Impeach an SPL?

[Sentinel947]

More correct of me to say it would not work in my large troop.

 

Our guys spent time developing the current process. They are very process driven. The "election cycle" is something they've come to rely on. It is easy for the guys to get their POR done and be able to plan on when they can manage a POR with their other activities. It is predictable and our guys like that.

 

Plus I think forcing someone to see through a commitment is a good thing. If we allow someone to step down because something is difficult, what lesson do we teach them? What lesson do we as followers learn.

 

In keeping a bad leader in place it forces several issues. The poor leader must step up his game. The followers learn to pick up slack and what traits they need in the next leader.

 

In ten years when these guys are in business, if they have a crappy boss who does not do the team's work he sure is not going to step down. The team will have to do HIS work too. It's a life lesson. 

What Krampus said holds true for my unit as well. 

[Stosh]

 

Boy, that kind of thing could really exponentiate quickly!

 

There may come a time when holding a troop meeting in a civic center or stadium might be a bit over-kill! 

 

in the troop model you've outlined, I already see potential in it falling apart

 

Don't over think this, the point being made is that if the troop is set up appropriately, no individual youth leader need worry about more than 7-8 people as part of his responsibility.  That number is reasonable for any aspiring new leader on the bottom end of the learning curve.

 

.... I mean if each ASPL has a separate group and are in essence a stand alone SPL in their own right... there's already a built-in tripup layer of potential inconsistency between each of those 'sub troops' and the other sub troops... and between the scout and the SPL/Scoutmaster

Makes me think of How many degrees of Kevin Bacon?

 

Baden Powell wrote the following about troop size:

"The number in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty-two. I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many as I could deal with — in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two. Men talk of having fine Troops of 60 or even 100 — and their leaders tell me that their boys are equally well trained as in smaller Troops. I express admiration (“admiration†literally translated means “surpriseâ€), and I don’t believe them."

http://scoutmastercg.com/aids-scoutmastership/#TheScoutmaster's Duty

 

Here we have BP himself saying that 16 boys is all he can handle at one time effectively...and he is an adult with military leadership training.....  If one were to look back to the army structure of the British Army at the time of BP, no one really had very many men "under their direct command".  Let's say a regiment of 1000 men (I'm rounding off numbers here).  Under the Colonel there was the Lt. Col. and the Major so that split each regiment into two.  Then under each of those two men were 5 companies of 100 men each headed by a captain.  Under the captain was 2 lieutenants to split the company into two if need be with 2 sergeants and under those sergeants were 4 corporals before ending up with the squad of about 12 men for each corporal.  BP was fully aware of such structuring in the military sense and how large does one think an army is to be and still retain enough control that individual officers both commissioned and non-commissioned could retain order under battlefield conditions?  He set up scouting under such principles and noted that the scouts in the army were those that operated independently of base operations normally behind enemy lines under the command of an NCO  Historically the PL was once known as a Corporal as a nickname.  Up until the denner cords were implemented the denner was recognized by a double yellow bar and this assistant a single yellow bar.  In Boy Scouts the colors of the bars were green for PL and APL  Thus Green Bar Bill..... Green Bar nickname for his work with PATROLS, not troops.  Multiple patrol NCOs were the sergeants noted as 3 stripers or 3 bars (SPL)  This military nomenclature derives from BP's familiar organizational structuring of the British army.

 

Welll, we don't need to be as big as the British army in any troop, but we can understand ow the structure works on an NCO level especially AWAY FROM THE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (adult) operating under their NCO's (youth) leadership. 

 

Now I can certainly understand the need in the modern age of expanding those numbers a bit.... & I might even buy that modern tools and such make it possible to increase the numbers a bit.

But I've gotta say his words kinda make sense to me.  I haven't experienced it one way or the other really in the scouting troop arena under the patrol method.... but I did in the pack, and in other ways...

casual observation is that a group of friends, a sports team for many games, cub scout den, a good class size for most training type classes or hands on presentations of all kinds, or many other groups naturally seem to be roughly around that 6-8 range.

And considering that the SPL is involved with more than just his PLs (SM, scribe, QM, etc..) then he shouldn't have a full staff of 6-8 patrols to worry with... so 4-5 patrols kinda makes some sense

 

The SPL can have any number of ASPL's under this guidance.  An ASPL to work directly with him, a "second one" to help out with just the NSP (TG), a third ASPL to "PL" the LC,  maybe even an ASPL that works with the 5-6 DC's working in the feeder packs for the troop.  He can be as creative as he wants depending on the needs he needs filled in order to take care of his boys.  Remember, the "army" has both operational officers as well as staff officers.

[Eagledad]

But I'm not really tracking with why stosh's model wouldn't work for a larger troop.

 

Strikes me that a mix of the two ideas is perhaps an appropriate vision.

