Positions of Responsibility

[Hedgehog]

For cooking good foil meals, there are two requirements:

 

1.  Sufficient moisture.  In the foil hobo burgers, you need carrots, canned potatoes, some butter, salt, pepper and some water.  The moisture helps it cook and keeps it from burning.

 

2.  Proper folding.  The folds need to be so that no moisture escapes even if the packet is turned upside down.  You need to have a piece of foil that is substantially longer and wider then the final size of the packet.  Bring the side pieces up to the top and make a 1/2 inch fold, continue to fold until you can fold no more -- at least 4 folds.  Then take the sides, bring them together in the middle and fold them down in a similar manner.

 

Having heavy duty foil or using two layers also helps.  Make sure you flip the packet a couple of times.  We don't do the hobo burgers too often, but when we do, they come out really good.  Our guys typically use foil to cook green beans and to make garlic bread -- using the same coals that are on the dutch ovens.

[Stosh]

I do not have any problem with the boys doing what they want to do as a patrol.  The problem arises in what the adults dictate as to what they can and cannot do.  If the leader of the patrol is taking care of his boys, what business is it of the adults to interfere with extra rules, regulations and mandates.

 

Okay, the boys are having a Dutch oven broccoli bake for supper.  No bacon involved at all.    Okay one of the boys REEEALY hates broccoli so he makes himself a PBJ.  Does that condemn him as not being a team player?  He is rebelling against the authority of his PL?  Is he not loyal to his buddies?  Is his not learning anything about how the patrol method works?  Let's put it this way, why are the adults stepping in or even hovering over these kinds of petty issues and declaring them anti-patrol method?

 

It's been my experience that a lot of dynamics that move small groups beyond their comfort zone is an occasional anomaly that offers an alternative or improvement over what is currently being done.  Yes, the boys all eat the same food, clean up the same with the three bucket wash system as has been taught.... except at Philmont when all things change.  Gee, they don't have Dutch ovens at Philmont or on the AT.  What now?  The boys have all been taught to cook for a group of 6-8 boys, but they don't know how to effectively feed just themselves.

 

This line of thinking on the part of the adults is limiting to the patrols and what works for them.  Like people, no two patrols have the same personality, the lessons cannot be "one-size-fits-all".  The policy of: "If one doesn't like what's being served, there's PBJ in the chuck box."  Standard operating procedure for every patrol in the country, except the patrol where one of it's members is deadly allergic to peanuts.  He doesn't like broccoli and he's allergic to peanuts, now the poor kid has doubled down on his inability to be a team player in the patrol.  Time for a SMC!

 

If one is going to expect the PL to take care of his boys, then get out of the way and let him do it and do it HIS way, not what some adult says has to happen. 

 

@@Hedgehog, I think it boils down to something far more destructive than the boys not following the patrol method rules, or wearing the uniform, or ignoring the safety of the Totin' Chip as adult nonsense.  What it really means that these boys have been taught the correct protocol and yet up until they turn 18 years of age they cannot be trusted with what they have been taught.  A PL who is taking care of his boys will make sure there is no peanut butter in the chuck box if he has a boys that's allergic to it.  He will make sure the safety rules of the Totin' Chip are followed, etc.  He DOESN"T need an adult hovering over his shoulder 24/7 making sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed when it comes to scouting and troop rules. 

 

If the patrol method is to work, the boys have to be trustworthy.  How does one know if a boy can be trusted if they are all held on a very short leash?  All boys are trustworthy if an adult is hovering 2' away.

 

"Doin' meals and meal cleanup as a patrol is one of da great learnin' experiences of Scouting.  If every lad brings his own food stash and refuses to participate in da meal prep or cleanup with the group, I'm wonderin' what we're teachin', exactly."

 

My question is: I'm wonderin' what WAS TAUGHT?!  And why can't the PL be trusted to do it?  The lesson is teamwork, not doing meals and cleaning up.

 

"If the older and more experienced lads just want to do their own thing and not help support others less experienced than they are, and we as adults encourage 'em to think that way, I'm wonderin' what we're doin', exactly."

