Beavah

Hooray! Well, it's a step anyways, bnelon44. Now, two questions for yeh. First, do yeh really think that when the requirement says "Explain the procedures for safe handling and storage of fresh meats" it's adding to the requirements to expect a lad to actually safely handle and store fresh meats during a campout? Yah, yah, we might all agree that the requirement wording is a bit silly in that regard, but da requirements are put together by small working groups who don't have any experience in policy writing, so it's probably unreasonable to expect 'em to write for people who want to read each requirement like an attorney looking for loopholes. Worse, if they had to write like that da requirements for each rank would take up 80 pages (with 350 pages of notes and case law). I'd say it's unreasonable to expect that the requirements are written in legal policy language. They're written for middle schoolers, and they should be interpreted in common-sense fashion. Second, we all know that good youth leadership means that the Scoutmaster is probably not signing off on requirements, eh? In fact, in a larger troop it would be hard for the Scoutmaster to get around to each of the patrols to observe the boys' proficiency, especially if they're using good Patrol Method. So it's goin' to be the PL or APL signing off, eh? And as young fellows, they're susceptible to the mistakes that young fellows make in leadership. Moreso if they're in a same-age patrol, where their fellow patrol-mates are peers. So they aren't goin' to be perfect. Sometimes perhaps they play it loose because of peer pressure from a friend, or perhaps they themselves don't quite have a notion of what the SM expects is proficient or maybe even Billy's mom yells at him at the end of a campout for not signing off and he gives in because he doesn't know what to do. Or perhaps an ASM who has general permission to sign off doesn't know something himself. I had a scout last week tell me that the proper treatment for a bee sting is to rub butter on it. That's what an ASM who had never been a scout or taken a first aid class had taught him. So now what do yeh do? The requirement is signed by someone authorized to do so. But the lad is not proficient because of a program failure. I'd say that whoever finds out - SPL, SM, BOR - acknowledges the mistake, and works with the boy to become proficient, but that the rank is not awarded until he becomes proficient. In other words, it's the boy's skill that makes him First Class, not someone's pen. That teaches the boy character, because often boys know when they aren't proficient and they should learn to speak up. It also teaches responsibility, eh? "Hey, when I'm a Patrol Leader I'm going to do a better job of making sure my guys know this stuff." It teaches other boys character. "Wow, I guess they really mean I have to learn this stuff and I can't just skate by." It helps the PL develop responsibility and leadership. "Yeah, Mr. SM, I guess I blew it with Bill's signoff. I just didn't know what to do about his mom. Next time I'll come get you, but in the mean time I'll take responsibility for working with Bill to really learn it." Beavah

shortridge, of course there are different standards in different communities, eh? And of course a tort claim is a matter for state court. But yeh do understand that these "standards" aren't statutes, right? They're community or professional standards. What a reasonable person (or jury member) feels is correct. That is a question of fact, and not really subject to the judge stepping in on it. The issue of statutes of limitations is another one that I think people don't quite appreciate. As Scouters, to my mind we should all be absolutely opposed to increases in the statutes of limitations and to goofy work-arounds like what BartHumphries accurately describes as California law. Those statutes of limitations are there to protect the innocent, and like as not its ourselves and fellow scouters who are the innocent who might need protecting. So let's say a depressed fellow in his late 30's who is having financial trouble is seein' a counselor who doesn't much care for the BSA for political reasons. Part of the fellow's depression might be related to lifestyle, or financial circumstances or whatnot. Then suddenly some "repressed memories" come out, and you and fellow adult leaders in your troop are accused. It was 28 years ago. The boy in question was only in your troop for a bit over a year, and yeh don't even remember him. The accusations aren't really specific (like many against Jerry Sandusky) in terms of time or location. Two of your most frequent leaders from back then who might serve as witnesses for yeh are dead, one from a heart attack and one from cancer. Other possible witnesses are hard to find because they've moved out of the area, and their memory is vague. There are no paper records at all, because who keeps records of campouts and such from that long ago? Yeh don't have the same insurance in place that yeh had back then to help defend yeh. Since it's a civil case, the standard is "preponderance of evidence" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt" and it probably won't require a unanimous jury verdict to find against yeh. How do you mount a defense? Worse, back then BSA's approach to youth protection was different, eh? We didn't do background checks, two-deep and no one-on-one were less explicit, there were no reporting requirements for suspicion. But now, it looks completely negligent that yeh didn't do a background check on a youth worker or yeh held a boy back in camp for a bit to have a quiet conversation about his behavior outside of the view of others. Those are da issues, eh? They can be very real issues, that can hurt very real, very innocent people. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I think folks are mostly missing the point, eh? As unit scouters, the CC, the SM, etc. have an obligation to work on behalf of the Chartered Organization. Adhering to the Chartered Organization's policies and advancing the Chartered Organization's goals for its scouting youth program. Regardless of what we feel about the matter, da Catholic Church sponsor I suspect has some relatively clear and firm expectations with regard to what is being described, and the unit scouters are deliberately undermining the organization they volunteer for. Yeh make an appointment with the pastor or youth ministry director of the parish and invite the COR to join, go in, and let 'em know just the facts. Honestly, the DE should have been settin' something like that up, because he or she has a duty to the Chartered Org. as well, but DEs are often young folks who don't have much experience yet. I'd agree with Lisabob in terms of your own family's involvement, though, fer sure. Muddled up leadership messes tied up with one family are a universal sign of a weak program. If yeh have any other options in your area, yeh should consider them. Beavah

