Elected Staff

[sst3rd]

I work with a Troop of approximately 20 active Scouts. We have a young Scout Patrol and a older Scout Patrol. We do NOT get Webolos graduates on a regular basis (our Pack is being reorganized). The youth leaders are trained once elected, and know what is expected in their positions. We have an SPL with one ASPL. Now you know what we've got, here is my question.

 

Do six month terms really work? At the end of the term, do you bunch all of the Scouts together and have them pick their new SPL? Then he gets to pick his ASPL? Then, does the Troop elect the two new Patrol Leaders, and they then pick their APL? Now, does the new PLC get together and create the new Patrols for the coming six months? What happens to the old SPL and ASPL? If a Scout doesn't like his new Patrol, can he change? What's a workable policy for this?

 

It sounds logical, and over the many years I've tried this, only to have a Scout not take it seriously and had to be removed, replaced, etc.. I'm willing to hear some sound advice for a Troop of this size. We should be growing over the next year, and want to be better prepared.

Thanks very much......

 

Anderson

[jmcquillan]

Well, first of all, I've always used the "6 month" notion as a guideline. For many years, our troop has operated with a policy of having the SPL serve for one year. ASPL's are changed by the SPL every 6 months, as they're appointed. Patrol Leaders are elected every 6 months, and the new APL's a picked by the new PL, as they are also appointed. THe 6 month idea works for many, but we settled on the 12 month term for the SPL for continuity throughout the year.

 

Remember that the SPL is elected by the "entire" troop. The SPL "appoints" his ASPL(s). Patrol leaders are elected by the boys within the patrol. The patrol leader appoints his APL.

 

By constantly rearranging patrol makeup, the troop loses an opportunity for continuity and bond building within the patrol. We have rearranged our patrol make up only three times during the 20 or so years I've been with the troop. Each one of those changes was due to a good size decrease or increase in troop size. We've found it much better to leave the patrols with their names and patches alone. When new scouts enter the troop, they're assigned to a new scout patrol, with an older scout as their temporary patrol leader, another as their troop guide, and an assistant scoutmaster to watch over all the new boy patrols. They remain in those patrols until the beginning of the new school year, when troop activities and meetings start again on a weekly basis. By that time, the new boys have had ample opportunity to see the troop in action and meet the other scouts, and decide which patrol they would like to join. The patrols are kept at numbers that always allow for new scouts as older ones graduate out. The new boy patrols cease to exist until the nest incoming of graduate Webelos. It works for us.

 

But we always, always keep the patrols together from year to year, so they have the opportunity to gain the "bond" we hope they will.

 

From time to time, scouts might desire a change from one patrol to another. But that is an issue in the realm of the PLC, with SM approval.

 

When the SPL's term is up, he move back into the patrol from which he came. Same with the APSLs. They never really cease being patrol members, the focus of their responsibilities just changes.

[FScouter]

Our troop is going to hold elections for patrol leaders and SPL soon. We've had some leadership problems with the current elected patrol leaders. One of our adult leaders is suggesting that we establish restrictions or pre-requisites for boys to be elected. This purpose of this would be to ensure that only the more capable boys would be elected. He feels that a lower rank scout should not be a leader of higher ranked scouts. I'm thinking that the adults should stay out of it and let the boys elect who they want. If they make the "wrong" decision, they may not repeat the mistake the next time around. Does anybody have any thoughts about "guiding" the boys to elect the "right" leader?

[Chippewa29]

This is a question I am currently grappling with as well. We're set up pretty well right now, but once we start growing (over the winter we hope), we'll have to form another patrol and eventually get some new leaders. From what I've read, keeping patrols together to form bonds and traditions is a great idea. The idea of the new Scout patrol is one I've been struggling with. Although the concept is nice to have a New Scout Patrol with their own patrol leader is nice, I feel that being a PL as a brand new Scout is not the best way to be developed as a leader. Also, that means that an older Scout who has been trained may not get a chance to be a patrol leader because of someone else his age is the patrol leader for the older Scout patrol. I like the idea of a temporary New Scout Patrol for the first few months they are members. That way, they can focus as a group on getting their Tenderfoot ASAP and have a couple of months until they need to apply to join certain patrols.

 

As far as the time limits, I have seen a lot of different things over the years. However, with Scouts, at their age I feel six months is a good solid term as long as you give them a chance to get reelected. A word of caution, however. When my troop first started in the mid-1980's, there was a group of four of us (out of 12-14) that rotated the top leadership spots between us for the first three years. We had a couple of Scouts my age get discouraged because they were out of the loop and felt like they would never get to be the leaders. They found other areas where they could be leaders (school activities, Exploere Posts) and left the troop. This created a void in leadership that lasted for a couple of years. No matter how good your youth leaders are, make sure that all your Scouts that are quality leaders get a chance to lead. Also, if you have the situation where you have a Scout that is SPL at 13 and "retires" at 14, make sure there is some important job for him to do to keep him busy. My troop has lost two very good Scouts over the years because they felt they had "done it all" before they turned 14 (they hadn't gotten their eagles, which would have helped) and went astray after their term as SPL was over.

[EagleWB]

On the first question, our Troop works the same as jmcquillan's. I think the continuity for the year is better. We hold elections right after summer camp. This allows the new SPL to get everything going for the new year. I also agree with the rest of what he said.

On the second question, FScouter, I'm with you. We do have some pre-requisites for our SPL, but none for PL's. I don't believe that a higher rank always means a better leader. I also believe that the boys usually don't make the same mistake twice. In our Troop we have a system where we allow a patrol to change their PL if they believe he isn't doing the job. Sometimes nobody else wants the job, at first but, when the Patrol starts to suffer someone else steps up. I think this is one of the learning experiences of the Scouting method. I hope you win out here.

[FScouter]

Thanks for the comments. Part of the election question this year involves what if anything to do about about our patrols. We've got 10 boys and 3 patrols, 4, 3, and 3. Three in a patrol really doesn't work well and I want to consolidate them into two patrols. No one in the PLC wants to lose their patrol and patrol leader status. Yet over the last year, I've told them we would have to lose one patrol unless we could add some new members. Should we consolidate, or continue to work on getting new members?

[OldGreyEagle]

Keep with 3 patrols and give the patrol or patrols that recruit scouts some type of premium

[andrews]

I would lean toward having them split themselves into two patrols.

 

You might allow for two more months (for example) to get the numbers up before requiring this, but 3 in a patrol is a bit too few.

 

If participation in the PLC is the issue, you could allow for more to participate, especially with the lower numbers you have. Building a troop identity, and comeraderie among the boys might do a lot to train them to all be future leaders when you get cross over or other growth. 8-10 would make a reasonable "leadership patrol" in the future, especially if you lose one or two as normally happens.

 

Brad

[eisely]

As far as I can tell, the only real reason for having six month terms is to give more boys a chance at a leadership position. Every troop I have been involved with has six month terms. My impression is that twelve month terms would get a better result for the unit as a whole. We do try to establish pre requisites for patrol leader, SPL, and ASPL positions. We want boys to have gone through JLT before they take this on. We still get a mixed result, but that might have nothing to do with the training. If you don't make training a pre requisite, then you should work it into your program. It really is unfair to give a boy a job that he is clueless how to perform.