Beavah

Yah, Sean Connery, eh? With a beard and without the toupe. Mrs. Beavah, why, well, she's her own special celebrity to me.

Yah, OGE is right about what the books say. I've never seen troop do it that way, though. Doesn't make much sense to anybody I don't think. JASM is typically appointed by the SM, with perhaps the advice of the SPL. But aside from that, I'm with the old Eagle. Doesn't make much sense to me to have adults remove da SPL from his elected position just because he earns Eagle. Seems like a responsible young man would want to finish out the term he was elected for, and would object to such a move. Seems like the kids who elected him would expect that of him, as a matter of honor. If that's your troop's tradition, and the kids all understood it to be the case, then I guess it's OK. No "adult surprises" is one of the biggest rules for runnin' a troop, so I wouldn't change midstream if that's what everyone expects; might seem unfair to the SPL and ASPL, like you don't trust them, eh? Yeh should just think about whether it's accomplishin' what you want to accomplish in terms of character growth, and make adjustments down the road if necessary. As an Eagle, I'd much rather be SPL than JASM. That's where the action is. Wouldn't want the message to be that the most capable people get removed from the action.

Yah, I think we've all seen this, eh? I think it's a bigger and bigger problem in schools too - like boys who are smart but just don't hand in their homework. Somethin' about their not bein' "engaged" by the system. Maybe dat's the system's fault. Maybe some units (and some schools) need to rethink how they deal with advancement.

Smart kid, your 11 year old. He realizes that all advancement is fake, eh? Yah, that's what I said: fake. It's a silly made-up adult exercise at hoop jumpin', that we use to help boys who aren't (yet) self-motivated. Your boy seems pretty self-motivated. Out on every outin', workin' on his own to get good at canoeing, and swimming, and lifesaving, and camping, and cooking, and.... Your proper response, my dear old Owl, is to PRAISE HIM up the wazoo. Listen to his campout stories. Congratulate him on his tough, rainy weekends. Tell him how proud you are of all the things he's doin' that are WAY beyond what an average 11-year old can do. Let him be him. My guess is that somewhere along the way, a friend will inspire him to compete a bit, or he'll realize he's the most capable and, well, leadership starts lookin' good, or da Philmont Crew requires that he's 1st Class, or just a sharp PL or SM will decide it's time to give him a gentle tug. Then suddenly he'll zip through ranks light lightnin'. But even if not, who cares? Your job as a parent is just to celebrate and support who he is, eh? And he'll get just as much out of Scoutin' without takin' home patches.

Yah, the Lisa'bobwhite shows her usual wisdom. I'd go with that, eh? I'm always hesitant to judge people or programs based on isolated incidents, especially as an outside observer who doesn't know all the actors well. I know certainly I've mis-judged my response to situations sometimes, or had a kid who had gotten on my last nerve and then pushed me over an edge. I don't think I'd have looked like this guy, but I still might not have looked all that great if that's all someone saw, eh? Kids are smart. They see lots of adults - friends' parents, relatives, teachers, coaches. Not every one is goin' to be a perfect "role model." Yer doin' well if they get one or two pretty good ones growin' up. It's usually enough if they've got good parents, and a bunch of adults who give them opportunities. I remember a few teachers (and one coach in particular) who were jerks. But I learned a lot from them. Includin' how to avoid bein' a jerk. So I'm with Lisa. Your kid is old enough to make a call. Support him. On the bigger picture side, a good CC or UC or COR might give some gentle but firm coaching to the SM, eh? I think that's far more effective then canned trainin'. Still hard to teach old dogs new tricks.

Yah, Gern's situation is too common, eh? Too often units get "detached" from their CO's. Makes for all kinds of problems. Da best COR's in our area seem to be former scouters who have strong connections as members/volunteers with the CO. So they come with a good understanding of scouting, but also with a good relationship with the "power structure" of the CO. That's ideal, eh? Not much trainin' or relationship-buildin' required. A couple of these CORs also serve as CC's. Most serve as MC's. Failin' that, I think it can work OK if the CO appoints someone who works in that type of outreach. A church youth minister makes a good CO, or the youth service director for a mens' club. This requires da CC to go out of his/her way to keep the COR involved and help understand scouting stuff, but it still keeps a strong CO link, with some perspective. I'd never encourage havin' a parent who was a den leader serve as a COR. Too much confusion, too many potential conflicts of interest, eh? Yeh should never be in a position where a customer (parent) can fire the whole board (committee) and the CEO (unit leader). Very confusin'. That's why the BSA limits CORs to CC or MC positions (and MC as sort of an observer/ex officio role, eh?). Some CO's may also have guidelines for the job, eh? I know Catholic units have NCCS guidelines for CORs. I think LDS units do too, but we don't have many around here, eh?

