Beavah

Yah, Eamonn, don't tell me you're buyin' into the "corporations are people my friend" bit. I'm pretty sure the organization doesn't sign the charter agreement since it doesn't have hands. B

Yah, I think you're lookin' for this news report: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/19/judge-orders-boy-scouts-to-turn-over-files-in-california-sex-abuse-case/ One of the sad things about the ineligible volunteer files is how plaintiff's attorneys see 'em as a gold mine. If you've been watching the reports, the same fellow who represented the plaintiff in the Oregon case has been filing suits on behalf of victims all across the country now. A few of those no doubt looked him up, but I expect the betting men among us would lay odds that his access to the files allowed him to go drum up business. The fellow in California seems to want to get in on that gravy train. In fact, the files are the exact opposite of what the Catholic Church did in Boston, LA, and other places. Where they covered things up and moved molesters from place to place, the BSA expelled them and kept a list so they couldn't just move to another troop or town and do the same thing. The BSA should be applauded and emulated for that effort. Unfortunately, now folks are makin' preposterous arguments that the BSA didn't do enough. In Oregon, the argument that succeeded was that the BSA should have turned the files over to researchers, and had training for parents that told parents "if you enroll your kids in scouting, he may be molested.". Essentially the equivalent of the dumb-a** warning labels we see on everything. I don't know too much about the CA case. All such things are tragic. But let's keep in mind that the whole bit about the SE telling the woman not to call the police is just a claim by a plaintiff, eh? If yeh read the article, you find that the scouter was pled out to a much lesser charge and released in two years. He's back on the street. That suggests to me that the evidence against the fellow was pretty thin, eh? When you're in that predicament as a plaintiff attorney, yeh try your case in the media lookin' for a settlement. So let's not all fly off the handle thinkin' the BSA has been putting kids at risk for decades. Their record compared to most is pretty darn good (though their representation in Oregon was uncharacteristically inept). Beavah

I've told my son that we can move on to more adventures troops but he has freinds here. Yeh can do both. Encourage him to stay with the current troop but go to outings and meetings for a few months with a new troop as well. Then let nature take it's course. Along the way, drop a note to your district commissioner to let 'em know your current troop needs some help. Beavah

No, the IH is not a registered member, does not need to fill out an application, etc. B

Councils could be replaced with state wide organizations. So instead of say 10 or so SE's making $150k a year each we have one making say $250k..... Yah, be careful what yeh wish for, BD. My understandin' of the current status of the Central Region Area 2 statewide merger is that they promoted most of their current SEs into new "Megacouncil" administrative positions and then are hiring even more executive for "field service" councils within the megacouncil. It's sorta interestin' to watch from afar. Kind of like rubbernecking a train wreck. Hope they get it together though. The lesson from the rest of the world is that of course it's good to have an association to belong to, whether it's a national association or just one of the national associations. Somebody to provide materials and a good deal on uniforms and da sort of common language and some common activities that keeps everyone havin' the sense they are a part of something. I've never been convinced that we need a national service corporation, though, let alone a protected-monopoly national service corporation. I've served at a bunch of levels, and done a bunch internationally where that's not the norm, and I confess I just don't really think it's net value added. Good people servin', got nothing against 'em at all. It's just that da structure and culture seem to get in the way, and tends to insulate folks from kids and volunteers in the field. If there were a startup national outdoor adventure association that pitched its offerings to middle schools and high schools instead of to churches, my guess would be that they'd decimate the BSA. I've been surprised that nobody "real" has moved into the space; so far all we've had are some fringe groups who cared more about their agenda than doin' good outdoor adventure youth work. That never works. Worse, they try to do somethin' with the uniform and badges stuff that the kids don't care for. B

Yah, sorry packsaddle, your question isn't clear. Are yeh askin' my professional opinion on what the proper legislative solution is to this issue? That's a complex policy question, because yeh at once want to create a safe harbor for teens while at the same time not wanting to create a loophole that allows mechanisms for protecting genuine child pornography (though SeattlePioneer and Trevorum both make excellent points). Or are yeh askin' what I personally would do with a kid I "caught"? I thought I'd been clear on the latter. I would behave like a competent and caring scouter or parent, and address the issue in that fashion. What I do in my professional life isn't particularly relevant, other than to confirm me in my knowledge that is both the correct example and the proper course of action. As to what an "officer of the court" thinks of anything, well for that I reckon yeh have to hire competent counsel in the jurisdiction of the competent court, eh? Talkin' to anonymous internet fellows named after furry rodents may be cheaper, but shouldn't be relied on as anything other than what you'd expect from such a fellow that only used to be a Beavah, and a good ol' Beavah too! Beavah

And when you explain how he did not earn First Class please keep in mind that NO WHERE in any BSA requirements is it required for a Scout to be tested more than ONCE, or to retain information for any specified period of time. Except in the Rules and Regulations of the BSA that we all agreed to live by when we signed our application forms.

