Troop and Crew leadership conflict

[Stosh]

I don't see this as a conflict of interest. It's no different than if the boys were missing because they choose to go to a soccer tournament or other event. Just appoint someone to take over the SPL and PL duties. You can choose the scouts with the next highest ranks or Scouts elected to other leadership positions. If the boys routinely skip events that will show up in a Scoutmaster conference and may result in a board of review being pushed back. Or they could face the ultimate from of rejection and have the peer vote them out of the position; nothing sweeter than mutiny in the ranks!

This is why any POR holder can be replaced as needed in my troop. If they aren't going to show, there's always a possibility their responsibility to fulfill their POR can come to a sudden halt.

[Khaliela]

I don't see this as a conflict of interest. It's no different than if the boys were missing because they choose to go to a soccer tournament or other event. Just appoint someone to take over the SPL and PL duties. You can choose the scouts with the next highest ranks or Scouts elected to other leadership positions. If the boys routinely skip events that will show up in a Scoutmaster conference and may result in a board of review being pushed back. Or they could face the ultimate from of rejection and have the peer vote them out of the position; nothing sweeter than mutiny in the ranks!

I did not mean to appoint them permanently; just for the outing. We had an SPL who was routinely absent. When the younger scouts started grumbling and stating that THEY needed to replace the SPL with someone else; the SPL got the message and started to take his duties seriously. You need to let the boys lead. That means giving them all the tools they need to succeed AND providing opportunities to fail. They need to work out the pecking order on their own and if you give them enough time and space, they will do just that.

[Stosh]

I don't see this as a conflict of interest. It's no different than if the boys were missing because they choose to go to a soccer tournament or other event. Just appoint someone to take over the SPL and PL duties. You can choose the scouts with the next highest ranks or Scouts elected to other leadership positions. If the boys routinely skip events that will show up in a Scoutmaster conference and may result in a board of review being pushed back. Or they could face the ultimate from of rejection and have the peer vote them out of the position; nothing sweeter than mutiny in the ranks!

Sometimes failure entails being recalled rather than merely warned over and over again. Boy shouldn't have to suffer under poor leadership for a full 6 months until the next election. Boys are smart enough to follow good leadership, but they should be given the opportunity to shuffle around until they get it.

[Eagledad]

I don't see this as a conflict of interest. It's no different than if the boys were missing because they choose to go to a soccer tournament or other event. Just appoint someone to take over the SPL and PL duties. You can choose the scouts with the next highest ranks or Scouts elected to other leadership positions. If the boys routinely skip events that will show up in a Scoutmaster conference and may result in a board of review being pushed back. Or they could face the ultimate from of rejection and have the peer vote them out of the position; nothing sweeter than mutiny in the ranks!

Even being recalled should be the scout's choice from the council of his mentor. Adults tend to loose patience and pull the trigger too fast if they have the power of deciding who is a good leader. Much better to practice mentoring skills.

[ScoutNut]

What is a "venture Patrol"?

I thought Venturing was some sort of explorer outfit separate form Boy Scouts that has a different focus or interest, such as aviation explorers....

 

Seems like all together to much overlap and competition between the same interest. Like a company selling a product against itself.....

Just to correct the comment by jbblake47 - There is no such thing as a "Varsity Patrol". Per BSA, there are three types of patrols within a Boy Scout Troop - new Scout, regular, and Venture. A Venture Patrol is defined by BSA as -

 

"an optional patrol within the troop made up of Scouts age 13 and older. These troop members have the maturity and experience to take part in more challenging high-adventure outings. The Venture patrol elects a patrol leader, who works with an assistant Scoutmaster to put the patrol's plans into action."

 

A Varsity Scout Team, on the other hand, is a separately chartered BSA unit. Like a Cub Scout Pack, a Boy Scout Troop, or a Venturing Crew (Sea Scout Ships are units that fall in the Venturing Crew category). The adult unit leader is the Varsity Scout Coach. The top youth leader is the Team Captain. The Scouts are formed into squads, within the Team. Varsity Scouting is for boys only, ages 14 - 18 years of age. The program involves five "fields of emphasis" which are Advancement, High Adventure/Sports, Personal Development, Service, and Special Programs/Events.

 

Varsity Scout Teams are mainly chartered by LDS churches for their Young Men ages 14 - 15.

