qwazse

This is very sad. Especially, this article made it sound like the backpacking trip was mandatory. That confuses me: Nobody has to backpack in mid-summer to advance in rank. No 15 year old needs to advance in rank right away. No scout has to earn Eagle, ever. I've never done it, so 5 miles at 100+ degree heat on level ground sounds like a technical hike to me. Other's can expound. However, I have a friend who collapsed at mile 3 (he insists it was 5) in the Pittsburgh marathon that put him in the ICU for months and rehab for years. I visited him in the ICU and told him that between him and another friend who passed while on an evening run, I was going to take up drinking and smoking. I never did, but since then, on any sort of hike, we evaluate regularly ... especially on the stressful parts -- every 100 yards if needed. Setting up camp mid-day, turning back, or diverting to plan B, C, D is always an option. Adjust, adjust, adjust. Even the mighty can fall.

The field uniform (i.e., everything on the inspection sheet) and activity shirts. Because we have a tradition of scouts using excess fundraising to purchase what they need to serve the troop well, we have a long tradition of hand-me-down culture. Discourage the use of badge magic ... Sewn patches are easier to remove. If you get a donation for closet rods, great. Otherwise a box or two for pants, one for shirts. I've floated the idea of scouts writing their name indelibly on the neckerchief border, so that as it travels, it accumulates a little history.

In a small troop, this can be really tough. As SPL, you're seen as the "uber patrol leader", not the "patrol leaders' leader." Son #2 was in this position. I think it cost our troop dearly in that they avoided the patrol method like the plague. Pick your battles. Of the things you are doing that should be offloaded, choose one or two things you want the PL to do from here on out. They should be one or two of the more important tasks. Discuss with the SM. Then, here's one way to transition: You and your ASPL (I assume you have one) need to pick a couple of things you do "just for fun". For now, it could be some fun aspect of your Eagle project(s). It could be cooking some awesome dessert, a survival shelter, or a pioneering project. (They giant hamster wheel? That was a former SPL's obsession at camp one week.) Your line then becomes, "I'll be busy doing X (cool thing) while you do Y (offloaded tasks). Come ask me if you're having trouble." Set yourself up some distance away from the patrol, so that it will take some effort to come ask for help. Inasmuch as they succeed, reward them with praise and maybe a patch, or slice of that awesome dessert, a try at your shelter, or time on the hamster wheel! Failure is par for the course. Inasmuch as they fail, give them a fair evaluation and encourage to do better next time. But, if something's not done, don't bail them out. Remember, you're "too busy" doing X. By the way, don't be discouraged about having to adjust your style of leadership. Leadership development is a method of boy scouting. That implies that any given scout comes in with or without natural ability, but each one develops it from there. So, you came in as an "I'll git 'er done" kind of guy, now you can develop into a "we'll git 'er done" kind of guy. (Sounds like you're almost there.)

@@ItsBrian, you need to spend more time in your hammock, or at the trading post, or lashing your own personal giant hamster wheel. The position needs to look like fun before PL's will start running for it. Talking to your SM about necessary adjustments is a good idea. Needing to focus on your Eagle project is a good excuse. Not just between you and the SM, but between the SM and the boys. He needs to say to them "The current SPL to focus on his Eagle project, that means you all need to take up the slack and be more accountable to do things the way he was doing them." By the way, that is a REALLY BIG ASK for many SMs. Parents aren't comfortable with the ensuing "storming" among boys who are now finding that the spoon-feeding has stopped. Unless he's heard from ASMs or other adults who see what you're seeing, he'll likely get some agitated phone calls. So, expect a little give-and-take on this one.

I think you got a variety of answers sufficient for you to conclude that this action is a bit draconian. Most of us here feel our troops would be harmed if we acted so harshly when our SPLs didn't meet expectations. Most of us see the PLs as the anchors of the troop. SPL facilitates PL training and coordination and sometimes comes along site the more introverted youth. If he does well in his first four months, the ensuing months require less physical presence. On the other hand, we're not your boy's SM. A Unit Commissioner like @@Eagledad might advise him to lighten up, another one might have warned him to do the opposite. In the real world, superiors want more than we can/should give. And it's on us to say no more water is getting squeezed from this rock. Days without pay, being written up and sent to HR, missing salary bumps, busing through the rough part of town instead of tossing money towards car repairs and parking garages ... all were part of my career. It's called sacrifices. No regrets. It's time to stop being floored. Your son just has to say "No." That's all. No long speeches. No interpretations of Oath and Law. Nothing. Just, "Respectfully, Sir, no resignation will be forthcoming. Advance the election timetable as you see fit." Then to the boys, "Sorry guys. This is more important than troop life. See you on the next activity. If you think I've done right by you, my hat is still in the ring for the next term." Let me assure you that I practice what I preach. My kids play soccer, and when they were in high school there were times they were sidelined longer than what I thought was good for the team. I told them to take it up with their coach ... I'm not on the team. The coach eventually did discuss it with me -- because it's a weird parent who doesn't give them a piece of their mind. I said, "Yes, he or she's bothered. But, that's between you, him/her, and the players. Thanks for your hard work."

