Voting in the BSA

[Beavah]

there is no voting in the BSA, well voting to "elect" adult unit positions at least.

 

Yah, folks here keep bringin' this up.

 

I'd love to see a reference.

 

Of course, there is no reference, because nowhere in any literature does it ever suggest that folks at any level in the BSA should not vote.

 

We vote to elect council board members and officers. Da council EB votes to appoint an SE or renew his contract.

 

We vote to elect district committee members at large and district officers.

 

We vote to elect SPLs and PLs.

 

We vote on council budgets and district proposals and in lots of troops da PLC votes on events and other decisions. In fact, da purpose of keeping minutes of any meeting is to record votes.

 

So of course it's OK, just fine, and ordinary procedure for unit committees and subcommittees to vote on issues, and to conduct votes to ratify decisions taken by consensus. By and large it's a good thing to vote, even if it's only voting on a recommendation. It's a lot better than units where da CC behaves like King and Emperor.

 

The reason why the BSA materials do not specify how troop committees are to make decisions is because we have a lot of different Chartered Partners, eh? The structure of scoutin' at the unit level is really not up to the BSA, because it is the responsibility (and liability) of the chartered partner. If the BSA were to tell 'em what to do and how to do it, then the BSA would be liable, and we don't want that. It's their organization, and their unit.

 

It's entirely true that some Chartered Organizations operate on religious governance traditions where folks may be selected by lot, or "called", or are appointed by local or area religious leaders. So the BSA is not goin' to recommend to them that they vote, eh? At the same time, lots of COs operate on governance models that value broad democracy and input. They elect their pastors, the elect their board members and CEOs, they vote on major policy decisions. It is to be expected that in their scout units, votes and elections are used regularly for similar purposes.

 

There is absolutely nuthin' wrong with voting. In fact, in try to teach and be an example of Citizenship, there's a heck of a lot that is right about voting.

 

If we're part of one religious/CO tradition, let's be careful not to project our own way of doin' things as the only right way, eh? Scoutin' is big and broad, and used by lots of different organizations. There are lots of right ways.

 

And Voting is one of 'em.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[eisely]

Well said. One of the authoritative participants in the forum in the past, one Bob White, always insisted that voting was not necessary, and possibly even prohibited.

 

I do agree that electing CC and SM is probably a mistake. But voting on other matters is perfectly permissible.

[SR540Beaver]

Actually, Bob applied that principle to unit committees based on the literature (which I do not have) as he interpreted it, not the whole of Scouting.

 

Just as the literature doesn't say you can't vote, it doesn't say you do either as I recall. The idea (and I'm paraphrasing from very old memories) is that the CC makes assignements that the various committee members carry out. They also discuss and reach consensus on agenda items.

 

Just sayin'......not defending.

[scoutldr]

To offer a different perspective, I recently completed a 6 year term on the Board of my national professional accreditation board. Almost my entire term was spent on transitioning the Board Governance to the "Carver Policy Governance Model" (you can google it). Basically, the model advocates a strong executive, empowered to do whatever he/she feels is necessary ("means") to achieve the policies and vision established by the Board ("ends"). It was stressed to us that Board time should be spent establishing overall goals, visions, and guidelines, rather than spend time "voting" to approve the minutes, or the budget, or approving expenditures, or, God forbid, getting wrapped up in Robert's Rules. The Executive is empowered to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by Board policy, such as hire and fire employees, raise dues, send out newsletters, form ad hoc committees (NOT board members, etc. The Board, meanwhile, is pontificating on lofty goals, such as building membership, increasing value to the public and stakeholders, etc., and communicating those goals to the Executive, whose compensation is tied to meeting those goals. (well, in our case, forget the compensation part!) Committee work is NEVER done at Board meetings...that is where results are reported. (a common flaw I see at District meetings).

Anyway...don't know if this is relevant or not...but I would hate to see Unit committees waste time dictating "process" when they should be dictating "results", and let the process up to those whose job it is (CM, DL, etc).

[SR540Beaver]

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=73326&p=1

[Beavah]

Yah, scoutldr, there are just lots of different types of boards, eh?