Yah, packsaddle, I was the first person who raised sexting in the parent thread. I thought it was an obvious example of a crime, a felony even, where any adult who works with kids would immediately recognize that calling law enforcement to pursue the legal punishment for a fourteen year old boy was foolish. Can yeh even imagine what it would do to law enforcement and the courts if every adult who encountered one of the 6 million kids sexting opted to treat it as a mandatory reporting offense? And yet, here we are. Despite havin' strong opinions on the matter, I really am interested in what other folks think. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I know because I've been involved with PTI before with youth not my own. Anecdote is not data. Being involved in one case in the past does not mean that all cases are handled that way, eh? Most folks are good people doin' their best, but the justice system in no way is the best equipped to handle the instruction and counseling of youth. On that, I'm afraid, you'll have to either take my word for it or talk to anybody who is really "participated" with it on more than an anecdotal basis. Finally, and this one is something you often do...I mentioned 'ignoring' the law and you somehow spun that into something having to do with 'not enforcing' the law. I suspect that you know the difference. I could be wrong. And you are wrong, though I enjoyed your usual ad hominem I honestly had no idea what yeh meant about "ignoring" the law, so I took the only interpretation that made any sense to me. The only person in da thread that used the term "ignoring" was you (leaving out Scoutfish's admission of a guilty youth ). I checked...at ages less than 16 in this state, first-offender, non-violent youth will be diverted by Family Court to one of several options Ah, but we weren't talkin' about your state, were we? We were talkin' about E61's native and beautiful Arizona, where a 14 year old can be tried as an adult, and where even a 12 year old in a case like this can be jailed and registered as a sex offender until age 25. Besides, yeh did note my smiley on the bit about waitin' for E61 to tell us whether he was sendin' a lad off to the hoosegow for 10 years, right? I responded to the sexting discussion over in a new thread on that topic, just because I found the responses here fascinatin' and disturbing, much as I have felt the same about the odd nationwide behavior of many prosecutors on this topic. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It's late at night, and tryin' to parse these arguments was a bit too much for me. However, Callooh Callay's bit about the hippopotamus definitely brought me to the end of a frabjous day. Does anyone remember the ditty about the amorous hippopotamus? Mud, mud, glorious mud! Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood! Or, well, flinging around. Beavah

Yah, the parent thread seemed to go off a bit into responses to sexting, and I was quite surprised that the response from other scouters mirrored the sort of random (and to my mind, nutty) responses that we have seen in da legal system. It seemed like a good thread to spin off, even though the other thread has more than run its course. For folks who have been livin' in a bubble, "sexting" is the practice of teens taking pictures of themselves with their phones or computer cams and sending 'em to a boyfriend or girlfriend. The photos are, shall we say, "promiscuous". Several surveys have established that around 20% of teens have "sexted" at least once, or about 5 or 6 million U.S. teens. That's probably a low number. Of course, under federal and state law, if an underage minor sends a "sexted" photo of herself, it's child pornography, eh? Now suddenly she is a trafficker, her 14 year old boyfriend is a possessor, and the boyfriend's computer which is also used by dad makes him a child pornographer too. Those are "hard time" felonies, eh? Even plea deals down to lesser charges quite possibly put the kids and adults on the sex offender registry, with all the school, college, and employment implications of that. (Remember that folks on the sex offender registry can't live or be near any school, eh? Makes it hard to finish high school.) Now, yeh might think that prosecutors and law enforcement officials would be somewhat rational about this, eh? Many are, and some state legislatures and appeals courts are startin' to weigh in. But that's only because some prosecutors and law enforcement officials (there are always some...) haven't been rational about it. In hundreds of cases now across the nation kids and adults have been charged with felonies for this stuff. We do, after all, have some pretty "tough on crime" folks servin' as prosecutors in much of the land, and da role is often an elected one filled by folks who have to be politicians as well as attorneys. Personally, I'm in favor of being rational. Seems like a young lady of 16 sending a photo of herself to a beau of age 17 is a poor and immature choice, but it falls quite a bit short of trafficking in child pornography, or really of any felony or crime that puts yeh on the sex offender's registry. Seems like more the sort of thing that gets yeh grounded and your phone taken away. But then I'm a fellow who likes balance, and would prefer to see the lass's parents use their savings to pay for college rather than a legal defense. What do the rest of yeh think? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

