mk9750

Bob, I just scanned all your posts in this thread again and keep missing you saying you didn't know. I'll figure it's buried in there somewhere and apoligize to you for implying you were keeping it a secret. If it's the insurance excuse (shame of it is), then yes, I think I'd have a tough time ignoring what profesional risk managers say about this. If it's the lone camp ranger, or some other similiar reason, I'd feel more comfortable saying yes to a different venue. You seem to think that I am looking for a way to say no. Exactly the opposite. I WANT this to become a part of our program. I am trying to make sure that when the Patrol Leader (my son) goes to the Scoutmaster with his plan, he has all of the resources he needs to make that plan the best it can be. And taking into consideration why the BSA won't allow it is the responsible thing to do. BTW, when I put the idea to do an adult - less campout in my son's ear, the first place his mind went for a location was our Scout camp. And I was pleased with his reasoning: It is the most likely place parents would fell comfortable allowing their boys to camp without an adult. It is familiar, and the parents know that at the very least there would be a campmaster, and perhaps other troops camping there. My son's Patrol has done bowling, Putt Putt, and sleep overs together. They have also done some nature hikes on a small scale, in order to help one or two of their Patrol mates get a requirement signed off. An over night campout is the next step, if they are going to do it. Dave, You ask a good question ("why not ask the professional"). You are right and I am sorry. I have to admit that I am approaching this as the dad of the Patrol Leader who is trying to get his plan and presentation together. If I had my Registered Leader hat on, I may have thought to ask our DE. But I didn't, and you are right. I should go to the source likely to have the information. Mark

Here's a similiar situation to consider: The Patrol develops a duty roster that includes a cook and an assistant cook for the weekend. Tradition dictates that the parents of the cook is responsible for shuttling these two boys to and from the grocery store. When the parent is not registered, there is no real problem here. It's just a mom or dad being a taxi service. But what happens when the mom or dad is registered? What if he / she is the SM or an ASM? Youth protection rules are good. they do a service to both boys and Scouters. But here is a situation that at the least causes some concern, doesn't it? Mark

Bob, I agree with your position. I am thrilled that the possiblity exists. But a responsible person who is given the responsiblity to approve or help modify a Patrol's plan for an outing should be considering all of the pertainent information. The BSA made their call based on something significant, I'm sure. I'll also bet that most responsible SMs would be considering the same issues that the BSA did even if they don't know they were. I'm not asking for a reversal, I'm not asking for them to defend why they did it, I just want to know, so that we can be sure the information we use to make this call includes all of the resources the BSA has. Why does the reason have to be a secret? If you don't know the answer, no problem. There are 100s of answers I don't have. But for the life of me I can't see why you're being so protective of the reason, if you know it. Despite what others have said in the past, I've never seen you evade answering a question until this. I don't want to believe the BSA sees the need to protect themselves from liability but don't feel it would be important for others. So there has to be another reason. What is it? Mark

Bob, you know I love ya, man, but I think you bit off more than you can chew here. I am 100% on the side that says we should encourage and allow properly planned Patrol events without adult supervision. but if the BSA doesn't allow them on its own property, my assumption is that they must have a reason. And knowing the BSA, it's probably a good reason. I'd like to hear what it is and consider it before I allowed one of our Patrols to go, if I were the SM. It's just another bit of backround info that would help make a good decision. I don't mean to say that their policy would keep me from allowing it. I can cetrainly fathom in my mind some very valid reasons to disallow it on Scout property while still encouraging it elsewhere. But I'd like the oppurtunity to consider the reasons. As I remember a really funny T.V. show in the 60s saying, "You got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy!" As to the original question, I can't offer anything from experience, because we still have not done it. My son, a PL, is trying to develop a one night outing on some property an ASM has. His sticking point right now is that it is too far to hike to, and he is trying to avoid needing adults. Every other idea he has had has been nixed by parents of some of the guys in the Patrol. Mark

I've mentioned this in other threads, but our Troop answers this question by deciding what the impetus for the need is. If we are trying to raise money for general needs (like awards, etc.) or special Troop resource needs, like a a trailer, the Committee Chair usually askes someone on the comittee to develop a fundraiser. If the boys want to partake in an activity that is resource intensive, like kayaking or Rapelling and we need equipment to do so, they are responsible for developing a way to pay for it. Might not be the perfect solution, but it works for us. Mark

