OA election - 50% of troop

[ps56k]

I think you are confusing "eligible" with "qualified", and "deserving". If we have 12 Scouts that are qualified/eligible, and 5 of them are really the top dogs that will get elected, since the Troop has no limit on the names they can select from the ballot, the scouts can go and check off lots of other names... maybe even all of them! Hey, it may not be what you expected of them, but heck, they are kids - so a few more get elected mostly by accident. Now you have 5 scouts that will probably attend and participate, because that is what they do in the Troop, and then another 3 or 4 "elected" by accident that will not. We have had several scouts elected to the OA who have not even been to a troop meeting in several months. It just seems that after awhile, everyone will be wearing a flap, and yet there is no one at the chapter/lodge meetings and events.

[OldGreyEagle]

Let is never be said that I wasn't, or couldn't be confused about nearly anything.

 

What I am saying is in the the "old days", which will be defined as having a limit on the number of scouts who could be in the OA, many deserving and qualified scouts were not elected because as you put it only the "top dogs" got elected. Now, and this is conjecture on my part, but the "top dogs" were elected becasue they were gung ho scouts with leadership capabilities and a love of camping and a knack for service. And they were most likely heavily invested in the troop and its leadership. Some became very active in the OA, some didn't. Today, because more scouts are allowed to be elected, there is a greater pool of talent from which OA leaders may emerge. I know in the Troop I serve we have a few scouts who have become very active in the OA, I doubt had the past restrictions been placed on the troop these guys would have been elected, but they were elected and have been an asset to the OA.

 

If you think the OA has been diluted, perhaps it may be tied to the times. Time was when the OA was for older scouts who had done their time in the troop leadership and wanted to do more, it was seen as a way to keep older scouts involved in scouting by offering a variety of activities not associated with the troop and demnds on a tenes time was less. With all the options availiable to youth today, perhaps OA is becomming a casuality of too many activities. Anyway thats my thoughts

[Bob White]

Who is eligible is determined by the Policies of the OA and it has changed very little.

 

Who is Qualified is determined by the scouts and the process has changed very little.

 

Who is deserving is determined by the scoutmaster.....perhaps that is where the problem is.

 

 

[evmori]

Actually, someone posted it earlier that only a certain number of those eligible could be elected. Now all who are eligible can be elected. That seems to be where the problem lies. It has sort of turned into a numbers game.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

But how can having more members be bad?

[evmori]

Having more members just for the sake of having more members makes no sense! If they are active great! If they aren't then it's pointless~

[OldGreyEagle]

So if having more active members is great, why would the OA be considered diluted? Why restrict the membership if having more members is good?

[Proud Eagle]

Here is a very important question-

Were the elections always conducted properly and taken seriously by the Scouts in the days of quotas?

 

I would guess that was not always the case. I would bet there were untrained and inexeprienced election teams that didn't do a very good job. I bet there were Scoutmasters that let it be known they didn't think much of OA. I bet there were members that didn't set a very good example of what an Arrowmen is supposed to be.

 

Therefore, even in the old days, there were probably people selected for the wrong reasons. Now it may have happened that these were still good candidates, but if they were selected for the wrong reasons, then that was purely a lucky accident.

 

I think what probably happened in many cases was that people were selected for the wrong reasons, but still made what appeared to be good candidates for other reasons. In the worst case an election turns into a popularity contest. If only the very most popular can be elected, then it will probably end up being boys who have a high level of experience, and at least some leadership abilities. As to weather or not they were committed to the values of the Oath and Law and the ideal of service, and the traditions of camping was quite difficult for an observer to determine.

 

Some of these Scouts went on to become active members because of a variety of things. Some saw it as an exclusive group to become part of. Some simply thought it was fun. Others actually embraced the ideals and values. Still others did it because they knew they were supposed to, even if they didn't want to.

 

Now today, we still sometimes have poor elections and candidates elected for the wrong reasons. The difference is that now you sometimes get a few of the younger, less experienced, and obviously not dedicated in the mix. So, now the problems that were probably actually taking place beneath the surface are now visible. Couple this with decreased levels of participation due to other activities and interests, particularly among our older, more experienced Arrowmen, and pretty soon the make up of the Orders youth members is different enough that people start to take notice.

 

But ultimately, the solution is not to create limits. The solution is for each lodge, chapter, and elections team to increase its dedication to having the best elections process. Those involved need to realise the election is a critical first step in the inductions process, and should be a high priority program for each lodge and chapter. Unit leaders and arrowmen should demand the highest quality election possible, and should be willing to help out to ensure this happens.

 

Now if someone wanted to suggest making an adjustment to the eligibility rules, I would perhaps be willing to talk about it.

 

However, I will not entertain the idea of bringing back the quotas. There is simply no reason to do so. The problem isn't the program, it is the way the program is sometimes being delivered.

[acco40]

OGE & BW,

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time but the response of "its my understanding that the reason the OA limits adults members is because its supposed to be a youth organization with adults only in supporting roles so it limits adults to assure its run by the youth." is true for all of Boy Scouts - not just the OA.

