Attendance Requirement

[EagleScout441]

Got a question for ya. We have a ASPL who got elected back in August and while he has come to all but 2 or 3 of the meetings, he hasn't come on any of the camp-outs because of school/job. Because of that, he isn't really doing his job as ASPL, since meetings are mainly just for preparations for campouts(for us anyway). The real activities, where the leadership is actually needed, are on the camp-outs. Should an attendance requirement be established to keep this from happening again? Do any of your troops have an attendance requirement of some sort?

[Stosh]

If the patrol leaders are doing their job, why do you even have an ASPL? That has to be the most useless job in the troop. The bugler has more responsibility. On an outing, the SPL is the second most useless person. If the patrols are 300' apart, how does the SPL keep track of everything? If the troop is looking to the SPL and ASPL for leadership on the campouts, they are barking up the wrong tree. The PL's should be running the show in their patrols. What are the PL's in your troop doing when the SPL and ASPL are running the show? Nothing? Taking orders from the SPL and ASPL? That's gotta be confusing for everyone.

 

Basically if the ASPL is attending regularly but has trouble on the weekend with job and school, I don't see this as any real problem. Same for the SPL, especially in a small troop. Have a PL pull that stunt, then there's reason for the fur to fly. For me the highest ranking POR in my troops were the PL's. Everyone else down to the CC SUPPORTED the PL's in their jobs. That's where the real leadership needs to be.

 

Stosh

[EagleScout441]

If the patrol leaders are doing their job, why do you even have an ASPL? That has to be the most useless job in the troop. The bugler has more responsibility. On an outing, the SPL is the second most useless person. If the patrols are 300' apart, how does the SPL keep track of everything? If the troop is looking to the SPL and ASPL for leadership on the campouts, they are barking up the wrong tree. The PL's should be running the show in their patrols. What are the PL's in your troop doing when the SPL and ASPL are running the show? Nothing? Taking orders from the SPL and ASPL? That's gotta be confusing for everyone.

 

Basically if the ASPL is attending regularly but has trouble on the weekend with job and school, I don't see this as any real problem. Same for the SPL, especially in a small troop. Have a PL pull that stunt, then there's reason for the fur to fly. For me the highest ranking POR in my troops were the PL's. Everyone else down to the CC SUPPORTED the PL's in their jobs. That's where the real leadership needs to be.

 

Stosh

We've lost a few scouts over the summer, so we have about 10 scouts who are actually active, and by active I mean coming to meetings and camp-outs. Last outing, last weekend, we had a total of 5 youth, SPL and ASPL(Me on this trip) acted as PL's.

[Eagledad]

Meanwhile back at the ranch. Is the scout performing to his promises of performance. Your job is to guide scout to make right decisions. You can keep adding policies and rules to force the scout against his will, or you can appeal to him by asking him to be honest with his performance. You are too focused on him performing to your expectations. Instead you could guide him on making correct decisions, one of which may be handing his responsibilities over to someone else until he has the time to live up to the to the expectations the other scouts expect of him. Leadership is only a tool for help you build character. The values of law are serving others before yourself, and helping this scout to make choices that benefit the troop instead himself is your noble task at hand. I handle these kinds of situations by speaking with scout one on one and asking him to reflect on his performance. Sometimes I was the one who grew from the experience, but careful questions can get him to see himself more clear. He may need to set new goals. He may need to understand is options better. But your main objective is for him to want to make good decisions. Does this make sense? What I'm trying to say is focus on the higher goal of character, not leadership performance. Once he understands the life value of making good decisions, good leadership will follow. Good luck, this is challenging for all of us. Barry

[MattR]

I created campout attendance requirements. It makes it so much easier to have the discussion Eagledad mentions. What I'm learning is the clearer the expectations the easier it is for the boys to grasp them and harder for them to fudge them. The SPL or ASPL has to be on every campout baring an act of God. Same for PL and APL of each patrol. The PL is expected to go on most of the campouts (yes, that's fuzzy for a reason).

