Beavah

Whatsoever you do, to the least of my people... that you do unto me. Just once, I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate who believed in protecting both the unborn and the elderly, who expect da Executive both to defend marriage and prosecute those who engaged in torturing captives. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Vol_Scouter, there are pieces of what yeh say that are factual, but it reads like a Fox News piece. Yeh have to dig a bit further. Yep, dependin' on which European country you're talkin' about, some have a more elaborate social safety net. Da Scandanavian countries in particular seem to make that a cultural norm, where the "wealthy" are just expected to contribute a lot. Their results aren't bad either, eh? They're consistently rated among the best places to live, and they beat the living daylights out of our kids in educational achievement. Even Scouting there is a lot of fun and quite popular, because scouting (like all youth programs) receives direct support. Typically each troop has its own scout hut on a half-dozen acres. And they are quite economically sound. In terms of health care, each country in Europe is all over da place, though generally speakin' they provide a common baseline coverage for their people through some combination of government or mandated private coverage. And all da studies I've seen show they get better results than our health care system while spending substantially less as a fraction of GDP. That can mean that what yeh say is true - government expenses are higher - while at the same time the total economic drag on the economy from health care is less. That drag in da U.S. shows up as large and small businesses being broken by private health care costs. Da real story of European debt, though, has nothing to do with government programs, eh? It's just an artifact of European integration and normal free-market action by stupid bankers. We haven't seen that in da U.S. at all, have we? When da Eurozone integrated, all of a sudden the sovereign debt of the peripheral developing countries like Greece was accorded the same rating as the core countries like Germany. So suddenly Greece and others could borrow at very low rates, and there was a boom. They would borrow at low rates, and turn around and buy manufactured goods from Germany, resulting in da German manufacturing boom. Essentially French and German bankers were just shoving gobs of money at da periphery and paying for core economic growth, without any thought of risk. The bond rating chicanery essentially just facilitated a massive wealth transfer from da peripheral countries to the core. Does that sound familiar? It's what da disreputable rating agencies and banks did in da U.S., eh? With the same result, precipitating a massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. All that is just da normal operation of an unregulated free market where such chicanery is allowed. If a currency can free float, da natural result is devaluation of the poor country's currency which in turn makes it easier for 'em to repay the loans, harder for 'em to buy goods from da wealthy nations, and easier for them to sell their own manufactured goods to the core countries. It's self-correcting. But in da Eurozone, that isn't possible, eh? So it just continues. Self-correcting now means Greece defaults and da French and German banks who were dumb enough to make such loans go under, precipitating cascading bank failures across Europe and da U.S. Simple justice, eh? If yeh make bad loans, you go broke. Just like da U.S., though, bank failures hurt lots of ordinary folks who were dumb enough to have deposits in bad banks. We can't have that, so they're tryin' to seize the assets of poor Greece or else have da average European (and American) taxpayer bail out da system - again a massive wealth transfer from the average worker to the irresponsible banker. So at the core, da European problem is da same as the American one, eh? Corrupt rating agencies abetting irresponsible bankers who are gambling with the money of the average citizen, taking the winnings for themselves and leaving the average citizen with the losses. Da notional exposure of the 5 biggest U.S. banks to (leveraged) derivatives is over $400 TRILLION. That's high-leverage bets with other people's money, enabled by banking deregulation. That's da core of the problem in da U.S. and Europe. Ain't got a thing to do with "socialism". Has everything to do with unregulated capitalism when personal and cultural ethics are compromised. Beavah

I pretty much always did it but in the pursuit of those grade I gave up the fun and social interactions at school and now pretty much hate everything about school. Just a thought to consider. Yep, just wanted to highlight MoosedaItalianBlacksmith's comment. I reckon that's pretty much da way it works with teen boys most of the time. Grades are just like Advancement, eh? They're a method, they're not da goal. If yeh turn 'em into the goal, sure as shootin' you'll make a mess of things. Or at least end up with a much weaker program and results. Beavah

