Jump to content

Unit refuses to hold elections


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

I am confident that if one of our election teams was told "we do not allow anyone who does not have 10 days and nights of camping along with a summer camp to vote"; that unit would be informed that that is not how elections are  conducted.  (not to mention that those requirements to vote are more stringent than those to be elected).

I do sometimes wish that lodges or chapters would not encourage units to elect everyone who meets the minimum requirements, and that there was once again a max number of people who could be elected from the unit each year.

Correct. You can't exclude any active Scout from participating in the election. Official rules: "In Scouts BSA troops, Venturing crews, and Sea Scout ships, every registered active member of the unit under age 21 at the time of election is eligible to vote in an Order of the Arrow unit election; this includes assistant Scoutmasters who are 18, 19 or 20 years old." Our elections teams are instructed to use some judgement on suggesting that Scouts can not turn in a ballot if they desire- aimed for the first year youth, so long as they make up a small fraction of the eligible youth that are present so that it wouldn't be detrimental to the results. A youth has to receive votes from at least 50% of those who turn in ballots to be elected. 

Alas, I don't see the maximum # per unit coming back. What I would like to see is that we not just require First Class Rank, but also that the Scout has not just achieved a minimum # of nights under canvas, but has actually completed Camping Merit Badge. That, to me, would bring back some of the "master camper" element. In the age of "First Class, First Year" I see far too many 12 year old Scouts at Ordeals. A few are exceptional, but most are just not even really aware of what the OA is and are fish out of water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HashTagScouts said:

Correct. You can't exclude any active Scout from participating in the election. Official rules: "In Scouts BSA troops, Venturing crews, and Sea Scout ships, every registered active member of the unit under age 21 at the time of election is eligible to vote in an Order of the Arrow unit election; this includes assistant Scoutmasters who are 18, 19 or 20 years old."

And the election will never get past a popularity contest because voting is shots in the dark. It doesn't even make sense. There is nothing honorable about an honor society that wants everyone.

But, there is still power in the reputations of the scouts. The Scouts in our troop held the top Chapter leadership position for 6 years. Chapter Leadership wasn't a popularity contest, it was getting folks who got things done. And, the reputation was the reason I was asked to takeover as OA Chapter Advisor. I declined, but I was humbled. Scoutmasters can set high ideals that scouts will carry on past the troop program.

Barry

 

Edited by Eagledad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

There is nothing honorable about an honor society that wants everyone.

But, there is still power in the reputations of the scouts.

It doesn’t “want everyone”, but gives a unit the option to vote all who meet the requirements in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It doesn’t “want everyone”, but gives a unit the option to vote all who meet the requirements in. 

If it’s just a matter of meeting the requirements, then why the vote. If getting voted is just a matter of luck, then where is the honor. In our district, 90% of scouts tapped out were no longer active in OA a year later except wearing their sash at COHs.

I apologize for being cynical, but I remember the old days when Arrowmen were held in higher esteem than Eagles.
 

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It doesn’t “want everyone”, but gives a unit the option to vote all who meet the requirements in. 

Respectfully disagree. Once upon a time, the OA had election quotas, i.e. you could only vote fro X number out of Y eligible. Now there is no limit to the number you can vote for.

SMs had to meet the same criteria as other adults, i.e. have 15 days of camping, be nominated by troop committee, and be selected by lodge committee. Now SMs automatically get in.

Time between Ordeal Member and Brotherhood member use to be 10 months, now it is 6 months.

And

Scouts use to be able to have their name withheld from teh ballot if they were not interested, now they automatically get put on it, even if they stated publicly they have no interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I apologize for being cynical, but I remember the old days when Arrowmen were held in higher esteem than Eagles.

I have been both an Arrowman and an Eagle for more than half a century.  Both were more rare back then than they are now, but I can honestly say that I have never known anyone who felt that being an Arrowman was a greater honor than being an Eagle.

9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Scouts use to be able to have their name withheld from teh ballot if they were not interested, now they automatically get put on it, even if they stated publicly they have no interest.