Fog, I find that some of the things I see on this forum make me feel that my Troop is very odd. Your comment about the number of people wearing complete uniforms is one of them. I just tried to do a mental picture of what I saw at our last Troop meeting, and who was there. We had 31 of 32 Scout at the meeting. 30 of 31 had their complete uniform on correctly (we do have a couple of boys who wear temporary patches incorrectly. I'm not counting them as out of uniform). We had a Scoutmaster and 7 ASMs at the meeting. One of the ASMs arrived late, directly from work, and he was out of uniform. The other 6 ASMs and the SM were in complete uniform, less neckwear. Our adults wear the olive tie for CoHs, but are opened collared for all other events. Two of the Committee Members (myself and one other gentleman) regularly wear complete uniforms, and both of us did last Tuesday. There were 3 other committee members in attendence. So the totals: 30 of 32 potential youth in complete uniform. 6 of 7 adult leaders in complete uniform 2 of 5 committees members in complete uniform 38 out of 44 potential uniforms in attendence. I have no idea what we do differently than your unit, or those that you know of that don't wear their uniform regularly. I know that when anyone comes into our meeting room without their uniform, junior leadership is very quick to ask why. And they're not very particular who it is. A few weeks ago, they suggested that the SM had time to go home and change when he came directly from work. And they were serious. And he did go and change. I have seen the SM ask a boy who had approached him for a SM confernece at a campout to wait a few minutes, and the SM emerged from his tent with complete uniform on. SM conferences and BORs are not provided unless a boy has his complete uniform on. We've had boys borrow uniform parts from each other if they forgot something in order to do a confernece or Review. And the PLC makes uniforms one of the judging criteria they use for our Honor Patrol contest. The contest won't start for another couple of weeks, but I think the results above may be a testament to how well the method works. ON THE OTHER HAND, I've got to tell a quick (for me, at least) story supporting your point. We had a new District Commisioner who was intent on shoring up the Commisioner corps. After years of never having seen a commisioner, our new commish accepted an invitation to a CoH, and was asked to say a few words. He sat with the adult leaders at the front of the room as the flag ceremony started. He had on an open collared Scout shirt, and jeans. As I mentioned, all of our adults wear complete uniforms with ties to CoHs. The Scouts came in during their flag ceremony, looking like $0.25 short of a million bucks. When the Commisioner spoke, he talked about how embarassed he was after seeing our Troop not to own a pair of Scout pants. We haven't seen him since. Mark

Ditto to all. To phrase a little differently: Johnny could go to MB Counselor "A" and be told his previous nights camping count. Billy could go to MB Counselor "B" and be told his previous camping nights do not count. Neither is wrong. As to my opinion, I think they should count. However, I also think that a number of people, including the Advancement Chair and some well meaning older Scouts should be pointing out to all new Scouts that if the MB Counselor that most of the Troop's guys go to is a stickler about this, they should be suggesting that these guys get their MB card and start working on that MB right away. As to other requirments being met prior to "starting" the MB, I almost always allow this, after a discussion of the work done previous and to how it relates to the requirement. If a boy can see the bold line that connects what he did to the purpose of the requirment, I would always count this. Mark

Shell, Like you, I was trying to find a way to get our Scribe more active with the advancement records, without giving away too much of my job, and without turning gray worrying that it would get done correctly. After reading oh, about a billion posts here, I came to realize that turning over work to the boys isn't only OK, it's expected! I have continuously followed a number of posters here. One of them, Eagledad, has spoken about this topic in terms that have really helped me understand that it is our duty NOT to do what a boy could do himself. Now, our Scribe records all advancements in Troopmaster (which, by the way, I recomend highly). He prints all of the reports and presents them for me for signature. I forward them to Council (I have access to a fax machine at work). He fills out the backer card that goes with rank or merit badges. He makes the presentations when we circle up at the end of the meeting. And he is responsible for advising the PLC what rank requirments need to be covered as they are planning campouts and doing meeting agendas. I can't say that this has caused less work for me, as I have been almost as active reviewing everything he does. But as he got better at it, I began to realize that this is the perfect job to allow boys to do. Let's face it: As much of a mess as it could be if a mistake is made, as long as you catch a problem within a few weeks or so of it happening, and as long as it doesn't effect a Scout close to Eagle, anything can be fixed. I was lucky. When I realized I should be handing this over, the boy who was Scribe was problably our most organized guy. He is now SPL, and a new Scribe has taken his place. So I've got to start the training all over again, but it'll be worth it. I also like the idea of keeping track of attendance at outings. We stopped keeping attendance a few years ago because we realized that we weren't using the info for anything of value. However, one recent Eagle Scout had his entire record of attendance, and wanted a summary included in his Eagle CoH program. It worked so well, we would like to beging doing that more. Troopmaster can track all of that, if someone gathers and enters the data. Someone mentioned the Troop website. We appoint a seperate Webmaster for this job. Welcome to the forums! I think you like it! Mark

