Troop Elections

[rangersteve 10]

Greetings, for the most part I just like to read all the other posts. This time I have an issue that just came up that I could use some advise with regarding troop elections.

Some background first, I am a new scoutmaster,

[Beavah 205]

Hi RangerSteve,

 

I think all Scoutmasters ponder and cogitate over da logistics of elections or appointments to patrol leader and troop positions. I reckon if we surveyed da group we'd find everything from one-month-adult-directed-rotations (for PL of New Scouts) to election of PL's for a full year or more. SPL elections by the whole troop or by the PLs or by appointment, 6 month or 1 year terms, ASPL succeeding to SPL automatically or not, etc. All have their upside and downside, merits and demerits for a particular troop at a particular time, eh?

 

What makes any of 'em work, though, is stability and predictability. The guys have to learn and figure out the system and buy into it. It's got to be seen as bein' fair in that way - not something that gets adjusted too often.

 

I reckon it's pretty rough to change things mid-year, eh? An awfully nasty thing to do to the boy who has worked hard all fall to be ready to take over as SPL this spring, and is lookin' forward to it and counting on it. Whether they said it out loud or not, I reckon the other boys would feel a sudden shift from that to be pretty unfair.

 

So my advice is that yeh need to set up a system that you think will work and be fairly stable, and resist the temptation after that to "fiddle." Those two lads who are your SPL's this year I reckon would have been able to work things out between themselves without you fiating the split-term solution, eh?

 

Doesn't matter as much what the system is, so long as you stick with it even if yeh get an outcome that you don't like. Da simplest system, and the one recommended, is just elect an SPL every 6 months, eh? One boy wins, another loses, live with it (I'm not sure the losin' candidate really should serve automatically to avoid hurt feelings?). But it sounds like yeh might like one where the ASPL is elected, serves 6 months, and then becomes the SPL for da next six months? That's fine, as long as yeh can live with it.

 

But whatever da system is, set it up and then stay out of it Mr. Scoutmaster!

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh 3452]

I have been toying with the idea of going with a parlimentary type of elections. So often we elect/appoint boys to a position and then they sit around doing nothing for the next 6 months to a year. This sometimes occurs in the NSP that has boys that may not really know each other and who may get elected only by popularity.

 

I have a troop of 80% new scouts so it would be easy to make a shift in "tradition" at this point. What it would mean would be that any boy can call for a vote of confidence in their leadership and if they aren't doing the job, they can be replaced (by vote) with someone who will do the job. It promotes responsibility, accountability, functionality, and no lame-duck leaders depriving others of leadership opportunities. I really don't see any intrinsic value in assigning a 6-mo or 1-yr term when the possibility of having a non-functioning leader hanging around collecting his POR requirement on paper.

 

I remember in other organizations (i.e. band) where anyone in the section can challenge the next higher ranked musician and move up towards first chair anytime you wished to challenge and take it before the jury. Well, if there's a boy who really wants to be PL and the existing PL is just taking up space waiting for his POR tenure to complete so he can advance, I say, let the other boy challenge the system that allows for incompetency.

 

If this seems like a disruption in a stable system, just imagine the disruption of a do-nothing SPL for a whole year!

 

Stosh

 

 

[TheScout 10]

I like it.

 

I have always had a fondness for the parliamentary system anyway.

[scoutmomma 10]

I have asked the boy to come to the next PLC meeting and the boys can decide how they would like to resolve this issue. I was thinking whatever decision is made it would be more legitimate coming from the entire PLC not just the mean ol scoutmaster. Has anyone come across this issue before? How did you resolve it?

 

Rangersteve, personally I think your solution is a good one, especially given that you're transitioning the troop. Involving the PLC and letting them hash things out is a great way for the scouts to learn problem-solving.

[evmori 11]

I would stick to the decision already made. How do you know if this Scout is just not wanting the job because he doesn't like the Scout who will inherit it?

 

Let the PLC decide if they want to keep the tenure change after the current decision expires.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter 24]

6 months or 12 months, it's a horse apiece. It's only 1 position, patrols could be on a different schedule.

 

I'd question the wisdom though of holding an election today for position that won't be filled for 6 months. A lot can happen between now and then. There's no apparent benefit in doing that. It effective prevents the current SPL from being reelected to a 2nd term, but if that is the objective you could simply establish a "no 2nd terms" rule.

[AvidSM 11]

I also question the idea of the second place boy serving the second six months. In theory, the second place boy was not elected SPL - he lost the election to the boy who came in first place.

 

Perhaps you can use this logic to reverse your decision and allow for new elections when the SPL's term expires? Perhaps you could ask the PLC what they want to do in this situation, since they are the one's who are supposed to be making the decisions in a boy-run troop?

 

I find that a year long term for SPL works well. Because it's mostly on-the-job-training, it takes about six months before a new SPL is performing adequately. Why remove him from the position just when he starts getting good at it?