 

Now I understand that for the adults, the real acceptance issue is for what they can provide to the Order, not what they have done. I think it is a good education for many adults to see what the boys can do (the slight age skew of about 12 - 21 helps).

 

I don't want to get into the diluted/not diluted issue but I must admit that I am very disappointed at the number of Scouts who do not attend OA meetings/functions.

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

yes, what he said (Proud Eagle)

[Bob White]

Attendance is a local program problem. Unless you have evidence that the majority of the nearly 300 councils are experiencing the same low turnout you really have little to suggest that this is a national program problem.

 

If you want scouts to come to a business meeting it had better be a good one. Most Scouts are here for fun and adventure. OA represents the best scouts from every unit and yet I have never attended an OA meeting that made me want to go back again. I do not blame the scouts. In every case I saw it was either run by way too many adults or with no adult guidance and coaching at all. It seems to be either choke them with adult input or abandon them to let them drown on their own.

 

 

[SWScouter]

Okay, I'm getting confused here. First I'll try to clarify some things.

 

Scouters are not elected, they are nominated. Yes the number of nominations a unit can submit to the nominating committee is limited.

 

ps56k wrote, "We have had several scouts elected to the OA who have not even been to a troop meeting in several months." I submit that the SM never should have marked them as Bob White wrote, "deserving". In other words, the troop should not have been voting for them to begin with.

 

My real confusion is what "active" as an arrowman really means. My understanding (or lack thereof) is that how active an arrowman is, or will be, in OA activities should have absolutely no bearing on whether he is a good arrowman or not. To me, whether an arrowman is active or not does not depend on whether he attends any OA activities. An arrowman that is providing service and being responsible to his troop is completely fulfilling his obligation to the OA.

 

I get the feeling reading this discussion that being an active arrowman means that he should or must be active in chapter or lodge activities. That's what's confusing me.

 

Another thing that's confusing to me is the concept of how the OA membership is becoming diluted. What is meant by this? Does it mean that there are too many members? Or does it mean that there are a lot of members that are poor arrowmen? If the caliber of arrowmen is good, I see no problem with the former. I do have reservations if the problem is the latter. If that is the case, then the OA needs improve the election process. By that I mean. e.g., doing things such as better training SMs on what it means to choose boys for election and better training the election teams.

 

I'm not really sure where I'm going with all this. I just mainly take issue with what the term "active arrowman" means and how it is being bandied about in this discussion.

 

SWScouter

[sst3rd]

Scouters,

 

I agree with Bob that there may be a problem with the "Scoutmaster's Approval" requirement. Our lodge has spent the last year trying to remind the Scoutmasters, just how important this is.

Not too long a go, Scouts were limited to how many Scouts they could vote for in an OA election, based on how many Scouts were eligible to be voted on by the Troop (including the Scoutmaster's Approval requirement). I don't have the ratio, but it was very restrictive. Something like; if 1-2 Scouts nominated, Scouts could vote for 1; 3-4 Scouts nominated, Scouts could vote for as many as 2; if 5-6 Scouts nominated, Scouts could vote for as many as 3. Something like that.

So, only the best (as the Scouts saw it) of the best were voted into the OA. Less Scouts, but better quality Scouts. They were more dedicated to the Troop AND the OA. This is 30 years of experience speaking here. You can disagree with me all you want, but as Bruce Hornsby said, "that's just the way it is."

 

sst3rd

[ps56k]

I just checked with our Lodge Adv about our upcoming fall fellowship and ordeal.... Our troop "elected" 6 scouts, one of which was my son, who is also the SPL. Several of the other elected scouts are in that over 14yrs group and don't really attend meetings and campouts - but were basically "eligible". I have another thread on what it means to be "active" in a troop.

Anyway - out of the 6 scouts elected, only 1 has registered for the fall fellowship ordeal... and the other 5 have not registered yet, nor completed any ordeal since elected in feb.

So - even if they do finally get registered and attend the ordeal, what kind of participation would you expect from them ?

Would it not be better to just have - like the old days - a quota for the election, and gain OA members that really would be helpful, vs inflating the "membership" numbers and only getting the same low number of helpful arrowmen...

 

[acco40]

Now I'm confused. How can one be voted on by his troop if he has not attended any campouts? There is a minimum number of camping nights required including long term camping.

 

Now my engineering side is going to come through. What in the heck do posters mean by the "best" Scout? What criteria should Scoutmasters use? One puts the Scoutmasters in a very awkward position if a Scout has met the camping and rank requirements and the Scoutmaster does not allow the Scout to become an arrowmen. The SM has already inidcated that the Scout lives by the Oath and Law (he has his rank!). Under what circumstances would the SM not allow the boy to be elected? Also, IMO, it is better to elect a Scout who may not really benefit from the OA experience than to not allow a Scout that experience who may have benefitted greatly. Err on the side of letting a boy get elected is my thoughts.