blw2

@Eagle94-A1 I like some of what Eagledad suggests. It does seem like a need to approach it from a different direction to gel the team together. At some point you mentioned taht there was one scout that was a bad egg, in terms of trying to break down the patrol from within no matter what... something to that effect. THAT is where I think I might look first. My first thought was to have a sit down with the scout and his parent(s) but perhaps a better approach might be to gain the scout's trust somehow. Maybe he's dealing with stuff at home, or elsewhere One thought might be to coach the PL (or SPL since the PL prob isn't trusted) to buddy up to the guy a bit... then the SPL could pull him aside out of earshot from others and in a very caring way say something like, "hey, i noticed you have been doing xyz. Is there anything I can do to help?"... basically caoch the SPL to open a dialog. Then do that yourself, another time... try to pick a moment when he's having fun, maybe a time when he's laughing with you about a joke you said, or some other funny story you both enjoyed.... If it's expressed as a genuine concern, perhaps either the SPL, or you, or both might learn something that's triggering the bad behaviour....You might learn something that's a root cause. try different approaches at different times. Give it some time, for him to develop trust. Then, if none of that kind of stuff works, I might think about having a parent scout conference telling him and his parents how he is being disruptive, why it hurts the others, etc.... and that it can't continue.... asking him to sit out a meeting, or a campout.... and that he can come back when he wants to try... Make it clear that you want him back.

this is an interesting topic for me right now. I can see part of what both of you are getting at really make sense a) letting the scouts live with a bad decision and work through it b) giving them flexibility to fix the issue right away But I'm not really tracking with why stosh's model wouldn't work for a larger troop. Strikes me that a mix of the two ideas is perhaps an appropriate vision. Personally, i don't like the idea of having fixed term lengths, but I do agree that it isn't ideal just to let em cut and run and the first hint of a problem, either. Boy, that kind of thing could really exponentiate quickly! in the troop model you've outlined, I already see potential in it falling apart .... I mean if each ASPL has a separate group and are in essence a stand alone SPL in their own right... there's already a built-in tripup layer of potential inconsistency between each of those 'sub troops' and the other sub troops... and between the scout and the SPL/Scoutmaster Makes me think of How many degrees of Kevin Bacon? Baden Powell wrote the following about troop size: "The number in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty-two. I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many as I could deal with — in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two. Men talk of having fine Troops of 60 or even 100 — and their leaders tell me that their boys are equally well trained as in smaller Troops. I express admiration (“admiration†literally translated means “surpriseâ€), and I don’t believe them." http://scoutmastercg.com/aids-scoutmastership/#TheScoutmaster's Duty Now I can certainly understand the need in the modern age of expanding those numbers a bit.... & I might even buy that modern tools and such make it possible to increase the numbers a bit. But I've gotta say his words kinda make sense to me. I haven't experienced it one way or the other really in the scouting troop arena under the patrol method.... but I did in the pack, and in other ways... casual observation is that a group of friends, a sports team for many games, cub scout den, a good class size for most training type classes or hands on presentations of all kinds, or many other groups naturally seem to be roughly around that 6-8 range. And considering that the SPL is involved with more than just his PLs (SM, scribe, QM, etc..) then he shouldn't have a full staff of 6-8 patrols to worry with... so 4-5 patrols kinda makes some sense

nice! just curious....what age and rank are the SPL and ASPL you're writing about here?

yeah, i think I mentioned that my son put his name into the hat for PL. (2 weeks into the troop!) Our troop requires a parent signature on his application, just as an acknowledgement taht I understand and agree to support the commitment, getting him to mtgs, etc... Anyway, when he asked me to sign, and I saw PL and APL for the two positions he wanted, I know he doesn't really know what that means.... so I did one of those looks over my glasses, and asked him if he understood that it's more than just "being in charge", that he would be responsible to support the other scouts and that it was a big commitment. He said yep. So I figured why not. I doubt if he really has the drive to do it, but he'll learn something one way or the other!

