ParkMan

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I see what you are saying, but my angst is that while "Patrol Method" isn't being changed in the general text, it is being minimalized by unrelated program changes. For example, our troop lived by the 300 feet separation guideline between patrols and adults. Is that guideline legal now with the recent youth protection changes. Even more important, is the idealistic goal (independent thought) of that guideline realistic in today's program? You don't see it now because your troop is following a habit of policies and procedures that satisfactory reach your goals. But what about the next generation of leaders and their interpretations?

The Patrol Method my sons experienced were pretty close to the Patrol Method my dad experienced in the 1940s. Will your grandkids experience your Patrol Method experience? My Eagle son doesn't think so. When I asked him if he was considering his kids in the BSA, he said probably not, it is a different program. We don't talk about specifics of the BSA's changes. So, what makes him think the program has changed?

Barry

I fully appreciate what you're saying here.  Based on years and year of experience, recent decisions by the BSA appear to make it much harder to implement patrol method.  That creates a lot of angst and even apprehension about what the BSA is doing.  This leads to concerns that the BSA is trying to move away from the patrol method.

I suspect that nothing has changed with respect to the desire of the BSA leadership to feature the patrol method in the program.  However, I do believe that the same BSA leadership is being forced to deal with new realities that were not present at other points in our past. 

For example, I think the recent two deep leadership rule changes were all about dealing with insurance companies and the threat of litigiation from abuse.  In addition, our society has changed to be one where it is expected that if a precaution could have been taken, that it should have been taken.  Since one of the growing concerns is that of youth on youth abuse, the BSA leadership is now compelled to deal with that.  So, the BSA leadership said: "We have to address our insurance needs.  What's the best way to do that in the context of our program?"  So, they arrived on the new G2SS rules that they did.  Does it mean that they want to get rid of Patrol Method?  No, it does not.  Does it make it harder to implement?  Yes, most certainly.

In this, is our society damaging institutions like the BSA?  Most certainly it is. Has the BSA leadership made the right choices here to support their insurance (or whatever else) needs?  Probably not.  But, I don't think the decisions by the BSA leadership are nefarious.  At most I'd call them shortsighted.

I'd argue that this is where we need really seasoned Scouters to develop the next wave of leaders.  We need Scouters who can find ways to make this work and impart that knowledge to the next generation.  I see it as a personal challenge in my own Scouting to take a program that I love, understand the challenges of today, and find the way to end up with a stronger program when I'm done.

It feels to me like angst is causing more concern than is needed here.  I've seen no evidence that the BSA is doing anything to the patrol method.  The BSA's changes in language over time probably have more to do with whoever wrote the latest material that references it.  Somehow I don't think there is a vault at the BSA where they hold "the defintion of patrol method".

As for the comment:

19 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

I wrote to the official answer place (Boy Scouts of America Service Desk ) and asked for such a definition so I could be sure to be following the official language at a University of Scouting presentation.  The reply stated that the "priority" for answering my inquiry was "Low."    But I knew that already.

You emailed their helpdesk and asked for a definition of the patrol method.  These are folks who deal with tracking down people's registration, answering YPT questions, etc.  I'm almost certain that they have as much insight into what the BSA is doing around re-writes of language on the website as you or I do.  I'd read absoletly nothing into that response.

For those of us that hold the patrol method in high esteem, I think it's entirely fair to desire that the BSA is clearer on it's application.  But, for as long as I've been a Scouter, the BSA always seems to be more focused on mechanics of unit operation than about trying to tune application of the patrol method.  Similarly, they don't spend a lot of time trying to tune how units do advancement.  From the BSA it's much more of "here's the ideas, here's the goals now have at it." 

I for one think it would be good for the BSA to focus more effort on helping us unit leaders have a better understanding of these things.  But, I can't say I've seen anything from the BSA that suggests they are even considering a change to the patrol method.  As far as I can tell patrol method is still plan of record.

17 minutes ago, qwazse said:

For kids? Their direct-contact adults are not held to the same level of skill mastery as the youth. Ideally, if someone asked me how to find an SM/ASM/Advisor who knows his/her stuff, I could say, "Ignore that trained patch. Look for the one with the first-class-rank oval on his left pocket."

