenging has to be ready to replace the challenged volunteer elsewise be silent? OGE, I guess I'm longing for the old days when parents would support the teacher and the scout leader, because that was how to teach their kids responsibility and character. These days every parent becomes a lawyer arguing their son's case with the professional and the volunteer adults in his life. What does that teach the boy? Do we really want to teach our children to argue technicalities rather than support caring people trying to do their best to help them grow? Do we really want to teach our children to argue everything they don't like? Nothin' burns out teachers and volunteers more than the constant complaints and arguing. Nothing uses their time more poorly. So yah, I think anybody who decides to complain should first consider whether they're ready for that volunteer to take off his patch and walk away. Just like with marriage, sometimes bein' right is the wrong call. I think our role is to support the good men and women giving their one hour a week to kids. We trust them to use their good judgment takin' our kids into the woods. We should trust them when they make a decision about a cloth patch or a signature. And if we really don't trust their judgment, we should replace them. If yeh want a perfect rules-based, no interpretation award program, yeh can do it with a computer program online. Standardized test scouting. Me, I want a human workin' with my kids. And the price of that is supportin' him or her even when I disagree, because that's the right thing to do. The service project requirement is identical for both Star and Life ranks. Yah, the wording is identical. But should the interpretation be? What serves kids best? The "Show Scout Spirit" is the same requirement for every rank, too eh? But I think most scouters interpret "Show Scout Spirit" differently for Tenderfoot compared with Life. That's a good thing. I'd support a leader doin' that; even encourage it. So I see LongHaul's point that interpreting the service requirement differently for Life vs. Star might be an OK thing, too.

Yah, the change was made to make the BSA handshake the same as the one used by Scouts around the world. But OA kept the pinky thing as its secret handshake. Never liked the pinky thing. Seems like half the time yeh had to wiggle around to get it right.

Yah, vote. But the problem is in the big party primary process, eh? In order to get a Democratic nomination, you have to be a Kerry-esque figure completely in bed with the teachers unions and trial lawyers. In order to get a Republican nomination, you have to be a Bush-esque figure completely in bed with bad business and the religious right (and yah, I'm a Christian voter, but that doesn't mean all Christians make for competent politicians). Where do those of us who look for intelligence, honesty, and honor go? Who want fiscal responsibility and environmental responsibility and an energy policy that doesn't put our money in the hands of our enemies? We mostly split our vote trying to decide which politician will be worst. The country isn't split down the middle, just the parties. But sure, I'll vote for Ritalin. Try anything once, eh?

Yah, Hunt, I hear you. I am and will continue to be a strong supporter of da Scouting Movement, and of the work of the many good men women, and youth who run our Scouting programs. But despite his somewhat incoherent rant, jhkny is right to say that questions of fraud and dishonorable behavior have moved beyond a small subset of BSA Councils. They're happenin' all over the country, eh? And usually only a fraction of the cheaters get caught. That suggests a systemic problem, in this case, a problem of corporate oversight. It would be a good thing if the COR's in the forums all showed up this year at their annual meetings and asked for outside audits of membership roles, and annual reports that comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which show clearly where donation and fundraising dollars were spent. And a fix of the local bylaws to prevent things like da Chicago mess.

Yah, OK jkhny. Your first post alerted me to an issue in Idaho I wasn't aware of, eh. And I certainly am sympathetic to da need for SE oversight, havin' been involved in firin' one SE myself. And the Chicago mess certainly illustrates how da BSA council bylaws were put together ineptly, and how less than honorable people can try to hijack an organization we all care about. And last year's dramatic drop in BSA numbers might reflect in part a cleanin' up of membership fraud. But your last post is just an unfocused rant. How did NE region come in to an Idaho matter? Sharin' information on both the bad and the good helps all of us who care about an organization do our duty with eyes wide open. Rantin', while understandable sometimes, doesn't. And BrentAllen is right, good, accurate information is important. (BTW, nice Minnesota accent there, Brent)

Granted, this is an extreme example, but it sure does nicely point out the negatives to allowing Scout Accounts to travel from unit to unit. Yah, or the negatives of Scout Accounts period. With that much money raised, it's hard for a boy/parent not to think of it as "theirs." Guess he needs to find a Ship or Crew that does some really high adventure. Sounds like the SE is involved in this case to decide whether the new troop can go on da old troop's dime, since the old troop already paid. I'm sure no camp director is goin' to make that call. That was Vicki's workaround. That's high-stakes lose-lose poker for the SE. I love Scoutin', except for the adults sometimes.

