Stosh

I go for the informal, non-prepped approach. A lot of the times the boys don't know they're doing a SM conference until afterwards when I ask for their book to sign it off. The older boys have figured it out from the kinds of questions I ask and talk a little more freely and with greater insight. I usually have a raft of questions I have stored away so as to keep the conversation going and the boy taking. Otherwise it is designed more for the boy's reflection rather than information gathering on my part. Stosh

My crew which has been operational for 9 years has a CO that is a non-legal entity (it is not a non-profit organization, it has no legal status), just a group of like-minded people with a common goal. Right now I serve as the Executive Officer of the CO and Advisor of the crew. The former Executive Officer is the CC, etc. It works for us. Stosh

gwd, I never intended to infer anything negative against a large or small troop, especially those who make every possible effort to accomdate as many boys as possible including the inevitable struggle of some of these very small troops all of a sudden doubling or tripling their membership in one or two years. I applaud their efforts. On the other hand I know of a few troops what would love to expand and I know the difficulty it is sometimes to attract boys to the program. The troop I'm in had some serious problems and couldn't attract any Webelos boys for about 3 years in a row. Their numbers dwindled and they came close to shutting it down altogether. What faced this program one day is now facing a tripling of numbers next month. Feast and famine. I don't know which of the two is more difficult to handle. Just put together a good program, the boys will eventually recognize this and start showing up on the doorstep. The reason for the turn around? People heard that the program was going to change big time and it's the direction they wanted it to go. Stosh

I have attempted to be polite in spite of the accusations that certain individuals have laid out on the forum. I have been accused of lying and probably a half dozen other infractions of the Scout Laws. For those who find it necessary to go back into the various posts and dig out "contradictory" posting information, let's set the record straight. By the way, my "constradictory" posts only support the situation. I have been dual registered both in Scouting and in Venturing for the past 9 years. I used to be an ASM of an adult-led unit, but am now a SM of a boy-led unit. Having walked in multiple shoes it gives a person multiple perspectives on issues. If my sharing them with the forum causes a person to be bothered, feel free to just skip over them. If there are those who must insist on calling other scouters liars because they haven't understood something, it is an unfortunate circumstance. There really isn't much one can do to change the character and personalities of others, and like I tell my boys, name-calling doesn't make it so. Over the years I have experimented with a variety of different approaches to situations in life and learned that some work and some don't. Just because something was tried and it didn't work and one moves on to something else a wee-bit wiser and they change their mind, doesn't make them a liar. Many people change their minds once they have walked through the situation and learned. I have also found out that assuming the worst about other people will allow one to always find it. But I have also found that assuming the best about other people works the same way. SM Minute: "Big people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, small people talk about other people." Your mileage may vary. Stosh

Must be something in the water. First of all I never said people were doing anything "wrong". I merely congratulated Scoutmomma on being able to accept the challenge of major growth in a program by doubling twice in a short period of time. I thought it was a good thing that in spite of the situation, they opened up, expanded their program and made room for a lot of boys that could have been turned away at the door had she decided getting too big was a bad thing. I stand by my comments to her and applaud her for not limiting her vision and rolling up her sleeves and accomplishing a good thing. Stosh

jblake wrote ">> 2. When does a PL earn the right to over-ride the SM, SPL, and PLC? About the same time a child has earned the right to over-ride their parent, teacher and pastor." That sure appears to conflict with what you posted earlier. "But no, troops do not trump patrols unless you are interested in driving out the older boys." "If the SM and troop "trump" patrol decisions, then the patrols in reality don't have any deciding powers at all." "The boys are responsbile, but they have no final authority? Requiring SM approval DOES indeed make it an adult-led unit." I find no contradiction in the comments. From what I see here is an example of apples and oranges being compared. One issue is the SM dictating and overturning the decision of the boys and the other issue is when it is right for a boy or group of boys to purposely challenge authority? I have somehow missed the point of how these two contradict each other. Sorry. Stosh

