Eagle74

For those wondering how this was done on a "campout", I forgot to mention that the training weekend was held at the local council scout camp. Boys tent-camped, patrol-cooked, etc. Training was conducted in a nearby large open-sided shelter with electric for the computer, multimedia projector, etc.

Here are some suggestions from my "value added" JLT weekend campout. The weekend was open to anyone in the troop, since they are all potential leaders if not already holding leadership positions. Yes, we did use the BSA material (games need to change from year to year). As mentioned above though, this gets old by the third or fourth time around.

Friday Night at the Movies (snacks provided by the troop) - The group watched "Remember the Titans". Good movie with leadership, teamwork, and diversity themes. Boys told not to watch the movie just for fun, but to notice and analyze leadership/teamwork situations. These were discussed on Saturday.

Saturday JLT - started at 8:30 ran till 5:30 and nobody was bored (regular short breaks are critical). Used the BSA JLT curriculum, corny video and all. Enhanced the program with short video clips from "Karate Kid", "First Knight", "Hoosiers" (excellant leadership analysis movie), "Patton" and a couple (carefully edited) from "Glory". Each short clip was followed by a short five to ten minute discussion of observations - what style of leadership was shown, was it effective, pros, cons. Further enhanced with expansion into situational leadership at the end. The base curriculum outline was done in Powerpoint.

Saturday Night at the Movies - (snacks provided by the troop) watched "Cool Running", movie about Jamaican bobsled team. A purposely light movie to end the day, but still with leadership/teamwork themes.

The boys were taught and discussed some advanced leadership/teamwork concepts such as situational leadership, managers vs leaders, formal vs informal leaders, etc. They were genuinely receptive and interested, and showed a remarkable level of understanding - especially compared to some adult audiences to whom I have taught or facilitated leadership training.

First; Guide to Safe Scouting:

Prescriptions

"The taking of prescription medication is the responsibility of the individual taking the medication and/or that individual's parent or guardian. A Scout leader, after obtaining all the necessary information, can agree to accept the responsibility of making sure a Scout takes the necessary medication at the appropriate time, but BSA policy does not mandate nor necessarily encourage the Scout leader to do so. Also, if your state laws are more limiting, they must be followed."

That said, there is something that I neglected to mention in my last post. We also have parents provide a note with the name of the medication, the time(s) the medication is to be taken, the dosage to be taken, and the name of the prescribing physician with phone number. This is noted for each medication to be taken.

The boy takes his own medication as instructed by parent/physician, witnessed by an adult leader. We note the date/time and initial it. (If the boy carries an inhaler with him for instance, and uses it on his own, he is supposed to let us know used so that we can note this on the sheet) This simply provides a record for the parent upon our return, that the meds were taken by the boy and taken as instructed.

Parents are clearly instructed that it is the boy's responsibility to follow his medication regimen; not ours. We are, for lack of a better term, simply "witnesses". I see it as part of the learning responsibility aspect of scouting. My experience is that when they know it is their responsibility, most handle it better than Mom or Dad think they can.

And yes, if the boy is subject to adverse medical conditions, especially those with a rapid onset, the leader needs to know - it should have been noted on his medical form to begin with. Question for parent: "Do you and your son realize that if your son forgets his medication and goes unconscious twelve miles into a twenty-five mile hike because of it, there's not much of anything I can do for him?"

With tongue in cheek . . . one produced by an Eagle mill or one produced by an operation with quality control? A Yugo or a Mercedes?

Policies/Rules are set and usually specific. They are a do this / don't do that specification. What some fail to realize is that even policies and procedures are subject to interpretation. Where there is no explanation or spirit of the law guidance, interpretation is up to the individual or group until such time as a higher authority provides definitive guidance. This is how the system of courts operates - at some point or other there arises a question of interpretation of the law, decided by the courts. Where does one go to find official BSA interpretation or guidance?