[ScoutNut]

While SPL/PL should a Scout's priority be to the troop/patrol' date=' and should he not be attending events as part of the Crew instead? If an SPL/PL doesn't attend campouts, can he still say he fulfilled his POR?[/quote']

 

A Troop (or any other BSA unit) can not dictate what it's member's can, or can not, do outside of that unit. A Troop can not (or should not) tell it's members that the "Troop always comes first". That is wrong.

 

However - if a youth has a leadership position in a specific group and an activity with that group conflicts with an activity in another group (where he/she holds no leadership position), it is better form for the youth to attend the activity that they are expected to give leadership to. This holds for ALL types of groups, Scouting, and non-Scouting.

 

This is yet another way for a youth to learn, and grow. If a commitment has been made to serve as a leader on an activity,and a youth, for whatever reason, can not fulfill that commitment, then he is/should be held responsible to find a replacement, and/or make alternate arrangements so that the rest of the members are not left in the lurch. Failure to do that will bring consequences. The youth learn thru those consequences.

 

[ScoutNut]

While SPL/PL should a Scout's priority be to the troop/patrol' date=' and should he not be attending events as part of the Crew instead? If an SPL/PL doesn't attend campouts, can he still say he fulfilled his POR?[/quote']

 

A Troop (or any other BSA unit) can not dictate what it's member's can, or can not, do outside of that unit. A Troop can not (or should not) tell it's members that the "Troop always comes first". That is wrong.

 

However - if a youth has a leadership position in a specific group and an activity with that group conflicts with an activity in another group (where he/she holds no leadership position), it is better form for the youth to attend the activity that they are expected to give leadership to. This holds for ALL types of groups, Scouting, and non-Scouting.

 

This is yet another way for a youth to learn, and grow. If a commitment has been made to serve as a leader on an activity,and a youth, for whatever reason, can not fulfill that commitment, then he is/should be held responsible to find a replacement, and/or make alternate arrangements so that the rest of the members are not left in the lurch. Failure to do that will bring consequences. The youth learn thru those consequences.

And just to be clear - Those consequences should not be things like adults withholding rank advancement, or otherwise penalizing the youth for not putting the Troop as #1 at all times. They should be more along the lines of - The rest of the youth deciding at the next election cycle that they want a leader who actually does his job. Or the rest of the youth picking a different leader for the next activity. Or the leadership position be terminated because of non-performance (expectations of performance should be CLEARLY spelled out at the beginning of the leadership term).

 

A "natural" consequence. You show that you can not be trusted to hold up your end of things, you lose the confidence, trust, and backing, of the rest of the group.

[Venividi]

While SPL/PL should a Scout's priority be to the troop/patrol' date=' and should he not be attending events as part of the Crew instead? If an SPL/PL doesn't attend campouts, can he still say he fulfilled his POR?[/quote']

 

A Troop (or any other BSA unit) can not dictate what it's member's can, or can not, do outside of that unit. A Troop can not (or should not) tell it's members that the "Troop always comes first". That is wrong.

 

However - if a youth has a leadership position in a specific group and an activity with that group conflicts with an activity in another group (where he/she holds no leadership position), it is better form for the youth to attend the activity that they are expected to give leadership to. This holds for ALL types of groups, Scouting, and non-Scouting.

 

This is yet another way for a youth to learn, and grow. If a commitment has been made to serve as a leader on an activity,and a youth, for whatever reason, can not fulfill that commitment, then he is/should be held responsible to find a replacement, and/or make alternate arrangements so that the rest of the members are not left in the lurch. Failure to do that will bring consequences. The youth learn thru those consequences.

Scoutnut,

 

Whether a scout advances or not is dependent on the outcome of the conversation between the SM and the scout. If scout is otherwise a good leader, POR and scout spirit requirements are signed off. If scout continues not to do his job, then in good conscience, the POR and scout spirit requirements should not be signed off until the scout has met the requirements. Your adding " #1 at all times" loads the deck - there has been nothing here that said that a scout must put the troop first at all times; rather the discussion is about fulfilling responsibilities and making choices towards that end. It is not "withholding rank advancement", it is scout meeting or not meeting the requirements.

 

If a scout is advanced even when "The rest of the youth deciding at the next election cycle that they want a leader who actually does his job.", then obviously, the scout did not meet the requirements of the POR. And the rest of the scouts see that the adult leaders may talk about the importance of the scout oath and law, but by actions show that they don't really mean it; i.e., they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.