Stosh

I can understand the conflict between different fund raising events, but to use the application to deny an opportunity with no other conflicts other than they want to do it is just plain mean. The CO owns the unit, the CO's non-profit status is used for the fund raising opportunity, I would think as long as there are no direct conflicts, a little MYOB on the part of the council is in order. A unit wants to sell Christmas wreaths in the neighborhood. The CO is a church. The boys sell wreaths for the CO and the CO makes a nice generous donation to the scout unit. I don't see the need for any application. Of course the boys won't be wearing any scout uniforms and BSA wouldn't be getting any neighborhood recognition, but it's a nice cooperative gesture between CO and unit.

Hmmm..... I don't speak Russian. But is this an ad for some new back country Siberian scout trailer?

Welcome to the forum, Noah. First of all a mentor is selected by an individual. There is nothing to say that one can't sit down and have a cup of coffee with whomever they want to discuss their Eagle project. If one's troop "assigns" a mentor, that's pretty much window dressing and formality. The individual still retains the right to pick whoever they wish to be the real mentor. I have never been a mentor to any Eagle candidate, yet I have mentor pins on my jac-shirt. I had no idea I had mentored anyone or they felt I mentored them until called up at the scout's ECOH. I had 6 boys that I was WDL for and thus came into my Boy Scout group. Long story short? They all Eagled...none with any "mentors". They all gave their mentor pins to their dads, and I'm thinking the real mentoring was among themselves. I have never been in a troop where mentors are even discussed, it is up to the individual eagle candidate to select their own mentors and the identity of those people are not known until the ECOH. By the way, I'm very antiquated....

People have a leader whether they follow him/her or not. The rationale for following is dependent on whether or not the individual feels they are gaining something for doing so. It might be security, financial gain, political privilege or whatever that person deems as important enough to hang around those who provide that for them. If Joe Schmoe down the street is handing out $100 bills on the street corner of Elm and Main and the next day he hands out those bills on the street corner of Walnut and main, people will follow him and continue to do so no matter where he leads as long as he hands out $100 bills each day. They only follow because he provides economic benefits for them. It could be he carries a bigger gun than others in the neighborhood and so if one is looking for security, hang out nearer to him....no matter where he goes. Unless people feel they are gaining a benefit of some sort from another individual they will follow them as their leader. Once that benefit is gone, they will seek that benefit from someone else and will thus discontinuing the following of that person's leadership. On the other hand if forced to stay nearby to this "leader" because he has a gun to your head, that's not really leadership because at the first possible opportunity they find, they will go elsewhere. Fear and/or intimidation will not maintain any sort of true leadership. The SPL that tells a scout you will do something....or else, is not leading anyone The patrol of older that doesn't want to go along with the other 5 patrols in the troop to go to the same summer camp now for the 6th straight year will show remarkable absenteeism when it comes time to go to camp. They aren't following, and unless some leadership, i.e. the PL decides that they as a patrol will summer camp elsewhere, will they in turn follow their PL. If the troop continues to provide no benefit for the older boys' patrol, that absenteeism will become more and more permanent. I see it happening all the time. The SM's blame it on cars, girls, sports and jobs. I blame it on the lack of leadership in the program that was promised and not provided. By the way @@TAHAWK the biography on Stalin is a fascinating read, too bad he didn't stay with his studies in the Orthodox priesthood. The promise of power provided by the Communist movement must have been a big draw for him. Lenin's leadership, not Stalin's led to his rise in power.

