Beavah

Yah, Engineer61, some things change. But I reckon the modern equivalent of BB gun fights is paintball, eh? Not nerf. Da modern version of nerf is laser tag. In da modern world we added bike helmets and better brakes and suspensions on bikes. What we got as a result is kids mountain biking, free riding down steep downhills (like ski hills!) dodging trees or hopping curbs and logs around town. Or takin' their old kids BMX bike and doin' aerial somersaults. Where I grew up I learned how to ski on floppy leather boots and old wooden skis. These days they have helmets and plastic boots and integrated releasable binding systems and modern composite shaped skis and snowboards. So they build half-pipes and install hard metal rails and jumps and open up da side-country glades so boys can ski ungroomed paths through trees. Where I grew up I learned to motorboat with a small outboard. Now kids get to go zippin' about on JetSkis. Snowmobiles used to be fun but were really quite low-powered compared to da modern equipment. Just about every mid-sized city has a climbing gym; just about every good sized camp has an aerial high ropes course, just about every amusement park has rides 8 times the size of what I remember, loads more kids play high-impact semi-pro hockey or football at younger ages, despite the severe brain injury risk. Add in skateboard and rollerblade parks, lads doin' parkour, spiffy plastic kayaks instead of big open canoes, on and on... Do yeh really want to make a case that lads these days have moved to nerf guns? That might be a family choice, but it ain't the general reality. What is different is that the BSA used to be on the forefront of youth adventure, appealing to that aspect of boyhood but also teachin' 'em how to do it safely for themselves and responsibly lookin' out for others. We're no longer anywhere near the forefront; in fact, we're runnin' about 2-3 decades behind where kids are at. Beavah

The Guide to Safe Scouting tells you what is approved, i.e. what the "insurance" will and won't cover, and how to comply with the "insurance" requirements. Once again, for da record, there is NO direct relationship between G2SS and insurance coverage. Insurance coverage is determined by an insurance contract and governed by state laws, G2SS is an internal organizational document providing guidance on best practices. They are not the same. BSA insurance routinely covers legal expenses and judgments for "violations" of G2SS, because we stand by our volunteers, even when they make poor judgments. Anything less would be Untrustworthy (and, in most states, anything less would also be Bad Faith practice by an insurer that can result in up to triple damages against the insurer. ). Da reason why we have G2SS is to help leaders and Chartered Partners run safe, effective programs. Much of da internal debate within the BSA about G2SS is not about exploring abandoned mines or going skydiving. It's about what constitutes proper guidance. Should the document be a top-down document written to the (perception of) the Least Common Denominator of scout leaders, and restricting all activities that Joe-off-the-street with no camping/youth experience can't do? Those honestly account for da bulk of our accidents that cost $$, eh? Stuff that 99% of da units do without incident but some unit screws up. Or should it be written as a best practices document for average scout troops, allowing units with more resources to go beyond it and supporting less experienced folks through other means? Should the document be about public relations perception, as seen by a few vocal people on internal committees, and therefore restrict activities like paintball or laser tag that even Joe-off-the-street with no camping or youth experience regularly do safely? Or should it be limited to a document about best safety practices based on real data, and leave judgments on perception and values to the chartered partners? Should the document be about regulation, even pulling language from unrelated things like OSHA and the Child Labor statutes which don't really apply, and encourage talk about "violations" and whether it says "must" or "may" and penalties like loss of membership? Or should the document be about being Friendly and Helpful, focusing on education to assist units in running safe and active and adventurous programs that kids are attracted to and learn from? It's the nature and character of da internal guidance document we offer our friends and fellow scouters that is so often debated among good scouters. Do we really think that our best practices must include never jumping off a diving board or rock more than a few feet above the water, or is that honestly somethin' that almost all of us have done safely and with great enjoyment at some point in our lives, that we would be happy to share with kids? Beavah

