POS Term Limits

[charmoc 10]

All the troops I have been associated with have biannual elections for SPL and PLs with the other positions of responsibility being assigned when the SPL and PLs change out.

Understanding this gives the other scouts needing a Position of Responsibility a chance to get their time in, but in the long run, does this really help us in developing consistency with in the troop?

Thought; have elections when the SPL/PLs state that they are at the point they are ready to switch out, allowing the elected scouts serve in their positions as long or as short as they want. If a scout is not living up to the troops expectations, then candidates put their name in and elections are held. Would this not allow the scouts to lead the troop as a truly scout lead troop instead of having term limits?

 

[Scoutfish 16]

You have to figure, you can re-elect the same scout as the SPL over and over if you like.

 

The patrols can re-elect the same PL's too.

 

Where this is a great thing is if you have no limits at all. When do you change things? After the SPL ages out or quits?

 

How long would you have the same QM , Scribe, ASPL, etc,.... for?

 

What if the scouts are not happy with the people the SPL has chosen because they do not do their jobs well or at all?

 

Would you get the SM to makes changes or remove people?

 

How would that be a scout led troop?

 

Think of it as checks and balances instead of term limits.

 

Think of it as a safety net in case the SPL picks his buddies instead of actual capable scouts.

 

Take your self for example: If the SPL is elected, and fills all positions, without assigning one to you.

 

Maybe that SPL is happy with the status qou and has no plans to change anything.

 

Where does that leave you advancement wise? Without having an annual/ bi-annual vote, you could just possibly see no chance of getting a POR until it's too late.

 

 

Again, if the scouts truely like the SPL, they can vote for him again and again and again or not depending on the job he's doing.

 

Same thing with the patrol: They can vote for the same PL as much as they want...or not if they do not like the job he's doing.

[bnelon44 17]

The SPL, and PL can be reelected and they have no term limits. See Chapter 3 I think it is in the SM Handbook.

 

The idea is that they are forming their own "gang" with their own leaders. If they want to reelect the same guy for 7 years, that is their choice. The unit should make available other MEANINGFUL positions of responsibility for those who are not elected. Adults don't interfere in elections outside of maybe a Scoutmaster minute.

 

More information on the Patrol Method is here: http://www.bsatroop14.com/patrolmethod

 

In practice the average tenure of a SPL is from 6 to 12months. Most troops have elections every 6 months.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Scoutfish 16]

charmoc,

 

Let's clarify something : When you say term limits, do you mean to say that once a scout has a POR for 6 months, he can no longer serve in that POR ..ever

 

Or are you saying that term limits refers to the time of office of the POR lasting only 6 months before having to be voted on again??

 

I assumed you were using ( although not correctly) term limit to describe term of the POR lasting only 6 months before elections happen again.

 

As bnelon44 stated, there are no actual term limits per BSA.

 

[Kudu 186]

 

Position of Responsibility ("POR") requirements were imposed on Boy Scouts in 1965 by the followers of Bla Bnthy, just before William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt's retirement. They then began the work of deconstructing Wood Badge by replacing Hillcourt's "Patrol Method" (based on outdoor skills) with Bnthy's "Patrol Method" based on White Stag "leadership" theory.

 

Hillcourt's Patrol Leader Training took six (6) months because it taught Patrol Leaders how to take their Patrols on Patrol Hikes and Patrol Overnights to work on advancement without a "Troop Guide" and "Adult Association."

 

Bnthy's new "Method of Scouting," called Leadership Development, was released in 1972. It took "Patrol Leader Training" away from the Patrol Leaders, replaced it with "Troop Leader Training," and featured a path to Eagle that did not require a single campout.

 

A million Boy Scouts left the new "improved" BSA program.

 

So the answer to your question, "Would this not allow the scouts to lead the troop as a truly scout lead troop instead of having term limits?" is: What version of "Patrol Method" do you mean?

 

If by "Patrol Method" you mean the old-school Baden-Powell "Physical Distance" leadership where a Patrol Leader camps his Patrol B-P's 300 feet away from the other Patrols, and physically leads his Patrol into the backwoods without "Adult Association," then you want your Troop's most mature Scouts to be the Patrol Leaders.

 

If by "Patrol Method" you mean the "Leadership Development" Patrol Method where Boy Scouts camp close together like Webelos Scouts in a campsite about the size of an end-zone, and pretend to use leadership theory to cook and clean under constant "Adult Association" at all times, then it really doesn't matter which Scouts are in "Positions of Responsibility," does it?

 

The way to avoid regular elections in an old-school Troop is to make it your business to understand a Scout's talents during every Scoutmaster Conference.

 

If he is not an obvious natural leader, and/or he expresses no interest in replacing his Patrol Leader, then see what other interests he may have, and work with the SPL (if you have one) and/or the PLC to find him a "POR" before you sign off on that Scoutmaster Conference.

 

The popularity contest, circus of school elections every six months (to "learn about democracy") is an adult need. Most Scouts don't care about that stuff, except for the artificial "need" of a POR for advancement.

