Stosh

There is a very thin line between what people call a sense of superiority and wisdom. For the most part what Kudu says makes a lot of sense, something which isn't very common in today's world. If one can say that their FC+ scouts are sufficiently trained to survive an outing of 2-3 days in a foreign/alien environment, i.e. woods, then what they are doing is correct. However, not many can attest to that. What I hear more often than not Eagle scouts couldn't take care of themselves in the out-of-doors let alone have sufficient leadership skills to take care of others. Distance, 300', is mere pittance compared to a real situation of being away from the security of assistance. Can your boys do HA backpacking into the backwoods? Can they navigate a 100 mile trek in the BWCA? Sure, with the help of experienced guides and adults. Of course these boys only follow, they don't lead, the adults do. Separate them from the adults and all bets are off. How much effort is really being put into "being prepared"? I could also go out on a limb here and say that there aren't many SM's that are skilled enough on these basic tenets to even teach the boys along these lines. Today's BSA spends a lot of time promoting Wilderness Survival and Wilderness first aid for the adults so they can take the boys into challenging areas, but where's the training for the boys to be able to take their buddies there? While it is important to be able to do well in the out-of-doors, these skills apply to everyday life in terms of marriage, family, jobs, etc. Dialing 9-1-1 when one's spouse, child or co-worker is injured, might be the correct answer on the test, but then standing there uselessly watching the person bleed out without knowing what to do is going to be an unfortunate life lesson no one ever wants to learn the hard way. The underlying principle to any and all true leadership is "Be Prepared". I'm thinking that's why BP picked it. At one time it was common knowledge that the "great outdoors" provided all the necessities of life, food, clothing, shelter, etc. Our culture today has forgotten most of those skills and would find themselves struggling to survive days or maybe a week or two in the wilderness. Turn off the electricity to the country for 3 months and see how many people survive. There are people in this world who do it all the time, but they are closer to nature than our society. They will be the leaders (those to whom we look for survival), not us. Maybe we ought to teach our Eagle scouts to actually light the fires they build. I know it's an arrogant stance to insist on that, but there still is a lot of wisdom behind the idea.

One cannot force someone to lead or even manage a task. It appears he's only interested in wearing a patch and getting credit for doing nothing. There's only so much one can do with mentoring. Once one goes over to making demands, one's credibility as leadership mentoring goes out the window. I would suggest getting someone in there that is genuinely interested in developing their leadership skills and make better use of your time. There's been enough time wasted on this process, don't make it worse by kicking a dead horse. Of course one can run the risk I did and be asked to leave the troop because I expected too much leadership out of the boys. This is exactly what was happening in my former troop. Next step? The boy whines to his parents who go directly to the troop committee with their "concerns" about your leadership.

Ego/pride vs. dedication/sticking with the program outlined by BSA? Yep, kinda hard to tell at times, especially when one looks at it from only one point of view. By the way, good leaders do have bias and pride in the program they lead and inspire others with. And as far as EGO is concerned, show me a effective historical leader someplace that wasn't affected by a huge ego. It goes hand-in-hand. Stosh

Being young is not the problem. One effective older boy teaching leadership will raise the bar on the leadership corps very quickly. If the only emphasis being promoted is personal advancement and not group leadership, the young problem will persist for quite some time. I have personally witnessed 11-12 year-olds doing what in other troops were being done by adults. Teach your boys real leadership and let them go. Age determined problems are generally an adult perspective. The boys all know who's really running the show, and more often than not, it ain't them.

Yep, because I expected too much leadership from the boys. Everyone had positions and when a few boys who didn't like to have to do anything complained to their parents, I was asked to leave and the troop reverted back to adult led. The only people upset with the process were the boys who were really liking the boy led thingy, picking their own activities, camps and being involved. A number of boys walked away and joined another troop in town that was also intensely adult-led, but had far more activities planned by the adults. They said as long as the adults were going to run the show, they might as well join a troop noted for it's Eagle-mill, high intensity advancement and little or no work on the part of the boys. The troop I had was too small to pull off the nice events. The other troop had been to BWCA, Philmont, Jamboree and Sea Base all within the previous 5 years. That was the troop I was in competition with and winning. I went from 5 boys to 29 in 3 years. Now they are about 12, four of them the new SM's sons, the other eight, their friends. A small adult-led program cannot compete effectively against a large adult-led program. One has to offer a true alternative to attract boys.

