SPL Appointments

[Twocubdad]

Is there a circumstance under which you would veto the position of responsibility appointments of the senior patrol leader?

 

My new SPL is basically appointing his friends to all the postions, generally guys a year or so younger than he. My feeling is he is appointing these guys as they will be fall in line behind him. These guys don't have much experience and haven't been involved at the PLC level previously. There are other guys who are much more capable and experienced. My feeling is the SPL is making appointment based on who will go along with him rather than selecting the best man for the job.

 

The whole thing has a rather bad political smell, as several of these positions were promised to supporters prior to the PLC vote. I don't care for the appearance of political payback.

 

Looking at the big picture, the is pretty young on average. We've been in rebuilding mode for a number of years, and are just now building a group of older Scouts. I'm concerned that have we're not taking advantage of our best leaders and that by putting these older guys out to pasture, they'll loose interest.

 

Where would you draw the line between letting the SPL make the decisions and what you feel is in the better interest of the troop?

[chaoman45]

If I felt it was more about friends than utilitarian motives, I would sit down and question him on his choices.

 

"Billy for Instructor? Why?"

 

Also, some positions shouldn't be seen as "do you have experience?" The whole point of the PORs and LPs is to develop experience. The SM is the final word, contrary to the idea of a boy-run programme.

[momof2cubs]

You know, you may not agree with his method, but you gotta admit he has a certain...shrewdness? I see a future politician on your hands.

[RememberSchiff]

Is he the SPL or not?

 

Sure discuss your troop concerns and his new leadership team. What are the meeting by meeting or month by month goals and expectations, how will you guide them in their new leadership positions, how will you utilize (keep) the older scouts (should they be challenged to form a venture patrol with separate activities?), how will you handle your leaders who fail. There are many leadership learning experience ahead as he and his appointed team leads the troop - responsibilities, successes and failures, choices and consequences,...

 

I would only intervene if my SPL has promised a leadership position to a scout and failed to keep that promise and, of course, if I had safety concerns.

 

We teach them to make their own decisions and then step back (the hard part).

 

My 2 aspirin,

 

 

 

 

[Eagledad]

No, I would not veto his appointments, but I would make sure they feel the full brunt of their responsibilities. I can't place my finger on it because you are a really good SM twocub, but there is something missing in your program if the scouts think they can get away with appointing unqualified scouts into positions that require some maturity. Maybe the troop just hasnt grown enough yet because its young, but at some point, the scouts will need to respect the positions that drive the quality of their program. They need to be concerned that bad leaders means less fun and more work.

 

As our troop matured, our scouts got better at not only building a good leadership corp., but also pushing younger scouts into positions that would develop their skills for the long future. Our SPLs got older and more mature and several ran for the position more than once. I believe that happen because we not only made sure they had true leadership responsibilities, but also because we let them feel the true repercussions of their performance. As the younger scouts see the true hard work to a POS, they wait until they feel ready.

 

Being a leader in the troop needs to have honor. One of the ways that happens is by how you treat your leaders and by how you hold them especially accountable for living the Oath and Law. They should hear from you a lot that they are the role models of the troop. How they act gives permission to every scout to how they can act. They need to know that you really believe it and because of that, they will learn that you are quick with both public praise and private guidance. Its part of your job and theirs. They need to understand the secret to a good program starts with a firm foundation. They are the foundation.

 

I remember once listing to a PL respond to a patrol mate jealous of the coke he drank during a PLC meeting. On campouts our PLC meets every night to discuss the next days agenda and I usually provide a cooler of soft drinks and snacks. When the young scout made a big deal about this to the PL, he walked by without changing his expression and only said, Trust me, we earn it. We have 30 minute PLC meetings before each Troop meeting instead of a monthly PLC meeting and I always brought pizza. I want to say its a reward, but really it was my of showing respect. Thanks guys, you are the best.

 

I love this scouting stuff.

 

Barry

 

[Beavah]

Yah, the thing about elections is that we always think that boys know all about elections and leadership stuff without ever having been taught, eh? But yeh can no more throw a group of lads into an election without slowly building up experience and givin' support than you can throw a group of boys onto a whitewater river without first building up experience and givin' support.

 

And da problem with "sink or swim" on elections is how much damage it can do a troop. Yeh have to be very, very cautious about learning by trial and error with that. How many kids dropped from the program is learning by trial and error worth? How likely is a strongly negative parent reaction which sets back youth leadership in your program by several years?

 

Particularly if yeh have a young troop in a "rebuilding" mode, yeh have to spend a great deal of effort teaching how to run for office honorably and vote responsibly. And just like da whitewater paddling yeh start with the basics in more controlled flat-water environments and work your way up.

