Beavah

It is the counselor alone who decides whether or not to sign the card as complete. Neither the SM nor the committee has any veto power. Not entirely true, eh? Around here, in order to submit a MB, the unit advancement chair has to fill out an advancement report and certify that "the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the BSA." If it's clear that the MBC didn't meet the standards, the AC doesn't sign and submit the report. Committee veto. Practically speaking, in this particular case, the way to go is to accept and award the badge, avoiding any ill feelings. Then the SM or CC have to quietly make sure that next time the problem doesn't repeat; either by gently re-training the MBC so that it's both "fun" and "complete", or by using a different counselor.

It's important to remember that these days some CO's have stricter youth protection rules than the BSA. That's true of Catholic units in our district, who require separate YPT training and fingerprint background checks. These units necessarily restrict MBC's to adults who have met their requirements. Da rest of us should take a hint - if we're honest, we recognize that the background checking, oversight, and training of MBC's is cursory at best. A CO might also want boys to use an internal MBC for philosophical reasons. I can see an LDS unit wanting Family Life to be taught by an LDS scouter, for example. As to whether a SM should say "no" to a scout interested in a merit badge, there are times. I've said "no" to Shotgun for lightweight 10-year-olds who had never used a firearm. I've said "no" to Whitewater for weak swimmers. Sometimes it's a kindness to steer a boy toward a lower target that will yield success.

Yah, Mike's example illustrates why BOR's should ask some POR and skills-based questions, eh? OGE is correct that in a properly run program, a signoff shouldn't happen until a boy has truly learned a skill well. But we all know that people get lazy, it's easy just to sign off rather than work harder with a boy, and some signoffs at some summer camps are completely bogus (if a troop allows them). In order to prevent even a good program from "going downhill" and becoming a subtract-from-requirements advancement mill, there has to be some verification and feedback. Some of dat should be the SM; some of it should also be the committee. So a BOR needs to do some spot-checking/retesting in order to do its duty to keep the program high quality for kids. Remember, repeat the Scout Oath and Law from memory and explain it in your own words is a Tenderfoot Requirement. Once it is signed off, a strict view of "no retesting" would not allow any BOR to ask a boy what the scout Oath and Law is, or how he thinks about it. In answer to the original question, our troop's pass rate for T-2-1 is probably 85%, S-L is 95%, Eagle is 100%.

I find it interesting that you want to attribute everything that is ethical and caring as being Christian based. That wasnt quite my intent. I was pointing out that modern Wicca, and the UUA for that matter, both grew up in an environment where Christian ethics were pervasive, and incorporated most of the Christian ethical framework into their own structure (albeit detached from its underlying principles). There are certainly non-Christian ethical frameworks. And there is always natural law for all humans, like caring for family and tribe. Going beyond care for family and tribe is more uniquely Christian, and you answered how that did (and did not) fit within your ethical framework. You also seem to think that Wicca means that I must have an absolute sanctity for all living things. Uh, no. Just an assumption that youd recognize life in a seed, whether human or apple. And if human, that you wouldnt want to see it killed brutally or wastefully. So, by analogy then, I would be justified in bringing up the hate spewed by Reverend Fred Phelps anytime someone stated a Christian position? Fair enough. But most of us oppose Fred, eh? Hes even picketed outside my (Christian) church. I think yah cant claim not to support late term abortions unless you are willing to oppose (through persuasion or legislation) late term abortions, which you do not seem willing to do. Packsaddle does make a worthy point, in that there is a difference between moral persuasion and using the coercive power of governance, eh? There are some things which we might believe to be immoral (greed), and teach against (an obligation to tithe or help the poor). But at some level greed becomes theft or antitrust, and society chooses to intervene/correct it/punish it. So there are really two choices. When is something wrong so that we should teach against it? When is something so wrong that we should also act as a community to physically prevent it? One can be morally opposed to birth control (as in the pre-Reformation Christian churches) without finding it necessary to use governance to prevent it. So sure, it is theoretically possible to be morally opposed to abortion without viewing it as reaching the level where it should be stopped by an act of governance. Thats just a hard position to hold because we are talking about human life, and because of the many other lesser things we choose to use governance to prevent. It's hard to see abortion being a less important thing than, say, parking in the wrong space.

