Stosh

"Yes, and Venture Patrols still work to the betterment of the Troop. It sounds to me like your idea of servant leadership stops at the Patrol." This conclusion is a result of cherry picking my comments. Whereas if the hightest "authority" in a troop is the SPL and his staff is no different than the highest "authority" in a troop is the patrols. The separation of those who have and don't have is the same. At least with the patrols, the younger boys are not run rough shod or bullied by the older boys, they still get to have a say so in the area of scouting important to them. This keeps the older boys out of the affairs of the leadership being developed in the younger boys. "If you believe in traditional BSA Scouting, it's hard to get more traditional than William Hilcourt." BP tends to be a bit more traditional considering his views in the situation. WH is merely an interpretation of BP's ideals. "Older boys leave for a variety of reasons. I believe you stated all your older boys had left. Was it because they were being treated as 7th graders? Or they were going back to the same Summer Camp for the 5th year?" SOME of the older boys left because they didn't want a boy-led troop. They wanted the adults to do the work and they would ride along and be entertained. They were the leadership of a patrol set up just for them and when they couldn't bully anyone into doing it for them, they left. Those that stayed, remained in the patrols for the first year and now are using their expertise to assist the younger patrols get organized and up and running. This is why they dropped out of the patrols they were in, turned the reins over to younger scouts and took on the responsibility of helping ALL the patrols, not just the one they were in. While some may not believe in the servant leadership style within the patrol method, I have found that the boys respond very positively to the concept. Are the patrols independant of each other - YES, do the older boys get involved with the younger boys - YES, when requested. Same holds true for the adults. When it is the decision of the patrols to have older boy and/or adult involvement in a situation they are facing, yes, they can ask and receive assistance to improve their program. This is why the Troop Officer Corps/Patrol Leader Council are virtual patrols. They function solely for the purpose of helping other patrols, but when not needed or are not assisting, they gather up and function as a "patrol" for the purposes of having structure at outings, camp together, cook together, and perform as a patrol. The SPL is free to float among the patrols and assist his "virtual patrol" of PL's to make sure they have assistance as may present itself. Otherwise, he bunks with the ASPL who is running the TOC. The only really hands-on anyone really does on a long term basis as an exception to this rule is when the TG is a guest of the NSP and will bunk up and mess with the NSP on their first outing when they are trying to get their feet on the ground without any experience. He's there to assist the PL run the show in the patrol smoothly. So to answer the question, they left because they were not being treated as 7th graders, they were treated as young adults which they didn't like. They preferred the 7th grader "take care of me" mentality. I find that although in organizational structure, the patrols are all independent within the troop, the interaction between the young boys and odler boys is more on a common interest on both parts. Sorry to disappoint, but it works for these boys and they like the structure the way they have set it up. I like it as SM because I am free to float around doing SM conferences and chatting with the various patrols individually. I'm not tied down to running the show and making sure everyone's having a good time, the boys are doing that. Stosh

And all high school students should be treated as 7th graders? Society draws many lines in the sand and boys that are mature enough are given more opportunities than those who can't handle it. Surely one must agree that the model society holds out to the world indicates that not all senior citizens must listen to rap music because the majority of people listen to rap music. There are things the older boys need the opportunity to express that may not fall into what's best for the troop definition de jour. Senior scouts that have to go to the same summer camp they have for 5 times earlier just because their numbers are unable to out-vote the troop will simply drop out of the program. There are many SM's out there that feel this way and yet scratch their heads in wonderment when their older boys drop out. They make excuses such as women, cars and school, but as life progresses these other issues DO change and meet the needs of the boys as they grow and mature. When scouting doesn't it gets left in the dust. Ideally the older scouts "owe it to the troop" to take care of the new scouts, but there comes a time when they need to branch out and take on a more mature view of the sitatuion, when that happens Scouting has to be prepared to meet that challenge or the boys will seek other avenues that will offer it. Too often the new boys hold back the older boys when in fact the older boys need to be challenging the new boys and raising their level of maturity rather than vise versa. This is why we have venture patrols. The program is there, it just has to be used. Stosh

