Election question

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

I think I need to clarify a point on my Tale of the Unqualified SPL.  The Scouts knew better than the adults, knew better than the SPL's father even, that the Scout could do the job.

 

Again Scouts know what is up. If they have real control over the troop, they will take it seriously and vote for the best candidate. If adults sweep in all the time, the kids won't care b/c the election will be a farce

[Stosh 3452]

How is "the boys deciding" different from an election?  I assume the decision is not made through combat or drawing of straws, so some conscious decision is made by the boys as to who would be the best person for the job. Isn't that an election?

 

In all honesty, I really down know how they select their leadership.  They are off in another room.  They come out of the room and tell the advancement ASM who's going to be the PL.  This can happen at any time the patrol decides.  There are no term limits.  As far as I know it's Rock-Paper-Scissors.  I really don't care.  The boys do and they usually do a good job.  If they don't they have a new PL at the next meeting.

 

What they do to select, elect, acquire or whatever to get their leadership, it's their problem, not mine.  So far I haven't any complaints and if the boys do, they take care of it themselves.

 

And by the way, I do very little "mentoring" of the leadership.  None of this matrix, % of attendance, etc. etc. etc.  Either the boy figures out what his patrol needs and deals with it or the next guy gets a chance.  At the BOR's there's very little discussion about whether or not a scout has fulfilled his POR, if he has the requisite time, the committee knows that it's earned because the patrol will back him up.  Actually with this system I have no issues with the POR requirement and will check off the requirement with the approval of the patrol members.  No questions asked.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh 3452]

What we do about this is this:

 

When we have an SPL election, before the Scouts actually vote, each candidate speaks to the troop and usually covers the typical stuff, why I want to be SPL, what my plans are, what I would do to improve things.  Usually it's only a minute or two.  These speeches have been part of the election process for as long as anyone can remember.

 

A couple years ago we made a suggestion to the candidates, which has basically become an "accepted practice" (you can call it a "rule" if you want) that if any candidate has any upcoming sports commitments that might lead to numerous absences, they need to share that with their fellow Scouts so the troop can take that into account when voting.  A corollary to this is that if a candidate for SPL has had a poor attendance record, he needs to share with the troop how and why that is going to change, IF it is going to change.

 

This way the electorate is better informed about the candidates and can make their own choice.

 

The other part of the solution, I think, is to make sure the ASPL is taking on that job with full knowledge that he might be "acting SPL" quite a bit.

 

The first thing that ran through my mind on reading this was, why does there have to be an adult rule to be honest?  I guess that's just me.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

There are no term limits.

Actually, the way you have described it in the past, not only are there no "term limits" in your troop, there are no terms, either.  They are two different things.  A term would be six months or a year or whatever, and term limits would be that you can only serve two, or three, or whatever, of those terms.  You cannot have term limits without terms, but you can have terms without term limits (as my troop does.)  I suspect that there are many troops without term limits, but relatively few without terms.  The way you do it, the boys choose someone and he serves until the boys choose someone else, but there is no set procedure for how they decide when it is time to choose someone else.  Right?

[Stosh 3452]

@Col. Flagg  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the TC does not have the position to hire/fire the SM, the COR does.  The COR's job is to acquire all adult leadership in the unit.  You are correct  the TC handles the operations, but the SM handles the program.

 

Your comments also make reference to "mentoring" the unit's leadership.  That can be a thin line between helping and directing the leaders.  The tact I use is:

 

PL: There's a hassle going on in my patrol.  (Level 2 conflict)

SM: What makes you suspect that?  Can you be more specific? (Level 1 Conflict)  (Gotta know the problem before one can solve it.)

PL: A couple of the boys are saying it isn't fun anymore.

SM, Is it true?

PL, I'm trying but it seems to be getting worse.

SM: What is it you've tried that isn't working?

PL: (A litany of things that have gone badly)

SM: Have you talked to the whole patrol about this?

PL: No.  It hasn't gotten that far yet.

SM: Do you think they might have some suggestions?

etc.

 

Yes, I as SM ask somewhat leading questions, but the onus of a solution lies with the PL.  He's the only one who knows whether he is capable of implementing the solution.

 

And in the end, if something finally does catch hold, it's always the leader who's come up with the idea and takes 100% of the credit for it.

[Stosh 3452]

Actually, the way you have described it in the past, not only are there no "term limits" in your troop, there are no terms, either.  They are two different things.  A term would be six months or a year or whatever, and term limits would be that you can only serve two, or three, or whatever, of those terms.  You cannot have term limits without terms, but you can have terms without term limits (as my troop does.)  I suspect that there are many troops without term limits, but relatively few without terms.  The way you do it, the boys choose someone and he serves until the boys choose someone else, but there is no set procedure for how they decide when it is time to choose someone else.  Right?

If there are no term limits it also means there are no number of terms to consider.  A lazy scout's term in office might be a week or two and a go-getter scout's term might end when he turns 18.  Either way, it's one term.  There's no selection/election process defined.  No schedule of elections on a periodic basis either.  The 6 month, 12 month stuff is made up by the adults, not the BSA.  Also who can and who can't be considered for office isn't a BSA policy either.  I just don't play the game and if something goes wrong, I don't get caught holding the bag.  If there's a problem, it's up to the boys to work it out.  PL, "For the next 3 months I will be busy with basketball in school.  Joey, the APL will be standing in for me, his phone number is: (000)-000-0000.  I'll try to make the meetings, but he will still be the acting PL during this time."    Of course PL Johnny might find in his absence, Joey is doing the job 10 times better, just to find out the boys now have made Joey PL.    That's life.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

If there are no term limits it also means there are no number of terms to consider.  A lazy scout's term in office might be a week or two and a go-getter scout's term might end when he turns 18.  Either way, it's one term.

