Stosh

Perhaps? It ain't popcorn if it ain't dripping in butter.

It was suggested by someone that certain things should be ignored and that scouts and scouters should focus on more important things like selling popcorn. Isn't selling popcorn a higher priority than some mom legally breastfeeding her child? It isn't a legal issue, nor is it an ethical issue and it certainly isn't a moral issue. So get out and sell some popcorn!

What it boils down for me @@David CO is the fact that the committee is responsible for making sure the program from BSA is being promoted in the troop, not to make up additional hoops for the boys to jump through. If, however, there is going to be some sort of standard applied, it needs to be started at a specific time and all the boys that are under the old "rules" are grandfathered in on those rules rather than at the last minute dumping a big surprise on some 17 year old boy to make sure he doesn't get his earned Eagle. That would be the "reasonableness" of a rule. Sure it might be a very good rule, but dumping on a kid at the last minute really raises major red flags when it comes to asking the question Why? Sure the rule was applied "equally" but that leaves a major discrepancy when a father has an 11 year old son and another a 17 year old and completed his requirements for Eagle. There really isn't any equality under those conditions.

My scouts get cut a lot of slack when they are unfamiliar or simply don't know the rules. However, once they have been informed, then it's an issue of person choices as to whether or not they wish to follow them. I find that certain laws tend to be moral in nature, murder, stealing, lying, and others are simply unsafe, speeding, etc It's okay to suffer the consequences, but once the slippery slop has been addressed it is often difficult to stop or even slow the momentum. I guess I'm not ready to introduce the boys to any slippery slopes. A safety expert once put it: for every unsafe action, 300 times on average they will get away with it. 29 times someone will get hurt, and 1 time someone will die. He then passed around a bowl of candy and said 300 of the pieces are candy, 29 are strong laxatives and one is a poison, help yourself. It was really strange now no one took any candy. He emphasized that there really was one piece of poison and that knowing that, why would anyone want to take a chance, but that really doesn't stop people from doing unsafe things......even when they know better. Add to that any self-justification dynamics and there ya have it..... the slippery slope.

Naw, I was creative. Twisted knee on one and 10 stitches on the foot the other. No, I was not wearing shoes and yes, I was at a beach, and no I did not cut it on any man made items.

I played Little League baseball as a kid. Missed two seasons because I was on crutches. Neither injury was due to Little League. They were both related to camping outings, one with the family and the other with Scouts. Maybe my parents should have re-evaluated what I was up to????

What's the issue here? Drinking alcohol is legal if one is over 21 years of age. We don't shield our youth against seeing dad down a brewsky after mowing the lawn. Smoking cigarettes is legal for anyone over 21 years of age. We don't shield our youth against seeing mom or dad puffing on a smoke. Breastfeeding an infant is legal for anyone regardless of age. Why is this all of a sudden a big issue? Maybe we ought to simply look the other way and worry more about selling popcorn.

Looking the other way is not a proper way to view the Oath and Promise when one sees one ignoring it. Ever SM is responsible for checking whether or not a Scout is adhering to Scout Spirit. It is NOT discourteous or inappropriate for a Scouter to point this out as to why he is not going to approve Scout Spirit.

Sectarian, separatist and discriminatory imply a fragmenting of society, nationalistic implies a unification dynamic. As noted I said BSA, not WOS. On a unit level nationalistic is merely optional.

BSA has always been sectarian, separatist, discriminatory in it's policies. Why would a unit not be as well. The World Brotherhood of Scouting is really just political spin because in practice it is not always a true reality of what's occurring. Like every other national or international organizations out there, there are rogue groups cropping up all over the place.

A organ grinder's monkey can be very well trained and at the top of his profession, too.

Just because someone can "get away with it", doesn't mean under the principles of Scout Spirit they should. People drive 5 mph over the speed limit all the time, they have accidents and kill people all the time. Even if one death could have been prevented by people driving under the speed limit it would be worth it. The CO signs a legal charter/agreement/covenant and says that on their honor they will uphold their end of the deal. National BSA is only interested in accumulating numbers of units and members, they don't have the time to check up on whether or not everyone is honoring their pledge. Obviously not everyone is as honorable as the next. How not honorable does one have to get to then be defined as dishonorable? 5 over? 6 over? 7 over? 8 over? Well, when they went 1 over they were speeding. After that it really doesn't make much difference does it.

I got my brand new red Jac-Shirt for $19 on some special deal BSA was running. Otherwise I have a second red coat that passes very nicely as well. That one cost me a bit more.....

One has to have the backing of the whole group(s). There will always be those that pull the plug on any well organized process. I would say, go ahead with the paper work as usual, collect the money, and when the boy shows up at summer camp two hours away without his medical form, he can sit in the health lodge until either 1) his parents bring up the paperwork, or 2) they come and take him home. The rule was not set by you, it was set by the camp. Don't shoot the messenger, have little cards with the name and phone number of the camp director to hand out to all the parents who want to ignore deadlines.

