Stosh

Discipline without learning is bullying. I would find it difficult to accept any adult doing this to a scout and would consider it hazing/bullying if it came from a scout. Stosh

My mother told me there was no such thing as a stupid question.... Just stupid people asking questions... And if you want to stay stupid, don't ask questions. Stosh

I was a custom software program for a large corporation and I had on my wall the following message: You can have your software program... CHEAP FAST GOOD Pick two... Stosh

There are certain levels of conflict that have been accepted by most group dynamic/counseling/mediation situations. 1) A problem is identified: "There is a leak in the 3rd grade classroom." 2) A problem is clouded: "There's a real mess in the 3rd grade classroom." 3) Blame is added: "There is a real mess in the 3rd grade classroom and it's the principal's fault." 4) Gamesmanship: people enjoy being involved in conflict, but everyone has to stay in the game for it to be fun. 5) Divorce: Game's over, time for the other guy to leave. 6) Jihad: I'll destroy you, even if it means destroying me. Keep it in mind that only level #1 is solvable. By the time the situation reaches level #4, it's going to take an act of God to resolve. It is my recommendation that every effort is made to take the situation down to level #1 so that it can be resolved and then move on to the next problem, doing the same thing. People who come on to the forum at level #3 or #4 are basically looking to keep the forum "lively" rather than looking for any real resolution. Trolls love level #4. Stosh

As SM you are to set the tone for any "traditions" that happen in a troop. If you are uncomfortable with the present policy, visit with the boys on their feelings towards the issue. It is their program, or at least in theory should be. If the bulk of the boys like it the way it is, then drop the subject. If not, as SM you can allow the change. Nothing wrong with a troop campfire where all the boys gather in the evening. On the other hand, autonomy of the patrol is vital. Adults influencing the leadership of a patrol was always a taboo in my troops. Sure there were times when I would sit down with a PL and discuss his particular patrol policy and whether it was meeting the expectations of the program. It's called mentoring, not dictating that he had to make changes. Most of the time, they were pretty much on target with what they were doing. Occasionally the PL would make changes, most of which improved their patrols. There is nothing wrong with inviting any of the adult leaders for a meal or an evening of a chatting visit, if that is what the boys in the patrol would like to do. As long as the invited adult does not view it as an opportunity to come in and influence the functioning of the group. He/She is the guest and should not act as if they are in-laws. It's a balancing act every SM needs to be aware of. Youth autonomy vs. adult directives. I have seen both work well in the BSA program, but the youth autonomy model does produce more capable leadership because they have the most experience in actually leading. As far as boys visiting the adult camp, the same respect is expected. If anyone has a problem, they can request entrance to the adult area just like an adult would do for a patrol area. Respect goes both way. If the SM wishes to visit with their son for personal reasons, then neutral ground can be found where it does not impose on either the others in the patrols nor the other adults. It could be that the adults may wish to discuss issues relating to the various scouts where they don't want other scouts around. While specific issues may arise, we don't always know the impact those interactions are really making on others in the group, that should be respected. Some of my SPL conferences I had were out of earshot of both patrols and adults. Heading down to the Trading Post for an ice cream and "talk" was one of my summer camp "traditions". None of the adults nor any of the patrols had a problem with it. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

BSA's policy on residence? Doesn't matter. I had a Venturing crew that spanned multiple councils in multiple states. Never had a problem. Stosh

Fehler, You make a valid point. If patrols are assigned by adults for whatever reason adults feel they need to do that, then the boys will wander off to be with their buddies. If the PL and the patrol members say who's in their patrol, the wandering off becomes meaningless. They are already together, no need to wander. This is why the PL directs the functions of his patrol, not the "outsiders" whether they be adults, troop leaders or PLC. Anytime outside factors dictate/mandate to a patrol what they can or can't do, there can be a problem, and if the boys meld together well, then just one scout won't skip out, the whole patrol will go en mass. I see that a lot of such mandates floating through the forum from time to time and along with it the problems of discipline that go with it. If the troop decides that they are all to wear a troop neckerchief and the boys in a certain patrol want a neckerchief of their own, who's to say they can't. Make a rule to keep them from doing it?, or have the boys in that patrol carry two neckers, one for troop activities and inspections, another for patrol activities. Always worked for me, and it was an excellent tool for me to take attendance, know where the boys are supposed to be and recognize them from a distance at times if necessary. My boys always wore full uniform at summer camp, and with the different patrol neckers, I knew where all my boys were at a glance. 2 uniforms, 2 same colored neckers... buddy system working, no problem. Say "Hi" and keep on walking. A strong support of the PL will insure strong patrol identities and very few "rules" and by-laws. Boys stayed together for as long as they wanted and had a PL that was selected from any scout in the troop. If a strong leader from another patrol was elected to be their PL, he was invited to be their PL. If he didn't want the position, he could turn it down and stay with his buddies. I even had a case where the PL was elected out of another patrol and his best buddy was asked to be the APL, just so they wouldn't be "wandering off" and would stay and tend to PL business. There were no terms or term limits. Once PL they stayed that way until either they decided to move on, or the patrol members decided (at any time) to replace him. Usually the bond of esprit de corps was strong enough that the patrol members generally selected from within when necessary. Adults who mandating from the "top down" generally have the most discipline problems and weak PL structures. Why have a PL if the SPL and/or SM is going to undermine him all the time? Stosh

