Beavah

so the myth that if you do First Class First year you can't possibly do a good job is busted? Not about that, eh? It's about sharin' ideas and information so that each of us can do a better job for the people we serve. I have a question for the couple o' scouters who described situations where a whole NSP received instruction (from TGs or ASMs), and then the whole group received checkouts (seemed like that was mostly ASMs) on the same campout or within a week or two. Do you really find that a boy learnin' something for the first time achieves competence/mastery of a skill on the same day he's first taught it? Or do yeh really think one week delay is adequate retention? Both seem very unlikely to me. Yah, sure, a boy who is shown a patch of poison ivy can go back to that patch and point it out again. But can he really go to a different campground two months later and distinguish poison ivy from a plain old nonpoisonous vine - on his own, while doin' something else? Isn't the second one the one the boy needs to be safe and successful? Isn't that what a boy should be given an award for in public?

Yah, LongHaul, I agree. That's why I think it's helpful for people to share what they actually do, so we all get a sense of what they mean by FCFY. Even with the "suggested setup" there are a lot of ways to do things that aren't always clear. Two troops I work with do NSP/FCFY. One is very much like SR540's more heavily "adult influenced" program, one is more like bs1964's more fluid program. I'll talk about the first program, which very much pushes FCFY. Kids move through TF by May, 2C by summer camp, 1C by late fall. Some boys fall a bit behind that because of attendance, but it would be very unusual for a boy not to be First Class by the end of their first year in March. The instruction is often done by adults, or "heavily coached" TG's, very group-oriented, even "classroomish." It's pretty well done, actually. Kids like it OK. But I'm not sure the kids have enough opportunity to do it themselves to really learn, eh? Yah, it's not the quality of the instruction that counts, but the quality of the learning. I'm pretty sure that come May of their second year, or earlier if they were put in a real-life instead of classroom-test use of a skill, that these boys wouldn't succeed. Especially for skills like First Aid or What to do When Lost where there really aren't that many opportunities for "live" practice or repetition, and where the real world is confusin'. In fact, I doubt that the TG's if put in young Michael's place would successfully reason their way out of the hills. The troop thinks things are great, though. Everybody makes First Class on time, just like they should. Parents are happy. Adult leaders brag about how successful they are at "the program." That makes it hard for an old flat-tailed UC to nudge things more toward "learnin'" than "advancin'". And just "advancing" has gotten pretty common in a lot of troops, eh? I guess what I'm seein' in this unit in particular, and some others, and in things like summer camp merit badges, is "credit for instruction" rather than "credit for learning/ability." We taught it to them, so our job is done... their job too, eh? FCFY often adds to that attitude, which is pretty contrary to the institutional goals of the BSA. And it doesn't do too much for the safety of the kids (or for the mental wellbeing of the adults who take 'em into the woods where they get lost).

Yah, dan, yeh don't have to participate in the discussion if you don't want to. It was just an invitation, eh? For me, I share some of the feelings others expressed in sympathy with the scout leaders of young Michael's troop. You bring a lad on a trip, and you're responsible for him. He's homesick, you do your best to comfort him and cut him some slack (even tho you get panned for a YP violation ). Then when you least expect it, he gets a notion to hitchhike home on an impulse, and bein' off his meds, he acts on the impulse and launches off on a hike in the direction of the highway, tellin' no one. You as adult leader get featured for days in the national media. Thank goodness in this case Michael's dad stood up for the leaders, eh? But that could have been different, too. The issue of "goin' off meds," with the results, seems a fairly common one in the field. I'm just curious to know what other folks do, and how they handle it, what procedures they set up, how they manage the conversations with the parents. You know, things that might help the troops and camps I work with.

I just wish that the Band teacher and the Swimming Coach understood that very same thing sometimes. Yah, I wonder why it's considered more courteous to blow off the volunteer than the paid instructor? Folks who are paid to be there get to "require" participation while those who give of their own time and resources for free shouldn't "expect" it?

