Voting in the BSA

[Beavah 205]

Thanks for da clarification, OGE.

 

What you list makes it clear, eh? There's nothin' in those references that says that there is "no voting" on the Steering Committee or Troop Committee during the unit leader selection process.

 

All those references state is that some group of folks gets together and makes a list, then ranks the list, then selects a top candidate to go make an appointment with and to recommend to da COR.

 

Ranking and selecting by a group of people requires a decision-making process, eh?

 

That decision-making process is absolutely not specified in any BSA materials.

 

It can be praying to the Holy Spirit and a spiritual call. It can be selection by lot. It can be consensus (which I personally recommend to units most of da time). It can be voting. It can even be partial abdication, and recommending three people equally and lettin' da COR choose.

 

The BSA doesn't specify how a selection committee or any committee is to make decisions at the unit level, because there are so many different CO's and ways of doin' it.

 

But voting is definitely one perfectly acceptable way.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

See now, I thought the directions were mighty clear but perhaps they are not

 

No more voting comments from me

[shortridge 184]

The OP in the thread this one was spun from referred to elections. In my mind, that's a different animal from voting as a decision-making process. Elections involve nominations, candidates and competition. I can see a committee voting to rank multiple candidates for a job; what I can't see the logic of is having candidates run against each other. There are very few elections in American public life that don't lead to bad blood at some level.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Beavah,

 

As a lawyer, you know that laws are not written to cover every contigency or permutation. Would a judge accept a claim of, "well the law didn't say my client couldn't do X, so therefore it must be acceptable"?

 

Again, I'm not defending ol' Bob's stance, but I did understand where he usually came from. When someone came across something they found confusing or disagreed with in BSA literature, they tend to fudge it towards what they want it to be. Bob always tried to apply logic and go with the most literal meaning of said literature. As an example (and again, I don't have the literature, so it is just an example), if the lit said that a CC makes an assignment and a member carries it out and the word "vote" never appears anywhere, then the logical assumption is that voting isn't part of the process.

 

All that being said, our committee routinely votes. I'm an ASM and on the rare occasion that I attend a committee meeting, I'm invited to vote. Each time I tell them that the SM and ASM's are not voting members of the committee. We are on the program side of the unit.

[Beavah 205]

Would a judge accept a claim of, "well the law didn't say my client couldn't do X, so therefore it must be acceptable"?

 

ABSOLUTELY.

 

When yeh live in a free society, da law is to be strictly construed. In fact, if da law is even too vague or general it will be struck down.

 

That's what it means to be free, eh?

 

if the lit said that a CC makes an assignment

 

Nowhere in da BSA literature does it ever say that a CC makes an assignment. When it comes to selectin' unit leaders and committee members, OGE gave all da references that exist. And those references say that a committee, not the CC, makes the decision.

 

It doesn't specify how the committee is to make the decision, so da only logical thing to conclude is that since the BSA makes no recommendation on how the committee should decide, it's entirely up to the committee.

 

My guess is that ol' BobWhite was one of those "CC is King" fellows when he was a CC. Odd because he was generally on board with da literature in most other things.

 

It's not entirely bad to have a strong CC, eh? Keeps the committee on task and protects da SM. But appointin' leaders is definitely a few steps too far. That's a big, important task, and it needs participation and "buy in" from a lot of different folks.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[scoutldr 739]

I think what everyone is saying is "don't make life any harder than it needs to be." A small group of like-minded adults ought to be able to play nice and figure it out.

 

Ya wanna see anal-retentive decision making, go to a PTA convention...sheesh. They have a full time professional parliamentarian in the room.

[SR540Beaver 116]

So, if a speed limit says 70, does that mean you can go no faster or slower for any reason? Must you maintain 70 to be within the law?

 

Actually, Bob was a "the lit is king" kind of guys. He interpreted it pretty logically, literally and specifically just like the law and it drove people nuts who wanted to interpret it in favor of their bias or prejudice.(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[shortridge 184]

The operative word in that example is "limit."

[eisely 13]

When I have taught "Troop Committee Challenge" to real registered committee members from a variety of troops, I have advised that most committee decisions can be, and typically are made by consensus. I also advise that some tough decisions, particularly around disciplinary matters, probably will require a formal vote. The difficulties that a unit committee can encounter if a vote is called for and if the committee in question is not used to voting were alluded to in an earlier post.

 

Who is eligible to vote? What is a quorum? Simple majority or super majority required for various decisions?

 

It is difficult and dangerous to make up rules on the fly when a major controversy erupts.

 

Bob White was also opposed to troop committees having bylaws. In my teaching I point out the advantages of having at least some bylaws, but they do need to be kept simple.(This message has been edited by eisely)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, SR540, I really didn't understand your speed limit reference at all, eh? The law allows some regulatory body to set a maximum speed for a stretch of roadway under a set of conditions. Citizens are then free to drive at any other speed. To paraphrase your words, since the law doesn't say a person can't go 45, going 45 must be acceptable.

 

Actually, Bob was a "the lit is king" kind of guys.

 

Except in this case, where da lit very clearly says that the CC does not make these decisions. Like I said, oddly out of character.

 

I reckon there were a lot of reasons he drove folks nuts, eh?

 

I think scoutldr and eisley have da right of this. Under ordinary circumstances, we all want things to be friendly and efficient and proceed by consensus or at least general assent. When things aren't ordinary, though, even if it's just one fellow who wants to get his way, it's nice to have formal procedures to fall back on.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[NE-IV-88-Beaver 10]

A "good" CC should be able to read his committee and realize whether or not there is consensus on an issue or that a vote may be needed to determine everyone's position. Often, taking a vote will bring a debate to an end and the meeting can be put back on track. It also eliminates the possibility of confusing which side of an issue that someone is truly on. My committee may go for several months without having an issue contentious enough to require a vote or there may be a single meeting where several votes are necessary.

 

To say that a committee can't vote is mind-boggling to me! We vote at an Eagle Board of Review, don't we? Isn't getting the consensus, in fact, a form of voting, whether it is formal or not?

 

We shouldn't limit ourselves in doing whatever is necessary to get the job done!!!

[scoutldr 739]

"We vote at an Eagle BOR, don't we?"

 

Actually, no. Not in our district. The chair asks, "anyone have any concerns?".

[NE-IV-88-Beaver 10]

"Actually, no. Not in our district. The chair asks, "anyone have any concerns?". "

 

And isn't that a method of voting?