EagleInKY

Echoing my fellow posters. Yes, it's a game, but even games have a scientific aspect to them. I just got back from the first session of Woodbadge. A great deal of it centered around management and leadership theories that are being taught in classrooms and seminars around the world. Yes, it's a game. But, building a team to the point that they work together successfully takes more than luck.

Greetings one and all. I haven't been ignoring the posts, I've been at Woodbadge for the last few days. The first weekend was great (I used to be an Antelope, one of the rarer breeds, I do believe). So many questions and thoughts. Is the committee top-heavy? I don't think so. Each member has a specific responsibility. Most are reasonably involved. Some will probably not re-up this year, but there will be some new ones coming in from next year's crop of new scouts. SPL at the Committee meeting. The SPL doesn't attend the entire meeting. He joins for the portion where we're talking about activities. I do most of the talking, but that will probably vary from one boy to another. I think it's a great opportunity for them to deal with adults in a more professional environment. They also get a chance to see what types of questions come up. This only helps them better plan for the future. If the questioning or the pressure on the SPL ever became "out of line", I would put a halt to it. Regarding the 75%, you would have to understand that this would be the lowest turnout we've ever had. But, we're a small troop. We average probably 90-95% over the long run, and have had many campouts with 100% participation. We've always said that we knew it would drop as our numbers grew. There's just greater opportunities for conflicts. Regarding weather concerns. While there is a remote chance of weather being a problem, it is pretty slight. We should look at the cancellation policies just in case. The concerns are more around the timing than anything else. We have a few families that essentially leave town every time there is a day off of school. They're gone during every break, they're gone during a large portion of the summer. Therefore, if we ever schedule anything on a 3 day weekend or during a break, they complain. Barry - you're polar bear swim example is - I believe - an excellent example of how this should work. Gabe - I don't see the SPL presenting the plans to the committee as a "seeking approval" process as much as it is an informational process. His (and my) job is to inform the committee of the plans and answer any questions that may come up. If there are any obvious points we missed, we can take those away for follow-up. If there are any concerns or debate, I would see that happening more with the SPL out of the room. Thanks for all the great comments and ideas!

I had one of those camo hats for Philmont as well. I remember shooting the holes in them as well. I can't remember if this was the same year (I went 3 times in the 70's-80's), but we went up to the top of Baldy. I turned to put my back against the wind, and RIP!, my trusty camoflauge hat was ripped off my head, even with it tied under my chin. It flew until it was out of site. Finding myself hatless, I traded for a ballcap at the next staffed camp we came to.

Mark and the Man from Jersey had some good points. First, I agree with Mark that there is likely one of two potential scenarios. Either, it's a populatity contest, and your son isn't winning it. Or, there's been an issue with his performance in the past. I've seen examples of both in some troops. I was really proud of our SPL this year. He carefully thought out the position assignments and tried to match ability, interest and the will to do the work. Those who didn't get positions are ones who have shirked responsibility in the past. Hopefully, this "passing over" will motivate these lads to dedicate themselves the job a little more when their next opportunity comes around. Jersey and the others who mentioned the many (almost unlimited) opportunities are also correct. Instructors, ASPLs, Den Chiefs, etc. There are many positions where there can be multiple serving. Even the troop positions, if your troop is large enough.

We offer some MB training about twice a year. They are some of the bigger ones, such as First Aid. We wrap the entire theme of the month around it though. Older scouts help the instructor. PLC puts on competitions or demonstrations, etc. We also don't do 100% of it in the meeting. Some portions of it will be done in other settings. For example, the First Aid MB will also be part of the activities in that month's campout. I've seen Eagle Mill troops. That is definitely NOT what I see us as doing. Unfortunately, some believe that if you offer ANY MB training in a troop meeting, you're a MB Mill. I just don't see it that way.

OGE is right. If they don't want to go, don't make them. Hopefully, they'll see a neighboring troop hoist the trophy and decide they want to come back and challenge them again in the future. Coming up with other incentives, such as his pie example, also work well. Our PLC wanted to do a campout once where we didn't have any agenda. They said we always pushed the boys too hard. So, they scheduled a campout where they would just "hang out". Well, you can imagine, by Saturday afternoon it was "hey what is there to do! We're bored!!". I didn't do a thing. It served as a good lesson for them about planning fun activities.

STOP THE PRESSES! Meryln actually acknowledged the Boy Scouts were being discriminated against (in this case, at least). Where is old FOG when you want him? Thanks for at least being open-minded on this one.