Yah, Dan asked that we discuss some of the issues with ADD/ADHD kids on campouts. One of the things that's come out in the story of Michael Auberry bein' lost in NC is that he frequently took a "medication holiday" when out on camping trips. That seems to be somethin' that causes issues around here, especially at our summer camp from time to time. What are the personal experiences of the group, in workin' with such kids and their parents? What kind of "internal practices" have yeh set up that you've found helpful? What sort of problems or challenges have you run into that others might learn from? Please share your "real life" experiences and insights, with enough detail to "get a real feel for" the situation.

Yah, so it seems like some on da Scout Missing thread wanted to talk about FCFY, eh? Figured it'd be better as a new topic where perhaps some rationality and courtesy could generate more light than heat. So, what are your personal experiences with FCFY, particularly as they relate to what scouts learn & retain in terms of Scoutcraft - those things like land navigation and "what to do when lost" and buddy system that apply in very real ways to what good Scout programs do all the time - take kids into the woods. Do you find in your programs that you really get kids to a level of understanding at Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, and First Class, so that they might reliably avoid or survive situations like young Michael's (or the Utah Fire lads, or...)? How do yeh know, or evaluate that? Should we even be takin' kids into some areas until they can reliable demonstrate some of those skills on demand? We require paddlin' skills checks in Safety Afloat, swim checks in Safe Swim Defense - and we even require retesting swim checks every year. Young Michael's dad expected that Scouting had taught his son what was what, so that his boy could understand and act correctly. How well do we live up to that expectation, if we're honest with ourselves? Please, as a courtesy for this thread, share your own personal experience with your troop's setup, it's pluses and minuses, and how successful it is at kids learning and retaining important outdoor safety skills (and how you know/evaluate that). Only after that, your thoughts about "theory and principle".

Yah, so I was attendin an ECOH for a young man this past weekend. Hes from the troop I reported on earlier in the thread, and I served on his ECOH. Great young man, like almost all Eagles I know. I brought along MTMs questions to ask the older boys durin the evening. Heres my best memory of the answers, based on da notes I could jot quickly. from the SPL SPL plays soccer and lacrosse, is also in a venturing crew, takes an overload course schedule that includes AP/Advanced everything What. Thats just stupid. Look, if you schedule things properly and do part of your homework at school, its no big deal. Nobody fails a test because they didnt cram the night before, you fail a test because you were an idiot and didnt do any of the work the rest of the week. I hardly ever miss a meeting. from the Quartermaster Quartermaster is a band and orchestra member in a nationally recognized program, takes all advanced classes, participates in science and math olympiads, chess club, and writes for the newspaper Yeah, I think I missed one outing last fall because of band. That was just stupid, they re-arranged the schedule at the last minute. Were all on the PLC, so its easy to plan events around the sports and band schedule most of the time. [The band director] talks tough sometimes about band requirements, but Ive never had a problem getting out of things if I needed to for a prior Scouting commitment. from the JASM JASM is a band member in the same program, solid 3.7GPA, several other extracurrics that I forgot to write down Yeah, and why dont they just go out to the outing after the band event? We drive out all the time if the event is at all close. from the PL of the Carrion Crows PL is a state level wrestler, solid A student Why did they put the Scout meeting night on the meet nights? Remember back a couple of years ago when we had to switch for something like that? [nods around]. Yeah, sure, if I was wrestling in the meet Id go to that, but Id still try to catch the end of the meeting, and I wouldnt miss any of the outings. That's just lame. another boy This lad plays water polo in the fall, and swims in the winter. B student, class Vice President. Swim practice is twice a day, 6am and after school. Team is top 8 in the state every year. I couldnt find a football player, so this will have to do. Yeah, I remember freshman year I was really tired after practice and Id just come home and crash some nights. I think I missed a few meetings that year. No, nowhere near 50%, that would suck. I remember when I was a 7th grader and Bill (the old PL) used to blow off meetings all the time. It really used to piss me off, especially when he got Star. Id never do that. I made sure I scheduled study hall with other friends from the troop and the (swim) team, and I do most of my homework there. Some nights we study after the meeting at the library. What do you feel about attendance requirements? Got to have them. Why should we PLC guys put in all this work and then have kids blow us off because they feel like playing Nintendo or something? Theyre good. Yeah, theyre good, as long as youre not a complete jerk about it, and make it a bit flexible. I really don't bug the guys in my patrol about it unless it's bad. I like it. If I didnt have a guideline, Id just get lazy. Thats kinda how I am. Yeah, but guys, what about Jim (scout with medical issues)? But thats different. He cant control that. Its not like its his choice or his schedule. When its an activity its your choice, and you should think about whether you can do it before you sign up. [nods]

