Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Beavah

Should a boy hold two PORs?

Recommended Posts

All chiefs, no Indians?

 

All Generals, no privates?

 

All POR's no scouts?

 

I kinda like my boys to actually function in these positions, not just wear the patch.

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you said that 5 boys were not enough, and now you say they are too many?

 

Do not worry about counting chiefs and Indians, that is not an element of the scouuting program. The program is designed for each scout to have a position just as on a baseball team each player has a position to play and specific role to fill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council site that I used as a reference states that:

 

"Every unit must have the following leadership positions filled: executive officer; chartered organization representative; committee chairperson, a minimum of two (2) members of committee; and a unit leader (cubmaster, scoutmaster, varsity coach, post advisor, crew advisor)."

 

The Executive Officer is your Institutional Head. On the same council site (and also the Adult Application) there is a code for the Institional Head (IH).

 

So if there is a code and it is required that all units have the spot of Executive Officer filled how is it not an official Boy Scout position?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why should it be needed for him to do more than one at a time? Why not let him commit to one job for the 6-9month duration and then let him proceed to a new challenge afterward?

Again I'm all for allowing the Lad to follow his heart.

If he enjoys working with the little fellows, gets on well with the adults in the Pack and wants to serve ? Why not?

OJ,enjoys working with young kids. At school he spent time helping with some of the classes in the elementary school. He did this while serving as SPL,Vice Chief (Admin) in the OA Lodge as well as serving as Section Secretary for the OA.

I have never heard that a Scout who serves as an officer in the OA (Chief?) has been prevented or asked not to serve in a POR in a Troop.

Some youth members are happy to serve in a POR in a Troop while also serving as a officer in a Venturing unit.

I really think that the choice should be left with the individual Scout.

If he finds that he is indeed spreading himself too thin? I would hope that there is a life lesson in that?

Many adults find that it takes years to see that they are taking on too much -Maybe a youth finding it out for himself at a young age? Isn't such a bad thing!

We would never think of telling a Lad what sports or after school activities he should be involved in or how many. So I fail to see what the big deal is.

Eamonn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess those utility players who play a multitude of positions are not that important. And just because every play has a position doesn't make them a leader.

 

Sports analogies are great in sports but not really relevant to Scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back at the beginning of this thread I stated that I didn't feel a boy should hav two (or more) POR's. However, I definately seem to be the only one who feels this way.

Like with a lot of questions on this board I have run this out to the rest of my scouting family. Even there I was the sole person saying no.

 

Ahhh, at least nobody here has publically ridiculed my stand...Nephew has enjoyed pulling apart my arguements though. /smile

 

YiS

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the required positions in the adult level of the troop, there is no requirement to fill positions on the scout level and if all are going to be chiefs does that mean that unless you have a patch on your shirt showing a POR you're a nobody and don't have to provide any leadership to the unit? That would be a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn when there are more boys than POR's available.

 

Sorry, I still stick with a legitimate functionality to the positions. 5 boys - 1 PL should be sufficient. If there is a pressing need for someone to wear the QM patch to keep an eye on 3 tents and a Dutch oven.

 

Stosh

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hotdesk writes:"The council site that I used as a reference states that . . ."Sounds like a local council requirement -- there is no code for the IH on the official BSA adult application (again, your council may be different).

 

Outside of possibly your council, there is no requirement for an IH to register with the BSA; that is the COR's job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHOULD a boy hold two PORs?

Probably not, but I can think of situations where I wouldn't prohibit it. and that may be why the BSA doesn't either... maybe.

 

I.E. a Troop - Patrol APL who is also a Pack - Den Chief because A) he wants to B) he's DCing his little brothers den so he's squared away when he hits the Troop C) his dad is the Cubmaster and asked him to DC because he was (for family purposes) going to be there physically anyway whether he helped or not. Reasons given were in order of importance given by the Scout when asked.

 

Does a Troop of five need more than just a PL? Well, you could take that in more than one way... two are:

In one way you could say we are going to grow and one way to make that happen well is to get all of this cadre "trained" in to the requirements of one position each - even to the extent of having a "mock" PLC unless you were actually going to have two patrols of two boys each which even I think is carrying it too far. But having: a SPL, no ASPL but a PL, a QM, a Chaplains aide, and a Historian could provide a foundation on which to build a strong growing troop...?

 

In another way you might just want to get this one patrol to function strongly as a patrol and build the rest of the infrastructure as needed, I don't think either approach is wrong but either may be more correct depending on your pool of non-scouting youth to pull from. In a smaller more rural area with a very sparse population and enough Troops to serve its spread population I might lean towards the latter. In a metro-plex with waning or few youth opportunities I might lean towards the first scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that I can search the form and almost always find a discussion related to what I'm currently pondering. Thus my post in an almost decade-long dormant thread.

 

One boy started this week's meeting as Scribe and after POR elections waked out of the meeting as Scribe and Patrol Leader after. The boys walk into a room, close the door, and eventually emerge and let us adults know who was elected to each POR. We let them decide and live with their decision. Having read through this thread, I find the lack of comments regarding letting the boys make their own decisions is disappointing. It is their Troop after all, not ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that I can search the form and almost always find a discussion related to what I'm currently pondering. Thus my post in an almost decade-long dormant thread.

 

One boy started this week's meeting as Scribe and after POR elections waked out of the meeting as Scribe and Patrol Leader after. The boys walk into a room, close the door, and eventually emerge and let us adults know who was elected to each POR. We let them decide and live with their decision. Having read through this thread, I find the lack of comments regarding letting the boys make their own decisions is disappointing. It is their Troop after all, not ours.

I don’t disagree with that too much, but if you have a decent size troop, holding two positions is taking one away from a younger scout who can be scribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than holding elections for SPL and the individual PLs, the other Troop PORs are supposed to be APPOINTED by the SPL. They are not elected positions. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than holding elections for SPL and the individual PLs, the other Troop PORs are supposed to be APPOINTED by the SPL. They are not elected positions.

 

Forgot to mention that, who even thinks of electing a scribe or quartermaster anyway?? Like come on..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention that, who even thinks of electing a scribe or quartermaster anyway?? Like come on..

 

If the Troop in question is operating according to the rules, then the SPL should have selected a different person to replace the newly elected PL as the Scribe. Unless the Troop is so small that other Scouts are also doubling up to cover the required positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why. I'll have to ask. Other obligations prevented me from attending the meeting. But again, if the boys are fine with it, who are we to question?

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×