Mike F

This is the kinds of ideas I was hoping to hear! Keep 'em coming!!

Did your Eagle go to Philmont? If so, he might enjoy the collection of music (Philsongs: Remembered Days) found on Philmont Staff Association website: http://www.philstaff.com/noname.html. I haven't heard the CD, yet, but enjoyed the pleasure of jamming with some of these guys many moons ago and I can't wait to get my copy. Also more at http://www.philstaff.com/music.html -mike(This message has been edited by Mike F)

Bob White back to your post on Wed, Oct 23. (Sorry for jumping back, but Ive been out.) Interesting points. Not even I would call the mixed-age patrols I experienced in the late-60s/early-70s a panacea. However, problems with younger scouts being PL and having trouble with older scouts in patrol was almost unheard of because the older scouts, being more advanced and experienced, were almost without exception the PL until it was time for them to move up & out giving the next oldest the chance to lead for a while. This is the way the real world works most of the time, too. (Take a look at real-world leadership systems for business and military. With this in mind, I reject your comment that not much of anything done 25 years ago is done the same today. Changes caused by advances in the science of medicine are not a valid analogy. The fundamentals of leadership have been very constant.) When scouts are all same age, even without a unit-applied barrier to re-election, there is a very strong tendency within the boys to just say, Ive done it now its somebody elses turn. Yes, within the same-age patrol, there will be one or two that are the natural leaders without regard to title, but the tendency to just trade off the PL position will be stronger than if some of the scouts had the advantage of age, experience, etc. Note that mixed-age patrols do not reduce the number of opportunities for a boy to be the PL during his years in a patrol, so they still get the experience they just get it when they are slightly older and more mature. How do I figure? Well, a patrol always has a PL. Take a patrol of 8 scouts and figure theyre in a regular patrol for about 6 years before theyre pulled up to be SPL or some other staff position. Figure 6-month terms (2/yr) so that means there are PL elections 12 times. All things being equal, a scout in a similar-age patrol will serve as PL for one to two terms (average of 1.5) in his patrol career. In a mixed-age patrol, these same numbers hold true for an individual scout as he moves up through the ranks in his patrol career. Its just that his time serving as PL is much more likely to come when he is one of the oldest. As for smooth-running, efficient patrols not being the goal we are after, I agree. In a healthy patrol, smooth-running and efficient will be a transient state. We want them to grow, to try new things, to take on new challenges all with the freedom to fail. When they stumble, it wont appear to be very smooth-running or efficient for a while. But they will be learning valuable lessons they wont soon forget. And on those occasions when they have learned their lessons well and consistently put them to work, smooth-running and efficient can be achieved and we celebrate with them. While smooth-running and efficient are not in themselves the goal, they are definitely a more desired state for the patrol and it members than the opposite. Smooth-running and efficient are a direct by-product of strong, effective leadership. Its true in Scouts. Its true in the real world were preparing them to enter. Strong, effective leadership is much harder to achieve amongst a group of peers. Some things dont change. (This message has been edited by Mike F)

Looking for ideas -- how do you use them as part of your normal program (weekly meetings and campouts)?

