Lisabob

Brent writes: "She could rectify the situation by marrying the father, but the odds are that marriage won't last. " This supposes, of course, that a) the father is willing and b) the circumstances were those that most of us probably are imagining (ie, that this was a consensual relationship to begin with). I'm not arguing for or against allowing this person to remain as SM - I really think Beavah is correct that this is the CO's call, though as I've said, I think the CO fumbled in this case, given their lack of involvement in selecting leaders, and thus in making clear to potential leaders what their expectations were, to start with. I'm just saying, we seem to be focused on what this young woman did, and how she might "fix" it, without much regard for the fact that any "fix" requires, at the least, the active consent of the other adult party in this deal. So easy to pass judgment without knowing what her other options were in that regard. Barry, sure, there are times when judging is actually important and valuable as a social or moral tool. But when done with extremely limited information, it can lead to false judgments too.

Hi Lucy, and welcome. This is a tough question. We're facing a similar problem with a couple of parents who had committed to driving to summer camp backing out last minute. In one case, the rising price of gas caused a family to decide to combine summer camp with a family trip, leaving us in need of another driver. I can't really blame the family involved, but I sure wish they'd decided to do this weeks or months ago and not the day before we were planning to turn in our national tour permit paperwork! Unfortunately I do not have a good answer to your question. We've been looking at renting a van (9-12 passenger) as well, but it is expensive as you say. On the plus side, a van might mean as many as three fewer cars/drivers for your group. It is possible that you could come out close to even when you consider that you would probably be reimbursing each driver 30 cents/mile or so, or at least for the cost of gas. Whatever you do, I do want to make sure you are aware that if you are traveling over 500 miles (you mention 2 days of driving so you probably are) that you need that national tour permit done and submitted no less than a month in advance of your trip. Also, if you are thinking of renting a larger van (15+ passengers) the national tour permit requires that you have someone with a commercial license to drive it. Just a heads up in case you didn't know, since we're dealing with all of the same issues right now!

I live in Michigan. It is illegal around here to transport fire wood from one part of the state to another and also across state lines to OH and IN (not sure about other neighboring states, but probably them too). Emerald Ash Borer is the reason, has been for a couple of years as dan mentioned.

We went from a pack where uniforming was pretty lax (most boys wore the shirts, scarves, and belts most of the time; almost none wore the pants. Few of the adults even owned a uniform and those who did seldom wore it, or seldom wore it correctly.) to a troop where uniforming is very important. The patrols do uniform inspections almost every week. This includes the adults (Old Goats). I must say, I have been amazed at how quickly the boys (and parents) accept the uniforming ethos upon joining the troop. Within a couple of weeks all of our new cross overs are generally in full uniform. The boys wear it while traveling. Always. If the older boys and the adults "buy in" to the uniform method, it will seem "natural" to most of the younger scouts. And pretty soon, you'll just be another one of those units who actively supports the uniform method. So speaking from experience, yes it can still be done in this day and age!

I ask this because it was brought up in another thread but also because it comes up from time to time with our own CO. We are chartered by a civic organization. This is an international group and one of their international focal points is youth service. The local chapter though, is very small, very old, and very inactive. There's a disconnect between them and us. They do complain about and to us a couple of times a year (in the fall and in the spring, when we need signatures for new leaders primarily). One of their complaints is that they want some of us to join them. Note they have no interest in joining us! The COR has never in recent memory come to a meeting or activity or Court of Honor and it isn't for lack of invitations! Honestly, it isn't that I'm opposed to what their group allegedly stands for, but literally the only activity our CO does each year is to do fund raisers (they then disburse the funds to other community groups - though not to us). I honestly haven't got time or interest in joining a group where that's their only activity. Oh - and they have a long, drawn out, dinner at a nasty smoky dive bar in town once a month, if that counts as an "activity." I've been to a couple (as troop representative, trying to build bridges) and I have no desire to return. I'd much rather spend the limited volunteering time I have, serving scouts in some manner. Is that bad? Yeah, probably. But it is still true.

