Beavah

Yah, I once saw a fellow introduce full-on Roberts Rules to a PLC annual planning meeting. The boys hated it. Da one thing it did do, though it took some time, was get them to figure out how to have a productive discussion which came to an end. By limiting each person to two comments on any issue, it forced boys to think out their points before they "used up" one of their comments. By watching their proposal "die" without a second, it slowly taught boys to think about others, not just how great their idea is. By watching them get frustrated with people proposing amendment after amendment, it slowly taught lads that sometimes holding up the process isn't worth it to try to get your way, because then people just vote down anything yeh propose. So sometimes da structure of Roberts Rules helps boys see things about the dynamics of a discussion that they wouldn't otherwise notice, and change their behavior. Or not. I wouldn't recommend it necessarily as a regular practice, eh? But as a tool in da toolbox of TLT, yah, sure, why not? Beavah

Yah, I agree with BadenP. I got to this thread backward through the "loyalty" threads, eh? To my mind there is a difference between a customer and an agent. A boy or family is a customer. He's "purchasing" a scouting program with his time and money. No loyalty is due to the CO necessarily, and if he finds a better "deal" with a different troop he's free to pursue it. But it's different for an agent. An agent has a duty to act responsibly in the service of the person or group whom he represents. And a unit volunteer like a Cubmaster is an agent for the Chartering Organization. There is a duty of loyalty there, includin' promoting the CO's vision and programs. Now sometimes a conflict happens, eh? A Cubmaster might be both an agent of the CO and a parent acting as a consumer. As a parent consumer, he might feel da best choice for his family or son is a different troop. This is the sort of thing that's called a conflict of interest. The parent's interest as a consumer is in conflict with their responsibility as Cubmaster for a chartered organization. Some conflicts of interest can be managed, eh? If the Cubmaster decides his son is goin' somewhere else, but has the Assistant Cubmaster promote the CO's troop, then that's an example of managing a conflict. However, if da conflict of interest cannot be managed, then it is the absolute duty of an honorable person to resign the position which is in conflict. That seems to be the case here. The Cubmaster has an obligation of honor to submit his resignation as Cubmaster forthwith, rather than actively undermine da CO's program. Absent that, the CO should remove the fellow. I'm sort of old-fashioned about things like honor, eh? I figure that a fellow who acts dishonorably should not be put in positions that require highest character. So personally, I think his BSA membership should also be forfeit. Practically speakin' that wouldn't ordinarily happen, of course. Just my personal feeling. In any event, my advice to da CO is that they have an agent who is not representing their best interest, so they need to remove him. Practically, of course, I think yeh have the sit-down chat to educate, inform, and consider, just like everyone else recommends. But in the end, that is the bottom line. Beavah

