Rush to eagle rank

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

I have seen troops with a ASM patrol adviser. The ASM usually is running the patrol and SM is acting as the SPL. The SPL acts as a runner relaying information with very little authority. That is just the impression I get as an outsider looking in.

 

SM Bob you've seen some troops, this can, and in out case has worked well for about five years. Our patrol advisor system is modeled off the Wood Badge Patrol Guide program, and works well. This in no way undermines the PL, or patrol function.

 

Stosh, I disagree that a small group of eight functions the same as a larger group made up of groups of eight, for exactly the reason I added Patrol Advisors when I was SM. One person, even if he, or she, is a SM, is still one person with a finite amount of time. A SM with seventy scouts in his charge would not even have enough time to handle all his SMC, much less do anything else. The system I describe gives each patrol access to an adult leader, who is only tasked with being available to that patrol leader, and handling SMC for his patrol.

 

As far s adding another adult to interfere, and take over, not if your adults are correctly trained. After my tem as SM ended I was made a Patrol Advisor; I've never observed a patrol meeting, never camped directly with my patrol, only ate with my patrol if invited, never addressed the patrol as a group (although I've been asked to by the PL), never touched apiece of the patrols gear, and never gave the PL a directive ... none of those are my job. I have conducted many SMC's, listed to the PL mull over issues (asking a question here and there), I've issued blue cards, found merit badge councilors, and listened to many camp stories ... I've also been the but of a skit or two.

 

In a large troop the SM can't do it all, he has to delegate. A patrol advisor acts like a mini SM for one patrol.

[Stosh]

 

In a large troop the SM can't do it all, he has to delegate. A patrol advisor acts like a mini SM for one patrol.

 

So then the SPL is undermined instead. Got it!

 

I would rather see an ASPL assigned to each patrol as a mini-SM instead of an adult. Just my boy-led thingy I guess. Like I said, too many boy leaders is not a bad thing!

 

If the SM needs to delegate it means he's directing and controlling the situation. Kinda like what happens in an adult-led program.

 

But if anyone is delegating, the SPL can call up any number of ASPL's to help him with a larger troop.

 

And by the way, an adult as a mini-SM for each patrol is grossly over dominated by adults IMHO.

 

Stosh

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

 

So then the SPL is undermined instead. Got it!

 

I would rather see an ASPL assigned to each patrol as a mini-SM instead of an adult. Just my boy-led thingy I guess. Like I said, too many boy leaders is not a bad thing!

 

If the SM needs to delegate it means he's directing and controlling the situation. Kinda like what happens in an adult-led program.

 

But if anyone is delegating, the SPL can call up any number of ASPL's to help him with a larger troop.

 

And by the way, an adult as a mini-SM for each patrol is grossly over dominated by adults IMHO.

 

Stosh

 

I'm not sure what kind of cool-aid your drinking ...

 

An ASM is an assistant to the SM, sharing whatever portion of his duties he delegates to the ASM ... which has zero to the with the SPL or ASPL. An ASPL can't do SMC's, approve/assign MBC's, or issue blue cards. The additional ASM's actually create more time for the SM, allowing him to available to the SPL.

 

The SPL is responsible for his PL's, not the ASPL, unless the SPL is absent. Yes, in a large troop, you may choose to have more then one ASPL, to assist the SPL with carrying out his duties. However, traditionally the ASPL has zero to do with patrol operations, that's the SPL's turf.

 

The SPL is responsible for patrol operations, and works directly with his patrol leaders. The ASPL is responsible for the balance of officers, with a few exceptions, in certain troop models. The ASPL has the group I term the junior officers, my words not BSA's: Quartermaster, OA Rep, Scribe, ect.

 

Youth and adult roles and responsibilities in a Boy Scout Troop are completely distinct and different. I hate adult ran, or led, troops. The only thing worse than an adult playing "the world's oldest SPL", is a youth leader hanging out in the wind without proper training and adult support.

[Sentinel947]

Stosh: I'm going to be frank, I'd appreciate if you stop putting words in my mouth. I'd appreciate if you take comments with a grain of salt, and don't automatically assume the worst about every other poster here and their methods and practices. I can jump the shark and make erroneous suggestions about you, but I don't because I value your opinions, I admire the way your run your troop, and I enjoy having a dialogue on how to better serve my Scouts. When discussing posts, I always try to assume good will and that people are doing right by their Scouts until hard evidence otherwise.

 

So lets get started with your last post.