"I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are." Yah, right. Never, ever take statistics or research presented by an advocacy group at face value. Even when they aren't deliberately misrepresenting, the inherent bias leads to bad skew because of selectivity in what is chosen for inclusion/reporting. Dat's true of any advocacy group - Red, Blue, or Purple. It is also true, but to a lesser extent, of any "research" performed by an "independent" agency which is funded by an advocacy group.

I suspect the SM never approved the counselor in the first place, eh? That's a bit of a sticky wicket. In that case, the boys or the counselor were making an "end run" and it really is the SM's discretion whether to accept it after the fact. In such a case, someone needs to remind everyone involved of the appropriate procedure - the SM selects the counselor, and approves the boy working on the badge prior to the start of work. (BS Requirements p.22). Yah, another way to go might be to have the unit Advancement Chair set up a mini-BOR with several of the kids who "earned" the MB. Go through and ask them about the requirements and what they did. If they're honest and they didn't do all the requirements/learn all the material, then it's a quiet conversation over coffee with the MBC directing him to re-training before he can counsel a badge again, and a helpful pointing the kids to someone they can finish up the badge with "for real." With special thanks for their honesty. Alternately, it's clear they did everything (perhaps not well). Then it's best to give them credit for the badge, but the SM may choose not to use the counselor again.

How do I vote against the current Republicans without voting for the current Democrats? There needs to be a real third option. The "honorable and responsible" party.

Interestin' le V, and SWS, thanks. If it's really a rare occurance, it's easy for troops not to have developed any experience with it. Those of us who've spent a lot of time in the hills in other places might anticipate somethin' that the locals don't. And whiteout navigation is always somethin' to avoid.

He "captured" a committee member that was about to leave and called another at home and set up the BOR on the spot. Ten minutes later they were starting the BOR. So the time requirement explanation for the quarterly BOR is not a valid excuse. Yah, for your troop, eh? It's important to remember that not everyone is da same as you or me, so makin' judgments about what is and isn't valid for someone else is a dicey business. Sounds like your committee has a lot of parents on it, so grabbing random committee members at a meeting is fairly easy. But there are units out there that have committees with no parents at all - just a few church elders, for example. Those committees have advantages over yours - much stronger ties to the CO, often less turnover and perhaps more training/experience, no hints of "favoritism" or people pushing an agenda for their own kid. But they have disadvantages, too includin' the fact that pullin' a BOR together on-the-fly isn't done. And that's OK. Our troop, like yours, is "on demand" - but I confess that sometimes the expectation that adults are going to drop everything to do something for a pushy boy or parent isn't teaching the lessons of courtesy I'd like to see. Most of the time boys are grateful for the efforts made on their behalf, but it bugs me a bit when they act like they are owed other people's time on demand. A unit that feels it's more important to teach kids to "plan ahead and prepare" rather than provide instant gratification might be doin' good work keepin' privileged kids from being spoiled brats. O'course, maybe they're just interested in keepin' advancement down to it's rightful 1/8 of da program methods and time. Each to his own.

Yah, I'd go with just shirts and have da boys wear their camy pants to start. That's enough for this method to be goin' on with. Spend the rest of your time and money on the other 7 methods.