The reduction in paid adults no doubt added to the increase.

@@HelpfulTracks, we know from @@ItsBrian's other thread that these are not funds "in excess" of the project budget. The gift cards are in effect a conditional grant. A low-tech grocer could have easily said, "I will give you up to $175 for every dollar that someone in your troop spends at my store this week." My rule-of-thumb with any gift card: liquidate ASAP. That includes to the beneficiary, if possible. They can claim the gift cards for the equivalent in cash or the direct purchase of the materials for the project. If at the end of the day the scout holds excess cash, he can give it to the beneficiary to spend however they please. Everybody wins. FWIW - I am also the same with coffee punch cards. I tell the owner, "If you see me here more than you can stand, pull me a shot gratis, or give your staff a bonus. Just don't make me carry another piece of paper."

I don't see that as a big problem. Check in with the patrols in your troop, or some packs and Girl Scout troops, ask them if hey we're going to buy groceries for some upcoming events if they would be willing to buy your gift cards. I think the grocer would like to attract more customers, and other scouts knowing that his/her store supports Eagle projects is the return on goodwill investment the store manager is looking for.

You're gonna think I am pulling a fast one, but really I tapped the plus one, nothing, tapped again, hit the minus. We still should allow a little room for grey area. Is this a "sick day"? Or, is this a shift in priorities? Has this happened with other SPL's before? SMs can be a bit like ground bees, the nest gets stirred by the lead hiker, but the guy taking up the rear gets the stings.

I recently met an Alumni of Scout's Pakistan. He said going to World Jamboree was their "apex" event, and it was contingent on accumulating badges given out over the scout's career for attendance and skill challenges. That how their scouting organization made sure they put their best face forward. I suspect that also discouraged attendance by thieves and brigands.

Occasionally, we have not promoted the O/A activities simply because we came up with a bunch of scouts who were not interested. We always invite an election team to come promote. And we encourage youth to step up and represent the chapter for the troop. But we see it as the youth responsibility to drum up enthusiasm. I will say this, about half of my arrowmen who were also venturers would rather attend venturing events than lodge events. They didn't make it about equal rights or anything. It's just a matter of which group they were tight with. If they saw it as a responsibility to get the women in their life hiking and camping, the lodge offered them nothing that could help them do that.

That is frustrating. Like I said, I never felt short of that kind of assistance. Even as a youth we always had one or two scouts (and an occasional ASM) with disabilities. For each one we figured out how to support them. This came easier to some boys than others.

My guess is this is the brunt of LDS not automatically enrolling every male child on its rolls.

Our district roundtables routinely cover special needs scouting. We have several folks dedicated to informing themselves and others on the topic. We have a special needs troop in our council. Their leaders have presented topics at universities of scouting, board meetings, etc ...

I don't think the new information changes my thinking. You have an otherwise good SM who doesn't share the scout's priorities. Unfair or not, the next step is to help the scout respond to that. If the scout weren't doing much behind he scenes to be sure the activity was a success, then handing over his SPL patch to he next in line would definitely make sense. If the scout is still fulfilling his position in all but a couple of areas, he should find out from the SM if that is acceptable. Being self-critics and asking for feedback is part of the leadership development process. In this case, the SM beat him to the punch. If the scout thinks he should still hold on to his patch he should respectfully disagree with his SM, but be willing to face elections if he SM sticks to his ground. But then, there's that whole Christian thing ... being a peacemaker, give the shirt of your baceven if only your jacket had been demanded, etc ... the boy needs to consider the significance of his witness in the face of an unfair request

It is technically possible to change your rechartering month. But, I agree that three months is an aweful short time to determine which campout scouts should cut short to meet expenses.

@@ItsBrian, FYI, when I was a scout, we held pancake breakfasts, and the older scouts ran the kitchen, doing all the cooking. Parents kept scarce except for the charter org rep who made sure everything was working for us and the SM.

@@Loomie and @@ItsBrian, welcome to the forums! And I'm all thumbs with this tablet, so that -1 was meant to be the opposite. :/

We give SPLs a lot of latitude. That said, Son #2 saw that he needed to shift priorities for a season, and asked the boys to accept him ending his term early and ask another worthy scout, who was due to age out around the next election, to serve as SPL in the interim. But, I also happen to have a Son #2s buddies freeloading off of us this weekend. A couple were scouts from different parts of PA, so I floated this question by them. One young man expressed that he felt that SPL, executed well, is a behind-the-scenes kind of job. Mentor the ASPL and the PLs, get them working like a well-liked machine. Wind the clock let it run, let them know you'll be chilling at your hammock if there's a problem. The SPL is acting responsibility in actively delegating. The other fellow said his troop elected SPLs for one year terms - starting at the end of summer camp. Those two months until the fall were pretty quiet. However, the entire year as SPL was credited to him. Given that in his position, he got two months "down time", he felt this SM should cut an otherwise active scout a break. (This assumes that the scout was only missing the activity and could show up at meetings and preside over one last PLC.) So, yes, it seems that pushing a boy to resign is unnecessary; however, it is a wise boy who recognizes his term should end early, and for the good of the troop passes the mantle for a season. Mom is job #1. If that means he gets recognized in a position of responsibility for one month less than planned, that seems to be a small sacrifice. He can take this opportunity to find other ways to serve the troop. Or, he can pick off where he left off once this season passes.

