Stosh

When I first saw this thread I thought it might be a new younger scout program from the Netherlands... This very same issue came up when scouting first began 100 years ago. The Scout program actually had a Chief Librarian that selected books and recommended them to the boys. Many of the early leaders of the scouting progam actually wrote books themselves for the boys. London, Grey, Verne are all some of the writers that were selected for the Every Boy's Library a series of classical literature with the BSA logo on the cover. Approximately 75 titles were chosen for the boys. Percy Fitzhugh and others wrote whole series of books on scouting personalities and the Tom Slade series for BSA was just as popular as the Tom Swift books back in the 1920's. That was the medium of convenience back then. Do the boys read? Sure! Word for word they may actually read more than we did as youth. However, just because the medium changes doesn't mean they don't have an interest in reading. Yes they may not read book or newspapers, but then I don't read the newspapers as often as I used to, I get my news from TV and the Internet. Why would I then want to spend the money for a newspaper? The more things change, the more they stay the same. Do I read? Sure I own thousands of books, literally! Some are reference books, but for the most part I've read probably 85-90% of them. The Fitzhugh books are excellent for learning about scouting in the early years of scouting and have become so popular they are now being reprinted once again. As a matter of fact, I have a boy in my troop that is reading the Fitzhugh series and thinking it's pretty cool. Stosh

I can understand why so many people feel they aren't trained. The literature does well at explaining what has to be done but doesn't do much for how it is to be done. Theory is great, practical application is a totally different subject. Stosh

Obviously there are exceptions to every comment made because no one ever does it the same way. Large troops and packs do exist, but it seem to be more of an exception than the norm. I would think that a good boy-led, patrol-method troop is capable of doing such. As far as the posting on page 3, "If you don't need an SPL with 3 patrols, then why do you need one with 6 or more patrols?" Same reason businesses don't hire a full-time employee to do a part-time job. Once the job becomes full-time, we'll have an SPL. "If the patrols are as truly autonomous as you suggest, they wouldn't ever need anyone else to supervise them." Yes, that is correct, in our troop the PL's aren't supervised. They are supported. "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. "IMO, due to your structure, you will be missing out on a great part of Scouting - the special relationship between the SM and the SPL." I have a special relationship with all my boys, especially my PL's because they are all so different with their leadership styles. "In the traditional BSA model, the SPL works closely with the SM to deliver the program to the troop through the PLs." My PL's know the program, why would they need someone to deliver it? And we are not troop-method so we have no troop program, we are patrol-method so we have patrol programs. "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. "When an SPL is correctly trained (just as a PL is correctly trained), he will not micromanage the patrols, nor do the other things you mention. Tell me why your PLs can be trained to perform their jobs correctly, but an SPL can't?" I didn't say he couldn't. I just said it would be rather useless to train him to do a job that doesn't need to be done. When the position needs to be filled, we will have plenty of excellent PL's to choose from. And of course the boys have the final say-so in this issue and at the present time they don't feel they need one and I haven't seen anything to indicate that their decision was not correct for their particular situation. Stosh

The example was only an illustration to show that a huge Boy Scout troop could be designed to have it so that no leader would be responsible for more than 8 boys, well within the leadership skill set of boys this age. When we finally get to the point where we actually do have a troop of this size, we can then worry about how the SPL will chair a PLC of 65 members. Until then, the probability of such a hypothetical situation ever coming to fruition is slim to none. I'm not going to lay awake at night worrying about it. However, if it be a bit more practical, it could be conceivable that a huge boy scout troop could exist of say 125 members, a number comprable to a large Cub Pack. This size would be quite difficult for any one adult or group of adults to keep control of. But 125/8 = 15+ so take one group of 8 (plus the leftover 5) and put them into the Troop Officer Corps) That means 1) SPL, 2) ASPL in support of 7 PL's, 3) ASPL in support of 7 PL's, 4) ASPL in support of half Troop Officer Corps 5) ASPL in support of other half of Troop Officer Corps. In order to facilitate practical functionality I would suggest 2 PLC's each one "chaired" by an ASPL. With the exception of it just being linguistic changes it would be no different than a JASM (SPL) taking care of 2 SPL's (ASPL). Seriously how many times can a troop of 125 boys camp anywhere anyway? What normally happens well before this comes to reality is the council will step in, take over, split the troop getting it's numbers back down to 60 and doubling the efforts of adults and the Troop Officer Corps so it's a moot argument even at 125 scouts. Whereas it would never be thought of for Cub Scout's is an easy conclusion to draw for Boy Scouts. Reason? With adults running Cubs (DL's), no problem, with adults running Scouts, it would look really bad to have an adult PL, so the numbers have to be kept small to keep adult control intact. It's a reality, but definitely not a necessity. Stosh