Policies from the very beginning are subject to "is the glass half full, or half empty" interpretation. Which mode of operation do you use - if the rules specifically say don't do this and don't do that, it's OK to do anything else - or - if the rules specifically say do this and do that, it's not OK do do anything else. This is where a vast majority of the discussion and interpretive effort lies within this forum. Yes, sometimes we just simply don't know the rules and are in violation. BW certainly sets us straight in these situations. My concern lies in the cases where the rules are not specific to the situation; where does one go to find the intent or spirit of the BSA rules? For questions of law one can search a law library for case law and court decisions, for building codes/fire codes there are appendices or texts with formal interpretations, etc.

Procedures are specific instructions as to how something is to be done. Procedures are, by nature, usually less open to interpretation, but nevertheless open to what happens in the gaps between the steps of a procedure. Again, we fall back to interpretation.

Standards are an expected level of attainment. While standards are not "law" unless specified to be such by inclusion or reference, they can carry the weight of law. Where does one go to find BSA standards?

Guidelines or SOGs (standard operating guidelines) are just that - guidelines. The guidelines provide us with a loose interior boundary flexible enough to permit adjustment to circumstances within the confines of the outer fixed policy boundary. If one "shall" or "must" or "shall not", it's no longer a guideline, it's a policy.

The "Guide to Safe Scouting" provides all of the above. It's labeled a "guide", but also contains policy/procedure. Hazing for instance ' . . . has no place in the in the Scouting program and may result in the revocation of a Scout's membership in the unit . . .' Questions: What is "hazing"? Where do I go for guidance? Who makes that interpretation? What established procedure/standard/guideline is there for revoking a Scout's membership in the unit?

My point being that Mike F (if I read correctly) and I are sometimes at a loss as to where to turn, especially in situations of the spirit of the law. If only the world operated in black and white and did not include all of the shades of gray in between we would be able to pull a book and recite passages. Unfortunately, things are rarely black or white.

I like the path you're going down OGE, and I agree. Although I don't totally disagree with a peer review concept (for lack of a better term at the moment) I'm looking at a way to slowly back away from it as currently done in our troop without ruffling too many feathers. It's been a part of the troop advancement process since well before I came on board.

You're correct in saying that a program rich in scouting skills content eliminates the need to use a review in most cases. Ours is not quite there yet, but is doing OK. I have been able to steer the boy board system away from a "grilling" to a process of interactive review with positive reinforcement of accomplishments and teaching where skills are lacking, instead of "you don't know it - come back when you do." To me, a scout that is lacking in skill(s) that have been signed off usually points to a failure on the instruction side of the equation.

I can see the value of a peer review or simply a review within the week-to-week program established by the PLC - "OK, everyone show me how to tie a tautline hitch". You're correct in saying that by the time the boy is signed off on all the skills for a rank and ready to advance, is not the best time to see if he really knows the skills.

You're right BW - I saw it coming down the barrel as I typed.

Try this on for size: Forget the term "Boy Board". The Scout is instructed/trained/taught the skills by other seasoned scouts. He must still demonstrate that he can know/perform the skill. Rather than one person performing the evaluation with potential for bias, there are three observers. Three observers serve to provide an unbiased opinion of whether or not the scout has obtained proficiency in the skills. Three observers also make the evaluation process more consistent than a single different observer for different scouts.

Does it fit so far?

In agreement that the BOR should not be a skills retesting session. The BOR should be looking more toward the big picture including the scout's role in the organization, whether or not the scout is living up to the ideals of scouting, whether or not the scout lives the oath and law - not just scouting during activities, whether he having a satisfying scouting experience, whether there any issues/problems and what solutions does he suggest, and so on. All boys appearing before the BOR are expected to recite the oath, law, motto, and slogan and be prepared to explain how they are living those ideals. This is done at every BOR, at every rank, so it's no surprise - every boy knows coming into the BOR that this will happen.

