Beavah

Hiya plowboy. Is mom allowed to be his adult partner (Akela)? Yes. Can mom's partner bring him to an occasional meeting? Sure. Mom's partner can bring him even to an un-occasional meeting. I believe she cannot be a registered leader That is correct. Da BSA welcomes her son, and welcomes her and any of her family to be involved with her son in the scouting program. However, they aren't comfortable with her as a registered member or leader for other people's children. So every parent-acting-as-parent role is open for her and her partner, but any person-acting-as-leader role is not. For protracted debate on da merits of that, see the Issues & Politics threads. Beavah

In all Beavah's examples, the possibilities of bad outcomes is always "small" and the bad outcomes never happen. As I mentioned, we've had a fairly recent fatality from someone throwing a rope to a scout who was struggling in water. The lad wrapped the rope around his hand, the scouter lost control of his end, and the rope snagged rocks in the river, draggin' the lad under. We killed a scout because someone tossed him a rescue line. In all likelihood the lad would have been OK had no rescue been attempted, or had folks opted for a boat rescue. The point is that yeh have to make a judgment about when the possibility of a bad outcome from acting is smaller than the possibility of a bad outcome from not acting. That's da reasonable, rational judgment. Is da risk of leavin' the boy unaided in the water greater than the risk of throwin' him a line? It was, so the proper choice was to throw the rope, even though the outcome of that choice was adverse. By and large, though, da most common "impulse" on the part of folks is not to act. That's why we hear calls from time to time for "mandatory" reporting laws and such, eh? Mostly, people don't act, even when da evidence is pretty clear. In many cases, people don't act even though they have been properly trained. What yeh worry about -just "jumping in" - is far more rare, and it happens in cases where acting is appropriate, but the folks don't have the skill, or their judgment is compromised by emotional stuff. I hear yeh on that score. Nobody is sayin' always jump in; nobody is sayin' that they're always right, or that their choices will never lead to a bad outcome. Least of all me! My choices have led to bad outcomes on many an occasion. What we're sayin' is that we are all personally responsible for our own choices. We should each be held accountable by God and our fellow men for our choices to act, or not to act. And therefore we must each inform ourselves, and use our best judgment. We should be prepared. We should learn how to use a throw rope, and if we're carryin' epinephrine or have a scout with allergies, we should learn how and when to use it properly. We should understand and be thoughtful about relative risks, and be comfortable with ambiguity that requires judgment. Because no human "rule", no matter how wise, can ever anticipate all possible circumstances. And not all human rules are wise. If we as representatives of adult authority in their world demonstrate bureaucratic thinking, we set the expectations with them that that's the way it should be. If instead we demonstrate personal responsibility, both as people who follow rules and who make and enforce them, we set that expectation. Exactly. Beavah

From Eric Partridge's "Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English." In obsolete theatrical usage (Partridge gives a date of 1883), "the bird" is defined as "a hissing of an actor," from the sound made by geese. Giving someone the bird remained a theater expression, particularly in vaudville, into the 1920s, and may have become associated with the hand gesture at that time. I believe that "hissing like a goose" was a common expression in Victorian Britain. Da Brits seemed to have a thing about geese. "Silly goose". "Mother Goose." "Goose bumps" "Gone Goose" "Goose egg" "cooked goose" "goose chase" "sauce for the goose" "wouldn't say boo to a goose", etc. Silly flippin' bird if yeh ask me, eh? B

Throwing a drowning person a rope is very different than injecting a child with medication for an adult. It's really foolish for you to try to conflate the two issues. In both cases, yeh are choosing to take lifesaving action. In both cases, there is a small but non-zero risk that da action yeh take will cause death or some other undesirable outcome. So in all of the things that matter, they are the same. The only difference is da status of the "rules", and hence da real or perceived risk to yourself for engaging in the rescue. Whether yeh are willin' to risk yourself in attemptin' to save the life of another is of course your own decision to make. As is whether you're willin' to risk some degree of future inconvenience in attemptin' to save the life of another. It is foolish to pass laws directing people not to intervene and to train employees not to act and then complain when they follow those directions. Nah, I believe in personal accountability, eh? The lawmaker is guilty of not thinkin' through all of da possibilities when writin' the law. That's an ordinary human error from not bein' omniscient. The person who stood around and watched a fellow human bein' die rather than render aid is guilty of standing around and watching a fellow person die. They should properly be despised for their lack of courage and character. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If you do the old procedure and something happens, wouldn't you be held liable for not following the proper procedures? And if you didn't do what the research says is a better method, but instead followed the proper procedures, wouldn't you still be held liable since you had knowledge of a better way fo doing something? Yah, let me say again that I don't think "bein' held liable" should ever be a consideration in living up to da Scout Oath. We help other people because it is right and proper to help other people. We jump in the water to save the drowning man because it is right to jump in and save the drowning man, despite the risk to ourselves. Da risk that perhaps a bit of our time or money might be taken up dealin' with a complaint pales in comparison to the risk of our life in the rescue, so why would yeh spend even a moment's thought on it? Folks, the legal system is composed of ordinary good people, guided by ordinary good, decent, reasonably intelligent fellow citizens. It's not some swamp monster out there waitin' to eat you and your children. AHA studies show that many of our fellow citizens don't begin CPR or respond to folks in need because of their irrational fear of da legal system. THIS INANE NONSENSE ABOUT FEAR OF LIABILITY IS KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE AND LEAVING CHILDREN WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS. IT IS EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS DESPICABLE AND WRONG TO PERPETUATE THIS DESTRUCTIVE MYTH. Yeh do what's right, and yeh trust others to also do what's right. There's no way to offer real legal opinions across states, eh? But no, in no jurisdiction anywhere that I am aware of or can imagine, would anybody consider either of Eagle92s examples unreasonable breach of a duty of care for a civilian responder. Beavah