"So how big can a patrol-method troop be? 1 SPL has 8 ASPL's, 7 ASPL's have 8 PL's each PL has 7 members of his patrol. Ok, that comes to 457 boys and one hasn't even started counting the Troop officer Corps under the 8th ASPL. With 457 boys, that means one has multiple TG's, Scribes, QM's, etc. to handle that many boys. 500+ boys ????? Impossible! But even then NO ONE BOY LEADER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE THAN 8 BOYS!!!" As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives, each wife... It's a math problem, it would seem that I'm not the only one that hates math. 1 SPL - can have 8 people he supports (1 SPL, 1 total) 8 ASPL - these are the 8 people, but each one of these can 8 people can support another 8 each (1 SPL + 8 ASPL's, 9 total) 8 PL's, for each ASPL (I left one ASPL off to cover the number that would be needed for the Troop Officer Corps supported by this 8th ASPL. (1 SPL + 8 ASPL's + 56 PL's (8 ASPL's but only giving PL's to 7, 65 total) Each PL would have 7 other members in his patrol. (1 SPL + 8 ASPL's + 56 PL's + 392 patrol members, 457 total scouts) Then one can add on the Troop Officer Corps - 1 TG with other TG's to help, multiple QM's same thing etc. Just make sure no one is supporting more than 8 others. The exercise was to show how big a troop could potentially be and still have each leader taking care of a maximum of 8 other people. Now, write your name on the test and pass it to the front of the class... Stosh

"Who said that we talked to anyone other than the Scoutmaster?" It wasn't indicated in the example, thus it was assumed they didn't. "Who said any scout ducked their responsibility? We were removed from our offices! We said to the SM "that's not your job"...guess what...he disagreed. He was no more willing to learn what the program actually was than you are." With 45 boys why didn't they start their own troop? They had the boys, they had the skills, they had everything, but they did nothing. To me that is indicative of ducking the responsibility. " Had the boys stayed with the original approach of boy-led, patrol-method, they wouldn't have needed any training." "Who do you think taught the skills to the youth? Who do you think teaches the older scouts how to teach the younger ones? " Older boys, it's their program after all. "If you don't do anything that is of value to the troop you serve then why do they need you? " If it's a boy-led program, maybe they don't. "How many other registered adults in the unit you serve jblake. In fact why does that unit have any adults at all? Now that your scouts are trained, according to you, they should be self-sufficient from now until kingdom come. Shouldn't they? " Yep, you got it, wouldn't it be great if that is how it worked? I have an ASM in charge of advancement, he collects info from the PL's and puts it in the computer. I have an ASM in charge of fundraising projects (council required). I have a CC and MC-Treasurer, I have other CM's that chaperone to keep the numbers necessary as required by council. 2 adults + 1 adult for every X# of boys thingy. Gotta keep the powers to be at bay. Other than that I think I just barely cover the requisite number of adults to keep the council happy. "The boys didn't give up, when it was a scouting program we wanted to belong, when it was no longer a scouting program it held no interest for us. " At least not enough interest to make a go of it. I find that those things that are important to me I keep an interest in. If an adult changed the program, the boys could change it back. "A a scoutmaster the scouts we served experienced a scouting program. One that was you planned, and youth led. And they got that experience because they had trained adults who understood and followed the program and taught the scouts how to do it. " And as soon as they were gone, the boys fell apart. It would appear the adults had more leadership involvement than what was indicated. Surely had all high school graduates forgot everything they learned once they graduated, we would be in a world of hurt. Learning this stuff and living it are two different animals. "Had my last scoutmaster come in and done nothing it would have been better for awhile, but the reason that he did what he did was that he did not know the BSA program. And the reason it worked before him wasn't that the previous SM did nothing, but becasue he only did his job, and taught us how to do ours. " And how well one learned is directly proportional to the success of the troop. "If the scouts you serve are not learning anything from you then what the heck are you doing there? " As little as possible, because it's a boy-led program. :^) What I can say is that about 2/3rds the boys that crossed-over in Feb of this year are 2C and one or two requirements short of FC. Most of them have held APL and functioned as PL on occasion. They have attended a camporee, summer camp (patrol method, in-site cooking, developed own menu and shopped for food). I have done the requisite SMC's and these boys know their stuff. I spend a lot of time holding back adults that want to interfere, and make lots of suggestions the boys may want to consider to make life easier. If these suggestions are "training" then maybe one could conclude that. "If the scouts you serve are not learning anything from you then what the heck are you doing there? " If one really wishes to know the answer to this, one'll have to ask the boys, after all it's their program. So far the program has quadrupled in size 6 -> 23, boys are advancing, they're having fun, they are going places and doing things that they hadn't been doing for the past 3-4 years and they are excited about tripling their numbers this coming Feb 17 -> 47 when the new Webelos boys become available. Now if you'll excuse me, my coffee cup is empty..... Stosh

