Boy led - Hypothetical elections

[Gunny2862]

If your Troop held elections and intentionally voted in bad candidates to SPL and ASPL, would you let them live with the consequences of their mistakes or would you fixit for them?

 

If you would let them find out that elections are no joke by letting them live with it, why.

 

If you would invalidate the election, what would you tell the Patrols about why you did it? Thanks.

[frank10]

Just like the Dem's are about to find out in '08, you elect it, you live with it.

[Venividi]

Putting aside the slam at one of our political parties, which I dont see being much help in the context of Gunnys question, and certainly detracts from it, I think this is an excellent topic and thank Gunny for posing it. I am looking forward to seeing responses that describe various experiences. I will start with one of mine.

 

I watched a patrol elect as their PL a boy that came late to meetings, left early, and rarely went on campouts. Sat quietly at meetings without ever saying anything; would stay inside and play chess rather than lead his patrol in the patrol competition portion of the meeting. The boy was the son of the ASM assigned responsibility for that patrol. Six months later, the patrol re-elected the same boy as PL. Their stated view of being a PL was that it was extra work, and they figured that they would rather elect someone that didnt object to being PL, even if he did nothing.

Outcome: the scouts in the patrol mostly dropped out of the troop. Which isn't surprising, given that there patrol never experienced any real patrol leadership, nor never built any patrol unity. None ever went on a high adventure; I tried to engage them in a trip to Phlmont, but a couple of the scouts told me they thought it sounded too hard. I think the lack of leadership was a factor in the patrol members' not learning the scout skills to give them the confidence to look forward to a high adventure trip.

With respect to the question as to whether the scouts learned from their mistake, I would have to say that they did not. They re-elected a bad PL. Then drifted out of scouting. I am not sure that they saw the connection. Perhaps they will realize it 10 or 20 years from now, but I think they would have learned more had something different been done.

What I think should have been done different: the ASM or SM lead a "thorns and roses" type session and talk with the patrol members about leadership, and help them make the connection between who they elected PL and what their patrol did. (Note: we always covered this with as a troop the week before elections. As stated above, info I received from a couple of scouts in that patrol was that no one in else in the patrol wanted to be PL).

 

Lessons Learned: The adult working with the patrol makes a huge difference. In this particular situation, the ASM could have been doing more to mentor leadership in the patrol, or advise the patrol to consider replacing the PL.

[Beavah]

Hiyah Gunny! Good question, eh?

 

I think VeniVidi is spot on. Da place for adults in Scoutin' is to gently nudge things here and there to increase the likelihood of the boys doin' well. Mentorin' up front is the way, not dictatin' after the fact.

 

For elections, that might mean settin' up a good process (maybe with a "screening step" like youth & adult nominating signatures, or rank, or...). It may include quietly encouragin' capable youth to run, perhaps insertin' a few questions for the candidates like "What trips did you help lead last year?" "What ideas were yours at the PLC?"

 

Maybe, if da troop isn't quite ready for the election thing, it's appointin' PL's this year while you build up, or electing an ASPL who automatically will be next for SPL unless the SPL fires him for not doin' his job. That may be where you're at, if kids "intentionally" voted in "bad candidates." Kids need to see things runnin' right first, before they can be trusted to make decisions on their own.

 

Problem is, once you let an election happen, I think you've got to let it play for at least a bit. Yeh might be surprised, and those characters might step up, eh? The boys may also know things that you don't. Mostly, though, it's a bad message if you step on the process (adults can just override us, so elections mean nothing!). And I just wouldn't vote "no confidence" in those boys without at least givin' 'em a shot.

 

Yah, I'd sure be ready with a plan B, though! Give it long enough so that they experience some real pain and growth (and a few connect-the-dots comments like "Gee, the fun outing was canceled, you should talk to the SPL"), but not so long that you seriously injure da patient, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

Great question!

