Beavah

But to structure the program directly in-the-face contradicting BSA requirements.... well that's just not acting in good faith and is shameful. Again, all about da requirements, eh? Never about the boys. Personally, I don't think usin' and adaptin' kid program materials to try to help kids is ever shameful. It's somethin' to be honored. I will say, however, that what fred8033 and bnelon44 are suggesting is not the scouting program. I talked with ol' Green Bar Bill several times, and if yeh were to propose what bnelon44 proposes on these pages to him he'd have been pretty firm about how that was parlor scouting and had no place. Kids need to learn real outdoors stuff, and advancement should be the natural outgrowth of work in the patrol, where da recognition is first and foremost recognition of his skills by his patrol. I never met B-P, but I have no doubt that Baden-Powell would have had any fellow who proposed this modern absurdity be taken out and shot. I appreciate how novices in an area like scouting advancement prefer to cling to the introductory lessons and guidebooks as though they are dogma. That is the mark of novices in any field. Beginners don't know what they don't know, so they hold tight to the textbook because it feels "concrete." But a textbook is not knowledge, eh? It's a guide or a helper to acquiring knowledge by gettin' yeh started with a simplified set of basic guidelines, simple problems and examples. Sometimes it's sort of funny when beginners start quoting a basic physics text to argue with a physicist, or da "Idiot's guide to plumbing" to tell your plumber he's doin' it wrong. Bright book-learned kids have done that to me on occasion both in my profession and in outdoors stuff. There's nuthin' wrong with the books, they're just simplified and the fellow isn't really understandin' 'em. TwoCubDad describes a real world example where the normal scouting program is working very well for kids. Quotin' the beginner's guide to him when he's demonstrated da skills beyond being a beginner is just silly. It's like telling the EMT that he has to do compression-only CPR, because that's what yeh learned in your basic community CPR course. Nuthin' shameful either way, just one approach is a bit silly. Beavah

As a fellow who has also written bylaws and worked with a lot of different organizations, I'll again disagree with emb021. If he were to take any model set of bylaws and compare it to what's in da Troop Committee handbook he'd find all kinds of gaps. A unit is a division of the Chartered Organization and not the BSA, so sayin' that there might be a BSA policy is also irrelevant. Bylaws define structural stuff, and having structural stuff defined is helpful. It's mostly helpful because it sets norms and expectations that prevent things from running off the rails and make people comfortable. How do yeh select a CC? How big does an expense have to be to require prior approval of da committee? What quorum and notice is required before yeh sell da troop trailer? If there's a standard way to address the question of a scout who may be removed from the troop, then that's a big help when such a situation comes up. It protects everybody, and nobody feels like people are doing arbitrary things because they're on one side or another. And yeh won't find much clear guidance on those issues in any of da BSA books. Lots of times, too, bylaws prevent problems by giving folks a structure in which to disagree responsibly. Havin' policies and procedures is also a fine thing, and quite natural. Can bylaws and policies be used poorly? Yah, sure. Anything can be used poorly. Like when folks try to use policies or bylaws to respond to individual problems or events, eh? Policies and bylaws should define what's normal, not address what's abnormal. Da abnormal stuff yeh deal with individually, eh? By addressing people personally and saying' that's not da way we do things. Lots of adults tend to be conflict and leadership adverse, though. They'd rather have a policy to point to to pretend it wasn't somebody making a decision that a person didn't like. It's nonsense. Havin' policies that define what's normal, though, helps. It's a means of communication. A reference for new families. A reminder for long-timers who start to make things "their troop" rather than "our troop". But in order for any good to come of 'em, either bylaws or policies, everybody has to have access to 'em, eh? So no, of course it's not normal if they're not being shared openly and freely. It's a sign that something is up. And yeh should be alert and fix that, ScouterCa. Beavah

