Proud Eagle

What exactly concerns you in this? I seem to remember having read this same thing quite some time ago (or perhaps it was a similar document). There is really nothing of any great importance in the entire thing. Though I suppose if you didn't know the air force was modernizing, outsourcing to civilians, or preparing to add space capabilities those could be somewhat suprising.

That is the problem with most competitive contracts. If all it is based on is the lowest bid someone will produce a low bid counting on the fact they can cut corners on quality. The same thing shows up all over the place. School construction, power plant repairs, home remodelling... it doesn't matter, there are always ways to cut corners and not get caught until it is too late. The union label also seems to meen less these days than it once did as far as product quality goes. Now if BSA were smart it would have made the various uniforms using the same design and only changed very small things from one to the other. In that way they could have economies of scale. Venturing pants could easily be made for less money if they shared a patern with Boy Scout pants and the material and thread colors were all that changed from one to the other. Though taking that just a bit farther it would be even better if BSA only produced one patern/color combination in any given size.

I was awarded my Eagle in 2002. At the time I was the OA Lodge Chief. I was also 18 by the time it was awarded so I have never worn the badge. On the other hand I did sometimes where the medal to certain events, such as Lodge Executive Committee meeting that I chaired. It didn't take long for me to realise that the occasion really didn't merit wearing the medal (especially since we always ate dinner during the meetings). Really the medal should be worn to a small number of functions, such as: Courts of Honor, major Banquests, formal business meetings, and other formal/fancy/important occasions. As to weather an OA meeting would qualify, that really depends on the type of meeting. If I was a Section Chief attending the National Planning Meeting, I would probably wear it. On the other hand a ceremony team meeting would probably not qualify. (Actual OA ceremonies would also probably be formal enough, though for practical reasons I do not wear my medal during those.) Now I really must make a small correction about the issue of OA sashes that was brought up. OA sashes are not worn just because something is a formal occasion. OA sashes are worn during OA events or when representing the Order. Even while I was Lodge Chief I interpreted that to mean that I would only wear the sash to a non-OA event if I was attending the event in my capacity as Lodge Chief. If I was there in the capacity of an ASM it didn't matter how formal the event was, I still did not wear the sash. I suppose an argument could be made that an Arrowman represents the Order at all times, or at least that an elected officer does, but I do not hold that position. Now I would say there are a few minor exceptions to this when common sense trumps the rules. (The funeral of fellow Arrowman, particularly if you knew them primarily through the OA, if attending in uniform would be an example.) Wulelensin Woapalanne (Proud Eagle) (and half proud unoficial junior assistant deputy member of the uniform police)

Everyone knows that troops that are MB and advancement "factories" are generally not considered to be good representations of the Scouting program. However, most summer camps seem to be the ultimate MB and advancement factories, yet there is rarely been any criticism over this issue. Most people seem to advocate that advancement should take place as a natural outgrowth of being involved in the BSA program. Why then does everyone so highly favor the idea of sending the Scouts off for a week or two to a place that likely forsakes the patrol method, with the primary objective being achieving some sort of advancement? Maybe all five camps I have been to were just poor examples of summer camps, but I find this highly unlikely, especially since stories I have heard about other camps match my own experiences.

Several years ago at summer camp the SM of my troop was quite suprised to find out about what some of the scouts had supposedly earned. The completed merit badges for the kid that didn't go to camp were amusing. (He had registered for camp and badges but couldn't go.) The completed badges for the kid that went home mid week were also amusing. Just because someone signed a piece of paper saying something doesn't mean it is so. Counselors sign off on things by mistake, others just don't care and sign off on anything. Other times I have seen sytems used that generated computerized reports on badges and some office staffer made a mistake and credited someone for something the counselor didn't. In 2003 at camp we kept a very close eye on this issue. The three adults on the trip consulted the youth about progress in the badges. We also talked to the counselors of every badge to find out what would probably be finished at camp, what would need to be finished after camp, and other such details. When we got the paperwork from the camp office we reviewed the information with each Scout to make certain that what was on paper agreed with what we had been told and with what the Scout actually did. This allowed us to quickly correct the small number of errors before departing the camp. (All mistakes were related to paperwork processing in the camp office.) I would say you are on track with your solution of having a registered counselor sit down with the Scouts and find out what was actually done during this winter camp and work out a plan for completing the badge. Hopefully the Scouts will be honest about what they have done even if whoever signed the cards was not. Though the best outcome would be that it is discovered that the requirements really were completed in some way, but I wouldn't count on it.

