fred8033

I replied earlier in the other thread about measuring it straight by if the scout met the eagle requirements. If he did, sign off. I also have another perspective. If the scout is turning 18 in a few months, he's been in the program for 7+ years. Probably cub scouts before it. Scouting represents probably over half his life. BUT ... most of his friends have probably moved on. A few might be left. The majority of his scouting experience was from when he was 10/11 years old thru probably 14/15 years old. It's a pretty common pattern. Scouts begin to discover girls, start working at scout camps or "real" jobs and just exploring other aspects of life. Though we want the scout as involved currently as we are involved currently, take another perspective. This kid is still coming back. He still values scouting. Even with everything else in life, this kid still values something about scouting. I think that's great. If the scout completed the Eagle requirements, I'd be proud to sign his eagle application. The simple fact is that a 10/11 year old boy is going to be wide eye open, nervous but also excited about scouting. A 17 year old boy has been-there, done-that. He's looking at many other things happening or about to happen in his life. Don't penalize him for it. Celebrate that he keeps coming back and give him a positive experience to end his short-term scouting career. Heck, this kid will probably re-engage scouting with his kids later in life.

Eagledad wrote: "Do you have any mentally retarded scouts in your troop that want to earn BSA Life Guard before earning the swimming MB?" Actually, we have three such scouts out of our troop of 35 to 40 scouts. One of them earned his swimming merit badge this summer. I am so impressed with that young man. As far as Swimming or Lifesaving MB first? It's the same decision as for any scout. It's a non-issue. BSA did not make swimming MB a pre-requisite or a requirement for the Lifesaving MB. In fact, I've yet to see a true "pre-requisite" and the SM does not enforce individual MB requirements. The closest I've seen is the Emergency Preparedness requirement #1 "Earn the first class MB". But if the scout wants to do Emergency Preparedness, fine. I'd let him know about the requirement, but I'd still sign the card. He just can't finish it until he finishes First Aid.

I was trying to find clarification in Scouting Magazine. Often they clarify big issues like this. Well, I found something else REALLY INTERESTING. It's from an Ask Andy column. http://netcommissioner.com/askandy/2012/08/issue-323-august-1-2012/ The BSA Blue Card is going thru revisement. The scoutmaster signature line is changing. Current proposal is "I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. I look forward to that change but I hope they update the GTA to clean up the wording.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagledad - Beavah's points are well argued and he does use "parts" of the GTA, but it ignores the other parts of the GTA and the BSA published clarifications both in the Advancement News newsletters, the BSA video from the BSA annual conference and many other sources. - 7.0.0.2 quote ignores "any scout can work on any badge at any time" ... scouting choosing a MBC -> "That is acceptable" The wording on approving the scout's MBC choice is more about making sure the MBc is a real MBC. Less about controlling the scout's MB experience. - 7.0.2.2 is about privacy. We are not to broadcast all the BSA volunteers. But scouts can also find MBCs by word of mouth, MB fairs and event fliers. - 7.0.3.3 quote is about mis-treatment. It does not address if the scout loses the MB counselor because of the end of the event, time or other reasons. In my experience, if the scout finds another MBC, fine. Or he can ask the SM for another recommendation. It's about supporting the scout in his effort to complete the badge. ... The key BSA clarification is in the BSA March Advancement News newsletter. That newsletter and the video indicate that GTA is being fixed and cleaned up because of this very issue. BSA says in "The words approved and approval in BSA literature thus have a limited interpretation, based only on administrative qualifications and those related to being capable and able. As we move forward with literature revisions, we will look at different wording that is clearer." The SM signature is very very much more a chance to share personal time with the scout. It is really not an approve / disapprove situation. I'm sure there are cases that could be argued to disaprove allowing the scout to do the badge, though for the life of me I really can't identify one. Perhaps, a SM should deny a swimming merit badge to a scout who can't swim yet. I'm not sure I would do that though. The MBC has a requirement to see the scout passes the requirements and the swim test is one of those requirements. I guess if you can wait until December/January, you will then see what BSA has written in the supplemental notes and made available on the video will be merged into the revised GTA.