"jblake: I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your post. I certainly agree that Troops tend to gain a reputation, whether accurate or not, as being boy-led, adult-led, advancement driven, etc., but I don't agree that those reputations have anything to do with their size. " EXACTLY THE POINT! You fully understood my point. Size does not determine anything in regards to a troop. It can be a small troop or a mega troop and what's important is the program, not the size. Troop can be boy-led large and small and a troop can be adult-led large and small. To think that we have to limit the size of a troop to maintain the quality of the BSA program is simply not a valid argument. A troop's reputation for a quality program can be maintained in a troop of any size. Troops that limit their enrollment may in fact be deceiving themselves that this has anything to do with the quality of their program. Maybe if they had to increase in size and adjust to greater numbers, they might step up the effectiveness of their leadership and become even better. Not every troop has to be small, medium sized or mega to be effective. But it bothers me to think that size equates to quality and thus we turn boys away from the program because we place too much false emphasis on size. What exactly am I advocating? Drop the limited enrollment and take on the challenges that are set before you and at least don't use the excuse of size to tell Webelos boys they aren't welcome in your troop. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Scoutmomma, Congratulations! Doubling one's troop twice in a matter of a few years. It can be done, it's a challenge, but it can be done! Now, with that being said, a few adults and few boys and you were able to handle what Cubbing dealt you. On the other hand, do you think if you have a lot of adults and a lot of boys, i.e. 50 members you could conceivably double just once in size over the next 2-3 years without a major collapse in the program? How many boys were you able to assimilate into the troop, become "ENORMOUS" and still not have to cut off membership at some pre-determined number? Or the worse side of that equasion, how many boys did you turn away? Thanks for proving to the nay-sayers, that it can be done. Stosh

jblake posted "I just left a troop that was 35 on the books, 25 active and was totally adult-led. Go figure. :^)" Now I'm really confused. You've been posting for the past year about how strong your troop was, how boy-led it was, how strong in patrol-method it was, and now you say it was totally adult-led? What gives? I'm sorry, but I guess confusion is going to prevail in the end. Be it sufficient that I am dual registered in multiple units and have switched from one unit to another, and with experience and training in all aspects of scouting except Tigers, I may have something to offer the forum. I guess I don't feel it necessary to justify myself to individuals on the forum. If that remains a problem for others, feel free to skip over my posts. Stosh

I'll go on record as not interesting in having an adult patrol in the troop. I don't think the troop corps of officers should be a patrol either even though in many repects both groups function as such. If a PL has a problem and the adults are off in their patrol grouping and so are the older boys of the troop officer corps, where's his help? I try, and I suggest to the other support corps to hang out, be available, and be there to help when needed. If a patrol wishes to invite their patrol advisor to their mess, they should have the opportunity to do so. If they want the SM to sample their new menu item, great, but he shouldn't be off some place where he can't be found. Boys really don't want to go off and hunt down help, they want it nearby, just in case. Be available. Stosh

Does a SM have a "right" to define what a Venture Patrol is to consist of? I came from an adult-led troop that was able to define what the VP was to be. The boys became members by invite only, they had to hold and function with a POR and they had to make a commitment to stay until they turned 18. If they failed to fulfill any of those expectations, they would be asked to leave the patrol and a second invitation would never be forthcoming. On the other hand, I can visualize a VP of older boys naturally evolving out of a common need to have one. If only 1 or 2 boys want a patrol and can't come up with the numbers, then there's a problem, but if you have 7-8 boys that would like to do something different than what the program offers present, start a dialogue with the SM. Express your desires, your goals, your self-set expectations and how they fit into what you need for your scouting career. The SM then expresses his fears, loss of leadership and what possibly go wrong to harm the troop/other patrols, etc. Through the common dialogue I think a good VP could be set up within the troop far easier than trying to setup a Venturing Crew. A little give and take and it could happen. Pick your favorite ASM and request him for your advisor. He can be your liason between the patrol and the SM. I have always thought the Troop corps of officers would make a fantastic VP. Why do they always have to be the one supporting and helping with the patrols. Why can't they plan some great things on the side just for themselves? I can see it happening. It's a little like the patrol the adults want to set up where they go off on a great trip without any boys. :^) Stosh