Had not the boys so free abducated their leadership, authority and responsibility, the troop would have survived. Who says the only people who can talk to the CC, UC, DE and/or SE have to be adults? If it was a great program, why walk away without a fight? The moment the boys gave up, the troop turned into an adult-led program. Obviously that's not what the boys wanted so they left. With 45 boys and solid leadership skills, why didn't they fight for a SM that would work with them? Sounds like the boys needed a stronger sense of leadership than what they had. Giving up in the face of adversity isn't a good leadership skill. All the boys in my troop know that it is okay to say to any adult in the troop, "With all due respect, Mr. _________, that is my job." And yes, my boys have stood toe-to-toe with me and said exactly that. One day it's boy-led, the next adult-led. The example is showing apples and oranges. Had the SM come in and done NOTHING, the troop would have still been boy-led, and that is my point. Good adult, boy-led (apples), poor adult, boy-led (apples). To use the example given, it clearly indicates the game changed and we're no longer talking a boy-led program (oranges). Stosh

"The degree of skill on the part of the adult leader may in the initial development of the troop speed up or slow down the rate of development, but once the boys get a handle on it, the continuing education of the boys will be done by the boys themselves rather than perpetually relying on any adult to reteach on a regular basis." - quote from a previous post. Had the boys stayed with the original approach of boy-led, patrol-method, they wouldn't have needed any training. Stosh

No, I'm suggesting what I wrote. And yes, a boy-led, patrol-method program is not dependant upon the skills of the SM, that's why they call it BOY-led. Stosh

"I'll concede the SM needs a boy-led vision, teaching skills and the ability to motivate and excite boys." It will be a bit more helpful to read the whole post rather than just cherry pick bits and pieces to take out of context. The degree of skill on the part of the adult leader may in the initial development of the troop speed up or slow down the rate of development, but once the boys get a handle on it, the continuing education of the boys will be done by the boys themselves rather than perpetually relying on any adult to reteach on a regular basis. If a Webelos crossover is in a boy-led patrol, becomes it's PL running it himself, takes the leadership training (NYLT, DC, U. of Scouting, etc.),then steps down to the support role of, lets say, TG, eventually maturing to where he is ASPL in charge of the Troop Officer Corps, then the SPL, eventually becomeing JASM. What exactly does one think at 16-17, an adult can actually teach this boy? Wouldn't one think this boy could be doing to each his successors? A brand new SM with Fast Start training has nothing on this boy. Sorry, but a good boy-led, patrol-method scout program is self-sustaining and has totally interchangable parts. If a program has 5-6 strong PL's who have helped 2-3 years of boys advance and develop their own skills, surely one's "training" program would consist of mostly NYLT, U. of Scouting, and other Council programs. An occasional tweak of the older boys may be necessary in the areas of maturity, but for the most part the program should sustain itself. At least it should be able to easily survive a lousy SM or two along the way. Why? Because the strength of the program is in the method and skills being taught(not necessarily by the SM), not in the personalities involved. Ever hear of a troop that tanked when the SM left? This is why. Stosh

