Beavah

Hiya, dfolson. You'll note that moosetracker is not and has never been a unit commissioner, where some of us old furry critters have served on the commissioner corps at the district and council level for quite a good number of years, eh? Be cautious about seekin' out internet advice and takin' only the advice that supports your own sense of pride. You're too close to this, mate. Whether or not the BOR was "horsehockey" is irrelevant. The issue right now for you is that your current approach as a unit commissioner is completely off-base. Step away. Go sit for coffee with your ADC and DC. Yeh can't take sides and remain a commish. Beavah

Guidin' through a crisis takes an even more gentle hand, eh? And it's definitely not somethin' yeh can do if yeh know and have affinity for one of the players as in this case. I'd suggest that if yeh really feel that as a commish you can come in on a white steed to set things to rights then you're right, eh? The Commissioner Corps is not the place for yeh. You'll do a great deal of harm. Once again, based on da third-hand report of what a boy told his dad who told dfolson, we as a community are makin' recommendations that would destroy a troop. "If all else fails, offer to help the Scout, and any other Scout who wants to leave this troop find a new one." I'm not sure why we get such self-righteous glee over that. If yeh want to help a program, especially a program in crisis, yeh begin by understandin' the people and their motivations. People in scouting are good folks, and they are doin' their best. Yah, yah, sometimes they get a bit odd when they're talkin' about their own kid, but once yeh get away from the parental instinct stuff they're all worth spendin' time with. To fight fires, yeh pour on water, eh? Yeh don't respond with fire of your own. To fight human fires yeh don't take sides, yeh appeal to the common purpose and common interest in which we are all engaged. Beavah

Yah, dfolson, thanks for sharin' your dilemma. If I may gently suggest, it's not your job as a unit commissioner to "react". It's nice that the upset parent has given yeh a call, and that's a bit of information to file away in the back of your mind as you work with the unit, but your job is to be a helper, friend, and advisor to unit leadership. Now, down the road a spell you might use that bit of information to encourage some discussions at committee meetings about what they and their CO feel should be the expectations of boys for advancement, and along the way you can introduce some thoughts, materials, a nudge toward training that would help them to further develop their understanding. The job of a Unit Commissioner is to take the long view. To gather information about a unit, identify its strengths, and help the group build on those strengths. Yah, sure, and along the way help 'em mitigate weaknesses where appropriate. If yeh get involved in pissing match between a former SM and the committee over his own son, yeh pretty much ruin your ability to do your job as a commissioner. Whether yeh feel the committee was right or wrong in this case (and how can you really feel anything hearing only one side?), it really doesn't matter. You don't "react". You don't take sides. Yeh take the information and you incorporate it into your long-term plan to help the unit grow and thrive. Edited to add: Yah, hmmm... just read your last post. STOP. Stop, think, observe, plan. Your job isn't to poll anybody. Your job is not to resolve this. This is definitely not somethin' yeh approach the COR over. One of the hardest things to do as a commissioner if yeh have previously been a unit leader of some sort is to get over the "take charge" instinct. That can be an asset as a unit leader. It is the demise of any commissioner. Step back. You're too close, especially since yeh mention that you are personally involved with the boy in question. Any more steps down this path and you're quite possibly givin' up your position as commissioner for this unit. Establish some distance, and after yeh have done that and settled yourself a bit, go have a cup of coffee with your district or council commissioner or another older, long-servin' commish who you respect. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, noname, no modern American lad will be aught but mildly uncomfortable by skippin' a meal or two. Just uncomfortable enough to perhaps learn a good lesson about responsibility. Bite you tongue. If town was really only a mile away, that's just a short walk for the boys. Nobody needs to "go" except them. If they had wanted it enough, they would have made a route plan, grabbed their day packs and gotten it done. B