... and then Stosh wrote: It sounds as if the boys are coming at different times and from different packs. The dynamics of a cohesive existing den then doesn't apply. At that point whatever works would be the better option. Hanging out with the older boys means less work for them as well. The older boys are seen as a more "adult" like figure at that point. This is an interesting line of discussion to me, as I am currently watching the exact thing live, in living color! To stosh's point... I don't even think that's the case.... since den's aren't always cohesive anyway. The bigger point is they are boys of a similar age, with similar interests and abilities. If some want to split out later into other existing or new patrols, great! why not? My son and one den mate crossed into our troop. The other den scouts went with their dads and older brothers to a neighboring troop... and it was interesting that with the exception of only one boy, this split happened right down the dividing line of the two cliques of boys. All but one of these boys, by the way, were with us at day one at the Tiger round-Up meeting. So anyway, my son joined the troop 2 weeks ago. We are expecting 4+ new scouts from another pack in a few weeks. My observations so far are these: This transition dead time could have been better thought through by the troop perhaps since the reality is that it's only a few weeks, and it really is no big deal at all. The first official troop meeting, after joining, happened to be a COH before the meeting, the two new boys hung back in the corner a few minutes, and were promptly requited by the FOS presenter to pass out the pledge forms on his queue. It wasn't too long after, that the two most senior scouts invited them to join their patrol's table (as a guest). they pulled the shy card and hesitated, so the two older scouts joined them... and in the down time when the actual ceremony wasn't happening they looked through the handbook together... and otherwise talked to the new scouts generally about the troop, practices, and so on... The following normal troop meeting, they joined one of the patrols (as a guest) and since my son already had his new handbook he got a couple of signoffs. Since the next meeting will be elections, the new scouts even submitted the applications with their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices of which POR they would like to run for! (troop practice)... for what its worth they both selected PL as #1 and APL #2.... So in summary... these new boys are currently called the no-name patrol, and it was decided that their patrol's election will be delayed for the other new scouts in a few weeks (I think an adult decision). Otherwise, they are feeling welcomed, and are coming up to speed just fine. Maybe a bit slow, but it's only for a short time! My thoughts: IF I were deciding or suggesting, instead of all of that I would suggest that the two new scouts now would be coached as if being a patrol right now.... because in reality they are. Since the elections are happening now, I would include their patrol in it. Let the two elect which one is PL... and just get the thing up and running. They would camp as a patrol of two for the upcoming monthly camp, etc... Then, by the time the additional scouts join they have a functioning (loose term i know) patrol already. You might say it's not fair taht the other boys weren't included in the election or patrol name selection. I say so what....How is any of that any different for some theoretical scouts that join say in April? keep no-name for now if you'd rather... but for both points it's only till the next election anyway, and if there's a general consensus later on among the patrol that they want to change the patrol name, ok that would be just fine. But if for some reason it must go like it has, then I would have suggested that it could be just a bit smoother if the elections, and the following ILST planned soon after, had been pushed back a bit... even though previously planned I'm sure. They could have easily been shifted a few weeks, a couple months back when the packs' crossover dates were known.... and one of the patrols could formally act as a "foster parent"... but this line of thinking ONLY because it's known more scouts are coming in short order.

This thread really took a turn from what my original thought was.... but hey, that perfectly ok with me. Maybe it was my fault for not presenting my vision well, or maybe not.... either way it's just natural conversation shift.... & Regardless, it's still very useful! I attended my 1st committee mtg recently, and I'm very encouraged. It very much is a transitional thing as people shift at different rates in getting on the same page. In my case there's still some adults doing what a scout could do (and perhaps should do), but it's clear that the SM has a great vision and the committee is on board with the idea.... The boys are having their elections tonight, on a 6-month cycle. I'm not sure how I feel about that exactly, but as with most all of this I'm seriously reserving judgement. Overall my troops seems to maybe be more or less where hedgehog's is regarding all of this.

thinking more about my previous post, and Eagledad's post about the young naturally wanting to observe rather than lead...that is something that really makes me think. In my theoretical thinking.... I'm of the opinion that this is surely a dynamic taht we need to consider and actively address.... but I don't see it solely a cause to not do a "patrol, that happens to be mostly young scouts". It might just mean that we need to give that young PL a certain different consideration and coaching than we would an older scout. just like a 6th grade teacher needs to have a different presentation style than an 11th grade teacher...