I am fairly certain that if we switched COs within the next year or so, we'd lose the several thousand dollars we've raised so far to pay for a new troop trailer. They would see this as "free money" that could be spent on their other priorities and it would be their right to do so (though not very nice). Not very nice at all. In fact, pretty durn unethical. Most NFPs and service organizations feel it to be a moral imperative to honor the intent of the donors. In some cases, state law may require them to. If this is really the sentiment, it argues more for findin' a new CO. More than the money, you want a CO that reflects the Oath and Law, eh?

The actual requirement text is "While a First Class Scout, take part in service projects totalling at least 6 hours of work. These projects must be approved by your SM." (33215p14-15) So a Scoutmaster refuses to approve a project that doesn't include a leadership component. Then the recourse is to ask the Troop Committee to fire the SM. Or, perhaps, a troop committee instructs a scoutmaster not to approve projects that doesn't include a leadership component. Then the recourse is to ask the COR to fire the troop committee. In any case, you had better be ready to step forward as SM or be ready with a new set of committee volunteers. Some things aren't worth fightin' over. Yeh can do more damage insisting that you're right in an arrogant way than bein' Loyal to the volunteers who are doing their best.

Yah, BrentAllen, so someone complains about da cover-up of child abuse, and you tell him if he doesn't like child abuse cover-ups, he can quit? I'd think that the proper response of anyone who values the Oath and Law would be to take action, and as a volunteer commit yourself and your CO to aggressive oversight of the council exec. boards and SE's.

When you raise money for an organization, the money belongs to the organization. Simple as that, eh. You can't raise money by fundraisers that goes into your own pocket or buys things for you or your family. That's fraud and tax evasion. It's not a BSA policy, it's the law. Now, if in the old troop there was some understanding that the troop was going to allocate a portion of fundraising revenues for summer camp, then I think an honorable thing for the old troop to do is to try to get a refund from the camp on camp fees for the guys who left, and transfer whatever refund they were able to get over to the new troop. That's not a requirement for them, any more than they have to give you the tents you helped raise money for. But in this case, I think it would be the Trustworthy, Courteous, and Kind thing to do. Be sure to be equally courteous and kind when you ask, eh!

When push comes to shove and a non-swimmer boy with no PFD drowns when the leaky over-loaded boat capsizes on the class 5 rapids does anyone really think the jury is going to relieve the adult troop leaders of blame just because they declared... If a ski club organizes a trip to Vail and a family attends, are the ski club volunteer leaders (who organized the group transportation and tickets) liable if a child, while skiing under the supervision of his parents, runs into a tree without a helmet? Almost certainly not, no matter how much anyone quacks. Liability in the above whitewater "straw man" case probably falls on the outfitter, eh? With perhaps a child endangerment charge against the parent of the boy for taking a nonswimmer on a Class V river and not makin' him wear his life jacket.

Six or seven members, most over 70, don't provide meeting place, support, etc.? Yah, it may be time to close up the shop and move, eh? Especially if you have a relationship with another (younger, more youth-focused) organization. That's a strategic decision to discuss with your district leadership. Tactically, though, you've got the right notion in terms of helpin' the troop reach out to the CO. While CO's are supposed to be owner-operators of troops, CO's that don't do a lot of youth work often don't know how to do that, or make the relationship truly collaborative. Send them an annual report every year. With such a small group, invite them all to your COH's. Try to get members to sit in on your BOR's or come on a local car-camping trip to tell stories. Have the boys go fundraising with them, but not in uniform, or do a separate boy-led fundraiser for the CO. I think what you're hearin' from them is that it doesn't feel like a partnership, and they want it to be. But they don't know or understand how the troop can contribute, so their only idea is "help us with our stuff."

1) To what extent do you pursue behavioral issues with scouts? Only to the extent the scout brings it up or the SM indicates that we should. Trust the people closest to the boy who have more information. 2) What do you do in your troop with negative feedback, in terms of actually following up on it? Pass it along to the SM; remember it and think about it if there are some committee-level implications. Sounds like at the moment your troop is doin' as well as any with the resources it has. When "blessed" with younger, less-experienced leadership boys, the mentoring and coaching is important after TLT is done. More important than TLT is, in fact. At a committee level, it may be that one of the things the group should take up is recruiting more ASMs who enjoy coaching kids. Unfortunately, the BSA really doesn't provide any good training on Adult Relationships method in practice, that could help your weaker patrol coaches, but you might also look for an outside provider. But I'd say what you're describing is "normal" for a fairly sound, good troop. It's always a struggle balancing the coaching and freedom of youth leadership, and as an ASM learning that balance.