 

My PLC just had to deal with a PL that hasn't been on a campout with his patrol since he became a patrol leader 4 months ago. The expectations above triggered a discussion with the boy and the PLC that was good. Turns out he's in over his head with all sorts of activities. They finally agreed that it would be good for the PL to swap with his APL until he can get things under control. The participation requirements made it easier to start this conversation. It's a tool, I try to use it wisely.

[scoutergipper]

I created campout attendance requirements. It makes it so much easier to have the discussion Eagledad mentions. What I'm learning is the clearer the expectations the easier it is for the boys to grasp them and harder for them to fudge them. The SPL or ASPL has to be on every campout baring an act of God. Same for PL and APL of each patrol. The PL is expected to go on most of the campouts (yes, that's fuzzy for a reason).

 

My PLC just had to deal with a PL that hasn't been on a campout with his patrol since he became a patrol leader 4 months ago. The expectations above triggered a discussion with the boy and the PLC that was good. Turns out he's in over his head with all sorts of activities. They finally agreed that it would be good for the PL to swap with his APL until he can get things under control. The participation requirements made it easier to start this conversation. It's a tool, I try to use it wisely.

Totally reasonable. The boys understand who is and is not doing the job they're supposed to be doing. They are more than willing to move other Scouts out of Leadership positions when they are not performing.

[qwazse]

Good question. This hinges around another question, which Stosh hinted at: is your SPL/ASPL an instructor or an administrator? Ours are mainly administrators. Which means attendance at meetings is most important because that's when they make sure our plans for the weekend are reasonable, based on their experience. Then, they can delegate responsibilities to other scouts. Now, if your troop really needs an instructor in the field, and your ASPL is the guy, then you're gonna be hurting until he can take off work to be at camp. Regardless, accountability is what I look for in these situations. Who was it that said "Hey, Roy, can you assist the SPL for this weekend?" If it was the ASPL a meeting or two in advance,u I'd chalk it up to successful delegation. If it was the SM Saturday morning, I'd have a problem.

[Stosh]

If the patrol leaders are doing their job, why do you even have an ASPL? That has to be the most useless job in the troop. The bugler has more responsibility. On an outing, the SPL is the second most useless person. If the patrols are 300' apart, how does the SPL keep track of everything? If the troop is looking to the SPL and ASPL for leadership on the campouts, they are barking up the wrong tree. The PL's should be running the show in their patrols. What are the PL's in your troop doing when the SPL and ASPL are running the show? Nothing? Taking orders from the SPL and ASPL? That's gotta be confusing for everyone.

 

Basically if the ASPL is attending regularly but has trouble on the weekend with job and school, I don't see this as any real problem. Same for the SPL, especially in a small troop. Have a PL pull that stunt, then there's reason for the fur to fly. For me the highest ranking POR in my troops were the PL's. Everyone else down to the CC SUPPORTED the PL's in their jobs. That's where the real leadership needs to be.

 

Stosh

If a troop only has 10 scouts, then the POR of SPL and ASPL are totally useless and the position is "in name only". A troop that size is run by a solid PL and APL.

 

I never put POR patches on my scout's uniforms when I was SM. They either functioned at that position, or they didn't get credit for the rank advancement. If none of the "elected" POR's show up at an event, then the real leader steps up and makes it work. He doesn't have to be elected to lead. I had boys go into their rank BOR's and when asked about their 6 month POR requirement, had a litany of work they had done as PL, SPL, TG, Instructor, Scribe, etc. We were a small troop (25 boys) and as they say, the cream rose to the top, just like the good leaders will also. Any boy who could document 6 months worth of POR work/functionality, got credit for the rank and it didn't need to be all in one POR.

 

About 80% of the boys were actively developing real leadership styles and skills, the other 20% weren't interested in it and tended to be obvious sluggards. It was the parents of these boys that complained and had me removed because I expected too much leadership from the boys.

 

It sounds like you can really see the problem with the lack of leadership. So my advice would be, step up and fill in the gaps! You don't need a patch to be a leader. The coach makes no plays on the sport field. The conductor makes no sound at the concert, and the drivers' ed teacher sits in the passenger seat. If you step up and fill in the gaps in leadership, eventually they will start following you for real.

