dfscott

So, my take-away is that I have destroyed this troop and I should step down. I'm running a "a lip service, boy-led program that is really adult-led bailouts". I don't teach leadership skills and I should have my feet "held to the fire" (sorry, not familiar with that expression but it sounds bad -- is it some sort of torture like waterboarding?)

Stosh, you talk about all this stuff that "your boys know." You said your boys cancel events when they didn't have property food and equipment. Are these the events your go on yourself and take pictures? That just sounds little strange to me. Do these get posted to your Troop's site or are these used to just taunt the boys and show them what they missed? Do you use the pictures to show how things are supposed to run, or is it more of showing them a good time? Most of my boys like to camp, but they like it more for the fun that they have with their friends. Showing them pictures of *me* camping would just make them glad they didn't go!

Look, I freely admit that I'm not Super-Stosh. I *do* occasionally have to discipline my boys. When a 16 year old joins the troop and has never had any significant supervision at home, I often have to deal with bullying and hazing until they are made to understand that it's not allowed. And despite being SM, my word is *not* law -- I dance to the Chartered Organization's drum, so I am limited on how much "tough love" they will let me apply. I'd love to be perfect at this job, which is why I've been trying for the past two years to learn how to do it.

Most of what I've read here seems to imply that I'm not doing it right but the options provided are not going to work. Fishing for food? Seriously? You said the parents should be angry with me for not supplying them food. I have yet to see any of our boys successfully catch a fish, despite plenty of trying, so unless Jesus joined our outing, I think they'd be even hungrier than the "foraging" crew.

 

Well I have to admit there is something wrong here, the parents of older scouts should know by now to let the troop handle this situation. These aren't boys anymore, these guys are adults acting like boys. And I have to agree with stosh, it appears the adults are treating them like boys as well. The parents should be disappointed in their sons and want them to learn a lesson here. Barry

To clarify, the parents of the older boys weren't the ones on the white horses. Two of the 8 boys in the patrol are 12, and it was their moms jumping in. (Both former Den Leaders -- sometimes I think think it's easier when the parents were not in involved in Cub Scouts!) Even a year in, they're still having trouble going from ringleader to spectator...

First, an update:

Just got back from the grocery store (where in addition to the adult patrol food, I bought a bunch of boxes of Mac and Cheese, just in case). Checking my email, my inbox was on fire -- mostly parents of the patrol members trying to figure out how to bail out the boys. >

Then I was pleased to see the last email in the thread, which was from the PL:

Good Evening Everyone,

As patrol leader, I've decided that I will create a new menu for this weekend's camp out, and I will bring the food/drinks tomorrow. If every scout in my patrol who will be attending this campout, can you please bring $15 tomorrow.

Thank you,

I quickly replied telling the parents asking them to stand down since the PL obviously has this under control. Although this was a bit stressful, I think we got some good from it:

1) The PL stepped up and handled the situation (and he now knows that he'd better get a better grubmaster next time unless he wants to do it again!) and,

2) The parents see that they boys can handle these situations on their own.

Now, it's not without it's negatives, since the scouts did see parents ready to bail them out, but I'm happy they stepped up before that happened. And I'll make sure to let the scout and parents know that there won't be any bailing out, since it's obviously not needed.

Thanks, all, for the suggestions and criticisms -- it's all welcome. I'm particularly fond of RememberSchiff's idea -- I'm definitely going to use that one.

One of my patrols (made up of mostly older boys 14-16), consistently has problems with the grubmaster role. The PL is very forgetful and laid back and doesn't follow-up. As a result, grubmasters often forget about grub until the last minute, and on the last two occasions, forgot completely. In the first instance, I picked up their food for them since I didn't want to "punish the boys that didn't screw up." After warning them that this was their last bailout, things went ok for a while, but then a couple of campouts later, again, no food (actually partial food -- only enough for two meals). On that trip, I later found out that they begged and borrowed food from the the NSP.

We are boy-led and use the patrol method, so other than periodic email reminders, I try not to interfere with the patrol workings. But I feel bad for the scouts that are trying hard but being let down by the rest of their patrol. (I'm also worried that it's just a matter of time before the parents start getting upset about little Timmy Teenager not getting fed well enough on campouts).

