Stosh

Stosh - question - does your troop conduct Troop Leadership Training (TLT)? Yep! If yes, what does the training consist of? Everything the BSA program has to offer. The manual, SM handbook, SPL handbook, PL handbook, program books 1-3, etc. We do not skimp financially on our training resources. What sources of material are used for the training? All the material from the BSA program. Who conducts it? SPL, assisted by the members of his Honor Patrol. Where did it orginiate? After conferring with the SM on finances, I purchased the material and gave it to the SPL, said I thought it might be a good idea to have our people trained, and at his request sat down and went through it with him. It is now his responsibility with full authority of the troop program to train his PL/APL's and anyone else with POR badges. Then there is a SECOND training of all the other boys so that they know what leadership is and that eventually they too will be called upon to fulfill different responsibilities in their patrol and troop. This way we can guarantee our individual patrol members know what leadership is, and have the opportunities, responsibilities and FULL AUTHORITY to do leadership as they mature in the patrol. When they get older and wish to demonstrate their leadership skills on a wider, more SUPPORTIVE role, can hold POR's on the troop level. Once the boys leave the patrol level, they take on positions of patrol support rather than patrol directive. Quartermaster makes sure patrols have equipment, Chaplain's Aide makes sure patrols have worship/prayer opportunities, Troop Guide supports the NBP as does the Instructor, etc. Being a PL is the highest level of responsibility with full autonomus authority in the organization with the SPL the #1 supporter of PL's. It's called servant leadership which is more valuable that directing leadership, but always plays a supportive role. Hard to explain, a beauty to see in operation. These are not questions to try to show you up. These are legitimate questions, leading to a revelation, I hope. Excellent questions, but the same revelation I've always had, the boys are responsible and have been given full authority to fulfill that responsibility without worrying about adult intervention. Too often leadership is usurped by people who give someone responsibility to do something and then withhold the authority to accomplish it. That is a 100% guarantee receipe for failure for the boys. Stosh

We have a zero tolerance policy against hitting, too.

"At the direction of the SM...." No matter how one cuts it, defines it, justifies it, having adults leading means the troop is not boy-led. Maybe the boys ought to read the SM handbook to find out how little authority they really have in the functioning of their patrol method troop. Like the ASM, they serve at the discretion of the SM, it would seem the boys do too. Stosh