 

Generally speakin', governmental entities are under statutory requirements to vote on budgets and expenditures and to approve public records (minutes). Similar statute and regulation applies to some corporate boards, particularly of publicly held corporations.

 

Even in da Policy Governance model there are votes, eh? Da board votes on the selection and evaluation of the Executive, on establishing its goals, on restrictions to the executive, etc.

 

By and large it tends to be da religious organizations and boards that don't have a culture of voting. That and smaller NFPs (which often have religious underpinnings). I think that da reason is that religious organizations can rely on folks already sharing an underlying set of goals and values and ways of doin' business. Maybe also because they de-emphasize personal ego through cultural pressure.

 

Policy Governance is an interestin' thing, BTW. It's not a bad way of doin' business, particularly for a professional association. In my experience it unfortunately tends to come unglued da first time the Executive screws up. Also doesn't last well through board turnover since most folks comin' on aren't familiar with it and don't necessarily buy in.

 

Yah, sorry, didn't mean to ramble .

 

Beavah

 

[scoutldr]

Yeah, it took a while to get our heads wrapped around it...and some never did. While we trusted the Executive, the thought of "unlimited power" was hard to accept...we had "fiduciary responsibility", dontcha know! (which Carver said was BS). One of the things Carver suggested was whittling down our Board from 18 to about 6 members. With limited time available (we were all volunteers), by the time we went around the table and everyone had their say on each issue, not much else got done. Everyone felt obligated to "contribute" to the discussion, even if to rehash or reiterate or agree, using different words. That's the danger of "consensus" decision making...it can take a lot longer than just a straight up or down vote. Unit committees can take a lesson from that. Maybe more "ad hoc committees" and fewer "Pack committee members" around the table to streamline things. I definitely would not open the meetings to anyone who feels they need to be there...as a practical matter. Too many opinions are not always a good thing.

[John-in-KC]

First, at the level of a Council (a non-profit or not-for-profit corporation), there has to be governance and transparency. That means votes and records.

 

I don't think we're talking about Council levels.

 

In units, particularly in Boy Scouts, Varsity, and Venturing, there is/should be voting. We're trying to make the citizenship aim of Scouting happen by letting the youth act as a miniature society. If I read the literature at all correctly, the youth are the ones who should make the major program decisions ... where to go to camp, when to take that trip, what is the fun activity the Crew is going to do? Voting is essential to the youth program

 

In units, our job as adults is to support the program: We should treat the program presented to us as requirements to be met. It's our job to support them. Sometimes, we're going to have to say no: Think about last year, and gas prices. Can you say "it's appetite suppresant time on those trips, Mr SPL?" I know committees that did.

 

I think the question comes to this: How often is voting really necessary? Leader selection? How many units actually follow the process in 18-891, Selecting Quality Leaders, or 13-500, Selecting Cub Scout Leadership. The rank ordering process, well I guess you could use voting for it. It's a technique to make a tough call. I happen not to like it.

 

Major expenditures, such as a new Troop trailer, or replacing the tentage? Yes, I can see a vote, especially if the Troop has to commit time and energy to raising money for it.

 

We make too much in the adult side of Scouting be in the realm of "needing a vote," when it would be far more preferable to operate on collegiality and consensus.

 

Remember though: Too much of anything can be bad. B, you pointed out if a Committee acts sheeplike, consensus can damage more than it can help.

[Twocubdad]

Yeah, right. We always have a lot of folks competing for assignments so we tend to spend a lot of time on the selection process. Sure.

 

Both methods, concensus and voting, have their pluses and minuses. But you really need to understand the potential drawbacks and be ready for them.

 

Our committee runs on a concensus basis. And that works just fine as long as it works. The difficulty is when we don't reach concensus on an issue. Invariably someone will call for a vote on the issue and gets their knickers in a knot when they are told we don't take votes. Ultimately the decisions will be left to the folks responsible for that area. We had this occur this spring when some (actually just two) parents were upset with me that I would not sign off on their boys taking citizenship and communications MBs at summer camp. We spend better than an hour discussing the matter. At the end, one of the parents started passing out index cards for everyone to vote when the CC reminded them that this was a program matter and the decision was ultimately up to the Scoutmaster (me). At the time, that didn't sit too well with the two parents (although I know they would have been the only two to vote their way), but they got over it. It was uncomfortable for a few minutes and it required the CC having the backbone to stick to the way we do things.