scoutingagain, I think you might be able to hear the palm of my hand slapping my forehead as I say to myself "Why didn't I think of that!" May I borrow your question about what a Scout wants to get out of Scouting for use in BORs I do? What a great question! I ask "What ARE you getting out of Scouting?" all the time. Never occured to me to ask what a Scouted wanted to get. By the way, welcome to you and to Bob Welch. Mark

Eamonn, You raise two issues: 1) Adult volunteers who don't extend themselves into District and Council positions. To this I agree. I know in my situation (and others in my Troop feel the same way), we truly prefer working with our unit to getting involved in the politics of Council relations. We keep our heads down in our own little foxhole. Whenever we've had reason to lift our heads, the crossfire has been scary! I'd give you an example we've got going right now, but it's long (even for my standards!) 2) Keeping volunteeers after their sons are gone. I agree again. I can understand why most anyone who isn't a SM would walk away after their son is gone. Much of the allure of Scouting, and volunteering in Scouting, is gone when our son is, unless you are working directly with boys. I do have a suggestion to stem this tide, If anyone is interested. Either Councils have access to the records that show when a volunteer's son is ready to age out, or they could begin collecting that data easily. I also have found that recruiting volunteers is most sucessful when I approach them directly and ask them to do something very specific. Combining these two, how difficult would it be to have the DE, or someone else from Council contact these volunteers directly to discuss staying in Scouting? Especially at the District level. I make the mistake sometimes of basing my assumptions about others on what I see and feel. I know that is wrong. But here is a case I think I could be right. I am the Advancement Chair with my Troop now. I love it, and do not want to sacrifice any of the time I spend at this, with my son, to work with the District. I have been asked almost constantly to consider Commisioner Service. I have steadfastly said no while I am active with my Troop. Once my youngest is 18, I absolutely would like to pursue this. I've already made my decision, but I've been being asked. How many others get asked? And even if they do, wouldn't asking at the right time (as their sons' career in Scouting is coming to an end) be more sucessful? Eamonn - Great points. Mark

Our rationale for testing at every aquatics event is fairness. Sometimes Scouts just barely pass. We don't think it is good practice to allow a Scout who is a marginal swimmer to automtically be clasified as a swimmer based on one test a year. These guys should get tested more often. How often? I don't know. Every event is probably too much, but how should we know? So we do test at every event. Well, then why test everyone? That's where the fairness doctrine applies. This is an area where a rule made for one or two guys should be applied to all, we think. Sure, we're retesting guys that have Swimming, and sometimes, Lifesaving MB. But this is a case where it's just easier to be fair than to single out selected kids to make them repeat the test. Mark

big Dog, Welcome, welcome, welcome! If you've been lurking for any length of time, you should know that you've found a great bunch of characters to chat with. Passionate about Scouting, you betcha! Sometimes it spills into a bit of rough housing, but most everyone here is cognizant of the Scout Law. Congrates on the new Troop. I hope you find it, as I do, the single most reqarding thing you'll have ever done outside of family life. Don't be afraid to come and lean of your friends here. There is a lot of wisdom in these masses! I hope you are not to be confused with "Big Dawg" of Cleveland Brown mascot fame, are you? Mark

Zahanda, Sorry that I could not reply through the PM system. For some reason, clicking on the link doesn't get me anywhere. Out of respect for the fact that you responded privately, I won't quote you, but I wish you had posted this publicly. Your comment was really my point though. One person thinks the truth is..., the other thinks it's the opposite. One group of people think what is right is ..., the other... I agree with that. It's really the point that I was trying to make. NJ sees from his his perspective that society has accepted homosexuality. My perception is that it has not. Neither has been proved, as far as I know. but I think it is fair to say that everyone knows that society judged it as immoral 40 years ago. I think until there is proof that our society's values have change so that it REALLY IS accepted, we have to assume it still isn't. But either way, we're still talking about perception. I absolutely did not take your response as an attack. Few people I have encountered on this board have resorted to personal attacks, even when a closely held tenet of their believe system has been attacked. Put it this way: Attack my position all you want. You'll not offend me. But I'll know when I (or anyone) is being attacked personally. Your response wasn't one of those, for sure. I hope I did a fair job protecting the privacy of your message while still responding to you. Mark