if I was the father I would deal with it rather severely As well yeh should, as a caring father. Caring fathers are very different than law enforcement officers. And yes, in my area I do know, also with great certainty, that PTI works really well and that I'm ready to invoke it. Yah, hmmmm.... If I may ask, how exactly do yeh know that? You've read good peer-reviewed research on the program, doin' an appropriate comparison to friend and family intervention? If I may ask, how exactly are yeh goin' to "invoke it?". Last time I checked, the fellow who called the cops doesn't get a say in the actions taken by the justice system. Since a scouter is likely to be in jurisdictions other than her home town / county when she calls the cops, how is she supposed to know whether the local system in that area works "really well."? Since the offense in this case is both a federal and a state felony, how do yeh know which group is goin' to take lead? Do yeh know that the federal system also has a PTI that works "really well?" Granted, the feds would usually defer in a case like this, but this particular area has been a focus for a while. And are you really sure yeh want to send your son's best friend off into the court system just because his girlfriend sent him an inappropriate photo out of the blue? I can't wait to see what yeh do when yeh chaperone a dance. I'm not sure what escalate to the extreme means. What E61 and I described are statutory minimum sentences, eh? Yep, it might be that a prosecutor has a brain and lets this go, or pleads it down to somethin' appropriate. But do yeh really know that those people are all responsible sorts? Most are OK, I'll grant, but at some level they stand for election and are therefore politicians as much as they are prosecutors, and politics usually causes a dramatic drop in IQ. Moreover, I would be dismayed if an attorney advised me to ignore the law. Has some attorney somewhere advised you to ignore the law? I rather doubt it, since any competent attorney would know that you're not an officer of the law and therefore are not expected to enforce it. He'd also know that even officers of the law are accorded discretion and expected to exercise it. No, I'd expect that any competent attorney would tell yeh that your legal and moral obligation is to act as a reasonably prudent adult, parent, or volunteer youth leader, and focus on the kid's needs rather than on worryin' about the law. Seems like I read that somewhere recently. B

Hiya SaintCad, Yep, not only is your troop expected to be "almost" a youth group for the CO, it is in actual fact a youth group of the CO. The BSA provides scouting materials to help the CO achieve its aims with youth. There are lots of churches that offer youth programming to those who aren't members, just because they believe that doing so is consistent with their religious calling. You are a volunteer for one of 'em, apparently. That's quite a responsibility, because they are ultimately on the hook for your actions and choices. You could cost 'em their church, but they take that risk because of their mission and their trust in you. Yep, the liability insulation for the BSA is real. For unit activities, the BSA acts as insurer and program materials provider, but it is not the "superior" or supervisor of the unit. The BSA routinely is excluded from unit liability cases in pre-trial motions on that basis. It still acts as insurer, of course, but once the insurance limit is reached, the balance falls to the Chartered Organization. Now, the BSA holds well thought out tiered insurance coverage and is very committed to protecting its unit leaders and chartered partners, but yeh can certainly imagine cases like serial molestation where the BSA's insurance coverage would be exceeded. Fixin' problem units? I forget what our ratio of DEs to units is, but certainly they have a hard time keepin' track, let alone supervising. I've worked with Chartered Orgs. on any number of unit rescues, and it generally works out well. Churches are often used to "tempests in teapots", eh? Now, I'll grant that the ones that do the best IMHO are the chartered organizations that run other youth programs as well, because they have that sort of background. The ones that are more problematic are the "Friends of" groups and such. Conflicting concepts? I don't know. I think sometimes this sort of thing happens. Often it's lower-level folks who aren't gettin' the message, rather than the actual IH or COR. My feeling is that's the sort of thing a unit should try to fix by being a good citizen and reaching out to the other members of its sponsoring organization. And I'm not as worried about "absentee" COs. I view that in most cases as sound management. Pastors and IH's are busy people, and by and large they are "absentee" to most of their affiliated groups which are run by various church members or others. The point is to find and rely on good people who care about their ministry and trust 'em to keep things goin' until you're invited to the Eagle COH or Cub Scout B&G. Yep, LDS runs a more integrated program, and a lot of the Catholic and many of the Methodist units are also more associated with their charter partners in various ways. And yeh know what? Nationally, those are the 3 most numerous. Beavah