 

If you take care of that artificial need in your Scoutmaster Conferences, then a Patrol can hold an election when it actually needs to change leaders.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[lrsap 10]

Kudu,

 

What would you feel is best for those "other" positions if there isn't anyone that expresses interest? I mean the ones such as Historian, Librarian and the like. Some people see them as minor or even worse "throw away" positions, just designed to meet a requirement.

 

I kind of get of two minds, thinking if there isn't a boy that wants the job, anyone you can put in there will be miserable in it and thereby being set up in a sort to do a bad job. But there are jobs that need to be done, and if no Scout does them you know what that means.

[bnelon44 17]

lrsap,

I'm not Kudu but I will give my opinion. If the troop needs the positions filled because something that needs to be done is dropping through the cracks, then point it out to the SPL and remind him that the function is not being covered. Ask him what he thinks needs to be done. Chances are he will appoint someone to the job. I would not advise filling a job, say Troop Historian, because it happens to be a box on an org chart someone showed you. The troop doesn't have to fill in all the POR boxes. They are filled when there is a need for that function in the troop.

 

Charmoc,

Here is what Hillcourt said about patrol leader retention and what to do with the other boys to give them a chance at leadership opportunities. The pamphlet was called The Patrol Method for Scoutmasters. The entire pamphlet is here: http://bsatroop14.com/history/The_Patrol_Method.pdf

 

Once the Patrol members have selected their leader, the Scoutmaster should not over-ride their choice, except in the most serious emergency in which case he exercises his power of veto. A Patrol may even suffer for a short while the handicap of an unwisely chosen leader and thus learn by its own mistakes. Many successful Scoutmasters advocate keeping the boys best fitted to be Patrol Leaders in office as long as possible. Under this system the other boys should be given opportunity to exercise leadership special activities, instruction, contests, hikes, etc. A good Patrol Leader may be kept in office so long as he gets results. Other Troops allow the Patrol Leaders to be elected for a predetermined length of time, probably a year, at which time they are eligible for reelection, This plan is meritorious as it does offer the opportunity for an annual review of Patrol Leadership.

 

A modern book on the Patrol Method which is a good read is called Working the Patrol Method. It is available at http://www.scoutleadership.com

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

I always felt uncomfortable with the election of POR's in the troop. For the most part they were a system of wearing a patch for 6 months to get credit for advancement whether they did any work or not.

 

Instead, I had a different approach. The troop was

[Venividi 35]

I'ld go for no term limits. Term limits implies positions are something boys have to do to advance. The whole advancement mindset becomes "what do I gotta do" to earn my next patch? How can it get done with as little effort as possible. That's really not what we should teach.

 

We should be motivating the desire to do something because it helps other people, not because it is a requirement towards Eagle. Let the ones that want to hold a position and actually fulfill the duties because they feel a sense of responsibility to the patrol and/or troop, and that the rest of the boys willingly follow go ahead and do so.

 

Another issue that I see with elections every 6 months is that boys get put into leadership positions or POR's before they are ready. i.e., Patrol needs a new patrol leader every six months; Adam already did it, Sam has done it before; George gets voted in. George is 12, and agreed because he is in a same age patrol, his parents and scout leaders told him that he needs to hold a postion for Star, and thinks that his patrol members will listen to him because he is now in charge. He is interested in getting Star, but not really interested in the responsibility that goes with it. So he doesn't try. SPL is frustrated, his patrol mates are frustrated, adults see that scouts just can't be trusted as PL unless an adult is constantly pushing or cajoling him.

 

George (and most every other young scout) comes away from the experience with the view that being a PL or holding a POR is a lot of work; unenjoyable work, gotta go to boring meetings work, left holding the bag work. And future POR's get approached from the point of view as something to be avoided unless you need the time for the next rank.

 

A troop will have only a subset of the boys that are willing to put forth the effort that goes with a leadership position. Let them continue.

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hiya charmoc!

 

While I and others can describe troops that do this all kinds of different ways, I think da real fun of it is to have your PLC think through these things and decide. And change occasionally. Learning about how different leadership selection systems work is a good lesson for 'em.

 

I think term limits are by and large a poor approach for a scout troop, but that terms are OK. I'm with Green Bar Bill in that I think a year makes more sense than 6 months. Six months is just an adult-run artifact of da advancement requirements, though lots of troops do that.

 

I also agree with Kudu, eh? There's a balance between patrol method and youth leadership. The troops that I know that are more truly youth run tend away from elections and more toward a sort of natural, informal selection process that selects the more capable, mature youth leaders. It also allows boys to naturally take up responsibilities that fit their interests and skills. In that way the patrols can be truly independent, where a popularity-contest election or filling PORs with bodies ends up requiring close adult supervision in the modern world.

 

So if yeh have an idea like what yeh described, discuss it with your youth leaders and see if they want to give it a whirl!

 

Beavah

 

[Kudu 186]

lrsap writes:

 

"But there are jobs that need to be done, and if no Scout does them you know what that means."