 

And where's the PL in all of this?  Why isn't he taking care of his boys?  This is a pretty big assumption jump to go from patrol teamwork to patrol dysfunction just because they don't follow the adult mandated rules.  If the patrol has tents and one of the boys brings his own hammock is he accused of not following the rules?  Or he wants to meadow crash instead?  I think PL's (and even adults) can encourage a process of "thinking-outside-the-box".  For some it would seem that it is form of rebellion, selfishness, ("Maybe I'm just an old fashioned furry critter who grew up before da "Me me me!!!" generation") or some other adult defined negativity.  But for others, that might just mean the most efficient way of teaching advanced problem solving, a skill/talent most useful for any successful PL or patrol member.  Yes, I do encourage them to think in alternative manners.  No, it does not negate the patrol method.  No it does not break BSA policy.  No, it is not an unsafe thing to be doing.  It only allows the boys some room to make improvements and tweak processes to best suit the operation of their patrols.  I don't need to hover and advise my boys, I trust them and that's a lesson all my boys have learned. 

[David CO]

Some people take this "boy lead" thing a step or two beyond where my Chartered Organization would be willing to go.

 

In the case of peanut allergies, my CO would expect the adults to inspect the supplies and verify that there is no peanut butter in the chuck box.  If a boy has an allergy to bee stings, and adult would be required to carry an epi-pen.  

 

Trust but verify.

Edited May 27, 2016 by David CO

[Krampus]

Some people take this "boy lead" thing a step or two beyond where my Chartered Organization would be willing to go.

 

In the case of peanut allergies, my CO would expect the adults to inspect the supplies and verify that there is no peanut butter in the chuck box.  If a boy has an allergy to bee stings, and adult would be required to carry an epi-pen.  

 

Trust but verify.

 

Agreed. 

 

But even in schools the teachers are not required to carry the epipen. Where I live that is up to the student. Of course, the adult (nurse at school, medicine man on the camp out) carries the back up.

 

Also, at schools, the kids with the allergies are taught manage their allergies and how to avoid their allergens. You can't inspect every label of every item purchased at a camp out. What we do is work with the Patrols to make sure that the allergies are known in advance so that the grubmaster can read the labels and avoid certain products. The adults helping their grubmaster assist in this effort.

[TAHAWK]

If a Scout never eats what the rest of his patrol eats, I would wonder how the patrol plans meals.  If a Scout does not eat with his patrol-mates, I would wonder why.

 

Smaller eating groups than a patrol may be dictated by equipment.  Many backpacking stoves hold only small pots safely.  

 

 

Safety is a nondeligible responsibility of adults in Scouting.  Scouts act as a force multiplier - watching out for each other and learning self-discipline - but adults cannot escape their responsibility.  You agree to that when you become a Scouter, right along with no alcohol and no illegal drugs.

 

I have been around Scouts who were more mature than adults they have been around.  However, for whatever reason (probably lack of experience), young people are statistically more likely to get into accidents than older people.  Insurance companies have little sentiment.  It's all numbers.  So the B.S.A. mandate has reason behind it.

 

Maturity, including developing the ability to make good benefit/risk analysis, seems like a process, not an event like joining Scouts or becoming 18, and further is a process varies from individual to individual. I have experienced "accident-prone" persons of various ages.

 

As with many things, it is not either/or.  You need enough adult attention and not more. There is too much of a good thing  - both ways.

[TAHAWK]

Agreed. 

 

But even in schools the teachers are not required to carry the epipen. Where I live that is up to the student. Of course, the adult (nurse at school, medicine man on the camp out) carries the back up.

 

Also, at schools, the kids with the allergies are taught manage their allergies and how to avoid their allergens. You can't inspect every label of every item purchased at a camp out. What we do is work with the Patrols to make sure that the allergies are known in advance so that the grubmaster can read the labels and avoid certain products. The adults helping their grubmaster assist in this effort.

 

The rule at some camps that only adults or camp staff carry prescription meds has a couple of problems.  1) When meds are needed in seconds, adult or staff may be minutes away.  2) It's against federal law for anyone other than the patient to possess prescription meds prescribed to that patient.  Parents get a pass under an unwritten exception because it has to work that way for young children.  We are not parents or in loco parentis, unlike the schools.  