Beavah suggests that it is really the security-focused Republicans that like Gingrich, and I find that funny too Nah, I didn't. I said neither da security voters nor da Christian Right really have a candidate yet. And that's not about policy, it's about patriotism and money. Salutin' da flag and larding up defense contractors. Newt gets the latter More seriously, for "values voters" da lynch pin isn't infidelity, eh? It's abortion. If yeh believe in traditional values, everything else takes a back seat to killing unborn children. Marital infidelity is a sad and sinful personal failure, but da choice between an unfaithful husband and someone who supports murdering children when they're inconvenient is an easy one, eh? And I have to agree. Beavah

To be clear, noname has said that da CO is not the Salvation Army. So this case is not a CO requirement, eh? Just a unit tryin' to do something nice for the community. Various BSA officials will say all kinds of things. Even the darndest things sometimes . Mostly they're doin' their best, but they're human like everybody else. B

I would also assume, Beav, that we're a LOOOONG way from troops jumping on their own ATVs or PWCs and riding off into the sunset. Surely yeh jest. Troops are jumpin' on ATVs or PWCs all the time. As for da rest, criticism is something only people who care take the time to do, eh? At da point when people don't care enough about scouting to be critical, then it'll finally be time to say goodbye to da movement. Beavah

Yah, JoeBob, I agree with yeh that a lot of Republicans are fiscal or security issues voters rather than values voters. In fact, LisaBob, I think that's what you're seeing in da Republican race. Governor Romney has mostly sewn up da support of the business Republicans. He's a real businessman, he's had demonstrated success in that field, and he doesn't behave like an irrational nitwit. A few might have flirted with Cain, but he never really caught on. Romney, because of his business connections, also has by far da best organization. I was solicited for funds by fellow conservative business colleagues way early in da cycle. Romney's problem is that as a Mormon he doesn't appeal at all to the Christian right, as a governor from Taxachusetts he doesn't appeal to the anti-tax crowd, and he has no national security chops to speak of. So he gets a consistent one quarter of da votes. His personal morality, like many Mormons, is really quite exemplary. But it's not really about morality, it's about faith for da Christian Right voters. Yeh wouldn't see 'em flocking to a moral Jew or Catholic either. Ron Paul has da support of the libertarian and anti-government group, but no one else. He's alienated da national security folks entirely, he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve enough for da Christian Right (and supports loose drug laws and such), the business folks want nothing to do with him. And on we go. Right now, neither the Christian Right nor da Hawks have a clear candidate, and they're casting about. Newt has possible appeal for the national security folks. All pretty normal, eh? As long as yeh understand that it's about tribe, not about issues.

Obama is the worst thing to happen to the Democrats ever because his lazar sharp leadership to drive the US into a socialized government was so overwhelming that it woke up folks who had never before took an interest in politics. Yah, hmmm... So this is da sort of thing that I hear from da modern Tea Party Republican. I confess, I just don't understand it. President Obama has, in almost all significant ways, been a moderate centrist in his approach to governing. Even da much-derided Obamacare is just a mildly liberal policy that copied what was done by a moderate conservative governor. It stops well short of what was proposed by Richard Nixon back in the day, and well short of Medicare and the VA, which come closest to "socialized" programs. So I'm left to conclude that either these folks' educations were just phenomenally lacking and they don't know what "socialism" is, or that they're really just viscerally upset about something else about da world and President Obama in particular. Because if he's had a laser-like focus on anything, it's been capitulating to the current trends on almost all scores. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Beavah

