Proud Eagle

Hold it, isn't the Journey to Excellence itself a graded or multi-level system? Our Assistant Council Commish was telling me that it was a tiered system, but maybe that isn't right.

I know our pros and commishes use some sort of color codes on the spreadsheats they print to show unit status. I don't know the details as I am neither a professional nor a commissioner.

I would think this process would also be tied into the (sometimes functional, sometimes not) unit visit tracking system used by unit and district commissioners.

p.s.

At our last council coordinated meeting the advancement committee was reviewing each district's advancement numbers and found out the ScoutNet reports don't add all the columns correctly, so the advancement totals by district and by unit can at times be less than exact.

I wonder if the remake of Red Dawn will still have a mention or rounding up all the Eagle Scouts?

There are work arounds on the search problem. Use your favorite search engine and search within the domain.

However, that only works to a point, because the documetns and pages have not been tagged with the key words you are likely to be searching for. This is a problem with lots of council sites, too. Those key word tags are very important both on each individual page of the web site and for all documetns posted. Why BSA insists on using numbers for its PDF files boggles the mind. Even when you download them you still can't figure out which one is which unless you rename them all to something logical.

As to storage of wall tents, you really need a tent loft, much like a sail loft, so that the tents can breeth, stay dry, and not be eaten by the prolific rodents around camp. If you are just dumping them on a shelf for 9 months, that is not quite ideal.

As for staff time, if you issue the tents each week, do you issue them from a central point? or do you deliver them to sites? Same with check-in? Obviously some sort of transport is going to be needed to make this efficient.

Then as you mention there are wet tents. I don't know about your area, but the tents would not be dry enough for long term storage more than perhaps one week in three around here.

If you have your staff do set up and take down of all tents you are looking at cutting into the already limited time available for training the staff to run the program. At a camp without tent set-up it is a tight squeeze to get the staff and program areas ready in a full week before campers arrive.

To have tents at camp, either you are going to have to increase available funding or decrease expense elsewhere. Is it a trade-off that works in many cases? Yes it is. Does it make sense in every case? No, certainly not.

p.s.

Your off season marketability increases greatly if you have either tents or cabins available. With housing available you can better host your own training events, maybe host NCS or NLS, plus attract those non-Scouting groups more easily.

p.p.s

There are screen kits available for wall tents now through non-BSA sources. There are even wall tents with screens and floors and zippers built in from the start; and even non-canvas wall tents made with modern materials.

p.p.p.s

Anyone else notice that Philmont (at least circa 2001) was not using BSA standard wall tents but using a different model of the same size in a brownish color with only one door?

It wasn't the ranger's fault. Trust me on that.

As for resources, like just about everything else the more that is invested up fron the less the long-term outlay will be. If your camp uses cheap floor pallets and lowest cost poles, those will wear out much sooner than a well built permanent platform that never gets moved. Further, if you really want to do it right, pour concrete pads and build metal frames that can stay up permanently like Philmont base camp does. Plus it makes ADA adaptation much easier.

Look, to provide a tent for two Scouts costs over a grand.

Patrol size cabins can be put in for under 8k with space for 8 scouts.

The tent will last several years, the cabin several decades. No one needs to set up the cabin each week or season. From a long-term view, tents are not a good investment for a permanent site.

Now if tents is what you want and think best suites the program, that is all fine and good. I happen to like going to camps that have wall tents, in good condition, on good platforms. I think that is near ideal for providing the right atmosphere, but it is not perfect.

As someone with considerable experience with this, many troops don't want to haul gear to summer camp, particularly when going long distances. Most of the troops at my council's camp are out of council, and brining their own tents is a frequent complaint. Also, we have two sites with cabins (built be troops on their own) and these sites always book up first. There are always troops asking if they can get into the cabins next year that we must inform that those sites are already booked.

Interesting factoid: The Czech Scout programs highest award requires building your own traditional camp shelter and staying in it for a week. The shelter looks like a cross between a fronteer log cabin and a wall tent.

They score points with the feelings and emotions voters.

Now this certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but if you had to chart it, the most likely voters to consider this sort of emotional appeal are going to be either women or liberals. Therefore it is quite logical that Clinton did the whole "I feel your pain" hug and cry routine for the cammeras, but it doesn't make much sense for the Republicans, particularly not at this moment in time. However, the Republicans are always being accused of being cold, aloof, unfeeling, uncaring, inhuman, etc. by their opponents so perhaps this is a visual way of showing that not to be true.

