Proud Eagle

This has nothing to do with the quality of the program. If that was the only issue then the BSA would have stood on its own merits just fine.

Instead this has everything to do with politics. You see, some school systems found it politicly advantageous to exclude the Scouts. Some claimed it was because of the aethists. Others because of the homosexuals. Still others claimed that the BSA was not entitled to use the facilities since it was not a school based program. There were a great many excuses for this put forward.

In other cases the schools demanded that the BSA pay outrageous fees that neither school clubs, nor other community groups were forced to pay.

All of this was done in the name of politics and political correctness.

So, the only solution was for the politicians to find a solution within the political frame work. The answer was to pass a law saying that schools that recieve federal funding can not keep the BSA out.

I would gladly contact the UC or DE...

if we had either one of those things.

We do have a District Commish, but he is busy trying to hold a couple of other units together, and of coarse run round tables and trying to find other commisioners. I am sure he will help if he can, but I doubt he will be able to do much.

The Field Directer is our former DE, so perhaps he may at least have some useful ideas.

Ultimately though, I think this is going to wind up being an in house operation with the parents, committee, and the church (which takes a mostly hands off approach) we are chartered to having to figure out a solution on its own.

I certainly hope things will work out, but at the moment I am not certain exactly how. In the mean time, the best thing I can think of to do is try to keep the program quality up as much as possible, but I am not certain how much of an impact I will be able to have in that department.

For the second time in my tenure with the troop, we are going to be trying to replace both the Committee Chair and the Scoutmaster at the same time.

The last time this happened was just after I became SPL.

Now, about 5 years later, I am ASM.

In fact, you could probably say that I am the Assistant Scoutmaster.

Let me explain things a bit.

Our CC is a parent that got involved because of his kid, and because he is an Eagle Scout and so has more Scouting experience than most of the other parents. Unfortunately, he is like many parents and is finding it increasingly difficult to juggle commitments to his kids, church, job, and the various other things he is responisble for. Therefore he announced at the last Committee meeting (we have the unfortunate habit of blending committee and parent meetings into one) that he would be stepping down in the near future and a replacement must be found.

No one was particularly excited about this, as the Committee has a hard enough time finding people to take other jobs such as co-ordinating fundraisers, or filling out basic paper work. Fortunately one parent indicated he would be willing to consider it, but this by no means is a complete answer to that challenge.

Now our SM is a great guy. He joined the troop as an adult a week or two after I joined it as a youth. That was about 9 years ago. He has been active in Scouting most of his life and wanted to find a way to contribute in the area. So he became an Assistant Scoutmaster. He had times he was at almost every meeting, then other times he wouldn't be around for months due to other things.

Now he is an overworked, overextended single parent of a kindargartener. When he took the SM's position a few years ago, he told the committee he would stay until the first boy got his Eagle. Everyone had been counting on that happening sometime between now and a year from now. However, his situation has grown more complex with his son in school and other activities, and the first Eagle is looking later rather than sooner. So, while most of us knew he would be going soon, we hadn't thought he would be going quite yet.

So, last Thursday the CC announces he will be going soon.

The next day the SM calls me to tell me he will be resigning immediately, and he lets the committee know the same thing.

This leaves the troop in the position of trying to find replacements for both of its most critical and dedicated volunteers.

The last time this happened our COR held us together. It doesn't look like he will be able to put in the same level of effort this time.

So, who does that leave to make things work?

It leaves a 21 year old Assistant Scoutmaster that is temporarily home on a sabatical from college, and a bunch of parents with little experience or understanding of the program.

It looks to me like the parents/committee, with help from the COR and CO are going to have to find some new volunteer leaders fast or else the entire troop will soon collapse.

I know someone will ask me to take over as SM, but that isn't a solution to the problem.

I don't have enough distance from some of the youth to really be seen as the Scoutmaster.

I don't have the training to know what to do.

I don't have the real world experience to figure out how to make it work.

I don't know what my future plans are well enough to take on such a commitment.

I don't think I will be home past the end of spring at the latest, so that isn't really enough time to take the position.

I know the parents will pull together to help out for a while, but they will drop back off the radar once we have a new SM and CC, and I certainly can't do the job alone.

I know the district has enough problems (no DE, not enough volunteers, lack of motivation, lack of commitment, poor organization, no unity, no money, many units in trouble) right now that it won't be able to offer much in the way of help in finding volunteers, or in training them if we find them.

The council is also in a bad spot at the moment, so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from that dirrection.

