empowering the SPL

[Stosh]

It may not be the answer one wishes to receive, but if the patrol method is being used, why not use it as it was intended. We've had support people, i.e. SM and SPL's interfere in the operations of the patrols when discipline is necessary and basically it always works out with one or more boy either being removed from scouting or they quit. Neither outcome all that efficient to the program.

 

If left in the hands of the boys and then support their efforts, things have worked out better. "Empowering" the SPL seems to indicate he is powerless in the process. How about empowering the PL of the patrol in question? Start at the root and work from there. In all this discussion the PL and the APL have been omitted. Whatever happened to empowering them? or are they insignificant in the process formerly known as the "patrol method"? For those who many not have like the suggestion previously, look at the conversation. The SPL is involved, the SM is involved the CC and CM's are all involved and just where is the role of the PL ever discussed. This is the Patrol Method, is it not? That's why I think the 12-guage approach is a useless process and not recommended by the Patrol Method approach.

 

Stosh

[Its Me]

 

The committee person stepped over a line. They acted as a substitute Scoutmaster. Ideally the committee person should have taken his concern to the scoutmaster and allowed the SPL and the Scoutmaters to work out the issues. I cann't help but think that either the action of the SPL or the Committe person will cost this Troop a scout.

 

Your intial question was "how does one empower the SPL to make these decision?" Through the PLC

 

"How can this be balanced with knowledge that the boy does not have? By interactions with the Scout Master.

 

Funny how the committee person thought the SPL leader had over stepped his bounds when it would appear that the Committee person did so.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>The people who spoke up at the committee meeting actually surprised me because one is a former SM who is usually the one pushing "boy led" and the other is a longtime ASM and probably a future SM (both are on the committee for now). Upon reflection my best guess is that they spoke up when and where they did because the SM did not. Maybe the comments they made were really more a nudge/push for the SM to do a better job of communicating with his SPL.

[MarkS]

I think my point was if the Scoutmaster can't make the PLC, reschedule the PLC so he can. The Scoutmaster is required in order to have a quorum.

[EagleInKY]

You've received some good advice. And I agree with my buddy Barry that this is not unusual for a troop experiencing growth pains.

 

My main advice would be to encourage the SPL. I think it's GREAT that the SPL took the initiative to make a decision. Use the opportunity to complement him and the PLC for their resolve to come up with a solution. Also, use it as a coaching opportunity to share with them the importance of the patrol method and how this decision should not have been made without input from the patrol members themselves. And, how it's a good idea to discuss these things with the SM before sharing it outside of the PLC.

 

We had a similar situation to face. We were doing some patrol reshuffling. We solicited input from the boys that were going to be moved to see where they wanted to go. We were having difficulty getting the numbers to work out. They wanted to move a boy with a similar disability into a patrol with a scout that I knew would cause problems for him. I had to tell them that it wasn't an option to move him to that patrol, and to trust me that it just wasn't an option.

 

As for SPL presenting to the committee. We've done it, but we don't do it on a regular basis. I like the concept, but it does open the potential up for the committee to overstep its bounds. That's why I shy away from the practice.

 

MarkS - I respectfully disagree. The SM is not part of the PLC. While I believe it's good for the SM or ASMs to be present, it should not be required. I've had to miss a few PLCs, and I would hate to think it needed to be rescheduled because of my work schedule.

[mdutch]

First, let me say that I am coming at this from the perspective of a Former SPL (last year) of a sort-of boy run troop (and I was always trying to make it more boy run).

I think one thing that needs to be done at this point is to have the SM sit down with the SPL and discuss what happens, and get the SPLs advice on what to do next. Based simply on the fact that he was willing to take an action like this on his own, I would say that he is a probably a very capable leader, and has some ideas on what to do next. It is also possible that he was expecting this reaction from the committee, and has a plan on how to proceed.

 

[Nessmuk]

Hey I realize this is May 31 and this is late and in the pile of a lot of good replies.. But !! This boy has just learned a valuable lesson or two in leadership and reinforcing this outcome ( I refuse to call it a mistake) is part of his growth .. # 1 He is demonstrating better leadership and initiative than 95+ percent of the world's "adults" !!

#2 Forget dinging him with "He did not have all the information before making the move." That is a slippery slope that can sour the development of a great leader. A common rule in leadership circles is make the decision when you think you have 85% of the info.. Some riskier environments demand a lower % to "get things done".. As far as consulting with the SM - Depends.. Do you want a boy that asks the SM every time he makes a decision about HIS troop? If you do, then push that "Ask the SM" stuff... The boy did extemely well in how he handled it. In my Scouting days (even in our boy led and pretty even keeled troop), the troublemakers would most have likely been scared out of their wits at a campout one night by the "great woods spirit" that periodically rids our troop of all bad guys ! He did GREAT without that sort of stuff. He needs to be encouraged more by applauding his initiative and informing him that he also now has to be responsible for "monitoring and adjusting" the situation after his decision - another imprtant leadership concept. If you have "overridden" his (and the PLC's) decision in this case, you have just created more problems and probably hosed up the creation of a future great world leader! Good job !