 

BSA forms giving camp staff or adults the supposed right to possess prescription meds are void  - dead on arrival.  Parents cannot change federal law.

Edited May 27, 2016 by TAHAWK

[Stosh]

The SM going through the medical forms of every person both adult and youth is taking care of his people.  Spot checks for epi pens and first aid kits are an ongoing routine in the troop.  Allergies are known to all adults and PL's.

 

We have 3 rules in the troop.  The #1 Rule is Safety First and that is monitored by both adult and youth.  This rule trumps everything!

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm.... I seem to have struck a nerve, eh?   Let me put on my myopic Beavah glasses and see what I can see...

 

My first thought is that in most of da troops I know, the PLs would be havin' gentle but firm words with a lad who insisted on bringin' his own food and refused to help out da rest of the group.  In BSA Scoutin' we teach boys to cook and eat as patrols, eh?  Right there in da First Class requirements, includin' sayin' grace together and cleanin' up together.   If a lad has participated in Scoutin', by the time he's gettin' to be older he's internalized those expectations, eh?  He's come to enjoy cookin' and eatin' together.  He's also learned not to cook broccoli because Billy hates it, or maybe to offer two side dishes instead of one. 

 

Regardless, he'd never cut Billy out of da group by tellin' him to bring his own food.  The boys have learned that bein' a good friend to Billy is more important than eatin' what they want and when they want it.  Along da way Billy has likely also broadened his palate a bit by tryin' to be a good group member.

 

What's important is that there ain't any mythical hoverin' adults here, eh?  There's just kids who have adopted da values we want to teach.

 

Similarly, I can't think of an older lad in any troops I know who wouldn't be annoyed by a group of scouts who refused to help da group unless they got to do what they want when they wanted it.   I reckon we've all seen QMs get gear together for trips they weren't goin' on, eh?  I literally can't imagine a scout QM sayin' "I didn't want to do this trip and I'm not goin', so I'm not goin' to help gettin' the gear ready!  Change your vote or else!".  In fact, we've got one local crew where da two top fundraisers for this summer's high adventure trip aren't goin' on the trip, eh?  They just want to support their friends and teammates. 

 

That's what scouts do on their own when they've internalized da values we want to teach, eh?   No adult required, and still lots of room for innovation and new ways of doin' things within what they view as da Scout Law.

 

I may be out to lunch, but what I'm seein' in @@Stosh's writin' is his boys respondin' to his version of hoverin' adult behavior.   From @@Stosh's perspective, older lads hangin' around with younger ones or helpin' 'em out is holding the older boys back, they shouldn't have to do that.  "Taking care of your boys" is a good thing, but only the boys they have chosen.  In fact, they can choose other boys at any time, eh?   Even if boys chose to be part of a group, they can opt out of da group whenever, eh?

 

In my experience, that way of thinkin' doesn't come naturally to boys, eh?  It takes an adult hoverin' and settin' that kind of attitude and way of thinkin' as the norm. 

 

Beavah

[Beavah]

The rule at some camps that only adults or camp staff carry prescription meds has a couple of problems.  1) When meds are needed in seconds, adult or staff may be minutes away.  2) It's against federal law for anyone other than the patient to possess prescription meds prescribed to that patient.  Parents get a pass under an unwritten exception because it has to work that way for young children.  We are not parents or in loco parentis, unlike the schools.  

 

BSA forms giving camp staff or adults the supposed right to possess prescription meds are void  - dead on arrival.  Parents cannot change federal law.

 

Yah, hmmmmmm...

 

I'm curious by what legal theory yeh think that a summer camp or a scout leader on a trip does not stand in loco parentis?  Your interpretation seems novel.

 

I know many a federal prosecutor, eh?  I don't reckon any of 'em are goin' to be eager to prosecute a scout leader or camp for holdin' onto a boy's medications.   Besides, da law on medical practice and on youth programs is primarily state law, eh?   I don't reckon scout leaders are engaged in interstate medical commerce.

