The Blancmange

6. Safety rule of four: No fewer than four individuals (always with the minimum of two adults) go on any backcountry expedition or campout. This is the first mention of a backcountry outing, although I suspect the MC may be applying an overly-broad definition of backcountry. The fact that the rest of your troop will be camping within 2 miles suggests to me that this is not a remote area where evacuation in case of an emergency might be difficult. That seems to be the type of backcountry that the rule speaks to. This is another shortcoming of the rules; an important term that could reasonably be subject to different interpretation is not defined. If the older patrol goes out on its own without proper adult supervision and something should happen you not only open yourself up to possible lawsuits but it also will extend to every registered member of the committee. This excuse is a cop-out from someone who understands neither the law nor the BSA liability coverage. In order for a Scouter to be held liable for an injury, the injured person would have to identify some fault (negiligence) on the part of the person from whom they are claiming damages. In the case of a committee member, that is a real stretch. Even in your case as SM, it sounds like you have gone to great lengths to make sure they are ready for this. But none of that matters, because the agreement that your chartered organization has with the BSA obligates BSA to defend and indemnify all of you for any claims of this sort. I believe the first layer of coverage, for which BSA is self-insured, is $10 million. I am sure there are other layers of excess coverage over that. The prospect of a volunteer or CO ever being obligated to pay anything for defense costs or to satisfy a judgement stemming from a program activity is not a legitimate concern. (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Oh good lord, I can only assume you are joking or being sarcastic. You assume correctly. Read my comment in the context of some of today's other active topics. I tend to be a smart a$$. Sometimes it gets me in trouble. Our Cub resident camp this summer played a similar game with flour "grenades" The Scouts put a small scoop of flour in a paper towel, twisted the loose corners, and quickly dunked the bundle in water. A participant who was struck was left with obvious evidence. The Cubs had a blast. I made the same comment as above to the camp program director, who got a good laugh out of it.

Twocubdad, it's great that you have such a good working relationship with you DE, and he appears to "get it." I don't think all (or even most) leaders share that experience with their pros.

When they run out of ammo (and the ammo replenishes because of socks that go over the fort walls), blow the whistle and go to the DMZ to reload. I don't know, this sounds an awful lot like a prohibited activity to me. Pointing any type of firearm or simulated firearm at any individual is unauthorized. Scout units may plan or participate in paintball, laser tag or similar events where participants shoot at targets that are neither living nor human representations. Just exactly what are these socks intended to simulate? Hand grenades or other explosive weapons? Maybe these socks should only be thrown at non life-like targets. You'd better not let the H&S people get wind of this event.

Twocubdad wrote: I don't get too wound up over the actual reporting criteria. Perhaps he should. Most state mandatory reporting laws provide civil and criminal immunity to those who make a good faith report of suspected abuse. Reporting something whichobjectively falls outside of the requirements, even if done "out of an abundance of caution" may take the reporter outside the bounds of good faith, and potentially subject the reporter to defamation or other claims. The immunityis intendedto protect those who make reports of events that could be considered "close calls," not those using a shotgun approach. Even outside the realm of liability, we have all heard anecdotal accounts of Scouters who were removed based on unfounded reports. Why subject someone to that possibility if it is not warranted?

Needs to be done before you might otherwise be holding a Christmas party, but for the last several years we have been making cards for the troops: http://www.redcross.org/holidaymail

Everything that I have find has been unreadable. This post is unreadable.

As for creating my own organization? I have no need. I simply want my organization to be its best, to continue to provide the best possible opportunities for young men. The bigots can't chase me out. I will continue to be at Roundtable with my "Dress" uniform covered in knots, I will continue to volunteer at the Pack, Troop and Council level, and I will NOT allow the bigots to ruin my organization. Bigotry is not morally straight. Well said.

Not that it matters, but will the Norton waring disappear in due time, or is the site branded with a scarlet letter for eternity?

