Should the scouts have a voice in choosing the SM?

[Lisabob]

We're in the process of looking for a new SM because our current SM is stepping down after 2 years of service (it has been the norm for people to serve 2 year terms in this troop and while I see both good and bad sides to this, that's how it is.)

 

This year, the PLC asked to have a direct voice in the process. Specifically, they want to know who the candidates are; they want the candidates to address them at a PLC; and they've requested some sort of a "vote" in the process. One proposal is that, after hearing from the candidates, the PLC would hold their own anonymous vote and the SPL would then be charged with voting however the majority of the PLC did, at the troop committee meeting's vote. All of the voting would be anonymous and only the SPL would know for sure how the PLC decided (or whether the SPL was true to that decision, for that matter.)

 

The rationale is, after all, it is a boy-led troop so shouldn't they have a voice in who the most important adult leader will be? This was brought up by a couple of boys on the PLC and not by an adult. The committee is considering whether to agree to some, all, or none of these.

 

Having looked at the information in the troop committee guidelines, it seems there's some room for interpretation here. I am aware that the ultimate choice in SM is made by the CO, in consultation with the Committee Chair, but in our case, the CO is uninvolved and they'll go along with whomever the CC tells them to pick. So it's back to the committee to make the choice. How would you feel about the committee giving the troop youth leadership a direct role in this process as suggested above? There is division on our committee as to whether this is "bending the rules" or maybe breaking them, and also whether it is a good idea ("are the boys mature enough?"). There is a concern that this is a "slippery slope" to, well, I'm not sure what. I'm seeking input and perspective.

 

By the way - we have maybe three candidates who want to be SM and (in my view anyway) they'd all do a good job, though they have very different strengths and visions. Our committee is also large and nearly everybody on the committee is actively involved in doing something to benefit the troop - not a bunch of "ghost" members. Even assuming the SPL did get a vote it most likely wouldn't change the outcome anyway.

[prairie]

Intresting question, one feels the boys should have some sort of say, but where and how strong?????

Should they get a vote, or just a chance to approve who is on the list of choices?

[Chippewa29]

You have three strong candidates who want to be SM? Wow. I'm impressed by that. Most troops, its who doesn't step backward when they ask for a volunteer

 

I believe that what the Scouts want should be a very strong consideration (probably the biggest one) in deciding on the SM. My only suggestion would be that the PLC interview each candidate and write down why or why not they feel that candidate should be SM. They may have some good perspectives on each of the candidates that won't come up from the adult conversation.

[ASM915]

Lisa,

What a great concept. Two ideas here.

 

1) Have the PLC hold the interviews. Then have the PLC sit down as a whole with the Committee for a discussion on the candidates, pros and cons, why they like the one that they do over the other two.

Are these three all ASM's? Do they have a background as a scout?

the Committee is there to help the troop, but the boys run the troop and should have a major influence on the decision.

 

2)Have the Committe run the first round of interviews, then submit two names to the boys for the PLC interview. Again have all sit down for a dicussion and let the boys make the final decision.

 

I think it is great that the PLC is actually interested in wanting a say. Just make sure that they are not after the one who will be the least strict.

 

Maybe give the PLC two votes, the Committe one vote and the CO one vote. If there is a tie the outgoing SM is the tie breaker.

Please let me know how this all turns out. I'm really interested.

 

[Eamonn]

Should the scouts have a voice in choosing the SM?

I think it depends on what you mean by voice?

I would hope that the Nominating Committee would take into account the feelings of the Scouts.

But I don't think a vote is such a good idea.

How will they feel if the guy they vote for doesn't get the job?

OJ has started working at a local pizza shop. Which is owned and ran by the son of the guy who was District Chairman before me. I maybe know a little more about OJ's boss than I'm willing to say.

The guy is 28 years old and OJ hero worships him! It seems all I hear is "Dave this" and "Dave that."

"Dad I need an Apple laptop" (Dave has one)

"I'm thinking of buying a Honda" (Guess what Dave drives?)

Dave is a nice enough fellow.

But when OJ cut his hand at work and needed to go the ER for a few stitches. Dave doesn't have Workman's comp insurance on his employees!!

Sometimes the best person for the job is not the most popular person!

Maybe when the elected SM does something that might displease the PLC, the come back could be ? "We voted you in and we have the right to vote you out!"

I think this is a can of worms best left unopened!! This is why we have nominating committees.

Ea.

[evmori]

Letting the PLC has input in the process is a good idea but nothing more than input for the reasons Eamonn stated in his post.

 

Great example Eamonn!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Lisabob]

Interesting feedback and please keep it coming. To answer ASM915's question, yes all three are ASMs with the troop and longtime scouters. All have been trained for their positions and have a record of doing their jobs well. Two have boys still in the troop and one's son has aged out but the adult has remained active. All three are well liked and respected by adults and youth alike. Although I have my preferences, at the end of the day I'd be happy to see any of them as SM and I think most other people feel that way too. We really are lucky.

