Domestic problems

[Stosh]

I'm with Gunny on this one. Where's the QM in all of this? I'm thinking that if there was a function QM in every patrol this wouldn't have happened in the first place. Running around collecting up the cows after the barn door has been opened is always going to be a mess.

 

Get some functional QM's in the troop, and hold them responsible for taking care of their patrol's gear. After all they call it a Position of Responsibility for a reason.

 

This is not an issue for anyone other than the patrol QM's, the troop QM and if he needs help sorting things out, the SPL.

 

This is the type of thing that is going to naturally occur when POR's are not functional and are looking only for advancement, not actually doing the work.

 

Stosh

[Second Class]

I'm on the outside on this one. The instructors took the gear without permission (QM's fault?) because the patrols hadn't secured their gear locker? (QM's job? ) No, that would fall to the PL or PQM.

 

If the patrols don't care enough about assigned gear to take care of it, then they should do without it. Let them provide their own gear, unless and until they show responsibility for caring for it.

 

Often I've seen the QM made the scapegoat for cleaning, drying etc. the gear. It is his responsibility to see that it is functional, ready for use, and to make requests of the committee for additional gear as required. This does not mean that patrols can dump it at his feet and say "you're the QM" . That dog don't hunt in my troop.

 

Does the new scout patrol have some responsibility here? Yes, they didn't secure their locker.

Same for patrol 6, but they should really know better. Just lazy.

 

The instructors in Patrol 5 put up their patrols stove, but left out the other two. This is utter irresponsibility.

 

Saying that the meeting should not have moved forward tells me that person hasn't been at a troop meeting in a long time! It's a three ring circus.

 

I will speculate that Patrol 5 is made up of older scouts, who have been there, done that, and think the rules don't apply to them. (the infamous "Eagle" patrol).

 

I would ask the SPL to adjudicate this, advise to return the stoves, advise to get padlocks in use, and have a SMC with each of the offending "instructors" about the type of role model they are.

 

 

(maybe you need lockers 300 feet apart!)

[Scoutfish]

In our troop, the QM is not a maidf. It is not his job to make sure that scouts using equipment put it away.

 

It is not his job to make sure tents are cleaned and vacummed out. It is not his job to make sure pots are scrubbed spotless.

 

It is not his job to be the scouts maids or moms.

 

His job is to make sure equipment is in good shape and working correctly and safely. He makes sure there are plenty of gas canistered and that the tents do not have big holes in them.

 

If the gas supply is low, he sees to it that we get new canisters. If something is broken, he sees to it that it is fixed or replaced.

 

I will tell you one thing though...if you suddenly hold the QM responsible whenever a scout shrugs his duties, you will suddenly find yourself in a troop full of scouts who will leave everything to the QM.

 

And you will find yourself in a troop that is always in need of filling the QM spot as nobody will take it. Might as well call that person a scapegoat instead of a quartermaster.

 

As far as locking up the patrol kits/boxes..I'd say do it. Each patrol should get a combination lock - to prevent a key not showing up at a campout - and only the patrol members know the combination.

 

Having a locked patrol box is not against any part of a scout law. The part about trustworthy is on the scouts who would be potential tresspassers.

 

But reality is this: If 99% of the troop proves to be trustworthyu, it is the 1% who will leave you in a bind at the next campout.

 

Kinda like a bank. We could say the laws tell us that it is illegal to rob a bank. Doesn't mean everybody follows the laws all the time.

 

OP's post ia a great example of that. The scouts who's stoves were used were trusting in that their gear would not be messed with or tampered with.

 

Well, we see how far that got them didn't we?

 

Give each patrol a combination lock and then you know who is responcible for lost gear or gear left out: that patrol!

 

Plus it also lends to each patrol to let the QM know about any issues or problems with gear the QM may not find out about anyways: IE; one burner stops working after it heats up and has been in use after 5 minutes. The QM wouldn't normally discover this during the course of his regular inspections.

[Basementdweller]

Well, I would not have left the gear outside unsecure.....

 

while it is a lesson, Money and gear is very hard for us to come by and Other than buying out of my pocket it would not get replaced...

