TAHAWK

"Phrase it any way you want! Asking [if] . . . a Scout believes in God is not crossing the line." I have to say that if you're certain - certain - that the Scout being reviewed is a Christian, it is hard to see how one could offend with the question suggested. But you can be surprised. I was a BOR member present when a Methodist minister's son was asked, "Describe your belief in God." Turned out he had decided he was Bhuddist (and he was a Bhuddist fifteen years later). He handled it well - better than the BOR. He was used to the reaction. Hard to offend a Bhuddist. If we are not to be guided by the current, written instructions from the Boy Scouts of America, we are left to our own beliefs and values - how "you want," rather than how Boy Scouting, as a movement "wants." So, by parity of reasoning, what's wrong if Scouter Ram opens the topic with: "Joe, you know that the Scout Law closes with, 'A Scout is reverent.' Who is your favorite manifestation of Lord Shiva?" Uncomfortable moment if the Scout follows Vishnu or Shakti or Brahma -- or is a Christian, Jew, pantheist, Zoroastrian, anamist, etc. Probably OK if he's a Bhuddist. Hard to offend a Bhuddist. Or we could follow Vicki's sage guidance.

A Timberline II tent, or something in that class (apx 7 lbs), breaks down into two managable parts for backpacking and works OK in weekend car camping. We have used them for some years. When the kids get bigger and start to outgrow the 5'x7' TLII, they are also more likely to buy their own tents. 2 Scouts inna' tent = X noise 3 Scouts inna' tent = 2X noise 4 Scouts inna' tent = 4X noise We found some 1 lb. grates with 8" folding gate legs. Open, they securely hold the large pot from the BSA Cook Kit (8qts.). A single-burner backpacking stove slides under the grate. Presto! Single burner heats pots securely. The grates also hold a pot over an open fire. Another Troop saw our grates, couldn't find a source, and made their own. The are welded together and seem to work as well. The just lash them on the outside of packs. We use two-burner propane Colemans when car-camping. (As a safety matter, we do not allow any horsin' around or mobbing up in the "kitchen." We think supervised trust is part of the ramp-up to driving 3000 lbs. of car at 65 mph at age 16.5. This is just one example. We do watch.) (I do not morn the passing of Troop GI-style KP lines with the final HUGE vat of boiling water. Now if a cold, final chlorine rinse would just show up in the literature.) Our Patrols each have 1 12' x 12' nylon tarp, ridge pole, and end poles. When car camping, the framework is used to create a dining fly. Pitched low and with due regard for the wind direction, it's good to go even in driving rain. Backpacking, the framework stays at home, and the fly gets rigged with paracord between trees. As a Scout on backpackers, my California Troop mostly cooked with WWII surplus "Squad Stoves" in No. 10 cans. Every Scout carried one No. 10, and they were cook pots, water buckets, fire buckets, and KP pots. Given the fire bans almost every late Spring-Fall, it was stoves or no cooking. Even then, often the only cooked meal was Saturday night. The No. 10's also went to make what we called "Hobo Stoves." They seemed safer than open fires and were quite efficient. We used them when fires were allowed.

This is a really good topic. Forget authority and rules for awile. I suspect that we are not posting absolute statements about all patrols. Probly' depends on THE patrol -- especially its leadership team, yes? Also likely depends where they were going - and when. A local county park closely shut up at 10:00 PM and heavily policed or a wilderness area in an upper Midwest winter -- or site near a teenage "makeout" center? Saturday hike or Fri-Sunday outing? AS TO RULES The more I read, the less I (think) I know. Start with the fact that in GTSS you find an express exemption from the requirement of adult presence for "patrol activities." What, the word-processor ran out of "hike," "camp," and "backpack" so they had to use "activities"? What is an activity? An "activity" is a campout, you argue? OK. What about the requirement of a Local Tour Permit for "trips" under 500 miles. Modes of transportation for trips, besides the ever-popular motor vehicles, include "hiking" and "other." The Local Tour Permit form, by its terms, states that two-deep adult leadership is required if the trip is "one-day" or more. What is a "not trip" where no driving or hiking is required? Where does it start out and where does it end? Beam me up, Scotty? Want to argue this quote does not describe a "trip" by hiking of under 500 miles: "Our scouts are fully capable of backpacking a few miles into the forest, setting up camp and getting out in one piece. I feel if the SM approves the plan, we should be OK." ????? (You may be factually correct, but now we're on to the land of rules.) Then we have: "Managing Risk Guide to Safe Scouting Boy Scouts of America> Scouting Safely> Managing Risk> The Sweet Sixteen of BSA Safety Every BSA activity should be supervised by a conscientious adult who understands and knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of the children and youth in his or her care. The supervisor should be sufficiently trained, experienced and skilled in the activity to be confident of his/her ability to lead and to teach the necessary skills and to respond effectively in the event of an emergency. Field knowledge of all applicable BSA standards and a commitment to implement and follow BSA policy and procedures are essential parts of the supervisor's qualifications. A key part of the supervisor's responsibility is to know the area or course for the activity and to determine that it is well-suited and free of hazards. BSA tour permits, council office registration, government or landowner authorization, and any similar formalities are the supervisor's responsibility when such are required. Appropriate notification should be directed to parents, enforcement authorities, landowners, and others as needed, before and after the activity. BSA safety policies generally parallel or go beyond legal mandates, but the supervisor should confirm and ensure compliance with all applicable regulations or statutes." Note "every BSA activity" (that "a" word). So how to "supervise" from miles away? How to respond to an emergency from home? How to insure compliance from --- wherever? And then we have the rules for "Backcountry, whatever that means exactly. Anywhere off-road? X miles from a road? "Safety rule of four: No fewer than four individuals (always with the minimum of two adults) go on any backcountry expedition or campout. If an accident occurs, one person stays with the injured, and two go for help. Additional adult leadership requirements must reflect an awareness of such factors as size and skill level of the group, anticipated environmental conditions, and overall degree of challenge." And, finally (for now) there is this about "camp, trip, or outdoor activity" (Guess they found the missing letters.): "Safe Scouting requires adequate adult leadership. For camps, trips, and outdoor activities, this means having at least two adult leaders, one of whom is at least 21 years old. It is unacceptable to have a camp, trip, or outdoor activity with only one adult present. If only one adult is able to attend, the trip must be cancelled. Ideally, at least three adults will accompany the troop on Scouting on trips. (Note that for properly trained Boy Scout patrols, it is acceptable to have outdoor patrol activities with no adults present. Such activities do require Scoutmaster approval.)" Boy Scouts of America> Boy Scouts> Supplemental Training> Planning and Conducting a Safe Scout Outing Planning and Conducting a Safe Scout Outing THAT language seems a clearer exception for patrol outdoor activities than the GTSS. So we have a here, gone, dead, and back exception. Is that exception for one patrol or for patrols on their own, or is it for a group of patrols? If for only solo patrol "activities," what is the sense of that? How is one patrol safer, on average, than two or three or four patrols within shout, whistle, or bugle call of each other? Clarity would especially be nice if insurance coverage is at stake. Does the insurance apply if you are found to have failed to follow BSA safety policy?(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

This is from the module of training from Board of Review members published by the National Council. Boy Scouts of America: "Boy Scouts of America does not define God for a Scout, nor does it interpret God's rules. Those are matters, as said above, left to home and to the religious body to which the Scout belongs. The board of review does not serve as an inquisition into the correctness of a Scout's perceptions, rather it seeks to determine whether the Scout has fulfilled his duty in a way he sees fit, keeping in mind his profession of a particular faith. Discussion of a Scout's religion is very appropriate at a board of review, but it should be done with respect and appreciation for the variety of faiths and beliefs in the United States. An open-ended question like "How do you honor the 12th point of the Scout Law?" will allow the boy to discuss his religious beliefs. A blunt "Do you believe in God?" should be avoided as there are some religions that do not use the name "God" for their supreme being or higher power." Even this, which hardly a mere opinion, is somewhat inapt if the Scout belongs to a non-theistic religious group, such a the vast majority of Buddhists, although I have never let a Buddhist who would take any offense at the typical inability of theists to understand Buddhism. They don't seem much into "taking offense."

I dare say that most people in the UK and U.S. were far more conservative on religious (and social) matters a century ago when Scouting was founded then they are today. But if that is an issue, it can remain open. Today, deism is not a litmus test in Boy Scouting. Those that think it is need training. Those who know it is not a litmus test and yet seek to impose it on Scouts need to the placed in positions where they can do no harm.

"Actually, NeilLup, if a Scout is asked at a BOR "Do you believe in God?" and answers "No, I don;t believe there is any God." then it is perfectly within the BOR's right to deny the Scout advancement. Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10" Would it not, then, be appropriate to change the training materials for Boards of Review (that caution against that very question), withdraw recognition of the Buddhist religious award and, indeed, bar Buddhists -- and all other non-theists -- from membership?

Every source that speaks to your question, including Councils and the US Scouting Service Project, says that a Scouter who earned the Webelos Award (vs. Webelos rank) is just as entitled to wear the Arrow of Light Knot as any Scouter who earned the Arrow of Light Award. Scouting.org, being ahistorical for the most part, does not mention the Webelos Award (if the "search" feature can be trusted). Your local Scout Shop staff needs to reconsider their position. If they do not, consider going directly to your Scout Executive. Here's a cool history of uniform knots: http://www.sageventure.com/history/knothist/IllustratedHistoryofKnotEvolutionPart1.pdf Good luck.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

As noted elsewhere, a Buddhist Scout, wearing the religious award recognized by the B.S.A, if asked "Do you believe in God" would answer "No." I am sure there are other examples, not to mention the religions who have multiple -- even many -- Gods. A Scout "does his best" to do his duty to "God" - in current BSA speak, a "higher power." A Scout swears to be "reverent." "How do you demonstrate reverance/performance of your duty to be reverent" seem perfectly appropriate, and that approach avoids the "God" dilemma. "Do you believe in God" is not, I think, appropriate since it does not inquire into a standard for membership in the B.S.A. or for any rank.

