MattR

I was a scout brat, in the Transatlantic Council. I hung out with all the Army brats. One size does not fit all, either good or bad. This is where bad things come from.

That's a great photo. It should accompany the article that is sent to the local newspaper about the cool things scouts do. Look mom! Rock climbing in a missile silo!

After experience we look for two things in a treasurer. The first is competence at working with a zillion details and keeping them organized. The other is transparency, or making it so everyone can understand those details. That helps catch errors, including the malicious kind. We didn't have malicious problems but we did go from being very flush to almost broke in 2 months. Accounting errors that caused all sorts of head aches. If your pack is large and lots of money is coming and going then I'd push for one person doing it, assuming you can find the one person that's capable. It has nothing to do with whether you trust the CC, it's just that he has plenty of other things to do. Oh, and welcome to the forums.

We had a PLC meeting this week and I kept it in terms of talking about what the scouts did, or will do, to deliver scouting to their patrols. So, it was completely about the people and not the usual who has to do what. It raised the level of discussion and their interest immensely. Call it leadership if you want but it was really about keeping the scouts focused on the real goal. I "redirected" anyone that said something that wasn't about their patrol. If a scout said he was going to make phone calls I asked him what the end purpose was and that making phone calls is only a tool unless his patrol said they like talking on the phone.

If instead of calling it leadership skills we call it working with people skills, most POR's have that. Before the QM puts the dutch oven back in storage he inspects it for being clean and if it's not he can either clean it himself or he has a people problem. I just saw a scout this past weekend in a very similar situation. He didn't want to "be the mean scout." He's very confident at doing tasks. Not so much working with people. Leadership skills would help in this situation. Understanding tough love would also help. I asked this same scout if he'd be willing to do exactly what Stosh mentions (working with the troop to develop patrol QMs). This would be a way for this scout to grow. For every single suggestion I had he came back with lots of reasons why it would never work. I couldn't figure it out until I saw him in the above situation. Scouts 3 years younger walked all over him.

There are plenty of "leadership vs management" descriptions on the web. One idea is that leaders focus on people while managers focus on tasks. Focusing on people brings them together with a common vision, or takes care of them in Stosh's words. Focusing on tasks means get things done, with less concern on how it impacts the people. They both have tasks to do but the leader is more interested in how those tasks impact people. Obviously people would rather follow a leader than a manager. The two groups have different personalities. Leaders are going for the big picture and are willing to take risks whereas managers are more risk adverse. Leaders do it for excitement while managers do it for $10/hr. I have a new QM that fits the leadership model. After years of just trying to get anyone to do the bare minimum we have a scout that we can't get out of the way fast enough. But it's nothing we did. This scout just wants to lead. The challenge I run into with scouts is getting the scouts to be willing to have an impact on other scouts. Most 13 year olds are trapped by peer pressure to never rock the boat. It's a lot easier to do as you're told than to figure out what's right and that's a big hump to get them over. I want patrol leaders to focus on delivering the promise of scouting to their patrol. What I don't know is how to change the rewards to encourage that. In all honesty a patrol leader can have zero impact on a patrol and the patrol can still have some fun camping. The scouts have enough experience to muddle through and they're used to it. I'd like to sit down with the PLC each month and ask them what they want to do that will have an impact on their patrol, and then give them credit if they make an honest go of it.

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER. I just lived through something that started off just like this. Hopefully your case is different. I had a very smooth talking narcissist. Unbelievable experience. All talk, no walk. Complete disregard for any rules or authority. He lied and lied with all sorts of reasons why we prevented him from doing what he volunteered to do. And just the nicest guy. He could sell ice in the Arctic. The very long story short is he harassed and bullied adults in the troop to the point where we threw him out. Even his son was picking up on this, but that was probably because he was paid for two months of cell phone coverage for each rank advancement. He's a creeper. It might not be as bad for you but it will be bad if your guy becomes SM. Is there someone else that is willing to be SM? I bet this guy is one smooth talker and it's possible the SM has bought into his BS hook line and sinker. If the other adults are drinking the kool aid I'd be prepared to leave. However, try confronting him. I'm serious. Not by email but in front of the other adults. Bullies don't like that. It doesn't need to be mean. But just ask him why he hasn't done X, Y, and Z when he said he'd do these things. When the excuses come out call him on them. Be polite, but hold his feet to the fire. "No, that's not what happened, we were all in that meeting and you did not volunteer to help anyone." It is harsh but this guy might be counting on everyone being nice to him. Also, I'd talk to the SM and other adults to see what they think. I hope I'm way off base but your story brings up bad memories.

