Removing Scout as Patrol Leader

[ScoutDad197]

I found out that the Scoutmaster had approached other adult leaders about removing my scout as Patrol Leader (elected by peers about a month ago). The reason was another scout, almost a year younger than my scout although in the same grade, needed the position more because he had just achieved First Class. The adult leadership pointed out there were other positions available for this Scout to fulfill, or he could just wait until something opened up as other scouts had to do in the past. If it hadn’t been for this one adult who adhered to that, my scout would have been replaced by this other boy for doing nothing wrong. Am I wrong to be upset that the Scoutmaster would even entertain this let alone bring it up and try to make it happen? Now I feel like he has a general dislike for my son and will thwart his advancement. I feel uncomfortable having him meet with this man alone now as well. 

[qwazse]

As I said with my son and all of his coaches: “This is an issue between you and you coach. Speak your desire plainly and courteously, ask if it’s possible to achieve your goal, and if so, how. As your parent, it is my obligation to say nothing but know that I’m rooting for you.”

Half the time coaches would take the time to explain a negative decision for me. I made it clear that it wasn’t necessary and I am encouraging my child to talk to him/her directly. Still, them letting me know their thinking allowed me to not take things personally.

Finally, we direct contact leaders don’t meet with scouts alone. At most we have one-on-one conversations in a public area.

[Oldscout448]

The short answer is No, you have every reason to be upset.  So should every other patrol leader in the troop and the scouts in your sons patrol. This may not be be due to personal dislike, sadly some scoutmasters view advancement in rank as the primary gauge of their success and will manipulate things to achieve that goal. 

[ScoutDad197]

I agree that coaches should be left to coaching. The aim is to win and they make their decisions based upon that. Scouting doesn’t seem to me the same as winning a game. I should add this scoutmaster doesn’t seem particularly concerned with rank advancement (other than his own son). There are scouts in the troop in high school who are still at the rank of scout. Unfortunately there have been other instances where he just didn’t seem to like my scout very much (unsure of why-he’s not a troublemaker) and hearing this just sealed the deal for us. Now wondering if we should seek another leader to oversee his advancement, if that’s permissible. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

Wow, that is so wrong... and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding by the SM on how Patrols work, advancement requirements, and Troop organization

If the Patrol elected him, then only the Patrol should be able to un-elect him 😜

Make sure the SM reads the requirements for rank.  PL is not the only position that works.

From the Star Scout requirements, positions held for four months that qualify:   "Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, bugler, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, instructor, webmaster, or outdoor ethics guide."

There is only one PL for the Patrol, but a Troop can have lots of Den Chiefs, Librarians, Historians, QMs, Buglers, Chaplain Aides, Instructors, etc. etc. etc.  There is NO prohibition I can find on multiples in the "unelected" positions.

One solution:  talk with the SM and review the Star requirements with him.  Suggest, say Outdoor Ethics Guide (especially if your Troop does not have one!!!).  Find the Position Description for that office:

https://troopleader.scouting.org/troop-positions/

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/510-046_PocketCards17.pdf

Suggest that the SM speak to the SPL about appointing the Scout to one of the positions, with the Scout's input!

Then help the Scout set three (or so) SMART goals to accomplish in his tenure in whatever position the SPL appoints him to.

If you need info on SMART goals:

from the ILST syllabus, page 17, ": Each goal must be specific (clear and understandable), measurable (you know when you are done), attainable (you can do it), relevant (why you are doing it), and timely (done when it is needed)."

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/ILST_IntroSyllabus_9_11.pdf

If the Scout accomplishes his goals in the time period, then that rank requirement is no issue.  If he is unable to accomplish his own goals, have a discussion with him about it, and then decide whether to sign him off...  If he just wears a patch for four months, that should be a no-go!

[SSScout]

Scouting has OPPORTUNITIES, not REQUIREMENTS . 

We do our kids a great disservice when we make the wrong things "REQUIREMENTS", especially in Scouting.

F'rinstance : Merit Badges....    I firmly believe no SM  (or anyone else)  should make MBs sound like they are REQUIRED.   Scout ranks are not REQUIRED.   OPPORTUNITIES can and should be arranged (camp outs, Axe Yards,  hiking trips, visits from Park Naturalists, visits from local EMTs,  ) with the Scouts participating , nay, ORDERING the schedule.  The Scout should be able to see her/his peers making choices to LEARN about proper safe knife and axe use.  Choosing to learn about map and compass ("hey Google !"), 

The SM should facilitate all this but NOT  require it....   

Edited October 24, 2023 by SSScout

[Oldscout448]

To my mind the most alarming thing is that this SM seems  to lack a basic understanding of how a troop ( a collection of patrols) should be run.  Except for obvious safety reasons and the most egregious and uncontested  violations of the scout law, a SM does not remove patrol leaders.  The patrol elected him, the patrol can elect someone else if they so desire it. 

In my troop it required a 2/3 majority because we realized that not every decision a PL makes is going to be a popular one.  Even if it is the right one.  In 20 years I think only two PLs were removed in such a fashion.