I'd measure eagle by the requiremens printed in the book. If the scout met them, I'd sign off on his eagle paperwork. As most of the scout's time was under the previous advancement guide (ACPP versus GTA), the "active" to be used for this scout did not include the reasonable expectations. The GTA came out in October 2011. Until then, it was just a registered and not dismissed from troop as the standard for "active". I'd also just look at it as the Eagle requirements define the level expected to earn Eagle. If you want more out of the scout, that's between you, the troop program and the scout. ... The big problem I have with the POR system is it's very difficult to manage to a strict sense. Suppose it's May and the scout gets "Historian" or another position. If the troop is mostly quiet during the summer except for a few events, then there are not many measurement points for the POR. For adult leaders to hold the scout accountable, you need to interact EARLY and if doesn't change, REMOVE THE SCOUT from the POR. But say it's May and the scout only needs four months of POR. Well, June, July, August & Sept. You probably only have three troop meetings to evaluate his POR. After that, he's earned it. Even during the normal part of the year, you really really need to stay on top of PORs otherwise the time goes very quick. The general rule is scouts credit for time served and if they were not doing their job, you should have corrected them, trained them or removed them.

Wow. My heart stopped for a bit. Beavah quoted the GTA. Wow! A first. Of course the section quoted is one of the worst written sections anywhere. BSA has made a mess of the documentation / processes / intent. BSA's intent and intended processes is debatable because of that messed up documentation. BSA does intend some level of "approval" but it's the most minimal level ever implied by BSA. So minimal you can essentially view it as not an approval, but more documentation of a conversation between the scout and the SM. Here's other parts of GTA section 7.0.0.2 that you quoted. " ... any registered Scout may work on any of them at any time, as long as he has the approval of his unit leader." ... "A unit leader should consider making more of the process than just providing an OK. The opportunity exists, then and there, to share in a young mans life. Preliminary merit badge discussions can lead to conversations about talents and interests, goal setting, and the concept of challenge by choice. The benefits can be much like those of a well-done Scoutmaster conference." (BSA "challenge by choice" encourages each person to participate fully while maintaining the right to 'opt-out' of any individual part of the program.) It's also interesting that nothing ever discusses what approval it means. The blue card signature line itself NEVER says approve or approval. It says " (scout name, address, city) is a registered (scout type, unit, district, counciL) and is qualified to begin working for merit badge noted on the reverse side." so the key "qualified" recommendation is mentioned already as it discusses "registered". There really isn't any other "qualifications." It is interesting that the BSA Advancement news further says the following on page 4 of the March newsletter. "The words approved and approval in BSA literature thus have a limited interpretation, based only on administrative qualifications and those related to being capable and able. As we move forward with literature revisions, we will look at different wording that is clearer." "Capable" and "able" is vague as I can't find any MB pre-requisites that are not really just MB requirements that the scout can work to resolve while working on the MB with the MBC. So in my mind, it's sort of a non-issue. What I find most interesting is that the current advancement news video says a 2013 GTA update is coming to fix wording such as this and can be expected with the start of 2013. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx At 22 minutes into this video, the video discusses the intent of the signature. It's interesting that the quote is "don't read too much into the signature". It's a conversation with the SM and a discussion of the MB process and the MBC process. THAT'S IT!(This message has been edited by fred8033)

raisinemright - Homeschoolers - We have many local homeschoolers. I know many that use the MB book as part of their homeschooling. The key is when they are NOT scouts. If they are NOT scouts, they should not have a signed bluecard. We've had it where homeschool buddies want to go to merit badge fairs. Sometimes it's okay. Sometimes it's not. But you can't earn a MB because your not a scout. Also some MB fairs or counselors also only want to counsel scouts. ... Eagledad - I'm pretty sure that is national's intention. The SM signature is to provide the opportunity to chat with the scout about advancement. Nothing more or less. The SM providing a name of a counselor is so that scouts are not left stranded wanting to do a badge but not having a resource. The recommended MBC is provided to support the scout, not to dictate who the MBC is. Watch this video: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx ... I think key is to remember that the MB program is a council administered program. Using the MB program is an individual scout driven activity. The MB program is NOT at the heart of the troop program. Sometimes the troop might coordinate with it as the MB program can supplement and enhances the troop program. But MB program is not a central part of the troop program.