Yah, it's an interestin' thing, eh? Is a scout just a consumer, like SeattlePioneer suggests? Or is he instead a member who has freely taken on a duty? I reckon for many CO's, a scout is just a consumer. He comes in, he pays his dues or works his fundraisers in exchange for services provided. Like a commercial transaction, there is no duty of loyalty. If he can find better services or cheaper services somewhere else, off he goes. Now, not all CO's are like that, eh? If yeh are a member of da church who sponsors a unit, then yeh might have a greater personal loyalty to that CO. Or, alternately, if the CO has shown you unusual kindness, like taken care of your fees through camperships out of its own funds when you were in need, then perhaps yeh have a personal duty of loyalty. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Now that's an interestin' question, ain't it. Loyalty is an important thing, I reckon. After all, Dante put the disloyal, traitorous fellows on the very bottom of the 9th circle of hell, eh? Who were they disloyal to? One might say God and the state. But that circle of hell wasn't reserved for abstractions, eh? It was for those who showed personal disloyalty. There's perhaps a lesson there. Loyalty is owed to the persons who give you service, love, or kindness. Especially if that service, love, or kindness is beyond your due. So if your nation has provided you service, established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, provided for the common defense and promoted the general welfare, securing thereby your liberty, then perhaps yeh owe them your loyalty. But if your country is ruled by a fellow who usurped the presidency and is trying to pass it off to his son while yeh live in increased uncertainty and poverty, then perhaps no loyalty is due. Then there's a different notion of loyalty that comes with agency. If I agree to take on a client, then my agreement binds me to loyalty to do my best for that client. Some aspects of that loyalty, like some types of confidentiality, bind me even beyond any formal relationship. That's not a personal loyalty, but rather a professional one. As an employee, I reckon we each owe professional loyalty in terms of our service to our employer, and I think in turn employers owe a measure of loyalty to their employees. If you agree to be a unit scouter, then you are an agent for the Chartered Organization and yeh owe them loyalty in that role. You agree to be a responsible agent in promoting their goals. Similarly, if you agree to be a district or council scouter, you agree to do your duty in those roles. That's not the same as personal loyalty, but it is a form of loyalty. Now, you might also owe a personal loyalty to the CO as a unit scouter, if you are a member of that church or a friend of the IH. I don't think in most cases you owe loyalty to those from whom you purchase a product, despite all the rhetoric around being loyal customers and all that. Those are just business transactions, except perhaps in the case of the business owner who goes "above and beyond the call" who might merit some sense of loyalty by a customer. So I don't think there's any duty of loyalty of a scout or unit scouter to the council or BSA. BSA membership and charters are a purchased service, like a commercial transaction. Only the extent to which a council or the BSA goes above and beyond the call (perhaps the council that provides the camperships to the large single-parent family) merits loyalty on the part who receive that kindness. Should one be loyal to the Scouting Movement? That's interestin'. Perhaps, to the extent each of us have pledged ourselves to it. I think it falls more to kindness and friendliness. I'd welcome a fellow scouter with open arms, but then why shouldn't I be welcoming other strangers with open arms, too? Just some random musings. Beavah

Amen, Gunny. Artists being artists, they're goin' to sing to their own muse. Some art I like, some I don't, and I confess to be an old fart traditionalist in both art and music . I think when yeh take a classic like the Anthem and butcher it like that, it fails as art because it focuses on the artist and not on the art, eh? Not on that special interaction between artist and audience and meaning. But I don't expect artists not to mess up occasionally. What is a real shame is when saluting the nation is something that is only art - somethin' yeh get a paid performer to do rather than somethin' yeh stand and do yourself, side by side with your friends and neighbors. Now, I confess I'll cheat a bit on da rockets red glare, since my voice doesn't go that high without a kick to the nether regions, so for that I'll rely on the professional artist .

My relatives are rarely civil.

I was reacting to how Beavah's attitude is completely disrespectful of a youth's capability to make up his own mind. Nonsense. The lad clearly is making up his own mind, eh? He's taken an important step in rejecting what his parents or society taught him. If yeh missed it, what I was slightly disrespectful of were youth who just bought whatever their parents or teachers told 'em. I think yeh have to at some point push away a bit in order to get clear to really making up your own mind. Just followin' your parents is shallow, eh? And whether we're talkin' religion or sexuality, it should not be shallow. That's why some Christians talk about when they were "born again", eh? When they personally, on their own, not on their parents behalf, found Christ personally. Of course, I think it's also possible to get "stuck" in rebellion, too, just as it's possible to get "stuck" in your parents' way of thinking. It's a kind of egotism. Yeh spend your time defining yourself by what you're not... you're not as stupid as those other people. Yeh might even keep it up well into your later life, and spend your time findin' people on internet forums that yeh can define yourself as not being like. Most folks eventually come 'round to a more mature understanding. Free of their parents, they eventually give up rebellion and come 'round to a more mature and nuanced view of God that is richer and deeper. Or, like I said, a more calm and tolerant skepticism that is based more on who they are, not what they are objecting to. That's why we're not very quick to throw kids out, because we actually have a mature understanding of our membership policies. We know we're dealin' with kids. And kids are growing and testing and tryin' to find themselves. That's why we like workin' with 'em, and it's why the BSA is here. Beavah