 

[Gunny2862]

1st, new guy...(show me my errors)...

2nd, I'm failing to see where and how the SPL did anything wrong.

3rd, Is the non-challenging scout in danger in proximity to the challenging scout?(para3 of orig. post)

 

[Lisabob]

In response to your third question, I personally do not think anyone is in physical danger at this point. However, one of the boys in question has emotional issues and in the past (elem. school) has been known to strike out at others. My perception - and I suppose I could be wrong - is that this is much more under control these days than might previously have been the case, to the point where it is no longer a concern. But I also understand why a boy (and a boy's parents) who has had serious run-ins in the past with this scout might be unwilling to wait and see.

[Gunny2862]

Thanks Lisabob! for the clarification.

 

[John-in-KC]

To the major issue, Lisa, I'll trust the SM and SPL have by now have had a "mutual mentoring" session. This hash, properly cooked in a Dutch oven, just might make a pretty good stew.

 

To having the SPL report to the Committee, yes, when I was CC, I asked my SM to empower the SPL by doing just that:

- Forced the young men to grow in terms of public speaking.

- Forced the young men to get tasks which must in turn be delegated (You want to go to a HA program? Great, Mr SPL. Give us some input!)

- That in turn allowed the SPL to delegate tasks within the PLC.

 

Now, the SM sat right alongside the SPL. SM took his proper responsibility for program decisions. He was ready and able to step in when SPL "ran out of words," or when a Committee member started going too deep for the SPL.

 

BTW, if you think I as CC didn't know almost exactly what the SPL was going to report (by having visited with the SM offline), well... I may have fallen off the turnip truck... I just didn't do it yesterday.

 

As far as any tasks the Committee gave the SPL for the PLC to act on, these were also pre-coordinated with the SM, and usually were something the PLC was "sitting on."

[acco40]

The Scoutmaster, Committee, nor the SPL should be deciding what patrols the boys belong to. The boys should make that decision.

 

This past spring I had a boy join our troop - but he was not fresh from Cub Scouts having earned his AOL a the previous year. He wanted to join a "regular" (as opposed to Venture Patrol or New Scout Patrol). I discussed with him the pros and cons of him joining a New Scout Patrol (he would be more in line advancement wise but a year older than his patrol mates) vs. a regular patrol (he would be approximately a year younger than most of the boys and at least two ranks behind most of them). He chose the "regular" patrol and after asking the boys in that patrol they agreed to let him join.

 

Well, now (three months later) just before summer camp he said he wanted to switch patrols to one our NSPs. I asked the NSP in question if they were okay with it, they were and the switch was made (numbers helped too - he went from a patrol of 9 to a patrol of 6).

 

As the Scoutmaster, I thought I was within my authority to do the above. A patrol should be a group of peers. That does not mean same age or rank definitively. Patrols should not become cliquish (sp?).

 

When we need to reformulate our patrol make-up for whatever reasons, here is the approach that I take. I discuss it with the SAs at our monthly Scoutmaster meeting. I then arrange the patrols the way I see would work out best. I then float this to the boys at a troop meeting giving them the freedom to make changes with the stipulation that "trades" have to be agreed upon by all and also one for one (no mega-patrols of 15 nor mini-patrols of 3). I've found that parents seem more concerned with patrol make-up than the boys are. They need to be able to get along with all of the Scouts. By the way, I try not to reshuffle the patrols unless absolutely necessary.

[AvidSM]

First off, the SM does not "empower" the SPL. That would imply that the SM is in control and is giving some of that control over to the SPL. Any SM who thinks this way does not fully understand the idea of a boy run troop and will never benifit from having youth leaders and a PLC that really runs the troop and runs it well.

 

Secondly, the SM is not a member of the PLC. If there is a PLC meeting where he is not present, he should not afterwards overturn the decisions made there. The youth leaders of the PLC need to learn the consequences of their decisions, good or bad. It's the SM's job to make sure that they see the error of their ways and make them see how things could have been done better. Hopefully the SM is doing this enough and often so that the bad decisions don't get out of hand so that they negatively affect the program and membership.

 

Lastly, no committee member has the right to overturn a decision by the PLC. A good SM should step in in that situation and let the CM know that. Also, it's the SM's job to report to the committee, not the SPL - the SPL should be reporting to the SM.

 

If it was my troop and the PLC decided to reshuffle the patrols, then their decision would stand. I would tell the SPL to ingnore the Committee and go forward with the plan. Once the PLC starts noticing that the plan is not working out so good, they could then think it over and reshuffle once more. But it would be their decision, not mine.

[Hunt]

Have you ever changed your mind about a decision you made after somebody provided you with information you didn't have when you made it? That's what should have happened here. Rather than overruling the SPL or "pulling the rug out from under him," the adult leaders should have simply suggested that he reconsider his decision based on new facts. "I notice that you've put X and Y together in one patrol. You may not realized that....you may want to think about separating them, based on that." That way, the change in course is still his decision.