Stosh

I know the moderators have no control over the software. Just connect the dots.

10 up arrows for TAHAWK!

Is this "BSA Speak" for don't hold your breath unless wearing goggles?

Sorry @RememberSchiff, I could only give you one up-arrow. That's been my experience as well. BSA priced itself right out of the market.

If the Committee is going to do POR review, why not replace SMC's with committee members "helping out"? And then the case could be made for the Committee determining Eagle projects and service projects. I'm sure it would be great with the multiplicity of ideas that the Committee should be involved in the annual calendar of the unit as well. OR..... the Committee could just do the job it's trained to do and that should fill up their time nicely. If they can't get a "pulse" of the program out of the BOR's, they need to go back and review their training. Maybe I need to start a thread on Helicopter Committees? Whatcha think?

@Tampa Turtle, I understand the challenges of taking on girls is something most will be able to handle with a bit more effort, but chronic bed wetting, cat-hole accidents among guys isn't the same as cross sexual issues. Putting it politely, they need a bit more finesse when handling. Yes, there is going to be the requirement that there are co-ed scouters at every event and like "dads" all do, one can pass off the problem to "mom". As a co-ed leader of other organizations, I know how the process works. BSA in general and all of its training models will need to be changed to accommodate these issues, not that BSA has done much in the past with chronic bed wetters or cat-hole mishaps. But in general, one need not look too far afield to see that dads treat daughters differently than their sons and moms do likewise with their offspring. How does one, with enough helicopter interfering parents, make those additional changes in a co-ed environment of other people's kids? In other co-ed groups they don't need to, but with the singular purpose of Scouting, it's going to be different. No one in 4-H cares whether or not a gal wants to raise pigs instead of learning how to sew clothes and if a boy wishes to learn to cook instead of raising rabbits, no big deal. Yet 4-H is designed with many goals in mind from which to choose. Sure, BSA has a broad categories, Learning for Life, Sea Scouts and Venturing, but for he most part those are older youth where the options although limited are a bit more broad. There are no rank advancements in co-ed 4-H, co-ed church youth groups, or Boy & Girls Clubs. The program focus varies far wider. I use the 4-H has an example of one of the really good leadership youth programs, but it is not run like the BSA's leadership program. The urban development of the 4-H program is very interesting, considering most people associate 4-H with just "farm" kids. As it stands right now I would need to make quite a few changes in order to accommodate the gals. I'll need more adult trained leaders and right now I have a committee that can't even recruit and train well enough for what we have. Units will need to have far more adults step up. In Cubs, that's not a big deal, but with "Scouts" it will mean more involvement with adults when there's really too much in troops the way it is now. I have worked with co-ed youth programs all my life. I know the difference between BSA as it once stood and those other groups. BSA will need to make changes and limp along for a while on the practical end of things while it wallows in the glory of their perceived "brave new world" of co-ed scouts. I can, but I don't think I want to clean up the mess when there's other well-run co-ed groups already out there that have this all figured out with a different type of program, and successful programs as well. To give you an idea of what I foresee? I attended an organizational meeting for interested youth to join a Venturing Crew. The District was going to try and set up a "super" Venturing Crew in the larger cities throughout the council. My wife (very outdoorsy) and I offered to step up and take one on. Others did in other cities. Big recruiting push. I attended a big rally in the school where I was going to be working. 20 kids showed up, it looked promising. Well, within a month, our presentation of program gave the school the idea to start their own Outdoor Club for the students and that was the end of that. It would seem that NONE of the other attempts in the council produced a Venturing Crew either. Like I said, co-ed is not the solution to the problem. Co-ed activities are, at this point, better organized and better run than where the BSA stands with it's consistently struggling Learning for Life, STEM, Venturing and Sea Scouts. Throwing two unique other programs into the mix doesn't sound like a good idea to me. From my experiences over the past 45+ years, doesn't encourage me in this new BSA effort one bit.

Nuttin', Honey.

Sure, certain girls can beat out certain guys in just about any arena one wishes to pick. So your troop consists of football player guys and science lab gals. Yep, that's fair. Or how about Amazon women and couch potato guys. Yep, that helps the argument. Clinical studies have shown that the ages we are referring to 11-18 show that at the beginning gals have on average a two year advantage over boys. In other words, girls emotionally, physically and psychologically are at 11 years old on par with a 13 year old boy. In the NSP and S->FC the gals will have the advantage. Is it just me or does anyone else foresee a retention problem in an area where retention is already a problem? In the race for the first girl to ever get Eagle, she'll be 13 years of age. With only needing AOL in Cubs to join at 10 years of age, we could be seeing motivated gals getting Eagle at 12. Nothing like joining Boy Scouts at 11 and having a 12 year old female Eagle PL I'd be happy with that setup. Now that is cherry picking the exception, but as a whole, with the 2 year start advantage, one would see average gals in leadership positions before the average boy. I'll come back to this post and eat crow if in two years this is not so.