For adults? They are not held to the same level of skill mastery as the youth. A weekend of IOLS for a trained patch? Give me a break. What scout of yours do you know get any rank patch just for toddling along on a camp out? My SM was rightly embarrassed and stomped off when I tossed him a line and said, "Tie it off around that trunk, a timber hitch will do." He knows how to tie a timber hitch now.

Want to solve your training problem?

• Ditch IOLS and "Trained".
• Have an SPL or JASM or crew officer (if you're a new troop, it may be a seasoned SPL/JASM from another troop) sign off on each wannabe direct-contact leader's rank requirement.
• Let skilled leaders sew on their ovals, maybe with a service star sewn on it to say they tested/retested as an adult.

The problem with modern skills instruction is the presumption that there's this thing called "adult leader" from which skills emanate to this thing called "youth." That's not how the real world works. Anybody, youth or adult, can let skills lapse. Anybody, youth or adult, can help somebody else get those skills back. It just takes a little humility in recognizing who might need to get that skill from whom.

If I recall correctly Australia has a more elaborate development process for adults.  I don't know the details or if it matches this.

But, I would fully welcome a process in which adults could develop skills mastery.  And as some business guy said once "measure what matters."  In the BSA we measure through recognition.  So, I'd be all for some system where leaders could work through the rank process too.  Would be interesting if we had a rule that to be a Scoutmaster you had to have completed First Class.

On 3/14/2019 at 9:41 AM, qwazse said:

@ParkMan, I'm gonna pick apart what you are saying because pros and district volunteers alike make some wrong assumptions. My observations might not apply to your district, and if not, the math might work in your favor.

Thanks @qwazse!

I'd support all of what you write here. Were we discussing this live and trying to figure out what to do locally here in my area, I'd say - we should embrace this.  A few specific comments.

On 3/14/2019 at 9:41 AM, qwazse said:

Five years is too long. The harsh reality of a postmodern nomadic culture is that any given venturer will be around for no more than 4 years before college, war, or trade draws him/her elsewhere. Reach 30 in two years or remain a clique. It's that simple.

Understood - To get a venture Crew going, you need to get it to critical mass quickly.  With a sustained push, I could imagine a 30 person crew in 2 years.  

On 3/14/2019 at 9:41 AM, qwazse said:

Crews should never expect to get members from troops. From my experience about 1 in 4 older scouts is interested in venturing. It is a myth that all of those late teens hate being around youngsters. For some of them, a troop provides the younger brothers who they never had. They don't want venturing or exploring distracting them from that -- especially if their SM is a nice guy who keeps that leadership patrol elevated. (I know because I was one of those scouts.) So if you look at a troop of 32, they might have 16 of venturing age. At best 4 might want to be venturers. From four troops (lucky advisor if that many troops are steady "feeders"), that gives you 16 venturers. Nice, but not nearly enough to ever have a crew of 30.

Perhaps I should have used the word anticipate, not expect.  Two comments around that:

1) I firmly believe that a unit (troop or crew) should never expect to get members from another unit.  My thinking though largely matches your point.  Given the kind of dynamics you describe, a Crew cannot simply say "hey, we'll get enough older Scouts from just Troop 123".  They need relationships with multiple troops.  I'd argue the same is true with GSUSA troops.

2) As I see it, the BSA really offers four different older teen programs: Scouts BSA, Venturing, Sea Scouts, and Exploring.  So, to your point, a given individual may be interested in one of two of those.  A Crew shouldn't expect that every 14+ year old wants to drop what they're doing and join the Crew.  For many staying in Scouts BSA is better, for many trying Sea Scouts is better, or maybe Exploring is better.

On 3/14/2019 at 9:41 AM, qwazse said:

Districts must commit to visiting every high school, providing a captivating assembly/activity, rewarding existing venturers publicly, and encouraging the best adults in their community to consider becoming committee and advisors.

I fully agree with the comment.  Let me present a variation on the idea.  I've come to learn that these are different models in the US around the recruiting split between districts & units.  In some councils, districts are very active in recruiting and signing up scouts.  In others, the units lead the process and the districts provide support.  It's not that districts are more/less effective - it's just the local style.  I agree 100% with your idea that outreach needs to be done to multiple schools and that the Crew needs to be considered a community crew.  My advice here would be that the Crew committee & District membership team need to develop a join strategy to make this successful.