1. To use the testing and school analogy, Scouts are in the period of time where they are still learning the material of Scouting and lessons of life in general. Does testing go on in Scouting? Yes. Scouts have to show they can perform a requirement before it is signed off. They are often tested in other non measurable ways by being confronted by new challenges. When I think of "testing" coming from Scout leaders, I assume that those Scout leaders are acting as the holy er than thou guardians of the sacred order of Eagle Scouts, who are anti fun, troop method leaders who pencil whip the crap out of their Scouts. Tin Gods basically. I know this doesn't apply to you Stosh. However, that is why I reject the testing label. In my neck of the woods, with big suburban troops, that's the implication I get from testing. I hope that helps you understand my rejection of the testing label.

 

2. When I listed my three principles of a POR, it wasn't an exhaustive list, and it doesn't apply to all positions. Furthermore, I go by the BSA's definitions of the positions, and the Scouts and My expectations of their work stems from those. Will a Librarian show leadership? No not really, but he will grow because of the responsibility and ownership he will hold while in the POR? Yes. I believe it's important that they understand what they POR is about so meaningful expectations can be put in place at the beginning. This helps so that there are no surprises at the end where work wasn't done and it generally enables the Scout to do a better. It sets them up for success under "Trust them, Train them, Let them Lead."

 

3. When I talk about them learning without adult interference, you and I really do agree more then you think we do. I'm not advocating hovering. I don't think Old Eagle is either. Your line: "

I have found over the years that if the boys run into problems they can't handle they will ask for help. Until then if they are to grow and develop they're going to need the adults step back, get out of the way and let them figure it out on their own. If they can't, then they'll ask".

 

I absolutely agree with that statement. The ASMs in my troop and Old Eagle's are there to help when asked. When they ask, it's much better to guide them to the answer, rather than simply tell them it. Not every adult leader will allow Scouts space, but you should assume goodwill with Old Eagle and I. That we are trained and experienced Scouters, and that while we might do things a bit differently, the same principles of youth leadership and ASM non interference are there.

 

4. I'm a 20 year old ASM. I haven't forgotten how to manipulate the world of adults as a youth, and still do from time to time in other facets of my life. While I don't have as much "authority" in my unit, I have the advantage of being relate able, trusted by the Scouts, and having a knowledge of what they are looking for. I do my best to clear adults away from them and give them chances to run their own troop.

 

5.

"No, our approach needs to be youth oriented and youth directed and youth initiated. And yes, like a light switch either one is letting the boys lead or they are not. Subtle nuanced and flexible interference is not letting the boys lead the program. It means they are expected to run it at the subtle nuanced directives of the adults.

 

I have found over the years that if the boys run into problems they can't handle they will ask for help. Until then if they are to grow and develop they're going to need the adults step back, get out of the way and let them figure it out on their own. If they can't, then they'll ask.

 

Yet, after they have worked themselves through an issue, to sit down and assist the boy in evaluating how they did, what they did, and how they felt about the outcome is fine. That is not leading, it is following-up and there's a big difference between the two. This is why the test analogy is very valid.

 

90% of the time I'm their cheerleader, the another 5% I'm offering up non-binding suggestions they might want to consider as a possible solution to their predicament AFTER they have asked for those suggestions, and the last 5% I'm yelling at them for safety issues, consoling them because they're home-sick, etc. The standard non-program types of life things that go along with young boys."

Again, here you put words in my mouth and assumed ill will. You read my posts assuming I'm a Troop Method, hovering SM or a pushy parent. I'm not. Overall, I agree and practice things the way you describe them. However, at the beginning of a POR I sit down with Scouts and help them understand the expectations for the job. This doesn't mean I tell them what to do, or how to do it. Simply, here's what the job is supposed to perform. If you get totally stuck with an issue, ask the ASPL or SPL or a Scoutmaster. This helps them better perform the job, and gives the SM and the SPL some recourse if the Scout completely blows the job off.

 

When the time comes for evaluating how they did they have perspective from the conversation at the beginning. I think it's unfair for them to just be thrown into the job, given no guidance by anybody, and then denied at the end because they didn't do what was expected. I don't actually believe that's how you operate Stosh. The BSA makes perfectly clear that a SMC is not the first place to drop the hammer on a Scout who didn't perform the Position of Responsibility to the SM liking. If you argue to the contrary, then we must agree to disagree.

 

I've assumed good will in my post, and if I misinterpreted you Stosh, please let me know. I'm not here to critique your approach as much as understand it. As an young ASM in a Troop that is adult lead making a hard transition to youth led, with all the backsliding and challenges that come with it, I'm trying to gain perspective from as many ASM/SM's as I can so if/when my number is called to be an SM, I do right for the Boys and right by the BSA.

