Schattenmann

The snazzier the better, and as long as I can wear my beret.

More seriously: I don't know if it's *because* the ODL uniform was not utilitarian, but we never wore our uniform beyond meetings, ceremonies, and travel in the when I was a scout in the 90s anyway, and the boys still don't. So, while I hated the plastic ODL shirts for their sweat-inducement, I loved the cotton ODL shirts for their look. The Centennial uniform is fine by me so far, excepting the pants; I'd do away with convertibles (the length of the shorts form is obscene.)

-Return to a straight pant. I don't like cargo pockets bc in my experience they hang on every passing object, but, sure a small cargo pocket, why not.

-Shorts must be longer, some boys in my troop have had to either roll their boxers up or pull their shorts down; the things are so small that a modern boxer short easily comes out of the leg.

-Knee socks. I like the look alone, but they've saved the errant boy from poison ivy countless times.

-Beret. Headgear is pretty much entirely up to the unit, anyway, but Supply could give us a hand and manufacture them again--the guys at the military surplus are a pain to deal with.

Hadn't thought about it before, but I like the suggestions of a larger, throw-back necker. But never at the cost of the collar.(This message has been edited by Schattenmann)

ScoutNut, first, I don't see why you'd get into caps-lock range excitement over someone saying they'll encourage more training. But, to answer your question, let me go over it for the 5th time: The adults that are speaking to me about their discontent don't know what to do. We've voiced our concerns, had meetings, developed plans WITH THE INCLUSION AND AGREEMENT OF THE SM IN QUESTION who then turns around and does the complete opposite for over a year. These include the CC, the Adv Chair, ASMs, parents. The CoR is not interested in the troop beyond a means for more square knots.

Now I've come and received some insight, and said that I'll take that to the CC, et al. What's with the caps lock? Will you also get bothered if I promise to never ever talk abotu firing a Scoutmaster again or do you want to yell at that, too?

Well, I just wrote a nice reply, hit submit, and typo'ed my password and lost it, so here's the rundown version:

Thanks for the concerned, voice-of-experience advice most of you have given.

I will start encouraging more training with our adults (most are trained to standard already but there's always more to be had), get ASMs that are doing Committee jobs (for example I'm an ASM working as Program Coordinator) re-registered into Committee, and simply keep doing what I can to get the SM to let go of things he's messign up, and hold on to things he's doing right. I don't dislike him at all, he's a nice guy.

As has always been the case, if everyone else is content to watch the SM play pin the tail on the donkey until he resigns, I am too, and can content myself with doing the tings I can can do and encouraging grumblers to do the same.

John, OldGreyEagle, et al.

It got lost in the shuffle above, but the CC was one of the first people to come to me with problems. He's got more training and scouting experience than the SM. If th eSM quits of his own accord tomorrow, then the CC would likely be the new SM. The current CoR has no prior history with the troop and replaced the last CoR when he died after over 35 years of service.

Point being, I'm not "stirring the pot." I'm not saying to people in the troop "hey, the SM is horrible, let's fire him." I'm here because people are getting more and more upset, but no one seems to know what to do (having already spoken with the SM abotu these topics over and over). I already fill a lot of rolls in the troop (besides "Patch Police")--it's not a matter of my not wanting to take on responsibilities, I'm already undertaking responsibilities.

No one that has a problem has dared utter the words "let's fire him"--but I'm here for info.

Again, as long as a SM is willing to fix the troop not make it worse, then I don't have any favorite. The current SM could stay under those circumstances for that matter. If it comes to it, I just want to know how it's done properly.(This message has been edited by schattenmann)

Sorry for the absence, my connection is up and down, I'll cherry-pick from the many replies.

A lot of you have taken the stance that this is drastic and I should not "jump" into it. As I noted with lots of time rerferences, this has been a problem for some years, we have included the SM in every discussion we've had on matters of concern, and there is no secret conspiracy to replace him with myself as a new charismatic strongman replacing him. I did not start any complaining--I began trying to act on complaints that came across me--now that all diplomatic efforts have been ignored, I simply want to know how to proceed should those of us trying to improve things need to.

