JMHawkins

Since Mrs. Engineer is handing off the AC job, that sounds like a perfect time for the Pack to make some policy changes to smooth things out. When our pack got a new AC last year, she made it a requirement of her taking the job that the troop use ScoutTracks and that all advancement be entered in there. Now, that said, she still does take last minute requests from Den Leaders, but parents are not badgering her. It's a little harder to make those changes when it's the same person doing the job because people expect old habits, but a new person in the job has a little leverage.

A phone call is no more interrupting than an email or text message. When my phone rings, it is my option to answer or not - same as with any other mode of communication. Sure, its your option to answer or not, but a text message still is less of an interruption than a phone call. A phone call is a request to speak with you. A text message is a note for you to read. Speaking is a more immediate request. Sure the caller can leave voice mail, but even that is more of a burden on the recipient to fetch and listen to the message than it is to read a text message. Also, a text message can be discretely read, and even responded to, without interrupting a larger group (this maybe is the problem many old fuddies have with texting eh? That kids can pass notes instead of listening to the adult lecturing them?). In terms of a hierarchy, I think unprompted phone calls are urgent, text messages are normal ephemeral requests, and email is for stuff that ought to be archived, or requires more presentation space (e.g. Mr. SM, heres next years proposed troop calendar from our planning session last week please let us know if you and the ASMs can provide coverage.). Snail mail is for ceremonial things (e.g. invitations to a EBoR). I'm supposed to have access to and use multiple mediums to hit everyone. May as well include telegraph, smoke signals and jungle drums to the list. Lets bring back Signaling MB for real! FWIW, in my work, we've started using Skype heavily - even when we are all in the same location.

For our brand new troop, Summer Camp last year was great. The troop was all of 4 months old. A lot of strong friendships were built in the troop over that week, and what has emerged as our leadership corps really started to gel then. I hope that by the time these guys age out, they will have plenty of other bigger adventures to look back on, sea kayaking the San Juans, or through-hiking Olympic National Park maybe, but for a bunch of kids without much outdoor experience, Summmer Camp was a fantastic introduction to a week (mostly) outdoors. Seeing other troops was good for them too (and for us SMASMs). There were troops with big, cool, older kids (our oldest is 13) who were into it, as well as citified parent-son camping club troops with the adults cooking for the scouts. Our guys saw the contrast, and most didn't like the adult led stuff at all. "How're they gonna learn to do it for themselves?" one scout asked me. Then again, I think we're pretty lucky with our district/council.

I did not send out any reminder emails before Monday's meeting about the change in plans. So, when it was found out that plans were changed, some of the scouts expressed their displeasure, but then went about the clean up task without further complaint. Needless to say, the irate email I received was about the change of plans without notification. I would like some suggestions on a response... Send an email to all the adults in the troop. Explain that Monday night required a change of plans to clean up the gear instead of doing game night because of some planning problems the Scouts had on the campout. Praise the scouts for understanding the need to take care of the Troop's gear. Mention that there was of course some grumbling from the scouts about the change as should only be expected any time a change of plans means you have to do work instead of play, but tell the parents how proud you are of their sons for handling the clean up with maturity and a sense of responsibility. Then a couple of days later, reply to the irate email with a short "I'm really sorry for not getting back to you soonner. Did the email I sent to troop explain what happened? Thanks," Hopefully they will get the message that their son acted with more maturity than they did.

I don't think the business model of BSA is responsible for any of the various issues we sometimes have. In fact, as the comment about GSUSA centralized model highlights, the model probalby helps immensely preserve the core values of Scouting. Of course, the decentralized model also allows for Webelos III Dens to hand out awards like candy and mint Eagle Scouts who've never camped more than a few feet away from the parking lot. In order to have freedom, we have to be willing to give it to other people, even when we're pretty sure they'll do something we don't approve of with it.

Taking a swim test in Hood Canal might weed out a few contestants. Eating camp food for a week should get most of the rest...