Yeah, I'm with Gern on that. You have to decide what your baloney threshold is, and whether you can do much to change that (either raise the threshold or reduce the amount of baloney). But you also have to realize that there are no perfect troops out there - or at least, I've never seen one. Some are closer to the BSA "true north" than others, some are a better fit for your son than others, and some deviate in ways that are more or less aligned with your own vision than others. Most of the specific things you've commented about so far are (IMO) relatively minor. That isn't to say I agree with them, or that I think you shouldn't do what you can to change things. But they're not all central to the program. To date, you've mentioned a) parents of a new scout being afraid to let Junior go camping (unfortunate, but ultimately you've done everything you can within reason to change that - he's their son, it's their call). b) a SM with a bit of a weak spine (nothing you can do there, except offer him support for tough choices, and wait til he's not SM anymore). c) this mom/COR "rewarding" her son by "letting" him sleep inside (I'd think peer pressure would have fixed that pretty quickly - talk about being perceived as a "mama's boy!" Adults may not need to say a word to the boy, though I like a few of the comments that may be made "innocently" to the parent). d) some mention of a minor accident a while back including a can of beans in the fire or something along those lines, which turned out not to be the big deal story that it began as. In the short term, the issue of the boy sleeping inside is the big deal because it messes up the patrol method. But the larger issue is the SM. Can you foresee a change, or not? Three options. 1) He's going to carry on the way he has been, regardless of what you try to do to help. Can you live with that or not? 2) He's going to make big changes, now that he has you for support, and the committee will either fight him (and you) or they'll accept him (and possibly you). How do you feel about that? 3) He'll end up stepping down and maybe you will be the next SM, but given the way you describe the other parents, they won't follow you if that happens. This sounds like a recipe for a real headache to me.

I've thought about this one for a few days. Here's where I am on whether it is appropriate - No. Anarchist and others make a good point that other scouting-related activities essentially include a fee-for-service model. That's true of summer camp, of MB days/universities, of camporees, scout-o-ramas, etc. For the most part, I do not have a problem with these activities costing money. Yet the idea of some older scouts with (from the sounds of it) actually very little expertise "teaching" younger scouts as if they were well qualified to do so, and then charging for it, still rubs me the wrong way. I think there are three things about this that bug me. 1) The older scouts in question do not sound as if they were very well qualified to teach these skills, but usually that is the expectation that goes along with payment for training. If all it takes to become the resident "expert" in teaching backpacking or canoeing (or whatever) is a couple of hours of instruction yourself, then what we have here is a very shallow level of knowledge and that may even be dangerous - especially if the trainees do not realize that the trainer barely knows what they're doing. This is (I hope) different from summer camp or MB universities or even adult leader training, in that the staff at those activities is usually chosen with an eye toward competence and experience. Now, that doesn't always happen and I've seen MB classes at camp and at MB universities that were just awful, where the presenter barely knew (or didn't know at all) what s/he was doing. And we've probably all sat through lousy adult leader trainings - or at least, I have. And you know what? People complain. "We paid for competent instruction - not that garbage," they said. And I happen to agree with them. Charging for training sets a higher expectation level, as well it should. 2) Some of the skills under discussion here are basic scout skills (knots for example) and not highly specialized or technical knowledge. If people start charging (someone suggested a buck a knot! I like that!) for every time they demonstrated or "taught" these basic skills, half our scouts would never learn them. And where do we stop? Charge new scouts to show them how to put their tents up? Charge them to teach them how to use the camp stove? What a racket. Why would new scouts join if they/their parents have to shell out all this dough to get basic instruction? It would seem like a never-ending scam, at least through 1st Class rank (in BSA terms). This might sound outrageous, but then it is also a logical conclusion. If we charge to teach basic skills in some cases, why not in all cases? 3) There is, again I hope, a different relationship between trainer and trainee in long-term activities like summer camp, than in short term activities like spending half an hour working on knots or whatever. While it is not reasonable to expect camp staff to give up their whole summer free of charge, it is less of a burden on individuals to give up a half hour or hour of their time free of charge. And when they're done, they can go home - unlike most summer camps, which require staff to be there 24/7 (or anyway, 24/6). With regard to canoe trips and hiking, things might be different if we're asking someone to spend the entire weekend with the troop. Then it is reasonable, at least, to offer to pay their costs (travel, food, equipment rental, etc.). That recognizes that you are asking for a larger commitment of time and effort from them. Now, you might say, MB universities are a short term relationship and yet we pay for those. Same with adult leader training. True. In the case of MB U's, most in our area are fund raisers for various groups. For example, there's a national service fraternity that does MB U's as part of their annual fundraiser. So the fee you pay in those cases is not going to scouting, or to the presenters at the MB U (believe me, I've done it and they never paid me!) - it is going to that organization. As for training, actually I agree that basic leader training ought to be free, or as close to free as we can get (perhaps a materials fee for any required material). In fact, in our council some districts DO offer it for free, while others don't. Those that don't make two arguments in favor of charging. One is that they also provide leader handbooks as part of the cost. The other is that they often have to pay for space in which to conduct the training. So, I'm not sure MB U's and leader training are equivalent points of comparison for these reasons. With that said, I guess my advice to Matt is that if he is uncomfortable with this relationship, he should explain why to his daughter. Chances are good that she will understand his point of view (teen and pre-teen kids are surprisingly fair minded most of the time!) and they may be able to come to an agreement on how she will, or will not, participate in these activities.