The mix and match of a SM designated patrol may be one issue, but what about the clique of boys that want to hang together? Should they not be allowed to? What does the SM have to do with it? Surely if there are boys that want a mixed-bag, they should be allowed to do it as well. What does the SM have to do with that, too? If the boys are left to their own interests, desire, and focus they can do the patrol method far better than a SM interfering in the process. Leave them alone and let them figure out what works best for them. The unit I serve have both and when the boys cross over this month each one of them will have the opportunity to decide if they wish to have a NSP or join up with an existing patrol. The best way to keep the boys in the program is to have a program that meets their needs and no one knows what those needs may be exept the boy himself. Scouting means opportunities and choices they make in determining what works best for their individual situation. What they commit to should be their choice, not some arbitrary decision (leadership) of the SM to meet what he/she considers is in the best interest of the boy. The sooner the reins of leadership is turned over to the boys, the quicker they will learn. Stosh

I guess in the long run I don't "serve" anyone. With that being said, I operate under the premise of: "Who do you make look good?" I am an administrative assistant in real life and when asked what I do, my answer is always, "Make my boss look good." When it comes to the troop I follow that same premise. I teach it to my boys. If asked what their job is the answer always comes out sounding the same: "Make my ______ look good. If it's a PL, they make their patrol look good. If they are a troop officer they make the patrols look good. If they are a patrol member, they make the PL look good. The ASPL makes the TOC look good and the SPL makes the PL's look good. I as SM make the SPL look good. From this perspective of support, I find very little functional problems in the unit. As far as the CO is concerned, the boys generally spend extra time cleaning up the hall that we use and leave it in better shape than what we found it, leave it looking good, same for any campsites we use. In my crew, we generally spend a lot of time before the public doing teaching and demonstrating our skills in a living history environment. That means we use period correct equipment, know our history and present it in the best light for the public. Our maneuvers on the field are spot on and we look good and present ourselves at a standard which gets plenty of compliments from the public as well as other reenacting groups. Because of that we get invites to events that some of the more lax units are not invited to. When one does a good job functionally, there is a sense of pride in what we do because of these compliments which encourage our boys to do even better. The scout unit goes to great lengths to present themselves in front of others to insure that these compliments never change over to complaints. I haven't heard any from our CO of either group, and I'm assuming it goes back to the #2 rule we operate by: "2) Look and act like a Scout." We had a situation a few months back where a PL was having trouble making the meetings and things were not running as smoothly as the patrol would have liked. When I asked them what they planned on doing about it, the ASPL said he would have to step up to the plate, take over and cover for him until his stint in school sports is over. I asked the patrol members what they thought, and they all chimed in that they were going to have to work extra hard making their PL look good. Never in the conversation did the idea of replacing the PL came up. I'm thinking that the more they make everyone else look good, the better they look in the long run, and the boys have figured this out. Stosh

Delerium Tremors Stosh

The event that always amazes me is the District dinner where all the scouters show up in civies so they can have a drink at the dinner to which SPL's were invited. Somehow drinking is ok at a scouter function as long as one doesn't wear the uniform. By the way, I wore full uniform as did 2 others. We all survived the evening without any DT's. Hmmmm, kinda interesting too, whereas gambling is illegal, but tobacco and alcohol are both legal substances and it's ok to for the boys to play poker but not smoke. Go figure. Kinda makes one want to re-write the definition of hypocracy. Stosh

Well, I'm only about a half-bubble off by most accounts. But then aren't we all in different ways. "For starters, all the equipment is Troop equipment. It all belongs to the CO. It may be assigned to a Patrol, but by the charter, it belongs to your CO." Unfortunately this is not true in our unit. The last time I checked the sleeping bags the boys own do not belong to the CO. If the boys pool their personal credits and/or pay cash outright for their chuck boxes, they do NOT belong to the CO it belongs to the boys. These items are not troop owned and loaned out to patrols, they are patrol owned by the boys who paid for them personally. There seems to be a little more ownership in the process and they do take better care of them if it really belongs to them. In our unit those who take on troop officer positions drop out of their patrols to hold these positions. The boys felt that if a QM belonged to a particular patrol he would give preferential treatment to his own patrol so instead, the POR boys drop out of their patrols and move into the TOC "patrol" supported by an ASPL. The DC's often take on a non-POR position in this group such as Grubmaster. Because that position does not have a direct impact on the troop, the DC has the opportunity to remained in his patrol with his buddies if that be his choice. He has no conflict of interest with any other patrol by doing so. Whereas troops often times do things which manage their activities specific to their needs, i.e. size, location, etc. our boys have seemed to evolve into a rather strange sort of operational set up different than most other troops. They came up with it and seem to like it and we have far less problems than the more "traditional" setups. Stosh