I think that's a very interesting twist to consider... and very true I will say this, some youngsters do want to lead, although it's not always in the best way, and in one case I know of personally it's not with the best of intentions sure it happens, and it's great to read of your example.... but I'd bet that is an exception to the norm.... especially after reading other experiences here! ... with the norm being partially or maybe mostly driven by the influence of mixed patrols and the like... but also just personality dynamics. I'm just theorizing, but i'd bet that if you were able to study say 10-15 dens that were genuinely given the same opportunity you described, that a good fraction would not have the good outcome.... but instead break-up for all sorts of reasons. that being said, i still like the idea and would like to see more opportunities for it to happen. It just makes good sense to me.

ok, valid point I guess but couldn't the young inexperienced PL gain a lot of that from his work on the PLC? and wouldn't that same PL along with his entire patrol observe the other patrols from day to day? and wouldn't that same young PL get some guidance from the little bit of extra attention from a good troop guide and or ASM or SM early on, in the form of point outs to the handbook or elsewhere to define the program.... & guide him through suggestive questioning? and if that's a seriously big hole, then couldn't that young patrol be invited to join a more experienced patrol for certain meetings or events to observe? .... all while maintaining their patrol identity.... I get that the NSP often fails.... and is a dirty word among most folks here.... for good reason I suppose.... but I see advantages in the logic anyway too. I'm coming to think that a lot of the problems with them come from the name, which defines a lot of constraints. Maybe it makes more sense to think of it as a patrol. One that happens to have mostly inexperienced scouts. that doesn't lock it into all the same age.... or all the same rank and it doesn't define some special leadership structure or into some special program. The only reason my mind keeps defending this NSP idea, is the core definition that was the foundation of BP forming patrols in the 1st place. friends 'hanging out' together and so on.... and for his desire to instill strong patrol spirit and identity to have good roots, the patrol would need to be a long term thing.... So what is now the "NSP".... let's call them the flaming arrow patrol So the flaming arrows are all new boys.... in a few months they might pick up more or loose a few either to drops or to other patrols but since they are mostly new, they need a little more special coaching form a guide or SM for a little while, but that doesn't change anything.... Next year when the new batch of recruits comes aboard, .... or maybe even before that happens when they get up to speed...the flaming arrow patrol silently become just another patrol 4 years, 5 years down the road the flaming arrow patrol is a strong spirited group of friends together through anything. Mostly the same plank owners from the early days, but with a few pickups and changes through the years as friendships bonded with boys in other patrols and boys left for other patrols or joined from other patrols....or an odd new 11 year old joined the troop mid year and was taken under their wing like a little brother might be. He's a proud member of the flaming arrows too. their patrol historians through the years have by now amassed a pretty good set of stories from all of their patrol adventures, and troop adventures... Now when the original scouts age out at 18, if there were enough pickups of younger scouts they can continue on and keep the patrol's flag flying.... or if not, the flag might be retired or picked up by the next NSP. I know this is all pie in the sky thinking, and all too perfect..... but I'm pretty sure based on what I have read, was the foundation for the idea of the patrol concept. Lots of reasons why it might not work, sure, but there are some good reasons to that make it seem like a strong patrol that will spark some really strong lifelong friendships too. I don't know. I think it could make for a good movie anyway.

We didn't do a very good job with this in our pack. Since before my time it was a culture of a lot done by just a few. I stepped in just to help them.... and before long they had jumped ship due to burn out.... almost leaving me hanging for all the pack level stuff. We had den leaders but not much else. I'll admit that I didn't do a great job of turning this around... i tried, but was not able to do. I noticed what you are pointing out very clearly about the kids of those that volunteered. I often wondered what the scouts were thinking when I would appeal to the parents during pack meetings and their parents would look at me blank faced. (I tried to not talk to adults in pack meetings, but sometimes I did because we were desperately needing help and they wouldn't attend parent meetings)