In our troop we use a "Boy Board" during Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class advancement. This is not something that is BSA official, but falls under the umbrella of "making sure the work has been learned." The Boy Board consists of the ASPL, Troop Guide or Troop Instructor, and another "senior" scout, with an ASM sitting in as an observer. The ASM's job is to assure that the Boy Board does not become a grilling session. The point is to identify any skills weaknesses and help the scout attain a satisfactory skill level. The Boy Board reviews the rank requirements with the scout, asking him to tie some of the knots, demonstrate first aid procedures, asking questions, etc. If the scout can't demonstrate a skill(s), the Boy Board members show the correct way, review the correct answers and then "test" the boy again the following week on only those items where skills were lacking.

The nice thing about this is that the boys seem to experience better retention of skills over the first few years. It also allows us to identify deficiencies in the skills instruction process - maybe the instructor did not instruct in a clear and concise manner, or maybe even is teaching an improper method. If that's the case, we can improve the learning process.

Using the Boy Board concept, the Scoutmaster's conference and Troop BOR can concentrate on the spirit of scouting and personal development aspects.

Who really knows

Who doesn't

What makes it work

What would make it work better

When to listen

When to speak

Where have I been

Where am I going

Why is it wrong

Why is it right

How to follow

How to lead

Thanks yaworski, your example is right on.

When I was still a Scout, and old salt (a real "salt" from a longtime New England sailing ship / fishing family) explained to me that the reef knot and the square knot were not originally the same knot. He showed me the difference and gave me a small knot manual that shows them as different knots; a manual I still have.("Mastering the Art of Knots and Splices", New Bedford Cordage Company, Copyright 1936) At one time, I found a few other old riggers manuals that showed them as two different knots, but can't find them now.

According to him and the manual:

The square knot, also sometimes known as the sailor's knot, is the knot shown in the scout book.

The reef knot is used extensively for "reefing" sails. It's virtue lies in the fact that it can be untied very quickly. It looks like a square knot, but instead of one of the ends going through, a bight goes through (similar to the bight that goes through the loop of a slip knot). The loose end on this bight can be jerked and the knot becomes untied. Kinda hard to explain in text.

The bowline's purpose lies in a fixed loop in a hawser that can be dropped from the bow over an object such as a dock bollard to secure the ship. It is a very versatile knot however, that has many other uses.

Now I'm certainly not an old sailor type - been a landlubber from Ohio my entire life - so this is just sharing knowledge passed to me by someone else, similar to an old custom passed from family member to family member. One of those experiences gained through scouting that makes it all worthwhile.

In our troop medications are handed over to the Scoutmaster or Asst. for safekeeping. The parents are instructed that the boy is to know and follow his medication regimen; time, number of pills, etc. If we are not told, we ask for a rundown of the proper times for medication; in the morning, with dinner, etc. just so we can remind them when needed.

The reason for a leader keeping the meds is for safekeeping only. The boy and leader(s) know where they are so there's less chance of losing them, getting wet, getting mixed up, etc. The boy is responsible for taking his meds as instructed by his parents and physician. Another reason is that meds can be stolen, sold, etc. (I know, Scouts shouldn't be involved in this kind of activity, but let's be real, and it may not be another Scout that's after the meds) Ritalin is just one that is frequently sold in schools and on the streets.

One of the posts mentions Epi pens - if you haven't already, you need to check up on the law for your area. Same thing for over-the-counter meds of various types. In most locales, administration of any medication by someone other than a parent, licensed medical practicioner, or someone acting under a licensed practicioner - especially anything other than topical - is a no-no. If you're looking for a place to start, your local law enforcement drug unit can help out. A physician or pharmacist is also usually a good source of info - ask for the legal side, not his opinion of whether or not he thinks it would be OK from a standpoint of risk.

The water survival requirements (clothing flotation) were not originally part of the 1st Class swimming requirements; they were part of the Swimming Merit Badge. For us "old guys" that requirement was added "recently." In fact, by 1972, swimming in any form was not required for 1st Class and the Swimming Merit Badge was no longer specifically required. (Boy Scout Handbook 1965, 1972, 1979. Requirement Book 1969, 1972. BW will be proud.) I don't have time at the moment to go through all the books to present for a complete history.