 

Sounds like yeh might not have done that, in which case yeh now have a hard problem of disentangling the mess. There's merit to an SPL wanting guys that he trusts and knows will listen to him, eh? In a troop with age-based patrols, I reckon he'd naturally tend to select guys from his patrol and cut out the older fellows. So I think your real problem happened earlier on. The key to makin' youth leadership work well is to set things up so the boys are likely to succeed.

 

Let me ask a question: Do you think this boy who is SPL is the best boy in the troop (or at least one of the top 3) for the job? If not, then yeh have to take a step back and look at why your election process broke down. This boy was allowed to manipulate it because the boys voting took it as more of a game to be manipulated? Lots of young fellows voted for the funniest kid because they didn't really know any of the older boys running so as to be able to judge 'em on their skills? In that case, at least before the next go, you have to step back and fix that. Maybe SPL needs to be voted by just the PLC for a while, or appointed.

 

If this boy really is the top leader in the troop, or one of the top 2-3, then I think yeh work with him on his appointments collaboratively. The other top leader in the troop yeh can always just make JASM. Yeh don't "veto". A good SM never vetoes. A need to veto means that yeh failed badly at instruction along the way. Yeh sit with the lad and you help him understand his strengths and weaknesses, and then help him to see he needs an ASPL who complements him; who will follow his lead when he's strong and support him in areas he's not as good at. Yeh start talkin' about the strengths and weaknesses of the other boys between the two of you, and what each position needs in order to work well.

 

Maybe yeh discover he has thought it out, and there's enough there to go with even if it's not the way you would have done it, but just the act of sittin' down and working through it lends an air of seriousness and thoughtfulness so that later on if things aren't workin' out for a position he has some notions of how to deal with it. You've established a partnership where he can turn to you for ideas, where you can count on him being serious about some stuff, and where yeh trust each other.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

Beavah,

 

I would like your opinion. Our Troop recently did a "reboot" to mixed age Patrols. So far so good. The old SM appointed the new PL's (with an eye for temperament toward working with the personalities in question --and they look like good picks). Now they are proposing APL elections, the elected APL works for 6 months and moves up to PL and a new APL is elected. What do you think?

[qwazse]

Twocub,

It sounds like you have a big enough troop, so there are several ways you can endure this "bump" in the road.

 

Obviously, get the PLC running ASAP. Whoever misses the first one (without calling in with a reasonable excuse in advance), you ask the SPL to find his replacement. Seriously, first part of the meeting: roll call. SPL says who's missing, you ask why, he doesn't know, you say no worries, we'll announce at the next meeting that the position is open. If the boy shows up late, it's up to you how much grace you should dispense. Obviously, you can have the kid who got bumped make a case for why he should be reappointed. The point is, that you want a young SPL to deal with any poor choices early in his career, and you don't want anyone coasting through their positions of responsibility.

 

Talk to a couple older boys. There may be more to this than meets the eye. The older scouts may be caught up in other activities and may have asked to be passed over. They might sincerly feel that their patrols will be better if, instead of being "the guy", they set an example of following younger PL's. Try not to let on that you're concerned about the situation, but try to get their opinion. Make it clear that you still want this troop to work for them!

 

There are plenty roles for older boys in this kind of situation. Maybe a couple could organize an Introduction to Leadership Skills for Troops for the new PLC. Some others might offer themselves as specialty instructors or activity coordinators. Then you can tell the PLC, "Life scouts Joe and Bob are availble weekend x to give you guys ILST, Mark's learned to do some cool things at the autobody shop, and Eagle scout William has some connections at the sportsman's club, etc ... you want to give them a call?"

 

That way everybody knows that regardless of what's on your sleave, there's plenty of leading to do.

 

I'm not a fan of older boys forming their venture patrol in this situation. But if they have a particular goal in mind (e.g. hike 100 miles this year), it may be the right time for it.

[Eagledad]

Hi Tampa

 

I know you asked Beavh, but Ive had a little experience in the area of your question. I have seen this style of elections work very well with the SPL position. Usually the SPL was a one year term. The election gives the ASPL six months to get up to speed and step right in.

 

I have not seen it done with the APL, but I cant see why it wouldnt have the same result provided the APL is mature enough to be the PL. The problem would be in younger troops where the APL may not have enough experience to be a PL. Ideally the APL has experience in most of the other patrol positions and is one step away from the PL. But, no matter the patrols maturity, the elected APL is certainly on notice that he will take over in six months and should use the time wisely to learn the ropes.

 

The only disadvantage to that style of selecting leaders is that the Patrol doesnt seem to have the option of re-electing the present PL. Kind puts the APL in a bad spot. It wasnt a problem for the SPL because his time in position is a year and most SPLs are ready for a break then, and usually the ASPL was accepted by the troop.

 

Barry

[shortridge]

I'm a little confused.