We celebrated the troop's 25th anniversary not long ago.

I wonder if we will have the chance to celebrate the 30th?

Scout Spirit is always a difficult thing to determine, as is "active".

However, the level of attendance of a Scout is one of several outward signs of Scout Spirit. Behaviour, living by the Oath and Law, proper wear of the uniform, willingness to take on and live up to responsibilities in Scouting, and a great many other things can all indicate Scout Spirit.

All of the rank requirements say, if I remember correctly, to "demonstrate" Scout Spirit. This means they have to be doing and/or saying something to provides evidence in favor of their having Scout Spirit. All too often Scout Spirit is used simply as a give away requirement to any one who hasn't someone how demonstrated the opposite. "Oh, he hasn't killed anyone lately, so that sounds like Scout Spirit."

The OA has no secrets.

It does have mysteries.

Mystery is one of the methods used by the OA.

In the past, the organization was for more mysterious than it is now. At one time the group was only known to outsiders by a part of its name.

Over the years the mysteries were opened to concerned parents and a few other interested parties (such as some religous officials who had misgiving about the nature of any secret society). While someone with a genuine reason for needing to know could know seek information without becoming a member, this has never really been encouraged, because it would decrease the value of the mysteries of the order.

The history of the Order is largely a matter of public record. Many lodges have histories on their public websites. The events of the OA and the lodges is public knowledge and can be found on the national and council calendars. The honor levels are also public knowledge. The purpose of the Order can be easily found by any who seek it. The national, regional, area, section, and lodge/council organization are quite public.

If you look at the organizational chart for any of those levels of the BSA you will see exactly how the OA fits in. All lodges publicise the names of the officers and advisers, and all lodges have a contact person.

The insignia of the Order, its emblem, and the insignia of each lodge are all publicly known.

There is far more information available to the public than there is information shrowded in mystery. The things we maintain as mystery, and that we ask that others respect the mysterious nature of (unless they have a legitimate reason to know), are the ceremonies, song, obligation, admonition, sign, and handclasp.

Now, why exactly is mystery used to enhance the program and ceremonies of the Order?

That is a very difficult thing to explain to non-member, though to most members no explanation is needed.

The OA is an honor society. It is a brotherhood of honoered campers. It is a brotherhood of cheerful service.

It is not a club, a unit, or any of those other things meant to be open to anyone.

It is only open to those who meet membership requirements and who are then selected by their peers to become candidates. No one can become a member without the approval of others. No one earns their way in.

Part of what makes it an honor, is being entrusted with knowledge that is not entrusted to others. This knowledge is given only to eligible Scouts who were selected to be candidates, and who then determine that they wish to faces the challenges of teh Ordeal. To them the first pieces of the mystery are revealed. Once someone passes the Ordeal, they then become eligible to have certain parts of the mystery explained to them.

Those who continue to serve Scouting, and who determine to live by the Oath and Law, and who wish to have more of the mystery revealed may seek out the tests of the Brotherhood. Those who pass those tests are entitled to gain a greater understanding.

Then out of those who continue in service after becoming Brotherhood members, some are selected to be candidates for the Vigil Honor.

Mystery is a critical part of the OA experience. That experience has a different and very personal meaning to each Arrowman. The OA gives some knowledge to its members, other things it helps them to learn in other ways, and then there are those things each person learns on their own through their experiences. All of these are part of the mysteries of the OA.

In Scouting, there are ranks. The ranks generally don't carry any special privlidges, rather, they serve to show the Scouts progress in learning the skill of Scouting, and in learning the skills of leadership and citizenship.

In the OA, the honor levels indicate the level of knowledge they are entitled to know.

Arrowmen can only be admitted into the next level by earning the right to have revealed to them the knowledge of the next degree.

In a more practical sense, the mystery helps to build a since of anticipation in a Scout as their Ordeal approaches. They can wonder what it holds in store for them next. Also, if they do not know what it is they are going to see and hear, they are far more likely to pay close attention to the ceremonies, and to the entire Ordeal process. Since the ceremonies are vitally important parts of the experience, and since the memories of the Ordeal are of value to so many, it should be desired that Scouts pay close attention and remember as much of these things as possible.

A Scout that has been told everything about the OA and the Ordeal will not recieve the benefits of the mysteries. They will not have such a sense of anticipation when the Ordeal approaches. They will not eagerly seek out knowledge that another has already improperly revealed to them.