Yah, da internet is a wonderful source of rumor and dubious research, eh? Here's another that I found: The Romans referred to the middle finger as digitus infamis or digitus impudicus (dirty finger). It had much the same meaning as today. The Emperor Caligula insulted people by making them kiss his middle finger instead of his hand. Another Emperor, Augustus Caesar, expelled an entertainer from his presence by an obscene wave of his middle finger. The Romans did not invent this gesture, however. The earliest recorded mention is a play "The Clouds", written by the Greek Aristophanes in 423 B.C. Even then, the middle finger has a clear, obscene and sexual use. It is unlikely that the ancient Greeks were the founders for flipping the birdie. More likely, flipping someone off goes back into prehistory.

Yah, congratulations to the young man, his family and his troop. But bein' that I'm da resident contrarian whenever anyone jumps on a bandwagon, let me take up da role skeptic abandoned and throw in a touch of skepticism. I've known a lot of very capable young men. Marvelous 13 year olds. I was one once (or so Ma Beavah claims ). I know some now. I think that they are better served by uppin' the challenge, rather than the speed. Mentorin' the lad and usin' goals and challenges from da other 7 methods to balance and complement those of advancement. Yah, that's a personal preference, but as Eagle92 describes, I think it also gets better results. Too often adults and especially BORs confuse a youth who is articulate with one who has really developed deeper skills and habits. In so many ways, a boy who hasn't even entered 8th grade has yet to have his Scout Spirit really tested, let alone confirmed. Beavah

Nope, we're not assumin' anything. Any time anyone attempts to assist another person, there is a risk of harm. Every treatment by a medical professional carries with it a risk of harm, eh? Even under ideal conditions. Why should it be any different for a civilian responder in far less than ideal conditions? All that anyone expects is that yeh will do your best, and use sound judgment. If a lad in the water is experiencing stress and is at risk of drowning and yeh happen to have a throw rope, there is a very real (but small) possibility that if yeh toss him the rope, his struggles and the current will cause it to wrap around his body or his neck and cause him to die. We lost a scout that way in Washington state a few years back. Ropes in the water have some real risks. That real risk does not mean that as a scouter yeh don't throw the boy the rope. Seein' da symptoms of anaphylaxis result from a witnessed bee sting I'm faced with da pain and suffering and possible long-term health risks or death of a child in front of me. Good judgment demands that I discount the remote risk that the lad has an undiagnosed heart condition or some other rare thing that might be worsened by the medication. Like throwin' the rope, it's a remote risk vs. an actual acute crisis. Yep, if yeh don't know enough to be able to make that (relatively obvious) judgment, then yeh shouldn't act. Da question in my mind would be why in the world yeh took a lad out into the woods or out on the water without da skills and judgment to be able to act appropriately? Why weren't yeh prepared? When we say we followed da rules because we didn't know any better, it always begs da question of why we didn't know any better. So from OakTree's list, that's J2, J10, J12, J16 Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think da point of da thread is who cares what the law is? If yeh have a lad in need of care, yeh care for him to the best of your ability. If there's a fellow citizen in distress, yeh help other people at all times to the best of your ability. We do that because it's the right thing to do. We teach scouts to do that because it's the right thing to do. The fundamental public policy issue is that the law should not in any way discourage citizen responders from renderin' aid to the best of their ability. There's really nuthin' more to it in my mind. Don't worry your head about legal sharks or legal Beavahs. Just do what's right. Beavah