Yah, Scoutfish, right there with yeh. I think this is a lesson that all humans everywhere need to learn and refresh over and over again. Because we're all human. We never live up to bein' the people we really hope we will be. We often look to the mote in the eyes of others while ignorin' the plank in our own. I know I make that mistake often enough to be ashamed by it, much as I try not to. I count on the compassion of the boys and my fellow scouters to see through by blundering to my better intent. And, too, I reckon when dealin' with the lads we often miss in our guess as to what a boy or a program needs. Sometimes yeh need to be compassionate and let things slide; sometimes yeh need to be hard-nosed and hold the line. What we do for the boys should not be based on the fact that we aren't perfect, but on what each boy needs at that moment, what the program needs at that moment. Sometimes we hold the line because that's the right thing to do for the boys, even though we aren't always da best example. Sometimes we let things slide for the boys even though we personally would never let that slide for ourselves or our own kids. Because it's about what they need, eh? And sometimes, we guess wrong about what they need. And apologize to 'em, and move on tryin' to do better. I know I have more times than I can count. Thanks for the reminder that part of da reason we all work in scoutin' is because it helps us to learn and re-learn those lessons of character ourselves. Beavah

Yah, yeh know our paperwork culture has gotten a bit out of hand when someone starts askin' questions like this. Nah, Missouri_COR, no tour plan expected or required. Save the tour plans for events which involve youth. Beavah

Yah, in da parent thread folks were expressin' the conventional wisdom that the proper thing to do as a webelos scout is to shop around for a troop, tryin' to find one that fit the style that yeh wanted (or rather, that the parents wanted). I confess I fall into that way of thinkin' myself, because I do think there is such a thing as a good or bad fit, both for a boy and for a family. But now here's the thing. That is generally not how Scouting is done in most of the rest of the world. In most of da rest of the world, yeh stay in your unit / "group", and yeh move from young cubs to older cubs to Scouts to Ventures to Rovers to Old Farts to Over the Hill Farts to Dead Farts. There's no notion at all about goin' out half way through your scouting career as a youth to go shopping for a new unit. And I dare say the retention is often better. For one thing, yeh get much stronger connections among the adults, and among the kids. Where we have mostly make-believe scouts workin' with cubs as Den Chiefs, youth leadership and service to the younger kids is much more natural and common in da rest of the world, when everyone is in the same unit. It's more economical; yeh share more resources without duplicatin'. Younger kids get to see what's possible when they get older, they aren't confined to the one visitor's campout. So are we doin' our usual American thing of assumin' that a free market and makin' kids go shoppin' is always the right way to go, when perhaps reality is that in this case other things are more important? Just tossin' it out there for discussion. Beavah

Yah, Hiya WestCoastScouter! Good on yeh for takin' the boys around, and especially for thinkin' deeply about what yeh see. First, let me say that Courts of Honor are sometimes oddities in a troop schedule, eh? You'll find some very youth-run troops where the adults still keep control of the Court of Honor, because they feel it's their way of recognizing the lads. So I'd encourage yeh to visit meetings and an outing before yeh form any lasting impressions. One of the hardest things in the world to do as a scouter is to adjust our level of coachin' and mentoring to the lad in front of us. For some kids, some gentle step-by-step coachin' is appropriate. For other kids, remainin' hands-off is appropriate. And that changes from kid to kid and task to task and with the same kid over time. If I were to wear my commissioner cap, I might suggest to the SM from Troop 1 that pecking at kids with Socratic questions all the time can be pretty annoying if a boy is tryin' to do something. I would encourage their adults to think perhaps a bit more about their job being to prepare boys for the task ahead of time, rather than micromanage the seating arrangements during the event. Besides, I reckon the SM, ASM, and SPL can roll with it and figure out where to sit if Billy forgets about 'em, and that may be a better learning experience for Billy. Especially if they were to also incorporate a brief discussion/reflection afterward. Sometimes it helps to have 'em think of Scouting as a sports game, eh? Once the kids are on the field, only poor coaches are givin' instructions to boys from the sidelines. Your time for mentorin' as a coach is before the game, and after. With Troop 2, I think I'd want to see what happened after the COH, eh? It's just fine to let boys try and flail a bit, but yeh have to build in times for mentoring and reflection if you're goin' to get improvement. Roses & Thorns, where yeh help 'em recognize what they did well and what they could do better. Some practice with public speaking through Communications MB. Some more work on duty rosters and timeliness. Being hands-off is OK durin' the event, just as a good coach won't be yellin' instructions at the kids durin' the game. But the second half of that is that yeh do have to mentor and train your youth leaders so that they are reasonably well prepared for the tasks which they face, and to push and inspire 'em a bit to do their best. Not to be perfect. Melted ice cream is its own lesson. But they should be well enough prepared to come into the game feelin' confident. No surprise on the numbers, of course. If yeh want to be big, just be adult run and glitzy. Most parents are naturally human, and will be attracted to the seeming organization and activity. As any firm on Madison Avenue will tell yeh, the more "packaged" the better. Beavah