Let's look at the historic situation. Hitler -- The German people had suffered greatly and were systematically held back following the armistice of WW I. They were held restrictive by a number of other countries around the world. When a charismatic figure appears promising great things for the future of Germany, the purity of the German nation and a ton of other perks for the oppressed people in the middle of a double whammy, the War and the Depression, is it any wonder they flocked by the thousands to Hitler's "I'm-going-to-take-care-of-you" political emphasis. Austria-Hungry jumped at the chance to unite into this panacea. It was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST party, everyone's going to benefit from this new form of government. It's the same promise that the government is going to take care of you message that's been around for about a hundred years now. Stalin -- The savior of the Russian people of WW II, like Roosevelt (a beloved president) and Churchill who held out against all odds FOR THE PEOPLE! It wasn't until after the war when political currents convinced him of the plots against him did he begin the extermination of his political rivals, or assumed political rivals. Once the political situation changed from serving to mandating, it's really difficult to buck "city hall" and be the first one to question the changes that one sees occurring all around. Of course propaganda machines of the Third Reich didn't do much FOR the people as it did AGAINST any political dissension. I think that historically most of these tyrants started out with a caring cause for the people (Jim Jones) and somewhere on down the road the ball got rolling fast enough to simply jump the tracks and take on a whole different bent than that which was the original intent. What happens in the political world can also happen in the religious world as well, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, Jim Jones, etc. There's nothing to say that on a small scale these dynamics are still alive and well and are acted out quite literally in our governments, our schools, our social programs and our religions. One just has to know the tipping point and keep as far as possible away from it. I think that many of these tyrannical leaders historically started out with thinking they were helping people and the people thought so as well. Over time, things change and in these cases, not for the good.

When I was a kid, my parents did not attend Cub Scout activities except pack meetings and potlucks. The DL and ADL were the only two adults I was familiar with. They did everything. When my son was in Cub Scouts, he and I attended Tiger activities together along with all the other boys and their parent(s) After that I didn't attend any more den meetings with him, only pack meetings because I was awards chair of the committee. I was ASM when he was in Boy Scouts and I stayed on after he quit scouting at the Star rank. I guess it was somewhere after Tigers that we "went our separate ways". I have no idea when and where Cub Scouts became "family", but I did notice the "parent involvement" aspects of Boy Scouts has been creeping in in recent years. Whereas I wouldn't call it babysitting, I find it strange that parents somehow feel the need to be bonding with their children in the Boy Scout program when they have far more time if they drag their kid out from in front of the TV/computer and do these things at home. As has been mentioned, join the YMCA if you wish to have family bonding time at a membership expense. Don't try and make all other programs a generic YMCA program. BSA is supposed to be a young man's opportunity to grow into adulthood, not drag his family along with him. Growing int adulthood holds quite a bit of separation and independence FROM the family, not a mere continuation of it on into adulthood. In some cultures the onset of adulthood occurs around 12-13 years of age, in our culture it's been pushed back well into the 20's. Legally it is 18, but that's restricted to just certain areas. If one can be on their parent's health insurance until 26, that's still one apron string that hasn't been loosened.

Nope! They may try and set up a competing stand next door, but they can't do anything about yours and it will look a bit disingenuous on their part if they do.

Welcome to the forum!!

Leadership by fear and intimidation is not the kind of approach I wish to present to my boys. Hitler - Arian bigotry, Tthere were those who were being served and they went to war for him. Stalin - Political paranoia Castro - Did anyone really have a chance to do elsewise? 30 years of fleeing the country at the risk of life and/or limb? etc. This is Leadership? Look closely, not that many were really following because they wanted to and they were pretty much those who personally benefited the most from such "leadership". And really, is this what anyone in BSA teaches as leadership? I think there are those do more Peter F. Drucker approach and call it leadership. I will stick with Robert Greenleaf.

Just like any other elected "servant" if they don't serve, they don't lead because those who are not being served are off looking for real leadership. I have noticed that over the years, the boys tend to put those who work in the positions that need work.... it really cuts down on the selection by popularity or idle promises.

I think the main reason why the boys select the SPL differently than most troops is because of how they define the role. When the boys are focused on patrol as the core component of the program, troop activities are pretty much add on, focused mainly on opening and closing flags and the rest of the time is functional patrol operations. The SPL really doesn't have much on his plate and is mostly an informational gathering agent who runs around keeping the PL's informed of Camporee, Summer Camp, etc. activities. The role is usually "assigned" by the PL's, usually an APL. In former troops, the boys had this nominal SPL. No one really wanted to be the SPL and functioned well without it. Once we got up to 4 patrols, the role began to take on more assistance for the PL's and they selected one of the APL's to fill that role on a regular basis. I think they did it because none of them wanted to give up their position of PL. I've pretty much ignored the whole process in that as long as everyone's happy, I'm not going to "fix" anything.