Another reason for ensuring that scouts actually know the stuff before signing off their books. It may save their lives one day. Yah, yah to that. Amen. Da risk of FCFY is pencil-whippin' things to move 'em along. No retestin' or requirement addin', etc. etc., especially if that means takin' extra time to be sure the scout understands. I hope it didn't happen in this case, for the sake of those adults. I wouldn't want anyone to have to live with that. As to the YP issue, it's a hard judgment call, eh? A kid is homesick/in a funk/misbehaving and needs a timeout/feels ill. You only have one spare adult. Do yeh cancel the hike for all the other boys to maintain two deep? Give up on two deep but ask another boy to skip the hike to avoid one-on-one? Leave one adult back alone but with the people in the adjacent campsite keepin' watch? Have mom and dad drive up to take the boy home immediately? I think yeh do what you can with the resources you have, and knowin' the boy and the adults.

Yah, this is a question yeh really have to ask people in your troop, eh? Some troops do the whole patrol-box trailer car-encampment portable-hotel thing. Some don't do boxes at all in favor of the lightweight, flexible, gear that lets you backpack or climb Everest as easy as car camp. Every combination in between is seen. Just depends.

Yah, I dunno if it's in the Last Child book. I think the research suggests that the number one thing that correlates with kids growin' up to enjoy nature, and be concerned about conserving nature is... Unstructured, free-play time outdoors. Just like your time on the farm in old Ireland, eh? And by the way, a Happy St. Paddy's day to yeh, yeh old Irishman! May the luck and the blarney of your native sod never desert yeh, in this life or the next. Beavah

Yah, good point Eagledad. Not just high adventure, either, eh? Troops have to have attendance requirements for prep trips for something like a canoe trip, to ensure swim checks and basic paddling skills. There are often required prep meetin's before cold weather campouts up here in da north, eh? In fact, required prep for any kind of technical trip, even backpackin', is a fine idea. And I bet at least some troops have required orientation nights for new parents.

I just dont understand why you would drop a scout if he attended 15 out of 20 activities because the troop mandates 80% or 16 out of 20. Yah, this is why I think it's a good habit on the forum to start with sharing what each of us actually does in our troop, and how it works. This thread shows what happens when someone doesn't do that, eh? OGE believes that attendance requirements implies that people are tossing kids based on fractions of a percent, eh? But not a single unit with attendance requirements said that was how they operated. By giving real-life descriptions and examples, it's more clear that troops use "attendance requirements" as a means of communicatin' participation expectations and correcting behavioral problems within their unit, not "punishing" hardworkin' scouts. OGE says his unit doesn't have "attendance requirements" and da rest of us hear "oh, gosh, another advancement mill." Then he goes on to describe how they do have very real performance requirements for POR's that include active participation and involvement, with a penalty of bein' removed from the POR. He just doesn't call 'em "requirements" If we all start with da notion that everyone's a good scouter, share what we do (it's plusses and minuses honestly), and listen to what others do (open mindedly), we can learn a lot, eh?