Ok, any SM that let's the boys really lead will do. It has nothing to do with the SM at all except his philosophy of leadership style. He can be a untrained SM who knows nothing about scouts except that the boys are supposed to lead, or he could be 100% boy-led, patrol-method advocate. In reality as long as the SM doesn't try to lead it'll work. But... :^) with an adult-led program adult leadership does make a difference. Some SM's can handle 40-50 boys, others struggle with 20-30. The point I was trying to make was the skills of the adult are irrelevant to the effectiveness of the boy-led program. (I'll concede the SM needs a boy-led vision, teaching skills and the ability to motivate and excite boys.) "I'm with you on a lot of this, but think maybe you're short changing the benefits of the SPL role both to your troop and the young man in the position. No - not undermining PLs: observing and supporting." No problem here with this. "Giving direction to keep all patrols working in the same direction," Patrols are all independant and autonomous. This dynamic is not necessary. If the patrols want to all go in different directions, so be it. I would think that would be a good thing. Older boys doing their own thing and the younger ones doing something entirely different. If the older patrol had to do the same thing the younger patrol was doing (now for the 5th time) they are not going to be willing to stick around. "getting feedback to help the PLC make better decisions and come up with program ideas that may not be apparent to the PLs." PLC only meets to discuss any intra-patrol activities, i.e. camporees, camp, whatever. The PLC is conviened at the convenience of the PL's on an as-needed basis. SPL could facilitate this possibly. With 3 patrols there isn't any need, the 3 PL's just get together and chat it out. "Keeping the meeting running on time and making sure all the little things get done in a typical evening meeting." If the # of PL's is upwards of 5+, 3-4 guys sitting around chatting don't need Robert's Rules to get things done. "Approving menus and duty rosters to make sure all looks good." If the patrols are running their own program, this is totally unnecessary. This is busy work for the SPL and an in for interference. "I look at it is a managerial role versus supervisory." I see it as a support role of being available as needed "When he sees problem areas arising then he and the ASPL"... If the SPL is marginally needed, the ASPL is totally not needed. Maybe once in his 6 month stint would the SPL be absent and the ASPL would have a few minutes to show off his leadership skills. "can get more involved in assisting the PL to learn how to deal with it." If the PL needs help, he can ask for it. TG is available for this consultation in our unit. "If all was perfect, you bet, he maybe sitting around 50% of his time doing nothing, but we know that isnt going to happen!" How many times would the PL need assistance with the patrol? TG would be available and that is why TG assumes "SPL" duties, but fills 90% of his time working with guiding the troop, i.e. resource person available as needed to give assistance to a wide variety of situations. "And in those few slivers of time when he can stop for a minute and take a breather, thats when he, his ASPL, myself, and even QM can talk about things, maybe just goof around a little and I can see how hes doing. Thats the fun time I get to have with him and them and where I get to really strengthen my relationship with the junior leaders at." Yep, when my group grows to about 50+ scouts and we have 6-7 patrols, I can see the need for an SPL under those circumstances. But with 20 boys and 3 patrols, it's a totally bogus position where a boy will earn a POR for doing next to nothing. If leadership development is being developed in the patrols with the PL, any one of the PL's could easily step up and take over the SPL in a heartbeat. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

