Stosh

I've visited this issue with the moderators in the past. Hasn't really been all that effective. How's about sticking to the topics on the forums and leaving the personal attacks out of it. Let's work on the Scout Spirit kind of thing for a while and see how that works out. I really can't see how the comment made here really moves the topic along any.

The committee members have always been welcomed at any and all unit activities in my troops. Same goes for parents. It's a great opportunity to see for themselves how things are going rather than having a single scout show up with a quarterly management report and give a glowing account of all the spectacular things that are going on in the unit. Like qwazse says, it gives the MC's a chance to see for themselves, both good and bad, and not have to listen to boring statistics and glowing reports. Eye-witnessing the events will give each MC a chance to directly support the boys rather than take someone's word for it who may leave out important details along the way. Kinda like directly taking care of the boys sort of thing. I would think of the committee was interested in how effective the leadership in the unit was, they could show up for the PLC, sit in the back and listen, Kinda like one of those Adult Association dynamics. After the meeting they could talk to the PL's to get some sense on how the patrol method is working for them. However, I have seen in many cases the committee doesn't exist, it does for chartering purposes, but not really functional. Or it operates like a Board of Directors, like totally management in nature, or it has a genuine interest in supporting the boys and it rolls up its collective sleeves and get it directly from the horse's mouth. Unit leaders that block that flow of communication I suspect have some serious control issues. I have seen that as well.

Now that we've allowed this boy-led, adult-led idea to run into the ground, let's just high-five each other on how well we are all pleased with our troops, and move on to something a bit more practical that we can kick around for a while.

Welcome, sounds like you have a lot to offer.

No, I have lots of experience with a former troop (15 years) and been involved with many SPL's over the years (5 years) as a UC where SPL's were used. In some cases where the troop was large, they were marginally effective in a management role. The majority of SPL's are in name only prestige role and are really the PL of a small troop. In the smaller units were SPL's were used they tended to interfere with the operations of the patrol method and tried to run everything. PL's thus became redundant and ineffective. There seemed to be a lot of concern on how to get SPL's to actually fulfill their POR's and were basically pencil whipped through the requirement. It has been my experience that SM's view the SPL's in our area as either their minion or necessary evil. I did experience one boy who was identified as the SPL of a small troop, but was in fact a very good patrol LEADER. The boys flocked around him like chicks around a mother hen. My skip-level meetings with SPl's in the units I am UC for and they only reinforce my bias towards the subject of SPL's, they tend to run the same course as meetings with ASM's. The ultimate example I have to offer is the SPL that got up at the beginning of the meeting and made a ton of announcements before the adults realized they had given him last year's agenda for the meeting and not this year's. Only the adults noticed, the boys were totally ignoring him. What they would have to offer a committee contact would be about as effective as what they have to offer the troop they are supposed to be supporting.

Except for a brief moment before I left my former troop when he finally got up to 4 patrols, did I even have an SPL. Basically the PL's just would get together as needed and worked things out. We're going to go to summer camp and they require an SPL, so the 2 PL's figure out who wants to spend the extra time at the SPL meetings. Usually they take turns. If there's food involved, they both go. No one's complained yet. Basically the PL's support each other and if they are up against an issue they can't handle they go to the SM as would the SPL in that situation. Most of the SM support/assistance is in terms of homesickness, bed-wetting and other "personal" issues the PL might need an adult figure to handle and minimize the embarrassment to the scout. With the new troop and young boys, the PL does rely on me for training because there are no older boys in the troop to do the heavy lifting. Items I have taught are always picked up by the boys and taught to the younger boys. If the subject has been marked off in anyone's handbook, they are qualified to teach. So without a SPL, it hasn't been any great hardship not to have someone from the boys sit in on committee meetings.

Then there's the situation I encountered. O/A asked to come do an election, the boys said fine and set up the night. The O/A gentleman showed up at the door wearing blue jeans and his high school sweatshirt. One of my PL's met him at the door and inquired about this lack of uniform. The PL was in full uniform. He was invited to reschedule the election when he was better prepared. He never called back and we didn't have an election or an invitation to do an election ever again. That may have changed now since I'm no longer SM and I don't keep track of what's going on in that troop anymore. We never found out what kind of speech the O/A gentleman had prepared, but whatever he did to get ready for it, a uniform would have made all the difference in the world.