Bob White rightly asked for some specific examples of how our methods (if not rules) have changed over time. This took a bit of digging, but I came up with the following that I believe are significant. Sources I cite are the 1967 PL Handbook, 1981 SM Handbook, and 2001 SM Handbook. In the notes below, I use only the date to indicate source. Setting up Patrols Allow for leadership 1981 -- Scouts choices should be observed, but each patrol should have at least one potential leader. P 67 2001 -- Potential leadership not mentioned when setting up patrols all expected to be leaders. Patrol composition 1981 -- Patrols should generally not be organized by age. p 67 2001 -- A patrol is a small group of boys who are more or less similar in age p 20 Requirements to be PL 1967 -- Not mentioned explicitly, but clearly intended to be ahead of others in patrol who are not yet 1st Class. 1981 -- set by the troop leadership with regard to age, rank, tenure in the troop, performance, or whatever requirements are set by the PLC. Pp 51 & 70 2001 -- The troop determines the requirements, if any, for patrol leaders, such as rank and age. P 21 PL responsibility for member rank advancement 1967 -- So important it get an entire chapter, #5 Are you working on your advancement requirements so that you, in turn, can teach your patrol members? As their patrol leader you are expected to pass them on their tests and keep them moving. P 69 Patrol Leaders had almost sole responsibility in this area. 1981 -- PLs have responsibility for helping members advance in rank and they are authorized to sign off on requirements (assuming they already hold the badge being tested). Pp 51, 75, 89, 260 (Note: Others also noted as having authority to sign off.) 2001 -- Some wording similar to 1981 (p 120), but much more emphasis given to the troop program revolving around Tenderfoot to 1st Class instruction and away training and instruction within the patrol under the leadership of patrol leader. Some of PLs responsibility also weakened by stress on similar age patrols where PL not as likely to have rank advantage over others. Note the very significant changes under Patrol composition and PL responsibility for member rank advancement. Note also that as recently as 1981, when adult leadership was supporting the process of taking patrol requests from boys when setting up patrols, they were instructed to make sure each patrol had at least one boy who the leaders recognized as a natural leader. Although the selection was still up to a vote (assuming more than one boy met the troops minimum requirements for PL), they recognized the need to seed each patrol with leadership potential. Once again we got along fine for many years with mixed age patrols and strong PLs who had significant responsibility to train and advance their younger members. What has changed to make us now recommend grouping boys more by age and reducing the PLs responsibility and authority? Possible PROs to similar age patrols and less responsibility for PL Similar interests Better friendships within patrol therefore more likely to stay in Less likelihood of hazing within patrol All compete and advance together Advancement opportunities, rates, and quality control can be better controlled by other leaders All have opportunity to be PL earlier since dont have to wait for seniority With all more of less equally qualified to be PL, nobody gets stuck in the job for a long period of time, allowing more flexibility to work around other commitments. Earlier PL position equates to earlier POR for Star, Life Possible CONs to similar age patrols and less responsibility for PL Leading peers in a much more difficult job. Significant leadership almost impossible for most 10.5 13 yr olds and difficult at any age. PL job becomes more of a coordinator, rather than real leader. He lacks the natural advantage of age and experience that others might respect. Without standout leader in group, leadership more likely to turn over frequently. When leadership turns over frequently, the PL doesnt have the same sense of responsibility and pride in his patrols long-term success as he does when for an extended period of time he thinks of it as his patrol to nurture and lead. New PL has to overcome not only disadvantage of leading peers, but he also has to lead with the former PLs now serving as members in the patrol, so new PL also has to overcome the leadership inertia of the formers, causing even more leadership chaos and dilution. PL and other older members miss out on the experience and pride of training and advancing their young members and in the process making their entire patrol stronger in patrol competitions, etc. In short, it looks to me like similar age patrols serve to keep kids in and advance more of them to Eagle at a quicker rate (now 4%, versus 1% twenty years ago) so some would argue that something is working right, but I believe this probably comes about because adults are running a lot more of the program than most of us would like to admit. As a direct result of that, the boys are missing out on the real depth and breadth of leadership experiences and training that have been the hallmark of Scouting forever. As I said in an earlier post, I think were doing the boys a disservice by grouping them by age and setting up a situation where leadership is likely to rotate around frequently. Where else in the real world (that we are ostensibly preparing them to enter) do they encounter a situation where the group leader rotates through the position and goes back to being one of the group when his term is done? Real leaders take charge, make their mark, and move up/out when their time is done.

acco40, My hat's off to you as you work mightily to get a new troop off the ground and running. It's a tough job -- I know, because I did the same over 25 yrs ago. As a leader, you have to adapt to get anything to work. You'll have to spend a lot of time modeling leadership and coaching those budding leaders. Eventually, the boys will 'get it' and will be the models the new guys look up to. This discussion was intended more for those who have medium to large, mature troops with a full range of ages and experience. That being said, I'm not questioning how/why anybody is running their troop the way they are. There is latitude today in exactly how you implement the program as it is written and trained -- use it to your advantage based on your situation. On a philosophical level, I am questioning some of the changes in methods that have been introduced at the National level over the years. I believe there are some significant Pros/Cons of these changes that are not well understood by the majority of dedicated leaders. I hope by airing some of these, we can all better understand those Pros/Cons and be better informed as we do our best, day by day, week by week. Best of luck to you and all. (Only read my next post which follows immediately if you're interested in that philosophical discussion.)