Yah, hi there donert! I suppose it would probably help if yeh told us a bit more about what's goin' on, eh? How to proceed depends a lot on things like what you mean by "bad" . The book answer to your question is that the CC serves at the pleasure of the Chartered Organization (the church/school/community group that sponsors the troop). So the head of the CO or the CO's Representative (COR) can simply approve a CC application from someone else and make the change. The real answer, though, depends a lot on what's goin' on, and who the people are who are "players" in your current drama, and how your unit has typically done things in the past. Mostly, kindness and courtesy demand that we be understanding and gentle with each other. I'd suggest thinkin' on things like: * Is there a chance the person is right, and yeh really should consider his/her point of view a bit more? Committees should challenge unit scouters sometimes. Feedback is a gift. * Would an outside voice or committee training help the person develop a new perspective? * If a change needs to be made, try doin' it at the end of a fixed term. If yeh don't have fixed terms, then consider annual recharter the fixed term. * Have a nice informal chat with the gent, a UC, another parent. Consider whether the person can be talked into a new role that's a better fit. Have a friendly person lined up to be CC who is "wants to give it a go for a while". In short, make it more like a friendly reshuffle of responsibilities, not like a firing. * Whether you and the rest of the committee can just work around the person for a bit without really bein' rancorous. That can be an OK way for someone to get a hint. * Even if the person is wrong on somethin', is it worth the effort? Adult fightin' in a unit does a lot of damage. Hurts feelings. Makes people leave and pull their kids out. Just because you're "right" about something doesn't mean that pushin' the matter isn't wrong. Make sure what you mean by "bad" is a really big deal that seriously affects the program. Because adults fightin' and removin' a CC will seriously affect a program.

Yah, so Old Grey Eagle and mtm25653... What are your experiences in your unit programs? If you don't have attendance rules or expectations, how do you handle the inevitable "freeloaders" and poor examples that crop up from time to time (and their parents)? What do you feel are the pluses to your way of approaching this? What do you feel are minuses or things you still struggle with? And can yeh tell us a bit about your program so we can understand your approach? (i.e. See first posting ) The discussion is always better if we first understand your approach and where you're comin' from, eh? Beavah

Yah, Eagledad, exactly. When I was typin' the intro, that's exactly what I was thinkin' my experience was with different troops, but I couldn't quite put it into words. I see attendance requirements (and other rules-based "requirements") come out when a troop is having some "issues" that they really need to get control of. The requirements are as much a form of "good communication" of expectations as anything - kinda like a way of saying "hey, we're really serious about changing this." As they succeed at improving the troop culture and gain experience, the expectations shift from bein' rules-based to being more social-based. Partly that's the leaders' improvin', but mostly it's the kids and parents buying in and doin' their own "social enforcement." At that point, "rules" fade. Da one troop I work with as an MC is a good example. They have two attendance rules: 1) 70% attendance for youth leaders/positions of responsibility. Enforcement by SPL conference, then SM conference, then removal. This was put in place by the SM after he got frustrated by spendin' a lot of time doing JLT/training only to have kids not give back. The rule helped get that under control, because it was a kind of communication the kids and parents understood. I can only remember it being enforced once fairly early on, where an SPL was showin' up for less than 20% of the events. I am sure nobody ever tracks the percentage - even then it was only computed after the fact to deal with a difficult parent. 2) 50% attendance for troop members. Can't say I know what the enforcement is; I think it's mosly PL conference, SPL conference, SM conference. I think they do drop kids from the roster at recharter, but only ones who've completely faded down to zero anyway. This is a PLC rule, after they got frustrated many years back with some kids who would "cherry pick" fun events and then blow off other events/service projects, usually at the last minute. They got that under control I guess, because I haven't heard anything since. I am certain nobody tracks the percent. What happened is da rules were used for communication, perhaps with some exemplary enforcement right at the beginnin'. Then the rules just faded to the point where they are only "conversation starters" if they're mentioned at all. Yah, dat's how some of us feel about most rules, eh? Useful for teachin' beginners, but then yeh have to move past 'em to Principles. What's important to me is that each troop have real expectations of boys. Whether they're conveyed in a rule or more informally, havin' those expectations, and living by them, is necessary for growin' boys. Never seen a unit which uses letters from National or "don't add to the requirements" as a way of avoidin' having solid expectations be worth a darn. Beavah As an aside, IMO it's time for Terry to retire or move to a different position. Da problem is that National advancement largely deals with complaints all the time. After a while yeh just start doin' things as a way to avoid the complaints. Kinda like grade inflation in schools. Yeh lose sight of the real-world things kids need to learn to succeed.