I don't know what a "stretch goal" is. I have a few ideas, but they may not be correct. On the other hand I am familiar with SMART goals. I personally like SMART goals, but I can't pass judgement on "stretch goals" since I don't know what they are.

FOG, you may be right in general, but I know most youth lodge leaders know more than they want to about lodge and council politics in many cases. After all, the real secret about the OA is that it is the most capable rumor transmission network since the time when house wives gossiped over the back fence.

In my area there was once the White Feather Society. It became the White Feather Lodge of the OA and then merged into what became the White Horse Lodge. The former White Feather Society territory now exists as two chapters of the lodge, one the White Feather chapter, the other the Deleware translation of White Feather. As to how both a local program and OA could coexist, it is quite simple: do seperate programs with seperate goals that both enhance the larger Boy Scout program in the area. OA is moving away from being summer camp based, so that leaves a perfect opening for something else to take its place. The key thing would be to keep the two from duplicating the same programs and goals. Now as to the MOS tribe that is reportidly an OA lodge, I would very seriously question that. I could see how you could be a OA lodge and also do the MOS program, but doing the MOS program instead of the OA program, while pretending to be OA would not be exceptable to anyone I know. From what I understand MOS ceremonies and "membership levels" do not equate well with anything in the OA. In that case any induction carried out there or recognition given would be based on lies, falsifications, and curruption of the program, and would therefore not be valid. It seems to me OA either needs to fill the gaps it is leaving in the program as it changes its program over time, or other societies will rise up to fill those voids.

This will really be a help in my council. The council is 200 and the lodge is 201. As for everyone needing new flaps, that isn't really an issue. What was once a proper uniform is still one now. The only requirement is that you may only wear the flap authorized by the lodge you are currently a dues paying member of. I suppose a lodge could decide that old flaps may not be worn after a new one has been issued, but I haven't heard of any that do that. Really this is a logical step in the continued transformation of the OA (which began as a camp based society of honored campers) into a more fully intograted part of the program as Scouting's National Honor Society.

The Y2K requirement book details the following troop positions for Star, Life and Eagle: PL, ASPL, SPL, Guide, OA Rep, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, QM, bugler, JASM, chaplain aide, instructor I must say either may memory has gone bad or the list for Eagle has been changed. I seem to remember my 10th edition handbook had different lists for Star/Life and Eagle. The list for Eagle was shorter, I seem to think. I really have to wonder why in the world some of those positions are on the list for Eagle. I can't imagine some of those positions, as usually implimented by Troops, as being the sort that would demonstrate the level of leadership and responsibility that is normally associated with Eagle. Librarian seems to fit with the level of ability I would want in a Star Scout, but if Librarian is the limit of someone's ability to handle responsibility, I would have serious doubts about the persons qualifications as an Eagle. On the other hand, if someone is in a very large troop where there would not be enough PORs for all that need them, then I suppose it would make more sense. Also, OA Rep is a dicey position to use for Eagle because the program may not be running effectively at the Lodge level. If the Lodge is not using the entire OA Rep program (which is still relatively new, and still has many kinks in it), it would be nearly impossible for the individual Representative to succeed in the position. I don't have the OA Rep job description in front of me, but I seem to remember there are things in it that would require the local Lodge to be using the program in certain ways.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I am not certain, but I think certain officials are automatically notified by the national office. Also, your local council may request recognition for Eagles. I know in my case my SM was sent a letter from the Assistant Council Scout Executive detailing who recognition had been requested from. You may want to contact your council and find out if anything has been requested, or if they have a list of people to contact that they can give you.

In 2001 my council filled open youth slots with some members of other councils that had extra applicants, but not enough extra for additional troops. Unfortunately that activity may be coming back to bite the council because we have only been given 2 troops instead of the 3 at the last couple of Jambos.