Yah, what Eagle92 said, eh? Boys are conservative creatures, and all of the rest of their lives outside of family is age-based. School, sports, whatever. Absent any direction, they'll default to what they know, not because it's better, but because it's what they know. But they're also adaptable and adapt readily to Scouting being like family instead of like school. Yeh develop deeper ties and bonds in family. It's a different kind of friendship that yeh make across different ages. There's nuthin' wrong with age-based patrols. It will have a school-like feel and it's comfortable for cub scouts because it's like cub scouts / webelos. It does push da "everybody advances together" thing in adults' minds, again just like cubs and school. FCFY and all that. Mixed age by contrast feels more like family. There's more a sense of mentoring like Eagle92 describes, and of growin' into responsibility and leadership rather than being elected into it. More a sense of being part of something long-lasting. Also a bit better behavior and safety-wise. Good folks can make either approach work, eh? But in terms of da sort of kid outcomes I care about, mixed-age has always seemed a bit stronger and more natural. I read somewhere once that one-room schoolhouses often did better than our modern same-age factory schools. Can anyone who actually knows about that sort of thing confirm that? Beavah

Yah, hmm... Bnelon44 goes off trying to quote old stuff to show that the word "test" was used before. Fred8033 writes The trouble I have though is that I don't think it reflects the BSA intention or explicit statements in most of the requirements, advancement and the specifics documented in the GTA.. And TwoCubDad talks about success with kids. I reckon perhaps that da G2A should read that anybody who talks about or quotes from the G2A without spending more time tallking about kids and kids' growth has their registration dropped for a year. . They've lost their way. What TwoCubDad describes is the scouting program. That's what the Rules and Regulations that we all agreed to live by say and mean. And if Bnelon44 would take a closer read of his old book materials he'd find exactly that, eh? He'd find the books saying that the Second Class hike requirement should be underetaken and approved only after many other hikes have been done during which the boy developed and refined his skills. He'd find paragraphs of description of how the best way to sign off is when the patrol is just camping or hiking and the boy does everything right. No separate "test" besides the natural challenge of life. That's exactly what TwoCubDad is describing, eh? And that is the scouting program. I can tell yeh from the troops that I know who use it that it works great. They have high retention. They keep kids truly active for 7 years. The boys and their families are happy and proud. Their Eagle Scouts knock your socks off. And yep, Eagle92, they are extremely youth run after the first generation. TwoCubDad's troop is just startin', eh? Only 18 months in. Da adults have to set the tone and expectations to start, but then those older boys who have really learned how to cook set da tone for the younger kids coming up. The norm becomes that being First Class really means knowing how to cook, eh? And the older boys who actually know what they're doin' are actually able to teach. Unlike da lads who have only cooked a couple of times who are asked to teach and always do a poor job because they aren't ready for that yet. Now, does that mean that yeh don't bend things here or there for a lad who is struggling, as B-P suggests? Of course not. Sometimes it's the correct approach to subtract from da requirements in the way B-P describes, eh? Again, because the focus is on the boy and the boy's growth, and not on "the requirements." When yeh read all of Baden-Powell, though, from his saying that a First Class boy who can't perform every skill should turn in his badge and leave scouting in shame, to the message he's trying to give about not standardizing badges based on arbitrary requirements, he's arguing against the position fred8033 and BNelon44 are taking. For Baden-Powell, and Green Bar Bill, and Scouting, it's always been about the boy, and not about da rules or requirements. Which is why what is being described by some folks here, apart from bein' the sort of complete adult nonsense any 11 year old can see through (being signed off for cooking without even being able to cook safely?) just isn't scouting. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I think some people have a problem with the whole idea of there being any rules at all. Not that there shouldn't be rules, but that it's not about the rules. It's about the kids. The issue is whether yeh feel that "da rules" or "da requirements" are more important than doing what is right for all the boys to teach 'em character and skills. And if da rules are more important than the boys, then there's no reason to change 'em now, is there? Or, to paraphrase a favorite friend of mine who once commented on this particular sort of argument, is the sabbath made for man, or is man made for the sabbath? Saying that the sabbath (the rule) is made to serve man (the boys) and must be interpreted that way isn't da same as sayin' no rules, except in the eyes of da sort of bigwig folks who derive their personal self-worth and authority from "da rules". But they often want to crucify yeh for it. Anyway, on proficiency, which I don't think is in the GTA now, how would you all define it? I'm not sure I would. I'd let our unit scouters decide what constitutes proficiency in each skill for their program. Otherwise you'd end up with a 500 page document tryin' to define proficiency in hundreds of skills. But if yeh wanted a general definition, something like "the boy should be able to perform the skill properly and safely, without any help or prompting and as close as possible to the actual conditions when use of the skill would be called for. A proficient scout successfully demonstrates the skill on multiple occasions separated by some period of time and changes of context, rather than simple mimicking or repeating a task just learned." Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

