Stosh

I'm sure that with all new scouts it's not going to be much of a truly boy-led affair. It'll be an older boy/adult project with the new boys helping and learning what it means to take part in a major service project type activity.

Stay away from any high point by 45 degrees. If you look up at a tree top at a 45 degree angle, you are getting too close. Crouch down and leave only the rubber soles of your feet touching the ground, dump the metal framed backpack away from you. If you are above the tree line or on an open top mountain, get down into the tree line before dumping gear and getting into position. Preventing emergencies is always a better plan than trying to deal with one. Stosh

I can't imagine an argument that would justify any patrol outing, including camping, that wouldn't be considered a scout activity. I think I could even accept the argument that an adult-led troop activity is less scouting than a boy-led patrol activity. Stosh

...to help other people at all times.... This is not an option, Scouts do not make a choice here. There is not time limit requirement for the Scout Oath. If boys aren't showing up for service projects EVERY time one is needed, scheduled, or becomes available, the requirement for Scout spirit comes into question, not the requirement for service project hours. I received a request from a local organization for a handicapped ramp to be put in at a private home needing it. All my Life scouts have EP's already in progress. The troop is made up of mostly new scouts so the work force isn't that reliable, but a boy from my previous troop needed a project so he took it on. I told him if he changes his mind, I get the project back because a scout was asked to do it and a scout somewhere will, even if it means my 3 NSP boys get out there and do it. Stosh

The Mississippi has these fish as well. Commercial fishermen are putting up plexiglass guards on their boats for protection. We have our parents waterski, some of the fish are a little slower and strike late, every fisherman knows the importance of a stinger on their jig. Stosh

I have a troop of 3 NSP patrols. Except for my PL's most of the boys are Webelos crossovers. All APL's are new scouts. The boys voted last week and they will cook all meals in the campsites. This way the boys will be able to work on their advancement requirements for cooking. They have a 40 scout site so they will be able to spread out away from each other. The boys are now making lists of equipment requirements and beginning their menu planning. The boys opted out of the new scout program. They would need to select one of the rank requirements and that didn't set well. Instead they will do their own TF-FC training within the patrol campsites. They also decided that they would as a patrol take swimming and first aid merit badges. They also thought that a third MB would be nice but the boys thought that the patrol members would take one that they individually preferred. They also felt that attending the C.O.P.E course would be a great idea for their patrol. There are a few camp programs that will be attended by the patrols, i.e. Totin' Chit, etc. Daniel Boone campout, etc. that they can consider as a patrol as well. At the present time there has been no talk about doing anything as a troop except camp in the same general area. Stosh

Gee, one would think that a working knowledge of Parlimentary Procedure would be a required basis for proper citizenship. Surely the committee would be leading by example. I have chaired and sat in on hundreds of meetings and those that use PP are efficient, stay on task, make thoughtful decisions, and run in majorly less time that free-for-all meetings that are totally wasting everyone's time. PP calls for careful and precise records so that what is decided is preserved and public for everyone's knowledge both at the meeting and those who couldn't make it. I volunteer time, I really don't like it when it's wasted by people who don't think it's as valuable as I think it is. Stosh

Before I bought equipment, I did a lot of research and talked to a lot of people to see what they liked and why. I really don't like buying twice, the price is always prohibitive. I bought a pair of hiking boots that wasn't on the SM's list and caught a real tongue lashing. It got really bad when one of the boys copied what I bought. Well, 8 years later I still have them and although we had a rough trek (all 5 major peaks), the other boy and I were the only ones on the team that didn't get blisters. I have flat feet so I had other problems, but blisters wasn't one of them. When it comes to equipment, there's no such thing as too much information. Stosh

Some camps provide small cabins and that week of camp could not be used towards camping unless the boys didn't use the cabins and brought their own tentage. Stosh

In a maternally dominated society, (If mom ain't happy, nobody's happy!), there will always be a restriction placed on expanded development of males. A mom standing terrified at the base of the tree will anxiously call out, "BE CAREFUL!" to the boy climbing, where if the dad were dominant, he would be standing there calling out, "HOW FAR UP CAN YOU GO?!". I'm not advocating one over the other, but every child needs a balance of both influences to develop a protective/savvy, yet confident outlook on life. What better place to learn confident attitudes in a protected environment than in scouting? That's why it is declining. We prefer protective over confidence at all cost rather than a balance. Of course these examples are to show trends, not give discussion fodder for all the exceptions out there. Stosh