[Eagle94-A1]

Good topic to jump into.

 

My question is this, if the patrol or troop that elected a person to a POR do not want removed him from that position, despite poor performance, should he be removed just so that he can be denied time in a POR for advancement? If the answer is yes, then you are going against one of the foundations of Scouting, the patrol method. If you deny him tenure due to performance after serving his term, you are going against an policy in the GTA that changes often.

 

Me personally, if it's a choice against a foundation of the Scouting program that's been around since August 1, 1907, or a policy that changes every so often, Sorry I go with the foundation.

 

Also you have to remember that one repsonibility of the BOR IS "... decide whether he has fulfilled the requirements for the rank. (GTA 8.0.0.1). If he did not the BOR should "... advise the young man that he might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what he might do to improve his chances for success. It is, however, the Scout's decision to go ahead with a board of review or not." (8.0.0.2)

 

Finally, from what I am reading form the section of the GTA below, if you advise the Scout while counseling him to improve his performance or the time will not count IS allowed by the GTA.

 

4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit has clearly established expectations for position(s) held, thenâ€â€within reason (sic)â€â€a Scout must meet them through the prescribed time. If he is not meeting expectations, then this must be communicated early (emphasis). Unit leadership may work toward a constructive result by asking him what he thinks he should be accomplishing. What is his concept of the position? What does he think his troop leadersâ€â€youth and adultâ€â€expect? What has he done well? What needs improvement? Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded.

If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position. It is the unit leader's responsibility to address these situations promptly. Every effort should have been made while he was in the position to ensure he understood expectations and was regularly supported toward reasonably acceptable performance. It is unfair and inappropriateâ€â€after six months, for exampleâ€â€to surprise a boy who thinks he has been doing fine, with news that his performance is now considered unsatisfactory. In this case, he must be given credit for the time. (emphasis)

Only in rare casesâ€â€if everâ€â€should troop leaders inform a Scout that time, once served, will not count. (sic)

If a Scout believes he has performed his duties satisfactorily, but his leaders disagree, then the possibility that expectations are unreasonable should be considered. If after discussions between the Scout and his leadersâ€â€and perhaps including his parents or guardiansâ€â€he believes he is being held to unreasonable expectations, then upon completing the remaining requirements, he must be granted a board of review. If he is an Eagle candidate, then he may request a board of review under disputed circumstances (see "Initiating Eagle Scout Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances," 8.0.3.2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Sentinel947 , that's a well worded post. I come here for new ideas, and to see things in new ways. Like you, I respect Stosh, and get quite a bit from most of his posts. I don't explain everything I post in detail, unless someone asks, for the sake of time. I operate on an assumption of good will, as well.

 

To many here I'm still a newbee, but I've been around the block a few times. With the exception of a few years, I've been scouting in one way, or another, since I became in a Cub in 1974. My scouting involvement has taken me on a journey through Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts, Exploring, Venturing, the Order of the Arrow, as well as District, Council, and Region service (and back again); I forgot a ten year stint with Girl Scouts! I've worn many hats, and scouted in many places, with many people, learning new things in each place, and from each person...and scout.

 

The key here is to learn and grow from this fellowship site.

 

[TAHAWK]

In an adult-run unit, more adults means more adult control.

 

But not all units are adult-run. Some are Boy Scout Troops. It is possible, as I have experienced as a Scout and an adult, for adults to stick to the adult role and let the leaders lead. Is some care required? Sure. As with other things.

[Stosh]

Good topic to jump into.

 

My question is this, if the patrol or troop that elected a person to a POR do not want removed him from that position, despite poor performance, should he be removed just so that he can be denied time in a POR for advancement? If the answer is yes, then you are going against one of the foundations of Scouting, the patrol method. If you deny him tenure due to performance after serving his term, you are going against an policy in the GTA that changes often.

 

Me personally, if it's a choice against a foundation of the Scouting program that's been around since August 1, 1907, or a policy that changes every so often, Sorry I go with the foundation.

 

Also you have to remember that one repsonibility of the BOR IS "... decide whether he has fulfilled the requirements for the rank. (GTA 8.0.0.1). If he did not the BOR should "... advise the young man that he might not pass the board and to make suggestions about what he might do to improve his chances for success. It is, however, the Scout's decision to go ahead with a board of review or not." (8.0.0.2)

 

Finally, from what I am reading form the section of the GTA below, if you advise the Scout while counseling him to improve his performance or the time will not count IS allowed by the GTA.

