Beavah

Yah, RangerT, I sympathize with some of your statements, and I do know about the bizarre circumstances around some of the numbers fraud cases at a few councils and the absurdity in Chicago. There are risks to a whistle-blower gettin' too far ahead of the rest of the board (in any corporation), and risks to waitin' too long before you deal with a lack of service commitment & oversight on a board. But I stand by the rest of my "prose", eh? Yeh can decide you don't want to believe me if you like. My feelings won't be hurt. Havin' served an executive committee that did fire its SE, I can assure you it's no different than terminatin' any CEO. Nuthin' says you can't set up your own evaluation mechanism based strongly on quality of service. It's just that your poor SE is torn in his loyalties, so yeh have to find a good one in the hiring process. And as yeh say, the hirin' process is an odd duck that should also be chucked. Still haven't convinced a council board to do its own thing, though a few GSUSA councils have hired CEO's from "outside" with excellent results. Yeh do what you can, eh, with the cards you're dealt. ***** As far as UW goes, we must remember that there are a lot of UW's out there now that refuse to give to the BSA, except by designated donations, so we shouldn't knock that system too much . And in such areas, it's possible to get Community Fund donations to unit CO's. So there's places where the exact opposite of this case may be true! Yah, SR540, as I said I disagreed with the way the SM involved UW, given the apparent setup in de4's area. I think it was an honest, if creative, mistake. I just think one of the best measures of our character is whether we treat those who make mistakes with gentility and compassion, and then help them achieve their just ends with better means. As EagleDad commented, though, I'm harder on adults than on kids, harder on parents receivin' a service than on a SM given his time as a service, and harder on paid professionals than the lot of 'em, eh? If I heard about de4's action in our area, I'd be perfectly willin' to help the SM get his troop/CO listed, or to set up a NFP community fund to support designated donations to local youth outdoor and character-building programs. Pro bono, even It's really not that difficult a process. My gift to helpin' my neighbors donate to programs I believe in.

A troop would never fit into this picture. Yah, sure it could. I know any number of troops that would qualify, particularly any of the separately incorporated 501© units. Almost all CO's would qualify. This troop could easily turn this around with a wee bit of professional advice and become a UW-qualified agency by next year. That's the risk of playin' hardball. Yeh have to remember that UW was formed to support small NFPs that don't have the staff to do their own solicitation. In that way, BSA Councils really are takin' advantage of the system, because they're big enough and actually do fund raising on their own. The allocation for the council would be reduced by the amount the SM's troop was going to get since "Boy Scouts" was allocated X number of dollars thru UW giving. Yah, this is true, but not every UW chapter works this way, and I don't think any should, really. Designated donations should be excess above Community Fund allocations. The SE and DE were fixing a problem that the SM created and they catch the grief instead. Yah, for the way they went about "fixing" the problem, because it most likely had the net result of harmin' the Scouting community. Seems like a reasonable thing to give someone who should be "professional" grief for, eh? Or at least a poor evaluation. Wouldn't the better lesson for the SM to model to his boys be to go out and work to raise the funds instead of solicit direct donations? This is a philosophy that's unit/CO dependent. If it really was an absolute, it would be an argument against anybody, including the council, soliciting money for Scouting. If boys should go out and work to raise funds to "pay their own way", then the council has no business doin' FOS. Reality is that most of us believe boys should do some work to learn, but also that we as parents and community members should support the youth of tomorrow in their growth, eh?

