Stosh

We have all experienced the process whereby the boys are always go to and asking the adults to solve their problems or get information. Sure, why not? Go to the top and get the right answers right away. It's how everything is done in the non-BSA world. If you're having trouble with the bank, don't talk to the teller, go right to the president, after all who best can solve my problem? This process goes on all over the place including, if you don't like what dad says, go to mom. When we set up the traditional SM -> SPL -> PL structure, it's only natural that if they have an ineffective PL they go straight to the SM. In our troop we make it clear that the PL's are the highest ranking officer in the troop, not the SM or even the SPL. The PL's make the decisions for the boys and are the repository of the information they need for their patrol activities. Both SM and SPL are instructed to always refer and/or take the boy back to their PL for resolution for their concerns. We find that this reduces the number of boys coming to the adults for decisions and information. Is the SM -> SPL -> PL model the best solution for dealing with the consistent habit of always going over the leadership's head when they have a question? Stosh

I have encountered religious organizations that do not allow their members to pledge allegiance to anything other than God. The members of such organizations can if they wish stand in respect and just forgo the pledge. The gentleman has chosen not to go this route of respect, which the flag in front of him that he refuses to acknowledge allows him to do. Remember, the son is a member of the organization not the dad. If the son refuses to pledge, then he is going to have a problem living by the Scout Oath. Work within the parameters of the program and ignore the disrespect. If I walk into a synagogue, I thinking it's expected to remain covered, but in a church one removes cover. It's an issue of respect, not religion if I follow these customs, and I don't have to belong to either organization. If any of the boys question this dad's actions, you may wish to do a SM minute on it. Stosh

I have found out over the years that there is a correlation between leadership and wasted time. The more wasted time there is, the poorer the leadership. Once people realize this the easier it is to train more leadership into the boys. No one wants to come week after week to any activity only to have their time wasted. It doesn't take much observation on the part of the adults to realize that there are times when it's being wasted. Boys standing around with nothing to do will eventually find some trouble to get into. Keeping boys busy is a leader's biggest responsibility. If he is not prepared with something to do, he's going to have trouble and the quicker he figures this out the happier he's going to be in the long run. To a certain extent, a lot of behavioral problems arise from poor leadership bringing it upon themselves. Sure, there's going to be a few that will act up and cause problems no matter how much the leader is prepared, but a good leader can think things through in his preparation time so as to minimize a lot of the boys wanting to waste time and disrupt the proceedings. Stosh

Our troop is boy-led, patrol-method with a custom necker. There has never been a discussion to get rid of the necker. Stosh

Discipline is always a sticky situation and can be handled in a couple of different ways. Either the leader isn't doing his job or the followers aren't doing their job. If the leader isn't doing his job, then it's time to instruct the leader on how to better do his job so the boys will want to follow. If the followers aren't doing their part, then it's time to work on them. I find that most of the problems lie in these two areas. If the PL isn't trained, isn't prepared, etc. then the boys will lose focus on the issue and or be bored to death. If the followers don't want to be there, then no matter what the PL does he will still have difficulty. I had a couple of the older boys that were always goofing off and disrupting a mixed patrol of boys that were trying to get the younger boys up to speed with advancement. Instead of pitching in they disrupted the process. Happens all the time in patrols all over the place. The PL solved his problem by simply saying the SM wanted to talk to them and so they came over where the adults were sitting. They asked if I wanted to talk to them and I said, "Yes, hi, how's it going?, sit down." I then went back to talking with the adults, engaging the boys every now and then in the conversation. Eventually they asked what it was I wanted to talk about and I said "Nothing, but I assume the PL sent you over here because you were disrupting what was going on and needed the two of you to get out of his hair. Is that a fair description?" The silence that follows is always a good indication that may have been the case. I told them as soon as the patrol got though with the important stuff, they could go back and join in with the other stuff. 1) It supported the work of the PL. 2) It allowed for and maintained a separation. 3) The patrol got their work done. 4) The disruptive members got a little time out without getting hassled. If this happens on multiple occasions, the SM could be engaging the disruptive boys on subjects that may interest these boys and encourage them to take those positive efforts back to their patrol and let the PL know what might "spice up" the meeting and make it more interesting for everyone concerned. Give them the opportunity to work with the PL instead of against him. It would also give the SM an opportunity for the disruptive boys to vent/express their frustrations, goals, lack of interest or whatever it is that is causing their behavior problems. The ones disrupting things are generally seeking attention and they don't care if it's positive or negative attention. However, to come down on them with both feet will not solve the problem in the future, they will learn that if they want to get attention, just cut up and the SM shouts. But what if the SM put the burden of responsibility on the boys? "What do you want to be doing if this is so boring?" "Do you want a patrol of your own that deals with things you are interested in?" etc. Leave the opportunity/burden of solving the problem on those causing it. There is no amount of leadership training one can give to a PL if certain members are disrupting the events because they don't want to be there in the first place. Teaching the PL to brow beat the boys into submission only deepens the resolve of those being punished and creates a bully of a leader. Stosh