 

4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit has clearly established expectations for position(s) held, thenâ€â€within reason (sic)â€â€a Scout must meet them through the prescribed time. If he is not meeting expectations, then this must be communicated early (emphasis). Unit leadership may work toward a constructive result by asking him what he thinks he should be accomplishing. What is his concept of the position? What does he think his troop leadersâ€â€youth and adultâ€â€expect? What has he done well? What needs improvement? Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded.

If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position. It is the unit leader's responsibility to address these situations promptly. Every effort should have been made while he was in the position to ensure he understood expectations and was regularly supported toward reasonably acceptable performance. It is unfair and inappropriateâ€â€after six months, for exampleâ€â€to surprise a boy who thinks he has been doing fine, with news that his performance is now considered unsatisfactory. In this case, he must be given credit for the time. (emphasis)

Only in rare casesâ€â€if everâ€â€should troop leaders inform a Scout that time, once served, will not count. (sic)

If a Scout believes he has performed his duties satisfactorily, but his leaders disagree, then the possibility that expectations are unreasonable should be considered. If after discussions between the Scout and his leadersâ€â€and perhaps including his parents or guardiansâ€â€he believes he is being held to unreasonable expectations, then upon completing the remaining requirements, he must be granted a board of review. If he is an Eagle candidate, then he may request a board of review under disputed circumstances (see "Initiating Eagle Scout Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances," 8.0.3.2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, welcome to the forum and posting. I have no idea how long you may have been lurking, but it's good to see some fresh blood in the fray.

 

First of all a lot of legalese wording going on with BSA and a lot of it rather vague. 4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities are not met.... Who determines that? The boys, the SM, the BOR, parents, some unit rule book? That needs to be better defined.

 

Unit leader's responsibility? Okay, is that the IH, the COR, CC, SM, ASM, SPL or PL? They are all unit leaders and in my case of boy led, patrol method, the PL is the highest ranking operational officer.

 

There are no rules in a boy led, patrol method unit except those the boys have created for themselves. If a PL isn't doing his job, the patrol can elect a new PL at any time. It kinda cuts to the chase and excludes a lot of legalese language. Of course if he's doing a good job, he could in fact lose the position when he ages out, too.

 

I'm thinking that if the PL is working with the patrol and they seem happy with his performance, who's to say he's not fulfilling his responsibility?

 

If the SPL isn't doing his job, the PL's can oust him as well. If the QM never has equipment ready, the PL's can oust him and or SPL simply select a new QM.

 

The "leadership training" and basic guideline for "job" performance in the unit is: "Take care of your boys." If for some reason they don't think they're being taken care of, they're going to say so IMMEDIATELY! Kinda like instant feedback and probably in your face feedback. So that solves the problem of monitoring the performance of the POR, any POR. SM doesn't even need to step in unless it's to referee.

 

So if the boys are handling all of this, what's left for the SM and/or other adults to do? Probably nothing... This system kind changes peer pressure into pure pressure in a heartbeat.

 

I for one have some pretty motivated boys, or they become motivated after joining and I don't seem to have any performance problems that I have had to resolve, before, during or after. Mostly after is just a review of their efforts and what might be done to be more effective on the next go-around with a POR and that's handled during the SMC before the BOR for rank.

 

Stosh

 

 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

Stosh,

 

Been here a number of years. Long story short, having problems logging in. Had to redo the entire sign up process because it kept saying that it sent the password info to my email, but it never did. And unfortuantely I was typing too fast with the ID to notice a mistake in it until after the fact. Que sara sara.

 

I agree a lot of legalese. Probably because a lot of parents getting upset that their son wasn't getting Eagle. Sometimes the parents, or in my case ME, was right to question the Eagle BOR and state they were going to appeal the decision. Heck I know one scout right now who is going to appeal for an extension for Eagle when the time comes because of things his old troop did and the fact that he spent several months looking for a new troop since the old one went to Trail's Life.

 

But I also know of a few appeals that had no basis. Some were not granted, and unfortunately some were.

 

For the most part I agree with you about if the Scouts are satisfied with the performance let him get credit.

 

But I've been in one case where a scout needed major help improving his performance in a POR. Older Scouts were the first group to mentor, then the adults. In his case, the patrol didn't want to "recall" him, because no one else wanted the job (that's another story). Dad wasn't too happy with the decision to deny POR intitially, even though he knew there were problems because he was an ASM.

 

But eventually dad understood the rationale and agreed to the plan we were going to tell the Scout. We were not going to credit the first two months of his term as PL, but if he works with us and improved the situation, we would credit him with the last 4 months of the term of office.