Finally, to reveal the mysteries to those who do not need to know them, diminishes the value of the OA experience for all of those who have earned the privilidge of having those mysteries revealed to them.

The entire OA experience is rich in mystery, symbolism, hidden knowledge, and full of inspirational memories and character developing tests, all built upon the ideals of Scouting.

There is much more to the OA experience and being an Arrowmen than I ever could express in a post. However, even if a could explain it all properly, I would not do so.

I value those things too greatly to cheepen them by giving them away to others that have not earned them without cause.

I also respect my fellow Scouts and Scouters who are not yet members too much to go around giving away the "secrets" of the Order. If I give away all the "secrets" then I have greatly and irreparably diminished the experience those Scouts and Scouters may one day have if they are selecte to be candidates.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

OA inductions certainly work better with smaller groups. Often times multiple ceremonies can be staged in the same weekend to help with this.

Another option is to offer more choices on the dates of the induction. This also helps make certain more of the candidates are able to attend.

We had one kid that after the election, when he was told he was elected (our troop didn't attend Camporree, which is where call out was, and we knew the older guys were going to Philmont, not summer camp) and then told the dates, already knew he couldn't go through the induction because of other commitments he had made. Sometimes I think the amount of stuff kids do now is insane.

The last ordeal my lodge held was done on relatively short notice. (Less than a month from decision to hold the event until the actual event.) It was also held at a time we do not usually have OA events. So the number of candidates was quite small (less than 15), but the number of members wasn't really much worse than normal (probably about 35). However, the ceremonies were better, as were many other aspects of the weekend. All the problem that occured were much easier to deal with than at other Ordeals. (We frequently have Ordeals with 60 candidates, and 60 more members.)

Once the leadership of the Lodge figures out how to do events, and as the membership gets used to what their roles in events are, you can run an event with almost zero planning and still have it come out OK. I know this from a rather unfortunate experience or two, sure the events were OK, but they weren't great either.

Here is a very important question-

Were the elections always conducted properly and taken seriously by the Scouts in the days of quotas?

I would guess that was not always the case. I would bet there were untrained and inexeprienced election teams that didn't do a very good job. I bet there were Scoutmasters that let it be known they didn't think much of OA. I bet there were members that didn't set a very good example of what an Arrowmen is supposed to be.

Therefore, even in the old days, there were probably people selected for the wrong reasons. Now it may have happened that these were still good candidates, but if they were selected for the wrong reasons, then that was purely a lucky accident.

I think what probably happened in many cases was that people were selected for the wrong reasons, but still made what appeared to be good candidates for other reasons. In the worst case an election turns into a popularity contest. If only the very most popular can be elected, then it will probably end up being boys who have a high level of experience, and at least some leadership abilities. As to weather or not they were committed to the values of the Oath and Law and the ideal of service, and the traditions of camping was quite difficult for an observer to determine.

Some of these Scouts went on to become active members because of a variety of things. Some saw it as an exclusive group to become part of. Some simply thought it was fun. Others actually embraced the ideals and values. Still others did it because they knew they were supposed to, even if they didn't want to.

Now today, we still sometimes have poor elections and candidates elected for the wrong reasons. The difference is that now you sometimes get a few of the younger, less experienced, and obviously not dedicated in the mix. So, now the problems that were probably actually taking place beneath the surface are now visible. Couple this with decreased levels of participation due to other activities and interests, particularly among our older, more experienced Arrowmen, and pretty soon the make up of the Orders youth members is different enough that people start to take notice.

But ultimately, the solution is not to create limits. The solution is for each lodge, chapter, and elections team to increase its dedication to having the best elections process. Those involved need to realise the election is a critical first step in the inductions process, and should be a high priority program for each lodge and chapter. Unit leaders and arrowmen should demand the highest quality election possible, and should be willing to help out to ensure this happens.

Now if someone wanted to suggest making an adjustment to the eligibility rules, I would perhaps be willing to talk about it.

However, I will not entertain the idea of bringing back the quotas. There is simply no reason to do so. The problem isn't the program, it is the way the program is sometimes being delivered.

So in other words you are saying Scouts, members and members alike, cannot be trusted with the important job of electing candidates for the Order?

If they cannot be trusted to discern who is and who is not qualified, placing a limmit on how many they select will not help the situation.

The troop isn't supposed to select the most qualifed. It isn't based on be more or less qualified.

Scouts are either qualified to be elected, or they are not. It is up to their fellow scouts to determine if they posses the qualifications to become a candidate.