One would first have to know what the Scout meant by "atheist," because "atheist," taken literally, does not disqualify a Scout from membership or for passing for any rank. Buddhism, which has a religious award that is part of the Scouting program, goes not typically include a belief in God. Buddhists are not "theists." Current training materials for Boards of Review, AFTER giving several examples of questions that expressly ask about "God," state, in part: "Discussion of a Scout's religion is very appropriate at a board of review, but it should be done with respect and appreciation for the variety of faiths and beliefs in the United States. An open-ended question like "How do you honor the 12th point of the Scout Law?" will allow the boy to discuss his religious beliefs. A blunt 'Do you believe in God?' should be avoided as there are some religions that do not use the name 'God' for their supreme being or higher power." Then those materials go on the say: "A Scout may fulfill this duty without being a member of a particular denomination or religion. In these cases, a board will want to understand, through informal discussion, what a Scout feels about this particular duty, how he sees himself in relation to his beliefs, and how he fulfills them. It is very common for adolescent boys to question religion, particularly formal religion. If a candidate indicates that he is not certain about religion, the board should ask how he is trying address his uncertainty and to fulfill his duty to God." Obviously, the B.S.A. is struggling with a complex issue. A Scout does his "best" to be "physically strong." I cannot, therefore, see physical strength as some sort of pass/fail standard. "Best" is not an objective standard. Use of drugs. A "Clean" problem, yes? Pot? A glass of wine with dinner? (Cultures vary on this.) Addiction to nicotine? Additction to caffeine? Once you get past "illegal" drugs, it gets quite gray. Are "sins all the same to God" in all Christian churches, much less in all religions that have a God? I think the answer is , "No." (venal vs. mortal) I don't think we can "fudge" but there may be some range of the acceptable. It appears, in practice, that a good deal of discretion is left to each Board of Review or Eagle Board. Some might want clearer guidelines. Some might enjoy the ambiguities. BP said, repeatedly, that Scouting was not a science.

KUDU POSTS: "I enjoyed the fascinating account of your Troop as a Scout. It certainly was not the Eagle mill that I envisioned when you wrote: 'The only "required" "outdoor" MB's were Camping and Cooking. In short, car campin' was just AOK for SLE. Camping Merit Badge in 2008 is far more demanding, physically and mentally, than it was in 1962 or before... Cooking MB, "required" back then, could be earned back then in your back yard (or front yard).'" RESPONSE: I spoke of the B.S.A. requirements as then in place, which you had presented as much more rigorous than today. They were clearly not more rigorous, except, IMO, as regards the requirement of the Life Saving MB back then. As to generalizing from those facts to Troop 43, or other contemporary Scout Troops, there were certainly Troops in my old Council the 1950's that never hiked or backpacked. Some regarded sleeping bags on the church gym floor as "camping." Some passed Scouts for rank solely on the basis of effort. (The last was often done citing Scouting for Boys on that topic.) One Scouter at training in 1961 even argued that all Scouts should be given Eagle (and be made OA members) because otherwise some Scouts would be "disappointed" and "hurt." (I think he had come to us from "Indian Guides.") His Troop "led" the Council in advancement until his retirement a couple of years later. (I heard almost the same argument from a Scouter in training in 1985. His SM decided to keep him on the Committeee "where he is more valuable.") Other Troops back there and then backpacked every month. It largely depended (SURPRISE!) on the counsel and coaching coming from the Scouters. My bottom line is that we cannot keep flogging Boy Scouting for the errors of 1972-1978. KUDU POSTS: Perhaps it would be more productive if you gave us an account of some the successful programs of the Troops you have served as an adult, and how you think using what you perceive to be "the only legitimate, lawful option in Boy Scouting here" helped. RESPONSE: Not sure how productivity fits in. I have served in only three Troops as a Commissioned Scouter. I was SM of two of them. Thay all used the Boy Scouting program. I never had any direct experience with appointed PL's or SPL's although, as I posted, I know appointing by adults goes on. I have described above how allowing the Scouts to elect their leaders helps prepare them for participation as voters in their lives as citizens -- even when there are "bad" results. That they recall the "bad" choices years later, when they are of "voting age" is instructive. In any event, like it on not, "in for a penny, in for a pound." I take a promise seriously. We promise elections. Elections there shall be. KUDU POSTS: "'jblake47 writes: I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway...' I agree. The current Scoutmaster Handbook (SMHB) does not use the word "vote" anyway. On the page facing one of those fake Baden-Powell quotes it says: "The members of each Patrol elect one of their own to serve as their patrol leader." There is no bold face official definition of "elect" which means that consensus can easily fit within a definition of "elect" such as "to make a selection of" or "to choose, especially by preference." The SMHB also uses words such as "select," "choose," and "decide," but I did not see the word "vote." So strictly speaking, "voting" is "adding to the requirements," and those who force their Scouts to do so should consider leaving the BSA and finding some other opportunity for service before they start buying six-packs for the boys!" RESPONSE: First you argue that "democracy" does not necessarily require elections. Now you argue that elections do not require voting. Let's take your argument seriously for just an instant. A good rule of construction, used by the highest court of each of our fifty states and The United States Supreme Court, is to understand words according to their ordinary meaning in the English language. "Elect . . v.t. 1. to select (a person) for some office by voting." Websters New World Dictionary, College Edition (1966); accord, The American Heritage Dictionary (1976); accord, Dictionary.Com (2008); accord, Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language, on-line ed. (2008); accord, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 555 U.S. ____ (04/27/07)(USe of word "vote" as violative of McCain-Fingold "election" "reform" act); Bush v. Gore, Case oo-949, U.S.S.C. 12/12/02 (election of electors by vote of citizens of Florida). That, for me, ends taking "elections" without voting seriously. 'Cause I think you were just "pullin' my leg. You do that better, and with better humor, than some prey "critters" we both know. "The past is a different country. They do things differently there." E.P Hartley Those quotes from Bill appaear in the 2 volumne HBSM, right? Bill's words before almost all here were born. But Bill, before WWII, does not state the present policy of the B.S.A. or the practices I was taught, and taught to others, starting over fifty years ago. I do not contend, and have not contended, that present rules leave the Scouter without influence on the process of selection. Seems to me that the winnowing out of the clearly unacceptable can be done by the elected members of the PLC BEFORE the election under the rubric of "requirements" or "stanards," as opposed to heavy handed vetoes after the election. Our Troop requires certain rank, certain participation in all aspects of the troop and Patrol activities, and experience in a Patrol or Troop elected or appointed position (e,g, APL or Troop QM). PPPPP. I even allow that newly discovered evidence MIGHT justify action BY THE PLC even after the elections, but everything that can be done should be done to avoid the subtance or appearance of taking group democracy away from the Scouts. And I have related the value of a limited period of bad leadership under close monitoring by Scout leaders and Scouters. That would have apparently bothered Bill AT ONE POINT. It does not bother me: 1978: "To make sure that you have one ["a good leader"] all the members of the patrol elect the Scout you respect the most as your patrol leader . . . ." Bill Hillcourt (Please note the absence in 1978 of "ideal," "sometimes,""maybe,""could be," "optional," "modified" etc.) Even if you want to argue from BP as the final authority, which he is not. it is still simple. BP wanted to teach "the boys" to "play by the rules." "By discipline I mean patient obedience to authority nad to the dictates of duty." Scouting For Boys, Part VI The Scout Master was to set the example. Id. and The Scouter, July 1910 ("practice what he preaches") The "rules" in the UK -- and here generations ago -- allowed the Scouter appoint PL's and SPL's and to directly, and openly override the judgment of the Scouts if there were elections. That was then. This is now. In 2008, if Boy Scouting promises the boys elections and the policy of the B.S.a is elections, we have elctions. If we do not allow elections, we do not obey authority, do not play by the rules, and, thereby, set a contrary example. Try to obtain change? If you truly think elections have less value than the exercise of your superior judgment, you are free to try to role back the last five or six decades. Meanwhile, "play the game."

Epaulets (AKA shoulder loops or straps) allow attachment of Patrol "colors" (really more practical that Patrol patches) and snap-on position insignia as used in Canada.

FS Scouter, our local outlet for the BSA Supply Division elects not to carry the Jac-Shirt. I have no problem with that decision. They know best what "sells." I tried on the Lined Nylon Jacket in XL (46-48), and it fit with some to spare for a light fleece. The Jac-Shirt "XL" is said to be 12-14" larger at 58". The very helpful staff of the Scout Shop (The mamager used to be a Staffer and will be SA at our next course) puzzled over their catalogs and the charts at the Scoutstuff site, came and found me where I was working, and explained that they had no insight as to what size Jac Shirt I -- or anyone else -- should order. (And Bob, I think they can read just fine.) Scoutstuff.org says if I buy a Jac Shirt and it does not fit, I can return it for a refund of the "purchase price." That would leave me "out" about $15.00. I get no "warm fuzzy feeling" out of any criticism of Scouting. But how does one justify an implicit position that one may not be critical of the merely human work of Scouting in any aspect. Does anyone imagine that Scouting, in every single aspect, has achieved earthly perfection? May we not consider alternatives and advocate for them? If you assume that I simply hauled off and fired away at the first excuse, consider that: 1. I would email the BSA and point out my issues, but they have no published email address. The "Customer Service" button at Scoutstuff.org yielded "The chart says . . . ." 2. I could telephone them, but they have no telephone number for such communications. The numbers I found via Google got me to people who had been carefully trained to refer me to "your Council" (and several asked how I had gotten their number). My Council, of course, has no one with a clue about my question, and I had already tied the local Scout Shop. 3. I wrote to the Supply Division via "snail mail" before Christmas (I was going to buy a JAc-Shirt as a "gift" to myslef.). I noted the size chart data and asked if I should really order a Jac-Shirt Medium, which is shown on the charts as the same size as all other BSA jackets in XL. I enclosed a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. There was no answer. January. February. March. The dog probably ate my letter. Speaking of the Army, my M-65 Field Coat is 25" from armpit to armpit. That would make it, at most, a fit for a 50" chest -- if the liner is left out. So that would mean that the Jac Shirt XL at 58" is . . . . different from mil spec. "XL." Guess the U.S. Mil. is outta' step with Bob's universal standards. No. It's not rocket science. Good customer service -- or simple courtesy (There's a good word.) are fairly simple. In the cosmic scale of things, the departures from the reasonable as regards uniforms or service by the Supply Division are insignicant to the importance of the work. But if every time a Scouter raises any issue he gets slammed, that behavior does not encourage participation -- here or in Scouting.