 

He wasn't to enthused at first, but after some talking and counseling, he came to realize he need to work on being PL. And took us up on the plan.

 

Not only did he get Star at the end of his term of office, he got re-elected as PL, and not because no one else wanted the job.

 

[Stosh]

Stosh: I'm going to be frank, I'd appreciate if you stop putting words in my mouth. I'd appreciate if you take comments with a grain of salt, and don't automatically assume the worst about every other poster here and their methods and practices. I can jump the shark and make erroneous suggestions about you, but I don't because I value your opinions, I admire the way your run your troop, and I enjoy having a dialogue on how to better serve my Scouts. When discussing posts, I always try to assume good will and that people are doing right by their Scouts until hard evidence otherwise.

 

Because I speak often from a differing viewpoint does not mean that what I'm doing or saying has any judgmental reflection on anyone else. I hear people speak of problems that for some reason I don't seem to have in my troop so I explain what I'm doing in the hope that something I say might elevate the problems for others. I learned a long time ago never to assume anything. But sometimes 1 + 1 really does equal 2.

 

I'm sure a lot of people think of me as a very judgmental person. Believe me, I'm not. I have enough on my plate that I don't have to worry about what someone else is doing whether it be right or wrong. After all, seriously? It's not my problem, it's there's. If something I say helps, then okay. If it doesn't, then okay. I have spent 40+ years working with kids and to help them grow I only offer non-binding suggestions that if they wish to incorporate, fine, if not fine. But I surely don't lose any sleep over it, but always remember, they are non-binding suggestions.

 

So lets get started with your last post.

1. To use the testing and school analogy, Scouts are in the period of time where they are still learning the material of Scouting and lessons of life in general. Does testing go on in Scouting? Yes. Scouts have to show they can perform a requirement before it is signed off. They are often tested in other non measurable ways by being confronted by new challenges. When I think of "testing" coming from Scout leaders, I assume that those Scout leaders are acting as the holy er than thou guardians of the sacred order of Eagle Scouts, who are anti fun, troop method leaders who pencil whip the crap out of their Scouts. Tin Gods basically. I know this doesn't apply to you Stosh. However, that is why I reject the testing label. In my neck of the woods, with big suburban troops, that's the implication I get from testing. I hope that helps you understand my rejection of the testing label.

 

Yep, whereas I was using it as an allegory example, you were using as literal.

 

2. When I listed my three principles of a POR, it wasn't an exhaustive list, and it doesn't apply to all positions. Furthermore, I go by the BSA's definitions of the positions, and the Scouts and My expectations of their work stems from those. Will a Librarian show leadership? No not really, but he will grow because of the responsibility and ownership he will hold while in the POR? Yes. I believe it's important that they understand what they POR is about so meaningful expectations can be put in place at the beginning. This helps so that there are no surprises at the end where work wasn't done and it generally enables the Scout to do a better. It sets them up for success under "Trust them, Train them, Let them Lead."

 

As I have mentioned, the actual definition of the job is irrelevant to me. So I normally just rely on what the boy thinks the job to be, lays it out and measures himself against his definition. So far to-date, no scout has ever said he thought the job was to screw around for 6 months and get credit. Therefore I have never really had a boy not give it his best as he sees the position. My boys do, however, understand leadership and the tend to apply that dynamic to the functional management of the POR when they define the work. Let's go with Librarian.

 

Boy # 1 - organize the MB books in the troop closet just in case a boy needs one. If he does, which he never will because they are all outdated, he can check it out and return it and I just keep track of that on a piece of paper on the inside of the troop closet door. At the end of the 6 months make sure I get credit for doing the POR.

 

Boy # 2 - First, go and toss all the MB books that have a printing date older than 20 years. That's about half of them. Then start with web searches for articles and items that will assist the boys in the TF through FC requirements. They might come from Boys Life, Scouting, Internet or other sources such as American Red Cross, and a military pamphlet/manual on map and compass work. I will then make sure there's a file system where all these articles are easily retrieved by the Instructor or individual scouts so that they have some resources to use to teach. Then I would work closely with the Instructors on acquiring specific materials to assist them as needed. Then I would collect of resources from the community of potential projects that could be considered for service projects and/or Eagle projects. Names, addresses and phone numbers of contacts of people that might have some good ideas for these service projects. Then.....