The military epaulets that are being referred to were metal and had become a symbol for officers. The metal epaulets were for protection from sword blows caused by mounted cavalry. Once the saber went by the wayside in WWI so did the metal epaulets for officers. The loop on the shirt/coat for keeping gear on the shoulder dates back well into the 1700's. The colored epaulets in BSA, like the military ones are used to indicate "branch of service", i.e. Cubs, Boys, Venturing, District level positions, etc., just like the military ones marked infantry, cavalry, artillery, etc. This is why at a glance one can tell if the leaders/scouts are with which program, while wearing the same colored uniform. Cub adults and Webelos boys wear the dark blue and Boys wear the red, etc. For all the hassle of being anti-military, the BSA simply can't get over it's roots and vestiges of the military will always be there. Once that's gone, then the uniform will not be a uniform. If BSA would quit denying it's military parallels, they just might come up with something worthwhile. Most of this uniform confusion came about after the early 1970's anti-war/anti-military sentiment and has been bantered around ever since. Why in the world would we call them troops with patrols or even scouts, which are all military terms. The hypocrisy runs rampant. B-P was a military man and he patterned the program after the military. If we don't want to be "military" then we had better abandon the principles and precepts originated by him and come up with an entirely different approach. Stosh

Hmmm... The process of elimination - the military wears uniforms.... but we don't want to look like the military. sports teams wear uniforms.... but if we are worried about epaulets, shoulder pads would be worse.... Police and firefighters wear uniforms, but they are patterned after the military.... musical groups wear uniforms, but tuxedos would be kinda impractical in the woods.... Doctors and nurses wear uniforms, but white won't work in the woods either.... The choices are rather limited.... Hunters wear blaze orange... That might work, but I'm thinking the boys may not go for the color and as someone said about the red/white patches, it would be scaring the animals even more. We've eliminated the Orkin man.... Coveralls might work... then the boys get to put their names in red/white ovals over their pockets... but then people might mistake them for a janitor or auto mechanic. Business suits wouldn't work either. White t-shirts and blue jeans might work, but then that's what everyone is wearing.... The boys wouldn't be recognized as scouts. collar/no collar could be solved by having no shirt.... shorts/long pants (no one wants to pay extra for socks) and long pants are not as comfortable... Hats and neckers are optional so we can do away with those.... Eureka! Simple solution Class A's are boxers and Class B's are briefs.... Both would have fleur-de-lis on the bands. See how simple that is! Stosh