As long as this issue has been volleyed back and forth, polarizing camps are being formed, maybe it ought to be moved over into I&P so it will die on it's own merits.

Is this one of the made up rules as we go along? All one need to is say, no, I do not wish to provide that information. And they can do that right after the first request was made.

I spent my first BSA summer camp on crutches for a bummed up knee. Wear a brace to this day. I got along just fine. Few of the activities were restricted, but I don't remember it as being a big deal at the time. Missed out on swimming, canoeing, etc. but the rest of the camp was okay. No special treatment or golf carts. I generally was the last to hobble in on the activity, but I survived.

@@Hedgehog Excellent discussion! @Stosh, I think our definitions are more similar than different. When I talk about "what needs to be done", I'm talking about goal setting. And that's where I define it squarely in a management position. Leadership can be an individual setting a goal ("I'm going to organize the troop gear") I'm going to do something and I don't need anyone to follow? How is that leadership? Organizing a task is not people driven, it is task/goal driven. or a group goal ("Our patrol is going to teach lashing skills") Whether anyone shows up or not? Maybe no one shows up because the boys don't need another task, all they need is someone to help them directly, person to person, Management is "We have to arrange the troop gear because the ASM told us to." Correct! Deciding "How to do it" can be leadership How to do a task is simply management style. It can be done by an individual (asking others to help him because they agree the task is important) Leaders don't ask people to follow, people follow leaders because they are leading. or a group (deciding who will teach which lashing based on knowledge, who will get the rope and sticks, who will come up with ideas of what to make using lashings). Management is "the ASM told me to get you to help with the gear and gave me the diagram of how it should be arranged" or "the SPL said to build tripods using the lashings described in the book because that is easy." Getting it done can be management in telling people what to do or it can be leadership in inspiring people to do the task. I think you're confusing motivational management with leadership. Motivational management ranges from telling someone what to do down to coercing someone to do it or carrot and stick, threats, punishment or any one of a number of other motivational management techniques. How many people are there because they like the leader and will do it whether they are asked or not? That's not motivational management, that's leadership. Management is telling people what to do to get the job done, but leadership is teaching, mentoring, inspiring, encouraging, reassuring, pushing, praising, helping and cajoling people as they get the job done. Nope, that's motivational management. The same task can be management or leadership. Leaders don't do tasks, they lead people. Managers do tasks. Quote Boy needs to progress so it will look good for the troop to have everyone at FC. How is that helping the boy? It may or it may not. A leader will first ask if the BOY wants to advance. If not, THERE IS NO TASK NEEDING TO BE DONE. I guess I wasn't clear on the "need." I think that some boys who want to advance are falling through the cracks because nobody is paying attention to them. That's because they aren't being lead. No leader is taking care of them. There is no leader paying attention. This isn't about numbers, this is about the boys feeling like they are part of the program. In a word, they need a little guidance, No, they need a leader that cares about them, genuinely wants them to be a part of the leader's group, and makes the boy feel he's part of the group of other followers. They don't need guidance, they need to feel cared for. Quote All tasks again, we're still talking management. I see taking initiative and coming up with ideas and working with others to implement those ideas as leadership. I see helping others with THEIR ideas and working to see to it THEY are successful with their ideas, supporting them, keeping them focused and feeling part of the greater whole is leadership. The TASKS ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE PEOPLE to a leader. Quote A servant leader doesn't need to be "in charge" of anything, that's a management dynamic/directive. True. But giving someone a position of responsibility based on what they are doing is an encouragement to keep doing that. Especially when there are others who have patches but do not take responsibility (another issue, but not for this thread). Position of RESPONSIBILITY is not a leadership goal. Doing the task of Patrol Leader does not make them a leader. All they need do is satisfy a list of tasks and they get credit for having the ABILITY to RESPOND to the task at hand. RESPONSE-ABILITY is the original Latin root words to our modern day word. They don't need to lead to respond. Quote But does he even know what that word means? If he has a goal (Task) and that is the only instruction I give him, he will figure it out if he doesn't know already. And that is the mark/trait of a good manager! Hedge, you've got a great handle on management for your boys. I have no doubt that there are great things happening in your troop and patrols, but are there boys that stand out that are always there when needed? Always cheerful and willing to volunteer to help others? Who will work with another boy because he needs help and for no other reason? That's a dynamic that is VERY difficult to teach a boy. They have to want to care in order to be an effective servant leader. For me people who serve others, regardless of what the "task" may be is what leadership is all about. If I set a goal for myself, what makes anyone automatically want to follow me? No one. If I have a task assigned to me, what makes anyone automatically want to help me? No one. But if I have been there for someone when they needed help with a goal or task (management) and I was always there with sleeves rolled up ready to go, I was there to sit with the homesick buddy, who helped him find his necker slide when he lost it, who will buddy up with him even if I didn't need to go to the latrine.... will he be there fore me when I have a task I need having done? More likely than if I have a task and I have to ask, demand, coerce, bribe someone to help out because no one is following me because I haven't paid my dues as a true leader. Whenever I get a boy that comes and says, "The other boys won't listen to me." I always tell them that it's because no one is following. What did YOU do to help them want to follow? They have a task and they can't get it done with the help of others it's because they have a management task to do and no leadership built up so that others want to help. So they have to resort to threats, rosters, coercion, delegation, (all management techniques) to get the task done. I can always tell when a boy cares more about the task than the people. It's what separates him from a manager/director and a true leader.