>> So, jblake, when exactly does a PL earn the right not be second-guessed in your troop, When he has completed his rank advancement, tried out some leadership skills that he has learned taking leadership training, and demonstrates a desire to work with his buddies and help them with their experience in the patrol and troop. In NSP, did he take a turn as APL? How did he do? Does he show an interest in helping others in his patrol? Does he work with them, stand off to the side, argue with the leadership? And does he express an interest in being a PL? If the other boys think he fulfills these "requirements", I suppose he's a good candidate for PL. I may "assign" him to the next year's NSP as PL to give him the chance to put his leadership into functionality. The TG and SPL are there to mentor and support him. If he's hesitant to accept the responsibility, I may put him in a more supportive role for a while until he's more confident in himself. If he's not a "people person", I might steer him towards QM or Scribe for his future POR's. If he proves himself to be a really good PL in the NSP, I might suggest for him a shot at DC. >> to not have his power and authority taken away? Never had the opportunity to do that. I find that boys have a tendency to come up to the expectations and challenges one places before them. >> Is there a special ceremony the troop performs to recognize their achieving this special level? Yep, they win an election for the position and I hand them the patch. Kinda simple, but the boys seem to think it's a pretty big deal. >> It's obvious from your posts that NSPs haven't earned it, What training have they had? What experiences do they have? Getting one's feet wet in the troop as a member of the NSP usually is pretty intense by itself. However, during that year, a lot of opportunity to lead and training do occur. >>> and it's impossible to tell how you would handle the 14-y/o patrol, since you didn't answer my question. Me too, I've never had to "handle" a 14 year-old that pulls off something as has been suggested. I answered the best I could but don't have any experience with such a problem. Maybe in my next 20 years of scouting it may come up. >> All you said was you didn't think they could pull it off, which I find interesting when reading your post on the super-size troop. Kids aren't that smart to be able to pull off the logistics of that large of a con-job on adults. A parent, another leader, or the SM himself will get wind of this long before it happens. As soon as it was announced in the PLC, and everyone thought it was great idea would have the skuttlebutt running through the troop like wild fire. If all the adults miss it, they have a lot more problems than a rogue patrol. >> What if they did pull it off? What would you do? Start leadership training all over again from square one. Obviously they missed something along the way. >> So, 2 questions: 1. What would you do if the 14 y/o patrol pulled off the trip (and don't dance around about some council req. for SM sigs - let's pretend you are in my council that doesn't require it) Let's pretend we deal with reality and the honor of our boys. If we do a respectable job of training them, we don't need to make up scenerios that don't deal with reality. Seriously, the WORST disciplinary problem I have had in my crew in 9 years is: one boy said he had to leave early on Saturday night but he would come back and pick up his buddy Sunday to give him a ride home. He didn't. I gave the boy a ride home and had a discussion about keeping one's word the next time I saw the other boy. If that's the worst I ever deal with, I'm living a charmed life! >> 2. When does a PL earn the right to over-ride the SM, SPL, and PLC? About the same time a child has earned the right to over-ride their parent, teacher and pastor. If the PL isn't within the boundaries of civility and respect for other people, then it's time to take the boy back to Training 101. It's call common human decency and seems to fall somewhere in the cracks of the Scout Law and Oath. If you're a husband, when did you earn the right to over-ride She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed? :^) Stosh

For every mega-troop that seems to be adult-led there are just as many small troops that are adult-led. I somehow lose the correlation of size to adult vs. boy led. The inverse would thus hold true as well. A troop of any size could be boy-led if they worked at it according to the BSA progam. I just left a troop that was 35 on the books, 25 active and was totally adult-led. Go figure. :^) I am led to believe that accomodating the youth of the area and program are higher priorities than actual playing the numbers game. Someone threw out the numbers 33 packs and 20 troops. With packs generally running numbers higher than troops and only 4 years of service vs. 7 for scouting, it is obvious that there are going to be a lot of boys dropping out of scouting just because there isn't going to be any room for them. More troops? Sure, we'll get right on all the hundreds of leaders and their training right away. I don't see that happening very quickly anywhere either. Do you want to be a SM of a new troop and compete with an established troop with a good program? It is my opinion that maybe we need to make better use of the resources we have rather than running around tossing together make-shift solutions to what seems an overwhelming problem. Wouldn't more trained leadership within a troop be a better offer to the Webelos than newbies from the scouts all the way up to the CO? I don't see many parents are seeking a new troop over an established troop for their boys. They will join as a last resort and never really back their boy along the way. I would much rather find an adult, train them and adult-lead a NSP within an existing troop before expecting a novice SM to take on all the Webelos leftovers from all the other troops in the area. Is this against BSA rules? Probably, but that doesn't mean those newbies will need to stay adult-led forever either. Buy some time, get them on their feet, teach them leadership and assimilate them into the troop in a year or two. These boys aren't trying out for the team that has only so many players with a few sitting on the bench. These are excited Webelos that after AOL are coming off a great achievement in their scouting career, only to face the possibility that there aren't any troops out there that have a spot for them? I can see no Eagle possibility in this boy's future and it isn't his fault. Mega troops don't just happen overnight and they don't pop up out of nowhere. Usually they are well established and have a long tradition of doing it a certain way. Right or wrong it doesn't make much difference, the boys are still exposed to Scouting in some form or another. I have found that in other areas, not just Scouting, a little tweak here and there can make a difference for different situations. Try something different, experiment with something either for the newbies or maybe let reins loose a little on the older boys. Better yet, take your oldest boy patrol, make them all JASM's and have them run the 3-4 NSP's to give them the feel of actually being a SM of a virtual "troop" within the troop. I see this as a great opportunity for older boys to really function as a scout leader. If they fail? So what, the new scouts wouldn't have had a chance anyway if they had been turned away at the door in the first place. Unless there is a vision beyond what we believe is our comfort level, we will only grow so far and then self-destruct so as not to be challenged beyond our success level. How can we instill great dreams in our boys, when we don't have one ourselves. Do I sound like some wet-behind the ears idealistic 20 year old? We'll AARP has been after me for some time now and I'm not ready to sign up as yet. I hear scouters complaining about not enough scouts and trying to retain the few they have and others complaining about too many wanting to join. Isn't the BSA program flexible enough to accommodate everyone? Are we so rigid in our thinking, our rules, our traditions that we can't squeeze in a bunch of new boys? I will triple or quadruple my numbers this year because of the influx of the Webelos II boys. We've (boys and adults both) been making plans to accomodate them. The word from Council has indicated that the next crop of Webelos II next year will do the same thing. That means not only will the Webelos this year need to work on FC they will also need extensive training in leadership to accommodate the large number of patrols that will be developed next year. Now, we won't be able to keep that pace up for very long, but our community doesn't have that many boys for us to start pushing the 100+ numbers, but with 3-5 years before the boys start aging out, it is conceivable we will reach those numbers. Now is the time for us to set the goal of 50 and quit? 75 and quit? 100 and quit? Start more troops? That means competition to our troop for resources in the community, less trained leaders, no boy leaders to start with, etc. I guess it's a little like Scout Night for Cubbing. If you want your boy in the Pack, we'll find a place for him. That's my philosophy for scouting as well. I may fall flat on my face, it may be the biggest fiasco this community has ever seen. It may be an embarrassment for our CO, but we won't know that for a while and until then, bring it on! I believe in my boys! I don't know if they can do it, but until they try, no one will know. Stosh