"BUT HOW FAR DO WE GO?!" "WHAT IF THEY HURT THEMSELVES?" "WE DON'T WANT TO INVITE A LAWSUIT!" Yah, hmmm.... Da fundamental problem here is "we". In Cub Scouting, there is sort of a "we" in collective parent participation. Sort of. In Boy Scouting or Venturing, there is no "we". There is a program, run by approved volunteers, that yeh can choose to enroll your son in. It's just like every other middle school activity. Yeh don't control da curriculum, the school does. Yeh don't control the soccer team, the coach and the league does. Yeh don't control the robot club or the band, the people who run those programs do. They, not "we" decide how far to go, what to do when kid's get hurt, how much exposure to legal risks is acceptable. That's the message that needs to be conveyed gently by someone with some moral authority. Could be an older, wiser parent. Could be da SM or CC or COR. Could be a strong Unit Commish. But it has to be someone. Now, TwoCubDad's point is a great one, eh? This sort of stuff becomes worse when parents feel a vacuum, particularly a vacuum of strong leadership. And from what yeh say, the confrontation-adverse SM is leavin' a vacuum there in people's minds. Havin' more good folks selected to help may be part of a solution. Only part, though. Yeh still need someone to play da role described above. From da sound of things, it might be your CC (?). It's best, though, if it is someone older who doesn't have a kid currently in da program. Not because young people or parents can't handle it, but because moral defects in da listeners make 'em less likely to listen to certain folks. Beavah

Units CAN NOT participate as a unit in this kind of fund-raising activity, even if the Salvation Army is their sponsor Of course they can. Despite da BSA's occasional attempts to overreach, they really have no say in the private actions of individuals, groups, or sponsors. Their only legitimate interest is in da protection of the BSA trademarks. So while it is true that units should not publicly endorse or appear to endorse another agency as boy scouts, it would be completely incorrect to believe that meant that a sponsor couldn't use it's youth group for something, or that a unit couldn't decide to assist another NFP. Practically speaking, we raise money for other organizations as Scouts all the time. We raised money and materials for Red Cross and other agencies when Katrina destroyed New Orleans. We raised funds and bought care packages for USO and our troops deployed overseas. Raising funds and materials is a vital part of community service and citizenship and is very much a part of our mission. We can and should do it all the time. It's just nonsense to claim otherwise. Da interest of the BSA is solely in trademark protection. Steer clear of that, and yeh are just fine. As this unit is. Beavah

Yeh know, it's fun watchin' young Patrol Leaders. One of da first things young patrol leaders try as a leadership technique is ordering and punishment. With some experience or mentoring, they hopefully learn that such an approach is rarely successful in da long run. As an older fellow, I often see young parents proceed along da same learning path as patrol leaders. All things in balance, Tampa Turtle. Each kid and family is different, and yeh have to be creative and thoughtful about how to respond to each of your kid's needs. Sometimes, for a short-term issue, yeh do need to do the hard-nosed thing. That has its place, for some kids. It's not a viable long-term strategy, though. Yeh want your son to love and enjoy school and learning, eh? I'm not really convinced yeh get that with da approach your wife has taken, in the long run. Yeh get temporary compliance, sure, for a little bit... until the lad gets old enough to discover rebellion. I once watched a very bright scout call his parents' bluff, and cold-quit every extracurricular including scouting just so that they wouldn't be able to use that stuff against him. Then what do yeh do? More often, I've seen teens in a constant battle with their parents, that sometimes harms their relationship for da rest of their lives. We don't want temporary, grudging compliance in our children. We want joy and achievement. Boys of scouting age are influenced most by friends and peers, eh? Their long-term success and prospects are determined by that a lot more than they are determined by da homework assignment in 8th grade band. If there's one thing that destroys high school GPAs it's teen angst and depression. Any activity your kid connects with that gives him good mentors and peers and some armor against that angsty stuff is a worthy long-term investment. And if there's anything that destroys a love of learning and achievement it's a constant focus on grades. So put it this way: if your son didn't do his household chores but loved school, would yeh tell him he can't go to school unless his chores are done? If he were a faithful soul, would yeh keep him home from Sunday church service to complete his homework? Your son being involved in good, productive things is not somethin' that yeh want to take away. Parent - to - parent, I think yeh need to work harder and think a bit more creatively. Yeh want long-term results for your son, not short term compliance. And in that fight, positive interest and reinforcement is the winner. Lots of folks can't manage it, because in their heart they care more about compliance than long-term outcome. In the end, they usually regret it, but there are no do-overs. Go buy your wife this book. http://www.amazon.com/Full-Your-Bucket-Positive-Strategies/dp/1595620036 Beavah