I would assume that a troop QM with assistants that the assistants get POR? The judgment in the long run is do the boys do the work, not just wear the patch. I feel that with the structure of our unit the patrol officers often times do more work than the troop officers in that they are the ones directly responsible for the functioning of the patrol work and the TOC supports them in their duties. Except for the trailer, I don't think there is anything that is designated as troop equipment except for stuff that filters in and doesn't have a home. When the TOC goes out on an outing the function as a virtual patrol with an ASPL as it's "PL". The SPL works with and assists the virtual patrol (PLC) of PL's. Does that mean when the QM organizes the equipment for the TOC that those efforts are not counted towards his troop POR? With every member of the troop having been assigned some responsibility within his patrol, and others assigned to assist those patrols there's not many scouts standing around with nothing to do. Then one beg the question: When a DC goes on an outing, can he just sit around and do nothing? After all he's getting troop POR and not lifting a finger to help anyone in the troop. Kinda makes one wonder how relevent the POR patches really are, doesn't it? By the way, my DC's work very closely with the TG because as part of their learning curve when their Cubs cross over, they may in fact get picked as the NSP TG in the process. He had better know what the job requires. As far as EBOR, I've never heard of anyone questioning the boy's POR's. The boys in my unit don't pass out these responsibilities on a 6-month term basis. A PL serves for as long as his patrol wants him to and that may mean the other boys in his patrol will never get a chance at POR unless he goes into the TOC or PL of a different patrol. This subtle prejudice against maintaining longevity in a patrol means a boy will be penalized for hanging with his buddies. My boys prefer to hang with whom they wish, not according to some pre-determined process in the program. Under those dynamics, what happens if none of the patrol QM's wants to leave his buddies and take on the TOC QM? Kinda makes one want to hand out a patch to a new kid so the program looks good on paper doesn't it? Stosh

My apologies for not making myself clear to everyone, but I was addressing the thread's original intent. "How far do you go accommodating everyone who wants a Position of Responsibility?" My comments addressed the issue of accommodation vs. actually functioning in the positions. Surely if all one needs to be a TG is a patch for 6 months, then one as accommodated that scout for his requirement. If a person is expected to actually function in that position to get accommodating credit for it, then that's a different issue. My emphasis was on the fact that a small troop QM who gets functional credit does as much as a large troop patrol QM who doesn't get credit for it. I find that approach to such inequality unacceptable in an arena of scout fairness. If the boy does the responsibility of the position, he ought to get credit for it regardless of the size of the troop, a factor he has no control over. Try this on for size. The patrol QM works with the Grubmaster to organize the stove, the cooking equipment, the dining fly, coolers, etc. and assures him the patrol chuck box is inventoried and ready for the next outing. He then works with the Hikemaster to determine the type of activity they're doing to insure proper ax, saw, camp equipment necessary for an outing, for example. He then works with the PL to make sure he has a tally of the boys from the patrol who will be attending and makes all the appropriate adjustments for that. Then he arranges to meet with the troop QM to get any and all equipment from storage. The troop QM meets him at the storage bin and hands out the necessary equipment requested. Why wouldn't the patrol QM not get credit for a position of responsibility, when he may in fact be doing as much if not more work than the troop QM? Or how about the patrol Scribe who works with the patrol Instructor keeping track of the advancement of the patrol members, whether or not they've paid for an outing, attendance, storage of Grubmaster's, Hikemaster's records of activities, consolidating all reports and turning them into the troop Scribe on a regular basis. Or the patrol Instructor who has to maintain an accounting for the patrol Scribe of the advancement of each patrol member, prepare lessons to be taught, make arrangements with the patrol QM for any supplies such as rope and poles for lashing, maybe some first aid training equipment, and coordinate the lessons and opportunities for the patrol members on an activity and get those accomplishments to the patrol Scribe to record. From the way most people approach these POR's it is obvious that functionality isn't necessarily a part of the program. A troop POR counts and maybe a PL who sits on the PLC get credit for actually doing any work. This heirarchy of political appointments doesn't play well in a servant leadership style of organization, where patrols tend to be independent of the structure of "who's running the show". The patrols run their own show and every member of the patrol has a job to do. Boys who don't want to be PL or APL because they don't want to do any work, don't last long in a troop that expects everyone to carry their fair share of the work and are assigned a responsibility right down to every member in a patrol. Each patrol is a mini-troop, functions as a mini-troop and is as independent as a mini-troop. The patrols communicate with each other through the PLC organized by the SPL and whatever documentation the patrol produces that gets passed down to the support staff of the Troop Officer Corps for fulfillment. Every boy who hones his skills on the patrol level is eventually considered for a challenge on an expanded level of the TOC. This "requirement" for advancement has always offered me quite a chuckle and I basically don't take it very seriously when it comes to having it signed off. First of all the message to the boys is that only SOME boys have a "position of responsibility" and the rest do not. They don't have responsibilities? This is not the message I want my boys to hear. The PL gets credit, but the grubmaster who makes the menues, organizes the lists, does the shopping, coordinates equipment need with the QM, plans the right number of menues with the Hikemaster, maintains records of what and how much for the Scribe, coordinates the food at an activity, prepares it, serves it, monitors the clean up and puts everything away for the evening and gets no POR responsibility credit? I guess I view the requirement more like everyone else views the "Scout Spirit" requirement. If the Scout Spirit is more subjective, then within the wording of the requirement, I do the same thing. Does a boy who wears the troop QM patch and doesn't do the work vs. a patrol QM who does, get an automatic walk-over for advancement? Sorry, if one does the work at any level, they get the credit. A "troop" Instructor in every patrol, works for me because multiple Instructors is acceptable. Same for all the other positions except PL and APL. Multiple TG's are acceptable, same for QM, Librarian, Chaplain Aide, Historian, Instructors, .... Who's to say the Grubmaster who prays before every meal with the patrol doesn't fulfill the requirements of Chaplain Aide in most troops? If one does the job, they get the credit. Stosh

