TAHAWK

From my personal experience, given the support and help of adults that Scouting presumes, Scouts can do most anything required to plan and lead a troop program. As has been said here many times in different words by different posters, the problem comes when the adults don't let go. What do the boys do? The troop I work with now just had a Court of Honor. The event was planned and led by the Scout leaders. The Scoutmaster was the only Scouter who spoke, and he contributed a Scoutmaster's Minute when called upon by the SPL. Somewhere in the background at some point, I know the Scoutmaster supported and helped the Scout leaders because that is the Scoutmaster's job. He trained them to do what they did or trained their predecessors from whom they learned. The critical thing is, this Scoutmaster knows when to step back and let the leaders lead. The Scouts in this troop similarly plan and lead the rest of the troop program. You can close your eyes and hear it.

Our Lodge cancelled both Spring and Fall events in 2010 and has perhaps twenty active youth members - according to the Lodge Advisor. It has never been strong or a significant factor in our council. It did not meet for about twenty-five years after it was chartered - so low number and short, sad history. The new Lodge Advisor is a fine person with a good heart and may change things against all odds. When it became too easy to get in, I think it lost something - being "special."

Our two best DE's -- no -- our two excellent DE's have left in the last three months only, they say, because the new jobs paid much more for much shorter hours that allowed them to be husbands and fathers. The gain they and their respective families enjoyed was at a loss to Scouting here. Turnover is predictable when so many take the job as a last resort, intending to move on ASAP. That also has a very Darwinian impact on the quality of paid Scouters as a group. Of our last four SE's (thirty-four years), two were involuntarily separated and one I described above. Not too inspiring. The current SE surely had some explanation for a 30% year-over-year membership drop, and, based on his frank comments to groups of Scouters, I suspect he reported the truth as he saw it. He did not decide what happened to his predecessor, so attributing the "soft landing" of that predecessor to any act or omission of his seems quite unfair. I second the comments made about good DE's. I have known several. One is a friend of twenty-eight years. They all quit or transferred out of this area. I have personal experience in the results that can follow an attempt to suggest even modest change. Years in exile followed, or so "they" probably viewed it. Fortunately, Scouting is what happens in troops - like the troop I work with. One smile by a Scout who just got his first fire-by-friction certainly trumps any number of council committee meetings or fund-raining receptions. Not sure the powers that be get that part. There are positive stories out there. Unfortunately, beyond the unit level, I have mostly had to read about them. The exception would be NYLT - a joy.

The council to our east, which once was three councils, has reached the point that it cannot afford DE's, so there aren't any - four total employees in the "council." Or is it five? Discussions are going on about rolling most of the council into the council where I do most of my Scouting. This could be good or Sears and K-mart. The beginning of finding solutions is admitting there is a problem. But all I see and hear is happy talk and spin. Perhaps that is a reflection of the lack of ability at the level where national policy is made. Lord knows they seem quite certain in their omniscience. The new emphasis on training can help - especially if the trainers are selected on the basis of merit.

"Frankly, I don't believe it happens, but it makes a good story." This is me caring whether you believe or not. (^___^)

The fees for our "honorary" troops are paid by the adults at the respective CO's who want to see the troops "continue." I have not discussed with any of these gentlemen what the end game might be. As for the fees for the phantom units and troops, someone was paying the fees. I personally examined rechartering papers for units that had every single name on the document forged. One "Scoutmaster" had been dead five years. One "Cubmaster" wanted to sue the DE who forged her signature.

Abel, thank you. The story about the small council came from a council officer (and he may believe the story.). I took your advice and find it is a much bigger council than ours. So, while he is not a region No. 2, he is doubtless getting more pay where he is now than he did here. As for our "honorary" troops, there are youth registered and adults as well for each, but it is well-known that they do not meet. One may wonder about the practical purpose of the corporation, as distinct from the volunteers.

The camp we are attending requires at least 30 days notice that you intend to use your own tents (like those that keep skeeters out) or they fine you $30 per private tent. I guess when you are otherwise successful and filled up you can start whipping the customers into line.

Abel, he left to be No. 2 in a region. When regional offices closed, he was not beamed up to Texas and is now SE of a small council. Phantom youth and units are common practices among paid Scouters. The financing of those phantoms even has a traditional name" "Digging deep for Scouting." Our council has had two SE's fired over this practice, but BSA is like the Inspector in Casablanca": BSA is shocked, shocked, that this goes on year after year, council after council. Meanwhile, BSA has non-Scouting programs that "serve youth" to pump up numbers for United Way. (The word "fraudulent" is used by our current SE, a man who seems unusually trustworthy.) And yes, 30% got some attention. By the way, we also have several "troops" that have not met in dacades - literally - but get rechartered by former Scouts in the CO's because they don't what the dead troop to die. Never meet. But there are no forged names, just phony units.

