Stosh

What constitutes inactives? I have paid dues every year, never get a newsletter, never get announcements of up-coming activities, etc. etc. etc. It's pretty much take the money and run kind of thing. I drop the money off at the council office because I have absolutely no idea who to send it to. Stosh

Real man's camp coffee? 1 large tin cup, handful of whole beans. If they are not roasted, roast in a fry pan first. Put the beans in the cup and use the handle of the jackknife to grind them up in the bottom of the cup. Add water, stick in the fire. Let boil until it resembles coffee. By the time one is able to drink from a hot cup, the grounds will have settled. Unless one's campsite is carpeted, the occasional ground found in the coffee can be spit out. Stosh

No matter what happens, if the boy's end up going to Philmont because they complained, they will be on the outs with the group because some other kid's dad couldn't go. This is why maybe Philmont should look into restricting the trek crews to 2 adults, 3 only if it can provide sufficient rationale for it. Being a dad isn't rationale enough. My suggestions? 1) Find another troop that will be going to Philmont before your son ages out, finish his Eagle there. 2) Check with area councils, they sometimes have contingents going made up of multiple small troops, to meet the needs of boys just like your son. And if your son was truly brow-beaten out of the trek, maybe the leadership of that troop should be reviewing the new advancement requirements on bullying. Bullying can come from adults just as much if not more sophisticated and harmful as it comes from other scouts. Also, when your boy become Eagle, ages out, becomes a SM of his own, make sure he gets his boys to Philmont as much as possible. It's not the same as going with your buddies, but there are new buddies in scouting out there he hasn't met yet. Stosh

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing functional pants, BDU or not, just don't go around giving the impression that it's part of any BSA uniform. If one isn't wearing a BSA uniform, he isn't wearing a BSA uniform. Not a problem. Just don't try and fool people into thinking they are. If for practical necessity, drop out of the uniform, put on a scout camp t-shirt or a red "activity" shirt, slip into your BDU's, but then don't try and convince the world that this implies some sort of makeshift scout "uniform". If one complies to the description described on the inspection sheet, s/he's in uniform, otherwise they aren't. I may have boys wearing the old style pants with the mule-eared pockets design with red piping, but at least they are BSA uniform pants. Stosh

I always enjoy these discussions where it is automatically assumed that there is a problem between BSA uniform and military uniform. Surely one doesn't need to copy anything military to be uniform. Using cammo as an example, the only cammo used in uniforms is the military. Sure hunters wear cammo, but not as a uniform. The closest thing to a hunter's uniform is blaze orange. Auto mechanics, food service employees, janitors, house keeping staff, medical personnel, police personnel, fire personnel, etc. etc. all wear uniforms. They do so without having to imitate the military. The only question BSA poses is why is it so important that scouts have to imitate the military? A uniform is used to indicate identity. If people mix and match with uniforms of other identities don't they just add confusion? People shouldn't have to ask if this person is a Scout or Soldier. Only scouts seem to think it's ok to mix and match and still call it a uniform. I wonder what kind of confidence it would invoke in a patient if the surgeon showed up in the ER in Micky D shirt and blaze orange pants? BSA has a uniform. It is not a hodge-podge. It is spelled out rather well in the uniform inspection sheets. I don't know how they could make it any more clear than that. Stosh

One doesn't. Unfortunately there are those SM's out there that inspite of all that is promoted by BSA just can't 1) figure it out, or 2) trust the boys to do the job. Just remember that as long as the SM runs the show, the SM runs the show for both the boys and the other adult leaders. Couple that with a strong successful adult run activity program that keeps the boys active and there's no way anyone's going to break into that process with anything else.

I guess I go with the consensus of the others. If they are there as an ASM, they should look the part. If they are there as a visiting military person, they should look the part. As a military person they should be aware of this. No one in the military shows up without the appropriate uniform for the situation they find themselves in. A marine will not show up at a miltary ball wearing BDU's no matter how cool it may seem. And s/he would not show up at the firing range with their Dress Blues either. Even if I were an Eagle Scout, I would put that fact on my resume, but I wouldn't show up for the interview in my scout uniform. Stosh