Bob, Yes - I'm trained and then some. The platitudes they give as rationale don't hold water. You dodged a lot of other items for comment -- probably evidenced by the Edited By notes. I don't think the difference in 10.5 yr olds and 12 yr olds explains the huge change in the methods we're encouraged to employ today.

Bob, Maybe we're getting to the crux of the problem here. When Baden-Powell set up the scouting program, he had a wide range of boys in one patrol and it was rightly assumed that one of the older boys would provide the leadership. As a result, for most of BSA's history, we have been very successful at turning out developed, capable leaders with a strong sense of responsibility, confidence, self-reliance, and citizenship. As we have evolved the methods of Scouting over the last 20 or so years in particular, we have seen the percentage of Eagle Scouts climb from 1% to 4%, but I believe we have eroded the foundations of leadership. As for giving all Scouts leadership opportunity theyll get it when its their time, starting with their jobs as a Patrol Member and growing as they are next an APL. As for absentee leadership there are more effective ways of dealing with this on a case-by-case basis rather than recommending all of us across the country revolve every 6 months. As for active participation, team identity, and responsibility there are plenty of effective ways to do this without playing musical chairs with the leadership positions. In fact, I believe these are all hurt by the frequent rotations. Since none of the current trends make sense from the leadership point of view, I can only conclude they were really done to expedite advancement opportunities. As for the recommended Patrol Method involving distinct categories of patrols weve been through that one before in these forums. Baden-Powell didnt describe it this way and for most of our history weve successfully used his original model of mixed ages. I can see where some might decide to go this way because it better supports their application of the program (such as LDS-sponsored Troops meshing with their youth program), but I fail to see what merits that method being the recommended one nationwide. Mixed age troops have found very successful ways to train new scouts and provide challenges for the older ones without tampering with the original method for many years. What has changed and why? Does National document this so we can really understand all of the considerations and details that went into the changes? (For instance, by understanding the background behind the move to recommend categories of Patrols, we might be more aware of the pitfalls if we decide to buck the latest trend and stay with traditional mixed-age patrols.)

Bob, BSA doesn't say the PL cannot be re-elected, but in the two Troops I'm active with in Houston and others in the District, this is their stated policy. I think we both agree this is a misapplication of the idea. They've taken another recommendation (usually applied to the First Year Patrol) that everybody should have a chance to be the PL and taken it to its logical conclusion in absurdity. In one sons mixed-age patrol containing a Life, a Star, two 1st Class Scout, one 2nd Class, and three first-year Tenderfoot Scouts one of the brand new 11-yr olds with less than 5 months in the Troop was elected PL last week because all of the older boys had already held the position. More training (like Woodbadge) for the SM isn't going to happen -- he's had the position for 7-8 years and will be leaving within the next two. I'm hoping that something from National which more clearly explains the concept, applications, limitations, and rationale will help me turn this one around. Again, it's not isolated to one troop -- it's the prevalent model used around here. In my not-always-so-humble opinion, they've taken an idea which was shaky to begin with (churning leadership so everybody can advance quicker) and misapplied it with damaging consequences. And the damage really shows up when the senior leadership (SPL) doesn't have a firm grasp of leadership -- not just by training, but by modeling and experience. We muddle along, but we could be doing so much better. And National could help by giving us more insight and removing some of the ambiguity.

