Jump to content

Stosh

Members
  • Posts

    13531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    249

Everything posted by Stosh

  1. MichaelOA, If you have the desire to direct, command, lead and enjoy the prestige of a cool patch, go for JASM. If you want to sink your teeth into a worthwhile opportunity of self-growth, go with TG. View it as a "Den Chief"/Cheerleader/Parent-on-site for the new boys. You will be the hands-on caregiver, assistance source, guide, helper and overall looked up to scout of the troop by all the new boys. You'll be there to help them get oriented to scout life and be there to offer a listening ear when things go awry for them. You will be the go-to scout when they need help, understanding, or someone to simply care. You're the kind of - "parent" that will help them through homesickness at camp and to cheer them on when they take their first swim test at camp. You are the scout everyone wants to be, the one that helps his buddies transition from Cubbing to Scouting. Troop Guide is nothing more than what the title indicates. If you don't think you have that basic understanding/drive inside of you to really care for the new boys, I'd pick a different POR. In my troop my best scout is the TG. I don't trust my boys with anyone but the best. Stosh
  2. Well, it's nice to see everyone actually reads the posts even though it is often misquoted and taken out of context. Gotta love these forums for their entertainment purposes. So, getting back to the issue at hand. I stand by my introductory remarks AND the 5 paragraphs of explanation that follows. :^) "Being an effective leader has very little to do with being an effective patrol leader. Once the boy turns 18, there's not going to be much demand for one's patrol leader skills." If a person (of any age) is an effective leader, it has very little to do with being an effective PL in a unit. A boy can be defined as an effective leader if he manipulates, coerces, threatens and bullies as long as he accomplishes the task to which he has been assigned. After all the word manipulate and manage come from the same Latin root word. Taking the example of a SM stating how things are going to be done, then passes the task of getting it done down to the SPL, who in turn FOLLOWS directions and passes it down to the PL, who in turn FOLLOWS directions and gets his boys by any means of "leadership" at his disposal to get the boys to FOLLOW directions and get the task done. In that whole process the only leadership comes from the SM, everyone else follows. Now the boys can all be viewed/defined as great leaders because they accomplished great things with their efforts, but there is no true leadership being demonstrated. Therefore: "Being an effective leader has very little to do with being an effective patrol leader." Being a effective follower has a lot to do with being an effective patrol leader in this unit model. It is adult-led, troop-method. Add the twist of having the SM manipulate the SPL into thinking he is running the show by doing all the things he thinks the SM wants him to do and still, in reality he is merely following. (Boy-led, troop-method) No one needs to actually think in this model, just follow the directives of what someone else thinks needs to be done. "Once the boy turns 18, there's not going to be much demand for one's patrol leader skills." Gotta love this one. Once a boy ages out of the unit and there is no more need for patrol leader skills because there is no patrol, makes perfect sense. However, if all the boy as ever done is merely followed directions how much LEADERSHIP skills has he developed along the way? NONE, regardless of how effective he might have been as a PL. Now, replace that model of false leadership dynamics, with a boy given the responsibility of taking care of a handful of his buddies. He has to interact with them, understand them, figure out their needs, help them with their development and basically nurture these boys along in the process of growing up. This care-giver approach (servant leadership) forces the "leader" to think on his feet, adapting the resources available to the needs of the boys. He is in fact teaching leaders to care for others and gives them the reason to care for others along the way. One can always teach any body the skills of leadership, but one can't always teach the skills/inner drive to care. I can take any boy that cares and teach him to be a great leader, but can't guarantee anything if I start with a boy that doesn't care. He will be a leader, but I won't guarantee he will care about those he is entrusted with. Soldiers will follow their leader if they know he cares about them and will do his best to keep them safe. Students will follow their teacher if they know they care about them and will do their best to teach them in their best interests. No one follows a dictator unless they do so out of fear of repercussion. If we teach only top-down leadership, the most effective leaders will do so most often by coersion and manipulation. Explain to me how a top-down style of leadership in a scout unit is better than a patrol-emphasized team of small-group buddies watching out for each other, and troop officers taking care of their patrol leaders and adults taking care of the troop officers. No, the boys will never again be Patrol Leaders, nor will they need their PL skills, if they care, they will be fantastic husbands, fathers, teachers, caregivers because of their understanding of what true leadership is all about. I have found that after 10 years of running a Venturing Crew based on a military style of activity, I have never had to enforce any kind of discipline for bad behavior, yet, I have a number of charter members from 10 years ago as some of my best adult leaders today. I have adults who respect the leadership capabilities of many of my boys, and there's only one explanation for it. It is because of how they were taught based on who they were to begin with. So I'll never apologize for my comments on leadership dynamics because they work and they work well. For the past year, I have applied these same principles to a 5 member dysfunctional troop that is now 4 times larger and running great. Because of what has been happening, we anticipate another major jump in membership in 6 months. And as far as my northern accent, Beavah, I do believe in non-written communication, you'd be surprised. :^) Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)