This is why I don't have any troop level officers in patrols. Conflict of interest, leadership competition, and focus does a lot to distract these boys in the functioning of their duties. The only officers in the patrols are the PL and APL. No other officers are involved in the operation of the patrol and shouldn't be hanging around unless needed/requested. A QM may in fact play favorites and get the best gear to his patrol, the TG would have the problem addressed by MarkS. What has developed in my troop is the troop level officers form a "virtual" patrol and hang together away from the other patrols. The SPL and ASPL would be the officers of this "patrol", after all they are responsible for supporting the functioning of the troop officers anyway. Most troops are small enough that 8 troop officers (SPL, ASPL, TG, Inst, Chap, QM, Scribe, DC) is a good size "patrol" of it's own. This setup also emphasize the fact that these troop officers are responsible to all the patrols, not just one of their own. Stosh

It might just be how others seem to want to view different situations, but I see a strong push for FC the first year as a positive thing. BSA has defined FC as the minimum requirements for self-sufficiency in the outdoors. Why would we not as part of orientation into the program and scouting in general, push that process so that the boys get their feet on the ground and moving as quickly as possible. How frustrating it must be to go out and try to play baseball having only learned half the rules. Too often I see this process in scouting. The boys go out on their campout without any proper preparation and then end up feeling awkward when they look around at the other boys and see them knowing what's really going on. On occasion military terminology and examples are tossed around in the scouting world and wouldn't it apply that the T2FC process is in fact the basic training of scouting? Before the boy goes on to specialized training/activities they have to get through the basics. I see nothing wrong with processing this procedure with expediency. Stosh

It's all relevant. The Eagle project was ADDED after an extended period of time. It has run for a while and if BSA dropped the Eagle project as a requirement it wouldn't be the end of scouting. As matter of fact Scouting has more years of Eagles without projects than Eagles with. How about going back to 50 nights of camping for the Camping MB? Surely one doesn't have enough real experience by doing only half the work by camping only 20 nights! I surely thought it was the end of scouting when they dropped the really great MB's like Automobiling, Bee Farming, Blacksmithing, Dairying, First Aid to Animals, Interpreting, Masonry, Poultry Farming, and Taxidermy. In the 1911 Handbook for Boys, First Aid, Athletics, Life-Saving, Personal Health, Public Health and 16 other merit badges is all that was needed beyond First Class to earn Eagle. No POR, no Scout Spirit, no service projects, and no time limits were required for Star, Life or Eagle. If one can dig their way through the sarcasm, one can see that over the years the program has grown and developed taking different emphases and redefining itself for the era in which it existed. If something is "dropped" (i.e. Bee Farming) it was so that another area of interest could be added that would be more appropriate to the current era of scouting. I still think the basis ideals of scouting are still there, but they are drawn out through different, more relevent approaches of the current era. If scouting didn't grow and develop, while preserving it's values and traditions, it would have died out years ago. And after 45 years, I don't think I've used my Morse Code skills much even if I did have to learn them for my 2nd Class badge. Do I remember them well enough to use? Yep! Can I find another scout to send a message to? Nope! :^) Stosh ... - --- ... ....(This message has been edited by jblake47)

I have found that providing functional troop level support leadership opportunities that the boys tend to stay active longer. As I have stated in other posts I do not use the top-down directive approach to leadership but instead the bottom up support approach. This means that boys wanting to do troop level leadership step down to a support level position. This emphasizes to them that once they step out of the PL and APL positions they no longer run the show. Our highest ranking officers are the PL's. On the other hand all the boys that have stepped down to the functional support staff in fact form a "virtual" patrol made up of all boys who hold troop PORs. As an adult supportive of these boys, I make sure their efforts are covered with sufficient perks along the way to make their choice to serve others something appreciated. Once the boys figure out that what they do is of real value, they find self-worth in the process. It is that kind of dynamic that my troop level boys figure out and stick with the program. Self-gratification can be gotten in just about any youth program being offered out there, but the recognition of making a valuable contribution to others is what motivates the functionality in the troop offices. I have seen it work many times for a variety of different boys. Once the boy begins working on getting "his" eagle, one knows they've basically lost him. Why is it one never hears anyone say "I need to get Eagle so I can better serve others"? Maybe it's because of how we generally design and tend to emphasize the program. How many troop POR's are sought after for the recognition and prestige rather than functionality and service. Functionality and service tend to be longer lasting and of greater value in the long run for the boys than the 6 months or year they get to wear an SPL badge and "run the show". The older boys need to feel valuable to the group, they do that by service to others and holding a position in the grand scheme of things that if they left it would leave a big hole. If the only reason they hang around the troop is to be entertained, it's only a matter of time before they're gone and the boy that then hangs around to get his Eagle is basically taking all he can get from Scouting without ever making an investment in true leadership of others. Stosh

Do those resources indicate at what number of members the unit goes from small to large? or is that just a matter of interpretation? I have 5 experienced boys and 18 new scouts in 3 patrols. How does that differ from a 3 patrol unit of 1 NSP 1 experienced patrol and 1 venture patrol? Are they to be treated the same? If one has a troop that for some reason takes in no new scouts do they use the same program as they did last year when they did have a NSP? Surely the BSA program allows for some leadership problem-solving to answer specific situations that aren't covered by BSA literature. I wonder why the council selected me to salvage an almost defunct troop if they knew I was going to break every rule in the book?

