Eagledad

It is old school because it came from the traditional scouting days where first class marked the scout as having the skills to camp in the woods safely without assistance. Senior Scouts Leaders should certainly have those skills. At the time I was SM, patrols could camp without adults, so we encourage first class for PLs for the same reason. But a trusted level of maturity isn't the prevailing perception of a the first class rank today. Barry

You are pretty much describing our troop. Most of our scouts' ECOHs are very near their 18th birthday. What's interesting about the phases your scout speaks about is that we can see the phase by how he dresses. At first it's full uniform with a little embarrassment. Then the scouts kind of wears the uniform. Then about 15 he always wears full uniform with pride. Stages of life. We did create a tradition that when National acknowledges our scout is officially an Eagle, the SPL gives the scout an Eagle Patch to wear until his ECOR. Barry

It sounds like you are next in line. The previous scoutmaster and I were close and a lot of times the only difference between us in are actions with the scouts was the titles on our shoulder patch. I learned quickly after getting becoming the SM that the title carried a heavy weight of responsibility that I never felt as an ASM. Careful what you wish for. That being said, it was a wonderful experience. Barry

Trust comes at the price of time and integrity. Sometimes a new scout wanted to be the patrol leader his first year and struggled because his patrol wouldn't elect him. I encouraged him by explaining that he needed to "earn" the trust of his patrol by making good decisions over time. Good decisions can mean supporting the present leadership and working hard for the patrol. Most Scoutmasters got that responsibility through hard work supporting the previous Scoutmaster. Barry

SMs don't need to duck and weave with the guidelines if they use the program to develop character and leadership development when the scout joins the program. The problems usually rise when rank and stature become priority over character and leadership development. We used to have a member of this forum a long time ago who said ove rand over that 90 percent of the discussions on this forum are a result of adults not using the BSA program. There are plenty of literature and training courses to guide adults, and when the literature and training have gray areas, there are plenty of resources in the district and council to resolve questions. As I have watched the discussions over the years, I have to agree that adult leaders create 90 percent of their problems because they don't learn and use the BSA program. And I also agree with the others that when the adults aren't running the BSA program, they have an adult run program. If the SM did nothing else except guide the scouts to use the PL and SPL Handbook to run their program, they would not have this discussion. That is why I asked all Scoutmasters at Scoutmaster Specifics Courses to use those books instead of the SM Handbook. Barry

Yes, but the "shoot first ask questions later" approach is a dangerous way of running a troop and can set the scouts up for disappointment. Asking the District Advancement chairman and District Commissioner clears these things up quickly. I've called them many times looking for help on advancement with handicapped scouts. They always gave us an easy solution in writing. Barry

Yes, and I can see the value of counselor critique, but from my experience with the one signature white card, I have no desire to add the second formal check. It's simply a bureaucratic step of forcing units to follow a process. We are supposed to encourage independence, yet we keep checking on them. This is one check that from my experience isn't required. Barry

Our council uses the white cards that don't require a 2nd SM signature. I have never understood the purpose of 2nd SM signature. The counselors signature is the important one. Barry

Wow! This is the kind of stuff we come to get on this forum. Barry

True story: The PLC approached me and said they were making jeans the official uniform pants. I did my usual questioning to guide them and ask them what their Handbook said about the official uniform. Well we kind of went round and around with my questions and their answers not quite hitting the mark. I never told them what they had to do or should do, I just asked the questions that guided them to the right and wrong of their proposals. Kind of a weird debate really. They though about this for awhile came up with plans of how to get away for the BSA official pant. They approached me and made a proposal to use the OD BDUs that they could get for $21 at the surplus store. The color was spot on with the BSA pants, which made them hard to see a difference at a distance. However, the BDUs had the advantage of double fabric in the same the seat and knees like tactical pants, huge cargo pockets, and they were adjustable 4 sizes. That meant a new scout could grow into his pants for at least three years. They looked nice but were perfect for outdoor activities Anyway, since the hang up was the word "Official", the PLC said they would propose their reasoning for switching to BDUs to the Council and ask that the BDUs be accepted as "official" at scouting events. I thought that was a great idea and a great practice of proposing change through an official channels as apposed to defiance. I did not think the council would agree. Low-and-Behold the council did agree and our troops new official uniform pants where the OD BDUs. The scouts liked the BDUs so much that many of them wore the pants to school. There was a shorts version of the BDUs that became common in our troop as well. Our troop used the BDUs for about 10 years until the BSA came out with the zip-offs. I still have a couple of pair of those BDUs in my closet next to my official BSA pants. LOL Barry