I know a few troops who do somethin' similar, SP. Send out a parent solicitation rather than puttin' up with the whole district dog-and-pony show, accept checks or scout account contributions and write da council a big check from the unit. Ironically, sometimes councils don't like it because they like being able to ID the bigger donors for additional donations down the road. I think you're doin' it right, though. The FOS solicitation should come from people in the unit who are known to the families, and trusted. You've earned a piece of their time to make a pitch, where the fellow from the district really hasn't. And folks are goin' to help the Scoutmaster out when he tells 'em there's good things to be done, eh? Far more than a stranger. Beavah

Ah, the teapot tempests we get ourselves involved in. I know that when dealin' with fellow adults behaving badly, most of us want to behave as though we are colleagues and neighbors. When yeh have a neighbor who behaves badly, the polite thing most of the time is to be non-confrontational, accommodating, and work around the person. Same with a co-worker, eh? Yeh go along to get along. That, however, is not your role in these circumstances, Crossramwedge. When yeh signed on as COR, yeh agreed to be the boss, not a co-worker. The obstreperous parents are not neighbors, they are guests on property that you are responsible for, and have promised to take care of on behalf of the Chartered Partner. Your role as COR is to act on behalf of the IH so that he doesn't have to deal with this sort of nonsense, eh? Yeh should let him know what's goin' on or sound him out so nobody tries any end-runs, but after that, yeh act. This doesn't have to be all dramatic and angsty. Yeh behave calmly and professionally. If there is to be a meeting, you call the meeting and invite those committee members who are making a spectacle of themselves. Bring your district commissioner if yeh like. At the meeting, yeh talk about the goals and principles of the church, your collective desire to see good things happen for kids. Yeh acknowledge their concerns about the SPL and their right to feel that way and let 'em know yeh understand completely, and that people of good will sometimes disagree. Then yeh thank them for their service and let 'em know that since they feel as strongly as they do, their services are no longer required and they have been removed from the troop committee effective immediately. Collect their keys, literal or metaphorical, walk 'em to the door, and let 'em know that the district commish is there to help them find a new troop if they so choose. Then yeh send out a general communication to the troop, explaining in a non-confrontational and professional manner what happened, what action the scoutmaster took, your consulting with the district and a number of other scouters and the position of the chartered organization supporting the scoutmaster. Then yeh let 'em know what actions have been taken, calmly and professionally. Yeh probably should have done this some time ago, eh? It's da sense that there is an "opening" that drives this sort of behavior, and that "opening" happens when people try to be accommodating to others' poor behavior. Treatin' 'em as neighbors and co-workers, when your real job in this situation is to be the gent who compassionately but firmly delivers the pink slips. Beavah

Shucks. Here I was hopin' someone was taking FOS out to the rifle range. I'd pay a lot for that opportunity. I think that's pretty typical AKdenldr. Lots of councils put out a "cost per kid" thing where they take their entire council budget and divide by enrolled youth members. When yeh do that yeh get pretty high dollar amounts. Yours are relatively low compared to what I've seen, actually. But if you're talkin' these as real targets for what each family should be giving during the Family FOS solicitation, then I'd say that's pretty aggressive, dependin' on the demographics of your population. Typically a big part of the FOS pool comes from the Community FOS campaign (businesses, major charities, high net-worth donors, foundations), so the Family FOS is just a piece of the nominal "per youth" cost. Beavah

We employ bribery. If the troop is packed up, in the cars, rolling by 9:30, we get to stop at a favorite country store for junk food. Yah, this seemed to be a bit of a theme through a number of responses in the parent thread about packing up on Sundays. I'm curious how other folks feel about this. Does your troop use Junk Food Bribery for anything, either as a regular incentive in the program (like packing up on time), or for other more occasional purposes? Are there scouters or parents here who would object to that approach (youth obesity, bribery not a good way to incentivize character-building behavior, etc.)? B