youngmaster - Thank you for sharing. I hope we don't resurrect this thread. Perhaps, it's just best left that not everyone agrees with you. I hope if you were a leader in my troop, I'd be confident enough to intervene. But, that's my troop. I'm sure your a good leader. We just prefer two very different styles. And what's acceptable in your troop is not acceptable in our troop. In actuality, I have stepped in with outside scout leaders. I've seen some adults that threaten physical punishments with our scouts. It seemed more like asserting power then addressing any real issue. I just immediately tell our scout that we'll talk about it later and immediately say that we don't accept such punishments in our troop. I'd be very proud if one of my scouts stood up to such a leader and said NO. Same as telling any bully no. But that's our troop. I think leaders often confuse the Scout Oath "obedient" with submissive. Obedient means following the rules. In our troop, such punishments are taught as wrong and I'd be very proud if one of our scouts stood up to such a situation. ... I also think that Sentinel947 7/19/2012 point is important. If you have a scout that has an attitude problem or issue, push-ups is just going to drive a further wedge between you and the scout. Builds resentment. In the end, some leaders and units may use push-ups productively. I don't think that's what BSA teaches or allows, but that is my opinion and the opinion of our troop. I think it's also clear that is what BSA G2SS says. But there are obviously other adult leaders that disagree. ... tgrimstead - Love your story. Now everyone doing push-ups. Cool. I'm fine with that. I'm a big guy, but can still do 35+ pushups.

prof - You posted before I could. Recommend versus assign. Exactly. The requirement is that the scoutmaster recommend a MBC. From what I understand, this is part of the SM supporting the scout. In another words, if the scout wants to do a MBC, the SM supports the scout by helping identify a counselor. But if the scout already has one in mind, that's fine. He can use his own or the recommended. The key is that MBC are "approved" at the council level (or delegated to district level). MBCs are not unit approved. If a SM does not think a MBC is doing a good job, the SM should notify the council or district to get things change. The unit alone can't change the MBC list. ... This is consistent with the SM signature. The SM signing the blue card is to reflect a conversation happened with the scout. And that the scout is "qualified". But "qualified" pretty much means the scout is a registered Boy Scout in the troop. The scout is NOT a Webelos Scout. The boy is NOT a home schooler doing a home school assignment. As for MB requirements, leave those to the MBC. Perhaps the SM conversation might mention to the scout that a specific MB requires another MB or a rank or a specific skill as the 1st requirement. Fine, but that's no reason to not sign the card. Strictly speaking, the scoutmaster is not "approving" the scouting doing the MB. The scoutmaster is just documenting a conversation happened and the scout is a Boy Scout in their troop.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Nice work ... only comment is don't use the BOR to evaluate the POR. BORs should not be a surprise. If the scout is not performing, remove them from the position. Otherwise, it's pretty much credit for time served. I know others will argue. I can only reflect what BSA wrote. BSA also addresses this specific case in an video posted by their national advancement team. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx

Size is the obvious difference but I don't think the significant difference. Biggest difference I've noticed is variety. Most Cub Scout dens do outings, attend pack meetings and cub camp. Though quality varies greatly, activities are very similar. BUT ... Girl Scout troops vary greatly driven, I think, by the troop leader. Some might camp. Some might be more craft oriented. Some might be school work like. Others might be yet different again. Each troop is different.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 wrote: "With the exception of 2 public schools way out in the county and one private school, because of the busing situation the "neighborhood school" is no more. So it is not uincommon to have 2 or 3 packs at one school." For our whole council, it's almost exactly the opposite. I'd bet there is less then five or ten elementary schools that have multiple packs and our council has 550+ packs. That's got to be an interesting challenge. How do you choose which pack to join? I'd bet a good number of packs fold as one or the other packs gets favored. Only to be recreated later as the other pack grows too big.

dkurtenbach wrote: "For the relationship to continue to work, (nearly) everyone has to be on board, most especially the Webelos Den Leader and the parents of the Webelos Scouts -- every year. If any significant percentage of the 5th grade Webelos in any year go to a different troop, you've got trouble. Not just from the breaking of the "social contract" between pack and troop, but from the new relationships being formed between pack families and the other troop. If the boys who went to the other troop have brothers in the pack, the "partner" troop can really be screwed, and they have to start looking to partner with other packs in order to sustain their membership. Chartered Organization be damned. That's exactly what I'm seeing. And I see a push to do more with the other troop and less with ours. Now we need to invest for years to come to re-build the social contract. Luckily, our COR is willing to help and attend pack and troop committee meetings. The trouble is that both troops are good. Different styles, but good. But the other troop invests significantly more in recruitment. But we have the COR and can justifiably attend the pack meetings and influence the pack calendar. But we need to do it in a nice friendly way. It's just frustrating. We're all volunteers. We all work very hard. But hard feelings are being developed between groups. I must admit that even though I like everyone involved, I get frustrated with the individuals because of the situation.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

