sandspur

He may not be required to invite anyone other than committee members, but is there a reason not disclosed that he did not do so?

Since that was past practice, I am left to wonder if this was just an oversight (unlikely if the above quote was his response) or if a sensitive discussion was held and the committee did not want certain folks there.

Agree with Beavah it is not the CC's call unless the name is really not scout appropriate which is not the case here.

Other thoughts for bus use:

1. Insurance is not as bad as you might think. We own two former school busses and our insurance is about $2,000/year total if you shop around. It was much more expensive through the CO so we went on our own. Works out to about $35 per scout/year for us.

2. Repairs can be big ticket, but the worst we have seen is $2,500 for a single item. That is over a period of several years so we have had good luck there.

3. No need to pull a trailer (and dangerous!). You can store all the packs for 30 passengers if you remove the last couple of seat rows and build some storage areas out of plywood. Also, you can install storage bins under the floor similar to what you see in a greyhound. Just big metal boxes with doors that open to the outside but holds all the troop gear and the scouts keep their packs inside in the rear. This was professionally done for a few hundred dollars. We also built overhead shelves.

4. Our busses get used for monthly trips and 2-3 major out of state trips per year.

5. Adults get CDL on a volunteer basis.

6. We do minor bodywork etc ourselves, but contract maintenance with the same outfit that services the local school busses. Most folks will give you a reasonable deal for scouts if you ask.

7. Keeps the troop together on trips, not in the convoy has anyone seen Joe in the last 100 miles? mode.

A former troop of mine did the more traditional troop trailer and rented 15 passenger vans for high adventure. This worked OK but some downsides were:

1. Finding someone with a big enough vehicle to tow the fully loaded trailer. Same couple of guys with big pickups had to step forward a lot. It was not a big trailer, some troops had larger ones, but loaded up it was HEAVY!

2. I am sure a former SM burned out his transmission pulling that baby up the Rockies. He was dedicated and ate the cost, but we found later a lot of dads politely refused to pull the trailer and some asked for compensation beyond gas cost to compensate for maintenance on long trips. Consider you are really asking volunteers to donate the cost of vehicle maintenance/wear if you go this route.

3. The troop grew to the point where it needed two trailers for High Adventure, which doubles the issues above.

4. I have known several troops to have had their trailers stolen. Never seen a bus walk away.

We use TroopMaster.net

The scouts signed handbooks and blue cards for records are the core records, as are forms we have designed for BOR sign off, and the advancement chair enters these results into TM to help us keep track of things. We use TM to generate paper advancement reports to send to the council office to update council records.

If there is a difference between the paper records and TM, we go with the paper.

One good thing about the .net version of TM is that the files are kept on a server, and are accessible to anyone with the correct passwords and permissions. So the SM or committee members can look at the records but have limited permission to change them.

The scribe can record attendance records on TM from a home computer but not change other areas of the program.

We do not however attempt to put each requirement sign off in a scouts handbook or partial MB into TM. We are a large troop and that is too much of a data entry issue for us. We generally update a scouts records when a rank or MB is attained.

Well, maybe notDoes say you can drop a scout after six months of nonresponse or non-scout initiated contact.

But at recharter.

So is the nonresponsive scout active until recharter?

So let me see if I understand.

A scout is active if he pays his dues at the start of the year, never shows up for any meetings or activities, including campouts, but the scoutmaster e-mails every few months.

If the SM mass e-mails a troop newsletter, I guess that is contact as long as the message did not bounce back as undeliverable.

Why do I suspect national is really interested in keeping numbers as high as possible?

Well, arguments like this never convince anybody but for what it is worth, my $0.02:

Full disclosure, I am a scientist, but not a climatologist.

There are really three intertwined debates that are related, but not the same:

1. Is there a general climate warming trend (are glaciers melting, sea ice receding etc)?

2. If so, is this related to CO2?

3. If it exists, is the trend man-made?

Question one: Hard to say with certainty in the mid-term, since temperature records past a hundred years or so ago must be inferred from secondary sources (tree rings etc) but most evidence seems to suggest a warming.

