Jump to content

Summer Camp

Sign in to follow this  

All about planning and going to Summer Camp

791 topics in this forum

    • 10 replies
    • 17 replies
    • 17 replies
  1. So what camp 1 2 3 4

    • 55 replies
  2. Council Day Camp Chair

    • 0 replies
    • 4 replies
    • 22 replies
    • 10 replies
    • 7 replies
    • 24 replies
  3. Off to Heritage

    • 10 replies
  4. Frames for tents

    • 2 replies
    • 21 replies
    • 1 reply
    • 10 replies
Sign in to follow this  

    • To Tahawk, Sorry to get you so upset that you used all capital letters that is said to mean yelling.  Was not trying to argue.  See below.   To Tahawk and Eagle94-A1, Perhaps some of the issue between us that to me in these times, BSA means the National Council.  Local councils are independent 501c3 corporations with their own boards that operate largely independently.  The contract between the National Council and local councils authorizes the local councils to operate the program.  The only actual recourse that the National Council has over the local councils is two things.  One is that the National Council can decommission the Scout Executive that means that they are no longer qualified for the position.  It is not clear what would happen if the local council Executive Board refused to allow the SE to leave.  Probably would be decided by the local councils state laws.  The other option is to revoke the council charter that would mean that a new council would have to be formed.  Both of those are extreme measures and would never be used because a council is not being rigorous enough in youth fulfilling requirements.   So many of the issues between us appear to be that I am exclusively referring to the National Council unless it is specifically called out to be the local council.  There is much variability in councils and how they are managed.  The BSA has little input into those councils.  How they are run depends upon the local Executive Committee and Executive Board.  All members of the EC and EB are by definition volunteers. On the national level, all National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Executive Board (NEB) are volunteers by definition.  For nearly a decade, I have served on various national committees.  All are chaired by volunteers (usually a NEB member), have a single national professional who serves as staff, and only volunteers can vote.  All decisions about all policies, program changes, financial issues, human resources, benefit packages, etc (in other words, everything) is made by those volunteers.  During the past decade, I have been involved with a Venturing Crew, a Troop, and a Pack.  Most national committee members whom I know are still active with units in their councils or have been so within the last few years.  Like local council executive boards, the National Executive Board has some members who are not active at the unit level, some may have been Scouts as a youth, but all are very successful in business.  All are volunteers - it is required just as it is for local boards. The National Staff carries out decisions of the committees of the NEB.  They do not make any significant decisions themselves.  Their job is to carry out what the volunteers have decided.  The National Professional Staff strictly adheres to Volunteer Led and Professionally Guided, that is the professionals provide input but the volunteers make all of the policy and other decisions. The NEC and NEB volunteers are very dedicated, loyal, sensitive to all points of view, and always want to know how potential decisions affect the youth members. Local councils boards are similar in make up.  So the volunteers who are working in the units need to be pro-active. There are 253 local councils and it makes no sense for me to try to defend the actions of which I only know about one - my local council.    
    • This year is the 50th anniversary of the Girl Rangers! Article below follows Outside article by former Ranger Betsy Teter. “We always knew we were doing something groundbreaking," Teter said. “I wish this sort of outdoor experience existed for everyone. It was formative.” Dunlap and the other former Girl Rangers agreed. “At the time, I knew, you couldn’t be a girl in the 70s, in a Boy Scout uniform, and not think I am doing something different,” Dunlap said. “We did everything in terms of outdoor adventures that the boys did. It felt like a nice leveling of the playing field. I did not miss having to sell Girl Scout cookies and we didn’t do crafts and we didn’t get badges, it was just ‘where could we go?’ and that was exciting and liberating and equalizing.” Spartanburg Girl Rangers broke gender barrier in 1970. What happened to them is a mystery https://www.goupstate.com/story/lifestyle/2020/11/27/decades-before-boy-scouts-went-coed-girl-rangers-broke-gender-barrier/5960676002/
    • Equity is a KEY component of critical race theory. Anything short of an equal start (which is impossible as everyone doesn't have the same life experiences) is discrimination and falls short of "equity". Offering some event to everyone regardless of race, gender, etc is not enough. You have to correct for all disparities or it isn't "equity".
    • Let's start with the "equity" portion. Equity is an impossible goal to achieve. No matter how we strive we will never achieve equal outcomes. The goal of "equity" is a myth, an impossible achievement cooked up by Marxists/Postmodernists. We will ALL make choices in our lives that result in fortunate/unfortunate outcomes. In the US, the VAST majority of what we achieve is due to our personal choices, not the opinions of others. DEI philosophy is not merely "creating a culture that welcomes and respects diverse perspectives" or "creating a sense of belonging and build communities where every person feels respected and valued". If that's all it was, I'd be fine with it and no one in their right mind would oppose it. Should scouts not denounces racism, discrimination, inequality and injustice? You keep posing this question as if it is a neutral topic and people have repeatedly explained that the issue is not general definition of the words " Diversity" and "Inclusion". No one in their right mind is against that. The problem is the application of these topics, the material surrounding it, and the methods by which we achieve those laudable goals; they are highly slanted with leftist propaganda. I don't disagree with diversity as a laudable goals as long as they aren't at the cost of our values or mission. Example: If we utilize funds to recruit more POC, I'm all for it, but if we do so by shuttering camps and reducing opportunities for everyone, then we've gone too far. There is a balance between these.   Denounce racism? Absolutely! Denounce injustice? Sure! Let's start with BSA categorizing the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd as "murder" when one was not and the other is (at a bare minimum) under some dispute. We can neutrally state with complete confidence that we want justice to be served without taking sides in a matter or inflaming hostilities. Denounce inequality? Probably, but that depends on what you mean. If you mean equality of opportunity, solid "yes" from me. If you mean equality of outcome, that's a hard "no"; it's an impossibility. There will NEVER be equal outcomes no matter what. Denounce discrimination? That depends. We discriminate ethically and legally all the time. That guy that offers you a deal of a lifetime? Yeah, we're reasonably skeptical. That Nigerian Prince in your email? Yeah...hard pass. You say "that's not what I'm talking about and you know it!", well, it really isn't that simple. Obviously we talk about discrimination based on race as being something pretty much everyone is against, but what about discrimination based on ability? Is it reasonable to expect that we have all camps and high adventure modified so that someone in a wheelchair can attend? There are some who believe this should be the case. So, in general, yes, I denounce discrimination, but within reason. I'm sorry, but no. Blind adherence to terms that are vaguely defined and can mean a WIDE range of things is NOT what scouts are part of. Again, if we are talking general terms, then yes, we're on the same page AND there's no opposition. However, the trend (from "Diversity and Inclusion" to "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion") seems to indicate a movement toward mandating the teaching of "check your privilege", promoting "anti-racism" , fixing "systemic racism", and a host of leftist mantras. Teaching that America's core principles are "racist" is both absurd and, by definition, antiAmerican. while it's true America was indeed founded during times of racism and oppression, that was the world they lived in. It isn't a reflection of America or its ideals.  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Create New...