Here are some examples of Federal money from grants and even some specifically earmarked appropriations going just to my home town. My town is just 25,000 people. None of our Senators or our Congressman is from the town. The political leanings of the town makes it a lost cause for both our Senators and our Congressman. So, really we aren't getting any special favors to amount to anything. So far all street lamps have been replaced with replicas of the originals. The lamps had to be specially designed based on photos of the old ones. That cost the Federal government something like a quarter million in historical preservation money pluss city and state money. Then there is the new historical replica fountain. This is a one unit special bronze casting that cost about another quarter million in Federal money that was supposed to go to highway construction. Also the town decided to tear out the Army Corps of Engineers owned boat launching facility down town and replace it with a river front ampitheater that can't be used most of the year, and by a pair of parks that actually existed already. The price tag for that was something like $1.5 million, just in federal money. Then there was city and state money as well. The latest budget contains another million and a half from what I understand to continue with riverfront improvements. I think the money is coming out of some kind of program to improve the navigability of the rivers. So now multiply all of this money that I was able to think of just off the top of my head, by the number of other towns and cities getting federal money for this that and the other little pet project, and pretty soon we are talking about the same amount of money it costs for new fighter squadrons or an aircraft carrier.

To answer some questions posed to me by Bob White earlier in this thread (4th page I believe) I offer the following answers. Quoted material is from Bob White. "Why would you drop him from your roster before his membership expires?" I don't think I would. Notice I said "could", not "would". I am suggesting it may be done, not that it should be. Though I would take the actions (or more correctly, inactions) I described as a very strong indicator that the Scout no longer wished to be involved in the unit. "He has done nothing in violation of the BSA?" No he has not violated the BSA. Even if he had I am not the BSA's father or brother so it isn't like I am going to go get my gun, shoot him, and bury him in the cornfield. OK. That was a bit of humor on my part. (Sad isn't it?) No, he has not violated BSA policy by the actions I describe. "What is he costing you?" He is costing the troop time and money. People are spending time calling him, trying to keep him updated on troop activities, sending things in the mail, etc. He is taking spot in a patrol that may very well need another active member rather than an inactive one. Now none of these things are reasons that someone must be removed from the roster (either the official or unofficial one), though they could cause some unit some where to decide to do so.

I bet I know where BW is going with this. I could be wrong but here is just what I am guessing. I am sure Bob White will correct me if I am wrong, but I just couldn't resist. If all requirements were signed off then the BOR must accept the requirement as being completed because it was signed off. Now if say the POR requirement was going to be signed off on during the BOR then it would be up to the board (actually it would be up to anyone on the board capable of signing off the requirement) to decide to take it or not. Now I don't happen to agree with taking any requirement that is signed off during a BOR. Part of what I see the BOR doing is making certain that the requirements were completed in a way that is consistent with the BSA program. If the board discovers this is not the case it should not approve the advancement. Instead it should discuss what the Scout needs to do to complete the advancement. Then it should do what it can to inform whoever signed off the requirement and the SM that there is a problem with how the program is being implemented, and suggest that it be corrected. The board should also probably make the rest of the committee aware that there was a problem, so the committee can decide what, if any, action needs to be taken to ensure the program is implemented properly.

oh, and as for the headline style name for this thread: Well, Duh! It is, after all, part of the national standards for membership. That is about like saying, "Scouts Go Camping" or some other painfully obvious headline.

I am going to have to make an objection. I don't have a problem with Scouts discussing sex. There are certain ways of discussing it, and certain sub topics, that I would object to, but the subject of sex is not banned for discussion. If I overhear Scouts discussing something relating to sex I would not necessarily intervent. However, if it is degrading some group of people, or promoting risky, unhealthy, or immoral behaviour, then I would intervene. Though suggesting that sex is not the best topic of conversation would be appropriate, it would be most inappropriate to tell the Scouts to never discuss sex. To put it another way it is not the topic of conversation that bothers me, but rather some of the potential content that does. In the same way talking about guns doesn't bother me, but obviously that could take a wrong turn and go down a road I wouldn't want it to. (Going from discussing the mechanical working of a gun, or proper safety procedures, to the best way to shoot someone would be an example.) Besides, I don't think we can keep boys from discussing sex in some ways. We also can't keep them from discussing girls. Though we must make certain discussions of those topics that take place during Scouting functions are appropriate, respectful, and in keeping with the Oath and Law.