Kilo-Bravo-6 offers: We use the requirement "be active in your troop and patrol for x months" to enforce an 80% policy. ...This is another of those spin off topics I think. Yah, Ok, welcome to da spin zone . Now before we all start actin' like Elk in ruttin' season, I beg a favor. Before respondin' back and forth, first share with the group the following: Does your troop have any attendance rules or expectations (and what are they?)? If yes, what if any are the consequences? Can yeh give an example? If no, how do you handle the inevitable "freeloaders" and poor examples that do crop up from time to time (and their parents)? Honest as you can, how does that work for your unit? Both pluses and minuses, eh!

Do the students get to pick who the faculty will be? When teaching positions open are the students to be consulted? Don't know 'bout where Lisa'bob is, but every college and university 'round these parts sure will consult with its students about faculty appointments. Pretty common to have candidates come and do a lecture or teach a class, and ask for written comments from students. Fairly common to have a graduate student on the hirin' committee. When someone is up for tenure do the faculty think the students should get a say? This is pretty common, too. Almost all the colleges and universities use a teaching-evaluation system that collects student feedback, and that's certainly used for tenure decisions. What weight it gets just depends on the values of the institution, eh? I'm told that if I pick the wrong one the boys will quit the troop Yah, not sure where this came from, but it might have been from my comments. So let me be more clear. I didn't say that if the boys expressed strong reservations about someone that they would quit. I said that not listenin' to that would be harmful to the troop and its program, provided the troop is a strong youth-run unit with a positive culture. Because in a good youth-run unit, da boys generally know what they're talkin' about, eh? And they care a lot.

First question: How are you goin' to decide? The committee/CO I mean? Are yeh goin' to have one up-or-down vote, or are you goin' to work at this until you achieve consensus? Though it takes longer, I strongly believe the selection of SM should be a consensus deal, eh? He/She needs the universal support of folks goin' forward. And for sure, the kids should be a part of that consensus. So I'd move away from "voting" to a model where all the constituents, includin' the kids, are in agreement. As far as kids havin' a say, I'd think that in a strong youth-run troop, the older boys develop plenty of experience and maturity. Yah, if we're honest with ourselves, we have to admit that they have lots more hands-on experience in the field of scouting than the average committee member. Hard to beat 4-7 years of active participation. They also have a very special perspective if the SM candidates have been ASMs in the program. They have extensive experience with the person. As an old friend of mine points out, they have seen what the person is like when no other adults are watching. That's information that's 100 times better than anything the committee has, or can get in a short interview. If you were to hire someone for a job, I would bet you'd place a large weight on the recommendation from their former job. No different here, eh? It's the boys that have far better information. So I'd go so far as to say that if you've got a good youth-run program, you have to ask the lads for their input, and you should make them a major part of the consensus on a new SM. Yah, but only if you've got a good youth-run program, eh? If you've got older scout behavioral issues and such, or your program never really trusts kids with more than menu planning, then they're not goin' to be as useful. And only if yeh do it right. Don't expect most boys to give full voice to their ideas in a room packed with adults they don't know, unless they already have a lot of experience sittin' on da committee. We teach kids in a lot of subtle ways to be seen and not heard, and especially not to disagree with adults because they are adults. Try something like havin' an adult meet with the PLC boys and have an hour-long discussion, listening carefully and asking good probing questions. Then the adult should be an advocate for the boys' position at the committee, along with the SPL and ASPL. The boys should know that theirs is not the final decision, but that their input will be strongly considered. Yah, one more thing. If the boys have real reservations over someone bein' SM, you ignore them at your peril. They might not have a grasp of all the things that go into bein' a good SM, but they can recognize in a heartbeat the problems with a bad one. Consensus is best. Beavah