 

Eamonn, I understand where you are coming from. Although (given the above) I'm not so worried about that right now, I can see where it might be a problem in future years when we might have fewer excellent candidates for the position. Or, for that matter, when we might have boys on the PLC who could be less interested in asserting themselves in a reasonably mature kind of way. How would you propose, then, to take the boys' views into account in the nominating process, if not by granting them an opportunity to interview candidates and to have a vote (we're talking one of probably 12-15 votes here - the committee is large)? Or were you saying they shouldn't have a voice in the nominating process at all? I'm not sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LongHaul]

>>Maybe when the elected SM does something that might displease the PLC, the come back could be ? "We voted you in and we have the right to vote you out!"

[SR540Beaver]

I more or less agree with what LongHaul and Eamonn said. In a troop I formerly served, they took boy led a step or two too far. The SM was on active duty overseas and since no one in the troop would step up, they asked a father on a new crossover to be acting SM in his absence. I know this fellow well and he is a fine guy. He was the district trainer and an Eagle Scout. Cut him and he bleeds BSA. They had a situation where a "tinkerer" in the troop had converted old Coleman liquid fuel stoves over to propane. One caught fire and was in danger of exploding. they were basically a hunk of junk and dangerous. The SM went into town during the campout and purchased a new stove. The committee just about had a coniption over it because they were a "boy-led" troop and the boys were not consulted about the expenditure. They went so far as to accuse the SM of theft for spending money without approval.

 

Now, I know that the real problem here was the adults and not the boys. It wasn't the boys demanding to be consulted. But the principle here is that boy led means certain things and not certain things. While their concerns and feelings about a new SM should certainly be taken into account, a "vote" is probably over the bounds.

 

Choosing a person based on popularity makes for a bad leader in most cases.

[SR540Beaver]

I more or less agree with what LongHaul and Eamonn said. In a troop I formerly served, they took boy led a step or two too far. The SM was on active duty overseas and since no one in the troop would step up, they asked a father on a new crossover to be acting SM in his absence. I know this fellow well and he is a fine guy. He was the district trainer and an Eagle Scout. Cut him and he bleeds BSA. They had a situation where a "tinkerer" in the troop had converted old Coleman liquid fuel stoves over to propane. One caught fire and was in danger of exploding. they were basically a hunk of junk and dangerous. The SM went into town during the campout and purchased a new stove. The committee just about had a coniption over it because they were a "boy-led" troop and the boys were not consulted about the expenditure. They went so far as to accuse the SM of theft for spending money without approval.

 

Now, I know that the real problem here was the adults and not the boys. It wasn't the boys demanding to be consulted. But the principle here is that boy led means certain things and not certain things. While their concerns and feelings about a new SM should certainly be taken into account, a "vote" is probably over the bounds.

 

Choosing a person based on popularity makes for a bad leader in most cases.

[Lisabob]

LongHaul, it's funny that you chose that particular example. I work in a university where our last Dean was chosen by fiat by the university president, with no input from either faculty or students (via their student gov't). Both groups are angry and both have demanded input into the process in the future. And I happen to think both are correct to do so. The Dean is also harmed by the process that the president chose because he has no loyalty from anyone (except, perhaps, the president). He is widely viewed as the president's lapdog, imposed upon us, rightly or wrongly so. At the same time though, universities do not purport to be "student led" or even "faculty led" (to the utter shock and dismay of some of my colleagues!) in the same way that troops claim to be "boy led." So I do think there's a limit to the comparison.

 

I guess as a troop we are extraordinarily fortunate. We have a deep, talented, and functional pool of ASMs and committee members to draw from. With few exceptions, just about any one of them would do a reasonably good job and several would do a great job. All give as freely as they can of their time, skill, and experience. To the extent that rifts occur, they are minor as most everyone recognizes that each other member has his or her heart in the right place.

 

One thing that has come up though, is finding ways to give more authority to the boys (to be "boy led" in a more meaningful way). So when the PLC requested a voice in this process and framed their request in the context of being boy-led, it was something people at least wanted to give some thought to rather than say "no."

 

[John-in-KC]

LEADER SELECTION IS A CHARTER AGREEMENT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHARTERED PARTNER!!! I cannot state that in strong enough terms. Any candidate for SM must pass muster with the Chartered Partner. The COR, the IH, and the CC at the end of the day have the responsiiblity of hiring the Program Officer.

 

Now, that said, I'm delighted the PLC wants input. It's amazing what you hear from babes, if you listen. If all candidates are established ASMs, I'll bet hard cash the young men have a good idea of who listens, who is a martinet, and who not only listens but mentors.