 

Do I need to go on? But if one looks closely at Boy # 1 He's doing what most Librarians do in a troop and it gets the job done. But boy #2 is looking to take care of his boys, their needs and make himself useful to their needs. He gets the job done, but for the most part, BSA has never identified the process described above. The only place I have seen it was created from the mind of one of my scouts. So even if he does half of what he sets out to do, he's going to get credit for the POR.

 

3. When I talk about them learning without adult interference, you and I really do agree more then you think we do. I'm not advocating hovering. I don't think Old Eagle is either. Your line: "

 

I absolutely agree with that statement. The ASMs in my troop and Old Eagle's are there to help when asked. When they ask, it's much better to guide them to the answer, rather than simply tell them it. Not every adult leader will allow Scouts space, but you should assume goodwill with Old Eagle and I. That we are trained and experienced Scouters, and that while we might do things a bit differently, the same principles of youth leadership and ASM non interference are there.

 

I would never question the training and experience of another scouter. Their skills, talents and interests are different than mine Even how they define things is different than mine. Who's to say whose idea will work best in any one situation. I can only speak from a position of what has worked for me as I have dealt with 3 different units and been unit commissioner for a number of years and worked with other troops with less of an impact. I'm not going to mislead anyone by having them try what hasn't worked for me. I only promote what has worked. But then it may not work for someone else. But if they want they could try or they could reject, I only offer non-binding suggestions.

 

4. I'm a 20 year old ASM. I haven't forgotten how to manipulate the world of adults as a youth, and still do from time to time in other facets of my life. While I don't have as much "authority" in my unit, I have the advantage of being relate able, trusted by the Scouts, and having a knowledge of what they are looking for. I do my best to clear adults away from them and give them chances to run their own troop.

 

20 years old???? OH NO!!! You're one of THEM! Don't worry about being able to from time to time manipulate adults as a youth would if you never grow up. Heck, it still works and I'm 64 years old.

 

 

5.

Again, here you put words in my mouth and assumed ill will. You read my posts assuming I'm a Troop Method, hovering SM or a pushy parent. I'm not. Overall, I agree and practice things the way you describe them. However, at the beginning of a POR I sit down with Scouts and help them understand the expectations for the job. This doesn't mean I tell them what to do, or how to do it. Simply, here's what the job is supposed to perform. If you get totally stuck with an issue, ask the ASPL or SPL or a Scoutmaster. This helps them better perform the job, and gives the SM and the SPL some recourse if the Scout completely blows the job off.

 

Yep, you and I differ on this one because all I ever tell my boys at the beginning of a POR is "Take care of your boys!"

 

When the time comes for evaluating how they did they have perspective from the conversation at the beginning. I think it's unfair for them to just be thrown into the job, given no guidance by anybody, and then denied at the end because they didn't do what was expected. I don't actually believe that's how you operate Stosh. The BSA makes perfectly clear that a SMC is not the first place to drop the hammer on a Scout who didn't perform the Position of Responsibility to the SM liking. If you argue to the contrary, then we must agree to disagree.

 

In the 30+ years of working with scouts, I have NEVER had to drop the hammer on any scout. I have seen other SM's do it, but I've never done it. I never had had any reason to. As a matter of fact, about half the time, I'm surprised by the work the boys do in their self-defined POR responsibilities.

 

I even had an ADHD boy who was not on meds (and should have been) run the entire Popcorn fundraiser one year. It was the most successful fundraiser the troop ever had. One of the "problems" of ADHD is the fact that the person intensely focuses on just one thing and becomes almost infatuated with it. Well if that one things is selling popcorn, then he's your man!

 

I've assumed good will in my post, and if I misinterpreted you Stosh, please let me know. I'm not here to critique your approach as much as understand it. As an young ASM in a Troop that is adult lead making a hard transition to youth led, with all the backsliding and challenges that come with it, I'm trying to gain perspective from as many ASM/SM's as I can so if/when my number is called to be an SM, I do right for the Boys and right by the BSA.

 

I have no problem with any leader that knows they are too adult led and makes the effort to move towards letting the boys have ownership and leadership of their program. From what you have been saying in your posts, it is obvious that your #1 concern is "Taking care of your boys." and how can I ever find fault with that?

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

 

I'm not sure what kind of cool-aid your drinking ...

 

An ASM is an assistant to the SM, sharing whatever portion of his duties he delegates to the ASM ... which has zero to the with the SPL or ASPL. An ASPL can't do SMC's, approve/assign MBC's, or issue blue cards. The additional ASM's actually create more time for the SM, allowing him to available to the SPL.

 

The SPL is responsible for his PL's, not the ASPL, unless the SPL is absent. Yes, in a large troop, you may choose to have more then one ASPL, to assist the SPL with carrying out his duties. However, traditionally the ASPL has zero to do with patrol operations, that's the SPL's turf.