LOL. Yah, JMHawkins, I can see that, or how it looks that way. All I can say is that some stuff is just professional norms, eh? You're a software engineer, I believe. If you're starting work for a client, an expect that da first thing yeh probably do is work quite hard to refine a detailed specification, usin' all sorts of fancy technical terms. At very least, yeh would want to establish the outer bounds of the work, so that yeh can think about how to structure it, what subcontractors you'll need and such. Now a lawyer looking' at that might complain that software engineers are an odd and untrustworthy lot, wanting to specify all that up front and usin' all kinds of lingo he doesn't understand, when all he wants is a functional legal billing system. . Your example doesn't work too well for me, since it describes a criminal complaint rather than a civil one. Closer would be something like "I loaned Johnny my knife, and when he gave it back to me it was broken". A civil case is a dispute between two citizens, rather than a citizen reporting a crime to an authority like da tree carving. In da civil case, Billy is mad at Johnny and wants compensation for his broken knife. Billy doesn't really know how the knife was broken, nor who really broke the knife. He's just mad and wants a new knife. Johnny hasn't really told him exactly how the knife was broken or who was responsible for breaking it, just that it was an "accident." Now, they could just get in a fight, but in the interest of deterring fights between citizens, we have courts instead. So Billy goes to court, and because he doesn't really know what happened or believe Johnny's story, he complains about everything. That's the right of a citizen. So he complains about Johnny and about Abe who Johnny said was holding the knife when it broke and about George who said it was OK to do that with the knife. Then like T2Eagle says, Johnny and Abe and George respond to Billy's complaints. It quickly becomes clear that George wasn't anywhere nearby and that Johnny had let Abe use the knife on da condition he return it to Billy in good working order, so the dispute comes down to Abe and Billy. Da thing of it is, Billy didn't know any of that at the beginning. Johnny wasn't talking to him and all he knew was something George said that he wasn't sure was true. That's what's goin' on here, eh? The parents probably have not been told what really happened, or are faced with conflicting stories by people they don't trust. They are upset, and we give them the right to complain in any way they want because it's better than them going after other citizens on their own. As T2Eagle says, it's also faster, eh? Better to put Johnny and Abe and George and the knife in a room together and figure out what went on than to complain about Johnny, then discover that it was really Abe and start over, then discover that it was ultimately George who had taken the knife apart to clean it and not put it together properly (and start over again). Remember, an attorney is only representing his or her client, eh? Upset parents likely really are complaining about everybody, and so the filing really does represent their interests. Beavah

Yah, SP, is there some responsibility for the boy anywhere in there? I'm not hugely hard-nosed about Tenderfoot requirements, eh. I think for a lad of average fitness, it's perfectly possible to go from 2 to 3 pull ups in a month of effort. So if a boy doesn't manage that, then I reckon da issue was effort, or perhaps appropriate coaching, rather than the requirement. Da issue it seems to me is what about boys who are substantially below average in fitness. In that case, it's goin' to take six months to a year to go from zero to one pull-up, and involve a lot of other fitness activity, weight loss, etc. Depending on your troop, there are two options there, eh? Yeh can be a FCFY troop where getting that far behind his peers would be too discouraging, so yeh reduce/"reinterpret" the requirement in some of the ways described. Or, if boys proceeding at their own pace in a less Advancment-focused troop is your style, then yeh just work harder with him than with other boys and yeh give him the great gift of improved fitness that will pay dividends throughout the rest of his scouting career. He gets Tenderfoot after nine months and everybody really cheers. But three years? Absent a disability, a boy who can't do a pull-up after three years reflects and attitude or approach by the boy more than it does a problem with da program. B