The requirement is not that he do a push up. The requirement is that he shows progress. Sounds to me like he has, so why not pass him? Yah, there it is. The dumbed-down subtracting from da requirements routine. Now, I'm sympathetic for the young fellows. If a troop is running a FCFY program, then da pullup improvement thing ends up mucking up the works (like the swimming thing that woodsrunner1760 mentions). If yeh look at da statistics from the Presidential Fitness Test, for a 10-12 year old, about a third of da boy population can't do a single pull-up. And my tables are old, eh? Probably modern stats are even worse. Lads who are down there in the bottom 20% are goin' to have some work to do before they are able to go up to one, and that's goin' to be quite a bit more work than the boy tryin' to go from 3 to 4 pull-ups. If the lad is substantially overweight, it's also goin' to involve losing a fair bit of weight. So if da troop is followin' the FCFY/SSY bit, the only way to do it and move boys along "together" is to reduce the requirement. I think tryin' to measure the difference between 1/4 and 1/2 a pull-up is silly, so I suggest to such troops that they use the flexed-arm hang and have kids improve for a few seconds. Yeh see the same thing in swimming, of course, where lots of kids pass swim checks at summer camp for the "exhausted forward flail" stroke. Now, personally, I think da notion of everyone advancing together on a timetable in Boy Scouting is a product of Cub Scouting creeping in, and there are lots of good ways to work with and encourage boys and families to improve fitness. That's the purpose of Advancement Method, eh? To set goals that require some real effort, but lead to real improvement. Concernedparent, good on yeh for not dumbing down things for your son. For a 14-15 year old, not being able to do a single pull up is a bottom-2% of the population sort of thing, and if the lad isn't overweight then this is really an issue of learning how to exercise. If yeh have a good personal fitness MB counselor in your area I'd suggest that your son do that MB at the same time, and really develop a solid 3-month fitness plan rather than flailing at pull-ups on his own. Or talk to a coach or trainer at school. This shouldn't be that hard for a boy his age, which suggests he's not goin' about it right. Beavah

Poor training (or poorly listened to training) frequently has a negative impact on performance. And I confess I have seen my share of poor BSA training. Even led some poor training once or twice. . But sure, encourage everybody to get trained. At least it will help 'em learn da language of scouting. Now, on da policy thing. The BSA has a bazillion pages of policy and pseudo-policy guidance documents, eh? Many of 'em aren't that easy to access, and lots of folks aren't very good at interpreting them without having additional background. Almost none of da BSA policies are covered in training. So can yeh explain why exactly yeh want da troop committee to be informing the SM on BSA policy when he or she would be better off just asking the unit commissioner or another more experienced scouter at Round Table? The TC might be more plugged in to the Chartered Organization's policies, but that depends on the committee. Even so, why not just ask the COR? Beavah