ScoutNut - You are correct. I'm talking about the pack, not individual scouts. How exactly does your Pack "support", and/or "promote", Troops OTHER than their CO's Troop? By the pack (not dens) scheduling multiple events with other troops. By accepting den chiefs from the another troop without any inquiries into whether we had any interested den chiefs. The other troop pushes den chiefs strongly as part of their recruitment plan. We've lost den chief opportunities because of that. Generally, I'll support any scout independent of the troop. It just gets frustrating when it's more about recruitment then the POR or the scout. Eagle92 - why? Out of loyalty to the charter org that has been providing you space, facilities and support for years. Parents and individual scouts are welcome to go anywhere. But the pack has a structural tie to the troop thru the charter agreement, thru the charter org and thru the charter org rep. The single COR is the top officer of both the pack and troop. If the relationship is not good, help fix it. If the troop is not good, bring it up with the COR. Promote change. Communicate. For your individual scout, go to the best opportunity. But the pack is married to the troop. Eagle92 wrote: "Why would Cub leaders promote a troop that doesn't want anything to do with them, have leaders who are condescending to them, and are not supportive of Cub Scout program, when the neighboring troop welcomes them, helps them whenever asked, and are supprotive of the cub scout program? " ... If the troop doesn't care, then take it up with the COR or charter org. If they don't care, then send your scouts to other troops. Benefit from them. But you still need to communicate with your own troop even if it's a one way communication. ********************************************************************* dkurtenbach wrote: Bottom line, I think it is a lot easier, cleaner, and safer for the pack to strongly encourage Webelos Scouts and families to do their research, shop around, and cross over to troops that appeal to them Fine. I don't know about "strongly", but encourage fine. ---------------- "I've heard lots of Scout leaders tout the "shop around" method, but have never seen it in BSA literature. It's essentially the Webelos requirement to have multiple troop visits interpretted as multiple troops. ---------------- "I think that also has the salutary effect of requiring a troop to improve or die, rather than a poor or average troop being artificially propped up by a regular infusion of new Scouts from a partner pack" I have trouble with this statement. It's a true statement but inconsistent with other things. If anything, there's always more stability and quality issues with dens and packs then troops. But you never see multiple packs actively recruiting the same school. So elementary schools are rutinely propping up poor packs. Many kids miss the opportunity to be scouts because of a poor pack. So why don't we have multiple packs recruiting from the same school as the norm. I can imagine the conversation ... "Hey, we only get eight Tigers scouts each year. Let's start recruiting from XXXX elementary too." ... "But pack 123 recruits from that school." ... "We have a right to put fliers in that school. There's no law. They'll just need to gear up their recruitment if they want the scouts." I guarantee that people will be alientated from each other if you had multiple packs recruiting from the same school ... ESPECIALLY if you put blame that they should have geared up their recruitment better. But it's okay for multiple troops from one pack. Hmmm.... The biggest protest I see is that troops don't do enough for recruitment and they don't have a right to a special relationship. It's the pot calling the kettle black. In the ten years I've seen recruitment, I've seen way way more invested for recruiting by troops than by packs. Packs ... They print fliers and have a join scouting night. That's about it for recruitment. Planning starts maybe a month in advance by printing fliers and getting them sent out. Maybe at best a 2nd flier inviting kids to the next pack meeting. Troops ... Most have multiple special events scheduled six months to a year in advance. They open up multiple meetings with special events for pack visitors. Most troops have special camp-outs just for Webelos and/or invite them to camp with them during a district camporee. Troops commonly jumped hoops to recruit Webelos. Only later to hear that they don't do enough for recruitment. The reality is it was more either a personality preference or a should-have-done-yet-more issue. But what if you did let the troop die? Often, the troop re-starts sooner then later. Does the pack now support that restarted troop or continue with a special relationships with another troop? Wouldn't you support your charter org by supporting it's troop? ... Ya know, there is no perfect troop. And I don't think parents and Webelos don't really know enough until after they've been in a troop for six months. Perhaps that's why I'm fond of the one-unit concept. Let people switch if they are not happy. Otherwise, promote a single scouting experience that does not include such large transitions as shopping for troops and crews.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Our city has more troops then packs. In addition, several troops have had their packs fail. So recruitment has really geared up. I've seen "smoozing" at roundtable that gets just creepy. There are two troops that have extremely geared up their recruiting to the point that I swear they teach their boys a script to say. I've heard it from multiple scouts at different ocasions. The part that get me is that they refer to our aligned pack as their feeder pack. Usually there's alternating recruitment from the pack. One year they go to us. Other to them. Back and forth. Mainly driven by who's brother is in which troop. Well, there's many brothers to the other troop right now in the pack. And I'm noticing some alignment with the other pack. The key I'm sort of concerned iwth is that the leaders now have kids in the other troop too. I'm of the belief that even though they have boys in the other troop they still need to promote the COR's troop. Individuals can go to the other troop ... fine ... their right. But the pack works with the aligned troop.