Ah, OK Eagle732. That sounds more like you, mate. I think yeh have to be very careful about assumin' that court ordered diversionary programs are goin' to be successful. The courts are not psychologists, counselors, or educators. While there are some local diversion programs that have some success, overall they're very hit or miss, and especially in the current economic climate have increasingly been defunded. None of 'em has the rate of success that a moderately caring family selecting appropriate other resources has. So if the goal is really to help the boy, law enforcement and the justice system is not the proper choice. As to whether folks think they should call the police over more minor stuff, I think that was the reason for the original question in this thread, eh? Because a number of folks did express that they'd do exactly that, for various reasons. I was quite surprised. And we're waitin' for E61 to tell us whether he's goin' to drop a dime on his son's friend in da hopes that the AZ law will send the 14 year old boy to prison for 10 years Beavah

Scouting is program based. It's about doing. Getting outdoors. Learning. Exploring. Building friendships. The scout in question apparently has done this, has been a good member of the troop and has met BSA advancement expectations. I think what evilleramsfan and his fellow scouters are tryin' to say is that the boy in question really hasn't done this, at least in terms of learning and meeting BSA advancement expectations. He has been "signed off", perhaps for participation as Basementdweller suggests, but we all recognize that just participatin' doesn't mean learning and definitely doesn't mean meeting BSA advancement expectations. So yeh have a case where some, perhaps many, of the sign-offs were improper, but the boy relied on 'em. Da big issue there is to fix the quality control on the folks who are doin' the sign-offs. Then yeh have to worry about whether or not you are short-changing the boy. As fred8033 says, the point of scouting is goin' out and doin' stuff, and to give a boy a rank just because paperwork is complete when he doesn't yet have the skill puts him in harms way. First Class is a threshold for many "older scout" / high adventure activities and for OA, but a lad who has the badge but not First Class skills is put at a real disadvantage. So yeh also have to address the advancement issue with the boy. How yeh do that depends a bit on your style, your troop culture, and your relationship with the lad. Most boys, I would sit with, help 'em admit that they really didn't know how to do X, Y, and Z like a First Class scout should, and then promise to work with 'em over the next month(s) to brush up so they could wear the badge with honor. Others tend more toward givin' out the badge and then workin' with him to refresh the skill. Still others would choose other methods. The point is to help the boy have the skill to do all that great fun stuff well and safely, not to hand out patches. When they're headin' off into the sunset, though, it's a hard question, because yeh can't do the sort of follow up yeh need to. On the one hand, I think yeh err on the side of givin' him the benefit of the doubt, sendin' him off with good feelings and all the rest. On the other hand, in his new troop a Star Scout may be expected to be able to do all kinds of things includin' steppin' right up into leadership roles, and it can be quite rough on him to be put in that position among new boys and not be ready to succeed. So yeh might have a word with the new SM and let him know that the lad blew through ranks awfully fast and could probably use some brush-up. Beavah

OK, Engineer61. The federal law is minimum of 5 years, Arizona is a minimum of 10. But here's my question. Your son's best friend is over at your house, and yeh hear the two of 'em giggling in an odd way so you look in. On your son's friend's iPhone is a photo of his 14-year-old girlfriend (same grade in school) who has "exposed herself" waist up and sent it to him. Technically, under the law, your son's friend is in possession of child pornography and subject to the penalties you describe. Dependin' on how aggressive various legal folks want to be, your son is also eligible for related charges, and of course the girl in question is quite possibly a "trafficker in child pornography" subject to potentially harsher penalties. Then there's the question of who owns the phones and cameras that enabled this, and how culpable they are. What's your move? Do yeh call the AZ State Police and the FBI Internet Crimes against Children task force? Or do yeh call the boy's and the girl's parents and let 'em know what's goin' on and how potentially serious that could be and let 'em deal with it? And then have a talk with your son. B