MedicineNet.com When does puberty occur? The onset of puberty varies among individuals. Puberty usually occurs in girls between the ages of 10 and 14, while in boys it generally occurs later, between the ages of 12 and 16. In some African-American girls, puberty begins earlier, at about age 9, meaning that puberty occurs from ages 9 to 14. Adolescent girls reach puberty today at earlier ages than were ever recorded previously. Nutritional and other environmental influences may be responsible for this change. For example, the average age of the onset of menstrual periods in girls was 15 in 1900. By the 1990s, this average had dropped to 12 and a half years of age. First of all women mature physically on average 2 years earlier than boys. That is a dynamic one has to consider. Adam Baxter-Jones, associate dean at the College of Kinesiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, explains how it goes: “Maximum growth in stature peaks in girls at 12 when the average growth is about nine to 10 centimetres [3½ to almost four inches] per year. In boys it happens two years later and at a greater speed—about 11 to 12 centimetres [about four to 4¾ inches] in a year.†Again, the age shifts 2 years earlier for girls. This too has to be considered. https://www.education.com/reference/article/similarities-differences-boys-girls/ This might help as well. When all is said and done, yes, the program is generic, but the people in it are not.

Sorry, but I measure the worth of an individual on other standards besides strength and endurance.

I am GAPed (Group Activity Position) in everything from feeding, sheltering, bulk delivery, chaplaincy, client case work, and a dozen other areas. I probably met your friends and didn't know it. I was the ERV Yard Dog, keeping the vehicles up and running throughout the deployment. It's a small world.

So one must ask the question, what drives the program? The goals and aims of the program or the needs of the members? The goals and aims of the program seem to be the root on adult directed from BSA down to it's membership. On the other hand isn't the goal of Scouting to have a successful membership that absorbs the goals and aims as guidance to success? That would mean that the boys drive the program. OMG! If one does that the boys are all going to run off on their ATV's, jet-skis and want to do paint-ball. No it doesn't. The boys know the policies of BSA and I have never had the boys want to do any of those things unless they are properly sanction in a safe situation by the BSA. The boys struggle coming up with acceptable activities that the unacceptable ones never even get brought up. The statements about goals, aims, vision, are "Ivory Tower" platitudes that are mandated down onto the membership, because it is assumed that this is what the program is all about. And you will have fun, or else! Yeah right. That's never worked for me with any youth group going through the rebellious, independence seeking youth of this age grouping. They want fun and adventure, but on their own terms, not those set by adults. As we all know how well BSA listens to it's membership, one can be assured that the only thing that concerns me as a SM is whether or not my boys' needs, not goals, are being met. Now if a boy wishes to set Eagle as a personal goal. Fine, but not every boy is interested in that. They want other things and for the most part fit very nicely into the BSA program being offered. They want the skills to be an adult some day, but not necessarily right now. These are the turbulent years between being a kid and being an adult. The successful charting of a personal path through that is what Scouting is all about. What does any goal or vision of Scouting have to do with that? Simply put the Scout Oath, Law, Motto and Slogan. If at the end of a Scout's career in the program those values are a part of his life, he, and I, and the CO and BSA are happy. "Ideals The ideals of Boy Scouting are spelled out in the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Scout motto, and the Scout slogan. The Boy Scout measures himself against these ideals and continually tries to improve. The goals are high, and, as he reaches for them, he has some control over what and who he becomes." As I said, Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan. That gets taught to TF scouts. But how can he attain those things without the SUPPORT of others. No amount of MANDATES is going to cut it. Once we try and codify mandates, we cull out the slackers and failures along the way to insure the statistical goals at the end. It doesn't say much for the "help other people at all times" when these boys struggle and we don't listen to their needs at the time. I have spent 5 decades helping people at all times. I don't mandate their success, I facilitate it. I don't set their goals, they tell me what they are. I can only provide programs, BSA and others that try to meet their needs. If the program doesn't have a aim or goal to meet needs, I guess I'm in the wrong business. I have mandates to meet the needs of others through the BSA, the American Red Cross, and my home Christian congregation. If the mandate is not there with BSA, then I've been barking up the wrong tree for 45+ years. The Oath says, "Help other people at all times.", that's the right tree for me. I can approach it and say, "This is the policy, does it help?" or "This is our program's aims and goals, do they help"" or do I simply ask, "What can I do to help?" I take my cue from them. Always have, always will. That's how I help other people at all times. Your mileage may vary.