Mega troops and mega packs. What's the different. If one is going to stick with the troop-method of scouting, then yes 100+ scouts is too big. There are no places that can handle that many boys all at one time and equipping that many boys is a QM nightmare. But how many packs have unified pack activites? Once a month? The rest of the time the boys are in Dens (i.e. patrols) doing what they are supposed to be doing. A mega troop can exist under one of two instances, use the adult-led patrol-method which is basically what Cubbing does. or go with boy-led, patrol-method. I suppose you could have a mega adult leadership and everyone runs the boys that way too. There were examples of mega troops with 15-20 boys in a patrol. This can happen only if those patrols have adults running them. Then they really have mini-troops within the troop. 8 boys/patrols is what a boy can handle. Keep it that way and build your youth leadership corps through extensive training. Quit recruiting adults to lead and start recruiting and training boys to do it. Maybe summer camp, and camporees will be the only 2-3 events a year that the boys will attend enmass. The rest of the time 1/4 (25 boys/3 patrols) of the boys go on an event on alternating weekends and that way the troops only needs 1/4th the # of tents and equipment. Summer camp? Well they have all the tents and equipment there and camporee? Hmmm, does meadow crashing sound like fun? About 10 years ago my venturing crew had tents. I haven't seen them use any of them for the past 5 years. Too much gear to carry. If one were to stop, brain-storm, think outside the traditional ways of doing scouting, there is a whole world out there that hasn't been tapped into. 100 boys? 1 SM 4 ASM and a committee of 5 = 10 adults 1 for each 10 boys. Not a bad ratio. Too big, break into two troops - 1 SM - 4 ASM and a committe of 5 = 10 adults 1 for each 5 boys times 2 Which of the two scenerios will develop quicker into an adult led program, especially when you have twice as many adults to begin with? Stosh

What most people don't understand, especially in larger populated areas of multiple troops, is that the troop itself has a reputation amongst the scouting community. Troop A is adult-led, small, lots of activities, and plenty of gear. Troop B is boy-led, little larger, always struggling with gear, don't always get the big outings organized and ... well, you have to remember it's boy-led. Troop C is really small, they had one boy Eagle about 10 years ago, it was the SM's son. Troop D is got a hot-shot SM and it's growing leaps and bounds, but the boy's aren't advancing very quickly, the adults can't seem to handle all that growth. Now, you're a Web DL and you need to visit a troop for your boys to qualify for AOL. Hmmm. You ask the parents, and they give you 4 different answers. The boys don't want to split up. So you close your eyes, draw a number out of your hat and within 2 years, all the boys that didn't want to go to the troop you picked, have quit and the 2 boys that did stay were your son and his friend. There's a valid reason why out of 100 boys that join Cub Scouts 2 of them will Eagle. What's wrong with this picture? Stosh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe one of the Scout Laws is: "A Scout is Courteous."