"Someone who had an out-of-wedlock child 20 years ago who has repented vs. a gal with a 6-month-old. " How exactly would you know that they had "repented" and what does that mean anyway? And what's the "statute of limitations," as it were, on this sort of thing? I know quite a few current and former single parents who would readily agree that single-parenthood is pretty tough. I know a fair few who would also point out that it was either not by their choice, or that it was better than the alternatives available to them at the time. "Repent" probably doesn't apply in many of those cases. I can see that the situation could be different, though I'll withhold my personal judgment, when we're talking about someone whose status changes while they're in the leadership role. But start looking very far into the past and once again I do fear we're getting into the inquisition business. In the case ASM915 describes though, this is an easy call: the CO dropped the ball on choosing leaders in an appropriate way. He states that they did not know this person to start with. Plenty of CO's do that, I know, and it is sheer dumb luck most of the time that it works out ok. When it doesn't work though, the BSA as a program tends to take the blame and to suffer (along with the boys!) for the fault of the CO. Not to mention that this young woman was probably not very happy with the CO for choosing her and then dropping her in such a public way. Had the CO done their job of selecting leaders properly to begin with, they could have saved the DE, the parents, the boys, the former-SM, and themselves quite a few headaches.

Beavah, let me defend my comment here. First off, I ran (non-BSA) summer camps in my early 20s and yes I'm arrogant enough to think I did pretty well with it too. I've also worked with some really wonderful young/mid 20-something middle and high school teachers who are effective, in part, because they can relate so well to "their" kids. So it isn't that I don't trust young-ish adults. But running a summer camp, or working staff at summer camp, or teaching for that matter, is not the same as being responsible week in, week out, year in, year out, for the very lives of a group of scouts. Scoutmasters, I think, have more responsibility on their shoulders and are more likely to bear it alone, than any camp director or camp counselor or teacher. And they're more likely to have to face complicated family and personal issues that various scouts in their charge are trying to cope with. Could they do it? Could there be "exceptions" to the rule? Sure, possibly, but a little life experience goes a long way in helping people know how to address those sorts of life-is-messy issues. And I think there's a lot of difference, in most cases, between a person who is 22 and perhaps fresh from college, and a person who is in their late 20s and early 30s (to take your examples). And by the way, while I think I did a pretty good job and loved (almost) every minute of my time on camp staff and as camp director, boy, with 15-20 years hindsight, there are DEFINITELY things I would do differently if I could go back and have another crack at it. So I guess there are times when a 22 year old could be a darn good SM, but I would expect that to be a fairly rare exception and certainly not the norm. So I'll soften my original statement: I would be extremely hesitant to choose a 22 year old anybody to be an SM - not enough life experience in most cases.

I wouldn't choose a 22 year old anybody to be an SM - not enough life experience. And I have to wonder why the CO is upset, when they apparently didn't do their job of choosing leaders the right way, to begin with. Perhaps they will be clearer in terms of communicating their expectations when they choose the next SM. But I wonder if they have the same standard for young men whose parental status changes, as they did for this young woman.