You write: "ALL BSA literature has the adults coaching, supporting, never DIRECTING and never stepping in to correct." (emphasis added) First page in the chapter on the Boy-Led Troop, SM Handbook, pg. 12: "One of your most important challenges as Scoutmaster is to train boy leaders to run the troop by providing DIRECTION, coaching and support." Yes, the SM DOES DIRECT. The adult is challenged to train the boys to run the troop. It does not say they direct the procedures and policy of the boy-led troop. Suggesting direction, goals, aims, coaching the boy's progress and supporting them in their decisions on a PLC and troop level. Providing direction and directing are two different dynamics and a SM who cannot tell the difference will alter the effectiveness of his troop. One can tell from the context of the complete sentence what was intended by my comment rather than merely taking one word out of context to disclaim the the entire comment. Same page, under "Leaders of the Boy-Led Troop": "A Boy Scout troop is a small democracy. With the Scoutmaster's direction, the boys are formed into patrols, plan the troop's program and make it a reality." I think that is pretty clear. Yep, as far as the troop is concerned. But it's as clear as mud on a patrol level, which of course, the quote makes no reference to. I do believe my comments were in regards to the initial thread of patrol level problems. As I have stated before. The BSA literature is not very clear and there are two entirely different tracts one can take with the meaning of the patrol method and boy-led. The first interpretation is the patrol method is primary to all other concerns. The troop therefore is like the US founding fathers first envisioned our country. Each sovereign state ruled itself and used the centeral government for issues dealing with interstate concerns. However, that dynamic has totally flip-flopped and now the second interpretation applies where the centeral government dictates to the states. Both are basic interpretations of the same document. If the patrol is primary (patrol method) then the troop is formed to support patrol activities. The troop takes it's direction from the patrols, they provide support, training and assistance, but they do not dictate or control anything the patrol has decided to do. The SM and adults support the PLC which is the central government of the troop where interpatrol cooperation is developed and designed. Under this total autonomy model of patrol method the boys can and are encouraged to deal with their own programming, leadership, activities (meetings and outings), and if they are going on a joint patrol activity (i.e. troop activity) they take the recommendations from the PLC as to when, where, rides, etc. so they can make plans as a patrol to be involved if they so wish. Otherwise, even at a "troop" event, the patrol remains autonomous, they cook separately, the camp separately, their activities are separate from other patrols. When they go to the evening campfire they do a patrol skit or sing a patrol song. The other model which is (in my opinion) a reversal of this is where the patrol is viewed as nothing more than a sub-group of the troop. The troop (usually directed by the adult's goals and plans) are mandating down to the patrols what they can and cannot do, how they are to be formed, who they are to associate with, and if only one or two boys from a couple of patrols show up for an outing, they are all dumped into one "no-name" patrol so the troop will be able to compete at the camporee contests. The real difference is in the flow of authority. In a troop-method program, there never will be any personal ownership in patrols. They will come and go as often as the wind changes. Nothing's going to last very long. Leadership will be whatever with no commitment to anything other than POR requirement fulfillment. Anything they plan on doing together can in a heartbeat be cast aside and changed by the SM and/or PLC at their whim. The lack of ownership and commitment on the part of temporary patrol members will continually undermine the operation of a true patrol method operation. To think that just because the SM can direct the PLC and maintain the final veto vote, will have a positive impact on the ultimate outcome of the operation of the patrol method is rather foolish. Our form of democracy was originally based on the principle of neighborhoods making decisions for the residents (patrol) and the town assisting and supporting the neighborhoods with their concerns (troop), and the counties supporting the towns, and the states supporting the counties, etc. This dynamic is no longer there, but that does not mean the principle wasn't the one that British born, military trained Baden-Powell didn't fully understand. We don't have a contemporary understanding of this principle because we no longer adhere to it. Instead we maintain the top-down model and have the federal gov't dictate to the states and the states dictate to the counties, etc. right down to the neighborhood where people are basically ignoring it because it has little or nothing to do with their lives anyway. If this is the reaction you wish to get from your patrols and their membership, it will work every time. I try to get as much responsibility and authority into the hands of the boys as possible. At that age they can handle a group of about 8 people with their leadership skills. They can experiment, try, suceed and fail with little or no serious consequences to the overall program of the troop. If they suceed, they become a great lead by example patrol for others to learn from. If they fail, the PLC and other more skilled scouts can offer suggestions, assistance, encouragement, etc. but the ultimate success of the patrol has to constantly be pushed back into the patrols. If they don't get back on their horse after being thrown, the leadership lesson will be lost to that patrol. Every time an adult steps in and corrects, directs, mandates, issues ultimatums, etc. they are basically telling the boys they are not leading, they can't lead, and somebody has to step up to the plate and it isn't going to be the boys. I see this constantly among the troop-led or adult-led units. And thus the ownership of the patrol is lost and the interest and growth won't happen. The #1 responsbility of the PLC and adults is to make sure the patrols are independent, confident, trained, encouraged, and celebrated in their accomplishments. This is what the patrol-method is all about. If the patrol is not #1 in the program, then it's not the patrol-method in my book at least. And anyway, that's how we operate and it works great and if it ain't broken, we don't intend to fix it. Stosh

