Jump to content

KC9DDI

Members
  • Content Count

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KC9DDI

  1. Yah, we adults are funny critters, eh? We seem to have an obsession over bureaucratic paperwork....

    It's all a bunch of balderdash.

     

    Well, Scouting in general is "all a bunch of balderdash." It's just a youth group with some arbitrary program attached. The idea is that by participating in some of these arbitrary programs and requirements, the boys might learn something of lasting value. ("a game with a purpose", if you will.)

     

    Keeping track of your handbook is a mostly arbitrary requirement (not entirely arbitrary, as the record of rank advancement is at least significant.) Nothing wrong with a having a bit of a teachable moment when a handbook goes missing - "Well, eventually we'd like to see you in a leadership position, where you'd have to be responsible for troop-owned equipment, funds, and maybe even some paperwork. Part of showing the troop that you're ready for that kind of responsibility is to keep track of your own equipment. Cool. Now, how did the five mile hike go for you? How are things going in your patrol..."

  2. I having some trouble following the situation.

     

    Is this a troop you've previously worked with? Or a random troop in need of help that approached you out of the blue? In my case, if a random troop (or any organization for that matter) asked me for help with something, but my initial encounters with them revealed unpleasant politics and other issues, I would probably politely decline the invitation and stick with less dysfunctional groups.

     

    What exactly do they mean by "SM without the title?" What do they envision you to be doing, and what do they envision the SM to be doing? Just playing devil's advocate here, but maybe that kind of arrangement is what that particular troop needs right now?

     

    And at this point I dont trust them enough to consider being an ASM.

     

    It sounds like you've maybe answered your own question. Even in the best functioning troops, committing to being an SM, or even a highly-involved ASM represents a tremendous personal investment. And if the situation just doesn't pass the "sniff test," you're probably doing yourself and the unit a favor by saying "thanks but no thanks."

     

    I guess if a random unit asked me for help out of the blue, and I had these types of concerns, my response would be "Well, right now I can commit to taking on position X, under the following conditions..... If that will be helpful for you, let's talk. But if you're looking for something else, I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to help you right now."

  3. BD - To frame this in a different context: I believe a couple weeks ago you posted some frustrations with the youths' dietary choices while camping. So I wonder if we're doing them a disservice by not offering all of the available menu options, like Red Bull and Doritos? :-)

     

    I think as Scouters we do have some leeway to guide the program towards the ideals and goals collectively formulated by the BSA, the CO and the troop committee. So, personally, I wouldn't actively advocate an activity that I felt did not help us meet those ideals and goals. However, if the PLC was interested in such an activity, and was committed to researching, planning and executing that activity, I certainly wouldn't "veto" them (except, of course, in clear cases of safety issues or policy violations.) I might share with them my concerns, ask them to reconsider, etc etc - but I think part of supporting youth leadership is to support some decisions made by youth leaders that we might not agree with.

  4. Seattle - Always happy to make points, but I'm not sure I deserve credit for that this time :-)

     

    I see your unit decides for itself what it's uniforming standards will be. Thank you for making my point.

     

    Right, that's my point too. As I've said several times throughout this thread, individual units need to set reasonable and responsible goals and standards for their implementation of each of the various Methods of Scouting.

     

    You think we should disregard poor advancement results in favor of spending limited time and energy on uniforming?

     

    No, of course not. What did I say that would make you think otherwise?

     

    But I can see you would be unhappy with such efforts. Perhaps you think these activities should be abandoned in favor of spending my limited time promoting uniforming among existing Cub Scouts?

     

    No, of course not. What did I say that would make you think otherwise?

     

    Thank you for making the point that you have no understanding at all of the issues other units may have.

     

    What did I say or do to make this point?

     

    Seattle, I'm legitimately trying to figure out where the breakdown in communication that caused you to reach those conclusions occurred. I don't think you're doing anything wrong in your units. I don't think units that adopt less stringent standards for uniforming are doing anything wrong. I do think that units that chose to adopt a higher uniforming are being unfairly criticized, and I'm trying to figure out why that's the case.

     

    Beavah - What I'm saying is that units can appropriately use the uniform method to encourage a high standard of uniforming without sacrificing the other methods of Scouting. I think you and Baden and others are projecting some personal anecdotes of poorly-run units onto ALL units that set a high standard for uniforming. It's really not fair to assume that all units with high uniforming standards have poor program, etc, etc, without having any knowledge of those individual units. It's made worse by directing personal attacks towards the Scouters associated with those units, and making some not-very-nice assumptions about their motives, the quality of their units' programs, etc.