Lisabob ignores these time references and jumps straight for my age, assuming that "old" means "experienced: "Lots of times, new leaders (and I'm sorry but at 25, you're still a new leader - it does not matter how long you were in the troop or what ranks you earned as a youth; the adult side of things is just different) have a lot of fire to start with but no understanding of how hard it can be to sustain that in order to provide consistency over time."

To clear this up for all of you, youth years aside, I have been with the troop as an adult leader longer than the SM--I was there when he got here.

Aside from that, Lisabob, thank you for your concise and informative points--that's what I'm looking for: Advice. (The ammo reference in my OP was a dry joke on my part, apologies)

Eagle92 writes:

"1) have a leadership meeting, i.e. SM and all ASMs and discuss what needs to be done. I would also invite the UC. DEVELOP A PLAN OF ACTION TO IMPROVE THE TROOP WITH DETAILS TO MAKE IT YOUTH RUN"

==This is part of the problem. After some informal discussions with the SM didn't get the point across, 4 ASMs/Comittee members sat down with the SM for just such a meeting. We outlined problems/areas of concern, what could be done to adress or fix them, set up timeframes etc for almost 5 hours. The SM wholeheartedly agreed and wanted to be part of the solution, then as soon as anyone tries to act upon the plans, he stops them dead in their tracks, and makes up his own quick fix (which never lasts).

Eagle92 and lots of others also note training

"Make sure everyone is Trained and know what resources are out there. There are hundreds of things out there to help the troop."

We ASMs have been loading up on literature once we started actively trying to turn things around for the troop. The SM refuses to read one page of anything. That's part of the problem.

Calico Pen:

"A Scoutmaster (or designated assistant) SHOULD be attending PLC meetings. His role is to guide the PLC as needed and it's much easier and more convenient for the Scoutmaster to be able to interject during a PLC than to have to "veto" a plan as unworkable after the PLC has worked to develop it. He's there to help prevent having nights that aren't planned so he doesn't have to think on the fly and call for water balloons, or a game of kickball, or whatever."

Perhaps you did not give my OP your full attention.

The Adv Chair (not myself) was in attendence at the PLCs and helped keep that meeting going. When Scouts started complaining that the meetings were more like daycare than Scout meetings, I started going to them as well. The Adv Chair and I put material in the PLs hands and began working with them more intently, then the SM unilaterally changed the meeting time, started attending, and basically put the whole process into suspended animation. He does not hold water balloon fight meetings because/when the boys do not make their own plans--he tells the boys that on such and such night they will be having a waterballoon fight. Do you see the difference? His idea of a PLC is not planning the forthcoming events, but rather assigning a theme to them, then showing up that night and figuring out what to do 10 minutes before form-up.

Skipping the main body of your childish ad homs we get to "By the way, what's a "Uniform Czar"? is that anything like "Patch Police"? If so - stop it - stop it now. A TRAINED leader will tell you that Uniforms are only one method of Scouting - and aren't required at that"

Thanks for that. That's the title the SM gave me because I take a lot of pride in my uniform--he thought it was cute and was the ONLY thing he took from an excerpt of a book we asked him to read. So if that just gets your bile going, you see what sort of a guy he is, not what sort of a guy I am.

Your definition of success solely by the number of boys there on a night really is the end of my paying attention to anything you have to say. Any smoothtalker can slick 10 families per year into joining the troop--the problem is that the boys are so disgruntled that they're gone by 14. Out of those 40 rostered boys, only 3 are over 14 and as the older ones get sick and leave we may have 1,000 11 year olds, but they'll all be ignorant and dependent on adults to do everything for them. There's a troop of over 100 10 miles down the road--all the boys get Eagle for showing up, they get kicked out if they don't attend the troop-owned summer camp, the SM picks the SPL etc etc--but by your numbers standard they're the best troop in the county. Don't be stupid.

As for some insinuations as to my loyalty or trustworthiness from a couple folks, that's pretty hilarious. My Loyalty to the troop and responsibilities to the scouts is the only thing that has allowed this process to be so drawn out. I was content to let the SM run the troop the way he wanted to run it until scouts started quitting. My trustworthiness is what has kept me from amplifying the complaints of others and using them to do whatever I want.