Hmmm... are these the same adult leaders that were just a few weeks ago concerned about loosing Webelos during the crossover? Do we have any any council people on this forum that would give some input as to why Scouting is trying to incorporate as many boys as possible while sanctioning troops that limit their membership? Somehow I can't justify in my mind having it both ways. Let's just admit, the program doesn't work for large numbers, and if you want your boy to be in scouting, start your own troop, gather up your own equipment, develop your own program, train your own leaders, and maybe your boy will get a high quality scouting opportunity like we have in our troop, because we have no room for him here. There's a PR nightmare for your Council! :^) Stosh

BA, I think your scenerio is a little far-fetched. If you remember I was the one who stated that I would step in and stop the NBP from going rock-climbing without adult supervision. The only thing I find a problem with in your scenerio is: I don't think 8 fourteen year-old boys could pull off this without some adults knowing about it long before the evening before. I said the SM should not be leading/deciding/directing, I didn't say he was deaf and blind. It's also a council requirement that the SM signs all Tour Permits. The boys must have forged the SM signature. A little lesson on "On my honor... " and the first Scout Law might be in order too. Stosh

>> As a unit leader I would never support a Scout troop becoming that large. 30-60 is optimum size in my opinion. As the Scoutmaster you have the responsibility of knowing the needs and characteristics of every member. I just don't believe that can be accomplished in a troop that size. I don't think a 100+ Troop would be any different than a 100+ Pack. The program is designed to reach out to as many boys as possible and it has a proven track record under the guidance of adults. It really hasn't had much opportunity under scouts. Studies have shown that a "group" can get know everyone within it without any difficulty up to about 200 members. That means one of these super troops would be only about half that size. If a minister can get to know quite intimately 200 members of what would be considered a very small congregation, surely a SM could get to know 100 boys quite easily. As a matter of reality, he would have to get to know only 25 new boys each year. I don't see this as an overwheming hurdle to overcome. Smaller troops are easier for adults to control. If the troop gets too large and the adults have to turn over some of the control to the boys, it's a scary proposition. >> Also in a troop of 100 plus you have a PLC that is really to large for a youth leader to lead comfortably. Just as patrol leaders do best leading a patrol of 6 to 8, so does an SPL with a PLC of 6 to 8. An SPL would be responsible for direct interaction with his ASPL's and the supporting troop corps. The PLC would be made up of... well PL's of the 20 patrols? Sure, but SPL would have 3+ ASPL's to assist him. That breaks the process down into appropriate sizes. The PLC would have the PL's communicating with the SPL/ASPL who would work as a liason with the Troop corps of officers. Maybe the QM would sit in on the PLC's that discussed activities that required equipment, but wouldn't attend if discussions didn't involve him. >> My last reason is logistics. Troop activities for 100 people is difficult. You are greatly limited to where you can go and what you can do in activities befitting scouts where A) you can fit people in, and B) where you have time for everyone to participate. As it was expressed earlier, why does everyone have to do the same thing? Younger boys go to summer camp, older boys go to BWCA or Philmont, etc. There's nothing wrong with the troop taking up 2-3 campsites at camp anyway, they are all autonomous and can function separately anyway. BP indicated all patrols should separate themselves by 200' minimum anyway. 3-4 campsites at camp? That has no impact on the program of the camp, they don't care if the camp is filled with 3 troops in three sites or 1 troop in 3 sites. It's all the same to them. >> Before a troop grew to that size I would help organize a Venture Crew and train an Advisor, and we would graduate older scouts to the Crew to continue working toward Eagle if that was their goal, or follow special activity interests. That's an awful lot of extra work for a program that accomodates the older boys anyway. Why not have Venture Patrols and train a patrol advisor(s). Surely this is within the scope of a well organized troop. Venturing is a whole different program and has different goals and expectations. Getting Eagle is not one of them. Getting Ranger is. >> In the unit I serve presently we have a membership ceiling we hope to reach this year of 30 Sea Scouts. Due the size of our meeting facility and the amout of program resources available, as well as safety issues, our CO feels this is the optimum membership for us. And now you have adults making decisions over the boys dictating their membership limitations. Your council can assist you with this issue. It sounds as if the CO has a different set of goals than the council has. And how does the CO answer the boy who says he wishes to join but there's no room for him? I'm sure the council can find a CO to support 100+ troop, they do it all the time for Cub Packs! I'm sure the council would immediately seek out a CO that has the facilities and vision to involve as many boys as possible in the scouting program. This is not a good example for not having a large troop. Stop and listen carefully to your comments. It sounds as if you're getting all your excuses in line prior to even giving it a try. Are our visions limited and our dreams too small? Stosh

