Stosh

Three times a year we test our boys with the BSA swim test. Once in December in our winter pool party so that we know which boys can go into the deep end of the pool and those that can't. Then in late spring we test again to see who's ready for summer camp. Then all are required to take the test at summer camp. Too often the advancement requirements are viewed as a one-time deal, but with safety, there's no such thing as too many tests. Just because one got through the test once doesn't mean that sitting in front of the video games and eating chips on the sofa during TV times hasn't taken it's toll and now they can't pass the test anymore. If they can, it should take maybe 2-3 minutes and it's no big deal. Same holds true for the Totin' Chip. Stosh

Speaking of stew.... Instead of using water or beef broth, use apple cider.... Our boy's favorite entre is BBQ boneless pork chops. Brown up the chops, add a bottle of favorite bbq sauce AND 1 can of apple pie filling. For a change up use red sweet kraut AND a jar of apple sauce. For those who like an Oriental twist... Chops with pineapple tidbits, terryaki sauce and a bit of brown sugar and a splash of molasses. Even though these all have a fruit/sweet component to them, onions can be added and maybe a bit of green pepper on the Oriental choice. Like cobbler, these are all dump and leave recipes. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Just my 2 cents worth. It's the program emphasis. There are two units in my immediate area. Adult-led program of 40+ scouts and a boy-led program of 9 boys. At the last council event (Klondike) both units fielded the same number of boys - 9. While they couldn't muster 25%, the boy-led program mustered 100% At the last local event, Scouting for Food, they had a few more boys than us, but we put out 100% again. At the last meeting of the troop, we were one boy short, the meeting before that we had them all there. I'm a firm believer if the boys have ownership of the program, they have a vested interest in it and will show up. Stosh If the boys own the program, they will be there and they will be excited about it because it's their program. It's not the parents' program, or the leaders' program, it's THEIRS!

All the suggestions are great, and most of them the boys have tried. We've done joint projects, invited them, went to them, held special programs, invited them to the campouts, offered DL's, etc. and stuck with boy-led emphasis as being different than the other programs in the area without running any of them down. Next week we have a special program with the Pack of the same CO and we'll once again see those boys and work with them. We did Scouting for Food with them a few weeks back. It's not that the contacts aren't there. We'll survive and grow slowly as the boys realize that the program they have is working great for them. We'll pick up a few here and there who have the courage to break with the pack and go with us. This has been what's happening and we've picked up some really solid boys this way. These boys tend to be more independent thinker, natural leaders anyway. I guess the only downer in the whole process is the necessity of the other troop to run down the competition to be successful in their efforts. It would be nice to be able to give all the boys that dropped out of the other troop a second chance at scouting. Had not the message been drilled into them how terrible we are, maybe that could have happened. Stosh

One of the three packs shares the same CO as us, but still sent all their boys to the other troop as well as seek DC's from the other troop. It would seem that the WDL from 2 years ago went to the other troop and spends a lot of time sending back DC's and keeping tabs on all that the pack does. The other two packs are independents. We did have a DC in one of the packs, but the other troop recruited him away after a year. I try not to take it personal, but I used to be an ASM of this other troop and refused to encourage any of the scouts that wanted to leave with me to jump ship. I had been ASM for many years and wanted a shot at SM and the troop was struggling. "You have to be 21 to be a Den Leader, but getting Den Chiefs into some of the Packs is a good idea." The other troop needs a lot of POR so they flood two of the packs with DC's so they get credit for advancement. It's hard to break into that cycle. "You stated that all recruiting was done by the boys. What exactly do they do to reach out to the Packs?" They request an invite to come in and put on a program of knots, compass, etc. to get to know the Webelos boys. Some dens extend the invite, others don't. "Do you have any Troop/Webelos campouts?" Fall Camporee and Winter Camp are both Webelos invited events in our troop. "Do you attend District Camporees?" Yep, about 85-100% participation on the part of my boys. "While at Camporees and Klondikes, do the boys talk to any the the visiting Webelos?" In our district, these Webelos invited boys are usually paired up with a host unit and so it's difficult to visit with these boys when they are camping in a different site. "Do all of the area Cubmasters and Webelos den leaders have contact info for your SPL?" SPL regularly attends the Roundtables and knows the CM's and DL's quite well. "Does the SPL regularly contact them to offer Troop assistance in activities?" Yep "You said that there are 3 Packs, and 2 Troops in your area. Do either of the Troops share a CO with a Pack? Or are you all chartered independently?" See above. "If you don't go to the council's summer camp.. Do you go to a different councils camp? Or vary between camps in other councils.. Or do you have a different activity for a week during the summer (like a week long hike). You may not care for you council's camp, but, it is something most scouts (plus parents) look forward to.. " The summer camp that the boys attend is a boy-led, patrol-method camp that caters to that philosophy. There is no mess-hall at the camp. The boys found this camp, registered and went for the first time last year because they had a difficult time with the council camp the year before. They voted unanimously to go again this summer. Remember, this is boy-led and so they decide where they want to go. I'm must along for the ride. Basically, it's very difficult for a boy-led, patrol-method, troop to compete with a polished, adult-led/recruiting organization. The issue is basically the message that is being promoted in the community. Adult-led is growing, exciting, dynamic, and well-run. Boy-led is dying out, disorganized, no opportunities, and the leaders don't know what they're doing. Of course that spin doesn't support the fact that we're having a double Eagle Court of Honor next month. As far as dying out, we are twice the size we were 2 years ago and I'm having the time of my life with the boys. The boys are 100% sold on the program we are putting out there for them, but they are frustrated to be foiled by the negative message being promoted by the adult-led program of the other troop. >> forgot to add Of the 6 registered adults: 5 are SM trained. The 6th is taking it this spring, just turned 18. 3 are Eagles 3 are WB trained 2 are thinking about taking WB this summer. 4 have SM experience. I'm thinking the adult leadership isn't too shabby, but then I'd have to blow my own horn about how well I got a good crew of adults together. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

