jwest09

An approach I try to take - Its possible not to tolerate something, without kicking the boy out (and thus casting him outside your sphere of hopefully-positive influence.) Not sure why drug use is an unforgivable sin for so many among us, especially considering the harmful side effects of exiling an already at-risk youth on account of what may be a small transgression.

Its worth asking the scout, in a non-judgmental way, why he has repeatedly chosen to use illegal drugs. Not because he may have a good excuse (I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason that would excuse a youth making this choice) - but because it may reveal deeper, more important issues that might need to be addressed. A teenager using pot recreationally with friends is a different situation from crude attempts at self medication for depression or other mental illness. It's most likely to be the former - but as an advocate for these youth, its at least worth having the discussion. Approaching it from a standpoint of true concern and free of judgement is also a good way to build trust and rapport with the young man.

In my large troop, the unofficial official rule has been: 1. Each adult gets 1/2 day during the week where they are allowed (and maybe even expected) to head off camp. 2. No more than 2 adults can be off camp at the same time. We obviously adjust the unofficial official rules as needed to ensure we have a proper ratio of adults to youth on camp at all times - but given a relatively large number of adult leaders, this is rarely an issue. I don't really buy the "well, what if there's a medical emergency, and you're off playing golf?" line of reasoning. The boys are trained in first aid and emergency procedures. The camp staff are trained and drilled in the same. The camp has emergency procedures to get the individual the needed attention. We all have cell phones. I'd be happy to explain to a parent that, while I personally may have been off duty for 4 of the roughly 144 hours the unit was at camp, there were 50 other people, as qualified or more qualified than myself, who were part of the response to that incident. Regarding the double standard for youth vs adult, I can live with it in this case, because (usually) the adults are taking vacation time, and sacrificing money, family time, etc. The boys (usually) are not. The adults, out of the necessity, generally have a greater set of responsibility than the youth. I find giving our adult leadership a 1/2 day to play golf, have a non-camp meal, go fishing, whatever, keeps them at the top of their game the other 5.5 days of camp. I also consider it an appropriate way to show gratitude for the sacrifice they are making in order to provide adult supervision and mentoring for a week of high intensity activity, that, frankly, they may not inherently enjoy as much as I do. Having an unofficial official rule for this also makes it easy to address the case of "Well, I'd like to come out to camp, but I need to take a conference call on Tuesday morning..." Well, you can! It would be silly for me to try to say, "Grr, no, you can't do that! Because rules!" Then, what?, I lose the adult for a full week of camp, and not just a half day? I don't believe that an appropriate, or practical, way to treat a fellow volunteer. As in all things - this works OK for my unit, but your mileage may vary.

It sounds like you are dealing with a behavioral problem. Trying to solve a behavioral problem by "banning" certain arbitrary objects which are by themselves benign (eg, phones, toys) does not get to the crux of the issue - and I believe that the youth pick up on this, and it ends up working against you. I agree with DuctTape - this is pretty much the exact same issue as the phone thread.

There was a time when I didn't even have to imagine ;-) But I think you are right, there is a time and a place for adults to proactively educate youth leadership on issues such as these. There's also a time and a place for observing how youth leadership addresses these issues, and recognizing if they are doing an adequate job without our meddling. The youth are often more tuned in than adults are to these types of things. If the youth are correctly handling the situation, I see no need to guide the PLC in forming any sort of policy. its quite possible that they don't even see this as an issue at all, and would scratch their heads at why the adults are talking themselves in circles about it ;-)

Sure, I can get behind that. We should be proactive in equipping our youth leadership to be successful. I think it comes down to gauging the overall maturity and experience of the particular youth you are working with.

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that we give our youth leaders the opportunity to identify problems and bring them to our attention - not the other way around. Its general advice, and not specific to ADHD or these figit spinners. I'm suggesting that if the youth leadership isn't experiencing difficulty in achieving their goals and in leading their troop and patrols, then we shouldn't jump to solving a problem which we as adults perceive to exist, but the youth do not. Now, in the event that the youth leadership does express concern about these devices, and looks for guidance on what action they should take - then, yes, I fully agree with all of your points. Edit: And I should add, if we do observe the youth leadership inappropriately directing their peers' behavior (perhaps because they do not understand or are not sensitive to conditions such as ADHD), then of course I would suggest mentoring the leadership, bringing up the valid points that you mention. My point is that we should give them the opportunity to correctly handle the situation, not automatically assume that they will handle it incorrectly.

