Patrol leader possible to lose position due to patrol

[SctDad 10]

First a little history of what happened in the troop.

 

The troop was camping. After some activities the PL was cooking dinner as it was deemed by the duty roster. While he was cooking, the rest of his patrol went for a "walk up the trail" which no one thought was out of the ordinary as all were familiar with the land. When the SM went to the vehicles to get something out of the car, the patrol is doing all they can to get out of the pond before they are caught. (DUH they are all wet)

 

The SM is talking about removing the PL as he was not aware of what his patrol was doing.

 

I am not trying to tell the SM what to do but I wonder what everyone else would do. (I know that this is a good example of boys being boys)

 

I was just wondering if you hold the PLP responsible for all of his patrol members actions?

[boomerscout 35]

I was just wondering if you hold the PLP responsible for all of his patrol members actions?

kinda, sorta. one reason PL is not on duty roster, but oversees duty roster. At least they were all using the buddy system

PL needs a training refresher, but would keep him on

 

[acco40 95]

Did the other boys follow the rules of safe swim defense? Did the APL accompany the patrol?

 

I would use this as an opportunity to teach the patrol leader and the other patrol members about leadership, responsibility, etc. Yes, the PL is responsible but again, I would not remove him. If I was the Scoutmaster, I would talk to the SPL and have him decide (with my guidance) what to do to handle the situation.

[Stosh 3452]

The PL is responsible for taking care of his boys.

 

The patrol members are responsible for making their PL look good.

 

Leadership is a two-way street.

 

PL was doing his job taking care of his patrol by doing is spot on the roster.

 

Patrol gets punishment just as if it was an individual screwing up. PL trusted his boys and they broke the first Scout Law. It should reflect on their advancement. Untrustworthy boys don't advance.

 

PL should be taking care of his boys, not babysitting them. He was tending to business and the APL screwed up.

 

It would be a shame if the PL lost his position (he may want to give it up if his patrol is filled with screw-ups).

 

Stosh

 

 

[shortridge 184]

Should the SM be removed because he didn't know what one of his patrols was doing?

[ScoutNut 147]

I agree with Stosh.

 

While the PL might be in charge of his Patrol, it is not his job to follow them around 24/7, making sure they do no get themselves in trouble.

 

If the SM is to remove the PL because he is ultimately responsible, and he did not know what his patrol was up to, then this should be followed all the way up the "food chain".

 

The SPL, SM, CC, and COR should all be relieved of their positions because none of them were aware of what their Scouts were doing.

 

Silly, you bet. However, by doing this the SM has set a precedence, and the same "punishment" should be metted out to everyone responsible.

 

 

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

ScoutNut,

 

Trust me, that's how it happens in the Army, especially in a live-fire incident.

 

But this is Scouting.

 

Why didn't the SPL have a look at the Patrol roster? PL should not have been the cook.

 

Where was the rest of the Troop youth leadership as the Patrol conducted E&E?

 

Why weren't adults looking around and keeping a calm but adult eye on things?

 

Sounds to me like lots of training opportunities, mentoring opportunities, and Scoutmasters Minutes here... but not necessarily a removal of the PL for cause.

 

May I ask if there is a deeper backstory?

[eghiglie 10]

When I was younger I used to get punished all the time for the c$%p my younger brother did, even if we were miles apart. When he was 11 he got arrested and my dad whipped me for it when I got home from the troop camping trip. This was 35 years ago.

 

Grew up resenting him.

 

Excusing the Patrol because "boys will be boys" is a cop out (maybe I read this wrong).

 

Firing the PL is really the wrong reaction. The Patrol (except the PL) needs a consequence.

 

Why was the PL cooking? I could see if he was helping the Patrol Cook.

 

The idea ScotNut has is great.

 

[SctDad 10]

OK to answer some questions.

 

First off, the troop is small and onbly had about 10 boys at the time. They are trying to rebuild and get things right. It is just going to take a little time.

 

The PL was cooking because everyone wanted to have his fried porkchops that he like to cook. He had an adult watching over him.

 

As for the SPL: He is out scouting with Bigfoot. He has not shown up lately and I think he is about to get replaced as soon as we find a responsible scout.