BD, I'll take the Devil's Advocate in this. How many patrols does the troop have? Is the SPL in charge of the PL's or the "whole troop"? I would think that if one has 3 patrols all with functional PL's doing a great job, the SPL is pretty much useless and will spend a lot of time "doing nothing". Once a month, the SPL get's the PL's together and says, "How's it going guys?" and they all say, things couldn't be better, then the SPL is pretty much going to sit back and wait for some problem that may arise for at least a month until the next PLC meeting where he's ask the question, "How's it going guys?". However, if the SPL is in charge of the "whole troop", then he'll need to be interfering in the work of all the PL's, over ruling their decisions for their patrol and pretty much trying to be SUPER Patrol Leader of a patrol equivalent of the whole troop. Good luck, this boy will never be a success and will struggle and fight for authority throughout his tenure. If things go awry, he'll be blamed and he won't have the where-with-all to handle situations that most adults struggle with. This is why the really good leaders avoid the SPL position. They know a losing proposition and will put in some young scout based on some false sense of ego, just so he'll stay out of the way and take the inevitable heat from things going wrong. In my troop I had fairly good PL's and whenever a SPL was needed for an activity, they drew straws as to who got/had to be SPL. the "loser" was always the one who had to be SPL. I asked one of my better PL's why this was that way and he basically summed it up as the SPL stuff was pretty much a waste of time and would prefer to be with his friends leading the patrol. As you can see I'm a big fan of true patrol-method with strong PL's and an SPL that supports PL's being better rather than trying to run the "whole troop". Heck, some adult SM's can't even do that themselves, how would they ever expect some poor scout to pull it off? Is my bias against SPL's showing? Stosh

If that be the case, why not put on a BSA uniform and go door to door offering to mow lawns so he can have money to go to camp? Try and and see how far one gets. Basement, you might clarify it for the donor, but I'm thinking that when a someone buys popcorn, goes to a pancake supper, etc. they are donating not to the individuals, but are coming to help the troop as a whole. If there are policies for individuals, there can be policies for the whole troop just as easily without giving a wink-wink to the scout that the money is somehow "his", that when he leaves the troop, he can even take it with him. Every penny in the coffer of any troop belongs to the chartering organization. How do they feel about such policies? I do know that if a Christian congregation is the CO, it is normally the policy that if money is donated to the church for a specific purchase and the project falls through, the money is returned to those people. Somehow I seem to feel there tends to be a lot of deception going on with such practices. If money is being pooled to get everyone to summer camp, that's great. If the troop needs tents, everyone pitches in, a fund raiser just for tents, great. A fundraiser so that certain boys get extra money for something. Not in my book as being a Trustworthy endeavor. If some kid is short on funds and needs help getting to summer camp, then he petitions the troop and they evaluate maybe a scholarship for him. Otherwise he gets out and mows lawns and raises his own money to make up for what Mom/Dad can't afford. That's how I got to camp each year. As far as the troop fundraising (popcorn/dinners, etc.) the money is gathered up and if money goes towards equally to all the scouts. If that doesn't sound fair, then while the boys are out hawking expensive popcorn to their family and friends, the boy could be out mowing lawns making twice as much money he would get from some "share" of the popcorn sales. Heck, 10 years ago, my father was paying a boy $20/week to mow his lawn. $40 to do the whole thing, major hillside, worth the $40 that week. Well, if a boy were to get two or three of those jobs lined up a week, he could pay for camp and have a ton left over for the Trading Post. As a scout I hated to be involved in the fund-raisers the troop was promoting. I always made more money with my paper route and odd jobs and never asked my parents for a dime to go to camp, pay for my uniform, etc. etc. etc. I think the word we're looking for here is "Thrifty". Otherwise, make up a bunch of rules that parents can challenge and it makes good threads here on the form as to what everyone does to get themselves out the morass they have created. Lot more fun that way. Stosh Stosh