tomasball, Welcome to the forum. There are a couple of things to consider and I don't know how LNT they are, but they work in the real world. Grey water should be just that, grey water, not grey water with food particles. In the wilderness those separated particles were burned and the water dispersed. If one cannot burn, then the particles are packed out in a zip-lock. Large amounts of soapy water should be dispersed well away from any water sources. If this process is maintained, one should be able to disperse grey water repeatedly in the same area without turning it into a garbage dump. Stosh

How one structures the activities makes a major impact on patrol identity. Here's what I was doing in my last troop. PL was highest ranking officer in the troop. At opening flags, patrols were called together and came to the ceremony having been inspected by the PL to their place in the flag ceremony. Once the flags were done, the patrols all went to their respective area of the meeting room and did their own thing. NSP was generally doing advancement/orientation, older boys had their own activities. Troop officers were on hand for any PL requests made, i.e. Instructor to teach knots to Patrol A for half-hour, then go to Patrol B for lashings for a half-hour. The patrols gathered together and came to closing flags. Just before major events, the troop QM may call together the patrol QM's to work out what equipment they are going to be needing. For COH's, the SPL would MC the proceedings and would give an intro, Chap Aide, a prayer, then introduce the first PL who would come up and present the awards to his patrol members. This progressed through the patrols, and at the end, the SPL would gather his "PLC" and present the awards the PL's had earned. The only exception to this was the troop officers if they were not part of a patrol, i.e. SPL, ASPL, TG, etc., they were presented their awards by one of the PL's. It seemed appropriate considering these were the boys supporting the work of the PL's. If there is a need or problem arises, the APL's take over the activity and at the request of the PL's, the SPL convenes the PLC to deal with just that issue and then disperses back into their patrols. Each patrol is autonomous. They decide all their arrangements, coordinate them with the troop officers, i.e. QM, Chaplain's Aide, etc., decide their program, meals, etc. No one tells them how to run their patrol. The patrol Scribe is responsible for seeing that all necessary communications that are sent to those who need to know, who's paid up on dues, who's going to camporee, what MB's their boys signed up for for camp, collected money for camp, report back any member's advancements, etc. What had happened, and what I got in trouble for, was that in some form or another every boy in the troop was expected to participate in some kind of leadership. Patrol scribes were learning how to be troop scribe, patrol QM's would move up to troop QM, etc. same for all other patrol positions. Instructors, TG, and other troop leaders were always available upon request to assist any problems in a patrol's operation. They were held accountable and interacted with the adult leadership, i.e. collected up patrol dues, kept record and passed on to Committee Treasurer. Same for Summer Camp monies. And the catch? Slackers who didn't want to be involved in any leadership or responsibilities were immediately identified. Thus with this system set in place, 1) boys were doing too much leadership and 2) the SM wasn't doing anything. Yep, it was a totally boy-run, patrol-method program and it was working great. So they dumped the SM and went back to a troop-method, adult-led program so that the adults could justify their efforts to the parents. Stosh

Like any tool, once knowledge of it's purpose is lost, so has it's usefulness. A whistle used to be a status token of the PL. It was how he communicated to his patrol when it was scattered further than the patrol yell could communicate. The bugle was for troop directives. Modern scouts and scouters prefer screaming and yelling today. Stosh

SPL and OA Rep means two boys and SM. I usually took along my ASM to fill up the car. When the popcorn chair went along I had 3 boys 1 adult driver, not a problem. Stosh

as would any good SM of an adult-led program. Punish them for ingenuity. Instead, why not mentor them into improvement instead..... Stosh

My SPL and OA Rep always attended the monthly Roundtable with me. They were the troop leaders, they were responsible for picking up the fliers, they were the ones that ran the show back home, why was I involved in the council contact? It was their job. In August, the boy responsible for the popcorn sales showed up for the pitch from the council and collected the packet that would be needed for the event. As time went on more and more of the other troops brought their SPL's. The OA Reps went to the OA portion of the meeting. If a troop is boy-led why aren't the SPL's at Roundtable with the SM's? and the OA Reps with the OA group? Worked for me, your mileage may vary.

