qwazse

On the flip side, many of your scout alumni are on extended spring break. They've probably already stopped in and visited your troop. Just something to let sink in.

Requirement 6 is It does not say: "after preparing a statement ... participate in an SMC." It's kind of a wierd requirement. It's intended for the BoR, I have no idea what a unit leader has to do with it. If it's there when the SM and CC sign, that's gravy. If not, we just tell the scout to write it up by the time of the BoR. most of ours bring a draft to review the following week. They are somewhat surprised when we don't ask them to change anything.

It's a bad day when SM's have consider optics on anything besides their field specs. I've always been frank with scouts when we haven't been running the program as its designers intended. (Generally that's because the committee has some apprehension about youth leadership, apprehensions about a specific youth, or apprehensions about the integrity of advancement.) I try to explain why. If the youth think I'm stupid, we adjust. This has usually meant getting the committee to chill regarding youth-lead, but it has also meant getting them to stay sharp on training. @yknot I think most scouts or scouters reading the BoS article would conclude that it was written specifically to highlight how a linked troop should work with two SPLs. The last CSE (Surbaugh) was on record being explicitly concerned about girls being more prone to leading to the exclusion of boys. You and I can think that's all bunk, but no BSA publication that I've found suggests that a single SPL for both units is a model that national would endorse. Feel free to provid sources to the contrary. Now, if national doesn't endorse it, would they denounce it? I'd almost say no. But, if a committees from a half dozen units in similar situations make phone calls, we'd probably see an article or two about it. We could see them circulate a memo to SE's and down to DE's about defining their brand on this matter. (Thus my "don't ask for a rule" policy.) I also don't believe in beating a drum against another unit when they go rogue. If that SM's made peace with the unit committee, fine. If not ... those folks are your safety net from stupid happening fast. Best to show you care about what they think -- especially when the literature favors their view of things. And the youth? It's easy. You say, "I didn't deliver on the promise of scouting like it says I should in this article. My committee is concerned that I'm doing you a disservice. Can you forgive me? What's the best way to work to make it right?"

I've had a lot of scouts asking me about the letter of reflection recently. The SM or CC do not need to see it. For our council it goes in with the application and is not graded, they just check that it's done. It should be the scouts own words, and I've encouraged scouts to keep it to one page. (Or two, double-spaced.) It is for use in "preparation for your board of review".

Well, lucky us. A positive article on how to "make it work", was posted by Bryan on Scouting about a linked troop on a modest little hike. Bryan asked of the boy leader ... I may be reading into this a little, but when any two troops join in on an activity, they often may appoint the SPL for that activity. Same thing has been happening for years with activities shared by crew/troop. Basically one leader may defer to the other for the sake of running things smoothly. And it sounded like, at points, this happened here. Although identifying both as SPLs, Bryan did not ask the sister her about being SPL, but clearly she faced leadership challenges ... Again, reading into it, it sounds like her direct responsibilities were to the girls. The participants were listed at the end of the article: 16 from the boys troop, 3 from the girls troop, 9 adults (not entirely clear who was registered with which troop). Clearly, this doesn't talk much about day-to-day troop operations. But, I think for anyone trying to operate under a linked model, it gives a really clear vision of what BSA expects in terms of youth organizational structure. Your PLC(s) will probably read different things into the story than I will. But, this story allows for some Kodiak level reflection, so it might be a good one to do over a cracker barrel with your youth leaders.

Yeah @atrox79, as one who couldn't care less about who's in whose patrol -- I barely care about who's tenting with whom -- I can feel your pain. But, face facts ... you've gone rogue. No matter how much better off the boys would be with this SPL, and no matter how much the girls don't need an SPL because their recruitment hasn't garnered numbers for multiple patrols, you have two troops and one is established with parents and committee who have set expectations. I suspect "liability" is a smoke screen for fear of what you will do next. So, reign yourself in. Your 17 year old female is SPL of the girls troop. She's not doing bed-checks on the boys, not hearding them to showers, nor is her first responsibility to leaders who are only registered with the male's troop. Your male ASPL is de facto the SPL of the boys troop. He is not checking that the girls are tucked in, not hearding them to showers, not inspecting their latrine. Nor is his first responsibility to the leaders registered only with the female's troop. Explain this to your committee, include the SPLs on the meeting. make it work.

"Why" is not ours to understand. Using your illustration, if a DL of a den of one sex doesn't won't countenance a DC of the opposite sex, he/she would be within rights to refuse the youth a position ... or abandon the den. Arguing that his/her actions are indefensible would only make matters worse.

Don't get national involved! They've written enough to give you the latitude to get you into this mess. The last thing you need is getting them spouting off unwritten rules to you. Rule #1, don't ask for a rule. You'll live to regret it. Prior to any contemplating of BSA4G the occasional troop would lone its lead scout to SPL another troop who wasn't prepared to field one. (This how my troop got jump-started.) For reasons that are entirely unclear, your boys troop decided to borrow a scout from your girls troop to be SPL. That comes with a slew of problems for reasons mentioned above andd more that your committee probably voice. My personal opinion of those concerns is irrelevant. If your commitee walks, you don't have a troop. About three dozen youth are left hanging. Keep working with one another. Determine a best practice. Apply it.

