Stosh

Our rule-of-thumb is: If the job needs to be done, put a functioning boy in there. A lot of our boys wear two hats because their functions (POR's) are often times "part-time" in the troop. A small troop may have a TG that functions as an Instructor as well, SPL that does Chaplain Aide functions, Librarian doing Historian jobs at the same time, etc. When the BOR comes around, the boy claims credit for any and all functions he has performed during this tenure. There's nothing worse than saying at the BOR, "I once put some MB books back on the shelf this past year, do I get credit for Librarian?" vs. "...After which I put together a PowerPoint Preso for the last COH, I took tons of pictures at summer camp, and our patrol didn't have anyone that could do the Scribe work, so I pitched in on that too." I don't care what patch he may have on his shirt at any given time, if he does the work, he gets the credit for any and all POR's listed in the book. If the troop is small he may have to do double duty to get enough to brag about, but it all counts. "That's not my job." is not an excuse for sitting around waiting for 6 months wasting your time and everyone else's, too. Stosh

With start up troops, I would think that with only one or maybe two, on the outside guess, maybe three patrols, I don't see any reason for an SPL/ASPL combo. All they will do is interfere with the development of the PL's. If the PL's aren't given a true chance to lead, how are they going to learn? I would focus on the patrols having them group in terms of interests, i.e. NSP works with early advancement, and older boys, more challenging activities. If the older boys want to do a nice trip, maybe invite the PL of the NSP if he is older along as a guest. With only two patrols, there is nothing really necessary to do on a troop level. Maybe the PL of the older boys or the APL of the older boys could double as a TG for the NSP. The two patrol QM's could work out the gear/equipment together without a Troop QM. Same for the patrol scribe, etc. Once one gets to three or four patrols, to facilitate the inter-patrol organization a troop TG/Scribe might help things along. I would say that unless there's some sort of miraculous 40 new Webelos boys wanting to start up a new troop, one is going to have a relatively small troop to begin with. Why organize it with a lot of "chiefs" just so the boys think they have some prestige. Go with the basics. Solid patrol development, each member having a job, PL, APL, patrol Scribe, QM, Grubmaster, etc. so everyone can get some basic training for later on when the troop grows. Otherwise one has an overload of troop officers which in a top down structure which promotes troop-method results rather than patrol-method dynamics. If the new troop is small, i.e. 8 boys, why would one want to have two patrols? Just put together a good solid patrol and work from there. If that patrol goes off to a camporee and the event expects an SPL to go to some meeting, just send the PL along and have him double at the SPL. I always love it when someone makes the PL of the only patrol in the troop the SPL. First of all he can't honestly earn the POR rank because there's no other PL's for him to be senior over. He is in a POR which is impossible to honestly fulfill. Chair the PLC? That should be a piece of cake since you are the only one on the PLC.... The second year, the troop takes on 6 new Webelos boys. I'd have the PL go over to the NSP and train them in the patrol-method and be their PL/TG. After all this is what he did the prior year with the NSP just forming the troop. If the 2nd year boys want to do something fun, invite their old PL back as a guest because his spot was since taken over by the APL. If the APL had been paying attention it shouldn't be a stretch for him. Pick someone else from the old patrol to be APL and maybe have another boy be Instructor for the NSP. Each of these positions allows for the boys to try on many different hats without having 30-40 boys in the troop. By the 3rd year, the first PL now knows how to be a PL, a PL of NSP, and would make a great TG for the NSP. The original APL would move up to PL of the NSP and would now be working as a team as they did the very first year, but their focus would be on troop development as they work with the NSP. Let each boy move slowly through the ranks as they gain experience and confidence. It's easy to give out patches and have mom's sew them on. It takes time and hard work to have the boy actually get comfortable in functioning in the position. eghiglie: Why are you continuing to pound your head against the wall? It hurt the first time, it'll hurt the next time too. Put your best boy in the SPL, and quit letting the boys elect boys who don't want the job. Whatever happened to voting democracy? Out the window? Maybe, but at least there is a better chance at program success if the person in leadership actually knows what to do and wants to do it. Orchestras, bands, and sports teams have been doing this for years. The best players get the lead spots. No one in the orchestra votes on first-chair violin. No one on the football team votes for quarterback, but in Scouts, we take the freshman boys, put them on the varsity team where the varsity players don't want to be, and then complain because the team can't win any games. When you set the process up to lose, chances are you're going to lose most of the time. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

