gcnphkr

Now doesn't this look better? http://members.cox.net/jtreat/images/TrainedOnTop.jpg

Here are some pictures. http://www.scoutstuff.org/BSASupply/imgviewer.aspx?img=627sup_is It could be that the emblem will stay below the badge of office. But I sit here with long sleeve shirt and emblem in hand and I can tell you that no one in their right mind will put it there. It is the same width as the loop for holding the sleeve which hides the lettering very well. Here is a picture: http://members.cox.net/jtreat/images/Arm_Pocket.jpg . Needless to same I'll wait to put this patch on, but if it does end up under the pocket then it will never go on this uniform. (This message has been edited by jet526)

"No Scout under 18 can ever tent alone" I have heard this, but I've not found the source for it. As far as I can tell it is not in the Guide to Safe Scouting. Nor does the new T9a requirement as it is possible to use the buddy system with separate tents. Please help me out on this.

You can sew the Arrowhead under the pocket. It will be covered when the sleeves are rolled up and the loop will hang over it when they are not. Hopefully they will have a guide out soon or at least an inspection sheet. BTW, I wore the long sleeves around this afternoon (104). It was hot, but not any hotter than a t-shirt.

Regarding the Trained Leader Emblem. On the long sleeve shirt there is no place below the emblem of office. Based on one picture online it has been relocated to the pocket flap. There is absolutely no place to put the Commissioner Arrowhead below the pocket. It would fit above the pocket if they don't wear unit numbers. I guess that would be a good thing. It bothers me when a commissioner wears unit numbers it makes it look like he only serves that unit.

I was down at Council today for a NYLT followup meeting and went in to see the uniform. The hat is great, I don't see any problem getting it adopted by the troop. The socks are great as well and a much better price. They only had the canvas pants. About the same weight as the old ones, nice color. Not having the zippers on the bottom leg is unfortunate. But considering the number of scouts that I have that have worn out the the heels of their switchbacks it is not a bad thing. I may put zippers in. The pants do have elastic in the waste, so there is a couple of inches of give and the scout with a 28 in waist will likely be good up through 32 if they leave enough cloth to let the legs out as he grows. The belt is very nice. I don't know if it will unravel like the old one as an emergency source of string (that probably dates me as I doubt the current scouts even know about that). The shirt is not bad. I had no problem rolling up the sleeve while wearing it. I wish it would have been as light as the activity shirt and included the vents. But the long sleeve makes sense out here in Arizona where protection from the sun is as important as protection from the cold up north. Once you look at the arm pocket and realize what the designers were thinking it makes sense. It was designed to hold an iPod. It has a tiny hole in the sleeve to pass the hear bud wire through. Once the scouts saw this they were sold. The other pockets are not a billowy as I expected, proper pressing should keep them under control. I was pleased enough with it that I went ahead and bought a complete uniform. With standard patches (why can't they sew that purple spot on for us?) and fat guy tax it came in at $120. Too much for me to even suggest that the troop do an immediate adoption. The look is close enough that mixing uniforms should not be an issue. But there are elements that are so good (hat, belt and socks < $30) that I think they will get adopted very quickly. Oh. The new Trained patch is tiny, almost as small as an untrimmed square knot. There were no red shoulder loops available at all which makes me think that will be a required change in the not too distant future. At $2 a pair, I might just suggest that we add an additional $5 to our 2009 registration and then purchase a set of loops and numbers for everyone at recharter time. Finally, I don't see putting my 1972 arrow ribbon on the unbuttonable button.(This message has been edited by jet526)

John-in-KC, I hope this wasn't July 26th. If it was, I'll be happy to have a talk with one of the tykes. Although, I have a hard time picturing him voluntarily being up at 5:30 AM.