LOL!! I flew into Orlando to do a 2 week deployment on Irma with the Mrs. and the first thing they asked us to do was drive an Emergency Relief Vehicle (ERV) to the Wildfires in California. ROAD TRIP! When we got to Sacramento I asked if I should return to Orlando or say with the wildfires. I spent two weeks in Sacramento on the fires and then drove an ERV back home to Wisconsin. ROAD TRIP! I know there were thousands of ARC people down there helping the Floridians out, but after doing 4 weeks in Houston with Harvey then 4 weeks with Irma and California. it's good to be back home. Not really "fun", but very rewarding putting my Scout skills and Christian mission into places needing it the most. The worst part of it all was we had packed shorts and t-shirts for Florida and ended up freezing our butts off the rest of the time out on deployment. It takes on a whole new meaning to "Be Prepared". By the time we got back to Wisconsin, there was nothing left in my suitcase. I was wearing everything! A whole new concept for layering for warmth.

Nope, I learned blowing bubbles to life-saving skills through the Red Cross. Nothing in Scouting prepared me for the swim test. Even at camp, if there are non-swimmers, they get 7 days "training" if they request it, but my recommendation is always to contact the YMCA for swim lessons. I am always disheartened to see that with all the aquatic program and outdoor water activities, BSA does nothing to help the boy with the prerequisites. The assume the boy can swim before he reaches Scouts and then tests to see if he can do enough to get a couple of rank advancement boxes checked. Not a well thought out process in my opinion. By the way, last I heard the YMCA program IS the Red Cross program, same as Wilderness First Aid for BSA.

Thanks for looking into it.

I guess I wouldn't call it maintenance...... I did notice more speed in the searches, but I guess I'd rather get the heads-up notices.

It hasn't been working. I have seen @Stosh in posts, but I got no notification of the tag. @ItsBrian This should turn blue and you should get a notification. I clicked on the blue ItsBrian above and it took me to your profile page, so the link works, just wonder about the notification process. If not I'll whine to the Moderators.

I have noticed that on a lot of posts people have typed @Stosh and I am assuming they want it to send a notification to that person that they were "tagged" in a post. Well, that doesn't work just putting an @ in front of the name. If one really wants it to work, the need to either use the pull-down menu option or type it in HTML code (member='Stosh') but use brackets [ ] instead of parentheses, Otherwise on the menu bar just to the left of the Font box is a blue square icon. Click on that and the pull-down menu will give you a number of choices to create links. Go to member and select that. It will ask for a name, type it in and voila, you have a link. If one does it correctly, go into "Edit" and it will display in HTML code correctly. The name should show in blue (a link) when it is saved to the forum. A message will automatically go out notifying that person they were named in a comment on the forum. They can click on that message and it will take them directly to that post they were referred to in. That post will appear between the message icon and your name at the top of the screen. It changes color when a notification comes in. @Stosh I sent it to myself and I did not get a notification. Maybe there's something more wrong than just linking it when it comes to notifications. @qwazse Did it work for your notifications?