Bob White Posts: "You guys do realize that the BSA doesn't make these things themselves or determine the sizes, right." Totally irrelevant, Bob. The product bears the BSA brand. BSA is the retailer. Those facts give BSA the obligation, in the market place and in law, to give out accurate information about the product. And that's only holding BSA to the same standard as binds Walmart when Walmart deals with Scouters, Scouting youth, and parents of Scouting youth. One might expect better from BSA. Moreover, saying that the BSA does not "determine" the sizes for these items is a fairly scathing attack on the BSA. I have more respect for the BSA than to believe that they don't create the specs for these items. Sooooooo, is the information accurate? See, your argument would have a little weight if I could be sure I could trust the Jac-Shirt chart. But, Bob, one chart could be measuring size and the other could be giving "fits" information. Why else, Bob, would one BSA "Jacket" be 10-12" larger in the cheast than all the other "jackets"? The guys in China just went crazy with the wool-blend cloth? And my existing XL measures 50". THAT IS WHY I CONTACTED THEM THREE TIMES. When asked, the representatives of BSA won't say one way or the other. "The chart says . . ." "The chart says . . ." "The chart says . . . " But I love Mom Bob White rolling around on the ground and fluttering in an effort to distract the predator from the lil' chicks? Shows great pluck. Play up. Play up. And Play the game.

The BSA dos not list the Jac-Shirt as "outerwear." They list it in the "jacket" category. I mention that fact because of the size listings for the items in the BSA "jacket" category. Namely: The Commissioner's Jacket "large" is listed with a 42-44" chest. The Lined Nylon Jacket is listed with a 42-44" chest. The Varsity Scout Lined Nylon Jacket is listed with a 42-44" chest. The Jac-Shirt "large" supposedly has a 54" chest. My second oldest Jac-Shirt XL has a 50" chest. The oldest has no label, was purchased in my "salid" days, and has a 38" chest. (Was I really ever that slim? Sigh!) I do not challenge the logic of this 10-12" difference in "jacket" sizes. The BSA can suit (or jacket) themselves. I just wanted to know if the sizes are accurate. I would not be using the Jac-Shirt as an outer layer since it has virtually no wind or water-resistance. Each time I attempted to establish communication with the functionaries at Scoutstuff, I began by reciting what the size charts said. Each time, they answered ONLY by reciting what the size charts said. When I replied each time that I knew the numbers but just wanted reassurance about their accuracy GIVEN THE GERAT DISPARITY WITH THE SIZES LISTED FOR ALL THE OTHER "JACKETS," they replied BY READING THE NUMBERS OFF THE SIZE CHARTS. (Is there an echo in here?) This was, in my opinion, poor customer service. I did not buy a new Jac-Shirt. Not worth further hassle (Or is it hasle?).