  3. If the dynamics of what one wishes to develop in a group is one person dictating, commanding, and directing the work while the rest obediently follow along, then chain of command will work. Each level down dictates the top most decider in the group and everyone is of the same mind and follows the same course of action. On the other hand if one wants to build a teamwork type of group, the commander/dictator dynamic doesn't apply anymore. A top-down command style where a leader dictates to subordinants is reversed, it is the member groups supported by assisting experts that facilitate the wellbeing of the membership. Maybe this is why the BSA doesn't have an "Official Chain of Command" is because it isn't supposed to be designed to have one. Stosh
  4. It is good to see that there are those out there that see the dynamics of a boy-led, patrol-method program out there. Yes! Take MichaelOA's diagram and turn it around the other way. I always state that the highest ranking officers of my troop are my PL's. They are responsible for and take care of 7 other boys. Any boy wishing to hold a "troop level" position are under the PL's in a service role, yet more responsible position of supporting the patrols (servant leadership). They are the service/support group for the patrols. The QM makes sure the equipment needs of the patrols are met; The Scribe makes sure the paperwork of the patrols are met; the Troop Guide makes sure the scouts, especially the new ones are properly adjusting to the troop and advancing; the Instructor makes sure the proper lessons are being taught correctly in all the patrols; and the SPL makes sure all the troop officers are a smooth running support group so that the patrols can focus on what's necessary for the welfare of their assigned members. Occasionally he'll gather his staff and invite the PL's to come and give feedback on how well their needs are being met/not met and coordinate any communications between patrols that may need to be addressed. If the SPL's staff becomes more than 7 boys, he takes on an ASPL to really assist him in his duties. He'll "train" him by assigning him 2-3 patrols to watch over directly and free himself to focus more on the troop staff. If the number of patrols grows too large, just take on another ASPL. No one should be responsible to more than 6-7 people. Of course the adults are responsible for the support (more servant leadership) of the SPL and his immediate staff. And the most important part of this whole dynamic is the definition of the responsible. Are the people able to respond (i.e. response-able) to the needs of those they are given charge to take care of, or do they direct, coerce, delegate, and/or interfere in the responsibilities of what THEY are supposed to be responding to/assiting? The #1 question on the minds of every officer in this setup is: "What must I do to help those who I am to take care of?" No matter how big the troop may get, no one ever has more than 7 people to take care of and watch over. There is no boy that can't handle taking care of 6-7 people. There is no adult, let alone a boy that can handle a "troop" method unit where the SPL is supposed to be "in charge of" 150 boys. Troop method units will always be small. But out of 150 boys, if each PL is caring for 7 boys in 20 patrols, and 3 ASPL's are taking care of 7 PL's each, 1 ASPL is assisting half the troop staff and 1 ASPL the other half of the staff and the SPL is caring for the 6 ASPL's, then no one will ever be overwhelmed by a system that is designed other than boy-led, patrol-method. It is no surprise to those who understand servant leadership and how it is the only workable basis for a boy-led, patrol-method program. If one needs to understand how this translates in the business world, look at the processes of Ford/GM and compare it to Volvo. Then check Consumer Reports and see who does a better job at building cars. Stosh
  5. Unfortunately with a strong emphasis on troop method scouting, it would mean troop officers would need to be mandatory. One is correct to think patrols can operate just fine by themselves especially in a small troop, there always has to be some form of top down leadership directives. Thus one has 5 boys in a patrol/troop and one of them has to be the SPL. Go figure. Stosh
  6. Failure is an activity, not a person. When we set up our SPL's to fail by giving them 1) responsibilities that aren't supposed to be theirs and 2) authority issues that no one's going to adhere to and 3) it's only a prestige thingy anyway, one is going to find their SPL's burn out long before they get their 6-month term in. 1* I know adults who cannot run a full troop. Why would we ever expect a youth to? An SPL in a troop-method program is never going to make it except through the sheer determination of one's charisma. Those kids are few and far between. Otherwise, the kid's heading for a failed situation. He will not have sufficient skills to handle that until he is will into his adult years. 2* Older scouts aren't going to listen to the new kid. The only way they will is if they are intimidated first by an adult. When the adult isn't around, well... boys will be boys. Again, the kid is set up in a failure situation. 3* As long as the boy toadies up to the SM and is able to get all the boys to listen, it isn't going to work. Here success is dependent on how well the boy is popular with his buddies. If he has to make an unpopular decision because the SM told him he had to, then he's sunk. Not many people can ride the 6-months without having to make such choices. Again, the success/failure is not in the boy's control. Being able to read a map and compass, knowing how to do first aid, and tying knots are not prerequisites for good leadership, so merely being First Class is a bogus requirement. Being the oldest boy in the troop gives the SPL somewhat of an advantage. If not, all bets are off. So age could be a consideration as long as it is relative to being the oldest in the troop. Remember a boy that fails in front of his peers may indeed find it a lot easier to tolerate if they quit the organization that put them in that situation. Stosh