yeah, quoting Clarke Green from his blog post regarding that podcast, "What adults do is just as important to a boy-led troop as what adults don’t do. Defining what we should not do is nowhere near as useful as sharing what we shoulddo, but before I do let’s address one common misconception; Boy-led is not boy-defined. Every once in a while I’ll hear something like; “We don’t have patrols because the Scouts decided they didn’t want them, we are boy-led after all.†Imagine a basketball game where the players were carrying the ball rather than dribbling. You ask a coach why and they tell you; “the players all decided they’s rather play this way.†Can you still call that game “basketball� Just like any other game Scouting has limitations and definitions. We all play the game within those definitions and limitations, the players don’t re-invent the game." I still buy into the Boy-Led mantra and all of that, but Great point Clarke.... "boy led not boy defined", well said! http://scoutmastercg.com/what-is-a-boy-led-troop/

And do you think the OP should push for something in writing to give to this young scout and his parents? both as an explanation either way as well as documentation for use the next time the question is brought up... like say at his eagle BOR......

interesting podcast over at scoutmastercg, his latest one He talked about this vision that we scouters have........ and sort of around the idea isn't just to not have a vision or direction and just let the boys do what they want.... but that our vision does play some sort of role, just as does the methods, aims, and goals as spelled out in the handbook I thought of this thread when I was listening to it

interesting topic. My son earned his AOL at 10yr-4months and crossed over into the troop at 10yr-5months I knew that he's on the extreme low end of the age, but I never really considered how young he could be and make eagle. Honestly it hasn't been a concern since he's not a hyper-driven kid for making ranks and awards, and I'm not a parent with the make-eagle mindset. He's more about the fun at this point, and I'm more of the hope he becomes a first class Scout (not the rank)

yeah, I suppose so Stosh....As always old wise one Really, I can picture this from both perspectives. Probably true that often the embarrassment is more in the adult side, but that is still a valid concern I think. My gut tells me that generally your view points about this are spot on, but at the same time there will probably be a case by case consideration to make too. OK, here's another line of open questions to the group here, that came to mind: 1) how many different folks in your troop have check books and write checks? 2) do you bother with petty cash accounts, or do you just rely on reimbursements? 3) do you use one or more debit cards tied to your troop checking account? ....and if so, who has them? Here's my line of thinking: In my research, I'm finding lots of references to "petty cash". To me this seems a bit old school. Putting myself into the shoes of another leader... say and ASM that is supervising a grocery shopping trip before or during a camp out. Instead of chasing down the treasurer to sign out some cash, I would much rather just spend my own money (or credit card) and then submit the receipt for reimbursement.... assuming of course that I could count on a timely check from the treasurer. Then taking this a step further, I can see some appeal to letting some key folks hold a debit card for convenience sake.... I can also imagine other folks wanting to hold a checkbook. I know that it's common and wise practice to have several signers on the bank account, for backup purposes it seems like any of these ideas increase the likelihood for errors and problems, such as lost receipts, or situations where they forge t to tell me as treasurer to balance it out..... but it's of course necessary and easy enough to deal with so this isn't a concern at all, only an observation. SO, these questions are only curiosity about how other units are doing it, not so much born out of concern.

I personally think that the better rule would to not have a set troop rule at all. If the boys want to call a new election 2 weeks in, I'd say its your troop. What does your handbook say about it?

my take on the privacy thing is only awareness let's say little Jimmy's dad just got laid off and the money is tight. They seem to always be running a negative balance. They might not want other kids to know that things are tight Or worse yet, Jimmy's family works out a scholarship program with the committee. Jimmy probably wouldn't want his buddies to know about it. Somewhere I think it does mention a treasurer relationship. If memory serves, doesn't it say something about the scribe dealing with the financial member of the committee. I don't know, maybe I read that in the troop's POR election forms and it wasn't official. I'm still in the learning stage here with this job, but even if it doesn't it would make sense I think that they would need to. If they are collecting dues they would need to hand them off to the treasurer somehow. But maybe you're onto something that it's only a very limited relationship at the most. I guess I've got another bullet point to dig deeper into here...

