Regular elections

[CubScoutJo]

For those of you whose troops hold regular elections for Senior Patrol Leader and Patrol leaders, what have you found is the best time frame for holding them?

 

We'd like to start having elections every six months, (with the option for the "incumbent" leaders to serve up to two "terms") but want to get folks opinions on if it is a good idea to change leadership right at the beginning of the school year, or at some other time.

Jo

[Beavah]

Yah, CubScoutJo, good question, eh?

 

One school of thought is "Why have fixed terms or fixed-time elections?" Elections should be called by the patrol whenever they feel it's necessary or appropriate to make a change in leadership, or when the PLC feels it's time to have a new SPL. There's considerable merit to that approach, which was Baden-Powell's. I reckon Kudu will jump in soon and tell yeh all about it. Don't mind his rhetoric too much. He's a passionate fellow, but there's some good ideas and good scoutin' under the rhetoric.

 

Otherwise, in troops that do hold "timed" elections it seems like every year or every 6 months are da most common. If every year, then elections can be held so that new lads are in positions prior to the troop annual planning conference, so the new youth leaders plan da year's program and then get to execute it. So it's elections -> troop leader trainin' -> annual planning conference in short order. That might be in da late spring/summer (so the new SPL can attend NYLT trainin' at council during the summer and the kids can plan for the fall). Or it might be some other time durin' the year, like recharter time or January.

 

For every 6 month elections, my guess is dat folks are lookin' at the 6 month term needed for positions for Life Scout and Eagle Scout, eh? That can be an issue if they're really tryin' to use advancement to drive their use of patrol method rather than vice versa. Not da best approach, IMO. In that case, a new group of leaders might "inherit" part of an annual plan they didn't put together, which can be a problem. Best to have lads plan for 6 months, then, and choose times that make for a good transition in planning. And of course, then yeh have to offer troop leader trainin' and other trainin' for the new leaders more frequently.

 

More frequently than 6 months would be unusual, eh? Boys need time to learn from experience and to grow into a position. Sometimes, though, New Scout Patrols will be encouraged to elect a new patrol leader a bit more frequently as a learnin' exercise.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh]

Of course there are those who try and emulate the civic/vote model of things and hold elections at certain times of the year and make major changes in leadership in one big swoop. This is to be expected for those who find it works best for their troop. However, our boys do it more of the business model, where one learns the job and then takes it on.

 

Our boys are singled out at this time of the year (early school year) in preparation for leadership change 6 months from now (SM and youth leaders work this out as to what's best for the boys and the troop). At that time there will be a major reorientation with the influx of new Webelos boys coming into the troop. Therefore, while the boy are still not IN the position they are going to be spending time learning the position they have been singled out to perform. The SPL is a PL now and will be leading his patrol while at the same time develop the skills to be a SPL next Feb. The PL that will replace him is learning how to be a PL while still a member of his patrol. The ASPL position will be learned by the TG who will be responsible for training the troop officers who are still in their respective patrols. This "dual" responsibility allows the boys the opportunity to remain where they are comfortable while anticipating and preparing for a future change/challenge. When that time comes to make the moves, the learning curve has been finished and the boys are ready to go fully on their own. They will hold these positions until new boys can be trained to fulfill their shoes, and they can learn the next step up the ladder of leadership themselves. 6 months of learning before taking the position seems to be more effective according to the boys than taking the job and trying to do the job and learn it at the same time.

 

The boys holding the positions all have the choice to whether they wish to stay on a PL or move on to another challenge. This also means a boy has the choice to step down from a position and let another aspiring boy have a chance. What happens there is that person trains his replacement.

 

The boys have commented that they like this approach because they feel comfortable in taking on the challenges when they have had the opportunity to get prepared for it.

 

Does this cause confusion as to whether or not the boys is fulfilling a POR position while in training for it? The boys have never said anything about it and appreciate the opportunity to learn before taking the reins themselves.