Thanks for your feedback. I agree that the boys have picked a very nice program with a lot of appealing activities that are scout-related, mostly via the MB program. We're a larger troop (40-50 boys most of the time, including about 1/3 who are 15-17 years old) and part of what makes the troop successful in terms of recruiting and retention is that the boys have ownership of the activities. I don't want to take that away from them. So I don't know that this is so much "boy led into the ground," just maybe going in a different direction. And no of course I don't want to see MB "classes" at camp outs or an Eagle Mill. The way things work now, many of the camp outs have a MB theme (rocketry, aviation, fishing, etc.) but very few of the boys actually pursue the MB. Most use the camp out as an intro to the subject, enjoy it, and then move on. A few really get the bug and decide to continue working on the MB. Actually I think that's the way things are supposed to work. But I guess I do find it a little odd that a boy who is active with the troop and wants to do it would not be able to fulfill the activity portions of the camping MB, of all things! We have the same problem with some of the skill requirements for T-2-1. For example this weekend we have several boys who have been active for a year or more with the troop, who are holding their own camp out so that they can finally do the cooking requirements for 2nd Cl. Why? Because in the last six months there has only been one time when they've had an opportunity to cook over an open fire (the rest of the time it has either been big propane stoves or troop cooking due to travel distances/time constraints/too much program crammed into too little time). If they didn't realize that that was their one chance and missed it, they were out of luck - which is what happened. Last year something similar happened w/ the map & compass 5 mile hike requirement for 2nd Cl. and a bunch of guys had to organize something on their own at the last minute to get that done, if they wanted to finish 2nd Cl. before going to summer camp (where the camp has rank requirements for certain MB classes). I'm happy to see them do things on their own and maybe they will learn something about planning and making the most of opportunities when they present themselves, but it does also seem like these are the sorts of activities that should be built into the troop program on a regular basis already...right? We have one (long-time, very good) ASM who is now talking about finding a different troop to serve because he is frustrated with the lack of traditional scout skill focus in the troop these days. Maybe that would be a better fit for him, though I'd hate to lose him. His solution is to tell the boys they "have to" include at least one or two hiking/backpacking/wilderness survival type activities in the calendar, and to give the annual planning task to the PLC instead of opening it to the whole troop as things are now (where, this year, attendance among older scouts was poor for some reason). I kind of think the former is a bit heavy handed, though I'm undecided about the latter. But I do like Fscouter's and Beaver's comments about offering more guidance to the boys who do the planning via some leading questions and offering ideas that they might not have considered. Maybe there's the solution, within the confines of whatever themes the boys have picked. Thanks again for your feedback. I am finding I see this in new ways every time I look at it. To borrow Barry's phrase, I love this scouting stuff!

OGE, that would be ok if this child were actually a boy scout and he went to camp "just for fun." As is, there's little difference between bringing along this nephew and bringing along someone's daughter or sister (she's there to have fun - doesn't care about MBs since she can't be a member) and bringing along someone's little brother. This creates several problems. 1) It changes the dynamic for boys who are legitimately part of the troop to have younger sibling/friend/relative/neighbor tag along. That's true even if they really like the kid and "adopt" him as their mascot. He may not know anybody in troop. While I'm sure they'll all be nice to him etc (hey,he's the SM's nephew - better be nice to him!), it still changes the dynamic. 2) He isn't part of any patrol. Will he be given any camp duties? To whom does he answer? (patrol leader? what patrol leader? and there's "I don't have to do what you say Mr. SPL, my Uncle's in charge of me here") With whom is he supposed to tent? 3) Staff at camp are trained to deal with boys of a certain age range and developmental status. Maybe this younger boy is mature for his age, who knows, but maybe not. The staff aren't trained to teach and work with cub scouts. Supposing this kid is 9 years old (could be - my son was in the beginning of 5th grade as a Webelos II). There's often a pretty big difference between a 9 or 10 year old still in elementary school, and an 11 or 12 year old going into middle school. 4) Beavah might tear out a tuft of tail fur or something over my mentioning this but I wonder about liability? Suppose he is injured at camp and it comes out that he was never a boy scout to begin with, that he was there under false pretenses (Uncle SM faked the paperwork). Why should BSA's/camp's insurance cover him? 5) Credibility. By doing this, the SM puts his own credibility - and the troop's reputation for honesty and trustworthiness - on the line. Not to mention setting a bad example for the boys in his troop, who are likely going to figure this out pretty quickly. Rules need to be followed (or challenged in an orderly manner) - except when they're inconvenient and you're related to the SM? 6) Bad blood/precedent. So this year it is the SM's nephew. What about next year when some scout's parent has child care issues and wants to send younger brother along with Scout to camp for the week? What about the ASM or committee member who wants to include their younger child? They're all going to know the SM did it so he's going to be hard pressed to say no to them in the future.

