dkurtenbach

FScouter, thanks for saying it better than I could. What Beavah's post points out is that so much "non-model" Scouting is being done out there -- even at the District level and at summer camps -- that these poor Scouting behaviors are being mistaken for the "model." Dan K

I agree that the absolute best way to improve the quality of a unit program is to get leaders who are "the right sort." Sadly, the mechanism for finding and selecting unit leaders -- the Chartered Organization and Chartered Organization Representative -- often does not work well and the unit is left to fend for itself. Even if the mechanism does work well, the problem is often finding volunteers willing to take on the jobs, and there is not the luxury of ensuring that the "willing" are also "the right sort." If we want to rely primarily on "better leaders" to improve the quality of units and the overall quality of the Scouting program, then we need to either use our existing leadership recruitment methods better and more consistently, or else develop better leadership recruitment methods. This is a laudable goal, but success seems unlikely -- we have been trying to do those things since Baden-Powell's time. Success is usually localized to a district or often a single unit, and is usually temporary. While "better leaders" may be the best solution, it may not be a practical, workable solution that can be implemented in the short term or sustained over the long haul. Therefore, it seems reasonable to also work on a range of other, lesser methods for improving unit quality and getting units to follow the program more consistently -- methods that are practical, workable, and can be sustained. What conditions discourage units from following the program? How can we eliminate those obstacles? What conditions would encourage units to more consistently follow the program? How can we implement those incentives? What conditions encourage units to deviate from the program? How can we eliminate those incentives? Dan K

Eamon wrote: ---------- Q:Is Boy Scouting Too Loosey-Goosey? A: Yes Q: Does National, The Council or The District have the tools to make unit leaders follow and deliver the program? A: No. Q: Who does? A: The Chartering Organization. Q: What happens when they don't do anything? A: Scouting Loosey-Goosey? ---------- Agreed. I'm not suggesting that National, the Council, or the District can *make* a unit do anything. I'm suggesting we try to find ways to _persuade_ units (through training, roundtable, formal and informal contacts, etc.) to more closely follow the program and be less "loosey-goosey." Working with COs to get COs to influence the operations of their units (or mandate changes) is certainly one way to approach the issue, but directly implicates the CO-troop relationship, which has its own can of worms. Dan K

Umm, Bob, the whole point of this thread is that the current methods work *if they are used*, and to urge that we look for ways to get more units to use the methods more consistently and "do their own thing" a lot less. It's all right there in my posts, including a few specific ideas. Dan K

Bob, it's all right there in the books -- which are right in front of me. No, my solution is not to change the methods -- not sure where you got that. My solution is to change the culture -- find ways to emphasize and encourage the use of the methods and reduce deviations from the recommended program. Dan K

Bob, that problem solving process is right out of the books. Specifically, you'll find it in "The District" and the "Commissioner Fieldbook for Unit Service." Yes, the Institution Head of the Chartered Organization, the Chartered Organization Representative, the unit Committee Chair (and the Committee), and the Scoutmaster are all responsible for the quality of the unit program. Often it takes someone from outside the unit (Unit Commissioner) to spot issues and problems, and folks from outside the unit to provide advice, guidance, and resources to help the folks within the unit and CO to solve their problems. Certainly we need to have (or develop) strong district institutions to support units with advice, training, and programming. Certainly we need to do our best to find committed Chartered Organizations and select quality leaders. But we know that, as a practical matter, we _don't_ always have strong district institutions; we _don't_ always have committed COs; we _don't_ always have quality leadership in units. So bringing this back to the original topic, I'm looking at how we can _prevent_ a lot of common unit problems (and thereby improve the quality of unit programs) even in a less than ideal environment, even where the unit leadership is weak / untrained / untrainable, the CO is content with providing a meeting place, or the district support structure is in disarray. I think the source of many unit problems is that units deviate from or fail to implement tried-and-true practices that have been tested and recommended by BSA and proven over and over again to work. Unfortunately, we don't currently have a culture in Boy Scouting that strongly encourages conformity to the BSA-recommended program. We have a culture that seems to value flexibility and innovation and units doing their own thing ("loosey-goosey") -- and even scorn for the model -- despite decades worth of experience telling us what works and what doesn't. Compounding that are the weak / untrained / untrainable unit leaders who either don't know about the BSA model or simply choose not to follow it. I think that being as "loosey-goosey" as Boy Scouting is is detrimental to the program. If we could convince units to use and stick to the "best practices" laid out by BSA, we can prevent a lot of problems. Dan K

