elitts

On 6/12/2019 at 9:44 AM, karunamom3 said:

The CO? So are units supposed to supply the CO with a calendar for approval?

No, not quite.  The relationship isn't that direct. At least it shouldn't be. 

The CO owns/controls the unit the way one business owns a subsidiary or the way a Board of Directors controls a company.  

While the CO should certainly be aware of the troop's plans and activities, and is able to issue general rules relevant to the organization's beliefs (for example a strict Baptist Church restricting the playing of games with cards during troop events), the CO doesn't have day to day control over the troop.  They wouldn't get formal approval of the calendar of activities and they usually don't get direct input with the scouts on how things are done.  (though in reality any smart CC and SM would listen seriously to any concerns a COR has)  The only "official" methods the COR (and CO) have to directly impact the troop are: Getting rid of any leaders it doesn't find suitable or restricting access to the equipment and gear it allows the troop to use.

On 5/1/2019 at 3:44 PM, T2Eagle said:

The trouble comes when something is billed as nonsectarian or non denominational and it is not.  Our summer camp has a Sunday night vespers that is supposed to be non denominational, but they've had the same preacher doing it for years and it is distinctly protetstant/Christian.  I've spoken up about it without any change occurring.   I stopped going and told my scouts they can go if they want.  No scout should be compelled to, even by insinuation, attend a service that their parents wouldn't want them to attend.

If a Christian pastor/preacher/priest is involved in a "non-denominational" service, all they mean is "Non-denominational Christian".

What you should actually be asking for is "Inter-faith" if you want more than simply Christian faiths to be either involved or accepted.

The CC shouldn't have any role in determining whether an activity is participated in by the scouts unless it requires funding beyond that which the scouts can provide on an immediate basis.  The SM's role here shouldn't be thought of as "approval" but rather the option to exercise a "veto" if an activity is inherently unsafe or in violation of scouting principles.  And even if a veto of the exact plan proposed is necessary, the SM should be guiding the PLC as to how to modify a vetoed plan in order to make it safe enough to act on.

Beyond that, the only other control any scouters should have over troop activities would simply be in the provision of adult leadership.

If the PLC plans a camp-out that requires driving 6 hours on Friday, and returning on Saturday night, the SM doesn't need to "veto" the plan, they can simply say "OK, you have a plan, no go make sure you can find at least 2 adults willing to drive".  Then when they find out that there aren't 2 adults willing to drive a 12 hour round trip for a  16 hour event, the PLC can reconsider.

47 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

They are simply pursing a commercial opportunity that is being enabled and encouraged by the political policymakers in our state capitols.  I don't like it, but this is the tort system we have in the US.  Our political leaders are going to openly allow victims of alleged misconduct form the 1950s through 1970s to apply today's legal and behavioral standards at the expense of today's children in order to recover damages.  The policymakers pursuing this change are generally and happily engaging in a process they think will enrich their political allies and lead to our demise.

Not to mention that allowing people who where injured 30-40 years ago to be compensated at 2019 inflated numbers is a huge potential mess.  Statutes of Limitations were established for some very good reasons.

22 hours ago, qwazse said:

His study suggested that there were ways to blunt "homesickness intensity", and much of that involved preparing the parents. So, that's a great job for your CC.  But, it's not at all clear that the incidence of homesickness (i.e,. percent of boys actually withdrawing from activity and/or asking to go home) was reduced.

 

Most of the other camp pages I've seen talking about homesickness said there are a number of ways that well-meaning parents sabotage their own kids before camp and warn parents against it.

• Sending kids off with a teary "I'm going to miss you SOO much";
• Talking about what the family is going to do while the scout is gone as anything other than "sitting at home doing nothing";
• Reassuring "last minute jitters" with "Just give it a try and see how you like it the first day or two";
• Writing multiple letters to arrive each day (implies lack of confidence in the scout's ability);

Many of them suggest the best option is to completely shut down any hint that going home early is even possible so that the kids give up on the hope (conscious or sub-conscious) that they can convince the parents to come get them; because once they give up thinking about how much they want to go home, they resign themselves to participating and end up having fun.  (Obviously if the SM thinks the kid has clearly proven they aren't ready, a call can be made to parents, they just don't want you to let the kids know that)