I have always been one that believes people donate money to a scout troop to support the scout troop, not individuals within it. I find the individual accounts unethical, but that's my personal opinion. An organization that takes in money for the "cause" only to spend it on individual interests just doesn't sit well with me. So then, when I see posts like these, it only goes to show how far such abuses can be carried. A Little White Lie is to a lessor extent the same as perjury. They are both lies wearing different hats. So if one looks at it from that perspective, if people give money to a troop that turns around and gives it to an individual scout, how is that any different than the scout turning it around and giving it to his parents? I'm thinking the case could then be made that the money should go to a new fishing boat for dad so he can take his scout son and his buddies out fishing every now and then. Stosh

Some boys simply aren't people oriented and tend to have difficulty in dealing with leadership dynamics. Therefore I reserve the project option (management vs. leadership) for them. A project can be accomplished with very little leadership requirement. For example, the boy "takes lead" on a park clean up project. He sets the date and time, and makes sure everyone in the troop is aware of it. When everyone arrives at the park he has all the equipment there and a map to hand out to each PL as to what section of the park they are responsible for cleaning. He instructs the PL to place the full bags by the road where the adults with the pickup truck will pick them up and haul to the dump. How much leadership? None, but he has done a fantastic job of organizing and managing a task that needed to be done. Any patrol leader that calls out to his patrol, to follow him to their section to knock out their job has demonstrated more leadership than the organizer. Not all boys can do POR's and so for me this option was not for the lackies that wanted a free pass on responsibility. Time requirements are for leadership which is lead people for a period of time. Management (projects) doesn't need time requirements. When the responsibility of fulfilling a task is done, it's done. It may day a couple of days, weeks, or months depending on the scope of the task. Good managers can get the job done quicker than poor managers. But time is not an issue. Stosh

If everyone is going to merge patrols because of activity attrition, then one might as well forget about the patrol method. I set patrols at 6-8 boys. They pick and chose who they want. If their buddies don't show up for activities, they need to work that out, that's what small group dynamics require. If one can miss and no one cares because they are going to merge patrols anyway, what's the big deal about skipping. But if my buddies need me there, peer-pressure comes to play. If one is going to use patrol method, then use it. If one is going to go with the troop method, then use it. Mixing and matching, blending and stirring things up, just doesn't pan out in the long run. Either you're going to end up with frustrated patrols or a poorly run troop. I had two boys that wanted to have their own patrol. I advised against it, but being boy-led, I let them. They were unable to recruit any new boys for their patrol, and the day before summer camp one of them broke his leg. The other boy had a pretty miserable time at summer camp doing his own cooking, cleaning and camp chores by himself. By the end of the summer he joined up (his decision) with another patrol. He had to request, on his own, joining another patrol and that patrol didn't have their 8 boys, took him in. His buddy had to request to join another patrol that was also short one member. No one ever asked to try that "experiment" again. The two boys learned a valuable lesson and the others in the troop took notice and learned as well. If one runs a truly patrol-method program, a lot of the "problems" that arise are taken care of by the boys themselves and tend to run quite smoothly once everyone figures out that the SM is going to stick to his guns about the patrol-method and not mess around with the patrol groupings. Stosh

Take charge of lining up Summer camp. Pick the camp, collect the money, register the MB's, arrange transportation, coordinate gear, and set up arrangements for next year. As mentioned, take over the popcorn/fund raiser project. Coordinate a High Adventure activiity for the older boys. Organize a mini-eagle project of his choice. A nice milk-run for the Eagle project to follow. As a last resort for the boy-led SM, ask HIM what he thinks is a worthwhile project to do.