Today, here we are again, two days before the campout, and the PL tells me that the grubmaster says he doesn't have time to get the food and on top of that, no one can find their menu anyway. I've told him that he either needs to find another grubmaster pronto (they all go to the same school so it's not a communication issue) or be prepared to do it himself. His response was "OK", but based on past experience, I'm not expecting them to arrive with any food.

Any thoughts about ways to get this patrol back on course? I'm grubmaster for the adult patrol this weekend, so I'm thinking about while I'm at the store, grabbing something bland like PB&J and Ramen as an "emergency grubmaster kit." They'll have food, but I imagine they'll get tired of it pretty soon and hopefully learn a lesson.

 

The issue isn't big tents. Missed opportunity to teach your SPL what taking care of people is all about. Looks like the kind of leadership that basically takes care of oneself and one's buddies. Definitely not the kind of leadership taught in BSA. Scout Oath: ....to help other people at all times...... Obviously this SPL hasn't a clue as to what that means. I'd pull his POR before I changed the rules on tents. That basically lets the SPL off the hook... That would have been a SMC right then and there with that scout.

 

Stosh

Not sure what your "missed opportunity" is. I did speak with him and without going into the gory details - he was eventually removed.

My point is that I've already seen one Troop shut down for this sort of thing, and I'm not going to let one loose cannon take down the whole troop. Sometimes, the adults have to take some responsibility, particularly where Youth Protection is concerned.

the priest transubstantiates it.

So as long as you're Catholic, you should be fine since technically, there is no alcohol present.

The Episcopalians, now, they're in trouble...

This isn't hard. As SM' date=' you must insist on one more line, "Any part of this policy may be revised at any time at the discretion of the Parrol Leaders' Council." [/quote']

 

 

I'd add "or the SM" that. We had an SPL who was a big fan of the "party tents." After dinner, the boys would adjourn to the big tents and the conversations would turn to what typical 15-16 year old boys talk about (girls), which caused the younger boys to get uncomfortable. The result was younger boys sleeping on the ground near the campfire while the older boys stayed up in the big tent.

 

When I discussed this issue with the SPL, his response was, "I guess they're just too young to be in scouts" (!!) After several minutes of talking in circles, I finally just said "no big tents" and left it at that.

I answered #3 because that was the closest. It really doesn't have "problems", but it doesn't have an online payment system. You reserve it online, then either send a check for the reservation or call and give a CC number.

 

Not by its cover, but perhaps by its jacket blurb, and what the author has provided here is sufficiently detailed for me to say, in the most courteous manner possible, that at least some of the advice in the book does not seem consistent with what we are trying to teach the Scouts.

Not having read any of the content, I certainly can't judge, but I agree with NJCS. In fact, at first I thought this was a joke post. The fact that it says "for Parents and Scouts" indicates to me that this is a team effort, and I disagree with that. While scouts need the *support* of their parents, it needs to be the Scout first.

Quaze, I completely agree: a "Guide to First Class" would be great. Hopefully by the time they get there, they won't need a guide to Eagle.

Hopefully this isn’t straying too far off-topic, but…

I fought the Stosh’s idea that an SPL isn’t needed for a long time. I wrote off the ineffectiveness of our SPL to inexperience and immaturity (we had a very young troop). Then, we had a 16 yo boy transfer in from another troop (his family moved). Suddenly, we had a boy with age, experience, and drive. He was quickly elected SPL by the boys (who practically worshipped him) and suddenly PLCs were snappy, I could step back during Troop Meetings and just watch them run, and all was right in the world.

When summer camp came, I started discussing where the different patrols would camp, and he said, “well, Summer Camp is more of a Troop Activity, so I don’t worry about keeping the patrols separate.†I wasn’t sure if I bought that, but didn’t see any reason to override him. So, we basically had 20 Troop Members and an SPL running the show at Summer Camp. It went okay, but I think it set a bad precedent, because now at our regular campouts, even though each of the 3 patrols try to camp separately, the SPL is still running around, running the show. The PLs (all younger) have stepped back and let him do it. So now, instead of being “adult-ledâ€Â, our troop is “SPL-ledâ€Â. And unfortunately, his family is moving again, so all that leadership is heading out the door.