Yah, CalicoPenn, you're nuts, and I'm goin' to give yeh immediate flack for it. If yeh had ever seen a commercial franchising agreement, yeh would know that they are nothing like the BSA relationship to chartered partners. So when yeh use that comparison, yeh are giving false information to fellow scouters. There are good reasons for that, eh? For one, children are not hamburgers. There's no such thing as a "standard product". For another, Chartered Organizations have different missions and goals, where McDonalds franchisees have a uniform commercial goal of investment profit. No standard goals, no standard product, no standard resources or input, completely different agreements, completely different organizational structures, on and on. The comparison just doesn't work. It's like sayin' a school bus and a banana are the same thing because they're both yellow. Da closest comparison is probably somethin' like a professional association that publishes materials. Let's pick one off da Internet... How about the National Association of Independent Schools (to pick one at random). Its voting members are the member schools, but individuals can also be members. It provides training and resources to its member institutions, but da member institutions run their own program and pursue different goals. None of 'em follow all the guidance of their national association, and that's OK, but the Association is there to help. It has a small centralized staff, but also has regional affiliates. I don't know if it has an awards program, but let's say it does for argument's sake. There seem to be documents on risk management advice, curriculum, etc. Probably offers a risk management/insurance pool of some sort. Like Chartered Orgs, member schools serve different populations and have different missions. I see Catholic schools and posh private schools and small community schools and Montessori schools. Hmmm. Sorta sounds familiar. Though there are no doubt some big common values, there are in fact a lot of different programs because there are a lot of different kids and communities and visions. But they'd all identify as NAIS schools. All analogies limp, of course. For example, NAIS acts as an accrediting body, and da BSA has no notion of accreditation. I'm sure yeh can find others. But da comparison is much closer than the silly one about hamburgers. A bit like a school bus and a semi truck, instead of a school bus and a banana. Most importantly, it leads yeh to very different conclusions than those yeh posted, eh? Because kids are not hamburgers. Yeh can flip two burgers at the same time and get da same result. Yeh can do the same thing to two different kids and get two completely different results. What we care about are results, eh? Not doin' everything the same. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... As I get older, I confess that I find da continued trend toward "Wedding Banquet" ECOHs to be tiresome. If anything to me stands out as a case of units and parents "not getting it", some of these monster shindigs are it. I'm far more impressed by units that make it a short special part of a regular troop COH, or do somethin' that's meaningful for the scout. The wedding banquets seem to always have a tone of "It's all about me Me ME!" (or our son, our Son, our SON!). So like everybody else I really want to know what ZScout5's troop is spending so much money on. More importantly, I want to know if ZScout5's Patrol Leader's Council decided that was the best and most thrifty way to use those troop funds. If so, I'm good with it. If not, I'd let the boys know that they can spend those funds on whatever else they feel is more important. Maybe makin' sure lads who can't afford it have a full uniform, or sending the SPL and ASPL to NYLT, or buyin' new stoves for the patrols because da old ones are falling apart. In fact, it might be a good Eagle Board of Review question, eh? "The troop has set aside $500 for your Eagle Court of Honor. Would yeh like us to use it for your party, or is there some other thing for the troop that yeh would rather see the money applied toward?" Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

At all times a scuba instructor is only seconds away from any scout should assistance be needed. This is why our dive area is clearly marked and the scouts will stay in that area. Yah, well here's a bit of an educational moment that goes back to TwoCubDad's comments, eh? This sort of language should never appear in any program literature, because parents (and courts, and juries) can read this as a sort of warranty, promise, or guarantee. Yeh have declared a standard of care which the parent relied on in giving permission, and folks are goin' to interpret it the way RememberSchiff did. Of course, it's more than a bit foolish to promise that a scuba instructor is really goin' to always be able to get to a scout within seconds, because we all know or can imagine lots of times where that won't necessarily be the case. In fact, that's why yeh have a buddy diver. Similarly, in a summer camp program it's unreasonable to expect a certified open-water diver adult buddy for every boy. Le Voyageur is therefore more correct, eh? In your communications to parents and to scouts, rather than emphasizing or assuring safety, yeh get better protection by emphasizing and being clear and forthright about risks. This is SCUBA diving. It involves being equipment-dependent underwater in an unfamiliar environment. Neither the environment, nor the behavior of participants, nor the risks from faulty equipment, equipment misuse, medical conditions, or momentary inattention by an instructor or buddy can be completely controlled. There is small but real chance that your son could drown. Beavah

The next logical question is, why should those officials and leaders and institutions of yesteryear NOT be held accountable for how they mistreated victims, assuming the cases fall within the statute of limitations? Well, because it wouldn't be fair. Yeh are talkin' about making a tort claim against them for negligence, eh? Yeh are alleging that they failed in their duty of care. The important point is that the duty of care was different than it is now. It would be a bit like claiming a camp 30 years ago was negligent for not having automated external defibrillators available at the waterfront, when AEDs didn't exist 30 years ago. Yeh can't apply a modern standard of care to the past. Yep, child abuse was every bit as horrific back then, just as cardiac arrest from drowning was every bit as horrific back then. It's just that what yeh were expected to have in place to prevent it, and what yeh were expected to do when yeh encountered it was different. Beavah

yet there hasn't been any reporting of large numbers of lawsuits as a result of those releases There haven't been any previous public releases. If yeh have been following things, though, the plaintiff's attorney in the Oregon case has initiated a number of other suits against the BSA across multiple states after having access to the files. Interestingly, all of 'em involve allegations of abuse durin' the time period covered by the files. I'll leave yeh to develop your own inferences. Beavah