  7. When there is a law we do not agree with, we can seek to change it, not just disregard it. The boy broke the law and so it is no different than stealing or any one of a hundred other laws. Would it be ok if he was smoking cigarettes?, drinking beer, whiskey? Where do we draw the line? If the boy is crying out for help, there are a lot of other better qualified resources out there besides the BSA to handle this. These resources are needed, not a rap on the knuckles by the SM, CC or CO. If this boy is bullying, and harassing other people, I'm thinking there's more to it than smoking pot on an outing that needs to get addressed. Maybe it's time to quit looking in the other direction. Stosh
  8. Being an effective leader has very little to do with being an effective patrol leader. Once the boy turns 18, there's not going to be much demand for one's patrol leader skills. The advantage and beauty of the boy-led, patrol-method approach to leadership is that it creates a valid environment in which young men can develop their over-all leadership capabilities. If this environment is in a constant state of change or constantly re-directed by outside dynamics, it is quite difficult to accomplish. If it is autonomous and working as team, there's a greater chance for some effective leadership to develop. If, on the other hand, the patrol is constantly being directed, delegated, coached and supported by outside leadership influences, there will be very little learning going on within the patrol. Just because the SPL replaces the SM with demands and control, doesn't mean the PL will ever have to learn anything. As I said before, we surely don't allow moms and dads to do this in our troops, but think nothing of doing it ourselves or forcing our troop POR's to do this. Why would any patrol member be listening to anyone besides their PL? In WB class did the staff step in and direct how things were operating in the patrols? Nope, so why then do we do it when we get back to our troops? It's not necessarily the program, but what happens with that information between the time the participant leaves WB classes and arrives back at his/her unit. As a Beaver, I would have found it offensive to have the Bobwhites come over and tell us what we need to be doing. I would have also found it offensive to have the staff dictate how things were to be run. Why then do we find PL's abandoning their positions because everyone else is stepping in and taking over? This constant usurping of their authority, their autonomy, their responsibility will not produce leaders. On the contrary, it will only produce docile followers. Wouldn't one eventually wonder why every single Eagle candidate can't demonstrate leadership skills in a troop and never once consider the possibility that the District Award of Merit, Silver Beaver, BSA blue-blood SM always having to run the show might be the root cause? And yet this goes on all the time in hundreds if not thousands of units out there. Unless the PL is the highest ranking officer in the troop, I see no future for leadership development within the patrols. It just can't happen until the PL can actually be the leader he's expected to be. This is the reason why I don't seem many truly patrol-method units out there. They're there, but they are more the exception than the rule. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)
  9. "It is simply amazing how many patrol method "experts" seem to know what takes place in thousands of units across the country." It always amazes me as well. Especially those who think that adult-led, troop-method scouting is somehow really boy-led, patrol-method if they break up into groups and make the boys toe the line. "By all means, please tell me what is wrong with my unit that you know absolutely nothing about." I have enough work dealing with developing boy-led, patrol-method in my own troop. Of course I know nothing about other units, nor do I lay awake at night worrying about them either. I have never said what may be right or what may be wrong with what happens in a troop. I have only pointed out the advantages of a boy-led, patrol-method approach when it comes to developing true leadership within the boys. "It is like me trying to tell you how much fertilizer and what type you need when all I really know is that you have grass." And if all one is growing is grass that may be a great generic answer, but deep down I believe the BSA is trying to develop hybrid, high-quality leaders and that will of course take more consideration than a general purpose approach to having an organization that entertains boys out in the woods on a monthly basis. I work with Cub level scouting, Troop level scouting, Venturing level scouting as well as non-scouting church youth groups, adult groups, and community groups over the past 35 years, I have figured out what works for me. If what works for me is of no interest to others, feel free to just skip over my posts, but if one wishes to consider 35 years of experience in youth/adult leadership development, then they can at least peruse my stuff and maybe glean out something they can use. It doesn't make any difference to me. Self-led, small group, servant leadership works in any organization better than anything else I have tried or witnessed in action. It is far less work to be efficient and effective the first time around. Kudu: What does the BSA mean when they make reference to Servant Leadership and then not really support it very well in their training programs? What would you like to see included in PL specific training? You have brought up a legitimate discussion and I am interested in pursuing it a bit more. Stosh