Yah, what they said, eh? The Boy Scout is tested "A Scout may be tested on rank requirements by his patrol leader, Scoutmaster, assistant Scoutmaster, a troop committee member, or [any other] member of his troop. The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates." but for MB's: "The Scout's merit badge counselor teache and tests on the requirements for merit badges." (ACP&P #33088D p. 24) Usually, most active youth-run troops allow PL's and other boys who are Star and Above to sign T-2-1 requirements, and also allow ASMs, but not a boy's parent or committee members. Usually the SM reserves da Scout Spirit requirement and S-L-E requirements to himself or an ASM who is working very closely with the boy (ex. ASM - new scouts with Troop Guide). But any combination is possible, eh? The SM decides what makes most sense for her/his troop and the staff he has. Bullyin' or experience problem? Maybe only adults sign for a bit. New, inexperienced ASMs? Maybe only kids sign for a bit. Yah, but it's worth sayin' that the guidelines do seem to suggest that the Patrol Leader is the first, best choice much of the time.

I've never been all that fond of the rush to visioning and vision statements and all dat. Yah, sure, it's true. Groups with a common vision and a sense of mission are very successful. I just don't think havin' a retreat and a big session to write up a mission statement has anything to do with it, eh? Or, more properly, the vision statement is more like an end product, a statement of who we are (already). It's not the starting place. Real vision is lived, not manufactured. How you behave each day with da members of the ship, what things you choose to "make important" in terms of where you spend your time to get it to work, how you acknowledge and use the ideas of the crew members - those are da ways you set and show your vision, eh? To work, vision has got to be like breathin'. With boys in particular, I think you build vision by doin' things. The things you choose to do and how you choose to do them, and then the conversations yeh have in that context is how you build a sense of mission. Girls are smarter, eh? They're able to get things from words faster, without quite so much action. So yeh might converse more with them, but yeh still have to put things in context and into action. So go do stuff, and along the way talk about the what and the why of the doing. Share your thoughts. Listen to theirs. Build a sense of mission as yeh build a sense of community, not as a separate activity.

Yah, you must be an academic there, Lisa'bob? No tempests in teapots quite like those in the teapots of da Ivory Tower.

Yah, Eagle309, this isn't about the OA, eh? It's about your troop committee. Calico was a bit stronger in his language than I usually am, but he was right on point. Time to apologize to the SPL, and take the core members of the TC off for a weekend retreat somewhere so yeh all get on the same page. Leastways, that's what it looks like from afar. I can't quite "get" your TC dynamic from your description. As for the other bit, I think it's OK for a troop to decide not to use the OA, the same way it's OK for a school not to have a National Honor Society chapter. We arrowmen have to recognize that in some councils OA is remarkably strong; in others it's quite weak and cliquish; in others it's too much an "adult thing" for my taste. Each CO has to decide whether OA helps 'em meet their goals or not, based on their own values and the local circumstance. And, too, each group of kids gets to decide for themselves. We've certainly got troops around here that "don't do OA." They tend to either be very active with strong older-boy programs that are viewed as real honors (so the kids don't really care about OA and don't need it), or they tend to be weak and disorganized (and might benefit from ties to a strong lodge).

