Beavah

Backup a second... Let's say I'm a manager or director at a company, and I've hired an employee for a given job. Said employee wants to take two weeks to do something related to her job... but not her actual job. Why wouldn't I ask her to use vacation time to, well, take a vacation? Oh, come now. Businesses routinely pay for conferences and events for employees that are "related to [the] job... but not [the] actual job." Yah, I know plenty of employers who grant paid time off for scouting support that doesn't accrue against vacation, or who provide matching grant dollars to organizations where their employees contribute time instead of money. Heck, I might even be one of 'em. Helped write thank-you notes to businesses on behalf of volunteers who received that sort of treatment on a number of occasions. A wise SE would recognize that in terms of generating contacts, good will, and being able to offer stories that help "sell" FOS, sendin' a DE to Jambo is an outstanding investment. Beavah

Where does perfect (I'd rather say proper) uniforming provide a sign of poor performance in other areas? Well, I reckon yeh answered your own question, eh? "The Scout is taught accountability for his actions. The Scout is taught that there are standards by which he is to comport himself. These are things that have been lost in society today." In other words, Adult Run, with the adults actin' as authority rather than havin' mentoring relationships with the youth. So in order to enforce "proper" uniforming, yeh are willing to give shorter shrift to two other Methods of Scouting. Not just willin', eh? Proud. That's the way it usually plays out in most troops.

Last thing I heard was that BSA has a new guy in charge of IT who is an outsider with heavy, stressing HEAVY, IT experience Yah, didnt I hear just recently that they had fired the fellow? B

However, if the BSA is a uniformed organization and finds value in that method, why wouldn't one who belongs to that organization want to follow that method? While some view it as a suggestion, it really is more than that. It is an ideal which has helped to build the BSA into what it is today. Yah, hmmm... Jumpin' the shark a bit there, eh? The uniform is not an Ideal. We have an Ideals Method. The Ideal is the Scout Oath and Law. Personally, I think troops do OK without perfect uniforming. In fact, perfect uniforming is almost always a sign that they're doin' a poor job with other methods that I think are more important in terms of their impact on kids - things like youth leadership and adult relationships and outdoors. I'd much rather have a unit spend a lot of effort on their outdoor program or patrol method than spend a lot of effort on sartorial perfection. Yeh see units do well without full uniforms all the time, but yeh really don't see units do well without a strong outdoor program. That's not to say uniforming isn't a worthwhile thing to nudge from time to time, or live by example. Just that the full uniforming police in my mind make the same sort of error as the advancement-focused/mill folks. Beavah

Turns out that the suggestion across the new council board (possilby all of Michigan) is that if you don't sell popcorn, give at least family level FOS, and support any other council fundraisers to their expectations you won't get the needed signatures for volunteering at the regional or national level. The reason - you are not a good supporter of local scouting therefore you can't play at a higher level. Yah, hmmmm.... Seems like they suddenly realized that most businesses when they merge cut executives, rather than add lots of executives as the new Greater Michigan Council did. Then, when yeh add lots of executives, yeh actually have to pay them. And when you're so big that yeh don't necessarily have local contacts/presence, it can be hard to raise those funds. Most of us here in da Central Region are just lookin' at old Area 2 and shakin' our heads in wonder. Wonderin' how long it's goin' to take before da whole thing just implodes. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... That last was so muddled it's hard to know where to begin. There are several school voucher programs in place in major U.S. cities (Milwaukee and Cleveland come to mind), where parents may choose to send their children to religious schools and the public tax dollars will provide a voucher to pay for it. That money does come out of the funds for public schools, though generally it is set at an amount less than the per-pupil cost of educating a public school student. Those programs have passed constitutional muster with the Supreme Court. The cases that I know of are more "equal access" based. Let's say a school cancels classes to hold a "diversity day", but then refuses to allow some Christian groups to participate or voice their views. So the net effect of "diversity day" is not in fact to promote diversity and sharing, but to indoctrinate the students on the prevailing sentiments of those in local political power. I don't know what this has to do with denying people a right to a job, but that can be an issue as well, eh? A Muslim teacher may not be permitted to pray with or in front of students. That can make it very difficult to find a place to pray, eh? Not in their classroom, the teacher's lounge isn't private. Does the fellow have to go hide in the janitor's closet? Of course, if he becomes a secular Muslim, that's fine, eh? I'm not sure what the whole bit was about denying people the right to attend public school, but there are lots of ways to make kids and families unwelcome without actually barring the doors. We saw that years ago (and still some more recently) with respect to race. We also see it when school officials condone bullying of kids prayin' by the flagpole (the root of one of the first school shootings), or school officials get overzealous about keepin' prayer out of schools, or students who express alternative viewpoints aren't permitted to write or speak. Or simply that yeh feel that the public school you're payin' for is a cesspool of moral relativism and isn't welcoming for your family. The State is a big, powerful, dangerous thing. It doesn't need to impose its views by direct force, when it can do it by economic and educational coercion. Beavah