I totally agree with rules create order and in many respects offer a sense of comfort in the ability to trust in them. But like Mom telling you don't touch the stove, it's hot, one just has to check it out for themselves. It is within the realm of Scouting that knowing the basic rules as taught by pastors, teachers and parents, there still is going to be a bit of envelop stretching at this age and why not at least make it as safe as possible. There are two line of thoughts that pass through my awareness on this subject. One is that the boys like to break/bend rules a bit and some are safer to break than playing in the fire pit. So they pick their own PL. Why not? So do they use paper ballot? raising hands? voice vote, rock-paper-scissors? So they collaborated and came up with Johnny as PL. Was it an election? Was it collaboration? was it a meeting of the minds? Did no one else want the position? Did Johnny select the short straw? Did he volunteer? What difference does it make Johnny's the PL until the patrol decides otherwise. If Johnny does a good job, they may keep him around for 6 months, a year, or maybe two or three. What difference does it make Everyone's content with the status quo. So Johnny works his tail off getting the boys all to summer camp and it's time to have someone go to the SPL meeting. Johnny is a bit burned out and sends his APL Pete to the meeting. Johnny takes it easy now that everyone is taken care of for the week. He still does his PL job, but it's a time of healing for him and no adults on his case about not taking a full load of MB's. Instead he keeps the fire going and reads a book. The patrol members don't care, why should the adults? Sometimes we all need to get our batteries recharged and some of the best lessons I have learned over the years have been from the boys on what's important and what's not. Elections are not that important. Getting the right person in the right position to get the job done is.

It's not that we disagree, it's just that we adopt a stance from different starting points. I adhere to the boy led concept in a more pure form which means I don't tag a bunch of adult led rules for them to follow as a prerequisite to thus adopting their leading under the direction of adult rules. Sure the boys teeter at times with some political, best buddy being selected, but that's going to happen either way. But the added rule that the boys THEN need to stick with that mistake for 6 months or a year doesn't bode well for me, so I don't have a rule that says that mistakes have to be endured to build character. They can fix their mistake at their own discretion, not the discretion of some adult's rule. There will be mistakes made either way, but if someone's going to get caught holding the bag, it shouldn't be some adult who has made up some restrictive, because-I-said-so, rules. I have seen this done and it ends up doing nothing but punishing the boys for a bad mistake they can't fix. SM: Johnny, where Tommy? Johnny: He went out for basketball and won't be around much for a few months so as APL I'm taking over and Pete is going to be my APL. Not much of a discussion, but the situation works out just fine. If the other patrol members don't like the setup, they can always vote in a new PL at any time. Not my problem to begin with, not my problem to solve. Time for another cup of coffee....all's right with the world. Is that dialog above for real? Yep, happened twice. Once with football, once with basketball, and the names were changed to protect the innocent.

Not all boys if left to their own resources turn into the Lord of the Flies. Situations, like snowflakes, no two are the same. Not all fit into the one-size-fits-all category. There's an exception to every rule. There's always a lot more discomfort trying to force a round peg in a square hole. We all learn best from our failures, if one never fails, they never learn.

Women tend to be more resilient to having things a bit chaotic. They have had to raise children, duh! Men on the other hand are driven to make things correct when encountering chaos. Their stepping into "fix" things is not a good recipe for boy led, patrol method programming. The boys need the opportunity to learn how to fix things themselves. They aren't going to do that with dad stepping in and making the problem go away before the boy even has a chance to know things are on the blink.

If it didn't look like a scout meeting, didn't smell like a scout meeting, you didn't do scout meeting things, etc. then it doesn't sound like a scout meeting to me.

We don't send our MC's to YPT and position specific training, we have the trainers come in and do it in our group. It's called our annual adult program training potluck. It is well attended. It's like a mini-U of Scouting. Maybe we ought to call it the High School of Scouting....

In high school, I developed the ability to fly under the radar. Never got bullied, but it was 4 years of my life I would never want to repeat. Never dated until my senior year when my dad paid me $50 to "take a girl to prom". Sat second chair in all musical groups. Joined a lot of clubs, especially the dorky ones like French and Latin.... Was a trainer for the basketball team, never played the game. Could outrun every member of the cross-country team except one, but never joined the team. Friends with everyone in the special education group and many of those in the not-popular, but nice, group

There's a method to my madness when it comes to having all adults registered as MC's. 1) They all pay their registration. It doesn't cost the troop anything. Because they have a $$ stake in the game they are more apt to take on requests throughout the year. 2) They are all YPT trained and know the routine. 3) They are all trained in their role as MC (taking them from the role of "just a parent" to a member of the committee, i.e. focus from just their scout to all the scouts. 4) Most apt to react in the affirmative if asked to drive, go on an outing, sit on a BOR, etc.

