Patrol Leader Selection

[TAHAWK]

Rick, you started out in this thread implictly and expressly condemning Boy Scouting in the U.S. on the grounds that it did not strictly follow your view of BP's "Patrol System," expecially

as regards the method of selecting PL's.

 

While we disagree on certain aspects of BP's teachings, it is certainly clear that spoke of appointing PL's. That approach followed the military model of officer/Platoon Leader and nco/squad leaders -- hardly a surprise given his background.

 

In contrast, a early as the 1916 HB, the B.S.A. allowed for election of PL's as an option. By the time I became a Scout, election had become the only legitimate, lawful option in Boy Scouting here.

 

Thus, Boy Scouting here differed from that in the UK (and Canada) generations ago IN THAT RESPECT.

 

You argued that The B.S.A. made a mistake in departing from BP's standard IN THAT RESPECT, which is a point of view that any Scouter is free to advocate, just as I contend that the current Field Uniform is not suitable for field use.

 

However, you also seem to advocate that SM's appoint PL's (or veto election results) contrary to the rules that every Scouter is on his or her honor to follow.

 

I believe that any Scouter who cannot bring himself or herself to follow the rules and methods as set down by the B.S.A. on such a fundamental issue as one of the Eight Methods should, as BP expressly write (more than once) consider leaving Boy Scouting and finding some other opportunity for service to youth more consistent with their personal beliefs. The so-called "Traditional or "Baden-Powell" scouting that you advocate as an alternative to Boy Scouting would be one example of such an opportunity. There are doubtless others.

 

THEN, you posted that election of PL's is OK, just not "regular" elections. While I understand your distinction (and think that "rotating leadership" would not be effective), your seeming switch in positions drew my comment about a "moving target."

 

I do not think, at its base, we have a problem of "reading comprehension," although I yield to no man in my ability to fail to comprehend. I think we have a difference of opinions and positions.

 

I POSTED:

"And now that I have come to your advocacy of the Patrol System as a program "rigidly controlled" by adults, "consult" must be simply window-dressing."

 

YOU REPLED:

"99% of all of the problems of the Boy Scout program would be solved if the Guide to Safe Scouting conformed to Baden-Powell's rule that Patrols always camp at least 300 feet apart.

 

The other 1% are due to reading comprehension[.]

 

The rigidly controlled by adults passages that you cite (found under "Strong moralistic stuff," above) are all BSA quotes from before the BSA adopted the Patrol Method on September 21, 1923.

 

In other words, the "safe" tightly adult-controlled BSA program was the origin of Patrol elections."

 

RESPONSE:

OK. Finally "got" it. You were arguing that the B.S.A., not BP, advocated rigid adult-control, and such control is NOT a "good thing." Did I comprehend correctly this time?

 

Rick, we started out here in Army uniforms and allowing appointed PL's. (Don't get me started on James West.) THAT IS NOT WHERE WE ARE NOW OR HAVE BEEN FOR GENERATIONS. Rigid adult control is contrary to Boy Scouting policy; hence election of PL's and SPL's, youth planning and leadership, and the Scouters roles as coaches, resources, and guardian's of physical and moral safety. Rigid adult control in the here and now is evidence of Scouters who are failing to offer Boy Scouting to the youth in their Patrols and Troop. Failure to allow the Scouts in the here and now to elect their PL's and the SPL is also evidence of a refusal to lead the Boy Scouting program.

 

KUDU POSTS:

"He [bP] was a firm believer in self-government long before 1918. Once the best possible Patrol Leader was appointed by the Scoutmaster, it was strictly hands off. The Patrol Leader represented his Patrol and the adults kept quiet in the Court of Honor unless asked for their opinion, as for example in the transcript where the Patrol Leader of the Woodpeckers has been slacking off by hiking his Patrol a mere eight miles to the same old location: [lengthy quote posted above omitted]

 

REPLY:

Some might see a conflict between leaders apointed by a "superior" authority and "self-government," but I take your point.