Except not change. It leaves our daughters in a frustrating stalemate looking on the outside at troops with exciting outdoor programs. But IMHO, that's better than no troop/pack at all. Last week, our troop's CC forwarded the WaPo coverage of GSUSA to the committee. I sent out a "let's all keep cool heads" response over the weekend, providing a little context based on what outdoor-oriented girls in the community told me over the years. One dad thanked me for it. So, I'm not saying there's no chance of warming folks up to the idea. But, there are lots of ways to do it that will make volunteers feel railroaded. We need to be brutally honest about that, and pick the way that does the least harm. I still say challenging our scouts who go to World Jamboree to ask insightful questions and bring what they learned home will get us a much needed perspective on best practices.

But that's the point, isn't it? Train interested scouts and scouters in better risk assessment. Look, these boys are going to own property and build buildings of their own someday. Hands-on experience is not that far-fetched. If we go through the safety routines in our program, we may save countless lives outside of it. Regarding natural resources. Lumber is harvested and sold all the time. Putting aside reserve for scout-craft is part of land management. If that is a "real" problem, I have two words: composite logs.

@@Hawkwin, true, if one is dismissive of evidence, one cannot draw conclusions. Regarding 1. In my experience, it is sheer folly to dismiss leaders who abandon your organization. The vacuum left when it comes time to rally the troops in the following years is palpable. Meanwhile, some of them are fully capable of bolstering whatever non-BSA youth program they desire. Lose leaders, lose boys. Take decades to recover. Period. Pilot programs? Like Scouts UK? Venturing? Suppose there is noteworthy recruitment of boys on a pilot program. Why wouldn't the "it's not the girls, its the {insert excuse here}" logic apply as well? More credible market research would involve national polling of parents whose boys have not joined BSA and seeing how many would sign them up if they could enroll their daughters as well. It also involve polling parents who have a relationship with BSA. And parents of girls with no relationship to the BSA. BSA says there's a market out there, but they haven't described how they know its there or what size they think it is. Regarding 2. Membership growth = registration fees, more donations, publicity, etc ... which means professional staff stop getting fired (or asked to take on absurd workloads) ... which means better service to volunteers. On the other hand, membership decline = less $$, fewer professional staff, fewer camps, more burden on volunteers to get "busy work done", etc ... which means these girls we propose to enroll have a far worse program on their hands that probably will take them and their children to restore. It's kind of like ignoring the small polarized states in a presidential election ... very efficient, until your opponent sees the potential in electoral votes from places with more land than people.

You haven't read what these scouters have written, or talked to a wide range of scouters in your community. They say if BSA sanctions inclusion of girls in its packs and troops anywhere in the US, they will leave the BSA. I take them at their word. There was a rather insightful user, Back Pack, who abandoned this forum last month explicitly because of this issue. So you concede that including young did nothing to help Venturing's decade-long decline? By logical extension: including girls is unlikely to help reverse the trend for BSA's other units. You have not had to deal with parents of young teen boys upset that you were "bringing girls into scouting." You have not talked to parents of your son's friends who told you "my daughter is not camping with boys." You have had good scouters infuriated because your female youth might be sharing a 64 square-mile wilderness recreation area with their boys. Nor have you had to reconcile with leaders envious that your leadership wasn't fully devoted to their unisex program. A few posts back, you mention "regression analysis". A nice tool. I make my living off of people who can't do it. But, you are mistaken thinking that it is necessary to interpret data. It can sometimes help identify among somewhat independent causes how much variation each cause would explain. But, it can't -- in itself -- follow a causal chain. For human factors, that requires focus groups and qualitative interview. Talk to scouters, a lot of them. Then come back and tell me you don't have a one of them who would part ways over this. Then maybe you will have a data point to counter mine. For BSA to accept girls into packs and troops, it just doesn't need a majority of scouters to acquiesce, it needs existing and future scouters to enthusiastically endorse it. I see no evidence that we are there yet.

That award doesn't have a lick of value compared to her track record of public statement. She'll benefit more from being denied Eagle. I'd probably hire the kid if her resume came across my desk.

Well, that, and scouters like @@Stosh and @@Ankylus to be okay with it. As important as our daughters are, seasoned scouters of large and small units across the nation are equally, if not more, relevant to the success of the BSA. If they don't buy in in overwhelming numbers, we must go for decades without the human resources BSA needs for success. That's why venturing is floundering. Potential leaders, in spite of BSA's pitches, in spite of a cadre well trained young-adult females, do not see it worth their well to set aside life in unisex troops/packs to make outdoor programs for coed older youth flourish.