I'm not used to discussing symantics, but if a boy is elected to a position it doesn't mean he has to take it. And yes it would be ideal in an ideal world that everyone did exactly what was outlined by the BSA program. However, one-size-fit-all kinds of programs don't meet the needs of different situations. Small troops have to operate differently than large troops, experienced troops operate differently than new troops or rebuilding troops. I would be delighted to get a pre-packaged troop that all I have to do is take out of the box and plug in. However, I don't think the world of Scouting has such a thing. To me training and experience are the two key ingredients that allow a dynamic program that fits the needs and expectations of differing locations and situations. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

2 TG's for every NSP? That's gotta be a major leadership nightmare. PL, APL, 2 TG's and 6 boys. Toss in a SPL and ASPL to run interference and the new boys will suffocate! I have 1 TG for 3 NSP's. Works just fine. He gives guidance and the PL an APL's run the patrols without someone getting in their way. Stosh

I have also found that by creating an older VP or VC to "keep" older scouts active in scouting does in fact separate them from the rest of the herd. Leadership of the younger boys is an "add on" to a program oriented away from the troop to satisfy the activity interests of the older youth. If in fact that is the structure one is going for, then it's ok, but don't expect much assistance from these boys when there's a choice between working the fun activity with the patrol vs. working the leadership activity with the troop. Unless one is great at dumping a major guilt trip on them, the fun will probably win out most of the time. I have found that interest motivated activities generally are a bit more successful in the long run. If an older boy is elected PL of the NSP and he's the only one over 13 and FC, does that mean he can't go to Philmont with the VP boys? If given the option at election time saying that only the VP boys are going to Philmont, one would find it difficult to get the POR's filled that year I'm sure. Before someone gets bent, I do recognize the illustration is an extreme, but to a varying lesser degree the dynamics of the system will show through in the long run. Unless there is an genuine interest being satisfied through the scout program, the scout will consider moving on to different non-scout activities. If a scout doesn't want to be PL and gets elected he will not function effectively as one who really wants it and is appointed, elected, assigned, or just "takes on the job". I have seen many times where a poor PL is "replaced" by another member of the patrol who actually functions as the PL without the badge. Elections may sound good and look good on paper, but functioning leadership always is more effective than many of the electoral games going on in the troops/patrols. Stosh

How exactly does a scout just "take" a leadership position? There is nothing in the BSA program that suggests you allow that is there? "Taking" turns being PL can be worked out by the boys merely going through the "election" and satisfying the requirements of a "vote". Like the boys couldn't figure this out? A Scout should be with his patrol at a camporee. You learn the skiil at the event, you are supposed to learn it before you go and apply it at the event.Shouldn't you? Yep, just like the first year cross-over scouts are to learn everything there is to learn before showing up for summer camp. The logic applied here is rather faulty. He does not HAVE to join the Venture Patrol...he GETS to. Where are the scouts in the unit you serve getting the idea that moving up in scouting adventure is a bad thing? Never said it was. If one reads that into the comment they must have jumped to a different conclusion than was expressed. Boys of this age always like to get left out of the group. A system to promote this is always a great ego builder for the boys that are "different". Make up your mind, you say scouts don't want to babysit (and by the way who is training them that they look at serveice to other scouts as babysitting?) so you don't want to separate them. Never said scouts don't want to babysit. If one were to read the post carefully it explicitly states that some scouts don't like babysitting. Obviously the idea of not all boys have the same interests was overlooked. All boys may at one time be 16, but not all boys like to rock climb. Again, never speak in absolutes. As if putting them in the same patrol with far fewer skills than the older scouts will make the older scouts feel they are NOT babysitting? If a feeling of babysitting is your concern then you should want to keep them apart...wouldn't you? That's the conclusion I drew. If you think there are scouts would do better in troop offices then someone like the scoutmaster should be counseling the SPL on the officer selection...shouldn't he? Makes sense to me. Especially when there are boys out there that have the interest in actually functioning as troop officers and not just wearing the badge to get the POR requirement filled. 16 year olds who like to play chess should play chess. Don't you ever have scouts sit down at activities and play together? Do you stop them from playing chess? What if they like to fish, do you not allow time at outings for scouts to fish if they want to? I would hope you do. I find it difficult to see where I ever said they couldn't. There is another explanation for saying that something isn't true, and that is when what they say is false, whether they were aware of it being false or not is irrelevant. False is "not true". Isn't it? Only if what is said is really false not just just someone's opinion that it is. An accusation based on someone else's opinion doesn't make it correct. And I do believe it is scout policy to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. This of course would apply in all belief systems not just those attributed to religion. Surely different cultural beliefs would apply as would most ideas developed around a personal belief system. Just because someone's truth doesn't coinside with another's belief system doesn't make it false either. A more courteous response would be, "From my experience, I don't believe that to be correct." "That simply isn't true." leaves the impression that the person is promoting that which is false, misleading, inappropriate or a variety of other negatives. If everyone thought as everone else, surely there would be no purpose in having this forum or even having discussions at all. Would there? I find it a good thing to hear the diversity of ideas in that it adds a balance of ideas that foster an arena of insight rather than regimental like-minded policy statements on how things have to be done. I always learn more from people who think differently than I do than from those who always just agree with me. Stosh