 

I POSTED:

"I believe that one obvious reason why democracy [Thanks, Rick, for the spelling correction.] is part of the Patrol Method in Boy Scouting here is that Boy Scouting is not about producing "well-oiled" patrols. Our aim is to turn out better citizens (as in BP's "practical school of self-government"). When the objective is boys learning to be good citizens and good people, mistakes are part of the process."

 

KUDI REPIES:

"Yes, I hear that sentiment a lot in Wood Badge circles. Also, "Our aim is not to produce the best Patrol Leaders, but to teach leadership to every Scout. If our Troop had the best Patrol Leader in the entire world, it would be my responsibility to ask him to step down to give another boy a chance because my job is to teach leadership!"

 

Manager school "experts" can say that because they do not train Patrol Leaders to manage controlled risk out of the sight of adults.

 

So sure, if a Patrol Leader has no adult-level "lifeguard" responsibility then certainly there is no downside to meaningless six month popularity contests for good citizens and good people and mistakes that have no real consequences."

 

I RESPOND:

You also read that sentiment in what BP wrote, as I pointed out above in this thread. So I certainly did not mean to suggest that "Boy Scouting" in the UK was any different in the substance or certrality of its aims. Allowing for differences in forms of governemnt (king and Empire), there is no substantial difference.

BP and the B.S.A. are clearly after good citizens and good people.

 

As to "sentiment . . . in Wood badge circles," I have never heard any Scouter propose to remove a good leader simply to give another Scout a chance for leadership tenure. I have done two stints over eight years as a SM, twenty-three years as an SA in two Troops, and over thirty years as a trainer. I get to sing two stanzas of "the" song -- and soon a third -- if I can.

 

Given the reprots of good Scouters here and elseweher, I must, however, allow that it goes on, just as adult-appointment of PL's and rigid adult control goes on. We do not have anything like 100% compliance with Boy Scouting.

 

But where, Rick, does the BSA literature, and especially (since you bring it up) WB literature, suggest such strange conduct? I had to prepare for all the sessions of the "old" course, present them (sometimes more than once) to very tough audiences, and then present five of them to "learners." I never saw a hint of such silliness.

 

I also took three weeks of Ken Blanchard courses courtesy of my employer, and I can assure you that replacing good managers to give the "other fellow" a chance at managing NEVER came up in "Stuational Leadership." Recognizing and utilizing the contribution that another group member can make does not, to me, require a change of group management, much less a rotating management. The focus, after all, is on the "bottom line." Management training outside Boy Scouting just has a different "bottom line." They measure results in $$$. We, including BP, measure in good citizens and good people. Both sides feel that leadership skills help achieve the results.

 

I POSTED:

"In Boy Scouting, adults are present. That is an absolute requirement. Your advocacy is unlikely to change the mind of anyone involved in the process that brought us to that rule. The problem is to keep the adults' cottin'-pickin' hands off the [Patrol] process. [word added to clarify unfortunate double use of noun "process"]

 

PL's DID NOT LEAD ADULT-FREE CAMPOUTS IN 1954 WHEN I BECAME A SCOUT. They did run sorta' adult-free Patrol meetings each and every week (Mom was usually somewhere in the background and would respond to serious crashes.). But there was always an adult (dad)or two on a patrol campout or hike, and we were supposed to have at least six such activities per year. Now, as most know, one adult is not enough (and coverage for liability by the BSA depends on compliance)." [emphasis added]

 

KUDU REPLIED:

"What is your level of training?

 

For someone who so often turns accusations of not obeying the rules into personal insults, you don't appear to have read much about the Patrol Method in the last 54 years.

 

In 2008 "Boy Scouting" still allows adult-free Patrol Hikes and Campouts. Check the Guide to Safe Scouting under Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings: "There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, where no adult leadership is required."

 

RESPONSE:

If I unintentionally insulted any here, I regret that.

 

I said, quoting BP, that IF one ELECTS not to obey the rules, they need to change their behavior or leave.

 

I honestly did not understand that you felt being said to fail to comply with certain BSA rules, such as the requirement of elected Scout leaders, would be an "insult" to you in any sense of that word. Rather, you seem to wear non-complaince as a badge of honor.