Beavah.....you can't honestly believe that a troop program of ATV's will be safer and better than the councils??????? Sure I can. I think what's remarkable is to believe that council programs will be safer and better than unit programs. Da council staff are typically young folk, don't know the boys or families, and they usually don't know as much about an activity as a competent adult hobbyist. I think da BSA had it right with climbing, where they limited council programs but not unit programs. In a unit, yeh can limit "high adventure" based on youth behavior/maturity in ways that yeh can't with a council program, and unit programs almost always use real professional outfitters instead of loosely trained BSA volunteers. You'll also find that da adult/scout ratio is much higher in unit programs. That fellow with da pricey four-wheeler is goin' to watch his baby a lot closer than the council guy tryin' to keep track of 10 boys on gear he didn't pay for. Put another way, an average fellow in da BSA teachin' his son to shoot is goin' to do a better, safer job than a council volunteer tryin' to teach 12 boys he doesn't know. That's why camps need additional layers of regulation and formality, eh? Because when you're dealin' with a wide-open population that yeh don't know in advance, and a high scout:instructor ratio, yeh have to try to make up for that loss of safety and control in artificial ways. Now, personally, I agree with yeh with respect to ATVs. I think they are loud and obnoxious and do horrific trail damage, and generally aren't compatible with LNT or a wilderness ethic outside of SAR operations. But on private land, with good instruction and equipment, they can be fun. I'm less upset by Jet-Skis. As a sailor, they're just one more type of stinkpot on da water, and all stinkpots are pretty much da same. Beavah

Hiya chaoman45. I always tell units that yeh must select unit leaders, and the moment yeh get away from actually, thoughtfully, carefully selecting unit leaders and assistant unit leaders it will bite you. Da second thing I tell 'em is that when selecting unit leaders it's vitally important that yeh really take time to listen to the kids. Da reason is simple. Boys see how adults behave when no other adults are watching. Yeh compromise safety and the very existence of the unit if yeh don't take the boys' comments deadly seriously. The boys who tell yeh they are "uncomfortable" with an adult are speakin' a warning as loud and clear as they can to yeh. Take 'em at their word. I think yeh need the CC and SM and ASM to thread the needle a bit here, eh? Yeh want enthusiastic, supportive parents. As committee members. Find 'em some jobs to do, push 'em into training. And then some more training. And then down the road, if they've demonstrated a real understanding of the program, and a genuine ability to listen to kids and allow kids to lead, then maybe consider an application for ASM. Yeh can do that in a low-key, friendly, non-threatening way. But yeh must do it. Beavah

Yah, about time. And it's a happy thing to see some useless restrictions lifted for a change. Kids 'round these parts use snowmobiles and ATVs and JetSkis all the time. They'll continue to use 'em, in Scouting or outside of Scouting. Only difference is that one of 'em puts them in Scouting. And honestly, much like water safety or shooting sports safety or climbing safety or whatnot, having the opportunity to teach 'em the right way to handle stuff is a lifelong gift to them, and a gift for a longer life! Most of us have seen good-citizen ATV users and bad-citizen ATV users too, eh? So I reckon raisin' some more lads to be good citizen types also meets our mission. My only complaint is the limit to council-level programming. In my experience, council-level programming is hit-or-miss, and certainly no better than unit-level programming. As folks have mentioned, a pilot program is just a pilot, and usually has a lot more resource (human and gear) invested than what will really be present when an initiative like this goes "live". I see it being more likely that councils will cut corners or misallocate resources, because they feel they "have" to run it for marketing reasons. Also, council staff don't really know the boys, and the boys don't have long-term ties, so yeh have higher risk of behavior issues. For units, by and large when they do this stuff it's with a professional outfitter, and they usually only approach it when several of da adults in the unit have genuine experience. So if I were King, I'd have come at it da other way, the way they did with climbing, and offer the option for unit-based programs first. Probably safer, higher-quality, and councils could then tap that unit expertise to help build a council program if desired. Da current management only thinks top-down, however. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There is only one way you're going to change this tradition - and that's to become the COR and dictate from on high that the Troop will no longer spend troop money on events that restrict any member of the Troop from participating Yah, and this would be an example of da sort of knee-jerk, tom-fool policy making that we all rightly criticize on a regular basis here. Yeh don't make policy to respond to events. All that gets yeh is a raft of unintended consequences because yeh didn't take the time to consider all of the possible other events. It sounds like this is a Salvation Army chartered unit anyways, and quite possibly da sponsor is paying for the party. So that kind of scorched-earth foolishness wouldn't be possible anyways. Personally, noname, my reaction as a parent is that yeh need to take a step back and "get a grip." It's a party. If you're goin' to get your shorts in a twist every time yeh feel someone didn't invite your son to a party you're goin' to have an awful high blood pressure by the time he's done with high school. It was a choice to meet academic commitments rather than serve with da troop, probably a good choice. Even good choices mean that yeh give up something... in fact that's what makes 'em good choices most of the time. So congratulate your son on makin' a good choice and take the free time to go do somethin' fun and special as a family. If yeh are thoughtful and creative about it, yeh might just establish a family "tradition" that comes to mean a lot to your son and your spouse over time, and will be truly special. Yeh might even consider goin' and doin' some genuine service together, without any hope of a reward. There are lots of folks like CCbytrickery's family out there in genuine need this year. Find 'em and throw them a party. Beavah

Yah, when two pseudo-adults get in on the ugly divorce/scorched earth thing, trust me they aren't goin' to listen to reason, even from friends. They want friends and everybody else to choose sides. This is where yeh need an older, well-respected member of the unit. Your "wisdom person" who isn't a peer/parent of the squabbling couple, but is generally seen and respected as at least a moral authority in the program. Sometimes that's the SM, sometimes it's a long-time committee member or chair, sometimes it's da COR or IH. That person needs to be the one to meet separately with each party and tell them that they're taking a haitus from scouting. Gently, firmly, with respect and dignity. With an open door down the road once they have worked things out. If it's a boy scout unit, arrange carpools and such to allow the boy to continue to participate. If it's a cub scout unit .... good luck. Yeh probably can't avoid havin' the boy step away as well. Hard as it is, yeh do need to build some firewalls to protect the other boys and families, because these things truly are fires. Like modern political parties, everything breaks down when all each person cares about is winning rather than workin' together to do what's best. Da tragedy is how much lifelong damage it does to the kids. Beavah

Or da troop feels that the party is a natural reward for putting in the time and effort on a particular group service project. Something special for those guys who came out, and isn't really willin' to change just because someone wants to come without helping out with the work. Or da CO is the Salvation Army and they set the expectations. They want their troop to help with their fundraising, and aren't interested in providing a party for boys who don't help out. Or.... I volunteer for lots of stuff, eh? If I give a lot to my professional organization, I might get an award at a professional association dinner. I don't really expect I'll be entitled to a party at my church. And vice versa. Congrats to your son on his service to the community, but that comes with its own reward, eh? He shouldn't be expecting someone else to throw him a party for service he hasn't done with them. It's an odd world when people are called "bullies" for throwin' a party for their volunteers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