I find it difficult to accept the vs. in the title Citizenship and Leadership are one and the same. Stosh, the vs. was a reaction to the question OGE asked in the spun thread. What do we do with the kids who aren't in leadership positions? If we think of ourselveses as running a Leadership development program, then it seems we only have two choices - either force rotate everyone into leadership positions, or else kick them to the curb. What's the point of being a follower in a leadership development program, unless you're just pretending to be one while you wait your turn to be the boss? Neither one of those solutions is very good, because there's no place in a leadership development program for non-leaders. It's really sort of a training academy for would-be nobility and subtly disparages people who aren't in positions of authority (i.e the serfs). On the other hand, if we think of ourselves as running a Citizenship development program, we don't have that problem. There's a place for everyone, and it encourages recognizing the value in everyone's contributions and the need for everyone to contribute to the leadership of the group (whether it's by being the leader, choosing the leader, or just giving the leader feedback). So the vs. isn't about the concepts of leadership and citizenship, it'a about where the emphasis is in the program.

Then what distinguishes a "natural leader" from a plain old "leader"? A leader who doesn't earn the "natural" adjective is basically a guy with a title (or in BSA terms, a patch on his sleeve). One way or another he's been declared the leader, but does a terrible job actually providing any leadership. He's a de jure leader, not a de facto one (Beavah, did I spell them lawyerin' words right?). He's been granted some sort of official authority, but to the extent people follow him it's out of obligation rather than desire. With a natural leader, people want to follow him because his desire to achieve a goal is causing him to use his decision making ability to craft a plan of action that his empathy and communication skills allow him to explain to his "followers" in terms that resonate with them. I think the "natural" is a confusing thing, because with a good leader, it really does seem to "come naturally" to him, though it may be that it took a lot of work on his part to hone the skills he's using. And the decisions certainly aren't always easy. That's why I listed courage in there.

Well, "natural born" sort of implies that if you ain't got it, you'll never have it. I'm not sure if that's true or not, so how about if I instead drop the "born" part and just describe a "natural leader." A natural leader has these characteristics (perhaps in varying degrees): -self confidence -good communication skills -decision making ability -courage -evident desire to make progress towards a goal -a fair degree of empathy (though not necessarily sympathy) with other people