Now there are ways we can help Scouts make a better descision.

Arrowmen should strive to set a better example at all times. This will provide a living, breathing demonstration of the qualities they should seek in their fellow Scouts.

The election team should be well prepared and make a forceful, passionate, and inspiring presentation that enphasises the qualities they should seek in the Order.

The unit leader should strictly follow the eligibility rules and only approve those Scouts who are fully eligible under the rules.

The unit leaders, both youth and adults, arrowmen and non-arrowmen, should emphasise the importance of the election process.

Finally, the integrity of the election process itself must be maintained so that no one feels any unecessary pressure.

Thank you for the information. That fills in a few of the blanks I had.

I suppose what probably makes MOS and OA at least partially compatible in the current day is the fact that most lodges are holding inductions outside of the summer camp sessions, while MOS seems to be sticking to an almost purely summer camp based system. Your account certainly seems to support that idea.

It seems a very serious aspect of this discussion has been overlooked.

There is a health and safety argument in favor of not cramming extra people in a tent.

There is also a legal and regulatory issue.

For any long term camping there is a BSA minimum on the number of square feet of living space per Scout and Scouter. This would sometimes make it impossible to put extra Scouts in a tent.

Also in some areas there are even more strict laws governing these sorts of things. Its the sort of thing that in the wrong place could get a camp shut down.

So don't just assume 3 to a tent is the answer to the question.

Here is what I have seen professionals do:

I have been to several council offices, and I have never seen a professional Scouter in the office in anything other than business attire. Sometimes it is the dress uniform, sometimes it is just a suit.

At council dinners, the pros are always in dress uniform.

The staff of all of the scout shops I have visited wear business type clothing, except for the Louisville Scout Shop, which is run by National Supply Division, and its employees wear the field uniform complete with gold loops.

At summer camp, the pros are usually in field uniform. However, DEs seem to have an amazing ability to mix and match the pieces of the field uniforms of different programs. One even told me his boss suggested it and that it would help members of the different programs better identify with him. However, if they had a meeting off camp that day, they usually wore a suit.

At camporrees, field uniform is the norm for pros. However, they often show up in suit, tie, and coat on friday nights.

At council executive board meetings, district roundtable meetings, and sometimes at Lodge Executive Committee meetings, they wear suits.

DEs are professionals. They work with other professionals and interact with professionals in other fields. They generally think they are expected to dress the same way other professional people dress.

When I was in high school the DE had a booth set up in the school lobby during lunch because a local volunteer fire department was wanting to start a Crew or Post and wanted to see if any youth were interested. He was wearing a suit.

I think perhaps the rule of thumb may be Monday-Friday, business attire, weekend functions field uniform or dress uniform, depending on function type.

At least that is my experience and observation.

Oh, one very funny thing I observed at NOAC...

A District Executive from some other council was seen wearing this highly unusual uniform on at least two seperate days...

Boy Scout Shirt

Venturing Shorts

Boy Scout web belt

Boy Scout socks... underneath, and visible above, Venturing socks

It make me want to laugh and cry thinking about it.

I have been interested in MOS, and its advantages and disadvantages relative to OA. I have a relatively good understanding of OA, and of the local Lodge, and there are certainly good things and bad things about both OA, and the local attempt to deliver the OA program. However, MOS is mostly a mystery to me. Certainly that seems to be intentional, and I understand the desire to maintain myster (just as the OA seeks, often without success, to maintain the mysteries surrounding its ceremonies), yet I wonder if perhaps a greater understanding, at least on a limited basis, would serve the greater good. Perhaps some of us dedicated OA types could even learn something from other honor societies that could improve the experience of Scouts in our areas. After all, if you are only exposed to OA, pretty soon you start to think of HCS only in terms of OA. Its sort of a cant see the forest because of the trees (or tree, in this case) situation.

I am also interested in how the co-existance of the now seperate groups is working. Do the groups end up repeating alot of the same things, or do they do seperate, yet complimentary things? I think many dedicated OA types are worried when they hear about a new HCS because they are afraid it will take away from the OA experience, or will end up being unecessarily competitive. If the two groups are working side by side and are on good terms with each other, that would likely reasure OA members about the possibility MOS or a local camping society starting in their area.

Though perhaps my greatest curiousity is how exactly things were handled during the time you guys attempted to be both OA and MOS. I have no particular problem with MOS, I just can't see how you could very well blend OA with much of anything. It just doesn't seem to be set up to be changed very much. The ceremonies and inductions process are intended to be delivered as written, not as per the local preference.

