Twocubdad

Frankly, fish, this is about the third time you've asked this and have pretty much received the same advice. If you really want to take Wood Badge, do it. But with the idea that there are probably a lot of folks reading this asking the same questions, this is my best advice to brand new Scouters think about taking Wood Badge: 1. A prerequsite of Wood Badge is to be fully trained for your primary registered position. In your case, fish, you need to complete Web-specific, which you are taking next month, AND Outdoor Leadership Skills, which you did not mention. 2. Cub Scout leaders should absolutely take Wood Badge. Part of the "new" (now a decade old) course is to include Cub leaders where before Cub Scout Wood Badge was an entirely different course focused on teaching Cub Scout adult training. The big picture of WB is learning to run a volunteer organization. Cub Scout packs can absolutely benefit WB-trained leaders. Understand, however, much of the course remains focused on the Boy Scout program. If I recall the syllabus correctly, "dens" graduate into "patrols" the second morning. While Cub Scout leaders will gain a great deal of leadership training, the program-specific elements are mostly targeted toward Boy Scout. 3. And this is my personal opinion based on my experience. You need a full year of solid program experience under your belt to get the most out of the program. And by that I mean a full year running the program as a trained leader. In your situation, fish, that would mean a year plus from now. Finish your training and spend a year running a den. Then take WB next year at the earliest. While your excitement and enthusiasm are commendable -- and will make for a terrific Webelos Den Leader -- quite frankly, you don't yet know what you don't know. My experience with Wood Badge was as a third-year Cubmaster who had been in the program a total of five years. At the time my oldest son was in the troop and I was also serving as an ASM (for which I was fully trained). Between the first and second Wood Badge weekends our Scoutmaster announced his intention to step down and I agreed to take over. At the time, the pack was flush with leaders, including a well-qualified Assistant Cubmaster, but the troop really needed help. So I finished Wood Badge as a brand-new Scoutmaster. I wouldn't recommend it. I know I would have gotten much more out of the course had I been able to focus on Cubmaster. Or had I waited a year and focused on Scoutmaster. That is a reason Wood Badge asks participants to focus on their primary registered position (especially in reference to tickets) and not try to wear mutiple hats. As has been written, much of Wood Badge is self-reflection -- not just personally, but with respect to the program you are running. I found the course to be filled with little a-ha moments of things we could apply to the pack program. In my case, I unfortunately was no longer going to be around to implement those in the pack, and I really didn't know enough about the troop to be of help. Fortunately, I was asked to serve on staff the following year, so I essentially had the opportunity to experience the course as a second-year Scoutmaster. That I focused more on the patrol aspects of Wood Badge and the job of taking the leadership lesson and teaching them to Boy Scouts.

It doesn't matter. In our council all the districts have different recharter dates so as not to overload the registrar and admin staff. So it's not tied to the council fiscal year either. The troop doesn't really have a fiscal year. It's not like we're doing taxes or an annual report. Dues are due in January and we start putting out notices in November. Recharter is Feb. 15. Crossover is March 1. This year we tried to collect money and applications from all the Webelos in time to include them on the new charter. It didn't work. Too many stragglers. Having some Webelos registered and some not was confusing. Next year we will recharter the existing Scouts then focus on registering the new guys. Again, none of which matters. January, February and March are a big smudge of paperwork and money which could as easily happen any time of year. I will allow that Cub Scouts are a little different. The Cub program is more closely tied to the school year and the annual calendar is a little more obvious. When I became CC of the pack, now 10 or 11 years ago, we collected pack dues in September when the program cranked up and the new boys were recruited, then tried to collect BSA dues/insurance/Boys Life money in Feb. when recharter was due. That was a disaster. Twice as much work for the leaders and the parents either thought they were being nickeled and dimed or they had already paid and didn't owe us anything. For the pack, the solution was to treat Sept. 1 as the fiscal year and collect all the money then. We banked the dues until recharter in Feb.

In the spirit of the historical nature of the badges, why not stick with the requirements as written and let the guys figure our what a livery stables and blacksmith shops are and try to find them. While they don't serve the same purpose as they did in 1911, they're around. The modern equivalents (car rentals and mechanics) are an interesting conversation, but I wouldn't change the requirements. God knows we've been given no instruction from National on this, but to me the whole point is for the boys to gain a little understanding of life in 1910, and not to learn path finding, per se. There are already modern equivalent MBs for that.