 

Not really I agree with Bill that not all boxes on an organizational chart need to be filled.

 

If a Scout is a natural Librarian or Historian, then his passion can make a noticeable impact on a Troop. It makes sense to keep him on, rather than rushing him off because another Scout "needs" that POR.

 

But if nobody wants to be Librarian, then so what if all a reluctant Librarian does is sign books in and out for two minutes a week? Who reads anymore, anyway...

 

And what is "fair"? When the most talented outdoor leaders stay on as Patrol Leaders, they do it because of a natural passion for outdoor adventure and because volunteering their talent is the right thing to do. They certainly don't care if the Librarian only works eight minutes a month.

 

There are as many solutions to the artificial problem of PORs, as there are different Troop "personalities."

 

So just use the Scoutmaster Conference to work backwards from your own Troop's unique personality:

 

1) Our solution at one time was for the Patrol Leaders to elect as SPL our football heroes, jazz and marching band types, and other Scouts who were good indoor leaders, but were "too busy" to go camping. It was understood that the Patrol Leaders ran the Troop, so they elected SPLs to run the indoor meetings and chair PLC meetings. When we went camping, the SPL was not missed.

 

We used Green Bar Bill's Patrol Method, which meant that a "Patrol Election" is really just a nomination that a Patrol sends to the PLC to be discussed, voted upon, and then approved subject to the Scoutmaster's veto, and a 4-6 week "period of probation" before his formal appointment to the "high office of Patrol Leader."

 

In GBB's Patrol Method, the Scoutmaster's job is to meet with a Patrol to tactfully head off an obvious bad choice in the first place. So when we ALL made a really bad mistake and allowed a promising Patrol Leader to take office, who (months later) showed no interest or ability to lead without Adult Association, then the PLC would "promote" him to Assistant Senior Patrol Leader where he would be safely out of the way for the remainder of the six months he needed for a POR requirement.

 

2) In radical Outdoor Adventure Troops, the Scouts know which boys can handle themselves (stand up to bullies) when the adults are not around, and still treat everyone fairly. If your Troop camps its Patrols Baden-Powell's 300 feet apart, and sends Patrols out without "Adult Association," then you have already seen how quickly your outdoor Scouts can adopt a "Troop culture" that keeps the most qualified leaders on as Patrol Leaders in order to enjoy the freedom and responsibility of the open trail.

 

Such suburban Troops tend to have waiting lists, and indoor Webelos families are encouraged to consider other Troops.

 

Outdoor boys who do get in, tend to get their self-esteem from the rush of adrenaline, not from stupid POR advancement requirements, "OK, yeah. I'll be Historian. So do we have that climbing tower reserved?"

 

3) At the other end of the spectrum are large Eagle Mills which follow Leadership Development's "controlled failure" spirit of the law. The solution there can be a backpacking program where the indoor SPL, and all three of his appointed indoor ASPLs, and his two appointed indoor Troop Guides, and the weak Patrol Leaders, and all the indoor Eagles, and all their indoor mommies and daddies will stay far, far away from anything that involves walking into the woods with packs on their backs, thank you very much!

 

The outdoor Scouts then form ad hoc Patrols and work out with the outdoor adults which Scouts are responsible enough to be trusted to physically lead in the backwoods without "Adult Association."

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"but in the long run, does this really help us in developing consistency with in the troop?"

 

A troop can develop consistency within the troop (a good thing) and it can develop certain kinds of experiences and knowledge within Scouts (a good thing). But improving one of those areas does not necessarily improve the other... and may even degrade it. Not all good things go together as well as chocolate and peanut butter.

[Eagle92 110]

The way to develop consistency is to A) have the Scouts develop customs and traditions, B) be boy led, and C) have the older scouts work with and mentor the younger scouts.

 

 

As for me I do believe in elections, as well as the ability for scouts to switch patrols, every six months. With the exception of the band folks, others in extracurriculars in HS tend be have seasons shorter than six months, so it does give opportunities and allows folks to vacate a position do to school. band folks tend to be year round.

 

As for term limits, my belief is more of an age limit: 18 If the ASPL wants to remain in that POR when asked to for 4.5 years, that's his call. If the SPL wants to keep running for reelection, that's his call. Although I admit I would encourage a Eagle to be an JASM instead.

[Stosh 3452]

If trained properly and with the right amount of maturity and no adult interference, why would there be terms at all? If leadership was filled more with qualified scouts rather than "who needs to advance", there would be far less problems in a lot of troops.

 

Stosh

[acco40 95]

Six month terms, as opposed to a full year allow the boys on the football team, basketball team or baseball team to play their primary sport one part of the year and concentrate on Scouts the other half of the year.

 

I've had Scouts participate in Scouting all year but during the football season decline seeking a POR due to time constraints.

 

The vast majority of leadership positions are should not elected but appointed by the Scoutmaster/SPL.

 

Nothing the BSA publishes requires "term limits" except for the age factor.