Except for Eagle there's a trump card the SM can play. "While a First Class Scout, serve actively for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop): Boy Scout troop. Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, bugler, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, or instructor." Who says that this requirement can't be fulfilled after he has FUNCTIONED in the position whether he was assigned or not, or whether he has a patch on his shirt or not???? What is being identified is a major problem in a lot of troops. A boy is elected by his peers for a set term to be in a certain position. Unfortunately there is nothing in the process that makes allowance for any FUNCTIONALITY. If the boy does not function in a position of responsibility, he has demonstrated irresponsibility. I assign PL's or they "assign" themselves if they request an opportunity to serve. If he doesn't do his job he doesn't get credit and IF SOMEONE ELSE does his job for him, that other person gets the credit. If an older boy volunteers to help out the NSP get organized and up and running, after 6 months of work he gets credit for TG POR whether he wore the patch or not or even if he wasn't assigned to be the TG. He did the work, he gets the credit. If a boy wants a job, gets the patch and then sits on his hands, he doesn't get credit for it and is reminded of this during his "tenure" in office. No work, no credit. The POR is a Position of "Response - ability". It requires the boy to get off his butt and respond. If he is not "able" to do that, then he hasn't gained credit for anything. If someone else is "able to respond" in his place, of course the credit goes to him. The quicker one figures out this simple definition, the quicker they begin to actually DO something. There have been a couple of occasions where I have said to a boy, I noticed that you have been doing the TG or Scribe or QM duties pretty regularly for the past 6 months. Have your PL sign you off on POR. If he has any questions, have him come talk to me. This is not a retroactive process, the boy has been function in a POR so he should get credit for it. Period. Stosh

With the standards of food production today, pork is safer than chicken. Invest in a cheap food thermometer and quit worrying about it. Stosh

I'm thinking the shoulder loops were after WWI because the doughboy wore a stand-up collar tunic which the early BSA did as well. The stand-up collar allowed for the BSA brass on the right collar and the rank pin on the other. Nothing but PL/APL stripes went on the sleeve. These collar pins showed above the necker. The original uniform tunics were wool and were in fact similar to the jac-shirt of today. The uniform included another khaki cotton shirt underneath. Being wool they were extremely durable and could take the abuse of the military as well as the boys. Were they hot in the summer? Yep, but that's what canteens are for. In my book, one either gets durability or comfort. There's no such thing as a lightweight shirt that will hold up in the long run of abuse. With the tunic/shirt combo, the boy could take off the uniform coat when he needed to do a strenuous or dirty activity and then would put it back on when he was done. This could be done with wearing a BSA t-shirt under the uniform shirt and then taking the uniform shirt off when doing strenuous/dirty activities. Stosh

My troop is going down to a Community Thanksgiving Dinner to serve and cleanup afterwards. This will occur on a day that traditionally the families gather for a family meal, but will this year go down and work with the boys as well. We have a lot of unemployed and down-and-out families and this is an opportunity for volunteer groups in the town to let these people know they haven't been forgotten. The SPL told the boys, full uniform and be ready to work. By the way, the Community Dinner is not for the community the boys live in. They will have to drive 2 towns away to participate. Never underestimate the potential of what the boys are capable of doing! The only adult involvement in this project was a suggestion by the SM, and we'll provide rides and of course roll up our sleeves and help as well. If this is an example of a good lesson, then I'm continuing to learn all along. Stosh

I don't have to peek under many corners out there to see we're still a ways off. I grew up in the era of the race riots of the 60's. I graduated high school in 1968. Yet even this past month some justice of the peace refused to do a wedding for a racially mixed couple. Yet the bigotry against the Hmong and Laotians still exists as does a growing resentment towards "illegal aliens" whether they be from Latino countries which are easier to see to the Eastern Europeans who tend to slip under the radar until they speak and give away their "non-American" status. Even if they are natural and naturalized citizens there's a deep suspicion for those of Mediterranian descent. Why do "American" Indians still have reservations (consentration camps)? There has always been and will always be bigotry on some level or another. At least now it's becoming socially acceptable to tell people to cut it out. I really don't want such flagrant bigotry in my face anymore so that's a step in the right direction. Stosh

