Re: SPL appointment
Anthony Mako (ajmako@NLS.NET)
Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:19:35 -0500
<Tom Sullivan wrote>
When I took over as SM for our troop the tradition was to have the SPL
sort of appointed by the SM, not elected by the troop. Then the SPL
and SM would get together to select the other leaders, PL, Scribe,
Troop Guide, etc. I would like to break from this tradition to move
toward an elective process, difficult as this may be in the troop.
Could anyone offer some suggestions of how you work it in your troop.
</Tom>
Hurray! In troop 381, we have minimum requirements for each elected
and appointed position. When we have elections for SPL, the Scouts
nominate candidates from among the eligible Scouts (no limit on the
number of nominations, they must be seconded, and a Scout cannot
nominate or second himself, each nominated candidate either accepts or
declines). Every Scout in the troop has a vote, and can vote for any
of the nominated candidates. The candidate with the most votes is the
new SPL. In the case of a tie, we have a run-off election.
After the election results have been announced, the SPL has the
opportunity to nominate his "cabinet" of appointed troop leaders. The
SPL suggests Scouts for Quartermaster, Scribe, Historian, Librarian,
and ASPL. Chances are pretty good the new SPL will get who he wants.
Troop Guide is a position that is appointed by the SM.
Patrol leader elections have no nominations since virtually everyone
in the patrol is eligible. Usually, only the present PL is not
eligible to be re-elected. The patrol _can_ elect to have a "coup" and
decide to re-elect the present PL, but this very rarely happens. After
the results of the election have been announced, the new PL appoints
an APL. The first order of business for the patrol is to determine the
responsibilities of each member of the patrol (each member has a job -
scribe, quartermaster, fireman, etc.).
How's that for an explanation? Now the why?
The only reason I could ever find for any SM to appoint an SPL was
either 1) the troop is new and has a very limited number of
experienced Scouts making the choice moot; 2) the SM is afraid the
troop will elect an SPL who will not be able to do the job
effectively. In a new troop, the need for older Scouts to set an
example for the younger Scouts tends to outweigh youth selecting their
own leaders. Scoutmasters of new troops learn quickly that
inexperienced leaders often have an adverse effect on the program
without a great deal of guidance and work on the part of the adult
leaders. Therefore, it is _easier_ to choose youth leaders than to let
them select their own. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if the adult
leaders plan for and actively work toward the day when their Scouts
will be able to choose their own leaders.
In the other case, adult leaders usually have seen the troop program
degraded by ineffective youth leadership. Rather than actively train
and guide the youth leaders toward a more effective program, it become
easier (and more expedient) to choose the youth leaders. This,
however, has the added effect of degrading trust between youth and
adults. Over a period of time the SM appointed leaders learn that
there is no real incentive to do the best job they can since their
patrol (or their troop) is stuck with them as a leader. The patrol and
troop members also have no incentive to work effectively with their
leaders, since they have no choice.
YIS
A. J. Mako, ajmako@nls.net , Scoutmaster Troop 381
Home of the Unofficial Win95 Boy Scout Desktop Theme,
http://members.aol.com/Scouts381/
Old Portage District, Great Trail Council, BSA
"I used to be an Eagle (C-7-97), but I'll always be an Eagle (1981)"
