Patrol leader possible to lose position due to patrol

[Stosh]

I posted on another thread a situation I had with a patrol this past weekend.

 

I had a patrol walk away and get a ride from a parent rather than wait until everyone else was ready to leave.

 

The PL put up two of his members to come to me with lame-brained excuses to having to leave immediately which I acknowledged. This was taken back to the PL and told him I said it was okay for all to leave.

 

Not only did this put me (SM) into a difficult position, I did not know where this patrol had gone off to. I assumed they went home, but it took me the rest of the day of making phone calls to be sure everyone made it home safely.

 

Needless to say the PL (Eagle candidate, needs SM Conference, Scout Spirit, and EBOR to finish out his Eagle) is no longer the PL and his Eagle SM Conference won't happen any time soon, but a SM Conference will be held on whether or not his career in Scouting is finished. I discussed this with his dad (ASM) who is in complete agreement with me on this. This is the same boy that has indicated he wants to finish up his Eagle so he can quit and his attitude the past year and a half have reflected it.

 

Depending on the foreknowledge of the PL it may in fact fall on the PL to be removed. In this case, yes, in the swimming incident where the PL's patrol sabotaged him, no.

 

Stosh

[The Blancmange]

This scenario begs the question, if the PL is removed, who will replace him? One of the scouts who was involved in the original incident? What does that teach them - if you want a POR, all you have to do is sabotage the person currently in the position?

 

As was pointed out - all of the adults on the trip were apparently aware of what the PL was doing and did not take issue with it. Certainly seems illogical to take such a harsh step.

[boomerscout]

Do Scoutmasters age faster than their peers? Having 10 sons all at once! Yow!

Something I need to ask--what is the rank of all these Scouts?

[Stosh]

Patrol members:

 

PL: Life Scout 16 years old

APL: FC 12 years old, (Told me he had to go home to feed his aunt's cat)

3: FC 12 years old, (told me he had to go home to acolyte at church)

4: FC 12 year old, (brother to PL, kept quiet but went along with everyone else)

 

The fifth member of the patrol (FC 12 year old) was not present. He has been offered the position of PL of that patrol, the first year scouts or the new Webelos cross-overs that will be coming in early next month. He has a week to think about it, but either he takes over the patrol and straightens it out or he can get out of the patrol and make something of himself.

 

I was one of two adults on the trip. The other was a parent of a boy in the other patrol (younger boys). The boys waited until I had gone off to the kybo to make their move and leave camp. The other adult wasn't watching that patrol as carefully as he was the younger boys, which I would have assumed he would.

 

The PL in question never discussed anything with me that morning. I had suggested he leave the tents up as long as possible to give them a chance to dry out before packing away. He didn't do this, he packed them away wet. I assumed he would have the boys take them home and dry them out later.

 

I have found out since that the parent that picked them up was unaware of what was going on and took the boys home assuming everything was above board. He picked them up a quarter of a mile away at the camp entrance rather than at our campsite or the camp parking lot which was 75 yards from our site. The parent couldn't come right away and the boys had to wait 45 minutes to get a ride. The other patrol left 15-20 minutes later after searching the camp for the other patrol.

 

As far as the other boys in the patrol are concerned. APL is no longer the APL, the Instructor is no longer the instructor. None of the boys hold a POR as of Monday when NONE of them showed up for the troop meeting. The 5th boy showed up and I discussed his future with him as to what he might want to concider for leadership in the troop.

 

As far as adults knowing what was going on. I knew the boys were antsy to leave having skipped eating breakfast and packing up wet gear, but I never expected them to actually sneak off. I later found out where the cell phone came from that they placed the call with. My ASM had given it to the PL to use because he wasn't feeling very well and if he felt worse he was to call home. I didn't know they had placed a call to another parent for a ride. Cell phones are not allowed on outings. Both the other adult and I carried one and would have made the calls if they were necessary.

 

I had a parent come out on Saturday and pick up her boy who was also not feeling very well. The other parent made the call for him to his mother.

 

None of these boys are off any "hooks" until after an extensive SM conference on the incident.

 

Like boxing, keep your guard up and even though the #1 Scout Law is Trustworthy, don't assume it for a single second.