     

    It would be like if I said that my unit's goal was to go camping 12 times a year, and you said "Well, in my experience units with that type of goal tend to be adult-led, car-camping, troop-method units with no sense of youth leadership or functional patrols! If I spent all my time going camping my advancement program would fall apart! And some of my families might not be able to afford monthly camping trips! What's wrong with you?! You don't understand anything about other units! You're not really in it for the boys, are you?! You probably have 12 rows of knots on your shirt, too!" That kind of knee-jerk, frenzied response is really not that far removed from some of the criticism levied towards units with high uniforming standards that we've seen on this thread.

     

    Yes, we're all influenced by our experiences, and it's understandable to try to correlate what we perceive to be an indicator of quality program (like uniforming) with actual program quality. But it's certainly not fair to assume that each and every Scouter who advocates a high uniforming standard is so incompetent as to not be able to use the uniform method appropriately - and that's the attitude that I'm a bit uncomfortable with in the context of this particular thread.

  5. It is religious division which creates suicide bombers (of the 9/11 like)...

     

    And here I thought it was rampant materialism and imperial secularism ....

     

    I agree with qwaze. I think any "religious war" in modern times (and maybe even in ancient times) has more to do with secular politics, economics, natural resources and culture than with religion. I think it's just easier to win the support of otherwise apathetic people - and to stir them into a crazed frenzy - when you make them believe they're fighting for Almighty God, rather than something boring and secular like fair taxes or political representation.

  6. Which rank is this? Did he have the SMC already? Could his SM and PL vouch for him, that he did complete all of the requirements, and they have no reservations about him appearing before the BOR for whatever rank he's working on?

     

    But, still sounds like there's some opportunity to work in a "teachable moment" about the importance of keeping track of one's handbook.

  7. All this doom and gloom and prophesies about how devoting "too much time" to uniforming could drive away members and destroy a troop's program... sheesh!

     

    I spent some time doing a rough calculation of how much time and effort has been devoted to "uniforming" in my units:

     

    How many scouts or families have been driven away from my units over uniforming? Zero.

     

    How much time is spent per year on matters pertaining to uniforming? Maybe an hour or two, total. Basically just sharing our goals and expectations with new scouts and their parents. And saying "if this is a concern, feel free to talk to me in confidence and we'll work something out."

     

    Amount of other program we haven't been able to do due to uniforming issues? Zero.

     

    Number of Scouts in our units? Troop - bounces between 60 and 80. Crew - Bounces between 20 and 30.

     

    Number of Scouts "turned away" from the troop due to uniforming issues? Zero. (And, who exactly is actually turning people away due to uniforming? I'm seeing a bunch of people being accused of it, but no one actually ever having done it....)

     

    Summer camp attendance? Roughly 80%.

     

    Weekend camp out and other trips attendance? Anywhere from 50-90%.

     

    Uniforming "compliance" (for lack of a better word)? Roughly 80% for normal troop meetings, approaching 100% for formal events. This is well within the goals and expectations set by our PLC and committee.

     

    What exactly is the source of all these accusations that units that set a high standard for uniforming are always on the brink of failure and destruction?(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

  8. Which merit badge? Camping, I presume?

     

    I believe the requirement for the camping MB states that the Scout must camp 20 nights in a tent or under the stars. Spending one night tenting at a baseball game event doesn't seem like it would totally ruin the advancement program to me.

     

    The requirement states that the camping must occur at a designated Scouting event, but doesn't have any additional restrictions, so what would be your basis for not "counting" this?

  9. Yeah, it's just a method - one of many tools that we use to deliver the Scouting program. To ignore the Uniform method would be akin to ignoring the Outdoor Method.

     

    Different troops have different goals and standards for their implementation of each of Scouting's methods. There's a range of possibilities that might be considered "normal" for each method. For example, the "norm" for a healthy outdoor program is probably 10 or so camping trips per year, maybe supplemented with some one-day events here and there. Some troops might camp a bit more, some a bit less, but will still offer a quality outdoor program. But I think we can all agree that a troop that only does 2 car camping trips per year probably could improve in its use of the outdoor method. Likewise, a troop that schedules multiple camping trips per month, every month, is probably going a bit overboard.