"The only difference between your troop and any other well run troop is the adults. Isnt this what BW keeps harping on, and on, and on. Lets give credit where it is due, BW is right about picking the right adult for the right job." And here is where the discussion breaks down. No, the only difference is not the adult, the difference is whether the boys are running it or the adult is running it. All of the patrols function the same whether or not I'm present. The meetings are no different whether I'm there or off somewhere else. That's the difference! It has NOTHING to do with the adults, it's the boys leading the program that make the difference. Stosh

This is a classic example of why the troop-method of scouting is a poor way to run a program. It doesn't matter if it is adult-led or boy-led, it still doesn't work, the numbers will be small and the effectiveness of the unit will suffer. Very few adults can run a troop of 30-40 people. Most run 20-30. This is why scout troop sizes tend to run in these ranges for numbers. Turning this over to a boy means even fewer because youth at that age cannot handle the group dynamics of such sizes. Either the adult will continue to lead through the SPL or the numbers will naturally fall. The patrol-method is intended that no youth are to be responsible for more than 7-8 boys. This number is well within the skill capability of youth of this age. To be able to delegate this out is difficult when one has adopted the POR positions to politically prestigeous positions instead of functional positions. Charismatic youth get the jobs and then sit back and enjoy the benefits without ever having to do the work. The adults continue to do the work and the POR's strut around basking in their self-importance. Let's take the magic number of 40 for a decent sized troop. That's 5 patrols. 5 PL (POR's). To coordinate that many boys, the first thing the SM does is designate a SPL. This position is not as necessary as a QM or TG. So let's take one patrol and break it down into the troop officers. 1) TG, 2) Scribe, 3) QM, 4) Instructor, 5) Chaplain, 6) DC, 7) ASPL 8) SPL That would mean the SPL is responsible for 4 PL's and an ASPL. (5 people) The ASPL would be responsible (pseudo PL) for the Troop Officer Corps (virtual patrol) (6 people) Each PL would be responsible for his patrol. (7 people each) A troop-method style would have SPL and ASPL drop out of the 5 patrols leaving 1-2 patrols short on numbers (no big deal) The SPL would be responsible for 5 PL's (PLC which meets maybe once a month) The ASPL would be responsible for nothing unless the SPL was absent. The 5 PL's would be responsible for only part of their patrols because different members of their patrols would also be under the directive of the SPL, i.e. DC, Scribe, QM, TG, etc. This structure in any other world would be a fiasco. PL's undermined by SPL who has the QM running off doing something while his patrol is short-handed trying to do something. SPL sitting around with basically nothing to do 90% of the time. The tendency would be to want to run the Troop so by doing so he will automatically undermine all the PL's and start micro-managing the patrols. Patrol 1 does this, patrol 2 does that, patrol 3 does something else, etc. etc. Its Me is figuring out exactly how effective the troop-method can be in creating chaos in a troop. So how big can a patrol-method troop be? 1 SPL has 8 ASPL's, 7 ASPL's have 8 PL's each PL has 7 members of his patrol. Ok, that comes to 457 boys and one hasn't even started counting the Troop officer Corps under the 8th ASPL. With 457 boys, that means one has multiple TG's, Scribes, QM's, etc. to handle that many boys. 500+ boys ????? Impossible! But even then NO ONE BOY LEADER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE THAN 8 BOYS!!! The beauty of the patrol method is that no troop, if run under an appropriate boy-led, patrol-method program will ever be too big or too small for any boy leader to handle. Anybody can work easily with 8 others and it's a small enough number for the new budding leaders that they will be challenged but never overwhelmed. It is this dynamic that allows Cub Packs to handle numbers well over 100 without any difficulty. A Cub den of 8 boys? What DL wouldn't love that? Three dens per year? 120 boys? Sure, we have 3-4 packs in our council with those kinds of numbers. Even if we have 2 dens of 12, it's still the same number. The problem? We have small groups led by adults = Cub Scout program and we have large groups trying to be led by youth = Boy Scout program. The Cub Master doesn't run the Pack, why should the SPL run the troop? When the boy can't handle it, (duh!) the adults take over and run the troop. I would love to have someone point out to me the fault of my logic. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Saw the new uniform for the first time. Not impressed. The relaxed look of the uniform reminded me of the grunge look of the 90's. Zip offs at knee and lower really looked sloppy and the billow pockets made the shirt and pants look sloppy. Pants reminded me of the crotch at the knee type of shorts that were popular 10 years ago and are slowly going away finally. My take on the uniform? A day late and a dollar short. Stosh