My issue with this article is right here:

Quote

group of attorneys said they’d collected information from at least 428 men and boys whose accounts of rape, molestation and abuse indicate the Boy Scouts’ pedophile problem is far more widespread than the organization has previously acknowledged

This article specifically explains that in each of the cases mentioned, the boy in question didn't tell anyone what had happened. (the one exception was the person who's family told the Chartering Organization)

So if we are talking about complaints never filed, why is the article attempting to make it appear that BSA deliberately misrepresented the problem or was deliberately hiding the accusations?  I realize that in a technical sense, the "previously acknowledged" line isn't inaccurate, but the inference it's making is clearly that BSA has been lying.

27 minutes ago, FireStone said:

But still, I struggle to believe that the problem is still an "is", rather than a "was"

Agreed.  The media is reporting this stuff as though it was the same as with the Catholic Church where many of the accused are still around and holding office within the organization.

10 hours ago, David CO said:

So you're telling me that a boy has to be worked up into a hysteria before you will let him leave?   

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately stubborn in refusing to understand what I'm saying or if you are just completely unfamiliar with how summer camps and kids work.  Homesickness is a well understood phenomenon with kids and sleep away camps of all types.

This all assumes you start with the premise that everyone thinks the ideal situation is for the child to stay at camp. 

Most young kids get homesick occasionally when at camp, even when they are having a great time overall; usually during slow periods and down time and before bed.  In general, phone calls home are to be avoided at camp. (barring some specific urgent issue like "I broke my medical equipment and need a replacement")  The reason phone calls home are avoided is that even with kids having a great time overall, talking to mom or dad can either cause or worsen feelings of homesickness, resulting in crying and a request to leave based upon the immediate homesickness and not the overall of enjoyment they had been feeling 10 minutes earlier.  (even at camps where phone calls home are allowed, they are usually scheduled early in the day while the kid still has a host of fun stuff to get to later on, as opposed to in the evening when the only thing left is bed)

The generally accepted method for dealing with homesickness is to distract the kids with some activity or even just conversation because most of the time, if you can distract them, the homesickness passes without incident and they go on to enjoy the camp.  But sometimes a homesick child will work themselves into a frenzy or hysteria over their feelings and if you can't get them calmed down, there may not be any other option than having them call home and hoping a parent can reassure them enough to stay.

In an even smaller percentage of cases, you can end up with a kid that is just truly miserable all around at camp.  This is a different kind of situation than the mostly happy kid suffering from homesickness.  If a kid is suffering from significant and ongoing distress at camp, it's typically handled differently than the normal homesick kid and a call to parents will definitely be made to discuss the idea that maybe the child just isn't ready for camp.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And here you go, just so you don't think this is a moronic idea from an internet stranger, the BSA's instructions on how to avoid homesickness.

Scouting Magazine 2008

Set up a no-call policy

The cell phone is a great invention — except when homesick Scouts use it to stay in contact with their parents.

“Calling home is not a treatment for homesickness,” says Thurber. “Five percent of the phone calls have no effect, and the rest have a deleterious effect.”

Assure parents during the pre-camp meeting that their son may experience some anxiety or sadness, but that he’ll have the support of trusted adults and older Scouts at camp.

“Tell parents you won’t allow their sons to call home,” says Lanning. “Remind them that camp is filled with fun activities, the food isn’t bad, and the boys are not being made to do hard labor.” Reassuring the parents helps them understand and comply with the no-calls rule.

10 hours ago, David CO said:

I think it would be unforgivable for a camp leader to not inform a parent that the child is asking to call home.

That's nice.  Most camps disagree with you.  Hopefully you won't need to send a child to one of them.

11 hours ago, David CO said:

I think there is a very simple solution. Call home. If the parent says to take away the cell phone, take it away. No theft involved. 

Making a phone call to parents every time disciplinary measures or corrective action needs to be taken is just impractical, which is why you address potentialities like confiscation of a device with parents and scouts before the trip and get approval ahead of time.  If parents or scouts disagree with having to turn over a device, they have the option to elect not to have the scout attend.

22 minutes ago, David CO said:

It seems to me that this approach is just teaching children to misbehave. The badly behaved kid gets what he wants. The well mannered kid gets ignored.