I see four issues in the original post: 1) "May not allow..." Ninety - five percent of me understands this to mean very specifically that smoking in front of Scouts is prohibited. Five percent allows for the possiblity that it could mean "are permitted to prohibit it". Given the preceeding text in the Guide, and what I think is everyone's understanding of the intent of the BSA, I think the wording is fine the way it is, but there would be no harm in changing it to "prohibit" 2) The literature request to refrain from smoking for the duration of the event. Given the prohibition on smoking in front of Scouts, I think it is obvious to anyone who knows of the prohibition that this is a request to go the additional mile and not smoke at all. I view this as a request, not a demand. A good idea, perhaps, but only a suggestion. 3) How you were treated at the event station. The approach you describe in my mind is nothing short of deplorable. There may be some factors that mitigate it a small amount. As other point out, the guy was a volunteer. But no one should be treated like you were. I think you are owed an apology. 4) Your oppurtunity to know and understand the rule. I agree with some of the other posters here. The responsiblity to assure all who were kind enought to take time to attend with their kids was the unit person responsible for organizing the event. If I were responsilbe for arranging an outing like you describe, that was to include unregistered people who are likely NOT to know all of the rules, I would feel it is my duty to make sure every knows what is expected of them. Of course, I'd strongly recomend that you register and attend training. That would eliminate the middle man. But you weren't registered then. You should have been told the expctations. I am an ex-smoker. My dad also died (18 months ago) from his second bout with lung cancer. I abhor smoking. But, and this may come as a shock, I am not in favor of outlawing smoking. I do believe that smokers have the responsiblity to avoid subjecting anyone else to smoke. I believe this is the smoker's responsiblity to avoid non smokers, not the other way around. And I will not waver in that. But I believe we as a country have been far too willing to accept reductions in our personal freedoms to appease the majority. I believe you have a right to partake in something, even if it is going to kill you. You'll never have the right to subject me to it, but I will defend your right to do it. Some might argue that even a polite smoker affects us all with higher health care rates, etc. And I do agree that is true. But I think this should be dealt with using the free enterprise system: If your habit costs more money, you should pay for it in the form of higher insurance rates, medical costs, etc. Not as punishment, but just as a reflection of where the costs are incurred. Just my two cents (OK, may eight cents!). Mark

NJ, I disagree with many of your premises here, but the one I want to single out is your contention that homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by societal consesus. I can't for the life of me figure out how you feel that is true. In my circle of friends and aquaintances, I know of VERY FEW who accept homosexuality as moral. Many of my friends refuse to watch Will and Grace and other shows that celebrate homosexuality because we feel they promote immoral behavior. Many of my friends feel that it is likely that homosexuals will meet an Angry God at their Judgement Day. I understand that many in your circle of friends and aquaintances feel quite the opposite. And even though I disagree, I respect that. But I TRULY do not believe it is an accurate statement to say that scoiety, as a whole, now accepts homosexuality as moral. Small pockets of our society might have changed, but not so pervasively as to say "societal consensus". Our society's morals can't have changed that quickly in 40 years. If you know of a study that suggests differently, I'd like to review it. I do agree with you though, that if you disagree, you should be doing what you can to change the rule. I don't think you will ever be sucessful, as I think the majority of the main stream America that the BSA represents will never allow it. But I think you have a responsiblity to try to affect the change you think is right. As long as you agree to abide by the rules as they are, or leave, I support your right to make the arguement 100%. Again, I hate the arguement that you make, I think it is dead wrong, but I think you should make it if you believe in it. I'd like to change your mind. I doubt I, or any one, can. You'll never change mine. But I respect you for trying. Mark