 

I would suspect if there are any older teen Scouts (Lifes and Eagles, 16-17)around, they have an even better idea of how the candidates interact with the youth. I would seek out their input as well.

 

Somebody (the Committee Chair by name) needs to tell the young men that selection of a SM is NEVER an election. In a perfect world, it's probably most akin to a "calling" process: After candidates identify themselves, the Committee, COR, and IH work to identify the best candidate. Having found the best candidate, the Chartered Partner invites the best one to enter Service.

 

IMO, tell the young men: "We welcome your specific input; it will help our Chartered Partner identify the best candidate for the post."

 

YIS

[Eamonn]

What follows is still kind of fuzzy!!

While maybe not having a vote as to who gets the job.

This time could be looked at as an opportunity for the PLC to take a long hard look at what the real role of a Scoutmaster is.

In doing so I think maybe they will discover what their role is.

It could be used as an exercise in Ethical Thinking. To protect the innocent it might be wise to not use the real people who are interested in the job.

The COR and the CC might want to get involved, by explaining what they see as the qualities they would hope to find in an ideal Scoutmaster.

Maybe one quality might be improving the relationship with the CO?

It's easy to quote the by the book stuff!! Saying that the real job of a SM is to train the youth leaders. But we know that a good SM is faced with more than just that.

One of the Troops in town has a good SM. The Scouts really seem to like him and he gets on well with the Scouts, but for some reason the parents just don't like him.

Sadly the "Word is out". This year due to adults not being as kind as they should be the Troop only seen one little Lad cross over into the Troop.

A super nice guy. A good Scouter, but if he remains the Troop will not survive.

What to do?

There are several ASM's, none seem to be as good as him, but the parents seem to like them better.

I'm glad I'm not on that committee!!

I know when I was a young SM (yes the memory still works!) I was driven by my ego, I somehow managed to get the Scouts to buy into my ego.

This wasn't all bad, but at times it had little to do with real Scouting -More about just winning. Of course the Scouts like to win and be part of a winning team. But thinking back at how many upset little lad's I had when we didn't win -It just wasn't the way this game should be played

Eamonn.

[Beavah]

First question: How are you goin' to decide? The committee/CO I mean? Are yeh goin' to have one up-or-down vote, or are you goin' to work at this until you achieve consensus?

 

Though it takes longer, I strongly believe the selection of SM should be a consensus deal, eh? He/She needs the universal support of folks goin' forward. And for sure, the kids should be a part of that consensus. So I'd move away from "voting" to a model where all the constituents, includin' the kids, are in agreement.

 

As far as kids havin' a say, I'd think that in a strong youth-run troop, the older boys develop plenty of experience and maturity. Yah, if we're honest with ourselves, we have to admit that they have lots more hands-on experience in the field of scouting than the average committee member. Hard to beat 4-7 years of active participation.

 

They also have a very special perspective if the SM candidates have been ASMs in the program. They have extensive experience with the person. As an old friend of mine points out, they have seen what the person is like when no other adults are watching. That's information that's 100 times better than anything the committee has, or can get in a short interview.

 

If you were to hire someone for a job, I would bet you'd place a large weight on the recommendation from their former job. No different here, eh? It's the boys that have far better information. So I'd go so far as to say that if you've got a good youth-run program, you have to ask the lads for their input, and you should make them a major part of the consensus on a new SM.

 

Yah, but only if you've got a good youth-run program, eh? If you've got older scout behavioral issues and such, or your program never really trusts kids with more than menu planning, then they're not goin' to be as useful.

 

And only if yeh do it right. Don't expect most boys to give full voice to their ideas in a room packed with adults they don't know, unless they already have a lot of experience sittin' on da committee. We teach kids in a lot of subtle ways to be seen and not heard, and especially not to disagree with adults because they are adults. Try something like havin' an adult meet with the PLC boys and have an hour-long discussion, listening carefully and asking good probing questions. Then the adult should be an advocate for the boys' position at the committee, along with the SPL and ASPL. The boys should know that theirs is not the final decision, but that their input will be strongly considered.

 

Yah, one more thing. If the boys have real reservations over someone bein' SM, you ignore them at your peril. They might not have a grasp of all the things that go into bein' a good SM, but they can recognize in a heartbeat the problems with a bad one.

 

Consensus is best.

 

Beavah

 

[stevejb]

Here is my two cents....

Let the boys give their input, I think it is a good idea, but do not let them vote on the matter. As stated earlier, appointing a scoutmaster is not the boys responsibility. They need to understand this, and the reasons for understanding this. The committee needs to explain the appointment process to the PLC.

I have a feeling that if the boys are allowed to vote on the scoutmaster it could backfire in ways you do not foresee.

 

Steve B

Scoutmaster, Troop 68, CMC