Beavah

All members of the Boy Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Yah, but I reckon that applies to us adults first and foremost, eh? And spreadin' rumors about a kid or talkin' about potential "lethal" consequences just doesn't pass the First Point. I think for almost all scout units (save those with a very special set of resources and skill) drug dealing at the methamphetamine level is beyond what they can handle. That's a walk-yeh-to-the-door-and-down-the-street-to-rehab kinda thing. At da same time, adults spreadin' rumors or privileged information about other people's kids or settin' up a vendetta against someone else's child based on such rumors is also a walk-yeh-to-the-door-remove-you-from-scouting kinda thing. Fact is, you're not entitled to know what's goin' on with other people's kids. If your son attends a school, authorities are forbidden from revealing other children's records, academic or disciplinary, to you. If yeh home school with a cooperative, other parents are under no obligation to share their kids backgrounds with yeh. Why would you expect scouting to be any different? Beavah

They will be encouraged to work closely with committed unit commissioners to improve themselves over the next year, but if there is no evidence of improvement (note, they don't have to make Bronze, just show improvement), their charters will not be renewed at the end of 2012. The council sees it as a process of "protecting the brand." Holy Smoke! I see they've discovered that the easiest way to improve your test scores is to expel all the kids who are gettin' below a "B" from school. Yah, this is da stuff that drives poor old furry Beavahs to distraction about the BSA corporate culture. "Protecting the brand" my flat tail! This is why all corporations have to be very careful about their incentive structure, eh? If yeh have incentives for creatin' units (and limited monitoring), people will create lots of low-viability units. If yeh have incentives for numbers of youth (and limited auditing), people will register ghosts. If yeh create incentives for havin' JTE units, people will try to force low-scoring units out. The only metric that a council should tolerate for employee evaluation is quality of service provided. Da corporate BSA is a NFP service organization, eh? If we'd just evaluate our people based on the quality of service they provide to units, volunteers, and COs, all of these issues of bogus units and membership fraud and trying to force out units would go away. Problem is, Irving interferes with da councils who want to focus on service, and sets up a conflict of interest for BSA execs. NEPAScouter, place a call to your Regional folks to let 'em know what's up. Droppin' unit charters is somethin' that's supposed to go above the council level for approval on a case-by-case basis. And then have some of your CORs have some conversations with your district and council officers to express their sentiments on the matter, and their willingness to make "changes" at the annual meeting if necessary. Beavah

Scouts are expected to live the Scout oath and law. It's NECESSARY that they do so for Scouting to work. Nah, I don't really think so. Are yeh sure you do? Scouts are learning how to live the Scout Oath and Law. We adults are still learning how to live the Oath and Law. None of us is perfect, and to be honest most of us (myself fer sure) aren't always even that good at it. The boys are just startin' out. All that's necessary is that we all try, at least some of the time. That havin' been said, when I see troops strugglin' with behavioral issues I sorta have a notion in my head about "capacity." Different troops have different capacity for different things. Some troops have the resources to run their own high adventure trips several times a year. Some struggle to get lads to summer camp. Both are doin' all they can for the boys, but odds are if yeh tried to push the second troop to do what the first is doin' they'd be dangerous. They don't have the ability to run their own high adventure stuff without puttin' kids at risk. Same with lads who are strugglin' with personal issues. Some scouters have the personal background and skills to do a great job with such boys, and some troops have a strong youth culture and parent community to be able to provide the support to really reach some kids who are at risk. Other scouters and units are at loggerheads over who said what to whom about the popcorn sale, and they can't accommodate an at-risk lad without everything comin' unglued. What's important is just bein' honest with yourself about your own ability and da capacity of your unit. If yeh truly can handle some at-risk boys, because yeh have skilled scouters, a strong youth culture and supportive parents, then da Oath and Law call you to do so. But if yeh don't have all of the ingredients necessary, then yeh have to be honest and say to a boy "we can't handle where you're at right now; your choices are puttin' the program at risk for other participants beyond what we're comfortable with" and direct him elsewhere for support. Beavah