Bob White makes a good point -- BSA already has a system in place for dealing with program quality issues in units, so why don't we just use that process instead of bothering with yet another initiative? There have already been a couple of good responses, but I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts. The process we have goes something like this: An program quality issues arises in a troop. The Unit Commissioner spots it and does what he/she can to coach the unit leaders to a solution. If that doesn't work, it is reported to the Assistant District Commissioner/District Commissioner level(s), where additional solutions may be tried. If necessary, the District Commissioner takes the problem to the District Committee, where the appropriate operating committee(s) (Training, Membership, Activities & Civic Service) and possibly the District Executive swing into action to provide the necessary resources. Ideally, the problem will get fixed somewhere along the way. * I would say first that there is really no reason that this process should be the exclusive remedy for unit quality problems. We should really have a range of measures available -- both preventative and remedial -- to deal with problems. BSA has multiple official options in many areas; there is no reason it can't have multiple official options for addressing/preventing unit problems. In other words, lots and lots of us can be out picking up litter in our neighborhoods, but if a nationwide education/prevention program can convince my neighbors not to litter in the first place, that frees up a lot of labor. * As Beaver noted, the system doesn't always work as planned. Maybe there is no UC; maybe the UC doesn't know what to do; maybe the CO isn't interested in the problem; maybe the District Commissioner, District Chairman, and District Executive have too many other things going on. If the remedial system is broken, and it is the only game in town, then it has to be fixed before it can be used to fix the unit. In the meantime, the Scouts and the program suffer. So I would say yes, by all means we must use the system in place; but we should also be developing additional methods within the system, if possible. Dan K

Yes, let's get Chartered Organizations to take their responsibilities more seriously. So, how do we do that on a consistent, nationwide basis over the long term? Yes, let's have leaders in every unit who can figure out what works for them and what does not, who the kids like and who can lead other unit Scouters with lesser Scouting knowledge and skill. So, how do we do that on a consistent, nationwide basis over the long term? Yes, let's do a better job making training attractive and accessible. So, how do we do that on a consistent, nationwide basis over the long term? Better leaders/better training is the "rote" answer to the issue of improving program quality in units, and has been since Baden-Powell's time. How's it going so far? I think we all know the answer to that. We have lots and lots of good and great Scouting going on, but we also have lots of poor Scouting going on, and it is always changing -- fix a problem here, and a poor unit improves; at the same time, a great unit loses its inspirational leader, and starts to go downhill. Overall, the average level of program quality remains pretty much the same. These things could, perhaps, be achieved with major changes to how we select and manage our leadship, but such changes seem unlikely. We have a volunteer workforce with widely varying levels of tenure, commitment, time, interest, skill, knowledge, and experience, who are randomly dispersed among our units. Many of them can't or won't get trained or won't understand or implement the training they do get. We have a program that is somewhat complex and, in some respects, counter-intuitive. It is not going to be changed to make it simpler to understand and operate. Given those conditions, what can we do to help a leadership corps with a very uneven ability level successfully operate a complicated program? I'm suggesting that the first step is to eliminate a lot of opportunities for leaders to make mistakes. How? By creating an environment that tells them that there is a "right way" to do Boy Scouting, that doing things in that right way is hugely more effective than other options and will save them a lot of unnecessary work and worry, that failure to follow that path has dire consequences for their boys and their troop, and that the very best thing they can do for themselves and their units is simply implement the program that BSA has laid out for them in its instruction manuals. Dan K

Eamonn, my thinking is this: Yes, the key to substantial improvement in the quality of our programs is "better" unit leaders. However, because we (BSA, Council, District) don't control the selection and appointment of leaders (the CO does), we can't make significant improvements in the quality of our leaders without making significant changes in our program (such as requiring minimum training, testing, and/or continuting education). Yes, we can do things locally to help make incremental improvements and temporarily improve leader quality, but I think it is fair to say that as priorities change and time passes, local initiatives falter and we return to a situation of uneven leader quality and widely varying levels of interest by the CO. Therefore, the premise behind this question is that we are stuck with the unit leadership we have -- good, bad, and indifferent. So if we can't change unit leadership or their levels of knowledge, skill, and training, what can we do to raise program quality generally? Another premise behind this question is that we can't or aren't going to make any substantial changes to the Boy Scouting program itself or major pieces of it (such as the syllabus for SM/ASM Specific Training). That leaves us with one main area we can play around with: How (and how much) the existing program is used by our existing unit leadership. This is the area where a lot of fundamental weaknesses seem to develop. In my view, one reason for that is that in Boy Scouting, troops have (or believe they have) a lot of leeway to deviate from or not implement the model troop program set out in BSA literature and materials (thus, "loosey-goosey"). Thus we get lots of local variations in how the program is run at the unit level -- with widely varying unit quality. How can we reduce these variations and get more units on the same page (the model troop prgram) so that we can reduce the problems that units get themselves into? Dan K