 

This would be a great chance for the SM to help mold young men into good leaders. I would let the Scouts live with the results of their vote & work with the newly elected SPL & ASPL to become the best leaders the unit ever had.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Adult leadership in Scouting is not meant to be passive, so the boys elect what most consider a real zero, what is the Scoutmaster's responsibility? To watch the Troop flounder and possibly lose scouts because of a lack of leadership or is he to meet with the SPL, lay out the positions responsibilities and expectations and then support the SPL along the way. Along the way I would expect frequent performance reviews and goal setting, if the expectations are not met, or the goals not accomplished, the scout is removed from the position, for not fulfilling the job.

 

In the situation that Vinividi details, where was the Troop Leadership? Who was mentoring the Patrol Leader, setting expectations and reviewing his performance? if the members of the patrol didnt want to be scouts, its best to just let them leave then provide a poor model for other scouts.

 

Yes. it can be hard work to train youth to perform to expectations, especially if this is a new experience for them, but it is the committment we made when we signed up.

[Gunny2862]

I'm seeing some great responses here!

 

Anyone else want to chime in?

[Stosh]

We don't elect an SPL or ASPL, they are appointed by the adults.

 

While this may sound strange, we have found that in order for the troop to be patrol method, boy-led it has to have a chance with a decent boy at the helm. We don't want to deal with the problem of a poor choice/popularity SPL causing problems. If we feel a boy is read to be given the opportunity to stretch his wings a bit, he's offered the choice of accepting/declining any position that is offered. The only elections we have are for PL and APL in the non-first year patrols. The first year patrol has an assigned PL and APL. All other POR's are assigned.

 

While this may appear strange, the tradition is that if the boys complain about the leadership we appoint we will appoint new and take into consideration any suggestions they may have for the position. The QM wasn't keeping things as the boys wanted and that position was switched out. The old QM will need to fill his POR hours in a different position or sit until next time the POR's are suffled around.

 

This process is not as terrible as it sounds. The positions are discussed amongst the adults, committee and among the boys to see if there's some interest in certain individuals. Each individual is given the choice to accept or reject and after a period of time, evaluations are made and the boys can suggest a change if they feel it's necessary, i.e. the leader isn't doing his job.

 

This flexibility gives us an ability to quickly deal with administrative problems as they happen rather than waiting 6 months of agony before an attempt to fix can be offered.

 

We have had boys come up and said, "I'm taking basketball/baseball/etc. for the next three months and will be stepping down as Scribe." This is not a demotion, it is an honest suggestion on the part of the boy to insure quality for the rest of the troop while he does other things for a while. Obviously at the end of the sport season, this boy's honesty and concern for the troop will weigh heavily in his favor for a position of leadership in the troop.

 

While these dynamics may not be in line with BSA policy, we have a strong "boy-led" group with an increasing emphasis on patrol method and the system is working for us. Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh

[John-in-KC]

I agree with most of what Beavah said.

 

Gunny, if USMC leadership is anything like Army leadership, you've seen the old 4-square leadership dynamic diagram. What you've described is a case where the young man will probably serve most of his term in either Quadrant I (high direction, low support) or II (high direction, high support).

 

A more typical youth (someone who is a good young man and will get there from here) probably will start off in Quadrant II and quickly move to Quadrant III (low direction (he knows what must be done and moves out), high support).

 

In the case you described, the ASMs should go and have a cup of coffee with the SM. The SMs plate is going to be close to full with mentoring the SPL/ASPL. The ASMs need to volutarily take some of the other burden off the SM.

[Kudu]

I admire the flexibility shown in the posts of Venividi, Beavah, & jblake47.

 

Gunny2862 writes:

 

"If your Troop held elections and intentionally voted in bad candidates to SPL and ASPL, would you let them live with the consequences of their mistakes or would you fix it for them?"

 

During the golden era of the BSA's "Patrol Method," the SPL was elected by the PLC.

 

Likewise, in Baden-Powell's "Patrol System" the Scoutmaster is expected to appoint the PLC's choice for SPL.

 

What both traditional systems have in common with the current 1972 "Troop Elections" method is that the Patrol Leaders come together in the PLC to plan events and in theory the SPL merely implements what the Patrol Leaders have voted to do.