Ah, what tempests in teapots we create in this beautiful Scoutin' land of ours! I think the BM thing happens because lots of younger lads just aren't used to pit toilets, eh? We have a lot more city kids who've only been on porcelain, and da BALOO rules for cubs make it less likely that cub scouts have pit toilet experience. So they hold it and hold it, tryin' to avoid the pit toilet. But when they get in a shower the warm water and such just triggers the body's automatic responses and there yeh have it. A young lad is goin' to be WAAYYYY too embarrassed to own up to that, eh? So I think yeh just have to deal with such things with patience and compassion. As for da rest, nah, there's no particular policy guidance on respondin' to vandalism. Some general stuff, similar to the G2SS stuff on youth discipline. Be constructive and all that. Might have changed, the books only get bigger not smaller, eh? Sometimes local councils have their own procedures. The way these things should be handled, of course, is collaboratively with the unit leaders on site, usually with da unit leaders takin' the lead role with the boys. Senior camp staff should be approachin' Scoutmasters, not boys. If the unit leaders don't/won't do the right thing, then yeh ask the entire unit to leave, or (more commonly) never invite 'em back and send a note to their CO and home council. So personally I find what Twocubdad describes to be so far over the line as to border on the bizarre. I'd be havin' a serious sit down with the Camp Director and Scout Executive, and perhaps da Council President or Regional folks. As da long-timers on da forums know, I'm a fellow who is absolutely opposed to the modern trend of treatin' youthful behavioral issues as matters for law enforcement. I think it shows utter incompetence on da part of parents/schools/scouters who should have the skills to work with youth. Law enforcement and da courts, quite frankly, do not have those skills. So unless we're talkin' about something like burning down the dining hall or a serious YP issue, I'd hope a camp would just work with da scouters and parents and COs. Happily I didn't see any reference in Twocubdad's stuff to the camp actually callin' law enforcement. If that were to happen, I think da proper role of a unit scouter in such a case is to protect the rights and interests of the boy until the lad's parents can be present. Beavah

LOL! Yah, OK, that was a hoot. At da risk of being hit with da "condescending" comment again, can I inquire if yeh have teenagers, Callooh? My guess would be "not yet", because most of us are cured of that kind of pick-on-the-word argument by havin' our teens use it so often. Of course, if yeh read carefully in all of that long litany of Beavah quotes you'll notice I'm usin' the word "independence" in the context of "growing up and becoming an adult." So yah, sure, in Scouting we want a lad to be "independent" in that he can tie his shoes for himself, or cook a healthy meal for himself and some friends, or navigate to a destination without gettin' lost. And he can do it without a parent or teacher or scouter hovering and giving hints and "looks" and instructions. That's a different thing than being independent from a community, eh? In fact part of learning da sort of "growing up" independence we care about in scouting is teaching boys and girls how to be full, participating, contributing, respectful participants in different communities. To be dependent on your patrol to do their part in gettin' the job done, and to act in a way that they can depend on you. To be reliant on your patrol and have them able to rely on you. All of the Scout Oath and Law involve how we owe duty to others - to God, to Country, to each other, to our own development. It's all about being a part of a community, and givin' up some of our own notions in order to make the community stronger. The patrol leader at a PLC gives up some of what he wants to support the activities the other patrols are looking for, or what they need. Just as a family gives up some of its independence if it wants to participate as good citizens in the broader community, whether it be sports programs or school or scoutin'. Of course, I reckon you knew all that, eh? Helicopter parenting of course isn't a scoutin' term. I think it was coined by college admissions officers, and picked up by most K-12 youth workers to describe a particular cultural phenomenon. So don't blame us scouters for da term. Remember, almost all of us are parents too. That's how and why we got into this scoutin' game. So when we use the term "Helicopter parenting" we're usin' it as fellow parents. If yeh want to coin your own term to describe youth workers and volunteers who yeh feel are standoffish to involved parents I think yeh need to do better than "Helicopter Scouters/coaches/teachers", eh? Just doesn't capture da image yeh want, and besides, it's been taken. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I'm goin' to leave it to your local counsel to work da angles on the bankruptcy proceedings. If yeh have decent representation, they should be able to finesse the scout account one way or another. $26K is small potatoes in a corporate bankruptcy of somethin' the size of a "resort". As to how much cash to keep on hand, I think most of the advice here is typical of most troops and is bad advice. Generally speaking', most NFP business entities want to keep at least 6 months of operating expenses in cash or cash-equivalent reserves. No reason it should be any different for a troop. Yeh should be able to suffer the complete loss of your major fundraiser for the year without affecting program... Like if the local school band decides to sell popcorn . Da other thing that most troops don't do is budget for depreciation/capital expenses. Tents, trailers, stoves etc. cost money. If a tent is in use for 10 years, all the boys who get to use that tent over those ten years should be contributing to its eventual replacement, eh? That means that the troop account is going to be accumulating bigger and bigger cash reserves so that it has the money on hand to replace the tents when the time comes. The scouts and families at that time shouldn't be stuck with an extra fundraising burden to replace old tents just because their predecessors didn't plan or contribute for wear and tear and eventual replacement. So at a minimum, a troop account should have 6 months operating reserves, plus accumulated depreciation reserve. IMHO, they should also have some cash flow reserve, so that they can pay deposits and fees in advance of revenues as needed, since we all know families can be pretty spotty about makin' payments. Add that all up for your troop to get a number, 5year. Do a second calculation for what the number would be for a full year of operating reserves (+depreciation +cash flow reserve), which I'd consider the upper edge. Anything above that, it's time to be addin' to the campership endowment or considering buying some new capital equipment to enhance the program (climbing gear? Troop backpacks?). Da two things I would not do is spend accumulated reserve (one-time money) on some recurring expense like reducing dues for the year, or throwing a big event/party for the current members. Capital reserve is a legacy given to you from others, eh? It should be spent for long-term program enhancement to continue the legacy. Beavah