Most the boys that want out is because it's too much "work" to run the patrols for themselves and want the mommy/daddy adult leaders to do it for them. Yah, I'm not sure that sayin' "tough winkies" in this case isn't what's causing you to lose too many scouts, Stosh, despite your worries about other troops who aren't really losing boys at all. I've rarely seen a kid who fits da description you mention. Far more often, when an adult feels a boy is "lazy" or whatnot what's really goin' on is that the lad wants to do well, but he doesn't know how, eh? And boys being boys, they never ask for direction. They learn by seeing, not by being told. So they look lazy, but they're really just lost. What the boys may be tryin' to tell you if yeh listen more closely is not that they want mommy, but that they need more support. That's one of the risks of goin' flat out youth run with same age patrols, eh? There's not enough experience there to be the guide and example. Yah, yah, a few self directed precocious youth figure it out, but that's just genetics and their family life, nuthin' we've accomplished in scouting. The only kids we're allowed to brag about are the ones who came in lost but managed to get a clue because of scouting. If I were to tell you, a self-directed fellow, that we needed a factory in India, congrats, you're lead, hop to it, I reckon you'd be lost. It'd take yeh a while to get goin', yeh would wish for more support, yeh would probably quit after a failed start or two. But if I said "Welcome to the team", we're building a factory in India, Joe your team leader has had five years of experience with us, the other guys have been with us for a few years and will show you the ropes, and you'll be a big part of our success as you come up to speed, then I reckon you'd be more inclined to stay around. You'd have a few good friends who joined with yeh, but you'd have support and experience as well. You'd take on more responsibility as you learned, and eventually down the road yeh could see yourself becoming a great team leader like Joe. And all along da way, you'd be deeply proud of your team. That's how yeh keep most all of your lads in a real youth run environment, not just da most precocious ones. Of course, I may just be that furry fellow commenting from afar Beavah

Within and in compliance with those boundaries and requirements ("fully-compliant") is the zone of youth responsibility Nope. Leastways, not if you're a Scouting program. Within those boundaries (CO and law and whatnot) lie all of the Methods of Scouting. Youth leadership is but one of them, and doesn't hold a privileged place. That wouldn't be Scouting. We adults aren't just compliance officers. Boys can be wonderful at discussing and comin' up with ideas and solutions within the parameters of their experience and knowledge, with perhaps just a smidge of adult mentoring on the sly. But their experience and knowledge is limited, eh? If that experience has been limited by a troop that doesn't make full use of some of da other methods, then quite naturally they're not in a position to make best use of Youth Leadership method. Follow da whole program, not just one method. Now, there's nothin' at all wrong with boys choosing or changing a patrol structure for their troop. I encourage it. Me, I've always found that youth who have experience with da full program and especially with dynamic patrols always choose that over the artificial structures of school grade levels and such. I mean seriously, what kid these days feels a whole lot of loyalty to the Class of '12? See a lot of class flags and class cheers? Nope? It's not real. They feel loyalty to the Band, or da Theater Program or whatnot. Or perhaps to their school. The places they spend their time. Anybody know of a grade-level-based Band or Theater program? Me neither. In all those sports and school activities kids love, the young join out of interest and talent, and the older experienced kids lead. We had a startup troop here this past year, split off from another bigger troop after some of da usual adult misbehavior. Their boys naturally set up age-based patrols because that's all they knew. Then a few of their PLC did a joint outing with another troop in town that was more Patrol Method focused and they came back enthusiastically advocating for the new way, havin' seen it in action. That's part of our job too, eh? Openin' 'em up to new possibilities. Your mileage may vary, of course. Everything here is just sharin' perspectives or ideas. If yeh aren't interested in some, or don't want to try, or are perfectly happy with everything in your unit then Carry On! If somethin' challenges yeh or gives yeh a new idea or perhaps gives yeh insight on somethin' yeh always felt was just a bit lacking, then give it a whirl. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what both ScoutNut and Eamonn said, eh? While I always encourage CO's to have some financial skin in the game, I think yeh also as good scouts want to consider what you can do for the CO as much as what it contributes to you. I figure Loyal and Helpful come into play if your CO is on the ropes. First ask "What can we do to help?" In the end, to transfer a unit yeh need to identify a new CO who is willing to take you (keeping in mind the new CO has to get to know and approve all of the current leaders). Then yeh have to get the current CO to sign off on relinquishing its charter and whatever assets the unit has. Alternately, yeh can all leave as individuals and start a new pack at a new CO with a new unit number, and then fundraise for new gear and such. I will say that if yeh really feel a bankruptcy is pending, yeh do want to take action if yeh have any significant assets in gear or a checking account under the CO's EIN. The individual pack families are goin' to be some low-on-the-totem-pole creditors when it comes to those funds after the bankruptcy is in play. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Bylaws lay out membership eligibility (the BSA already does that) Nah, not really. In da other thread, BrentAllen laid out his eligibility for being an ASM, and it exceed the BSA's by quite a bit. A committee might want to limit potential membership to parents of boys who have been around for at least a year, or who are not in arrears, or who are members of da CO, or... officers and their responsibilities (the BSA already does that) Nah, not really. The Troop Committee Guide lays out some potential officers and roles, but I've never known a troop anywhere that follows that verbatim. Just like the BSA requirements lay out potential POR's but that doesn't mean every troop has a bugler. how officers are elected (the BSA already does that) Nah, not really. There's a supplementary module that offers a recommended process for selecting committee members and officers, but even that module doesn't specify how the group making the choice actually decides. Does it vote? Does it draw lots like some churches do? Does it lock itself in on bread and water until consensus is reached and white smoke appears? how officers/members are removed (the BSA already does that) Nope, not really. There's a vague bit in G2SS which suggests that the committee has the authority to remove youth members, but offers no procedure. We all recognize that a COR/IH can remove adults on personal authority, but that doesn't describe da normative process, eh? Only the extraordinary process. sets the "charter" year (the BSA already does that) I think yeh mean "sets the fiscal year" or terms for office. And nope, da BSA doesn't do that either. Lots of units, especially packs, operate on a school year basis, even though the BSA charter year in their area runs January to January. So it's not all that clear, eh? CalicoPenn is makin' distinctions from the corporate world between bylaws and operating procedures or regulations, and I get where he's comin' from. I just don't think those distinctions are necessary at the unit level. Easy enough just to have the short "book of how we do things", whatever yeh want to call it. And I agree, I sometimes see unit "books of how we do things" get all cluttered up. No different from da way Irving clutters up the G2SS or Tour Plan forms, eh? Maybe it happens because nobody's given units any guidance or models for how to put together their "book of how we do things". Perhaps we'd get less clutter and foolishness if instead of saying "don't do it" and refusing to answer questions, we offered some help with how to do a decent job of it. Just a thought. Beavah