On a recent outing of my Venturing crew they did a similar thing. However the ingredients were not all the same. Because it was a reenactment of the 1860's the ingredients were period correct food and the boys of my crew got a cloth napkin wrapped bundle which consisted of a field dressed squirrel along with potatoes, onions, etc. and they had to prepare a meal from that. Of course none of them had ever cleaned a squirrel before so it was quite interesting. While it may not be okay for a new troop of young boys, a variance in the ingredients might be helpful in challenging the older boys with a difficult menu, while inspiring the younger ones with a simpler one. Oh, and why would one paint an IRON skillet GOLD? Why not invest in the Lodge skillet with the BSA logo on the bottom and use it as a traveling trophy so this project can continue on for many years? Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Racial bigotry has been, is, and will be a part of our society's fabric whether we like it or not. We have come a ways in the past generation or two but for the most part it's a process of cosmetic coverup to a deep concern. Until this discussion goes away the assumption will always be Us and Them. Sure we can brag about how great Us and Them work together and covered over our differences, but at the end of the day we are still Us and Them. That's bigotry. Until the discussion centers around just Us we will need to struggle with our bigotry. Unfortunately much of our bigotry revolves around obvious racial distinctions. I have Thai, Hmong, African and European backgounded people in my troop. They are all great kids as are their parents. Truth be told? I have more concern about boys being dumb kids than their ethnic backgrounds. I must suffer from inter-generational bigotry. Stosh

It is unfortunate that some councils have taken the position on prohibiting sharp blades in certain circumstances. It really goes a long way to inhibit much of what the boys can do when out camping, hiking, etc. once they reach the Boy Scout level. I have the old BSA combo sheath knife/belt axe that I wear often to council activities that may require it's useage (fire building, camp setup, for example). My tools make one's task far easier than the modern alternatives. With BSA stamped clearly on the sheath, sheath snaps, axe head and knife blade, it makes it difficult to argue prohibition of such items at a scout activity. When I am in an area where such tools are not prohibited, I have a non-BSA combo that is lighter in weight than the BSA tools and wears easier on the belt than the older equipment. Such prohibitions have always amazed me. Next thing they will prohibit are old Cub Scout knives because they don't lock open. Tools are only as safe as the person using them. Train the boys and they can experience many of the exciting things their dads and granddads did when they were kids. My "Hunters' Safety" course was taught to me by my dad. My camping skills were taught to me by my dad. My campfire cooking skills were taught to me by my dad. Young scouts today can only dream about a childhood experience that I and many of the older people on the forum had because more and more the scout activities are being designed around the judicial system, not the scouting system. Stosh

IM_Kathy: I have had boys who were unable to "attend and fulfill" their POR because of sports, etc. I asked them what they did while they were away. Did they still do the communications for the patrol? Did they still plan the meetings for the APL? Did they do the follow-up and make sure things went well in his absence? I'm a firm believer that with busy boys, they can in fact fulfill their POR's when measured in terms of doing the work vs. showing up and attending meetings. If one follows that logic to it's conclusion, a PL can "fulfill" his POR by showing up every meeting night, totally unprepared, do nothing for the evening, badger everyone in their patrol to do the work needed to be done for activities at the meeting. Is attendance a good measurement of leadership? I don't think so, but that's my opinion, your mileage may vary. Stosh

The team building process is inherent in the patrol-method approach. One can go to great lengths to do team building and then when one reaches the first camporee split up the patrols and diversity everything for expediency. This goes a long way to show the futility of team building. Establish patrols and then let them work out the dynamics as they plan and program their activities. This interaction and reliance on each other goes a lot further than a few games one plays in training activities. They will build their own team. It may be in a joint effort to attain the national patrol award, it may be in a planned outing as a patrol, or segregating themselves away from the others in the troop to express their independance and interdependency on team members rather than out-of-patrol assistance. COPE, as a patrol, summer camp, as a patrol, outings, as a patrol, everything one does, as a patrol and then resist any and all temptation to realign or redesign or introduce new members, or anything else the patrol doesn't want. If I were to be the admistrative assistant to a different department rotating every month, I will assuredly eventually conclude I'm not a part of any of them. Team building will occur naturally if the group is left to work out its dynamics without ANY outside influence including team building training. Such preconceived activities may temporarily show what and how a team works, but it will take months if not years for a group of boys to gel into a well functioning "team"/patrol. Baden-Powell talked about gangs of boys being patrols, gangs are a natural consolidation of like interests and activities that will occur on their own if left to their own resources and will view attempts to promote what is already coming naturally to them as an interesting diversion, but not as something that really helps in the long run. Are your boys proud of the fact that they are a member of a certain patrol? If not then you don't have a team, but if they are, then leave them alone, they are already there. Do you have boys that hunger to belong to a certain patrol and will do anything to find acceptance there? Now you have a potential new member. No one wants to get stuck in a patrol, so don't do it. Stosh