What sort of organization is your CO? Do they really have the $600-$700 to send three people to WB? Do they understand what WB is and why it is worth the money? Do they care? Do they understand that the pack - and pack leadership - is part of their youth outreach program and not just something that they happen to sponsor for no good reason? OK now to answer your questions. 1) In the two packs and one troop I've been part of, we've never had an involved CO. The only times our COs have expressed any interest is either when they want something we can't give them (like the current CO, who demanded that we fundraise - in uniform - for them) or when they're mad because we've asked for money (often for something they don't understand why we want/need/expect - that's our fault, in part) or when there's a big problem and they're getting negative feedback about us. They don't attend our meetings, or activities, or award ceremonies despite being invited. Other people write about much more positive and active relationships with their CO's - I wish I could say the same. Barring that though, an oblivious CO is better than a meddlesome one. Except when you want something from them, because then you have a lot of educating to do if you expect to get what you want. 2) I don't think you were necessarily wrong to ask for funds toward WB but maybe you needed to set up your request differently. If they don't know you, your pack, the other leaders, or the aims and values of scouting, then a request for $600-$700 for training for a volunteer organization might seem unreasonable. They need to understand how cub scouts serves youth in more ways than just by giving boys something fun to do once a week. They need to buy into the values at least a little bit (more than just re-signing the charter agreement). Then they need to be given a glimpse of the strengths of the unit, and of the weaknesses, and finally, they need to be told how, specifically, WB would help improve on those weaknesses so that the pack can fulfill the purposes of scouting, and thus improve the ability of the CO to do youth outreach or whatever it is they specialize in. You are an extension of them - but they probably don't see that clearly enough. And I would expect a leader to pay at least part of his or her own way to WB, even if the CO chips in. 3) Switching COs just because they aren't highly involved and won't pay for WB sounds a bit extreme. Yes it can be done but your district professionals should be involved because they are charged with managing the CO relationships. And they probably will ask you (as is reasonable, IMO) to do what you can to build up this existing relationship rather than starting from scratch. Switching COs can be a lot of work too, so you have to ask whether it is worth it, or whether your effort could be more profitably spent doing something else for the pack.

Supposing that this is all correct and this boy is a Webelos II Scout (going into 5th grade at this point) who isn't crossing over to a troop prior to camp, then that leaves me wondering what Uncle SM could be thinking. Among many other things, I hope that Uncle SM's troop doesn't plan to attend the same summer camp every year because I would think doing something like this would burn quite a few bridges with the camp director, the camp staff, etc.. I wonder if Uncle SM has thought of that?