I'm not talking about a kid having a temper tantrum and "behaving badly", I'm talking about a kid that has worked themselves into a hysteria.  It doesn't happen often.  I think in 5 years I've only seen 2 boys out of a contingent of 45/year get to this point.  But we have at least 1 or 2 per year that end up needing to be coaxed and cajoled into staying through the week and avoiding that phone call home is a big part of keeping them. 

Just now, David CO said:

I don't know why a boy should need to "freak out" or "melt down" in order to get adults to do something that should be done when the boy makes a polite request in a respectful tone of voice. 

 

 

Because if they aren't melting down or freaking out we can usually talk them into doing some activity instead of making a call home that is likely to result in them wanting to GO home.

"Well, the office is a 10 minute hike away and we are about to go fishing.  Why don't you just come fishing with us and then we can talk about it again later and if you still want to call home you can".

Almost always they forget by the time fishing is done.

But if they are losing their mind, there's usually not much point in trying to persuade, so they walk to the office with a buddy or a buddy and an adult and make the call.

On 5/31/2019 at 8:36 PM, TAHAWK said:

"Confiscating an item is typically an act where the Scout is told to hand it over to the adult. "  Yes, arguably, as I pointed out, believe it or not, you have arguably described theft by intimidation. (Remember to say, "Please" in front of witnesses [half a dozen nuns would be good])

 

 

Anything can be argued.  That doesn't mean every argument is a worthwhile argument.  I could argue that you are defending your point so forcefully, that you are effectively bullying everyone here who doesn't agree with you by making us feel bad.  (I'm not arguing that)

But in the legal world, intimidation and threat under the criminal code have fairly specific meanings that are much more restrictive than the words and, "or you'll have to leave" doesn't count. 

In general, a "Threat" is a communicated intention to either harm or injure someone or damage their property.

and "Intimidation" is behavior that would cause a normal person to be afraid of injury or harm.

Neither of those would include a simple statement of non-injurious consequences for a failure to comply.

On 5/30/2019 at 4:32 PM, TAHAWK said:

The State of Ohio can take possession of the motor vehicle they catch you driving without liability insurance  and/or without  a license only because the Legislature passed an act expressly authorizing such otherwise criminal seizures of private property. What is your authority in your state to seize a "device" because a kid broke YOUR rule (your "wrongly")  by texting a buddy?  Likely, zero, zip.,nada. No authorizing statute for you.  (And, no, you are not "in loco parentis."  You have no parental rights.)

And no one can agree to the seizure  by contract without official approval of the state court with jurisdiction over minors .  Not the minor who is conclusively incompetent to enter into a contract without court approval in, IIRC, all states.  And no, not even the parents  who have no authority to contract on behalf of their children without court approval,  in all states IIRC.  Sure, in  99/100, one hopes, no criminal charge will be filed.  When  hope fails (hope being a questionable basis for assuming risk)  and 100 rolls up, the cops will reluctantly take you to jail. NOT a nice place, jail.  Unpleasant people; bad odors; loss of liberty. The sentence will probably be insignificant, unless it's not.   You will probably get out with out posting cash or surety bond.  The attorney's fees probably will be noticeable. The criminal record?  Your future in Scouting?  Media coverage (They are desperate, love bad stuff about Scout leaders, and "If it bleeds, it leads.")?

Ohio Revised Code § 2913.02. [fairly typical]

"No person, with purposes to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or otherwise exert control over property or services in any of the following ways:

• Without the consent of the owner, or the person authorized to give consent [by the court if the owner is a minor]..
• Beyond the scope of consent authorized by the owner or person authorized to give consent.
• By deception.
• By threat.
• By intimidation.

Notice that wholesome motives or ignorance of the law is not a defense.  "But" I'm a Scoutmaster and he broke my rule" is not worth the breath.

 

Quote

 

The Scoutmaster's authority to take a phone (this is not a seizure as seizures are permanent) can come from a couple of sources.

1. If you've done due diligence correctly, you've gotten parental approval in advance to temporarily collect devices or other possessions that aren't being used appropriately.  Even in states where children's ownership can't be taken without court authority, parental discipline extends to withholding a device owned by the minor and they can authorize a secondary party to enforce said discipline.  (though if it's owned by another parent it's different)

2. When you are sticking out your hand and saying "give me your phone please" and they give you the phone, you haven't taken it without consent.  They've given you the phone in exchange for continued participation in the event.  Now, if they tell you NO, and you take the phone, I'd agree that it's a different issue.

