TAHAWK

Exciting program attracts Scouts so we can accomplish what Scouting is about. The actual fire-building skills are good fodder for contests. Kids who don;t like fires ??? (after which, hot dogs, marshmallows, pie irons) Did you educate them as to the various ways one can have a fire-building contest? Exploding balloons, for example? scout fire building contests gets 2.8 million Google hits. We all only know what we know. Some are more motivated to try and learn more, but it's a legitimate adult role, I think, to ask, "Have you thought of/seen/heard of X?" I thionk that's part of the adult as resource role.

I told them they had discretion and that the objective was a reasonable challenge that would vary for the respective Scout. Thank you all for your input.

SP, I proposed that our Klondike program consist of events each "sponsored" by a troop, I called a meeting and invited each interested troop to send its SPL and a Scouter. The units that came with the most complete proposals were our better troops, and we had, and have had since, no problem presenting a day of events that are operated very well. That process has gone on for twenty-five years. (How time flies !!), complete with an elected event "SPL." Are they clear that you only want them to operate one event? Did I say your mileage may vary? If not, YMMV.

So far as I know it is supernaturally simple. As most know, a district is not an entity but is a administrative subdivision of a council. How responsibility is divided between council and its districts varies from council to council. I suggest that the value of Scouting beyond a unit is dictated by the quality of the respective leadership of the unit and the council/district. Powerhouse units need little outside help. They have Scouters who understand the methods and aims and are capable of fulfilling the adult role in Scouting. Particularly, they can competently train their own leaders and Scouters and put on their own fun and exciting program. While they may participate in activities at the council/district level, they do not need those activities to attract and retain Scouts. They do not need a Unit Commissioner. I was part of such a unit for 27 years, ending a few years ago. Our biennial self-operated summer camps were very successful. In the three councils in which I Scout, powerhouse units are certainly less than 10% of the whole. For the vast majority of units, the most important potential value added by council/district is Scouter and leader training. Success in such training depends on competent trainers. Trainers who can offer more than the words of the official syllabii are better. The trainers need to, as the Trainer's Oath used to say, deliver the message that BSA intends. That will require, shall we say, interpretation of the applicable syllabus. Roundtables are also potentially opportunities for more advanced training. Again, whether that takes place depends on competent Roundtable staff. The council/district also have the potential to provide quality program events - camporees; Klondike derbies; summer camp; service projects But if the leadership of the council/district is weak, the potential will not be realized. One of my districts is so weak that two Scouters are trained over the border in one of my other districts in another council for every one trained in their "home" district. Roundtables in the weak district are largely announcements and appeals for money. Yeech! A common practice of handing out council/district leadership roles on the basis of $$$ donated to council or BSA is destructive of high quality leadership (See "Good volunteer."), especially if competent Scouters are not put in effective control under the titular leadership of the $$$ Scouters. DEs are statistically unlikely to help much. Most are there -- briefly -- becasue the council was an employer of last resort. The small percentage there becasue they love Scouting are largely tied down with "M&M" (money and membership). Those rare jewels of devotion and competence are wonderful to be around, but may soon be gone. It might be that Scouters from a strong unit feel a call to help (Helpful) other youth in other units through service at the council/district level. Not sure if that responds at all to "What's in it for my unit?" Indeed, much the same effect might be approached by merely reaching out to help on a unit-to-unit basis. Draw your own conclusions from what you experience. Beware of overgeneralizing.

If it were true that the Patrol Method were generally understood: . 1. Scouters having just completed Scoutmaster-Specific Training would not consistently ask the staff to tell them what the patrol method is supposed to be. I have personally experienced this at courses in three councils in NE Ohio and other staffers have related the same experience as a routine occurrence. No reason why they should understand becasue neither the 2001-2014 nor the current the syllabus calls for the defining information to be presented. 2. Scouting would not publish an article portraying the Patrol Method as an option to be allowed only when it results in a troop that operates as a well-oiled machine or as a range of empowering Scouts from 0% to something more than that. 3. BSA literature would consistently stress not troop, troop, troop, but patrol, patrol, patrol. Instead, patrol activities "may" take place. Ever notice that there are forms for troop activities but the only guidance on patrol meetings is that they should be devoted to planning and administration. Where is the Patrol Campout Planning form? 4. BSA would not instruct Scouters and leaders (Scouts) that troop activities are always the priority over patrol activities. BSA stresses EDGE and does not bother with the "Explain" step. As for comments on the 1972-2000 version, were you on staff? I took the course and staffed it x 3. Learners were there by invitation. I missed the failure part. What I heard and saw were Scouters so excited about learning Scoutcraft and leadership skills that they were typically sorry the course was over.