Good job Click. I'm glad it worked out. I honestly didn't see a good scenario here but you probably found the best one. Relevant trivia: one definition of the word Israel is to struggle with God.

+1 Stosh: a uniform will help visibility. +1 Sentinel: The BSA "field" uniform is really a dress uniform, and an activity uniform should be worn for campouts. I didn't know this was national's idea. I went to scoutstuff.org looking for an official activity uniform and there isn't one. I saw references on the web to a red polo that Stosh mentions, but it is no more. I think it went out with the arrival of the Centennial uniform. What I did find are what looks like some really good shirts for the outdoors. They are simple T-shirts or polos that are the khaki or forest green. They are made of non-cotton (TrekTek?). They have a simple BSA logo on the chest. Youth sizes are $10, adults are $14. I'm going to get one for this weekend's campout.

But the original topic was visibility and, honestly, selling what scouts is about to the public. What we are is fun, adventure, and service, but the photos imply pomp and formality. (Sentinel, I googled "US boy scouts" as well as "UK scouts" and "French scouts"). Just look at the top page of the US boy scouts google image results and tell me the BSA doesn't have a horrible image problem. On the first page there are 12 images of scout emblem clip art, 2 Norman Rockwell images, 2 references to membership problems, 5 images of scouts saluting, 2 jamboree images, and a scout showing off his bling at a COH. This is not inviting to a kid. The first picture of anyone having fun is about 3 pages down after more flags, clip art, saluting, bling, membership issues, and a "cult of death"/gestapo reference about some homeland security/BSA thing. Look at French or UK scouts and it's all fun. Even the picture with the Duchess (Kate) has everyone smiling. It's very inviting. I'm glad you're comfortable in the uniform Stosh, I am not. I really like the idea of a uniform. I'd wear it all the time at scout events if it were more practical. It's not the idea of the uniform, it's the uniform itself that's a problem. Honestly, what do we need epaulettes for? Skip, it's supposedly some sort of hi tech fabric ("supplex nylon" or "polyester microfiber"). The issue for me is the weight of the fabric. It doesn't breathe at all.

I'm with Skip on this one. Ask the scouts what they want. The fact that we have to iron our uniform suggests it doesn't belong outdoors. ​I googled for scout pictures in the US, UK, and France. The UK and French pictures all have lots of pictures of generally happy kids and a few of Kate and Bear. Grylls is saying "Every kid deserves an adventure." On the US side there are also some happy kid pictures but also lots of pictures of old out of shape scouters, bored kids saluting, plenty of trail life usa photos, and several other controversial pictures (guns, gays, Madonna, etc). There are also lots of pictures of patches. So, UK kids have adventures and US kids salute. There certainly is an image problem. My guess is our scouts know it and that's why they don't want to wear a uniform. They like adventure so they like wearing the class B's. Those represent adventure. I wonder if we have pushed Eagle so much that it's the major reason for being in scouts. It's not an adventure, it's a patch.

Whenever I start getting down about scouts I get away from the adults and spend more time with the boys. Cheers me right up. It's what they do best.