Question two: If there is a relationship, it may be inverse (CO2 levels seem to rise AFTER temperatures, not before and in any event CO2 seems a minor greenhouse gas as compared to others).

Question three: Here is the real argument! Here it pays to be skeptical. Are glaciers receding: Seems yes, did we do it? Seems no.

Why? For one piece of evidence, look at this link to the US Govt. map of Glacier Bay AK showing the historic extent of the glaciers there since 1750: http://www.nps.gov/carto/PDF/GLBAmap1.pdf

You will note the glaciers have receded dramatically and steadily, but have been doing so since at least 1750 (the first year for hard data). Since no-one was driving SUVs or flying jet airliners at the time, and the industrial revolution did not kick off in a big way for another hundred years it seems the glaciers are receding rapidly but humans are not the cause. May have to do with warming or with precipitation changes. Similar data for Greenland , Newfoundland etc.

In the same vein, NASA says Mars is warming too.

So are we the cause of warming? At the very least, this is debatable (sorry Al Gore, the debate ON THAT is not over!).

And as a scientist, but not a climatologist, I will say that keeping raw data hidden and trying to censor peer-reviewed journals is a real red face offense and they should be ashamed and suffer the consequences, but I have known folks who have done it in my field (scientific arguments can be very heated and some folks will do anything to prevail, including not playing fair).

My take, based on the data I have seen: The globe is warming (but not nearly as hot as it has been in the past) and our emissions may have some effect but are not the whole story. If we can clean up our act, reduce emissions and pollution, lets do so. Why pollute if you dont have to? But it is not time to panic and bankrupt national economies until we are a lot better informed than we are now.

Had a SM in a former troop who decided the scouts should know how to do laundry, iron clothes and sew on a patch or repair a button. He devoted one meeting to it.

Seemed a good idea, but did not become a troop tradition.

Ironically, my Dad (a Kings scout from Canada many years ago) showed me a badge he earned for that very thing.

Do you leave your troop equipment in the trailer?

Better make sure your insurance covers the contents and not just the trailer. Also, check if it covers depreciated or replacement cost.

Invest in a good hitch lock and park in a garage or fenced area.

Unfortunately, I know of several troops that have had trailers stolen.

Beavah:

I have had the opposite experience.

Rangers have been very cooperative and we have never had a bad experience. Not only do we leave a campsite cleaner than we found it, we have a troop policy of performing a service project as part of any high adventure trip.

So, if we go to a national park, we coordinate with the rangers in advance to perform a project they select and supervise, giving them the labor of 30+ scouts and scouters for 4 hours or so. Since most parks are cash-strapped and under-staffed, we have found the rangers not only supportive but grateful.

On our last high adventure, the national park rangers asked when we could come again since their experience was so good.

Local (state parks) in a neighboring state frequently waive camping fees for us for the same reason.

However, I find your comments on the noise created by a large group of boys to be spot-on. The cure here is good planning. There is usually no reason to camp the scouts in a family camping area. It is up to leaders to find that group or isolated area not next door to the retirees in their Winnebago.

Equipment capacity and evacuation explanations are not valid explanations for what the policy is doing.

The restriction in on height/weight ratio, not weight.

As pointed out, the 510 guy who is 234 is banned, while the guy 2 taller who weighs the same is OK to go.

The scouts/stretchers and job of carrying out the weight is the same, regardless of the height.

National is trying to enforce a physical fitness standard without actually testing fitness.

For those who think this is great, will we bar smokers? Insulin-dependent diabetics? Scouts on anti-seizure meds? Right now we have all three headed to Philmont this summer but just cut one adult from our crew unless he drops five pounds by then. This same guy did Rim-to Rim on the Grand Canyon two years back at the same weight.

I would feel better about a physicians release that the participant is fit to handle the trip and leave it at that.

I agree with Beavah.

Wens seems to be asking (several times) how the troop can ask this scout to go back and do more work when the troop has accepted POR with little or no effort in the past?