Better yet, let the PLC initiate the conversation. Are the scouts unable to direct their peers' behavior, or are they already handling it effectively on their own?

That much I can agree with. The distinction that gets lost too easily in these discussions is the ownership of the decision. The PLC is empowered to make these decisions. While I personally remain skeptical that this is the sort of issue which a PLC should concern themselves with, I do need to acknowledge that its the things that are important to them that matter, and not the things which are important to me. My perception may be unfairly clouded based on my experience, which has been that whenever we talk of "banning" anything, the ownership has 100% been with the adult advisers, and not with the youth leaders. My preference has also been for the PLC to address behaviors, and not objects. As well as to focus on planning of adventure, and not promulgation of policy. Hence, the issue has not come up in my experience. But I'll admit that others' have different experiences, and my approach is not the only correct approach. Now, what's interesting to me... a few posts back, you mentioned: " I would say it depends on the book and what they are using the phone for. If they are reading a MB pamphlet or other Scouting book then I have no issue." Which does get me to wondering, how much of this is your issue, versus your youth leaderships' issue? My approach: I'll support running a fantastic program. My expectations of the youth are that they follow through with the commitments that they've made to execute that program. As long as that is happening in a safe way... I'm kind of hands-off with what the youth do to spend their down time. Sorry for offending you, it wasn't my intention.

Back Pack, you seem to be jumping around between a variety of unrelated ideas, and I can't quite follow all of your logic. Your particular question here is basically the same as if the PLC considers creating any other rule or policy. They need to think through it, weigh the pros and cons, and commit to follow through on their decision. This specific issue (scouts wanting to ban their own cell phones) has never come up in my experience. I guess we're too busy doing more interesting things with our time?

Well, regardless of whatever difficulties you may be experiencing with smart phone GPS, is that a reason to ban them outright? Nope.

Level with me - you know as well as I do that there are other, far more common uses, for cell phones than as a compass or GPS unit. (And the GPS works just fine in the back country.)

I agree with the stance that a cell phone is just a tool - we should correct bad behavior, not ban a tool. When I started as an ASM, the troop had a strict "no electronics" rule. It made enough sense at the time... but as I gained a little more experience, I realized... I don't like spending time enforcing this rule. I don't like spending time reviewing "policies" about this rule. I don't like spending time explaining this rule. I don't like spending time defending this rule. I can't justify or explain why it is important or necessary. In situations where it's "my call," I personally don't care if you carry your cell phone with you or not. If you use it inappropriately or unsafely, I will correct that, same as if it were a hatchet or a newspaper or a canoe or anything else. But if you're behaving respectfully and responsibly, then I see no need to burden you with unnecessary "policies." That's not fun, rewarding or important for either one of us.

You might also take into account the facilities you have to work with. Do you have a severe weather shelter that will accommodate your group? Do you have an indoor meeting area where you can do indoor training or other activities? I do my best to avoid flat out cancelling events due to weather. But we do need to Be Prepared - if the facility doesn't have a suitable shelter, you should consider cancelling. If the facility does have a suitable shelter, then I'd usually be OK with holding the event, but ensuring that the leadership has someone dedicated to keeping an eye on the weather, and that everyone is familiar with emergency procedures.

When having difficulty getting a point across, its always easier to blame your audience - maybe assuming they don't "want to" learn, or maybe assuming they are incapable of learning due to lacking your own first hand experience. Its much more difficult to look inward and evaluate both the legitimacy of your argument, and the effectiveness of your communication. There's also the clear logical fallacy in trying to diminish the relevancy of one issue (ie, cultural appropriation), because of an unrelated issue (ie, casinos). While I can appreciate the validity of concern surrounding cultural appropriation, I would argue that, if and when the OA does dissolve, it would be wrong to blame cultural appropriation as the main reason. In my own experience with the OA, which now comprises several decades, chapters and councils worth of exposure, there seems to be a consistent disconnect between the OA's programming, and what the teenage boys of today resonate with, and find fun and interesting. Not to say that the cultural appropriation question shouldn't be explored and resolved... but be careful of using that as a scapegoat for why the OA is falling out of favor.