But in the Oregon Case, the CO (LDS) did end up paying out, right? ... Agreed to by settlement, but the CO paid out as well as the BSA...the CO was a named Defendant. As I mentioned, da CO will always be named as a defendant. For several of the cases that involve LDS units and officials, yeh have to remember that there is a lot of overlap between their church activities and scouting. BSA insurance only covers Scouting liability, eh? The church may still have exposure because of non-scouting youth program trips led by the same adults, and for the actions of their leaders who are engaged in church ministry involvin' the boys and families. B

LOL. If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve.

Yah, Jeffrey H., two examples might be in order just to make sure yeh have it clear. We'll assume the unit or the council has paid for the optional BSA/HSR accident coverage. Case 1: Your troop goes on a water outing. Yeh fail to check river levels, ignore Safety Afloat, don't pay any attention to the park ranger who says the river is at flood stage, and launch anyway with a group of inexperienced scouts. Two scouts in a canoe experience a near-drowning, one ends up in a coma in intensive care. The BSA Accident policy covers the first $10 K of hospital care and then is exhausted. The family sues you and the Chartered Org., and the BSA's liability insurance settles for a reasonable dollar amount that mostly covers the medical expenses. You and the CO are protected. Case 2: Your troop goes backpackin' along a trail. Unbeknownst to you or anyone recent rains have eroded the trail at the top of a 50' cliff, and as the group hikes by the trail collapses and two boys plunge down the cliff. One requires five surgeries to fully recover, the other is paralyzed. The BSA Accident policy covers the first 10K of hospital care and is exhausted. The family's attorney advises them they have no negligence case against you. The family is saddled with the entire remainder of the hospital bill for both boys, and the long-term care of the second boy (with some help from Medicaid). Their savings is wiped out and they lose their house, and might not ever be able to get insurance again because of preexisting conditions. You and the CO are protected. I'll add as an aside that it's this second case which is da fundamental debate about Obamacare, eh? While I'm opposed to the ACA, it's important that we as Americans understand that this is what we're discussin'. Young folks and young families are lower risk than old folks, and are therefore net payers into the health care system if they are required to buy insurance. But when they don't have insurance, the effects are tragic, and the public still pays quite a bit through ER costs, Medicaid, and the family's loss of long-term productivity. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya E61! No insurance covers intentional or criminal acts. If yeh think about it for just a moment, if we insured people for criminal acts that would be little different than payin' 'em to commit crimes. It's an unenforceable contract. Of course the perpetrator is strictly liable to pay for the damage done by those crimes, but he's on his own in defendin' the civil case by the family. The issue for the CO is different, eh? That would typically be negligence through lack of proper supervision or vetting of the miscreant volunteer, and that negligence would be covered by a general liability insurance policy, includin' the BSA's. Whether the Chartered Org. is actually liable in such cases is a question that would turn on what they knew or should have known, or what they did or didn't do. It's probably safe to say that in the case of serial molestation that went on for a while within the program, there's goin' to be liability. We all know, though, that most youth molestation by youth program adults like coaches or scout leaders happens outside of the activity on private events, and then things are less clear, eh? If an employee of yours robs banks in the evenings, are you liable as his employer? That would suggest yeh have a responsibility to supervise your employees 24 hours a day. But what about if your company does deliveries to banks durin' the day? Either way, your company's general liability policy would defend and indemnify you if such a complaint was brought, just as the BSA's and Chartered Org's insurance would cover them. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