I have Scouted during the regimes of six SE's. One was a superstar: very effective and everyone loved him. (The guy would show up at your backpack camp in the mountains with food to contribute to the mess and ask if he could join you. He would then participate in your campfire and often contribute great stories. One was a bean-counter and had nearly zero interaction with the paid people, much less the volunteers - for eleven years. A cipher. He was very angry when the Board ended his employment. One was super pleasant, did some good things, inflated the membership number by 1/3 fraud, and left the council broke when he left on a promotion. He was found out and fired. Had come-to-Jesus meeting with National and was given a BIG council to run. Flawed. Ambitious. One is super honest and I respect him immensely, but he is not fixing the problems. He may be somewhat burned out. I would have liked to see what he did twenty years ago. One is super energetic, trapped in a no-win situation in a council that is so broke they have volunteers serving as DEs. Who knows what He might accomplish in a more possible job. One was an absolute reptile. Ruled his employees by terror, lied by reflex, loathed volunteers as a class of folks, cooked the financial books and the membership numbers. His rabbi at Region retired, the auditors appeared, and he "retired to pursue other interests." (CHOP!) So I have experienced a good range of SEs. I never missed a chance to talk with any of them, I figured I might find out something useful, it could not hurt, and I can disagree emphatically but agreeably if it comes to that.. I join those urging you to talk to the SE. You can honestly tell him you did not understand the situation and want to be clear on his position. How, at this point, can it hurt?

"Adult association does not describe how important it is to not be around at times." True becasue Adult Association refers exclusively to adults being examples of living Scouting values whenever they are "around."

I don't see how you go wrong if you aim for "a small group of friends." That will often mean contemplatives, but not 100% of the time. And on behalf of all the old farts, I object to the exclusive use of use of "old" to modify "fogey." I have seen fogies, but some at ;least were young fogies.

Well, the "L" word has arrived, and I'm outta' here,

What you used is not what BP wrote. It is a rewrite, I used a reproduction of the 1908 language printed in 1957 on the centennial of BP's birth (Centenary Facsimile Edition) Camp Fire Yarn. - No. 2. . . . One boy is then chosen as Patrol Leader to command the patrol, and he selects another boy to be the Corporal or second in command." Camp Fire Yarn. -No. 3. ... uch boys . . . can form themselves into Patrols and become Boy Scouts. For this purpose officers are necessary. . . . A Scout Master is an officer who has charge of a troop. A troop consists of not less than three patrols. A Patrol Leader is a scout appointed to command a patrol. As for Roland Phillips, The Patrol System and Letters to a Patrol Leader, C. Arthur Pearson, Ltd.,(1916), forward by Lord Baden-Powell, Chief Scout, it says: "If a boy is to be appointed Patrol Leader it is important that his age should not be against him. [i.e., he should be older rather than younger unless "quite exceptional"]. . . "A Schoolmaster frequently says, 'I have appointed my leaders as the Chief wishes, but they are not able to lead thier patrols except in theory'. . . . The anwser to this is that it is the principle [task] of every Scoutmaster in the movement to see that his Patrol leaders are able to lead their Patrols." There is more along these lines, but my links to old threads here do not work any more. I am told that today most Patrol leaders in the UK are still appointed. Patrol SYSTEM.