So yaworski, we're not really dumbing-down the requirements by much if viewed from a historical perspective.

I tend to agree with not having the clothing flotation as a part of the 1st Class requirements, rather I think they should be part of the Swimming Merit Badge. I think the requirment should show skill as a capable swimmer and being able to maintain a resting float. But then again, I think that Swimming Merit Badge should still be an Eagle required badge.

Wonderfully insightful. I'm still chewing on it.

Within a team (patrol) concept of operation, every member of the team is a cog in the wheel without whom the team does not function at its greatest capabilities. We recently had a discussion resulting from a JLT about formally establishing patrol scribes, quartermasters, etc. - something not done in the past with our troop, but something done with a troop I was a member of as a Scout.

No, every Scout does not have a position. Yes, we do merge patrols on a fairly regular basis for outings, but not for meetings. Yes, I see how this can undermine patrol functions. For instance, at times there will be two patrol leaders in the same merged "patrol." While not experiencing any open conflict or hostility, certainly one of the two must feel slighted.

Your post brought this project back to my front burner.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973. (Not so new anymore, is it!) Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition, Unabridged, 1975.

It is not 74th Eagle, it's Eagle(class of)74.

For the sake of returning to discussion on the original topic, can we agree to put this to bed and move on?

Lippoeowl, you're right on the line with additional information wanted by the hospitals. Even with that info, don't be surprised or upset when they want to call the parents first. This is when it pays off to know how to reach the parents or who else to call that will know how to reach them.

A "permission" or "information" slip works to cover this. It should state where you will be - I'm sometimes amazed at how little some parents know about where their son will be - and how you can be reached (even if it's as basic as call the ranger's office at xxx-xxx-xxxx so he can find us) so the parents can attempt to reach you in an emergency. The bottom portion is for them to fill out with emergency contact info in case you need to reach them. With an abundance of cell phones nowadays, this has become somewhat easier.

If I remember correctly, the Girl Scouts do this for every outing. Or at least the GS leaders that I know do it. The combination of medical form and emergency contact info greatly enhances the boy's chances for prompt and seamless treatment.

Agreed. They earned it, it belongs to them. Who knows, they may have a change of heart and return, or maybe start up again with a different troop.

Meanwhile back at the ranch . . .

Our committee works pretty much as Bob White suggests. It is more of a discussion with a concensus process than a formal voting procedure. Seems to work for us. At times the Committee Chair asks for a show of hands or a "nay" or "yea", but more as a formality for major decisions such as a large expenditure, approval of the PLC annual plan and so forth. The actual vote count is not recorded in the minutes of the meeting, simply "the committee approved xxx". The counted "votes" usually are those of registered committee members and leaders. As I said though, it's not usually that formal; discussion and concensus is the norm.

As for whether or not I, as an Asst. Scoutmaster, vote or not; I do not. If a formal opinion or "vote" is needed, I defer to the Scoutmaster's decision. His input should be what counts to the committee. I feel it's my job to support him and his program. If I have a difference of opinion, that's for the two of us to discuss among ourselves or among the leaders.

Zorn

OK, so I used an obscure definition of proscribed - controlled, restricted, imposing restraint or restriction. The intent was not "prescribed" as this would have indicated a positive connotation of following a set, agreed, approved curriculum, but allowing for interpretation. The intent was that of a negative connotation of a curriculum that would allow no leeway if done strictly according to B.S.A. methodology.

OK, so I could have used a better word or phrase. Sorry.

Now that that's cleared up; other than nit-picking grammar, syntax, and phrasing, what is your contribution to this thread? Or forum, for that matter? I have searched, but found none.

I have found the discussion here to be thoughtful and insightful, although at times opinionated to one extreme or the other. That's the nature of lively discourse. BW's last post was excellent.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I would like to hear from others how they handle decisions at the committee level.

Proscribed - prohibited, forbidden, but also - controlled, restricted.