Back in the day, we were taught that the three pots were: warm, soapy wash; warm rinse; very hot, sanitizing rinse (using pot tongs and mesh bags to avoid getting scalded). When the wash water gets really nasty it is discarded, the two rinse tubs move down a slot and a new hot rinse is added to the end of the line. One variation was to skip the hot rinse at clean-up time, but to boil water and sanitize the your utensils BEFORE the next meal. One of our ASMs is big on the Clorox rinse, but I'm not a fan. I don't care for the idea of the boys carrying a bottle of bleach. I don't particularly think it's all that dangerous. I'm more concerned with the ruined clothes and gear. My ASM keeps the Clorox bottle with the adult gear and tells the boys to get it from him, but I don't care for that reliance on the adults either.

Your son is only partially correct. They would send a team out and kill you both.

We just had our final night before last and I've not seen the final numbers. I know several of our All-But-Project Eagles probably won't go for the first time. But the troop has grown by 50% this year so I'm expecting a similar increase. I'll be interested to see the year-to-year net. Probably more to your point is that we have seen a jump in financial aid requrests. We have about 8 guys going to jamboree. With that expense a couple families were opting out of summer camp. Although I've encouraged them to apply for camperships if it will help.

The scoutmaster and all volunteers work for the committee -- not the committee chairman individually -- with the approval of the Chartered Organization Representative (or in his absence the Institutional Head or the chartered organization. The COR is really the only individual who can remove a volunteer. The troop committee, as a whole may replace a volunteer, with the approval of the COR. But you're kinda beyond that, aren't you? Beavah frequently reminds us that we tend to assume the worst about other Scouters, so I will hold out that your CC's comments to the SM and ASMs was more positive and politic than what you posted. I'm sure you're just simplifying a long conversation, right? On the other hand, if my committee chairman spends an hour and a half dressing me down that he's not happy with the direction of the program, he best have my replacement standing next to him. The conversation may or may not be plesant, but I will assure you it will not be one-sided. My expectation would be for ANYONE not happy with the direction of the unit to roll up their sleeves and do what they can to improve things -- not tell me what they think I should be doing differently. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. My point here is that if your CC and SM have gotten to the point of pulling rank on each other, they've already lost the war. The rest is all just drama. The SM and CC must operate as a team. I can't imagine running a troop in an adversarial position with the CC. My CC and I are very good friends and work very closely together. We spend hours on the phone talking abou troop business and every thing else going on. From an operational standpoint, we probably have much too muddy distinction between CC and SM. He does way to much SM stuff and I do way too much committee stuff. But that's the nature of teamwork. He gets busy with work and I try to pick up his slack. I'll get to my wits end with some kid and he steps in. We're not quite to the point of finishing each other sentences. I'm not sure what to tell you. If you're not currently a committee member, you really don't have standing, if we want to go back to organizational chart technicalities. But on a personal level, if you think you can solve the problem and make a positive contribution, forget the organization chart.

Sure. Why (k)not? Our older guys have been working on fancy knots the last couple weeks. Everyone learned to tie a turk's head a couple weeks ago. From my point of view, one of the best reasons for troops wearing neckers these days is for all the fun, traditional Scout crafts with neckerchief slides

