Bob White

So these "board members" with little or no scouting experience to motivate them were continually making large personal contributions to help fund the local scout program? Why the very nerve of them! Who do they think they are?

Simply filing the paperwork does not put the responsibility on the council. The decisions made by the leadership and the training opportunities that they avail themselves of, or ignore, continue to play a role whether the paperwork is filed or not.

Sorry if I missed the mark. To help me in the furure could you tell me what oart of is it true that BSA insurance does not cover a troop on an outing unless at least one leader on the trip is officially trained according to BSA specs. I missed. Thanks BW

You were second highest in having the last word.

Guardian in this case, as in the case of the signature line on a scouts application form, refers to a person empowered by the court with the legal responsibility for a child's welfare. You can verify this through your local scout office. This is not a responsibility that a parent can give temporarily to another adult via a note to the cubmaster. Again the cub can attend the event without their parent or guardian but cannot be in a tent with another adult. That would be a violation of the BSA Youth Protection Policies, and no unit volunteer has the authority to set that rule aside.

Where did I ever say the scouts would be punished in any way. Think of all the uniform gaffs that adults have admitted to just on this forum. Have they ever been punished in any way? Of course not. Just because there are no uniform police does not alter the rules, nor does it make an Eagle project a scout activity. Scouts only know the uniforming conditions that they are taught through the adult leadership. That doesn't alter the BSa rules either.

Again, we have all scene photos in Boys' Life that are not correct. The purpose of photos in Boys' Life is not to establish or share BSA policies or procedures. Also. I never said that a troop volunteering on a service project could not wear the uniform. But the BSA says specifically that work of the candidate is done OUTSIDE the sphere of scouting., The candidate is not there as a representative of the troop, or the Council, OR the BSA. He is there as a community volunteer on a project that is done by and for a benefitting organization other than the BSA. His work is accepted toward the requirement, JUST AS all kinds of activities by scouts are approved for credit toward advancement requirements. They are however done outside the sphere of scouting. Just because the work is accepted for advancement does not make the activity a scout activity, as I showed with the example of the PE class and the fitness requirements.

First, let's be clear that paintings and photographs are not the approriate references or resources for determinng BSA rules, policies, or procedures. Even Rockewll's paintings have errors in them. So let's agree tha paintings, feelings, and photos are inappropriate for determining BSA rules,regulations, or policies. The ONLY appropriate sources are the documents of the BSA. "outside the sphere of scouting" is not a term I created but is a direct quote from the aprropriate BSA publication. It is not the same as "outside of BSA property" as I have already shown. It is a separate issue found in a separate unrelated instruction in the Advancement Policies and Procedures manual. Outside the sphere of scouting means that it is not an official unit, council or national activity and as such is not the responsibility of the BSA. As an example, On a BSA activity if a non-BSA youth was injured they would be covered by BSA accident insurance. If at an Eagle project a non-BSA volunteer was injured they would be covered by the insurance of the property owner where the project is taking place not the BSA, because the work is done outside the sphere of scouting. If the Scout is leading a group of non-scout volunteers no adult there is required to manintain a two deep leadership condition because the activity is done outside the sphere of scouting. If a Scout troop were working on the project then ONLY the scout members must adhere to the two deep leadership rule not the the non-scout members because while the members are on a troop activity the candidate's work and the project are done outside the sphere of scouting. A candidate can assign work to any adult or person there regardless of their office or position in the unit, because he is not there as a scout he is there as the project leader and as such operates outside the sphere of scouting. I have never suggested this rule exists to prohibit the scout from wearing the uniform. The rule exists to insulate the BSA from any liability resulting from the project and to allow the scout to operate as the leader without any restrictions put on him based on the structure of the unit. The BSA makes it clear that this is an INDIVIDUAL activity and not connected to a unit, council, or national office of the BSA. It is that independent activity, and the fact that it is done by the individual and not on behalf of the BSA, that makes the wearing of the uniform inappropriate according to the uniform policies of the BSA. You will find this, as I said before (not based on my "feelings: or opinion) in section 7 of the Unit Money Earning Application and in Clause 6 of the Uniform Regulations of the BSA. Both of which I have supplied in this thread in previous posts. Whether it be an Eagle project or not, it is inapproprite to wear the BSA uniform or use the BSA name to suggest endorsement by the BSA without their specific permisiion and the BSA has already told you that the project and the raising of donations for the project are done outside the sphere of scouting.