Then there are the rational and cynical and pessimistic and realistic types that know that chances are politicians are only really crying crockodile tears unless they just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, in which case they aren't tears of contrition, but rather tears of regret at having been caught.

I wonder if it would be possible to find out who the supplier BSA uses is? If you could contact that supplier, I suspect they could provide what you need.

Apology accepted Captain Needa. (Storm troopers drag away body.)

Of my friends who were not in Boy Scouts (which was most near all of them) Cub Scouts had a lot to do with why they were not in Boy Scouts.

Some of them, or their parents, didn't like what was on offer at the Cub pack and never became members, and once you are turned off by an organization you usually stay that way.

Some of them basically grew up faster than the Cub program allowed for and got bored with it. Some of these stuck it out but didn't bridge to Boy Scouts, others dropped out around the Webelos I time frame it seems.

Others were dissapointed that Boy Scouts didn't do pine wood derby and thought that was the greatest thing in Scouts and so didn't see any point in being in Scouts and not doing pine wood derby.

I have long thought that failing to understand that the Boy Scout program is the central and key part of the Boy Scouts of America was a rather common and unfortunate mistake. Instead there is all sort of focus alternating between Cub Scouts and Venturing with the assumption that Boy Scouts is some sort of anachronism that is basically just filler between Cub Scouts and Venturing, and besides the good old boys make the Boy Scout program work all on their own and never need any real district or council or national support or focus. Uh huh.

"Military training and drill are prohibited." BSA Adult App

This sock based military excercise, like all war games, is quite clearly prohibited.

My council has two camps, one was BYOT pre-merger, the other provided wall tents. At merger the BYOT camp became the only Boy Scout camp while the other was for Cub Scouts and training. Eventually the canvass rotted away in a barn, and so that was a total waste since it could have been moved to the other camp.

Now 16 years later the Camping Committee is looking at supplying tents for an extra fee to units that want it. We have many troops that refuse to come to our camp or are at least reluctant due to the BYOT policy.

The truth is canvass is terrible expense in money, staff time, work project time, etc. The stuff doesn't last all that long and must be kept rather carefully to avoid being eaten by mice/rats and rotting. I suspect if you do a long term evaluation, it would be found some basic cabin could be built on a lower life cycle cost basis than equipping a spot with wall tents for the same length of time. Which is why those camps in our region doing very serious total renovations are moving to basic patrol sized cabins. That and the things make marketing your camp in the off-season and to non-Scouting groups is much easier.

Finally, FOS does not pay for your camp. That is a fiction in almost all cases, but since all council funds are fungible it can't be readily falsified. Nearly universally what FOS pays for is your DEs, SE, and council service center. Your camp is going to have to make it on its own revenue and very often is asked to turn an operating profit.

I would not trust someone who intentionally makes a show of crying in public (the most memorable case I can remember was the cases of President Clinton who could tear up at the thought of everything from being caught on the Lewinski matter to various versions of "I feel your pain" with people he had never met and knew nothing about).

I also would not trust someone who cares for nothing in the world enough to shed tears over it. If nothing in your life, weather love or loss, joy or pain, is worth tearing up for, then your life is pretty worthless.

As someone who has been interviewed for a DE position (and who knows what might happen in the future?) and serves on a District Committee I find this discussion rather interesting.

I will say I have never seen a DE who is entirely ideal in all respects. All seem to have areas in which they are strong and others in which they are strong. I can think of one who is an excellent recruiter, makes good FOS presentations, and is good at the behind the scenes paperwork, but is terrible with maintaining good relations with volunteers. Another is good at recruiting presentations but makes FOS presentations so terrible it emberrasses people. Others I have known are great with program while some would quit before they ever spent a night in a tent.

In many ways it takes all kinds. According to our SE the BSA is trying to take these differences in abilities and inclinations into better account in its system and that it has not done particularly well doing this in the past.

As for the song, Alex Boye was also asked to come and perform and the Kentucky Centennial Jamboree at E.P. Tom Sawer State Park back in October for 12,000 Scouts during the Saturday campfire/show. The OA Service Corps provided the back-up dancers, recruiting mostly Scouts who had seen it at Jamboree who were all very enthusiastic to take part, in fact so many volunteered for it that not all could fit on stage and an extra rank of dancers was placed in front of the stage at ground level. Oddly I think the older guys liked it more than the younger ones. There is a video of this on youtube. Unfortunately I can't comment on the movie (missed a screening on Friday night at the same event hosted by the producer) but the song and dance are not bad at all.

