Stosh

My boys decide what programs they wish to participate in. Information from council and out-of-council options are made available. The boys have chosen out of council, out of district programs rather consistently. Like SSScout says, it's a free-market out there. Improve your program and people will opt to come. Stosh

No one ever said being a scout leader was going to be easy. It's not for everyone. As we all know everyone is out recruiting parents to fill every little job in the troop/pack/crew. If it's warm and breathing, you're offered an application. However, we also know there are a ton of parents out there that make lousy parents, let alone scout leaders. After 30+ years I can say I have been hindered by tyrannical SM's, hassled by CC's, had troop fold rather than have me as a boy-led, patrol-method SM, been kicked out of the SM position because I expected too much leadership from the boys, been told to MYOB as UC, and a dozen other less annoying things along the way. I have started units (troops/crew)/posts) from scratch, and after 20 years was awarded the District Award of Merit. I have no idea how many thousands of dollars this has cost me along the way. Some of the junk means one just shakes the dust from off their shoes and moves on to the next town. This not a job, it's is not a form of entertainment, it is not something someone has to do. It's a vocation. If one has the skills, one should use them. But one must remember it's not for the enjoyment, it is not for the honors, glory and patches, it is for the boys. Not just my boy, but all the boys. PEROID. Once one loses sight of that, then it's time to walk away and find something else to do. Stosh

If First Aid and Swimming are important and there are some of those requirements in the T-FC requirements, why not just incorporate all of the FA and Swimming MB's into the requirements? Same for all the required MB's? The only reason one would not go along with that is because the scout couldn't reach FC in 12-18 months. Not that the watered down T-FC program is all that great anyway. And then one will realize that the importance of the Eagle rank is nothing more than a few elective MB's, a few service project hours and a project, and then sitting on a POR patch for 16 weeks. The only thing that the Star, Life and Eagle rank do is turn a First Class scout into a second class scout. Stosh

I find nothing wrong with your ideas about the Citizen MB's. It's all part of what I said about beefing up the T-FC requirements. What they teach is very important. But to merit 3 different classroom type MB's? That's a bit of overkill. Visit a community leader is pretty weak as part of what it takes to make a FC scout. Leaving the T-FC requirements weak just to have a MB is not good programming for me. I also like the idea of dropping MB's for advancement for what Packsaddle also says about how valuable they were but were taught with more than just pencil whipping requirements. I would love to have MB's taught by people who have a passion for the subject and will elaborate and make the subject interesting and exciting for the boys without having to worry about doing too much/too little for advancement. Take the required MB's for Eagle and incorporate them into the T-FC After all, if they are necessary to be an Eagle, they are surely necessary to be a Scout in general. This also allows the boys to take more MB's as electives on subjects of their own choosing. Stosh

I guess I'm a bit off here but I find very little benefit for post FC advancement. I do know they have been arbitrarily added over the years because the highest rank used to be FC. Now we have FC scouts wilth little or no skill level because they were rushed through and then the whole hassle of MB's, POR and projects which really have very little if anything to do with being out in the woods doing adventures. The citizen MB's are the worst. They asked me to do those at one time when I was an ASM. Nope, camping, canoeing, cooking, and such, but anything that smacked of a classroom, I didn't have the time of day for. POR's? How much headache are those and how many boys are slid through these to get them the Grand Prix at the end? It's not that they really do any leadership, they just spend the time and get the credit. I just find that once a scout makes FC, the real headaches begin. Just ask yourself, if MB's are supposed to be an opportunity for the boys to try out new and different things, how does Citizenship work into that? If First Aid is important enough for a MB and rank, why not have the items covered in the MB taught for FC? Same for cooking. Same for orienteering. Same for swimming...... Why have the boys do Swimming for rank and then require it for Eagle? Kinda redundant and useless. Beef up FC to where the boys are actually functional with those skills and dump the MB's for advancement and just have them as electives. Having an Eagle scout that can't start a campfire is totally embarrassing to the program. And yes, I have had such boys in my troop, but they finagled the advancement and got the credit and so they got the rank. I have had some FC scouts that know more about camping, cooking, and leadership than many of the Eagle mill scouts I have met. I would be really happy to have the FC requirements of 1911 updated and fleshed out as being functinal and useful to the boy and then drop Star, Life and Eagle. It'll never happen but then the goal is not the knowledge, it's the medal, and the footnote on the college application, job resume and military advancement opportunity. The goal used to be training of young men to function in the adult world effectively. Now I'm not so sure. Stosh