From a training aspect you need to understand that the troop is not covered with liability protection. The liability protection (as opposed to the accident insurance) covers individuals not the unit. Specifically it covers the registered adults and the officers of the charter organization. The protection specifically states that it is in force as long as the individual shows due diligence. Due diligence is is decided most often by a judge, but mainly it means that the individual took reasonable steps to insure the safety of people and property. Would it be likely that a registered leader who had access to training and BSA safety policies and did not follow that training or the regulations (or did not availe themselves of the training) be found liable and find themsleves without BSA liability protection due to failure to show due diligence? Yes, it is possible and in sonme cases likely. Can a person be found liable by the court, but have followed the training and BSA regulations. Yes. So what is the difference. In the case where the registered adult showed that they followed the BSA training and regulations and was still found liable for property damages or personal injury, the BSA pays the legal fees and the court fines. In the other case...they don't No leader should be under the misguided assumption that just because they wear a BSA uniform that they can do whatever they want and the BSA will pay for their mistakes. That is not how the liability protection works. Having current and appropriate training for the activity along with following the regulations governing the activity is how as leaders we show responsible behavior.

A number of posters including a moderator have inferred that the last word in a thread is most often offered up by me. As with the response to many of my posts on the forum I feel that it is more a matter of unsupported opinion than actual fact. So on a lark I looked at the last 15 pists in threads under 7 different topic areas on the forum. So thats 105 threads I looked at. So who in fact has the last word most often? And what does it matter anyway since no one ever knows for sure if their post will be last or not? I don't know the answer to that question because I am not the one who thinks it is an issue, nor do I believe it is a reasonable point to criticize someone for. So as of 7:35PM central time tonight, which us do you think has the last word the most often out of 105 threads. (by the way I came in tied for 6th with 2 other posters. the top 5 posters most frequently having the last word can be found on over 27% of those posts.) (This message has been edited by Bob White)

The fact that "outside the sphere of scouting" and "not on scout property" are two completely separate issues is easily proved. If not being on scout property made something outside the sphere of scouting then the troop meeting each week at your charter organizations meeting location would be outside the sphere of scouting by your definition, since it is not on scout property, and of course that is not true. If inside the sphere of scouting meant that an activity was held on BSA property then when an outside group rented a scout camp it would a scouting activity, and that is not true either. So your interpretation does not hold up to the facts. So it is easy to show that being "outside the sphere of scouting" and being "on or off scout properties" are two distinct issuees. For instance: You can have activities on scout property that can be inside the sphere of scouting, and you can have activities on scout property outside the sphere of scouting. You can have activities outside the sphere of scouting that are on BSA properties and you can have activities outside the sphere of scouting that are off of scouting properties. They are not the same thing. The BSA quite clearly states that an Eagle service project is both outside the sphere of scouting, and two paragraphs later also says that it must be done off of BSA property. They are two separate rules. There are lots of things in scouting not found specifically in BASIC training. What Basic Training does do is show you the manuals that contain the policies that effect uniform, advancemet, fundraising, safety, and other policies and you are told is relevant information that you should learn and know. Rather than place the scout in any situation where they might wear the uniform at an inappropriate activity the BSA depends on leaders to follow the policies and to coach and mentor the scouts as to when the appropriate times are. Believe me kb6jra, this is not the first time that the majority of posters disagreed with me only to discover that I was correct in my understanding of the BSA program. Research topics such as, adult leadership on patrol outings, what the first rank in Boy Scouts is, who can be a merit badge counselor, and other topics and you will find that being outnumbered and not being wrong is not an unusual position for me on this this forum. Being in the majority is not a component of being right, nor do "feelings" override rules, policies, or Methods.

In answer to your quseations nowhere did I say that the board members should not know their jobs. But for volunteer unit leaders to suggest that to suggest that to be a board member you should be held to a scouting background when leaders are not, or to suggest that training is more inmportant for the board member than for the leader with direct youth and program contact is irrational. When has a council executive board ever told you where you have to camp? As far as who they will let register..the unit is registered to the council, they can set whatever conditions national will allow. If you do not like their decisions then you ave a voice on the committee called the charter organization representative. Have them do their job. Has the BSA or any council ever made an error? of course, but it is theor program to make the error with. They pay the price for their errors just as the unit pays the price for their own mistakes. Is it your contention that the BSA or your concil purposely makes mistakes in order to harm the scouts, the units or the community? Who you "believe" should make the decisions on camp properties is irrelevant as a past, present, of future unit leader. Making decisions regarding council properties is not your role as a unit volunteer. Nor is it your decision as to who gets to make those decisions. Each charter organization has a specific voice on the council committee, the Charter Organization representative. Unless you know of anything that counters that BSA regulation it remains unchanged for decades. The board has their job to do and unit leaders have their own, and they rarely need to cross paths with each other to do them effectively. As an example...how many members of the national executive board have you met in your lifetime? And yet...the program continues for almost 100 years.

While many threads simply run out of things to talk about, the last post is not final as they can be added to at any time. In the only threads I have seen with a "final" post it always belonged to a moderator. Since no one has broken any rules at this point I would hope the moderators would not stop a poster or a thread simply because they have no personal interest in it. Kb6jra You said I have ADDED a requirement. What requirement would that be? You suggest that any requirement work a scout does automatically makes it a scouting activity. Where did you get such an idea? If a Scout does his excercises toward his First Class fitness requirement in his PE class are you suggesting that it now becomes a scout activity and that he should be in uniform, and the BSA should be supplying the accident insurance for the class participants and liability protection for the school? OR is he fulfilling the requirememt "outside the sphere of scouting"? When you read the Advancement policies and procedures manual you will see that quite clearly this is a separate issue from WHO the project can benefit.

You seem to assume or at least suggest that the role and purpose of the executive board is the same as the role and purpose of the volunteer unit leader? Is it your belief that a scout leader must have a scouting background to join? No? Then why must any other position have a scouting background? Does the executive board tell units what they must do in their unit meetings or where they must go for activities? No Do they plan district or council events for units? No. They have a totally different job to do. So why not let them get whomever they need to get the job done? If you want your unit to have a say on the council level then have you Charter Organization Representative actively participate in the district and council meetings.

Whether one unit has not had a problem with a non-parent tenting with the scout or 200 units have not had a problem is immaterial to the policy. This is not a condition you are given a choice to follow or not follow. This policy should be well understood and well communicated to ALL families well in advance of the activity. No scout can be in a tent with an adult who is not a parent or legal guardian of that scout. There is no gray area here. There are no allowable exceptions.

Don't be concerned that you agree with me. This is not my method it is the BSA Patrol Method.

Outside the Sphere of Scouting" means that the project cannot benefit the BSA, the local council, the unit...that's it. " No it does not. That is a separate issue addressed in a separate BSA policy. Reason this through. Is the Eagle project done as a unit, district, or council event? No. it is done as an independent and indiviudal activity for an ouside organization. The Uniform policiy says that "The official uniforms are intended primarily for use in connection with Scouting activities as defined by the national Executive Board, and their use may be approved by the local council executive board for council events or activities under conditions consistent with the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America." The Advancement policies state that the executive comment says "He does the project outside the sphere of scouting" So you have the BSA saying that the uniform is to be worn for events consistent with the rules, and that the advancement rules say the project is done outside the sphere of scouting. Can the scout wear his uniform or use the name of scouting when seeking donations for the project? No. Because the fundraising rules do not allow it. Specifically Rule 7. "Youth members shall not be permitted to serve as solicitors of money for their chartered organizations, for the local council, or in support of other organizations. Adult and youth members shall not be permitted to serve as solicitors of money in support of personal or unit participation in local, national, or international events. And we have already established that the project is a personal event and done outside the sphere of scouting. If you think about this IF the BSA allowed the uniform for the soliciting then they would allow it for the project itself and vice versa. However the rules are consistant for both. The rules of the BSA do not support wearing the uniform for soliciting funds or supplies, or during an individual event that is outside the sphere of scouting. Can you show evidence of ANY BSA rule that says otherwise?

Since when is being a tight team or clique harmful to the Patrol Method? A clique is more likely to do things together and stay together as a group, both sound like characteristics of a good patrol. Communications within a clique are usually very frequent. Cliques normally have shared goals and purpose. There is nothing wrong with patrols having those characteristics. To say letting scouts choose their own patrol is bad becuse the members might get to be too good of friends, or might work too well together, is odd indeed and goes against the very elements of the Patrol method.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

"What that language means to a reasonable interpreter is that the project is supposed to be done for a non-Scouting entity." Define "reasonable interpreter? Do you mean how you interpret it? If so, then why are both statements in the rules, and why doi they appear in separate and unassociated paragraphs? A "reasonable interpretation" would be that they are separate thoughts and separate rules. The Eagle service project is not a Troop, Crew, or Ship project, nor is it a council, regional or naional office project. Therefore, it is done outside the sphere of scouting. As a separate issue, the project may not benefit scouting or be done on BSA owned property. As such the BSA is not liable for any injuries or property damages related to the project. The legal responsibility for project is on the benefitting organization and not any unit or level of the BSA. A Scout unit that volunteers to help with the poroject as a troop activity would be covered by their regular BSA accident and liability insurance BUT ONLY for the members of that unit that participated. That protection does not extrend to any person or property related to the project, including the candidte. Those other parties would be under the coverage of the benfitting organization and or property owner. Why? Because the project is done "outside the sphere of Scouting". I have offered you the exact passages and references from BSA policies. So far you have only offered personal opinion. Can you show any official policies or rules of the BSA that counter these policies. Otherwise you will have to accept that the BSA means what they have said.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Patrols function best when scouts are grouped with other scouts whom they share common interests and skills. In other words "friends". Whether you use the new scout patrol or not scouts should choose their own patrols. No one picked your friends for you when you were a teenager. If brothers want to be kept together then do not interfere. If two scouts don't want to be in the same patrol then let them select different ones. If you use the NSP then as scouts achieve the First Class rank let them stay in the same patrol or enter another based on the choice of the scout, and not the decision of the adult leader.