He also suggested, if I understand correctly, that the BOR should be able to retest and flunk a Scout Yah, sigh. BNelon44, yeh continue to get stuck in da trees, and nothing any of us seem to say is helping yeh see the forest. I'm not advocating that a BOR retest or flunk a scout. What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. The moment in your mind that you thought "this means flunking" you demonstrated that yeh don't understand what scouting advancement really is. The same is true of your other (rather odd) interpretations of what I wrote. In every case yeh seem stuck on da notion that what anyone proposes must fit into your legalistic approach. What we're saying is that such an approach is not scouting. It has never been scouting. That's because raising children doesn't fit into a legalistic approach, eh? As a parent, yeh don't sit down and write out pages of requirements, and then roll over when the kid starts arguing that doing the dishes did not explicitly state that the dishes had to be completely clean and put away. Perhaps, though, a picture is worth wastin' more words. If I get a few minutes later today I'll try writing up an example. . B

Hiya rotorhd, welcome to the Scouter.Com forums. Ordinarily I think that general courtesy would suggest that yeh leave the newborn at home for this sort of event. Not just because of breast feeding, but because of fussing, crying, need to change, etc. Lots of times it's just a courtesy to other people not to assume that every occasion is appropriate for a young baby. She's your guest, though, and yeh did go out of your way to request that she attend. If yeh want parents who aren't leaders to serve because yeh feel that is important in your program, then yeh have to accommodate their needs. Your job is to be an understanding host. Honestly, in the old days of bottle-feeding, nobody would have thought a thing about her bottle-feeding the baby, so I'm not sure why folks get uptight about breast feeding. So I reckon it's your troop's choice. Yeh can change your thoughts about inviting younger parents, yeh can perhaps mention that the occasion isn't appropriate for young children in advance, or yeh can just roll with it. Beavah

Normal factors are look up to make sure that there is nothing of danger above, look down for poision ivy, water run off areas, animal pathway of moose, bear etc.. make sure you aren't building it on an active Railroad track etc.. Yah, but bnelon44, none of those things are mentioned in da requirements, eh? Now you're just adding to the requirements because you think those things should be normal factors. Yah, dkurtenbach, yeh raise a good point with the fires thing. When that was added, the note that went out stated that the reason it was added was because so many places had long-standing burn bans in place. But if "the requirements" are the Idol to which we all owe allegiance, then such things as historical interpretive notes don't count. Any boy can pile some wood up, just like he only has to "discuss" safety procedures for stoves and fires, not actually employ them. I agree with yeh as well that novice leaders and boys only read "the requirements", so that fixing them up a bit would help more, but there's no easy way to do that if the standard is making 'em immune to lawyering the meaning of "is". I still think that making appropriate changes in emphasis to G2A would help because it would give better direction to the advanced-beginner leaders who are looking farther and tryin' to do better. Or at least it would reduce the number of district folks givin' bad advice. Honestly, if advancement were really as bnelon44 describes, then the proper response for most good troops would be to dump it and come up with their own awards. It wouldn't take too long before there was a nationwide network of troops using a competing award system. Sort of like da way honor societies like OA and the tribe of Mic-o-Say sprouted up at one point. Happily, that's not what advancement really is or is meant to be, even though the BSA materials waffle around a bit and wander away from the Rules & Regulations. B

Interestin'. Have to agree with JoeBob, eh? There's no reason for the BSA to depart from the "industry norm" set by the NRA, where such certification does not expire. What it does do is increase the likelihood of poor quality training, as yeh have to find lots more people to offer the training for groups that frequently, or make the groups bigger so there's less personal attention. Not good risk management, really. B

Well, probably good for you and your son. Do a favor, though, and send a note to the parish pastor, and encourage others to do so. Just a friendly one sayin' why you are leaving and what your experience has been in his church's program. Copy it to the diocesan youth ministry office. B