Yes. However, I learned to make sure the scouts agree that the additional positions are needed because have to manage them. Barry

Leadership and management growth are up to the SM. It seems we need to say it a lot here lately, the personality of the troop program typically represents the personality of its SM. One personal opinion does not dictate the right or wrong of other troops. It's hard enough getting leaders to understand the goal of building character, much less confusing them more with personal theories of the details. The BSA has laid out what scouts must do to meet requirements. You said yourself that as an adult you would assign a scout to train a few scouts just to get his Eagle. I'm not sure the actions of teaching skills counts as real leadership or growth either, but even you are using the system within the BSA guidelines to get what you want. If a SM learns and uses the materials the BSA provides, at the very minimum a scout is likely to grow from the experience. That is what we all want. If A SM wants a scout to grow more specifically torward leadership skills (however you want to define it), the SM can guide the scout's experience more that direction. I certainly did. But first the SM just needs to know what the BSA is asking within the guidiences they provide. Then if thats not enough, the SM can guide their program to enhance the experience provided the actions of the experience are not out of bounds of the requirements. Very simple really, but SMs should know the minimums expected of them, especially if the want scouts to become Eagle. Barry

The District Commissioner and DE can help clear it up. Barry

The following leadership positions count toward Boy Scout advancement. For more information, see the Senior Patrol Leader Handbook (#32501) and Patrol Leader Handbook (#32502A). Scribe The scribe is the troop’s secretary. Though not a voting member, he attends meetings of the patrol leaders’ council and keeps a record of the discussions. He cooperates with the patrol scribes to record attendance and dues payments at troop meetings and to maintain troop advancement records. A member of the troop committee may assist him with his work.

I'm a little surprised by the ignorance here of POR requirements for Eagle. They have been spelled out for a long long time. There are many creative ways for small troops to use them without holding scouts back from advancement. At the same time the Scoutmaster has to figure out if the purpose of PORs is for growth of the scout's decision making skills, or growth of his stature. Barry

From the beginning of the scouting program, the foundation of existence has been to develop character. Over the years the founders have approached the objective of character in many ways, mission, vision, ethical and moral decision making, but in simply boils down to "character". If one where to poll the community of the one main objective of scouting, the one word would be "character". If the parents are polled to what they expect from the scouting program for their son, that one word would be character. And since the beginning of the program, the troop program was designed specificaly for guiding boys to practice habits of the desired character within the bound of the Oath and Law using the patrol method. The "Scoutmaster" has always been given the responsibility for a program intended to develop character. The requirements for the position of Scoutmaster have never, until this discussion, suggested that only the rare person could have the responsibility. It is believed by some of us here that it doesn't take the rare exceptional SM to build a program that gives boys the opportunity to enrich their character. They simply use the program provided and build around the patrol method. However,in the readings of founders of scouting, even they admitted the frustration of adults who ignored the primary of objective of building character and pushed a program different from the plan and drove a program that was shaped more for the SMs own personal desires. And generally those SM's will seek a team to help direct the scouts toward the vision of that particular SM, instead of the vision given by the founders. Even here on the day to day discussions, it is not hard to point out programs that woddle through because the adult leaders that not only don't understand the vision, some simply don't care. They discard what have been given to them and steer off in their own vision. Or many times no vision at all. In it's simplicity from the founders, character is the vision and the SM is responsible for the scouts working toward the vision. Of course the SM can and should build the team to drive toward the vision. But it is very rare that any other adult has the responsibility to manage the program toward the vision as the SM. When the program goes off track, it will always be the SM who is held responsible, not the team. It has been that way since the beginning of the scouting program. One only has to look back on struggling or failed troops in the district or even on this forum note that the SM gets all the blame and the credit, not the team. So lets not trivialize character as an archaic catch word that has little application in today's scouting program or the Scoutmaster who has been held responsible for the vision since the very beginning. When it comes down to the very basics of scouting, the SM and character are the heart and foundation of the patrol method. Barry