Actually, if I could try any troop arrangement as an experiment I would try a troop that was a hybrid.

I would want roughly one full NSP to be formed every year and operate as an NSP under a Troop Guide with Instructor assistance until they get on their feet. Once that happened I would want 2-4 regular, semi-permanent patrols that the new Scouts would then transistion into. For the older Scouts who were interested in it, I would want a Venture Patrol they could work their way into. On top of all that would be the SPL and troop staff who would retain nominal membership in a patrol but would not generally function as such during their term while on troop outings/meetings, but could still do so on any independent patrol activities.

I would suggest checking out the national Scouting website for relationships related information.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/Relationships.aspx

Also there is a guide to various resources available, and I should note that your council can get bin number items at no cost:

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-400.pdf

You can also try reaching out to unit leaders to find out if their chartered organization has any sort of organized higher level relationship with Scouting, but many unit leaders will have limited knowledge of such things.

As Seatle mentions, the local Catholic Diocese will have a Committee on Scouting (and your council may include parts of multiple diocese, in which case establishing contact with all of those would be a thing to do).

To find who to contact in your area go to:

http://nccs-bsa.org/

And you can use this map to find the right diocese(s)

http://nccs-bsa.org/contacts/DiocesanContacts.php

Semilarly the Methodist Church and the United Methodist Men have endorsed Scouting as part of their programs, so you should probably look to build a bridge to the appropriate level of the United Methodist organization. More info at:

http://naums.org/

And

http://www.gcumm.org/ministries/scouting/

The Methodist have generally state level (sometimes smaller) diocese type organizations and they are supposed to have a Scouting Ministries Specialist who you could contact.

The LDS or Mormon Church also has very strong relations with Scouting, and it would be a good idea to find out how they are organized in your area, though I will deffer to one of our LDS Scouters to fill you in on how to go about finding the correct ward/stake officials and such.

http://www.lds-scouts.org/

Since these are the three biggest charter partners nationally, these would be good places to start. Also, if there is any particular religious group very supportive of chartering units in your council, add them to priority list. Finally, if you have lots of Scouts of one particular faith that would be another place to look. I wouldn't worry too much about activities and programs until after you start making some contacts with the relevant religious organizations and leaders.

I should note my own council is starting such a committee, and it has asked a representative from each major religious organization to join. Thus one or two from our diocesean Catholic Committee on Scouting will be joinging.

Perhaps the key here is the patrol itself.

What I mean by this, is as Kudu rightly points out in many posts, often times we become troop focused and don't consider the patrol to be primary. Now what exactly is a patrol, what should it be, how should it work, and what should it do? These are all critical questions, but perhaps we should get back to basics. In the original scheme of things a patrol was an at least semi-natural grouping of Scouts. BP watched what size groups boys naturally formed and what size could engage in Scouting activities with reasonable efficiency. I think he tried 5 but found 6 was what worked in a camp setting, and BSA upped that to 8 for various reasons.

Now, the mixed age vs. same age business is less important to me than that the patrol be a stable and at least semi-natural grouping of Scouts. This means it can be imposed from above, but rather should be a group of Scouts who are willing to do Scouting together. If you have to make them be in a patrol together, they aren't going to want to camp and do Scouting together. They don't have to be best friends, but there needs to be at least willingness and ideally a bit of eagerness on the part of patrol members.

I suspect in 1910 boys would have grouped up based on neighborhood or church attended or things like that. Today they may be a bit more likely to group up based on age. Another point ot mention, BP didn't have a vision of 17 year olds in a patrol with 10 year olds. BP had Scouting starting at 12, no younger, and had Senior Scouts for those older teenagers. So even one of BP's patrols, while very likely of mixed age, would not have seen the dramatic differences between its youngest and oldest members the way a fully mixed age structure in BSA would today.

In any case, what I am trying to get back to is that you need to consider what the Scouts want in the way of a patrol.

Further, what does each patrol want to do? I strongly suspect that if you do a canoeing trip for one outing, and a backpacking trip another, and then go to tour a city for another the Scouts that will be most enthusiastic about those will be rather different. At least as a matter of theory a troop campout is nothing more than a multi-patrol outing. I know patrol centric activity planning is not the BSA norm, but maybe it needs to be more so.