Kinda makes one wonder what a small troop does when it has only one patrol and calls itself a troop. Obviously the actuality of work is just a matter of symantics and wearing a patch. Stosh

Once one closes the cover on a waffle iron, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether it's raised or not. :^D I do find that if one takes even the standard pancake mix out of the box, if one lets it sit for a while the waffles and pancakes do end up lighter and fluffier than if they use the batter right away. The old cast-iron waffle irons allowed for a lot more space and thus fluffier waffles than the modern electric ones. These smaller waffles aren't my cup of tea. When I make one waffle in an old Griswold iron I put in twice as much batter than those who use the electic irons. Of course if one puts in twice the batter, they get twice the waffle. With all is said and done a waffle using twice the batter in the relatively same diameter iron is going to get a lot thicker waffle in the long run. While I'm not certified in anything in the arena of food prep. I do know that how one goes about such prep and the equipment they use does make a difference. Stosh

Like the 10 Commandments, the 12 Scout Laws are the idea to which all scouts aspire to. If one were to hold everyone accountable to them, the program would collapse in a heartbeat. Stosh

Hmmm, patience is key in making the ultimate pancake/waffle. Waffles have more surface area and thus make "crispier" results. They also hold butter and syrup in the pockets too. I have nothing against the waffle. Yet, to make the best pancakes, after making the batter, be patient and let it set for 15 minutes before making pancakes. This allows the baking powder/sodas to work. One is trying to make the bubbles in the batter, NOT the bubbles from cooking be the showcase. Without having to lessen the liquids for the batter, which makes the pancakes doughy and "raw" in the inside to make them "thick", let the bubbles do their job. Cook at a little lower temperature and use butter rather than oil and one can get the pancake nice and crispy on the outside and fluffy and nice on the inside. The lower temperature allows the batter to cook all the way through without buring the pancake. The butter keeps it crisp without making it leathery on the outside. A well made pancake is just as good as a well made waffle, but one has to appoach the subject as work of art, not just a means of feeding oneself. Like a fine wine, it just takes a little more time. :^D Oops, almost forgot. When doing pancakes, do them on the bottom of the frypan. Most people have difficulty digging the pancake out of the pan so turn the pan over. This also means the sides of the pan hold the cook surface an inch or so off the coals and gives a more even heat. A good cast iron frypan is a campfire's best friend. Also for those who prefer the waffles, the old fashioned waffle irons with the metal coiled handles (not the wood ones) do a very nice job on the campfire and make a huge waffle that will be able to quarter up and serve 4 waiting boys. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Doing a special project is not an invented position. One doesn't have a position to do a project, they just do a project. Of all the EBOR's I've attended and all the records that have been reviewed, no one has ever asked if the fulfillment of Quartermaster was at a troop or patrol level. As a matter of fact, I've never seen where it has even been questioned. Hmmm, that must be the part where retesting and reviewing requirements is brought into play. And the boys that I have up for Eagle pretty much have held POR for a lot more than the 6 months in question for each rank. I don't think I know of any "previous" DC's that haven't earned the National DC Award. That means a minimum of 12 months for that. Kinda hard to argue that the boy has his bases covered. There are no 6-month terms in the troop. One holds the position for as long as the boys feel they are doing a good job. There are some of the boys that have held POR's for well over a year and it's never been discussed among the boys to have something different be adopted. I guess walking in cold on a troop officer position with no experience and little opportunity is better than serving as a patrol officer first. That on-the-job 6 month learning curve must look good on the EBOR paperwork. I guess I believe in the philosophy, if they do the job, they get the credit. I guess I would feel better about having a boy actually function on a patrol level than sitting around doing nothing but wear a patch for 6 months at the troop level. Stosh