On 3/14/2019 at 9:41 AM, qwazse said:

One of the flaws when folks present venturing to youth is the illusion that it's a nice supplement. How about telling our older scouts that they only need to show up at the troop occasionally? See how many SM's will let you give their boys leadership training. To get anything out of venturing a youth has to lean in and do a lot! Districts must be honest with their scouts about how taxing, yet rewarding, being a venturer is.

When I had a very brief stint as a Crew Committee Chair, we made this mistake.  We'd treat it as a fun other Scouting supplement.  All of the boys in the Crew came from one troop and they always put troop first.  There was never a feeling that the Crew was important.  

As a volunteer it's utterly disheartening to see the disappearance of the abililty for Scouts to meet together without adults. It seems so contrary to what we're trying to accomplish here as Scouters.  "Scouts, we want you to develop the skills to lead youselves and accomplish great things.  But, we can't leave you alone to work independently."

Someday I'd love to hear the internal story here.  I'm guessing that this really wasn't a decision of the BSA, but instead it was driven by the insurers.  I can completly envision a decision by some insurance company that said "we're going to raise your rates 40% unless you make this change."  

I'm not going to criticize any one person on this forum.  Again, I really don't care who pays your salary.  As far as I'm concerned we're all Scouters here.  Professionals and Volunteers alike - please just be yourself here.

But, if I were a professional, I can certainly imagine a fair amount of frustration.  How many posts have we had complaining about this change?  How many times have we all tried to push the edge and find the way around some rule?  I've got to guess that to be a professional on a Scouting forum, you have to have a pretty thick skin.

Our pack suggested that people not buy the official BSA Cub Scout slides.  They fall off constantly.  Even with that, as Cubmastet I ended up with a few unclaimed ones.  We used to have a tradition in our pack that every den made a new slide every year.  It was a fun way to personalize the uniform.  In fact, your daughter losing hers might be a very good reason for her to bring a project to the den to make some.

I agree with the earlier suggestions of what to use. We used to have a leader at Roundtable that did a slide of the month.  We had lots of silly things - but something glued on some PVC was a great way to do unusual things.  One year I made turks head woggles out of reflective tent cord for everyone in the den.  I know of a couple of packs that did colored turks head woggles for the different levels in the pack.  I always liked that idea myself.

Hi @ncscouterz,

Some great advice above.  Just a couple of things to add:

1) I've found that one of the best ways to make your unit's organization thrive is to decentralize responsibilities.  Start looking out for an advancement coordinator, membership coordiantor, activities coordinator, etc.  First, it helps in these transitions.  Second, it helps prevent individual leader burnout.  Third, you end up with better results than one overstressed person doing it all.  Unless you're a master adult recruiter it won't happen instantaniously - but over a year or two it's very achievable.  I'm a pretty terribly adult recruiter, so it took me a bit longer.  I'm going to gather your the Committee Chair, so it is entirely your place to make this change.

2) For your overstressed COR.  Go buy her coffee or dinner and talk.  Help her find the fun of why she started.  She may be too burned out to appreciate it, but I've found that often when we get passed all our volunteer responsibilities, there's almost always a real person there who got started for a reason.  Maybe by restructuring how you all do things you can help get to a place where she'll be happier and play a bit more nicely with others.

10 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I think you are trying to hard to fix a problem, that isn't necessarily a problem. Or at least a problem that would fix Venturing in general. I know of several troops (Nationally) that have very large active Venture crews connected to them, and that maintained a high level of performance for several years. What these Troop/Crews have in common is that they expect the scouts to join the crews around age 14. They expect the crew to support the troop program. And, most, but not all, of these programs are identified as Eagle Mills. In other words, they created the crew to keep the scouts around after age 14. It works well for them because they prepare the adults to move on to the crew as their sons reach that age. The Troop/Crew adults work closely together and basically they are attached in their unit activities. The Crew by it definition and nature have independence to do their own activities, but scouts from the troop can participate.

That may sound ideal for you and maybe that is a good model to follow, but there are two thoughts about those troops that cause some concern.