When a discussion goes against one's point, the next step is to attack the opponent. 1) Yes I have had training, Cub Fundamentals, Webelos Fundamentals, Webelos Outdoors, SM Fundamentals,, Venturing Fundamentals, hold a PhD in the University of Scouting and Wood Badge. I have also taught each one of those levels except Wood Badge. I have almost 20 years in scouting as an adult leader and I'm a professionally trained counselor. 2) A pedigree doesn't count. If a rookie SM sees himself stepping in too much and interfering with the operations of the boy-led patrol method, then he's got a leg up on most SM's who insist on doing such things. The main point of my observation was simply an appropriate interpretation is needed, not just lipservice quotes out of BSA literature. Not to pick on John, but his comment was what took me almost 10 years to correct and still fall prey to on occasion. He had two patrols wishing to realign. In order to "protect" his PLC and SPL, HE STEPPED IN!!! This is #1 problem. His interference did more damage to the integrity of the SPL's leadership and PLC's authority than the 2 patrols did. Every time the situation gets sticky and the leader steps in, they rob the boy of his opportunity to lead and undermines his authority in front of the other boys. ALL BSA literature has the adults coaching, supporting, never directing and never stepping in to correct. If two patrols wish to realign, let them. If they don't leave them alone. Let the boy-led patrol be a boy-led patrol and keep others from stepping in and interfering with their work. Please show me in any BSA literature where it says a SM steps in and runs the show when things get a little heated or when the troop wishes to mandate to patrols, thus undermining the patrol method. The troop and adults are there to assist the patrols, not dictate to them nor direct them. That's what the patrol method is all about. The only consideration would be in terms of safety and/or scouting principles of the Oath and Law. Otherwise, let the boys lead themselves on the patrol level and support them with the PLC, Troop, and adult resources. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

"Yes, that is what most troops around here do. Otherwise, you end up with Patrols all based on age, which can lead to competition problems. This method allows the younger Scouts to work with older boys in the other patrols, and see other styles of leadership. They learn how to work with others who haven't been their friend since 1st Grade. It also allows the troop to balance the patrols as boys leave. And yes, this method IS in the BSA literature - Scoutmaster Handbook, pg. 20" Competition problems? Older boys setting a good example of leading by example, and younger boys emmulating them? Why does the venture patrol get to do neat things and we can't? That policy is setting an example of double-standard hypocracy and kids see through that rather quickly. And if you compare that principle against NBP, regular patrols and Venture patrols, how can you justify not have differing age groups? Then you have young scouts that aren't old enough to go on high adventure and older boys dropping out because they are held back by less experienced boys who are operating on a different social and maturity level. If you have need of older boys working with the younger, that's what Troop Guides and Instructors are for. It also might mean an older patrol would work up a program of working with the NBP to spend time with their advancement. This is what the PLC is for. To work out the dynamics of inter-patrol activities. They should be able to do that without interfering in the autonomy of each patrol. For example: SPL: "The NBP has made a request for help with lashing. Any patrol interesting in helping out?" Patrol of older boys: "Sure, we'll meet as a patrol, get the program together and let the PL, Instructor and Troop Guide know when we're ready." This can all happen without SPL, ASPL, SM or anyone else for that matter feeling their authority to run the show being threatened. Also the reference to this style of "leadership" doesn't come from the PL or ASPL hand book but the SM handbook. It sure doesn't seems to reemphasize boy-led where the only reference to such a practice comes from the adult handbook. Boy led is very difficult when the adults are stepping in and dictating policy and procedure. This is a sure guarantee that the boys will lose interest when it's the adult decisions that are being mandated, especially when those mandates and policies means they can't hang out with their friends anymore. Unfortunately they WILL hang out with their friends, but they won't be doing it in the scouting program. Our boys are not age layered and it's not because an SPL or SM said so. Recently two of the patrols have experienced loss of membership and have just recently negotiated a merger of the patrols. This means they are, at their initiative and without any outside interference, have begun the process of renaming the patrol, ordering new patrol patches, getting a new yell and electing new officers. No adult or PLC member said they could or couldn't do this it was their decision. No SPL was bent out of shape for not being involved, the SM hinted to me it was about time they did it, and there wasn't so much as a ripple in anyone's ego. The new patrol seems very pleased with THEIR decision.