pchadbo - I acknowledge the BSA shopping model for webelos. I take zero offense if a scout chooses another troop. I might be sad, but not offended. That though is the Webelos scout and/or den. They are working on what's best for the individual Webelos. What's best for the pack and COR and troop is very different. I assert it's always better for the pack to promote their sister troop. The pack (larger group) has no "shopping" model or instruction from BSA. Their sister troop is "ANNOINTED" as partner through the charter organization. As such, the pack should treat their sister troop special ... even if the troop ignores them or if the troop is going thru hard times. The COR is the marriage between the pack and the troop. If my wife is upset with me for a few months, I don't head to the local pub to shop around. Ya work on fixing the relationship. Same with pack & troop. To be blunt, if a pack wants to promote another troop (not talking about webelos shopping) then that pack should join the other troops pack or start a second pack under the other troop's COR. Otherwise the larger group should support the aligned troop and help fix the problems. "Individual scouts" have an absolute right to shop around and that's what BSA promotes. But the "pack" does not shop around.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Basementdweller - Wow. I knew I posted from different aspects of this point. I didn't remember I posted so many times. It's just a hot button topic for me lately and has become even more hot button lately. It just seems the "pack" should focus on partnering with their sister troop. Webelos dens can shop around, but the pack should focus on the sister troop.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I'm okay with dens shopping. That's what BSA instructs. But what about the pack. Should they promote other troops or focus on the partnership with their partner troop?

I've been reflecting on the Cub Scout to Boy Scout transition for awhile. I know there is no strict answer and that things can vary greatly. And BSA is pretty vague too on this stuff. Previous posts - Unit alignment ... Earlier this year, I heard rumors of an initiative to align same COR units. So I asked and heard some great comments including a few by TwoCubDad in a 1/17/2012 3:48:51pm post. CLICK HERE to read - Pitting troops against each other ... Later I expressed my frustration at pitting troop against troop for Webelos recruitment. Good discussion. The one I agree the most with is a short quick response from Crew21_Adv. CLICK HERE to read - Boy Led ... I've also stated that one of the phrases I really don't like anymore is "Boy Led". It's the correct concept. But it's so vague that it's meaningless *** AND *** it's almost always used passively as an insult that other troops are not boy led. I've grown a distaste for the term because it's almost always used during troop shopping. "Join us because we're boy led." ... meaning that the other troops are not boy led and thus are not true Boy Scout troops. ... anyway ... *** NEW QUESTION *** ... To what extend should "packs" help scouts see all local troops versus support / partner with their charter org's troop? BSA seems intellectually inconsistent on this stuff and just wants to tap dance around the detailed issues. - Depending on COR's to provide units but then promoting scouts to shop at another COR's unit - Promoting troop shopping but matching up elementary schools with "usually" one Cub Scout pack. IMHO, a pack should work with their COR's troop and present the troop as it's partner. Similar in that the troop should work with the pack and be there for the pack. The key is that it's not the job of the pack to present multiple troops. That's the job of the Webelos scouts and/or den. The pack partners with it's COR troop. (different discussion if the COR doesn't have a troop) So I'm just trying to double check my thoughts. Should it be generally expected that a pack supports it's COR and the COR's troop? I know I'd get upset if other packs continually advertised at our elementary school to recruit Cub Scouts. There is an unstated agreement that elementary schools are aligned with a specific pack. For the most part, Cub Scouts don't shop for the best pack. If anything, we expect those new scouts / parents to help renew the pack. Should we have the same assumption between packs and troops? ... Side suggestion: Perhaps the committees should meet on the same night??? Pack & troop coordinate committee meetings so they are at the same place / time. Especially if they are under the same chartered org. ... Side note ... our COR's units work pretty well with each other. It's outside factors I'm wondering about.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Rotate when you need fresh ideas or new enthusiasm and energy. Otherwise, I strongly prefer long-term scoutmasters. - Personality. A major shopping point is the scoutmaster. A good match is important. A mediocre match is tolerable. A bad match drives scouts out. I'd rather find the good match and stick with it as long as possible. The key is that the personality of the troop is the personality of the scoutmaster. - Experience. Scoutmasters need time to learn and experiment. Though it appears simple, scouting is not obvious. It takes time to learn how to make it work. Once they have been in it for a few years, they know the program and have dealt with dozens of experiences. A long running SM benefits from all those years. - Mellowed out. Scoutmasters need to have dealth with alot so they can mellow out and figure out what's important.