Hiya BSAMomWW. I'd welcome yeh to the forums, but I see your account is already closed. Yeh should hang around, yeh might learn other things that could help your son's troop. In the BSA we try to teach the lads character, even when it's hard. And so as adults we try to think about character, even when it's hard. I'm sure whoever revealed sealed documents to you meant well, but I think you know that was wrong and that the best choice on your part would have been to stop them and tell them you weren't interested. Failing that, it takes a real act of character not to give undue credence to this sort of rumor. Fact of the matter is, the person who revealed the information to you should be fired, and you know it. Fact of the matter is, if you start spreading rumors or falsehoods about a young man around his community you are liable for the damage yeh do to him and his family. And yeh should be. And yeh know it. Yeh don't mention your position in the troop, eh? Sounds like maybe yeh might be a committee member. In this kind of stuff, I think yeh need to trust the authorities in law enforcement and the courts who are closer to the case, and the Scoutmaster / CC / COR who are closer to the boy. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt, and the time to pursue options. Beavah

But we're off on tangents here - the topic is, um.... what was the topic agian? oh yea... the plethora of scouter remarks denigrating and condescending to parents. Nah, actually the topic was how to handle various kinds of parent questions, eh? It was only your repeated posts that drove it somewhere different. I'm sorry that yeh feel denigrated or condescended to. As with all communication, it's a two-person endeavor, the speaker and the listener. So often a listener puts so much of him/herself into the speaker's words that da speaker can't be heard. A first-year parent really is as clueless about boy scouting as a first year scout, eh? That's not condescending or denigrating, that's just a statement about level of knowledge of a particular topic. It only becomes condescending if the person feels they're an expert on everything, or that they always know more than people who are younger or some other ego need. But those are characteristics of the listener, eh? On da other hand, sometimes da communication fault lies with the speaker. It can be hard for a listener to try to read around somethin' like being called a "monomaniacal extremist" . Fact is I suppose that all youth program volunteers must be monomaniacal extremists just because the parent doin' the speaking only sees them in one context, doin' one thing. Trying to offer a general program for a group, not a private program for a family. Private programs / private lessons are usually available, eh? They'll just cost yeh a lot more - usually in dollars, sometimes in quality. As for da rest, we teach citizenship in the BSA, not independence. If yeh really want independence yeh can go live in a survivalist cabin off in da woods somewhere I suppose. When you're a citizen, yeh make sacrifices for the group because you get benefits from the group. Yeh pay taxes, and receive help from da fire department if yeh need it. Yeh contribute in alms or volunteer time to the community, knowin' that in turn you'll live in a place where others will help you in your time of need. Yeh conform your behavior to the expectations of the group in order to gain the benefits of being in a group. Nuthin' wrong with your family doin' its own thing, eh? Also nuthin' wrong with being independent and self-reliant in some or many things. But the two go together, eh? If yeh want to be independent, yeh have to be self reliant. If yeh get sick or your house is on fire, take care of yourself. Don't expect the community to provide its resources to bail you out. If yeh want a program that caters to your personal needs, pay for private outdoors and leadership opportunities for your kid, don't expect the community to provide its scouting fundraisers and resources and volunteers for your use. That's just askin' for welfare, eh? It ain't independence. On the other hand, if yeh want your kids to learn about citizenship, about sacrificing for each other and takin' care of the group before themselves, then the BSA is a fine organization. We teach preparedness and teamwork, not self-reliance. Trustworthiness and Loyalty to the group, not independence. There is no solo hiking or climbing in Scouting. It's done with a patrol, eh? Beavah

What I asked was for someone to show me in the current handbooks where it says a PL can disciplin (sic) a Scout. Yah, hmmmm.... I wonder if anyone can show us in da current handbooks where it says a PL is allowed to use (or clean) a latrine? If yeh expect explicit permission for every ordinary task of camping or leadership those handbooks are goin' to get mighty long, eh? One problem with da BSA's more recent approach to materials and such is this bad habit of making policy-like statements that confuse folks, rather than followin' the former practice of putting out program materials that offer advice as to best practices. I reckon we all agree that matters of serious behavioral problems are properly the realm of adults, and that we don't want boys spanking other boys or washin' their mouths out with soap the way ol' Momma Beavah used to do to me when I forgot that a Scout is Clean. Problem is, that's somethin' very different than all discipline is to be handled by adults. I think almost all of us would agree that a Patrol Leader has to be able to stop a lad in his patrol from doin' something foolish with the stove, and has to respond to a boy who blows off his cleanup duty in order to sneak off to da fishin' hole. The boy who is serving as a lifeguard has to be a part of keepin' discipline at the waterfront, and the lad workin' an Eagle Project has to be able to send a misbehaving worker home. Figurin' out these things is part and parcel with leadership, eh? It's one of the best things scoutin' does for growing boys. To imagine that a sentence of expansive wording in a training module is meant to be interpreted so broadly as to fundamentally change da Scouting Methods and Program is unlikely, eh? Beavah

In da previous thread, Tawhawk mentioned that in his opinion the Wilderness Survival MB pamphlet was pretty poor. I'm wonderin' if other people are seein' this with other MB pamphlets. I confess I don't use the things. I'm enough of an "expert" in the badges I counsel not to need 'em, and prefer to steer scouts to other resources as part of the mentoring and discussion. I figure if they're interested in a topic they should know where to find the good stuff. Beavah

No that is not what the above paragraph says the Scout can do. It does not grant the Scout permission to punish. It tells the Scout to discuss why a behavior is not acceptable. Yah, hmmm... I need a "rolling my eyes" version of one of those little smillie icons. Just can't wait for da Patrol Leaders to sit down and try to do some version of the Adult Behavior Lecture. Doesn't work for adults most of the time. Can't imagine why it would work for a Patrol Leader. We are all members of the organization. Yah, but we all have to be a bit careful about whether we're speaking as members of the organization or as spokespeople for the corporation. There's a difference, eh? And da Rules and Regulations of the BSA don't allow regular members to speak on behalf of and for the BSA. Nor members of committees, eh? And as you've pointed out, you agreed to abide by those Rules & Regulations when yeh signed your membership application. Beavah

BTW: All patrol leaders, including the New Scout Patrol Leader are elected. They are not rotated or assigned. LOL. Yah, I confess I had never heard of the rotate thing until these forums, eh? I don't get it myself. But apparently some troops do that and have some success with it, so who am I to argue? And there's even some support for it in the SM Handbook which suggests shorter terms/more frequent elections in the New Scout Patrol. Point is OldTxScout has to figure out where his troop is at and where it wants to go, and then pick a route to try. NealonWheels is right though, eh? In da current program materials TG is a full PLC member. Beavah

But your ultimate objective is aiming "a gun" at a person's vital zone and pulling the trigger. Horse manure. Your ultimate objective is to score points in a high-tech game of freeze tag. Didn't yeh ever play freeze tag as a boy? I appreciate that some folks want to be apologists for the BSA's untenable position on this matter. Yah, and I appreciate that a few folks out there as parents believe that it's just philosophically or morally wrong to allow their children to play with toys in a way that they as adults can imagine might resemble shooting someone. That's their right. Da thing is as a parent, I always understood that my right ended on my doorstep, eh? It'd be wrong for me to try to force every parent or program participant to agree to adhere to my personal philosophy, even though I know I'm right. Fact of the matter is that there is no safety issue here, and the vast majority of program participants have no philosophical problem with squirt guns, or laser tag, or paintball, or even those dreaded marshmallow guns. Most feel that it truly does take an IQ less than a rock to believe that scout-aged boys can't distinguish between a shotgun and a water cannon or light-up space toy. So da question to the minority is not whether yeh feel you're right, eh? We know you do. It's whether you feel it's proper to impose your will on the majority when there is truly no objective safety issue. Do yeh feel in a democracy, or even in the BSA where we're tryin' to teach kids about citizenship in a democracy, that that's appropriate? Because if yeh do, then that means a minority who doesn't like some activity you enjoy can do the same to you. I like the "BSA should never be more liberal than the city of San Francisco" test. Beavah

It would be nice to award right away, but hard for units to have those spare patches on hand anymore Nah, moosetracker, it's easy, eh? If for some reason yeh lost some of your stock, yeh just have current members buy extra patches for additional uniforms and donate 'em to the supply. Members who currently hold the rank can always buy extras, and often have to for a second uniform for NYLT or Jambo, or a lost uniform, or... We need to remember why the program is there Absolutely! And we need to really understand da relationships and policies, eh? A scout being trustworthy and all. Da "policy" bnelon44 mentions is an internal policy that applies only to Scout Shops. Scout shops are asked not to sell restricted items without havin' some documentation in the system that a lad somewhere merits having the patch. That "policy" is not directed at units or volunteer scouters, and they aren't bound by it. What we sign on the adult application is an agreement to follow the Bylaws and Rules & Regulations of the BSA. Those are specific documents, eh? A small set of things that apply to maintaining the BSA's brand image and corporate property. Adult leaders did not agree to follow every piece of BSA program literature, and tellin' folks that is just playin' fast and loose with the truth. Da real truth is that the BSA's mission is to support organizations and volunteers in their youth programs. We offer resources, eh? Friendship and guidance. We don't expect everyone to use or need everything, or do everything the same. Now, if unit volunteers are tryin' to do a good job offering the BSA program, then they know from reading BSA program materials that it's important for lads to receive recognition immediately. Most scout units are not within easy driving distance of a scout shop, eh? For some, the nearest scout shop may be half a state away or more. And we all know council folks are worked pretty hard, and turnin' around paperwork gets delayed at times. So for most there's not even an option of "next week" even if there is a meeting next week that the lad was going to attend. I admit I'm an old-fashioned, put-kids-first sort. I think a lad who has worked hard and finally earned a rank should be able to wear it right away. If he earns it at the meeting on Tuesday he should be able to wear it proudly on the outing that weekend, eh? That's how we show him and others that hard work pays off with recognition. If it's a camporee where he's competing with other patrols his uniform should say "I'm a First Class Scout!". He shouldn't have to explain that his uniform says "Second Class" but that he's really First Class except his badge is tied up in paperwork or the mail. So again, most good troops and caring volunteers keep a stash of badges and reward a boy immediately after his BOR because that's the way the BSA program really works. It teaches boys the proper moral lesson, eh? We care about people, not things. We do what's right to help those whom we serve, not what's convenient for organizational bookkeeping or what makes us feel important and controlling. And most especially, we put the needs of those who are most vulnerable and in need of support ahead of those who are strong and well-resourced. Kids first. Yah, yah, I reckon we've all seen some district and other grey or even a few yellow-tabbers who have forgotten, and start in about a moral duty to paperwork or program. Those are folks who have lost their ways as scouters. It's a sign it's time to get out of grey- or yellow- tab work and back to working exclusively with boys in the field. Beavah