My theory is that alot of the problem has to do with not knowing the differences between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. By the time someone reaches the Boy Scout age they should be ready to move on to new things. Unfortunately many never really understand that Boy Scouts is NOT Cub Scouts. Most people that were in cubs will tell you they were a "Boy Scout". If you ask a kid why they didn't stay in Scouts it will be because: They didn't want to do a bunch of kid stuff They thought the craft projects and other Cub related activities were "uncool" They don't want to spend time at a meeting with a bunch of 2nd graders and other things like that So people get this idea that they have already had the Boy Scout experience when really they have had the Cub Scout experience. Now I bet even most Boy Scouts would find a group of high school students that did the Cub Scout program to be pretty "geeky" or some such thing. I would say the ways to fix this problem are: emphasize that that Cub Scouts are not Boy Scouts emphasize that Boy Scouts doesn't involve younger kids emphasize that Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts do very different things Now as to my handling of such things, I must say I never wore my uniform to school. Not once. I did however meet my prom date (large high school, fellow Scout set us up) immediately after a Scout meeting. So the first time she ever was introduced to me I was in uniform. She still went to the prom with me a few weeks later. So I guess the "geeky" perception is not so strong that it can't be overcome.

If we follow this guy's logic, that his kid is going to be recieving some kind of message about a group of people, because of the BSA's policy, one that is not advertised and rarely comes up, he must go nuts about other groups. The ROTC would certainly not get his approval because it may send the message that war is necessary. The Christian Fellowship groups would abviously send the message, with their name itself, that there could be something wrong with being of another religion. YMCA sponsored school clubs would also go into that group. The FFA seems to promote the agrarian lifetsyle quite a bit, and so does 4H. I guess we dont't to offend factory workers or suburbanites. The academic team probably excludes those of less than high intelligence. That should be particularly troublesome in an institution dedicated to educating everyone. Sports are obviously discriminatory. Just think about the poor kid with the predisposition to obesity that tries and tries but can never make the team. The gay and lesbian school groups would certainly send an offensive message. This guy is worried about someone thinking BSA is saying "gay is not OK". Well I bet a lot of people would think that a group supports gays and lesbians would send the message that "gay is OK". Now that obviously runs against many peoples religions. Not only do such homosexual groups exist, but many are actually officially sponsored by schools. Seems like someone could suggest that promotes one set of religious beliefs, in outcome, if not in intent. Maybe the German clud offends Jews, or Poles, or French, so it should be banned. Anyone conquered or repressed by the Romans could find offense in a Latin club dedicated the the language and cultore of that group. The FHA would probably run into problems with some feminists just because the concept of homemaker is somehow bad for women. Have I made my point yet? I think so. No matter what you do someone will be offended these days. There are places that local government employees are prohibited from displaying the American flag because of fear of offending the locals. (Most of whom are not really locals and not necessarily here legally.) This is happening in America. Soon anything that in any way supports or promotes or favors any group, even if that group is Americans, will be shut down or stopped for fear of offending someone. Tell me where the right to not be offended is? Where is the right to never have my beliefs challenged? I don't see that right anywhere in America. Especially since that right would destroy all other rights.

To address the point about the OA being a secret organization and this being a proper forum to discuss it: The Order of the Arrow is not a secret organization. It is instead mysterious. One of the "methods" if you will, that OA uses, is mystery. If the details of everthing about OA are spread throughout the Scouting community it removes that mystery. (Though already far too much is known by the Scout community at large. Far too many new members come in already having been told what most of the mysterious elements were, and so the Ordeal had far less of an impact on them.) If someone is engaged in legitimate inquiry of some form into the OA then they would be entitled to the information they need. However, this would not be the proper forum for exchanging such information because others would certainly see it. Now I also have to think that some people here talking about the OA are either not members, or went through the Ordeal long ago, or at the least were not very familiar with the origins of the ceremonies. Someone suggested that the OA uses sacred native american ceremonies. That would, to me, imply OA went out and found some sacred ceremony and then used it. That is not at all the case. There are certain elements within the ceremony that were borrowed, in a somewhat generic sense, from Native Americans. The phraseology used is styled after that of the Native American from times now past. Someone else mentioned something about a ceremony in a teepee with tomtoms being beaten by someone wearing a war bonet. That is something I would like to see. It would be amusing. I think it would also be offensive to Native Americans and any self respecting ceremonialist in the OA. (Though I suppose it could be done in some respectful way I am not thinking of.) Also, the point about using someone elses culture is somewhat refuted by one of the points above. While there are some things from Native American culture that are borrowed, it is done as respectfully as possible. Also, I must note that things are borrowed from other cultures all the time. I am not certain who invented the modern business suite, but it seems like everyone in business everywhere has them. American culture is borrowed by just about everyone to some extent or the other (wich is somewhat ironic because American culture itself borrowes from everyone). Now if someone started using sacred Native American rituals without consulting with any Native American representatives about it I would think there would be good reason to find offense. Now if you think mascots is hot button issue (As a side note, the K-8 school I went to had the Cardinal as a mascot, with colors of green, white, and gold. The school I went to for 9th grade used to be the Cadets but changed to the Bulldogs, maroon was the primary color for both. The high school I went to had the Colonel [more like a Kentucky Colonel rather than a military one] as a mascot with maroon as the color. Now I go to a University with the Cardinal as a mascot, and red as the primary school color. Though I do miss the seeing the giant green cardinal mural at my old school, I do think it is better to have the correct color for the bird.) try the names of streets and parks within a University campass. There used to be a park here named "Confederate Park" and a street name "Confederate Place". Last year a large group of students of a certain minority group decided those names must be changed. Though they recieved quite a bit of opisition from the fraternities and sororities because all of their houses were on Confederate Place and they wanted to keep the old name. Others opposed it because the Confederacy played an important role in local and national history and we shouldn't just pretend it didn't happen. Then others happened to notice the giant memorial (30 or 40 ft tall) to those that served the Confederate military in the middle of the park (actually its only reason for being a park) and suggested it was just plane dump to rename it. Now because a vocal minority still hasn't made peace with the past there is now Freedom Place and Freedom Park. I imagine those to whom the memorial was built would find Freedom Park an appropriate name considering what they felt their cause to be, and an ironic one if they knew how it got the name. Those that insisted on the name change would probably go into a fury if they ever really thought that one through.