 

The SPL is generally supposed to appoint the instructors, troop guides, quartermaster, historian, scribe, librarian, bugler and chaplain aide. (Some SPLs appoint the ASPL; other troops elect him.) Those are basically positions with set duties, so Scouts can be held accountable; they're not just cushy gigs, like an ambassadorship to the Bahamas. And skills clearly count - you can't put a Tenderfoot into an Instructor's job.

 

The PLC, on the other hand, is supposed to be made up of the SPL, ASPL, patrol leaders and troop guide - not necessarily all of these appointed troopwide positions. So if your concern is that the SPL is putting inexperienced Scouts in charge of the troop, that's not the case. The patrol leaders still run the show.

[SeattlePioneer]

Personally I favor elections for SPL every six months.

 

 

Politicans have used the method of "rewarding your friends" as a means of handing out offices forever, and there can be good reasons for doing so.

 

Just hope the SPL doesn't plan to "punish his enemies" too!

[Tampa Turtle]

EagleDad,

 

Thanks. I am sure the new approach (which was just sprung on me by the SM and CC) has its pluses and cons. I not sure how to approach the bad APL issue. But I guess that gets to the non-performing POR issue.

[Twocubdad]

Good stuff, guys, thanks. I've probably worked through most of the stuff you've suggested; met with the new SPL and discussed it several times. He is just unwilling to step away from his list of friends. I'm now at the fish-or-cut-bait point of stepping in and disallowing some of the appointments or not.

 

I'm mostly leaning toward not, so my issue now becomes how to enforce the responsibility for the decision and how to mitigate any negative effects on the rest of the troop.

 

Beav ask if this kid is one of the top three for the position. Yeah, I'd say so. He is very personable and outgoing and most all the guys in the troop like him. Frankly, I would have probably voted for him myself. Part of the problem is he is such a socially-oriented kid, he's looking at this as if he were planning a party, not building a team. He wants all the fun guys -- the ones just like himself -- not necessarily those with the skills and abilities he needs to build a good team.

 

We all have our plusses and minuses and his minus is definitely his lack of maturity. He's one of these guys who thinks he's so clever he can fake his way through any situation. The net result on the ground is that anything he has ever been responsible for has been a mystery to me up until about 10 minutes before the start time. To overcome that, at JLT/planning conference, I required them to have ALL campouts planned through next August and all troop meetings planned through the end of the year. I held up movie night over an hour and a half until they had the blanks filled.

 

I agree with what you're saying about grooming younger boys and my advice was to maybe bring along one or two guys. Where I'm uncomfortable is with the wholesale house cleaning of older guys which seems to be going on.

 

Momo2 -- you nailed it. I can easily see him sitting in front of a Senate Select Committee on Investigations.

[Stosh]

I guess for me, it's an issue of who's leading, the SPL or the SM. If the SPL thinks he can run the troop with those he's picked, he should be given the chance to succeed/fail. I have never been one that promotes the US style of elections, but more of the parliamentary approach. If the PM isn't doing his job, the whole cabinet goes and you start all over. If the boys know that they are going to wear the patch and get credit for 6 months no matter what happens, there's no incentive to do well. If they need 6 months and the troop can pull the rug out from under them for doing a lousy job at any time, they'll have to toe the line and do the job.

 

After all what better way to learn the job than by on-the-job experience. In order for anyone to succeed they all need to succeed. There's a real strong peer group dynamic necessary to make it happen.

 

As for the older boys? Let them decide for the next 6 months what they might want to do for fun now that they aren't hampered by troop responsibilities. Just keep it as a possibility in their minds that if the troop structure breaks down, they might need to step back in and help out the new struggling leaders...as their mentors.

 

I guess I don't see this as much a political issue in as much as a learning leadership opportunity for the younger boys. Too often the big jobs get hoarded by the older boys and it isn't until the older boys leave that the younger boys get a chance at the reins. This way the older boys are still around and the younger boys get their chance with the mentoring help of the older boys.

 

6 months from now, there's a possibility that the troop will have twice as many quality leaders as they do now. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

Stosh

[qwazse]

I'm now at the fish-or-cut-bait point of stepping in and disallowing some of the appointments or not.

 

Fish. (I think. If by that you're meaning work with the boys appointed.) In a month have the SPL pull up any lines that aren't "hitting."

 

Recently the SM and I had to admit to the committee "The popular boy - not the best leader - got elected SPL. As much as we don't like it, we'll deal with it." It was a risk because some parents of younger scouts were in the room. We had already lost a few boys because parents didn't appreciate our willingness to let this youth have the reigns. (They formed a new troop, so we didn't feel all that bad about it.) But, the parents in the room got that some day it may be their boy about whom everyone is having doubts.

 

Like Stosh said, the more mature boys will find ways to serve. For example, one boy planned our spring backpacking trip for us -- including any necessary training and equipment procurement. No instructor's patch required.

 

But like us, you or a tactful ASM will probably want to have a sit-down with parents to explain the challenges ahead.