Stosh

"I personally think the offical path of responsibility should stay with the SM. If then the SM has reason to hand over the responsibility, then that is when it should be done." Of course it is just a personal opinion, but one would think that it's about time that the responsibility of the Eagle Project should be handed over to the scout at some point. The Organization, the SM and the Committee are only there to approve the project. If I am reading this right, the scout is the official path of responsibility and should stay with him. The reason why so many Eagle Projects are so elaborate is because the adults have made them so. Let the boys do a few and maybe the evaluation committees will begin to understand what it means to have the boys do the project and not some adult. Stosh

Hmmm, if he keeps this up each year, he's probably got his Eagle Project already half done. Congrats for having a son with such compassion for others. Stosh

I drove 34 miles each week to attend a scout meeting of my choice. Each parent/boy can make that same decision. I drive 57 miles to attend a crew meeting and I have boys that come the day before the crew meeting, stay over night so they can be ready to go at 8:00 am. Otherwise they would have to start driving at 4:30 am to make it in time. Fortunately the crew meetings are only once a month. I have boys from 3 different states involving 6 different councils, and we're looking to expand even further. So in your case, count your blessings, find the pack/troop you would enjoy the most and sign up! Stosh

Shepherding? Menoring? What ever happened to the idea that if the boy wanted some help he'd ask for it. Little too much for me to see adult involvement to the shepherding level in the project as an idicator that the project belongs solely to the boy as per the requirement. No adult, when asked, should not assist to the extent of the boy's directive. But to have an adult connected to the boy in any fashion other than the boy's discression is interfering in the leadership process of the boy as he does his project. My interpretation of the requirement, which everyone seems to be so fond of on the forum, indicates Organizational, SM and committee approval. To me that means a signature, not critique, suggestion, or involvement on the part of any adults. Stosh

I have found from a practical and functional point of view that BP's ideas are spot on. I do not have an SPL (his functionality is not necessary at this point and would be a political, non-functioning position otherwise)and all my PL's are appointed by the SM based on their functional abilities. The tenure of the PL's once they have been assigned is their option. (Boys that don't particularly like their PL can request a transfer into a patrol where they do like the PL, which is in fact a vote with their feet.) The PL's can accept the position and they can resign the position at their discression. If they choose to remain PL throughout their scouting career, it's not a problem. I haven't had problems with this setup and the boys seem to really like it. The only positions that are not SM assigned at this point are the APL's who are rotated amongst the patrol members to give them all a chance to learn and demonstrate their leadership functionality. The PLs' job is to train their successor by picking the best functioning APL and recommend them for PL of their own patrol or for consideration for a NSP PL position. There are no term limits on any POR in the troop. A boy that can't handle the job may last only a month, while a good PL may wish to stay PL all the way through his scouting career. Troop Officer Corps members are recommended by PL's from the boys in their patrol. If he is accepted into a TOC position he steps down out of the patrol system and when he wishes to return to the patrol system he has his choice of which patrol he wishes to return to. If his original patrol is full (8 members) he might wish to consider developing his successor from within it's ranks so a position will open up when the successor is ready. Sound too political and riddled with favoritism? Sure, but then so does having the boys vote on their officers. Just have to decide which of the two systems works best for your particular situation. Stosh

Ok, explain the logic to me... 1) The new uniform is more oriented to action, on-the-go, outdoors type activities, rugged materials, etc. BDU style of the fatigue uniform. 2) "Class A" uniform is more for official activities and the "Class B" is more for the action, outdoor activities, rugged materials, etc. What am I missing here? Which uniform is being sought out here? Are we going for the military dress type uniform or the military fatigue type uniform? Or is this some kind of "compromise" that no one recognizes? I would hate to think this whole process is a result of trying to get the dress uniform out into the bush. No one's been effective in pulling that off since the days of the Iron Brigade. Now before anyone ambushes me about my military references, etc. keep it in mind I didn't bring up the subject, it's been sprinkled throughout the uniform discussion all along as has the illusion of some kind of Class A/B distinctions. My boys wear the BSA uniform for all activities. As a matter of fact, my boys have been getting the old green shirts from pre-1970 to use as a "Class-B" because they are cool. They like the red-piped, mule-eared pockets that button shut and hold stuff secure too. My TG showed up wearing a garrison cap. Hey, if I can get a boy into the full uniform, I'm a happy camper. Both my "Class A" and "Class B" are real uniforms and if the "Class B" gets wrecked, he can pick up another on E-Bay cheaper than buying a camp t-shirt. Stosh