We had a restaurant go out of business in town, got a new owner and reopened. Out of curiosity I went and tried out their food. The interesting thing was, the food was pretty good but the service wasn't, the sign in the window said, "Under new management." I'll probably not go back, I wasn't convinced it wasn't any better than the old place. Maybe if the service was better I'd reconsider.

If paperwork is a waste of time, sitting in boring meetings perhaps even trumps that.

There are a few scouters out there that would agree with that.

The whole idea is to not be lost when the boys are. It's been my experience that's not hard to do. One is only as one's navigator. Once everyone starts second guessing him and change plans by committee consensus, it starts to get interesting.

Tell him I'm ticked, that's only a few hours from me and he didn't stop and say Hi!

I really don't see any need for any of the boys to have contact with the committee as a whole. The SM is the liason between the adults and the boys and that should suffice. The Scribe should have a regular contact with the troop treasurer on the committee and any of the boy leaders (PL, SPL if there is one) should be able to directly approach the CC if there's an issue with the SM. I seen no reason why the boys need to report anything to the adults. If the adults want to know what's going on with the boys, The adults can visit with the boys at a meeting and observe during the meeting and ask questions afterwards if necessary. Boys having to report to the adults sounds a bit like adult led or adult controlled process. I would never do it, but I would make sure the CC's door is open for concerns just like the SM's door is open.

I may know who that person was, there are not that many scouters out there that will allow the boys to lose someone in the woods, let them take a wrong turn on a hike, or go off on an outing without food. It's pretty amazing how much more focused the boys are on details when they know the adults are not going to cover for them. Wanting to cover the hike with no wrong turns. Unprepared to walk a mile or two out of your way. I got my butt chewed out by the SM when I was an ASM because I let the boys walk a half day at Philmont, knowing they were on the wrong trail.

One of the first indicators is: "Who's really running the show?" about 95% of the time it's the adults. If the boys are always going to adults for advice, guidance, the adults are running the show. If the adults are constantly telling the boys to go ask their PL, the boys still are looking to the adults for leadership. The adults don't trust the boys to make the "correct" decisions. The adults won't let the boys fail. The adults try and cover their interfering with the running the program by "being one of the boys". But most importantly of all!?? The coffee can in the kitchen/chuck box is over two years old and still has coffee in it and the seat of the adult uniform pants don't show any wear.

Find out what she's good at and beg her to take that spot because she'd be more valuable there than merely running a den.

Get used to it, the UC's are all expected to pull these things off in their units. So far I've been avoiding it but it's going to reach up and bite me sooner or later.

4e. On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup. Expediting the requirement by stripping out the leadership from it, sounds a bit like pencil whipping with a bit of ignoring parts of the requirement to get it done. I alway ask my boys, did you do what the requirement says? Obviously some of the boys in this troop would have to say no and would have wasted an honest opportunity because the adults got in there and messed around with the requirement. This is how adult-run Eagle mills get their start. I would recommend your son earn his Eagle honestly and if that means taking his time and doing it right, it's going to be good for him in the long run. I've been in troops that do it this way. Notice it isn't present tense in the sentence.

From the reaction of many here on the forum, I hear a lot of management dynamics posing as leadership. I guess it boils down to what people define is servant leadership. I keep with the principles set forth by Robert Greenleaf in his book Servant Leadership published back in the 1970's. What he describes and what I'm hearing here don't line up very well, and I have been having trouble clarifying the difference here with my comments. I would need to take a look at the curriculum of NYLT and SM training to see how they describe servant leadership. I do know BSA does use the term but doesn't give any explanation as to what it means. The measuring stick I have always used is, "Take care of your boys." If the subject at hand doesn't fit that premise, then I'm not hearing servant leadership or leadership in general being discussed. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that people have been taught that managers and leaders are the same thing. Just isn't true, they have two different goals in the dynamics they portray. Such things as "Doing a good job of taking care of your boys" further confuses the issue.

In the 25 years I have been with this council no one has ever sold anything at a camporee. Council-wide activities sometimes have an OA fundraiser, but that's about it.

Famous last words: "Well, it sounded like a good idea at the time."

Tell him I still miss him. I would flat out tell them that I would pass the request on to my boys and they'll get back to you with an answer.

Depends on what the boys decide and bring. Usually it is nothing, but if they bring something, it's usually cheap cookies and Koolaid.

Anyone bother to ask? In the long run, it would seem that he and their son will eventually end up as collateral damage to this political ping pong game going on.