Cool! See http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/historical_mb_program.aspxwhich in part reads In recognition of the history and and contributions of our new Jamboree host state, the Boy Scouts of America has authorized a fifth historic merit badge, Mining. The BSA first initiated its Mining merit badge in 1911, one of less than 30 available badges. Currently there are 120 merit badges covering a wide range of skills and interests. The Mining merit badge evolved into Rocks and Minerals, which then became the Geology merit badge. In 2008, 16,334 geology merit badges were earned for a total of 377,703 since the badges inception ( www.scouting.org/factsheets ). Merit badges are periodically reviewed and revised. Some are discontinued or replaced with one or more new merit badges. The Mining merit badge, initiated in 1911, had only four requirements: 1. Know and name 50 minerals 2. Know, name, and describe the 14 great divisions of the earths crust (according to Geikie) 3. Define watershed, delta, drift, fault, glacier, terrace, stratum, dip; and identify 10 different kinds of rock 4. Describe methods for mine ventilation and safety devices. For the 100th Anniversary Celebration, four vintage merit badges are being released for the centennial celebration year only, giving Boy Scouts the hands-on opportunity to experience the exciting past of Scouting while learning how our world has changed in that 100 years. Here are the basics of the 2010 Historic Merit Badge program. An overall goal of the program is for a majority of the BSAs registered Boy Scouts to earn one or more of the merit badges during the centennial year, 2010. The badges offered have a history that can be traced back to the origins of the BSA. The original requirements are being used, as well as supported by scanned pages of the early merit badge pamphlets so a Scout can view what a Scout 100 years ago used. Supporting the scanned pages of the original pamphlets are information guides for each merit badge that explain what a Scout of 1910 might have experienced, along with background information to assist a Scout in understanding what maybe unfamiliar terms. The contemporary merit badges closely resemble the original designs of their counterparts with the exception of the border, which is gold The unique border will immediately identify it as a 2010 historic merit badge. The five historical merit badges may be used toward a Scouts rank advancement. The effective date for earning these new merit badges is April 1, 2010, and requirements must be completed no later than Dec. 31, 2010. The BSA will not reprint the pamphlets for these merit badges. Reprints of the original merit badge pamphlets are posted to www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/MeritBadges.aspx. As with all merit badges, units, districts, and councils should recruit and register qualified counselors for these badges. Badges may be earned by individual Scouts. District and council advancement committees are encouraged to offer opportunities for Scouts to work on at least some of these merit badges at resident camp, at camporees, or during special anniversary celebrations. See the how to sections for additional support at www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/MeritBadges.aspx.

We could -- and have -- debate the definition of hazing for a long time. It's like Potter Stewart's line about pornography, it's hard to define but I know it when I see it. I have no doubt that when your two boys, Beavah, wigged-out at the nature lodge or during swim tests, you did everything you could to reassure them. If they were really upset, you probably removed them from the group to avoid further embarrassment. I'm sure they were not called out for further redicule or embarrassment. Had some draped the snake around the kid's neck or left the swimmer in the water struggling while everyone laughed at their reactions, the thread here would be about how to remove such a leader from the program. But more to the point, neither the swim test nor the nature exhibit were set up to ferret out kids with phobias and have a laugh at their expense. The same is true of OA ceremonies. Nature exhibits, swim tests and the Ordeal are valuable parts of the program which have been planned, thought through and executed to make sure they are safe, positive experiences for the participants. Borrowing again from obscenity case law, all three have redeeming Scouting value. And I do believe situations should be judged on unintended consequences. Not that I'm trying to turn this into a law school exercise, but pranksters take their victims as they find them. I load up a guy's hair brush with peanut butter, only to discover he has a severe peanut allergy, I'm in deep stuff. That it would have been hilarious had some else used the brush is no defense. We make that very point when we do our skits on bullying and hazing. Adolescent boys are terrible judges of consequences. That part of their brains simply haven't finished developing. One of the biggest problems with practical jokes is the can turn on a dime and spiral out of control. One of my best SPLs had a squirrel get in his stash of snacks one year at summer camp. He then spent the rest of the week building a series of silly, Rube Goldberg squirrel traps which never had a chance of working. The rest of the troop had a great laugh at his expense. One day the SPL found five gallons of acorns dumped in his bunk. Later someone carefully lined up a row of peanuts from his tent back to the squirrel's tree. Someone else built a SPL trap, a 6-foot snare baited with a Snickers bar, as if the squirrel was trying to trap him. I've been the butt of more Scout skits than I can remembers. I don't mind, it's part of the gig. The best one I've seen lately is The Scoutmaster Hunter where a kid does a Steve Irwin/Crocodile Hunter imitation looking for Scoutmasters -- "Ooooo we've got at fat one here. You can tell he's old by the small wooden beads around his neck. The round thing here is called a 'coffee cup.' Scientists aren't sure, but believe it is part of a mating ritual...." It's a riot. All of which is to my point that one of the key differences between funny and cruel is the choice of the target. Beav, I think it was you who wrote that a good prank helps us laugh at ourselves. Right, but the key word is OURSELVES. Not the weaker kid who makes an easy target.