Hiya WoodOwl! Welcome to da forums! Yep, having a good unit committee is a big help, eh? My experience in actually dealin' with many "tales of woe" leads me to a slightly different conclusion, so I'll throw it out there for thought. Pretty much, people are who they are, eh? "Training" doesn't change personalities, or values, or communications styles, or attitudes. And the amount of training that a typical volunteer parent is able or willing to take for a committee position really isn't very much, eh? Not enough even to develop new skills. So to my mind, the more important thing is what Second Class mentions. Selection. Yeh want to carefully select people with the right attitudes, personalities, and values for your program to serve on the committee. Yeh also want to carefully recruit and select people for individual positions that match their communication style and strengths and skills. No point in takin' random Joe Volunteer for the troop Treasurer position, eh? Select someone whose personal finances are sound (no temptation) and who comes with good bookkeepin' skills. What da roles of the committee or the committee members really are depend more on the local troop and their chartered organization, so I don't think trainin' or materials that try to define roles work very well, other than offering examples. So I wouldn't go by your list. In some troops boys handle fundraising because they're planning the budget and it's good leadership. Same with arranging transportation. Committees are not what yeh want advising anybody on policy, so I'd leave that bit off entirely. Now, one training that I think could benefit many troop committees is the sort of training that gets done for not-for-profit boards of directors. Da committee functions sort of like a board of directors (really an advisory board), and that sort of training is a good model to follow to give new members the basics. Beavah

Yah, I think BSA24 is right, eh? There's real merit to uniforming and the Uniform Method. Signs of group identity are important, and it's always fun to travel in uniform and meet fellow scouts and scouters around the world. Like all da Methods of Scouting, though, it's easy to accidentally turn the Method into the Goal, and when we do that we lose our way. For some reason, Uniforming and Advancement are particularly susceptible to adults inadvertently turning them into goals, and in so doing weakening their scout programs. Our goals with respect to uniforming are character and citizenship (though I reckon for adults the Fitness goal should be included ). The point of uniforming is self-identification, eh? Wearin' the symbols of a group is a sign of pride in the group, and it identifies the group to outsiders. In that way, the worldwide use of da neckerchief works very well, eh? Aside from da U.S., everybody recognizes it, is proud of it. There's also a lot of room for customization. It's a good symbol. Even when you're doin' a lot of activities where being gussied-up just isn't appropriate, the necker works. It leads to all of the fine things BSA24 reports, and the cost is negligible even in poor nations. Our problem here in da U.S. has long been that we turned uniforming into an adult-run thing, rather than a youth self-identification thing. So we adopted a pseudo-3rd-world military-style field uniform (it actually closely resembles East African military uniforms). At the same time we inexplicably discouraged military-style camoflage BDU/working uniforms that the kids liked better, ignored da other styles that kids self-identified with, and hired a famous dress designer to align us with culturally gay fashion sense. Which in turn forced us to be adult-run in the way BSA24 describes if we want buy-in and adoption among the boys. Da problem with that is that it becomes much harder to teach the lessons of character and citizenship that way, eh? They get all muddled up with obedience and sartorial perfection. Uniformin' works best when there is that sense of self-identification, and it teaches character only when it's a choice. We learn and demonstrate character by the choices we make, not by what we wear. So when yeh take away the choice, and da self-identification, yeh lose the goal. Beavah