 

Stosh

[gwd-scouter]

We hold our elections once a year. Not on an exact calendar measurement, but it works out to about a year. We used to have elections every six months, but that was something designed by the adults in order to help guys fulfill their PORs for advancement. The consequence of this was that most guys wore the patch but didn't really do anything. Or, a guy held a POR for, say, Life for six months. Then for the next two years while he was working on merit badges, didn't do much of anything at all - including attending meetings or campouts.

 

The change for our Troop came about three years ago when our then SPL's six months was up and he decided he was only then really getting good at the job and wanted to continue. Now, our guys hold their PORs for a full year and our elections are held when the PLC decides it's time to change things around.

 

For us, this has probably been the single best change our Troop has made toward empowering the boys to run their Troop.

[shortridge]

A year-long term gives PLs the ability to know their patrol's unique internal dynamics, learn the duties and responsibilities of the position, get involved in the nitty-gritty of planning, lead the patrol on independent expeditions and have a stint at the helm at a long-term camp (leading for more than just a weekend).

 

Six months is just too short of a time to get a handle on the job and the patrol method, let alone chart your own course, without becoming a dictator.

 

I see no reason why term limits should be imposed. If the concern is that you need to rotate Scouts through the PORs for advancement, well, there are plenty of positions to go around. (And for Star and Life, there's always the "Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project" option.)

[John-in-KC]

One challenge you will have in going to one year POR cycles is managing new First Class Scouts who are starting the S-L-E ladder.

 

Your SM will have to be creative in assigning PORs or supplemental projects which meet the standards of Requirements #33215.

[shortridge]

What do you see as the challenge? Older Scouts getting bored with their jobs for a year, or wanting to move up the S-L-E ranks as quickly as possible and thus not wanting to wait for a year?

[Beavah]

Yah, jblake, thanks for sharin' an interestin' permutation on an idea. I've seen units do the ASPL becomes SPL thing, or APL becomes PL so there's a trainin' progression. Another tool for my toolbox helpin' units! Thanks!

 

Question for yeh, though...

 

What do yeh do when two boys are both interested in a position. Or, more properly, what do the boys do? Have an election six months early? Work it out by consensus? Play rock, paper, scissors? SM's favorite gets the quiet nod? Might not come up much given your troop culture, but I bet that and the occasional lad who isn't doin' the job will come up at some point.

 

Beavah

 

[Buffalo Skipper]

Beavah,

I like your approach. And I do like the idea of having the ASPL move up to SPL, using the ASPL as a training.  I am not 100% for this, but I cannot knock the merits.  I think it has significant drawbacks, but rather than being negative about it, let me relate what we have tried work into our program.

Our troop dynamic would not allow for this long terms, largely because of the role HS sports plays with our older members.  One is in baseball, another in swimming, two in soccer, and three on the track team (a couple are on more than one team).  These largely run different seasons, and we work had to keep our 6 month schedule in line with as many of these as possible.  As an example, our current PL of the "older boy" patrol is a very good baseball player.  Once baseball season starts, he will be unable to fufill his obligation at troop meetings, which is just before the end of his PL term.  Likewise, our outgoing SPL is a swimmer, and he currently serves as Instructor, because, as much as he would be a good TG, he shows up to meetings 45 minutes late because of swim practice, and will be unable to attend campouts because of conflicts with swim meets.  Next election (when we may have a full new scout patrol), he may be TG, as he will have no conflict. 

Our troop is growing again, and within a year and a half or so, we may have enough "experienced" scouts to better fill the senior leadership ranks with out conflicts (hopefully).

Each troop has their own quirks, hangups and snafus--and they change over time.  Rigid flexibily.  Be firm on what works while it is working; yet be mindful of changes and be ready to change the status quo, when the need arises.

[Kudu]

A Troop holding regular Patrol Leader elections is like a Little League team holding elections for pitcher after every game.

 

The assumption is that it doesn't really matter how good a Patrol Leader is.

 

In fact the politically correct position these days is that it is "wrong" for a Scoutmaster to judge which Scouts are the best leaders and to guide the Patrols in the direction of their own best leaders, as both Baden-Powell Troops AND the BSA did before 1972.