Love the pink panties gag. Our troop bought a pair of XXXXL jockey shorts, loaded them up with half a can of dog food, wrote the camp director's name in the waistband and left them at the flag pole. Watching the camp staff assemble and, one-by-one, realizing the drawers "belonged" the the camp director was a hoot. But to my second criterial of hazing, neither joke played on a disparity in age, size, or perceived status between the victim and the perpertrator. Both the camp director and the SPL were in superior positions and, presumably, able to defend themselves. The same pranks, applied to a youngers, smaller kid would have been unacceptable.

As for the unattached adult friends, I'm sorta with Scoutnut. I would be leery. I see too many opportunities for conflicting agendas. On the other hand, several years our pack's advancement chairman was a single lady who was a good friend of one of the pack families. She volunteered to be our advancement chairman the same as she may have volunteered to help any other community organization. I would have had no problem whatsoever with her camping with us. As I recall, she in fact attended several campouts, but went home at bed time along with a number of moms.

How about a do-it-yourself planetarium? Take a large piece of black fabric, maybe 10 or 12-feet square (you could cheap black fabric sewn together, landscape fabric which comes 10 or 12 feet wide, or maybe black polyethelyne plastic sheets) and use a silver Sharpie to draw in the constellations. Attach it to the ceiling or to the underside of a pop-up tent and you have your planetarium. All the kids come in, lie on their backs while someone explains the constellations. We did this at camp school and had maybe $10 in it. A really great tie in right now would be to feature the winter sky and the story of Perseus and Andromeda with Pegasus the winged horse and Cetus the sea monster. That's the story of The Clash of the Titans, which comes out next week.

Examples? If the younger boys are failing to do things at the SPL's request, which could turn into a negative for them, then let it play out. For example, the boys don't get up and get breakfast started which causes them to miss an activity. I would even quietly go about setting up such situations. If the younger boys just won't listen, as in they won't shut up and pay attention during meetings, the SPL should be empowered to remove the offending Scouts. Our junior leaders are trained to go through a series of steps to get guys like this to pay attention. First, is to give the guy "the look." Next, without interrupting your presentation, walk over and stand next to the guys who are talking. Next, just call the boy's name and put a finger to your lips. Finally, ask the catterbox to please wait for you outside. Better yet, the speaker should pause and whisper to one of his ASPLs to discretely ask the offending kid to step outside. As Scoutmaster, I'd be in the corner glaring at the kid pretty strongly, letting him and everyone else know I have the SPLs back. The danger in this, and the thing that is diffcult for junior leaders to pull off, is that the presenter becomes a greater distraction than the kid who was talking. He was bothering the two kids next to him. By stopping to address the problem, the SPL becomes his own biggest interruption. So use it sparingly. The other thing to watch for is that your SPL becomes the troop nag, even if it is just among this group of offending boys. Most of my SPLs have been pretty good at dealing with one problem kid, but when it is a group, the gang feels safety in numbers. They may comply short term, but then they ostracize the SPL. This is especially tough when these guys are part of the SPLs peer group. Stepping in as an adult in the situation is a last resort, because you undermine the SPLs authority, but you need to take care of your SPL. He is still a member of the troop and has to hang with these guys. If that means you take the heat and play "bad cop" that's why you get paid the big bucks.

Are you kidding? Why in the world would anyone do that? How about you post a copy of your drivers license and social security card so we know youre for real. Since when, on an Internet forum where the vast majority of participants are anonymous, is proof of authenticity required? If you think the thread is bull, do what I do with most Issues and Politics threads dont click on them.

Slightly off topic, but thanks to Stosh (jblake) for writing my Scoutmaster's minute for this week.

All our patrols are issued a standard kit: tents, stove/lantern/tree/hoses/tank, patrol tub with a BSA cook kit and chef kit, water jug and tarp. So yes, everything is standardized. That said, if a kid wants to bring his own tent, he may do so and it happens from time to time. But it is at his own risk. The only thing we don't allow are the huge 12-man condos. Discipline problems go up and sleep time goes down exponetially with the number of kids in a tent. We have a couple guys with high-end tent who like to bring them and show them off. But they fairly quickly learn, 1) no one really cares; and 2) they alone get stuck with cleaning, drying and packing away the tent when they get home. We've found that by permanently assigning patrol gear to each patrol, maintenance issues are almost non-existant. Before, kids just grabbed a tent off the shelf in the store room. If something was missing or broken, he only had to bury in the pile and grab another one. The chance of getting stuck with that tent next month was small. With gear assigned to patrols permanently, you have a 1-in-4 chance of getting the broken tent next month and 100% chance of having to deal with dirty cook gear or greasy stove.