  10. I do believe that the patrol method is a lot more than dividing the boys up into groups of 8 so that they can grow. If adults and troop youth are dictating to the patrols as to what they can and can't do, then they haven't really been separated out at all. They are nothing more than subgroups of an adult-led, troop-method program. Until one begins the process of discussing the autonomy of the patrol, there's not much to discuss because the reason the patrols break out into these 8 member groups is to independently run their leadership, team work, and program development processes on their own. Once adults or other youth leaders begin to direct, "coach", influence, etc. these patrols, the patrol-method is no longer being used. Until the patrols request support or suggestions from outside sources, they need to remain independent and authomomous. Maybe the 300 foot distance needs to be more than just physical. Can a SM emotionally let a patrol run independantly? or does s/he have to constantly hover over their progress to make sure it's done "right". Can a SPL be there in a support role without interfering in the operations of the patrols? Isn't a PLC that dictates what patrols can and can't do really fall under a boy-led, troop-method program? Until the units begin to realize that they need to trust the independent development of the patrol-method it isn't going to happen. We are always worried about hovering moms and dads, maybe we need to focus more on the hovering SM's, CC's and SPL doing the toady work of the hovering adults. Until the boys prove themselves otherwise, maybe we as adults ought to take the first Law of Scouting more seriously. If given the opportunity, the boys can and will develop and grow and will do so faster and more effectively in a boy-led, patrol-method operation than any other "management" style. I hear a lot of lip-service to this concept, but no real practical application going on. Stosh
  11. Maybe they ought to take it out of BSA literature then. They obviously don't understand how it works. Stosh
  12. My boys have taken to wearing the old mule-eared pocketed pants with red piping because they can be buttoned shut and "look cool" according to the boys. I adhere to the rule that anyone standing around with their hands in their pockets is really volunteering for the next available work assignment. With the bottons, it reminds them to keep their hands out of their pockets too. :^) In order to promote the patrol-method rather than troop-method, the boys decide on uniform standards as a patrol. They do, however, hold a second standard for the Troop on formal occasions. That means many of my boys carry two neckerchiefs at this point, one for troop activities and one for patrol activities. Stosh
  13. I don't think the present training of the BSA for youth does an adequate job of helping any boy prepare for the SPL position. So far from the discussion all I hear is SPL qualifications based on a popularity vote and/or some experience if any working with patrols. When BSA starts teaching popularity skills charisma and sitting around in an APL position for a few months, maybe we'll see a better job being done in our SPL positions. Just a thought Stosh
  14. I don't think one needs to go to such depth and detail to conclude the style of leadership being taught by BSA is really a top-down directive style. This means there is basically adults running the show. They direct the SPL who toadies the directive down to the PL's who run work crews who do the eventual bidding of the SM. Somehow this is supposed to translate into youth leadership, when in fact it never really does. Somehow if the SPL can second guess the SM and direct things before he is given directive to, he will be considered a great SPL. Stosh
  15. I'm with Beavah on this one 100%. Get the patrols functioning as patrols BEFORE considering troop level leadership. If the boys need an SPL at an event, let the 1 PL's decide/take turns to go and get the info and treats. It's not a big deal. With 12 boys, let them decide how they should be divided, 6 in each patrol. Let them pick their leadership. Let them develop their program. Let them... Notice the common denominator here? If one is truly looking for boy-led, patrol-method, LET THEM is the most important key ingredient of the whole mix. Train them what boy-led, patrol-method is/means and then stand back, get out of the way and "let them" figure it out. I have a situation now where I had three patrols of older boy led, mostly new boy members. The patrol with the most older boys had a major loss of older boys who all quit enmass. The 4 new scouts are scrambling to keep their heads above water, but they elected a PL and he selected an APL, they are continuing to put together their summer camp program as a "stand alone" patrol. They could have easily requested to declare the patrol defunct and move into the other patrols but haven't even considered that possibility at this time. It's tough on them, but I'm not getting involved, not making any suggestions, just sitting back waiting to give support whenever they ask/need it. In a year from now, they're going to be my "never-give-up" boys that will see the troop through any difficulty that comes its way. Stosh
  16. Unfortunately, GW, that solves only half the problem. Like your example shows, anyone can vote with their feet. Your example shows that if one doesn't like the rules, the answer to the situation is to "leave", "avoid", or deal with the situation by removing oneself from the problem area. Unfortunately a lot of units will find themselves in a tenuous position if SM's leave, avoid or remove themselves from the situation. Not everyone has the luxury of an assigner to allow SM's to move around between councils or jump council lines when they have CO that has multiple locations. Instead they'll just vote with their feet and it'll be the boys that end up on the short end of the stick. At this point I really don't see National ever requiring this process of retraining and I don't see any councils getting away with trying to implement anything along these lines either. Every council knows they can blow hard on a lot of issues, but if all their long-term experienced people leave, they know their dwindling numbers will be seen at the top of their food chain. Stosh
  17. Stosh

