Setting rank/age requirements for SPL, others

[gwd-scouter]

I know many troops set requirements for age and/or rank for a Scout wanting a POR, especially SPL. Other than JASM and Den Chief, I've never seen anything written about age or rank minimums so I'm wondering about a new situation in our Troop.

 

I really don't want to interfere with the current SPL and his PLC, but in another post I wrote that we now have five guys wanting to run for SPL: the current nearly one year office holder who just decided he's going to run again, 1 14-year-old life Scout, 1 14-year-old 1st Class Scout, and 2 13-year-old 1st class Scouts.

 

The current SPL and the two 14-year-olds are the Scouts that I give full credit to for the successes our troop has had this past year and for raising the expectation of boy leadership. This past year they alone have been our PLC, planning and carrying out our meetings and outings. The two younger 1st Class Scouts have had a few opportunities this past year to step into leadership when needed/asked as a way to start getting their feet wet and have had some measure of success. However, one of those younger guys is really only running for this job so, as he says, "he can boss everyone around" as he did those times he was asked to be in charge of something. The other younger Scout has only since summer camp been bitten by the "Scouting bug" having spent most of the early part of this year on the verge of dropping out because he was afraid to do things or thought they were too hard. Both are young still with lot's of room to learn and grow.

 

In my other post I wrote of my amazement that five guys showed up last night for SPL's called PLC and thrilled at the show of enthusiasm for leadership. Because this is a different take on the situation, I wanted to post a separate thread.

 

So, finally, here's my question - do I step in now and suggest that the two younger 1st Class guys back out of the running and work in a POR for a while that will provide them with more training and experience, and hopefully maturity along the way? Or, do I let things go ahead as planned, have the elections in a couple of weeks and deal with whatever happens.

 

Sure, I hope that the guys will select the best candidate for the job. But consider this: we have 10 guys in the Troop, 5 want to run for SPL and presumably will vote for themselves. That leaves 5 remaining to cast votes, that is if they all show up on election night. Could be an interesting turnout.

 

 

[T164Scoutmaster]

I have a couple questions before I post a response!

 

 

Does your troop only hold elections for spl once a year or has teh same scout been elected both times?

 

Does your troop follow the boy led agenda?

 

Are there any posisitons in your troop that are not being adequately fullfilled or need to be revamped?

 

Thanks!

[John-in-KC]

gwd,

 

I'd have a SM conference with each. Walk them through the duties. Walk them through YOUR expectations of performance. Walk them through your expectations for training (which I hope include Council-level JLT in what acronym it has this week).

 

SPL/ASPL both properly should have high bars for performance. He's supposed to lead meetings, coordinate planning, and see that all the wheels are going to turn. I'm betting the kids have stars in their eyes instead.

 

I would also insist on parental buy-in. SPL is important, second only to church-in-nature and school-in-nature events. Scout and parent alike need to embrace that!

 

A high bar should winnow the field some.

 

In

[gwd-scouter]

T164: we've only had 2 SPLs for the past two years, both kept the job for a full year. The first, two years ago, had the job for six months and we held elections. He ran again, mostly because he didn't think the other guy should run unopposed. Good thing really, since the other guy was my son and not ready for such responsibility. At least, not in my eyes nor in the eyes of the other Scouts because they voted almost unanimously for the older Scout to keep the job. After six months, the SPL asked if we could have elections and a new SPL was elected - the guy in the job now just finishing his 10th month. The former SPL was the one that suggested the SPLs in the future keep the job for a year and only have elections in six months if the guy is not doing a good job or resigns. He said six months is just not enough time to get good at the job and feel comfortable in it.

 

In the past, our troop used the PORs for advancement only. Have elections twice a year, six months apart, so guys can get signed off for Rank. No accountability, no actual job to do, just the title with guys rotating in and out like clockwork every six months.

 

I won't go into detail because I have so many other posts on this forum about it, but, yes, our troop follows the patrol method as much as we can considering we only have 10 guys.

 

So far, we've only had guys in a bare minimum of PORs, rather than fill every one. Seriously, with only 10 Scouts we could have had everyone in a POR if we wanted - even the Scout and Tenderfoot guys. Only recently have we had more than 3 Scouts over 1st class Rank who would be required to have a POR if they wish to advance. We have a 12-year-old Tenderfoot Scout in the Quartermaster position and he has done a good job, when he's there. PLC and I have discussed trying the Scribe and Historian positions again. We had no success with them in the past. The lack of success was my fault. I was concentrating so hard on working with the small group of guys in critical PORs, teaching them how to do their jobs so that they could learn to take charge of the troop. Boy-led was the goal and I really didn't put much importance on Scribe or Historian. I think we are now at a place where our older Scouts have had enough experience running things and teaching that they could begin to implement other PORs.