At my age and with all the uniforms I have, I don't think I'll ever be in a position to have to buy the new one unless I'm picked for 2010 Jamboree, then I'll buy the new ones because I have to. I'll mark it up as part of the cost of the trip. At least I'll get 12 days of wear out of it before I sell it and get some of the cost of the trip back. Stosh

OGE, I spend about 5 minutes at the beginning of the weekly meeting sometimes giving a pep talk to the boys, maybe some announcements of information I have received from Council as SM, but I generally give this info to the TG or PL in charge of the ceremony to make. Then I have maybe 5 minutes at ending closing ceremony for a SM minute. I'm going 5-15 mintues per week, tops. Add into that, for the Court of Honor (the only other time the unit meets as a "troop", i.e. gathering of patrols, I welcome the parents at the beginning on behalf of the troop, and introduce the scout doing the MC work for his Communication MB. I'm thinking that's about it and I'm the only adult that addresses the troop as a whole. If I'm not present, maybe an ASM will fill in or what happens most often when I'm absent, the TG addresses the troop as a substitute SM/SPL type of person. There has been occasion when I was gone that the PL and patrol in charge of the flags, did the flag ceremony and then immediately dismissed the patrols because there wasn't anyone to speak or needed to speak. There have been occasions when I didn't have any info to relate and the boys needed to get quickly into their patrol programs, that I simply didn't go up in front of the troop and the PL just went ahead and dismissed the patrols. Gee, I hadn't thought much about it, but working with the troop as a whole is very minimal. Stosh

Whether the scout makes the decision or the parents, there are situations were the boy-led, patrol-method appeals to some and the adult-led, troop-method appeals to others. Is it a disservice? I don't know. When the one adult-led troop travels half-way across the country for summer camp, does Sea Base every 4 years, Philmont every other, Boundary waters thrown in, and every activity along the way and then there's the troop trying to establish themselves as a boy-led, patrol-method and it looks like a lot of hard work, well.... the decision is easy for some. Stosh

Well, for one thing, at the present time we have 18 boys, 24 on the books, 3 patrols, 3 PL's, 1 TG, and one OA Rep. No SPL... Once we take on more scouts (30 Webelos coming available in February) we will go up to 6 patrols and at that time the boys may choose to have an SPL. Thus far the three PL's have found no reason to have one. Jobs in the troop are based on need of functionality. The two or three times a year a SPL is needed (Summer Camp and Camporees) the TG fills in that function. The boys don't think that little bit of work merits a POR. If it was adult led, with all the programatic emphasis of the BSA, there would be a QM, SPL, Scribe at least with 3 people sitting around doing nothing more than collecting up POR credits without earning them. The boys have seen through this and decided it wasn't necessary to have those positions filled. I'd like to have a QM and Scribe to help out with needed work to be done, but then I'm not calling the shots, the boys are. It's been discussed, the boys know the situation and they seem to be doing very well as is. Stosh

I left a troop like this one to become SM of a boy-led, patrol-method troop. One would be surprised at the retention rate of a troop like that. If the SM likes you, you will Eagle, if not, you might as well quit. With that being said I would think the membership should hover around 25-35 depending on how many adults are in there pushing their boys. There are a lot of success oriented parents who really love a program like this and this is why they stay in business. Their boy succeeds no matter what and for many parents, that's all they are interested in. Has the SM gotten his Silver Beaver yet? With a hot-shot program like that, I'd be surprised if he hasn't.... :^) Stosh

I have always wondered by it was important for the troops to support the council camp. Shouldn't the council camp be supporting the troops? When that doesn't happen, we go elsewhere where the troop is supported. Stosh