When I was a kid (oh yeah, here it comes) I started in a pool, shallow end, putting my face in the water and blowing bubbles. No goggles, no ear plugs, no face mask, just bubbles. By the time I was in scouts I had progressed through the ranks to facing the mile swim for life-guard certification. My mom said to me, be careful of what you wish for. If you have that certification, you'll be on the dock and everyone else in the water. I swam 10' short of a mile. The instructors were irate, but I knew I could do it. One of the instructors wanted to give me certification anyway, but I refused. So time passes. I camp, I swim, I hunt, I fish, I'm outdoors in the woods, near the water, and on the water. I spend as much time outdoors as I do in. Well, almost. The point being, there were many times I was super, totally thankful for my parents pushing the swimming. Canadian Lake, calm in the morning, storm comes up and 2-3' waves by evening, small motor boat and it's getting towards dusk. I sidled my way about 4 miles across the lake with life jacket on, sitting on a float cushion, 2 others in the boat with me Dad and brother.. I got everyone home, but the only thing I could think of if we swamped, no one was going to come looking for us. The only reason we tried the crossing was because my brother was as good a swimmer as I and Dad was Navy (WW II). Otherwise, if it had been non-swimmers or even good marginal swimmers, I wouldn't have made the attempt. BWCA, overloaded canoes, 3 people and gear in each canoe. Big lake ahead, whitecaps, wind directly in front. Not today, I don't know if everyone in the party can make it without swamping and 100 yards off shore would be a major swim in the waves even with life jacket. So fast forward to today. Camp tests the boys and gives them a little circle of paper to say if they can "swim" or not. Docks a temptation, rowboats, canoes, sail boats and kayaks already to go. Every precaution is taken and we send out the boys with the MINIMUM amount of expectation when it comes to swimming. Over the years nothing major has happened around me and that's okay with me. Am I overly cautious? Yep. I practice what I preach, I take care of my boys. Do I take them whitewater canoeing? Yep, but I have at least two other expert swimmers/kayakers going along with me. Do all three carry rescue lines on their kayaks? Yep, Do I carry a sheath knife to cut tangled lines? Yep, do I carry block and tackle to pull watercraft out of snags? Yep, do I carry a belt ax capable of cutting a hole in any of the craft on the trek? Yep. And here I sit on the forum listening to whether or not someone jumping into the water is going to do so with or without googles. In the grand scheme of life, is that check box all that important? Presently I have 5 boys in my troop, 3 are swimmers 2 are not. We do not plan any aquatic adventures at this point in time. As an adult, yes, for the record I do pull rank on my PL's on safety issues. Goggles are not a safety issue.

I am ADHD, but not OCD. Yet I have precise lists posted on my closet door that dictates what gets packed for certain activities. I have pre-packed (OMG, there goes a Squirrel!!) prepacked backpacks, one for Red Cross deployment already to go on a moments notice. I grab and go and am on a plane within hours. Then there's the Boy Scout weekend backpack, already filled (Hey, what's that shiny thing over there under the chair). Already filled with everything for a weekend camp out. The #1 thing on the list is backpack and then the list of things I need to grab from storage like sleeping bag, etc. I wonder if I've checked my email lately. Then there are just lists of things needing to be put together for a less pressing activity, like a vacation. Am I going to go south where it's warm or head to Canada fishing? Pack accordingly. Oops, forgot my BP pills. hold that thought. I'm back. Where was I, oh yeah.... Lists are mandatory for people like me. Over the years, I have added and subtracted from the lists, but I always have "the List" available. Maybe I should get some breakfast, what'll I have?.... Then there's the Mrs's list. That I have no control over other than crossing things off. Now this post may sound very much like a joke, poking fun at ADHD disabilities, but I can assure you it's dead serious. Those are the exact thoughts I had while writing this post, including the joke about the squirrel and shiny things. This is a daily struggle I have had to deal with for 67 years and one never gets over it, but we all learn to live with it. Focus me and I will lose all track of time and the next thing you know, it's 2:00 am and I'm still running on high speed. For those scouters out there that don't have ADD or ADHD, talk with those who are. There are a lot more of us out there than you think, we cover it up pretty well. I have no problems with taking on ASM's to help me cover things. I don't do well with paperwork, such as rechartering and advancement, so they do it for me. I have a zillion ideas, but I need ASM's to flesh out the details. I jaw-jack with the boys too much and lose track of time and I need an ASM to keep me scheduled. Lists are one of the "crutches" we use to help us stay focused. There are many other things as well. I know American Sign Language and so if given 2 tasks, I hold my right and left hands in certain configurations to remind me of two different things at one time. Even a list of 2 is necessary at times. I wear a pocketed vest and I know at any time that in my right pants pocket is my keys to the truck, left pocket is jack knife, left rear is hankerchief, right rear is wallet, top two vest pockets, are cellphones, personal on the left, ARC on the right. Cords for them both are in lower pockets on the right. Ring of keys for all my vehicles in the lower right vest pocket, duplicate vehicle keys and all other keys, lower left, etc. If anything is misplaced, I look like a smoker looking for his lighter. Routine, lists, and an over focused purposeful attention are necessary to remember where one is at anyone time. If these things are stressed by the SM assisting an ADD/ADHD scout, they too can learn many of these life skills to help them along. If they catch on they can do great things towards at least appearing to be "normal" and if unleashed can even do the "extraordinary". As far as Helicopter Parents are concerned. They will totally destroy this process by interfering. I do not need you to find things for me. I do not need you to organize things for me, and I definitely don't want you doing things for me. Every time you do you keep me from learning how to adapt on my own. Let me fail, let me be frustrated, let me vent, it's my way of learning. As I mentioned before, my parents bought me my BSA uniform, but then were 100% hands off my Scouting career. I didn't progress beyond 2nd Class, but what I learned stayed with me for all my life. Helicopter parents are the worst thing for ADD/ADHD scouts. What they should be doing is educating non-ADD/ADHD SM's what that disability means and how he/she can make the most of it for all scouts dealing with the situation.