Breaking up patrols and realigning them according to arbitrary rules created for the welfare of the troop is definitely not the patrol method. My NBP was told that this group will be together until they decide differently. They named themselves, picked out a yell, and began the process of binding themselves together with the appropriate esprit-de-corps and teamwork. Ok, now once they are good pards and have been together since first grade tigers, we're going to break the group up and redistribute them into other patrols who are losing members to girls and cars. What a totally bogus dynamic! And then the SM wonders why his older boys dump the program! If a patrol is struggling they have the option to deciding themselves what would be best for them. IF they ask the SPL for help, fine. If they don't the SPL and ASPL's are to stay out of the affairs of the patrol. That's why they are not in a patrol in the first place. They are there to help if asked, but never to step in and take over. The NBP in our troop is no longer the NBP when the next group of Webelos crosses over and takes over the NBP title. But regardless of their rank, regardless of their age, regardless of what the adults think, regardless of any outside influence. This is not an issue of safety, it's an issue of patrol autonomy. With that being said, if the boys within the two patrols wish to realign on their own without any outside interference, fine. This is their decision, their directive, their call. If this "undermines" the authority of the SPL, TOO BAD! The first page of the SPL handbook states the SPL should apply the principles of servant leadership. He's there to help if necessary, but never to dictate. One does not serve by dictating. The troop is there to serve the patrols, not vice versa. "Jblake, What do the boys want? The motivated want to get together and expressed it at Green Bar last night. I feel it necessary to have the SPL, and two ASPL's involved with the process as it is their troop and if I allow two patrols to do what they please, it would undermine the authority and position of the SPL & ASPL's." If you allow the patrols to do what they please, you will have a functional patrol method troop. If one thinks the authority and position of the SPL and ASPL's are threatened, then they are functioning incorrectly. They are to attend to the affairs of the troop, not interfere in the affairs of the patrols. Otherwise the method being used is the troop method and I find nothing in the scouting literature that supports that. The patrol method does indeed work and in the case of this example may show it more effectively if the SM and PLC keep out of it. We have allowed our patrols to function independently. If one patrol is better run than another, the others see that and step it up. If the slaggards of one patrol end up missing out, then they miss out. It's their choice. If they want to step up their game, then the patrol method works. My patrols are always asking, "How come the other patrol gets to do that?" and the standard answer is, "Who said you couldn't do it too?" Patrol competition doesn't just happen at camporees, it happens at each and every troop meeting when the boys have a chance to compare notes as to who's doing what. Lead by example! It applies to patrols as well as individual scouts. The patrol method works, but only if the troop, the PLC and adult leaders don't interfere. Unless it's an issue of safety or scouting principles, the troop, PLC and adults stay out of it and let the boy-led patrols use the tried and true patrol method to figure it out. That's how leaders are developed. Stosh Stosh

Sorry, I still don't buy it. One may wish to justify it anyway they wish, but addressing another person by "namecalling" always implies a negative and demeaning value. It may be part of male "bonding", but that bonding is nothing more than pecking order and ego building. Our troop forbids any namecalling of any sort. If one must address another person they have a name, use it. I refer to my boys in the same respectful manner they refer to me. "Mr. Smith...." Sometimes it causes confusion when their parents are around, but I call their parents by their first name. If a boy holds rank, he gets a salute and normally a reference to his position. "Mr. SPL..." The closest thing we have to not adhereing to this formula is our Honor's Patrol. They are the RAVENS and carry a raven patrol flag and use the raven emblem on patrol items. They however, all wear a different (black and red) historical patrol patch unique to them. My SPL is "Moose". My other two are "Elk" and "Squirrel". When I am talking to them not in front of the boys, I refer to them by their nick-names. The use of names can and does build respect in a group and will build better bonding in the form of espirit-de-corps rather than good-old-boy hanging out that happens when that respect isn't present. Anyone can be part of a respectful group. Only good old boys can be part of a good-old-boy group. Therefore, all name-calling whether it's a wink, wink, atta boy name or a flat out put-down is forbidden. In the past 15 years, this lack of name calling has not been a problem in our troop and we have great team work and respect for each other in the process. Stosh

In the midst of this discussion two issues are being ignored. 1) What do the boys want to do? 2) Only the patrols involved should be part of the process. If your group of boys is truly scout-led and patrol-method, then it's no one's business except those boys involved. Obviously no one wants a department manager from the other end of the building coming over and making decisions about your work process in your department. Part of leadership building is decision making, problem solving, and living with the consequences. The best you can do is SUPPORT THEM IN THEIR DECISION and stay out of the process as much as possible. Otherwise, the boys will learn (what they already have figured out in this example) if you sit on your butt long enough someone else will step up and do the work. Sounds like the PL's are looking for someone else to make pertinant decisions regarding their patrol. Not a good idea. Stosh