 

Relax, mate.

[Stosh]

Yah, hmmmm.... I seem to have struck a nerve, eh?   Let me put on my myopic Beavah glasses and see what I can see...

 

My first thought is that in most of da troops I know, the PLs would be havin' gentle but firm words with a lad who insisted on bringin' his own food and refused to help out da rest of the group. 

 

That's a conclusion jumped to that was never stated by me.  But in certain situations of food allergies, this is the common practice in the troop.  I have had boys bring their own chunky peanut butter because they didn't like the creamy kind.  Sometimes they bring their own choice of jelly too.  We don't make a big deal about it and the GrubMaster stows it away with all the rest of the patrol food, too.

 

In BSA Scoutin' we teach boys to cook and eat as patrols, eh?  Right there in da First Class requirements, includin' sayin' grace together and cleanin' up together.   If a lad has participated in Scoutin', by the time he's gettin' to be older he's internalized those expectations, eh?  He's come to enjoy cookin' and eatin' together.  He's also learned not to cook broccoli because Billy hates it, or maybe to offer two side dishes instead of one.

 

Or the GrubMaster, using the principles of good servant leadership, by taking care of his boys puts together meals that everyone can and would want to eat.  Even though BSA does not recognize GrubMaster as a POR, it definitely is in my troop.  During meal time, the PL does not lead, he eats and follows just like all the rest.  With exception of a few moments for the Chaplain's Aid meal time grace, the GrubMaster "runs the show".

 

Regardless, he'd never cut Billy out of da group by tellin' him to bring his own food.  The boys have learned that bein' a good friend to Billy is more important than eatin' what they want and when they want it.  Along da way Billy has likely also broadened his palate a bit by tryin' to be a good group member.

 

Is making one boy miserable by "broadening his palate" how your PL's and GM's take care of the boys?  Not in my troop.  Servant leadership requires those who follow to feel welcomed and cared for.  Your analogy does not presuppose that.

 

What's important is that there ain't any mythical hoverin' adults here, eh?  There's just kids who have adopted da values we want to teach.

 

These boys are TAUGHT.  Now it's time for them to apply what they have learned and be trusted in doing it wisely.  How long of a lesson does it take to get the words out.  "Take care of your boys."  "Help other people at all times."  "What can I do to help?"  That's 2 minutes during NSP orientation.  After that I trust my boys to follow through with their leadership.  ALL the boys lead, not just those with patches.

 

Similarly, I can't think of an older lad in any troops I know who wouldn't be annoyed by a group of scouts who refused to help da group unless they got to do what they want when they wanted it.   I reckon we've all seen QMs get gear together for trips they weren't goin' on, eh?  I literally can't imagine a scout QM sayin' "I didn't want to do this trip and I'm not goin', so I'm not goin' to help gettin' the gear ready!  Change your vote or else!".  In fact, we've got one local crew where da two top fundraisers for this summer's high adventure trip aren't goin' on the trip, eh?  They just want to support their friends and teammates. 

 

If one is the TROOP QM he takes care of the troop.  If he's a PATROL leader he takes care of his patrol.  This is why TROOP QM's are not part of a patrol.  Their loyalty and responsibility is to the whole troop.

 

That's what scouts do on their own when they've internalized da values we want to teach, eh?   No adult required, and still lots of room for innovation and new ways of doin' things within what they view as da Scout Law.

 

I may be out to lunch, but what I'm seein' in @@Stosh's writin' is his boys respondin' to his version of hoverin' adult behavior.  

 

Yep, my mantra of "Take care of your boys!" and "Help other people at all times." and then trusting them to do so, is my own version of hovering adult behavior.  Guilty as charged. 

 

From @@Stosh's perspective, older lads hangin' around with younger ones or helpin' 'em out is holding the older boys back, they shouldn't have to do that.  Not if the boys choose to patrol up with the boys they wish to hang with. "Taking care of your boys" is a good thing, but only the boys they have chosen. It's called the patrol method.  In fact, they can choose other boys at any time, eh?   Yep, they take on TG, or CA, or DC, or QM or any one of the other POR's to do that if they so choose.  Even if boys chose to be part of a group, they can opt out of da group whenever, eh?  My boys do it all the time when they take on troop POR's.  I fail to see your point.