Maybe it is just the way I read the section but if the unit has clear and communicated attendence requirements, then the part about just being a good band section leader doesn't apply. Might be just da way you read the section. I've heard others argue that it means that the the band involvement trumps the unit attendance expectations. That's the issue with some of this stuff sometimes, eh? Yeh have to consider unintended consequences. This can be easily resolved, though, in the guidance, with some bridging language and examples. By bridging language, I mean language that connects the paragraphs about goals that you quoted with the procedural stuff for advancement, eh? Stuff that links the procedures back to the goals, so that the 90% of the folks who grab the book to just look up what they need get the procedure they look up placed in context. So yeh start by copyin' da bit from the Rules and Regulations into plainer language. Somethin' like this: "Because genuine learning and the development of character are the goals of Scouting and of Advancement, the proper interpretation of all Advancement procedures, policies, and requirements is achieved by asking ourselves the question "What will be the best example to boys of real hard work, learning, and achievement?" It is that hard work and achievement which we desire to model and inspire in the youth. It is that hard work and achievement which gives a boy confidence and the ability to lead. It is that hard work and achievement which makes Advancement meaningful to a boy's peers and community. " Then yeh follow it up with examples. "How do you interpret requirements?" Sometimes people have questions about how to interpret individual requirements. The proper way to interpret requirements is to ask "What will be the best example to boys of real hard work, learning, and achievement?" In that sense, it is generally wrong to believe that requirements can be met by doing something just once, or even a few times. Real learning in scouting comes from doing, and that requires time and practice. The goal of each requirement is to provide a scout with a challenge to become proficient in an age-appropriate and useful skill. So when a requirement says "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats", the intention is that the boy is proficient in the handling and storage of proteins. He should be able to properly handle and prepare meats for his patrol mates' supper, and should not just have the steps down by rote but understand and be able to explain the reasons for those steps. A boy who understands not just the How but the Why of things will be confident and able to apply his learning in the future. What does "no adding to or subtracting from the requirements mean?" The goal of each requirement is to provide a scout with a challenge to become proficient in an age-appropriate and useful skill. The set of skills are chosen in a way to help specify and flesh out the goals, so that boys have a clear picture of what constitutes hard work, learning, and achievement in a given area. The requirements aren't exhaustive, but are rather a guide to important things for boys to learn in an area. The most important principle is that you should never subtract from the intention to promote proficiency in a skill through hard work and learning. So in the above example, Expecting a boy to actually be able to properly handle meats is not adding to the requirements. The intention is for the boy to have a skill, and the skill is to be able to handle and prepare meats safely. It would be subtracting from the program to believe that simply "explaining" by repeating a memorized passage on food safety meets the expectation, since that does not constitute hard work, learning, and achievement. In a similar way, expecting a boy to go shopping to "secure the ingredients" for food after making a list and budget should be considered a normal part of proficiency in meal planning and preparation. Simply grabbing everything from mom's cupboard would not demonstrate that proficiency or the hard work, learning, and achievement we would expect of a First Class Scout. That would be subtracting from the expectations. At the same time, to ensure some uniformity across the country, we ask units not to add additional goals. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to add proficiency in Dutch Oven cooking to the expectations for First Class Scout, because that has been properly reserved for the Cooking MB level of skill and proficiency. Units may of course teach scouts at that level to cook with dutch ovens, and that is encouraged, but a boy can meet the expectations without doing so. There is of course some room for adjustment to the norms for each troop and patrol. If a troop or patrol used dutch oven cooking at all or almost all suppers, then quite naturally a boy in that troop or patrol would become proficient in that and it may be a reasonable expectation for a First Class Scout in that program. In that case expecting dutch oven cooking may not be inappropriate, but expecting some other specific cooking technique would be. Boards of Review Occasionally a Board of Review will ask a question of a scout like "how did you go about learning what you needed to to fulfill the meal planning and cooking requirements for First Class?" We would expect the boy to answer that he worked hard over a good period of time to practice basic cooking techniques, to learn about basic nutrition and meal planning, to develop good techniques for thrifty shopping. Fulfilling the requirement should mean that he learned all of those things with effort and practice. That would demonstrate hard work, learning, and achievement. He may have done that in Scouting, or he may have done that by shopping and preparing meals for his family and then using those skills in Scouting. If instead the boy responds that he didn't cook much along the way and instead was signed off for only the first or second meals that he prepared for his patrol, then that is a sign the troop is not using Advancement properly. Cooking just a meal or two is not sufficient to develop proficiency, and does not demonstrate hard work, learning, and achievement. A Board of Review in such a case might ask additional questions to determine the boy's understanding and level of proficiency. In such a case, the Board of Review has two responsibilities. The first and most important responsibility is to the boy. By having a friendly and frank conversation, they should lead the boy toward an understanding of what effort and achievement are required to develop proficiency in basic cooking, and then give him a start on how to go about it. While the boy is not yet ready to advance, this is not a "failure". On the road to Eagle there are times to stop and check the map, and a BOR is an opportunity for the boy to check the map and get some direction. The second responsibility is to the program. The board members should communicate with the Scoutmaster and Committee on how the boy is coming along, so that the SM can consider how to help the boy and perhaps provide more cooking opportunities, and so that the committee can consider what resources might help the Scoutmaster in that role. Perhaps a committee member who is an accomplished cook can volunteer to help boys work hard and achieve proficiency in their cooking.

Yah, hmmmm... You're still missing it, bnelon44. I don't have any problems with da steps to advancement. I agree with 'em. I don't believe there has been too much of a written change in da program materials on advancement at all. What has changed is da interpretation of the program materials by some of da national folks, as evinced by some of da things you have been saying, eh? We never had the notion that active = registered or that active = going to band instead of scouts in the past. We never had da notion that a Patrol Leader could get full credit for being a Patrol Leader without doing the job of Patrol Leader, just because he held a patch for a period of time. We never had a notion that "don't add to the requirements" meant that yeh had to parse each requirement in the most absurd, picky, legalistic sense. We never had da notion that you keep expressing (and which is NOT part of da BSA materials anywhere) that "retention" isn't expected and that it's a function of review, not of A Scout Learning in the first place. We never had da notion that Boy Scouting and Boy Scout Advancement were only a 4-year program. We never had so many "explain" requirements and so few "do" requirements. We never thought da occasional newsletter and other guidance trumped the Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which set proficiency as the standard for Boy Scout Advancement. Those are all novel and recent interpretations which are completely inconsistent with da traditional BSA Advancement program and with da Rules & Regulations of the BSA. More to the point, they aren't good for kids. They don't push kids to work hard, they don't teach 'em to value learning and knowledge, they don't teach 'em character or fitness or citizenship. So like TwoCubDad says, they take away da third leg of the stool, eh? Now we're relying only on leadership (teaching others) and outdoor program (your bit about retention) to do all the work, because we've removed all da value from Advancement. Now, what to change? That's easy, eh? Yeh just roll back da novel interpretations of the past 15-20 years. More on that in a bit