My parents must have been nuts or they didn't know much about liability insurance when I was a kid. I got my first scout knife (Cub blue) when I was 7 years old. (I got my first .22 rifle when I was 12, too.) And I've gotten multiple stitches in my left index finger all caused by fixed blade knives, so that knife folding logic is out the window. I've carried a folding knife in my pocket for over 50 years. When I go out in the woods I carry a second sheath knife, and the only thing that separates me from the rest of the herd is I know how to use them and work extra hard on being safe. My first Cub Scout knife was the camp model with the same blades as the regular scout knife. Actually the only difference was the color of the handle. Yes, it was big and clunky, but it was big enough to do the job when needed. I may carry the whittler in my pocket every day because of its weight and size, but I find it totally useless in the woods. Give me my camp knife for that. I've whittled with my camp knife and it's clunky, but it can be done. Having too much knife is better than not having enough. I had a buck knife once, the lock wore and it became untrustworthy as to what it was going to do. I know what a fixed blade will do, it ain't gonna close up on me. A folding knife if not properly handled will. A buck knife is a crapshoot. Anyone who has handled a number of weapons with a half-cock safety knows what I'm talking about. Newer knives have a tendency to have stainless steel blades to make sure they look nice longer. Well, I don't have knives in my collection which serve a looking nice purposes. Stainless steel is very soft and will lose it's sharpness very quickly. Get a old knife with a black/rusty blade and clean it up. That's high grade carbon steel and will hold the edge a lot longer, but will rust and stain easier. E-bay is always selling old scout knives at rather nice prices. I don't care if you're urban or rural, when you head out into the woods, take the proper equipment, and like the uniform shirt, some boys will need to grow into them if they start out a little big. Stosh

One of the issues seem to be the Peter Principle where one rises to their lowest level of incompetency. As a parent they may have been totally into scouting as their boy entered scouts. Then they took on DL, which was a bit of a stretch because all he really wanted to do was be with his boy. Then when there was a lack of a warm body they got him into CM position where he's really out of his element. How he's got no time for his boy, but he still would rather and does spend more time with his boy than with Pack and/or Den. The next step is to make him an ASM in the troop where he will maybe do okay as long as he hangs out with his boy and then when the Troop needs a new SM he's tapped out. Yeah, right, that's going to work.... There are times when nobody is better than anybody, but we push on putting unqualified, uniterested people into positions where they really don't want to be, and then whine when things don't work out. I've seen it work out this way many times and not just Scouts. A little more time evaluating attitudes and skills would go a long way in insuring success in the various scout units. Yeah, right, he's struggling as a DL, so let's make him CM, too! It's not a matter of IS this going to fail, but a matter of WHEN is this going to fail. Well meaning committees can set up people to fail just as easily as unit leaders can set up their boys for failure if they don't think it through in the first place. Stosh

My CC and committee have a tendency to ask the question, "What did you do while holding your POR that was really fun?" and "What did you do while holding your POR that you think you would like to work on to improve?" While it is not "re-testing" it does give the BOR an idea of how well the boy is FUNCTIONING in his POR. When I do a SMC I suggest to the boy to write down all those things so he would have something to brag about to the board. For some of the boys that's a pretty short list and they are somewhat embarrassed with what they have to present to the board. Taking that one step forward, what does the boy say when he knows he hasn't done anything? At that point he will quickly realize that his BOR isn't really going anywhere and that they have sufficient evidence to recess the board until the boy has time to come up something to talk about. I would prefer a PL candidate say, "I tried to do all these different things and the boys blew me off and wouldn't do a darned thing." than the standard answer of "I didn't do anything." Stosh