As a boy-led program, the recruiting is done by the boys unless I or another adult get a direct question addressed to us. It would seem that of the three packs in the area, Pack A went 100% of the Webelos boys to the other troop, Pack B all but one boy (a younger brother of two of our boys) went to the other troop, and Pack C was recruited (per FC requirements) by the lone Webelos boy from Pack B. He has a friend in Pack C. He was told by his friend that all the boys from Pack C were going to the other troop because they were told we weren't organized, didn't do any camping and were having adult leadership problems and the reason we were so small is because we weren't a good troop. I guess if one is going to run a boy-led program, one has to put up with such perceptions. Two parents from Pack B did check us out. Two Webelos boys from one of the packs came to visit because they needed it for AOL requirements and missed out on the visit to the other troop. We requested an opportunity to come visit their den meetings but no invites ever came. We were hoping to have a NSP this year, but with only one boy, it's not going to happen. With the exception of this new Webelos boy (already T-foot), the whole troop is FC to Eagle in rank so we're planning on doing some more challenging activities this year. The really strange thing in this whole process is that the small troop is located right in the middle of town and the larger troop is 10 miles out in the country. Those parents don't want to make the drive don't enroll their boys in Scouts because of this negative recruiting practice. Stosh

An interesting issue came up last night that might be good to open to the forum. At what point does negative recruiting practices become contra-indicative to the Scout Law? For a while now we were wondering why our recruiting practices were not very successful until we recently found out the tactics applied by the other troop in the area. That troop has consistantly recruited 99% of all the other Webelos scouts from three different troops growing well beyond it's ability to handle that many boys. Eventually about half the boys drop out of Scouting because of this practice. We were informed last night that yet another group of Webelos will be going en-mass to the other troop because the boys and their families were told that our troop never goes camping and doesn't get involved in any of the camporees, etc. Well, we don't attend the local council summer camp because of former problems, yet we with our 9 boys vs. 45+ of the troop had more boys in attendance at the Winter Klondike than they did, we have half our boys attending the National Jamboree and they can't boast that statistic, we've produced 3 Eagles over the past 3 years, and yet somehow it seems to be acceptable for other troops to perpetuate such devious recruiting practices to insure their position as a troop in the community. I kind of like the smaller boy-led program we promote, but it is difficult to compete with with an adult-led program that promotes it's program by running down such troops in the area. At what point is it acceptable to promote one's own troop by running down another? Stosh

Sorry, but our favorite recipe is Chocolate Chip Cookie Cheesecake, and it's a troop secret. Other troops are still scrambling to come up with something to compete with us at troop cook-offs. Stosh