Its almost as if you are not a natural leader, you get kicked to the curb with nothing in life to look forward to but to be a follower. I know I have missed something and would like to know what I missed Now, why would someone assume people who are not natural leaders are kicked to the curb? I think the answer is that we're conditioned to think that way these days, but it's bad conditioning we should shake off. It's that sort of thinking (a hallmark of the Cult of Leadership) that drives people to all sorts of dysfunctional behavior in many areas of our society. It caused lots of havoc in a big company I spent many years at. People who were perfectly good, sometimes great, engineers and designers were coerced into taking management/leadership roles they were ill-suited for, didn't enjoy, weren't any good at, but were expected to take on because not being a "leader" was considered fatal to your career. How could someone be worth anything if they weren't a leader, if they just, you know, did their job really, really well and helped the team accomplish objectives? What good is that if you aren't providing "leadership?" Needless to say - well, no, it's not needless, it needs to be said - the results were horrible. Projects slipped, sometimes into disaster and obilivion, because everyone except the newest hires right out of college (who could be "mere followers" for a couple of years without any negative taint) were busy "leading" and nobody (except the new hires who, being new, had the lowest level of actual skill) was working on the project. Argh, what a fiasco. It's members of the Cult of Leadership who don't value followers. Followerss, in some circles, are also known as "valuable members of the community who can be counted on to get things done when needed." Or maybe we could just call them "do-ers." It's the Cult of Leadership who thinks everyone has to be an MBA and sneers (maybe unconsciously, but still) at plumbers and such. But if some space aliens came and kidnapped an entire occupation, I'd sure rather they took the MBAs than the plumbers. No offense to any MBAs out there, but I appreciate running water and flush toliets more than I do business development plans. That's why I like the idea of developing Citizenship instead of Leadership. Done right, we aren't teaching the non-natural leaders to be "followers" but rather "citizens." Citizenship includes leadership, when leadership is needed and you're the right person to provide it. It also includes being responsible for your job when being responsible for your job is what's needed. Another thing citizenship includes is knowing how to be wise in selecting the leaders you will follow. Because, 'following' for the citizen isn't a passive activity - he doesnt' just follow whatever El Jeffe comes along. Citizens choose their leaders. Choose wisely and they are part of a functional, happy, prosperous team. Choose poorly and, well, lots of examples of that these days, eh? Citizenship means you take that choice seriously because it matters. Passively following whoever is declared boss isn't the same thing at all. It's the difference between citizenship and serfdom. One difference between the Patrol Method as Kudu describes it - with natural leaders and multi-aged patrols out tackling challenges - and the Troop Method that carefully manages PORs so every Scout rotates into Leadership positions, is that the former is strong on teaching citizenship, while the later is, unfortunately, better suited to teaching serfdom. Do what you're told, follow the rules, wait for the experience planned for you by your betters, er, I mean leaders... Bah to that, sez I. Now, clearly Kudu stakes out an aggressive position on this issue, and maybe turns off some folks (and frightens off others...), but the general direction is right. Scouting isn't meant to be another classroom where adults "teach" things. Nothing wrong with classroom instruction, but kids already get many, many hours of that in school, and if they want more they can usually get it through sports, or Band, or Drama, or other extra-curricular activities with an adult "coach" who actively manages things. Scouting is best as an environment where youths practice citizenship by being members of a mini-community (their Patrol). Sure, it's a very small community, but remember, they're just learning. There aren't many other opportunities for them to do that these days. Serfs are "kicked to the curb" if they aren't leaders. Citizens remain valuable and respected members of the community. It doesn't take much reflecting to realize that not everyone can be a leader. It's not a matter of their inherent talent - even if everybody was a natural-born leader, we still couldn't have everyone be a leader because someone still has to do the work. "Too many chiefs, not enough indians" is a pretty good (though maybe no longer PC) description of many failed projects. Doesn't even matter how good the chiefs were.

Well, the good news is that getting an honest to goodness Patrol Method going will make the size problem irrelevant. Doesn't really matter how big the Troop is if the Patrols are 5-8 Scouts and the Troop is just a collection of Patrols that share resources. Size is a bigger problem when you try to have youths run the entire Troop of 100+ Scouts. SPLs probably can't handle that, so the adults have to step in. If instead the main action happens at the Patrol level, then the PLs can run their 8 person Patrols no problem. The PLC might be a bit unwieldy, but maybe you could virtually split the Troop into, say, Port and Starboard with two PLCs that coordinate things. Anyway, from your brief description I don't think size is your biggest problem. I'd say it's the NSPs. I know some folks here feel otherwise and NSPs have their proponents, but I think age-banded Patrols are terrible. Makes it too much an extended classroom instead of a self-governing unit. I think it just greases the skids to a Webelos III program where the incoming Scouts wait for someone to organize them and guide them. I'm sure some units avoid that, but it sees like it's swiming upstream to do so. I would try to end the NSPs and mix the new Scouts in with existing Patrols. That should create more continutiy and reduce the merging and extinction of Patrol as the cohort ages. Yes, it "breaks up" the dens, but really, by the time they are Boy Scouts, they should be developing new interests and should find better personality fits as knots of two or three in the existing patrols than with their age-banded classmates. For the ad-hoc patrols on campouts, sounds like you should plan at least two outings a month, and split the Troop between them (Port and Starboard watches again...). If 5 Patrols go on Campout 1,and the other 5 go on Campout 2 the next weekend, you should have a little easier time with the equipment shortage. It complicates logistics a bit, but if you have 100 Scouts, you should have gobs and gobs of adults to do the driving, and more than enough ASMs to provide adequate adult leadership for multiple outings per month. The outings could be to the same location, or they could be different ones, leave it up to the PLCs. That would actually give the Patrols some room to express their personality. If one group of Patrols prefers hiking and another cycling or kayaking, the Troop can provide both. Then you're using your size to your advantage by giving the Scouts (and the Patrols they form) more options.

