Stosh

and I'd be looking for a patrol-method troop the very next week.

Flannel shirt, denim blue jeans, and hiking boots might far better than the blazer.

That's quite odd. Usually small town gossip keeps a pretty close tab on that sort of thing. One would wonder why it took 2 years and "outsiders" to figure it out. It might be interesting to eventually find out about the whole inside story.

There's really not much to discuss about some idiot selling meth out of the scout office. We're pretty much in agreement that that wasn't really a scout supported activity and had problems with adherence to both YPT and G2SS. After that we tossed on another log and took the discussion where it wanted to go.

Had a visit with the DC last night at our scout meeting. UC training will now be done at the UC monthly meeting instead of the 3-hour long session at the scout office. We will be discussing the idea I suggested on the forum of a Commissioner Corps instead of a UC assignment structure. The DC indicated it wouldn't be a stretch in that the structure of the training committee recently adopted such a structure and will be sending out instructors to units as needed when asked. It wouldn't take much to implement it for the commissioners as well. We covered the issue of newbie UC's as well and they would be teamed up and mentored by the more experienced UC's in the group eventually taking point on a unit situation and evaluated by the mentor as they got more comfortable with the role. On a monthly basis the Corps would discuss the unit situations and learn as a whole. This would also offer up an opportunity to draw from the experiences of all the UC's for each situation in the district, not just the one or two assigned to help. It would also help the newbies get an understanding of how UC's are able to assist. This way the units that didn't want UC support wouldn't tie up a UC and those that needed help would get help right away. The UC's meet tomorrow night before RT.

Naw, we were just disgusting UC fashion so as to dress our way to success. Coon-skin caps anyone?

And word got out that a campaign hat worn by scouts and scouters is a long standing tradition that has been around for maybe over a hundred years now. Last week I wore my expedition hat, this week I wore the campaign hat, next weekend we'll be outdoors so I'll wear a stocking cap. If I spent any amount of time worrying about what others think, I wouldn't get anything done. On the other hand last week I wore a red turtle-neck under my uniform because it's cold outside. This week I wore a black one. Do you think black is a bit too formal? A bit over the top? With a campaign hat? AND A FULL UNIFORM WITH BELT AND SOCKS! OMG! I just put the fashion police into at least 6 months of therapy! What's the world coming to? As a side note, I forgot to wear my beads tonight.... I felt totally naked!

In our district, the UC is pretty much on their own. When they get into a tight spot, they turn to the DE. If the DE is less experienced than the UC, you're pretty much back to being on your own.

It reminds me of my year of internship in San Diego. I had a difficult time thinking that Arizona, New Mexico and everything else were back east and Oregon and Washington were the only places that were up North.

Well, if they had a "Corps" of Commisioners, the Districts and Council wouldn't have the opportunity to have their ready group of gophers to run around and do all the petty paperwork and hand holding, but would need to do that more for themselves. The Commisioners would be freed up to focus on specific issues facing certain units on an as needed basis. They would then tend to serve the units instead of being the errand boys for the Districts. A corps of 6-10 commissioners wouldn't be able to do the popcorn, the FOS, the JTE, the rechartering etc., and those issues would then need to be handled by the RT Commissioners on the general broadcast of mundane issues. Seriously, the only time one sees their UC's is when all hell breaks loose or some errand needs to be run. If it were set up this way, the monthly meeting of commissioners could brainstorm the issues at hand and work out solutions to the issues amongst themselves to present ideas and resources to the units. This way the newbie UC's could get some experience working with other commissioners before being assigned to a situation and then would still be able to retain a monthly contact of support from the corps as well. It's a bit like having a beat cop assigned to the neighborhood now that wanders around checking to see if all the doors are locked, but if a crime is committed in the area, more than just one cop is called to the scene. Maybe like 00Eagle noticed, being around too much didn't do much besides aggravate one of his units. If I got into hot water or had a concern, a single phone call to my DC and voila, I have some help, would be kinda nice.

00Eagle,. You make an interesting analogy in that one unit was too much and the other just right. I'm sure there's another unit out there that might have been too little. How is training going to help the UC know which unit is which? Maybe the districts need to go to a Commissioner Corps idea where a unit contacts the DC and gets assigned a UC until they work through what it is they are concerned about. John is starting a new Pack, asks for UC help, one gets assigned from the Commish Corps who has the most/best track record with new units. Mary is having problems with a couple of parents in her troop, asks for UC help, gets one assigned that has the the most experience with such issues. Peter is having trouble keeping his Crew afloat, DC approaches and asks him if he thinks another eye on the situation might be of some help. This way everyone doesn't need to be master of everything but might be a great resource person for just a temporary period of time dealing with a specific problem. ??? I dunno, just a thought. I could have used a second person checking in and running some errands over the past 3 years of getting my troop off the ground, and I'm a trained UC besides, and my ASM is the DC. Down the road instead of focusing on 2 or 3 units maybe I ought to be assigned to help someone start a troop somewhere because I have a been-there-done-that experience.