In so many little ways, we Scouters discuss the "life styles of adults" with our Scouts, though we may not recognize it. Yep, and I think that's the primary reason why da large majority of those holdin' BSA charters don't want to change the policy, eh? They don't want to teach the kids in their care to view homosexual relationships as normal and acceptable, because they have different views. That's also exactly why this has become an agenda-driven lobbying effort, because da goal really isn't access to a private organization like the BSA. There's already access, as this fellow's membership demonstrated. Da goal is to teach children that various homosexual relationships are normal and acceptable, and somethin' for lads to consider. Da issue isn't about discriminatin' against gays, it's about privileged access to the hearts and minds of impressionable young folks. Beavah

Yah, SeattlePioneer, but da point is still the same regardless of my trainin'. I'm breakin' the rule. The fact that yeh don't think based on your experience that you'd do the same thing is a judgment call based on your assessment of your own ability, not based on "da rule." I'd expect yeh to make the same assessment with respect to a swimming rescue or runnin' into a burning building, when there's no "rule" involved. Generally speakin', johnponz, I agree with yeh. The guidance we should offer generally is the guidance for "ordinary" cases, not for exceptions. I think personally we should offer some alternatives, because there is more than one "ordinary" case out there, eh? Small troops, big troops, etc. But yeh don't set the guidance for da exceptional cases. So yep, I think and recommended that in ordinary cases in a reasonable sized district, commissioners shouldn't hold unit leader positions in units. In fact, I prefer commissioners not to hold any unit positions, and I try to get new ones to go spend some time with units that do things a lot differently than their unit of origin. They need to get some experience with da range of practice out there before they can be effective as commissioners. I am, sad to say, one of da rarer, more eccentric critters in da commissioner service. Beavah

John and Beavah both presume that dosing a kid with an adult dose from an epi pen will save his life, not kill him. Well, yeh have to remember that Beavah is an EMT-W, eh? I feel pretty comfortable in makin' a decision under protocols that I have used in the past. Da fact of the matter is that epinephrine is a natural hormone, and da risk of death to an otherwise healthy young person is negligible. So faced with a specific case of severe respiratory distress which can genuinely cause death (and is causin' systemic problems) compared with a "rule" that was designed for much broader application and has no significant risk in da specific case, the choice is clear. Which raises an interestin' question about rules, eh? As a well trained and practiced fellow facin' an emergency situation, why should a change in jurisdiction or supplier matter? Am I less capable because I crossed an administrative boundary? Is da medicine any less efficacious because I took it from another fellow on the trip instead of from da supply in da ambulance? This is why yeh need to have informed judgment, eh? It's why rules should come with rationales, eh? What matters isn't da rule, it's informing the judgment of the folks in the field. And yep, if a lad dies on my watch but I can honestly say that I did my best, I'm OK with that. That's all I promised parents, and all I can expect of myself. I acted with honor. It's a lad dyin' on my watch when I can't say that which would be devastatin'. Beavah

In this case there are detailed laws that govern such situations, at least in this state. People really aren't free to just use what seems like reasonable judgement. Of course they are free to use reasonable judgment. Free will and judgment are things with which we are endowed by our Creator, and with which no state has the power to interfere directly. And it is to da Great Scoutmaster that we are ultimately responsible for our free will choices, not the state. Yeh do that with eyes open, of course, knowin' da risks. But if a scout was in trouble and da rescue meant I had to trade my life for his, I'm a scouter, eh? There's just no question. So some lesser thing like a choice between watchin' a lad die in front of me and da risk of some over zealous prosecutor trying to make a case for practicing medicine without a license, I'm goin' to give the lad the injection every time. Partly because I know good prosecutors would never try the case, and bad ones deserve to get thrashed in both courts. . And because I trust da judgment of my fellow citizens. But ultimately because as a scouter, I'm content to risk whatever I have to to keep a lad from serious harm. Beavah

Leaders that follow the rules rarely get in trouble for following the rules - Leaders that don't follow the rules, for whatever justification they make to themselves for it, are the ones that get into trouble. Yah, and this CMA form of "leadership" is what leads to da worst sort of abuses, eh? Like kids being expelled for butter knives. Leadership involves makin' the priority what is best for the group, usin' experience and judgment. The priority for a leader should never be to minimize the risk to himself/herself. Leaders who lead from the back while hidin' behind subordinates or rules are da worst sort. There is a famous top tier university that has a football program in shambles and is warned that they could lose their accreditation which could cause the university to shut down because people who were once praised for their leadership didn't follow the rules. This is both true and not true, eh? Yeh aren't seein' any criminal charges. Da issue is civil liability. Civil liability is incurred when yeh do not use reasonable judgment. Loss of accreditation happens when fellow professionals feel yeh have not exercised proper professional judgment. And therein is the trap, eh? In da real world, society can find yeh negligent for not usin' reasonable judgment, even though you "followed the rules" in the BSA. And rightly so. Being a leader, and being responsible, and havin' a duty to another means that yeh must exercise judgment. If yeh fail to do so, yeh are negligent in your duty. Beavah