Personally, i don't like the idea of having fixed term lengths, but I do agree that it isn't ideal just to let em cut and run and the first hint of a problem, either.

 

What works best comes down to what gives the best growth. Is one method more challenging than the other? Does the challenge improve the program? 

 

I'm a big picture person who likes to think the next SM and the one after him doesn't have to relearn the program to keep up with the scouts. So I try not to get too far off from the BSA models. When troops run off of one mans theories, it doesn't matter how successful the theories work, the program will likely go through a dramatic change with the next leadership. That doesn't mean you stick with what doesn't work (NSPs didn't work for us), but you don't want to get so far away from the BSA that nobody else has a clue either. 

 

If you are truly running a boy run program, the elections style don't change performance very much. 

 

Barry

[Stosh]

Johnny Football star player can't run for office this term because of the school team schedule,  And Billy Basketball and student couoncil president can't next term,  However, if the "elections" could be moved a month one way or the other, maybe both can run.  Can't move the election cycle?  Okay, someone else can be PL.  Tommy Donothing is available.  Let him be PL.  Johnny Football can do WebMaster POR for advancement and Billy Basketball can be Librarian of old MB books for POR.

 

Works for me....

[blw2]

Krampus

i sense that our troop is similar in their liking their fixed 6 month cycle.... but I can't say for sure yet if its really the boys that like it or the adults.  the adults are doing a lot of talking and driving everything (BUT I'm encouraged, I think taht their vision is sound and they are working towards it)

In fact I got to observe my first election last night.  Interesting.

 

I can see the advantages of cycling it through so that others have a turn

and doing it that way gets all the shifting and shuffling over at once....

and they keep the youth leader training streamlined... one session after each election for all the new leaders

 

but it seems like the troop never gets the benefit of having leadership in place that's not just trying to figure it out.

and all the changes happening at once seems like a big upset.

 

I see the theoretical advantages behind Stosh's methods too

 

I just don't know what to think at this point

[Krampus]

I can see the advantages of cycling it through so that others have a turn

and doing it that way gets all the shifting and shuffling over at once....

and they keep the youth leader training streamlined... one session after each election for all the new leaders

 

but it seems like the troop never gets the benefit of having leadership in place that's not just trying to figure it out.

and all the changes happening at once seems like a big upset.

 

 

Sometimes you will run in to situation where all the youth leaders are just figuring out their roles. That happened to us when we had not built that solid leadership base. It started to work when we built in a real troop leadership training. Not the silly ppts that BSA puts out, but a real, honest to goodness TLT program which we based off the old JLT.

 

We focused on their roles, showed them how to build objectives for their term of office, how to make them measurable and walked them through the process each role encounters, THAT helped a great deal. When a patrol QM knows HOW the processes work and sees them in action, he knows better how to effectively execute his job. Teach a boy to fish....

 

We do TLT/JLT twice a year and in advance of our elections. It took a year of implementing this until the fruits of the labor shown through. We still have hiccups, but for the most part it runs MUCH smoother than it did. The guides and instructors remind the new leaders, even older scouts who have held the positions in the past help out the younger or new leaders.

 

The leadership objectives also helped. When a boy knows that passing tent inspection the first time 4 out of 6 times is one of his goals as patrol QM, he knows to make sure his patrol has HIM inspect the tents before the troop QM comes around.

[Stosh]

Krampus

i sense that our troop is similar in their liking their fixed 6 month cycle.... but I can't say for sure yet if its really the boys that like it or the adults.  the adults are doing a lot of talking and driving everything (BUT I'm encouraged, I think taht their vision is sound and they are working towards it)

In fact I got to observe my first election last night.  Interesting.

 

I can see the advantages of cycling it through so that others have a turn

and doing it that way gets all the shifting and shuffling over at once....

and they keep the youth leader training streamlined... one session after each election for all the new leaders

 

but it seems like the troop never gets the benefit of having leadership in place that's not just trying to figure it out.

and all the changes happening at once seems like a big upset.

 

I see the theoretical advantages behind Stosh's methods too

 

I just don't know what to think at this point

 

There's a reason why national elections are staggered. 

 

Parliamentary elections can be held any time there's a vote of no-confidence in the existing leadership.

 

I don't think my methods are all that "theoretical". 

 

And if the old JLT program was beneficial on how POS's work, one ought to look at GBB's material, even better yet.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Stosh

[blw2]

I don't think my methods are all that "theoretical".  

 

Yeah, didn't mean it that way.... bad choice of words on my part Stosh.  Sorry

[Stosh]

I don't think my methods are all that "theoretical".  

 

Yeah, didn't mean it that way.... bad choice of words on my part Stosh.  Sorry

  No problems...