Rank achievement in the Boy Scouts is not a valid measurement of DC qualifications. An Eagle Scout that has no interest in younger boys is not qualified to be a DC. A Tenderfoot that wishes to go back to a younger troop to work with younger boys would do just fine and through careful guidance make a terrific TG/PL eventually. If he has the desire, the skills can all be learned, but if he has all the skills in the world and has no desire, he will be worthless as a DC. It all goes back to BSA's discussion of servant leadership. Attitude trumps skills every time. Stosh

As a former Cub advancement chairman and Webelos DL, I never allowed double dipping. Why consolidate the fun to one activity when one could have twice the fun doing two things. I worked my program that I actually offered all the pin requirements twice so that the boys that missed it the first time could catch it the second time around. It doesn't take a whole lot of creativity to tweak the activity to give it a fresh look and the boy have just as much fun doing it a second time. If it's fun rather than "advancement" the boys really don't mind the process. I found the problem was more with the parents than with the boys. As a DL of an adult led program, I just pulled rank and that ended the discussion. As a SM in a boy-led program it's easier to stick with the expressed requirements, there's a lot less chance for double dipping. If Mom really liked the recipe holder, how about we make a popcicle stick trivet to go with it? That way mom gets two neat things and when mom's happy, everyone's happy. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

As a Venturing Crew Advisor, in order to keep peace with the Boy Scout programs around us, if we ever take on a new boy that is already a Boy Scout, we expect the boy to stay with his troop, dual register, and continue his Boy Scout career and Eagle. Over the years we have had 7 boys Eagle and one that didn't. There wasn't much we could do to "force" the boy to stay in BSA and Eagle, but when he quit the Boy Scout program he quit our Venturing crew as well. Because of our crew's hobby, the boys usually don't give us much hassle about staying with the Boy Scouts. As a SM of a troop of my own, I know when the boy is not progressing as he should and we have a little heart-to-heart to keep him progressing in his Trail to Eagle. It hasn't really been much of a problem in the overall scope of things. I do think Eagling as a Boy Scout is really the route to go. Our crew is not condusive to assisting a boy with Boy Scout requirements and we don't have the resources nor the program to assist him with his Eagle. Stosh

I as SM expect my boys to have full uniform, necker, shirt tucked, patches all on. But like anything else, what I get and what I expect seem to be two different things. I do however, take in to consideration how hard a boy tries to comply with the rules of scouting and uniforming. Sometimes the necker is forgotten, shirt is in the wash, etc. but for the most part my boys all wear the full uniform. Stosh

Ok, let me get this straight, both troops take boys from the packs based on religious affiliation. Thus they have to have a neutral place to recruit? Why? If the protestant boys go the to the protestant troop and vice versa, what difference does it make where they get recruited? If everyone was competing for the same boys, then I'd say either find neutral ground or do your own thing. There are two troops in my town and 3 packs as well. I plan on heavily recruiting well before recruitment night. Our boys are planning on visiting each of the Webelos II dens and putting on a special program, inviting them to a pool party where they will all take their BSA swim test and the invite to the Winter Camp activity in January. By the time Blue/Golds roll around we will have made 3 contacts with all the packs and make sure we get our best shot in with recruitment first. Until the boys sign on the dotted line, they are fair game for recruiting. Neither of our troops are religiously CO'd so it's annual no-holds-barred. :^) We got all three packs in total last year so I'm sure the other troop is planning on upping their game this year. With 30 new Webelos available, our boys are planning on at least 30 of them for our troop. Stosh

What frustrates people the most is that they view scouting has a measurable end goal. They reach a certain accomplishment points and then that's done, i.e. learn to tie a square knot. Then they go on to the next point. What people don't realize is scouting is a process that begins at a certain point and doesn't quit, it just keeps going. While people look to certain "end points", i.e. AOL, or Eagle, or WB without realizing that it's only a step in an even longer journey. When are we going to get there? (Never) Measure me some success. (Okay, here's a patch/pin for you to wear) Let me know when it's over. (When you give up) Sorry, it just doesn't fit. I started my journey a long time ago and I can assure everyone I no longer remember my Morse Code for second class requirement. Surely there must be something wrong with me for losing such an important skill. One must always ask oneself, how often does one tie square knots other than at scouts? Clove hitch? Diagonal Lashing? But what about such things as teamwork, leadership, moral character development, citizenship, etc. All those other things that aren't even measured in the advancement records of the handbook. If my boy forgets, it's kinda too bad for him. But if the day ever comes when his child needs some first aid and he delves back into his memory for something he learned as a scout and it works for him, life will be good. He may save a life and yet never get a patch or pin for his shirt, but he won't mind. Stosh