 

Rangersteve - I wish you well in your new position as scoutmaster. Don't be afraid of letting the boys make the decisions. They are going to make mistakes and it's your job to make sure they learn from them. And, they won't learn anything if you are the one making the mistakes.

[rangersteve 10]

Thank you for the benefit of all your collective experience. This is why I like reading here.

After watching the previous 3 SPL's during their year long terms I thought it to be too much of a burden, so I decided to reduce the term to 6 months while keeping the PL's at one year. My military experience tells me it doesn't really matter who stands at the front of a formation. It is the PL's that provide the continuity and consistency for the boys.

After taking this position last summer I started polling the senior patrol. All the way into september I kept polling them looking for interested boys. At election time only two boys stood up to volunteer for the job. Everyone else turned it down for various reasons. (16 boys in senior patrol) I thought since only two interested then these two would be the SPL for the year. I made boy #2 the main ASPL for the first 6 months. Everything fine until boy #3 decides we should have a new election because now the job fits into HIS schedule. I know what my decision is already. I just think this decision needs(whatever it ends up being) to come from the PLC.

[Eagledad 2779]

HI All

 

Im not sure there is a right or wrong answer here. I do like Beavahers post because what I think he was trying to say is make sure the process maintains integrity. I know we want to give the scouts responsibility so they learn from the successes and failures, but there is a reason for a scoutmaster in a boy run troop. The SM is the foundation of wisdom for which all decisions are measured. In this case the SM should be encouraging the important trait of fairness. You may or may not have real good reasons for one election method over the other. But what you cant do is come out saying, Oh whatever, it is fine with me. I think you are doing it right so far.

 

Barry

 

[Bob White 20]

I am all for the PLC determining terms and election dates. I am not sure the unit is served in any way by altering a plan because it is inconvenient for a specific individual who has not even been elected yet.

 

If his yearning is to be of service to others then he should either seek the office when he is in a position to serve, or alter his commitments to allow him to serve should he be elected.

 

I do not see why the PLC should be asked to consider changing the plans just to suit his desires.

 

Is there an underlying need for him to get some leadership time under his belt that is not being mentioned so far?

[Eagledad 2779]

>>I do not see why the PLC should be asked to consider changing the plans just to suit his desires.

[rangersteve 10]

BobWhite, boy#3 is the former SM's son, highly competitive and missed alot of last year due to a conflict with a speech and debate club schedule. Dropped the club last month until fall. He won't be at many meetings starting in the fall again. He says this is the only time left for him to be SPL. My decision is to tell Boy #3 that he has to make a hard choice regarding next years schedule because this years schedule has already been made. I was thinking about gently steering the PLC into this decision if it started looking like the PLC would want another election. I just thought the decision ultimately should be the boys to make, as well as be more legitimate than mine alone.

[SM in NJ 10]

Interesting dilemma you've created for yourself. I say you've created for yourself because, unless I read your initial post wrong, the decision to switch from 1yr to 6mos SPL term, and the implementation of that decision, was yours alone. No offense, but you're decision to place the loser in the SPL position for the 2nd half of the year was your first mistake (and we all make 'em!). Clearly just because only 2 boys were interested in September your thought that it wouldn't change in 6 months was short sited at best. Now it looks to me like you're asking your PLC to clean up your mess. If I were in your position, since I made the initial call ... I'd discuss it with the PLC but make the call myself - I'd also tell Scout #3 that the SPL position is set for the remainder of the year. If he is THAT interested in the job, he needs to make some serious choices come next fall.

 

All that being said ... personally, I have to agree with AvidSM ... I do not believe that a 6mo SPL term is a good thing, nor is it really fair. As a SM of a Troop that, like yours, has 70+ Scouts - I couldn't imagine half way through the year, just as the SPL is getting comfortable in his job, telling him he's done. Beyond that ... if your SPL is doing his job correctly, by February the year should be pretty well set and autopilot should kick in. The only thing your SPL should be dealing with the second half of the year are any scheduling or personnel conflicts. So whoever takes over for the 2nd half of the year should, in a very practical sense, have it easier.

 

Just my opinion.

SMNJ(This message has been edited by SM in NJ)

[acco40 95]

I'm all for stability and for letting the boys make decisions. What bothers me is that the two are often in conflict. We hold elections every six months based on what the Scouts wanted to do about seven years ago. Now, that is fixed in my mind.

 

Rangersteve (any relation to Scuba Steve?), IMO and in the BSAs, the ASPL is not elected but appointed by the SPL. The ASPL and SPL need to work closely together. Think of it as a President and Vice President. What would you think of President Hillary having to work with Vice President McCain? That would not be a pretty picture!

 

I also agree that elections should be held in close proximity to the term in office, i.e. not six months in advance. I also think that it teaches the Scouts a valuable lesson in voting if they happen to vote in a "turkey" then they will need to learn to live with it. If they felt they could effectively change leadership any time they wanted I could foresee lots of pandering and scheming. I think that is a very bad idea.