[JMHawkins]

The stoves are the property of the CO. The CO is generous enough to allow the Troop to borrow the gear. The Troop is not taking adequate care of the gear it is borrowing. Therefore, the Troop is no longer allowed to borrow the gear until they can demonstrate they are responsible enough to be trusted with it. Not just Patrols 2 and 6 - no one in the troop is allowed to borrow gear. All the gear currently in the patrol lockers is removed and no longer available. Nobody has a stove. Or a tent either, if those are Troop property.

 

The PLC now has an issue to deal with. What changes are they going to make to re-establish enough trust to have access to the gear again? SM can probably make lots of suggestions if the PLC asks for advice.

 

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Yeah, Hawk, I like the way you're thinking, but I hope we can make a turn round before we get there.

 

As many of you have suggested, our underlying problems is patrol QM is a throw-away position. No one wants to do it, there is no advancement credit involved and the guys see is at being stuck cleaning up after the other slobs in your patrol. Heck, I wouldn't volunteer for that, either.

 

Frankly, focusing on the QM -- troop or patrol -- is part of the problem. The other guys DO think the QM are their maids. We need to instill the idea that EVERYONE is responsible for ALL the gear. There were 30 guys who got up and walked away from the instruction and left the stoves lying about. Granted, four or five of them had responsibility for the program, but if the rest are living the Oath and Law, they should be standing in line to help clean up.

 

Servant leadership, living the ideals -- that's the goal.

[Tampa Turtle]

We have made progress my making Patrol QM a Troop Position (technically a Senior QM and a QM for each patrol for advancement purposes). So that elevated up there with the PL as a sought over position. With sometimes 50+ scouts on some campouts it just too big a job to leave to one guy...

[gsdad]

Punish all three patrols, or none.

 

We had a similar incident in my troop as a kid. We used charcoal stoves that slid into the back of out patrol boxes. We also had two similar stoves we would set up for KP duty. One of our adult leaders instructed scouts to take another patrol's stove with hot coals once they were finished cooking because he forgot to heat coals for cleaning stoves. The problem was he didn't tell the patrol, nor did the scouts who took the stove. Since the patrol was using a Dutch Oven for breakfast the next morning they paid no mind and figured it was cleaned and stowed the night before.

 

Fast forward to a week before the next camping trip and the patrol was told they didn't take care of their equipment had to figure out a way to cook. Seeing as the patrol was made up of mostly First Class, Star, and Life Scouts we had no problem with foil, Dutch Oven, and even a cardboard bnox oven and feasted that weekend.

[CalicoPenn]

How did we get from the QM is responsible for making sure all the equipment and the equipment locker is in ship shape and accounted for to the QM is responsible for doing the actual cleaning, drying out, and repairing of the equipment?

 

If you're having problems getting QM's because the Patrols/Scouts are dumping equipment at their feet expecting them to clean it and be maids, then you aren't using the position very effectively. When a Patrol is checking in their cook gear, patrol box, stoves and tents, are they opening everything up for the QM to inspect or are they just dumping it in a pile? If a Patrol drops an uncleaned stove off, are they expecting the QM to clean it because that's his job? Uh uh - they QM's job is to hand that stove right back to the PL and tell them to bring it back next week cleaned - and until then, it's still considered a piece of checked out equipment. Unless you're teaching your QM to do just that, and backing him up, then you're setting the QM up to be the maid. As for the Patrol QMs? They're the QM's assistants - and guess what? At the end of every outing, they divide up the gear among the Patrol members and make sure the Patrol members do their fair share of clean-up work (the PQM and PL should also be taking responsibility for something). Again, they aren't the maid. So if the QM hands a dirty stove back to the Patrol QM, the Patrol QM should know exactly who in their patrol to hand the stove back to to get cleaned - and if neccessary, help that Scout understand what the cleanliness standards are.

 

And again, I ask, how can a Patrol check out equipment from the locker, even if it's the patrol's locker, without the QM being involved? The QM keeps an inventory of the equipment - how can he possibly keep an accurate inventory if he has no idea if a piece of equipment has been checked out or not? It shouldn't matter if the equipment is checked out for a camping trip or for a demonstration at a Troop meeting - any equipment removed from the lockers get signed out through the QM (or his assistants) - always. That would have made TwoCubs dilemma a bit easier to solve then, wouldn't it have? You could look at the QM's sign out sheet and see who checked out the other Patrols stoves that night and hold them responsible.