1. They still require a very organized and visionary group of adults. Those are adults are rare.

2. Excepting for one, all of those units are very adult run. PLC is basically in name alone.

Of the one unit that isn't advancement driven, the success of that unit is very much dependent on a very visionary adult who has been there for over 30 years. He has a unique vision and set of skills that makes that boy/girl run program a success. And likely that success will decline when he leaves (dies).

One last thing that hashtagscouts brought to mind; most of those units that I mentioned that used to be Explorers in the 70s weren't connected to any troops. In fact, I would guess that the majority of their scouts were never in a troop program. The theme of scuba, law enforcement, medical emergency and so on, are the main attractions and recruiting poster. 

Barry

Well made point - and I can definitly see why you'd draw that conclusion from my earlier post.  I'm not thinking that the Troop to Crew transition should be mandate.  Likewise, I'm not expecting that a Crew CO should be aligned with a Troop CO.  

As I coalesce around an idea, it's something like:

• When a new Crew forms, it should establish a 5 year goal of reaching 30 scouts.
• Since joining a Crew is a complementary activity to being in a troop, a Crew should expect to get members from more than one troop.   Four troops to one Crew could be a good number.  The District's Commissioner staff (and maybe DE too) should anticipate helping the Crew to develop relationships with troops in the district.
• A Crew is youth driven, but some expectation should exist on a minimum amount of activity.  i.e., something similar in concept to the expectation that troops camp monthly.  It may not really be monthly - but it also cannot be a quarterly trip.  If all a Scout does is belong to a Crew, it should provide enough activity to keep the youth engaged in Scouting.
• As part of developing itself, a Crew should have a sustaining youth & adult membership plan.  Council/District resources should expect to advise a Crew on developing that. 

Interesting observation on the GSUSA similarity @Treflienne!

In my experience, one of the key benefits of the BSA system is that the Chartered Organization concept gives packs & troops the ability to develop some permanence.  Yet, in the case of Crews it doesn't seem to be working out that the same way. 

So, perhaps one of the tricks for Crews is to grow them larger.  Create some permanence in them.  Make the strength of the Crew tied less to a specific adult or two and more to the strength of the "Crew" as a organization.  Kinda like we see in the bigger packs & troops.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Our district has 0 Venturing crews left.  I talked with the last leader of a crew and he said that they formed when a group of older boys and girls wanted to do more high adventure trips.   When they started to age out there was no natural progression from Troops to feed their numbers.  I brought up a discussion of ramping up a Venturing crew or two and there is some interest, but we don’t have enough volunteers for our current Troops or District already ... and that is a higher priority.

Maybe it's my own bias here, but my observations from this conversation with the Crew leader is:

1) Successful crews need to have a team of adults to make them successful.  In BSA terminology a Crew Committee.  That team of adults needs to have a plan for getting to a sustainable membership level.  It also needs to have a solid program plan.  

2) Crews tend  to form around a small number of older boys & girls.  The Crew is active for a few years while those scouts are around.  However, with a small number of Scouts the Crew doesn't get to the point of having a sustainable support structure.  So, it eventually fades away.

I see in this an inherent paradox.  For a Crew to survive, you need a process to get new members and grow.  But, since the people who start Crews tend to do them with 8-12 Scouts there is never enough critical mass so that they continue to exist.

34 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

"Neither the BSA nor the Annual Health and Medical Record are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). A Scout is Trustworthy: Records and sensitive information should be maintained in a private manner."

 

Maybe if they were, adults would be more trusting in providing health forms.

 

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-055(16)_AHMR.pdf

 

My $0.02,

 

I would be interested to get some instruction on what following HIPAA rules would mean here.  Though we are not bound by those rules, we certainly could voluntarily follow them in our units  and tell people that week are doing so.

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Interesting, but I'm not sure what the point of that was.  The value of the medical form is knowing what history people have and being able to recognize their problems as they arise based on their history.

When you're at the point where you're on the way to the ER most of the value of the form is gone.  After all, the vast majority of us do not walk around with a completed medical form and ER procedures are predicated on that fact.  There is some value to having a medical history available, especially if it's an adult that's unconscious or a kid who may not know his own full story, but again, the ER is set up assuming those things to be true.

I had a scout helicoptered out from a campout, you know what nobody asked or gave a crap about --- his medical form.

My interpretation was that in that GSUSA case, the adults didn't mind having a form handy in case one was needed.  That's probably more palatable than every parent having to provide their health background just to attend a pack camping trip.