In our troop.... Starts in April. Published in May. - The PLC does it. Patrol leaders are supposed to get suggestions from their patrols. - The SPL leads the planning. - The SM meets with the SPL a day or two in advance to prepare for the planning. - The planning agenda is ---- #1 Agree on the process to do the planning ---- #2 Goals --------- Identify goals. More hiking? My water sports? Caves? Advancement? Fun events? Character? Service? Other. --------- Once all listed, prioritize them. ---- short break ---- #3 Ideas --------- Identify ideas. Specifics. Places, activities, etc. --------- Prioritize the list. ---- short break ---- #4 Build the calendar --------- Put fixed items on the calendar (scouting for food, scout sunday, B&G for local packs, etc). --------- Start putting the ideas on the calendar based on priority. When done, the troop has a functional calendar for the next year. It's transposed from the large poster paper duck taped to the walls of the outdoor shelter into our web site calendar (which can be printed). The next committee meeting reviews the calendar to confirm everything is do-able. That's what our troop does. I thought it came out of some BSA book, but I've never found it. One key part is that as patrol leaders get ideas from the patrol and then represent the patrol during planning. Scoutmaster gets ideas from the adults and represents the adults. The scoutmaster tries to guide / coach the discussion but it's the scouts planning session. We try to shield the scouts from the other adults.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Dang. Yet another trolling post to ignore. Merlyn - Don't you have anything else in your life to do?

"bet even Merlyn is hopin' there's such a thing as resurrection" ... LOL.

One of my biggest mistakes years ago in scouting was around the structure of patrols. The patrols were imbalanced. I thought it would be good to fix that. So I brought it up at a committee meeting. Well, everyone had to have their two cents. Hours of discussion before it even reached the scouts. Then, it ended up as something that was forced onto most of the scouts either thru the agreement of the SPL or other. Many were upset. Some quit. To this day, the patrol loyalty is not what it was. IMHO, patrols work well when scouts have ownership and loyalty to the patrol. If you break that ownership ... if you break that loyalty, you break much of what is best in the patrol method. With that said ... Let the scouts deal with it. In our troop, I hope it's understood now that scouts can switch patrols by simply requesting a switch from the SPL. That's it. Nice and simple. We don't even want the SPL to dictate who's in what patrol. Suggestion - Before figuring out if you need to restructure patrols ... First figure out what you want out of the patrols. I view it as two possibilities (thought there may be others ... or you could structure the problem domain differently) #1 - Patrols exist as a structure for teaching. Older scouts teaching younger scouts skills and leadership. In this model, the number one teacher is the patrol leader. #2 - Patrols exist as a structure for doing things together. A group of friends that get out to go hiking, swimming, camping, etc. In this structure, the number one teacher is the troop guide. I strongly prefer #2. And now I'd argue that a patrol of three 17 years olds is not necessarily a bad thing. Good luck!

I just don't think anyone can force change faster than people are willing unless you are willing to drive those people out of the unit. So creating plans, vision documents, priority lists and so are only interesting exercises. Focus on .... #1 Continually learning more about the scouting program... #2 Building relationships, trust and acceptance. Over time, opportunities will come. You can slowly make changes as situations permit.