We charge a flat registration fee per year. The fee covers the dues and insurance paid to council/national, costs of advancement patches and paraphernalia, and an amount paid into the troop's general fund which we use for "routine maintenance," as best we can estimate it. For example, we'll budget to be able to replace a tent each year, replace some cook equipment, maintenance on the trailer, etc. All camp outs, including summer camp, we charge a flat fee which is our best estimate of the "real cost" of the event. So basically a fixed cost for food, and then we divide the costs of the camp ground/transportation/activities/etc by our expected attendance, and that's what we charge for the camp out. Sometimes our estimate is a little over or a little under, and the general fund will absorb any small loss or gain there. NYLT is technically not paid for by the troop, but we officially unofficially have an "anonymous" donor who historically has covered that cost for two scouts per year. Any other scouting events, such as the OA, outside training, etc is paid for by the scout. Fund raising is available, but optional. We do extend the opportunity to participate in the council's fund raisers, and will establish scout accounts for the youth, and all proceeds from the fund raisers will go into those accounts. Scouts are free to apply those funds to any troop expense, as well as reasonable personal camping gear, OA, outside training, etc. If we have any bigger purchases we need to make, we'll either increase the annual dues to account for it, and/or run ad-hoc fundraisers to make up the difference. We also tell the PLC and individual patrols that if they'd like to organize a fund raiser, they'll have the full support and assistance of the committee. The scouts who participate can use the proceeds however they see fit - some of the patrols have enhanced their food budget for campouts to get to eat a little better, another patrol replaced some of their cookware, stuff like that. In general, as far as fund raising goes... we've moved to a model where we try to charge a flat rate for everything as much as possible. We tell scouts and families that yes, fund raising opportunities are available, but ultimately you can pay that flat rate however you wish. You can participate in as much or as little fund raising as you wish, but we're still going to charge the same flat rate. I understand the point of view that fund raising can (or maybe even should) be part of the program, and it can teach valuable lessons to the scouts. I get that, and I can appreciate that many of you will disagree with our troop's decision on this point. But, historically, we have tried have more formal fund raising, we've tried mandating fund raising... what we've found is the kids hated doing it (especially anything involving door to door sales). The parents hated helping/making the kids do it. The troop adult leadership hated dealing with all the logistics and storing product and all the drama with money and prizes and incentives. Long story short, we were burning people out, and pouring enough blood, sweat and tears into this portion of the program, such that other aspects of the program were starting to suffer. So, we made the decision to focus our limited energies on delivering a fantastic outdoor program, and less on jumping through fund raising hoops. In our case, I think it was the right decision, and the troop and the boys are better off for it.

In my experience, when newer ASMs arrive on outings, they don't really know what their role should be. They tend to gravitate towards interfering with, I mean supervising, the boys, because that's a reasonable thing to expect to do. Even if they've had some training on how a boy-led troop should work, there's a bit of a mental leap involved to actually apply that philosophy when you're out in the field. I've found that having a rough schedule of things for the adults to do is a useful way to distract them from wanting to hover over the boys' shoulders. Even just forcing them to participate in a training or other activity for a couple hours can be enough to get them over the new and somewhat scary idea that the boys can take care of themselves using the patrol method and support from experienced adult scouts. I've found that without some scheduled distraction, it ends up being difficult to corral them away from hovering too close over the boys' shoulders. For me, details about whether you call it an "adult patrol" and have a patch or not are pretty irrelevant - but I do see value in organizing some actual concrete activities for the adults to focus on, if for no other reason that to give the youth some space.

I think this mentality, and it is the one that our troop adheres to. Having a large troop, we do have some process around it, mainly as a courtesy to the advancement chair. The process is simply that the scout communicate with the AC to request the BOR - phone, email or in person. We run them the first meeting of the month by default, but the AC will adjust the schedule based on demand. The AC handles building the actual board from the committee (she likes to comprise the boards of a mix of newer and more experienced committee members), so the scout's only point of contact is with one point person, the AC.

Within the past 5 years. And its entirely possible that they or I are incorrectly describing the costume. I remember they were more hung up on being scantily clothed and barefoot on a cold night standing in a muddy field.