Publication of what is now the Congressional Record and the State of the Union address are constitutional requirements.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

One of the key elements left out of this discussion is a disparity in status between the instigator and victim. We teach our Scouts that there are two elements to harassing, bullying or hazing (and I use the three term interchangably, legal definitions notwithstanding): 1) that action is a zero-sum game; that is one person or group is gaining something (power, control, prestige or even a good laugh) at the expense of another person. Or more simply stated, in the end everyone -- victim included -- should have a good laugh. 2) if the joke/prank is 'based upon the perceived disparity between the size, age, ability, status or power between the instigator and the victim. We teach this to the Scouts with skits. For example, we'll do one skit where my committee chairman and I josh around, calling each other Chrome Dome, and Biscuit (because I'm about two buscuits shy of 250 pounds). He pokes my belly and I rub his bald head. In the end, we both have a good laugh and walk off making plans for dinner. In another skit, we have one of the new ASM run from person to person looking for a left-handed smoke shifter or some other fools errand. Of course we ham up the new guy's newness and his embarassment in the end. Our point is that guys (even the adults) enjoy joking around with their friends. It's what guys do. But it crosses the line when one guys is made a victim. If everyone shares in the joke somewhat equally (and equally could be spread over a series of jokes), it's fun. If someone ends up outcase and the butt of jokes, it's not. We don't ban practical jokes, but we do teach the scouts that it is very easy for them to get out of control and at their age it is very difficult for them to appreciate the unintended consequences when a joke goes bad. And don't discount the ability of middle-school aged boys to zero in on the percieved weaker kid. This spotlight doesn't shine equally on everyone. The goat of one joke is likely to get it piled on over and over. In the situation in the OP, the two older scouts were clearly using their ages and positions to take advantage of both the younger "trigger man" and the ultimate victim. As older Scouts I would hold them to a higher standard. Having initiated the whole thing, they bear the most responsibility and should suffer the greatest consequence. The "trigger man" obviously bears some responsibility, but is somewhat mitigated by his age and the influence of the older Scouts. All three Scouts should suffer some consequences if for no other reason than as a demonstration by the troop leadership that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. All three should have been sent home from the activity immediately. I would have recommended to the SPL that they be removed from any leadership positions in the troop -- they clearly cannot be trusted in a position of responsibility over others. My recommendation to the troop committee would be for the younger Scout to be suspended from the troop for a month or two and the older two guys for two months or more. We may add essays on bullying, personal apologies, etc. All three would be on close probation for a period of time and strictly warned that similar behavior in the future would result in expulsion. This sort of behavior isn't funny. It's disgusting. I am concerned by the lack of empathy some here are showing for the 11-year-old victim. The three knuckleheads would have been more than happy if the poor kid had taken a big swig. As far as they were concerned the whole thing was a big barrel of monkeys right up to the point where they got caught. There is no place in my troop for this sort of behavior.