nivipi, Your point certainly is valid. Can there be no doubt that in most cases, boys stand a better chance of being treated properly for medical issues if an adult is available? Of course not. I think we all know that having an adult is more likely to provide a good outcome in a situation like this. But you went on to begin to describe what I think is the flaw in your position. In your soccer example, certainly the boy's leg injury may have been minimized by adult presence. Because that is true, we probably aught to limit the times kids can play soccer to when adults can be present. that way, if there are any injuries, we can be there. This would then lead to no more pick up baseball or basketball games, and tag could become a politically incorrect activity, because you never know when a kid might step in the sewer and sprain his ankle. Taken to the ridiculous extreme, we might limit kids to indoor video games unless they are supervised. Wait, the video games could cause carpal tunnel syndrome, so we better have adults monitor that activity, too. I'm sorry if I am sounding flippant. I don't mean to come off as rude. But I find, as I become more aware, that it disturbs me when the BSA, or anyone who has the authority (real or perceived) keep Scouts from participating in activities that the same boys, as a group, can partake without the BSA. If you hadn't been a Scout when the boy tumbled down the hillside, would your parents have allowed you to play the game you were playing in the area in which you played? If not, then I believe a good SM would not have allowed a Scout activity under the same conditions. If so, then why can't we believe Scouts can do the same? Bob's mountain climbing example is a good one. Climbing and rapelling are an intergal part of our Troop's program. However, you'd NEVER see our SM allowing any Patrol in our Troop to do a climbing event without not only adults, but qualified, trained, adults. Kayaking is another valuable part of our program. We own a number of kayaks. Not only would our SM not allow a Patrol to do a kayak trip without adults, the Troop would not even allow our Kayaks to be used by a couple of the Scouts who were doing a trip on their own. There isn't enough tea in China to get him to approve a trip that doesn't include proper supervision for the activity. But boys can hike on their own. They can cook their own meals. They can pitch their own tents, and sleep in them without an adult watching their every move. At least we feel that 1st Class Scouts in our Troop can. If their plan were complete, included plans for how to deal with a problem should it arrive, and is going to be held in a known, safe environment, I just don't see the big dif, to use a phrase I heard on T.V. last night. Here's the disclaimer. Though I believe in the concept to my core, no Patrol in our Troop has yet to do an actual outdoor activity without adults. It has to do with a few things, namely it is a new concept to us(I just learned that it was allowed and encouraged in these forums about 6 months ago), there is some parent concern about it, and I am not the SM, so I can't really facilitate the idea becoming a reality in my position as Advancment Chair. But now that my son is a Patrol Leader in a Patrol that can handle some of the things they would like to do on their own, I plan on helping him make it a reality. Mark

Ed, I used the word "hope" more like "wish' than "expect". I might read you wrong, but I think that if you had an 11 year old Patrol Leader, you would "hope" that he got his feet quickly... I see it differently. When we have 11 year old PLs, we know almost for certain that they will not understand their role. We know that they won't know how to lead a group of peers (one of the toughest jobs in the world!). We know that they won't even have the skills to take care of themselves. The difference of opinion between you and me centers, I think, in whether this is acceptable. I don't think it is to you, and I think that is why you don't agree with the NSP Patrol and an 11 year old Patrol Leader. On the other hand, I think that these shortcomings not only are acceptable, but help speed the process of learning to lead. I really believe this. If you could repeat the experiment 100 times, I think you would find that a 15 year old who had the oppurtunity to practice being a leader as an 11 year old, under the guidance of a GOOD Troop Guide will be a better leader than a 15 year old that didn't get that chance. In other words, my eye is on his success 4 years down the road. I read your posts to mean you are looking for immediate success. If it is the immediate succuss that is vital, I agree 100% with you. Absolutely do not let an 11 year old run anything. He'll almost always fail. Better have a 15 year old run that Patrol. I just don't that that's the point of the program. Let me try it one more way, then if If I don't go to the bathroom, my tonsils will be floating. I don't think it is likely that a boy learns the skills necasary to be an effective leader by starting to learn them at 13 or 14 or 15. If he doesn't start learning before that, I just don't think he's going to get it. So how do we begin the lessons? I think it is by providing an oppurtunity to practice. And that's as a Patrol Leader in a NSP with rotating leaders and a qualified Troop Guide. Sometimes, that becomes impossible (well, highly difficult, like this year for us when we only had two new Scouts). Gotta go! Mark