I think qwaze hit on what seems to me to be the biggest challenge facing the OA today: competition. If you think about the demographic the OA targets (highly motivated Scouts passionate about service, leadership and outdoorsmanship) and then all of the other activities which target that same demographic (camp staff, NYLT staff, heavy involvement in troop leadership, district/council events and training, church youth groups, school clubs and societies, etc), you need to look at how the OA stacks up. I personally have no great love, nor any real problem with the OA, I think I'm pretty neutral to the organization. But I will retell a "case study" of two youth from my unit who made an honest attempt at working with the OA, and their feedback. They attended one of the twice-yearly fellowship weekends, and were part of the group performing one or more of the ceremonies. The ceremony involved them standing barefoot in a muddy field, on a rainy 50 degree fall evening, dressed in little more than a loincloth and feather headdress. They described how these ceremonies, which are supposed to convey a feeling of mystery and spirituality, ended up just feeling... weird. And uncomfortable and awkward. But what they said next was more insightful - that the OA works so hard at creating this sense of mystery and awe, but when you peel through all of that, you find that there's really nothing behind the curtain. The "cheerful service" usually amounts to doing menial chores around camp. Which isn't to say there's anything wrong with helping with simple camp maintenance, but rather that there's a mismatch between what the OA tries to build up, and what's actually there. One of these young men got involved in summer camp staff, the other in NYLT staff - but they reported similar experiences in both of those programs. There is some mystery and ritual and tradition associated with camp staff, but its not a primary element of the experience, nor it is used to shroud the actual substance of the job away from public view. Its just a way to build camaraderie and tradition. They felt a healthier connection what that sort of ritual, compared to how the OA worked. The job description itself was transparent and straightforward. And, most importantly - it wasn't menial labor, er, I mean "cheerful service." Their staff jobs required hard work, but also real skill and leadership to accomplish. The kids felt much more invested in these jobs, because they were a bit of challenge that they could grow into, and felt much more proud of themselves when they were able to complete them successfully. I personally don't have an opinion one way or the other on the cultural appropriation question - but I will suggest that the Native American spirituality stuff just doesn't resonate with the current generation. Maybe it did in the past, but my observations recently are the kids find it awkward, and don't really know how they are supposed to react or feel. I don't think they're generally offended by it, I just think they don't feel a real connection with any of it. So I guess this is a long way of saying, yes, the OA has lost its luster. Partially because the current program generally doesn't resonate with today's youth, partially because there is too much competition for these kids' time both inside and outside of the BSA, and partially due to some poor examples of how specific chapters and councils run their OA programs. With that said, I want to be clear that I understand that the OA can be a valuable part of Scouting, and I personally know several Scouts and Scouters who have contributed a lot to the OA, and credit the OA with a lot of positive experiences. Goes to show you that in an organization as large as ours, different people will find purpose and enjoyment in different types of activities. But, big picture, I think the OA needs to engage in a drastic adjustment of course to stay healthy and relevant for much longer.

