Bob White

Barry raises a good point. What if the CO wants 100+ scouts in the troop? I feel it becomes the responsibility of a trained and knowledge adult in the unit to explain the pitfalls of such a large membership to the IH, CR and CC of the troop. And to guide them to a more productive number.

Help me out Hotdesk, "From what I'm reading the main suggestion is to let the position not be filled and have a few meetings and outings cancelled." I have read back through all the posts in the thread and I cannot fond a single post that recommends that. Yet, you say it is the main suggestion? Can you help me out here? BW

You can delegate work but not responsibility. If the IH and CR wish for the committee to search for and recommend adult leaders fine. But it is still the CO that has the legal burden of responsibility fopr the3 actions or=f EVERY adult registered in the unit. It is either the CR or IH that must sign their acceptance and approval as the representative of the CO, along with the CC, for every adult application. The responsibility for the selection of quality leaders cannot be delagated away to anyone.

As a unit leader I would never support a Scout troop becoming that large. 30-60 is optimum size in my opinion. As the Scoutmaster you have the responsibility of knowing the needs and characteristics of every member. I just don't believe that can be accomplished in a troop that size. Also in a troop of 100 plus you have a PLC that is really to large for a youth leader to lead comfortably. Just as patrol leaders do best leading a patrol of 6 to 8, so does an SPL with a PLC of 6 to 8. My last reason is logistics. Troop activities for 100 people is difficult. You are greatly limited to where you can go and what you can do in activities befitting scouts where A) you can fit people in, and B) where you have time for everyone to participate. Before a troop grew to that size I would help organize a Venture Crew and train an Advisor, and we would graduate older scouts to the Crew to continue working toward Eagle if that was their goal, or follow special activity interests. In the unit I serve presently we have a membership ceiling we hope to reach this year of 30 Sea Scouts. Due the size of our meeting facility and the amout of program resources available, as well as safety issues, our CO feels this is the optimum membership for us.

My point Eisley is that few kids of this age show an interest in their parents interests. Here is part of Boy Scouting where a parent can share a passion for a skill, hobby, or profession with their child, and they choose not to, for fear of what some one else might think. I find that very sad. You cannot control what others think, and there are so many far worse things for people to think about you then that you spend time teaching your own son something of interest to you. Scouting is meant to create stonger families, and parents are passing up those opportunities to share their time and knowledge for fear of ...peer pressure. How ironic, how unfortunate, how unnecessary.

I think we have more than just scouts leaders here. We have parents, and scouts, and new leaders just finding their way. To pretend that anything a unit does is Okey Dokey because they are "brother and sister scouters" is in many ways doing an injustice to them. There are lots of right ways to deliver scouting, and there are a lot of wrong ways being used by "scouters" as well and there are identifiable differences. Since both sides are expressed here there should not be a problem with helping others learn to distinguish between the two. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

From the Troop Committee Guide page 13, "Troop Committee and Responsibilities" 1st Bullet "Ensures that quality adult leadership is recruited and trained." From the Cub Scout Leader Book page 10-3 "Selecting Leaders" " The Cubmaster works with the Pack Committee and pack trainer to select and recruit qualified leaders and make sure they are trained?" I added the underlines just to clarify that the charge is not just to get the leaders trained but to slect and recuit "quality" adults. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Are parents not adults?

No prep required on the Scout's part. I was the one who prepared. I reflected on the scout, what I wanted to learn about him, what I wanted to share with him, what I wanted him to think about in his growth in scouting, at home, and at school.

I am not big on building a scouts hopes up that he will be elected, or doing the SPL's job of selecting the QM and other troop officers for him. If a patrol has no patrol leader elected that is up to them. No patrol leader, no patrol activities will get SM approval. No patrol leader, no representative at the PLC to make troop plans that effect their patrol. Their choice. No QM, no troop gear can be packed. No librarian no resource materials will be available through the troop. If they don't need those services then there is no need for the office to be filled...but if they do need those services...

The council is already responsible for providingthe training. The CO is already responsible for selecting their leaders and getting them to training. And now you want somebody to have to tell you that you have to do it? We are supposed to be the adults in the program. No wonder so munch "telling" goes on at the unit level, if even the adults have to be told what to do before they will do it. Very sad.

District Member at Large gives you voting priviledges o the District Committee. Technically only the Key Three, the Charter Organization Representatives, and elected District Members at Large have voting powers in the District.

Let's keep in mind that the training is not designed to be one time. NLE and, Job specific and the intro to outdoor skill courses are BASIC information. This is not a "wave the hand one-time and you are done" process. There is an entire arsenal of SUPPLEMENTAL courses and in the case of cubbing the basic training is designed to be revisited every year or two for Den Leaders, And in Boy Scouts you revisit basic training whenver your position in the troop changes. Of course, and I know this raises and allergic reaction for some "leaders", you can always read a Handbook every now and then. The quality of the training does not come into play until you actually SHOW UP for the training. The bigger problem appears to be that more than 7 out of 10 people do not even take the initiative to do that.

"The parents should not be the MB counselors for their own son, but the whole idea of the MB is to introduce youth to the idea that families are units with mutual duties and responsibilities." Actually, the BSA advancement policies specifically approve of a parent counseling their own son. You do not requre the permission of anyone, other than being a council approved merit badge counsleor for that topic. In fact the BSA has no problem with you counseling your sons for as many merit badge for which you are an appproved counselor. The thought that the scout loses something by learning from a parent, especialy learning about a topic or topics for which his parent(s) have a knowledge and passion is a myth. Any approved counselor can counsel any scout on the topics for which they have council approval.

