SM veto of OA elections?

[fleetfootedfox]

I know of two lodges that have provision for a SM to be able to veto a candidate after the election "by refusing to sign the candidate's citation". They are Shawnee Lodge #51 and Anpetu-We Lodge, both in Greater St. Louis Area Council.

 

Are there other lodges out there that have this rule?

[nolesrule]

The Unit Elections Report (the official election form to be turned into the Lodge) is supposed to be signed by the unit leader prior to the election, since what the unit leader is signing is "I certify that the above youth members are eligible and approve them as nominees for election. I also understand that election results will be final for the year."

 

There is no post-election signature required from the unit leader.

[Eagle92]

Not at home so I can't get the citation, but those two lodges you cited are in violation of national policy and have been for several years now. I know as I had to intercede for an election team one time becasue the SM of the unit was opposed to one scout, and wanted his name removed from the list. The election team did their talk to the SM prior to the election, and I went over it again with the SM to make sure he understood what he was signing. The SM had no problem with signing the form with the youth's name on it. Once the election was held and and the youth in question was voted in, the SM tried to coerce the election team into changing the results because "the scout is a pain in the $$$ and I can't beleive he got elected." he even tried to coerce me into changing the form and said I knew nothing about the OA. Funny thing is, he was an Ordeal member, and I was a Vigil.

 

But yes having a SM veto a youth after being elected is against national OA policies as expressed in the Guide to Inductions if I am not mistaken. If not that work, then the Offciers and Advisors guide. If a SM feels strongly about someone not being eligible, then htey need to bring it up PRIOR to the election being conducted.

 

 

 

[fleetfootedfox]

Who decides these rules anyway?

[nolesrule]

National Order of the Arrow Committee sets the policies for OA.

[croushorn]

Scouter760:

>>However, just because there is no national rule saying you can do something doesn't mean you can't do it.

[fleetfootedfox]

ursus, you make a lot of good points, and I have found this to be a very stimulating conversation. Thanks for your input.

 

I hope the adult leader you are talking about wasn't really going to attack a boy. If so, that's sad, but it's also a separate issue. In fact, you've brought up several side issues that I'm sure would warrant their own thread.

 

Anyway, you said: "If we go around creating whatever rules we want to put in place only because it doesnt say anywhere that were not allowed to, there's a never ending open door to do what we want."

 

Your statement seems to assume they were just willy-nilly making up rules with no reason. I seriously doubt that, don't you? Isn't it much more likely that a particular problem came up that this rule was intended to address?

 

I won't try to address all the other issues you brought up, but you also make the statement: "Outside of the need to register with a Troop, the Scout can do whatever he wants with the Lodge." The interesting flip-side to that is that adult members can also do whatever they want with the Lodge without any approval from a SM or troop committee. Do you think the SM at least has some right to know what's going on with the OA outings for the sake of youth protection?

[scoutldr]

"Do you think the SM at least has some right to know what's going on with the OA outings for the sake of youth protection?"

 

I agree with the Bear on this one. OA is not a unit activity, it's an individual one. Scouts and Scouters are free to sign up and attend any OA function they want to ... or not. In some cases, our SM will arrange transportation if he is also attending, but if not, it's up to the Scout and his parents to make the arrangements.

 

[belayer_StLouis]

Back to the original question; are there any other lodges where the unit leader vetoes a scout's election to the OA after the election besides the Shawnee and Anpetuwe lodges in St. Louis? I would imagine that not certifying a scout as eligible before the election would be a pretty tough thing for a unit leader to do since the kids know who is and who isn't eligible. Not that it counts for much but I was lodge chief for Shawnee back in the 60's and asking a unit leader to be exposed to trouble with the unit and its parents would be tougher than what I think we pay a unit leader for. In Shawnee a unit leader may veto a scout after the election but no other scout takes his place. I'm sorry that I don't know the current ratios and quota system - its changed a zillion times since 64, but if a unit elects 5, and the leader rejects one the unit only gets to have 4 called out. The names of the elected are turned in so that subs can't be called out in place of the unit leader rejected scout. The scouts, not the leaders, elect the candidates and the lodge does not put the unit leader on the spot by asking them to publicly declare who has scout spirit and who was left off the ballot - candidates submitted meet the rank, time and days and nights requirements. No scouts are told that someone was vetoed but if the scouts where presented with approved candidates (which would include scout spirit, etc)and they saw that someone was left off the list all would know that the SM rejected someone. A pretty humiliating thing for the kid also, glad that we don't follow that procedure. I know that veto process has been in place since at least 1961 - seems to work, no need to fix. Shawnee usually inducts 800 to 1000 candidates a year and a very small handful of kids are rejected by unti leaders after the election. I think humilitating a kid and putting a unit leader up to grieve from parents is not a positive idea.