 

Both Baden-Powell and the BSA also believed that the BEST Patrol Leader should remain Patrol Leader for as long as he is the best Patrol Leader!

 

What an idea, huh? The BEST Patrol Leader should remain Patrol Leader for as long as he is the best Patrol Leader.

 

Regular elections serve the faulty assumption that the purpose of Patrols is to give every boy an opportunity to learn one minute manager theories that hype corporate CEOs as great "leaders."

 

The result is sub-prime Patrols in which Patrol Leaders never organize after-school Patrol Meetings to plan their own weekend Patrol Hikes to work on advancement, or lead Patrol "overnights" (if only on Troop campouts). This was the BSA's DEFINTION of a "Real Patrol" before the invention of Leadership Development in 1972.

 

The Little League equivalent (of holding elections for pitcher after every game) would be to give every boy on the team the opportunity to learn some Dennis Waitley "winner" theory.

 

And then dumb it down so that untalented "pitchers" can be successful.

 

PORs have dumbed the "Patrol Method" down from the primary source of adventure in Scouting before 1972, to duty roster stuff while camping in the corner of a small campsite under the watchful eyes and ears of misled adult "leadership experts."

 

Not much more fun than Cub Scouts, but most adult "leadership experts" seem to think this is a GOOD thing because sub-prime Patrols operate within adult comfort levels.

 

Think of how much safer Little League would be if we dumbed pitching down to T-ball by holding regular elections!

 

Kudu

 

[Stosh]

"What do yeh do when two boys are both interested in a position. Or, more properly, what do the boys do?"

 

This is exactly what I thought just a couple of weeks back. It's six months out from Blue/Golds and it's time to consider the lead time to establish the troop leadership we'll finally need because of our growth. My best PL was of course the best candidate for SPL which we haven't had (only three patrols), but the TG is a more experienced boy (did double duty as SPL as needed), but would do a lot better as ASPL training and supporting the different troop POR boys. I asked them what should be done and the older more experienced boy took the two patches and said, "This is an easy decision." He then handed the SPL to his buddy and took the ASPL himself. I got a good lesson in trusting the boys to do what was best for the troop and not just themselves.

 

"Have an election six months early?"

 

Scouts serve as long as they wish and are productive in the position. Each boy immediately begins to groom new scouts to fill his position so he can move on to something else if he wishes.

 

"Work it out by consensus?"

 

This time the maturity and decision making skills of the boys worked out a very selfless decision that surprised me as well as the new SPL.

 

"Play rock, paper, scissors?"

 

No random luck goes into the POR positions in the troop. Evaluation of the boys' need and evaluation of the troop's need are always considered first before decisions are made by the boys. This is why the boy decided that sometimes the election process was too random and not enough thought in it to guarantee efficient and trained leaders taking over.

 

"SM's favorite gets the quiet nod?"

 

One can be 100% guaranteed that this will never happen. I have drilled boy-led, patrol-method to these boys that although my input is welcomed, I'm never going to get my cronies into the system unless they prove themselves to their buddies first.

 

"Might not come up much given your troop culture, but I bet that and the occasional lad who isn't doin' the job will come up at some point."

 

If a boy isn't fulfilling his responsibilities, he can be replaced in a heartbeat. Remember the boys are constantly training replacements, but they still retain their previous skills to go back and step in an area that has fallen short by a scout not doing his job. This might be only a temporary setback and a boy goes out for a sport for a couple of months, and a previous POR holder will step back into the role while the boy does his school thing and then turn it back over to him when he returns. The boys have accepted functionality as the #1 expectation of the leadership. If scouts are not or can not function in the position they are taken out, trained and given another chance later. Leadership is functionality.

 

I have stressed servant-leadership style to the point where I have very few ego problems to contend with (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it usually gets corrected by the boys themselves). I have heard boys ask when they could be a PL or something simply because they would like to try out their wings/learning, but not necessarily to just wear a patch and look cool.