Yah, Eagle732, I think yeh missed the lines leadin' into that quote of mine: If we can't deal with all of the stuff that falls in the realm of ordinary teen "bad" behavior without callin' for backup from local LEOs...(long list of examples) Nobody is sayin' don't call law enforcement if a kid is dealing methamphetamine, raped another boy in the shower, or used an accelerant to burn the dining hall down. As I mentioned at the start, if yeh know the consequence of the act has to be permanent removal from your troop and from scouting, and in order to protect other people the lad needs to potentially be behind bars or at least in court-ordered intervention of some sort, then I reckon we're all fine with it. But that's where the threshold should be, eh? Not kids takin' a poke at each other, not kids gettin' in an ordinary fight, not bein' a bonehead playin' with matches. All of the range of things that falls in the realm of ordinary teen "bad" behavior should be stuff that we should be able to handle, workin' with parents and others in the program. And if we can't, then we shouldn't be workin' with teens, where we will inevitably be faced with such situations and expected to handle 'em. To be clear, though, by that I do mean "handle 'em". The choice is not between calling the cops and doing nothing, as you and others seem to be suggesting. The choice is a range of things from immediate removal and expulsion from the program on down. The difference is that we and the parents know the boy and will have a lot more long-term contact. Our little arsonist moved on to another unit, they had no idea of his prior activities. Well why in Sam Hill didn't you TELL THEM??? Yeh let a boy you expelled for what you considered dangerous behavior go to another unit, and it never occurred to you that they might need to know that? Yeh never told the council office that yeh had concerns and this might be a case where a boy should be removed from Scouting? You actually think that the law enforcement authorities are somehow goin' to help another scout unit with a problem kid when you couldn't be bothered? The likely outcome of a juvenile case that involves unwitnessed, unsuccessful "arson" of the sort you describe is that the justice system is NOT goin' to handle it. Most county prosecutors aren't goin' to bother with it, and even if they poke at it any competent defense counsel will dispose of it in short order. Yeh have no way of establishin' that it wasn't genuinely an accident, and then the question turns back to why you as the supervisory adult allowed a youth to possess matches/lighter unsupervised on his own in the evening, when such accidents might occur. The notion that the justice system is somehow goin' to do our job for us as parents and scouters is just nonsense. Kids are important, though, as is our responsibility to 'em. So if we are unwillin' or unable to do the job of a competent, prudent, responsible youth leader then we need to get out of the uniform and go find somethin' else to spend our volunteer time on. Beavah