Others have suggested letting the two guys who show up continue as a patrol. I would say this is OK in many cases, but do give some thought to your activities being planned and the like to make sure that 2 Scouts can actually function. I know for many activities two pairs of buddies would be the least I would want attempting certain things. Plus if this is the permanent arrangement, you are likely to see the Scouts losing enthusiasm. I guess I should ask: Is it the same two every time or is it a different two every outing? What I mean is are all members at nearly the same level of active, or do you have a few super active Scouts, some middling, and then a bunch of guys that only active in a nominal sense?

And if all else fails and life insists on giving you lemons, then maybe you need to go really outside the box. Try everything else you can think of first, but in the worst case you could always try embracing ad hoc patrols. What I mean is, if you know in advance that you will have 12 Scouts from 6 different patrols going on an upcoming outing, maybe the thing to do is make up 2 ad hoc patrols well in advance and let those two patrols plan and prepare just as if they were regular patrols. I don't know what you would then do with all the other people at your troop meetings, but this is just a theory for if all else fails.

Seatle,

That is terrible. Talk about setting the completely wrong example. Giving out awards in that way is fraud, deceit, a type of lie, and a form of corruption. By my reckoning that adult is not fit to be a member of BSA.

Doesn't the Scoutmaster determine who may be delegated the responsibility of signing off on requirements, and further can even restrict which requirements? I know since this was the CC he could have replaced the SM if it turned into a battle of wills, but short of that it would seem the SM had the power to stop this (plus the COR should have removed the CC from the unit for that sort of stunt). Not to mention don't advancement applications require more than one signature? Who counter-signed the advancement report? Were they part of the fraud or just an unwitting dupe? Who approved this guy as MB counselor? Who approved the Scout to work on those badges?

Yeesh, and I thought I had seen some strange and even shady stuff in Scouting. That is right on the level with the DEs that create fake units to make their numbers...

Do the actions of WikiLeads fully conform to the Scout Oath and Law?

No?

Then it should receive no support, nor aid, nor comfort on these forums.

I don't see mixed age patrols necessarily fixing this issue.

You are going to have scheduling issues these days no matter how you make your patrols. In our area the biggest recurring issue is school band events which can often wipe out half of a troop, and not just those in one particular grade.

About the only thing that would cut this down, is if you can group your patrols on the basis of likely scheduling conflict. In a large troop this might work. You could have your band guys in one patrol, your basketball players in another, etc. I don't know, it's just a theory.

The only method I have known of that works for ensuring attendance is the model of requiring total commitment from your Scouts to the exclusion of anything else. I know of a Scoutmaster that works on the expectation that everyone will be at the outings, meetings, PLC (if a leader), etc and basically lets the Scouts know they can either be in Scouting or not, but that he isn't interested in being Scoutmaster and committing the time required to do that if the youth aren't also actually interested in Scouting and willing to make a commitment. It works in that attendance is high by percentage, but his membership is rather low. Yet, many other activities take this exact line. Sports require you to be at practices, games, tournaments, etc. Band requires you to be at practice, the parades, concerts, band competitions, sporting events, etc. I don't like that model, because I think there can be some sort of via media between the demands of different activities, but the truth is many other activities and programs do take an all or nothing approach.

One of this year's Ig Noble Prize winners from Harvard's center for Improbable Reserach focused on various ways of promoting people in organizations. It found that in fact random promotion did a better job of promoting qualified and capable people than other more traditional methods. Basically it showed that under normal conditions people are promoted to the level of their own incompetence, not the level of their competence.

I knew of two youth both from the same troop and both with very similar backgrounds and training. Both of them were leaders in the lodge. One had ambition for higher office, the other not so much. The one with the ambition attained lodge chief, and could eventually have made it farther, but basically burned out and dropped off the radar after his term. The other was in almost every way more capable and even more popular, and could have easily gone on to a position beyond lodge level, but was satisfied with being a lodge vice chief.