"A patrol is a small group of friends"

If - if - you have a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate any state law purporting to make that conduct unlawful in null and void. So far as I recall BSA's argument that won was that BSA excluded gays due to beliefs inconsistent with having gays in the organization. Now they don't exclude all gays - just gay adults. That has not been litigated. Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by an organization that allows gay members has not been been litigated. From what I can find The view that homosexual men present an enhanced risk of committing child sexual abuse by virtue of their sexual orientation is held by a shrinking minority. As of 1999, that view was held by 19% of men and 10% of women, down from about 70% forty years ago. Most of the people attacking BSA on this issue have no interest otherwise in BSA. Thus, they could not care less if obtaining BSA acceptance of their views would help BSA or Scouting achieve its goals or the contrary. If BSA will not go the way they demand, they are perfectly willing to see BSA and Scouting destroyed. It's the "greater good" argument. We live in a world of belief but also a world of facts, whether those facts seem appalling or not.,

He is just the manager, not the messenger. Ever notice that dissent, even violent dissent, is allowed to be published at Bryan's place. BSA is being utterly smashed on the water gun rule. That never would have happened under Bullet Bob. I wonder if Gates goes there.

Eagle, you got it in one. Troops and patrols with more active program tend to have more advancement, That has been true in every district I have been in (5). The numbers don't lie. In my newer district, the troop that had the most boy-days of camping in 2014 also was No. 1 in advancement, as they were in 2010, 2011, and 2012. They missed the advancement prize in 2013 - whne they missed the camping prize. The "Operation" should have been to encourage active outdoor program. But the people in the Advancement Bubble want to do their thing, just like the folks in the Journey to Excellence Bubble. BSA is discombobulated by all these semi-autonomous teams which won't play together.

He seems to be suggesting that local option is coming. [caps in original]

One cause of the inconsistency problem is what a friend at BSA (Yes, there are friends of ours there. They are just outnumbered.) calls the "Bubble Problem." The Safety Bubble issues safety rules. The team on Journey to Excellence does the same from their bubble. The Advancement Team bubble ditto. And so on. (Anyone old enough to recall the song "Tiny Bubbles"? Take the latter two bubbles. The first wants lost of "success" so they decree that a weekend in a building playing electronic games is a "weekend campout" for JTE purposes. Meanwhile, the advancement team defines "camping" as under canvas or the stars doing, you know, like camping things. This phenomenon is repeated endlessly. Gates is the President. That position looks more like Chairman of the Board for BSA. The Chief Scout Executive is effectively the CEO and COO, as with councils. The Chief controls the information flow to the President and the Board, and all the department and "team" leaders report to him, directly or through direct reportees. And, judged by objective results, the Chiefs have not been very good for years They were there because they good at getting up the bureaucratic ladder, not becasue they were good at directing the organization to meet the organization's goals. Such a situation is hardly unique but common to most all bureaucracies. Heck, books have been written about how this works. "Incompetency" in terms of objective results is less important than competency in acquiring and holding on to power. See Ameritech. The new Chief looks like he might be a different sort of bird. We shall see.

"we are going to let these patrol operate" I hope, someday, you come to believe, with Bill Hillcourt, it is not up to "we" but is up to "them." The Patrol method flies in the face of the "normal" way adults deal with youth. It takes a big adjustment in behavior and is only initially comfortable with experience or a lot of faith. Adults want to be "helpful," especially those who give their precious time to be Scouters. They easily fall into thinking it's all about attaining efficiency, like the author of that awful and embarrassing article in January, 2015, Scouting. I had twelve years continuous experience with the same, Patrol Method troop, so it was easy for me. It was all the Boy Scouting that I had directly experienced. Oh, I knew there were a couple of adult-run troops, but I had been socialized within my troop to pity them. Even then some of the dad's would flinch over such trivial matters as burnt pancakes or a patrol setting off late Saturday morning on the backpacker to Dollar Lake. "Ready yet?" "Ready?" "Ready to go?" "We're going to go; can you catch up?" (The satisfaction of bandaging their blisters at the top of Poop-out Hill could hardly be measured Do NOT gloat . A scout is . . . .)

Sometimes it works for me. Thinking back, it seems to be a matter of how long I take to type an edit. At some point, I have taken "too long" and the entire post is lost.

Some of us are taught to whisper, in effect, "Love one another" under certain circumstances. That is similar to part of the Biblical Great Commandment.

BW, I fear when you say they "know scouting," you are giving a good many of them too much credit. Scouting bureaucracy, yes. Scouting, no.

