Re: What to do with ex-SPL
George R. Davis (GRDRV@AOL.COM)
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:54:42 -0400
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996 , Bill Warde wrote:
>In response, if the Eagles were not elected or declined to run as PL
>there would be no problem and the comment Jeff makes is appropriate.
>Currently the troop allows every member of the patrol to be eligible
>for election to PL (note no rank restriction to allow for the new
>patrols). If an Eagle is elected, then a boy who needs a leadership
>position will not be, thus reducing the number of options available
>to that boy. He still has at his own choice the possibility of
>becoming a Den Chief, and at the choice of the SPL the option of
>serving as Scribe, QM, etc. (all appointments being subject to SM
>approval).
Presumably, your Eagles who are staying are working toward Palms. The
requirement for palms is "Make a satisfactory effort to develop and
demonstrate leadership ability." During the SM conference, you could suggest
that one way of developing and demonstrating leadership at his stage in the
game is to be an exemplary follower, with the hint (subtle or not) that he
decline a nomination.
On the other hand, if the Eagle in the patrol has available to him all of
those other positions (Den Chief, Scribe, QM, etc.), those positions would be
open, unfilled, and available to the younger scout who would otherwise be
elected as PL. There is no net loss of available opportunity for the younger
scout.
If you are going to say that the younger scout is not qualified to be Den
Chief, Scribe or QM, I would say that he is also not qualified to be PL. PL
is the single most important (and hardest) youth job in the troop. Good
(even mediocre) PL's can make up for a lousy SPL. A great SPL cannot make up
for a group of non-performing PL's (unless you have a one patrol troop ).
YiS,
George Davis
SM T206
Bergen Council
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