    Merit Badge Sash

    And what amazes me the most is why don't the sashes just come with a button hole at the top of the sash to button it to the epilet button to begin with? I would think it would be just as easy to put a button hole at the top of the sash as it would a shoestring loop. With a uniform without epilets the button could still be there with the collar or neckerchief covering it. Also, is the "back" of the merit badge sash the "inside" of the sash where it can't be seen normally or down the outside of the back of the sash as it is worn? Don't ya just love it when it is explicity stated in words that don't make any sense? The back of any patch is of course the opposite side. Just wondering... :^) And as far as threads are concerned, any color works if one sews it on correctly. All the threads can be easily hidden in the border wrap of the badge. I teach all my scouts how to sew on badges and although they are sometime a little eskew, it's a skill that is necessary for the boys to know. After all BSA used to sell sewing kits for the boys. Like a first aid kit, a sewing kit is something that is in my pack on every trip...including Philmont which I used twice on my last trek. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)
  18. Stosh

    The new uniform.

    I prefer a formal uniform, not an activity uniform. It looks baggy/sloppy, it meant to be comfortable and yet I prefer my formal uniform over blue jeans and t-shirt when in the woods. Baggy means pockets that snag on branches, etc. I was looking at the new military uniforms (that although scouts aren't supposed to be military) and they seem remarkably similar in many ways with the configurations they are proposing. Those uniforms no matter how functional they may be, just don't have the impact of the USMC dress blues. Just remember when they tout this as new and improved, they will shy away from the word "better". Nope, there's nothing wrong with the current style. They can new and improve it all they want, but until they come up with a better uniform, I'm satisfied with what I have. Stosh
  19. It is always difficult to be honest when it comes to subjective decisions/opinions especially when it involves one's own son. From looking just at the wording of the post, here's my take on it: "My son finished his Eagle Project and has one last requirement in Citizenship in the community which he has dragged his feet on. He rarely attends troop meetings now that he full field his POR for 6 months." It sounds as if he has "moved on" from Scouting and his interest and heart are no longer in the program. From the pattern described here, one will see a last minute rush to finish up his requirements so he can get an Eagle Award. It will be basically a dodge so he won't need to feel regrets about getting close and not finishing later on. This push will most likely come from the parents, not the boy. "His time is spent working at his job, church band practice on Tuesday evenings (scout night), playing in the worship services at church twice a week. He is trusted and counted on by adult leaders in the above venues." It sounds like other things in life have taken a higher priority than scouting. "Has he shown Scout spirit? Is he worthy of Eagle?" If one has to ask the question, I'm sure they have doubts about the answer. If a parent needs to ask this kind of question, they need to be directing it at and discussing it with their son, not the SM, CC or a forum. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Stosh
  20. We rent 15-passenger vans and pull trailers on an as-needed basis. It is the least expensive and one doesn't need a CDL until the passenger load is 16 passengers. They are easier to maneuver and such than a bus. Shop around on the vans, the cost varies a great deal. We can rent a van for about $600/week and don't start any mileage charges until we go over 1,000 miles. $500/week for a 12-passenger van. Getting 30 people from point A to point B is a lot easier renting than the cost of buying. The cost of fuel is reasonably similar per person between a small bus and 2 vans. One also has the added safety of seatbelts for everyone in the van. I've hauled trailers behind passenger vans for years and never had a problem until I pushed speeds beyond 55 mph. The only bad part about driving that slow is you never have any great campfire stories to tell about harrowing experiences on the road and you're always the last one to get to camp. Stosh