Red Feather and all, Again -- no dispute about Youth Protection and Safety -- they are there for obvious reasons -- let's agree to leave those out of the discussion. But I am concerned about some of the other trends because I believe they affect our ability to grow strong leaders. In my mind, those are an impediment to me doing the best I can for the Scouts. Let's get specific. Boys need leadership position for advancement so we encourage them to rotate positions every 6 months (the minimum term which meets requirement for Star/Life/Eagle). But leadership is best when it's consistent and the leader has seniority and experience that the others respect. He has skills to share. Take a group of 8 scouts -- the natural leader is usually (not always) the oldest, most experienced. Without other influences, the other boys would usually elect to keep him as the PL until it was time for him to move up to another position in the troop (SPL, ASPL, etc.). Over time and with guidance, the PL grows into a very effective leader. At the same time, the PL begins grooming his APL and other older boys in Patrol to eventually take over. Boys learn from his example and are better prepared to step up when it's their time. When we externally force them to turn over the leadership every 6 months by not allowing the PL to be re-elected (because somebody else 'needs' the position for advancement), and the now-former PL -- the oldest, most experienced boy in Patrol -- is back down as a Patrol Member, we create leadership chaos. The books talk about this being a valuable life lesson for the boys, but where else do we systematically demote a Group Leader of any type back into the ranks as a regular member? Can you name one effective company in the country that demotes all of its trained leaders twice a year? Some might argue that boys also need to learn how to be followers. I believe the boys learn plenty about followership during their first few years as a regular patrol member, then more later as PLs when they follow the leadership of the SPL, then maybe more later as ASPLs, etc. Back to the original discussion. If I can definitely determine this idea about churning leadership every 6 months was brought about by BSA primarily to accelerate rank advancement opportunities, I have information I can use to make some changes as I work with Troop Committee, PLC, parents, etc.. In my mind, as I think is obvious from above, I believe there are some definite pros/cons to this approach, but from the leadership point of view, it's mostly negative. Options I might consider if I can confirm the source of this guideline: - Consider lengthening terms to a more effective 1 year. - Encourage 1st Class Scouts in position of needing leadership for Star to be a Den Chief (local packs are crying out for help) if theres not another position available for them. - As part of training and working with PLs, stress the importance of their job and how much the Troop really depends on their consistent, level-headed leadership. (You cant force them to volunteer to be re-elected, but you can praise, honor, and reward their dedication when they do.) - Have same talk with whole Troop. - Look for ways to avoid moving former leaders back into depths of patrols maybe have them as part of a Staff Patrol with SPL, ASPL(s), QM, etc., as JASMs. But all of these are going to be a hard sell unless I can confirm source of the initial 6-month turnover recommendation. Im also open to the possibility that theres something else out there which makes this a better idea than I can see. As always, thanks for your input.

le Voyageur, Good point -- I take no issue with Youth Protection and other safety rules. Am more concerned with leadership, advancement, and other parts of the program that have been changed over time.

yaworski & Ed, I have a strong personal hunch that your personal opinions have a significant amount of truth to them. What I'm hoping to dig up is the documented rationale from the ones who made the rules what they are. Changes like you describe would tend to dilute/confuse/twist/ignore the real Methods of Scouting. If we knew which rules were changed to allow/encourage unreasonable rates of advancement or to be more PC, it would be helpful -- both to begin working to change it back, or to at least know the source of the problem when things don't seem to be working well under current system.

This was inspired by some of the discussion in the "Why can't we all just get along?" thread, but I figured it might merit some discussion on its own. Is the rationale/justification/logic/support for all of the rules documented in any place that we could study it? I was extremely active in scouting from my youth until the birth of my second child (when my wife resented being left at home with two while I camped with others kids fair nuf). After a few years off, Im excited about being active again, but am often confused by some of the changes in the program (AKA, The Rules) while I was gone. I have a library of BS, PL, and SM Handbooks which goes back 25-35 years. (And, yes, I have the current ones, too.) Some of the more recent rules (as well as guidelines/recommendations) befuddle me. Ive taken the training, but the emphasis is on understanding the structure and rules not a detailed explanation of why were now doing it this way. An example: The 1981 SM Handbook clearly states a troop may establish minimum requirements for a boy to hold the PL position (rank, attendance, etc.), but the current SM Handbook omits this option (although it doesnt expressly prohibit it). Now clearly, Troops with same-age versus mixed-age Patrols would apply this idea differently, but I have to wonder was there something wrong with the original idea, or did they just run out of room in the most recent edition and that paragraph was sacrificed in the editing? I know these things are decided at the National level, by a Rules Committee of sorts, but wonder if they are documented. In my day job, I work at NASA. The operation of a spacecraft is governed by many rules which are all thought out, discussed, and documented well before you get into the heat of an emergency. Along with the rules, we publish a description of the rationale behind each rule. This is very useful when difficulties arise gives us more insight to know exactly whats at stake and which rules have a little margin (or room for interpretation) in them. It also preserves the logic for the future so when people retire, well still have the detailed thought process documented. (By the way, this thorough documentation of rationale came post-Challenger when we learned a deadly and painful lesson in bending rules we didnt completely understand.) Baden-Powell did a good job documenting the rationale for his rather sparse rules in his prolific writing that got this movement started. In studying that and comparing it to today, I wonder if boys have changed that much or if some of todays rules were brought about by reactions to isolated problems when common sense and decency didnt prevail. Stupid rules are meant to be broken. (Colonel Sherman Potter, 4077th MASH.) OK not a good policy statement just trying to throw in some humor. Seriously, Id have an easier time getting onboard with all the rules if I knew more of their background and rationale. Id also know which ones we needed to engage at the proper levels to get changed. Does anybody know if this exists and where I could get a copy?