I've been looking more closely at the camping, cooking, and hiking MBs in preparation for summer camp. Our scouts are going to a camp that is pretty serious about having certain requirements done prior to camp, such as camping requirements 9a & 9b (20 nights and 2 of 6 activities - here's the link if you want to check it out: http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php?title=Camping) I've reached the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult for a scout to complete these MBs in the course of a typical year (or maybe even two) with our troop, even if they attended everything. The troop camps 10 months of the year so it isn't the frequency (the 20 nights of camping is a snap). Rather it is the nature of the camp outs. For example, the guys almost always use big 2-burner propane stoves. That makes it impossible to do some of the cooking MB requirements, which mandate open fire and backpack stove cooking. (side note, why don't they mandate dutch oven cooking too?) For camping, 9b is a problem and for hiking, requirements 5 & 6 are problems. We just don't do enough of those activities, often enough, or for long enough distances. We did a biking camp out a year or so ago but no way did it meet the length requirement for the camping MB - that sort of thing. More backpacking and hiking and more varied cooking methods have been pushed by several of the adults but most of the boys show no interest and so they choose other activities instead when they do their annual planning meeting. And the activities they choose are also great, lots of fun and exciting for the boys. They do an annual orienteering/crime solving camp out in conjunction with area law enforcement that is always a huge hit and they're doing an aviation themed camp next year, for example. Last weekend they went to Wright-Pat AFB. Really cool stuff. But I can't help feeling they're missing something important in terms of traditional "scout skill" activities here too. So to complete MBs like cooking, hiking, camping, a boy in our troop would have to either work on them for several years or he would have to arrange special circumstances on his own (like a patrol camp out, or a long hike that wasn't part of a regular camp out, etc.). Here's the irony - when we joined, this troop was known as the "serious camping" troop in town. Since then, one of the other troops has gotten big time into backpacking and the third (much smaller) troop in town has done a lot with orienteering, pioneering, and cooking. Is that typical? Is it supposed to be that way? When we talk of being "boy led" and yet the boys are leading away from what many people probably see as the basics of scouting activities, how do you correct course (or can you?) without further limiting the boys' opportunities to decide for themselves?

In the thread on whether SM's have to approve an Eagle CoH, John writes: "Being an SM requires a certain amount of iron courage, to stand up for what is right... for the sake of the youth members of our program! " John's definitely right on this count. One problem I see sometimes is that the SM (or CM for that matter) seems to take this to extremes, the "my way or the highway" approach. So let's add to this. Being an SM requires... the wisdom to know which battles are really worth fighting right now.

In another thread someone mentioned that GSUSA generally allows units to do extra fund raising only after the unit has participated in the council-sponsored fund raiser. Without getting into the merits of a particular council fund raiser (ie, don't tell me how much you dislike popcorn!), what do you think about the general idea? Although I'm not generally excited to be told what I *have to* do, at the same time I know that a lot of units (mostly troops) in our area do not participate at all in council fund raisers, and that our family FOS is down by about 40% this year, and that our United Way funding is drying up, and that units still want the same or better facilities, services, programs, etc. to be provided by the council and district. Maybe the above isn't such an awful idea after all?

As for MBs, nowhere does it say that they must be earned after Eagle in order to "count." In fact the description of the rank requirements on usscouts.org explicitly states that they can be earned at any time. Here's the link if you want it. Hope this helps. http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsrank8.html I suppose they could be awarded at the same time, if the award of the Eagle rank or previous palm was delayed after it was earned. For example, we have a young man who earned his Eagle almost 9 months ago but he is only now having his CoH because he has been away at college. But don't forget that the palms have a requirement to be active in your troop for 3 months after having earned Eagle (for 1st palm) or previous palm (for subsequent palms). And there are other requirements too, that need to be done after Eagle/the previous palm was earned. So they could not be earned concurrently. And no, we do not make these things up as we go along. Or at least, we shouldn't. One thing I've found the BSA does NOT lack is written material. Copious amounts of it. Might as well use it!

Unless this young man is going to register as a boy scout (he's a W II so theoretically it may be possible, depending on his age), it sure sounds like rule bending to me. Now, if he's joining boy scouts early then that's different. But I hope both he and his family understand that he can't go back and be a cub scout in the fall. Or at least, he couldn't in our area. Our council registrar would catch it if he registered twice, and I'm pretty sure any request to transfer membership from a troop back to a pack would raise the red flag too.