(CNN) A National Guard helicopter made a tight landing Tuesday to rescue Boy Scouts who were missing after a weekend camping and hiking trip in an Arkansas national forest, officials said. Early Tuesday, the six Scouts and two leaders from Lafayette, Louisiana, Troop 162 aimed flashlights overhead at the crew of the Arkansas National Guard LUH-72 helicopter. The crew, using night-vision equipment, was searching the Albert Pike Recreation Area in Ouachita National Forest, said National Guard Capt. Chris Heathscott. Heathscott, who was on board the helicopter, said the Scouts appeared to be in perfect health and in good spirits. Scoutmaster Jeff Robinson said the troop was stranded by high water. We were just waiting for the river to go down so we could cross it, he told CNN affiliate KTHV. Scouts Stephen Miller and Blake Dugas told CNN affiliate KATC they were more concerned with how their parents were holding up. Just was worrying about my parents, how are they going to freak out, are they going to freak out, Miller said. The helicopter crew dropped two duffel bags with ponchos, blankets, water and food after first spotting the Scouts, Heathscott said. Robinson said the group didnt need the items. The chopper returned at daybreak Tuesday and had to land twice in a narrow area surrounded by water and woods. It was a precision method, Heathscott said of work done by pilot Chief Warrant Officer David Specht and co-pilot Chief Warrant Officer Todd Adams. It was unbelievable. Art Hawkins, Scout executive for the Evangeline Area Council of Boy Scouts of America, said Monday that officials were confident the troop was safe, pointing out the troops scoutmaster was very experienced and serves as a backpacking trainer. The average age of the youths is 14, he said. Officials said the area had no cell phone service. The Scouts themselves appeared to take the incident in stride. It was just another day of camping, Dugas said. They seemed to be more excited about being able to ride in a helicopter than being rescued, Heathscott said. Arkansas State Police were prevented from conducting an aerial search on Monday because of the weather, Hawkins said. A lack of cell service in the area also hampered search efforts, he said. The area being searched was near the scene of flash flooding last summer that killed 20 people. The Ouachita National Forest, the Souths oldest and largest national forest, is a sprawling wilderness of 1.6 million acres, according to the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office. There are 480 miles of hiking trails and an abundance of campgrounds. The troop returned in its van to Lafayette and received a standing ovation Tuesday night at St. Edmond Roman Catholic Church. The group had filed an itinerary and was never in danger during the ordeal, Robinson said. He had tried a creek crossing, but raging waters forced the crew to stay put, the scoutmaster said. If you start wandering around you make the situation worse, Robinson said. We just stayed where we were. We were high. We were dry. We were safe. CNNs Rick Martin, Phil Gast and Dave Alsup contributed to this report.

If we are talking about real units, rather than phantom units or in-school semi-phantom units, three factors are strongly correlated with success: 1. Was the unit properly started, as has been discussed above, with a real, working committee and a sponsoring CO? 2. Does the unit has an active Unit Commissioner who watches for needs and can help with those needs? 3. Are the unit Committee and unit leaders (including youth in Troops and Crews) well-trained, inclusive of a willingness to apply what they are taught? I am thinking about three units that are teetering on the brink as I type. Unit XX has had one break in charter in 102 years (This year we celebrate the 103rd anniversary of Scouting in NE Ohio.). It has had the same SM for over twenty years. Shortly after this SM took over, the unit took sixty-seven Scouts to summer camp. It is down to a dozen. It still has sufficient active commissioned Scouters (backpakers often have more adults than Scouts.). The Committee has always been active but untrained, so it exercises no oversight - none. There is no Unit Commissioner. The Scoutmaster really does believe in youth leadership, but he simply will not train the Scout leaders or support NYLT (the only outside training available now that district-level Scout leader training has gone away). The other Scouters sneak in some training every once and awhile on their own initiative. The Scoutmaster (in his late 40's) now mutters darkly about "boys today" and bemoans the poor leadership the untrained Scouts supply. He himself is untrained and sees no need to go to training - or roundtables - as there would be nothing to learn (His Scoutcraft knowledge is excellent. His knowledge of leadership technique is less than average.) He has very little time to devote to the Troop but will not delegate jobs to the other, trained Scouters (Tasks are handed out on an ad hoc, as-needed basis with little advance warning.) Troop CC is a classic adult-run camping club for boys. Adults are all over it's meetings, directing almost everything. It just had it's first PLC in years. The Scoutmaster is untrained and leaves the running of the Troop to the many other adults. He may or may not show up for a meeting or activity. There is no Unit Commissioner. The Committee barely functions at all. (A half a dozen adults are all collecting money for summer camp.) It has a knowledgeable COR, once its Scoutmaster for many years, but he is not very strong on youth leadership himself ("Never suggest to a Scout what you can take care of yourself.") and is getting along in years. There is no published roster or contact information. Camping trips are announced on a week's notice and cancelled for lack of interest. Membership is dwindling. Troop HS consists of only home-schooled boys. No-one is trained. No one knows much of anything about Scouting. It has no Unit Commissioner now as they will only accept one who is home-schooling or did home-school his kids. Scouts in leadership positions are like noncoms in the military. They are only leaders when adults are not present. Adults are usually present. No Committee is apparent. Little program beyond troop meetings in a parent's basement. No real CO - just the parents in the guise of an "association." Got to twenty but now down to six. The two councils in which these units exist, and their respective districts, do not have any of the units on a "sick list." Traditionally, training has been a low priority in both councils. Both councils feel fortunate if one-third of their units are visited once a year by a UC. One council was a "Quality Council." Two years ago it took a 30% membership drop when it was discovered that the previous SE systematically registered phantom youth and chartered phantom units.