Yes, I think the way advancement is setup now is consistant. Well, no, da question was whether yeh felt your interpretation of advancement (meaning that a lad could not be expected to remember his proficient skills two months later) was consistent. But yah, hmmm... apparently yeh do. That's our fundamental disconnect, eh? I'd venture to say that most boys and parents and scouters would say that in a program that makes great claims about how "Everything done to advance is designed to educate" would be appalled that a First Class Scout can't recognize the signs and symptoms of a heart attack two months later. That would mean he wasn't educated. Worse, that would mean that the life lesson he was taught is that it's not important to work hard and learn well. I think most ordinary folks would find that inconsistent with our goals. As it happens, I know a lad who was a First Class Scout. About nine months after he earned the rank and without any "refresher", he had occasion to see a man sweating inappropriately, feeling nauseous, looking pale. He administered aspirin, called for help despite the man's objections, and guided emergency crews to the location. Without question, that boy saved his father's life. Dad is doin' well after a quadruple bypass. Thank goodness the troop in question believed in really educating, eh? Had it been a troop that believed that expecting a lad to remember the signs and symptoms of a heart attack after two months was inappropriate "adding to the requirements", the boy's father would be dead. But what do you want? Do you want to be able to take away a rank from someone who earned it What I want is for a First Class Scout to be able to recognize da signs and symptoms of a heart attack so that he can save his dad's life. I also want a Second Class Scout to be able to perform a water rescue safely, because each month of Boy's Life shows lads who have had occasion to do that more than two months after they earned their rank. I'd like a Tenderfoot to actually know what to do when lost, so that boys like that young fellow a few years ago in Utah would get found in a few hours rather than 4 days. The point is not "takin' away a rank". That shows you're focused on the token and not on da goals, and that's poor use of Advancement Method. The point is that a boy who can't recognize and respond to his dad's heart attack after two months never earned the rank in the first place. He was cheated out of the real scouting program by his troop, and all he has to show for it is a meaningless cloth patch. Da cloth patch is supposed to be a token of his real-world skill, not a substitute for it. If yeh don't understand that, then you'll never use Advancement Method properly. I want da G2A to make that clear, because novice leaders often get pressured by parents who don't understand the Method, and they can easily start to focus on "da requirements" instead of the goals. By doin' so, they cheat their boys of the promise of the scouting program. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what T2Eagle said, eh? These are initial filings, so yeh hit everyone with da kitchen sink. Allegations are just allegations. I suspect that as contractors, the dive shop signed an indemnity agreement with the camp, or the BSA will claim that it relied on the expertise of the dive shop. So this will likely narrow to a case between the parents and da insurer of the dive shop. And then it will settle. I doubt any insurer would come near takin' this to trial if the parents are bein' at all reasonable. SeattlePioneer, the way waivers, assumption of risk documents and indemnity agreements are handled vary quite a bit between states, eh? Especially when we're talkin' about minors. Some states pretty much ignore waivers; others adhere to 'em or other doctrines of assumption of risk. For that reason, the BSA really can't give yeh any examples or advice, eh? But what yeh describe I'd consider generally sound practice. Good on yeh for gettin' competent counsel to look over yours, and I'd certainly encourage any CO and unit to do the same. B

Yah, bnelon44, I'm not sure why yeh keep goin' back to da 1930s. I wish yeh would answer my questions a ways back. Do you really see the notion that a boy is not expected to "retain" a skill after two months as being consistent with all those paragraphs about the goals of advancement? B

Yah, shortridge, being an older fellow I do remember some of this stuff. Some of the things which have changed which have had a big impact: The attitude of parents. In the olden days, there was a sense that the best thing for the child was not to expose him/her to the public nature of a court proceeding. Anything sexual wasn't talked about in polity company. So most parents declined to pursue complaints / press charges. It wasn't until fairly recently that people realized that the long term psychological harm to the child was so great, and that the risk to other children from not following through was so high. The approach of courts. Child witnesses were treated like any other witness, and are very easy to intimidate or confuse. More recently, courts have become much better at protecting youthful witnesses. The attitude toward authority figures. Both children and adults tended to defer to and obey authority figures more than they do now. They were less likely to talk back or speak up. The approach of psychologists. Until relatively recently, there was a belief that pedophiles could be treated, eh? Counseled to change their ways. That's what got da Catholic Church in the most trouble, eh? They would send these men for a year or two of treatment, and then believe they were "cured" or had it under control. To be fair, there are examples of men (and women) who did change. But by the '90s we were realizing that sexual predilections are pretty powerful and not readily changed. More like alcoholism than other crimes like stealing. National media reporting. Despite what yeh would think these days, child molesters are pretty rare. These things were very rarely reported on or researched, and tended to be treated as the isolated incidents that they really are. Now, every case nationwide is beamed into our living room during prime time, and that makes the cultural norm both more fearful and aggressive. Mobility. People move around a lot more, eh? So yeh have greater risk of predators moving in, and yeh have many more families who aren't long-timers in a neighborhood and who don't know their neighbors. Again, it makes people more fearful, and changes the attitude in terms of how things are approached. Lots of others I'm sure. Beavah