Exactly! Service isn't a project, it's a leadership style. I would also offer up the suggestion that if a boy "tries out" a position for a month and does an excellent job so as to "earn" the POR, I would also back-date the POR time to reflect his month's worth of effort. If he didn't do the work, doesn't continue on with the responsibility, I would just drop it and find him another POR he might want to try out. POR's are the "final exam" of leadership training. They are not supposed to be on-the-job training of hit-or-miss efforts. On-the-job training is developed IN the patrols. A boy might try out scribe duties for the patrol, might try QM duties for the patrol, might try out APL duties, etc. This way when they move down to the supportive role of assisting/serving the larger focus of the whole troop, they have some idea of what to expect. Stosh

Hmmm, somehow I get an uneasy feeling when the only reason the older boys will accept a nomination is if they are getting something out of it, i.e. POR requirement fulfillment. Surely somewhere along the way the servant leadership lesson was missed on these guys. This popularity/reward system of citizenship is not a good formula for developing real leadership skills. As we can all attest to, popular condidates don't always make the best leaders. I find this dynamic reflective in both the election process as well as the leadership styles of many scouts. When a nasty job needs doing, they dump it on the scout that gives them the most problems. This process of a base of popularity of course isn't immune to SM's picking their favorites in a placement system either. Or worse yet, the scout that gets placed just because he needs a POR. Sure, ideally election of PL's and SPL's is a great thing, I'm all for it, but I'm even more for having a troop of trained officers that are excited about what they do, do it well, and can teach this kind of leadership to others. It is a truly waste of scouting to have a boy fit that bill and yet because he isn't very popular and never gets a chance to try out his wings in that situation. Instead of it being a waste, more often than not, the boy simply leaves and goes elsewhere. 25 votes for a boy but he doesn't make SPL, one vote with his feet and the troop loses one of their best scouts. As SM I make opportunities for the boys, one of those opportunities is the opportunity to lead. I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway, I have but once or twice overruled the consensus simply because the boy wasn't ready to handle the task at hand. A boy came to me the other day and asked what bugle calls a scout needed to learn to be the bugler. The first thing I thought of concering this boys is not whether or not he can play the bugle, but with that much initative, I can see him in a PL or SPL role eventually. My last TG was the same way, he asked if the NSP needed a TG, I said I didn't know, but he could feel free to ask them. He did and about a half hour later, the NSP PL came and asked if they could have a TG. I asked if they had anyone in mind and of course they named this first scout. He's been TG for quite some time now, he found his niche. POR's are needs that require functional scouts. If elections fulfill that - ok, if consensus fulfills that - ok, if placement fulfills that - ok. It's kinda like trying to get a screw out of a piece of wood. Screwdriver will work, so will a knife blade, and maybe a dime, too. Screwdriver might be best, but if all you got is a phillips, maybe the dime would work better. :^) Stosh

Our PL's are very strongly encouraged to attend committee meetings. We have no SPL, but any troop officers would be welcomed at the committee meetings. Stosh

If one were to look carefully at effective use of leadership in an organization one would quickly find that elected personnel are there because of popularity not necessarily talent. Assigned leadership organizations are extremely tight with their leadership effectiveness and when that effectiveness wanes in the least bit someone else can step in and move the organization along once more. The problem for me seems to be in choosing between a lesson in citizenship, i.e. voting or a lesson in effective leadership, i.e. appointments. I am in a major reorganizational movement in my troop, 6 members to 23 members overnight and so I need to have effective leadership, but that doesn't mean the process couldn't change sometime in the future. Stosh

Are you suggesting a Troop keep its Patrols close together in case somebody needs to find the Scribe in a clerical emergency? Nope! :^) I was only suggesting that if all the patrols are scattered all about, if one has 5-6 patrols, it would take all afternoon to find the QM who has the trailer keys to replace a broken tent pole. If the troop officers all "patroled" together in one spot the search would be far easier. Same for the adult cadre, if they hung together (out of the way of the boys) if there was need to contact them, the boys would know where to start looking. Patrol A doesn't need to know where Patrol C is, but if the QM was with the troop officer patrol/group instead of Patrol G, the logistics and effectiveness seems to be far more efficient. I would highly doubt if there ever would be a Scribe crisis, but I can envision a QM, SPL, or even a Chaplain Aide concern that shouldn't involve a massive manhunt. My suspicion would dictate to me that in a situation like that the boys would turn to the congregated adults and seek their assistance before looking for troop officers who are scattered about. Stosh