The underlying issue is the development of nationwide consistency in how troops do things in order to promote nationwide consistency in the quality of the Boy Scouting program. Enhancing the Quality Unit award or developing new levels of that award is one possibility. Having our trainers strongly emphasize the model BSA program as "the only way to go" is another. Preaching at every opportunity (unit visits by UCs, Roundtable, District Committee meetings) the "every troop should be following the the same fundamental practices and procedures of Boy Scouting" message is yet another. District-level "How To" Training for all youth Positions of Responsibility could be another. A youth-level honor society, like the Order of the Arrow, but dedicated to, say, the Patrol Method and functioning PLCs (the "Green Bar Brotherhood") might be another. As much fun as our forum discussions are, far too many of them deal with basic troop operations questions that should really never have to come up. Dan K

I agree that a positive, rewarding approach is the way to go, and I think a prestigious, "Good Housekeeping Seal" or "UL Listed" type recognition would be a wonderful development that could really contribute to the cultural change. Can you picture a Webelos parent at a troop visit telling the Scoutmaster, "Well, we were told we should only join an _accredited_ troop." Frankly, I'm less concerned about mavericks who deliberately deviate from the model program -- at least they generally have the energy to try to make their wrong-headed ideas work. I'm more concerned about the folks who are stumbling around wasting precious time and energy trying to re-invent the wheel simply because no one has impressed on them the importance of using the wheel they have already been provided. A lot of those folks *are* trained, but are trained to believe that every troop is unique and it is okay for troops to do things in different ways and that they should do things that work for them. That is, they are effectively told that "Here is the BSA model, but no one really uses it." That training also tells them that it is a waste of time to delve further into BSA publications and materials for answers, because they should do what works for them. Our American Scouting culture that values freedom and individuality tells Scouters that it is up to them to write their own unit program. So they do -- with wildly inconsistent results. Yes, a lot of good Scouting gets done, but it could be better; and a lot of poor Scouting gets done. It seems to me that what is needed is to: (a) Emphasize at every opportunity the benefits to be gained if units stop wasting the energy and resources of volunteers on issues that are already covered by time-tested "best practices" and instead focus that energy, freedom, and individuality in the area where a troop needs it most -- outings and activities. (b) Emphasize that the program really does work -- that the "model" was developed by volunteers, that it has been developed and tested in the real world over many decades, and that with rare exceptions, the troops that will be most successful and will come closest to achieving the Aims of Scouting are the troops that most closely follow the BSA program model and build on it (and, by the way, if you have something that works better, let's get it into the model). Dan K

A number of recent threads raise issues that are fundamentally about the choices the troop adult leadership makes that shape the unit program. Whether it is uniform wear (or lack thereof), doing merit badge classes at troop meetings, collecting non-refundable food money a week in advance of the campout, trying to develop patrol identities, suggesting that the troop try some high adventure activities, or dealing with untrained leaders, it seems that a lot of the issues that come up (over and over again) arise because troops have so much flexibility in how they operate the Boy Scouting program. Combine that flexibility with widespread lack of training of adult leaders and widespread lack of in-depth understanding of the Program, and the stage is set for huge variations in the quality of the program offered by troops. Now, we would hope that in a free market, poor troops would die off and good troops would grow and prosper. That may well happen, but in the meantime, the boys in poor troops aren't getting the program they should be getting. In many areas, there is no market because the poor troop is the only game in town. The leadership of good troops change, and they become poor troops. And because Scouting is an "extracurricular" activity, not a necessity, many boys who leave poor troops leave Scouting altogether rather than joining good troops. Many boys who could benefit from Scouting never join because they only hear about poor troops. Poor-quality troops are bad for Scouting. So my question is, could we remove a lot of distractions that adult leaders face, and improve the quality of unit programs generally, by eliminating a lot of options (for example, what does the troop do at weekly meetings) and a lot of perceived options (uniforms), and pushing for a much more standardized Boy Scouting program? And I am not talking about standardization in the *selection* of particular activities and camps and places to go, but standardization of the process and structure and best practices that surround and support troop activities. I realize that many troops that have been quite successful through unique or "non-Model" processes or activities would not want to change, and I would want a system that could accomodate successful variations. The point is to try to stamp out non-Model processes that are *not* successful, and install time-tested, successful structures where they are lacking. Unlike many of the things we discuss here and in other forums, tightening up the Boy Scouting program wouldn't require any changes to the program itself. What it would require is a "cultural" change -- from one where troops feel free to interpret the Program (within very broad parameters) to suit themselves, to a culture in which every troop uses and practices the same set of fundamentals and the only real differences are the size if the troop, the meeting day and location, and the mix of campouts and activities. Dan K