 

John-in-KC: Yep, I did have a chat with these guys. If they were paying attention then they know my expectations. SPL actually talked to them before I did. A couple of years ago I started contacting parents of Scouts seeking a POR and it has helped. Hmmm, I think I read something when I first joined this forum suggesting getting a buy in from the parents...

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, gwd, don't look a gift horse in the mouth

 

I'm a firm believer that a SM should have a light touch. Never do with a rule (like a rank requirement) what you can do with just a nudge.

 

Just asking or planting a question or two during the speeches/campaign can help draw boys' attention to issues of experience or maturity. "Which outings this last year did you help plan? Were any your idea fro the start?" That and some basic instruction on what to look for when electing anybody... not just da best looking or the most dynamic speaker, eh?

 

With that many lads, though, yeh might consider a nominating process or a runoff election.

 

For those thinkin' about rank requirements in bigger units, here's a thought:

 

APL: Must be First Class. He needs to know the basics confidently before he can start tryin' to lead.

PL: Must be Star and/or a former APL. He should have some leadership experience, deeper skill, and some troop-level service before gettin' the most important job in Scouting.

SPL/ASPL/QM: Must be Life.

JASM: Must be Eagle

 

Beavah

 

[T164Scoutmaster]

Thanks for the response.

 

I would say first of all it should be the scouts decisison if they want to require rank restrictions for the POR. Nothing in my mind would say a rule book needs to be created. The rules are already their. The Law the Oath, Motto, and Slogan are the only real guides we need.

 

What can you do?

 

SM conference is where I would start.

I would start with the current SPL. How do you think you have done as SPL? Have you met your own expectations of the job? Do you see any deficiencies in any of the troop operations that you would like to see imporoved upon? What if any POR do you think the troop needs that we aren't utilizing? What POR would have helped you in your position as SPL? If the same SPL is in that POR for a long duration is there any chance for your peers to proove they can do as good a job, maybe better? If you were not elected SPL, What POR do you think you could be put into that would make the troop improve and grow in numbers?

 

I would have a sm conference with each of the candidates similiar questions but those not already in the POR I would ask what they expect to accomplish, what could they improve on? what ideas for growth? what about succession and future Leaders?

 

Again like others have said ask the questions that get the troop thinking. Help guide them to the decisisons that ultimately should be theirs anyway. Encourage the utilization of all POR and stress the ability of growth and encourage the recruitment efforts.

 

Before the election I would tlak to the SPL about holding a debate where the other scouts question each candidate. Democracy in action.

 

I have had this same situtation in the past, a great SPL that made my job easy. Always prepared and always doing the right thing. All the scouts wanted to keep him as SPL. After the SM conference thing he decided that of all the things he wished were more effecient would be the Quartermaster. He opted to not run again allow some new blood in and the new patrol leader appointed him QM. He took on the QM role full bore. He stayed active, turned out to be the best QM the troop had ever seen. did a complete revamping of the gear and proposals on what to replace how to do it and fund raising ideas to make it happen. The replacement SPL went to him several times for advice and direction, but after a while turned out to be a great SPL and the troop was put on a higher plateau. both excelled and did a great job. If the old SPL didn't decide on his own to step aside he most likely would have been elected again and everythign wouold have stayed the same. Instead we had two great accomplishment and a lot of new ideas.

 

Guidance, and discussion are really where its at in my mind. give the scouts a problem and let them come up with a solution.

 

What a problem to have 5 candidates for SPL. One many SM's would love to have. A good SPL puts scouts in a position where they choose to want to do as good or proove they can do better. Give them the option and let them proove to you they can.

 

 

[TheScout]

Have the SPL need to win a majority of those voting to be elected. The worst performing person getting knocked out of each round of voting. That is how our troop always did it.

[Eagledad]

>>APL: Must be First Class. He needs to know the basics confidently before he can start tryin' to lead.

PL: Must be Star and/or a former APL. He should have some leadership experience, deeper skill, and some troop-level service before gettin' the most important job in Scouting.

SPL/ASPL/QM: Must be Life.

JASM: Must be Eagle

[Beavah]

 

Yah, Eagledad, I didn't say that was my experience. Just that it was a thought for people who were interested in puttin' in rank requirements for positions .

 

Me personally, I hate addin' a rule where judgment will do just fine or better. I wonder why you chose 1st class for JLT being your restriction (for da same reason)?

 

I agree, da real things to think about are:

 

1) A boy should be fairly self-confident, and perceived as fairly competent by others, before he starts takin' up a leadership role. (i.e. set him up for success).

 

2) A boy should have some successful introductory/"lower level" leadership experiences before being asked to do a bigger job. (i.e. set him up for success).

 

If a kid is progressin' through the ranks in a way commensurate with his maturity and skill, and if da ranks actually represent maturity and skill, then maybe my list is about right. Both of those have to be true for rank to be a useful indicator of a boy being "ready" for the next leadership step.