 

So the point is that in an adult-led Troop moving toward the current BSA model (as the question implies), the Scoutmaster can work with the PLC to establish candidate guidelines for Troop elections. This empowers the Patrol Leaders.

 

They discuss leadership with the Scoutmaster and they narrow the choice to the most qualified leaders. If it does not work the Patrol Leaders have the power to determine the qualifications of the next SPL and they still outnumber the current SPL in the PLC.

 

Too much concern over who is SPL is a symptom of using the Troop Method rather than the Patrol Method. In B-P's Patrol System some Troops do not even bother with an SPL, one of the Patrol Leaders simply fills the Troop Leader role as needed.

 

So take a hint from both Baden-Powell and William "Green Bar Hill" Hillcourt and concentrate on training the Patrol Leaders.

 

"If you would invalidate the election, what would you tell the Patrols about why you did it?"

 

Again I would work through the PLC.

 

Back in the days when Scoutmaster handbooks were a thousand pages longer than the current version, the recommended procedure for Patrol elections was to include a trial period of four to six weeks after the election. When his probation period begins, the Patrol Leader recites the "Patrol Leader's Creed," which lists all of his responsibilities:

 

As the Leader of My Patrol

 

I WILL lead my Patrol by my initiative and my personal example, in Scoutcraft knowledge as well as in Scout Spirit.

 

I WILL plan, with my Scouts, the Patrol's activities--meetings, hikes, Good Turns, special projects--and will carry them out to the best of my ability.

 

(etc., etc.)

 

For the full text, see:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/patrol/leaders_creed.htm

 

After a month or so, the PLC determines if the Patrol Leader has lived up to the Patrol Leader's Creed. If so then he is formally sworn in at a Patrol Leader's Promise Ceremony. See:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/patrol/leaders_promise.htm

 

This was back when the SPL was elected by the PLC, but a similar procedure can be used for Troop SPL elections. Rather than invalidating an election, the PLC delays validation until a leader has proven himself.

 

Venividi writes:

 

"I think the lack of leadership was a factor in the patrol members' not learning the scout skills to give them the confidence to look forward to a high adventure trip."

 

And vice-versa. As was discussed in the recent threads about Baden-Powell and the Patrol System, the traditional understanding was that there is a relationship between a Patrol Leader's outdoor adventure skills and good leadership. This relationship is not talked about much anymore because so-called "leadership skills" are assumed to be independent of a Patrol Leader's Scoutcraft skills.

 

I would also point out that one single good Patrol Leader can transform an entire Troop. A Scoutmaster in a Troop moving from adult-led to boy-led can make a point of asking for his opinion in the PLC.

 

Such natural leaders tend to like camping. Encourage them to try some challenging adventures even if only a couple of Scouts attend at first. Consider inviting them to attend specialized Council high adventure outings, or those of another Troop's where they will be exposed to older boy leaders. Sometimes you can find Troops willing to include a couple of your Scouts through Roundtables or a Commissioner.

 

In real Scouting, a boy learns leadership from older Scouts while wearing a pack on his back, miles from the nearest parking lot.

 

Kudu

 

[OldGreyEagle]

However good a method works for a Troop, I feel compelled to tell future readers of these threads that appointing boys to Senior Patrol Leader or Patrol Leader is contrary to the Boy Scout BSA program. Obviously some units have had great success in not holding elections and Kudu reminds us of the historical perspective, but to not have someone point out that not electing patrol leaders and the senior patrol leader is contrary to BSA policy on a Forum that discusses Boy Scouting would be, well, wrong.

 

I wish all units and Scouters well (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[CalicoPenn]

As I see it, the key word in your question is "intentionally". As it's a hypoythetical question, I'd like to assume that means the boys had a choice between someone who has proven to be a leader or has leadership potential, and someone they knew to be the "class clown and screwup" and they deliberately chose the screw-up because they thought it would be funny.