I'll remember that the next time we have an Eagle project that builds an observation deck at the local nature preserve, or puts up a pavilion in the park, or makes bleachers at the local ball diamond, cuts railroad ties for steps on a nature trail, or... All these use treated wood as well. Stosh

I saw the inside comment, so yes, a nice soft, straight piece would do just fine. If it was going to be outside, contact the power companies, they replace old poles all the time and the older ones aren't all that bad. After a ice storm, tornado, hurricane, etc. they have plenty of short pieces laying around probably for free. One break in a 30' pole will leave a nice 10' totem left over. Stosh

Just a thought.... Pine telephone poles have been standing for years holding up wires with nothing but tar treatment below the ground level. They don't get painted. They don't have caps on the top. Pine is soft and should be easy to carve. Use the roofing sealer below ground level and one should be able to make a cheap pine totem. In a year from now if it rots and falls all apart, why not just have the next bunch of Cubs get involved in making another one? Am I over-thinking this? Stosh

"jblake, I see the PL as the most important job in the Troop, but not the highest ranking. The difference in the two might not be readily apparent, but I will save that for another thread." If it's the most important, why would it be of a lesser ranking? This is like saying the most important position is not the one with the most authority to do the most important job. If the PL's are responsible for the functioning of the patrol surely they should be the one deciding what's best for their boys. If they are the PL of the NSP, then their responsibility is to insure the boys are oriented to the functioning of the troop, welcome them into the fold, protect them from the interference of the other patrols, and assist them in achieving success in the T-F-C rank advancement. They shepherd them their first year to make sure they are aware of all that is necessary to succeed in the BSA program. The PL of the venturing patrol has a whole different set of responsibilities with a totally different focus. These boys are looking to spread their wings and take advantage of some of the more challenging offerings of the BSA program, helping them with rank advancement of the upper ranks and assisting their patrol members to succeed with a totally different set of expectations. Now, add to that an SPL that dictates all patrols are to be treated the same. Someone's going to be disappointed and the responsibility of the PL's will at different times be undermined. Our PL can't provide for us what we need to succeed. The older boys will quit and the younger boys will be taught that leadership in their direct leaders (PL) is always questionable. If the PL's are expected to know and acquire what is best for his patrol members, anything that will jeopardize his authority to be successful at that will hamper the functioning of that patrol. If authority does not reside with the PL, then it will have to be dictated through them by others who will make decisions based on what's best for others and will put the PL in a position of ineffectiveness. If the PL doesn't lead why follow him? If the SPL is calling the shots, we'll need to follow him and ignore the PL. Most of what I see as older boys quitting because of "fumes" (car fumes and per fumes) is not necessarily valid. It's an excuse the adults use to justify the frustrations these boys feel and quit because they have no control of their goals and successes in the troop, it is always being dictated to them and they have no say so or influence on the decisions being dictated to them. If the PL has no authority, what difference does it make who holds the position? Give it to the new guy, he needs the POR patch to wear and it will have no affect on whether or not the patrol members are successful or not. When boys constantly are seeking decision making or information provided to them by the SM, it's because they know that this is where the authority for such decisions resides. If the SM tells them to go ask their PL, when they do the PL says, "We have to do it this way because the SM says so." The boys aren't stupid, they know how the system works, why not just cut to the chase and ask the person who's doing the real leadership and has the ultimate authority to call the shots? If the PL is this person calling the shots, they will naturally go to him first for the program decisions, and won't waste their time asking the SM. When boys come to me and ask me for a decision/information, I always tell them I don't have the authority to make that decision, that responsibility AND authority has been given to the PL. You need to be talking to him. Now, here's where everyone starts to toss in all kinds of what-if's. What if the boys want to do paint ball. Well, the PL knows the program, knows the parameters of the BSA program and nips that in the bud right from the git-go. What if they want to go sky-diving. Same answer. What if the PL isn't trained to know such things? Then he shouldn't have been given the responsibility OR authority to be PL in the first place. If patrol members elect PL's this will happen more often as not. The "new guy" can't lead because he isn't trained in the duties, responsibilities and authority of that position. That is why the PL's, like SPL's in other troops is assigned, and not elected. TLT and NYLT are supposed to train the boys to be able to handle the responsibility AND authority of leadership. Does that mean the SM has ultimate authority to make those decisions? Yep, but once the boy is placed in the POR the responsibility and authority to do the job is given to him, it's part of his leadership development. "You have all the responsibility to lead these boys, but no authority to do it." Yep, that's the position all the boys aspire to.... The troop officer corps are generally the better trained boys who have the experience to support the PL's in their duties, but not to undermine their authority or leadership in front of their boys. All of their responsibilities start with, "I'm the Quartermaster, how can I help you and your patrol be successful?", "I am the Scribe, how can I help you and your patrol be successful?", etc. If the PL wants their insights and expertise to help him in his tasks, he always knows who to turn to and it won't be the SM. The SM coordinates the troop officer corps and is constantly asking them such things as, "What can I do to help you do your job as Quartermaster/Scribe/SPL?" He is their sounding board for the problems of leadership they may be faced with or assistance with dealing with a problem that has arises and is beyond their level of expertise. These boys of the troop officer corps are given the responsibility and authority to help the PL's be successful. No leader can stand and lead without the SUPPORT of others. If there is no SUPPORT and only dictatorial expectations, he will need to FOLLOW not LEAD. Leadership is the name of the game. Stosh