Far from it, as I have stated multiple times, myself and the other adults have worked and worked and worked WITH the bumbling SM for over a year despite his refusal to recognize the stagnation and decay all around him.

sst3rd:

What happened to you is everything that I want to avoid. And I thank you for the contrast. If we wanted to we could do everything wrong and pull it of--but it would be just that, wrong, and nothing right would ever come out of it. When a scout comes to me to complain, I tell him that I understand and that if he doesn't like something to run for PL and change things. When a parent or ASM comes complaining, I tell them then volunteer for a position in the committee that assumes to duties naturally that the SM has had to take on.

I don't want a "bloody coup" and frankly I don't want to be the SM. But I do want a troop that is actually a Boy Scout troop.

John-in-KC, Eagle92, I've spent most of my reply on the yokles that wanted to get personal with someone asking for advice, but rest assured I have read and printed your replies--they're what I'm looking for.

I know that removing the SM is nasty business, and that's why we haven't done it. If I've come across as someone that is looking for a way to get rid of an SM so I can take over and create the troop of my youth again, then it's a filaing of my keyboard. I want a troop where the boys plan their own meetings (not the SM), where qualified boys are the SPL (not the SMs sons or boys that the SM chooses bc he thinks they deserve it before they turn 18), where the SPL/boys lead the meetings (not the SM), where boys learn from boys (as seen in Norman Rockwell's "The Right Way") not from men because there are no experienced boys left (like we have). I want a SM that can see that these things are not happening (as our SM can) and will take the troop in a course of correction, not further down the trail (like he is).

As for my apparent incorrect stance on who chooses the QM, Scribe, Bugler, Hist. etc etc--sorry. This troop has been electing them for 45 years, and I've only been in one. The point is that the SM didn't make that change to bring the troop in line with policy, he made that change because he wanted to pick the troop leadership; there's a difference.(This message has been edited by schattenmann)(This message has been edited by Schattenmann)(This message has been edited by Schattenmann)

I forgot a doozy: Last yera at camp a scout asked me who I thought the next SM would be. I said I had no idea, maybe Mr So-and-so, but I had no idea when the current SM would resign so who knew who else might come along between now and then. One of the current SMs sons overheard us and said "2 years." I asked him 2 years what? And he said "2 years until my dad resigns, that's what he told me." I asked what happened in 2 years and he replied "Me and my brother will both be Eagle by then."

Thanks resqman and John for the prompt replies.

"It's called the Chartered Organization Representative notifies the Council that Mr A is no longer the SM of your unit."

The COR is part of the problem--he comes around less than once a month, and was actually the person pushing hardest for that paper Venture Crew (he got a pretty knot, too). He's a Council bigwig that hasn't got a clue how to run a troop.

"THEN, you lay your case that the SM must go out in a business meeting with the CC. This is not friendly cup of coffee time. You are young bulls charging the established leadership. You need to ask the CC for time and place to have a business discussion"

The Committee Chair (I say we have no real committee--we've got one on paper but none of them does or is allowed to do anything except the CC) is actually one of the main detractors. And while two of us are young, he's over 40, in with the Council, and actually has a son in the troop unlike us.

I believe that given knowledge of this process, we are willing to follow it. As I said, we're not interested in just kicking the SM out, but he does need to go.

I've spent that last year thinking about standing up and ousting our current Scoutmaster, and the last hour Googling how to actually do it. The only result even close to what I was looking for, nestled among "how to start a fire" was this post from 5 years ago:

". . . Is it only me, or does anyone else notice that every week someone stops by all dissatisfied shopping for ammunition to oust a Scoutmaster . . ."

Well, here I am, this week's ammo shopper.

Where I'm coming from:

I'm a 25-year-old ASM/"Uniform Czar"/Unofficial Program Coord. (we haven't got a real committee anymore) for the troop I grew up in. Despite my (relative) youth, besides another guy about my age, I have the greatest seniority in the troop, so I also fill an unofficial position of crotchety codger. I remember when our troop didn't (to be frank) suck. I've been around to see it functional and thriving, to watch it decay, and to see it at the low point it's come to.