 

In my Troop as a youth, we had a gear storage locker (but not individual patrol lockers). Also stored in that locker were the US and Troop flags and flagstands used every meeting - guess what was signed in and out by the QM every meeting? Yep - the flags and flag stands. Everything that was pulled out of the locker was signed out and everything put back in the locker was signed in. The Library box was in the locker - when books were taken, they were signed out and in by the Librarian, when he took the box home to reorganize, the box was signed out by the QM and signed in.

 

Does the QM have his own "locker" that he can lock errant equipment in? At the end of the meeting, instead of the SM checking the area for left out equipment, why shouldn't the QM be responsible for doing so - and if he finds something, he can lock it away in his own locker with the same effect.

 

As for the three ring circus, really? Your meetings are that disorganized that you would call them a three ring circus? No one said anything about not moving on to the next activity - we do it all the time, and the folks doing the instructing would hold back and clean-up - but, at the end of the meeting, we check to make sure everything is put away and cleaned up BEFORE the benediction. If chairs were set up, we take them down. If they were taken down, we set them back up. If they were set in a specific pattern, we reset them back in that pattern. The floor is swept (and mopped if needed on rainy or snowy nights). The room is put in to the condition it was in when we started and then we do the benediction - we don't end the meeting then hope enough Scouts will be around to help clean-up.

 

 

[Gunny2862]

A little bit of clarity, For US, we currently aren't using QM's in the Patrols(ASPL's are doing that as a part of their job - for now, we're kind of small with some Aging/Eagle-ing out v. New Scout dynamic with not very many in the middle) but have always had a Troop QM - The Troop QM (TQM) is not (and shouldn't be) responsible for cleaning or repairing but rather for inventory and ensuring the gear that is checked out clean gets returned clean - he doesn't have to accept wet, dirty, torn, abused gear but notes it's attempted return and why it was refused and who has it. When we've had Patrol QM's, the TQM was also responsible for training and overseeing the Patrol QM's.

No QM should be in the position of being "the maid" to his fellow Scouts...

[JMHawkins]

As many of you have suggested, our underlying problems is patrol QM is a throw-away position. No one wants to do it, there is no advancement credit involved...

 

Well, interestingly enough, this thread is in the "Advancement Resources" forum, and I was wondering why it was here instead of the Camping forum. However... PORs don't exist in order to give Scouts advancment opportunities, they exist to make sure stuff that needs to get done gets done. Like equipment gets taken care of. I think the key to fixing the problem is shifting the scouts' thinking from "what credit do I get for doing this?" to "what needs to get done so we can go have fun?" Not always the easiest shift to make with teenagers, but I'm pretty sure you won't get past these problems unless you can get them thinking in those terms.

 

Which is why I suggested removing the gear for the entire troop. It's a natural consequence of things not getting done. It also gets the point across that they're in it together. No good pointing fingers and trying to get the adults to blame the other guy. The adults don't care who screwed up, they just care that the Troop didn't get stuff done. It's not your job to manage the gear, it's their job to do that. If they don't do it, they eat cold food. Sounds like your Troop has a bit of a "not my problem" problem, where scouts assume someone else is responsible for everything unless they've been specifically told to do it. And even then the leaders seem to think delegating the task absolves them of any further responsibility. Stuff doesn't get done? Well "nobody told me to do it" or "I told Fred to do it" seems to the be the responses you're getting.

 

Easy trap for that age group to fall into. Important trap for you to insist they haul themselves out of.

 

Once they realize the work has to get done and the QMs aren't going to bear the brunt of the consequences for it not getting done (because the adults don't care who's fault it indivually is, it's the troop that screwed up), they should come around to doing their part.

 

QM - Patrol or Troop - existst to make sure the equipment needs of the troop/patrol are taken care of. That is hardly a throwaway position for an active outdoor troop. If the scouts treat it that way, it probably means the adults are doing too much and the Scouts think gear is an adult problem. Step back and make it their problem.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Troop QM does not check patrol equipment in and out and he's for dang sure not cleaning it. A standard kit of equipment is assigned to the patrols and it is the patrols' responsibility to maintain it. With the PL and PQM, the TQM inventories the patrol gear twice a year at the time of PL elections. The TQM is responsible for taking care of the troop gear (anything not assigned to the patrols), working with the PQMs to help them if needed, keeping the store roome neat, and working with the ASM/QM on equipment purchases, as that comes up.