So, I’ve come around to Stosh’s way of thinking. I considered removing the SPL outright, but it felt a bit too heavy-handed. And when I suggested to the PLC that we might not need it, they resisted, as I expected. It’s a glamour position and a goal for them. So I think I’m just going to change the rules a bit -- the SPL will have the same rules I give the ASMs: don’t direct scouts – only interfere if there’s a safety issue. All direction should go through PLs, and only then if they really need it.

Thanks, all. These are really good suggestions, especially the ones from Tahawk. I've had to use the "ASM as Coach, not player" metaphor to keep them from swooping down and saving the day during campouts and I like your "The patrol is the team. The troop is the league."

My biggest challenge is the 100 yards. So many of the "Pioneer Campgrounds" at the State Parks are way too small to accomplish this. We're going to try to camp more at Scout Camps this year, which generally have more room so hopefully we can spread out more.

So, one of my PLs came to me yesterday and said “I don’t see what the PL does – all I do it fill out duty rosters and meal plans for campouts.†I had a hard time answering him because in fact, based on recent history he was right.

See, we have always had young, inexperienced SPLs that never got much done (and I don’t want to make this a discussion of the benefits or drawbacks of an SPL – I have suggested removing the position before and the boys always say they want to keep it so I’m not opening that can of worms again). But this term, a new, older boy (16 yo -- 2 years older than any of our other scouts) transferred into the troop. He immediately got elected to SPL and I was so excited to see him take charge of PLCs and meetings that I stepped back a bit and gave him free reign. However, it’s now clear that his old troop was a Troop-based org. At summer camp, he asked to just run “as a troop†because it worked that way for his old Troop. I thought he meant summer camp, but I think he means everything. I was fine with doing it for camp, but now every campout it’s him summoning the Troop, “front-and-center†style, giving out instructions, and then supervising the troop as they carry it out. He’s getting worn out by the end of the weekend and having to get the ASPL to jump in and take over (which he is more than happy to do).

My feeling has always been that the SPL would meet with the PLs, give *them* instructions, and then they’d carry the instructions to their patrols. I got a lot of pushback from him (and my ASMs) on that as being “too inefficientâ€Â. I’m SM, so ofc I can just tell them to do it this way, but I wanted to make sure I understood the position correctly and see if other people agree.

What confuses me is that looking here:

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Senior_Patrol_Leader

And here:

http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Patrol_leader

It looks like the SPL really *does* run all the events, which doesn’t see very patrol-system to me. What am I missing?

I started to relate my own story, but I’m going to keep that to myself for now. Suffice to say that 1) my wife and I founded a Troop with me as SM and her as CC/COR, 2) it caused tremendous amounts of conflict in our family, 3) after almost resigning as SM, she ended up finding a CC and she’s now COR only.

And for the record, no drugs or alcohol were involved – just trying to make the point that I completely agree with Fred: having a husband and wife as part of the Key 3 is really a bad idea. If I knew then what I know now, I’d never have done it. It’s better with a 3^rd, but still really stressful at times. It takes a lot of compartmentalization. Add to this the alcohol, and I predict getting him out as SM is the best thing you could do for him.

One of my sayings is “Sometimes, it’s ok to break a rule, but make sure you know why you’re breaking it.â€Â

For example, at summer camp this year, they offered a “Chaplain's Award.†It involved saying grace at a meal, holding an in-camp devotional, and participating in the scout's own service. One of our Webelos Crossovers told me he wanted to do it and I encouraged him to go for it. The first wasn’t a big deal, but standing in front of the whole troop and reading a devotional (he choose from some I already had) took some courage. Even more so to participate in the Scout’s Own service in front of the whole camp (all the other participants were Life Scouts or higher).

When they gave him the physical award at the closing campfire, it was obviously not an “official†award – it was a simple ¾†metal shepherd’s crook pin. He came to me beaming and asked me where it goes on his uniform. I wasn’t about to tell him he couldn’t wear it. He now wears it where I suggested - pinned on his left pocket flap, right beneath his Religious Award knot. If I told him it wasn’t for uniform wear, it would probably be at the bottom of his sock drawer somewhere.

