Elected vs. appointed POR's

[Trevorum 24]

 

In another thread we are discussing the advisability of creating "Scoutmaster approved leadership projects" to satisfy the Position of Responsibility (POR) ("leadership") requirements for Star and Life ranks. Hopewell said, "If the boys did not vote that scout into a postion, then he needs to approach the SM for a project, or wait till the next opening".

 

Does this mean that some troops elect Historian, Bugler, Quartermaster, etc?

 

Our troop elects the SPL, ASPLs, PLs, and APLs. Scouts who want a POR must then lobby the new SPL who appoints the other officers (Librarian, etc,) sort of like a Cabinet.

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

The only troop wide elected position in our troop is SPL and 1 ASPL. We have 3 ASPL's and the SPL appoints the other 2. Once we have elected the SPL and ASPL positions are filled, we hold elections for PL within each patrol. All other positions are appointed by the SPL and PL's.

 

Each position has eligibilty requirements and a boy has to fill out an "application" stating which positions he would be willing to serve in. He and a parent sign the app stating that he will accept the commitment and carry out the job with his parents support. This gives us a working list for ballots and a list of possible appointees for the elected leaders to select from.

[John-in-KC 311]

As a COR who has been a CC and MC...

 

The IH and I have instructed our Scoutmaster to have a Scoutmaster Conference before issuing any Warrant Offices (an older name for the appointed PORs).

 

He is to ensure:

- The Scout has the TIME to do the work to standard.

- Access to learning the SKILLS to do the work to standard.

- The SUPPORT of his parents in doing the work to standard.

 

Example of why: A Scout wanted to be, and was appointed by SPL as OATR. Only one problem: His parents REFUSED to let him go to Chapter meetings (concurrent with District Roundtable); he had a church obligation that night. It's rather difficult to fulfill the duties of the office if you cannot make the principal business meeting of the office.

 

As far as multiple offices go, I've done this whenever necessary, either by unit size or Scouts knowledge and abilities. Had a Scout who is interested in accounting. We made him the Financial Scribe; he worked with/for the Treasurer. Another Scout was interested in computers and databases; we made him the Operations Scribe, responsible for attendance, coordination with the advancement chair, and even doing some of the nug work of internet recharter.

 

We as adults have to leverage the Scouts skills and interests as well as our own imaginations to get the work of the Troop done.

 

 

[vmpost 10]

What SR540Beaver says is based on the recommendation of BSA. In JLT & the JL Handbook, it indicates that the SPL & PL's are the only elected positions. The others are all appointed (by SPL,PL, or SM) positions.

 

In reality, your troop may do something slightly different, as SR540Beaver's does. Our troop is small, so we have only one SPL & one ASPL. The boys wanted to elect the ASPL & have them move into the SPL position when it's time to move up, but he would have the SPL to mentor him until then. Makes sense for us...they just elect their SPL months before he takes office.

 

[vmpost 10]

Good point John...the SPL or PL should receive mentoring & guidance from the adults in how to select the best suited for the job.

[scoutingagain 20]

Our unit elects the SPL and PLs. All other positions are appointed by the SPL with Scoutmaster/Committee approval, except the PL's appoint their own APL.

 

However, I don't believe any scout should be held back from advancment because he has not been elected or appointed to a POR. If a scout asks, I believe it is the responsibilty of the Scoutmaster, to come up with an approved leadership project for the scout to perform and so he may continue to advance. Those that tell a scout to wait are not serving the scout.

 

SA

 

SA

[EagleInKY 14]

SA - I have had scouts have to wait for POR time before advancing. Notice I did not say "I held them back". I didn't hold them back, they did themselves. Every scout that I have seen that did not get a POR that he wanted was because he hadn't pulled his weight in previous assignments. For example, I had a scout that only wanted to be Librarian because it was "easy". The SPL chose someone who would actually take the job seriously and try to improve how we track books. I had another scout who had to wait six months for Life because he had wanted one particular POR (PL) and his patrol didn't elect him. He didn't want to do anything but PL. Next time around, when he wasn't elected again, he settled for another POR.

 

My point is this, if you have a lazy scout that suddenly wants a POR, we don't have an obligation to "give" him one to check off his requirement. I realize that isn't exactly what you are saying, but it is what I've heard some parents say.

[acco40 95]

Loaded question - who selects/approves a youth for a den chief position?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A den chief is selected by the SPL & SM at the request of the Cubmaster or Webelos den leader. He needs to be approved by the Cubmaster and pack committee for recommendation to the Webelos den leader.

 

Now, SMs be honest, how many of you were told that "johnny is going to become a den chief for his younger brothers den" by Johnny's parents?

[EagleInKY 14]

SMs be honest, how many of you were told that "johnny is going to become a den chief for his younger brothers den" by Johnny's parents?

 

It hasn't happened. Probably because they know DLs have to be approved via the process like you stated. Now, I have known scouts to "act" like a Den Chief for their brother's den. But it's been unofficial.