I guess I'm the one that stated that the PL is the highest ranking leader in the troop. Because of this, like the SPL in most other troops, the PL is "assigned" by the SM on a by-request basis. As the PL's become proficient, they "step down" into the supporting roles of SPL and other troop officers. From those positions they support and assist the new PL's while they get their feet on the ground. They do not mentor/coach/direct the PL's they simply ask, "What can I do to help you?" They have the experience and skills to do just that. The most "senior" of the PL's is the one with the most responsibility and that would be the PL of the NSP who works with the TG/Instructor getting the new guys up and running. It is their responsibility to get the boys through advancement and ultimately one of the boys from the NSP will hopefully step up and request PL of their group and more or less become more independent their second or third year. This process seems to do away with the concept of recognition and power struggles amongst the boys, but the helping/caring style of leadership plays well with the boys. The boys of the troop officer corps may have more responsibility, but they get the most perks, too. They camp together and form somewhat of a venture patrol of the more experienced and hard working boys. The "philosophy" of our troop is the best scouts get the toughest jobs. If one doesn't want to pitch in and work, they get a patrol of their own and they can babysit themselves the best they can. They are the ones most often patrol camped closest to the adults. PL's are given the opportunity to lead once they have shown performance in the other supportive roles such as T/G, Scribe, Instructor, and SPL Stosh

One always has to be aware of both sides of any issue to fully appreciate everything that goes into how people react. Yes, if city work is to be done by union city employees, they are correct in the assumption that bringing in volunteer workers may in fact be a breach of contract on the part of the city. A few things could have gone into keeping this from the national news. Did the city visit with labor officials before the Eagle project was approved? Did the Eagle make arrangements to check this out as part of his project? I had a boy fix up a city park very similar to the project in PA. However, this project was carefully evaluated prior to submitting it officially to the city. The comment from the city to the Eagle candidate was that the city did not have the resources to fix up the park, but if someone came in to do that, the city could use it's union workers to maintain the park. It was also discovered that other groups besides Eagle scouts were doing these kinds of project throughout the city in past years. This type of information shouldn't just fall on union shoulders after-the-fact, but should be checked out as part of the project prior to submitting it for consideration. With the economy going sour for a while, anyway, it might not be a bad idea to be overly sensitive to any group that may be impacted by what BSA and Eagle scouts may be doing in the local communities. While Scouting for Food might be a terrific idea for the majority of people! Even specialty food drives for a specific purpose with genuine intent to help are good. But maybe there are those who wouldn't appreciate having a Scout show up on his door step with a bag of food for his holiday dinner embarrassing him by reminding him of his inability at the present time to feed and care for his family at no fault of his own. Those feelings may overwhelm the good intentions of the scout's efforts. Stosh

I'm not to worried. When I get hauled into court in my full BSA uniform to explain to the judge why I'm carrying a BSA sheath knife and a BSA belt axe in their BSA leather sheaths, I'm sure they may cut me some slack. I know the 3" rule for knives, but if they limited all blades to 3", then one has the problem of cook knives one carries in the back of the van on the way to the campouts. I generally take the belt knife/axe off when driving anyway, it's a real pain to have jammed into your back while sitting in a modern seat. I'll be careful when I'm in NC. I'll make sure my 18" bayonet is put away and 12" D-Ring Bowie is packed out of sight. I also have officer swords that need to be hidden as well. Come to think of it, I could probably be illegal in at least 30 states at any given time. In my home state we have open-carry laws which if one can openly carry a holstered handgun, surely they aren't going to be too worried about a sheath knife on a SM on his way to camping. Thanks for the tourist tip for NC. I'll avoid the place. Stosh