A few thoughts; First, Snow White's and ScoutNuts thoughts on working with the boys are their parents to get them caught up are on track. The den leaders have an obligation to help these boys Do Their Best to complete the requirements, even if they missed the program the first time through or if their parents dropped the ball. Secondly, if anyone in your pack still thinks 24 boys in a den is okay, please point to this situation as a prime example of why it is not okay. At some point each of these boys need individual attention which they are not receiving in a den of 24. That the three DLs sons are the only ones to have finished the badge is good evidence of that. With 24 boys, den programs have to be highly organized and tightly scheduled. Unfortunately, highly organized and tightly scheduled is not necessarily the hallmark of a good Cub Scout program. "We did knots last week, you missed it, sorry, we're moving on. And no, I don't have time to go back and help you get caught up." Thirdly, I'm not really following your argument about Doing Your Best. If what your are saying is, using my above example, that if the adults did a poor job of organizing the knot tying session and one or several Scouts missed it, then those boys "did their best" and should be given a free pass on the achievement, NO, I disagree. They didn't do their best, they didn't do anything. If that's your standard, call the kid who dropped out in October and hasn't made a meeting since and tell him he's earned Bear, too. Now, if those same Scouts approach me later and say they've looked at their books and think they've figured out how to tie the knots, you absolutely need to spend the time working with him to pass the requirement (but, again, see point #1). If the kid puts reasonable effort into trying, then I'd be glad to sign the requirement. He's probably learned more than half the boys who sat through an over-crowed den meeting. Even at the tender age of 7 or 8, we need to begin teaching boys accountability. Giving them a pass because their DL or parents dropped the ball isn't the message we want to teach our boys. How many problems in this country can be traced to this kind of thinking? Last, packs do their boys a great dis-service by letting the program fade away after crossover and blue and gold. Only the Webelos IIs crossed over, no one else. And hopefully, those Webelos IIs are getting more Scouting crammed in those first months in the troop than at any other time in Scouting. The remaining Cubs need the same advantage! I know the tendancy is for packs to limp through September with the leadership focused on membership recruitment and organizing new dens. October and November are great months for Scouting, but of course things drop off over the holidays. January and February are big, but Spring sports pull a lot of guys away, especially on weekends, and all the whoop-tee-doo of cross over and blue & gold tends to make folks want to relax for a bit. So we end up delivering a FOUR MONTH PROGRAM! That's not okay. This is when a good Cubmaster and Committee Chair earn their pay. Pack leaders need to make sure all dens are active through the spring. If a den leader is burned out by March, step in and help him/her out or replace them. The packs themselves need to be delivering strong programs, with a big event or two in the spring. Pack leader need to LEAD by motivating and encouraging the den leaders and others to finish the FULL PROGRAM YEAR with a quality Cub Scout program.

Like NE-IV-88. We try to make it all the boy's responsibility. We do, however, have a master list we keep and try to ask the boys from time to time if they have taken their meds. We have a couple boys with some serious health issues so we try to create that much of a safety net. Interesting, the guys taking the hard-core stuff are much more responsible than the guys taking Zyrtec. Our council camp screws this up, requiring all meds to be kept locked in a tool box screwed to the floor of the SM's tent. Because the boys have to take the extra step of coming to the SM's tent and asking for his meds, we have more compliance issues at summer camp than we do when the boys keep up with their own stuff and take it as a part of their usual routine.

Our scouts are supposed to begin registering for summer camp merit badges next week, which is supposed to include the four historical badges. As of Monday, our council program director -- you know, the professional who is supposed to have the direct link to this sort of stuff -- doesn't know what's happening and can't give us any advice as to whether or not our Scouts should register for these badges. This is really starting to tick me off.

Usually, I don't like the idea of using clean-up detail as punishment. Clean up is something we all have to do as part of the routine of a campout. If I have to clean up from lunch because I did something wrong, what happened to the guys who cleaned up breakfast just because it was their duty? And what happened to guys who were supposed to clean up lunch? They get a freebie? But that's a campout. There are a fixed number of meals and, hopefully, the patrol established a duty roster prior to the campout. But in the situation of a troop meeting, there will always be one next week. You can suspend the regular cleaning schedule and require these two guys to do the clean up by themselves for a couple weeks, then resume the regular schedule. I'd call the parents to make sure they know why their kid is staying extra-late for a couple meetings and hopefully re-enforce the lesson at home.

It's not as if the victim was asking for the file on the guy who molested him in order to go after the perp, he was requesting some 1700 files spanning 20 years in order to make a case against the BSA. There's a difference.

The BSA official responsible for keeping the files testified in the case. You can read the details at http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/boy_scout_executive_details_pe.html The case relates to a molestation which occurred in the early '80s. The files which are part of this case were collected between 1965 and 1985. It is significant to note, and isn't being mentioned in the coverage, that attitudes were certainly different 30 years ago and BSA and societial means of handing this were different. I know when I volunteered with my old troop in '81 and '82, the current youth protection policies were not in place. I remember taking the troop on a campout as the only adult on the trip. Does anyone know when the current policies took effect? That the Boy Scouts have "Secret Pervert Files" is certainly a juicy headline. But when you think about it, the real liability would be if we didn't keep records on unfit volunteers.