Rick, you started out in this thread implictly and expressly condemning Boy Scouting in the U.S. on the grounds that it did not strictly follow your view of BP's "Patrol System," expecially as regards the method of selecting PL's. While we disagree on certain aspects of BP's teachings, it is certainly clear that spoke of appointing PL's. That approach followed the military model of officer/Platoon Leader and nco/squad leaders -- hardly a surprise given his background. In contrast, a early as the 1916 HB, the B.S.A. allowed for election of PL's as an option. By the time I became a Scout, election had become the only legitimate, lawful option in Boy Scouting here. Thus, Boy Scouting here differed from that in the UK (and Canada) generations ago IN THAT RESPECT. You argued that The B.S.A. made a mistake in departing from BP's standard IN THAT RESPECT, which is a point of view that any Scouter is free to advocate, just as I contend that the current Field Uniform is not suitable for field use. However, you also seem to advocate that SM's appoint PL's (or veto election results) contrary to the rules that every Scouter is on his or her honor to follow. I believe that any Scouter who cannot bring himself or herself to follow the rules and methods as set down by the B.S.A. on such a fundamental issue as one of the Eight Methods should, as BP expressly write (more than once) consider leaving Boy Scouting and finding some other opportunity for service to youth more consistent with their personal beliefs. The so-called "Traditional or "Baden-Powell" scouting that you advocate as an alternative to Boy Scouting would be one example of such an opportunity. There are doubtless others. THEN, you posted that election of PL's is OK, just not "regular" elections. While I understand your distinction (and think that "rotating leadership" would not be effective), your seeming switch in positions drew my comment about a "moving target." I do not think, at its base, we have a problem of "reading comprehension," although I yield to no man in my ability to fail to comprehend. I think we have a difference of opinions and positions. I POSTED: "And now that I have come to your advocacy of the Patrol System as a program "rigidly controlled" by adults, "consult" must be simply window-dressing." YOU REPLED: "99% of all of the problems of the Boy Scout program would be solved if the Guide to Safe Scouting conformed to Baden-Powell's rule that Patrols always camp at least 300 feet apart. The other 1% are due to reading comprehension[.] The rigidly controlled by adults passages that you cite (found under "Strong moralistic stuff," above) are all BSA quotes from before the BSA adopted the Patrol Method on September 21, 1923. In other words, the "safe" tightly adult-controlled BSA program was the origin of Patrol elections." RESPONSE: OK. Finally "got" it. You were arguing that the B.S.A., not BP, advocated rigid adult-control, and such control is NOT a "good thing." Did I comprehend correctly this time? Rick, we started out here in Army uniforms and allowing appointed PL's. (Don't get me started on James West.) THAT IS NOT WHERE WE ARE NOW OR HAVE BEEN FOR GENERATIONS. Rigid adult control is contrary to Boy Scouting policy; hence election of PL's and SPL's, youth planning and leadership, and the Scouters roles as coaches, resources, and guardian's of physical and moral safety. Rigid adult control in the here and now is evidence of Scouters who are failing to offer Boy Scouting to the youth in their Patrols and Troop. Failure to allow the Scouts in the here and now to elect their PL's and the SPL is also evidence of a refusal to lead the Boy Scouting program. KUDU POSTS: "He [bP] was a firm believer in self-government long before 1918. Once the best possible Patrol Leader was appointed by the Scoutmaster, it was strictly hands off. The Patrol Leader represented his Patrol and the adults kept quiet in the Court of Honor unless asked for their opinion, as for example in the transcript where the Patrol Leader of the Woodpeckers has been slacking off by hiking his Patrol a mere eight miles to the same old location: [lengthy quote posted above omitted] REPLY: Some might see a conflict between leaders apointed by a "superior" authority and "self-government," but I take your point. I POSTED: "I believe that one obvious reason why democracy [Thanks, Rick, for the spelling correction.] is part of the Patrol Method in Boy Scouting here is that Boy Scouting is not about producing "well-oiled" patrols. Our aim is to turn out better citizens (as in BP's "practical school of self-government"). When the objective is boys learning to be good citizens and good people, mistakes are part of the process." KUDI REPIES: "Yes, I hear that sentiment a lot in Wood Badge circles. Also, "Our aim is not to produce the best Patrol Leaders, but to teach leadership to every Scout. If our Troop had the best Patrol Leader in the entire world, it would be my responsibility to ask him to step down to give another boy a chance because my job is to teach leadership!" Manager school "experts" can say that because they do not train Patrol Leaders to manage controlled risk out of the sight of adults. So sure, if a Patrol Leader has no adult-level "lifeguard" responsibility then certainly there is no downside to meaningless six month popularity contests for good citizens and good people and mistakes that have no real consequences." I RESPOND: You also read that sentiment in what BP wrote, as I pointed out above in this thread. So I certainly did not mean to suggest that "Boy Scouting" in the UK was any different in the substance or certrality of its aims. Allowing for differences in forms of governemnt (king and Empire), there is no substantial difference. BP and the B.S.A. are clearly after good citizens and good people. As to "sentiment . . . in Wood badge circles," I have never heard any Scouter propose to remove a good leader simply to give another Scout a chance for leadership tenure. I have done two stints over eight years as a SM, twenty-three years as an SA in two Troops, and over thirty years as a trainer. I get to sing two stanzas of "the" song -- and soon a third -- if I can. Given the reprots of good Scouters here and elseweher, I must, however, allow that it goes on, just as adult-appointment of PL's and rigid adult control goes on. We do not have anything like 100% compliance with Boy Scouting. But where, Rick, does the BSA literature, and especially (since you bring it up) WB literature, suggest such strange conduct? I had to prepare for all the sessions of the "old" course, present them (sometimes more than once) to very tough audiences, and then present five of them to "learners." I never saw a hint of such silliness. I also took three weeks of Ken Blanchard courses courtesy of my employer, and I can assure you that replacing good managers to give the "other fellow" a chance at managing NEVER came up in "Stuational Leadership." Recognizing and utilizing the contribution that another group member can make does not, to me, require a change of group management, much less a rotating management. The focus, after all, is on the "bottom line." Management training outside Boy Scouting just has a different "bottom line." They measure results in $$$. We, including BP, measure in good citizens and good people. Both sides feel that leadership skills help achieve the results. I POSTED: "In Boy Scouting, adults are present. That is an absolute requirement. Your advocacy is unlikely to change the mind of anyone involved in the process that brought us to that rule. The problem is to keep the adults' cottin'-pickin' hands off the [Patrol] process. [word added to clarify unfortunate double use of noun "process"] PL's DID NOT LEAD ADULT-FREE CAMPOUTS IN 1954 WHEN I BECAME A SCOUT. They did run sorta' adult-free Patrol meetings each and every week (Mom was usually somewhere in the background and would respond to serious crashes.). But there was always an adult (dad)or two on a patrol campout or hike, and we were supposed to have at least six such activities per year. Now, as most know, one adult is not enough (and coverage for liability by the BSA depends on compliance)." [emphasis added] KUDU REPLIED: "What is your level of training? For someone who so often turns accusations of not obeying the rules into personal insults, you don't appear to have read much about the Patrol Method in the last 54 years. In 2008 "Boy Scouting" still allows adult-free Patrol Hikes and Campouts. Check the Guide to Safe Scouting under Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings: "There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, where no adult leadership is required." RESPONSE: If I unintentionally insulted any here, I regret that. I said, quoting BP, that IF one ELECTS not to obey the rules, they need to change their behavior or leave. I honestly did not understand that you felt being said to fail to comply with certain BSA rules, such as the requirement of elected Scout leaders, would be an "insult" to you in any sense of that word. Rather, you seem to wear non-complaince as a badge of honor. The discussion, I thought, was primarily in the context of camping out -- 300 feet and all that. If it is not, I agree that Scouts may conduct Patrol "activities" without two-deep adult supervision WHEN NO TRIP IS REQUIRED. I gave an example from my experience as a Scout. If the topic is camping or hiking, the language from the Guide to Safe Scouting must be read in pari materia with other B.S.A. publications: "Age-Appropriate Guidelines These criteria are designed to assist unit leaders in determining what activities are age-appropriate. Activities that do not appear on the chart should be reviewed using these criteria. . . . The unit or group receives training appropriate to the activity. In addition to the general criteria, the following program-specific criteria apply. Cub Scouting The activity is parent/youth- or family-oriented. The activity is conducted with adult supervision. Cub Scouts are asked to do their best. The activity is discovery-based. Boy Scouting Activities are led by youth and approved AND SUPERVISED BY ADULTS. Activities are patrol- or troop-oriented. Activities meet standards and advancement requirements. Activities are experience-based." [emphasis added] AND "All backcountry treks must be supervised by a mature, conscientious adult at least 21 years of age who understands the potential risks associated with the trek. This person knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of the youth in his or her care. This adult supervisor is trained in and committed to compliance with the seven points of the BSA's Trek Safely procedure. One additional adult who is at least 18 years of age must also accompany the unit." AND Please follow this link to the tour permit required for any Boy Scout "trip" under 500 miles: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34426.pdf >Please note the requirement of adult supervision. >Please note "hiking" as a mode of transportation covered by this permit. I read "supervision," in context, as requiring presence, especially when there is an emphasis on "two-deep" adult supervision. I would argue, taking all the publications together, that a Patrol campout that does not involve going anywhere -- no "trip" -- does not require a Tour Permit or adult supervision. I was simply not thinking of "camping out" in a Scout's backyard. That was hardly BP's model or, I think what you had in mind, Rick. If the Guide to Safe Scouting is misleading on this point, when read in isolation from other relevant official BSA publications, I can only say that I am no more responsible for that situation than I am responsible for the materials, design, or quality of the Field Uniform or the lousy "index" (really word-search results) in the back of the 11th Edition Handbook. As for training, these publications should be covered in basic training, as is the Guide to Safe Scouting. (Don't buy it. It's on line: http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/Resources/Guidetosafescouting.aspx I POSTED: "PL's did not lead "adult-free" campouts in 1954 when I became a Scout." KUDU REPLIED: "Maybe not in your car-camping Troop. Adult-free hikes and campouts were the whole point of the Patrol Method in 1954. Your copy of the Handbook for Patrol Leaders would have had an entire chapter on how to take your Patrol on a Patrol Hike. . . ." RESPONSE: My "car-camping" Troop. My PLHB in 1954. How amusing. Really. Rick, Troop 43 (Max. of 100 Scouts and 20 Senior Scouts/Explorers plus waiting list) did not have 11-year-old PL's in 1954. Of it's six PL's, the majority were elected after they had earned Eagle rank, usually at 15-16 years of age. If elected when merely Life Scouts, they were expected to "promptly" earn Eagle. There were no PL's who were not at last Life Scouts. So I was merely a dazzled newbie in 1954, trying to take it all in. I had never been around so many High School types. Wow! Late Summer, 1957, with due ceremony, I took hold of the staff of the Eagle Patrol flag -- 49 years of PL's initials carved thereon. (And less good ceremony these days. Too bad.) Afterwards came the stern lecture from the God-like SPL on how my Life Rank was "not the thing." Troop 43 itself averaged 86 miles (43 x 2) of Troop mountain and desert back-packing a year -- a number selected/confirmed by successive PLC's. We did a Troop back-packing summer camp every third year, ran our own conventional summer camp every third year, and did summer camp at our Council's Camp every third year. Weekend or Summer Camp, Patrols always camped separately from other Patrols, Crews, or Troop leadership types - but within bugle call. Council made that much harder in Camp RoKiLi by not allowing enough space to get good separation, but we did our best. Patrols were expected to conduct three Patrol hikes or backpacking trips plus three other non-Patrol-meeting activities (usually service projects) per year. Patrols were to meet once a week. (No video games, chat lines, or color TV's. Wonderful!) (Older Scouts typically backpacked on their own - outside the ambit of Scouting and usually when School was "out" -- because they liked it. Sunrise on Mt. Whitney was particularly favored. Many of us completed the Pacific Crest Trail -- in installments to be sure.) My Troop was not located in BP's notional, idyllic countryside or a small English village. We were located in the Los Angeles SMA, and there was no effective public transportation. After a fire in Santiago Canyon (one of a sucession that continued in 2007), there was no decent place to camp, backpack, or hike -- the "woods, rivers, and wide-open spaces" -- without transporation to the trailhead or campsite by car over a period of at least an hour at highway speeds. We did not consider walking around town a "hike" or camping in someone's yard as a "Scout" "campout." Adults, and only adults, were allowed to drive us out of the urban sprawl. That was Orange Empire Council's rule (explained ro me when I got my License and expected to be allowed to drive. How had I not noticed. It was always adults.) I know not on what authority Council so ruled. One did not feel so free to question authority in 1960. After arrival at the trailhead or campsite, the adults might accompany us, wait at the cars if we were to be back "soon," or drive home. Backpacking or camping, adults tented some distance from the Patrol site(s), cooked and ate separately, and left us largely alone - as our SM required. When I think of adults on such outings, it is typically in terms of the unusual, such as when Mr. "Jody" Smith (Oh you can't get to Heaven in Jody's car . . .) fell off a log bridge into Slushing Creek and soaked all the adults' food for Saturday dinner. Our SM, Dick Smith, had taken WB at Gilwell Park while he was in charge of all dependent Scouting in the ETO - and when Thurman was Camp Chief. Mr. Smith absolutely believed in -- and practiced --what was then called "boy leadership," taught that adults were a great asset and the greatest threat to the Patrol Method, and insured that the other adults behaved appropriately most of the time (whatever they thought about our tendency to make what they though were "mistakes." One of Mr. Smith's teachings was that adults were only present "to stop someone from marching off a cliff -- if the cliff is over three feet high." Apparently, only a three foot fall was just another learning expereince. Mr. Smith was also the Scouter Training Chairman (for life) of the Council. He regarded training Scout leaders - Scouts - about the Patrol method as wonderfully subversive of Scouters who would not let the Scouts lead. After 1955 or 56, he had older Scouts on every staff for training of Scouters. Fully half of every "Troop" meeting was taken up with Patrols meeting, adult-free, in separate rooms of the First Methodist Church. Oh, an adult might drop by to give or take information, but that was atypical. The upshot was that meeting time in a Patrol was several times "Troop" time in any given week. While my recollections of fellow Patrol and Crew memebrs is fairly "green," most of the other Scouts have faded away. Only the very colorful remain. And here we are in 2008, however much one might dislike modernity. We are WELL into the Age of the Lawsuit. The requirements of adult presence have steadily tightened up - perhaps steadily weighed down -- since I got back "in" in 1981. Whether adult presence is a problem depends on the behavior of the adults. Even silent "hovering," in and of itself, may be damaging behavior. So I train Scouters and Scouts, the first group as to their required behavior and the second as to what to expect in Scouter behavior. White Stag. That training was unknown to me until I was a Scouter, but it was "all the rage" in the early 1960's in SoCal. Since you seem to oppose the very concept of leadership training, we will not reach common ground. I found White Stag totally consistent with all other BSA training at the time and was left with no impression that leadership by Scouts was to be reduced. Instead, the emphasis was on making the Scout leaders more effective in their Patrols and, to a lesser extent, Troops. We were taught that "nature abhores a vacuum," and so effective Scout leaders, whether PL's or SPL's, were more likely to keep Scouters' hands off the controls of leadership. Then and now, for Boy Scouting to promise Scouts, as it does in the Handbook, that they - and only they - have the right to select their leaders and then to deny them the free exercise of that right could cause (Dare I say it?) cognitive dissonance.

