Re: OA elections -- Adult Role
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:01:42 -0400
> From: Ted Burton <egburton@VALINT.NET>
> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 10:37 AM
> At 05:37 -0700 on 8/14/98, Roman J. Smith mailed OA elections:
> > So if I think that one boy does not deserve to
> >be in, I can not tell anybody to leave his name off of the ballot.
> The Scoutmaster is supposed to make sure that no one appears on the
> who in the Scoutmaster's view is not ready. That's SOP. When I was a SM
> took that seriously, and built it into Scoutmaster conferences that came
> months before the election. Thus at the time of the election there were
> very few to take off the list.
There is a BIG difference between someone who the SM feels does not live
up to the Scout Oath and Scout Law, and someone who the SM feels doesn't
deserve to be in the OA. The first Scout is not qualified, and should not
be listed on the ballot. In the second instance the SM would just be
substituting his judgment for the judgment of the youth in his troop if he
omitted him from the ballot.
Sure, it is real easy to "rig" the election by eliminating all the Scouts
that YOU don't think should be elected, but that is not what it is all
about. In fact, I don't think that any Scout that a SM would sign off on
the Scout Spirit requirement for advancement should be eliminated from the
ballot by the SM. If he doesn't show Scout Spirit, and hence is left off
the ballot, then it must be a recent phenomenon, or otherwise how did he
ever advance to First Class? Same Scout Spirit, so it shouldn't be used
as an excuse to prevent the troop from electing who YOU believe would be
the "wrong" people.
In summary, I believe it should be a relatively rare situation where the
SM would refuse to list a Scout on the ballot, just like it should be a
rare situation where the SM fails to sign the Scout Spirit requirement for
a Scout seeking advancement.
Bruce E. Cobern
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City