Yah, gwd brings up another reality - the small troop. There's a lot of 'em out there. I didn't put up an example of Patrol Method in one because I don't thing they often really work patrol method, though maybe someone else can chime in. Most small troops operate in single, age-mixed "troop method" as gwd describes. The only other choice is creatin' very small patrols that frequently collapse due to absentees on any given outing. That don't work, eh? So best to be one "patrol" that does the same sort of old-guys-watchin'-out-for-and-teachin'-young-guys routine as a mixed-age patrol in a larger troop. Yeh can see in gwd's great posts about youth leadership in their troop exactly how each patrol should be in a larger troop. The tough thing is when a small troop grows, as we hope gwd's will . Then you're faced with 3 choices: Troop Method - the easy default choice that most units make. Just keep doin' what you've been doin', but with more people. New Scout Patrol Split - bring in that big group of new recruits as a separate new scout patrol, and start to build a same-age (horizontal) patrol structure. Second easiest, keeps the old "functioning" group together, but requires a lot of resources to help the new guys without becomin' Webelos III. Mixed-Age Patrol Split - take your current group of high-functioning guys and let 'em split up to become the leadership team of two patrols, and add new guys to each. Moves more of your original group into leadership positions, splits up the young guys into manageable chunks. Enables patrol competition. The split into patrols should only happen when yeh have enough to make both patrols "viable", usually around 16-20 boys in the modern world. It's easier to go to mixed-age if you're gettin' slow, steady increases in recruitment. Often, though, you suddenly get a big jump, and double troop size overnight. That's a tough camel to swallow, and pushes people toward NSPs (as a way of delayin' absorbing those guys into the "regular" troop). Though it's tough on the youth leaders, I think it's ultimately better for the troop in the long run to split up the incomin' guys, and then find time for a few special "old guys only" things like a really cool JLT week (which may eventually lead into a Venture Patrol). The other thing I wouldn't necessarily do right away is have an ASPL/SPL. When yeh go from 1 to 2 patrols, best to have your two best guys be PL's. It'll strengthen the patrols and move you more firmly away from "troop method." Save the SPL-as-coordinator role for when you get up to 3 patrols and have been there a year or two. Whichever method you prefer, I think we could do a lot better helpin' units think through these practical things, don't yeh? They make a huge difference in the "feel" and character of a troop.

All scouting professionals work for the BSA not the volunteers, it is their job to manage and direct programs in their assigned districts and to raise money and units from the businesses, service organizations, and units in their area. Scout Executives manage a council and report directly to National, where most of them want to end up someday. Council executive committees have limited authority and can be replaced by the SE at will. Those are the facts, even though I don't like them either, and thats the reality of scouting today. Nah, you're both missin' the subtle nature of the problem. The Legal BSA Councils are incorporated entities within their own state. As such, they are primarily subject to the state statutes for NFP membership corporations. The SE works for the board of directors of the council, and serves at their pleasure. The SE cannot replace the board at will, it works the other way around. The board can replace the SE at their discretion (subject to terms of his employment contract). The board has a legal fiduciary responsibility to the members of the corporation - the CO's. Not to the BSA. The SE's legal responsibility is to the council, not to the BSA. National BSA grants a license (charter) to the local council corporation to operate a Scouting service facility and program in the area. That license comes with some strings in terms of bylaws approval and operating regulations, but while more strict than the charter relationship with CO's, still allows a fair bit of council autonomy in operation of the BSA program. It's important to understand that the separate incorporation of councils is a significant risk management tool to protect the national organization from liability. If, for example, the Utah forest fire case exceeds the insurance coverage limits, the council will have to pay and may go bankrupt, but the BSA is insulated and we don't lose Philmont. Similarly, if council finances are mismanaged, or a serial child molestation happens, the council goes bankrupt but the BSA is insulated. So the BSA must not exercise direct control of council operations, both because of the limits of state law and to maintain its protection from liability & financial exposure. This again parallels the relationship between CO's and the BSA, where CO's are legally independent, therefore limiting the risk to the council and BSA. The Practical Practically, da BSA in recent years has increasingly tried to have it's cake and eat it too - maintain liability & financial isolation with separately incorporated councils, and then try to control their operations and claim ownership of their property. Yah, legally this is hysterical, and as Illinois demonstrated in ruling against the council, it's hard to imagine a court not seein' through the charade. But it's rare that volunteers and CO's take a council to court, eh? So practically, the BSA manages control in two ways. First, it creates an employment system where DE's and SE's are dependent on National for promotion and employment. Councils boards are "required" to hire from a list of candidates that National provides, and National earns SE loyalty by takin' care of 'em even if their council boards fire them for cause (as we've seen with some of da numbers fraud guys who moved from council to council). So DE's and SE's are forced to have split loyalties - they owe a legal duty to the council, but their long-term prospects depend on National. Bad system, eh? The second BSA mechanism in play of late has been threats not to renew council charters, with a threat to then try to seize council assets. This is a disturbin' trend, eh? IMO, it's a paper tiger. Much like threatenin' a CO with a charter revocation, the CO can continue offerin' a youth program, and then you're down a troop, a bunch of kids, and a bunch of resources. Seizing council assets would be an interestin' court fight, but I'd lay 3:1 odds on the council prevailing, and the negative publicity would demolish the BSA. What's disturbin' is the willingness to "go nuclear" when all it does is hurt people and program. Shows poor personnel choices and lack of good oversight by National. But it's scary and intimidatin', and fear sometimes works wonders when backed by legal threats. The Ethics In theory, Scouting as a Movement is supposed to be an organization that lives ethical choices and good citizenship. So what are the ethics of the case? Ethically, the SE is employed by the council, and owes a duty of care to the members of that council. He (or she) must follow the directives of the council board, and must protect its integrity and independence, assisting the nominating committee by finding the best possible board members, not "yes men" or "national's boys". Actions requested by the BSA are strictly secondary. Ethically, the council board owes a duty of care to the members of that council, too. They must never put BSA regulations ahead of the interest of the council corporation and the members, or the service work of the council. I personally think they should have a discussion each year whether they want to renew the charter with National or do somethin' different, because it's more their choice than it is National's. Together, the professionals, volunteers, and council members should serve the charitable purpose of the council, and the interests of the boys in that area. That means takin' a good look at what the real overhead costs are (how much time does a DE like DE4 really spend raisin' money for his and his boss's salary, or doin' BSA administrivia, rather than providin' service to the member units and boys?). And it should mean evaluatin' the SE based on whether the service he is providing to the members merits his salary. Volunteers, CO's, and board members have a right and a duty to be angry if it doesn't.