Yah, interestin' discussion. I think there are quite naturally real concerns for da medically verified nut allergies, and dependin' on severity yeh might want to create a no-nuts patrol. I also think a mixed-age patrol that puts the meataphobes together is a reasonable choice, as it allows 'em to develop da specialty cooking and planning skills required, and the older boys provide mentoring for the younger fellows. I think it would be very difficult to impossible to accommodate a variety of special needs diets in an ordinary patrol and simultaneously maintain patrol cohesiveness, avoid personal "cold" meals, and not generate resentment by making the majority eat grass all the time. I've seen adults try and fail to accomplish this, so expecting kids to might be a bit much. Workin' with boys, I've also noticed that vegetarian meals often seem to take longer to prepare (longer cooking times, more knife work), which is an additional burden. Veggie meals also rely on spices and textures that are often outside da palates of other lads. As an aside, I think scouters also have to be alert to the child abuse and neglect issues in a vegetarian low-protein diet for growing children, especially adolescents. Providin' adequate nutrition for young folks with this sort of diet is a challenge for those who don't have good dietician-like training. I've seen it rise to the level of mandatory-reportable neglect on several occasions. Beavah

Troops that are sponsored by Catholic Churches need to make arrangements for the Scouts to attend Mass. Yah, hmmm... This is interestin'. Is it somethin' new I wonder? Or is it local option? In our area, Catholic scouts and units amount to about a quarter to a third of our youth served/units registered. There's not a perfect overlap the way there is with LDS, with many Catholic kids in non-Catholic units, and some non-Catholic kids in Catholic-sponsored units. One of da units that almost always stays out to late Sunday is a Catholic-sponsored unit. Not sure how they handle it, though I know they do attend mass when in town. Our district folks sometimes share da site http://masstimes.org, which has times and locations for masses worldwide, for troops that want to just go off for an hour nearby on Sunday morning. I'm pretty sure da non-Catholic units with Catholic boys don't generally haul 'em off to services beyond Scouts' Own. I've only run into this occasionally in supportin' units. Generally there are two reactions: either the parents are good with things and just go along, or they aren't and da local pastor just gives his dispensation or "commutes" the obligation to Tuesday morning mass before school. Are other folks runnin' into somethin' different? Are our Catholic brethren now pursuing a more LDS-style approach that I should be aware of? Beavah

Yah, interestin'. For the life of me I can't imagine why so many people want to rush home on a Sunday morning. We're in da field! What could be better?? We're growin' the youth, the leaders of tomorrow! What could be more productive? Makes me think that modern adults need to slow down and decompress and de-stress. To my mind, a lot of the learning that happens in scoutin' requires a bit of time to soak in. That's why summer camp and high adventure trips are so successful, eh? Boys have time to get in the groove. When yeh just rush out and back, there isn't any time to learn, work out interpersonal stuff, or experience the real consequences of not cleaning up after dinner and facing dirty pots at breakfast or stuff scattered about that yeh need for the Sunday hike. Happily, I do know a few troops that never do a half a weekend. Depart on Friday, return Sunday evening. If scouting is fun, why not try to fit more in? If scouting is worthwhile and important, why rush off just to deal with weekly chores? Beavah

Yah, I don't reckon scout shirts are goin' to make a trade difference one way or another. It's all the folks who aren't willing to pay an extra $10 - $20 - $40 or more per item of clothing in their wardrobe that are the issue. Selfish of 'em, I know, to opt for cheap overseas goods so they can put their kids through college or scrape together da cash to send their son to Philmont. Yep, it's important to keep those low-payin' jobs for untrained illiterates right here in da U.S. of A. Can't expect our kids to be educated for somethin' better. Don't believe in that education and guvmint stuff anyhow. Anyways, I think a few things have happened over time. First, da boy scout market as a percentage of the total youth or outdoor gear market has shrunk enormously over the years. Outdoor recreation has exploded, youth population has grown, and our numbers have shrunk. What a manufacturer is willing to do to appeal to 30% of the market is a lot more than what a manufacturer is willing to do to appeal to 3% of the market. Just the way life (and the free market) is. Second, I reckon da BSA has probably gotten more savvy and aggressive about trademark protection and licensing fees. Beavah

