Keeping the Election from being a popularity contest...

[John-in-KC]

FireKat wrote, in part:

 

"My son has given up on OA as it has just become a popularity contest and a method to hurt others."

 

OK.

 

How does your Troop work to make sure that OA candidacy is not a popularity contest?

 

How do your E-teams and Lodge Leadership work to ensure Ordeal Candidacy is about the 3 ethics espoused by WWW???

 

It hurts at a gut-check level when I see what FireKat wrote. It wasn't what the Order was about in 1970, it sure isn't what it should be about today!

[FireKat]

John, I know that some OA chapters are still good but ours, like the council, seem only be concerned about numbers and money. They are going for quanity, not quality. Nat'l appears to only be concerned about numbers. Numbers do not mean the program is good.

[sst3rd]

As a long time Scoutmaster, it's been hard to get the "popularity' factor out of OA Elections completely. Our Scouts have elected Scouts that were not popular. They were just excellent Scouts. Sometimes we don't give them enough credit. We always have the Chapter Election Team execute the Election. This brings new faces saying the same thing that the SM has been saying about the OA's purpose. And, having the Chapter Election Team do the Election is the correct method anyway. I've heard of some Troops getting a hold of the election forms somehow (connections......) and doing their own elections, but our Chapter Election Committee will not sign off on them, and the Lodge will not recognize the Election if the Chapter Election Committee isn't performing the elections. Got a few "MEGA" Troops unhappy.

We have to realize however, that the Scout's view the "popularity" factor as very important, because that's how they rate each other at this time of their lives.

For the first time in years, we may not have an election this year because of the unavailability of qualified candidates. We have one possible candidate, but he's young, and just elected a Patrol Leader. His older brother doesn't think he's ready, and as the current Scoutmaster (Scoutmaster's Approval requirement), I tend to agree. I'll not allow the nomination of one Scout, just to have an election. We will wait until next year.

FireKat, I'm sorry your son has experienced this. It's wrong. The Scoutmaster is the gatekeeper of the OA in the Troop. He/she should be more aware of the purpose of the OA, and how to use the OA in relation to the Troop program.

 

sst3rd

[nldscout]

Sometimes, in fact a lot of times the boys are better judges than the adults.

 

What you have to look at is why they didn't elect him.

[Crew21_Adv]

Fellow Scouters and Arrowmen,

 

Greetings!

 

John in KC asked,

How does your Troop work to make sure that OA candidacy is not a popularity contest?

 

How do your E-teams and Lodge Leadership work to ensure Ordeal Candidacy is about the 3 ethics espoused by WWW???

 

 

That answer seems simple. The Troop PLC and Troop adult leadership, and the same with the E-teams and Lodge Leadership, follow the election procedures in the manual and show the recent OA election video. If they do that, they are all working to uphold Ordeal Candidacy and prevent a landslide based solely on popularity.

 

I would praise our youth/adult leadership that guides the troop, and the chiefs/advisors in Lodge (and Chapters) and say they do a pretty good job.

 

 

Popularity is a good thing, if managed right. Popularly elected because you are athletic or humorous. That is good. Popularly elected because you participate in every campout and even do KP. That is good. Popularly elected because you meet the minimum standards, and they are the fun Scout at camp. This too is a good thing.

 

Popularly elected because you can fight, regularly beat up on the new Scouts and can creatively use foul curse language. This is not the popularity I desire.

 

 

A few years ago, approximately 98-99, the National OA Committee changed the OA Election procedure from allowing only the top half of those exceeding fifty percent of the vote, to allowing all those exceeding fifty percent of the vote.

 

Before this election procedure change, there were many, many deserving Scouts that were not completely being elected into the OA.

 

Still there are Scouts that are deserving, but not being elected. (Although not as numerous Scouts in the 70s, 80s, 90s under previous procedures.)

 

A better question may be.

Could the National OA Committee do anything to better allow those deserving Scout to be allowed into the OA? (Like changing the OA election procedures again, like they changed in the 90's).