Overzealous campsite inspectors at a "name brand" camp in Georgia broke me of wanting to ever force scouts to participate in that kind of nonsense. Yah, I'm not real fond of the "inspection culture" at some camps. I think that's properly the role of the unit and its youth leaders. Eaglenjake, I think we all try out things our old Scoutmasters did. Some will work for us, some won't. I think it's fine if yeh have a goal/vision for the thing and want to give it a whirl. I think you're right that it's best to reward the positive rather than punish the negative. But I think yeh also should be includin' the SPL and PLs. They might have a better, more fun way to get to your goal. Even if they don't you and they should be workin' as a team to keep inspections lighthearted and fun... with a mind that in the end, they should take it away from you and make it their own. Beavah

Yah, perfectly natural to have inconsistencies in both content and vision, eh? Especially when yeh don't do much continuity editing and tend to use large committees to formulate content. By and large, large committees get yeh mediocrity most of the time . That's OK, eh? Scouters being hardworking, intelligent, principled, and caring people take the ideas from the program literature that they need to make things work. And from their own life experience and their CO's mission and values and maybe from other sources here and there, formal and informal. That's how the program is successful. Consistency is vastly overrated and hard to achieve. Yeh won't find consistency in real laws, eh? Or in their application. And lots more people being paid lots more money with lots more training are involved in that system. Beavah

Hiya OldTxScout, welcome to da forums and welcome back to Scoutin' if you are returning after time away! Yeh got fine answers above. So me, I'm goin' to ask a few questions. What's your vision for the New Scout patrols? How do yeh want 'em to work? What's your vision for the return to Patrol Method? How do yeh want that to work? Your structure should follow your vision, not vice versa. Some troops don't use New Scout Patrols, and instead do the more traditional thing of having new scouts join permanent, mixed-age patrols. In that case, the PLs sit on the PLC but they're all older, more experienced boys who both need the positions for rank and who are really capable of leading and planning things. In that case there might not be a TG, or he might be the fellow who helps the PLs with new scout ideas. In that case, I think his contribution to the PLC would be worthwhile. Some troops use New Scout Patrols but "rotate" the PL position to give every boy a sense for how the troop runs. In that case, I think the TG would be the PLC member for the New Scouts, and each meeting he'd have another temporary patrol leader present as a guest to see how things run. Some troops use New Scout Patrols and do traditional patrol leader elections, and plan on continuing that (age-based) patrol beyond the first year as a natural group of friends. In that case, I figure the New Scout is really the Patrol Leader and sits on the PLC, with the Troop Guide as his advisor. and on and on... Each structure comes from a different vision, eh? So your first job is to decide what yeh want the Patrol Method to accomplish for boys. Then worry about the who-does-what details. Beavah

Oak Tree, by BSA policy no rank badge or merit badge can be given to a Scout until the advancement form is turned into your council office. Yah, this is one of da more ridiculous absurdities, eh? In da BSA we believe in immediate recognition. The lad should get the badge as soon as he has earned it, so he can wear it with pride at the next meeting or outing. He shouldn't have to wait until someone mails paperwork to a council office 3 counties away and then orders a badge to be shipped and arrive two weeks later, after the boy has already gone to camp wearing his old rank. Most good troops recognize a lad right away, usin' an in-troop supply. Paperwork is just paperwork, eh? Kids are important. Making boys wait for BSA paperwork is the tail wagging the dog. Beavah

So what about the argument that "water pistols" are only appropriate for Venturing? Had not seen it tossed out yet. Yah, but when transportin' 'em at camp, do yeh have to keep 'em unloaded and in a locked case? I wouldn't worry about 99.9%. I doubt what you're puttin' out is reachin' more than a few percent anyways. Besides, yeh have a good cross-section here that establishes that, as written, the language is confusing to a group of more experienced volunteers and apt to be interpreted in absurd ways as people guess at what the purpose is. Any decent attorney would take that to the bank, eh? Just like anybody worth their fee would shred us on the long, confusin' morass of rules and trainin' we have right now. So I'm genuinely not sure what da approach accomplishes, other than annoying good volunteers and stopping the cub scouts from getting wet. Scoutin' is all about judgment. The environment and the kids are too complex for a regulation regimen, and we don't have the resources to put one in place anyway. So the goal should be to guide and inform judgment. Seems to be what you're after, too, but da materials and institutional culture all seem to push people da other way. Beavah

