fred johnson

Wonderful post and as scouting should be.

Well said ... and I like the phrase ... "bitter old goats" ...

IMHO, long policies are reactionary and rarely needed. Worse yet troop unique policies are ... - not read because it's just too much - not remembered because people come and go - not enforced because when you are dealing with an issue ... you're dealing with the issue - not consistent across troops or with other policies - not balanced because now you have some long policies and other topics are ignored IMHO, focus on coaching and less on creating the perfect set of rules. Also, forms are rarely needed. We have two. A parent permission form (always used). The ot

Yeah, it's the strong attitudes like these that push my opinion to be flexible within the limits of BSA published guidance and then teach leadership by having the scouts do fun things. Leaders, scouts and situations turn over so much that all methods need to adjust to handle the current mix.

I'm really confused. Though I often differ from your posts, your post seems out in left field. How do you not have an SPL? Who directs your patrol leaders? The only time you don't need an SPL is when you have one patrol. i.e. that patrol leader is effectively also the SPL. We've had times where we've had four or five patrols at camp. Who tells the patrol leaders to get their groups organized? Who works out with the patrol leaders who cleans which area? Who assigns service and program to the patrols? I'm assuming it's not an adult. I'm not as militant as most, but my ru

FYI ... I don't think it's lazyness or training. Some of that yes, but I see two other big factors. #1 Non-critical positions. #2 Structured to fail. ============================== NON-CRITICAL #1 - Without most of the positions, the troop runs fine. The only absolutely critical position is the senior patrol leader who needs to get all the scouts marching in the same direction. Without a scout as SPL, almost nothing would happen in our troop. But historian? Quartermaster? Scribe? ASPL? Troops easily adjust to missing positions to the point almost no one notices the per

If you can get your book easy to find and easy to buy, I'm sure parents google'ing the topic will buy it. But, I must admit as a unit leader I would strongly avoid my scouting units from having any involvement in the book. The scout starts the BSA Boy Scout Handbook, period. He needs to open it and page through it. That BSA handbook has rank advancement pages that we initial and date as requirements are complete. Those are enough guide for him. I would NOT want to present a ten or eleven year old with yet another document to try to consume. As for parents, we want them to o

Start Saturday 1pm. Friday night closing campfire. Saturday morning pack and leave.

​Just to confirm .... by "AS A TEAM" ... you mean that your swap out who have a set of ASMs who support the SM by doing SMCs. ... BUT ... they are still a one-on-one experience (with youth protection still addressed). Just wondering if you meant as multiple people in the SMC because SMC is meant to be a simple conversation. -------------- SMC topics ... I know it's not supposed to be formal conversation, but the first scoutmaster I worked with had a plan to his approach that I still like. It was still a simple conversation that occur anywhere and whenever the scout want

I don't have time for a detailed response. I agree troops need to focus on a good program. But with so many troops competing for so many fewer cubs, it just compounds a badly designed unneeded transition. If I had time, I could respond in detail yet again. but I don't. Troop shopping is a bad idea. Switch when you want or need. But troop shopping is a bad BSA concept.

jblake47 ... I didn't meant to hijack the thread away from scouts not wanting to recruit. Probably best for another branch ... and it has already been discussed into painful detail. Agreed that big premiere troops are not always best. And yours is the standard defense given for troop shopping. I just don't buy it. Troops competing against each other is destructive for everyone. Heck, just the simple fact that leaders that join other units often subvert their own CO's efforts later is just not healthy. CO wants an healthy running troop, but the CO's own leaders end up recruiting / marketing for

Everyone's points are good. But it also makes me cringe because it's another broken part of BSA's program ... having charter orgs re-recruit the same kids yet again and compete against each other for scouts. Why wouldn't it be in a scout's interest to go to the "premiere big troop" in the area? More opportunities. Better support. Obviously a better program because they are bigger and look better ... right? Why should parents ever stay with a struggling troop. It is not in the scout. Scouts should go to the best troop they can find and let the other troops die quickly so that new tr

Hmmmm.... Sad to hear. I've was hoping it was better handled than that. I know councils often push units to solve their own problems. I was thinking this was more though as it's a significant Guide to Safe Scouting violation. In any event, the scoutmaster needs to move on from his role as scoutmaster.