Good discussion! To encourage the sports players to attend meetings, our troop allows players to come straight from practice to the meeting in their sports clothes. Instead of getting on them about uniforms, they are praised for their dedication. With a little bit of planning and effort, their Scout Handbooks, compass, etc., can be pre-loaded into Dads car or stashed in their sports gear bag. After Friday night games, guys will drive out to the campouts late or on Saturday morning. When talking attendance, its not too hard to keep track of excused absences for band/sports/school load/high-priority family activities (that are preferably reported to the PL ahead of time) and unexcused absences when a boy just doesnt feel like attending. When the unexcused absences start to stack up, its time for an extra SM conference to find out whats going on.

le V, Does your Troop get involved in rescue work or disaster response? If so, I'd like to talk to you about it! I've mentioned it to some leaders here and they thought I was crazy. Made contact with FEMA and Red Cross after recent flooding in Central Texas to see if we could bring a group up, but they were very reluctant due to liabilities, etc. My first memory of Boy Scouts in action was a local news clip showing Boy Scouts helping sand-bag a levy after a hurricane in S. Texas. I was a Cub and couldn't wait to do some real hero stuff to help out. Do Scouts do this anymore?? Breathing a sigh of relief in Houston -- and praying for our neighbors to the East...

I have sons in two different troops -- one has a few female SAs and the other has an explicit policy that Boy Scouts is a "guy" thing and has plenty of men to help out. After observing both for a while, it's obvious that things change a bit with moms in camp. While one or two are thoroughly professional, others will occasionally turn on the female charm, etc.. The second troop includes mom and the rest of the family during occasional 'family' campouts so they can enjoy watching their son/brother/husband doing his thing. While I recognize and celebrate the women who step into the arena when men won't/can't, I believe it's healthy for young men to get away with the guys if they have the opportunity.

Korea Scouter, Sounds like your current program is strong, with solid boy leadership at work. Congratulations! Instead of taking a chance on disrupting a program that's working well, we have occasional special, more challenging activities just for the older boys. They get the benefit of the higher-level activities and have some new knowledge and skills to share with the rest of the patrol later. And the younger guys have something to look forward to in the future. One of my son's troops (similar in size to yours) is doing it this way very effectively. At about half of the troop meetings, the older boys get together for about 30-45 minutes to work on higher-level skills (technical climbing, wilderness survival, night navigation, etc.) while the others work on other more basic skills. Special outings have included challenging backpacking, white water canoeing, and caving to name a few. Retention and interest of older boys is very good and overall excitement is high. Since they function as a team, not a formal patrol, we don't use the Venture title. Instead, we have a team name adopted from a WWII Special Ops unit. This is when it REALLY gets fun! Whichever way you go, I guarantee the adults will have as much fun as the kids!! Good luck and let us know how it goes.