 

By the way, when the SPL received his patch, the other scout asked him who then would be taking over his patrol. He said he had a boy that he thought he could get up to speed as PL while he himself was getting up to speed as SPL. He, of course, selected his best scout out of his patrol for this training. (But of course who would know the best who would be able to take over for him and do a good job?) I know he will pick the best because he had a lot of pride invested in his boys and wouldn't pick someone who couldn't take over and do a good job. But by being SPL, he'll be there to help the new PL even after the initial learning curve has been comleted.

 

Stosh

[asm 411]

The troop I serve took a bit of a different direction as of late. The last PLC came up with the following scheme.

 

1) We have an SPL election twice a year. This was decided for similar reason as stated above that has to do with sports and band commitments. No term limits.

 

2) We have a pre-SPL election the week before the SPL election. Like the OA election any Scout who recieves votes from 50% of those in attendance is then eligable. The Scouts can vote for anyone in the Troop even if they are not at the pre-election meeting. Each Scout votes for everyone he thinks is qualified. Any Scout that gets 50% of the vote can give a speech the next week as to why he would be a good SPL, those not in attendance are notified by the current SPL. Like the OA if no one gets at least 50% the Scouts vote again. There are no qualification criteria for the SPL in terms of rank or age.

 

 

3) SPL election week - Each Scout in attendance casts one vote, the Scout with the most votes win. If there is a tie then they vote again. Votes are counted independently by the outgoing SPL and quartermaster and reported to the scribe who double checks the count. Note the SPL, quartermaster and or the scribe may be in the running for the position and that is okay because a Scout is Trustworthy right.

4) ASPL is chosen by the SPL

 

5) The Patrols have the option, may have to because old PL may be SPL or ASPL, to elect a new leader if they want to. Actually the patrols can elect a new leader anytime they see fit with the approval of the PLC (mostly to prevent PL of the month). This covers all unfortunate instances like sports or moving away or quitting...

 

6) All other PORs are up for grabs with the new SPL. We put out sign up sheets at the pre-election and the night of the election. The SPL and ASPL decide who will fill their PORs based on those who signed up. (The Scouters have been known to recommend to Scouts that they might be good in a POR but that is as far as the adult intervention goes) The POR are shown to the SM for approval, mostly a formality but as always the SM has veto power which is rarely used.

 

7) Leadership projects are always available to Scouts. This helps with the too busy with sports for meeting night and campouts. The project gives them a way to be involved in Scouting and contribute the troop when they have to take a several weeks off for other activities. It also takes care of things that need taken care of like reorganizing the troop gear.

 

8) We have our election when school starts in the fall and right after the cross over in February.

 

Lincoln

[shortridge]

I asked them what should be done and the older more experienced boy took the two patches and said, "This is an easy decision." He then handed the SPL to his buddy and took the ASPL himself.

 

That's a great story, and very instructive. Sounds like you have a solid team there.

[MEpurpleWBfox]

I have been reading some of the posts (well, all, really, to get to HERE...)and still don't understand....

 

Our Troop is "supposed to be" boy-led. Thus the Patrol Method is "supposed to be" in place...

 

What I've seen in the course of my sons being involved in the troop is that it's turned into a popularity contest. There is no sense of leadership involved when the boys vote on SPL. Our current situation is a perfect exapmple. We just had "regular" elections (a really fast elections process, due to our return from Philmont, where we had DIFFERENT crew chiefs). The Scout that was elected SPL is only 14, and a Star Scout. He has absolutely NO control over the troop...our previous SPL is ALWAYS stepping in to control the boys (he was elected to "two terms" and did not want to be SPL again, even if elected). Plus, as always, we have a group of boys that are "mischieveous" (my son can be one). The new SPL chose one of that group to be his ASPL. NOW, the questions...

 

1) My son is a Life Scout, one of the older boys in the troop. He was in the running for SPL, but did not get elected. No big thing.

 

2) As I stated, the SPL is younger, and therefore (in my opinion) has less leadership experience (it's eveident in his lack of control at the meetings).