 

I do believe the key to successfully using the concensus method is having strong leaders, much the way scoutldr describes the strong executive in his organization, AND for the rest of the leaders to have trust in them.

 

Voting on stuff in a legislative manner also works when it works but has all it's own pitfalls when it doesn't. As long as it's just a series of perfunctory yea and nay grunts, you're okay. But what happens when there is a controversial vote, such as an appeal of a negative Board of Review decision? Who gets to vote? How many units have a bunch of do-nothing committee members on the roster just because they had $15 and wanted to pretend they were involved? What happens if the parents of the kid making the appeal show up with a handful of sympathetic friends? Do you have an established quorum? How far into Robert's Rules do you go? I'm a political science major and was in the state student legislature in college. I can chew up 8 full hours with parlimentary BS. Mr. Moderator, point of personal privilege please.....

 

You need to understand the implicatons of either method and be able to address these issues BEFORE they come up.

 

 

[Eamonn]

More than once I have spouted on about leaders being selected.

When I read the thread that this one spun off from, I thought it was a little odd that a SM was voted into office.

But I kept my trap shut. (Now that is really odd!!)

My thinking being that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. - Not that I ever have skinned a cat!

 

There is times when votes are taken in our organization.

But... Most times when it comes to adults playing this game at the Unit and District level (I'm thinking District Committee meetings) Votes are rarely needed.

Eamonn.

[John-in-KC]

Twocubdad,

 

Just to be sure... my comment was "How many units actually follow...?" I've yet to encounter a Pack, Troop, Team, or Crew that had people knocking down the doors to get an adult leadership position. Most of the time, it's been beg and scrape..

 

I yield the floor on this point of personal privilege....

[Twocubdad]

Yeah, sorry. When I re-read it, it came off a little more snotty than I had intended. I was going for sarcastic, not snotty. No offense intended. My apologies.

[eghiglie]

Where can I find these units that have adults running to fill the positions?

 

I want to join that unit.

 

I'm being sarcastic.

 

I just need to learn the secrets to convince the parents, any ideas?

[scoutldr]

Well, I have a problem with a Unit Committee being hijacked by a bunch of "parents" who come to a meeting prepared with index cards to force a vote. They need to be politely told that, while welcome to sit and observe the meeting, the business of the Pack/Troop is the domain of the registered leaders, duly approved and authorized by the CO and the BSA to run things. If they don't like the way things are, submit an application and they can have my chair, and the BS that goes with it. They may be asked to serve on an ad hoc committee (or "working group" or "task action team", etc) to do WORK, like a fundraising project or Pinewood Derby, or B&G...but they are not the "Decider". That's the CC.

[OldGreyEagle]

"there is no voting in the BSA, well voting to "elect" adult unit positions at least."

 

Well, at least I know I am "folks" and I guess that is something, but "folks" didn't write this quote, I did.

 

Now, let's make sure we know what we are talking about. I am talking about the selection of adult leaders and nothing else. That is what the "voting to "elect" adult unit positions at least." part was about. Perhaps the humor escaped some, perhaps it wasn't funny. But I am talking about selecting adult leaders and perhaps I wasn't clear. Boy voting did cross my mind, thats why I said "adult unit leaders" but perhaps I need to parse things better so I don't confuse those who are easily confused.

 

The BSA has two publications on how to select adult leaders, they maybe found at:

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/510-500.pdf

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/18-981.pdf

 

 

The published steps are:

 

Chartered Organization Briefing

Steering Committee Meeting

Make an Appointment with the Prospect

Call On the Prospect

Have the Prospect Complete a Membership Application

Welcome the New Leader

Fast Start Training

 

Nowhere is there a reference to voting. That was the foundation for my comment.

 

Do some units have votes to select adult leadership? I am certain, do some units require 80 percent Troop meeting attendnace and 75 percent outing attedance to qualify for Scouting Spirit or other such permutation (meaning the 80 and 75 percent numbers may be something else) I am sure

 

Does this answer the question on needing a reference?