This is a tricky issue. I would say for the camping nights requirement to count since joining the troop. Though for most requirements I would count only since starting the badge. As an example, I once read through the Chemistry MB requirements. I realised that I had pretty much done every requirement a couple times over. However, the general opinion I got when I asked about this was that only things done since starting the MB should be counted. Otherwise I could have counted stuff I did in a Chem lab 3 years earlier before I even realised there was a Chemistry MB. I would also say a key determanent is how easily can the requirment be repeated, and how long ago was it done. If for example someone is working on Nuclear Power or whatever it is and needs to visit a Nuclear plant, and the nearest one is 4 hours away, and they just went on a field trip to it for school last week, I think I would count it. Now the double dipping is intersting. I think I would be inclined to count it for both. Though I haven't read up on those badges so that is just a first impression.

As to anyone having current involvement in OA, I suppose I would qualify. This time last year I was finishing up a term as Lodge Chief. Though really you would need someone that works on the national level to provide information on most things relating to agreements and arangements with the various Native American tribes and nations. Probably members of the National Order of the Arrow Committee would be the best source for this. Unfortunately I don't think we have any of them here, and I don't have any personal contacts with any either. I do know it has been quite some time since any major changes have taken place to the ceremonies. There may have been some minor things changed, but as far as I know all of the major elements have remained unchanged for decades. Now there are some things that were once common practice that are no longer done. Face paint for ceremonies and dancing are out except for some very unusual and special cases. Also masks and certain other things of that nature are generally out. Regalia and dance costumes are constantly being improved to better reflect what Native Americans actually used rather than what Hollywood does. Dancing, drumming, and singing during ceremonies is now handled more carefully. Usually someone will seek approval from a local tribe or other group before using these in ceremonies. There are other things I would gladly discuss, and things I would discuss in more detail, but the open nature of this forum is not appropriate for that.