I was surprised to see that a couple of people listed Silveraxe instead of checking NYLT. Unless the name is used by other counsels, Silveraxe has used the NYLT syllabus for a few years now. I understand this was the last summer they will call it that. It's not a magic bullet, but it does seem to help. I'm hoping that in addition to have a scouts as participants that I can get at least one to commit to being on staff each year. From what I can tell, spending a week as a Troop Guide at NYLT is a great learning experience.

ursus: This is were we take the grammar back up again. You may ignore it if you like. As written: The sash is to be worn at Order of the Arrow functions and special Scouting activities, when members need to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services. BWWW is correct that here is a common error in the sentence. What to do about it? BWWW believes the correction should be something like this: The sash is to be worn at Order of the Arrow functions and special Scouting activities [and], when members need to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services. I contend that it is like this: The sash is to be worn at Order of the Arrow functions and special Scouting activities, when members need to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services. So, for starters, both remove the comma. The clause is essential; it changes the meaning of the sentence so it should not have the coma. Note that I am now finished. BWWW must add the additional conjunction "and" in order to get to his meaning. Next, it is often useful to speak the sentence. The spoken sentence is unambiguous. Finally, the sentence begins with an imperative, "The sash is to be worn". It does not say, "The sash may be worn". It is not optional, something left up to the wearer. It must be worn at OA functions. I think everyone can agree on that. But must the sash be worn at a court of honor? Only if there is a need "to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services".(This message has been edited by jet526)

"Weve defined the actual rule based upon the interpretation of the finest of grammar and punctuation, so now what?" No, there is a lot more we can do in the area of parsing the grammar and punctuation. But pointless. So now what? How to apply it? Keeping in mind that a scout is courteous, it would be inappropriate to tell a scout about to be honored for earning his Eagle (or the scouter at round-table, or the scout at a troop meeting for that matter) that he shouldn't wear the OA sash. If he asks, absolutely you should tell him. During a uniform inspection, certainly. It is a uniform but the scouts are not in the military. There are no BSA sanctioned Uniform Commissioners whose task it is to enforce uniform protocols. If he wore it to his SMC or BOR I would mention the instruction. He probably just doesn't know, but I would then leave it him to decide if he wanted to follow that instruction.

Yes, I inherited this. I've been working on it for about a year and a half now. I've got it so that I feel good about the current T-2-1 program. Are they perfect? No, that comes with repeated use. I'm working on getting the patrols to utilize skills in their games. But a patrol would rather play basketball than bring the material to splint 8 arms. "Steal the Bacon" takes no planning, having a contest involving lashings does. When I try to steer them to something than might require a little effort I get cries of "I thought we were boy led!" Unfortunately the method this troop has used (until this year) to teach first aid was to have the first year scouts take the First Aid MB at summer camp. The class met for an hour a day for five days with 30+ scouts. I'm not convinced you can get through the T-2-1 first aid in 5 hours, certainly not with 30 scouts. "Of course, the BoR should be able to see Scouts lacking these abilities are not prepared for advancement." I'm not sure how they can do this. They can't retest them. The book is signed off. I know the Advancement Guidebook and the Committee Guidebook both discuss that the board determines if the scout is ready to advance, but it does not tell how to do this or give specific reasons not to pass a scout. I really don't know how you would do this for Star or Life. Most of these skills are T-2-1 or in a Merit Badge that is even more inviolate. The scout may have received it at a MB mill, but you are stuck with it as far as I can tell.(This message has been edited by jet526)

This is difficult. I very much want to be defensive, at the same time I want to make sure that the program is the best that it can be. But getting there is not a clear or simple path. I don't mean to argue, so thank you for your patience. You do not let your patrol leaders train and check off advancement? The SM/ASM Specifics training has video modules showing just that scenario. It's part of boy-led/boy-enpowered. You will notice it that video that the PL knows how to tie the knot and is able to teach an other scout how to do the same. What do you do if the PL does not know how to tie the knot? Do you say, "You are a First Class scout, you should know how to tie the knot so do you best and then sign them off when they know what you know"? I don't think so--that doesn't empower the scout, it just frustrates him. I need to sit down with that PL, teach them how to tie the knot, how to teach others to tie and then have them teach the skill to their patrol. Page 124 of the SM Handbook says, "Scouts in regular patrols and Venture patrols might be tested by adult troop leaders or by their own patrol leaders, troop guides, or another junior leader (i.e. SPL, ASPL, Instructors, JASM, etc.), provided that the boy leader has already earned the rank the Scout is aiming for." I agree, but that assumes that the Scout learned the skill in the first place. What I'm trying to say is I have Life Scouts who cannot build a fire, bandage a sprained ankle or stop an arterial bleed. Someone signed them off on all of these things. I can't take their T-2-1 away from them and I can't stop them from earning their Eagle. But it would be irresponsible for me to allow them to sign off other scouts on S2d-f, S6a and F8b. I can provide them an opportunity to learn these skills and create a culture were these skills are regularly used. Making sure that PLs know these skills is only a step in the process of getting to were the troop needs to be.If you had a Star Scout leading a patrol who did not know how to lash a square lashing would you have him teach lashings to Second Class scouts and sign them off? Would you climb a tower they built?