I assume you would have preferred:

Prescribed - set, agreed, arranged, approved

But what you prefer was not what I wanted to convey.

Thanks BW. As Laura mentions, you bring a wealth of knowledge and information to the forum and it is appreciated.

You remind me somewhat of a building code official that I deal with regularly, who seems to be able spit out the chapter, section, paragraph, and exact wording of everything in the building code. This kind of knowledge is very valuable to those of us who don't know the "letter of the law" for many things. It provides us with a checks and balances system that keeps us within the proscribed boundaries.

It's those gray areas, those "spirit/intent of the law" items, that require a balanced approach on everyone's part. And this is often where the best we can sometimes do is agree to disagree and move forward. It is in these situations that we either lead or look to leaders. It is for these situations that we need to develop leaders (Scouts - our future). It doesn't take a leader to follow rules, leaders take us down the right path in those areas between the rules. BW, this is where we need you to help us. You know the rules, share with us what works when the situation isn't black or white.

A snippet from my JLT presentation that helps me balance the rules and the gray areas:

Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing.

Managers are referees; Leaders are coaches and cheerleaders.

Managers focus on what to do; Leaders focus on how to do it.

Managers focus on what to say; Leaders focus on how to say it.

Managers are responsible; Leaders are responsive.

Managers are quantitative; Leaders are qualitative.

Managers manage from the manor; Leaders lead from the trenches.

Managers look for things done wrong; Leaders look for things done right.

Managers initiate programs; Leaders initiate ongoing processes.

Managers develop programs; Leaders develop people.

Managers are driven by rules and limitations; Leaders are driven by goals and vision.

Managers are concerned with maintaining life; Leaders have a passion for life.

Managers are concerned with efficiency; Leaders are concerned with effectiveness.

Are these a part of the proscribed JLT program? No, but it's a value-added reflection/discussion that supports and I hope makes the program more fulfilling within the boundaries set by BSA.

Managers care for the body of an organization; Leaders care for the spirit; Good Leaders Do Both!

Ok, I think I've got a handle on this now (after reading three pages worth of posts).

Nowhere is it required that the committee votes. Nowhere is it prohibited for the committee to vote.

Committee members are assigned tasks / responsibilities and report back to the committee. Some tasks / responsibilities are broad - investigate, come back with a recommendation; while others are specific - call and make reservations report back on the time we will be going and the cost per person.

Some things need to be discussed among the committee (options presented; decision to be made that best serves all involved), while others do not (the naturalist will present the program the PLC desires at 1:00 on Saturday the 13th).

The committee may need to come to a "consensus" on some decisions. This requires "discussion". (Discussions without decisions are conversations or chit-chat)

Some "votes" are formal (can we see a show of hands - not required, but not forbidden) some are informal (OK we all think that sounds good - we see heads nodding in the affirmative).

So where's the problem? Am I missing something?

Operating any organization requires rules, policies, and procedures, but I have yet to see any organization where the rules, policies, and procedures are all-encompassing or cover every detail of operations. Two organizations with the exact same rules, policies and procedures will not operate in exactly the same manner. It is within those gray areas that organizations adapt to their circumstances, developing an operation that best fits the needs of its members, albeit under the umbrella of the established rules, policies and procedures. And that operation is in a state of flux, adjusting constantly to best practices for the organization while maintaining the boundaries set by the rules, policies and procedures.

Not knowing your familiarity with compass work, I'll start from the beginning.

Azimuth - Measurement in degrees from a north baseline. This could be magnetic north, true north or grid north. Your north baseline is 0 degrees with 360 degrees full circle clockwise. Azimuths are commonly used in the military.

Let's say you're standing at point A and want to get to point B. Using magnetic north as the north baseline, 0 degrees on the compass ring should be set at the north end of the needle. The azimuth to point B (direction of travel) is the clockwise deviation in degrees from north. Let's say that point B is in line with 45 degrees. The azimuth is 45 degrees, so if we travel from point A in a direction 45 clockwise degrees from north we will arrive at point B.