Hmmm. I have an old Griswold waffle iron that I use which produces waffles 2-3 times thicker than most and I don't use any "raised" recipes. Just have to know the trick to make nice thick panCAKES. Then it makes no difference between the tread and non-treaded varieties. :^D Stosh

First thing, a boy does not need a POR to advance. "5. 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." Then there's the possibility for patrol scribe and quartermasters who not only fulfill a valid POR but make great training ground for troop scribe and quartermaster. There's nothing in the requirement that states that the POR has to be at troop level with scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, etc. It does specifically state for some POR's but not all. If the SPL is responsible for the PL's, a good ASPL or two would go well to keep track of and train the troop officer corps. If the troop is large enough an ASPL would be helpful to the SPL dealing with the PL's. If there are multiple NSP's multiple TG's would open that area up. And we haven't even begun to talk about DC's at this point. A small feeder pack of 4 dens means four DC's. No one gets a POR without some functional responsibility and still there's plenty of work to pass around amongst the boys. If the SPL is tending to the "troop", he'll never have enough time to allow for the development of the boys he is responsible for. There's enough responsibility and work in most troops if it is put to effective use instead of trying to consolidate all the work into a few of the high level scouts while having the rest sit around with patches on their shirts. If they have a job to do, give them the responsibility AND AUTHORITY to do the job without interference from others, both boy and adult. Do the math: 15 boys need POR of a troop of 30. 4 PL's, 4 patrol scribes, 4 patrol QM, 1 troop QM, 1 troop Scribe, 1 TG, 1 SPL, 1 ASPL. Ok, that's 18 boys. Add in a Chaplain Aide and Instructor. That leave the SPL to work with 4 PL's, an ASPL to work with the QM, TG, Scribe, Instructor and Chaplain Aide, and 4 PL's to work with their patrols. Where's the problem? Everyone of these positions have a specific duty to deal with specific functions and responsibilities. If everyone focuses in on their own part of the world, and are left to the fulfillment of their responsibilities, the operation of the troop as a whole would improve quite a bit overall, as well as each Patrol with functional officers within their ranks. If everyone would actually DO their jobs, there's plenty of POR's to go around in any troop. Stosh

A PL of any rank has a responsibility to all members of his patrol regardless of their rank. I for one don't find how helpful an adult advisor can do for a Life scout than any of the other boys. Read the book, that's why it's there. 6-7 of your buddies working with the Life scout is boy-led, and introduction of an adult "advisor" is not. Sure, the Life scout can ask questions of any and all adults in the troop, outside the troop as well. He has to show leadership and that includes asking the appropriate people the right questions at times. As far as AWOL Life scouts that are hanging on the fringes only to get a rank is pretty much out of the running in terms of participation and being a part of a program. It has always amazed me how these scouts expect help from their buddies and otherwise except for their Eagle project they haven't the time of day for them. From my perspective, I have a difficult time working up a heap of sympathy for these boys. You're in or you're out, don't come around looking for the pay check when you didn't show up for work. Stosh

Any patrol that has a Second-Class PL with a Life scout as it's member has a serious leadership problem. PL's are resonsible for their members. Obviously this isn't happening and the PL isn't fulfilling his POR. Stosh

Okay, I'm at a loss here. If the receipe is the same, how is a waffle different than a pancake except how it's made? If the receipe is different then just make a pancake and poke holes in it before flipping. Stosh

