DuctTape

I think most of the disagreement here stems from an official or formal "position of responsibility" as opposed to "a job". These are two very different things. The patrol QM might be for a single campout, or he might be so good at it, he continues for the entire year. Regardless, every patrol member should be doing something to help out, whether it is setting up the tents with his buddy, while two others gather firewood. The point is no patrol mate should be sitting around while others are doing something. Thus I have no issue saying "every patrol member needs a job". There are varying degrees of responsibility within the patrol and troop. I find it difficult to say a troop cannot have more than one QM for POR if there is enough responsibility to share. A troop with 8 patrols vs a troop with 2 patrols? Heck I have seen troop QMs when there was only one functional patrol. IMO most of the PORs are patches not responsibilty anyway in my observations. I would rather that requirement be changed to "service to my patrol, troop, pack over and beyond the basic expectations of a scout"(or something to that effect". The scout would need to demonstrate what he did which exceeds just showing up and leading the opening every once in a while. Sure it is subjective, but as I mentioned many get signed off by having a title without really doing anything. The official positions could still exist, and doing something while wearing the patch should be acceptable. But it is the doing and leading that matters.

Barry, I do not disagree with something that comes to light which may be so egregious that it is impossible for the scout to show he " accepts Scouting’s ideals and sets and meets good standards in his life. " Without insisting on perfection. How the scout responds to imperfection with a positive attitude " is most important...".

The EBOR is not the place. The SM signed off on Req #1; thus as the person whom the committee/CO has conferred authority to determine whether or not the scout has shown scout spirit the requirements were met. If the CO or committee has issue, they should take it up with the SM as they would any other subjective advancement requirement.

I think the best GBB Patrol stuff (outside the PL Handbook) is in the first Fieldbook. It is basically a "how to" manual from start to finish on how to be a patrol and do patrol things. A patrol could even just go in order, page by page.

the boys just camped this past weekend in the white stuff. in tents fri night, then lashed a ridgepole between two trees and leaned some others against. A tarp for cover and they had a lean-to. Two of them opted to sleep in it Sat night. Temps both nights were just under freezing. They cooked and ate over an open fire.

I like the idea of "the whole troop" event as a follow up, the curriculum could then focus on establishing the other patrol members roles and responsibilities within the patrol method.

Thanks for sending the draft outline. I look forward to seeing the SM schedule of events. I wonder if you have considered and are incorporating towards the end a time for the PLs and SMs to discuss and reflect together to summarize a shared understanding and create a positive path forward.

Sounds promising. The recommendations already made only add to the promise. I would also like to see a draft.

Effective recruitment is an active process. Signs and "come to" events are passive and yield less results. The current scouts need to go to where prospective recruits congregate and do stuff with them, become friends, ask them to join. The adults do the same with the adults. This can take many forms, either engaging with the prospectives immediately, or doing scout stuff to gather an audience. Recruitment is cheap, easy, effective but you can only pick two.

or call the by their individual, patrol or troop name. Hey troop 123, Hey Coyote Patrol, Hey johhny and phil, Hey jane and margaret.

The QM issues the lantern to the patrol for the year. If it is broken the patrol should repair it. The patrol can raise funds for the repair, and/or go without a lantern until it is fixed. It is their problem to solve. They might just learn something from this. And no, a giant lantern is not needed at camp.

I didn't start with the troop until after the summer, so we were all older. Then we had an entire year before our first boy scout summer camp.

Park, I get what you are saying and agree. My "frustration" comes from webelos who are pushed through, with the focus on "just getting things signed off" so they can join a troop early. If I could change one thing, it would be to eliminate the aol early joining. 11 years old or completed the 5th grade. I am also not a fan of spring (worse is earlier) cross-overs. I think it is too early for them and they get too little overnight patrol camping before a weeklong(or more) scout camp. I know many will disagree with me on these latter points, and that's ok. I have seen it work well, but that is the exception not the rule.

I am with Barry on this. I would rather the webelos program be the best webelos program it can be and not attempt to be Boy Scout prep.

I am sure you brought with you a wealth of experience of best practices.

This is exactly the problem euth parents signing off in cubs, etc...

Not a bad idea. Those of us who are educators by trade and those with a wealth of experience would certainly be happy to share our best practices.

Yes. Which is why I posited the potential PL-SM interaction to discuss. As you mentioned the skill level, and environment play a critical role in this judgement. This is of primary importance as it furthers the mission.

The "best ports parent" I ever witnessed was a hockey father whose son was executing some questionable checks and getting away with them as the refs missed it. The boy was smart enough to do things when the refs weren't looking. The father told the coach to bench his son for his behavior, and have a conversation about "sportsmanlike behavior". This was extremely out of character for most hockey dads.

This does seem to be heading towards the ridiculous. The policy is 2 deep for the event, there is no distance requirement but with all things judgement is necessary. At summer camp is it expected to have 2 adults follow every group of kids to every location? Or on a camping trip, 2 adults with every patrol, or with the buddies as they are out collecting firewood. If one patrol goes on a hike, while another chooses to stay in camp and do totin chip, are 4 adults needed? Of course not. 2 deep for the event, not 2 babysitting every small grouping. If the patrol has an inexperienced leader who decides to take his patrol on a 5 mile hike away from camp, then the SM should be discussing how he will lead his patrol on a day hike without an adult. The conversation should lead the scout to understand his own strengths and limitations and construct a plan to be safe. The PL might request an ASM follow along for safety, or take along a walkie-talkie to communicate with base camp every 20 minutes, or modify the route to a cloverleaf which circles back through camp every 15 minutes, or realize he and his patrol aren't ready to take on this adventure and modify it to increase their skill level, or... Regardless, the 2-deep requirement has already been satisfied. The question now is a judgement of the SM whether the plan is within safety parameters for the skill level of the patrol and his leader.

Having gone around the whole continuum of stoves, they all have their special place in my personal history of adventures. And all have their plusses and minuses. I am however still partial to cooking over the open fire. Unless the land manager prohibits open fires, this is my default. In the last 5 years, I used a canister stove twice only because it was required (fire ban) in the area. I find the use of the open fire also helps facilitate many of the methods and values in scouting. Something to think about.

Your leaving might be the best thing for not just you and your boys, but for that troop as well. It might just be the catalyst for them improving.

I think the psychological effect TLS is referring is to the observer. The wearer's "comfort" is different (often irrelevant as in this case and the example below). There is a reason why IBM required its sales staff to wear a certain type of "uniform". It was not for the employee, but for the client.

When I was a scout our adult leaders were mB counselors for some if the mBs. However the troop policy was that none of them would be our counselor for a mB until we first completed one with a mB counselor whom we called to set up an appointment. I remember this being a challenge (mostly fear) but probably one of the most important skills and lessons learned in all of the mB processes.

I have interpreted "physically fit" as individualized and dynamic. Meaning, a scout (scouter) is physically fit if they demonstrate a regular fitness regimin appropriate to their personal health. I think the responses which referred to "doing ones best" is appropriate. Like most aspects of scouting, "physically fit" is not a phrase in isolation but a piece of how a scout demonstrates ethical choices over their lifetime. In this case the ethical choices would be about ones eating habits, exercise habits, etc... If one knows the better choice, and chooses the opposite (habitually regarding food/exercise), then is the person making ethical choices? These choices are witnessed by others and thus is setting either a positive or negative example.