LOL. Oh, that Secretary General! Yeh know, the electronic version of the Economist doesn't have the same ad setup, so they're easier to skip or ignore. In the print version, they're always a bit of fun to scan through. Yah, I know Eduardo Missoni, da former WOSM SG who was pushed out by the U.S. He and I still correspond some, as he still does some international youth work in addition to his medical stuff. I don't really know the current SG Panissod. I don't reckon an American would ever be selected for that position in WOSM. Da behavior of the U.S. group is seen as too problematic by many of our fellow scouters across the globe. But I'm touched that you'd think of me. I really am more fond of Scouting as a Movement than I am of the corporate business model. I reckon it's the Movement that deserves our loyalty, eh? A corporation is just a corporation. It can be useful or not, but it doesn't merit loyalty. Beavah

Yah, what NJCubScouter said! rldavis, I think yeh were a touch naive in believin' that it was OK to come in to a well-established and successful unit and just take over as SM in the way you seem to be thinkin' of the job. That's the sort of thing that would only happen in your old unit or a similar struggling unit. So what happened is you volunteered to be SM thinkin' you'd be the guy in charge, and they gave yeh the Scoutmaster patch thinkin' you were an interested helper who had time to fill a support role that took a lot of time and was a bit of a thankless job. What we have here is a failure to communicate. But I reckon yeh have to eat most of the responsibility for that, eh? Reality is that for most healthy, long-standin' troops yeh can find one or more long-term fellows who really are at the center of things. Doesn't matter what title they hold, they're the core of the group. As a new fellow, it's goin' to take yeh a while to break into that group as a full member. Scoutin' is fun for adults, and adults in Scoutin' should enjoy each other's company. It's perfectly natural that a lot of stuff gets decided among friends over breakfast. So the question is how important is it for you to "take over this troop"? If the troop is runnin' OK for the boys and you love the job, can yeh just continue with that? Yeh would have to re-think the way yeh view things, and view Scouting as more of a collaborative team effort among breakfast buddies than a military-hierarchy sort of thing. Go to breakfast. Invite the gang over to your place occasionally. Follow their lead and learn the ropes and be a contributing member who happens to wear the SM patch for this round. Make it a fun things friends do to support their boys. Or do yeh really have a need for "being in control of the troop?" If your personal need is to be in control, then I reckon this position and this unit is not the right one for you. Might still be a great troop for your son, in which case I think yeh step back and go find some other hobby or activity to be in control of. I'm not bein' negative or judgmental, eh? Folks who like to be in control and have ownership of stuff are important for organizations and often make great leaders. So go find a different organization that needs yeh for who you are and let your son enjoy his troop on his own terms with your support. Beavah

Whew, I musta struck a nerve with da ScoutFish! I know it's excitin' to see everything in black and white, and I really do believe in black and white, right and wrong. I just reckon that they're a bit more subtle than readin' a Boy Scout guidebook. Okay, not approved is the same thing as unauthorized. If G2SS say you are not aaproved to do it, then it is basically banned, outlawed, against the rules, etc... Nah. The "unauthorized activity" list is a specific piece of G2SS. Used to be it was things tied to insurance coverage, like skydiving or exploring abandoned mines. These days it's added a bunch of dross like the "simulated firearm" bit, but it's still meant to be a list of program-wide exclusions. Knife throwin' is different. There's also a difference between G2SS guidance for limits on unit programs and what a family may do. If a Cub Scout pack is having a family event at a local park by a lake and wants to run a swimming event, they should follow full Safe Swim Defense. But if mom and dad from one family want to go down with their son and splash around in the lake on their own time durin' the event, well, that's a mite different. A Cub Scout unit has to balance what's a unit activity and responsibility with what is really a family issue and parental responsibility on a campout. Some parents may be just fine with their cub scout climbin' the trees in camp, eh? I'm not sure we have to get all indignant and tell 'em if the lad is above shoulder height he needs a trained spotter or an active rope belay. While it may not be appropriate for the pack to hold a tree climbing event, I don't think the scope of da "rules" always extends to telling a parent what their son may or may not do under their own supervision. So balance, eh? There is a right and wrong, but it doesn't come from Irving. Beavah