On 5/27/2019 at 8:20 PM, David CO said:

Summer camp isn't supposed to be prison camp. I would never keep a scout at camp against his will. Even if he didn't bring a cell phone to camp, I would let him borrow a leader's phone to call home and ask to be picked up. 

 

It's not a matter of keeping the kid against their will.  It's that when you have a nervous kid that is away from home for the first time, if you can keep them busy and having fun, they don't WANT to go home.  But if you let them start talking to mom and dad and thinking about how much they miss them, the kid that was doing just fine and having a great time the first 3 days is suddenly sobbing about how they hate everything and want to be picked up early.

It's the same reason that the camp doesn't allow parents to go back to the campsites on "parent night" after the fire-bowl.  The kids have a great time showing mom and dad everything, but if you give them a "goodbye" you get kids insisting they need to go home with them, whereas if the parents just don't see the kids again after fire-bowl, the issue never comes up.

BUT, if none of that works, and the kid is freaking out or melting down, they can call home from the main office or health lodge.

On 5/29/2019 at 10:57 AM, 69RoadRunner said:

I bought this one.  Thanks!!

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IBGJKW4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If you've never tried one before, be warned.  It's tough to sleep with them on the whole night at first.  It took me a good 2 weeks before I could tolerate having it on for more than 2-3 hours, and even now, about 1/3rd the time I wake up after 5-6 hours and have to release it.  But even with that, it's great.  It was SO nice to be able to wake up and walk without a limp for the first minute or two every morning.

Just remember with whichever one you choose, if you are camping and it's below about 50 degrees at night, take your fuel canister to bed with you and keep it inside your sleeping bag.  Makes it much easier to get it up and burning for the morning coffee/tea.

2 hours ago, chief027 said:

Does your unit allow cell phones at summer camp? Does your summer camp allow phones?

My Troop allows phones at summer camp but if the SPL sees one out he will take it. Are camps leaders guide says they would rather kids don’t bring cell phones (probably because of issues with homesickness, camp is only accessible by boat making midnight trips home a pain for everyone involved). We once had a kid who called home in the middle of the night and the parents showed up to camp the only problem was that night there was a thunderstorm so you couldn’t go on the boat so the scoutmaster, spl and I walked the kid up the “fire road” a steep access road that could only by used by a 4 x 4 with clearance or tractor. We ended up meeting the kids parents  on CA-168 (2 lane non divided mountain road). After that incident we are considering banning cell phones to prevent that incident. What do you guys think??

They aren't allowed for our boys and girls.  I know some kids sneak one in their bag and use it at night, but other than that, or for kids that have some specific medical need for it, they aren't allowed.

We also explicitly tell new scout parents that they should NOT plan on talking to their kids during the week of camp and if somehow the kid calls them, they should try and disengage and get off the phone ASAP because the longer the kid is on the phone, the more likely homesickness will become a problem.

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

In our troop we seem to have a paradox

• new leaders expect to get their guidance from more experienced leaders.  They don't got to training because they know the experienced adults will show them the ropes
• once untrained leaders get some experience they decide that they know the basics already and it's pointless to go spend a day taking training.

So, after a while you see a whole bunch on untrained, experienced leaders.

Ahh.  Yes, that would be problematic.  In my troop every adult is (at a minimum) required to do the position specific training.  But from there, there is little guidance provided to new adult leaders from experienced ones.  I think this probably is a part of why we do still have some issues getting adults to back off and let the kids actually run things.  We have a couple adult leaders that really think their job is to "keep the boys/girls on task".

13 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I wonder if this has something to do with how people learn today.  I get the sense that many people are ignoring the training.  Trained leader percentages are well below 50%.  The BSA materials are fully of information on patrol method, but people tend to ignore it.  So, I wonder if the BSA materials are trying counter that by focusing more on the theory thinking "if we explain it, then people will find more value in the training materials and attempt to learn them."

I think this is a function of stupid rules and inconsistent programming.  One can only read just so much stupidity before you starting thinking "Hell, if just this part that I've read is asinine, why bother with the rest?"

