Compass

evmori: "Before we break camp they assign out stoves, etc. that need a better cleaning. They are due back at our next Troop meeting." We tend to use this approach. However, when the patrol Quartermasters dole out the equipment to various boys in their patrol, there have been problems in getting all the stuff back-- and no one remembers who took what. Of course, it would be the best if the patrol always left the campsite with clean pots and pans, but that doesn't happen. How do your patrol and troop Quartermasters handle this?

ASM7: "This system works well because the SPL is picking a team to work with, just like the POTUS. I don't think POTUS would be happy working with a VPOTUS if he had no choice of who it might be." Well, ASM7, you are right. This was another concern I had about it. When I was a boy and elected a Patrol Leader the second time, I made a mistake and allowed the patrol to elect my Assistant Patrol Leader. They elected a popular, party type of guy. My new APL decided he did not have to show me respect or obey me because he saw his allegience was to the other patrol members that elected him. He 'dissed' me at nearly every opportunity. He eventually caused so many problems and disruption I had to, in essence, fire him through the PLC (we had a hearing: he and I gave our sides of the story; then we all voted). I never repeated that mistake again. Of course, not every boy is going to do this. YMMV

About the original purpose of the thread: It's an intriguing idea. Probably works well for those that do it. My thoughts on it are this: in the original system, my observation is that the ASPL is oftentimes being observed by the boys as the potential next SPL. If he does a good job as ASPL, especially when he has to be in charge in the SPL's absence, then he has an edge in the next elections. However, if the ASPL is perceived by the boys as being a lame leader, his chances of elevation to SPL is reduced. Therefore, the ASPL is kinda going through a 'dry run' for the SPL position before he gets in there and does some real damage. My concern is that, by having the ASPL position be a 'SPL-in-training' position (which is then automatically elevated to SPL at the end of the term), then the boys don't have an opportunity to 'throw the bum out' if he proves to be less than worthy of the position. Also, if another more-worthy Scout appears (due to advancement, transfer from another troop, whatever), then he and the troop has to wait potentially a long time (a year IS a long time to a boy) for that boy to become a SPL. Just my thoughts...

Yeah, mk9750, let's dust off this old thread! You are right. Automatic elevation of the ASPL to SPL is not so hot, even if the boys are doing it through elections. In all honesty, I think you'd be making a big mistake by directly interfering with the process. I know you said you "can't do that", I'm just agreeing with that observation. How 'bout a Scoutmaster conference with the ASPL before the elections? Ask him if he REALLY thinks he can best serve the troop in that position-- even with all his commitments (while reminding him about a Scout being Trustworthy and truthful)? Maybe your ASPL will understand and break the tradition. However, maybe it's not perceived as such a big problem to the boys. From their standpoint, if the SPL is absent and the ASPL steps in and does a good job, then they might not care. However, the (future) SPL might care that the (future) ASPL would be more knowledgeable about what's going in the troop on than he would, and the ASPL would look 'more in charge.' This happened in a patrol with a potential patrol leader. I knew that the candidate was, immediately after the elections, going to be absent for 3-4 months due to swimming practice. I debated with myself about what to do, then decided to talk to the boys before any elections started, explain about qualification ("Attendance is important. You want to pick someone who's going to be there. Candidates, you need to keep in mind that you are expected to be there most of the time... etc.). I then just let the boys experience the ramifications of their decision. Sure enough, the boy in question allowed himself to be elected. He promptly selected another (very passive) boy to be his APL, then departed for 4.5 months. The patrol floundered for a couple of campouts, then another (unelected) boy basically stepped forward and became the defacto leader. The 'real' patrol leader showed up the week before the camporee, but he didn't exactly look very leaderlike as the other boys didn't stand around and wait for him to be brought up to speed. The boys in his patrol learned a lesson from this episode (I don't think the 'Patrol Leader' was ever elected again), and the other patrols learned from this patrol's example.(This message has been edited by Compass)

NJCubScouter, Naughty, naughty. I wondered why this thread was in 'Issues & Politics.' Now it's starting to, um, evolve into something else...