Disclaimer: the crossover in question was my youngest son, but I like to think I would have handled it the same way with any of our scouts.

Last post here: CC and COR are already involved and have contacted the DE as well. For reasons mentioned, I won't add any more comments until this is all resolved. Thanks for all the advice.

Responding mainly to Fred, but addressing some of the others' points as well.

Trailer Access: Yes, we could have scheduled special times to bring it to the meeting. However, we didn't other than having it available after campouts. On the other hand, the scout in question never requested access to the trailer. In a follow-up email relayed by his father he said that the SPL "interfered with his ability to do the job." He did not elaborate beyond that and I have seen no evidence of that.

POR Attendance: This was taken from some boilerplate POR descriptions and discussed with the PLC. I asked them whether or not they wanted actual percentages and they voted to keep them.

ASPL/summer camp: That was definitely a tough one. The ASPL went to a different summer camp than we did (he went to our in-council camp, Bert Adams, while the Troop decided to go out-of-council). He's back now and camped with us this past weekend. It's put the SPL in an interesting situation because now the ASPL wants his position back but the "new" ASPL doesn't want to lose it. The ASPL is only a Tenderfoot, so he doesn't really need the POR, but it's a good lesson for the SPL in dealing with the consequences of their actions.

Summer meetings: Yes, we have a full schedule during the summer, including camping. This may change now, though. The scouts are talking about suspending all campouts during the summer and only holding meetings just to prevent this type of drama. This would make ASPL much less important so people could coast through the PORs, if needed.

***

In other developments, this has quickly escalated out of hand. A parent intercepted some text messages where the scout in question, his brother, and several members of his brother's patrol are planning to try and "get rid of the SPL". They claim to have evidence of the SPL "mooning" them and one says he was sexually assaulted by him at summer camp. Their plan appear to be to come to me and blackmail me into removing the SPL or they will go the council and try to get the troop shut down.

I am about at the end of my rope -- the only reason I'm not quitting is because I don't want them to win. The ironic thing is that the SPL is moving next month and will likely end up having to join another troop anyway...

Update: No surprise -- Dad contacts me last night and says son said he's not going to get credit for his POR and wants to know why. I explain that he hasn't done anything towards the position. A he-said/she-said conversation ensures (with me copying the COR and CC on it for documentation) where he claims that the SPL was sabotaging him and wouldn't let him complete the duties. (I should also add that this parent is already on "probation" for getting into huge argument with an ASM at a campout in front of the boys and being disrespectful for the Troop Treasurer at a parent meeting). To add insult to injury, he said that he was "insulted" that it was suggested that his boy could move to Scribe, as it's a "lame" POR (*my* POR when *I* was a First Class Scout was Scribe)

After my email, the CC and COR got on the phone. At this point, it looks like the CO is going to have to ask both boys in that family to find another troop. Sad, but I guess sometimes you need to focus on the people that really want to be there.

You will get a million answers all over the board on this.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Do what you think is best, guided by the Guide To Advancement (Section 4.2.3.4) and a soft heart.

 

..... Guide to Advancement

..... Section 4.2.3.4 Position of Responsibility

..... http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

--------------------------------------

 

You do need to trust your SPL. Otherwise, you will be subverting his role and he won't take it seriously.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Offering scribe? "Officially", scribe is SPL appointed. The way to avoid scouts using grace periods to complete rank is that if they do poorly on one (such as SPL asking to remove him) then the SPL won't be appointing him to another position.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Deal with the scout, not the parent. Inform the parent if he asks, but deal with the scout.

 

--------------------------------------

 

As with his purchasing the food example, you have an opportunity to talk and share with the scout how he affected his fellow scouts. Have him find another scout to purchase the food. He accepted responsibility. If you step in to save the day for him, then he won't understand the impact.

 

--------------------------------------

 

You can't force scouts to attend and outside activities (sports, etc) are a valid excuse for lower participation rates.