Yah, have to agree with "barking mad". Glad we can provide mindless entertainment, though we've often found your Parliament to be quite an amusing affair. 1. What SeattlePioneer said. Since votin' rolls are maintained by the state governments, as well as the voting equipment, elections of any sort are governmental. This amounts in most cases to a subsidy of the political parties by the state, though in some cases the state may assess fees to the candidates or parties to recoup some of those costs. State legislatures also set the timing for primary elections, and there has been a trend for states to try to move earlier and earlier so their vote "matters." 2. Well, that depends, too, but functionally yes. Some states are "winner takes all" primaries, and the delegates get assigned by the state party leadership. In others the voters in each district are actually electing delegates. And things in between, eh, where some are selected locally and some statewide. In at least one state, the primary doesn't technically do anything, because the actual delegates are selected by caucus later in the spring. 3. Yes, sort of, it depends. This gets to what you are hearing about the possibility of a "brokered convention". Generally speaking, each state party sets rules for its delegates, and most delegates are bound to their original candidates only for the first vote at the convention. If no one is selected by majority on the first ballot (or if their candidate withdraws or releases them), then delegates are released to vote for whomever they like. In the Democratic Party, there are also "superdelegates" who are current officeholders, who may not be bound at all. I edit to add that this is different than electors from the Electoral College, which BasementDweller mentions. Those are the folks selected in November who cast votes to really elect the President and Vice President. They are "free" on the first ballot to select someone different because there is only one ballot. However, some states have "faithless elector" laws that can subject them to fines or jail time if they do not vote as directed by their state's general election. 4. No, no national party convention, because the only national elected office in the U.S. is the President/Vice President. All others are state or district representatives, and the judiciary is appointed. The state parties do have off-year conventions, usually to adopt policy positions more than select candidates, though it depends. 5. Sort of, but not necessarily. Democrats, for example, have "superdelegates" who are current holders of elected office. While Democratic primaries are usually held on the same day as Republican Primaries for cost reasons, that is not always the case. 6. No, an incumbent president can be subject to primary challenges from within his own party. Indeed that has happened on a number of occasions, though is rarely successful. It is generally viewed as weakening the incumbent and frowned upon, but cannot be prohibited. As a tactic in Senatorial and House positions it is quite common, and the incumbent is sometimes knocked out of the race during their party's primary. An interesting example was Alaska two years ago, where the incumbent Senator Murkowski lost to a Tea Party candidate in the Republican Primary, but then went on to win the general election as a write-in candidate who did not appear on the ballot. The threat of a primary challenge (which can be expensive to defeat) is often used as a way of forcing incumbents to be loyal to the party or supportive of the more extreme elements of the party. Yah, like yeh said. It's barkin' mad! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, moosetracker, I think yeh are speakin' with limited regional knowledge. I know a number of school districts facing or that have faced political and legal challenges over promoting "diversity", especially as that often comes with veiled or unveiled intent to exclude or reject religious viewpoints which are for some reason not diverse. B