It's always interesting to see how people select the fight they are willing to fight. Everyone is all enthralled with "active(ly)", interpreting to actually doing something or just being actively registered. Unfortunately that's only one word of the requirement. The complete reference is to "actively SERVE". While active(ly) can be viewed as a passive action, serving cannot. If Mom were to serve up dinner and then not put any food on the table, there's not really any good reason to show up for dinner because one is not going to get anything out of the deal. Serve is to provide something of value to someone else. If just wearing a patch actually serves someone, I'd be hard pressed to see how. A POR is not something one is, it's what someone does. Too often we refer to these activities as BEING the SPL, or BEING the QM or BEING the Chaplain's Aide. Seldom do we actually say doing SPL things, or doing one's duty as a QM, or doing the job of the Chaplain's Aide. Until the discussion is taken out of the realm of BEING and into the realm of DOING the job, everyone's going to just spin their wheels. Every patch that gets handed out requires a commitment on the part of the wearer to actually DO the job necessary to make sure someone is truly served. Stosh

Whitewater canoeing, I'll go (going this weekend). Rock climbing, nope. Go to the pool to swim and have fun, nope. I don't like heights, but I have other adults that do. End of discussion. Can I rock climb? Yep, Certified Emergency Rescue Technician means I rescue from heights and depths. Do I climb for recreation? Nope. Can I swim? Yep, pass the BSA swim test every year. Do I swim for recreation, nope. I think that for the past 10 years the only time I've swam is to pass the test. The only reason I take the test is so I can canoe with the boys, it has nothing to do with swimming skills, I always wear a PFD. If I was not interesed in any water activities I would not take the annual BSA swim test. Can I swim? Used to be a certified lifeguard. Can I still do a rescue if needed? Yep. Used to be an EMT-A as well. No longer certified. Have I ever saved someone's life after my certification expired, yep. Did the person complain that I didn't have certification, nope. Did it ever occur to anyone that the boy just may not like to swim even if he can marginally pass the tests or has passed in the past? After all G2SS only states that this test SHOULD be conducted annually, it does not state that it must, nor does it state the boy must attend swimming activities to retain his rank or membership. Stosh

ursus snorous roarus: I fully understood the comment to be humorous and a joshing dig. No harm, no foul. But in a serious tone, my boys have been growing in their awareness of respectfulness and observe some of the adults around them in a different light. Last summer an adult leader screamed at the top of his lungs in the midst of those gathering for evening flags to a boy in his troop. "______ what are you doing?! Front and center, boy, right now!" while pointing to the ground right in front of him. I had more than one boy come up to me and thank me for not being like him. One boy even asked if it was proper for adults in the BSA program to act that way. So, I do know that some butt chewing does go on, and it probably gets demonstrated down to the SPL's in some troops. It just comes as a big surprise when evidence comes to the surface. My little secret that I use is "THE LOOK". When my boys screw up, they pretty much always know it, and I think the silent "LOOK" does more to get them thinking than chewing on their butts. It doesn't need to be a scowl, just a look long enough to let them know the SM has been observant and that we both know the ball was dropped. Unless it's a safety issue the subject is not even discussed out of respect for their understanding. Just this past weekend, one of my PL's said he was going to do the advancement recording a lot different this year than last because last year's records were screwed up pretty bad and it took him a lot longer to get them fixed than if he had done it right in the first place. The great thing about that one was, I didn't even need "THE LOOK", he just came up with it on his own. I knew it was going to be a bad situation, but until he experienced it, he didn't. Now he knows, and I bet he tells his buddies along the way. The reason for the "LOOK" is because the "discussion" is kept silent between the boy and myself. This way, no one else in the troop needs to know their PL goofed. If they do, no one says anything, but the leader knows and figures it out on his own. No one's embarrassed, no one's temper flares up and a lesson is taught. What more could anyone expect. I do notice that a few of my PL's are dealing with discipline problems with their own version of "THE LOOK". Of course they get a smile and/or thumbs up when they do something right which is a lot more often than those times that necessitate "THE LOOK". 8^) vs. :^) Stosh

To add to Neil's comments, it might be a good thing to "groom" 1 or 2 boys to step up into that spot. Opportunities to teach, some feedback afterwards, etc. to get the boys acclaimated to being in front of others, etc. That way then they finally take on the role full time, they will have functional experience. Once the TG's and Instructors are ready, start grooming the next group. And have them groomed by the current TG's and Instructors. I find that intense crash weekend courses are good in emergency situations, but a long-term process seems to stick with the boys better. Stosh