"Sure, ideally election of PL's and SPL's is a great thing, I'm all for it, but I'm even more for having a troop of trained officers that are excited about what they do, do it well, and can teach this kind of leadership to others. It is a truly waste of scouting to have a boy fit that bill and yet because he isn't very popular and never gets a chance to try out his wings in that situation. Instead of it being a waste, more often than not, the boy simply leaves and goes elsewhere. 25 votes for a boy but he doesn't make SPL, one vote with his feet and the troop loses one of their best scouts. As SM I make opportunities for the boys, one of those opportunities is the opportunity to lead. I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway, I have but once or twice overruled the consensus simply because the boy wasn't ready to handle the task at hand." You are hardly alone in noticing that you can overrule Boy Scouting. We have an SM who won't sign off an Eagle candidate who lacks Life-Saving and Wilderness Survival. We have numerous SM's who will not allow elections. We have an SM who decided fifteen years ago to create entirely different requirements for TF-1st Class. We HAD a SM who gives his Scouts alcohol when they're 16. There was an article about this in American Heritage. We HAD a SM who shared beer with his "senior leadership." We HAD a SM who dressed his Troop in Camo and trained them in night infiltration of other Troops' sites, complete with cutting tent ropes. We have a SM who does all the cooking for his Scouts and gives all the orders to his Troop of 10-12 Scouts. We have an SM who has ALL Scout leadership positions filled by election. All these men could give you reasons that they found good and sufficient for disregarding the rules of Boy Scouting. A coupel even "ran" Troops that had lots of the indicia of success. Again, I see no conflict between elections, as required in all Boy Scout Troops, and having trained, motivated Scout leaders. Elected Scout leaders, and the training therof, are part of your task. I am sure you have experienced that not all jobs worth doing are easy. A leadership position is an opportunity for service to others. As you indicated, there are opportunities for service that do not require election. Placing a likely Scout in such a position -- and the recognition of his good performance in that position -- can add to his "weight" with the Scouts.

Check this out: http://www.forestcounty.com/camptionesta.htm

"With the exception of General Shinseki and BG/Secretary White and their Armor Beret, the Army tries constanly to improve the uniform and make it better for the troops in harms way. That's unlike BSA and their uniform for Parlour Scouts." My complaints about the "Field Uniform" are hardly original. With the exception of the 100% cotton shirt, it is made of the cheapest materials. It is about unheard of anymore for fabrics to "pill up," but I have my Field Uniform to illustrate what that means. And the cut and fit of the trousers - yeech! I have nearly no butt (Age does that to ya'.), yet to get pants with any room for free movement, I need to buy 4" too large in the waist. $20.00 Dickies "work trousers" are better cut for field use, not to mention better in quality. The relatively new nylon "SwitchBack" trousers are a different beast entirely. They are practical, and the BSA premium does not seem as great for the Scouts as with the "Field Uniform." Don't like the looks of the nylon shirt. That's just me. It's probably practical. But it seems to have "gone away." Also, look at the size chart for the JacShirt. http://www.scoutstuff.org/BSASupply/SizeInfo.aspx "Small" is 46" chest; "medium"=50", "large"=54", "XL"= 58" ??????? I asked several times how it could be that sizing for the JacShirt was 10" larger than any other outer garment - Scout, military, or civilian. I was told "The chart says . . . ." Well duh! Might as well communciate with a computer. And our local, B.S.A.-operated Scout Store says the boonie hats are going away for Scouts (not Venturing). Only hats already in stock are available. So soon the choice will be BB caps (and sun-burned ears) or a couple of models of wool hats (lovely in Sumemr). We need a "Boy Scout Center" like the military where actually knowledgable people can design and test uniforms.

This thread illustrates one thing at least: a moving target is harder to hit. BP understood that too.

"If one were to look carefully at effective use of leadership in an organization one would quickly find that elected personnel are there because of popularity not necessarily talent. Assigned leadership organizations are extremely tight with their leadership effectiveness and when that effectiveness wanes in the least bit someone else can step in and move the organization along once more. The problem for me seems to be in choosing between a lesson in citizenship, i.e. voting or a lesson in effective leadership, i.e. appointments. I am in a major reorganizational movement in my troop, 6 members to 23 members overnight and so I need to have effective leadership, but that doesn't mean the process couldn't change sometime in the future. Stosh" Hi, Stosh. I have looked carefully at the issue of adults failing to deliver on boy leadership since 1959. It is hardly a new problem. After all, most Scouters are dads. Dads are not used to taking a vote on their decisions vis-a-vis their kids. Or they may have the military model in mind - adult Paltoon Leader and Scout NCO's leading "squads." First, I don't think you have a dilemma because the Scouts, properly coached by an effective Scouter on the role of the PL and what a good PL should be like, will typically make an acceptable choice. If they should happen to make a bad choice, as has happened twice in the last 21 years in our Troop, an interim election directed by the PLC will correct it. The way can be smoothed by SM conferences with the members of the Patrol that can get them to talk about/think about the deficiencies in the current "regime." ("Do the Owl's get their meals on time as compared to the other Patrols" Are the Owls advancing as fast as the Scouts in the other Patrols?" etc.) Again, the Scouts can learn as much from a bad example as from a good example, and learning is the goal - not a well-oiled machine, and so says BP and Boy Scouting. The Patrol is to be a "practical school in SELF-government." Finally, the BSHB expressly promises the Scouts that Patrol members elect their PL and all the Troop's Scouts elect the SPL. When you take on a Scouter's job, you commit to keeping those promises. A Scout is Trustworthy. Deliver on the promises. (Maybe that's why BP urged adult leaders to read the "book" at least once a year.) We are not discussing an optional feature of Boy Scouting.

"So da question for Scouters is this: Do we get more mileage in terms of character development fully utilizing Patrol and Outdoor Methods, with youth acting independently of adults... or do we get more mileage in terms of citizenship development by giving them many direct experiences with democratic elections and their outcomes and consequences?" The Patrol Method, one of the current "Eight Methods," requires youth election of PL's and the SPL. As a Commissioned Scouter, you commit yourself, on your Honor, to following these Eight methods. "I reckon there's a lot to be said for PL elections in teachin' citizenship, eh? But we shouldn't feel that it's cost-free. We lose some things doin' it that way, too." On balance, an adult, with her greater expereicne and superior judgment, will make better choices in the sense that the Patrol will run like a "well-oiled machine." The nation, community, and the Scouts will lose some things doin' it that way. "I suspect most troops do somethin' that's a hybrid in one way or another. They screen potential candidates in some way as adults (by rank, by interview, by age or participation or spirit, etc.), and then only let the kids elect from the screened group." Troops are all over the lot in terms of the range of approaches within and outside Boy Scouting. I once asked for a show of hands at a Roundtable, and 40% of the Troops allowed elections of PL's and 10% allowed election of SPL's. That outlines Scouting's biggest problem - adults - not enough and quality of. It's seems instinctively harder to do it the Boy Scouting way than the "dad" way. Heck, kids burn water, much less pancakes. But no one dies from burned food on a campout or from electing Joe as PL. And we are not after perfect pancakes. "Kudu, you've got to be aware of da downside, too, eh? Not every SM is necessarily a virtuoso at selecting natural leaders. Some SMs would prefer PLs who were compliant; others PLs who were "favorites." Given that challenge, elections might provide a "check", just like they do in the real world. " Or their sons. One Troop had three SPL's in a row who were the SM's son. Same SM. Nothing new. When I umpired, one High School had a left-handed catcher -- the coaches son - of course (Some will understand this). Thought for the day: "[E]ach Patrol should have its own separate tent, at some distance (at least 100 yards) from the others." BP, The Scouter, October, 1909. Revised thought for the day: "Hide. The adults are coming."