Yah, what KC9DDI and shortridge said, eh? The "rule" about not selling restricted items is an internal rule for BSA employees. One honored as much in the breach as in the observance, to quote the old bard. A rule for employees has no bearing on anyone else. The fellow at McDonalds might not be permitted to put too much ketchup on a burger, but once he sells me the burger I'm free to add as much ketchup as I like. Similarly, anything in the BSA's Rules and Regulations really only applies to members of the corporation and to a lesser extent to general members, and only in a very limited context where it doesn't cross over into a person's general rights to liberty. The BSA can attempt to "recall" badges, uniforms, or other branded items that they have sold to people all the livelong day. If they actually try to take them back we call that "theft" in the real world, and punish said BSA official with jail time. The BSA can no more "recall" the items that it has sold than Levi Strauss can "recall" the jeans it has sold you. As to copyright, the original Eagle Scout badge and medal were made available in 1912, and therefore copyright expired in 1982. Beavah

Whatever, obviously, there are individuals who feel stretching the Scout Law, and possibly other statutes is okay Yah, I'm not sure the Scout Law qualifies as a statute, eh? Leastways, I seem to remember somethin' from Citizenship in the Nation MB. If yeh purchase a badge or item of clothing or are given it as an award, it's yours. Your property. You have every right to sell it if you like. Yeh might fault some scout shop for selling 'em, but once they do, it's done and over with. And honestly, most of us I reckon are perfectly content with some fellow buying a few badges he doesn't deserve and thereby contributing to the cause, in exchange for not having to deal with a whole mess of paperwork for some poor advancement chair who just wants to be able to pick up the boys' awards before tonight's Court of Honor. Lighten up, Francis. Beavah

The only kid I ever do anything one-on-one with is my own. Perhaps why parents are the most likely to abuse kids. Do yeh sit down with your spouse and tell her "there have been X number of parental abuse cases in this county, Y number in this state, and Z number in the country. The rate is higher for non-custodial, non-biological parents like myself. There is a finite chance that at some point I may abuse your son."? Inquiring minds want to know. This sort of thing is just warning label nonsense. Like the disclaimers on ladders warning that if you climb a ladder you may fall off and hurt yourself. If you are a parent and you're not aware that there is a (very) small but finite chance that your child may be abused by family members, friends, coaches, teachers, scout leaders, ministers, or other adults in his/her life, then I'm not sure putting a warning label on every youth activity is goin' to be productive because you're just an idiot. Yep, if yeh do anything other than lock your child in a padded room accessible only by three keys held by different, unrelated people that must all be present to open the door, and with a live video feed goin' to two independent law enforcement agencies, your child stands a chance of being exposed to drug and alcohol use, sex, values that differ from those you want to teach/indoctrinate, bullying, abuse, mayhem, violence, random acts of God, injury, illness, mental illness, and death. Have a nice day! Beavah

Yah, I'm with JMHawkins on the issue of statutes of limitations. Statutes of limitations are a very good thing. They are necessary to protect the innocent. RembemberSchiff, da statute of limitations at issue in these cases is for civil tort and negligence, not criminal battery. The standard of proof in such civil cases is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather is generally "by preponderance of the evidence", and doesn't usually require a unanimous jury. So what we're sayin', if we eliminate statutes of limitations, is that a sympathetic 40 year old can tell a tale that sounds reasonable and convincing to a majority of jurors, eh? Especially if some of 'em don't care for scouting much anyways. Can you remember what you were doing on the weekend campout 30 years ago? Can yeh remember who was there? Are they still alive to be able to testify in your defense? Did yeh keep attendance records for all these years? The accusation alone is often enough to destroy someone's reputation and livelihood. Allowin' highly emotional cases like these to proceed when in all likelihood the passage of time has made it impossible for a defendant to mount a defense is fundamentally unfair. It would be absolutely foolish for scouters to support that. Beavah