Wens: Yep, that is the question. Now that you are hip deep in the swamp, how to you get out? Yeh, there are troops out there where a POR is just a formality. After six months, it is signed off even if the scout did not do a thing.

My experience is the scouts dont like it, if anyone bothers to ask them. They feel it is unfair to those who put forth effort in a POR to give credit to a scout who did not. Cheapens the efforts of those who put forth the effort. And yes, the leadership should have put a stop to this before, but that is in the past.

Unfortunately, I have been in both extremes. I was part of a troop where PORs could be a joke, and part of one currently where POR evaluation is run like a Fortune 500 job review. Try to set reasonable standards for boys.

What do you do now?

Suggestion: Revisit with the scout as suggested above. Perhaps he will agree he did not really do much. Get this one out of the way with the lads buy in. Importantly, give him a clear path forward.

But for your troop, I suggest you discuss this in committee, agree there has been a problem in the past and set some standards for the future. Then, bring this to the PLC. I think you might very well find the PLC is supportive of assuring that scouts put forth some effort in the POR. Get them behind you.

With the PLC and committee aligned, announce in a meeting that FROM NOW ON, the following standards apply to POR credit in our troop (insert whatever reasonable rules you come up with). Then put the past behind you.

SMT 224 wrote:

Bottom Line: Dont ever be alone with a scout

SMT: I agree totally. But I also maintain the ASM in this case was not alone with a scout as he was in a public area with, we are told, hundreds of other people around.

SMT224 wrote:

this leader should not have gone off alone with one of the youngest Scouts in your unit

But read the OP:

a very new (3 months), very young (11-13 yo) and pretty small (11 scouts) troop.

There ARE no older scouts in this troop.

The SMs main beef, normally justified, is that the ASM is having trouble making the mental jump from cubs to scouts.

But I still have seen no real discussion of the difficulty doing this in a troop without ANY older, senior, experienced scouts to serve as SPL, ASPL PL etc etc.

Maybe I just like being devils advocate but perhaps in a troop without the normal leadership structure, the ASM sees some justification in acting more like a cubmaster than a venture advisor (to take the extremes to make my point). Just thinking.

YP does not and cannot protect all scouts all the time from nefarious adults, nor can it protect all adults all the time from false accusations or misunderstandings.

It is quite clear if you have taken the training that an adult and youth together is acceptable in a public area in sight of others (door open in a room with others outside, in sight of others at a campout etc.)

Think: Scoutmaster conference (do you make an ASM sit in and listen to every word?)

Do you insist on two adults in every car transporting scouts to a campout?

What if a scout wants to have a private word with you about something? Do you insist another adult listen in or do you move out of hearing of others but still in sight?

You are on a canoe trip with scouts. You are an adult with 1-2 younger scouts in a canoe but other adults in canoes are in the group and nearby (but not close enough to hear every word said in your canoe) Is that OK?

In this case, from what we are told, the ASM was with a scout and there was no other scouter from the troop with them, but they were in a public area with hundreds of other people around, including other adults, and in sight of others. It was never alleged they went off alone in private.

If you insist on having two YP-trained adults from the troop in close contact when with scouts (in hearing and sight) even in a public area like a mall, restaurant or theme park you had better have a LOT of adult volunteers!

It is a frequent misinterpretation that YP required two YP-trained adult scouters to be present at all times with youth.

But that is hardly workable. If that is your troops interpretation, then 4 leaders (which you said you considered too many) would be the minimum needed, since you could never go anywhere with the scouts without at least two of you.

If it is a public place, in clear sight of others, you are not alone with the youth and there is no YP violation.

As others have pointed out, the real issue is the ASMs lack of skills to be an ASM. But in discussing that with him, my advice is to keep the YP issue out of it, since that is not the true issue and will just distract you and him.

One issue I see for your troop is you want to be youth led (Right on!) but you have no older leaders. So no role model for the scouts or for the ASM. The ASM has no opportunity to see how an older, developed SPL runs things. Until your troop develops the older leaders, it will be a transition where I suspect you will require more adult guidance than a more established troop.