Interestingly when it comes to OA officers on the national and region levels, and somewhat with section chiefs, too, there are some funny trends. For one, almost all of them became Arrowmen at a younger than average age. I used what limited information I could find to check this and couldn't find a national chief of recent years that wasn't a member by 13 (in contrast OA once had an age minimum of 14) with some being as early as 11. Another trend has to do with the fact that virtually none of them make it to that level on their own. They had brothers, or fathers, or Scoutmasters, or lodge advisers who have a history of higher level involvement. Take as an example Ray Capp's (current National OA Committee Chairman, and really great guy) scout troop and the number of lodge and section officers it has turned out as an outstanding case, with obviously his son's term as national chief highlighting it.

Sometimes this is a case of the careful creation of dynasties and things of that sort.

More often what it is though, is the fact that most knowledge can't be passed along through formalized training. The fact is you pick up a lot around the dinner table and the campfire and on those long van rides and such that others never have the chance at knowing. As an example, I know things about my father's trade and business that people on the job don't know, and that comes from 20 years of listening and learning that can't be made into a class.

I am having a bit of trouble with understanding this problem.

If all of the requirements were signed off by someone with the authority to sign them, then on what basis was he turned down? I know there can be legitmate reasons, but it seems like it should be pretty clear, like, "sorry, that requirement wasn't signed off by someone authorized to approve it" or "we need documentation of this since it isn't recorded in your book" or something along those line, or even perhaps "we think you haven't been living the oath and law as demonstrated when you vandalised that patrol box, tied little Johnny to that tree, etc, please improve and come back in X length of time" or the candidate could just be unable to complete the board for some reason.

I serve on our district avancement committee and regularly sit on Eagle BOR we conduct. We have turned Scouts away, but we were always very clear about why and set out a plan to correct the issue with the Scout agreeing to it. For example we once had a candidate show up late with no uniform and none of his documentation other than the application. We had a discussion in the parking lot when he arrived, discovered he wasn't ready, and suggested we could either proceed with the board or we could reschedule and just call that day a mulligan. He decided rescheduling would be best and did fine a week or so later, was very well prepared, and left us rather impressed. On another occasion there was a problem with a Scout's references and some dates on his application didn't work for time requirements (even though council had pre-approved the app), so we needed him to get valid references of sufficient quantity and find us documentation of those requiremetns of some sort. We scheduled a new time to try again and he was able to get what was needed to clear up the problems.

In my troop as a youth we went before a BOR on a semi-regular basis even if we were not yet ready to advance. The board would review or progress, work with us on setting goals, and even try to get an idea when we would be ready to advance. So the idea of leaving a BOR without advancing was normal, but usually when you thought you were ready the board would, too.

Your BOR really should let the Scout know what the decision is and if necessary how to correct any issues. If for some reason this is impossible, then they need to very clearly communicate to you what the decision is, and again what is needed to correct the issue. Further, you need to communicate this ASAP to the Scout. He should not be left uninformed of the decision, but should be told at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if the reasoning isn't quite clear, he needs to know he was not advanced yet, not left in some sort of limbo.

ASM915, yes I think the disgruntled one is Catholic, but I don't see any reason to think his unit was Catholic chartered. It may have been, but that was not indicated.

clemlaw, I would agree that is not the sort of person that seems an appropriate leader and it is further a sign of a hands off CO, which is often a problem of its own. In my experience the LDS units are the only ones that consistently have the sort of CO relationship that is supposed to exist with every unit. My own parish charters a pack, troop, and now a crew. The pastor wants to have scouting in the parish, but otherwise is hands off about it. As seems to be the norm in too many churches, the meeting times are not published in any of the usual places you find parish meetings listed, the yearly listing of ministries never lists the scouts in any way, etc. Another troop in town at a Methodist Church had a problem with their scouts, and instead of contacting the unit leaders contacted the council, because they had the idea that all the Scouts were operated by the council and were just being allowed to use their building.

On the other hand, I live near (now retiring) Bishop Gettlefinger's diocese, and he has things done rather better regarding scouts diocese wide.

Also a parish in my own diocese in the next county over has a very Scouting positive pastor, who while not fully hands on, is at least far more aware, interested, and involved.

I think the CO/Scouting relationships is one of the key areas for long-term Scouting success, but it is sadly one of the most disfunctional parts of the system in many cases.

Scoutfish, are you sure you aren't being made district camping chairman?

That is a standard positions every district usually has, and promoting camping is part of its job. It could be that is what they are asking you to do, and the day camp promotions is just what the district think it needs you to focus on.