If instead of Scoutcraft we had a monopoly on baseball, then "leadership" enthusiasts would do exactly the same thing: justify the dumbing down of physical skills by re-defining their trademarked generic words as metaphors for values Well, since I'm the one who first said that Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts, perhaps I should clarify my analogy. Woodcraft is making things of wood. For example, a chair. But I can't take an injection molded plastic lawn chair, set it next to Kudu's handmade cedar Adirondack and say "see, I'm doing woodcraft too!" Likewise, I don't think we can say that an adult-led Troop serving as extended classroom time is doing scoutcraft, even if we think the end result is still a chair. Er, I mean an honorable man. Scoutcraft, as in the outdoor adventure stuff, has a magical hold on young men. BP knew what an indoor classroom looked like. He knew what leadership training looked like. He had reasons for building Scouting around outdoor stuff. I don't think Leadership is a bad addition to Scoutcraft, but it's not a replacement for it. As to what relevance the Congressional Charter has to BSA, well, I think Beavah has it right. If BSA doesn't live up the Scoutcraft promise, somone else eventually will and then BSA will fade away because membership will vanish. Teenage boys are not clamoring for character development. They want outdoor adventure. If we want them to get character development, we need to deliver it through outdoor adventure. They want things made out of wood. We think they should have chairs to sit on, not cudgels to beat up strangers with. If we make them cedar adirondacks, they'll have chairs to sit on. If we try to give them plastic chairs, they'll end up with cudgels. The relevant "law" is not one passed by Congress, but one inherent in human nature. Violate the law of the market by making stuff people don't want and eventually you go out of business. If BSA stops making what people want, the government, through the Charter, can speed that reckoning up (by enforcing it against BSA) or slow it down (by enforcing it against BSA competitors), but can't prevent it. If BSA did fade away, it would be very much a shame since a lot of work over the last century went into building the social capital of Scouting.

If woodcraft is working with wood? Then Scoutcraft is working with Scouts?? You're close. Woodcraft is making things out of wood. Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts. The "things" you're making generally being... honorable men. I think it's easier to instill the components of being an honorable man into boys while they're doing outdoor adventure stuff than it is doing classroom work. Outdoors, especially when it's a little hike away from the trailhead, forces a little more self-reliance on the patrols, and dishonorable behavior creates more obvious problems, more quickly. A guy who doesn't do his share of KP, or a guy who behaves irresponsibly, creates group-wide problems, and there's nothing arbitrary about those problems. Much of the consequences young men face in "civilization" are somewhat arbitrary rules made up by adults. Bad grades, being grounded, etc., are what Mom, Dad, the teacher, or some other adult says the consequences are for not doing something right. But needing to heat water to clean the frozen remains of last nights dinner from your mess kit before you can eat breakfast because you didn't do KP after dinner last night, and there are no clean dishes in the cupboard because the nearest cupboard is a 5 hour hike and 3 hour drive away, well, nothing arbitrary about that!

Our Troop currently uses Troopmaster which has done a great job for us for years (tracking 55-80 boys). Some leaders and parent question the fact that because it is a desktop application with troop data downloaded to a desktop, that after someone leaves the troop they still have access to addresses, phone numbers etc. Good thing nobody ever published a directory or wrote down phone numbers back in the old pre-computer days. They might have had access to them after they left the troop. I'm sure the leaders and parents are well-intentioned, but they are being silly. If you make your phone number or address available to someone, it's available to them. They can write it down, memorize it, etc. Privacy is an issue, sure, but people leaving the Troop having access to the Troop roster such as it was when they left is not a reason to change software. Frankly, putting all that on a website is at least equally risky (so says the former Internet Security guy...). Websites get hacked, and then the information is available to the (by definition criminal) hacker rather than just the Scout who used to be in the Troop (and who promised to be Trustworthy, Loyal, etc). If your folks are really worried about addresses, I'd suggest not including them with the (published) roster. Phone numbers are another story - we expect Scouts to communicate with each other, and phones are important communcation tools. All that said, SOAR is a fine product. The calendar sync feature is very nice.