However what is a problem, and one I wish wasn't, is having a youth sit on the BOR. Nuthin' wrong with that, either, so long as da youth is the 4th member. It can work quite well. In my experience youth are typically better BOR members than many/most adults, so long as there is one adult "anchor" there. Beavah

Yah, yah, it's a kid's game, eh? Tell your worry wart committee members to get a grip. There is no board of review police. It's fairly common for units at camp to improvise boards of review, sometimes usin' district folks or scouters from other troops. In fact, it can be kind of interestin' and offer everyone a new perspective, including the young lad who gets to see that scouting is a bigger thing than just his own troop. Now, no doubt someone is goin' to chime in with something about a BOR should only be registered committee members (except that Eagle, the most important BOR, can have any member of the community ). I reckon that since we're open to others at Eagle it's OK to be open to others at lesser ranks if that's what yeh need to make things work right for a boy at the time. In the future, though, I'd suggest instead of grabbing "any old parent" yeh use one of the registered folks around the camp with more scouting experience. Yeh might even get a member of the district or council advancement committee, eh? Beavah

Yah, Calico, I agree. All we have are guesses as to da rationale for the policy, and each guess implies different interpretations, eh? The no pseudo-military guess implies water guns and laser toys are OK, but capture the flag and hand salutes and dress uniforms with medals and ribbons/knots are out. The risk-of-being-shot-by-poorly-trained-LEOs implies Airsoft is out, and perhaps carrying a cell phone (which is more common to be shot for than a squirt gun), but paintball on private land would be ok. The risk of encouraging violence would imply no video games or wands or light sabers. The risk of diminishing muzzle control safety for real firearms would suggest more training with real firearms, but not a prohibition on squirt guns or laser taggers that clearly don't look or act like firearms. And we allow this stuff in Venturing and Exploring anyways. The risk of bad PR is unclear, because the large majority of our demographic is OK with guns and supportive of da military and law enforcement, and lasertag and paintball have larger and broader communities of participants than Scouting. And there is no real safety risk. So nuthin' makes sense, eh? It reminds me of prohibitions on dancing or rock music. Leavin' even those who want to be supportive guessing, and even da national H&S director makin' vague references back to da vague wording that everyone is guessin' about. What would be nice is if Irving came out and just said "use your head and your CO's and community's values". Beyond that, the national organization has no interest in commenting on the merits of various toys or games. Beavah

Anyway, you wanted to know the reason for the policy, I told it to you. Nah, yeh told me your guess as to the reason for the policy. Just as Calico offered his guess and others have offered theirs. I mentioned all the various guesses many posts ago. Can yeh point us to any official BSA document that declares that as the reason? Or are you saying that you are an official spokesperson for the BSA on this matter? Didn't think so. Debunking false claims is only considered arguin' by those makin' the claims, eh? BTW, thanks SSS. I wasn't implying that da Quakers were against squirt guns, which makes the rule all the more odd, doncha think? B

So I guess we should "fire" both Nah, yeh should learn how to work with both and stop all this silly talk of "firing". Fact of the matter is, most good scouters will be described by someone else as a "control freak". Taking charge is as much a sign of someone who cares and is willing to take ownership of hard tasks as anything else. Yeh need people like that to make things run. Yeh just need to figure out how to give 'em tasks that they can run with, and how to convey confidence and information about other tasks so that they don't "feel a vacuum" that they need to step into. Good volunteers who care are hard to come by, and they aren't all nice and cuddly. A wise CC learns how to help the group use the strengths of different people while managing their weaknesses. Beavah

You know who does that? Yah, sure. Every American lad who has ever played cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians, or alien invasion... or even Harry Potter, with its death-dealing wands. . Seriously, yeh have to go pretty deep into Quaker circles to find boys who have never pointed a simulated firearm at anyone. Besides, doesn't the U.S. Army also use a hand salute for the flag? In fact aren't hand salutes for the flag pretty much reserved for those folks who point real firearms at other humans? Just sayin' B