I really do have to get into this a bit. The Scout badge at the first meeting seems a bit unreasonable. For the benefit of those who do not have the references at hand I have a 1998 printing of the Eleventh Edition of The Boy Scout Handbook. I also have a y2k requirements book. So here is teh core of the requirements: Meet Age Requirements. Complete application and health history forms. Find a Scout Troop. Repeat Pledge of Allegiance. Demonstrate sign, salute, and handshake. Demonstrate square knot. Undertand/agree to oath, law, motto, slogan, and outdoor code. Describe Scout Badge. Complete pamphlet exercises. Participate in SM conference. I would say this all really depends on if they earned the AOL. If they did it should take one meeting. If they did not earn the AOL it will probably take at least an extra week. Though I have seen a couple with the AOL who took forever to just do that simple list for some reason. I would also point out the First Class First Year is not what must happen, but rather is the opportunity that must be provided. Just because not everyone is making First Class in a year dosn't mean the opportunity was available. Merit badge classes going on during meetings are not an automatic evil. While it is a bad sign if that is all that is done at meetings, sometimes merit badge classes can be a good part of a meeting. For example I did a lot of Pioneering MB with my troop over the summer during meetings. This was part of the preparation for a Pioneering weekend. The Scouts needed to know their knots and lashings to succeed in building the Pioneering devices they had planned. It also happened to be a case where we could do trip prep and a MB at the same time. Worked rather well I think, but what do I know, I am just an untrained ASM. OK. I have the negatives out of the way. Time for some positives. I really like the idea of sitting down with the Webelos and parents at a den meeting to talk about the Boy Scout program. Ultimately they do need to make an informed decision and this seems like a good way to do it. Get them to think on their own. Also, I think perhaps there are really four lists that could be created. 1. questions for the new recruit to ask 2. things for the new recruit to look for (or be asked by a parent) 3. questions for the parent to ask 4. things for the parten to look for (positives and negatives) 1. when are meetings? what is the next activity? what do you do? how many people are in the troop? 2. how the boys interact with each other? Is everyone nice? would you want to do what they are doing? do you think they were having fun and like the troop? 3. what is done for fundraisers? how is money handled (individual scout accounts, or something else)? how much do things cost? how much support is expected from parents/families? what types of outings do you do? what can he do now? what are the long term opportunities for outdoor experience? how are youth leaders chosen? how are patrols organized? who plans activities? how fast do people advance? how are merit badges earned? how many adult leaders and how many trained? how long have key leaders been in positions and how long are they staying? Is the MAC truck rule being followed? how involved are other parents? what are the troop's mission and objectives? 4. how did adults interact with youth? how did youth interact with each other? how did adults interact with each other? did adults seem happy? were answers straight forward or did the beet around the bush with answers? did what they say seem to match the reality of what was done?

I would say it sounds like you are on target. I bet those who are in the 16 month catagory could actually have made it in 12 if they had really worked hard with that goal in mind. If it is reasonably possible to make first class in the first 12 months, then it is OK. If some are taking 16 months, that is fine, not everyone works at the same rate. If others need a second summer camp, well, that is a bit slow, but that is ok too. Just ask yourself this- If someone joined the troop at any point in the year, was active in meetings and outings for 12 montsh, and actively made an effort to complete advancement requirements, could they reach first class in the first year of membership?

I rather liked the model used during the National Jamboree by my troop. (I think this set up was produced at the national level, but I may be wrong.) We had 4 patrols of 8 Scouts each. We had 4 youth troop leaders (SPL, ASPL, QM, Scribe) outside the patrols. We had 4 adult leaders (SM, 1stASM, 2ndASM, 3rdASM) outside the patrols. Each patrol cooked and cleaned on their own. Each had a dining fly, tables, anc equipment. The troop had an additional dining fly and tables. For meals each patrol cooked for 10. They would host one pair of troop leaders (a youth and the adult the advised them) for each meal. (We rotated the location the leaders ate so that they moved to the next patrol in a counter-clockwise direction every day, or at least that is how I recall making that decision.) Those leaders would stay out of the patrol site until meal preparation was complete and the Patrol Leader invited them to join with the patrol for the meal. The leaders would then depart after the meal was complete to allow the patrol to clean. In a few cases it became painfully obvious that something had gone wrong with meal prep, to the point of being beyond the control of the PL, and the leaders assigned to that patrol, or others available, would step in and offer some guidance to get them back on track. Now as much as I liked this way of doing things, it wouldn't work quite as well under less than ideal situations. I must say I like the idea of an adult "patrol" acting as a model for the Scouts. Though there have been times I think there would have been some role reversal if we operated on that principal. Maybe the old "Leadership Corps" wasn't the worst of ideas. I don't really think one way of doing things can work in all situations. There are too many times you have a PL as "acting SPL" for a trip, or a very low number of participants, or some other variable that it really must be a case by case sort of thing. Oh, one final comment. I can't really see how the QM would be able to support his patrol, if in one, very well. The QMs I have seen that really took the job seriously stayed about as busy with that as the SPL does. Maybe if each patrol was issued all equipment prior to the trip, there was no troop gear to be looked after, and each patrol was fully aware of how to operate and maintain their equipment in the field, then the QM might not need to do anything until return, but how often is all that the way it works. Also, in stories I have been told by associates with experience in well functioning larger troops the Scribe was just as indespensable as any other youth leader. So I suppose the question of even having the various leaders assigned to a patrol or not must be answered to best fit each situation.