Is not attaining 16 years of age a requirement to be a JASM, or did that change in the last few months?

"I echo quazse's recommendation of looking at what your troop's adult leadership is. If the vision is rank advancement, then keeping Eagle scouts from holding POR's makes sense, as the troop has achieved its aim of making Eagle scouts. If the vision is development of leadership skills, then the troop would allow all eligible scouts to hold any position which will help him develop and improve leadership skills, and even encourage the best to run,. If the vision is a delivering a great outdoors program, then the troop would encourage those that have demonstrated the enthusiasm, skills, and ability to run for SPL, regardless of their rank. You can see where this is going - define first your vision (guided by the aims of scouting), and then determine how you will implement the methods to help you achieve the vision." In a Boy Scout Troop? Oh "your adult's leadership" Got it.

In the business context addressed by "Situational Leadership" or the Scouting context addressed in Wood Badge, loyalty to organizational norms may be tested. All Scouters supposedly subscribe to the concept of the Patrol Method where the youth plan and lead the program with adults limited to resource, coaching, and mentoring roles except when safety of fundamental values issues arise. Fidelity to that Scouting norm seems to be a problem with many Scouters. As a Roundtable Commissioner I polled units present (47) and found that a decided minority allowed Scouts to elect their PL's and a shockingly small minority ( < 25%) allowed Scouts to elect the SPL. The rationalizations for this deliberate departure from Scouting were varied: convenience; better results (as if proficiency in the program skill was the goal); youth "not ready" (after 37 years in one case); kids "not as good [or disciplined or devoted] as they used to be" - and the list went on. The internet is full of troop sites where the "boy led troop" is listed as a "goal." How easily may well-meaning adults be led away from the norms they supposedly support. Also, we are supposed to be guiding youth to be value-guided. We might want to experience how tempting the world can be.

Because the course, inclusive of The Game of Life, has been presented without serious inter-personal problems, such problems are not inherent in the material. However a risk is inherent in any material that may force people to "look in the mirror." That situation should dictate selection of staff solely on the basis of competence.

"Another fiction is that Scouting has 100 pages of rules and regulations." Right you are. It's more than 100 pages. Add Insignia Guide to G2SS and you are past 100 and just getting started. It's what bureaucrats do. ^____^ (This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Wilderness Survival MBP is a fright. It is filled with wildly incorrect information, information that conflicts with other BSA publications, and sharp internal contradictions. Given that the overt topic is how to stay alive when life is threatened, the poor quality of this publication should be an embarrassment to BSA -- and to Scouting for tolerating BSA's publication of this mess. The original MBP by Olsen was excellent, but dealt with what might be called "primitive living," as contrasted to "modern survival" - how to stay alive short term until rescued. Details on request.