Yep, it's now required that every unit be excellent. On paper. This is why these top-down things are such nonsense. They distract districts and councils from doin' their real job of supporting units and unit programming, and consume unit resources (includin' emotional effort) with as much likelihood of harming program as helping. Even da best-intentioned programs like this go off da rails when they hit the street. B

Oh, let's not get mean. Some of 'em deal with classified information, so it's OK to give 'em a secure blackberry. But I like SA's nuclear option of just confiscating their lobbyist dollars if they don't get the work done. I think da Catholic folks do something like what a few are advocating when electing a pope, eh? Lock everybody in and then slowly reduce the amount of food and water provided, until they're on hard-tack and a glass a day. Sounds good to me, though I might be tempted to start reducin' the amount of air provided, too!

Curtain number one. However, there is a bit of a fine line, especially with younger boys. We don't want to leave 'em with the impression that all of the experienced, cool old furry critters just hang out and watch when there's work to be done. All that will encourage is them to become experienced older scouts who just hang out and watch in their patrols when there's work to be done. Yeh let 'em do it as a sign of respect, that they don't need to be mothered, and it's OK. But sometimes, yeh just help out to be neighborly. And sometimes, perhaps, yeh give 'em the opportunity to help out the adult patrol just to give them a chance to be neighborly. Beavah

We try to get things cleaned up as much as possible on Saturday night so Sunday morning is pack & go. Sunday breakfast is oatmeal out of paper bowls so we don't create any big cleaning jobs. Yah, just curious about what different units do. Does your troop usually do things this way, and do a pack-and-go early morning Sunday, or does your troop usually use a full Sunday as a camping day and not return until the afternoon/evening? How do yeh think the different approaches work out? Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... A district camping chair who knows his job would properly refrain from offerin' a unit any advice in this regard. The job of the camping chair is to organize district camping events in order to assist the units in gettin' kids outdoors, nothing more. Sadly, not everybody pays attention at their training, or reads da materials they're supposed to. Beavah

Yah, I'd be all in favor of a very simple agreement. From presidential appointment to senate confirmation vote in 60 days. If the vote isn't taken, either because the Senate isn't around or because it's filibustering or because it can't get its act together, then the appointment is confirmed by default. Part of da problem is the sheer numbers of positions requiring advice and consent. At the time the Constitution was framed, the founders didn't anticipate that over a thousand different positions would fall into this category. It should be limited once again to just the most significant positions in the executive and judicial branches. Appellate and supreme courts, cabinet level secretaries, and maybe a half dozen other major positions. That way congress can't try to muck with individual laws through appointment blocking, nor can congressional leaders try to get cronies jobs. All that can be done with simple legislation and no need for a constitutional amendment. Just takes adult supervision, eh? Somethin' that the BSA has but Congress doesn't. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yep, plenty of patrols do 'em. Da most common workaround for national's new-restriction-of-da-month is to have adults come out on a campout but hike separately and set up camp a ways away. On many public lands, yeh have to hike and camp by patrol in any event to meet da group size restrictions. Beavah

Yah, I just couldn't parse all of SR540's list as anything other than silly partisan nonsense. Do people who put out such blather in da echo chambers actually read the legislation? Probably a third of those bills wouldn't be acceptable to an average Republican. There shouldn't be any surprise if the democrats in the Senate don't take 'em up. At quick glance, I'd also guess that half of those bills have not a lick to do with employment. Net neutrality, really? Other than the backbone providers who are just rent seeking, who isn't in favor of net neutrality? Do yeh really want AT&T to be able to decide whose phone call costs more? If you're a Republican, you get charged double for internet access to Fox News? That will certainly increase jobs. Of course all of that is just ordinary legislative process in a bicameral legislature. None of it has a thing to do with ratifying appointments within the executive branch. B