Been there, done that..... There's probably 25-30 people out there that would have just cause using the YP rules to have me kicked out of scouting. Yet there are 20 times that many that think I ought to stay and keep doing what I'm doing. It's just a matter of playing the odds and hoping one's number never turns up. While I never advocate breaking any rules, there are times when common sense plays itself out and everything is okay. Okay, try this one on... Your troop meets in the banquet hall of the American Legion. The bar is off in another room. At the end of the meeting you realize one boy is left by himself. The parent hasn't showed up yet. 1) do you go home and figure the parent is going to be coming? 2) do you stay with the boy until the parent comes knowing you are one-on one? 3) do you go to an area of the building where there are other adults to protect you, i.e. the bar area? Yeah, yeah, one shouldn't let the situation end up with one-on-one, but I was packing my car and wasn't paying attention. These kinds of things come up all the time. Everyone is a judgment call and everyone has the potential for disaster. I chose #2 and kept my eye on the boy and his safety until his parent showed up. Duh! We talked in the parking lot. I sat on the trunk of my car and he wandered around pacing while waiting. When the parent arrived, they profusely apologized for being late and thanked me for sticking around and waiting with their boy. According to YP, the scenerio could have turned out differently, but it's a chance I took on behalf of the scout. Stosh

Why not just put the patrol names on the patrol boxes and let the boys decide what they want to put in them? If they need to do a little fund raising, so be it. If they want to raid the home pantries until then, so be it. Let them work it out on their own. It's part of the early years advancement, so they should all know how to do this. The younger patrols might want to learn how to do this for advancement. As far as the type of pans to get, it's part of the teaching/learning process. Non-stick pans when they get over heated emit toxic fumes. They also lose their coatings in the food over time. They are difficult to keep nice. Thin metal cookware will stick terribly, but only if the temperatures are too high. On medium and low they are just fine. Cast iron cookware is heavy, but if seasoned properly IS NON-STICK, and when cooking on low-medium temperatures is the best of all options. Pots can be aluminum/stainless whatever, they usually don't take high heats and need to be concerned more about denting/warping than anything else. If one is going to cook in a pot, all the dynamics of a good fry pan come into play. I have found out over the years that learning how to cook is more important than the tools one uses. Can I cook in cast iron without any food sticking? Yep, that's the reason why people put up with the heavy weight of the pans. Can I get that same pan to stick everything I put into it? Yep, can do that too. However, if I abuse cast iron like that, I can always restore it back to it's original condition. If I abuse non-stick cookware, I toss it out and buy all new. Stosh

I have found that scouts, of whatever age, are expected to develop a bit of leadership along the way. The biggest stumbling block to leadership in my book is the phrase, "I don't care." The standard answer I give, "That's too bad, I need a leader, I'll check with the other boys, thanks for the heads-up." This puts the onus on the boy. I have a opportunity to lead, I chose you but you are taking a pass on it. I just move on to the next scout and offer him the opportunity. Once the "I don't care" scout figures out that this phrase is not a threat and is more self-punishment than he wishes to deal out on himself, he may come around. After a while, when all the opportunities are going to the other boys, the "I don't care" scout will want in on the perks. That's the point where a "I thought you didn't care" discussion can begin. Boys who need adult recognition will accept negative recognition just as easily as positive. The only workable "weapon of choice" at that point is ignore him and/or bypass him. It'll frustrate him and for a while encourage him to act up even more. Once he realizes he can't get a rise out of you, he'll quit the antics. Even when he's being a pill, still make the occasional offer to allow him into the situation. Don't react to the "No" or "I don't want to" or "I don't care" comments he makes. Just give a cheerful okay and move on to the next boy. The boy cannot win under those circumstances. 1) he can't get a rise out of you. 2) he can't complain about being left out. 3) he is not punished by anyone but himself for his decisions. Eventually he will recognize how one reacts to him is based on his decisions and those decisions where he cooperates and involves himself gains recognition and where he doesn't cooperate he is ignored. Stosh

Going CO shopping and getting dropped by a CO are two different issues. Obviously some CO's take on scout units for reasons of selfish gain, i.e. it will improve the CO's membership emphasis. This type of relationship may last for a while but will eventually fall apart if the expectations aren't met. Unless the CO is looking to sponsor a unit with no expectation of altruistic gain, i.e. they are doing it as a ministry to the neighborhood (churches) or service to a community (Am Legion), there could be some fall-out on down the road a piece. Once a unit gets dropped by such a CO, it would do well to seek out a CO and find out for sure what is behind the motivation to sponsor a unit. If they express a desire to provide a program for their community/neighborhood, then start the discussion. If they are looking to improve their own program and/or have some unrealistic expectations that would be difficult to fulfill, then politely thank them and move on down to the next group to interview. However, on the other hand, the unit is the one making demands on the CO, then the CO needs to decide whether the relationship is beneficial to everyone concerned. If property is being destroyed, neighbors complaining, etc. then it might be wise for a CO to suggest an alternative CO that might be able to meet the needs of the unit better. Our CO is the Am Legion. They have expectations and have stated them clearly to the scout units for their consideration. If the boys/girls march in the Memorial Day Parade, take their turn in the Memorial Day Ceremony, and sell corn on the cob for their big fund raiser and don't smoke in the legion hall, they will pay for the rechartering. This Am Legion has Boy Scout, Cub Scout and Girl Scout units they sponsor and all units participate in their "rules". I've never heard of a complaint from either the Am Legion or the units. I don't know if we are an exception or the rule out there, but I wouldn't even think about shopping around for another CO! Stosh Stosh

