Readers Write for Monday, Oct. 26

BOY SCOUT POLICY

No youth is ever to be alone with adult leader

After reading about a former Boy Scout leader now accused of molesting a number of boys (Star Tribune, Oct. 22), I felt compelled to offer to help educate parents whose children participate in the programs of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) at any level.

I am a volunteer leader with a Scout troop, and I have four boys in the program at various levels. I came through the ranks as a boy and found it to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.

One of the primary youth safety rules taught both to youth members and to all adult leaders is that no boy is ever to be alone with any adult leader (unless that leader is the boy's own parent). Period. This rule, the "two-deep leadership" rule, has been in place for many years, and was designed both to protect the youth members from harm and to protect the adult volunteers from the possibility of false accusations.

Parents, please remember that the BSA requires "two-deep leadership" at all events and outings. Please remind your boys of those facts, and don't be afraid to ask them about which leaders were at each event or meeting, or if they are ever left alone with a single leader.

The Scouting program has been a positive influence on the lives of tens of millions of young people in our nation since its founding nearly 100 years ago. I hope that the actions of the accused do not cause you to dismiss the program. Scouting made me the man I am today. In my opinion, there is no finer leadership training program for youth in our state, in our country, or in the world.

ANDREW JAMES RIEMER,

LESTER PRAIRIE, MINN.

She is making choices that make sense to her. She is authentic in her decisionmaking. She supports a public option.

I've known Maureen Reed for less than six months, but I understand where she's coming from, and I trust her.

MARY SMITH, ST. CLOUD

Instant-runoff voting

Why St. Paul shouldn't rush to approve it

It is unfortunate that the Star Tribune chose to endorse instant-runoff voting for St. Paul (editorial, Oct. 22) without even discussing its drawbacks. There are three simple reasons to oppose IRV.

First, in St. Paul's current nonpartisan system, we always produce a winner who received a majority of the vote. In IRV as each candidate is dropped, voters' second choices are redistributed, but in actual practice about 15 percent of voters make no second choice.

As an example in 10 of the 11 IRV contests in San Francisco so far, the winner did not have a majority of those who voted that day, only of those still being counted. Statistically those voters who don't fill in second choices are disproportionately lower income, seniors or come from communities of color.

Second, other communities that have switched to IRV are now having buyer's remorse. Cary, N.C., has dropped IRV, and Aspen, Colo., and Tacoma, Wash., have repeal on the ballot this year, Tacoma after having spent $1.6 million on voter education on IRV last year.

Third, IRV makes it impossible to have an informed electorate without big money. In St. Paul, because we had a primary, the two mayoral candidates both have access to free media even though one has little resources compared with the other. In Minneapolis, thanks to IRV the mayor has been able to avoid all debate, and there is no access to the press for the other 10 candidates. This may be a record low turnout in Minneapolis.

CHUCK REPKE, ST. PAUL;

COCHAIR, NO BAD BALLOTS COMMITTEE

Copyright law

As Fairey knows,

it protects artists

Copyright law protects the creators and/or owners of photographs, books, paintings -- things that can be copied. It gives artists such as Shepard Fairey and Mina Leierwood and companies such as the Associated Press (which arrange with their photographers to relinquish their copyright to all images) offensive legal standing to pursue anyone who makes a copy without permission.

Shepard Fairey knew where the Obama image he used in his HOPE poster came from and he understood copyright law. He is a trained commercial artist. People paid him for the posters.

He willingly violated copyright law to make money. He could have asked permission of AP to use its image. If AP officials had refused or he didn't like their terms, he could have found a similar image of Obama and gotten permission. He knew better.

Leierwood, in her Oct. 21 column "A danger to our creativity," is suggesting a dangerous legal precedent be established, one that would adversely affect artists. Without copyright law, her artwork, indeed anyone creating or owning artwork, could find their work on a billboard, in a poster, or pasted on a can of beans -- used commercially for profit as Fairey used the AP photo -- without the creator or owner giving permission and possibly being paid.

Copyright law helps defend artists' rights. AP is within its rights to sue Fairey.

TERRY FAUST, MINNEAPOLIS