but at this point, this is becoming an argument of semantics, not substance. The substance of the argument was that voters naturally vote their beliefs, religious or otherwise, and that laws resulting from the beliefs and opinions of the majority of voters are a natural consequence of democratic freedom. The alternative is appointing an elite monarch, nobility, appointed judiciary, whatever to make laws for everybody. Been there, done that, much worse in the long run. Actually, there is a movement being started to decriminalize polygamy, and it is being spearheaded by... a woman. Theres always a movement to do almost anything. The movement will succeed when and if the majority no longer vote according to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Actually, my point was that it is not any different. I was responding to the seeming prejudice of your implication ("Christian values of positive duty to self and others") that I cannot be charitable, self-sacrificing, have a duty to others, etc., because I am not a Christian. Easy, there, DanKroh. What I actually said was that your one and only commandment of do no harm did not imply any mechanism for charity. You added a notion of threefold return which incorporates what you call a Christian notion of punishment for bad behavior, and an enlightened self interest argument for charity; also a dont stand by while others are harmed notion. Im curious how within your belief system you would justify going out of your way to help others, to the point of laying down your life for your friends. Threefold return wouldnt apply, unless you believe in an afterlife. Do no harm wouldnt apply, the loss of your life would harm you and others. How do you get to "no greater love hath man than this, to lay down his life for his friends"? Non-Christians CAN be just as ethical, caring, and moral as the most righteous Christian, just that our reasons for being those things are different (but no less valid). Its funny how the notion of ethical and caring you are proposing is a Christian one, though you dont recognize it. Modern Wicca is really a fairly recent development which has grown up in a Christian environment and culture. It has a whole host of Christian ethics deeply embedded. As you point out, all that is lost/changed are the reasons for such ethics. This doesnt affect any settled issues, but shows up when confronting new challenges like modern sexual issues. Why do those opposed to abortion always bring out the late-term abortion as an example? Because it is the most egregious and viscerally hideous manifestation of the consequences of such choices and arguments. It throws into stark relief the way human life is devalued. Honestly, none of the pro-choice people that I know think that late term abortions (other to prevent the death of the mother...possibly) are acceptable. Why not? If the fetus is just tissue or property or part of the mothers body then why not late term abortion if someones personal beliefs are that ending a pregnancy at any time is better than the social inconvenience of adoption? When do you believe life begins? There really are very few logical choices. Conception, heartbeat, neural activity, or birth. The large worldwide multicultural majority believes the most ethical, logical choice is conception not just for the baby, but for society; our respect for each other and all life. Im one of those. Sounds like you want to choose heartbeat or neural activity (?). Either of those would eliminate a large majority of the abortions currently performed. Seems strange for a Wiccan, though. Is there no life in a seed?

Snowed-in Scout hikers rescued By Katie McDevitt, Tribune March 13, 2006 http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=61042 What started as a weekend hike for a Mesa Boy Scout troop ended Sunday in a mountain rescue. Nine boys, ages 11 to 13, huddled together to keep warm for more than 24 hours, after 3 feet of snow forced them to stop their 6-mile hike through the Superstition Mountains, said David Perkins, leader of Troop 716. Despite freezing temperatures, no one was injured. The troop started hiking Friday evening near Globe. The troop hiked into the night and got wet as the weekend storm swept into the mountains. When the Scouts woke up Saturday, they were wet, cold and deep in snow. Perkins and another adult left the boys with their most experienced leader and hiked back to some parked vehicles to call for help. Through the use of GPS response systems and cell phones, the pair placed calls for help. We were scared of being cold, so we had to get off our wet clothes and stay as warm as we could, said Tyler Rowley, 11. We didnt know what to do. We thought we were going to die. Just before noon, helicopters airlifted the group to rescue vehicles. Their leader, a former Navy Seal named Jim Beach, saved those boys lives, said Kyle Rowley, father of 11-yearold Tyler Rowley. There were no injuries and no frost-bitten feet, Perkins said. For Tyler Rowley, the trip was a bad experience. He said he probably wont want to go hiking again. Perkins said the boys had enough food for two additional days. They learned what they were capable of on this hike, Perkins said. They will look back on this later in life and realize when they encounter something difficult that they have the strength to handle it. ***** This seems like another poorly prepared scout group gettin' in over their heads, eh? Pushin' into bad weather in the mountains in the dark on Friday, so they can be out on Saturday? Sounds like an LDS unit. With all the snow on the ground and falling, a map and compass would have been worthless. Dat seems like an odd statement, eh? Please explain. I don't understand how snow on the ground makes any difference in how one uses a map and compass. And nobody should be trying to hike in a true white-out, but a map and compass work just fine in a general snowstorm up here in da midwest.