Yah, I was mostly done with this thread, but I promised Fred I'd respond here to his comments in the Disobedience thread, and then OGE went and disappeared it. So here yeh go Fred, and anybody else who still cares... We had a thread here just recently about slide shows at Eagle Courts of Honor. All of the ones I've seen over da years have included commercial, copyrighted music. While I may be wrong, I'm willin' to bet that not a single troop or CO payed the fee required to include those recordings in a public performance. I bet they even "borrowed" da tunes from the collections of different kids and adults, eh? Seems like a fair number of Scouters use recordings of commercial, copyrighted films as discussion items for learnin' leadership as part of Troop Leader Trainin'. That's an organizational use, not "private, home" use eh? But we didn't see any cries of "Piracy!" "Stealing!" when these were discussed. Fact is, some things are just societally "natural." Laws that get in the way of that don't serve the common good. Yah, sure, you can spend a lot of time and resources fightin' 'em, and sometimes that's necessary. But mostly, you begin by just goin' about your business and asserting your own liberty. Yeh keep using music for Eagle slide shows, because darn it, it's a one-shot reasonable use, and it isn't worth spendin' 10 years of your life and resources tryin' to out-lobby the RIAA. Yeh keep usin' a tape measure even though some nitwit managed to get a patent on tape measures, rather than spendin' $100K in court tryin' to get the patent tossed. Not everyone can afford to be a civil rights attorney or lobbyist, eh? But that does not excuse us from makin' our own decision about the justice of rules, and our own decision about whether it is right to comply. Wish I were with GE though. It'd be fun to try one of them licenses like those computer guys have. "In purchasing this GE lightbulb with proprietary filament technology, you agree that at no time shall it be used to provide more than two (2) people with useful light." What a great scam, eh?

they are just using that as an excuse to get something for free that they simply don't want to pay for. Pretty negative view of your fellow citizens, eh? If I buy a DVD with the season of "Friends" with Chandler's wedding, and I use DeCSS to decode the DVD so that I can clip a funny scene and use it as part of a short video at my best friend's wedding...then I have committed several infractions of current copyright law. But have I done anything wrong? And if I assert my right to use the DVD I bought any darn way I please, despite the law, am I really just making an excuse for not hiring a professional film studio to license the clip of Friends and create my video? Maybe. Or maybe not. Perhaps I am simply asserting rights I have always had. If a University decides it would best serve its mission by digitizing its entire library, so as to make it more accessible, is that wrong? Just an excuse for not buying a copy of every book for every student? Yah, I think these things are far more complex than you make 'em out to be, kemo sabe. Da law serves the values and the betterment of society, not the other way around. Leastways, that's what I hope we're teachin' our kids. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I was mostly done with this thread, but I promised Fred I'd respond here to his comments in the Disobedience thread. We had a thread here just recently about slide shows at Eagle Courts of Honor. All of the ones I've seen over da years have included commercial, copyrighted music. While I may be wrong, I'm willin' to bet that not a single troop or CO payed the fee required to include those recordings in a public performance. I bet they even "borrowed" da tunes from the collections of different kids and adults, eh? Seems like a fair number of Scouters use recordings of commercial, copyrighted films as discussion items for learnin' leadership as part of Troop Leader Trainin'. That's an organizational use, not "private, home" use eh? But we didn't see any cries of "Piracy!" "Stealing!" when these were discussed. Fact is, some things are just societally "natural." Laws that get in the way of that don't serve the common good. Yah, sure, you can spend a lot of time and resources fightin' 'em, and sometimes that's necessary. But mostly, you begin by just goin' about your business and asserting your own liberty. Yeh keep using music for Eagle slide shows, because darn it, it's a one-shot reasonable use, and it isn't worth spendin' 10 years of your life and resources tryin' to out-lobby the RIAA. Yeh keep usin' a tape measure even though some nitwit managed to get a patent on tape measures, rather than spendin' $100K in court tryin' to get the patent tossed. Not everyone can afford to be a civil rights attorney or lobbyist, eh? But that does not excuse us from makin' our own decision about the justice of rules, and our own decision about whether it is right to comply. Wish I were with GE though. It'd be fun to try one of them licenses like those computer guys have. "In purchasing this GE lightbulb with proprietary filament technology, you agree that at no time shall it be used to provide more than two (2) people with useful light." What a great scam, eh?