On 5/23/2019 at 9:25 AM, 69RoadRunner said:

As long as my plantar fasciitis stays away as well as the IT band issue that popped up 2 years ago during my son's hiking merit badge hikes, I'll be OK.  I've done a lot of leg work, and the IT band has been doing well.  It only came up during steep downhill sections.

 

If it starts to flare up again, consider getting a Strassburg Sock to take with you.  It's a lightweight version of a "night splint".  Keeping the achilles tendon stretched out during the night makes a huge difference for me on whether or not I have pain during the day.

Ok, I must be remembering what I was told at a University of Scouting then, rather than it being something I read because I know for sure that's what the instructor there was telling people.

Well, that's good, I never liked the whole idea of "You should try not to, but can if you must", because it always made me feel like I was being an ass when I would tell a scout they should ask someone else.

(Yes, our troop generally makes the scouts track adults down for a BOR)

On 5/16/2019 at 8:55 PM, Thunderbird said:

8.0.0.3 Composition of the Board of Review
Unit leaders [Scoumasters] and assistants [Assistant Scoutmasters] shall not serve on a board of review for a Scout in their own unit. Parents, guardians, or relatives shall not serve on a board for their child. The candidate or the candidate’s parent(s) or guardian(s), or relative(s) shall have no part in selecting any board of review members.

Is this a recent change?  Last I remember reading this I would have sworn that while the Scoutmaster was specifically not permitted to be on the Board of Review, the participation of ASMs was only discouraged and could be permitted if no other option was available.

9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

With some of the suits I have seen, that is a real concern even without stuff sewed onto them. Some of the incidents that have happened in the Olympics, i.e. suits splitting during a meet, have happened at the meets I guarded at.

Well, it's a little different at competitions.  They use a material that is ridiculously thin, and usually at least 1-2 if not 3-4 sizes smaller than what a person would normally wear.  And those suits are only expect to last a season or maybe two, and only for competition, not practice.

When I was a lifeguard and aquatic manager most of the women wore red running shorts over their swimsuits and the patch went on that.  I'd never suggest that someone try and attach a patch to a spandex women's swimsuit.  They are expensive and I'd be worried about the possibility of creating a weak spot in the material.  But since I'm not a tailor, I could be totally off about the likelihood of that causing a problem

9 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

but I have worked with them in competitive sports and their motivation to participate was more about fun than winning. The difference isn't obvious when the girls played girls, but quite obvious when they played the boys.

Barry

 

Huh.  They might have "said" they were just in it to have fun, but I wonder if that was just because that was the "proper" answer for girls.  Because all the girls I've met in competitive sports are every bit as driven as the boys, and often far more physically aggressive in the realm of fouls, body checks & underwater shenanigans (water polo).

41 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I have a question: when I was a scout, we were taught to turn the drowned person on their chest and compress the back a couple times to force some of the water out of the lungs. Now we are told to got strait to two breaths then CPR. What about the water in the lungs?

Barry

The one time I had to resuscitate anyone it was a little girl (about 9-10) who had been submerged for less than a minute or so.  She was unconscious and not breathing, but had a pulse.  When I gave her the two rescue breaths, it stimulated a convulsion/spasm in the lungs that expelled a large portion of the water and allowed her to start breathing again.

On 5/7/2019 at 6:07 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Compression Only is Friends and Family. Although it is mentioned in Basic Life Support. Sorry it's been a while since I taught Heartsaver so I need to review if they practice it or it's just mentioned.

 

Just remember, if it is a infant or child,  YOU MUST DO RESCUE BREATHS! ( MAJOR EMPHASIS). Compression only CPR is not effective with kids because the problem is most likely to be respiratory and not cardiac. Had a discussion about this with another instructor about it and had to pull out the actual article explaining the new science.

I didn't think this was new science. 

That's what they told me through 10 years of lifeguard training in the 90s.  It's the reason why you were always trained to give the first round of breathing and CPR with kids, THEN go call help, as opposed to with adults, you call help first, then start treatment.

With kids, it's often just a respiratory stoppage and the chances of actually getting them back up and running with an immediate intervention are much higher than with adults where all you are really hoping to do is keep their blood moving until paramedics arrive to take them for advanced help.