Oh, good heavens dkurtenbach. That's about da most absurdly dark spin yeh could possibly put on any of the comments here. Yeh could say the same thing about outdoors program or uniforming or any of da other methods. Adult imposed campouts to vindicate a rigid adult notion of what scouting should look like? Nah. Let the boys choose which video game to play this week to enhance their program goals. Adult imposed advancement requirements to vindicate a rigid adult notion of what personal growth in a scouting program should look like? Nah. Let the boys choose what they're interested in getting better at. Maybe marching band. Adult imposed clothing to vindicate a rigid adult notion of what a boy should look like? And on and on. We use scoutin' as a way of achieving our CO's vision and goals, eh? Those are adult goals. Youth leadership is just one of da methods that we use in doin' that. It doesn't trump all of the other methods. It's used along with the other methods, like outdoors and uniform and the biggie: Patrol Method. It's best to try to balance these things, eh? Not to replace one with another. So I amend what I said before, dkurtenbach. Yeh might look at balancing your use of advancement and youth leadership with da other 6 methods. Seriously, though, each troop's adult leaders choose which of the methods they emphasize more than the others based on their own personality and level of comfort. Yeh can make scoutin' work with different combinations of the methods. Like jblake says, there are plenty of good-sized troops that de-emphasize Patrol Method or Youth Run or uniform or whatnot. It's just fine if yeh emphasize some methods and downplay others in your troop accordin' to your strengths and interest as an adult. Your troop might choose to avoid all camporees where patrol competition is a central feature because your CO or adults have a philosophical objection to competition, and still do fine scouting. Jblake's posts are interestin' in part because he puts such a strong emphasis on youth run, eh? It's a good challenge to others, because da natural tendency is to be too adult-run. But it also has its traps. So I'm curious about how it's workin' out and what's drivin' his unusual swings in numbers. My guess sounds right, eh? Many lads and families aren't ready for that level of self-motivation, eh? That takes a particular kind of kid. Many kids need more structure to get 'em goin'. That's where patrol method and advancement and such come in to play, eh? They provide structure that some boys need until they become self-motivated independent leaders. At that point advancement doesn't matter anymore, because the lads can manage their own growth without adult-imposed requirements. Until then, advancement is a help. But Troop22 isn't askin' about youth leadership or advancement, eh? He's askin' about Patrol Method, and how to use it well. One of da ways is just to challenge the two patrols to see who can get camp set up the fastest, or who can cook the best dinner. Doesn't have to be a "big deal". Boys are naturally competitive with just da nudge of a challenge (though they might shy away from some big formal adult-run contest). Yeh have done Woodbadge, right? Don't get mad at us just for givin' an abridged version of Green Bar Bill. Patrol method has its place alongside youth leadership. It's got a privileged place because it works da whole way, from young lad to mature independent young man. It gives 'em a structure to follow and be a part of in the beginning, and when they're ready it gives 'em somebody and something to lead. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Amazed this thread is still goin' on. I think at some point da labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual" just start to break down, eh? I'm not sure whether a pedophile or ephebophile is gay or straight, though in boy scouting what we seem to see is ephebophile gay or bi males: men who like adolescent boys. But da definitions aren't clear. I reckon at some point sex just becomes deviant, eh? Da folks who do bad things tend to do a lot of different bad things, and experiment still more. So when yeh try to get to percentages or clear definitions on this stuff, yeh just can't. Is the married minister who molests the compliant teen boy gay, straight, or bi? Who knows? I doubt he even does. The issue is just deviance. Which I think is the point, eh? The longstandin', worldwide, multicultural, moral, ethical, practical societal position has been to discourage sexual deviance in all of its flavors and expressions. That doesn't mean being unkind to people who are tempted to non-normative behavior, eh? We can never know why they are so attracted. It's a personal cross for them to bear, and they should do it with support and love from the community. But that support and love does not include approval of a choice to live a lifestyle that the longstandin', worldwide, multicultural, moral, ethical, practical societal position has been to discourage. As to Tuoc Syag, I reckon like most bright fellows of 13, his sudden avowal of being gay and atheist is the act of rebellion. Young bright lads often discover that what they were taught as children about God and sex is shallow and incomplete, and quite naturally rebel against it. If they stay bright and observant, they eventually take the next step and recognize their rebellious notions are equally shallow, and they come to a more mature understanding. One that recognizes human responses to God in religion aren't clear or perfect, they're just human. Flawed, silly, hypocritical sometimes. Generous, courageous, beautiful at others. They develop wisdom, and come to a more natural faith, or a more nuanced and kind skepticism. Same with da sexual stuff. I know several former gay teens who are now happily married heterosexual men, with equally rebellious teenagers. So all things in balance, eh? Beavah