  21. Nope, I'm still sticking with my over-adulted units are not good. Getting a parent to sign a fundraiser paperwork isn't going to burn anyone out. Getting a parent to give their kid a ride down to the store to buy something for a troop because their son is QM isn't going to burn anyone out. One of the MAJOR learning dynamics of leadership is problem-solving. If a 14 year-old can figure out how to get to the mall to buy the latest X-Box game, I'm sure they are resourceful enough to demonstrate some leadership in the troop. What I am hearing is all the reasons why boy-led, patrol-method doesn't work. It's a game adults play to keep tabs on the troops. This thread is on burn out because a handful of adults can't run a troop as effectively as hundreds of scouts. This is why troops stay small and why adults burn out. Unless I'm going to sit around all day signing legit paperwork from dawn to dusk, I'm not going to even bat an eye when a boy shows up with the filled in fund-raiser request, the calendar updated, and crews to work the project all in line and all I have to do is sign a piece of paper to authenticate it. Where's the burn out in that process? "I'd like to start a discussion on how to avoid burning out when you don't have enough volunteers to do much of the heavy lifting." Ahhh, that's what the boys are for!!!! One has a ton of them hanging around watching the adults burn out, maybe they ought to help out! One of my boys came to me the other day and said they needed two $25 deposits for a bratwurst/hot dog stand that the local grocery store has for groups to fund raise. They had been speaking with the store mangager as we waited for the other scouts to show up because we were meeting at the store and were shopping for an outing. I stared back at the boy until he asked if we could put the $50 on the shopping tab. I said "Yep, sounds good to me." and with that the heavy lifting was accomplished. I came close to burning out, but I managed to hang on. :^) Stosh
  22. I seriously doubt the council will shut down the units because the leaders are not re-trained. It's a threat that they cannot back. The councils are evaluated every year by the number of scouts and units they have registered. If they were to lose half their units because of some stupid ruling they stuck out there, I'm sure national will step in and straighten them out. If it's not required by national, the council will have a lot of explaining to do. Stosh
  23. Stosh

    The new uniform.

    I may change out a few things onto my old uniform, but I'm not going to run out and buy any more uniforms for some time. I have boys wearing the old style mule-eared pants because they like them so I have no complaints. The ability to hem the switchbacks is a major step forward. I saw no reason for boys to wear pants that are 4" too long just because it was impossible to hem them up. As far as the sleeve pocket that's dorky and difficult to sew on? One an solve both problems at the same time. Just sew the patch all the way through because the pocket isn't going to be used anyway. I'm planning on replacing my uniforms with the new stuff when the old wears out and some of them still look brand new after 15 years, so it's going to be a while. Stosh
  24. If the boy was active in the Crew it counts towards his Eagle requirement. A boy less than 18 years of age that joins after FC can still earn his Eagle while a member of a Crew he doesn't even have to be part of a troop. If the Crew goes defunct, it is no reflection on the boy and should not be penalized for it. If the Crew fails and the boy joins a Troop to finish his Eagle, no problem, he just continues on. If the troop adds to the requirement, the boy should then find a troop that adheres to the requirements of the BSA. If a young man was finishing up his Eagle, and his dad was transferred to another state and the boy had to find a new troop to finish we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The process is no different if the boy had to transfer between a Crew/Troop in the same town or two troops hundreds of miles away. Stosh
  25. I'm going with Beavah on this one. What one defines as "boy led" really isn't when one doesn't have enough "adult" leaders to run the show. Somehow that logic simply doesn't hold much water. If the boys are really running the show, there shouldn't be any great need for adults than what are already mentioned. There isn't anything in the rules that says adults have to run the fund raisers. The only thing that is required is two adults at activities. With oneself and 3 ASM, there are twice the required number already. Teach the boys to run the show. They are already there, ready to go. One doesn't need to recruit an adult to do what the boys should be doing. Stosh(This message has been edited by Jblake47)
×
×
  • Create New...