     

    Same idea with advancement. There's Eagle Mill troops, and then there's troops that make Scouts jump through all kinds of unnecessary hoops to advance. But in between those two extremes there's a whole range of acceptable uses of the advancement method - and some will still be more "strict" than others.

     

    So what's so special about uniforming?

     

    In my opinion, better balanced units wont place a heavy emphasis on uniforms. But that's what the uniform advocates wont accept. That want every unit to copy their emphasis on uniforms and if they don't feel condemned as being a sloppy, "bad" unit.

     

    I guess I'm a uniform advocate - but I'm advocating using the uniform appropriately as a tool to deliver the Scouting program. I don't want anyone to "copy" my "emphasis" - but I would expect my unit to follow through on whatever standard they set for themselves with regard to uniforming - just like I would expect them to follow through on their plans for troop meetings or camp outs.

     

    Coercing people by complaining about their not wearing a uniform is not required.

     

    Right, no argument there.

     

    But who exactly is being coercive, dictatorial, despot-ish, etc etc? I certainly haven't seen that sentiment in this thread....

     

  10. Tell me, if a boy came to your troop from a poor family, [...snip...] you would turn him away because he was not able to be in full uniform?

     

    Of course not, why would you think I would?

     

    Who had a quality program was and is NEVER determined by a full uniform.

     

    Agreed. In fact, I think I said as much in my last post...

     

    those who are on a slippery slope are those scout leaders who run their troops like despots and dictators

     

    I'm not sure I'm seeing any references to "despots and dictators" here, aside from your straw-man arguments. Is a troop that has a high standard for patrol autonomy and strong patrol programs being run by despots and dictators? How about a troop that strives to plan rigorous and challenging outdoor programs, rather than car camping? Is that SM a despot or dictator?

     

    Uniforming is a method, just like the Outdoor Program or the Patrol Method. Responsible units should be setting reasonable goals and standards for adhering to those methods. Those standards may be influenced by economics, resources, experience and skill level, and even the whims and personalities of the youth and adult leadership in the troop. There's bound to be variation between different troops. But there's no need to be bashing one troop or another if they have decided to set a high standard for themselves.

  11. Baden - That's a slippery slope you're on.

     

    What are the requirements for being a Boy Scout? It's a pretty short list, right? An age requirement, a gender requirement, affiliating with a troop, etc. Not much there that correlates with the quality of the troop's program, is there?

     

    No, a uniform isn't required to be a Scout. Neither is advancement, camping, hiking, cooking, etc. But we probably wouldn't consider a troop that doesn't promote a quality advancement program, or a quality outdoors program to be a very good troop, would we? Even though they're technically not required to do any of those thing.

     

    Same idea with uniforming. It's not required, but it is an indicator of a quality program. And troops can and should set some reasonable standards and expectations for uniforming, just like they should set standards and expectations for their outdoor program, or their leadership positions.

     

    All of you "uniform police" type leaders really need to ask yourselves what are the real motivation and reasons you are a scout leader, is it to provide a fun and exciting program for your unit or create or recreate a troop in your own personal image/experience of what scouting is supposed to be?

     

    An excellent example of a false dichotomy. Many of the "uniform police" type leaders believe that promoting the uniform method does promote leadership and character development.

     

    I've worked with troops who managed to run fun and exciting programs, while at the same time setting high standards for uniforming. And I've worked with other troops that were more lax on uniforming, while still offering a quality program. And still other troops are weak on uniforming, and weak on program.

     

    As Beavah points out, there is a need to balance the several different Scouting methods. Just like troops can decide the extent to which they want to implement the patrol method, they can also decide the extent to which they want to implement the uniform method. And we shouldn't be knocking troops who have set a high standard for uniforming, and follow through on that standard. Just like we shouldn't be knocking troops who set a high standard for patrol autonomy, and follow through on that standard.

  12. Oh, come now. Businesses routinely pay for conferences and events for employees that are "related to [the] job... but not [the] actual job."

     

    Sure, when it's in the best interest of the business, and a responsible investment of the business's funds. The council should be paying the way for those pros who are being sent to jamboree as part of their job duties. But you can't blame the council for not paying the way for any employee who wishes to go volunteer at jambo.