Lots and lots of Scouting -- perhaps the vast majority of Scouting -- is done by volunteers who are just in it because their kids are in it. There are in Scouting only as long as their kids are in Scouting. They see value in Scouting, but see value in lots of other programs as well. They are willing to take some training, but within limits they believe are reasonable for them (and who are we to judge their decisions about their own time and resources?). They are willing to go camping, organize fundraisers, serve as Advancement Chairman, and take on lots of other jobs big and small so their kids can have a successful program. But, to a greater or lesser extent, they are not interested in becoming immersed in the program and do not take it on as a lifetime endeavor. They are there to *help* -- often as Den Leaders, Scoutmasters, and Committee Chairs. They are willing to follow the lead of "more experienced" leaders -- or whatever passes for more experienced leaders (such as long-standing unit practices and traditions), without making serious inquiry into whether that guidance is really valid, authoritative, or useful. Many of them are very knowledgeable, many of them are barely knowledgeable. They haven't caught the Scouting "bug," and don't necessarily understand leaders who have (or view such leaders as any more knowledgeable or committed or authoritative than they are themselves). Not knowing the Program, they don't necessarily recognize Program elements when are presented, and have no particular reason to trust those "ideas" above their own or others they have been working with. The practical reality is: -- We need those people; Scouting would be much smaller without them. -- Though not as good as it could be, those folks do a lot of good Scouting (in addition to a lot of poor Scouting). -- We aren't going to get a significantly larger number of them to training under our current system. -- We aren't going to get a significantly larger number of them to read the program materials under our current system. -- We don't have a system in which Scouting "experts" who know the Program can go out and fix things; Unit Commissioners don't have that authority, often don't have the knowledge and experience, and often aren't even assigned to units; and our "experts" aren't evenly distributed (they are often highly concentrated in certain units). If we want a fundamental improvement in the quality of our unit programs, we have to do something differently. On one end, that may mean imposing training requirements on Scouters; on the other end of the scale, it may mean simplifying and streamling the program so it is easier to understand and operate by the average Scouting volunteer, or finding a way to provide more "active" outside guidance to units. Dan K

Funny thing about the Venturing program. It is so broad and flexible that it could also comfortably include an all-male crew that wears the BSA spruce green/gray uniform and focuses on the Venturing Advancement awards. True, Venturing crews have a different organizational system (President and other officers) that doesn't use patrols, so you can't quite duplicate that aspect of Boy Scouting. You would have to set the crew up from the beginning with the uniform-wearing, advancement-centered program as something that couldn't be altered by the crew -- and yes, that can be done. The Chartered Organization (not the youth) decides the purposes of the crew and can set parameters for the program, so long as they are within BSA rules and policies. A lot of folks are so enamored of Venturing's flexibility, and so frightened of "interfering" with the youth's program choices that their crews have no central purpose or vision (which are supposed to be maintained by the adult leadership). The result is "pizza" crews that quickly fall apart. Nevertheless, if you are uncomfortable with Venturing and don't want to pursue that option, the question is how to establish a district-wide adventure program for Boy Scouts. Some options: (1) Rather than charter a unit, set up a weekend adventure program for older Scouts through the District Activities Committee. (2) Rather than charter a unit, set up a weekend camping/adventure program for older Scouts through the Order of the Arrow. After all, one of the purposes of OA is to promote unit camping. This program could be designed to show older Scouts how to develop and improve the camping/adventure programs in their own units. (3) Charter a "shell" Venturing crew to serve as the operating "board" for organizing, overseeing, and operating the camping/adventure weekends. The activity participants would still be Boy Scouts from their own troops; the ones who are interested could dual register with the crew to help manage the events. Dan K