Yah, first it's worth sayin' that da "Selecting Quality Leaders" outline is just one method offered as guidance. In reality, units do this a number of different successful ways. Second, if yeh have a real troop committee (as opposed to an "all parents" committee), then da troop committee is the quite natural recruitment/selection committee. Puttin' together an ad hoc committee is something usually done only for new troop startups that don't yet have a functional troop committee, and they both recruit unit leaders and unit committee members. However, I agree with CalicoPenn that if yeh have a really large "all parent" committee, yeh want a smaller more experienced subcommittee to recommend candidates for SM/ASM. Now, it is worth mentioning to pixiewife that da "Selecting Quality Leaders" bit does not include self-nominations, eh? In fact, that sometimes leads to people running against each other, which can be a bad dynamic. So her committee should feel free to consider candidates outside of the original four if they feel that's the best way to go. B

I think this is da typical modern Republican tempest in a teapot. They all vote for indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil with no judicial process, but they're goin' to make a stink about recess appointments? Honestly, da malicious obstructionism of Congress using what should be "advice and consent" so as to cripple the government by leaving whole federal departments and boards leaderless or with less than a quorum is unconscionable. Federal vacancies should be filled by the President and approved by Congress within 3 months, period. Now personally I reckon that perennial obstruction of government services through mindless partisan blocking of appointments is sorta like terrorism, eh? Perhaps da President should simply order da military to detain all the obstructionists of both parties and ship 'em to Gitmo for indefinite detention. Throw in some waterboarding for the congressman who endorse it. I don't reckon even torture opponents would object. Da Congress is doin' lots more damage to the Republic than any of the current Gitmo detainees, and it would be poetic justice for their lack of Constitutional understanding. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... What an unusual situation. First question: are there any ASMs who are not applying for the position? Maybe you should look at them! My best advice is for the committee to interview the boys in the PLC and ask them about each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and who they would recommend. That's almost always the best indicator. Scouts, especially the leadership boys, are the true measure of how an adult interacts with and works with kids. They see the adults when other adults aren't watching. Anyone the kids say "no" to or are uncomfortable with should be ruled out, absolutely. Narrow your search to their top two. I'd ask each of the candidates who they would choose for the position from the other three candidates, and why. I'd also ask any ASMs who aren't candidates the same question. Da SM must have the respect of and be able to work with the other ASMs. The fellow (or lady) who is most frequently identified by their peers as being the best to work with is your top candidate. If the boys agree, your job is almost done. Da final questions go to the spouse and son (if any). Are they OK with it? Will they be supportive? Do they understand the commitment? No SM can be his or her best without the enthusiastic support of their family. Family tensions over not wanting dad as SM or being a "scouting widow/widower" make doing' a good job really tough, eh? No other interview questions mean very much, though here's a few just so yeh can fill the time: 1) What's the list of training you intend to pursue in the next year to help you with the job? What would you recommend for each of the other ASMs? 2) Which boys do you find it easiest to work with? Which boys hardest, and which other ASMs would you turn to for help with those boys? 3) Other than the SPL/PLs, who is the first boy you'll reach out to as SM to help/encourage, and why? 4) What are your weaknesses and needs, and what do yeh need us to do to support those so you can do what you're best at? How do you help scouts see the same things and work to support each other? 5) What are the best things about this troop that you want to build on? Yada yada. Spend more than half your time talking about kids, and avoid any who takes the conversation away from kids and toward procedures and hierarchies and such. By and large, my experience has been that committees are far too easily swayed by surface impressions - dress and comportment and such. Some of da best SMs don't interview all that well, because rather than imposing their vision they like to collaborate and seek input. So when it comes down to it, the only things that yeh should base your decision on are the kids' view, their fellow ASMs views, and da support of their family. All the rest is just information for the committee so that the committee can be proactive in supporting them. Yeh shouldn't use it for selection. Beavah