With that said, this may take on a "it's a you problem"; however, I have been slow to come to this conclusion whereas other ASMs, and scouts, have been complaining to me for two years.

The Problem:

At the same time I was turning 18 and leaving for school, the core adult leadership were also all getting beyond 55 years of age, their boys 20-years out of the troop in some cases, and retiring. They were replaced, of course, by newer parents. One of these is the current SM.

General disinterest by the new adults has created a situation where the SM is now doing everything, which is a problem but I don't blame him for that. The way he is doing things, though, is outrageous.

Our troop is, in terms of numbers, not yet suffering--we've been steady at 35-45 Scouts for a decade (and longer). But our troop has never measured success by how many names are on the roster, and I've seen troops that are worse off than us and with crummier leaders with over 100 scouts.

So what is it?

About two years ago, complaints started coming to a head. So, I sort of started pushing the point that we needed to do something about the direction that the troop was heading in (downhill). The current SM agreed, and promised to start working with me and another ASM to get things on track with the boys.

I said our Patrol Leaders don't do anything abd aren't held accountable for it. Mostly they're ignorant of what to do because they haven't seen a good, working patrol. He agreed, then went on to scuttle every attempt we've made to begin giving the PLs more training, more responsibility (where "more" means doing what they're supposed to do--Plan and lead meetings and outtings, duty rosters, and everything else a PL is supposed to do). While our SM traditionally did not attend the PLC, he moved it to a night he could attend, and continues to interject himself into the planning and manhandle the most idiotic plans imaginable into pratice. (When there's a night that doesn't get planned, he brings out water balloons--things like that).

Our troop has always required that candidates for SPL be graduates of Buckskin (our Council's leadership training); however, last year when we had 3 older boys who had never been SPL (nor gone to the trainign or expressed the slightest interest in being SPL) he stood up during troop elections and announced that for the next 6 months first this 17-year-old would be SPL until his birthday, then followed by the next until his birthday, then the next until his birthday, then his son (who had no training and is roundly despised by the scouts and ASMs) would succeed until the next elections. There were at least 2 well-qualified, trained, candidates that were ignored in favor of this dynasty.

At our Spring elections last month, he stood up and made another announcement: The boys would only be electing PLs and the SPL. The SPL would then appoint every other position--with lots of "help" and input from him, of course. He also wants the SPL to have 2 ASPLs; something which many troops do and I don't disagree with, but as I said we're not a mega-troop, we've got a solid 25-30 in attendence each night and don't need 2 ASPLs. We don't even have two qualified boys for ASPL after years of his coddling and manipulation and stagnation.

When three of us tried to create a functioning committee again, he took controll of the meeting and took over an hour reading the description of every position, effectively fillibustering the once-interested parents into glassy-eyed contempt.

When we set aside one night to take the PLs aside from the rest of the troop and develop plans for the next few weeks, he pushed his way into the session and told them all to go outside because it was time for the water balloon fight.

We barely have a functioning troop, but he forced through a Venture Patrol. It's a Venture Patrol in name only that the boys were not interested in, and the leader was cornered into taking on. Now the SM walks around with a New Unit Organizer square knot.

I hope you all get the idea--I'm sorry I'm so long-winded. To sum up (from an email exchange between myself and another ASM):

"I just don't understand why [the SM] thinks that he can fix a troop that is broken because it is no longer in alignment with national policies/standards by continuing to take it further and further from those standards; standards which create success in troops of all sizes and demographics all over the country! Instead he plays [his last name] Scouts of America year after year in complete confusion over failuers and sheer wonderment when a fluke success occurrs."

What to Do?

Over the last year, myself and the other active ASMs have tried to work with the SM over and over and over again. We sit down with him to strategize, we include him every discussion about the troop--this is no back alley, secret undertaking of a few conspirators. While we continue to recruit new scouts well, we've lost all experienced/older scouts to the point that the boys are completely crippled. The boys that remain are sick of the crummy state we're in.

I myself am not opposed to walking up to the man and asking him to give me his patches, but the other ASMs, while just as- or more frustrated than me, are not so bold. Our troop removed a SM years before I joined, but every adult that was around then is literally dead or nowhere to be found--I'm lost.

Is there a formal process to removing a Scoutmaster?