Hello fellow scouters! I'm speaking here as a paramedic of 20+ years. I've worked in a variety of settings, mainly on an ambulance in urban environments. I love my job, and credit my involvement in Scouting as a youth with introducing me to this field. However, I'm continually amazed that the combination of first aid with the BSA always seems to produce armchair lawyers who waaaayyyyy overthink and overcomplicate matters when it comes to rendering the first aid skills which we teach our youngsters. I apologize for my bluntness, but as a long-time paramedic and educator, its become something of a pet peeve to me... but there is a ton of misinformation presented in this thread, and its actually harmful to mislead people in this way. I could call out each misunderstanding and fallacy communicated here pertaining to Good Samaritan laws, duty to act (or lack thereof), certification vs licensure, "highest level of care," etc etc etc. I'm not going to, unless anyone wants me to. I will reiterate the points which I try to hammer home each time I teach first aid: 1. Above all, keep yourself safe. Traffic accidents are notoriously dangerous, and sadly, each year they claim the lives of professional police, fire and EMS personnel. And we theoretically have training on how to keep ourselves safe, and ample resources to do so. I've personally responded to a few hundred car accidents at this point - they are easily the most dangerous part of my job, and I've had my own close calls. I've had close friends be injured and killed in the line of duty because they were struck by a car while working a traffic accident. Please, please, please, do not put your self at risk. Do not train your Scouts to put themselves at risk. Don't worry about all the legal mumbo-jumbo you don't understand in the first place - if nothing else, please remember to keep yourself safe above all other considerations - even if that means driving away from the scene. 2. Do Your Best to provide first aid that you've been trained for. Don't worry about being sued - seriously, this is quite possibly the absolute most idiotic thing to worry about. Go ahead a use Google or Lexus Nexus or any other search engine to try to find a case where a Good Samaritan was taken to court for rendering basic first aid at an accident scene. You won't find any. So chill out - stop worry about imaginary legal boogeyman, and stop making other worry about these imaginary fantasies! Its irresponsible to continue to spread these myths. We train people - youth and adults - to provide basic first aid because it helps people. So go help people! I can assure you, as long as you are acting in good faith, using common sense, and not exceeding what you've been trained to do, you are in no legal risk. If you disagree with me, please provide concrete references - cite actual laws or actual cases which support your position. Otherwise, please accept that the BSA does not train 10 year olds to perform skills which, if used, could land them in jail. Because that's just hairbrained and I know that you are all smart enough to see through that, if you stop to think about it. 3. Once a professional responder - be it an EMT, police officer, firefighter, etc - arrives on scene, follow their direction. Their #1 job is similar to your #1 job - safety! They need to keep themselves safe, keep you safe, keep other bystanders safe, and finally need to treat any patients on scene. They will do whatever they need to do to accomplish that. Now, most of us have been at this a while, and when we see a Good Samaritan on scene, we will treat you respectfully, and manage the situation positively if you don't immediately take our direction. But, believe me, we will not allow you, ourselves, bystanders, or patients to be placed in any risk, and if that means you need to be removed from the scene, it will happen. Let me address another legal myth that's been presented here - your BSA or Red Cross first aid training does not put you in some kind of legal situation which means that you need to remain with the patient until you're satisfied that a higher level of care has arrived. Even if you are an off-duty EMT, you are not in any kind of legal situation which requires you to remain with a patient if a police officer orders you away. Again, most of us professional responders will continue to accept your help assuming you are not putting anyone in danger - but still, please do not obstruct any of us from doing our job. I hate to see when a good guy who's trying to help, but decided to also try to be an amateur lawyer gets put in the back of squad car for interfering with police/fire/EMS on a scene - but I'd rather see that than see anyone get hurt. So please, do not put yourself in a position where you're trying to be helpful, but are in fact making my job more difficult and less safe - for you and for me! Regarding the original question that prompted this thread - no, you should not ask someone for ID on an accident scene. Your first aid training carries absolutely no legal status - you're a good guy trying to help someone in need, and so is whoever else is showing up. Please don't train your Scouts to waste time trying to ID people who are likely more experienced. For those of us who do this every day, its largely a non-issue. I've personally worked thousands of individual 911 calls, hundreds of car accidents. I've worked with bystanders who are doctors, nurses, congressmen, fire chiefs, teachers, EMTs and even Boy Scouts. I've run calls with bystanders and patients who have been drunk, high, hallucinating, armed, combative and just plain old big and scary. If a couple of 11 year olds asked me for ID, 1) I wouldn't show it because I don't carry it with me, nor do I need to, and 2) would handle the situation in a way that the young men would feel proud of themselves for rendering aid to someone in need, and would allow me and other more experienced providers to render aid as well. I think this is true of anyone with even a little experience as a professional responder. So, long story short, keep it simple. Don't worry about legal mumbo jumbo, 95% of it is made up BS anyway. Focus on your own safety, on rendering care up to your level of training, and being supportive of the professional responders when they arrive on scene. I don't know what it is about the BSA that makes people so prone to overcomplicating this and making up laws designed to ensure that you're thrown in jail for the rest of your life - but that's not how it works, and you should worry about that, and you shouldn't deceive others into worrying about that.

Well, this might go against the conventional wisdom here - but I'll share what I think. And what I think is that we, collectively, can be just a little bit too paranoid when it comes to footwear around here. My troop has actually backed off on the blanket "no open toed shoes!" ultimatum. The reason being, we see just as much injury from the kids spending too much time walking around in wet hiking boots and socks than we see from the odd stubbed toe or scraped foot. Instead, we treat footwear just like any other kind of clothing - it needs to be appropriate for the weather, activity and terrain. Now obviously many times this does mean closed toed, laced shoes - I'm definitely not arguing against that. But I think other times its actually safer, and healthier, if the kids get those shoes and socks off and let their feet breath and dry out. I personally recommend sandals with straps over the foot and behind the heel, as they offer a little more stability than flip flops. But for just sitting around camp and doing the usual in-camp activities? Nothing wrong with sandals, IMHO. And I'd actually prefer them over hiking boots and socks, especially in any kind of hot or wet weather. The kids are more comfortable, and I don't need to spend my time enforcing silly rules. So just something to consider. My own kids wear flip flops and even go barefoot for much of the summer - even outside, in our neighborhood, playing at the park, whatever. Do they ever hurt their feet? Probably. But they know where the neosporin and the bandaids are. Sorry, I just feel the hole shoe argument is a little over-reactive, much of the time.