     

    In fact, in keeping with a thread that's mainly lambasting councils for inappropriate ways of raising funds, and inappropriate ways of spending funds... Well, I'd be a little ticked off if my council was going to be using it's funds to pay for any of it's employees to volunteer at an event that the rest of us have to pay for.

  13. Backup a second... Let's say I'm a manager or director at a company, and I've hired an employee for a given job. Said employee wants to take two weeks to do something related to her job... but not her actual job. Why wouldn't I ask her to use vacation time to, well, take a vacation?

     

    I know it's popular to bash the council and national level for anything and everything, but, seriously...

  14. Not so sure about the fixation with having to measure everything only in terms of money.

     

    I continue to get more out of Scouting than I put in. I know that it's a good investment of my time. I never felt the need to try to figure it out in terms of dollars and cents.

  15. Eagle - Correct. I would have to ask the PLC essentially what I posted before in this thread - "What are we telling people by entrusting them with all of this freedom, responsibility and capability, while at the same time telling them that they're not responsible enough to listen to music in their tent? Is flat-out banning electronics really the best solution to the problem? Other than in the case of a severe safety risk, should we really be confiscating another Scout's personal property?"

     

    Maybe the PLC will decide that it is in fact the best solution, given whatever unique situation is occurring in the troop. But I feel the situations where this would be the best solution are few and far between.

     

    Of course, sometimes we do need to support the PLC's decision, even if we don't think it's the best decision.

  16. It just seems to me like there's quite a contrast between telling a Scout "We're going to give you all this responsibility to run an exciting and challenging program, we're going to entrust you with making this program happen, we're going to support you in your efforts to make this happen, and we're going to do this without adults hovering over your shoulder" vs. "God help you if you bring an iPod with you, 'cuz we're going to confiscate it!"

  17. Thank you for clarifying.

     

    Think back to the last six of your Patrols that set off on individual Patrol Outings with no adult supervision. What concerns did you have, KC9DDI?

     

    To name a few: I was concerned that the patrol leader have the maturity and experience necessary to effectively lead his group. I was concerned that the patrol be adequately prepared for the activity. I was concerned that the group dynamics of the patrol be such that the PL was respected by his patrol members, and vice versa. I was concerned that the patrol collectively have the physical and mental capabilities to successfully and safely complete the activity. I was concerned that the patrol collectively had an adequate understanding of Scoutcraft and other relevant skills to complete the activity.

     

    But if I could also enumerate a list of things that I was UNconcerned with: the talents or aptitude that the PL (or anyone else) may or may not have been "born with." Why the PL is an effective leader, and how he developed into an effective leader. How hard the PL had to work at becoming an effective leader. Whether leadership comes naturally to the PL, or whether it's something he needs to focus on to do well.

     

    In short, I care about the current capabilities of our youth. Some of them may currently be capable and skilled leaders - great, they're ideal candidates for leadership positions. Others may need more time to develop the appropriate skill set, and Scouting can help them do that. Whether or not they were "born leaders" straight from the womb is not at all relevant to me.

  18. Kudu, while I can occasionally follow some of your posts, that one didn't make any sense.

     

    Adding "born" to "Natural Leader" is the invention of our office management experts

     

    Citation needed?

     

    Which is why "Leadership Development" screws Patrol Leaders out of Green Bar Bill's position-specific "Intensive Training in the Green Bar Patrol," where the Scoutmaster spends six months (SIX MONTHS) (SIX!!!!MONTHS!!!!) personally training each Natural Leader to lead his Patrol off a cliff.

     

    It doesn't screw anybody out of anything. I said "these skills must be learned, practiced, and even developed over time". You said GBB advocated Scoutmasters to spend six months personally overseeing the learning, practice and development of these skills. So where's the cause and effect relationship that you claim exists?

     

    Setting the "born" red herring aside

     

    My entire point is that "born" is a red herring. So what am I supposed to be setting it aside from in order to answer your question?

     

    Actually, what is your question?

     

  19. Technically, the local chapter of the Uniform Police would advise you that the 18 year old should wear an "adult" uniform (no rank badge, adult POR patch, etc.)

     

    Practically, I don't know if it matters that much. I would lean towards a uniform rather than a suit and tie, though.

     

    If you're worried about someone at the EBOR making a stink about it, probably check with someone on the EBOR or District Advancement Committee to see what they prefer. If you are the EBOR... I wouldn't worry too much about it.

×
×
  • Create New...