I haven't had a son in scouting now for about 15 years and old and feeble has been creeping in for some time now. Good thing you're only as old as you feel rather than as old as people say you act. It's really a bummer when you have to give up the 17' aluminum canoe because you can't muscle it down the rapids anymore. Now I have a 13' plastic kayak and the first thing I thought of when I took it down the rapids was: "I should have gotten "older" a long time ago!" I'm good to go now for another 10 years. I don't know if I could ever survive a Philmont trek (first time I went I was 50 years old), but I can still get out there and do the summer camp and weekend things. Stosh

I thought the pocket was for cigarettes? Gee, in our troop iPods are just as forbidden as cigarettes...... Let's go with a special pocket designed to hold a small map and compass.... or maybe a small first aid kid that won't be in the way of pack straps and still be readily accessible in an emergency. Stosh

The example I was using was not WHAT the substance was, but the situations that one find oneself in doesn't have all the resources available to handle the problems created by .000001% of the population. There isn't anything in the written BSA material that tries to deal with iPods and cell phones, but shared resources among the leaders in the area might be useful to the SM who drew the short straw and ended up with that one kid who is in the .000001% of the population. I have fatherless scouts in my troop. While it might be a struggle getting the busy and divorced dads to a Dad and Lad outing, but what kind of pressure am I putting on the scout who's father has died? If one looks closely, ALL scouts have various problems of one sort or another. Some are smart others aren't. Some have emotional problems, some have situational problems, some have more money available than others, and the list goes on. BSA can't handle all these exceptions and heaven-forbid, tries to put everyone into the same pigeon hole. Unless the boy fits exactly into a specific, perfect, ideal situation he has to be farmed out to a program that deals with his issues? I don't think one has to be that precise to help the vast majority of boys in the program. The .000001% of the boys need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Stosh

Gee, I just weighed my Leatherman and my sheath knife. Guess which is lighter! Let me see.... Pliers? I have a needle nose in my fishing tackle box, but have never used it elsewhere. Screwdriver? Tough on the blade, but I've used my sheath for that purpose, tip on the Phillips screws. File? Never use it on campouts. Cork screw or bottle opener? Yeah, right. Knife blade? Even wash except the heaver/longer blade on the sheath does better on food and fire prep than the Leatherman that is tough to clean after food prep. Handle? Sheath wins out here. More comfortable and leaves less blisters. Nope, for the most part my sheath knife is more serviceable than the Leatherman. If I'm going into the backwoods for serious camping, I even add to the sheath knife, a belt axe. That combo can handle any situation, even being able to safely opening the old beer bottles on the axe head. Stosh

I'm faced with this problem at the present time in my troop. I have one patrol doing a merit badge while the other patrol is taking TLT training. I would have preferred doing it all together, but the boys chose to do it differently. With a boy-led program, one is always faced with this possibility. The older boys taking the MB could use the TLT more than the NSP which is taking the course. To me it's a trade off between having the boys do something they are interested in vs. what they are forced to do. I'm thinking the older boys would not pay attention to the TLT training and would be more of an interference than if they really wanted to be there. I'm hoping that the training the younger boys get will "inspire" the older boys to request the TLT at a later date. It's kind of like having to play the hand you're dealt with. It may not be the ideal, but one does the best they can with what they have at the moment. Taking MB's during the patrol meetings is discouraged, but not forbidden. Once the boys realize the problems it creates, the problem should resolve itself. It's part of the leadership learning they are having to deal with. While it may be more fun to do a MB, will the trade off down the road pay off when it comes to POR assignments and they will have to take a pass because they weren't trained and the younger boys get the choice spots. Every decision has it's consequences and the boys need to learn this on their own. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

While there may not be any specific training on the subject, there does remain a certain amount of expectation that goes along with the scouting program. Our council does address many of these issues in University of Scouting and there's always Roundtables where scouters can talk with each other on many of these issues. There are many others out there who have real world experience with problem kids and are more than willing to help out other scouters who face similar situations. One just has to ask. There is also a great resource in the UC's and DE's. These people have had extra training in some of these areas that could also be tapped into for assistance. I have had ADD/ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome kids in my units and they have gone on to Eagle, but they require some extra attention and understanding on the part of the leaders to help them along. A lot of the expertise I have in this area comes from pure experience and very little if any training, but others around me have always been helpful in guiding me along. One only has to ask around, but the answers are there. It would be helpful if BSA had more training on this, but with the load they have it isn't always feasible. What percent of the population is struggling? What can be done legally? Do I have the resources to help and what's the cost? These are all legitimate questions that BSA may not be in a position to handle. Obviously if the scouts are smoking pot on campouts, is it the responsibility of BSA to have a police force, lawyer, and social worker available in every unit to handle it? Probably not for the percentage of kids in this situation. Stosh