I happen to be a titular District Camping Committee Chairman and I know what that committee is supposed to do in theory, but I don't really have the ability to carry it out on my own, and I am the chairman of the committee mostly because I was the only person willing to even serve on the committee and the district had to fill out its district committee roster, couldn't very well do worse then a blank spot on the sheet of paper as someone suggested.

The idea of getting OA involved is great, but may not be possible. If the OA is involved with day camp and if they are generally supportive of Cub Scouts and if they have a functioning camp promotions program they could be a great help. The OA does not have its own idependent camp promotions program, rather it is part of the overall council camping promotions strategy, thus if the council has no plan and no resources, the lodge probably won't either.

As to the camp staff, again another great resource to use. Ideally the staff will be doing some promotions. However, like so many people in Scouting they may be holding down multiple Scouting jobs, a family, and real job.

I think you are on the right track to set some reasonable goals (SMART ?) that you can accomplish and not spread yourself too thin.

It is rather easy to get suckered into these district/council things if you don't just have an automatic reflex of saying "NO". Just remember this position is probably about number 437 on your priority list, realistically speaking.

p.s.

I think manpower is the real issue of the three "m"s that the professionals work on.

I won an election as lodge chief in a way not unrelated to this.

I had years of experience with a YMCA model government program doing proposal presentations, speaking, debating, asking and answering questions, etc. and even a speaking award on my wall.

My opponent was the youngest member of a virtual lodge dynasty who was supposed to be the third of three brothers to be a lodge chief. I came from a non-Scouting family. His troop was heavily into OA. I was the only lodge member active in my troop. He had been lodge secretary a full term. I had only months as a chapter chief plus several lesser posts. He was a Vigil Honor member with multiple years longer in the lodge, I was only a Brotherhood member not yet eligible for Vigil (we were same age/grade though). He had been JLT and NLS trained, I had not, though we both had NOAC and LLD experience. His older brother was lodge advisor then and readily able to advise him, I... um... had the advice of the most renegade, unpopular, unpleasant, and curmudgenly adults of the lodge. He knew all the lodge's key people, I only had a vague idea who any of the key people were. He came from a very functional troop, I came from one with... issues.

How did I win?

I could out talk him. People were tired of lodge's political factions and saw him as just the latest member of one of the better ones, while I had outsider status. He had done a so-so job as secretary and everyone knew it, while I was a virtual unknown.

How did that work out?

Not so bad, but not so good either. Looking back I had the ability to really do well with that position, but I didn't know what I was doing. I leaned on my Vice Chief a lot and the guy I beat was put in charge of a lot of our section conclave hosting duties for the next year. When we needed some sort of public speaking done, that was well covered. I could run a meeting just fine, plan an agenda, all those sorts of things. I basically memorized the Guide to Officers and Advisors and anything else I could read, so I knew the rules and had the book knowledge. When it came to section politics I was no help. I didn't really know how to plan an event in the practical sense (my vice-chief had to explain what a back-dating calendar was). I also didn't have the sort of communicatins skills and personal relationships to make best use of the team I was leading. Nor did I have the first clue where to start to staff committees. All the things that were handed down by tradition I was completely ignorant of. When it came time for the end of year "state of the lodge" address I tried to give credit where due (my excellent fellow officers and the hard working members) and take blame as it was due(the buck stops here type thing), one of those areas of blame being a lack of awards at that banquet (as a sort of delayed penance I have recently been the adviser to the awards committee).

You draw your own conclusions about if I was the right guy for the job and if my lodge made the right choice.

A few years after I was chief, in an apparent fit of insanity by the council and gullibility by me, I was lodge adviser for a couple of years, which was so-so as well. (Uknown to me at the time, I was given the post to keep another adult out of it, who I then made an associate adviser, nearly destroying the lodge.) Semi-related to that, I did a few summers as a camp program director, part of it while lodge adviser. (I will say I got rather good at being a program director. I was program director initially because no one else would step up, then I got good at it.)

In a way though I am sort of a success story for the Scouting program, and a warning, too. I did eventually learn the sort of leadership skills we all hope to teach through Scouting, but it was a very rocky road getting there. There have been very few things I have tried I have not failed at, but I usually learn from my mistakes. In many ways OA leadership and camp leadership taught me all the lessons that ideally should be learned in the patrol, the troop, and at JLT/NYLT. OA kept me interested in Scouting, and through circumstances and experiences I would eventually come to know all the stuff one associates with things like "Eagle Scout" and "Lodge Chief" but only after the fact.