I always enjoy the posts that state that if they just got a different CO (or whatever) all their problems would be solved. Did any of these groups ever think that there are CO's out there that state that if they just got a different pack/troop/crew (or whatever) all their problems would be solved? If a troop is having a problem with their CO what makes anyone think that there's another CO out there that wants to take them on? Shopping around for a better deal wastes a lot of gas, effort and time. Had they just stuck with what they had and spent that gas, effort and time invested in what they already had, they would often times be a lot further down the road. Somehow humans have never figured out that sometimes the problem doesn't lie with the "other guy". Like Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and the enemy is us." CO/Unit relationships need maintenance and care. Maintaining takes a lot less effort than starting all over again from scratch. The question that comes to mind with this thread is why was the CO so against sponsorship of a unit? What happened prior to the refusal to recharter? "They decided they no longer want to sponsor Scout units..." (???) what's the message here? Did anyone do a follow up on this? If this church doesn't want to sponsor them for whatever reason, what makes one think someone else does? Stosh

To some degree or another, all groups function basically the same way and if one understands this, accepting the inevitable is a lot easier. All groups go through cycles. This is normal. When a group is new, it spends most of its resources in membership acquisition. Once they get the numbers, they stop this process and go into a maintenance type situation which until the members cycle out will serve them pretty well. Then as the program that was designed by others begins to loose it's luster, it will struggle to redefine itself. If it is unable to pull that off it will go into a declining process. Everyone will run around trying to stave off this decline offering what they don't have to offer. If they can't figure it out as members, they look to "new blood" to bring in a "fresh idea" to save their sinking ship. Eventually the cycle will bottom out when all else fails and the handful of remaining members will start a membership drive to start up the group again. And thus the cycle begins all over again. Stosh

The Scoutmaster doesn't work for the Committee Chairman, he volunteers for the boys. Once one figures that out there seems to be a lot less hassle and politics floating around. As soon as the political winds start blowing about who works for whom, then it's time to pack up and go find a troop where the boys have need of a volunteer adult to help them run their troop. Stosh

A few years back we had schedule 9 days in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area of N. Minnesota. Yep, you got it. 8 of the days it rained. The one day it didn't rain, the sun did not shine. For the first few hours we tried to stay dry. After that we gave up and just went on with the trip. We packed up wet, dragged it out wet and slept in it wet, and when we got up we put on dry clothes that stayed that way for maybe 2-3 minutes. One of the canoes rolled and dumped everything in the drink. I thought the boys would be upset because everything got wet. Yeah, right they were upset because now everything is going to weigh more with all that added water and it's going to make for more work at the portages. It was a great trip. Stosh

My first was stamp collecting. It was my favorite, it was my only merit badge. I wasn't one of my SM's "favorites" so I spent 4 years in Boy scouts, got 1 MB, 2nd Class and eventually dropped out when it became evident there were better ways to spend my time. As a matter of fact, about three quarters of my patrol went with me. Stosh

The issue being discussed is not effective management of tasks, it was scouts not listening to other scouts. Compare a scout that wants to do the task with one who is forced to by a bossy leader and I'll show you, a job done either way, but in the end it also teaches two different lessons on whether or not the next time anyone is really going to listen. Being bossy and intimidating may work in the short run, but eventually the younger boys will simply tune out the bossy leaders and the program will have taught nothing to the prospective new bossy/bully leader. Sorry, bossy leaders are nothing more than bullies and have no place in the BSA program. After 40 years of working with kids, I have never taught any of them how to be bossy and bully their peers. Heck, they naturally have figured that process out on their own. Instead I teach them more effective ways to deal with the program and most of them appreciate it and develop skills that don't rely on being bossy and bullying when things don't go exactly the way they wanted them to. The problem described by this tread does not lie in the boys not listening, but in ineffective leadership that boys are tending to ignore. Too often we blame the follower for the problem, when in fact younger boys not listening to SPL/ASPL smacks more of ineffective leadership than poor followership. If the younger boys looked up to these older scouts and sought mentoring from them, they would listen all the time. However, bossy and bullying will eventually turn into "Whaaah, whaaah, whaaaah," very quickly and even I will turn that off quickly. More lessons in leadership and less in management will solve the problem very quickly. Stosh