I also expect volunteer leaders to do what they said they would do when they signed up as a leader. Which is to put in the time required in the position in which they serve. And if they choose not to, just can't, or just won't, then I expect them to get out of the way and let someone who will. I don't know what position Gary_Miller holds in his unit, but I found this refreshing and striking, eh? So many units I know pretty much do the "warm body" thing rather than be selective. I always laugh when I read the BSA selecting a unit leader stuff, because I think I can still count the number of times there's actually been more than one candidate in any unit I'm familiar with . So I'm curious. What expectations does your unit set for adult volunteers in terms of participation, commitment, behavior, training, etc.? And how do you enforce it? Beavah

We don't have a PLC, normally we run 2-3 patrols, not enough to warrant a PLC. Yah, jblake, seems like I read in another thread that yeh only have one patrol. And I remember yeh saying that your troop is pretty small. So what is it? It may just be helpful to folks if yeh remind us of your conditions to put your comments in context. What works for one size troop with one style of program might not work for another. Often for small troops in particular yeh can be a bit more free-form, because there's so much more opportunity for a SM to provide subtle guidance directly to individuals. That doesn't work as well as yeh get bigger. I'd guess, for example, that dkurtenbach's troop is a bigger-than-average one, which is why his lads are lookin' for a more "objective" setup. Of course that may just be me being philosophus longinquum socordis, the stupid long-distance philosophizer. Another patrol was all first year guys and one older Scout who saw what was going on and joined that patrol out of a sense of obligation Yah, TwoCub, keep an eye on that fellow, eh? He's goin' to be one of your good ones. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, OK. Seems like every time this comes up there's some set of folks who has a knee-jerk response of "Never!" to troop bylaws. To be fair, I have a knee jerk response to knee jerk responses, eh? Plus my background is perhaps more amenable to the notion of written conventions than others. But let's bring this debate out. First, the BSA encourages the youth officers to adopt bylaws in Venturing at least. So it's not a program no-no by any means. It's actually a part of the program at some levels. Second, because da difference between CO's is so great, the BSA is deliberately vague about committee operations. Committees in different units are wildly different, rangin' from 3 professional CO staff members to a membership open to every parent. So the absence of a bylaws reference in the Troop Committee Guide to me says nothing at all. There are so many things missing from da Troop Committee Guide that are expected to be filled by the CO and unit. So there is no recommendation at all against havin' bylaws, and some deliberate program elements that encourage it. Why the knee jerk? To my mind, a majority of units are small, and tend to just run as a group of like-minded folks. That's ideal, eh? Yeh just have agreeable friendship and consensus. But that is never guaranteed. Yeh sometimes get The CC Who Wants to Be King. Yeh sometimes get the Complainer Who Wants To Take Over. Yeh sometimes get the Treasurer Who Borrows the Money. Yeh sometimes run into the Parent Whose Boy Does No Wrong But Who Burned Down the Outhouse. And yeh get some of these "Friends of Troop 1234" chartering organizations, eh? Unincorporated Associations. To my mind, these especially should absolutely have bylaws, so as to help protect the parents and committee members from joint and several liability. So I'm loosely an advocate for troop committee bylaws and regulations, eh? They specify the operating procedures for the committee. Who votes. What is a quorum. How are officers selected and for how long. What purchases require advance approval. Who is authorized to borrow money. What are the financial controls. How are direct contact leaders selected and vetted. How are people removed. How are youth discipline matters handled which come to the committee (and what discipline matters should come to the committee). What are the limits of the committee's purview. I think yeh want to have those things in place, eh? Otherwise yeh have no recourse when two committee members meet durin' the snowstorm and vote the entire $10K in the troop treasury to buy Fred's old rusty trailer. I think good rules & bylaws do a few things. First, they make yeh look professional and organized to new folks, instead of being Committee Chairman Mao's People. They give folks confidence. Second, they're a way of communicating with folks that shortens the learning curve. These are our operating procedures, in black and white, rather than "figure it out by osmosis." Third, they're there for you when the cowpie hits da rotary air impeller, to guide yeh through that sticky kid discipline situation or parent complaint without makin' stuff up on the fly. It provides a comforting sense of objectivity that reduces tensions and personality conflicts. Fourth, they keep yeh from getting sloppy. Yah, sure, all the votes are unanimous, but at least everybody is lookin' at the treasurer's report. And finally, they're there when someone with a gripe wants to hijack the process. Can they be abused? Yah, sure, so can anything. Most common is da quote-da-rules pseudo-attorneys who use 'em to manipulate rather than serve. Second most common is da "There ought to be a Rule!" crowd that wants to solve every problem by creating a new rule. I once ran into a major city school board policy that went on for 40 pages on the procedures for selecting new band uniforms. I can only imagine what dispute caused that useless set of rules. But those are known traps, eh? And they don't change da positives. So if yeh work under a real CO and are a small group of like-minded folk, then maybe yeh can get by without, for as long as that holds true. Otherwise, I think bylaws are probably not a bad thing. What do the rest think? Beavah