SSScout.... You must be close to my age, you described the standard camp of 50+ years ago. Stosh

When I was a kid there was no MB program offered at summer camp. Just a lot of fun stuff that we couldn't do at home. Swimming, canoeing, hiking, woodcraft, cooking in camp, etc. Stosh

You laugh, but I'm firmly convinced that you're absolutely correct and that the Mrs. is the root cause of all my problems. Have a Merry Christmas! Stosh

Okay, but now we have identified a different problem. It keeps getting punctured is not the same as punctured. Chances are that having spent money on fixing it, when the old tank is pulled off I can now see what the problem was, it rusted through, it was punctured, or whatever. If it rusted through and the car is 20 years old, chances are with the new tank they just put in, I have 20 years to worry about it. If it's punctured, then I need to look at why I have a hole in it. Well, I drive 20 miles to work and back on a gravel road. Must be the Mrs.'s fault, she likes the house better than I do. I see divorce on the horizon.... Stosh

If a problem is recurring, the process is broken. Just change the process and one will reach a different destination. What we have here is X. We don't like X but by doing something the same way each time, we seem to always end up with X. We would like Y. Okay, find out what it's going to take to get to Y. Then do that. I don't need to know whose fault it is. I don't need to know the root cause. All I need to know is I don't like X and prefer Y. Here's how to get to Y is all that is necessary to know. Finding root cause only justifies a solution, it does not create one. Frequent, similar mistakes? Trace back to a single employee and then fire the manager for not training that person correctly in the first place. Then fire the HR mgr for not making sure the manager didn't trained the employee correctly. Then fire the employee for not doing their job correctly. Then fire yourself if one thinks that any of this will solve anything. Sure it justifies a lot of things, but like I said witch-hunts are often fun, but really not productive. If there is a recurring problem and it's always ending up with X then have all the employees trained to a new process that will end up with Y. No witch-hunt, no blame, no wasting of time, but we now have lots of Y and we're all happy (and no one got fired or even had their feelings hurt.) Stosh

If one finds it necessary to "work back to the root cause". That's fine with me, I have found, however, about 100% of the time it's a total waste of time. It changes nothing and it offers no solutions. Here's the scenario. Troop X is running smoothly, everyone is happy. As we all know things change, older boys leave, new ones come onboard, SM's change as do CC and MC's. So the once running smoothly process doesn't work anymore. Well the root cause is, the world changes on a daily basis. Live with it. So what's the big problem now. SM didn't move forward with the times? Good guess. CC is a new tyrant? Good guess. MC's aren't cooperating any more. So what's the root cause? The world changed. Live with it. So just look at the situation the way it is now. Identify things that would be nice to have different. Then move in that direction (which is forward, not backward). Is it ever going to go back to the way it was? Heavens no! One doesn't want that and it'll never happen. Go and create a new smooth running Troop X which is more in line with today's needs. Of course if Mr. Z steals $2,000 from the scout treasury. Then call the cops. That's pretty cut and dried simple. Those that are a bit more complex need witch-hunts which no matter how much lipstick you put on it, it's still a pig. There is no place in BSA literature that will train anyone on how to do a good witch-hunt. Root cause witch-hunts only make some people feel good, important or powerful over others. I have never seen one work out as offering anything beneficial to anyone. Of course one can justify it in many different ways, but a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt and if one is looking for root causes to big problems, witch-hunting is a great way to create really good big problems.

Finding root cause of a problem is not important. Finding a solution is. Identify what we have and what we would like. Solving the "problem" is moving away from what we have to what we would like. Nothing more, nothing less. The problem is to be identified. "I have a leak in the gas tank in my car." That's what we have. Is it important how I got that leak? Nope, not at all. It rusted, hit a rock, vandalism, who cares? It's not important. Move to what we would like? Well, take it to the shop and get a new one put in. End of discussion. There now is no problem regardless of whose fault it might have been and regardless of any root causes. Too often we make mountains out of mole hills, spin our wheels and waste time, get everyone all worked up and cause more damage than the original problem.