CNY, thanks for the detailed response, eh? Let me see if I can clarify where we differ. The Troop has done nothing to inform parents the ramifications of doing this as a parent/child event. The only reason I understand this as I have attended training (and joined the training staff)... I have also sat though a presentation to a CO by a DE how the BSA insurance works. I think you are overestimatin' your training. You're certainly overestimating the quality of understanding of legal/insurance issues of those on internet forums. I'm not quite sure what the dire "ramifications" are that you're talking about. A parent/child event I'm assuming means each parent is present to supervise their child and make on-the-spot decisions about the activity. If the parent is there, the parent is responsible for the child. The duty of care (and hence liability) of the adult leaders and institution changes substantially. If instead of the parents being present, Joe the SM and Bill the ASM are running a "private" trip, then if a kid gets hurt there might be a suit, and a legal tussle over liability. But there'd be a legal tussle over liability for an official trip, too. Depending on the facts of the case, the BSA may still cover, the CO's carrier may cover, the adult leaders' umbrella or homeowner's policy may cover, the canoe outfitter/guide's policy may cover, the local land management agency that didn't post warning signs may cover, and of course there may not be any finding of negligence so nobody needs to cover. This is annoying and time consuming, but no different than if a kid is injured at your son's birthday party or the CO's church picnic. It is ordinary liability that all of us incur every day. From the training I took, if it is promoted in troop meetings, attended by troop members and run by troop leaders its a troop event, no matter what the Troop or anyone says. Then the training you took was conducted by amateurs or you didn't hear it right. That might be the finding, or not. I know units in CO's where, for example, the troop promotes church youth group activities and other church events. That doesn't make the confirmation class service trip a troop event. Someone might argue that it is (the "quack" theory), but then our legal system allows people to argue almost anything, eh? I would really have question the integrity of a UC, who coming to them with a safety concern, told me that if I didnt like it, to find another troop But this isn't a safety concern. It's a troop management concern. You're telling me that they're payin' attention to real safety issues like requiring swim checks (in fact, they're being strict about not letting non-swimmers go), and that they're going to have a high level of adult participation/supervision. Paperwork compliance is a different thing from safety. As a UC, I try to help with paperwork, but I don't waste a lot of my volunteer energy on it. A Troop can play paintball, skydiving and do drag racing and not follow the G2SS by just saying this is a wink-wink parent/child event and explaining the risk? A "Troop", no. A CO? Yes. The individual private members of a Troop? Of course. If a troop advertises an (outside activity) like a local film festival, open house at the skydiving center, or youth paintball day at the local park, and some of the troop parents go with their kids to that event, I think that's just fine. It's a great way to get the film festival, the skydiving center, and the paintball emporium to reciprocate by advertising Cub Scout Roundup or local boy scout troops. Crossmarketing, eh? Everyone wins. I think it's just important that enough clarity of information is provided so that parents can give informed consent. If that isn't being done, then I agree with you. That's an important component. Arent we as Scout Leaders supposed to follow the G2SS so youth can do these things in a safe environment and so the parents can trust that we are providing that safe environment? The Guide to Safe Scouting is a (relatively poor) guidebook. It seems to be written for CMA purposes for da BSA, not really as a useful guide to people runnin' trips. As a former river guide, I honestly never look at it for river trips, I just run safe river trips accordin' to my professional trainin'. That's what wise parents trust. Experienced and caring people, not a rulebook or paperwork. From what you say, most of the parents in your troop do trust the leadership. You don't, so it's not a good fit. Nor are the other local troops in your area, you've said in the past. I think your decision to leave is a good one for you. I think that's a better decision, and more consistent with the Oath and Law, than telling other new parents not to trust the troop leadership.

Yah, many people who like convoys say they like them for safety. In a convoy, you never lose "2-deep." For example, if you travel in convoy, you will never have a situation where one adult is left alone with two kids because of a mechanical breakdown or wrong turn/gettin' lost. Kids will never be left alone because of (for example) an adult driver illness or injury. Da reference to point #2 is to give the BSA's idea of how you maintain some loose form of 2-deep by designatin' stop and regroup points. But mostly it's to tell the pro-convoy contingent that two-deep is not required for driving.