I find it difficult to understand the rationale of jumping into the water over one's head and swimming any distance when all one is going to do is wade around in 3' of water in the first place. Theoretically a boy could wade out into the water, swim a half mile out into the lake, and return and because he didn't jump in, not pass the BSA swim test.

Granted, I have only one patrol at the present time, but they do plan out their meeting based on the guidance given by their PL. He will say we are doing First Aid training next week, and we're having a Campout on the 20th. The QM of the patrol gets the materials together, the GrubMaster starts putting together a menu, etc. all on their own. They know what to do, if not someone is given the responsibility. If not, they are replaced with someone else. Lots of failures, lots of frustration, lots of learning! This is a good thing! Next year when a newbie crop comes in, we further that learning curve, and keep the newbies in their own NSP to basically duplicate the failures, frustrations, and learning done by the previous NSP, but now they have a TG who's gone through it once before and knows the pitfalls they will be facing. So how much interaction is there between the two patrols? None, the NSP does their own planning, and runs it according to their needs. PL's will talk to each other and maybe event he older PL mentor the new PL a bit along with the TG. I guess that occasional interaction could technically be called an ad-hoc PLC. Throwing the boys together, newbies and struggling scouts just now getting things under control, is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Sure the new boys will learn, but the older boys will start over from scratch. I think it is better for my situation to keep the older boys progressing and the NSP will figure it out as they go, but they will have other boys in the other patrol who can ad-hoc mentor their experiences along the way giving the newbies a faster learning curve. By the time one reaches 4 patrols, one will have one well run patrol, and three others in varying places on the learning curve and a permanent PLC can be put in place to facilitate interaction between the patrols speeding up each to reach functionality. Do the younger boys receive tutelage from the older scouts, most certainly they do. With the minor problems they can go to any other patrol for mentoring and for the big problems they have the oldest patrol for assistance. So how does one define a PLC? The formal structure of top leadership directing the efforts of all the patrols, or a source of mentoring for independent patrols as needed? How is the activities designed? Each patrol working on activities that are of pertinent interest to the patrol or one-size-fits-all activities that generically fits everyone the same? If NSP wants to work on S->FC and the oldest patrol wants to get to Philmont, those goals don't even come close to matching very well. I have let the boys define the function of the PLC and they quickly adapted to that which works for them. Very seldom did I ever see all four patrols doing the same thing. Instead, on occasion one or maybe two patrols would work with a third patrol on something important to the third patrol, but otherwise, each patrol ran their own activities designed by the members and coordinated by their PL. This may not work for every troop, but it is a viable option for those who might be struggling otherwise. It works for me so I stand back and keep my mouth shut, except to drink a bit more coffee.