Well, except that the Quaker exemption to the draft was based on belief, not practice. Oh, I dont know. The few Quakers I know would say dat nonviolence is a practice of the community of Friends. The beliefs that underlie it are much more complex. On what basis does society regulate marriage, if not the morality of the majority? There is no benefit to society to prohibit polygamy, other than to satisfy the morals of the majority. I would use the norms of the community rather than the morality of the majority, but whatever, eh? All communities establish standards of behavior, through laws and social pressures. The benefit is that you create a community a group of people who share some sense of identity, and give up some of themselves for the common good. As to the prohibition of polygamy, I would suggest that it values women as equal to men, rather than subservient property. I believe that benefits society. Long-term marriage between a man and a woman creates a home environment most likely to yield the best upbringing for children. That has a huge benefit to society. I guess to me, it is more a matter of personal responsiblity; I choose to act in a certain way towards others because I personally feel it is the right thing to do, not because my gods have commanded me to do so. I choose to strive to be closer to my gods because I feel their calling, not because I fear retribution if I don't. What a bizarre prejudice you must have against Christianity to believe it is any different for us. We choose personal relationships with God because we feel Gods calling (indeed, the notion of calling is a Judeo-Christian one). We strive to act justly because doing so is part of our relationship with God, and because its the right thing to do, and because we recognize that the consequences of sin are harm to ourselves and our friends and the world. I dont see any difference between that and your notion that selfish or wicked acts rebound on the person threefold. It is possible to feel very strongly about the inherent worth of all life, to care about the ills of our society, to want to uphold love and partnerships between any consenting adults, for reasons other than "because the Bible tells me so". Because the Bible tells me so is never the real reason for any Christian doing anything. The real reason is because of the persons relationship with Jesus. The Bible is just a common reference point for the community. Much like Guide to Safe Scouting. We as scouters want to keep our kids safe and having fun, by exercising good judgment; G2SS is just a common reference point for the community as we discuss how to do that in different cases. In some cases a guide, in other cases, more of an authority. But never the Principle. The only arrogance I see is that come Christians think they have a monopoly on being ethical, caring, moral people. Well, certainly we do when confronted by anyone who thinks sticking an icepick in the brain of a partially-delivered baby is just a medical procedure. But again, thats not strictly a Christian issue, its a view common to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, many secular humanists, etc. In other words, the pro-life position is the worldwide multicultural majority. So thats not a Christian monopoly. The essence of this thread, though, was just to say that the morality of Christendom is deeply embedded in the social structure, culture, and laws of the United States.

Rastifarians have an exemption to marijuana laws based on their religious practices. Native Americans have exemptions to controlled substances laws to accomodate their religious practices. Quakers were exempt from the draft based on "conscientious objector" status.So even though we have laws, exemptions are made because of religious beliefs. Yah, those exemptions are carefully tailored to protect religious practice, not religious beliefs, eh? There's a difference. And even then, there are limits (ex. polygamy). In my religion, we only have one commandment; "Do no harm", which makes the rest superfluous in my view. Superfluous? I wouldn't agree. Your one commandment strikes me as being somewhat indifferent to the welfare of others. The Christian ethic goes well beyond "do no harm" and incorporates an obligation to "do good things" and to live well personally. Those Christian values of positive duty to self and others are essential to the Scout Oath and Law. Do no harm does not get you to charity, or self-sacrifice, or personal growth in wisdom or relationship with God. You're right, there's a certain arrogance to Christendom. The obligation to charitable care for others means correcting others when they're wrong, teaching them about God, founding hospitals and schools and missions... and yes, working for a society that values and preserves all life, that upholds in its statutes the love and partnership between a man and a woman that makes for marriage, that provides for the needs of the poor and the weak. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