Strong, independent Patrols coming together on occasions to share their abilities and to cooperate as a troop? Who woulda thunk? If I only have 7 out of 8 dens show up do I still have a pack? If I only have 4 dens show up is it a pack. Sure it is, it's just not the entire pack. If only 4 out of 5 Patrols show up is it a Troop Sure it is. What if only two show up is it still a troop? Sure it is. Why because the Patrol is the the core of Scouting. A troop is a gathering of Patrols. Who is the SPL in charge of? No one. The SPL is the coordinator of a the troop, a gathering of patrols. He is not "in Charge" of the patrol, Patrols elected a Patrol Leader to represent and guide them. He is not there to "tell them" what to do , he is there to help guide and support their plan. The handbook says that a patrol activity should not interfere with a troop activity. That doesn't mean they can't happen at the same time, Just that a plan should be reached to so that the troop activity does not suffer from the patrol activity and if it does then 'the good of the many outweigh the good of the few'. (By the way if you are looking for movies to teach leadership the Startrek series is a fun way to teach leadership skills.) But 100 pts for jBlake47 for an excellent post! BW

Justin, Do you think if you had a talk with your scoutmaster it might move things closer to your goal? You'd at least understand where you each were on the issue. What do you think? BW

Pete, Teaching honor in a single sit down session..tough job. I think it is something conveyed over time in small bites size pieces. I found quite times around the campfire best. We took the points of Law and each time at the campfire we would go around the circle and talk about what we thought it meant, then we went around and told a time in out lives where we lived the value, third time around we talked about how we would try to live it better. Maybe an excercise such as this would help. BW

Very much like that. The PL could still be a candidate for SPL and if elected the patrol would have a new elction for the remainder of the term.

Justin, What would you like to see happen?

I think it starts way before they get to a leadership position. A patrol meeting should not be that different than a PLC meeting it just has the Patrol Leader chairing it instead of the Senior Patrol Leader. Get scouts involved in cooperative decision making early on in the New Scout Patrol. Coach and mentor the junior leaders in the leadership styles of scouting so that the scouts not yet in leadership positions begin to understand the leadership culture of the troop by how they are treated by the junior leaders. Start with small responsibilities and work up to the big ones. Understand that it is a cycle, About the time things are running smoothly, leadership positions will change and you will backslide a little. You can minimize this by staggering the patrol elections so that not all the leadership positions change at one time. The goal is not about having a smooth running troop, it is about developing the individual scout.

That depends on what you want them to be, and the actions you take to change or maintain the relationship.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

SMeagle819 The Council has agreed by contract with with units to provide training. I would call the council president to task on that point and insist that the training be provided to your leaders on a timely basis as agreed unpon. There is no need for a course to be on the schedule. The sessions of the training continuum are designed to be done in the unit with a single instructor and even a single participant if needed. If they are not making an opportunity for you to go to training then they should be making it possible for training to come to you. BW

Hi Barry "In the pool of volunteers, you basically got what you got. There just arent enough there to get picky" I think that is probably a very common attitude, and perhaps the basis of what has gotten us into this situation. When we take what we can get then we get what we deserve. As a Training Chairman would you rather have a training team of 6 that taught the BSA programs or a team of 16 that didn't? AS a Committee chair in a troop is the unit better off with 3 leaders who were trained and followed the program, or with 7 leaders, none of whom were trained? If you just take what you can get you will get what you deserve. Why cant't units and counil/district committees be selective? The notion that anybody can be a good Scout leader, or anybody can be a good trainer simply isn't true. If the Scouts deserve deserve trained leaders then why are they not getting them? If the problem is the training mechanism, then what would be a better way to deliver the training and make it easily available? By the way I agree that basic training should be free to those who attend. But I think it is the CO/unit that should pay the cost.

I am proposing that the problems of scouting often raised by 'scouters', are raised by people who never even bothered to attend even 'basic' training, and by some who may have attended training but by their own choice ignore it. I propose that units and individuals would probably have fewer problems if they took the time to learn and follow the program. But only 3 out of 10 leaders do that, and that does not even count the number of committee chairs and committee members who are not trained. Saying that a person went to a training and didn't like it is for the most part a reflection of the trainers, I have seen the same syllabus taught very well and very poorly, the syllabus was the same only the trainers were different. Again, it is a problem of selecting the right people and requiring that the plan be adhered to. Still, to have been able to make that criticism about the course one would have had to have gone to it, and only three out of ten direct contact leaders are doing that. I am proposing that the only solution is through the conscientious efforts to actually choose people for their job rather than just take anyone willing to do it. And to require those that are trained to actually follow the program methods. Wearing a uniform ad going camping is not what scouting is about. I do not see how you will get more people to attend the training and follow the program unless you select people whose character supports that behavior. Integrity can be found in people in all walks of life. Can you see another solution? (This message has been edited by Bob White)

OGE is right, and yes Ed was close too. The National figure is that 29% of direct service adults have taken basic training. Is that figure be acceptable to anyone? Is there any chance that it explains why there is a membership loss, or why units fail, or why leaders do not understand the charter concept or the role of the CO? Or why there were a number of needless young people who died last year in incidents that should never have happened? What accounts for such a horrific number of adults not being trained? Leader selection at the unit level. What should units do with leaders who will not attend training, or do not follow the BSA program Methods and policies? Right now there are about 600,000 direct contact leaders in the BSA, thats 426,000 untrained adults working with scouts. That should be unacceptable to every parent in the BSA. It also places fewer than 2 trained leaders in each unit on average. Add in the scouters that are trained but ignore the training, and you see why this is such a huge concern. Once again it comes down to how units select their leaders, something the BSA has very little say in.