As a commissioner you are charged by the BSA to support the rules and regulations of the BSA within your council area. Since the unit does not have an assigned commissioner I recommend you tell your District Commissioner (and the local scout professional in your district) of the unit's activity and suggest they send someone to get more information. They might ask you to look into it, or they might assign someone else, but it is highly unlikely that they would choose to do nothing especially since it involves a BSA safety policy. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

You suggest that what I wrote was based on a single statement by the BSAa in the Advancement policies, it was not. As I have now posted frequently in this thread it is based on other evidence as well. Specifically the Advancement polices, the uniform regulations, and the money eraning regulations (since in many projects the candiate chooses to seek donations of goods or money to support the project. Since the executive board says VERY SPECIFICALLY that the project is outside the sphere of scouting, no personal opinion of "feeling" of a local volunteer, unit, or council can alter that without specific permission from the national executive board.

If the scout was advanced in the past when he had not completed all the requirements then the problem is not how the scoutmaster "feels" about things, but how the board of review members acted. They were wrong to advance a scout if he had not met the requirements. It would be just as wrong to not advance him because you "feel" that he lacks experience. Experience is not a specific requirement for any rank. Here is what the the actual 1st Class requirement is that is relevant to the situation. Since joining, have participated in ten separate troop/patrol activities (other than troop/patrol meetings), three of which included camping overnight. The board is well within their authority and responsibility to ask for documentation that shows the scout's participation in each of the ten required activities. If he was there then he passes the requirement. If not then the board needs to let him know what is left to do. If the board is unwilling to do this then the problem is theirs and not the scoutmaster's. They do more harm to the scout by rewarding him for something he did not do rather than hold him to the same standard as other scouts as set by the BSA. Nor should he be denied advancment based on personal feelings of what someome thinks the scout should have done. He either met the requirements or he did not, and it is the board's responsibility to make that decision based only on the BSA requirements.

Horizon You gave a great example of how misunderstanding the rules causes more problems than the rules themselves. There is nothing that requires a parent or legal guardian to accompany the Cub on a campout. The BSA policy states In most cases, the youth member will be under the supervision of a parent or guardian. In all cases, each youth participant is responsible to a specific adult." The BSA recognizes that there will be instances when a parent or guardian is unavailable, and allows for the Cub to be supervised by another adult parent on the trip (other than the event leader). The only stipulation is that the adult cannot be in the tent with, or alone one-on-one with the scout, since they are not the parent or legal guardian. Beavah Again misunderstanding of the rules is what causes the problem in your case as well. There is nothing in the BSa youth protection that prohibits a leader from being able to have a one on one private conversation with a youth. They simply need to be in the view of another adult. That does not mean that the other adult must be close enough to be privy to the conversation. As a practicing Catholic since birth I can tell you that second graders do not go to confession alone. There is either a whole class of second graders and a teacher just outside the door, or they are their with a parent or family members. There is risk... and then there is unnecesarry risk. As I said there were 40,000 deaths or accidents related to chain saws last year alone. You can bet that the vast majority of them were men who thought they knew what they were doing. "Just because someone doesn't like somethin' doesn't mean they should tell everyone else not to do it. That depends on who's paying the bill. If you want to do whatever you want but then have the BSA foot the bill when you screw up...uh uh. Life doesn't work that way. The man who pays the piper names the tune. It is not your kids or your finances you are risking when you do unsafe things, so you don't get to do anything you want to do while representing Scouting. Trevorum More problems come from volunteers who don't undertand the program than from the rules of the program. Highly paid Scouting professionals do not make the decisons on membership. Volunteers make those decisions and the ones that are hioghly paid are highly paid by their businesses or organozations other than scouting. With only a few exceptions the BSA executive board is made of volunteers. The role of the professional at the national as well as the local level is primarily to facilitate the decisions of volunteer committees. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

LisaBob 1) In the other thread the originator fully and hapilly participated in the topic shift before I ever participated. The topic of the thread was to attack me. Changing the topic allowed the thread to remain. I wanted to discuss the application of scouting leadership skills and was not looking for the conversation to be altered by the Monty Python Players. 2) Yes I am personally aware of the elements of Wood Badge for the 21st Century that you listed. But had you read the gentleman's original post that I referred to, you would have seen that he did not attend that course and so he would not be able to relate lessons he never learned to his situation. So instead I used the topics from the previous version of Wood Badge which he HAD attended, so that the information was relevant to his needs and experiences. Both Wood Badge courses have value even though they are very different, having served on staff several times on both courses, I felt that to answer his question using the leadership lessons that he was familiar with would be the most beneficial for him. Would you agree that that was the better approach to take? (This message has been edited by Bob White)