Eaglemom2B Wow, there are so many things wrong with that program and meals it's a wonder it functions at all. Yes, T-FC has requirements for advancement your boys are not doing under the prescibed method you identified. If none of your boys have planned, shopped and cooked a meal, then NONE OF THEM should be wearing anything higher than a 2nd Class rank! The QM is responsible for equipment, period. The "GrubMaster" should be responsible for the cooking, letting the QM know what equipment he will be needing. A TROOP vote on meals? That is a new one on me. Patrol-method means the boys in the troop make their own arrangements, they have their own GM, QM, and they work together to get the meal out. GrubMaster is an old term used in scouting to identify the cook. If anything, the GM should be instructing the new boys on their advancement in cooking. If the troop is deciding on menus, they are really not following the patrol method prescribed by the BSA. Every patrol should have a GM and QM. The patrol QM goes to the troop QM and acquires the necessary equipment to do the meal. The GM then takes over and prepares the meal with the help of boys working on advancement. It sounds like your CC and SM need to get trained in the BSA program. If meals are this convoluted, what else is? Stosh

I had a mother that was well ahead of her time. My sister was 11 months older than me and was responsible for all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, ironing, etc. When she went off to college... Yep, it was my turn. It was the best year of my life getting me ready to live on my own. I really think it is a shame that we teach the boys individually how to cook, set up a tent, etc. but how much real instruction goes into doing it as a patrol/team? BSA is really lacking in this area. LisaBob, it's good to see that there are a few of the boys out there that take the initiative of learning this on their own. It's too bad that more boys aren't expected and have the opportunity to learn this without having to do it on their own. Stosh

One of my Eagle scouts turned 18 in January, took SM Basics at summer camp and by the time he was 18 1/2 he was a fully trained ASM. At the camp where he took the training, they sent him an application for summer employment the next year at camp. They had on their high adventure crew a fully trained ASM/Eagle assistant director. He had a blast and the camp got the benefits of his expertise. Ya gotta pay your dues. Stosh

Eagle 69 - Time is irrelevant, If a boy plans a meal, shops and then does nothing but throw it in a box to be dragged out once they get there, there's a whole lot of prep time that could have been done the night before. Either do the prep at home or at camp, that's a choice the boys can make. I don't buy it as a legitimate excuse. It's more of a lesson in the GrubMaster dumping on the new guys that need to "help" at a meal. If the GM is instructing the boys, maybe the help would be better served at teaching them to cook instead of opening a box of mac and cheese. When I cook, except for fire building, I can start cooking, eat and clean up in a half hour. On a canoe trip my boys timed me and I cooked sweet and sour pork over rice including prep (none), cooking, eating and clean up all before the boy's got their cauldron of hotdogs heated up. I did "cheat" that time and used a backpack stove instead of a camp fire. These are skills that can be taught. I'm basically lazy for the most part and doing more work than necessary isn't part of my lifestyle. When I get out there I want to have as much time for fun as the next guy. When I'm not pressed for time, I really enjoy a good steak, baked potato and roasted corn on the cob. How much prep for the corn? None, dump in the fire, rotate occasionally. Potato? Wrap in foil the night before and toss into the fire, rotate occasionally. Steak? 3 minutes on one side, 4 minutes on the other. Dutch oven French toast? 30 minutes prep the night before, get the coals going in the morning and serve 20 minutes after the coals are ready. I can do that by myself faster than the majority of boys can get out of the sack. I've attended a lot of basically bogus utensil-less cooking demonstrations most of which I've never seen done anywhere else other than at the demonstrations. Ever go to a patrol cooking instruction class at a University of Scouting? Nope, just a bunch of cobblers to supplement the lunch. Stosh