Horrors? 1. You ought to be excellent to be a Course Director. But if you become a CD, you are never allowed to have a position of responsibility on a WB staff again. Were there problems with inbreeding? Yes. But this is killing a fly with a nuke. Unreasonably arbitrary and disconnected from any concern about quality. If they were qualified to be CD's, they should be able to serve again in some meaningful capacity. 2. The syllabus was rewritten by BSA to avoid paying royalties to Blanchard and Assoc. More like an exercise in transliteration by those who did not speak the original language. At least some of the rewrite team didn't understand the material. So you have the syllabus saying groups always start out with high morale and low skill/knowledge, which is nonsense and contrary to Tuckman's thesis. You also get opaque material on the perils of being directive (in a volunteer organization, they should stress) followed in a few pages by statements that being directive is the best way to get results you want when it's critical to get results. The overall quality of the syllabus was sharply reduced by the rewrite. This problem is often offset by the quality of the staff, who deliver the correct lessons. 3. Outcome of The Game of Life is dependent on the skill of those who run it -- especially the CTJ session afterwards. Based on my one exposure to "Situational Leadership," Blanchard himself does not debrief or have an absolution session after the Game because, he said, "You probably don't want them in your company." Done improperly, TGOL has destroyed courses. I have been lucky to have seen it done very well each of the two times I have witnessed it. 4. Unqualified Course Directors and/or senior staf: "I just want to get done" is not much of a performance standard.

I see a lot of posts about adults making rules. Example: "Yes, a cell phone can be useful (as neil just stated), but so can fixed blade knives, liquid fuel stoves, or any of the other things Troops restrict the use of, because they aren't necessary, and their usefullness [as in original] is outweighed by the issues they cause." This business of adults-banning things raises two issues to me. First, should adults be making rules based on their personal antipathy to certain legally-possessed objects? "It's my troop." Oh, really? It's not the Scouts' troop? The CO's troop? The adults are the PLC? The SM is the PLC? Second, if things cause "issues," that's why we're there. To teach Scouts how to deal with issues, not to make our life easier. Trust should be the basis for all our moral training. (BP) Zero-tolerance rules are zero-use-of-judgment rules -- not too useful in teaching Scouts to make good choices. And you just had to mention bans on fixed-blade knives. ^___^ Bans on fixed-blades knives seem clearly contrary to this statement on BSA policy from G2SS: "We believe we have a duty to instill in our members, youth and adult, the knowledge of how to use, handle, and store legally owned knives with the highest concern for safety and responsibility." Fixed-blade knives are legal to own in all fifty states. There may be restrictions on carrying them, but not restrictions based on where the knife can be folded or not. How do we meet our "duty" to teach Scouts "the knowledge of how to use, handle, and store" fixed-blade knives if they are prohibited? AND: Many folding knives are optimized as weapons and have longer blades than many fixed-blade knives that are optimized as tools. Homes routinely have a drawer containing fixed-blade knives, so our Scouts will encounter them. Fixed-blade knives re safer to use for most food preparation than most folding knives. Fixed-blade knives are routinely used by Council camps for fishing and wood-carving. BSA sells fixed-blade knives (and liquid-fuel stoves - and fixed-blade axes). For wilderness survival work, BSA literature suggests use of bolos and khukuris - notably large knives or small swords (Perhaps bolos and khukuris fall under the the "Sword Exception" to the "large sheath knife admonition since they are carried in scabbards rather than sheaths. Scottish Scouting seems to have a "Claymore Exception."). I respectfully suggest that there is simply not much logical consistency involved, much less concern about what the Patrol Method tries to teach about the proper role of adults or concern about BSA policy. This is adult personal preference at work. Oh, I don't own a cell phone. Hate 'em.

Fascinating discussion. Cell phones can be distracting. Electronics in general can be distracting. Kids can distract each other. Who made the "zero tolerance" rule? Adults? Not a safety issue. Not a morals or values issue. (Well, there as the vegetarian SM who barred meat on the menu as contrary to the Oath and Law.)

There was once a one-day, district-level basic training for Scout leaders called Junior Leader Orientation Workshop. It presented, in an unrealistically crammed syllabus, the "Leadership Skills" of Wood Badge version two. When the second version of WB went away, and with it "Leadership Skills," the district junior leader training also went away. For years we were told the new district-level syllabus was coming any time. Those unfulfilled promises stopped a couple years ago. Poor move IMO. NYLT is, after all, National YOUTH Leadership Training. A given course either works or it does not, and I hardly think a few label changes or a few youth in green shirts is going to determine that question. I suggest that it is more a matter of adult staff that both "gets it" about the course being operated by youth staff and does a good job of helping the youth staff be ready.

Seattle Pioneer, 1, It's the adults who are confused. Kids deal with change just fine. 2. Adults need to know about youth leadership than the kids as the adults are the great threat to to youth leadership. 3. Still raining? Don't mold. Last month I spent in Seattle a Bandanna Slug nearly killed me.