The question should be "do you follow it, and if you don't follow it, what will it take to get you back on the path to true north?" Nah. The notion of one-size-fits-all, paint-by-the-numbers youth programming is just rubbish. Followin' program guides written by committees of folks in far off states isn't goin' to get anybody to "True North", if by True North we mean what works best for the kids that they are working with. True North comes from knowing your CO's goals and your unit's vision, knowing your families and boys, knowing your adult leaders and the BSA materials and then fittin' those pieces together in the best way you can for your circumstances. What works for big troops doesn't work for small; what works for young troops doesn't work for old; what works for families lookin' for one sort of thing doesn't work for families lookin' for something different. What works for one scouter doesn't work for another. Lots of times in a lot of units, it is the Scoutmaster who knows and understands the scout skills, and the Board of Review members don't. The BOR gets made up of some committee folks rather than outdoors folks. If that's the troop's setup, then quite naturally it's goin' to be the Scoutmaster and not the Board that takes on a role of checkin' on skills development. It works just fine and dandy. Shouldn't creep anybody out at all. Certainly better than filling out quiz sheets and paperwork. And havin' a conversation with a lad about needin' to work a bit more on his skills as part of a Scoutmaster conference? I would be surprised if a Scoutmaster who was aware of such a need did not have that conversation. I'd expect it's what any good scouter would do. Beavah

I'm guessing in your line of work you don't just sign everything Beavah do you? Well, now that would be sorta fun In emails, though? Yah, sure, I mostly just sign my first name. No need to put on airs with folks who know who I am, and email is mostly for memo-like communication rather than full formal letters. I've got a signature block that I can trigger for when I need to include one for full contact information, and a couple others for when I have to add other sorts of disclaimer language or whatnot. Now I can understand it in Mr. Quazse's case, because that's a just plain hard name to remember, let alone type. Beavah

Yah, I like the bit about Inspirational Paperwork. If the SM knows the boys then he should also know that they have the skills as signed off. Maybe, for some stuff. But if you're lettin' Patrol Leaders do the testing or such, then checkin' in on that is a reasonable thing. Or maybe yeh discover as evilramsfan did that the ASM took summer camp sheets as a signoff when he shouldn't have. Some skills yeh see all the time, like settin' up a tent. Others, like First Aid, yeh might not see first hand. There's another reason too, eh? Sometimes those are good icebreaker questions that get the scout talkin'. Younger boys in particular tend to clam up when adults start askin' big abstract questions or vague things about how they're doin'. But ask 'em something about skills they know well and even the shy boys will be off to the races. But I've had few private conversations. And even fewer have I had a heart-to-heart conversation about their life and scouting experience. I'm sure it's the same for our SM. Egad! Mr. CC, yeh need to sit and have a heart-to-heart with your Scoutmaster! Stop focusing on Advancement and start payin' attention to the other methods like Adult Association. What's the fellow doin' with his time? Personal conversations with the Scoutmaster and heart-to-hearts should be goin' on all the time in your program. They shouldn't have to wait until rank advancement time, where a kid gets only get six of 'em during his 7 years as a scout? If your unit is a large one, then start figurin' out how the ASMs can share the load so that Adult Association is really workin' well in your troop. Those relationships should be active and ongoing, eh? It's a vital part of Scouting. Beavah

In short, the ideas are worthy of serious discussion, but they aren't being discussed seriously. Yah, I agree with that, SeattlePioneer, and that's why the current Republican Party is such a profound disappointment. I've made the argument here many times that the last thing anybody should want is a government monopoly or near-monopoly on education. There's a reason why even those darn socialist liberal Europeans provide funding to all schools - religious schools, government schools, private schools of various sorts, just the way we do with higher education. The government's role is to invest in learning, not in one particular delivery mechanism. But it's quite a step from that to tellin' people that parents who aspire to and sacrifice for gettin' their kids a college education are snobs who should be ridiculed. And the fact that neither Santorum nor lots of other folks in the party seem to be able to understand the difference between a principled argument on the provision of education and educational funding and dismissing education as snobbish... well, I reckon it just makes me want to throw up. It's destroyin' conservativism and the party, and if they got into power it would hurt the country. We are striving to compete with nations that are tellin' their people that it is imperative for kids to work hard for the best education they can get, and who are pouring money into higher education in particular. And we're told that our kids should aspire to less than they are now?? Folks are concludin' quite properly that these folks are unworthy to govern. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Being an OA Chapter Adviser, I do include that in my signature on emails I send out to the chapter. Don't they already know you're the chapter adviser?