One of the struggles I used to encounter is how this supposed "chain of command" works. Sure there has to be a goal set and needs to be met in order to run a successful program. I found that "outsiders" often set the goal and forget the real needs of those receiving the program. I made the switch early on to focus more on needs and the goals will take care of themselves. The ultimate person needing assistance is the PL who is the one working directly with his patrol members, i.e. the customer of the program, the one who needs to be successful in order for them to be content and successful themselves. This is the key person who will know specifically what is needed for each scout. Well, he can't do it all by himself so he has a right-hand man there to ASSIST him in getting it done. This is the APL. Too often the APL does nothing except wait around for the PL to be absent so he can "take over" running the patrol. An active PL will find this person totally useless most of the time and BSA recognizes this by making the APL a non-POR position. Sorry, but this is baloney. The APL needs to know as much about the patrol as does the PL. They are a team working together and thus the APL is the second most important position in the troop. It is his job to make sure the PL is successful. If the PL needs to step away for 3 months so that he can participate in school sports and the APL takes over and runs the patrol during that time, is he not just as important as the PL? Yet he gets no credit for it. That's a joke. And furthermore the APL has no right-hand man to help him during this time. It makes the job even tougher. So then who supports (not directs) the PL? If someone is "directing" the PL, it is almost certain they do not have the detailed information on the patrol members to give any sort of guidance. The PL should know what his people need, not some outside supervisor. The PL needs a stove to cook on during an outing he puts in his needs to the QM who supports him with material needs for his patrol. The QM doesn't tell him he needs a stove, but he has one ready in case the PL needs it. Same for any other leadership corps positions. They are the PL's "go-to guy" for help. So what about the SPL? When my PL's set up a PLC when they had 4 patrols and things were a bit dicey and uncoordinated, they became the PLC and set their best APL person in as SPL. This person had the best support skills to assist the PL's do their job once it got large enough to warrant. He understood what was necessary to make sure each of the PL's were successful. He did it for one, now he does it for 4. Yes, it's a big responsibility, but his focus is toward successful PL's with liaison responsibilities with the SM. Up to his point each PL liaisoned with the SM. As the patrol numbers grew this became more of a burden to the SM. The SPL took on that responsibility from the SM and made the job easier and took the final step to total boy led. The SPL focused solely on working with the PL's. And he then selected an ASPL to support the work of the Leadership Corps of the troop. He assisted every QM to make sure he was successful in getting supplies to the PL's. He trained the TG to work with the NSP and be successful, etc. The SPL could have as many supportive ASPLs as needed to make sure the PL's were getting the help they needed to be successful. Once this system was in place, the determination of how "good" a POR was done was determined by the PL's. Did the SPL give them the help needed to do their job with the patrol members? If not, they replaced him with someone who would. Did the QM get the right equipment at the right time to the PL's? If not, they replaced him. The caveat to the whole thing was If the PL was not doing his job, the members of the patrol replaced him. So in fact the total membership had control over who ran the troop and if it wasn't getting done correctly they could in fact make immediate changes, on the spot, to fix the problem. If the PL ever hears the words, "I need help with...." and he doesn't respond, the membership will lose their trust in that PL and he'll be back at patrol membership in a heartbeat. Same for the QM who hears, "I need help with....", the same for SPL, etc. The driving dynamic of this setup is from the bottom up, not the top down. What do Committee Members know about what the needs are in the troop? They don't, so why are they mentoring by guessing? What does the SM/ASM team know about what the needs are in the troop? Maybe a bit more, but they have no idea what the total picture is and so they too, mentor with limited knowledge. SPL? With a 15 year old boy there is no what he's going to be able to know what's going on in the troop any more than the SM/ASM team. Who knows? The PL's do. They keep their eye on the success of 6-7 boys and that's about the maximum most humans can handle at one time. Even a corporal in the Army doesn't have much more soldiers to take care of in their squad. BP was military, he knew how things worked from the bottom up. So we hear expressions such as the "Brass", "Higher Ups", and "Ivory Tower" and it normally is NOT in flattering terms. They are the ones least connected to the actual operation of the organization. Mike LaMach, CEO of Ingersoll Rand, an American globally diversified manufacturing corporation went on record as saying, "The people we have in this organization that work the line making product do not work for us, we work for them." This is the model I use, it works and for some very magical reason unbeknownst to most, I have virtually no problems of whether or not a POR is running well, whether or not the passed any hoop jumping to get it checked off for rank advancement, no end of the line surprises for the boys at the BOR, no SMC's to correct or direct anything. It kinda runs itself Scout: "The boys in my patrol are having a problem with the PL, he's never around." SM: " What do you think will solve this problem?" Scout: "We all think Johnny would be a better PL." SM: "Then make him PL." Scout: "You can do that??!!" SM: "No, YOU can." end of discussion. It works that way, all the way up the chain-of-command. The nice thing about the whole thing is once this was put in place, I have had to do ZERO SMC's on anyone's POR performance. The boys handled it by themselves, all the time. And the really good thing about it was that any officer in the troop knew that if they weren't doing a good job for the boys, they could be replaced on the spot. After a few months, it was surprising how well things began to run. I as SM do not need to even ask whether or not they did well in their POR, if they successfully made it to their 6 months, I know the members that were being supported were satisfied with his performance. It's better they keep score than me, anyway. What do I know about the behind the scenes relationships of the boys?

The PL's monitor the functionality of the POR's. If they are doing a good job, they stay in that position, if not the PL's put someone in there that does. If the scout can convince the PL's he's doing a good job by his performance for 6 months, he's given a check box for the rank. Otherwise, he asks for a different POR he might be good at and gives that a try. As long as the PL's are satisfied, so am I.

Currently 1 The boys initiated an SPL/PLC when the troop grew to 4 patrols. The PL's at that time would get together and have a "meeting" during free time on outings. They never set a definite time. Gathered as needed seem to be the consensus of the PL's.