 

On your trip, you had 5 scouts and your SPL "acted" as a PL. Don't act like one, BE one. In my book going from SPL to PL is a step UP in leadership. It's where the real leadership happens.

 

Almost forgot, you asked what the rules/requirements should be: Well, most rules along these lines are pretty bogus anyway. So, don't worry about the rules, worry about the gaps in leadership instead and step in and take care of the boys. And remember the more the "elected leadership" drops the ball, the more opportunity you have to step up and demonstrate real caring leadership. Work with the boys to make it happen, that's what leadership is all about.

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

If the patrol leaders are doing their job, why do you even have an ASPL? That has to be the most useless job in the troop. The bugler has more responsibility. On an outing, the SPL is the second most useless person. If the patrols are 300' apart, how does the SPL keep track of everything? If the troop is looking to the SPL and ASPL for leadership on the campouts, they are barking up the wrong tree. The PL's should be running the show in their patrols. What are the PL's in your troop doing when the SPL and ASPL are running the show? Nothing? Taking orders from the SPL and ASPL? That's gotta be confusing for everyone.

 

Basically if the ASPL is attending regularly but has trouble on the weekend with job and school, I don't see this as any real problem. Same for the SPL, especially in a small troop. Have a PL pull that stunt, then there's reason for the fur to fly. For me the highest ranking POR in my troops were the PL's. Everyone else down to the CC SUPPORTED the PL's in their jobs. That's where the real leadership needs to be.

 

Stosh

We have 5 patrols and our SPL is pretty key at campouts on keeping the program running in an constructive way. We have two ASPL's --one kinda runs herd on the minor POR's and the other is a "Sergeant of Arms". However I like this thread we have had AWOL Patrol Leaders, POR's and Troop Guide. The attendance hammer is coming down.

[Tampa Turtle]

Meanwhile back at the ranch. Is the scout performing to his promises of performance. Your job is to guide scout to make right decisions. You can keep adding policies and rules to force the scout against his will, or you can appeal to him by asking him to be honest with his performance. You are too focused on him performing to your expectations. Instead you could guide him on making correct decisions, one of which may be handing his responsibilities over to someone else until he has the time to live up to the to the expectations the other scouts expect of him. Leadership is only a tool for help you build character. The values of law are serving others before yourself, and helping this scout to make choices that benefit the troop instead himself is your noble task at hand. I handle these kinds of situations by speaking with scout one on one and asking him to reflect on his performance. Sometimes I was the one who grew from the experience, but careful questions can get him to see himself more clear. He may need to set new goals. He may need to understand is options better. But your main objective is for him to want to make good decisions. Does this make sense? What I'm trying to say is focus on the higher goal of character, not leadership performance. Once he understands the life value of making good decisions, good leadership will follow. Good luck, this is challenging for all of us. Barry

I agree. I was pretty steamed at one boy and a talk to a friend at another Troop helped me see the big picture. One boy came up for his sign up and was pretty absent as PL. We gave him the list of the requirements (attend campouts, etc) and asked him to reflect on how he did the job and come back to us. My job was to coach the boy as Patrol Leader but it is hard to observe, much less coach a boy who is not there a lot. I think he is likely to get partial credit and some suggested work on his leadership with his guys. We will see if he is game. I strongly suspect his dad will try to go over our head and go straight to "his buddy" at council.

 

One problem with helping a scout make the right decisions is his lack of doing his job hurt the patrol.

[Tampa Turtle]

I created campout attendance requirements. It makes it so much easier to have the discussion Eagledad mentions. What I'm learning is the clearer the expectations the easier it is for the boys to grasp them and harder for them to fudge them. The SPL or ASPL has to be on every campout baring an act of God. Same for PL and APL of each patrol. The PL is expected to go on most of the campouts (yes, that's fuzzy for a reason).

 

My PLC just had to deal with a PL that hasn't been on a campout with his patrol since he became a patrol leader 4 months ago. The expectations above triggered a discussion with the boy and the PLC that was good. Turns out he's in over his head with all sorts of activities. They finally agreed that it would be good for the PL to swap with his APL until he can get things under control. The participation requirements made it easier to start this conversation. It's a tool, I try to use it wisely.