Why not let the boys write a job description for the SPL to include his required/expected level of participation? Then they are selecting the candidate pool.That is what they have done.

So, are you saying that any boy should be eligible to be the SPL? The Scoutmaster's Handbook states that "Each troop sets its own requirements" for the SPL. The scouts determined these requirements years ago and are free to change them. All I am doing to seeing that they are implemented. Requiring the training prior to election rather than after would be the only change, and that bit of timing is not particularly important to me, it just makes it easier on the SPL in that the out going one is doing the training and not the new one. If a Patrol elects a PL who you determine isn't qualified to check off on rank requirements, then how is the Patrol method going to be applied? You have effectively removed the PL's ability to lead and train his patrol. What message is being sent? What message? That you should know a skill if you want to test people on it. I'm not sure how that is bad. Looking over the Patrol Leader Handbook I see that the Patrol Leader is to "Encourage patrol members to complete their own advancement requirements". What I don't find is anything stating or implying that they would be testing the members in the patrol. Of the four steps of advancement Learning is primarily the PLC's responsibility (either within the patrol or as a troop), Testing is the Scoutmaster's, Review is the committee's and Recognition it the troop's. I will not preventing anyone who shows himself to be proficient at a skill from testing that skill. All he needs to do is show me what he knows. How will boys learn from their mistakes to make good judgement calls if we only give them a "winning" slate to choose from? It seems to me there is a big difference between eliminating obvious bad choices and ensuring only good ones.

jmwalston, thank you. I do appreciate what you are saying but I do have a could of issues with what you wrote."Only allow fully trained ASMs or scout leaders who have gone though the extended TLT training (so I know they have the skills themselves) sign off on skill requirements." Bad idea. It is adding a requirement to rank. How does this add a requirement to rank? From the Advancement Guide: The Boy Scout is tested. A Scout may be tested on rank requirements by his patrol leader, Scoutmaster, assistant Scoutmaster, a troop committee member, or a member of his troop. The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates. The Scouts merit badge counselor teaches and tests on the requirements for merit badges. The determination of who is qualify is up to the Scoutmaster. I cannot prevent a qualified scout from being a patrol leader, but I can certainly can make it so that they are not permitted to conduct the testing. That all this various classes of people may do this does not mean that I am required to qualify them to do it, otherwise I would be forced to allow a brand new scout to test and sign himself off on any requirement. "Finally, no more SPL or ASPLs who phone it in. If they are too busy with football, track, band, swimming, or the school musical to be at every event then they don't need to be in those positions. Let their football, track, band, etc. coaches and teachers let them out of those activities if they want to do both." Bad idea. Same reason as above. And it means that it is no longer a boy-led troop. How is that? How can a SPL run "all troop meetings, events, activities, and the annual program planning conference" and "the patrol leaders' council meeting" if he is not there? If "the troop determines the requirements for patrol leaders, such as rank and age" why would the troop not have this same ability to determine the requirements for the SPL? I would not remove a SPL from office for missing an event, but he should understand that he is making a commitment to the troop to be there just like the coach is expecting him to be there at the game. Life gives you choices, no one is forced to be a SPL. I don't see how this would make it so that the troop is not boy-led.(This message has been edited by jet526)

The two references mean vastly different things. To me that is a significant change hence my wonderment. How are they vastly different? As I pointed out in an earlier post, the 1977 handbook states that the sash is to be worn at special functions "only when members need to be identified for rendering special services". The only significant change is the removal of a parenthetical clause that resulted in an ambiguous pronoun.

We will see. They have not been discussed with everyone. Among those I have discussed items with the younger scouts (predictably) have been in favor, the older scouts have been mostly okay with things but with a level of apathy normal in 15-17 year-olds. I'll meet with the SPL and ASPLs this weekend to go over the agenda so we can be on the same page before the conference and we will make any modifications needed.

I washed my sash from my youth and it must have shrunk because it barely makes it across the chess and under my left arm pit.

Of course kilts would look best with the old knee-highs with garters and tabs. Which would enable us to get rid of the silly shoulder loops.