I tried to spin-off a new thread, but couldn't get that function to work. In another thread, Beavah wrote: Word on da street is that da risk adverse legal types are runnin' da show on the new round of documents coming out, so I expect we will see some more potentially restrictive wording. This got me wondering, Does National care what the average Scout and Scouter in the field thinks about the program? I know many skeptics will say no, but there must be some at National who care. Our National Commissioner occasionally chimes in on the Scouts-L list. I don't know if any monitor this board. I think most of us recognize that **** ing here isn't going to accomplish anything (but it does relieve stress, sometimes). Keep in mind that I do not venture much outside of unit-level scouting. Meaning that I go to RT and council events, but I am not involved in the district or council committee and have no idea generally how those on the committees want to steer things. Politically, I am not "connected." So, my question is this: what is the best way for someone like me to convey my opinion on issues like the one this is spun from, patrol issues, or other broader issues like the inclusiveness of BSA. Writing letters to the CSE? Talking to my council president and hoping my thoughts move up the chain? Or would I have more luck if I just sat here and banged my head off my keyboard?

Sorry, Beavah. I was trying to say essentially the same thing, but you beat me to it. Need to work on those typing skills!

I must respectfully disagree with not informing the SE as soon as possible. YP guidelines do state that we need to contact the SE. I think there are two different assumptions being made in this thread about what must be reported to the SE and child protective services. First off, there is variance among the states about what must be reported, and that is why every council provides information specific to its jurisdiction in the course of YP training. Generally speaking, it is suspected sexual or physical abuse, or neglect that must be reported. I doubt that any jurisdiction would consider a single incident of an adult raising his voice to an unrelated youth as crossing the threshold. Someseem to be suggesting that any violation of one of the "bold face" youth protection rules must be reported. That sounds fine on its face until you actully look at what is included in those rules. For example: Junior leader training and supervision. Adult leaders must monitor and guide the leadership techniques used by junior leaders and ensure that BSA policies are followed. is included in the rules. Now, I am not suggesting that youth leadership training is not an important part of the pie. But does your SE want to know about every SM who has not run a proper TLT course based on the current syllabus? Other innocent actions that might technically violate the rules have been discussed beofore, like the SM who awakens from his nap at summer camp to find a lone scout sitting in the campsite. Should he tell the scout to move on and find his buddy or the program area where he belongs, or should he get on the phone to the SE and DCFS and turn himself in? As in all issues, common sense needs to prevail.

Thanks. Some good ideas here.

I tried to google "you earn iggy" and all I got were a bunch of ugly pictures of a now very old Iggy Pop. I did the same thing. Watch, it will probably make the list of new dictionary words next year.

Engineer61 wrote: You earn iggy. No idea what that means. I assume it is not complimentary. Beavah correctly interprets my earlier post. I am not sure where I suggested anything about ignoring parents; I am a parent first and Scouter second. Regardless of Scouting's objective merits, which I think are numerous and well-documented, one would think that a parent who finds as much fault with the program as does Engineer61 would simply remove his child from the program. Why would a parent allow their child to continue in a program that is perceived to be poorly run and which teaches poor decision-making? Instead that parent spends 6 months and in excess of 200 posts venting to strangers about this foolish, irresponsible program that his son is being exposed to on a weekly basis.

My son has moved on to BS, but I am still helping out the Pack leadership. Therefore, I am certain that I will be tapped as an "impartial" judge for the pinewood derby car design awards. I am asking this question in light of the common guidance that the car should be produced primarily by the scout with assistance from an adult, with the boy having more responsibilty as he gains experience and confidence with the tools over his years in Cubs. Last year, my son in his last year of Webs, made a car that won most patriotic. The only thing I did for him was to make a couple of initial cuts on the table saw and offer some suggestions as he proceeded. The smile on his face when he won that award was priceless. I anticipate that my dilema is going to be judging the absolutely flawless, intricate car submitted by a Tiger Cub, where the boy obviously had little or no hand in construction, versus the car that has some imperfections but is otherwise a nice car produced primarily by the Scout. We use a lot of the common categories like I have seen elsewhere, like best of show, best paint job, funniest, most patriotic, etc. These change from year to year. It feels a little like judging Frank Thomas against Mark McGuire or Sammy Sosa. If the flawless car objectively is the best in show, should it get the award, or should it be docked for "juicing."