Like Iron Chef America, there is another show on the Food Network called Challenge. It's pitting cake bakers against each other based on a theme. Pick a theme and then let the dads and boys have at it. Then select the different categories to judge on pick some kind of good "trophies" and then like the show, hand out a $10,000 check to the winner. Stosh

As far as I can tell there is no reason for wearing scout uniform pants when they are not wearing the uniform shirt. For our troop not wearing the pants with the shorts is not in uniform so wearing the pants and not the shirt would also be not in uniform. Because we adhere to the principle of: Look and act like a scout, when the boys are not in uniform they should at least wear something that vaguely makes them look like a scout, i.e. some sort of BSA t-shirt from camp or other BSA activity. They only wear this when they are doing some dirty work, otherwise they are in full uniform; about 95% of the time. Then there is the occasion when the boys may be assisting on an Eagle project and they cleaned up a park (i.e. heavy, dirty work) but they still wore their full uniforms because both TV stations came down and collected footage and the newspaper came and took pictures. The boys looked like scouts doing scout work on the news that evening and in the paper the next day. The only time the boys are not looking like scouts is when they are swimming or in the showers. However, for some of the boys as dirty as they get their uniforms, maybe they should be wearing their uniforms in the shower... My humble opinion? If they are not in full uniform, it shouldn't make any difference what they are wearing. For a sense of uniformity, it might be okay to have them all wear blue jeans or jeans shorts maybe, but they aren't in uniform so it should be okay. As far as wearing BSA t-shirts, it keeps the kids from wearing questionable t-shirts someone might think as inappropriate. If a scout doesn't have a camp t-shirt yet and doesn't want to wear a Cub Scout t-shirt, he can always wear a plain color t-shirt with no writing on it. Stosh