Beavah, would you ever consider applying for that secretary general position? Of the United Nations? Become part of the New World Order? Nah. That sort of thing is for you liberal types. Jeffrey H., continuin' my insurance education theme, it's important to understand that there's a big difference between General Liability coverage and Accident/Health Insurance coverage. General Liability coverage comes into force when yeh face a legal suit alleging your civil liability for some act or failure to act. Much as everybody these days is afraid of attorneys like they're Death Eaters, in actual fact civil liability suits are fairly rare and relatively low-cost. As a result, General Liability insurance is cheap as these things go. Yeh can get a lot of coverage for not very much money. The BSA General Liability coverage is primary coverage for Chartered Organizations and registered leaders for everything except motor vehicle accidents. It is secondary/excess coverage for non-registered adults acting as leaders. As I mentioned, though, da real risk is to the CO, so the BSA is doin' it's job of protecting the CO. It is true that some COs do also have their own general liability policy that covers volunteers. That offers only trivially more protection for a scouter. Between the BSA coverage and the law, scouters have more protection within Scouting than they have anywhere else in their lives. Accident insurance is a form of Health Care insurance, eh? It comes into force when a person is ill or injured. Most injuries in the outdoors are not the result of negligence by other people, they're the result of the natural risks of being outdoors and our own foolishness. So most of the time, when a boy or an adult are injured in Scouting, the only coverage which applies is Health Care Insurance. Needing Health Care, unlike incurring liability or even getting into a car accident, is a common thing. Everybody needs it at some point. Accidents happen, genetics happen, life happens. As a result, Health Care Insurance is very expensive. Many of our scout families don't have it, which means if their son gets injured on a scout trip, that's goin' to have a big impact on the family finances, eh? Perhaps a devastating one. The BSA offers an optional limited Accident/Health Care insurance plan through HSR. Some councils make this "mandatory" or pay for it for each unit. This is an extremely limited policy. It will help cover the deductible in an accident, and it's enough to get a lad through a basic ER visit. But if there's any real surgery or extended care required, forget it. No Chartered Organization that I'm aware of is providing Health Care coverage for its scouts. That would require hundreds of dollars per lad... per month. It's that issue that is at the core of the national Health Care debate, eh? We have in the BSA had families who were financially ruined by injuries their kids suffered in Scouting, because dad was laid off and had no health care coverage in place. Agree with yeh completely, though, on da BSA preferring to partner with established entities. Beyond liability, there are all kinds of reasons for that! Beavah

I can't believe a council would accept a charter from such a loosely-defined bunch. Well, I reckon yeh should be more credulous. Numbers are numbers, eh? B