LauraT7, Having difficulty persuading the PLC and/or troop as a whole? How about getting your son's patrol interested in going on their own patrol campout? Get them charged up about their very own campout, then through persuasion encourage a two-nighter. An incentive could be earning the National Honor Patrol Award, which might be a first for a patrol in your troop-- it always seems to be in any troop I've been in --which means your son's patrol is really the coolest/bestest/etc. patrol in the troop! Hey, if you doubt it, just ask any of its members! A two-nighter might not happen on their first campout, but might be more likely after they get the NHP Award (they have to exceed their earlier accomplishments, right?). Then, once your son's patrol gains fame, then one of its members becomes more likely to be elected to SPL, or be picked as ASPL. At the same time, other boys in the troop become more interested in duplicating the 'cool patrol' and its methods/approach. Of course, don't stop there; encourage patrol pride through patrol flag(s), patrol emblems on the equipment, etc. Nothing brings about change faster than perceived success and its rewards... Anyway, it might be easier bring about change at the patrol level first, then influence the troop as a whole through the patrol's results and impact.(This message has been edited by Compass)

sctmom, Summarization of my impression of what you are saying: - You have a choice of 4 not-so-hot troops, all having different variations of poor adult leadership; - Your son, like other boys at his (young) age, is immature and perhaps somewhat clingy to his parent. As far as the first item: without actually seeing the situation, the first two may perhaps be your best bet because they sound like maybe they could be modified. If Troop #1 suffers from ignorance, perhaps the adults can be trained and/or persuaded to do different if they can see the advantages in changing. If Troop #2's main problem is that it is small and has problems implementing a good program because of it, you can help it become successful, which will draw more boys and adult leaders to help out (salesmanship and/or contact with various groups with children helps). However, this can take some time to happen in both instances. Regarding the maturity issue, don't worry. My son had difficulties in this area, but he grew out of it. Just be patient-- he will grow in confidence as he ages. Don't give up yet on the idea of starting a troop. We left a troop because of adult leadership problems. We visited seven troops in our area (none of which really appealed to my son), and were about to join a troop when an opportunity to start one came up. Of course, your situation may be different than ours. Like the others say, Scouting is not the only good thing, but I happen to believe that it is the BEST thing. I believe you are trying to be a good mom. Don't worry if your son does not actively pursue Scouting at the start. And, don't worry if he keeps one foot in the nest in his first year or two. Further, don't worry if he doesn't respond to Scouting. You might want to try some other things outside of Scouting (hobbies, other programs) so he can have other things to feel good about. Self image in relationship to other boys is important around 13-14 years of age (and beyond); a contrast between these things and Scouting can be useful. Sometimes the boy prefers the other program, sometime he prefers Scouting. What's important is for your son to eventually have 'ownership' of his chosen activity. What's best is what's best for your son, right?

Welcome to Scouting! Hope you have as good a time as I have had...

Phew! Long post is right! Starting to look like some of my posts and e-mails... Is the reason your son does not want to go on campouts due to the nature of the troop or is it because he is not emotionally ready for camping?

Every time we plan a week-long Appalachian Trail trip, invariably I hear the 'Eagle Scout who died on the trail' story where, ten years ago and still compelling, an Eagle Scout died from injuries and exposure on the trail. I explain the circumstance of that story (winter time frame, carelessness, not following the rules, unsafe behavior on the part of the boy, etc.), and I talk about the safety procedures that we follow (Guide to Safe Scouting, buddy system, etc.). Like BW says, follow the rules, be careful, and you'll do fine and have the time of your life.

We have a different time pressure on campouts, in that we have a lot of leaders who have church commitments on Sunday morning. As a consequence, we usually leave at 5:00 or 5:30 on a Friday and get back Saturday evening. We do have exceptions when we have a two hour or more drive; in these situations (2 or 3 times a year), we will come back on Sunday after lunch. LauraT7, you say you are shorting your boys in the 10 nights of camping requirement. Does this mean you don't go on a weekend campout every month, or go on a long term campout (summer camp, etc.)? Also, remember it's the boys' program, and it's a democracy where consensual decisions are arrived through persuasion. If you see advantages to the boys in changing, talk to the boys and explain how and why it is good for them. If they change, great! If they don't, well, it may be a bad decision but it's theirs. They learn from the consequences of their decisions, both good and bad. Also realize that if the current PLC is unwilling, but the most of the troop wants to change, the boys can and will elect different leaders. Beyond this, it becomes management by adult fiat. Boys will quickly lose interest if they lose ownership of their troop and program.

True, NJCubScouter. It makes me a little sad that someone would present themself as a Scout leader and, in fact, be practicing deception. If this is true, yaworski, were you proud of yourself? V-e-r-y c-l-e-v-e-r. Boy, you sure fooled us. You even played tag team with yourself (ZP: "Good one Yaworski, makes me wonder how many here know what a ghillie suit is. :-)"). I'm impressed. I can't tell you what an impression you have made on me. Oh, ZP, so clever and articulate. Ruthlessly correcting others' writing skills and grammer. Such utter contempt for others' speech, especially in your 'bad cop' role, ZP. Even while wrapping yourself in the flag and waving the Constitution in our faces. Obviously, we are not worthy of you. Yaworski, if you really did this, I feel sorry for you. Obviously, you thought that some of your real ideas and opinions were distasteful, and so you presented them in a misleading manner. That way, you can vent your spleen in one persona so we would continue listening to your, ahem, alter ego. I suppose a real tragedy is to have excellent communication skills but no one will listen because the message is too repulsive. If I/we have it all wrong, well, I am truly sorry; I really want to hear your side of the story. I think I can think of one way someone can hijack your IP and possibly pull this off. Frankly, however, it seems unlikely.