Anyhow, any information you would be willing to share either on the board, or privately, would likely be quite interesting at least to this particular Arrowman.

Go to these web links to find out more information:

http://www.oa-bsa.org/programs/tcrew/

http://www.oa-bsa.org/programs/tcrew/oatcflash.htm

http://www.oa-bsa.org/programs/tcrew/#appl

So, who would have ever thought sending a letter to all the Lodge's Vigil Honor members could turn into a youth protection issue?

Turns out it could.

I sent such a letter, and recieved an email response suggesting we should look into one of the intended recipients, and gave a rather serious reason why (involving criminal prosecution).

Having no way to substantiate either the authenticity of the email, or the accuracy of the claims made, I decided I should forward it to others more competent to handle the matter. So, I forwarded it to the lodge adviser, and the council's professional staff. I also sent a reply telling the person they should contact the council, and gave them the phone number.

At the Lodge Executive Committee meeting tonight, the staff adviser pulls me aside, tells me he got the email, and as far as he knows there is no issue, but he will make certain it gets checked out. The membership adviser who maintains the database happened to be lurking near by, and upon over hearing the discussion mentions that the previous lodge adviser had asked him to take the guy off the database, but since no reason had been provided, and since it wasn't clearly a directive, he decided to keep him on the list.

Later, after the meeting, I talked about this with the Lodge Adviser, and he said that we should certainly not be sending letters to the person, because they were in prison and would never again be a member of the BSA.

Now this brings up some intersting issues. Obviously, if this person really went to prison, and was removed from BSA, it would seem they should have been purged from our mailing lists. The problem is, there is really no mechanism in place to make certain that actually happens. This is particularly troublesome when there are many electronic copies of the database floating around, and it would be quite easy for someone to use an old mailing list, even if the official one was updated (which it had not been in this case).

In fact, we don't even have a way to check the lodge roster against the council's registration information to make certain that a person is a BSA member when they pay their dues. The staff adviser and I discussed this problem, and we both agreed we should probably find a way to start doing that.

So, how are things like this handled in other councils and lodges? How do you guys make certain lists are kept updated?

I know in cases like this, information is not made widely available about these situation in order to protect the victims, but it seems that a bit more information could have corrected this problem sooner.

This seems to be a case where more people had a need to know than were informed. (I don't need to know, but the staff adviser should, and the membership adviser should have been told enough so that he could have understood what he was beeing asked to do.)

So how is the council supposed to make certain that people are removed from lists, databases, and rosters in cases like these?

Also, how is the lodge supposed to go about ensuring that none of its members have been given the boot, and making certain that all are also members of the BSA?

Both Boy Scout Troops and Varsity Scout Teams may hold OA unit elections. Also, both unit types have OA Unit Representatives as a position of responsibility. This is because both of those unit types are part of the larger Boy Scout program, as is OA itself.

Also, OA events are considered council events. I would strongly suggest at least taking a look at potential conflicts. Don't let it dictate your choices for a crew or ship, but if you have two otherwise equally good sets of dates to choose between, it would be nice to schedule your outing so that OA members could attend both your event and the OA event.

Any how, I really don't care if Venturers support every aspect of OA, or even the Boy Scout program, or the Cub Scout program. What I do care about, is that they respect the accomplishments, awards, and honors of others. If they do not, then there is no reason those involved in the Boy Scout program should be expected to respect the things they accomplish in the Venturing program.

I think in the end these sorts of things will work themselves out as Venturing defines itself and finds its place. At the moment though, it fits in a rather awkward location, trying to be too many things at once.

Ultimately, I think it can be summed up in one question. Is Venturing Scouting? or put another way- Are Venturers Scouts?

Once the Venturing community, and the larger Scouting community, know and understand the answers to those questions, many of these problems will go away.

Let me say that in 2001 I started my Philmont trek in the Vidal area. In fact, most of my trek was actually off the Philmont property. So I probably have a bit more experience with the particular areas in question than your average Scout or Scouter.

Those areas are certainly beutiful. They are certainly worth preserving. However, they are not exactly untouched wilderness. There are gravel roads, jeep trails, and even a few paved roads in the region. You will see quite a few fences delineating various grazing lands. There are even a couple of public camp grounds in the area that are frequently filled with RVs. Also, a number of wells are operated to help water the livestock that is grazed in some areas.

So don't get the idea this is perfectly prestine wilderness. It is already slightly developed. (There are tracks of prestine land in the region, but the area as a whole is not untouched.)