Hmmm... Boy #1... 16 years old... in the Venture Patrol... needs POR... takes Instructor because it's easy. First camporee, is he going to be teaching or hanging out with his buddies? Boy #2... 16 years old... has to join the VP to be cool with the others in the group... prefers the company and challenge of working with others... would rather to TG and hang out with the younger boys. Sorry, I stand on my first comment. Age specific activities won't work. to some boys they don't want to babysit when there's a more fun age appropriate option out there. However, there are boys who genuinely would prefer DC, TG, and Inst so they can work directly with the younger boys. They don't necessarily want to hang with the VP. The don't have a problem with servant leadership and working with the troop leadership is sufficient for commradarie. The pseudo-patrol of the troop leadership of service to the younger boys tends to focus their attention away from self and more towards others. I have found these boys are the same ones that take a 2-3 year stint as DC. They in fact make the best troop level officers. I have found it's not the activity itself that draws boys, it's the personal value of the activity as each boy finds it. Not all 16 year olds have the same interest and maturity level and to just provide an age appropriate activity isn't going to work. There are 16 year olds who like to climb rocks and other 16 year olds that like to play chess. For the boys that are motivated by common interest in self-oriented activities for their age group, there's the VP where they can hang with their buddies and kick back more. Rotate the PL position and everyone gets their POR without any problem. So irregardless of how in error some find it necessary to believe, I have found that interest specific activities far out-weigh age specific activities in retaining scouts. I have found that by stating that what someone says isn't true is the equivalent of an attempt to point out that they are lying. Stosh

I don't buy into the idea that activities be age specific. If the patrols are based on age, then older boys who wish to work with the younger boys won't be able to, they'll have their patrol activities instead. Otherwise, just let the boys design their own patrols, forget about ages, ranks and interests and let the boys all work it out for themselves. If the NSP wants an older PL, it's up to them to recruit someone who is interested in doing just that. If a group of older scouts want to form a VP, great, no problem If someone needs to focus on POR and drops out of the patrol situation and takes on a support level position such as scribe, QM, etc. This way the QM won't be dual focused on VP activities and QM expectations at the same time. Given the dynamics of boy-led patrol-method, this could and should develop naturally on its own. It's only when others get in and start pushing agendas of their own that things begin to break down. If the patrols can't have their own agendas, they will seek out other areas where their agendas are honored. Stosh

As long as the boy is in 5th grade he can stay in Cub Scouts, he is not kicked out when he turns 11. If he wishes he can join Boy Scouts, but the "OR" in the requirement allows him to stay until he completes the 5th grade. The reason for the wording as such is to insure the boys of a group staying together irregardless of their age. A boy can be "held back" a year because of the date of his birthday, but if he isn't there's the possibility of a whole year's difference between members of the same class. My birthday is September 20th and I went off to college at age 17. My daughter's birthday is September 23 and she spent her whole senior year of high school aged 18. If a scout is outed at a certain age, he could in fact be asked to leave Cubbing a whole year before his buddies just because of when his birthday falls. I have never heard of a boy being asked to leave Cubbing just because he turned 11 years old. Any child held back a year would be unjustly penalized because of this. After looking at this situation and working the math all the way around. I don't think the two boys are going to cross over into Scouting together regardless of what the parents might want. The older boy will have left 5th grade and received his AOL in April and the younger boy will not have enough tenure at that point. Even if they wait until June (end of 5th grade) the younger boy will still not have sufficient tenure for AOL. The question I would ask is why can't each boy have his own time in the limelight? After all, they are a year apart in age, they have different friends, different school grades and different lives. Surely they can have different AOL ceremonies. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