What? You mean that just because one reaches Eagle it doesn't mean they get put out to pasture as a JASM or moved out of the loop so far it's no longer an adventure?

LeCastor, finger-pointing does not lead to grid-lock, it only changes the subject from the problem at hand to some bystander. Somehow people get the idea that miraculous things will happen to solve the problem if we get rid of the person being blamed. It's just a way people keep others from solving the problem. There are those out there that really don't want the problem solved, but the blaming of others is fun and somehow self-justifies the ruckus they produce. "We got a real problem in Troop XX and it's all the SM's fault." Okay, what's the problem? I don't know but I'm sure whatever it is it will go away when we dump the SM. Now there's a surefire way of fixing things using the spirit of the Oath and Law. This kind of crap happens all the time, even here on the forum. Ever wonder why most of the threads start out with "...we have a problem with our SM or our CC or some parent, or our UC or our DE or or or..." The problems that can't be solved are the ones people have escalated to the point where the original problem is the least of the worries.

There's nothing in the Scout Oath or Law that even hints that corporate religious observances are even necessary.

According to Speed Lea's levels of conflict, by the time we get to the blaming level we are well beyond being able to solve the problem because the issue is now someone screwing up rather than having a problem (which has now become irrelevant.)

Not all Bibles are translations, they are paraphrases. There's a big difference. No one is going to buy a word-for-word translation of the Bible in English, but there are such translations out there. Considering that the original writings of the Scripture didn't have punctuation, a comma here or there can change the meaning of the words considerably. The American Standard Bible of 1901 is probably the closest translation in English to the original manuscripts, but finding one at Barnes and Nobel is going to be kinda hard. Modern interpretations of what people think is written is one of the greatest real problems we have today. It gets to be quite interesting after a while especially those that pick a bit here and there and then put them together as some sort of disjointed jigsaw puzzle and then declare it's the Word of God! "Judas hung himself.... Go, ye, therefore and do likewise.... Whatever thou doest, doest quickly." Meditate on that one as your verse for the day.

When one gets "the hell out of the way" there are consequences and as you can see, they are often well beyond any expectations you might have had. I have stood where you are and jaw dropped every time when these kids step up, trust the system and do a fantastic job on their own merits. Now, get the adults out of the way and let the boys have at it! In no time at all you'll all be standing back amazed at what they can do if given the opportunity. Make opportunities, not rules! Just wait, the day will come when they do something far better than you would have done and it makes you look a bit foolish, but then, you made them what they are and you're the hero! Teaching leadership is like wiring a house with the electricity turned on. Stosh

I don't know as if there really is a real "line" between servant leadership and servitude. Yes, there are those who can take advantage of others and thus take advantage of another person's leadership, but as pointed out here, one doesn't have to lead others if they choose not to. I can lead another and they can continue taking advantage of that and never learn, but when I pull myself out of their equation, they are virtually helpless. They have relied on others to the point where they cannot function. Imagine for a moment the 40 year old "kid" living in his parent's basement.... The parents are 100% at fault with this process because they enabled this person to be totally ineffective in life. Is that really taking care of another with real servant leadership? I don't think so, and thus I don't think there is a line, just an abuse of ill-defined servant leadership. Part of servant leadership is to enable the "follower" to become all that they can potentially be. I serve them by helping them grow while keeping them safe. I let them fail and learn as they go. I work at helping them with problem solving, creative thinking, confidence, self-reliance and a number of other issues that go along with "growing up." "Enabling" often times looks like servant leadership when it really isn't. If the person I'm serving doesn't benefit from my servant leadership, then I move on to others. Maybe someone else will be able to get the dynamics of growing up across to them better than I can. But I won't continue to enable them in their self-destructive behavior. My wife and I just went through a tough 3 years of this. Her brother (prison for 15 years for a sexual assault charge) upon release had no place to go and so he moved in with us. It was a difficult 2 years and we accomplished little if anything. We finally had to "cut him loose". He stayed in the area, found a really nice, caring girl who got him out of the bottle, off drugs and into a job. Is he taking advantage of her or is her style of servant leadership something he has become receptive to? There is no one definition of what servant leadership is. It's different for everyone. That's one of the tough parts of teaching it as SM. Every boy is different and needs to define it for himself. I draw it out of him, not put it in with some "lessons". It's kinda like "I don't know what it is for you, but you'll recognize it when it comes along." It's like the fire alarm. When it goes off, you know what it is. Is caring and nurturing servant leadership? Yep! Is tough love servant leadership? Yep! Is there a "line" between the two? Nope! I hope this helps. Stosh Oh, and by the way, can any of this leadership happen if I'm only concerned about myself and my issues, and my welfare?