We experienced this for a while. A single-patrol troop as it ages should be effectively a small crew. I've seen a couple of shortcomings. First, there's no being challenged by another patrol. If the youth don't attend camporees (which our boys didn't do) when they were down to one patrol, they loose outside input. It's a grind to get those boys inspired to stretch themselves. Shortly after my crew opted to not go to council/area summits, they disbanded due to an unwillingness to confront discipline issues. Throughout this time I felt I had adequate adult availability. (It could be that the discipline issues were already fomenting when scouts started to pass on planned events.) In a troop with multiple patrols -- or a crew with multiple activity chairs generating diverse opportunities -- paragons of virtue tend to arise among the natural leaders. This generates a stability that isolated patrols lack. Furthermore, if by definition patrolling implies observing and reporting, there has to be someone the PL reports to.

https://observer.wunderwood.org/2010/11/09/how-big-is-a-scout-neckerchief/ The WSJ neckers were 36" on a side, if I recall. (I've given all mine away.)

This is as good a topic as any to discuss contingency plans for meetings. If your scouts live within line-of-site, semaphore should work fine.

I am just not so good at turk's heads to get the colors aligned, but it sounds pretty.

Swimming MB, Lifesaving those who have Swimming, BSA Guard for those who have Lifesaving Canoeing MB, A visit to a Canoe Trails club for those who have the MB Soil and Water Conservation MB, a visit to the USGS or state geological services for those who have the MB First Aid MB, Emergency Preparedness MB, a visit to a local Swift Water Rescue for those who have the MB Cooking MB, a visit to a cast-iron cooking competition for those who have the MB. Personal Fitness MB, Personal Management MB, Communications MB ... You aren't so much saying no to the summer camp quest program as you are saying yes for an adventure-specific quest program.

This circles back to vision. If you are inculcating a vision of adults managing youth for the sake of their entertainment or education, then patrolling is not necessary. In turn, BSA itself becomes superfluous. Scouting is in name only. If you are inculcating a vision of the pinnacle scouting experience of hiking and camping independently with your mates, the need for a patrol -- especially one worthy of the Green Bar -- becomes immediately manifest. Scouting becomes essential.

Metal slides = imitation woggles. I often converted old boot laces (back when they were leather) and leather patches to slides similar to the link @InquisitiveScouter posted. l do like the friendship knot, but make no mistake: at World Jambo I recieved a lot of neckerchief slides. They aren't going away ... especially if the scoutshop has a chance to monetize it. Who wants to bet on how soon BSA will be stamping out metal friendship knots for $5.00 each?

So, the question becomes: send scouts to camp, or keep them home to roam the streets of your crowded city or village? Zika was a particular concern for camps because the agent of transfer (a particular species of insect) frequented them. With COVID-19, the agent of transfer is Homo sapiens, the majority of which do not frequent summer camp and Jamboree.

@InquisitiveScouter, congratulations to your daughter on this great achievement! Who else recognized her success? Did you all have a court of honor? Did she get a letter or phone call from your scout executive? Council VOA president? Lodge Chief? Was her picture in the paper? Has she been invited to the NESA Eagle recognition banquet?

All, as @desertrat77, expounded, I use "hiking and camping" metaphorically for older youth. The hike could be a trip to a theatre, and the campout could be night shift as an EMT. My job as an advisor is to help the venturer to find the door. It's on her to turn knob and walk through it.

Just because tort is not kind to successful venturing, the objective definition of the term will remain unchanged. There are some young adults willing to wait until they are 21 to fulfill that vision. I wasn't one of them. Defensive venturing = narrowed niche. One other factor: many older youth are paying for their own activities. Registration now costs roughly the equivalent of three large pizzas.

Successful venturing? Let me describe that. It occurrs when: Youth fulfill the pinnacle scouting experience of hiking and camping independently with their mates. The tour plan debacle is a perfect counter-example. When they worked best was when they were paper/pdf, and I could give them to my crew president or troop SPL and say, for a given activity, "Fill this out and bring it to me for review and signature." Not even a few years into this routine the TP went online and only unit leaders could access it! What's the point of making me check all of those boxes? I know what it takes to scout safely! It's my youth who need to put things together. They need to call council HQ and ask for facility availability. They need to come up with a good plan and make it work and invite me to show up (preferably in time for dinner). You don't have to be in venturing to have experienced BSA's profound mistrust of local youth leadership. We cite examples constantly. Undarstand that each restriction is an insult makes the program less palatable for older youth. Successful venturing? It is when some 18 year olds come up with a plan for the weekend that is so good that you can throw them the keys to the van and say, "Check fluids before you go. Come back with a full tank. You have my number." Successful venturing? That's precisely what BSA has banned. Venturers now succeed when they embrace life outside of BSA's auspices.