Unfortunately, along about tomorrow we are going to have new "rules" advocates snippily proclaiming that everyone who isn't zealously following every rule is a bad Scout leader, which is annoying. And by the day after, they'll be tellin' us insurance won't cover us unless we follow the Insignia Guide. B

Yah, johnponz, what I reported was da actual corporate structure and relationships, eh? In some things, at least, there is objective reality. Yeh have part of da correct understandin' in terms of corporate members being COs, but you're gettin' mixed up on da rest of da corporate structure. Who said yeh can't subtract from da requirements? Just about every summer camp and half da counselors out there do. There isn't any supervision; no retesting is allowed. There aren't any penalties. There's just a communal recognition that da system works best for everyone if we try to maintain a modicum of voluntary standardization. In truth, though, there's also a subtle difference in that da BSA owns the copyrights and trademarks on the awards, and it is the BSA (not the unit) that technically issues the awards, eh? So they properly control da criteria. That's not true of any other program element. As for support structure, there are thousands of organizations that have local support structures, includin' book publishers. These days, your school district can get professional development for teachers from a book publisher in da same way the BSA provides training. That doesn't mean da textbook publisher controls what goes on in the classroom; the teachers work for the school. However, if the textbook publisher offers an award, it can set da criteria for the award. This is a very common structure in U.S. not-for-profit corporations, eh? Local Chambers of Commerce provide service to member businesses, while da National Chamber provides materials and national lobbying. Local Red Cross chapters provide services, while da national organization provides materials. Da boss of the SE is the council executive board. They hire and fire. Just like the boss of the SM is the COR/IH. The DE or commissioner might be more involved with the SM, just like the Area Director might be more involved in helpin' da SE, but that doesn't change the real reportin' lines. Beavah

Yah, da extra materials properly belong to da beneficiary organization, or to the troop. They have essentially thrown them away, so there's no legal or ethical reason to think they couldn't be used for any other purpose. So let da Eagle decide with a clear conscience. I think an EBOR would look very favorably on a lad who made a matching donation to the beneficiary and kept da materials to use, or who tried to donate the materials elsewhere, but failin' that, they should not object to unwanted materials being discarded / made available to anyone, includin' his family. Beavah

As for the question of improving the blue card system, you should get the white sheets our council uses. Wait a minute... We're on page 5 of blue cards, and now yeh say your council doesn't use 'em??? That they have somethin' better? What were we talkin' about again? As for da rest, doesn't your council expect MBC's to have training? I think it's sorta like the military, eh? Train like yeh fight, fight like yeh train. If we want MBCs to be good mentors, then that's how we have to train 'em. If we want 'em to be check-the-box folks, then we just give 'em da requirements and tell 'em to check the box. Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, that wasn't particularly charitable. Or coherent. Charitable contributions always interest me. It interests me that da Ryans' charitable contributions jumped so much as he was seein' his political star rise (though they still amount to less than a traditional tithe). It also interests me that his income rose so dramatically. I find it fascinatin' that fellows who take a public service job for relatively modest wages seem to do so well for themselves. Da most amusin' thing will be Romney tryin' to explain why he paid less tax (as a percentage of income) than his Veep. Beavah there, packsaddle. I didn't even mention sex.

The closer analogy is a business one....It is the reality of working in a corporate environment. The BSA is organized in such a way. Yah, johnponz, I think this is where you're gettin' confused. Da BSA is in fact a corporation, and it is NOT organized in da way you suggest. The BSA corporation produces materials, and licenses those materials to other corporations and associations in exchange for a fee. Just because yeh license someone's materials doesn't mean that yeh have to use all of 'em, or can't also use someone else's, or that yeh are surrendering control of your program. It also licenses council corporations to be local support service providers for the other entities which are purchasing the materials. As support service providers there are some additional, stricter expectations in order to maintain brand structure and identity, but da councils are still separate corporations, and still have great latitude in whether and how they use individual support materials and guidance. Remember, this is a risk management strategy, eh? Da BSA as a separate corporate entity is not responsible for da financial obligations and actions of da units or da councils, and that's deliberate. Therefore, they also are not da supervisor/superior of the units or the councils. So da "reality of the corporate environment" is actually da opposite of what yeh suggest. This goes to my first philosophical point, eh? Yeh have to consider whether da rulegiver actually has any authority or whether yeh owe him your allegiance. Yep, da BSA has advised that commissioners not be registered as unit leaders. But they've also given da local council authority to manage and issue charters and memberships in their geographic area without that restriction. If they wanted to block it, they could in ScoutNet, after all. It's da difference between program materials guidance and a genuine restriction on corporate agency in da council charter. Beavah

Yah, hmmmmm.... Isn't there a G2SS provision that scouts can't participate in SAR, even as spotters/observers?