 

Maybe in the future, those nominated by their Scoutmaster, but not exceeding the popular election, could attend an OA'ish Board of Review.

 

Maybe a committee of Arrowman, Chiefs and Advisors could determine if a hardworking, cheerful worthy Scout, while not elected, is still worthy of becoming an Arrowman.

 

I feel that our goal should not be to prevent popularity, but our goal should be seeing that worthy Scouts do become tomorrows Arrowmen. If that necessitates changing National OA policy.

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv

 

[skeptic]

With the newest election (?) procedure, an "eligilbe" scout has to "really be unpopular" to still not be chosen. But, the SM also has the ability to not allow the bully or other unqualified scout to stand for the election (?). There still is a "Scout Spirit" element, and that is up to the leader to determine.

 

So, we come back to the continuing question. Why, if the leader is doing his job, do we have candidates for ranks or honors who everyone thinks do not have "Scout Spirit", do not set the example expected?

 

Scoutmasters need to take their job and its sometimes difficult decisions seriously. Sometimes, that hard decision to not allow a scout to advance at "this time", or to be on the O.A. election list, may be the wake up call necessary. Scouts need to understand that just going through the motions when someone is looking, and doing the minimum paper requirement does not guarantee their being "honored". That is not how the "real world" works.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[emb021]

"But, the SM also has the ability to not allow the bully or other unqualified scout to stand for the election (?). "

 

Don't know why you have the question mark.

 

Yes, SMs continue to be the 'gatekeepers' to who gets on the ballot for OA elections. They certainly have the power to leave off the 'bully' et al.

 

Either SMs don't understand this (may be the fault of the e-teams or lack of OA knowledge on the part of the SM), or wish to be seen as 'impartial' by allow all who met the other eligibility requirements on the ballot.

 

 

[FireKat]

How about bully kids with bully parent that imply that if bully 'Johnny' does not get in they will 'do something' (hinting at lawsuit) which scares the SM. So he just throws all first class scouts out for OA. No filtering because someone just might sue. Many times it is parents that are the problem and convice their kids to exclude other kids so their 'Johnny' will look better against what is left. These psrents bully to get their boys into OA as it looks good on a resume.

Side note: one of the better boys who just went to his ordeal came back, upset as they only had them do 2 hours of service work. Then they got into a large group. Not what was expected. I think there goes another service oriented scout leaving OA as they don't do service much. And they wonder why the chapter is dying.

[allangr1024]

I have listened to the OA guys come to our troop for a few years now. I don't think they did a good job communicating what the OA is or what the election is all about. To me, the election should be a time when you take a look at the individual scout and say, "Does this guys attitude and involvement warrant him being honored with entrance into the OA, YES or NO.

 

The question, as it has been asked, has been, Which of the guys from this bunch get the vote. That is not the same thing. I almost wish we could take up each of the qualified candidates and vote on each on a seperate night. I think that would take away a lot of the competitive element from it.

 

[BrotherhoodWWW]

Crew21Adv says in part "A better question may be.

Could the National OA Committee do anything to better allow those deserving Scout to be allowed into the OA? (Like changing the OA election procedures again, like they changed in the 90's).

 

Maybe in the future, those nominated by their Scoutmaster, but not exceeding the popular election, could attend an OA'ish Board of Review.

 

Maybe a committee of Arrowman, Chiefs and Advisors could determine if a hardworking, cheerful worthy Scout, while not elected, is still worthy of becoming an Arrowman.

 

I feel that our goal should not be to prevent popularity, but our goal should be seeing that worthy Scouts do become tomorrows Arrowmen. If that necessitates changing National OA policy."

 

I can not see any reason to ever change the ways in which Arrowmen get elected to such drastic measures. Such a thing would forever change the makeup and lessen the honor IMHO.