 

O'course, yeh can also use such a list backwards as well. A boy who makes a good JASM (you're treatin' him like an adult ASM) really should be (encouraged to finish) Eagle. He's "there." And a boy who isn't yet ready for a position like SPL or ASPL perhaps isn't yet ready for Life.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>O'course, yeh can also use such a list backwards as well. A boy who makes a good JASM (you're treatin' him like an adult ASM) really should be (encouraged to finish) Eagle. He's "there." And a boy who isn't yet ready for a position like SPL or ASPL perhaps isn't yet ready for Life.

[insanescouter]

We use several sets of soft guidelines ...

 

1) ranks such as First Class for PL and most troop positions but ASPL. SPL is Star ... however this can be (and has been) waved on a case by cases bases

 

2) how active the Scout is

 

3) the mental, emotional, and even in some cases physical abilities of the scout ... oh and we cant forget the example they set such as wearing uniform, scout spirit, etc

 

4) the Scouts personality plays a big role too ... not all Scouts are great leaders some will make the worlds best librarian but the worst SPL

 

As I said these are just things taken into account and are taking on a Scout by Scout and the position they are going for ..

 

Anyway hope my wacky 2 cents of was of help...

 

 

Scott Robertson

http://insanescouter.org

Helping leaders one resource at a time....

[Stosh]

Rank/age requirements have always amazed me. One needs to be First Class to attend JLT and one can't be PL/APL unless they have JLT. This might be all fine and good except for the new scout patrol. They get an untrained, anyone that's warm kind of leader with no experience. Unless there's an exception to the rule for the new scouts leading themselves.

 

Every time one makes a rule, something comes up to force an exception. Boys in our troop assume leadership when they make the effort to actually function in that position. If one has a firecracker of a scout who would do an excellent job as a SPL, they shouldn't have to sit on the sidelines until they earn their rank or have a birthday.

 

Stosh

[gwd-scouter]

Thanks for the responses. I do think that a guy running for SPL should have had prior experience in leadership, but in our Troop that has only this past year become a consideration. Our current SPL was 1st class, 14 years old when he was elected last January. Aside from the 16-year-old Life Scout who was stepping down from the job, and the 17-year-old concentrating on Eagle, he was the oldest Scout in our troop. He ran against my son, then 13-year-old Star, and won. (That was the 2nd time my son ran for SPL and lost, trying again this time).

 

Three of the guys running this time have all been in a POR for the last year: Current SPL, my son-Troop Guide and Den Chief, and the ASPL. The other two 1st Class Scouts running have had a turn or two at leadership, being put in charge of activities during campouts and such.

 

Current SPL and I keep in touch with each other each week through email. This has been working very well. He's really the first we've had that initiates contact with me to keep me up to date on meetings plans, if he has ideas about changing things, etc. Last week when he gave out assignments to all the guys running for SPL, my son was given the task of planning an orienteering session for tomorrow's meeting and also the Court of Honor coming up in a couple of weeks. He jumped on the computer as soon as we got home, looking for ideas for the Court of Honor. He's taught orienteering basics several times over the past year so he is ready for that. I was standing behind him and making suggestions when he turned and said, "you know, Mom, if I'm elected SPL, maybe you could just email me when you need something or have a suggestion - like you do with Ryan." Guess he's afraid of the Scoutmaster's son syndrome.

 

This past week, current SPL wrote me about other PORs and what he may want to do instead of running again for SPL. He thought he could do a good job as Scribe if we included things like monthly newsletters, written invitations to Courts of Honor, etc. Something he wrote got me to re-examine my thoughts about the boys running for SPL.

 

I have always thought one of the advantages of our small troop was that as SM I can get to know each boy individually-his strengths, weaknesses and personality. What SPL reminded me of though, was that my adult perception of these guys is very different than the Scouts' (youth) perception. One of the 1st class guys running is, in my mind, not ready for the job. Current SPL noted in his email that he thought only two of the Scouts running would do a good job and the 1st class Scout I just mentioned was one of them. (My son was the other.)

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Every time one makes a rule, something comes up to force an exception. Boys in our troop assume leadership when they make the effort to actually function in that position. If one has a firecracker of a scout who would do an excellent job as a SPL, they shouldn't have to sit on the sidelines until they earn their rank or have a birthday.

[gwd-scouter]

Had elections last night. Did NOT turn out as I thought it would. Current SPL decided not to run to give the other guys a chance, so we had four running. Only seven Scouts showed up last night for the elections so that left 3 votes assuming each of the four would vote for himself. Newly minted 1st class Scout, age 13, was elected.

 

Aside from the fact that I really would have preferred the Scouts vote for one of either of the two older Scouts that have experience in leadership, I find out now that the guy elected bribed the two younger Scouts present to vote for him. He told them if he was elected he wouldn't make them do anything and we would make all the older Scouts do everything.

 

Now what do I do? Let it go? Address it somehow?