One idea discussed briefly was organizing patrols by rank, so that all the members of a patrol would be working on more or less the same advancement requirements. That was da quote that caught my eye, eh? In seein' other troops, I can tell yeh that there are a fair number where the lads would never come up with that "by rank" suggestion, eh? Just because that's not the way they think about scoutin' in their unit. So da options yeh mention the lads considered were by grade level (like school) or rank. Regardless of what you feel or da parents feel, they are thinking of the troop as centering around advancement or being like school. Leastways, that's what I get from what yeh wrote, eh? Yeh might not have been a good reporter. Like I said, try some patrol competitions and pretty quickly those age-based patrols will fall apart and you'll find the lads making different choices. Or try some non-car-camping outings that are more challenging where the younger fellows need the support of the older scouts in their best servant-leader character. You'll get different results, because you've changed da parameters of the boys' decision and the way they think about scouting. If they think of how to make the outing work first, they get a different answer than if they think about how to make advancement work. Same if they think about patrol pride first, instead of advancement. Ain't about what we think, it's about what they think. We know that our own troop is never as focused on advancement as that badge mill across town. They only see their troop. Our job is just to set up da circumstances so that they are drawn into developing good character. If advancement is how they and you see good character, then that's fine, eh? Nuthin' wrong with it, and you're doin' great! Continue on! If servant leadership is how they and you see good character, then their choices perhaps aren't yet reflecting that, so yeh might consider a different approach. Like Eagledad says, it just depends on your goals. I have my personal feelings, but yeh have to serve your CO and its values. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what Lisabob said, eh? I'd add though that yeh almost never sell anyone on making a commitment with a one-night stand. So if yeh can get their contact information, I'd send 'em some cool stuff by mail or email, then try to get 'em out to some fun activity, then the B&G, then somethin' to follow-up shortly after that. If yeh show some commitment to them, they might see it as a more attractive option. Neckerchief, slide, and froot loops aren't that expensive, eh? Small advertising commitment for potentially seven years worth of gain. Wouldn't think twice about it. Beavah

Should a Troop have a set of Bylaws for the committee and leaders to follow? Yah, hmmm... I myself have no problem with troop bylaws. I think there's a role for 'em, particularly for the committee (not so much for the SM or program side where there are other materials, but if the youth PLC want to write some, that's OK). However, the way this question is worded sets off my spider sense. Yeh see, a committee and leaders don't "follow" bylaws. Bylaws guide and define their normal operations. They still need to lead and work together. Think of bylaws more as a communication of common agreed-upon practices. So cjlomb, maybe yeh want to give us a hint about what else is goin' on that prompted the question? I get a sense da question is more about your troop's operations than it is about bylaws per se. Beavah

Yah, so for all of those caught in da snowstorm du jour and are enjoying a quiet fire in da fireplace or an evening out in da hot tub, here's a question for yeh... Who makes the best hot chocolate? I'm not tallking da cheap buckets of instant cocoa the youth buy. I'm talking the real deal, premium stuff suitable for a discerning adult! Hot chocolate is one of da special things for snowy nights and cold weather campouts. What do yeh find is the best treat for when the snow flies? Beavah