In all the time I was SM, I never had an SPL. Never needed one except to go to meetings at camp, camporees, etc. The highest ranking officer in the troop were the PL's and they took care of their patrols. If there was a "troop" issue the PL's would gather and come to a consensus and that was that. Usually took a few minutes. SPL was viewed as a do-nothing position. When an SPL was needed for a camp/camporee meeting, the PL's did rock/paper/scissors and the loser had to go.

I live in an area of high tick and mosquitoes (Lymes, encephalitis West Nile). I wear long sleeves, taped shut, necker, pulled tight, long pants tucked into socks, belt with shirt tucked in. The ticks still get in now and then. Liquid soap on a Kleenex held on it will back them out. Otherwise, needle nose pliars for those who choose that route. After 62 years, I've never had a bug problem. If bugs bother you, I'd stay out of the woods, stick with the ants, spiders and roaches you have in your home instead.

I guess it all boils down to whether or not your troop is boy-led. If one is going to dictate such things, then don't expect the boys to lead. They will just wait until some adult squares it away and that's how the troop will be run. On the other hand, if the boys are running the show, let them. If it turns out to be a fiasco, no problem, let the boys figure out how to make it work. It's part of leadership development to solve problems. The really scary part of it is if the "fun" boys are more successful than the "serious" boys.

An interesting twist to this whole Wood Badge thingy... If the 21st Century program is so much better than the "old stuff" why aren't the old-timers beating down the door to get into the program? For a while, the council was pushing the 21st program to the old-timers telling them that they needed to update in order to be on staff, eligible for Jambo staff, etc. etc. The impression was the "old stuff" wasn't going to be "valid" anymore. There were a few who even subtly threatened to require the re-training in order to keep the beads. The conclusion for most was, well then, where do we drop off the beads..... Somehow I keep thinking in the back of my mind, if the program is so much better, why isn't everyone, including "old stuff" Wood Badgers beating down the door to get into the program? And that begs the second question, why after 13 years people are still asking the same question: "Why Woodbadge?" Sometimes the track record speaks for itself. Stosh

I would remind him that gay scouts have been in scouting for years. No one ever noticed because no one "came out of the closet". The vote by national is only smoke and mirrors. Now the only difference is that National is off the hook and puts on a good public perception to the society in which it exists. Individual units can still keep out openly gay scouts, but all that means is they won't have their registration revoked by National. All they need do is find another unit that allows gays. If the boy can't find one, no big deal, National still hasn't said he isn't allowed in. I would suggest to this individual they form their own home-school scout troop/pack and then they don't have to worry about it. If the boy is not home-schooled, then he attends school with openly gay students all the time. Is he planning on quitting school, too? From the initial post, I'm thinking there is more to this 17 year-old's quitting scouts besides the gay issue vote. Stosh

Basement, it kind of calls for the clarification of the word hooligan. It could mean the bully type of person that has a profound affect on the victims of the hooligan. Yes, that person will weed out a lot of good boys from the troop. But what about the hooligan boy that's basically ADD/ADHD and can't focus, but is quite smart. Sure, he gets into lots of trouble, can't pay attention, disrupts, etc. and is basically a pain in the butt. I have found that if one is able to channel that energy in a constructive way, it goes a long way towards creating a good leader for the troop. As long as there's not any mean/bullying streak behind his motives, he can do quite well. I had an ADD boy (13 years old) run the popcorn sales for the troop without any adult involvement except at his request and it was the most successful sale ever for the troop. He was great at nagging the boys to get their forms in for the contests and then dogged the council to make sure the boys all got their prizes. Needless to say, I was VERY skeptical when he first volunteered to do the activity, but I'm glad I let him run it his way. Up until that point, I would have definitely defined him in terms of hooligan.

I like your reference to "Leadership" in quotes. It's really not a leadership course designed for business structures, it's a management course designed to accomplish certain tasks in a structured business model with people nothing more than standard resources to accomplish that task. True leadership requires a focus on people to lead, not tasks to be accomplished..