Yah, Scout Salute to yeh evilleramsfan! First, for keepin' your focus on the Aims yeh want to achieve for each boy, and then for havin' the courage and vision to do what yeh need to do with your program to achieve those Aims. Camps really shouldn't be signin' off T-2-1 requirements, and when I do a camp visit I sometimes need to have that conversation with the staff. Camps help troops by providin' instruction (Step 1: A Scout Learns), but when it comes to rank requirements, it's up to the troop to provide the testing (Step 2: A Scout is Tested). There's also nothin' at all wrong with TLT being a requirement to hold a position of responsibility in a troop, and therefore indirectly to be a requirement for Star, Life, and Eagle. I think when these things come up, it is worth thinkin' for a moment if a boy (or dad) has intentionally tried to scam signoffs. That is to say, they knew the troop's real expectations and are deliberately playin' fast and loose. Testing the limits, if you will. When that happens, I think it merits a somewhat firmer conversation and perhaps a "no", because at its core the question is "do you care enough to tell us no?". However, yeh have to come at that with clean hands, eh? If your communication or practice were at all a contributin' factor, then I think yeh have to give the boy the benefit of the doubt. Still, yeh can have a conversation on the next campout about him really needin' to go back and improve his basic skills, because that's the only way people will really respect him as a leader for Life rank. One thought if you're havin' quality control issues that I saw one troop do: for a stretch, do no sign-offs on anything at meetings or outings. None, zip, nada. Instead, signoffs at least for T-2-1 happen at a testing day or overnight that yeh hold once a month or once every other month or so. No instruction at all, just challenges. It's game day, not practice. The boy has to come with proper gear. He has to do the five mile hike with an older scout observer/buddy, he has to do a meal plan on his own and yeh stop at the supermarket on the way out where he shops within budget, do a fire on his own and cook on it, use proper first aid to treat a burn scenario from the fire, etc. Then yeh have a bunch of adults and older boys there together, and yeh discuss before signing anything off. It really helps everyone get on the same page when yeh can actually see what "knows how to plan and cook a meal" looks like or doesn't look like, and the boys themselves pretty much recognize immediately whether they've done a good job to merit a sign off or not. It also helps the adults sometimes if the Patrol Leader is there sayin' "At this point, I couldn't trust him to plan the patrol's meals on his own, and that's what the signoff should mean." Plus, from what I saw, these things seemed like a lot of fun. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I suppose some of our comments could be construed as parenting advice, though I think that's a bit of a stretch. Me thinks someone might be a might sensitive to the topic. Anyways, as one of those grizzled vets, let me say that I wasn't givin' parenting advice so much as giving Scouting advice along with the rationale for that advice. I always figure it helps folks understand if they get a bit of the "why" as well as the "what." AlabamaDan seems to want to know how to make his son's (and his own) scouting successful. I can assure you, it won't be successful if as a first year parent in "I was a great cub leader" mode starts quotin' boy scoutin' books and demanding that the troop modify its procedures to accommodate his wishes. The result will be that his son's peers and the older boys in the troop feel that his son is "cheating", is a "daddy's boy", and really doesn't deserve the ranks/privileges he gets. No amount of "I know my boy better!" is goin' to change that youth sentiment or the impact on his son. The result will be that those same older boys will not trust or respect AlabamaDan as a potential adult leader, and in a good troop he wouldn't be approved as an ASM (which is, I assume, a long-term direction he wants to head in). No amount of quotin' guidebooks at older boys and veterans will change that impression. The result will be adult conflict in the troop, hard feelings, disturbed structures of youth and adult leadership. And as a Commissioner who spends more than half my time tryin' to rescue troops from this sort of thing, I can say more often than not it ends badly. As parents, we're of course free to raise our kids as we see fit. However, if we choose to enroll them in someone else's program - school, band, sports, scouts, theater, robot club, church youth group, whatever - then the price for havin' other people and organizations provide services for our kids is that we have to adapt to their norms and expectations. If we aren't willin' to do that with school, we home school. Not willin' to do that with band? Teach your kid to play yourself. Not willing to do that with sports? Well, then team sports at least are out. Not willin' to do that with scouting? Then take your kid campin' on your own and make up your own system of rewards for achievement. It's always our choice as parents, eh? Nobody is tryin' to take that away. Scoutin' is here just to offer a particular type of service to kids, parents, and families. If yeh don't think that service is a good fit for your parenting style or family, whether it's because yeh don't like the "duty to God" bits or you'd prefer to be hands-on in directing your kid's activities yourself, then no hard feelings, eh? We'll even help yeh find other opportunities, because Scouting is not what you're lookin' for. All things considered, I think scoutin' is a pretty parent-friendly place compared to most middle school and high school youth activities, especially for folks like AlabamaDan who seem to be into outdoorsmanship and the scouting gestalt. Start out on the right foot, and there are lots of parent opportunities to share great times with your kid in the program. And not just from the sidelines, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, noname, my initial thought was that yeh were talkin' about camping in tents vs. camping under the stars. If you're under any structure that's a temporary, portable structure of some sort it isn't camping. Well, maybe I'll give yeh credit for 3-sided lean-to / Adirondack shelters, but only when yeh catch me on a good day. Cabins, museums, and basements is for cub scouts, and only in bad weather. Generally speakin', this stuff happens when yeh have adult leaders who aren't outdoorspeople and don't like to camp. To change your troop culture, yeh need to recruit some new adult leadership with those skills. The boys' program will follow naturally enough. Don't try to argue the reluctant people into it, just find some more adventurous sorts and start offerin' the boys opportunities. Beavah

Is the boy doing something illegal? Call the authorities because if one doesn't they can be held accountable or complicit. Yah, this is just nonsense. There is no duty to report criminal activity by minors, and anybody who tells yeh otherwise is just blowin' smoke. As a scouter, yeh have an obligation to act as a reasonably prudent adult, which means that in almost all cases yeh involve the parents and let them as the guardians of the lad take what they feel is appropriate action. Until yeh reach the parents, as a scout leader, yeh should be expected to act in loco parentis, eh? To act as a parent would or should. Not as an arm of the state, and certainly not abdicating your duty to the boy by washin' your hands and droppin' him on law enforcement. As scout leaders of course we are "called on to be the judge" of things all the time. To judge safety, and quality of gear, and respond to boys actions and behaviors. Exercising prudent judgment is the primary role and duty of anyone working with kids. Again, if yeh are unwilling to accept that, then yeh have no business as a volunteer or professional in a youth program. Heck, yeh have no business bein' a professional in anything. Yep, that might be a "rather harsh response to the issue", but it's the plain and simple truth. Doin' any kind of work comes with "risks" that should be balanced, but da risk of the legal boogeyman because yeh acted like a reasonably prudent parent or adult ain't one of 'em. I'm curious, though. I posted a list of stuff that is criminal activity that scouts engage in from time to time in my last message. How many of you would call law enforcement for those things? 1. Kids sneak a beer along on a campout and share it. 2. Kids get in a fight. 3. Kid "vandalizes" the cabin wall with his knife (carves name, pokes hole in drywall, etc.) 4. Kid steals / "borrows" somethin' from another boy. 5. Kid shares a "sexted" picture of his girlfriend that she sent. 6. Kid moons the camp director. Havin' sexted pictures of his girlfriend is, after all, felony possession of child pornography with a minimum 5 year sentence. For him and for her. Mooning the camp director is indecent exposure, a sex-offender-registry crime in many jurisdictions. Sheesh. I suppose yeh all are in favor of "zero tolerance" policies that expel Eagle Scouts for havin' grandma's kitchen knives in his trunk while helpin' her move. Beavah