My former troop figured this process out quite well, my new troop is still struggling in the learning curve, but we're getting there.

When I was a Cub Scout, I came down for breakfast one morning and there next to my spoon was a Cub Scout pocket knife. I had earned the Whittlin' Chit a few days earlier....... I bet I'm the only Boy Scout that still carries a Cub Scout pocket knife.

8 Scouts 1 SM (not parent) 2 ASM (1 parent, 1 not parent) CC (parent) All other parents registered as MC

If the PL's are doing their job of taking care of their boys, then it is the PL who decides on the POR's for advancement. If the boy doesn't want an POR or isn't qualified, then the PL can put him in as Patrol QM to learn the ropes, same for Scribe, etc. Instructors are always in demand. If a boy want to be TG, a stint assigned to DC would do well for him and get a double POR in the process. Boys who can't progress in rank because a POR is holding them back isn't being very creative. As far as PL's getting elected to multiple "terms", my PL's stay in that position until either they want out, age out or are forced out. I don't promote terms. If a NSP PL does a good job taking care of his boys, why not have him stay in that position until he ages out at 18? If the adults don't agree with that, then by all means turn it into an adult led program so everyone has their fair shot at "trying" out a POR for rank advancement. If things don't go well under this system, then be fair....blame the adults, not the boys.

@@thrifty You bring up a good point in that by the time one adds into the mix, mega-amounts of prerequisites designed by the adults, and the popularity/politics of the boys, it is a recipe for problems down the road. I have had Scout ranked boys in the NSP do very well their first year when mentored by a skilled TG. I have had Scout ranked boy in the first year of the troop (i.e. NSP with no older boys to help out), do very well their first year even when not mentored by a skilled TG. I have had TF scouts function very well as SPL at summer camp. I have had Life scouts that weren't worth a nickel on the open market. That's why I stay out of it. If something goes wrong, I'm off the hook and the boys have the responsibility AND AUTHORITY to make it right. If that means if Star Scout Joey isn't doing the job, TF Mikey can be put in his place if that's what the others think best. If Star Scout Joey wants to keep his position, he'd better do the work! After all the years I have been SM I have never had to referee any leadership problems in the troop. Either a patrol puts in good leadership or it falls apart and gets dissolved into other patrols and NO adults are ever involved in the "process/problem". The really nice thing about boy led, patrol method is the fact that the adults never take the heat for anything going wrong. If they do, it's probably because they were meddling where they weren't supposed to be in the first place.

This is why I avoid the whole process altogether. I have a selection process in place that works just fine for the boys. They never seem to mind and I have no problem with the work not getting done. All PL's are selected by the member of the patrol. He selects his APL to work with him. If there becomes a need for an SPL (4-5 patrols) then that person is selected by the PL's and the ASPL is selected by the SPL to work with him. If the troop is big enough and the demand strong enough, multiple ASPL's could be selected to cover the workload. All other positions are simply covered by the scout wanting to do them. A boy needs a POR and didn't get selected as a PL so he goes to the PL's and asks if he can do the QM position for 6 months (for example). The PL/PLC says okay, knock yourself out. If he does a nice job his PL signs off on that requirement. Otherwise if no POR for rank is required, the job is done within the patrols under the leadership of the PL. One needs equipment inventoried, the QM from Patrol A does it. If there is a Patrol B, then the two QM's work it out. If three, then it can start to get a bit spicy, and maybe a "designated QM" to watch over things might be selected from the QM's by the PLC to keep the fur from flying too much. Somehow the work gets done, everyone's happy and there's very little popularity politicin' going on. No one "runs" for office so they can wear a patch. For the most, other than the PL's (for ID purposes) no one really gets all that worked up about wearing POR patches. I also need to mention that the "term" of office is for however long the boy does the job. If the patrol members are happy with the PL he can stay in that position for as long as he wishes. If the boy isn't doing a good job, he could be replaced in a heartbeat.