KUDU POSTS: "But first let me reply to a couple of Tahawk's points . . . ." "Actually, Baden-Powell's official rule requires the Scoutmaster to consult with either the Patrol in question or with the Court of Honor (the Patrol Leaders in Council) before making the appointment" REPLY: I don't believe that you did reply to my point about appointing PL's. BP said in Scouting for Boys that PL's were appointed. Where do you find his "official rule" of consultation, whatever "consult" means, and when was that "rule" promulgated? [And now that I have come to your advocacy of the Patrol System as a program "rigidly controlled" by adults, "consult" must be simply window-dressing.] From BP's writing over the decades, I conclude that his ideas underwent gradual changes as to the details of the methods he advocated until he came to see the patrol as "the practical school of self-government." (BP, The Scouter, June, 1918) So to, Boy Scouting here has evolved, although certainly not to anything like perfection. (Interesting script that. Lots of examples of boy leadership BUT the ASM was in charge of a Patrol. Hmmm.) KUDU POSTS: "Of course the whole point of having real criteria for Patrol Leader Selection is to inform the decision of the Scouts. For all practical purposes the main difference between B-P's appointment procedure and Hillcourt's version of Patrol elections is that in B-P's method the Scoutmaster takes responsibility for the decision, and in Hillcourt's version the Scoutmaster is left to veto a disastrous choice. Casting the selection of Patrol Leaders in moralistic terms ignores the question" REPLY: What do you mean by "takes resposibility"? Or could you quote BP, citing your source? In Boy Scouting's version, the adults live with the Scouts' choice so long as safety or violation of Scouting ideals is not involved. I believe that one obvious reason why demoncracy is part of the Patrol Method in Boy Scouting here is that Boy Scouting is not about producing "well-oiled" patrols. Our aim is to turn out better citizens (as in BP's "practical school of self-govenment"). When the objective is boys learning to be good citizens and good people, mistakes are part of the process. Do the "voters" sometimes elect the wrong candidate? You betcha. Say the Owls elect "Joe" because he is Mr. Popularity. The Owls will then have the enlightening experience . . . .of Joe. If the adults and/or the SPL take mercy upon the Owls, a meeting of that patrol before the end, otherwise, of Joe's term of office can inquire as to how things are going and do the Owls want, perhaps another election. Zip! Joe is out. THAT is an illustation of the Patrol method in action. Lesson learned -- hopefully for application in adulthood at the ballot box when some pol is trying to "buy" their vote with "promises" of $$$ and $$$$ and yet more $$$$$ (all financed with taxed paid by "others." Obviously, as you say, there are things that the SM's can and should do to reduce the risk of a choice outside the range of the acceptable, a choice like Joe. The SM can coach the PLC to develop standards of rank and experience for PL candidates. The SM can counsel the "electorate" about the seriousness and importance of their choice. Of course, if you reject the concept that there is a "range of the acceptable," and want the "perfect" (that is, your personal) choice, then you must be very good at using these means of influencing the outcome. You have no authority in Boy Scouting to simply substitutute your "superior" judgment for that of the Scouts. If you advocate solving the problem of "mistakes" or potential "mistakes" by assuming the authority to veto the Scouts' choices, you are not a demon. Gotta' do more to earn that Demon. Swimming in Molten Lava MB required, among others, plus one hour a week for eternity cleaning the Road Paved With Good Intentions. Instead, such a Scouter would be just another example of an adult that has to be in charge -- 'cause, hreally, honest, absolutely -- you can do a superior job of making HIS unit run smoothly. That would be just a poor fit to be a Scouter commissioned by the B.S.A. KUDU POSTS: "In Baden-Powell's Scouting (and to a lesser degree in William Hillcourt's BSA Scouting): 1. Patrol Leaders are responsible for teaching & "signing off" Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class skills. 2. This is done primarily during individual Patrol Meetings and Patrol Hikes without adult supervision. 3. Patrol Leaders are trained to conduct adult-free Patrol campouts. In practice this usually occurs during Troop campouts with Patrols a minimum of 300 feet apart. In Traditional Scouting, # 1-3 is what Scouters mean when they use the term "Patrol System" or "Patrol Method. Given the potential for something to go wrong without adult supervision it is helpful to think of a Patrol Leader as requiring the same maturity and the same level of specialized instruction as a lifeguard." REPLY: In Boy Scouting, adults are present. That is an absolute requirement. Your advocacy is unlikely to change the mind of anyone involved in the process that brought us to that rule. The problem is to keep the adults' cottin'-pickin' hands off the process. PL's did not lead "adult-free" campouts in 1954 when I became a Scout. They did run sorta' adult-free Patrol meetings each and every week (Mom was usually somewhere in the background and would respond to serious crashes.). But there was always an adult (dad)or two on a patrol campout or hike, and we were supposed to have at least six such activities per year. Now, as most know, one adult is not enough (and coverage for liability by the BSA depends on compliance). Couple of things missed: PL's in Boy Scouts also represent their patrol in the PLC (I guess that would be a COH for you and "Traditional Scouting.") and, in the PLC, they help plan the Troop's activities, including campouts and troop meetings -- unless the adults "know better" and won't let it happen. In comparing 1950's to today, I do see a decline in patrol activities. I would say that it's a shame that Scouts spend relatively greater time in Troop activities than Patrol activities, but that just spurs me to greater efforts to train adults to use the Patrol Method. As for your image of a PL vs. a lifeguard, I think Scouts are capable of much more than they are given a chance to do today in the Age of Lawsuits. Once, Scouts fought brush fires, did crowd-control, and helped in wilderness searches. I have even seen a few Scouts who match your lofty model. But most of them are not miniature adults (or replica adults). They are kids. That makes them years away from the final development of the part of ther brain that maximizes their ability to make good judgments. So Lifeguard B.S.A., sure. But adults should be present, and that's the law in Boy Scouting. Mistakes are expected in Boy Scouting. KUDU POSTS: "In addition to safety issues, in Baden-Powell's "Patrol System" a Patrol Leader once appointed is a member of the Court of Honor (COH) which has most of the adult powers of a BSA Troop Committee." Not possible." REPLY: Well, in Scouting for Boys, the PL's report to the Scoutmaster. The SM fills the SPL slot. There is no Troop Commiteee. In contrast, in Boy Scouting here, the Troop Committee, supposedly raised by the Chartered Institution, "hires" the commisioned Scouters and can "fire" them. Hard to compare. One thing is sure true. Those Committee Adults, like Commissioned Scouters, can reserve campsites, hire trucks, arrange to sell lightbulbs - none of which can be done by a minor because a minor is incompetent as a mater of law to enter into a contract. On the other paw, Scouts in a Boy Scout patrol and as members of the PLC in a Boy Scout troop have authority that is not to be overruled by adults -- IF one follows B.S.A. methods. That seems to differ from "Traditional Scouting," but I naturally defer to you on that topic. [i take that back. You get REAL clear later about rigid adult control.] KUDU POSTS: "As demonstrated in the above sample COH session, adult leaders first hear that a Scout has been promoted to Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class from the Scout's Patrol Leader, not the other way around. But if a Patrol Leader starts to slack off (always hiking his Patrol to the same old destination, for instance) he gets feedback in the COH." REPLY: Yup. That's different. Passing a Board of Review seals the deal on advancement in Boy Scouts, not the Scout leader who signs off the requirements. Used to be that Board was composed of Scout leaders. We lost faith in Scout leaders in that role due to, in my opinon, the failure to properly train the Scouts to peform in that role. That would be lack of "Leadership Development." Shame on us. We need more leadership development, not less. In any case, up to First Class, the Scout never gets to a Board of Review unless his PL has passed him for the rank, so that guarantee of Scout leader judgment informed by "day-to-day" experience with the candidate for advancement, remains to that extent. KUDU POSTS: "After reaching First Class a Scout must ask the COH for permission to meet with a Badge Examiner. If the Scout has not been pulling his share in the Troop, the request is delayed until he pitches in (most jobs except Patrol Leader are performed ad hoc by any Scout with the appropriate Proficiency Badge, as opposed to fixed terms for Quartermasters, Scribes, Instructors, etc. To continue to hold a Proficiency Badge, it must be kept current)." REPLY: And a Scout today who seeks rank above First Class must demonstrate much the same, although the person to be convinced is the SM. It would be a poor SM who reaches such a decision without consulting with the Scout leaders. I would have no problem with expressly teaching that such consultation should or must be done. But in the final analysis, it's the SM's responsibility in Boy Scouting. KUDU POPTS: "So which model fosters the greatest degree of youth empowerment? You can answer in moralistic terms, OR you can judge the issue in terms of a loose equation: The degree to which a Scoutmaster allows a Patrol to elect anyone it wants is inversely proportional to the responsibily he gives his Patrol Leaders as measured by their authority over Advancement, the frequency of adult-free Patrol Hikes, and the distance between Patrols at Troop campouts. So as a practical matter how does a modern Scoutmaster work toward the degree of youth empowerment in Traditional Scouting if he feels obligated to elected leadership? REPLY: A question in the grand tradition of "Have you stopped beating your wife"? It assumes facts that do not exit. There is no "either or" choice between elected patrol leaders and "proper" Boy Scouting. I would say, in line with BP's urgings to place responsibility on the boys and his charaterization of the patrol as a "practical school of self-government," that the degree to which a Scoutmaster allows Scouts to elect whomever they wish is directly proportional to the responsibiltiy placed on them for the consequences of their actions. That, to me and BP and the B.S.A., makes sense. If they live to eighteen, they may vote for President: "As nearly every man will now have political voting power, one of the aims of education should be to prepare the young citizen for his responsibilites in this line." BP, The Scouter, June, 1918. Compared to voting for President, the experience in electing a PL is a relatively low stakes example of BP's "education by experience." To fail to empower Scouts to elect their own leaders robs them of this priceless experience of the "patrol as a practical school of self-government" (BP, Id.). Furthermore, the Board of Review exists to inquire into whether the Troop and its patrols are operating in accord with the methods and aims of Boy Scouting. I POSTED: "Your expressed attitude is also contrary to the Patrol Method...You strongly suggest that you would use means NOT approved by the BSA to reach your ends of empowering those who are, in your opinion, ideal leaders." "Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work." KUDU POSTS: "Strong moralistic stuff! In fact election of Patrol Leader has its origin in the six methods that were the "official methodology" of the very first edition of the BSA Handbook for Scout Masters. But what the BSA "got straight" was the opposite of Baden-Powell's Patrol System: The Patrol Leader as a symbolic "team captain" in a rigidly adult-controlled program:" REPLY Well, at least "moralistic" has replaced your use of cognitive dissonance and "ends justifying the means" as all-purpose knocks. Progress. Slowly. Let's see, BP is the FINAL AUTHORITY --- UNLESS what he says does not suit the position you take in opposition to Boy Scouting. So if BP, in your view advocated "The Patrol Leader as a symbolic "team captain" in a rigidly adult-controlled program," that's Holy Writ. But if he says an adult who cannot support the offical methods needs to leave the organization, that's "strong moralistic stuff," which seems to equate to you with Bad (capital "B") Stuff. OK. Got it. Well, shame on BP. I believe that BP's writings, taken as a whole, do not in fact advocate a rigidly adult-controlled program. Adult-influenced? Absolutely. But how could BP "put responsibility into the hands of the Patrol Leaders" (BP, The Scouter, June, 1910) if the program is "rigidly-controlled" by adults? Did BP means to merely PRETEND to treat the boy as "a responsible being" (BP, The Scouter, December, 1913)who is actually leading his patrol (BP, The Scouter, May 1914) BUT REALLY "RIGIDLY-CONTROL" the patrol? That would be contrary to BP's admonition that we must "practice what we preach." (BP, The Scouter, July 1910). But, this discussion is irrelevant to Boy Scouting because this is not the UK at the time that you contend that BP held such views. Nor is it Boy Scouting in 1929 when Bill wrote his first PLHB. KUDU POSTS: "So I ask again: Which model fostered the greatest degree of youth empowerment: Baden-Powell's method of Scoutmaster appointment (after consulting with the Patrol and/or the Court of Honor) in which the Patrol Leaders performed most of the Troop jobs currently done in the USA by adults; or the BSA election model which was by any fair assessment the very opposite of the Patrol Method? No wonder that when the BSA finally adopted the Patrol Method on September 21, 1923, James West described it as "a radical change in the management of troops"! The elected but powerless "team captain" Patrol Leader was the legacy that William Hillcourt inherited when he arrived here from Denmark REPLY: Another "have you stopped beating your wife" question. You contend the Patrol System was rigidly adult-controlled. Is THAT better than the Boy Scouting Patrol method wehere the elected PL, coached by adults (and older Scouts) is responsible (again, short of safety and values issues)for his Patrol, mistakes and all? I'll take the Boy Scouting approach every time, and I believe that BP came to a place where he prefered it as well: "I had stipulated that the position of Scoutmasters was to be neither that of a schoolmaster nor of a Commanding Officer, but rather that of an elder brother among his boys, not detached or above them, but himself joining in their activities and sharing their enthusiasm, and thus, being in the position to know them individually, able to inspire their efforts and to suggest new diversions when his finger on their pulse told him the attraction of any present craze was wearing off." BP, Lessons From the Varsity of Life, CH. IX. But forget appeals to authority. Let's take your position on it's own merits. Peace is war. Love is hate. A patrol System characterized by "rigid control" by adults is empowerment of the boys. I think I heard that all before -- somewhere -- along with "some are more equal than others."