My guess is that most units don't bother with the parent forms for a short term trip.  Summer Camp or Philmont sure.  But, your average parent is just as likely to have a health problem in line at the grocery store than at a weekend camping trip.  In that case you're going to call EMS anyways.

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Yes, that is the issue with Venturing, it is an adult driven program. Adults start the program with enthusiasm, but when that dies out, so does the program. 3 out of 5 Venturing Crews die within 5 years in our district. 

Explorers was, and is, no different, the only reason they appear more resilient is they had sponsors to continue the enthusiasm through generations of adult leaders. 

I'm guessing that sponsorship is why Venturing is fading. 

Barry

I'm thinking this essentially comes back to program.  Is the problem that people are not implementing the Venturing program correctly?

1 minute ago, Hawkwin said:

It isn't about the scouts, it is about the parents (and siblings) that now must also complete the forms and turn them in. I can see where a parent might be hesitant to turn over their medical information to another adult just for attending a camp out.

I don't think this is a new thing.  I'm going to guess it's a subtlty that most packs & troops haven't realized.

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

They ignore the contradictions of the rule book and go scouting.  Or, they walk away because it's no longer worth he effort.

That's very similar to what I see too.

We had a couple of conversations about the new rules when they came out.  Most of the Scouters in our midst just wanted to know what they needed to do.  One adult, two adults, whatever - they really didn't care.  They just want to know the rules so that they can get to Scouting.

24 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

Would it not be much more appropriate for a crossover to be conducted by the troop into which the cub is entering?   Preferably his den chief, rather than some scout wearing a white sash that the cub has never seen before and in all probability will never see again.

Depends...

If we go with the OA as a the Society of Honor Campers, then I think there is a place for the OA to take a role here.   Theoretically, OA members are some of the absolute best examples of Scouts in the district.  Who better to inspire new Scouts than our best examples of what it means to be a Scout?  Further, in theory, the OA has practiced the new script and can perform it in an inspriational way.  

Yes, your point is well taken.  There is no reason why a troop cannot serve much the same role.  There are also very good reaons for a troop to do this.  As you mention, the Scouts in the troop are probably known to those AOL scouts and even to many of the other Cub Scouts watching the ceremony.

So, I'll go back to depends.  Both can do an admirable job.  A specialzed team from the OA and a group of Scouts from the local troop.  I think that then it depends more on what message the Cubmaster wants to send with the Crossover ceremony.  

Very good point @Sentinel947.

I have to imagine I'd find a lot in common with anyone who spends 40+ hours a week invested in Scouting.  Locally I cherish the friendships I have with the dedicated unit, district, and council Scouters and professionals in my community.  While I may not always agree with each decision, I do see that everyone is doing their best to make Scouting the best program that they can.  I fully expect that that I would find the same in the National level professionals and volunteers.  I fully expect that people involved at National have different challenges and problems to solve and it may lead to decisions that I may or may not agree with.  But, that's OK.  They are Scouters all the same and I'd be happy to share a campfire with them any day.

As best I understand, most members of this fourm are volunteers.  I'm really glad that we do get some professionals who contribute as it helps me to develop a richer understanding.  Honestly - I like the openess we get from the professonials who do contribute.  it gives me a better senes of some of thought processes behind what we see.  I very much appreciate the honest, direct dialog that we are able to have here.  If anything, I would welcome more direct discussion with our national level professional colleagues - even when I do not agree.  Truthfully I'd much rather have a frank discussion and disagree with someone than get a watered down public relations statement or a helpdesk response.

When I first volunteered, the pack would say "we only need 5 registered adults, so let's not register any of the other adults."  When I did finally get them to register me, they reigstered me for one of the required 5 spots - pack trainer I think it was.  We fixed that problem when those folks rotated out.

50 minutes ago, Liz said:

So here's my thought for you - don't limit your discussions in your Pack to just "what troop should we be moving towards" but also "what can we as adult leaders do to create a successful program for our Bears to cross over into." Talk to the Troop's committee and point out that the SM really needs to be COR, remind them how important that job is, but also less critical that the COR attend all the camping trips and things, and see if you can nudge the current SM into the position he really ought to be holding and get new SMs in place for both boys and girls - possibly out of your active and enthusiastic Cub Scout leadership pool. See if you can recruit some more parents of Cub Scouts to step up and help pick up the slack in the Pack to free up some of your more experienced leadership to spend time with the Troops. Remind them that the goal of this is to create an exciting program for the kids to move into. Get them thinking forward. Oh, and make sure EVERYONE gets trained!!