Over the years I have adopted only one issue that arises when it's raining. Put on a rain coat and then just keep doing what was planned. It's kind of the same philosophy of when the sun comes out put on sun-block. If weather is going to dictate the activity, then why make plans? Stosh

And herein lies the problem. Being "bossy and pushy at times" is not part of leadership, it is part of management. One leads people, they manage tasks. At times when getting the job done is more important than the people doing it and the "leader" resorts to threats and intimidation to get it done, it is really not leadership. An effective leader can get the job done in a far more productive way than threats and intimidation. If one effectively manages people, the tasks get done as a result. Whenever I see the "leadership" resort to such tactics to "get the job done" all it ever says to me is that "leader" does not have the leadership skills to lead people and must resort to whatever tactics necessary, such as bullying and intimidation which like prison, will get the job done and done quickly, but does nothing to promote any leadership development for the bully. It doesn't take teamwork, cooperation, and the welfare of all to bully people, but those are traits and qualities of leadership that will endure in the hearts of followers than the animosity that will endure after being bullied and coerced into doing something. Like I said, bullying and intimidation is not leadership, it's task management and until the leader figures out people management, they will never figure out what leadership is and will remain nothing more than a task management bully. Adults who encourage such bullying probably refuse to acknowledge it and thus promote and encourage it in their minions. Just remember, cracking a whip is far more effective from behind than out front leading where a whip isn't necessary. Stosh

"Because I said so..." (parental pushing) and we know how well received that is. Military? Yeah, right you do it or you don't eat. Business? Yep, you don't work, you don't get paid. Now, look at each of these and tell me where the pushing ends and bullying begins.... The second someone quits looking over the shoulder of these bullied people, it opens the door to "getting away with something". What teenager covets the day when they can move out of the house and away from the dominance of parental pushing? Unless one has been drafted, re-upping is a pipe-dream. And with the mobility of the work force, it is obvious that employee loyalty is at an all-time low. Is this the kind of leadership one wishes to teach the boys? As I said before, no one really listens to pushy/bossy/bully leaders unless they are threatened to do so. To me, that's not leadership, that's intimidation. Yes, it works, but I don't think it's what the BSA program had in mind when it tries to teach leadership. Stosh

One cannot lead by being bossy and pushy. I have never seen anyone able to lead while pushing from behind. This applies to the adult leadership as well as youth. While leadership is a choice made by an individual, following is a choice also made by an individual. No one is going choose to follow a bully unless forced to. Scouts of this age figure out the system rather quickly. One of my NSP boys wanted to take on Chaplain's Aide and I said okay. Without being prompted or reminded, he has a closing devotion or prayer at every closing flag ceremony. The boys automatically remove headwear when he comes forward and it is total silence while he struggles through (he has speech problems) no matter how long it takes. He is also organizing the camporee this spring and everyone is informed of all the costs, menus, equipment necessary, etc. on a weekly basis and when he's making his report, no one interrupts him. He never tells anyone what to do, but frequently asks for help which is rarely denied. If one chooses to lead and do it right, the others will naturally follow and age, maturity, knowledge, training, etc. have nothing to do with it. Stosh

F.K. MATHEWS. Chief Scout Librarian? Here's a man that had a major impact on the quality of program for the boys in the early years and nothing is mentioned of him..... Stosh

Welcome to Leadership 101. I have boys that don't listen to the SM. What makes anyone think they are going to listen to the SPL/ASPL or PL/APL? I had my SPL come to me a while back and complain about just this problem. The boys won't listen and are wasting time. I asked him if at that age he listened or wasted time? He just smiled. I then asked him. Well, what would you wanted the leader to say to help keep you on task at that age? How would you want to be treated? etc. The boys still don't listen some of the time, but it's no where near as bad. Stosh

Patrol names in our troop is whatever the PL shows up with on his staff. Sometimes the shirt patches match, sometimes they don't. Selecting their patrol members and names isn't something I as SM get involved with as long as the membership of the patrol is 6-8 members, I don't worry about it. Over time groups seem to gel into nice groups without any interference from any adult. Stosh