@ParkMan, I love my execs too, but when they waste time at roundtable declaring absurdities like we should file a tour permit for every time a unit meets beyon the walls of its CO, and force me to waste my time countering (for the sake of all scouters in the room) that there was no way I was filing TP for every time my crew meets at a coffee shop, I conclude that they are here to preserve their jobs by parroting their superiors not support my efforts. Volunteers aren't dropping the ball, the ball is inflated to the point that volunteers can't get their arms around it. The TP craze has gone by the wayside ... but it was one example of how BSA wasted all of our time over the past decade.

I witnessed the rise and fall of venturing in our council. Observations: The growth of crews was greatly inflated by camp-staff crews, clubs that signed their kids on to BSA for cheap liability insurance, and DEs who thought it was okay to keep these crews on the council roster. In other words, they invested in finding sponsors of crews in areas where no youth were interested in the program. Being assigned executives who had zero training in the program didn't help. It didn't necessarily hurt, because some of the young venturing officers got to work with learn-as-you-go executives. But in terms of knowing what it really took to launch crews, and how quickly a pro needed to respond to opportunities to promote to potential COs, I saw some well-meaning, yet clueless execs. Silver awardees were never invited to NESA dinners. I cannot emphasize this enough. Their medal had an eagle on the device, yet there were scouters who did not believe that they should be recognized on the same level of Eagle Scouts. This wasn't a local phenomenon. Nor was it entirely on the Boy Scout side. The failed launch of Corps of Discovery as Venturing's honor society is indicative of venturers attempts at something separate but equal to O/A or NESA. Advancement means nothing. Recognition does. Just ask the older girls in your troop how they'd feel if they earned Eagle but nobody but you and a few strangers in the Internet knew what that means. The council newspaper stopped publishing reports from lodge Chiefs and venturing officers. The purpose of that rag became for execs to pitch camps. Nobody knew who the President of our VOA was. Officers weren't recognized at council camporees. Event planners did not even consult the venturing committee, but picked the nearest kid in a green shirt to represent the program using a canned script. So much for youth leadership. The current YP regs became crushing. There are very few youth who want adults minding their every move. The thought that a female adult has to be in the room for a crew of mixed sexes to hold a meeting is patently insulting. Heck, the need for any 21+ year-old to be present for a crew of 18 year olds to do any legal activity is absurd. It's a rare community that can field all of the adults needed to run a crew. I found that parents of older youth are overwhelmed, this decade more so than in previous years. Many are working double shifts to reduce their kids college debt. I quickly learned that I and other adults like me are very odd ducks. Apathy regarding recreational drugs and marijuana has not helped. So that's my short list. On the bright side there are a core group of youth in rural PA who still find venturing to be a rewarding program.

@CChairmanOfTroop, welcome to the forums. Basically, you and your COR call the shots. If the SM can't tell you how this guy is assisting him, he can't be in the position (assist is literally on the patch). You need to be clear that he has to do a better job. If he doesn't want to change, that's okay, he can still be a scout parent or counsel a badge. If the SM says he's doing one thing right, recognize that and say your asking for him to do a couple more things right. Not the least of which would be learn those knots!

My bet is that coming off of World Jambo, and other scouts "getting back" their missed year at Philmont, and membership collapse, you won't have to worry about full contingents. But, it's definitely worth it to start paying early and spreading the costs across as many months as they allow.

Can a BoR reject a scout if he/she doesn't have Scoutbook? Say, if no internet is available? We don't waste a scout's time waiting for extra stars to align. Have a quorum? Will review! Our MCs have gotten away from signing anything but the handbook and checking off SB. So that handbook is becoming pretty essential. I guess if we had to we'd sign a label for the scout to put in his book. I think BSA's point is that going forward, all councils will look to SB for accountability with advancement, and they want units to participate in that process. SB provides a lot of carrots for the unit to do so. With 20/20 hindsight, I think blue cards should have been used for rank advancement as well as MBs. (Okay, maybe a different color for oval awards, but same dimensions and layout.) The SM or designee would be the "counselor" and would review the scout's handbook for the requisite signatures, discuss any outstanding issues with the scout -- perhaps noting partial completions as usual, and ultimately approve and sign. The scout could then take that card to a BoR, and the chair would approve and sign the applicant's portion. Had this been the procedure for both ovals and circles, we would have had more uniformity. One could then capitalize on that uniformity to use 21st century tech to take photos of the cards, submit them, interpret the image and save relevant fields to a database, and get back those spiffy online reports for cross-checks. Scouts ... Love ... Paperwork. (More or less.) I think we are uniquely obsessed about this sort of thing. Accountability is a big real-world deal in this country, so it may reflect a bit of 21st century citizenship. However, I am seeing this in other youth activites. E.g., data-driven sports ... our soccer team's statistician had some serious responsibilities that the coaches valued. Of course, the big goal there is to not "earn" yellow/red cards.