KoreaScouter

Venturing discussions are really starting to get my attention. I got "hired" as SM because my predecessor took three of our most senior Scouts and started a Crew. The idea was pushed by our CC, with understandable pressure from District. Well, it's been almost a year, and most of the promises and assumptions haven't panned out. Although our CO provided associate advisors (female), no young ladies have joined. They did a recruiting night at the high school, and the contact sheets were "lost". Although Venturing advancement requires the Crew members to do joint activities with the Troop, none have taken place. Crew Advisor tells me (we talk often and see each other too) that crew members want to finish Eagle first. Rationale: no college admissions person knows what a Venturing Ranger is, but they all know what an Eagle Scout is. Now, the Crew President has quit, and so has the Advisor as a result (he gave other reasons too, but that was the biggie). District's concerned, and rightly so. When I was talking with my DE yesterday, he's starting to turn the screws to have the Venture Patrol members within my Troop dual register with the Crew. I didn't leap on that, for a couple reasons. One, they all know there's a crew, and could have dual-registered when it was started. Most opted not to. Reasons given were "earn your Eagle first", "you don't have time for another extracurricular", or "let's wait and see because we don't really understand what Venturing is". I don't want to push them out if they don't want to go. Two, I don't want to contribute to what may dilute or ultimately derail their Scouting advancement. There's only so many hours in a week, and if they're trying to divide it between two programs, I see both suffering. To me, it's one or the other. I'm torn over this. My DE's a great guy, and I'd crawl over broken glass for him. They've got a volunteer to be Crew Advisor, so that's not an issue. I just believe that if Venture Crews are all they're cracked up to be, they should naturally pull youth in rather than depend on us to push them in. I need some sage advice here. KS

A showdown, if it ever comes to that, is going to get kicked up to the committee for resolution; this transcends program delivery. If your committee chair isn't on the same page with the SM/ASMs, it's a loser from the start. Your only hope is to go mano-a-mano with the guy and try to get him to see what he's doing. If that doesn't work, you'll just have to live with it. Funny, that sounds exactly like a situation in my last Troop, but before I was SM. But, the dad in question WAS the CC. Other than that, everything else almost identical. They moved away... KS

If you get sufficient numbers of crossovers, they should form a New Scout Patrol. If your Troop demographics and "culture" make it feasible, you can assign your older Scouts to a Venture patrol. Every Troop's different, your mileage may vary. Beyond that, patrol formation and alignment should start with the Scouts' preferences. BSA literature recommends asking the Scouts to list six (or so) Scouts they'd like to be in a patrol with. The results will give you the affinity links you're looking for. That's nowhere near a 100% solution however, because the most popular Scout will be on everybody's list, and the least popular on nobody's. That's where the adult leaders come in. Yes, they do have a say. Keeping natural enemies apart, ensuring there are size, experience, and rank balances, and so on. Brothers may want to be in the same patrol, or may not want to be. And so on, and so on. Most important in my opinion, is to vet any patrol alignment proposal through the PLC, especially the SPL/ASPL. Those two know all the Scouts and their personalities better than anyone else, and will give the most brutally honest and brutally accurate feedback. KS

We may be splitting hairs here, but it doesn't say "show improvement in all of them". What's the preponderance of the evidence; is it obvious the Scout's been working at it? Is his run a second or two faster, his jump an inch or two farther, did he do an additional pushup and situp? And, as it pertains to this lad, did he get an inch higher on the pullup bar? That's improvement. We're trying to kindle a flame here, not create an Olympic decathlete in 30 days. The intent as I see it is to show a boy that some effort over a period of time can improve results...in the aggregate. And, by doing so, inspire a life of active fitness...one of our aims, right? If we're taking a year to complete a 30-day requirement, are we missing the point? KS

In my view, the unit leader signature on the blue card serves several purposes. First, it's tangible evidence to the counselor that the Scout followed BSA procedure leading up to their first meeting. Blank blue cards aren't controlled items -- anyone can buy them. As a counselor, if there's no signature, an alarm bell should be ringing. Second, it provides an opportunity for the unit to "capture" the start of the MB if they track partials in TroopMaster. Third, it provides an opportunity for the SM to counsel the Scout on his goals. I've counseled Scouts away from certain MBs and toward others, depending on several factors. That said, I've never denied a blue card if one insisted -- it's only $.08 Finally, and perhaps most important, the signature on the front "seals" the counselor assignment on the back. To me, that's the most important part of the whole process for the SM, because it's the only input he has into this important aspect of the Scout's advancement. Once the counselor's assigned, no other registered leader including the SM can challenge the counselor's certification that the Scout completed the requirements. I'm not suggesting that counselors are pencil-whipping requirements in a wholesale manner. There may be some who do, but in my experience, the main importance of the counselor assignment is matching personalities, schedules and availability, and proximity. Get any of those wrong, and it can mean the difference between the Scout earning the badge in a reasonable time, or getting burned and starting over later with a different counselor. KS