Congratulations, John, you are beginning to better understand what the patrol method is all about. It's not about troops, it's about patrols, their independence, their espirit-de-corps and their stability as a group. A troop is a confederation of independent patrols, NOT an independent entity with patrol sub-groups. The troop serves the patrols not vice versa. Stosh

This whole process and the accompanying lip service to the patrol method have always intrigued me. Whereas the basic tenents of scouting solidly support the patrol method, very few if any really use it anymore as it was originally intended in the beginning. The patrols are there for the troop and the SPL runs the troop and that person isn't even a patrol member. How can that logic apply and make sense to the patrol method? A non-patrol member runs the patrol method program. Please explain! The chain of command in modern scouting is the reverse of what scouting was set up to be in the first place. First of all a patrol was 8 members. Well what if your local town had 12 boys interested in scouting? Start another patrol. Each patrol was independent and was it's own highest authority in the program. If the boys wished to go to a common campout, they might have gone together, but not necessarily. When they camped they separated themselves to the tune of a suggested 200'. Does this dynamic even remotely suggest the "patrol-method" program of today's scouts? The reason the patrol method doesn't work today is because we have no idea what it means. We have the troop-method and the "patrols" support the troop. The dynamic of Baden-Powell's ideals have been totally reversed. This is why the dynamics of scouting have been watered down and redefined in order to accommodate a program far different than what scouting was intended to do. One of our districts even suggested that in order to build inter-troop espirit-de-corps, troops would be redivided into patrols of mixed boys for the competitions. Excuse me? But not to fear, when I suggested at our camporee that the boys register as patrols instead of troops, I was basically ignored. There will be a troop gateway competition and if the boys want patrol gateways, they can have them but they won't be judged. Modern scouting is not patrol-method scouting, no matter how one wishes to excuse it. We promote troop-method scouting, period.

I did read the post. Please provide an example where name calling is not bullying. Please also include what bullying is defined to be. Stosh

Name calling isn't bullying? Name calling is always a form of belittling and belittling is the #1 goal of a bully. A good bully can intimidate and belittle with a look and doesn't have to even say a word. Any such "dirty looks", name calling, or physical intimidation are strictly forbidden in our troop. If the boys can't come and feel encouraged and a valued part of the team/patrol/troop, then something's going to be done to correct the problem. Stosh

Our boys did this at a camporee and the EAA people did an outstanding job. Stosh

Ok, now I'm confused. Camp staff can sign off on merit badges, but they can't for T2FC? Ok, then why have a T2FC program at camp if it's only an orientation program and not for real? As far as MB at camp for the new boys, they get swimming and first aid which gives them indepth study of the T2FC requirements and then they are encouraged to take a "fun" MB. If they take pioneering or orientation those apply to T2FC as well. I guess I find it difficult to explain to the boys that attend the NB program at camp why at the COH after summer camp all the older boys get MB's and they get to redo all their advancement requirements they just did at camp. Unless someone can answer my boys to their satisfaction, I guess we'll just go with the MB program at camp for all the boys. Stosh

Somehow I get the feeling that it is acceptable to have the SPL run the troop. According to that logic the CC is responsible for running the Troop on the adult side. What's the true chain of command for the boys?