---quotes from other yaworski postings--- Well it looks like I irritate "Bob White" too much... Bob (not his real name) White lives in an ideal world. Maybe "Bob" lives in Pleasantville, a world of black and white. That's classic "Bob." He deliberately misconstrues what you write. He also twists your words and changes the situations to fit his imaginary world. If you dare to disagree with "Bob," he stamps his tiny foot and quotes BSA scripture. ---end quotes-------- Ironic (to be making such a big deal about someone's nom de plume), if BW's findings are true.

firstpusk: "I think the interview approach is fruitful. That was the one my wife always used when I was the SM. She couldn't test them because she didn't know the scout skills well enough. She did get to know them pretty well in a very short time. She was able to tell me the hard news more than once about problems scouts were having. I was always a bit surprised that some of the other people didn't give me this info." Thank you for this paragraph. This summarizes my understanding of the Board of Review process and how it is supposed to work: additional visability into the hearts and minds of the boys, and how well the program is working. It's amazing what can turn up in a Board of Review. I'm not against auditing or auditors. I just don't believe that the intent of the BOR is merely to examine/re-examine a boy's technical skills. Learning and practicing Scouting technical skills is a means to an end, not an end to themselves.

Bob White: "When all else fails have him read the advancement reference "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures". " Actually, I did. As I mentioned earlier, we had this discussion about this issue, and we referenced the "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures" book (sorry, I had the title wrong in my original post). Since item one says, "To make sure that the work has been learned and completed", he insists that item one must be the focus, and he doesn't understand (and ignores) the words prohibiting retesting the Scout. I guess I wish that item one in the ACP&P book was re-worded somewhat, "to ensure the work has been signed-off" or whatever, if that is the real intent. Not that it would stop this person from being willfully ignorant.

ASM7: "He has already learned, and been tested by people who are supposed to have more skills and training than you as a committee person. " Actually, I am not a committee person, nor have I ever been. My difficulty was that the committee person over the BOR was auditing the boys. He appears to place himself as the ultimate and final authority as regarding Scouting, focusing almost entirely on the boy's technical knowledge of Scouting rather than the implementation of the program. He appears to use the BOR as a club over the boys and the adult leaders. I like acco40's comparison to a college registrar, though I don't object to the BOR asking some technical questions because that, too, can be revealing about the program implementation. By the way, the individual involved, like me, has been to training, and, like me, has completed his Wood Badge ticket.

First, let me quote from the Committee Guidebook: ----begin quote---- "The review has three purposes: 1. To make sure that the work has been learned and completed. 2. To find what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop. 3. to encourage the Scout to progress further. The board of review is not a time to retest the Scout, but to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting ideals." ----end quote---- "...not a time to retest the Scout,..." is in bold, indicating (to me, anyway) that the boy is not to be retested. Yet, item one sounds contradictory when it says that the review is "To make sure that the work has been learned and completed." Now, I am not against asking some rank-related questions. However, it would seem that, looking at the sample questions, one of the big reasons for the BOR is to evaluate how the program is being run in the troop. I had a very vigorous discussion with another person (an auditor in real life) about this issue. He maintains that item one must be the focus, and he doesn't understand (and ignores) the words prohibiting retesting the Scout. I guess that, whichever way is the intent, why isn't it stated better in the books? It's written essentially the same way in the Advancement Policies and Procedures book. Your thoughts and opinions, please...

Like you say, Eamonn, the increase doesn't seem to be that big a deal. Makes you wonder if there are other issues that are bothering that troop, and that this is their 'final straw.'