A few comments ... #1 Avoid where two core leaders of a unit are husband and wife. It is just asking for trouble. Even if everything goes well, you have problems such as them having long discussions and making decisions without any of the other leaders involved. On the other end, you have situations like this where you effectively lose the leader or the leader's effectiveness because she is his wife. #2 Call the scout exec or the district exec. Let them be the bad guy. They can probably keep you anonymous and just say there have been reports of the scoutmaster drinking in

Qwazse is right. dfscott ... Call your scout exec. NOW. THIS MOMENT. And yes, time to move away from this forum. The question you need to answer for yourself is "mandatory reporting". Page one of Guide to Safe Scouting. Do you have a good faith suspicion of abuse? Or are these guys just willing to destroy everything to win. In either case, this is beyond you to resolve. You need to pass it up the chain. My question would be do you need to call local authorities too. Abuse does happen. Take it seriously. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf I wish

Dfscott ... at this point ... asking the father to switch troops is not unreasonable. But use it to reflect. CalicoPenn and ScoutNut have excellent points. Trailer access ... you do need to support scouts having the resources to do the job. QUESTION - Could you have made the trailer more available ... AND ... do you think he would have done anything with it? SPL asking to remove a scout ... I've never seen an SPL ask for a scout to be removed. It is interesting. I've rarely seen a scout leader want to remove a scout from a position. It does make me wonder what is g

Been using SOAR ... reasonable cost and a nice set of features. http://www.mypack.us/ Best part is you don't need to invest a lot of time to have a really good site, mailing list, e-blast, roster, etc etc. Easily worth the $99 per year.

One final comment. You can "chain" positions of responsibility and time in position counts. It does seem reasonable though to explain with the next position of responsibility that he needs to demonstrate doing something with the position. Communicate and set expectations EARLY and BEFORE he starts in the next position.

You will get a million answers all over the board on this. -------------------------------------- Do what you think is best, guided by the Guide To Advancement (Section 4.2.3.4) and a soft heart. ..... Guide to Advancement ..... Section 4.2.3.4 Position of Responsibility ..... http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf -------------------------------------- You do need to trust your SPL. Otherwise, you will be subverting his role and he won't take it seriously. -------------------------------------- Offering scribe? "Officially", scribe is SPL appoin

​Two years ??? These situations need to be dealt with early and quick. An oppositional, defiant scout or even a scout who doesn't want to follow the program can poison a troop. Gives the troop a bad name. Ruins experiences. Drives away existing scouts. Hurts future recruitment. We as scouters have kind hearts and we want to work with the scouts. So these situations drag on and on. Until we are all too worn out to handle it anymore. IMHO, we need to handle these early in the scouting experience. The pattern was probably seen in the first few meetings or first camp out. Right a

Age isn't the issue. It's confidence, drive and ability. No strict requirements. Just by coincidence, our JASMs have been Eagle scouts looking to do something for the troop. Usually, they have been 16 or 17, but that was not a requirement.

Christineka ... I'm a rules person too ... in that, it is very important to know the rules so that you can better understand purpose, expectations and flexibility. I very much try to support the scout at every opportunity and let the rules and requirements be the bad guy. I agree that the MB "process" is as important as the "MB". But even I confess to prompting my own sons to hand in their blue cards or ask for one or to make progress.

I agree with everyone so far with a slight twist. Agreement part ... Bad form, but permissible. IMHO, the trouble is linking advancement and service. We do service because we are scouts and because it is the right thing to do. As such, if a scout wants to use Ordeal for advancement, it is none of my business and I really don't care for his specific advancement. Like OA and servic with a smile, I really hope that every time a scout discusses service he's performed, I greet it with a smile and a nice comment like that's a great thing to do or that made a difference. I'd hope I'd