By definition responsibility is the ability to respond to things. If the scout does nothing they have not responded and has shown no ability to respond therefore does not fulfill his responsibility. Unless the boy says to the BOR he did something besides sew a patch on and sat around for 6 months, he has not fulfilled the requirement. Stosh

I have operated effectively under both scenerios: In my troop, there are no members of the troop committee that are members of the chartering organization. The troop committee is made up of parents of the boys. Our CO is the American Legion. On the other hand all of the members of the troop committee are members of the chartering organization, or former members of the chartering organization. For the past 4 years I served as Institutional Head AND Crew Advisor. Our committee chair was the previous institutional head. The boys are viewed as an "auxillary"/"training camp" of the CO. Boys that are too young to be members of the CO are members of the Crew. So it varies from one situation to the next. It takes a basic understanding of how this all works for the differences in leadership expected. Under the troop, I am 100% boy-led, patrol-method, but in the crew, I am 100% adult-led. Both approaches are expected by the CO and the SM and CA must make the adjustments to the different approaches. If one is having difficulty with the politics of an approach, it's going to take a few friendly cups of coffee to work them out so that the boys benefit from the program and are not damaged by the politics of the adults. Stosh

What totally amazes me with this whole discussion is that the POR (Position of RESPONSIBILITY) does not mean that the boy has to show LEADERSHIP! The Eagle Project does that! Not the POR. If keeping equipment organized, clean and distributed/collected back up means the boy did leadership, great, but otherwise he fulfilled his responsibility to the equipment. A Webmaster only has to listen to what someone else tells him to put into the web design and then do it. No leadership, just follow along and fulfill your responsibility. One better listen closely to the wording on the patch Position of Responsibility, not Position of Leadership. When we work through the definition properly maybe we can forego some of the "added" expectations we as adult leaders impose over and above the requirement. Stosh

If a boy is a DC throughout his scouting career, he fulfills his POR responsibilities. Are we adding to the requirements to have him have to take on a second POR or different POR? If this is how the boy wishes to express his leadership and WE feel he should be doing something else, we are possibly setting him up for a failure. So what if this DC deals with people younger than him. Why should he have to deal with his peers? Teachers don't normally teach their peers, pastors don't either. Bosses don't teach their peers. So why would be want our DC's to split their duties and undermine their obligations to the den by having the boy do double duty elsewhere? This is just another example of how we go about killing off the interest of our older boys by having them jump through worthless hoops. After 4 years of scouting as a youth I attained 1 merit badge and 2nd Class rank. It was time to move on.... Was I ever going to make Eagle? I was hoping for FC, that would have been nice. If a boy enjoys DC, leave him there until HE decides differently. Otherwise, don't complain when the Peter Principle hits you square between the eyes. Stosh

Why is it that it always ends up political? Surely the divide between people in our society has only deepened with the change of administration, we will continue to draw lines in the sand. Us and Them is not really being helpful in our society (Level 3 conflict) Just because there people are sitting around the campfire being jerks doesn't mean that because I'm liberal it concludes that these jerks must be conservatives. No, they're jerks, period. It has nothing to do with their political affiliation. However, if my mindset always concludes into the arena of the politicalisms and not when one is talking about right or wrong then the problem will always exist. Is there a place for liberals in Scouting? Yep. Is there a place for conservatives in Scouting? Yep. Is there a place for jerk liberals? Nope, Is there a place for jerk conservatives? Nope. The opening thread should have been I was sitting around the campfire and the older leaders were being jerks. It has nothing to do with their political affiliations. I "polite" company (i.e. before the PC years) people didn't talk about religion and politics because they naturally inflamed the conversation. PCism is nothing more than an attempt to be able to talk about such things without inflaming the conversation as much. Sorry, but putting lipstick on a pig really doesn't change the situation all that much. I'm a conservative and I've been known to leave campfires over the years when people were being jerks. I never thought of them as being liberal, just jerks. Stosh