Now our natural gas has to come from someplace. There is just no getting around the current demand for natural gas. Eventually some sort of alternatives will help decrease demand, but all projections indicate natural gas demand will increase dramatically. You see, gas is relatively effecient, and it burns very clean when compared to coal or oil. Therefore it is very attractive for heating and for electrical generation. It can also be used for various other things, including making synthetic gasoline.

It should be noted that the largest growth in natural gas use has been in electrical generation. The costs of building a new base load power plant that burns coal or oil are prohibitively expensive. So natural gas fired turbines are used in peak load circumstances to augment the power produced by the base load plants that burn coal or oil, or use nuclear or hydroelectric power. This has caused a dramatic increase in spring, fall, and particularly summer gas demand. This in turn has lead to major price increases in natural gas.

Now everyone knows that if the price is going up and the volume of demand is also rising, that is a major insentive to invest in new production. Gas is unfortunately somewhat difficult to transport from overseas locations, so most of the new supply will be domestic in the short term. (Though more liquified natural gas tankers are beeing built, as are new terminals for shipping natural gas, these will take quite a long time to make an impact on supply.)

That gets us back to the natural gas has to come from somewhere. None of us wants it in our back yard, or in the recreation area we use. But the truth is, there is no great desolate waste filled with natural gas ready to be expoited and sent to markets across the country.

So some wilderness areas will have to be used for natural gas production. If it is done carefully, this will not have a long term negative impact on the environment. If it is done poorly, well, that is pretty easy to figure out. In the end, the answer has to be allowing additional exploitation in select areas, under carefully controlled circumstances, while investing in the technologies of tommorrow in the hopes of reducing the demand in the long term.

However, the technologies of tommorrow are likely to run on natural gas. Natural gas is seen by many as a transition fuel between oil and hydrogen. This is largely due to its clean burning caracteristics, but also due to the relative ease of converting natural gas into hydrogen fuel. After all, even hydrogen has to come from some place. And the choices aren't real good. Sure, we can collect some as a byproduct of other things, but a great deal of it will need to be processed out of other materials, like oil or natural gas.

So tommorrows technologies won't decrease natural gas demand, but will instead increase it.

Now the technologies of next week, or next month, well, now there is some real hope. But those things won't be technologicly mature for decades, and even if they were, they wouldn't be affordable any time soon.

I happen to think that while your former section chief had his heart in the right place, he obviously hadn't fully taken into account the actual policy on the matter. The sash is not meant to be worn to regular troop functions, or as an extra decoration for special events.

Instead, the OA sash is to be worn at OA events, and when representing the Order. So wearing the sash to each and every troop meeting would not be following the policies set by the Order. I don't think it is a good way to foster respect for a group by violating its policies.

Now, there are a few times that bending the rules would perhaps be justified. If there is some special tie in between the meeting and the OA, I can see asking OA members to wear the sash to that particular meeting, even if there is no official OA activity taking place at the meeting. There are also some cases where it may be OK to wear the sash to a COH, such as a highly involved and dedicated OA member being recognised in some way. Though in my experience, generally the more involved and dedicated people are, the more likely they are to interpret policy in a strict way.

However, I personally prefer to go the safe route. Wear the sash to OA events and meetings (I would say having troop members wear the sash during the visit by the elections and promotions teams would fall under this category). Wear the sash when officially representing the Order (or the lodge or chapter). At other times, it is probably not a very good idea to wear the sash.

I too would agree that this was handled pretty well. He did in fact resign for unforseen personal reasons.

As to weather or not he is guilty, that is a matter for the justice system to sort out, not a matter for the OA or BSA to take up. It would have been out of line to either condemn or defend the ex-Western Region Chief.

I should also note that the editorial policy of the NOAC newspaper was to avoid, in all matters, writing opinion pieces. Therefore any commintary would have been inappropriate. Also, this story is not relevant to the Order as a hole.

It is best that most at the conference were able to remain focused on the purpose of the conference. If the story had been placed on the front page of NOAC Today, it would have been a serious distraction to the participants. Also, this would have drawn greater attention to the story by the media at large.

I don't think any of us would have liked the conference to have been over run by satelite news trucks, reporters, and that sort of thing.

Responding to the original post in this thread, there are a great many problems with a local option rule.

Who decides the standard for the summer camp staff? The camp staff is certainly in a position to act as role models, and as such they would be as much a concern as anyone else.