 

The view from my seat is that the changes of allowing more to be elected has not made Lodges or the Order any stronger, but I won't go so far as to say that is what has caused them to become weaker. Lodges and the Order have IMHO become much weaker over the years. At our section's conclave we no longer have dance team competitions. At the ceremonies that I have witnessed as an Advisor the CT members do not know their lines as they did when I was a youth member in the early 80's.

 

In the part of my Chapter that I Advise I have gone to great lengths to educate the election team to follow the proceedures. The Ordeals I've been to have done a good job of ensuring that the focus is on the ideals. Our list of service projects is longer than could be reasonably accomplished. The Arrowmen present are cheerful and work together.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

FK,

 

All I can do is recommend you contact your Staff Professional Adviser and your Lodge Adviser. Invite them somewhere for coffee. Share your concerns that the Order is not meeting expectations of an honor organization.

 

1 voice may not get their attention, but if 10-20 voices in your Council start saying something, that will get their attention!

[Crew21_Adv]

Fellow Scouters and Arrowmen,

 

Greetings again!

 

 

We do talk about the Scoutmaster being the gatekeeper, here in the forum. And it is difficult to make a blanket statement. But it is often the Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmasters that attend all the Troop meetings, campouts, and unit events.

 

Although the parents are aware of many of our Scouts, and even a few volunteer to drive or even camp, not all the parents know all the Scouts. My own Troop has probably around 100 parents. But we only have one Scoutmaster and three ASMs. My point, its not the 100 parents that determine the definition of what Scout Spirit is. That is defined the Boy Scout Handbook and the Scoutmaster Handbook. Its up to one Scoutmaster to determine if a First Class Scout (or above) is eligible to become an Arrowman.

 

Confusion on election procedures (by the individual Scouts) and popularity are disappointing areas.

 

A few of us can empathize, its disappointing to a parent and youth; but still I trust the Scoutmaster and the OA election team to run an election correctly.

 

How can I empathize? Here is a personal story. (My oldest son, a summer camp staffer, attended JLTC, staffed NYLT, attended NSJ, and a Venturer, was finally elected when he was a Life Scout. For four years, he (and other Scouts) was elegible and nominated between First Class thru Life Scout.

After he finally was elected, he went on to become Chapter Chief, he was nominated to Lodge Chief but he declined the nomination due to travel commitments. Unfortunately, year after year the troop election result numbers year after would produce only one or two elected Ordeal members out of fifteen eligible candidates. Most of those eligible Scouts were never elected into the OA, but it was their fellow Scouts whom never elected them. Not the Scoutmaster nor the OA election teams.

Personally disappointing, yes. Were the elections done correctly?, yes. Did the Scoutmaster and OA election team do their jobs correctly?, yes.)

 

To BrotherhoodWWW. I certainly agree, drastic measures. Take it only as a comment or opinion. But would it lessen the honor?

 

The OA Guide for Officers and Advisors was a limited distribution publication years ago, now it is readily available on the www.oa-bsa.org webpage.

 

As I recall, National OA Committee did drastically change the election procedures in the late 90's. Previously OA only wanted what could be called, "the cream of the crop" or "the best of the best". The OA election procedures would previously only accepted the top half of those elected, the numerical bottom half of those exceeding 50 percent of votes elected would not receive Ordeal invitation. The previous procedures limited the amount of potential arrowmen.

 

Honestly, I do not recall the exact wording, but many Arrowmen felt the procedural changes from the late 90's lessened the honor of becoming an Arrowman.

 

Similar to the National Boy Scout Advancement Committee and National Boy Scout Division removing the time limitations between Scout thru First Class. The 90's election procedures (considered drastic at the time) was a positive move for our brotherhood.

 

My bottom line is..

Limiting potential great Scouts from becoming Arrowmen seems to be on the individual Scout in the troop.

 

To counter any election confusion, unethical popularity, favoritism, Could there be anyway that our National OA committee allow even more hard working, positively motivated, cheerful, friendly Scouts which constantly demonstrate Scout Spirit?

 

Could National OA committee look at any future procedures that will allow some great Scouts to become Arrowmen, while not lessening the honor?

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv