Hurt feelings after troop election

[fgoodwin]

The Lodge is allowing us to redo our election because we apparently had some ineligible Scouts cast votes (they were visiting the troop and I guess everyone assumed they were recent crossovers).

 

The results were not announced so I'm not sure how anyone knew they were elected or not; I suspect we'll get the same result after the re-vote, but I've told the SM that this is it -- there won't be a third election just because one or more Scouts don't get voted in.

 

Thanx for everyone's comments.

[gwd-scouter]

Our Council only runs the ordeal during summer camp. Most troops hold their elections about a month before going to camp. Ours is next month. The SM is told the results of the election and he/she can choose to tell others - even the boys - before going to camp, although I don't know of any SMs that announce the results ahead of the call out. Call out is done at the campfire on Wednesday's family night.

 

Interesting idea about service hours being a criteria for election.

[fleetfootedfox]

"Some of the adults want to scrap our troop participation in OA altogether if we cannot simply appoint every eligible member to be an Ordeal candidate."

 

This is the way our society has gone. People have a very strong sense of entitlement.

 

You should stress that lack of OA membership does not affect their rank advancement and they will have future opportunities to be elected as long as they stay active.

 

[Narraticong]

We had our first OA election last November. Three of four eligible boys were elected. The boys made, in my mind, the 100% correct call. The fourth boy is not a hard worker, not a leader, nor a team player. The boys know that and voted accordingly. Immediately folowing the election I had an impromptu Scoutmasters Conference with him. I was honest, and he understood. He had things to work on before the next election.

 

Go forward three months and we have four boys being sent to Troop Leader training. He was not among them and his Mom was very upset. I explained that my goal is to develop leaders, not create them. The boys did not see her son as a leader, nor did he see himself that way. There was no reason, at that point, to send him for training that meant nothing to him.

 

Go forward another month. Boy has now transferred out of our troop into what Mom sees as greener pastures. I hope he does well and blossoms in a fresh atmosphere. But I'm afraid Mom wants things to be handed to her son which he has not earned. Again, the entitlement mentality.

 

Ken

[Lisabob]

I go back and forth on the "OA is a popularity contest" complaint. To some degree it is. But then, let's look at what makes a boy "popular" in most settings. He's helpful to his patrol mates and the troop, rather than being the last one to lift a finger and then only under duress. He's friendly and cheerful, rather than scowling all the time and moping around (his nickname probably isn't "Eyeore"). He's kind and doesn't make fun of those who are struggling with something. He's trustworthy; others know he's reliable, lives up to his word, and won't back-stab them.

 

Granted, sometimes you just get cliques in a troop, and those might be based on other, less desirable factors. But I think that a lot of times, boys (and parents) who complain that they didn't get elected because they're "not popular" could stand to look a little more carefully at how they live the scout oath and law in their daily lives.

[HICO_Eagle]

Lisa, I'd disagree with that idea of how boys (or girls) become popular. I've seen an incredible number of slack-offs and leeches become "popular" because they were "fun" to be around. Being "fun" by the way doesn't necessarily mean doing what he is supposed to do -- especially with teenage boys. In fact, the boy who is conscientious about keeping the campsite clean, working on program or service projects instead of playing games, etc. is quite often less likely to be popular than the gamer who lets his patrol sleep in, pulls pranks on the less-popular scouts, etc.

 

OA can be a very good thing but it -- like anything else -- requires the right leadership and culture.

[John-in-KC]

Fred, you wrote:

 

The Lodge is allowing us to redo our election because we apparently had some ineligible Scouts cast votes (they were visiting the troop and I guess everyone assumed they were recent crossovers).

 

I am really scratching my head at how the SPL and SM did not have control and accountability of their youth members vice the Webelos or visiting Scouts. That's first a unit function to know who should be a voter.

 

I think this whole mess should be turned into one or more Scoutmaster's minutes...

[NewLdr]

Qualified boy was not allowed for election process.

 

This boy met the eligibility: 1st Class, 15 days and night camping, but this boy was not included with 4 boys that started at the same time and have done the same amount and some of them even less. This boy is not a deteriment to the troop in any form quite the opposite actually recently was elected a his 7 person patrols' patrol leader. Unfortunately he was the only one left off the ballet.

 

I spoke to our council's OA person on the subject not knowing why this boy who was not included for election by his peers based on the national eligibility. Apparently the final step which council indicated is scoutmaster signing off on eleigible boys. I was told this should be more of a formal stamp of approval unless there really is a reason why a boy should not be presented for election which is this case there isn't.