 

The SPL is responsible for patrol operations, and works directly with his patrol leaders. The ASPL is responsible for the balance of officers, with a few exceptions, in certain troop models. The ASPL has the group I term the junior officers, my words not BSA's: Quartermaster, OA Rep, Scribe, ect.

 

Youth and adult roles and responsibilities in a Boy Scout Troop are completely distinct and different. I hate adult ran, or led, troops. The only thing worse than an adult playing "the world's oldest SPL", is a youth leader hanging out in the wind without proper training and adult support.

 

I have no problem with what you are saying. But I believe you indicated that every patrol had an ASM assigned to it???? Why? If the PL has a problem who does he turn to: the ASM patrol advisor or the SPL? If the PL turns first to the ASM then why have an SPL? If he turns to the SPL, then what's the sense in having an ASM patrol advisor? The boys seem to be doing fine without him/her.

 

If the program is youth led, couldn't a TG be assigned by the SPL for every NSP and the other patrols all have access to a contact ASPL? if the troop is large? Would they not function as a youth mini-SM and the adults just drink coffee?

 

Yes one of the ASPL's should "PL" the Troop Officers on outings. And if the patrols are all 300' away and the SPL gets called to a patrol because of something a PL needs, why can't an ASPL step in as SPL until he gets back? The SPL doesn't need to not completely show up before an ASPL is needed, especially in a big troop. If a huge troop has 3 NSP's and the TG's are a bit overwhelmed with trying to teach a new PL and get camp set up? Maybe an ASPL or two could jump in to get them through the tight spots rather than an adult patrol advisor. Never do as an adult what a boy can do. I stick to that principle and it works really slick regardless of what Kool-Aid flavor one drinks.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

Stosh,

 

Been here a number of years. Long story short, having problems logging in. Had to redo the entire sign up process because it kept saying that it sent the password info to my email, but it never did. And unfortuantely I was typing too fast with the ID to notice a mistake in it until after the fact. Que sara sara.

 

I agree a lot of legalese. Probably because a lot of parents getting upset that their son wasn't getting Eagle. Sometimes the parents, or in my case ME, was right to question the Eagle BOR and state they were going to appeal the decision. Heck I know one scout right now who is going to appeal for an extension for Eagle when the time comes because of things his old troop did and the fact that he spent several months looking for a new troop since the old one went to Trail's Life.

 

But I also know of a few appeals that had no basis. Some were not granted, and unfortunately some were.

 

For the most part I agree with you about if the Scouts are satisfied with the performance let him get credit.

 

But I've been in one case where a scout needed major help improving his performance in a POR. Older Scouts were the first group to mentor, then the adults. In his case, the patrol didn't want to "recall" him, because no one else wanted the job (that's another story). Dad wasn't too happy with the decision to deny POR intitially, even though he knew there were problems because he was an ASM.

 

But eventually dad understood the rationale and agreed to the plan we were going to tell the Scout. We were not going to credit the first two months of his term as PL, but if he works with us and improved the situation, we would credit him with the last 4 months of the term of office.

 

He wasn't to enthused at first, but after some talking and counseling, he came to realize he need to work on being PL. And took us up on the plan.

 

Not only did he get Star at the end of his term of office, he got re-elected as PL, and not because no one else wanted the job.

 

A little more adult involvement in this situation that I would have preferred, but as long as the boy squared himself away, who's to complain? And the topper to it all, he squared himself away enough to get re-elected. Congrats to the boy! and congrats to the adults that allowed a second chance.

 

Stosh

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

 

I have no problem with what you are saying. But I believe you indicated that every patrol had an ASM assigned to it???? Why? If the PL has a problem who does he turn to: the ASM patrol advisor or the SPL? If the PL turns first to the ASM then why have an SPL? If he turns to the SPL, then what's the sense in having an ASM patrol advisor? The boys seem to be doing fine without him/her.

 

If the program is youth led, couldn't a TG be assigned by the SPL for every NSP and the other patrols all have access to a contact ASPL? if the troop is large? Would they not function as a youth mini-SM and the adults just drink coffee?

 

Yes one of the ASPL's should "PL" the Troop Officers on outings. And if the patrols are all 300' away and the SPL gets called to a patrol because of something a PL needs, why can't an ASPL step in as SPL until he gets back? The SPL doesn't need to not completely show up before an ASPL is needed, especially in a big troop. If a huge troop has 3 NSP's and the TG's are a bit overwhelmed with trying to teach a new PL and get camp set up? Maybe an ASPL or two could jump in to get them through the tight spots rather than an adult patrol advisor. Never do as an adult what a boy can do. I stick to that principle and it works really slick regardless of what Kool-Aid flavor one drinks.