I'm back on my medication (just kidding), but I have calmed down and I must go on record as retracting some of the over-the-top points in my last post. All, After "HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE" please delete "TO THE LETTER". Bob White's right-on in slapping me over that one -- it's an unbearable approach with adults and especially kids. But do hold the PL accountable. Too often the kids get the training, but nobody keeps tabs on them to make sure they're on the right track until they've drifted into the ditch. If we don't touch base on the items covered in training, we're sending the unintentional message that it's not really important. Discovered early, it's an easier course correction. What I tried (ineffectively) to communicate with "BY THE LETTER" was, for instance, if you told the PL during training that he was expected to hold a Patrol Meeting once a month outside of the regular Troop Meetings, then you (or better, the SPL) need to ask him how those meetings were going after a month or two. If he hasn't met the expectation, it's time for a reminder about the importance of those meetings, but you don't have to beat him with it, which leads to my next mea culpa. Don't strive to be a "thorn in his side". Although he may look at it that way when you're talking to him about stuff he really doesn't want to do, you've got to do your best to be encouraging and inspiring -- they can do great things and have tremendous fun in the process when things are running well. SM424, Please forgive the miscommunication -- I addressed my note to SM101, who I understood to have a larger, more mature troop. His situation and options will be different from yours because of this. You're in a tough position and I do feel your pain, having started my first troop from scratch over 20 years ago. From what I read, you're definitely on the right track. Hang in there -- it will get better!! I do have one idea for you, if I can get it out without stomping on any toes. The hardest part of a new start-up is the lack of experienced, capable leaders for your future leaders to model. When they see adults running all significant parts of the program, the words about boy leadership have a hard time taking root. What about borrowing some older boys from another troop for a while to help model that behavior? Right now, my troop has sent 6 hand-picked boys over to another brand-new troop for a minimum of 6 months to help them get started. The boys are all from our Venture Patrol, ages 14-17, Star-Eagle, and have a proven track record as leaders with First Year Patrols, PL, ASPL, Guides and Instructors. This takes a tremendous commitment, but our guys were excited about the opportunity and are having a blast. You might consider asking around. If you want more details about how we pulled this off, please feel free to email me directly. Bob White, I hope my mea culpas above cleared up your point #3. Let me address the other two. 1. Requirements for PL position. I gave my newest edition of SM Handbook to one of our new leaders a few weeks ago, so I cant quote chapter and verse, but if you say its not in there, I honestly have no doubt about you being right. But I didnt make this one up myself and maybe it should be in there. To back that up, I dust off my 1981 version of SM Handbook. Page 70, under Patrol Organization, The patrol has one leader. He is the patrol leader, elected by the membership of the patrol, from the patrol. He must meet the qualifications for age, rank, tenure in the troop, or whatever requirements are established by you, the troop, and your troop committee and installed into office. In a new troop, these qualifications would have to be low or no one could qualify. As the troop becomes experienced, the qualifications can be raised. The minimum term of office for patrol leader should be 6 months. I have no idea what history could have led them to omit this concept in recent years, but it has been used in the past and may be an effective tool for a troop in dealing with a particular situation. 2. Not forcing a leadership turnover every 6 months. I failed to communicate my point some troops enforce term limitations a boy is not eligible to be PL after serving a term as PL even if he is an outstanding leader and the clear first choice of every boy in the patrol. Thats what I meant by forcing a turnover even if the boys all want the same PL again, theyre not allowed to. Then the new PL, whos not really their first choice, has the daunting task of leading a group which contains the favored natural leader as one of the members. If they chose to select a new PL, the turnover wasnt forced, it was a part of the normal process. In an older troop with mixed age patrols, one of the older boys is usually the PL of choice. The others will get their chance to hold the reins when he moves up or out and they will (hopefully) have had the benefit of a good model to emulate. (Disclaimer: For First Year patrols or very young troops, I can see where some forced turnover could help guys test the leadership waters. I just dont think its a good idea with an older mix.) (As a matter of interest, are term limitations in the new SM Handbook? Theyre not in the old one. If so, Ill do my best to shut up, understand the benefits, and get with the program.) Good discussion! Thanks for holding me accountable to the letter on some of my mistaken ones!!