Five percent is five percent. There doesn't have to be a choice among remedies -- all reasonable methods for getting more leaders to follow the program should be pursued. It is easy to say "look for better people"; far harder to actually find them. In the meantime, we have to work with the folks we have, the good-hearted parents who are giving up their time, energy, and resources to do something great for their kids. Maybe they aren't the best people for the job, but we owe it to them and their kids to do what we can to make them successful. I would also say this. If our program cannot be successfully implemented without talented, highly effective and experienced people who know how to adapt the program to local needs, then Scouting is largely an exercise in futility. I don't believe that it is. I believe that the program can be successfully operated by anyone with enthusiasm, a willingness to work with youth, and the ability to follow instructions. Very often what is missing, it seems to me, are clear instructions. Dan K

One more note and I'll shut up for a while. Most of you have probably seen or used _The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and White, a manual of English grammar and usage. White's Introduction captures perfectly what I think is needed to reach the vast audience of Scouters with BSA's Program: "It was Will Strunk's _parvum opus_, his attempt to cut the vast tangle of English rhetoric down to size and write its rules and principles on the head of a pin . . . In its original form, it was a forty-three-page summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English . . . Seven rules of usage, eleven principles of composition, a few matters of form, and a list of words and expressions commonly misused . . . The _Elements of Style_ does not pretend to survey the whole field. Rather it proposes to give in brief space the principal requirements of plain English style. It concentrates on fundamentals: the rules of usage and principles of composition most commonly violated." Dan K

Online, of course. TV/video, yes. Audio, comic books, Scouter's Hint of the Day email services. The point is to get out of the "big book/training classes only" mode and use comfortable, familiar media to get information out on how the program is supposed to work. At the same time, we are already plagued with too much information out there -- too many books, too many videos. How many training courses are recommended for someone who plans to be a den leader from Tigers through Webelos? Average Jane who just wants to help her son have a great time Scouting throws up her hands in confusion. The information "set" we really want people to learn needs to be relatively small and well-defined -- X number of chapters, segments, or topics (each presented in as many different media as you can dream up). And it has to have a clear end or result -- learn this small, well-defined set of material, and you get _this_ (diploma, "Trained" patch, certification). Simple, easy to understand, not intimidating, reward at the end. Learn this small set of material, apply it just like it says to, and you will have good program. Dan K

Pictures, charts, and other graphics, of course -- a lot of folks learn best from pictures rather than words. We'd want to have a good mix. Take a look at the Boys' Life Program Notebooks. The Unit Commissioner notebook, for example, has text, calendars, forms, even an insignia placement guide, in 90 pages (including the inside covers) and measures just 3 7/8 x 5 3/4 x 3/16. Dan K

What we really need, for the benefit of our youth, is a system-wide, permanent leap in program knowledge on the part of our Scouters. But how do you attain that in an organization with huge, complex programs and tons of literature, when the average volunteer tenure is just two or three years, and ordinary human nature and the busyness of life create real, practical barriers to self-study, group training, and remaining current in the program? While there is no single solution, it seems to me that the depth and breadth of the problem -- Scouters simply not knowing the program -- indicates that we aren't putting the program information out in formats that are comfortable and convenient for most Scouters to use. For example, while the Scoutmaster Handbook is great, it is essentially a big textbook -- you really have to be dedicated to crack open that sucker, much less *buy* it. (I think the Boy Scout Handbook has the same problem, which is why the only part that really gets used by boys is the requirements sign-off section in the back -- but that's a different discussion.) I think BSA's publications and materials are created on the faulty assumption that Scouters will *want* to look at them and use them, when in fact most folks only resort to the books when they *have* to. So, we can beat our heads against the wall trying to get people to read the books, or we can present the program in other ways. Notice that even many of the suggestions in this thread _don't_ involve trying to get people to read the books. In addition to the other obstacles mentioned above, I think a big problem we have is the general view that Scouting is very flexible, and there's more than one way to skin a cat. So, since we don't have to follow the BSA program to the letter, and since we don't even know for sure what BSA recommends, we can do Scouting pretty much any way we want to. To address both the problem of a convenient, familiar format and the misguided notion that Scouting is a flexible, "seat-of-the-pants" operation, I would create a pocket-size (3 1/2 x 5 1/2, max 80 pages) Scouter's Rulebook (one for Cub Scouting, one for Boy Scouting). It would take the program operation information from various hefty publications and condense it into a set of "rules" that cover most common issues. The format would be small enough to make good bus or bathroom reading, and they'd be given out like candy at every opportunity. We'd even have a PDA version. Although the material would be no more mandatory than it is now, even things like suggestions and best practices would be written as "rules" in order to discourage deviation, as well as give the best answers the program has without hedging. A kinder, gentler version would be a similarly-sized pamphlet of "Scouter's FAQs." Again, I would give it the tone of definitive, do-it-this-way answers, rather than suggestions: "A troop meeting is organized as follows . . ." rather than "Each troop meeting should include . . ." Each pamphlet would be bundled with the Fast Start CD for that program. Also bundled with it would be a 100 question open-book test. The Scouter could take the test, turn it in, and (with a score of 90% or better), get 1/2 of a "Trained" patch, good for one year. (The other 1/2 of the Trained patch comes with passing the exam on the pocket-sized Guide to Safe Scouting.) Dan K