Hmmm, why is it that the patrol with the QM always gets the best tents? And why is the QM over at the trailer helping everone else and his patrol members get stuck with all the patrol work? How come the patrol with the Historian are the one's in the camporee pictures? The Scribes patrol always has their advancment records maintained but the other patrols have holes in the reporting. If every patrol needs a scribe, why do they need a "troop" scribe? Why can't the "patrol" scribe get POR credit and the "troop" scribe who doesn't do anymore than the rest get POR credit? etc. etc. etc. Conflict of interest does a lot to detract from the POR responsibilities. I just find it better in my troop to pull these people out of any patrol responsibilities and give them troop responsibilities. They'll migrate together to form a grouping of their own and function pretty much like a patrol of their own, but with no conflict of interest. If Kudu is right, wouldn't everyone be totally lost at a campout as to not only where IS the QM but what patrol is he in? What patrol has the Scribe and where are they located? Nope, just solves a lot of problems if the troop officers mess up together. They are ALL in the same place and a lot easier to find and aren't too busy with his own patrol respsonsibility to help out the other patrols. Stosh

I would start out with an evaluation of what the duties needing to be done are. Once these are identified one can add officers in areas where those needs are met. If it is identified that there is a need for coordination between patrols, then it is a good time to add an SPL. If there are two PL's there is no need for coordination because the two PL's sit down and hash out any interpatrol concerns. 3 PL's, yep, still workable, but by the time one gets to 4-5 PL's then it takes a lot more than just sitting down and working it out. It's time to add the SPL to coordinate these discussions. It would possibly occur earlier if the troop officer corps grew quickly in the troop. We need a QM! Ok, scout steps out of any patrol role and takes on the troop QM ressponsibilitites. Scribe? yep, if the paperwork is getting out of hand, add him in too. Boy wants to do DC work, go for it. And as these boys drop out of the patrols to work at the troop level, they form up a "virtual" patrol of troop officers that is headed up by the SPL. So in fact one could add a SPL before one gets to the 4-5 patrol level. In my troop I will have these troop officers drop out of the patrols so as to not "interfere" with the PL's operation of the patrol, and these troop officers shouldn't have any patrol loyalties in that they are serving the troop now, not just their patrol. It avoids any conflict of interest issues. BP seemed to think that any officer who is worth his salt can handle responsibility for about 8 boys. This would apply to the SPL as well. Let's assume he has a 1) QM, 2) Scribe, 3) TG, 4-8) PL's. This gives him his 8 people. But then someone wants to be ad DC, another Historian, and another Chaplain's aid. Now's the time to add an ASPL to assist in the increased size of the troop corps and actually might even camp as a second virtual patrol. That keeps the patrol method group size around 8 people and doesn't get too unwieldly. Add to that eventually there are now 8 patrols so the SPL has 8 PL's to support. The ASPL takes the rest of the troop officer corps, but there are more than 8 now to handle the huge troop, - add another ASPL. Ideally one is looking to maximize the leadership responsiblities and minimize the scope of each officer. If the troop is huge, why not 2 scribes? one scribe for half the patrols? They aren't conflicting with each other, nor are they duplicating efforts. The troop officer corps should be dynamic in that if the cycle of membership drops and the responsibilities for corps officers drop off, they can drop back into the patrols. Not much need to have them hanging around as figureheads with no job to do. Until a job becomes truly a fulltime posistion, there is no need for two people doing half-time POR's Surely in a small troop the Scribe could probably handle the Scribe, Historian and Librarian positions at the same time. Once that gets too much to handle, add another boy and divvy up the responsibilties. Right now my TG (the only troop officer) is marked TG because all three of our patrols are basically NSP's. He is also doing the Scribe position keeping track of the paperwork basically for advancment, attendence, etc. He is capable to stepping into the SPL position at camporees if the PL's are busy with their boys. As the PL's train the new boys, they will be able to take on troop level support positions as well. At this point there isn't much need for that but within a year that will become a strong possibility. All this can only be done AFTER the amount and areas of responsibility are identified. There is nothing wrong with the boys trying out these POR positions to see if they like them without having to sew on the patch and as they stumble around think they are actually fulfilling the responsibilities. Or get the patch given to them and then have them sit around wondering what it is they are supposed to be doing, but earning rank anyway. We do this with the adults, I need a Popcorn Chair, I need someone to head up summer camp, I need someone to organize some fundraisers, etc. etc. Nothing wrong with doing the same in the troop, but this is organized and implemented by the officer corps rather than the adults. Stosh