Very common problem, smaster101! Some SMs take a very hands-off approach -- simply remarking that it's the boys decision and if they make a bad one, they'll learn from it and vote smarter next time. I think more often a poor PL will cause the entire Patrol to flounder and lose interest. I put forth the hypothesis that poor Patrol leadership is one of the top 5 reasons why kids drop out. I'll take this another step and say that in our desire to spread around the leadership and give everybody the chance to be PL (many before they're really ready), we are creating turmoil and instability at the Patrol level that is hurting our program and ultimately driving down our retention. OK - that's off my chest - now what to do about it? 1st - You have the authority to set some minimum requirements that a boy must meet in order to be eligible for PL. The specifics will vary by Troop situation. Consider the following to get you started: All PLs must be at least Star (or whatever is appropriate for your mix). (Nudge the more advanced boys into stepping up to the plate, instead of letting the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th most senior boy be PL.) All PLs must be at least 15 yrs old. (Same logic.) All PLs must have attended at least 75% of the Troop activities over the last 6 months. (You want your PLs to be active. Past participation is a good indicator of future.) (Expect complaint: "But Johnny needs his 6 months of leadership for Star/Life!" Yes he does, but he's also expected to be an active part of the program.) 2nd - Consider NOT forcing a leadership turnover every 6 months. In many cases the boy is finally just getting the leadership thing under control about that time. If you've got a good one, he's willing (even if it takes some encouragement and very gentle pressuring), and the boys want to re-elect him -- for gosh sakes, let him lead! Now - about that boy who is not currently the obvious best choice, but the boys elected him... Fortunately, leadership is a skill that can be learned. You and especially the SPL should become either the wind under his wings or the thorn in his side. SET VERY CLEAR EXPECTATIONS and HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE TO THE LETTER. Follow up after every activity. Quick PLC tagup after meetings - identify any discipline issues in his patrol that he needs to deal with, ask about missing members (does he know why), etc. At regular PLCs, discuss problems/challenges in more detail, status of advancement for his boys, etc. SPL or ASPL can attend some of his patrol meetings as a guest, then discuss it with him after the other boys leave. Eventually, at the best, he'll surprise you (and maybe even himself) at the great job he does. At the worst, he'll decide after a while that he doesn't want to be PL any more... Good luck!(This message has been edited by Mike F)

Bob58, Sorry for late reply. There's really a good reason for this rule -- it's important for your new members to make friends in their new lodge. One of my Ordeal-mates 30 years ago continues to be one of my best friends to this day. Another question worth asking: "Are there any other Ordeal weekends planned in this Lodge within the next year?" (Note: Scouts/Scouters elected for OA membership have a year to complete their Ordeal.) Your boys can't be the only ones with this problem. Most lodges have additional opportunities at Fall, Winter, or Spring conclaves.

Back to the original problem about lights-out... Bob White -- I loved your example of using the chain of command! You identified the problem, then brought it to the attention of the boy leadership chain. Part of leadership is setting the example and enforcing the rules. Of course it's easier for us to deal with the problem directly, but nobody learns anything and we will be the ones that continue to be required to step in. For problems other than safety, we should insist the chain of command deal with the situation (even if we sometimes hold the ultimate hammer, like your telephone calls).

One of the posters mentioned staying in barracks -- great, if you can get it. Our troop in Texas usually stays in a gym on Air Force bases in San Antonio and Wichita Falls. Most bases have multiple gyms and one closes early enough for us to use. Have to keep the kids off of the equipment, but the basketball courts are always available for burning off energy after a day in the car/bus. In addition to cheap chow, we've been able to take in a movie and use the recreation center. By the way, we have stayed on bases since Sept 11. Don't forget to bring a nice gift for the sponsor you'll be assigned. And definitely don't forget to write a thank you note to the Base Commander. If you can spare the time, most bases will take you on a tour -- the boys will love it -- especially if they get to see some military aircraft up close.

We include a talk, much along the lines of scouter659's line of thought, during orientation for new scout parents. Many come in thinking of scouts as mostly something fun for the boys. We try to help them understand the real value of scouting that goes way beyond the fun. If it was only fun, it makes sense to use scouts as a punishment tool. But if they see it as a legitimately positive influence, they wouldn't consider withholding scouts any more than school, church, band, or a sports team. Helps to have this discussion (and hopefully for the parents to make the decision) long BEFORE Johnny gets in hot water and the tempers flare. I've seen a period of grounding from other activities (TV, Nintardo, neighborhood play) turn into a very positive time of growth when Johnny really looks forward to scouts.

Another twist to the question: I'm registered as an ASM in #1 son's troop and I proudly wear the uniform. #2 son just joined another troop and SM has asked me to help out as an ASM, when able. What about wearing both troop numbers on one uniform so I never brain-slip and wear the wrong one to a meeting? (Please try to control the laughter -- this is going to be hard enough as it is, so I'm looking for options to simplify in any way possible.)