"Our annual planning conference is coming up in two weeks, troop elections are a month after that. I've been thinking about the current program an ways to make it better. So here are some things I'm thinking of doing." Here's where the comments break down. :^) What do the boys want to do? Is the structure of the troop patrol-method? Who's running the show? If one has to set aside patrol time, maybe it's because the troop-method is being used. If someone were to ask when the last time we had a troop meeting, they would all say the same thing, "Last Court of Honor". Otherwise ALL the meetings are patrol meetings. Each of the comments that are provided seem to be a little adult directed. The adults are dissatisfied with how things are going, what do the boys think? I constantly question myself and my motives. Yes there are things I dictatorially do in the troop (safety issues). But I am constantly standing back and letting go when the opportunity for a boy to lead presents itself. When the boys become frustrated with the program, or loose vision, that is the time to offer suggestions, not at an annual PLC meeting. Our "elections" for PL's and troop officers is set in a schedule of "Whenever". If a boy chooses not to present himself to do the task he was elected to, he may show up after a month and find his position filled with someone else. Serving out a term is something each boy decides for himself. If a patrol doesn't have a leader for a month, they have the right to have a leader who will be there and do the job. Stosh

I hear the humor in the comment, but there's a built-in safeguard in the troop officer corps that keeps the SM at bay! The SPL is responsible for 2 ASPL's and support of all the PL's only. With 6 patrols for next year that would have him at 8 people (maximum limit for quality leadership) When we grow to more patrols, the SPL will no longer be hands-on with the PL's but will have 4 ASPL's to support, 2 of which will divide the PL's (4 and 4) and 2 to work with the troop officer corps. Each ASPL are supportive of 1/2 the troop officers. That way it kinda groups the troop corps to 2 virtual patrols. If not all POR's are filled one might be able to get by on 1 ASPL. The ASPL(s) are the "PL's" of the virtual patrol(s). This multiple-directed responsibility keeps even the troop officer corps divided up enough not to think that anyone person or group is going to be running the whole show. And yet for leadership development, no one is responsible for support of more than 8 people! Leadership people are not overwhelmed by big numbers. The closest thing the SM gets to hands on is supporting the work of any JASM and SPL. Otherwise he's there to do teaching, feedback, bouncing off of ideas, resource person. He has enough to do keeping adults at bay, lining up rides, working with CC and ASM's and other things the boys are not expected to do that only adults can handle. Most of the time I do a few comments at the opening flag ceremony (troop-wide) and closing ceremony (SM minute). Other than that I'm usually pitching in with Eagle projects, service projects, etc. things that multiple patrols may be involved with. During "troop" meetings, each patrol is doing it's own meeting after flags, the SM gets tied up in SM conferences and other opportunities to get to know each boy individually, and/or visit in on patrol meetings to see how things are progressing. It is also a good time to train my troop officer corps individually because they are not involved in patrol activities. By not being involved in the operation of the unit I have the time to observe, offer comments, and have fun. Whatever combination these boys have come up with, it seems to be working quite smoothly for them, and when they're happy, so am I. Stosh

We (adults and boys both) discussed this at length when we first started and the boys decided that as long as troop officers were supposed to be tending to the needs of ALL the boys, it would be better if they didn't stay and split their focus on both their own patrol's concerns as well as everyone else in the troop. It appeared to be somewhat of a conflict of interest (focus). Thus the TG is not just for the NSP, he is TROOP Guide and works with all the boys, QM provides equipment for all the patrols, Chaplain is provides prayers and devotions for the whole troop (or any patrol when requested), etc. The Troop Officers form up virtual patrols and focus their attention on the needs of everyone, not just one patrol. The patrol members are focused on the teamwork of patrol. If something is needed in the patrol, it would be better to find a troop officer for assistance rather than interrupting another patrol and its members for assistance? Each boy that takes on a troop officer position knows this shift away from the patrol, but is quickly "adopted" into the fellowship of the other troop officers and bunks up with them on outings. Because of their prior experience in the patrol-method, they quickly form up the virtual patrols because it's a style/mode of operation they are familiar with. These are boys that know the importance of the patrol-method and quickly adapt into the focus of their role as troop officer. Maybe this outing the Chaplain will be grubmaster-cook and next outing it's the QM. There isn't as much patrol loyalty/espirit-de-corps in the troop officer "patrol" because even though they naturally hang together, their focus is still on support of the other patrols. Instead of a designated patrol patch, they wear one of the old red/black patches of an animal/mascot that they feel is who they are. Surprisingly no one has ever taken the mascot from the patrol they have left to be a troop officer. There was discussion on whether or not DC's would stay with their patrols or move into the Troop Officer corps. It was decided to move them as well because with the focus in the Cub den, often times they were not available to work in their patrols, leaving the patrol shorthanded at times. The boys took their time with this decision, but concluded that it was in the best interest in the patrols to have the troop officer corps separate from the patrols. But as I've said, there's nothing that says the troop officer corps can't forum up a virtual patrol of their own for convenience sake. Stosh

