Electing ASPL?

[mrjohns2]

If you RFM, it says elect SPL and PL. PL appoints APL. SM chooses JASM if you have one. Most / all others are appointed by SPL. 
 

As long as they can work together, I assume it is no biggie if we vote on all positions? Thoughts?

[Eagledad]

41 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

If you RFM, it says elect SPL and PL. PL appoints APL. SM chooses JASM if you have one. Most / all others are appointed by SPL. 
 

As long as they can work together, I assume it is no biggie if we vote on all positions? Thoughts?

In my mind, not a biggie if the process enhances the objective of growth. Many times however, these changes are done to make the program easier for the adults to manage. Meaning, more adult led. 

Also, following published guides tends to prevent confusion down the road with big leadership changes. 

I once observed a program where the SPL was elected every year instead of every six months. I found the SPL's more mature because they had six months to learn and six months to use what they learned. I proposed that idea to our PLC and I was voted down. Why change a good thing was their response. Our older scouts tended to age out, so I put them in pretty responsible JASM positions to achieve continued growth from a different approach. But, I still like that 1 year SPL program.

Barry

[mrjohns2]

50 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Many times however, these changes are done to make the program easier for the adults to manage. Meaning, more adult led. 

I’m the CC and the SM wanted all positions with 2 or more interested Scouts to be elected vs appointed to encourage a variety of Scouts and make sure everyone is happy with their positions. The SM doesn’t seem to be doing it at all for more control. Maybe to prevent hard feelings? 
 

I too want to have it match the documented program because then it is what it is. But, if it isn’t a “big mistake”, then I am inclined to let the SM decide to have every position voted on as long as the Scouts are ok with it. 

[Eagledad]

Not get elected can hurt feelings to, but that is another lesson I guess. I have no trouble with it.

Barry

[elitts]

15 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I’m the CC and the SM wanted all positions with 2 or more interested Scouts to be elected vs appointed to encourage a variety of Scouts and make sure everyone is happy with their positions. The SM doesn’t seem to be doing it at all for more control. Maybe to prevent hard feelings? 
 

I too want to have it match the documented program because then it is what it is. But, if it isn’t a “big mistake”, then I am inclined to let the SM decide to have every position voted on as long as the Scouts are ok with it. 

Honestly, having the ASPLs be elected is probably the worst positions to do so with.  The ASPL is supposed to be the SPL's right hand person and stand-in and that only works well if they get along and can work closely together.  As an appointee, you know the ASPL is going to be someone the SPL likes and probably has influence over (to encourage attendance and that prep work actually get done).  As an elected position, you can easily end up with a pairing that can't stand each other or where they butt heads over getting things done.

My experience has been that when you have the SPL working with 1 - 3 ASPLs as a friendly team you get much smoother operations overall as the SPLs work can get divvied up easily.  Usually when I see an SPL with an ASPL that got appointed by the SM, I see an SPL that does everything themselves and an ASPL standing around twiddling their thumbs unless the SPL is absent for some reason.

Edited December 7, 2021 by elitts

[Eagledad]

I agree with everything in elitts post. Still, there is also the risk of the SPL appoints a friend with no real desire to do the job. Giving young people the experience of responsibilities is tricky, and I found that whether they are elected, appointed or even volunteer, the real work of the SM is developing them to do the work. One of the reasons I don't like leadership as a requirement for advancement is that most people aren't leaders. That is my experience of life and Scoutmasting. So, what are we scouters to do? Well, I learned to encourage scouts to take the next step in their growth. If not the ASPL, how about taking care of the equipment. Or helping new scouts, or teaching or, or, or, and so on. 

I do not like to brag, I just hate it. But, for the sake of this discussion, I will brag that our troop developed a culture of giving scouts opportunities to take the next step. I remember after one of our SPL elections, watching from the corner in the room the SPL immediately picked his replacement to be the next ASPL. Those two sat down and started writting down names of scouts who showed an interested in taking on other duties or responsibilities. They weren't picking their friends, they were putting scouts in positions of opportunity for growth.  That is the culture we developed, so the adult didn't need to be part of the process. 

So, the burden of the SM is to learn from the process to see if the scouts are growing from it because it will turn into a culture. Scouts hate change and what they start now won't change without an interjection. If the SM observes the scouts not growing from the experience, he must interject and change it.  If the SM is working toward growth, then how the scouts get into positions of responsibility doesn't really matter all that much. 

One last thing, I used to not agree with the Baden Powel Scouts approach for picking the SPL. The SM picks the SPL and leaves him there for as long as he/she wants. It bothered me that the scouts didn't pick their leader. But, as I found, only a small percentage of the population have leadership qualities. So, why not put them where they will grow the most and skip the part of them trying to get elected. The SPL still has to fill the other positions of responsibility, so that doesn't change. Each scout will get their chance to test the waters of leadership if they want. I don't know, I would like to give style of selection a try and see how works. 