Yah, I'll echo shortridge's comment, eh? If this requirement is actually what is holdin' up a kid for rank, then yeh have to fix the rest of your advancement and outdoors program. There should be almost no practical way for a boy to have fulfilled the other requirements without havin' exceeded these requirements by a fair margin. Once yeh get down to this sort of thing being a contested issue, yeh know that somethin' has gone off the rails. I'd encourage yeh to figure out how to take a big step back and wean everybody from the notion that advancement is the program, rather than lettin' anyone waste people's time by tryin' to lawyer out the definition of "activity." Or, to put it another way, perhaps it isn't showin' good scout spirit for 2nd Class to argue with your Patrol Leader over what constitutes an "activity" Beavah

Yah, I think we're confusin' some things here. There is no doubt that some teenage behavior by "at risk" teens does move across the line into the realm of law enforcement. We can all come up with cases, and on occasion the "scared straight" thing does work if all the stars align. If yeh are workin' a specialty Venturing crew that's part of a prison diversion program yeh might be seeing some of this. In a regular troop program where we've known the kids since they were 11? Not likely, especially if we've been doin' our job along the way. I agree completely with nldscout. If the people who know the boy and who have relationships with a boy that the boy values don't firmly address poor behavior early and often, the lesson that gets learned is that it's OK or that he can get away with it. I'm not advocatin' just "talking" to a lad, I'm an advocate for comin' down on him like a ton of bricks. But the people who should be doin' that are the people who have the most connection to him - his parents, his scout leaders, his friends. The ones that are big parts of his life. The punishment that matters most is loss of relationships, loss of respect from people yeh care about. And while the ton of bricks is important, what really counts is the follow up afterward, eh? That people stick with him, that he works to repair those relationships, or when removal becomes necessary that he feels their loss and still has support to move on differently. Much as the police and courts do what they can in these cases, and yeh can point to a few local programs as "success stories", by and large the system is disconnected, impersonal, and unsuccessful at anything other than "processing" such youth. Often the law limits the justice system's response and definitely slows it down. It doesn't begin to offer the sort of ongoin' guidance required to really change behavior, which is why recidivism is so high. Mostly, what kids learn in their first trip through "the system" is that it's a paper tiger, to be dodged or dealt with but not feared. And if they start developin' friendships with others "in the system", then we've mostly lost the game. Because then those will be the relationships and da respect they want to hold on to. Yah, yah, smaller communities are a bit better... sometimes. But unless yeh work in the system, yeh really have no idea whether the county prosecutor or the respondin' officer is good with kids. By and large, yeh won't be in your own community when yeh call law enforcement on a campout; yeh might even be in a different state... or country, which raises all kinds of additional issues. Yeh can find some genuinely saintly people who do their best, just as yeh can find some folks who don't do well by kids at all. But even the saints don't really have enough connection with the lad to achieve all that much. And these days, while court records may be sealed, online stuff is wide open and stays with yeh for a long time. So I'll stick by what I said. If we can't deal with all of the stuff that falls in the realm of ordinary teen "bad" behavior without callin' for backup from local LEOs, includin' some stuff that is "criminal" (kids sneak a beer along and share it, kids get in a fight, kid "vandalizes" the cabin wall with his knife, kid steals another kid's somethin' or other, kid shares a sexted picture of his underage girlfriend, kid is a bully, kid moons the camp director, etc.), then we need to find somethin' else to do with our volunteer time. It's really just a form of cowardice in my book - an inability for an adult to stand up for what's right on his own without hiding behind some other authority. The only uniformed official yeh should need is the fellow that is wearing olive and tan. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I guess that I've never been very into quotin' things out of books as authoritative, at least not ones that aren't Revealed Texts. And even those yeh have to read in context. I think the actual quotes from the G2A are "any scout may work on any [badge] at any time as long as he has the approval of his unit leader" (emphasis mine). Similarly "the scout may have a [counselor] in mind with whom he would like to work. He may also want to take advantage of opportunities at merit badge fairs or midways, or at rock-climbing gyms or whitewater rafting trips that provide merit badge instruction. This is acceptable, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate. A unit leader should consider making more of the process than just providing an OK. " Da problem with just quotin' those random sections is that it really doesn't give a good picture of best practice or allowable local changes or all kinds of other things. For example, my council will only approve a counselor for 5 badges at any given time. That's not somethin' I agree with, but it's somethin' that's fairly common in councils, eh? It's up to the council advancement committee who they register for each badge, and they can use any criteria they like. Sometimes a chartered organization may limit MB counselors only to people who have passed their own adult screening or leader training, because their youth protection rules are stricter than the BSA's. Sometimes camps restrict badges by age or by rank for practical and safety purposes. Sometimes outfitters that offer Whitewater MB or Climbing MB restrict the offering to boys over a certain age because of insurance limitations. And on and on. There are more things on earth than are dreamed of by your guidebooks, Horatio. From a practical point of view, there are few things as potentially disruptive and contentious in a troop as parents signin' off their own kids on a bunch of stuff, especially if they are unit leaders or assistant unit leaders. Heck, it's contentious even in Cub Scouting, eh? In Boy Scouting it can be positively toxic. It's worth avoidin'. A troop that doesn't want to permit the practice is goin' to have the support of most of its members, and in the end can simply tell a family that disagrees to take their scouting elsewhere. Membership and the free-will contribution of other folks' time is a privilege, not a right. Beavah