Yes, I have now reported it to my unit commissioner... This seems like the right thing to do. The UC should be in a better position to figure out the right way forward, whether it's formal (e.g. the DE) or informal (the UC for the other unit).

Cross, Sounds like the SM has his course of action set. As CC/COR, you need to decide if he's picked the right choice or not, and unless you think he's far enough off base to replace him, give him your 100% support. Now, as CC/COR you also have another task to close out this little drama. What to do about the parents who raised such a ruckus. I've always subscribed to the rule that the SM/CM deals with the youths, and the CC deals with the adults. From the distance of the Internet, it appears these adults may (emphasis on may, I can't say for sure, you have to make that call) have been out of line in their behavior. Whatever you do, please don't put the burden of dealing with the parents on your SM. It's enough that he has to talk to the SPL about this. The parents are your responsibility (unless they're ASMs, then let the SM decide if he wants to keep them or chuck them out the door on their expletive-deleteds). And if you think they're out of line, don't be too hesitant to let them know. Like other folks have said, adults need to meet some standards of behavior too. I know, it's not pleasant to think about confronting them, but then A Scout(er) is ... brave. And Kudu's idea about Patton is brilliant.

That and a Scouting for Life Association open to everyone who remembers their time in Scouting with fondness. We have that! You join by filling out a thing called the BSA Adult Application (also known as the Official Complaint Form in some Troops).

The fact Boy Scout recruitment is limited to Cub Scout survivors should tell you something about the appeal of our monopoly product, Scoutfish. The numbers could be much higher... I believe this is true. We started a new Troop and promised outdoor adventures and that the Scouts would be in charge of deciding what their adventures would be. In less than a year, we've recruited nearly 20 boys into the Troop who were not in cub scouts, in addition to all the Webelos who crossed over (we're about 60-40 non-cubs to former-cubs). This is in a small town of about 5k population with established Troops in neighboring communities.

A Former Scout now a Leader's most inportant goal is to teach good woodsmanship? (It's hard to justify putting emphasis on woodscraft when increasing urbanization makes woods skill less valuable - law of diminishing marginal utility...) JoeBob, I disagree about woodcraft having less utility today. Getting the Scouts out in the woods and learning how to take care of themselves and have fun in the sticks is a means to an end. The end is good character, citizenship, etc, not turning out a bunch of Mountain Men. It's just that camping, backpacking, canoeing, etc. are great ways to develop those good things. It's still every bit as relevant today as it was 100 years ago. In fact, (wasn't this in a thread a while back?) B-P created Scouting in large part because urbanized youth were increasingly cut off from "natural" outdoor experiences, and he thought it was important to get them back out into the woods for the sake of their mental, emotional and physical development.

Seems like problem solving, critical thinking, brainstorming et al ought to be things a Scout needs and learns while being an active Scout. If they're not, it's probably because adults are doing too much - walking (or force-marching) them through advancement, setting up and running too many MB classes, not letting Patrols work, etc. In short, not expecting the Scouts to routinely use critical thinking and problem solving skills. Those are things best learned while doing other stuff. I don't think they're amenable to classrooms or lectures, though adults could model them as part of coaching the Scouts through the program. PS: Kudu, obviously the Game of Life is highlighting the importance of grammar with the emphasis on the difference between instructions to "win all you can" and "you can all win." But as to the rest of your post, I think "Keep it simple, make it fun" should have a conjuction rather than a comma for proper grammar. Perhaps a semicolon would work. Either way, I'm afraid you'll have to lose a corner off your Grammarin' Chip. Lose all four and you have to retake Wood Badge.