Is "northern" i.e. anything above TN, the politically correct definition of dam'yankee?

Do we need to fix it? Depends. We need to define (and prioritize) as an organization what is broken or needs maintenance before we can design a role to fix it. If the goal of an UC is to coach a unit's Key 3 to build and maintain a robust unit/program, then my answer is yes, the role is needed. Why is it that National is having so much difficulty in standardizing the role of the UC. It must have been a really great idea in the first place, what happened along the way? Do we need to drop it? See above. Has it become irrelevant? Do we just keep ignoring it? See above. If it's being ignored, why? Shouldn't someone at least be looking into why the comments are so negative towards UC's? What about effective training? If the role is as I described, then we need effective training and a way to identify (and keep) those people recruited to the role of UC. To paraphrase an old sea chantey, "What do you with a retired scout leader...". Make being a UC a logical, non-burdensome next step. From a lot of the comments, one would think that there are many of the old entrenched Old Guard that would fit that concept as well as those that have burned out or just have had enough just become their last child has aged out. I don't know if a one-size-fits-all will work for that. What about a listing of duties and expectations needed for the position? Yes. A standard role description that cannot be made up by the DE/DC de jour. Agreed. I think it needs to be a formalized position. What about maturity and experience? See "What do we do with a retired scout leader" above. Same dynamics of carry-over. I was thinking more along the lines of younger people recruited because of their expertise, not simply breathing and have a kid in the program. Is all the paper work necessary? No. But existence justification is a profession in BSA. Let's give an award for the least paperwork. Maybe a sash. I often wonder if anyone ever reads any of these reports anyway. With all the units out there feeling a big disconnect from the DE's and SE's is this a symptom of not having a real UC? Possibly. It can also be that BSA and councils/districts put their own spin on things too much and there is too little standardization. In technology terms we are too decentralized with few standards. This leads to everyone "rolling their own". Too many cooks... National doesn't allow a spin on anything else, why is it tolerated here? The door's open in the free-for-all section. How's about coming up with something that would be useful to the situation instead of just griping about what's wrong with it. Can it be fixed? - Eliminate the needless paperwork. - Make a serious effort at centralizing the role and job description of the UC. - Make the role have a narrowly defined focus, not a catch all for all the stuff district or council wants to collect (i.e., no FOS, no JTE, no recharter). - Make the role something retiring Scouters would want to take. Avoid burdensome activities or requirements.

qwazse, it's good to see there still are Real Eagles out there.

In this day and age with law enforcement having a huge target painted on their back, I'm all for these guys packing as much heat as possible regardless of whatever law is in place. When the dust settles and the off-duty officer is still alive, then we can talk about what the law says.

Them dam'yankees'll eat anything. Squirrel and rabbits been on the menu since I was a young boy. I was thinkn' the closer to Dixie one got the more expanded the menu got so as to have the 'possum and 'coon added. We boys up here keep thinking that what we do eat doesn't need the stuff spiced to the point where there's nottin' but hot to taste and it all taste's the same in the end anyway. Without refrigeration, warmer climes had to cover up the taste of spoilt meat with spices, so the story goes.

I'm positive this topic will end up in the I&P crapper, so I'll just start it out here. A number of threads have focused around a number of issue concerning the UC role in scouting. It seems to be the consensus that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." and what we have here is broke. Do we need to fix it? Do we need to drop it? Do we just keep ignoring it? What about effective training? What about a listing of duties and expectations needed for the position? What about maturity and experience? Is all the paper work necessary? With all the units out there feeling a big disconnect from the DE's and SE's is this a symptom of not having a real UC? The door's open in the free-for-all section. How's about coming up with something that would be useful to the situation instead of just griping about what's wrong with it. Can it be fixed?

My DC an I as UC are the only two trained in our district as UC. Class was scheduled for early February to get all our new UC's up to speed and trained. ..... ...... The class was canceled, no one signed up for the training....... Time to water down the training to fit into RT time for the new UC's.

I'm thinking a lot of the UC's job is handing the petty politics that the DE's don't want to deal with unless they have to. A good UC will also be a source of knowledge of resources available to actually helping units. As dysfunctional as the UC position is in today's real world, it's rretty much whatever one want to make of it. I don't remember anyone getting fired from the position.

It's part of our state's conceal carry training that if someone knows that one is carrying a weapon, it isn't concealed. In our state one can be arrested for carrying on k-12 school grounds. or within so many feet of school grounds, unless you own that ground, then it's okay. If your employer has a no-weapons policy in their building where you work, if they know you carry you will be fired. If you carry in a no-weapons zone if they find out they only have the right to have you leave. It all depends on the state laws. Federal laws override all state laws.