 

The discussion, I thought, was primarily in the context of camping out -- 300 feet and all that. If it is not, I agree that Scouts may conduct Patrol "activities" without two-deep adult supervision WHEN NO TRIP IS REQUIRED. I gave an example from my experience as a Scout.

 

If the topic is camping or hiking, the language from the Guide to Safe Scouting must be read in pari materia with other B.S.A. publications:

 

"Age-Appropriate Guidelines

 

These criteria are designed to assist unit leaders in determining what activities are age-appropriate. Activities that do not appear on the chart should be reviewed using these criteria.

. . .

 

The unit or group receives training appropriate to the activity.

In addition to the general criteria, the following program-specific criteria apply.

 

Cub Scouting

The activity is parent/youth- or family-oriented.

The activity is conducted with adult supervision.

Cub Scouts are asked to do their best.

The activity is discovery-based.

 

Boy Scouting

Activities are led by youth and approved AND SUPERVISED BY ADULTS.

Activities are patrol- or troop-oriented.

Activities meet standards and advancement requirements.

Activities are experience-based." [emphasis added]

 

AND

 

"All backcountry treks must be supervised by a mature, conscientious adult at least 21 years of age who understands the potential risks associated with the trek. This person knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of the youth in his or her care. This adult supervisor is trained in and committed to compliance with the seven points of the BSA's Trek Safely procedure. One additional adult who is at least 18 years of age must also accompany the unit."

 

AND

 

Please follow this link to the tour permit required for any Boy Scout "trip" under 500 miles: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34426.pdf

 

>Please note the requirement of adult supervision.

>Please note "hiking" as a mode of transportation covered by this permit.

 

I read "supervision," in context, as requiring presence, especially when there is an emphasis on "two-deep" adult supervision.

 

I would argue, taking all the publications together, that a Patrol campout that does not involve going anywhere -- no "trip" -- does not require a Tour Permit or adult supervision. I was simply not thinking of "camping out" in a Scout's backyard. That was hardly BP's model or, I think what you had in mind, Rick.

 

If the Guide to Safe Scouting is misleading on this point, when read in isolation from other relevant official BSA publications, I can only say that I am no more responsible for that situation than I am responsible for the materials, design, or quality of the Field Uniform or the lousy "index" (really word-search results) in the back of the 11th Edition Handbook.

 

As for training, these publications should be covered in basic training, as is the Guide to Safe Scouting. (Don't buy it. It's on line: http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/Resources/Guidetosafescouting.aspx

 

I POSTED:

"PL's did not lead "adult-free" campouts in 1954 when I became a Scout."

 

KUDU REPLIED:

"Maybe not in your car-camping Troop.

 

Adult-free hikes and campouts were the whole point of the Patrol Method in 1954. Your copy of the Handbook for Patrol Leaders would have had an entire chapter on how to take your Patrol on a Patrol Hike. . . ."

 

RESPONSE:

My "car-camping" Troop. My PLHB in 1954. How amusing. Really.

 

Rick, Troop 43 (Max. of 100 Scouts and 20 Senior Scouts/Explorers plus waiting list) did not have 11-year-old PL's in 1954. Of it's six PL's, the majority were elected after they had earned Eagle rank, usually at 15-16 years of age. If elected when merely Life Scouts, they were expected to "promptly" earn Eagle. There were no PL's who were not at last Life Scouts. So I was merely a dazzled newbie in 1954, trying to take it all in. I had never been around so many High School types. Wow!

 

Late Summer, 1957, with due ceremony, I took hold of the staff of the Eagle Patrol flag -- 49 years of PL's initials carved thereon. (And less good ceremony these days. Too bad.) Afterwards came the stern lecture from the God-like SPL on how my Life Rank was "not the thing."

 

Troop 43 itself averaged 86 miles (43 x 2) of Troop mountain and desert back-packing a year -- a number selected/confirmed by successive PLC's. We did a Troop back-packing summer camp every third year, ran our own conventional summer camp every third year, and did summer camp at our Council's Camp every third year.

 

Weekend or Summer Camp, Patrols always camped separately from other Patrols, Crews, or Troop leadership types - but within bugle call. Council made that much harder in Camp RoKiLi by not allowing enough space to get good separation, but we did our best.