Hi Alabama Dan! Thanks for your many years of service to the Cub Scout program. Yeh must have been havin' fun to stay in things that long. I often tell folks the way to think about the transition from Cub Scouting to Boy Scouting is similar to how the same sort of transitions are goin' on in the rest of the boy's life. There's a transition to middle school. Along with that, there's a transition to middle school extracurriculars and sports. All through elementary school, parents pretty much led activities, eh? They're soccer coaches and T-ball coaches and such. As your boy grows up, though, he'll move into activities where there are school-appointed band directors and paid professional coaches, and parents move over to being supportive through Boosters organizations. The same happens in Scouting. Activities become more challenging, and boys who are growing in independence need specialists to interact with and folks who have deeper skills in areas. They learn more - not just about the topic, but about how to see themselves as their own man and capable of interacting with experienced folks outside their family. So your role as a parent changes if yeh want your boy to grow. It becomes more one of supporting his explorations and encouraging his goin' out into the world and working with others, rather than doin' it yourself. And then helping the program to work well by offerin' support. Boy Scouting is like that. For a Merit Badge, the boy is goin' to approach his Scoutmaster and get permission, and then be directed to an adult with particular expertise in an area. If he's interested in Veterinary Medicine, he might be directed to a local vet who will meet with your son, perhaps show him around his animal clinic, sit and discuss a plan for having fun and learning the material, and eventually after a few meetings and some independent work by your son, test him out on the badge's requirements. As others have mentioned, there's nothing to stop you from doin' the work for/with your son. It might be fun, yeh might find it fulfilling. But if yeh do yield to that temptation then I promise you when all is said and done you'll be disappointed with the long-term outcomes of your son's scouting experience. A better role to move into is one of support. Be the safe place at home that is necessary for a boy to go out into the scarier world with confidence. Encourage him, drive him to meetings when he asks, but let the work, the successes, and the failures be his. It's hard, eh? It takes a lot of deep love and genuine effort by parents to take those gradual steps back. Most good troops try to help parents by being pretty firm about "parents don't counsel their own sons," at least at the start. In the rare case where a parent truly is the best or only local "expert" in a field (you're the only Nuclear Scientist who can be found), then of course most units will do what makes sense. If I could make a suggestion? I'd say yeh need to give your son some space to make Boy Scouting his own on his own terms. Pick a couple outings to go on, but don't go on every one or even a majority. Step back into a committee role for your first year and help in small but important ways. Give your son time to learn the lay of the land, and then more time to engage successfully. After your son has been in for a stretch and made it his new home first, then there's room for you to come in and start trainin' as an Assistant Scoutmaster and learn the ropes which are very different from Cub Scouting. I think you'll find that in the long run, hard as it is, you'll like the outcome. Beavah