I was responding to Dan's question, not necessarily BW's reply. Now, while Dan's post doesn't precisely answer ScouterPaul's original question, the three examples ScouterPaul gave to open the thread are directly related to Dan's question. Depending on your viewpoint, you can attribute a "master of all I survey" mindset to a Scouter or Scout who refers to his unit as "my Troop". Or, you can attribute a commitment/dedication mindset. Or, something in between. The point is, I think, that actions speak louder than words. ScouterPaul's recently-resigned SM would have been the exact same guy if he referred to his Troop as "the Troop he served". So, I think we were on topic, even if it branched somewhat. ScouterPaul, you started this, what say you? KS ps: I sure hope it's okay to question, 'cuz I get 'em all the time.

I refer to it as "my Troop". So does the SPL. So do the ASMs, and the Green Bars, and our committee members, too. I hope all our Scouts do, too, from the new Scouts to the "silverbacks". It's "my Troop" in the sense that it's a part of me, it's worth my time and effort, that the human relationships are important and intertwined with who I am and what I value. That said, I know my place, my role, and the value (and more important, the replaceability) of what I contribute. My meager talents can be replaced as quickly as water fills the hole left behind when you remove your hand from a bucket. It's "my Troop" versus "the Troop I serve" in a way similar to how I refer to my wife as "my wife", not "the wife I serve" (okay, maybe that's not a valid comparison -- strike the last comment). If someone needs to state their relationship with their unit as "the Troop I serve" to remind them that it isn't theirs to run roughshod over, then the real problem isn't the terminology, and a change in terminology isn't going to help. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. KS

So, this Scoutmaster was walking through the mall, and as he passed a pet shop, he saw 3 monkeys in a cage in the display window, one wearing a little campaign hat. Curious, he went inside and asked the manager about it. The manager says: "Oh yeah, we got a few of those rhesus monkeys from a private owner who spent a lot of time training them to be Scout leaders, but didn't want the bother any more. They have papers and everything." "Really? Which is the one wearing a little campaign hat?" asked the now more curious Scoutmaster. "Oh," said the manager, "That's the Scoutmaster monkey. He won't take that hat off, even when he's sleeping. I tried to take it off when they first got here so I could check him for bugs and stuff, and he tried to bite me. I don't mess with it any more." "How much does he cost?" asked the SM, relating even more to the monkey now that he knew the story behind the hat, and thinking it might be neat to have a little mascot. "Ten thousand dollars", replied the manager. "Remember, these are all trained, and I have the papers on them." "Boy, that's steep, even for a trained Scoutmaster monkey. How about that one next to him?" "That one's a little funny; he can't make up his mind if he wants to play with the other monkeys or go off by himself. He's twenty thousand dollars -- his papers say he's a committee chairman." The Scoutmaster was aghast. "Twenty thousand for a committee chairman? Granted, trained ones are very rare, but that's just ridiculous. What about that third monkey?" The manager rocked back and forth on his heels and said: "Well, that one's even more of a head-scratcher. He's fifty thousand. And on top of that, all I've ever seen him do is eat and scratch himself, but his papers say he's a unit commissioner."

Whether or not you put your food directly on the bottom of the oven or elevate it in a pan (suspended by 3 good sized hex nuts) depends on whether you are baking as opposed to boiling, stewing, etc. If you're baking (bread, biscuits, cookies), by all means elevate. Think of your oven in the kitchen at home. Would you put your bread directly on the coil or gas flame? Of course not; it'll burn. Same thing for a DO. Regarding brands, I've had Lodges, both cast iron and aluminum, and find them to produce no better results than the Texsport I use now. One of my Lodges (a 14") had a hopelessly warped bail from mistreatment and you couldn't get a lid on or off of that thing without a sideshow. I won't comment on the Lodge aluminum one, because you can't treat it like a cast iron DO, but someone before me did, and the results were predictable. To anyone who uses the "you get what you pay for" argument as a universal truth, all I can say is: wear a pair of new official BSA pants for 6 months, then tell me that "YGWYPF" is still a universal truth. We're not talking about a wristwatch or an automobile here, folks, it's just a hunk of iron. Individual results are a lot more dependent on operator care and operator skill than on the metallurgy... KS