Yah, hmmmm.... Boy, there's a lot of confusion here about insurance and liability. Let me see if I can help straighten that out a bit, with a sort of rough outline of general principles. For education's sake. Generally speakin', a unit volunteer works for the Chartered Organization, not the BSA. The Chartered Organization has the hire/fire ability and is the responsible "superior" for da purposes of vicarious liability, not the BSA. So lets' take da simple case of an official corporate NFP Chartered Org., whose Scoutmaster makes a bad call, fails in his duty of care to a boy, and as a result the lad is seriously injured. In that case, the family is entitled to be "made whole", eh? When we do somethin' we shouldn't have and it causes someone else to be damaged, we have an obligation to make that up to 'em. Now the parent takes the matter to civil court, and names the Scoutmaster, the Chartered Org., and the BSA in the complaint. The BSA in such cases routinely files for and is granted dismissal from the case, because they don't supervise units and aren't responsible for the acts of the Scoutmaster. That's important to understand, eh? Lots of folks for some reason think that the BSA will be their co-defendant, and that's not usually how it works. The CO setup protects the BSA for the most part. As a volunteer for a NFP, the Scoutmaster likely has statutory immunity under federal law, so he too may be dismissed from the suit durin' pretrial motions. Leavin' the Chartered Org. as the defendant. In that case, the BSA's relationship is as insurer for the Chartered Org. (and for the Scoutmaster, if he remains as a defendant). So just like your auto insurance would, the BSA and its insurers pay for the defense, as well as for any settlement or judgment, up to the limits of their coverage. If the CO has other insurance coverage (it likely does), then they may also assist with the defense, though the BSA is the primary insurer and the other coverage only comes into play if the BSA coverage is exhausted. The BSA has an excellent reputation of standin' by its Chartered Orgs. and leaders, and has relatively deep coverage (made affordable by a large self-insured deductible). So under almost all circumstances, a CO should not really be concerned about this exposure. The exception is a "nuclear" suit, of the sort which may arise from a case of serial molestation where the CO knew or should have known and allowed it to continue. I suppose one might also speculate on some other sort of grand catastrophe, like setting a fire during a burn ban that burns down a neighborhood and kills multiple people, but da real wildcard is the molestation thing. In that case, BSA coverage may be exhausted, and even the CO coverage may also be exhausted. Many Catholic Diocese have experienced that. At that point, the assets of the organization may be in jeopardy. For a "parents of" Chartered Org, dependin' on your state law with respect to unincorporated associations, that may mean the assets of those parents. The homeowner's or liability policies of the parents would be the last line of defense. All that is extremely low probability and not worth spendin' time on. The BSA is a good partner and carries deep coverage, and that's a great resource. Da actual exposure here is less than what any of us incur by drivin' the carpool to soccer practice. To my mind, da bigger issue for "Parents of" COs is the risk of ordinary financial exposure. Yeh don't mind the store, perhaps someone embezzles money, and the unit ends up owing a bunch of money to some folks. In that case, again dependin' on your state laws, the collective parents may be responsible for the debts of the "Parents of" organization. That's not a case where general liability coverage would apply, eh? There's likely no coverage in place, and perhaps no corporate veil in the way. Now is that likely? Well, far more likely than a serial molestation case. The dollar amounts usually aren't spectacular, but could get into real money. So while none of this is what I'd consider a big deal, I reckon a "Parents of" CO would be well advised to make some efforts with competent local counsel to set things up a bit more formally in order to protect everyone. Of course all of this is just da speculation of an anonymous internet fellow with a funny name, and should in no way be taken as legal advice or guidance of any kind. Especially when being read in different states and even different countries that the anonymous internet fellow has never even been to a bar in, let alone been a member of the bar in. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Let's all take a step back from the moral indignation and outrage cliff. I'm imagining a dad off in a corner with a lad throwing knives under supervision into a nearby tree or stump. Not a dedicated "range", but also nobody runnin' around nearby. First, let's straighten out the "rules". Knife throwing is not an "unauthorized activity", eh? Those are the things on the G2SS list like not shootin' each other with squirtguns. Knife throwing is just fine at the Boy Scout level, but G2SS advises that it's not an approved activity for Cub Scouting. Of course in this case it's not being run as a cub scout activity by the camp or by the pack, it's just somethin' a dad is doin' with his son off in a corner. There is a difference. Most of us would agree that it's not age appropriate for most boys that age, but then I learned to shoot .22s when I wasn't much older than that and did just fine. Some of this stuff depends on the family and the local norms. In any event, it does not even come remotely close to somethin' you'd call Child Services about, eh? That's just absurd. Yeh call Child Services about things where you think the government should come with guns and take people's children away from them by force. So, now that we've walked back from the cliff, what's appropriate? Well, a leader might gently pull dad aside and say that because the BSA doesn't recommend knife throwing for most boys this age, we'd prefer if yeh didn't do it on campouts until Boy Scouting. Just because not every lad has the training yours does, and if they see it, they'll start tryin' it on their own without supervision and such, and I'm sure yeh wouldn't want that. A fellow who knows the dad better might be recruited to say "Come on, George. Tommy's still too young for that stuff. Give it a few years." Beavah