 

3) Ths SM is a supporter of the "boy-led" troop, BUT...at a PLC that was held impromptu at the meeting place, (I was there just watching as a committee member in the same room) the SM PLANNED the next three months' meetings with activities (most to prepare for Klondike, of which our SM is in charge)and then PRESENTED it to the boys and gave the impression that "here we go, it's all set"...

 

I'm confused...what I think I see is a SM leading from the back using the SPL position as his "cover"...and letting the election process "pick" his choice for SPL so he can "lead" the troop...maybe I'm wrong...I'm just a Scout mom who feels that the GUYS need to be the SM/SA to be with the boys in the outings and such to teach them (Moms tend to be, well, MOMS...)to be responsible young men and future leaders. I CAN say with pride that my two older sons achieved Eagle and have had opportunities open to them that would not have been available had they not achieved Eagle. Now that I've been on my "soap box", do I make sense??? Or am I just a mom???

[Stosh]

MEpurpleWBfox,

 

Once again into the fray, you are again opening the biggie can of worms for the patrol method/boy led concepts. No problem, you're new and it'll give you some good insight.

 

First of all, from my perspective you have hit the nail on the head and have identified many of the problems with the current model of BSA leadership and how easily it can be distorted by the "powers to be".

 

My unit is boy run/patrol method because I insist on it and I as SM constantly block adults from interfering in the operations of the patrols. First of all the highest ranking officers in my troop are the PL's, NOT the SPL. The SPL's job is not to parrot the program prescribed by the SM, but is to support the PL's in the operation of their patrols. The SM assists and supports the officer corps of the unit (SPL, ASPL, TG, Scribe, etc.) The operative word is SUPPORT, not direct, not lead, not "mentor/coach" (which are code words for telling them what to do). If they need help, the SPL is there to assist them get back on track. Contrary to popular programming, my SPL does not run the troop, he is the PL to the PL's. His job is to only work with PL's and assist/teach them in being successful in their patrols. His patrol (PLC) coordinates the efforts of the patrols with each other. The PLC does not dictate to the patrols what is or is not going to take place, it is a forum where ideas are exchanged, information assimilated, and cooperative efforts are organized. If 3 patrols want to go to summer camp and the 4th patrol wants to do something else (high adventure, for example) they all do their own individual things. All patrols are independent of each other, function independantly and with the assistance of the SPL stay independant of each other. There's nothing worse to kill off a patrol of older boys than to drag them off to summer camp for the 6th time because all the younger boy patrols voted they had to. Ever wonder why the older boys leave scouting? I don't. My older boys hang around and do some neat things instead because they are leading, directing, and deciding their activities themselves in their own patrol.

 

There's a lot of talk that floats around concerning this patrol method/boy led stuff and there's a differing opinion from every person. If the boys are going to really lead, the adults have to let them and this is very difficult for most adults because they want a successful program as defined by the adults. They glory in strong units, Eagle Scout statistics, etc. but what the boys want is to learn to lead and no 14 year old boy is going to be able to lead a "strong" troop as well as a seasoned adult. But, a 14 year old with 3 years training in leadership will put together a far better, self motivated unit than a 14 year old being told every step of the way by the SM what he has to be doing to run the show. The older boys will eat him alive as you can attest from the situation in your troop.

 

Once people realize that boys, if properly trained, can at that age run a very successful program if the adults (especially parents) get out of the way and let them.

 

As far as the elections are concerned, a patrol that elects based on popularity will soon find that down the road a vote based on leadership qualification is a far better idea. How often do patrols vote on their leadership? Each patrol can decide that for themselves. If their newly elected PL isn't doing his job, they, if they wish can put someone in that position that will do the job. Boy led is really boy led. No adult need interfere with that process. Who's the one that wishes to step down from the PL position to be a supporting SPL? I would think the patrol of PL's (SPL) could easily decide that for themselves as well. Of course the boys, if they wished, could also just pull a name out of the hat too. It's boy led, remember? They decide what's best for them and the adults either support them through their decisions or rein them in and make them toe the line.

 

Stosh