This one I will have to look up in the Guide to Inductions to see if there is any mention of putting someone on the ballot even if they object.  I do know that I have seen Scouts left off of the ballot at their request on several occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Eagledad said:

If it’s just a matter of meeting the requirements, then why the vote. If getting voted is just a matter of luck, then where is the honor. In our district, 90% of scouts tapped out were no longer active in OA a year later except wearing their sash at COHs.

I apologize for being cynical, but I remember the old days when Arrowmen were held in higher esteem than Eagles.
 

Barry

It was not a matter of luck to be nominated in my troop. It was hard. If you made an early name for yourself of not being helpful, it stuck for a long time. We had fewer OA nominations than Eagles.

As a SM the one thing that brought up the best discussions was along the lines of "how did your actions reflect on the scout law?" So, you're helpful and cheerful? Always? Long pause and then good discussion about how hard it really is for everyone.  So, when the scouts nominated OA candidates maybe they went back to those discussions.

One more observation. Scouts probably don't connect OA with character as much as we think. As a scout in the 70's, to me, it was more about the ordeal and Indian culture than anything else. For me it was sash and dash. Indian culture was fun but not that big a deal. While I was likely missing something, that's what I remember. I see the same thing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MattR said:

It was not a matter of luck to be nominated in my troop. It was hard. If you made an early name for yourself of not being helpful, it stuck for a long time. We had fewer OA nominations than Eagles.

This was our troop. And, I think it was because this was how the SM wanted it because some scoutmasters push the scouts to pick everyone eligible. 

22 minutes ago, MattR said:

As a SM the one thing that brought up the best discussions was along the lines of "how did your actions reflect on the scout law?" So, you're helpful and cheerful? Always? Long pause and then good discussion about how hard it really is for everyone.  So, when the scouts nominated OA candidates maybe they went back to those discussions.

Yes, that is what I mean the Scoutmaster's idealism of the program can sway the scouts expectations of other scouts.

24 minutes ago, MattR said:

One more observation. Scouts probably don't connect OA with character as much as we think. As a scout in the 70's, to me, it was more about the ordeal and Indian culture than anything else. For me it was sash and dash. Indian culture was fun but not that big a deal. While I was likely missing something, that's what I remember. I see the same thing now.

I agree, scouts don't connect with character. They find Aims and Methods a language from another planet. They do, however,  connect with brotherhood and as you pointed out, an early name, good or bad sticks for a long time. Young scouts learn quickly which older scouts to approach for help.

But, the problem I see today is a new scout can, and is expected to vote, with the same power as the scout with 3 years experience. Add a SM who wants all the scouts to get a sash and you get a lot of scouts who don't really want to be there.

From the perspective of outside looking in, the Arrowmen in my troop as a youth were big time campers. They were experts. The Arrowmen in the Troop that I was a SM were good campers and backpackers, but their expertise in both the Troop and OA was leadership.

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 2:15 PM, MikeS72 said:

I do not usually respond to your posts as I see them a coming from a perspective that is decades old and may not fit well in today's wold.  

"When I wanted to understand what is happening today, I try to decide what will happen tomorrow; I look back, a page of history is worth a volume of logic."

           --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice, New York Trust Co. v. Eisner (1921).

Many cultures respect, if not revere their elders and the perspective that they have.

Their perspective is considered "Wisdom."

Barry, I listen to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 7:29 AM, MikeS72 said:

I have been both an Arrowman and an Eagle for more than half a century.  Both were more rare back then than they are now, but I can honestly say that I have never known anyone who felt that being an Arrowman was a greater honor than being an Eagle.

 

I'm getting alarmingly close to the 50 year mark and I agree with you that both were pretty rare in the '70s and '80's. My little troop  of 35 had two Eagles and seven Arrowman over a six year period.  Some years we didn't elect anyone. As to which honor was prized more highly?  Obviously depends  upon the individual, looking  back I'd have to say I valued my Eagle just a little more than my Ordeal sash,  but certainly less than my Vigil sash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 2:32 PM, Eagledad said:

This was our troop. And, I think it was because this was how the SM wanted it because some scoutmasters push the scouts to pick everyone eligible. 