While I will agree that America is now and always has been a majority Christian nation, I reject the thought that our laws are driven by exclusive Christian values. Ah, Gern. I don't think I said "exclusive." As others have pointed out, the ideas that have gone into our laws have also come from English common law, and native tribes, and freemasons, and immigrants who brought notions from their native lands, and on and on. My point was only that if you support democracy in a majority Christian nation, you will get laws that reflect that Christian sensibility. I do believe that codifying Christian morality into law violates my first amendment rights if that law is in conflict with my own religious beliefs. Aye, there's the rub. Society cannot survive if any individual can freely "trump" the law and the community with personal belief. Prohibit murder? But I personally believe that I should kill old people who are in pain (Kevorkian), or young people who are permanently handicapped. You're infringing on my belief. Prohibit polygamy? But I'm an ex-Saudi prince who believes that I have a right to 20 wives to serve me at my whim. Prohibit theft? But I believe stealing from the other tribe/group/class is an act of righteousness. Prohibit pedophilia? But some individuals believe it to be a legitimate expression of mentoring love. Put red at the top of stoplights? But I'm Irish and I believe green should be at the top, it's part of my religious and cultural heritage and resistance to the "Orangemen" protestants in my native land. Wherever you go in the world, the laws will reflect the cultural and religious views of the native community. In a democracy, they will reflect the beliefs of the majority. Get over it, or go baricade yourself in a cabin in the mountains and try not to be part of any community. But if you want the benefits of community, the laws of the community come as part of the package. Beavah, you may believe that Christian principles eventualy ended slavery Nah, it's not a question of belief. The historical record is pretty clear. It was Christians, acting on their faith, that ran the underground railroad and acted politically to end slavery. And sure, south'ners on da other side attempted to find biblical justification for slavery, because that was the only natural way to fight the notion of freedom in a Christian nation. For those who believe that life begins at conception, what is the basis of that belief? Science and genetics. From that point, provide food, shelter, and oxygen, and the organism takes care of itself. And there's no denying it's human. At very least, I think dat almost all of us would agree that the start of human life is no later than the presence of a heartbeat and/or neural function (the absence of which generally defines death in most states)... generally the 5th week. I confess that defining who is alive/human/worthy of protecting strikes me as more than a little bit repugnant. Too many atrocities have been committed in history by trying to change the definition to exclude people from "humanity."

Yah, returning to the original topic. There is no denying that America is currently, and always has been, a Christian majority nation. As a democracy, that means that the enacted laws necessarily reflect a Christian belief system. Without imposing requirements of belief itself, they enshrine a vision of community that reflects the majoritarian belief... including the Protestant Christian notion of individual conscience and dissent from ecclesial authority. That Christian notion got us our notion of democracy in the first place, and a rejection of monarchy in favor of God-given inalienable rights of individuals. It was a Christian willingness to exercise their rights as the majority to impose laws that reflected their morality that ended slavery and protected the rights of workers. Christian majority notions are reflected in the way we treat not-for-profit charitable entities under the law, and our willingness to use tax dollars to assist the poor. Christian notions (along with anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment) led to the formation of public schools. Even corporate law hails back to ecclesial law's notion of juridic persons. Christian notions are so deeply embedded in our culture and laws that they are impossible to disentangle. So yes, if you choose to live in the U.S., you are choosing to live in a culture and legal system based on Christian ethics. It is true that Protestant Christianity enshrined in the U.S. constitution their ethic of "religious independence," so that we recognize legally that individual rights/conscience "trump" the majoritarian will of the state in certain limited circumstances. But the emphasis is on limited circumstances, designed to protect dissent, not thwart the democratic will of the majority. And that majority will naturally vote laws according to its beliefs. Because of our Christian majority you can't own slaves. You can't have more than one wife. You can't confine your neighbors to menial jobs or secluded neighborhoods because they're in a different caste. Human sacrifice and cannibalism are out. Your wife is not your servant, and the public schools even (gasp) host dances. Marriage requires the consent of the parties, not the arrangement of the parents... and on and on. In all these cases, the democratic will of the majority prevails over alternate customs and faiths. Only in limited circumstances does the Protestant notion of protecting dissent as enshrined in the establishment clause allow an individual to "trump" the will of the Christian majority. This allows freedom to worship, but not necessarily freedom to act on beliefs contrary to the majority.

Yah, it's also worth remembering that da unit commissioner has no authority within the structure of the unit. So the appropriate response of a CM or den leader to a UC who has become "annoying" is to tell him/her to go away. Most of us who are or have been commissioners know better than this. I'd follow the advice to talk to the district commissioner and have someone else assigned (and in the process, the DC should get the hint that this person needs to be re-trained).