Our situation was quite similar to LisaBob's except we didn't have many boys in the troop to begin with. We went from 6 boys to 25 overnight. All but 3 of the new boys were Webelos cross-over scouts. Instead of putting a troop leader (TG) in support of each patrol, we chose to have 3 of the experienced boys designated as PL's of the three new patrols that were formed. This allowed the same dynamics as having an inexperienced PL with a TG, but it was focused into one person where the PL was directly responsible for the boys and we had less need for disciple control of the new boys and they accepted the older boy and his assigned authority right from the start. It worked well and with an experienced boy directly in the each patrol, leadership development through the APL position can begin immediately. We then have one TG that supports all three patrols. By having an experienced scout leading the patrol, they do not have to flounder around until the PL get's enough training and experience to control the situation. Like a "DC" the experienced PL can assist a rotation of APL's during the first year and each boy in the patrol will give direct help with each boy on leadership training. There is also no election of APL's either. Each boy in the patrol takes a 2 month stint as an APL under the tutelage of the PL. It is very similar as what Lisa Bob described, but our boys prefer having patrols maintain autonomy separate from the control/direction of troop officers. One of the issues that concerned our boys was the potential of the TG actually leading the patrols. The PL's lead the patrols and if the boy is elected by his peers by personality only, that patrol could flounder around for 6 months before they get a chance to elect a different PL that will really do the job. The temptation at that time of course would be for the TG to step in and take over in such a situation. All this would do would be undermine the authority of the PL position if the boy doesn't do the work necessary to actually lead the patrol. Lesson learned? If one doesn't do the job, someone else will step in and take over. That would be either adult led or boy led troop method. Our boys felt that the PL position was too important to leave in the hands of most inexperienced boys in patrols and worried that the patrols that didn't start out on the right foot would tend to lose ground and possibly boys rather quickly. At the least, the new boys' acclimation to the troop would be slowed during these first months. So far we haven't seen any of that happening. Stosh

Never say never! Sorry Bob, one can't be correct on everything. Back in the mid 1990's it was possible for a while to transition Webelos boys who had AOL into Boy Scouting at the rank of T-foot with the permission of the SM. That was allowed for only a short period of time because of the abuse of the practice that resulted. It was allowed in my circumstance because I kept records of the boy's pin advancement as it pertained to the T-foot requirements and could document their work as it applied to the T-foot requirements. Those requirements that were not fully covered by the pin work were done separately in preparation to the cross-over. Even the current Webelos work covers far more than just the Scout rank. For example, a Webelos must be able to recite the Oath and Promise to receive AOL. This is a T-foot requirement, not a Scout requirement. Readyman pin discussion of the Buddy system is not a Scout requirement, but a T-foot requirement, etc. If one were to lay the two down side-by-side there are a lot of parallels in the area of scout lore, first aid physical fitness, but those areas that were not covered by AOL were filled in and the boys had in fact done all the requirements for T-foot. This was validated with the SM of the troop we crossed into, as well as verified by the Council office who checked with National. Sometimes, all it takes is a little inquiry and some diligent research to make things happen. This is why I never say never. Of course to give an indication of whether or not this is a good idea to be doing it this way, 4 of the 6 boys in that Webelos den went on and Eagled. Maybe we ought to just stick with the way we have always done it because that way we can be sure that 2 out of 100 will Eagle. But when all is said and done the game of Scouting doesn't worry about the score as much as how the game is played. Stosh