[msnowman 10]

When Nephew wanted to be DC for my Wolf/Bear den I sent him to his SM who approved him and sent him on to his SPL. I told him he had to do it by the book and follow the chain of command....whatever that might be.

 

As a side note - Any Den Leader can request a Den Chief for their den, whether it be Tiger, Wolf, Bear of Webelos. It isn't only Webelos that have den chiefs. Tigers don't normally have or need them, but our District people said there was nothing to stop them from having one. I think our Pack is lucky to have trained Den Chiefs for both of our dens.

 

YiS

Michelle

 

 

[Kaji 11]

> Does this mean that some troops elect Historian, Bugler, Quartermaster, etc?

 

In my troop growing up we held elections for all boy positions every year in September, with the exception of Den Chief. Only had two Den Chiefs from the troop while I was a Boy Scout, and the only requirements for that was that you had to be at least 2nd class and have a Den that was willing to take you, the SM would pretty much auto-approve at that point unless he had some gross objection.

 

One thing that DID result from having all the positions elected was that in my troop we had a dynasty of sorts where one boy became quartermaster, then as he moved on to other things his younger brother held onto the position for about 5 years before passing it on to a third younger sibling (combined they held it for about 11 years or so). Kind of started my own by holding Scribe for 4 years and then handing the torch off to my little brother for the remaining three before the troop folded (the last 6-12 months or so it was basically staying open so that I could turn 18 in the troop I started with). While I don't necessarily see the problem with this (the boys who held said positions were continually reelected because they got the job done and did it well, after all), what's the take on it from some of the other leaders here?

[Kudu 186]

While I don't necessarily see the problem with this (the boys who held said positions were continually reelected because they got the job done and did it well, after all), what's the take on it from some of the other leaders here?

 

My experience was similar. My first two years of Scouting I was Troop Scribe, responsible for balancing the weekly dues envelopes in a very large Troop. At 13 I became a Patrol Leader for a while, and then SPL for the rest of the time I was in Scouting. My constant rival for the SPL position was a mean-spirited kid who wanted to become a BSA professional and needed SPL on his resume. One weekend my Scoutmaster asked if he could be SPL for the campout, just to get some experience at leadership. To everyone's horror, he ran the campout like boot camp. He eventually transferred to another Troop :-/

 

To answer your question, I believe both a) competition keeps people on their toes, and b) once you have a proven good leader you should stick with him.

 

Of course other people's reactions will probably reflect their political positions on term limits. I see term limits as artificial. Likewise, I suspect that constant Troop elections are based more on the artificial need for Positions of Responsibility in post-Hillcourt Advancement requirements than what is good for the Patrol Method.

 

We don't hold regular elections in the Troop I serve. The younger Scouts need some guidance, but sometimes I don't hear about elections in the older Scouts' Patrols until one of them tells me he needs a Patrol Leader badge :-)

 

I suppose that all this modern leadership stuff looks good on a resume, but to me the important question is always "what is best for the Patrols?"

 

For that reason I am also against dining halls at summer camps, and abstract leadership courses that teach "how to be a leader" rather than "how to lead a Patrol."

 

Kudu

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

I'm less than thrilled about one Scout holding a position for an extended time. First of all, the Scouts' own youth development needs mean he should be exposed to an array of responsibilities. Second, there is something for all to learn when a Scout has a POR, even if he's bad. There have been threads here about recall elections, after all.

 

Additionally, there is the constant press of young men advancing, who need these assignments for their own advancement. A generation of Scouting lasts at most 7 years (if a boy joins at 11 and stays to adult transition at 18). With a fairly typical advancement pattern of a Scout reaching Life about 14, there is an ongoing need for PORs.

 

Boy run does not mean adult abdication. We are there to supervise and manage the program while the youth plan and execute. Reasonable left and right limits are an inherent responsibility of the Scoutmaster, hopefully working through the PLC to influence the right decision. If not, the CC and COR have supervisory responsibilities.

 

My thoughts.

[Mike F 10]

Two comments:

 

As I just said in another thread, there's no such thing as a scout "needing" a POR. He may want one for rank advancement, but that's not a fundamental need or right. He has to earn it. How? By being active in the game. By stepping up to serve whenever the need arises. By showing other scouts he is responsible and can be depended upon. This can't be placed all neat on a timeline - each scout will get the opportunity when he's ready.

 

As Kudu said, I think BSA's recommended 6-month term of office is primarily to keep churning leadership opportunities for advancement. One of the troops I serve is very large and SPL is an incredibly challenging position. A few years ago, they shifted election cycle to Winter/Summer. SM was considering moving it back to previous Spring/Fall timing. When SM broached the subject with current SPL as a possible discussion topic for PLC in December, the SPL exclaimed, "That would be great! I'd love to do this job for another few months - I'm just getting the hang of it."

 

-mike(This message has been edited by Mike F)