Obama's Social Security # is a Connecticut SS#, not a Hawaiian one. Youngsters. They all forget that the world was not always what it is now. Used to be, lad, that yeh didn't need to get a Social Security number until yeh got a job that reported wages and income. Gettin' one at birth was fairly unusual, and there were lots of folks workin' farms or otherwise self employed who just didn't bother well into their later years. Social security cards were never proof of citizenship. I don't have the slightest idea if that applies to President Obama or not, but yeh really need to get out of the nattering nutters echo chamber. The media show up at this Sheriff Joe stuff because of its comedy value. This stuff and the science deniers and all the rest do terrible damage to true conservativism, because it allows the media elite to portray all of us who believe in limited government, free markets, and moral values as anti-intellectual lunatics. Or worse. Like OGE says, a bit less energy on space alien conspiracy theories and a bit more effort at articulate, well-reasoned economic policy would be a good prescription for success, eh? Beavah

The point nldscout is tryin' to make is that in most organizations there is some form of "document retention policy" which specifies not just documents that should be preserved for some period of time, but also when documents should be destroyed. As a general rule, yeh should only preserve documents for which there is a genuine business need for preservation. Anything that yeh keep longer than that just costs yeh money in storage and maintenance, and becomes a liability in cases like this where someone wants to go on a fishing expedition. A wise document retention policy in this case would be what he suggests - hold on to documents just long enough to give folks a chance to appeal, clear their name, defend the BSA in the event the fellow decides to bring a defamation case or petition for injunctive relief or whatever. And then hold on to just enough information to definitively identify the person yeh need to exclude. In the case of John Smith, it probably requires a bit more than the name, but there's no reason to be holdin' on to statements, court documents, victim identifying information and all the rest. The BSA has already admitted that the record keeping wasn't standardized or complete enough to use for research purposes on how to improve protection, so there really isn't any reason to keep it around. An ordinary document retention policy would have avoided much of the current problem. Of course right now the stuff is under subpoena so it can't be touched, and even if it weren't in the present climate if the BSA went and burned the records it would be a PR mess and look like a coverup (or even obstruction in the case of pending cases), so the option is at least temporarily unavailable. Beavah

LOL. Yah, TwoCubDad, I reckon there's a market for an app that automatically includes your rows of knots along the bottom of the email. Honestly, signature lines are a courtesy usually used to automatically include your alternative contact information so that someone who decides they need to call yeh about the email can do so without flailin' around searching various directories. I can see relevant title for an initial, out-of-the-blue contact just so someone yeh don't know can get a context for your note. Otherwise it's more than a bit silly. If you're sending to fellow scouters or to your unit, do yeh think they don't know you're the SM or something? Beavah

Scout masters conferences for rank advancement is about getting to know the scout, see what he is getting out of scouting, what he likes, dislikes, his goals, aspirations..... Yah, I've never understood this claim. Are yeh really saying that by the time a boy comes up for rank advancement, the Scoutmaster doesn't know the scout? Talk about an out of touch fellow who needs to be replaced as SM! I can see this maybe for the Joining Conference, but not after that. Yes there is a scout spirit summary sheet........Sad sad sad.... Sorta like the two scout spirit summary sheets that we require Eagle Scouts to fill out? No, I'm perfectly opposed to the sort of thing this troop is doin', and in fact I find the dumb worksheets on meritbadge.com the worst form of not understanding how to do Scouting. But all things in balance, eh? Scouts are supposed to really learn, not one-and-done. And it's a sign of a good program if a SM or a BOR actually takes a look at whether a scout who is comin' up for rank has actually learned what he is claiming to have. At very least, it should inform the program on how well it's doin' for the lad. Beavah