I use the totally subjective, relative type of approach to the honor patrol identity. Like first chair in the orchestra, one earns it by being the best and keeps it by staying the best. At any time, the honor patrol flag comes off the patrol flag of the current holder and moves to the new patrol that has shown better at being a patrol than the others. This may pass weekly for a while until one patrol begins to figure out how the "scoring" is done, and then it's time to change up the "scoring". (That's not fair? Who said life's fair?) It may mean something as simple as one of the patrol members didn't have all his pocket buttons buttoned and the next patrol did. Maybe when we get to campout the one patrol has all their members there and in full uniform, whatever it takes to make your patrol stand out better than any of the others. The change from one patrol to the next is immediately done on the spot. The marker for the patrol flag should be moved with great flash and flurry. Let the boys figure out what that means by figuring out what it's going to take to top the current honor patrol. This allows for creativity, imagination, determination, etc., all those things that make good leadership. Of course the honor patrol reaps plenty of bennies as rewards. Those can be anything one wants them to be, but they have to be worthwhile to maintain the drive for the boys. It might be something as simple as a SM made cobbler. Just some indication that their efforts are appreciated. Stosh

What often baffles me is the need for every troop to overload their group with chiefs. As pointed out, 12 boys, 2 patrols, 2 PL's who double up as SPL and TG??????? Why double up? SPL and TG's are not supposed to be part of the patrols? Just because the book says one has to have a SPL doesn't mean one really does! I have at the present time 3 patrols of 7 boys each and they are mostly new scouts. So I have ONE TG. He's the only troop level officer I have and he's doing a fine job. When we show up at a camporee, the PLC (3 PL's) decide who's going to be SPL and has to go to the SPL meeting. If the PLC (3 PL's) needs to get together, they all sit down and jaw-jack out their situation and 5 minutes later, problem solved. So often I see elaborate officer structure to the point where everyone has a POR badge and no one's doing anything except stepping all over everyone else's toes. I don't see a need for a functioning SPL until one has 4-5 patrols. Otherwise these boys end up figure-head officers with no responsibilities. If one has functioning PL's there is very little need for many troop officers. Eventually when we get big enough, we'll add on a QM, and maybe a scribe to help with advancment records, etc. That will leave 5 PL's, a TG, a QM, Scribe, 8 boys total, now it's time to have a SPL coordinate the troop officers. Maybe with another 5-6 patrols, a few instructors, etc. one could add on an ASPL to functionally assist him. For the life of me I have never seen how non-functioning troop officers are actually taught leadership when they basically don't do anything to actually accomplish anything. For the most part I find these positions more disruptive than actually helpful when they try to dominate and run a show they aren't supposed to be running, i.e. SPL's trying to run patrols when the PL's supposed to be doing that. Someone gets left out in the cold somewhere and leadership training takes a backseat to actual reality. Actual leadership can only occur when the officer has a functioning responsibility, otherwise, they are gaining advancement POR credit for doing nothing. Stosh

LOL! Yep, Longhaul, you got it! And GW, yes they are adults in the liquor store, they just can't buy liquor! :^) Stosh

Obviously the point being made is still not clear. At school 18 is an adult. The program and rules reflect this and accomodations are made. At church 18 is an adult. The program and rules reflect this and accomodations are made. At anywhere in the US except the BSA Venturing program 18 is an adult. The progam and rules reflect this and accomodations are made. At Venturing BSA 21 is an adult. The progam and rules reflect this and accomodations are adjusted and remade using a different standard than everyone else in the US. If push comes to shove in a court of law, yes, the BSA rules go out the window. An 18 y/o is is an adult even if BSA calls them youth members. Adults and youth members cannot fraternize, but any and all youth members whether legal adult or legal youth can. Parents knowing this may indeed keep their children from participating in such situations. I hope this clarifies it. And obviously not everyone has experienced an irrate father where no amount of rules anywhere will apply when it comes to the welfare of their daughters. Stosh

"The Boy Scouts of America prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members." This of course is the traditional double standard hypocracy that permeates much of our American culture. Tobacco is a controlled substance, prescription meds are as well as some over the counter medications. Of course there are a mirade of exceptions which in fact make the "rule" pretty much what people want to make it out to be. It's just that we get a little more hyper when it comes to alcohol used in cooking. Be careful, VERY careful with the use of vanilla extracts. At 15% alcohol by volume, it is by volume two to three times the alcohol content than beer and 3% more than most table wines. This too could be an exception, but I often wonder whether beer as a marinade or vanilla as an extract flavoring would in the food world actually be the same thing, neither of which if consumed would amount to enough to spike someone's breathalyzer. This is the same rationale that scouters use to show up at district dinners without uniforms so they can drink in front of the boys without setting a bad example. Cheers! Have a good day. Stosh