Has nuthin' to do with yesteryear, Engineer61. This is a comparison of different (international) programs in the here-and-now. Da point is that we are risk adverse compared to other modern first-world scouting and youth programs. In other words, da U.S. has uniquely computed da risk-benefit equation differently than everyone else in the world. And so their boys get more benefits! Beavah

Every document written by BSA is a whole rule set (policy actually) that builds on or complements the others... Nah, that's not even true for the government. It's certainly not true of the BSA. The BSA is an association of local councils and individuals that share a common interest in providing opportunities for youth. Local councils are associations of chartered partners that have volunteered to run scouting programs and purchase BSA licenses and materials, and banded together to provide support to each other. Yeh need to think of da BSA a lot more like IEEE in your profession, Engineer61. It's something that individuals and organizations joint to further a common purpose. The organization selects and recruits members who put out various materials of different sorts - educational materials, newsletters, "standards" documents and the like, it organizes conferences and events for its members, it may provide insurance or other resources. It does this stuff because doing such things advances the profession. In the same way, the BSA does similar things to support its members and advance Scouting in the U.S. Does the IEEE police the ranks of engineers? Enforce policies? Not that I'm aware of. It puts out best practice guidelines and standards and educates its members, and relies on engineers to be professional, and on the companies that employ engineers to fire any bad eggs. Same with the BSA. Oh, to be sure, in truly nefarious cases the IEEE may I suppose revoke someone's membership, after they've been arrested for criminal malfeasance or somesuch. They might also drop the membership of someone who isn't really an engineer, and lied about the membership criteria on the application. Same with the BSA, for similar reasons where the organization's reputation is affected, or where someone who didn't meet the membership criteria. Now, can the BSA enforce a no alcohol policy on its own property? Sure. Just like da IEEE can enforce a no-smoking policy in its headquarters building. But that's not quite da same thing. Beavah

People don't agree on the most basic questions, like how many gods exist, or whether polygamy is permitted. Here we go again. Da true sign of personal dogma, eh? It gets chanted like a creed, no matter how much it's a silly artifact of language rather than anything of substance. You can be 100% skeptical of the works of others, and do them yourself. It's common to reproduce experiments in science classes and have the students do them. Not unless yeh have infinite time and resources. I'm skeptical of the faster-than-light neutrinos finding, but I don't reckon I'm going to be able to replicate that experiment anytime soon. And if I spent time on that I wouldn't have any time left and would have to take all da rest on faith! I also seem to remember as a science student that my results quite frequently didn't come out all that well, a fact that many a lab writeup had to try to explain. Beavah

Who enforces the G2SS? It's a GUIDEBOOK. I can never figure out why so many Scouters want to turn the materials that we generate to help people with a children's program into some sort of Criminal Code with investigators and enforcers and felony time. Surely da U.S. Code and da bookshelves full of Federal Regulations and da same stuff for states and all da attorneys to help navigate the morass are enough of that sort of thing without adding it to our scoutin' time with kids. Yeh don't enforce a guidebook. Yeh read it and learn from it and think about it, because it's there to help you do a good job with your kids and to keep 'em safe. And yeh do that not because someone is out there "enforcing", yeh do it because you care about kids and want to do your best. Surely, as scouters, we can understand that? Read and learn and understand. Act honorably and all da rest. But if a fellow is really showin' poor judgment such that he should no longer be involved in a program, then that's the Chartered Organization's to deal with, not the publisher of guidebooks that the CO subscribes to. So the norm is what is described here, eh? If a BSA exec is called about this, he's goin' to call the unit leader or CC or COR and pass along the information for them to deal with. Preferably with education, but movin' gradually up the chain as John-in-KC suggests, accordin' to their own values and understanding of the particulars of the situation. Beavah