Yah, I've never figured what all the fuss and bother is about Scout Spirit, eh? I think it comes from people who put too much emphasis on Advancement Method to the exclusion of the others. We all know what good character is, eh? At least as defined by the CO we serve and the culture we've developed in our units. We all should know that boys should not be recognized or given awards until they have demonstrated that they've made appropriate progress toward bein' a man of good character - progress which reflects their age, the rank they hope to be recognized for, and to some extent the place where they started from. Developin' character takes time and effort. It doesn't happen on a schedule, nor does it happen just because a boy finished learnin' all his knots. In a lot of ways, buildin' character is the hardest of any of the requirements, and takes a bit longer. But it's the one that matters the most. So yeh should do what's right, and publicly honor with awards the boys that you feel deserve to be so honored for their growth in character. Da ones that yeh want to hold up to the community and to the younger scouts as examples. Simple. Because if you don't hew to that standard, the Advancement Method is meaningless, eh?

Yah, packsaddle, keepin' an umbrella liability policy is a good safe bet these days. Especially for the kind of things yeh can get into if you cause an auto accident that seriously injures several people. But if it gives you peace of mind while volunteerin', so much the better. For those on da forum who might think we're talkin' about rainwear, "umbrella" liability insurance is insurance which covers you for tort liability (da kinda stuff you get sued for, where you made a mistake and someone got hurt, or someone's property got damaged). It's very inexpensive, typically on the order of $100 a year for $1M of coverage when linked to another policy like auto coverage. Whoever handles your auto or homeowners coverage would be glad to add a liability umbrella. If you own a house and have homeowner's coverage, that also covers you for liability (in order to protect your house from seizure), but it's worth checkin' the limits on your coverage. Da BSA has a great reputation for standing by its CO's and volunteers, so yeh don't need to worry about liability from your scoutin' endeavors hurting you or your family. But for other things you do, an umbrella policy might give yeh some extra peace of mind. I think the policy you describe would probably cover someone who was not thinking clearly. It probably would exclude someone who caused damage with malice and intent. Yah, sorry about my use of technical terms like Frootloops, eh? You got it right.

Yah, AntelopeDud taught me that one, eh? It's now one of my favorites ! You take a colon ":" and then follow it with a capital "P".

To bring back an earlier point, if an individual does not follow the rules established by the BSA, then the BSA and their insurance carrier will not provide coverage. This is standard procedure and protection for the insurance company as well for the individual. It is an agreement. Stupid behavior(s) is/are not covered. NO NO NO NO NO. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Please do NOT EVER TELL THIS TO ANYONE. It is FALSE. And more importantly it HURTS THE SCOUTING PROGRAM because one of the big things the BSA markets to CO's and volunteers is the liability insurance coverage. Da BSA liability insurance coverage (through Liberty Mutual and the major reinsurers) does NOT have exclusions in it based on the internal rules of the BSA. As this case demonstrates, it is possible to be stupid, violate the BSA rules about fire safety, and still be covered. Insurance is only useful if it covers you when you screw up. Because if yeh didn't screw up, then you're not liable in the first place, eh? Gross negligence and criminal negligence of course are excluded in almost all policies, so there's an out if da person is a total fruitloop. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough before, eh? Sometimes folks just don't understand my accent. For a calmer discussion, see da previous insurance threads, eh, or all my other comments in this one. But I have always been suspicious of insurance coverage that only costs a few pennies. Yah, don't get the coverages mixed up. The BSA offers two different kinds of insurance. Type one is supplementary health insurance coverage, to take care of your personal health insurance deductible or to provide minimal care for somethin' like a broken arm for an uninsured boy. Da limits on this policy are really low - around $10K or less for most things. This insurance is mostly optional, though some councils require it or provide it for free. The cost is really low, too - a couple o' bucks a kid. Type two insurance is general liability coverage, which is purchased by the BSA to cover it, CO's, and adult leaders. This insurance does not cost pennies, it costs many thousands of dollars. This is the type of insurance that we're talkin' about in the Utah fires case. Below is a link to a pdf of a lawsuit... Perhaps some poor sot can interpret it for us. Yah, this is not a PDF of a lawsuit. It's the court's ruling in the first formal phase of a lawsuit, pretrial motions. In this case "a motion for summary judgment". If yeh can get a quick summary judgment, meaning there's no dispute about the facts and the questions of law are clear, everyone goes home (or to appeal...). Often it's more a tactic to stretch things a bit while parties continue negotiations (and attorneys can bill more hours...). In this case, it was the government filing for summary judgment against the BSA. The motion was denied, because there were enough questions of fact about how the fire started to refer the matter for trial. I might add "barely". The court also took the time to respond to issues of law regardin' liability. It didn't have to do that, o'course, but the way to interpret this is that the court is sending a clear signal to the parties, the BSA in particular, to settle this case before trial. The matters of law the court addressed were ones that were raised earlier in this thread. 1. Is the BSA responsible for the negligent acts of its volunteers and employees? The court answers "yes", under the established doctrine of respondeat superior ("let the superior answer" or "let the deep pockets pay" ), after the BSA admitted that its employees were involved. 2. Did the BSA have an obligation to protect the area from fire damage (in legalese, did they have a "duty of care" to the United States as plaintiff)? The court answers "yes", and goes on to state pretty clearly that the BSA violated its duty. As we see in recent news, the BSA didn't miss the signal, and the trial date has been postponed indefinitely. I suspect we'll hear another settlement announcement in the near future, usin' the Utah settlement as a model. Yah, and as an aside it's worth notin' the BSA's argument and the court's agreement that "the BSA policies do not create a duty [of care]". Legal responsibility and liability is decided by other things. The policies are there only to help and guide us. Beavah