 

I have come to find out our initial process is our scoutmaster reviews each candidate with the current OA members and makes his decision based on their input. I reviewed this policy with council and they felt the scouts should not be reviewing nominations they will have an opportunity to vote or not vote for candidates along with other members of their troop.

 

The real problem shouldn't all the units' scouts be voting for the eligible candidates during the election process. Regardless of the outcome I am not concerned that this boy would or would not be elected but the lack of clear understanding of what happened at the election to this boy's confidence in scouts and the scouting program. If was never explained to this boy before just that he figured out he wasn't included pretty quickly and was told there is always next year.

 

[sandspur]

In the past, Ive seen OA election issues when scouts do not really understand that a scout needs more than 50% of those voting to cast ballots for him or he doesnt get elected. Not so say most scouts dont realize this, but in a normal election you only vote for one candidate. It only takes a few scouts who vote for one person on the ballot to drop someones chances of an election.

We had an election a few years back where one twin got elected and his brother did not. Ouch! The elected twin declined the OA until his brother got in. Still, no way around it unless we take control of the selection process out of the hands of the scouts. That changes the whole program.

That said, I hate to see a SM pull the troop out of OA and deny that opportunity to all his scouts.

If it is truly an honor to be tapped, then everyone does not get in. If everyone gets in, Ho hum. Just like a service pin. Big deal.

 

[sandspur]

NewLdr wrote: If was never explained to this boy before just that he figured out he wasn't included pretty quickly

Wouldnt he notice that his name was not on the ballot? Wouldnt everyone know?

None of the troops I have been associated with had a SM who consulted current OA members on who went on the ballot. I guess it is not forbidden, just not normal.

 

[VigilNavyCPO]

I think others above have correctly discussed Troop leadership issues, I want to comment on what I percieve as failings of the local OA Lodge/Chapter. I can tell from the limited amount of info posted above that the local Lodge does not hold Unit elections IAW published procedures. The elections shall be set up and announced in advance. At least 50% of all registered Scouts under the age of 21 in the troop are present. The SM provides a list of all Scouts who meet requirements, these names are copied unto the Election form and then the SM signs to verify.

 

The Problem with the OA IMHO is that when it works, it is a great enrichment to scouting, but when you have weak chapters or Lodges, and a just hold the election mentality, I guess we get what we deserve.

 

 

[Eagle732]

Yea, we had an issue with elections last year. One scout who was nominated by me (the SM) didn't get elected, he also only got one vote, his. Dad who is also is a MC went ballistic! After that I discussed with the Scouts what it means to be inducted and what would be expected of them to be nominated. Aside from living up to the ideas of Scouting I expect good attendance (75%) for meetings and camping trips.

[sst3rd]

As has been discussed before, the Scoutmaster's Approval is the last requirement to be on the OA ballot for the OA Election. What exactly is Scoutmaster's Approval? Beats me, and I've been doing this for over 33 years as a Scoutmaster. One additional thing I do, is have a Scoutmaster's Conference with each possible nominee before the election. I ask for "their" approval to list their names on the OA ballot for consideration. Once in a while, a Scout declines. Just like the Scoutmaster's Approval, he will base his decision on his knowledge and experiences from Scouting. We're here to support the Scouts on their trails through Scouting. It's about choices.

 

It's not really that difficult to understand.

[dg98adams]

I've only been in OA as an adult almost a year...but I have seen some issues.

 

I don't consider OA as an "honor", but as a commitment to serve.

 

The OA rep conducting our last election said it, but I don't think he had all their attention.

 

To vote for a Scout to be inducted into OA is like saying

 

"this Scout represents the ideal camper of our Troop, he is the one I would want representing me, he is not seeking recognition when he volunteers to do something, he just volunteers"

 

I know some Scouts like my son took this so seriously, he only voted for 1 scout even though several in his Patrol was eligible, and he did not vote for himself. Others in the Troop must have the same thought. He did get elected during that election, and 4 others from his Patrol (only 2 others not his his Patrol also got elected).

 

This year got a little muddy because we had several new Scouts that probably did not know all the Scouts. Of the 4 eligible, only 3 got elected. IMHO 1 should have and 1 should not have...but the Scouts were the ones voting.

 

[sandspur]

In our troop we ask new scouts (less than six months) not to vote since they dont know the older scouts in the troop well enough to judge.

I thought the requirement was 51% of scouts voting in the election, not 51% of scouts registered in the troop. That is the way our local lodge has done it with the troop.