Ultimately, their decision was -- grade-level patrols So now yeh introduce patrol competitions (which I'd guess yeh probably haven't had much of) and then see how fast before their decision changes. Boys are pretty conspicuous about fairness, eh? Or yeh do a challenging campout without providing a lot of adult support, then let 'em see the younger kid patrols struggling and getting frustrated. Your good servant leaders will step forward to help out and feel some real pride in doing so, and quickly become the older boy PLs and APLs of the "younger" patrols. Because now they see that it matters, eh? And there's nuthin' a young man wants more than to really count in others eyes. Then those patrols will become desirable because they're cool, and yeh get back to the natural mixed-age gang that was da core of scouting for 80 years. Kids generally make da right decision for their circumstances. Our role as adults is to set up da circumstances so that they most readily develop toward our goals in the process. If da circumstances are "be led in instruction" then they of course want same level kids in a patrol, or some would be bored while others were lost. If da circumstances are "take on a challenge!" whether competition or truly challenging outings then they naturally choose differently. Sounds like yeh might be overemphasizing advancement method in your troop, dkurtnbach. Boys are seeing da core of scouting in your troop as being rank instruction. Yeh should perhaps think about how to re-balance your use of da Methods. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, E61, yeh raise an interesting question so I spun it off as a new thread. Related to this thread, I wonder a bit why it's the troop leader's problem, eh? I mean if the lad is in band and wants to go to band camp, the date is set by the school and if yeh can't come yeh can't come. Around these parts band camp can fall in early August while school doesn't start for weeks after the boys get back. Sports camps can be the same. And unlike da scout volunteer, those schools folks are paid. Now, the scouts do give yeh options, eh? The boy can go provisional on his own to any camp most weeks. He can do that local to (and with) his summertime parent or at a camp in his wintertime state. He can also go as a guest of another troop in either location at a different time than his regular troop. If he goes with a troop at his summertime location, he can make and maintain strong friendships that can be renewed each summer. So da poor scout volunteers provide loads more options and accommodations than the paid professional school and sports people. Which brings us back to this thread's topic, and one I missed. Ungrateful folks who take for granted volunteers who give thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to do somethin' nice for other people's kids, and then gripe when their son's experience can't be custom tailored to their particular desires. It can be downright discouraging, and leads to a lot of burnout. Where are the parents? Me, if I were the dad, I'd fly the kid back home for the week to do camp, and come with him! Either that, or find him a great local troop for the summer and go with him to their camp. Because that's just what yeh do as parent to support your kid. Beavah

Yah, in the original thread Engineer61 goes a bit OT in raising an interestin' question. How do we support boys from joint custody arrangements where the non-local parent gets custody during the summer? Particularly for camp.

With a same age patrol I won't have to work as hard on developing patrol bonds, that will be there naturally. Nah, not really. Some same-age friendships will be there naturally, eh? As well as some same-age rivalries or enmity or social levels. That's different from what a real functioning patrol with patrol spirit is like. I think one of da best examples of a patrol-like thing is the Hogwarts Houses in the Harry Potter books & movies. Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and da rest are much like patrols. You're proud of your patrol. It's where yeh live and who you eat with. Older fellows in it lead as prefects, others give yeh advice or support. Yeh have some same-age friends in your patrol, but yeh can also have some friends from Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw patrol and even some way cool older scout friends from Gryffindor. When yeh compete in scout skill Quiddich, yeh compete by patrol and cheer your patrol's flag and colors. Each patrol has its own character a bit. Those brave Gryffindors might really like rock climbing while those snakey Slytherins take special pride in water sports. So I think yeh have it backward Thomas54. Boys bond because of shared experiences and shared interests, not shared age. If lads are competing together, working together, cooking together, having adventures together they will bond automatically because of the shared experience. Yeh can put a mousy know-it-all like Hermione Granger in with da likes of Harry and Ron, and they'll bond because facing a giant troll in a bathroom just sorta does that to yeh. That's some of the beauty of the boy scout program, eh? Yeh can just set up the system and the magic happens on its own, without needing "adult direction." Patrol competition and patrols livin' together leads to patrol pride and bonding without any adult help. All yeh need to do is set up and follow the program. Same with scout skills, eh? If da patrol competition depends on each member having good skills, then Hermione is goin' to teach Ron the spell or Fred & George are goin' to practice quiddich plays with young Harry. Again, no adult direction required. Just look at da mixed-age friendships kids make playing online games these days, or how hard they work to learn all the skills necessary to do well at DOOM or WOW or whatever they're playin' now. Again, no adult direction required, beyond settin' up da parameters of the game. That's what Scouting is like done well - like popular movies and video games. Yeh set up the program, maybe give 'em a few hints to get 'em started. Then the kids take off with it and help each other. Pretty soon you'll be surprised when they can even face Voldemort on their own. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Good question, OGE. It's pretty much left up to da unit leaders in the troop, eh? That makes it pretty ad hoc. It would be nice if Irving put out an official "Cubs to Scout transition for parents" set of materials that would help younger troops and give that magical sense of being official. Thing is, it's really a change of mindset, eh? And there's no way to teach a change of mindset. Yeh can give 'em all the information in the world, as someone suggests, but it's just words. Yeh can't help thinking in the mindset you're in until you've built up some contrary experience (and been given some "correction" along the way). B