spell check initially turned "worshiping" into "horsewhipping" Yah, yeh gotta love that autocorrect feature. Gives me a laugh every time. I must say I get quite a chuckle out of all the various "birther" conspiracies. It's better than a lot of the comedy stuff on TV. At the same time, I confess I also find it more than a little bit sad. I saw this article recently. http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/index3.html . Perhaps it explains a bit why some of my conservative friends have lost their minds and are starting to attack working hard and getting an education. Now I don't agree with most of the article, and I certainly don't buy the premise that we conservatives are goin' away. I think as an intellectual tradition we have the right of things in many ways, and I'm a believer that the best ideas win in the end. But the foolish political pact with the devil of identity politics that the Republicans seem to have made... the article may have a point or two there. There is no way we can do anything but damage the future of the country by discouraging education, denying science, dismissing sound basic economics, or gettin' too rabid about vilifying others about their morals or life choices and circumstances. Da young folks, thank the heavens, can see that stuff for what it is, eh? Ridiculous. And beneath them. Beavah

If I recall my reading, in the Oregon case, the files were not turned over, BSA acknowledged their existence. BSA has always acknowledged their existence. In da Oregon case, the unredacted files were turned over, but only for the period relevant to the case (through 1985 if I recall correctly). This case sought to get the BSA to release the most recent 20 years. Background checks manifestly don't work to stop new offenders or folks who haven't been caught yet. We all should recognize that. And identity theft of the sort required to spoof a background check isn't really that hard. YP stuff acts perhaps as a mild barrier to abuse or at least accusations of abuse within scouting, but I reckon most good scouters will recognize that there have been times when they technically weren't in compliance. Life is too messy and complex for trite phrases like "no one-on-one" to apply all the time. The thing of it is, almost all of these cases, like all abuse, happens outside of the public meeting time where there are people around. It happens at the parents' home, and the scouter's home, and the family picnic, not so much at the campout. Once an individual is a trusted adult, whether it's Coach Pete or Uncle George or Scouter Bill, they have access at times that allow greater opportunity than a campout or scout meeting. The trainin' that I suppose needs to happen is to help parents be more alert to those things, and worry less about the scout outing. But da real issue is secrecy. If the boy has many adult friends to turn to, friendships with older boys, open lines of communication with everyone from parents to ministers, that's as safe as we can make 'em. Because a pedophile needs to be able to isolate and groom a victim. Kids that have a lot of good, healthy, personal relationships within and outside their family can't be isolated, which protects 'em from all sorts of stuff, not just molesters. Scouting is a good activity for that, eh? We do our part. But other organizations and schools and churches and especially parents have to do the rest. It takes more than just scouting. Beavah

Yah, I have always recommended consultin' with the youth leaders on the selection of ASMs and SMs. Their perspective is an important one, both from a program quality perspective and a youth protection perspective. A good rule of thumb in a healthy program is that if the youth are opposed or are lukewarm to a candidate, the committee had best look elsewhere. Even in a program that's in need of a bit of gettin' kicked into shape, the youth perspective is still quite valuable and almost always on-the-money. Let's face it, da average parent or committee person doesn't really see a scouter in action anywhere near as much as the youth leaders. Beavah

Yah, I reckon it depends. I'm more with OGE on this than the more hands-off folks. I think yeh view this stuff more as apprenticeship than sink-or-swim. Yeh don't work for kids, nor do yeh just make kids work. Yeh work with them. Wherever they have the background and skills to be swimming on their own, yeh let 'em swim. Wherever they're close, yeh encourage 'em and let 'em swim. Some other times, yeh need to swim a bit with 'em. Yah, sure, pretty soon they'll be leavin' yeh behind, but that's as it should be. Some other times, especially when yeh may have naught but a group of beginners or advanced beginners, yeh have to demo some stuff and be a bit more hands-on with your coaching. They still need to be puttin' in some swimming time on their own, but perhaps not as far and in shorter bursts. It's a progression, eh? Keep the goal in mind, but keep one eye on where the kids are at right now and give 'em what they need to take the next steps toward the goal. Beavah