Yep, I've been reading.

Eamonn, my frustration is mainly with the sniping and bickering, which are not only an annoying waste of time but drive away potential contributors to the discussion. I'm happy with the ideas that were coming in. I think that immediately jumping in with criticism of ideas also discourages potential contributors. It would have been nice to build on that one list a bit before starting to tear it down. Unfortunately, I don't have time right at this moment to lay out a full list, but I would organize it based on the eight Methods of Boy Scouting. Here's a sample: IDEALS: * Each troop meeting includes a formal, serious ceremony that emphasizes the Ideals of Scouting as set out in the Scout Oath and Law, and the obligation of each Scout to live by those Ideals. * Each troop meeting includes a Scoutmaster's Minute dealing with some aspect of the Ideals. * At least once a year, the troop participates in a community, religious, council, or district event focused on citizenship, patriotism, duty to God, or other Ideals. PERSONAL GROWTH: * Scouts are reminded on a regular basis (informal conversation, Scoutmaster Conferences, conflict situations, etc.) that their personal code of conduct in Scouting situations and in everyday life is the Scout Oath and Law. * At least once a year, the troop participates in a major community service project (for example, Scouting for Food). * Each year, at least 10 percent of the Scouts in the troop earn the religious emblem of their faith. ADULT ASSOCIATION: * The Scoutmaster, all Assistant Scoutmasters, Merit Badge Counselors in the troop, and all Committee Members and other troop adults who regularly work with boys have taken Youth Protection Training within the last two years. * All registered adults are trained for their positions within six months. * The Scoutmaster, all Assistant Scoutmasters, and other interested troop adults meet monthly to discuss issues, skills, and techniques related to working with boys. When I get a chance, I'll add some more. Dan K

Well, so much for this thread . . .

Tsk, tsk, tsk. We seem to be a little short on the gearhead mentality here. 8^) Put the old pack in a place of honor, say, over your fireplace. Then go through all the catalogs and websites, and hit all the sporting goods stores in your region. At each stop, test at least three or four backpacks by loading them up with equipment and hiking around the store with them. Make sure you wear your favorite boots. Eventually, after returning to the stores a few times and having your new best friend (the sales clerk) over for dinner, you'll find a new pack. After two or three treks, there will be one little thing about the new pack you don't like, so you start the process over again. Eventually, you'll find a new pack you love (plus lots of other new equipment that "fits just right"). Your goal should be to hang the new one next to the old one in that place of honor -- in another thirty years. Dan K

Thanks, OGE -- I appreciate the positive suggestion, and I appreciate your service as moderator. (I just recently started posting here, but have been reading for a while.) Dan(ny) K

Bob White, ideas like those on the Commish's list are exactly what I'm looking for. I was hoping for a bit of a brainstorming discussion to get a broad range of thoughts on elements of strong troop programs and elements that make troops strong. (The discussion seems to have gotten bogged down critiquing the Commish's list rather than offering additional or alternative suggestions.) I envision a list that serves (1) as a blueprint for new or struggling troops to get on track -- concrete, practical, attainable goals, and (2) as a set of "bare minimums" for strong troops seeking to move to the next level. Dan K