This is what the other guy said >>> "That gives SPL a chance to review the success of the meeting plan and chew some butt if someone wasnt ready; and remind everyone of what is coming up next week. Be patient, dont embarrass them in front of the younger guys but dont be afraid to pull them aside and talk about all this as they adjust to you and your expectations. They are not going to be perfect; they will misidentify nature, struggle with knots and compasses (Only Stosh has those perfect guys )." This is what I say >>> Thanks for the compliment, I'll pass it along to my perfect boys, especially the two who are ADHD and the other one who has Asperger's Syndrom. (If one doesn't know what those diagnosis are they had better not hang around kids.) And if they aren't having the SPL chewing out butts, pulling them aside and make sure they get their adult mandated agenda straightened out by some adult, maybe they'll be as good as mine. But, I would suggest that treating them with a little respect, helping them with those things they struggle with and treating them as an equal maybe they would actually want to learn from someone they truly respect. For those who wish to know why my boys appear to be perfect is when my patrol members look good, my PL's look good, when my PL's look good my Troop Officers look good, when my Troop Officers look good, I look good, and when I look good, I can spend a lot of time helping my patrol members look good. I think this process goes a long way to quell discipline problems, it keeps the boys focused on a common goal and the whole thing his monitored by the boys themselves. Yes, I have witnessed in action the types of leaders I never wish to be. My boys have also seen some of these leaders and are totally amazed by some of the antics. Lead by example. Butt chewing SPL's breed butt chewing PL's, etc. We all reap what we sow, and I'm loving every bit of it. How many of the BSA leaders out there expect to be referenced as Mr. ____________? and yet would never address their boys as Mr. _________. All my boys are addressed with title and last name, unless we are just sitting around in an informal setting, where we all might take the liberty to occasionally address each other by first name. Respect breeds respect. Stosh

The DC doesn't need to have been a Cub Scout to do a good job. Sometimes simply having 1-2 younger siblings is enough. One can always teach someone the skills to be a good DC, but one first has to start with a boys that really cares about younger kids. Stosh

I was reading back over this thread when I noticed that there are both the dynamics of good unit organization involved here. One is patrol-method and the other is boy-led. One can have an effective adult-led troop. It happens all the time. There are those who really like it and they run very well because adults are running it. Then there is the boy-led troop. The boys are given some opportunity to lead, but find it difficult because the real issues are still held in control by the adults. Most boys do not have the leadership skills of an adult and so a troop-method unit will never be able to be run by the youth. Then there is such a thing as an adult-led, patrol-method. This is what a lot of units strive for because it appears to be authentic BSA on the surface. A lot of patrol advisors and mentors around every corner to make sure the boys are doing it right, kinda thingy. Then there is the boy-led, patrol method. The size of the group to be led is well within the skills set of most boys and the boys are making the decisions. Kudu has the right idea, but very few practice this in reality. Even if it was 3' instead of 300', a well run boy-led, patrol-method unit would do just fine. I don't advocate 300' between patrols, but I do advocate 300' between boys and adults at a minimum. As SM I spend way too much time keeping the adults out of the boys hair, and not enough time doing what I'm supposed to be doing as a SM. So if one is going to move to the boy-led program, put the 300' between them and the adults. Stosh

"Getting in the open, is unfortunately the very thing I'm trying to avoid. There are at least two sets of parents of senior Scouts who are in serious denial about their child's skill sets and performance. Getting it in the open would start a war almost as quickly as challenging the wanna-be Eagle." I know of no conflict-resolution technique that endorces avoiding the issue. As disruptive as it may sound, there will come a time when then present situation is more painful and it will have to be brought out in the open. A good conflict-management person would be able to quell the potential for the "war". Unfortunately from the response, it sounds as if an outside person as was suggested who has some conflict-management skills is going to be needed. And it is also unfortunate that the longer one waits, the worse it will get. Stosh

Yeah, there are always some who blow through the comments without really understanding them. Happens all the time. Stosh

I realize that it is not acceptable to add to the requirements, but... :^) I have told the boys that if they wish to be a PL, TG or Instructor in the troop, they will need to know not only what the requirements are, but also be able to teach them. While it will serve a boy well to know his knots, and how to orient a map, and do first aid and swim the BSA test, but it will not serve those around him unless he can teach it. The choice is left up to each boy to decide which option he may wish to act upon. When NSP PL's are considered, they will not necessarily be tested on their knots, maps or first aid, but, I do know they will be tested on how well they can teach those things. Scouting is a game and competition is a great motivator. Stosh