Oak Tree, that would be a front and as such, it wouldn't solve the problem Yah, it could. Transfer the Sea Scouts assets (boats) to "Educational Sailing, LLC" and get it NFP status. Apply for free berths. Educational Sailing provides free use of boats for Sea Scouts, in exchange for maintenance work on the boats. Educational Sailing may also provide use of the boats for schools, community, and other educational endeavors, perhaps using Sea Scouts as instructors or mates. Easy and simple. BSA insurance would still apply for every sea scout activity; but they may need a separate liability policy for other activities; I expect this would still be cheaper than paying for berths. Berkeley's position may be legally sound, but is phenomenally poor public policy. The more you cut segments of the population off from use of government services, the fewer people you have to vote their tax dollars to support such services. And the Sea Scouts were presumably advancing Berkeley's assumed desire to open marina yachting to a wider racial and socioeconomic pool of participants. Defunding Alcoholics Anonymous because they, like the BSA, believe in a "higher power" does not serve the public interest. Subsidizing the Salvation Army rescue center does serve the public interest, even though the SA is a religious organization. Public charities are an amalgam of good people with different viewpoints. Good public policy supports all of them. That both serves the public interest, and makes it likely that the public will continue to vote tax dollars. If I were a resident of Berkeley, I'd vote to sell the marina rather than continue to support a government service catering to the small segment of the population who happen to be wealthy yachters. There's no reason this shouldn't be privatized.

No specific policy, other than that illegal drugs (and alcohol & tobacco) are not allowed at any activity involving participation of youth members. It's up to the Chartered Org. & committee how to deal with a boy who is a known drug dealer and abuser. I think a wise program looks very carefully at whether it has full disclosure & support from the parents, the kind of specially trained & experienced adults, and the right mix of "good" and supportive kids to be able to take on a youth like this as a "special case." In a few cases, the answer might be "yes, we can provide the resources to take a shot at being a sane, drug-free, supportive "home" for this boy, without putting the boy or our other kids at risk." In most cases, I suspect an honest assessment would be "no, we really don't have the experience or ability to handle a youth drug offender who is still abusing" on adventure activities in the wilderness.

Been a den leader, ASM, SM, UC, DC, CR, Explorer Post advisor, Venturing advisor & associate advisor, district training chair, district program chair, council exec board. Favorite: ASM. All of da fun of working with kids, none of da bureaucratic responsibility. Undoubtedly the best position in U.S. scouting. Close 2nd: Venturing advisor. Very different; very fresh. Really youth-run. Least favorite: Council Exec. Board. So badly removed from kids and service and the Scouting ethic as to make me question my involvement with the whole movement.