BadenP wrote: It really frosts me to hear a SM give up on something his boys want to do before doing any real research. Note that the original post is not from a SM, or a Scouter of any form. It is from a disgruntled parent, the majority of whose posts seek to find fault with the BSA, his son's unit, or his wife. Doesn't really warrant much of a frosting.

I would have called back the next night at 3:15 to ask how their son was doing and if he enjoyed he campout. That's funny. I like your way of thinking.

Get them outdoors! Hiking, biking, camping, small conservation projects, etc. Make them hungry for more when they get to BS.

If you know someone who welds, they can make you a lid lifter very easily. (Maybe a lid rest too.) Plus, they might have an extra pair of gloves to spare, too. :-)

As I was reading this, as soon as you said the phones went over to voice mail, I was expecting to hear that Mom wanted you to drive up and check on them. So I guess this was not nearly as bad as it could have been. I think Mom learned more than her son did this weekend. Thanks for sharing that.

I don't understand the assertion by some on this thread that membership in, leadership with, or awards from an organization that may or may not have some religious affiliation are somehow criteria that cannot legally be considered in the hiring process. As others alluded to, Eagle is a rank which indicates that the person has demonstrated certain leadership skills, among other criteria. Leadership is certainly a criteria that employers may consider. I doubt there are many who would hire an Eagle Scout because of the underlying religious message of the organization that awarded it. If the assertion that consideration of Eagle Scout status is, on its face, illegal is true, then a degree from Notre Dame, Duke, or BYU should be worthless in the job market (please, no sarcastic comments from non-Irish fans). The granting of a degree from an instution operated by a religious order certainly carries with it more of a religious connotation than an award from an organization that has a non-sectarian religious policy. I submit that this assertion is simply wrong.

In fact, why not ask Tico Perez his take on that matter? I forgot about Mr. Perez. I wonder if our National Commissioner agrees with the message Mr. Mazzuca is sending?

In another thread, Kudu writes: If the CSE meets his 2010 goal to recruit 100,000 Hispanics who hate camping, Wood Badge will simply switch its office manager metaphors from office "leadership" to business sports metaphors like Denis Waitley's "Course in Winning." I have seen Kudu's link to the video of the CSE actually making a statement to this effect. That statement bothers me. Do hispanics really hate camping? There isn't much of a hispanic population in my area, so I don't have a good basis to form an opinion. I have seen more than a handful of Hispanic youth from other units in our council, and they seem to be enjoying themselves at district and council events. I tried to look into this more. The USSSP site has links to scouting sites from around the world, and I looked at a sampling of them from latin american countries. Most of them are in Spanish, and there is very little left of my spotty, high school Spanish skills, so most of my observations come from looking at photos and videos. I saw lots of pictures of youth (male and female) camping and doing other traditional scouting outdoor activities. I saw pictures of camps that would make most of our boys jealous. I couldn't find a single picture of a latin american scout playing soccer. So what gives? Do hispanics in the US have a fundatmentally different view of camping and the outdoors than those in their native countries? Is there some other cultural difference that makes BSA unattractive to hispanics, and Mazzuca is just using this as an excuse? Or is he just wrong and maybe we should just be making more effort to make them feel welcome in our traditional units?

If you have a SAM'S CLUB around..... For about $90 ( yeah, I know, kinda high) you can buy a 4 inch thick latex memory foam bed pad. One side is egg crate, the other is smooth. How well does that pack down for backpacking? :-)