Stosh wrote: "In our troop we make it clear that the PL's are the highest ranking officer in the troop...." I'm not sure what that means. Do patrol leaders appoint the Scoutmaster? >> In my troop they did. I talked with the CC/former SM who was having problems in his troop. He needed "new blood" to help out his boys. I talked with the parents, they wanted a change, I explained my philosophy of leadership. And then I talked with the boys to see what they wanted/needed. The phone call I received asking me to be the SM came from the boys. Can they remove him if they don't like the job he's doing? >> I can't see why not. If the SM isn't meeting their needs, maybe he/she ought to be moving on to someplace where he/she can do a more effective job. Must the SM consult the PLs before appointing ASMs? >> Sounds good to me. Why have ASM's come in and assist them in their PL duties if he/she won't be able to meet their needs/wants as to how they want their troop to be run. What if, Stosh, instead of wanting to go to the high adventure camp, your older patrol wants to go to a video gaming camp for a week? >> That authority cannot be given to the boys because of BSA policy doesn't even give it to the SM. Can't give something one doesn't have. What if the camp is coed or open to adults or sells alcohol in the camp lounge? >> See above. Or what if you are a LDS troop and your CO requires the troop to be back in the ward for Sunday services. >> Duty to God. No problem. But your patrol really wants to go to an event which extends over a Sunday morning. Does your PL's authority supercede the policy of the CO? >> If the PL's don't understand their obligations to God and Country, they are going to have problems with the Scout Spirit requirement. Everyone operates within both the responsibilities and authority that comes with their position. As Scoutmaster, I have certain responsibilities and authority which is granted as part of the BSA program. >> Yep and one can give that authority to the boys as they are able to accept it as a part of their leadership obligations. I have the responsibility to ensure policies outlined in the Guide to Safe Scouting are met. >> So do the PL's. I have the authority to decide who in the troop may sign-off on advancement. >> And I have authorized the PL's to do this. I trust them with this responsibility as part of their leadership. If they don't follow through and prove themselves to be trustworthy, then we have a problem with the Scout Spirit requirement. I do not have the authority to add or delete requirements. >> Can't give authority that one does not have. Patrol leaders operate within a similar environment. A patrol leader may have the authority to sign-off on basic requirements, however he is not authorized to sign advancement reports or Eagle applications. >> Can't give authority that one is not able to. A patrol may be authorized to camp on their own, but the troop leadership may impose restrictions, such as requiring they camp as a BSA facility. >> Every situation is different. It needs to be discussed with the PL to see what their goals are designed to accomplish and do one's best to meet those goals. Help the PL to accomplish their goals of leadership. While you write of your PLs having both responsibility and authority, there is a third element -- accountability. Daddy always told me "everybody works for somebody. Even the President is answerable to the voters." >> Yep, the best leaders are the best followers. You can draw your organization chart however you want, but like it or not, ultimate authority flows from both BSA and your chartered organization through the adult leadership. The adults are charged with the ultimate responsibility to see that the program and policy are followed consistent with the BSA and our COs. >> And until that leadership/authority is shared with the boys, the leadership authority stays with the adults and one has an adult-led program. Youth leadership is part of the game of scouting. While we may allow our patrols to play the game very broadly or more narrowly, there are limits to the game. Occasionally we have to call "out of bounds." >> In issues of safety or BSA policy requirements, yep. Holds true for SM, CC, and CO as well. That said, it's a pretty sorry Scoutmaster who can't figure out how to keep the game going. >> All of life is played as a game. Is the leadership we are to be teaching just a game or is it a game with a purpose to be used in real life. I'm thinking the full reference says "a game with a purpose", not just "a game". A PL announces that his patrol has voted to spend a week this summer in Taihiti. "Great." says the Scoutmaster, "bring your travel plans to the PLC. Don't forget to include how your going to pay for it all." A quick look at airfares on the Internet nips that in the bud. >> Maybe not, if the World Jamboree was being held in Tahiti. Again, one always assumes it can't or it shouldn't be done, but there may be a very valid reason for such a decision. Instead of just saying "Great" and then throw a wet blanket on the whole thing, maybe the SM should say, "how can the PLC, SM/ASM, and Committee help you with your plans." If it's a game, the SM needs to roll up his sleeves and join in. If a group of my Scouts want to go to another summer camp, I tell them to go for it. Come back with a plan. But there are real-world constraints including a couple levels of adult sign-offs on the plan. Logistics, cost, schedule, adequate adult leadership, safety.... Just because you label your Patrol Leaders the highest ranking officers in the troop doesn't mean they aren't accountable. >> And if the PL shows sufficient leadership to have a plan all worked out with the help of his patrol members, it shows terrific leadership, responsibility AND accountability, and for the SM to then say, "Nope, we've never done it that way before." Why then would the older boys who are spreading their wings in leadership just not pick up and go someplace else when their dreams, plans, and goals aren't trashed by some SM would doesn't know how to lead leaders. >> I'm thinking that a vast majority of "older scouts" are frustrated and disillusioned by all the BSA talk about leadership and then sold a "bill of goods" in its place. Let the boys lead, and give them the authority to do real leadership, it's what we're supposed to be teaching them how to do? Thanks for your questions, I don't always know if my views are being understood in the light of the printed word of the forum. Stosh

Fishing Motor-boating Sailing Canoeing Water-skiing Life Saving Rowing Swimming And there is also no BWCA or Sea Base options, nor is there any swimming and canoe/kayak options for activities for the patrol. Philmont is "ify" because there's various bodies of water one has to deal with along the trek. If one is to follow these principles, on may as well join something other than scouts if they don't want to learn how to swim. And heaven forbid if one of their parents or siblings falls in the water and they can't swim to help them. Sorry, basic swimming must stay in the requirements as would first aid. I don't care if my boys mess up their knots or can't lash two poles together. Swim/rescue and first aid aren't for them to use just for themselves, it's for other people, too. I don't like to swim, but I've had all the lifeguard training and I know how. I'm happy sitting on the dock watching the boys have fun. About the only time I swim is to pass the annual BSA swim test for all members of the troop, including registered leaders. Camp staff won't let me play in my kayak or canoe unless I do! Stosh