Yah, Fred, this is a different discussion, eh? I'll put somethin' up on the MPAA thread to address those issues in a Scoutin' context for you. While the civil rights movement is our most recent example of "loud" civil disobedience, I think it's an error to believe that ignoring or countermanding a silly rule or ordinance has to be a "big thing." Chinese students marched illegally and were suppressed, but many Chinese officials "accidentally lost" the arrest records and let students go, eh? Is that a less valid means of respondin'? Sometimes rather than loudly disobeying or campaigning, it's enough just to quietly do the right thing, eh? Da L-Bob's schema is interestin', eh, but as far as I can tell it doesn't map all that well into what really happens in legislation, at least on the state and national levels. Resistance to poor law or a restriction on liberty that isn't justified almost always begins by passive disobedience. Only if the enforcement of the law then becomes onerous are other actions contemplated. Best not to make waves and disrupt lives unnecessarily, eh? Like low highway speed limits which were universally ignored and have been gradually repealed. Or like school officials who quietly ignore "zero tolerance" laws when they're stupid, eh? Or the social worker who fudges paperwork to help a family in need get past a bizarre technicality. Only when enforcement gets annoying are other measures invoked. In the U.S., yeh join a lobbying group, give 'em money, and let them try to lobby for corrective legislation. If yeh feel more strongly, you help the lobbying group by writin' letters, vocally campaigning, or stagin' media events which up the profile. But it all starts with passive resistance/insistance on rights. So if the PL declares that he gets twice as much dessert as anyone else, do you argue with him? Start a fight? Go run to da SPL or SM (an option not available in "the real world")? Exit (stop cooking despite your duty roster assignment)? Shut the stove off and demand an immediate "Thorns and Roses" discussion? Or perhaps just cut the pie fairly, and give the first and largest piece to the smallest boy? Disobey by doing the right thing, and confront the Authority with a choice. Character is what you do when no one is watching. Strong character is what you do when people are watching, and pushing you to do the wrong thing.

Dunno whether this is Program or Working with Kids, but I'll put it here in Issues since it might go astray, eh? In the MPAA thread, Lisabob opines: The part of the scout law that discusses obedience includes this line: 'If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.' And I think it applies in cases like this discussion. Yah, I'm an old geezer, so I mostly remember history rather than study it, eh? But it sure seems to me in terms of legal history that most bad laws get changed not so much in an orderly manner as in a disorderly one. Usually, legal change comes from social pressure, and building social pressure requires a variety of tactics - disobedience, lobbying, coalition-building, economic pressure through boycotts, generation of outrage through marches, etc. Da history of labor laws in the U.S., the repeal of Prohibition, women's suffrage, the civil rights laws, the emancipation of slaves, even the founding of the country all made change in part by being disorderly and disobedient. Fact is, unless you're wealthy enough to buy influence (in which case yeh were probably responsible for passin' the law, and don't want it changed), disobedience is goin' to be part of changin' a bad law. Leastways, any big change where people are makin' profit or privilege from the status quo, but even many smaller ones. So I wonder if we're bein' honest with kids when we quote that Irving interpretation of "obedient" in the Scout Law. Seems to me we owe them a bigger picture. In Scoutin' this comes up as youth try their hand at leadership, eh? How many of us have watched as a new SPL or PL tries on the "dictator hat" in his first attempts to lead? Sometimes a scout should go along in the interest of the group, and sometimes he should passively resist and pull the PL aside, and sometimes he should ignore the PL and quietly go about his business, and sometimes a lot more learning happens when he tells the PL to take a flyin' leap, eh? Leastways, I expect that we all tell our kids that they don't have to listen to the SPL if he tells you to do somethin' wrong, eh? But how about if he tells 'em he gets twice as much cobbler as anyone else? How do you handle the obedience discussion with your boys, especially your teenagers who are gettin' more sophisticated about citizenship (and more attracted to disobedience as a way of asserting their Freedom)?

Besides the rolling vs folding, un-zip all zippers before folding and rolling to prevent crimping or kinking. Yah, really there Gonzo? I'd always heard (and done) the opposite, eh? Zipped em up. Also made it easier to ensure the tent stayed a "black fly free zone" durin' setup. Can yeh explain the benefits of unzipped a bit more?

Yah, easy there. I think it's important that we teach kids to understand the laws, eh? And the purposes for which they are enacted. That is the first step to proper obedience. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Powers of the Legislative Branch. "Congress shall have the power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Without this provision, Congress would not have the authority to create copyrights, patents, etc. (see 10th amendment). The Founding Fathers definitely did not consider writings and discoveries to be property, which is protected differently in the constitution. Copying or sharing a work is therefore not theft, and it certainly has nothing to do with piracy. We are lying to our children to tell them that such activity is stealing. That doesn't mean that some types of copying aren't contrary to law, in terms of the temporary exclusive license which congress may give to the author. They may well be. Other types of copying are legal. Many types of copying and distribution are new, and the law and public policy are still under debate. U.S. copyright and patent law historically has done its best to thread the needle balancing the author's temporary license against the inherent rights of the people. Dat's where this is a good citizenship discussion for kids, eh? Thinkin' carefully about whether laws meet the goals they were designed for, and whether they are in keepin' with the Constitution, and how some people may want more regulation and restriction for their own profit. Any restriction on individual liberty (the right of the people to share ideas, stories, and creative works) must be balanced by at least an equal and clear societal good ("promoting the progress of science"). Generally, society and scientific progress are better promoted by liberty. This is a good and relevant citizenship discussion to have with kids, eh? And it's a topic that they care about. We just have to be careful to do it honestly.