I have 35+ years in Scouting. WB trained in 1993 so I didn't get the 21st Century stuff. Was WB worth it? Don't remember much of it. It wasn't very memorable even at the time. However, now that the 21st Century stuff came out they don't ask me to staff it, they don't ask me to do hold district/council positions, and I'm okay with that. I didn't spend a lot of time schmoozing the Good Old Boys network. I was in scouting 25 years before I was awarded the District Award of Merit. I guess I'm just too interested in working with the scouts to be all that concerned about peer pressure. Trained? Sure, Cub Scouts through Venturing and UC as well. I'm currently too busy starting a new troop, to worry about what the course du jour is. Of course the troop will be the old fashioned Green Bar Bill patrol-method, boy-led all the way. When you start a troop from scratch, you don't have to worry about traditions and councils getting in the way.

First of all keep it in mind that in Cub Scouts, the ranks do not build one on another. A boy who doesn't earn a badge, simply doesn't get it but goes on to the next. It's no different than if an older boy jumps in after a couple of years, he does not need to go back and earn Wolf and Bear if he's Webelos age. This is different in Boy Scouts where the program is not generally age related. As far as having only one or two boys? No a problem. Simply make sure the parent is there for your two deep and maybe go for a hike. Go on a field trip some place the boy is interested in. Build something like a bird house. Learn a skill of some kind like the compass. Etc. There's a ton of things boys are interested in but never get a chance to do. As a last resort, you could always ask the boy what he might want to do and if it is within the parameters of scouting, go for it. The advancement books expect a minimum level of proficiency to pass, but that doesn't mean one can't go beyond that level if the boy is showing interest in a particular activity. It's one thing to learn to tie knots, but no boy of any age doesn't find it great to make rope to tie the knots with. Two sticks and some twine and you're on your way to a great opportunity for the boy. Stosh

Sometimes failure entails being recalled rather than merely warned over and over again. Boy shouldn't have to suffer under poor leadership for a full 6 months until the next election. Boys are smart enough to follow good leadership, but they should be given the opportunity to shuffle around until they get it.

Generally speaking, I would say they don't. To think a FC scout has sufficient skills to take care of himself in the woods is not the norm. When Baden Powell selected the name scout, it was from his military background to indicate a small group of soldiers that could disconnect from the main body of the army, pass into enemy territory, survive on what they could carry and return safely. On the other hand, I don't think the modern scout could fare well unless tethered to a camp trailer or zippered tent. Stosh

There are so many things wrong with this situation one could almost think CherokeeScouter is a forum troll. And then again, this is so bad one would think that even a troll couldn't think this one up!

That would be my first option if I were working with a church. I know it's a matter of interpretation when it comes to "community", but I'm thinking community is meant as something beyond the membership community of the organization itself. I hope your boy still volunteers for VBS even if he doesn't get credit for it. It's a great program for the church. Stosh

Sounds like a total abuse of power on the part of the advancement chair. No one can veto a properly signed MB. If the counselor says the boy met the requirements, that's the end of the story. The boy's handbook and blue cards is the only official record of advancement. That is the record that will be used when applying for any rank. If the SM says someone is to sign off on a requirement, that's it, they sign and it's official. Once a rank has been signed off it's permanent. On the YPT issue. As long as one of the two adults have had the training, you are good to go. I have had many occasions where a parent has backed me up without the training, especially when a parent comes late to pick up their boy and I don't want to be waiting in the parking lot alone with another boy. As Frank says, Troopmaster is a backup record to the handbooks for ease of research on how well a boy is doing. There is nothing official about Troopmaster. Your advancement chairperson needs to be properly trained. Oh, by the way, the SM runs the program for the troop, not the advancement chair nor anyone else on the committee including the chair. If the advancement chair has a problem they are to discuss with the SM and CC before acting unilaterally. Stosh