Actually 4e doesn't say he has to follow safe meat handling procedures (or anything else in 4d) in preparing the meal. Yep, there it is. Right there. The notion that a First Class Scout cannot be expected to actually prepare a meal in a manner that doesn't risk sending his patrol to the hospital. It's "adding to the requirements." That's why the approach is educationally and morally bankrupt. Bad writing of the requirements, maybe, but until they change, they are what they are. Yah, hmmmm... Now if I were to pull some books from my shelf (how quaint in this modern era), I could find relatively simple 20-page laws on one topic, with 50-page regulations dealing with one requirement, and then additional regulator guidance, AG opinions, and case law. For food safety, da laws and regulations I reckon are about 100 times that. BNelon44, it's just not possible to write requirements for a kids' program that are "good" if yeh are goin' to approach each and every one by readin' 'em in nitpicking, legalistic ways lookin' for loopholes. Not without hundreds of pages. That's well known. Sheesh, and yeh all tend to blame lawyers for this stuff. I've never seen any lawyer quite this bad. That's why the Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America instruct us that in administering advancement we are required to interpret procedures and requirements in such a way that they "harmonize with the aims and purposes" of the BSA. In other words, we're expected to behave like the ol' legal "reasonable person", eh? To act like adults with brains and a commitment to the mission, not like a bunch of teenage sea-lawyers. It helps to know that your adult scoutin' career has been relatively recent, durin' the period when this stuff went off the rails. When yeh grow up eatin' nuthin' but sugar cereal it's hard to imagine things could or should be any different. You'll just have to trust us old fogies that it really wasn't the norm in the past, and shouldn't be now. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Don't confuse "dispensing" and others giving up shouting at the wind. Yah, OK, I'll admit it, I was givin' up shouting at the wind. After having demonstrated that the McDonald's analogy is wrong on so many levels, yeh can't really say much more, other than tippin' a hat to ol' BobWhite for introducing yet another persistent scouting urban legend. Beavah