One has to start some place. " @Stosh - I agree that the PLs and APLs should be doing this. But that has proved harder in practice in part because of our focus on boy-led. The issue has been discussed at PLC meetings by the SPL based on a mention by the SM. But, it seems that everyone agrees that they need to do something, but forget when they go to their patrol meetings because of everthing else they are judgling. So I'll admit that my adult solution is to put a boy who cares in charge of taking care of the new guys. It beats micromanaging how the PLs operate. There are a lot of other priorities that I'd like to see the PL's focus on improving and change is gradual." @@Hedgehog Let me guess at this one. Your boys have yet to figure out the difference between leadership and management. Boy led is not just boy managed. GBB training has management tasks for everyone in the patrol. If everyone is managing their tasks, then real leadership can take place which doesn't seem to be happening in your situation. The PL/APL team is overwhelmed with management that they can't do leadership of taking care of the people they are responsible for. If there's micro-managing going on anywhere in the system, it usually is a major red flag for task overload and the first casualties are the people involved. I think you run your PLC far differently than I do when I had one. Nothing "came down from the top" so to speak. The PLC was not a management tool in as much as it was a support system for the PL's. It's a group that takes care of it's people, i.e. the PL's. This is one of the concerns I have run into in the past. Trading the adult mandated management for boy mandated management is not a move towards boy led, only boy managed or boy run. Boy led is where the leaders lead rather than having managers direct. I really don't worry about boys not doing the tasks correctly, or on time, or according to any standard as long as the boys are cared for and don't feel alone or on their own. As long as the PL assures each member they are working together for a common goal for everyone, they will all follow and get the job done. Far easier to live with those dynamics than some prescribed management routine of operation.

After 61 years of camping I have seen my fair share of arch cuts from tent stakes, burns from stepping on a hot coal and toe-nails ripped off, along with a broken toe here or there. All them were preventable.

@@DuctTape I want to focus in on the highlighted issue above. I totally agree it's the boy's responsibility to get his advancement done, but in order for the PL/APL to help him they have to be attuned to his needs and make the appropriate opportunities available. If little Johnny need to do cooking on an outing, the APL should know this and make sure the PL is aware so he can offer little Johnny a chance to get that requirement done. I hear way too often, it's not the PL's job to watch things like that, but in my troop/patrols that is a major requirement for "taking care of your boys," to know where they stand with advancement and make sure the opportunities are there for them. It's not doing the requirement, it's just making sure the boy has the chance to even make a choice for himself. I use the APL interchangeably with the TG depending on whether or not the APL is trained (NSP) and the responsibility would pass to the TG for the new scouts. Otherwise if it's an older patrol or 2nd year patrol or non-tiered patrol, then I would think the responsibility would fall to the PL/APL team to monitor their members.

Apply that concept to parenting, teaching, and a half dozen other child development people and that sounds kinda "dumb". Of course we don't just say, here's your training pants, let me know when you need help toilet training, I can come and cheer you on. I know what you are trying to say, but we are dealing with the newbies of the troop, not the guys 1-2 years into the program were if they haven't gotten beyond TF after 3 years, they probably aren't interested in Eagle. Nagging isn't going to work, but maybe a concerned budge here or there might move the lad along and not miss out on the fun stuff down the road as you point out.

I guess my first reaction to this is why isn't his PL keeping an eye on this? Boys shouldn't be slipping through the cracks. If this is an issue, then why isn't the APL watching, too? Patrol Scribe should have a updated listing of advancement for all the boys in the patrol. Let's face it, if everyone is doing their job and functioning in their POR, the TG for a mixed patrol is a wasted POR. Yes, a NSP doesn't have the maturity to handle this sophisticated level of patrol team work right from the beginning, that's what the TG helps them develop! He's there to work with each patrol member and orient them in their functionality. Within the first month the PL, APL, Scribe and QM should have a basic understanding of their patrol responsibilities along with working on their advancement and getting ready for their first few outings. I hear a lot about NSP's falling apart and causing more work, and everything else under the sun. But I would bet dollars to donuts that the real reason is a TG that doesn't do his job and just lets the NSP flounder. Like I commented before my best TG was an Eagle Scout. He served the troop far better as a true TG than a sit-back-and-wait-for-something-to-happen JASM. It was pretty much a microcosm troop with the TG as a fledgling "SM" and the PL and patrol the "troop". Don't waste a boys time as TG if there is no NSP and I'll guarantee a mess if one tries a NSP without a qualified TG. The two are dependent on one another.