Great idea!!!

1 hour ago, karunamom3 said:

Thanks to everyone that responded. Such great advice & support.

Tonight is the troops leaders meeting where we hope to hash it out. We have a council rep joining us to listen and give 'friendly advice' in his words.

We plan to voice our concerns, lay out our options/facilitating them (staying, going, etc) and point blank asking the current SM what his intentions are. I will update tomorrow. 

If we stay, the 3 of us will take leadership roles within the troop. I will not give up CM because I just started. This is my first year & I love it, I really do! As for the girls troop, it may just have to sit on the back burner for now even though council won't like it. We shall see.

Yesterday, I found out why the current SM may be hanging around... he is running for elected office as freeholder. So, being SM looks good on his resume I suppose, but he is failing the youth in the process. 

Sounds like a good next step @karunamom3.  I look forward to hearing how it goes.

For adults:

1. I find the current trainings too basic.  That coupled with the lack of decent continuing education has resulted in too much "learning on the job"

2. The expectation to get trained is too weak in the BSA.  This has resulted in generally poor training percentages.

3. With the advent of online training, face to face training is dwindling.  District and council training teams are not prepared for how to leverage this to improve leader training.

I am always very flexible with things like this.  I figure that our troop is essentially a big Scouting family and that eventually it will sort itself out. 

I'm always more concerned that there is some sort of family issue that they need some help with.

But, If I eventually came to the conclusion that the family was taking advantage of us, I'd send them a quick email them that for liability reasons the BSA requires their youth to be a registered member of the pack or troop.  I'd also tell them that we cannot process any awards for their scout until they were registered.  Then I'd ask them to come in at the next meeting to get it taken care out.  I think I had maybe one case in 10 years like this.

What I did tend to  have from time to time is were parents who were just not terribly organized.  Remembering to do paperwork on time was a skill they didn't possess.

I'm trying to figure out what's going on in Venturing that we're seeing such big drops.  We're down 41% this year and 36% last year?  I'm gathering that nationally Venturing was kinda like Varsity - most of those involved are LDS.

We've never seen strong Venturing participation in our district.  Our Venturing number is something like 3% of our total Scouts.  But, I also don't see that we lost 75% of the Venturers in our district in the last two years.  If anything our Venturing problem has more to do with not having adults to champion Venturing programs than it does youth not interested.

Though I think the same principle could apply, at some point we're taking the comment about merit badge and fundraising a little far.  I think it works in the patrol case because it's a similar scenario.  A meetnig of Scouts with an adult outside the normal meeting structure. 

Could you have a den meeting with one adult where every parent attended?  I suppose yes, but I don't think that's the original intent.  An official Lion den meeting is dis-similar enough that I don't think I'd recommend applying it there.

I would suggest the if you've got a Lion den with a bunch of parents, you probably ought to sign up two as assistant den leaders anyways.  In this new paradigim, I think a den really needs three registered leaders just to consitently be able to get two there.  Might as well start that in the Lion year.

On 3/7/2019 at 9:55 PM, HashTagScouts said:

I'm still not clear, having watched this thread grow over the past several days, that the scout referenced in the OP actually has asked the SM why he wasn't eligible to be on the ballot.  I'm more focused on that part than trying to tell that SM, or any SM, how to handle themselves- if the scout has questions, it's their job to ask the SM, not the parent or us in the peanut gallery. 

I understand the point. I'm inferring that the Scout was blindsided during the voting or just before.  If the Scout did know and didn't ask - then yes, the scout really should have asked.

If the Scout didn't know, then I think it's a different case.  Is it really fair to a Scout to be blindsided by a general decision like this?  Doesn't that simply demoralize the scout?

I ask the question not to criticize the Scoutmaster here.  Instead, I'm much more interested in what coaching we provide to Scoutmasters who may find themselves with a similar decision.  Wouldn't it generally be best to tell this kind of thing to Scouts well ahead of time?