Yah, thanks for being clear there, bnelon44. What yeh describe is where we fundamentally disagree. What yeh describe is subtracting from the requirements in my book, and I'd venture to say in the eyes of most boys and da majority of adults. The notion that a First Class Scout shouldn't be expected to handle and store food safely is just foolish. It counts on substituting a very picky, legalistic, and artificially literal interpretation of a single word for the development of proficiency in a real, practical, useful skill. As a result, yeh have to turn to da other Methods exclusively in the hope that the boys will learn the skill, even though the Advancement Method is supposed to be an integral part of the program working with those other methods. Yeh have removed the Advancement leg from the stool. Because it disconnects Advancement from the other methods, it results in boys havin' the badges for ranks where they don't actually have the skills for ranks. We make excuses like they "forgot" or didn't "retain" the skills, but da truth is we all know that if they had really become proficient that retention isn't a problem until they get old like us. When they have the badge but don't have the skills, then all of the other boys know it, eh? And they learn that Advancement is unrelated to working hard and developing skills. Or, if they don't know it, then yeh can have a boy or an adult rely on the skills he's been recognized for, but isn't able to perform. So an adult trusts a First Class Scout to be able to properly store and handle meat, but the boy doesn't really have the skill. Boys can get hurt that way. Besides, it's just plain silly. "Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used" is the requirement. There are lots of ways to "demonstrate". Like doin' a powerpoint presentation instead of actually tying the knot. "Show how to transport a person from a smoke-filled room". Well, yeh can "show how" by drawing diagrams, not by actually doing it. "Tell the five most common signals of a heart attack". Well, those yeh can cram 3 minutes before the test. Yeh don't have to actually recognize 'em. Which means the lad's dad I was talkin' about earlier would be dead. Again, it's this literalist interpretation stuff that is new to Scouting. What yeh describe would have been considered subtracting from the requirements for most of the life of the BSA. There was an understanding that the requirements were an outline to the skill that was tryin' to be developed. If yeh read the old books, they even say as much, eh? "The intention of this whole Requirement (consisting of four parts a, b, c, and d) is to make preparing a meal a complete process". Not little isolated one-and-done activities, but the real skill of properly preparing a meal from start to finish. That was the meaning of the requirement. I would argue it still is, if yeh really understand the Advancement Method. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It's interesting - you fall into the camp that a Scout has to show mastery of a skill before being signed off on - that there should be certain standards that need to be met by all First Class scouts, by all Eagle Scouts, etc. Since we've mostly dispensed with da original question and the McDonald's thing, let me come back around to this point of CalicoPenn's. Yep, it is true that over the years servin' as a unit scouter and over the years servin' as a commissioner and council scouter workin' with lots of different units and such that I have some personal preferences. I think there are some styles and approaches that seem to work a bit better, if by "better" yeh mean that what I care about in terms of outcomes for boys are stronger or more likely. So yep, I tend to prefer mixed-age patrols, a deeper use of patrol method similar to what Kudu advocates, more diverse outdoor program, and a high-expectations version of advancement. I think those on average work better. But as Eagledad describes eloquently in da other thread, when yeh work with lots of different units, yeh have to develop a sense of balance and humility. Different COs have different goals, different adults have different personalities, different troops attract different kids with different needs. Just because I personally believe some ways of implementing da program work better than others doesn't mean that I mean there's one "best" way, or "only" way, or that I support some folks' notions of "standardization". I think there are a lot of "good" ways, and many "OK" ways. And that's when we're talkin' big stuff like how to think about Advancement or Patrol Method. By the time yeh get down to petty little stuff like whether an adult on a BOR is registered as an MC it just ain't worth spending any time on. It's trivia that really doesn't affect kids in any meaningful way. If anybody in a troop has time to be policing that nonsense then to my mind they should be reassigned to somethin' that actually matters, eh? Just as a matter of courtesy and respect for their time. In my experience, the most important thing for most units is to select (and then support) leaders "of the right sort". Folks who have a sense of personal responsibility and who really care about children and who enjoy the outdoors. Most important, folks who share some sense of vision. After that, yeh provide 'em with ideas and suggestions and let 'em run with it. One of da things I've learned over the years is that rather than provide a guidebook or quote regulations, if yeh want to help a troop move along in some area, yeh have their youth and receptive adult leaders go on a trip or two with a another troop that does well in that area. Folks need to see and taste stuff, eh? Beavah B

Hi HannahJackson, welcome to the Scouter.Com Forums! There's another message thread (a topic with lots of replies) on this lawsuit that's titled "SCUBA Lawsuit against the BSA". If it's a topic you're interested in, you can follow the discussion on that thread here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=355368 Again, welcome, and if you have any thoughts on the topic, feel free to chime in over on the other thread. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

We also need to remember we can't add to requirements, no matter how much we would like to. Never could (that has been consistant since the founding of the BSA.) Yah, back to that again are we? The one phrase in all the advancement guidance that is quoted more than any other, and that is quoted a hundred times more often than da actual Rules & Regulations that define the advancement program. Well, let's take it through to it's conclusion, then. In your interpretation, bnelon44, is it "adding to the requirements" to expect a First Class Scout to be able to properly handle the storage and preparation of fresh meats for his patrol's supper on a campout? However more practice is probably warrented outside the advancement process. Troops should be doing this anyway to reinforce the skills. Yah, that's another good example of not understanding the Advancement Method, eh? There is no "outside the advancement process" in Boy Scouting. Advancement is not meant to be a separate "process" which is distinct from the rest of what the troop does. It's meant to be integral. A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boy's progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit - BSA Rules & Regulations If you're thinking about skills learning and proficiency as "outside of the advancement process" then you're doin' it wrong. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, agree completely with what Eagledad said. At da risk of hijacking the thread, let me briefly respond to BSA24. I was raised poor. I became wealthy through choices I made. I had no advantages other than I chose good decisions over poor ones. Now I don't know yeh, mate, but if I were to guess, I would guess that you were raised with little money, not that you were raised poor. There's a difference. To be raised poor is to be raised in a home with a single parent who doesn't care, where nobody ever reads to you, where adults come and go but yeh never build connections. Where no adult in your life has any aspirations or provides any example of the sorts of good choices you describe. Where drugs and alcohol are a way of life, where the schools house only the teachers and administrators who are so poor at their jobs that they can't get a position elsewhere, and they rotate around in a perpetual dance of the lemons. Some of the richest families I know have little money. And, to be honest, in some of the wealthiest families I know da children live in poverty. Don't mix the two up, eh? Real poverty is like psychological depression, eh? It's when yeh can't even manage or grasp the steps that yeh need to take to help yourself, because in your entire background yeh have had no experience with 'em and your habits are well set. It can be hard for a person who is not depressed to understand those who are, the horrible trap that they're in. Da same applies to poverty. A scout is Helpful and Kind. He helps other people at all times. Some problems are just hard, eh? The problem of real poverty is one of those, because it goes so much deeper than lack of money. If yeh still feel a calling to help the poor, don't stop just because yeh outgrew your naive notions and realized the deeper problem. Pray about it and figure out how to change the approach yeh use to help, so that yeh try to address the problem of true poverty. It's a daunting, hard, but worthy task. Beavah