Ditto Bob and Ed. Anyone the SM approves to sign off a requirement can sign off a requirement. That means that if the SM approved a tenderfoot to sign it off, from an advancment standpoint he could. Not a very good idea, but as for the advancement, it would be sufficient. I think there are a couple of issues in your question. One is the your idea that the person who signs off the requirement be qualified. That shold be true for any requirement. What makes someone qualified to sign off a requirement? In our Troop, it is generally achieving 1st Class. Once a boy has sufficiently mastered the skills that he is a 1st Class Scout, he generally is qualified in our Troop to review a boys attempt at passing a requirement. We do make some exceptions, however, and aquatics is one of them. Passing these requires a boy who has earned BSA or Red Cross Lifesaving, or an adult who has done so, or has equivelent experience. for instance, I am not permitted to sign off on swimming requirements in our Troop. Nor would our Scoutmaster. We have three BSA certified lifeguards among our adults, and one ARC certified adult. Any of these three can check and sign off. In addition, we have an adult who was BSA certified 6 years ago, but has allowed his certification to lapse. We would still alow him to review boys attempts to pass the requirements. The other aspect I see in the post is the issue about requiring him to have passed these at summer camp. I think I understand your reasoning for this, and it has merit. But I don't think the intention of the requirement is to link a Scout's ability to make 1st Class to his activity at summer camp. Although I don't think that is your intent, I think that is the effect. If a qualified person were available to test the boy, what negatives come of allowing to be done away from summer camp? Lastly, I'd like to second the comment Bob made about the swimming test in general. Passing any of the rank requirements should not substitute for a Scout needing to pass a swim test for EVERY aquatic event, every time. It is my opinion that depending on the results of previous swim tests is more dangerous than permitting an unqualified person to sign off the rank requirements. I truly believe that if that is the rational behind your high standards for the rank requirements, you are actually not being mindful of the purpose for the swim test. If I'm way off base, folks, please let me know. But I have been under the assumption that the swim test should be administered at every aquatics event, right? Mark

If it was Uniontown horse sense, than credit my dad! Most of my few good qualities I inherited from him (unless I'm talking to my mom!). And, As I must have mentioned somewhere before, he is from near Uniontown. A great man, he was. I miss him terribly. Mark

Barry, That is EXCEPTIONALLY kind of you to say that. Thank you! Just to pick out one point from Eammon's post, I like the comment about having more time to get to know boys and become fond of them. I have to say, that among the other 38,000 benefits I have gotten from Scouting (that's about 37,993 more than I have provided the program), the one that has meant the most to me is the friendship I have developed with 9 of the guys who I have had the fortune to serve. These guys are all tremendously different. Each has reached differenet levels of success both in and out of Scouting. But is my priveledge to count each of these 9 young men as friends. And I truly mean friends. I have spent hours on hours with each of these guys - talking about career possiblities, and school, and girls, and their parents and, oh my gosh, hundreds of other things. It probably isn't accurate to say I've had a lot of influence in many of their decisions. But I know I've had a little. But what I get from each of these relationships is a sense that I have been a help, even if they chose to take a diferent course. I feel as though each of these guys counts me as their friend, and each feel that friendship is important to them. These guys are nine of the most impressive people I know. I am proud to have been a part of each of their lifes. Maybe the best thing that can be said is that one of them is my oldest son. As he has become a man, the move away from being a dad toward being a friend was subtle, almost inperceptable. Along the way, we had a few volcanic eruptions, for sure. But it is truly a sense of pride and accomplishment that I feel when I say that he and I have crossed the bridge. He's a man now. And one of who I am exceedingly proud. I used to say one of the highest compliments I could hear was for someone to call me my dad's son. Being called my son's dad is getting close. Well, there you go again. 600 words when 200 probably would have done. Mark

No need to apologize. Heck, you probably are a hero to some. Think about it. I might have said about the same things, but it would have taken me four more paragraphs, and it wouldn't have been nearly as poetic. BTW, I read the small dialog between you and Outdoor Thinker in the other thread. You are right to count that, and her, as a victory. Sounds like you have plenty of reason to be proud if her and your son. You've got reason to be proud of yourself, too. But I suspect that isn't why you're here, is it? Mark