Thanks for the good advice all. I'll answer the questions and give you an update. Size of troop - 15 # of SM/ASM - 1 SM & 2 ASM # of committee members 10 (representing most of the other families (not the SM/ASMs). I presented the plan as the SM. I wish I had brought the PLs in to do it back when they developed it. That's one of my learnings on this. A little more about the troop. We began 18 months ago. We stated from the beginning that we were going to work toward a boy-led troop. But we knew we couldn't start that way "out of the gate". So, we instituted two patrols with their own elected leaders. The ASM and I performed some of the duties of the SPL, while the PLs rotated or shared the other responsibilities. We always made sure to point out what were SPL responsilities, to help prepare them for the day we would have one. In August, the troop elected it's first SPL, who appointed his ASPL. Yes, the plan had the backing of the PLC, SM/ASMs and the Committee Chair. Actually, I think that's actually been part of the issue. Even though - personally - I didn't like the plan 100%, I came in defending it, because it is what the boys wanted to do. Therefore, some of the committee members felt I had my mind made up before ever talking to them. They don't understand that I'm there to support the will of the boys. Bob, I had a conversation similar to the one you described (only it was over the phone). He and I are very much aligned. I'm going to talk to him again today, hopefully he'll be able to reign things in. As for training, I've had it all, except Woodbadge (which I start at 8:00 AM tomorrow morning!). The ASMs have had Fast Start, YP, NLE and LST. A couple of the Committee members have had NLE, YP and SM LST. None have had Committee training (our district hasn't offered it in years). That's one of the things we really need to do. (Sounds like a potential ticket item to me - not to jump the gun, though). Quick update - I've tried to get everyone to just calm down and wait for the next committee meeting. They can make their decision there, and then we'll go with it - whichever way it turns out. Some feel that I forced my will without listening to them. My take on this is that they interpreted my support for the boys plans as having my mind made up. Part of this is my business background compared to those who might not be used to situations where people express their opinions openly and want to have open and honest discussion about it. I also think they don't want to openly "shoot the plan down" because they are not comfortable with the idea of telling the boys "no". Thanks for all the sage words of advice. I love this place! And to steal Barry's line, "I love this scouting stuff".

Acco - Thanks, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. Being this was the first time the PLC presented a plan, we didn't follow through as well as we should have. That's a learning for us during our next planning cycle. We never formally received a committee decision on approving or not approving. We informed them of the plan, and asked for their feedback. I think part of the problem is that they don't want to tell the boys "no". They would rather second-guess and tweak their proposals. This is part of the growth the committee needs to go through. FS - I agree. I've finally convinced them (in the past few months), that we can't schedule things around any individual. As we get larger - and the boys get older - we'll have more conflicts. Our first year, we had 100% participation on all outings. This year, the percentage has been closer to 90%. It's still great, and doesn't bother me at all. Thanks for your comments. Any more advice?

OGE - Our Troop Guide, who almost has some sort of packers paraphanalia with him, showed up Monday night with no packers gear. He's still in mourning.

I'm looking for some advice on how to best handle a minor situation with our troop committee. First, a little background. We have a relative new troop (1 1/2 years), we are aggressively moving to being truly a boy-led troop. Things are going well. The PLC takes their job seriously and are getting better at making plans and running the troop. We have very involved, supportive parents and an active troop committee. However, the members of the troop committee are struggling to understand their role. The PLC planned a trip on the last weekend before Christmas break. It's a 5 hour trip, and they'll be staying overnight, they'll get to see some cool stuff at a museum and work on a Merit Badge. The boys are pretty excited about it. The trip is relatively expensive, but not extraordinary for the financial status of our members. The plans were presented to the committee two months ago, and have been discussed now at three committee meetings. While there was a little discussion about the timing and cost, no one was adamantly opposed to it. While polling the families to get a hard count for reservations, a couple of families started pushing back. They started giving suggestions for alternative weekends and such. I also think some think it's too expensive. I believe that if we end up going, at least 75% of the troop will go. Which is fine. We usually have nearly 100% at all activities, so it may seem low to some of the parents. My opinion is that the committee's job is to approve or disapprove the PLC's plan, not to edit, re-write or otherwise change the plan. If they don't want us this trip at this time, they should simply tell the PLC that and why. Then, throw it back to the PLC to adjust its plans. Am I correct in that assumption? Have any of you had similar situations?

I'm in agreement with the statement that the single most important factor is the quality of the leaders. But I do believe there are other factors that impact the quality of the program, just not as profoundly. A quality leader can overcome many of these other distractions, a poor one cannot. I also believe that there are two types of good leaders - Those who have been trained and understand the program and know how to execute it. The second is the accidental leader. I've run across a few in my years. I don't think they realize they are a good leader, or even why they are. They just happen to be. Finally, on the "fun" note. My first Boy Scout experience was with a "fun" troop. They were a good size troop and had lots of fun. But, when rocky times hit, they had no foundation to rely on. The troop crumbled and fell apart. Building a troop on the foundation of a solid scouting program is paramount. The fun should come naturally.