I do think you have PART of the issue identified and identified quite well. But there is another PART that often times goes unfulfilled. Earning Eagle, fulfilling the requirements, following the rules, organizes activities, runs a patrol, are all real-life, adult skills that they will use later in life, and for the most part, be quite successful. However, there's more to scouting than just earning rank and learning skills. There have been thousands of psychological studies along the lines of Pavlov's theories on behavioral modification. This basically means if the reward is great enough and often enough the test subject will do anything to get it. Whereas Pavlov's dog would start to drool when it heard the bell knowing it was going to get a treat, excited the dog. Is that all there is to it for getting to the Eagle rank? Do this and you're one step closer, do the next step, closer yet. But the only reason one is doing any of the steps is to simply get the treat at the end of the test. Schools are set up this way. You get the right answer, you get a better grade, etc. But in the long run, all one has taught the person (or dog) is that if one were to simply follow the rules, one is going to be successful in life. So I ask the question: Is following the rules for self gain really leadership? Is a good manager always a good leader? My dog can do all kinds of things on command and will do them consistently, especially if I have a treat in my hand. Is this the goal of the Eagle? The bling and recognition for self accomplishment? Are the younger scouts looking to him as an example of greatness, or are they "following" him on the path prescribed by the BSA so they can get the same treat as well? Understanding this is how I distinguish between a Paper Eagle and a Real Eagle. The Paper Eagle can easily be identified by a solid knowledge base of skill, able to manage tasks quite well, and is recognized by certain measurable standards set forth by the program. Basically they are accomplished in life because of what they are. A real Eagle has pretty much all these skills, but has one added component. He didn't do it just for himself, he did it under a different kind of measurement. Instead of measuring just the depth of his knowledge and skill, it also means a measurement of his heart and character. One doesn't necessarily see that spelled out specifically in BSA literature, but one knows it when they see it. It's not a measurement of what they can do, but a measurement of who they are. As the SM there's an obligation to assist each boy in defining that within them. Once one takes off the Eagle hat and puts on the SM hat, the world no longer revolves around oneself, it revolves around the boys that come into that troop. The biggest pain-in-the-butt disruptive scout is a higher priority than oneself. Your Eagle means absolutely nothing, but your character and heart wanting to help others means everything. I have seen Real Eagle SM's that do a fantastic job in the troop, I have seen Paper Eagles that never step up and help ever again. I have seen Paper Eagles do very well in the business world, but can't keep their family together. I have seen boys who were in the program for many years, maybe make it beyond FC to Star or Life go on to be great fathers, husbands, community members, and do very well at their jobs, and it had nothing to do with their rank in scouting. Eagle is just a rank in scouting.

Tenderfoot requirement: #8. Know your patrol name, give the patrol yell, and describe your patrol flag. If it's the responsibility of the PL to take care of his boys, any boy wishing to get his Tenderfoot requirements filled will need to describe his patrol flag. The PL better have one to describe. The troop does not provide the arts and craft supplies for such activity. PL leadership is what is used to figure it out and to-date, the PL's have all done a really good job on their own using their own resources.

If the boys learn nothing else from their scouting experience, it might as well be Don't Procrastinate. We all hear about these stories of how boys either get done by the skin of their teeth, bend the last minute rules, or simply can't justify anything to make it happen at the last minute. These boys have 7 years to figure it out. If they don't get their Eagle it's their own fault, not some leader''s, not their parent's, not their buddies', not their project beneficiary, not the Council's, but theirs. It's all part of the growing up, being responsible part of the program. Any boy that walks away from scouting with a bad taste in their mouth because they missed out on an Eagle, missed out on what scouting is all about, too. Sorry, no sympathy from this corner. Get your act together, set a goal, make a plan and then get it done. That's how successful grown-ups do it.

For ten years I taught Webelos outdoor training when it incorporated an overnight. Once they cut the program so there was no overnight, I stopped. When one has a ton of Webelos leaders who had never spent a night outdoors under canvas and they were expected to take a group of young boys out into the woods to do that???? I could no longer justify in my mind the validity of the training. It was time to move on. The cutting of training to make it convenient to the participants is to the point where having training is really just a legal term, not anything of any real value in terms of gaining any sort of valuable expertise on the subject. When was the last time anyone taught a class to adults or to scouts on how to sharpen an ax? Can anyone tell me why a full ax, and 3/4 ax, a hand ax and a belt ax are all sharpened differently? Probably not, because BSA no longer teaches the use of axes anymore. Don't have time. Oh, by the way, the last time I used an ax was back around Thanksgiving time, so it's no longer an everyday tool for me, maybe only once every couple of months.

Except for Tonkatim's example of a grand entrance, most people have no idea who is concealing a weapon. Unless one is familiar with their employment situation, they are only guessing whether that person is armed or not. While the need to carry is very minimal out in the woods somewhere, not all scouting activities are limited to isolated places.