From: waltoml@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.scouting
Subject: Re: Junior Leader Job Descriptions
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:40:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

hilding@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Hilding Holroyd) writes: 

> I have also started a policy regarding these roles.
> 1) any scout wishing a leadership role must come to the SM and
>    request it
> 2) scout will be interviewed by SM + 1 other adult (ASM or MC)

The above are sound, Hilding, IF you add one other element: election
by the others. Remember that although we are wanting our unit to run
the best it can, it is *still* their role as citizens (hence, why we
have elections for these positions in the first place) to run and be
elected (and be responsible) to their peers. 

> 4) if after 1 month, the job is not being done, he is removed and not
>    allowed to apply for another role for 2 more months
> 5) if scout is turned down for a leadership role, he will be informed as
>    to the reasons. He may apply for another position after 1 month.
> 

This one (#5) I don't agree with.  Why wouldn't the Scoutmaster want a
particular boy to serve in a particular position?? sounds here like
you are "appointing" the officers of your Troop, whether or not the
Troop (or boy) likes it or not, a sure sign that the boys that are in
those positions are NOT being allowed to exercise complete control and
more importantly, you are "robbing" the others from electing those
that they feel will serve them best.  (in other words, "fathering
them" ("I know what's best here, so this is the way it will be") .)

This works really great with your own kids, but in an environment like
Scouting, where we are attempting to develop their capacity as a
leader, it don't work at all...instead, you get complacency (sp) and
Scouts "can't wait until (new elections) so that I can give up this
(deleted) job". (perhaps you have overheard some of your boys say
something similar?)

When I heard this come from a Scribe and a Assistant Senior Patrol
Leader at a Scout camp the summer before last, I stopped them. Not
being a part of the unit, I asked innocently what their jobs were. 
The Scribe replied "Well, I'm supposed to do the record keeping for
the Troop, but my Scoutmaster told me that all I do is take
attendance. He collects the dues and puts all of the marks in the
books."  The Assistant Senior Patrol Leader chimed in "And he gets to
sit up front with me, Roy (the Senior Patrol Leader) and Greg (the 
Quartermaster)."

When I asked the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader what his job was , he
shugged his shoulders and replied "Not much, really. I am supposed to
be in charge when Roy can't come to meetings, but Roy's not there half
the time anyway.  I don't get to do anything except point to Scouts to
do the opening and closings. Our Scoutmaster has us to sit up front so
to make the others behave."

I asked them if they attended any training for their jobs, stating
that the Scoutmaster attends "fast start" training for his job. They
both shook their heads in the negative sence, and then the Scribe
added "I didn't know we had training like they did. All I knew was the
Scoutmaster appoints us, and we go to the Court of Honor and get our
badges and that's it".   The ASPL then added, "Oh yeah. Greg's dad was
telling us about going to Silver something (this Council has a Junior
Leadership course called Go Silver Bars), but it was too expensive or
something for us all to go to....something like that". 

Finally, I asked them how were they appointed. With almost joint
voices, they both replied "Our Scoutmaster appointed us. He appoints
all of the jobs. That's his job to do that." At that point, I made
some mental notes, thanked them both for answering my questions, and
went to the trading post to make permanent notes. 

My notes from this, Hilding:  Scouts do better when they are told what
it is they are expected to do, and given the flexibility to do them. 
If you give the authority to conduct the meetings to your SPL, he will
do just that.  Scouts perform better in their leadership roles once
trained and later coached by adults and other youth.  The Scribe had
some idea of what his job was, yet, he was unable to do that because
(it appeared) the Scoutmaster had no confidence in his ability to make
entries in the Troop Record Book. 

(If you are not confortable with the Scribe having the book, do what I
did and have three books: one for you, one for the Scribe and one for
the Advancement committeeperson. Once each quarter, have all three do
a reconcilation with the Advancement committeeperson taking the lead. 
In this way, you have a one-on-one situation with the Advancement
person and the Scribe (as is recommended) with you there for that "two
man) YPP rule (as well as to upadte your own book). 

Bottom line:  Scouts need to know that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE and that
you as Scoutmaster WILL NOT TOLERATE LESS THAN THEIR BEST EFFORTS (and
you can tell their best efforts) IN ALL CASES.  That's how to build
leadership strenght in your unit. You cannot "mandate leadership".
This is something that has to be trained, developed and coached
from the time of the start of the role until long after he is
finished. 

> Exceptions: JASM (appointed by SM)

>             SPL (elected from a ballot prepared by SM)
>             ASPL (chosen from SPL ballot by SPL & SM)
> 
> any comments???

In 1978-80, I was given the opportunity to sit in during sessions of
the National Court of Honor. This is the national body that decides
the fate of Eagle Scout applications, heroism awards and the Silver
series of awards.  I became really familiar with the process of the
Eagle Scout applications, was allowed to look at many applications and
worksheets that came in and , although having no vote, was allowed to
comment to the Court in several issues.  

Many Eagle applications were sent back to the local Council during
that time. The reason was that it was apparent from both candidate and
Scoutmaster that the Scoutmaster picked the project, told the Scout
what to do for it, and then the Scout did it. This is NOT an
indication of leadership, but rather followship.  One application will
forever be ingrained in my memories. This young boy from Missouri sent
in his packet and supporting materials for a yard-fencing around the
church that chartered the Troop.  He then wrote "because my
Scoutmaster told me that my role as Senior Patrol Leader was tied to
my working on this project, I did not think that I did a very good
job.  (he then describes the sports teams that he is on, and the play
that he was a part of). "As far as Boy Scouts were concerned, I left
it up to the Scoutmaster to run my meetings because I was appointed by
him and he helped me with the meetings.  My project was attended by
four members of the Troop and the Scoutmaster, but we got it done fine
by the end of the day."

 MHO is, don't appoint them. Have them elect the ones and then hold
their feet to the fire, only releasing them to coach and train. If
they don't do as the boys and you expect them to, then burn their feet
and ask for a new election.  After several "burnt feet", the
collective membership and those boy leaders will realize that you are
serious about their leading, are serious about teaching them elements
of leadership and are serious about them as future leaders. 

Settummanque!

Mike L. Walton
(former National Committeemember)
Greenwood, Kentucky