What Chippewa29 wrote above is an interesting practice but "might" be inconsistent with the BSA "Guide To Advancement". Yah, perhaps I'm a broken record, but who cares? Da Guide to Advancement is providing guidance on one way of employing the method to achieve the BSA's goals. Individual units and COs also have goals for their boys, and they have to adapt the methods to the needs of the boys and of their programs. Providing monthly evaluation seems like a worthy experiment and adaptation. It's certainly far more consistent with traditional scouting than having adults remove a boy from a position. In scouting, we work with boys until they succeed, but we don't give 'em credit until they succeed - whether it's knots or leadership. Now, that havin' been said, I agree with fred8033 that the whole numerical grading thing with forms and whatnot seems a bit over the top, eh? It's a similar sort of thing to gettin' all tied up in individual sentences of the guidebooks. Perhaps yeh can implement the core spirit of the thing in a way that is more boy-friendly, that still communicates well without all da excess trappings? Just a thought. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Not quite sure what to make of that correlation. Much as we think of ourselves as a big organization, we aren't really big enough to independently influence da NP visitation rate. In some ways, da increase in National Parks visitation days is probably best correlated with the federal government's willingness to cut funding for da National Park system, which results in more conspicuous number-counting to justify funding and to collect fees. One might attribute da same underlying causes/pressures to the trend in Eagle Scouts. Beavah

Yah, da BSA has a strong contingent of LNT'ers that have been helping develop materials to guide and teach LNT Frontcountry ethics and practices. It's one of da BSA's bigger contributions to the LNT development, along with da BSA-specific materials now offered by LNT. http://www.lnt.org/programs/frontcountry.php http://www.lnt.org/training/educationaltraining.php

All this can be accommodated in the existing programs as they are, if leaders are willing to follow it. Yah, to some extent yes, to some extent no. Savvy locals can always buck da system a bit, and a big CO like LDS can opt to essentially make the 6th graders/11 year old program a separate and independent thing. But structure matters, eh? So long as Webelos is part of Cub Scouts, it gets run like cub scouting by most units. Da same leaders offering a mommy-ified program, and those same leaders gettin' 5 years to burn out. I think that's why we see an awful lot of membership loss during the webelos years. If we made da national program expectation that cubs finished in 3rd grade, and webelos was separate, with new rules and expectations, it would help. That would also line up with SeattlePioneer's view of when resident camping should kick in. Day camp is for cub scouts, resident camping is for Webelos. Beavah

I wish the T2FC were accessible to Jr. High Girls. It would make the venturing program so much easier. Yah, just buy 'em a book and start a club, eh? Make up your own uniform and patches and give it a go. B

A 20 minute search with Google finds a couple cases of sexual abuse on campouts. Ed Dyer, Oregon. Peter Stibal, Minnesota. Yah, except in both of those cases, da abuse on campouts only happened after a long stretch of abuse which occurred outside of Scouting events - at the man's home, at the parents' home, at trips to movies, on "private" outings, etc. The overwhelming majority in fact. Da campout abuse was trivial by comparison, often with inadequate proof to bring criminal charges. Da only reason mentions of possible abuse on campouts came out was because it's only that abuse that typically yields high value cash settlements. Patrick Boyle is a reporter who is sellin' books for profit. That's information, and his book is an interestin' (and appalling) read, but it's largely anecdotal information from interviews with a small group of folks, selected and "spun" to make good copy. Don't confuse it with research. I believe his essential conclusion is correct, but not sufficiently broad. To avoid abuse, children need a life that is supportive and emotionally sound, so that they don't need to seek support from one exclusive individual who can monopolize that support and make 'em dependent on it. They need parents (plural), grandparents, uncles, aunts, teachers, scout leaders, coaches, ministers. A lad who has multiple, caring, emotionally-supportive adults in his life can't fall under the thrall of any single individual who can manipulate da relationship. On this day of Thanksgiving, be Thankful for those many people that care about kids and provide da love and support that none of us, even the best of parents, can provide on our own. I remember Mrs. Rittaco, John Patrick, Coach Jones, Dr. Johnston, Rev. Novicky, Uncle Jim, Aunt Catherine, Mr. Maguire, Scouter Meyerson, .... and on and on... they kept me safe from predators and drugs, because with their love and support I never needed those things. Some are gone to their reward, others I've lost touch with over da decades. But for each and every one of 'em, I remain eternally Thankful. Would that all children had such people in their lives. Rest assured that in da decades ahead, though yeh may never hear from 'em personally, many a scout will be saying a quiet prayer of thanksgiving for the part each of you on these forums played in their lives. Keepin' 'em safe, just by your love and support, and reflecting into their eyes da image and likeness of the Great Scoutmaster, to whom we are all Thankful. Beavah