BW, you have it correct! Welcome to the world of 100+ member troops. But with that exciting challenge, be warned of the pitfalls such as having to instruct 15-20 boys just to be qualified PL's, and add to that the Troop corps of officers needed to support that large number of patrols. Heavens, these boys will have to start operating as leaders on an adult level well before they turn 18! They might even be expected to start learning leadership right from the git-go! At least 2 ASPL's each with 8 PL's to support. TG? at least one for every NSP. With approx 25 new Webelos crossovers every year from a Pack of 100+ members, that means 3 NSP's of 8 boys each needing a solid corps of scout Instructors big time too! The SM that tackles this one will need a serious corps of adult leaders to assist teaching those troop leaders big time. They may have to spend all their time training leadership and won't be able to interfere with what the boys are doing! Will the SM have time for making sure the patrol duty rosters are all filled out or whether or not all 20 patrols will be attending camp this summer? Nope, only 15 will, the other five of older scouts will be doing a Boundary Water Canoe Trip instead. The SM is ticked off because he can't make it with the older boys, but it isn't a problem, he's working his schedule to attend Philmon the following summer that's already well into the planning stage organized by those helping the patrols planning that activity. Routine paperwork of attendence, advancement, etc. will need to be gotten to the Scribe so that the paperwork will be kept in order. Do we see a problem here? Big time... but bring it on! If everyone does their job correctly, there should be no one on the "organizational chart" of this "monster" that is responsible for more than 6-7 boys. There is no boy overwhelmed by the magnitude of the situation if they focus on functioning well in the small portion of the program they are responsible for. Everything is in multiples of 8. for every 8 patrols there are 3 QM's, 3 ASPL's, That way no one ever is responsible for more than they can handle. Right now I face the challenge of having 2 feeder-packs for the area and two troops. One troop is and has been around 20 scouts for a very long time and no matter how many boys sign up, the active population remains at 20-25. If that be the case, I will be expected to take on 10-15 boys this year and as many as 50 next year. (counting Webelos II's in the two packs) The challenge will be to offer a BSA program of value to a lot of new boys. If we design the troop on the principles described above, at least we have a fighting chance. Stosh

Sorry I didn't make myself very clear in my other post. First of all if the same leaders are covering both units one scout one venturing, then boys dual registered will always have to choose the troop first. This is not BSA policy, it's a rule this hybrid group was making on their own. They are co-ed, but if the troop decides to do something, the crew takes it in the shorts and the gals get second best. This automatically builds a dividing separation in the members of the crew. If a boy also wishes to just be a crew member he by hybrid rules, forced to quit this crew and join one where there isn't a troop shadowing it. I would think it far more honest to everyone just to have a venture patrol within the troop. Then all these dual registration and hassles aren't interfering with the program and a troop is allowed to run as a troop and a crew to run as a crew. Two different programs for a reason. I have been involved with Venturing, venture patrols and troops for quite some time and I mentally shift gears when passing from one to another. I think BSA created them for different reasons and one of those reasons was not to blend them back together. :^) As for creating a venturing patrol? Just make it happen. Get the guys together to make up the patrol, elect a PL, APL, and start brainstorming ideas of what you would like to have happen. Now, if you have an adult-led troop it will be a little more difficult. I suggested once that the troop leadership form up as a "venture patrol". The SPL stayed on as the PL and,.. yep, you guessed it, the ASPL was the APL. Everyone else in the VP held a POR. This tied them to the troop and the SM couldn't complain about the fact that they were going to be ignoring the troop by doing venture activities, they WERE the troop leaders. They began to plan EXTRA activites and eventually began to set the standards for the other patrols to step up to. But being the troop leadership, i.e. SPL, ASPL, QM, 2 Den Chiefs, Scribe, etc. they were a venturing patrol in name only (virtual patrol concept mentioned above). But that little detail didn't seem to slow them up much. Being the older mature boys, they were by BSA policy allowed to followup on their patrol activities independent of adult supervision/2-deep adult leadership. It worked for those boys. And what's the SM going to complain about? These boys are doing their job in the troop, and planning and having great self-planned activities along with it on the side. Stosh