And when the scout says what did you do? You answer, oh, I gave up, it wasnt worth it Sometimes it isn't worth it. A good lesson to learn is that you don't have to fight every battle someone else tries to foist on you. Your time and energy is precious, and you should use it on things you value. Beads? Like BD said, he and the unit he serves has already benefited as much as possible. Beads aren't going to add or detract from it. If they don't matter to him, why should he continue to invest energy in resolving the problem? Besides, seems like he has a pretty good plan. The CD will probably at some point want to find out why he didn't finish his ticket. Then he can say "well..."

As politically incorrect as it may seem, not all Scouts are good leaders. No amount of book-learning is going to make all Scouts good leaders. Intelligence, charisma, wisdom and self-confidence are not 101 through 600 level courses that you check off on your way to being a good leader. Agreed. OTOH, most all Scouts can be good citizens. If we switch the focus from leadership back to citizenship, we could do a lot of good. And leadership would get covered in the process because among the things good citizenship requires are: 1 - lead when you're the right person to lead 2 - follow when you're the right person to follow 3 - (perhaps most imporant) know how to tell a good leader from a bad one. I'm sure I can say we could use more voters with skill #3 without veering into I&P territory... Anyway, management theory classes make a great addition to a focus on citizenship and Patrol Method leadership. But it's not a replacement. Kudu Does anyone know of a skeptical analysis of Leadership Development theory that links concepts like "innovation," "thinking outside the box," and "group development" theory with magical thinking and the recent 7.7 trillion dollar bailout? Apparently the answer is "No." There's a growing backlash against MBA programs that's going on a decade now. Not sure if it really fits with Leadership Development, but I think many of the problems are similar. Too theoretical, devalues skills that can't be taught in classrooms, faddish, develops questionable ethics, etc. A quick spin with Bing didn't turn up any documents, but you can look for a paper by Profs Jeffrey Pfeffer and Christina Fong, or one from Henry Mintzberg of McGill University. Of course the people criticizing are still voices in the wilderness, but the voices are getting louder.

I don't think non-Scout leaders are a problem, I think the problem is a lack of Scout leaders. Please allow me to explain the subtle distinction. A person who was never a Scout can be a great leader, but a unit that doesn't have any influential leaders who were Scouts themselves has a handicap. Very little else in the way of Youth programs are set up to be youth led the way Boy Scouts is, and parents who've never experienced that can have a hard time believing it is really possible. If you have at least one old neaderthal around who can say "whaaal, back when ah wuz a Scout...." maybe the unit will have a little more faith in the idea of letting the boys run the program. Without that, even with all the official training, it's pretty easy for well-meaning parents to run a program for the Scouts. That's what most every other organization does, right? If you're on the Little League board, the boys show up and play. They don't schedule the games, reserve the fields, etc. So if you were never a Boy Scout but you want to be a leader, step on up! Go get the training, and try to recruit a former Scout to be part of your program and pump him for information on what it was like. Hopefully he came from a real boy-led program...

Wednesday night seems to be the traditional night for the wheels to come off at Summer Camp. Maybe giving the 10-11 year olds a three night resident camp might help. Save the week-long deal for the 12+ crowd. When Scouting started, 12 was the minimum age, right?

So would the additional training be needed to draw a tour plan for backcountry excursion???? Unless it is required at for something people will not get trained it is that simple. So, that's a good question. We're a sample (perhaps not a representative one though...) of the folks who would have to take new required training. Also of the folks who have to check in with Rangers and other land managers after some other unit perhaps didn't live up to the standards we'd like. Is the problem bad enough to require something more from our volunteers? And that kinda raises another question - is it a problem that too many unit volunteers are not making sure they have the right skills and training unless it's required and enforced somehow? Seems a little at odds with Scout Spirit.