Over that last couple of years we have grown to close to 100 scouts, average over 60 at weekly troop meetings, and 35-45 scouts on outings. Yah, howdy bshealy! Lookin' at the numbers I quoted above, I'd say that participation rate is low. If only 40% or so of the boys are comin' on individual outings, that makes it hard on patrols and patrol method. It suggests that what you're feeling is right: you've outgrown your capacity, and are no longer servin' all the boys well. For that reason, I would agree with your council commissioner folks. I think the natural size for your program is smaller, and you'd potentially serve the kids and community better by spinning off a second troop. Don't let the worry about volunteers get in the way. Volunteers always come in the same proportion to the number of kids. Yeh always have barely enough. Da real issue is that relatively fewer volunteers have the skills and personality to be successful in very large troops like yours. Often, when they move on, such troops collapse pretty quickly down to more ordinary numbers. So while yeh get the same proportionate number of volunteers either way, yeh get a greater fraction of successful volunteers with two smaller units. Now, there are good and bad ways to spin off a new troop (I like that notion better than "splitting"), and if yeh like we can talk about that. If yeh feel it's your mission to be a mega-troop, then I think yeh have to divide-and-conquer. It requires a shift of mentality, because yeh have to add a middle-management team. Most mega troops that I'm familiar with tend to run age-based, so they do somethin' like divide up the program into the New Scouts (with several patrols and an ASPL & ASM), the Middle Scouts (with several patrols and an ASPL / ASM), and the High Schoolers / High Adventure guys (with several patrols and an ASPL and perhaps an ASM). Yeh can do it other ways, of course, but yeh see the pattern. You're creatin' subdivisions between the patrol level and the troop. In such programs, the SM and SPL become more CEO / manager types, and meet more frequently with their division heads (the ASPL group). You get da picture. Beavah

Must respectfully disagree with 1 comment Beavah made Yah, that's OK, E92. I was simplifyin' a bit for da younger crowd. I think it was the '72 debacle, followed by Bill's rescue in the 80s, then the partial return of the '72 folks with the 1990 edition. Bill was too old, and he didn't get to choose his successors, eh? Since then we've mostly had corporation, and corporation by its character tends to lack vision and sense of mission. At best yeh get mediocrity, eh? The average opinion of a few hundred or so corporate-picked scouters. Ol' Bill was better than the average of such a group. Corporations give us textbooks, eh? Those bland, generic, poorly written things that suck the life out of interestin' topics. To give us Harry Potter or a true Scout Handbook, yeh need a great author, like Rowling or Bill. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Well, now, it is true that the BSA has always discouraged "parents of" Chartering Organizations. In the aftermath of the public school pullout and some PTAs / PTOs in liberal communities droppin' charters, the local councils generally ignored that and took the lazy way of just chartering parent groups. I suppose it was necessary for National to push back on this, and I reckon I agree with the general concern although their communication of the legal issues is typically sloppy. I also reckon it's typical that they would announce an unrealistic deadline. December 2013 would give everyone a full charter year to go work da problem. I think, though, that we need independent confirmation from a second source. RichardB, yeh out there, mate? The issue of turn-over and instability of "Parents of" groups is real. The tort liability exposure issue for the parents is sorta real, dependin' on the state, but probably a bit overwrought. It may be that one of the BSA's insurers has gotten into this just because it makes who they're actually coverin' a bit fuzzy, and insurers don't like fuzzy. Honestly, the more likely issue is the more common-place one of financial misfeasance. One thing's for sure, a typical cub pack, troop, or crew is not goin' to want to go the incorporation / 501©(3) route. It might make sense for a bigger troop, but only if yeh have some savvy leaders. Now in most states it's not too hard or expensive to establish an ordinary (non tax exempt) LLC. Dependin' on the state, registering an Unincorporated Association with similar protections might be possible. I can see those options as an easy work-around. Da trick is, there are some practical reasons why yeh want NFP status that relate to negligence immunity for volunteers, which both protects leaders and reduces the BSA's insurance exposure. Beavah

Yeh might want to consider goin' to your scout shop or scoutstuff.org and looking for the collections called "Troop Program Features" (or finding an older version called "Woods Wisdom" on eBay. ). These are sample plans for a wide range of different topics and activities, each covering 4 meetings and an outing. Has games, instruction, patrol contests, suggestions for older and younger boys. I think those might help get yeh goin'. They're not perfect, and after a while your boys should start to modify 'em or come up with their own, but they'll go a fair ways toward helpin' yeh think about how to lay this stuff out. I think you're right on in terms of buildin' "lead time" into planning. So yeh get your boy leaders together now and have 'em work with you on planning the fall, and then yeh take their plan to the Troop Committee and make them do their committee plan for supporting the boys' plan. Then sometime in the fall yeh do the same thing for winter and spring. Next year in the spring, yeh see if yeh can get your youth leaders to plan a year ahead, at least for big things like summer camp. Beavah