Ed, The program is identical. The delivery of the program is the difference. I agree. Aren't we just talking semantics? (Local program, delivery of the program, etc.) Whatever you want to call it, I believe this is what Bob was trying to say.

I believe your assumption is correct.

Ed, With all due respect, I believe you're misrepresenting what Bob is trying to say. I've had my disagreements with Mr. White, but I tend to agree with him on this. The Aims and Methods of Scouting are the same, no matter what. This can be considered the national "program", if you will. In that sense, yes, the program is the same, no matter where you go in the BSA. (Or, at least, it is supposed to be). Secondly, each unit attempts to deliver the methods to the boys in order to achieve the aims. Let's consider the outdoor program for a moment. A troop in a disadvantaged area will likely not go on a High Adventure trip each year, but they may work in a field trip to a local zoo or park. They may not be able to go to the best national parks with the best campsite facilties and hiking trailes, but they do manage to go camping a few times a year at their local council's camps (which are offered for free or at a low cost to units). They may not go winter survial camping (because they don't have the proper gear) or on a snow-sking trip, but they do go out to a local park for sledding and cook smores over a charcoal grill. Now, are these troop's programs the same? NO. Are they both using the outdoor method to achieve the aims of scouting? YES. Different "program" at a local level, but still following the national "program". I believe, with good (and creative) leadership, the methods of scouting can be used at any income level to provide a quality scouting program.

Put me in the "where there's a will there's a way" camp. I believe the full uniform should be the goal. While some may never get there due to various reasons, we should always set the standard as being the full, correct uniform. What constantly bugs me is that there is so much passion around the uniform method, but we never have these debates regarding other methods. For example, there are costs to the advancement method. Maybe not as great, but they are there. There are costs to the Outdoor program method. These costs can greatly outweigh the cost of the uniform. For example, in the past two years I've probably spent $100 on uniform supplies for me and my son. We've easily spent 10 times that much on camping supplies and activities. People grumble about spending probably less than $50 per year on average for uniforms, but don't question buying sleeping bags, water bottles, backpacks, tents, led flashlights, etc. And this doesn't include the costs of the activities themselves! With BadenP's extreme poverty situation being the exception, I see scouts willing to spend gobs of money on the other methods, while only giving lip service to the uniform.

Toot!?!? Mark, that is too funny. That should be submitted to the Hall of Shame. Your interpretation is not that uncommon. Most new scouts end up asking what the "two" means, and they almost always thought it was "to". And that's my two cents worth!

Do It. It builds goodwill with the community, the school and the principal. When someone critizes the quality of the work to the principal, he'll just say "the 2nd Graders in the Cub Scouts did it for us for free, wasn't that great?".

You guys Rock! Thanks for the links. These are some great references.

Gabe - I know I already posted this on another thread, but I thought I'd restate it here to "close the loop". I believe that supporting Get Out The Vote campaigns, from a non-partisan standpoint, would be fully supported by most as a valid project for 2nd class, Star or Life. I'm not sure how it would fit as an Eagle project, but would entertain ideas. Legal rules around non-profits prohibit 501©3 organizations from endorsing a candidate or a party (but they can support a "position"). Since most of us fall into that category (since we're sponsored by churches or other non-profit groups), we must adhere to those rules.

Cool! Your scoutleader was on Cheers??? Did he always sit at the end of the bar on campouts? Just kidding. Welcome to the forum. I hope you find who you're looking for.

I searched high and low for a color guard etiquette handbook and struck out (this was over a year ago before I joined this forum). Just like the scouts have guidebooks for other things, I wish they would have one for this area.

Welcome to the campfire. Hope we keep the flame burning for you.

Eamonn, You might not have understood my question, but you answered it very well. ;-) I don't see the role of the PL or the SPL being that of the Punisher. I absolutely agree. They are leaders, not punishers. Our PLC has sometimes gone into discussions about "what are we going to do about this or that?". I try to get them to think about ways to encourage good behavior instead of punishing bad behavior. Within a patrol there is at times conflict, how the PL manages it or deals with it could be a sign of how good a job he has been done in passing on the skill of leadership. I like the way you put this. PLs and SPLs are going to deal with conflict (probably some form of it on every outing). Dealing with that conflict in a productive, scout-like way, is a sign of a well-trained, confident leader. If their methods don't work (whether it's due to poor methods or the misbehaving lad), then they need to seek help from a more senior leader.

Beaver - Good catch. I guess I should have said that I "always" attend. The ASMs usually attend (they all have crazy travel schedules). The SPL (and sometimes the ASPL) attends at the beginning when we talk about activities, but doesn't stay for the whole meeting.