Yah, Lisabob, I hear yeh. I agree with BSA24, if yeh see the asteroid coming from far enough out, all yeh need to do is nudge it a bit in order to get it to miss the planet and avoid an extinction-level event. When yeh let it get far along, it takes much bolder response, and that can be hard to come by. Too far along and even if yeh nuke the thing the fallout will still wipe all life off the planet. Right now I'm watchin' two units fold, and there's really nuthin' to be done. One was a unit that never should have been started, but it was "successful" in that the DD got his promotion. One is a long-time unit with an all-one-family-in-leadership thing goin' on. Neither has the right combination of stuff to be worth rescuing. Mostly, yeh just try to find good units that will offer asylum to the fleeing refugees. Sometimes, though, there are enough ingredients still in place that a rescue makes some sense. Such rescues are best accomplished by an active Chartered Organization that is willing to step in, but yeh can work 'em out without that. Takes a lot of effort to sound out issues, identify common ground and problem-cases, promote the problem cases up and out of the way or somesuch. Each one is different. Beavah

Yah, I agree with Lisabob. Just stop digging and behave like an adult. Report what yeh have personal knowledge of to the appropriate person, and up the chain if necessary. That would be the chain within the Chartered Organization. SM/CC/COR/IH. If asked by someone in that chain or by the scout council, honestly report what yeh have personal knowledge of, or what your personal feelings are. Avoid all the other nonsense, no matter how exciting or titillating the gossip and drama are. Beavah

Hiya shortridge, I wasn't just respondin' to you. Someone else raised the statute of limitations thing. It's a big discussion. I'm sorry if that made my priorities "murky." I honestly don't have any priorities here. It's a discussion and I'm just sharin' my perspective and information. I think I've got an informed perspective, but I fully admit I'm comin' at it from a particular background professionally, and I respect other folks' notions. I feel strongly about da ethics and necessity of statutes of limitations for the reasons I described, but for da issue of the BSA files my thoughts are more academic. In that vein, though, I don't like the way this release has proceeded because I think it makes for bad public policy to allow a plaintiff to sue, subpoena private records, and then force their release. Apparently in Oregon that can be done to anybody, eh? So yeh could file a frivolous suit, subpoena private information from a person or corporation, and cause it to be released to everyone. I don't think that's a good thing in general. In specific, I think it's an especially bad idea when it comes to suspicions of abuse records. In those cases, yeh really want to be able to ensure confidentiality, because encouragin' people to come forward is vitally important. Yeh also want to ensure confidentiality for the victims, and for those about whom yeh only have suspicions. That's just a matter of fairness and decency. And if yeh think that members of a profession I'm familiar with won't look at these files as a way of makin' a living, then I reckon you're pretty naive. Beavah