We do the same thing but we needed to keep really close track of attendance and provide as feedback. I told the boy (thank you Scouter) the #1 rule is "take care of your boys" even if you are not going. Make sure the APL is prepared, check on the grub plan and equipment, pep talk the younger scouts, see them off--show them you care. Scoutergipper is right--the boys always know who is not doing their job. I think in our Troop we adults are making the positions 'stick' longer than they should.

[Tampa Turtle]

Good question. This hinges around another question, which Stosh hinted at: is your SPL/ASPL an instructor or an administrator? Ours are mainly administrators. Which means attendance at meetings is most important because that's when they make sure our plans for the weekend are reasonable, based on their experience. Then, they can delegate responsibilities to other scouts. Now, if your troop really needs an instructor in the field, and your ASPL is the guy, then you're gonna be hurting until he can take off work to be at camp. Regardless, accountability is what I look for in these situations. Who was it that said "Hey, Roy, can you assist the SPL for this weekend?" If it was the ASPL a meeting or two in advance,u I'd chalk it up to successful delegation. If it was the SM Saturday morning, I'd have a problem.

We expect the SPL to be an instructor and to leave as much Administration to the Troop Scribe. The ASPL's are expected to step in when the SPL cannot cover something. We have had several SPL's who had 2 ASPL's to split functions--typically one is managing the "minor" POR's and the other working on teaching the PL's leadership skills.

[Stosh]

Good question. This hinges around another question, which Stosh hinted at: is your SPL/ASPL an instructor or an administrator? Ours are mainly administrators. Which means attendance at meetings is most important because that's when they make sure our plans for the weekend are reasonable, based on their experience. Then, they can delegate responsibilities to other scouts. Now, if your troop really needs an instructor in the field, and your ASPL is the guy, then you're gonna be hurting until he can take off work to be at camp. Regardless, accountability is what I look for in these situations. Who was it that said "Hey, Roy, can you assist the SPL for this weekend?" If it was the ASPL a meeting or two in advance,u I'd chalk it up to successful delegation. If it was the SM Saturday morning, I'd have a problem.

Keep it in the back of your mind, there is a difference between management and leadership. A good manager will get the job/task done. A good leader will get the job/task done, but everyone involved will find valid value in being involved in the process.

 

A good manager will say, "The 5 gallon water bucket needs filling. According to the roster, John is supposed to be doing it. John, take care of it!" A good leader will say, "The water bucket is empty. Hey, John, you're on the roster, how about you and I go and knock it out." Either way the job will get done, but John is going to remember how he felt with the approach taken by the leader, and when it is his time to lead will help and support rather than just delegate as a manager would have done.

 

I had one boy complain once that I was picking on him when all the tough jobs came around. He called me on it. I told him, it's a crappy job, and I always put my best scout on it because I know it will get done correctly. From that point on, he always smiled and got right on it when I asked him to do something. I often wonder if he would have been disappointed if I didn't ask him. Surprisingly he eventually was one of the first to volunteer for the crap jobs before I even asked. I think he knew he was my best scout.

 

Good leaders always seem to "show up". Attendance was never a problem. I never asked my boys why they missed an activity. I simply assumed it was for a good reason. If they told me they weren't going to make it to an activity, I never questioned why, but I never heard later on of a boy missing because he just didn't want to go. Family, Church, job and school always took a higher priority than Scouting. And yet, attendance was never a problem.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

I created campout attendance requirements. It makes it so much easier to have the discussion Eagledad mentions. What I'm learning is the clearer the expectations the easier it is for the boys to grasp them and harder for them to fudge them. The SPL or ASPL has to be on every campout baring an act of God. Same for PL and APL of each patrol. The PL is expected to go on most of the campouts (yes, that's fuzzy for a reason).

