Jump to content

The Patrol Method

Lessons and questions of Scout leadership and operating troop program

817 topics in this forum

    • 46 replies
    • 4769 views
    • 9 replies
    • 324 views
    • 36 replies
    • 2177 views
    • 11 replies
    • 1091 views
    • 15 replies
    • 960 views
    • 28 replies
    • 1322 views
    • 2 replies
    • 380 views
  1. Building a Stronger Patrol

    • 11 replies
    • 617 views
  2. Mealtime Question

    • 4 replies
    • 436 views
  3. Patrol Method Started!

    • 1 reply
    • 471 views
    • 12 replies
    • 861 views
    • 9 replies
    • 570 views
    • 64 replies
    • 3625 views
    • 23 replies
    • 1452 views
    • 22 replies
    • 1408 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • The primary motivation for a merger is going to be financial:  cut costs by combining programs and services then eliminating excess positions and duplicate programs.  It just seems unrealistic to think that, where councils merge because of money problems, the merged council would decide to spend more money on district executives.  Even where there is general agreement that more unit service is needed, in a financially-based merger the response is likely to be, "Get more commissioners - they're free!"
    • The only qualification I've seen for service stars is the word "involved."   
    • I'm dropping the top-down/bottom-up language, which distracts and adds nothing to our discussions.   Mergers and combinations rarely, if ever, bubble-up from district Scouters -- and certainly not unit Scouters.  Merger suggestions originate from area/region/national volunteers and are dealt-with (often resisted) by council Scouters.  The best results happen when active Scouters who see the big picture and have our Scouts best interest uppermost are active in those discussions.  The information and informed views shared these past four weeks is precisely what is needed during those discussions. This will be happening.  
    • The top-down comes in after the bottom-up council restructuring. National or Regions lack the overall picture of council performance that units experience. How many times have units said if only they could be in another council?  Another $0.01,
    • Oh no, I'm sure all the information was available to my leaders - my local leaders were just incredibly dense. As in, pitifully so. I don't know if I've ever gone into much depth about my own experiences as a young Scout, but they were mostly negative ones, mostly due to the utter negligence and ignorance of my local Scout leaders. But that was a community problem, not a church-wide issue. The Church itself would never have adopted the Venturing program if it hadn't understood its program entirely. And in places like Utah and Idaho, as I've mentioned, with incredibly large LDS populations, the Venturing program was actually very strong in many areas, and enjoyed high levels of success. But my own local leaders barely understood the Cub Scout program, let alone more advanced operations like Varsity and Venturing, so that's why my Venturing 'experience' was all but non-existent. But your comments are enlightening; I am pretty much unfamiliar with every aspect of Venturing, so it's helpful to know that it has its own flaws which may have contributed to the ambivalence of my leaders, if only in part.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×