 

As for where the boys were. They were no more then 300 yards up the path to the pond. Just far enough to be out of sight and to get into trouble.

 

the adult leaders were sitting under the troop dining fly and talking. There was no indication that the boys would try something like this and therefore it was not a major factor, but now things will be observed a little more closely.

 

When I said boys will be boys, I did not say that as an excuse, just that it only seemed like something that we would have done as scouts. I bet if everyone on this board looked in their scouting background they could see something like this in their past.

[oldsm 10]

Who says the PL should not cook or be the cook on the duty roster? Whatever happened to "leadership by example"? The PL may be responsible for putting together ("overseeing") the duty roster, but if he doesn't do his share of the work, whether he likes it or not, is just setting up conflict within the patrol: think the "big boss" mentality of the old-style of leadership. Shared leadership says that the PL helps with the grunt work, too.

[gwd-scouter 11]

Just time for a little more training, a well worded SM minute, and get back on with the program. No reason to remove the PL for this. I know from experience in a small troop that your PL many times will fill a spot on the duty roster, especially as you indicated he has a special recipe the guys want him to cook. We've come across that from time to time when our troop was only one patrol.

 

Same thing happened to us on a recent campout. It was the first campout for our newly formed patrols. Last spring we grew from 9 to 22 scouts. Had two new scout patrols for the summer and then turned those new scout patrols into two mixed age patrols by moving in the core group. Patrols were camped a fair distance away from the adults (we could see and hear them), and the PLs were trying out their leadership for the first time on a campout. One group of boys, without their PL's knowledge, decided it would be fun to take a dip in the lake. PL didn't know about it, neither did the SPL or any of the adults, until one boy showed up at the adult site soaking wet.

 

I summoned the SPL, who called for the PL, who went down to get the guys out of the lake. A teachable moment for the SPL, the PL, the guys, and for me.

 

I agree that if the SM is considering removing the PL, he ought to consider removing everyone up the chain. The PL wasn't babysitting his guys. Well, the SM wasn't babysitting the PL either. Not going to happen. We are supposed to train the boys and then give them the space to use that training without hovering over them constantly watching their every move. Yep, they will make mistakes, but that is what the "game" is all about.

[evmori 11]

Is swimming allowed in this pond? If so, it would seem the only thing missing was proper supervision. If not, then I would not hold the PL responsible for this. He was doing his job and trusted his patrol. They let him down. Now he needs to deal with that. Removing him serves no purpose. Advising him on how to handle the situation is the proper way to go.

[Eagle92 110]

Maybe I'm old school, but when I went through BA22, and taught JLT, it was emphasised that the PL does NOT do any duty rooster chores as their job is to supervise the patrol. HOWEVER is a team is havign problems, say the chefs, THEN he gets involved and helps out.

 

I wouldn't remove the PL over this, I would punish those involved. I would let the ASPL, since the SPL is MIA, and the PL decide what punishment to give out.

 

I would also do a bunch of SM minutes on this. Everything from resposnibility, trust, to safety.

 

I admit i can go a little overboard on SSD and SA, but that is 1) the lifeguard in me and 2) coming from a council that did have a swimming fatality 26 years ago. NOT FUN.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, we adults are so odd sometimes.

 

Yeh might opt to just sit with the lads as they got out of da pond and talk about risks and use it as a moment to teach SSD. Then tell 'em to go get dry.

 

Or if yeh want to make a bigger deal of it, yeh get with da PL and let him know how disappointed you are and then ask him what he's goin' to do about it, and observe his follow-through from a distance.

 

Now, we don't know if there's a longer history here with this PL, so that this became da "final straw". Seems more likely da SM was tired or gettin' on his last nerve about something and this was what popped da cork.

 

B

 

[sherminator505 10]

Yes, this is a serious matter as health and safety were involved.

 

Yes, there should be consequences for this behavior so that it will not be repeated so easily.

 

Yes, this is definitely a teachable moment for the PL and the boys who went off and did this.

 

Yes, this is a teachable moment for the adults as well, as they were at the campsite and therefore well know why the PL was there.

 

No, this is not a reason to remove the PL.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)