This type of behavior is a direct result of changes that have been occuring in our culture in the past few years. A decline in tolerance, diplomacy and tact have been reflective of an increase in coersion, bullying and violent force to "motivate" people. This establishes the environment of fear in which these people have the upper hand. Unless specific leadership training occurs and is reinforced with appropriate examples, this problem will continue and fragmentation of units (and society in general) will continue it's negative spiral. There are leadership styles that promote espirit-de-corps rather than fear to motivate the members of the "team". Once we overcome the drive for competetive assertion and begin reinforcing cooperation and balanced value of team members, an opportunity for your leaders to step up will naturally follow. Name calling and bullying are normal in the adolescent years and eventually go away when the person realizes it is not accomplishing what they were intended to do. However, more and more this behavior does continue to produce desired results and so is reinforced promoting a more violent coersion of team members. Resentment and voting with the feet will eventually tear the group apart and the bully will merely seek another group to influence. As long as such behavior is not confronted, it will continue indefinitely. There are a lot of people who never grow out of such behavior. Once people realize there are more effective behaviors and produce a more productive result, the adolescent will mature and change accepting these more effective means to leadership. Stosh

I used to do all the council training for Webelos Outdoor. However, once they dropped the mandatory to it and allowed Webelos leaders to take their boys out into the woods without sufficient training, I jumped ship. It never ceased to amaze me that Webelos leadership would show up for the outdoor training with a new tent and receipt from the local department store they stopped at on the way out to training. They had no idea how to set it up. BUT, they came and they learned, and they watched others and they had a good time. They learned to cook on a fire (after starting it of course) and all kinds of skills necessary to insure the boys going out with a person who has done this stuff at least ONCE BEFORE! I am Cub trained, Webelos and Webelos Outdoor trained, SM Fundamentals trained, Venturer trained, and Woodbadge trained. I hold a PhD in University of Scouting and still I could use more training. The boys always have something new up their sleeves and getting the heads up before hand is important. There is no such thing as over-trained, but there surely is such a thing as under-trained. Without trained adults, there should be no program, because the quality of program thrown together by untrained people is not doing a service to the boys.

We find that unless the boy specifically wishes to attend the NB activities at camp, we don't encourage it. The boys previously would attend these sessions at camp and then come back and not have anything "checked off". No records means we end up doing it all over again anyway. (That's a nice way of saying, the boys basically wasted their advancement time at camp.) Instead we have the boys take First Aid and Swimning MB at camp and by accomplishing those we feel they have fulfilled their T2FC requirements in those areas. They end up with something when they're done and appropriate records are transferred. We also find that we need to prepare these boys for summer camp and to wait until camp time, we're behind the 8-ball. Toten Chit, packing, camping out, etc. all are necessary and must be under their belts before they go off to camp. To wait until Thursday afternoon to get the Toten Chit traning at camp leaves this boy for 3 1/2 days of playing with his knife at camp before he gets the training. That dynamic doesn't bode well with our troop. None of these NB's that go ever come back with a clear understanding of what they were supposed to be doing and whether or not they actually did it or just saw it demonstrated. I guess we feel we need a better grasp of the situation and we don't think it's worth an ASM's time to go and observe. Instead, the interaction between NB's and older scouts far suits our troop needs than just picking up advancment at summer camp. Stosh

The forums which have the least amount of visible moderation are the most successful. I have been a moderator for over 10 years on numerous forums (not this one) and have found that off-forum moderation is by far the best recourse to take. Most of the forum members do not know moderation is being done, except the person committing the infraction. This lack of distraction by the moderators goes a long way to insure a balanced and civil discussion. Forums that have problems are usually ones that limit discussion topics to anything non-controversial. Will shut down threads. Will delete posts. Will moderate in front of the forum, i.e. tell everyone to knock it off or post a list of rules, etc. I haven't been on this forum all that long, but as far as I can see, things seem to be very well run. Stosh

In our troop, the SPL is the leader of the leaders. He is not head program honcho. He does not lead the meetings, nor does he run the show. He coordinates other leaders. Each patrol in the troop is to be prepared to run the meeting with a flag ceremony, a training time, game time, and closing ceremony. The topic is up to them. They have to be ready when asked by the SPL to step up to the plate. Once they have done their program, they immediately begin planning their next opportunity. The SPL moves from patrol to patrol and assists them with their leadership when planning and when it's time to let the patrol know the following week they will be presenters. If the patrol leadership is having a difficult time being prepared, the SPL works with the two leaders to assist them in developing the expertise to do their jobs. If there is a need to coordinate between patrols, the SPL steps in to assist this process. If an older boy patrol wishes to do some training that would provide advancement for the NBP, the SPL would coordinate/facilitate that inter-patrol cooperation. If one is using their SPL to do all the work, no new blood will be developed, and your SPL will burn out rather quickly. Anyone watching this process would be a fool to step up and take the heat. Leadership is built from the bottom up. The SPL is responsible for the leadership development, not the running the troop. Stosh