 

Stosh

 

Thank you for the response. The simple answer to your question is an ASM Patrol Advisor's job is the take some of the load of a SM with more coming at him then he can handle (not an uncommon issue in big troops), serve as adult supervision on patrol outings, and act as part of the required adult supervision on troop outings. A secondary use of the position is to find out what adults may be suited to be SM one day, and groom successors for the job.

 

As I explained before, the ASM Patrol Advisor is delegated a portion of the SM's responsibility, like doing SMC's, finding MB instructors for scouts in his patrol, reviewing his patrols medical forms before camp, handling his patrol's meds. Just like the SM, the ASM Patrol Advisor is going to send a PL, or other scout, packing who is asking something that he should be asking his PL or SPL; youth responsibilities are youth responsibilities, and adult responsibilities are adult responsibilities, nothing changes this.

 

I think where we're not connecting is on what an ASM Patrol Advisor is. I'm simply talking about an ASM focused on one patrol. Honestly, I may be tougher than you on what's adult, and what's youth; for example, as an ASM I'd never team a scout skill to a patrol, and as a SM I'd get rid of an ASM that did. I'm huge on the chain of command.

 

Honestly, as often as not, our adult leaders are near the scouts, with one eye out, doing what they enjoy. I tend to do beadwork, or leatherwork, others work on making better bow in drill sets, carve, whittle, read, or even juggle.

 

We do have a tradition as old as the troop, 87 years, where our uniformed adult leaders camp and act as a patrol in the field. We never directly instruct, but always set the example not only in our well honed skills, but also by bringing innovative, and forgotten outdoor skills into play. This also keeps us out of the scout's hair.

 

To backtrack, I've heard of multiple ASPL's, but regardless of troop size, never seen them used. I mention this because I'm interested in hearing more about how this works. I've always thought of the ASPL as managing the administrative officers for the SPL, and filling in if the SPL is absent.

[Stosh]

 

To backtrack, I've heard of multiple ASPL's, but regardless of troop size, never seen them used. I mention this because I'm interested in hearing more about how this works. I've always thought of the ASPL as managing the administrative officers for the SPL, and filling in if the SPL is absent.

 

Like the SM assigning adult ASM here and there where needed, what's the difference with the SPL assigning youth ASPL's here and there where needed? (This was my first knee-jerk reaction to the comment about an ASM for each patrol. I was thinking an ASPL would be more appropriate in light of the boy-led emphasis.)

 

In a very large troop, there's also the possibility of the troop officers numbering well over 8 boys as well. In that case I'd get another ASPL and break that group into two as well with an ASPL coordinating each one. BP felt the patrol should be 6-8 boys. I'm a firm believer in that as well. It's well within the leadership capabilities of most boys at this age. A really good leader might be able to take on one or two more, but with all these boys needing POR for advancement, why would anyone want to restrict the numbers? Same for TG's and Instructors. Every NSP needs their own TG/ASPL functioning as TG. Specialty Instructors could conceivably teach every other week in a 12 patrol troop and have plenty to rotate around.

 

A boy could possibly have ASPL on his shirt, but at times he is PL for the troop officer patrol, Instructor for them as well, Could be pro-tem SPL as needed, TG for a NSP who's TG couldn't make it on the outing, backup QM when he's off looking for gear for a patrol QM, etc.

 

I guess I would rather see my Eagle Scouts be a functional ASPL, helping (ASSISTING) the SPL in a number of different duties than have him answering/(ASSISTING) the SM as a JASM. In a large troop, one would think the SPL may in deed need more ASPL's than just one.

 

If one's patrols are 300' apart, a second/third ASPL would be helpful to the SPL who can be wearing himself out tending to 3-4 patrols on an outing, especially if his only ASPL is taking care of the troop officer patrol 99% of the time.

 

Hope this helps.... Remember there is no rule that says you can't have more than one ASPL any more than the SM getting more than one ASM.

 

Stosh

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Thanks Stosh, I can see positive ways where this might be implemented. As you've guessed, our SPL is often ran ragged, as is the ASPL. We have 17 officers (including PL's), and although all but the SPL, ASPL, and JASM are patrol members, this is still a lot of people for the ASPL to manage/mentor, while backing up the SPL. I'll share this idea with the SPL, see what he thinks; after all it is his troop