Ok, here's a story: We had a new troop, about 19-20 months old, with the highest rank being 1st Class. We were going to a camporee, the second competitive camporee they had ever attended. The camporee was going to be a Pioneering-themed event, with the troop campsite to have a required minimum number of lashed projects. None of the boys had done much lashing, except the minimum to pass off the requirement for 1st Class. The first-time SPL wanted to build a tower, and started to tell everyone about his great idea. I took him aside and told him that a tower wasn't required, that other projects would be easier, take less time, etc., and that the tower would count for no more additional points than the easiest lashing project (fire bucket holder). He really wanted to win the camporee, but he REALLY wanted to build that tower. I told him that it would be fine to build the tower, just as long as he knew that, considering the age and experience level in the troop, it would probably take at least 2-3 hours to build it, and take away 4-6 boys from their patrols (taking away needed resources during Sat. morning preparation time). Didn't matter, they still wanted to do it. I said ok, but doubted they could pull it off. When we go to the camporee, along comes a father pulling a trailer LOADED with wood. Apparently, the boys had gone to his land and cut the logs to appropriate lengths, with the idea that there might not be wood available at the camporee (which turned out to be generally true, especially for the projects they had in mind). Much to my amazement, and to other troops as well, they pulled it off-- they built their tower, the only one built at that camporee (and yes, it took over 3 hours, with 4-8 boys in constant attendance) as well as their other projects. One patrol even built a camp table with seats; I'd never seen one built before then. Now, that tower probably wouldn't impress those of you who have built towers to rival Jericho or Babylon, but those boys were immensely proud of their accomplishment. Their experience became the stuff of (boy) legend. They're still building them at every camporee, eleven years later.

I always carry one. On Scout occasions: either a Leatherman or a Swiss Army or my 30 year old scout knife, depending on my mood; non-Scout occasion (work, home): little Swiss Army knife. Yaworski: it's mystifying to me that none of your boys carry knives. Every boy I've seen just about pass out to get their Totin' Chip so they can carry one-- seems to be a rite of passage for them. Are there any other rules or restrictions beyond Totin' Chip requirements at your troop?

Eamonn: >Boy how I hate having to think what all these letters stand for.< If you're referring to what I said: COR = Charter Organization Representative SM = Scoutmaster WWIII = World War III Sorry, I don't mean to be cryptic. I guess I was being too cutesy. Also, I quite agree with you. They tried to get me to be a Commissioner, but to be Scoutmaster (or, later, Assistant Scoutmaster) AND Commissioner-- YIKES -- too much for me at the time. You are also correct that, as you say, "It just would not work in a conflict situation"; there could be a perceived conflict of interest.

>I hope that his god or gods would fogive him for shedding his trousers when he fell off a boat for real.< Oh, I would imagine He would. I guess they had strong convictions about modesty. Never seen (or experienced) this before.

Excellent discussion and points made. A little story about merging patrols: we had a SPL who *really* wanted the troop to do well at a camporee. An obstacle (in his thinking) to this objective was allowing the new boy patrol to participate as a patrol. His solution was to merge its members with other patrols. It was pointed out to him that the new boy patrol members' morale would be damaged by this, and that they were going to do ok because the Troop Guide would be going with them, and that if he was still worried, he could also send the ASPL with them. He still had misgivings (he was, I think, at this point putting his desires ahead of the other boys) as did the Troop Guide (who, oddly, thought he could dump his patrol and go with one he thought would do better). Anyway, the troop came in 1st place! And the new boy patrol? First amoung all the patrols! [Of course, the ASPL and TG contributed greatly to this.] The new boy patrol? They remained a patrol. Some of their members became Eagle scouts, and some are still with the troop, ten years later, as adults.

Why does BSA change requirements in mid-stream? I don't know. Compelling reasons, I hope. I do know that we had the same problem as Eagle90 in finding a pool that would allow a boy to jump in with clothes on. I also know that every one of our boys completed it at summer camp, but I was plenty worried that a third wouldn't make it. One boy, due to his family's religious convictions, had to wear pants on top of pants (shedding the outer pair for the test)! Eeeek! But Eagle74 is right, it wasn't a 1C requirement until somewhat recently. I tell my son that, when I was a boy, it was a swimming MB requirement. I think he likes hearing that. Hmmph! The respect I get... Dumbing down the program? Hope not. But, if a requirement prevents a big portion of boys from advancing further, then you've got to weigh the loss of boys verses maintaining program integrity and challenge.

LauraT7: I don't think it is a conflict of interest as such, but you don't get the independent ideas of a semi-disinterested outsider, which is useful. I don't know of any rules prohibiting troop leaders from being commissioner. With the terrible shortage of such individuals here, I think they almost take anyone who will do it. However, this can be perceived as a conflict of interest for other troops: commissioners who are adult leaders from some other troop can be seen as spies, particularly before competitions. Regarding CORs also serving as SMs-- potentially toxic. You would lose some of your checks and balances in a troop. You get a control freak or someone who is power mad (who has an inside track to the Charter Executive/Charter Organization), oh my. You're in big trouble. WWIII.