 

In my experience, that way of thinkin' doesn't come naturally to boys, eh?  It takes an adult hoverin' and settin' that kind of attitude and way of thinkin' as the norm. 

 

Nope, the lessons in growing up are pretty simple, quit being a selfish kid and start taking care of others.  It stats with the NSP orientation, then moves on to Tenderfoot Buddy System where one is expected to take care of someone besides oneself, then goes into learning how to feed them, now to help them when they're hurt, etc. It's called the FC requirements.  Then they move on to POR's of putting these things into practice, then they get their REAL Eagle where they dedicate themselves to all that they learned about servant leadership, i.e. helping other people at all times.  Any missed step along the way means they did it all just for themselves, managed their way through mandating duty rosters and got the privilege of putting (Paper) Eagle on their college application and job applications.  It was all for themselves.  At that point, one knows they have failed as a SM because that person never grew up and probably won't until his second or third marrige and 4th child support payment..... if even then.

 

Beavah

[Krampus]

The rule at some camps that only adults or camp staff carry prescription meds has a couple of problems.  1) When meds are needed in seconds, adult or staff may be minutes away.  2) It's against federal law for anyone other than the patient to possess prescription meds prescribed to that patient.  Parents get a pass under an unwritten exception because it has to work that way for young children.  We are not parents or in loco parentis, unlike the schools.  

 

BSA forms giving camp staff or adults the supposed right to possess prescription meds are void  - dead on arrival.  Parents cannot change federal law.

 

Even more reason to have the Scout carry the medication.

[TAHAWK]

I have often heard it said that Scouters stand "in loco parentis" to Scouts attending Scouting events. When I have asked why that is said, I am told "because we are like the Scout's parents," an argument that assumes its own conclusion. Are we like the Scout's parents? Do we assume the role of a natural parent, including the obligations of support for and rearing and education of the child to the age of majority? 

 

In State v. Noggle (1993) , the Ohio Supreme Court held in its syllabus: "1. The phrase person in loco parentis in R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) applies to a person who has assumed the dominant parental role and is relied upon by the child for support . . . The term in loco parentis means charged, factitiously, with a parents rights, duties, and responsibilities. Blacks law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 787. A person in loco parentis has assumed the same duties as a guardian or custodian, only not through a legal proceeding. A person in loco parentis was grouped with guardians and custodians in the statute because they all have similar responsibilities. The phrase person in loco parentis in R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) applies to a person who has assumed the dominant parental role and is relied upon by the child for support. This statutory provision was not designed for teachers, coaches, scout leaders, or any other persons who might temporarily have some disciplinary control over a child. Simply put, the statute applies to the people the child goes home to."

 

The Ohio decision was followed by the federal Court of Appeals in cases that did not rely on Ohio law: Powledge v. U.S., 193 F.2d 438, 441 n.5 (5th Cir. 1951) (analogizing persons in loco parentis to natural parents) and U.S. v. Floyd, 81 F.3d 1517, 1524 (10th Cir. 1996).

 

In the Dale v BSA case, the New Jersey appellate court held as a matter of New Jersey law: "Boy Scouts does not assume those responsibilities or those duties [in loco parentis]. It does not maintain or rear children. A Boy Scout leader may function as a supervisor of children for limited periods of time; he does not have "the responsibility to maintain, rear and educate" children such that he stands in the place of a parent."

 

The reversal of Dale by the U.S.S.C. did not touch on the New Jersey holding on the doctrine of in loco parentis.

 

IF a Scouter were, in fact and in law, in loco parentis to a Scout, there would be no LEGAL need for permission slips of permission to obtain medical care.  Try that argument on the local hospital.

 

As always, I welcome information to expand my understanding.  Feel free.

 

 

As for advising people to violate felony laws becasue the prosecutor may not want to prosecute, I avoided that course when it was professionally unethical and I avoid it now.