 

Without taking away from the other suggestions of making sure to mentor and work with this new SPL, I'd also make sure that as adults we weren't stepping in to make sure things happen that are supposed to happen if there is no effort being made by the SPL and PLC. If this SPL is making the effort, then yes, step in and help - but if no effort is being made, then I would step back and let the chips fall where they lay so to speak. After you send Scouts home from the first couple of meetings because the SPL/PLC didn't plan the meetings (don't step in with an alternative plan, that tells the SPL/PLC they don't need to do the work because Mr. Scoutmaster will do the work for them) and the camping trip/outing everyone was looking forward to is cancelled because the SPL/PLC didn't get the plans together, the Scouts will be clamoring for a change.

 

I'm not suggesting you let the troop fold - I doubt it will even get to that point - but don't jump in right aaway to "fix" it - let the Scouts see the results of their decisions for a while - its as valuable a learning experience as everything going right all the time.

 

Calico

[Stosh]

I guess my perspective is a little different than "official" BSA, but after 25+ years of scouting, they haven't said much lately to cause me concern.

 

I find it rather strange to allow a patrol-method's first line of support be a setup staging area for eventual failure so a lesson can be taught. The troop committee selects effective, supportive adults. It is their responsibility to pick the best they can find and make sure they are trained to the highest standards. These people are supposed to be there to make sure the patrols are supported and have what it takes to have a good, worth-while program.

 

The liason group of support between the adults and the patrols is the PLC. If the leadership here is ineffective, then it's not the patrol's fault, it's the leadership's fault for not providing effective support for the program just like the committee is responsible for the adult level. The patrols should be focused on their programs, not on the support structure of the troop.

 

If I remember correctly the SPL and ASPL are not patrol members. What then is their responsibility? Run the troop or support the patrols? If it's troop-method scouting, then they run the troop. But if it's patrol-method, they support the patrols.

 

Hypothetical - One patrol plan an outing, and invites other patrols through the PLC to join with them. The PLC is ineffective and drops the ball. 1) the combined outing fails or 2) the adults step in and do what the PLC didn't. I don't see it as being any different than if the second level of support for the patrols being the adults being ineffective either. If the adults can't come up with two leaders the patrol can't have its outing.... Oops, wait a minute, yes they can, the adults are only supportive to the patrol-method, boy-led program. If I remember somewhere in the literature, patrols don't need adults to go along on patrol outings. Hmmmm, a little known clause in the BSA literature.

 

Somehow I get the unnerving feeling that some BSA policies are in direct conflict with each other on many of the important issues.

 

I see in some of the other threads where small troops can't go on outings because they have only one patrol and then when just one leader can make the trip they have to cancel the outing. No they don't, just cut back on the outing, find a place they can walk to/have parents drive, and have an adult leaderless patrol outing. Sounds a little intimidating for adult-led troops to even get their minds around such a possibility. If a couple of parents hang around to keep an eye on the boys, is it still a scout outing?

 

I think a little more definitive understanding of what BSA is trying to do would be in order.

 

If BSA policy was chiseled in stone, this forum would become obsolete.

 

So, hypothetically, if the committee apoints good adult leaders, the adults ought to be apointing good scout leaders.

 

Stosh

[OldGreyEagle]

I just reread my second post on this thread, it was supposd to end with the sentence "I wish all units and scouters well", not "I will all units and scouters well"

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

"Obviously some units have had great success in not holding elections and Kudu reminds us of the historical perspective, but to not have someone point out that not electing patrol leaders and the senior patrol leader is contrary to BSA policy on a Forum that discusses Boy Scouting would be, well, wrong."

 

There is no rule against it.

 

You should write that such practices do not fit into the current Scoutmaster Handbook.

 

Back when the Patrol Method section was larger than the entire 179 page current Scoutmaster Handbook, the BSA listed situations where appointing Patrol Leaders was a good idea, and suggested ways to do it. This includes new Troops where everybody is young, and old "in trouble" Troops where the BSA program is not working.

 

My experience is that if you build a strong PLC (and send at least one PL to NYLT), the PLC will convert to Troop elections for SPL without asking the adults for permission to do so. Likewise when a "New Scout Patrol" starts working as a real Patrol, it too will hold a Patrol election without asking for permission.

 

Under a strong PLC, Scouts will take charge when they are ready.

 

Kudu