Yah, oops. My bad. Readin' my old note, I can see where oldsm went with it. I'm sorry, kemo sabe. For others in the future... Youth leadership and takin' responsibility is grand. Youth should be involved in the hard stuff. But just like yeh wouldn't let them do their first rock climb on their own, don't let 'em do their first "hard conversation" on their own. They need help and support. They need an example to follow. They need you to be there with 'em, helpin' set the tone. Heck, they might need you to do the first one, and just watch and contribute when called on. After a troop culture gets established, and the SPL has some practice and coachin', then it's OK to let him fly solo, eh? As long as it's not in a hurricane. I'm with Eagledad. Get away from email. Close the adult loop. I'd consider bringin' at least one witness into da conversation, though, like a CC or UC, in case despite your best efforts this gets "bigger."

So, I admit to acts of hyperbole, but help me understand why a law abiding citizen would not support this? As long as you admit it, eh? Yah, it's important to remember that the Constitution treats creative works differently than property. In fact, the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of "intellectual property." Creative works belong to the public domain, eh? What the Constitution does permit (but not require) are laws that temporarily grant an exclusive license to the author/creator of a work, but only when doing so "promotes the progress of science and the useful arts." So creative works are "owned" by the public, eh? If anything, the MPAA is actin' like the pirate, or at least a privateer. That's my difficulty with this badge. Da BSA generally avoids taking an "advocacy position" in public policy debates. But that's exactly what this is. It's tryin' to get kids to join the special interest lobby for the entertainment distributors. More important for us is the discussions we have with kids over citizenship. Does da current copyright and patent structure meet the constitutional test of promoting progress, or does it now hinder progress as large, wealthy companies use litigation to intimidate smaller startups? If progress is advanced more by sharing and distribution electronically, are these older laws still constitutionally valid? What rights does the public retain to their creative works despite the temporary grant of a license to the author? It's also a good discussion to talk about how special interests fool with language, using terms like "piracy" and "stealing" inappropriately, eh? In da U.S. and the free world, they don't "own" a creative work. It is not property. It cannot be stolen.

Yah, they're funny, eh? When I look at the RIAA and the MPAA and their approach, I think to myself that Sharing is a family value

Yah, I think this question is a fun speculative one, even if originally proposed by a troller. I really like Calicos creative thoughts, eh? If we follow the Gulf War / War on Terror thread, the stuff of growth is development of small, independent, high-efficiency teams doin cool stuff. Special Forces, Navy SEALS; kids think thats cool. Elaborately complex gaming is very much a part of that, and a part of kids lives. Forget Kims Game, da problem solving and memorization in World of Warcraft is the standard. Manage resources, explore and discover, and problem solve to progress and win. And kids will freely spend enormous amounts of time working hard to get better. Sports and extreme sports are also cool. Just like video games, kids will spend hours and hours of their own time working to perfect their ability to do grabs and grind rails on skateboards/snowboards/rollerblades. Boys dont ride bikes around the neighborhood anymore, they go with their mates to ride the crazy trails in the local woods or gravel pit. And tech is cool, for communication and just foolin around. And kids are and need to be way better at highly dynamic, fast-movin challenges. Paintball, not baseball. Group identification is still important, but uniforms arent. Think desert camo field uniforms with small insignia, rather than dress uniforms with ribbons. Adult mentoring is still important, but with much more youth independence than modern adult organized scouting allows. Think of the level of adult involvement in video games or roller bladin, eh? Thats what it was like back in B-Ps day, and what hed target now. Advancement should be by demonstrated competence recognized by your peers, just like video games or trick ridin on your bike. Advancement definitely wouldnt be the adult-run parody it is And probably more ability to specialize individually. Unlike 100 years ago, we live in a world of specialization. Teams are developed by kids pursuing their interest and becoming the best in a specialty area, not by becomin uniform or all followin the same path.