In fact, since your troop is about three months old with the oldest scout 13, do you even have an SPL? Could the oldest, most experienced scout be a tenderfoot? If that is the case, the ASMs Cubscout orientation may be closer to the mark than advice which pertains to troops with Life and Eagle scouts running things. Question is, Can he evolve as the troop does?

Unfortunately, that is out of my experience. Any advice from the forum on this?

(This message has been edited by Sandspur)

As stated, there is no such BSA rule, although there may be a troop policy.

That said, I disagree with the troop if it is their policy. While I see why they might not want an SPL, ASPL, PL etc. to be a boy that did not know the others in the troop well (would he even be elected/appointed in that case???) I see no reason to deny someone the chance to serve as QM, Librarian, scribe and so forth. That would probably help him integrate even sooner.

Seems especially wrong on a military post where the lads may transfer out every two years.

Well, we may never agree, but I still think a major medical policy is a good idea for those who do not have more comprehensive coverage.

1. Even if you only have a few hundred dollars in the bank, it is better to owe $5,000 than $50,000.

2. It is in the interest of the medical provider to work out a payment schedule. If you declare bankruptcy, they get nothing or pennies on the dollar. If you work out a payment schedule, they get all their money (maybe takes a year or three) and you avoid bankruptcy. Win/win. Most providers will see the logic.

3. I think we encourage scout values (be prepared?) by asking scouts to think about coverage for disasters. Medical, auto, renters insurance etc. Always makes me sad when there is an apartment fire around here and I read stories of folks who have lost everything and had not renters insurance to replace their lost property. My sons got a policy on my advice and were surprised how cheap it was. My dad gave me the same advice many years ago. (No, I am not an insurance salesman!)

On a national scale, I wonder if we might all be better off if we went back to the idea of major medical to cover the big stuff, made it universally available (maybe subsidized by tax dollars if needed for those who cant afford it on their own) but dropped the idea of insurance that covered every visit to the doctors office, routine vaccination etc and handled that ourselves.

Yeah, we will have the issue of someone who cannot afford their prescriptions, but part of the reason these things cost so much is we have become insensitive to price. If my prescription really costs $200, I dont care (I pay $20 regardless of the real cost), my doctor doesnt care because he knows I dont care, and the drug company can decide to boost the price to $300 because I wont even know and nobody but the insurance company that pays the bills will care.

But just think if we had to write the check ourselves. Bet we might say hey doc, is there a generic? Doc himself might actually take the time to find out how much the drugs he prescribes cost and take that into account.

Gern:

A $5000 expense will cause bankruptcy?

Come on.

I will not refer specifically to OJ since I do not know him or his situation.

But seems to me that the average young man in an entry level job not living at home (like two of my sons) manages to pay for an apartment (their major expense), car payments (even your average used car costs more than 5,000 these days), car insurance etc.

So a $5,000 expense resulting from a major illness need not be paid at once. A payment plan (so much per month) is normal. Pay off a few hundred per month and sure, it hurts, but its not bankruptcy time.

And yes, I know whereof I speak. My oldest son (in his early twenties and living on his own in an entry level job with an hourly wage) just had an appendectomy. The overall bills will probably top $35,000. But he has insurance (with a deducible and copay) very much like the polices discussed above and will end up paying only about $3-4,000 out of pocket. Which he can pay and will. Never even asked me for financial help. But he chose to get insurance and also to pay for a short-term disability policy as well. Which kicked in as planned. He wont buy a better car this year has he had hoped to, but no bankruptcy. Not even close.

So my advice to the young men starting out in life: Buy a major medical policy if your employer does not provide it, also get renters insurance and look into short term disability policies. Live frugally and in a few years youll get a better job at higher pay with, likely, a better health coverage.

Seems by medical insurance we are talking two different things.

Some of us are old enough to recall what was termed major medical. Essentially like the high-deducible policies suggested here. The purpose was to kick in if something major happened that you couldnt pay for yourself. It was assumed you paid for routine or minor issues.

The more recent and now more common definition is medical insurance as the payer of all medical benefits except maybe OTC medications. People want every visit to the doctors office paid for with only a small deductible.