What about council contingents to Jamborree, Philmont, Seabase, and Northern Tier? Who decides which rule applies to the adults? Who decides which rule applies to the youth? If we allow avowed homosexuals to lead these treks, that would essentially close them to the Scouts whose families believe that avowed homosexuals are inappropriate role models. "Your son can go to Philmont, but only if you are willing to change your standards of what you consider a good role model to be." Maybe we would have a open trek and a restricted trek.

What do you do about camp showers? What about tent partners? If some units are letting in homosexuals, some parent will eventually ask questions, even if they are unfounded.

What do we do about those with reservations that live in communities dominated by those who would be in favor of opening the BSA to avowed homosexuals?

What do we do about the avowed homosexuals in communities that are not willing to accept avowed homosexuals as potential role models for their youth?

What do you tell the many major organizations and churches that support BSA because of its traditional values, that would probably feel betrayed by such a change in policy?

What would be the public reaction of various organizations, groups, churches, politicians, public figures, and others in positions to influence the general public about such a policy change?

What message would that send about the positions we take? Would it perhaps make a great many think that we are open to negotiation even on our core values? Would some take it as a sign of weekness and apply pressure for other changes?

If we are going to let the policy be set at the local level about what the core values really mean, does that apply to all of them in every situation, or only to these in this situation?

I personally favor the approach of having a moment of silence in place of a PA system prayer.

If a local minister or a student leader wants to have a pre-game prayer, have a designated time and place for that, but do it in such a way that people don't have to participate. (Do it in the end zone, on the sideline, or in some designated part of the stadium.)

Alternatively, you could have a "religous/philisophical/ expression moment" and all the Christians could say the Lord's Prayer together. Those of other faiths could do whatever they want.

Oh, one other note, doesn't the idea of filling an anonymous law suit go in direct opposition to the idea of being able to confront your accuser?

It seems to me, if you do not know who it is you may have injured, then there is no way to know how best to defend yourself. I can understand perhaps placing a gag order on the involved parties, but I would certainly hope that the defendant has the opportunity to know who has accused them of infringing on their rights.

(This reminds me of something in our morning paper about the Kentucky juvinile justice system. Essentially, the entire process is off limits to the public and the press. In fact, it is possible for reporters to be jailed for publishing information about juvenile court cases. This infringes deaply on the ability of the public to monitor the justice system and the courts in particular. Since the public has no means of knowing if the juvenile system works, they have no way of expressing their opinions through their legislators. So it also infringes on the powers of another branch of state government. However, there must be some way to reach a compromise that protects the public, protects the legislative powers, and protects the defendants.)

Sorry about going off on a tangent.

Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisers (2002)

Choosing Vigil Honor Candidates (p31-32)

"4. Select an honorable American Indian name and its English equivalent for the candidate. Use the American Indian-English translations from the Lenni Lenape Word List found in the back of the Order of the Arrow Handbook or from another credible American Indian language text. The American Indian name should be selected in a serious manner, based upon each person's qualities, talents, or traits." (p. 32)

You will also notice on the Vigil Honor Petition that it asks for "The Indian name to be given". Further, on the Vigil Honor certificates, it is referred to as an "Indian" name.

Obviously the Deleware in general and the Lenni Lenape in particular were only one of many Indian groups with only one of many languages and dialects. There is no requirement that a name be selected from a particular language or dialect. It simply needs to be from a real Indian language, based upon a credible text. There are a variety of dictionaries of Indian words in a variety of languages that have been produced by reputable scholars over the years. Any of these sources is adaquate. If your lodge has close ties to a local Apache tribe and bases its regalia and dancing on that tribe, it would be perfectly appropriate to select names in Apache, if you can find a credible text on the Apache language to use as a reference for the translations.

The BOR for Tenderfoot through Life (Eagle being a special case that I will not cover here), should only be checking for one thing: were all requirements signed off properly.

It is not the job a BOR to pass or fail a Scout.

What are reasons for dennying advancement?

If a requirement has not been signed off.

If a requirement was signed off on by someone not authorized to sign off said requirement.

If a signature is forged.

If it is technically impossible for a requirement to have been completed (such as a time requirement).

It should be noted that Scouts can (but only rarely do) appeal BOR decisions. Often times appeals are aproved because some BOR did decide to make Johnny Second Class retie his knots, or added some new requirement. For these reasons, it is best to decide in favor of the Scout when in doubt. This is particularly the case when the Scout was lead to believe that they had completed the requirements, but in fact had not, due to the fault of some adult leader within the unit.