Yah, CricketEagle, I don't mean to be talkin' past yeh. I think these are interestin' discussions and we should always challenge ourselves about whether we're doin' what's best for the boys, because that's how we get better. Thank yeh for engagin' in the discussion! I think what you're hearin' from long-timers like E92 and myself that were around when FCFY was introduced along with New Scout Patrols / age based patrols is that both of those innovations were ill-considered. They were based on poor and misinterpreted "evidence", and were a departure from 80 successful years of scouting program. They set up exactly da contradiction you point out in G2A. Yeh can't simultaneously meet the advancement guidelines and the Rules & Regulations in terms of expectations for rank, and at the same time get every boy to First Class in a year (and Star in Year 2). So yeh have to choose between those two options. Some of our large chartered partners like LDS choose to use an age-based, NSP program and to emphasize gettin' to First Class in a year. They do that to fit with other aspects of their Young Men's religious program. Long-time scouters like this here furry fellah respect that, but we tend to be advocates for the other choice - makin' First Class "real" in terms of skills even though it means taking much longer than a year for most boys. Let me ask you this. how many of you are in units that have a chance to go over "Safety afloat" more than once a year if even that? How often would of a repeat would be enough? When do you stop? If you asked your scouts 6 months after a float trip even though you went through all of this? What level of "memory" retention would you expect? By one and done we are lucky to have a few weeks per year on a single subject. Yep, that's the conundrum, eh? It takes more than one "going over" of Safety Afloat before a boy really understands and learns it, which means if you're tryin' to do it all in a year it gets too crowded unless you are extremely active. So yeh have to choose. But in answer to your question of "how often of a repeat would be enough", the answer is "however often a boy needs to learn". Learning can't be scheduled. Each boy comes with different backgrounds and learns at a different pace, and in Scouting we care enough to take the time it takes. We're not a factory like a school, churning out X number of student widgets in a year. We want each and every boy to be able to cook, and navigate, and do first aid. When do yeh know a scout has learned? Well, if a lad has learned to ride a bike, can he still do it after a long winter? If yeh have used spreadsheets for the last year, can yeh still add two numbers by hand? When we really learn things, long-term retention is a given, especially for young people. Thank goodness, because if a lad really needs his first aid or water rescue skills, it's goin' to be some time down the road when he's least expecting it. Our job is to make sure that the boy has really learned, so that he is prepared for that if it comes his way. Now, as far as retention goes for us old folks with brains that are shrinking every year, that's a different story. I often don't remember where I set down my fancy newfangled cell phone without calling it and listening for the ring. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... The original handbook language was "No council, district, unit or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from any advancement requirement. A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do, it is not a reward for what he has done." So if yeh do just sign off for once-and-done, yeh are in fact subtracting from the requirements, and ignorin' the proper steps to advancement. Of course back in B-P's day, it was a matter of honor, eh? If yeh couldn't perform any of the First Class skills on demand when needed, you were honor bound to surrender your badge in shame. Now, I'm not sure we need the shame part . But we are supposed to be teachin' character and values. A man of honor doesn't claim recognition for skills he doesn't have, nor does he give recognition to others for skills they don't have. Someone may look at a lad's uniform and say "Great! A First Class Scout! That means yeh can come help us run safety at the waterfront because we're short-handed." If he can't handle water rescues and safe swim on demand, if he can't perform first aid on demand, if he can't navigate or handle being lost when it happens, if he can't plan this weekend's patrol menus on his own, then he isn't a First Class Scout. Doing it once is part of Step 1: A Scout Learns. There's no way to learn anything without doin' it a few times. So when a lad does something once, the proper response is "Great! Good job. Now try again." And then it's "Great, good job! Now try it again with this twist". And then "I bet you can't do it if ..." Fun, challenge, some successes, some failures, are all a part of learning stuff in Scouting, eh? Testing only comes after the lad has learned. And to my mind, teaching comes only after that, in fairness to the learner. Teachin' is how yeh reinforce and deepen your knowledge of somethin', not how yeh learn it in the first place. Beavah