The problem with the last definition is that since we all have routine medical expenses that the insurer (be it private or government) KNOWS they will have to pay, a lot of cash has to come into the system from somewhere.

How can you possibly expect a company to charge an affordable amount for someone (I guess defined as less than he would spend per month to pay the bills himself) when they can be certain the checks they write will be more than the premiums they get?

If the employer pays, just means that a portion of my pay is diverted to the policy the employer decides to purchase for me, so I pay in the end.

If the government pays, just means that we hope some politically disfavored group (read not you or me) pays for our medical care. As the old saw goes, Dont tax you, dont tax me, tax that guy behind the tree!

This thread has been fun to read, but I need to pick up my ELCA son to get to Micosay dance practice tonight.At the Catholic church.

Now the case of the Eagle scout in NY is more troubling to me.

In that case, If I read the story right, the 2-inch knife was in his locked car and in a survival kit which included MREs and shelter. He had no ready access to it. It was on school property only technically. He disclosed it only when asked by a vice-principal if he even owned a knife.

Further, the school policy bans weapons, but apparently they do not consider baseball bats and tire irons (the latter probably in every car in the lot) to be weapons. A school administrator, asked about the bats, said thats different. Personally, I am a lot more afraid of a baseball bat or tire iron than a 2 inch knife.

Lastly, the school officials in this case had discretion, but decided to tack on an additional 15 day suspension even though no zero tolerance policy required them to.

I keep a multi-tool which has a knife blade in my car. When I park it in the long-term lot at the airport, would someone say I am bringing a weapon IN an airport? I suppose they would if someone wanted to make trouble for me or make some officious point.

The real lesson my sons (all in their teens or twenties) take from all this is that some school administrators have no sense.

Eamonn:

I agree your son seems to have a raw deal. And I agree there is a problem nationally.

But, as someone who is generally of a libertarian bent, I must point out that your son is not without choices.

Is your sons employer the only one around? Even in this economy?

If they are the only employer of EMTs in the area, does he have to work in that local or can he get a better deal elsewhere with a better employer?

Is there a medical-related field he can get a job in that has a better employer?

In other words, your sons employer may be a Grinch, but does your son have to take it? The only way the Grinch gets away with it is if he can.

And best of luck to your son. Truly!

We have confused two different provisions of the proposals now before congress (as, frankly have some of our economically ignorant congressmen/women)

1. A requirement that insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions. OK by itself. If rates can be adjusted.

2. A requirement that companies cannot charge different groups/people different rates.

Combine the two, and it means if you are an insurer you MUST cover the guy who needs expensive, lifelong care but you CANNOT charge him any more than you do the healthy 20-year-old.

Only way that works is if the healthy guy pays more.

Like the friendly Allstate guy says shouldnt you get a break for your good driving record? Nope. Not if we have to cover the guy with a record of major claims and cannot charge him any more than we charge you.

And yes, I know that auto claims may be your fault while health may not be, but economically it is the same as far as payments and rates go.

So rather than focus on the problem (how to cover about 5% of the population who cannot afford health insurance, or have expensive pre-existing conditions but cannot get coverage) we seem to be bent on a nationalized system for everyone. Why not create a government-backed insurer of last resort to cover those folks who need it? I suspect because congress wants to control the system and create a new class of folks dependent on congress.

(This message has been edited by Sandspur)

Well OK:

First, it was a knife. It may have a spoon and fork also, but from the photos on the news it is a knife with a real blade. Everyone knows you do not carry a knife to school. It is appropriate for the school to ban such things and enforce their policies.

Now, does the punishment fit the crime? 40odd days in reform school? For a first grader, it seems reasonable for the teacher to take the item away and send it home with a note to the parents. At worst, maybe keep the lad after school for a day.

The real issue here seems to me that the district admits their policy does not differentiate between high schoolers and first graders. For professional educators, that is at best sloppy policy writing and at worst stupidity. They do not trust their principals to deal differently with a first grader with his cub scout multitool and a high school senior with a switchblade.