Barry

[T2Eagle]

The most important part of the appointment process is the scout is "appointed by the SPL in consultation with the SM" (emphasis added).  Critical to being a good leader is being able to choose your team, and not just based on friendships but on the needs, and abilities, of the members of the troop as a whole.  This is where an SM can help smooth out some of the rough patches that electing everyone, or just letting the SPL act without guidance, can produce.  I have seen electing everybody be the SM's easier alternative to working harder with some SPLs.

To Barry's point about leadership as a requirement for advancement, I often found myself reminding adults that it's not positions of leadership that is required but positions of responsibilities.  "How can he be an Eagle, he's never even been PL or ASPL let alone SPL, all he's ever been is Librarian or Chaplain's Aide."  To which my response is yes, but he was really good as Librarian, and he would not have been good in those other roles.  He would not delegate, he would have been frustrated by and frustrating to his fellow scouts.  Some people aren't meant to be leaders, they're meant to be solo artists.

[fred8033]

Our troop elected most positions.  In hind sight, I'd like to have gone by the book.  It's part of being a leader to select your team; develop the individuals; figure out how to work together; assign jobs and expect results.  With electing, it weakens the chain where the SPL asks others to do something.  At least if the SPL says "can you be our librarian", then the SPL has started the conversation and the two youth know results are expected.   And a scout asking the SPL for a job is part of growing too.  

IMHO ... more we can get the adults out and let the scouts work together the better.  

But electing vs appointing is not a do-or-die.  I prefer the BSA published method, but that's me.   IMHO, the do-or-die is getting out camping and having adventures.  The rest supports being an active youth program.

Edited December 7, 2021 by fred8033

[fred8033]

... Electing seems to also beg the overly heavy focus on advancement.  Adults fear SPL/PL appointing positions won't be fair to kids looking to advance ... which ignores the reason that Eagle scout was originally so valuable.   Eagle scout did reflect someone that could work with others and get things done.  ... The more I think about it, electing or adults appointing subverts the program significantly.

[elitts]

On 12/7/2021 at 12:44 PM, fred8033 said:

... Electing seems to also beg the overly heavy focus on advancement.  Adults fear SPL/PL appointing positions won't be fair to kids looking to advance ... which ignores the reason that Eagle scout was originally so valuable.   Eagle scout did reflect someone that could work with others and get things done.  ... The more I think about it, electing or adults appointing subverts the program significantly.

Whenever one of the adults in our troop starts making noise about "fairness" because "What about kids who need a position to advance?" I make sure and remind them that other than for Eagle, they can substitute a SM approved project.  I think even among those who know it's an option, it tends to get forgotten about.  And when it comes to the Eagle requirement, well, there's nothing that says there can only be 1 Troop Instructor.

I'm much more interested in allowing the SPL to put together a team that actually wants to do the job rather than picking scouts that the SM says "really need a position".  I had the same Quartermaster for 18 months (now he's the QM Emeritas and helping the newbie) and it was GLORIOUS.  By about month 8-9, getting ready for a campout was as simple as saying  "Everything all set? Need me to buy any supplies?" and then waiting for the answer.

Edited December 13, 2021 by elitts

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

By about month 8-9, getting ready for a campout was as simple as saying  "Everything all set? Need me to buy any supplies?" and then waiting for the answer.

That's when scouting starts getting fun.  The troop can actually start performing.  I've seen troops keep switching people because they need jobs.  The troop never gets out of 1st gear to do anything interesting.  

[elitts]

56 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

That's when scouting starts getting fun.  The troop can actually start performing.  I've seen troops keep switching people because they need jobs.  The troop never gets out of 1st gear to do anything interesting.  

Yep.  That's one of the reasons I dislike SPL changes every 6 months.  Not that I don't think the elections should happen, I just like it when the SPL serves 2 or 3+ terms.  6 months is just about enough time to figure out what they are doing.  Even the boys think the times (3 I think) over the last 7 years where an SPL lasted more than 6 months were significantly better, though I don't know if they've actually made that connection.  They just talk about "Back when X was SPL".  Of course, most of the rest of the time were SPLs who thought it would be cool to be SPL or they wanted it on their college applications and they all wanted it to be over by month 3 when they realized it's a lot of work and not just "standing up front and telling people what to do".