We mostly ignore what's in the workbook except that there be a plan. If what they're doing is a collection then I also ask for a goal. The plan is to force the scout to think things through enough such that when things go wrong he can figure out how to adapt. It also sets expectations as to the scope of the project. If the plan is "I will plant some trees" then I'll ask for more detail. How many trees and what size. What I don't want is a scout planting two trees that each came in a 2 gallon pot (i.e., a half hour of work for one person). I've had scouts redo their project. It's not like they came in 2% shy of their goal. It was more like 95% shy. If they're half of what they said they'd get then it's more a question of was the short fall from lack of leadership or just bad luck. Bad luck I understand. Not calling anyone to show up and help is bad leadership. Other times they've just dropped what was the biggest component. It's not just the parents but also the recipient that doesn't understand that this is more than a service project. My main job at an eagle project is to ask adults to back off and let the scout lead. They are usually very receptive to this.

I wouldn't ask them if they want to go on a hike. I'd ask them if they want to go fishing, and by the way, it's a mile from the trail head. As soon as the snow melts ....

You're right, bringing up politics or religion at a party is a sure way to get labeled as a creeper. However, if your religion or politics come up as a side light to something really cool you've done, then you're good as long as you don't push it. So, forget about politics (there is nothing cool about it). Religion is okay in the context of doing some good. Boy Scouts is easy to bring up. Just tell them what great things you're doing and don't mention Boy Scouts until they ask, and they will. If they want to talk more about it then talk more. If not, leave it at that. You'd be surprised how many people think what we do is cool. Service projects. Eagle projects. Helping kids that have screwed up parents. High adventure. People enjoy talking about all of those things. After you tell someone you helped collect 2500 pounds of food for the local food bank, or that you biked Moab, they most likely will not complain too loudly when you then say it was with the Boy Scouts. The usual response is "really?" and then they tell you you're doing something great with the kids.

Yea, everyone looks young, except, Roger, who is ....? Santa Claus? My guess is every one of us has lots of stories about the good things that kids get from scouts. If not we wouldn't be here. My guess is many parents would respond to those stories. I'm not sure how to get them out but if half of all kids are being raised in single parent homes then there are a lot of single parents that are praying for help in raising their kids.

Let's start a new program, called FASSS Scouts: Fun, Adventure, Science, Sweating and Skills ... Just trying to push some buttons. I read that book a few years ago and I really liked it. One thing great about the outdoors that is really hard for kids to understand is that the best things are never planned. The most fun, inspiring, or encouraging is never expected. Kind of like a good joke. Another consideration is that different kids respond to different things. Some kids like a physical challenge, some like fun, camaraderie, science, fishing, adventure, .... So, for each kid it's different and it's hard to plan the really good stuff. My only suggestion is to encourage a lot of it. When I was a kid and we went "outdoors" it was usually not a campout and, at least during the summer we went a lot more than once a month. Maybe the trick is to get the scouts to do more half day activities near by. I think it would be great if for every weekend in the summer at least one patrol was organizing something in the outdoors. Ultimate awesomeness would be every weekend of the year.

I sat through a roundtable STEM presentation last week. Oh my goodness. Don't get me wrong, I'm a STEM guy through and through in my career. I see science everywhere in the outdoors. But this is not science. This is cramming something wonderful into the merit badge mill. Investigate your calculator and explore the different functions. This is not boy scouts. Scouts is fun with your friends, adventure, competition, and new skills. This is a bad, middle school science program. This is pages of mind numbing requirements because they don't trust the teacher. Compare this to a robotics competition, science Olympiad, or just an advanced AP or IB class (that gives you real college credit) and I don't see many scouts wanting to do it. It's way too simple for anyone in high school and the younger scouts won't touch this unless the adults push it. How about explore the mega tsunami of Lituay Bay Alaska in terms of the math behind it (how much energy is in a tidal wave 1700 feet high?), or the amount of energy required to blow the top off of Mt St Helens in terms of hydrogen bombs? Or model a trebuchet using available software and design and build one. Obviously it requires a good teacher to do a good job. If you find one then why handcuff them with stupid requirements? If you can't find one then just let the kid do his homework because that's all this is. I'm not saying STEM is bad or that the BSA can't be part of encouraging STEM, it's just that this is bad.