 

I always like it when everyone goes to great length to make sure the boys learn to do elections the "American" way, and then use the BSA model which is NOT the American way.  :  When we in this country elect our over-all leader we all cast votes, but in fact we are really electing representatives to the electoral college to vote for us.  Kinda like electing the PL who then votes for the SPL.  I follow this more accurate formula and get the negative glances for even suggesting such a thing.  Presidents are not elected by popular votes, but according to BSA SPL's are.  Stop and ponder the possibility that if the PL is selected to take care of his patrol members, isn't he an elected representative for his patrol to vote for an appropriate scout that will meet requirements imposed on him as PL to take care of his boys?  Nothing un-American about any of that.

 

BTW, Impeaching does not remove the person from office, only that charges or accusations have been brought against him/her.

[Peregrinator]

so 4-5 patrols kinda makes some sense

Four patrols makes perfect sense; that way the PLs and APLs could form a patrol of their own as there would be 8 of them.

[blw2]

Four patrols makes perfect sense; that way the PLs and APLs could form a patrol of their own as there would be 8 of them.

But then they wouldn't be there supporting and leading their own patrols.

We're trying to foster Patrol Spirit, pride in being of a member of it.... pulling for your team as a sports metaphor

So then, which team would they be pulling for?

[qwazse]

But then they wouldn't be there supporting and leading their own patrols.

We're trying to foster Patrol Spirit, pride in being of a member of it.... pulling for your team as a sports metaphor

So then, which team would they be pulling for?

@@blw2, at a certain age, boys seem to need intersecting circles. So, there is their patrol, and their leadership corps, and their jamboree contingent, and their O/A chapter, (and sports and band and youth group).

 

The trick is to make sure they are realistic with their time so that nobody feels "neglected". (Sometimes that'll mean saying no to some things.)

 

For example, growing up, there were some Eagle projects (or certain stages of a project) where it was best to just pull from the leadership corps. So the scout would coordinate a camping weekend with just that small group. The benefit for our patrols? We picked up some skills, like cooking pizza with a patrol mess kit, that we could take back and use to "up our game" as patrol leaders.

 

It's pretty obvious. When the young ones need help. You are PL. When bed-check is done or everyone is off to merit badge classes, you are this guy in the leadership corps. Or, maybe you're touching base with your venturing crew across the valley after clearing it with your SM.

[Stosh]

I get really concerned when I hear of troops having waiting lists for joining because they limit their numbers.  There are some troops where the size of the facilities offered by the CO are not sufficient and that will limit the numbers.  But that is an issue of the BSA/CO agreement to correct and is a UC/DE issue, not a troop issue.

 

If a troop grows beyond the 32 boys, or 50 boys, or 100 boys, it needs to be the work of the support staff to put into place sufficient officers to handle the situation.  If that means adding 2-3 or even 4 ASPL's, so be it.  Get it done.  3 - 4 TG's? Make it happen.  15 Instructors?  Yep,   May have 2-3  patrols of nothing but Instructors.

 

 Part of being a leader in a growing unit is to problem solve, adjust and adapt to the situation.  Some of these boys might just need to roll up their sleeves and start actually earning their POR's.  Not everything one encounters is going to fit nicely into a well organized buiness org chart and everything will have a Pollyanna ending.  Sometimes things will get a bit bumpy along the way and how well your boys are Prepared for it will test their mettle, a nice skill to have in one's leadership tool box.

[blw2]

@@blw2, at a certain age, boys seem to need intersecting circles. So, there is their patrol, and their leadership corps, and their jamboree contingent, and their O/A chapter, (and sports and band and youth group).

 

The trick is to make sure they are realistic with their time so that nobody feels "neglected". (Sometimes that'll mean saying no to some things.)

 

For example, growing up, there were some Eagle projects (or certain stages of a project) where it was best to just pull from the leadership corps. So the scout would coordinate a camping weekend with just that small group. The benefit for our patrols? We picked up some skills, like cooking pizza with a patrol mess kit, that we could take back and use to "up our game" as patrol leaders.

 

It's pretty obvious. When the young ones need help. You are PL. When bed-check is done or everyone is off to merit badge classes, you are this guy in the leadership corps. Or, maybe you're touching base with your venturing crew across the valley after clearing it with your SM.

Well I suppose the intersecting circle thing might make some sense.... scouts vs non scouts

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but some of what you are getting at seem to be based on the assumption that the PL is some older boy with a patrol of younger scouts.  

I don't want to derail this thread, but this just almost rolls us back to the whole NSP/mixed controversy

A patrol that happens to be mostly young scouts assumes that his patrol would more or less be mostly kids of a similar age

While a mixed patrol would still have other boys his age.

 

Leadership patrol or corps seems to be logical... but a patrol of patrol leaders still seems fishy in my thinking

[Stosh]

I have no idea how a patrol of PL's would work.