Hotdesk writes: "2. Bob White in an ideal world scouts would feel obligated to go to campouts if they knew that it would effect their patrol. HOWEVER, many scouts are involved in multiple school activities, church youth group, Boy Scouts, Venture Crews, driving, working, 4H, etc. A lot of times it is a combination of these things. This prevents a lot of scouts from going on campouts regardless of how obligated they feel or how pressured they are. For that matter expecting a scout to pressure another into going camping is usually not going to happen. Even if they enjoy camping they will simply talk about the fun that they had and the events that happened. They will not use peer pressure on a scout to go camping." Keep it in mind that all youth have choices. They choose to get involved in other school activities, church, but not always family. Here the choice is always keeping Mom happy. :^) With that being said, youth today are constantly asked to choose between differing activities. If boys are choosing something over scouts, it is because they believe that the other activity is more worth their time than scouts. If scouters think that scouting is so great that every teenaged boy is going to be breaking down the door to get in, think again. If on the other hand, your troop offers activities that are more worthwhile than the other guy is offering, you will get more boys choosing scouts. If the program doesn't offer something the boy values or needs, it will quickly get passed by and no amount of parental coersion will keep the boy in the program. I hear of people withholding driver's licenses, etc. to keep their kid involved in a program that they don't want to be in. Ever wonder where discipline problems come from or where they end up? If one offers a better than the next guy's program, the boys will come. If you don't, they will leave. Even if you have the best program going, if it's not presented to the boy in a manner acceptable to his needs, he's gone! Stosh

I have been working with church and BSA co-ed groups for over 30 years now and I know most of the dynamics of what makes things work the way they do. I never said the rules would or should go out the window, but I did say that a father finding out that his 14 y/o daughter was hanging out with a 20 y/o college student may indeed bypass most civilized rules (including any the BSA may have in place) to correct the situation. :^) I know why BSA walks this thin line of 18-20 y/o's in the youth program. Because of the complexity of some Venturing programs, they cannot develop their goals in just 4 years so a 2 year extension was added. This however, does not sync with the world around us and thus causes some consternation and hypocracy on the part of most people. Some units have worked around this by internally segregating their members into different age/program focuses, but not all Crews can do that. This tightrope walk is indeed rather hypocritical with some of the rules they have to impose to cover their butts. Just because the BSA calls them youth, the world around them calls them adults. It's not like two different places with different rules, it's the same place with different rules, one for the world, one for BSA. My Crew program cannot be broken down into differing age groups with differing focuses. Everyone from 14 to 65+ all have the same activity. There is nothing in the whole program that would allow for any internal segregation. The separation we provide is natural to the experience, but the daily activity allows for the interaction of crew members not only amongst themselves, but also adults of all ages. Fortunately for me it's been a while since we have had any females in the group, but they have come and gone over the years and we are always open to their participation. I walk the tightrope along with the BSA every time the Crew meets. I spend a lot of time with education, developing trust, sleeping with one eye open, and hoping the Crew is up to the task. It's complicated and involved, and simplistic answers just don't cut it. Stosh

"Again, we Don't have 14 year olds and 20 year olds "hanging around" a lot together. For the most part our older scouts operate different boats than our younger scouts. They certainly aren't rooming together. Yes they do some things as a group bt not a lot of things. Different program activities for differnet ages and stages of development." Honorably spoken from a single point of view, unfortunately not every Venturing Crew in the BSA program falls under the auspices of your tutelage or programming. There are Venturing Crews out there that DO have 14 and 20 year olds hanging out together. Like I said, your neighborhood isn't the same as everyone elses so it makes it difficult to speak a word of expertise in an area in which one is totally inexperienced with. Once you get your ox gored, you'll understand better. And be sure to read more carefully, no where do my comments about hanging around have anything to do with rooming together. Same suggestion for Gold Winger, just because kids hang around the mall on a Saturday afternoon doesn't mean they are bunking/tenting together. Funny how one finds it expedient to jump to such a conclusion. I do believe the youth protection for even the Venturing program makes accomodations for such separation. It's a lot easier to take one's comments with a bit more seriousness if they aren't so blatantly ridiculous. But it does point out one thing. A 14 year old girl and 20 year old boy hanging around together does seem to strike a nerve. Welcome to the co-ed Venturing program of the BSA. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)