I don't know if I mentioned earlier... my troop has been using troopwebhost, but they haven't really been using the accounting functions nearly to potential. So I've been reading up on what I can do with it. Ended up having a conversation today with the developer, John. Super nice guy and very responsive and helpful.... so thumbs up for his product for customer service! Anyway, he was treasurer for his troop, and that was really the basis for the service. Anyway, we discussed a few things, but I asked him ways that he or other users of his service have involved the scribes (patrol and/or troop). Apparently this isn't very common since he'd never had the question before. so we knocked around a few ideas from having the scouts do the entry to letting them log in to see the data but not edit, just so they can keep after late payments, negative balances, and so on to my printing periodic reports for the same purpose But John brought up what I thought might be a good point.... that there may be a privacy concern where a family or boy might might not want other boys to see their financial situation. In the end, I'm not certain how I'll play this out. I think for now my focus is getting up to speed with the current situation and the current troop practices and learning the software service myself and just think about the scribe component on the back burner. oh, I did find out that we use scout "accounts", and that a fractional portion of fund raising efforts go into these virtual accounts.... and that they have allowed scouts to buy things such as uniform shirts. mostly I think the money is used to pay for upcoming camp fees or dues. Regardless... all of that seems like a personal benefit to me, and I'm investigating best ways to deal with this.

yes, that's very comprehensive. Thanks for sharing!

no kidding!

My last couple years with our pack I felt like I couldn't get parents to do anything but give me their best blank face zombie impression. We had a full staff of den leaders but we tried and tried but the parents just wouldn't step up. I watched some of those families as their son's went to the troop (a few still had boys in the pack). These people that never helped beyond stacking chairs or the like in the pack, but they really stepped up the interest over at the troop.... joining the committee and really taking an active role. Very encouraging (for the future of the troop) but also very very discouraging Yeah, grandmas were just what i'm picturing. Any experienced leader would fit the bill, who is willing to do it well and repeat even without a son in the den or pack. as it should be, well in a way. I think you have to have a DL for charter, but even if you don't I think you dod need a registered and trained leader to guide it But absolutely, all parents participating. This is exactly what an experienced repeat den leader could pull together in short order, without the parents tripping over themselves before they figure it out... if they ever do without guidance.

our troop has several ASM's, I think 4. I think around 20-30 scouts Over at scoutmastercg, he had a podcast that spoke of this. In his opinion, a troop really doesn't need more than 1 or maybe two ASM's. One is preparing to takeover, sort of like a 1st ASM. He talked about how too many adults involved make it too likely for misdirection, confusion, etc... Basically, if I remember correctly that ASM's shouldn't really interact or talk directly with the scouts unless specifically directed to do something particular. I guess the idea was that it's very unlikely that everyone will be on the same page all the time, and you never know when teh SM might have something in mind that gets undermined by a well intention ed ASM or other adult. Personally, I find this idea too extreme, but I do see his point.

I've long felt that it would be so great to have a perpetual Tiger Den leader.... I picture a grandma that's great with young kids... maybe a retired school teacher or grandpa that just loves kids and doing scout stuff. not necessarily even with a grandkid in the pack....from the women's or men's club at church maybe It seems like just when a leader is getting up to speed they are moving on to the next rank or position. But if a pack could find that perfect leader taht only wants to work with the young kids they could really get to know the program and the pack and really do a great job of introducing the families to the pack. and could do a great job grooming one of the parents to take over for Wolf and all of this would take all that pressure off the tiger parents

that's a perspective I hadn't really considered. I was thinking more along the lines of the headcount comparison between the "adults" and the scouts. It seems that when the numbers of adults start to match the number of scouts, that the likelihood for negative things happening increase exponentially.... such as unproductive adult involvement, miscommunications, doing things that counter the SM's efforts or vision, and so on.

well, actually they do allow us to camp whenever we want....or it seems almost anything else... I personally don't think that's a great practice though... once in a while, sure to observe and advise the SM as one of the committee roles, but maybe we shouldn't be interacting the scouts, except for example the treasurer with the scribe.