In a boy-led program, wouldn't it be appropriate for the boy's PL to be his Eagle advisor? After all it's the PL's responsibility to assist the boys in all the other rank advancement, why would Eagle be any different? Otherwise if there's a TG, he could assist in this process as well. If the Eagle candidate is a PL, then the responsibility falls to the SPL. This way the only boy the SM is advisor for is the SPL, just like he/she's his advisor for everything else. Stosh

As a psych major in college, I did all the Maslow stuff along with other behavior modification styles etc. Theory is great for college aged people, but one of the most important lessons that must be taught is how does that information get translated down to an 11 year-old's level. PL: "The boys won't clean up the meal mess." SPL: "Now's the time to demonstrate leadership, (i.e. Servant Leadership). Grab the assistant cook and the KP guys and LEAD them by rolling up your sleeves and give example (lead by example) by working with them until they figure out the process." PL: "What if they still won't do it?" SPL: "Cheerfully jump in and start. The good leaders will follow. The best leaders are the best followers." I think once it's explained in clear wording, it should translate easily into the patrol. One can't lead by pushing. They need to get out in front and... well.... lead. The boys will respect this approach better than the bossy leaders. Never expect the boys to do that which you wouldn't do yourself. When I teach the NSP boys, and I see this cleanup mess not getting done, I jump in and take dibbs on the Dutch Oven. For me it's a horrible looking cleanup, but after demonstrating how easily it's done, the boys usually jump in and do that first. Ever have your boys fighting over who's going to clean what? I have. It ain't pretty, but it sure is fun. Scouting is a game. :^) I find that doing these kinds of thingys is a great time to visit with the boys and do SM conferences on how they're getting along in scouting. I remember some of my best "visits" with my Mom were when we did the supper dishes. It's an attitude, not a chore. Stosh

Just a guess here, but I do know that Philmont is very concerned about the boy weight to pack weight ratio. Being too "skinny" may not be the issue in as it might be too small in stature to carry the minimum amount of weight for the trek. For example, at a 25% ratio that means a 200# boy carries a 50# pack. Now you have a 100# boy carrying a 25# pack. What happens if the minimum amount of gear a boy needs to carry is 30#'s? I had a boy on my trek that was "heavy" and struggled with the weight of his pack, while a wirey little guy that wrestled had no problem at all. I'm thinking that Philmont has to put these generalized charts out to insure the boys have a good experience. After all they deal with hundreds of boys all the time and have to have some guidelines in place somewhere. Remember, some of these boys have yet to go through their growth spurt and waiting a year or two to grow in stature would make the trip far more enjoyable for them. Stosh

I got mine off of E-Bay And you are right, the boys love it! That's why my TOC wears Myers Flags as neckers! Stosh

Unfortunately I stand by my comments. I was talking to the boy about his situation and how he perceived it. Of course, his perception may be what the troop is, but that's not the issue. He perceives a SM that will not work with him in his situation. He fielded a couple of options, but they were shot down with a "NO" answer. A SM that is perceived to be "quick to shut things down that have not worked in the past, and likes sticking to TIGHT schedule." indicates to me a problem for this boy's leadership development. When "the scoutmaster has said NO to a venture patrol" the question arises "What does it hurt" if someone wishes to show leadership in setting one up? If I were perceived by my boys to hinder their leadership development in any way, shape or form, I too would be offended if someone were to express it, but I would also take a long look inward rather than take it out on the messenger. I have never said "no" to any scouting ideas my boys may come up with that they wish to pursue. It is not my job as SM to curtail any effort on the boy's part to get into it and do something scouting. IPods? Yep, they're curtailed, but they aren't scouting. Starting a venturing patrol? well, I see that as a great opportunity for the older boys to seek something that will keep them in the program for as long as possible. I was at summer camp a couple of years ago and there was a unit there that did not participate in any of the activities. They were all the "been there done that" boys that had all the MB's, been to all the competitions and as a patrol, were attending camp for probably the umteenth time and were just hanging out, having a great time enjoying each other's company and not disturbing anyone around them. I went over and spent some time chatting with them about their cars, their girlfriends, their jobs and scouting. When all was said and done, the most impressive thing about the whole situation was these boys were at scout summer camp...for the umteenth time. Boy-led means the boys make the decisions and run the program. It may not be what I want as SM, but my attrition rate is rather low. Stosh

BINGO! This boy-led, patrol-method stuff really works if given the chance! If one expects the best from their boys, they usually get it! Congratulations on the comment, it is well earned. Stosh