It really isn't. It's not one term, it's no terms. It sounds like the Scouts huddle together and select (by unknown means) a President-for-Life, who serves either until he is 18 or until there is a coup and a new President-for-Life is chosen.

 

There's no selection/election process defined.  No schedule of elections on a periodic basis either.  The 6 month, 12 month stuff is made up by the adults, not the BSA.  Also who can and who can't be considered for office isn't a BSA policy either.

 

That isn't really correct either. BSA policy, as expressed in the Patrol Leader's Handbook, is:

 

Rank and age requirements to be a senior patrol leader are determined by each troop, as is the schedule of elections.

 

See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/Troop_Leadership_Positions.pdf

 

So the idea of set eligibility requirements and a "schedule of elections" (which means "terms") is definitely supported by the BSA. They just leave it up to the troop to determine those things.

[Stosh 3452]

It really isn't. It's not one term, it's no terms. It sounds like the Scouts huddle together and select (by unknown means) a President-for-Life, who serves either until he is 18 or until there is a coup and a new President-for-Life is chosen.

 

Yep, that's how the boys have chosen to do it.  If they wish to do something else, they can change it any time they wish.

 

That isn't really correct either. BSA policy, as expressed in the Patrol Leader's Handbook, is:

 

 

See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/Troop_Leadership_Positions.pdf

 

So the idea of set eligibility requirements and a "schedule of elections" (which means "terms") is definitely supported by the BSA. They just leave it up to the troop to determine those things.

 

By troop you mean the boys?  Then yes, there's no strict policy, the boys make the determination as to how they wish to handle who leads them.  For this unit it seems to be working very well.  Your mileage may vary.

[qwazse 4342]

At issue @@Stosh and @@NJCubScouter, is how much access you give boys to BSA literature, and then allow them to make a decision on operations. If you leave the room and then tell them to have a slate upon your return, with no knowledge of the possibility of scheduling regular elections, that's as adult led as any more regimented troop.

If, on the other hand, you have the boys read the pertinent sections of the handbook(s), ask them how they think it should apply to their troop, and give them a means to approve that mode of operation, with the scribe noting it in their minutes, and the historian filing a copy, you've allowed youth to lead and provided a decent management skill in the process.

You also leave open the possibility for future youth to make a course correction.

[Stosh 3452]

Ownership with an educated decision by the boys makes life so much easier on the adults, too.

[Eagledad 2777]

Ownership with an educated decision by the boys makes life so much easier on the adults, too.

Not really, doesn't matter the term or the process for determining who's in what positions, what the Scouts learn from their choices and performance is determined by adults. Seems many of us get stuck in the weeds with the small stuff when it's the big stuff that makes the difference. Some of us focus on details, some of us focus on the big picture. Either way, understanding Aims and Methods makes the scout growth process easier.

 

Barry

Edited August 3, 2017 by Eagledad

[Stosh 3452]

...Or one can teach the boys the various choices and then give them the permission and authority, sit back, trust them to make the right choices for their particular needs.  It's tough as an adult to turn over such ownership to the boys and trust them to make the decision.  After all isn't that what an election really is - them making the decision?  The only difference if allow is the choice of election, selection, consensus, straws, volunteering, or whatever.  The decision is still the boys'. they own it.

 

If they opt for Rock-Paper-Scissors and it causes problems, isn't that really the same as election of a popular scout over a qualified scout?  In my case, they don't have to suffer until the next election cycle, they are empowered to fix the problem right away.

[Kcaine 0]

Ok I am all about boys deciding. In the last 3 elections we have had 3 horrible SPL and the same ASPL who just kind of stands there. The problem our troop is that we went from a troop of 8 boys to now having g about 40 boys. But the oldest boys have set the tone of it just being social hour. They have so much time vested in them but they aren't teaching. It has become a domino effect on the next age group. And I am seeing these boys start to show this as well. Our younger scouts look up to these older scouts. So they are like a big deal to them. Our SM is a mess too. I feel the reason our SPL have been horrible is due to lack of guidance from our SM. The biggest problem isn't our scouts. It is our SM who doesn't oversee, guide, or set the tone or expectation. We have a SM who has these ideas, but doesn't follow through or rely on her ASM to help. We have a leadership in adults issue . But feel that due to this going on for so long, it has set the tone for the boys. If that makes sense.

[Stosh 3452]

Welcome to the forum!

 

How much training do your boys get beyond the requirements?

 

If no one lays out the expectations, the boys aren't going to just magically come up with what to do on their own.

 

Are you using the Patrol Method and are your PL's trained

 

If all 40 boys are just hanging around socializing, they need to be broken up into patrols and start functioning as patrols.  At least the socializing will get cut into smaller groups.

 

You have enough boys for 5 patrols and that would be enough for a PLC.  Have the SPL focus on just the PLC until the PL's get functional.

 

I had an SPL for 3 patrols and his sole responsibility was the support and work with the PL's.  There was no "troop" just 3 patrols.   

 

Sounds like the growth was way to sudden that no one could keep up.  If the adults are overwhelmed so will the boys be.  Break it up into smaller more manageable pieces.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Stosh

[MattR 2659]

Going from 8 to 40 scouts is going to be hard for anyone to figure out. What works for8 will not work for 40. It will be hard enough for the adults to figure out what is needed for all the change. For the scouts it will be worse. I don't think you can expect the scouts to lead without some guidance. The question is what guidance is needed? It's important that all the adults are on the same page with this. It can't just be one adult that's developing the leadership.

 

Maybe you can help start that discussion with the SM.

 

With 30 new scouts my guess is there's a need for the young scouts to understand what teamwork means before real leadership can take hold. Everyone having their responsibility, helping out, solving problems, that sort of thing. Not just the words but doing it. After that's in place adding leadership will be much easier.