The troop quartermaster in our troop has the only working keys to the storage room and trailer. The CC has a backup set only to be used if the QM looses his set. Nobody goes into the troop storage or trailer without going through the quartermaster. He also helps the driver hook up the trailer to the car and verifies everything is in working order. It's a lot of responsibility and they take it very seriously. If one of the adventure crews needs the trailer and the QM, is not part of the crew, he selects a member of the crew to be responsible for the trailer. Usually that scout considers being selected an honor. The troop QM also trains the patrol QMs. They are responsible for the storage, cleanliness and transportation of the patrol gear. From my perspective as a SM, the major skills I wanted the QMs to practice is training and organization. The troop and patrol QMs are in charge and direct the loading and unloading of gear. Even the SPL and PLs take a backseat to their authority with the handling of gear. Barry

Yes; Cheer master, grub master, scribe, quartermaster, APL, PL. We do this specifically to teach leadership, managing, and organizational skills. A new scout typically starts with cheer master or grub master because the skills for those PORs aren't overly demanding for their maturity. The main objectives are for scouts to practice organizing of their specific responsibilities for each meeting, communicating with the PL and members of the patrol, and initiating and directing suggestions and ideas for the patrol. The expectations of each POR is a little more challenging so that by the time they are running for PL, they have a set of practiced skills to start with. Same goes with the senior PORs; the troop scribe, quartermaster and ASPL, each have unique skills for preparation of SPL. Oh, I forgot: only the PL and SPL are elected positions. Barry

Kinkos does binding. We had our Wood Badge Course books bound by them. I have my motorcycle and car maintenance manuals bound there as well. Barry

In general troops stablize to a size the SM can manage. It doesn't matter how many bodies are thrown at it or the style of patrols, troops don't perform well when the program grows out of reach of the vision leader. Barry

Statistically that doesn't work out. The majority of troops that split because they are growing too big generally end up joining back together. Troops generally grow big because the adults have a good design. But it is rare for those adults to split into the 2nd troop, and the result one troop keeps growing while the other struggles to survive. Typically the two troops merge back together in just a few years. This happens a lot with packs also. Unlimited growth is risky and can cause high losses of scouts. The best way to limit troop size is controlled growth or limits on incoming scouts. I know some here think that is a bad idea, but limits force families to consider other troops that are also satisfactory for their son. As appose to Fast growing troops that tend to have higher loss of 1st year scouts because the program suffers with the changes caused by the large influx. I know of one mega troop that is excited to only loose 50% of their first year scouts. Fast growing troops are a complex problem. Splitting more often than not doesn't work well and uncontrolled growth can hurt the new scouts numbers a lot. Limits are tricky too because it risk a reputation of pretentious program for selecting specific families. In reality it is just trying to survive. I won't even suggest giving time the hypocrisy of some folks who preach small troops for best boy run then preach against controlled growth. They need to walk in the shoes of these district and unit leaders. You have to look at these things in the bigger picture. Barry

I'm not the OP, so I'm still confused why you are responding to my post. But it's good to know you have experience with major gaffs. Barry

Sorry, I didn't see the 2nd part of the question. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm honored and proud to introduce Eagle Candidate First-Last Name." I shake his hand and sit down. Not very eloquent I guess, but a big deal for me. Barry

I'm not sure what you are talking about, I was responding to the OPs question of introduction. Barry

It's not a proof of maturity, it's a gesture of respect. It has been a tradition in our District since their first Eagle. I'm humbled by the gesture and considerate an honor. Barry