A 14 year-old Tenderfoot SPL. Yeah, one has a major problem there. This boy has no concept of leadership other than bullying and abusing. It appears that the troop exists for his pleasure. He has been allowed a sweet deal to say the least. My question is why is he allowed to waste the time of all the other boys in the troop? This power/political positioning by the boys can be a problem in a tiered form of leadership. If it's adult-led the top of the food chain is the SM and if boy-led it is the SPL. At least the boy is a puppet for the SM. If the SPL is a strong leader with some valid experience, he might be able to pull off a good boy-led program on his own. With BSA supporting such a structure one has to be particularly careful who gets control of the situation. Surely sitting around waiting for time to resolve this issue will drain off either the momentum of any excited boy and/or leaving on the part of boys who don't want their time wasted. Of course if they happen to garner a position in the king's court, they will of course stick around. This is the #1 reason why I don't follow the BSA structure of leadership and why there are those on the forum who love to chastise me for it. My highest ranking officer is the PL. As a worse case scenerio, he can do only damage to 7 other boys and not the whole troop. I have no SPL because I have only 3 patrols and no boy currently aspires to be SPL. If an SPL is needed for some reason, the three PL's usually "vote" to dump it on the TG who goes and collects the info for them and reports back. We seriously consider a troop officer position a step down in "power", and up in responsibility. I may have a problem getting an SPL next winter when we anticipate taking on 30 new Webelos cross-overs and add 3 more patrols to the troop. That means the SPL will need to coordinate the work of 6 PL's and an ASPL to cooridnate with the work of 4-5 troop officers. That takes 10-12 boys out of the patrol-method. The 4-5 troop officers and SPL/ASPL will "patrol" up together for camp chores, but will not be part of the patrol-method program other than the responsibilities they have accepted to support. Whereas I may have a problem with 1 PL and it would cause problems for one patrol, but to have a problem with a SPL in a troop-led program means the whole troop suffers. Gotta pick one's battles. I like to minimize the damage right from the start. Stosh

Beavah's time line has a second advantage to it. A lot of the older boys who will be resistant to the changes will age out and be replaced by the younger boys more accustomed to new patrol-method approach. There's nothing wrong with running one program for older boys and something entirely new/different for the younger boys. Get all the older boys who are resistant to change in the Venture Patrol and let them age out of the program gracefully and organize the others into a patrol-method approach. If the young boys aren't there to clean the latrines for the older boys, they'll just have to adjust. They shouldn't be bullying them anyway with the system they have implemented for themselves. If there are a few of the older boys who catch some excitement in the new program, they will be the ones that will spearhead up your new patrol-method unit. If not, then develop your leadership out of the younger boys. I only had 6 older boys when I changed the unit I'm in now. 3 quit and 3 are 100% onboard with the new system. Basically the three that quit did so because no one was going to cater to their wishes as was done in the past. I tried lining up a 6 person Venture Patrol for them, but 3 wanted in on the new boy-led, patrol-method and wasn't interested in a Venture Patrol. I'm sure that the older boys are not 100% on the same page and some might enjoy an opportunity to make some constructive changes in the troop. Spend some time visiting with the boy individually when they will be more open than when sitting around their peers. Stosh