Edited May 27, 2016 by TAHAWK

[Beavah]

 

That's a conclusion jumped to that was never stated by me.  But in certain situations of food allergies, this is the common practice in the troop.  I have had boys bring their own chunky peanut butter because they didn't like the creamy kind.  Sometimes they bring their own choice of jelly too.  We don't make a big deal about it and the GrubMaster stows it away with all the rest of the patrol food, too.

...

 

Or the GrubMaster, using the principles of good servant leadership, by taking care of his boys puts together meals that everyone can and would want to eat. 

 

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

So which is it, mate?   Is da GrubMaster puttin' together meals that everyone can and would want to eat, or are kids with allergies and food preferences forced to bring their own food?   Yeh do see that da two are contradictory, right?    It just makes it very hard for us old furry critters out here in da pond to understand what you're sayin'.

 

 

 

Is making one boy miserable by "broadening his palate" how your PL's and GM's take care of the boys?  Not in my troop.  Servant leadership requires those who follow to feel welcomed and cared for.  Your analogy does not presuppose that.

 

Yah, not sure where yeh got that the lad was miserable or that whoever was plannin' meals wasn't accommodatin' the fact that Billy hated broccoli.   There are lots of foods, though, that a boy has never tried or ain't sure about.   As long as he doesn't bring his own food that mom packed every trip, a lad in Boy Scoutin' is goin' to be exposed to some new flavors, eh?  Includin' charcoal-flavored.

 

I remember a young lad with British parents, who entered Boy Scoutin' with only a taste for British cookin' (the poor lad ).   Even da most bland spaghetti sauce was too spicy for him.   By a year or two in, he'd learned to even eat pizza.

 

Bein' a good group member doesn't just apply to da leaders, eh?  It applies to everyone.  That includes learnin' rules of courtesy like not criticizin' the cook or tryin' things yeh wouldn't try at home.   Sometimes da group flexes to meet your needs, and sometimes you have to flex to meet da group's needs.  All for one and one for all, eh?

 

 

 

These boys are TAUGHT.  Now it's time for them to apply what they have learned and be trusted in doing it wisely.  How long of a lesson does it take to get the words out.  "Take care of your boys."  "Help other people at all times."  "What can I do to help?"  That's 2 minutes during NSP orientation.  After that I trust my boys to follow through with their leadership.  ALL the boys lead, not just those with patches.

 

Yah, except in Scoutin' we use EDGE -Y, eh?  At least more or less.   We don't go from Explain to You Got This!.  Whether it's an older boy instructin' or an adult teachin', we should do a lot more demonstratin' than we do explainin', and a lot more Guiding than we do demonstratin', and a lot more Enablin' (with support through reflection and mentorin') than we do Guiding.   Only then have they learned, eh?  Then at that point yeh can trust 'em and say "You got this!"

 

We don't just say "take care of your boys" for 2 minutes and walk away, eh?  Because that wouldn't be takin' care of our boys.

 

 

If one is the TROOP QM he takes care of the troop.  If he's a PATROL leader he takes care of his patrol.  This is why TROOP QM's are not part of a patrol.  Their loyalty and responsibility is to the whole troop.

 

...

 

Yep, my mantra of "Take care of your boys!" and "Help other people at all times." and then trusting them to do so, is my own version of hovering adult behavior.  Guilty as charged. 

 

 

Yah, yeh do realize that sayin' a fellow only has a duty to his own patrol contradicts "help other people at all times", right?  

 

I think you're teachin' about power more than you're teachin' about service, mate.  Da patrol QM in the end is forced to support da patrol because they can remove him, and yeh encourage that sort of thing.   But if there's no power relationship like that in your unit, then there's no duty, eh?   The patrol QM can tell da troop QM who is lookin' for help to go blow, right?   Just like da PL for the older boys can tell all da younger boys to go blow, right?   "We won't come, we won't help, we won't fundraise..."

 

That's not helpin' other people at all times in my book, eh?  That's helpin' other people only if yeh get somethin' for it, or get what yeh want.   I can't see why we'd celebrate that in Scoutin', eh?   The lads, left to themselves, would call peers like that "a@@hats".   