You bring up some great points... >>Yes, the patrol is the most important unit in Scouting.... inside a Troop. You had me up until you added a qualification saying that the patrol is the most important thing second to the troop. That's troop-method scouting and I find no evidence in the BSA program that supports that idea. >>Patrols function inside of, and as a part of a troop. Patrols cannot get chartered, only troops can. While this is true, it is important that the dynamics of a patrol require the support of resources that can be shared amongst other patrols in the area. Ideally a patrol according BP should be 8 boys. 2 leaders and 6 members. This combination represents the ideal size for a learning leader to handle. It's just the right size for the boys. Group dynamics indicate 12-15 others can be handled by an adult. However, not every patrol needs a QM, Scribe, Bugler, etc. but at one time they did. It would be expedient and a better use of resources if multiple patrols shared them. An outside person would be designated a coordinator of these support resources but would not be part of the patrol (i.e. the SPL and his staff) >>Patrol activities do not trump troop activities. If patrols really don't want to do what everyone else is doing, why should they be required to? It only makes sense that the NSP does a lot of requirement learning and the venture patrol does ... well, venture patrol interesting activities. To put everyone in the same pot and expect everyone to be doing the same thing will .... well, maybe the older boys will quit after going through the same requirements 5 years in a row. Yes, patrol activities designed for their members trumps troop activities. It's how BSA meets the needs of many different interests and ages. Of course if the TG asks one of the older boy patrols to lead a teaching demonstration every now and then to get to know some of the new boys, I'm sure they wouldn't mind. They might even find it fun. But no, troops do not trump patrols unless you are interested in driving out the older boys. >>A SM can give his blessing on a patrol activity, but it must be obtained. If there's a good working relationship between the SM and his leadership corps, it shouldn't be necessary. After all, if the patrol is so important why does it have to answer to so many other authorities in order to accomplish anything? Maybe it's because the SM doesn't trust the leadership and has to approve everything. If the SM and troop "trump" patrol decisions, then the patrols in reality don't have any deciding powers at all. Boys figure this one out very quickly. >>According to jblake, the SM wouldn't have any say in the matter. Ideally, you have that correct. Train the boys, observe their decision making skills/choices, and trust your boys to do what's important. That's what scouting is all about, independent, rational, moral choices. I expect that from my boys and because I trust them I don't have to insert myself into their processes. >>Requiring SM approval does not make a unit adult-led. The boys are responsbile, but they have no final authority? Requiring SM approval DOES indeed make it an adult-led unit. >>Boy-run, boy-lead can certainly operate in the BSA program, where a troop is made up of strong patrols. I agree. A SM that has trained his boys well, they demonstrate sound judgment and function well as a good role models for other boys, why in the world would he want to step in and usurp what these boys are doing? The most important goal is strong patrols!!! Ideal scout program? Take the Cub Scout model - multiple dens all operating autonomous from one another, coming together occasionally for such things as derbies, regattas, klondikes, day camps, etc. etc. etc. as a pack. Now, add some years of training, replace the adult den leaders with PL's, then replace the CM with an SPL, and the CC with SM and you have a BSA model that really works well. Cub packs of over 100 boys all over the place! If the adult-led cub program is gradually replaced with boy led scout program, nothing changes except those running the show...the BOYS! Hmmm... I wonder how long a pack would continue to function if the CC and CM kept interfering in the activities of the dens?, telling them what they had to do and when to do it? Would your DL's quit? But of course, why would we expect scout PL's to be any different? Boy-led, patrol-method is a mature version of adult-led, den-method. That's why cubbing is set up the way it is, it's the model the boys are seeking to imitate on their own. A troop of strong boy-led patrols can, just like cubbing, produce troops of 100+ boys on a regular basis. Cubbing = 4 years, 100 boys, 25/boys per year moving up to a Troop. Scouting = 7 years,... scouting should be producing troops of 150-175 boys. If we aren't what are we doing to drive away the boys? If the math's correct, we seem to be disappointing 100-125 boys along the way..... I'm just trying everything I can to keep that from happening in my neck of the woods. Stosh