Can you elaborate a bit more about the "lead patrol" concept at campouts and other outdoor activities? Do they decide on the major activities and scheduling for that outing? Or, is that handled at the PLC and the "lead patrol" simply takes responsiblity for insuring that the plan and program occur as intended? Yah, let's see... The outing calendar is decided by an uber-PLC (patrol leaders, assistant PL's, and troop POR's all together). That includes goals and budget for each event. The lead patrol thing is sorta like assigning a patrol to do opening ceremony at a meeting, except that the patrol is responsible for a whole outing. So the patrol handles the entire outin', or pretty close - activities, event schedule, location, reservations, safety plan, etc. - all keepin' to the PLC's goals and budget. Most of da time, havin' a PLC (or any committee) try to do detail planning is a losing proposition, eh? Easier with just a few folks. It's kinda like the PL/APL act as SPL/ASPL for that outing, with their patrol members as support. Sometimes, the lead patrol for an outing also runs "prep" outing(s) or meetings. It's sort of a neat system, eh? Younger boys in the patrol get tastes of leadership in bein' delegated parts of outings to run. APL's learn outing leadership from PL's, and both get lots of opportunities for practice. SPL and ASPL coach and provide assistance for PL's where needed, but don't get saddled with running everything. It allows for a packed schedule. I think communication gets a bit tougher, since the "lead person" changes between events. Older, more experienced PL's start to think of Patrol Outings as less work/more fun, so yeh get some more creative patrol outings, and sometimes those then become a troop outing the following year - led by the patrol that developed it, eh? Not a system for everybody. I think it relies on the vertical patrols and high retention rate for older boys, so all the work of years of learnin' pays off. The pull-out Venture/Senior patrol also seems important to them for leader training/rewarding. And yeh need to have a pretty active and athletic set of adults to keep up with da lads . As an alternative, though, I've known a few troops that designate a PL or troop POR as "lead guy" for each outing, to manage outing planning, reservations and such, who then looks to the PLC rather than his patrol for support help. Yet another flavor of the method, though one that still relies on mixed-age patrols with more experienced boys as PL's.

Beavah, you make a lot of good points. It's just hard to see it that way when fundraising is such a time consuming struggle for me. Yah, yah, I hear you. You know my opinion. Fundraising shouldn't be part of your job description at all. If I ever swing a majority on our excom to restructure, maybe we'll invite yeh to the north to hold a real service position. "Do what you're supposed to do and teach the boys to earn the money." Yah, I guess I've come to agree with my Catholic COR colleagues on this eh? (shhh, don't tell anyone, or I'll end up in Calvinist hell ). Teaching work ethic is an OK thing, but so is teaching charity and community support. Reality is that kids don't pay the real costs of Scouting, and that's the only reason FOS exists, eh? To keep them from payin' the real costs of scouting because we believe in giving kids opportunities. Kids don't pay the real costs of education, either - they benefit from tax dollars and parent dollars and financial aid and scholarships. Our reason for not making 'em pay is that we believe by giving them free or low-cost opportunity, they become better citizens. By givin' them an example of charity and generosity they themselves become charitable and generous. Kids don't pay a salary to SM's, and we find that lots of scouts eventually give back by becoming adult leaders. Kids may also benefit from donations to their scouting activities - and I bet lots of 'em then end up as donors. Receivin' from the community makes you more a part of the community, and more likely to give back to the community of your time and talents. But if yeh paid for the service, a donation isn't warranted, eh? We don't usually give a donation to our local 7-11. Now, after reading some of the points you've made, I'm not so sure we handled it 100% correctly. It's just hard to make those points to an upset SE in a contentious staff meeting. Yah, live and learn, eh? It's hard talkin' truth to power. All we can do is fix what we can, and resolve to do a little bit better the next time.