 

So what yeh seem to be describin' to me from afar is a troop culture that embraces selfishness, eh?  Yeh help out only when yeh get somethin', whether it's POR credit or your own trip or your own food.  Yeh help out "your" boys, but your boys are only the lads you like or want to hang out with.  Da other ones can go do their own thing, don't care about them.   If yeh don't like a boy he can even be voted off da island, like the young lad who quit your program this year.  He was never goin' to be a good scout, and he had leadership conflicts with his patrol, right?   Don't need him.  Not my problem.  I trust the boys, at least da two who are left.

 

Are yeh sure yeh aren't runnin' a paper Eagle unit of your own, mate?   Because from what yeh seem to be describin' there's a lot of highfallutin' talk about service, but when yeh describe some actual events they don't seem to walk the talk.

 

Just somethin' to think about, eh?   I'm probably 90% out to lunch, or at least I hope I am.  Feedback's a gift, though, so take it for what it's worth.

 

Beavah

[David CO]

School does a pretty good job preparing boys to eat together as a patrol.  After eating the federally mandated swill served in the cafeteria, camp food doesn't seem half bad.

[Stosh]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

So which is it, mate?   Is da GrubMaster puttin' together meals that everyone can and would want to eat, or are kids with allergies and food preferences forced to bring their own food?   Yeh do see that da two are contradictory, right?    It just makes it very hard for us old furry critters out here in da pond to understand what you're sayin'.

 

Let's just say instead of stirring the pond or pot or whatever it is that is being done here, The GrubMaster takes care of his people.  That does not imply the boys need to fend for themselves.  When I said, "meals that everyone can and would want to eat," the part where it says "CAN" implies that it has been allergy evaluated.  There is no either/or in the statement. 

 

Yah, not sure where yeh got that the lad was miserable or that whoever was plannin' meals wasn't accommodatin' the fact that Billy hated broccoli.   There are lots of foods, though, that a boy has never tried or ain't sure about.   As long as he doesn't bring his own food that mom packed every trip, a lad in Boy Scoutin' is goin' to be exposed to some new flavors, eh?  Includin' charcoal-flavored.

 

If the GrubMaster is taking care of his boys and he knows Billy doesn't eat broccoli, why would he want to put it on the meal menu?  It is very difficult to follow the logic when it always brings in new information that wasn't there and it's generally phrased as negative.

 

I remember a young lad with British parents, who entered Boy Scoutin' with only a taste for British cookin' (the poor lad ).   Even da most bland spaghetti sauce was too spicy for him.   By a year or two in, he'd learned to even eat pizza.

 

And if the boy is a Vegan, in a year or two you'd have him dining on bacon cheeseburgers along with the rest of the boys?

 

Bein' a good group member doesn't just apply to da leaders, eh?  It applies to everyone.  That includes learnin' rules of courtesy like not criticizin' the cook or tryin' things yeh wouldn't try at home.   Sometimes da group flexes to meet your needs, and sometimes you have to flex to meet da group's needs.  All for one and one for all, eh?

 

This isn't home, it's scouts.  The boys decide for themselves what they want to eat.  The adults may step in on a health/safety concern if all the boys are eating are pop-tarts and hotdogs.

 

Yah, except in Scoutin' we use EDGE -Y, eh?  At least more or less.   We don't go from Explain to You Got This!.  Whether it's an older boy instructin' or an adult teachin', we should do a lot more demonstratin' than we do explainin', and a lot more Guiding than we do demonstratin', and a lot more Enablin' (with support through reflection and mentorin') than we do Guiding.   Only then have they learned, eh?  Then at that point yeh can trust 'em and say "You got this!"

 

I was teaching EDGE long before it was the new BSA catch phrase.

 

We don't just say "take care of your boys" for 2 minutes and walk away, eh?  Because that wouldn't be takin' care of our boys.

 

Isn't that the process for S->FC instructional training?  Once and done?

 

Yah, yeh do realize that sayin' a fellow only has a duty to his own patrol contradicts "help other people at all times", right?  

 

He has a loyalty to his patrol first, that's the patrol method.  Who knows, the person needing help might need 8 people.