 

Our system is for the patrols have their own gear, which they are responsible for. If they don't clean it, it's still dirty next month when they need it. If they break or loose a tent pole, they either get it fixed or replaced or they have a broken/missing tent pole next month. In otherwords, they are responsible for their on stuff. The former system we had when we joined the troop was all the gear was on two racks of open shelves in the back room. Everyone just grabbed what they needed. There was supposedly some checkout system, but it didn't work. With all the stuff on shelves, it was easy to dump dirty/broken gear back on the shelf because chances were you could grab a good on next month. No accountability.

 

The system we have in place works when we have a strong TQM who enforces it, which admittedly, we don't have right now. He has allowed the patrols to get slack about securing their equipment back in their lockers which was a contributing factor to the problem with the stoves.

[lrsap]

JMH,

 

I am curious about one thing with the approach of the equipment belongs to the CO, and the entire troop has lost the privilege of using the equipment. Does this also apply to the adult that left the equipment out for 5 days? If the question is in a lesson learned, the equipment belonging to the CO can be spared by the leader and a lesson still taught.

[JMHawkins]

I am curious about one thing with the approach of the equipment belongs to the CO, and the entire troop has lost the privilege of using the equipment. Does this also apply to the adult that left the equipment out for 5 days? If the question is in a lesson learned, the equipment belonging to the CO can be spared by the leader and a lesson still taught.

 

I'm not sure I'm following your question. Are you saying the SM is at fault for calling the SPL and asking him to make sure the stoves get put away instead of putting them away himself? If so, yeah, maybe. One problem seems to be leaders pawning off task to their underlings, and that's one way to look at it, that the SM tried to pawn the job off on the SPL (who then kept the you-know-what rolling downhill to the Instructor...). But I'm guesssing that's not quite what happened. The SMs job is primarily to help the scouts grow and mature, not to clean up after them. Calling the SPL and letting him know things need to be taken care of is giving the youth a chance to develop self-reliance and organizational skills.

 

It's always something of a fine line we as adults have to walk between being helpful on the one hand, and denying the scouts opportunities to learn by doing everything for them on the other. Sometimes when I walk through a campsite, I pick up candy wrappers I see laying on the ground, and sometimes I go find the Patrol Leader and let him know his campsite needs some attention. I'm sure I don't always get it exactly right, but I'm far more likely to pick up one candy wrapper from an otherwise ship-shape campsite than I am to clean up a confetti explosion in Shantytown.

 

So, if you think Twocubdad should have just been kind and helpfull and put the stoves away himself, well, maybe he should have. If this was an isolated incident, I would probably agree, with a casual follow-up with the Instructor later about being careless. But it sounds like this was not an isolated incident. The original post says "Part of the problem we're having is the Scouts don't take responsibility for their equipment. It's been on-going for quite some time and nothing seems to get the Scouts' attention." So I think the kind thing to do here for the SM is to help the scouts learn to be more responsible.

 

Now, all that said, I don't agree with Twocubdad's fib about the gear being stolen, nor his initially alllowing the consequences to fall on the (relatively) innocent folks in Patrols 2 and 6. That adds up to an adult knowingly perpetrating an injustice, which tends to distract from the real lessons the scouts need to learn here. But I think he was right to ask the Scouts to stow their own gear instead of doing it for them. The stoves being left out this one time doesn't appear to be the main issue - an ongoing pattern of carelessness and overall lack of awareness about what needs to be done is what I'm seeing from my end of the intertubes. If I'm reading the situation right, then the SM putting the stoves back in the Patrol Lockers and giving everyone a lecture won't help - it'll just make the problem worse.

 

Again, I'm not sure I really understood your question, so apologies if I answered something else.

 

 

[lrsap]

Actually you nailed it pretty well with just a couple of differences. My thoughts weren't towards the equipment being put back in its proper place, but a safe place. Basically no way would I endorse putting it all up ship-shape in the lockers and all being neat and pretty as it should be. My only concern was for the equipment itself, which you made a great point about it actually belonging to the CO. I would be all for a leader taking the equipment, securing it elsewhere and then following your approach.

 

The one thing we don't know is exactly how much danger of theft or exposure damage the equipment was in when it was left out. If none, then my point is moot.

 

And I am completely on the same page about the fine line between Helpful and allowing boys to lead. I still see things, pick them up, and then half-way to where I'm going say, "Why am I carrying this?"