Yah, CNY, da trick is to realize that some paperwork is important, and some just isn't, eh? Stuff that isn't gets put by the board for higher priorities as often at the district as it does at the unit. Eamonn's experience has been the same as mine at multiple councils. So all yeh need to do is have your MBC fill out a standard adult application (registering as MBC is free) - mostly so that you do your due diligence of calling references and doin' a background check. Then make sure you train 'em in how the MB program works and what you expect. Twist their arm to do on-line YPT. Observe/coach 'em for a bit to make sure they do a good job. You know, all the things you'd do for any adult leader, eh? Then let 'em go at it. No other paperwork required until someone asks for it, which is probably never. It's your unit's job to select good MBCs so that you're honest when you sign the Advancement Report sayin' that the badge was earned according to standards.

Yah, DE4, I'm not particularly an advocate for what the SM did. Goin' through United Way with designated donations is an awkward method, eh? Worth pulling him aside and explainin' why we do things the way we do, and asking for his support in the future. Aside from that, people get to do what they want with their own money, whether we like it or not. If their friend from the office convinces them to give money to the scout troop he works with, it's their right to do that. United Way exists to allow people to do that, so it's really not an issue for UW as you suggest. Any of us who give to UW can designate funds as we see fit. Often that's a more Thrifty thing to do than tossing it into the Community Fund, eh? Whether a gift is technically deductible most people only think of as an afterthought, eh? Not everyone itemizes, and individual donations are usually pretty small. But there are all kinds of ways to make the deduction legitimate, so that's not a card worth playing. The ultimate rule is that people get to do what they want with their own money, eh? Yah, and we do tell SM's that their out-of-pocket expenses, their uniforms, their travel miles and all that are deductible, don't we? Except that your argument that donations to units aren't legit would put the kebosh on all that, too. Which leaves us with da BSA policy. I hear yeh about nitwits quotin' policy, eh? Everyone here will tell you that I'm hardly an advocate for waiving the policy brickbat around. So I apologize to you on behalf of my fellow volunteers for all the pudding-headed policy quoters that afflict your day. All policy must be read with understanding and both eyes fixed on the purpose. So what's the purpose of the BSA donations policy? Well, the cynics might argue "malicious corporate control":(, but not really. Doin' institutional development is a tough gig. It's awkward to solicit the local business or high net-worth individual for a sizable donation, only to have 'em say "Oh, yah, I already gave $50 to Troop 222." I suppose the same applies to family FOS, but to a much lesser extent (they're already givin' to the unit, eh?). Now, does the SM who asks his friends at work to give to help his troop buy tents or whatnot really interfere with the council soliciting major gifts or FOS? Nah. You never would have had access to those people at all through family FOS, and they probably would never have been on your radar for a major FOS solicitation, eh? So the SM didn't really compromise the policy. Quite the opposite - he convinced a whole bunch of people to give to Scouting. That's a donor pool that had you played it more gently you could have kept for years. Instead you lost that pool, and you lost most of the adults and the kids in that unit as donors too. Probably forever. The problem you had was with your local United Way's understanding of the Scouting program, so that they improperly deducted the troop-designated funds from the council's Community Fund allocation. That's where a savvy professional would have spent his time, clearing up the situation with other NFP professionals at UW. Yeh need to teach 'em that the units are separate. You know, the same way yeh argue in court that the units are separate any time liability comes up . Frankly, I think the UW chapters that reduce Community Fund donations by the amount of designated funds are a sorry and slimy lot. Going after your own scouting supporters rather than UW was, I believe, a poor choice. A good thing to remember when someday you're a high-paid SE. Even if UW had to give back the designated donations, your meeting with the unit should have helped those people to make the donation to the unit a different way. Then you should have sent all of them a thank-you for supporting one of your scout units, complete with literature on all the other good things your council does to support them (and other units). Betcha would have added some FOS donors rather than subtracted 'em. Betcha would also have a few volunteers less willing to quote policy at you, and more willing to be of service. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, we Americans tend not to look to other nations for ideas, eh? But one of the big differences between US Scouting and Scouting in other places is the artificial split between levels. In a lot of places, a "troop" runs age 6-26, and you progress in your troop through the equivalents of cubs, and webelos, and scouts, and ventures, and rovers and into leadership all within your "troop." No transition, no needin' to go "find" a troop after webelos unless you're unhappy. Yah, they all have some fall-off in membership with age, so ventures and especially rovers gets a bit thin, and might benefit from some coordination between two "troops." But it's nothin' like our "schism", eh?