Some other thoughts, things that were popular with our webelos guys (in the order I remember them): 1) We did a "scat hike" at the local state park. The nature/education staff was great about organizing it, boys loved it. 2) For fall - Council or District camporees, depending on your district/council. We attended one with our council (and camped with a troop) as webelos but the boys weren't allowed to do the boy scout events and the cub events were really designed for younger boys. On the other hand, we attended another one in a neighboring council and the boys had an absolute blast. On this one we couldn't camp but during the day the boys had access to the same activities as the boy scouts - just they did them as a den instead of as a patrol. 3) Den-level rain gutter regatta (or the spaceship race, or whatever one your pack doesn't normally do). The regatta can be done simply, with minimal preparation (or it can be a big, parent-involved deal - which I do NOT recommend!) We made a "river" out of drain pipes set up on saw horses, boats from blocks of styrofoam and that foamy craft material for sails, and had our own den races. They had a ball. 4) Minor league ball game & camp out at the ball park. 5) You might want to hold off on caving with the boys, but I bet you could get someone to do a cool geology-related activity with them. We contacted a local gravel pit and discovered that the manager was an Eagle scout. He arranged a tour and talked with the guys. It was actually pretty interesting. Given where you are, you have all sorts of great possibilities along these lines. I see you're not far from Dayton - have the guys been to Wright-Patterson AFB? They allow scout groups to camp out on the base and then spend the day checking out the planes.

I understand where you're coming from and it is great that you are keeping the guys active and involved in scouting. Maybe it is time to shift focus a bit though, from field trips to things they can do (for themselves) in the local area. One complaint I hear from a lot of new boy scouts - including the ones who were in "my" den - is that cubs is "more fun." Well sure, because in cubs they had us adults to organize their field trips here, there, and everywhere for them. In boy scouts, as I'm sure you know, they have to do their own planning and camp outs are qualitatively different from going to a museum, zoo, party, etc.. So if I could go back and do anything differently with my webelos guys, it would be to move away from these sorts of pre-packaged events/activities and toward more typical "scout" activities. So maybe you want to do some more outdoor stuff. Maybe a one-night camp out with an astronomy theme. Maybe a dutch oven dinner and camp fire for a den meeting. Maybe teach them some other ways to cook outdoors. Maybe get them involved with a service project for your local conservation district or dept of natural resources or whatever it is in your area. Maybe do a day hike to somewhere interesting (maybe they can go fishing once you get there- I'm amazed at how much active & goofy boys still like to go fishing! Never would've guessed it. Well, add in frog hunting too.). In all of the above, give them a little more responsibility for planning these things themselves. Oh, and careful with the laser tag. Fun as it sounds, my understanding is that it is not an accepted BSA activity (along the lines of paintball).

I don't know for sure the answer to your question, although I suspect it is "no." But looking at your previous posts, it seems you are the SM in question - yes? If that's true, why wouldn't you want to give your approval to this young man?

That may still be considered assault, age difference is not generally the determining factor. However, part of the problem is that usually the person who was victimized (or his parents in this case since he's a minor) has to be the one to bring charges. If he and his parents will not do that - they just want to forget about it, don't want it in the local papers, etc. - then more than likely nothing would happen to the boy who was accused.

Not only do I agree that you did all that could be reasonably expected, but also, there may be reasons to be careful about whom else you report this to. Indeed, if anybody was in a position to talk to the school about it, I would think it would've been the parents of the boy who was victimized. They have a very immediate, real concern, having their child in school with this other boy. Not to say that you don't have a concern too - but your standing in the eyes of the school is different since the incident only indirectly involves you or your family. Quite likely, had you mentioned this to the school officials, they wouldn't have been able to act on this information anyway because they couldn't substantiate it, it didn't happen at a school event, etc.. Even supposing you told them off the record and they were inclined to believe every word of it (which is entirely possible), they still probably couldn't have kept the boy from attending the band trip without further proof of wrong-doing. And I think I'd follow up with the SE to ask under what circumstances he would consider revoking a youth's membership. If this doesn't warrant such action, where does he draw the line?

I think the practical answer is no. Unless you can convince the CC that it is a good idea NOT to be both CC and treasurer, or unless your CO demands that the roles be separate then I don't think you'll succeed in forcing the issue with the CC/treasurer. But good grief, no written report of any kind in THREE YEARS? Are there books of any sort at all? Is the CO involved and if so, are they aware of this issue? It certainly sounds like the CC/treasurer should step down from at least the treasurer's role. But before anybody else takes on the job it would be a good idea to do some sort of audit - on paper, open to the other committee members. It doesn't have to be formal where you hire an outside firm or something but the way you describe the situation, another person would be nuts to take on this job without a serious paper trail to cover themselves with. Last question for now - why is your CC also the treasurer? Is it because he really wants to be? Or because no one else would do it?