My experience with Webelos was very similar to that of Substrings. I took Webelos I and by the time they started Webelos II they had already earned their Arrow of Light. Doing all the pins in a year takes planning, weekly meetings, but is no big deal. Offering every pin twice during that time is also possible for any of the boys that might have fallen behind. We then spent that second spring/summer having fun and working on T-foot requirements. When they finally did cross over at the 2nd Blue/Gold they came over as T-foot scouts. Yes, at that time one could be a T-foot scout and not yet be 11 years old. From that Feb until summer camp we did nothing but orientation, fun campouts, getting the new boys acclimated to Boy Scouts, a few 2nd/1st class requirements we knew the camp wouldn't offer and when they went to summer camp they did the first year scouting stuff and supplemented it with First Aid MB and Swimming MB. By the end of summer they were FC with 2 MB's to their credit and ready for anything the Scouts had to offer and yet they had been in Boy Scouts for only 6 months. All this was accomplished by coordinating the transition between Webelos and Scouting, organizing the program, coordinating activities and taking one's time because one really didn't have to be in any hurry to do it and still have it done correctly. Nobody was pushed, nobody was rushed and the boys had a great time. And before anyone get's their shorts twisted, they were crossed over when the program still allowed the boys to cross into T-foot if they were AOL and had fulfilled the requirements. Working that last 6 months with the SM of the troop they were going into coordinated this rather smoothly and lessened the impact of a "whole new world" feeling when they crossed over, they had already established a relationship with the troop they would be joining after Cubbing. Stosh

We have 3 patrols in the troop. They are identified by name AND by NUMBER. Obviously the competition is such that being #1 has it's benefits. While being #1 and staying #1 is a constant concern. Patrols #2 and #3 are always seeking out ways to grab the top spot. With the competition tight, many times the weekly judging can come down to looking closely at the little details and moving up in position with pefect uniforming is always a strong possibility. If the boys are aware of the details, the generalities often find themselves being done well also. Being observant and keeping a keen eye out for each other is also an excellent leadership skill that gets developed in the process. If everyone "looks" perfect, a small ruler will often set one patrol apart from another. Stosh

After EVERY meeting/event, etc. I conduct an AAR (After Activity Review) with the PLC and anyone else involved in the program that wishes to do so. The boys hash out what went right, what went wrong, etc. As SM I "facilitate" the situation to cooridnate any and all participants an opportunity for input. We do not have an SPL so no one "chairs" the meeting. It's just a time to sit and evaluate the activity. Suggestions are made by all as to what might be done to make it better next time, etc. what training is needed to deal with certain situations, what goals need to be tweaked, what new goals might be beneficial, etc. This AAR may take 5 minutes or 15, depending on how well or not well things went. A summary of the comments are collected up and posted on the internet page. If things didn't go well for the patrols, this is what the PL's are going to be trying during future activities. Everyone gets the heads-up message and everyone can work with the PL in making it better. This type of activity allows the boys to brain-storm their own ideas on how things might be improved without any adult interjections. The boys are responsible and have the authority to problem solve their situations. If the boys are having difficulty with a situation, this activity also allows the boys to request adult suggestions/assistance but only if they decide it's necessary. Problem solving remains in the hands of the leadership of the patrols. This AAR routine occurs for all events, even following the campout shopping for food event at the grocery store. This process has allowed the boys to not only have the responsibility of running their patrols, but they also have the authority to do so without any interference from troop officers and adult leadership. Too often leadership breaks down when someone is given the responsibility to do a task and yet no authority to do it. A prime example of this is leadership by delegation. This occurs when adults retain the reins of the troop (adult-led) and/or the SPL retains the reins over the PL's (boy-led, troop-method). Stosh

Boy led patrols and trained boy led patrols are two entirely different animals and can't be viewed the same. If one expects a boy to lead without any background and training is basically designing a program to fail. This past meeting I turned my 3 trained PL's loose for the first time with 21 new Webelos boys for an orientation meeting of the patrols. They came back with scout advancement, patrol identification, icebreaker games, and instruction in the troop flag ceremony. There were no diciple problems and all 3 patrols operated in the same room with no disruption to the other patrols. I visited all night with the parents orientation and signup. I was in the same room as the patrols and didn't have any problem with my group being interrupted. Had those 3 boys not been properly trained, armed with an evening agenda, and capable of working with a handful of new Webelos cross-overs, it would have been a free-for-all. Those fail to have a plan, plan to fail. These boys were prepared, and did a great job. They didn't take any bull by the horns, they were trained, guided, and prepared to handle the situation they found themselves in. It worked just fine and all the boys had a great evening. The only other officer in the troop is the TG who went around to each patrol, collected up names, recorded advancement, offered any assistance to the PL when asked, and basically stayed out of the way and let the PL's do their job. With a TG and 3 PL's comprising the PLC, that is plenty of personnel at this point to get things up and running. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)