Ah. A vendetta. How cool. KUDU POSTS: "Google 'cognitive dissonance:' The Wikipedia account of the 1956 UFO doomsday cult is a good example of my "beef" with the "goals of Scouting." REPLY: Your use of this $5.00 term suggests that Scouting says one thing and, in your view, does another, causing you dissonance. But when I read the rest of your post, and other things you have posted in other guises, your basic complaint is that Scouting will not agree with you about what is important in Scouting. This is so much so that you propose that someone start a competing youth organization that follows your opinions as to what Scouting should be. Why are you here? Shouldn't you be off founding your competeing organization? KUDU POSTS: "The difference between the BSA in 1962 and in 2008 is that in 1962 the 'game' that you mention was a hard-played game. In 2008 any indoor boy can earn Eagle Scout without EVER walking into the woods with a pack on his back. Do you think that is an exaggeration? Check the requirements for Camping Merit Badge and then compare the physical exertion and the mastery of basic skills required for Eagle with those required for any school sport and you will understand the true meaning of 'Parlour Scouting.'" REPLY: Not an exaggeration. Simply incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant. "into the woods"? There was no requirement of backpacking to earn Eagle in 1962, or in 1957 when I earned Eagle. There was no backpacking MB then - or for years to come. Hiking MB existed but was not "required." The only "required" "outdoor" MB's were Camping and Cooking. In short, car campin' was just AOK for SLE. Camping Merit Badge in 2008 is far more demanding, physically and mentally, than it was in 1962 or before. Check the requirements. http://usscouts.org/mb/mb001.asp'>http://usscouts.org/mb/mb001.asp Cooking MB, "required" back then, could be earned back then in your back yard (or front yard). In 2008, campout cooking is required. Much more information must be learned as compared to the "dumbed down" Cooking MB requirements of 1962. Check out the requirements: http://usscouts.org/mb/mb001.asp [see fn about preparing food on "trips"] "School sports"? So Scouting is not as demanding as the varsity football and baseball that I played (as my knees remind me). So what? Varsity football pales in comparision with the requrements to be a Marine. "Sissy stuff, you Marines," the SAS Tropper might say. "Whimps," the Seal might comment. Scouting is a program for all boys, not an elite few. Health and the physical improvement of millions of boys and girls is the goal, not physical perfection or physical toughness in absolute terms. The boy or girl who needs Scouting the most is far from your ideal. BP discussed this at length in many venues. What would have been accurate is to say that Eagle is physically easier because since the requirment - with no alternative - of earning the Lifesaving MB went out in 1972. LSMB was the great winnower-out. But that was not a matter of toughness. A friend in my Troop who started at center for a campionship HS football team didn't get Eagle because, at 5'10" and 255 pounds, he was a "sinker" -- barely got Swimming MB. But he could have snapped most of the Troop's adults in half with ease (NOT the marine MGS), and he had five Fifty Miler awards and over 200 days and nights of Scout camping. ("Let Jim carry it. He won't notice.") Another Scouting friend failed LSMB repeatedly due to a Polio-withered leg. But he had three Fifty Miler awards - dragging a leg behind him. Some wimp! I would have changed the requirements for my friends, even though I had to pass LSMB to earn Eagle. KUDU POSTS: "That is why the two most important Methods of Scouting (the Outdoor Method and the Patrol Method) are infinitely more important than the so-called 'Three Aims of Scouting' (a 1972 invention)." REPLY: They are important to you - and to Scouting. But, by definition, methods are subordinate to goals. As for aims, goals, objectives, or ends, the formulation of "The Aims" in 1972 was just that - a restatement that changed nothing of substance since BP set out the aims of Scouting before the B.S.A. existed. If you are actually having trouble finding character, citizenship and fitness in BP's writings: 1. "Our aim was to improve the standard of out future citizenhood, especially in CHARACTER and HEALTH. One had to think out the main weak points in our national character and make some effort to eradicate these by substituting equivalent virtues, where the ordinary school curriculum was not in a position to supply them. Outdoor activities, handicrafts, and service for others therefore came into the forefront of our programme. Attraction. The whole scheme was then planned on the principle of being an educative GAME; a recreation in which the boy would be insensibly led to educate himself. What to call it? There's a lot in a name. Had we called it what it was, viz. a "Society for the Propagation of Moral Attributes," the boy would not exactly have rushed for it. But to call it SCOUTING and give him the chance of becoming an embryo Scout, was quite another pair of shoes. His inherent "gang" instinct would be met by making him a member of a "Troop" and a "Patrol." Give him a uniform to wear, with Badges to be won and worn on it for proficiency in Scoutingand you got him. Under the term "Scout" one could hold up for his hero worship such men as backwoodsmen, explorers, hunters, seamen, airmen, pioneers and frontiersmen. Backwoodsmanship could be brought within the grasp of even the town boy through stalking, tracking, camping, pioneering, camp cooking, tree-felling, and other outdoor activities. These practices all would have their attraction for him, and would at the same time develop in him health, resourcefulness, intelligence, handiness and energy." BP, "Lessons From the Varsity of Life" [words in all caps by BP]. 2. Please note subtitle: "Scouting for Boys, A Handbook for Instruction in Good Citizenship" 3. "Keep before your mind in all your teaching that the whole ulterior [i.e., hidden] object of this scheme is to form character in the boys - to make them good, manly citizens." 4. "When you are trying to get boys to come under good influence you are as a fisherman wishful to catch fish. . . . You therefore use as bait the food that the fish likes." Scouting for Boys, Part VI 5. "The Aim of the Scout training is to improve the standard of our future citizenhood, especually in cgharacter and health." BP, Aids to Scoutmastership at 14. 6. The Patrol System as a "school" -- a tool -- to achieve the aims. Aids to Scoutmastership at 19, Moreover, BP's view that Scouting was a program to educate boys in the characteristics of "good ciizens" was expressly central to the formation of the B.S.A.: "The BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA is a corporation formed by a group of men who are anxious that the boys of America should come under the influence of this movement and be built up in all that goes to make character and good citizenship." Preface, Handbook for Boys, B.S.A. 1911. Later, BP said: "The White Stag has a message for you. Hunters of old pursued the miraculous stag, not because they expected to kill it, but because it led them in the joy of the chase to new and fresh adventures, and so to capture happiness. You may look on the White Stag as the true spirit of Scouting, springing forward and upward, ever leading you onward to leap over difficulties, to face new adventures in your active pursuit of the HIGHER AIMS OF SCOUTING aims which bring you happiness. THESE AIMS ARE duty to God, to your country, and to your fellow man by carrying out the Scout Law. In that way you will help to bring about Gods kingdom upon earth the reign of peace and goodwill." BP to Fourth World Jamboree, 1933 [emphasis added]. So you are clearly out of step with BP and the B.S.A. and have a set pratice of attacking Scouting's aims and methods as applied. Why are you here? KUDU POSTS: As for Baden-Powell's comments, when B-P spoke about Citizenship as the sole aim of Scouting, he was talking about the direct experience of Citizenship in the Patrol System. The fundamental idea is that Scouting is a game in which Scouts learn citizenship from older Scouts 1) in a primitive environment in which Scout Law is a practical guide for getting along, and 2) by providing "Service for Others" in their community (no counting the hours for advancement, by the way). He wrote that the Patrol System is the direct opposite of learning Citizenship through 'Instruction.' Therefore his Merit Badges (called Proficiency Badges) are either Scoutcraft Badges (worn on the right side of the Uniform) or Public Service Badges (worn on the left). There are no classroom Merit Badges (including "Citizenship")." REPLY: BP famously thought that the patrol in the outdoors was the best venue/tool for learning to be good citzens of the Empire, as well as the best "church." Those facts do not prove that the reasons why he founded Scouting were somehow less important to him than the methods used to reach those goals. Again, "Scouting for Boys, A Handbook for Instruction in Good Citizenship." BP was very clear as to what he was about. He was not about founding some alternative wilderness-based society of super-survivors. What are you about? KUDU POSTS: "For the first decade of its history, the BSA flatly rejected B-P's Patrol System in favor of tightly adult-run model. Among other things this introduced classroom instruction [and] Citizenship Merit Badges: The exact opposite of Scouting, even though the goals sound similar." REPLY: This is all vintage history, but I have the 1916 Handbook. It does say that Patrol Leaders may be elected or appointed by the SM. However, in Scouting for Boys, Part I, BP says the PL's are "appointed." It would be accurate to say that Scouting in both the UK and US thankfully found its way to elected PL's as the official methodology, in the U.S. and reached that place no later than Bill's HBPL of 1929. Not sure when they got straight about that issue in the UK. Outdoors only? BP expressly approved indoor Scout Training in Scouting for Boys: "The training is applicable to town or coutry, INDOORS OR OUT." See, the great thing to BP are the goals, even if the teaching has to be experienced in a less-than-idea venue. Scouting for Boys, Part VI [emphasis added] But here we are in 2008, when the Patrol Method has been a required method for generations. If you, or Scouts, have a CD problem -- or any problem -- because an adult's conduct is getting in the way of the Patrol Method, the B.S.A. is on your side in either changing his behavior or changing adult leaders. Likely, either the offending adult was not trained (formally or informally), or he does not apply what he was taught. (The adult who wants to be the platoon leader of his Troop is a problem recognized AT LEAST as far back as 1955. It was covered in JLT materials with that date on them.) I POSTED: "'1972': My complaint about Boy Power/urban-relevant