The friends agree they want to help, but they do have a busy life and would like to know up front what they are supposed to do to help the scout earn the badge? You say.....? Yeh got time for lunch this week? We'll get together and give yeh a short overview and trainin' of da process. Besides, it's been a while and I wanted to get together and catch up anyways! Pretty much think of it as "mentor for a month", where yeh get together a few times durin' the month and share the important aspects of your field and some of da particulars of your hobby, and then the lad does some work on his own to build up his own skills and understandin'. That's the fun part, because he's really interested in what yeh do, and might want to pursue it more himself, so you're givin' him his first taste and start down the road. Lots of ways for it to be flexible and fit into your schedule and his, eh? In the end we do want yeh to certify that he's able to do or explain all the basics on his own, so there is a "test" of sorts - more like a series of tasks that we want yeh to make sure he's able to do by the time he's done. But beyond that, we really think that your knowledge of the field and his interest should guide yeh, and you're free to be creative. I'll be able to chat along the way as yeh have questions, concerns, or if yeh want to bounce some ideas off. I'll give yeh some contacts for a few other experienced MBCs that yeh can talk with as well. Yeh might actually know one of 'em, George, because he goes to your church.... ----- Yep, do 'em all the time. I think da key to a good first-time MBC is that yeh need to provide mentoring for the adult, with some support not just available in several ways but also present. I'll occasionally come out for da first and last meeting, or send another experienced MBC, just to make sure things start on da right foot and that expectations for completion are clear. B

Yah, TwoCubDad, I reckon that's my point, eh? Da whole thing is too bureaucratic, and as you and I both mentioned, most of da steps are adult steps. Each step causes errors/losses, and we all know that da majority of the "lost" records are adult/ScoutNet failures. So I'd just do away with it. It costs an enormous amount of time for everybody, and doesn't really help the boys a lick. Hey, we can dream, eh? B

Centralized decision making has been the downfall of companies and countries. Come now comrade! We must all support da Central Committee of our Glorious Movement! Yah, there's an additional factor, eh? I think it was Feynman who once commented "I'm certainly not smarter than da best engineers, but I know I'm smarter than the average of a thousand engineers in a committee!" Beavah

Oh my. We're havin' one of these rules things again? Good heavens. Just a slight correction to johnponz. Da CORs do not have votes at da Council Executive Board unless a particular COR is servin' on the board. Da CORs have a mandated majority of the votes at the Council annual meetin', which approves the members of the executive board and da officers. So they can control the membership of the executive board, and they do have the vote in a "big" matter like mergin' a council. I'm not sure da rules conversations ever really get anywhere, eh? As a Christian, I'm always surprised that da debate the fellow I call my Lord and Savior had with da religious officials of his day still goes on. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" and all that. Ever did da bureaucrats condemn the fellow for not followin' "the rules." As a consequence, I don't think any legal philosopher has ever believed that blindly followin' rules was a good thing. Yeh have to consider the authority of the rulegiver, and His claim to your allegiance. Can a Scoutmaster make a rule that a boy in his troop who is not his son is not allowed to go play LaserTag on his own time? Yeh have to consider whether other, greater rules apply. Divine Law comes before da law of the State and all that; just about everything comes before the guidelines of a youth program publisher. Yeh have to consider the effectiveness and justice of the rule in general. When da large majority of people speed in a democratic state where the law is supposed to reflect da will of the majority, what does that say? Yeh have to consider the intent of the law. Not your own desires, but what da law was intended to accomplish. Did da legislature really intend that yeh should expel a 6-year-old from kindergarten for a butter knife, when they wrote a law about "weapons" in schools? Yeh have to consider whether it's proper to apply da rule to a particular circumstance, even if in general the rule is sound. "Never yell at boys" is an excellent rule in general, and yet there are a few rare times when urgent safety make it necessary to break da rule. In other words, we humans each have responsibility. We cannot surrender or abdicate our responsibility to someone else's rules. We must choose our actions, and we are accountable for 'em. That is true for our whole life, no matter who is givin' us "rules" to consider. Beavah