 

--------------------------------------

 

QUESTION - You asked him to step down. Did he step down? Or does he still have the POR?

He doesn't have the POR anymore. I think the key part of the Guide to Advancement is:

When a Scout assumes a position of responsibility, something related to the desired results must happen.

I asked him what he had done as QM and he said, "nothing really."

To clarify, when I said "offering" the scout Scribe, that was misleading. When the SPL indicated he wanted the scout gone as QM, I suggested that we ask him do Scribe, and he agreed, since we had lost our Scribe. I was going to have the SPL speak to him but the SPL was sick the night the QM came back and I didn't want to let any more time lapse.

So, our troop has a participation level requirement for POR. We already asked our ASPL to step down since he was going to be gone all summer (working at a Boy Scout summer camp, but gone nonetheless) and would be unable to fulfil the duties. He agreed. As I see it, you don't need to participate to meet the "active" requirement, but you do in order to fulfil your POR, or am I off-base here?

So, I have a 1st Class Scout that I (and the SPL) feel like not been meeting his POR for Star. Part of the problem is that he hasn't been around much lately due to sports, but part has been that we haven't really given him much access to the Troop trailer, which is where most of his duties "live." The SPL has been pushing to remove him, but I asked that I be given a chance to talk to him to give him a chance to be successful.

Two questions:

1) Since I haven't yet removed him from the position (since I wanted to discuss it with him first) am I correct that I should still count his time served towards his rank?

2) Last night, I asked him to step down and take a different role (Scribe) that he would likely be better at, but he refused the new position and asked if he could do something else instead. However, all our PORs have an attendance requirement of at least 75%, and regardless of what he picks, I know he won't meet that. Assuming that he takes a new role and I have this same discussion in 2 weeks, should I count time served in *that* new role and then pull him out again? I'm afraid he's going to "grace period" his way to meeting the requirement, which doesn't seem like a good precedent to set.

Frankly, my biggest concern is that this family (and I do mean family -- Dad is pushing him and his younger brother hard) seems to bail on anything that doesn't directly tie to advancement. "Going on a campout? Are we working on any specific requirements? No? Then I'm skipping it." The last straw was yesterday when two days before the campout they bailed out, and he was the grubmaster. Dad's response was "they didn't want to go because not many people were going." When I told him that this puts us in a bind, his response was "I'm doing the best I can -- it isn't easy handling an 11 and 12 year old boy". As father of a 12 and 10 year old boy myself, I have little sympathy for this statement.

Thanks, all. Misery loves company, so that does help a bit.

I have used the "nuclear option" once: I resigned, and that brought about the COR/CC split. The CC is the mother of one of my scouts and is also the wife of the local Venture Crew advisor (who is also just getting that unit off the ground). They have 4 kids so she really has her hands full. She really just needs some guidance, imo, but I feel like I'm overstepping trying to coach the TC.

Also, two campouts ago, my ASM couldn't go due to a sudden family emergency. I announced it a week out, but no one stepped up and we had to cancel. I expected more outcry, but it seemed that only the kids were upset. I felt bad, but there really wasn't much else to do. I think I need to start having my adults sign up for outings the same way I have the scouts sign up. If we don't have enough confirmed (not "I'll try to make it") a week ahead of time, we'll cancel.

TT: I like your idea of a sign-up sheet for all parents. We are planning on having a merit badge clinic in september and the TC is focused on getting parents to volunteer for that, so maybe I can piggy-back on that idea.

ED: I like the "retiring to CC" idea. (I would miss the camping, though...)

I'm the SM of a 2 year old troop. Our troop has been growing rapidly over the past 2 years, going from 6 scouts to 13 scouts in the 2nd year and now up to 22. We've been adding more adult leaders, but most are volunteers in name only and they're not contributing at the level we need. Our existing volunteers (i.e., me) are starting to burn out, and I don't see anyone stepping in to fill the gap. As a result, I fear the day is coming when we're going to crash and burn.

A little background: when my wife and I started this troop it was just the two of us (she served as both COR and CC) and a family friend who was an experienced Cub Leader and huge fan of camping. Our oldest scout was 12, so a lot of the activities were adult-led. As a result, things ran very smoothly.