Do you know any of us personally, or what our level of involvement in the program might be? Nah, I know you only by your statements on this forum. But I do know from those that your involvement in the program that we are discussing (this troop that runs quarterly BOR's) is nil. Ya don't know their SM, ya don't know their committee, ya don't know their Chartered Org. or parents or kids or community. They might be the most active, highest retention program in their state for all you know. Yet, despite that, forum members choose to "wind up" a disgruntled parent and send him back to make trouble in this unit by pontificating: They are NOT helping the BOYS or the Troop This will certainly kill a boy's enthusiasm for the program any Troop that cannot coordinate a BOR almost "on demand" has its adult leaders' heads where the sun does not shine. Call your District Advancement Chair.... Call your District Commissioner... Find another troop in a big hurry. You bet I'm offerin' criticism of this approach. I find it destructive and profoundly discourteous to fellow volunteers. Like I said, the troop I work with does BOR's on demand. There are downsides to that. I can see quarterly BOR's being a fine tool. Not having "instant gratification" all the time seems a reasonable thing if our goal is teaching character. But I expect what really happens in such an environment is that the presence of the quarterly BOR's pushes kids along to "get done" before the next BOR round. "I gotta finish this month to make the September BOR." Thus such a system provides a bit of natural "deadline push" to help kids. One could also set it up for a COH on the same night, really making a "troop event" out of it that makes the committee and CO feel like an integral part of the program. Would we choose to do it that way? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's evil. Of course, a wise SM might also be using this "scheduling delay" to work with a boy on a behavior issue, or helping him succeed at his POR, or just to take a break and have fun learning from the other seven methods of Scouting. Listen to and learn from others before offering criticism, or suggesting a program should be reported or dismantled. ATCprofesr, I don't think charging off at volunteers armed with obscure BSA document quotations is a way to do anything but harm. I'd follow your son's lead. If he's OK with it, be OK with it. If not, might I suggest instead that you have your son ask the PLC to consider proposing to the SM/committee a schedule with more frequent BOR's? You might find that the kids like the current system. You might find that the committee is willing to entertain the request. Or the answer might be "No, because..." and you'll learn something even if you don't agree... and your idea might percolate around and make a change down the road. Whatever the outcome, you will have supported the system and the good men and women who are providing a program for your child, out of their kindness and generosity. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, yah. Once again a bunch of armchair kibitzers demonstrate their scout spirit by criticizing or berating fellow volunteers who they don't know, in a program they have no contact with, because they happen to hear one complaint. May you be forced to carry a ten-pound weight around your neck for every time a parent or a scout has a complaint about you. Some CO's have committees of professional people from their church or CO. For them, a regularly scheduled quarterly review might be the best use of their volunteers' time. This is no different from, say, martial arts schools that typically offer rank tests quarterly. It does not harm children. It perhaps teaches them that other people's time is valuable, and they'd best be prepared so as to honor and use that time well. Da troop I work with pretty much does BOR's on demand. But, then, we use people beyond just committee members on BORs. With a bigger pool, we can be more flexible about time.

One of da ironies of boy-led is dat the boys are always going to be interested in introducing us old dogs to new things. There have been whole new sports invented since I was their age: competitive climbing, snowboarding, rollerblading, paintball, laser tag, ropes courses, sod surfing, wakeboarding, windsurfing. There have been whole new ways of communicating developed, too: web, and email, and television (yah, yah, I really am an old rural guy), and cell phones, and fax. Some of the subjects they study in school didn't exist when I studied: genetics, statistics, computers, graphing calculators, electronic probe laboratories. Then we have the explosion of plastic fleece and nylon, waterproof breathable fabrics, lightweight campin' gear, leave-no-trace ethics. It's worth takin' stock of where we are. When are we open to innovation? When are we grumpy old men who reject the new just because it's not something we know as well? We all went off about sod surfin'. But if we're honest, we really don't know what da risk profile is there compared to the other things we do. We ban paintball and laser tag, but if we're honest we recognize that the risks of those activities are much less than many of the things we do in scouting. We get all high and mighty about da risk of internet, and forget we used to do da same stuff with the mail and da telephone. At da same time, we've been willin', tho slow, in learning some new tricks like LNT and some new sports. Overall, though, it could be dat we've become da grumpy old men we used to make fun of; makin' bigger arguments out of "safety" and "values" than are really justified, just because we don't want to leave our comfort zones. And da youth, well, fewer and fewer of them are comin' to our old scoutin' program every year because of it.

To answer your question, it all depends on whether you are looking at the situation from a volunteer or professional scouter viewpoint How 'bout da "What's in the best interest of the kids?" viewpoint. Strong, healthy units. New units only when strong, healthy units get so big that they can become two strong, healthy units.

I think our SM has had so many conflicts with this family that he is pretty weary. They push the envelope on EVERYTHING. As I stated, the boy doesn't participate (doesn't camp or even come to meetings) but the parents fight like mad if anyone questions his behavior or actions. Problem is, the parents have no standards, so it's pretty hard to communicate what the boy needs to do. And for the record, they have been told, many, many times. Sometimes it's OK to fire a customer, eh? Yah got people consumin' far more than their fair share of volunteer time and energy, and who in the process are settin' a bad example for the other kids - how to "cheat" advancement while takin' up people's time. Time to have the sit down and the exit interview. Participating in a scouting program is a privilege based on the generosity of others. It is not a right. Your adult leaders' time and energy is better spent doing a good job for the boys and families who care.