Yah, hiya charmoc! While I and others can describe troops that do this all kinds of different ways, I think da real fun of it is to have your PLC think through these things and decide. And change occasionally. Learning about how different leadership selection systems work is a good lesson for 'em. I think term limits are by and large a poor approach for a scout troop, but that terms are OK. I'm with Green Bar Bill in that I think a year makes more sense than 6 months. Six months is just an adult-run artifact of da advancement requirements, though lots of troops do that. I also agree with Kudu, eh? There's a balance between patrol method and youth leadership. The troops that I know that are more truly youth run tend away from elections and more toward a sort of natural, informal selection process that selects the more capable, mature youth leaders. It also allows boys to naturally take up responsibilities that fit their interests and skills. In that way the patrols can be truly independent, where a popularity-contest election or filling PORs with bodies ends up requiring close adult supervision in the modern world. So if yeh have an idea like what yeh described, discuss it with your youth leaders and see if they want to give it a whirl! Beavah

Different goals? Same goals? Same goals. Or at least I have no problem with da passage yeh quoted. I just figured that my postings here were long enough already, eh? Sometimes it's OK to be succinct. My question for yeh would be this. Yeh mentioned words to the effect that expecting a boy to still be able to perform a skill 2 months later was "adding the requirement" of retention and (presumably) not allowed. How do yeh see that as being consistent with all of those fine words about goals in the G2A? Do yeh think that educates or expands horizons? Do yeh think someone who has learned and practiced a skill by doing it would forget how in two months? Do yeh think that a lad who did such a shallow job of learning has demonstrated responsibility, self-reliance, or caring for themselves or others (especially considering examples like first aid)? Do yeh think that a lad who doesn't engage deeply enough to learn a skill so that he can perform it later on will be a positive contributor to American Society (especially considering examples like Citizenship badges)? How, for example, would such a citizen cast a ballot, if they never learned about the issues well enough to be able to evaluate a candidate's position on an issue two months after they last had a chance to study it? Da fundamental problem with all of the Advancement Method guidance over the past 10 years or so is that it has been two-faced, eh? On the one hand, it makes lofty statements about Goals, and we all go on about the characteristics of an Eagle Scout and all the rest. Then it turns around and says, well, yeh can't expect a lad to have "retained" anything, and yeh can't really expect him to be active and loyal to his patrol, etc. The focus on goals and outcomes for kids makes Advancement meaningful and worthwhile. The boys who hold awards are the fellows that folks like Lisabob's son look up to and want to be like, ones that took care of 'em as young fellows and inspired 'em as older fellows. Boys who were there, and involved, and knew their stuff. The focus on "da requirements" makes Advancement a sham of signatures and paperwork and bureaucracy that any intelligent lad can see through after a year or two. To fix the G2A and "da requirements", both should be rewritten to emphasize practical mastery of the skills, and that should be clear and unambiguous. It should be the one single most important takeaway from the G2A, instead of "don't add to the requirements". Yep, that will mean there will be differences between units, but we all know that those exist already. Yep, that will mean trustin' the boys and unit leaders, but we all know that's the case already. What it will do is place the emphasis back on the Goals, instead of on the Requirements. And that's where da emphasis belongs, eh? Beavah