I expect every Scout who's First Class or higher in rank to hold a position of responsibility, even if he's already met the advancement requirement for # of months in a POR. I think they all understand their responsibility as older, experienced Scouts to do for the Troop now what the Troop did for them when they were younger and much less experienced. There's nothing preventing a Scout with a Troop POR from holding a patrol position concurrently. My current Troop Scribe is also an APL. Mrs. Smith, you mentioned in your first post that the Troop Guide(s) are supposed to be assigned to the NSP. Actually, I see it differently. The SPL, ASPL, and Troop Guide are typically not assigned to any patrol while in their positions. They work closely with the NSP, but are not a part of it. Certainly, younger, less experienced Scouts should "cut their teeth", leadership-wise, on patrol positions such as patrol Scribe, patrol QM, and patrol grubmaster. But, as others point out, that doesn't relieve all patrol members of their responsibility to contribute to the patrol's success by sharing the workload, too. There's a reason why the advancement requirement says "be active in your Troop AND PATROL...". KS

I've got a Texsport 12" I paid $15 for brand new. Nobody's ever thrown out anything I cooked in it because it wasn't expensive... KS

I agree that the BOR members need a vector check before they do this again. And, I think they should get an opportunity within the next 30 days, when this Scout meets his next Life BOR. I think maturity, at varying levels, while not a requirement, could almost be considered a pre-requisite for advancement, in the sense that he wouldn't be sitting in front of a Life BOR without having the necessary maturity to pursue goal-oriented behavior, for starters. So, by definition, if he's there, he's displayed maturity. It's not the BOR's place to add a requirement, but if they seem to be, they can check that one off by default if the lad's there to begin with. On another level, I have a problem with how this unfolded. Call me thin-skinned, but as an SM myself, I've already determined that the Scout has demonstrated leadership abilities when I signed him off on his POR, on Scout Spirit, and his SM conference. If this happened to me, I'd be going mano-a-mano with the committee chairman. I make the tough calls at my level; if a Scout hasn't measured up yet, he's going to hear it from me, not from a BOR I've passed him off to so they can deliver the bad news. Now, if he's otherwise ready but melts down in front of the BOR, I have no control over that, although I do give them advice on how to "present themselves". As others have advised, I wouldn't try to create artificial drag to slow him down. In a way, the program is self-leveling. The MBs, the Eagle project, and the Eagle application process itself tend to slow down all but the most focused and motivated; that's why such a small percentage make it. I wouldn't demonize his mom because she's personally involved, either. I wish all my Scouts' parents were involved in their sons' Scouting advancement. I also wouldn't worry about whether or not he's rushing through the program on overdrive. After all, the journey's not over at Eagle, whenever it's earned, unless he decides it's over. Will he have earned Eagle too young? Maybe, who knows? But, if he does, that's also something he can learn from. If this is a laboratory intended to teach them to make ethical decisions over their lifetimes, I'd rather have him do something like rush through the advancement program, realize he made a mistake, and vow not to do that again, than rush into a marriage, a career, or fatherhood, then realize he made those mistakes...much greater consequences and implications. Everywhere I've been, I've heard the sentiment that someone's advancing too fast and we have to slow them down -- lots of concern and well-intentioned micromanagement, to include artificial roadblocks, toward someone who's set a goal and is motivated to accomplish it. Does anyone who buys into that ever put the shoe on the other foot, focusing their concern and good intentions on greasing skids, cutting corners, etc., because he's "advancing too slowly" and "we have to speed him up"? Is there a difference? We present a program with all its opportunities; we encourage the Scouts to take advantage of it; we tell them they're only competing with themselves. Why try to retard their throttles if they take our advice? KS

I agree with cubsrgr8. If you start your own Troop, you'll be able to do it without the high blood pressure you're enduring now. Don't worry about the size of the Troop, or whether you're competing for feeder pack Webelos. First, I know of no empirical evidence that the BSA mission can only be achieved in mega-units, or that any of the methods can't be used in a small Troop. Second, you don't have to recruit just from a single feeder pack. Enlarge your field of fire. This is supposed to be fun for everybody, including you. If you're not having fun, and you want to keep on Scouting, you need to change something. KS

Whew! What a relief. I thought my computer had run out of pixels -- I was getting ready to send little KS to the store to get some... KS

Without knowing the lads or the situation, it appears at first glance to be a "fight or flight" situation for him -- he appears to be leaning toward "flight". The argument about helping the PL in his old patrol sounds like a smoke screen... It's not uncommon for a new SPL to feel overwhelmed, especially if the ASPL's part of the problem, not part of the solution. I agree with those who suggest finding a new ASPL. There's other implications here, too. First, the lads voted for him because they thought he was best for the job. What does a "referendum" say about the democratic process within the Troop? Second, again without knowing the SPL's rank or advancement status, I'll assume he's at least a First Class Scout, and needs the POR for advancement. If he goes back to his patrol, does his own advancement go on hold for four months? Finally, if both those Scouts stick around long enough, they'll be in similar competitive situations over and over again -- you'll have to deal with this eventually. Don't get me wrong, I think competition's great, but not when the result is to undermine someone else's position or authority. Good luck. KS