Our annual planning conference is coming up in two weeks, troop elections are a month after that. I've been thinking about the current program an ways to make it better. So here are some things I'm thinking of doing. Free up at least 4 months for just patrol activities. The patrol leader will be expected to lead his patrol in planning and executing these activities. Change the way we do elections and leader transition. In the past we have the patrols form (they don't change much, but there is always a few that move to a different patrol) and then they elect their patrol leader with the only eligibility requirement being that the patrol leader be at least First Class. After the election we have our TLT. This results in a couple of issues. First, the patrols generally just have the patrol leader be the scout that needs the POR credit the most and he then ends up just doing time. The training is held so soon after the election that the new SPL does not have the time to be ready to lead most of it, leaving it to me to cover. Fortunately, I've now 3 NYLT trained scouts, including one that was on staff so I'll be having them do most of the course this time. I'm thinking I want to change this to having the TLT as well as some supplemental skills training for the scouts who want to become patrol leaders before the election. These trained scouts would then run for the position of patrol leader with the entire troop. It would work similar to a caucus. Each scout would pick the patrol that has the patrol leader that they want. Each patrol would have to have at least 6 members and would be limited to no more than 9 (I'm not sure of a fair way to cap it though). I think this may motivate the patrol leaders better. Another fortunate thing is I'll have about twice as many scouts needing a POR than there are available, which should put pressure on them to do a better job. I need to figure out how to work ASM, patrol advisor assignments. I only have 5 or 6 that are fully trained and willing to be patrol advisors and I really need 8 or 9. Change the PLC meetings. They currently meet for an hour before the committee meetings, which forces them to finish in an hour. I'd like to move the meeting to a different night, start with a half hour "Greenbar Patrol" meeting to help teach them how to conduct patrol meetings and to give them a way to try out new games and ways to teaching skills. Then allow them to have their hour planning for the month ahead. Have the PLC plan the month using the Troop Program Features. I suggested this to them last year, but it feel on deaf ears. I really think this would make their life easier (the ideas are there, they just need to pick and implement) and the program better. Troop campouts. Spread them out. I'm not sure that 100 yards is practical (I figure that would require about 14 acres for the troop) but at least 100 yards from the trailer. The more they have to carry over a longer distant the more they will prioritize what they need. Discourage the use of stoves except were LNT or fire restrictions require them. The campout must include some skill related activity, a hike with map and compass, pioneering project, collecting plant samples, etc. Either find a way to make the patrol time during the troop meeting effective or devote one troop meeting night a month to just patrol meetings with perhaps an inter-patrol competition involving the month's theme at the end. Only allow fully trained ASMs or scout leaders who have gone though the extended TLT training (so I know they have the skills themselves) sign off on skill requirements. Finally, no more SPL or ASPLs who phone it in. If they are too busy with football, track, band, swimming, or the school musical to be at every event then they don't need to be in those positions. Let their football, track, band, etc. coaches and teachers let them out of those activities if they want to do both. So, are these reasonable? I'm sure there are other things I've not thought of, or have left out because we are already doing them. Anything that you can think of would be helpful. Most of this is from reading around here and the PTC's Strictly for Scoutmasters course. The Scoutmaster Handbook is helpful, and I will be rereading it again this week, but as I recall it tends to be more general, leaving it to the scoutmaster to figure out how to do the actual implementation of the program. Thank you.

If the paragraph had contained only the first sentence then I would agree with you. But that last sentence, "This is to be done only when members need to be identified for rendering special services" makes it clear that it is only to be worn when there is a need to identify the members because they are serving in a special way. The antecedent of "this" is "[wearing the sash at] special Scout functions such as courts of honor". The statement prohibits the wearing of the sash when special service is not being given.

Plaid is for Celts. Here is the kilt for today's man Be fore warned, not the best language on the site, but nice kilts. (This message has been edited by jet526)

The OA Sash is a symbol of the honor that ws bestowed upon a Scout by his fellow scouts why should he not wear it with pride. It should be worn with pride, but when appropriate.(This message has been edited by jet526)

The current handbook has: "at OA functions and special Scouting activities, when members need to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services."

BTW. It is good to see that you are in a troop that at least has you have a merit badge sash. It has become as optional as the hat (and seemingly pants) in far too many troops.