I've seen both the mixed and age related patrols work just fine, and the key for me always remains: is it the boys' choice or some arbitrary process imposed by adults? While I have seen older scouts take the younger boys under their wings and both flourished, but it was the choice of both parties. I have also seen older boys take advantage of younger boys, having them do all the camp chores while the older boys sit back and do nothing. While this goes a long way of developing stronger servant leadership amongst the younger boys, it does nothing but reinforce minor bullying from the older boys. Success/failure of either system is exclusively dependent upon the choices of the boys themselves. If buddies want to stick together, great. If they want to be part of the old boys' groups, that's great too. But unless the boys themselves buy into the program it will not succeed in the long run. For the younger boys that want to hang together, at least in the beginning, they will still need a good TG or even PL to get them through orientation, but after a couple of months, those roles can be rolled back and allow for the boys to build their own autonomy. As has been pointed out, every troop is different, and adding to that every patrol is different as well. There is no reason why a large troop can't have examples of both types of patrols. It take a bit more understanding on the part of the adults to understand this, but that's why we're there in the first place. Stosh

There's always someone out there that can take a simple request on this forum and turn it into a heated debate on interpretation of rules!!!! Love it! Stosh

While reading a couple of the posts concerning advancement, etc. I noticed there is a lot of concern floating around the quality of meals boys seem to "prefer" on outings. I began to wonder, is it because 1) boys really don't know how to cook, 2) this is the meal/fare they get at home and are used to it or 3) Because the SM allows it they can get away with anything goes. There is no way I would ever go off to work everyday after downing a couple of Pop Tarts. Why would I find it acceptable on an outing? There are exceptions/anecdotes floating around, but for the general boy, where does he develop his skill in cooking? If a boy is to Be Prepared, one would think diet ranks up there pretty high in doing it right. When I went off to Boy Scouts from Cub Scouts I already knew how to cook simple meals. My first 10 mile hike with Boy Scouts, I made a fire, cooked steak, had potatoes and corn to go with it. Did everything on my own out of my mess kit. I was wearing my Cub Scout uniform because I hadn't yet joined by was just visiting. Scouting allowed me to learn dutch oven, but anything on a griddle or fry pan of my mess kit, I could handle. This was back in the day before camp stoves were common and we did most of our cooking on open fires. Yet after 60 years I still consider a balanced meal every time I cook which is all the time. I am not over-weight (BMI Index), but I eat well. When I see boys' menus the last thing considered is nutrition. They create menus based on their favorite things to eat and if they can work it in, bacon is served three times a day. Of course for a change up and real treat, bacon wrapped hot dogs, Pop Tarts for desert. I have always used Kudu's 300' rule when it comes to eating camp fare at the troops I have served. Why is it acceptable to allow taste tested menus rather than nutritional menus? Nutrition is identified in the T-FC requirements, but that doesn't last 10 seconds beyond getting it checked off in the book. Stosh

Just be thankful you aren't the one in charge of registration for the John Smith convention. Stosh

I have current American Heart Association certification and was surprised that it was compression only. I used to be a AHA certified instructor and what is being taught the public today is far different than it was 20-30 years ago. I was also surprised to "learn" that compressions started before checking to see if the person is breathing and/or has a pulse. I guess I'm not really ready to break a person's ribs unless it is required. CPR is no longer viewed as Cardio-Pulimnary Recessitation, but a technique for life-saving technique authorized by either the American Red Cross or American Heart Association. If they teaching no breaths, then the demonstrations for the requirement need to be exactly what is accepted by either of these two agencies. No more, no less. When it comes to justification for your actions, what is taught is the only criteria law enforcement, insurance companies and the courts recognize. What one thinks or believes is irrelevant. Stosh

One of the scouters I had in my WoodBadge course did the same thing for 3 years to keep the troop going. He was 14-17 at the time. Kinda speaks well for the boy-led program. When all is said and done, maybe the problem won't be a lack of male adults after all. Maybe all we need is a couple of ad hoc babysitters that tag along to drink coffee and cover the 2-deep insurance requirements adopted by BSA. Stosh

Kinda makes one wonder how in the world BSA survived the Great Depression?, the wars when the men went off to fight, etc. etc. There's always an excuse. Those that didn't focus on excuses, focused on solving the problems they faced and thus survived and some even thrived. Stosh

Bylaws are for people who are not trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, ... The only time they get dragged out is when someone wants to prove a point to further their argument. Any group that needs by-laws is a group that has experienced, is experiencing or will experience problems. They need them keep the group together. Stosh