 

Stosh

[sst3rd]

I lost a Patrol once at a Camporee. We eventually found them. All good. But after 33 years as a Scoutmaster, I've never had Scouts walk away from a camping trip before. Be fair. Be firm. As I know you will.

 

I resigned as SM this past February. I didn't want to deal with the parents anymore. When their boys mess up big time, their parents backed them up, and not our/their program. I couldn't believe it, and how ungrateful the parents and Scouts had become. Done with it.

 

sst3rd

[Twocubdad]

I've never heard that the PL shouldn't be on the duty roster and I'm not sure I would agree with it. I don't think that "supervision" is an equitable trade-off for helping with the routine chores of the patrol. I'm quite sure the Scouts wouldn't think so.

 

The patrol leader is not the nanny. Removing him for something the rest of the patrol did apart from him is out of line.

[Buffalo Skipper]

I agree that the PL should be a part of the duty roster, but it has become the culture in our troop (maybe this should be on the "what arbitrary rules do you enforce" thread) that PLs do not cook. This is because for some time (before I became SM) patrols were complaining that they never were allowed to cook because it was only the PL who did it. No that we intend to make that a permanent rule, but one to facilitate the "spread the wealth" syndrome.

[Lisabob]

There are a couple of, shall we say, challenging boys in my son's troop. If the PL got removed for every time one of these fellows got caught screwing around, nobody would be left to be PL. Also it would allow kids who aren't happy about the group's selection of PL to undermine the PL big time.

Kicking out the PL for something that others in his patrol did (assuming he wasn't the ring leader) rewards the trouble maker who harbors a grudge against the PL. Really not a fair solution and can send the wrong message to kids, in my eyes.

 

jblake's situation is different, but for the original poster, I hope someone talked the SM down a bit before he went and did something rash.

 

 

[boomerscout]

"I've never heard that the PL shouldn't be on the duty roster"

I grabbed the nearest book--which happened to be Fieldbook, 2nd edition. Page 126: "You buddy up on the jobs and leave the Patrol Leader free of regular assignment so he can give a hand where needed; it's his job to see that everything gets done."

In a boy-led troop, the duties of the PL are to lead his patrol. This includes making sure all assigned & necessary tasks are getting done--many not on any duty roster. If he's out gathering firewood, then he's not around to be leading & supervising. PL can lend a hand, but it needs to be on tasks that can be interrupted if something occurs that needs problem-solving & decision making. Obviously, if you leave the cooking to look for your patrol, you lose the meal.

The PL wanted to cook the meal--which was fine, but it was then the duty of the APL to take over PL duties for this time period. If the PL gets reamed, then the APL needs to also.

[Scoutfish]

WOW! First off, let me say - this is exactly why I joined this site: To learn this kind of stuff.

My son is only a Bear Cub so far, so there isn't a worry of "PL" stuff yet. I , being a second year dad, have just applied to be an adult leader. I'm planning on being a ADL first, so I can get a few years under my belt first.

 

Now, not being in any sort of experienced , or qualified position about PL, I just have to ask:

 

Let's suppose it is absolutely the sole responcibilty of the PL when it comes to rest of the patrol; one scout (with or without a buddy) is fetching wood. Maybe 100 to 200 yards to the east.

Another scout ( again, with or without buddy) is fetching water 200 yards to the west. Why is he getting water? Maybe to put ot a fire or wash plates and stuff.

A 3rd and 4th scout are prepping a site for the camp fire....maybe 15 yards to the north.

If the Pl is trhe absolute responcible person, which set of scouts should he watch?

My point being that you can obnly look one way at a time with your eyes. It's not entirely possible to watch everybody at one time. Even with the APL, you can't watch everybody.

 

Now, I see this as a great "Let's chalk that one up to experience" learning opportunity!

Sure, I'd dole out some punishment to patrol, but nothing harsh. Maybe they need to wash and dry tents for 3 or 4 weekends in a row as a troop event.

Then explain the importance of what each position meens and why it needs to be respected and taken seriously.

My last and final thought: Even though I'm currently 38 years old, I still remember doing thing when I was younger. I never set out to do something with the motive of being bad. 99% of the time, it was just failure to totally think ahead and understand the outcome of my actions. That is to say...I just didn't think it through be fore I acted it out!

(This message has been edited by scoutfish)