LeCastor: As you can see how this works as referenced in our PM..... It's not an apples/oranges thing, it's a goose and gander thing. Because you asked for clarification I will respond. The myopic view has to do with how troops help the boys focus on their own little world of self gain in the troop. They promote ISA's, advancement, and a certain sense of "looking out for oneself." These kinds of efforts of worrying about oneself, their finances, their advancement, their issues, one finds that there's not much room to worry about "helping other people at all times" part of the program. That would take a wider vision to see such things in the Scouting program. Because they use this approach, it makes leadership development that much more difficult if not impossible. It has nothing to do with any Marxist attitudes as evidenced by myopic responses, it has to do with "taking care of someone besides yourself" kind of servant leadership ("Help other people at all times"). So if I were to assume a Marxist stance on this issue, the only leadership I would need to promote a form of dictatorial tyranny, and I have seen plenty of that from both adult and youth in the BSA program. Because I don't do this I totally avoid about 95% of the problems brought up on this forum caused by such an approach. Then there's the issue of team-work in the troop. This, too, is not "bolshevik" in nature as has been suggested. Team-work is the process of two leaders working together each keeping watch over the other person's back. How can I as a leader take care of everyone else's back when no one is watching over mine??? The SPL has the SM backing him up, but the SM is not part of a boy-led program. It's Tenderfoot requirement #9 that is often taught incorrectly in the troops. The buddy system of leadership is nothing more than the first step in real team-work. The boys in my troop were discussing the need for an APL for the patrol/troop. The APL is assigned by the PL. Well he was having difficulty selecting someone. He asked me for help and so I asked what an APL did each boy gave their "definition". The boy that got the job answered with: "It's his job to take care of the PL." Who takes care of the PL while the PL is taking care of the patrol? Too often APL's just sit around waiting for the PL to not show up so he can "take over and run the show". Yep, there's the kind of boy I want running my patrol. What's Marxist/bolshevik about any of this? Nothing! It's just a conclusion drawn by people who approach this whole issue with a rather myopic Communist/Marxist/socialist view of the situation. Parents teach it when they say, "My boy raises money for his benefit only. Why should he pay for someone else?" Here's a parent that is into sabotaging their kid's leadership potential. Teaching that as leadership just isn't going to work in a servant leadership world and it is contrary to the empty words, their son repeats every meeting when he says, "Help other people at all times." SM's pick up on this when they drive home the point of ISA and self achievement of advancement over the welfare of the troop. Oh, a SM would never do that. Well not 100% of the time, but what percentage is acceptable? 1%? It's okay to "help other people 99% of the time." Anyone who can't see any of this suffers from varying degrees of myopia when it comes to working with youth. If "Helping other people at all times" is what communism/Marxism/socialism is all about, I guess I have to plead guilty. If that statement doesn't seem to make sense, then it's time to refocus one's view of the world or get some glasses. Stosh

Personal gain and aspirations are contra-indicative of appropriate leadership activity. It is also counter-productive for any team building initiatives. Once that culture is ingrained in a troop, one's leadership efforts will be severely restricted. One cannot be a leader if the only person they are worried about is themselves. Unfortunately a lot of troops make room and often encourage such myopic efforts.

You sure you're the father? Just askin' Stosh

Ever watch paint dry? Stosh