Back-azimuth - 180 degrees from the azimuth.

If you want to return to point A, you need to travel in a direction 180 degrees from the azimuth you traveled at to arrive at point B. 45 degrees plus 180 degrees is 225 degrees. The back-azimuth for your return trip (degrees clockwise from north) is 225 degrees.

Simply stated, back-azimuth is 180 degrees (straight opposite) "back" off the azimuth.

With 360 degrees total in a circle:

If the azimuth is equal to or less than 180 degrees, add 180 degrees to calculate the back-azimuth;

If the azimuth is more than 180 degrees, subtract 180 degrees to calculate the back-azimuth. (245 plus 180 would equal 425 degrees and there is no such point on a compass. 245 minus 180 is 65; a valid compass direction and exactly opposite 245)

Why use azimuth and back-azimuth? When describing a direction of travel using an azimuth, there is less confusion. There is for instance, only one 25 degree azimuth. If I am giving directions using quadrants however, there are potentially four 25 degree directions; north 25 degrees east, south 25 degrees east, south 25 degrees west, and north 25 degrees west.

Using a back-azimuth simply eliminates having to "hold the compass backwards" for a return direction.

A lengthy explanation, but I hope it helps. If you draw it out and then use a compass for a trial run you'll find it's not as complex as it sounds.

Please check with emergency response and management organizations before "just showing up." As an emergency services professional, I can tell you that very often "volunteers" descending upon a disaster site from every direction become just another problem for us to deal with. On the local level we often employ the assistance offered by local/regional groups, mostly as behind the scenes workers - runners, supply distribution, meal servers, or handing out water bottles type activity as mentioned above - especially when we already know their capabilities. We do tell them all to contact us first. Managing unfamiliar volunteers is difficult and another task for us to accomplish during an already difficult time.

I would urge you to ask for guidance, ask for authorization to respond and coordinate disaster assistance activities with one of the organizations charged with coordinating this type of response (Red Cross, FEMA, Local Emergency Management Agency, local government, etc.) For the Hurricane Lili event, fire departments have already been urged not to just show up (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/dhtml/media/02-lili.cfm) as this causes as many problems as it solves.

I'm not saying don't offer your assistance. We appreciate the help when needed and well coordinated. And your chances of being asked to help, being accepted to help, or at times being able to weasel yourself into the arena is very much enhanced if you let us know beforehand what your capabilities are. Being involved in scouting, I know what a well-oiled scout troop can do for me - scouts with basic assistance/survival skills, an established organizational structure, proper supervision, and so forth. Now add regualarly practiced skills and an emergency response activation plan, and I have a valuable resource. But I need to know this beforehand; I need to be familiar with what you are capable of. (There are some troops that I would not count on or be at all comfortable with on a disaster site).

Bottom line is do some planning, be involved before the disaster happens, have a designated contact, and follow instructions. The result will be a good experience and valuable to both sides of the equation.

OK, I confess Loki, I don't like to sing. I'll do all the motions (with enthusiasm), and mouth the words (when I can figure them out), but I don't sing. Yes, when I was a Scout I sang (if you can call it that).

There are many things that I do that others cannot,will not, or do not; singing is not one of them. I have no problem with public speaking in front of large groups, I have no problem with being in front of a TV camera, I have no problem reading to kids in an animated fashion, I involve myself in (sometimes silly) skits, I have been Santa Claus, I have even whistled an entire tune in front of a group, etc. I don't sing.

What bothers me most is the in-your-face, let's see if we can embarass him into singing so everyone can hear, commotion that happens oh so frequently. Not just to me, but to some poor kid. This may have been what turned me off to the singing thing in the first place. I watched some poor kid put in the spotlight because he wasn't singing. He was singing very quietly and doing the motions, but it wasn't good enough. He was thoroughly embarassed and I was embarassed for him. To me it was tantamount to "hazing."

Sing if you will; enjoy it! I derive great pleasure from hearing you sing. But please don't force me to sing.