This topic is close to my heart, as I have been trying to get a couple of our PLs to try some form of this. Eagledad made a great point, but it was buried in the middle of a paragraph, so it might not have stood out. He said, in effect, that the unsupervised outing should be something the SM feels is within (I think WELL within) the Patrol's ability. For a brand new New Scout Patrol, this might be limited to doing Putt Putt. For a group of 13 year olds, I think it is very reasonable to think they could do a day hike and cook their own meals without adult supervision. I believe my son's Patrol, made up of 5 14 year old Star and Life Scouts, and 4 13 year old 1st class Scouts except one who is still Tenderfoot, could do an exemplary job on a one night campout by themselves. Something like arriving early Saturday afternoon, making camp, doing a nature hike, cooking diner, having a campfire, then waking up Sunday morning, making breakfast, doing KP, then striking camp. Now that I think about it, I don't just believe they could, I KNOW they could! I agree that getting parents to allow their sons to attend such an event is difficult. It's hard for us to see our children becoming independent. Years ago, that was the number one responsiblity parents identified as their job: Growing independent children. Today, their response is protecting children from harm (I read this in a Cleveland Plain Dealer column @ 4 months ago. I apoligize that I can't identify the source specifically). Certainly, these two things are not opposites, and may not even be mutually exclusive. But I think there is enough of an attitudinal shift in our society that what parents would have encouraged years ago ("Go, fend for yourself for a few days, learn what it's like!") is now feared ("My child out on his own? Oh no! How could I allow that and call myself a good parent?") And, with apoligies to all of the moms on this forum, I think it is accurate to make the generalization that moms are more likely to be extra protective. So even if dad goes along with the idea, mom still has to be sold, and that's a tough sell. I think that the concept of an unsupervised Patrol outing, tailored to the abilities of the members of the Patrol, is a great idea. I am hoping to get them going in my Troop. Mark

We have used NSPs and have not used them. It depends to a large extent on the number of boys crossing over. This year, we only had three boys. We don't see the value in a NSP for three boys. Last year, we had 14 cross, and we had two NSPs. As has Laura, we've met with a fair amount of failure, but also a number of major triumphs, too. As to the original question, every one of the times we have had an 11 year old PL (going back 9 years since I've been with the Troop) has been a tremendous success. Almost never successful in the manner I suspect FOG and Ed might hope: An 11 year old finds his feet quickly, manages a group of boys well and gets them to do what is expected of them without being prodded by adults. No, we've not seen an 11 year old like that. As a matter of fact, not all of our 15 - 17 year old SPLs do that well. But every time is a sucess. Why? Because every time, the boy that is elected learns and matures, and every time, those he is trying to lead see his successes and his failures and learn something, too. How you view this is based, IMVHO, on your expectations of the program. If you want a group of boys who can camp well, and do it with minimal adult interference, then 11 year old PLs probably will always disappoint. If your desired outcome is men of character, men who can respond to most any challenge thrown at them when they become adults, than 11 year old PLs is a great first stepping stone. Bob and Fog, Your banter back and forth used to be humorous and entertaining. I've got to say, it is growing tiresome. BOTH of you guys are acting like children. It's obvious you guys will never be best friends. But can't you guys either decide to be polite or just ignore each other? Mark

Nice going, OGE. Now there's no need for me to post! Mark

Charity, Call me sappy, but I think this is a wonderful situation. A lot of people are going to learn from this if everyone handles it well. The only "mistake" I see that was made was by the adult leadership. They may well have valid reasons to attempt to steer the Scouts away from biking. the most obvious one to me is making certain the resources exist to do it safely, and mostly, in my mind, that means training in how to safely cycle in groups. If something like this is the issue, than a better way for the SM to handle this may have been asking questions like "Have you considered ..." Or "Are you sure you have the knowledge to do this safely?" I don't think he should be nixing the idea, even if his concerns are well founded. I also question how clear he was when the issue was discussed the first time. Sounds to me like your son is reasonable, and he understood the issue to be settled. If it wasn't the SM probably did a poor job making his position understood. Now, for how to proceed. 1st, I would do nothing to interfere in the relationship between the SM and your son. Relationships between our adult leaders and respected youth in our Troop have a certain "Yin - Yan" to them. Unless there is some reason to suspect outright disrespect from either or both parties, I'd bet that your son and his SM will work this ou themselves, and both will learn from it. How could your son have improved? My first thought would be to have plans like they made circulated in writing to all involved, and copied to key adult leaders. Written plans allow anyone who might have a problem see that it is a firm plan, and speak up in the appropriate timeframe. In our Council, someone in our Troop (our CC does it) would need to have known these plans well in advance to prepare a Tour Permit. This would be the time for the SM to object, so that alternate resources can be arranged. Did your son do anything wrong by standing his ground? Probably not. Even if he was vehement in his defense, he could well still have been polite about it. And learning how to defend a position properly is a valuable life skill. Unless you know for sure your son acted ungentlemanly (is that a word?), I'd chalk this up to a great oppurtunity for all to learn. Mark