I had a talk with one of the younger PLs tonight and I spelled this all out to him. I put it in terms of he was responsible for "delivering the promise" to his patrol and the promise was all the reasons why anyone is in scouts. He liked it. And when I said he has to learn how to say no to the SPL he really thought that was cool. ​I did something similar for some older scouts but I told them they all would have to help each other if they were going to do all the fun things. We also talked about purpose and how different scouts are there for different reasons. I could see some light bulbs go on. I could also see some dead batteries. Keeping it in the context of a patrol sized group of scouts with similar interests made it all seem so much easier. I appreciate the gang of friends concept. A three year spread is good. Six is too much. One thing I see getting in the way is communication. It used to be pick up the phone and dial. Now it's voice? email? text? facebook? All buried amid 100 messages a day wrapped up in the fact that Billy lost his phone while Johnie will only text. So how can Billy find out that Johnie wants to go skiing? I think I need to facilitate the conversation.

That's why I suggested it was the crux. Qwazse, you bring up another point. With "only worried about themselves" is it that the scout can't even share, or is it that he needs to actively try to make things better for his patrol? I have a troop full of scouts that can share, but actively try and help each other? That's a foreign concept. I now have patrols that are on their own without a dictating SPL so I hope this idea takes hold.

Ever wonder why the statue of David is nude? There are lots of nude statues of Roman generals. This statue is screaming Greek and Roman art and comes from the idea of "heroic nudity" in art. To quote (wikipedia because it was easy to find): "Heroic nudity or ideal nudity is a concept in classical scholarship to describe the use of nudity in classical sculpture to indicate that a sculpture's apparently mortal human subject is in fact a hero or semi-divine being. This convention began in archaic and classical Greece and was later adopted by Hellenistic and Roman sculpture. This concept operated for women as well as for men, with females having themselves portrayed as Venus and other goddesses...."

Good observation. Maybe the crux is getting the scouts to care about each other.

I thought that's how crews were made up. Qwazse, why the cohesion problems? Or how long does it take for cohesion to take place? I chucked ad-hoc patrols years ago. The issue is the scouts are the ones that want to create them. They like mixing it up. They don't like cliques in school. Everyone said people these days don't want to commit to a group like Rotary or Elks, so why would scouts commit to a patrol for years? One point nobody said anything about was getting scouts to commit a month out. I think that would help a lot if the meetings were important preparation for a campout. Anyway, I just let the scouts decide what patrols they want to be in and it divided almost perfectly into older patrols and younger patrols with the split around 13 to 14 years old. The younger scouts have already picked patrol leaders while the older scouts are vegetating. I think it's going to be a lot easier for the two different ages to come up with their own ideas. And if they want to swap scouts around to help them work around schedules, I'll let them.

Based on the millennial thread .... Many scouts are over scheduled and everyone seems to be time poor. Patrols get hurt by this when only half, or less, of a patrol shows up for a campout. This results in ad-hoc patrols formed the week before the campout, or huge patrols being formed to preempt the loss. Neither is good. Here's another idea and I'm not saying it's good, but what do you think? The idea is that patrols are only created for a month before a campout. The scouts commit to that patrol and that campout for the entire month. After the campout the patrol disbands. Scouts that are busy with other activities for three months don't form into patrols (or form into pink pony patrols that don't camp ). A patrol leader needs to lead on 4 or 6 such campouts to get signed off. Pros: Adapts to schedules and reduces stress of having to go. Teaches scouts to look ahead, if only for a month. Fluidity more closely matches current organizations. Patrols have more time together then ad-hoc patrols and can work together. Assuming that friends tend to stick together, scouts can still make long term relationships. It's easier for patrols to go do their own thing. It's easier for all the kids that are going to the soccer tournament to pick another week to camp. Cons: Who is leading the troop if the patrols are constantly changing? It doesn't handle the case where schedules change at the last minute -- homework or illness. How are patrol leaders elected? Or are they elected every month? Are quiet kids, or younger kids, going to get dropped between the cracks? This would have no impact on a small troop. Some of the adults in my troop would have a fit because they say you should join a patrol when you're 11 and not leave until you're 18.