Yes, that is what I mean the Scoutmaster's idealism of the program can sway the scouts expectations of other scouts.

I agree, scouts don't connect with character. They find Aims and Methods a language from another planet. They do, however,  connect with brotherhood and as you pointed out, an early name, good or bad sticks for a long time. Young scouts learn quickly which older scouts to approach for help.

But, the problem I see today is a new scout can, and is expected to vote, with the same power as the scout with 3 years experience. Add a SM who wants all the scouts to get a sash and you get a lot of scouts who don't really want to be there.

From the perspective of outside looking in, the Arrowmen in my troop as a youth were big time campers. They were experts. The Arrowmen in the Troop that I was a SM were good campers and backpackers, but their expertise in both the Troop and OA was leadership.

Barry

Ever since the changes that pretty much make anyone that is First Class and has the other minimum requirements I have made it a point to talk to every likely candidate to determine IF he desired to even be in OA, and explain to him the expectation he needs to meet the intent of the honor.  And, I have had a few scouts tell me that it really is not something they feel the need to do.  Along with my own Spirit evaluation, tht has on occasion removed a few.  Sadly, still too many still become "sash and dash".  Part of that may be the lack of real intensity and meaning in the Ordeal ceremonies too much of the time.  Too often it is obvious that little effort has been made to learn the ceremonial parts, and some candidates are really still too immature to fulfill the honor yet.  It is sad that so much of the Order mystique is no longer in place.  Still, it does serve a purpose, and at times they do a really fine job.  It depends on theose in the leadership over time.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2022 at 12:54 AM, skeptic said:

Order mystique is no longer in place.

I think that may be one of the issues that is really hurting the OA.

On 7/24/2022 at 12:54 AM, skeptic said:

I have made it a point to talk to every likely candidate to determine IF he desired to even be in OA

That is up to the candidate if they want to go through the ordeal. It should be up to the Scouts to determine who amongst them is worthy. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

That is up to the candidate if they want to go through the ordeal. It should be up to the Scouts to determine who amongst them is worthy. 

In the old days maybe when the scouts selected were more mature. But I watched a couple scouts at an Ordeal on the verge of crying because they weren't ready for sleeping without a tent followed by the meager breakfast. Not talking was out of the question. One scout was holding his dads arm so he would be pulled away with the other scouts, while the other arm was dragging his sleeping bag through the dirt and mud. I think the SM needs to determine the state of mind of these scouts so as not to endanger a scouting career based from one really bad experience.

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when you could be told to leave the Ordeal if you were not following directions. Now it is considered "hazing" if you tell them to leave. That blew my mind when I first was told this.

Sadly I have seen folks talking the entire time, and when asked if they think they deserve to be members, said yes. I have seen an adult be placed in a work party of one, because he was extremely negative, would not stop talking or complaining, and it was affecting the rest of the work party. He got in. Worse was I saw an entire work part stop and refuse to do another thing. Again when I asked why we don't send them home, I was told it would be considered "hazing," and they have to make the decision. IMHO, if they do not follow the rules, they made their decision. Sadly national disagrees.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I remember when you could be told to leave the Ordeal if you were not following directions. Now it is considered "hazing" if you tell them to leave. That blew my mind when I first was told this.

Sadly I have seen folks talking the entire time, and when asked if they think they deserve to be members, said yes. I have seen an adult be placed in a work party of one, because he was extremely negative, would not stop talking or complaining, and it was affecting the rest of the work party. He got in. Worse was I saw an entire work part stop and refuse to do another thing. Again when I asked why we don't send them home, I was told it would be considered "hazing," and they have to make the decision. IMHO, if they do not follow the rules, they made their decision. Sadly national disagrees.

We need to face the larger elephant.  BSA, and far too many other groups of similar nature are in constant fear of law suits over what fifty years or more ago would have been thrown out immediately.  Same discussion that makes the lawsuit issues so difficult in the bankruptcy.  Our legal system is really poorly designed today in that it will not simply ban foolishness that is obvious.  JMHO of course.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...