 

My PLC just had to deal with a PL that hasn't been on a campout with his patrol since he became a patrol leader 4 months ago. The expectations above triggered a discussion with the boy and the PLC that was good. Turns out he's in over his head with all sorts of activities. They finally agreed that it would be good for the PL to swap with his APL until he can get things under control. The participation requirements made it easier to start this conversation. It's a tool, I try to use it wisely.

"Take Care of Your Boys!" is not a rule in my troop. It's the culture in which we operate. It is also the only guideline/training for officers in the Troop. The PL who doesn't take care of his patrol, just gave an opening for the APL to step up and handle things. When it becomes obvious to the boys, they can at any time, re-select the boy who does the best job of taking care of the patrol. Even a member of a patrol who has a slacker PL and APL is encouraged to step up and take care of business. I teach my boys to watch and wait for opportunities to open up for leadership. The competition is fierce at times. But... with everyone chomping at the bit for their opportunity, it keeps the PL on his toes, too. Don't leave an opening for the next guy! The esprit-de-corp runs really high in patrols that understand that dynamic. Who's really going to complain about a patrol that is scrambling to be the best at taking care of each other.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

Meanwhile back at the ranch. Is the scout performing to his promises of performance. Your job is to guide scout to make right decisions. You can keep adding policies and rules to force the scout against his will, or you can appeal to him by asking him to be honest with his performance. You are too focused on him performing to your expectations. Instead you could guide him on making correct decisions, one of which may be handing his responsibilities over to someone else until he has the time to live up to the to the expectations the other scouts expect of him. Leadership is only a tool for help you build character. The values of law are serving others before yourself, and helping this scout to make choices that benefit the troop instead himself is your noble task at hand. I handle these kinds of situations by speaking with scout one on one and asking him to reflect on his performance. Sometimes I was the one who grew from the experience, but careful questions can get him to see himself more clear. He may need to set new goals. He may need to understand is options better. But your main objective is for him to want to make good decisions. Does this make sense? What I'm trying to say is focus on the higher goal of character, not leadership performance. Once he understands the life value of making good decisions, good leadership will follow. Good luck, this is challenging for all of us. Barry

A true boy run program is challenging to adults for two reasons; one is each scout requires individual one on one guidance (“Bob, I noticed you choose not to wear your uniform today, is everything all rightâ€Â) compared to (“Everyone is required to wear full uniform or they don’t go campingâ€Â). Second is boy run requires space between the adults and scouts (300 ft) to give the scout true independence of making decisions without intimidation. For a scout to understand the responsibility of making good choices, he HAS to feel the true impact of his decisions on those around him, and he needs to be challenged on those decisions at the time, not six months later. That is a hard responsibility for adults who are 300 ft away. It can be done and adults don’t have to stand in the patrol campsite to see if the patrols members are starving to death because they can’t get together on menus and cooking. We need to be responsive in a timely manner. It’s not real productive to hold a scout accountable six months after the act because it is difficult for him to feel the impact of his decision. Instead he will likely feel resentment for being held accountilbe for something he barely remembers. You don't punish a dog for something it did wrong last week. That’s not to say the scout won’t understand and make some choices that make you proud, but it still makes our job much much harder. Also, the program itself needs to show the scout the the result of his right and wrong choices. Are scouts hungry? Is their camp site trashy and dishes not getting cleaned? Is the patrol late to assembly? How does the troop suffer when the SPL isn’t there? How does the patrol function without the PL? The answer is they shouldn’t perform well if you want them to feel responsible for the expectations. A patrol is a team and members of the team need to be stressed to build into a true functioning team. If one member of the team is slouching, he needs to be held accountable by the other members. The team building model of forming, storming, norming and performing works very well when used properly. I remember when our troop was about 50 scouts and in about a years time they had improved breaking camp from two hours to 35 minutes. That is pretty darn good and I remember the ASM next to me saying, “Wow, we need to find a wrench to throw in that machine â€Â. As adults, you can use the program to stress the scouts and force them to see how their choices affect the team. And then you can guide them one on one if they still don’t see the light. Campsite inspections are a great way to force teams to storm and norm. Agendas are another. But the main point here is you don’t want a scout getting away with making bad decisions for six months before being confronted. Barry