In any case where the Board of Review suspects there is an error in some requirement that has been signed off, or that a Scout has not demonstrated the level of knowledge the members of the Board believe a Scout should posses, then there are several very limmited options. Primarily, the Board can attempt to get the Scout to acknowledge the problem and address it before seeking advancement. (If for example you find out the Scout can't actually tie the bowline, but it has been properly signed off, you could try to get the Scout to acknowledge that they are not yet ready, and to acknowledge that they need to wait until they have learned how to tie the bowline before trying to advance.) The best way to do this would probably be through asking the Scout questions that require them to evaluate their own readiness.

However, if a requirement has been properly signed off as being completed, then there is nothing that can be done to hold the Scout back. Obviously this would be something of a problem if the Scout has not completed the requirements.

This brings us to the real reason for the Board of Review. The purpose of the Board is to review not only the progress of each Scout, but just as importantly, the quality of the unit program. This is why the troop committee members conduct the Board of Review. It is sort of like the board of directors of a major corporation reviewing the companies business plan. The idea is the committee should oversee the program, check to see if it is being delivered properly, ensure sufficient rescources are available to carry out a quality program, and generally take action to correct any faults.

If for example a Scout comes before a Board of Review unprepared, this reflects poorly on both the performance of the Scout and the performance of the unit leaders. The committee members that make up the Board of Review should then consider (along with offering the Scout ideas on how to improve) what action needs to be taken to correct the problems in the troop program. This may mean they need to bring a leader in and ask why a requirement was signed without being completed. It may mean the unit leaders need more training. It may mean the troop committee has not been providing sufficient resources and the support required for a quality program. If problems are widespread and persistant, it may be time to find a new leader for the unit.

(Note, this is not some transcription of a BSA training manual, but rather it is based on my personal understanding of the process as it is intended to work, and so you should not take my word as the final answer. Instead you should seek out the various handbooks, manuals, training sessions, and training materials relavant to this question for more definitive answers.)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

For selecting names this year the process worked pretty well. We had a copy of the Lenape-English Dictionary and a the Deleware-English Dictionary. Do to linguistic differences between the two, we decided we should not mix and match words and definitions from the two. We consider the Lenape to be the best source, but it is a small book. The Deleware is much more comprehensive, so we had to switch to it for some names.

The first thing we did is come up with a list of traits or notable things about each person. We then selected a name in English and then looked up what that would be in Lenape. After checking to see what words were actually in the Lenape or Deleware, we would then sometimes revise the English to better fit with the Indian name. I should note it is not necessary for the name to translate perfectly. We will often take some small liberties in the translations, so long as the basic meaning is the same.

I must say that it would be best to use a single source for each name. In this way, the words within each name will be from the same time period and dialect. It would be unusual to, for example, mix something from a modern sorce on the Kiowa with an old source on the Soixe. However, to select one persons name using one source, and then select another persons name from another source, would be perfectly OK.

I am not saying I think it is in the top 3, rather I am saying it appears the Southern Region thinks it is in the top 3. I have no idea how they came up with that idea. Maybe they say that to everyone to make them feel better. I don't know. Also, I think they limited it to council summer camps. So that would leave the national camps safe, since they are not council run.

Anyhow, I can very well say what I have heard various individuals from the region office say. As to weather or not they should be saying what they have said is another issue, and one that should be taken up with them, not with me.

One note on names, I believe names in other native dialects are now allowed. The key is that a credible source must be used for the translations, and the name must be respectful.

As for visibility of service, this is always an issue. It is sort of like a tree falling in the forest without anyone to hear it. This is especially true since the nominating committee must be made up of youth. Therefore they are not very likely to know about some SM who has dedicated years to Scouting but hasn't been seen at an OA event during their lifetimes. To help correct this problem, most lodges will allow a nomination form to be sent to the committee detailing the service of the individual in question. In this way those who perform their service in a quiet or behind the scenes manner can be more easily considered by the youth who may not have ever noticed them.

As for using the lodge's executive committee as the Vigil Honor nomination committee, I would not personally favor that approach. For one there are far too many ways for such a process to become political, when the committee members are all holders of elected offices. Another issue would be maintaining the confidentiality of the proceedings whith such a large group. However, if this method works for your lodge, and your lodge chief, lodge adviser, and Scout executive approve, then I suppose it is just as good as any other system. The only real advantage I can see to such a system is the relatively equal geographic distribution.