After 20 years in the district having served many different committees, on train in Cubbing, Webelos, Webelos Outdoor, Scoutmaster Fundamentals and Venturing trained programs, (many of which I have gone on to lead), been unit leader in two different units, woodbadge trained (C9W-93), active outside of scouting, etc. etc. etc. and because I have never been "active" in the roundtables and chummed up to the others who vote, I won't ever receive the DAM award. Here it makes no difference what your "qualifications" are, it's who you know and who's your buddy. This past year, after being nominated for the award for the past 15 years, (I know how Susan Lucci feels!), once more I was passed up. The District Executive made a special visit to apologize for the traditional slighting. In this case, the award is given based on politics and the good-old-boy network. The lady who was a first year cubmaster and who organized the district dinner, and an Eagle Scout who's been an ASM for 3 years, were honored. Nothing wrong with these credentials, but there are a lot of other leaders who are too busy working with their boys to get such recognition. Because of this, it's value has indeed been reduced to a mere shadow of what it was intended to convey. Smooze and glad-handing is how one goes about getting the award. And as far as my smoozing is concerned, my two units are in two different districts so my efforts will always be divided. It's a good thing I do this scouting thingy for the boys and not myself, I would have quit years ago. I have resolved myself to the fact that if the district ever decides to award me the DAM award, they can come to one of our troop's COH and my SPL can make the presentation. Otherwise, forget it. Sorry for the whiney venting, but sometimes it is obvious that scouting isn't always what it says it is. Stosh

There's nothing in the book to say that these older skills are now taboo to be taught. My honor patrol scouts all wear a Myer's Code flag as a patrol neckerchief and know how to use it. They use Morse Code rather than Myer's Code, however. They also know how to tie a Turk's Head Knot to hold their neckerchief in place. While they are at it, they are also learning to cook at a level far higher than that set down by the minimum requirements of first class requirement or the cooking merit badge. As a matter of fact, the last time we went out on an outing the troop had the traditional hobo dinner (foil dinners). One member of the honor patrol collected up all the hobo dinner food for the venture patrol and they feasted on mashed potatoes with hamburger/onion gravy with glazed carrots on the side. It got one pot dirty from boiling the potatoes and glazing the carrots and a cast-iron fry pan dirty which took all of 2 mintues to clean up. Remember, all these "requirements" for advancement are pretty much just the bare minimum just to get by. The venture patrol also has a boy very well versed in flint and steel and they are all working on who's going to be the best with drill and bow. Too often once the requirements are met it means the end of the story. That's a major disservice to our boys. First Class Scout means the boy has reached the minimum level of self knowledge to survive on a basic level for a simple campout. He's no Jim Bridger once he makes First Class. Give the boys more opportunity. Those old requirements are extremely fun to work on as a specialty activity. Don't deprive your boys of some great opportunities. Stosh

Here's how we have solved the problem. ADD/ADHD are the problem of the kid and are ultimately responsible to their parents. If they mark on their health forms they take medications they are required to bring those medications while on any and all scouting events. The health form is signed by a physician and that doctor is ultimately responsible for the prescription drug and its usage. If a parent decides their child is to take a medication holiday, they can have to attend the activity/campout and deal with the problems that will occur because of their decision. Otherwise the boy cannot go without his medical form medications. It's not just for the ADD/ADHD boys. If a boy needs an epi kit, it has to be on his person at all times, or if he's diabetic he has to have his insulin. WE ARE NOT DOCTORS, we are scout leaders and we are there to insure all the kids are safe. Go with the health forms, we have them filled out by a qualified doctor for a very good reason!!!! Stosh

Pre-pay their dues when they recharter/register. We used to collect dues weekly and if a boy got behind he had to pay up to go on an activity. Too much hassle. Now just pay once a year and be done with it.