Correctly using the methods of Scouting results in achieving the aims of Scouting. This is a statement of faith, FScouter. Can't argue it, other than to say I don't share your faith. For me and what I've seen, usin' the methods well along with supportive parents and good adult leader selection often results in achieving our aims, especially if we flex a bit to meet the needs of individual boys and programs. Adding an additional requirement is almost an admission by the adult leaders that they are failing to build character and teach leadership and this is an attempt to fix that failure. But this is a bit overbroad, eh? If that were the case, then every year when the BSA changes requirements would be an admission that Scouting is failing to build character and teach leadership. It's important to remember that the Position of Responsibility requirement for Star and Life is not a leadership requirement, eh? Many of the acceptable PORs don't have a leadership component at all similar to what would be expected of a boy for an Eagle project. Maybe this troop is seein' this, and tryin' to help a bit, and when they're successful it's a requirement the BSA will add in the next revision. Those changes come from somewhere, eh? I suspect, though, that the most likely reason is the one you mention - they have recognized a weakness in their program, maybe from SM conferences and BOR's where kids said they didn't feel prepared. That is part of what BOR's are for, eh? Program evaluation. Or maybe they've got youth from a culture or set of circumstances where they really do need more practice than the generic nationwide BSA materials offers. Da point is that judgin' our fellow volunteers without walkin' in their shoes is a dangerous and often (unintentionally) discourteous business. And encouragin' complainin' parents when a program has "incredible" volunteers and is "successful at building character" is the surest way I know to discourage those volunteers and damage the program.

Yah, thank goodness for nld and eaglebeader offerin' a bit of rationality in the face of all the amateur attorneys on the forum. Quacking sometimes means you're a duck and sometimes means you're a quack. Seems like CNY's troop does a fine job of communicatin' when something is a troop event and when it's a parent/child event. A good enough job that CNY understands it clearly, and it seems like the other parents do as well. They also appear to be doin' a good job of doin' swim checks and such. Not sure why everyone's gettin' all riled up. Yah, a non-BSA trip is on either the CO's or the individual parents' responsibility, eh? So what? Get a grip, friends. We have other kids play in our yard and send our kids to birthday parties at the water park without frettin' over predatory lawyers and insurance coverage. Don't you? If it's really run as a parent/child event, with each boy's parent present to supervise, where are all the legal boogeyman arguments comin' from? This is ordinary risk. The only requirement is to be honest and honorable about communication. Seems like CNY's troop is doin' exactly that, sufficient that CNY can make an informed decision about participation. If CNY came to me as a UC, I'd be inclined to suggest findin' another youth program if he/she isn't comfortable with any of the local scouting programs. A boy should be in a program that the parent trusts and can be supportive of. Scoutin' is run by amateurs and volunteers. That might not be a good fit. Yah, and for the record: * CNY's council can make stricter rules than national like requiring a lifeguard on all float trips. Apparently they do. Local councils can also choose not to require tour permits within their council service area. * In the event of a problem, SA really won't help you. As a former river guide, I've yet to see a BSA unit meet the industry norm for standard of care, and that's what's really goin' to matter. SA might hurt you. "All participants in activity afloat must be trained and experienced." Black letter policy, that. So none of us ever take middle school boys or beginners on trips? "All supervisors must complete... rescue training." How many BSA river canoe groups really have every adult and youth leader trained in swiftwater rescue? The G2SS is designed to protect the BSA, eh? It may be used as evidence against the volunteer. Unless, of course, you're runnin' an informal family trip.

requiring leadership in a service project other than an Eagle Project is adding to the requirements Possibly, yes. But then a responsible and caring person has to ask a second question before they "go off" - Is this worth making an issue over? The Scouts, SM, ASM's, and CC are incredible we have a high percentage of Eagle's and new Eagle candidates ... due to the forward thinking and striving for excellence which motivated it. Gilski, I think you again answer your own question here, eh? The troop leaders are "incredible" "forward thinking" and "striving for excellence." They have experience helping lots of boys to Eagle, and have decided that this change will really help. Perhaps what he learns will save your son months on his Eagle project. Aren't these "incredible" volunteers worthy of your support? In a volunteer organization, a man who lives by the Scout Oath only gets to complain and quote regulations at people when he is ready and willing to step up and do their job.

PS, lets start something....seek and thank all pack,troop,crew,ship committee members in uniform and thank them for being of service and in uniform! Yah, a much nicer thing to do than approach a strange kid and start correctin' him on the uniform he's proud of. MV, as a Unit Commish never, ever would I approach a boy about a uniform issue. Indeed, I'd expect a good SM or CC to escort me to the door if I did so. I'd be happy to help a troop's youth with a uniform inspection if they asked me, though, or to answer an adult leader's questions. As a guest, I tend to uniform the way the troop does. If they do shirts and jeans, I'll try to remember to do a shirt and jeans at least half the time. Better to support their use of the uniform method and build respectful rapport than not. Mostly, I'm happy if I see a unit where the boys get the shirts on and are proud of the accomplishments they wear. I'm happier still if they all get into the same color of non-denim pants, and I'm overjoyed if they customize the uniform a little bit to make it special. Meanwhile, there are seven other methods that are more important to our aims for me to spend my time helping with.