Yah, I think when you have a bunch of people givin' significantly of their time and money because they believe in a program, it's really hard to create a "schism", eh? The default position of every volunteer is that da BSA are the good guys. They're us. Only an accumulation of negative experiences is really able to shake that view, coupled with a conscientious evaluation of "is this service worth the cost?" which any good person needs to ask before givin' to any "charity." We find in many areas - not all, but at least a significant minority - that BSA, Inc. has logged the necessary number of negative experiences and lack of service to lose the enthusiastic support of the people who should be it's strongest advocates. That's a tellin' and worryin' sign, eh? Even those in healthy districts and councils should view it with some concern. Recognizin' and talkin' about an illness in a program you love is a remarkable bit of loyalty, when it's so much easier to walk away. It ain't a schism.

Or actually Id have such a small troop we couldnt use the patrol method, there would be little if any youth leadership because there would be no one to lead, and it would become a Camping Club that wore scout uniforms. Yah, but maybe that would give you a core of kids to build up a stronger program, eh? You might even use 'em for mixed-age patrols this time :). Sounds like yeh could use the services of a good commissioner. I suspect that sort of unit service isn't somethin' that Chicago Area Council is interested in at the moment. My hike reference should actually have been a walk reference. Most of these kids wanted Car camping to the extent that they didnt want to go to our Council camp because you had to carry your gear in about 1/3 mile from the parking lot. Yah, I think the way yeh deal with this is you identify the small group of kids that's interested in a little bit more, and yeh go do something fun with just them. You'd be amazed how quickly kids get out of their funk when they see other boys workin', havin' fun, and getting your positive attention. The troop sharing our site drilled a hole in the side of the bathroom to run an electrical cord out to the Games tent which had a computer, monitor, TV and Nintendo set up in it! Sounds like the perfect target for a camp prank .

Yah, jblake in the other Patrol Method thread talked about how his small troop uses an "Honors Patrol" for leadership boys. It's interestin' to me how "old" BSA stuff sticks around when it works in a unit. I'm curious. How many of yeh out there use an Honors Patrol / "Senior Patrol" (which in some cases like jblake's might also be "Venture Patrol") as part of patrol method? How exactly do you set it up - who is in it? Are they also part of a "regular" patrol, or is this their "home" patrol? What have you found to be the pluses? Any negatives?