KC9DDI, As I indicated, there is a good deal more flexibility about NYLT than the authoritarian pronouncements may suggest. The language that I quoted - verbatim - still applies to our course. As to the future, I don't know. Only Al Gore et al. can accurately predict the future. I have enough trouble with the past. As to the past, our course last year followed the 2010 syllabus except that we had female participants and the staff presenters did their own PP slides. BDPT00, I assume Scouters work with Venturing because they like that branch of Scouting. I can hardly respond to Venturing leaders in your council thinking Venturing is superior to Scouting. That is a mixed question of facts and opinion, and I have not relevant facts. I see I cannot ask you which specific alterations in the 2011 syllabus you dislike as you have not seen the syllabus. Should Venturers promise to abide by the Venturing Oath and Code, do you find those words to represent values inferior to, or destructive of, the expressions of values in the Scout oath and Law? Are they inconsistent with the aims of Scouting? How so? Should Venturers, many whom were Scouts and some of whom may complete their Eagle in Venturing, elect to recite the Scout Oath and Law, why should they not subscribe to those ideals? As for "playing Boy Scout," someone said, many times, that Scouting was a game. That English gent, I think. I can at least assure you that the two young lady NYLT staffers in our council, while having wonderful senses of humor, are very serious about Scouting. That is why they were Wood Badge junior staffers, the first females to take NYLT, and the first female NYLT youth staffers. Participants in our NYLT course will all experience group representatives coming together under the leadership of another youth leader to plan. Whether you call it a "PLC" (It was once the "TLC")meeting under the leadership of an "SLP" or a"carrot" meeting under the leadership of the "Carrot Top," is less important than the substance, which remains unchanged. A Venturing "crew" (typically a patrol-sized group) collectively meets under a "President," which plans it's own program with adult advice and counsel. That would be Baden Powell's "patrol system," should we look at substance rather than labels. BP imagined no PLC, simply a "court of honor" led by the senior-most "patrol leader" to deal with matters of honor. Unfortunately, Scout participants may get more value out of NYLT than Ventuers taking the course because Scouts may be more likely to come from adult-led units. The majority of Troops in my experience (every district-level position on the Scout side) have been adult-led. I just signed on with a "Scout troop" which had it's first PLC in three years, where all speaking parts at the last Court of Honor were adults, and where only adult voices were heard at meetings until recently. A regular adult-led camping club for boys. Hopefully, my experience is not typical. So in that respect, participants may not not see a typical Troop. Instead, they will see a youth-led unit, whether it is, ultimately, called a "troop" or a "course." If the past courses here are any indication, all participants will leave NYLT determined to be members of a youth-led unit and equipped with tools to help them achieve that goal and do better at it. Not such a bad outcome. Let's call it a "rose."(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

I'm still not seeing the light here. What I'm reading from TAHAWK in particular is that now there are young ladies on the staff. The terminology and structure you say you're using is that of a troop. OK. I'm listening. What position do these girls hold on the staff? What uniform do they wear? For your model troop meetings, etc, do they say the Scout Oath and Law? Is the patrol and troop structure what they're to take back to their units and lead (as stated by your SE)? What am I missing? BDPT00" It seems some councils are calling it "course" rather than a "troop" and calling the groups "teams" instead of "patrols." BSA is labeling it both ways, as one sees by comparing BSA's website description, quoted verbatim above, with the 2011 syllabus. I don't think there is any magic in the labels. What counts is the substance. Are youth leading? Are they in groups of the size that Scouting, and others, have found effective? The young ladies on our council's NYLT staff will be Troop Guides. They will wear the official Venturing uniform because that is the branch of Scouting to which they belong. There were women in that uniform on our 2008, 2009, and 2010 Wood Badge staffs. As 99% of the participants are Scouts, they will say the Scout Oath and Law. The young ladies, as participants last year, had no problem with that. We had no "official" guidance. I suppose Venturing participants might, instead, recite the Venturing Oath and Code. Not sure how that is being handled. Perhaps that is covered in the 2011 syllabus. Venturers will not take Troop structure back to their units. Hopefully, they will not be seeing youth leadership modeled for the first time. Hopefully, they will go back with a strengthened belief in youth leadership and with a version of the leadership concepts and tools of Wood Badge. What I am missing is what you really think -- what troubles you. I don't want to speculate.

"Actually for a very brief time, the new Boy Scout shorts/swimsuit advertised on SCOUTSTUFF.ORG did mention that the new shorts were great 'cause you could run from the waterfront in your Class B's, put on your uniform shirt and be in Class A." Those shorts have been discontinued according to our local Scout Shop. I got a pair at half price. ^___^ I suppose we could call Scout shorts and a T-Shirt a carrot. It's just communication. (^____^)