[belayer_StLouis]

Back to the original question; are there any other lodges where the unit leader vetoes a scout's election to the OA after the election besides the Shawnee and Anpetuwe lodges in St. Louis? I would imagine that not certifying a scout as eligible before the election would be a pretty tough thing for a unit leader to do since the kids know who is and who isn't eligible. Not that it counts for much but I was lodge chief for Shawnee back in the 60's and asking a unit leader to be exposed to trouble with the unit and its parents would be tougher than what I think we pay a unit leader for. In Shawnee a unit leader may veto a scout after the election but no other scout takes his place. I'm sorry that I don't know the current ratios and quota system - its changed a zillion times since 64, but if a unit elects 5, and the leader rejects one the unit only gets to have 4 called out. The names of the elected are turned in so that subs can't be called out in place of the unit leader rejected scout. The scouts, not the leaders, elect the candidates and the lodge does not put the unit leader on the spot by asking them to publicly declare who has scout spirit and who was left off the ballot - candidates submitted meet the rank, time and days and nights requirements. No scouts are told that someone was vetoed but if the scouts where presented with approved candidates (which would include scout spirit, etc)and they saw that someone was left off the list all would know that the SM rejected someone. A pretty humiliating thing for the kid also, glad that we don't follow that procedure. I know that veto process has been in place since at least 1961 - seems to work, no need to fix. Shawnee usually inducts 800 to 1000 candidates a year and a very small handful of kids are rejected by unti leaders after the election. I think humilitating a kid and putting a unit leader up to grieve from parents is not a positive idea.

[belayer_StLouis]

Back to the original question; are there any other lodges where the unit leader vetoes a scout's election to the OA after the election besides the Shawnee and Anpetuwe lodges in St. Louis? I would imagine that not certifying a scout as eligible before the election would be a pretty tough thing for a unit leader to do since the kids know who is and who isn't eligible. Not that it counts for much but I was lodge chief for Shawnee back in the 60's and asking a unit leader to be exposed to trouble with the unit and its parents would be tougher than what I think we pay a unit leader for. In Shawnee a unit leader may veto a scout after the election but no other scout takes his place. I'm sorry that I don't know the current ratios and quota system - its changed a zillion times since 64, but if a unit elects 5, and the leader rejects one the unit only gets to have 4 called out. The names of the elected are turned in so that subs can't be called out in place of the unit leader rejected scout. The scouts, not the leaders, elect the candidates and the lodge does not put the unit leader on the spot by asking them to publicly declare who has scout spirit and who was left off the ballot - candidates submitted meet the rank, time and days and nights requirements. No scouts are told that someone was vetoed but if the scouts where presented with approved candidates (which would include scout spirit, etc)and they saw that someone was left off the list all would know that the SM rejected someone. A pretty humiliating thing for the kid also, glad that we don't follow that procedure. I know that veto process has been in place since at least 1961 - seems to work, no need to fix. Shawnee usually inducts 800 to 1000 candidates a year and a very small handful of kids are rejected by unti leaders after the election. I think humilitating a kid and putting a unit leader up to grieve from parents is not a positive idea.

[belayer_StLouis]

Sorry for mulitiple entries, I swear I only hit submit once.

[croushorn]

>>Your statement seems to assume they were just willy-nilly making up rules with no reason. I seriously doubt that, don't you? Isn't it much more likely that a particular problem came up that this rule was intended to address?>Do you think the SM at least has some right to know what's going on with the OA outings for the sake of youth protection?

[Twocubdad]

This is from memory, so help me out.

 

Requirement for election into the OA are:

15 nights camping in 2years, including 5 nights long term

First Class Scout

Scoutmaster approval

and be elected by your unit.

 

If SM approval is required for a young man to be placed on the ballot, why is this an issue? Ignorance of the rules? Laziness?

 

In order for the Scouts in our unit to receive the Scoutmaster's approval to go on the ballot, they must meet with me and explain, roughly, what they think the OA is about and why they want to be in the Order. No litmus test, just demonstrate a minimal amount of interest and initiative.

[croushorn]

Thats exactly right twocub: as SM, it is our responsibility to make sure the names that get on that list are eligible.

Heres how I handle it: Troopmaster! You can run a report that shows eligibility for OA and even date for the day of the scheduled election. Our chapter chief schedules us in the Dec/Jan timeframe for a spring election. So I know well in advance what day election is coming. I can forward the date in Troopmaster to show me who will be eligible as of that date. That is my opportunity to review who isnt eligible and why. Did they fall under their 15 nights by the election date? Do we have a couple campouts coming up that can help him get back over 15? How close are they to 1st Class and is there anything we can do to get them there? Hate to see a kid short of a BOR on election day because he didnt know he needed to ask to schedule one, or our BOR Chair didnt set it up before the election date not realizing the urgency Or if all those conditions are in place but I have a problem with SS, then I have another chance to have a talk with him about that and he still has a few months to try and straighten himself around.

 

But none of this is easily or quickly handled. It does take conscious effort though. The OA is near and dear to me, so it gets a lot of focus in my unit. Other units where that isnt the case, and in ours before I came back, that wont happen. As GaHill and others say, heck, Im trying to strengthen our basics here, the OA is not even close to the top of the list. Its easy to push it aside when more basic issues are staring you in the face.