We then had the unpleasant task of informing the troop committee, (who insisted we meet in front of the boys) parents, and other leaders that they wouldn't be getting that money. They weren't happy but they also didn't have much to say when we informed them that they had broken two sets of bylaws (The BSA and United Way). Be careful of unit level giving. Well ain't this just the typical example of cuttin' off noses to spite faces, eh? I certainly hope that UW didn't give the money to the Council. That wouldn't be ethical or legal. Proper action is to return the money to the donors. So by taking on this "unpleasant task", you lost both money for the scouting program and the goodwill of a number of donors - and therefore money and support for the scouting program long-term. O' course, anyone who wants to can give to the unit through the CO, or the unit can get a friendly attorney to file for 501©(3) status on their behalf, or can give "under the table", eh? But if I were approached with this problem, I'd suggest that an even better way would be to set up an independent community fund or work through the local community foundation to provide a mechanism for donating to benefit any BS/GS/Campfire or other unit in the area. That'd really change the donation dynamic. That's the problem with playin' hardball. There's always a risk that someone has a bat. Service. We're about service. And whenever any organization becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new organizations.... Good Citizenship lesson, eh?

Wow, not many TLT ideas out there, eh? Maybe that's somethin' we and the rest of the BSA need to work on. The best of the TLT programs I've seen are the type Eagledad describes. A troop recognizes it's got something to address or what the "next step" is for the troop and its youth leaders, and then they design a "retreat" or outing around that, with follow up. Problem is, the only troops I've seen do that are troops that start out pretty near outstanding. Yah, yah, it's good to learn and try to emulate what outstanding troops do, no question. But I suspect most troops don't know how to pull that off, eh? Maybe BSA needs to generate some additional modules to help such units. "TLT for kids on teaching skills". "TLT on outing planning". "TLT on helpin' little guys". All of 'em centered on action rather than meeting/lecture. One of the best ways I know to teach outing planning is to take a small group of youth leaders on a trip to a new place. Just go explorin'. Check things out, get info., try local activities. Then talk on the car ride back about how to make that into a unit trip. Finish with ice cream on return and do a plan together. That way, when the trip runs, those youth leaders are the ones who are "in the know".

Yah, two problems gwd. One is that lots of times packs/dens aren't that great about teachin' skills/independence. So the boys have the "experience" of doing something, but not the real gain from doing something, if you know what I mean. That can make it hard for a troop to then teach, if the boys have had the experience already "catered" or think they know it all already. Second thing is that if you really do a good early job of teachin' a lot of outdoor skills for real, and the boys are da bright, mature types who really can handle it and get into it, then yeh have to make sure that the troop they cross into is ready to take it the next step, eh? Crossin' into a big-trailers, patrol-boxes car-camping unit isn't going to work for them. Yeh have to find the backpack & canoe, outdoor, high-adventure type troop, and that kind of troop will love havin' 'em, eh?

How is it my fault that I can't change the way a 10 1/2 or 11 year old thinks? Nah, not your fault, LongHaul. Not the kids' fault, either. But it is our job as scouters to help them, eh? So if we find that we're not being successful, we've got to change our methods, get new ideas, and work at it until our performance improves, for our units and our kids. That's what EagleDad meant by trying NSP, not getting "the performance we wanted" and then tryin' something else, yah? No blame. No "disdain" for BSA materials, which are overall very good. Just a recognition that when it isn't workin' for our kids, we have to be creative, be flexible, and keep tryin'. Our job is service, eh?

If you want top talent, you have to be ready to pay top talent. Yah, but yeh have to be allowed to hire top talent, eh? Right now, councils are limited to hirin' only from within the BSA ranks. So even if the local Red Cross exec (with an MBA and 20 years exp), your school superintendent (with a Ph.D. and 30 years exp), or the business manager of the local hospital (with an MBA, CPA, and 20 years exp) were available and willing, you wouldn't be allowed to hire them. Even though all of 'em run larger NFP organizations, and all of 'em have great local contacts and name recognition to build on, for donation $ especially. So no point comparin' to general market (where SE salaries are still very high). Councils don't have access to the general market. Dat's also what causes the disruptions and hardship for guys movin' up the BSA ladder, 'cause they have to move to advance. The best ones stay in the area, and advance by changin' jobs, eh?

Yah, most long-time scouters develop some real expertise in this area, eh? They do what Eamonn describes - they have their antennae out, and they almost always catch things very early, where just a gentle nudge or a stern look is enough. That takes alertness, experience, and confidence, plus some well-developed "reputation" and relationships with the boys. And a while to learn. Toughest is units where there's been adult transition, and yeh get some people who are new and are missin' some ingredients, and who also may not (yet) have developed "reputation" and positive relationships to build on. Sometimes it's lack of confidence. These folks avoid confrontin' kids behaviors and let 'em continue, or try to deal with 'em later by creating "policy." Sometimes it's lack of alertness. These folks honestly don't notice kids' non-verbal expressions, and so allow bullyin' and shenanigans to go on behind the scenes. Parents of "kids who can do no wrong" are here, too. Sometimes it's lack of ability to relate to kids. These folks will come down as stern "by the book" disciplinarians, lots of rules and such, but miss the "positive reinforcement and care" half of the equation. What EagleDad calls da "no sticks in the fire" crowd. If you're like KB6RJ and you come into a unit that's spent a Scout Generation (3 years) or two under a weaker leader or leader transition, the "cleanup" is tough, eh? Yeh usually have to draw the line somewhere and shoot someone, both because the behaviors are so bad and because you have to demonstrate to everyone that you're alert and confident. Then yeh have to spend time relatin' to kids, building up the new boys while lettin' the old ones finish up and leave. All that while, you build your reputation and put some relationship "money in the bank" for a rainy day later. Tough stuff. Us old timers forget that most other adults really have no experience dealin' with groups of adolescent and teenage boys.

Another example is JLT. Ive already pointed out that scouting has survived because it was designed around dreamers and adventures. Can someone please tell of a boy who dreams of sitting classes listening to adults talk about leadership? It is boring and it was never really intended to be the primary form of leadership development. Yah, I have to agree with this, eh? Kudu in his more sensible moments talks about this, too. So what more active and exciting ways of helpin' junior leaders learn have yeh done or tried in your units? Yah, most of leader trainin' is watchin' and helping older boys, eh? But there's often a need to "goose" the learnin' of new or returning leaders a little bit, or at least help 'em work together as a team. How have you used BSA materials or other stuff to help your junior leaders? Please, no quotin', no criticizin', just honest sharing of what has (or hasn't) worked for you. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Another way to look at it is that revenue increased by $450,000 and salary increased 105,000, less than 1/4 as much as revenue. So all increase in revenue should go into SE salary?? Even though the council is losing money (decrease in fund balance) each year?? Nonsense. SE salary should be tied to performance just like any other commission based executive position. Give the executive a relatively low base salary with a commission on revenue generated in excess of expenses. I couldn't disagree more. That's a reasonable formula for a for-profit outfit. A NFP shouldn't be giving bonuses based on building up reserves. It should be giving bonuses for creative use of money to provide efficient, high-quality service. More service bang for the buck. Baltimore Area Council does have a reputation of being one of the few good, service-and-program oriented councils, so maybe some of that's what's goin' on, eh? But best to keep on top of it. Those salaries and increases are pretty large. A school superintendent for a $5M revenues (small!) school district wouldn't clear 80K. For a small NFP professional association in that revenue range, those salaries would still be quite high. But of course, BSA would never let yeh hire a school superintendent or a top exec at another NFP. A Scout is Thrifty. Give your donor $ wisely, to places with less overhead, or give only restricted $$ to specific program elements you support (just for Camp Jones).

We run Patrols. Period. ... Set up Patrols that work for you after checking with the PLC. Thanks for da chuckle, sst3rd! Yah, sure, with a good, well-trained PLC, the kids should be able to handle patrol assignments themselves, eh? I agree with you, real youth leadership means that the youth get to "rewrite" how the troop does things. But some scouters are beginners, and some kids are beginners, and we have to tell 'em something to get 'em going. The question for you is "are there older boys in your patrols who lead/mentor younger boys, or are patrols mostly same-age?" Sorry about da "vertical" and "horizontal" terms. ***** LongHaul, sorry, I didn't get your PM. Sorry, too, if I was jumpin' around a bit. I just didn't quite understand the argument you were makin'. Might be partly because I'm just seein' different things in the councils I've worked with. You're right, it's hard to tell "causes" over a 12-year span. Just maybe, though, "power-hungry, webelos III" parents are caused in part by same-age patrols. To parents, NSP/same age patrols can feel like the blind leading the blind. There's communications issues. It feels disorganized. They sense "power vacuum". They want more structure. Same deal with boy led. Maybe yeh had a hard time getting your boys to "buy in" to boy-led, partly because as young scouts they weren't placed with older scouts where they could see that organizing and leading was something kids do. Instead, being in same-age patrols, they had to look to adults, and become dependent on adults. Dunno, just a thought. The 1990 point was just that was when NSP and age-based patrols were introduced to the program. So troops formed after that would only have training in the "new" system. Troops from the '70s and '80s would have been trained first in the "old" system, and some of the "old" system would persist even if they implemented NSP/age-based - preservin' Patrol Method in some way that "from scratch" NSP/age-based units can't duplicate. Those are all just loose things to consider, since I really don't know your unit or area. One spot where I really do wish you'd reconsider is da idea that boys today are lazy, want things handed to them, or whatnot. I think boys are boys, pretty much. They respond to their environment the way boys always have. I think when we see behaviors we don't like, we should look to ourselves and our program for the causes first, not to blamin' them. Yah, yah, one boy failing may be the problem of the boy. Multiple boys failing is da problem of the teacher, eh? And sure, that might be a problem of "implementation," but then we still need to then ask "are there other ways to do things that are easier to implement?"(This message has been edited by Beavah)

We used a NSP approach until September and then the boys grouped as they liked and new patrols were formed or existing patrols grew.... The troop is only 8 boys now and the TC is even smaller. I may be misunderstandin'. But doesn't that seem like an experience that would indicate that NSP/age-based patrols doesn't work all that well? As a District trainer Ive visited most of the troops or had sit downs with the leaders and find that those that have existed since the 70s and 80s have a better patrol method in place than do those formed after 1990. I may be misunderstandin', but doesn't this also seem like an argument against the NSP/age-based patrols that were introduced in 1990? Most of the newer troops are adult organized and claim to be boy led because a boy reads the plan an adult wrote. The NSP concept works well in established troops that have boys able and willing to lead. Vertical patrols work in newer troops because there is little patrol method to begin with. Yah, but all your evidence seems to say the opposite. Newer troops (started after 1990) use the NSP/age-based patrol method by and large. They don't often have any knowledge of the older system. Older pre-1990 units often still use vertical patrols if they didn't switch (or tried NSP and switched back, or they do a hybrid with NSP for a few months followed by joinin' old-style vertical patrols). And you're sayin' that newer troops (NSP/age-based) have little patrol method. Yah, I agree. I see da same pattern. I may be misunderstandin', but isn't that an argument in favor of the traditional vertical patrols?

I don't imagine these Heelys role very well in the dirt & mud. LOL! Of course, that's probably something we can just let 'em learn for themselves, eh?

Heelys have no place in Pack meetings, Troop meetings, campouts, church, school. Yah, I dunno. I can think of some really fun opening games for a troop meetin' that use wheeled shoes . Some of our OA boys tell me that they're a great way to navigate our big local high school, and the school doesn't have a rule (yet!) other than be courteous and walk down stairs. Yah, I can't see 'em in church. Too much temptation to use 'em to escape a dull sermon . Why not on campouts, Ed? How's it any different from bringin' a Frisbee or any other small game (other than we didn't have 'em when we were growin' up)?

Yah, in our area, webelos to scouts is not well coordinated by the district, eh? I've never figured it out, but it seems like even gettin' contact information is a problem. Most of what happens is ad hoc between individual packs and troops. W to S as a roundtable topic typically doesn't come up until the spring. So I'd say "completely unit-based." The best relationships are between same-CO packs and troops, where den chiefs and some dual parents make for good coordination. Best of the best is a pack and a troop at a Catholic CO, where Boy Scouts run/judge Pinewood Derby, Raingutter Regatta and all that, and the Boy Scout PLC runs 4 Webelos 1&2 campouts per year (as a service project, not as part of a troop outin'), and integrates W2's steadily into other things. Their transition is seamless. They get some kids from other packs, too, but dat's much rougher communication/scheduling-wise. (Yah, yah, they may be afoul of some webelos campin' guideline or another, but it works well for 'em. And we should keep da thread on topic as LongHaul requests, eh? ) (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I find that the biggest critics of NSP, FCFY and Transition are those that didnt like the concept when it was introduced. They never really tried to implement the idea and never promoted it among their peers. Yah, there's some of those, fer sure. Still, it's not fair to discount their experiences or successes. Da strongest advocate I know for not doing NSP is a troop with great leaders that tried to do NSP for at least 7 full years back in the 90s. They tried every interpretation/permutation they could think of. Since they switched to vertical/no NSP, they've never looked back. Da kids at the time of the switch thought it was much better, and the adults thought Patrol Method was much stronger after the change to the new (really "old") way. (Da second troop in the other thread got the vertical idea from this troop, after they too had their struggles with NSP).

When my son started in the troop, there were a bunch of boys who were 14 or 15, and not many 12 year-olds. The older boys were not the best role models, and didn't really come across as very friendly to the new Scouts. Yah, I think this is the single best argument for NSPs. For a troop in transition, where there isn't (yet) a culture of older boys' leading and caring for younger guys, yeh don't really have a choice until you have time to change that culture. Probably by graduatin' the "old guard." Can someone explain to me how in an average-sized troop you manage patrol competitions with horizontal patrols? Unless kids are really just tickin' off requirements and forgettin' 'em, aren't the older boys almost always goin' to shellac the young guys? I've seen dozens of horizontal patrol units, and never seen the same patrol spirit/patrol competitions as with da verticals. (Except where the troop is really big and has multiple patrols at different levels, and only competes within levels - or where most kids get out by HS, so there isn't much age spread).

Yah, now here's another example of patrol method, for a mid-sized troop of about 50 boys. I know this troop a bit better than the last one, because I'm still a MC/UC for this unit. Like the last unit, it's very successful, and could easily have more boys if it wanted 'em, but it likes not to get bigger. New Scouts The troop does a long new scout transition program, workin' with local packs starting in September, and workin' up from short visits to day trips to overnights. At crossover, boys are put into patrols by the PLC, based on their/their parents requests, the older boys' notion of good personality fit, and some rough sense of numbers balance. Boys from dens are almost always kept together, and friends always are. There's a TG who also helps with communication/transition stuff for the first summer. Within patrols, da PL and other older boys are the ones who help out the new guys. There's no "curriculum", they just teach things as they come up. Tent setup and such naturally come first. This troop has a 1st year retention rate of about 70% or so. Most of the losses are to sports programs. Regular Program With about 5 patrols led by high-school-aged scouts, there's usually some sort of separate patrol outing every month or two. On outings, patrol competitions and "patrol points" are a regular feature, and patrols also get recognition when anyone in their patrol advances. That's an incentive for da younger guys to be encouraged and moved along. Still, there's no emphasis at all on FCFY, boys finish FC typically around the time they're emotionally ready for a position of responsibility. This troop is not a car camping troop, I doubt if they do more than one car-camping trip per year. Backpacking, snowshoeing, paddling, climbing, their program is hugely active, and First Year boys are full participants. That works because there are a lot of old hands in each patrol helpin' and watchin' out for the younger fellas. I suspect it'd never work if one TG was responsible for 12 beginner paddlers. The youth leadership structure is pretty traditional, with one SPL and ASPL who work as a team. Individual troop outings usually have a "lead patrol" and the PL/APL are responsible for that outing. Attrition for this unit after 1st year is nearly zero, with the only losses due to family moves out of town. Venture Program This troop also has a very active Venture Patrol, that sort of runs on the Senior Patrol/OA model. The Venture Patrol members are FC scouts who have been voted in by current VP members. Unlike the last troop, this Venture program never uses "bases" like Philmont, but always does their own high adventure planning from scratch, led by a Venture "Crew Chief" (terminology from the 1990s version of the program). The boys plan and lead things like 3-week Yosemite lead climb trips. The Venture Program in this unit effectively serves as the major part of the TLT program for training youth leaders and instructors. Overall, this unit does not provide a lot of adult structure. Safety planning, budgeting, reservations, hiking routes, patrol activities, how elections are held, patrol membership and structure, instruction are all handled by the youth leaders. Patrol outings, or segments of regular outings done by patrol, may be "adult free." Adults still handle transportation and payments, coordinating with the kids. They graduate about 2-3 Eagles per year.