 

I think you're teachin' about power more than you're teachin' about service, mate. 

 

It is obvious that a statement like this indicates one has not studied Servant Leadership. 

 

Da patrol QM in the end is forced to support da patrol because they can remove him, and yeh encourage that sort of thing.  

 

The patrol QM's can remove him and will do so if he isn't doing the equipment support work they need for their patrol.  Yes, all non-functioning POR's can be replaced at any time in my troop.

 

But if there's no power relationship like that in your unit, then there's no duty, eh?  

 

If one has no intention of doing the work, don't sign on indicating you will.  After all a Scout is Trustworthy. 

 

The patrol QM can tell da troop QM who is lookin' for help to go blow, right?   

 

And why would they do that?    They might under certain circumstances say, "I don't need any help at this time, thanks anyway."

 

Just like da PL for the older boys can tell all da younger boys to go blow, right?  

 

Yep, just like every scouter on this forum tells the Salvation Army to go blow and they won't be down there to help serve supper to the poor every night.  And by the way, didn't the three patrols tell the venture patrol to go blow?

 

"We won't come, we won't help, we won't fundraise..." 

 

If it's not "your thing" then yes, that's the way life works.  They don't want that activity, it's not what they wanted for an activity,  the boys don't need help raising funds for their patrols as a matter of fact they won't make any more money for their patrol than if the older boys stuck around raising money for their patrol.

 

That's not helpin' other people at all times in my book, eh?  That's helpin' other people only if yeh get somethin' for it, or get what yeh want.   I can't see why we'd celebrate that in Scoutin', eh?   The lads, left to themselves, would call peers like that "a@@hats". 

 

Yep, it's called espirit-de-corps or teamwork and the team doesn't consist of the whole world.  It sound to me like under such comments one could think that the patrol method is not being practice and that the troop method of everyone falling into lockstep with the troop is the most important part of scouting.  Sorry, but BSA literature doesn't back that position, but one can always run their troop the way they see fit.  I prefer the patrol method.

 

So what yeh seem to be describin' to me from afar is a troop culture that embraces selfishness, eh? 

 

Nice try, turning servant leadership into selfishness.  That's the attitude that'll get one pegged as a paper eagle.  And where does one come up with such a conclusion?

 

Yeh help out only when yeh get somethin',

 

And what exactly were the older boys getting?  Again, one has to stick to the scenario and not be making things up as one goes along.

 

whether it's POR credit or your own trip or your own food.  Yeh help out "your" boys, but your boys are only the lads you like or want to hang out with.

 

yet another false conclusion of generality that is being dragged out of thin air.

 

  Da other ones can go do their own thing, don't care about them.

 

Are you talking about the TROOP VOTE boys?  And therefore 3/4th of the boys voted against 1/4 because they too, don't care about the older boys.  Under those circumstances sounds like someone's problem is 3 times bigger than mine.

 

  If yeh don't like a boy he can even be voted off da island, like the young lad who quit your program this year. 

 

Quitting and getting voted out or kicked out by an adult are nothing more than illogical distractions to this discussion.   The three are all different situations none of which apply to this discussion.

 

He was never goin' to be a good scout, and he had leadership conflicts with his patrol, right?  

 

According to you, yes.  But you're only guessing at this point.

 

Don't need him. 

 

That was not the vote, they just put in a different PL. 

 

Not my problem. 

 

That's what the boy decided.  His beef was with his patrol, not me.

 

I trust the boys, at least da two who are left.

 

Yep, I do, they're great scouts.

 

Are yeh sure yeh aren't runnin' a paper Eagle unit of your own, mate?  

 

And with 2 boys at TF after one year, I'm right on course for them all paper eagling at age 14. 

 

Because from what yeh seem to be describin' there's a lot of highfallutin' talk about service, but when yeh describe some actual events they don't seem to walk the talk.

 

Since January with my Webelos boys our troop has amassed well over 40 hours of service projects (4)   I think they have done alright.

 

Just somethin' to think about, eh?   I'm probably 90% out to lunch, or at least I hope I am.  Feedback's a gift, though, so take it for what it's worth.

 

Beavah