My troop from 1987-2001 had 75% retention to age 16 and used Boy Scouting. Adult influence? Sure. The TGs met with the PLs at least once a week to coach and teach and were there during activities to coach. The TGs met with the SA-New Scouts every week for the same. If the TGs saw something that the PL should be doing, he would take the PL aside and influence the PL to take care of the problem. All that was withing the ambit of the BSA language. Our Troop Guides were Scouts regarded as PL or SPL material. Most had been successful PLs or very active APLs.. Two had been SPL. (To BSA, that's "spl" as they are not into English.) Amazing what troop or patrol tent-camping every single month ( three via backpacking) does for retention, especially when combined with a high adventure trip every year and our own summer camp every other year. Good food. Great campfires. Active, patrol-centered "troop" meetings. Would it have been "easier" to have adults run the NSP? Sure. We were simply OK with what a 11-year-old PL "looks" like and focused on the process. The troop I try to help now has 25% retention to age 16, but boy are they adult-run, to they extent they are run at all. It took me some time to wrap my head around NSPs. It was different from the mixed-age patrols I had experienced as a Scout and young Scouter. (BP was apparently against mixed-age patrols because he said older Scouts would never take care of younger Scouts. He was wrong in a couple of respects. What has to be learned - and can be taught and learned - is taking care of any other person. We are born selfish. Part of becoming a good person and good citizen is learning to care for others. I can attest to the fact that older boys, at least a good many, will faithfully take care of younguns'.)

LeCastor, I have been told by Bill's contemporaries that one of his unofficial jobs was to point out inconsistencies in BSA literature and insist that they be corrected. That, alone, would help the problem of lack of clarity. What would Bill have said about the G2SS discouraging "large sheath knives" and two BSA books on survival each suggesting use of bolos and/or khukuris (short swords, for those who don't know)? I suggested, tongue in cheek, in a letter to BSA that perhaps these massive chopping tools got a "pass" under G2SS since they are carried in scabbards and not in a sheath.

Not addressing objectives but technique, questions are a great way to open up vistas for young people: "Have you considered . . .;" "Did you know that . . .." Stories are another technique: something you just read today; something someone told you once; something you saw on television; something you saw done once that worked/looked like fun;- somewhere you went. Also, the attraction of Scouting - the promise of adventure with your friends - has to be understood in light of what we are trying to accomplish through Scouting. The "why" and the "how" have to interact. Your last observation reminds me of a common element in the tidal wave of criticism of the new rule banning "shooting" each other with squirt guns; namely; rules are being written by folks who have little or no contact with the Scouts.

BSA 2015 It has been pointed out in another thread that what "animal" means in Second Class Requirement 6 is not fully revealed until one reads the BSA training materials for Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills. As another member pointed out, those materials are seen by only a small minority of Scouters. To me, this is simply another example of a larger problem: BSA is quite often not very good at expressing itself. By that I do not refer to what may be deliberate lack of clarity, as with the explanations of " Reverent" or "Duty to God." When there is no benefit to being clear, one may be vague by design. Instead, I refer to the numerous cases where nothing would seem to be gained by lack of clear prose, and, yet, there it is. The "troop leader" may do this, and the "troop leader" can do that. The BSA Glossary of Scouting Terms does not include "troop leader," and I can find no definition in any other BSA literature. One may suspect that BSA usually means "Scoutmaster" by the term "troop leader," but what if the Scoutmaster is not present, as with our Scoutmaster who skips summer camp? Can "the troop leader" be present in the absence of the Scoutmaster? If no adult is present, say at a summer camp formation, and the SPL is present, is the SPL "the troop leader"? One can speculate, but why be forced to puzzle out what BSA means when it would be quite easy to write what is actually meant instead of forcing the reader to deal with verbal slop? It not a good solution to say that lately BSA has been actually willing to communicate with volunteers with questions, unlike in the bad old days of Battlin' Bob's regime. Communication with BSA, even in this more enlightened age, is a sometime thing. Further, the volunteer may need clarity NOW, rather than clarification some days later or no response whatsoever. What makes this all a great shame is that there are volunteers capable of clear writing who would help BSA communicate at no charge.