Yah, ScoutFish, I think I've been sayin' somthin' similar for decades. Cubs/Beavers makes a great little-kids program for the 6-8 year olds / 1st-3rd graders. At that point yeh need a real camping program for the 9-11 year olds / 4th-6th graders. Monthly front-country camping during good weather months for da area. Cabin/shipboard adventure/day trip events for da bad weather months. We'd have to beat back da G2SS bit which tends to lump all of the current "cubs" together in its prohibitions, but I reckon da Health and Safety folks would be happy to have a whole new section to work on and justify their jobs. To my mind, the natural maturity point for boys on average is toward spring of 6th grade, not spring of 5th grade. For girls it's earlier, but not for boys. Just reflect on how many cases of homesickness we get with da 5th grade crowd and such; how much effort TG's or PLs have to put in dealin' just with "lack of focus" from bein' little kids. Those are the "ankle biters" the older boys don't want to "baby sit". Yah, a few boys mature earlier, but they'd be the natural leaders in the 6th grade webelos teams. Da program age transition should go where the average is. Then Scouts really begins with da age 12/7th grade boys. I think that works fine as a grade 6-12 program, with leaders/venturers being age 15-18, grade 10-12. Those leaders/venturers also have some additional high adventure opportunities where they build their social connections and skills. So that's Cubs Grade 1-3 (transition in late spring for us Northerners, a bit earlier for da south). Teams Grade 4-6 (same transition). Scouts Grade 7-12 (same transition). Ventures/Scout Leadership Grade 10-12 (transition more by maturity and ability than grade level). Rovers/Venture Leadership Grade 13-15 Rovers/Adult Leadership to age 27/marriage/first kid. Administrative Support Only - Age 27 up. If/when we eventually go coed, I think yeh run a parallel girls program until Ventures. At least, I think there's some real merit to being separate durin' early adolescence, when each group really needs some same-sex mentoring from older peers. Beavah

Yah, runintherain, yeh raise an interestin' question. Honestly, from an objective point of view, the no one-on-one rule is more to protect the adult leaders from false accusations than it is to protect the kids. Just being in a car with a boy for a bit on a long drive isn't goin' to be a setup for predatory behavior on its own. Predators really start outside of scouting, eh? Become friends with da family, see the boys when no other scouting adults are around. Adult-on-youth molestation by anyone other than a parent or relative rarely happens on scouting events, and then only when the person has been doin' it outside of scouting for a while. So I'd be inclined to approach the SM gently and describe what it looked like to you in a friendly manner. Let him know it's compromising his own protection, because it opens him up to suspicions and rumors and da potential for false accusations. That should be enough to kick it up a notch in his thinkin'. And as others have said, there are all kinds of reasons why it might have seemed like da right thing to do in the moment, from the lad misbehaving in another car on down to all da other boys piled into the minivan with the movie player . Packin' up with a mess of kids runnin' around, things happen yeh don't catch. Now, if there's a pattern with isolating that same boy on multiple occasions, giving special treatment or gifts, that sort of thing, then yeh might have a word with da boy's parents, the CC, and perhaps da Scout Executive. Beavah