 

Patrols were expected to conduct three Patrol hikes or backpacking trips plus three other non-Patrol-meeting activities (usually service projects) per year. Patrols were to meet once a week. (No video games, chat lines, or color TV's. Wonderful!)

 

(Older Scouts typically backpacked on their own - outside the ambit of Scouting and usually when School was "out" -- because they liked it. Sunrise on Mt. Whitney was particularly favored. Many of us completed the Pacific Crest Trail -- in installments to be sure.)

 

My Troop was not located in BP's notional, idyllic countryside or a small English village. We were located in the Los Angeles SMA, and there was no effective public transportation. After a fire in Santiago Canyon (one of a sucession that continued in 2007), there was no decent place to camp, backpack, or hike -- the "woods, rivers, and wide-open spaces" -- without transporation to the trailhead or campsite by car over a period of at least an hour at highway speeds. We did not consider walking around town a "hike" or camping in someone's yard as a "Scout" "campout."

 

Adults, and only adults, were allowed to drive us out of the urban sprawl. That was Orange Empire Council's rule (explained ro me when I got my License and expected to be allowed to drive. How had I not noticed. It was always adults.) I know not on what authority Council so ruled. One did not feel so free to question authority in 1960.

 

After arrival at the trailhead or campsite, the adults might accompany us, wait at the cars if we were to be back "soon," or drive home. Backpacking or camping, adults tented some distance from the Patrol site(s), cooked and ate separately, and left us largely alone - as our SM required. When I think of adults on such outings, it is typically in terms of the unusual, such as when Mr. "Jody" Smith (Oh you can't get to Heaven in Jody's car . . .) fell off a log bridge into Slushing Creek and soaked all the adults' food for Saturday dinner.

 

Our SM, Dick Smith, had taken WB at Gilwell Park while he was in charge of all dependent Scouting in the ETO - and when Thurman was Camp Chief. Mr. Smith absolutely believed in -- and practiced --what was then called "boy leadership," taught that adults were a great asset and the greatest threat to the Patrol Method, and insured that the other adults behaved appropriately most of the time (whatever they thought about our tendency to make what they though were "mistakes."

 

One of Mr. Smith's teachings was that adults were only present "to stop someone from marching off a cliff -- if the cliff is over three feet high." Apparently, only a three foot fall was just another learning expereince.

 

Mr. Smith was also the Scouter Training Chairman (for life) of the Council. He regarded training Scout leaders - Scouts - about the Patrol method as wonderfully subversive of Scouters who would not let the Scouts lead. After 1955 or 56, he had older Scouts on every staff for training of Scouters.

 

Fully half of every "Troop" meeting was taken up with Patrols meeting, adult-free, in separate rooms of the First Methodist Church. Oh, an adult might drop by to give or take information, but that was atypical. The upshot was that meeting time in a Patrol was several times "Troop" time in any given week. While my recollections of fellow Patrol and Crew memebrs is fairly "green," most of the other Scouts have faded away. Only the very colorful remain.

 

And here we are in 2008, however much one might dislike modernity. We are WELL into the Age of the Lawsuit. The requirements of adult presence have steadily tightened up - perhaps steadily weighed down -- since I got back "in" in 1981.

 

Whether adult presence is a problem depends on the behavior of the adults. Even silent "hovering," in and of itself, may be damaging behavior. So I train Scouters and Scouts, the first group as to their required behavior and the second as to what to expect in Scouter behavior.

 

 

White Stag.

That training was unknown to me until I was a Scouter, but it was "all the rage" in the early 1960's in SoCal. Since you seem to oppose the very concept of leadership training, we will not reach common ground.

 

I found White Stag totally consistent with all other BSA training at the time and was left with no impression that leadership by Scouts was to be reduced. Instead, the emphasis was on making the Scout leaders more effective in their Patrols and, to a lesser extent, Troops. We were taught that "nature abhores a vacuum," and so effective Scout leaders, whether PL's or SPL's, were more likely to keep Scouters' hands off the controls of leadership.