Stosh, what's YOUR answer to your question about the older-boy patrol that wants to go to a different summer camp? And while you are answering that hypothetical question (assuming that it's hypothetical), here are one or two more: What about adult leadership? >> First of all they don't have to go at the same time, so the adults could if they had time, do both. What's wrong with a SM going and focusing on training with the NSP at a mess hall summer camp and then a few weeks later going and having a ton of fun hanging out with his older boys doing patrol method in-site cooking or some high adventure option provided by the camp? Otherwise when the SM gets to camp with both patrols he has to choose between the two and miss out on one or the other. I can see more problems trying to please everyone and no one ends up getting what they want vs. letting the patrols be more autonomous in their program selections. As far as I know, every BSA summer camp requires a group of boys to have adult leadership. >> Yep, that's part of the responsibility of the adults to provide it. Apart from the summer camp scenario, a patrol CAN go on a camping trip without adult supervision, but only if the SM approves. >> So the PL has responsibility but no authority except from the SM so then it means that we expect our scouts to be responsible without authority. In other words follow the directives of the adults. Where's the leadership in that? That's the classic example of adult-led. And, back to the summer camp situation, what about cost? Do the parents get some say, if it's going to cost more and they are paying for it? >> Hmmm, let see $200+ for summer camp, quite a bit less depending on travel expenses for BWCA. If the venture patrol boys sell a ton of popcorn, this argument goes out the window. Assuming of course the venture patrol boys are being responsible. More generally, I think the situation is more complex than you suggest. For one thing, I think you are mixing "information flow", decision-making, and guidance, which can be three different things. >> In my original post it was both problem solving and getting information. Information flow: who knows best? the PL of course. Decision-making: who knows the most about what his boys want/need to get out of scouting? Guidance: If the PL is only following the "guidance" of the SM/SPL then he isn't leading anything. If then there's a question, he's not the one to go to. Just to keep the examples within the "youth" area, I would say that if a patrol member asks the SPL a question, yes, the SPL should refer the Scout to the PL. But what about an SPL who sees a patrol doing something unwise -- let's say it's not dangerous, just non-productive or something that is not going to achieve the purpose of the activity -- I don't think there's anything wrong with the SPL taking the PL aside and asking some "leadership-type questions" or making some subtle comments to try to guide the PL onto the right path. >> So then the SPL has more authority than the PL. If the issue isn't dangerous, but the boys want to do it does the SPL have the authority to stop it? I have NSP patrol right now getting TLT training and the other patrol of older scouts doing a merit badge. The scouts decided what they wanted to be doing. Of course I have the authority to dictate that all the boys take TLT and merit badges have no place being held during the troop meeting, but then I'm trying to have the boys take the responsibility and they have the authority to do so. And then if the SPL sees something dangerous or abusive happening, I think he has the right -- actually the obligation -- to put a stop to it immediately, without worrying about whether the "chain of command" is right-side-up or upside-down. >> No problem there, anyone in the troop from the IH to the patrol member can stop a situation that is dangerous. Not a problem. As a matter of fact even parents have the authority and responsibility to step in with a dangerous or unsafe situation. >> There's no problem in thinking up hundreds of different excuses for requiring responsibility and withholding authority in the troop. However, according to definition responsibility means the ability to respond (i.e. FOLLOW), and authority means the authorship, originator of ideas and the empowerment to act on those ideas, (i.e. LEAD). I know a lot of scouts that are masters at following along with what they are told to do, but I find very few of them that are capable of initiating and leading. >> If the coach sends in a play to the quarterback and when they come online the QB realizes the play will run straight into the strength of the defense and he makes a decision and changes the play on the line. If the play is successful and the team wins, the coach will laud the boy as a creative and bold leader, but if the play is not, he will be chastised. >> How many SM's can allow themselves the ability to give up some of their authority so the PL's can actually be empowered to lead their patrols? Once the boys see where the empowerment resides, they will quit going to those who are not the final say-so in the issue and they won't have to be told to go talk to their PL's. Until then, they will go to the SM. They aren't stupid, they know who's running the show. Stosh