Yah, you're pussyfooting around things a bit there, eh? We were talkin' about food handling safety. The boy has the signoff from the PL, and "the requirement" is only to "explain." Are yeh actually suggesting that the unit's response should only be to change the procedure, and not to work with the boy so that he actually is proficient in handling food for his patrol safely? Advancement Method is useful because it gives the boy a clear incentive to work hard to learn how to really handle food safely. Without that external goal, some boys behave like boys and "blow off" warnings about the risk of food-borne illness, or get lazy because it's extra work. Then yeh have Adult Intervention instruction (or yeh have illness ). Using Advancement Method well is a better way to go, because it works. The boy has to meet the standard of being able to handle food safely, and explain why it's important and how to do it. He's willing to work at becoming proficient in that skill and not making mistakes because he wants to be recognized, eh? Positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement. Then he's proud of gettin' good at it and keeps an eye out for younger fellows to teach 'em. That's how Advancement Method really works. But in order for it to work, the SM or the BOR have to say "no, not yet". That gives the boy incentive to work hard. That also shows other boys that it's worth working hard because da award is "for real" and not a blow-off. Beavah

Yah, fred8033, didn't mean to ignore yeh, just cross-posted. What yeh point out is that the BSA really doesn't have a training for unit-level volunteers that explains the BSA as an organization and how it works. The first time that sort of thing is available is when yeh serve on a council executive board. Maybe we should introduce the basics in one of da earlier trainings, eh? It would avoid a lot of confusion of the sort you're describing. Yeh need to actually read all of the documents, eh? The entirety of the ones yeh reference, and then others. So if yeh read the Charter Agreement, yeh also find that "the Council (and BSA) agree to respect the aims and objectives of the [Chartered] organization and offer the resources of Scouting to help in meeting those objectives." So the BSA's role is to provide resources to help the Chartered Organization meet the Chartered Organization's goals. Then yeh need to actually read the Charter & Bylaws and Rules & Regulations of the BSA, to understand that they don't apply in the way yeh think they do. Then yeh need to be careful about your analogies. A McDonalds franchiser agrees to produce standard hamburgers so as to make a profit to do whatever he wants with that profit - buy a house, support a political party, whatever. But a Chartered Organization has goals for the hamburgers. It wants the children in its program to come out a certain way, to learn certain things, to develop certain habits. And those differ between chartered organizations. It'd be like each McDonalds franchisee having a different ideal hamburger in mind as the primary goal. One wants a health-food burger, one wants pork burgers, one wants the best patty-melt on rye bread. And the BSA agrees to respect and provide resources to achieve all those different, non-standardized hamburger goals. Then yeh need to recognize that unlike McDonalds, where da corporation supplies all the raw meat and buns, in the BSA each Chartered organization gets its raw kids from different communities. They come with different characteristics and skills and interest, different levels of family support and goals and desires. Then yeh need to understand the legal relationships. Then yeh need to understand how the BSA thinks about its own mission, and how it feels that the best way to achieve its mission of developing character, fitness, and citizenship is by partnering with community organizations, not by creating a one-size-fits-all program. And on and on. That's what the BSA really is. That's what its organizational documents really say. That's how it's really structured, both internally and legally. Kids aren't hamburgers, and the BSA is not McDonalds. It's not even vaguely close. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The BSA is exactly like the McDonalds corporation because it's materials focus on the process to create a limited end product. A McDonald's operation manual details the steps in making a Big Mac. The BSA details the steps in making a First Class scout. LOL! Yah, that's about the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Yeh really believe that yeh can follow some cookbook recipe with children and have 'em all come out the same? Good luck with that. All of the rest of us who have actually raised or work with kids would tell yeh differently. The analogy yeh want is that the BSA is like a textbook publisher, eh? A textbook publisher publishes materials (like an Algebra I book) that focus on the process to help children who are at one stage of math ability become proficient at the next stage of math ability. Any teacher will tell yeh, though, that they never follow the textbook exactly as written, eh? They have to adapt the text to the needs of their kids, and to the learning goals of their school and state, and to their own teaching style. The textbook is a resource when we're talkin' about kids learning. It's not a cookbook for making hamburgers. Beavah