 

Then and now, for Boy Scouting to promise Scouts, as it does in the Handbook, that they - and only they - have the right to select their leaders and then to deny them the free exercise of that right could cause (Dare I say it?) cognitive dissonance.

[BrianChevy]

 

As a new Scoutmaster I allowed any first class scouts who wanted to run for SPL. It went ok -- NOW that I have been on the job for a bit longer, I request that candidates consult with me in a ScoutMaster conference before being placed on the ballot. This way, I can decide which scouts live the Oath and Law, which ones meet the rank requirements and which ones are ready. I can counsel people toward an intermediate leadership position while they deveolop their own leadership style before pursuing SPL.

 

We just had an election last week, 3 candidates on the ballot -- existing SPL running for re-election (i liked that) -- and 2 new candidates. I'm pleased with all three boys and would have been happy with any outcome. The troop elected a new leader -- DEMOCRACY at it's finest. I'm pleased.

 

Brian

SM

[Kudu]

Tahawk writes:

 

THEN, you posted that election of PL's is OK, just not "regular" elections. While I understand your distinction (and think that "rotating leadership" would not be effective), your seeming switch in positions drew my comment about a "moving target."

 

If the only tool you have is a hammer then everything you see starts to look like a nail, doesn't it?

 

I enjoyed the fascinating account of your Troop as a Scout. It certainly was not the Eagle mill that I envisioned when you wrote:

 

The only "required" "outdoor" MB's were Camping and Cooking. In short, car campin' was just AOK for SLE. Camping Merit Badge in 2008 is far more demanding, physically and mentally, than it was in 1962 or before... Cooking MB, "required" back then, could be earned back then in your back yard (or front yard).

 

Perhaps it would be more productive if you gave us an account of some the successful programs of the Troops you have served as an adult, and how you think using what you perceive to be "the only legitimate, lawful option in Boy Scouting here" helped.

 

jblake47 writes:

 

I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway...

 

I agree. The current Scoutmaster Handbook (SMHB) does not use the word "vote" anyway. On the page facing one of those fake Baden-Powell quotes it says: "The members of each Patrol elect one of their own to serve as their patrol leader."

 

There is no bold face official definition of "elect" which means that consensus can easily fit within a definition of "elect" such as "to make a selection of" or "to choose, especially by preference."

 

The SMHB also uses words such as "select," "choose," and "decide," but I did not see the word "vote."

 

So strictly speaking, "voting" is "adding to the requirements," and those who force their Scouts to do so should consider leaving the BSA and finding some other opportunity for service before they start buying six-packs for the boys!

 

Mike F writes:

 

I had forgotten some of those details until I read your notes.

 

Mike, the current Scoutmaster Handbook is 944 pages shorter than Bill Hillcourt's third edition, so a few details of the Boy Scout program (like the word "vote" and descriptions of the process--which do appear in this version) have been neglected.

 

Here are some additional Hillcourt's suggestions that might also bring back memories:

 

How to Select Patrol Leaders

 

The question then arises 'Should the Patrol Leader be elected by the Patrol or

selected by the Scoutmaster?' The answer is an emphatic--and apparently

paradoxical--'Yes!' As a matter of fact, he should be either elected by the Patrol

or selected by the Scoutmaster, or maybe both--according to the Troop's age and its

peculiarities.

 

Since the Scoutmaster has the ultimate responsibility, he naturally should decide

upon the method to be followed. It is obvious that under different conditions it may

be necessary to use different methods. A new Scoutmaster starting out with new boys

with no previous Scout experience might want to select the leader himself, while a

Scoutmaster, himself a Scout with several years' work with boys to his credit,

because of his experience or viewpoint, would follow an entirely different course.

 

Under the ideal Patrol Method, the Patrol Leader is selected by the expressed wishes

of the members of the Patrol he is to lead. There is seldom any danger that the boys

will choose the wrong boy for their leader. If they have had a chance to come to know

each other through association in the Troop, their choice is usually the boy peculiarly

fitted to their needs. The chosen leader may not always be the one the Scoutmaster

might have most preferred, but the wise Scoutmaster should not override the Patrol's

choice, except in a serious emergency, in which case he exercises his power of veto.