In my mind there is a world of difference between responsibility and authority when it comes to leadership. With a SM -> SPL -> PL model, the processes means the responsibility is delegated down to the next level with PL on the bottom. Sure, he has all the responsibility, but no real authority. That remains with next level up. Let's put question out there. Can a PL of an older boy patrol after conferring with his members decide to go to a different summer camp than the one the SM decide it would be better because it specializes in NSP concerns? Or when all is said and done and the dust settles, the SM says all the boys have to go to the same camp and it's up to the SPL to convey this to the PL's who have to comply. The PL has a responsibility, but no real authority. There is nothing worse for undercutting a PL's empowerment than to jerk the rug out from under him by a "higher authority" by countering his decisions. If this be the practice, why discuss with the PL anything when in the final say-so whatever the patrol decides under the PL's guidance is going to be negated at a later date? Why not just go to the real decision makers and quit frustrating the subordinates? If the SM guides/advises/dictates/directs/coaches etc. the SPL to do it a certain way and then the SPL guides/advises/dictates/directs/coaches etc. the PL's who are limited in their choices and if after discussing it among his members that they wish to go to Philmont instead of summer camp, the SPL says, let me check with my "superiors" and it goes up the "chain-of-command" to the SM who gives a thumbs up or down. I wonder if the PL really has the authority and is empowered to actually fulfill his leadership or is he merely puppeting back what he's been delegated by the "higher ups" as his responsibility. If all authority is perceived by the boys in the hands of the SM, then just cut to the chase and ask him directly because he's the one making the final decisions. When the SM then says go to your PL who has no authority to make decisions and ask him. I don't see that process being very productive. I know what it's like to be placed in a position of responsibility and no authority to do the job. It ain't a warm fuzzy feeling. If one is selling $1M pieces of machinery to a prospective customer, they may have to talk with the secretary who's going to place the order, but they had better be talking to the general manager who's going to make the decision or there isn't going to be any sale. My "chain of command" is PL -> SPL/PLC -> SM. Unless the PL plans involve unsafe or irresponsible decisiosn, the SM isn't involved in the functioning of the patrols. The SPL/PLC is then a clearing house of information to keep other patrols aware of what's going on and work together if necessary to accomplish the goals of multiple patrols, but the patrols themselves remain autonomous. When boys come to me and ask something, I send them back to the PL because it's the patrols and their PL's that are making the decisions, not me. Once they realize that I'm not the final authority in the functionality of the patrol, they start to ask the PL's first. The SM is clueless on what the PL has planned so it's a waste of time to ask him. I'm not clueless, I have all the PL information passed to me, I take notes and then conveniently leave it in an inconvenient place so it's quicker to ask the PL than wait for the SM to go find his notes. Stosh

1) Unfortunately it's not in the backyard of 90% of the scouts in the country. 2) In years past when the Jamboree floated around the country at different sites, at least some time or another everyone had a better chance of having it in their backyard. 3) Like the World Jamboree, sometime in one's life it may be something that one could attend without having to sell of family members to afford it. 4) It's great that the Jamboree now has a place to call home. As a midwesterner, it is going to be a "trip" no matter where in the country they place the jamboree, and we're going to pay a bit for travel no matter what. However, the West Coast boys will need to decide whether the costs override the benefits if they have to travel all the way across the country just to get there. I know it's "doable", but I'm sure the wheels are turning in people's minds that had hoped for something more central instead of always having to travel to VA for the event. Just some thoughts to consider, not meant to cast a wet blanket on the issue, just a few thoughts that came to mind. I'm thinking that any spot that is secure is better than always wondering what the political influences are thinking at any given time drawing controversy over the AP Hill site. (especially in light of the fact that the fort is named after a gentleman that fought to preserve slavery in our country.) Don'tcha just love it when someone brings something like that up? Stosh

So then is the new uniform a "dress" uniform or a "field" uniform? I'm thinking one can't have it both ways. I'm thinking the older uniforms were designed to be more "dress" and the new uniform is designed as more "field" or "fatigue" in nature taking into account comfort over looks. ??? Stosh

So this begs the question if the structure is SM -> SPL -> PL there's always a possibility in everyone's mind that they can always go to a higher authority, thus the jump in "rank" for answers. If the structure was PL -> SPL -> SM, then the highest authority would rest in the PL and the SPL and SM would not be able to "rank" over the PL. So the question: are the PL's really empowered to do their responsibility or is it always subservient to the SPL and SM? I always get the feeling that the PL's really aren't running any show when their decisions, actions, plans, etc. can always be trumped by the SPL/PLC and/or SM/ASM. If they really are not running the show, then why not go directly to the person who makes the decisions, i.e. the SM? Stosh

I would have asked him if he expected to be president of the company he/she worked for in 2 years. I would have asked him if his boy did football he'd be a star quarterback on the varsity team while still in middle school. I would have asked him if his boy played an instrument he would be playing a solo at the high school while still in middle school. It sounds like this father is interested in getting scouts over and done with before he gets into high school and has conflicts with music, sports, or any other extra activities. I would suggest he forgo scouting and focus more on what dad wants for him, but Eagle ain't gonna happen. Stosh