["In fact, if they are as autonomous as you say, they don't even need a troop! Why don't they just each become their own troop?" Wouldn't it be rather stupid to have a SM, CC Committee, and CO for every 8 boys in scouting? It is a little more feasible to consolidate some of these issues.] I don't know - would it? The same 5 adults could serve all the different troops. Then they wouldn't have to all meet at the same time for troop meetings, right? This solution would take care of all the problems you mentioned you had at summer camp. If they are all doing their own thing, I'm guessing each patrol is already securing their own Tour Permits and arranging their own transportaion to campouts. In the model you describe, why does each patrol need to be a part of the troop? Nope, I'm going to stick with my first assessment that such duplication of effort on such a small scale would be stupid. ["This includes understanding the vision of the SM and passing it along to the PLs." This comment indicates the root of a truly adult-led approach. And if I were passing on my vision to the PL's I'd surely wouldn't need an SPL to do it unless I was trying to give the process a sense of boy-led propriety. I don't need an SPL to do my bidding.] This comment indicates to me a lack of understanding of a boy-run, patrol method troop. Providing a vision does not affect the actual running of the troop - the boys still run the program. If the boys know the BSA program, they are well within their scope of leadership to set their own vision of the program. They don't need an adult telling them what their vision is going to be, they are capable of doing it on their own. Any time some adult makes decisions, sets goals, gives direction, provide vision, etc. it is adult-led. Sorry but if adults are running the show one can't honestly call it boy-led. Adults lead because the boys can't be trusted to do it themselves. A Scout is Trustworthy. I trust my boys to do the right thing. But if they get off track, the SM/SPL are there to get them back on. Yep, lead them back to the right path. That's adult-led. When my boys get "off track", I'll worry about it at that point. So far I've never seen much "off track" except when boy-led gets side tracked by adults running the show under the illusion that it in their best interest that the adults step in and get them back on the track that has been determined by adults. Sorry, I just can't buy into that line of logic as being boy-led. If you have 11 year-old PLs who can form and explain a vision of where they want their patrols to be in a few years, and detail how they are going to get there, more power to you. Thank you, my boys will appreciate the compliment. My experience has been Scouts that age have a hard enough time planning their menu for the next camping trip and putting together a duty roster. Sorry to hear it, my experience has been no such thing. My boys are taking this weekend to plan out how they are going to go about winning over two Webelos dens to come to our troop instead of the other troop in town, about making visits to their dens, to inviting them on outings, winter camp, and providing a DC if necessary. They are considering what troop officers they will need and discussed today a new recruit that has just moved to town. I think when one has boys that don't know what adult-led is, they have a tendency to step up to the plate and run it themselves. All this discussion was conducted while they were participating in a 10 hour service project that they will do again tomorrow. Of course this whole 20 hour service project was organized and put together by a Webelos scout that joined up last February. It was part of a little project his PL had him do as APL to get him ready for next year and maybe take a patrol of his own. The boys also thought that next week's planning session could be conducted around the campfire while on a canoe trip. Because it wasn't a patrol activity, the PL's got together with the TG and organized the outing/planning/canoe outing. I am consistantly amazed by what kids can come up with if given an adult-free opportunity. But for contrast sake, I do have to say that the boys did ask me to provide the names of three Webelos boys who would make good PL's next year because they are anticipating 3 new patrols. I gave them 3 picks. They took my list and will put it under advisement with the picks they came up with. It'll be interesting to find out who they select. And no, I don't think the new boys will elect their first PL. It has been already determined by the PL's that in the best interest of all concerned, it will be an appointed leader who can and will do the job correctly. Stosh

While council interference is rare, it does happen. It was an option a year ago in my council. 1 adult run troop 25 members, 1 boy led troop 6 members, and the council considered, 1) me taking over boy led troop (was a ASM of the adult run troop) or 2) start a new troop. The problems of the boy led troop motivated council personnel to consider starting all over from new or put new personnel into the troop. I moved over and the members who would have started a new troop came to the boy led program. In BW's case where 45 boys walked away from an established, they could have started a second troop but chose not to. Had council support been requested, I'm sure they would have assisted the process with the boys. A lot of large troops that are adult led tend to hang together on the personality of the SM and other leaders. When those dynamics change, either they fragment or collapse under their own weight. The council always has the option to step in to minimize the damage. There is a lot of council involvement in the situation than there appears to be on the surface. Stosh

Just remember it's not a race and make sure the boys have fun. Sounds like an excellent fun idea. But like all the other's have warned: remember the trip will be fraught with harrowing perils and danger lurks behind every turn. Beware! Beware! (That's what makes it a terrific adventure for the boys!) My guess will be that if anyone get's hurt it'll probably be one of the adults. :^) Stosh