It may be preferable to let the Patrol suffer for a short while the handicap of an unwisely

chosen leader and thus learn by its own mistakes [emphasis added].

 

The Scoutmaster's Part

 

If a very definitely unfortunate selection seems imminent to the Scoutmaster, through his more mature knowledge of the Scout in question, he may decide to call the Patrol together and give it a talk on the necessary qualifications of a Patrol Leader. This talk may even be so designed as to narrow the choice to the boy the Scoutmaster would like to see chosen. Almost invariably the boys will follow suggestions thus diplomatically given-and will feel that they, after all, did the choosing [emphasis added].

 

A modified election scheme is the method by which two or three boys in each Patrol are nominated by the Scoutmaster or the Troop Leaders' Council and one is elected by a vote of the Patrol.

 

In some Patrols every boy writes out the names of the fellows he thinks are the three best leaders in his group. The results are not made known directly to the Scouts but practically every boy in the Patrol has some kind of rating placed upon him as a leader. At the Troop Leaders' Council meeting, with all the senior and junior leaders present, the ratings are gone over and it is decided just who will be the best leader for the group. In this way both Scouters and Scouts have a share in deciding who the Patrol Leaders shall be and the possibility of embarrassing situations is eliminated.

 

In all instances, the appointment of the Patrol Leader should not immediately follow his election or selection. It should be definitely understood that he has to prove his mettle before the appointment is forthcoming. For this reason it is advisable to institute what might be called a "period of probation" during which the Scout is given the chance to prove that he is worthy of the high office of Patrol Leader. This period may be of one month or six weeks' duration, and should seldom be longer [Handbook for Scoutmasters, 3rd Edition, Page 184].

 

Kudu

 

 

[TAHAWK]

KUDU POSTS:

"I enjoyed the fascinating account of your Troop as a Scout. It certainly was not the Eagle mill that I envisioned when you wrote:

 

'The only "required" "outdoor" MB's were Camping and Cooking. In short, car campin' was just AOK for SLE. Camping Merit Badge in 2008 is far more demanding, physically and mentally, than it was in 1962 or before... Cooking MB, "required" back then, could be earned back then in your back yard (or front yard).'"

 

RESPONSE:

I spoke of the B.S.A. requirements as then in place, which you had presented as much more rigorous than today. They were clearly not more rigorous, except, IMO, as regards the requirement of the Life Saving MB back then.

 

As to generalizing from those facts to Troop 43, or other contemporary Scout Troops, there were certainly Troops in my old Council the 1950's that never hiked or backpacked. Some regarded sleeping bags on the church gym floor as "camping." Some passed Scouts for rank solely on the basis of effort. (The last was often done citing Scouting for Boys on that topic.)

 

One Scouter at training in 1961 even argued that all Scouts should be given Eagle (and be made OA members) because otherwise some Scouts would be "disappointed" and "hurt." (I think he had come to us from "Indian Guides.") His Troop "led" the Council in advancement until his retirement a couple of years later. (I heard almost the same argument from a Scouter in training in 1985. His SM decided to keep him on the Committeee "where he is more valuable.")

 

Other Troops back there and then backpacked every month.

 

It largely depended (SURPRISE!) on the counsel and coaching coming from the Scouters.

 

My bottom line is that we cannot keep flogging Boy Scouting for the errors of 1972-1978.

 

KUDU POSTS:

Perhaps it would be more productive if you gave us an account of some the successful programs of the Troops you have served as an adult, and how you think using what you perceive to be "the only legitimate, lawful option in Boy Scouting here" helped.

 

RESPONSE:

Not sure how productivity fits in.

 

I have served in only three Troops as a Commissioned Scouter. I was SM of two of them. Thay all used the Boy Scouting program. I never had any direct experience with appointed PL's or SPL's although, as I posted, I know appointing by adults goes on.

 

I have described above how allowing the Scouts to elect their leaders helps prepare them for participation as voters in their lives as citizens -- even when there are "bad" results. That they recall the "bad" choices years later, when they are of "voting age" is instructive.