This thread should move to issues & politics... KS

My opinion, with some BSA official language precedent, is this: You can double dip on requirements between Boy Scout advancement requirements and MB requirements. For example, the first aid skills you learn and demonstrate for the MB can be used to sign off TF/2C/1C advancement, and vice versa. Likewise, if a Scout earns the Swimming MB at summer camp, I sign off his 2C/1C swimming requirements. You cannot double dip on requirements between MBs. For example, you cannot apply the same hikes you complete for the Hiking MB to the requirements for the Backpacking MB -- that's straight out of the badge requirements. The latter example is why your CC may be saying you can't use one hike for two requirements. If it's between the two MBs, I agree. But, in your application, I think it should be okay. KS

Handguns are authorized as a Venture activity. As far as I'm concerned, his father can say anything he wants about anybody he wants at this point and get a 100% pass -- no parent should have to go through what he is right now. I can't imagine how painful it must be... KS

You should stay. If you're going to be surrounded by that much inexperience, they need you there. BTW, please don't wish for your Field Director to be transferred as far away from you as possible. With the possible exception of Far East Council in Japan, as far away as possible means right here where I am! KS

A little perspective may help here as well. In early 1952, conditions at the Koje prison camp, on an island off the coast of South Korea, had really deteriorated. Very overcrowded, and the Chinese and North Korean POW population had Balkanized itself into pro-communist and anti-communist factions. They were at each others' throats, literally, and many small riots over several months led up to a huge one in June when the prisoners actually captured and held hostage the American 2-star general who commanded the place. The operation to put down the riot and rescue the commander can only be described as a bloodbath. Many similarities, but aside from the obvious differences between then and now, one big difference is that nobody was calling for President Truman's head over the incident ("the buck stops here" was on his desk first, remember?). Again, I'm not trying to use a comparison with a worse incident to trivialize what's happening now. Just using a historical reference as a bookend so we can ask ourselves if our standards of accountability have changed, if this is politically motivated, etc.? KS

If you want to pre-cut it, I think 25' is probably as long as you'll need it, with some 10' lengths for guy lines, if you use it for that. Unless you're buying it in shorter lengths from commercial outlets, you almost have to cut off what you think you'll need ahead of time -- that stuff comes in spools that are a little too bulky to carry around with you. BTW, the inner threads from para cord work great as rope whips, too. KS

Our Troop is joining many others on Oahu to place flags on every grave at the National Cemetery of the Pacific at the Punchbowl -- this is a Council-level annual event. My first time, but many in the Troop have done it for years... KS

Get the pamphlet from your council service center on Scouts with Disabilities. It explains how to get alternate requirements approved. The whole thing starts with a meeting with the boy's parents, and goes from there. If the lad sticks with it, alternate requirements are going to be a regular issue, including alternate MBs if physical activity's a problem. KS

First of all, the Geneva Conventions do apply to enemy combatants, that's what they were written for. One of the mistakes many casual observers make is assuming that prisoners of war under Geneva Convention definition are entitled to and afforded the same legal status that U.S. citizens have when charged with an offense under US criminal law. Not so. How long may enemy prisoners of war be held? Until the conflict ends, unless they are released or exchanged earlier. How long was Sen John McCain a POW; 7 years, right? That's what "indefinitely" means. Don't look at this through "Court TV" filters; they don't apply. MI has always done interrogations, they didn't "take over" anything. Front line troops capture or accept surrenders, search for intel, make a quick report, then send them to the rear. Guards don't interrogate and never have -- that's a specialized skill set. There are numerous techniques employed to lessen the resistance of prisoners to interrogation. Ours are relatively benign; other countries employ torture (again, ask Sen. McCain and other Vietnam POWs, and Desert Storm POWs at the hands of the Iraqis, too for that matter). All branches of the military train members who may become POWs on survival, escape, resistance, and evasion techniques. I've been through this training, including mock interrogations. It's not pleasant, but it's not illegal either. Of course leaders set the tone and climate for their organizations. That said, humans are not automatons and not everyone buys in or stays bought in. I'm not making excuses for any wrongdoing, but to argue that a leader 20 levels removed from the act of a handful of people should be removed because that small group didn't follow their training is naive at best. If that logic were applied across the board, no leader in any organization, public or private, would survive more than a minute in his position. Funny, I don't remember anyone calling for President Clinton's head when we bombed an aspirin factory in Africa or destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Of course, there's no chance any of this could be partisan politics... Despite my experience in overseeing military confinement facilities and training in processing and securing EPWs, I'm not going to comment specifically on the Iraq incident. I wasn't there and I don't know what happened. KS

My Troop plays capture the flag or manhunt in the evenings at almost every campout we go on. In fact, we use it as a "Sword of Damocles" to ensure that after-dinner cleanup is done promptly -- it always is. It's amazing to me how many adult men, serving and surrounded by boys, who were once boys themselves, seem to have completely forgotten what it was like and what boys are interested in doing. KS