[Eagledad]

3 hours ago, elitts said:

Whenever one of the adults in our troop starts making noise about "fairness" because "What about kids who need a position to advance?" I make sure and remind them that other than for Eagle, they can substitute a SM approved project.  I think even among those who know it's an option, it tends to get forgotten about.  And when it comes to the Eagle requirement, well, there's nothing that says there can only be 1 Troop Instructor.

I'm much more interested in allowing the SPL to put together a team that actually wants to do the job rather than picking scouts that the SM says "really need a position".  I had the same Quartermaster for 18 months (now he's the QM Emeritas and helping the newbie) and it was GLORIOUS.  By about month 8-9, getting ready for a campout was as simple as saying  "Everything all set? Need me to buy any supplies?" and then waiting for the answer.

This is so good. Thanks.

In general, scouts who are placed in leadership for  credit generally don't learn or grow at all. In fact, they will more likely dispise leadership. And, a lot of scouts who don't show any desire for leadership in their younger years will all of a sudden thirst for it in their older years. We all mature at different rates. We just need to let them choose when they are ready. 

Oh, in our troop, past SPLs took on the Troop Guide role. I think it is because while they were ready for break from the very demanding SPL responsibilities, they still needed to lead and guide scouts. And, they are very good at it. 

Barry. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Eagledad

[Eagledad]

32 minutes ago, elitts said:

Yep.  That's one of the reasons I dislike SPL changes every 6 months.  Not that I don't think the elections should happen, I just like it when the SPL serves 2 or 3+ terms.  6 months is just about enough time to figure out what they are doing.  Even the boys think the times (3 I think) over the last 7 years where an SPL lasted more than 6 months were significantly better, though I don't know if they've actually made that connection.  They just talk about "Back when X was SPL".  Of course, most of the rest of the time were SPLs who thought it would be cool to be SPL or they wanted it on their college applications and they all wanted it to be over by month 3 when they realized it's a lot of work and not just "standing up front and telling people what to do".

After the troop matured a couple of years, we didn't see anymore of the SPLs who just wanted the cool experience because the scouts saw how demanding the job was. Only the most ambitious scouts ran for it. In fact, the troop paid for the SPL's summer camp fees because he worked so hard. The SPL is the first into camp to sign the troop in, and the last to leave to sign the troop out. He attends all the adult meetings and makes all the decisions that don't require an 18 or older person. I learned that the other SPLs  in the camp recognize maturity because our SPLs were typically picked as the camp SPL. The SPLs are worn out by the end of camp. But, it is strangely an experience that is highly prized. One scout showed me his 18 month plan to be an SPL. And it was timed for the summer camp experience.

Funny experience. The only time the troop ever left a scout behind at camp was the first summer camp of the new SM. He was just trying to be a good SM, but the SPL let him have it and taught the SM how to account for all scouts. If you were to ask me how the PLC accounted for all the scouts, I honestly couldn't tell you. They had a process tho.

When scouts are given true responsibility, they take it very seriously. 

Barry

Edited December 13, 2021 by Eagledad

[elitts]

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

After the troop matured a couple of years, we didn't see anymore of the SPLs who just wanted the cool experience because the scouts saw how demanding the job was. Only the most ambitious scouts ran for it. In fact, the troop paid for the SPL's summer camp fees because he worked so hard. The SPL is the first into camp to sign the troop in, and the last to leave to sign the troop out. He attends all the adult meetings and makes all the decisions that don't require an 18 or older person. I learned that the other SPLs  in the camp recognize maturity because our SPLs were typically picked as the camp SPL. The SPLs are worn out by the end of camp. But, it is strangely an experience that is highly prized. One scout showed me his 18 month plan to be an SPL. And it was timed for the summer camp experience.

 

When my son was 15 he ran for SPL and got beat, and then became ASPL for one of the resume builders; who of course vanished like a fart in the wind about 2 months into his term.  So my son ended up acting as SPL for 3 or 4 camp-outs.  The second campout he did that on ended up being one where he was the only kid over 14, along with two 13 year old "my parents don't medicate us on the weekends" ADHD pains in the rear and then seventeen 10,11 & 12 year olds in four patrols.  By Saturday night he was just about in tears when he came up to me off in the dark at about 9pm to let me know that "Being SPL on camp-outs just totally sucks!  Nobody does what they are supposed to do, the ADHDers wander off the second there's a pause in whatever they are supposed to be doing and the new kids are such idiots they didn't even know how to boil water." (They were trying to boil water for hot cocoa in a 12" frying pan with no lid because the kid doing it "Couldn't find anything else to use".  I assume because the frying pan was at the top of the cook-box and blocking the view of the complete pot & pan set resting underneath and moving one thing while looking for a second thing still doesn't occur to 11 year olds.)

I was honestly surprised he still wanted to be SPL after that, but 10 hours of sleep seemed to put him right.