Gotta love it. :^) Troop wants to go to activity A, one patrol wants to go to activity B. Troop insists that according to the rules SM trumps patrol decision, troop PLC trumps patrol decision and the patrol has to go to activity A. Now seriously, do you really think the boys of the patrol will be convinced that they have any say so in an organization that insists on doing things they don't really want to do? What's the sense of having a patrol, when they can only do what everyone else is doing. They'll vote with their feet. If the organization doesn't meet the interest, satisfaction and leadership needs of the older boys expecially, they're gone in a heartbeat and there's nothing but a set of quotes out of the SM handbook to soothe your disappointment. The "rules" you're are referring to deal with such issues as safety, i.e. NSP want to go off by themselves and rock climb. Duh! SM trumps that idea in spades!!!! But if the only excuse he has is "Because I said so!" The boys won't buy it for a moment. As for me not running under the BSA program, that of course is a matter of your interpretation of the rules as they differ from mine. Yes, I'll be the first to put the kabosh on the NBP doing rock climbing, but I'll be the last to force my boys out of the troop because I'm the boss and have organizational charts and rules to prove it. BTW, next month I'll be tripling the size of my troop because I insist on boy-led, patrol-method scouting and that's what the parents want for their boys. Our troop has been invited to multiple Blue Golds, so that tripling number may be a conservative estimate. Not bad for a guy who isn't using the BSA program. :^) Stosh

Hotdesk, you didn't identify how much directive the SM gives to the troop at the present time. If the troop is adult-led, the boys quickly figure out that it is a waste of time to try and lead. Why try, they're going to get out maneuvered by an adult anyway. There is nothing worse than being given a responsibility and then no authority to do it. This may be one of the reasons why your older boys are acting up, frustration and no valid leadership opportunities. I would recommend starting all over from scratch. Have the boys (and I emphasize just boys) organize into the patrols of their own choosing, and then have them select from their midst one to lead. This person does not need to meet any requiments specified by the now defunct PLC. If a TFoot steps forward, he's PL and is your newest student on leadership skills. Make sure they know there will be no SM, ASM, involved in how that patrol will be run for the next 6? months. This means all troop level "officers" are to hook up with a patrol or form one of their own. Make it clear to them that if they need POR over the next six months, the only available jobs will be PL and they had better find a patrol that needs one. They can do whatever they as a patrol decide to do. The adults will only provide information from the council, camps, etc. that are sending info to the troops. It's up to the boys to decide what they want with it. Make sure they fully understand that the adults will become involved in the activities of the patrol ONLY IF SPECIFICALLY ASKED to do so. They will also be available to the PL's (and APL's if the patrol wants them) for leadership instruction and suggestions if asked. If your PL's wish to continue meeting as the PLC they can do so and if they wish the may designate one of them to act as SPL. No SPL POR however assigned until after the 6 month trial period. (Sooner if the boys insist on it, after all, it's their PLC.) If there's a need for a QM, TG, or Scribe, anyone who wants can step into that position but no POR assigned until after the 6 month trial period (again, unless the boys insist on it, it's their troop after all) If a tenderfoot wants to be the QM he can be the QM. As SM, take this time to observe and listen to the dynamics of what happens. Make yourself available to listen to their individual concerns, empathize with them, but hold the line firm. If someone volunteers as a troop "Officer", be available to assist them in their duties or spell out for them what their duties might entail, but don't lift a finger to do or direct their choices. Once a month, or more often than that even, sit down with the boys and evaluate how things are going. Listen, observe, but do not participate in the discussion or offer any form of "guidance". Let them work out the kinks the best they can. You have older scouts that are causing behavior problems because they aren't really leading anything. Is it behavior problems or general frustration on the part of these older boys? It's time for them to take over and prove their skills. If they have been offered the offered the responsibility and full authority to fulfill that responsibility without any adult interference, I think they will take over before the troop suffers too long. As a matter of fact I don't think it will suffer at all. The skills and talent is there in your troop, challenge it. Put the choice in their laps and step back and let them figure it out. They know the routines. I do believe that if they feel responsible for the success of the troop they'll answer accordingly. Right now, only the SM and ASM feel the pinch to succeed. Give it to the scouts where it belongs. If nothing else, you will quickly find out which of those scouts really do care and are willing to step up to the plate and which ones really don't. A leadership opportunity for anyone of those who care will be the future of your troop. Right now I am rebuilding a troop that has fallen on hard times, has had some serious problems, and currently has only 2 officers, both PL's. One is Life scout new to the troop and is younger, the other was viewed as a problem for the troop. They are now my two strongest leaders. It does work. Stosh

If it's a boy-led, patrol-method troop, why would it be allowed that the adults make a decision to break them up? 10 patrols and 10-11 boys means that troop knows what boy-led, patrol-method is all about. That's why they produce a powerful crop of leaders. Stosh