Scouting, which I viewed from outside Scouting and, later, in a historic perspective, is that weakening the outdoor program reduced the attraction of Scouting to urban youth, NOT that any method is more sacred than the goals and objectives." KUDI POSTS: "In other words: The ends always justify the means. This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. In this approach to Scouting (often associated with the fake B-P quote "Scouting is a Game with a Purpose") the 'purpose' of the Outdoor Method is to 'attract' kids to Scouting, and the 'purpose' of the Patrol Method is to teach 'Leadership.' This is exactly backward, because Scouting IS Scoutcraft and the Patrol System. Without them you do not have Scouting, no matter what your 'Mission Statement' says." REPLY: Strawmen are so easy to knock down, yes? But some might notice that I never argued that the ends justify the means. I clearly maintained that the ends were not SERVED by the means adopted, temporarily, in 1972 -- starkly different ideas. In a Scouting context, the only means acceptable are those consistent with the values of Scouting. Now as to the famous quote, used in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere, I have never been able to find it either. But the above quotes from BP are consistent with the statement that Scouting is a game with a purpose - or, even more acurately, a program with purposes hidden, like the hook, within the bait provided by the game. KUDU POSTED: "As I outlined in my previous post, to pander to urban youth the BSA removed from the requirements for Eagle ALL of the Merit Badges that required camping. Given the stunning stupidity of such a thing, how can you possibly not recognize that the Outdoor Method is more important than abstract "goals and objectives"? The Outdoor Method and the Patrol Method existed before the so-called "Aims of Scouting," not the other way around." REPLY: Scouting changed its methods for the worse in 1972 by deemphasis of the Outdoor Program. Pretty stunning error, given where kids' heads were at then. Wrong tool. Splitting hardwood with a butter knife. Bad results. Over thee decades ago, seeing its error, Scouting here returned to the pre-1972 emphasis on camping, such as by restoring the Troop goal of a minimum of ten days and nights of camping (pretty modest). Better tool. The aims of Scouting appear in the very first publication in the UK and the USA. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that the methods predated the aims. The methods were SELECTED by BP to achieve the aims. But in 2008 WE are here, most of us, to do the job of work that BP set out for us over a century ago. If my Troop was a model of the Outdoor Program in every respect (and it is not) and followed the Patrol method as prescribed by the B.S.A. to a "T," (as it does) AND STILL turned out men who are moral relativists and don't give a hoot about anybody but themselves WE HAVE FAILED ABSOLUTELY. That one tool is better than another does not chage what is the tool VS what are the goals to be accomplished with that tool. Why are YOU here? KUDU POSTS: "Of course the ONLY reason that William Hillcourt was called in to restore the Outdoor Method was that dumbing the program down to attract urban youth did not increase the BSA's overall market-share, in fact the BSA went into a sharp decline. It should be noted that although he did restore most of the camping requirements, Hillcourt was not allowed to touch the new 'Leadership Development Method' which did to his greatest creation--the Patrol Method--what rats and cockroaches had done to the Outdoor Method." REPLY: First, the substance of leadership training for Scout leaders did not change between 2008 and my training in JLT almost fifty years ago. AS for training of Scouters, I was very comfortable taking what was called "440 Training" in my Council in 1983 because it was so like the adult training I took in 1961, even to cooking in an orange peel. The words change. The subtance does not. There are only so many wasy to slice and dice the behaviors of an effective leader. So BP taught the value of listening to the boys (Aids to Scoutmastership at 17) and the "new" Wood Bage course does the same. The spokes change, but the wheel keeps rolling, even over bumps in the road like "Boy Power," time-serving professionals, adults who can't get out of the "because I'm dad" mode, the ACLU, and disaffected adults who want to remake Scouting into something that is never has been. Nice touch, that "rats and cockroaches" thing. Dehumanizing the enemy is a cool propaganda trick. KUDU POSTS: It depends on what you mean by a "trained leader." Hillcourt's Patrol Leader Training (PLT) course trained Patrol Leaders how to be Patrol Leaders. JLT dumbed training down to the least common denominator: Troop Scribes, Librarians, and Historians. I would also note that for it to be a valid comparison, the object of military "Leadership Development" would be to teach everybody how to be a leader and to that end hold regular elections with term limits so that every "sorry" would-be leader in the squad, platoon, company, etc. got an equal opportunity to be voted in to learn "leadership" under fire. REPLY: As noted above, JLT considerably predates 1972. I had to take it to be a PL and that was pre-1960. Not everyone from Troop 43 who took the course ended up in a Troop warrant position, but the vast majority did. The amount of information delivered in training since 1982 greatly exceeds the amount delivered before 1965. (I would even argue that the courses syllabii are unrealistic in that respect - too much stuiff for time allotted, especially when we are to deliver it in "interactive discussion.") I believe -- you apparently do not believe -- that training in leadership skills helps the trainee, leader or not. Nowhere does Scouting suggest that the PL slot, much less the SPL slot, should rotate regardless of ability, with the exception of the "new boy patrol," and they have a Guide to keep things on track. I am aware of no Troop in my Council that otherwise rotates leadership positions by design. Some do have terms of office as short as six months (which I don't like much), but the same Scouts are often reelected. Reelection is also very common in my Troop, where the term is one year and where our PLC has determined First Class is the minimum rank for PL or above. I POSTED: "And I've seen some pretty sorry 'material' do significantly better after leadership training." KUDU POSTS: Here is where I part company with you. Leadership training should serve the Patrol Method (as in Hillcourt's Methods of Scouting model), not the other way around. To the Wood Badge Brain there would be absolutely nothing wrong with allowing 'some pretty sorry material' lead a squad, platoon, company into fire because the purpose of the new Wood Badge is to teach Leadership to everybody, not to establish working Patrols that always camp 300 feet apart." REPLY: Nah. We parted company lifetimes ago. Only a few tangent points. You must have had one strange WB experience. Leadership training, whether the older "eleven skills" model that originated defore WWII in Europe and arrived here in the late 1950's, or the management leadership model of today, serves the Patrol Method by making the elected leaders more effective, and thus serves the goals of Scouting. Or it may not do so if the training is of poor quality or the trainee declines to apply the lessons. I am aware of both failings. I know what I am doing to try to make training in my Troop, District, and Coucil better. What are you doing? Why are you here? Speaking, I guess, as a legacy "Wood Badge Brain" and soon to be 21st Century trainee, I am aware of nothing in the literature or training that suggests in any way that all Scouts should receive leadership traning, much less that the unqualified ought to be, as a policy or practice, elevated to leadership positions. BUT the best leader may be absent or not elected (despite every effort to guide the results). Further, in a given situation, someone unexpected may lead quite well. The "leader" is whoever leads. Delegation of a "job" (part of leadership) to all Patrol members was in place as a method in 1954 when I joined. Have a policy or practice of leaving them untrained? I don't think so. Oh, by the way, BP said: "But most of all we want to raise the lowest to a higher place. 'Go for the worst. . .'" Scouting for Boys, Part VI. (I truly don't think you would have liked BP very well.) KUDU POSTS: "This is another cognitive dissonance based on the conviction that the ends justify the means. To me the pink represents the passive nature of Wood Badge: 1) a 'commitment' to obey anyone who tells them to 'Dumb it Down and Call it Modern!' and 2) a passive approach to leadership in which they work with any sorry material that the Scouts vote into office. If the abstract theories of Wood Badge had any real-world validity what-so-ever, most of the course would be devoted to strategies for Scoutmasters to 1) recognize the very best leaders and 2) reach a consensus with their Patrols that keeps them in power. I always wear my Beads, but my Beads stand for what Baden-Powell intended them to stand for: An absolute commitment to Scoutcraft and the Patrol System." REPLY: You roll out CD and "the ends justify the means" like big clubs. But there is no shock wave to follow the flash. The color of the neckerchief (it's tan, according to Gilwell Park) is a symbol to you of a policy or practice that Wood Badge simply does not teach. So values are inconsistent with blind obedience. Making a difference is inconsistent with passivity. "Timeless Values" is inconsistent with going along with anything simply because it is called "modern," "PC," or any other name attractive to the valueless. When you suggest that we NOT work with boys because they are "sorry," you reject the values of Scouting as articulated by BP ("Go for the worst") and everyone in Scouting since. Your expressed attitude is also contrary to the Patrol Method in that, after trying to guide the Scouts to select someone in the "range of the acceptable," a Scouter is commited to working to help the elected leaders, NOT to pronouncing them inferior and overriding the decision of the Scouts. You strongly suggest that you would use means NOT approved by the BSA to reach your ends of empowering those who are, in your opinion, ideal leaders. "Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work." BP Aids to Scoutmastership at 3. Why are you still here? Why would you have anything to do with Scouting?

ecmori, a number of such courses have been offered by units or districts here since the official syllabus was withdrawn.

AN UPDATE Following a meeting between our Scout Executive and representatives of our district training teams, we MAY have seen the last of one-day indoor IOLS courses. In that case, I will not have the opportunity to observe such a critter in its natural environment. I contacted five other Councils. No one in those Councils had heard of such a course.