A great story from local paper. --------------------------------- Boy Scouts prepare Gonzalez for life By BARBARA KARKABI Houston Chronicle March 16, 2002 By the time Rudy Gonzalez was in fifth grade, his life was going down the tubes. It began when he was 6. His father was shot and killed at a club while trying to help a relative. "After that, I didn't care about anything," Gonzalez recalled. "I didn't care about who I hurt or what I did. I thought if people don't care, why should I care?" Growing up in Magnolia Park in Houston's East End, he began hanging out with the wrong crowd, flunking classes and talking back to teachers. He was expelled from one elementary school after another. By seventh grade, into "more serious stuff" and fighting with teachers and kids, he'd seen the inside of the juvenile detention center. "I was a bad kid," he said. "But the people I was hanging out with were all the same. If you looked at them the wrong way, you got it." Friends were killed. Others went to jail. With a little help, Gonzalez took a different path: He became a Boy Scout. Now a serious and well-dressed 25-year-old with a college ring from Texas A&M University, Gonzalez is still a Boy Scout: Since last fall, he has been a district executive for the Boy Scouts of America. Change for the better began in eighth grade. While hanging out at Mason Park, Gonzalez and friends met police officer John A. Trevino, who was starting baseball, soccer and basketball teams. There was one catch: To be on the team, the boys had to have good grades and get teacher recommendations. Gonzalez figured that left him out. Trevino gave him a chance. "He told me, `You will have to work on your grades and attitude,' " Gonzalez recalled. "I thought, `Well, maybe he cares about me.' Kids can tell when someone is honest and sincere and comes from the heart." When Gonzalez occasionally acted up, Trevino called him on it. Gonzalez is grateful he did. One afternoon, during practice, Gonzalez and his friends told Trevino they wished they could go camping. Trevino, a scoutmaster, suggested they join a Boy Scout troop. "Most of the guys in our neighborhood thought Scouting was for sissies," Gonzalez said. "But Trevino told us that if we wanted to go camping, learn to ride horses and shoot rifles, we needed to join the Scouts." Seven or eight boys started a troop, the first in their neighborhood in many years. At Camp Strake, they were the only inner-city Hispanic Scouts, and they had no uniforms. "We felt shabby and embarrassed," Gonzalez said. "But we still had fun." When the boys returned, community leaders held fund-raisers and helped them buy uniforms. The troop quickly grew to 35 boys. In Gonzalez's life, things starting changing even faster after he helped save a neighborhood boy from drowning in a creek in 1990, using skills he'd learned in the Boy Scouts. He was awarded the Honor Medal for Heroism, the Boy Scouts of America's highest lifesaving medal. In 1992, he was picked to be the first Hispanic to deliver the Boy Scouts' report to the nation and meet President George Bush. The problem was, he didn't have a coat. "I wasn't going to go, but my teachers got together and bought me a coat," he said. "I saw a different world. I thought: `You know what? I can change and do something positive.' I had never been to another city, so it opened my eyes a lot." He enrolled in honors courses at Milby High School and graduated near the top of his class. Looking back, he realizes he was bored in regular classes and needed the challenge. For his Eagle Scout project, Gonzalez organized several hundred volunteers to clean up an old African-American cemetery near Lawndale. For all his hard work, Gonzalez had not given much thought to college. Luckily, Trevino had other ideas. Scholarships began rolling in, and college became an option. "It took the entire community for me to start thinking like that," Gonzalez said. "Without the support of the business community and my family, I would never have had the opportunity to go to A&M and be where I am today." While majoring in business and agriculture, Gonzalez found time to establish five inner-city Boy Scout troops and four Cub Scout packs in Bryan/College Station. After several years of working for a home-building firm, he took a pay cut to work full time for the Boy Scouts. It was time, he said, to pay the community back. As district executive, he coordinates volunteers, works with businesses to raise money and arranges troop meeting sites. As part of his job, he gives motivational speeches to students and businesses. He walks in dressed in gang attire -- shades, a bandanna and baggy pants. After sharing stories of his past, he takes off his gang costume to reveal the Boy Scout uniform he wears underneath. "When I walk in, people look at me like, `What is this guy doing?' " Gonzalez said. "But after I do my speech and make my presentation, a lot of them are crying and have a much different view."