Bnelon44, does it really matter if different folks interpret tying a bowline differently? Why shouldn't mastery be defined in da context in which it is used? If yeh live in an area with lots of open water lakes, I'd expect a Canoeing MB counselor to expect da skills to be solid on open water. If yeh live in an area where there aren't many lakes and canoeing occurs on rivers, I'd expect a Canoeing Mb counselor to expect the skills to be sound for paddling on rivers, eh? Same with tying a bowline. Trust the leaders. If they live in the north and yeh have to tie a bowline in the dark in order to set up camp on Friday night, then the lads should be able to tie a bowline in the dark. Perfectly OK. But personally, I think you're dead wrong on da notion that fulfilling the requirements by achieving proficiency or mastering the skill does not imply that you can still perform the skill 2 months later. That to my mind is an idiotic interpretation of the requirements. It suggests that our intent when teaching first aid is that we're just fine if the lad can't perform first aid when he needs to two months from now. A boy who has really learned to tie his shoes can tie them properly even a few years later, even if he's only had velcro shoes in the interim. I probably haven't tied a bowline in over a year but I can tie one right now, because I mastered the skill. Believing a boy has learned how to tie a bowline, or put on a splint, or learned how to swim if he can't do it 2 months later is poppycock. It is the perfect example of subtracting from the requirements. It's exactly what dkurtenbach describes, which renders the Advancement Method destructive to our aims and goals. The whole point of Advancment Method is to give the boys a road map to how to be successful and competent and confident and recognized by their peers for their ability. It's meant to be a lesson in hard work and character and real learning. If yeh award the badges for less than that, for doin' things like only paddling 100 yards in a kayak, or only being able to tie a bowline from short term memory once, then Advancment is destructive to youth. Yeh have subtracted all the meaning and value out of da requirements. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I hope no speck of information is released that could identify any victims. You're joking, right? They are releasing the names and locations and details and timeframes of the ineligible volunteers. Yeh don't think that any private investigator or ambulance chaser will honestly have much difficulty in finding who the victims and folks who made the reports are, do yeh? It's virtually guaranteed. Da BSA has already described that the information ain't useful for research because there were no real standards for reporting and compilation over most of the time, so the release is unlikely to provide anything useful to the broader community in terms of understanding this particular risk. This will actually in the end make it easier for SEs to drop people, because yeh don't want to generate a paper trail that puts victims or reporters of potential problems at risk, along with da organization. So there won't be a record that others can review (or subpoena). I think da real issue is that the general public believes that somehow if every potential abuse case is referred to law enforcement that the problem will be magically solved. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Jerry Sandusky case demonstrates, where there were calls to law enforcement along the way. In the U.S., we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for law enforcement action to be successful, and da nature of sexually abusive relationships with minors is that they are murky and proof is hard to come by. I remember reading in one report that on average, a child molester molests over 100 children before a conviction becomes likely. So if yeh really want to protect children, yeh have to have organizations that are willing to act to exclude people long before there is sufficient evidence to yield a conviction. Yeh have to act before law enforcement is able to act. What this ruling does is that it makes that common sense and necessary effort to protect kids much, much, much harder. Da BSA is 100% correct in its position. Beavah

However there seems to be some preconcieve notions of what "master the skills" means that go way beyond what is intended in the requirements. Yah, hmmm... It perhaps would help if yeh gave us an example of what yeh mean. I think that probably any adult or youth leader with experience in an area has a conceived notion of what "master the skills" means. I as a boating enthusiast definitely have a notion of what it means to master the skills of boating at a youth level. It means being able to boat well and safely in ordinary conditions, and have enough judgment to recognize when da conditions are no longer ordinary. . That's what I want to give to youth, eh? The ability to be confident, competent, and safe on the water. I thing "the requirements" allow me to do that with most MBs, so long as I don't interpret 'em in some foolish, strained way that effectively subtracts from their intent, like believing that the kayaking MB can be achieved with less than 100 yards of actually paddling a kayak. But if da real intent of the requirements is that boys literally, as written, should only paddle 100 yards, then da problem is the requirements themselves are completely idiotic. I don't think the intent of the requirements is to be idiotic. I believe yeh must interpret da requirements to align with the goals, eh? Which means that yeh expect lots more than what is literally written, because it takes lots more than 100 yards to master the skills of basic kayaking. Beavah

Yeh do understand that the files contain things like suspicions about folks that weren't confirmed but were serious enough to exclude 'em from Scouting, right? As well as comments by people who expected that their statements would remain confidential. So what we have is a plaintiff's attorney who was allowed to go on a fishing expedition for an organization's confidential records. Then, on somewhat strained grounds, the state decides to release the organization's confidential records to the world. As nldscout said, da proper and likely response of the BSA and any other youth serving organization is to destroy the remaining records and never keep anything like that again. The courts have strongly incentivized making kids less safe by making it easier for predators to move around when folks get suspicious. Da likely result of course is that some attorneys will sort through the records tryin' to figure out who the victims might be, so folks who are well past this will now be harassed by some in da profession. The news media will do the same. We'll see more suits against the BSA from victims, but also I expect we'll see defamation cases brought by ineligible volunteers who never actually committed a crime but whose names (unredacted in the order) will now get splashed across the news media nationwide. Imagine if you were a person who was once falsely accused of molesting a child, and the law enforcement authorities found no grounds to pursue it, but now 30 years later your name is goin' to appear in the national news. This will ruin some people's lives. One can only hope that some savvy legislatures start to create safe haven exemptions in state or national law that try to protect youth organizations who maintain records like these to protect kids. Beavah

Yah, Congrats Fabs5342! Now the real challenge begins, eh? Live like an Eagle Scout for the rest of your life. Thanks for the kindness of comin' back and letting us know how it went. Beavah