 

In any event, like it on not, "in for a penny, in for a pound." I take a promise seriously. We promise elections. Elections there shall be.

 

KUDU POSTS:

"'jblake47 writes:

 

I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway...'

 

I agree. The current Scoutmaster Handbook (SMHB) does not use the word "vote" anyway. On the page facing one of those fake Baden-Powell quotes it says: "The members of each Patrol elect one of their own to serve as their patrol leader."

 

There is no bold face official definition of "elect" which means that consensus can easily fit within a definition of "elect" such as "to make a selection of" or "to choose, especially by preference."

 

The SMHB also uses words such as "select," "choose," and "decide," but I did not see the word "vote."

 

So strictly speaking, "voting" is "adding to the requirements," and those who force their Scouts to do so should consider leaving the BSA and finding some other opportunity for service before they start buying six-packs for the boys!"

 

RESPONSE:

First you argue that "democracy" does not necessarily require elections.

 

Now you argue that elections do not require voting.

 

Let's take your argument seriously for just an instant.

 

A good rule of construction, used by the highest court of each of our fifty states and The United States Supreme Court, is to understand words according to their ordinary meaning in the English language. "Elect . . v.t. 1. to select (a person) for some office by voting." Websters New World Dictionary, College Edition (1966); accord, The American Heritage Dictionary (1976); accord, Dictionary.Com (2008); accord, Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language, on-line ed. (2008); accord, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 555 U.S. ____ (04/27/07)(USe of word "vote" as violative of McCain-Fingold "election" "reform" act); Bush v. Gore, Case oo-949, U.S.S.C. 12/12/02 (election of electors by vote of citizens of Florida).

 

That, for me, ends taking "elections" without voting seriously.

 

'Cause I think you were just "pullin' my leg. You do that better, and with better humor, than some prey "critters" we both know.

 

"The past is a different country. They do things differently there." E.P Hartley

 

Those quotes from Bill appaear in the 2 volumne HBSM, right? Bill's words before almost all here were born.

 

But Bill, before WWII, does not state the present policy of the B.S.A. or the practices I was taught, and taught to others, starting over fifty years ago.

 

I do not contend, and have not contended, that present rules leave the Scouter without influence on the process of selection. Seems to me that the winnowing out of the clearly unacceptable can be done by the elected members of the PLC BEFORE the election under the rubric of "requirements" or "stanards," as opposed to heavy handed vetoes after the election. Our Troop requires certain rank, certain participation in all aspects of the troop and Patrol activities, and experience in a Patrol or Troop elected or appointed position (e,g, APL or Troop QM). PPPPP.

 

I even allow that newly discovered evidence MIGHT justify action BY THE PLC even after the elections, but everything that can be done should be done to avoid the subtance or appearance of taking group democracy away from the Scouts.

 

And I have related the value of a limited period of bad leadership under close monitoring by Scout leaders and Scouters. That would have apparently bothered Bill AT ONE POINT. It does not bother me:

 

1978: "To make sure that you have one ["a good leader"] all the members of the patrol elect the Scout you respect the most as your patrol leader . . . ."

Bill Hillcourt

 

(Please note the absence in 1978 of "ideal," "sometimes,""maybe,""could be," "optional," "modified" etc.)

 

Even if you want to argue from BP as the final authority, which he is not. it is still simple. BP wanted to teach "the boys" to "play by the rules." "By discipline I mean patient obedience to authority nad to the dictates of duty." Scouting For Boys, Part VI The Scout Master was to set the example. Id. and The Scouter, July 1910 ("practice what he preaches")

 

The "rules" in the UK -- and here generations ago -- allowed the Scouter appoint PL's and SPL's and to directly, and openly override the judgment of the Scouts if there were elections.

 

That was then. This is now.

 

In 2008, if Boy Scouting promises the boys elections and the policy of the B.S.a is elections, we have elctions.

 

If we do not allow elections, we do not obey authority, do not play by the rules, and, thereby, set a contrary example.

 

Try to obtain change? If you truly think elections have less value than the exercise of your superior judgment, you are free to try to role back the last five or six decades.

 

Meanwhile, "play the game."