Next we moved to the point where we had a fully functioning PLC, but things were not running smoothly anymore. I felt that this was a good thing, since it means the boys are taking more responsibility (and making more mistakes). However, this caused tons of conflict between myself and my wife and the ASM, who want everything to run like a swiss watch. It escalated to the point where she decided to step back as CC and only be COR, so we'd have a "referee." This worked okay, but after a few weeks of engagement, the new CC hasn't really done anything (I think they've only had one TC meeting this year). So, anything that needs to get done, I end up doing or it doesn't get done.

On the direct contact leader side, we've had great luck getting new ASMs: we now have a total of 4. However, 1 of them does not like to camp at all and can rarely make meetings. Another ASM is a great guy, but he's over-committed -- he has a prior connection with both the Girl Scouts and OA, so he has camping commitments with both of those groups, plus he and his wife are are AT section hikers, so he's only available for one or two camp outs a year. When he's there, he's great, but he's not around much. My 4th ASM is an eagle and loves to camp, but his job keeps him on the road a lot, so I can only count on him for about 1 campout/year.

As a result, it's back to me and my 1st ASM doing all the outings. It wasn't so bad when were were small, but with 20+ scouts now, it gets exhausting. I've tried to ask some of the parents to come along, but the COR (also my wife) pushed back on that and wants our ASMs to "step up." Of course they say, "yeah, yeah, we'll starting coming as soon as (fill-in excuse here)" but it never happens.

I'm leaning towards "firing" the ones that aren't adding value (I can do that, right?) and replacing them with ASMs that actually contribute before I go off the deep end (of course, I have no idea whee these new ASMs will come from). Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences with this situation? And just to clarify: I love being a SM and working with the boys -- I just can't do it all...

Our local camps never forced anyone to take a group picture.....or even offered to take one

Same here, although I bet some of our parents would've loved it. I constantly got greif about not taking enough pictures. And when I did, I got fussed at that they didn't "look very happy." My reply of "that's because I'm making them be in a picture" did not go over very well...

I'm the SM of my Troop and am registered as a MBC for several MBs. But I never teach those directly -- it's only so I can help guys finish up that last bit that they couldn't complete at summer camp. For example:

We had 12 boys take the swimming merit badge this summer. The last requirement they needed was #4 (show how to inflate your pants, etc.). They were all getting ready to do it on the last day of camp when a thunderstorm came up so they weren't able to do it. So now I have a dozen boys that need to find a swimming MBC just to do that one thing (which is getting removed next year anyway). So, I register as an MBC so they can complete it on our next campout at the lake.

OTOH, I have another boy who is only missing #10 on the camping merit badge. While I am registered for that one, too, this requirement is a discussion and I think he would be better served by talking to another adult. As a result, I'm trying to find another MBC that's not part of our troop for him to complete it with.

We don't sell BSA popcorn because it is contra to #5: "All commercial products must sell on their own merits' date=' not the benefit received by the Boy Scouts. The principle of value received is critical in choosing what to sell". [/quote']

 

 

This. At least when it was sold in the decorative tins it made for some nice gifts. But the quality is poor and the prices are too high. Camp cards, OTOH, are great -- they are easy to sell (no need to wait for product to deliver), a good value to the buyer and make a nice profit. We're supposed to be teaching the boys something, right? Thrifty & Trustworthy are a lot easier to explain when selling camp cards than popcorn.

 

Our TC is also looking at running a merit badge clinic in the fall. With much of the space donated by our CO and time donated by our parents, we're thinking we could raise some money there as well.

In our Pack Webelos are allowed to go on camp outs without parents. All they so is sign a permission slip

I know that Webelos have to be under the supervision of an adult (G2SS-Camping: In most cases, the Webelos Scout will be under the supervision of his parent or guardian. It is essential that each Webelos Scout be under the supervision of a parent-approved adult.)

I can't find it now, but I thought I remember seeing something that said that an adult can't supervise more than two scouts, and a uniformed leader can't supervise more than one (since presumably s/he has other duties as well). Not sure if that's was a Pack policy or something I read elsewhere. Does it ring a bell with anyone?