Yah, tough issue, scoutldr. If your question is "What choice should I make as an individual?" my question back would be "How many things do you participate in where you agree 100%?" I do not agree 100% with da actions of the government of the United States. Some policies I find misguided. A few I find reprehensible or downright wicked. Many I support. I still choose to be an American. Same lack of 100% agreement with my church, my employer, da BSA, and (especially) Mrs. Beavah . But I stick with 'em all anyway. If we all decide that we will only be a part of communities and organizations that we agree with 100%, then we will have no communities outside of cults, eh? And if we all insist that every organization should change and do everything da way we want, that's not very Courteous, and not very wise. So if yeh can do Good Works in BSA Scoutin', do 'em. And in your second hour a week, if yeh feel so called, do other good works with gay and lesbian couples in your church. Da Bible calls us to be perfect in our own personal charity, not to insist that everybody else be perfect, eh? Now, if your question is "Should I as an ELCA recommend to my pastor that we drop the charters on our units?" I'd say you should tell your pastor the truth. The BSA has this requirement, but da BSA has also been a good partner in other ways, and the program is good for the kids in it (and as a member, s/he can send a COR to help vote on BSA policy and serve on relationship committees). After that, it's his/her call, eh?

Yah, I think yeh always make a BOR advancement decision based on the "whole package", eh? I think it's fair for a BOR or the SM to then continue the conversation with the boy by sharin' their understanding of da BSA's view of the Oath and Law. As a seventeen year old, presumably lookin' to apply for the organization's highest award within the year, it's worth askin' the boy to think about whether he can do that honestly. No answer required right away. Just somethin' to get him thinkin'. I think kids who are applyin' for Eagle should choose whether they can be honest about that. I've never known a boy not to be. As far as membership goes, dat's the troop or crew's call. I don't like kickin' kids out who are honest pilgrims, eh? Even the ones who get argumentative are still searchin'. But if the boy is disruptive to their mission by arguin' with the adults and other kids to advance an atheist agenda, or goes and writes a letter to the newspaper as "an unbelievin' Boy Scout", then that becomes the CO's or the Council's call.

Yah, you're set up right now in mixed-age patrols, eh? The question in my mind would be why do you want to switch? Is somethin' not workin' for yeh? I'm with orennoah in spirit; the troops with mixed-age patrols seem more "scoutly" to me. They're more boy-led, because the senior, older, experienced boys are the ones leadin' each patrol and they're up to the job. There's more patrol identity and patrol competition. In most cases, the younger boys seem to get pulled into troop life faster, and aren't treated as much like da "little kids." Not only does it give the old kids leadership opportunities, but I think da biggest impact is on the 2nd-year scouts who suddenly find themselves to be the "older kids" who are looked up to just as much. Makes them feel special, too. Interestin' that there also seems to be less hazin' when the young guys are immediately part of a patrol and are "us" compared with when they're a NSP and are "them." But I know some fine same-age patrol troops, too. Takes the right sort of guys as TG's and NSP-ASM to make that work, with all those high-energy low-skill bumpkins put together in one place; harder than divide-and-conquer, eh? But if you have the right NSP ASM and TG's, that model can really hum; the patrol activities are tailored to their age needs and they can become great friends.

Yah, there's somethin' in the genetics or upbringin' of BSA adult leaders that makes 'em always want to go running back to some book or manual for permission or authority to do the obvious. I don't get that. The purpose is to help boys grow, by givin' them positions of real responsibility and service. Something that takes commitment, and effort, and some sweat. Somethin' that contributes to their troop in a meaningful way. So a good troop will usually eliminate some POR's from the list. They might not have a Bugler, or a Historian. And a good troop that's really boy-run will also add a few positions that demonstrate responsibility and service at a level equal to a PL, QM, etc. Maybe that's "Newsletter Editor" or "Webmaster." Maybe it's APL, because they really run things like the APL is a co-PL (attends PLC's, leads the patrol on half the outings, etc.). Maybe it's the patrol QM, because the troop has a lot of gear, and the patrol QM's really function as co-QM's. Maybe it's the boy who agrees to be the special friend and coach for the handicapped boy in the troop. Do what makes sense, eh? Just make sure that every position you "count" is sufficiently meaty to develop responsibility, commitment, and an appreciation for good effort and hard work.